House Report No. 94-896
|
|
Legislative History House Report No. 94-896 |
| |
Preamble
CONTENTS
Page
Committee amendments to H.R. 9725 1
Introduction 2
Purpose of H.R. 9725 7
Need 8
Coal and other energy resources 8
Disturbed lands 8
Social and environmental impacts 15
A national issue 18
State regulation of coal surface mining 19
Surface mining methods and techniques 21
Timeliness of Federal regulation 24
Research and trained technicians 28
Data on coal reserves and leases 31
Issues 33
Mineral coverage 33
Flexibility 34
State and Federal land programs 35
State mining and mineral research institutes 37
Citizen participation 39
Regulatory programs 39
Permit process 39
Enforcement 40
Elements of a mine regulation program 40
Interim program 40
Permit system 43
Land use consideration 46
Environmental protection standards 48
Return to approximate original contour 49
Contour mining 51
Area-type mining 51
Revegetation 52
Mining impacts on hydrologic balance 56
Application for mining 60
Permit approval and denial 60
Environmental standards 61
Alluvial valley floors 64
Monitoring hydrologic impacts 66
Steep slope mining 66
Economics and practicality 69
Exceptions and variances 71
Surface disposal of mine wastes from processing plants 71
Surface impacts of underground mines 73
Special bituminous coal mines 75
Coal access and haul roads 75
Enforcement 76
Inspections and enforcement; Federal-State relationship 76
Administrative review 79
Judicial review 79
Penalties 79
Surface owner protection 80
Role of the Secretary 81
Designation of noncoal mine lands 83
Indian lands program 83
Enforcement - Continued
Rehabilitation of abandoned mined lands 84
Abandoned mined land reclamation program 86
Reclamation fee and fund 86
Rural lands program 87
Department of the Interior program 88
Eligible lands 90
Committee Action 91
Legislative history 91
Relation of H.R. 9725 to other laws 92
Cost of legislation 93
Inflation impact 95
Fiscal burden 95
Cost of reclamation to producers and consumers 96
Changes in existing law 98
Committee recommendation 99
Section-by-section analysis of H.R. 9725 101
Title I - Statement of findings and policy 101
Title II - Offices of mine reclamation and enforcement 102
Title III - State mining and mineral institutes 103
Title IV - Abandoned mine reclamation fund 105
Title V - Control of environmental impacts of surface coal mining 108
Title VI - Designation of lands unsuitable for noncoal mining 123
Title VII - Administration and miscellaneous provisions 123
Additional, dissenting, and separate views 129
Appendixes 143
Appendix I - Analysis of the administration's justification of the veto
of H.R. 25 143
Appendix II - News analyses of data justifying veto of H.R. 25 153
Appendix III - Letter from M. R. Klepper, Acting Director, U.S.
Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, March 3, 1976 161
MR. HALEY, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 9725]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 9725). 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, report favorably thereon with
amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
INTRODUCTION
2 Three times in the past 22 months the Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs has reported legislation to regulate the surface mining of coal. The
first two bills were vetoed. H.R. 9725 is the Committee's third effort and
while it is based, in large part, on the previously passed-but-vetoed bills it
also includes substantial changes which meet the major objections voiced by the
bill's opponents.
2 The Committee finds that the major objections were not accurate and, as
will be discussed in this introduction, the objections were in large part the
product of misinterpretations of the bill's language as well as
misrepresentation of the state of the coal industry and mining technology.
Nevertheless, because the art of legislation is imperfect, and because the need
to mine coal is vital to the national interest, the Committee has agreed to
adopt significant modifications to assure that implementation of the bill will
not result in any interruption of coal supply.
2 The veto of H.R. 25 (the previous strip mining bill of this Congress) was
based on the prediction of the Bureau of Mines and other agencies that enactment
of the bill would result in a loss of production - from 40 to 162 million tons
of coal, which would, in turn, cost the loss of thousands of jobs and drive up
the cost of coal. According to Frank Zarb, Administrator of the Federal Energy
Administration, if the loss of production predictions were inaccurate, the other
projections would also be called into question. The validity of the dire
projections turned, then, on the validity of the production loss estimates.
