House Report No. 94-45
|
|
Legislative History House Report No. 94-45 |
| |
Preamble
Mr. HALEY, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, submitted
the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 25]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 25) 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 an amendment and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
INTRODUCTION
51 H.R. 25 would establish a national program for the regulation of
surface mining of coal as well as the surface effects of underground coal
mining. As is discussed below, the legislation is timely both in terms of
adequate environmental protection - which has been too long delayed - and in
view of the certain expansion of the Nation's coal industry. The rules which
will govern the extraction of coal by surface methods need to be established so
that industry can proceed to grow and develop in an orderly and environmentally
acceptable fashion.
52 The purpose of H.R. 25 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 -
52 (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;
52 (2) establishing administrative, environmental, and enforcement standards
for regulatory programs to be administered by the States on non-Federal lands
and by tribes on lands within Indian Reservations;
52 (3) providing authority for a Federal regulatory program to augment State
or Tribal programs if necessary on non-Federal lands and establish a Federal
regulatory program for Federal lands;
52 (4) establishing a program for the reclamation of previously mined and
inadequately reclaimed lands;
52 (5) establishing a program for designating areas unsuitable for surface
coal mining and a more limited program for minerals other than coal;
52 (6) establishing a new Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement for implementing provisions on this Act;
52 (7) establishing a Federal grant-in-aid program to the States for State
mining and mineral resource research institutes;
52 (8) 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
52 (9) recognizing the rights of surface owners and off-site water users.
52 Following the discussion of the need for legislation, the most
significant elements of the bill are described in greater detail.
NEED
52 COAL AND OTHER ENERGY RESOURCES
52 Coal has always been a major contributor to the United States energy
needs. For various reasons, the growth of the coal industry, in terms of U.S.
consumption per year, has been relatively stagnant, or even declining during
past decade (see Table No. 1, p. 54). In 1973, coal contributed only 18 percent
of the Nation's energy supply, while petroleum and natural gas combined to
produce approximately 77 percent. Hydropower supplied a further 4 percent and
nuclear, 1 percent.
52 In spite of the currently small proportion of the energy market served by
the coal industry, coal represents over 90 percent of our total hydrocarbon
energy reserves. (See Table No. 2, p. 54). This fact alone dictates that coal
will be called upon to supply a significant proportion of our energy needs in
the years to come. In addition, the fact that oil and gas are in short or
uncertain supply means that coal is likely to become an increasingly important
source of fuel for the Nation through the year 2000 (see Table No. 3(a), p. 54).
53 According to the latest Bureau of Mines figures, coal production in 1974
amounted to 590 million tons. Total U.S. consumption was approximately 551
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 other manufacturing and retail deliveries (see
Table No. 4, p. 53). 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.
53 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 F.E.A. (Table No. 3(b), p. 53) 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. With the
advent of the deadline for compliance with the E.P.A. air quality regulations,
the potential for developing the vast reserves of Appalachian low sulfur coal
will take on greater importance.
53 DISTURBED LANDS
53 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. In the light of an
unprecedented growth rate for the surface mine industry (see Table No. 5, p.
56), the passage of laws regulating coal surface mining in some 29 States has
proven to be generally ineffective in bringing about necessary reclamation of
the disturbed land areas.
53 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. 57-58.) 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.
54 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 the
past two years that rate has been exceeded by 35 percent.
54 "The present concerns about energy, combined with the knowledge about our
huge coal reserves make it quite likely that the annual rate of land disturbance
will be even greater," the report concludes. (See Table No. 9, p. 59.)
*2*
TABLE
1. -
Annua
l
U.S.
consu
mptio
n of
bitum
inous
coal,
1963-
73
*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 494,873
1972 516,776
1973 n1 556,022
1974 n1 551,263
54 Source: "Bituminous Coal Data", 1972 edition, National Coal Association.
54 n1 Preliminary figures.
*4*TABLE 2. - TOTAL
U.S. HYDROCARBON
RECOVERABLE
RESERVES
Number Times 1015 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
54 Source: Bureau of Mines.
*5*
TABLE
(3)(
A). -
COAL
AS AN
ENERG
Y
SOURC
E IN
THE
UNITE
D
STATE
S,
PROJE
CTED
*5*[
USDI,
1972,
table
18]
*2*
Total
energ
y
deman
d
*2*
Energ
y
deman
d for
coal
Year Trillion Btu Percent increase Trillion Btu Percent increase
1971 69,000 14,000
1975 80,000 16 16,000 14
1980 96,000 39 18,000 29
1985 116,500 69 24,000 72
2000 192,000 178 34,000 142
54 Source: U.S. Energy through the year 2000. U.S. Department of Interior
December 1972.
55
*13*
TABLE
3(B).
