Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />Mr. Phil Schmidt <br />March 25, 1998 <br />Page 5 <br />information inconsistencies regarding the routing of fault waters within the West Elk Mine. This <br />information may indicate placement of relatively warm fault inflow water directly into the NW Panels <br />sump. The various information sources are discussed below. In the absence of any plausible <br />alternative explanations for the temperature of the Edwards Portal discharge, and to adequately <br />investigate the underlying causes of the Edwards mine discharge situation, we must pursue all areas <br />of potential information. Please review any and all sources of information, including underground <br />work reports and recollections of underground mine personnel to provide the most complete and <br />accurate information possible. <br />16) During spring and early summer of 1996, two different MCC personnel stated that BEM water <br />was being pumped to the west side of the mine. More recently, MCC maintains that fault <br />inflow waters were not pumped to the 1 NW - 7 NW Panels sealed sump until November <br />1996. BCC personnel have stated that during March 1996, a meeting occurred at the MCC <br />office; at which time MCC personnel informed BCC personnel that such pumping was either <br />occurring, or would soon be occurring. Please provide information to verify the actual <br />commencement of fault water transfer to the 1 NW - 7 NW Panels during 1996? <br />17) The February 20, 1998 letter from Mayo and Associates states that both BEM water and <br />SEHG waters were pumped to the Northeast Tail Gate (NETG) sump prior to being pumped <br />to the NW Panels sealed sump or being discharged from the mine. This information seems to <br />contradict other MCC documents. First, revised page 2.05-213 (TR80) indicates that BEM <br />inflows were occurring for some period of time before the NETG sump was constructed. <br />Second, a letter from MCC to the Water Quality Control Division dated January 27, 1997 <br />indicates that SEHG waters were pumped directly from the seals to the surface. The sumps <br />were appazently bypassed to achieve water quality limitations. Third, Figure 3, which was <br />included with the March 7, 1997 WWE Technical Memorandum shows a direct path from the <br />BEM and SEHG fault inflow to the NW Panels sealed sump. This same diagram appeazs as <br />Figure 22 on revised page 2.05-175 (TR80). The written record seems to indicate that not all <br />fault inflows were routed through sumps prior to discharge into the NW Panels sealed sumps. <br />Please clazify these possible discrepancies. <br />18) When were the NETG sump and slope sump developed? <br />19) Were BEM or SEHG fault waters ever pumped directly to the NW Panels sealed sump? If yes, <br />when and what quantities were pumped? <br />20) Please provide a detailed description of all pump and pipe installations beginning with the <br />first fault inflow during March 1996 to the present. Include pump locations, pumping rates <br />and durations, and detailed water routing descriptions. <br />21) We assume that the February 20, 1998 Mayo and Associates letter, page 1, last paragraph, has <br />reversed the temperature information for the BEM and SEHG fault waters. Previous sources <br />and page 2 of [he same letter indicate that BEM water is about 84°F and SEHG water behind <br />the seals, has exhibited maximum temperatures above 89°F. Which is correct? <br />