Laserfiche WebLink
NEWMONT <br /> Vero•r,c.,.yt.,.cg <br /> chemical, location, quantity, and containment fbr the PSES. Please update Table U-1: Designated <br /> Chemicals to include the PSES. Please also update Exhibit I-'- Section 3 Location fbr Storage of <br /> Designated Chemicals to include the PSES. <br /> Newmont Response: <br /> Table U-1 and Section 3 in Exhibit U have been updated with PSES information. The updated Exhibit U is <br /> provided in Attachment 4. <br /> DRMS Comment(italics): <br /> 54. Section 4.1. The Division requests copies of the monitoring or environmental protection measures <br /> required by permits. Or, please clarifi if the monitoring or environmental protection measures <br /> required by permits are provided in the various appendices. <br /> Newmont Response: <br /> All monitoring and environmental protection measures required by current CDPS permits held by CC&V <br /> are contained within the permits which are listed within Exhibit M. <br /> DBMS Comment(italics): <br /> JJ. Section 6. During tinges of tenaporun cessation what is the estimated aazanaher of'.stcff'that would be <br /> required to continue to circulate solutions, monitor and maintain water balances associated with <br /> the VLFs, including current operations and operations proposed through.-lmendmeni 13. <br /> Newmont Response: <br /> The estimated level of staff and level of effort required during times of temporary cessation is expected to <br /> be similar to the level of staffing required during rinsing of the VLFs post-closure. Please see USER 10 <br /> and USER 12 sheets of Exhibit L for details. <br /> DRMS Comment(italics): <br /> 56. Table r '2, Environmental Protection Facilities. The table lists the HGLI Liner as can EPF. Since <br /> shortly after Neivmont took over operating the Cresson Project from .-ingloGold Ashanti, the <br /> Division has been impressing upon the succession ofNewnaont personnel that the HGAf liner is not <br /> an EPF In a February 3, 2018 email to the then zVewniont Environmental stuff, Tina Cagier provided <br /> the following explanation of what wasupproved as an EPF: "... the HGM was built on as much as <br /> 125 feet of fill. To my knowledge, no mill has been built on such a large depth of fill. In addition, <br /> this fill supports a significant area of the SGVLF dual liner. The Division's concerns with regard to <br /> the mill platform were twofold: 1) The stability of the fill with respect to slope failure and the <br /> impact such a failure would have on both the SGVLF and the HGM (both designated as EPFs); and <br /> 2) Whether the continuous vibratory load from the mill might induce differential settling in the <br />