3 After scrutiny by the Committee, the record is now clear that the
production losses were mostly fabrication and could not be justified.
3 A full analysis of the agencies' projections is found later in this
report. n1 The major issues are addressed here. The bulk of the projected
losses (143 million tons of the 166 tons upper limit) was attributed to the
bill's effect on (1) small mines (52 million tons), (2) mines on steep slopes
(25 million tons), and (3) operations on alluvial valley floors (66 million
tons) in the first full year of operation. The fact that a significant
percentage of small mines in Appalachia are on steep slopes and thus these
figures represent double counting was never explained by the administration.
3 n1 See appendix 1.
3 Here are the arguments behind these projections and Committee action to
assure that even though the arguments were highly questionable, the projected
consequences will not occur.
3 Alluvial Valley Floors
3 Administration position. - According to projections of the Bureau of
Mines, provisions of the bill relating to mining on the highly productive yet
environmentally delicate alluvial valley floors of the West, was ambiguous and
could have precluded production on a significant percentage of coal-bearing
lands in the West and would have shut down existing mines.
3 Committee action. - The Committee approved a new alluvial valley floors
section that grandfathers existing mines and tightens the definition to remove
ambiguity. According to an analysis of the United States Geological Survey of
the major Federal coal producing strip mines in the west only five are on
alluvial valley floors and all are exempted from the effects of this section
under the new language. The USGS study entitled Maps of Alluvial Valley Floors
and Strippable Coal in 42 Quadrangles, Southeastern Montana [Open file report,
number 76-162 (February 1976)], indicates that of the 27.6 percent of the area
of three mapped counties that contain strippable coal, only 2.7 percent is
overlain by alluvial valley floors, and according to USGS the mapped area "is
typical of the Powder River Basin as a whole." (See letter of March 3, 1976 from
M. R. Klepper, Acting Director, USGS, in Appendix III.) So the major objection
affecting western coal has been removed.
3 Small Mines
3 Administration position. - The Administration asserted that the small
Eastern operations mining less than 50,000 tons are without the money or
expertise to comply with the phasein requirements and procedures.
3 Committee action. - The Committee is aware of the fact that despite the
Administration's hypothetical projections, small operations are flourishing in
Pennsylvania (see discussion later in this introduction). Pennsylvania is a
State whose standards are similar to those of H.R. 9725. Nevertheless, in an
effort to facilitate compliance, the Committee delayed the application of the
minimal interim standards from 135 days to 1 year. As the operator doesn't
apply for a new permit until 20 months after enactment, surely he will be
capable of addressing the new standards and procedures in that period.
4 Steep Slopes
4 Administration position. - According to agency projection, virtually all
production on the steep slopes of mountain mining could be wiped out under the
bill.
4 Committee action. - As is discussed later in this report, the bill does
not ban mining on steep slopes, but merely requires the use of available
technology that can be economically conducted. The problem here, if any, is
really to give an operator sufficient time to change mining techniques to comply
with the new requirements. The vetoed bill phased in this requirement, in 135
days and where noncompliance does not present imminent danger, the operator
would have a "reasonable time" to comply. But the Committee took another step
with H.R. 9725 by giving existing mines a full year before the new standards are
imposed, and the "reasonable time" provision is still applicable after the
standards are in place.
4 In addition to these changes, the Administration expressed concern about
the imposition of a new fee on coal to pay for a program to clean up unreclaimed
abandoned mines. The Committee agreed to delay collection of the fee to the end
of the first quarter of 1977.
