Laserfiche WebLink
OSMRE and DRMS are responsible for implementing SMCRA. SMCRA does not provide state <br />or federal regulators with authority to regulate air pollution other than that attendant to erosion. <br />See In re Permanent Surface Mining Regulation Litig. I, Round 11, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS <br />17660, *40-45 (D.D.C. May 16, 1980). Moreover, SMCRA explicitly states that it does not <br />supersede, amend, modify, or repeal other provisions of law, including the CAA. 30 U.S.C. <br />§ 1292(a)(4). For these reasons, OSMRE and DRMS lack any authority to implement the Clean <br />Air Act (CAA). Thus, SMCRA cannot be used to require modifications of emission permits <br />issued under the CAA. <br />In Colorado, the Environmental Protection Agency through the Colorado Air Pollution Control <br />Division (APCD) is responsible for administering the CAA. You provide excerpts from APCD <br />inspection reports that detail an individual APCD inspector's position on how VOCs should be <br />regulated at West Elk Mine. However, this inspector's position is contrary to the responsible <br />state agency's position. See Letter from Martha Rudolph, Director of the Colorado Department <br />of Public Health and Environment's Environmental Programs to MCC (Jan. 11, 2017) <br />(hereinafter "Rudolph letter"). As indicated in the Rudolph letter, APCD has not required MCC <br />to permit, report, or control VOC emissions at the West Elk Mine, and we are aware of no action <br />on the part of APCD since the Rudolph letter to do so. <br />OSMRE and DRMS lack CAA authority, and we cannot substitute our judgement for that of the <br />APCD in its implementation of the CAA. Consequently, because the CAA authority has not <br />issued any noncompliance findings to MCC, we cannot conclude that MCC is out of compliance <br />with its permit. Therefore, your complaint does not provide reason to believe a violation exists <br />under SMCRA and the issuance of either a notice of violation or a cessation order relating to <br />VOC emissions is unwarranted. Based on the discussion above, OSMRE is denying your request <br />for inspection under 30 C.F.R. § 842.12(d)(2). <br />You also raised similar claims that due to the alleged CAA violation, MCC was out of <br />compliance with its MLA mining plan and mining plan modification. Mining plans are not <br />required by SMCRA and are not the proper subject of a citizen complaint under 30 U.S.C. <br />§ 1267(h)(1). Nonetheless, because we are the agency within the Department of the Interior <br />charged with issuing mining plans and mining plan modifications under the MLA, we have also <br />reviewed your allegations of a violation of a mining plan. We do not find that there is a violation <br />of the mining plan because, as stated above, the CAA authority has not determined MCC has <br />violated any VOC standard. <br />You may request informal review of the SMCRA decision under 30 C.F.R. 842.15(a). Any <br />request for review must be in writing and include a statement of how you are or may be <br />adversely affected and why the decision merits review. You should address such request to: <br />Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement <br />David Berry, Regional Director <br />1999 Broadway, Suite 3320 <br />Denver, CO 80202 <br />N <br />