ESTIMA
TED
COAL
SUPPLY
BY
REGION
S AND
STATES
, AND
ESTIMA
TED
SULFUR
LEVELS
,
1977,
AND
1980
*13*[
Thousa
nds of
short
tons]
Region
s and 1977 sulfur levels of supply 1980 sulfur levels of supply
States (percent by weight) (percent by weight)
0.6
and
under 1.1 1.6 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.6
Appala 0.7 to 0.9 to and and to 0.9 to and
chian: 0.8 to 1 1.5 over Total under 0.8 to 1 1.5 over Total
Alabam 10,56 28,47 12,35 33,30
a 200 2,335 5 7,660 7,715 5235 2,730 5 8,955 9,025 0
East
Kentuc 19,15 23,03 17,39 92,50 29,59 22,77 27,39 20,68 110,0
ky 24,880 0 0 0 8,050 0 0 0 0 0 9,570 00
Maryla
nd 100 125 155 1,500 1,880 115 140 170 1,675 2,100
53,57 58,10 58,00
Ohio 4,530 0 0 4,900 0
62,900
Pennsy
lv 25,58 46,41 85,00 28,11 51,00 93,40
ania 935 3,570 8,500 5 0 0 1,025 3,920 9,340 5 0 0
Tennes 10, 12,40
see 125 2,770 775 1,315 5,395 270 150 3,350 805 1,585 6,510 0
Virgin 15,83 42,90 15,70 18,45 50,00
ia 13,470 0 7,120 5,105 1,375 0 0 0 8,300 5,950 1,600 0
West
Virgin 47,28 17,00 12,97 47,15 144,1 22,19 53,13 19,11 14,58 52,97 162,0
ia 19,750 0 0 0 0 50 5 5 5 0 5 00
91,03 67,00 74,71 171,1 463,2 68,89 104,4 77,44 84, 190,3 526,1
Total 59,360 5 5 0 65 75 5 70 5 935 55 00
Midwes
tern:
Arkans
as 600 600 800 800
Illino 62,58 73,20 67,54 79,00
is 2,415 2,710 5,490 5 0 2,605 2,925 5,925 5 0
Indian 29,90 31,20 33,63 35,10
a 10 5 1,285 0 0 15 10 1,440 5 0
Iowa 1,100 1,100 1,300 1,300
Ka
nsas 1,400 1,400 1,600 1,600
Missou
ri 5,300 5,300 5,800 5,800
Oklaho
ma 90 270 455 1,985 2,800 100 300 500 2,200 3,100
West
Kentuc 62,27 62,30 69,37 69,40
ky 25 5 0 30 0 0
165,1 177,9 182,2 196,1
Total 2,505 280 3,170 6,800 45 00 2,705 315 3,435 7,395 50 00
Gulf: 10,07 11,25 23,63 26,40
Texas 1,180 0 0 2,770 0 0
Northe
rn
Great
Plains
:
Montan 16,48 20,10 25,75 31,40
a 1,510 1,870 240 0 0 2,355 2,920 375 0 0
North 12,95 20,20
Dakota 5,945 3,665 3,005 335 0 9,270 5,715 4,685 530 0
Wyomin 29,20 32,70 44,65 50,00
g 0 3,500 0 0 5,360 0
31,07 19,48 65,75 11,62 47,57 11,44 30,43 101,6
Total 7,455 0 7,405 5 335 0 5 0 0 5 530 00
Rocky
Mounta
in:
Arizon
a 3,875 3,875 4,600 4,600
Colora
do 4,475 2,200 110 15 6,800 5,130 2,525 125 20 7,800
New 10,85 12,00
Mexico 1,955 8,875 20 0 2,160 9,815 25 0
Utah 3,685 895 1,900 20 6,500 3,970 960 2,050 20 7,000
11,97 28,02 15,86 13,30 31,40
Total 13,990 0 2,030 35 5 0 0 2,200 40 0
Pacifi
c:
Alaska 800 800 1,000 1,000
Washin 12,40 12,40
gton 8,000 8,000 0 0
13,40 13,40
Total 8,800 8,800 0 0
Total,
United 134,3 80,79 111,1 336,6 755,0 112,4 165,6 97,29 146,4 373,1 895,0
States 92,110 55 0 00 45 00 85 55 0 35 35 00
55 Source: U.S. Bureau of Mines.
56
TABLE 4. 1974 U.S. Domestic Coal Consumption n1
*2*(In thousands of tons)
Electrical power utilities 389,070
Bunker fuels 80
Beehive coke plants 1,258
Oven coke plants 88,410
Steel and rolling mills 6,155
Other manufacturing 57,850
Retail dealer deliveries 8,440
56 n1 Preliminary figures.
56 Source: Bureau of Mines.
*3*TABLE 5. AMOUNT OF
TOTAL U.S. COAL PRODUCTION
PROVIDED BY SURFACE MINING
Total tonnage coal
produced (in million short Percentage produced by
Year tons) surface mining
1974 n1 590 52.0
1973 n1 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 534 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
56 n1 Preliminary figures.
56 Source: Bureau of Mines.
57
*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
57 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.
57 n2 Includes 478,000,000 tons of reserves in Northern Alaska fields (North
Slope) that may not be economically strippable at this time.
