Laserfiche WebLink
Colorado. <br />Inadequate Application: <br />Overall the entire application is woefully inadequate: <br />1. Division of Water Resources has confirmed that BRM would need to apply <br />for a new Substitute Water Supply Plan (SWSP) as their source of water was denied in <br />2012. Regardless if BRM suggests that they will be re- injecting withdrawn water, the <br />proper permit is requisite. <br />2. Mining of uranium is a Designated Mining Operation and should be applied <br />for as such. Especially in dealing with an experimental mining technique being proposed by <br />a company which has never mined any amount of uranium. <br />3. An EPA Underground Injection Control permit must also be obtained. <br />I urge the Division to proceed cautiously with a fledgling company which is prone to changing <br />courses in mid -stream as the opportunity suites them (BRM announced it has finished the <br />prospecting phase). These questions should be considered: <br />• What if BRM were to change its mind after having harvested a great deal of <br />uranium -laden aqueous solution and decide to commercially develop the solution? <br />• What procedures are in place to enforce proper disposal of this solution? <br />• Where will the 200 tons of uranium ore be placed after having been <br />harvested? <br />Caution should be observed in a situation with a junior Australian Limited Liability Corporation <br />that has never mined uranium before and who is proposing an experimental mining procedure that <br />has never been permitted before. This activity if permitted could foreseeably ruin the water quality <br />of four drinking water aquifers for generations to come. <br />Sincerely, <br />Kay M. Hawklee <br />Attachments: <br />Adrian Brown paper on Hydrology at Hansen mineral deposit <br />July 30, 2012 comment submitted by Kay Hawklee to DRMS <br />