Laserfiche WebLink
Similarly, as for the developed well at Northern # 1, groundwater from the developed well near the <br />Rienau # 2 portals may not be indicative of mined coal seam (G) water quality. All the 1985 water <br />quality parameters measured were within the baseline values. Fifteen of the 28 parameters measured <br />in the 1997 sample of the developed well were outside of the baseline values. The more significant <br />deviations were chloride (41 mg/1 vs a baseline maximum of 5.7), magnesium (125 mg/] versus a <br />baseline maximum of 1) and sodium (28 mg/1 versus a baseline minimum of 119). Flows from the well <br />may be from sources in addition to any seepage from the G seam. <br />Three monitoring wells (HRA-1, HRA-2, and HFA-1) were (initially) set in Curtis Creek alluvium. <br />Well HFA-I is the northern-most well. It is within the hydrologic influence of mining at the Northern <br />Number 1 Mine, but upstream from Rienau # 2 activities. Well HRA-2 is immediately upstream from <br />Rienau # 2 mine activity. Well HRA-1 is immediately downstream from Rienau # 2 mine activity. <br />Baseline quality ranges of alluvial ground waters are presented in Document 23, as are parameter <br />values from samples taken in water year 1985. Some parameters are noted as different from baseline <br />values; however, the Division finds that the values of the parameters are not such as to constitute an <br />adverse impact to beneficial use of alluvial ground water. <br />Germaine to conclusions of impacts to ground water quality is the tightness of geologic formations in <br />the vicinity of the mining activity. Transmissivity of the formations is very low, and there appeared <br />to be nearly no hydraulic conductivity between formations (see Permit, pages G-47 through G-61). <br />The developed wells near the sealed portals of the Mines suggest little, if any, impact from coal seam <br />seepage (mining activity). <br />From the information presented, the Division finds that ground water quality impacts realized appear <br />to be less adverse than the Probable Hydrologic Consequences predicted in the Permit. <br />10. Rule 3.03.2(2) Cost of Pollution Abatement <br />The Division will determine the cost of water pollution abatement. <br />The Division finds that [here is no impact to surface and subsurface waters that requires abatement, <br />and the probability of any fumre adverse impacts that would require abatement is low. Thus there is <br />no cost associated for such abatements. <br />11. Rule 3.03.2(2) Probability of Future Pollution <br />The Division will determine the probability of future water pollution. <br />The Division fmds that the probability of future adverse impacts to surface and subsurface waters [hat <br />would require abatement is low. <br />26 20 January 1998 <br />