Laserfiche WebLink
<br />approved. <br /> <br />22. Why has language on the currently approved page 2.05-32(a) <br />been eliminated? <br />23. Why has language and tense of discussion on page 2.05-32(b) <br />been modified? This section is apparently not dealing with <br />activities associated with TR-18. <br />24. Text on page 2.05-35 has also been significantly altered. The <br />first paragraph indicates a future submittal of a prep plant <br />revision. This page is generally very confusing. <br />25. More detail is required on page 2.05-55(a) with regard to <br />reclamation of the coal handling system. Also, why did <br />language change with regard to reclamation activities at the <br />Fish Creek borehole? <br />26. What does the main heading Reclamation Plan on page 2.05- <br />55(b)(1) refer to? Only the reclamation of the Preparation <br />Plant? Also, this page has eliminated language approving the <br />zero entry vent shaft. <br />27. Page 2.05-95 refers to excess storage capacity in Pond E. Do <br />the demonstrations and new Pond design include excess capacity <br />for Pond E? <br />28. Page 8-1 indicates water will be discharged from the prep <br />plant emergency pond. When and how will this water be <br />discharged from this pond? <br />29. Why does site 109 continue to carry the majority of mine water <br />discharge, contrary to text statements on page 8-2? <br />30. Where is the dry storage building depicted on Map 24? <br />31. Which tipple is referred to as the Foidel Creek tipple? <br />It is apparent that a large portion of this revision needs <br />substantial changes and other sections need additional information <br />to complete review. The Division suggests that TCC arrange for a <br />meeting to discuss specifics concerning this review in order to <br />complete this technical revision within the allotted timeframes. <br />Sinc ely, <br />K A: Gorham <br />En ironmental Protection Specialist <br />cc: David Berry, DMG <br />