GENERAL42242

• Permit No: C1989074
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 10/29/1993
• Doc Name: RIMROCK COAL MINE VIOLATIONS AND ORDERS
• From: SENATE CHAMBER
• To: DMG
• Permit Index Doc Type: PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

.~
iii iiniiiiniiiiii

BILL OWENS
State Senator
Arapahoe County
State Capitol
Denver, Colorado 00203
Capitol: b66-4636
Senate Chalrlber
State of Colorado
Denver
COMMITTEES:
Chairman ol:
State, Veterans and
Military Affairs
Member of
Education
finance
October 26, 1993
Mr. Mike Long, Director
Division of Minerals and Geology
1313 Sherman Street, Room 21S
Denver, CO 80203
RE: Rimrock Coal Mine, Violations and Orders
Dear Mr. Long:
AFC~r~V~O
OAT 28199
4itis~on
oi,y~~E~ais4
G~o~~Y
One of my constituents, Richard Randall, allowed me to review a package of Violations
and one Cessation Order for the referenced mine. He is concerned that the Division of Minerals
and Geology is using frivolous and non-consequential issues to generate an income stream for
the Division.
After reviewing this package and talking to Mr. Randall, I would like to ask you tp
clarify several issues so that I may have a better understanding of some of the Violations and
Orders issued by the Division at the referenced mine.
Specifically, a Cessation Order, No. CO 93-054, written on April 13, 1993, for
embankment slope stability, was issued after an inspection by the Division, and the Order was
based -- to my understanding -- on a visual inspection only. In fact, the request from thF~
Division for a slope stability analysis was made after the embankment had been certified by a
Registered Professional Engineer as sound. Additionally, Rimrock representatives, including
the engineer, met with the Division to address the Division's concerns, and a request in writir~~
to the Division asking for any technical or supporting data rebutting the certification w;.
answered by the Division citing rules and regulations rather than providing data indicating ::_
embankment was unstable.
The analysis, once provided, confirmed the engineer's claim that the embankment h:
several times the safety factor required by the Division.
Based on only a visual inspection, how does the Division justify requiring an opr:~
to spend thousands of dollars proving their certification? Who in the Division makes dec+~~
rebutting certification by Registered Professional Engineers in this state and what azr t
qualifications and credentials. What data or evidence other than visual was used to conclude
the embankment was unstable?