Laserfiche WebLink
INTERNAL MEMO <br />TO: Jim Stark 21 August 2003 <br />FROM: Jim Burnell <br />SUBJ: Review of 2002 AHR for Southfield Mine <br />This review was conducted on the Southfield 2002 AHR. Accompanying this review <br />was a valuable site visit to the Southfield Mine and extended discussions with Jim Stark, <br />whose knowledge of and experience with the Mine proved invaluable. I reviewed <br />• the Southfield permit application document; <br />• the current AHR <br />• permit maps 5 and 8 through 13 <br />• additional earlier AHRs and accompanying maps. <br />The reasons for these aze as follows: the permit contained the PHC with text that detailed <br />a lot of the thinking behind the listed consequences. This is actually a pretty well- <br />developed PHC, and a lot of background information was explained in the permit. <br />Permit maps 8 through 13 contain mine area geology and geologic cross-sections which I <br />needed to understand the geologic structure along with a site visit to view the area in <br />person. Maps 12 and 13 are surface and groundwater hydrology maps which were <br />valuable to help understand the spatial relationships of the wells, mine facilities, and <br />surface water features. Map 5 is the mine area hydrogeology. <br />General comments <br />1. On page 8 the text states that MW-8 was "mined through in 1993 and immediately <br />went dry." In the next pazagraph, the text states that MW-8 "caved in late 2000." Maybe <br />these azen't mutually exclusive, but they seem to be. The well appeazs to be acting as <br />one would expect now, in that it is collapsed and provides no data. <br />2. The most recent data on mine water inflows (reported on page 5 of the 2002 AHR) <br />show inflows much lower than were predicted in the permit application. Predicted <br />inflows were 330 acre-Feet per year and the most recent available data show inflow of <br />only 5.2 acre-feet per yeaz. Interpreting this is not an exact science, but it appears that the <br />original permit overestimated the amount of groundwater present or overestimated the <br />transmissivity of the rocks (that is, the ability of water to flow through the rocks at a fast <br />enough rate to create higher inflows.) Please ask EFCI to provide an explanation as to <br />why inflows are significantly lower than predicted. <br />3. Only two groundwater monitoring wells remain that contain water (are not dry.) Of <br />the two, both contain water at levels about the average they have been for 15 yeazs. A <br />