Laserfiche WebLink
<br />_z~ <br />d) We want to know the details of a plan for tailings <br />detoxification, including removal of tailings fro)n the site if <br />necessary. <br />5) Leak Detection System F:ffLuent Containment <br />a) We need to see report. ~f the leak detection sys em in the two <br />liners. Where are they? Who at MLHD has read them <br />b) Is there a provision to replace the liner if it is beyond <br />repair? <br />c) We feel that a double liner should now be instailled given the <br />excessive cyanide levels if the mine is to continue Ito operate. <br /> <br />6) Cyanide Interception, Containment and Aemedial Phan <br />a) We feel a remedial plan is urgent given BMG's tr ck record to <br />date. The mine should not be in operation without a ~emedial plan <br />in place. <br />b) We want our experts to have input into the specifies of such a <br />plan. <br />7) Amendment of Ore Processing Methodology. <br />a) Where are the April 30, 1992 assaying results? What do they <br />say? <br />b) At what stage is the approval of a long term de~oxiflcation <br />process, e.g. INCO process. We give notice that wed oppose any <br />process which cannot guarantee the 1990 amended permit cyanide <br />levels. It is our position that any variation thereof requires <br />another permitting process. <br />8) Amendment of Tailings Area Aeclamation Plan <br />a) Does the humidity cell testing monitor residual cyanide and <br />heavy metals release potential? Testing should bye done for <br />fluoride, cadmium, mercury, chromium, barium, silver, Trion, copper, <br />manganese, selenium, lead, zinc, arsenic and molybdenum. <br />b) Who at MLHD has seen testing results? <br />c) Any amendment to the tailings reclamation plan should be part of <br />an amended permit process and subject to review by the 1.ndependent <br />monitoring group and our experts. <br />