November 16-17, and December 2, 1971 Hearing
|
|
Legislative History November 16-17, and December 2, 1971 Hearing |
| |
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1971
571 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MINERALS, MATERIALS, AND FUELS OF
THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C.
571 The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 3110, New Senate Office
Building, Hon. Frank E. Moss (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
571 Present: Senators Moss, Allott, Hansen, Stevens, Fannin, Jordan of Idaho, Byrd of
Virginia, and Randolph.
571 Also present: Mary Jane Due, special counsel; Charles Cook, minority counsel; and Tom
Nelson, assistant minority counsel.
571 Senator Moss. The subcommittee will come to order.
571 We are continuing our hearings on surface mining legislation before the committee, a
number of bills, including S. 1160 and S. 1240.
571 This is a continuation of hearings that began on the 16th of November, continued through
the 17th, on surface mining legislation. We are going to hear testimony today specifically
directed to 1160 and 1240, and in addition we will hear those persons who wished to testify in
November on the more general aspects of surface mining legislation, but whom we were unable
to accommodate because of the great number of witnesses that we had wishing to testify on the
earlier dates of the hearing.
571 We have a number of very important and interesting witnesses to hear today. Our first
will be our colleague, the Honorable John Sherman Cooper, the Senator from Kentucky, who has
a great knowledge and interest in the problem of surface mining, since he comes from one of our
great coal-producing States, and one in which the problem of surface mining has been under
discussion for quite some time.
571 We are glad to have you, Senator Cooper, and you may proceed, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF KENTUCKY
571 Senator COOPER. Senator Moss, and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate
very much the opportunity to appear before this committee, as it considers legislation for the
regulation, control, or prohibition of surface mining, and to speak on a subject of such great
importance to the Nation - and especially to my own State of Kentucky, and to all coal-producing
States.
572 This subject includes the contour mining or steep slope stripping which is typical of
mountainous and hilly areas, as well as the area mining practiced on flat or rolling terrain. Both
contour and area surface mining are practiced in Kentucky.
572 I will not attempt to go into great detail about the proposal I shall make today, because I
know the time of the committee is limited. I will submit it for your consideration during the
preparation of whatever legislation you may recommend to the Senate.
572 I was very happy to join in the sponsorship of S. 993, introduced for the administration by
the chairman of the full committee, Senator Jackson, and the ranking minority members, Senator
Allott.
572 The administration bill has, I believe, great value as the initiative of the administration,
and in establishing a national policy to deal with the subject of surface mining. The President is
to be commended for his leadership and initiative in this field. I believe he is the first President
who has taken this initiative and leadership.
572 However, I believe the administration bill can be improved in several important respects.
Since it has been introduced, I have given thought to this proposal, and I believe that legislation
can be enacted which will effectively work toward this objective; that is, to regulate surface
mining.
572 In studying this matter, I have consulted with my colleague, Senator Baker of Tennessee,
for the problems of our States of Tennessee and Kentucky are similar and we have found
ourselves in general agreement. His thorough study has contributed in great part to the
recommendations I make.
572 They say in addition to being a fine lawyer, one who has contributed much to the study of
environmental problems in the Senate on public works, he was also an engineer before he
became a lawyer. We hope much to be able to submit a bill embodying our joint proposals.
572 In preparing the recommendations that I make today, I have relied very heavily upon the
experience of the Senate Committee on Public Works - in the preparation of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1970, which have been enacted by the Congress, and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1971, which have been approved by the Senate and I am
sure they will be approved by the Congress in the early part of next session.
572 At the outset, we must consider the position of many organizations and citizens who urge
that surface mining be prohibited. As I will note later, I think it clear that strip mining should be
prohibited in certain areas; for example, those over a certain steepness of slope, or when it would
violate water quality requirements established by law. But I do not favor complete prohibition of
surface mining. I cannot do so because, realistically, coal production is needed.
572 It is well known that the difficult question of provision of energy, sufficient to meet the
Nation's needs, is a critical one. Energy demands have increased dramatically in recent years,
and are expected to continue to increase at a growing rate. Energy demands double every 8 to 10
years.
572 In effect, the use of energy is a measure of the well-being and standard of living of our
people as well as of the changes brought by industrialization and urbanization.
573 I understand this subcommittee is conducting hearings at least in part under the authority
of Senate Resolution 45, of which I was a cosponsor, providing for a national fuels and energy
policy study, and I know the committee will make its report by 1973. I would hope that this
report will address the whole question of levels of use of energy, available resources, and the
costs - including environmental costs - of developing those resources, of converting them into
energy, and of consuming that energy and the products to which it is in turn applied.
573 It may be, following such appraisals, that it will be found possible to shift away from strip
mining to deep mining and the development of other resources.
573 Nevertheless, I think it important we do not wait until 1973 to take the necessary, if
interim, steps for the regulation of surface mining.
573 It has been suggested, and in testimony before this committee, that alternate fuel sources
of coal can be provided by other fossil fuels, by nuclear energy, and even by solar energy. Each
of these fuels have problems - I leave off solar energy - both in the availability of resources and
in the environmental impact of their recovery and conversion to energy, and I do not think they
can be relied upon now to furnish the necessary energy requirements of the Nation.
573 I therefore favor the regulation of surface mining, and my remarks are addressed to this
subject.
573 Strip mining for coal has grown from minimal proportions to become a major factor in
coal production. In 1970, nationally, surface coal production totaled 264 million tons, or 44
percent of the total of bituminous and lignite production.
573 In Kentucky, 48 percent of coal production was produced by stripmining methods - 125.3
million tons. This figure, for Kentucky alone, represents better than 10 percent of the Nation's
total production of coal in 1970, and more than 23 percent of the Nation's surface production.
573 Strip mining is expanding rapidly. Nationally, strip mining was 23 percent higher in 1970
than in 1969. In contrast, underground production decreased 2.4 percent between 1969 and 1970.
Unless something is done and done quickly, the situation will be completely out of control, and
vast areas have already been devastated, and, I think, have little hope of reclamation.
573 If surface mining is to be regulated rather than prohibited, the first question is whether
Federal legislation is required, or whether the States shall maintain jurisdiction. I would like to
praise my State - Kentucky - for I believe it is generally agreed that it has developed the
outstanding State regulatory program in the Nation.
573 But, I have concluded that a Federal law is required for two reasons:
573 First, because the problems of providing energy and preserving the environment are
national problems which require national policy.
573 Second, because regulation State by State introduces competition for markets which
places a premium on low standards, and a statute that will be uniformly applicable is required in
equity and fairness.
573 The question then arises of whether the regulation or surface mining should be
administered solely by the Federal Government, or should it be through a cooperative
Federal-State relationship. With the experience of the recent Water Pollution Control Act,
passed by the Senate 86 to 0, which restores State participation in water pollution control, and
from my experience in other pollution control programs, I favor the Federal-State relationship.
574 The first proposal I make is that a bill to control strip mining should be enacted quickly,
and must deal with time elements. I believe the procedures which I have incorporated in this
proposal, which we are drafting and expect to introduce, is more definite and would secure
quicker action than S. 966.
574 Senator Baker and I have concluded that the proper agency for control would be the
Environmental Protection Agency, cooperating with the Department of Interior's Bureau of
Mines, and with the Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service of the Department of
Agriculture and others.
574 In order to establish an adequate Federal-State regulatory program, it is necessary to
provide time and orderly procedures, involving public participation. Our proposal has two
phases.
574 Under the primary, prior and ultimate control phase, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency would be required, after the model of the Clean Air Act and
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, to promulgate criteria and guidelines for the control of
surface mining activities, and to establish minimum requirements for the State regulatory
program.
574 I cannot go into detail of the criteria. I think we know what cycling will be, dealing with
the slope and prohibiting of pushing of the boil over the slope.
574 Following promulgation of these criteria and guidelines - which would be required within
6 months of date of enactment - the State would be given 6 months to adopt, after public
hearings, and submit to the Administrator, a regulatory program which would be required to meet
certain criteria set forth in the bill. Included in these criteria are requirements for permit
programs.
574 If the Administrator determines that the State regulatory program meets the requirements
of the statute, the State program would be approved. In the event the program is inadequate, the
Administrator is given authority to substitute all, or a portion, of the regulatory program for the
State. The entire procedure for the development of the regulatory program would consume 18
months, a time coincident with the period of the first phase.
574 Following the establishment of an effective regulatory program - either State administered
and approved by the Administrator, or an EPA substituted program where the State program is
inadequate - all persons, including those presently conducting surface mining operations, would
be required to comply with the provisions of the regulatory programs.
574 The next important question, of course, is that of enforcement, and of what agency will be
responsible for onsite monitoring, application of the practices required, and enforcement -
including citation of violations and prosecution of penalties or mine closure.
574 I would propose that, as soon as Federal guidelines have been established, and there has
been an opportunity for the States to develop plans conforming to the Federal regulations,
responsibility for enforcement should reside with the State. This would obviate the necessity of
building a large body of Federal personnel to assure that the State carries out and enforces its
responsibility.
575 My proposal would provide that the Environmental Protection Agency would have the
authority not only to require adequate regulations for strip mining and enforcement, and to
review and approve or refuse the State plans, and substitute their own plans for State plans, but
would have the authority of ultimate enforcement if a State fails to act.
575 It has been suggested that the Bureau of Mines should have primary responsibility. My
experience is that the Bureau of Mines functions first to encourage the production of coal, and
second, above all, to insure safety. These functions are not the same as those concerned with the
environment.
575 Surface mining is directly related to environmental quality, as well as the production of
needed energy fuel. EPA is developing the techniques in the field of environmental protection,
and it can more properly and effectively do so in this field. I may say Senator Baker advanced
this view, and most persuasively, sometime ago.
575 Mr. Chairman, the heart of the regulatory program would be a permit system, which
would provide that any person undertaking any surface mining operation would be required to
give notification to the public and provide an opportunity for public hearings.
575 The State, or if appropriate the Federal Government, would issue or deny the permit. In
the event the permit is issued, it would, of course, contain conditions on the operation of the
mining activity, including performance standards and plans and performance bonds for the
restoration and reclamation of the site.
575 We are very much interested in the document which your committee has issued noting the
different proposals made throughout the years, and very much interested in finding one of the
first proposals was made by Senator Dirksen in 1940 in the House, in which he said that it would
be used as necessary to make the contour of the land approximately the same as before the
mining operation was begun.
575 This procedure, establishing a system of primary State regulations, backed up, if
necessary, and enforced by the EPA, would require 16 or 18 months to develop - 6 months from
enactment for the EPA to issue comprehensive guidelines and criteria to the States; 6 months for
the State to develop its plan based upon the Federal criteria and guidelines, and then 4 to 6
months for the action of the EPA in approving or amending State plans.
575 I realize this could be done in 12 to 16 months rather than 18 months. This is what I want
to bring to the attention of the committee. I have been speaking about the development of the
State plans, with backup by the EPA, but this is what I want to emphasize very strongly.
575 A serious question arises about what will happen during this year and a half, or 2 years if
the bill is not promptly enacted by the Congress. On the record, the expansion of strip mining in
the past 2 years would indicate that the problems may by then be insuperable, beyond control,
and large areas of our coal-producing States would be beyond the possibility of rehabilitation.
576 I therefore propose that during this interim period, surface mining be conducted only
under Federal authority, with the approval of the EPA.
576 Our proposal would establish an interim Federal program, under Federal authority of the
Environmental Protection Administration. Any person currently operating a surface mine, or
proposing to initiate operations at a new site, would be required to file a plan with the EPA
describing the method of operation, and the restoration program.
576 The Administrator of EPA would have to approve the plan if the operator is to continue
operations, or initiate new operations. The Administrator would approve the plan only if he were
assured that restoration is adequately provided for. Six months after enactment, no person could
operate a surface mine except in compliance with the interim Federal controls and EPA approval.
