2007-05-10_ENFORCEMENT - C1981013

Home Browse Search

IBLA 96-90R, 96-91R surface structuresland related property as called for by statute was done." In..that complaint, the Tatuns also incorporated by reference a letter to OEM dated November:18, 1993, in which Jim Tatum asserted that no significant damage'or cracking occurred in their house until after BRI commenced work under their property. In that November 18, 1993, letter, he also expressed frustration in dealing with the State of Colorado, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining and Geology (DW3): DIG at first took the position that no mining had taken place in close proximity to the house. The first assertions of distance from the house, were grossly in error or untrue. EM has ignored the Colorado laws regarding the safeguards to be used in mining under structures and nothing has been done about the mining company ignoring such laws. EM now is trying to blame the structural failure of the house on ridiculous or nonexistent causes. In short DWS has acted in a manner that strongly suggests that their role is to justify wrongful acts and the resulting damage by the mining companies. Cn December 7,;1993, in response to the citizen's complaint, OEM issued TEN No. 93-020-370-005 to DM, listing three violations of Colorado State program standards. The TEN described the violations as a failure to properly conduct a subsidence survey, subsidence monitoring, and a subsidence control plan for the Tatums' property, in violation of sections 2.05.6(6) and 4.20 of 2 Colo. Code Regs. (1991) (Violation 1); failure to control adverse consequences to a water well on the property (Violation 2); and failure to provide a detailed.cperaticns plan of the proposed (or actual) underground workings as it related to the Tatum property (Violation 3). On December 20; 1993, IIWS responded to alleged Violations 1 and 3 asserting that BRI had not violated State standards. Cn February 4,!1994, following the receipt of further information from EM, the Albuquerque Field Office (AEO), C44, informed EM that it considered its response to Violations 1 and 3 to be "appropriate." By letter dated December 2, 1994, the Tatums requested informal review, pursuant to 30 C.F.R. § 842:15(a), of that part of the AEO's February 1994 decision relating to Violations 1 and 3. The Deputy Director, OEM, acknowledged this request in a January 18, 1995, "interim response," wherein he also stated that "the Colorado EM has made a finn commitment to prcmptly take the lead in conducting a thorough technical investigation to determine whether Basin Resource's underground mining operations have impacted the water level in your well and have caused subsidence-related damage to your property." He stated that upon completion of LMG's technical investigation and review of subsequent actions taken by EM, OEM would notify then of its decision on the violations. In its petition, OEM alleges that Violation 1 of the TEEN in this case 2