REP08887 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~.. Page 2 ~~ 1 Groundwater An EC value of 1187 umhos/cm has been added to CCAW-1 on page A-1. 2. A review of the original field data suggests that data from LA-221 and LA-264 had been Q~C transposed. Sampling didn't occur at LA-221 in December, due to difficulties in removing a steel cap. Sampling did occur at LA-264. A value for December EC is not available, as the equipment was malfunctioning (pages A-33 and A-34). UDC 3. Field data was taken on December 30, 1994 at LA-264. As indicated above, the conductivity meter was malfunctioning (page A-34). l(, 4. PAWS minimum 1994 value for water level has been amended to the correct value of G 7 feet (A-65 and A-68). U~ 5. The water monitoring data reported the January depth-to-water as dry at PAW-7. The ~'~ 7. TH-201, TH-202, and TH-203 were piezometers drilled in January, 1995, to assess water levels within the RDA. The attached New Elk MR adds these sites to the monitoring list. 8. Basin did not monitor NEW-3 in 1994, due to confusion associated with the timing of approvals for permitting actions. TR-34, the thickener recycling project, was submitted ~( 12/30/93. Simultaneously in early 1994, the permit renewal was being issued, and a ~~/ revised hydrologic monitoring plan was proposed. An artifact of TR-34's monitoring ~~ plan was approved through the renewal process before it was ever clear that TR-34 would ever be approved. NEW-3 was proposed, withdrawn, and later re-proposed as ~~'~N ~~~/ a monitoring location for that the thickener recycling project. Access is difficult. ~~~ Ordinarily the revision would have been approved by March, 1994, but i[ wasn't ~t;'~-" approved until July 21, 1995. Basin was not aware of the discrepancy between the permitted plan and their monitoring until late 1994. July pH has been corrected to 8.4, and all minimum values have been cotrected (A-77). GS~(, 6. Basin's labelling of the SF wells drilled southeast of the facilities area resulted in some confusion between the driller's identification of the sites and the sampling of those sites. The sites actually are SF-1 and SF-2 and the Golden Eagle monitoring plan has been modified with the accompanying Minor Revision (MR) to reflect that. ~~ 9. The New Elk Mine permit page 2.05-90, dated 7/17/95 was derived from an unapproved I TR-34 submittal. Previously, the page was officially changed as part of the permit renewal June 14, 1994.