Laserfiche WebLink
` }. <br />1 <br />reported TDS data. These data do not fit the analytical data from the <br />same site. For example, water from spring 1 has reported TDS of 3200 <br />while combined dissolved constituents from the full suite analysis total <br />4054 mg/1, indicating that reported TDS value is low. A simple <br />extrapolation yields 25% higher total of dissolved salts entering Trout <br />Creek from groundwater beneath West Ridge than predicted in the permit. <br />We request that the appropriate portion of the permit be amended to <br />reflect these values, and that an explanation of these inconsistencies <br />between TDS and summed individual components be provided. <br />* predicted post-mining groundwater TDS of 2290 at Moffat (p. 2.5- <br />102). <br />As above, if the values for individual dissolved constituents from <br />full-suite analysis of water from springs (12+13+14) and (16+17) are <br />added, it looks as if groundwater from Moffat exceeds predictions from <br />PHC. While reported value of TDS for springs (12+13+14) is 3800 mg/1, <br />individual measured constituents total >4500 mg/1 (18% higher). <br />Reported TDS at springs (16+17) is 3500 while individual components <br />total >4700 mg/1 - is 34% higher. <br />Reported TDS for Moffat groundwater is"-50% higher than predicted while <br />sum of analyzed values indicate contents are twice the predictions. <br />We request that these be treated the same as the West Ridge samples; <br />that is, amend the appropriate portions of the AHR to reflect the <br />higher salt loadings and investigate and report on the inconsistency in <br />the data from the two sources. <br />Sincerely, <br />ames R. Burnel <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />