House Report No. 94-1445
|
|
Legislative History House Report No. 94-1445 |
| |
PREAMBLE
CONTENTS
Page
Committee amendments to H.R. 13950 1
Introduction 5
Purpose 11
Need 11
Issues 37
Elements of mine regulation program 43
Committee action 88
Section-by-section analysis of H.R. 13950 103
Appendix 130
Concurring, additional, separate, and dissenting views 133
MR. HALEY, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, submitted the
following REPORT together with CONCURRING, ADDITIONAL, SEPARATE, AND DISSENTING
VIEWS and Including the Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
[To accompany H.R. 13950]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 13950) to provide for the cooperation between the Secretary of the
Interior and the States with respect to the regulation of surface coal mining
operations, and the acquisition and reclamation of abandoned mines, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with
amendments and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
INTRODUCTION
5 The "Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1976" reported by
the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs contains a number of important
modifications which distinguish it from previously reported legislation designed
to implement a national system of coal surface mining regulation. While the
principal concepts of the earlier bills have been retained, the reported bill,
H.R. 13950, has been adjusted with the primary goal in mind to help the small to
medium sized coal surface mine operator comply with the act as the new system is
phased in over a period of 3 years.
5 The Committee understands that in reporting this bill - similar to
legislation that failed to become law - it may find itself charged with (at
least) single minded tenacity or (at worst) irresponsible stubbornness on issues
already decided.
5 In the first place, H.R. 13950 is not the same bill. It is, rather,
legislation significantly different in terms of timing, allocation of
responsibility, flexibility of procedure and certain reclamation criteria from
any bill previously considered by the House.
5 But more importantly, the Committee has spent its time addressing this
legislation because the Committee is painfully aware of the fact that the
problems of strip mining, intended to be corrected by previous bills, have not
gone away. Indeed, they are more pressing than ever. Nor has the strong
bipartisan Congressional support for coal surface mining legislation dissipated.
5 The Committee has gone back to work, modified the legislation and now
reports to the House a bill it believes the House can support with confidence
that enactment of the measure will result in the correction of the abuses of
strip mining without resulting in any significant interruption of coal supply.
5 EXTENDED TIMETABLE FOR COMPLIANCE
5 H.R. 13950 retains the basic framework and concepts of the previous bills.
The time periods for compliance have been extended, however, and this
modification should mitigate the administrative burdens attendant to a new
regulatory scheme. As the bill is now drafted, after enactment of the
legislation coal surface mines would begin to become subject to a system of
reclamation standards and administrative procedures that are phased in over a
period of 26 to (possibly) 38 months. In many cases, the standards and
procedures will be compatible with current state laws. Where they are not,
states are given over 2 years to amend their laws to conform with the minimum
national standards required by the new law.
5 Once the state program has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior,
the operator is given up to 8 months to apply for and receive approval of a
permit application demonstrating compliance with the act. After one year from
enactment, operations existing during the period of transition to the new
program will have to comply with certain interim reclamation standards to be
enforced by the states. New operations starting up 6 months after enactment
will be required to comply with the same standards.
6 Obviously, extending full compliance requirements up to over 3 years from
enactment results in delaying implementation of sound and needed reclamation
requirements. Where a new administrative system and substantive requirements
are being imposed on an ongoing and important industry, however, the Committee
believes that the need for continuity of production justifies this extended time
frame.
6 The previously passed, but vetoed bill, H.R. 25, contained an
implementation schedule more abbreviated than that of H.R. 13950. Under H.R.
25, an operator was required to apply for a new permit by the expiration of 20
months after enactment. Under H.R. 13950, permit application will be required
at 26 months after enactment but this period could be extended up to 32 months
depending upon the time necessary to put an approved program in place. Not only
does the operator have time to prepare his application, but under H.R. 13950 it
is clear that he does not have to act prior to final approval of the new program
(as was the case under H.R. 25).
6 In addition to extending the application time frame, H.R. 13950 also
delays implementation of the interim standards from the requirements of the
vetoed bill. Under H.R. 25, existing operations would have to be in compliance
with the interim standards 135 days after enactment instead of the full year
afforded by H.R. 13950.
6 The Committee believes that the implementation schedule of the vetoed bill
was realistic and justified. Nevertheless, in an effort to give coal operators
ample time to comply with the act, it has included this extended implementation
scheme in the reported bill.
6 Along with extending the implementation schedule, the Committee also
approved several other provisions that will help the small to medium operator
comply with the act. The following is a summary of the principal modifications:
6 (1) Regulatory Authority Assumption of Water and Core Sampling Analysis
Responsibility
6 Both the vetoed bill and H.R. 13950 require that the operator submit
analysis of the hydrologic consequence of mining (Sec. 507(b)(11)), as well as
the results of test borings or core samples. Small to medium sized operators in
States where such analyses are not now conducted indicated that the expense of
such activities could be burdensome and that the expertise may not be
immediately available. The Committee responded by altering provisions of two
titles of the bill. Section 401(d) now reserves 20 percent of fees paid into
the abandoned reclamation fund (fees paid on strip and deep mined coal into a
fund for the purpose of reclaiming mined and abandoned lands). Section 507(c)
now provides that the regulatory authorities shall perform the water and core
analyses for operators mining less than 250,000 tons. The funds reserved from
the abandoned mine reclamation program will be used to cover the cost of that
activity. The Committee believes that not only will this mechanism help the
operator comply with the act, but also will assure that the important water and
core analysis are correctly performed.
7 (2) Elimination of Coal Exploration Permit Requirements
7 The previous bill would have required application for and approval of a
permit prior to conducting exploration for coal. Exploration often results in
environmental damage and the Committee believes that a full permitting program
is justified to control exploration activities. Nevertheless, a simpler
procedure could be imposed to achieve the needed degree of regulation. Thus the
Committee has eliminated the permitting process for coal exploration on lands
within the jurisdiction of the States. Section 512 now requires that prior to
exploration, notice be given of intention to conduct exploration and that all
exploration be conducted pursuant to regulations designed to require reclamation
of disturbed lands. By imposing penalties for violations of the exploration
regulations, the Committee believes that the bill will adequately protect the
environment without imposing the extensive and time consuming permitting
procedure.
7 (3) Modifications Designed to Lessen "Front-End" Costs of Compliance With
the Act
7 Along with assuming the costs of water and core analysis for small to
medium sized operators, the bill also includes the following important
provisions designed to lower the initial cost of compliance with the act:
7 (a) Application Fee. - Section 507(a): Under the old bill the amount of
the application fee was to be based as nearly as possible on the costs of
administering the permit application. Small operators were concerned that this
might significantly increase the front end costs and put him at a disadvantage
to the larger operator. In H.R. 13950 the language was changed to allow the
regulatory authority to charge an applicant fee less than the costs of
administering the application.
7 (b) Analysis of Stratum Below Coal Seam. - Section 507(b)(14): This
modification reduces the burden on the operator to provide additional
information with the application which may not, in every case, be necessary for
the regulatory authority to have prior to making a determination on the
application. Specifically, the modification deletes the previous bill's
requirement that the nature of the stratum beneath the coal seam be analyzed and
presented in the application. This gives the regulatory authority more
flexibility without eliminating the legislative intent of the provision.
7 (c) Core Sampling. - Section 507(b)(15): This modification would allow the
regulatory authority to determine when core sampling must be taken. Operators
have argued that often the strata in an area are known and that analysis simply
isn't necessary. Under this modification, the regulatory authority could waive
the requirement.
7 (4) Procedural Requirements
7 Related to the concern about lowering initial costs, streamlining of
regulatory procedures has the advantage of reducing costs and shortening the
time necessary to apply for and receive approval of a permit.
8 Inadequate procedures and information requirements have plagued the history
of surface mining regulation and the bill retains important functions to assure
full review of permit applications and bond release. The following changes,
however, have been made to help the operator to comply with the law without
doing damage to the goals of the legislation:
8 (a) Adjacent Owners. - Section 507(b)(2): Under the previous bill the
operator is required to provide the names and addresses of all owners of record
within 500 feet of the permit area. H.R. 13950 requires only that adjacent
property owners be listed in the permit application.
8 (b) Previous Permit Information. - Section 507(b)(3): This modification
streamlines and reduces the amount of information required of the operator in
the application without violating the intent of the paragraph which is to
provide the regulatory authority with some background information on the coal
operator. Under the previous bill all previous surface mining permits held by
the operator had to be listed in the application. H.R. 13950 requires that
permits for the preceding five years be included.
8 (c) Limiting Notice on Bond Release. - Section 519(a): This modification
limits the scope of the notice requirement on bond release (a long list of
specific agencies was deleted).
8 (d) Bond Release. - Section 519: The previous bill allows objectors to a
bond release to invoke a hearing by the regulatory authority prior to such
release. In order to avoid unnecessary administrative procedure, H.R. 13950 is
modified to provide for an informal procedure without precluding or diminishing
the rights of the objectors. Currently many bond release objections are handled
in this manner in Pennsylvania.
8 H.R. 13950 contains other important modifications designed to ease the
impact of the new regulatory scheme on the operator. Included are a new
provision to allow the state to implement an alternative system to bonding
procedures required by the Act, n1 a clarification of the burden of proof in the
regulatory process n2 and a clarification of the approximate original contour
definition. n3
8 n1 Section 509(f): This modification would allow the State to implement an
alternative system to bonding (e.g. an insurance system) provided that it
contains provisions to assure that the objectives and purposes of the bonding
section are met.
8 n2 Section 510(a): It was the intention of H.R. 25 to place the burden on
the applicant to demonstrate that the application is in compliance with the act.
H.R. 25 used the language "affirmatively demonstrate" that an applicant is in
compliance with the Act and other Federal and State laws and that these
provisions might possibly be construed to impose a more stringent test than
merely placing the burden on the operator. H.R. 13950, therefore, deletes that
language and provides in section 510(a) that "the applicant for a permit . . .
shall have the burden of establishing that his application is in compliance"
with the program. The modification also clarifies that it is not the intention
of this Act to shift the burden imposed by other State or Federal laws (the
burden under other laws may not be on the applicant).
8 n3 Section 701(23): This modification adds clarifving language. H.R. 25
required the elimination of "depressions" and this language, which was a
hold-over from a very early draft of the bill, causes some confusion. What is
crucial is the elimination of (1) highwalls, and (2) spoil piles in all cases,
with no exceptions.Obviously, however, there will be depressions left where
thick seams of coal have been removed or in some forms of contouring where the
operator is required to complement the drainage pattern of surrounding terrain.
After the word "depressions" was put in the bill, the special provisions for
"water impoundments" were added, thereby, making this reference to "depressions"
unnecessary and possibly confusing.
8 During the course of the debate over the previous bill, H.R. 25,
projections were advanced by the Bureau of Mines and other agencies that
enactment of the legislation would result, in the first full year of
implementation, in rather drastic production losses. While the Committee
believes that these projections were the product of hasty and unscientific
procedures, it also believes that whatever the merits of the Bureau's claims,
they do not apply to H.R. 13950 as reported.
9 The projections ranged from 40 to 160 million tons of production loss. n4
Obviously, this is a wide spectrum. The vast bulk of these losses (143 million
tons) was attributed to three main factors: (a) the bill's protection of the
highly productive alluvial valley floors in the West; (b) the impact of the bill
on small mines; and (c) the bill's provisions regarding mining on steep slopes.
The following is a discussion of these issues.
9 n4 Although the projections were characterized as loss of "production",
the projections are more accurately termed precluded reserves. The Bureau
assumed that if the bill would preclude the mining of a ton of coal in a certain
location for certain reasons, the loss the availability of that ton of coal
would result in a loss of production rather than assuming that other coal
located in an adjacent area that could be mined would make up the deficit. The
Committee questions this logic in light of the fact by the most conservative
estimate there are 136 billion tons of strippable coal and almost 300 billion
tons of deep mineable coal in this country. With the extended implementation
schedule of H.R. 13950, even greater doubt can be cast on the Bureau of Mines
assumption.
