Laserfiche WebLink
Mergen), surface owners. <br />Corley Comment #1 <br />In a letter dated September 16, 2015, Dr. Corley raised concerns about the truck tunnel (danger, possible <br />discharge of oil); debris at the Monarch Fan; the developed spring within the Magpie Diversion; a rill <br />west of the truck tunnel; debris in the portal area; and weeds (specifically common mullein). In a related <br />email (January 13, 2016) he noted a sheen in water in the truck tunnel in August 2015 and that EFCI <br />apparently did not sample this water. <br />Responses to Comment #1 <br />The Division will not require EFCI to reclaim the truck tunnel since the Corley Company asked for it to <br />remain as a permanent structure (see MR -41). <br />Regarding the discharge of water from the tunnel in the summer of 2015, laboratory results from a grab <br />sample (taken by EFCI on June 2, 2015) indicated that there was not a detectable quantity of oil/grease <br />in the water. Observations by the Division did not reveal a sheen or the odor of petroleum products. <br />Furthermore, the discharge would have been captured in Pond 5, and there was no sign of any discharges <br />from Pond 5 in 2015. The possibility of oil contamination from the tunnel has been removed by EFCI. <br />In a letter dated January 19, 2016, EFCI documented the work performed to drain the pipes and <br />equipment. <br />In an e-mail of December 28, 2015, Dr. Corley indicated that the debris at the Monarch Fan has been <br />removed. <br />The area near the spring in Magpie Diversion and area downstream to the permit boundary have been <br />removed from the SL -03 submittal. <br />The Division does not consider the rill west of the truck tunnel or the debris in the portal/facility area a <br />problem. <br />Mullein (a C list species) and other weeds on the Southfield site are below three percent relative cover, <br />which is the action level set by the Division. <br />Corley Comment #2 <br />In an e-mail dated October 13, 2015, Dr. Corley noted that the acreage of the old reference area should <br />be 0.42 acre, but the vegetation report indicates that it is 0.29 acre. <br />Response to Comment #2 <br />The Division determined that EFCI used the appropriate acreage values approved during TR -45 to <br />evaluate the vegetation success values. <br />Corley Comment #3 <br />In an e-mail dated October 15, 2015, Dr. Corley noted the lack of markers to delineate the new portal <br />vegetation reference area. <br />Response to Comment #3 <br />Markers to delineate the new portal vegetation reference area were added by EFCI. <br />Southfield Mine SL -03 Page 4 of 21 February 23, 2016 <br />