2011-02-09_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300

• Permit No: M1977300
• IBM Index Class Name: ENFORCEMENT
• Doc Date: 2/9/2011
• Doc Name: Opening Brief of Plaintiff Cotter Corporation
• From: Cotter Corporation
• To: District Court
• Email Name: DB2
• Email Name: AJW
• Email Name: DAB
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ........................................................... 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................................................................... 2
STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 4
Mine and Reclamation Background ................................................................................... 4
Environmental Studies of the Mine .................................................................................... 7
Enforcement and Corrective Actions ................................................................................. 9
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 13
1. Standard of Review .......................................................................................................... 13
II. The Board Failed To Comply with Statutory Requirements That It Consider
Economic Costs, Environmental Benefits, and the Reasonableness of Corrective
Action No. 2 (Mine Dewatering and Treatment) ............................................................. 14
A. The Board Failed to Consider, and the Record Does Not Contain
Substantial Evidence of, the Costs of Corrective Action No. 2 (Mine
Dewatering and Treatment), Thus Rendering the Order Unlawful and
Arbitrary and Capricious ...................................................................................... 14
1. Absence of Evidence of the Costs of the Mine Water Treatment
Facility ...................................................................................................... 15
2. Absence of Evidence of the Costs for Subsurface Safe Access to
the Mine .................................................................................................... 15
3. Absence of Evidence of Drilling Costs .................................................... 17
4. Absence of Evidence of the Costs of Pumps and Piping ......................... 19
5. Operation and Maintenance for Mine Dewatering and Treatment .......... 19
6. Absence of Evidence of the Costs of Financial Assurance for
Corrective Action No. 2 .......................................................................... 20
B. No Substantial Evidence Exists in the Record of Any Costs That Denver
Water or Arvada Are Incurring Resulting from Uranium in Ralston Creek
or Reservoir, Any Costs That Either Entity Will Incur If Uranium
i