9 ALLUVIAL VALLEY FLOORS
9 Administration position. - According to projections of the Bureau of
Mines, provisions of the bill relating to mining on the highly productive yet
environmentally delicate alluvial valley floors of the West, was ambiguous and
could have precluded production on a significant percentage of coal-bearing
lands in the West and would have shut down existing mines.
9 Committee action. - The Committee approved a new alluvial valley floors
section that grandfathers existing mines and tightens the definition to remove
ambiguity. Since the demise of H.R. 25, the U.S. Geological Survey has
conducted a review of proposed mining plans with Federal involvement, photo
interpretations, and field geological studies (see letter in Appendix 1 of this
report). The results demonstrate that, in fact, only a small percentage of
proposed operations are overlain by alluvial valley floors. According to the
Director of the USGS:
9 The measurements indicate that none of the mines proposed have greater
than 3.7 percent of their land surface covered by alluvial valley floors.
9 It is the Committee's judgment that under the reported bill, alluvial
valley floors will be protected - which is vital to the continued agricultural
productivity of western lands - without causing any meaningful disruption of
proposed western mining.
9 SMALL MINES
9 Administration position. - The Bureau of Mines estimated that the small
Eastern operations mining less than 50,000 tons are without the money or
expertise to comply with the phase-in requirements and procedures.
9 Committee action. - This Introduction has previously detailed the lengths
to which the Committee has modified the bill in order to assist the small
operator to comply with the act. Responsibility for water and core analysis
will be assumed by the regulatory authority, the time period for applications
for permits has been significantly extended, and other steps have been taken to
aid the small operator. The Committee believes that the small operator will be
fully capable of mining under the provisions of this bill.
10 STEEP SLOPES
10 Administration position. - According to agency projection, virtually all
production on the steep slopes of mountain mining could be wiped out under the
bill.
10 Committee action. - The bill does not ban mining on steep slopes, but
merely requires the use of available technology that can be economically
conducted to reclaim the land.The steep slope provisions are intended to put an
end to the most hazardous and environmentally degrading practices of mountain
mining. As is discussed later in this report, there is ample evidence that
steep slope operators can comply with the requirements of this bill. The
problem here, if any, is really to give an operator sufficient time to change
mining techniques to comply with the new requirements. Again, the interim
requirements have been extended for a full year before enforcing the interim
requirement on existing mines that prohibits dumping of spoil material down the
side of the mountain (where such spoil erodes, chokes streams with silt, and
results in land slides endangering public health and safety.
10 ELIMINATION OF MANDATORY FEDERAL INSPECTIONS
10 Another important modification in terms of keeping down the costs of
administration of the act is an amendment adopted in Committee to eliminate
regular Federal inspection during the interim period. While backup Federal
inspection is included, the Committee agreed that in terms of practical
administration of the act, requiring regular Federal inspection of operations
under the jurisdiction of the State during the interim was unnecessary.
10 Reporting of H.R. 13950 reflects the Committee belief that the regulation
of surface coal mining can no longer be ignored as a national concern.This is
not strictly an "environmental bill" nor is it an "energy bill." It is really
both, and more. Enactment of the bill will protect the land, prevent mining
where it should not occur and preserve land for beneficial uses for
generations to come. When H.R. 13950 becomes law, it will also finally put the
question of minimum national standards to rest and thus encourage the
development of new operations to meet the nation's increasing appetite for coal.
In addition, H.R. 13950 represents the concern of the Congress that the real
burdens - the real costs - of coal development be lifted from the shoulders of
those who have carried them in the past and would have to assume them in the
future without this legislation. Expanding coal development is important. But
the Committee believes that also important are the elimination of the
despoilation that has ravaged Appalachia and the prevention of a similar future
for Western coal mining regions.Both goals were sought in the drafting of this
bill. By its enactment, both can be achieved.
THE PURPOSE OF H.R. 13950
11 The purpose of H.R. 13950 is to assure the establishment of a
nationwide program for the regulation of surface coal mining in order to reduce
environmental impacts and to provide for the reclamation of previously mined and
unreclaimed lands by -
11 (1) covering all coal surface mining (contour and area stripping and
open-pit operations), the surface impacts of coal processing from surface and
underground mines;
11 (2) establishing administrative, environmental, and enforcement standards
for regulatory programs to be administered by the States on non-Federal lands;
11 (3) providing authority for a Federal regulatory program to augment State
programs if necessary on non-Federal lands and establish a Federal regulatory
program for Federal lands;
11 (4) applying Federal standards to operations on Indian lands and
undertaking a study to develop a program under which Indian tribes may elect to
assume full regulatory authority of coal mining operations on Indian lands;
11 (5) establishing a program for the reclamation of previously mined and
inadequately reclaimed lands;
11 (6) establishing a program for designating areas unsuitable for surface
coal mining and a more limited program for minerals other than coal;
11 (7) establishing a new Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement for implementing provisions on this Act;
11 (8) establishing a Federal grant-in-aid program to the States for State
mining and mineral resource research institutes;
11 (9) establishing procedures for public review of the administrative and
enforcement program through access to data, hearings, inspections and standing
to sue for damages and for non-compliance with the Act; and
11 (10) recognizing the rights of surface owners and off-site water users.
11 Following the discussion of the need for legislation, the most
significant elements of the bill are described in greater detail.
NEED
11 COAL AND OTHER ENERGY RESOURCES
11 Coal has always filled a major portion of the U.S. energy demand. The
proportion of U.S. demand met by coal, however, has declined during the past
decade. In 1973, coal contributed only 18 percent of the Nation's energy
supply, while petroleum and natural gas combined to produce approximately 77
percent of demand. Hydropower supplied a further 4 percent and nuclear 1
percent.
11 The fact that coal represents over 90 percent of our total hydrocarbon
energy reserves dictates that coal will supply a significant proportion of our
energy needs in the years to come.In addition, two of the major factors
contributing to the decrease in the use of coal - the low prices of natural gas
and imported crude oil - have changed drastically since the oil embargo of 1973.
Coal will become an increasingly important source of fuel for the Nation through
the year 2000 (see Table No. 3(a), p. 13).
12 According to the latest Bureau of Mines figures, coal production in 1974
amounted to 601 million tons and coal production for the first ten months of
1975 was over 533 million tons. Total U.S. consumption was over 552 million
tons, while exports amounted to 60 million tons. The overwhelming majority of
domestic consumption was in electrical power generation (approximately 69
percent). Other uses included: bunker fuels, beehive coke plants, oven coke
plants, and othe rmanufacturing and retail deliveries (see Table No. 4, p. 15).
Of the total 1973 U.S. production of coal, about 52 percent was produced by
surface mining methods, representing a sharp increase in the past few years.
12 The Federal Energy Administration estimates U.S. coal consumption will
increase to 692.5 million tons by 1980. Of this amount, 612.9 million tons
(88.5 percent) is committed to the electric utility demand. Non-utility coal
demand is forecast to increase slightly, however, the demand for metallurgical
coals is expected to remain relatively constant during the period 1975 through
1980. The coal production estimated by the Bureau of Mines (Table No. 3(b), p.
14) is the coal that could be produced for the years 1977 and 1980 by ranges of
sulfur content and by state and general geographic areas in the U.S. Of the
national coal production having a sulfur content of one percent, or less, the
Appalachian region is projected to contribute almost 71 percent. The value of
the vast reserves of Appalachian low sulfur coal is enhanced by its contribution
to air quality. This factor becomes increasingly important as a growing
proportion of utility fuel needs are met by coal.
12 DISTURBED LANDS
12 Surface mining of coal in the United States involves the temporary or
permanent degradation of vast tracts of land. With some outstanding exceptions,
there has been little effort on the part of coal operators to restore disturbed
areas to their previous levels of productive capacity. The passage of laws
regulating coal surface mining in some 34 States has proven to be generally
ineffective in bringing about necessary reclamation of the disturbed land areas.
12 A number of experts in government and industry think the continuation of
the majority of the rapid growth in the coal surface mining industry will most
likely occur in the West. The imminent disturbance of these lands is due to the
large quantities of strippable reserves located primarily in the Northern Great
Plains region. A National Petroleum Council report indicates that there are
some 32 billion tons of bituminous, sub-bituminous coal and lignite in the West
which are recoverable through surface mining techniques. (See Tables Nos. 6 and
7, pp. 16-17). The fact that many of these deposits are extremely thick, as
compared with those of the eastern and mid-western United States makes them
economically attractive. Federal regulation of this development is made
mandatory by the fact that 80 percent of Western coal is owned by the Federal
Government. The total coal reserves located on Indian lands is estimated by the
U.S. Geological Survey to be in the vicinity of 25 billion tons.
13 A report issued by the Soil Conservation Service of the Department of
Agriculture concerning the status of land disturbed as of January 1, 1974,
indicates the scope of the problem state by state. Quoting a previous estimate
by the Department of Interior to the effect that "153,000 acres of land were
disturbed in 1964 by strip and surface mining", the report notes that in past
years that rate has been exceeded by 35 percent.
13 "The present concerns about energy, combined with the knowledge about out
huge coal reserves make it quite likely that the annual rate of land disturbance
will be even greater," the report concludes. (See Table N. 9, p. 18.)
*2*
TABLE
1. -
Annua
l
U.S.
consu
mptio
n of
bitum
inous
coal,
1963-
75
*2*[
In
thous
ands
of
tons]
1963 409,225
1964 431,116
1965 459,164
1966 486,266
1967 480,416
1968 498,930
1969 507,275
1970 517,158
1971 494,862
1972 516,776
1973 556,022
1974 552,709
1975 n1 554,749
13 n1 Preliminary figures.
13 Source: Bureau of Mines.
$2. - TOTAL U.S.
