Laserfiche WebLink
Crandall Canyon Mine" (Mar. 6, 2007), excerpts attached as Exh. 22.12 A Senate investigative <br />report on the disaster have raised questions as to whether Mr. Davis may have been compliant to <br />pressure from the coal company (id. at 20, 41-43, 59), whether he provided insufficient <br />supervision of MSHA employees (id, at 38), whether he properly understood or implemented <br />MSHA policies and procedures (id. at 53-54), and whether he relied too heavily on the operator's <br />representation of facts rather than applying vigorous oversight and monitoring (id. at 54). In <br />light of the poor documentation of the District 9 review process concerning West Elk methane <br />flaring, the U.S. Senate report casts further doubts on the effectiveness and independence of <br />District 9's decisionmaking.13 <br />Conclusion. <br />The above analysis shows: (1) MSHA officials disagree with Mr. Davis's perfunctory <br />conclusions upon which the Forest Service relies; (2) flaring working coal mines and in other <br />industries has occurred safely for years; (3) West Elk is already using the functional equivalent <br />12 A full copy of the report is available at <br />kennedy. senate. gov/imo/media/doc/CCM%20Report%2OFinal%20FOR%20POSTING%200206 <br />08. pdf. <br />13 Similar questions about MSHA's District 9 management are raised by a report of the <br />Department of Labor's Office of Inspector General (OIG) concerning the Crandall Canyon Mine <br />disaster and the rescue operations at the time of the tragedy. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Office of <br />Inspector General, "MSHA Could Not Show It Made the Right Decision in Approving the Roof <br />Control Plan at Crandall Canyon Mine," Report No. 05-08-003-06-001 (Mar. 31, 2008) at 3. <br />attached as Exh. 23. The OIG found that "MSHA could not show that it made the right decision <br />in approving the plan or that the process was free from undue influence by the mine operator." <br />Id. at 4. See also id. at 10 (OIG "identified four sources of potentially relevant information that <br />were not considered" in MSHA District 9's decision making process); id. at 14 ("In reviewing <br />and approving the roof control plan, District 9 did not document how it evaluated the proposed <br />plans or on what basis it approved them."); id. at 17 ("the absence of documentation specific to <br />the roof control plan review process at Crandall Canyon prohibited us from concluding whether <br />the mine operator had received preferential treatment in these decisions and prevented MSHA <br />from showing that its approval process was free from undue influence by the mine operator."). <br />District 9 MSHA's handling of West Elk flaring issues raises similar questions about the <br />District's decisionmaking, use of relevant information, and independence. <br />APPEAL OF E SEAM METHANE DRAINAGE WELLS PROJECT, APRIL 28, 2008 PAGE 20