My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2025-11-21_REVISION - M1980244
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1980244
>
2025-11-21_REVISION - M1980244
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2025 10:06:16 PM
Creation date
12/1/2025 7:10:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
11/21/2025
Doc Name Note
0 Cover Letter
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response
From
CC&V
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR153
Email Name
ERR
ZTT
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br /> <br />SSR Mining Inc. PAGE 3/7 <br /> <br />Tables <br /> <br />7. Table 3 shows a summary of weather data from April 12, 2024 to September 4, 2025 and notes <br />when no work was performed at the site. Section 3.2 of the Introduction states that no earthwork <br />activities were affected by ambient freezing temperatures as per the project specifications. The <br />Table includes multiple days where the low ambient temperature was below 32°F with no remarks <br />given. Please clarify the remarks column and the explain the difference between a “blank” vs No <br />Work Performed. Please also clarify if any temperature measurements of the fill were taken at the <br />3- and 6-inch depths per the specifications and provide this data or state that no fill temperature <br />measurements were needed to be taken because ambient air temperature was not less than 32°F <br />for more than one hour over the preceding 24 hours on days when fill was being placed as Table 3 <br />shows the coldest low ambient temperature when SLF Compaction was noted was 35°F on May <br />30, 2025. <br /> <br />R/. No Structural Fill was placed or compacted during or directly after freezing temperatures. Soil Liner Fill <br />was hauled and sealed during the month of May when the nighttime temperatures were dipping below 32 <br />F. Soil sealing is when the contractor spreads the Soil Liner Fill thicker than required and lightly <br />compacted to prevent erosion and a change in moisture content. Prior to acceptance, the Soil Liner Fill <br />was trimmed and compacted to meet the technical specifications. No Soil Liner Fill was trimmed closer to <br />grade during or directly after freezing temperatures. It was determined that the method of placement of <br />the Soil Liner Fill was acceptable and not subject to temperature monitoring. Geomembrane installation, <br />covering Soil Liner Fill, began on 6/13/25, 16 days after the last recorded freezing temperature. Table 3 – <br />Weather Summary has been updated to show “No Temperature Relevant Soils Work” in the blank <br />sections of the Remarks Column. The updated Table 3 is provided as part of the amended report. <br /> <br /> <br />8. Table 3 - Summary of Weather Data: states that No Work was performed on Friday, May 9, <br />2025. However, Table 5 shows that a SLF sample was taken on 5/9/2025. Please confirm whether <br />or not work on the SLF occurred on 5/9/2025 or if only a sample was taken th at day. <br /> <br />R/. The Contractor, JHL and Kelley Trucking, were offsite on 5/9/2025 due to inclement weather. SLF <br />Placement did not begin until the following week. The Project Resident was onsite on 5/9/2025 and <br />obtained a sample from the existing Upper Dump 1 Stockpile for testing. <br /> <br /> <br />9. Table 5 - CQA Earthworks Testing Summary – Soil Liner Fill: Please explain the discrepancy <br />between the compaction test report for sample SLF-57-C and Table 5. The compaction test report <br />states that the maximum dry density was 125.2 pcf and optimum moisture was 10.1%. Table 5 <br />states that this sample had a maximum dry density of 124.8 pcf and an optimum moisture of <br />10.2%. <br /> <br />R/. Table 5 had been filled out upon initial completion of the proctor by the Project Resident. When <br />setting up the Permeability testing it was noted that the Moisture Density Curve did not roughly follow <br />the Zero Air Voids (ZAV)/100% saturation curve, indicating an error in the test per ATSM D698 Section <br />11.3.2 – Note 10. The original highest moisture percentage moisture density point in the test was <br />removed from the data set and a subsequent test point at the same moisture percentage from the <br />original material was ran. Unfortunately, that results for sample SLF-57-C was not updated in Table 5 <br />prior to the submission of the RoC report. However, Table 5 has been corrected and provided as part <br />of the amended report. <br /> <br /> <br />10. Table 5 - CQA Earthworks Testing Summary – Soil Liner Fill: Please explain the discrepancy <br />between the compaction test report for sample SLF-58-C and Table 5. The compaction test report <br />states that the maximum dry density was 127.5 pcf and Optimum moisture was 10.6%. Table 5 <br />states that this sample had a maximum dry density of 125.2 pcf and an optimum moisture of <br />10.1%. <br /> <br />Docusign Envelope ID: C6AD8C9C-B5B3-4338-ADF1-222396BA57C7
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.