Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />DMG Concern <br />5. Units for settleable solids should be represented as ml/1 <br />rather than mg/1. Please correct. <br />CXCC Response <br />CYCC will work to correct the units in the 1993 AHR report. <br />DMG Concern <br />6. The bottom of well 026-SP-1 calculates to 7004 feet, yet is <br />shown at 7026 on Figure 16. Which is correct? This same <br />phenomenon exist for well 026-SP-3. <br />CYCC Response <br />It would appear that Figure 16 for well 026-SP-1 is incorrect, as <br />the available information indicates that the proper elevation for <br />the screen bottom is approximately 7014 feet. Review of the data <br />indicates that the bottom of well elevation for the figure in <br />question was mistakenly set at 7026 feet, which corresponds roughly <br />with the deepest water level noted (in conjunction with a <br />correction for the very short stick-up that this well possesses), <br />which was recorded in 1985 following initial well installation. A <br />revised Figure has been enclosed, which does not show a bottom of <br />well point, as this is off scale. <br />Figure 18 for well 026-SP-3 is correct if one utilizes the bottom <br />of the screened interval as the benchmark depth for the well <br />,/ bottom, but does not in fact reflect the stick-up for the well. <br />Given that the datum for the well is the top of casing, the actual <br />bottom of screen elevation is approximately 7254 feet. Figure 18 <br />has been revised and is enclosed. Please note that the Figure does <br />not indicate a bottom of well, as this point is off scale. Also. <br />the revised Figure reflects the correction of a 1988 elevation, <br />which defaulted to the bottom of well value previously discussed. <br />As determined from review of applicable well information, it seems <br />that the wells in question were completed using a cap at the bottom <br />of the screen, which effectively places the bottom of the well at <br />some 104 feet from the ground surface. A footnote to this effect <br />will be added to the pertinent tables in the 1993 AHR. <br />DMG Concern <br />7. Why are Foidel Creek mine ponds included in Table 1? <br />O\r CYCC Response <br />V A number of the TCC ponds were included in Table 1 due to the <br />overlap of facilities and the fact that the listed sites were all <br />previously reported under CYCC prior to being transferred into TCC <br />liability. It was thought that more questions would arise as to <br />why these sites were deleted from the tables as opposed to listing <br />the sites, given their prior reporting history. The table in <br />question will be revised to reflect the fact that these sites have <br />been transferred in the 1993 AHR. <br />