81-01_2_Redacted

V
C!5: D7,.E
NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality

UNfTEO STATES POSTAL SERVICE
• Sender. Please print your name,
North Carolina Department of
Environment 8 Natural Resouroes
Land Cualily Section
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1612
1740-7401

rr Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 ff Restricted O llw ry Is desired.
■ Print your name and address on the averse
A. Si
x'nad
// O ��
^�—� 6
& ReLtWed by
sn that we can realm the card to you.
IIIAttach this card tp the back of the mallpleca,
or an the front It space permits.
/JV
D. Is"W7 addrem. ... d' rent
x vee ..... .
gem tY 0ve8
.m.
1. chicle Addressed W:
MS WENDY JOLLEY
BRANCH BANKING & TRUST CO
PO BOX 399
FOREST CITY NC 28043
❑ We
2. ANda Numum! 1! i ij �.- �7008 1300'000� '0119Iblo0"
(l�ymleor LB keel)
PS Form 3811. February 21M4 r8 t Domenic ReOin jD _]�'..' p 12- loa�lu

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Ressoorces,
Division of Land Resorrces, Land Quality Section
MINE INSPECTION REPORT
(PERMITTED MINE)
1. MINE NAME t f i ' t Ir 2. MINING PERMIT # I
3. OPERATOR 4. COLINTY '
5. ADDRESS
6. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE i ! t 7. RIVER BASIN '
S. Person(s) contacted at site I I
9. Was mine operating at time of inspection?.O Yes ❑ No 10. Pictures? ❑ Yea ONO
11. Date last inspected: I / 4 / I c 12. Any mining since last inspection? •O Yes ❑ No
13. Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Permit? []�Yes . ❑ No
If no, explain:
14. Is the mine in compliance with the Reclamation Conditions of the Permit? ❑ Yes O No
If no, explain:
I
15. Did any of the above deficiencies result in offsite damage? ❑ Yes O No If yes, describe the
type and severity of the damage:
-
I
2nn
I
I
16. Corrective measures needed and/or taken: I al it) punt iTY sccT1nN1 I
17. Other recommendations and comments: (t'
iI t
18. Is the Annual Reclamation Report +/-map accurate? i0 Yes ❑ No (Explain) ❑ Not Reviewed
19, Follow-up inspection needed? ❑ Yes El No Proposed date / 1'
20. No. of additional pages of Inspection Report.V' . 21. Copy of Report sent to operator I 1 / o
(date)INSPECI'EDBY:I"el! / DATE - / -I-/II
Telephone No: (
White ropy to file � Yellow copy to operator Pink copy to Mining S'Mift1W 10/97

• •
Page 5 of 11
B. overburden cut slopes along the perimeter of the
initial pit opening shall be graded to a minimum 2.
horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and shall be
l stabilized within 60 days of completion. Furthermore,
a minimum ten (10) foot wide horizontal safety bench
shall be provided at the top of the rock and at the toe
of the overburden slope.
7. Surface Drainage
The affected land shall be graded so as to prevent
collection of pools of water that are, or likely to become,
noxious or foul. Necessary structures such as drainage.
ditches or conduits shall be constructed or installed when
required to prevent such conditions.
B. Blasting -
The operator shall provide to the Department a copy of the
findings of any seismic studies conducted at this facility.
The operator shall makeevery reasonable effort to
incorporate the studies' recommendations into the production
blasting program.
The following blasting.conditions shall be observed by the
operator to prevent hazard to persons and adjacent property
from thrown rock or vibrations:
A. In all blasting operations, except as hereinafter
otherwise provided, the maximum peak particle velocity
of any component of ground motion shall not exceed 1
inch per second at the immediate location of any
building outside of the permitted area regularly
occupied by human beings such as dwelling house,
church, school, public building, or commercial or
institutional building outside of the permitted area.
The operator shall monitor each blast with a
seismograph.
B. Airblast overpressure shall not exceed 128 decibels
linear (DBL) as measured at the immediate location of
any regularly occupied building such as any dwelling
house, church, school, public building, or commercial
or institutional building.
The operator shall take all reasonable precautions to
insure that flyrock is not thrown beyond areas where
the access is temporarily or permanently guarded by the
operator. Should flyrock occur beyond the guarded area
or the levels in Items A and B above are exceeded, the
operator shall report the incident to the Department
immediately and further use of explosive at the site
shall be immediately suspended until the following
actions have been taken:

0
Page 7 of 11
For berms located beneath the ,power transmission lines,
evergreen scrubs shall be planted at staggered SX8 spacing
in lieu of trees.
11. Plan Modification
The operator shall notify the Department in writing of the
desire to delete, modify or otherwise change any part of the
mining, reclamation, or erosion/sediment control plan
contained in the approved application for a mining permit
and any approved revisions to it. Approval to implement
such changes must be obtained from the Department prior to
on -site implementation of the revisions.
12. Refuse Disposal
A. No on -site disposal of refuse orothersolid waste that
are generated outside of the mining permit area shall
be allowed within the boundaries of the mining permit
area unless authorization to conduct said disposal has
first been obtained from both the Division of Solid
Waste Management and the Land Quality Section,
Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources. The method of disposal shall be consistent
with the approved reclamation plan.
B. Mining refuse as defined by G.S. 74-49 (14) of The
Mining Act of 1971 generated on -site and directly
associated with the mining activity may be disposed of
in a designated refuse area. All other waste products
must be disposed of in a disposal facility approved by
the Division of Solid Waste Management. No petroleum
products, acids, solvents or their storage containers
or any other material that may be considered hazardous
shall be disposed of within the permitted area.
,13. Annual Reclamation Report
An Annual Reclamation Report shall be submitted on a form
supplied by the Department by February 1 of each year until
reclamation is completed and approved.
14. Bonding
The security which was posted pursuant to N.C.G.S. 74-54 in
the form of a $25,000.00 Blanket Bond is sufficient to cover
the operation as indicated on the approved application.
This security must remain in force for this permit to be
valid. The total affected land shall not exceed the bonded
acreage.

• •
' Page 11 of 11
Reclamation Plan:
Reclamation shall be conducted simultaneously with mining to
the extent feasible. In any event, reclamation shall be
initiated as soon as feasible after completion or
termination of mining of any mine segment under permit.
Prior to final reclamation, a detailed reclamation plan
clarifying how Miller Creek will be diverted into the quarry
excavation shall be submitted to and approved by the
Department. Final reclamation., including revegetation,
shall be completed within two years of completion or
termination of mining.
This permit, issued September 12, 1972 and renewed September
27, 1982, is hereby renewed this 29th day of January, 1993
pursuant to G.S. 74-52.
By:
Charles H. Gardner, Director
Division of Land Resources
By Authority of the Secretary
Of the Department of Environment, Health. and Natural Resources

n'ED �
North Carolina Department'of Environment and Natural Res urces-
Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section 2 �T�A
MINE INSPECTION REPORT
(PERMITTED MINE)
1. MINE NAME P IWCqk2iV. OA24�4 2. MINING PERMIT 4 g��O
3. OPERAT0R11WAfSQWAWKUt.rbM IQC 4. C UNTYRKk"
5. ADDRESS P.O. 0,*,12% RI'WQ N ML i39�
6. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE A43 '1� _ O I� 7. RIVER BASIN D
8. Person(s) contacted at site OAWNW SQ;
9. Was mine operating at time of inspection? Ayes ❑ No 10. Pictures? ❑ Yes X No
11. Date last inspected: 9 / 19 / OX 12. Any mining since last inspection? %Yes ❑ No
13. Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Permit? Yes ❑ No
If no, explain:
14. Is the mine in compliance with the Reclamation Conditions of the Permit? Yes ❑ No
If no, explain: Flo Q4-(LIMkflotJ WJ * WM2 SNA(.Ez WE
15. Did any of the above deficiencies result in offsite damage? ❑ Yes ;KNo If yes, describe the
type and severity of the damage:
16. Corrective measures needed and/or taken: 1
17. Other recommendations and comments: mmmiAlfa ALL @RIh1uIJ Cta1(Rol.:AILA���tkS AS
N�SSAM . UPon1 saoTGF2VQAPiS\u A IHSCAI.L All, Ku54�N ( M WWS
AS APM mAlb,
CIS-TARLISFI 0(toutJo Wtlf-- of k R4 Wu3Y AND AM
Mo.
190,94 AMOW
D Pm9b (AU 6RW 1101L 52'ASoN .
18. Is the Annual Reclamation Report ma
A[[jWE AT-nM� X SAMMAG.
accurate? X, Yes ❑ No (Explain) ❑ Not Reviewed
Mt% 4 Sit P4L N MobtF1Q•D AND 9.QtCAO.
19. Follow-up inspection needed? ❑ Yes ;K No Proposed date ! /
20. No. of additional) pages of Inspection. Report O. 21. Copy of Report sent to operator /
INSPECTED BY: YAC3 TzkopLDATE /40`l0PX
Telephone No: (` A l aSl • LIQ%
While copy to file Yellow copy to operator Pink copy to Mining Specialist 10197

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resourc NI Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section ��� / 2000
MINE INSPECTION REPORT LAY:_.__
(PERMITTED MINE)
1. MINE NAME Yi 1102 CALLbe 2. MINING PERMIT # f31 - 0 t
3. OPERATOR 'iAnta.,;v o✓l /7:J 1/F,tcTvrzs T_A/C 4. COUNTY Rtin&pr,)vn
5. ADDRESS f IWVJJ?To.40 9AI. WC 2s:139
6. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE /�74 �nn3 7. RIVER BASIN P, RZ
8. Person(s) contacted at site /I Th o...,�corr
9. Was mine operating at time of inspection? Ea�Ycs ❑ No 10. Pictures? ❑ Yes ©:No
11. Date last inspected: ! / 12. Any mining since last inspection? ❑ Yes ❑ No
13. Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Permit? fez: Yes ❑ No
If no, explain:
14. Is the mine in compliance with the Reclamation Conditions of the Permit? Y.'Yes ❑ No
If no, explain:
15. Did any of the above deficiencies result in offsite damage? ❑ Yes Q.No If yes, describe the
type and severity of the damage:
16. Corrective measures needed and/or taken:
17. Other recommendations and comments: meffy Au .<Ire -/, n;'sc„se
PY,gm,,.,;m o.i 'f i„.P a..,n , PPru.; ,�.�f./: rn i;C - IA';
/l
All /u;-FA ll, n., :Vio r I. ..r n., ,../ ro//O4� --/7.r Aiyec.(J res
-Fnv .Fi.;,�c /.n..v P✓>�(..�r, ne�aa,.J.
1S. Is the Annual Reclamation Report+/ -map' accurate? ❑ Yes ❑ No (Explain) p'Not Reviewed
19. Follow-up inspection needed? ❑ Yes ILNo Proposed date
20. No. of additional pages of Inspection. Report n. 21. Copy of Report sent to operator 00
(date)
INSPECTED BY: (' hoN ip. Arpoq--) T 11Rls A;rH11 DATE (l /15 t oo
Telephone No:(!nnl, 17_.5/-&zciq
White cape m,fle fellow copy to operahn Pink cape to Mining Speclnlm 10197

e
IIII
_
1I

� � � i � I
.l_
�:� _ � � �
'�
t..
�� - �:�
i ��
I
�
� ;
=�
:�
I �
' I
�
I
1�
I'�i
�I
I
` I
I I
I

North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources o
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Ao,epr�
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary NODE `�!Y
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist Division of Land Resources
Fax
To:
Of:
Fax:'X,�JY_O
Pages: /� iincludin,cr :over sheet
Date:
Comments: 6 ��. O /-0,
FROM:
Land Qualie Section 4�
Telephone: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone] or [phone]
Land Quality Section [phone] Fax [phone]S76 Geological Survey Section [phone] Pax 1919, 733.0900
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Division of Land Resources [phone] Fan: (919) 715-S801
AN EQUAL OPI'ORTUNITY \ AFFIdM'rt V E ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED I IWA POST CONSUMER PAPER

I✓;
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural R pnr�j%( )f��
Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section j' U 287999 If
MINE INSPECTION REPORT ley
(PERMITTED MINE)
1. MINE NAME h4tI&R GkY-re AuAww 2. MINING PERMIT # IS/ — , /
3. OPERATOR Thn...,.xo../ Ce9a%oALTnnS X//C 4. COUNTY RLT/levcateo
5. ADDRESS O 12" .CAA /_/7Foi7 0,</ 2w?-
6. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE / 7 Jm 7. RIVER BASIN B;94AD RIVF6
8. Person(s) contacted at site $•% 'THnu,nsa.�
9. Was mine operating at time of inspection? Yes ❑ No 10. Pictures? ❑ Yes 6XNo
11, Dale last inspected: "% 1 Z 5 /'7b 12. Any mining since last inspection? 'KYes ❑ No
13, Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Penn it? AYes ❑ No
If no, explain:
14. Is the mine in compliance with the Reclamation Conditions of the Permit? K, Yes ❑ No
If no, explain: •(.Jo L.on/m-,..rl•� i..avre .n, -/t_r Pveecss
��-- 11
P' d �.�I �iuPN �a r..11. E.' �e //!<-/
T//�
15. Did any of the above deficiencies result in offsite damage? ❑ Yes ;R1�No If yes, describe the
type and severity of the damage:
16. Corrective measures needed and/or taken: �.ACn �i ;"1A1 tr. � VA
OP -k. ✓ac.K ft/r : i it wu.. ,envFu A4 +U a Ct e, C .
17. Other Tecommenda[ions and comments: E'kds: A Cewiie! ✓bye Ayt_,oe'-s
0,, b4 i�t'V 7^,ueS Lr N-ur beP... !tee/I P*VAer/Iia.wGll. TiJS�IPCi
A, ,h t.tm// bn�. ;vw awl sfvi; t.:at.tJ Fl<co vd...lc -/v
ce>LAJ�i
n vo- 9.
18. Is the Annual Reclamation Report +/-map accurate? �, Yes ❑ No (Explain) ❑ Not Reviewed
19. Follow-up inspection needed? ❑ Yes >KNo Proposed date
20. No. of additional pages of Inspection Report0 . 21. Copy of Report sent to operators/2fe /99
(date)
INSPECTED BY: Ch4plk KaWn A*AV rni.,t c a. DATE S /2/ /9q
Telephone No: (4a2B) 7sY— to Z09
White copy to file Yellmv copy to operator Pink cope to h7udug Specialist 10197

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section
MINE INSPECTION REPORT lflr
(PERMITTED MINE) " - pp
I. MINE NAME thr lit Y2 CRCL IG 2. MINING PERMIT td Ii!
3. OPERATOR 7L1oi.. >'+o... r"n��l W.r •4ea 'Swtc 4. COUNTY R1/771C fZF'ORN
5. ADDRESS .O. ItriOX /'Z"/aL' a o,eo N AIC 2Z 3
6. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE / J9 Oo 3 7. RIVER BASIN jt.2.
8. Person(s) contacted at site 1
9. Was mine. operating at time of inspection? ®• Yes ❑ No 10. Pictures? ❑ Yes '& No
11, Dale last inspected: 9 1 C1 /97 12. Any mining since last inspection? IK Yes ❑ No
13, Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Permit? ;Ix Yes ❑ No
If no, explain:
14. Is the mine in compliance with the Reclamation Conditions of the Permit? •Yes ❑ No
If no, explain:
15. Did any of the above deficiencies result in offsite damage? ❑ Yes No If yes, describe the
type and severity of the damage:
16. Corrective measures needed and/or taken:
17. Other recommendations
and comments: cftt : "Ue e-f(r>, k ). x vhn:..[�n. ✓; nc,
Q t/eQf.f 41.�/rIP. OG"I'IPL i7fo'lA S'-,"L.•' �be•r/G �/7/}✓NP� 9lgti PV'r i..e�
18. Is the Annual Reclamation Report +/-map accurate'? Yes ❑ No (Explain) ❑ Not Reviewed
19. Follow-up inspection needed? ❑ Yes X No Proposed date
20. No. of additional pages of Inspection Report O. 21. Copy of Report sent to operator 177 / 7e
_ (date)
INSPECTED BY: Nyr/l-('3-1-�lOOy�`•, 13/f %�-+�. DATE %!Z%/i'8
Telephone No: (A 70 ) 2 s: 1- 670,j
White copy to file Yellmv copy to Opel worPink copy to Mining Specialist 10197

North Carolina Department of Environment Health, and Natural ResourceIs�, aa l2�n l� n
Division of Lard Resources, land Cualty Section Inn LSCIC 11v/ E
MINE INSPECTION REPORT Ins SEP 221997
(PERMITTED MINE) u u
1. MINE NAME
n17il!E-Q.CVKK 2.MINING PERMIN ZI-4' _
3. OPERATOR T/t D1a+ j, C'w Pr ors Sn+C 4. COUNTYI?sMIr .
5. ADDRESS VO P50A, 2665 d[t'rCA#*r + S. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE 2 03
7. Person(s) contacted at site IS411 7kot.lasa�j
8. Was mine operating at time of inspection? XYes ❑ No S. Pictures? ❑ Yes 'p.No
10. Date last inspected:_/_/_ 11. Any mining since last inspection? 'KVes ❑ No
12. Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Peril? �fQye5 ONO
If no, explain: -
J
O
ivC
Ql
xD yct
OW_
13. Is the 4rt�wneRoompliance with the Reclamation Conditions of the Permit? �es ❑ No
If no, explain: oo
4
14. Did any of the above deficiencies result in oftsite damage? ❑Yes o If yes, describe the type
and severity of the damage:
15. Corrective measures needed ands r t`keJr II 'e�. G e / e.+c�.e s
have Ire. wet! YYtai MlAf . i30ve &AS sh Dw, K h
evne: kd Nrew a..e bee. Seeder( i+Nd S rs... n.!k4eaf.
16, Other recommendations and comments:
17. Is the Annual Reclamation Report +I- map accurate? —ayes ONO (Explain) ❑Not Reviewed
18. Follow-up inspection needed? ❑Yes '®No Proposed date_/_1_
19. No. of additional pages of Inspection Report O . 20. Copy of Report sent to, operator -/1L19:7
date)
INSPECTED BY: (.!'1��G+GI�bd72 DATE1 7 l g4
Phone No: ('7Dcl I aS/� VZ�
White ropy to file Yellow copy to operator Pink copy to Mining Speaahst
9I

nt of
nviro
ment Health, and Natural
NON1 CarolinaDivision ofeLLand EResourtces, Land Ctu Section R
`E, `! J r II
MINE INSPECTION REPORT fiMAY 0 i 199E LL
(PERMITTED MINA By
1. MINE NAME {21i1/l./2 (-✓fPK 2. MINING PE I #
3. OPERATOR_ ThowlY wu PanrfRrlC-fslt.. _Tn.c 4. COUNTY /iur,#<
5. ADDRESS PO Px k /a468 purdt aroarj7hAJ 6. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE Oo3
7. Person(s) contacted at site Bill "j/tobut2SoA/
8. Was mine operating at time of inspection? gYes ❑ No 9. Pictures? ❑ Yes -5314o
10. Date last inspected: 5 /7Z /9S 11. Any mining since last inspection? XYes ❑ No
12. Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Permit? Yes ❑No
If no, explain:
13. Is the mine in compliance with the Reclamation Condition of the Permit? bares ❑No
If no, explain:
14. Did any of the above deliciencies result in offshe damage? ❑Yes No If yes, describe the type
and severity of the damage:
15. Corrective measures needed and/o taken: �o / e S"VeC
Hnut berry H�n:ArFn:�uerf rl�.d Ave (.verK.`Aici RS rar deci.
16. Other recommendIaltions and comments: a . V61.R SeeA1J e.
17. Is the Annual Reclamation Report +/- map accurate? Yes ❑No (Explain) ❑Not Reviewed
18. Follow-up Inspection needed? []Yes ONo Proposed date_/ /_
19. No. of additional pages of Inspection Report O . 20. Copy of Report sent lo,operator /
�1 (date)
INSPECTEDBY: t.:.K006g2��.8(,c� DATE/ 30 19(a
Phone NO: I7Dc( ) aS(— 1
White ropy M rile Yellow copy to operator Pink copy to Mining Specialist
991

Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section
MINE INSPECTION REPORT
(PERMITTED MINE)
1.
MINE NAME
1*040'z
Cveer QUrlvrti
2. MINING PERMIT*
3.
OPERATOR
'iNow,pSay
(rnet404evs 'CNC.
4. COUNTY POTHC
5.
ADDRESS
DQ OoX
R 4 . ..,.roc/
8. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE / d Q
NL 01'y
7. Person(s) contacted at sae A. TMMA+o50/J d
8. Was mine operating at lime of inspection? fO..Yes ONO 9. Pictures? El Yes m
10. Date last inspected:/?&/ 94 11. Any mining since last inspection? -JZ Yes ❑ No
12. Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Permit? a,'Yes ❑No
It no, explain:
13. Is the mine in compliance with the Reclamation Conditions of the Fern
If no, explain*
-
un�F�Gd�
�IUv�
awl
Illq•"_�IIII
IIGS�1111
III❑'�ir',
i
14. Did any of the above deficiencies result in oftsee damage? ❑Yes X.No If yes, describe the type
and severity of the damage:
17. Is the Annual Reclamation Report +/- map accurate? }.Yes ONO (Explain) ❑Not
18. Follow-up inspection needed? XYes ❑ No Proposed dated
19. No. of additional pages of Inspection ReportQ. 20. Copy of Report sent Cooperator
(date)
INSPECTED BY: e-/ onTzr z. 8ccx DATE 3 / Sa 195.
Phone No: ( 70y ) a5l- &;to9
White ropy to Cite Ye/bw ropy to operator Pink copy to MinM Speolalfst
"I

North Carolina Department of Environment Health, and Natural Re"iCes,yy J'I,.. 11 r„
DiNsion of Lard Resources, Lard Quality Section ;,.,, n „„
MINE INSPECTION REPORT
(PERMITTED MINE)
1. MINE NAME �{A'Wlev r'Yeek 2. MINING PERMIT#
3. OPERATOR / �Ana:oON /rnw k /� < 7. 4. COUNTY Bi../en-d-.o
5. ADDRESS PO nX U! A Rr.Jw.,. /;..ula.a ur. 6. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE / /03
7. Person(s) contacted at site 8)// Thox,I ae
8. Was mine operating at time of inspection? N:Yes ❑No 9. Pictures? ❑Yes RNo
10. Date last inspected11. Any mining since last inspection? ,p�,Yes L] No
12. Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Permit? •p'Yes ❑No
If no, explain: - f �
13. Is the mine in compliance with the Reclamation Conditions of the Permit? ,XYes []No
If no, explain:
14. Did any of the above deficiencies result in oilsite damage? ❑Yes 'JRj10 If yes, describe the type
and severity of the damage:
15. Corrective measures needed and/or taken: YS- rrb/:+hn lwlSuo 0 A�.1 nnw_
QA v %ki 00 /l , /r/ I'ke.., 0. F14 On Aa 1Y I rA4 ZIA .
/frnn.;. V "
o
16. Other recommendations and comments:) A// 4 4 14o d.e hns,us
�7{IUP a✓rraa/ i/u:./aa/n _Shun ve c.; s:rca � n.e vt++:i ;hn. ,.,emu
/h(F11i//l+S d9 WInn Ih/1S;NS i T
17. Is the Annual Reclamation Report +I- map accurate? ❑ Yes ❑ No (Explain) ONot Reviewed
18. Follow-up inspection needed? ]Yes ❑No Proposed date // I 4P67 9V
19. No. of additional pages of Inspection Report 6 . 20. Copy of Report sent to operator 5 13 / 19r/
(daINSPECTEDBY: e�ko6hlT2, 9, e4ce DATE S / a6 / �Ute)
Phone NO: (70Q ) 2S/-6,209
White copy to file Yellow ropy to opwator Pink copy to Mining Specialist
�1

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resource�lys,
Division of land Resources, Land Cuality Section PP A,�.
MINE INSPECTION REPORT rc1' vrb
q (PERMfTTHD MINA i.?.,, 91994
1. MINE NAME / /I r/%Y I:D PP k' 2. MINING PERMIT#
3. OPERATOR (lnitJwnc JAw .T�ir 4. COUNTY
5. ADDRESS PO (3nK /;ZL69+ L 6. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE //] 03
7. Person(s) contacted at site 9;11 "fhn1.-.asozi./
8. Was mine operating at time of inspection? _ONes -p,No 9. Pictures? ❑Yes 'SNo
10. Date last inspected. L 3c/ 91 11. Any mining since last inspection? O;Yes ❑ NO
12. Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Permit? �❑ Yes ,R'No
,� If no, explain: n
.U.. , ni'"�
nini -. _ I i-- / n ..moo,.. NiSun O
dmnee.,.:-bn..s' a„� firm... 'nPA.�✓e„Y
49
13. Is the mine in
If no, explain: Q-Aln/re,n
Compliance with the Reclamation Conditions of the Permit? ]Yes Q,No
i ✓P f is-u.„ 1'..,._ .n a..i r., a', u..i .. /.
r
14. Did any of the above deficiencies result in offsite damage? ❑Yes +XNo If yes, describe the type
and seventy Of the damage-
J
15. Corrective measures needed)anNor taken: - ,i.fn� .dsn/ „ a -1 ,7no�, ,A
�(o /.d. .Y-..smm'f n✓.fe. rnn-f :,.l w..' :f .d. n.. .. .L...., tf
nyn fni /%.� -i.%n Jr/.n 9 Ann r.n�/w.✓ .
16. Other recommendations and comments: AA ke ,nygl,c
461.1 A bs At. hev1.,,.s 1:,;, ,r!-v N. '
17. Is the Annual Reclamation Report +1- map accurate? ❑Yes ONO (Explain) %ONO[ Reviewed
18. Follow-up inspection needed? El -Yes ❑ No Proposed date - 1 250 ! 9t1
19. No. of additional pages of Inspection Report. 20. Copy of Report sent to operator N 1 M119r/
(date)
INSPECTEDBY: 0. 1:60N72 k Pere DATE el l_J3 ltl/
Phone No: ( 70.1
White copy to file Yellow copy to operator Pink copy to Mining Specialist
&91.
.�

North Carolina Departrnent of Environment Health, and Natural R t
Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section
MINE INSPECTION REPORT JJK U 6 Iyy
(PERW ED MINE) LAND QUALITY SECTI
1. MINE NAME A;11.ey Obeele 2. MINING PERMIT# Gl' 1
3. OPERATOR Thaw On"4y Acfa.s 'r.IC. 4. COl&AY r h
S. ADDRESS'D O i3..r id49At 6. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE 7 63
7. Person(s) contacted at site E:117)now,�o.,,
8. Was mine operating at time of inspection? - 1'�7(Yes ❑No 9. Pictures? ❑Yes El No
10. Date last Inspected: L! /3193 11. Any mining since last inspection? 2-Yes ❑ No
12. Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Permit? `ZYes ❑No
If no, explain:
13. Is the mine In compliance with the Reclamation Conditions of the Permit? kej'Yes ❑ No
If no, explain:
14. Did any of the above deficiencies result In offsite damage? ❑ Yes '9R'No If yes, describe the type
and severity of the damage:
16. Corrective measuress((needed�'and/or taken: ( lea✓ o,.l basl.. IIXMJ/ n k< /1nr
! Rl�pi..�Ae.wJp
{tern. gee fc n An.. U4,evl "/o Cr
11e sllratl, n_ ir.A.rl/ roan. t .n� -6L0 n/n .. r.. <lee -a... e;nr 67 'A
"An -In ,•ei 4 eb . orf .i.SS,. e`.Y douI ar a f -2
16. Omer recommendations and comments: L 4.0 r,+
r Q2rLAu�..l ,C1n,.aJnl :t,G. or Ae
a�>.n.loG.i�
17. Is the Annual Reclamation Report a/- map accurate? Q,Yes ONO(Explain) ONot Reviewed
!�LJ6w.:1 I. nr/ei-icn n.;.,,e vl. /..;-/?. nit✓./
Idi i. o.n /
18, Follow-up inspection needed? J21Yes ❑ No Proposed date Ca 1J 9 3
19. No. of additional pages of Inspection ReportJam. 20. Copy of Report sent to.operator I
(date)
—
INSPECTEDBY: r..✓odou-R DATE 1 30 / Q3
Phone No: fend' ) .DS /- GctoA
White copy to file Yellow copy to operator Pink copy to Mming Spewal/et
9N1
N

I I

or,
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural -Resourco
Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section
MINE INSPECTION REPORT 2
(PERMITTED MINE) LAND QUALITY SE
1. MINE NAME finillev ereek 2. MINING PERMIT# 91-1
3.OPERATOR Thn soxJ Coulxvlolcrs. slL ., 4. COUNTY Ru Nev,rh
5.ADDRESS �. 0. nx /7. (c0 /koLr,erhrd7n:5; AIL 29/3q
6. Person (s) contacted at silo .1/ Their, son/
7. Was mine operating at time of inspection ? ©Ves ❑ No 8. Pictures? Yes No
9. Date last inspected: _/_!_ 10. Any mining since last Inspection ? N]Yes ONo
11. Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Permit ? ❑X Yes No
If no, explain:
12. Is the mine in compliance with the Reclamation Conditions. of the Permit ? ❑x Yes ❑ No
II no, explain:
13, Did any of the above deficiencies result in offsile damage? ❑ Yes Q No If yes, describe the type
and severity of the damage:
14. Corrective measures needed and I or taken: teer/ qA)N rmr.lel, rvee!' eross;y
AT A; lP d 1;e :eeei wM. r.lrn ✓Iil/ L Pv-/ �o
MADIe oy,. ,e Qn-c�U. � y +// -lelr, A/ -I 5rr/: r.., u.w-/ �:/ cs he/a,."
ef;.eV5;c ty Jrin ulee4 As �erN woe4e✓ 'rV Z47 4e/ow /%IA/Jrr
rra V_ Rea n
15. Other recommendations and comments:
16. Is the Annual Reclamation Report+I - map accurate ? [:]Yes ❑ No (Explain) © Not Reviewed
17. Follow-up inspection needed ? © Yes ❑ No Proposed date 7 1 /S 1 ?3
18. No. of additional pages of Inspection Report 0 19, Copy of Report sent to operator /_I
INSPECTED BY: e, ecr,,.rl2 D. *we;✓L.j DATE: O / / / 3 1 CIV I
Phone No:(7oy ) c15/- Cc'30R
While copy to Ilia Yellow mpy to operalor Pink copy to Mining Specialist
"a
PC
TION

I gl1�la'i
I - QuI�J Ca Acd�^s —lulus
f
i

t
r

F %J-: `1 D - U4C7 :
NEW SaIRCE PMFOFHWCE STANDARDS (nNSPS„)
(15A NCAC 2D .0524)
I. Introduction
vrou+gi��ry
S�cTy4N
The following documaitation summarizes alleged violations of 15A NCAC 2D
.0524 "New Source Performance Standards" (NSPS) and North Carolina General
Statute (NODS) 143-215.108 by LThang�son-Oontractars,_Inc,._at-� NiIlWD
I1. Swn ary of the violations
(1) Thompson Contractors, Inc. installed two conveyor belts, one cone
crusher and two screen before receiving a modified air permit. The
installation of this equipment prior to having received a modified
air permit constitutes a violation of NQ;,S 143-215.108. Note that
the cone crusher is not subject to NSPS regulations.
(2) The two conveyor belts and two screens installed in 1990 were
manufactured in 1990 and therefore are regulated under 15A NCAC 2D
.0524 NSPS and are subject to NSPS requirements contained 40 CFR Part
60 Subpart 000. Thompson aontractozs, Inc. failed to notify this
office within 30 days of the cmmpncemeht of construction of the
subject equipment as required by 40 CFR Part60.7.
(3) Thompson Contractors, Inc. failed to ratify the Asheville Regional
Office in writing of the initial start up of the NSPS subject
equipment riot more than 60 days nor less than 30 days prior to such
date as required by 40 CFR Part 60.7.
(4) ThoRpson Contractors, Inc. failed to conduct NSPS performance testing
for visible emissions using EPA Method 9 and submit a written report
of the results within 180 days of initial start-up of the NSPS
subject equipment as required by 40 CFR Part 60.8..
III. Checklist for New Soture performance Standards ("NSPS") violations
(15A NCAC 2D .0524)
A. State whether a preliminary applicability determination has been made
by EPA and if so what their determination was.
No.
B. State which subparagraph of 15A NCAC 2D .0524 has been violated and
the type of emission involved in the violation (e.g., VE, VOC,
particulates) .
The violation is of Subparagraph 52 which applies to visible
emissions from nonmetallic mineral processing plants.

$100.00 permit application fee and charges associated with
Method 9 visible emissions testing
I. The alleged violator's previous record of compliance or
noncompliance. (List other enforcement actions, civil
penalties assessed, NOV's, NCK'V's.)
A Notice of Violation was issued to the company on March 13,
1981 for failure to operate a water spray for dust control on
the primary jaw crusher.
J. State any mitigating or aggravating factors.
None.
K. The amount of money saved by the violator by not having made
the necessary expenditures to comply with the appropriate
pollution control requirements.
The expense of a Method 9 visible emissions test and a $100.00
permit modification fee was avoided by not permitting the
subject equipment.
L. The emission control standard(s) or ambient air quality
standard(s) violated.
None.
M. Cost of investigation, itemized.
9 see workshest in Appendix G.
V. Recommendation
/A&W PA,zu"
Investigator

Permit No. 3443R3
Page 4
Permit issued this the 15th day of February, 1990.
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Roy M. Davis, Regional Supervisor
Division of Environmental Management
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Air Permit No. 3343R3

:k

I �r7
J, DE?.N1: TT HILL-
ROL.I"PIE ` , BOX 5r15--A
R111HEpRFORnTON. Nr. 'pt r_.3y
R E C 6 VE,f� r �. enctistir.
Jr-i I. y r _ 1442 Dj .C'i S 3 OFFICE
AU610
W C. Department nt of LANDQU tiLL
t29
N tur"al Resrnrr:: es & I:Iommuri:i ty DeYE I opment
"r,; r�. 1992
R•ale:igh, W 2ZAIJ
RE: THOMPSON CONTRACTORS, INC. AIR PERMITS BRANCH
Ihi is in r'eferen e tc•'the notice of July 17. iH +.2
coric.prn.iny Lhe appl:ic"at.i.on tsy the above firm for _r orurface
nrn nq povilli,t tt:! cilmmlenl:;e mi.ni.nr,1 of gr'ani Le on a site wes'it of r'O
Ru Lherfor d t,on bn M.i11.er Rd. #IIei�I
LO .
M1l y'1
We., as adjacent property owners, object strenuously to the co ��•_
issuance of this permit to Thompson Contractors,. Inc. rTs r''r
u.n+:_e th:i.!z• firm st,=.,rted their blasting nper'ation=., we have a a..
O
suffered 11roperty iiam,ag e e.:uch as broken windows,Iaati.o brick
i hrnL er'r in h•+.ti', mortar lea.•i r'+g the brick and duat: 6eycind
�dasr.:riptinn.
For your- informarion, ! am er 1c-s ric dnn,t from our front
terrace for your" analysis, An abundance of This du!,l is
en pW.. 'fr' rnL terra +'nl back pal-iri aL all tames. As you
ar"e aware. if this ssutisLalice i-.r Imhat d, Fneumocrr-iosi. will
result irr hi.imans. .If inh,-lle.d over a prr_'4 tinged per'tr:.d,
it _osis wii'I. r'eeault, This be tata.l
if .tr+,niie nubi.nl is to be under taken at: the above':. desa•'1be¢I
rite, it Jcs our- str n 9 reccmnendaticn 'that it he done by
prvfc.ssi.c,rals ,-roil under" the constar'i't -n,i r'v c-.a L,n ce oi" the
M. C. nepr ,f NaIl Fteso v-cos and C:nmmnity Devel.Dpment.,
it i.ce,ur understandinq that all nearby larrdownerss h•-,ve not
heer, nct.iiied c4 Th i p=son .-lr:,' ill n", this mifltiee.
We i.ha'C all alfooted PlrLICe' h�o�"iad havFb beer,
not.ifi.Ed and wE +cuanld most ertaiJ is
he.ar'i.nra.
Yr:airs Lru:ly,

• i
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section
Telephone Log
Date:�J� Sheet —of_
Time: 0 am Call: Placed ❑ Received ❑
P'n Returned ❑
1. Project: /✓I �ff����f -a I -a I County: k4l"�j
Z.Convcrsationwith: ko il�- 33 11 db16A gj Telcphone(7e9 ZS'9-99(1
3. Affiliation: e�At i--
a. Content of
/.0f ti C�. �f t7D M
Filed

January 19, 1993
MEMO TO: Tony Sample
FROM: Dennis Owenby
Charles Koontz
SUBJECT: Miller Creek Quarry Permit Renewal
Rutherford County
R
14% 199�
Poq[�rysfcT/oN
We have reviewed the application and inspected the operation. Our comments are as
follows:
1. The office and garage areas are not included in the affected acreage. However, this
area is all under rooftop or paved and is also used as the main office area for the
company's grading and well -drilling businesses. We have no problems with excluding
this area from the permitted area. This area fronts on Miller Road and is shown on
page 8 of the plans.
2. Number 4a on page 5 of the application states a 700 ft. buffer will be maintained.
This may be correct for the pit area, but stockpiles and processing areas are
immediately adjacent to nearby DOT roads as shown on pages 1, 2, and 5 of the
plans.
3. Section 8 on page 7 of the application states no screening is necessary. The operator
has begun constructing berms beside the public roads'shown on pages 1, 2, and 5 of
the plans. These berms should be completed and visual screening vegetation planted
along their crests. The operator doesn't want to plant trees because parts of these
berms are under power lines. If you can think of another alternative, please suggest
it; otherwise, the trees can be periodically pruned.
4. The sediment traps and basins appeared to be properly located in the field.
5. The wastepile on page 2 should be changed to stockpile.
DGO:a

0 0
I , :C.):
IF
IF.
IF
IF 11
0
I
t I

MWW CHECKLLST FOR R I OUA9
�-
Company _I %�n w, �95eJ ('p r/-fenrl groZ�j ect Name /Y%,/&
Permit No. f l - 0 County FAIL^-1^-J Date Received /2-/0 -7
Reviewer
DIVISION OF LAND RLSUUHOt5
Please make copies of check to include with C@m[tB+atEIT"dMi&a and
Field Office files and log in checks. D F Q.F I y E D
❑ ❑ El
DEC 1- 2
*
New Renewal Modification Transfer LI Release
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Additional Information Received and Attached for Review
Please route to:
Field Office Date Routed
❑ Wildlife Resources Commission Date Routed
* ❑ Archives and History Date Routed
❑ Other: Date Routed
Suspense Date for Comments: -/ L - 1Z-(Date received +30 days,
..not on weekend)
❑ Please note the following:
h�Ii=
VND QUALITY
/*SUSAN: Please make file and return Checklist and file to Reviewer
White Copy to Field Office Yellow Copy to File Pink Copy to Susan

I\
MINING CHECKLIST FOR ROUTING
�
Company _l h9�n3vJ" Ca N� 'iwa�.prs'ooject Name —AA &�4 C�a.-.....
Permit No. 8/-0 County Date Received
Reviewer
Please make copies of check to include with Central Office and
Field office files and log in checks.
* ❑ New ❑ Renewal modification ❑ Transfer ❑ Release
la�Additional Information Received and Attached for Review
Please route to: /
Field Office Date Routed `/
❑ Wildlife Resources Commission Date Routed
* ❑ Archives and History Date Routed
❑ Other:
Date Routed
Suspense Date for Comments:__J��� "L� — (Date received +30 days,
not on weekend)
❑ Please note the following:
*SUSAN: Please make file and return Checklist and file to Reviewer
White Copy to Field Office �Ilow Copy to File Pink Copy to Susan

PROJECT____ HSQf--lLP-!5p y1,1• n_WSf21A. ?%a_, `NC ------ _.
SUBJECT -_ELZ06�J-LQh111.1_1_ C91sL7:MQJ.�---- P6CA _Ia-------- __________..
COMPUTED BY ..... [7..___4-LNSP..__CHECKED BY ---- _S2_.._3lYl_I-IJA---
....M
FILE NO. _q 7 4-9Z___________
SHEET NO.._______ OF_______.
DATE_________________________
S_L T Ti�AP F�l o_._1
I I
T,� hhI-
EC.T �I N.F_L N:7- 1 � I_i�DAC- _u_L_11-;
Ac- 1 11 I 1 8 c..FS J-
J a L _ _ �I-
Vot.._.:REo�n 5, 7Z4 C-F
41$-70 -1 Lys{-1
_ L
��L�DIHE�IJSIOKI CLLY.Z.d10).T
I_ITi
�_
.I L r F-T- 1 1 �o.:
�Tr T -
�w �4
Rcak
Az�AC
7•iW),cF5. _
I I I i
:_{ TTA�s - ,kA �•.3(occs -r1
.1.6oc:>'i _ 31�!'l(ocF
I! � I J ' I �' I i ! -j -• -- �� �!� =E I� uRv A�HE.A �eol L7 -, col �9 31D� �c9 o9,3 (n Ac.= 4 bi
IJ
�
�L
I
1TT1_ii

