My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1995-06-27_REVISION - M1988112
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1988112
>
1995-06-27_REVISION - M1988112
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/20/2021 4:56:24 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:24:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
6/27/1995
Doc Name
FAX COVER
From
DMG
To
BMRI
Type & Sequence
AM1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
l • • <br />~~ BATTLE MOUNTAIN RESOURCES, SAN LUIS PROJECT <br />CMLRD ADEQUACY LETTER RESPONSES <br />Page 17 of 28 <br /> 26. Please provide a sliding wedge stability ana]ysis for the main <br /> embankment at Phase 2, Raise 1 and Phase 2, Raise 2. <br /> RESPONSE: The sliding wedge stability analysis for the main emb ankment is <br /> provided on the revised Figure D.6-9, Sliding Medge Stability <br /> Summary. <br /> 27. Please revise the stability analysis summary in Figure D.6-12 to <br /> include the VLDPf instead of the material type 1 as foundation <br /> material. <br /> RESPONSE: Figure D.6-12 has <br />Material Type 1 been revised to include the VLDPE <br />as foundation material. The revised instead of <br />figure is <br /> included here. <br /> 28. Please provide a stability analysis of Waste Rock Disposal Area D, <br /> similar to those provided for the other waste rock facilities in the <br /> approved application. <br /> RESPONSE: The stability analysis for Waste Rock Disposal Area D is provided <br /> in Figure D.3-2. This analysis did not include an analysis of the <br /> single bench static and pseudostatic factors of safety. A revised <br />'~ Figure D.3-2 is provided with this submittal. <br /> 29. Please describe what methods will be used to validate the assumption <br /> that unsaturated conditions will be maintained within the embankment <br /> fill throughout the )ife of the facility. Piezometers should be <br /> placed within the embankment, and within the tails adjacent to the <br /> embankment inslope to verify the design assumptions. <br /> <br /> RESPONSE: A series of pneumatic piezometers will be placed beneath the <br /> embankment, at the upstream toe of the embankment and within the <br /> beach sands deposited on the upstream slope of the embankment. <br /> 30. The model assumes 50% of the tailings disposal area is under <br /> deposition at any point in time and thus 50% of the area will be <br /> evaporating. How many days will an area of tailings be dry and <br /> subject to wind erasion? What would be the maximum extent (acres) <br /> of area with moisture conditions conducive to wind erosion and <br /> resultant dust generation? What measures, aside from residual <br /> moisture, wi)1 be used for dust control? <br />RESPONSE: Once the area of tailings approaches desiccation and begins to dry <br />at the surface, this is an indication that the thin layer deposition <br />concept is working properly and that the area is ready for the next <br />thin layer to be deposited. Dust generation at the facility will be <br />controlled through the active management of the thin layer deposition <br />techniques. As an area dries out, the spigots will be reopened and <br />more slurry deposited, preventing dust generation. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.