Laserfiche WebLink
with applicable air quality requirements in order to determine whether that operator is complying <br />with surface coal mining requirements.4 <br />In any case, a determination of whether Arch Coal is conducting surface coal mining <br />operations in compliance with applicable State and Federal clean air laws and regulations would <br />not have required an extra jurisdictional determination from OSMRE. It would have simply <br />required that OSMRE take appropriate action to investigate the matter, which could have <br />included requesting emission information from Arch Coal, verifying APCD inspection reports, <br />discussing the matter with APCD inspectors, or even conducting its own collection and testing of <br />emissions data. This is especially reasonable given that Arch Coal's own reports confirm that <br />methane venting activities at the West Elk mine are releasing regulated VOCs. In a report <br />prepared by Arista Midstream Services LLC in 2009 based on extensive gas sampling at the <br />West Elk mine, the company reported that regulated VOCs, including butane, propane, pentane, <br />and hexane are released as part of methane venting operations. See Exhibit 6, Arista Midstream <br />Services LLC, "West Elk Mine, Somerset, Colorado, E Seam Gathering Operations" (Sept. <br />2009) at 25. In a letter to the APCD in 2012, WildEarth Guardians detailed that these results by <br />4 Mr. Strand also cites In re Permanent Surface Mining Regulation Litig. 1, Round II, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17660, <br />*40-45 (D.D.C. May 16, 2980) and asserts this federal court ruling demonstrates OSMRE has no authority to <br />regulate surface coal mining in relation to air emissions. It does not and it is not applicable to the facts here. In that <br />case, the Court held OSMRE lacked authority to promulgate regulations implementing comprehensive control <br />measures for fugitive dust from all aspects of surface and underground mining operations where the agency based its <br />authority to do so on a provision of SMCRA limited to controlling air pollution only from erosion of spoil piles. Id. <br />at *41-42. OSMRE relied on 30 U.S.C. § 1265(b)(4), which requires coal operators to, "stabilize and protect all <br />surface areas including spoil piles affected by the surface coal mining and reclamation operation to effectively <br />control erosion and attendant air and water pollution." OSMRE incorrectly interpreted the phrase "attendant air and <br />water pollution" to refer to pollution attendant to all activities associated with surface and underground coal mining <br />rather than pollution attendant just to erosion from mining spoil piles. After reviewing the legislative history <br />pertaining to 30 U.S.C. § 1265(b)(4), the Court determined Congress intended that provision to allow only an <br />erosion performance standard to limit air and water pollution from erosion of spoil piles. Id. at *42-43. In <br />promulgating regulations controlling fugitive dust from all mining operations, not just spoil piles, the agency had <br />overstepped its regulatory authority. These facts are not in play with regards to W ildEarth Guardians' October 20, <br />2017 complaint. Here, Guardians is not asking OSMRE to regulate air emissions, but rather to inspect alleged <br />violations of SMCRA, SMCRA regulations, and applicable permit conditions related to surface coal mining <br />operations. <br />10 <br />