HYDROCARBON
RECOVERABLE
RESERVES
Number Times 1013 Btu Percent
Coal (billion tons) 182.0 4,136 88.4
Oil (billion
barrels) 48.3 270 5.8
Natural gas
(trillion cubic
feet) 266.0 274 5.8
13 Source: Bureau of Mines.
*5*
TABLE
(3)(
A). -
COAL
AS AN
ENERG
Y
SOURC
E IN
THE
UNITE
D
STATE
S,
PROJE
CTED
Total energy demand *2*Energy demand
Year for coal
Trillion But Percent increase Trillion Btu Percent increase
1974 73 13
1980 87 19 17 31
1985 103 41 21 62
2000 163 123 35 169
*13*[Thousands of
short tons]
Regions and States 1977 sulfur levels of supply (percent by weight)
1980 sulfur levels of supply (percent by weight)
0.6 and under 0.7 to 0.8 0.9 to 1
1.1 to 1.5 1.6 and over Total 0.6 and under
0.7 to 0.8 0.9 to 1 1.1 to 1.5 1.6 and over
Total
Appalachian:
Alabama 200 2,335 10,565
7,660 7,715 28,475 235
2,730 12,355 8,955 9,025
33,300
East Kentucky 24,880 19,150 23,030
17,390 8,050 92,500 29,590
22,770 27,390 20,680 9,570
110,000
Maryland 100 125
155 1,500 1,880
115 140 170 1,675
2,100
Ohio
4,530 53,570 58,100
4,900 58,000
62,900
Pennsylvania 935 3,570 8,500
25,585 46,410 85,000 1,025
3,920 9,340 28,115 51,000
93,400
Tennessee 125 2,770 775
1,315 5,395 10,270 150
3,350 805 1,585 6,510
12,400
Virginia 13,470 15,830 7,120
5,105 1,375 42,900 15,700
18,450 8,300 5,950 1,600
50,000
West Virginia 19,750 47,280 17,000
12,970 47,150 144,150 22,195
53,135 19,115 14,580 52,975
162,000
Total 59,360 91,035 67,005
74,710 171,165 463,275 68,895
104,470 77,445 84,935 190,355
526,100
Midwestern:
Arkansas
600 600
800
800
Illinois 2,415 2, 710
5,490 62,585 73,200 2,605
2,925 5,925 67,545
79,000
Indiana 10 5
1,285 29,900 31,200
15 10 1,440 33,635
35,100
Io wa
1,100 1,100
1,300
1,300
Kansas
1,400 1,400
1,600
1,600
Missouri
5,300 5,300
5,800
5,800
Oklahoma 90 270 455
1,985 2,800 100
300 500 2,200
3,100
West Kentucky
25 62,275 62,300
30 69,370
69,400
Total 2,505 280 3,170
6,800 165,145 177,900 27,05
315 3,435 7,395 182,250
196,100
Gulf: Texas 1,180
10,070 11,250
2,770 23,630
26,400
Northern Great
Plains:
Montana 1,510 1,870 240
16,480 20,100 2,355
2,920 375 25,750
31,400
North Dakota 5,945 3,665
3,005 335 12,950 9,270
5,715 4,685 530
20,200
Wyoming 29,200 3,500
32,700
44,650 5,360
50,000
Total 7,455 31,070 7,405
19,485 335 65,750 11,625
47,570 11,440 30,435 530
101,600
Rocky Mountain:
Arizona 3,875
3,875 4,600
4,600
Colorado 4,475 2,200 110
15 6,800 5,130
2,525 125 20
7,800
New Mexico 1,955 8,875 20
10,850 2,160
9,815 25
PAGE 15
Cong. Report HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT No. 94-1445; 94th CONGRESS
12,000
Utah 3,685 895 1,900
20 6,500 3,970
960 2,050 20
7,000
Total 13,990 11,970 2,030
35 28,025 15,860
13,300 2,200 40
31,400
Pacific:
Alaska 800
800 1,000
1,000
Washington 8,000
8,000 12,400
12,400
Total 8,800
8,800 13,400
13,400
Total, United
States 92,110 134,355 80,790
111,100 336,645 755,000 112,485
165,655 97,290 146,435 373,135
895,000
13 Source: U.S. Bureau of Mines.
$4. - 1975
U.S. Domestic Coal
Consumption n1
*2*[In thousands of
tons]
Electrical power
utilities 403,249
Bunker fuels 24
Beehive coke plants 1,092
Oven coke plants 82,228
Steel and rolling
mills 2,715
Other manufacturing 59,759
Retail dealer
deliveries 5,682
13 n1 Estimated figures.
13 Source: Bureau of Mines.
$5. - AMOUNT OF
TOTAL U.S. COAL
PRODUCTION PROVIDED
BY SURFACE MINING
Total tonnage
coal produced Percentage
(in million produced by
Year short tons) surface mining
1975 640 n1 54.7
1974 603 54.0
1973 591 49.0
1972 595 48.9
1971 552 50.0
1970 603 43.8
1969 561 38.1
1968 545 36.9
1967 553 36.9
1966 5 34 36.5
1965 512 35.0
1964 487 33.9
1963 459 33.2
1962 422 33.4
1961 403 32.3
1960 416 31.5
1959 412 31.3
1958 410 30.0
1957 493 26.8
1956 501 27.0
1955 465 26.2
1954 392 26.3
1953 457 23.4
13 n1 Estimated figures.
13 Source: Bureau of Mines.
*6*TABLE 6. -
SUMMARY OF
ESTIMATED
RESERVES OF
STRIPPABLE
BITUMINOUS
COAL IN THE
UNITED STATES
n1
*6*[Million
short tons]
Minimum coal Maximum Economic
Remaining Available bed overburden stripping
Region and strippable strippable thickness thickness ratio
State reserves reserves (inches) (feet) (feet:feet)
Appalachia:
Alabama 607 134 14 120 24:1
Kentucky -
East 4,609 781 28 120 14:1
Maryland 150 21 28 120 15:1
Ohio 5,566 1,033 28 120 15:1
Pennsylvania 2,272 752 28 120 15:1
Tennessee 483 74 28 120 19:1
Virginia 2,741 258 28 120 15:1
West Virginia 11,230 2,118 28 120 15:1
Subtotal 27,658 5,171
Midwest:
Arkansas 200 149 14 60 30 :1
Illinois 18,845 3,247 18 150 18:1
Indiana 2,741 1,096 14 90 20:1
Iowa 1,000 180 28 120 18:1
Kansas 1,388 375 12 120 15:1
Kentucky -
West 4,746 977 24 150 18:1
Michigan 6 1 28 100 20:1
Missouri 3,425 1,160 12 120 15:1
Oklahoma 434 111 12 120 15:1
Subtotal 32,785 7,296
Rocky
Mountain and
Pacific
Coast:
Alaska n2 1,201 480 14 120 10:1
Colorado 870 500 60 50-120 4:1-10:1
Utah 252 150 60 39-150 3:1-8:1
Subtotal 2,323 1,130
Total n3 62,766 13,597
13 n1 The Bureau of Mines released an updated estimate of U.S. coal reserves
by region and recovery method in July 1974. These figures show a loss of some
30,000,000,000 tons in reserve estimates for West Virginia alone; from previous
estimates other Eastern States lost smaller amounts (1,000,000,000 to
2,000,000,000 tons range). Moreover, the new figures show a growing ratio of
strip to deep mineable reserves. Until such time as the Bureau of Mines can
demonstrate the basis for these new figures, it was determined to use the older
reserve figures for this report. It should be pointed out that, according to
the Institute of Ecology, 72 percent of the Nation's coal reserves lie in the
east, if one calculated on a Btu, rather than a tonnage basis.
13 n2 Includes 478,000,000 tons of reserves in Northern Alaska fields (North
Slope) that may not be economically strippable at this time.
13 n3 Strippable bituminous coal reserves for Idaho, Montana, New Mexico,
Texas, and Washington were not estimated.
13 Source: "U.S. Energy Outlook, Coal Availability," National Petroleum
Council, 1973.
*6*TABLE 7. -
SUMMARY OF
ESTIMATED
RESERVES OF
STRIPPABLE
SUBBITUMINOUS
AND LIGNITE
COAL IN THE
UNITED STATES
n1
*6*[Million
short tons]
Minimum Maximum Economic
Remaining Available coalbed overburden stripping
Region and strippable strippable thickness thickness ratio
State reserves reserves (inches) (feet) (feet:feet)
Subbituminous n2
Rocky
Mountain and
Pacific
Coast:
Alaska 6,190 n3 3,926 60 120 12:1
Arizona 400 387 60 130 8:1
California 100 25 60 100 1:1
Montana 7,813 3,400 60 60-125 2:1-18:1
New Mexico 3,307 2,474 60 60-90 8:1-12:1
Washington 500 135 60 100 10:1
Wyoming 2 2,028 13,971 60 60-200 1.5:1-10:1
Total 40,338 24,318
Lignite
Southwest:
Arkansas 32 25 60 100 15:1
Texas 3,272 1,309 60 90 15:1
Subtotal 3,304 1,334
Rocky
Mountain and
Pacific
Coast:
Alaska 8 5 0 0 0
Montana 7,058 3,497 60 60-125 2:1-18:1
North Dakota 5,239 2,075 60 50-125 3:1-12:1
South Dakota 399 160 60 100 12:1
Subtotal 12,704 5,737
Total 16,008 7,071
Total, all
ranks 119,112 44,986
13 n1 The Bureau of Mines released an updated estimate of U.S. coal reserves
by region and recovery method in July 1974. These figures show a loss of some
30,000,000,000 tons in reserve estimates for West Virginia alone, from previous
estimates; other Eastern States lost smaller amounts (1 to 2,000,000,000 tons
range). Moreover, the new figures show a growing ratio of strip to deep
mineable reserves. Until such time as the Bureau of Mines can demonstrate the
basis for these new figures, it was determined to use the older reserve figures
for this report. It should be pointed out that, according to the institute of
Ecology, 72 percent of the Nation's coal reserves lie in the East, if one
calculates on a Btu, rather than a tonnage basis.
13 n2 Subbituminous coal reserves not estimated for Colorado and Oregon;
lignite reserves not estimated for Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
13 n3 Includes 179,000,000 tons of undifferentiated subbituminous-lignite
and 3,387,000,000 tons of subbituminous coal reserves in the Northern Alaska
Fields (North Slope) that may not be economically strippable at this time.
13 Source: U.S. Energy Outlook, Coal Availability, National Petroleum
Council, 1973.
*3*TABLE 9. - STATUS OF
LAND DISTURBED BY COAL
SURFACE MINING IN THE
UNITED STATES AND NEEDING
RECLAMATION AS OF JAN. 1,
1974, BY STATES
*3*[Acres]
Reclamation not required Reclamation required by
State by law law
$
Alabama 57,878 118
Alaska 2,400
Arizona 150
Arkansas 9,451 494
California
Caribbean area
Colorado 4,687 641
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho 175
Illinois 49,748 20,891
Indiana 2,500 6 ,000
Iowa 25,650
Kansas 43,700 2,500
Kentucky 69,000 117,000
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland 2,250 3,851
Massachusetts
Michigan 500
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri 75,506 1,250
Montana 300 300
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico 25,798
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota 10,000 200
Ohio 23,926 45,825
Oklahoma 13,858 6,350
Oregon
Pennsylvania 159,000 33,000
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota 790
Tennessee 20,500 5,200
Texas 5,470
Utah 120
Vermont
Virginia 18,000 5,014
Washington 471 1,010
West Virginia 25,720 51,560
Wisconsin 234 76
Wyoming 3,078 2,828
Total 621,887 337,081
13 Source: U.S. Soil Conservation Service.
19 SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
19 The social and environmental impacts of surface and underground coal
mining have been enormous. The most serious effects are to be seen in the
Appalachian region, where the entire socio-economic infrastructure of parts of
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia and Tennessee and Alabama
has been profoundly affected by decades of extracting coal from the rich
bituminous deposits. As a consequence of the hazardous environment associated
with both underground and surface mining of coal, the health and safety of
people living and working near the coal mines of the region are in more or less
constant peril. One example of exposure of the general public to dangerous
conditions is the disastrous collapse of the general public impoundment on
Buffalo Creek, West Virginia, in which 124 people were killed and 4,000 rendered
homeless in 1972.
19 The side-effects of coal mining in the humid areas of the East and
mid-West, acid drainage which has ruined an estimated 11,000 miles of streams;
the loss of prime hardwood forests and the destruction of wildlife habitat by
strip mining; the degrading of productive farm land; recurrent landslides;
siltation and sedimentation of the river systems; the destructive movement of
boulders; and perpetually burning mine waste dumps - these constitute a
pervasive and far-reaching ambience. Tragically, coal mining in America has
left its crippling mark upon the very communities which labored most to produce
the energy which once impelled the Nation's industrial plant and now generates
much of its electrical power.
19 In the Western States and the Northern Great Plains region the discovery
of vast reserves of lignite and sub-bituminous coal has inspired plans for the
expansion of coal surface mining on a very large scale, thus major adverse
impacts to the region's land and people lie ahead. Since the climate is arid
and water therefore in short supply, the removal of thick coal seams and the
consequent disruption of stream and river channels forming part of the
hydrologic regime of the area will pose difficult and in some cases
insurmountable reclamation problems. A 1973 study by the National Academy of
Sciences entitled, Rehabilitation Potential of Western Coal Lands has this to
say about reestablishing vegetation in these circumstances:
19 The potential for rehabilitation of any surface mined area in the West is
critically site specific. Nevertheless, some broad principles apply to all
sites. The rehabilitation of a specific site will depend on the detailed
ecological and physical conditions at that site, the projected land use for the
site after mining, the available technology that is applied to the site, and the
skill in applying that technology.
