Laserfiche WebLink
October 29, 1992 <br />Pege 3 <br />DOMG Concern <br />6) Site 1001 should be removed from the table and a note added to <br />site 16 explaining that it replaced 1001 in 1989. <br />7) Frequency notations are off by one column in Table 1 for 006-AY- <br />1, 009-79-4. <br />8) 008-82-48 is listed in Table 1, but no data was submitted for <br />the well. A check of the permit indicates the well was not required <br />to be monitored. Please remove it from Table 1. <br />TCC Response <br />The revised materials will be submitted in the 1992 AHR. <br />DOMG Concern <br />9) Figure 41 is labelled as presenting borehole discharge <br />information, yet none is shown on the graph. <br />TCC Response <br />The graph will be corrected for 1992. <br />DOMG Concern <br />10) Figure 42 shows the Y axis labeled in units of GPM. Is this <br />correct? Also, the data table for 109 shows no discharge, yet the <br />chart shows constant discharge. Review of previous year's AHR <br />reports indicates that this discrepancy has been a chronic problem. <br />The AHR must include discharge and volume information for all mine <br />discharge. Please explain the confusion regarding this site and <br />submit the appropriate data. <br />TCC Response <br />The axis label should read cfs. Site 109 data does not show <br />discharge values because this is a metered site, rather than a <br />rated site and has been addressed previously. The AHR does indeed <br />contain the required information concerning discharge and inflow <br />volume information in the form of Figure 42 and the inflow study <br />segment of the AHR discussion. Additional data has been submitted <br />a part of a separate permitting item. TCC will further discuss the <br />Division's concern or need for additional data with the Division <br />representative during the generation of the 1992 AHR. <br />