Laserfiche WebLink
October 29, 1992 <br />Page 7 <br />problems encountered during sampling beyond those normally <br />associated with deep wells, given the sampling history and <br />collection of the September 1990 sample. Zt is not reasonable to <br />expect TCC to have anticipated this casing separation at that point <br />in time and to have had a replacement well installed fully one year <br />ahead of the projected schedule. Water level data for the well only <br />indicated the dewatering of a perched aquifer, not an impending <br />casing break which would prevent future sampling. TCC will continue <br />in its efforts to maintain compliance with the approved plan. <br />DOMG Concern <br />2) No level information was included for 006-BRDH7. <br />TCC Response <br />This information was mistakenly omitted during the process of <br />transferring data from pressure readings to water elevations. The <br />values in question were as follows: <br />Date Pressure Elevation <br />5/29/91 1 psi 6842.3 <br />9/04/91 0.5 psi 6841.7 <br />DOMG Concern <br />Alluvial Wells <br />1) All requirements were met <br />TCC Response <br />No response required. <br />DOMG Concern - Surface Water <br />1) No raw data was reported for Site 302 other than level. <br />TCC Response <br />Copies of the pertinent ACZ data sheets have been enclosed. TCC <br />apologizes for the oversight, as there was some confusion <br />concerning reporting requirements at the time of the report <br />generation. The 1992 AHR will incorporate the required information. <br />