2010-09-14_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300 ‎(4)‎

• Permit No: M1977300
• IBM Index Class Name: ENFORCEMENT
• Doc Date: 9/14/2010
• Doc Name: Reply to Response- Petition for Reconsideration-email.
• From: Charlotte Neitzel
• To: Jillian Allison- AGO
• Email Name: DB2
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Bird, David
From: Charlotte Uadzal [Charlotte. [e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:27 PM J
To: 'Jillian Allison'
Cc: Berry, David; Bird, David; Pineda, Loretta; Peter Hack; Pope, Sitira; Waldron, Tony; Cheryl
Linden ? ?.
Subject: Reply to Response -Petition for Reconsideration - M-1977-300
Ms. Allison,
Cotter is entitled to a reply to the Division's Response, which Cotter received after business hours last Friday, September
10, 2010. It is actually the Division's Response that alleges new facts that were not part of the Petition for
Reconsideration. Cotter's Reply presents facts and positions opposing those alleged facts and other positions in the
Division's Response. Nothing in Rule 2.9 precludes an Operator from replying to facts and positions alleged by the
Division that are disputed by the Operator. It is important that the Mined Land Reclamation Board be entitled to all of
the evidence in order to make an informed decision, and not just the Division's version of alleged facts. Moreover, the e-
mail on behalf of the Division does not even identify what facts are discussed in the Reply that somehow makes the
entire Reply allegedly untimely.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Neitzel
Charlotte L. Neitzel
Holme Roberts & Owen LLP
1700 Lincoln St., Ste. 4100
Denver, CO 80203
Direct: 303-866-0487
Fax: [phone]
charlotte. neitzelO-hro.com
From: Cheryl Linden [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 4:55 PM
To: Jillian Allison
Cc: Charlotte Neitzel; [e-mail]:us; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Peter Hack;
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Reply of Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.) to Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety's Response to Cotter
Corporation's Petition for Reconsideration of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Concerning Cotter's Permit
No. M-1077-300
Jillian, the Division objects to Cotter's reply based on untimeliness grounds. Rule 2.9.2 requires that a petition for
reconsideration be filed within 20 days of the effective date of the Board's order. The petition is required to provide a
clear and thorough explanation of the grounds justifying reconsideration including but not limited to new and relevant
facts that were not known at the time of the hearing and the explanation why such facts were not known at the time of
the hearing. Rule 2.9.1
Cotter did not include in its Petition the facts that it is now alleging in its reply. Accordingly, Cotter's reply is untimely
and should not be considered by the Board.
>>> Charlotte Neitzel <Charlotte. Neitzel(& h ro.com > 9/14/2010 4:12 PM >>>
Ms. Pope,
Please see the attached.
Regards,