Laserfiche WebLink
Response to CMLRD 10/19/88 Cents on TMI 1987 Annual Report • <br />Page t <br />Division Comments: <br />1) Table 4.8-13, p. 4-243 of the permit application should be revised to include the GP, CD-4, and Lux <br />wells. Data for these (sic) wells js included in the report, but the wells apparently are not listed in the <br />monitoring schedule. r~. - <br />~, <br />Table 4.8-13a, p. 4-247b of the permit contains information for wells to be monitored during the <br />1988-1992 permit term. The wells in question are listed in this table. <br />2) Some quarterly water level and/or quality data are missing for wells GC-2, GC-3, GF-1, and GP-3. <br />Some acceptable reason should be provided for this. <br />Wells GC-2 and GC-3 were monitored on a quarterly basis until approval of Technical Revision, TA- <br />32 on June 11, 1987. On this date these wells were switched over to a yeady sampling schedule. <br />The annual sample was taken the third quarter while no samples were taken the fourth quarter. <br />~~~ 3. <br />~J . ~ U%g <br />~J~~~ <br />l~' <br />Well GF-1 was monitored quarterly in 1987. However, no water pressure was taken during the tst <br />quarter due to a leak in the exposed portion of the well casing. The casing had frozen during the ~, <br />winter months, causing the leak. <br />Well GP-3 was also on a quartedy monitoring schedule. However, no sample was taken during <br />the first quarter as the well head had frozen and burst. A review of the 2nd quarter data shows that '~, <br />field parameters were taken. Evidently, the sample or sample results were mishandled here at <br />Trapper and lost. JI <br />The problem with the well head breaking due to freezing has been solved. An approved mod'rfied J <br />frost-free faucet design was installed in 1987. <br />3) Some better or more understandable discussion of the behavior of water levels in wells GD-2, p. 2-5 and <br />GF-8, p. 2.6 should be provided. Trapper's consultant says recent declines in water level in these wells are <br />thought to be due to returns to pre-mining levels after up gradient mining caused water levels to rise. Other <br />discussions in the AHR, however, eg. wells GB-5 and Map 2-1 state that up gradient mining causes water <br />level declines not rises. Another statement in the discussion of well GFfi that the rise of down gradient <br />water levels is though to be caused by ground water flowing faster down gradiern due to increased <br />permeabilRies from mining is unclear. Is the increased permeability and faster flow due to the open cu[ or <br />post-mining fill? If fill is meant, then water levels down gradient of fill areas, eg. GF-b, should rise instead of <br />decline as is observed.- Is the scenario more that wells down gradient of the mining cut initially suffer water <br />level declines then experience water level rises when the cut is replaced by up gradient high-permeability <br />fill and finally undergo declines toward pre-mining water levels as the fill area compacts, loses permeability, <br />and more resembles undisturbed material? If something of this sort is believed to be the case, it should be ~~ <br />more clearly stated, and the various discussions should be more consistent. <br />Further discussion of this water level behavior will be presented in the 1988 Annual Hydrology <br />Report. <br />i. ~W d u ... .~ i,L <br />