Laserfiche WebLink
IffiA 96-90, 96-91 <br />that expldnat1011." CYrirrrnir~ the fOLIIlCjatlO[L4, Y1e obSPSVed thaC ° [t]here <br />was nD significant distress or evidence of moven~t affecting the cau2ete <br />foundation walls of the baseient at the west end of the house." Id. at 2. <br />In the faurlatian of the centzal porticrl of the house, there were "no indi- <br />cations of significant deterioration air distress," affi he characterized the <br />fe~a~datian as being "in sutprisiatgly good ccaxiition crnsidering the age of <br />the structure." Id. He stated that he was unable to make a "close and <br />detailed inspection of the fouttdatia~s for the eastern !two-stary) portion <br />of the house" because of "limited acxess." Sd. at 2-3. In describing the <br />exterior of the house, he stated that "the south wall above the second <br />story level near the east end of the house was badly deteriorated from <br />prolatged ac~cx~np to rtnisture. 'Ihe deterioration eorreslxarled with the <br />interior damage we noted within the upsYait:s sitting room." Sd. at 3. <br />By letter dated;Jtu~e,7; 1995;.,LNG"ieapa<ided.to font separate letters <br />it had received fmtt the Tatums in May 1995 'iegazding various aspects of <br />the damage to the Tatums' ha~se attd irnmstigations thereof. 7Ynereitt, TD'G <br />stated: <br />While it is true that we have observed evidennoe of [rovatent of <br />the upper walls in an outward motion, absolutely no evidettee <br />of movstent of the foundation of the hale has been observed by <br />any parties. Movement of the foundation is the critical itxii- <br />cator' of mine subsidence. Without evidence of ttov~t of the <br />faurriatian we can m~ no findintg eto~pt that mine subsidenoe <br />has not impacted the hare. blather we contiT"IP to believe that <br />no subsidence related to the 1st north mains has oozed. <br />Gn Jtme 30, 1995, Dr. G.aft released the report of his May 19, 1995, <br />inspecticm. AL pages 7-8 of that reFxat, he mnrtfriat; <br />Zits 1`atum t,,;t~i,~. oatglex is well outside any p~~ <br />mining-related subsidence influence--even when oonsesvatively <br />assuming that 75 percent of the opal had been extracted and <br />only ]1 percent of the overburden is har3rnck !Figures 3 arri <br />4) . With only 34 pet~st actual coal extraction, atrl 50 per- <br />cent actual hard rode, it is highly unlikely that any surface <br />subsidence has occurred over the 1 North entry. 'Ifiia oonclu- <br />si;at is substantiated by two facts: 1) r-~ r:+; t rr~aA repair has <br />taken place over the 1 North entry within the zone of expected <br />maximum deformation other than norms]. maintenance; and 2) the <br />subsidence monitoring over the similarly-oonfiguned 3 North <br />entry shows no meab'urable subsidence. m~,i~t,p,~,",,,,~, if the <br />t,,;t.~;.g catplex was being influQnoe3 by mine related subsi- <br />dence, the garage, patio, a~ oatccete ine].uded in this area <br />• would be damaged. 'lYte crad~ in the house would be tension <br />type, and, therefore, wider at the base beoaning narrow <br />vpaards. TY,s vrater draining into the 1 North entry is fzan <br />the opal bearing sttatigraphic .interval. 'lYie overburten is <br />,, lSl.l$LA 295 <br />