My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-06-20_REVISION - C1980007
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1980007
>
2008-06-20_REVISION - C1980007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:33:23 PM
Creation date
6/23/2008 9:47:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
6/20/2008
Doc Name
Request of Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action for Formal Hearing on the Proposed Decision
From
EarthJustice
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR111
Email Name
TAK
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
147
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Email of Hubert E. Sherer, MSHA to Liane Mattson, USFS, el al. (Nov. 1, 2007 4:31 AM), <br />included in Exh. 7. These a-mails demonstrate that, contrary to the Forest Service's assertions, <br />the MSHA "has no regulation or policy that prohibits the flaring of methane." /d. <br />As a result of this evidence, the Regional Forester previously granted Rocky Mountain <br />Clean Air Action's appeal of the GMUG National Forest's prior decision approving the Project. <br />The Appeal Deciding Officer stated: <br />The Reviewing Officer, based on review of the record, found that the record <br />contained conflicting information provided by the Mine Safety and Health <br />Administration regarding the viability of methane flaring. The reviewing officer <br />recommended the decision be reversed and remanded back to the Forest <br />Supervisor. I concur with the Reviewing Officer and by this letter instruct Forest <br />Supervisor Richmond to further evaluate the feasibility of methane flaring as an <br />alternative. <br />Letter of N. Rasure, Appeal Deciding Office to E. Zukoski (Feb. 13, 2008), attached as Exh. 8. <br />Twenty-two days later, the GMUG National Forester issued a new ROD again approving <br />the Project without an analysis of flaring as an alternative. Appendix D to the ROD contains a <br />"Supplemental Information Report" (SIR) justifying the GMUG National Forest's failure to <br />analyze a flaring alternative. ROD at 43. The SIR states that the GMUG National Forest <br />undertook "additional research" on the feasibility of flaring, the sum total of which was <br />apparently "additional contacts with the District 9 MSHA Office." ROD at 44. <br />The SIR further states, among other things, that: <br />flaring "is not a feasible alternative because it is an un-researched and untested <br />technology; there are too many unknowns about flaring systems in general for MSHA to <br />approve at the West Elk Mine in particular; and therefore, it cannot be analyzed as a <br />reasonable alternative." <br />"MSHA has advised the mine operator that too many unknowns exist at the <br />present time for MSHA to approve a flaring system." <br />"MSHA believes testing and analysis would require several years of effort." <br />APPEAL OF E SEAM METHANE DRAINAGE WELLS PROJECT, APRIL 28, 2008 PAGE 13
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.