Laserfiche WebLink
-32- <br />Processing of the Permit Aoolication <br />Several citizens voiced concerns over the completeness and adequacy of the <br />revision application and the information contained in the application. During <br />the review period, the Division has judged the substantive adequacy of the <br />material presented, required additional material or clarification when <br />necessary and made the required findings and proposed decision based on the <br />contents of the application and the record on October 19, 1990. <br />Concern was voiced regarding the adequacy of the public notice because the <br />newly proposed loadout site was not included. The Division is proposing to <br />require the applicant to re-submit the loadout as a separate revision, which <br />will be subject to all specific publication and public participation <br />requirements. <br />Clarification on the differences between revisions and permit applications and <br />their processing and the public participation provisions by the Division was <br />requested and provided by Division staff during the informal conference. <br />One citizen expressed concern with the apparent lack of information on file <br />for this revision. Subsequent investigations by the Division have found all <br />relevant material on file or subsequently replaced material that had been <br />removed from files. <br />Right of Entrv (Lease d <br />There was extended discussion on the topic of right of entry at both the mine <br />site and any proposed loadout site. Several citizens requested information on <br />the leases that conveyed the right to mine coal or load coal. <br />Non-confidential material was available during the course of application <br />review at the Division and the Garfield County Courthouse. In Section I of <br />the findings document, the Division has specifically addressed the right of <br />entry concerns: <br />Mining and Reclamation Plan <br />Concerns regarding the mining and reclamation plan were diverse and will be <br />briefly discussed below or referred to the appropriate section of the findings <br />document for a fuller discussion. <br />Questions were raised about the feasibility of the hydraulic mining process <br />and the underground disposal of coal waste. While the hydraulic mining <br />technology has not been employed in the United States, it has been <br />successfully used in British Columbia and in Europe. The Division required <br />the applicant to secure approval from the federal Mine Safety and Health <br />Administration for the underground disposal plan. The applicant was not able <br />to do so, and, therefore, the Division did not approve this plan. A further <br />discussion is contained in Section XVIII. <br />