57 n3 Strippable bituminous coal reserves for Idaho, Montana, New Mexico,
Texas, and Washington were not estimated.
57 Source: "U.S. Energy Outlook, Coal Availability," National Petroleum
Council, 1973.
58
*6*TABLE 7. -
SUMMARY OF
ESTIMATED
RESERVES OF
STRIPPABLE
SUBBITUMINOUS
AND LIGNITE
COAL IN THE
UNITED STATES
n1
*6*[Million
short tons]
M Minimum Maximum Economic
Remaining Available coalbed overburden stripping
Region and strippable strippable thickness thickness ratio
State reserves reserves (inches) (feet) (feet:feet)
Subbituminou
s 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 22,028 13,971 6 0 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
58 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.
58 n2 Subbituminous coal reserves not estimated for Colorado and Oregon;
lignite reserves not estimated for Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
58 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 srippable at this time.
58 Source: U.S. Energy Outlook, Coal Availability, National Petroleum
Council, 1973.
59
*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 Reclamation
not required 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
Io wa 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 Hampshire
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
59 Source: U.S. Soil Conservation Service.
60 SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
60 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 surfacee 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 a mine waste impoundment on Buffalo
Creek, West Virginia, in which 124 people were killed and 4,000 rendered
homeless in 1972.
60 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.
60 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 re-establishing vegetation in these circumstances:
60 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.
60 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)
60 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)
61 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.
61 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 breadth of concern behind the strong dissatisfaction with existing state
regulation of surface mining, evident throughout the hearings.
61 Joe Begley (Blackey, Letcher County, Kentucky):
61 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 .
. .
61 Russell Train (then Chairman, President's Council on Environmental
Quality):
61 Additional damage can occur from strip mining - devastated wildlife
habitat, landslides, silt 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.
61 Dr. Moid Ahmad (Professor of Hydrology and Geophysics, Ohio University:
61 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.
62 Liane B. Russell (Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning):
62 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.
62 E. A. Nephew (Oak Ridge Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee):
62 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.
62 Ernest Preate (Attorney, Scranton, Pennsylvania):
62 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.
62 James L. Coen (Blacksburg, Virginia):
62 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.
62 Robert Handley (President, Coal River Improvement Association, West
Virginia):
62 (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."
62 James W. McGlothlin (President, Tri-County Independent Coal Operators
Association, Grundy, Virginia):
62 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.
63 Walter Heine (Associate Deputy Secretary for Mines and Land Protection,
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources):
63 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.
63 Henry Clandillon Phibbs II, Sierra Club, Wilson, Wyoming):
63 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.
63 Bruce Hagen (Commissioner, North Dakota Public Service Commission):
63 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.
63 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.
63 A NATIONAL ISSUE
63 President Ford has urged the passage of a bill to regulate coal surface
mining nationally.
63 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.
63 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.
64 STATE REGULATION OF COAL SURFACE MINING
64 Twenty-nine States, responding to popular discontent regarding the social
and environmental impacts of coal surface mining, at various times have enacted
regulatory legislation imposing more or less stringent controls on the industry
(see Table No. 10, p. 65).Such laws have been often hailed as the strictest in
the Nation. Citizens who organized and lobbied for the new State laws generally
assumed that old abuses were ended; that the rights of other property-owners
would be respected by surface mine operators; and that the environmental
resources of the community, would be fully protected by the State regulatory
authority.
64 Unfortunately, public confidence in State regulation of surface coal
mining has frequently been misplaced. As environmental problems multiply rather
than recede, popular discontent has reasserted itself. The reasons for the
failure of State regulation vary from State to State.
64 One factor in the disappointing record of State regulation has been the
continued rapid expansion of the industry relative to the States' capability of
managing such mines due to the relatively low cost and high profits of surface
mining. Because it is capital-intensive rather than labor-intensive
consequently offering an alternative to the mounting costs of labor in
underground coal mining operations, surface mining has proved atractive to
operators. In some States, the increasing trend toward surface mining has
placed heavy burdens on the State regulatory agency. Even where State law is
strong and unambiguous, enforcement agencies have often been under-staffed,
under-equipped and under-financed.
64 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.
64 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:
64 A total of 6,565 linear miles (248,078 acres) were disturbed by contour
strip mining in West Virginia as of October 1971.
65 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.
65 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 . . .
*2*TABLE No. 10. - Summary of provisions included in current State coal
surface mining laws
States having coal surface mining laws 29
Hearings:
Public hearings at time of permit application
1
Public hearings at other times 14
Enforcement and penalties:
Closing of surface mine for noncompliance 15
Fines for violations 23
Bond forfeiture requirements 27
Denial of future permit for violation 25
Imprisonment for violations 7
Bonding:
Bonding requirements 29
Partial bond release 8
Performance standards:
Separation of topsoil 2
Slope limitation on reclaimed area 11
Time period for completion of reclamation 20
Specified treatment of highwalls 5
65 Source: Congressional Research Service.
65 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 . . . "
65 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.
66 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.