576 This interim, exclusively Federal, program of control would be phased out upon the
development of the more comprehensive regulatory framework with primary State responsibility,
which I have outlined above.
576 This program we are proposing may seem drastic, and I think it is drastic, because it
would mean within 6 months, unless every person operating comes into compliance, they will
not be able to operate. But unless immediate action is taken to regulate effectively surface
mining, those who desire to operate surface mines will certainly face the prospect of being
prohibited from operation.
576 If the regulation of strip mining is not undertaken quickly, we will face the unhapply
prospect of having not only our flat and rolling lands, but even larger areas of our hill and
mountain lands, despoiled - and restoration may be impossible.
576 Mr. Chairman, I believe the outline I have just described would provide a sound basis for
surface mine regulation.
576 Mr. Chairman, I want to address myself to one other factor, and then I want to go.
576 Mr. Chairman, I have been keenly interested in this subject and deeply concerned for some
time.
576 I think it would be valuable for this committee, in considering this legislation, although it
does not have the jurisdiction of the subject, to address itself to one of the primary causes for the
increase in strip mining - the enactment of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.
576 I was a cosponsor of the bill, and voted for it, and I approve most of its provisions. But
when it was considered by the Senate in October 1969, I opposed that provision in the bill which
abolished the long existing classification of underground mines as "gassy" or "nongassy" and
classified all as "gassy," whether or not they were, in fact, gassy.
576 I offered an amendment to maintain the classification which was debated for 4 days and
although defeated by a vote of 45 to 31, I believe that many in the Senate recognized the problem
that removal of the classification would create.
576 I pointed out in the debate that with respect to Kentucky's mines, its approximately 3,000
nongassy small mines were safer than the 392 large gassy mines - this is true of all other States -
and that to require them to install the costly equipment necessary for gassy mines would
inexorably drive the small nongassy mines out of business with no gain in safety for the miners.
577 My prediction has come true, unfortunately. Many have been driven out of business.
More will be, and the safety record since March 31, 1971, the effective date of the new Coal
Mine Safety Law, is worse. I predict in my statement on the floor in 1969 that the closing of
these small mines would result in the expansion of strip mining.
577 Another consequence if my amendment is defeated, is strip mining of the small acreages
at the tops of the hills, for they cannot be mined with permissible equipment economically.
There is one way they might be mined, which is through strip mining. One who has flown over
the areas and seen the country devastated by strip mining, and its effect upon the environment,
know what I am talking about; conservationists in the Senate should know.
577 Unfortunately, this prediction is also true. This strip mining is going to continue unless
there is more emphasis laid on deep mining.
577 I ask consent to submit to the committee a list of some of the regulations of the Bureau of
Mines which do not contribute to safety, some which actually reduce the safety of the miners -
regulations which should be repealed or modified, regulations which, as I have said, have driven
and continue to drive the nongassy mines out of business.
577 The Bureau's enforcement procedure seems to rely chiefly on imposing fines in varying
amounts for infractions of its regulations - mandatory fines without prior opportunity of an
operator to be heard which is contrary to all our sense "due process" of law, and which has
seemed to only confuse operators as to the safety measures they are required to take.
577 Since the first effective Federal Mine Safety Act, the act has contained a provision
authorizing the Bureau of Mines to close mines when a condition of imminent danger exists.
Several years ago when the Senate was considering a mine safety bill, I proposed that mines
should be closed down when conditions that could lead to imminent danger existed, not waiting
for imminent danger, until the conditions were abated.
577 This was adopted and is now found in section 104(c)(1). I don't think it has been used,
though.
577 I think it would be well to abolish the uneven, unequal, perhaps arbitrary imposition of
mandatory fines, use section 104(c)(1) to close down mines until the danger has been abated and
when necessary and, wherever required, impose fines and penalties for failure to abate and with
due process of law. This, in my view, would provide safety for miners and fairness to the
operators.
577 I bring this to your attention because as I will make these proposals to the Senate
Committee on Labor, and your interest would be of great value.
577 Mr. Chairman, I would like to file a few exhibits to be included in my statement: one
showing the increase in surface mining since the adoption of this act, and some statements of the
Governor of Kentucky on this subject; a statement by TVA on their practice of strip mining
which was not very successful.
577 Thank you for your patience. I see my colleague, Senator Baker, here, and I must say I
owe a great deal to him in working out this proposal. We worked out what we believe is a fair
proposal, one which is proper, and then tried to work a system which will be effective and
successful.
577 Senator Moss. Thank you very much, Senator. The exhibits that you ask to be filed may
go in the record. In your statement you requested consent to submit a list of some of the
regulations of the Bureau of Mines which do not contribute to safety, and some that actually
reduce the safety of miners. If you wish to submit such a list, this committee will be glad to
receive them, and they can be printed in the record.
578 We are concerned about that problem of mine safety, although you indicated the
Committee on Labor will take this up. We may also want to take a look at it and see whether any
action is required here.
578 I appreciate your statement and your suggestions that the urgency is so great that you
recommend that we begin at once exercising control by requiring a permit from the Federal
authority to continue surface mining while we get in motion the system that you described, which
you think would be optimum.
578 Indeed, there is an urgency on this surface mining problem, urgency from two sides. First,
we need the increased energy, and we have had to turn more and more to coal as our sources of
energy decline. Second, we must find some way to obtain the energy without despoiling our land
and water ecology generally. This is a problem to be solved and I am pleased to have you speak
on it.
578 Senator COOPER. Mr. Ray Harm of Kentucky has asked me to submit a statement, and I
would like to submit it for the record.
578 Senator Moss. That will be submitted and will be printed in the record.
578 Senator Hansen has a question.
578 Senator HANSEN. Senator Cooper, first of all, let me thank you for your excellent
presentation this morning. I am impressed with your understanding and knowledge of the
problems to which you have addressed yourself.
578 I gather what you are proposing is a continuation or an extension of the Federal-State
regulatory relationship with the proviso that in the event that State regulations are inadequate or
they don't measure up or get the job done as you feel it should be done, the then Federal
standards would supercede those of the States, and Federal controls would be implemented. Is
this general understanding correct?
578 Senator COOPER. That is correct. Instead of saying continuous Federal-State
relationships, I would say continuous State, but until that is established, Federal control.
578 Senator HANSEN. My question is: You spoke out against Federal controls which
classified all underground mines as gassy. Does this square with your first statement?
578 Senator COOPER. I spoke out against that provision in the Mine Safety Act which was
adopted in 1969, which removed the long classification of gassy and nongassy matter, to classify
them all to gassy whether or not they were gassy or not. And the result of that was to require
these small nongassy mines - they are above the water level - the machine does not even exist - to
close the mines down - machinery they could not economically use, and it would drive them all
out of business.
578 This strip mining has made no sense at all, has not contributed anything to safety. There
have been more injuries and fatalities since the adoption of that line.
578 Senator HANSEN. Some of the witnesses we had earlier, a week or two ago, testified that
on the basis of tons of coal produced, the incidents of accidents in a strip mine was only about
one-sixth as much as it was in underground mines.
579 Senator COOPER. I would guess that strip mines and surface mines would be smaller
incidents of injuries than in the deep mining. Deep mining is dangerous, no question about it.
579 Senator HANSEN. I gathered in the second part of your testimony that you are inveighing
against Federal legislation which had arbitrarily declared all mines as gassy mines. Would you
not think that if we were to impose Federal guidelines over all of the strip mining throughout the
United States we might find situations which would not be unlike that to which you complain in
your statement? This is my point.
579 Senator COOPER. I have just said that my - Senator Baker, one of the chief architects of
the bill, we are going to hear from him. Ultimately we have Federal-State relationships with the
enforcement on State. I don't think we have the same problems with the surface mining as we
have had with deep mining. I want to say ever since I have been here, I think - no, I know
something about these mines. I live in the eastern part of Kentucky. I worked outside of the
mines one summer, and I know how they work. I worked on all of these mine safety regulations.
579 They impose these arbitrary penalties which do not contribute to safety, and the Bureau of
Mines has not done a good job on this in my view, and we have to get it in the hand of somebody
that understands the problems.
579 Thank you very much.
579 Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much.
579 (The material submitted by Senator Cooper is in the appendix.)
579 Senator Moss. Senator Stevens, do you have any questions?
579 Senator STEVENS. No. Our colleague has demonstrated once again why he has been
such a leader in this area. I could make a political speech for you now, Tom, but I don't think I
will.
579 Senator Moss. Thank you very much, Senator Cooper.
579 We will now hear from the Honorable Howard Baker, Senator from Tennessee.
579 We are pleased to have you, Senator Baker.
STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD H. BAKER, JR., A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
579 Senator BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.
579 I appreciate this opportunity to address this subcommittee on the urgent problem of strip
mine reclamation. I am convinced that Federal involvement in this area is imperative, if we are
to turn around the forces of environmental and economic devastation resulting from present strip
mining practices. Certainly this subcommittee will play a key role in the development of any
Federal program.
579 In Tennessee and throughout Appalachia the impact of surface mining has been
particularly devastating. The economic situation in the mountains of eastern Tennessee and
Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania has for generations been one of poverty. There has
been little industrial growth and the removal and exploitation of the natural resource of the
region has left few benefits to the people. The area has been referred to as America's colony, and
I must admit when I view the wholesale destruction of the scenic mountains by strip mining for
coal, I cannot find hyperbole in the statement.
580 It was once said that the coal of Appalachia would bring it wealth in time. But,
gentlemen, it has not; it has rather brought the destruction of the region's last major resources.
580 In his testimony before this subcommittee a few weeks ago, Chairman Russell Train of the
Council on Environmental Quality pointed out that strip mining activities across the United
States are claiming 750 acres per day. I am told, Mr. Chairman, that is surface mining of all
types, not just for coal. That would mean that approximately 200,000 acres of land in the United
States have been turned in the search for minerals since January 1, 1971.
580 In the whole of 1970, a year which was marked also by an emphasis on surface mining,
the National Coal Association reported a total of 58,000 acres officially approved as reclaimed
lands. The disparity of these statistics points out the rate at which areas of stripping activity are
building up an enormous environmental debt.
580 What is even more disconcerting is that the Department of Interior reported an estimated
backlog of 2,041,000 acres of "unreclaimed strip - and surface - mined lands" in 1965.
580 But statistics are not fully revealing and certainly not in comparison to the stark evidence
of destruction apparent on the faces of a whole mountain range blessed with rich coal resources
and once blessed with magnificent beauty.
580 I make these observations not for the purpose of creating an emotional indictment against
strip mining or the strip mining industry, but rather to point up the importance and extent of our
problem; to identify its causes and to plot a course of action for the future.
580 And, I believe, Mr. Chairman, there is a future. To begin with, regardless of our mistakes
in permitting strip mining, unregulated or only slightly regulated, the fact of the matter is that the
power grids of the Nation, especially those of the Southeast, are dependent to a remarkable extent
on the production of coal from surface mines and this dependence cannot be withdrawn suddenly
without unacceptable economic and social consequences. Fifty percent of our power production
across the United States depends upon coal for fuel, and 50 percent of that coal is produced by
surface mining.
580 The present competitive advantage of strip mining of coal results from a variety of factors,
including the swiftness with which production can be realized, the relative safety to personnel,
and sadly the failure to assess in the cost of production the enormous environmental debt left by
unreclaimed operations. What clearly is an advantage in terms of the cost of electricity is an
unconscionable burden on the geography and society of an area of our country ill equipped to
bear it.
