Laserfiche WebLink
. ~ -z- <br />4. If the seepage velocity is reduced to .03 ft/day or below (with Dx = 100, <br />Dy = 30, porosity is .25 and contaminant amount is 2.5#/day) thle M-9 well <br />will not detect the cyanide in 9 years. <br />5. The M-9 well should detect a contaminant leak from the tailings facility <br />in about 18 years if it occurs at the midway point (between the M-12 & <br />M-13 wells). <br />6. M-12 and/or M-13 would detect a leak from the tailings facility (assume a <br />point source with Dx 100, Dy = 30, porosity = .25, 2.5#/day contaminant <br />flow) in about 7 years if the leak occurred at the midway point. The <br />contaminant would be detected sooner if it occurred somewhere other than <br />the mid-way point. <br />Basically, my analyses agree with BMG's. The questions we need to ask are do <br />we want early detection capabilities (which the current wells do not provide) <br />or are we dust looking for detection capability no matter how long it takes? <br />Do we want to know if the tailings facility or collection pond has a leak in <br />one year, two years, or nine years? In my opinion, any leak of cyanide into <br />the Santa Fe aquifer should be detected at the earliest possible moment so a <br />plan to clean up the aquifer can be initiated in the shortest time p@riod. <br />The less area of contamination means fewer remedial wells are requir@d for <br />clean up. In the long run this may save the operator large unnecessdry <br />expenditures. <br />When the graphics plotting package come in (if Randy Price can find one) I'll <br />run all the plumes and print them out. <br />6430E/scg <br />