Laserfiche WebLink
~_ ., , <br />Thomas C. Anderson <br />May 20, /998 <br />Page 3 <br />the Rollins Sandstone, a water level should still be obtained. Wells SC-1 and SC-2 are also <br />completed in the Rollins Sandstone and water levels were provided for these wells. Please <br />provide the well completion information for well TC-1 along with an explanation as to why <br />water levels were not provided for this well. The Division has asked in the past to have a <br />table of well completion information provided with the AHR. It would be helpful to have <br />this information readily available when reviewing groundwater data. <br />3. Quarterly field parameters were not reported for well TC-1 and well TC-2 during the first <br />quarter 1997. Please provide these data if they aze available or provide an explanation why <br />these pazameters were missed for both of these wells. <br />4. The well water level elevation graph for well B-6 has a Hubbard Creek Well Water Elevation <br />title block. If appropriate, please revise this title block and submit a new graph. <br />5. As with the 1996 data, it appears that sampling for the full suite of parameters was missed <br />on occasions due to OMI's scheduling of full suite samples. A second quarter full suite data <br />set was not captured at S-1 or HN-1, and the third quarter was missed at T-1, even though <br />flow occurred at those sites during the respective quarters. OMI should either apply for a <br />modification to the plan (by technical revision), or request that the laboratory provide full <br />suite kits at the beginning of each quarter, so that OMI could comply with current monitoring <br />requirements. The supplies in a full suite kit could be kept on site for a full quarter and be <br />within the recommended shelf life for use. <br />6. The data provided for site C-1 (Coal Gulch) indicate increasing TDS and conductivity, well <br />above baseline levels. There is no discussion of this increase and how it relates to the PHC. <br />The discussion of C-1 monitoring in the AHR only states that it is monitored "to verify that <br />the underground mine does not have an adverse effect on the quality of run-off in...Coal <br />Gu1ch...Monitoring results are expected to be similar to the baseline data." Please provide <br />an explanation for this appazent increase, and whether or not it is consistent with predictions <br />in the PHC. <br />If you have questions or are in need of additional infotmation, please contact me. <br />S' cerely, <br />~ti <br />Susan L. Burgmaier <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />c: David Berry, DMG <br />Mike Boulay, DMG / <br />Bill Carter, DMG / C:\WP\SLB\052098.WPW <br />