Laserfiche WebLink
strategy for stabilizing groundwater chemistry (Id. at 6-7); (3) dewatering poses substantial <br />physical feasibility challenges in installing a pump, pipe and other equipment into the mine (Id. <br />at 7-10); (4) installing equipment is technically challenging to accomplish safely (Id. at 11); and <br />(5) the cost of treating the mine pool would be several million dollars per year (Id. at 13). The <br />Division's rebuttal at the hearing focused on all of these points. <br />The Division is also inaccurate in stating that Cotter did not raise its current assertions <br />until three weeks after the hearing concluded. Cotter stated in its Response Brief, dated July 9, <br />2010, at pages 12 to 13, that the Division failed to respond to Cotter's Rationale. See Petition at <br />12. As reflected by the Division, it also objected on August 2, 2010 to the failure of the Division <br />to advise Cotter of its position before the hearing in an email exchange regarding Cotter's <br />comments on the draft Order. (See Exhibit 2). During a June 15, 2010 meeting, the Division, in <br />effect, asked for discovery of Cotter's position under the pretext that it would evaluate the <br />position to determine if it would continue to request mine dewatering and treatment. It then <br />failed to consider the points in the evaluation, advising Cotter that it always planned to have the <br />Board make the determination. If the Division's request for the Rationale was to use it as <br />discovery to prepare for the hearing, it should have been forthright in its intentions and <br />reciprocated by providing Cotter with its position before the hearing. <br />Cotter has, in fact, provided new information in the Cotter Petition, contrary to what the <br />Division Response argues. This information includes the reasons why: use of casing string does <br />not solve feasibility issues (Cotter Petition at 12-13); the Division's' examples of drilling to <br />intercept small targets are not relevant to the Schwartzwalder Mine (Id. at 13); the Division's <br />groundwater inflow figure as high as 600-gpm is not representative of rock transmissivity or <br />steady-state groundwater flow to the mine (Id. at 14); the packer tests performed by Cotter <br />#1493118 A den