ENFORCE32938 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sandy Brown October 29, 2004 Page 4 4.05.9(9)]. This slide initially occureed in March 2000, and was detected on the afternoon of Mazch 6, 2000 during a DMG inspection. DMG requested that SCC submit a geotechnical analysis and stability analysis, and remedial repair plan for the slide. The report and repair plan were submitted as TR-18 by Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH) for SCC. Based on these analyses, SCC selected slope flattening as the remedial repair alternative. Independent of the alternative selected to stabilize the azea; MWH also recommended that surface water run-on and run-off control measures be implemented and surface slope protection measures such as vegetation or placement of riprap should also be implemented. TR-18 was approved and the DMG accepted the slope flattening alternative and additional recommendations from MWH as the approved plan for remediating the slide damaged azea. The slope flattening alternative was never fully and successfully implemented at the site of the slide and based on the July 2003 inspection it was apparent that none of the additional steps recommended by MWH were ever implemented. At the time of the inspection the site appeared unstable and additional cracking and slumping had been noted in several inspection reports subsequent to the initial slide, as a result of this, NOV CV-2003-008 was issued. For a detailed discussion of the circumstances and events leading to the issuance of the citation for the slide- damaged azea please refer to the inspection report dated 07/21/03. The steps necessary to abate the violation included: 1) Reconfigure the slide area to ensure stability as demonstrated by geotechnical analyses and engineering designs, and 2) As this is an azea of continuing failure, establish a monitoring program to validate adequacy of corrective actions. The NOV was abated and terminated on October 22, 2003. SCC paid the $1,750 civil penalty. NOV CV-2004-002 was issued on June 30, 2004 for significant erosion and gully formation noted in the Armand Draw drainage from Culvert YB-6 to Pond O l Q and for sediment clogged culverts YB-6 and YB-1. This violation is very similar in nature to NOV-CV-2003-006 written 11 months prior as described above. NOV CV-2004-002 was specifically issued for: failure to construct and maintain appropriate sediment control measures to minimize erosion; failure to retain sediment within disturbed azeas; failure to divert runoff using protected channels; failure to implement measures that reduce overland flow velocity and runoff volume; and failure to maintain drainage control structures and failure to maintain culverts to safely pass the 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event. The mitigation measures include: repairing the gully and erosion from Culvert YB-6 to Pond 010 and providing protection from future erosion in the undisturbed area, and repair erosion and replace riprap below outfalls of Culverts YB-6 and EX-4 and clean sediment and debris from Culverts YB-6 and YB-1. SCC has not yet completed the required abatement measures for this violation. The time for abatement is on or before September 28, 2004. The Division proposes to assess a civil penalty against SCC in the amount of $2,650. SCC has requested an assessment or settlement conference. The conference has not been scheduled at this time.