ENFORCE32956 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Justification of Vacation Recommendation for NOV C-92-023 The assessment conference for NOV C-92-023 was held in our offices on October 27, 1992. In attendance at the conference were Scott Williams, Curt Belden, Tom Wainright, Gary Wendt, and Chuck McCulloh, of Peabody Coal Company, Western Division, and Susan Morrison and Larry Routten of the Division staff, in addition to me. NOV C-92-023 was issued by Susan Morrison, Reclamation Specialist, on August 17, 1992, following a partial mine inspection which she conducted on August 14, 1992. The NOV was issued for "failure to reclaim portions of the Waage and Wolf Creek mining areas contemporaneously"; and cited Rule 4.13 and page 9-9 of the permit application as being violated. The areas in question encompassed approximately 60 acres of graded spoils, which had not been topsoiled. Rule 4.13 specifies that "reclamation efforts...shall occur as contemporaneously as practicable with mining operations." Page 9-9 of the Seneca II permit application states that "spoil piles are expected to be graded and topsoiled within one (1) year (generally represents three spoil piles) after initial disturbance..." The penalty assessment proposed by the Division assessment officer was History 3 0.00 Seriousness 750.00 Fault 750.00 Total The assessmenr off~car noted that failure to conduct concurrent reclamat~cn jeopardizes bond calculation accuracy and that such failure represents a serious oversight. During the assessment conference it was established that when the NOV was issued, the Division Nas under the impression that the subject areas had been mined wring or' prior to 1989 and had been final graded and ready for topsoiling by the fall of 1990. Reclamation maps for 1990 and 1991 ~.vere reviewed during the conference, and based on that review it appears that the areas in question sae r? not graded until the fall of 1991. The Peabody representatives contended ttiat, though the areas had been rough graded (spo~~ ridges eliminated), it .could have been impractical to replace topsoil in 1991 because of the existence of pit roads, ramps, and dragline deadhead routes on the rough graded spoil. Pit operations and final grading had not advanced suf*iciently to allow for topsoiling until the spring of '•?92. Peabody normally conducts topsoiling in the fall, to coordinate as closely as possible .vith revegetation, and the Peabody representatives stated that the topsoiling dcrk done to abate the NOV was Scheduled to be done in the fall of 1992 during the normal course of operations and reclamation.