Laserfiche WebLink
Mike Boulay <br />MCM: Please see revised Figure 4.2 -3. <br />106. On page 2 of Appendix N there appears to be an error in describing the <br />groundwater flow direction. In the second and third sentences of the second <br />paragraph, MCM states that the flow through the coal seam is from the northwest <br />to the northeast. From Figure 4.2 -3 It appears that the flow direction would be <br />more correctly described as being from the southwest to the northeast. Please <br />check this information and make the appropriate corrections. <br />MCM: Please see approved Appendix N. <br />-37- October 16, 2012 <br />107. Well GW -3 is used as the groundwater monitoring point for the gob leachate <br />analysis presented in Appendix N. As stated previously in Items 12 and 89 <br />above, the Division believes that a new well closer to the refuse pile location <br />would be more appropriate for identifying potential impacts from the gob <br />leachate. We believe that the PHC analysis for GW -3 with regard to conductivity <br />increases remains valid. However, monitoring results from a well closer to the <br />refuse pile would validate the conclusions presented for both conductivity and <br />metals concentration increases in groundwater and surface water. <br />Please see Items 12 and 89 above and provide a plan for one new alluvial <br />groundwater monitoring well to be located immediately down gradient of <br />the proposed refuse pile location. <br />MCM: No longer applicable. <br />108. In the mass balance calculation presented at the bottom of page 3 in Appendix N <br />it appears that the gob leachate was inadvertently left out of the calculation. <br />Based on the data presented the resulting combined flow would be 100.69 gpm <br />with an EC of 1875 umhos /cm as opposed to an EC of 1854 as stated on page 3. <br />Please check this calculation and correct the error if appropriate. <br />MCM: No longer applicable, please see approved Appendix N. <br />109. On page 11 of Appendix N, "Probable Hydrologic Consequences ", it is stated in <br />the first paragraph that there are two possible sources of irrigation water that are <br />located between SW -1 and SW -8 which may alter water sampling results. If this <br />is the case, how does MCM propose to show that mining has not had any <br />effect on East Salt Creek? <br />MCM: No longer applicable, please see approved Appendix N. <br />