Laserfiche WebLink
Request for Hearing on TR-111 for the West Elk Mine (Permit No. C-1980-0007) Page 8 <br />June 20, 2008 <br />III. DRMS Should Consider All Elements of the Methane Drainage Project as a Single <br />Conceptual Plan Under a Permit Revision. <br />We urge the Board to require that DRMS address simultaneously all of the E-seam <br />methane drainage project in a sin le Permit Revision. <br />On or about October 15, 2007, MCC submitted to DRMS the applications for two <br />Technical Revisions (TRI I I and TRI 12) that are intended to authorize the construction of <br />methane venting wells in the E-seam at the West Elk Mine. TR112 includes wells that are <br />intended to vent the area to be mined under the authorization of the recently authorized Permit <br />Revision 12 to the West Elk Mine ("PR12"). Both Technical Revisions cover wells draining the <br />E-seam. <br />The two separate Technical Revisions addressing coal Mine methane venting actually <br />represent a single, unitary project that cannot be rationally broken apart. The bulldozing of <br />nearly two hundred well pads and miles of roads in a previously little-disturbed area - in fact in <br />an area the Forest Service has repeatedly found to be "roadless" - fits squarely within the <br />definition of a project requiring a Permit Revision since it represents a "significant alteration" to <br />the original permit. See Section 2.08.4(1) of the regulations. Although DRMS has in the past <br />authorized methane venting wells under Technical Revisions, we understand that the scope of <br />this project far exceeds the scope of any previously-reviewed venting projects. The fact the <br />Forest Service performed an Environmental Impact Statement on the above-ground portion of <br />the Mine - the only part over which it has jurisdiction - demonstrates that that agency concluded <br />that approval of the surface disturbance constituted a "major federal action" that may <br />"significantly effect[] the quality of the human environment." 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). The Forest <br />Service determined that the methane venting would result in irretrievable commitments of air, <br />soil, and other resources. See Exh. 1 (West Elk Final EIS) at 151-52. This level of disturbance <br />does not fit within the definition of a "Technical Revision" which applies to a "minor change ... <br />which change shall not cause a significant alteration in the operator's reclamation plan." <br />Section 103(27)(136) of the regulations. <br />Notwithstanding the issues raised above, while we commend DRMS for considering the <br />majority of the methane venting wells in the context of a single revision rather than through a <br />piecemeal application project, we object to the analysis of this "conceptual plan" as the only <br />significant opportunity for public involvement prior to on-the-ground impacts. We understand <br />that DRMS intends to allow the Mine operators to proceed with actual road construction and <br />drilling for sites that fall within the general framework proposed by the Technical Revisions with <br />authorization under Annual Operating Plan Minor Revisions. Minor Revisions provide no public <br />notice, other than posting at the DRMS office, and allow the operator to proceed with work <br />during the 10-day "notice" period. Such a structure obviously fails to provide for meaningful <br />public involvement. As elements of this project will not be constructed for years, this approach <br />fails to account for changes in conditions over time and consideration of project elements in the <br />context of what has gone before. DRMS should require that the Mine operators submit <br />Technical Revisions for all surface activities at the time that their specific characteristics are <br />identified (and prior to construction), and not just for those that significantly deviate from the <br />"conceptual plan."