My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-12-19_REVISION - M1980244 (6)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1980244
>
2016-12-19_REVISION - M1980244 (6)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/10/2017 1:44:48 PM
Creation date
12/22/2016 11:12:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980244
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
12/19/2016
Doc Name Note
Responses to DRMS Comments 10/19/2016
Doc Name
Responses to DRMS 2nd Adequacy Review Main Comments 10/19/2016
From
Newmont / CC&V
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM11
Email Name
TC1
AME
ERR
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
<br />6 <br />RESPONSE: A response to this comment and subsequent comments 31b, 34a and b, 35a, <br />and 37a is provided in the Call & Nicholas, Inc. (CNI) memo included Attachment 3. <br />Newmont would be happy to arrange a meeting or phone call with the Division and CNI <br />representatives to answer additional questions on the slope stability if that would be <br />helpful. <br /> <br />31. Appendix 5 – Factors of Safety <br />b. …Wiles (2000) suggesting the “coefficient of variation…”. The response is adequate <br />provided the Division received an adequate response to Comments 30.b(i) and (ii) <br />above. <br />RESPONSE: See CNI memo provided in Attachment 3. <br /> <br />34. Appendix 5 Section 6.3, Global Stability Analysis Results (p. 6-4). <br />a. Analyses showing adequate FOS exists to the edge of Right-of-Way for Teller Co <br />Rd 82. The response is not adequate. Please see Comment 30.b(i) above. <br />b. Analyses of additional cross sections for the Co Rd (perpendicular to Section WH- 3 <br />and GH-4) and SGVLF (south of Section SI-2). The responses to the WH-4 and <br />SGVLF/SI-2 comments here are adequate. The response to the GH-4 comment is <br />not adequate. Please see Comment 30.b(i) above. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: See CNI memo in Attachment 3. <br /> <br />35. Appendix 5 Section 6.3.5, Figures 6-1 and 6-18. Please provide the following: <br /> <br />a. Assurance that the appropriate FOS at the edge of the Co Rd Right-of-Way is <br />achievable (reference DRMS Table 1 above). The response is not adequate. <br />Please see Comments 30.b(i) and (ii) above. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: See CNI memo in Attachment 3. <br /> <br />37. Appendix 5 Section 6.3.11, Figures 6-1 and 6-18. Please provide the following: <br />a. Assurance that the appropriate FOS at the edge of the Co Rd Right-of-Way is <br />achievable (reference DRMS Table 1 above). The response is not adequate. <br />Please see Comments 30.b(i) and (ii) above. <br /> <br />RESPONSE: See CNI memo in Attachment 3. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.