REP20686 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a• ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ 999 STATE OF ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~.1 COLORADO Rq Romer, Governor ~ °f ~ Patti Shwayder, Executive Director ~ ~ tip' F~ Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and em4ionment of the people of Coorado 4300 Ch b ildi G k D 5 L B ~ ~ ~ erty ee oratory ng r. . a u 1 1 D l d E h . • enver, Co ora o (10222-1530 42 0 . 1 t Avenue rage Phone (3031692.2(Nxl Denver, Colorado 90 2 2 0.3 71 6 (3031691-4700 CAIOrldO Departmtn[ oFPubGcHalth and Envimtlment January 24, 1997 -,~, - :,,,-O Ms. Katlllcea Welt Mountain Coal Company P.O. Box 591 ,Idhl 3 ~ 19~ Somerset, CO 81434 Re: Letter from MCC to the WQCD dateu~aruary 21, 1997~~y _ _ - " """i49Y Mountain Coal Company -West Elk Mine CDPS Permit No. CO-0038776; Gunnison County, Colorado Deaz Ms. Welt: The WQCD received the above-referenced letter on Wednesday, January 22, 1997, via facsimile. The purpose of this letter is to address the bypass issue and additional monitoring. The W QCD would also like to speak to the proposed fresh water pond discharge raised in a January 22, 1997, telephone conversation with Christine Johnston of your staff and Paige Beville of ARCO. In the second pazagraph of the letter, Ms. Johnston wrote, "As you are aware, the WQCD approved the direct discharge of fault water to the emergency spillway of MB-1 early last year, hence, if necessary, some water may be pumped directly to the emergency spillway of MB-1." As disarssed with you by telephone on January 22, 1997, the author'vation granted last year was provided for that specific incident only. Approval was granted because the WQCD was advised by MCC that the effilrwt bypassing the treatment pond would mcet permit effiuent limits without treamremt. In the tarrrent situation, because of the reported likelihood of exceeding effiuent limitations, Ute WQCD does not approve a bypass at this time. MCC proposed sampling and conducting permit parameter water quality analyses and WET tests on upstream, downstream, and any mine water effiuent 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 tests, the WQCD and MCC can review the results to determine whether there is a need for additional WET testing. To ensure the instrearn sampling is representative, the WQCD suggests, at least twice, sampling bath sides of the river simultaneously (or nearly coincidentally) and comparing these results. Please be aware that the permitted discharge points remain your compliance points; and irtstream sampling is only to provide additional information far evaluating the incident's water quality impacts. During the telephone conversation with Ms. Johnston and Ms. BrviUe, discharge from the fresh water pond was proposed in order to increase Ilow in the North Fork of the Gunnison River, with the intention of potentially minimising the impacts from any noncomphant discharges from MCC to the river. Since the fresh water pond has its own permitted discharge point, a discharge is at MCC's discretion, as long as permit conditions are met. The WQCD understands that MB-1 and the fresh water pond share a spillway. So, if simultaneous discharges from both ponds occur, MCC must ensure each discharge is sampled at its pemlitted outfall, prior to mixing with any other effluent. The phone call log for this conversation is attached. Again, the WQCD wishes you success in addressing these challenges. 'If.you have any questions, please contact me at (303)692-3603.