Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Lori Potter <br />October 10, 1999 <br />Page 5 <br />Inc <br />Section 1.1, Paae 3, Paragraph 3, Lines 1, 2 and 3 <br />The last line of the first paragraph of Section 1.0 (see Page 2) indicates that BF-2 water was used as "make <br />up" water for the columns. How much water was added? Can some of the "slow decrease from the <br />initial elevated concentrations" be due to dilution? <br />Section 2.1, Page 5. Paragraph 1, Line 5 <br />As above, please provide available data to support the assertion that the pits contain sirhilar materials. <br />Section 2.1, Page 5. Paragraph 2 <br />Additional monitoring wells need to be installed prior to the initiation of the Pilot Tests. <br />Section 2.1, Page 6, Task 3: Monitoring <br />Please provide lists of the "major" and the "full-suite" of analytes. Absent these lists, RMC can not <br />comment on the adequacy of the monitoring program. Also, please specify the frequerncy and type(s) of <br />microbial tests. <br />Section 2.1 Page 6, Task 4: Data Analysis and Reporting <br />Please add the Costilla County Conservancy District to the list of entities receiving data. <br />Section 2.2, Page 6, Task 2 <br />As a suggestion, water levels could be monitored in well BF-7 and the additional monitloring wells as the <br />"chaser solution" is added. These water level data can be interpreted to yield informatiion on the <br />permeability of the Pink Gneiss Pit backfill material. <br />Section 2.2 Paae 7, Task 2, Paragraph 2, Lines 4 and 5 <br />What if the "push-pull" test data from the lone well (BF-7) is not adequate? Valuable tirtne and effort will <br />have been lost for want of additional monitoring locations. As above, RMC believes that additional <br />monitoring wells are critical to assess the performance of the Pilot Test. <br />