Laserfiche WebLink
Revision No. 3, involving associated facilities and an increase in production to 5 million tons per <br />year. <br />When BRL submitted Permit 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questions from the previously withdrawn Technical Revision Nos. 6 and 7.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 May 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 that 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 for 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 concerns similaz to their concerns 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 />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 />The Division also received two letters from the public after the infonnal conference. Concerns <br />with subsidence impacts, surface and groundwater impacts to water rights and water resources <br />and the separation in the submittal of the various mine plan revisions. <br />At the time of the first informal conference, the company did not have time to respond formally <br />to the Division's adequacy review of Permit Revision No. 3. Therefore, a second informal <br />conference was held on September 13, 1999. As at the first informal conference, the Division <br />answered questions and received further comments from the public concerning the changes <br />proposed in BRL's mine plans. <br />BRL satisfactorily answered all of the Division's adequacy questions for Permit Revisions Nos. <br />2 and 3. The Division proposed to approve with conditions Permit Revision No. 2 on <br />September 13, 1999. New stipulation number 7 was attached to the conditional approval of <br />Permit Revision No. 2. On October 12, 1999, the Division received objections to the proposed <br />decision and a request for a formal hearing. The proposed decision to approve Permit Revision <br />No. 2 was brought before the Mined Land Reclamation Board (Board) on October 20, 1999. The <br />6 <br />