APPCOR11230 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t :~'. ,: r. :~'~ill, -[- Npril b, 1983 The second step in achieving the goai rs to establish u mutually ayreed upon time name for the completion of tbd permittiny process. Tnis wuul~~ incluue tune frames for the submittal of Empire Energy Corporation's responses to the review document and tir,~e Frames for the Division to ux~~rpl2te the process upon receipt cf the responses. Pruceediny in this manner should allow us to finish this review and issue a proposed decision on the permit application within a,i acceptable time period. If we are not axle td complete the process ~+:ithin the agreed upon time frd~nes ur if we fail to agree upon the resolution of an issue, then most likely the unresolved issues will go before the Mined Land Redla~nacion Board to compiete the permitting process. However, I want to emphasize that it is our intention to work diligently toward completion of the permittiiny process and yu to the L'dard only if we respectfully disayree with Empire I_neryy l:urpuration us to whaC should be an appropriate resolution W an issue. riaviny generally proposed u structure For canpletiny the permit review, the balance of this lettar addre•~s2s the perspective from which we conducted the review of the :mended application submitted on December 29, 193[ ana the remaining permitting issues. l..e .:~,enueu application ueca~nd necessary as a result of the Division writing a draft Findings uocument in iday, 1932. The draft findinys docwnent was based on information contained in the permit application submitted in February, 1931, do the additions that had been made tp the permit application, on the responses to adequacy concerns that had not peen incorporated into the application, and on revisions to the interim permit :,hick ilad not been incorporated into the application. Eecause of ~nese numarous changes, Cne proposed final permit application lacked cdntinui[y and wd5 incomplete. Ht that time the Division did not have on rile a comprehensive document, that could be reviewed and understood by any interested party, as required by the the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Hct. Therefore, the draft findings document stated that a permit would not be issued until, i nforrnation in the permit application is current, pre seated clearly and concisely, and supported by appropriate refer2r~ces to technical and other written material available to the Division. N11 permit revisions and responses to adequacy concerns and proposed stipulations must ue incorporated. The amended permit application must be submitted td the Division before a permit is issued." Tne amended permit application submitted on December 29, 1932 does not adequately fulfill thaC rerluirement. The problems with tF~c amended application are desCriDed in detail in the enclosed review. The problems can be generally categorized as Follo:rs; 1) there are internal inconsistencies .,ithin the document; 2) environmen[al data collectea during the review process ~:as not analyzed within the context of the amended application to describe the environment or to predict impacts to the environment; 3) some sections of the application were not updated; and 4) plans that were approved as part of the draft findinys have been siyniFicantly changed.