Laserfiche WebLink
the company is accordingly violating several provisions of its permit, C-1980-007, SMCRA, and SMCRA <br />regulations." Id. at 6. WEG notes that the January 11, 2017 letter from the CDPHE only states that Colorado was <br />choosing not to take enforcement action against MCC, not that MCC is in compliance with the state and federal <br />air quality laws. Id. They support this proposition by citing to two separate inspection reports from 2012 and <br />2015 that state MCC was out of compliance and recommending enforcement action. Id. at 7. Although WEG <br />recognizes that no enforcement action was actually initiated, they claim this does not mean that MCC is in <br />compliance with the state and federal air quality laws. Id. <br />WEG also claims that OSMRE's SMCRA enforcement authority extends to taking enforcement actions for <br />violations of state and federal air quality laws. Id. at pp. 8-11. WEG asserts that "the offending activity in <br />question—methane venting above West Elk mine—is a surface mining activity that can and must be regulated <br />consistent with SMCRA, SMCRA regulations, and applicable permit conditions. Id. at 9. WEG claims that OSMRE <br />would not have to determine MCC's compliance status but only confirm that MCC is "out of compliance" based <br />on the 2012 and 2015 inspection reports. Id. WEG concludes that there was "clear evidence of violations of <br />surface coal mining laws and regulations and applicable permit conditions" that "should have led the agency to <br />conduct an inspection." Id. at 11. <br />Finding <br />The Request for Informal Review was submitted to me on December 6, 2017 pursuant to 30 U.S.C. § 1267(h) and <br />30 C.F.R. § 842.15. The federal regulations at 30 C.F.R. § 842.15 allow a person who is or may be adversely <br />affected by a coal mining and reclamation operation to request that the Director or her designee informally <br />review an authorized representative's decision not to inspect. As noted above, in this case, the Request for <br />Informal Review follows a Complaint submitted jointly and simultaneously to the OSMRE Western Regional <br />Director and the DRMS Director. OSMRE and DRMS reviewed the original Complaint independently in <br />accordance with the applicable federal or state laws and regulations. This Finding reviews only the DFB's <br />Response. <br />As indicated above, WEG's Request for Informal Review included information not previously included with the <br />original Complaint, and the DFB did not consider the new information that WEG presented with its Request for <br />Informal Review. Nevertheless, in the interest of full and fair consideration of all available information, I <br />considered all of the information provided with the original Complaint, all of the information reviewed by the <br />DFB, and all the information included with the Request for Informal Review in order to determine if there is a <br />"reason to believe" there is a violation at the West Elk Mine. <br />The "reason to believe" standard is required by SMCRA and its implementing regulations and cited by WEG in <br />both of the original Complaint and in the Request for Informal Review -30 U.S.C. § 1271(a)(1) and 30 C.F.R. <br />§ 842.11(b). In particular, as set forth in 30 U.S.C. § 1271(a)(1), when determining whether to order a federal <br />inspection in a primacy state such as Colorado, OSMRE must first determine whether we, "on the basis of any <br />information available ..., including receipt from information from any person, ... h[ave] reason to believe that <br />any person is in violation of any requirement of" SMCRA or any permit condition required by SMCRA. 30 U.S.C. <br />§ 1271(a)(1). If we have such "reason to believe," we must then notify the State regulatory authority—DRMS-- <br />and give them ten days to take appropriate action or show good cause. Id. <br />5 <br />