Laserfiche WebLink
ARGUMENT(' <br />In its Answer, Cotter concedes it has not complied with the Board's Order to <br />dewater and treat the mine pool and to file a financial warranty, and concedes it has <br />not paid any part of the civil penalty the Board imposed. See e.g., Answer, pp. 2-3. <br />See also Exhibit 1 (letter from the Division asking Cotter to submit a technical <br />revision for the dewatering corrective action); Exhibit 2 (letter from Cotter stating it <br />will not submit a technical revision regarding mine dewatering pending the filing of a <br />petition for reconsideration and stating it remains opposed to this corrective action); <br />Exhibit 3 (:letter from Cotter stating it will not pay the civil penalty the Board <br />imposed). <br />In addition, the Division to date has not received a technical revision or a <br />financial warranty from Cotter for the corrective actions concerning the mine pool, <br />and the Division has inspected the site and observed that Cotter has not implemented <br />the mine dewatering corrective action. <br />In its Answer, Cotter provides no basis to excuse its non-compliance. Cotter <br />merely asserts it thinks that since it has sought judicial review of the Board's Order, <br />"it is improper and unlawful" for the Division to bring a violation for Cotter's failure <br />to comply with the Board's Order. Answer, p. 2. Cotter's argument is without merit. <br />The Board's Order remains in effect and Cotter is required to comply with the Order. <br />In its Answer, Cotter summarizes actions it has taken to allegedly improve <br />water quality including submittal of two technical revisions - however, neither <br />technical revision is the revision the Board required Cotter to submit in its Order. It is <br />apparent that Cotter is willing to undertake actions it wants to take at the site but <br />refuses to comply with the actions the Board has ordered Cotter to take to correct <br />violations Cotter has committed. In addition, the actions Cotter summarizes in its <br />Answer relate to actions that occurred after the Board's July 12 hearing (and therefore <br />are irrelevant) and, ironically, despite these actions, Cotter concedes it continues to <br />fail to meet stream standards for uranium. See e.g, Answer, p. 4; Exhibit A to <br />Answer, p. l; Exhibit B to Answer, p. 2. <br />Moreover, regardless of the actions Cotter has undertaken, the fact is that <br />Cotter has not undertaken the actions the Board required of Cotter - Cotter has failed <br />to comply with the Board's Order to draw down and treat the mine pool, to submit an <br />appropriate financial warranty and to pay imposed civil penalties. Accordingly, <br />Cotter is in violation of § 34-32-124, C.R.S and Rule 3.3.2. The Division requests (1) <br />that the Board find that Cotter has violated § 34-32-124, C.R.S and Rule 3.3.2; (2) <br />that the Board issue a cease and desist order that mandates that Cotter stop failing to <br />comply with the Board's Order; and (3) that the Board impose civil penalties for <br />Cotter's violation of the Act and rules. <br />5