Laserfiche WebLink
1BLA 96-90,( 6-91 <br />too consolidated to subside as a result of water withdrawal, and since subsidence has not progressed upwards, <br />there are no cracks that couid impact the shallow alluvial wells. <br />the most likely causes of the damage to the Tatun House are modifications to the structure, poor <br />maintenaxx. and/or stress applied to the structure by soil movement associated with dewatering by the trees <br />during extended dry peridls, in combination with poor maintenance of the roof, which would allow water to enter <br />into the walls. An additional possible cause is the tree stump at the comer of the fire place. It is possible that the <br />roots are rotting and die ground is losing support in this area causing movement of the foundation into the rotted <br />areas. ' f his is also a put of the foundation tlkrt cannot be evaluated through the crawl space under the house. <br />i <br />By memorandum dated July 17, 1995, the Acting Chief, Program. Support Division, Appalachian Regional <br />Coordinating Center, OSM, forwarded to the Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Center, OSM, a report of <br />the findings of Dr. Kewal Kohli, Mining Engineer, Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center, OSM, who had visited the <br />Tatu r-d home during the May 11, 1995, inspection. He concluded that the damage to the Tahuns' home was not caused by <br />BRI's under?ouhd mining of tfie 1 st North Main. He stated that the actual extraction ratio for the 1 st North Main was 34 <br />percent and that no subsidence would occur because of an adequate safety factor for the pillars. He explained that Gerity <br />had arbitrarily used an extraction ratio of 90 percent in die computer model to predict subsidence near the Tatums' house and <br />that, as a result his results were erroneous. <br />I <br />On August 23, 1995, in sepvate letters, DMG informed OSM and the TatLuns that it had completed its investigation of <br />damage to the TatlUmhS' house aril had concluded that the house was not within an area in which mine subsidence was <br />oCCLuring and that, therefore, dhe house was not subject to mine subsidence impacts. DMG requested that OSM issue a <br />decision either uplxhlding its response as appropriate or overturning it. <br />i <br />On September 1$, 1995, the Regional Director, Western Regional Coordinating Center, OSM, issued a decision <br />affinning AFCYs Febri ay 4, 1994, decision that DMG had responded appropriately to Violations 1 and 3 of TDN No. 93- <br />020-370-005. Therein. he stated: <br />After full consideration of the factors in this matter, I find that the AFO Director properly determined that <br />DMG's response to alleged violation 1 of 3 relating to damage to your residence due to subsidence contained in the <br />ten-lay notice constituted appropriate action. Father review of the record for Violation 3 of 3 discloses that DMG <br />forwarded copies of the operator's maps and geologic cross sections along with narrative from the permit as <br />documentation that the operator[']s plan existed The AFO in its February 4, 1994, letter found <br />151 IBLA 2%