Laserfiche WebLink
Greg K. Vaughn • -2- . 11 May 1988 <br /> IV. Physical Plant <br /> A lengthy discussion of liner characteristics is presented for <br /> this unlined pond. The argument is made in the HAR that a "natural <br /> liner" underlies the pond. Table 3 .4 . 1 shows the depths and <br /> thicknesses of a cemented zone that allegedly "lines" the <br /> impoundment. Boring logs for borings SS-003 through SS-028 , upon <br /> which this argument is primarily based, were not included in the <br /> HAR, however. Of the boring logs that were included, the cemented <br /> zone is characterized as very weakly cemented (boring 1, boring 4) , <br /> partially cemented (CB-3) , and cemented with root vesicles <br /> throughout (boring 5) . No cementation is noted in the logs of well <br /> #1, well 42 , well #3 , boring BG-2 , boring BG-4 and well #4 • These <br /> borings should have encountered the cemented zone if it is extensive <br /> laterally as argued. In short, the existence of a "natural liner" <br /> which helps to reduce the infiltration of leachate from the <br /> impoundment, is not well founded, especially in light of the <br /> apparent migration of leachate to ground water. <br /> V. Climatology <br /> The climatology portion of the HAR is adequate to satisfy <br /> requirements. <br /> VI. Surface Water <br /> No water quality data were presented for surface water bodies, <br /> as required in Health and Safety Code, Section 25208 .8 (d) . The <br /> surface water portion of the HAP was adequate to satisfy other <br /> requirements. <br /> VII. Wells <br /> The identification of wells within a one-mile radius of the site <br /> was well researched. <br /> Monitoring wells in the uppermost water-bearing zone at other <br /> investigation sites were included in this portion of the HAR. <br /> Seasonal water level measurements for these wells should be included <br /> in a HAR amendment. <br /> Water samples were collected from monitoring wells at other <br /> facilities to provide a representative analysis as required in HSC, <br /> Section 25208. 8 (f) . These analyses should have provided useful <br /> information on regional water quality in the uppermost aquifer. The <br /> water quality analyses reported (Table 3 . 8 . 7) may be in error, <br /> however. The calculated ion balance between the reported cations <br /> and anions has a discrepancy of over 44s for well K-102 (as <br /> illustrated below, Table VII-1) , with similar discranarcies for <br /> wells K-203 and K-302 . Table 3 . 8 .7 reports ion balance, but it has <br /> been incorrectly calculated; being reported as 6. 000% for well K- <br /> 102 . It appears that the source of miscalculation may be the use of <br />