My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-09-22_REVISION - C1996083 (7)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1996083
>
2008-09-22_REVISION - C1996083 (7)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:36:31 PM
Creation date
9/23/2008 11:25:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996083
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
9/22/2008
Doc Name
Review Memo
From
Mike Boulay
To
Joe Dudash
Type & Sequence
PR10
Email Name
MPB
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Joe Dudash <br />September 22, 2008 <br />Page 2 <br />conclusion is that there are probably no permitted wells utilizing bedrock groundwater down <br />gradient from the mining operation. Although the groundwater is probably not used for <br />domestic or agriculture uses at this time, it is still considered potentially useable since TDS <br />levels are less than 10,000 mg/l. For unclassified groundwater areas, the applicable standards <br />are the Interim Narrative Standards from Reg. 41. <br />My position on this matter has not changed since my memorandums of July 25 and July 28 to <br />you regarding groundwater issues and Permit Revision No. 10 at the Bowie No. 2 Mine. I do <br />not believe that the information provided is adequate to satisfy our minimum requirements <br />for Ground Water Information per Rule 2.04.7 Hydrology Description. In accordance with <br />2.04.7, the operator shall provide the seasonal quantity and quality of the water in each <br />aquifer for the permit and adjacent area. There is a general lack of data to satisfy our <br />minimum baseline data requirements and given the proposed plan there would be disturbance <br />beyond the limit of the current down gradient monitoring locations. My recommendation is <br />that we require BRL to provide better characterization of the upper and lower perched <br />aquifers that are described in the permit. As discussed below under Item 2C, the question <br />regarding the Rollins Sandstone has been successfully resolved. <br />Additional down gradient monitoring wells should be required for the perched water zones <br />and the B coal seam at or beyond the limit of proposed disturbance associated with PR-10 <br />(and will also be necessary for the PR-11 extension). Ideally these wells should be installed <br />and monitored ahead of time so that we can establish seasonal baseline characterization of <br />the perched water zones at the northern end of the permit boundary before they are <br />potentially disturbed. The perched water zones are described by BRL as (above the D- <br />Seam), and (below the D-Seam and above the B-Seam). The Upper and Lower Perched <br />Water Zones should be shown in cross-section and BRL should provide the Division with a <br />plan for our approval to install additional monitoring wells that will adequately characterize <br />and provide monitoring for these zones and the B-Seam coal at or beyond the limit of <br />disturbance proposed with PR-10 (and will also be necessary for the PR-11 extension). <br />2B. No response required. Please note that BRL has not proposed a plan for determining the <br />need or location for a point of compliance well in the alluvial aquifer. <br />2C. Response accepted. BRL updated the Geologic Cross-Section as requested and has <br />demonstrated that the Rollins Sandstone should not be impacted by the mining operation. <br />2D. Response accepted. <br />c: Sandy Brown <br />Denver File
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.