4 Although the Committee has taken the steps to assure enactment of H.R.
9725 will not result in any production loss, the record should be clear that the
Administration's arguments were never really substantiated by the agencies
responsible for their formulation. It is not unpredictable that Members of
Congress, the press and citizens at large would be alarmed at such dire
predictions as the loss of 36,000 jobs or up to 12 million tons of production
when such numbers bearing the imprimatur of FEA or Department of Interior are
issued by the White House. But at a hearing on the President's veto of H.R. 25,
facts were elicited that clearly undercut the validity of the figures. The
numbers were the result of double counting, interpretations of the bill the
Administration's own experts admitted were "unreasonable" and the fundamental
fallacy that even if the bill precluded the mining of a certain amount of coal
reserves, the loss in reserves could be equalled with loss of production. Given
the fact that by the most conservative estimate there are 136 billion tons of
strippable coal and almost 300 billion tons of deep minable coal in this
country, such an assumption defies logic. Moreover, the hearings established
the point somewhat obscured in the Administration pronouncements, that the
"lost" jobs were not jobs that currently exist but hypothetical jobs based on
projected inreases of production in the future. These alarming loss figures
were grounded mainly on coal in a particular area that might never be strip
mined because the land could not be reclaimed - despite the fact that billions
of tons of other coal could be mined where the land could be reclaimed: the
tonnage and job loss estimates and price projections were based on these
assumptions.
4 Following the President's veto of H.R. 25, the Committee attempted to
review the background data and studies upon which the projections were made.
Frequent and specific requests were made, but the data was never forthcoming.
It soon became apparent that the reason the data base or analysis were
unavailable was because, in fact, no professional economic impact analysis, no
properly designed site specific study was ever completed.
5 Instead, an investigation following the override veto by two
Washington-based journalists n2 uncovered the fact that "some of the material
designed to substantiate the production losses was hastily assembled after the
veto was announced, in preparation for a congressional hearing." This
investigation produces a clear pattern.A systematic economic impact analysis was
not attempted but, instead, the figures were based on nonscientific interviews,
many by long-distance phone calls, to various operators and industry groups who
had lobbied against the bill, "a lot of guessing," by Department employees, and,
in some cases, on completely erroneous assumptions about the key provisions of
the bill (e.g. Department of Interior officials were assuming the bill banned
mining on steep slopes, when in fact, it did no such thing). But in the nature
of such debates, when such numbers as 162 million tons or 36,000 jobs enter the
discussion, it's nearly impossible to exise them from the controversy even
though they were based on analysis one Bureau of Mines employee called "mushy".
5 n2 See appendix 2.
5 For the Committee, a more reliable method to predict what is going to
happen, is to look at what has happened in the past.In recent times where more
stringent surface mining regulations have been imposed, production doesn't go
down, it goes up. The most telling example is that of the State with one of the
toughest surface mining laws, Pennsylvania.
5 In 1963, the Pennsylvania law was strengthened to include many of the
environmental protection features now contained in H.R. 9725. Not only was
there no significant impact on production in the years immediately following
implementation of the new law, but also during the 10-year period since
implementation overall production has increased 17 to 18 percent. Moreover, the
Pennsylvania law has not had the effect of driving small operators out of
business. Currently, approximately half of the operators in Pennsylvania mine
less than 50,000 tons per year and the number of bituminous strip mining
operations has increased from 542 in 1964 to 1,029 in 1974. It stands to
reason, that despite the protestations of industry, enactment of Federal
legislation similar to the Pennsylvania law would have the same result.
5 In testimony before the Committee, however, the Administration countered
that the Federal bill and the Pennsylvania law were not analogous. According to
John Hill, Deputy Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration, the
Pennsylvania law is somehow riddled with variance procedures not found in the
proposed Federal legislation. Mr. Hill testified that:
5 "The Pennsylvania law has a number of key provisions which allow the state
regulatory authority to grant variances or exemptions, or requirements of the
Act, particularly to small miners."
