|
thereby securing BRL's right of successive renewal. Notification letters were sent out on the same day to
<br />the appropriate local, state and federal agencies, local associations and other interested parties. The public
<br />notice was published in the Delta County Independent on October 2, 9, 16 and 23, 2003.
<br />The Division sent out adequacy review letters dated November 27, 2002, December 26, 2002, February
<br />20, 2003, April 11, 2003, April 23, 2003 and April 30, 2003. BRL responded with submittals dated
<br />January 23, 2003, March 17, 2003, March 28, 2003 and May 15, 2003. With all questions satisfactorily
<br />answered, the Division proposed a decision on December 30, 2003 to approve with one modified
<br />stipulation (Stipulation No. 54) Permit Renewal No. 4. In this proposed decision, the Division raised the
<br />reclamation cost estimate from $6,475,166.00 to $7,719,033.00.
<br />The proposed decision was published in the Delta County Independent on January 7 and 14, 2004. On
<br />January 20, 2004, the Division received a letter from the operator, dated January 16, 2004, in which BRL
<br />requested a formal hearing to object to the Division's reclamation. cost estimate for Permit Renewal No. 4.
<br />However, BRL also requested that the formal hearing be delayed 60 to 90 days so that they could work
<br />with the Division in resolving what BRL believed was an excessive reclamation cost estimate.
<br />BRL submitted a Reclamation Estimate Comparison binder, dated January 29, 2004, to the Division on
<br />February 2, 2004 as support for BRL's contention of an excessive reclamation cost estimate. The Division
<br />reviewed BRL's information and prepared an adequacy response letter dated February 18, 2004 to BRL.
<br />The operator responded in two letters dated February 20, 2004 and February 24, 2004. The Division sent
<br />an additional adequacy review letter dated March 4, 2004. In a final letter to BRL, dated March 10, 2004,
<br />the Division summarized the results of the previous discussions and submitted a final reclamation cost
<br />estimate to BRL. This new reclamation cost estimate was $6,879,590.00, which was $839,443.00 lower
<br />than the reclamation cost estimate of $7,719,033.00 in the initial proposed decision for Permit Renewal
<br />No. 4. In a letter dated March 26, 2004 and received at the Division on March 29, 2004, BRL accepted the
<br />final reclamation cost estimate and withdrew its request for a formal hearing on the matter.
<br />Because the reclamation cost estimate was changed through this additional review, the Division proposed a
<br />second decision for Permit Renewal No. 4. Further, because the operator was able to resolve the
<br />outstanding issues in the Applicant Violator System (AVS) since the first proposed decision, the Division
<br />terminated the stipulation addressing the AVS issues.
<br />BRL requested a partial Phase One Bond Release (SL-2) in a submittal dated September 24, 2002. At the
<br />West Mine portal bench area, BRL requested bond release for complete structural demolition, mine portal
<br />sealing and backfilling and grading of the upper 16.4 acres of the area. At the West Mine fan area, BRL
<br />requested bond release for limited structural demolition work and for the sealing of the vent shaft. At the
<br />East Mine, BRL requested bond release for structural demolition at the facilities area, for portal sealing, for
<br />disposal of the coal waste at the temporary coal waste stockpile and for work done at the West Ridge waste
<br />pile, although this last request was eventually withdrawn. BRL also requested bond release for the removal
<br />of coal waste at the run-of-mine (ROM) stockpile. These reclamation activities were performed from
<br />November 2000 through May 2002. BRL also requested a bond reduction for the reclamation of the rock
<br />slope jtunnels and two associated culverts at the East Mine which were never built.
<br />The Division conducted three field inspections for SL-2. They occurred on June 10, July 15 and August
<br />12, 2003. The Office of Surface Mining, the Bureau of Land Management and one surface owner attended
<br />the first field inspection. In BRL's original submittal, the operator requested that $1,200,000.00 be
<br />released through surety release SL-02. However, not all of the reclamation tasks originally proposed by
<br />BRL for bond release were accepted by the Division. Items not accepted for bond release included
<br />reclamation of the West Ridge waste pile, disposal of the coal waste at the ROM stockpile and some
<br />demolition tasks. In addition, the size of the backfilled and graded area at the West Mine that was proposed
<br />8
|