My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-08-11_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1977300
>
2011-08-11_ENFORCEMENT - M1977300
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:36:47 PM
Creation date
10/17/2011 12:01:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977300
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
8/11/2011
Doc Name
Joint Answer Brief
From
MLRB and DRMS
To
District Court
Email Name
DB2
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.