Laserfiche WebLink
Kearney-KPF 2 13 September 1990 <br /> Modified Closure Plan <br /> treated ground water into a basin with or without injection wells is more <br /> acceptable than the disposal of the site drainage of unknown water quality into <br /> the basin. The proposal to mix the two waste streams (treated ground water and <br /> site drainage) and dispose of these wastes in an infiltration basin with <br /> injection wells, is not acceptable. Additionally, the Plan did not include a <br /> water balance for the basin which would indicate how much of the site drainage, <br /> once it is disposed of in the basin, would evaporate and how much would <br /> infiltrate into the unsaturated zone. It would be preferable if the discharger <br /> collects the water quality data for the site drainage, or at a minimum performs <br /> a water balance based on the design criteria, prior to the construction of and <br /> disposal of all site drainage into the basin. <br /> I had discussed with Hargis that we would probably forego the revision of waste <br /> discharge requirements (WDRs) for the interim ground water treatment system, but would <br /> revise WDRs once the system became final . However, because the intended use of the <br /> infiltration basin has been changed, revision of WDRs will probably be needed because <br /> the disposal of site drainage is a permanent waste disposal to land which may affect <br /> the quality of the ground water, unless it can be demonstrated that the site drainage <br /> is not a waste. This revision of the WDRs should include monitoring of the waste <br /> streams disposed of in the basin. <br /> I have several other concerns and comments on the Plan which are discussed in the <br /> Attachment. The concerns must be addressed by Hargis prior to implementation of <br /> closure and construction of the basin. <br /> CKW:cw <br />