Laserfiche WebLink
Antonia Vorster -3- 24 May 1990 <br /> 3. The E-logs for the monitoring wells need to be provided on a scale which makes them <br /> legible. The bluelines for the logs should be resubmitted (we already have the <br /> blueline for MW2) . <br /> 4. Well 1N8E16H99 was used for the geologic cross sections. A well log should be <br /> provided for comparison with the presented data. Water quality data generated from <br /> this location may better represent background conditions for the deeper zones than <br /> wells in the vicinity of the contaminant plume. <br /> 5. The geologic cross section map, Figure 6, is confusing as it was not clearly <br /> indicated which wells were used to draw the cross section. MW2 is shown as <br /> projected, but MWs 3A and 3B are not (yet the well logs do not match up). I <br /> recommend that another cross section be prepared in a perpendicular direction to <br /> the one previously prepared (with wells 2, 1, P5, 3A/3B, etc.) so that trends in <br /> three dimensions can be compared. All cross sections should be provided on <br /> bluelines of appropriate scale for easier review. <br /> 6. The contour maps, Figures 8-11, incorrectly have marks indicating the presence of <br /> wells 2, 3A, and 3B when they had not yet been constructed and were not water level <br /> measurement points. On Figure 13 it appears that wells 3A and 3B are not properly <br /> located. All figures should have proper identification of wells, rather than <br /> require the reader to reference another figure. <br /> 7. On page 23, a potentiometric difference of 0.59 feet between wells 3A and 3B is <br /> reported. It seems to be quite significant, and some explanation should have been <br /> provided. <br /> 8. Aquifer tests conducted in 1985 were briefly summarized in the report. The curves <br /> for the pumped wells and observation wells should be submitted, and the method of <br /> analysis (Straight Line, Cooper Jacobs, etc. ) explained. During the tests, any <br /> impacts from other, interfering production wells should be explained. <br /> Pages 24-25 also discusses a "simulation" conducted which showed the influence of <br /> the production wells on local gradients. More details of the simulation should be <br /> provided to explain the model used, its assumptions and limitations. <br /> 9. Following abandonment of the lower portion of P5, a pump test is proposed to <br /> evaluate aquifer characteristics, assess the hydraulic control provided by P5, etc. <br /> A proposal should be submitted for our approval which explains how the test will <br /> be conducted. All data collected must be submitted for our review. <br /> 10. Larger pumps are proposed to be installed in wells P3 and P4, to provide more water <br /> to meet irrigation requirements of property adjacent to the brining operation. <br /> These wells are already creating a pumping depression which has caused increased <br /> chlorides and total dissolved solids (TDS) in well A. Additional pumping would <br /> pull higher concentrations of pollutants into this area, and at greater depths (P4 <br /> is 475 feet deep, P3 has unknown construction). P5 has just been abandoned to <br /> prevent continued potential cross contamination of deeper zones. Larger pumps for <br /> P3 and P4 is therefore not acceptable. If additional ground water is needed for <br /> agricultural irrigation, a source should be located at a sufficient distance to not <br />