Laserfiche WebLink
It is interesting to note that in its Answer Cotter states that it has taken actions <br />not required by the Board's Order to address water quality issues, yet refuses to <br />comply with the corrective actions contained in the Board's Order. Cotter does not <br />specify why actions not required by the Order are appropriate, except to give further <br />theories of what it thinks is occurring at the site (which continues to include violations <br />of stream standards), and what it thinks should cure these violations. For example, <br />Cotter states based on its water quality data and a "targeted site inspection" the reason <br />for exceedances of the stream standard "has become clear and has led to a <br />supplementary mitigation strategy." Answer, p. 4. <br />Cotter apparently now theorizes that if it can capture all ground water entering <br />the creek near station SW-BOS, uranium concentrations will rapidly decrease. <br />Exhibit A to Cotter's Answer, p. 3; Exhibit B to Cotter's Answer, p. 3. Cotter states <br />that it will create yet another sump and a French drain from which to capture more <br />ground water with the possibility that other sumps will be needed and it will continue <br />to investigate a pipe that it found on July 20, 2010 (prior to when Cotter submitted its <br />Petition for Reconsideration) to be discharging uranium-laden water to the alluvium <br />but never states what its investigation has found about the pipe. <br />Regardless of the actions Cotter is now taking, what Cotter is not undertaking <br />is full compliance with the Board's Order. The Board has already determined that <br />drawing down the mine pool and treating it are appropriate corrective actions (along <br />with capture and treatment of the alluvial ground water flowing to Sump No. 1) to <br />address the violations Cotter has committed at the site. <br />Cotter requests that, in light of its complaint in judicial review, the Division <br />withdraw its Notice of Reason to Believe a Violation Exists. The Division will not do <br />so. The Board's Order continues in effect and Cotter must comply with it. As the <br />Board found, Cotter has contaminated Ralston Creek, which flows into Ralston <br />Reservoir, a drinking water source for Denver and Arvada. As the Board found, to <br />address Cotter's contamination and to protect drinking water sources, the certainty <br />that drawing down and treating the mine pool brings is necessary. <br />The Division requests that the Board find Cotter in violation of § 34-32-124, <br />C.RS. and Rule 3.3.2, that the Board issue a cease and desist order requiring Cotter to <br />refrain from failing to fully comply with the Board's August 11, 2010 Order, <br />specifically to draw down and treat the mine pool (including submittal of a technical <br />revision); to submit an appropriate financial warranty to cover this corrective action <br />and to pay all of the civil penalties the Board imposed ($55,000). The Division also <br />requests that the Board impose the maximum civil penalty of $1,000 a day for <br />Cotter's violation of the Board's Order. <br />Cotter objects to the imposition of civil penalties for violation of the Board's Order, alleging that penalties <br />can only be imposed for violation of a permit. However, Rule 3.3.2(2)(b) specifically states that if the <br />Board determines that a violation of a "permit, the Act, or these Rules has occurred, the Board may assess a <br />6