Laserfiche WebLink
October 29, 1992 <br />Pepe 5 <br />TCC Response <br />The revised figure is enclosed. <br />DOMG Concern <br />13) From review of the No. column in the summary tables, it appears <br />that something is consistently incorrect (particularly in the <br />alluvial wells) with the method with which the raw data is being <br />summed and averaged (ie 12 field measurements were taken but only <br />9 to 11 appear to have been counted for the yearly summary). Please <br />review and provide comments. <br />TCC Response <br />Part of the problem lies in the current report generator. It has <br />been found that the counter on the report generator sometimes <br />utilizes a value in a calculation without affecting the counter <br />print field. This however does not affect the validity of the mean <br />value obtained, as the calculation utilizes an internal count for <br />the summary. A second factor appears to be an internal quality <br />control issue, where some samples are assigned the wrong duplicate <br />number and as such are not utilized in the calculation. TCC hopes <br />to have these problems corrected in the 1992 AHR submittal through <br />the utilization of our new database program. <br />DOMG Concern <br />14) Figure 53, plot of water level data for 006-AW-2 and site 1002, <br />show identical readings for water levels in 1991. This does not <br />correspond to the data tables. <br />TCC Response <br />The figure will be corrected in the 1992 AHR. <br />DOMG Concern <br />15) This same discrepancy exists in Figure 20 for the 1990 data. <br />Also, 008-AU-3 and Site 305 had been tracking well as far as water <br />level until 1991, then the alluvial well shows a runoff fluctuation <br />yet site 305 does not. Why? <br />