580 To the extent that strip mined coal can presently be delivered more cheaply and quickly to
the power grids than would be the case with strictly regulated surface mining with adequate
reclamation, Appalachia and the other regions of coal production are subsidizing the energy
requirements of the Nationa. In Appalachia this subsidy represents the loss of possibly the last
significant natural resource - the scenic beauty of the region.
581 So, what do we do: Mr. Chairman, I recommend:
581 First, we withdraw from the present practices of strip mining as quickly as possible - over
the space of a relatively short time - the time it takes to develop other extractive techniques or to
bring strip mining and reclamation techniques to a level of sophistication commensurate with the
environmental threat.
581 Second, we eliminate the temptation to permit underregulated stripping in States which
have every reason to cry out for some economic advantage or by landowners who can find no
other productive use for their property.
581 Third, we pass a Federal statute making uniform the methods for removal of coal by strip
mining and eliminating the competitive advantages and disadvantages between one State or the
other and require instead the highest reclamation techniques in all the States.
581 Fourth, we vest regulatory and enforcement functions under such a statute in the
Environmental Protection Agency and provide the Agency authority to prohibit stripping in any
area where adequate or desirable reclamation is not possible.
581 I might add, Mr. Chairman, that since this statement was originally written, I have listened
very attentively to the suggestions, including Senator Cooper's, that a better approach to the
Federal involvement is to pattern a Federal statute after the Air and Water Quality Acts, and to
have Federal guidelines, with State implementation, modified to the extent that we require
Federal intervention for swiftness and uniformity.
581 Fifth, we should consider the establishment of a severance tax on all coal and other fuels
at the Federal level to insure uniformity and make the proceeds thereof available to the States or
locality if they elect so that the benefits of this resource can accrue to the area in which it is
located.
581 In order to deal comprehensively with environmental ramifications of coal production,
regulation of deep mines both during and subsequent to extraction will have to be undertaken
with equal diligence to that embodied in the aforementioned proposals for strip mine controls.
Such a program must treat effectively the problems of acid mine drainage, slate dumping,
uncontrolled burning of residues, and subsidence of abandoned mines.
581 Many of the witnesses in earlier hearings before this committee have cited as a virtue of
several bills presently pending that they embody a comprehensive treatment of all phases of
mining. While I feel that certainly all mining practices, as they hold the potential for
environment damage, must be controlled, I feel that the situation with strip mining is an
emergency and in 2 years will be a complete disaster.
581 If we do not act with speed in the area of coal strip mining, in a short period of time, Mr.
Chairman, it will be too late. We cannot afford the luxury of a comprehensive approach at this
time. We must target the immediate effort to the problem of coal surface mining if we are to
benefit those areas where such operations are removing the face of the landscape at an almost
unbelievable rate.
581 I want this country to have the full utilization and the full blessings of its resources and its
initiative, fully powered by the greatest economy and the largest energy system in the world; but
without the requirement that a poor and delicate area of the country subsidize the future with the
destruction of its last natural resource.
582 I want to see coal play its rightfully dominant role in the energy requirements of this
Nation in the future, ranking as it does as our greatest fuel resource; but I want to see it done in
an evenhanded way, without the destruction of the hillsides, the valleys, the streams and rivers,
wildlife, or the families and the communities who suffer from the ravages of uncontrolled
mining.
582 I have previously stated a number of times that I intend to introduce in the Congress a bill
to regulate strip mining, to provide for a Federal program administered by EPA, and other
purposes. I have not yet introduced that bill, and I would like to take this opportunity this
morning to say that I am anxious to find common ground among those of us who feel that there
must be immediate and positive control of surface mining and reclamation.
582 It may be that a combination of Federal and State programs is best, or that Federal
guidelines, locally administered, will best serve the purpose; legislation patterned after the air
and water pollution control programs calling for criteria and implementing standards by the
several States may be adaptable to these requirements, and for my part, I am not only willing, but
indeed anxious, to explore these alternative possibilities and try to produce a synthesis of ideas
supporting strong, effective Federal legislation.
582 It is my view that these elements are essential:
582 One, that there be a strong statement of national purpose by the Federal Congress;
582 Two, that there be an immediate moratorium on new unregulated strip mine activity;
582 Three, that existing coal strip mine operations come within the scope of new and
improved reclamation techniques as soon as reasonably possible;
582 Four, that reclamation techniques be determined on the basis of the severity of the
environmental insult. In this respect, Mr. Chairman, it would be my hope that the operative
language of new Federal legislation might require substantial restoration of the original
topographical conformance of the land unless a different conformance might seem as desirable or
more desirable from an environmental standpoint, viewed both locally and nationally.
582 But the hallmark of our challenge at the moment is time. I think something must be done
immediately.
582 Senator Moss. Thank you very much, Senator Baker, for your very pointed and urging
statement. I think this committee agrees that the need for action is urgent and we must act as
soon as reasonably we can.
582 I like your suggestion that we think along the lines of the statutes which we have already
passed for air pollution control and water pollution control. We might even name it Land
Pollution Control, perhaps, because that is basically what we are talking about. It is a pollution
of the environment so far as the landscape is concerned.
582 Senator BAKER. I think that is clearly so, and most clearly appropriate.
583 I would like to take this opportunity in that connection to pay respect to Senator Cooper,
who has already touched on this idea, and who has been a principal architect and author of this
technique over a span of many years in the air and water pollution legislation which is now the
law of the land.
583 I do think that surface mining is a form of environmental insult or pollution.
583 Senator MOSS. It might tend to focus our attention on it a little bit different if we talked
about surface mining, and the pollution or destruction of our landscape.
583 I appreciate your proposals, and I understand they will follow along with what Senator
Cooper was testifying to earlier. You think the urgency is such that we ought to have Federal
action right away, and then put into effect, if possible, the dual control of the State doing the
actual administering?
583 Senator BAKER. I do; I think we need immediate action, and the only way to do that, I
think, is by direct Federal intervention.
583 Senator MOSS.Thank you very much.
583 Senator Hansen?
583 Senator HANSEN. Let me compliment you for your usual persuasive candor, Senator
Baker, and to assure you insofar as I know people throughout this country generally agree with
the overall long range view that you take as to the seriousness of this problem.
583 We happen to think we are doing a better job in Wyoming than has been done in some
States. I am not familiar with all parts of Appachia, but I am certain that for a number of reasons,
which include the great differences in rainfall in the arid West as contrasted with the Eastern
parts of the country, some of the activities that are of extreme concern to you, are not as extreme
effects in some parts of the West.
583 It is my understanding that one of the biggest users of the stripmined coal has been the
TVA, is that correct?
583 Senator BAKER. That is correct. TVA, I believe, uses the vast majority of the coal
mined in the south Kentucky and east Tennessee areas.
583 Senator HANSEN. I know, and it is generally agreed that the abundance of electrical
energy has been a real boon to that entire region. Is that a fair statement?
583 Senator BAKER. Yes, but I think you have to make a distinction between the abundance
and cost.
583 One of the considerations to be most fairly faced in this examination is that surface mining
unreclaimed or only slightly reclaimed, in effect, amounts to the accumulation of an
environmental subsidy in the favor of the power users to the extent that strip mining coal in
Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia, may be $2 cheaper than the deep-mind coal. The land,
if it is not reclaimed, is paying that power bill.
583 We have been exporting power to the northeast for instance, in times of brownouts and
shortage, and we are happy for that. That is not justification for requiring a poor delicate area of
the United States to pick up the tab to the extent of a couple of dollars a ton in favor of the
people who use the electricity.
583 I used to be called a hillbilly, but it is only slightly facetious to say there are going to be no
hills left - mountain ranges are almost disappearing. They have crowns on the top and a big mud
slide down the side.
584 If some element of energetic concern - if some emotionalism creeps into my statement,
you will have to excuse it.
584 Senator HANSEN. I think it is fair to say that in the history of the United States, until
recent years in many, many cases, we have been concerned in the marketplace in doing only one
thing, and that was to produce as abundantly and as cheaply as possible. We gave little attention
to what we might be doing to the environment around us. As a consequence, part of the cost of
cleaning up the environment and restoring the landscape has been borne by those areas which did
produce the natural resources.
584 My next question is: Do you have any idea how much it might cost in terms of increases
in power costs delivered at the retail level to do the kind of job you think should be done?
584 Senator BAKER. No. I have seen a number of figures ranging anywhere from an average
increase of 10 cents a month for an average customer for electricity, and in some cases more and
some cases less than that.The most direct way to do it would be to compute the average B.t.u.
cost to a power system of the coal, and to convert that to reclamation cost. I am sure that the
Bureau of Mines, or the Federal Power Commission, or the TVA could do that.
584 It is my hope in respect to that that either in this legislation or voluntarily on its own
initiative the Federal Government will undertake some demonstration projects soon to try to
establish techniques for satisfactory reclamation.
584 I talked to one fellow who said we can do absolutely perfect reclamation for 50 cents a
ton; another fellow said we can't touch it for $3 a ton. I do know we can't go on subsidizing coal
production at whatever rate.
584 I hope one of the things the subcommittee might consider would be authorizing legislation
for funds to provide very, very prompt demonstration projects to ascertain these costs.
584 Senator HANSEN. I welcome this opportunity to have you explore with me some of the
ramifications which these proposed steps will have on the price of delivered energy, because I
think that is a very important part of the story.
584 I have attended, as I am sure we all have, these environmental conferences, and I salute
these citizens and their enthusiasm for trying to improve the environment. Very often their
approach has been that all that needs to be done is pass tough laws to shut down industry and
stop operations, and that this action is going to solve the problem.
584 I believe the first conference on the environment which I attended in Casper, Wyo., a few
years ago was what is needed for public awareness that it is going to cost a lot of dough.
584 We are not addressing ourselves to the coal miners in Appalachia exclusively. We are
talking to people in Chicago, New York City or wherever they may be - because all of us are
going to have to pay the costs, and it is a very high cost.When any of these power companies talk
about raising rates, I don't hear many people saying raise them more and clean up the
environment. What I hear generally, don't raise these rates, they are too high already.
585 Senator BAKER. People are going to have to realize that environmental clean-up costs
money. Whether it is private or public money is immaterial. It costs money. Even so, I fully
agree with you, Senator Hansen, and I fully agree with you that the country is only now coming
to terms with ths situatio- even so, I cannot square the idea that one of the poorest regions of the
country would be called upon to subsidize the power rates of the Nation.
585 Senator HANSEN. I don't argue with you at all. I agree with you. I think we have a real
job to do in seeing that the FPC and all of the regulatory agencies understand it is going to cost a
lot of money. I hope we can alert the people of this country to understand that when the bill is
finally paid, it is coming out of their pocket, out of your pocket and my pocket, and nobody
else's. That is how it should be.
585 I subscribe completely to that determination. Nobody else is going to pay the bill. We are
going to pay the bill ourselves. We who use electricity, all 207 million of us.
585 Thank you.
585 Senator STEVENS. Do you believe that EPA can continue to get these additional
assignments, the water pollution, air pollution, ocean pollution - it seems to a great extent that it
will be before the decade is over, the whole focal point of government, if we continue to say let
EPA do it. Are we so distrustful of the Department of Interior, for instance, that they cannot set
guidelines? Are we saying we can't trust them?
585 Senator BAKER. I don't think we are. I think that the history of the development of
NEPA and EPA was one to reorganize the administrative handling of environmental programs.
You are right, EPA is growing like topsy, the environment encompasses almost everything. EPA
was lucky to have a very good first director, Mr. Ruckleshaus, and we are going to have to start
farming it out to Interior, Bureau of Mines, the States or somewhere else. This is one reason I
agree with Senator Cooper's idea of getting the States into it. But you are right, the environment
encompasses almost everything. It reminds me of a general practitioner I know, a specialist
asked him what his specialty was; He said, "Dermatology; I specialize in the skin and its
contents."
