Laserfiche WebLink
Board should make such a finding now. However, the Board has already ordered <br />Cotter to implement this corrective action through a TR. In its inspection report of <br />May 18, 2010, the Division ordered Cotter to file a TR that includes alluvial ground <br />water treatment and draw down and treatment of the mine pool. By adopting the <br />Division's corrective actions, the Board adopted the requirement of a TR. Thus, <br />contrary to Cotter's argument, the Board has already found that the appropriate <br />modification to the permit for this corrective action is a TR. <br />In addition, Cotter filed, and the Division approved, a TR to implement the <br />alluvial ground water treatment. Like the treatment of the alluvial ground water, the <br />implementation of the mine pool drawdown and treatment requires a TR, not a permit <br />amendment. <br />Contrary to Cotter's argument, that mine dewatering is costly is not relevant to <br />whether an action is a TR or an amendment. An amendment is a change in a permit <br />that increases the acreage of the affected land or which has a significant effect on the <br />reclamation plan or the EPP. Rule 1.1(6). A TR means a change in the permit which <br />does not have more than a minor effect on the reclamation plan or EPP. Rule 1.1 <br />(52). <br />In the present case, implementation of the mine pool corrective action does not <br />change the post mining land use, add acreage to the permit area or change the final <br />reclamation plan. It simply directs Cotter to re-initiate an action it conducted during <br />active mining. In addition, the dewatering is an interim measure. In Cotter's <br />environmental protection plan, Cotter is to propose what it thinks is an appropriate <br />long term solution. In its April EPP, for example, Cotter proposed such things as a <br />wetland or a permanent reactive barrier as the final reclamation plan. <br />Given that the Board adopted the Division's corrective actions which included <br />submittal of a TR to address both the alluvial ground water treatment and the mine <br />pool drawdown and treatment, and given that this corrective action does not meet the <br />criteria of an amendment, this Board should deny Cotter's request to find that <br />implementation of the mine pool drawdown and treatment requires an amendment. <br />For the reasons stated herein and based on the record in this matter, the <br />Division respectfully requests that the Board deny Cotter's Petition for <br />Reconsideration of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order on the written <br />submittal(s) alone, and order Cotter to immediately comply with its Order including <br />submittal of a proper technical revision and financial warranty. Should this Board <br />allow Cotter to present oral argument on its Petition or should Cotter amend its <br />Petition, the Division reserves the right to present additional argument.