2012-02-29_REVISION - M1980055HR (3)

Home Browse Search

Page 7 of 9 The Objectors incorrectly assert that the mine site lies within the Department of Energy's ULP. All boundaries of the Sunday Mine Complex lie within 10,000 feet distance south of County Road 20 R in T44N, R18W. The Division obtained a map of ULP lands from BLM that clearly indicates the Sunday Mine Complex is not near any ULP tract. Thus, the PEIS is not relevant to the Division's consideration of this EPP Amendment. Permit has been in Temporary Cessation Too Long (C.R.S. $ 34- 32- 103(6)(a)(III), and Rule 1.13.9) 9. Objection: The Sunday Mines have been in Temporary Cessation since 1999, in violation of the Act's requirement that "in no case shall temporary cessation of production be continued for more than ten years without terminating the operation and fully complying with the reclamation standards of this article." C.R.S. § 34- 32- 103(6)(a)(III). September 2011 Letter, 2; August 2011 Letter, 3. The Division's Response: The Objectors are misinformed. The Operator is in full compliance with C.R.S. § 34- 32- 103(6)(a)(III), and Rule 1.13.9. The Topaz was in active operation from 2006 -2009. During this period of time, the Operator engaged in activities consistent with the definition of active mining and inconsistent with the regulatory factors indicating that TC is appropriate. See C.R.S. § 34- 32- 103(8); Rules 1.1(31) and 1.13.2. Specifically, the Operator established mine services (power, compressed air, ventilation, etc.), installed two new vent holes, and produced approximately 9,707 tons of ore that was shipped to its mill facility in Utah. See 2007, 2008, and 2009 Annual Reports. In February 2010, the Operator submitted "Revision TC -2" informing the Division that active operations had ceased on November 30, 2009 and requesting the Division's approval to re -enter TC. The Division approved Revision TC -2 on March 11, 2010. While the Act and the Rules provide that TC cannot "be continued for more than ten years," they do not prohibit operators from re- entering TC after a reasonable period of active operations. Furthermore, the Objectors are time- barred from raising objections to the status of the operation. The Rules provide that parties who are adversely affected or aggrieved by a Division decision must appeal that decision to the Board with certain prescribed time periods. Here, the applicable time period was thirty days. See Rule 1.4.11. The Objectors failed to request a Board hearing regarding the Division's approval of Revision TC -2 and raised their concerns to the Division over a year after the applicable limitations period had run. B. ISSUES NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISION AND BOARD The Five Permitted Mines in the Sunday Complex should be Combined into One Permit 10. Objection: It is a "better policy" to "collapse" all five Sunday Mine Complex permits into a single 112d permit, thus ensuring a full analysis, avoiding inconsistent deadlines, and ensuring efficient use of public resources. September 2011 Letter, 2. August 2011 Letter, 2. The Division's Response: The Act and Rules provide no mechanism for the Division to force an operator to "collapse" several validly - permitted operations into a single permit. The five sites comprising the Sunday Mine Complex were permitted separately, at different times, and by different operators. Each permit came to the current Operator through a series of permit transfers. The Division recognizes that the EPPs for the three 112d permits and two 110d permits comprising the Sunday Mine Complex are similar in many respects. In response to the Objector's