Laserfiche WebLink
~: <br />iii iiiiiiiiiiiu iii <br />999 <br />BILLOWENS Senate Chamber <br />State Senator State of Colorado <br />Arapahoe County <br />State Capitol Denver <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Capitol: 866-4836 <br />October 26, 1993 <br />Mr. Mike Long, Director <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />RE: Rimrock Coal Mine, Violations and Orders <br />Dear Mr. Long: <br />COMMITEEES: <br />Chairman of: <br />State, Veterans and <br />Military AHairs <br />Member of: <br />Education <br />Finance <br />oc~ oFi~FO <br />o;~~~0 29199 <br />oo~,ynera~s <br />4 Gep~o9y <br />One of my constituents, Richazd Randall, allowed me to review a package of Violations <br />and one Cessation Order for the referenced mine. He is concerned that the Division of Minerals <br />and Geology is using frivolous and non~onsequential issues to generate an income stream for <br />the Division. <br />After reviewing this package and tallang to Mr. Randall, I would like to ask you to <br />clarify several issues so that I may have a better understanding of some of the Violations and <br />Orders issued by the Division at the referenced mine. <br />Specifically, a Cessation Order, No. CO 93-054, written on April 13, 1993, for <br />embanlQnent slope stability, was issued after an inspection by the Division, and the Order was <br />based -- to my understanding -- on a visual inspection only. In fact, the request from the <br />Division for a slope stability analysis was made after the embankment had been certified by a <br />Registered Professional Engineer as sound. Additionally, Rimrock representatives, including <br />the engineer, met with the Division to address the Division's concerns, and a request in writing <br />to the Division asking for any technical or supporting data rebutting the certification was <br />answered by the Division citing rules and regulations rather than providing data indicating the <br />embankment was unstable. <br />The analysis, once provided, confirmed the engineer's claim that the embankment had <br />several times the safety factor required by the Division. <br />Based on only a visual inspection, how does the Division justify requiring an operator <br />to spend thousands of dollars proving their certification? Who in the Division makes decisions <br />rebutting certification by Registered Professional Engineers in this state and what are their <br />qualifications and credentials. What data or evidence other than visual was used to conclude that <br />the embankment was unstable? <br />~.eo.o.. <br />