Integration of (Federal) responses to comments recieved through review of February Draft 2010 and acceptance of addendum Road Map Regulator Comments Adequacy of Response Type Future Follow-up Issue Response following EIS Integration Addressed In September Provided in Draft EIS Requirments September 2010 2010 Addendum (received via submission of Addendum review of February 2010 Draft EIS) CNSC-4 (1) Adequate Yes clean waste rock Acceptable no further integration required CNSC-4 (4) incomplete Type II lake dewatering offset Adequate contingency Figure 3.5-2 updated CNSC-7 unacceptable Type II chemicals/reagents and hazards Adequate no further integration required CNSC-14 incomplete Type II Atmospheric modelling - Acceptable Figure 4.2-1 provided in Appendix temperature as a variable XIV CNSC-15 incomplete Type II Atmospheric modelling - power Acceptable remove reference to diesel power gen sets generation being main source of power CNSC-17 incomplete Type II Stack Emissions Adequate Appendix XII CNSC-19 Acceptable Yes Selenium NR CNSC-21 Acceptable Yes Selenium NR CNSC-22 (1) unacceptable Type I Mink Arm Sediment Adequate Section 3.2.2.2.3 unacceptable Type I Midwest water treatment Adequate Main Document, Section CNSC-22 (2) 3.5.1.2.2, Figure 3.5-2. unacceptable Type I Midwest special waste and Adequate CNSC 22 (4) dewatering system NR CNSC-25 (2) incomplete Type II Traffic on proposed road Adequate Section 7 CNSC-26 requires clarification Type II Traffic wildlife interactions Adequate NR CNSC-27 incomplete Type II Mink Arm dewatering Adequate Section 3.2.1.1.2 CNSC-29 Acceptable Yes Phyto/Zooplankton monitoring NR EEM TAP CNSC-A incomplete Type II Appendix XII Adequate chemicals/reagents, hazards and transport Appendix XII, Section 3.5. CNSC-B acceptable Type II Yes Appendix V S/V TEMS acceptible with condition NR enhanced removal CNSC-C incomplete Type II Appendix XI Kd - arsenic and review of September 2010 new reponse provided in radium addendum found response addendum and discussed with unacceptable comment provider CNSC-D incomplete Type II Appendix XI porewater arsenic acceptable and uranium Section 3, Figure 3.5-8. DFO-1 (2010) New Mink Arm data acceptable Update Figure 4.4-6; Update Tables 4.4-38, 4.4-40 & 4.4-41; and update Section 4.4.6.1.1 and 4.4.7.1 DFO-2 (2010) New Mink Arm data acceptable Section 4.4.7.1 DFO-3 (2010) New Mink Arm dewatering acceptable section 3.2.1.1.2 and 6.4.3.1 DFO-4 (2010) New Too Small Lakeflushing rate Acceptable Table 4.2-13 1 Integration of (Federal) responses to comments recieved through review of February Draft 2010 and acceptance of addendum Road Map Regulator Comments Adequacy of Response Type Future Follow-up Issue Response following EIS Integration Addressed In September Provided in Draft EIS Requirments September 2010 2010 Addendum (received via submission of Addendum review of February 2010 Draft EIS) DFO-5 (2010) New Schedule - Timing review of September 2010 Addendum required additional response from AREVA addressed in appendix III DFO-6 (2010) New Mink Arm fish transfer review of September 2010 Addendum required additional response from Update fish salvage plans in AREVA Section 3.2.1.1.2 DFO-7 (2010) New Lake dewatering offset review of September 2010 NR contingency Addendum required additional response from AREVA DFO-2(App III) New MOE response to ARC addressed in appendix III comment addendum DF0-9 (AppIII) New MOE response to ARC was submitted in Sept 2010 comment addendum ---- Technical Review Response was for future consideration, no follow-up required DFO-1(AppIII-2010) New No response required - relates to compensatory overwintering Too Small Lake and/or Sue E/Sils habitat Lake DFO-2 (AppIII-2010) New has not demonstrated that the No response required - relates to addition of whitefish to Too Too Small Lake and/or Sue E/Sils Small Lake would be successful Lake DFO-3 (AppIII-2010) New has not demonstrated that the No response required - relates to addition of whitefish to Too Too Small Lake and/or Sue E/Sils Small Lake would be successful Lake DFO-4 (AppIII-2010) New Too Small Lake and/or Sue E/Sils supplement the stickleback Lake DFO-5 (AppIII-2010) New Too Small Lake and/or Sue E/Sils WSV and WSA Lake DFO-6 (AppIII-2010) New hydraulic connection between Too Small Lake and/or Sue E/Sils the Sue E pit and Sils Lake Lake DFO-7 (AppIII-2010) New of water volume available for Too Small Lake and/or Sue E/Sils overwinteringjy Lake DFO-8 (AppIII-2010) New volume of the Sue E pit between No response required - relates to 2 metres and 48 metres depth Too Small Lake and/or Sue E/Sils should be considered Lake 2 Integration of (Federal) responses to comments recieved through review of February Draft 2010 and acceptance of addendum Road Map Regulator Comments Adequacy