PROJECTC'IC__ -------- FILE NO.
SUBJECT___ _O_�J,Q_lv_ _•••••••F
_______________- SHEET NO..___.___.OF_______.
COMPUTED BY_R___}-_I R47Z--------- CHECKED BV---- P•-_�1-11 TK_____ DATE_________________________
�Y_i_IIN'F�!Oi.J_L��' ou2GE{l •;_ � i ;—�t-\RE�.,I 1�-�_t_:-1_L�'--1-._, � i-
M_ 3 I -r - O• IS AC �- _t . _; Z. I I+cFS +
. .Dig' :D,Tc'N" S. _ _j_ I • al AG 3ALCF6'
4-4-4-1 A---L__%•�44 —
s 4 4.3 Ac
_ JruR..F!_%�,RE�fA_��eQ Dj = •OI �3Z.¢I) O. 3Z.4.1-Ac—. �I�,_I_►$SF
1b r =�85 x 1 70 r - -
CJouR_CE. __
c
� T- E413_Cis __ 5►t_4_cF
1
SF
-+ � 4-
EL-co-6X_�1 37 I.+
r
I tR_ �JI Z�1— - _
{ I I I f r-
_ I

1 O ._.-
PROJECT _______HOMP-'iSO NIn 40NTCj INC70KP5.!_ _J__FiC_____________ FILE NO. _949�"........
SUBJECT __.SROSIpDN_1_]_ 1.._4_N_TSQL___l___Lp ______________________ SHEET NO.. -------- OF--------
COMPUTED BY_____II-____S __IH"}_�--- CHECKED DY__>�_.S_H-\SA------ DATE_________________________
�fTTT- -' - ' T-1-TFF-]
_._ HruE...
+ r i�it(gib>=,0 o°f1�lDAc = 3.g,9
3flz4'- 0
Ric
I
I I q
h SuRF, JI-kReA
AVI,C.
1
IT
771
l r r

PRO JECT____-]--510N_ • (' 1 • 949Z •��
140------------- FLLE NO. _____________________
SUBJECT__, _.C�eS,I SZIY.._ G�N ------------------- SHEET SHEET NO.- ------
COMPUTED BY___, (LJZ ALMS CHECKED BY _ DATE ,
T
r—
OUL) ,SovecE-, _i
I
_ Nsro s. L ZW9-
V 4O 3r4010 4Zr`iC¢ +
CT
IL—t
r L7iY_. lz
1 -_-�-
b! 1.4nc 0.4Zc:S l-
T
�A�S� f (Q 7SDIST.,faC 5•3,4CFS L_
u� IRE pl 0 75 CT&o0) j _I' 35dcF
REA-.t'IE.�D- Q1.5 3�I'cFS�� .O.OS,S'�.AGc Z13Z�o .S
Z32to
lE NSIONS CL= z`J`�...341 x to8 t

PROJECT_ 14OM PS O•c00-r-KACTO �L`�J_0.7_�----.
_-____?2 _1 A _ E _ 'I _ SUBJECT___'JLD_L�`'1EN_T____\1_�JN___1__ �_Oy'__�u�_P�______..
COMPUTED BY_____LQl 114&JSZ---- CHECKED BY___Y e1LT_Fi________
gQg2
FILE NO.
SHEET NO.._.._. ... F____-_-.
DATE .........................
ZS
r
r-
ddd
H21
-
F
LOT_V�.T
LO
N
r
_
PISp_
Act..P
I
IcF
=
1Z.5
61LIthT
oF-} l�waTE.2
o.ts_PTLAcE1��
=
IZ
.57�1a+2
4-;
`�S_SL
L.�
, .—�-_�
-�--�-�—h-
rr
L.
I
1p
`Y
jpp
! Al
I
i
t
I ..

0 T� l •
PROJECT___ `_ AlcyAFSOt,I__�N ]JfJ�C TQTir _``l_�L_______. FILE NO. ---------------------
SUBJECT
_._ERZO7SlnkA___Cgor-XMZF]L____�k�iL�l____. _.____., SHEET NO..__...__OF
COMPUTED BY ....CR.__`_ LtaTZ.... CHECKED BY ---- p.___SMJ_T.yi--- DATE .........................
SILT 'IQ A P No.�
INcIOc..� cJacJtzc6 � ,^
1Dw. D Tc 's8 0.43AC. I.51c�s
✓IIZEGT INFLp� O.SZPG �5. 44 Ac, IZ.O /CFS
'T-OTAL.S cD 15T.) O.�j Sf+c 3.07A C. 13•(c Oc$76
\/oL 1� = 0.�1 s AG G eoo) = 1 11 C7 c F
SVZF, kREA Redo.=0.©1(13-(oc7=.13(oAc- 4-51=
�IMEh7 Sion1S CI_ = 2! _ �J�124 SJr }(I I
SPi�LwAY NR = 4

• s
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and natural Resources
Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section
' Telephone Log
oare�_'�/L 9Z snecl 1 of —I
Time: ❑ am Call: Placed [y'Reeeived 2�
(�m Rnuniedd ❑
1. Protect: /XX� Crw& coomy:
2. Conversation with: k.'c" 3+ -44J D s..-f� __ Telephone (70Y) Zf Y YYya
D
3. Affiliation:
e,Contcmofconvertauon. koj. _) fmGJ.L
cc:
Filed

h
MINE&MIT MODIFICATION/RENEWA&QUEST �^
Please route and return to , LQS, by ow+ '
✓Air Quality I� y
ndwater 6411 p DA
ateQuality
Name of Mine ,02
-��_ Cou1n b.e) ty
Lgj R414101 muffill I irwffffirf
reviewed by: A )� date:
d
reviewed bva 17dvw" oC *�� :4 1 date:
REVIEW TIME IS LIMITED - YOUR PROMPT RESPONSE IS APPRECIATED

J�
i
i
i
'
i
i
I
1
1
�
1
4
'
I
I
r
..
..
�
�
t
�
I
�
1
�
�
1
,
.
.
;
1
i
�
i
t
i
�
I
!
s
I
I
�
3
i
i
f
1
f
t
�
`
I
'
1
i
f
�
�
1
�
�.

n North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-ttr96--V3V E V
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Dire..
OCT p g 1992
MEMORANDUM LAND QUALITY SECTION
TO: Susan 13. Edwards, Mining Program Secretary
Land Quality Section
FROM: Stephanie E. Gaudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
OATS: October 26. 1992
SUBJECT: Mining permit renewal request by Thompson Contractors
for Miller Creek Quarry, Rutherford County (Permit #81-
01)
A staff field biologist of the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the mining permit
renewal application submitted by Thompson Contractors for Miller
Creek Quarry in Rutherford County. An onsite investigation was
conducted on October 22, 1992 for the purpose of further
assessing project impacts on wildlife and fisheries resources.
Mr. Bill Thompson was contacted to discuss the project. These
comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of
the Mining Act of 1971 (as amended, 1982; G.S. 74-46 through 74-
6a( 15 NCAC 5) and the North Carolina General Statutes (B.S. 113-
131 et seq.).
The applicant is requesting a 1.0—year permit for the mining
of granite on approximately 200 acres of primarily upland habitat
located west of Rutherfordtan on Maple Creek Road in Rutherford
County. The site has a moderately high wildlife habitat value.
The site contains a diverse composition of tree species, and
dogwood and native herbaceous vegetation such as honeysuckle and
briar are scattered throughout the understory. Approximately 10
acres of the project site is in cropland. Two small creeks with
important riparian habitat traverse the area. The existing
habitat diversity provides for numerous wildlife species. Major
wildlife which can inhabit the proposed project area include
deer, raccoon, muskrat, rabbit, quail, dove, fox and numerous
nongame birds, raptors, mammals, amphibians and reptiles.
Fisheries habitat is of marginal value within the proposed site.
We are aware of no endangered species at the site.

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor September 29, 1992
William W. Cobey, Jr, Secretary
IQR: CO) ;KIa01r13!
✓recce_ IU-�'-�jZ
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E..
Director and State Geologist
To: Fred Harris
Director, Division of Boating and Inland Fisheries
Wildlife Resources Commission
Attention: Habitat Conservation Program
From: Susan B. Edwards 76c
Mining Program Secretary
Land Quality Section
Re: Mining Permit Renewal Request for Thompson Contractors
Miller Creek Quarry - Permit No. 81-01
Rutherford County
I
Please find attached for your review a copy of the mining permit
application for the above referenced project.
Please review this information and advise as to the probability of this
operation having unduly adverse effect on wildlife and freshwater fisheries
(G. S. 74-51 (2)). Please respond by October 28, 1992 so that we may
complete our review of this request within our statutory time limits.
As is the case in our review of all mining permit applications, renewals
and modifications, this office will carefully review all proposed erosion and
sediment control measures to ensure that they are sufficient to restrain
erosion and off -site sedimentation. However, any comments your agency can
provide regarding effects on wildlife and freshwater fisheries would be
greatly appreciated. If your staff wishes to perform a site inspection, it
is recommended that they contact the person submitting this request to set up
a convenient date and time. Also, please send a copy of your comments to the
person noted in the application.
Your continued cooperation in the review of these type requests is
greatly appreciated.
SHE
Attachments
cc: Mr. Richard Phillips
Gmloeial Sunny section Lund Quality Section
[phone] (919) 1334514
Gmdedc Sunny Senion /
[phone]
P.O. box 27687 • RaLigh. NC, r611J681 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportuney AfEmwdve Action Employer

9/zr3
/ IXG CHECKLIST FOR ROLIlVG
Company Tit A^A y5 L�Kg:g i Project Name h4ll.l.t2LY 'ti CJLIhIZLL''[_
i
Permit No. 1'01 County &Vk-9L6QO Date Received 9
Reviewer .9Lkq
Please make copies of check to include with Central office and
Field office files and log in checks.
* ❑ New © Renewal ❑ Modification ❑ Transfer ❑ Release
❑ Additional information Received and Attached for Review
Please route to:
0 Ae-440tluLC Field Office
ElWildlife Resources Commission
* ❑ Archives and History
❑ Other:
Date Routed % -cif -9a O
Date Routed-aC1-� pY
xY`v
Date Routed
Date Routed
Suspense Date for comments: 1001m (Date received +30 days,
not on weekend)
© Please note the following:
LGlFIt(LD AXAcii% 9 EAA..
*SUSAN: Please make file and return Checklist and file to Reviewer
White Copy to Field Office ellow Copy to File Pink Copy to Susan
I

�y AMBILL
PAC
�W8(535�5TlTAACKINxAGF 8fA Z®7342
pUFSTlONS?CATOLL FREE
Dale RE'CIlQrNT'S CDPY-
�`. 9 19z '
Fran (Your Nan10} PleaSO Print ------tYom Phone Number 1Very Impatanl) TO (Recipient's Narl Please s; %apl's Ill Nwnbm Ivory linpol
_-wfJx-lr.�Y C1!T7-(io4 1LS4-"j_C'�_r'
Company pepartmemillNo. Company N[ .. _ DepasUnwiFlcallo.
0,3V Ill D SMITH f, CONPAN f
SlrceS Atldress Exaa Slreel Address (We Camof Delw fo P.t7_ Elves w P, D. Iq Com )
GEy......^.. —__— Stale W ZIPRequireLl City_-_��'. �� ZIPRtequired
r+aii�'iLL !:� 2 3 h
YOUR INTERNAL BILL ING REFERENCE INFORMATION (Olrri i) (First 24 dlilrNef$ will aMeW Oft int7ti w) !F HOLD FOR PICK-UP, Rant FEDEYA &CU Hwe
- Slreel '
Address
AYAl I © 6,11 Serrder 2 ❑ Gill Recluient's FNCx Acci No 3 ❑ Bill 3ro Party redEx Acct LJ No a f t- 0,11 C , l Cud Gty Stal9 - jJp Required
{
❑ 'caxK i
SERVICES DELIVERY AND SPECIAL HANDLING ""'""'� r "0eR0L°'"10 Emp, No. Oate p
urns, Wa Federal Express Use
(Check only one Lax) (Cher* services fequircd) on Q r�sn Received
se Charpes
IF1M.s. rr�n r ii Idn�sr : arr�+l I ❑ HOLM MR PICKUP trR„Bo. ro jrl ❑Rerun St�rrwrk 4
_ Thal Parry ❑ Ctg To Dd [] Cnp To How f
tl�❑ YFAGDIHLApH{i -51 ❑ YOUR
GNAGfMG 2 4❑ Oi ivfH wEfibAY SIfe21 Address
DQClaratl ValuB ha[g8.1
t6 ❑ FIDEXfETTfR• 56 ❑ FEDEXLE7TfR• DFINFN$k1UlaaEYrE.rr.cn.rosl ❑ 1
3 trw � Harr � r 1 OihBr I
12 ❑ FEDfXAIK' 52 ❑ FEDEXPAN 4 ❑ wA 3lISiiDnDS3E.>en:Pi .«. .._....•_.�... ..•._......�.. ay Stale Zip .
Ta l Tdalp"- Talal- ' M
t3 ❑ Ff-DEXWX 53 ❑ ffDEX &1X 5 ❑ �'
to FEOEXTUBE 54 FOUnff 6 DAY ICE tit / ReceivedBy.
❑ ❑ ❑ •.----^�--.- f � v A,1. otalChar es
Imp �ae�. DaZ,, r�—Ttf.�w �nw�n ai+ E 7 ❑ OTHER SPECIAL SERYICE iIIM $R1AG NT l�rgeuda Woghtl n
Date/Time Received Fl Employee Number REVISION GATE 6191
30 ❑ ECONOMY 46 ❑ LE7TfR G ❑ ❑ _ _ _ Ibs, PART r137204 FXEM 419Z
✓ - - FORMAT N099 +
GOY7 0El
$ATUADAYPICN-UP jpj gL�FT �L.lj q r
41 ❑ FxCKAGE ra/- rEroadeger 1.�`' X U11 X Ifll - I a 19
IEa E•Ya Laipxam rso dri 10 ❑ -,— + }"
nr»�Nrd Az Release
r OVERNIGHT rym.DAY 1 Q r4vtk.xr Srav T 3 t]t] Drop Bo. Signature, _ O 197a91 FEOEY
70 ❑ FREIGHT-' ❑ FRfIGNT'• 11 ❑ CESfO;Pfwf i i I ,= PRINTEOw
`'"'d"'"'a161"1'°°� Z HOLIDAYDELIVEAYp+annroi 4QBSC�- IFedEx CBtelTime us.A.
to,"
mrr '0rf1 WYIKnlmiluA 12 ❑ IE•ra 2QOneaE StuV �';�'['°".'.'"'y 'AA
tr ybnrme rem, "tlrtr c""'p"1 .5 Emp. No.

PACKAGE SERVICE ®. TENMSA&MVITIDNS' _
DEMNMLDNS rtuwml am alga Aran Aam m our mow Satire Gube.
Ou"Studb A,xe,WanO uamMWL¢EWPI E.OnM Ca Wrelion, aa^PYprrteNripmken6n6"paENageoravraylel'n Ill
I
nlhaAvhll,potl
esartl)yd Yo
OFAN gu am your Nfidsm 10 IN a,ns emass
Asswedvalue or all pd4kdgea III usipIN SIW 35'JJ or 525.00
m apars
w WorsepalM.vMeEaN.e.lEaermq SmrLrmesEMmwa pal
t
AMIEENENTW NOW
orsdarm.aluoor m lu slnoaol
By 01% outtour Name to dal you a qua! to ON a410rroal IN
Anneum OM WGagxl9sM1pwy fnlNsaIMLPPNitrate, Y or '-
..
AIM dM pat agues III Grit. A a avamde m raged A
� BR h6'Ee i[ b et acrral vote 4 IN 1pEMgelsl Noss
-
arl NAVIte er.na ON 1114 A.M.)m
mays,npke.[Pm was Or a IN "a' Naaea val aloe Pa
uroumNo"NNO, aso^ai ammamlodva aa,mnyIN lermd
m��ti mslleaaoowdl vourewlro,arllvro'earapaaryula„
Agreamnl.
admma.
IF YOU ARE
MAKING AN MPS
SHIPMENT, APPLY
THE SELF-ADHESIVE
MPS COPY HERE
NENPoNSIBILITY FOR MBNAMND ANDD➢MMETILNAMNNL
1'w are ssmwmb Qn,al al sho area gENsaMm
�s Nlivg wrIN,,lo ,IN pni54m ss IM a Nagle alamO rr, am
¢brmdmopmeWe a tm[4Poa Wall b0m y avanar
'Me W' ^ryYa.M [re[ WEB. as IX W nwtl hq LTiglirdFl aarrNm M
m AM TNNMINITAMN TAX INCLUDED
our NSA rareircM1ga5 a stalls, arquiam at to la rul Fevgs2 CWp
seerbn 491 on too an Ira^aponarmD pmm at mb Amoco
OEWABED MLUE LIMITD
That halt EeaaN wlrg y avow b Fal Ea LDmr, am rear ANN
sNPAINI s s EI03. Its OW V4dne rly IN 11gMY aKbed wlue M
AIM 5 S350m WbiP Your p[NapO mmalre Or M "easunm,y
wba.In wrl cassaws"n aanaral VAIN welawsItAX uamaa
4rNmLamrYutlb]�iKAbeaNmklm,9YluAPKGKnNISuppliarb
. ,amD ILIBIF
V+gmdy.sou NNn,mrDPo^dMxspaElyour pW9ea war loa d40r
y[u6ia Ygmb WlDmWac
ND C.D.N SM-1. N C
No GO¢BEIMCES ONwca OODAarmuapfI"amavrai[repvral,.
µuvl.sca Fwerel Evwea Goo.airMla IM p.pesD.
Ewn NEEIBNNBWTY EqT MINFM
ym giK ua DrNtlw {Nymai Ir W tlms. you vi yvays M
pi manly reepsym W aloe4vrPy q1;.0 viY, e9eM tlKhw may
. eQ991urir'9MN MC4ga W yCUpwaaggtiN pDlgvg
1
NNMT MNEEECII No
W reaarx IM upsp ou asMrl Aw alryNarst Ise. wlmml
statu
NligmnlanuUMlAay 11 orF®nLgDa D01 wcdMr sllpmto,,
rAr or As InMiprrad as 4n h Was Iousur somasANINAu 'ma n lr' Airbt or Our cnut al
rert
MWOOG,m
YBNEy-BECK BYAMNTFE
to 1m manl N uMmgr Nor F M1 W Exprow Out at your Mea
ass wNNrre AmUlia9. MI4M ortuar 0hBnstorlaam Am" 5x
[ore mrvlm GlMe kr Nrpgl lNpm00en.
Pall 4131204113Ty6
Few 8191.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEYELOLq
1. ice/
LAND QUALITY SECTION. ce�`
7y,
APPLICATION FOR A MINING PERMIT
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE),
1. Name of Mine Miller Creek Quarry County Rutherford
2. Name of Applicant Thompson Contractors, Inc.
.i. Permanent address for receipt of official mail. P.O. Box 1268, Rutherfordton, NC 28139
*Telephone [phone]
I
a. Mine Office Address Miller Road, Rutherfordton, NC 28139
Teienh„Ipe [phone]
S. Mine Manager Mr. Franklin Audey Thompson
We heresy certify that all details contained in this Permit Application
are true and correct to the best of our knowledge. We fully understand that
any willful misrepresentation of facts will be cause for permit revocation.
*'Signature /S'e. e r oo Date �9/25/92
Print Name Bill L. Thompson
Title Corporate Secretary
I
RThe Land Quality Section should be notified of change in permanent address or
telephone number. 'I
`Signature of company officer required.
G.S. 74-51 provides that the Department shall grant or deny an application for a
permit within 60 days of receipt of a complete applieaticn;or, if a public hearing
is held, within 30 days following the hearing and the filing of any supplemental
information required by the Department. All questions must be addressed and all
required maps provided before this application can be considered complete. Attach
additional sheets as needed.
1

