Laserfiche WebLink
E) Hazardous Material Discussion: <br /> i. Clark the rationale— The response is adequate. <br /> ii. Provide Safety Data Sheet (SDS) —the response is adequate. <br /> F) Secondary Containment for the Breezeway (p. 2, 6th paragraph) — The response is not adequate. <br /> The Division has stated numerous times the liner under the High Grade Mill Facility (HGH) is <br /> not considered to be secondary containment; only tertiary containment. As a brief reminder, this <br /> is due to the fact the liner has some storage capacity, is only double-lined(unlike the triple-lined <br /> valley leach facilities), and it has no leak detection system. Please provide more details on the <br /> drip pan under the breezeway conveyor belt to assure the Division it has adequate secondary <br /> containment capacity. <br /> CC&V Response: The initial design included installation of a drip pan below the conveyor to <br /> catch any concentrate material that could fall from the belt. Upon further review a concrete <br /> containment will be installed in the breezeway between the two buildings in lieu of the drip pan <br /> to address concentrate material spillage. Please see the attached general arrangement drawings <br /> (attachments 1 and 2) depicting the location of the concrete and slope of the concrete. The <br /> concrete in the breezeway will drain back towards the Concentrate loadout sump, which has also <br /> been relocated. <br /> G) Pad Extension (p. 3, 2nd paragraph). Please provide the following: <br /> i. A complete set of current specifications intended for the pad extension signed by <br /> a professional engineer licensed in Colorado. The response is not adequate. No <br /> reference is made to the specifications included in Attachments 14 through 16. <br /> The structural fill specifications stated in the response differ from those in <br /> Attachment 14. No stamped specifications were provided as requested (note the <br /> specifications in Attachments 14 through 16 were dated and stamped in Afav <br /> 2013 long before this modification was conceived, and therefore the proposed <br /> conditions were not considered by the engineer stamping the specifications <br /> provided in Attachments 14 through 16). Again, please provide a complete set of <br /> current specifications intended for the pad extension signed by a professional <br /> engineer licensed in Colorado. <br /> CC&V Response: Newfields has provided the earth work specifications for the <br /> pad extension (attachment 3). The earth work specifications have been signed by a <br /> professional engineer. These specifications will be used when constructing the pad <br /> extension. <br /> ii. Rationale for why three different slopes are proposed. The response proposing <br /> steepened slopes of 2H.•IV raises reclamation concerns. The proposed steeper <br /> slopes are steeper than the generally accepted 2.5H-I V slopes for reclamation on <br /> the Cresson Project. Please provide a reclamation plan for the 2H.-1 V slopes. <br /> CC&V Response: The slope will be configured at 2H:1 V during operations and <br /> throughout the life of mine. During reclamation the slope will be configured to <br /> 2.5H:1V as described in the approved reclamation plan in Amendment 11, section <br /> 2 <br />