66 The obvious inability of the States to develop any coherent,
comprehensive national or regional policy covering the surface mining of
Federall-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 coalproducing regions.
66 SURFACE MINING METHODS AND TECHNIQUES
66 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.
66 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.
67 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.
67 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.
67 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.
67 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.
67 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.
68 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.
68 New surface mining methods, such as mountain-top removal, are generally
modifications of existing methodology, made posible 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.
68 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.
68 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.
68 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 terrian 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.
68 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.
69 TIMELINESS OF FEDERAL REGULATION
69 A primary constraint upon the coal industry in discharging its
reclamation responsibilities is 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 sulfur-low But steam coal, and by the
rising demand of Canadian, Japanese and other foreign steel mills for high
Btu-low sulfur metallurgical coal.
69 This picture has altered radically since the onset of the national energy
crisis precipitated by the Arab oil embargo. The Nation's dangerous
over-reliance 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 a matter of top priority in terms of
protecting economic growth and national security. The Federal government has
responded to the crisis with a series of proposals which will ensure a
long-range, continuous demand for coal both as a direct source of energy and as
converted into various substitutes for oil and natural gas.
69 The Federal Energy Administration has instituted a program calling for
the conversion, where possible, of electric power generating plants to coal
consumption. In the 93rd Congress, the Energy Research and Development
Appropriations Act was approved. This Act includes $2 83,400,000 channeled to
the Office of Coal Research and a further $1 03.7 million to the Bureau of Mines
for coal-related research (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.
69 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 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.
70
TABLE No. 11. - Research and development funds for coal as authorized in the
Energy Research and Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1975
Office of Coal Research:
Coal liquefaction $79,600,000
High Btu gasification 37,800,000
Low Btu gasification 49,000,000
Advanced power systems (including $7 ,500,000 for MHD) 12,700,000
Direct boiler combustion 34,000,000
"Pioneer plant" projects 42,100,000
Advanced research and supporting technology; systems studies 21,637,000
Administration 6,563,000
Total 283,400,000
Bureau of Mines:
High Btu gasification 19,200,000
Coal liquefaction 27,388,000
Basic research on chemistry of coal and conversion processes 3,200,000
Other coal projects 2,712,000
Sulfur-oxides removal from powerplant stack gases (citrate
process) 2,000,000
Improved coal mining technology 46,200,000
Total 100,700,000
U.S. Geological Survey:
Determination location and properties of coal resources; coal
environmental analysis 2,496,000
Investigation on coal hydrology (water needs for development of
this resource) 1,250,000
Total 3,746,000
Total coal research and development appropriations 387,846,000
70 Source: Congressional Record, Apr. 30, 1974, p. H3356.
70 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 remains one of the cheapest of all of our energy resources. (See Table No.
13).
70 Thus the argument that reclamation is prohibitively expensive, if it was
ever valid, is certainly no longer so. In regard 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 operator.
70 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:
70 . . . 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.
71 (See Table No. 14).
71 Recent rises 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:
71 even taking the largest of these (reclamation) costs would add only two
to three percent to the average residential electric bill.
71 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 $1 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."
71 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. 69 and Table
15, p.70). 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:
71 . . . Coal prices remained relatively stable durign 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.
72 [See Original]
73 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."
73 It therefore appears that the ability of the industry to absorb any
increased costs of reclamation consistent with the standards of the Act is no
longer in doubt. (See Tables No. 16(a) and (b).)
73 RESEARCH AND TRAINED TECHNICIANS
73 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.
73 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.
74
*4*TABLE 13. - COST
OF COAL VERSUS
OTHER HYDROCARBON
ENERGY RESOURCES,
OCTOBER
1973-OCTOBER 1974
Average price
Percent of total (cents per million
Quantity delivered Btu's Btu's)
October 1973:
Coal (thousand
tons) 33,600 56.1 41.9
Oil (thousand
barrels) 44,800 20.6 88.9
Gas (million cubic
feet) 302,600 23.3 35.5
October 1974:
Coal (thousand
tons) 38,900 60.1 80.9
Oil (thousand
barrels) 43,300 19.1 198.9
Gas (million cubic
feet) 284,600 20.8 53.2
*6*TABLE 14.
- ESTIMATED
INCREMENTAL
PRODUCTION
COSTS FOR
VARIOUS
RECLAMATION
COSTS
Calculated
production
per acre
mined n1 Costs of reclamation, cents/ton
$1,000 per $2,000 per $3,000 per $4,000 per
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
74 n1 Based on density of 1,440 tons of bituminous coal per acre-foot at 80
percent recovery, based on 1960 data.
74 n2 Montana entry changed to reflect mining of sub-bituminous coal in
Power River Basin.
74 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.
75
*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 3.57 3.36 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
(
preli
minar
y) 5.95 6.95 10.67 8.42
1974
(
estim
ate) n(2) n(2) n(2) 15.00
75 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.
75 n2 Not available.
75 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
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
75 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
Percent change
3d, 1973 3d, 1974 (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
75 Source: American Public Power Association.
75 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.
76 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 ninerals engineering fields.
