My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL41936
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL41936
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:10:20 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 11:30:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981037
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
12/4/2003
Doc Name
Corely Refuse Fire & OSM Letter and Jim Starks Memo
From
Sandy Brown
To
Jim Stark David Berry
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
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.
/
14
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
There is a great deal of correspondence that relates to the Division approving a Minor <br />Revision (to Newlin Creek) allowing the placement of burning refuse from the Newlin <br />Creek Mine to the GEC Orphan Pit. The Orphan Pit, however, is south of the refuse pile <br />that is currently burning. Additionally, the refuse that was transported by Newlin Creek <br />to the GEC pit was placed in the pit and not any temporary storage areas. This, I believe, <br />eliminates Newlin Creek as the source of the refuse. <br />In a letter dated 15 October 1993, the Division is responding to a request from Dr. Corley <br />to move refuse from the Black Diamond Mine to the Orphan Pit (where other GEC <br />related refuse was being placed during the Division's reclamation of the site). The <br />Division states that no bond monies can be used for such a project but, if Dr. Corley <br />wishes, he can contract to have the refuse moved and that the Division would extend the <br />project deadline three days to accomplish this. There is no fiirther correspondence or <br />record indicating whether or not anything was done with this refuse material. It is, <br />however, the recollection of Erica Crosby, of the Division, that Dr. Corley paid the <br />contractor to move the material to the Orphan Pit. <br />The GEC permit states that "GEC Minerals, Inc. does not plan to produce coal processing <br />waste or non-coal processing waste during its mine activities" (page 2.05-21). There is, <br />however, a statement that "a coal processing waste dump exists neaz the tipple area and is <br />noted as the refuse dump. This processing waste resulted from operations prior to August <br />3, 1977. GEC Minerals, Inc. plans to cover the coal processing waste..." (page 2.05-21). <br />Exhibit F, Reclamation Map -Tipple Area, shows the refuse dump being immediately <br />west of the tipple area. The refuse fire in question is south of the tipple azea so it is not <br />the GEC dump. <br />The topography on Exhibit F, contained in the GEC permit, along with site photographs <br />and data and a topographical map from a survey by Dr. Corley, shows the location of the <br />refuse pile as being just north of the Orphan Pit and South of the Tipple. There is no <br />indication of this being a refuse pile or any other GEC Mine related feature on the <br />exhibit. The Black Diamond Mine was located exactly where the refuse pile in question <br />is, so it is not out of the realm of possibility that the pile was created and covered by that <br />Operator. <br />An inspection report dated 22 August 1991 states that "miscellaneous piles of coal and <br />coal waste dot the azea between the tipple and the (Orphan) Pit." Inspections of the site <br />to date reveal that this is still the case. Due to the extensive mining in the area (11 mines <br />with only the GEC mine operating post-law) it is difficult (if not impossible) to determine <br />exactly who is responsible for these piles and when they originated. <br />Conclusion <br />Unfortunately, it is not completely clear where the refuse originated, if it was added to <br />post-law, who actually reclaimed the pile or even when it was reclaimed. From the <br />information I reviewed it is my best guess that the refuse was, in all likelihood, from <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.