Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />In its response to Point No. 74, Battle Mountain did not <br />address the MLRD's comment related to 0.2 ppm free cyanide in the <br />rinsed heap leach pile. Furthermore, Battle Mountain again <br />failed to explain "point of disposal." The fact that point of <br />disposal is even discussed suggests anticipation of cyanide <br />discharges onto the ground and potentially into the ground water. <br />5. Battle Mountain Has Failed To Provide Information <br />Concerning The Lining Of Ditches Carrying Cyanide <br />Solution. <br />Pregnant solutions from the leach pad will be pumped to <br />the mill for processing through a series of pipes. MLRiD <br />requested in Point No. 15 that Battle Mountain commit to either <br />double piping or pipes laid on a High Density Polyethylene Liner <br />(HDPE). In its response Battle Mountain committed to placing all <br />pipes in HDPE-lined ditches. Battle Mountain did not specify how <br />thick the HDPE liner will be in these ditches. Battle Mountain <br />did not commit to replace the liner material if damagedi or to <br />maintain it over the life of the mine. <br />6. Battle Mountain Has Failed To Obtain A Timely <br />Review And Comment From The Division Of Wildlife. <br />MLRD Rule 2 Exhibit H requires that "[t)he application <br />shall be reviewed and commented upon by the State Division of <br />Wildlife in a timely manner prior to the Board's consideration of <br />the application." However, Battle Mountain's permit application <br />-9- <br />