Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Tom Kaldenbach <br />December 18, 1998 <br />Page 3 <br />than undisturbed aquifers. Using this projected maximum velocity, water quality impacts associated with <br />surface mining at the GE well site could be anticipated w occur roughly 20 years following mining in the <br />Browning pit and roughly 33 years following mining in the Colt pit. C pit mining was initiated in the 4'" <br />quarter of 1988 and B pit began during the l~` quarter of 1990. Lastly, the noted sulfate concentration <br />increases at GE-1 commenced during the last quarter of 1980 while similar increases at GE-2 wen: first <br />noted during the 2nd quarter of 1978. 'These observations further suggest that factors other than surface <br />mining have influenced water quality at the GE-1 well site. <br />Comment 11.) Sources of Cottonwood and Wapiti springs. Why are Cottonwood and Wapiti springs <br />considered spoil springs given their locations on unmined ground? <br />Response 1 l.) Cottonwood and Wapiti are more accurately described as natural springs which may be <br />influenced by spoil water. The springs are located downgradient of the QR mine area in D pit. Permit <br />text on pages 4-248a and 4-2486 has been revised with ibis submittal to reflect the above. Future Annual <br />Reports will refer to these springs as natural. <br />Comment 12.) Scrubber sludge data previously requested in RN-03/PR-04. It is the Divisions <br />understanding that Trapper has plans to submit a chemical analysis of scrubber sludge pending <br />completion of the analysis in coordination with the Craig power plant. What is the status of the chemical <br />analysis? <br />Response 12.) Trapper has received most of the information necessary to incorporate this data into the <br />permit document and anticipates submitting a minor revision to address this issue by the end of January <br />1999. <br />Comment 14.) The need to update PHC. Trapper's expectations for probable hydrologic consequences <br />(PHC) of the mine an: set forth in Section 4.8.3 of the mining and reclamation permit. These <br />consequences appear reasonable but need updating now as Trapper's pits approach the east end of the <br />permit area. The revised PHC should be submitted as a Technical Revision that includes revisions of the <br />following discussions: <br />a) Imparts to the 2e° and 3'" White Sandstones. The revised discussion should include: I) <br />predictions of the impacts to each of the wells completed in those aquifers north of the east end of <br />Trapper, and 2) predictions of the impacts to uses of groundwater from those aquifers in Pyeatt <br />gulch. <br />b) Colt Seep. The existing discussion appears to have been written in 1988 when Colt Seep was <br />still active. <br />c) Foa Den Spring, Flume Gulch Springs, and North Horse Gulch Spring. A discussion should <br />be added that predicts specific impacts to each of the springs and to any downstream water users. <br />Response 14.) Several pages of revised text are provided to address the comments noted above. Revised <br />pages 4-234 to 236 and 4-237 through 4-2378 an: submitted herein to address these comments. These <br />pages should replace existing pages 4-234 to 236 and 4-237 through 4-237f. As we discussed earlier, <br />rather than initiate a new technical revision process to address these changes, Trapper is submitting the <br />revised pages under TR-78. <br />