Laserfiche WebLink
roof of the mine workings. Of importance here is the fact that the well is open to water flow, hence, <br />water can flow out and water can flow into the well casing. <br />We retained the services of BBA to help us better analyze the overall monitoring program for <br />groundwater and particularly how MW -NW fits into that program. Their work followed on an extensive <br />review (the "Hydrologic Review ") of the program by the Division that has been summarized in a report <br />previously furnished to you in a letter dated August 21, 2013, and reviewed by BBA. It is the conclusion <br />of BBA that MW -NW is not a necessary component of a groundwater program that will provide reliable <br />data to evaluate the impacts, if any, on groundwater in the area. Our request as set out in TR 40 is <br />based on BBA's conclusions and recommendations which we believe are consistent with the Divisions' <br />findings. <br />We also wanted to respond to your reference to drill hole SF87 -07 which is located <br />approximately 750 feet west of MW -NW. The Hydrologic Review notes that there are perched water <br />tables zones of groundwater located throughout the area that are isolated from other stratigraphic <br />units. The Corley Company has previously reported a water level in drill hole SF87 -07 at approximately <br />80 or 90 feet below the ground surface. If the two wells, SF87 -07 and MW -NW, were interconnected <br />and the source of water in SF87 -07 is water from the mine workings, there would be water observed in <br />MW -NW. Accordingly, it seems that the only logical conclusion is that SF87 -07 has encountered a <br />perched water zone. <br />I hope this helps clarify your concerns about TR -40 and MW -NW. <br />Sincerely, <br />George V Patterson <br />Energy Fuels <br />