HYDRO22925 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I~~ I~~I~"~~~'~~'~~ STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor Patti Shwayder, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. 5. Laboratory Building Denver, Colorado 80222-1530 4210 E. 17th Avenue Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 (303) 697.4700 January 24, 1997 .. ~ Ms. Kathleen Welt Mountain Coal Company P.O. Box 591 ,IGkI 3 (; 1991 Somerset, CO 81434 Re: Letter from MCC to the WQCD dateu J~t;uary 2l, 1997 Oy Mountain Coal Company -West Elk Mine CDPS Permit No. CO-0038776; Gunnison County, Colorado Dear Ms. Welt: %~ ceb~ Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment The WQCD received the above-referenced letter on Wednesday, January 22, 1997, via facsimile. The purpose of this letter is to address the bypass issue and additional monitoring. The WQCD would also like to speak to the proposed fresh water pond discharge raised in a January 22, 1997, telephone conversation with Christine Johnston of your staff and Paige Beville of ARCO. In the second paragraph of the letter, Ms. Johnston wrote, "As you are aware, the WQCD approved the direct discharge of fault water to the emergency spillway of MB-1 early last year, hence, if necessary, some water may be pumped directly to the emergency spillway of MB-1." As discussed with you by telephone on January 22, 1997, the authorization granted last year was provided for that specific incident only. Approval was granted because the WQCD was advised by MCC that the effluent bypassing the treatment pond would meet permit effluent limits without treatment. In the current situation, because of the reported likelihood of exceeding effluent limitations, the WQCD does not approve a bypass at this time. MCC proposed sampling and conducting permit parameter water quality analyses and WET tests on upstream, downstream, and any mine water effluent discharges twice per day. The WQCD agrees that during this episode, twice per day is advised for the permit pazameters, but WET testing is only necessary every other day for three tests. Following the initial three WET tests, the WQCD and MCC can review the results to determine whether there is a need for additional WET testing. To ensure the instream sampling is representative, the WQCD suggests, at least twice, sampling both sides of the river simultaneously (or nearly coincidentally) and comparing these results. Please be aware that the permitted discharge points remain your wmpliance points; and instream sampling is only to provide additional information for evaluating the incident's water quality impacts. During the telephone conversation with Ms. Johnston and Ms. Beville, discharge from the fresh water pond was proposed in order to increase flow in the North Fork of the Gunnison River, with the intention of potentially roinir„izing the impacts from any noncompliant discharges from MCC to the river. Since the fresh water pond has its own permitted discharge point, a discharge is at MCC's discretion, as long as permit conditions are met. The WQCD understands that MB-1 and the fresh water pond share a spillway. So, if simultaneous discharges from both ponds occur, MCC must ensure each discharge is sampled at its permitted outfall, prior to mixing with any other efluent. The phone call log for this conversation is attached. Again, the WQCD wishes you success in addressing these challenges. ' If you have any questions, please contact me at (303)692-3603.