Laserfiche WebLink
Corey Heaps <br />CAM Colorado LLC <br />June 21, 2011 Page 9 <br />The completion diagrams provided in Exhibit 14 do not match up with the typical <br />diagram data shown in Exhibit 3, as RW -1 and RW -2 are not the same wells. CAM <br />chose well locations based on location and numbered them according to their own <br />nomenclature, not based on Gary Refining nomenclature. <br />• As for RW -1, there are two wells in the current location, and therefore, the <br />completion diagram included in the 1981 data could be the well that CAM is not <br />using and therefore not applicable. <br />• RW -2 used by CAM is not the RW -2 shown in the completion diagram in Exhibit <br />14. <br />• The RW -3 ground surface elevation shown in Exhibit 3 is accurate based on the <br />generated topography. The pipe stick up listed in Exhibit 3 was recently <br />measured, and therefore believed to be more accurate than what is shown on the <br />completion diagram in Exhibit 14. <br />• The RW -4 ground surface elevation shown in Exhibit 3 is accurate based CAM's <br />generated topography. The pipe stick up listed in Exhibit 3 was recently <br />measured, and therefore believed to be more accurate than what is shown on the <br />completion diagram in Exhibit 14. <br />The ground surface elevation as well as the pipe stick up is currently shown on the typical <br />construction diagram in Exhibit 3. The pipe stick up, as shown on the completion <br />diagram in Exhibit 3, is measured from the ground to the top -of the pipe (or concrete, if <br />applicable, to the top of pipe). The perforated zone is unknown for each monitoring well. <br />The completion diagram in Exhibit 3 has been revised to include the top of pipe stick up <br />elevation in the summary table. <br />Division Response: The well designations relative to the corresponding As -Built <br />Drawings from 1981 when the wells were drilled and completed is not described in the <br />permit text. The discussion for RW -2 on page 4 of the AVF report with regard to its <br />location and corresponding well log is also unclear. Please add the following <br />description to page 2.04 -14 (after the 4 th paragraph) to clarify the well designations <br />and their corresponding completion log. This discussion is paraphrased from the <br />AVF report. <br />"The number designations for the monitoring wells now being utilized have changed <br />somewhat since they were originally installed. The As-Built Drawings provided in <br />Exhibit 14, Appendix B for RW -la, RW -3, and RW -4 are the active monitoring <br />wells RW -1, RW -3, and RW -4, respectively. The well log and location for RW -2 <br />given in Exhibit 14, appendix B is not the same well as is currently being monitored. <br />As previously described the current monitoring well RW -2 was installed at a later <br />date and is located northeast of the acid sludge landfill. There is no well completion <br />log or other as -built drawings available for this well. The total depth and stickup <br />were field verified and the best available information was added to the typical <br />