My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-02-20_REPORT - C1980001 (4)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Report
>
Coal
>
C1980001
>
2009-02-20_REPORT - C1980001 (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:43:45 PM
Creation date
2/20/2009 11:36:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980001
IBM Index Class Name
REPORT
Doc Date
2/20/2009
Doc Name
2008 Annual Hydrology Report
From
WWC Engineering
To
DRMS
Annual Report Year
2008
Permit Index Doc Type
Hydrology Report
Email Name
JDM
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.
/
105
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
Prior to 1995, a general trend evident in TDS and the major ions was that as one progressed <br />downstream along the mine an increase in these parameters occurred in both the surface water <br />and alluvial water. Beginning in 1995, the levels of all constituents in TR-1.5 increased <br />dramatically. While the influence of this increase in upstream alluvial water is not clearly <br />expressed in either surface or alluvial water downstream for the majority of the year, the <br />elevated concentrations of surface water constituents observed in the early portion of the year <br />are more pronounced than previously. This is probably a reflection of the co-mingling of <br />alluvial water in the vicinity of TR-1.5 with creek water upstream of TR-B. <br />The independent nature of the observations and trends occurring within the creek water and <br />alluvial water suggests the two water bodies have limited influence upon each other. The lack <br />of influence is probably due to the slow exchange rate of water between the two bodies during <br />most of the year. <br />6.0 Quality Assurance <br />The quality assurance program is designed to check the precision and accuracy of the <br />analytical results received from the laboratory providing the water quality analyses. During <br />the collection of samples for analysis a duplicate sample from either a ground water or surface <br />water monitoring site will be collected and analyzed 3 times per year. The duplicate sample <br />analysis is compared with its paired sample for similarity. <br />Three duplicate samples were collected during 2008 for laboratory quality assurance purposes. <br />The duplicate samples were taken at surface water monitoring sites TR-A in April, TR-B in <br />August and TR-C in October. Results of the duplicate analyses were favorable for most of the <br />parameters tested. <br />The April duplicate for TR-A verified 12 of the 15 laboratory parameters to be within 5% of <br />the original values obtained. The duplicate sample value for iron was 111% of the original <br />value (0.09 mg/L-original vs. 0.1 mg/L-duplicate). The duplicate sample value for manganese <br />was 114% of the original value (0.007 mg/L-original vs. 0.008 mg/L-duplicate). The <br />duplicate sample value for TSS was 83% of the original value (6 mg/L-original vs. 5 mg/L- <br />duplicate). <br />The July duplicate for TR-B verified 8 of the 15 parameters to be within 5% of the original <br />value obtained. The duplicate value for calcium was 89% of the original value (35.2 mg/1- <br />original vs. 31.2 mg/1-duplicate). The duplicate value for iron was 93% of the original value <br />(0.15 mg/1-original vs. 0.14 mg/1-duplicate). The duplicate value for magnesium was 88% of <br />the original value (16.9 mg/1-original vs. 14.8 mg/1-duplicate). The duplicate value for <br />potassium was 92% of the original value (1.2 mg/1-original vs. 1.1 mg/1-duplicate). The <br />duplicate sample value for sodium was 90% of the original value (4.0 mg/1-original vs. 3.6 <br />mg/1-duplicate). The duplicate value for total suspended solids was 114% of the original <br />value (7 mg/1-original vs. 8 mg/1-duplicate). The duplicate value for sulfate was 76% of the <br />14
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.