Laserfiche WebLink
that "Plans for addressing this corrective action must be submitted as a technical revision to the <br />permit by August 23, 2010." Id. The Division reiterated that position at the November Hearing. <br />Nevertheless, Cotter argued that it could not dewater in accordance with Corrective Action 2 <br />because it had not been informed of "what compliance would look like." R:0203, 9 -21. <br />Cotter never asked the Division or the Board how it might comply with the August Order <br />until that question became a convenient argument at the November Hearing. R:0208, 14 -21. <br />Instead, Cotter sought to manufacture ambiguity at the November Hearing by mischaracterizing <br />Corrective Action 2 in a question to the Division's witness, David Bird. Cotter's attorney asked <br />Mr. Bird: "first of all, does the division believe that Cotter needed to have by August 31 <br />dewatered the mine down to the 500 foot level below the Steve Level ?" Mr. Bird responded <br />"Well, we have that in writing, so I guess the answer is yes." R:0204,1. 10 -15. Cotter's <br />characterization did not in fact represent what was "in writing." The Board reviewed the <br />language of the Corrective Action 2 and found that it required only that Cotter "reinitiate" and <br />begin "implementation" by August 31, 2010. R:0208 -10. The Division's letter further clarified <br />the corrective action by explaining that it should be accomplished by submitting a technical <br />revision. R:0098. The technical revision process is fully explained in the Rules. See 2 C.C.R. <br />§ 407 - 1:1.8.4 (2010). Board member Robert Randall explained "I, as a board member, feel <br />that's sufficiently certain direction that Cotter was to do something by August 31, 2010 and <br />Cotter didn't." R:0217, 22 -25. Mr. Randall went on to comment that, "[Cotter] <br />10 Cotter claims that it sought clarification in comments on the draft August Order. Opening Br. 4. Cotter's <br />comments can be found in the record for the Cotter I case. Cotter I R:00610 -11. These comments can only <br />be characterized as argument, and contain no requests for clarification regarding compliance. <br />26 <br />