76 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.
76 DATA ON COAL RESRVES AND LEASES
76 Tables presenting following data have been included at the conclusion of
this section of the Report: Total coal reserves (see Table No. 17, p. 71);
Federal coal leases (see Table No. 18, p. 71). Indian coal leases (see Table
No. 19, p. 72).
77
*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]
Total -
All ranks Measured
more than and
14 in and indicated
3,000 ft as
overburde percent
State Remaining measured and indicated reserves n of total
Anthracit
e
Bituminou Subbitumi semianthr
s nous Lignite acite Total
Alabama 1,731 0 n(2) 0 1,731 13,444 12.9
Alaska 667 5,345 n(3) n(4) 6,012 130,087 4.6
Arkansas 313 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 1 39,372 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
Oklahoma 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
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
77 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 in bed thickness for butiminous and anthracite and 5 ft or more for
subbituminous and lignite.
77 n2 Small reserves of lignite in beds less than 5 ft thick.
77 n3 Small reserves of lignite included with subbituminous reserved.
77 n4 Small reserves of anthracite in the Bering River field believed to be
too badly crushed and folded to be economically recoverable.
77 n5 Negligible reserves with overburden less than 1,000 ft.
77 n6 Data not available to make estimate.
77 Source: "U.S. Energy Outlook, 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
Tuah 194 266,632.49
Washington 2 521.09
Wyoming 89 199,701.04
Total 524 776,756.20
77 Source: U.S. Geological Survey. u
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
leases, 16,035 acres Surface mining.
2. Utah International, Inc.: Navajo
(northwestern New
Mexico), 31,416 Do.
3. Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co.:
Navajo (west-tana),
1 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),
1 14,237 acres
7. Shell Oil Co.: Crow (southeastern
Montana), 30,248
acres
77 Source: Bureau of Indian Affairs.
ISSUES
77 MINERAL COVERAGE
77 The resolution of the issue concerning mineral coverage arrived at
through consideration of H.R. 1500 and S. 425 during the 93rd Congress was not
reconsidered during Committee action on H.R. 25.
77 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.
77 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 sinec it is not now known what
the long-term effects of area mining will be and whether successful revegetation
can be achieved.
77 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.
77 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 signle 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 mining sites in residential or urban areas or other locations
that are inappropriate from a rational land use planning viewpoint.
79 FLEXIBILITY
79 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.
79 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.
79 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 performance standards in the regulations would be inadequate.
80 STATE AND FEDERAL LAND PROGRAMS
80 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. The Secretary shall
approve the State program after he has held at least one public hearing within
the State, and after 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 if he has found that the State has the
necessary legal authority and qualified personnel to enforce the Federal
environmental protection standards.
80 Within six months after submission of the State program, the Secretary of
Interior must either approve or disapprove it. 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.
80 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. 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.
There is no limit placed on the number of times a State may resubmit its State
plan under these circumstances.
80 In any event, within 34 months after enactment of this Act, either an
approved State program or a Federal program must be established, and not later
than 40 months after enactment of this Act every operator must have a permit
issued under the State program or under the Federal program which is in full
compliance with all the provisions of the Act. 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.
80 This 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 mineral 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.
81 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.
81 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.
81 Assistance to the States for implementing interim programs is provided on
a non-matching basis, (Sec. 502(f)(5) 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 $1 0 million for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1975, and increasing to $20 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.
81 STATE MINING AND MINERAL RESEARCH INSTITUTES
81 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 filds, the
Committee has provided for support to the States, on a matching basis to meet
this great need.
81 The rationale for establishing 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:
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
82 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:
Category Number graduating per year
1974 1975 1976 1971
Metallurgical
engineers 269 314 285 327
Mining engineers 388 329 351 412
Petroleum engineers 395 381 398 547
82 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.
82 A basic grant of $2 00,000 for the fiscal year 1975, 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 in fiscal year 1976 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.
82 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 five 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.
82 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."
82 Funds for spcific mineral research and demonstration projects at the
institutes are to be drawn from annual appropriations of$15 million beginning in
fiscal 1975, increasing by $2 million annually for six years. These monies are
to be available by application to the Secretary.
83 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
83 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.
83 H.R. 25's major citizen particpation provisions are as follows:
83 REGULATORY PROGRAMS
83 (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)
83 (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)
83 PERMIT PROCESS
83 (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)
83 (b) Exceptions from general environmental performance standards - H.R. 25
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
55(c)).
83 (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)
84 ENFORCEMENT
84 (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))
84 (b) A provision similar to that described immediately above is operative
after the interim period. (Section 521)
ELEMENTS OF MINE R EGULATION PROGRAM
84 The Committee is aware of the concern expresed by some that the
citizen suit provision will encourage the commencement of frivolous suits
brought by those who oppose all strip mining. Obviously, judes 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.
