Laserfiche WebLink
Response: Attached are revised drawings ( #A100, A105, A110, A115, Al20, and Al25) that <br />show /extend the existing Phase I liner anchor trench beyond the intersection of the two <br />anchor trenches (i.e., towards the northwest). <br />#2(b). The drawings do not show the edge of the proposed liner along the northwest side of the <br />PSE area. Neither does Section A include the northwest edge. Please provide: (i) some <br />narrative regarding the treatment of the northwest edge, and (ii) show the northwest edge of the <br />proposed liner on the drawings, and (iii) provide an engineering detail showing the northwest <br />edge treatment, if it is to be different than the typical anchor trench. If the northwest edge is to <br />be the same as the typical anchor trench, please indicate as such on the drawings. <br />Response: (i) Regarding the treatment of the northwest edge, there will be a fusion welded <br />tie -in at the crest of the liner extension, as shown on Section D on Drawing Al25. (ii) The <br />northwest edge of the proposed liner is shown on the revised drawings which are attached. <br />(iii) Please refer to Section D on Drawing Al25 which shows the proposed liner connection <br />to the existing liner in engineering detail. <br />#3. For Drawing s #A100 and A110 please provide some narrative addressing the gap in the <br />berm just north of the Section A "bubble" (located at approximately N 48,710; E 36, 200). Why <br />is the berm crest elevation of 9449 ft (and anchor trench) not continued another 30 ft to daylight <br />in the existing Phase I Pad material? <br />Response: The berm was designed with a gap to provide an anchoring bench for the <br />proposed liner and to prevent the fill material from covering the existing Leak Detection <br />System ( "LDS ") sump. The final length and reach of the berm was determined by day - <br />lighting the crest of the proposed PSE platform. <br />#4. Pursuant to Rule 6.4.21(6)(b)(j) please provided narrative describing how process solution <br />in the PSE area will be handled so as to comply with all applicable environmental protection <br />and reclamation standards and regulations. The narrative should address expected response <br />times to unexpected pressure anomalies in the process solution circuit within the PSE area. <br />Response: No process solution flows will be allowed to occur within the lined area of TR 64 <br />until another technical revision is submitted and approved addressing the components of <br />the PSE system in its entirety. The intent of TR 64 is to obtain approval from DRMS <br />simply for the liner system beneath the proposed PSE structure and appurtenances. <br />Another TR will be forthcoming in the first quarter of 2012, and this TR will address the <br />issues raised in #4. <br />#5. Pursuant to Rules 6.4.21(6)(a) and 6.4.21(6)(b)(ii), please provide narrative describing how <br />the PSE lined area will be decommissioned upon reclamation. The Division expects the process <br />to be similar to that proposed in the permit for the VLF and/or the ADR. <br />Response: Since TR 64 addresses the liner only and not the PSE structures and <br />appurtenances, the following narrative will focus only on decommissioning the liner upon <br />reclamation. A future technical revision will address the decommissioning of the structures <br />