19 We believe that those areas receiving 10 inches (250 mm) or more of
annual rainfall can usually be rehabilitated provided that evaporation is not
excessive, if the landscapes are properly shaped, and if techniques that have
been demonstrated successful in rehabilitationg disturbed rangeland are applied.
(p. 3)
20 The drier areas, those receiving less than 10 inches (250 mm) of annual
rainfall or with high evapotranspiration rates, pose a more difficult problem.
Revegetation of these areas can probably be accomplished only with major,
sustained inputs of water, fertilizer, and management. Range seeding
experiments have had only limited success in the drier areas. Rehabilitation of
the drier sites may occur naturally on a time scale that is unacceptable to
society, because it may take decades, or even centuries, for natural
succession to reach stable conditions. (p. 3-4)
20 Since much of the Nation's prime grazing and farming land is located in
the band of western states where these immense coal deposits are located - North
Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah - the possibility for
permanently despoiling thousands of acres of productive agricultural lands is
very real indeed, as the Committee is well aware. Other land uses associated
with surface coal mining and concomitant power and fuel development, are also
expected to impact the region as population inflow creates residential,
commercial and industrial growth in sparsely settled areas. Over-all water
demands, socioeconomic stresses and pollution loads of various kinds brought by
expected westward migration provide cause for genuine concern.
20 Officials, coal operators and other interested citizens testifying before
the Subcommittee on Environment and the Subcommittee on Mines and Mining in 1973
touched on many of these environmental issues. The following sampling indicates
a bredth of concern behind the strong dissatisfaction with existing state
regulation of surface mining, evident throughout the hearings.
20 Joe Begley (Blackey, Letcher County, Kentucky):
20 Strip mining is completely destroying the land, its hills and its people.
For 130 years people here have lived hard lives, no money, no medicine, no
education. They live in fear of the only industry they have known, the coal
industry - and what that industry has done to the people here in the past. Now
our valuable minerals and fossil fuels are being taken at even a faster rate and
yet our people starve to death living on the top of a gold mine . . . Strip
mining means just what it says. It strips the people of everything they have .
. .
20 Russell Train (then Chairman, President's Council on Environmental
Quality):
20 Additional damage can occur from strip mining - devastated wildlife
habitat, landslides, slit and acid choked streams, and a blighted landscape. In
particularly rich farmland, area strip mining can adversely affect future
fertility, as it can the opportunities for revegetation in the arid West.
20 Dr. Moid Ahmad (Professor of Hydrology and Geophysics, Ohio University:
Satellite pictures indicate that the scars due to strip mining are deep and
permanent and show that the soil and hydrological characteristics are different
than the surrounding land. Strip mines are producing acid water, salty water in
the West, and toxic elements. They will continue to produce these for a long
time.
21 Liane B. Russell (Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning):
21 We supported passage of the Tennessee Strip Mine Law of 1967; and when
this law and its enforcement proved to be quite inadequate to control the
ravages of ever-increasing strip-mining in our State, we drafted and supported
strong, yet still moderate, State legislation . . . We have also been in
frequent contact with the Division of Surface Mining and Reclamation of the
Tennessee Department of Conservation in an attempt to promote strong
administration. These State efforts have been only partially successful, both
at the legislative and administrative level.
21 E. A. Nephew (Oak Ridge Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee):
21 There is much that can be learned from the German experience in restoring
surface mine lands. Their program has been in effect for some twenty years and
has helped greatly to minimize social dislocations and environmental damage from
brown coal mining.
21 Ernest Preate (Attorney, Scranton, Pennsylvania):
21 To often in the past the purpose has been to shut (citizens) out of
participating in these extremely important matters with a result that abuse and
non-enforcement of State surface mining laws has created the very groundswell of
public opinion which has necessitated this committee and this Congress focusing
their attention on this problem . . . with respect to the drafting of a strong
Federal surface mining law.
21 James L. Coen (Blacksburg, Virginia):
21 It is my belief that the State government itself is either unwilling or
unable to deal with the problems strip mining presents. The failure of the
Virginia Legislature to pass the minimal regulatory bill is quite indicative of
the situation. When our State officials fail to provide for the needs of its
constituency, we must turn to our Federal Government for relief.
21 Robert Handley (President, Coal River Improvement Association, West
Virginia):
21 (Answering a question as to whether it is his impression that, whatever
the wording of the law in West Virginia or the way it is administered, the
primary criterion is to enable the operator to maximize his profit) "I think
that is unquestionable."
22 James W. McGlothlin (President, Tri-County Independent Coal Operators
Association, Grundy, Virginia):
22 The majority of my membership and myself included favor a very strong
reclamation program. It will no doubt be expensive, however, I think that the
cost of that is going to be borne by every citizen in the Nation if they decide
to use electricity from coal. I really favor a Federal program to cause each
State to pass a reclamation law and cause each State to enforce it.
22 Walter Heine (Associate Deputy Secretary for Mines and Land Protection,
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources):
22 We would welcome wise Federal legislation in the area of surface mine
control so that the unfair competitive advantage now enjoyed by States which are
allowing poorly regulated strip mining to devastate the countryside, will not
continue. Some of these State programs have been quite ineffective because of
weak laws, inadequate funding, and frankly, political interference.
22 Henry Clandillon Phibbs II, Sierra Club, Wilson, Wyoming):
22 In Wyoming, there is another factor which makes Federal action
imperative. This is the simple fact that the Federal government owns roughly 50
percent of Wyoming's land surface and roughly 70 percent of its minerals. It
is a fundamental Federal responsibility to protect and utilize these land and
mineral resources for the immediate and long range benefit of the entire
country. This is not a question that can be left to the individual states.
22 Bruce Hagen (Commissioner, North Dakota Public Service Commission):
22 Governor Link says he wants to emphasize that our State law only covers
privately owned and State lands, and he believes that Federal legislation is
urgently needed to cover all lands that are surface mined in the United States.
22 As this sampling of testimony shows, the social and environmental
side-effects of coal surface mining and the related failure of State regulation
to provide an adequate degree of protection, are matters of widespread concern.
At the present time when world food shortages are placing increasing pressures
on America's once-overabundant food and fiber production, the Nation cannot
afford to lose any productive range and farmland. Neither can the Nation afford
to waste prime timberland, nor jeopardize the shrinking water resources of its
river systems, whether in the Rockies or in the Applachians. The likelihood of
a materials scarcity and the possibility of public health problems resulting
from contaminated or depleted water supplies, should serve to emphasize the
foolhardiness of continuing on the present course in coal surface mining
regulation.
23 A NATIONAL ISSUE
23 Across the Nation, church organizations, environmental and public
interest groups and others have reacted against the excesses of coal surface
mining by pressing for enactment of Federal legislation outlawing this method of
coal mining.These groups claim that reclamation has been shown to be neither
feasible nor enforceable. Some industrial groups are equally opposed to strong
Federal enforcement of environmental standards for coal surface mining.
23 The Committee has taken the position that coal surface mining is
essential to fulfilling the Nation's energy requirements.The Committee is
equally convinced that equity requires that environmental and social costs which
have heretofore been relegated to off-site property owners and to the community
at large, must be borne by the producers and users of coal. The means of
accomplishing such restitution is through a system of minimum Federal
enforcement standards established in the Act to protect environmental values and
property rights.
23 STATE REGULATION OF COAL SURFACE MINING
23 Although strip mining legislation has been enacted by many States a
recent survey of selected State laws reveals that such legislation has failed to
cure the environmental abuse associated with strip mining - the laws are, in
many cases, simply inadequate.
23 The survey, compiled by John C. Doyle of the Environmental Policy Center
(a Washington-based organization that favors enactment of national strip mining
legislation) demonstrates that even recently enacted or modified strip mining
laws fail to measure up to industry's claim that the States now provide adequate
protections.
23 For example, in one State not only can revegetation be deferred until the
"soil has become suitable" for planting (a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy as
it is improper mining techniques that can make the soil unsuitable in the first
place), but revegetation of current mining sites can be waived completely if the
operator agrees to revegetate some other previously mined area. Of the other
States examined in this report, many still fail to prohibit highwalls (leaving
an inherently unstable and hazardous condition), allow the irresponsible
placement of spoil on steep mountain slopes, fail to require sufficient
information about the mining and reclamation proposal, fail to give interested
citizens notice or access to the decisionmaking process, tie the hands of the
regulatory authority with unreasonable burdens, and are otherwise inadequate.
23 Of course, there are strengths in many of these laws and some States have
implemented tough mining reclamation standards. But, on the whole, it is still
true that States are disinclined to impose tough standards on their own industry
because this puts local business at a competitive disadvantage. State officials
are not unconcerned about environmental preservation or the protection of human
health and safety, but as State regulation tends to seek the lowest common
denominator, the answer to this dilemma lies in the enactment of Federal
standards applicable to all operations.
23 The reasons for the failure of State regulation vary from State to State.
One factor in the disappointing record of State regulation is that the State
regulatory machinery has been unable to keep pace with the rapidly growing
industry. Even where State law is strong and unambiguous enforcement agencies
have often been under-staffed, under-equipped and under-financed.Political
influence is another factor in the failure of State regulation. Subtle or
otherwise, it is often used to moderate enforcement of State laws. In States
where the coal industry dominates the economy as a major source of jobs and
taxes, powerful leverage is available.
24 Some studies have examined the effectiveness of coal surface mining
regulation in two States, Kentucky and West Virginia. In 1972, the Stanford
Research Institute completed a study for the West Virginia legislature, which
was then considering legislation to outlaw surface mining of coal. This study
indicates that although West Virginia coal surface mining had been under
continuous State surveillance since 1941, the results of reclamation
requirements were not impressive. The amount of vegetative cover was selected
as the prime indicator of overall effectiveness of reclamation required by the
State, and on that basis, a 75 percent vegetative cover was considered
acceptable. The results were as follows:
24 A total of 6,565 linear miles (248,078 acres) were disturbed by contour
strip mining in West Virginia as of October 1971. However, mining affects lands
beyond the limits of the mines themselves.These affected areas could be from 3
to 5 times the area disturbed in mining or from 744,234 acres to 1,240,390
acres.
24 A total of 2,868 linear miles (109,613 acres) had less than 50 percent
cover and were classified as not reclaimed. An additional 2,001 miles (76,463
acres) had more than 50 percent cover from natural sources. However, if the
standard measurement for natural revegetation were raised to 75 percent cover,
most lands would be considered not reclaimed since they have less than this
value. If added to the acres with less than 50 percent cover, more than 71
percent of all surface mined land would be considered not reclaimed . . .
24 In reviewing the policy decisions which led up to this result, the
Stanford Report comments "the Executive Branch has taken the position that there
is no specific proof or evidence that surface mining causes certain types or
degrees of environmental damage, although environmental consequences are
acknowledged. In the absence of being able to provide such proof, the Executive
Branch has interpreted the statute to apply the operational letter of the law,
regardless of the environmental consequences . . ."
24 A second study, sponsored by the Appalachian Regional Commission and the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department for Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection, was completed by Ford, Bacon & Davis of New York for Mathematica,
Inc., of Princeton, New Jersey. The focus of this study is on surface mining
and reclamation technologies and the economics thereof. However, some
observations of State regulatory efficiency and recommendations for improvements
were offered in the course of the study. In referring to a marked disparity
between the record of violations per inspection (taken as an indicator of the
alertness of State inspectors (as shown for different inspection areas, the
study noted that the disparity was eventually acknowledged to be the result of
"widespread corruption and inefficiency" in the inspection area in question.
"Division personnel claim knowledge of this prior to disclosure, but noted their
inability to deal effectively with the situation because of political
constraints," the study comments.
