The calculation for Article 4 is perfect. We obtain exactly the same number when we sum the information in the Agglo sheet and what is in the distance to compliance summary table
We ha exactly the same result with more stringent monitoring result
We only have a divergence with more stringent treatment in place
The sum gives 3,093,549
The result in the summary table is 2,947,928
The difference is important and I have found the difference that is due to these two agglomerations
UKWAWA_Agg000115 Dee
UKWAWA_Agg000107 Connahs Quay
In the previous reporting they were declared NR for Article 5 but not in the new register
Moroever they are declared discharging in a NA but connected to an inactive SA. This is where is perhaps the problem
The calculation for Article 4 is perfect. We obtain exactly the same number when we sum the information in the Agglo sheet and what is in the distance to compliance summary table
We ha exactly the same result with more stringent monitoring result
We only have a divergence with more stringent treatment in place
The sum gives 3,093,549
The result in the summary table is 2,947,928
The difference is important and I have found the difference that is due to these two agglomerations
UKWAWA_Agg000115 Dee
UKWAWA_Agg000107 Connahs Quay
In the previous reporting they were declared NR for Article 5 but not in the new register
Moroever they are declared discharging in a NA but connected to an inactive SA. This is where is perhaps the problem
http://webnuxdev.rnde.tm.fr/uwwtd_uk/agglomeration/ukwawaagg000107/2014
http://webnuxdev.rnde.tm.fr/uwwtd_uk/agglomeration/ukwawaagg000115/2014
We see also the problem with the distance to compliance table in the fiche. For the monitoring result there is grey color.