ENFORCE32308 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Peabody RECEIVED 701 Market Street St. Louis, M063101-1826 314.342.3400 PEABODY ENERGY October 11, 2007 Ms. Sandy Brown Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3567 OCT 15 2001 Division °t a d Safeb n, Mining 12E: Notice of Violation CV-2007-002 -Seneca II-W Mine (Permit C-1982-057) Deaz Sandy: On behalf of Seneca Coal Company (SCC) Peabody Energy hereby withdraws the request for Formal Review and Appeal of the above-referenced Notice of Violation (NOV). While we firmly believe an enforcement action was not warranted in this case, we also believe it is in the best interest of all parties to move on and focus on successful final reclamation of the Seneca mines. We aze including a discussion of our position with respect to the NOV below for your consideration to try and avoid enforcement actions should a similar situation develop at one of the mines in the future. First, the area of this violation is permitted for minimal and/or emergency disturbance to remediate erosion between the disturbed mining area and sediment control structures down drainage (see Permit Application Package at Tab 20, page 1). Furthermore, the azea where the enforcement action was taken was added to the minimal disturbance area shown on Exhibit 12-2, Operations Plan prior to issuance of the NOV and to avoid situations that could result in potential violations. This action was taken in direct response to a recommendation by the Division during Permit Renewal - OS to "review this minimal disturbance azea delineation," (i.e. the minimal disturbance area immediately up-gradient of Pond 017 where it appeared [to the Division] that some of the Hubberson Gulch channel meanders that could potentially be subject to sediment deposition or erosion associated with mine activity had been excluded) "and expand the azea as appropriate to ensure that the entire length of channel and adjacent areas that could potentially be subject to sediment deposition or erosion associated with mining and reclamation activity aze included." Thus, the Division anticipated the potential for sediment deposition or erosion associated with mining activity and suggested a solution that SCC accepted, in order to address, in the permit, precisely what occurred. Yet the Division chose to take enforcement action anyway. Second, a similar but more significant disturbance (slide and erosion) occurred immediately north of the area where this enforcement action was taken and on the same slope. During the winter of 2005/2006, a large snow drift formed along the slope break