REV103519

• Permit No: C1982055
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 6/17/1994
• Doc Name: SECONDARY ADEQUACY REVIEW Questions
• From: DMG
• To: ENERGY FUELS MINING CO
• Type & Sequence: TR14
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

. iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Depanmem of Nawral Resources
17 i 3 Sherman St., Raom 215 +y1

Denver, Colorado 80203 I
~
`
Phony (3071 8663567 III
FA%: [phone]
DEPARTMENT OF
NATU~L'
Jupe 17, 1994 RESOURCES
Mr. Allen S. Weaver R°Y "omrr

Energy Fuels Mining Company Governor
lames 5 Lochhrad
P.O. Box 449 ExrcWive Uveao:
Florence, CO 81226 Micharl b Lonti
Dirhion Unraw
Re: Secondary Adequacy Review, Technical Revision TR-14
Energy Fuels Mining Company
The Raton Creek Mine, Permit No. C-82-055
Dear Mr. Weaver:
On April 18, 1994, the Division sent out its preliminary adequacy letter regarding this technical
revision. On May 12, the Division received a request to extend the May 6, 1994 decision date
to June 8, 1994. On May 19, the Division granted this request.
On May 31, 1994, the Division received by facsimile transmission a letter from EFMC dated
May 20, 1994 requesting that Adequacy Review Questions 5, 6, 1 1, 12, 14, 17, 19 and 23 be
deleted from the review of this TR. These questions dealt with requests by EFMC to modify the
sediment pond design to allow the pond to be left as a permanent feature, and to remove upland
diversion ditches. These questions also addressed certain issues raised by the Division
concerning subsidence impacts to the surface, as well as disposal of pond cleanings and non-
coal waste. The Division received on June 2, 1994 EFMC's responses to the remaining
adequacy items.
This response letter has been formatted into two parts. Part A addresses EFMC's requests to
delete certain items from the adequacy review of the revision. Part B addresses the Division's
review of the remaining adequacy items.
A.1 . The Division agrees to remove from consideration at this time Items 5 and 6 of the
Division's adequacy letter of April 18, 1994. As such, approval of EFMC's request for
r,~C pond modification, described on page 482R of EFMC's March 1994 submittal as
extending the pond riser, is not granted at this time.
2. The Division agrees to remove from consideration at this time Items 1 1 and 1 2 of the
Division's April 1994 adequacy review. As such, approval of EFMC's request for
cl' permanent pond retention as also described on page 482R of EFMC's March 1994
submittal is not granted at this time.
3. Because the refuse pile will soon be covered with soils, topsoiled and seeded, the
^ ~ Division believes Item No. 17 of the Division's adequacy review, regarding disposal of the
~ -•! sediment pond and catchment basin cleanings, should be addressed at this time, as these