Laserfiche WebLink
On October 30, 2017, Mr. Stark rejected WildEarth Guardians' request for an inspection. <br />This rejection is attached as Exhibit 2. This request for informal review now follows and we <br />request the DRMS Director reverse Mr. Stark's decision and order DRMS staff to conduct an <br />inspection and take appropriate enforcement action over violations at the West Elk mine. Below, <br />we detail the reasons why the DRMS Director must reverse. <br />I. MR. STARK'S DECISION WAS BASED ON AN IMPROPER STANDARD OF REVIEW <br />Any person may request an inspection of surface coal mining operations by providing a <br />written statement giving DRMS reason to believe that a violation of CO SCMRA, MLRB Rules, <br />or any condition of a permit exists. See C.R.S. 34-33-123(1) and MRLB Rules, Section <br />5.02.5(1)(a). An authorized representative(s) shall have reason to believe that a violation exists <br />if, "The request alleges facts that, if true, would constitute [violations]." MLRB Rules, Section <br />5.02.5(1)(b)(i); see also 30 C.F.R. § 842.11(b)(2). <br />Mr. Stark's rejection of WildEarth Guardian's request for an inspection clearly is not <br />based on any review of WildEarth Guardians' request for inspection and the allegations therein. <br />Fundamentally, his decision is not based on a review of whether WildEarth Guardians request <br />"alleges facts that, if true, would constitute [violations]." <br />Instead, Mr. Stark's rejection of WildEarth Guardian's request for inspection cites a <br />January 11, 2017 letter from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in <br />which the Department's Director of Environmental Programs alleges uncertainty around the <br />issue of VOC emissions at the West Elk mine. This letter did not even state that West Elk is in <br />compliance with applicable state and federal clean air laws and regulations, but rather asserted <br />that the APCD was choosing not to take enforcement action. Put another way, this inconclusive <br />letter does not allege that Arch Coal is in compliance with applicable state and federal clean air <br />laws and regulations. <br />Mr. Stark's rejection is clearly not based on a review of WildEarth Guardians' <br />allegations. His rejection is certainly not based on whether the facts alleged by Guardians, if <br />true, would constitute violations. If anything, his decision is simply based on allegations from <br />another party. Accordingly, his rejection clearly runs afoul of MLRB Rules and must be <br />reversed. <br />That Mr. Stark failed to properly review WildEarth Guardians request for an inspection is <br />underscored by his response in which he asserts that, "APCD has not made a compliance <br />determination regarding the West Elk Mine and VOC emissions[.]" As Guardians' request <br />alleged, APCD has, in fact, made a compliance determination regarding the West Elk mine and <br />VOC emissions. In two separate inspection reports, one in 2012 and one in 2015, the APCD <br />determined the West Elk mine was "out of compliance" and recommended enforcement action. <br />Mr. Stark's response indicates he did not review Guardians' allegations appropriately. Rather <br />than assess whether the alleged facts, if true, would constitute violations, Mr. Stark simply <br />presumed that West Elk was in compliance without ever conducting an inspection. <br />2 <br />