Laserfiche WebLink
in one permit revision. The proposed decision to withdraw Technical Revisions Nos. 6 and 7 was <br />made on February 17, 1999. <br />The Division sent letters to all of the commenters, informing them of this change in proceedings <br />and that their comments on Technical Revisions Nos. 6 and 7 would be carried over to the new <br />submittal. The public notice, announcing the withdrawal of the revisions, was published on <br />February 24, 1999 and stated the change in proceedings. However, BRL decided later to submit <br />two separate permit revisions; Permit Revision No. 2, involving longwall mining at the current <br />rate of 2 million tons per year and Permit Revision No. 3, involving associated facilities and an <br />increase in production to 5 million tons per year. <br />Permit Revision No. 3, which is the subject of this findings document, was submitted on May 17, <br />1999 and called complete on May 27, 1999. Completeness letters were mailed to the same <br />agencies and organizations that had received completeness letters for Technical Revision No. 6. <br />The public notice announcing the content and completeness of Permit Revision No. 3 was <br />published for four consecutive weeks, beginning on June 9, 1999. The public notice also <br />contained the announcement of the opportunity for an informal conference to discuss the issues <br />in Permit Revision No. 3, as well as of the opportunity for an informal conference to discuss the <br />protection of the public and the affected landowners. The Division received several comment <br />letters, both from governmental agencies and from the public. <br />When BRL submitted Permit Revision No. 3, they responded to the Division's adequacy <br />questions from the previously withdrawn Technical Revision No. 6. The Division sent its first <br />adequacy letter for Permit Revision No. 3 on July 23, 1999. BRL responded to those adequacy <br />questions in letters dated July 27, 1999, August 30, 1999 and October 4, 1999. <br />In several letters dated July l6, 1999, the Division received further comments from members of <br />the public. In addition to raising concems similar to their concems raised in Technical Revisions <br />Nos. 6 and 7, there were questions about the effects of subsidence, mining through a fault and <br />water rights. Also, there were several requests for an informal conference and a request to place <br />the BRL permit revision material in a location closer to the mine area, rather than in Delta. The <br />Division scheduled an informal conference for August 5, 1999, in which the Division would <br />discuss the mine plan revisions proposed by BRL, answer questions posed by the public and take <br />additional comments. On July 19, 1999, the Division sent letters to these commenters who had <br />requested the informal conference, and informed several governmental agencies as well, of the <br />date and purpose of the scheduled informal conference. In addition, the public notice that <br />announced the date and purpose of the informal conference was published on July 21 and July <br />28, 1999. Also, the Division placed copies of Permit Revision No. 2, Permit Revision No. 3, <br />copies of the Division's adequacy questions and BRL's responses to those questions and <br />pertinent sections of the Bowie No. 2 approved permit application in the Paonia Public Library. <br />The informal conference was held on August 5, 1999. The Division discussed the content of <br />Permit Revisions Nos. 2 and 3 and the company's responses to the Division's adequacy review <br />of Permit Revision No. 2. The company did not have time to respond formally to the Division's <br />adequacy review of Permit Revision No. 3 at that time. The Division also answered questions <br />5 <br />