Laserfiche WebLink
'. ~ i i <br /> <br />Hydrokinetics, Inc <br />12975 W. 24ih place <br />Golden, Colorado 80401 <br />October 8, 1999 <br />Ms. Lori Potter <br />Kelly/Haglund/Garnsey & Kahn <br />1441 18`h Street, Suite 300 <br />Denver, Colorado 80202-1255 <br />Re: Review of BMRI Technical Review Comment Response, TR-26 <br />Dear Ms. Potter: <br />We have reviewed [he August 1999 document titled "Technical Review comment <br />Response, TR-26 Water Management in the West Pit Area, San Luis Project, Co~tilla County, <br />Colorado". This letter summarizes our comments on the document. <br />Response to comment F on water levels, Page 8 ..Operational water levels for [he water <br />management system are presented on Figure 1, dated 08/05/99. Does the new m~p change the <br />estimate of the flow rate from the Ri[o Seco and its alluvium into the pit from that described in <br />TR-26? This flow should improve water quality in the pit through dilution. Hol~v will we be <br />able to determine when we reach the point that water quality in the pit can be maintained without <br />operation of the pumping system and the associated dilution benefits? <br />Response to comment J, Page 9 .. Revisions have apparently been madt: to the quality <br />monitor network as outlined in the TR-26 document. It appeazs that the 11 MW ~eries wells <br />identified in the original document have now been reduced to 6 MW wells. With~this reduction, <br />there does not appear to be any remaining monitor wells in the alluvial "window". We <br />recommend restoring wells MW- l8, 19, and 20 as delineated in the original TR-'16 document to <br />provide data on alluvial water quality in the flow window. These wells should bdcome relatively <br />clean if [he gradient reversal is achieved as predicted. <br />It is unclear if the Santa Fe wells originally identified remain in the program. Wo assume that <br />well SF-1 will need to be maintained per TR-15. (We are also assuming that weld Ml 1-R will <br />also be maintained.) We recommend continued monitoring of the 4 additional Santa Fe wells, <br />SF-2 through SF-5, to assure that a contaminant plume is not migrating into [he Santa Fe <br />formation during resolution of [he water quality problems in the pit. However, since the Santa <br />Fe appears to have a significantly lower transmissivity, areduced sampling frequency and a <br />reduced parameter list for these wells would be acceptable. <br />