REP12891 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

U'1/24/97 FRI 10:18 FAb 300 7820390 t:DP~/wa(:D IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 999 STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Cwarnor Pam Shwayder, Executive Director Dedicated b p~ooecting and improving the health and envimm~menr of the people or Colorado a3oo Cherty Crcek Dr. 5. Laborawry Building Derner, Colorado 80222.1530 x210 E. 11th Avenue Phone (303) 692-2000 Detwer, Colorado 80220-]716 D03) 6914700 ]anuary 24, 1997 Ms. Kathleen Welt Mountain coal Company P.O. Box 591 Somaset, CO 81434 Re: Letter from MCC to the WQCD dated January 21, 1997 Molmtain Coal Company -West Elk Mine CDPS Permit No. CO-0038776; Gutuusaa County, Colorado Dear Ms. Welt: ,oe. 4 Lr h a ~ a Colorado Department of Public Health and Erlvironmmr The WQCD received the above-referenced letter on Wednesday, January 22, 1997, via facsimile. The purpose of this letter is to address the bypazs issue and additional monitoring. The WQCD would also like to speak to the proposed fresh waur pond discharge raised in a January 22, 1997, ulephone wnversation with Christine Johnston of your staff and Paige Seville of ARCO. Ia the sewnd paragraph of the letter, Ms. Johnston wrote, "As you are aware, the WQCD approved the direct discharge of fault water to the emageaey spillway of MB-1 early last year, hence, if necessary, some water may be pumped directly to the emergency spillway of MB-1." As discussed with you by ulephonc on January 22, 1997, the authorization granted last year was provided for that specific incident only. Approval waz granted because the WQCD was advised by MCC that the ctlluent bypassing the treatment pond would meet permit efIIucnt limits without treatment. In the current situation, because of the reported likelihood of exceeding etlluent limitations, the WQCD does not approve a bypass at this time. MCC proposed sampling and conducting permit parameter water quality analysts and WET tests on upstream, downstream, and any mine water effluent discharges twice per day. The WQCD agrees that during this episode, twice per day is advised for the permit parameters, but WET testing is only necessary every other day for three tests. Following the initial three WET lists, the WQCD and MCC can review the results to determine whctha there is a need for additional WET testing. To ensure the iostteam sampling is rcpresentative, the WQCD suggests, at least twice, sampling both sides of the river simultattcously (or nearly coincidentally) and compering these results. Please be aware that the permitted discharge points remain your compliance points; and instream sampling is only to provide additional ittformation.for evaluating the incident's water quality impacts. During the telephone conversation with Ms. Johnston and Ms. Seville, discharge from the fresh water pond was proposed in order to increase flow in the North Fork of the Gunnison River, with the intention of potrntially m+*+r*+»+ng the impacts from arty noncompliant discharges from MCC to the river. Since the fresh water pond has its awn permitted discharge point, a discharge is at MCC's discretion, az long az permit conditions are met. The WQCD understands that MB- I end the flesh water pond share a spillway. So, if simultaneous discharges from both ponds occls, MCC must ensuro each disrJ]arge is sampled at its pelmited outfall, prior to milting with any other effluent The phone call log for this wnversation is attached. ¢J 002 Again, the WQCD wishes you success in addressing these challenges. If you have arty questions, please contact me at (303)692-3603.