My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV98241
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV98241
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:22:23 AM
Creation date
11/22/2007 12:16:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982055
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
3/21/1988
Doc Name
ADEQUACY REVIEW RESPONSE TR 9 REFUSE FACILITY FN C-82-055
From
ENERGY FUELS MINING CO
To
MLRD
Type & Sequence
TR3
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
iiiiii-iiiu-iiiii <br />energy fuels mining company <br />one tabor center • style 2500 <br />1200 Seventeenth slraet • tlenver, coloratlo 80202 <br />(303 623-8317 <br />Iwx 910-9312561 <br />Mazch 16, 1988 <br />~~~~~~~~ <br />~,1AR ;11988 <br />Mr. James C. Stevens MI>ueD LAhID <br />Colorado Mined Laad Reclamation Division ~ttCLgNfATIOFd DIVIgIOiN <br />423 Centennial Building <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Deaver, CO 80203 <br />Re: Adequacy Review Response, Technical Revision No. 9 - <br />Refuae Facility, File No. C-82-055 <br />Deaz Yr. Stevens: <br />This letter is written is response to your February 23, 1988, <br />adequacy review letter of the above referenced technical revision <br />application Por the Animas/Helen Miae Complex. Your letter <br />identified two concerns with respect to surface water hydrology <br />which need to be addressed before one application can be <br />approved. These concerns are as follows: <br />1) The 0.6 sediment delivery ratio for the refuse azea <br />needs to be justified. <br />2) The acreage contained in Area 3 is given as 22.4 <br />acres oa page 358 and 20.5 is the LISLE calculation. <br />This diacrepency must be clarified. <br />I discussed pour first concern with 1[s. Candy Thompson of <br />pour office during the Tall of 1987, and we collectively agreed <br />that a 0.6 sediment delivery ratio was justified in this case <br />given the fact that Energy Fuels 11[ining Company C"EFMC") has <br />installed sediment catchment basins in the ditch upstream Prom <br />the sedimentation pond. Please refer to 1Jap.12, 11line Site Water <br />Systems and Refuse Ares, for general locations of these facill- <br />tiea. These facilities were installed for the purpose of reduc- <br />ing sediment delivery to the pond and thus faz have functioned <br />effectively. <br />The acreage discrepancy which you identified is explained on <br />page 360 of the application where it is stated that 1.9 acres of <br />the disturbed area will drain into a sump azea. Additionally, it <br />should be noted that for the purposes of calculating aedimeat <br />storage volume there are several areas within the drainage basin <br />which do not contribute nay sediment to the pond. These azeae <br />include the aedimeat pond azea itself, the areas of the sediment <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.