My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1992-10-19_REVISION - M1988112
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1988112
>
1992-10-19_REVISION - M1988112
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/20/2021 5:53:50 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 12:21:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
10/19/1992
Doc Name
SAN LUIS PROJECT TR-006 AMENDED DOCUMENT REVISED SAMPLING & ANALYTICAL PROTOCOL PN M-88-112
From
DMG
To
BATTLE MOUNTAIN RESOURCES INC
Type & Sequence
TR6
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
`' • • <br />letter to Ms. Anne Baldrige, BMRI <br />Comment on Amended TR-006 Protocol Document <br />page 2 <br />On October 6, 1942, BMRI submitted an amended version of the original permit <br />application document, intended to satisfy Stipulation No. 3. Drs. Pendleton <br />and Posey have reviewed the document and have identified one inadegwacy which <br />should be remedied in order to satisfy Stipulation No. 3. Stipulation No. 1 <br />has been properly incorporated on page 15, in Section 2.2.7, "Well <br />Evacuation". However, we have been unable to find a reference to the <br />reporting time limit of Stipulation No. 2 in the amended Protocol document. <br />In light of the occurrence leading to the issuance of the March 31, 1992 <br />violation, which resulted in the development of the amended Protocol, the <br />Division considers the self reporting requirements of BMRI's permit very <br />important. We suggest that BMRI amend the Document to specifically reference <br />the self-reporting requirements, including the 5-day time limit impased by <br />Stipulation No. 2. We suggest this requirement could be presented on page 4, <br />as a subsection of the Introductory Section 1, and in Sections 5.5 and 6.6, <br />which address reporting by the analytical laboratory. Section 1 would present <br />BMRI's requirement to provide prompt notification to the Division. In the <br />case of potentially non-compliant results, we also believe it important to <br />direct the analytical laboratory to provide immediate notification to BMRI by <br />telephone, which would be affected by modifying Sections 5.5 and 6.6. <br />If you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience. <br />Sincerel~i yours, <br />Larry Cehler <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />cc: Andre' J. Douchane, Bt4RI <br />Kan Kluksdahl, Bt4G <br />Dean 14assev. Esq. <br />Maclovio Martinez <br />Nora Jacquez, Esq. <br />Maria Valdez <br />David Hyatt. PhD. <br />Roger Flynn, Esq. <br />Jane Kircher <br />Mike Long, Dircetcr, DMG <br />Bruce Humphries, DMG <br />James Stevens, ahD., ~t•+G <br />Harry Po52y, PhD., GMG <br />James Pendleton, PhD., DMG <br />Doc. No: 5132E <br />LDO/jp <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.