25 Apart from the deficiencies of State regulatory systems (although some,
to be sure, function with marked efficiency) perhaps the greatest handicap faced
by conscientious State regulators consists of the very real possibility of job
and tax loss to the State if its laws are strictly enforced so as to drive
surface mine operators into more lenient neighboring States. The ease with
which small surface mining equipment can be transported long distances, and the
relative simplicity of gaining access to coal for surface mining operations,
allows many Eastern operators a high degree of flexibility as to where and when
they will mine coal. Only Federal regulation establishing uniform requirements
can deal with this situation.
25 The obvious inability of the States to develop any coherent,
comprehensive national or regional policy covering the surface mining of
Federally-owned coal or coal under Indian lands is a further limiting factor
related to the broader aspects of regulation already mentioned.Federal grants to
the States and Federal enforcement standards uniformly applied to provide the
necessary minimum protection of environmental values and off-site properties
will ensure continuance of coal surface mining to meet the energy needs of the
Nation, and will also eliminate many if not all of the regulatory problems which
have plagued the States and frustrated citizens of the coal-producing regions.
25 SURFACE MINING METHODS AND TECHNIQUES
25 In contrast to underground coal mining (which requires removing coal from
the earth), surface mining consists of removing earth from the coal. If the
size of the coal deposit justifies the cost of large equipment, surface mining
operators may penetrate the surface to a depth of 500 feet or more. Equipment
depends upon the terrain, the ratio of coal to overburden, and the value of the
coal deposit per acre. In general, there are three broad categories of surface
mining operations: contour, area and open pit.
25 Contour mining occurs on steep terrain, the steepness being defined
differently state by-state. In the mountains of Appalachia where contour mining
is prevalent, the operator excavates a portion of the hillside (the "first cut")
on the coal seam where it intersects with the surface.He then proceeds to strip
off the overburden, following the seam along the contour and excavating as far
into the mountain as may be profitable. Component parts of a contour mine are:
The "bench." or flat area from which the coal is removed; the "outslope" or
spoil bank, consisting of overburden material which has been cast over the
downhill side of the bench; the "highwall," a more or less vertical bank marking
the inner limit of the bench; and the "haulroad" which permits access to the
mine site. "Augering," or drilling into the coal seam under the highwall to
recover more of the coal, frequently accompanies contour mining.
26 A variant of contour mining is called "mountain-top removal". This
method of mining proceeds entirely through the elevation, following the coal
seam. It permits nearly complete recovery of the coal seam, or of multiple coal
seams if done sequentially. The overburden is placed downslope in the so-called
"head-of-the-hollow fill." The end result is not a serpentine bench and highwall
but rather a flat area comprising the "solid bench" from which the coal has been
removed, and the contiguous "fill bench" where the overburden has been
deposited.
26 Area mining occurs on flat or rolling country-side, which may include
relatively steep areas, depending on the size of the equipment being used.
Overburden is piled to one side in a ridge on the area from which coal has been
removed. This continuous backfilling results in a furrowed mine site
terminating in a ditch and a highwall which marks the final "cut", usually at
the limit of the disturbed area. Area mining is practiced in the western
Appalachians and in the Midwest and West.
26 Open pit mining is similar to area surface mining in some respects.
Except for one or two special cases in the West, this type of mining does not
resemble deep open pit copper mines. The terms "pit" is appropriate mainly
because the ratio of overburden to coal is small as compared to the ratio found
in area surface mining (i.e., the thickness of coal removed is greater than the
thickness of the overburden removed). As a result, the amount of overburden is
insufficient to fill the pit and a depression or hollow configuration is the end
product.
26 Surface mining equipment includes bulldozers used to provide access to
the site and to prepare coal for loading, as well as drill rigs used to bore
holes in which explosives are detonated, shattering the overburden. The most
costly part of the operation is removal of the overburden, which is accomplished
in contour mining with front-end loaders or small power shovels. On bigger
operations requiring massive movements of rock and soil, giant drag-lines, wheel
excavators and power shovels are preferred (Big Muskie, the world's largest
drag-line, based near Cumberland, Ohio, weighs 27 million pounds and is capable
of moving 325 tons of rock at a time). Smaller shovels and front-end loaders
generally load the exposed coal into trucks which may carry as much as 200 tons
per trip. Some mechanical augers are able to drill horizontally 250 feet into
the coal seam, in the process removing coal from under the highwall.
Transportation of the coal to final destination is usually by train or barge.
26 Following removal of the coal, reclamation of the mining site takes
place, in two phases. First comes the back-filling, drainage and regrading
required to achieve the desired configuration of the surface and proper drainage
of water on or under it. Next comes revegetation: the preparation of topsoil,
fertilization, cultivation, and seeding or planting desired species. Special
equipment designed to spray a mixture of fertilizer, seed and mulch is widely
utilized either with trucks or with helicopters for revegetation on rough
terrain.
27 Both regrading and revegetation must be integrated into the total mining
plan of the operator. The most serious off-site environmental impacts result
from exposure of overburden to the weather with consequent erosion,
sedimentation, siltation, acid drainage, landslides, and leaching of toxic
chemicals.The essence of good reclamation therefore consists of reducing as much
as possible the time from initial disturbance of the land surface to the
successful re-establishment of a vegetative cover, to achieve which, performance
standards relating to environmental protection must be carried on concurrently
with the mining operations, except under special circumstances.
27 New surface mining methods, such as mountain-top removal, are generally
modifications of existing methodology, made possible by the increased
versatility of different types of self-propelled machinery now available.
Combinations of rubber-tired and tracked vehicles together with semi-stationary
equipment such as augers, are often used to great effect. Most of this
equipment has been adapted from the construction industry and in fact is
sometimes used interchangeably.
27 Aside from the development of safe, powerful explosives replacing
nitroglycerine, perhaps the most significant development in coal surface mining
during the past decade has been its enhanced earth-moving capability. The range
of existing technology needs to be brought fully to bear upon accomplishing
rapid and effective reclamation of disturbed areas, as regards both current
operations and, in addition, those areas which have been improperly reclaimed in
the past and abandoned.
27 In the humid East, retention of overburden material on the bench,
avoiding all unnecessary placement of unconsolidated material on steep slopes,
would contribute most significantly to the elimination of slides, sedimentation,
siltation and other off-site effects which threaten downstream areas. The basic
concept embodying this principle is returning the mining site to its
approximately original contour.
27 Approximate original contour is equally valid when applied to midwestern
and western coal surface mining, inasmuch as the concept includes the idea of
blending the site into the surrounding terrain to the greatest degree possible.
It also embodies conformity to the prevailing hydrologic pattern. Because low
rainfall and erodability of soil severely handicap reclamation efforts in the
West, minimizing the impacts to the hydrologic balance of the mine site and
surrounding area takes on special significance in assuring that the reclamation
objectives of the Act are met.
27 The emphasis on return to the approximate original contour, should not
obscure the fact that the appropriate methodology will vary from site to site.
Responsibility for devising methods for reaching any necessary reclamation goals
should be left up to the operator. Within the limits of economic constraints,
the available equipment and his own ingenuity, the surface mining operator will
develop whatever approach best suits his needs and the peculiarities of his
mining site. Considering the remarkable increase in productivity which
economics of scale and adaptation of suitable equipment have achieved in coal
surface mining, and considering the novel means for handling overburden being
practiced in some States, new reclamation techniques will certainly be
forthcoming to meet higher reclamation requirements.
28 TIMELINESS OF FEDERAL REGULATION
28 A primary constrain upon the coal industry in discharging its reclamation
responsibilities has been the poor competitive position of coal relative to oil
and natural gas. In the 1940's and 1950's the industry experienced the trauma
of losing its steamship market to oil. Subsequently, the switch of railroads to
diesel engines and the relinquishment of the home heating market to oil and gas
further stunted the growth of the coal industry. Economic depression haunted
the coal fields for years, held at bay only by expansion of the electric utility
market for high sulful-low Btu steam coal, and by rising demand of Canadian,
Japanese, and other foreign steel mills for high Btu-low sulfur metallurgical
coal.
28 This picture has altered radically since the onset of the national energy
crisis precipitated by the Arab oil embargo. The Nation's dangerous
overreliance on imported oil and the parallel inadequacy of its domestic oil and
natural gas supplies have brought about a general awareness that increased
development of our coal reserves is necessary to provide for economic and
national security needs. The Federal Government has responded to the crisis
with a series of proposals designed to insure a long-range, continuous demand
for coal.
28 The Federal Energy Administration has instituted a program calling for
the conversion, where possible, of electric power generating plants to coal
consumption. And the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 extends the
FEA's mandate. In the 93d Congress, the Energy Research and Development
Appropriations Act was approved. The ERDA budget for fiscal year 1977 includes
$4 05 million for coal research and development while the Department of Interior
requested $1 01 million for the coal programs in the Bureau of Mines and the
U.S. Geological Survey (see table No. 11). A large portion of these funds are
earmarked for coal gasification and liquefaction projects. Other funds are to
be expended on stack gas emission removal technology to enable the burning of
medium- and high-sulfur coal by electric utilities which are currently finding
the availability of adequate sources of low-sulfur coal conforming to the
requirements of Federal air quality standards limited.
28 These Federal programs signal a widespread commitment to the development
and utilization of coal in the Nation's energy future. The coal industry has
responded to this renewed interest with major increases in prices (see table No.
12). The f.o.b. price of coal for example, increase 85 percent from 1973 to
1974 while coal production increased 2 percent during that period. The import
of these recent events is to belie the claim that fluctuations in demand for
coal and concomitant price uncertainties make the cost of reclaiming surface
mined land economically unacceptable. For although prices may fluctuate, the
demand for coal will increase.
*2*TABLE No. 11. - Research and
development funds for coal as
authorized in the Presidents budget for
fiscal year 1977
Energy Research and Development Agency:
Liquefaction $73,900,000
High Btu gasification 42,200,000
Low Btu gasification 33,000,000
Advanced power system 22,500,000
Magnetohydrodynamics 37,400,000
Direct combustion 52,400,000
Advanced research and supporting
technology 37,100,000
Demonstration plants 107,200,000
Total 405,700,000
Bureau of Mines:
Coal mining health and safety R. & D 29,601,000
Advanced coal mining technology 59,960,000
Mined land investigation and
demonstrations (anthracite) 3,831,000
Drainage of anthracite mines 200,000
Total 93,592,000
U.S. Geological Survey:
Coal resource investigation 2,873,000
Federal coal hydrology program 3,174,000
Federal State cooperative coal 2,000,000
Hydrology program 8,047,000
29 Source: Department of the Interior and the Energy Research and
Development Agency.
29 Because the industry can be confident that the Federal government is
committed to a program of research and development which will vastly expand the
market for coal, the future for the industry is assured. The coal industry can
also be assured of a reasonable return on its investment. On a per-Btu basis,
coal is now the cheapest of all of our energy resources. (See Table No. 13).
29 Thus the argument that reclamation is prohibitively expensive, if it was
ever valid, is certainly no longer so. With respect to the most stringent
performance standards, namely those associated with returning the mining site to
the approximate original contour, recent studies have shown that even in the
steepest Appalachian terrain, reclamation according to these requirements is
economically feasible using currently available equipment. There is evidence,
in fact, that compliance in some cases increases profitability to the oeprator.
29 A report by the President's Council on Environmental Quality entitled
"Coal Surface Mining and Reclamation; An Environmental and Economic Assessment
of alternatives" states that:
29 . . . the cost of advanced reclamation techniques are small compared to
the market value of coal, e.g., only three to nine percent of the price of coal
at the mine. In fact, since coal can be produced by surface mining in
Appalachia for $0.75 to $2 .50 per ton less than by underground mining, the
competitive position of surface mined coal would not deteriorate even at the
highest range of reclamation costs.
30 (See Table No. 14).
