My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2015-03-12_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981014
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981014
>
2015-03-12_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:58:14 PM
Creation date
3/13/2015 1:35:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981014
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
3/12/2015
Doc Name
Proposed Decision and Findings (RN6)
From
DRMS
To
Energy Fuels Coal, Inc
Permit Index Doc Type
Findings
Email Name
RDZ
MPB
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
are currently in the monitoring plan include Magpie Creek (upstream and downstream of the <br />mine), Newlin Creek (upstream and downstream of the mine), and Second Alkali Creek <br />(downstream of the mine). Oak Creek, at the loadout, is no longer sampled, as of the approval of <br />TR -37 (approval date February 4, 2010). Map 12 in the PAP shows the location of monitoring <br />points. Parameters to be analyzed and the schedule for sampling can be found in Exhibit 25 of <br />the PAP. <br />All data from surface and groundwater sampling is submitted to the Division in the Annual <br />Hydrology Reports. TR -43, a request to terminate all water monitoring at the Southfield Mine <br />(mine site and loadout) is pending a decision by the Division. <br />H. Transfer of Wells <br />EFCI currently has plans to transfer one exploration borehole and one monitoring <br />well for subsequent use as water wells. A landowner, Dr. Douglas Corley, has requested that <br />exploration hole SF -87 -09 and well MW -65 (also known as SR -65) remain permanent for <br />watering cattle. The approval of this action by the Division of Water Resources (DWR) is <br />pending. After DWR approval, EFCI will submit a revision application for review by the <br />Division. Per Rule 4.05.14, this transference is predicated on the following requirements: a well <br />permit from the DWR; written requests from EFCI and Dr. Corley requesting Division approval <br />of this transfer; and assumption of responsibilities for the well by Dr. Corley, notably in the <br />context of the Division Rules 4.05.15, 4.07.1, 4.07.2 and 4.07.3. If this well is in fact <br />transferred, that transference does not remove the well from monitoring requirements within the <br />PAP. <br />Discharge of Water into an Underground Mine <br />At the time of this permit renewal (RN -06), surface water has not been diverted or discharged <br />into any underground mine in conjunction with mining and reclamation activities at the <br />Southfield Mine. However, during operations, the Division approved Technical Revision No. 19 <br />(as a response to Stipulation No. 20), which approved plans for a closed loop system within the <br />Southfield Mine workings. Water was approved to be pumped from one area of the mine via a <br />pipeline to previously abandoned workings within the mine. This revision was approved on <br />October 24, 1994 because the Division determined that this diversion of water within the <br />workings would not result in a violation of applicable State and Federal water quality standards <br />or effluent limitations, does not result in material damage outside the permit area, and does not <br />injure vested water rights. <br />Stream Buffer Zones <br />The PAP discusses buffer zones (page 4.05 -29) but references the old version of Rule 4.05.18. <br />This was appropriate when the mine was active. Under the new stream buffer rule (rule change <br />basis of March 2001), Newlin, Magpie, Oak, and possibly other creeks at the mine site and <br />loadout would possibly require buffer zones. However, mining operations ceased many years <br />ago, and EFCI has stated that they have no intention of further disturbance to areas near the <br />creeks. <br />20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.