My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL54347
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL54347
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:39:37 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 9:24:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
4/4/1990
Doc Name
GOSSERT RESIDENCE PREBLASTING SURVEY SENECA II-W MINE PN C-82-057
From
MLRD
To
PEABODY COAL CO
Permit Index Doc Type
BLASTING
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
iii iiiiiiiiiiiii iii <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St.. Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />303 866-3567 <br />fAx. 303 832-8706 <br />April 4, 1990 <br />Mr. Fred Fest <br />Peabody Coal Company <br />1300 South Yale <br />Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 <br />RE: Gossert Residence Pre-blasting Survey, Seneca II-W Mine, <br />Permit C-82-057 <br />Dear Mr. Fest: <br />OF COQ <br />h° -~q-/ <br />"~" ` <br />Rq Romer, <br />Govermr <br />fretl R. Banta. <br />Division Director <br />The Division has reviewed Peabody's letter of March 13, 1990 concerning the <br />pre-blasting survey of the rock outcrops above the Gossert residence. After <br />field inspection of the site and review of the Colorado Surface Coal Mining <br />Reclamation Act and pertinent regulations (Rule 4.08), we believe that it is <br />imperative that Peabody conduct apre-blast survey of the rock outcrop in <br />question for the following reasons: <br />The Gosserts stated in their pre-blast survey request letter that they <br />were concerned that blasting may dislodge rock debris from the outcrop <br />and/or mobilize existing debris on the slope. They are further concerned <br />that this debris may then roll downslope and damage their structure. <br />This appears to be a prudent concern. <br />In Peabody's letter, the opinion was offered that "The phrase, `other <br />physical factors that could reasonably be affected' must refer to <br />circumstances or conditions of, or within the man-made dwelling or <br />structure that are not damaged but may potentially become damaged or be <br />affected by blasting...". <br />The Division concurs that one Durpose of conducting apre-blast survey is <br />to determine whether the structure has existing structural damage. This <br />affords protection to both the resident and the permittee. The <br />inspection documents preexisting damage so that the operator doesn't <br />absorb undue liability in the absence of documentation of the structure's <br />existing condition. However, the survey is also intended to detect <br />"physical factors" which might constitute potential hazards to the <br />structure and its occupants. This also affords protection to both the <br />resident and the operator. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.