GENERAL31787 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

T- ~N leave a message at the office indicating he had any concern or problem with the plans. Dr. Corley later told me in a phone conversation we had on July 26, that he had in fact received this message. While it may be the case that prior written consent was not adequately addressed, It is unclear to me how Dr. Corley can contend he had no prior knowledge of our plans when I personally informed him verbally of the plans prior to commencing with them. Dr. Corley did intercept the single truck which was being used to transport fill materials to the subsidence holes on the afternoon of Friday, July 23. He stated to the Contractor that he did not recall consenting to the backfilling of the subsidence holes, but since Dr. Corley wanted the holes filled and sealed (we have letters from him in our files requesting and indicating that it was important to him that they be filled and sealed), he consented to continuing the work, but requested payment of $25/ per load. The Contractor said that if that was what it would take to make him happy, so be it. The Contractor agreed to keep a load count and pay Dr. Corley for use of the fill. The Contractor indicated to me that when Dr. Corley left the site that evening, "he had a smile on his face", and that there was no further problem. Based on this agreement, the Contractor showed up the following Monday to continue the work. If, as Dr. Corley suggested to you, he never gave consent for the bacld"illing work, why was the Contractor back on the job Monday continuing the work? Between Friday, July 23, and Monday, July 26, Dr. Corley must have reviewed the consent form for the project. Due to either a mix up in the IMR files, or because Dr. Corley re- typed the consent and left the backfilling part out, the backfilling work was not specifically mentioned in the Consent Narrative he has in his possession (it is interesting to note that the consent dated March 18, 1993 from Energy Fuels, the lessee, does contain the backfilling clause). As Dr. Corley continues to be embroiled in disagreement with the Division on other matters, he seized upon this discrepancy in order to have something "to use against the Division", as he stated to me in our phone conversation of July 26. I called Dr. Corley on Monday, July 26. At that time he .had changed his mind regarding the consent he had given on Friday to continue the backfilling work. He requested that work on the project be stopped immediately until the issue was sorted out. The Contractor was working under the agreement he had made with Dr. Corley the previous week. I called the mine and had them give a message to the Contractor to call me, and shortly thereafter spoke with him. I informed him of the situation, and asked him to stop the work. I instructed him to consider the job finished as far as he was concerned, because I knew it would take weeks or months for the issue to be cleared up, and he had another job to go to. I also told him to go ahead and honor the agreement he entered into with Dr. Corley regarding performing the backfilling work. He sent Dr. Corley a check in payment for the 23.5 loads of fill he had hauled to that point. Dr. Corley did not "estimate" 23.5 loads-this was the load count presented to him with the payment check, which he subsequently cashed, thereby acknowledging in writing consent to perform the bacldjlling work as of July 23. The final reclamation of roads and areas disturbed during the work was not completed because Dr. Corley requested that work on the project be stopped until the issue was