My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE47451
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE47451
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:49:28 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 1:10:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007A
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Section_Exhibit Name
Exhibit 51 Lower Refuse Pile
Media Type
D
Archive
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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
Mountain Coal Company, L.L.C. Exhibit 51 <br />West Elk Mine ~ Lower Refuse Pile <br />majority of the remaining dissolved solids consist of sulfate, chloride, or bicarbonate anions. The total <br />•. dissolved solid concentration of [he leachate is approximately 700 mg/I and is 300 times lower than [he <br />theoretically calculated allowable leachate concentration. It should be noted that the calculation of the <br />allowable leachate concentration is provided to gain a perspective on the maenitude of leachate impacts and <br />not [o advocate an acceptable leachate quality. The comparison of the measured leachate qualih• with the <br />calculated allowable leachate quality shows that less than one percent of the stream loading capacity (the <br />difference between the existins concentration and [he ISS) is used by dischar=ine leachate into the North <br />Fork when consideringthat the actual amount of dilution will probably be I OO~times greater than has been <br />assumed in the calculations. <br />Arsenic, boron, cadmium. chloride, maneanese. nitrate. lead, selenium, and zinc leachate concentrationsare <br />below or within a factor of approximately 2 of meetin, the ISS without any dilution and therefore are not <br />anticipated to cause any water quality degradation in the North Fork. Copper appears to have the largest <br />impact on a percentage basis, using approximatel}• 10% of the available loading capacity for the <br />conservative assumptions employed in this analysis. The remaining metals and elements, even those which <br />were not measured durine the leach tests, are expected to have similarly neglieible impacts to the North <br />Fork on the basis of the over one thousand fold dilution provided by the river. <br />Ammonia was not measured during the leaching tests but is not expected to leach from the refuse. Table 6 <br />of the CDMG published Guidelines for the Collection of Baseline Water Oualitv and Overburden <br />Geochemistry Data, published in 1982. providesjustification of the required monitoring parameters. That <br />document states that ammonia is "a major component of ammonium-nitrate explosivescommohly used at <br />surface mines in the western U.S.". West Elk Mine is an underground mine anddoes not use explosives as <br />part of its production mining procedures, nor is ammonia a natural occurring component of the refuse and <br />therefore it is not expected to be present in the refuse pile leachate. Refer to Exhibit 56 of the MRP for a <br />report of leachate analysis conducted prior to the construction of the B seam slopes. <br />5.4.4 Water Quality of the North Fork of the Gunnison River <br />The Notch Fork of the Gunnison River is currently considered a Class 1 cold water aquatic habitat and a <br />Class II recreational stream. The water is used downstream for both potable water and agriculture. ISSs <br />have been set by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources (1984) and can be found in Appendix I. <br />Section 2.05.6 of the MRP discusses the Probable Hydrologic Consequences from the West Elk Mine, and <br />in particular, the projected impacts of the LRP on surface water and ground water. Specifically, a mass <br />balance of salinity contribu[ionsto the North Fork has been calculated, and includes potential contributions <br />from the LRP. <br />Selected water quality data obtained by the USGS and MCC were reviewed to estimate the water quality of <br />[he North Fork during low flow periods. The data reviewed consisted of 1 ~ sampling events conducted by <br />the USGS during water year 1982, quarterly sampling conducted by MCC in October of 1985, and <br />graphical representationsof the data for 1983 (see Appendix I). The lowest flow volume in [he tiorth Fork <br />normally occurs behveen October and February. Water qualih• data obtained for the remaining months <br />during which flows are generally in excess of 100 cfs were not reviewed for the purpose of this analysis. <br />Water quality for most parameters in the North Fork is eenerally boner during periods of low flow than <br />during high flow because of lower turbidity during low flow. Typical values for the average low flow data <br />were estimated and are given in Appendix I. Most parameters are below the ISS during low flow periods. <br />• Ammonia is typically found at a concentration of about 0.1 S mg/I in comparison with the ISS of 0.2 mg/I. <br />The measured concentration of ammonia occasionally exceeds the ISS both upstream and downstream of <br />17 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.