Laserfiche WebLink
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS <br />Geochemical evaluation <br />Pg. 2 <br />On page 3-4, the statement is made that "I'he geochemical signature of water from monitoring well CEM- <br />001 did not change significantly following the placement of the fill in C-Pit. Furthermore, these samples <br />notable lack Ca, Mg, and K, all of which are constituents of C-Pit water." <br />Response: Ca, Mg, and K can be attenuated in the aquifer by geochetnical process such as ion exchange, <br />mineral precipitation, or sorption. Their absence in well CEM-001 does not indicate unequivocally that C- <br />Pit water has not migrated to that locale. <br />Canal leakage <br />To determine the contribution of canal water to the site ground water and pit inflow, it might be useful to <br />analyze for stable isotopes of oxygen and/or deuterium. Depending on the elevation of origin of the <br />water feeding the canals, there maybe distinct isotopic signatures that could allow quantification of the <br />different contributing sources. <br />Conclusions <br />On page 4-1, reference is made that a hydraulic "connection is not evident at compliance well CEM-005." <br />Response: Have a sufficient number of samples been collected from CEM-005 to confidently draw that <br />conclusion? <br />On the same page, there is reference to "a parial barrier to subsurface flow' in the vicinity of C-Pit, but <br />page 3-1 states that the existence of a hydraulic connection between C-Pit and CEM-001 has been <br />established via hydrologic data. <br />2 <br />