Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> 3 <br /> Issue 3 of the TDN cites an alleged violation of Rule 4. 03 .2 (1) for <br /> failure to maintain an access road to prevent erosion and <br /> siltation. The area cited is the outslope of a road crossing over <br /> the Dutch Creek flume in the facilities area. <br /> During a July 22, 1993 reinspection of the site, the slump had been <br /> repaired by removing rock material, seeding, and applying straw <br /> mulch with erosion control netting. A violation does not exist at <br /> this time. Since it would not be appropriate to take enforcement <br /> action, none is being taken. <br /> Issue 4 of the TDN cites an alleged violation of Rule 4 . 05.3 (i) (e) <br /> for failure to maintain a diversion ditch in a stable manner. The <br /> area cited is the perimeter ditch at the toe of the Old Refuse Pile <br /> leading to the 001 pond series. <br /> Colorado issued NOV C-93-091 on June 17, 1993 for failure to <br /> maintain this ditch. As abatement, the ditch will be regraded in <br /> places where it does not have adequate cross sectional area to meet <br /> the design specifications. This NOV cites the same regulation and <br /> structure as cited in the TDN. <br /> The OSM report accompanying TDN X-93-020-190-05 discusses material <br /> on the slopes above the ditch which is "slumping into the <br /> diversion". As mentioned in the report, this material is part of <br /> a pre-law refuse pile and is held in place by a set of cribbing <br /> which is in various states of disrepair. Colorado does not feel <br /> that extending the enforcement action on the ditch to the pre-law <br /> refuse pile is justified for the following reasons. <br /> First, none of the material from the refuse pile is in the ditch. <br /> The problem areas of the ditch are the result of sediment <br /> deposition by flows in the ditch, not slumping from above. The <br /> only evidence of material slumping from above actually reaching the <br /> ditch is a small deposit of material on the opposite side of the <br /> ditch from the pile which has a set of straw bales around it. It <br /> is not known when this material slid off the refuse pile. The <br /> material does not impair the ditch's ability to function as <br /> designed. <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 saturated conditions in the pile, surface slippage, erosion <br /> or, the presence of the ditch below the pile. Assuming the ditch <br />