Laserfiche WebLink
~~ <br />November 6, 1991 <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />Again, the Objectors have cited no specific performance <br />standard or regulation which is not fully and adequately addressed <br />by the application for the technical revision. Rather, the <br />Objectors argue that the proposed revision does not meet the <br />criteria for a technical revision, that the revision is in fact a <br />"major change" in the operation of the facility and that the TR-08 <br />would allow the combined operations of the Bear No. 3 Mine and the <br />SMC facility to function as a single entity. <br />At the outset we note that the operations at the Bear No. 3 <br />mine are not at issue in this proceeding. The issue at hand <br />relates solely to the utilization of the roads at the loadout <br />facility. As noted in the foregoing narrative, the technical <br />revision proposed by SMC does not alter the reclamation plan for <br />the facility in any way. In addition we note that Permit C-81-022 <br />was originally issued to U.S. Steel Mining in 1981 and contemplated <br />the continuation of the historic operation of the loadout facility <br />at a rate of approximately 1.2 million tons of coal per year. To <br />the best of our knowledge there was no approved particulate <br />emissions control plan whatsoever in place for the facility. The <br />loadout operations to date have not exceeded a rate of 40,000 tons <br />per month and SMC has not proposed production rates which would <br />exceed those set forth in the approved permit. In addition, SMC <br />has implemented an approved Fugitive Particulate Control Plan in <br />conjunction with its use of the loadout facilities. Given the <br />