Laserfiche WebLink
c=, <br />III ~II~I~~II~~II III <br />~_ . <br />The Corley Company <br />Pno~e 6]25050 PO 90. i9~~ <br />COl0 ReD0 SPRINGS tOl0 RnD0 0090 <br />' Aug. 6, 1993 <br />Mr. Frank R. Johnson <br />Division oC Minerals and Geology <br />1313 Sherman St. <br />Denver CO 80203 <br />Dear Mr. Johnson: <br /> <br />AUG 9 1993 <br />I;~.I C.,; ,. <br />'- ~ I„ <br />~~ Spy <br />I wish to write a summary of our telephone conversation nn Aup. 4, 1993, about <br />3 PM, which call you placed saying that you had heard that I was in a conflict <br />with DM6G again. We discussed at length the Division's entry onto our land to <br />remove dirt and fill subsidence holes without our permission. I believe yeu <br />thought that is was reasonable for the State to fill the holes and that you <br />really did not think they had done wrong. I insisted that had we done a <br />similar task without a permit we would be facing fines from the Division. <br />I told you that I was requesting the same treatment for us that was givers to <br />Harrison Western in their bond release. You said that sureties and pzrmittees <br />were treated differently. I said that ttie Rules do not provide for <br />differentiation with regard to 3.02 and 3.03 which were specifically mentioned <br />in the HW-Nd.Rll compliance agreement. You finally said that the HW termination <br />was essentiall;+ a bond forfeiture. <br />I asked about the East Pit reclamation plans, mentioning [he lack of any <br />progress since I offered in April to formulate a plan if I could obtain data <br />that the Division has gathered. I asked again about Energy Fuels' <br />participation, and you asked if they were still interested. I indicated that <br />they should answer that question themselves, but I thought they were tired of <br />being jerked around. You stated that reclamation by the Division with a <br />forfeited bond is not the Division's primary responsibility, but only a <br />secondary job that must be fitted into available time. I asked about any <br />actions the Board might have taken regarding the ldeckerling bonds. <br />We discussed the recent increase of NOVS and the Energy Fuels' fine for no <br />telephone number on their sign in particular. You said "that is an excessive <br />fine for a frivolous infraction that we both know will not stand". I said <br />that may be but Energy must spend money to get it corrected. <br />We discussed m~~ objections to the capricious enforcement of the Rules by <br />different inspectors, and you said that communicaticn ?~~ the important key. <br />Finally, you asked me to allow the prebid meeting for Aug. 5, 1993, to take. <br />place. I said that I would if the DMSG would be reasonable and rational. <br />Sincerely, <br />~,~ , , <br />4,'.C. Corley, r Pres. <br />