APPLICATION FOR A MINING PERMIT
RECLAMATION PLAN
9. Describe your plan for revegetation or other surface treatment of the affected
areas. This plan must include recommendations for time of seeding and the amount
and type of seed, fertilizer, lime and mulch.per acre and general seeding
instructions for permanent revegetation and,lif necessary, temporary revegetation.
Revegetation utilizing pine seedlings only is not acceptable. NOTE: Revegetation
Plan must be approved and signed by one of the following:
(a) Authorized representatives of the local Soil and Water Conservation
District having jurisdiction over lands in question;
(b) Authorized representatives of the Office of Forest Resources, Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,;
(c) County Agricultural Extension chairmen or Research and Extension
personnel headquartered at North Carolina State University in the School of
Agriculture and Life Sciences;
(d) North Carolina licensed landscape architects;
(e) Private consulting foresters referred by the Office of Forest
Resources, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources;
(f) Others as may be approved by the Department.
LIME - RATE OF APPLICATION:
FERTILIZER - ANALYSIS AND RATE 0£ APPLICATION:
SEED - TYPES(S) AND RATE OF APPLICATION INCLUDING SEEDING SCHEDULE:
See plans and specifications.
MULCH - TYPE AND RATE OF APPLICATION:
See plans and specifications.
OTHER VEGETATIVE COVERS:
See plans and specifications.
Revegetat n and/or reforest n n approved by:
Signatur Date 9/25/92
Print Name David D. Smith, P.B.
Title Professional Engineer. NC lic. # 15707
Agency David D. Smith and Company
13

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Lind Resources
512 North Salisbury Street a Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Stephen G. Conrad
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Oct-ober 23. 1989
Mr. Bill Thompson
Thou Wn Contractors, Inc.
P. O. Bm< 1268
Rutherfordton, North Carolina 28139
RE: Blasting Ccuplaint
Miller Creek Quarry
Rutherford County
Dear Mr. Thompson:
The review has been carpleted on the shot records you previously submitted
for the July 28, August 3, August 29, August 30 and October 10, 1989 blasts at
the Miller Creek Quarry. Your company has been found to be in compliance with
the blasting requirements of your training permit. I have already notified the
complainants, Mr. and Mrs. Dewitt Hill, of our findings. .
Based on the descriptions of the blasts provided by Mr. and Mrs. Hill and
on our review of TC's shot records it appears that Mr. and Mrs. Hill's adverse
reaction to your blasting operations are related to elevated airblast readings.
As the August 30, 1989 blast was an order of magnitude higher than the previous
blast but still within the maximum limit specified in your permit, it was
sufficiently high enough to produce a perception of a problem or "nuisance"
complaint. I strongly recanend that TC carefully review the blasting
procedures employed at this facility and make adjustments to reduce the wide
fluctuations in offsite ground vibration and airblast levels. Particular
attention should be given to recognizing potentially unfavorable atmospheric
condition that might increase or focus airblast.
Thank you for your continued cooperation.
/Sincerely,
Ito
Tracy .. Davis, E.I.T.
Assistant Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
TED: se
cc: Mr. Richard Phillips, P.E.
RO Ilos 27687f, k lciul, Nonh CanAlw 276n-76V Telcpiwne 919-733 383.1
An Equal Oppommniry AffinwnL a Anion Empl%Tr

i
-
�
is 0'1 " 5d 9ce 'O f fad a 2 .oF/ -fir r1M5 �-17L---
I
",Z1-$ °Zd-r�-�r-
-- -- — - -
� io A:o l7 yd% Is o ay C�l o �� �yT1S) �Ir9s9 sv is `P.°a81 ,Q�
—_----- - - -- - _ .-)/.rot-g-lavrm t"S-r ^^�+�'✓J i.
ar -M �Nj �
Q
,y
--
-- rv� j6;+lx2� -p1sson-aaey' pis-i — nr-ti gas W
_ y�racCa'>t �.lu.�»8-wrvuo-at nN
-,Pfya*i5 j4t� ar¢ Wain~92 �aSONo„-- Jntr� ('�ourrni�i(/ 9'yil SNP-JA'K
-+o w : a�•
_ `'7nq JJ1�m uyl .1 vnl voirvdJ I nnrl r✓ — rva� nWal w

lr-�•'oy `sa1� y- ie
--- `is�a - --
ysd�pvN' ^�J .�svy ot•o �� •�r� o l�lg_.
-- Y''Y•+'lti 'r yf 1Ha yJWi 2�o .a sn r M Ifl/% —_.. .
�,�o '+Y'��° -• - ---- - ---------------�.GS—r��—ate - _ _ --
15n.rn// be4�
_--^—ao„, �1-5 ter• �!, � �b = r£! 1 ♦,�4; - fbO��A::�:,:.,5------- -/M j.a����� �`�'' r;mil=�'------ -
,,.,w *C' a.! � '�'� 't 5r'o = �� z >nkY+v-'� �e�i••tu�+en �, r�nrvxi yn�.
-•�JW;p .3rny SS� ol/o!- l+nz�U ssv�d �k
�+:v�a��,00g/�,2oLl v �g°6)o4! = _YSD✓✓d'WY 'NrS 1>K1 3jgS _____.__.— __ �'�l-n3'6
--
yr" a/` w�•n �n '"�J
� 0•1 � `�2'0 °I•�hl•o =''i'°j� ---- �•orl-e+wa 7•A ;Mwnoi 3w3, '---- - -
- --- - - ------ -- —rJgrti -r�via;
�u
2 0

. I 'g �.' "MAxxxnlArye,
LOCATIC5W,�AII22111:11FCY
—Ile
�vv IE,i ft
mt,rah aw p M ciandhR, III-
.1
•T
t.;.
. V
TR LJCk#..i._*9003 DELIVERY
CLiXL5 A ORVCWO'v� Z
IMRWIQ accoft 0 lite RRAk,IW q,i,
0WISFINY G MIMPS
1 �'IX TuMcWYOw0 t
stgot WEIt
�RM AMPEO 70 WHIOLE
SHIPPING ol I I
OXIDIZER
COARMUSTIM",
ethesda'k I
FLAnuwrl
AL!"Itte Wj-!� r+' Gra U Irt'.
y
I "Ell m. I
TRAILER PICKED UoL�L�47 "'X7b, F
UNITS
%MUSEbh
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
­Eb'?�
_?R0DUCT,C0DL;,tF'­-':
DULX' AENFO,ti6CS.-
13 Ar.0
I.,.
p
�W.
ViN LPkM4.Vpll
5t;
............
so u-, X 5*9
MAMP,
w 1%
1 '1
5 -
Q'i 7;�
0
?BULK_
29WERYAMW
�AMmemgr
Apffi
_
MME,
70
,
open
70,11! 5 0 4 0 r I It i Ddfl %CVfdAMM
T.
.1
Q
My"V'mml
'PWW4�40a#
W
MM4
47r�T-SW�
FJ3Z
FMMUS"m
W�
SALE
�
liw
i'.
wg&.Q
s" 0 7t�ef�
Pi
=p 75?Mt
mt.'g
wo.pmMM
Vf
V-NI
M1
M!
'iropt.
4L""
Ewp
�M"
­w
fL.
!L
Wai
... ti,;T
4. IT, - -'Z
L
'I
IM
'�F Ze�V
_V Z'
Rm�
Film 4 m
VJ"
Qtx
REX.,
& Rev Eg�
For �D
re
have
e offered 4 a
latEre
Z thmabove

Maximum Weight.'ofaExplosives:Deto.�natediWlthiNAny 8{Milllsecond
a "r.
Periodd#.'+ 5'/� L �.= Iba
ik� IT I *r°Sx
'yytT
,,. MaRimulrlSNumberol Hales Detonated WllhintAnytB}MIIIi6econdlPenod
T
'-
{ Tx^Y fi{ filr(i rk f" 4 .eY 1P�i(
4 11
'S%9k +�
1 r 4
�Sceletl Oletence Were{Met+oij,Ot�heeProteshon
i a Lai Wj�'Pq}4H i-F^5k, °R',S`YrP,}fi
Used,?¢Ves , No
xY,viC''-N'ia�i' �t`'r' 4� N
v «Y4,Jy,��sirfC. WasBesomographuaed7.
yrtVes } No
kr� '`�,
e r
..vi,.."V:%t'4¢'r„..;i"fib
BLAST 151A&AMS.
ryy,Y
GlT
ITT
IT
IIT
IT_
♦
:.
ixFi'�'T
Xi,
�' A
�
S.
log
'
9
N"
..TT
IR
n
a'f
-14
'
..K.t.
'
L
r�Y
'ggW.�:
��y
yY..�k
AY�y..
4.�F'yFy
'Yry'���
!y�Y3i'�
.yye
t
YLi.
u�i"as
L.
:u
:��5t
tie
9y:G�'.gLG..
*.w
xF•
!Ai
��Syyv
5:''
:#
rY
}}no�n
Sf•'
i+�'.
..,XCf
b`:
P1'I
��
fN
+fi
�'PV
J
5
xa
M..L
t..
i
••
:Mi
ti::
ii
YY
''..
'
t(0.[ti
5.7'
Fe)
��
TN
gR
..
.:5•
A{
-.
.:
T�f
}}�
(5.,;Y
FT
_
Y
f�
i:..i...Fj
��t
�.Yf.
14i
hT
2:M
IG.
IT
ToYy
t .
J
Litt
;S3.F"
m'
jo
ry
A.:+?
q
R
M51
P
r
L
�•'
3'l
y
_
1.��
6t.
Y
.0
Y4
.i
YI1F
1
d
.v
�yNt
�v;
r�r
.:i
�Fa
fn:
w?.
5..�
,�.'r
..
Y'�
4�
itt.
',
bti
w
.'t@
k
bSt
�`�'il'$'
hi
�
w
xa
r
11Y�?
4
a.
.
�
.�
�:
'.4
F
%
�I�ti
vt
$.
u.:''
t
%:�
i;ltil
Mrira.,
.
IG
�:
.«
�1
I�
4
3
:ti:
A,
a{i
IN
fNy�I�
yx'ad
Jiidd
1
Fk
_�.,
u
I
F4
NY
/4
P'i
YM`Y
a
SL
`Yjt�i
F.°,y'W�'
�
)�
nl`x''�'%P. JK ri41 U�C
f T
ffic
�
p'TK
w C EP
�
RY'htl.K.i1��J��'�i"ar�^l4
� �w�i{ f{Y F � LIB,.
h�M1 •�i k N� S {1.

® 1 •
THOMPSON CONTRACTORS, INC. <011
P. U. eux 126E -�
RUTHERFORDTON, N. C. 20139
September 5, 1989
State of North Carolina
Dept. of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Sect.
Attn: Mr. Tracey E. Davis E.Z.T.
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Re: Blasting Complaint
Miller Creek Quarry
Rutherford County
Dear Sir:
Concerning your letter of August 18, 1989, I am enclosing
the blasting reports you requested. The shot in question on
August 3, 1989 was not a production shot and our own personnel
did the shooting. Therefore, I do not have a formal blasting
report. It was a very small shot consisting of five (5) holes,
3' in. in diameter and and approximately five (5) feet deep and
containing 1 stick of Apex explosive (2 3/4"x16") and 1 Power
Primer (2"x8") in each hole. The weather was clear but there
was considerable noise.
We are trying to take every precaution possible to mollify
Mrs. Betty Hill. I personally supervised the small shot on
8-29-89, since it was the type of shot that normally creates a
lot of noise. It was slightly .overcast so I had our people cover
the shot with moist screenings and compact them with a rubber
tired loader. I was observing the blast from approximately
1,000 feet and could barely hear it. The blasting company had
been asked to bring a seismograph but due to a mix-up did not
bring it until the following day for the much larger production
shot (report enclosed).
All future production shots will be monitored with a seismo-
graph. It is not; however, economically feasible to use a
seismograph every time we pop a few boulders with our own personnel
doing the shooting.

tRECEIVED .
e , ;':`'T*�.>"F��k>v ti a` Si'0r'989
lA
nri; nital llr Sf l;TION
`� REPORT Exploseves,.lnc . l; kOF BLASTING
��;
lSUBSIDIARY OF ATIAS POWDFA COMPANY• y}A=jAi
1
Cortsumer{j0•s't�SUMrtCb"Operation
Address 'lCla�L*• _
BLAST DATA ,>` �. err` .I _
dr
Shot No. rLLLL
d '(Specific Blast Location
IDete 7_.29-89...E p.BenctiNo r; ;:�—, '
. ,., v '
Time p YY1 r Materiel 8eing Blasted C 4l
No. Holes Al Blasters Signature
er'i p
Diameter y �1. �'`: in Blaster's License No. 9$ State s C.
FOepin -' r./ S ' >�fi t Distance to Nearest Building'.
- Subdrdhng 47 ,-I" ft r.Direction to Nearest Building'-
" tt
Spacing "\ It �ifl Weather11L�Wind Dir'n:___5J�Velocity --Omph
Bur tlen pt "- .� 3 �? �l >r� -Dwelling School, Church, Hospital, Nursing Facility, other Institutional or
.t Commercial Bldg.. etc(other than consumer's Buildings) _
EXPLOSIVES -KIND t< l r Airj r s FIRING INFORMATION
t
L `` 1y.-1e9 tbs. ES Caps. (Brand) I M V J) lay ¢ /00
lb9 Non-electrlcs (Brand) —'
�a r)9Li rTw gS 40U lbs Blasting Machine (Check One) .
ir It/CSY' �00 )'iFSLa a'"6r,3',u h: `.611
*Ibs is " -Conventional ✓Sequential
LT' C3�eS�t tPs`�Y�' i �.'rt lbs...". , Identification % s -
aw '�'I'c My k �» tbs...1 Typeof Series G
Total weight j grya yA. n " ^ Ibs.g� No. Series' i i MS. -
p jr,<;t�4'ee — Interval
Average Load Per Di3fSQ'rr 3y .t sy r a%�sbsti Special Conditions: Ti
Powder Factor _• r e wR J'r, r, /.. 5.:9 y tonsllb ;�S `L 41p, �14 ('O,..DJi Nnf-Cie -10 E
i -
- Top.5temming ?, "S '���p�'1ba.►?ur'Y9rl'M'. ,.'.'a,. 9 1.� 'Ti)Ai.
pi
:pt d Depths �r 1il l•�i =��A p y4 /['iat Cord Type �"�� gr.
pprlp
pillF p' -s'r re 7 -1"• ,k}Ta-.�y r•i -1
Matenal- %Os' ` :. Delay Connectors
r'r'3S"r I rart r«WIF.
Makimum Weight Hof Eaplosives'Delonated Within Any-8 Millisecond Period Iba.
yYxt,.%, ,. l.rrp,,t.'.v. 3 y r'.;: t, t„
Maximum Number of Holes Detonetetl Within Any B Millisecond Period.
Scaled Distance v, q- k Ware;Matat or Other Protesylion Used? Yes -y.� No
...:'/3)56-:` 9 'S y Irif i' d59 t J"ii.�.'w1Wo 14S4' 'e
Sei omogr ph used? Yes No""� ✓�
J.aa.I..
�
'l�
J
i���e�,�l�®�G,II^®�i��ps9i�'s�"!�'R'i:G'�
:S�r�7■■\��
■■icy
s■■®cue■
r��l�®��ta■■ex,�■e■uz■■■■e��
•■►�
ri®■■l;�J®®®®e174�■�
■�R��
®®�r[Iilr^s�r9P
?!�1®®�;cf��■14f1�■■fa■i■■■i�■�►1
ar��_---w����evrc+�■-_■srTI■
■
.�
0
Ems
ji7/���il,-a��®�l�
����l�lYla®�l.JroillrwFf,�■■■��f7■■■■e4r�
J■■■rid®®®®®�®®®®��®®®
®�®e:s�s������■■e■�'�

_a) NVVwItt rsl r+'Je"i'' 'xrbiil CY'bY x T aril J pa,eGw 1 RE E '
v�} VCDC
I. '
�.�• »tti � url ��;� ,fW Str Oc 1989
/� Yu r . ` ;
d M,i�,Atlantl� '1.Ann nnm fV ;FCTION
EXp10sIbeS,leC ;u� REPORT OF BLASTING
A SO5511AARY OF ATLAS POWDER COMPANYA1-
t `.•
Consume YT1�fdyh nST eLI r � �AyL-}tyy�RS pperetlon '
Address Zrl'�-t"•'rinreQ-�tx�IJ titf _
N
BLAST DATA ',(uf1d 6+ 1f ✓h 3 -•�'..
Shot No - ';Specific Blast -Location',
�•r
1
Dale � a4 q �- � 4TBeneh No
a
Tim
Ma
e terial Being Blasted-
No.1 �Ilrt}c-
p XQ
Holes �f"F6 ° °�. 1` 1 Blesler'S �Slgnatura II�1;'J nn-,�L—
Diameter �'J r!e n -In Blasters License No.,' State S L
Depthf
•,,ryaw`- 2ftl5Dlstanceyt Nearest. Building goo ft.
Subtlnlling sT"'}ItDtrectlon to Nearest Building
Spacing '=�g fit Wealhet �7tllcfad'f Wind Dlrn! 4�Velocity mph
Burden lq y� �{, Dwelling I;tI Hospital, Nursing Facility. other Institutional or
.4 �„v Ix CommOralaV 1 %4 1&(other than consumer's Buildings)
E%PLOSIVES�KIND'FIRING INFORMATION
;T Ibs ; EB Caps. (Brand), T«r+ 3 (, OfI
0 f Ir�3Xa; (�D Ibs ; Non -aleotrlcs(Brand)
I PF
t Ibs Blasting Machine (Check One)
1y=i :lq T, y+.p .yam p.e w....
"� - 7d Ibs '• i ✓ _. rConvet tlonal 3 Sequential
• r�.,s. r "°t'" .C�!`YA"c911. :4•:'-Nw .1
lb s �� Identification
+r F,s fix_ { .xy.;
1' "• Sr4,
17t't,l' +* i a Ibs 5 Type of Series qM '.
Total weight v '`". �t}�Ibs .1p No Serles� Interval - ins.
ti rttir, +
Average Load Pee -belay' fit d�` S ` { `rl i', IbaSpecial Condlllons�
Powder Factor 4 4 Tirri�
t�aeu �11iS:Ae- A a-0 S Wrl
'ToLL
p Stemming '.r
Depth '.o., i ^ ,L1 r!"�;4ei� ft. Cord Type " gr.
Mat¢rle CR�;Yy Tl`iAZS•i's,r5L *ira'�JLL">p°t�.f7.�,,'1. x5,7';;, IfiTr hG�!k'�D¢Ia Conn actors
"ir • `�'�
..
Maximum Weight of Explosives Detonated: W�iyt;hin Any S Millisecond Period 7 n
`5rr P"'tf1) N jl ✓ rk<c t'`e-J rb'L'"4"'�>Ir i .t• 3 �S ri
Maximum Numbertof Holes Detoneted'W1ltim Any a Millisecond Period t •+t
Scaled Dlstance� nS 2d �'r*•Were Mets for Othei,Proteation Used1 Ves ✓` No -'
.. < i•�"""%•� ti�"y-�' tt7n+a ap. r x.>s A r .:y+,r u o,t ;'. ,..-.,
- < •L✓t:ms'axi t`�'a ��".�$t� ��y,WaspSeieomograplry a 9'^s .. A�ygg .. No ' ✓.`
iI A
vein
.��.
..
s •.-.
�
n
MS
FAMW
iii=�o®C�®®e®®���®�®�®®�®w®ice■iiiiiiiii
=i
won
■■■■■■■■■■®6\■Il®■■®■®®■■■it■■■/■■!':■.L71191U;1�\.1!1!�
=ME
MEN
■■®0®Co
NODE
UO!®!]
BID
VINt7■rl■■X9!h1192RI
!TEPTFM
w

Mr. Bill Thompson
September 7, 1989
Page 2
I look forward to receiving the requested information in the near future.
Your continued cooperation will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
T'Y Davis, E.L.T.
Assl t Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
TED: se
cc: Mr. Richard Phillips, P.E.
Mr. Dewitt Hill

