REVISION - 4/20/2009, 11:24:03 AM-JWD

• Permit No: P2008043
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 4/17/2009
• Doc Name: Response to March 31, 2009 Letter
• From: Powertech ‎(USA)‎ Inc.
• To: DRMS
• Type & Sequence: MD2
• Email Name: ACS
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

DRMS, MD-02 4
April 14, 2009
Response to DRMS Regarding the March 20, 2009 Letter from the Western Mining Action
Project
Issue #1: "[W]hether the activities proposed are properly considered `prospecting' under the
Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act (MLRA), C.R.S. §§ 34-32-101, et seq."
Powertech believes the activities proposed are properly considered prospecting under the
MLRA. "Development" under the MLRA (C.R.S. § 434-32-102 (12)) refers to "work
performed in relation to a deposit aimed at preparing the site for mining, defining the ore
deposit by drilling or other means, conducting pilot plant operations, constructing roads or
ancillary facilities, and other related activities." The prospecting activities proposed by
Powertech under MD-02 are clearly not for the purposes of "preparing the site for mining,"
or defining the ore deposit by drilling or by implementing the pumping test. The deposit will
not be further delineated (defined) until after acquiring the required permits that will allow
for these activities. The prospecting activities proposed by Powertech are for a pump test to
measure the technical properties of the aquifers and aquitards to determine their suitability
for in situ leach mining. We will not mine the Centennial site unless the aquifer
characteristics are suitable, but conducting prospecting activities to determine the suitability
of the site for development clearly does not constitute development or mining.
Powertech rejects outright the characterization by Mr. Parsons of a hydrogeologic aquifer test
as the "equivalent to a trial run of the groundwater pumping process to be used in the
proposed in situ leach operation." The aquifer test is further investigation of the mineral
deposit for its hydrogeologic properties. The preparation of a development plan is dependent
upon the deposit's hydrogeologic properties; therefore aquifer (pumping) tests are by their
very nature pre-development. In fact, the statement Mr. Parsons quoted from the Request for
Modification has been misinterpreted. The groundwater samples obtained from the test wells
are samples used for investigating the mineral deposit, and the determination of
hydrogeologic properties of sedimentary rock units that host uranium mineralization as well
as adjacent rock units is clearly an activity that reasonably can be considered "the act of
searching for or investigating a mineral deposit."
Powertech's consultant, R Squared, Inc. (R), previously performed two pumping tests
related to the deposit. The current proposed pumping test is essentially the same type test as
that utilized for the two pumping tests that previously were authorized and completed. There
were no third party written comments to respond to and DRMS authorized the work under an
NOI process. Likewise, Weld County did not object. To our knowledge, there was no
contamination of the uppermost aquifer, nor has anyone registered a complaint regarding
water contamination as a result of those tests.
Issue #2: The second issue relates to "how the proposed activities relate to the requirements
in the MLRA that prospective in situ leach uranium mining applicants submit and confer with
the DRMS on a detailed plan for establishing a thorough baseline characterization of site
conditions, enacted via HB 08-1161 as C.R.S. 34-32-112.5(5)."
Powertech and its consultant, R', prepared and presented to representatives of the DRMS,
CDPHE, EPA and Weld County the Baseline Sampling and Monitoring Plan (SAP) for their
review and comment. Meetings to present this information were held in late 2007 and early
2008. The DRMS authorized Powertech's initial NOI on June 22, 2007, which included the