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
Actions Following August Order. On August 13, 2010, the Division sent a letter to <br />Cotter that explained the steps necessary to ensure compliance with Corrective Actions 2 and 3. <br />R:0098. The Division's letter indicated that "Plans for addressing this corrective action must be <br />submitted as a technical revision to the permit by August 23, 2010." Id. The Division further <br />explained that its review of the technical revision for Corrective Action 2 "will also include <br />calculation of a new financial warranty (corrective action 3)." Id. Cotter did not submit the <br />required technical revision. Cotter did not contact the Division to discuss the requirements for <br />the technical revision. Cotter did not request an extension of the Division's deadline for <br />submittal of the technical revision. Instead, Cotter responded by letter on August 23, 2010, <br />indicating that it was "inappropriate for the Division to request a technical revision" because <br />Cotter was planning to petition the Board for reconsideration of its July 12, 2010 decision. <br />R:0099. On September 10, 2010, Cotter sent another letter indicating that, in addition to its <br />decision not to submit the required technical revision, it "respectfully decline[d] to remit the <br />penalty under the [August] Order." R:0100. <br />Cotter's petition for reconsideration came before the Board at its September 15, 2010 <br />meeting. A party petitioning the Board for reconsideration of a decision must "set forth a clear <br />and thorough explanation of the grounds justifying reconsideration, including but not limited to <br />new and relevant facts that were not known at the time of the hearing and an explanation of why <br />such facts were not known at the time of the hearing." 2 C.C.R. 407 -1, Rule 2.9.1(2). The <br />Board may grant or deny the petition based solely on the written submittals. Id, Rule 2.9.3. The <br />Board considered Cotter's written petition and found that Cotter had not met its burden under <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.