My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-02-08_PERMIT FILE - M2007044 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2007044
>
2008-02-08_PERMIT FILE - M2007044 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:22:27 PM
Creation date
2/13/2008 11:46:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2007044
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
2/8/2008
Doc Name
Response to additional adequacy review
From
Energy Fuels Resources Corp.
To
DRMS
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.
/
16
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
RECEIVED ~,~jt~ <br />FEB 1 3 2008 <br />Division of Reclamation, <br />Mining and Safety <br />,~ ~...~ <br />~~ R ~~` f ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES ~ <br />`~ RP A <br />CO OR TION <br />February 7, 2008 <br />~'~.;7n~~~!: pi h7rd <br />G. Russell Means ~ ~~~ ®~ 2008 ~/ <br />Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety s3~ND JGd~,~i tad ~~mELU OFFICE <br />101 South 3`d, Suite 301 DIVISION OF <br />RECLAMATION M,€dING ~ SAFETY <br />Grand Junction, CO 81501 <br />Re: Response to Additio Adequacy Review, File No. M-2007-044 <br />Whirlwind Mine, esa County, Colorado <br />Dear Russ: <br />Energy Fuels Resources Corporation's (Energy Fuel's) responses to the Division of <br />Reclamation, Mining and Safety's (DRMS's) Additional Adequacy Review (AAR) are <br />presented below. If these responses adequately address your concerns, we will incorporate <br />the proposed changes and additional information into the 112d application and, the BLM <br />Plan of Operations. DRMS's comments are shown in italics below with the reviewers name <br />presented for each set of comments. Energy Fuels responses are presented in regular font. <br />David Bird: <br />1) Pg 3. Applicant states shat the hydraulic conductivity of the Salt Wash unit tit~as tested <br />to be 2.5 x 103 m/day, mad that the unit "will h•ansnrit -vater• but at a very sloiti~ rate. " hz <br />fact, 2.5 x 10"j m/day falls in the mice range of sandstone units (Freeze and Cherry, <br />1979), which typically rn•e considered good aquifers due to their water production <br />capabilities. Characteriaing the transmissive properties of the unit as "very slow" Wray <br />not be entirely accurate. <br />We agree. The statement "very slow" was written when we had been told initiallly that the <br />hydraulic conductivity was 2.5 x 10~ m/day. The numeric value was later corrected in <br />our response to comments but this statement was overlooked. The tranmissivity could <br />better be characterized as slow. Tight sandstones can be used as a water source in those <br />cases where the formation is confined and the hydraulic head is substantial. <br />2) To allow monitoring of the potential increase in mine inflow over Lime as .a result of <br />mine expansion, during those periods when pumping of standing i>>ater from the mine is <br />performed, I recommend that Energy Fuels be required to include the quantity of water <br />prnlrped In then' pe!'%OdIC repOl'tlilg Obligatl0lTS. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.