Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />Secondly, there is no evidence to suggest that the material on the <br />pre -law refuse pile which has slumped did so as a result of the <br />ditch's presence. The ditch has been in place since 1964. The <br />lower portion of the refuse pile was built at approximately the <br />same time. Movement of refuse or cover material on the pile may be <br />due to many causes, including saturated conditions in the pile, <br />surface slippage, and /or surficial erosion. Assuming the ditch to <br />be the cause of any movement is purely speculative and, not <br />adequate grounds for an enforcement action. <br />Without evidence of a violation, additional enforcement action is <br />not warranted at this time. This finding is consistent with OSM <br />Directives at REG -12, paragraph 3.b., which indicates that <br />enforcement actions shall be delayed when "technical assistance or <br />further investigation is needed to confirm the existence of a the <br />violation ". DMG intends to investigate this matter further, as <br />discussed below. <br />In AFO's August 4, 1993 response to DMG, AFO makes four points with <br />which DMG disagrees. First, AFO claims two areas were observed <br />where material had slumped from the pile into the ditch. While <br />there are small quantities of refuse material next to the ditch, <br />there was no material in the ditch at the time of the joint <br />inspection. DMG can only agree that the material near the ditch <br />came off the refuse pile some time between 1964 and 1993 however, <br />the material was not in the ditch and is not subject to regulation. <br />Secondly, AFO states that, "areas where slumping on the slopes is <br />evident could fail and destroy the existing ditch ". While it is <br />true that future failure of the refuse pile could destroy the <br />ditch, enforcement actions cannot be taken based upon the <br />possibility of future events occurring. <br />Thirdly, AFO states that DMG's response to the TDN "contends that <br />the presence of the ditch is not causing the slope to fail ". DMG's <br />July 22, 1993 letter made the point that the cause of movement of <br />refuse material was not known. DMG did not conclude that the slope <br />failure was not due to the presence of the ditch. It is the <br />opinion of the DMG that the cause of any instability is unknown. <br />However, due to the ongoing concern about stability of the refuse <br />pile, DMG will conduct a geotechnical evaluation to determine the <br />cause of apparent instability of the toe of the pile. Should the <br />regulated ditch be determined to be the cause of instability of the <br />pile, appropriate enforcement action will be taken. This <br />investigation will be concluded in the next thirty days. <br />Finally, AFO states that cribbing material which has been in <br />contact with ditch flows has rotted and caused slope failure. The <br />wooden cribbing on the refuse pile is located above the elevation <br />of the ditch and therefore is not subject to wetting by ditch <br />flows. DMG is not aware that this material has ever been in <br />contact with flow in the ditch. <br />