Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Forrest Luke <br />Trapper Mining Inc. <br />-3- <br /> <br />September 8, 1995 <br />support the predictions contained in the probable hydrologic consequences section of the permit <br />application. <br />10. Please explain Trapper's rationale for choosing the NPDES dischazge points for sampling for <br />the semi-annual full suite chemical analysis (List A-3). If a pond is not discharging, then no <br />sample can be taken. Why not sample water runoff before it enters a pond? <br />OK 11. The discussion of surface water quality for the full suite chemical analyses seems rather sparse. <br />,Q Mention is made in one sentence on page 5-2 and in another sentence on page 6-4 that the <br />z chemical constituents showed little change. Please add a discussion of the results of the full <br />suite analyses. Are there any long-term trends in the data? How close to the compliance limits <br />are each of the values? <br />12. What is Trapper's procedure for taking water samples for analyses if, on the day samples are <br />GK taken, one or more sites are dry? Do Trapper personnel return later to try to obtain water <br />samples when the sites are not dry? <br />Ground Water Hydrology <br />~. -.~ 13. On page 3-8 of the 1994 Annual Report, it is stated that cement contamination in well GBS is <br />likely, affecting the pH. Does Trapper believe that remedial action is possible with this well or <br />,~.v~ ~~ should a new well be drilled? Has any other pazameter possibly been compromised by this <br />contamination? <br />o/~. <br />~.u~~` 14. Please provide an analysis of the groundwater quality and quantity data presented in the <br />6 -z 1994 AHR, pursuant to Rule 2.05.6(3)(b)(iii), showing whether the data supports or does not <br />(-5 support the predictions contained in the probable hydrologic consequences discussion of the <br />permit application. <br />~ ~A 15. As with the surface water quality analyses, there does not appear to be much of a discussion of <br />~ ; 5 the results of the full suite chemical analyses for the groundwater system. Please provide such <br />a discussion. <br />16. On page 3-I1 of the 1994 AHR, it is stated that SAR values greater than 15 would indicate <br />R ~ poor irrigation potential. Using the data found on pages 3-9 through 3-11 and in Appendix B, <br />r f ~C`~ it appeazs that ten out of 38 wells sampled in 1994 showed SAR values greater than 15. The <br />p>~-- ~' Y ten wells are GB-5, GE-2, GF-2, GF-3, GF-4, GF-5, GP-4, GP-5, GP-8 and 81-03A. Of these <br />G S ten wells, five wells are downgradient of two open pits, B and E. They are GB-5, GF-2, GF-3, <br />GF-4 and GF-5. Of the remaining five wells, two wells are downgradient of the open ash pit. <br />They are GP-4 and GP-5. Only three of the ten wells appear to not be downgradient of any <br />open pit. <br />