My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-11-07_REVISION - M1980244 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1980244
>
2016-11-07_REVISION - M1980244 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/10/2020 4:00:48 PM
Creation date
11/8/2016 9:32:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
11/7/2016
Doc Name
Adequacy Review - Preliminary
From
Newmont
To
DRMS
Email Name
TC1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
b. Detail B shows an undefined height of slope to be IH:I V adjacent to the roadside <br /> ditch. Is this IH:I V slope to be roughened as shown in Detail C? <br /> Response 4b: No, however the slope was roughed above the 1H:1V slope for 100 <br /> feet. <br /> c. Detail B also shows a two percent backslope on the haul road towards the roadside V- <br /> ditch. How will this reverse gradient be corrected during Phase II construction in order <br /> to prevent pregnant solution from ponding here above the double-lined(not triple lined <br /> as in the PSSA)portion of the VLF? <br /> Response 4c: The two percent backslope, as shown in Detail B,will be backfilled, <br /> leveled, and graded prior to installation of Phase II liner in the SGVLF. <br /> Comment 5: Figure 3. Details G and H. Both these details show the Phase II secondary <br /> underdrain daylighting into the roadside V-ditch,presumably to convey underdrain flows <br /> to the Phase I sediment pond. The details also show a three-foot clay plug in the Phase I <br /> secondary underdrain. <br /> a. How much water is expected to be diverted from the Phase II underdrain to the Phase <br /> I sediment pond and how much of the design volume for the Phase I sediment pond(two <br /> times the 10 year, 24-hour runoff volume) will that underdrain flow displace? <br /> Response 5a: No additional flow is expected to report to the the Phase 1 sediment <br /> ponds. The underdrains were designed as an extra safety precaution to manage <br /> meteoric water infiltration along the natural drainages. Since construction the <br /> Phase 2 diversion channel,the underdrain pond has not seen any flows from the <br /> underdrain. <br /> b. Please confirm the Phase H underdrain will be reconnected to the Phase I <br /> underdrain prior to starting the Phase H liner construction. How will the clay plugs be <br /> removed and the underdrains reconnected? Will these connections be certified as <br /> functional during the Phase II construction quality assurance program? <br /> Response 5b: Yes,the clay plugs will be removed, the Phase 2 secondary <br /> underdrains will be reconstructed per the approved contruction plans and certified <br /> as part of the Phase II construction quality assurance program. <br /> I believe the responses above address the concerns conveyed to us within your adequacy review <br /> comments. Should you require further information please do not hesitate to contact me at(719) <br /> 689- 4055 or Meg Burtgnewmont.com. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.