Laserfiche WebLink
flaring,6 as expressed in MSHA's current position on the practice, and the legal and physical <br />complexities of constructing a flaring system in a National Forest, make flaring an unsafe and <br />impractical option for mitigating CMM emissions at the West Elk Mine. <br />D. CDRMS Acted Properly and in Full Compliance with Colorado Regulations in <br />Approving the Construction of MDWs Under a TR-111 <br />Appellants' final claim is that the permit process should be changed to consider TR-111 <br />and TR-112 together as a part of a single permit revision. See Request at 8. Appellants claim <br />this is necessary to ensure "meaningful public involvement." Id. Contrary to Appellants' claims, <br />the current permitting process is well justified, and provides ample opportunity for public <br />involvement. <br />In approving TR-111 and treating MDW construction as a technical revision, CDRMS <br />acted consistent with Colorado regulations and with the established treatment of MDW <br />construction. Under Colorado regulations, technical revisions are used for permit changes that <br />do not cause "a significant alteration in the operator's reclamation plan." See Sections 2.08.4(2) <br />and 1.04(136) of the regulations. The determination of whether a proposed change is a <br />"significant alternation of a reclamation plan" is a decision left to the discretion of the CDRMS. <br />In approving TR-111, CDRMS acted within its discretion. TR-111 proposes the construction of <br />16 MDWs and 1.5 miles of access roads, causing the disturbance of only ten acres of land. See <br />Exhibit 5, TR-111 at 2, 7-8. Notably, Appellants objections to TR-111 do not touch upon the <br />reclamation consequences at all. <br />The CDRMS has an established history of treating the construction and operation of <br />MDWs as a technical revisions to a mine permit. Existing wells at the West Elk Mine were <br />approved and constructed under a technical revision. On July 15, 2002 the CDRMS approved <br />TR-96, which permitted the construction of 64 MDWs at the West Elk Mine for the B Coal <br />Seam. <br />° Appellants attempt to equate the West Elk Mine's use of CMM for mine heaters with flaring from MDWs. See <br />Request at 7. However the use of mine heaters is distinct from the flaring advocated by Appellants, because the <br />mine heaters are fueled with minimal amounts of CMM from a sealed, inactive portion of the mine, which does not <br />pose the same safety hazards as CMM proposed to be flared from the active portions of the mine. For a complete <br />discussion of the distinction between the use of mine heaters and flaring, see MCC's May 8, 2008 Letter to the <br />Forest Service, attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit 7. <br />4842-4129-1266\7 9