Laserfiche WebLink
11) Neither Cotter nor the DMG ever suggested that the entire stockpile area would <br />be excavated. Cotter did say that the catchment structures only would "be , <br />scooped-out to a depth, for most of the bottom, that is 30 inches below the <br />elevation of the county road". Cotter disagrees with DMG that this constitutes a <br />non-compliance issue. <br />12) One concrete slab was poured as the floor of the compressor building <br />(12ftX18ftX4in). The other concrete pads referred to by DMG (DMG Photos #30 <br />and 31) are broken fragments of the old slab that existed before work began at the <br />top of the ramp down to the portal. The MLRB Mineral Rules and Regulations <br />section 3.1.11 states that Cotter has the option to leave the compressor building on <br />site after reclamation. Therefore, it seems unnecessary to include the cost of <br />removal of this one concrete slab in the reclamation bond. Cotter's reclamation <br />plan submitted as part of the amendment application stated that materials used as <br />a surfacing or fill on the pad azea will be consolidated into the waste dump at time <br />of reclamation. Cotter disagrees with DMG that this one floor constitutes anon- <br />complianceissue. <br />13) The spill containment under the diesel tank is capable of containing 625 gallons. <br />The diesel tank has a capacity of 500 gallons. The containment, therefore, will <br />hold 125% of the tank capacity, which is even greater than the 1 l0% planned in <br />the amendment. The liner was properly installed, as mentioned in the DMG <br />inspection report of Mazch 24, 2005. Apiece of equipment apparently pushed in <br />and up at one corner of the berm, resulting in the wrinkled corner of the liner <br />observed in DMG Photo #31. This situation has been corrected, as shown in <br />Photo 8. <br />14) The waste oil drum was on site for two days during the contractor's routine <br />equipment maintenance and was removed the day after the DMG inspection. <br />15) Cotter notified DMG on Apri127, 2005 that ore placement on the surface began in <br />mid-Mazch. Cotter regrets that the notification was a little over a month after ore <br />stockpiling began, not within 30 days. It was an oversight by Cotter to not notify <br />DMG of the date that waste rock was first placed on the surface. The waste that <br />had been placed on the surface, beginning in February, was noted by DMG in the <br />inspection report of March 24, 2005. <br />Cotter committed to do the required SPLP sampling and analytical work during the <br />initial deposition at the surface. To Cotter, this meant after enough fresh waste rock <br />and ore was broken and brought outside to yield a representative sample. The DMG <br />inspection report of March 24, 2005 mentions that the waste rock analysis was <br />underway at that time. Cotter disagrees with DMG that "waste rock and ore analysis <br />results are already due" at the inspection report date of May 4, 2005. The sample <br />results were due to be sent to DMG within 30 days of Cotter's receipt of the results. <br />Cotter received the final results report from the lab for the waste rock analysis on <br />April 11 and the preliminary results report of the ore analysis on May 11. The <br />