2016-04-26_ENFORCEMENT - C1981044

Home Browse Search

QpQs+Aw"„IT�Fy United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING t Reclamation and Enforcement n ' Western Region Office 1999 Broadway, Suite 3320 Denver, CO 80202-3050 April 26, 2016 Mike Boulay, Coal Program Supervisor Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 O04'�F SURFq�.Fy2� i 3q�ON�DENFo� RE: Colorado's Response to Ten Day Notices and Citizen's Complaint — Peabody Energy and Subsidiaries Mining Operations in Colorado Dear Mr. Boulay, The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) received your letter, dated March 29, 2016, responding to the Ten -Day Notices (TDNs) issued to your office on February 16, 2016 regarding the self -bonding of Peabody Energy and its subsidiaries' (collectively Peabody) mines in Colorado. OSMRE also received your supplemental response to the TDNs dated April 11, 2016. In this supplemental response you explained that you have received corporate surety bonds to cover the full reclamation liability amounts at all five Peabody operations identified in the TDNs (Foidel Creek, Peabody Sage Creek, Seneca II -W, Williams Fork, and Yoast), and you are in the process of returning the self -bonds to Peabody Investments Corporation. Pursuant to OSMRE's INE -35 and applicable regulation, the Field Office shall consider the regulatory authority's (RA) response to a TDN as constituting appropriate action to cause a violation to be corrected or good cause for failure to do so, unless the Field Office makes a written determination in accordance with 30 CFR 842.11(b)(1)(ii)(B)(1) that your response is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion under the approved regulatory program. Under the arbitrary, capricious, or abuse of discretion standard, OSMRE will not substitute its judgment for that of the RA, unless the RA's response is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Appropriate action includes enforcement or other action authorized under the State program to cause the violation to be abated. Good cause for not taking action includes that the possible violation does not exist, the State regulatory authority requires a reasonable and specified amount of additional time to determine whether a violation exists, or the State lacks jurisdiction over the possible violation or operation.