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