GENERAL32650 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In past decades our agency's legislated mandate was not always supported by sufficient staffto cant' it out. There were years when the Division was not able to carry out all necessary inspections, nor adequately review the submitted annual reports or the filed revisions. Operator staff turnover and operator succession have led to inevitable gaps in understanding the need for complete and current documentation, and of knowing what documentation was adequately provided or whether it was lacking. In the past, agency staff shortages and turnover have led to monitoring of the permits which was not as stringent as it presently is. In the early 1990's the legislature recognized the need for increased monitoring, especially of the larger metal mine permits, and set that as a priority for our agency. In addition, every permit transfer (such as this one in 1997) requires that the Division re-evaluate the bond amount and ensure that no outstanding problems exist. Working in this direction may explain the perceived heightened scrutiny by the Division. In this case, a little time spent onsite and researching the file resulted in the discovery that onsite development had occurred without the reporting or approval for modifications that is required, and that some possibly inadequate (mapping) documentation had been received though not reviewed or commented upon by this office. The present issues of lack of mazking the affected area boundaries and the out-of-date maps were also noted, and framed as problems to be corrected. in 1997, this was communicated to the operator, and a partial response was submitted to the Division in 1998. The Division responded that the submittal was inadequate and certain items were still required. For various reasons this was never followed up on by either the operator or the Division until 2001. Please understand that these problems and inadequacies are not brand new, but they remain unresolved. A permitted operator has always been required to keep the file submittals current and complete, post an adequate sign at the permit entrance and mark the affected area boundaries. An operator's failure to maintain the permit in compliance or resolve a noted problem in a timely manner would be justification for scheduling a hearing before the Board. In most cases, correcting an issue of noncompliance through a Boazd hearing is the mechanism of "last resort." In this case, knowing that IUSA wishes to cooperate in correcting these outstanding problems, the Division has chosen to pursue compliance in the mariner in which we are presently occupied. I understand your frustration, and appreciate your cooperation and open communication in resolving these things. What it comes down to is, IUSA is the current permitted operator of this site (and the other four permitted sites in the group), and as such, is required to keep the permit in compliance. Whatever pre-existing, current, or future problems there are associated with a permit, the Division must seek compliance and resolution through the permitted operator. If an existing condition is not identified as a problem at the time a permit is transferred to a new successor operator, it is the new operator whom the State requires to correct the problem. Simply because the new operator did not cause the problem is not ajustification for ignoring it, nor for the State to seek compliance through another party. I will go into each of your specific questions, numbering my responses according to your list, in the following paragraphs. 1. Sunday Mine A. Let us confirm and agree on the fact that the Sunday Mine permit is a 112 permit, whose permitted area consists of 755 acres, and that all disturbance which occurs to the surface is not to exceed 40 acres. This is the 40-acre total affected area, consisting of numerous separate azeas. These separate areas of permitted activity, collectively comprising the