Laserfiche WebLink
19. The May 21, 2010 Notice advised Cotter that an enforcement hearing would be <br />held before the Board during its meeting scheduled for mid-July 2010 and that Cotter should <br />provide any "evidence indicating that the possible violations noted above do not exist or have <br />been corrected" to the Division "as soon as possible or bring it to the hearing." <br />20. The accompanying "Minerals Program Inspection Report" provided by the <br />Division ("Inspection Report") recommended as a "corrective action" that Cotter submit a <br />"technical revision" to its permit by no later than June 1, 2010 setting forth plans and schedules <br />for (a) reinitiating treatment of all water reporting to Sump No. 1 by no later than July 31, 2010 <br />("Corrective Action No. I"), (b) reinitiating mine dewatering and water treatment sufficient to <br />bring the mine pool to a level at least 500 feet below the "Steve Level" and sufficient to <br />reestablish a hydraulic gradient away from Ralston Creek starting no later than July 31, 2010 <br />("Corrective Action No. 2"), (c) financial warranty provisions for the plans ("Corrective Action <br />No. 3"), and (d) immediate cessation of all well abandonment activities and reactivation of all <br />surface and ground water monitoring. It also required a permit amendment no later than August <br />1, 2010 to address the unresolved EPP details in the May 19, 2010 adequacy review letter. <br />21. On June 1, 2010, Cotter submitted Technical Revision Request 12 to the Division, <br />setting forth its plan for reinitiating treatment of water reporting to Sump No. 1. The Technical <br />Revision Request also explained that Cotter was declining to proceed with mine dewatering in <br />light of the lack of evidence that such activities would produce any significant improvement in <br />stream water quality. It provided information for a financial warranty relating to Corrective <br />Action No. 1. It also agreed to cease well abandonment (although Cotter had not abandoned any <br />wells) and to reactivate monitoring. <br />22. On June 21, 2010, Cotter filed a response to the May 21, 2010 Notice ("Notice <br />Response"). Cotter set forth in the Notice Response that, while it disputed the Division's <br />allegations that it violated any of the cited applicable statutes or regulations, it was working <br />quickly to address Corrective Action No. 1, treating water reporting to Sump No. 1. However, it <br />strongly objected to the Corrective Action No. 2, dewatering the Mine, and the financial <br />warranty requirements of Corrective Action No. 3 to the extent they were dependent on the <br />dewatering required by Corrective Action No. 2. <br />23. Cotter also objected to the Division's demand from Cotter to submit a Technical <br />Revision to cover Corrective Action No. 2, dewatering and treatment of the mine pool, because <br />such a corrective action would not meet the definition of a "Technical Revision" in the <br />Division's regulations as "a change in the permit or an application, which does not have more <br />than a minor effect upon the approved or proposed Reclamation or Environmental Protection <br />Plan." Board Rule 1. 1(52), 2 Colo. Code Regs. 407-1. <br />24. The Notice Response set forth specific defects in the May 21, 2010 Notice's <br />premises, including that the May 21, 2010 Notice failed to identify actual evidence supporting <br />most of its conclusions, that the proposed dewatering and treatment plan for the mine pool was <br />procedurally improper (because it would constitute an Amendment of the Permit, rather than a <br />Technical Revision as suggested by the Division), that Corrective Action No. 2 was likely to <br />5