585 Senator STEVENS. My State has a little old pipeline we have been trying to build for 3
years. The cost has gone from $900 million to $2 billion. We are dealing with the same
technology, the same people. All we have to do is convince the rest of the country we are not
going to do to our country what has been done to your country.
585 If it takes that long to get started, it is really - as I understand it, you want regulations and
not prohibitions, but you are suggesting turning over the control of strip mining to the very
people who would, in fact, prohibit its development.
585 Senator BAKER. I realize, I think, in answer to that, of course there are abuses of
discretion in any consideration. I am not charging EPA with abuse of discretion. It seems to me
in the final analysis, surface mining is an environmental problem. More than anything else it is
an environmental problem, and if it is an environmental problem, I would rather see the tested
format of the Federal criteria and local implementation plans supervised by EPA employed than
any other administrative set-up I can think of.
586 Senator STEVENS. What is there in the world that man does that is not an
environmental problem?
586 Senator BAKER. I don't know, but I don't want him doing it without careful regard for
the ecology in my part of the country.
586 Senator STEVENS. I know, but I think we should stick with the expertise of the State line
agencies that we know and impress on them our environmental concerns, and still have the
people who are experts in the individuals tell us what can be done within the guidelines to be set.
586 Senator BAKER. I think, in effect, we have two semiseparate considerations in surface
mining; one, the mining aspect which the Bureau of Mines would take and develop and promote;
and the other would be the environmental aspect, which EPA would regulate.
586 Senator STEVENS Thank you.
586 Senator MOSS. Senator Fannin?
586 Senator FANNIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
586 I feel not only that the Federal guidelines would be a more acceptable plan, but perhaps
the least costly plan. I am very much concerned with EPA, some of the work they have been
doing. I realize it is extremely valuable. At the same time we can't lose sight, with the
tremendous thought involved, perhaps where the benefits do not justify that cost. I think we
must have a balance.
586 I am vitally concerned over, as you know, trying to compete with the other countries of the
world. We are not in a position to do so if we do not have low-cost power.
586 At the same time, I feel we can have this balance, if we can have a good environment and
low-cost power. We are very dependent upon our coal reserves, because of the depletion of our
natural gas and other petroleum products. I know in the West now we are becoming more and
more dependent. I know you have been very active as far as nuclear power is concerned.
586 In the Tennessee area, do you think nuclear powet will become a factor?
586 Senator BAKER. I think it will gradually. I don't think we can depend on it to pick up the
slack, so to speak, created by growth and expansion. I think we have to find a way to produce
this coal for the foreseeable future. We can't produce it by environmental debt accumulating.
586 Senator FANNIN. I have witnessed some of the results that have happened to the areas
you are speaking about, and I am concerned. I don't want that to happen to my State. I will pay
tribute to the Department of Interior when this is all completed in 30 years. The land there will
be in much better condition than when it started. In fact, as it goes along, they will have a
productivity they do not have now. They will have facilities that are not available now.
586 So, as an overall plan they will try to reclaim the land and have it back to its original state
as far as possible.
586 Senator BAKER. I think your area is more fortunate than the Appalachian area. You can
essentially restore and possibly improve much of the land that you are going to surface mine.
587 What I am saying is, I want the same thing in the mountains. We are going to essentially
restore or substantially improve that area, and that may mean some parts of Appalachia cannot be
stripped, because they are too steep.
587 Senator Bentsen, of Texas has been usually efficient in the field of cost ratio, but in that
respect, I think we have to bear in mind that you can have a cost-benefit ratio, and it is a desirable
thing to say strip coal, but you don't dare have a cost-benefit ratio when you are talking about a
hazardous substance or poisonous material.
587 What I am saying is that strip mining in its present and unregulated form is such an
undertaking that we can't yet apply the cost-benefit ratio. We have to bring it into decent
standards of reclamation.
587 Senator FANNIN. I understand that we do have projects now that will bring forth the
realization it can be done, and be done in an economic fashion. When we talk about what we are
going to do in the future, when less than 1 percent of our power is produced by nuclear energy,
and we have no suggestion that it is going to be produced any other way but by coal, I think we
must work within that possibility.
587 I appreciate your thoughts that the only area in which we may disagree is to the EPA, or
what agency - I have great faith in what the Department of Interior is doing now. I feel if we can
stick by them we will benefit much more than by any other agency.
587 Thank you.
587 Senator MOSS. Senator Allott, do you have any questions?
587 Senator ALLOTT. Only one, Mr. Chairman.
587 I would like to say this: Trying to pick up in a few minutes the trend of the discussion, I
must again express my concern of trying to establish regulations on a national basis. I don't
know your staement very well. I know it well enough to know the general nature of it, and the
things which regulations and guidelines that might be set down for your State might not, for
example, be entirely applicable at all to the Four Corners area.
587 We have in Colorado, as you know, vast quantities of oil shale, as are contained also in
the same formation in Utah and Wyoming. It constitutes by far the largest source of energy,
unused energy, in the country at the present time. If you take the three States together.
587 Involved in this are going to be all sorts of techniques of mining. There is a big change
that has come with respect to mining in this country. I have attended the oil shale symposium
conducted in Denver by the Colorado School of Mines for the last 6 or 7 years. At the time those
symposiums first began, there was little thought given. Maybe they are older than 7 years, but
there was little thought given to the reclamation or rehabilitation of land.
587 But in attending those, in similar institutes, I find there is no major producing company
today who isn't thinking in terms of putting the cost of reclamation or rehabilitation, land
rehabilitation in as a prime factor in the cost of production of the raw material, whether it be coal
or oil shale or something else.
587 I don't know whether you have had a chance to see, and I will be happy to show you
personally, an investigation I made privately on my own this spring with respect to the work that
has been done by the Brown Coal Co., southeast of Callon in Germany, by strip mining seams of
lignite 900 feet below the surface, and they are about to open up what appears to be one of the
largest open pit mines in the world, in which they will mine lignite 1,200 feet below the surface
by strip mining.
588 They have through the application of man's imagination and his ability not only replaced
the land they have stripped there, they have established whole new villages; they have restored
farmland to above its previous productivity level; in fact, they don't put it back in until it is 110
percent of the previous level. They have estabished farms and lakes and new forests so that the
land can truthfully be said to be a more desirable area, recreationwise, visually and every other
way than it was before.
588 I have this feeling that those of us who are genuinely interested in this do not lose sight of
the goal, it is not our intention to extract minerals and then leave it, but we shall accompany that
as an essential part of it with land rehabilitation. What man's technology can do to extract the
minerals, can always do to - in your last paragraph you refer to the original topographical form.
They have not always done that in every instance, but they certainly have not deteriorated the
topographical conformity with the surrounding area.
588 I have nothing against NEPA at all, but I must say I think in the Interior Department we
also have some very, very fine people capable of dealing with this, and would be concerned
somewhat to lock my portion into a complete set of regulations that will be applicable to West
Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky, and what others may be involved here, which may have little
applicability to the West and the different kinds of topography we have.
588 These are the only thoughts I wanted to say here, because too many times we in the West
find that laws are enacted upon the theory that the entire country has the same problems and in
the same situation as the eastern tier of States or first two eastern tiers of States, which isn't true.
588 The goals we want at the end, whether it be coal mining or oil shale, are not different than
the goal you want, but I don't want to be rushed into a set of regulations which we have to
conform to and which we are essentially treading water just to obtain a bureaucracy.
588 Senator BAKER. I think, Senator, it is clear you have to have different techniques in
different parts of the country to account for the variations of the problem. The underlying
concern to me is that there is no requirement now on the Federal level, and my experience has
been that I have never seen, though I have made an active effort to find, a strip mine operation
that was reclaimed as I thought it should be, except in flat land or semiflat land. Whether the
Bureau of Mines or EPA or somebody else finally has charge of seeing that what is done is what
must be done is really secondary.
588 I prefer EPA because I think it is an environmental problem, and it is one of the
flexibilities I spoke of. However you do it, the crucial feature is that we mandate clearly to
restore the land from which the mineral is removed.
588 Senator ALLOTT. What do you mean by restore?
588 Senator BAKER. The language I used was to require substantial restoration of the
original topographical conformance of the land, unless a different conformance might seem as
desirable or more desirable from environmental standpoints.
589 Senator ALLOTT. I think I could accept that very well. It can be done, and I have seen
it done. I have seen forests where forests didn't exist. I have seen new, modern villages
constructed which was stripped originally by strip mines. I have seen hunting areas, recreation
areas established. I have seen this done.
589 In this area we are all alike. We want to see that. I can accept that term of restoration.
589 The thing I am concerned with is trying to have the Western States conform to a set of
national regulations which may have no applicability to the West, to achieve the same end results
you want to create.
589 Senator BAKER. I agree. Regulations cannot be the same for Colorado, Wyoming, and
others as they are for Kentucky, or West Virginia.
589 Senator ALLOTT. Thank you.That is all I have.
589 Senator MOSS. Senator Jordan?
589 Senator JORDAN. Senator, you have made a fine statement. I think we are generally in
agreement as to the need for reclamation restoration. You do inject a new thought into this, and I
refer to your point five under what should we do.
589 Assuming now we are regulating and restoring this strip-mined land to nearly as good as it
was in its original state, you go on to say:
589 We should consider the establishment of a severance tax on all coal and on other fuels at
the Federal level to insure uniformity and make the proceeds thereof available to the States or
locality if they elect so that the benefits of this resource can accrue to the area in which it is
located.
589 Would you develop that a little for us?
589 Senator BAKER. Yes, sir. Let me go back to the genesis of the idea, Senator.
589 In virtually every area of the country, the ad valorem property taxes are the principal tax
base for the local government. In virtually every mineral area, the ad valorem tax base is not
realistic. I toyed with the idea of trying to find some way to see that the mineral being extracted
from a given county or area paid its fair share of the taxload for that area, and I ran into a
problem.
589 Coal underlies all of the Southeast United States. The question is, Is it minable or is it
not?
589 Senator JORDAN. What is the practice in coal areas of taxing undeveloped coal lands?
Is it taxed at a higher rate of mined land or not?
589 Senator BAKER.There is not any clear-cut policy. The most general one in Tennessee,
and I imagine it varies from Kentucky and West Virginia - in Tennessee, there is no act to tax
coal mines per se. If there is an area of 5,000 acres being mined, there is an assessment increase.
In other cases, you will have a separation of ownership of mineral and surface interests; and in
those cases, there is a separate tax.
589 In 90 percent of the cases, there is no adequate assessment of the value of minerals in the
ad valorem taxes. The mineral interest may or may not be valuable, when the minerals are
undeveloped.
589 In lieu of an effort to find an ad valorem tax for undeveloped minerals, I came to think the
best way would be to have a severance tax as the moment of extraction of the mineral. What I
was thinking about was a Federal tax on minerals - particularly on coal - that a State, if it chose,
or a city or county, could reclaim from the Federal Treasury.
590 A severance tax, I am convinced, is a far more equitable way to reach mineral values
than an adjustment of property ad valorem taxes.
590 Senator JORDAN.Thank you very much.
590 Senator MOSS. Would you extend this tax to other minerals besides coal if they were
surface mined?
590 Senator BAKER. Yes; I think this approach could be equally applicable to other minerals.
590 Senator MOSS. Thank you very much. We do appreciate your testimony and for this
colloquy we have all been able to conduct with you, and it has helped us a great deal to be able to
talk it through.
590 Senator. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
590 Senator MOSS. Senator Hansen has a statement that he put off to this point, and I ask him
if he would like to make that statement now and call our next witness.
STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFFORD. P. HANSEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WYOMING
590 Senator HANSEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
590 I am delighted, as most all of us are, that Senators Cooper and Baker could be here, and I
think their statements and responses to questions have been very helpful in trying to help us
understand more clearly the problem that exists in the important region known as Appalachia.
