Laserfiche WebLink
(transcript at p. 174), Cotter did not reply to the Board Chair, did not raise any of the <br />claims it now raises, did not object to the Division's presentation, did not object to the <br />Board closing testimony and did not ask that it be allowed to present additional <br />evidence. As stated above, Cotter did not raise its current assertions until three weeks <br />after the hearing concluded. Thus, Cotter waived its current arguments, and even if <br />not waived, Cotter's assertions are groundless. <br />3. The record amply supports the Board's Order specifically including draw down <br />and treatment of the mine pool as a corrective action. As stated in the Division's <br />pleading submitted prior to the hearing, although Cotter denies that it has committed <br />any violations of the statutes and regulations, in documents in the permit file, Cotter's <br />statements undermine its own denial. For example, in Cotter's proposed <br />Environmental Protection Plan ("EPP", referred to as-the Whetstone Report and <br />includes Cotter's April 2010 Technical Memo), Cotter states that there is a hydrologic <br />connection between the mine pool and the creek. See e.g., Technical Memo at p. 2 and <br />footnote 1, p. 2 and Whetstone Report at pp. 7-3, 8-37, 8-41, 9-4, 9-5,15-2 and 15-10. <br />However, Cotter theorized that the hydrologic connection is weak and that mine <br />dewatering is unnecessary. Id. <br />At the hearing, Cotter attempted to step away from its own statements - <br />statements Cotter made before it was defending against the alleged violations. <br />However, the Board properly rejected Cotter's attempt to disregard its own statements <br />and found in its written order that Cotter stated in its proposed EPP that there is a <br />hydrologic connection between the mine pool and Ralston Creek and that Cotter <br />refers to the mine pool as a possible conduit for uranium in Ralston Creek. See <br />paragraphs 21-23 in Board's Order. <br />The parties submitted written pleadings and the Board heard testimony on all <br />of the issues Cotter now raises in its Petition including possible conduits other than <br />the alluvium for the mine pool water including through the Schwartz Trend, porous <br />rock, and historic boreholes. 1 The Board has seen, heard and considered Cotter's <br />arguments and properly rejected them. Furthermore, the Board heard testimony from <br />representatives of the cities of Denver and Arvada about the need for certainty that <br />mine drawdown and treatment would provide. See e.g., transcript at pp. 161-163. <br />Based on the record, the Board properly found the violations in relation to the mine <br />pool and properly imposed draw down and treatment of the mine pool as a corrective <br />action. <br />4. As established in the record, the mine pool contains high levels of uranium, <br />molybdenum, sulfate, antimony, arsenic, iron, manganese, thallium, uranium and <br />radium 226. Whetstone Report at pp. 7-3; 14-5. In 2009 the uranium levels in the <br />mine pool were approximately 35 mg/L. See Whetstone Report at 9-43). That is more <br />This list now also includes the pipe that conveyed water From the mine pool. according to C otter'; recent <br />tatements.