My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1999-12-15_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M1999051
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Minerals
>
M1999051
>
1999-12-15_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M1999051
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2021 7:44:03 AM
Creation date
10/24/2011 1:07:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1999051
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
12/15/1999
Doc Name
Memos and Letters
From
DRMS
To
Various
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
108
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br />Jerry Daub: <br />We're planning on one alluvial well downgradient from the AmerAlia activity. <br />Harry Posey: <br />I think we would probably want that, coming back to this upgradient/downgradient in the <br />groundwaters there. It should be downgradient, regardless. If you're going to be working in <br />one area, you're monitoring well needs to be downgradient from that. And they ought to <br />placed in such a way that, given the flow, you have a reasonable chance of intersecting the <br />problem if a problem exists. <br />Jerry Daub: <br />We could still put these wells at the northeast corner of the well field. That would suffice for <br />the downgradient. <br />Paul Osborne: <br />They're further downgradient, but I think we would basically probably want upgradient and <br />downgradient. <br />Jerry Daub: <br />You need to keep in mind... I'm disappointed that you weren't here for the earlier portion, <br />and I understand your situation, but we discussed in depth about the fact that this operation is <br />an experimental pilot operation, and not a commercial operation at this point in time. It <br />should in no way be compared to the American Soda operation out there or White River, at <br />this point. That's critical to understand. We're getting a lot of backlash from American Soda <br />and other people, well I won't mention any names, but the credibility of the documentation is <br />amazing. We're here to try to get everybody's input to what they would like to see, but <br />within reason to accurately develop a baseline data set. That will also give us a credible <br />monitoring program to detect any potential leakage. Like Roger was saying, you're first <br />going to see that as close to the well field as you can get, not downgradient several hundred <br />feet. But, we could easily put these wells in the northeast corner of the well field. <br />Allen Sorenson: <br />Really, when you start talking about this operation, you've got your potential source of <br />contamination several hundred vertically feet below the area where you detect it. I think that <br />you don't want to go downgradient in a well field, but maybe near the downgradient edges <br />and still be sure that's where you want to be. That gets us back to the dissolution surface. <br />We're not talking about horizontal distances, we're talking about vertical distances. If any <br />process solution hits the dissolution surface, then there's a problem because your are set up <br />that you're going to keep all the process solution in the head. So, I don't have a problem <br />with the monitoring wells being in the northeast portion. There's no issue there. <br />Harry Posey: <br />Understand my point. In the American Soda situation, we're in the upward flow, so that's <br />why we want the monitoring. <br />31 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.