REP19091 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kent A. Gorham December 17, 1993 Page 2 lab mpat~trements beginning In 1990. Iab ~a~~rellle]7ts s1nCe 1990 are significantly hider than their corresponding field readings. Prior to 1990, field readings were typically slightly hider than lab „paa,remPnts. 'this would seem to sucygest a problem exists with the meter used to obtain field readings. COVCC periodically calibrates it's EC meter although the calibration solution used (23.4 umhos/can) ethibits a much lower conductivity than is typically encountered in the field. CDVCC will take steps to ensure its meter is functioning properly. ?here steps will include sending the meter in to the manufacturer for testing, factory calibration arcs/or repairs if necessary. Zhe lab EC values for the stations identified by the Division are stable and do not indicate the same marked drop in DC from 1989 to 1990. Eluther, the lab data reviewed is not irdicative of either marked water quality degradation or improvement. CDVCC will inform the Division as to its findings with regani to the operation of its Fx: meter but suspects this mic~t be the nature of the discrepancy noted by the Division. 5) Text at the bottom of page 6 and top of page 7 has been edited to read correctly. Revised copies of pages 6, 7, and 8 are included in this sutinittal and should replace corresponding pages in Division copies of the AHR. Monitoring Frequency 1) No response r~~ired. OOVCC application to the Division requirements in the future. has sukmitted a technical revision to revise monitoring frequency Water Quality 1) No response required. Some water quality information was omitted from the AHR due to cong~lications arising from the utilization of a new database. Additional water quality information was sutmitted to the Division in response to NOV C-93-147 (letter dated 11/24/93). COVCC concurs with the Divisions general observation that water quality r~nains good and suitable for current and intended uses. Mine Inflow Report 1) 'Ihe statement in question implies simply that given Panel C's location with respect to the Stevens Gulch drainage (i.e. directly below Stevens Gulch), an increased occurrence of mine inflow wuld occur. Less cover occurs over Panel C as arnq~ared to other areas of the mine as the geomorphic development of the drainage itself removed nuich of the overburden over the coal seam in this area. If mine inflows are linked to surface water occurrence, Panel C would be a likely location for this relationship to become evident.