2011-08-15_PERMIT FILE - M2011040

Home Browse Search

Without such coordinated review, the MOU becomes meaningless, with project applicants able to time their permit submittals so as to prevent DRMS from following through with its commitment to "deny or recommend denial" of permits that do not comply with the National Historic Preservation Act requirements. In this case, the State Historic Preservation Officer has submitted a comment (July 29, 2011) highlighting the BLM's responsibilities and authorities under the NHPA. In order for the MOU to have meaning, DRMS should incorporate the MOU as a basis for an application deficiency and require the applicant to demonstrate NHPA compliance prior to final DRMS review. This is a legitimate position within DRMS discretion, especially given that the operator does not own the land and requires BLM permission in order to demonstrate right of access for the proposed mining purposes. Should an operator refuse to grant an extension of time for DRMS to review the application for this purpose, a denial for lack of necessary information is appropriate. Failure to Acknowledge the Role of EPA Also apparently missing from the list of needed permits is any mention of the need for compliance with the EPA - administered National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 40 CFR Part 61 Subparts A and B National Emission Standards for Radon Emissions from Underground Uranium Mines. These requirements ensure protection from radon gas exposure and are thus critical to the safe operation of an underground uranium mine. This issue is particularly relevant in this case given the discussion below concerning the lack of sufficient detail regarding the number and location of proposed ventilation bore -holes at the mine site, including any connection to the `Be Better" mine referenced in the permit application materials. The lack of reference to any EPA permit raises the question of whether the mine has already been active without the operator first taking the necessary steps to comply with the federal regulations designed to address unique and deadly dangers posed by radionuclides present in uranium mines. For purposes of the EPA's radon regulations, "an active mine is an underground uranium mine which is being ventilated to allow workers to enter the mine for any purpose." 40 CFR § 61.21(a)(emphasis added). Until such time as EPA review and approval is obtained, DRMS staff should establish the legality and safety of any person entering the mine, for any purpose. Overall, in order to have a complete application warranting detailed DRMS review, the application must recognize and detail the radon protection requirements that it must comply with, and how those requirements will impact the mine configuration and impacts, both to workers and the public. Failure to Detail a Proposed Connection with the "Better Be" mine Within the application materials, the applicant makes reference to a connection with an inactive "Better Be" mine. Specifically, the applicant states that "[t]he current development plan includes driving a development drift towards the southeast to connect with the existing decline tunnel at the inactive `Better Be' mine." Ex. C at p. 7. However, nowhere does the applicant go into any additional detail as the nature and scope of the connection between the Prince Albert and Better Be mines. Lacking from the application materials are any baseline characterization information for the Better Be mine, including groundwater or other hydrologic connections and groundwater or surface water monitoring data. Also lacking is any reference or information related to the reclamation of the "Better Be" drift or surface reclamation of the site, let alone a demonstration of a right of access to that mine. The 3