84 INTERIM PROGRAM
84 The implementation of a national program of coal surface mining
regulation requires procedures for the orderly phase in of new standards and
redefined agency responsibilities. The Committee was concerned that the bill
give the States ample time to develop a program that will meet the Act's
requirements and that will not threaten the continuous supply of coal by the
sudden imposition of new performance criteria. On the other hand, the Committee
found unacceptable the alternative of allowing mining to continue as it is
currently practiced in many states during a lengthy period to the full
implementation of the Act. Thus the interim program of the Act was designed in
accordance with the following principles:
84 (1) The legislation should require the substantial curtailment of the
most environmentally damaging aspects of surface mining relatively soon after
the enactment date;
84 (2) Requirements imposed upon the States during the interim period should
be capable of ready implementation by the States under present systems or
regulations;
84 (3) The scheme of the interim period should provide a smooth transition
into the implementation of the permanent program;
84 (4) The interim program should reflect the basic principles of the
legislation (State lead, citizen participation, minimum Federal environmental
standards, and concurrent Federal inspections to back up States).
84 Two environmental performance standards which are basic to the
elimination of the most serious environmental degradation caused by coal
surface mining are the prohibition of placement of materials downslope from the
bench in mountain mining areas and the requirements that the mine site be
regraded to the approximate original contour. These requirements are included
in the interim program as well as other standards which are similar to
requirements currently enforced in most States (adequate revegetation,
segregation and replacement of top soil or other suitable growing medium, the
protection of water resources and the control of surface disposal of mine
wastes).
85 Although the spoil placement and regrading standards are of utmost
importance, in recognition of the problems encountered in a phase in of new
regulations, the Committee adopted variance procedures to operate during the
interim period.
85 Subsection 502(d) provides that the procedures applicable to steep slope
operations after the implementation of a full State or Federal program, will
also apply to the general regrading standard as well as steep slopes during the
interim.
85 Along with performance criteria structured to avoid the possible harsh
results of the immediate imposition of new standards, the Committee was careful
to establish an interim procedure which would allow the orderly phase in of the
new program without an interruption of the delivery of coal. Under the terms of
Section 502 and related sections, an operator may continue to mine coal after
the date of enactment provided that he is in compliance with the interim
standards by the 135th day after enactment. New operations may also commence
during the interim period provided that the operator obtain a permit from the
state agency as would be required prior to enactment except that after enactment
all new permits must conform to the interim standards referenced in section 502.
In order to avoid a hiatus at the end of the interim period the operator in
expectation of mining after the interim period shall submit an application for a
permit within 20 months after enactment. Thus the State is given ample time to
act upon such application prior to the point when a permit in full compliance is
required.
85 The Committee was concerned that the phase-in of the new regulatory
program not result in the inadvertent interruption of ongoing operations due to
administrative technicalities. The Committee recognizes that delays may be
encountered in the permit approval process or in the procedures for approval of
a State plan, the implementation of a Federal program for a State or the
implementation of a Federal program for Federal lands. It is certainly the
Committee's intent that the interim procedures be construed to avoid any
interpretation of procedural technicality which could result in the shutting
down of ongoing operations and specific mechanisms were included to assure the
avoidance of any such result. Section 502(g) provides that if a State program
is disapproved, existing surface coal mining operations can continue operation
prior to the promulgation of a Federal program (including judicial review of
such program) provided that such operations are in compliance with the
performance standards referenced in section 502.Moreover, under section 506(a),
a person conducting a surface coal mining operation pursuant to a permit issued
under section 502 who has made timely application for a permit under the full
program, may continue operations after the deadline for new permit approval if
the administrative decision has not been rendered and the operator is in
compliance with the applicable standards of the Act.
86 The Committee believes that the incorporation of the interim standards
into existing operations within the regulatory time period is a practical
mechanism for assuring compliance without raising the possibility of an
unwarranted hardship on the operator. The approved language provides that
operators are to be given a "reasonable time" to remedy conditions which are
violative of the Act, and thus as an operator may have to accomplish significant
adjustments in his operations to achieve initial compliance, a reasonable time
may be a more lengthy period than would be the case after the Act is fully
implemented.Similarly, where an operator is attempting to obtain a variance
under the Act to allow the continuation of a particular operation, it is not the
intention of the Committee that the operation be interrupted if action on the
variance application is not taken prior to the implementation of the interim
standards. In such an event, the determination of a reasonable time for the
operator to comply should take into account the administrative capabilities of
the regulatory authority during the implementation of new regulations and the
operator acting in good faith should not be unfairly penalized.
86 The Committee structured the interim program on the premise that most
existing operations are currently subject to State regulatory programs and thus
a phase in procedure which relies, in part, upon existence of state agencies is
appropriate. Regulatory programs presently exist in all but three states in
which coal surface mining is conducted. H.R. 25 sets no standards for the State
agency during the interim period other than the requirement that any State
program include the interim standards in permits as set forth in Section 502 and
that any inspection comply with the procedures and enforce the standards of the
interim program. Thus States which do not have a regulatory agency established
by statute may still participate in the interim program through administrative
action of a suitable agency. Certification of this fact by the Governor of a
State to the Secretary is sufficient to qualify that State for the funding
provided in H.R. 25 during the interim period.
