My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP33252
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP33252
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:09:33 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 6:27:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981022
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
2/2/1995
Doc Name
1994 ANNUAL HYDROLOGIC REPORT SOMERSET MINING CO PN C-81-022
From
J E STOVER & ASSOCIATES
To
DMG
Permit Index Doc Type
STABILITY 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.
/
129
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
s <br />Original Division Question: <br />Please have the operator explain the following omissions. <br />1993 Annual Hydroloc7v Report <br />Monitoring Freauencv <br />1. The following surface sites were not visited in May: C- <br />1,U-1,HN-1,S-1,S-2,NF-l,NF-2. <br />2. The November sample for site H-1 is missing metal values <br />except iron. <br />3. The 4th quarter sample at site NF-1 is missing metals, <br />TDS, and alkalinity. <br />4. Groundwater well SC-1 is missing visits in May, July, and <br />September and is missing a 4th quarter full suite sample. <br />5. Well SC-2 is missing all SAR values and missing a 4th <br />quarter sample. <br />6. Well SC-3 is missing an April visit, a 4th quarter sample <br />and a SAR value for August. <br />7. Data inspection for H-l0 and B-6 show no April visit, <br />most November sample values missing, no Molybdenum, no <br />August SAR. <br />Clarification and/or Division Response: <br />The operator has responded that two monitoring sites were not <br />visited in April due to rock slides. The remaining misses of <br />site visits or samples taken are generally assigned to the <br />category of poor communication, personnel problems, and <br />misunderstanding of a complicated monitoring program. Given <br />the marked improvement in monitoring in 1994 and the fact that <br />an enforcement action was taken in 1993, I accept the <br />explanation provided by the operator as satisfactory and <br />recommend no further action be pursued by the Division with <br />regard to 1993 monitoring. <br />original Division Concern: <br />1994 Annual Hydrology Report <br />1. Site H-1 is missing a flow value for April. <br />2. Why are the flow values for NF-1 and NF-2 identical but <br />yet the quality values very different? (Sept-Dec 94) <br />Clarification and/or Division response: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.