Laserfiche WebLink
Holme Roberts & Owen Lip <br />Attorneys at Law <br />Ms. Jillian Allison <br />December 2, 2010 <br />Page 2 <br />intent, failure to comply." As Cotter asserted at the Hearing, that statutory provision <br />and rule impose no obligations on an operator and therefore an operator cannot be <br />found in violation of that statutory provision and rule. <br />With respect to paragraph four of the draft order, please add that Cotter complied <br />with corrective action three to the extent that it relates to corrective action one. <br />Paragraph six of the draft order states that "despite Cotter's efforts, the water quality <br />as measured at monitoring station SW-BPL (located at the permit boundary's lower <br />southeast edge as Ralston Creek exists (sic) the mine property) has consistently <br />exceeded the applicable .03 mg/L uranium stream standard." This statement fails to <br />address the material issue of fact presented by Cotter that remedial actions are still <br />being implemented and adequate time has not yet elapsed to show the positive effects <br />of those actions. As set forth in the Reply of Cotter to DRMS' Response to Cotter's <br />Answer to DRMS' September 16, 2010 Notice, filed with the Board on November 15, <br />2010 ("Cotter's Reply"), and as explained in John Hamrick's testimony at the <br />Hearing, the Sump 5 capture area became operational on November 11, 2010 and the <br />Sumps 8 and 9 capture areas became operational during the week of November 15, <br />2010. Asa result, the impact of those actions will be seen after sufficient time has <br />elapsed. Moreover, paragraph 6 of the draft order does not acknowledge that the <br />other activities undertaken by Cotter to improve water quality in Ralston Creek were <br />not required by DBMS or the Board, and we request that the following language be <br />added in the second line of paragraph 6 after "Ralston Creek: "that were not required <br />by the Division or the Board:..." <br />Please revise paragraph seven of the draft order to reflect that Cotter complied with <br />corrective action three to the extent that it relates to corrective action one. <br />Paragraph nine of the draft order omitted important language from the letter written <br />by Cotter to the Board on September 10, 2010. In the draft order, before the quoted <br />language and after the language, "Cotter informed the Board by letter that," please <br />add: "[w]ith respect to the penalty pursuant to the ... [August 11, 2010] MLRB, <br />Order, Cotter ... reserves all of its rights to administrative and judicial review as