REV90421 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Joe Shoemaker September 9. 1993 4 provided. 7. The PAR requested that Section 2.05.6(6)-1 Observed Impacts be updated to include current data. A graph for the wnductivity field in the Williams Fork River was updated and shows good agreement between the upstream and downstream conductivities. However, an evaluation of trends for other water quality pazameters such as solids, pH or iron, is not possible, because Tables 26 and 27 present only maximums, m;nimums, means and standazd deviations over a ten year period from 1982 to 1992. Graphs based on actual data for the above pazameters should be submitted to illustrate trends and substantiate CECs assertion that adverse impacts to water quality in the Williams Fork River have not occurred. 8. "As-built" certifications for impoundments were received on September 3, 1993. 9. CEC should provide baseline data on water levels in the Okie Plaza Well if it is available. Baseline data for the other Trout Creek Sandstone wells are presented in the Empire Energy Corporations Baseline Monitoring Data Report (1987). 10. CEC should provide graphs of dissolved solids, iron and pH for all appropriate ground water monitoring wells. 11. Section 2.04.7-2 of the permit application package states that ground water level declines in the Trout Creek Sandstone result from drainage to the No. 5 mine workings. However, section 2.05.6-i2A of the PHC states that, other than impacts from pumping, mining has not impacted water quantity in the Trout Creek Sandstone as evidenced by recovery to earlier levels in both the Okie Plaza Well and the No. 5 Mine wells resulting from decreased pumping rates while mine dewatering continued. CEC should clarify their current interpretation and make the appropriate changes so that contradictions do not e~dst within the permit application package. 12. The Division requests that CEC update information on aquifer usage for the alluvial aquifers, Trout Creek Sandstone, Middle Sandstone, Twentymile Sandstone, and White Sandstone. 13. Please provide the Division clarification regarding which aquifer the Lux well is completed in. 14. On page 2.05.6-5 of the PHC, CEC, in discussing fault zone inflow to the No. 5 Mine, states that, "much of the inflow to the fault may be derived from the Trout Creek Sandstone". A subsequent statement, "However, as the base of the E coal seam in the vicinity of both Trout Creek Sandstone wells is above the current potentiometric level in these two wells, it is not likely that the fluctuations in potentiometric levels in the Trout Creek Sandstone is related to mine dewatering in the overlying E coal seam" appears to contradict the first statement. CEC should clarify this argument.