Laserfiche WebLink
TABLE OF CONTENTS <br />I. INTRODUCTION 1 <br />II. THE BOARD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS <br />THAT IT CONSIDER ECONOMIC COSTS, ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS, <br />AND THE REASONABLENESS OF CORRECTIVE ACTION NO. 2 (MINE <br />DEWATERING AND TREATMENT) 2 <br />A. The Act Requires That the Board Consider Economic Costs, <br />Environmental Benefits, and the Reasonableness of Corrective Action <br />No. 2 2 <br />B. The Board Failed to Consider the Economic Reasonableness of Ordering <br />Cotter to Dewater the Mine, Thus Rendering the Order Unlawful and <br />Arbitrary and Capricious 6 <br />C. No Substantial Evidence Exists in the Record of Any Costs That Denver <br />Water or Arvada Water Are Incurring Resulting from Uranium in Ralston <br />Creek or Reservoir, Any Costs That Either Entity Will Incur If Uranium <br />Concentrations in the Reservoir Increase, or Any Costs for Treating the <br />Creek and Reservoir 9 <br />D. The Board Failed to Evaluate the Reasonableness of Corrective Action <br />No. 2 10 <br />1. Substantial Evidence Exists That Corrective Action No. 2 Will <br />Result in Adverse Environmental Consequences 10 <br />2. Substantial Evidence Does Not Support That the Mine Pool <br />(Versus the Alluvium) Has Caused Contamination of Ralston <br />Creek . 11 <br />3. The Act Does Not Give Authority to the Defendants to Require <br />Corrective Action No. 2 16 <br />4. The Order Failed to Evaluate Other More Reasonable Alternatives 17 <br />III. THE FINDINGS UPON WHICH THE BOARD RELIED TO ORDER MINE <br />DEWATERING AND TREATMENT ARE UNSUPPORTED BY <br />SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; ACCORDINGLY THE BOARD <br />UNLAWFULLY ORDERED CORRECTIVE ACTION NO. 2 20 <br />A. No Substantial Evidence Exists That the Mine Pool Supports a Violation <br />of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34- 32- 116(7)(g) 20 <br />B. No Substantial Evidence Exists That the Mine Pool Supports a Violation <br />of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34- 32- 116(7)(c) 23 <br />