My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE47940
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE47940
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:49:56 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 1:22:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Section_Exhibit Name
Exhibit 50 Supplemental Appendix A thru C & Letters
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ANACONDA Minerals Company ~ IMemal Correspondence - _.' <br />Date: June 18,, 1985 c. ®~ <br />subject: UPPER. REFUSE -PILE PERMIT: REVISION, <br />FromiLOeation: P.B. BeVllle~°'~~ <br />ro/Location: R, Bowman <br />>~~~ <br />Enclosed please find a. copy of the stipulations the CMLRD intends to attach to <br />its approval of. our upper waste pile. permit revision. In particular, please <br />note the last stipulation on page three which requires "within 30 days <br />following approval of the permit revision application, West Elk Coal Company <br />shall submit to the Division a plan for the installation of the tilt meter <br />facilities." I talked to Susan Mowry and B'ob Liddle and requested that the <br />CMLRD change the wording to "say something like "30 days prior to any <br />disturbance at -the waste., pile site, West Elk shall submit to the Division a <br />plan for the installatioh~'of -tilt meter "facilit.ies." "I .pointed out that since <br />the waste pile was probably°not going, to be built, it-was pointless to require <br />this plan until we indicated our intention to construct the pile at that site. <br />However, Bob Liddle indicated to me that he' would .not delete that stipulation <br />because it was CMLRD's,opinion that this information~shbuld have been supplied <br />as part of the permit doeumpnt and should not in.fact:even be stipulated. 'He <br />indicated that Lnless .it was: stipulated in the :f ash ion writtt=n in the decision <br />document,. the CMLRD.would:rllit; appt~ove .the permit revision. ~He did indicate <br />that if I wanted to argue 'this further, that upon issuance of the permit <br />revision, we could. request. an-extension of that 30-day deadline. I asked him <br />if we could request the ~xtensiori until "a decision was made to construct the <br />pile, and he said that would have to be Jim .Pendleton's decision. Therefore <br />Dennis, I would appreciiite~your thoughts on this. If it is not to dif#icult to <br />submit a plan, we may. y~ant. to "go •;ah"ead and do-.that.,: If, you don't wish to "do <br />that, then we can try;':regirest;ing,.an "extension and see 'how Jim Pendleton <br />responds. <br />Paige B. Seville <br />PBB/dl <br />cc: J. Herickhoff <br />B. Wagener <br /> <br />~N~COND~ YnYYN Comp~nY u , pMNOn o~ ~tlantleRk.T1NYCpnptlnY ' 'TYCO-lOD1~! pt].l3) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.