Laserfiche WebLink
Page 8 of 10 <br />November 30, 2009 and requesting the Division's approval to re -enter TC. The Division <br />approved Revision TC -2 on June 30, 2010, While the Act and the Rules provide that TC cannot <br />"be continued for more than ten years," they do not prohibit operators from re- entering TC after a <br />reasonable period of active operations. <br />Furthermore, the Objectors are time - barred from raising objections to the status of the operation. <br />The Rules provide that parties who are adversely affected or aggrieved by a Division decision <br />must appeal that decision to the Board with certain prescribed time periods. Here, the applicable <br />time period was thirty days. See Rule 1.4.11. The Objectors failed to request a Board hearing <br />regarding the Division's approval of Revision TC -2 and raised their concerns to the Division over <br />a year after the applicable limitations period had run. <br />B. ISSUES NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DIVISION AND BOARD <br />The Five Permitted Mines in the Sunday Complex should be Combined into One Permit <br />11. Objection: It is a "better policy" to "collapse" all five Sunday Mine Complex permits into a single <br />112d permit, thus ensuring a full analysis, avoiding inconsistent deadlines, and ensuring efficient <br />use of public resources. September 2011 Letter, 2. August 2011 Letter, 2. <br />The Division's Response: The Act and Rules provide no mechanism for the Division to force an <br />operator to "collapse" several validly - permitted operations into a single permit. The five sites <br />comprising the Sunday Mine Complex were permitted separately, at different times, and by <br />different operators. Each permit came to the current Operator through a series of permit transfers. <br />The Division recognizes that the EPPs for the three 112d permits and two 110d permits <br />comprising the Sunday Mine Complex are similar in many respects. In response to the Objector's <br />concerns, the Division has attempted to align the review process for the Sunday Mine Complex <br />permits as much as possible. <br />Health and Safety of Persons at the Mine Site is Not Assured by EPP <br />12. Objection: The Division should take affirmative steps to address possible radionuclide exposure <br />to anyone entering the mine sites unless the Operator demonstrates that EPA has reviewed and <br />approved radon venting and the Mine Safety Health Administration ( "MSHA ") has renewed <br />oversight and inspections. August 2011 Letter, 3. The Division should address miner safety <br />issues if MSHA is not actively regulating because the Rules require EPPs to "discuss and analyze <br />potential impacts to human health as a result of the mining operation." August 2009 Letter, 5. <br />The Division responds: The Mine Safety Health Administration ( "MSHA ") has jurisdiction over <br />miner safety and health, limits of exposure to radionuclides, noise, dust, personal protective <br />equipment, site - specific safety training, and mine ventilation. The requirement that the EPP <br />address potential effects on human health, property, or the environment, does not relate to miner <br />safety issues. Casual recreationists' possible exposure to radionuclides has been shown to be <br />below federal government limits, and wildlife surveys indicate no adverse effects. <br />4. Division's Conclusion and Recommendation <br />The foregoing discussion supports the Division's findings that the Hard Rock/Metal 112d -3 Amendment <br />submitted by Denison Mines (USA) Corp. for the West Sunday Mine, Permit No. M- 1981 -021, has met <br />