Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Christine Johnston <br />Mountain Coal Company <br />Page 2 <br />December 5, 1996 <br />aze currently under careful study by MCC. MCC has contracted Wright Water Engineers <br />to update the Probable Hydrologic Consequences (PHC) portion of the penmit document <br />to accurately reflect the changing mine inflow conditions. Please refer to the Division's <br />letter dated December 9, 1996, which requests MCC to prepare an appropriate revision.to <br />the permit document that will clarify how MCC will monitor and report mine inflows. The <br />Division will require MCC to specifically identify mine inflows and duration of inflow, mine <br />water routing, and lumping of inflow water. No further response from MCC is required for <br />comment no. 18 at this time. <br />Based on our review of MCCs responses to the Division's comments on the 1993 AHR, it <br />appears that a portion of the required monitoring data were not collected or aze otherwise <br />not available. These data aze listed below. <br />• Laboratory analyses of pH, specific conductance, and TSS were not provided for the <br />North Fork Upper and North Fork Lower stations. <br />• No sample was collected from SOM-128-H for the third sample window. <br />• No sample was collected from SW-1 for the third sample window. <br />• Laboratory analyses of pH, specific conductance, and TSS were not provided for C- <br />72-H, SOM-127-H, SOM-129, JMB-12, and SOM-128-H. <br />Please be advised that future such omissions may result in enforcement action. <br />1994 AHR <br />The Division has the following remaining comments concerning the 1994 AHR. <br />Comment No. 4. MCCs response to comment no. 4 in your letter dated October 8, 1996 <br />does not address why Fe and Mn were not analyzed for at Sylvester Gulch, Upper Dry Fork <br />Flume and Lick Creek Flume. Please provide these data if available or provide an <br />explanation why these data were not reported. Sylvester Gulch, Upper Dry Fork Flume and <br />Lick Creek Flume all tend to dry up by September. Thus, please move the third sampling <br />round up to July or August so that the required three (3) sample sets of data can be <br />collected for these locations. Refer to our letter of December 9, 1996 regarding our request <br />for a minor revision to the permit document, which addresses this concern. <br />Comment No. 6. It is uncleaz to the Division what was revised on page 4. and Table 1.2-1 <br />as stated in your response. Please clarify this. <br />