REP08811 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

downstream site) and HGSD3 (new downstream site). Site HGSD3 had replaced HGSD2, as HGSD2 was too far downstream and could have picked up the effects of non-mining influences. The operator continues to sample HGSD2 although it is not required. The groundwater monitoring sites shown are HGDALI (up gradient alluvial), HGDAL2 (old downgradient alluvial) and HGDAL3 (new downgradient alluvial). Site HGDAL3 had replaced HGDAL2 as HGDAL2 was not positioned downstream of all of the disturbance. Also, HGDALI and HGDAL2 may have been completed in the Lewis Shale and may not have been representative alluvial wells. Although not required, the operator continues to sample HGDAL2. NPDES 001 is the outfall for pond 1 (truck loop pond) and NPDES 002 is the outfall for pond 2 (rail loop pond). Page 7 of Tab 13 of the permit application contains the requirements for the surface water monitoring frequency while Table 13-1, on pages 8 and 9 of Tab 13, shows the required field and laboratory parameters to be analyzed. Surface water sites HGSD1 and HGSD3 are to be sampled semi-annually. As shown in the 1994 AHR, in Table 1 on page A-2, the required surface water monitoring program had been followed. The required groundwater monitoring requirements are also shown on page 7 of Tab 13 of the permit application. The required field and laboratory analyses are shown in Table 13-2 on pages 10 and 11 of Tab 13. This information L`orresponds to Table 2, on page A-4, of the 1994 AHR. The groundwater monitoring requirements were followed in the 1994 AHR. The NPDES permit can be found in Appendix 13-1 of the permit application. The permit number is COG 850008 and it requires quarterly Discharge Monitoring Reports for both ponds. Appendix C of the 1994 AHR contains all required DMR's. The sampling parameters required by the NPDES permit were analyzed when there was a discharge. 2. Water Quantity and Quality Analyses There were no laboratory analyses performed at HGSD1, the upstream surface water site. There was no flow on 4/20/94 and the site was flooded by an irrigation dam on 9/27/94, so no samples were taken. There were no flows recorded on 9/27/94 for HGSD2 and HGSD3 as well. However, field parameter and full suite laboratory analyses were performed for HGSD2 and HGSD3 on 4/20/94. A comparison of the laboratory data, found in Appendix B of the 1994 AHR, was made with the material damage suspect levels, found in "A Description of the Material Damage Assessment Process Pertaining to Alluvial Valley Floors, Surface Water, Ground Water and Subsidence at Coal Mines", January 1988. The comparison shows that manganese and selenium exceeded the compliance limits (.23 2