My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE34261
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE34261
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:44:18 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 2:06:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
11/18/1997
Doc Name
FAX COVER BEAR COAL CO SLIDE NOTICATION PN C-81-033
From
J E STOVER & ASSOCIATES
To
DMG
Violation No.
CV1997022
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.
/
2
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
r <br />M. Boulay - 2 - November 17, 1997 <br />The temperature, 75°F, is unusually high for groundwater. However, MCC reported that <br />the groundwater emanating for its B East Mains fault had a temperature is excess of 80°F <br />(MCC page 2.05-147). Bear would not have seen elevated ground water temperatures in <br />the Bear No. 3 Mine discharge because MCC began to pump and store huge quantities <br />of (>80°F) water in the NW Sealed Sump in November 1996 after the Bear No. 3 Mine was <br />idle. The conductivity of 4,600 umhos/cm indicates the water has probably been in contact <br />with coal. On MCC permit page 2.05-195, the TDS of MCC's mine water is presented as <br />roughly 2,000 mg/L. This TDS value is comparable to a conductivity reading of 4,600 <br />umhoslcm. The pH is within an expected range for both surface and groundwater. <br />The following paragraph is taken from my letter to the DMG dated October 8, 1977 <br />regarding MCC's proposed TR-80, page 3. <br />'Bear cannot accept the financial responsibility for the impact of MCC's <br />water sumping practices. Such financial impacts would include long term <br />water monitoring and treatment along with added potential for slide _ <br />mitigation. Bear reiterates its position that dewatering the NW Sealed Sump <br />may be the only reliable mitigation alternative.' <br />Bear's position is unchanged except it may be to late to implement the suggested <br />mitigation alternative. <br />DMG personnel are scheduled to be at the Bear No. 3 Mine on the 20'" to inspect the Bear <br />No. 1 and No. 2 Mines. We can discuss this matter further at that time. <br />Please pll if you have any questions. <br />Sincerely, <br />,~ <br />J. E. Stover, P.E. <br />Consulting Engineer <br />cc: Bear Coal Company <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.