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
LAND QUALITY SECTION
' (RtAsTrll�
q / COMPLA2NT
Date: ( 4,r County: 9�ftR-(21�
Project: !if9V&x) C/A/lJ 46044 - MIU4x- 64e-L-7- puAMul
................
Complainant:
_-----
ML. onu(rr
___________-------
Alu.
______________________________
Phone:
67o -I l�
Address:
aiu n S izAX-
��/1. llA.g1M'X_FeiWTa✓
. / c-
"7i'o M
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
ti
— ! S/ D it A /4B Y0 flFi /U/LG/wS
ov IYI�17 WAr tr
9c; e44o56 IF 1pr✓ CAUW lA�r UP k-',615Kabt'W* Af /M UpwiC'
— Mr; CArD WA aasr r now V6 <-w6keemeA A4S Rtu�o k /Ao3urt AV
1N£ /Asir
Du.4f FfkS BWAPL eowkxe -AF 6/4_4<1 /v t f - Al Alwf- yarn
-Sa[tEilufA 9c IfAS -awzAZ 6*6tt4
96 AAS af'A 0 1UPIr VttST 14Ukkt gCaC &IL4 17t /Wt L41d C4u4e AAA
>4>✓ 4�m Ale AS tgayycm wv rem oF- Av4w r— 25 F 1161 C>Twper
?wur 14riV/AS 6WM / IkG "7111i R2 V1U-;MG%13 aF 1UW)L Fr/y/Wi
h7wIr r4)L lqq�, FAAsT /✓ Qaes;rto✓- 2!r Mn
COMMENTS
—�1nw #1K yD R.64"r- -%WP50V5 &AST aEUn.ai 4)L AutxuSr
— 7 -DiA kH V-S UQS) cout b "r AY;E 4S DAUAbti ' Web //hum V
(.e vt%tt- A,/I C416+l t;t1uNb- FfX U he, iAoeun,� aAejA7V
.— T l JA azAI TJ� r!h cn .r /G nui/J: / T 1/k elm IiI1 "iL mil.
- 2` -PLO dim -m GVkT cr 1.4oz SEtyae Aa--r4 1{IE /krx. Auku�t Crayop
&56-A iwx m-&,.VnAK V*T pnarSuau.S krvs Sra;: ZLyLb ur/.
T+1Arr ArN- 6VAl r M &AMilS A*D U Utk'R$) lhk ks/etlr Or- '(UE
/AI/l 0/%IrJAr11 a✓ err /.GS - I-fE /ytiP,[cnrtC7�
Z loco RIM 01€ Ax; UUWU� AmAIML& TC's,'AIIt_#147- 91%0 tAS fort V0
/sVWC,r 3t IqM xLAw- Tu*r Ova rift� (. D LMAAN A-A0 LOKf(AIH Q A-QiBf-gOA0,
$//7/89
Investigated by: �-
Cr/• WJM,117, a/iw^

..._......_ _..... ..... . ... ... .
•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
LAND QUALITY SECTION
13u1S11✓(r
COMPLAS NT ,
Date: ��17 �8`1 County: 2Uyt,,XL W
Project: :ikngv,ad apmA'l.4MJi -Mlu"-- <7.A.(- - epaAKO)l
--------------------- ____________________________________----- __-------- ____
Complainant: I1F✓,• I nCWlrr thu, (ge") Phone: (704 K-(btt
Address: 1 ` Sl Boy, S0r{r iZuilA:X•f'oloD70✓ l �.1 i.
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
t09D 6, = tP#C&, a) PtLtiunrA OFGTIFE IvAaC-
� SiAE 4A-t 1f SF.1h�.d*-- Pt7�Pt,E r• etr FIWAZ7 e,C Fri Af- I✓ Ru,TLliart.60M•D'm✓
-SAh &t6t:7> (✓1O�rtffUUh Rt� -DOI.6 tV Dior 1Xck F/krt_ &AeSJ? -G-
-<NE rA?D -Wh tlt:ox- k✓D onk-y. PkCrowIS (ytx.€_ lint✓b 4'+t (�cl^
AV l✓SU["Od {PM"f IZL
C➢MMENTS
•-Z 1DLb Ffs:l+-2'D SobiGIr 7. G-'S gt AC'r tgoeLD Gal•- $/3189
0"f"DWzrD✓ tFlor &,rhK Alb A RA, � TIAT A- "iRP" „PJ-,
1W
P.(ASPA& LOA-o /r/o"
aE I C • S pEieu t�i' CSrhftS
W2.6PPy) XsOr- U6KH 5)
— I -vLA
0t;4— Ytn M Kt�
Htr .6r- 6 x- P-t✓ltwtPk /rurWAr
17laxwe)
TAxr:
Z_ep6w
'-rdo e
- Z row
be
4B4• 5wr 71k
RUiA
6tAc:;Ni!` Aro arvvl2t�
A 2EuSt» ALM77a� 07M&WJ66�
-L-ouo
aLx, lu4rr t4QS lc
tool— pwAvri&.6 ZD h (iz 'DA?dAGC-
TWA''
SltE 4*4At001,D
LOvrA*r A✓ FLEivctnaA-b-rrxsu 5PCUAi✓i
aw) /, 4SCU.F A'A9
" Ud o
/mcyzE D twatk- UVIL
UnbAHnbO AGA;II'sf T. C• lr4o
So Pat/&a
I+puestm-galed by:
CL � �ziufi>'w v��w�os

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
LAND QUALITY SECTION -
1"4j 0 ✓6f
COMPLA=NT
Date: 0/17 /SS County: i([cNL N.GuK.T>
Project: IUVPO4o✓ Wim,LAMP1A—UlLL0v- ('V.1'Y2, i9U.A,tn.N
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----. -----------------------
Complainant: ON.4. T. 1,)(Ju17r Nal.- (RbiT%4) Phone: i7 UV f �(671
Address: iZ9un'4 907C 606A 1&4.VE yr �n*VV. WL
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
Gru yvF Rr.ASr SAAA � (Dbo aY , ' 1'.//000(T GICIUN(X 04F- 19C LmAtL-
�4Ur•. Gbrb en x*.yr7Jrr.G FELL nG Fw_A/S'r W 7tu'NJ'tw6eN;�'m✓
cur.
�fn cw_
�: ncNw�µ�ts�-
(✓ airvw�- [,v�- fvv. v/W. I
Avom wR4f /MLLT orre
yMj
/ -
'1'U 4*ap MCU FROM. gLAe,-f1W
<ur
41&1n JU0T
uf;- u.t
/,7u—L
COMMENTS
— L -wub 4h-j+ 2'n Snl.ie.lr i, C'( RLx-r ILl A&D< C r- 8/3/89 t
bu. /ILobulr nJ a&r X4 r.a:el6 A'A,D APrLx. f 17hsr A- 1NGKB1 -0-
I
-r. �nA L,a- 'Cn vKt. gtx hr- 6rF f4p1wPR .6U7 7tht'r 14lvgao)
IAJll Coal: cur. -N WI ffty VC ACZFAM— 4;� /Opca 1LtU
,C vm.b Pf K- -flh4'r M- ilkf-7E K A 1/IOUMID✓ -rAA1- wG CButA 5709 V$w
rtwm BLAcnur Aug Rdnvlal: A Acost)� l3LMnk,�- Rte6Wz&
- 1, TULO ck L it Wr 1,0S 1r 40r AU,"ira6A -m AMc55 DAHA6c- IkAT-
Q4d 49, 414O:,0) LO✓fMir Ad QAv 4WUUA1 S" /✓SUU-:- Al-li
&4Zt b 1r11;4 Qtok. 11716610✓ AZ41N5f 1• C, 0- Sah= Sn VCWL 3,
Inves igated by:
Cc : �7ruJA� /a/u�vs
` l'

MEMO. •
TO: e (�
( '
DP
La -,a,
l/ ne�xv
72uC, Ck
3 North Carolina Department of Natural
`• Resources &Community Development

Surrn �Lt,v�•uad
r.fwklo -nav7- 5deallsim F(I
-18f521 svr-'Y UIII xh2l
-0
^.79 IQ D'MI,c = (,a) L•G � )ilf t..«.✓e1S
,.n,s Jo ^a0
_ es(z (o,) 4)001571 2 651
Sao cl o of `oo ='1nA bn6
2 orti 4m vd'-Mv -new nl <iaLvoa
'/'s✓)° � .Np
�s,M7w
wsz�� Sbo2 _�b•(sau)�i .a 1sw��ly -�� L�a�vs (�) �'I�/�(J �u =m
/'v ^
,d,o n
5942 ry"l o /- '/°as �L2
:3WL' Sglrz/b - Jrvadm LSV✓j
,.,�i �'ap%1 = (%zls7osr-a � (gool zQ :1h9�b-+11q -uny �YYT7S-Sia 3igj
��0 n 21.0 'P �0'0 =?�n L'L� =45': 5�)h+J•s� L75'b2
�k
sl,o l
(4S) -Ktl5'1'J
Q
-'�01;21 :3Y/IL ggJ�'-2jL-1`u0D3i1 y'�q'Y� �
' P7 4�1u�'»2G l,�dnD �v7 �raaalN— yy�d'�+aJ !!05/Nary!
---Glj �/h jL ® •

0 0

THOMPSON CONTRACTORS, INC.
P. a. oox 1260
RUTHERFORDTON, N. C. 28139
November 21, 1988
Mr. Tracey E. Davis, E.L.T.
Assistant Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Dear Sir:
�Lj:4 if
Novzz
LAI.4 ,"A!pY Sc"Ci70N
Re: Blasting Complaint
Miller Creek Quarry
Rutherford County
Enclosed for your review, are the blasting reports of the
September 21, 1988 blast as well as the one prior to and the one
following September 21, 1988.
I have also contacted Mr. 6 Mrs. Hill and advised them to
have the alleged damage repaired and to send the bill to Thompson
Contractors, Inc. They agreed and indicated they would do so
as soon as possible.
I hope this solves the problem, if not please advise.
Sincerely,
4t
Bill L. Thompson
BLT:ag
Enclosures

0

A,
u
­�'�Addr6sa
BLAST
, DAT-q
i If
ShotNo
.":"Date 2M
Time SKI
No; Holeil."
Diameter
Depth�'4
8 - ubdrillih'g
Spalclngt��'�LPi)
:7.
j11 - Q A
? - r' 'W4 .'Jt
�FM NIg
r t n.—,
.1 A IS t*
Speciflc
A
.'Benc
tilt.;
MAtWial BeRig Blasted:
V,q
d
Blaster
sub.... ..... . . IV
--in.q.
Blaster'swce
O�t i,-4-slxft
stance
NA!
f
;g, -gq. I, 3
maximum.,Weight .61,E*plosiveisI t
A
�D
mi Number, of �Holes,
nat hl
I th
MI%,
.
I raused?
W
VI.
BLAST.01 G-AM.
'141
J,
2M
tr v.I P
z.. -
7r
Al
V
V
r�
�Wl
Atm,
C�t
iA
Av
7.4
&
.'y
W.
I
}41
`E_
�Mll
es,
tip
fl,"ll
It
t
Ul
Ri
f4li
;tn1
V
'M
ft
Sit
y
IM
a,-
I "Al
Mif
I n.
n.
0
50
it
411,111,
110411".
11YA,
32-
;11 ip lk�
N i;ltl 9
Fig
p *.,T
1p IV J-�'
g�� ��p fll, T`l�
I
rl.
311; ""t� �S--;
1
TI. %�
_n V.
41.
F5
... ....
i t
go
54

c Bla at
LoceNgn
No-
t Mal.Bemg1Blasted
T I "I d.
F1,1 -1-64 N 1,
Delay,
r
A 4
valbciiir� *ez -ionmph a� Nursing �V Ut
_!lity,otherlinstil: at or
' M
%ZI'h IWI I
t nateav
Imn!
MMaxiOM
�4*
�4
.Vmaxlmu Number T'
4A 10 v
-'!?�I
W."',?-
42M g iW4 i1c
Ac No-
gr
re" R� Z;111
P14
..................
I
1.
sdr
LLL
*0
2
1141.
T1;I
01,
�41�'. 4 d
. .1 �
, I . , . - 41 1 1,

0 0

Total weight
f
Average-Low
ad eDelaygnrr
-P.
47 x�
i
Pow
der Facitill
Afa
Top Ste
De
No.
M
:1 19 1 - 1, 51. MZ1.1w A . I
, IA 1
Maximum, Wtghl'of Explosiv is -Delohit ecltg".4�7"Klnylw
Willisedbrid-Periii
�.WllhlniA
Maximum Number'
Seated D a I Ves ',NdMram
r
9
a -No
t 7
BCA:ST"6i AGRAW
oral
I ,
I.W5
IF 61:'V
r
I
I F f-4tkilisK 191�rplfl� 11 1,
4;
I
J
-�.l
El
r It
MA,
AA
9..4
S)�
'i)�'
14%
V
P.,
0
0.
vq
'kT

• . O
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCSES d COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
LAND RESOURCES DIVISION
LAND QUALITY SECTION
TELEPHONE LOG
Sheet
Date
Countylord_-
Call received Call placed
1. Project:
2. Conversati
3. Content of conversation:
ILS vAaru� dA,�z r�,f e- 2t i..r,.e, ,�Pe„�— v�^ &$
Wind Pilled by:

4� Wid Quuliiy.Si Lcm •
Memo
rmlinnm�
Dale: !1/23 1> Time:
To: TrQ6, i/ "5
From: JAB 4Nvi .&sEy✓
Re: eZA57/1Vr C'OMOLAinVr
C{v7A- MP At1 �o - %bbMAI5;zW (�n/7/LL'70.45
G
Wvidm of I nd Neen . Noah Cnm4m Deryrmmm of Nmun Names w CmimuNty fkrelgnnun

Date Complaintoceived: /1r2LJ8S
Name of Company and Mine: r&007PSaA/ (f0417R/3GYoA
Phone: (7q) ;f$ -1411.//.., )p,G
Location of Residence:
Distance from Quarry: 9pE FF&LZ irtC&47-6;() µAA'RnA/A7Rr�y 1E'05 rW,4A/,4
lYl[Le �FRam fvrt A;y
Nature of Complaint:gteA ijaa AS"s TKO .SxKr /ivn/NU fir OGCAAYAIA
When Did Blasting Become a Problem? wA0 GRopacEAVS !�li�CE7 HAUENr Coiry°ABH9ln
Frequency of Severe Blasts: lH,e F3.lA57 OF 9,2/ G/.45 THE bVoRbr oNk
M&v 114VE NAo 1W 7/fE Ma r Tin YeArs
Dates of Severe Blasts: -
Has complaintant contacted the Operator? Yes_Ne VZ If Yes, When
/E4 fo?/� Ar,fx &/.9s7 AP7 cgaL,o . oT AMA AA/YaN&
Results of this contact, if any: I-W/OR lop /rAers &r✓7AAL>4y5 IMLIA
Q a4rr, 6U 5 ZWAKS PSEl6iCE
Is Follow-up Report Requested? Yes ✓ No
Comments: ;U4 7f/,1 %" /.3.fAzr .YEIO,IlJS .3E�EU/E[dE/J.
A4v/�F_/J HE? Yo A'E<P A %SAA<Sl//✓G BOG
Signed:
�RA.fE/ GH

July 12, 1983
MMRANDU4
117: File
FROM: Jim Simons JjIr
SU&7E?'T: Blasting Complaint Analysis
Betty Hill House adjacent to Thompson Contractor
Miller Greek Quarry, Rutherford County
I nede an analytical calculation to determine an estimate of ground
vibrations resulting from the following blasts at the above quarry. T9us
analysis was made in response to a complaint, by Mrs. Betty Hill, that
blasts on these dates had shaken her house. The results of the calculations
are sufmiarized below.
Date Max. lbs./delay Estimated Peak Part. Velc.
May 11, 1983 420 0.4 (in./sec.)
May 13, 1983 700 0.6 (in./sec.)
May 20, 1983 750 0.6 (in./sec.)
Based on published data, the above vibrations should not be damaging
to neighboring structures. However, the vibration levels are in the range
which has been recognized as annoying.
JM:pms
cc: Richard Phillips

I
PIEDMONT EXPLOSIVES, INC.
Route 13, Box 193 a Statesville, Nonh Carolina 28677 a 704-873.2551
BLAST AND SEISMOOBAPHIC REPORT
Name of company or contractor7�0yr PE,o"
Date S - 3 Time of shot
Location ttof blast in quarry Decor X Lime. ,6 ,...Type of rock irr Wv�i'�'t•
Weathere`ewr' ceiling(approx.)Nvk��n,tr, emp. 75° Wind dir, s(k)
Direction and distance to nearest noncompany dwe111ng:Feet Dir.
Mats used Seismograph located feet from blast.
Seismograph operator
SHOT DATA
Up=
wrrnc�r��
e�w
LINUK1 9st1:11&�
�F
1i)N0:\'1:■11,Y.yr1
�i`�
��
Total cast of blast Cost per ton
Tons rock/cu. ft. borehole X face ht. -
X no, of holes 77 5 li-no O tone this shot.
Powder factor /•.l Average explosives per hole A70 lbe.,'
No. of holes per delay_Z_Maximum explosives per firing period 701) lbe
Method of firingOYl , F60 N^^noel Type of circuit m517 /rMs/12
Signature of blaster in charge( ��ZRG „ SS# a43-92- 325ri
Remarks:

PIEDMONT EXPLOSIVES, INC.
Route 13, Box 193 • Statesville, North Carolina 28677 • 704.873-2551
Name of company or contractor so„
Date - O - 8 3 t Time of shot /c;2 % 10
(3e5•tic
Location of blast in quarrylA±Rv,ci, ,-,gym Type of rock G r r v-,\-e_
Weatherfp�t�y 001�yCeiling(approx.)-;000' Temp, 80° Wind dir. 541
Direction and distance to nearest noncompatty dwe111ng:Feet Dir.
Mats used Seismograph located feet from blast.
Seismograph operator
SHOT DATA
No Holes
H 7
EXPLOSIVES
Hole diameter
J71.
TYP9
81ZE
APtOU lbs
Hol-dre
fi'r.c,
<,ea
SOU
ub ill n
o „ e
Stemming
mm�
ort
w., bnn �cs
31ut
vo
Burden
acin
7
e t Borehole
s
d
•�)u font Co O'
lrotal Explosives
� {'h ru ¢/Z
6760
Total coot of blast Cost per ton
Tone rock/cu. ft. borehole X face ht, -
X no, of holes=i O U tone this shot.
Powder factor I.• 3 Average explosives per hole /q 55 lbs
No. of holes per delay... Maximum explosives per firing period 760 The
Method of firing F P. Cain c Type of circuit •S e,r� e S S 'NFA Cd
Signature of blaster in charge :24 9,) - -3,2 6 5
Remarks: 5C00r„ � ' �0 1- („1P, S ZIVN

I
- ;. B[As r•G �COM/Pr; A/n/7EvAG a,Od •v/ -
10! 6P�V Ad NO 4SQ
oof
/o,us: s + /a 00 fi fa.,._ Quolry' - --
/Noy 13., /463
Do/l0s-�'nsi•v»•+..i j-wn�...w iw
-mar lgdr/wl. __ ..c106 — LS
Pro 0/1d oo/ Peak ?Oej, Vol
C n
in
i
/% /dolor
I
h5� 1
..PP V
0310� LW
I
101 3. _ _. Ma,y 20, 12C3
000 000
So- 38 - .Sa =_3�
.F m. Vi Iva.1e,J% Gharf- .... .. _ ... __
YPJ = .D.S _ PPV. = 6.5- .
O� Pant Pop ft , 9? / 6
I.6
r V. �- . l�0 _.C_W'� i000
7.6 . a o l osa 0 f
100 0
V= lGo -C 7aoV�)
0.
d

j-----
... -
- - -- .__ _ _ - -
_...�_.----_.__..---..---
- ------
f--
---
- -_
t-.-
-- --
- -- - ---- --
-- _----
-------
- - __..
I
--
r----�----
---------__----
F-
-----
_.
...
t. _
.____.._..
_- _...--�--�-- --
--_ _ ._.. ----
---.
I
I
- - ---...
--- -_ _.
f

q 1, FI5%!N G �Om P4 A„dT AT,O)/
_ ✓ y a r•3

•
PIEDMONT EXPLOSIVES, INC.
Route 13, Box 193 • Statesville, North Carolina
• 704-873.2SS1
BLAST AND SEISMOGRAPHIC REPORT
Name of company or contractor= Ino mp <ov\ C 04trA J-er5
Date 5- 11 - $3 Time of shot 41' I Z
Location of blast in quarry Flnor. aA: , gea,4k6l pe of rock
Weather C'Inm 4 ceiling(approx.) / 0 OD 1 Temp. -7 5 0 Wind dir. Sly
Direction and distance to nearest noncompany dwe111ng:Feet Dir.
Mats used Seismograph located feet from blast.
Seismograph operator
SHOT DATA
No Holes
EXPLOSIVES
Hole diameter
YP8
bizE
AMOUNT
lbs
Hole de th
3
ub- rillirur
temmin
'µ
J.
urden
acin
a ft rehole
Tons/Cu, d
11:0tal Explosives
aon
Total coet of blast Cost per ton
Tone rock/cu. ft. borehole X face ht. -
R no. of holes 1a Q - s_3 O O tone this shot.
Powder factor Average explosives per hole 5 lbs
No. of holes per delay 1 4 Maximum explosives per firing period 4 n lbe
Method of firing V-I ec,+r is Type of circuit -9�)ar,L s i r, PRRP\\e,
Signature of blaster in charge.'-�
Remarks:

