Laserfiche WebLink
When confronted in the Hearing with Cotter's argument that completion of the <br />dewatering process within the time afforded by the August 2010 Order had been impossible, the <br />Division and Board took wildly inconsistent positions as to what exactly the earlier order had <br />required. Initially, the Division stuck to its position that the August 2010 Order had required <br />Cotter to complete dewatering by August 31, 2010: <br />MS. BROWN: No. Mr. Bird, what does the division believe — first <br />of all, does the division believe Cotter needed to have by August <br />31 dewatered the mine down to the 500 foot level below the Steve <br />Level? <br />MR. BIRD: Well, we have that in writing, so I guess the answer is <br />yes. <br />AR:0204:9 -15. The Division then shifted its position to say Cotter had been required only to <br />submit a "technical revision" by August 31, 2010 (even though the August 2010 Order made no <br />mention of a technical revision). AR:0206:19 -22. <br />Later in the Hearing, the Division backtracked further in terms of what Cotter had been <br />required to do under the August 2010 Order: <br />MR. BIRD: I believe I speak for the division when I say that the <br />start of compliance with Corrective Action Number 2 would start <br />with implementation of mine dewatering and treatment. <br />The division acknowledges that you can't start dewatering <br />tomorrow. There are preparations that need to be made, and that's <br />covered under the implementation part. <br />There will need to be storage capacity. There will need to <br />be hardware brought.on site. There will need to be access to mine <br />workings. Implementation is a step that needs to be taken to begin <br />compliance with Corrective Action Number 2. <br />AR:0214:10 -23. <br />During the second day of the Hearing, the Board itself "clarified" what it had intended in <br />its August 2010 Order. First, Board Member Paulin: <br />22 <br />