Laserfiche WebLink
March 1992 <br />Ground Water Ouan[ity and Ouality <br />Kerr Coal Company Adequacy Responses ~ 3 <br />The water quality of well AO-2 possibly would assist explaining the Bush Dmw Phenomenon. However, <br />alU~ough three samples are required none were taken due to the well being dry or not having enough water <br />to sample. Since this well was established to monitor downstream water quality, it is impemlive that the <br />required samples are retrieved Please submit a minor revision to complete this well to a depth which will <br />allow sampling on a regular basis. <br />Response: <br />Kerr proposes [o reestablish Well AO-2 in the immediate vicinity of the existing well. Due [o [he wet <br />ground conditions on [he alluvial Floor of Bush Draw, the use of large equipment is not feasible. <br />Experience in [he area indicates [hat once the surface crust is broken, if a drilling rig or large excavator <br />is used, significant surface disturbance results from trying to get the equipment back on solid ground. <br />Therefore, Kerr proposes [o use a small backhoe [o excavate a hole and would install double casing (4 <br />inch and inner 2 inch). It is anticipated that the well wind be completed to a depth of 12 feet. This <br />would double [he original depth, and using the proposed installation technique, would guarantee a <br />continual sampling depth of approximately 12 feet. Figure 1, Proposed Well Design For Replacement <br />Of Well AO-2, shows the proposed installation and completion methods for the proposed AO-2. <br />Upon CMLRD approval of [his wnceptual plan, Kerr will submit a minor revision for final approval. <br />Please vote [ha[ time is of the essence; frost must still be in [he ground [o allow access of any equipment. <br />If the ground has no frost for surface stability, the well can not realistically be installed until late fall (if <br />ground dries out) or next win[er.Kerr would appreciate your response to the proposed relocation of AO-2 <br />as soon as possible to allow timely approval of a minor revision and facilitate installation yet this spr'mg. <br />2. There were no March or April Jeld parameters for wells AP-1 and AP-2 which could possibly be due to <br />frozen conditions. However, there are no May Jeld parameters for AP-2 and no field parameters during <br />htne for AP-2. Please explain lltis discrepancy. Also, the monitoring plan requires the October sample to <br />6e tested for fluoride, but this was not done. Is the plan in error or was the sample missed? <br />Response: <br />The omission of data from AP-2 was an inadvertent error. Extreme care will be exercised to wllec[ aft <br />required data according [o [he moniroring plan in the future. The laboratory has been contacted ro <br />assure [hat all requ'ved pazame[ers are reported. <br />c\wrl\Prl\YCrt\ 1991 ry,ary <br />m/11 /9Z Nm <br />