REP02080

• Permit No: C1980007
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 11/12/1997
• Doc Name: REVIEW OF 1996 ANNUAL HYDROLOGY REPORT WEST ELK MINE PN C-80-007
• From: DMG
• To: MOUNTAIN COAL CO
• Permit Index Doc Type: HYDROLOGY REPORT
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
~~j ~ STATE OF COLOIv,~v
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Depannurm of Nalu ral Rewurces
I l l f Sherman 51., Ruum ? I S E~L

Denver, Colorado Nll?Ol II
~~
Y
Phone 1 4011 H6G~3567 II
FAY: 1 lU SI N 1'!-NI00
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
November 12, 1997
Roy Rnmrr
Gmrrnnr
Ms
Christine Johnston
. lamee 5. Lix hhead
Mountain Coal Company Exec ulrve Diredur
P
Box 591
O Michel B. Lung
.
. Divi~~nn Director
Somerset, Colorado 81434
Re: Review of 1996 Annual Hydrology Report; West Elk Mine; Permit No. C-80-007
Dear Ms. Johnston:
The Division has reviewed the 1996 Annual Hydrology Report (AHR) for the West Elk Mine.
This letter presents the Division's comments and recommendations regarding the 1996 AHR.
The report presentation and format aze commendable; however, specific compliance problems
exist, and a notice of violation will be issued. The specific compliance problems are discussed in
numbers 8, 1 I, l4, 15, 16, and 19 below. Additional review comments are also provided as
follows. Please respond to this review no later than December 31, 1997.
On page 1 under Overview of 1996 Mining Activities, please provide a brief explanation
of how the 1NW through 7NW panels were sealed. Were the panel seals designed to
retain water or were these seals designed as ventilation seals?
On Table 1 Surface Water Monitoring Program, an explanation for footnote #5 is not
provided. Please provide a revised table, if appropriate.
Figure 6 Mine Water Balance presents a good illustration of water inflow, use and
discharge at the West Elk Mine; however, no water volume values are listed for the slope
sump or the NETG sump. Please provide an estimated volume of how much water has
been Bumped at these locations (and if applicable, other sumps) on Figure 6 and provide a
revised figure.
4. On page 20, Mountain Coal Company (MCC) states that all relevant numeric discharge
limits were met for Ponds MB-3 and MB-5. Laboratory analytical data indicate that there
were exceedances for Pond MB-3 during the period January through March 1996. Please
verify the data for this period and revise page 20, if appropriate.
5. As noted in Table 12 of the AHR, other factors may contribute constituents between the
upper and lower stations of the North Fork Gunnison River and sampling did not always