My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-09-14_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977300
>
2010-09-14_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:22:20 PM
Creation date
9/21/2010 8:03:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
ENFORCEMENT
Doc Date
9/14/2010
Doc Name
Reply of Cotter Corporation/ Petition for Reconsideration.
From
Holme Roberts & Owen LLP
To
DRMS
Email Name
DB2
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Rule 2.9.1(2) does not limit the grounds for reconsideration only to "new and relevant <br />facts that were not known at the time of the hearing and the explanation why such facts were not <br />known at the time of the hearing." See 2 CCR 407-1, Rule 2.9.1(2). The Cotter Petition also <br />relied on Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-4-105(14)(a), requiring a statement of findings and conclusions <br />upon all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented by the record. The Order did not <br />address many of Cotter's positions that violations did not occur. These positions included that <br />the Division approved bulkheading and therefore the inevitable increases in metals <br />concentrations. In addition, uranium concentrations are decreasing in the mine pool, and the <br />State of Colorado authorized the shutdown of the prior mine water treatment system and alluvial <br />water treatment system. See Cotter Petition at 3-4, 6, 7. The Order also never addresses <br />Whetstone's scientific conclusion indicating a hydraulic divide between the mine and Ralston <br />Creek along the Schwartz Trend. See Id. at 7. Moreover, the Order relied on the incorrect legal <br />standard used in the Order for finding a violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34-32-116(7)(g). See Id. <br />at 5. <br />Cotter is also justified in presenting new information because of the failure of the <br />Division to respond to the June 25, 2010 Rationale for Not Conducting Mine Dewatering and <br />Mine Water Treatment at the Schwartzwalder Mine, by Susan A. Wyman, Whetstone <br />("Rationale"), prior to the hearing. The Division's argument that the Division felt it <br />"unnecessary to respond specifically to Cotter's June 25 `Rationale' since it failed to say <br />anything new" is simply wrong. See Division's Response at 4. Cotter had not yet presented its <br />position before the Rationale that: (1) pumping down the mine pool would result in increased <br />oxidation and mobilization of contaminants within the mine pool, reversing the current trend of <br />declining uranium concentrations (Rationale at 5-6); (2) mine flooding is a recognized remedial <br />7 <br />#1493118 vl den
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.