North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources &Community Development
James B. Hunl! 8overnor Joseph W. Grimsley, Secretary
i„
May 12, 1983
Mr. William Thompton
Thompton Contractors, Inc.
P. 0. Box 248
Rutherfordton, N. C. 28139
RE: Blasting Complaint at Miller Creek Quarry
Dear Mr. Thompton
r. tiOp
DIVISION OF
LAND RESOURCES
Stephen G. Conrad, Director
Telephone 919 733"3833
We have received a complaint concerning a blast on May 11, 1983
at the Miller Creek Quarry in Rutherford County.
In accordance with operating condition no. 7 D of the mining
permit, please submit a copy of the blasting reportfor the blast
at approximately 4:15 PM on May 11, 1983. The report should include
the information required by condition 7 D.
I would appreciate your sending this blasting_ report -immediately
so that we can proceed with the investigation of this complaint.
Thank you for your cooperation.
S' erely,
/ ames D.C.P.6. S., P.E.
Mining Specialist
LAND QUALITY SECTION
JDS:gf "
cc: Richard Phillips
Gealo&al Su rvoi -733 2g 21; Guodatic Survey-7$3 3IH36; t..md Quality- '733"45'4; earth Rusuurce. Planning"-733 3833,
L.ro Resourus inrorrnatmn Smite--733-2090 Box 276V Rule!, NC 27611-7687
A 1,4q1. It tlo n.. 1 FrIeVOTIN Aeslx, r. n;nrvr

el
rY
;.
• t ...
v .
a.
• f
Y
cc
,
.b,i(�Jsi•Q.hlliJJiil2.
.1'
itis� dmr'i� :ciJ�lJ
+d'.','lC
%
A
oN �.
•
JIN UK Too t0'�'1pf 1 CUCi&LS`{v U�.-, a r}:
r rE•r!:nc ral CLucr5q Hurt :tF+� q1E .iay17'.rlob C{ Fi11 colobLusu
'
{J MUIJQ 9yb1,EC19{E Ton>v_,.'allgJ ll,� FNa'
�iN FJ. a-.4 ohLL .. ,l0NGfl MP' JX
{
dNF {u{O;R�7R{JDl' {.�E(i(]Jl .p \ COVgJ$7I. (L ,,'�_
',
� )?a3•
{ 5h[51:8X "Fc1^ tt: 12 61' a j'A Jdd
fir
,ebq,L+ 2kINJJy�lttc l'lgc
'JELW'1""bIE9P5 >U{1'r a LIJ.��(J{ $F "rJ
92J.11� EDOM
F04 \ F';�iS2{ v
Y
CCO»g4Cte: BJ FV ob; Ciq ju O. co uq.!fNA�WJJJ:J,�'
-
S{ {NE. LB�'JrL+CL(;6 I11J/.iA 1)1�'�,fi{�JEIgt;LQ:[ UdT\..
•+
jL6 JJ n Lgr6J,1Oq b CC4bJ4 U CUU,4 Oki) J UV s N82t Ou L,�d-JJ �1 d83
.
yr
•
nEtJ. '�jJ.� , ` ' w
,�Ntlun{ou:` a
h
'
GE G7 �'Cluc 9w �iJ{ a 1'J`JJ54. CLssK•'�jnn
�. SOW
ox
J,Nomb{uu cI�G, .c{pr;2 ruCI I.
.
lo, �i119W j„1 AZOU -
pr
r
o
SI

0
25139
Ymw application ftr rerawal of the above referenoad mine has been
approved. A oupy of the renewed pamit is enclosed,
The conditions in the pexmii remwal wers based primarily iVon the
Modifications were made the renawal
t end advise tJds office sbmild you
matter.
an anely,
QRIGINAL SIGNED A'(
Jam D. Simone, C.P.G.S.. P.E.
Mining Specialist
LM OUMM SE=CN

THOMPSON
Jim Simons
Land Quality Section
N. C. Dept. of Natural Resources
and Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Sir
In response to your letter of Se
Miller Creek Quarry, we have sol
Until December 31, 1981 we utili
ing. Until that time we were awa
evidence of any damage.
Since January 1, 1982 we have e
North Carolina to do all our bl
four times and to the best of o
at all.
We plan to have Piedmont Explo
If I can be of assistance with
Sincerely yours,
THOMMMJPSON CONTRACTORS, INC.
J�./-t
Bill Thompson
Secretary
BT/my
P. O. BOX 249
ORDTON. N. C. 28139
1, 1982
INC.
RECEi'UED
SEP 3 02
LAND Q0AUTY SECTPON
ember 1981 concerning blasting -at our
d any problems that may have existed.
.d our crusher foreman to do our blast -
of some complaints but saw no physical
oyed Piedmont Explosives of Statesville,
ing for us. To date we have blasted
knowledge there have been no complaints
do all our future blasting.
more information please let me know.

\1
a9,+A, North Carolina
e>aResources•
Mr. Bill Thompson
Thompson Contractors,
P. 0. Box 248
Rutherfordton, North
RE: Miller Creek Quarry
Rutherford County
Dear Air. Tharpson:
28139
vent of Natural
y Development
Joseph W. Grimsley, Secretary
September 21, 1981
DIVISION of
LAUD RESOURCES
Stephen G. Conrad, Director
Teleonane 9197333833
We have received your application to renew the mining permit N81-1
for the Miller Creek Quarry The application indicates that the mining
and reclamation plan will continue unchanged for the nest permit period.
The Mining Act of 1971Icontains several provisions requiring protection
of neighboring pmperties during mining activities including blasting. Since
1978, we have received numerous complaints that quarry blasting is damaging
neighboring buildings. We Have discussed this matter with Forrest Coon of
your company and you several times. Due to the continuing complaints and the
apparent lack of professional blast monitoring, we feel that more attention
should be given to the blasting practices.
Please advise what pra
to design or monitor quarry
not damaged.
G.S. 74-51 (4) pr
will constitute a subs
house, school, church,
road or other public p
We will be happy to d
advise should you have any
JDS: pg
cc: Richard Phillips
Geological Survey Section-7332423, Geodes
Land Resources Information Smite 7332090
are currently being taken or will be taken
ng to insure neighboring structures are
that a permit can be denied if the operation
physical hazard to a neighboring dwelling
al, camnmercial or industrial building, public
this matter with you further. Please
f�
Sigcerely
v ;yrtirir.0
:. James D. Simons, C.P.G.S., P.E.
Or,Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
Land nudity Section933457a; Flan ning and Inventory Section 7332633;
Bah 27687 Raleioh 27611-7587

•
MEMORANDUM
To: File
FROM: - James D..Simons
SUBJECT: Blast Monitorin
Rutherford Como
May 19, 1981
'bfl
t Miller Creek Quarry, Thompson Contractors
I examined the seistector, tape taken at the Clifford Fields House for
the period April 8, 1981-(11:40 am) -May 5, 1981 (10:09 pm).
The seistector tape
JDS/ch
cc: Richard Phillips
no measurable vibration for this period.

0
LI
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
FROM: James D. Simons
SUBJECT: Blast Monitoring May.
Fields Residence of R
I examined the Seistector
10:30 am May 27, 1981 monitored
Miller Creek Quarry.
No vibrations recorded
for this period.
JDS/ch
cc: Richard Phillips
June 2, 1981
1981
d County
for.the period 10:08 am May 19, 1981--
the Fields house near Thompson Contractors,
found to be over 0.1 inches per second

j,.L

Mrs. J. Dewitt Hill
Route 5, Box 505-A
Rutherfordton, North Carolina
Dear Mrs. Hill:
Thank you for your letter
Thompson Contractors, Incorpor
•
nent of Natural
y Development
Joseph Grimsley, Se ieiary
October 16, 1981
28139
DIVISION OF
LAND RESOURCES
Stephen G. Conrad, Director
Telephone [phone]
September 30, 1981 concerning the
, Miller Creek Quarry.
In response to the continuing blasting complaints in the area,
we have written the operator to'i determine what practices they will
use to insure that quarry blastli ng will not damage neighboring
structures. We are awaiting a reply to the inquiry. However,
The Mining Act of1971 requireslthat all operators conduct blasting
in a responsible manner. Iwill be better able to address your
blasting complaint after the operator replies to our inquiry.
I have referred your c
of Environmental Management
air quality. The local law
traffic violations.
I will be happy to notify
SGC:JDS:pg
cc: Roy Davis
nt of excessive dust to the Division
has responsibility for the State's
cement agency has responsibility for
when we have additional information.
Very truly yours,
SEy�4iL'7 G , r
Stephen G. Conrad, Director
Geological survey Section-7332423: Geotlmicsection -733-3836: land 0vallty Section.7334574: Planning and Inventory section-7333833',
Land Resources L.formalior, sarvice-733�2090 I 80e 279B7 raiding 27611 7687

ROUTING SLIP

NORTH CAROLINA
RESOURCES AND
Date _
To: J ��
From:
Rmarl
IT� ATURAL
D OPMENT
19
❑ No, .l� N. ❑ N,4. Inirl.l .M bmW
❑ u ,. ,d , ., ❑ rwl , �... N rlm
,
❑ N .m w. .som ,el. ❑ re, Iw. m„m., .
❑ ra.rv. oplewd ❑ nwi,e ,wlr or my ill
❑ F., um m...... w ❑ n mM,m.,len 41 .0 ,n .clr
❑ .. v ,.x,.x O Pw." <m.,.,..Nn =wv ,. m.

To
Date Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M
of
Phone
IRE' CODE mum9t" EXTERS)CM
Message
Signed
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
N. C. Dept. of Natural Resources and Community Develovmcns

NORTH CAROLINA
RESOURCES AND
Date _
To: C'h ut Gn
From:
Remarks:
DEVELOPMENT
is—
D ry ..a ni. ❑ xa..„rll old rei.,ve
D xw. all To 'a❑rI .. N.•
D For row 'Witold O P'Ipw• ..Wr m. MY 8191111",
❑ All wr .mrnvimn O hry.. Iaw,, No ow to i•ob
13 Fn y rpun ❑ x.l..v mWn. With «pY m.

IMPORTANT a.
To
Dare Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M
of
Phone
AREA CODE
NUMBER EXTENSION
Message
Signed
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALI'
CALLED TO SEE YOU
IL CALL AGAIN
WIENT
WANTS TO SEE YOU
URG
RETURNED YOUR CALL
N. C. Dept. of Natural Remurces and Community Development

• .. ROA 5,Box 505-A
Rutherfordton, N. C..
` September 30, 1;981!
Mr.' Stephen G. Conrad,' Director, _
N. C.Dept... of Natural Resources -
and Community Development .•
Division of Land Resources. ..
Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C., 27611.
Dear Mr. Conrad:
_ Thompson Contractors', Inc.'
•-Miller Road.. Rock Quarry'.
We appreciate very much your letter of September-17th concerning the,
above subject matter: Mr. Allen of your Asheville office was here on
September 22nd and installed t1le seismograph.in'.our home for a second
. time.. ..
The Thompson have already replaced two windows inthis=house and it
has been noted that our patio, lthe brick for.whi_ch was laid leas 'than'
two years ago, has_cracked!as a result of their last blast. This
construction company has also paid our neighbor,.Clifford. Fields, for.
blasting damages to his patio and bathroom tile in excess of $1,000,00.
Your seismograph was-,la'st placed, in the Field's home; and Al, Thompson
•'made ;it known that they were aware.�of its presence There.is,:no .doubt
,that' the .Thompson° `are 'setting off�af I tor'e•`"severe' Ulast .'tfian`•The "
Mining Act of 1971• 'could 'ever allow:- The intensity of +the.i�r•blasi .can
also beI substantiated by•Rev:-1rock••of.the`PYeasarit-:Hill- 'Baptist .Church. `•
He asked the Thompsons tolimit the amount that was being set off be-
cause.o£ the damages to their' ah' 'hurc, only to be -told by Al that he
' intended to;set off all that he could and that ,the Thompsons wer& insured,
"just send us 'a, bill For the., damages°.
.Not only does this'cosmunity sustain damages from the blast, we,have to
'endure the dust that is being created. Stockpiles of unwashed rock area.
not being wet .down. and the wind blows it directly in our homes.. Also, :the Thompson trucks: enter Maple" Creek Road from Miller Road and do not.
stop The sign. erected by the._state of N. C..is a STOP sign.' The' trucks
:carrying.hot asphalt come by with.their loads uncovered part of the time.
Just how much "are we,.the tax playingcitizens, of this community suppose•
. to endure from these people -in.Iorder'that they'.can make a tremendouse
profit.,at the expense o£'our,•, es?_ ..
Your help will be appreciated .:
Yo ruly
s.
�a r RECEIVE'
19ffi r : V
cc: OCT
�. Dr. Paul Seto u�T 5
Lp�Q QUA4�n. SEC O
DIV.DP CAOD RES.

CItO.
ray 0:�
. t .. .r i c'aC>i ..L'' r
•�4 f ^3 -S rL"(' F, 1 1- +y { ,JI t F4 4 7 -, t -1
-
:-. .?f2 -'4s+ a. ..,,�1. �J. .. ` _ )';C,�. ..3: ... f[.: R.a-, _(. •.w`.:• o+-. -
ld
Af2',.'l,a 3 {i.: _ads.. ..t . .,!y y. 4lq
'..f: _R Y c - �. t.i3 r.
i, ✓. ]. :{ . ad9 )I %.' u3' ;.w �, _.y^.Lr. •. ... J....., l'f ti "7,l ,',:.d'' cS:
it .'ely ti. t u. i '.' �° 6�r ry `R t[VO
4, f+- :{r..1..cJ .y.y1 , .:1....^- yry .n :c 3[.x fC .ptk rT r).,
'XPr S.C�iY.�"'ya :...0 0 - CZ-G :4 .i .i`1 IL
•9: r, ?;.
. J�.n a r.f ...: .,. if =•_.yi Jr1 f_ .c`Y; C Vi:••'',-___...•f 8'.,
1 r�6
eC..of d^ of
1. `�iO1,. . v..LO:-Y
19 >.; gr4 e.
.,�� [ t r.. J i d aOw, n ;
Ij
rL
,
.q IC•. i. Au,Fs.9 ( ! ..rill 0 e� 1 Y- }...e
;E �?fx;: r r rt.• },.�- l � 0� ° ;yi p _,9 L'i)(?O C•' _
F: f
.. r' .b,... r .J RV
ri
T
*.
'.S• i -
H

R North• • •
'`RF� IFiiS'r.
Mrs. Dewitt Hill
Route 5, P. O. Box 505-A
Maple Creek Road
Rutherfordton, North Car
lt�:7tl��;lligl
Cd:IRI:]
e
vent of Natural
y Development
Joseph W. Grimsley, Secretary
September 17, 1951
DIVISION OF
LAND RESOURCES
$teol:e t Q Conrad, Director
Tulop hone 9:9 7333333
The Governor's Office bags asked that I investigate your complaint
of blasting at the' lharpsonicontractors' rock quarry.
The North Carolina Gen
to allay mining provided pr
resources during mining. A
blasting is required to be
damaging neighboring reside
In response to your w
your house (with your peral
blasting and blast mcnitori
blasting limitations may be
the adjacent residences.
We hope that these
quarry blasting.
�
cc: Paul Sebo
Assembly enacted The Mining Act of 1971
Eons were taken to protect adjacent surface
quarry must blast to operate. HowEver,
rimed in a responsible manner without
.aint, the seismograph will be replaced at
on). Furthermore, the mine operator's
practices will be evaluated. Additional
posed as necessary to insure protection of
will prevent any hazard resulting from
Very truly yours,
Stephen G. Conrad, Director
Gooloaical Su neySection-733-2423: Geodetic Secti on 733.3836; Land Quail ty Section-7334574; Planning and l nvemary SemlaoJ33-3633;
Lund Resources Information Servicee 733.2090 I Box 27687 Relelch 27611.7687
J 7

0
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
OMBUDSMAN
Name Mrs. Dewitt Mill ,
Address Route 5 P.O. Box 505—A Maple
Telephone — Business
•
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FORM
Home 704 267-3108
CASENUMBER
I DATE
I COUNTY
I REFERREDTO
I REPLY ON ORBEFORE
TAKEN BY
929
1 9/14
1 Rutherfo
Itteevg.0
nr
/ 9/24
L. Baker
Origin
HOTLINE
GOV. OFF. GOV.VC) h1
SEC. O F F.
PEOPLES DAY
OTHER
WRITTEN
I VISIT
I PHONE
THER
[Reply noting referral from Ombudsman's Office
❑ Investigate & furnish this office with necessary information to respond.
❑ Draft reply for Secretary's signature Ombudsman i signaml E]Othe
Immediate telephone response requested.
❑ For your information — no respome required.
Please let Mr. Sebo have a copy of
your response.
Mrs. Hill complains about property damages incurred during neighborhood blasting.
whom son contractors, who are responsibdelfer the blasting, has agreed, to pay for any
ama�es but they refuse to halt the blasting. Mrs. Hill has discussed the situation with
Mr. Allen in the Asheville District Office and Jim Simon in NRCD. Mr. Simon claims that
seismographic readings of the site taken on separate -occasions did not register. Mrs, Hill
does not believe such readings are accurate and she seeks further assistance.
Case opened and referred to Steve
Jam za mcan, Lana Resources
Return all original informatloniwith the white cops. Retain the vellow coov whh onn. ills.

