REV13546 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • B4. This comment, which originally requested an update on groundwater TDS concentrations, should have referred to mine water discharge rather than groundwater from the bedrock monitoring wells. An update on trends in mine water discharge TDS concentrations is hereby requested. The trends may be presented in graphical form or as a text discussion with specific references to the supporting data, which should be provided. The specific discharge points that should be discussed are the No. 5 mine discharge and 7 North Angle. B7. Section 2.05.6(6)-1 observed Imaacts needs to be updated to include current data. A graph for the conductivity field in the Williams Fork River was updated and shows good agreement between the upstream and downstream conductivities. However, an evaluation of trends for other water quality parameters such as solids, pH or iron, is not possible, because Tables 26 and 27 present only maximums, minimums, means and standard deviations over a ten year period from 1982 to 1992. The update should include current data presented in such a way that trends can be evaluated by the Division. The current method of reporting (presenting a statistical evaluation over a ten year period) does not allow an evaluation of trends. A table of yearly means, maximums and minimums is one example of an acceptable way of summarizing the data so that trends could be evaluated. Another acceptable method would be to provide a graphical presentation. B10. CEC should present updated data on conductivity, iron and pH for all wells in which these parameters are analyzed. The data should be presented in a manner that enables the Division to evaluate trends (e.g. graphs or a table showing annual means, maximums and minimums for each parameter). According to the groundwater monitoring plan, the following wells are sampled for the referenced parameters: 5MN, OK, TR-4, TR-7A, 81-01, 259, 9MN, AVF-3, AVF-5, AVF-6, #9 BF-5. ~ ~co~~ h~P~ ems(,`. RNa