2013-02-06_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1991078

Home Browse Search

The Division scheduled and conducted a bond release inspection on May 30, 2012. The site inspection was conducted in accordance with Rule 3.03.2(2). The site inspection was not conducted within thirty (30) days of the completeness date of the Phase III bond release application due to weather conditions and in order to evaluate the revegetation success at the site during the growing season. John Rich of Honeywood Coal Company and Jim Stover, the Operator's consultant, accompanied Jared Ebert and Sandy Brown of the Division during the inspection. The landowners of the site were notified of the inspection date and time via a certified mail notice; however they did not attend the inspection. Please see the May 30, 2012 inspection report for details. The Division sent the Operator and their consultant four adequacy review letters. The first letter was sent on June 12, 2012, and the Division identified five adequacy review items. First, the Operator was required to complete surface and ground water monitoring prior to bond release as outlined in section 2.05.6(3) of the permit. Second, the alluvial and bedrock water monitoring wells have not been abandoned in accordance with Rule 4.07.1(1). These wells were required to be abandoned or transferred to the landowners with the proper permits obtained from the State Engineer's Office in accordance with Rule 4.05.14. Third, several weed species were observed in the Pond B area and were required to be treated prior to bond release. Fourth, the Operator was required to re -seed the Pond A area. Finally, a fence was in place around the revegetated areas. The fence was required to be removed or the Operator could have submitted a revision to the permit to leave the fencing in place. On October 5, 2012 the Division received the results of the surface and groundwater monitoring conducted to comply with section 2.05.6(3) of the permit. This data addressed the Division's concerns for that item in the first adequacy review letter. The Division's second adequacy review letter was sent on October 25, 2012. The Division identified two additional adequacy review issues. First, the acreage reported in the SL3 application contained a discrepancy. The total disturbed area was reported to be 111.2 acres. However given the acreage reported to be revegetated (90.2 acres), the area associated with the Pond A disturbance (1.6 acres) and the permanent facilities acreage (21 acres), the total disturbance added up to 112.8 acres. There was a 1.6 acre discrepancy in the total disturbed area reported in the bond release application. The Division believed this to be attributed to the permanent facilities acreage amount. The applicant included the 1.6 acres for the Pond A area in the permanent facilities acreage resulting in a double accounting of this disturbance. The permanent facilities acreage should have been reported as 19.4 acres. Second, the SL3 application indicated 90.2 acres of land has been granted Phase II bond release. However, only 86.8 acres was granted Phase II bond release during SL2. Approximately 3.4 acres of land associated with the Topsoil Stockpile No. 1 area was never granted Phase II bond release. The Division required the Operator to submit additional documentation that this area was eligible for both Phase II and III bond release. On November 19, 2012 the Division received a letter from Jim Stover in response to the October 25, 2012 adequacy review. The letter acknowledged the Division's findings in regards to the double counting of the 1.6 acres associated with the Pond A disturbance. Also, the operator submitted the required information in regards to the 3.4 acre area associated with the Topsoil Stockpile 1 area. Essentially, this area was reclaimed in the same manner as the remainder of the site. This letter Page 4 of 16