My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR10134
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR10134
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:26:33 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:08:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1994082
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
1/20/1995
Doc Name
YOAST MINE C-94-082 PERMIT APPLICATION
From
DMG
To
SENECA COAL CO PEABODY WESTERN COAL CO
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.
/
15
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
<br />f~ Z~ <br />should be provided. ~ ~p.V ~ ~ <br />19. The exhibits for Tab 7, which show the potentiometric surfaces for the aquifers, are <br />missing from the permit application package. Please provide these maps. <br />20. The permit application package identifies aquifers only in very general terms. For <br />example, the application speaks of the aquifers of the Mesaverde Group. Identification <br />of aquifers should be more specific to aid the Division in its determination of whether <br />potentially impacted aquifers aze regional or local, and to correlate the aquifers with the <br />specific stratigraphic formations within which they occur. <br />21. Page 44: It is uncleaz why SCC uses 1 m /1 as a point of discussion for the detection of <br />trace elements in the Sage Creek alluvial wells. 'Phis should be clarified. <br />22. Page 66: to its discussion of mercury concentrations in the Yoast groundwater <br />monitoring wells, SCC notes exceedances in some of the wells of up to 1 ug l (20 times <br />the drinking water standazd). Other exceedances which aze at or near the aboratory's <br />detection limit of 0.1 ug/1 aze discounted because of a low level of confidence for results <br />neaz the detection limit. The detection limit is reported as 0.1 ug/1 which is twice the <br />drinking water standard of 0.05 ug/1. SCC should explain what factors cause the <br />detection limit to be higher than the standard for these samples. <br />23. Table 7-9: Please explain why there aze no values of hydraulic conductivity, dischazge <br />and storativity reported for some wells. <br />24. Page 26: SCC describes Dazc7~s Law as follows: <br />Q = Kib <br />where: Q = dischaz~e <br />K =hydraulic conductivity <br />i =hydraulic gradient <br />b =wetted aquifer thiclmess <br />In fact, Dazes I~w is as follows: <br />Q = ICiA <br />where: A = cross-sectional azea of the aquifer section for which Q is calculated <br />Although SCCs version of Dazes Law can be used for a unit width of the aquifer <br />(b=A/width), it should be made cleaz in the text that this is what is being done, and that <br />the calculated results for Q aze per unit width of the aquifer. This should also be <br />reflected in Table 7-9. <br />25. Appendix 73: Aquifer Tests <br />a. Origmal water levels are not recorded. Please include this information. <br />b. Explanation of negative drawdowns is needed. <br />c. From the data sheets, it appeazs that the observation wells were located <br />less than one foot from the pumping wells. Please explain. <br />d. It is not cleaz which wells were pumping wells and which were observation wells. <br />Please elaborate. <br />M. Aluvilla and G. Wendt 5 January 23, 1995 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.