Laserfiche WebLink
OMOber 29, 1992 <br />Pege 11 <br />DOMG Concern - Alluvial Wells <br />1) The June sample for most metals was total recoverable rather <br />than dissolved for 008-AU-3. <br />TCC Response <br />The wrong parameter list was used by the lab, and was not noted <br />until it was too late to re-analy2e the sample. Steps have been <br />taken to prevent a recurrence. <br />DOMG Concern - Surface Water <br />1) Site 115 pH reading of 10/1/90 <br />was reported when it should be <br />missing. <br />is obviously an error. No copper <br />monthly. June sample values are <br />TCC Response <br />The correct pH for the date in question is 8.2, with the elevated <br />value reported being an artifact of the report generation. The <br />table is in error concerning the requirement for copper, as the <br />notation is off by one line from the actual required parameter of <br />iron. The June sample report sheet for site 115 from ACZ is <br />enclosed. <br />DOMG Concern - Springs and Pond Discharge <br />1) Most primary metals are missing from the 11/15/90 sample for <br />spring 303-1. <br />TCC Response <br />Upon review of Table 2 and the referenced data report, it would <br />appear that all required analysis for the referenced spring were <br />conducted and reported. Should the Division disagree, please let us <br />know so that this matter may be clarified. <br />DOMG Concern - Mine Inflow/Outflow <br />1) Review of the 1990 AHR review comments related to mine <br />inflow/outflow suggests that the authoe was misled by the water <br />quality of 006-82-74C as being representative of historical Wadge <br />quality. It is apparent after further review that 006-82-74C is <br />influenced by spoil water from adjacent surface mining and is not <br />