2007-11-15_PERMIT FILE - M2007044

• Permit No: M2007044
• IBM Index Class Name: PERMIT FILE
• Doc Date: 11/15/2007
• Doc Name: Preliminary adequacy review
• From: DRMS
• To: Energy Fuels Resources Corp.
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
~~~,
COLORADO
DIVISION O F
RECLAMATION
MINING
- &-
SAFETY
Bill Owens
I ~~ ~ Governor
Russell George
1/ ~OV 19 2007 Executive Director
November 15, 2007 Ronald W. Cattany
Division of Reclamation, Division Director
Mining and Safety Natural Resource Trustee
Frank Filas
Energy Fuels Resources Corporation
44 Union Boulevard, Suite 600
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
Re: Whirlwind Mine File No. M-2007-044, Preliminary Adequacy Review of a 112 DMO
application.
Dear Mr. Filas:
The Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (DBMS) has begun the review process of the above
referenced DMO application. The review is being conducted by the Division's geochemist, engineers,
hydrology specialist and environmental protection specialists. The review to date has brought up the
following issues that need clarifications, correction or responses. Please note that some issues may be
repetitive due to multiple reviews and cross over of expertise:
1) Please provide written permission for the Division to release all information regarding the review
and installation of the water treatment plant approved under the Whirlwind Notice of Intent.
2) Pg D-32 and Appendix H. Treatment process for removal of uranium, radium, arsenic, and
selenium is described. SPLP indicates other regulated constituents have been detected in
leachate, including Cd, Pb, V, Zn, although not at the elevated concentrations of those proposed
for treatment. Additionally, underground blasting could introduce elevated concentrations of
nitrate/nitrite/ammonia in mine water. In the event that these constituents appear in mine water
at concentrations greater than anticipated, are provisions being made in the water treatment
process to address these contingencies?
3) With the understanding that development of new workings will depend largely on the ore
encountered, how many linear feet of new underground workings are currently proposed (has a
bearing on the following question)?
4) Please address the possibility of a permanent post-mining discharge, not from the workings as
they will be bulk headed, but from new springs that might emerge on the hillside as the mine
pool fills. Given the following: a) the mine historically discharged one gpm (pg. G-16); b)
there are perennial springs in the general vicinity producing up to 20-30 gpm; c) mine workings
will expand, potentially propagating up-section and across hydrostratigraphic units, across
water-conducting structures, or perhaps intersecting feeder sources for the DP or PR springs; d)
Office of
Office of Active and Inactive Mines
Mined Land Reclamation