REP48689 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3. The vast majority of sampling requirements was followed. However, there are several field sampling omissions involving wells DH-67B, DH-67D, DH-67abv, DH-67b1w, TC- 03-01 East, TC-03-O1 Upper B and TC-03-03. These omissions occurred even though full suite analyses were performed. Please explain. 4. Alluvial wells AW-15 and AW-16 appear to be nearly dry throughout their sampling history. Please discuss whether or not these two alluvial wells need to be drilled deeper. 5. The 2005 AHR data sheets for alluvial wells AW-15, AW-16 and AW-17 have notes which state that the three wells were not affected by mining in 2005 and that all of the sampling is considered to be baseline. However, the placement of gob in gob pile no. 2 began in mid 2004. Please explain. 6. The 2005 AHR data sheets show that water sampling is limited due to problems in three wells. A baler can't be used in well DH-25 due to a broken casing, DH-38 has a lodged baler and TC-03-02 is silted in. Does BRL intend to refurbish these three wells? In order to avoid confusion, please revise, in the next appropriate revision, the Active Monitoring Wells Complete Summary Table on page 2.05-83 of the permit application to show which wells have limited sampling and what is the limitation. 2005 Annual Mine Inflow Report This report is complete and the Division has no questions pertaining to this report. The report shows that mine water inflow decreased from 15 gpm in 2004 down to being nearly dry for the longwall panels mined in 2005. The total consumptive water use at the mine rose from 212.7 acre-feet in 2004 up to 263.0 acre- feet for 2005. This rise in consumptive water use is still below the predicted value of 326.6 acre- feet stated in the permit application. The water usage rate at the mine, including pond evaporation and dust suppression, rose from 45.4 acre-feet per one million tons of mined coal in 2004 up to 64.3 acre-feet per one million tons in 2005. BRL points out that BRL can handle a sudden increase in mine water inflow by using the inflow water, rather than the Deer Trail Ditch water, for dust suppression. 2005 Bi-Annual Subsidence Reports The visual inspections contained in both of the bi-annual reports state that there were no new or reactivated landslides in the area. Both reports also state that there were no observed impacts to any hydrologic monitoring stations from subsidence due to mining activities. The data for the subsidence monument surveys were also provided. The data show that the measured subsidence magnitudes are less than the predicted maximum subsidence magnitudes,