My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV16147
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV16147
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:27:32 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:11:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982056
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
8/30/2004
Doc Name
Decision Extension Letter (E-mail)
From
Dan Hernandez
To
Byron Walker
Type & Sequence
TR44
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.
Page 1 of 1
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
c-Iqe <br />Walker, Byron <br />From: Hernandez, Dan <br />Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 11:17 AM <br />To: Walker, Byron <br />Subject: Foidel Ck TR44 <br />Byron -- FYI: I've extended the decision date for TR-44 to 9/10/04, per a phone conversation with Jerry Nettleton this <br />morning. Atso, l spoke with Dave Berry about the material excavated from the cuttings holding pit. He suggested that it <br />could be classified as borrow material, as TCC is proposing to utilize this material in the reclamation of the Fish Creek <br />Tipple. <br />Jerry mentioned to me today that once the shaft is ready for reclamation, TCC will remove the cuttings from the pit and <br />place them back into the shaft. I asked Jerry how they were then planning to achieve AOC with regard to the cuttings pit. <br />He said that they will just grade the cuttings pit out. I asked how deep the cuttings pit was going to be, and Jerry said <br />about 10 feet. I then asked Jerry to provide apost-mining topo map, demonstrating how TCC will achieve AOC during <br />their backfilling and grading work, and how they will ensure that an impoundment would not be left where the cuttings pit <br />once was. <br />Dave Berry also mentioned that we have precedent for allowing mine waste to disposed of below grade withour having to <br />classify the disposal area as a mine waste bank. I need to get a bit of clarification on this, but it's possible that we could <br />classify the shaft cuttings pit as a temporary ug mine development waste pit, rather than as a mine waste bank. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.