Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kent Gorham <br />October 2l, 1996 <br />Page 2 <br />4. Figure No. 28 y-axis is labeled Field Conductivity but TDS is plotted on the graph and labeled on <br />the heading. Please clarify and/or correct. <br />Response: Revised copies of Figure No. 28 are enclosed which show the y-axis labeled with Total <br />Dissolved Solids (nmg/I). Please replace previously submitted copies with the enclosed copies. Field <br />conductivity data for this site is presented as Figure 27. <br />5. Historic flow and/or level information should be included in the summary tables for each site in <br />future AHR's, similar to the historical summary for the water quality parameters. The Division approved <br />of TCC submitting only current year data, if it was included with summary tables representing the historic <br />data for each site. This was done to reduce AHR size and eliminate repetition. However, to justify this <br />type of reporting, we need complete summary information for all parameters, including flow and water <br />level. <br />Response: Summary tables will be provided in future AHR's per the Division's request. TCC notes <br />that while tabular listings of flow and/or level information were not submitted with the 1995 AHR, graphic <br />representations (Figures) depicting this information were included. <br />Bedrock Wells <br />1. Depth to water is reported as zero for October 1994 and May 1995 for well FBR-1 lA. Is this <br />value an accurate reading or does it represent a missed measurement? If this reading is believed to be <br />accurate, please provide your explanation of this zero value and the fall pressurized values reported <br />(-147.8, -194.0). This same discrepancy exists for well 006-BRDH7. <br />Response: The reported values reflect leaking casings and are therefore not accurate depictions of the <br />piezometric surface. The zero measurements recorded reflect the observation at the time of measurement <br />that although no pressure reading could be obtained, water was present at the top of the casing. The <br />casings were repaired prior to the fall measurements and were checked approximately one week prior to the <br />September semi-annual monitoring instarmce as indicated on the associated tables and graphs. <br />Mine Water Discharge Sites <br />I. The discharge reported for Site 109, Underground Mine Water Discharge for 1995 is . I 1 cfs. <br />However, the meter readings reported in Table 41B indicate more than four times that amount was <br />discharged. <br />125,549,900 gaUyr / 525,600 min/yr = 238 gpm <br />238 gpm x 1 cfs / 448 gpm = .53 cfs <br />Please explain this discrepancy and correct as necessary. <br />i:mdocumrnt W vmfoidel.ck195 ahrtap.dot <br />