Laserfiche WebLink
Illl11111111lIIIIII <br />999 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Deparimenl of Natural Resources <br />1311 Sherman SL, Rnnm ? I S <br />Denver, CO R11H11 <br />Phone (31171 Rhh 15hi <br />FAX: (1011 R3?-81 Oh <br />Date: August 12, 1993 <br />To: Wally Erickson <br />From: Joe Dudash <br />Re: Raton Creek Mine, Permit No. C-82-055 <br />Energy Fuels Mining Company <br />NOV C-93-087, Abatement <br />or coc <br />~ U4 <br />N~~:b <br />of <br />.~'~• <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />M¢hael B. Long <br />o~,•~,~n~ o,.ean~ <br />In a letter received at the Division on August 1 1 , 1993, Energy Fuels requested the <br />Division's input for their plan for abatement work at the Santa Fe Loadout Leases Nos. 1 <br />and 2.. Their plan is to use berms to prevent runoff from leaving the lease sites, in addition <br />to utilizing sumps for treatment of runoff. The plan is contained in the Raton Creek permit <br />application, Volume 2, pages 61 5-616. My comments are as follows: <br />1 . Energy Fuels should provide a map showing the sediment control system they intend <br />to build. The present system is shown on Map No. 23, SF Loadout Sites, and depicts <br />two sumps at lease no. 1 and one sump, one ditch and one berm at lease no. 2. <br />2. NOV C-93-087 was issued because there were inherent problems in the present <br />system. There is a low area in the southeast corner of lease no. 1 . A berm would <br />contain the runoff but not direct it to the sump. The operator must have all runoff go <br />to the sumps in order to prevent ponding of water. Also, the four-inch culvert that <br />passes water westward under the tracks and offsite must be addressed. <br />At lease no. 2, there is a low area to the south that does not pass to the sump. Either <br />a swale or a culvert should be installed. Berms by themselves would not appear to <br />solve this problem. <br />3. There does not appear to be a design for the ditch at lease no. 2 that is on the east <br />side of the haul road. Also, all three sumps at the two loadout leases were apparently <br />designed to contain a 10-year, 24-hour event. However, the 25-year, 24-hour event <br />must be used for calculating the volume of anon-discharging sump. I believe that <br />redesigns of existing structures as well as designs for new structures should be <br />submitted since the NOV states that the approved sediment control is not working and <br />that new designs for sediment control must be submitted. <br />JJD/bjw <br />cc: Dan Hernandez <br />m:\oss\bjw\jjd <br />