1990-01-18_REVISION - M1988112 ‎(5)‎

• Permit No: M1988112
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 1/18/1990
• Doc Name: SAN LUIS PERMIT AMENDMENT ADEQUACY RESPONSES
• From: STEFFEN ROBERTSON & KIRSTEN
• To: MLRD
• Type & Sequence: AM1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

BATTLE MOUNTAIN RESOURCES, INC.
ADEQUACY RESPONSES - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
PAGE 3 OF 7
10. Pease provide a discussion of the QA/QC program to be followed at the San
Luis Project as well as a commitment to following the QA/QC program. In
addition, all QA/QC test data must be submitted to the Division upon
completion for approval of the composite liner construction. BMR must be
aware that the Division will require that areas that do nat meet the
require specifications as demonstrated by the QA/QC testing ma,y be subject
to replacement and retesting.
Attachment 1 to this submittal discusses the QA/QC program for the San Luis
Project.
11. In order to ensure that BMR is aware of all the monitoring requirements
for this project, the Division requests that a detailed monitoring report
be prepared outlining all monitoring to be performed, the frequencies and
reporting requirements. This report should include not only surface and
ground water monitoring, but also any other monitoring such as tailings
monitoring and pit water inflow monitoring.
A comprehensive monitoring report is being prepared for submittal. This
report includes a complete discussion of all monitoring required during
operation and reclamation of the San Luis Project. Monitoring during
construction is discussed in the QA/QC program included as Attachment 1.
12. Comments on ]0 and I1 also apply to this question.
No response necessary.
13. The comment was satisfactorily addressed in the January 9, 1990 submittal.
14. The comment was satisfactorily addressed in the January 9, 1990 submittal.
15. The comment was satisfactorily addressed in the January 9, 1990~submittal.
16. The comment was satisfactorily addressed in the January 9, 1990 submittal.
17. The comment was satisfactorily addressed in the January 9, 1990 submittal.
18. The comment was satisfactorily addressed in the January 9, 1990 submittal.
19. Please provide a discussion of the riprap method chosen and why this method
was chosen.
The criteria for the selection of riprap size is the Murray and Smith
method presented in the Urban Storm DRainage Criteria Manual (Section
5.4.2). The riprap diameter dso is given by the equation
dso = ~~So.i~/(SG_l~o.ae x 4.5]z