5 Upon learning of this assertion, Walter N. Heine, the person charged with
administering the Pennsylvania law was moved to write the Committee. He labeled
Hill's assertion as:
6 "[totally] incorrect. We diligently make every effort to treat coal
operators equally regardless of size. There is no provision in our law or
regulations, nor is it in our administrative policy to make special provisions
for, or grant variances to, coal operators on the basis of their size of
operation." n3
6 n3 Letter of Walter N. Heine, P.E., Associate Deputy Secretary for Mines
and Land Protection, Department of Environmental Resources, Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania (June 6, 1975)
6 In recent testimony before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs, Mr. Heine discussed the Administration's characterization of
Pennsylvania's law, and the justifications for vetoing H.R. 25.
6 "In further regard to the surface mining bill veto incident, the U.S.
Bureau of Mines estimated that H.R. 25 would result in production losses from 40
to 162 million tons for the first full year of implementation. From one-third
to one-half of that amount was attributed to the closing of small coal mines
with production of less than fifty thousand tons per year located principally
in the East.
6 Yet, environmental protection standards comparable to those in H.R. 25
are now in effect in Pennsylvania and have been for over ten years. A
Pennsylvania surface mine industry spokesman recently informed me that half of
Pennsylvania surface miners produce less than fifty thousand tons per year and
our bituminous surface mine production has increased over 30% during the last
three years. In other words, the Congress rightfully looked at the Pennsylvania
experience in regulating small operations and concluded that H.R. 25 would not
devastate small operators.
6 This type of information was never requested of us by the U.S. Bureau of
Mines or the FEA nor were we asked by these agencies to substantiate our figures
even after we supplied these data to the Congressional committees during the
drafting of the bill. In fact, a check into my telephone log and notes and
discussions with the technical staff of our surface mining control agency - does
not reveal any substantive communications, oral or written, with Bureau of Mines
or FEA officials concerning the probable impact of the Federal surface mining
bill on Pennsylvania coal operators. On May 22, 1975, two days after President
Ford announced his veto, I received calls from both FEA and Bureau of Mines
requesting data on the effect of Pennsylvania law on operators. On May 27,
1975, I received another call concerning the number of small Pennsylvania
operators mining areas where the ground slope exceeds 20 degrees. All of these
calls preceded Congresswoman Mink's hearing on the veto of June 3, 1975."
6 Mr. Heine's statement accurately summarizes three key points:
6 (1) Based on experience, implementation of H.R. 9725 will not result in
any serious disruption of coal supply from small mines;
6 (2) The agencies' conclusions regarding job and tonnage losses are
contrary to the history of strip mining legislation; and
7
7 (3) The data justifying the agencies' projections were based on informal,
unscientific procedures, conducted, to a large extent, after the projections
were issued.
7 Add the fact that the Committee has cleared up any ambiguities surrounding
the alluvial valley floors section, has grandfathered existing operations on
alluvial valley floors, and has extended the timeframe for a full year for
existing operations thus giving steep slope operators ample opportunity to
comply, it should be clear that whatever the validity of the Administration's
arguments against the bill, their objections are no longer applicable. To be
sure, enactment of H.R. 9725 should allow coal production to increase,
particularly in the West where development is hampered by uncertainty and
conflicting requirements.
7 After years of controversy, the reporting of H.R. 9725 gives the House the
opportunity to enact a sound and workable bill that can be approved with the
assurance that it will not interfere with meeting the Nation's energy needs.
THE PURPOSE OF H.R. 9725
7 The purpose of H.R. 9725 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 -
7 (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;
7 (2) establishing administrative, environmental, and enforcement standards
for regulatory programs to be administered by the States on non-Federal lands;
7 (3) providing authority for a Federal regulatory program to augment State
programs if necessary on non-Federal lands and establish a Federal regulatory
program for Federal lands;
7 (4) applying Federal standards to operations on Indian lands and
undertaking a study to develop a program under which Indian tribes may elect to
assume full regulatory authority of coal mining operations on Indian lands;
7 (5) establishing a program for the reclamation of previously mined and
inadequately reclaimed lands;
7 (6) establishing a program for designating areas unsuitable for surface
coal mining and a more limited program for minerals other than coal;
7 (7) establishing a new Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement for implementing provisions on this Act;
7 (8) establishing a Federal grant-in-aid program to the States for State
mining and mineral resource research institutes;
7 (9) establishing procedures for public review of the administrative and
enforcement program through access to data, hearings, inspections and standing
to sue for damages and for non-compliance with the Act; and
7 (10) recognizing the rights of surface owners and off-site water users.
