Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. David Berry <br />October 4, 1988 <br />Page 9 <br />CYVCC RESPONSE: <br />General Questions <br /> <br />1) The procedure provided in the MLRD's question is typically followed by <br />CYCC. However, there are a couple of exceptions to this based upon <br />CYCC's specific monitoring requirements. The exceptions are associated <br />with the USGS station and the bedrock wells monitored currently. In <br />reference to the USGS stations, flow is obtained from the USGS at a <br />later date, and then incorporated into CYCC's data base. <br />In reference to the bedrock wells, which are typically low yielding <br />wells, they are pumped and then left to recover. A sample is obtained <br />the next day or as soon as ground conditions allow. <br />2) This question has arisen repeatedly since 1985 and the response has <br />been reviewed and accepted by the Division. The reason the detection <br />limit is above the standard is because the current laboratory procedure <br />can not "see" mercury at this level. The standard has outpaced the <br />accepted technology. <br />3) A review of the referenced data indicates that the dissolved values are <br />slightly higher than the total recoverable values. However, the values <br />are within the expected error band. Therefore, the results do not <br />necessarily represent anomalous data. <br />4) The dot referenced in the above question represents the location of <br />Tipple 2. The label Tipple 2 has been added to Map 14A. A copy of the <br />reviewed map is attached. <br />5) Map 14A has been revised, and a copy is attached. <br />6) Figure 3, Spoil Spring Location has been revised to show the location <br />of springs EP-87-1 and EP-87-2. Spring M2-87-1 is actually a seep, as <br />indicated on Table 47 of the AHR and should not be shown on Figure 3. <br />CMLRD CDNCERN: <br />Four wells are monitored at the Eckman Park and Mine 1 area. Well 009-79-4 <br />indicates the greatest impact from mining as represented by elevated total <br />dissolved solids and electrical conductivity values. The other three wells <br />do not indicate such pronounced impacts; however, values above receiving <br />stream standards for EC and/or TDS have been reported for water samples from <br />each of the wells during the past few years. <br />Well 006-82-74C - <br />,..,Ar•e there any water quality data available for this well prior to May <br />987?If so, please incorporate the data into the data base. <br />