Laserfiche WebLink
<br />v<. ~~., o 'n+v~i S ~ <br />~~^'^t_ f <br />Mme' <br />MEMO <br />To: Michael B. Long <br />From: Kent Gorham <br />Subject: Raton Creek NOV CV-97-018 <br />Date: November 12, 1997 <br />Energy Fuels has requested vacation of NOV CV-97-018 for the Raton Creek Mine via a letter <br />directed to you dated October 29, 1997. This violation was taken for failure to provide an <br />Annual Reclamation Report for 1996 and failure to conduct vegetation sampling as required by <br />the approved permit. Dan Hernandez requested that I present to you the reasons why we feel <br />EFMC's request should be denied. <br />First, EFMC maintains that the failure to submit an annual reclamation report for 1996 was an <br />oversight. Apparently, they believe that because this was an oversight on their part, it should not <br />be the basis for a violation. I would concur, that if the only issue was the lack of a report, the <br />NOV would have probably not been written. However, when attempting to evaluate the <br />vegetation establishment at the site, and EFMC's independent observations on the revegetation <br />effort, the lack of the report became more of an issue. Without it, the Division was unable to <br />determine what observations, if any, EFMC had made during 1996 with regard to the <br />reclamation, or to determine when, where, and how interseeding, if any, was needed. As [ <br />indicated to them in a phone conversation, the lack of the report, although technically a violation, <br />was not the primary basis for the NOV. However, it was enough of an issue to be included in the <br />NOV. EFMC inaccurately states in their letter that "EFMC believes that the cited conditions are <br />not in violation of the Rules or permit conditions...". Rule 2.04.13(1) clearly states "by <br />February 15, or other such date as agreed on, each perniittee shall file an annual reclamation <br />report covering the previous calendar year for all areas under bond". Therefore, we feel that this <br />portion of the violation is accurate and appropriate. <br />The second issue that EFMC objects to is related [o reclamation activities, specifically with <br />regard to the application of topsoil. The Division tentatively agreed to allow Energy Fuels to re- <br />seed the overburden material directly in one area of the reclamation based on a Topsoil S:rbstittrte <br />Srritubility Report conducted by Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. in September of 1994. The <br />Division responded to receipt and review of this report in a letter dated November l5, 1994. In <br />this letter, the Division made it clear that "as per recommendation #2 of your report, if the <br />