PERMFILE50066

• Permit No: M2004078
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 4/14/2005
• Doc Name: Adequacy Review #3
• From: DMG
• To: SW TKO Joint Venture LLC
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

hydrologic balance. Please provide the necessary documents to obtain legal right of entry for the
Hunt Brothers Properties, Inc., the Robert P. & Dean VillanoNillano Brothers Properties, Inc. and the
Steve Brancucci property for the azea related to the location of the injection wells.
A few of the exhibits submitted to the Division continue to state, "Conceptual Plan." Please be aware
that any changes to the proposed operation or maps in the future may need to be £tled as a revision to
the permit. Therefore, please remove this language from the relevant exhibits (Sheet 1 of 7, 2 of 7, 3
of 7, 4 of 7, and b of 7).
Rule 6.4.4 Exhibit D- Mining_Plan
8. The operator contends that all mining related structures on site aze portable and are assets owned by
the operator. In addition, if the operator ceased operations and the Division was forced to reclaim the
site, the operator would remove the conveyors and other mining related structures. The Division does
not consider structures that require a concrete pad and footings to be "portable" structures. The
Division considers portable structures to be portable screening conveyors and in some cases asphalt
batch plants. Removing beams, siding and concrete pads to bring down a structure does not define
the item as "portable". In addition, the structures may be in place for 20 years or more, and at the end
-------~fmining-may no-longeFhave-arry-valuetotheoperater.------------------------- ---
The operator notes numerous 112 permits that the Division has approved within the last few years
where structures have not been included in the reclamation cost estimate, however no specific sites
are mentioned. The Division can point out many sites where all mining related structures aze
included in the reclamation cost estimate (i.e. King Mountain Ranch M-1978-314, Lafarge's East
Ridgen Pit M-1979-097, CEMEX Lyons Pit M-1977-208).
If the operator wishes to account for salvage value of structures on site then the operator may include
salvage credit for the salvage value of project-related fixtures and equipment owned by the operator.
The operator will need to address the Rules of 4.3.9, 4.9.3 and 4.12 that address salvage value and
first priority liens on fixtures and equipment.
In order to resolve this issue, the applicant has the following options;
If the operator wishes to account for salvage value of structures on site, the operator may
include salvage credit for the salvage value ofproject-related fixtures and equipment owned
by the operator. The operator will need to address all of the requirements of Rules 4.3.9,
Rule 4.9.3, Rule 4.12 whereas a financial warranty based on salvage credit meet specific
requirements, OR
• Provide the Division with the dimensions of structures on site to be included in the
reclamation cost estimate. If the applicant does not agree with the reclamation cost estimate
then the applicant can appeal this decision in writing to the Mined Land Reclamation Board
(NLRB). The NLRB will make a determination if such structures should or should not be
included in the reclamation cost estimate.
9. (previous question #18) Please forwazd the agreement between SW TKO and Kerr-McGee to
relocate the gas line and associated facilities in phase 12 of the mining plan.
Rule 6.4.6 Exhibit F- Reclamation Plan Man
10. The applicant states that a map with the proposed contours of the final reclamation will be submitted
at a later date with the technical revision that contains the construction plans and specification for the
compacted clay liner. The Division request that approximate contour elevation be included on the
map to determine the overall pit depth upon final reclamation. This information is required in order
to calculate the reclamation cost estimate for the site. The applicant may revise the contour intervals