:R GOVEAR'S OMBUDSMAN INFORMAN SHEET
CASE NUMBER INITIATION
DATE NAME B ADDRESS
0
n�DEPARTMENT OFFICE l!,r s. /'i�rS, ✓CO�_ q
/I R'6D LAND RESOdRCES �/M(APLE' CR7EEr,' ROAD)/
A4 i_ bid RJYHERFORD%ON, NG 28/39
BUSINESS TELEPHONEHOME
COMPLAINT REQUEST ❑ - /7�
JURISDICTION NO JURISDICTION ❑ `=M11
l
TAKEN BY: RiOdERWRITTEN 1 ❑ PHONE t VISIT 9 ❑ REFERRED TO'.PLEASE RESPOND BY:
SUBSTANCE OF MOUIRY OR CCM➢LHINTr
MRS. 14=44 CALLED OVA OFf
OVER PROPERYY DAMAGES WNrC
FROM NE-i"I JLA.57-rA/G ,
RES PONS sCe FOR THE .DAMAI
A<L NECESSARY RFPAsR S� ,
BL AS TSNG, MRS. %✓SdL FfEt
QE 7ERMSNATEp,
MRS. %/SLL DS.SCfel )
fTS E✓SLLE OrsrAYCr OFFScF
BALE SGH, SESSMOGRAPH SG
SEPARATE OCCASSON.S_; NOWE
QLAST5 OsD NOT REGS.i TEI
ANO WOaJt0 LFRE FJR ryE
In ardor to assist this Office In enaedHleg an answer to the allow: onven.
T,,T,<stigate and Acknowledge Slating G ,eaor Referred Inquiry to I
Deft Raoiy Suitable for Gowernnr s Signorina.
Investigate and Furnfch this Office with Necessary Information so Res
❑ for Ywr Information.
TM1an4 You Roe Your Cnngeraeon and Assistance.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENOATIONS
rCE ANO WAS EX7REI-W,4' JPSEi
NA✓E OCCJRRED .sN HER NESGNEORNaD
NOMP,SOA/ CONYRACTI rNE PARTY
✓
EJ HAS GLADLY AGAEEO TO MA.R'E
o WE✓6R THEY REFJSE ro .T>OP
ry=s sS A NOSSANCE rASAr sJ+o✓LD
'F 1497'716R WSTN IVR, 4A4C-N SN rAE
ANO S=M SS/WON Ali /✓ R G D /V
RE90.iN6.S WERE rq KEN el TA/D
'R MR. SSnON cLgSMS THAT TN£
SHE FEELS YH =5 SS SM PasSSL?G,E
ASss3 D79N�E �
lease <:mde:e the actin„ mAmed bete.,:
t. Send COPY To this Office. /
d to lnquiry. T AN
an
Weave Return TOi
Gow n s Ombudsman Office
Admmluranon Building
COUNTY I018I/
RurNER�oRD

-
- ,
-
.r
VA 9�,

H.
rdn;North Carolina
Mrs. Betty Hill
P. 0. Box 181
Rutherfordton, North Carolin
Dear Mrs. Hill:
I have written Thompson
recent blasting complaint.
I have made a strong ap
ing to recognized safe limit
not of Natural
Development
Howard N, Lee, Secretary
October 27, 1978
28139
DIVISION OF
LAND RESOURCES
Stephen G. Conrad, Dlrectar
Box 27887, Kemal 27a11
7elealwm 019 7=113W
Incorporated concerning your
to Mr. Bill Thompson to limit his blest —
I also plan to bring blasting complaints to the attention of the
North Carolina Mining Commission in their November 3 meeting. The Mining
Commission is our advisory body and will hopefully provide further guidance
in this matter including possible enforcement procedures.
I will be happy to keep you informed of future developments. In the
meantime, please contact me if you feel blasting is continuing to damage
your property.
JDS: nbe
cc: Mr. Richard Phillips
Sitncerelly',
"James D. Simons
Mining Specialist
d
Geological Survey Sae0on-7333423: GenCul la Survey S
Long Rmawcea Informeticn;
An Camel
3S: Lerk Quality Suction-733 4S70: Planning" Inunnon, Sarlion—M21833:
W0: Soil was Water Conservation Sermon-733a2302
Affirmative AWon Employer

F
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources &Community Development
J arnes B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Howard N. Lae, Secretary
October 27, 1978
Mr. Cliff Fields
Route 5, Box 504
Rutherfordton, North Carolina 28139
DIVISION OF
LAND RESOURCES
Stephan G. Conrad, Director
eov 27007. Raleigh 27611
TobVaone 919 7333033
Dear Mr. Fields:
I have written Thompson Contractors, Incorporated concerning your
recent blasting complaint.
I have made a strong applleal to Mr. Bill Thompson to limit his blast-
ing to recognized safe limits.
I also plan to bring Elating complaints to the attention of the
North Carolina Mining Commission in their November 3 meeting. The Mining
Commission is our advisory body and will hopefully provide further guidance
in this matter including possible enforcement procedures.
I will be happy to keepyou informed of future developments. In the
meantime, please contact me if you feel blasting is continuing to damage
your property.
Sin'xerely,
James D. Sisal
Mining Specialist
JDS:nbe
cc: Mr. Richard Phillips
Geological Survey Sectian-0332423; Gr+netk Survey Secllon—i!}3030; Land Ova11ty 3 110n-7334570; Planning old Inventory Smtion-7333033;
Land Rena, Information Serviall20e0; SWl are; water Cemalvetlon Section-7332302
4a Equal 000orsIuniry Al6mreave Au/an Employer

North Carolina
Resources &C
James 8. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Mr. Bill Thompson
Thompson Contractor's Inca
P, 0, Box 248
Rutherfordton, North Caro.
Re: Miller Creek
Dear Mr. Thompson:
u
,ant of Natural
Development
Howard N. Lee, Secretary
October 27, 1978
28139
DIVISION OF
LAND RESOURCES
Stephen G. Conrad, Director
Box 27967, Raleigh 27011
Telephone [phone]e33
You will recall that we discussed your blasting procedures at the
Miller Creek Quarry and potential hazard to neighboring structures last
June. I further discussed with Mr. Forrest Coon the blasting complaints
of several of the neighbors and using the Scaled Distance Formula.
I have again recently received blasting complaints from the neigh-
bors. One blast of particular' concern to the neighbors was a blast at
approximately 4:00 P. M. October 13, 1978. Would you please send me the
following details concerning the blast on October 13:
a. Total pounds of explosives used
b. Number of drill holes
c. Number of delays
d. Maximum amount of explosives per delay
e. Location of blast
I also understand that you do not normally monitor your blasts with
a seismograph. Therefore, a situation exists of continued complaints that
quarry blasting is damaging adjacent structures without any evidence from the quarry operator that the blasting is within recognized safe limits.
In an attempt to resolvelthe blasting complaints, I would recommend
that your.company pursue one of the following alternatives:
1. Limit the maximum pounds of explosives to amount prescribed by
the Bureau of Mines Settled Distance Formula (W=D2/502 generali-
zed, Was Its of explosives, Dadistance in feet to the nearest
structure)
2. Monitor your blasting ground vibrations and air overpressures
from various offaite 'locations using the maximum amount of
explosives that you anticipate using, The Bureau of Mines
found that a ground tibration particle velocity of 2 inches/
second was the threshold of causing damage. In practice, the
vibrations moat be heyld to about 0.5 inches/second to minimize
Gabioglcal &Irvay 3mt10r-733 24n:0e0aplic Survey Section-73Iii3936; lAn d dually Seethe-733.4574; Plenninp eM Inventory Sac ion-v333ea3.
Lp -sourm, Inlor"llon Serv1w-733.2000; soil erd Water Conmrvation Socear-M2302
An Equal Opponaniry A ffirmorive AWon Employer

Mr. Eill Thomps•
Page Two
October 27, 1978
blasting complaints
stators in their bl
3. Notify complaining
If blasting complaints
will have to extensively me
or amend your mining permit
used. Either of these alte
point of view.
Consequently your coo
plaints and notifying this
I will be happy to'
JDS:nbe
cc: Mr. Richard Phillips
•
Consultants are available to assist op -
monitoring.
of your blast monitoring program.
tine without refuting evidence, the office
r blasting at the Miller Creek Quarry and/
limit the amount of explosives which can be
Ives is probably undesireable from your
i in resolving the recent blasting com-
of your intentions will be appreciated.
discuss this matter with you or your agent.
s ncerel(Iyy,,\ (X//I
lames D. Simons
ining Specialist

r
X
North Carc
Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Go
Mr. Forrest Coon
Thompson Contractors,
P. 0. Boa 248
Rutherfordton, North
RE: Miller Creek
Dear MI. Coon:
This will document our
ing at the Miller Creek Quar
{3ji#I:
Department of Natural
)mmunity Development
Howard N. Lee, Secretary
June 26, 1978
conversation today concerning blast -
You indicated that your company was willing to reduce quarry blasting
to levels within the guidelines of the "Scaled Distance Formula" developed
by the Bureau of Mines. Thislshould minimize chance of damage to adjacent
structures. However, the reduction may or may not reduce blasting complaints
based on the experience of other rock producers and you may want to further
reduce blasting levels to minimize complaints.
I also want to remind
office site adjacent to the
should be initiated at the
Your cooperation is
JDS: she
cc: Richard Phillips
of the sediment control problem at the new
ry. Erosion and sediment control measures
immediately.
Sincerely,
James D. Simons
Mining Specialist
V, O. One 276I97 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 «
E9uul Oppdrfuniay AfAmnarye Action Employer

F
•
gym" �^�" ' - •
Mrs. Betty Hill
P. 0. Box 181
Rutherfordton, North
Dear Mrs. Hill:
On May 30, 1978, Bill
Bill Thompson, Forrest Coon
corporated to discuss the r
Mina Department of Natural
&Community Development
ernor Howard N. Lee, Secretary
June 26, 1978
28139
u of our Asheville office and I met with
Gene McGaha of Thompson Contractors, In -
blasting complaints.
A limited review of thOlasting information did show tnat the
amount of explosives used was Imore than what is normally used at similar
operations. I have sent the operator a copy of a United States Bureau
of Mines blasting report and the operator has agreed to voluntarily re-
duce the amount of explosiveslused to at least the levels recommended by
the Bureau of Mines.
. Hopefully, this reduction should reduce the impact of blasting at
your residence. However, if you still have blasting complaints, I shall
be happy to review the situation again.
Very truly yours,
James D. Simons
Mining Specialist
JOS: nbe
cc: Richard Phillips ✓
P. O. Box 27687 Raleigh, north Carolloa.Vlil I
An liquid OpPori ll r ily ARirmmioe AUion Employer

• � o
TO FILE
TO: File
FORM: James Simons
M;,1er
SUBJECT: Blasting complaint at Thompson Contractors-B*I: es Creek Quarry
I telephoned Forrest Coon, Thompson Contractors on 5130/78 concer-
ning Mrs. Betty Hills' blasting complaint.
Mr. Coon said that they would cooperate fully and would send the
pertinent blasting data on the May 12, 1978 blast which Mrs. Hill said
was excessive.
I also telephoned Mrs. Betty Hill to notify that an investigation
would be made of her complaints! Mrs. Hill indicated that the company
had replaced windows and has blasted excessively for some time.
Mrs. Hill said that she wa�ted to talk with me when I was in the
area.
th
_zs 78 Ca/led
A�rea�A r
d ispNee To
[t� sill Allen /pitho.d
6los
eDen eon CV e` I inn
. 17s.e(es
blasf%Rg h s�,Ib,e
I?
Ik B.r of /0lees

A& North Carc
VqW Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Sm
Mrs. Betty Hill Q•o ,� Igl
Piedmont Road PO N
Rutherfordton, NC 28139
Dear Mrs. Hill:
This letter is in response
Asheville Office on April 20, 1
tractors Miller C eak_D a in
reach you by phone earlier.
Department of Natural
)mmunity Development
Howard N. Lee, Secretary
May 17, 1978
your complaint to Mr. Bill Allen in our
concerning blasting at the Thompson Con-
therford County. I have been unable to
The Mining Act of 1971 does require that surface mining operations
include reasonable provisions for the protection of the adjacent surface
resources.
To enable our office to determine if blasting at the quarry is posing a
hazard to your property, it would) be helpful if someone could make a note of
the dates that the blasting was considered excessive or objectionable and
send this information to me. It could also be helpful to our investigation
if the general weather condition and time of blasting was also recorded.
With this information, we can review blasting records and procedures of the
mine operator and compare them tolco:tmonly accepted blasting standards.
I will be happy to investiga a your blasting complaint if you can
provide me with at least one date when the blasting was objectionable.
I will also be happy to di
at the following address: Land
North Carolina 27611. Phone -
7DS:chl
cc: Mr. Bill Allen
this with you further. I can be reached
ty Section, P. 0. Box 27687, Raleigh,
733-4574.
Sincerely,
?�Knina
mesn. Simons
Specialist
Y.O. nun
An Irgool C
a,i,nyn, Moan Carolina 2761 t
ip ArIlrnmrlre Anlnn Eninlnyer

pAvocd%o
-f3:fl.
Arlen
fb�ao�h5'
rnMD1 AI�
CnDM
MINE
0 A S T I N G
NAME OF COMPANY AND MINE
PERSON COMPLAINING
Q mp lo"
ADDRESS In
PHONE
LOCATION OF RESIDENCE
DISTANCE FROM QUARRY
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
WHEN DID BLASTING BECOME
A PROBLEM?
FREQUENCY OF SEVERE BLASTS
DATES OF SEVERE BLASTS
AW/Ar>r
6'PPK Pu4horl7ord
rs Be9N FIPI I -Re v. J. r 13rb c 1�
Ciryu�MCr{orA�er
d ,j PI�s<. 1-Wn CAur<
�ti°
2$"73�68' � ��sl)z87-3856
c
otViog Walk 4o CI\Ui
AW
,p_n ruor
�h
ew w,>`Aews o
S�JLrG
VPor s
(�GCGSf,bna
llv (bu� Mit Nrll Q.�'Wof',�1
r49rr1
t
1018 $: 20o.w
t i�

M 1 N E BLASTING COMPLAINT FORM
NAME OF COMPANY AND MINE
PERSON COMPLAINING
ADDRESS
PHONE
LOCATION OF RESIDENCE
DISTANCE FROM QUARRY
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
WHEN DID BLASTING BECOME
A PROBLEM?
FREQUENCY OF SEVERE BLASTS
DATES OF SEVERE BLASTS
0
/jiio 5 3:oa pM %1
a '7 K-un 9M
Aai 9 '122a AM

.�F
:rNort Car#
.F
jx taw -Resources
Mr. Forest %oone
Thompson Contractors
Post Office Box 248
Rutherfordton, R. C. 28139
Re: Thompson Contractors,
Rutherford County
Dear Mr. xoone:
DepartAnt of Natural
)mmunity Development
Howard N. lee, Secretary
March 4, 1981
Creek Quarry
on March 2, 1981, an inspection was made of the Miller Creek Quarry in
Rutherford County as required by General Statute 74-66 of the Mining Act of
1971.
Rectawtion activities and
were found to be generally in e
permit. However, the foZloulLng
compliance:
1. A berm should be construct
bank in the area where tai
settling pond to prevent r
2. A rock check dam should be
below the overburden fill
Should you desire further
-procedures or erosion control
any time.
cc:
ce::
W/x/m Simons, P. E.
Asheville Reglonxl Office Interclmrip Building, 159
An Equal a
ion practices carried out to date
with the provisions of your mining
need to be taken to assure continued
and maintained along the stream
We are being dredged fram the
1ff from entering the stream.
in the drainage ditch
or, assistance regarding reclamation
please feeZ_free to contact me at
Sincere Zy,
William H. Allen
Asst. Regional Engineer
Tre
lao3
g 190'
$ECS1�y
AI
Iv
s StrwGP.-.O.1Boa 3ID; Asheville, N. C..28801 Telcpl�olM`lO�����pp M1I 53.310i
fly Atibmmive Action Emyloy¢r

•
MEMO TO: Sim Simons
FROM: Floyd Williams
DATE: Nov. 13, 1979
SUBJECT: Complaint fileME meeting
RECEIVED
NOV 1 r: 0
AIV 0. :ARTH
�a QUALITY bL - I+5
Enclosed is a map that Mr. Jack Whisnant gave me concerning erosion
problems at an asphalt plant and adjacent quarry in Rutherford County.
Please forward this to appropriate persons.
RECEIVED
NOV 14Ipq
DIV. OF EARTH RESOURCES
LAfIID QUALITY SECTION

AA rs. Sge-dy I AlI
woe K
C7Dq) zit S - 358a
Qvs;ixI R Cr- 0s

iMYiAn„ - ATLANTIC BEACH •
SALTER PATH ROAD ...
ATLANTIC BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA 28512 TELEPHONE - (9191 726-2544
P
I
C

®R,,), RECEIVED
NOY 28 1978,
THOMPSON CONTRACTORS, I ee„erN RCSpHOCea
e. ecx 248 i N� pUAU fV SECTION
RUTXERFORD70N'1
U139 1
November 27, 978 .i
James D. Simons
Mining Specialist
N.C. Dept. of Natural Resources
and Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.
Re: Miller Creek Quarry
Dear Mr. Simons:
Enclosed are the answera to y
October 27, 1978..
a. 21,250 lbs explosives use
b. b. 25 holes drilled, 100 ft.
C. 7 delays
d. Delays No. Used
1 3
2 4
3 4
4 4
5 4
6 3
7 3
Total ......
e. Middle of Quarry, 2nd Bench
I trust this information is sat
Yours truly,
THJJOM��//PSON CONTRACTORS, INC.
Bill Thompson
Sec.
inquiry of
Lbs Used
2550
3400
3400
3400
3400
2550
2550
21,250 lbs.

® 0 DIVISION OF
Borth Carotin® Department of Natural LAND RESOURCES
Resources&Communit DeVelo SbpnenGCantae,wir
ment
Y pSax Z GS .Pale A27611761i
James B. Hunt, Jr, Gw¢rnu/ Hary a C{eU Lee. Selary
I TakMom e,o W3.mYi
October 27,
Mr. Bill Thompson
Thompson Contractor's Incorporated
P. 0. Boa 248
Rutherfordton, North Carolina 28139
Re. Miller Creek Quarry
Dear Mr. Thompson:"
You vrill recall that we discussed year
Miller Creek Quarry and potential hazard to
June. I further discuscied with Mr. Forrest
of several of the neighbors and using the S
I have again recently received blasting
bors. One blast of particular concern to the
approximately 4:00 P. M. October 13, 1978. W
£ollotzag details concerning the blast on Oct
ps Total poundo of explosives used
jy. Number of drill holes
p. Number of delays
d. 18amfmum amount of explosives per
e. I.acation of blast
RECEIVE'
DIV. V' c u.Y xE&JUNCE
LAND UUALI IV SkOilON
:
sting procedures at the
Jabbering structures last
)n the blasting complaints
led Distance Formula.
hmplaints from the neigh -
abhors was a blast at
ild you pleanc send me the
6r 13:
I also understand that you do not normall monitor your blasts with
a seismograph. Therefore, a situation exists of continued complaints that
quarry blasting is damaging adjacent structures without any evidence from
the quarry operator that the blasting is withid recognized safe limits.
In an attempt to resolve the blasting comp Raintn, I would recommend
that your company pursue one of the £olloaing alternatives:
1. Limit the maaisum pounds of explooivesl to amount prescribed by
the Bureau of Mines Scaled Distance Formula (W=D2/502 generali-
zed, W= lbs of explosives, D=distauce in feet to the nearest
structure)
2. Monitor your blasting ground vibration4 and air overpressures
from various offoite locations using the masimtm ammunt of ,
explosives that you anticipate using. The Bureau of Mines
found that a ground vibration particle velocity of 2 inches/
second vas the threshold of Causing d ge. In practice, the
vibrations must be held to about 0.5 inches/second to minimize
Geological SurveySection—M2e23: Gcodatic Sun0y Scctlon-7333 ;I nueliN Sactlan-7I 570: Rlgnning Intl lnwnton Section-733-3w;.
UWRo[WRee lnlormotlon Sonloo-7312OSS;5WI ens Wont ton wtlon Sl 0n 73,2=2
An keug/OOAo/luniry A/rimmli.e Action Emotjytr
vxr a.._nr�.. ,.va..a. .. a r. rvN�; r.........,.y.:+N+LJ:..ra..u.,. .1.`..L:__..wm.A.'a'wu°.N ✓e:/tdl.

•
ANA North Carolina
On Resources &C
James S. Hunt. Jr., Governor
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
i
;nt of Natural
Development
Howard N. Lee. Secretary
10, 1979
Mr.' Bill Thompson
Thompson Contractors, Incorporated
P. 0. Box 248
Rutherfordton, Worth Carolina 28139
RE:Blasting At Millai Creek Quarry
DIVISION OF
LAND RESOURCES
Stephen G. Conrad, Director
Box 27ae7, ealclyh 27811
T8180hono 910 733a6B3
Dear Mr. Thompson:
Since our correspondent: I last fall, additional complaints have
been received concerning axe sslve vibrations to neighboring houses
from quarry blasting.
Our office has purchased a continuing monitoring seismograph to
monitor mine blasting. Due to the complaints please be advised that
we will be monitoring blasting vibrations periodically at unannounced
intervals to insure that thelneighboring structures are not being dam-
aged by blasting at the Miller Creek Quarry. The seismic records will
be evaluated using recognized criteria for damage levels. Should blear-
ing vibrations be found to exceed or nearly approaching damage levels,
the Department will seek to curtail blasting or to suspend the mining
permit in accordance to procedures outlined by The Mining Act of 1971.
Any seismic records could poysibl,y be subpoenaed in the event of a pri-
vate lawsuit.
We would prefer that yod voluntarily insure that your blasting can-
not damage adjacent properties. Should you wish additional information
on predicting safe blasting limits, we would be happy to refer you to
appropriate references or consultants. I am sure that your Aggregate
Association could also provide information.
Your cooperation is
Sincerely, t
James D. Simons;
Mining Specialist 1�G
JDS1pg
cc: Richard Phillips, Fred Allen
r."Aglical Sumov 6nctlnn-7334423; Gxoneliv Sorvny 9v11en-7M. 036; Land Ouulity 3aclicn-733A574; Planninennd Invwrury 5c11on-73136337
Ln nd acwur<es Inemmflon 6vvim-73S2090.
A fbuoi Op"rruni1lY AllinnOd" Artion LmPhryer

i ROUGING SLIP
SIhYNS
OV
GAHANEfi
Sa�rc=
O NRAD
PiMSE SIM AND =BENT
pam— (.no �J aC �i nai ion
�r i.zuo nr�

z

Zf
X�

rf
JUL 241981
State of North Carolina LAND QUALITY SECTION
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
Application for a Mining Permit
G. S. 7 -50 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, 'The Mining Act of 1971"...
After July 1, 1972, no operator shall engage in mining without having first
obtained from the Department an operating permit which covers the affected land
and which has not terminated, been revoked, been suspended for the period in
question, or otherwise become invalid.
1. Name of Mine Miller Creek
County Rutherford
2.
Name
of Company
THOMPSON
CONTRACTORS, INC.
3.
Nome
Office Address
P.O. Box 248,
Rutherfordton, N.C.
28139
4. Permanent address for receipt of official mail
same
Telephone [phone]
5. Mine Office Address Ml l l or Pnn,
Ruther£ordton, N-C. I Telephone [phone]
6. Mine Manager Gene Mc Gaha
All items identical to the
iginal application except
Items C-2 and C-3
We hereby certify that all details
contained in this Permit Applica-
tion are true and correct to the best
of our knowledge. We fully understand
that any willful misrepresentation of
facts will becausefor
permit revocation.
*Signature
Title Secretary
Date 7-21-81
*Signature of company officer required.

