Laserfiche WebLink
An <br />energy fuels coal, inc. <br />southfleld mine • post office box 459 • florence, colorado 81226 • (719) 784 -6395 <br />RECEIVED <br />September 15, 2014 <br />SEP 18 2014 <br />Mr. Rob Zuber — Reclamation Specialist <br />Division of Reclamation Mining & Safety Division of Reclamation, <br />Safety <br />1313 Sherman Ave — Room 215 Mining & <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />RE: Adequacy Response — Permit Renewal No.6 (RN -06) <br />Energy Fuels Coal, Inc. (EFCI) Southfield Mine — Permit No. C -81 -014 <br />Dear Rob Zuber: <br />This is in response to your third Adequacy Review letter dated September 9, 2014 <br />concerning Permit Renewal No. 6 (RN -06) for the Southfield mine. This letter format <br />responds to items in the same numerical order as those listed in the Division's 9 -9 -2014 <br />Adequacy Review letter but omits the numbered items that were determined as, "No <br />further action required ". <br />1. As stated in previous adequacy responses, EFCI has verbally agreed with The <br />Corley Company as to mitigation of the Corley Company Well No. 119459, negotiations <br />are ongoing, including other issues and a formal agreement is still pending. Pursuant to a <br />final agreement, the PAP will be updated accordingly. <br />3. Drill holes MW -08 and MW -10 were sealed, reclaimed and reseeded during the <br />week of September 7 -14, 2014. Following receipt of the respective abandonment reports <br />from the attending geologist, the PAP will be updated accordingly. <br />10. EFCI needs to establish a replacement reference area or propose acceptable <br />reclamation success standards for the loadout and update applicable text in Section <br />2.04. 10 in the PAP. <br />EFCI is in receipt of the Division's Letter of Completeness for Technical <br />Revision No. 41 (TR -41). As requested by the Division, additional data has been <br />submitted to the Division from the consultant, IME of Yampa, Colorado to be used for <br />the Division's vegetation comparison and further review. <br />22. The use of the term "Corley Company Well "for two different wells is confusing. Map <br />12 uses the term "Corley Mine Well "for one of these wells, and this terminology should be <br />repeated in the text to avoid confusion. Also, it appears that the location descriptions for these <br />two wells may be incorrect in the bullet text. Map 12 indicates that the wells are in Sections 23 <br />(Corley Mine Well) and 24 (Corley Company Well) of R70W. Please check this and revise text as <br />necessary. <br />