Laserfiche WebLink
design of the tailings perimeter channels. However,the absolute value of the wettest year was <br /> not used, in accordance with accepted design practice. <br /> 70. Reference to an exfiltration pond was not found. <br /> 71. The detailed construction schedule will be provided upon receipt from the site development <br /> contractor and civil engineer. Civil engineering will commence upon approval of the application. <br /> 72. Section 6.4.21(16) is revised to include the mill and the required oversight statement. <br /> 73. Analysis of FTSF seepage in Section 6.4.21(14) indicates the contents of the contact water pond <br /> is anticipated to meet discharge standards. The contact water pond will be fenced. <br /> 4.0 Geotechnical Stability Exhibit(Division references Section 6.5 which isn't in the application) <br /> 74. FTSF Stability Evaluations are found in AMEC Section 9.3 beginning on page 33 of the report. <br /> The application does not have an Exhibit 6.5. The seismic report is Section 4.0 of the <br /> application. <br /> 75. The blasting plan is under development and will be submitted in a subsequent adequacy <br /> response. <br /> Appendix A <br /> 76. Yes,Appendix A Figure 1 is correct showing one vertical ventilation raise. Yes, it is sufficient for <br /> this mine at the known maximum depth. <br /> 77. Yes, Appendix A Figure 2 is still appropriate since the underground mine plan has not changed <br /> with this engineering scheme. <br /> Appendix B <br /> 78. Final report is provided in Appendix B. <br /> 79. Long term metal release, and in particular accelerated metal release, is associated with <br /> sulfides present in the rock oxidizing and an enrichment of metals relative to the crustal <br /> abundance of that particular lithology. This mechanism is present in both acidic and <br /> neutral metal drainage. Sulfide sulfur was less than the detection limit of 0.01 wt.% in <br /> four of the five development rock samples— metal release due to oxidation is not <br /> applicable to these samples. One sample contained 0.03 wt.% sulfide sulfur—a very low <br /> sulfide content. The metal content of the development rock samples were also <br /> compared to the crustal abundance of granite. There is a potential for metal leaching in <br /> excess of background when the metal content is greater than 10 times than crustal <br /> abundance, or a geochemical abundance index greater than 3. All development rock <br /> samples have metal contents similar to the crustal abundance in granites; therefore, the <br /> metal release from development rock will be similar to that from bedrock in the area. <br /> 80. All samples were obtained from core. Core locations are provided in the GEM report in Table 1: <br /> Geochemistry Sample Description. <br /> 81. FTSF seepage is not expected post-closure when the facility is covered with an <br /> evapotranspiration cover. During extreme rainfall events precipitation that infiltrates to the <br /> sand and gravel layer immediately below the soil layer will drain into the contact water pond <br /> without contacting the tailings. The water quality is expected to be similar to infiltration <br /> through soils in the region. <br />