GENERAL31761

• Permit No: C1981013
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 5/24/1995
• Doc Name: COMMENTS CONTAINED IN ANN TATUMS LETTER OF MAY 11 1995
• From: JIM PENDLETON
• To: SUSAN MCCANNON
• Permit Index Doc Type: CITIZEN COMPLAINTS
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII • •
'~ STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department o! Natural Resources
1313 Sherman 51., Room 215 1+~~~~
Denver, Colorario 80203 I
Phone: [phone]~35f,:
FAA: (3031 832-8106
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Romer
DATE: May 24, 1995 ~°°efn°'
lames S. Lochhead
_ 6ecueve Director
rot¢hael fi. Long
TO: Susan McCannon Division Dueaor
t 7 _
FROM: Jim Pendleton l/ ~ 4
RE: Comments o ed in Ann Tatum's
Letter of May 11, 1995
In response to your request of Friday, May 12th, I have completed a review of
Mrs. Tatum's Letter to you, dated May 1 1 th. Within the letter Mrs. Tatum
includes several requests for clarification of technical information, several
characterizations of my earlier comments, and several opinions regarding my
professionalism and motivation. I will respond to Mrs. Tatum's requests for
technical clarification. I will also correct several of Mrs. Tatum's
mischaracterizations of my earlier statements. I choose not to respond to any of
Mrs. Tatum's expressed opinions regarding my professionalism or motivation.
(1) Mrs. Tatum continues to request a copy of the U.S. Bureau of Mines report
concerning subsidence research at the Allen Mine. I have not been able to
locate such a report within the Division's files. I conclude that Carl Gerity is
correct in his assumption that the Woodward-Clyde report, prepared for the
Department of Energy, is the report I recalled. The Woodward-Clyde report
does reference the U.S. Bureau of Mines assumption of the project, following
the DOE's cancellation of the project because of budgetary constraints.
(2- Mrs. Tatum asserts that I had read the referenced report and that I had
stated that the study "limited" the angle of draw to "25-27%". I offer the
following to clarify my earlier statements, which are contrary to Mrs.
Tatum's characterization. In my memo of February 14, 1995, I stated;
"Following my examination of the Tatum structure on February 1, 1994, I
presented a 30 minute summary of my preliminary opinion. At that time I
had only completed an examination of the structure and its immediate
surroundings. Therefore, my comments dealt primarily with what the