Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />Mr. Steve Renner 3 <br />• TDN 92-020-370-003, violation 2 of 2, was issued for failure to <br />contemporaneously reclaim refuse piles CRDA No. 1 and No. 2. AFO has <br />reviewed DMG's response and found that it contains inconsistencies and <br />conflicts with regulatory requirements that cause AFO to find the response <br />inappropriate. <br />• The DMG response states that reclamation of the piles does not have to start <br />until year 2 after completion of the pile (page 1, paragraph 2), but also states <br />that DMG agrees with the position that reclamation of the pile be concurrent <br />with construction (page 2, paragraph 5). Following the time table as outlined <br />in the inspection report for this inspection, and the table approved as part of <br />the permit, reclamation of the pile would not have to start until the year 2020. <br />This does not coincide with the position that reclamation is a concurrent <br />activity. <br />• The DMG response states that DMG staff recommended conditional approval <br />of less than 4 feet of cover be granted, conditioned upon a demonstration that <br />revegetation success criteria be met in field trials during years 9 and 10 (page <br />2, paragraph 2). A review of the permit and the pages sent by DMG to <br />support this position does not agree with that statement. AFO cannot find, <br />and DMG has not provided, a revision or modification to the permit that <br />extends the field trials to a 10-year period. The approvals are fora 5-year <br />field trial. The memorandum that DMG references states on the first page: <br />"* * * It is anticipated that Powderhorn will be submitting a <br />technical revision application to allow for replacement of less <br />than 4 feet of cover soil for both the Roadside and Cameo <br />waste disposal areas in the future." <br />As of this inspection, no such revision was approved. Furthermore, the <br />memorandum does not address evaluating success criteria during years 9 and <br />10 of the field trials as DMG states, but instead the memo states: <br />"* * * that currently revegetated portions of the pile meet <br />cover and production success criteria during the 9th and <br />10th years of the bond liability period" (emphasis added)." <br />• The bond liability period is not the same as a field trial. AFO does agree with <br />DMG's statement that a variance to the cover depth requirement was not <br />resolved at the time the permit was issued (page 1, paragraph 3). Colorado <br />Rule 4.10.4(5) requires a minimum of four feet of cover unless othervvise <br />approved by DMG based on physical and chemical analyses which show that <br />the revegetation regulations will be met. DMG has yet to approve, as part of <br />the permit, any other standard than the 4 foot minimum required by regulation. <br />