Laserfiche WebLink
this wording will be made obsolete by excluding constant head data from the <br />geometric means in Table 2.04.7-T2. <br />Change analyses and references elsewhere in the permit to reflect the different values <br />determined from the slug tests and constant head tests for transmissivity and <br />hydraulic conductivity. These changes will require two analyses in some cases, one <br />using the slug test geometric mean and one using the constant head value. <br />Alternative B <br />Replace the geometric means for the Wadge overburden and underburden in Table <br />2.04.7-T2 with arithmetic means and identify the data by test type, slug or constant <br />head. <br />Remove the wording from the first paragraph on page 2.04-49 that begins with "The <br />grouping of wells...." and ends with "....consequences of the proposed mining," as <br />this wording will be made obsolete by eliminating the geometric means for the <br />Wadge overburden and underburden. <br />Change analyses and references elsewhere in the permit to reflect the new arithmetic <br />means. <br />Response: The permit application has been revised in accordance with Alternative "A" <br />above. Revised text in Section 2.04.7, Hydrology Description beginning on page 2.04-47 <br />and revised Table 2.04.7-T2 are included with this PAP response package. <br />11. Please add to the description of aquifer test methods the following information: <br />identification of the drilling fluid used (for example air, mud, water) for drilling the <br />holes, the development methods used for restoring aquifer hydraulic properties that <br />may have been altered during drilling, the source and quality (including pH, if <br />available) of slug water, and the range and average of the volumes of water used for <br />the slug tests. <br />Response: The text on page 2.04-47 of Section 2.04.7, Hydrology Description has been <br />revised to add the requested information and is included in this PAP response package. <br />12. a) Please provide the following information previously requested in Comment 12 <br />in our letter of August 28, 2009: a discussion of how the hydraulic conductivity <br />and transmissivity values obtained in SCCC's wells compare to the regional <br />values reported by Robson and Stewart (1990) for slug tests and pump tests in <br />wells drilled to depths similar to those of SCCC's wells. The submitted pages <br />2.04-49 and 50, including Figure 2.04.7-F7.1 (Revision 12/17/09) compare <br />SCCC's slug test data to Robson and Stewart's laboratory (permeameter) data. <br />Also, please limit each comparison to data from a similar lithology in the lower <br />member of the Williams Fork Formation. <br />2