INSPEC08494 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The inspection participants discussed the DMG blasting regulations at Colorado rule 4.08. I discussed how this same special focus evaluation in Utah this year revealed that newspaper publication of a blasting schedule for underground coal mining and reclamation activities was not required by both the Utah and Federal 30 CFR explosives rules. The Utah and 30 CFR rules require "written notification" of the proposed blasting schedule to residents within one-half mile of the blasting site, and local governments in lieu of a published blasting schedule. The 30 CFR preamble to the current explosives use rule states: "Only one difference exists between the two sets of rules in Parts 816 and 817." This difference is the above newspaper publication requirement for the proposed blasting schedule including a notification of ho~v the reader may request a preblasting survey. Our review of the Colorado explosives rule 4.08 appears to show that the newspaper publication requirement is also limited to surface coal mining activities, however, we could not find the above "written notification" of the proposed blasting schedule requirement for underground coal mining and reclamation activities. These rule differences and interpretations will be discussed fwther within the Colorado Oversight Team and OSM's IxTationa] Blasting Working Group for resolution. Inspection participants also tentatively disagreed on interpretation of the preb]ast survey notification requirements of the Colorado rules (i.e., Frequency with respect to surface and underground mining and the initial implementation of a blasting program. Is preblast survey notification only required once, or is annual re-notification required via the republished annual blasting schedule for surface mines? What is required for underground mining? What is the definition of the within one-half mile of the permit boundary requirement with respect to underground mining permit areas? Does it differ from surface mining permit boundary requirements?) These interpretations will also be discussed with the above groups for resolution. It appears the permittee has met the public notification requirements of Colorado's rules for the Elk Creek development blasting in 2001, and no blasting has occurred or is currently anticipated for 2002. Daily blasting logs for 2001 were briefly reviewed and appeared to contain all required information. A blasting warning sign was posted as required. This concluded our public participation evaluation of blasting procedures at the mine. No offsite impacts were identified. As mentioned above, Mr. Burnell and I reviewed permitting documents at DMG's offices prior to the inspection, and we reviewed permit documents at the mine regarding the approved small area exemptions (SAE) currently being utilized at the mine. The previous mid-term permit review, TR-32 which was the Elk Creek Mine development permit amendment, and PR-4 which was a completely updated mining and reclamation plan (MRP) submittal (completed by Montgomery Watson) have melded the past hvo years into one on-goins, major permit package restructuring with it's principal emphasis on the new Elk Creek Mine development and incorporating all previously relevant materials into one permit package. The current permit expires 10/11/03.