REP32862

• Permit No: M1981021
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 6/11/1996
• Doc Name: DMO DETERMINATION WEST SUNDAY MINE PN M-81-021 & SUNDAY MINE M-77-285
• From: DMG
• To: BRUCE HUMPHRIES
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~ ~ iii iiiiiiiiuiiiiii
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY J
Depanment o1 Natural Rewurces T ~ S ~ .~ ~,.I e / U ~1 -I 1'j'' [~' !~ ~7 ~_
1313 Sherman St., Room 215 •1' 1 ~y ~, ~J
Denver, Colorado 80203 r)! ~ ~ Xy,.~ f / ~ y°) ~~ n ~' ~ ~ / !~'~e
Phone: [phone]
FA%:(303)83?-8106 (!S ~ d,~ ~~~ L ~ ~ /' ~/l ~rt
1..~/I~r ~ DEPARTMENT OF
d.r••,•hr~~ ~r~li>,,~ ~/U,~s NATURAL
TO: H. BRUCE FI[JMPHRIES /// RESOURCFiS
Roy Romer
JAMES STEV ENS /~j Governor
/ /~//~ lames $. Lochhead
1 &ecutive Director
FROM: James Dillie
MichzelB Long
Division Director
DATE: June 11, 1996
RE: DMO DETERMINATION -Sunday Mine - M-77-285
& West Sunday Mine - M-81-021
The Division sent DMO determination letters to Energy Fuels Nuclear (EFN) on November 14,
1994, for the above-referenced uranium mines. The reason for the determination was "toxic-
forming materials are or will be exposed or disturbed as a result of mining operations".
Specifically, "waste rock dumps are exposed to rain and snowmelt runoff, possibly causing offsite
contamination".
EFN responded on December 28, 1994, disputing DMG's determination and appealed the notice
of determination. EFN listed the following three reasons the mines should not be DMO's: 1) the
Sunday and West Sunday operations do not meet the criteria for designation, as provided in Rule
1 of the Hard Rock/Metal Mining Rules and Regulations, 2) the criterion given in DMG's letter,
which was applied to determine whether the mines would be DMOs, is not one of those listed in
Rule 1, and 3) reclamation activities carried out concurrent with mining operations, and stormwater
management measures, ensure that no toxic-forming materials are exposed or disturbed in quantities
sufficient to adversely affect human health, property, or the environment. EFN provided detailed
narratives for each reason. The Division agrees with EFN that designated chemicals are not stored
or used on site and acid mine drainage does not occur as a result of mining or reclamation
activities. However, the Division disagrees with EFN's contention that toxic-forming materials are
not exposed or disturbed in ~rtities sufficient to adversely affect human health, property, or the
environment, primarily because EFN did not submit any supporting data for their argument.
The Division responded to EFN's appeal letter on February 2, 1995. The Division disagreed with
EFN and decided to schedule a meeting pursuant to Rule 7.2.4(1)(a).
Michelle Rehmann, EFN representative, roe[ with the Division on April 25, 1995. Ms. Rehmann
presented the Division with an outline of issues she feels are important in the DMO determination
process. The key issue, she say:, is whether there is any risk to human health or the environment,
due to toxic-forming chemicals. Ms. Rehmann discussed the important components of her risk
analysis. The Division instructed Ms. Rehmann to prepare a summary of relevant information in
support of DMO exemption for the Sunday and West Sunday Mines and schedule another meeting
with the Division.