Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />September 26, 1984 <br />increase in leachate quantity. The quality of the leachate, no matter what <br />its quantity, is still acceptable. <br />Report Section 5.1 Page 5-6 <br />This discussion deals with concerns over travel time through the pile and <br />final leachate quality. <br />Response: Even if one assumes a 10-day retention time in the pile (as apposed <br />to the 100 minutes used in the study), the leachate quality should not pose <br />any off site impacts. A monitoring well in the pile will serve to indicate if <br />leachate is being retained and if so, what its quality is. It is possible to <br />remove a portion of the clay pad in future years to drain the pile if a <br />concern is identified. <br />Report Section 5.1 Page 5-b <br />Several comments are presented questioning retention times, leachate quality, <br />retardation coefficients, and laboratory results. <br />Response: All of the questions could be responded to by Homestake, but the <br />end result would still be the same. Leachate quality projections are too low <br />to warrant additional study. Instead, field verification of leachate quality <br />is more practical. <br />Report Section 5.2 Pages 5-8 to 5-9 <br />This section discusses projected water quality in receiving streams and raises <br />concerns over dilution factors. <br />Response: Even with almost no dilution, the water quality is projected to <br />remain acceptable. Further analysis is not warranted. <br />Report Section 6.0 Page 6-1 <br />This section deals with plant uptake of elements. <br />Response: I have no comment on this section. <br />Summary• <br />Most of the comments are directed at leachate water quality. No matter what <br />volume of leachate is produced, the issue of water quality is most important. <br />To put the problem in better perspective, the following chart displays raw <br />undiluted leachate quality that was leached 10 days along with EPA standards. <br />