ENFORCE36124 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i . iii iiiiiiiiniuiii _ SLURCO CORPORATION P.O. Box 281304 LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80228-9304 Telephone: (303)980-9340 October 28, 1994 ~~ l: RECEIVED OCT 31 1994 -.. t Mr. Mike Long, Direcwr Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology 215 Centennial Building 1313 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203-2273 Dryision of Minerals $ Geology RE: Request for Vacation of Notice of Violation C-94-024, Canadian Strip Mine, Permit C-H1-026 Dear Mr. Long: On September 27, 1994, Mr. David Berry (during an oversight inspection with Mr. Edzel Pugh with OSM) issued the above referenced Notice of Violation (NOV) for failure to maintain Impoundment No. 1. Slurco Corporation hereby requests vacation of the above referenced NOV for the following reasons: 1. Slurco was cited for failure to ensure proper function of the primary spillway. The plastic sheeting referenced in the NOV is not part of the design of the pond primary spillway and Slurw does not know who placed this material in the spillway. We speculate that someone placed the plastic sheet on the spillway boards to eliminate any seepage so the pond would retain water longer into the summer and fall. The plastic was noted in the October 1993 inspection report, however, could not be removed at that time. The plastic was not observed on subsequent visits to the si[e (see a[tached inspection reports). It was not noted again until the NOV was issued, at which time the pond was dry exposing the bottom of the principal spillway and the plastic. Slurco feels that this situation does not constitute a violation because the material was at the bottom of the pond and could not influence the function of the primary spillway as referenced in the first, second and third quarter pond inspections. The plastic sheet has been removed from the spillway. A similar situation was noted during the inspection where hunters has constructed a blind out of the rock rip rap in the emergency spillway of Pond 2, which blocked most of the spillway capacity. Slurco feels that this same situation was handled correctly in that a violation was not written, however, the operator was given the opportunity to correct the problem. With no personnel at the site and tree access to the site by County road, it is difficult (or Slurco to control situations which cause problems of this type. 2. Slurco has been cited for failure to provide adequate vegetation or other surface stabilization to protect against erosion of the impoundment inslope. This situation has been monitored over the past several years. Attached are photographs which indicate the problem area dating back to 1989. The situation was noted and discussed in the October 1993 inspection report (Attached). During periods of high water, the problem area is under the water line which makes it nearly impossible to establish permanent vegetation. The engineer recommended a continuation of monitoring and certified that this situation did not effect the operations or stability of the embankment. Slurco feels that since we were aware of the situation, were monitoring the situation, because of the Ouctuation in water level a permanent vegetative cover would be difficult to establish, the situation dots not influence the operation or stability of the embankment, and that the situation has not further developed over the past several years, it dots not constitute a violation.