Laserfiche WebLink
/996 Annual Hydrology Report Responses <br />December II, 1997 <br />Page 3 <br />of water within the formations. The fact that there are dry wells is very <br />important data in itself. <br />The discussion in the Division's question identifies GP-5 and SO. W-3 as two <br />wells [hat have insufficient water for sampling. GP-5 is located on the <br />northeast side of the Lower Refuse Pile (LRP) and is completed to monitor the <br />colluvium beneath the pile. As you will note from Table I-5 in the 1996 AHR, <br />there has never been any water in GP-5. The fact that there is no water in this <br />well is favorable, as the well indicates that the LRP is not impacting the <br />colluvium under the pile. However, Figure H-5 shows a rising water level in <br />the well (yet is still dry), which may indicate that the well casing may be <br />damaged. However, as MCC currently has two other wells in the same area, <br />monitoring the same zone (GP-3 and GP-4), this area has sufficient monitoring <br />coverage and MCC believes that GP-5 need not be replaced. <br />SO. W-3 is a new well, added to the monitoring program during the 1996 water <br />year. The Division states that the water in this well has been increasing. Please <br />note the scale on Figure H-32, and note that the water elevation in the well <br />varies only approximately 0.20 feet. Please find an enclosed Figure with a <br />revised scale. Regardless, the water elevation indicates that the water level is <br />approximately 250 feet from the bottom of the well and the field notes indicate <br />that there is white drilling mud on the probe. MCC has reviewed the lithologic <br />log and completion report for this well and did not note anything unusual. <br />MCC plans [o further investigate the problems with this well, prior to <br />determining if it should be replaced. <br />The Division also makes a general statement regarding the replacement of <br />damaged wells. MCC assumes that the Division is referring to wells SOM <br />38H-1. B-32 and GB-I. Discussion of the status of these three wells is <br />provided in response #16. <br />MCC does not believe, based on the above discussion, that the problems with <br />these wells indicate noncompliance with the required groundwater monitoring <br />plan. MCC would like the opportunity to work with the Division outside of the <br />violation arena, to review and determine a better groundwater monitoring <br />program. <br />9. The sentence on page 38 has been deleted. A revised page is enclosed. <br />0. MCC provides an explanation of what may be occurring with C72-H on page <br />41 of the 1996 AHR. (A discussion of this well is also discussed in the 1995 <br />AHR). As discussed, the fluctuation of the water level indicates that mining <br />appears to have impacted the well, but has since recovered. <br />