GENERAL34245 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. John Spangler - 3 - February 1, 1991 We are aware of the confusion resulting from the notice you reference regarding the availability of an informal conference on a technical revision and we apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused you. We have taken steps to prevent this situation from recurring in the future. Further, we are considering the possibility of proposing rule changes which would allow us to better accommodate public input outside of the formal hearing process, without unnecessarily delaying technical revision review time frames. With regard to your proposal that we "cease ... using technical revisions for loadouts, important facilities, or activities which affect the amount and type of surface disturbance", it must be pointed out that a certain amount of judgement must be exercised in applying the definitions of the law and regulations. It is our belief that design changes to structures and facilities which do not result in significant additional surface disturbance and do not result in significant alterations in the operator's reclamation plan are appropriately handled as technical revisions. Item 4 =-tegaT-and Financial Reviews;-and Staff Responsibilities in Dealing wit -Cit zens In reference to proposal "a", the staff has been instructed in the appropriate procedure for verifying legal and financial interests. The procedure involves both a compliance status review in which regulatory authorities in other states are contacted, and the AVS check which is performed three times during the course of a permit review. This process is set out in the Staff Procedures Manual. You expressed certain concerns regarding Mr. Peter Matthies' failure to disclose the fact that he was an officer of Western Slope Carbon subsequent to 1970, within the recently approved New Castle Energy Corporation permit revision application. Our determination was that Mr. Matthies' position with Western Slope Carbon did not constitute that of "permittee", and under the regulations in effect at the time the referenced statement was not required. We will re-evaluate this issue under the recently approved ownership and control regulations in the context of our review of the Lacy Loadout permit revision. Modifications to the ownership and control sections of the application will be required as appropriate to comply with the regulations. In regard to working with citizens, I have discussed with staff the importance of the need to be courteous, professional and responsive. I feel that we have made a sincere effort to fully cooperate with members of the Garfield Citizens' Alliance although some misunderstandings have occurred. We plan to provide training to the staff on working with citizen's groups and the general public in order to enhance our effectiveness in this important aspect of our program.