Laserfiche WebLink
12. The reclamation procedures outlined in section 12 will be used to reclaim the <br /> High Grade Mill Pad. During final reclamation the valley leach facilities will be <br /> graded to 2.5H:IV. The cut removed from the upper benches of the leach pads will <br /> be placed to pull out the toe of the final reclamation slopes to meet the required <br /> 2.5H:1V slope. The cut and fill balance will pull the toe of slopes out on both leach <br /> pads thus covering the High Grade Mill Pad. <br /> iii. Discussion on whether or not additional liner is required. The response is <br /> adequate. <br /> H) Drawing 20-647-001A. The response is adequate. <br /> I) Drawing 20-647-002A. The response is adequate. <br /> Nonagglomerated Tailings Strength Assessment and Stability Evaluation. <br /> J) The Technical Memorandum (TM)prepared by NewFields: <br /> i. A realistic assessment of the worst case ratio of tailings to ore The response <br /> requires more discussion. In the original TR-89 request, NewFields stated thev <br /> would adhere to the Division's Factor of Safety goal for critical structures of 1.3 <br /> and 1.1 5 for static and pseudostatic conditions. NewField's response now backs <br /> away from this for Section B, stating this area is no longer critical (p. 4 last <br /> paragraph above Section 3.1). <br /> The Division disagrees as the VLFs are Environmental Protection Facilities <br /> (EPFs). A failure along the slope represented by Section B would allow significant <br /> amounts of impacted ore and likely a significant amount of cyanide leaching <br /> solution off liner. The Division considers this a potentially major environmental <br /> impact. As such, the slope represented by Section B must also achieve a FoS of 1.3 <br /> & 1.15, respectively. Furthermore, the Division is unconvinced that both the <br /> 2.5H.-1 V and the 1.6H:1 V slopes achieve an identical FoS of 1.3 as depicted in the <br /> circular failure. Please elaborate. <br /> CC&V Response: NewFields agrees to adhere to the Division's Factor of Safety <br /> goal for critical structures of 1.3 and 1.15 for static and pseudostatic conditions for <br /> all slopes of the VLF. NewFields approached the slope stability analyses as a <br /> parametric study, varying the friction angle of the ore in order to determine the <br /> minimum value required to achieve the minimum required factor of safety. This <br /> explains the identical FoS of 1.3 for both the 2.5HA V and 1.6H:1 V slopes; the <br /> friction angles of the ore are different in each of these analyses. The technical <br /> memorandum has been updated and reflects these comments. <br /> ii. A written commitment to follow NewFields'recommendation in Section 4.0 The <br /> provided commitment is adequate. <br /> Supplemental Strength Assessment and Stability Evaluation Technical Memorandum. <br /> K) The Technical Memorandum (TM)prepared by NewFields (dated March 8, 2017): <br /> 3 <br />