My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012-06-01_INSPECTION - C1981014
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Inspection
>
Coal
>
C1981014
>
2012-06-01_INSPECTION - C1981014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:58:33 PM
Creation date
6/4/2012 9:58:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981014
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
6/1/2012
Doc Name
Operators Comments Regarding Inspection 5/17/2012
From
George Patterson
To
DRMS
Inspection Date
5/17/2012
Email Name
JHB
DIH
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.
Page 1 of 1
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
Hernandez, Alysha <br />From: Binns, Janet <br />Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 8:52 AM <br />To: DRMS - Coal -Admin <br />Subject: Southfield C1981014 Inspections <br />Please scan as : <br />Southfield Mine C1981014 <br />Inspection <br />Operators comments regarding inspection 5/17/2012 <br />Thankyou <br />From: George Patterson [ mailto:efcoal(a)gmail.com ] <br />Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 11:38 AM <br />To: Binns, Janet <br />Subject: Southfield Inspection Report - 05 -15 -12 Inspection <br />Janet, <br />Given the nature of the landowners complaint that instigated the inspection of Southfield's monitor well, <br />NWMW, it is important that you clarify your comments in your inspection report dated 05 -17 -2012. As you <br />mentioned, the Division's 'findings' can be acknowleged by other agencies and /or entities. Your comment <br />pertaining to Kent Gorham's inspection of April 17, 2012, you state the Division measured water at the 354 ft <br />level strongly implies that that was the water level in well. Even though you added the phrase, "after the water <br />had been pumped down the well ", your comment will be interpreted as 'the water level'. Kent Gorham's report <br />of April 17,2012 states, pertaining to the probe's reading, "This reading could be related to the addition of water <br />immediately prior to measurement. Additional measurements will be necessary over time to arrive at any <br />conclusion regarding water level ". Please clarify your report's comment with further explanation. <br />As you know, I have probed the well "over time" since the water was dumped in the well (04- 17 -12) and no <br />water has been detected at the 354 ft - 356 ft level. <br />Thank you, <br />George P <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.