Laserfiche WebLink
leave a message at the office indicating he had any concern or problem wi hn e pans. Dr. <br /> Corley later told me in a phone conversation we had on July 26, that he <br /> this message. While it may be the case that prior written consent was not adequately <br /> addressed, It is unclear to me how Dr. Corley can contend <br /> he had <br /> o prior to commencinggwith <br /> e of <br /> our plans when I personally informed him verbally of the p lans prior <br /> them. <br /> Dr. Corley did intercept the single truck which was being used to transport fill materials to <br /> the subsidence holes on the afternoon of Friday, July 23. He stated to the Contractor-that <br /> he did not recall consenting to the backfilling subsidence <br /> from him in our files since <br /> requDr. <br /> esti goand <br /> wanted the holes filled and sealed (we have letters <br /> indicating that it was important to him that they be filled and sealed), he consented to <br /> continuing the work, but requested payment of $25/ per load. The Contractor said that if <br /> that was what it would take to make him happy, so be it. The Contractor agreed to keep <br /> a load count and pay Dr. Corley for use of the fill. The Contractor indicated to me that <br /> when Dr. Corley left the site that evening, he had a smile on his face", and that there was <br /> no further problem. Based on this agreement, the Contractor showed up the following <br /> Monday to continue the work. If, as Dr. Corley suggested to you, he never gave consent <br /> for the backfilling work, why was the Contractor back on the job Monday continuing the <br /> work? <br /> Between Friday, July 23, and Monday, July 26, Dr. Corley must have reviewed the consent <br /> form for the project. Due to either a mix up in the IMR files, or because Dr. Corley re- <br /> typed the consent and left the backfilling part out, the backfilling work was not specifically <br /> mentioned in the Consent Narrative he has in his possession (it is interesting to note that <br /> the consent dated March 18, 1993 from Energy Fuels, the lessee, does contain the backfilling <br /> clause). As Dr. Corley continues to be embroiled in disagreement with the Division on <br /> other matters, he seized upon this discrepancy in order to have something "to use against <br /> the Division", as he stated to me in our phone conversation of July_ 26. <br /> I called Dr. Corley on Monday, July 26. At that time he had changed his mind regarding <br /> the consent he had given on Friday to continue the backfilling work. He requested that <br /> work on the project be stopped immediately until the issue was sorted out. The Contractor <br /> was working under the agreement he had made with Dr. Corley 1 the previous and shortly week. I cal d <br /> the mine and had them give a message to the Contractoro <br /> spoke with him. I informed him of the situation, and asked him to stop the work. I <br /> instructed him to consider the job finished as far as he was concerned, because I knew it <br /> would take weeks or months for the issue to be cleared up, and he had another job to go <br /> to. I also told him to go ahead and honor the agreement he entered into with Dr. Corley <br /> regarding performing the backfilling work. He sent Dr. Corley a check in payment for the <br /> 23.5 loads of fill he had hauled to that point. Dr. Corley did not "estimate" 23.5 loads-this <br /> was the load count presented to him with the payment check,which he subsequently cashed, <br /> thereby acknowledging in writing consent to perform the back-filling work as of July 23. <br /> The final reclamation of roads and areas disturbed during the work was not completed <br /> because Dr. Corley requested that work on the project be stopped until the issue was <br /> I <br />