|
IHLA 96-90, 96-91
<br />it considered its response to Violations 1 and 3 to be "ar*r+* r*~ate," but
<br />the response to Violation 2 to be inappn7priate. AEO explained, +~+~*~~
<br />Violation 2, that the facts alleged by the Taturtu^, if true, watld consti-
<br />tute a violaticn of the State program and that the II~G was obligated to
<br />c~hict a more thorough investigation. On the same date, OSM also informed
<br />the Tatums of the results of its review of LNG's response.
<br />Fly letter dated February 14, 1994, LNG salght informal review of
<br />AEU's detenni.nation rmarrl;++g Violation 2, in accordance with the pro-
<br />cechu^es set forth in 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(b)(1)(iii), asserting that the
<br />z* ~* ~+*~ ate findi~ shwld be reversed because its irrvestigaticm into
<br />the tecl~mical aspects of the alleged violation was ongoing. On May 26,
<br />1994, the Deputy Director, OSM, responde3 to LNG's request for informal
<br />review by granting.it an additional 60 days in which to ooc-glete its
<br />iI1VEStlgat]:On .r:- - -_._ _ _ ...: t ~: ti1.~~.`.:...'-`~--_,. -~--- ..
<br />::L> , I..^; ..,b h!(:;: ''fiCY~I~. ,. ~. (1::Ctti ~i.i`._~
<br />Fly letter dated t7tily 18, 1994, LNG informed AEU that it had can-
<br />pleted its investigation and that, based on a letter fran Jim Tatum stat-
<br />ing that it appeared that an airshaft constructed by E1RI had not hatred
<br />the water well, it believed the issue had been resolved. It requested
<br />that OShi finl its respcrose to Violation 2 to be ar~+~ate. AEU forvraxded
<br />this information to the Deputy Director, OSM, by memorandum dated July 29,
<br />1994, stating °AFO does not believe that LNG's investigation answers the
<br />(~IPCtiOn whether or not the mine shaft has ]acted the water well."
<br />Ely letter dated DecerbPS 2, 1994, the 'I`atums requested informal
<br />review, pursuant to 30 C.F.R. § 842.15(a), of that part of the AEU's
<br />February 1994 decision relating to Violations 1 and 3. The Deputy
<br />Director, OSM, ac]mavledge3 this request in a January 18, 1995, "interim
<br />response," wherein he also stated that his response would serve as "an
<br />update regarding our pending decision to Colorado Division of Minerals and
<br />Geology's (LNG) request for informal revie~r of Part [Violation) 2 of the
<br />same 'ITNI." He informed the 'I`atums that "the Colorado LNG has made a firm
<br />cannitment to prrnptly take the lead in c~cting a thorough technical
<br />lnvestlgdtlOn t0 detPrmino Whether FJasin ReSalr'Ce'S t+TM3~T'a*'*1+*+~ misting
<br />operations have itipacted the water level in your well and have caused
<br />subsidence-related danage to your property. " He stated that upcas cronple-
<br />tion of LNG's technical investigation and review of subsequent actions
<br />taken by LNG, 0.47 would notify then of its decision on the violations.
<br />Cn February 1, 1995, LNG ani GSM officials, the Tatums, their
<br />mining a.,g;n~r consultant, and + ~*+~~*+tatives of ffi2I all visited the
<br />Tatims' hawse to cmx~ct an investigaticai of the subsidence allegation.
<br />7n his Felm~axy 8, 1995, report of that investigation, LNG official,
<br />Jim Pendleton, an P*m*+~ri*+g geologist, stated at page 4 that there was
<br />"sufficient evidence to conclude that mine subsidence is not the cause of
<br />the. Tatum residence's observed structural symptans." In part, he based
<br />.r.
<br />., ..
<br />.. _ ~.':
<br />151 IBI,A 291
<br />
|