590 Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to you, the members of the subcommittee, and the staff
for scheduling these hearings today on S. 1160, legislation which I have introduced to permit the
Secretary of the Interior to make grants to the States to seal and fill voids in abandoned coal
mines and abandoned oil and gas wells.
590 The subcommittee has devoted much time and effort to several bills pending in the
Congress concerning strip mining and underground mining, and the restoration and reclamation
of mined lands. I am deeply concerned, however, that these bills do not provide for restoration
and rehabilitation of areas which have been mined in the past and have been long since
abandoned.
590 The Federal Government presently offers assistance to the Appalachian region of the
Nation for the purpose of sealing and filling abandoned mines. The conscience of the Nation was
awakened as cities such as Scranton, Pa., struggled to save buildings and homes which were
breaking apart as the ground subsided beneath them. The Nation came to the aid of these people.
590 While the problem is most obvious in the more heavily populated and mined Appalachian
area, the problem is widespread, involving 30 or more States. A family in another part of the
Nation who loses their home to subsidence, suffers as greatly as their Appalachian brothers.
Their situation is a little more isolated, but in both cases the family is left without a home which
in many cases represents their life's savings and work.
590 Thirty of the 46 States where abandoned mines are known to exist have reported
subsidence occurrences. While subsidence does not always occur in populated areas, I would
like to submit for the record an incomplete list of the urban areas where mining has occurred and
where it may be necessary to make specific studies to determine subsidence potential. This list
will help illustrate the extent of the problem.
590 Whenever subsidence occurs in the populated area, the damage is just as real to the
individuals involved and the hardship is just as great whether they are in Appalachia or
Wyoming, or another part of the country.
591 Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record a copy of an article which appeared
in the Denver Post last Sunday, November 28, entitled "Wyoming's Sinking City." I regret that
the author did not report on the hard work and progress which has been taking place to alleviate
the subsidence problem in Rock Springs, Wyo., and to provide a permanent solution to the
problem. This effort includes the legislation which this subcommittee is considering today. But
the article does give the reader some idea of the despair and hopelessness felt by those who are
touched by the disaster of mine subsidence.
591 I also ask that a letter from the Urban Renewal Board of Rock Springs expressing a need
for this legislation be included in the hearing record.
591 I support the efforts of those who desire to insure that future mining operations do not lead
to the loss of men's homes. But at the same time I do not think we can turn our backs on those
who are losing their homes today as a result of the subsidence of abandoned mines from the past.
It is appropriate for the Federal Government to lend a helping hand to all its citizens.
591 Today, the subcommittee will see a working model of a new technique which has been
developed for backfilling abandoned mines. This technique has been tested once in Rock
Springs, Wyo., and a new test is underway.To my knowledge, every indication is that the
technique will be highly successful, more efficient, and less costly than the old techniques, and
will not require the disruption of the community to the extent necessary using the old techniques.
591 With this new development and the need of those outside of Appalachia for assistance, it
is my hope that the Congress will enact S. 1160.
591 Senator MOSS. Thank you very much, Senator.
591 I know now what that model was about. I was looking at it and wondering how it worked.
I am sure we will be enlightened on it.
591 Your problem, of course, with backfilling and underground mines is of equal urgency with
the problem of strip mining and surface mining. Very glad to have your statement.
591 Senator MOSS. We will now hear Assistant Secretary Hollis M. Dole and Dr. Elburt F.
Osborn, Director of the Bureau of Mines.
STATEMENT OF HOLLIS M. DOLE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, MINERAL
RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
591 Mr. DOLE. Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to be before your committee,
and I do want you to know how sincerely I appreciate the interest that you and the other members
of your committee, Senators Jordan, Hansen, Stevens, Fannin, and Allott, have given to this
mineland reclamation.
591 I have a statement here that I have submitted which I would like to have put in its entirety
in the record.
591 Sentor MOSS. That will be included in its entirety.
591 Mr. DOLE. And I have a short statement which I would like to present orally.
592 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am glad to have this opportunity to come
before you to explain the Department of the Interior's position on S. 1160, a bill which has the
commendable objective of rehabilitating mined areas which have been damaged by past
deleterious mining practices.
592 I have a statement which, with your permission, I offer for insertion in the record.
592 I propose merely to comment on the highlights of that statement at this time.
592 I wish to say at the outset that we in Interior are appreciative of the mounting public
concern over the abuse and spoilation that have already occurred to millions of acres of our
countryside as the result of mining operations conducted in past years.
592 We understand this concern, and we are grateful for the presence of perceptive leaders in
the Congress like Senator Hansen, who recognize the scope of past destruction and its
implications for the future.
592 I congratulate Senator Hansen for calling attention to a problem of nationwide
dimensions, and for his earnest desire to provide a solution.
592 The old saying "The Past is Prologue" sums up one of the two chief features of our
position toward S. 1160.
592 We know that more than 7 million acres of land have been undermined; that more than
two and a quarter million acres have been left unrestored from surface mining; and that some two
million acres more are buried under mine-related solid wastes.
592 But even more important, we know that this huge backlog of despoilment will go right on
increasing year by year unless we act promptly to stop it.
592 If we do not, then there is every prospect that by the year 2000 the acreage of undermined
land will have increased by half; that ruined by surface mining will have doubled; and the surface
area occupied by mineral wastes will have increased almost two and a half times.
592 In our view, our first obligation is to the future, and toward what we can do to prevent the
degradation of land by future mining operations.
592 It is infinitely cheaper and easier to attend to site restoration while the operator is still on
location than it is to rehabilitate acreage long since abandoned.
592 Our estimates of the cost of backfilling abandoned mine workings range between $10,000
and $1 5,000 per acre; for reclaiming surface mined areas the cost might range from $500 to $1
,100 per acre, with certain lands requiring much more expensive work.
592 When these costs are applied to the vast backlog of acreage in need of remedial work, the
total costs mount rapidly into billions of dollars.
592 Now, no one pretends that restoring past damage is going to be either cheap or easy, and
we should not defer work that is essential merely on the basis of cost alone.
592 But we have a duty to see that funds for this purpose are effectively utilized, and here we
are handicapped by the lack of some essential information.
592 We do not have the precise knowledge we need as to the exact location, or indeed in some
cases the overall extent, of past mining damages.
593 Neither have we developed as efficient techniques of repairing these damages as we
would like.
593 Both kinds of information are needed to assure that we are spending the taxpayer's dollar
as effectively as possible.
593 We believe that much of this needed knowledge and technology will be gained under the
programs established by S. 993, and can then be brought to bear upon the rehabilitation of
past-mined areas.
593 The requirements of S. 993 for regular monitoring of mined areas, and the assistance
offered for the inventorying of mined areas affected by present and future mining operations will
result also, we think, in the compiling of a significantly more accurate catalog of past mining
damages.
593 We also anticipate that the research program envisioned in S. 993 will greatly expand the
variety and effectiveness of reclamation techniques.
593 For these reasons we urge that the committee give its first consideration to the
administration's proposed S. 993 as the most practical approach at this time to the problem of
reclaiming and processing of any mineral, including lands affected by waste piles. However,
there are basically two reasons why we cannot support its enactment.
593 First, S. 1160 is directed solely to correcting the mistakes of the past. None would deny
that the cumulative damages resulting from the unregulated mining practices of the past are
considerable. The estimated 6.7 million acres of land undermined by the removal of coal and
other minerals through 1965, of which about 600,000 acres have been left susceptible to
subsidence, the 2 million acres of unrestored surface-mined land estimated in 1965 to be in need
of some sort of remedial treatment, and the estimated 1.8 million acres occupied in 1965 by
accumulated mine related solid wastes, come first to mind.
593 These problems are indeed extensive, and in many cases, longstanding, representing the
accumulated effects of over a century of mining. It should be recognized, however, that the
largest proportion of the acreage affected has been disturbed in more recent decades.This is the
result of the great expansion in mining to meet our society's accelerating mineral demands. Since
1965 another 400,000 acres is estimated to have been left unreclaimed by surface mining, and
many more thousands of acres occupied by additional mine wastes.
593 Furthermore, we estimate that unless corrective measures are taken, by the year 2000 the
total acreage for undermined land now believed to be about 7.1 million acres will have increased
by one-half; the 2.3 million acres of land left unrestored by surface mining will have doubled;
and the surface area occupied by mineral wastes increased almost two and one-half times.
593 The meaning of these data is clear: preventing the annual additions of new problems is
relatively more important than initiating broad new programs to ameliorate the affected lands of
the past. We must bring under control today's and tomorrow's potential damages to the
environment before we can make reasonable headway against those of yesterday. The
administration's proposed Mined Area Protection Act of 1971, presently before the Congress as
S. 993, embodies this approach, and deserves your most immediate consideration.
594 Our second reservation concerning S. 1160 is centered quite simply on the basis of cost.
It is truly a very substantial expense which will be involved in repairing past mining damages. It
is not one that can be imposed readily on its perpetrators, as too many of the former mine
operators and landowners no longer control or own the mined property. And because our
knowledge of what really needs to be done is incomplete, the potential for costly mistakes is
large.
594 Based on cost figures experienced in recent years by the Bureau of Mines in subsidence
control projects conducted under the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 in the
anthracite coal mining region of Pennsylvania, even a limited, selective program of subsidence
protectio, aimed only at backfilling abandoned mine workings under an estimated 150,000 acres
of land believed to be most in need of support in the United States, could cost $1.5 billion or $1
0,000 per acre. Obviously, many times this amount could be spent in backfilling undermined
lands throughout this country, depending on how much of the 7-million-acre total we decided to
support.
594 We should note in this connection that presently available methods for predicting where
subsidence will occur are far from adequate. We must rely mainly upon observations after the
fact for our conclusion that approximately one-third of all undermined lands will eventually
subside - and two-thirds will not. Research is presently being conducted to develop better
techniques of anticipating subsidence and of more effective methods of coping with it. At Rock
Springs, Wyo., we have just completed an experiment which shows that relatively large amounts
of sand could be injected through a single borehole to fill extensive voids in abandoned mine
workings which have become flooded. This was a small-scale demonstration project in which
some 20,000 cubic yards of sand was placed under a single 2.7-acre site in the city. To
completely backfill the entire area of the city susceptible to subsidence - 200 acres in 14 scattered
locations or about 17 percent of the total built-up area - would necessitate the injection of
somewhat over a million cubic yards of sand through a series of boreholes at a cost of almost
$3.1 million or $1 5,500 per acre. Another demonstration project is now underway at Scranton,
Pa. to determine if crushed coal refuse can be used in somewhat the same manner to provide
surface support, but in an even wider range of underground conditions.
594 The reclamation and rehabilitation of surface-mined acres would entail a financial effort
approaching that of subsidence prevention. As I have noted earlier in my statement, there was
estimated to be in 1965 an accumulation of 2 million acres of disturbed surface-mined land in
need of basic reclamation. Remedial treatment of that land, primarily to minimize water pollution
- largely by grading, revegetation, and drainage control - would cost, it was then estimated, $6 60
million. That represents an average reclamation cost of $3 30 per acre. We estimate that rising
construction industry costs over recent years have increased that per acre cost to at least $5 00.
Applying that average cost to the estimated 2.3 million acres of unrestored surfacemined land
existing in 1970 would result in a basic reclamation bill of $1 .2 billion. Recent Bureau of Mines
data on surface reclamation work in the Appalachian States under the Appalachian Act indicates
a per acre cost of $1 ,100 to return surface-mined land to productive use. Some special projects
have involved costs as high as $1 5,000 per acre. Reclamation accomplished as part of the
mining cycle is significantly cheaper.
