PERMFILE104313 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• -33- • bottom line issue.. It's been said this is not a mining law, it's a reclamation law. The thing that is really seriously worse and just (a) whole other category of unpermitted operations, those that have no permits, but should have had, 'cause they started after 1973, they're unpermitted, they've stopped operating, the operators walked away from them, they're totally unreclaimed and they're going to stay that way unless you do something about it. It's this very category that causes us in some ways even more concern than the currently illegal mining operator. You had a direct example of this in the Energy Fuels' situation; you reacted, we thought, very cooperatively, set a very good precedent, not the Peabody precedent, the Energy Fuels' precedent, remember these was a lot of acreage involved there; where they had finished their mining, unpermitted, and that held up their new permit until they got a reclamation plan and a bond on that property. This is what 120 says--it's not a punitive provision at all', it's a very familiar provision in all the states, you know, all across the country. It says in order to have a permit program, where you can have reclamation plans and bonds so that you as a Board can guarantee reclamation, you've got to have a situation where you bring all the operators in and all the operations that should be, being reclaimed. And this Section 120 is a very, very familiar, very standard device to give to you the enforcement leverage, today you can throw that away, really, by setting a reverse Energy Fuels precedent. And we're going to worry about that. Mr. Sullivan asked a very good question, I don't know if the answer s• are clear from what's gone on so far, and that is, 120 doesn't apply til the Board makes a finding. If the Board--you'll forgive me if I do the "hear no evil, see no evil" analysis--if the Board just