Laserfiche WebLink
Weal Elk Coal Company, Inc. <br />_ Post Office Box 591 <br />Somerset, Colorado 91434 <br />1 Telephone 303 929 5015 <br />«n• -?:~ <br />ree x^'1!1 ~ ~'.,:~ ,, y <br />MAY Z ~ 1980 <br />htay 20, 1986 <br />., r•r ,_. <br />~A!:'i~i~ ~ ~ <br />Susan Mowry <br />Tom Schreiner - <br />Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />999 <br />Re: Submission of additional information, Rule 5.04.3(1), for NOV's <br />C-86-041, C-86-04?, and C-86-043, itlt. Gunnison No. 1 Mine, <br />CMLRD Permit No. C-007-80 <br />b'Iessrs. Mowry and Shreiner: <br />West Elk Coal Company (WECC) would like to submit the following <br />information to be considered in determining the facts surrounding the <br />above listed Notices of Violation issued tiIay 9, 1986 by the Division: <br />NOV C-86-041 Lower Refuse Pile Runoff Collection Ditch <br />This NOV was the result of an inadvertant misinterpretation of the <br />Refuse Pile Site Plan by a contractor working on the refuse pile. <br />Dennis Conn of WECC checked the site on Friday, flay 2, 1986 and the <br />collection ditch was intact. This would mean that the maximum time <br />the ditch was no[ in compliance with the plan was from tVlay 2 to 61ay <br />9, 1986. A small amount of water was leaving the ditch. The ultimate <br />discharge of this water was to the North Fork of the Gunnison River. <br />Due to spring runoff, the North Fork of the Gunnison River was and is <br />quite high at this time and is also very poor quality due to high natural <br />sediment loading. The amount of contribution of this discharge, even <br />if high in suspended solids (no sample was taken), would have had a <br />negligible effect on the North Fork of the Gunnison River quality. The <br />small amount of sediment which appeared to be just beyond the north <br />edge of the ditch is a very small amount indeed (approximately 10 <br />regular hand shovel fulls). Inspection further than about 10 feet from <br />the ditch did not reveal anything that looked unusual in the way of <br />sediment. It is questionable whether the material was actually <br />sediment load from [he areas above or just the immediate ditch <br />bottom siltation. Therefore, we feel that no environmental damage <br />occurred. The water running in the ditch on May 8 and 9, 1986 was <br />runoff from rainfall events that occurred on the 8th and 9th of lVlay. <br />The ditch was cut back into the sediment pond on May 9, 1986 (see <br />letter of May 16, 1986 D. Conn to S. ylowry, T. Schreiner). <br />r~P~ ~.~,L,/~,,,-~J/Jl'~' ~, ~.G~-~ ~~Fw-~61~-~/ .f..-~~..~.~,..~-~ AhIC0.6:01 <br />