PERMFILE105341

• Permit No: M1982054
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 3/17/1982
• From: BOARD OF CNTY COMMISSIONERS
• To: MLR
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

File No's. 79-39 & 79-43 -2- January 26, 1981
the text and were not shown on any map until November 1980 when a rectangular
object was depicted (but not identified) on a map submitted to indicate
the location of a new water treatment and storage facility (the map was
not incorporated into the permit).
_ Dorchester expressed serious concern for the safety of their personel and
facilities because of the repeated occurrence of flyrock crossing the shared
permit boundary as a result of blasting operations at GEC. Apparently,
flyrock has "escaped" GEC's permit boundary on several occasions since the
cited violations mentioned above. Dorchester asserted that GEC had demon-
strated air in sufficient knowledge of blasting technique and safety precaution
to be allowed to proceed with their blasting plans in the area within 500
feet of the petroleum storage facilities without a greater degree of supervision.
The position asserted on behalf of Colorado MLRD was as follows:
1) Colorado law is very clear in prohibiting the use of blasting practices
resulting in flyrock leaving an approved mining permit area. MLRD considers
this to be a very serious safety hazard and has instructed both parties that
representatives of both companies should immediately notify MLRD of the next
incident of flyrock leaving GEC's; permit boundary in any direction. GEC
was warned that any such incidents in the future would result in the immediate
issuance of a notice of violation which would require the complete cessation
of blasting operations •as provided by CR5 34-33-123(1).
2) MLRD considers it to be very important that petroleum storage facilities
must be specifically described and indicated on maps when they are located in
or near mining areas because of the inevitable safety considerations that
arise in cpnjunction with the use of heavy equipment, explosives, etc... which
are common elements of mining operations. This deficiency in the Dorchester
No. 1 permit must be corrected immediately.
3) All parites at the meeting agreed that because of the amount of coal
that could be mined within the area of concern, a solution which would provide
increased supervision and careful planning of the blasting operations and
allow the extraction of as much coal as possible was highly desirable.
The following solution was agreed upon as acceptable to all concerned parties:
A) GEC will prepare a detailed blasting plan and schedule for the area
within 550 feet of the Permit boundary. This plan will be submitted to MLRD
for review. MLRD will provide Dorchester with a copy of GEC's plan for their
review. GEC agrees to operate in accordance with such plan as is approved by
MLRD and accepts full responsibility for any damage, should damage occur by:~
flyrock or by ground concussion.
B) Dorchester has requested that a pre-blast survey be conducted in
' accordance with CRS 34-:33-120(2)(0)(V) and Rule 4.08.2 of the 1980 Regulations
of the MLRB for Coal Mining. Such a survey will be conducted after the de-
tailed blasting plan hats been submitted to MLRD. A written copy of the results
of this survey will be i>repared and submitted immediately to MLRD; a copy will
be mailed to Dorchester by MLRD.