REV00469 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DMG requests that, upon completion of the initial sampling associated with CRDA and RSRDA reclamation projects, a minor revisicn report be prepared and submitted that summarizes the sampling results and assesses the extent to which replaced soils met or did not meet permit specified subsoil or topsoil quality limits. The Solis information included in the TR-42 application is, in essence, the report requested in the April 2002 inspection report. DMG's review of the TR-42 soils report is summarized here below. CRDA- Data indicates that CRDA-2 subsoil was relatively high quality, with only 1 minor exceedance of the EC criteria out of 15 samples, and no exceedances of the SAR criteria. Sample data was apparently not provided for the 6 inch respread topsoil layer at CRDA-2. Narrative refers to Subsoil Sample #s CRDA2-1 through CRDA2-12, however three additional samples not referenced in the narrative (13, 14, and 15) are listed on the CRDA 2 Subsoil Analysis Table. CRDA-1 CRDA-1 respread soils data apparently reflect sampling of the entire 18 inch cover soil thickness (subsoil and topdressing combined). The material in general meets the subsoil criteria (only three of 16 samples exceeded either EC or SAR criteria). However, 12 of the 16 samples exceeded the topsoil criteria for either or both parameters. Average EC value was 11.0, average SAR value was 11.7, wmpared to permit threshold levels for topsoil of 8 (EC) and 72 (SAR), respectively. Page 9-5 of the amended narrative indicates that all of the cover material for CRDA-1 was borrowed from CBA-2, "...with no separate accounting for topsoil", so presumably there would be no difference in quality between the upper 8 inch layer and lower 12 inch layer of replaced soil on CRDA-1. CBA-2 data indicate that only two of nine sampled zones met specified topsoil criteria for both parameters. Subsoil criteria were met ar only slightly exceeded, with the exception of one extreme SAR value (SAR=61) from a sample adjacent to Coal Gulch (apparently reflective of the high sodium soils that were avoided). Soil salvaged from CBA-2 and replaced on CRDA-1 appears to have bean somewhat higher quality than the soil available in Soil Stockpile 2, marginally lower quality than than Stockpile 1, and comparable to the soil available from Stockpile 3 (see table below). Sampled Area EC (ova.) SAR (avo.l CRDA-1 Cover Soil 11.0 11.72 Topsoil Pile 1 7.8 11.54 Topsoil Pile 2 13.3 18.01 Topsoil Pile 3 8.0 14.0 There would appear to have been no appreciable benefit gained from using some combination of available topsoil stockpiles for topdressing, as opposed to use of the CBA-2 borrow material. (Topsoil Pile 1 was marginally higher quality, but use of Topsoil Pile 1 would have "robbed" the material from the North Portal Reclamation project, and various other areas to be reclaimed). Original permit projections regarding the availability of sufficient material meeting "topsoil" criteria within approved stockpiles and designated borrow areas in the vicinity of the North Portal and CRDA refuse areas were apparently erroneous.