My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE44359
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE44359
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:46:50 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 11:54:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
1/3/1989
Doc Name
BATTLE MTN RESOURCES INCADEQUACY COMMENTS
From
CAMILLE M FARRELL
To
STEVE G RENNER
Section_Exhibit Name
Adequacy letter
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />35. Figure C-9 illustrates and Figure C-10, Detail 11, specifies a facility <br />pipeline corridor along the south and east heap perimeter, but does not <br />identify the extent of the corridor, i.e., does it extend around the entire <br />heap perimeter; where is the pregnant delivery pipe and barren return pipe <br />routed; where do these pipes enter the mill facility; etc. Please clarify. <br />36. Sections E-E' and F-F' illustrated on Figure C-9 do not illustrate the <br />inclusion of the facility pipeline corridor to/from the pond/mill facilities. <br />Was this an oversight? <br />37. The facility pipeline corridor(s) require a secondary containment system <br />draining into one of the solution containment ponds in the event of pipe <br />failure, leakage, or accidental breakage, especially given its close proximity <br />to the access road. <br />38. The Typical Section of Perimeter Berm and facility Pipeline Corridor, <br />Detail 11 of Figure C-10, does not illustrate a secondary recovery layer <br />between the upper geomembrane and lower earthen liners; was this an oversight? <br />39. The leachate Collection Drain illustrated on Figure C-8 has been <br />corrected to direct the viewer to Detail 7, rather than Detail 6, as shown on <br />Figure C-10. <br />40. The Heap Leach Pad Recovery Sump Illustrated on Figure C-8 has been <br />corrected to direct the viewer to Detail 6, rather than Detail 4, as shown on <br />Figure C-10. <br />41. Figure C-10, Detail 6, illustrates the Plan of Secondary Recovery/Leak <br />Detection System and Riser Pipe for Secondary Recovery/Leak Detection Sumps. <br />Does this system network under the entire heap, or is it centralized within <br />the heap? Is there more than one Leak Detection Sump? <br />Section D. 7.4.2 Process Solution Ponds <br />42. The draindown volume of the heap leach pad was estimated to be 10 gallons <br />per ton of ore (approximately 20 cubic ft. or .74 cubic yds.). Appendix G, <br />Heap Leach Water Balance Indicates that although only 700,000 tons of ore will <br />be processed at any one time, the heap leach pad is planned to contain up to <br />6.5 million tons of ore. Therefore, the volume of the total draindown of the <br />maximum amount of contained ore is: <br />6.5 million tons x 10 gallons per ton = 65 million gallons, <br />requiring one very large pond. Please clarify. <br />43. The solution containment ponds should include spillway structures <br />allowing controlled release of solutions, rather than possible embankment <br />erosion and resulting failure, in the event a storm exceeding that of the <br />designed storm occurs. Please provide design specifications, including <br />embankment erosion control measures and locations of these spillway structures. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.