Laserfiche WebLink
TCC Response <br />The 1991 AHR response erroneously referred to the sample sheet being attached, but the July <br />1 sample was reported in thg data (this sample was substituted for the June sample which <br />was lost, per discussions with CDOH). This was outlined in the CO-0042161 DMR cover <br />letter for that quarter, a copy of which has been included for your reference. <br />DMG Concern <br />3. From review of the 1992 AHR the additional errors are noted. <br />a) 63.4 feet to water in well 006-AW-2? <br />TCC Response <br />The correct depth for the reading in question is 6.3 feet. The revised data page is enclosed. <br />DMG Concern <br />b) 008-AV-3 shows 10 field pH readings rather than 12. This generic problem <br />exists throughout the report. <br />TCC Response <br />TCC has enclosed revised data sheets for the AV well sites affected, and will try to eliminate <br />such errors in future reporting. <br />DMG Concern <br />cl 009-79-4 Table 1 shows screened interval 24220-242 feet? <br />TCC Response <br />The correct screened interval is 220-242 feet. The corrected table is enclosed. <br />DMG Concern <br />d) Well 006-82-74C elevation is 6845.92 in Table 1 and 6840.61 on data sheet. <br />Which is it? <br />TCC Response <br />The correct elevation for this well is 6840.61. The corrected materials have been enclosed. <br />DMG Concern <br />e) Values on or around 8/22/92 show apparent doubling of values (i.e., 32°C, <br />1840 EC, 17 pH). This is apparent in numerous places throughout the data. <br />TCC Response <br />Revised data sheets have been enclosed. We will try to prevent a recurrence in the future. <br />DMG Concern <br />f) Site 305 elevation in Table 1 does not agree with data sheet. <br />