Laserfiche WebLink
(5) Cotter's attorneys told undersigned counsel that they intend to amend Cotter's <br />Petition for Reconsideration based on this information. However, as of the date of <br />this Response, Cotter has not filed any amendment to its Petition. <br />(6) On September 9, 2010, the Division inspected the site and spoke to Mr. Hamrick. <br />The pipe was not discharging water at the time of the inspection. According to Mr. <br />Hamrick the mine pool is now 15 feet below the Steve adit, rather than the 24 feet <br />stated at the hearing (that is, the mine pool has risen 9 feet). According to Mr. <br />Hamrick, the level of the mine pool water rapidly and recently decreased by 6 inches, <br />which he stated coincided with the discovery of the pipe. Cotter has yet to submit to <br />the Division the data from its analysis of the water from the pipe. <br />ARGUMENT <br />Cotter's present Petition for Reconsideration provides no basis for the Board <br />to reconsider its decision. Under Rule 2.9.3, the Board may grant or deny a petition <br />based solely on the written submittal in support of the petition or written opposition to <br />the petition, or the Board may, in its discretion, grant the parties an opportunity to <br />present oral argument. Rule 2.9.5 states that a petition for reconsideration tolls the <br />time in which a party must seek judicial review of a Board action, but does not <br />provide that such a petition tolls the compliance deadlines for corrective actions <br />contained in a Board order. <br />Cotter's Petition focuses on the Board's requirement that Cotter draw down <br />and treat the mine pool. As it did in written submittals and at the hearing, Cotter <br />continues to argue that the mine pool cannot be the basis for finding any violations or <br />for imposition of a corrective action. Contrary to Cotter's arguments, the Board <br />reasonably found violations concerning the mine pool based on the evidence in the <br />record and correctly imposed mine pool drawdown and treatment as a corrective <br />action. Cotter does not provide anything new in its Petition but simply argues its <br />version of the facts to meet its desired conclusions. The Board should reject Cotter's <br />arguments and deny Cotter's Petition based on the written submittals. <br />The Division will not reiterate all of the evidence in the record that supports <br />the Board's Order, but simply makes the following points: <br />1. Cotter's Petition focuses solely on the mine pool violations and corrective action. <br />Cotter does not ask this Board to reconsider the violations or corrective actions as <br />they relate to the alluvial ground water. Please note that the evidence concerning the <br />alluvial ground water supports all of the violations the Board found, aside from the <br />mine pool issues. <br />2. In its Petition, Cotter reiterates its arguments presented in its written pleadings and <br />presented at the hearing; Cotter does not present anything new. Cotter attempts to <br />present additional evidence by Susan Nyman (which, again; is essentially evidence