My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP17970
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP17970
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:46:55 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 2:16:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981038
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
12/21/1999
Doc Name
1998 ANNUAL REPORT REVIEW BOWIE 1 MINE PN C-81-038 BOWIE RESOURCES LIMITED
From
DMG
To
BOWIE RESOURCES LIMITED
Annual Report Year
1998
Permit Index Doc Type
HYDROLOGY REPORT
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.
/
4
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 />significant increase in TDS levels at M W-l . <br />3. On page 5, BRL states that no samples were collected in 1998 from three small area exemption <br />(SAE) sampling points at the east mine fan level. Please provide an explanation for the lack <br />of monitoring data at the SAE locations. <br />4. On Table 1, page 9 BRL indicates that Drill Holes 60, 63, 6~, 67, 70, and GR-77-7 have been <br />dropped from surveillance. Any reduction in monitoring frequency must be done through a <br />technical revision to the permit. Quarterly water levels are required for Well Nos. DH-60 and <br />DH-6~. DH-60 has a tube used for obtaining water levels and apparently the water level was <br />below the level of the tube during three monitoring attempts in 1998. A water level has not <br />been obtained in DH-65 since the third quarter of 1996 due to an obstruction in the well. BRL <br />states that DH-65 has been removed from the sampling program, yet the permit document <br />reflects that both DH-60 and DH-65 are both still included in the approved monitoring plan. <br />BRL should reconsider the need for monitoring these wells. If appropriate, provide an <br />explanation and rationale for removing them from the sampling plan. A revision to the permit <br />document will be required for removing them from the approved monitoring plan. <br />5. The surface water monitoring stations listed in Table 1, page 8 of the AHR do not match the <br />stations listed in Volume 4, Table 1 of the permit document. Please clarify this discrepancy. <br />6. The following pazameters were not provided for the required groundwater monitoring plan: <br />Water levels for January and February for MW-1, MW-2, and MW-3. <br />Quarterly field parameters and quarterly water quality samples for MW-1 and MW-3. <br />Quarterly water levels for DH-60 and DH-65. . <br />The Division notes that field parameters and water analyses were reported for Wells SM-3 and <br />SM-4. These wells aze not part of the required sampling plan. <br />The Division notes that, for the majority of springs, there is no winter monitoring/access. The <br />following pazameters were not provided for the required spring monitoring for the remainder <br />of the year: <br />• Quarterly flow and field parameters, and annual water quality analysis for Spring 10-10. <br />• Fourth quarter flow and field parameters, and annual water quality for Spring 10-13. <br />• Monthly flow and field parameters for December for Springs 31 and 32. <br />• Annual water quality analysis for Spring & Pond 7-l . <br />• Quarterly flow and field parameters, and annual tivater quality for Spring 1-5. <br />The Division notes that field parameters and analyses were reported for several springs that are <br />not part of the required monitoring program including: Spring No.'s 24, 21, 22, 7-10, 8-5, and <br />14-4. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.