Laserfiche WebLink
NEWMONT <br /> 59. Section 10. Please provide a summary of the IT.4SC.4 findings with this amendment. <br /> Newmont Response: <br /> The following text has been added to revised Exhibit U: The ITASCA study was split into two phases. <br /> Samples were selected for the Phase I and Phase II static and kinetic geochemical characterization testing <br /> based on recent prospecting drilling holes and a review of the extensive site geochemical database. The <br /> Phase I testing consisted of static testing on 29 samples. The Phase I testing results were used as a <br /> baseline, along with the existing characterization data, for the selection of samples for comprehensive <br /> characterization testing. Twelve samples were selected for Phase II testing. Additionally, Phase II samples <br /> were selected to represent the overall population of life-of-mine waste rock. The twelve samples were <br /> subjected to the following tests, net neutralization potential (NPP), net acid-generation, meteoric water <br /> mobility procedure and humidity-cells. Of the twenty-nine samples selected in Phase I study twenty-seven <br /> (ABA and mineralogical testing) had net acid-generating NNP values (less than 0 t CaCO3/kt). Of which <br /> seven had negative NNP values that were between-20.0 and 0 t CaCO3/kt, indicating that their potential <br /> to generate acidity is uncertain. Two samples had NNP values that are greater than zero but less than 20.0 t <br /> CaCO3/kt, demonstrating that the samples are net neutralizing. The Results of the Phase II testing differ <br /> noticeably within each rock-type. However, the results of the whole studies AGP. ANP, and NNP <br /> distributions are similar across the rock-type groups. Therefore, demonstrating that acid-generating and <br /> acid-neutralizing materials are not limited to rock-type. CC&V and ITSCA believes that the results of the <br /> Phase I and Phase II testing are sufficient to characterize the overall behavior of waste rock. <br /> DRMS Comment(italics): <br /> 60. Section 10, Groundwater Wells. .-is mentioned in Comments - and 12 the Division does not <br /> necessarily agree with the comment "...that no deleterious change in the average regional <br /> groundivater quality from the District will occur... " Currently there are grountiwater monitoring <br /> results from the site that mining has had an impact to grounthvater quality in the area. Please revise <br /> or remove. <br /> Newmont Response: <br /> As noted in PAR# 12, CC&V does not disagree that historic mining at the Cripple Creek& Victor mining <br /> district has impacted the water quality of the district, however, CC&V maintains that current mining <br /> operations are not deleteriously impacting the regional water quality of the district. Section 10 has been <br /> updated to reflect this distinction. <br /> In addition, CC&V is committed to continuing discussions with DRMS on the numeric protection limit <br /> process. <br /> DBMS Comment(italics): <br /> 61. Section 14, Page I The narrative .states the "till FLF Construction Quality .-l.ssurance Reports <br /> (C0.4) will he limited to the following sections". There is no explicit mention of-deviations". The <br /> Division requires deviations to the approved plans anti specifications he addressed in the C0.4 <br /> report. Please acid "Deviations"to the list of Sections. <br /> Newmont Response: <br />