HYDRO29327

• Permit No: M1977344
• IBM Index Class Name: Hydrology
• Doc Date: 8/6/2001
• Doc Name: Summary of Quarterly Ground Water Monitoring 05/00-05/01
• From: K-S & Company Inc.
• To: Holnam Inc.
• Permit Index Doc Type: Other Ground Water
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

three casing volumes the day of sampling. Therefore, the wells were purged of one casing volume and
allowed io recover for approximately 48 to 96 hours. Typically, according to EPA protocol, it is
acceptable to purge only one casing volume prior to sampling the wells under these low hydraulic
conductivity conditions.
Samples were collected from each of the welts using disposable Teflon bailers. The sample from the
Arkansas River was collected, during the last quarter of sampling, using clean glass sample bottles
provided by the laboratory. At the time of sampling, the pH, temperature and conductivity of the
ground and surface water were measured using aCole-Panner field meter. These field parameters are
included in Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 (Appendix A). In accordance with the proposed EPA regulations for
CKD, the samples were not filtered. Immediately after sampling, the samples were placed in a cooler
with ice and delivered to the laboratory (Severn Trent) the same day under proper chain-of-custody.
Discussion of Results
Water Level Monitoring
As part of the quarterly ground water sampling program, water levels were measured in each of the
wells at the time of sampling and at regulaz intervals between the sampling events. The water level
data collected is presented in Table 2, Appendix A. Figures 1 and 2, Appendix B, demonstrate the
absence of any significant water level fluctuations in the vicinity of the CKD landfills. The only wells
that had significant fluctuations in the water levels were MW-6 and MW-7. MW-6 was installed in the
Niobrara formation as part of the Hydrogeologic Assessment performed in 1998. This well is located
on the upgradient side of the quarry nearest the sources (e.g., imgation and septic systems) of ground
water recharge to the north of the quarry. The proximity of this well to the recharge area, and the
perched nature of the groundwater in the Niobrara formation, are reasortable explanations for the
fluctuations in the ground water levels. Fluctuations in the water levels in MW-7 aze likely due to the
close proximity of this well to the Arkansas River.
Figure 1 is a graphical representation of the variation in the depth to ground water in each of the wells.
As indicated in Figure 1, the shallowest ground water is encountered at approximately five to eight feet
below ground surface in the vicinity of monitoring well MW-9 and piezometer P2. The greatest depth
to ground water is approximately 107 feet in monitoring well MW-8. Figure 2 presents the ground
water levels as elevations above mean sea level. This figure also indicates the location of the
wells/piewmeters, upgradient or downgradient, relative to each other. MW-6 is the furthest upgradient
and MW-7 is located the furthest downgradient.
Monitoring wells MW-8 and MW-10 are both located in close proximity to CICD landfills. The top of
the Codell sandstone in these two wells was encountered at approximately 82 feet and 32 feet below
ground surface (bgs) in wells MW-8 and MW-10, respectively. The depth to ground water in these
wells is approximately 107 feet and 49 feet bgs, respectively. In these areas, approximately ]0 feet of
shale was placed on top of the Codell sandstone prior to the placement of any CKD. Therefore, the
distance between the groundwater and the bottom of the ChD is approximately 25 feet and 3S feet in
wells MW-8 and MW-]0, respectively.
On more than one occasion, the water level in monitoring well MW-]0 rose to a level approximately
Z.S feet higher than the appazent static water level of 52.2 feet. These rises in water levels appeared to
Ground Water Monitoring 3 Copyright 2001
August 6, 2001 K-S & Company, [na