3
APPLICATION FOR A MINING PERMIT
3. Check acreage to be bonded: Total affected acreage figure from B,
2 equals acreage to be bonded.
0 - 4.99 acres ($ 2,500 bond)
5 - 9.99 acres ($ 5,000 bond)
O 10 - 24.99 acres ($12,500 bond)
O 25+ acres ($25,000 bond)
4. Will your company file a blanket bond covering all of ics mining operations
in North Carolina? Yes No
Check the amount of blanket bond:
$29500 ❑ $12,500 O
$5,000 ❑ $25,000 ❑
C. Protection of Natural Resources
1. What precautions will be taken during mining operations to prevent
significant adverse effects on wildlife, or freshwater, estaurine or
marine fisheries?
2. Is there a waste water discharge from your plant or mine?
Yes ® No
If yes, indicate the approval document number issued by the Division of
Environmental Management, Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development.
P4RvM./ No. .2 SYS Expiration Date - � y rL
3. Is there an air contaminant emission from your mine or plant?
Yes No
If yes, indicate the approval document number issued by the Division of
Environmental Management, Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development.
Expiration Date

;IORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
InI Date 19_
From:
Remarks:
1" t �
nn 4—e,.,:, c..l.�.
v(�¢ n..e, nn r
. o«
❑ wx .a rd.
❑ xn.. miwi .,d fr.,.d
D wx
d an
D wx .�n.•u w ,w
o w ww xo„
D w r.a pea.n
. o apw ,. oply it x. •v
Imp mnpr/
im
❑ Tpu. InlmnNen M
p rx w•,l
O w.. n .im .wr x .n
e m.

IMPORTANT
in
Dare .Time_._.
WHILE YOU WERE OUT-- --
M
AREA COOK NUMBER EXIZNSION
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
signed
N, C. Dept. of Natural Resources and Community Development

a�
N
I

:qr
CMIFIID MAIL N0, 979614 August 20, 1975
RE•T = RECEIPT FMCDESTED' -
Mr. Hill Thompson
Thompson Contractors, Inc.
P. 0. .Box 248
Rutherfordton,. North Carolina 28139
Dear Mr, Thompson:
This letter will document my meeting with yen and Mr. Allan Thompson on
August 12, 1975. -
At the Miller Creek Quarry Mr, All= Thompson and I discussed the erosion
control measures along Miller Crook needed to correct the deficiency originally
noted in my letter of April 1, 1975. The measures discussed included (1)
diverting drainage away from the banks and providing stabilized outlets where
needed, (2) riprapping along the streamb=k where, revegetation ties not possible
and stabilization was needed, and (3) revegetating the streamb=ks and over
burden piled adjacent to the stream. .The approved revegetatien plan specifies
the needed seeding, fertilization and mulching requirements.
The failure to provide adequate erosion control to minimize siltation of
Miller Crock is a violation of Section 2 of the Reclamation Plan in the approved
application for a mining permit. The Enforcement Section of the Division of
Environmental Management has already been contacted for possible legal assistance
Is gaining compliance.
Your prompt cooperation is appreciated. Please contact this office should
.you have =y questions concerning this matter. ,
JDS:lch
Very truly yours,
James D. Simons -
Assistant State Mining Engineer
i

r
q,:

�Jtie of 'c aH4 @+.a Tali=
A UFUS 1. EOMIST£N tpurtment of 1Justise
wr,odncr c9Nx?AL P. O. Box 629
27602
-July 21, 1975
To: M. W. Puette
From: Ilan Oakley
Re: Suspension or Revocation of Mining Permit.-,
Thompson Contractors, Inc.
Pursuant to your request, I.offer the following
comments on permit suspensions or revocations in general,
and Thompson Contractors specifically._
GENERAL .
When a violation of the Mining Actis documented;
there are.several' enforcement.alte=natives available: (1)'
Forfeiture proceedings against the bond or other security
pursuant -to G. S. 74-56 and G_ S. 74-50; (2) Departmental
modification of permit or plan pursuant to G. S. 74-57; (3).
Suspension' or.revocation of permit pursuant to G. S. 74-58;'
and (4) Criminal violation or injunctive relief pursuant to
G. S. 74-64.
G. S. 74-58 provides that, whenever the Department
believes.a violation has taken place, written notice shall
be served. on the operator specifying the, violation and inform
inghim of his right to a hearing. Thehearingmust be not
less than 30 nor more than 60 days after the notice," unless
both parties agree on another date. The effective date of any
suspension or re.vocation,.if violation is found, is.60 days
from date of decision. Appeals to the Mining Commission and
superior court will stay that effective date,,although the
Department could proceed with injunctive relief if it finds a
delay would result in "imminent peril to life or danger to
property or to the environment."..
As you are aware, this route could be extremely slox,
perhaps extending over 6 months before a final resolution. "
Also, permit suspension or revocation does not appear to call
for correction of the violation, in itself. Bond forfeiture or
other proceedings would be necessary_ This procedure of G. S_
74-58 would have the following effcctE No new or
renewal permit could be issued until evidence was given of the
operator's intent to comply fully with the Act, and all pre-
vious violations were corrected. .Presumably,this sanction
would cause.the operator to correct his violations. ,

24. W1 Puette -
July 21, 1975
Page. 2
As further penalty, any other permit requested could be
denied pursuant to G. S. 74-51(7). - -
A review of the alternative enforcement actions
reveal the same advantages and disadvantages as suspension/
revocation hearings.
(1) Bond forfeiture-- It appears this could be
initiated either at the same timeas the suspension/revocation _
hearing (see last paragraph of G. S. 74-56) or after that -
hearing (G. S. 74-59). However, no forfeiture request can be
made until the surety has been gives notice and a reasonable
time in which to comply. -
(2) Departs=_ntal modification of plan. or permit--
Procedually, very similar to suspension/revocation process, and
probably not as effective. This may be necessary, however, if
what we are requiring conflicts with .the reclamation plan.
(4) Criminal violation or injunctive relief-- -�
Bain advantage is that we start out incourt, which is where .
we may end up anyway if the operator appeals a permit suspen-
sion or revocation to that level. Of course, a criminal I -
violation requires a willful violation, and injunctive relief
requires immediate irreparable damage andinadequatelegal
remedy. It is not clear from the file that either of these two
actions would be appropriate. -
In summary, although the .suspension/revocation process
presents some problems, it is probably as effective as any - -
other remedy provided by the Act. -
THOMPSON CONTRACTORS, INC. -
Should the suspen.,i.on/revocation routebedecided
upon, I would suggest the .following changes in the draft letter:.
1.. Reword the first paragraph to reflect the fact
that this will be a hearing on suspension or revocation of
FiningPermit81-1 due to the fact.that the Department believes
that a violation of the Article (or the conditions of the permit),
has taken place.
2. The specific facts of theviolation should be --
stated, citing the s-atutory reference (or permit. condition) -
if.possible. .Since the deadline has been extended ---from the
original date of Clay 1, 1975, to a second date of .Time 13, 1975,.

L -n i Nor', 'a¢^iccx
ttrt:rte,d of .JISS�tL2
RuFus L. EOMISTEN �'-1,'cr
ATTOA44Y GZ.NL"AL P. O. s0% 629
P.ALlIGX
27602
Snly 21, 1975
To: M. W. Puette
From:. Dan Oakley
Re: Suspension or Revocation of Mining Permit
Thompson Contractors,. Inc.
pursuant to your request, I offer the following
comments on permit suspensions or revocations in general,
and Thompson Contractors specifically.
GENERAL
When a violation of the Mining Act is documented,
there are several erforcement.alternatives available: (1)
Forfeiture proceedings against the bond or other security
pursuant to G. S. 74-56 and G. S. 74-57l; (2) Departmental
modification of pet -lit or plan pursuant to G. S. 74-57; (3),
Suspension or revocation of permit pursuant to G. S. 74-58;
and (4) Criminal violation or injunctive relief pursuant to
G. S. 74-64. 1 1
G. S. 74-58 provides that, whenever the Department
believes a violation has taken place, written notice shall
be served on the operator specifying the violation and inform-
ing him of his right to a hearing. The hearing must be not
less than 30 nor more than 60 days after the notice, unless
' both parties agree on another date. The effective date of any
suspension or revocation,.if violation is found, is. 60 days
from date of decision. Appeals to the Mining Commission and
superior court will stay that effective date,.although the
Department could proceed with injunctive relief if it finds a
delay would result in "imminent peril to life or danger to
property or to the environment."
As you are aware,. this route could be extremely slow,
perhaps extending over 6 months before a final resolution.
Also, permit suspension or revocation does not appear to call
for correction of the violation, in itself. Bond forfeiture or
other proceedings would be necessary. This procedure of G. S.,
74+58 would have the following effect: No new or
rer.eloal nermit could be issued until evidence was given of the
operator's intent to comply fully with the Act, and all pre-
vious violations were corrected. Prasumably, this sanction
..^uld �=.se "M onn_rator to correct his violations.

RUFUS L. EUMISTEN
AT QA9CY GZN90A,
�O Edg Of CNcrffi V' .$mina
' +�-l.'-cpasfine,d v{ rustic_
F. O. Box 1629
RALSIGN
27602
July 21, 1975-
/ �Leo
To: M. W. Puette '
From,: Dan Oakley -
Re: Suspension or Revocation of Mining Permit
Thompson Contractors, Inc.
- Pursuant to your request, I offer,the following
comments on permit suspensions or revocations in general, `
and ThompsonContractors,specifically.
GENERAL
When a violation of the Mining Act is documented,
:there are severalerforcement.alternatives available: (1)"
Forfeiture proceedings against the bond or other security
pursuant to G. S. 74-56 and G. S. 74-55; (2) Departmental
modification of permit or plan pursuant to G. S. 74-57; (3).
Suspension or revocation of permit pursuant to G. S. 74-58;
and (4) Criminal violation or injunctive relief pursuant to
G. S. 74-64. .
G. S. 74-58 provides that, whenever the Department
believes a violation has'taken place,written notice shall .
be servedonthe operator specifying the violation and inform-
ing him of his right to a hearing. The hearing must be not
less than 30 nor more than 60 days after the ctice;Iunless
both parties agree on another date. The effective date of any.
.suspension or revocation, if violation is found, is.60 days
from date of decision. Appeals to the dining Commission and
superior court will stay that effective date, although the
Department could. proceed with injunctive relief if it finds a
delay would.result in "imminent peril to life or danger to
property '.or to the environment." - - -
As'.you'are aware, this route could be extremely siol
perhaps extending over 6 months before a final resolution.
Also, permit suspension or revocation does not appeartocall
for correction of the violation, in .itself. Bond Eorfeiture or
other'proceedings would be necessary. This procedure of G. S.
74-58 would have the following effecti No new or
renewal permit could be issued until evidence was given of the
operator's intent to comply fully with the Act, and all pre-
vious violations were corrected. Presumably, this sanction c>
would cause the operator to correct his violations. ,

M. W. Puette
July 21, 1973
Page 2
As further penalty, any othei permit requested could be.
denied pursuant to G. S. 74-51(7). -
-A review of thealternativeenforcement. actions .
reveal the same advantages and disadvantagesas suspension/
revocation hearings. -
(1) Bond forfeiture-- It appears this could be - -
initiated either at the same time as the suspension/revocation.
hearing (see last paragraph of G_ S. 74-56) or after that
hearing (G. S. 74-59)_ However, no forfeiture request can he
made until the suret7.has been given notice and a reasonable.
time in which to comply. - -
(2) Departmental modification ofplan or permit--
Procedually, very similar to suspension/revocation process,.and
probably not as effective. This may be necessary, however, if
what we are requiring conflicts with the reclamation plan. ..
(4) Criminal violation or injunctive -
Main advantage is that we start out in court, which is where .'
wa may end up anyway if the operator appeals a permit suspen-
sion or revocation to that level. Of course, acriminal -
violation requires a willful violation, and injunctive relief
requires immediate irreparable damage and inadequate legal
remedy. It is not clear from the file that -either of these two
actions would he appropriate.
In summary, although the suspension/revocation process
presents some problems, it is probably as effective as any
Other remedy provided by ..the Act. -
THOMPSON CONTRACTORS, INIC.. - -- - -
Should the suspansion/revocation route be decided
upon, I would suggest the following changes in the draft.letter:
1. Reword the first paragraph to. reflect the fact
that this will be a hearing on suspension or revocation of
Mining Permit 81-1 due to the fact that the Department believes
that a violation of t_e Article (or the. cgnditions of the .permit)
has taken.place. -
2. The specific facts or the violation should be I
stated, citing the statutory reference (or permit. condition) .
if possible. Since the deadline has been extend d -from the
original date or May 1 1975, to a second date of June 13 1975,..

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES MEMORANDUM
DATE.
TO: �(A'�vFEg LFI SUIECr
t5 hL 46", IA PhD iue raatn� �vao�Lmc� w eau i{AtmdAm �
16mpson `s mumunDb PmrriLt .
WOE r01you M omvi
h ISO, IT uL 2tV14T�,d� N bios)
Wof uv pence U'1e1a",,
� e 4, k d,mwn rn r tl u wj)urnm w 2C q u� um r� iw
c9; w uc u o cai rn, e ?t

I.NSF'FICTED BY: _ Ma . lMAMS __
• REIN:iPECTION_ REPORT -
Compa'�Y county:
Mire: jJj;tjAr o�j7MPk no'rra _ Permit Number.
Date Inspected: 6-23-7S Date of last inspection.:. S'-4-74;
Prodc;t:�� �nd , ,40Mn; Person
1. Remarks - Measures Taken
A. Erosion Contra.: 1pflap, xgewp g� MA& ;dMr nr iAi.•/%: e ijk
E. Waste Disposal:
II. Ar.:ival Reports - Adequacy of plan
rLECOIOMDATIONS & COMMENT3%- . io
ir
Deficiency letter needed Letter Sent _ Reinspection Needed
C

Ilk

A j�q'
Mr. Bill Thompson
tray 13, 1975
Page 2
Your prompt cooperation will be appreciated. Please contact this office
if you have any questions.
JDSrlgc
tl
Very truly yourse
James D. Simons
Assistant State Mining Engineer

IN.Y'ECTED sy
INSPECTION REPORT
Company:_ 79a. 70. me Can k nc
Mine: A�21221--aa�
Date Cnspected: ,3-7S-75Date of last
Permit Number,:
inspection:
Prod; JL:. al krj 1-10_ Person Contacted: -__Cnn
1. Remarks - Measuree 'Taken
A, Erosion Control.
B. Waste Disposal: .,Z=e - okev7o/ nP61 . PIOL!Y A^AW un�,In,- �rtas riL1�lan..
C, Reclamation:
II. Arjivai Reports - Adequacy of plan
& COMMENTS:
� � P
SAFI
A e e i
Y i e, • e
A • S
Deficiency letter needed ✓ Letter Sent �- ���`� Reinspectien Needed

/�i
;, . � .
. ���._
..
;.
.
,,
�._
.,
,,

THOMPSON CONTRACTORS, INC
RUTHERFORDTON, N. C.
r
MILTER CREEK QUARRY
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
August 16, 1972
PREPARED LBY;
-0,011_40
Bill Thompson

:ockpile
lck
^usher
fishing
.ant
:ttlement
)nds
t Area
ller
eek
1

R: nn
itiOF'e.G^fID BY:
INSPECTION REPORT
Company:. L;nn/osoN^(OAr1-A49 TORS d /n.r_..
Mine: Njx4dc% Permit Number: R/-I
Date Inspected- r: UA)' S /97Y- Date of last inspection.;
Product: /�.e/ISN.cJ �TeAI`Person Contacted;�LA
I. Remarks - Measures Taken
Ae Erosion Control:_ S�/w/i. fJ!✓.E/r Inn/ RE,Qh1 61 7e/(. 62 iio// Of
B. Waste Disposal:_ &2U 5.77t/Ale /PolyD3 /n1 p�2,2,3 r��yU� nu. 2r;u eOrrll
/L %cQNS / A/YNA ESE EYC SS/VGii_' 7T/RB/t�� ___
C. Reclamation: n/nA)/
II, Annual Reports - Adequacy of plan
:ZA,ic'!7i/}fTF - /Vd'T 71fGP.ri(Z:, CA)
_T7 ri°w/ 70 2RL-nc�� i' Ge. Ft� cPi /Y rxci v/✓r' %FJ 1YE� SQry L
19
Deficiency letter needed __� letter Sent (o/,fM4 Reinspection Needed,.__

l

1
C. Maps
1. County highway map with mine location indicated. County
highway maps may be obtained from: Location Department,
State Highway Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
Smallmaps of each county are available for $0.15 each
plus 3% sales tax. Make checks payable to North Carolina
State Highway Commission.
2. Map (accurate drawing, aerial photograph or enlarged topo.
graphic map) of mine area of a scale sufficient to clearly
show the following:
a. Property lines or affected area of mining operation
b. Outline of pits
c. Outline of stockpile areas
d. Outline of overburden disposal areas
e. Location of processing plants (processing plants may be
described as to location and distance from mine if
sufficiently far removed)
f. Location and name of streams and lakes
g. Outline of settling ponds
h.. Location of access roads
i. Map legend
1. Name of company
2. Name of mine
3. North arrow
4• County
5. Scale
6. Date prepared
7. Name of person preparing map
Signature
r
(6)

/0, No. 91 -/
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural and Economic Resources
Office of Earth Resources
Mining Division
Application for a Mining Permit
Article 7 of Chapter 74 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, 'The
Mining Act of 1971" ...After July 1, 1972, no operator shall engage in
mining without having first obtained from the Department an operating
permit which covers the affected land and which has not terminated, been
revoked, been suspended for the period in question, or otherwise become
1. Name of Mine
Miller Creek
County Rutherford
2. Name of Company Thompson Construction Inc.
3. Home Office Address Box 248 Rutherfordton, N. C. 28139
4. Permanent address for receipt of official ma iL
Same
Telephone 287_3333
5. Mine Office Address Miller Road Rutherfordtmn, N. C.
Telephone-704-287-3065
6. Mine Manager
Gene McGaha
We hereby certify that all details
contained in this Permit Applica-
tion are true and correct to the
best of our knowledge. We fully
understand that any willful mis-
representation of facts will be
cause for permit revocation.
*Signature _2&V PZ
Title Secretary
Date 9—/6-7Z
*Signature of company officer required.

APPLICATION FOR A MINING PERMIT
r.
3. Check acreage to be bonded: Total affected acreage figure from B,
2 equals acreage to be bonded.
❑ 0 - 4.99 acres ($ 2,500.bond)
❑ 5 - 9.99 acres ($ 5,000 bond)
® 10 - 24.99 acres ($12,500 bond)
❑ 25+ acres ($25,000 bond)
4. Will your company file a blanket bond covering all of its mining opera-
tions in North Carolina? Yes U No ❑
Check the amount of blanket bond:
$2,500 ❑ $12,500
$5,000 ❑ $25,000 ❑
1. What aspect of your mining operation may have significant effect on wild-
life, or freshwater, estuarine or marine fisheries?
None that I know
2. Is there a waste water discharge from your plant or mine?
Yes U No ❑
If yea, indicate the approval document number issued by the Office of Water
and Air Resources, Department of Natural and Economic Resources.
Applicatimn Applied for 6-6-72 Expiration Date .�tliv I)19-11
Peermi o, 2585
b. Is therean air contaminant emission from your mine or plant?
Yes M No ❑
If yes, indicate the approval document number issued by the Office of
Water and Air Resources, Department of Natural and Economic Resources,
Annlication Anolied for 6-6-72 Expiration Date
3. If your mining excavation will come within 300 feet of any neighboring
9

Land Entry Agreement
We hereby grant to the Department or its appointed representatives the right
of entry and travel upon our lands or operation for the purpose of making necessary
field inspections or investigations as may be reasonably required in the adminis-
tration of this Act.
We further grant the right to make whatever entries on the land and to take
whatever actions may be necessary in order to carry out reclamation which the
operator has failed to complete in the event a bond forfeiture is ordered pursuant
to Section 14.
*Signed
Title SeCTAtarX
Mine Miller Creek
Company Thompson Construction Inc.
* Signature should be the same as the officer who signed the application for a permit.