REV13546

• Permit No: C1981044
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 2/16/1994
• Doc Name: EAGLE AHR REVIEW REVISITED
• From: DMG
• To: JANET BINNS
• Type & Sequence: RN2
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

's • •
III IIII I III
STATE OF CC.~~U1~D0
DIVISION OE MINERALS AND GEOLOGY op~co
Department o(Natural Resources a~'A
~~ %'
1313 Sherman SL, Room 215 •
Denver, CO 80203 • •• le~•
Phone: [phone]
FA1(: [phone]
Roy Romer
Governor
Michael B. LOng
Division Dvecmr
To: Jaaet Binns (,~,P
From: Barbara Pavlik`i~
Date: February 16, 1994
Re: Eagle AHR Review Revisited
At your request, I have reviewed your letter to Joe Shoemaker,
dated September 10, 1993 regarding Permit Renewal #2. The
following items should clarify our requests regarding our need for
current data to be presented in a way that enables the Division to
evaluate trends in water quality and levels. The numbering system
used below corresponds directly to the numbers used in the
September 10 letter.
B2.
Figures 12 through 24, illustrating water elevation and
conductivity trends in the bedrock ground water
monitoring wells from 1986 through the present were
updated as requested in the Preliminary Adequacy Review.
However, graphs illustrating water elevations in the
Trout Creek Sandstone were not provided and should be
included in the PHC. The graphs provided in the AHR
could be used in the PHC.
B3. I believe that this comment should also be worded "as is"
because CEC referred to this figure in the PHC. and
obviously intended to include it, but ap>7arently, it was
inadvertantly omitted. The original comment reads:
Figure 24, illustrating conductivity trends in the
alluvial wells, was updated as requested in the original
PAR. However, Figure 22, illustrating water level trends
in the alluvial wells was missing from the submittal and
no water level data were provided. CEC should submit
Figure 22, updated to show water level trends through the
present.
the Division with a valid reason not to include this
graph in the PHC. The original comment reads: