REP00278 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DMG Concern 2. Pond D silver is shown six times as dissolved rather than total recoverable. Copper, iron, manganese and zinc are represented seven times dissolved rather than total recoverable. CYCC Response The parameters in question were in fact run as total recoverable rather than as dissolved, but were coded incorrectly in the database. Revised data pages are enclosed. DMG Concern 3. The inspection record for the dates April 29, 1992 and April 30, 1992 indicate that Pond F was discharging, yet CYCC's data shows the last discharge for the water year to be March 25, 1992. Please explain in detail. CYCC Response As discussed in a previous telephone conversation, it is unclear from review of CYCC's inspection report copy from the referenced date as to whether the site denoted as showing discharge is Pond 1 U "F" or Pond "E". Review of inspection notes taken in the field by (IV CYCC personnel indicate that Pond "E" was discharging, as was Pond \ )~ "D". The inspection notes also indicate that Pond "F" was visited, \/ ~~ but do not indicate the presence of discharge. It is unlikely that o Pond "F" was discharging, as the Site 114 pumphouse and water ~~~ supply system were in place and had drawn down the spoil aquifer which had been the primary contribution to Pond F discharge. Data reported in the AHR reflects the weekly site visits conducted as part of our normal monitoring schedule. DMG Concern 4. The inspection record for the dates April 29, 1992 and April 30, 1992 indicate Ponds M and H were discharging, yet again the CYCC records indicate no flow. Please explain. CYCC Response Pond H was monitored by CT+E personnel on 4/28/92, at which time they were unable to obtain a flow value due to the very low flow. They did, however monitor field parameters, which were as follows: Time - 1245 Temp - 18' C EC - 2850 umhos/cm pH - 8.3 The data sheet comment should read "No Flow Measurement", and this in conjunction with a missed site ID resulted in the field