REP29754 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Data All monitor wells are sampled using the procedure described previously. The following listing indicates the sequence in which the wells are presently sampled: (1) FPW, (2) DH 122, (3) DH 96, (4) AMW-I, and (5) SMW-2. (See next paragraph for discussion concerning AMW-2.) Historically, this represents the order of the wells representing the least to greatest measured salinity levels. Ash Monitor Well No. 2 (AMW-2) remained "dry" throughout 1996, as well as during the previous year. This well is located near the northeast edge of A-Pit in a highly disturbed reclaimed overburden area. The well was re-drilled in 1993, per specifications provided by the Division, and CEC continues to assume that ground water rechazge in this azea has yet to occur. It has also been noted that numerous geologic faults were evident in the coal seam located to the west of this well. Thus, there may be an overall ground water effect from the past excavation activities on the local ground water recharge. Copies of analytical laboratory test reports for 1996 are presented in the following pages. The field water quality test data follow the laboratory test reports. Each well was double sampled, in accordance with the procedure discussed previously, i.e., four times for the entire yeaz (four quarterly samplings). In reviewing the reports, parameter values denoted by the "A" following the well designation refer to the first five-bailer volume purging procedure. Parameter values denoted by the "B" following the well designation refer to the three-well volume purging sequence, followed by the second five-bailer volume purging procedure. All 1996 monitor well sample water quality test results appear to be consistent with the test results of previous quality analyses. The overall ground water gradient, to the extent that it exists in the spoil area on the Keenesburg property, still slopes downgradient to the east. Recharge of the aquifer in the spoil area continues to appear to be limited to a single source, namely the local infiltration of precipitation, into the subsurface. Also, there is still no indication that any significant ground water, recharge on site from the Ennis Draw fluvial ground water system exists. Ground water elevations in wells existing in Ennis Draw close to the Keenesburg site are significantly higher than in either spoil mo-utor well, AMW-1 and AMW-2, as indicated in Appendix I-2 in previous CEC permit submittals and in the more recent data presented in the Annual Hydrology and •. Reclamation Reports Af[R-1996 -35- Stipulation $`5