Laserfiche WebLink
C:UHB\C82056\RN03\011400adq.doc 6 01/14/00 <br />12/6/99 materials <br />TCC has submitted Plate 1 to incorporate in the pemut. [t requires labeling as requested in the <br />original question. The Plate needs additional information added to indicate that the Plate only <br />applies to Ponds C and T as stated in the cover letter. Plate 1 also references other drawings <br />(Energy Mines 1 and 2 Hydrology) which also should be included in the Foidel Creek Mine <br />permit. The submitted drawings should have the proper e:thibit number labeled on them. <br />62. c) All ponds need text discussion concerning the operation, maintenance, and plans to remove the <br />structure. This should be in enough detail to consider activities including, but not limi[ed, clean <br />out ofsediment, dewatering activities, and modifications (fnecessary) to remain as permanent. <br />12/6/99 materials <br />This issue is now resolved. <br />62. d) For the ponds that existed at the time of the Epp survey, the as-built configuration becomes the <br />design information for those cases where the design information was previously lacking or where <br />the as-built information d ffers from the original design information. In marry cases, the <br />information provided on Plate 1, W E. T. calculations, and the Epp survey, is different. For <br />example, the Epp survey (the on-the-ground configuration) for Pond D presents the eleva[ion of <br />the lowest set of holes, which differs from the WET calculations, yet the WET calculations are <br />referred to in the professional engineer certification as the mod cation which is cert~ed as <br />correct. It is not clear in many circumstances what original design information (Leonard Rice <br />plate) is being referenced or whether some later information supersedes this information. <br />Furthermore, design information concerning sedimentology and hydraulics was not incorporated <br />as requested in the Midterm Review. It appears tha[ much of the original design information in <br />section 816, volume II and Exhibit 13 of Volume 11 of permit # C-81-071 would be appropriate to <br />include as design information many of the ponds. The following are additional specifics <br />concerning the adequacy ojthe information for each structure. <br />Fish Creek Boreho% Ponds -other than getting a signed survey, these structures meet the <br />requirements of Rule 2.05.3(4). <br />A revised survey for the Fish Creek Borehole Treatment Ponds was approved by Minor Revision <br />No. 166. No additional survey is needed for the Fish Creek Borehole Treatment Ponds at this <br />time. <br />EMD ponds -These ponds have yet to be constructed; therefore, there is no as-built cert~cation. <br />The design information meets the requirements of Rule 2.O.i.3(-f). <br />Pond E -Page 8-97 of Exhibit 8 disagrees with the Epp Stage~Storage diagram submitted and <br />approved as Figure 1 of Exhibit 8E. Information conflicts regarding the top of the primary riser. <br />The permit needs to clearly present the design information and the engineer is required to cert~ <br />that the as-bull[ condi[ion is as per the speck design (i.e. identify spec~cally which design <br />