1995-08-18_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981041

Home Browse Search

Six stipulations were attached to the renewal permit and proposed decision ( 1 , 2, 6 , 7 , 11 , and 12) . Stipulation 13 was attached to a proposed approval decision for Minor Revision No. 23 , issued August 29 , 1994 . Stipulation 14 was attached to Technical Revision No. 21 , issued March 6 , 1995. Stipulation No. 1 is a "future resolution" stipulation which requires submittal of detailed refuse disposal specifications for the North Portal decline area prior to initiation of reclamation in that area. The stipulation is still active. Stipulation No. 2 requires submittal of an annual hydrology report and outlines the information to be included in the report. Annual hydrology reports meeting the requirements of the stipulation were submitted by Powderhorn as required for 1993 and 1994 , and were reviewed by the Division. The stipulation is still active. Stipulation No. 6 related to field trials conducted on the Roadside Refuse Pile, and specified that unless the field trials demonstrated that a lesser non-toxic cover depth would ensure satisfactory reclamation, a 4 foot cover depth would be required on the Roadside refuse pile and Cameo No. 1 , 2 , and 3 refuse piles. This stipulation was satisfied by Technical Revision No. 16, approved January 4 , 1994. In TR 16 , Powderhorn committed to the replacement of 18 inches of non-toxic, non-combustible plant growth material on the Roadside Refuse Disposal Area, Cameo Refuse Disposal Area No. 1 (CRDA No. 1) , and Cameo Refuse Disposal Area No. 3 (CRDA No. 3) . The operator also committed to replacement of 24 inches of non-toxic, non-combustible cover on Cameo Refuse Disposal Area No. 2 (CRDA No. 2 ) . These cover depths were based on vegetation data and soil chemistry data collected from the Roadside Refuse Pile field trials between 1983 and 1993 . Stipulation No. 7 specifies an additional performance bond amount of $672,529 .00 which must be filed prior to construction of Cameo Refuse Disposal Area No. 3 . This stipulation is still in force, as CRDA No. 3 construction has not yet been implemented, and the required bond amount has not yet been submitted. Stipulation No. 11 required that the operator submit proof that four AML violations and one State of Kentucky violation were appealed, and if appealed, that proof of final resolution be submitted as soon as possible after issuance of the renewal permit. A September 30, 1993 letter from Brian Dunfee of Peabody Western Coal Company (parent company of Powderhorn Coal) to Erica Crosby of the Division indicates that the AML violations referenced in the stipulation were in actuality Reclamation Fee Compliance Audit Reports which were at that time subject to administrative review by OSM, and that final reports had not yet been received by Peabody. The letter noted that OSM had recently modified the AVS to reflect the status of the audit reports as "under appeal" .