My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE32356
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE32356
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:43:24 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 1:19:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981071
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
8/25/1999
Doc Name
MEMO 1998 AHR ECKMAN PARK C-81-071
From
KENT GORHAM
To
JANET BINNS
Violation No.
CV1999008
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
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
iii iiniiiiuiii iii <br />999 <br />Interoffice <br />MEMORANDUM <br />to: Janet Binns <br />from: Kent Gorham ~~ <br />subject: 1998 AHR, Eckman Park, #C-81-071 <br />date: August 2~, 1999 <br />I have completed my review of the 1998 Annual Hydrology Report for the Eckman Park, Mine 1, <br />and Mine 2 operated by Colorado Yampa Coal Company as requested in your memo dated June <br />22, 1998. <br />Overall, most sites were visited in accordance with the approved monitoring plan. However, the <br />fall semi-annual visits to three spoil wells, 026-SP-1, 026-SP-2, and 026-SP-3 were missed. <br />Other noted problems are as follows: <br />^ Most datums listed in the data tables do not match the datums on the site location map <br />^ Wells 94M001 and 94M002 aze not spotted on the map <br />^ Spoil well graphs for water level and TDS are inaccurate <br />The Division has noted similaz discrepancies in previous reports concerning the issue of site <br />locations and problems related to datum values. Responses from CYCC via adequacy responses <br />committed to correcting these problems in future reports. Now these same issues require <br />correction once again. <br />Providing incomplete and invalid data through hydrologic reporting causes unnecessary <br />confusion during the Division's review to ensure the protection of the hydrologic balance as <br />required by Rule 2.05.6(3). In addition to the confusion, it increases the time required to review <br />the report. This operation has a history of lengthy adequacy review of hydrologic monitoring <br />reports. In this particular case it appears that this report lacked any significant quality control <br />prior to submittal to the Division. <br />Based on the three site visits and samples missed and the erroneous reporting noted above, I <br />recommend that we issue an enforcement action to CYCC for failure to conduct hydrologic <br />monitoring in accordance with the approved plan and for reporting inaccurate hydrologic data. <br />CC: Dan Hernandez <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.