GENERAL33484

• Permit No: C1981037
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 10/13/1993
• Doc Name: DRAFT MLRB ORDER CORLEY CO GEC MINERALS STRIP MINE REVOKED PN C-81-037
• From: DMG
• To: CORLEY CO
• Permit Index Doc Type: GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

..
.,
as Chen's Hill;
f. A solution to the problem of insufficient monies
available for completely backfilling the East Pit would
be for the Board to allow for the unpermitted placement
of coal processing waste into the East pit from the
adjacent active Southfield Mine (Permit No. C-81-014),
operated by Energy Fuels Mining Company ("Energy 1.;~\~y~
Fuels"), n`l
~ ••,;
g. A schedule should be developed for the purpose of ~~~~~
ensuring timely completion of the remainder of the
reclamation activities.
3. The Division presented evidence at the Formal Public hearing
on August 25-26, 1993, demonstrating that:
a. The Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation
Board for Coal Mining require coal processing waste
from active operations to be disposed of areas
permitted and bonded in accordance with the MLRB rules
and regulations for coal mining.
b. On June 30, 1993, the Division met with representatives
of Energy Fuels, the permittee of the Southfield Mine.
At that meeting, Energy Fuels discussed a proposal that
would entail Energy Fuels disposing of coal processing
waste from the Southfield Mine's active operations into
the East Pit at the GEC Strip Mine, as a solution to
accomplishing backfilling of the pit, as the monies
remaining from the forfeited GEC performance bond
following reclamation of Section 24 were insufficient
to allow for complete backfilling of the East Pit.
Energy Fuels asserted its position at that meeting that
it would be interested in disposing of its coal
processing waste from the active Southfield Mine into
the East Pit only if the Division would not require
Energy Fuels to assume the reclamation liability for
the East Pit.
The Division stated its position to Energy Fuels at the
June 30, 1993 meeting that the Division could not grant
to any permittee a waiver from the State law or the
Board's regulations regarding the requirements for
disposal of coal processing waste. Energy Fuels stated
that given the State's position, Energy Fuels would not
be interested in disposing of its waste into the East
Pit.
c. The Division agreed with the Board and Corley that a
Board Order outlining the relationships and
responsibilities between the Inactive Mines Program,
the Coal Program, and Corley regarding the reclamation