REV03963 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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