Laserfiche WebLink
two plans, one that involves only backfilling and a second with about 100 feet <br />of backftlling in front of a concrete seal. Please explain why Figure 2.05-6 <br />was revised. <br />Also, there is a note on the revised Figure 2.05-6 that states that the East <br />Portals have not been backfilled with incombustible material as December of <br />2002. However, field inspection shows that this incombustible material has <br />been present for at least a yeah If you agree, please revise this note to reflect <br />the current situation. <br />Finally, please clarify the method used to backf Il the East Mine portals and <br />the West Mine portals. The note on revised Figure 2.05-6 mentions that the <br />portals are backf lied seals, but it is not clear to the Division whether or not <br />this backfilling <br />includes a concrete seal, or concrete blocks, as approved in the permit. <br />In the submittal dated March 28, 2003, BRL provided a revised Figure 2.05-6. <br />The revised figure contains notes that state that both the East Mine and West <br />Mine portals have been backfilled, and the dates of the backfilling. The <br />Division has no further concerns with this information. <br />There are also Figure 2.05-6 notes that state that the portal seals at both the <br />East Mine and the West Mine do not have concrete seals. However, in a <br />conversation with Basil Bear, BRL stated that there are concrete blocks in <br />place behind the portal seal backfilled material. Please clarify this issue. <br />The Division is in the process of updating the reclamation cost estimate for the Bowie No. <br />1 Mine. When the cost estimate review is finished, the Division will forward the estimate <br />to BRL for BRL 's review. <br />As a note, the Division's reclamation cost estimate for Permit Renewal No. 4 will include <br />the reclamation cost for the Bowie No. 1 train loadout. This is because the final approval <br />of the transfer of the Bowie No. 1 train loadout to the Bowie No. 2 permit is contingent <br />on Bowie No. 2 increasing the reclamation bond to cover the reclamation costs of the <br />train loadout. Until Bowie No. 2 increases the reclamation bond appropriately, the <br />Bowie No. 1 train loadout remains with the Bowie No. 1 permit. Also, since the transfer <br />of the Bowie No. 1 train loadout has not been finalized, BRL does have the option of <br />withdrawing the transfer approval and, thereby, not having to amend the bond <br />documents. <br />The Division has no further concems. The Division sent a copy of the reclamation cost <br />estimate to BRL in a letter dated December 26, 2002. The cost estimate for Permit <br />Renewal No. 4 is $7,701,329.00. BRL responded that they reviewed the cost estimate and <br />had no additional comments. <br />