Laserfiche WebLink
Appeal Deciding Officer <br /> <br />18 <br />MSHA regulations may not specifically prohibit flaring, M SHA believed that any flaring system <br />design would need to be tested in a situation in which no miners were exposed (such as at a <br />sealed and abandoned mine), and that sufficient time was needed to test the viability and <br />durability of the system to ensure th at there would be zero potential to cause gas ignition <br />underground. (See : Record of Decision, E Seam Methane Drainage Wells Project , Charles S. <br />Richmond, USFS Forest Supervisor, March 7, 2008). <br /> <br />EA, 1.3, Purpose and Need, page 16: <br />The purposes of the leas e modification are to facilitate recovery of known federal <br />compliant and super -complaint coal reserves both within the existing lease and <br />the lease modification while also making operations on parent lease safer for <br />miners ; <br /> <br />EA, 3.2, Capture and Use, page 49: <br />If the mines were to generate their own power this would impact citizens including low <br />income and minority individuals in multiple counties because of the contracts in place for <br />electrical supply. Electricity costs in these rural communities could theo retically increase <br />by 20% ($0.097/kwh to $0.116/kwh) for residential and business customers. <br /> <br />Conclusion and Recommendation: <br /> <br />The USFS identified the cumulative effects of the mine methane emissions in the North Fork <br />Coal EIS and the EA and discussed alter natives to venting including the potential environmental <br />and economic impacts associated with flaring or capturing portions of the mine methane. <br /> <br />There is no specific authority in the Mineral Leasing Act, the regulations under the Act, or <br />elsewhere, that a ddress es the capture and use of methane that must be removed from <br />underground coal mines . The USFS analysis shows that the deciding officer understood both the <br />environmental benefits of mine methane flaring and capture and the overriding need to protect <br />th e safety of underground miners. The USFS “no surface occupancy” stipulation for the lease <br />modification places the suggested alternative methods to mitigate methane emissions outside the <br />jurisdiction of the agency. P ossible mitigation measures may be imple mented by OMLLC on <br />their existing leases, private land , or new BLM lease, but not on this lease modification due to <br />the No Surface Occupancy stipulations. <br /> <br />Furthermore, a n alternative requiring methane flaring would not satisfy the specific purpose and <br />nee d for the project , which was to “facilitate recovery of known federal compliant and super - <br />compliant coal reserves both within the existing lease and the lease modification while also <br />making operations on parent lease safer for miners”. <br /> <br />Due to the size of the lease modification (and associated recoverable coal reserves) relative to the <br />existing parent lease, and considering the degree to which the lease modification would extend <br />the life of the entire mining operation, the proposed action will not cause sig nificant additional <br />impacts beyond what is permitted under the parent lease; therefore, the effects of the proposed <br />action, as well as the alternatives discussed, essentially do not differ from the no action <br />alternative.