Laserfiche WebLink
.r - • <br />• <br />under its most ideal conditions. There is no indication that <br />anyone from the Division has actually met with affected <br />individuals in Somerset or made any investigation during actual <br />working conditions. <br />A technical revision to Permit No. C-91-022 and paving a <br />portion to the access road which is being used as a haul road are <br />proposed as a means to abate the violation. <br />I. The Revision Requested is Not Merely <br />a Tec nica Revision <br />A technical revision is defined as: <br />A minor change, including incidental boundary <br />rev siiv ons to the terms or requirements of a <br />permit issued under this article, which change <br />shall not cause a significant alteration in <br />the operator's reclamation plan. (Emphasis <br />added.) <br />While the mere changing of an access road to a haul road <br />might properly be called a technical revision under other <br />circumstances, in this case, allowing the revision permits a major <br />change in mining activities which cannot be adequately addressed <br />through the technical revision process. In effect it allows the <br />Bear No. 3 Mine and the Somerset Mining Company facility, <br />separately permitted entities, to function as a single operation <br />with the Town of Somerset becoming part of the coal yard between <br />the mine and the load-out. <br />Somerset Mining Company has also requested a permit revision <br />to enlarge the storage area at the Elk Creek Mine yard site. The <br />technical revision requested based on Notice of Violation No. <br />91-103 (use of access road as a haul road) will apparently be <br />reviewed separately from Somerset Mining Company's request to <br />enlarge its storage area. However, the effect of these two <br />revisions, if granted, is to give Mined Land Reclamation Board <br />(NLRB) approval in increments to an operation which has not been <br />subjected to the requirements of 34-33-110 and 34-33-111, C.R.S. <br />Specifically, water quality considerations based on the steadily <br />growing accumulation of coal dust in Somerset, and the effects of <br />washing the coal dust onto Highway 133 have not been addressed. <br />See 34-33-110(e), C.R.S. Local use, and steps to be taken to <br />comply with air, water, health, and safety standards are <br />additional issues raised by this technical revision and never <br />subjected to NLRB review. 34-33-111(h) and (i), C.R.S. <br />iI. The Proposed Abatement is Inadequate <br />The proposed abatement is inadequate to assure that the <br />rights of the Moschners and others in Somerset are fully protected <br />from the adverse effects of coal mining operations are required by <br />34-33-102, C.R.S. <br />-2- <br />