INSPEC37650

• Permit No: M1980055HR
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Date: 10/10/2002
• Doc Name: reponse
• From: dmg
• To: terry
• Inspection Date: 12/18/2001
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
October 7, 2002 ~/
Terry V. Wetz v
Director of Project Development /
International Uranium (USA) Corporation V
Independence Plaza, Suite 950
1050 Seventeenth Street
D v CO 80265
OCT' o ~
Division o/Mines/s and CeolaBY
DIVISION OF
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
RECLAMATION
MINING•SA FETY
Rm Owens
Governor
Greg E Watcher
Executive Director
Ronald W. Cottony
Acting Division Director
en er,
Re: Topaz Mine, Permit M-1980-055, Review of Updated Permit Map (Preliminary), Submitted in Response to
Inspection of 12118/01.
Dear Mr. Wetz,
I have received the packet of preliminary maps for all the sites affected in the "Sunday Mine Group." Though your
packet included maps and tent materials for all five of the separate permit files for the mines in this group, I have
limited this letter to those responses which address the issues associated with the single permitted mine named
above. My responses concerning the other permitted sites are contained in separate letters.
First, let me thank you for the quality and comprehensiveness of the product you submitted; they are the type of
maps I had hoped would be submitted and I feel they will be of great help in future monitoring and reporting of this
site. The map scales and types on information are appropriate and clearly depicted. I understand the maps were
generated at no small expense, but this endeavor should not have to repeated soon.
With this preliminary map in-hand, we may now define exactly which of the features shown are to be regarded as
currently disturbed under this permit, which of the permitted features were disturbed but which might now be
considered reclaimed (though not necessarily "released"), and which of the features may be considered "pre-law"
and not subject to reclamation liability. For the items which are to be included in the inventory of active (and
therefore, permitted) features, this map will allow us both to begin to document greater detail concerning an
updated, more realistic reclamation cost figure. This will include details about the size or extent of a feature, its
construction or characteristics, and the type of reclamation required in the final plan.
I have tried to arrange my responses below in the order of the items in your letter, for ease in your review. Not all
of the following items require a response from you. .
This site is operated under a 110 permit (for less than 10 acres). Under those rules and regulations, as you recall,
the boundary which defines and delineates an affected area is the same as the permitted azea boundary. The
polygon shown may be labeled either way.
There is a general issue of ensuring that for all items shown on the maps as being pre-law or otherwise not liable to
be reclaimed, that an adequate (but brief) description is made for each, so that if appropriate to do so, they may be
clearly eliminated from the list of reclaimable disturbances. This type of description should be provided for each
vent hole or other underground opening, above-ground structure or road segment, for which this office has no other
information or conflicting information. Descriptions of pre-law vent holes and underground openings must be
adequate to determine if hazards exist. The existing file maps and this new map all include only the one portal as