7 Following the discussion of the need for legislation, the most significant
elements of the bill are described in greater detail.
NEED
8 COAL AND OTHER ENERGY RESOURCES
8 Coal has always been a major contributor to the United States energy
needs. For various reasons, the growth of the coal industry, as a portion of
U.S. consumption per year, has been relatively stagnant, or even declining
during past decade (see Table No. 1, p. 9). 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.
8 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. 9). 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. 9).
8 According to the latest Bureau of Mines figures, coal production in 1974
amounted to 601 million tons and coal production for the first ten months of
1975 was over 533 million tons.Total U.S. consumption was over 552 million tons,
while exports amounted to 60 million tons. The overwhelming majority of
domestic consumption was in electrical power generation (approximately 69
percent). Other uses included: bunker fuels, beehive coke plants, oven coke
plants, and other manufacturing and retail deliveries (see Table No. 4, p. 11).
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.
8 The Federal Energy Administration estimates U.S. coal consumption will
increase to 692.5 million tons by 1980. Of this amount, 612.9 million tons
(88.5 percent) is committed to the electric utility demand. Non-utility coal
demand is forecast to increase slightly, however, the demand for metallurgical
coals is expected to remain relatively constant during the period 1975 through
1980. The coal production estimated by the Bureau of Mines (Table No. 3(b), p.
10) is the coal that could be produced for the years 1977 and 1980 by ranges of
sulfur content and by state and general geographic areas in the U.S. Of the
national coal production having a sulfur content of one percent, or less, the
Appalachian region is projected to contribute almost 71 percent. The value of
the vast reserves of Appalachian low sulphur coal is enhanced by its
contribution to air quality. This factor becomes increasingly important as a
growing proportion of utility fuel needs are met by coal.
8 DISTURBED LANDS
8 Surface mining of coal in the United States involves the temporary or
permanent degradation of vast tracts of land. With some outstanding exceptions,
there has been little effort on the part of coal operators to restore disturbed
areas to their previous levels of productive capacity. The passage of laws
regulating coal surface mining in some 34 States has proven to be generally
ineffective in bringing about necessary reclamation of the disturbed land areas.
9
9 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. 12-13.) 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.
9 A report issued by the Soil Conservation Service of the Department of
Agriculture concerning the status of land disturbed as of January 1, 1974,
indicates the scope of the problem state by state. Quoting a previous estimate
by the Department of Interior to the effect that "153,000 acres of land were
disturbed in 1964 by strip and surface mining", the report notes that in past
years that rate has been exceeded by 35 percent.
9 "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. 14.)
*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 556,022
1974 552,709
n1
1975 414,507
9 n1 Preliminary figures for the first 9 months of 1975.
9 Source: Bureau of Mines.
*4*TABLE 2. - TOTAL
U.S. HYDROCARBON
RECOVERABLE
RESERVES
Number Times 1015Btu 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
9 Source: Bureau of Mines.
*5*TABLE (3)(A). -
COAL AS AN ENERGY
SOURCE IN THE
UNITED STATES,
PROJECTED
Year Total energy demand Energy demand for coal
Percent Percent
Trillion Btu increase Trillion Btu increase
1974 73 13
1980 87 19 17 31
1985 103 41 21 62
2000 163 123 35 169
*13*
TABLE
3(B).
