REV106980

• Permit No: M1977300
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 3/15/1983
• Doc Name: COTTER RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY JOE OLIVER IN A 03-15-83 MEMO TO JIM MCARDLE
• Type & Sequence: HR1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

•
• III IIIIIIIIIIIII III
999
• COTTER RESPONSES TO COMMENTS MADE BY JOE OLIVER
IN A MARCH 15, 1983 MEMO TO JIM McARDLE
Oliver Comment (1
"A waste dump runoff study has been required by the Water Quality Control
Division as part of Cotter's NPDES permit which was renewed April 22, 1982.
If any results of this study are available, they should be reviewed by the
Division."
Cotter Response
A waste dump runoff study has been prepared by Cotter in conjunction with
its consultants. See Section 6.0 in Appendix E-4.
fiver Comment (2
"At what percentage of uranium is the ore sorter currently rejecting waste
and what is the maximum anticipated percentage that will be rejected and
stared in the waste piles during the life of the operation? Would the
leaching rates of uranium be expected to increase significantly if the
• uranium percentage in the ore sorter reject rock increases?"
Cotter Response
See Cotter Response to Jim Pendleton Comment #1 and Section 6.0 of
Appendix E-4.
Oliver Comment (3
"What portion of the waste piles consist of older mine development rock
from earlier periods of mining? Does this older mine development rock
contain significantly higher percentages of uranium than current waste
materials being deposited in the piles? Is any of the older development
rock exposed or is it buried under newer waste? Will this older waste
be exposed upon regrading for reclamation purposes?"
Cotter Response
Cotter constructed the ore sorter to reduce the volume of rock shipped
to the mill, thereby reducing transportation costs. Prior to operation
of the ore sorter, rock with a uranium count was shipped off-site.
Accordingly, the uranium content of "older development rock" is low. For
further clarification, see Cotter's response to Pendleton Comment #l,
and Section 6.0 of Appendix E-4.