Laserfiche WebLink
In their objection to the Board's claim for an administra- <br />tive priority, Debtors raise three objections to the allowance of <br />an administrative priority for the cost of reclamation. First, <br />Debtors claim that the Board's motion should be limited in scope <br />to the appropriate Debtors. The Board concurs with this point <br />and agrees that its claim should be limited to Debtors CF&I Steel <br />and Colorado and Utah Land Company. <br />Debtors also argue that the Hoard's claim is not entitled <br />to an administrative priority because the mining occurred <br />prepetition. The Board concedes that most of the mining occurred <br />prepetition, but asserts that a portion of the site was mined <br />postpetition. As indicated in the Annual Report, a copy of which <br />is attached as Exhibit A, filed by CF&I Steel Corporation on or <br />about May 1, 1992, mining at the quarries continued into 1992. <br />The cost or reclaiming areas affected postpetition is certainly <br />entitled to a priority as an administrative expense. In re <br />Pierce Coal and Const., Inc. 65 BR 521 (Bkrtcy.N.D.W.Va. 1986) <br />The question of whether the cost of reclaiming areas that <br />were disturbed prepetition is entitled to a priority as an admin- <br />istrative expense is dependent upon the outcome of Debtors' <br />motion to abandon the quarries. "IE the Trustee can not abandon <br />the property under Midlantic ... that creates an implicit duty on <br />the Trustee's part to expend the estate's unencumbered assets in <br />cleaning up the site ...." In re Peerless Plating Co. 70 BR 943 <br />-4- <br />