30 The rise in the price of coal give this statement even greater emphasis.
Responsible spokesmen within the industry have pointed out that reclamation
costs are economically acceptable. For example, a report entitled "Coal and the
Energy Shortage" presented by the Continental Oil Company, (of which
Consolidation Coal Co., the Nation's second largest producer of coal is a wholly
owned subsidiary) states that:
30 even taking the largest of these (reclamation) costs would add only two
to three percent to the average residential electric bill.
30 A recent study done by Mathematica, Inc., of Princeton, New Jersey,
entitled Design of Surface Mining Systems in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Fields,
(January 29, 1974), states that the estimated average total reclamation costs
for surface mined land in Eastern Kentucky is $16 65 per disturbed acre. The
report points out that this cost ". . . is equivalent to approximately $0 .32
per ton based on the oft-used estimate of 0.5 disturbed acres per 1,000 tons of
coal produced. Note that this estimate excludes charges for depletion and
depreciation, since these are not true cash flows. If, however, these charges
were included, estimated reclamation costs would be about $0.38 per ton."
30 Recent coal price increases unrelated to reclamation costs have already
added considerably more than this amount. Bituminous coal prices (f.o.b. mine)
rose over 50 percent between 1969 and 1971, according to "Bituminous Coal Data"
for 1972, issued by the National Coal Association and 112.1 percent between 1971
and 1974, according to the preliminary figures of the Bureau of Mines. Federal
Power Commission figures show an almost 100% increase in coal prices paid by
utilities between October, 1973 and October, 1974. (See Table 13, p. - and
Table 15, p. - ). Moreover, there is evidence that the price increases have
yielded substantial profits. Drs. James R. Barth and James T. Bennett in a
paper entitled "An Economic Analysis of Price Increases in the U.S. Coal
Industry", summarize their findings as follows:
30 . . . Coal prices remained relatively stable during the period 1958-1968,
but since that time enormous price increases have occurred. These price
increases cannot be fully explained by increases in the cost of production, for
unit labor cost increases are of much smaller magnitude than price increases.
Nor do available data indicate that the coal operators were attempting to
rapidly expand output, for the evidence indicates that in recent years the
industry has operated substantially below normal capacity. These finds are
summarized in Figure 1.
31 [See Original]
32 From Figure I, it is evident that employment and output since 1967 have
remained relatively constant. Admittedly, average weekly earnings have
increased, but prices have risen far more dramatically. On the basis of Figure
1, one finds that output in 1971, 1972, and 1973 was below the level of 1970.
It, therefore, cannot be argued that these price increases can be explained
entirely by shortages of coal or by excess demand. A review of the available
data on profits of coal companies and coal operating companies reveal tremendous
increases in profits. Thus, price increases have been translated into profits.
The fact that the price of coal is and is likely to remain unrelated to the cost
of production is further supported in the Coal Supply Potential Task Group
Report, prepared by the Federal Energy Administration. This report states that
at least for the near term, (1975-1978) the " . . . equilibrium price of coal
may be set by competitive forces of competing fuels and most particularly oil,
rather than by the cost of production and normal competition within the coal
industry."
32 It therefore appears that the industry can absorb any increased costs of
reclamation consistent with the standards of the Act. (See Tables No. 16(a) and
(b).) When analyzing the price of reclamation one must consider the opportunity
costs of surface mining incurred when arable land is rendered unusable and water
resources are lost.
32 RESEARCH AND TRAINED TECHNICIANS
32 The consequences of dependence on foreign powers for one of the basic
mineral fuels - petroleum - has been brought home to Americans; but that
dependence does not stop with petroleum. In 1974, minerals and mineral fuels
accounted for an estimated $2 3 billion deficit in the U.S. balance of trade.
An increase of $1 5 billion over 1973. The thrust of title III of the Act is
not an immediate solution to the energy crisis as a whole or to the specific
problems of extraction, reclamation, and processing of minerals and fuels, in
particular. Its purpose is to assure that the U.S., in the future, will have
the research base, the technological capability, and the qualified manpower to
avoid repeated crises of mineral supply and technology. Only thus can it avoid
disadvantageous dependence upon foreign sources for these items so critical to
its domestic welfare.
32 The need to provide a more adequate national program of mining and
minerals research through the establishment of mining and minerals research
centers is documented in House Report No. 92-1028. The Report focused upon the
expanding consumption of non-renewable resources in the United States; the
failure of the U.S. to develop mineral and mineral fuel technology at a rate
fast enough to cope with increased consumption; and, finally, the current
inadequate and decreasing supply of trained manpower in the mineral engineering
fields.
33
*5*TABLE 13. -
COST OF COAL
VERSUS OTHER
HYDROCARBON
ENERGY
RESOURCES AS
USED IN THE
GENERATION OF
ELECTRICITY,
OCTOBER
1973-OCTOBER
1975
C Coal prices
Average price as a percentage
Quantity Percent of (cents per of the cost of
delivered total Btu's million Btu's) other fuels
October 1973:
Coal (thousand
tons) 33,600 56.1 41.9
Oil (thousand
barrels) 44,800 20.6 88.9 47.0
Gas (million
cubic feet) 302,600 23.3 35.5 118.0
October 1974:
Coal (thousand
tons) 38,900 60.1 80.9
Oil (thousand
barrels) 43,300 19.1 198.9 41.0
Gas (million
cubic feet) 284,600 20.8 53.2 152.0
October 1975:
Coal (thousand
tons) 40,200 64.2 81.5
Oil (thousand
barrels) 35,900 16.2 198.1 41.0
Gas (million
cubic feet) 260,300 19.6 85.5 95.0
33 Source: Federal Power Commission.
*6*TABLE 14.
- ESTIMATED
INCREMENTAL
PRODUCTION
COSTS FOR
VARIOUS
RECLAMATION
COSTS
*4*Costs of
reclamation,
cents/ton
Calculated
production
per acre $1,000 per $2,000 per $3,000 per $4,000 per
mined n1 mined acre mined acre mined acre mined acre
Appalachia
region:
Alabama 4,030 24.8 49.6 74.4 99.2
Kentucky
(eastern) 4,460 22.4 44.8 67.2 89.6
Ohio 5,330 18.8 17.6 56.4 35.2
Pennsylvania 4,610 21.8 43.6 65.4 87.2
Tennessee 4,180 24.0 48.0 72.0 96.0
Virginia 5,900 17.0 34.0 51.0 68.0
West Virginia 7,060 14.2 28.4 42.6 56.8
Average 5,080 20.4 40.8 61.2 81.6
Central
region:
Illinois 7,200 13.8 27.6 41.4 55.2
Indiana 6,620 15.0 30.9 45.0 60.0
Kentucky
(western) 7,340 13.6 27.2 40.8 54.4
Average 7,050 14.2 28.4 42.6 56.8
Western
region:
Colorado 12,100 8.2 16.4 24.6 32.8
Montana n2 66,100 1.6 3.2 4.8 6.4
Wyoming 66,100 1.6 3.2 4.8 6.4
Average 48,000 3.8 7.6 11.4 15.2
33 n1 Based on desity of 1,440 tons of bituminous coal per acre-foot at 80
percent recovery, based on 1960 data.
33 n2 Montana entry changed to reflect mining of subbituminous coal in Power
River Basin.
33 Source: Advanced from Surface Mining and Our Environment, Department of
Interior, 1967, p. 114. Coal Surface Mining and Reclamation An Environmental
and Economic Assessment of Alternatives, Council on Environmental Quality.
*5*
TABLE
15. -
AVERA
GE
VALUE
OF
BITUM
INOUS
COAL
*5*[
Per
ton
f.o.b
.
mine]
Year Strip mines n1 Auger mines Underground mines Total all mines
1940 $1.56 $1.94 $1.91
1945 2.65 3.16 3.06
1950 3.87 5.15 4.84
1955 3.48 $3.60 4.86 4.50
1956 3.74 4.17 5.20 4.82
1957 3.89 4.12 5.52 5.08
1958 3.80 3.60 5.33 4.86
1959 3.76 3.83 5.23 4.77
1960 3.74 3.37 5.14 4.69
1961 3.67 3.24 5.02 4.58
1962 3.64 3.33 4.91 4.48
1963 3.57 3.25 4.82 4.39
1964 3.55 3.35 4.92 4.45
1965 3.55 3.35 4.93 4.44
1966 3.64 3.58 5.05 4.54
1967 3.68 3.59 5.18 4.62
1968 3.75 3.53 5.22 4.67
1969 3.98 3.81 5.62 4.99
1970 4.69 6.08 7.40 6.26
1971 5.19 6.57 8.87 7.07
1972 5.48 6.54 9.70 7.66
1973 7.03 7.39 10.84 8.53
1974 11.11 16.99 19.86 15.75
1975
n2 15.00 15.00 25.00 18.75
33 n1 Includes power strip pits proper and excludes horse stripping
operations and mines combining stripping and underground in the same operation
1940. Includes data on all strip mines subsequent to 1940.
33 n2 Estimates for 1975 with strip and auger mines calculated together.
33 Source: National Coal Association "Bituminous Coal Data" 1972 edition,
and U.S. Bureau of Mines.
*3*TABLE 16. - (A) INCREASED PROFITS OF SELECTED MAJOR INDEPENDENT
COAL PRODUCERS 1969-70
*2*Profits as percentages of sale
1969 1970
Pittston 4.1 6.9
Westmoreland Coal Co. 1.5 5.2
North American Coal Co. 2.9 3.4
Eastern Gas & Fuel 5.8 7.7
33 Source: "Concentration by Competing Raw Fuel Industries in the Energy
Market and its Impact on Small Business," hearings before the Subcommittee on
Special Small Business Problems of the Select Committee on Small Business, House
of Representatives, 92d Cong., 1st sess., vol. 1, p. 41.
*4*TABLE 16. - (B) - COAL
COMPANY SELECTED PROFITS,
3D QUARTER 1973 VERSUS 3D
QUARTER 1974
3d, 1973 3d, 1974 Percent change (sic)
Pittston $3,100,000 $27,500,000 787
Westmoreland Coal Co. 1,030,000 12,800,000 1,242
Consolidation Coal Co. 200,000 15,900,000 7,850
Island Creek 929,000 35,200,000 3,690
33 Source: American Public Power Association.
33 The Minerals Resources Research Act, which was the forerunner of title
III is supported by the final report of the National Commission on Materials
Policy, June 1973; and again in "Mining and Minerals Policy, 1973," Second
Annual Report of the Secretary of Interior under the Mining and Minerals Policy
Act of 1970.
35 It is well-known that demand for all minerals is growing rapidly, both
domestically and worldwide. Most of the known, rich, easily recoverable
deposits of minerals have been developed. The United States must now turn to
exploration for new deposits and development of known low grade ore deposits.
Research will also be needed into substitution, alternative uses of minerals,
improved mining and processing technology and deep seabed mining. This effort
will require an increasing amount of trained talent in the mining and minerals
engineering fields.
35 The urgency of sustaining grants (on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis)
and other Federal financial assistance for mining and minerals research and
training centers to ward off the progressive weakening of mineral engineering
disciplines in U.S. colleges and universities is evident. Neither industry, the
States, nor the Federal government provide sufficient support to halt and
reverse present downward trends in research and research manpower at a time when
both should be expanding to meet present deficiencies and growing needs.
35 DATA ON COAL RESERVES AND LEASES
35 Tables presenting following data have been included at the conclusion of
this section of the Report: Total coal reserves (see Table No. 17, p. );
Federal coal leases (see Table No. 18, p. ). Indian coal leases (see Table
No. 19, p. ).
36
*8*TABLE
17. -
TOTAL
ESTIMATED
REMAINING
MEASURED
AND
INDICATED
COAL
RESERVES
OF THE
UNITED
STATES AS
OF JAN.
