Laserfiche WebLink
DMG Concern <br />k) Pond E (facilities areal values for 2/26/92 appear doubled. <br />TCC Resoonse <br />The corrected page has been enclosed. <br />DMG Concern <br />II No depths or screen intervals are shown for 008-EFC, 91-M006, FBR-11A, or <br />91-M005. <br />TCC Resoonse <br />The revised table has been enclosed. information pertaining to we11008-EFC will be included <br />on the table during the 1993 AHR submittal to facilitate submittal of these responses. <br />DMG Concern <br />Monitoring Frecuencv <br />1. As per our discussions, the Division's position on sampling of wells which are to be <br />undermined (or otherwise, for that matter) is as follows: <br />When a level in a well shows massive declines and it is in front of the advancing long <br />wall sections (and subsequent subsidence), that is a very definite sign that potential <br />well casing problems may develop, caused by subsidence and/or dewatering. In the <br />case of the Wadge Overburden wells, if TCC can measure a level and extract a water <br />sample as per the approved plan, then there is no compliance problem. If, however, <br />TCC continues to monitor this well after it dewaters completely (i.e., taking no field <br />readings or quality samples) and this well is one of the required two downgradient <br />wells to be monitored, then there is a definite compliance problem. If TCC's approved <br />plan calls for two downgradient wells in the Wadge to be monitored and sampled, then <br />dewatering by the predicted and expected advance of the longwall face is not a valid <br />reason for not sampling two wells downgradient. When wells dewater from the <br />advancing longwall face, TCC should be prepared to begin monitoring in a new <br />downgradient well (or wells) to insure compliance with the approved plan (i.e., no gaps <br />in the sampling record). <br />If this is ambiguous or unclear, please ask for clarification. Otherwise, the Division will <br />assume all parties are clear on this issue. <br />TCC Resoonse <br />TCC wishes to re-iterate that the loss of well 006-88-2 was not anticipated at that point in <br />time, even with the observed decline in water levels. TCC has noted the Division's position <br />on this matter, and will attempt to avoid similar situations in the future while monitoring in <br />accordance with the plan. <br />