Laserfiche WebLink
Division of Mining and Geology <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />October 12, 1992 <br />Page 2 <br />For all three sampling events Wells M-2, M-6, M-7 and M-8 were dry <br />at the time of sampling. No deviations from the sampling QA/QC <br />protocols were noted for any of these samples. However, in the <br />July 22, 1992 sample set, Core Laboratories indicated that some <br />reported dissolved values were greater than the total value for <br />selected elements (specifically, iron and manganese). This result <br />was only noted on the analysis from the sample collected at surface <br />station RS-2. The discrepancy between these reported values (0.35 <br />versus 0.21 for iron and 0.04 versus 0.03 for manganese) is most <br />likely related to the analytical procedure and is not the result of <br />sample contamination. <br />As required by the recently-approved TR-06, Table 1 lists the <br />calculated cyanide values from the process point samples Por these <br />three sampling events. Calculated free cyanide and WAD cyanide <br />were based on the methods described by ASCI in its report dated <br />June, 1992. <br />Should you have any questions regarding the data enclosed herein, <br />please feel free to give us a call. <br />Yours truly, <br />Bruce A. Lytle <br />Senior Project Engineer & <br />Associate <br />BAL/pl <br />Enclosures <br />