Laserfiche WebLink
,y~,y.-j ..+ <br />r 6r i1 <br />~ '~+..~ <br />Detailad Cc,~,:nants - 309 Revie4r of <br />Draft Environr._ntal Assessment for <br />Coal Lease kpplication C-2509G <br />Description of the Prpposed Action <br />EPA considers the analysis of coal rnsources as presented in tha <br />tiAil irr~deq,!ate for purposes or' leasing coal and inappropriate for con- <br />servation or' the teal resource and minimi2ation of distw-bance. 7Lr:r•e <br />ore significant questions regarding the a,nount of coal and tf+are'Furo, <br />pf th~.minimu+n bid price for anv ~ed~ral coal, Tlie Bi.ii r~,ust re~rierr <br />tnc tOCal reaerdl Cad! resource 1h the s'GUny dreg 1r, 0'."Qer CO aneyuece,y- <br />adrlress tfiesz issues. <br />The final F~1R should contain a Warn detailed exulanation or' tha <br />~ applia~nt's eligibllity under epprcpri:i:z short-terat~lzasing critz,•ia. <br />~~. In a;talyzing contracts for orders of pollution control equip~reni:, CPA <br />deter~nir~es the force or validity a," the contract air t{!e basis ors the <br />existence of penalties for non-pc•r~o, ,:ant=. If such pznal;a es are <br />not Included in the contract, it is ;•~ot cnnsidere~l to to a genuinely <br />binding c~ntract• If such p,-ovlsions do not appear in the NIPSCO con- <br />" tract, on what basis does t1:2 Interior Oeasrt:nent co^sider ii to be <br />• valid bindir:g contract qualiryirg i:ha app1lrant und•^_:- s'riort-term leas- <br />ing criteria? <br />nlthougl, the 700,000 tons per y;;ar prodi:ction r,~.~e needed to satis- <br />fy tl;^ contract with :"IIPSCO is quita rlnar, thz basis far the desired <br />productian rata ofi 1.25 million tons c2r yo3r is nat. T~~e latter pro- <br />riuction rate, in Tact, appan•rc to co,;flitt v!it;t th3 s~ate;~~ent on Page 1-~ <br />. of the EAR that "CI~I plans to QY~;Ci1L~ ::n additionzl goal sales c:ont;•act <br />1T the lease application is tssu~d ar:d it is the successful hiddes•. <br />Expected production v+ould then bG i„iC0,000 tons per year." In the <br />absence or a contract or other bind?,tg ccs~attm~nt ho~;r dots the increment <br />! Seb.rcen the r~~yuired 700,000 tcra n•~r,aor and Chu desired 1.0 nr• 1,75 <br />I million ±ons per year production ;~ai:~ qu:aify for leasing under ;hort- <br />tern 1•oasing criteria? Tite issues of lease tr?ct size, eligibility of <br />the applicants far short-~zr?n leasi;t~, 4nd allcrable production ,-ales <br />are especiaily important in vier cF the pending lara uit by dR;]C (~lo. 75- <br />1719 NRDC et. al. v• Roys~or. Hushes e'i. al. DCDC) and the r~~ent c';~nge <br />in the Depart~:~ent of the Interior's po3lcies regarding short-t~r,~t leasing <br />(sze Secretary's ine~a aT July 25, 1977). Occause of these fact'i!:s ii <br />would appear that tfre Bureau o•.' L:,r:d Nzrag;_,~~nl should not oS`F~r a <br />lease uT the siz:s described in i;!ris r]raft >Aii urd~r• short-t r.n ie~~sing <br />i criteria. <br />J The EAR must also display t:!~ st;.tus and timetable for cc:npleting <br />the other approvals necessary in or•dtr to allc:v the projoct '::o pr•occed, <br />-~+ <br />_~,~.. <br />