Laserfiche WebLink
Danie(Matbeu~t <br />Drcdrion of Mineralr and Gealog <br />SeftemGer 1, 2004 <br />Page S <br />• demonrtrate that the placed dry denrity meets a required derign and analysed dry denrity. Please provide a <br />properly amended stability analysis for Pond 017. <br />Response: In an effort to provide sufficient information and data to enable the Division to verify <br />the As-Built stability analysis For Pond 017, we have provided a table to be attached to the <br />previously submitted stability analysis that provides the direct relationship of dry density to wet <br />density in the nuclear density test results. <br />19. (a) Item Resolved <br />(6J(i) requerted "ar-built" certifimtionr and derign plant for stock tank impaundmentr. The operator rerpanded <br />that the terrified ar6uilrr would be prepared and rubmitted upon completion (delayed by ruow rover and ground <br />conditionr). The operator did not rerpond to the requert that derign plant be provided. We have concluded that <br />derign plant are not nererrary for exirting stork tank impoundmentr, but derign plant are necerrary far rtotk <br />tanks to be conrrructed in the future. Please submit the referenced as-built certifications for <br />existing stock tank impoundments, and please include a commitment within Tab 13 to <br />provide individual designs demonstrating compliance with applicable requirements of <br />Ru/e 4.05.9, for stock tank impoundments which have not yet been constructed. DMG <br />approval ofdesigns uall be required prior to construction ofstock ponds in the future. <br />Response: SCC has not finalized the designs for the future stock ponds or finalized the as-built <br />certifications. Therefore, SCC respectfully requests that this issue be stipulated for submittal at a <br />later date. <br />• 2.03.4(2J,~61 Reclamation Cost Ertimate <br />20. The Divirion reguerted that Tab 25 be amended to r~ett worm care disturbance arrumptianr for bond takulation, <br />at altered by the PR-4 more plan revirionr. The operator did make certain amendments to Tab 25. Subreguently, <br />the Divirion performed an independent wont care dirturbance arrecrment and we have completed an initial PR4 <br />reclamation cost ertimate, which war forwarded to the operator on June 30, 2004. Our wont care arrumptionr <br />differed from those indicated in amended Table 25-1, with regard to pit lengthr. Our atrumptionr bared on <br />relevant permit mapr were, for the wont rare year 2005: 'A" PirlSouth Wadge Pit 10,800; Wolf Creek/Sage <br />Creek Pit 1,800 feet; Sautb Sage Creek 1,600'. please review these assumptions, along with the <br />preliminary cost estimate, and make appropriate amendments to Tab 25, to ensure that <br />Table 25-7 and other Tab 25 tables and narrative are accurate and consistent with the <br />DMG cost estimate assumptions. <br />Response: SCC has increased the existing bond to $9,707,363 to cover the new liability estimate. <br />Tab 25 has been revised to reflect the Division's independent worst-case disturbance assessment <br />and PR-04 reclamation cost estimate. The information/attachments to be inserted aze the <br />Division's work sheets. Please note that the original Table 25-1, Estimated Disturbance by Year, <br />has been removed from the text. SCC respectfully questions various assumptions used by the <br />Division for estimating worst-case costs and wiU discuss these discrepancies at a later date. <br />2.05.4(21 f~Batkfrllin~and Grading <br />• 21a, Item Resolved <br />