REV95289 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,. :` - ~II II~~I~II~II~~ II~ sss FORMAL HEARING ON TR-09 DECISION. NCIG FINANCIAL INC. Mr. Greg McKennis objected to the Division's decision to approve Technical Revision No. 9 for the New Castle Mine (NCIG Financial Inc.) based on his allegation that the Division did not follow legal procedures regarding filing of revision application materials at the Division and at the Garfield County courthouse. Mr. McKennis indicated to the Division that his objection is based on two concerns: 1. the revision application form used by the Division was not on file for public review at the time of publication by the operator and, 2. the operator did not place on file for public review the correspondence from the Division to the operator related to the revision application. The Division's interpretation and past policy in regard to the two items above is that: 1. the revision application form is a data processing form which essentially serves to facilitate tracking of revisions in the Division's data base and, 2. mine operators are required to place revision application materials which they generate on file for public review. Division correspondence is not part of the operator's application. The operator is therefore not responsible for placing Division correspondence on file for public review. During the permit renewal process in 1991, the Division reviewed the NCIG permit application and identified five adequacy concerns. The operator was instructed to address these concerns by submitting a technical revision (TR) to the permit. As a result, TR-09 was submitted to the Division on September 4, 1991. TR-09 addresses the following four topics: 1. Maps were revised to correct a permit boundary error involving a 1J4 of a 1/4 section. 2. A table with estimated construction schedules for the mine was updated to reflect recent developments. 3. The surface facilities map was enlarged for clarification and an engineer's certification of the haul road was included. 4. Additional information on approved "small area exemptions" from surface runoff controls was included. None of these permit modifications alter the mine's operation plan. The fifth adequacy concern was addressed without need of a revision.