of Response Type Future Follow-up Issue Response following EIS Integration Addressed In September Provided in Draft EIS Requirments September 2010 2010 Addendum (received via submission of Addendum review of February 2010 Draft EIS) q DFO-9 (AppIII-2010) New from the proponent that the No response required - relates to berm will be completely Too Small Lake and/or Sue E/Sils removed Lake DFO-10 (AppIII-2010) New refer to response to DFO-6 (2010), accepted by DFO May 9th detailed fish salvage plan 2011 DFO-11(AppIII-2010) New Fish should not be released into compensatory habitat until the No response required - relates to habitat can support all species Too Small Lake and/or Sue E/Sils and life stages Lake DFO-12(AppIII-2010) New addressed in appendix III addendum proponent states (Page 49) that fish removed from Mink Arm will be counted and weighed DFO-13(AppIII-2010) New absence of “boulder” as a cover type in Table 7.1-1 would appear to contradict its No response required - relates to documented presence as a Too Small Lake and/or Sue E/Sils substrate type Lake DFO-14(AppIII-2010) New has incorrectly assumed (Page addressed in appendix III 14) that since no change in fish addendum biomass is anticipated as a DFO-15(AppIII-2010) New DFO requests that the No response required - relates to proponent re-check the Too Small Lake and/or Sue E/Sils calculations provided in the Lake EC-1 (2010) New Advice-Mink Arm dewatering NR EC-2 (2010) New Advice-mine waste disposal in NR fish bearing waters EC-3 (2010) New Advice-Lake dewatering offset NR contingency subject to MMER EC-4 (2010) New Wildlife radiological dose NR EC-5 (2010) New Mink Arm cross contamination acceptable NR EC-6 (2010) New Site layout acceptable NR EC-7 (2010) New Road Stream Crossings Acceptable NR EC-8 (2010) New Mink Arm dewatering review of September 2010 NR Addendum resulted in additional requests - further response deemed acceptable 3 Integration of (Federal) responses to comments recieved through review of February Draft 2010 and acceptance of addendum Road Map Regulator Comments Adequacy of Response Type Future Follow-up Issue Response following EIS Integration Addressed In September Provided in Draft EIS Requirments September 2010 2010 Addendum (received via submission of Addendum review of February 2010 Draft EIS) EC-9 (2010) New Mink Arm dewatering acceptable NR EC-10 (2010) New Special waste containment acceptable Section 3.2.5.3 EC-11 (2010) New Water treatment review of September 2010 NR Addendum resulted in additional requests - AREVA requested dicussion and triage EC-12 (2010) New water quality monitoring protocol acceptable NR EC-13 (2010) New water quality monitoring protocol Acceptable NR EC-14 (2010) New S/TEMS and McClean Lake review of September 2010 NR water quality Addendum resulted in additional requests - AREVA requested dicussion and triage EC-15 (2010) New Advice-decommissioning and review of September 2010 NR clean-up Addendum resulted in additional requests - AREVA requested dicussion and triage - has been removed Jan 6/2011 EC-16 (2010) New conventional waste acceptable NR management EC-17 (2010) New Figure 4.4-1 acceptable update Figure 4.1-1 EC-18 (2010) New benthic invertebrate VEC acceptable NR selection EC-19 (2010) New Mink Arm benthic communities acceptable reference to AREVA (2009) and to section 4.4.6.1.1 of MW EIS have been added EC-20 (2010) New Mink Arm monitoring acceptable P. 4-47 of Section 4.4 EC-21 (2010) New monitoring downstream of Mink review of September 2010 NR Arm Addendum resulted in additional requests - further response deemed acceptable EC-22 (2010) New Water quality monitoring acceptable Table 4.4-3 will be updated EC-23 (2010) New Water quality monitoring response to A and C are acceptable a) reference to Figure 4.4-1 will be added to Section 4.4.1.2.2 for clarity; b)NR; c)NR 4 Integration of (Federal) responses to comments recieved through review of February Draft 2010 and acceptance of addendum Road Map Regulator Comments Adequacy of Response Type Future Follow-up Issue Response following EIS Integration Addressed In September Provided in Draft EIS Requirments September 2010 2010 Addendum (received via submission of Addendum review of February 2010 Draft EIS) EC-24 (2010) New monitoring information A) acceptable; B) NR acceptable; C) EC misinterpretation is noted D) advise EC-25 (2010) New Vegetation survey location acceptable Figure 4.4-4 EC-26 (2010) New monitoring information A), B), C), D) acceptable E) NR advise EC-27 (2010) New slimy sculpin clarification acceptable NR EC-28 (2010) New stream crossing fish surveys acceptable NR EC-29 (2010) New Mink Arm dewatering acceptable NR EC-30 (2010) New Water/Sediment qualtiy acceptable NR EC-31 (2010) New Mink Arm dewatering acceptable NR