Laserfiche WebLink
Yoast Mine 2 November 4, 2004 <br />The violations and cessation orders have been abated and terminated. The Division did <br />not vacate any of the violations. SCC paid civil penalties totaling $12,750.00. All appeal <br />periods have passed, with no appeals being filed by the operator. <br />Three of these enforcement actions, two Notice of Violations and one Cessation Order, <br />are similar in nature. CV-2003-006 and CV-2004-002 addressed sediment control <br />problems and excessive erosion. SCC failed to correct the sediment control issues <br />addressed in CV-2003-006 by the abatement deadline and failure to abate CO-2003-O1 l <br />was issued. Two of the enforcement actions were issued for SCC's lack of <br />contemporaneous reclamation. CV-2003-007 was issued for a failure to complete <br />backfilling/grading, topsoiling and seeding as required. Cessation Order CO-2003-012 <br />was issued because SCC did not correct the violation by the abatement deadline. Note <br />that the Division had granted the maximum abatement time period allowed by the <br />Regulations before issuing the failure to abate cessation orders. <br />These six enforcement actions do not represent isolated departures from lawful conduct, <br />but rather a broad, overall lack of concern with regulatory compliance by the operator. <br />These enforcement actions were caused by the unwarranted failure of SCC to comply <br />with the requirements of the Act, Rules and permit conditions. Therefore, I recommend <br />that you concur that a Pattern of Violations exists at the Yoast Mine. <br />Rule 5.03.3 addresses the Suspension or Revocation of Permits. A show cause order to <br />suspend or revoke a permit can be issued when the Division finds that a pattern of <br />violation exists and that such violations were caused by the unwarranted failure of the <br />permittee to comply or that the violations were willfully caused by the permittee. <br />In late August 2004, SCC contacted the Division in an effort to correct the situation. <br />Two meetings were held, on September 23 and October 28, between the Division, the <br />SCC staff and management and Peabody Energy corporate managers to discuss the <br />potential pattem of violations at the Yoast Mine. Furthermore, SCC had fallen behind in <br />several pending permitting actions that had the potential of creating additional <br />enforcement actions. The Division expressed concern about the permitting backlog at the <br />Yoast Mine as well as at the other two SCC mines, Seneca II and Seneca II-W. <br />Since our September 23 meeting, SCC has made considerable progress with pending <br />permitting actions and with the completion of reclamation projects in the field. These <br />actions are discussed in SCC's letters dated October 7 and October 26, 2004. Contractual <br />help was hired to assist with permitting. SCC has committed to retaining the permitting <br />contractors to remove the permitting backlog and to complete all future permitting needs <br />in a timely manner. <br />To complete and stay current with reclamation projects, SCC has brought in two <br />additional scrapers and one dozer. The workforce has been increased by five people. <br />SCC will continue to have a dedicated Reclamation Manager to communicate and <br />coordinate planning and implementation of permitting and reclamation requirements. <br />SCC will maintain additional staffing and the added equipment on site until the <br />