Laserfiche WebLink
1) On revised page 2.05 -38; MCM provides the Theim equation. There are two "R" variables in the <br />equation. The variable for the radius of a point on cone of depression should be a lower case "r ". <br />Please correct this variable and submit a revised page. <br />Response: Page 2.05 -38 has been revised to correct the noted typo, and the revised page is included with <br />these responses. <br />2) The Division's staff hydrologist is currently reviewing the revisions made to Section 2.05.6 of the <br />permit, specifically the section titled "Postmining or Interim Discharge — No. 5A and No. 6 <br />Mines ". If additional adequacy items are found, they will be forwarded to MCM as soon as <br />possible. <br />Rule 3.02.2 — Determination of Bond Amount <br />1) The Division has performed a cost estimate for Renewal 46. The cost estimate for Renewal 46 <br />increases the liability for the Williams Fork Mines to $3,991,706.13 (see attached cost estimate) <br />solely due to cost increases. The Division's cost estimate is consistent with previous cost estimates <br />for the permit approved by both the Division and MCM. The Division respectfully requests a <br />response from MCM with any questions regarding the cost estimate, an estimate from MCM, or <br />acceptance of the Division's estimate. If MCM wishes to use the Division's cost estimate for <br />Renewal #6, please submit a copy of the estimate to the Division from MCM. <br />a. MCM Response: MCM has identified some minor areas of concern, as well as some <br />omissions from the updated reclamation cost estimate. These are summarized in a separate <br />response, and will be discussed with the Division, in order to develop a final reclamation <br />cost estimate. <br />b. DRMS Response: See the last section of this letter for a response to MCM Bond Review <br />Comments memorandum included with the TR36 cover letter. <br />4.05.13 — Surface and Ground Water Monitoring: <br />1) Revised Map 11 does not depict stream water quality monitoring site Y -1 or the North Spring <br />(Lippard Spring No. 1). Please add these features to this map and submit a revised copy. <br />Response: The referenced map has been revised and is included with the responses. <br />Miscellaneous <br />1) Item resolved <br />Mid -Term 46; Adequacy Review Issues <br />It has come to the Division's attention that adequacy items were resolved in the Williams Fork Mines' <br />Midterm 46, but the revised pages and maps related to Midterm 46 were never received by the Division. <br />Please submit all revised pages and maps addressed by Midterm 46 from the following comments from the <br />adequacy response letter received by the Division on September 30, 2011: <br />• Comments 2 -11 <br />• Comments 13 and 14 <br />• Comments 16 -21 <br />• Comments 23 and 24 <br />• Comment 29 <br />