GENERAL30347 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo to Carl Mount Seneca II-W Pre-Blasting Survey page 2 I disagree with Mr. Fest's interpretation. I do not believe that the Legislature intended us to practice professional myopia. One purpose of conducting a pre-blast survey is to determine whether the structure has existing structural damage. This affords protection to both the resident and the permittee. The inspection might discern an existing structural problem, unknown to the resident, which could be hazardous. The inspection also documents preexisting damage so that the operator doesn't absorb undue liability in the absence of documentation of the structure's existing condition. Secondly, the survey is intended to detect "physical factors" which might constitute potential hazards to the structure and its occupants. Analogously, I believe this affords protection to both the resident and the operator. I also believe that our act specifically grants us authority to extend our concern to areas other than the immediate structure being surveyed. Section 34-33-120(o)(V), C.R.S. 1973 of the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act states: "(V) Provide that, upon the request of a resident or owner of a man-made dwelling or structure within one-half mile of any portion of the permitted area, the applicant or permittee shall conduct a pre-blasting survey of such structures and submit the survey to the division and a copy to the resident or owner making the request. The area of the _ _ survey shall be decided by the division and sha inc uoe suc provisions as a oar s a promulgate." (emphasis added) Based upon Section 34-33-120(o)(V ), C.R.S. 1973, I assert that the Division has the authority to define the area of the Gossert residence pre-blasting survey to include the area containing the slope, rock outcrop and rock debris referenced by Mr. Gossert in his request for pre-blast survey. Further, based upon Rule 4.08.2(2), I assert that the Division nas the authority to require that the pre-blast survey address Mr. Gossert's concern regarding potential damage to his structure due to the mobilization of slope debris. Therefore, in keeping with the above assertions, I recommend that the Division inform Peabody Coal that it has failed to adequately complete the required pre-blasting survey of the Gossert Structure. Further, we should caution them that the Gossert pre-blasting survey must be conducted prior to the commencement of blasting, in order to constitute a "pre-blasting" survey.