ENFORCE28355 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

IHLA 96-90, 96-91 too consolidated to subside as a result of water withdrawal, and since subsidence has not progressed upwards, there axe no crac]cs that could impact the shallow'alluvial wells. Tire most likely .causes of the damage to the Tatlan House are rrodifications to the structure, poor maintenance, ani/or stxpss applied to the structure by soil ~mvenent associated with dewatering by the trees during extended dry periods, in canbination with poor maintenance of the mof, which wield allow water to enter into the walls. An additional possible cause is the tree stung at the corner of the fire place, it is possible that the mots are rotting and the grourri is losing support in this area causing m~va~ent of the foundation into the. rotted .areas. This is also a.part.of the fairrlation_that caruwt be evaluated through the crawl space under the house. By msrorarrhan dated July 17, 1995, the ActirxJ Chief; Prngrdm S~rpport Division, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Cpsrter, OSNI, forwarded to Che Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Chaster, 0.4N, a report of the findings of Dr. Kewdl I(Ohli, MixLirx3 FYioinoor, Appalachian Regional. Coordinating Center, 041, who had visited the Tatums' bare during the May 11, 1995, inspection. He concluded that the danege to the T3tums' bare was not caused by BRI's tu~descJruuYi mining of the 1st North Main. He stated that the actual extraction ratio for the 1st North Main was 34 percent and that no subsidence would occur because of an adequate safety factor for the pillars. He explained that Gerity had arbitrarily used an extraction ratio of 90 percent in the ca~guter model to predict subsidence near the Tatums' house arrl that, as a result, his results were exxtmears. ~ August 23, 1995, in separate letters, I]rG informed OSM and the T'atums that it had ccaglete3 its investigation of damage to the Tatums' house and had concluded that the house was not within an area in which mine subsidence was occurring and that, therefore, the horse was not subject to mine subsidence impacts. LNG requested that 03x1 issue a decision either upholding its respcrose as appropriate or avert"**~' ~ it. Orr September 18, 1995, the Regional Director, Western Regional Oooxdinating Center, OSMt issued a decision affirmirx3 AFU's February 4; 1994, decision that LNG had resporxied appropriately to Violations 1 aril of 'IIIrI NO. 93-020-370-005. TYiesein, he stated: After full consideration of the factors in this matter, i find that the AEU Director properly determined that IM's xespcrose to alleged violation 1 of 3 relating to damage to your residence due to subsidence contained in the ten-day notice constituted appropriate action. Further zeview of the record for Violation 3 of 3 discloses that LNG forwarded copies of the operator's maps and geologic cross sections along with nar- rative fmn the permit as doc~urentation that the operator[']s plan erdsted. The AFU in its February 4, 1994, letter found ~~'.'~ . i 4::. . . 151 713th 296