2012-10-10_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981014 (2)

Home Browse Search

K2T LLC Tena Gallagher and Linda Saunders 400 Cliffside Dr. Danville, CA 94526 October 2, 2012 Loretta Pineda, Director Division of Minerals and Geology 1313 Sherman St., Rm. 215 Denver, CO 80203 Dear Ms. Pineda, We met with Janet Binns and Dan Hernandez on January 9, 2012. The four family members who were in attendance that afternoon spent several hours expressing our concerns. At the end of the meeting, we felt that Janet and Dan had really listened to us and our prospective. But nothing was written up and no staff suggestions were ever made and nothing seems to have changed. On July 24, 2012, I emailed and snail mailed a citizen complaint letter to Janet Binns, Dan Hernandez, Kent Gorham, and Robert Zuber. It addressed some of our concerns including water and t have attached it and my two charts regarding the little water statistics that we do receive. It has now been over 90 days and we have not received a response. My sister and I have both sent emails to her asking when we might expect a response. Janet did respond in August 2012 to our concerns that we addressed from June 22, 2011 - September 11, 2011— only one year later! The property owners of Southfield Mine are extremely concerned about the neighboring properties wells and the possibility of contamination created by Southfield. Currently the levels of various chemicals that exist in the few wells that are being monitored on our property deems more attention. We approached the board several years ago about the inadequate monitoring because of the damage that happened to some of the wells that had previously been tested and can't be any more. If the manganese keeps getting higher, we could have a problem that extends past our boundaries. Also we do not understand why the DMRS does not test for arsenic and selenium in recent years. When we spoke with Andrew Neuhart with the Colorado Department of Public Health, he suggested that the water be tested for these even if we only use the pond to water livestock- not even human consumption. We are also concerned about what has happened to Newlin Creek? It seems to have disappeared. RECEIVE.:_ OCT 10 2017 Division of Reclam< Mining & Sat '•, Another of our concerns is TR39 that has been delayed over a year starting on June 1, 2011. According to your division statements, "Revisions to coal permits can be requested when necessary. Minor revisions are minor changes within the permit area. Examples include minor alterations in the location of roads or other facilities or minor alterations in the timing or sequencing of mining or reclamation plans." Our family does not see TR 39 as a minor revision. Each month, Energy Fuels asks for an extension due to "continuing questions of the respective landowner and the required reviewing." Can you explain what this means? The most recent one was filed on September 17, 2012. It seems that even in Energy Fuels Revision Proposed Decision and Findings of Compliance filed on May 25, 2009 that on page 31 #4, it is stated that "The Division proposes to approve the reference areas that the applicant has selected based on the requirements of Rule 4.15.7 (3). That the Division even considered approving the reference areas over three years ago when the property owners have only even heard about it a year ago doesn't see like there was proper due process. We have a few other issues besides water. On June 26, 2012 Jason Musick presented an extensive midterm reclamation cost estimate. We have not read any more if these are being considered. It also is clear that CR 92 has not been maintained adequately and now needs to be brought up to county standards since it was when EF gated it. I do not see any mention of that in the reclamation cost estimate or elsewhere. Sincerely, .-s Tena Gal er, K2T Cc: Janet Binns, Dan Hernandez,