My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-10-14_REVISION - C1981008
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981008
>
2011-10-14_REVISION - C1981008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:44:02 PM
Creation date
10/18/2011 7:59:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981008
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
10/14/2011
Doc Name
Groundwater Review (Memo)
From
Mike Boulay
To
Marcia Talvitie
Type & Sequence
SL12
Email Name
MPB
SB1
MLT
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
Marcia Talvitie <br />October 14, 2011 <br />Page 2 <br />N40 are representative of spoil water quality. No trend analysis regarding water quality or <br />water levels from GW -N40 were provided. Our review of GW -N40 water level data from <br />2001 onward show that the static water levels have remained fairly constant with an <br />occasional drop in water level. This further verifies that GW -N40 has not been impacted by <br />spoil water and is not representative of spoil water quality as presented by WFC in their <br />spoil water chemistry discussion. WFC is comparing GW -N40 (alluvial ground water) to <br />GW -N44 undisturbed overburden groundwater located to the northwest of the reclaimed <br />areas having a total depth of 60 feet with a slotted interval from 20.0 -60.0 feet. From this <br />water quality comparison shown in Table 5 page 22 WFC concludes that the presence of all <br />salts and TDS is lower in the spoil water and therefore the discussion regarding calcite <br />buffering is shown to be true. This is not a good analogy because the Division does not <br />concur that GW -N40 is representative of spoil water quality. <br />Please substantiate the statement that GW -N40 best represents spoil water and clarify <br />or validate the statement on page 20 that GW -N40 will show any changes in ground <br />water quality before any spring developed on the surface. <br />2. To verify the conclusion presented in C) Potential impacts of replaced spoil on <br />groundwater quality, please provide a more appropriate comparison of spoil water <br />quality versus undisturbed overburden water quality. Or provide a more detailed <br />analysis of affected groundwater by making direct comparison of baseline water <br />quality versus present water quality at upgradient and downgradient monitoring <br />locations in the overburden, coal, and if necessary underburden monitoring zones. <br />Please include an evaluation of any impact trends which may exist in the available <br />data. <br />Table 5 of the spoil water chemistry discussion shows GW -N44 as representative of <br />Underburden Water. The text describes it as an overburden well and the completion <br />information in the PAP also describes it as an overburden well. Also in Table 5 Iron <br />total is listed. Based on the data we have reviewed it appears that only dissolved iron <br />has been analyzed and reported for groundwater. Please clarify these discrepancies <br />and correct the table, if necessary. <br />Let me know if you have questions or require additional information. <br />C: Sandy Brown <br />DRMS Denver File <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.