Laserfiche WebLink
-% <br />- <br />, <br />, <br /> y <br /> <br />-a V .~. .. ~~ ~ .. .. <br />~• <br />~• III IIIIIIIIIIIII~~~~f;~ 1 <br /> <br />.. .. 1' <br /> <br />March 3, 1980 <br />Mr. Uerald Grendey <br />Vi ca President - Legal AFfairs <br />Energy Fuels Corporation <br />3 Park Centrrral, Suite 900 , <br />1525 ,lrapahoe Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80202 ,., <br />,. Dear Mr. Grendey: ;~~~ <br />I have reviewed in full the materials submitted by Energy Fuels Corporation <br />on February 18, 1980 concerning the lrenaltir_s assessed $gr A'otice of <br />Vio3ation, number I, issued by the Ftined Land Reclamation Division t0 ~ °~ <br />Energy Fua1s. In ligt,t of the information presented in the letter of <br />February 19th, Z have conc.iudecl that the ~Sa.o00•m .~,sessment proposed <br />in our January 4th assoss:.ient notice, should be ruduc;:d by $600.00 to <br />$1,900.00 total. <br />She letter of February 19th, and indeed your oral presentations at the <br />infor,raZ assessment conferef;cis on February 19th have convinced me t7,at <br />Energy Fuels Corporation never Kati any intention to cease environmental <br />harm, and that Energy Fuels ui.1 not, in fact, cause any significant environ- <br />mental harm by their actions in di sl,osing of excess spo'~~ ~%~ v~olgh'oN <br />of the terms of their permit. The proposed assessment has Izharefore <br />been reduced by a siynificant amount, in further recognition of the <br />environmental safeguards fallowe~ by .nergy Fuels as they proceeded with <br />the unpermitted activity. ' <br />}n• <br />%i. <br />,r'ti <br />' ~; <br />{~ +~, <br />..~: . <br />.v.. <br />. ' ~: `. <br />~' <br />_" •~.. . <br />As we discussed on February 19th, it is my opinion that a violation <br />occurred by placement of sp~,il, and construction of a road with that <br />spoil, contrary to the ter,rs of the approved permit. I rvv in concerned <br />that Energy fuels Corporative pr~caea'od with the ,;onstruction of a road, <br />despite thGfac!_ that they knew full approval by the Pained Land Reclamation Div- <br />:,<_~or1 had ti'+-been received. As 7 mentioned at the informal assessment' <br />conference, I believe that wa could have asslste~d you in resolving your <br />proble.~s concernin7 your placement of that s_ooil, despite the fact. that~e^~y <br />3 pp2o~a\ had not yet bn_en received. I trust that in the future, siynificant <br />decisions which call for deviat.tons from anoroved oleos w1I1 be discussed <br />9/Sth us before they are implemented. Obviously, we do not wish to know <br />of every minor alteration in your mining procedures, but we do want to KNO~J <br />(cont'd) <br />