REP09172 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CYCC Response: (Discussion of analysis which supports an original statement) Current Division Response: The Division accepts this discussion. However, in future reports, this discussion should be included as part of the permit text within the AHR itself. Statements which indicate that "actual salt loading is less than predicted" should be supported with appropriate data, referenced and analyzed by CYCC, which led to this conclusion. Current CYCC Response: Discussion was included in the 1996 AHR with regard to actual vs. predicted salt loading which included appropriate supporting data which led to this conclusion. In future reports, appropriate data referenced and analyzed by CYCC, will be included to support conclusions. 3. Original Division Question: Bedrock wells 026-94-M001 and 026-94-M002 need the well casing measuring poin[ elevation added to Figure 2. CYCC Response: Elevations have been added to Figure 2 and will be included in Future AHR's. Current Division Response: Please be awaze that the CYCC response to this issue was a future commitment to include the appropriate information in future AHR's. The Division anticipates this information will be included beginning with the 1997 report due in early 1998. Current CYCC Response: These elevations have been added to Figure 2, were included in the 1996 AHR, and will be included in future AHR's. 4. Original Division Question: Moni[orine Frequency Sprin_s The following springs were identified as Flowing greater than 35 gpm in May of 1993: O, Mine I, C-I, D, E, M2-87, Q, and R. • no data was provided in 1994 for O, Mine I, nor M2-87 CYCC Response: No follow up monitoring instances for spring M2.87 were completed after May 1994 until May 1995. No reason for this omission is evident after reviewing the field books. is\Env iron\Document\Ahr\Eckman\95 rspg2.doc