Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• COTTER'S COMMENT RESPONSES SE7 FORTH BEL04J ARE ADDRESSED 70 THE M.L.R.B. <br />COMMENTS TRANSMITTED TO COTTER BY JIM McARDLE IN HIS MARCH i6, 198 LETTER <br />McArdle Comment D,7 <br />"4Jhat is the uranium content of the rock currently being placed in the <br />waste dumps?" <br />Cotter Response <br />Please see Cotter's response to Pendleton Comment #1, attached hereto. <br />McArdle Comment D.A <br />"In the original application, it was stated that, "Rock taken from the ore <br />sorter reject pile containing approximately .015°6 uranium or less will be <br />stockpiled at the waste dump (west dump) at the rate of 2,000 tons/month". <br />This rock containinq 0.15° uranium will comprise approximately 290 of the <br />total waste dump volume. Please clearly detail how the uranium content of <br />the ore sorter reject material has fluctuated over time together with the <br />rate of deposition on each dump site and the size gradations of ore sorter <br />• reject. What percent of the total waste dump volume is ore sorter reject <br />for the east dump and the west dump." <br />Cotter Response <br />The uranium content of sorter reject has ranged between 0.150 UgOf~ and <br />0.055° U30g, although during a brief time sorter reject uranium content <br />was as high as 0.06b U30g. Amore detailed discussion of the weiclhted <br />average uranium content of the waste dump, and the contributions ro the <br />dump from sorter reject and mine development waste is provided in Cotter's <br />response to Pendleton Comment #l. <br />McArdle Comment E.6.a- <br />"Why has the operator eliminated the following items from the waste dump <br />reclamation plan: <br />a. The 6 inch clay cover which will be compacted to approximately 95q <br />of maximum? <br />b. Approximately 4 to 6 inches of topsoil placed over the top and sides <br />of the waste dumps by the use of heavy equipment? <br />c. A diversion channel constructed immediately upslope from the top <br />• of the waste dump?" <br />