REV04332 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Joe Dttdask January 5, 1994 Page 4 1992. Therefore, as the records indicate, there was "No Flow" at Station CCS-2 during the monthly sampling events. 3. The stations located in Cherry, Lopez and Wet Canyons are surface water monitoring stations, not wells. The data presented in the Annual Report indicates "No Flow" at these stations for the months in question which are valid instantaneous measurements. The stations were monitored every month and there was no "lack of diligence by the operator". 4. The expanded chemical analysis at the Mine Discharge sampling station was not conducted because mine water was being diverted from the sampling point to Pond 003. Should a similar situation develop in the future, a sample of the discharge water will be taken for chemical analysis. 5. Responses to issues 1 and 2 above provide an explanation for the "data insufficiencies" identified in this issue. 6. In future AHRs, flow data will be expressed in GPM or GPD so easy correlation between stations can be made. 7. Basin will discontinue calculating mean averages for stations where only one sample is collected. 8. Pond 005 was taken out of service in 1989 when a leak developed. The Pond was out of service during 1992 as well as 1993, however, during November and December 1993, the pond was repaired and should be back in service in January 1994. 9. Station PRS-4 was monitored during 1992 for the limited set of parameters required. Data gathered for this station during 1993 will be presented in the Annual Hydrology Report which will be submitted by February 28, 1994. 10. As NOV C-93-042 was modified following the review of the AHR, most of the monitoring deficiencies were eliminated. 11. The deficiencies as outlined in Attachment 2 have been addressed in the termination of the NOV. 12. The missing chemical parameters were the result of a laboratory communication error. This deficiency has been corrected.