My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR10642
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR10642
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:27:00 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:12:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1994082
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
1/13/1995
Doc Name
YOAST MINE C-94-082 PRELIMINARY ADEQUACY CONCERNS PERMIT APPLICATION
From
DMG
To
SUSAN L BURGMAIER
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.
/
5
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 />17) Page 2: The list of assumptions for the McWhorter pit <br />inflow analysis includes an assumption (#7) that there is <br />no additional flow from the reclaimed spoils after the <br />first year. How does PWCC justify this assumption when <br />the development of spoil springs is clearly predicted? <br />18) Page 7: Is PWCC assuming that the regional gradient is <br />zero, or is the example given solely for the purpose of <br />illustration? <br />19) The Division may request that the calculations for the <br />McWhorter pit inflow analysis be included in an Appendix. <br />Copies should be forwarded to the Division for review. <br />20) Page 10: PWCC should provide the Division with <br />calculations to show how the wet pit area was arrived at <br />for the Theis analysis. The Division may request that <br />these calculations be included in an Appendix. <br />21) The following comments concern the Theis drawdown <br />calculations: <br />a) The input values for the Theis analysis should <br />be provided in the text or a table. <br />b) How is T = 0.0207 ft2 (0.155gpd/ft) arrived <br />at? Is it an average for the overburden <br />wells? if so, specify which wells were used <br />to calculate the average. Please answer the <br />same question for the Wadge Coal. <br />c) The new calculations (which should be included <br />in an appendix) need to explain where the <br />input values came from. <br />d) Is the "pit area in water" calculated per pit? <br />e) Item #7 for the revised overburden <br />calculations: The Division calculates a <br />radial distance of 237 feet for the 5-foot <br />drawdown using Peabody's input parameters. <br />Peabody should recheck the calculations. <br />f) Page 10, Equation 3: The equation is <br />inverted. The parameter "u" should be in the <br />denominator rather than the numerator. <br />g) Peabody should submit maps showing how the wet <br />areas were calculated. <br />22) Table 17-2: The units for transmissivity should be <br />ft2/day rather than ft/day. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.