1999-12-15_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M1999051

• 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

• •
Paul Osborne:
You need to explain the sample techniques to be used. It's important. At CA we required
three bore volumes, or a tubing potentially has less volume, or a micropurge.
Paul Osborne (continued from tape):
... and it takes a significant amount of time to do that. Unless you come up with something
other than that, that's what I would think you'd have to do is take three bore volumes. Or go
to some other thing, go to tubing that has less volume. A tubing a packer kind of situation so
that when you purge borehole volumes you have less. The tubing has less volume. Or go to
some kind of micropurge system or whatever else can demonstrate the equivalent and give
you a good sample.
Roger Day:
What was used at White River was a nitrogen pump. It was a stainless -steel tool 2 inches in
diameter, 6 ft long or so. It had a ball check valve in it, nothing motorized and no screens
even. Just gravity working the check valve. The nitrogen came down one tube and forced
the fluids up the other. Then what's described over at American Soda is like a diaphragm
pump with check valves, and the nitrogen pressure is working the diaphragm pump and they
get the same small volumes. With the White River technology we would absolutely and
completely get accuracy, because when the water sample finished coming up it was chased
right to the surface with the nitrogen gas behind it so the fluid's on the top. Then you turn
the pressure back off and the nitrogen is let out and water refills that pump and the next
system was fresh water. So, I think whether it's a diaphragm pump down there or this
nitrogen system at White River, they both really accomplish the same thing.
Allen Sorenson:
I think from the standpoint of your reclamation permit application with the state, we're at a
point in our review of your application where one of things we're going to be asking for is a
concise groundwater monitoring plan, partially based on what we talked about here today.
But, I can't tell you at this point whether we might be asking for some things that we haven't
talked about. But I can tell you we do plan to have a review letter out by the middle of June.
Jerry Daub:
The outcome of this meeting will be a groundwater and surface water monitoring plan.
Jim Komatinsky:
Are you going to draft something up and then put it out for comments, or are you waiting for
input from us first.
Jerry Daub:
Ideally, we'd like to get your input now. Obviously, if there's something of concern later on,
we'd like to hear that, too. That's the primary basis of this meeting, is to get the people
together. I would like to thank everybody for being here and taking the time out of your
schedules to be here. It's hard enough to schedule the room, and I appreciate EPA's effort in
that. But just your time and interest in the project is appreciated.
Paul von Guerard:
Next time, Jerry, I have a room in Grand Junction.
33