1, 1970
n1
*8*In
beds
28-in and
more
thick,
for
bituminou
s,
anthracit
e, and
semianthr
acite,
and 5 ft
or more
thick for
subbitumi
nous and
lignite
beds -
Million
tons]
*5*
Remaining
measured
and
indicated
reserves
Total -
All ranks Measured
more than and
Anthracit 14 in and indicated
e 3,000 ft as
Bituminou Subbitumi semianthr overburde percent
State s nous Lignite acite Total n of total
Alabama 1,731 0 n(2) 0 1,731 13,444 12.9
Alaska 667 5,345 n(2) n(4) 6,012 130,087 4.6
Arkansas 3 13 0 n(2) 67 380 2,420 15.7
Colorado 8,811 4,453 0 16 13,280 80,679 16.5
Georgia 18 0 0 0 18 18 100.0
Illinois 60,007 0 0 0 60,007 139,372 43.1
Indiana 11,177 0 0 0 11,177 34,661 32.2
Iowa 2,159 0 0 0 2,159 6,513 33.1
Kansas 328 0 0 0 328 18,678 1.8
Kentucky
west 20,876 0 0 0 20,876 36,482 57.2
Kentucky
east 11,049 0 0 0 11,049 28,850 38.3
Maryland 557 0 0 0 557 1,168 47.7
Michigan 125 0 0 0 125 220 56.8
Missouri 12,623 0 0 0 12,623 23,339 54.1
Montana 862 31,228 6,878 0 38,968 221,698 17.6
New
Mexico 1,339 779 0 2 2,120 61,455 3.4
North
Carolina n(5) 0 0 0 n(2) 110 0
North
Dakota 0 0 36,230 0 36,230 350,649 10.3
Ohio 17,242 0 0 0 17,242 41,568 41.5
Ok lahoma 1,583 0 0 0 1,583 3,195 49.5
Oregon n(6) n(6) 0 0 n(6) 332 0
Pennsylva
nia 24,078 0 0 12,525 36,603 69,686 52.5
South
Dakota 0 0 757 0 757 2,031 37.0
Tennessee 939 0 0 0 939 2,606 36.0
Texas n(6) 0 6,870 0 6,870 12,918 53.2
Utah 9,155 150 0 0 9,305 32,070 29.0
Virginia 3,561 0 0 125 3,686 9,817 37.3
Washingto
n 312 1,188 0 0 1,500 6,183 24.3
West
Virginia 68,023 0 0 0 68,023 101,186 67.3
Wyoming 3,975 25,937 n(3) 0 29,912 120,684 24.8
Other
States n(6) n(6) 46 0 46 4,721 1.0
Total 261,510 69,080 50,781 12,735 394,106 1,556,840 25.3
36 n1 Figures are reserves in ground, about half of which may be considered
recoverable. Includes all beds under less than 1,000 ft of overburden and over
28-in bed thickness for bituminous and anthracite and 5 ft or more for
subbituminous and lignite.
36 n2 Small reserves of lignite in beds less than 5 ft thick.
36 n3 Small reserves of lignite included with subbituminous reserved.
36 n4 Small reserves of anthracite in the Bering River field believed to be
too badly crushed and folded to be economically recoverable.
36 n5 Negligible reserves with overburden less than 1,000 ft.
36 n6 Data not available to make estimate.
36 Source: "U.S. Energy Outlock, Coal Availability," National Petroleum
Council, 1973.
*3*TABLE 18 - COAL LEASES
ON FEDERAL LANDS
State Number of leases total acreage
Alabama 1 200.00
Alaska 5 2,753.14
California 1 80.00
Colorado 111 120,905.56
Montana 17 36,232.27
New Mexico 29 41,038.12
North Dakota 19 16,275.75
Oklahoma 53 87,013.56
Oregon 3 5,403.18
Utah 194 266,632.49
Washington 2 521.09
Wyoming 89 199,701.04
Total 524 776,756.20
36 Source: U.S. Geological Survey.
37
TABLE 19. - Coal leases on Indian lands
Leases Type of mining on producing leases
1. Peabody Coal Co.:
Hopi-Navajo (Arizona): Surface mining.
(a) Hopi-Navajo, 40,000 acres Surface mining.
(b) Navajo, 24,858 acres Surface mining.
Southern Ute (southern Colorado),
19,452 acres Surface mining.
Northern Cheyenne (southeastern
Montana), 6 Surface mining.
leases, 16,035 acres Surface mining.
2. Utah International, Inc.: Navajo
(northwestern New
Mexico), 31,416 Do.
3. Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co.:
Navajo (westtana),
13,237 acres Do.
4. El Paso Natural Gas Co., and
Consolidation Coal Co.:
Navajo (northwestern New Mexico),
40,287 acres
5. Westmoreland Resources: Crow
(southeastern Montana),
2 leases, 30,876 acres Do.
6. American Metals Climax: Crow
(southeastern Montana),
14,237 acres Do.
7. Shell Oil Co.: Crow (southeastern
Montana), 30,248
acres
Source: Bureau of Indian Affairs.
MINERAL COVERAGE
37 Like its predecessors S. 425 and H.R. 25, H.R. 13950 carries forth the
decision of the 93rd Congress regarding mineral coverage.
37 Legislation introduced in the 93rd Congress and referred to the Interior
and Insular Affairs Committee included bills covering (1) only surface mining
for coal, (2) surface coal mining and the surface effects of underground coal
mines, and (3) surface mining for all minerals including the surface effects of
underground mines.
37 The case of controlling the environmental impacts from surface coal
mining can be readily made from the experience of strip mining in the
Appalachian and Mid-West coal fields. The potential for irreparable
environmental damage in the West clearly exists since it is not now known what
the long-term effects of area mining will be and whether successful revegetation
can be achieved.
37 Moreover, the necessity to include regulation of the surface effects of
underground coal mining has been highlighted by the occurrence of such disasters
as the Aberfam mine waste landslide in England in the Fall of 1966 and the
collapse of a mining waste pile impoundment at Buffalo Creek, West Virginia, in
1972. Other hazards to the environment and human health and safety associated
with underground mining include: surface subsidence and the spontaneous
combustion of and long-term land and air pollution resulting from the
disposition of mining wastes. In addition, the adequate control of surface
mining environmental impacts in areas with an extensive mining history may
require the concomitant regulation of the surface effects of underground mining
because actual operations often combine surface and underground mines either on
a contemporary or sequential basis.
37 Surface mining of minerals other than coal also presents environmental
issues. The Committee found however, that the numerous distinctions between the
mining technologies and associated environmental problems of coal surface mining
as opposed to surface mining of such minerals as copper, iron and molybdenum
militated against inclusion of all minerals in a single bill. The Committee
however, did adopt a separate title which is applicable to such minerals. Title
VI discussed elsewhere in this report, addresses the serious problem of the
development of minerals owned by the Federal Government in residential or urban
areas or other locations that are inappropriate from a rational land use
planning viewpoint.
38 FLEXIBILITY
38 Flexibility is a necessary element in a rational program of surface
mining regulation. While performance standards should be cast in terms of
general applicability, the Committee recognizes that land use considerations may
justify a variance from the general standard or that a variable standard should
be implemented in recognition of the distinctions in climate, terrain, and other
physical features. While the bill allows variances or exceptions to the general
standards, care has been taken to ensure that such exceptions have not been so
broadly drafted that the exception could become the rule.
38 The bill is built upon the Committee's finding that in the vast majority
of cases, certain reclamation goals must be achieved if the term "reclamation"
is to have any real meaning. Nevertheless, the Committee has approved
exceptions to these requirements to achieve flexibility and avoid arbitrary
constraints. For example, the elimination of high walls, return of the land to
approximate original contour, establishment of viable vegetative cover and the
prohibition of dumping spoil material on mountain slopes are among the standards
critical to the elimination of the worst effects of coal surface mining and yet
these standards are either subject to exception, framed in variable terms, or
both. Rather than weakening the effectiveness of these standards, such
treatment is viewed by the Committee as justified and desirable. Workable
Federal requirements must be appropriate to the mining setting and such
standards should not preclude practices which are beneficial from a planning
viewpoint.
38 Another element of flexibility is the avoidance of excessive detail in
the requirements of the Federal performance standards. The Committee is aware,
however, of the history of the development of State laws on the subject of
regulation of coal surface mining. This history presents a pattern of
increasingly detailed legislation and such detail is often traceable to
regulations which have failed to provide full implementation of the more general
performance standards of the legislation itself. The Committee believes that it
has struck a balance between legislation which merely frames performance
standards in terms of general objectives and standards which are cast in terms
more detailed than those generally found in regulatory legislation. In choosing
a middle path, the Committee is mindful of the past failures on the State level
and thus bases its approval of H.R. 25 on the expectation that Federal
regulations promulgated under the Act will fully implement the environmental
performance standards. Obviously, the mere reproduction of the statutory
environmental perofrmance standards in the regulations would be inadequate.
39 STATE AND FEDERAL LAND PROGRAMS
39 Every State which has, or contemplates having, coal surface mining
operations is provided with the opportunity to prepare a State program for the
regulation of surface mining within its borders. Within eighteen months after
enactment of this Act, each such State may submit its State program to the
Secretary of Interior for his approval, which must substantiate the existence of
appropriate State laws, adequate funding, qualified personnel, and a permit
system for surface mining and reclamation operations. Sec. 503(a). The
Secretary shall not approve the State program until he has held at least one
public hearing within the State, and he has received the written concurrence of
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (whose views he must
publicly disclose along with those of the Secretary of Agriculture and of
certain other Federal agencies) and unless he has found that the State has the
necessary legal authority and qualified personnel to enforce the Federal
environmental protection standards and has otherwise complied with the
requirements of the Act. Sec. 503(b).
39 Within six months after submission of the State program, the Secretary of
Interior must either approve or disapprove it. Sec. 503(b). In case of
disapproval, the State may resubmit its program within sixty days. The
Secretary has another sixty days to approve or disapprove the resubmitted State
program. Sec. 503(c).
39 A Federal program is to be implemented within a State only where the
State fails to submit, or the submittal or resubmittal has failed to be approved
by the Secretary, or where an approved State program or any part thereof is not
enforced or implemented by the State regulatory agency. Sec. 504(a). The
Secretary is required to receive a proposed State program even after the Federal
program has been established and when received must render his decision within
six months. Sec. 504(e). There is no limit placed on the number of times a
State may resubmit its State plan under these circumstances.
39 The bill permits the Secretary to extend the date for the submission of a
State program for 6 months if an act of the State legislature is required to
comply with the act. Sec. 504(a). Operators are required to obtain permits 8
months after approval of a State program of implementation of a Federal program.
Sec. 506(a). Mines operating under existing permits may continue to mine
without a new permit, however, if an administrative decision has not been
rendered during that period. Id.
39 Prior to the issuance of such a permit, as discussed in another portion
of this report, permits must be in compliance with the interim performance
standards.
39 Subject to valid existing rights the bill prohibits all surface coal
mining on lands in the National Park System, the National Wilderness
Preservation System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, on Federal lands
within the boundaries of the national forests (exclusive of National
Grasslands), or the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. On all other Federal lands,
the Secretary is to prepare and implement a Federal lands program bringing all
Federal mineral leases, contracts and permits into conformity with all
requirements of the Act. Within six months after enactment of this Act, all
requirements of the Act must be incorporated into the terms and conditions of
every Federal coal lease, permit, or contract issued by the Secretary, rules and
regulations covering the preparation and submission of State programs,
development and implementation of Federal programs, and the permanent regulatory
procedure based on the provisions of Title V must be promulgated by the
Secretary within six months after enactment of this Act.
40 The Secretary may enter into joint Federal-State programs regarding
Federal lands where unusual circumstances such as checkerboard ownership
patterns exist, but in no case is a State law to be pre-empted by a less
stringent Federal requirement.