595 These calculations of surface-mined-land reclamation do not take into consideration the
complex, vexing and unresolved legal issues centered on the ownership rights of unreclaimed
lands. Over 90 percent of these lands are in private hands. In some cases, owners do not wish to
have their lands reclaimed, especially if rehabilitation would make remaining mineral reserves
less accessible. In other instances, the expenditure of large sums of taxpayer's dollars for
reclamation might result in excessive profits for the owners in terms of enhanced land values.
Needless to say, public acquisition of these lands either through negotiated purchase or
condemnation, would also add substantially to total reclamation costs.
595 Stabilization is the principal means we have today of coping with accumulated mine
wastes.The Bureau of Mines has had success recently in the development of new and more
economic means of stabilizing wastes deposited on level ground, but the technology for
stabilizing wastes placed on precipitous slopes is still lacking. Although costly stabilization can
ameliorate the harmful off site effects of some banks, the banks themselves will remain, often
preventing the return of the land occupied to more productive use. Even if more advantageous
sites could be found, the cost of moving the waste to them would be, with our current methods of
materials handling and movement, prohibitively expensive. Additionally, ownership problems
associated with waste banks tend to be even more complex and troublesome than those
connected with unreclaimed surface-mined lands. This is largely because so many waste banks
still retain sufficient mineral values to make them a worthwhile long term holding.
595 Burning waste banks present special problems and require much more costly solutions.
Based on costs experienced by the Bureau of Mines in recent demonstration projects for
extinguishing anthracite refuse bank fires, suppression of the 292 known burning coal refuse
banks throughout the United States could cost as much as $250 million.
595 Placing a price tag on the sealing of abandoned oil and gas wells is also a rather difficult
task, particularly as their number and exact locations are in large part unknown. We do know, of
course, that they number in the tens of thousands, and can be found in almost every State.
Experience of the Bureau of Mines in Appalachia has yielded data indicating an average sealing
cost of $2,500 per well there.
595 We have been discussing costs of considerable magnitude, on an absolute and isolated
basis. Correcting damage caused by past mining activity is just one of a number of
environmental problems the solution to which requires Federal funds. Before we can justify a
massive Federal program to rectify past mining damages, a detailed cost-benefit analysis must
assure that this undertaking can be justified when compared with other environmental programs
to cope with similarly pressing problems such as water and air pollution. Nor can we, acting
principally with a legitimate concern for the best management and conservation of our natural
resources, neglect to determine how this rehabilitation program, or series of other environmental
programs, ranks in importance with programs dedicated to the development of our national
human resources.
596 From much of the material which has been mentioned today, it should be apparent that
we are currently handicapped in reclamation attempts by a lack of more precise knowledge
concerning the exact location - and indeed in some cases of the overall extent - of past mining
damages. Neither have we developed as efficient techniques of repairing these damages as we
would like.
596 We believe that much of this needed knowledge and technology will be gained under the
programs established by S. 993 and may then be brought to bear on the rehabilitation of
past-mined areas. The requirements of S. 993 for regular monitoring of mined areas, and the
assistance offered for the inventorying of mine areas affected by present and future mining
operations, will result also, we think, in the compiling of a significantly more accurate catalog of
past mining damages. We also anticipate that the research program envisioned in S. 993 will
greatly expand the variety and effectiveness of reclamation techniques.
596 For these reasons we again urge that you give your first consideration to the
Administration's proposed S. 993 as the most practical approach at this time to the problem of
reclaiming areas disturbed by mining operations.
596 Senator Moss. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Does S. 993 authorize the expenditure of funds
to refill these old mine shafts?
596 Mr. DOLE. No, sir; it does not. It does authorize research funds to address the problem
of these mines.
596 Senator Moss. Is the position of the Department that the research has not been completed
yet, but that you wish to be allowed to do it, is that right?
596 Mr. DOLE. Senator Moss, the position of the Department is that although we have done
research on this in the past and over a good many years, we still think, due to the variety of
mining lands, mines, mining operations and differences in terrain, that we do not have as
complete a handle on it as we would like.
596 Senator Moss. Is there an urgency problem though, such as in Rock Springs, that ought to
be dealt with more rapidly?
596 Mr. DOLE. I would agree with that, yes.
596 Senator Moss. I note that the Department in S. 2727 has one set of regulations governing
environmental aspects of mining on Federal land, whereas S. 993 establishes standards for
environmental regulations by States?
596 Mr. DOLE. Yes.
596 Senator Moss. Would these two sets of regulations differ then?
596 Mr. DOLE. Yes. 993, Mr. Chairman, would establish guidelines by the Federal
Government which the State must meet. Then it goes on to say that the Federal lands must be
managed with no lesser amount of care than the State lands.
596 Senator Moss. States though still have 2 years to get their regulations in effect?
596 Mr. DOLE. Yes.
596 Senator Moss. And with the Federal lands in the meantime, would they be regulated
before the State lands came under regulation?
596 Mr. DOLE. Those Federal lands that come under lease now have control by both the
Geological Survey and the Bureau of Land Management. Those Federal lands subject to location
of minerals will have to wait out that 2 year period for the States to establish their separate
guidelines.
597 Senator Moss. Senator Hansen.
597 Senator HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, first let me attest to my extreme appreciation, and I am
certain I speak for all of the people in Rock Springs, Who., in expressing our gratitude to the
witness here, to the Department, and to the Bureau of Mines for the help that they gave the city of
Rock Springs and the State government in making possible a demonstration of a new technique
that I believe will prove very revolutionary.
597 I might add, parenthetically, that no one contended when this demonstration experiment
was set up that it was going to restore anyone's home in Rock Springs. For those of you who are
not familiar with the subsidence problem, it is a rather frightening and traumatic experience for
people to be awakened in the night with walls cracking, basements falling apart, sides splitting,
and plaster falling. There is an ever present worry that maybe a gasline is going to rupture and
the house may be blown apart or that water lines may be severed and the house will be flooded.
That is the type of experience to which the people of Rock Springs, Wyo., are subjected.
597 When the Department of Interior and Bureau of Mines went in to contribute some of the
first moneyto put on this demonstration project in Rock Springs, I am sure many people had
different ideas about what was going to be accomplished. What was contemplated was to see if
this new technique could provide a new means by which man could, through his efforts,
undertake an activity that would prevent this settling from occurring, that would prevent
subsidence from taking place. I salute each of you for having been most responsive and sensitive
to the feeling of people in making possible what was done in Rock Springs, Wyo.
597 With respect to your testimony, Secretary Dole, let me say you have been generous in your
references to me. I would like to ask you, Mr. Secretary, has the Government undertaken
remedial efforts in some parts of the United States to obviate the damage that could occur from
additional subsidence? Mr. DOLE.Subsidence from past activity, Senator Hansen, are you
referring to?
597 Mr. HANSEN. Yes.
597 Mr. DOLE. Yes; we have. We have under the Appalachian Pact addressed ouselves to
subsidence in 11 different projects and we have also, under the same bill, addressed ourselves to
some surface land reclamation and to some mine facilities.The experiment on the very small
protions affected in Rock Springs, Wyo., is the only one outside of the Appalachian area.
597 Senator HANSEN. Would it be true if Rock Springs was situated in this Appalachian
area, that further help could be available from the Federal Government.
597 Mr. DOLE. If Wyoming was situated in the area encompassed by the Appalachian Act, it
would qualify, yes.
597 Senator HANSEN. In your judgment, is the damage and the traumatic experience that is
concomitant with this subsidence, any less real to people in Wyoming than say in Scranton, Pa.?
598 Mr. DOLE. Only to the extent that the people in Wyoming might be tougher. It would
be the same elsewhere, whether it is in Wyoming or Timbuctoo.
598 Senator HANSEN. It was my intention to broaden the scope of the legislation that was
enacted for Appalachia to make this type of Federal help available to people in any part of the
United States, wherever a similar problem should occur. Does my bill, 1160, in your judgment,
tend to achieve this objective?
598 Mr. DOLE. As you have described it, S. 1160 would achieve this objective, Senator
Hansen.
598 Senator HANSEN. I have no further questions.
598 Senator Moss. Senator Fannin.
598 Senator FANNIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was very interested in what you had to
say on the planning and programing, Mr. Secretary, to be done under the bill, to recommend -
BLM requires now that they have reclamation on land?
598 Mr. DOLE. Yes, the Bureau of Land Management does, and on the Indian lands this is
under the control of the Geological Survey.
598 Senator FANNIN. Then the contract that was made on the Navajo Reservation, this came
under the survey?
598 Mr. DOLE. Yes.
598 Senator FANNIN. Are you familiar with that program as to the extent of the reclamation?
598 Mr. DOLE. No, Senator Fannin, I am not. I know there is a project down there.
598 Senator FANNIN.I was very impressed in what was delineated to me as to what would be
done within the period of time, as this project progressed. I understand, in your new leases, that
they are working, and even without the present legislation going through; is that correct?
598 Mr. DOLE. Yes, on all leasable minerals on Federal lands we have what we consider a
good program for mined land reclamation which must be met before the mining starts. As a
matter of fact, they must submit a mining plan. We are continually reviewing that program both
within the Bureau of Land Management and the Geological Survey in order that the
environmental danger will be kept at a minimum.
598 Senator FANNIN. I understood you to say, Mr. Secretary, that if the State sets a higher
standard, or maybe I am not sure that I understand you correctly, that if the State sets a higher
standard for the land, other than the Federal land, but the Federal land then will be brought up to
the State standards or the requirements will be the same?
598 Mr. DOLE.Yes.S. 993 says that the reclamation work on Federal land will be no less than
that required by State law.
598 Senator FANNIN. I think that is commendable. It depends on the States involved and
this would give some flexibility to it. I think the restrictions that could be placed in some areas,
would be compatible with what developments come forward, that could be very undesirable in
another area in the country, the flat land and these hills that Senator Baker was talking about.
598 Mr. DOLE. I think that responds, Senator Fannin, to one of the concerns that Senator
Allott expressed, that the Federal guidelines not be so stringent and rigid that they control all 50
States. To give the States that have topographic and geologic differences free play.To let the
States establish these standards within the Federal guidelines, and then have the Federal lands
come and meet these minimal standards.
599 Senator FANNIN. We must do more, but at the same time we have an economic
problem to contend with that is very complicated. There are other parts of the world that have
low-cost power, and low-cost materials, and consequently they are going forward more rapidly
than we are in this field of endeavor. We are only talking about less than 1 percent of our total
power by nuclear energy, 1 percent.
599 Mr. DOLE. Less than 1 percent.
599 Senator FANNIN. There was a figure given, of 10 percent by 1980.
599 Mr. DOLE. It is about 15 percent, if I recall.
599 Senator FANNIN. Will we continue to draw upon coal?
599 Mr. DOLE. We will continue to draw upon coal. In my opinion it is necessary we
continue to draw upon coal, because of the lack of natural gas to meet full demands and the
depreciation in our oil producing capability. The net result is that we have to turn to foreign
insecure sources for oil and for liquid natural gas. We know we have very large reserves of coal,
spread throughout the Nation in very convenient locations, so it properly should fill the energy
gap.
599 Senator FANNIN. I know in the West we seem to be going more in that direction each
year, and I can't see any change coming about in the foreseeable future. I know we have
environmental problems in that regard and we are working to try to solve them and, certainly the
problem is working quite hard and I think the industry is going forward quite rapidly in solving
some of these problems. I don't see any other solution than to try to work with the coal reserves
we have and do it the best we can.
599 Mr. DOLE. I think this is right, Senator Fannin. I think it is most evident that we have to
add these other two elements to the mining cycle, that is, not only to find it and mine it, but to
return the land to other use, and do this in a manner that is safe to workers.
