1996-06-26_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1982056

• Permit No: C1982056
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 6/26/1996
• Doc Name: Midterm Review Findings Document
• Permit Index Doc Type: Findings
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

discrepancies. Rough volumetric calculations using this
information reveal a shortage of material presently exists to
achieve the approved post-mining topography in the area of the
main mine facilities. In addition, no defined drainage ways
are planned over this slope, but at least three areas appear
to exist where drainageways will need to be designed due to
topographic relief above the portal area. Bond calculations
at the present time can only be estimated due to the lack of
accurate backfilling and grading information in this area.
The Division requires the following information be submitted:
► accurate topographic maps of the present and post-mining
topography for all disturbed areas of the permit
► accurate cross-section(s) at a sufficient frequency to
approximate earth volumes for all disturbed areas of the
permit
► detailed text describing the earthmoving required based on
the above information
5. In the past, facility and structure design information for
those facilities and structures transferred from the CYCC
Permit No. C-81-071 was allowed to be incorporated by reference
into the Foidel Creek mine permit. Due to the number of
facility changes, permit complexity, and recent Rule chan es,
the Division now requires that all appropriate informationor
those structures transferred from the CYCC permit be
incorporated into the Foidel Creek mine permit application.
While this may cause a minor amount of duplication, it should
improve the availability and accuracy of the information
presented. This mainly affects sedimentation ponds, treatment
facilities and roads.
Attached to this midterm are documents which may be of
assistance when reviewing the comments related to ponds and
roads. The first is a Policy Memorandum, detailing the
Division's policy on professional certification. Although the
particular format of each existing certification of structures
and facilities at the Foidel Creek mine varies, two areas of
certification continue to bP ;nareq4xa+g. The first is—that the
u a ion which requires the certification is lacking in
the engineers statement. This is item (2) in the attachment
and is included to ensure that the engineer reads the
requirement of the Rule prior to certification. The second
inadequate area in many certifications is item (7) . The
engineers statement must specifically reference the appropriate
portions of the permit (text, plans, maps, exhibits) to which
the engineer is checking the as-built or "on-the-ground"
configuration against. Certification statements done as
outlined in the policy memo are the Division's assurance that
the structure was built according to the approved plan. In the
ideal situation, for roads and ponds, the operator submits
design information certified by a P.E (Rule 2 .05.3 (3) (c) (vii) ) ,
-10-