Laserfiche WebLink
4. "Rocky" Bench 1 was dumped in the Morgan pit in such a manner that it can be covered later by "less rocky" <br />Morgan Bench 1. <br />5. Most of the Tess rocky, higher quality Bench 1 was put on the stockpile. <br />6. There are still 3 or 4 days of rocky Bench 1 to be excavated on the current Morgan cut and that will all be <br />dumped on Morgan property as backfill as described in 4 above. <br />Marcia Talvitie of DRMS conducted an unannounced inspection on Friday, September 30, 2011, witnessed the work that <br />occurred on that date and may be able to confirm the foregoing at least as to the presence or absence of topsoil on the <br />bench one stockpile. If not, further inspection of the bench one stockpile could also determine whether any topsoil has <br />been moved to the stockpile as alleged, and DRMS is certainly welcome to conduct such an inspection in accordance <br />with its regular procedures if warranted. The pink Lift B or dark red Lift A would be very noticeable on the tan or khaki <br />Bench 1 if such materials indeed had been moved to that location. Again, they were not moved there and it is <br />nonsensical to suggest that topsoil would be moved to that location in light of the proposed use of those materials, for <br />the reasons explained above. The Comment did not specify any dates when the alleged activity of moving topsoil to the <br />bench one stockpile took place, so further response would be burdensome as well as unnecessary. <br />3. Alleged concealment of information from regulators: <br />Third, the Comment alleges "personal experience with other instances where Western Fuels employees were told to <br />conceal information from regulators." This comment strikes WFC as being particularly unfair and inappropriate. If the <br />Commenter indeed has specific factual allegations, or better yet evidence, relevant to this assertion then such should be <br />provided and WFC should then have a fair opportunity to respond on the merits. It is not fair or appropriate to ask the <br />company to respond to vague innuendo, nor is it fair or appropriate to allow this innuendo to influence government <br />actors without specific information that permits a reasoned, factual response. We think it sufficient response to this <br />comment to say that the SAP was developed and will be implemented by a highly reputable and certified soil scientist <br />with considerable input from DRMS and the federal agencies, which WFC specifically sought out on its own initiative (the <br />meeting that was held was initially requested, in the first instance, by WFC). The SAP as proposed is technically sound. <br />Thus, the Comment fails to provide any reason to alter the SAP as proposed. However, each specific suggested <br />modification in the Comment (set forth in the second paragraph of the Comment) is addressed below. <br />4. Response to proposed modifications: <br />Proposed modification 1: "preserve all existing stockpiles and soils as is, and ... no modifications to same be made <br />pending completion of the testing." WFC has no plans to alter any stockpiles, except to add topsoil to the appropriate <br />topsoil stockpiles, so this comment results in no changes to either TR -61 or PR -06. WFC has complied and will comply <br />with the DRMS request to stockpile all Lift A topsoil material to be removed after August 10, 2011 separately from the <br />existing stockpiles. <br />Proposed modification 2: "it may be necessary that DRMS staff select the specific testing sites." The testing sites are <br />slated to be randomly selected under the current proposed SAP, subject to review by a certified soil scientist who may <br />vary the sampling locations in order to ensure the technical soundness of the sampling, as described in the KeyAg SAP <br />summary. We have invited NRCS, OSM, and DRMS personnel to be present during this sampling. If this protocol is <br />subject to technically well- founded criticism, we are not aware of any but would consider it if offered. <br />Proposed modification 3: "it may be necessary that testing go to greater depth where material has been disturbed." <br />Assuming this refers to the bench one stockpile, no sampling of this stockpile is proposed or necessary. In the stockpiles <br />where sampling will be conducted under TR -61, sampling will go to the full depth of the piles as described in the KeyAg <br />summary under the heading of Stockpiled Soil Resource Evaluation beginning on page 3 of the summary. <br />Proposed modification 4: "more total samples may be required." The goal of the SAP is to adequately characterize the <br />stockpiles, which are assumed to contain well -mixed materials within each pile. The current SAP calls for going to the <br />4 <br />