2016-02-19_ENFORCEMENT - C1982056 (2)

Home Browse Search

��ENT OF Ty United States Department of the Interior 4 Q a OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING Reclamation and Enforcement Western Region Office 4RCH 3. �$ 1999 Broadway, Suite 3320 Denver, CO 80202-3050 FEB 16 2016 RECEIVED Mike Boulay FEB 19 2016 Director, Coal Regulatory Program Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety DMSION OF RECLAMATION 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 MINING AND SAFETY Denver, Colorado 80203 RE: Ten Day Notices and Citizen's Complaint — Peabody Energy Self -Bonds in Colorado Dear Mr. Boulay: On February 8, 2016, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) received a Citizen's Complaint from WildEarth Guardians alleging that Peabody Energy no longer meets regulatory criteria for self -bonding. In accordance with 30 CFR 842.11(b)(2), an authorized representative will have reason to believe a violation exists if the facts alleged by an informant would, if true, constitute a violation of the Program under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. In such case, the authorized representative must issue a Ten -Day Notice (TDN) since there is reason to believe a violation exists. WildEarth Guardians alleges that Peabody Energy no longer meets self -bonding criteria set forth at Colorado Rules §3.02.4(2)(e)(i)(C), §3.02.4(2)(e)(iv), and §3.02.4(2)(e)(vii). As a result, we have prepared the enclosed five TDNs identifying potential violations at the Foidel Creek, Sage Creek, Seneca II -W, Williams Fork, and Yoast Mines. A copy of WildEarth Guardians' complaint is also enclosed. Please respond as directed in 30 CFR 842.11 within ten business days by taking appropriate action to cause the violation to be corrected or show good cause for such failure. Appropriate action and good cause are explained at 30 CFR 842.11(b)(1)(ii)(13)(3) and (4). Appropriate action includes enforcement or other action authorized under the State program to cause the violation to be corrected. Good cause includes showing that the possible violations do not exist under the approved State program, the State regulatory authority requires a reasonable and specified amount of additional time to determine whether a violation exists, the State regulatory authority lacks jurisdiction under its program over the possible violation or subject operation, the State regulatory authority is precluded by an administrative or judicial order from an administrative body or court of competent jurisdiction from acting on the possible violation where that order is based on the violation not existing or where temporary relief standards of section 525(c) or 526(c) of SMCRA have been met, or with regard to abandoned sites the State regulatory authority is diligently pursuing or has exhausted all appropriate enforcement provisions of the State program.