86 While State regulatory mechanisms remain operative and constitute the
chief element of the interim program, H.R. 25 does provide for backup federal
inspections during this period. Along with federal inspections triggered by
information from any citizen (see section on federal enforcement in this
report), H.R. 25 requires federal inspection if State inspection reports
indicate the occurrence of two consecutive violations of Federal standards as
well as random federal inspections of mine sites. Thus the State machinery is
preserved but the integrity of the Federal standards is assured through Federal
oversight.
86 The Secretary is given considerable latitude in directing the Federal
inspectors and as manpower limitations may be a factor, it is intended that the
federal inspection activities be focused upon those areas where there may be the
greatest difficulty in meeting the federal standards. This does not necessarily
imply that the intensity of federal inspection should be in direct proportion to
the number or size of mines, but rather that emphasis should be guided by such
factors as the environmental hazards involved, the difficulty of the industry in
meeting the interim standards and the difficulties which may be encountered by
certain States in administering and enforcing such standards.
87 H.R. 25 also provides funds to the Secretary to fully reimburse the
States for all costs involved in enforcing the interim standards through the
administration and inspection system. In order to provide such resources on a
timely basis to the Secretary, H.R. 25 provides that funds authorized for the
interim inspection program reimbursement (and the other activites identified in
Section 714(a)) shall be available under contract authority upon enactment.
Thus the Secretary of Interior is granted authority to incur obligations under
such authorizations. His action in so doing shall be deemed a contractual
obligation of the United States for the payment of the cost thereof, and such
funds shall be deemed to have been expended when so obligated.
87 PERMIT SYSTEM
87 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 detai the type of information required in permit applications
in section 507 and the criteria for assessing the merits of the application in
section 510.
87 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, developmental, 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 environment, the
hydrologic aspects of the application requirements will have the most profound
implications for off-site residents 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.
87 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.
87 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.
87 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 pre-mining 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.
88 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.
88 Permit approval or denial must be based on a written finding by the
regulatory authority that the mining application affirmatively demonstrates: (1)
that all the requirements of the Act and rules and regulations of the Secretary
will be met; (2) that 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; (3) that the proposed surface mining operation, if located
west of the 100th meridian West longitude would (a) not have a substantial
adverse effect on valley floors which are significant to present or potential
farming or ranching operations, (b) not adversely affect the charge from
underground water or springs that feed the valley floors which must be
preserved, and (c) not alter a channel of significant water courses meeting
specific criteria identified in the Act.
88 The Committee further clarified the definition of those areas of
hydrologic importance, located west of the one hundredth meridian west
longitude, which are intended to be protected against the adverse impacts of
surface mining. First, the Committee reiterated the requirement in last year's
bill (S. 425) that prior to approval of a permit it must be determined by the
regulatory authority that the proposed operation "would not have a substantial
adverse effect on valley floors underlain by unconsolidated stream laid deposits
where farming can be practiced in the form of floor irrigated or naturally
subirrigated hay meadows or other crop lands (excluding undeveloped range
lands), where such valley floors are significant to present or potential farming
or ranching operations."
88 In addition, the Committee determined that the proposed surface coal
mining operations should not be located within "an area of hydrologic
importance" where the proposed operation would "adversely affect the quantity or
quality of water in surface or underground water systems that supply these
valley floors." Finally, the Committee also determined that the proposed
operations should not be located within an area of hydrologic importance where
the operation would -
88 alter the channel of a significant watercourse which is identified as a
stream fed by (1) a spring, other groundwater discharge, or surface flow that
flows an average of 250 gallons per minute or more during one hundred and twenty
days or more per year; and (2) a drainage area which encompasses 10,000 acres or
more when measured above the lowest point on the watercourse by the proposed
surface coal mining operations, as documented by the state or Federal regulatory
authority.
89 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.
89 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.
89 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.
89 The interim performance standards apply to all new permits issued by
State agencies from date of enactment. After 135 days from date of enactment
all operations existing on date of enactment must comply with these standards,
during which time the agency must have amended permits accordingly. Within 20
months after enactment, any operator who expects to surface mining following the
time of approval of a State program must submit an application which is in full
compliance with the Act and with the entire range of permanent performance
standards, for land which he expects to mine under the approved State program.
If he is to mine on steep slopes, the permit conditions must include, in
addition to the general performance standards, standards specific to steep slope
mining.
89 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 mine wastes, revegetating disturbed areas, preventing off-site
damages, and discharge of waterborne pollutants.
89 Section 512 requires that coal exploration which will substantially
disturb the natural land surface must be conducted pursuant to a
permit.Application for such a permit must be supported by technical data
including certain requirements set out in the section and provision is made for
preserving the confidentiality of information relating to the applicant's
competitive rights.
90 LAND USE CONSIDERATION
90 With few exceptions, surface coal mining operations should constitute a
temporary use of the land. This concept is reflected in the permit approval
process as well as the environmental protection standards established by H.R.
