Laserfiche WebLink
therefore Cotter expects that further improvements will be seen after this date. See Exhibit B, <br />"Hydraulic Capture of Groundwater by Sumps Completed in Ralston Creek Alluvium and Fill at <br />the Schwartzwalder Mine," by Susan A. Wyman, P.E., P.G., Whetstone Associates (November <br />12, 2010). Sump 8 has been installed and is scheduled to begin operation shortly. <br />The Division also ignores accomplishments of the treatment system. Cotter has treated <br />nearly eight million gallons of water, and has fully complied with the uranium effluent limit in <br />the order issued to Cotter by the Water Quality Control Division. See Exhibit 2. Through this <br />treatment, which started July 2, 2010, Cotter has removed 302 pounds of uranium from <br />groundwater as of October 31, 2010. Id. Seasonal uranium concentrations in Ralston Creek also <br />have been two to ten times lower in 2010 than in 2009. Id. <br />The Division alleges that Cotter has not complied with paragraph two of the August 11, <br />2010 Mined Land Reclamation Order ("Order"), but compliance with this paragraph was <br />impossible. It required Cotter to: <br />Reinitiate mine dewatering and water discharge treatment <br />sufficient to bring the mine water level to a level at least 500 feet <br />below the Steve Level, and sufficient to reestablish a hydraulic <br />gradient away from Ralston Creek. Implementation must occur as <br />soon as possible, but no later than August 31, 2010. <br />As will be shown at the hearing, twenty days was not nearly sufficient. Cotter will present <br />evidence of the substantial technical, physical, and legal activities required to implement <br />paragraph two. <br />Moreover, the Division fails to explain how it can legally pursue penalties when the <br />applicable statutory provision, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34-32-124(7) (2010), does not authorize <br />penalties for violation of a Mined Land Reclamation Board ("Board") order. This statutory <br />provision limits the imposition of civil penalties to violations of a permit. In defense of its <br />position, the Division simply cites to Rule 3.3.2(2)(b), which is inconsistent with the statutory <br />2