GENERAL30406 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

iii iuiiiiiiiiii iii 999 STATE OF COLORADO MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION OF COr0 Department of Natural Resources ,~~~ '~~-,~R9 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 .'~ ~~o ~+ Denver, CO 80203 303 866-3567 ,.~tr.e~ .. FAX 303 832-8106 Roy Romer. Governor Fred R. Banta, Division Dveclor DATE: March 20, 1990 70: Carl Mount FROM: Jim Pendleton RE: Seneca II- ine - ssert Residence Pre-blasting Survey Inadequacy (Permit No: C-82-057) I have reviewed the letter to you from Fred Fest of Peabody Coal Company, dated March 13, 1990. In this letter Mr. Fest disagrees with my earlier opinion directing the permittee to complete additional observations at the Gossert residence. Mr. Gossert, the owner of a residence located within one-half mile of proposed permit area at the Seneca II-W Mine, submitted a request for a pre-blasting survey. Peabody Coal commissioned a survey by a qualified consultant. We reviewed the report and requested that Peabody revise the study to include the observation of the slope above the structure. Mr. Gossert specifically expressed concern regarding potential damage to his structure due to the rock debris on the steep slope above the structure in his request for pre-blasting survey, Mr. Fest has responded in disagreement, stating that Peabody Coal does not believe our law and regulations provide authority to require them to complete such observations, They believe that the pre-blast survey is limited to observations of the immediate structure. It is my understanding that a sandstone caprock outcrops on the slope above the Gossert residence. The Gossert's are concerned that blasting activity might dislodge rock debris from the outcrop or remobilize rock debris on the slope. Further, they are concerned that the debris might roll downslope and damage their structure. This appears to be a prudent concern on the part of Mr. Gossert. In nlY last response concerning this issue I observed that Rule 4,08.2 (2) states that: "(2) The survey shall determine the condition of the dwelling or structure and document any pre-blasting damage and other physical factors that could reasonably be affected by the blasting." I presented the opinion that rock debris on the slope above the Gossert residence constituted an "other physical factor that could reasonably be affected by the blasting". Mr. Fest disagrees with my interpretation, presenting the opinion that "The phrase, 'other physical factors that could reasonably affected' must therefore refer to circumstances or conditions of. or within the man-made dwelling or structure that are not damaged but may potentially become damaged or be affected by blasting..."