2014-12-08_REVISION - C1981014 (2)

Home Browse Search

Phase II and III and the Surety bond must be extended through completion of these improvements to insure that we have water and can use our property in the future. We request that Newlin Creek be monitored when it is flowing to determine if it is being contaminated by the tailings pile. Monitoring that has been done when there is no water flowing and reported as dry. We believe that this could be partially due of the reduction of only water monitorings /year through a past TR that the Division approved. The property owners are pursuing retention of Pond 4... and feel it is necessary for sedimentation control because of exposed coal at the site. The water in Pond 4 has not been tested by Energy Fuels to see what it may have in it. We are asking it be tested during the next two years for at least TDS, manganese, iron, calcium, nitrates, radionuclides and then verify that it can be used for livestock. We would also like it compared to other adjacent water like in the pond at the Florence Mountain Park. The other Retaining Pond for Magpie Creek will also be removed and it will enter Magpie Creek which then flows into Newlin Creek at the turnoff to CR 92. By not reclaiming Pond 4, EFCI is saving almost $11,000 and we believe that money to resolve some of the water issues that we have brought up in this letter. CRS 34 -33 -120 Environmental protection performance standards state "(2)(c) ...all surface mining and reclamation shall prevent leaching of toxic materials." Pond 4 where the drainage occurs from the tailings pile has not been tested by EFCI. In a January 15, 2003 letter to the Division 4. Stated "The property owners are pursuing the retention of Pond 4 and feel it is necessary for sedimentation control because of exposed coal (seen below Pond 4 in the streambed) that occurs at this site. Therefore, water testing is required at this site as well." Also the Pueblo District Water Resources Office staff person Josh Kasper (719)269 -2800 said that it may require an augmentation plan. It seems that there are 35 drill holes and /or wells and they need to be located and filled according to regulation. CRS 34 -33 -120 (1)(C) Casing, sealing or otherwise managing boreholes (EFCI cannot locate the majority of ours), shafts, and wells to keep acid or other toxic drainage from entering ground waters and surface waters. We need the Notice of Violation initiated by Janet Binns to be enforced and a new monitoring well drilled into the mine workings. This needs to be monitored by EFCI to determine if the mine is filing up with water. We are requesting a board hearing on March 25, 2015 and believe that the division's extending it through March 2015 is inexcusable. It will have been almost two years since TR 40 was initiated before it was withdrawn by EFCI but the violation has not been corrected. After numerous extensions granted by the Division, this issue needs to be heard by the Board and resolved. The photos by Rob Zuber of the yards of cable that were removed from MWNW by EFCI is documented in his Inspection Report. A piece of 2X4X8 wood has not been removed and is still blocking the PVC pipe. We can not be sure of how long this circumstance has prohibited accurate monitoring of MWNW but MWNW has been reported dry for 10 years. And the most likely scenario is that MWNW was damaged by roof fall when the continuous miner was buried nearby in 1995 and has never been a functioning monitoring well. Montgomery, Watson and Harza consultants that did the report (September 16, 2002) was obviously not aware of the extensive retreat mining in the tunnels near MWNW. All family members have rejected EFCI offer of $45,000 which might be the cost of drilling one well. The hydrogeologist that we have consulted recommends three or four water wells in order to be able to have livestock back on our property. We believe that since so much water was removed from the mine from 1985 -2001, that these new wells and pumps will need to extend to the Trinidad aquifer or lower aquifers. They will also need to be monitored for pollution for at least two years. In summary, we request a Board Hearing to discuss these water issues and to present our findings of fact regarding NOV and TR 43 at the same hearing. And we request that critical water monitoring tests be conducted in wells that have not been damaged, which could result in EFCI needing to drill and permit at least three wells. Glenn E Miller the geologist for Energy Fuels also recommended that the water be tested for radionuclides and this has never been done. Sincerely, Tena Gallagher (tena @aol.com) Linda Saunders 9 (saunders61591ive.com) Copied Ted, Bobby, Paula and Linda