My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP29191
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP29191
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:59:41 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 5:15:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981018
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
11/13/1995
Doc Name
DRAFT REFUSE AREA REVEGETATION STUDY DESERADO MINE C-81-018
From
DMG
To
WESTERN FUELS UTAH
Permit Index Doc Type
REVEG MONITORING 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.
/
7
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 />Jerry Koblitz of Greystone Consultants and Murari Shrethsa of WFU <br />indicate that WFU agreed to perform the sampling as recommended. <br />I have included the above chronology as a framework for the <br />following questions I have with respect to the soils information <br />included in the August, 1995 draft report. <br />1. The two refuse analyses included in the report are from a <br />single composite sample collected April 24, 1990 from unspecified <br />portions of the refuse area. The sample was split between DMG and <br />WFU, resulting in the two separate analyses. Page 3 of the report <br />states that two separate composite samples of the coal refuse, one <br />from the north slope plot area and one from the south slope plot <br />area were analyzed, in accordance with the original study plan. <br />2. Analyses from incremental soil depth sampling conducted in <br />both the north and south test plot areas on June 21, 1990, are <br />included in the report, but the specific sampling procedure and <br />sample locations is not described. It appears that all of the <br />samples may have been collected within the four foot plots, and <br />none within the one foot plots. <br />analysis rp~Zprt- Fey ~rti- ~-~°----m~_a e <br />it <br />r ~o~t . <br />3. Analyses of separate samples collected July 7, 1995 within <br />plots N4 and S4 (12" cover plots), and Nl and S1.(48" cover plots) <br />are included in the draft report. Again, however, the specific <br />sampling procedures and locations are not described, so the extent <br />to which the results can be directly compared to the 1990 results <br />is not clear. ,p~e~a~ _________ __ ____ t~n+?' <br />iii'oIIt • _ I t i s <br />unclear whether the analyses for S1 and N1 represent a composite of <br />all four depth increments, or whether only the top layer was <br />camnlnA Thoco nnrorl-ainticc mill nooA to ho nlarifioA .Ila.cod-nn <br />4. The report does not address the possible need to analyze plant <br />samples for selenium and boron content. Based on the original <br />refuse analyses, boron levels are not excessive, and so further <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.