Laserfiche WebLink
Binns, Janet <br />From: W D Corley, Jr. [ajjc @att.net] <br />Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 9:40 AM <br />To: Binns, Janet; eshaeffer @osmre.gov; kwalker @osmre.gov; Energy Fuels <br />Subject: Southfield pond #5 D o c__5 <br />Ms. Binns, Ms. Shaeffer, Mr. Walker, and Mr. Patterson, <br />I may have not asked clearly for guidance on the final disposition of the Southfield pond #5. Here is my view of the <br />problems associated with this pond with regard to reclamation. I believe that pond #5 receives storm water runoff from a <br />larger area of the Energy permit than the area of Chen's Hill of the GEC site. The Chen's Hill runoff has created the Giant <br />Gully by erosion of the ditch at the toe of the GEC waste pile, which ditch ended at the now full GEC sediment pond. Is <br />this ditch still unstable? Is this ditch still part of the GEC problem? If the pond #5 is removed, all of the Southfield <br />runoff going thru that area would be added to the GEC runoff and would thereby increase the erosion of the Giant Gully. <br />It seems logical that more water equates to more erosion. <br />If pond #5 is to remain we have been told that The Corley Co. will have to make that request, that we will have to always <br />be responsible for maintenance, and that we will have to be responsible for water quality according to Colorado Public <br />Health Department rules and regs. for any water discharge. I do not know if we would have to have a CPHD permit or <br />not, nor do I know what inspection or discharge water analysis would be required. Then there is always a possibility that <br />current rules and regs. could be changed. <br />Neither of the two options that I have outlined appear desirable. The first will only make an already bad situation worse; I <br />think we can all agree that the Giant Gully is a terrible problem - adding more runoff water will make it worse. The second <br />option will probably impose burdens on us. Any suggestions? <br />W.D. Corley, Jr. <br />1 <br />