My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012-02-16_HYDROLOGY - M2002004
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Hydrology
>
Minerals
>
M2002004
>
2012-02-16_HYDROLOGY - M2002004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:48:43 PM
Creation date
2/28/2012 8:55:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2002004
IBM Index Class Name
HYDROLOGY
Doc Date
2/16/2012
Doc Name
Second Half, 2011 Groundwater Monitoring Report
From
GCC Rio Grande, Inc.
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
Hydrology Report
Email Name
TC1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
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
Depth -to- groundwater measurements were performed at each alluvial well prior to <br />sampling. Wells were also sounded to determine total depth. The volume of standing <br />water in each well was determined. Each of the alluvial wells were purged using a new <br />disposable poly bailer. A minimum of three casing volumes was purged from each well <br />prior to sampling. Field parameters pH, conductivity, and temperature were recorded as <br />each well volume was removed. Groundwater was purged until these parameters were <br />stabilized and reproducible (typically after three or five measurement sets). <br />Water levels measured in each of the alluvial wells were the lowest recorded since routine <br />monitoring was initiated. The St. Charles River was not flowing. Water was present in the <br />river along several sections, but these sections were separated by dry streambed conditions. <br />Each of the alluvial wells has typically produced significant water while bailing, even at <br />low water conditions. For well MW003, only four inches of standing water was present in <br />the well, and each purge removed approximately 50 ml of water. Even with the <br />significantly reduced sample volume required for the new compliance suite, it took over an <br />hour to fill all required samples bottles at this well. <br />All groundwater samples were submitted to Accutest Laboratory, located in Wheatridge <br />Colorado, for analysis of TDS and sulfate. Accutest subcontracted analyses for <br />radiochemical parameters to Hazen Research laboratory, located in Golden, Colorado. <br />RESULTS AND DISCUSSION <br />Results of the October 2011 groundwater sampling are provided in Table 1. Historical <br />results for the compliance suite for all wells are shown in Table 2. Table 2 also presents the <br />average and standard deviation statistics for each parameter based on the monitoring history <br />for each well. Analytical results provided by the contract laboratories are presented in <br />Appendix A. <br />All samples were submitted for analysis of sulfate, TDS, radium 226, and radium 228. The <br />results of these analyses are discussed in the following sections. <br />General Chemistry <br />General chemistry parameters do not have primary health based standards. TDS has a <br />secondary drinking water standard of 500 mg/L. Sulfate has a secondary standard of 250 <br />mg/L. As shown in Table 2, TDS and sulfate concentrations in all three downgradient <br />alluvial compliance wells have exceeded the 500 mg/L and 250 mg/L secondary domestic <br />drinking water standard in each of the sampling events since 2003. Excess sulfate in <br />drinking water may have negative aesthetic impacts such as laxative effects. High TDS <br />makes water taste salty. None of the sulfate results exceeded the State Numeric Protection <br />Level of 1,950 mg/L for the GCC site. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.