599 Senator FANNIN. It is commendable that you have given support to this project. In one
area of the country there is a great deal being done, and if we have a similar problem in another
area of the country, I hope it will be given consideration.
599 Senator Moss. Senator Hansen.
599 Senator HANSEN. I know these gentlemen have seen the severity of subsidence
problems. In your considered judgment, and perhaps I might direct this question to Mr. Corgan,
do you think there is a good probability, Mr. Corgan, that a technique such as the one we will see
demonstrated here this afternoon could result in less overall cost to the Government and to
society if it would be implemented, to fill these old mine voids before subsidence occurs? Do you
think it would be cheaper to take steps to do that now, rather than to let the subsidence occur, to
have to relocate people, to have to go through an urban renewal program or whatever may
become necessary in order to alleviate the damage and suffering that otherwise would be visited
upon people?
599 Mr. CORGAN. I think in the long run that it would be considerably less costly in terms of
money alone, to say nothing of the problem of relocating people and the suffering of people as
such, to have a program that would take care of the backfilling of mines. In the case of Rock
Springs, Wyo., there is little doubt in our mind that if something isn't done in Rock Springs to
take care of possibly 200 critical acres, there will be an expansion of the subsidence which the
town has been experiencing in a small area to a much larger area.
600 Senator HANSEN. Just one observation, Mr. Chairman. Senator Baker earlier
recommended, and I believe Senator Cooper did also, the turning over of the problem of mine
supervision, regulations, and control from the Department of the Interior to the Environmental
Protection Agency or to NEPA. I would not feel comfortable leaving the record without saying I
believe this would be a very tragic error. I think we would be casting aside all of the knowledge,
professionalism, and expertise that we find now reposing within the Department an give these
responsibilities to a new agency. The new agency would be a fresh new group of faces, I admit,
but beyond that they would be woefully lacking in all of the accumulated understanding and
experience we have at the Department of the Interior. I have no doubt that the Department is
fully capable. It has demonstrated its conviction and determination to implement whatever laws
have been passed by the Congress. I think it is our job as Americans to spell out what kind of
program we think best serves all of the people in the long run. I can think of no other people to
discharge those duties more fairly and sensibly and more economically than are the persons
comprising the personnel in that Department.
600 Mr. DOLE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank Senator Hansen very much for that statement. I
would like to say that we do have a great deal of experience in the Department of Interior in
resource management. And we consider the mining and obtaining of resources for the Nation as
a primary responsibility. We feel we should do this under the guidelines or, if you wish, under
the laws that the EPA sets out. We feel this is a resource management problem rather than an
environmental program alone. We can manage the resources with due regard for the
environment under the guidelines set up by EPA. We feel this is the way we should progress and
we feel this is the way we are moving at the present time.
600 Senator HANSEN. I remember being in Tulsa, Okla., earlier this year with Secretary
Morton, when he keynoted the International Petroleum Exposition. He said the environment is
the most important thing in the world until the lights go out. My fear is that we have got to
understand, as best we can, the total needs of people. We all want the kind of environment of
which we are so proud in the West. I think we would make a dangerous mistake if we were to
think that only the environment is important and fail to take steps that we now should be taking
in order to assure continuing presence of adequate amounts of energy. If we do that, then I can
see real trouble, complete chaos.
600 For instance, if you turned out the lights in New York City for about a week, I can't think
what else you might have, besides the plague. But people would be dying like fleas there. We
can't contemplate such a thing happening. I think we need to take full advantage, Mr. Chairman,
of all of the knowledge we have. It seems to me we have a very considerable amount of it at the
department.
600 Senator Moss. Thank you very much.
600 (Secretary Dole's prepared statement follows:)
601 STATEMENT OF HON. HOLLIS M. DOLE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, MINERAL
RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
601 For the last several years, the public has been hearing and reading about or observing, the
adverse environmental effects attributed to mining. It is evident that these environmental
disturbances are considerable, and can be found throughout our Nation. We now all realize, I
believe, that these effects, ranging from the merely unpleasant or unaesthetic to the truly
dangerous, must eventually be confronted in their entirety and in some way or other, be
overcome. We in the Department of the Interior are particularly convinced of this.
601 We in Interior are appreciative of the mounting public concern over the abuse and
spoliation caused by past mining activities. We understand this concern, and we are grateful for
the presence of perceptive leaders in the Congress like Senator Hansen, who recognize the scope
of past destruction and its implications for the future. Congratulate Senator Hansen for calling
attention to a problem of nationwide dimensions, and for his earnest desire to provide a solution
through the bill your committee is now considering.
601 S. 1160 has for its commendable objective the rehabilitation of mined areas which have
been damaged by past deleterious mining practices. More specifically, it would provide a
legislative remedy for the sealing and filling of voids in abandoned coal mines and abandoned oil
and gas wells, and for the reclamation and rehabilitation of lands affected by the surface mining
and processing of any mineral, including lands affected by waste piles. However, there are
basically two reasons why we cannot support its enactment.
601 First S. 1160 is directed solely to correcting the mistakes of the past. None would deny
that the cumulative damages resulting from the unregulated mining practices of the past are
considerable. The estimated 6.7 million acres of land undermined by the removal of coal and
other minerals through 1965, of which about 600,000 acres have been left susceptible to
subsidence, the 2 million acres of unrestored surface-mined land estimated in 1965 to be in need
of some sort of remedial treatment, and the estimated 1.8 million acres occupied in 1965 by
accumulated mine-related solid wastes, come first to mind.
601 These problems are indeed extensive, and in many cases, longstanding, representing the
accumulated effects of over a century of mining. It should be recognized, however, that the
largest proportion of the acreage affected has been disturbed in more recent decades. This is the
result of the great expansion in mining to meet our society's accelerating mineral demands. Since
1965 another 400,000 acres of land is estimated to have been undermined, another 300,000 acres
left unreclaimed by surface mining, and many more thousands of acres occupied by additional
mine wastes.
601 Furthermore, we estimate that unless corrective measures are taken by the year 2000 the
total acreage for undermined land now believed to be about 7.1 million acres will have increased
by one-half; the 2.3 million acres of land left unrestored by surface mining will have doubled;
and the surface area occupied by mineral wastes increased almost two and one-half times.
601 The meaning of these data is clear: preventing the annual additions of new problems is
relatively more important than initiating broad new programs to ameliorate the affected lands of
the past. We must bring under control today's and tomorrow's potential damages to the
environment before we can make reasonable headway against those of yesterday. The
Administration's proposed "Mined Area Protection Act of 1971", presently before the Congress
as S. 993, embodies this approach, and deserves your most immediate consideration.
601 Our second reservation concerning S. 1160 is centered quite simply on the basis of cost. It
is truly a very substantial expense which will be involved in repairing past mining damages. It is
not one that can be imposed readily on its perpetrators, as to many of the former mine operators
and landowners no longer control or own the mined property. And because our knowledge of
what really needs to be done is incomplete, the potential for costly mistakes is large.
601 Based on cost figures experienced in recent years by the Bureau of Mines in subsidence
control projects conducted under the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 in the
anthracite coal mining region of Pennsylvania, even a limited, selective program of subsidence
protection, aimed only at backfilling abandoned mine workings under an estimated 150,000 acres
of land believed to be most in need of support in the United States, could cost $1.5 billion or $1
0,000 per acre. Obviously, many time this amount could be spent in backfilling undermined
lands throughout this country, depending on how much of the 7-million-acre total we decided to
support.
602 We should note in this connection that presently available methods for predicting
where subsidence will occur are far from adequate. We must rely mainly upon observations after
the fact for our conclusion that approximately one-third of all undermined lands will eventually
subside - and two-thirds will not. Research is presently being conducted to develop better
techniques of anticipating subsidence and of more effective methods of coping with it. At Rock
Springs, Wyoming, we have just completed an experiment which shows that relatively large
amounts of sand could be injected through a single borehole to fill extensive voids in abandoned
mine workings which have become flooded. This was a small-scale demonstration project in
which some 20,000 cubic yards of sand was placed under a single 2.7-acre site in the city. To
completely backfill the entire area of the city susceptible to subsidence - 200 acres in 14 scattered
locations or about 17 percent of the total built-up area - would necessitate the injection of
somewhat over a million cubic yards of sand through a series of boreholes at a cost of almost
$3.1 million or $1 5,500 per acre.Another demonstration project is now underway at Scranton,
Pennsylvania, to determine if crushed coal refuse can be used in somewhat the same manner to
provide surface support, but in an even wider range of underground conditions.
602 The reclamation and rehabilitation of surface-mined areas would entail a financial effort
approaching that of subsidence prevention. As I have noted earlier in my statement, there was
estimated to be in 1965 an accumulation of two million acres of disturbed surface-mined land in
need of basic reclamation. Remedial treatment of that land, primarily to minimize water pollution
- largely by grading, revegetation, and drainage control - would cost, it was then estimated, $6 60
million. That represents an average reclamation cost of $3 30 per acre. We estimate that rising
construction industry costs over recent years have increased that per acre cost to at least $5 00.
Applying that average cost to the estimated 2.3 million acres of unrestored surface-mined land
existing in 1970 would result in a basic reclamation bill of $1 .2 billion. Recent Bureau of Mines
data on surface reclamation work in the Appalachian States under the Appalachian Act indicates
a per acre cost of $1 ,100 to return surface-mined land to productive use. Some special projects
have involved costs as high as $1 5,000 per acre. Reclamation accomplished as part of the
mining cycle is significantly cheaper.
602 These calculations of surface-mined-land reclamation do not take into consideration the
complex, vexing and unresolved legal issues centered on the ownership rights of unreclaimed
lands. Over 90 percent of these lands are in private hands. In some cases, owners do not wish to
have their lands reclaimed, especially if rehabilitation would make remaining mineral reserves
less accessible. In other instances, the expenditure of large sums of taxpayer's dollars for
reclamation might result in excessive profits for the owners in terms of enhanced land values.
Needless to say, public acquisition of these lands either through negoitated purchase or
condemnation, would also add substantially to total reclamation costs.
602 Stabilization is the principal means we have today of coping with accumulated mine
wastes. The Bureau of Mines has had success recently in the development of new and more
economic means of stabilizing wastes deposited on level ground, but the technology for
stabilizing wastes placed on precipitous slopes is still lacking. Although costly stabilization can
ameliorate the harmful offsite effects of some banks, the banks themselves will remain, often
preventing the return of the land occupied to more productive use. Even if more advantageous
sites could be found, the cost of moving the waste to them would be, with our current methods of
materials handling and movement, prohibitively expensive. Additionally, ownership problems
associated with waste banks tend to be even more complex and troublesome than those
connected with unreclaimed surface-mined lands.This is largely because so many waste banks
still retain sufficient mineral values to make them worthwhile long term holding.
602 Burning waste banks present special problems and require much more costly solutions.
Based on costs experienced by the Bureau of Mines in recent demonstration projects for
existinguishing anthracite refuse bank fires, suppression of the 292 known burning coal refuse
banks throughout the United States could cost as much as $250 million.
602 Placing a price tag on the sealing of abandoned oil and gas wells is also a rather difficult
task, particularly as their number and exact locations are in large part unknown. We do know, of
course, that they number in the tens of thousands, and can be found in almost every State.
Experience of the Bureau of Mines in Appalachia has yielded data indicating an average sealing
cost of $2,500 per well there.
603 We have been discussing costs of considerable magnitude, on an absolute and isolated
basis. Correcting damage caused by past mining activity is just one of a number of
environmental problems the solution to which requires Federal funds. Before we can justify a
massive Federal program to rectify past mining damages, a detailed cost-benefit analysis must
assure that this undertaking can be justified when compared with other environmental programs
to cope with similarly pressing problems such as water and air pollution. Nor can we, acting
principally with a legitimate concern for the best management and conservation of our natural
resources, neglect to determine how this rehabilitation program, or series of other environmental
programs, ranks in importance with programs dedicated to the development of our national
human resources.
