Laserfiche WebLink
Public comment letters were received from individuals, citizen' groups and businesses. The <br />Division also received- many telephone calls from the public. The positive comments centered <br />azound benefits to the community and the quality of the coal to be .mined. -The negative <br />comments involved the need to combine the revisions into one revision,. delay the revision <br />decisions until the Environmental Impact Statement was finished and impacts to the environment <br />and to society. <br />The Division sent its adequacy letters for Technical-Revisions Nos. 6 and 7 on February 8, 1999. <br />However, after a request from the Division, BRL withdrew Technical Revisions Nos. 6 and 7, <br />with the understanding that the proposed changES would be resubmitted in one permit revision. <br />The proposed decisions to withdraw Technical Revisions Nos. 6 and 7 were made on February <br />17, 1999. <br />The Division sent letters to all of the commenters, informing ttiein~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. However, BRL decided later to submit two separate peimit revisions; Permit Revision <br />No. 2, involving longwall mining at the current rate of 2 million tons per yeaz and Permit <br />Revision No. 3, involving associated facilities and an increase in production to 5 million tons per <br />yeaz. <br />When BRL submitted Pemrit Revision Nos. 2 and 3, they responded to the Division's adequacy <br />questions from the previously withdrawn Technical Revision Nos. 6 and 7. Permit Revision No. <br />2 was submitted on May 5, 1999, and called complete on.Ivlay 14, 1999. Permit Revision No. 3 <br />was submitted on May 17, 1999- and called complete on May 27, 1999. Completeness- letters <br />were mailed to the same agencies and organizations th'ati had received completeness letters for <br />Technical Revision Nos. 6 and 7. The Division received several comment letters, both from <br />governmental agencies and from the public. <br />The Division's first adequacy letter for Permit Revision No. 2 was sent on June 18, 1999. In two <br />letters, dated July 6, 1999 and August 12, 1999, BRL responded to the Division's adequacy <br />concerns. The Division sent its first adequacy letter far Permit Revision No. 3 on July 23, 1999. <br />BRL responded to those adequacy questions in letters dated July 27, 1999, August 30, 1999 and <br />October 4, 1999. <br />In several letters dated July 16, 1999, the Division received further comments from members of <br />the public. In addition to raising concems similaz 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 azea, rather than in Delta. The <br />informal conference was held on August 5, 1999. The Division discussed the content of Permit <br />Revisions Nos. 2 and 3 and the company's responses to the Division's adequacy review of <br />Permit Revision No. 2. The operator 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 />and received additional comments from the public concerning the proposed changes to BRL's <br />mine plans. <br />5 <br />