2012-07-30_REVISION - M1984014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5. In its Exhibit List, Sheep Mountain states it may use "[a]ny and all documents contained in DRMS Permit File #M -1984- 014," but does not provide any of the information required by Rule 2.6(2)(b)(ii). Accordingly, Sheep Mountain should be prohibited from using any such documents at the hearing. 6. Sheep Mountain's exhibit list also falls short when it lists: Any Exhibit listed and/or relied upon by any other party, including Cotter Corporation and the Division. Any other Exhibit, as necessary and appropriate for purposes of rebuttal. To the extent these documents are not in the Division's public file, Sheep Mountain was required to provide "all other parties" with a copy of such document "at or before the Pre - hearing Conference." Code Colo. Regs. 407 -1, Rule 2.6(2)(b)(i). Sheep Mountain did not do this. To the extent these documents are in the Division's files, Sheep Mountain was required to provide the information listed in Rule 2.6(2)(b)(ii). Again, Sheep Mountain did not do this. Under these circumstances, where Sheep Mountain had full knowledge of the rules but chose not to follow them, it should be prohibited from using at the hearing any documents covered by the above designations. 7. To the extent Sheep Mountain's Exhibit List does identify specific documents, those documents may not be used in the hearing because they are irrelevant to the issues before this Board. The purpose of the hearing is to address Cotter's application for a mine permit amendment for the JD -8 Mine, including Cotter's Environmental Protection Plan ("EPP") for reclamation of that facility. Despite the narrow focus of the hearing, none of the documents that Sheep Mountain lists relate specifically to the JD -8 Mine. The "Semiannual Effluent Reports" and "Plea Agreement" that Sheep Mountain lists are for Cotter's Canon City Milling Facility, which is approximately 200 miles from the JD -8 Mine, and pertain to a mill, not a uranium mine. 3