603 From much of the material which has been mentioned today, it should be apparent that we
are currently handicapped in reclamation attempts by a lack of more precise knowledge
concerning the exact location - and indeed in some cases of the overall extent - of past mining
damages. Neither have we developed as efficient techniques of repairing these damages as we
would like.
603 We believe that much of this needed knowledge and technology will be gained under the
programs established by S. 993 and may then be brought to bear on the rehabilitation of
past-mined areas. The requirements of S. 993 for regular monitoring of mined areas, and the
assistance offered for the inventorying of mine areas affected by present and future mining
operations, will result, also, we think, in the compiling of a significantly more accurate catalogue
of past mining damages.We also anticipate that the research program envisioned in S. 993 will
greatly expand the variety and effectiveness of reclamation techniques.
603 For these reasons we again urge that you give your first consideration to the
Administration's proposed S. 993 as the most practical approach at this time to the problem of
reclaiming areas disturbed by mining operations.
603 Senator Moss. It is now past 12 o'clock, and we have a scheduled vote.We will be in
recess now until 1:30 p.m.
603 (Whereupon, at 12 noon, the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m., the same
day.)
603 AFTERNOON SESSION
603 Senator HANSEN (presiding). The committee will please be in order.
603 Senator Randolph, chairman of the Public Works Committee, has to go very shortly to
chair hearings before his committee. We would like at this time to call on Senator Randolph.
STATEMENT OF HON. JENNINGS RANDOLPH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
603 Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I am appreciative of the courtesy - also
perhaps it is an adjustment of other witnesses to allow me to express my concern over the matter
which you have been discussing, that is, the problems that are incident to surface mining.
603 I want to stress that I do believe that the time has come for the formulation of a national
environmental policy for surface mining. As a West Virginia Senator, I am aware of the
potential adverse environmental effects of improper surface mining for coal. But it is also
important to remember that the economy of our State is closely tied to the mining industry.
604 After many years of neglect, however, in 1966 the State of West Virginia, in response to
conservation and ecological concerns, enacted one of the Nation's strongest laws governing
surface mining for coal. Although enforcement of the law has been criticized for a variety of
reasons, there has been a steady improvement in surface-mining practices in our State. Land
abuses are less severe.
604 The principal remaining concern is acid mine drainage from abandoned and orphaned
surface-mined lands. In response to this problem, and under my sponsorship, the Congress
provided for areawide demonstration programs to control and abate mine drainage pollution.
These provisions are strengthened in the recently passed Senate version of Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1971.
604 Yet, West Virginia's experience with the adverse effects of improper surface-mining
practices can be extended to many other areas of the country where such mining also is a major
activity. Thousands of miles of streams have been adversely affected. The water quality in many
of these areas is severely impaired by mined drainage from both active and inactive mines.
Affected streams are unable to support fish and wildlife in appreciable numbers and are generally
unsuitable for use as public water supplies and for industrial or recreational use.
604 Water pollution control efforts, however, center too much on treatment of a problem after
the fact, after improper surface-mining operations have been permitted to do too much damage.
604 If the adverse effects of surface mining are to be avoided, it is requisite that there be a
prospective analysis before a surface-mining operation is initiated. Preservation of
environmental quality during and reclamation of lands following strip mining is a matter of
environmental management rather than pollution control by treatment after the fact.
604 Critical to the whole operation is continuing surveillance and monitoring of
surface-mining procedures and land reclamation projects. Implementation, however, should rely
on strong State laws and effective enforcement consistent with Federal guidelines and minimum
standards, which should provide sufficient flexibility to reflect regional characteristics of the
potential problem.
604 Yet, the Federal Government should have sufficient authority to enjoin improper
surface-mining operations where State enforcement is inconsistent with Federal guidelines and
minimum standards. There is ample precedent for this in Federal law now in being for the
control of air and water pollution.
604 I propose that careful attention be given to the question of whether or not surface-mining
legislation under consideration in the Congress should require that the Environmental Protection
Agency or the Department of Interior promulgate criteria and minimum standards governing
surface mining which would provide for the control of the adverse environmental effects.
604 I would support provisions modeled after national environmental statutes which provide
for State formulated implementation plans. Such plans should provide for permit systems to
implement Federal minimum standards. Unless disapproved by Interior and/or the
Environmental Protection Agency, the State implementation plans also could serve as the Federal
implementation plan.
605 I recognize that there is some disagreement on the respective roles of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Interior in the establishment of national criteria and
minimum standards.
605 The Environmental Protection Agency, however, is this Nation's leading agency for the
implementation of Federal environmental policy. But this does not preclude the establishment of
the Federal permit program within the Department of the Interior. Such programs could be
modeled after the administration's joint Environmental Protection Agency-Corps of Engineers
permit system established and administered similar to the program for Federal lands.
605 In the case of Federal and Indian lands, concern is for the depletion of a nonrenewable
resource either publicly owned or in public trust. The Federal Government is acting as the
administrator and steward for their development.
605 Therefore, I recommend cessation of the Federal issuance of leases for surface mining
pending the promulgation of Federal criteria and minimum standards. At that time, all applicants
for leases to surface mine public lands should be required to file an environmental impact
statement in accordance with the provision of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
605 Existing permittees and licensees should be allowed a maximum of 1 year to comply with
the act. Otherwise, their permits or leases should be considered for revocation. It would be
possible to obtain an economic advantage by devastating these lands in the absence of a
requirement of proper management techniques.
605 In addition, the Secretary of the Interior probably should be required to prepare an
environmental impact statement, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, on
the cumulative regional effects of surface mining associated with the issuance of Federal permits
and leases and the Bureau of Reclamation water permits for coal stripping on public lands in the
West.
605 Many areas of this Nation, however, are now faced with repairing the devastation of past
practices which exploited the resources of such regions as Appalachia and such watersheds as the
Monongahela River Basin. Restoring orphaned and abandoned surface mined lands is a special
problem requiring Federal, State and local ingenuity and regional planning.
605 Steps are being taken to develop the necessary technical and institutional mechanisms.
The Environmental Protection Agency, under the provisions of the Water Quality Improvement
Act of 1970, has the leading role. This program was strengthened in the recently passed Senate
amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act, which authorize $3 0 million for demonstration
programs to control water pollution resulting from mine drainage.
605 The program represents another step forward in this Nation's efforts to correct neglect
during the past. Concern, however, must be directed to a future when surface mining will serve
as a major source of energy resources for the next 40 years. Obviously, there is need for
environmentally sound surface mining and reclamation planning.
605 Solutions must rely on carefully conceived environmental management techniques.
Practices should not be allowed which cause water pollution, destroy agricultural lands, stop
recreational use of areas, and generally prohibit future beneficial use of an area.
606 Land, like air and water, is a basic natural resource. Without useful land, our society and
our Nation cannot continue to be economically sound and physically healthy. Reduction and
prevention of the environmental devastation which can accompany improper surface mining is
essential to improving the quality of life and establishing diversified economies that are essential
to sound economic policies.
606 I thank you very much.
606 Senator Moss (presiding). Thank you very much, Senator, for your fine statement.
606 We know of your long interest in this field and your leadership in the Public Works
Committee, from which our water pollution and air pollution acts have come. No one is more
knowledgeable nor more energetic in the field of pollution abatement than you are, and as you
point out, land is a vital resource as much as water and air, and what we are talking about is how
we are going to be able to preserve and keep from abusing our land at the same time we develop
our energy resources which we need, of course, to have our economy continue to expand.
606 So, we are appreciative of your coming here and giving us your views for the record in
this case, as we look into this problem of surface mining and disturbance of the land.
606 Senator JORDAN. I, too, welcome the distinguished chairman of the Public Works
Committee. He has made a continuing constant contribution to this area of pollution abatement
and we value his counseling in this committee. You have made a very fine statement.
606 Senator RANDOLPH. I thank you, Senator Jordan.
606 Senator HANSEN. I, too, would like to congratulate our colleague for his in-depth study
of the problem and the serious consideration he has given it.
606 Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you, Senator Hansen.
606 Senator FANNIN. I, too, congratulate you.
606 Senator RANDOLPH. I thank you, too, Senator Fannin.
606 I have attempted always to have the members of the Public Works Committee very
cognizant of the efforts you have been making in the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. We
have had a very close relationship, and I want to have that not only continued, but strengthened.
606 Senator Moss. Thank you, Senator.
606 We have also sitting with us this afternoon Senator Byrd. I understand he is interested in
the demonstration we are going to see now given by Mr. Jake Stewart and Mr. Robert Hurst.
606 Will those two gentlemen come forward?
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT HURST, ACCOMPANIED BY JAKE
STEWART
606 Dr. HURST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here. I have a prepared
statement which I ask be included in full in the record, and I will summarize the testimony at this
time.
606 You gentlemen are well versed in the cause and effect of surface subsidence, you are
aware of the impact of such subsidence when it happens in developed areas. We would like
briefly to review the old method that we have used to try to solve these problems, prevent
subsidence.
607 We can do nothing but try to reclaim the lands once subsidence has taken its toll.
Basically, we can classify the potential subsidence areas according to two types of mines. Man
can get in there and take tools in there and support these mines, so these mines do not offer a big
problem in solving, except it takes funds.
607 Unfortunately, the most difficult ones are those mines which are gaseous, too hazardous
for people to enter, or they have becom filled with water, preventing people to enter.
607 In the past, there has only been one method to try to solve the problem in this area; that is,
to drill holes from the surface on to slush in, and that is to take a stream of water and putting
solids into the water.
607 Mr. Stewart will start filling these up and show you the method.
607 Mr. STEWART. Over here we have simulated pillars left in the mine. Here we tried to
represent the streets, alleys, buildings and public areas.
607 The common method, you would have to have access to get a drilling machine in, so
normally the streets are used.
607 I am going to pour some sand in here and give you an idea of what happens. The only
energy force we have is that of gravity. This will continue to develop until the piece of the cone
gets up to the base or roof of the mine. At that time it will choke it off and can accept no more
solid. We did fill this partly before we brought the model in here.
607 This caused these to flatten out from the nice angles you see here to this mounted effect.
The same thing can happen in a mine, if using this method the fill is not complete and you do
have the opportunity for fluid movement. Movement in the water and mine can cause these cones
to flatten out.
607 If I might have a minute to flush this thing out, we will show you how the process works.
607 Before I flush it though, let me mark the shape of the material. This one will be about the
same way over here.
607 (Drawing.)
607 Dr. HURST. The new technique developed was on behalf of friends and neighbors of the
people of the city of Rock Springs, Wyo. They took it on their own, working through their
private company to develop a technique to help the citizens of Rock Springs, if it could be done
with the technology they have.
607 We have developed a process where we feel we can completely fill the voids in these
mines, eliminate the problems of subsidence above, and we can do it from a single point of
covering a large area. Mathematical projections indicate we can cover perhaps from any one
single bore hole, 40, 160, perhaps one section from a single hole.
607 By doing this, of course, we save lots of time and wear and tear on people and material, so
we should be able to do it much more economically than having to drill hundreds of holes. For
example, in a 40-acre plot, if you did it the old method and you can get access to the plot, it
would take several hundred holes on a 40-acre plot. This is expensive drilling, because a rock is
difficult type of drilling. The costs are very high.
607 We think this process will be inexpensive in comparison. For example, the first project, a
small demonstration project at Rock Springs, cost more than $1 0 a cubic yard. The next project
under study and really near time to start is at Scranton, Pa., and in that case it looks like the costs
are going to be about $3 a cubic yard. Again, it is a relatively small project, still bi