Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1990, 1991 AND 1992 AHR REVIEW <br />MCC's response: <br />Page 3 <br />it appears that the correct scale on the conductivity <br />measurements from samples acquired from well SOM 128H has not <br />been recorded. MCC has notified their monitoring consultant <br />to be aware of this deficiency at this site. <br />MCC does not know why TDS currently is between 8000 to 9000 <br />mq/1 at SOM 128H, and can only speculate about the cause. <br />Sedimentary formations are heterogeneous, due to their <br />environment of deposition. Field parameters acquired during <br />the 1991 water year from well UG-90-1 indicate that the <br />Rollins has an average specific conductivity of 4550 umhos/cm <br />at that location. The information in Section <br />2.05.6(3)(b)(iii) on page 2.05-109 describes the specific <br />Rollins Sandstone results from one well, R-1, and general <br />information about Mesa Verde water bearing zones from multiple <br />wells. MCC will sample SOM 128H upon approval of TR-71. <br />'L <br />Gv ~.~ <br />N', to <br />.i <br />~r d't <br />~~~ <br />V~ <br />Well SOM 128H was set to monitor water levels in the Rollins <br />Sandstone. After an initial rise in water levels of over 150 <br />feet during a period of two years, the water level appears to <br />have plateaued. This data is interpreted as the gradual (due <br />to the low transmissivity of the Rollins Sandstone) inflow of <br />groundwater into the well bore. The water surface is expected <br />to slowly rise until the confined potentiometric surface <br />(height) is reached. ~ <br />Please provide your opinion on their response to the question <br />4. (#11, Groundwater) MCC has requested a revision to eliminate <br />TSS from the groundwater quality monitoring"program ~i,•,~~wll~l~ <br />Is this acceptable? yC ~~ ~ ~~ ~! ~ C f S r i ~ ~(N e` Vl,~ <br />5. My question (~12, Groundwater): <br />MCC has stated in the 1991 and now the 1992 AHR, that <br />concentrations of iron in GP-1 were higher than baseline data <br />and the well will continue to be observed to see if the <br />elevated levels continue. There appears to be an upward trend <br />of iron concentration in GP-1 and may continue to move upwards <br />as more B seam waste is added to the refuse pile. Please <br />provide an analysis regarding future impact trends and an <br />explanation as to how the long term effects from iron <br />concentrations will be minimized. <br />In addition, MCC states that sampling data for GP-1 indicate <br />that the lower refuse pile is not impacting the groundwater <br />zone near Sylvester Gulch. How does MCC reach this <br />