|
7BI~ 96-90, 96-91
<br />it considered its re.~pc~se to Violations 1 and 3 to be "apprnpri.ate," but
<br />the response to Violation 2 to be ~*±.~~ ~+±^r±~~te. AEU ocplained, re~azdtng
<br />violatioai 2, that the facts alleged by the Tattms, if true, world ocrosti-
<br />tute aviolation of the State pmgram and that the LNG was obligated to
<br />ootrhtct a mote thorough investigation. On the same date, OSM also infooaned
<br />the Tattms of the results of its review of tNG's zespar~se.
<br />By letter dated Febmary 14, 1994, LNG swght infozmal retrieve Of
<br />AEU's detenttinaticn regatt3ing Vio]ation 2, in acoc~xdanoe with the pro-
<br />cedtues set forth in 30 C.F.R. $842.11(b)(1)(iii), asserting that the
<br />^~^~te finding should be nevez~.,ed because its im~estigatio¢i into
<br />the tecYaiical aspects of the alleged violation was On Nay 26,
<br />1994, the Deputy Director, 03+I, respo<ided to LNG's request for informal
<br />review by granting.it an additional 60 days in which to complete its
<br />By letter dated Daly 18, 1994, LNG informed AED that it had oan-
<br />pleted its investigation and that, based cat a letter fran Jim Tatum stat-
<br />ita3 that it appeared that an airshaft mnstxucted by BRI had not haxned
<br />the water well, it believed the issue had bees resolved. It requested
<br />that 03+i furl its response to Violation 2 to be appropriate. AFD forvrarded
<br />this infoztteticm to the Deputy Director. OSM, by manorazYhmtdated July 29,
<br />1994, stating "AFU does not believe that LNG's investigation answers the
<br />question whether or rnt the mine shaft has i:tpacted the vrater well."
<br />By letter dated DeoeirbPr 2, 1994, the Tatums requested inforrtial
<br />review, pursuant to 30 C.F.R. 5 842.15(a), of that part of the AEU's
<br />Febavary 1994 decision relating to Violations 1 and 3. 'lYbe Deputy
<br />Director, 039, acimourledged this request in a January 18, 1995, ";.,r<^." .
<br />response, " v~es+ein he also stated that his xespa~se world serve as "an
<br />update regarding our purling decision to. Colorado Division of Minerals and
<br />Geology's (LNG) request for informal review of Part [Vio]ationJ 2 of the
<br />satn:'ILN." He informed the Taturts that "the Colorado LNG has made a fizm
<br />cartnitmgtt to pmrnQtly talcs the lead i.n co~r+-i•~r a thamugh technical
<br />1RVEStrgatlLR1 CA ~Cc....in° WbQthEr Tiasln '8 i,rt';ta ~fvr~trvt ~~y(y3
<br />C~7eratlOtls have itt~aCted the water leVe~. in your well and have caltsed
<br />SUb51deIK7e-Ielated t0 your pmperty." Fie state'1 t1taC UpOti OCIIQle-
<br />tion of LNG's tecsmical investigation airs review of subsequait actions
<br />tala~ by LNG, OSM would notify them of its decision on the violations.
<br />Cat P~nvary 1, 1995, LNG ctrl ~! officials, the Tatimis, their
<br />q~y3 m,e„ur+r ConSlLltarit, ctrl rEpresentativet3 Of ffi2I all visited the
<br />Tatums' hazse to corr,~tct an investigation of the subsidence allegation.
<br />In his FYlnvary 8, 1995, report of that inv~stigati0ri, LNG official,
<br />Jim Pen3leton, an ~+~~*-~ ~ geologist, stated at page 4 that there was
<br />„sufficient eviduwe to conclude that mine subsidence is not the cause of
<br />the. Tartan residence,'s,observad structural sy~trns." 7n part, he based
<br />151 7ffiA 291
<br />.. ..... . .... .. F
<br />
|