Laserfiche WebLink
<br />' William J. Carter Mazch 12, 1998 <br />Re: Response to Susan Burgmaier's comments on the 1996 Annual Hydrologic Report <br />' 1,700 feet of Panel 2 will be mined before crossing underneath the 6th East Mains of the E-Seam <br />workings in the Hawk's Nest Mine. At that time, subsidence induced fractures would progressively <br />' drain any water impounded in that azea of the Hawk's Nest Mine, reference September 2, 1997 <br />report by John F. Abel, Jr., "Predicted Longwall Subsidence for the Sanborn Creek Mine." Also at <br />that time, there would be an azea of approximately 800 feet by 1,700 feet of gob below the longwall <br />' that would function as a sump for any inflow. Portable pumps can be installed to keep the face azea <br />dry. Chimney collapse subsidence is not predicted. <br />' Longwall Panel 4 is beneath the lowest workings of the Hawk's Nes[ Mine. Maximum subsidence <br />of the 3-panel set is predicted during mining of Panel 4. Again, there would be approximately the <br />' same azea of gob below the longwall that would function as a sump for any inflow. As each <br />longwall panel is completed, the potential sump area to handle mine inflow becomes progressively <br />larger. Sanborn Creek Mine considers currently available primary and standby pumping capacity, <br />' and the ability to acquire additional pumping capacity on short notice, along with the past <br />evaluations and monitoring of the mine conditions on a daily basis, to be sufficient to address the <br />concern for possible flooding of the mine. <br />' Sanborn Creek Mine will continue to monitor WSC DH 12, and the Division of Minerals and <br />Geology's concern for the safety of the mine workers is noted. Sanborn Creek Mine welcomes any <br />' Division of Minerals and Geology inspection of the monitoring equipment and procedures during <br />the monitoring next summer. If the Hawk's Nest Mine was flooded above the bottom of this <br />monitoring well, then a sample could have been collected with the bailer and rope, however this <br />was not the case. <br />' Comment l.b. <br />"Full suite analyses were not done during the second quarter at sites S-1, S-2, C-1 and HN-1. OCM <br />notes that [he full suite analyses were scheduled for June, during which no flows were observed. <br />' The monitoring plan requires quarterly full suite analyses, and has not been approved for a specific <br />month only. Because there was flow during the second quarter, OCM should have obtained <br />samples to be analyzed for the full parameter suite. Please make sure an effort to ensure that all <br />' involved staff are awaze of this requirement so that samples will not be missed in the future." <br />Response l.b. <br />' Monitoring and samples on ephemeral drainages in an undetermined month is not practical. <br />Currently, the sample kits are received from the laboratory according to the schedule, the samples <br />aze taken, and the kits aze sent back to the laboratory. Sample kits would have to be stored at [he <br />' mine site at all times. <br />t If the sampling program is changed to collecting a sample a[ the first opportunity in a quarter, flow <br />in these ephemeral drainages might be sampled in Mazch at the start of the snowmelt runnof7, as the <br />firs[ opportunity in the first quarter, and April 1, as the first opportunity of the second quarter. <br />' 4 <br />/1 <br /> <br />