Laserfiche WebLink
• WATEC. Extensive reference was made to the Division's September 16, 1981 draft Water Quality and <br />Overburden Geochemistry Guideline. <br />All samples from Sites 3080C and 3152C were chemically and physically analyzed at InterMountain <br />Laboratory using the procedures listed in Table 6-2A. The parameter end procedure list was developed by <br />Peabody's soil scientist IG. Wendt) and hydrologist (H.T. Smithl in consultation with the Division's <br />reclamation specialists (S. Renner end L. Routtenl. Extensive reference was made to the Division's 1982 <br />Water Quality and Overburden Geochemistry Guideline ICMLRD, 19821. <br />Overburden Characteristics. Analytical data for the 19 bore and core holes are provided in Appendix 6-3. <br />In general, the physical and chemical data generated by the overburden testing are typical for the <br />Williams Fork, Iles, and Lewis Formations which form the Mesaverde Group. Stratigraphic units <br />predominantly consist of fine-grained, interbedded, sandstone and shales with lesser amounts of sandy <br />shale, siltstone, and coal. Lithologic descriptions for the bore and core samples are presented in <br />Appendix 6-1. The overburden particle distribution shows a high clay, silt, and very fine and content <br />reflecting the fine-grained nature of the depositional units. Salt levels li.e., conductivities) are low while <br />pH ranges typically from slightly acidic to mildly alkaline. Nitrate levels are low except for Core Hole <br />1128-E which exhibits comparatively higher levels. SAR levels ere consistently low and trace element <br />concentrations ere generally at normally expected background levels. <br />• The criteria for assessing the suitability of overburden for a root growth medium or aquifer restoration <br />material are listed in Table 6-3. The suspect limits for each parameter are documented by current <br />literature citings. <br />The following techniques were used to analyze the overburden and underburden sample data. Initially, <br />statistical analyses Imean and standard deviation) were completed to determine the variability between <br />overburden and underburden, end from core to core. Since sampling intervals varied with depth, <br />weighted means were calculated for all physiochemical parameters across all lithology types, excluding <br />topsoil. These means, calculated for each core site, will likely be representative of the physiochemical <br />concentrations that will be present in the dragline, dozer, and scraper handled spoil overburden. Second, <br />the unsuitable composition for each core was determined and utilized to implement effective and efficient <br />overburden handling techniques. Lastly, other mitigative measures are discussed where necessary. <br />• <br />21 Revised 9/98 <br />