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
"MSHA District 9 reviewed a conceptual flare design, and emphasized there are <br />too many questions remaining unanswered, no evaluations and no actual testing in <br />a no-risk mine type situation that demonstrates the conceptual flaring system <br />would be safe." <br />"methane flaring cannot be considered in detail at this time because the <br />technology is unproven and has unknown/unanalyzed safety hazards. As flaring <br />has not undergone rigorous analysis pertaining specifically to this mine to account <br />for specific operating conditions, or to any active coal mine in the US, it is not a <br />feasible alternative to consider in detail for this analysis." <br />ROD at 44. Each of these statements is apparently based only on the "additional research" <br />performed by the Forest Service - a meeting Forest Service staff conduct with Allyn Davis of <br />MSHA's District 9, and a letter from Mr. Davis. See letter of A. Davis, MSHA, to C. Richmond, <br />GMUG National Forest (Feb. 25, 2008), attached as Exh. 9. And each of these statements is <br />either false, misleading, based on no supporting evidence, or contradicted by statements from <br />other MSHA officials. Much of the "additional evidence" is contradicted by information easily <br />available to the public, but which the agency apparently decided not even to attempt to locate. <br />a. Evidence of Safe Flarine at Workine Coal Mines Contradicts <br />Mr. Davis's Statements and the Forest Service's Conclusions. <br />First, not only is there a long and safe history of flaring methane in the petroleum <br />industry, as MSHA's Mr. Sherer stated, there is a long and safe history of flaring at working coal <br />mines in the United Kingdom and Australia.7 Active mine flaring has been conducted in at least <br />the following working coal mines: the German Creek Mine in Australia;8 the United Colliery <br />' Mr. Sherer repeated his statements about the safety of flaring in a conversation on <br />April 4, 2008. See Declaration of E. Zukoski (Apr. 28, 2008) at 1, attached as Exh. 10. <br />' See Australian Government, Greenhouse Challenge Plus, Shell Coal, Flaring at German <br />Creek (last updated Mar. 4, 2008), available at <br />http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/challenge/members/shell.html (last viewed Aril 22, 2008), <br />attached as Exh. 11. <br />APPEAL OF E SEAM METHANE DRAINAGE WELLS PROJECT, APRIL 28, 2008 PAGE 14
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.