Laserfiche WebLink
STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman st., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 C O L O R A D O <br /> <br />Phone: (303) 866-3567 DIVISION OF <br />RECLAMATION <br />FAX: (303) 832-8106 MIN 1 NG <br /> - ~- <br /> SAFETY <br />August 28, 2006 Bill Owens <br /> Governor <br /> Russell George <br /> Executive Director <br />Forrest Luke <br />Tra er Minin InC Ronald W. Cattany <br />Pp g Division Director <br />P. O. BOX 18 ] Natural Resource Trustee <br />Craig, CO 81626 <br />RE: Blast Monitoring at the Trapper Mine <br />Dear Forrest: <br />Representatives from Trapper Mining Inc met earlier this year with Division staff to discuss blast monitoring at <br />the Trapper Mine. During this meeting, information pertaining to blast monitoring at the East A (Ashmore) Pit <br />Cut 44 and G (Gatling) Strike Pit Cuts 4, 5, and 6 was requested. Trapper Mining Inc staff directed Division <br />staff to Trapper's blast monitoring study dated March 1 2004. Our review of the study indicates that, for the <br />specific blasts monitored during the study, including those at East A Pit Cut 44 and G Strike Pit Cut 4, Trapper <br />Mining Inc was in compliance with airblast and ground vibration limits set forth in our Regulations. <br />Trapper Milling Inc had earlier requested that the Division consider allowing Trapper Mining Inc to conduct <br />airblast monitoring during a ``period" of one year out of every three, beginning in 2006. While the 2004 study <br />demonstrates that the airblasts monitored during the study interval were below regulatory limits, the proposed <br />airblast monitoring "period" would permit airblasts at the Trapper Mine to go unmonitored two years out of <br />every three. Assuming a blast schedule at the Trapper Mine of three blasts per seven-day week, the proposed <br />"period" creates the potential for over three hundred consecutive mine airblasts in a twenty-four month period to <br />go unmonitored. We therefore believe the proposed "period" is unsatisfactory. We, however, believe a <br />proposal of bi-weekly blast monitoring (monitoring every other week} could be approved. While we strongly <br />recommend continuous monitoring, we believe the information provided in the Vibra-Tech study, in conjunction <br />with regulatory provisions for periodic (rather than continuous) airblast monitoring, allow us to suggest this <br />"period". Should Trapper Mining Inc agree with our suggestion, the company should submit a Technical <br />Revision to the Trapper Mine permit to insert language describing this "period". <br />Thank you for your participation, and your patience, in this matter. Should you have any questions, feel free to <br />contact us. <br />Sincerely, <br />~~ ~~GY ~~ <br />Daniel 1. Hernandez <br />Senior Environmental protection Specialist <br />CC: Janet H. Binns, CDRMS <br />David A. Berry, CDRMS <br />Office of Office of <br />Mined Land Reclamation Active and Inactive Mines <br />