|
1T3IA 96-90, 96-91
<br />to deters~dne what wincfitill parts were needed," their position being that
<br />BI2I's activities in 1991 caused the well to go dry. (Statespnt of Reasce~s
<br />for Appeal (SOR), IDLA 96-90, at 10, 11.) ,
<br />By letter dated Decenber 18, 1991, the Tatians first advised BRI that
<br />damage, which might be attributable to its undergxoutxs mini ' operatica~s,
<br />was occurring to their house. One year later, by letter dated Deoa~er 15,
<br />1992, they notified LNG that their Water well was dry as a result of BRI's
<br />+,rvia~arn mA minirxJ operations. Ori May 25, 1993, they sent a letter to II"G
<br />expressing concern that damage to their house was occurriruJ as a result
<br />of subsidence caused by BRI's +++~~ ;~**+*~ mining operations. The letter
<br />was acoa~anied by a May 24, 1993, report prepared by Vince J. Vigil,
<br />Las Animas Camty Building Inspector. Vigil, who, at the Tattms' request,
<br />had inspected their house on May 18, 1993, observed rnarerous structural
<br />cracks in the walls (both interz.or and exterior), ceilings, and corners
<br />of the various mans an<s arourrl the windows and doorways on both levels.
<br />Se concluded that there had been recent earth movement in close prrndmity
<br />to the residence, but ,did not attribute it to subsidence caused by BRI's
<br />neari~y ~ workings. (Marorandtmt to the ThtUms fran Vigil, dated
<br />May 24, 1993, at 3.) Rather, Vigil advised the Thttm~s to hire a structural
<br />~;*+~* to crorrluct an in-depth investigation of the cause and remedy. 1d.
<br />LNG responded to the May 25, 1993, letter and attached report on
<br />July 7, 1993, concluding that it did not appear that any d7i-age to the
<br />house was caused by mine subsidence. In a subsequent letter to the
<br />Las An;maa Caaity Planning aryl Land Use Office, dated August 12, 1993,
<br />LNG expressed the same opinion.
<br />By letter dated Noves~er 30, 1993, the Thtum; filed a citizen's
<br />cottplairst with 0.4+7 alleging the BRI's urrsergrrnurs mining operation had
<br />caused subsidence damage to their residence and damage to a water well on
<br />their property. On Dece-ber 7, 1993, in response to the citizen's can-
<br />plaint, OSM issued TIBd Din. 93-020-370-005 to LNG, listing three violations
<br />of Nlorado State program standards. The T1Rd described the violations as
<br />a failure to properly c+anduct a subsidence survey, subsidence nenitoririg,
<br />and subsidence control plan for the Thtwns' property, in violaticm of
<br />sections 2.05.6(6) arts 4.20 of 2 Flo. Code Begs. (1991) (Violation 1);
<br />failure to control adverse .consequences to.a water well on the property
<br />(Violati~ 2); and failure to provide a detailed operations plan of the
<br />proposed (or actual) +,~p,g„"rr3 workings as it relaters to the Tatimt prop-
<br />erty (Violation 3). In aceordanoe with 30 C.F.R. 5 842.11, OSM required
<br />that the State take arr+p*+ r+•~ ate action to correct the violaticz~s or shwa
<br />good cause for failing to oso so.
<br />On Deca~bas 20, 1993, LNG +~-~+~~ asserting that BRI had not vio-
<br />lated State stc'ua~aius a8 alleged in Violations 1 and 3, and that, due to
<br />lack of historical infornatiaz from the T`attIItts ~+~**i7*~ the water well,
<br />it did not ccrosides BRI to have violated State sr~++~~+'+aG, as set forth in
<br />Violation 2. On February 4, 1994, following the receipt of further infor-
<br />mation fr'am LNG, the nl}~~+~+?+A Field Office (AEU), OSM, informed LNG,that
<br />„~ ,.~.
<br />151 ~ID1A~ 290 "`
<br />
|