Laserfiche WebLink
- ~ • iii iiiiiiiiniui~i • <br />INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM <br />DMS/ON OF M/NERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />TO: Jim Stevens <br />FROM: Harry Posey ~~~~~~~~ <br />DATE: July 18, 1996 <br />SUBJECT: Assessment of Groundwater Monitoring Data; Costilia County; Cos[illa Landfill <br />Pit; Permit No. M-80-233 <br />GEOCHEMICAL ASSESSMENT <br />Per your request I have examined the groundwater analyses conducted by Core Labs for the cited <br />operation. This note discusses the analytical program and the Sample Delivery Group Narrative <br />statements for [he 4/2/96 and 6/25/96 sample reports. <br />GENERAL <br />The analyses appear to include all of the parameters that are regulated for groundwater, including <br />organics, inorganics and field parameters. <br />Detection levels appear to be appropriate, and low enough to detect ezceedances of water quality <br />standards for each regulated parameter. <br />Several major cations and anions have been analyzed and some have not: Ca, CI, SO„ and NOS <br />have been measured, but Na, Mg, K, and NH, have not. Measurements of Cl, SO„ and NO, <br />make sense in that they are regulated for some water uses. However, I see no reason to measure <br />most of the other major ions without measuring all of them. It may be appropriate to request an <br />explanation from the operator or their consultant. <br />SAMPLE DELIVERY GROUP NARRATIVES <br />The group narratives for both sampling reports indicate that some of the lab standards tested <br />outside their established quality control ranges. A question that might arise is whether these <br />control values represent problems with the groundwater analyses themselves. The aberrant control <br />sample tests may reflect some problem within the lab that should be examined if such analyses <br />occur more than spuriously, but should not reflect adversely on the analyses of the ground water <br />