2011-11-10_REVISION - C1981022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Appeal Deciding Officer 17 Methane flaring is a reasonable, practical, effective, and feasible alternative to reduce GHG pollution that would allow for the accomplishment of the Lease Modification's purpose and need. The Forest Service's conclusory dismissal of a methane flaring alternative, based on an arbitrary analysis and little valid evidence, violates NEPA. See, e.g., Davis v. Mineta, 302 F.3d 1104, 1122 (10th Cir. 2002) (agency cannot reject an alternative as unreasonable or infeasible with little or no documents in the record supporting its conclusion); Wilderness Soc'y, 524 F. Supp. 2d at 1311 -12 (overturning agency when no evidence in the record supported the agency's conclusion that an alternative was infeasible). Discussion: Also, see above discussion under Appeal Issue II and II -A. Flaring involves destroying gas that would otherwise be released directly into the atmosphere. Flaring is an important technology for disposing of the methane safely and efficiently and can help to significantly reduce a major source of GHG emissions. Flared methane is converted to CO2, heat and water. Mitigation of methane emissions via flaring is discussed in Sections 2.2 and 3.2 of the EA. EA, 2.2, Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study, page 33: Alternatives that address flaring and methane capture are duplicative of either the No Action or Proposed Action alternatives as these are possible mitigation measures that may be implemented by OMLLC on their existing leases, private land or new BLM lease, but not on the lease modification due to the No Surface Occupancy stipulations. CEQ NEPA regulations describe this situation as having been covered by prior environmental review (40 CFR § 1506.3). EA, 3.2, GHG Possible Mitigations for All Alternatives, page 48: ... [W]hile flaring pure, or nearly pure, concentrations of methane results in a large greenhouse gas emission reduction, other inert constituents in the gas flared can become criteria pollutants. For this project, inert constituents are estimated to be between 6 and 77% (based on methane concentrations in the North Fork) which when flared with the methane result in nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide which are criteria pollutants. The resulting CO2 emissions still present a huge challenge in terms of combating climate change and flaring is therefore not regarded as the most efficient nor environmentally friendly of the end use options available It is unknown due to the fluctuating nature of the gas constituents what effects this might have on Colorado and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Permitting and would also require site - specific emissions monitoring if flaring is ever approved to determine air permit requirements. To the best we are able to tell from literature, flaring in an active _gob (where the longwall miner is working) in the US has not yet been approved by MSHA MSHA has notified the Forest Service that flaring is not a feasible option and they would not approve a flaring operation. MSHA has objected to plans to flare mine methane brought to the surface by methane drainage wells despite approving of ventilation plans that included those wells. Flaring was determined to be an un- researched and untested technology and MSHA believes testing and analysis would require several years of effort. The USFS found that while