ENFORCE34930 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ ~, David eerty - 2 - March 4, 1998 Bear maintains the routine use of the NW Sealed Sump to store operational and other inflow water increased the head on the Bear No. 3 Mine sufficiently to cause the flow to increase. 5. WWE states that neither Bear nor MCC personnel reported fractures along the rib line in the 3i° West Mains that would allow direct communication of water from MCC's NW Panels. WWE further states that based on visual observations, the water level in the NW Panels has remained relatively constant since they were filled. Neither Bear nor MCC made any concerted effort to investigate the presence of fractures along the common pillar between the mines. WWE's contention that fractures did not exist is rendered irrelevant by the lack of a concerted effort. Furthemtore, coal rib conditions (surface fractures, spalling, etc.) typically would prohibit the casual observation of fractures that could produce secondary porosity. The relatively constant level in the NW Panels Sealed Sump, after it was full, seems immaterial to this discussion. 6. WWE contends the flow pattern in the Bear No. 3 Mine was seasonal with peak flows occurring in the summer which would indicate the inflow source was not the NW Sealed Sump. Bear asserts this observation by WWE is doubtful and valueless WWE presents a table of presumed water storage volumes in the Bear No. 3 Mine prior to the time flows were first observed at the old Edwards Portal. Bear believes that water was flowing into and through the alluvium below the old Edwards Mine Portal prior to the time flow first emerged from the portal. Bear has noted that during 1997, water in its reclaim tunnel was abnormally high. The November 1997 slide activity apparently provided the water a path to emerge. Flow through the alluvium would negate WWE's water storage calculations. 8 - 9 No comment. Sincerely, / •~~ J. E. Stover, P.E. Consulting Engineer cc: Bear Coal Company