Laserfiche WebLink
<br />NM-21, NM-22, SF-l, NEW-2, NEW-4. <br />New-2 and New-4 are located at the New Elk site. NEW-2 is at <br />the old vent shaft housing and is sampled for water level by <br />inserting probe into the elbow attached to the vent pipe on <br />the concrete slab seal. NEW-4 is located directly east of the <br />refuse conveyor and south of the highway. Both have water <br />levels between 300 and 400 feet from TOC and cannot be sampled <br />currently by the Division due to the 300 limit on DMG <br />equipment. <br />7. LA-221; November visit is missing. Two of four full suite <br />samples are missing. Three water level values are reported as <br />224 feet. The rest are reported as 324 feet. Which are <br />accurate? Furthermore, LA-221, 1994 values of 56 feet to <br />water were reported under well LA-264 in the 1994 AHR. Please <br />explain the confusion of the data reported for this well. <br />Apparently there was some due to the sampler getting confused. <br />LA-264 was located near Pond 4, north of the railroad tracks, <br />even though it is shown on the map south of the railroad <br />tracks. Water level in this well was measured in March of <br />1997 by the Division at 58.2 feet. Well LA-221 was located <br />where spotted on the map in the small canyon directly. <br />However, a sign laying on the ground next to the well <br />indicated the well was AL-221A. The well casing is very short <br />and was covered with a 3 lb coffee can to prevent water from <br />entering the well casing. It is not clear whether this well <br />is really LA-221, or AL-221A. Given the late 1996 data <br />recorded, which indicates the well is obstructed, this site is <br />likely the correct site and the labeling problem is <br />meaningless. DMG recorded the well as obstructed in March of <br />1997 at approximately 150 feet. This well apparently needs to <br />be looked at to determine whether the obstruction is <br />permanent. <br />10. TH-201; What does plugged at 22 feet mean? Is there an <br />obstruction in the well? If so, this should be repaired as <br />necessary. <br />DMG field checked this well in March of 1997. The well casing <br />no longer appears to be obstructed and the piezometer <br />continues to be dry to TD. <br />