Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 <br />citizens may send DRMS concerns they have about prospecting activities, just as they do <br />with mining activities. DRMS, as a state agency, will respond to such concerns, as <br />appropriate. In addition, since DRMS will not speak on behalf of Powertech (or any other <br />prospector or operator) and because the citizens' concerns here relate specifically to <br />Powertech's activities, it is important for Powertech to address the issues raised by the <br />public. Requiring Powertech to respond to concerns about its prospecting activities does not <br />fall outside the ambit of SB 228. Indeed, it is likely that the Colorado General Assembly <br />anticipated that once it made information about prospecting activities public, the public <br />would voice its concerns about such activities. <br />2. Pre-submittal Baseline Activities and Third Party Expert <br />T._ ?,.ir..? ?.... -1- 4L. n4 Tl,,..,,,..+_ L, a:......?..,, with nDA401 tl n+ <br />In your letter you also sLatc Mat E Vwcl U_,cll Ulsag«ees whit L1<1V1t7 uelVl 111 tiiuLivii Ui"L titaly <br />of Powertech's activities conducted under NOI, No. P-2008-043, are baseline site <br />characterization. I address that issue below. However, I will first address your assertion <br />that DRMS' decision to hire a third party expert is inappropriate at this time because House <br />Bill 1161 only allows DRMS to hire a third party expert in connection with a permit <br />application. Contrary to your assertion, the General Assembly in HB 1161, as codified at <br />§ 34-32-112(5)(a), C.R.S., specifically authorizes DRMS to hire a third party expert prior to <br />submittal of a permit application. <br />First, HB 1161 requires the baseline site characterization and monitoring plan to be included <br />in a permit application, meaning the characterization and plan must be completed prior to <br />submittal of the permit application. <br />Second, the statute authorizes DBMS to hire an expert to oversee baseline site <br />characterization, monitor field operations and review information collected, developed or <br />submitted by an applicant or a prospective applicant. Since baseline activities must be <br />conducted prior to submitting a permit application and because the statute authorizes the <br />expert to oversee the baseline activities, the statute allows DRMS to hire the third party <br />expert prior to submittal of a permit application. <br />Third, the legislature in FIB 1161 used the words "prospective applicant" and not just <br />"applicant" throughout this subsection, e.g., expert may review the information submitted by <br />the prospective applicant, the prospective applicant shall pay the cost of the expert, etc. <br />Thus, contrary to your assertion, the legislature, through enactment of HB 1161 specifically <br />authorizes DRMS to hire an expert prior to submittal of a permit application. Indeed, if your <br />argument were correct, it would render meaningless the above provisions of HB 1161. <br />Lastly, please also note that under SB 169, the legislature required a permit applicant to pay <br />for the cost of an expert in the review of an in situ uranium permit application. § 34-32- <br />127(2)(a)(1)(0), C.R.S. Thus, the costs to review a submitted permit application fall within <br />this section rather than § 34-32-112(5)(a), C.R.S.