40 The bill addresses itself to the needs of coal consumers, in particular
electric utilities which may be hard-pressed (under the twin constraints of oil
shortage and Federal air quality standards) to find adequate coal supplies.
To make sure that Federally-owned coal is available to all classes of people on
an equitable basis, the Act authorizes the Secretary to establish a program to
assure that no class of purchasers of the mined coal shall be unreasonably
denied purchase thereof.
40 Assistance to the States for implementing interim programs is provided on
a non-matching basis, (Sec. 502(f) and Sec. 714(a)). Additional assistance to
the States in developing, administering and enforcing their State programs has
been provided on a matching basis (80 percent the first year, 60 percent the
second year and 40 percent for the third and fourth years), and a wide range of
other forms of assistance relating to State programs on a cooperative basis will
also be available from the Secretary and from other Federal agencies. Annual
appropriations (under Sec. 714(b)) beginning at $10 million for the first fiscal
year and increasing to $2 0 million for the next two years and $3 0 million for
each fiscal year thereafter are to be available to the Secretary for these and
administrative purposes.
40 STATE MINING AND MINERAL RESEARCH INSTITUTES
40 In keeping with the decision that the Federal role should be one of
support and encouragement for ongoing State programs, and in view of the
advisability of building on already existing institutions in order to foster the
required growth of research and training in minerals engineering fields, the
Committee has provided for support to the States, on a matching basis to meet
this great need.
40 The rationale for establishing mining and mineral research centers for
the purpose of training manpower to meet mining industry's requirements for the
1970's and 1980's is illustrated by projected demand figures supplied in a paper
prepared by the National Planning Association, entitled "The Demand for
Scientific and Technical Manpower in Selected Energy-Related Industries -
1970-1985". The following table summarizes that report:
41
Number
required per
Manpower category year
1970 1980
1985
Metallurgical engineers 900 1,900
2,700
Mining engineers 700 1,400
2,200
Petroleum engineers 5,600 7,300
9,600
41 By contrast, preliminary figures supplied by the National Association of
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges - indicate that the supply of trained
individuals in these areas will be severely deficient:
Number graduating per
Category year
1974 1975 1976 1971
Metallurgical engineers 269 314 285 327
Mining engineers 388 329 351 412
Petroleum engineers 395 381 398 547
41 Grants are to be allotted by the Secretary on a matching basis to
qualified public colleges or universities for generalized research and training
through the establishment of mining and mineral resources and research
institutes.Grants are also authorized to institutes for particular research and
demonstration projects of industry-wide application, and to undertake research
into any aspects of mining and mineral resources problems related to a mission
of the Department of the Interior not otherwise being studied.
41 A basic grant of $2 00,000 for the first fiscal year, would be limited to
one qualified public college or university in a State conducting research and
education in minerals engineering fields. The grant in the second year would be
increased to $300,000 and to $4 00,000 for each fiscal year thereafter for five
years. An Advisory Committee on Mining and Minerals Research consisting of the
heads of various Federal agencies and four knowledgeable laymen, is to be
organized by the Secretary for the purpose of determining the eligibility of
applicant colleges and universities and to advise the Secretary on other aspects
of the program.
41 A qualified public college or university is one which has a "school,
division or department conducting a program of substantial instruction and
research in mining or minerals extraction or benefication engineering", for a
period of at least two years, employing at least four full-time faculty members
for such length of time.In States where more than one college or university is
eligible, the Governor is to make the designation. Where a State has no
eligible public college or university, the Advisory Committee is authorized to
allocate that State's allotment to one private college or university which it
deems to be eligible.
41 Although the institutes will conduct research in mining and mineral
resources, primary emphasis is expected to be placed on the training of mineral
engineers and scientists. Research may include "exploration; extraction;
processing; development; production of mineral resources; mining and mineral
technology; supply and demand for minerals; the economic, legal and social
engineering, recreational, biological, geographic, ecological, and other aspects
of mining, mineral, resources and mineral reclamation."
42 Funds for specific mineral research and demonstration projects at the
institutes are to be drawn from annual appropriations of $15 million beginning
in the first fiscal year increasing by $2 million annually for six years. These
monies are to be available by application to the Secretary.
42 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
42 The success or failure of a national coal surface mining regulation
program will depend, to a significant extent, on the role played by citizens in
the regulatory process. The State or Department of Interior can employ only so
many inspectors, only a limited number of inspections can be made on a regular
basis and only a limited amount of information can be required in a permit or
bond release application or elicited at a hearing. Moreover, a number of
decisions to be made by the regulatory authority in the designation and variance
processes under the Act are contingent on the outcome of land use issues which
require an analysis of various local and regional considerations. While citizen
participation is not, and cannot be, a substitute for governmental authority,
citizen involvement in all phases of the regulatory scheme will help insure that
the decisions and actions of the regulatory authority are grounded upon
complete and full information. In addition, providing citizen access to
administrative appellate procedures and the courts is a practical and legitimate
method of assuring the legulatory authority's compliance with the requirements
of the Act. Thus in imposing several provisions which contemplate active
citizen involvement, the Committee is carrying out its conviction that the
participation of private citizens is a vital factor in the regulatory program as
established by the Act.
42 H.R. 13950 major citizen participation provisions are as follows:
42 REGULATORY PROGRAMS
42 (a) Regulations - 180 days following enactment, the Secretary is to
promulgate regulations for the Act's permanent program after holding at least
one public hearing. (Sec. 501)
42 (b) Approval of State plan - Prior to the approval or disapproval of a
State program, or approval or disapproval of a State's resubmitted program, the
Secretary must hold at least one public hearing in the State. (Section 503)
42 PERMIT PROCESS
42 (a) Permit Approval or Denial - Prior to submitting an application for a
mining permit, the applicant must give notice of intention to submit such
application through newspaper advertisements and a hearing on the application
shall be granted upon the filing of objections to the application. (Section
513)
42 (b) Exceptions from general environmental performance standards - H.R.
13950 provides for exceptions to specific environmental performance standings
relating to spoil placement, backfiling, and other specific standards. Notice
and a public hearing are required before such exceptions may be granted.
(Section 515(c)).
42 (c) Bond Release - After notice through newspaper advertisement, an
operator may apply for a full or partial release of his permit bond. Upon the
filing of objections to such release by any person with a valid legal interest,
the regulatory authority must hold a public hearing on the matter. (Section
519)
{43}
43 ENFORCEMENT
43 (a) During the interim program, the Secretary is directed to implement a
program of Federal inspections to enforce the Federal interim standards.Upon the
receipt of any information which may be furnished by any person, and which gives
rise to a reasonable belief that the interim standards are being violated, the
Secretary is to order the immediate inspection of the alleged offending
operation. The person who provides the Secretary with the information is to be
notified as to the time of the inspection and may accompany the inspector during
the inspection. (Section 502(f))
43 (b) A provision similar to that described immediately above is operative
after the interim period. (Section 521)
ELEMENTS OF MINE REGULATION PROGRAM
43 The Committee is aware of the concern expressed by some that the
citizen suit provision will encourage the commencement of frivolous suits
brought by those who oppose all strip mining. Obviously, judges are quite
capable of dismissing frivolous suits early in the proceedings and further
protection is available as the judge may require the filing of a bond or
equivalent security if a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction
is granted.
43 PERMIT SYSTEM
43 In any coal surface mining regulatory system, the determination that
reclamation can or cannot be accomplished in an area proposed to be mined
depends initially upon the judgment of the regulatory agency. Experience has
shown that without a thorough and comprehensive data base presented with the
permit application, and absent analysis and review both by the agency and by
other affected parties based upon adequate data, this judgment is apt to reflect
the economic interest in expanding a State's mining industry. Valid
environmental factors tend to receive short shrift. To meet this problem the
bill delineates in detail the type of information required in permit
applications in section 507 and the criteria for assessing the merits of the
application in section 510.
43 The physical parameters of the mining site and its environs must be
clearly set forth in the application, so as to yield an accurate picture of the
geological, hydrologic, surficial, development, ecological and general land use
features of the landscape which will be affected directly or indirectly by the
operator. Due to the movement of water through the evironment, the hydrologic
aspects of the application requirements will have the most profound implications
for off-site resident and the community as a whole. Both the quantity and the
quality of water supplies available to downstream users have been destroyed by
the abysmal reclamation practices of coal operators in areas where the State
laws were insufficient or not enforced. Except for selected information derived
from test borings relating to quantitative and qualitative analysis of the coal
seam, all other such information shall be open to public scrutiny, especially
that pertaining to toxicity.
44 The operator must show, through the vehicle of a mining and reclamation
plan, just how he intends to protect surface and ground water, (both on- and
off-site) and the rights of water users.
44 As part of a detailed description of measures to be taken in conformity
with the Act to prevent hazards to public health and safety, a certificate of
insurance covering on-site and off-site damage and personal injury is required.
44 Section 507 requires the submission of a reclamation plan along with the
permit application. The reclamation plan, the requirements for which are
detailed in section 508, is a blueprint for action, revealing the degree of
practicality of the operator's commitment. Post-mining land uses are to be set
forth in detail along with necessary public or private support activities, so
that the transition from one mode of premining land use to a possibly different
mode of postmining land use is shown to be in keeping with the act and also
feasible. The plan must include a time schedule indicating how each step in the
procedure is to be carried out.
44 Each application will be available for public review at an appropriate
place. The applicant must supply proof of newspaper notice that acquaints local
residents with the location of the operation and where the application may be
examined. This requirement responds to the Committee's awareness of the severe
difficulty which local people frequently experience in attempting to investigate
the nature of impending surface mine operations.
44 Permit approval or denial must be based on a written finding by the
regulatory authority that (1) all the requirements of the act and rules and
regulations of the Secretary will be met; (2) reclamation that is required by
the act and the State or Federal program can be accomplished under the
reclamation plan contained in the permit application; and (3) the proposed
surface mining operation, if located west of the 100th meridian west longitude
would not interrupt, discontinue, or prevent farming on alluvial valley floors
nor adversely affect the quantity or quality of water in surface or underground
water systems that serve the valley floor (unless the area is subject to one of
the exceptions set forth in section 510(b)(5)).
44 In its review of the application, the regulatory authority must determine
specifically that the affected land does not lie within an area either under
study or under designation as unsuitable for mining pursuant to section 522.
Moreover, the regulatory authority must find that the operation is designed to
prevent irreparable off-site impacts to the hydrologic balance of the area
affected as well as assuring the assessment of the probable cumulative impact of
all anticipated mining in the area on the hydrologic balance, and that any
operation under the applicant's ownership or control currently in violation of
the Act or of other Federal air or water protection statutes is in the process
of being corrected in a satisfactory manner to respective regulatory agency.
44 Any valid permit issued pursuant to this Act shall carry with it the
right of successive renewal upon expiration with respect to areas within the
boundaries of the existing permit and upon written finding by the regulatory
authority that terms of the existing permit are being met; that the operation is
in compliance with the environmental protection standards and with the approved
State program; that renewal will not jeopardize the operator's continuing
responsibility to satisfy any remaining reclamation responsibility; and that the
performance bond will continue in full force and effect. However, any portion
of a renewal application which concerns land areas beyond the boundaries
authorized in the existing permit shall be treated as a new application, subject
to all the provisions of the Act pertaining thereto.
45 A successor in interest to the permittee is granted the right to continue
the coal surface mining operation while his application for a permit is under
consideration by the regulatory authority, so long as the operation is in
compliance with the permittee's mining and reclamation plan and so long as the
permittee's performance bond continues in full force and effect.
45 Since the Act covers surface impacts of underground coal mining
concurrently with those of surface mining, underground coal operators will be
bound by permit requirements of the Act. They are required to apply for
permits, the terms of which include standards relating to minimizing surface
subsidence, sealing portals and openings, disposing of mine wastes, constructing
impoundments for