Laserfiche WebLink
CEC Response <br />The revised pages were included within the previous response. <br />DMG Concern <br />11. The fourth paragraph on page 2.04.7-2 of the PAP needs to be <br />clarified so that the reader understands that the source of the <br />drainage to the mine workings is only the Middle Sandstone. The <br />statement that currently appears in the PAP, "This decline is probably <br />related to drainage of the sandstones to the No. 5 mine workings", <br />which immediately follows a statement the "Ground water levels have <br />declined in both the Middle and Trout Creek Sandstones", implies <br />that the drainage to the mine workings is from both of the sandstone <br />units. <br />CEC Resoonse <br />CEC believes that this item has been addressed in the previous submittal. Please <br />advise us if this is not the case. <br />DMG Concern <br />14. The response to this concern is adequate. <br />15. The prediction for water level declines in the Trout Creek Sandstone <br />is adequate. CEC has used a conservative approach based on 500 <br />days of constant pumping which far exceeds actual pumpage in the <br />Trout Creek Sandstone. The calculations for hydrologic impacts to <br />the coal seams is unnecessary, because the coal seams are not <br />considered to be beneficial use aquifers. Please be reminded that <br />any revision to the text pages still needs to be received by the <br />Division. <br />16 The response to this concern is adequate. <br />CEC Response <br />No response required. <br />DMG Concern <br />September 10, 1993 Adequacy Questions still outstanding include: <br />