2008-07-15_REVISION - C1980007 (4)

Home Browse Search

subsequent minor revision or technical revision to the Division. The 16 methane drainage wells will vent the methane from the underground mine. 3. The Division issued a proposed conditional approval of MCC's TR-111 on June 9, 2008. On June 20, 2008, the Objectors, filed a timely request for hearing before the Board, pursuant to §34-33-116(5), C.R.S. and the Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for Coal Mining (hereafter "Board Rules"), Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii), 2 CCR 407-2. 4. The issues addressed before the Board involved: 1) whether the Board should affirm the Division's proposed decision to approve TR-111 in light of the Objector's assertion that the methane emissions from the mine should not be allowed to be vented but should instead be flared or captured; and 2) whether TR-111 should be treated as a permit revision. 5. The Objectors' claim the Board has jurisdiction to hear the issue regarding regulation of methane emissions because of Board Rule 4.01.1(5) and (9) and Board Rule 4.18(1), which states in part "[A]ny person conducting surface coal mining operations shall, to the extent possible using the best technology currently available, minimize disturbances and adverse impacts of the operation on fish, wildlife, and related environmental values, and, where practicable, achieve enhancement of such resources.". 6. At the hearing MCC argued that flaring and capture of the methane was not feasible and flaring had safety concerns. The Division's position was that it did not have authority to require capture or flaring of the methane. The Division also testified it has limited authority over erosion and attendant air pollution such as dust. The Division also testified its authority does not include regulation of gas emissions. 7. The Objectors' argued TR-111 and TR-112 both relate to the "E-seam" of the West Elk Mine, they are adjacent to one another and they should be addressed as a permit revision. TR-112 is not before the Board as the Division has not yet issued a proposed decision on it. The Objectors could cite no Board rule or statute that requires technical revisions to be considered together. 8. In this matter the Division initially questioned why TR-111 and TR-112, which were submitted to the Division on the same day, were not one revision. After talking to personnel at MCC, the Division learned the submittals were done in a logical sequence that corresponded with the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") submittals to the United States Forest Service. The revisions in TR-111 will take place on lands located completely within the then existing mine permit C-1980-007 and the Federal (BLM) Coal Lease C-1362, already in place. Whereas the revisions in TR-112 will, if approved, take place on lands partially located outside the then existing coal permit C-1980-007 on Federal (BLM) Coal Lease COC-67232. Further the action proposed under TR-112 was dependent on the approval of PR-12 and the inclusion of Federal Coal Lease COC-67232 in permit C- 1980-007. TR-111 was not contingent on the approval of PR-12 and instead related to the immediate mining needs of the West Elk Mine on an existing coal lease. 9. As to whether a revision to a permit has to be considered a technical revision or a permit revision the Division looks at whether each revision can stand alone and whether the revision meets the definition of a permit revision or a technical revision in the Board Mountain Coal Company, LLC 2 C-1980-007 I