Laserfiche WebLink
1996 Annual Hydrology Report Responses <br />December 11, 1997 <br />Page -l <br />11. The Division has recommended replacement of wells SOM-23-H-1 and LP-1. <br />As stated previously, MCC has been evaluating our monitoring program and <br />had identified these wells as possible candidates for replacement. MCC would <br />like the opportunity to complete this evaluation and make a proposal on a <br />replacement program based on data needs, as we had discussed. Monitoring of <br />SOM-23-H-1 was reinitiated in WY 1996. The well had last been monitored in <br />1978. SOM 23-H-1 is an up-dip well which monitors the B-seam. As <br />explained on page 42 of the 1996 AHR, the well (along with SOM 23-H-2, 23- <br />H-3, and 23-H-4) are located below a landslide. The large increase in water <br />level from 1978 to 1996 indicates that the casing has been damaged and surface <br />water may be entering the casing. In addition, our contractor who collects the <br />data noted that he can hear cascading water in the well. MCC installed SO.W-1 <br />to also monitor the B-seam up-dip from mining. Therefore, MCC proposes to <br />discontinue monitoring SOM 23-H-1 and will continue to monitor SO.W-1. <br />Although, not mentioned by the Division, but discussed above, MCC will <br />discontinue monitoring of SOM 23-H-2 and will also evaluate its replacement <br />with a new updip E-seam well. As MCC does not propose to mine the E-seam <br />for some time, there should be more than enough time to locate a potential site <br />and collect baseline data. MCC does not expect to begin longwall mining in <br />the E-seam until 2006. MCC would welcome the Division's input on the siting <br />of this well. <br />LP-1 was located to monitor the Rollins sandstone down-dip of mining, and <br />has identified this well as a possible candidate for replacement. MCC would <br />like the opportunity to complete this evaluation and make a proposal on a <br />replacement program based on data needs, as we had discussed. <br />As stated previously, MCC does not believe, based on the above discussion, <br />[hat [he problems with these wells indicate noncompliance with the required <br />groundwater monitoring plan. MCC would like the opportunity to work with <br />the Division outside of the violation arena, to review and determine a better <br />groundwater monitoring program. <br />12. There was a typographical error on page 44. Samples were obtained from <br />fifreen wells, however all 32 wells were monitored. A revised page is enclosed. <br />13. All tables in Appendix C, Appendix F and Appendix I have been revised to <br />include a footnote which states that the less-than sign (<) indicates that the <br />analyze was not detected at the method detection limit indicated by the numeric <br />value. <br />