2009-02-27_INSPECTION - M1977211

• Permit No: M1977211
• IBM Index Class Name: INSPECTION
• Doc Date: 2/27/2009
• Doc Name: Insp Rpt
• From: DRMS
• To: Castle Concrete
• Inspection Date: 2/10/2009
• Email Name: BMK
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Northeast side. This will likely involve cutting a small access road utilizing the
stranded dozer.
After the site visit, the DRMS inspectors sat down in the office with the MSHA inspectors
and asked when their report will be finalized, and what, if any, restrictions would be
placed on the operation by MSHA? MSHA stated that the southern access road has to remain
closed to all vehicle activity other than those conducting investigative work, and no kind
of mining related activity in the area of the surface failure would be allowed to occur,
including removal of stranded mine equipment, until permission is granted by MSHA. All
activities were to be limited to the shop area and the area where processed and stockpiled
materials were already located. DRMS requested copies of all communications from MSHA,
once finalized. The MSHA inspectors stated that their MSHA technical support group would
send the report to the Denver office, and it will be up to the Denver office to provide
the report to DBMS. The MSHA, Denver office stated that they might not be able to provide
a copy to DBMS, but will find out what the policy is once they returned to their office.
DRMS requested that the operator provide copies of communications related to the slide as
soon as they receive them if MSHA determined they could not provide us a copy and the
Operator agreed to this request. DRMS also requested that the operator submit the rest of
the information required by Rule 8 of the Construction Materials Rules and Regulations,
specifically, Rule 8.2.3. This information was submitted to DRMS on December 30, 2009.
On December 11, 2008 DRMS visited the site again with two Colorado Geological Survey
Engineering Geologists, Miss T.C Wait and Mr. Jon White. During this inspection the
failure surfaces were very closely observed and possible theories that may have led to the
failure were postulated. Their report was finalized on January 7, 2009 with a copy
provided to the operator. A copy of the CGS report is included with this inspection
report and is referenced for supporting documentation and corrective actions. At the time
of this inspection, Yenter Engineering, which specializes in monitoring and determining
causes of failure surfaces such as these, was on site to asses the slide area. According
to the operator, based only on visual observation, they did not observe additional major
surface failures since the initial incident of December 2, 2008.
On February 10, 2009, Tony Waldron and Berhan Keffelew of DRMS re-inspected the site. The
Southern access road was driven to near the point where the displacement occurred above
and to the south of the slide area. We walked the rest of the way to the major road
tension crack area. According to the operator, based again on visual observations, they
did not see additional major displacement since the original failure surface occurred.
After the physical inspection, the inspectors sat down with the operator and asked what
additional investigative monitoring had been conducted to date. Mr. Mac Shafer stated
that experts from the Colorado School of Mines had visited the site twice and that the
operator is also in the process of hiring a full time mining engineer with over 30 years
of limestone quarry experience. However, the operator had not finalized selection of an
engineering firm to do the investigative work necessary to determine why the slope failure
occurred. He stated that the operator would likely retain CTL Thomson to do the
investigative work as to why the slopes failed. He also said the Yenter Engineering
proposal to monitor and conduct investigative work was too expensive. He also stated that
with the verbal approval of MSHA, all stranded equipment was removed safely from the areas
where the equipment was stranded. The Division requested that the operator ask MSHA to
expedite their report, so DRMS can finalize their report and any corrective actions which
could be in the form of either a Problem or Possible violation.
The operator also asked if it was possible to conduct mining operation in the small area
south of the shop building to remove the limestone to the approved elevation of 7250. DRMS
stated that in order to allow the operator to conduct any kind of mining activity as
approved in the current reclamation plan, DRMS will need to know what caused the failure
surface and that additional mining and blasting would not cause additional surface
failures to occur. Once that information, in conjunction with the MSHA report, is
submitted, DRMS will consider the request at that time. Until the report is submitted and
reviewed, DRMS cannot allow any kind of mining related activity in the area. Furthermore,
any proposal to renew mining will require the submittal of a Technical Revision at a
minimum, and possibly an Amendment to the approved reclamation permit.
At present the Division believes Castle concrete to be in violation of 1) the Amendment #
1 mining and reclamation plan and 2) permit condition # 1 of the Amendment # 2 approval.
When the permit was amended in 1994 under amendment # 1, referred to as "The Enhanced
Reclamation Plan", the operator agreed not to expose more than 25 % of the active mining