Laserfiche WebLink
~~ i i <br />be classified as Type A or Type B overburden based upon LECO ST values. <br />A 0.8 percent ST LECO value will be used as the Type A-Type B cutoff. <br />Waste material with LECO ST values >0.8 percent will be classified as Type <br />B. Waste material with LECO ST values <0.8 percent will be classified as <br />Type A. Once this classification has been made the location of the material <br />will be delineated in the pit. Delineation of the different material <br />classifications will allow for segregation of the material during the course of <br />mining. Overburden rock delineated as Type B will be hauled and placed in <br />the Ironclad, Globe Hill or Cresson open surface mines as backfill. The <br />locations of the Mine and the Ironclad, Globe Hill, and Arequa overburden <br />storage areas are shown on Figure 6. The rock delineated as Type A will be <br />hauled to the Arequa Gulch or Victor rock storage areas." <br />CC&V anticipates making the LECO furnace measurements on any drill holes showing <br />visible pyrite during the evening before that waste rock material has been moved. This will <br />provide the ability, at the onset of mining, to modify the correlation immediately after one <br />day's quantity of waste rock has been moved. After the first few months, the correlation <br />should be confirmed and LECO measurements will be reduced to quality assurance <br />measurements made on a frequency of one LECO test per 10,000 tons of overburden <br />material moved. <br />Dr. Posey states "Section 7.2 states that samples containing less than 0.62% pyrite will not <br />cause an acid problem because they are encapsulated by silicates. That is not borne out be <br />the humidity cell tests." <br />The petrographic data show some of the samples have encapsulated pyrite. CC&V has not <br />concluded that all pyrite is so encapsulated, even below 0.62 percent pyrite. However, the <br />data from the humidity cells do suggest a reduction in acid generation possibly related to <br />encapsulation. <br />Comments on Appendices to Volume X. <br />APPENDIX 1. <br />Dr. Posey observes that sample CC-92-40 (245-250) appears to be mislabelled on the Table <br />accompanying the report from McClelland Laboratories dated 4/27/94. He is correct. It is <br />mislabelled on the original typewritten sheet. Sample CC-92-40 (245-250) on that report <br />should be labelled CC-92-49. That correction was made in handwriting on the Appendix <br />page prior to copying and submission of Volume X. <br />Dr. Posey observes that the Appendix contains only one page of a report from McClelland <br />Laboratories dated July 17, 1993. That is correct. Why is Dr. Posey concerned? The data <br />referred to in the submittal are listed on that page. The entire July 17, 1993 Report is <br />attached to a transmittal letter dated July 19, 1993 which is Appendix D to "Amendment No. <br />5 to Mined Land Reclamation Division Permit M-80-244, Response to OMLR Concerns," <br />18 <br />