ENFORCE37929 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' Kathy Welt, MCC July 20, 1998 ' Page 6 • Exhibit 2 also shows a seasonal pattern to Bear's reported inflow during ] 996. This type of pattem would be expected only if the inflows had a surface connection. The data for 1995 do not show the fluctuations; however, these data are based on only one or two observations. It was also noted that the flows shown aze conservatively low since Bear only discharged water in excess of the amount they were able to consume during mining operations. • Bear's reported inflows were observed at the Third West Seals and the Second West Bleeder Seals. WWE performed hydraulic calculations to determine the maximum potential outflow from the filled sump to these locations. The portion of the filled sump ' that could emerge at the Third West seals is shown as location A on Exhibit 1. The portion of the filled sump that could emerge at the Second West bleeder seals is shown as location B on Exhibit 2. The maximum outflow tributary to the Third West Seals is ' about 2 gpm, compared to the 18 to 30 gpm observed by Bear. The outflow tributary to the Second West Bleeder Seals would be less than 0.5 gpm. ' • WWE also performed flow path analyses for inflows observed within the Bear Mine. The water emerging from the Third West Seals, the only water reported in 1995, would not flow to the base of the B-Seam slopes, but rather to the extreme northeast comer of ' the mine. Water in this location could not possibly have entered the Ed+vards Mine (or contributed to the Edwards Portal spring). Only water emerging from the Second West Bleeder Seals would be tributary to the base of the slopes, where it could enter the ' Edwards Mine only after traveling through another unmined coal block. CDMG staff asked the following "representative" questions throughout the meeting. ' Responses were given by W WE or MCC staff. How was the flo++' path determined? Would water in the West E!k Mine preferentially !ravel dox~n the entries rather than through the mined panels? Based on the in-mine contours, the water would flow by gravity down dip. While the entries would have potentially remained open and the panels would be caved, the gob has sufficient porosity that the water ' would move down dip. Was there Nor[h Fork water stored in the sump? The discussion of the North Fork water t that was pumped to the seals was in the water rights section of the PHC text. The discussion refers to water that was diverted for mining operations and after use, flowed to an operational sump and then was pumped to the sealed sump. No North Fork water was pumped directly ' from the river into the sealed sump. Bear noted the coincidence between the timing of the observed inflows at the Third West ' Seals in June 1995 and the sealing of Panels INW through SNW in May 1995. Is this an issue? As discussed, there would have been such a small amount of water (less than 5 gpm) entering the sealed panels during this time that, even if the water had a direct conduit through ' the unmined coal block, there would be insufficient flows to match Bear's reported inflows of ] 8 gpm.