ENFORCE24818 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUSTIFICATION FOR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NOV C-92-030 Conference Summar NOV C-92-030 was issued by Stephen Wathen of the Division to Colowyo Coal Company for "failure to retain a record of each blast, a sketch of the blast pattern including number of holes, burden, spacing and delay pattern and blast pattern". Rule 4.08.5(7), which requires the operator to retain a record of each blast containing "sketches of the blast pattern including number of holes, burden, spacing, and delay pattern", was cited. The NOV was issued on October 22, 1992, based on a September 30, 1992 inspection of the Colowyo Mine conducted by Mr. Wathen and his direct supervisor, Larry Routten. Mr. Wathen opened discussion of the NOV by providing some background on events which culminated in the enforcement action. Colowyo's approved permit contained a number of "typical blast pattern sketches" and a statement that specific blasting details would be provided on a blasting report form. The blasting report form which had been used since the early 1980's by Colowyo did not include a blast pattern sketch per se, but included a symbol, dependent on the type of blast pattern used. The Division had previously expressed a concern regarding the lack of detailed sketches for each blast in letters of October, 1991 and March, 1992, but the issue had never been fully resolved. In a review of the blasting reports during the September 30, 1992 inspection, Larry Routten was able to determine the actual blast patterns described by symbols in each report only by discussing the symbol meanings with Colowyo's blasting engineer. The blast pattern symbols did not directly correspond with the "typical" sketches contained in the permit.' Jim Kiger, representing Colowyo, stressed that the blasting records had been originally approved by the Division, and had been completed in the same manner for many years, with no problems noted by the Division until recently. Mr. Kiger also stated Colowyo's contention that the various symbols included on the blasting reports met the regulatory requirement for sketches. Mr. Kiger felt that the intent of the regulation was to insure that the conditions of the blast could be reconstructed if some problem were to occur, and that the information included on Colowyo's blasting reports was sufficient to insure that this could be done. Fact of Violation I find that a violation did occur. The cited regulation requires that blasting records contain certain specific information for public and Division review, including blast pattern sketches showing number of holes, spacing and delay pattern. The symbols included in Colowyo's reports did not convey the necessary