Laserfiche WebLink
contained in Exhibit 13 of the CYCC permit (#C-81-071). TCC needs to submit this <br />design information so the Division can review it to ensure the requirements of Rule <br />4.05.6 have been met. <br />Pond D <br />Current design information is incorporated by reference from permit #C-81-071. <br />Information reviewed during the midterm included "As-built Construction Plans for Energy <br />Mines 1&2, Sedimentation Pond D, sheet 1 of 4", HEC-1 modelling in Exhibit 13, and <br />construction inspection notes by Robert Thompson, P.E. It appears that the original design <br />information is correct with the exception of that information which is superseded by the <br />HEC-1 modelling in Exhibit 13. This information needs to be incorporated into the Foidel <br />Creek mine permit. Please submit a certification statement which specifically states which <br />design information is accurate and all other requirements of the policy memo. Also, <br />information in Exhibit 8 of permit #C-82-056 is unclear as to whether Pond D, Pond E, site <br />114 (Emerald Spring), or some combination of the three, are the approved locations for site <br />109 mine water discharge. Text on page 2.05-95, 2.05-96 seems to indicate Pond D is the <br />approved mine dewatering pond, yet TR-18 documents indicate otherwise. Please correct <br />all information as appropriate. <br />TCC response (Pond D) <br />The 109 discharge can be routed to either Pond D or site 114. It was anticipated <br />that the 109 discharge would be routed underground but delays in underground <br />construction projects require that the water be routed to either Pond D or site 114. <br />The text has been modified to reflect the current plan for handling this water. The <br />survey information is being forwarded to TCC and once it is available it will be used <br />to prepare the P.E. certification for the pond and it can be placed into Exhibit 8H <br />of the permit. The certification will identify which design information was used to <br />prepare the certification as requested by the Division. <br />Division response (Pond D) <br />Once again, TCC did not submit the design information as requested. The original <br />question stills stands. Also, page 8-4 of the current permit was not corrected and <br />submitted. The first sentence at the top of this page should be deleted. Please <br />submit the corrected page. Also, correct Table A for ditch E-2 to indicate no <br />additional flow in this ditch. The Division will assume based on TCCs response that <br />TCC desires to dewater to Pond D and site 114 (Emerald Spring). All language in <br />the permit should be wnsistent and reflect this desire. <br />Pond E <br />Current SEDCAD+ modelling does not include a base flow to Pond E, yet text in Exhibit <br />8 indicates mine water discharge can be routed to Pend E. Present dewatering activities are <br />occurring to Pond D. A question was posed to TCC during TR-18 review "...the Division's <br />