REV13817

• Permit No: C1981044
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 2/15/1994
• Doc Name: EAGLE 5 AND 9 MINES PN C-81-044 PR 2 DIVISIONS REPLIES TO ADEQUACY RESPONSES
• From: DMG
• To: CYPRUS EMPIRE CORP
• Type & Sequence: RN2
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

e
C-81-044: M. Middleton 2/15/84 2
14. The response to this concern is adequate.
15. The prediction for water level declines in the Trout Creek Sandstone
is adequate. CEC has used a conservative approach based on 500 days
of constant pumping which far exceeds actual pumpage in the Trout
Creek Sandstone. The calculations for hydrologic impacts to the coal
seams is unnecessary, because the coal seams are not considered to be
beneficial use aquifers. Please be reminded that any revision to the
text pages still needs to be received by the Division.
16. The response to this concern is adequate.
September 10, 1993 Adequacy Questions still outstanding include:
II. A. Referring to the Annual Hydrology Report (AHR), Figure 10 is a plot
of water level data for Well 83-03 which is completed in the Middle
Sandstone. The linear regression line shows an overall water level
decrease from an elevation of approximately 6255 feet in 1984 to
approximately 6245 feet in 1992. This indicates an overall decline in
Well 83-03 of 10 feet rather than 15 feet as reported in the AHR.
CEC should submit the appropriate correction for clarity.
II. C. Table 1 of the AHR does not show the screened interval for the Okie
Plaza well. CEC should make the appropriate correction. Although
this well is planned to be mined through during 1994, this information
should be included within the permit for analysis of the historical data.
III. B. 2. Figures 12 through 24, illustrating water elevation and conductivity
trends in the bedrock ground water monitoring wells from 1986
through the present were updated as requested in the Preliminary
Adequacy Review. However, graphs illustrating water elevations in the
Trout Creek Sandstone were not provided and should be included in
the PHC. The graphs provided in the AHR could be used in the PHC.
III. B. 3. Figure 24, illustrating conductivity trends in the alluvial wells, was
updated as requested in [he original PAR. However, Figure 22,
illustrating water level trends in the alluvial wells was missing from the
submittal and no water level data were provided. CEC should submit
Figure 22, updated to show water level trends through the present.
III. B. 4. This comment, which originally requested an update on groundwater
TDS concentrations, should have referred to mine water discharge
rather than groundwater from the bedrock monitoring wells. An
update on trends in mine water discharge TDS concentrations is