25. Both are premised on the goals of the legislation that land affected by
surface mining be returned to a form and productivity at least equal to that of
its pre-mining condition, and that such condition will not contribute to
environmenal deterioration and is consistent with the surrounding landscape.
90 Obviously, the principal performance standards (regrading to approximate
original contour, avoiding reckless spoil placements, revegetation and others)
have the same goal - restoration. Moreover, the permit process requires the
submission and approval of post-mining land use and thus is designed to elicit
an evaluation of the operator's plan and ability to return the land to a useful
condition. The environmental and social stresses engendered by surface mining,
discussed elsewhere in this report, are well documented. It is this combination
of performance criteria and procedural requirements (coupled with the
designation process discussed below) to be established by H.R. 25 that will
assure the greatest possible minimization of the undesirable consequences of
surface mining.
90 On the other hand, surface mining also presents possible land planning
benefits as such mining involves the opportunity to reshape the land surface to
a form and condition more suitable to man's uses. In such instances, the
overburden and spoil become a resource to achieve desired configurations rather
than a waste material to be disposed of or handled by the most economic means.
The performance standards recognize that return to approximate pre-mining
conditions may not always be the most desirable goal of reclamation and thus
appropriate exceptions to the general requirements are provided. As the
realization of such alternative post-mining land uses as industrial, commercial
or residential development will often depend on the commitments or assurances
that necessary services will be available, evidence of such availability prior
to mining is a necessary part of the permit approval process.
90 The process for designation of land areas as unsuitable for surface coal
mining is also premised on the notion that successful management of surface
mining depends, in large part, on the application of rational planning
principles.While coal surface mining may be an important and productive use of
land, it also involves certain hazards and is but one of many alternative land
uses. In some circumstances, therefore, coal surface mining should give way to
competing uses of higher benefit. Section 522 establishes a program by which
such decisions can be made. Under this section, to become eligible to assume
regulatory responsibility a State must establish a process designed to provide
the technical data needed to enable the regulatory authority to make objective
decisions as to which, if any, land areas in a State are unsuitable for all or
certain types of surface mining.
91 The Committee wishes to emphasize that this section does not require the
designation of areas as unsuitable for surface mining other than where it is
demonstrated that reclamation of an area is not physically or economically
feasible under the standards of the Act. The other criteria for designation,
which relate to general planning and environmental concerns, are discretionary
and thus the State could determine that no lands should be designated
thereunder, or, on the other hand, could prohibit all or some types of surface
mining entirely. In addition to the discretionary designation criteria, the
designation process includes other elements of flexibility. For example, the
designation of unsuitability will not necessarily result in a prohibition of
mining. The designation can merely limit specific types of mining and thus the
coal resource may still be extracted by a mining technology which would protect
the values upon which the designation is premised. In addition, after an area
is designated, coal development is not totally precluded as exploration for coal
may continue. Moreover, any interested person may petition for termination of
a designation.
91 The designation process is not intended to be used as a process to close
existing mine operations, although the area in which such operations are located
may be designated with respect to future mines. The Committee recognized that
an existing mine might not be one actually producing coal, because it was in a
substantial stage of development prior to coal production. Thus the meaning of
existing operations is extended to include operations for which there are
"substantial legal and financial commitments".
91 The phrase "substantial legal and financial commitments" in the
designation section and other provisions of the Act is intended to apply to
situations where, on the basis of a long-term coal contract, investments have
been made in power plants, railroads, coal handling and storage facilities and
other capital-intensive activities. The Committee does not intend that mere
ownership or acquisition costs of the coal itself or the right to mine it should
constitute "substantial legal and financial commitments."
91 It should be noted that the designation process is structured to be
applied on an area basis, rather than a site by site determination which
presents issues more appropriately addressed in the permit application process.
The Committee believes that the area by area approach of Section 522 thus serves
the industry since such a process may, in advance of application, identify lands
which are either not open to surface mining or where surface mining is subject
to restrictions.
91 Although the designation process will serve to limit mining where such
activity is inconsistent with rational planning in the opinion of the Committee,
the decision to bar surface mining in certain circumstances is better made by
Congress itself. Thus Section 522(e) provides that, subject to valid existing
rights, no surface coal mining operation except those in existence on the date
of enactment, shall be permitted on lands within the boundaries of units of
certain federal svstems (such as the National Park system and National Wildlife
Refuge System), on Federal lands within the boundaries of any national forest or
in other special circumstances, e.g., within one hundred feet of public roads,
three hundred feet of public buildings or churches, or 100 feet of a cemetery.
92 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
92 Because of the evolution of the surface coal mining industry, reclamation
and environmental protection actions are often viewed as necessary evils to be
tacked on to the end of a process that has been developed for the purpose of
producing coal at the least possible cost. Experience with sound reclamation
practices, however, indicates that the best approach to mining and reclamation
involves the combining of both of these activities in one process. Thus there
is ample evidence to reject assertions that "the reclamation and mining
processes cannot be combined." In fact, the opposite is true.
92 The authors of one recent engineering study concerned with