-
ESTIM
ATED
COAL
SUPPL
Y BY
REGIO
NS
AND
STATE
S,
AND
ESTIM
ATED
SULFU
R
LEVEL
S,
1977,
AND
1980
*13*[
Thous
ands
of
short
tons]
Regio
ns
and
State 1977 sulfur levels of supply 1980 sulfur levels of supply
s (percent by weight) (percent by weight)
0.6 0.7 1.1 1.6 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.6
and to 0.9 to and and to 0.9 to and
under 0.8 to 1 1.5 over Total under 0.8 to 1 1.5 over Total
Appal
achia
n:
Alaba 10,56 28,47 12,35 9,02
ma 200 2,335 5 7,660 7,715 5 235 2,730 5 8,955 5 33,300
East
Kentu 24,88 19,15 23,03 17,39 92,50 29,59 22,77 27,39 20,68 9,57
cky 0 0 0 0 8,050 0 0 0 0 0 0 110,000
Maryl 1,67
and 100 125 155 1,500 1,880 11k 140 170 5 2,100
53,57 58,10 58,0
Ohio 4,530 0 0 4,900 00 62,900
Penns
ylvan 25,58 46,41 85,00 71,02 3,9 28,11 51,0
ia 935 3,570 8,500 5 0 0 5 20 9,340 5 00 93,400
Tenne 10,27 6,51
ssee 125 2,770 775 1,315 5,395 0 150 3,350 805 1,585 0 12,400
Virgi 13,47 15,83 42,90 15,70 18,45 1,60
nia 0 0 7,120 5,105 1,375 0 0 0 8,300 5,950 0 50,000
West
Virgi 19,75 47,28 17,00 12,97 47,15 144,1 22,19 53,13 19,11 14,58 52,9
nia 0 0 0 0 0 50 5 5 5 0 75 162,000
59,36 91,03 67,00 74,71 171,1 463,2 68,89 104,4 77,44 84,93 190,
Total 0 5 5 0 65 75 5 70 5 5 355 526,100
Midwe
stern
:
Arkan
sas 600 600 800 800
Illin 62,58 73,20 67,5
ois 2,415 2,710 5,490 5 0 2,605 2,925 5,925 45 79,000
India 29, 31,20 33,6
na 10 5 1,285 900 0 15 10 1,440 35 35,100
1,10
Iowa 1,100 1,100 0 1,100
1,300 1,300
Kansa 1,60
s 1,400 1,400 0 1,600
Misso 5,80
uri 5,300 5,300 0 5,800
Oklah 2,20
ome 90 270 455 1,985 2,800 100 300 500 0 3,100
West
Kentu 62,27 62,30 69,3
cky 25 5 0 30 70 69,400
165,1 177,9 182,
Total 2,505 280 3,170 6,800 45 00 2,705 315 3,435 7,395 250 196,100
Gulf: 10,07 11,25 23,63
Texas 1,180 0 0 2,770 0 26,400
North
ern
Great
Plain
s:
Monta 16,48 20,10 25,75
na 1,510 1,870 240 0 0 2,355 2,920 375 0 31,400
North
Dakot 12,95
a 5,945 3,665 3,005 335 0 9,270 5,715 4,685 530 20,200
Wyomi 29,20 32,70 44,65
ng 0 3,500 0 0 5,360 50,000
31,07 19,48 65,75 11,62 47,57 11,44 30,43
Total 7,455 0 7,405 5 335 0 5 0 0 5 530 101,600
Rocky
Mount
ain:
Arizo
na 3,875 3,875 4,600 4,600
Color
ado 4,475 2,200 110 15 6,800 5,130 2,525 125 20 7,800
New
Mexic 10,85
o 1,955 8,875 20 0 2,160 9,815 25 12,000
2
Utah 3,685 895 1,900 20 6,500 3,970 960 ,050 20 7,000
13,99 11,97 28,02 15,86 13,30
Total 0 0 2,030 35 5 0 0 2,200 40 31,400
Pacif
ic:
Alaska 800 800 1,000 1,000
Washi 12,40
ngton 8,000 8,000 0 12,400
13,40
Total 8,800 8,800 0 13,400
Total
,
Unite
d
State 92,11 134,3 80,79 111,1 336,6 755,0 112,4 165,6 97,29 146,4 373,
s 0 55 0 00 45 00 85 55 0 35 135 895,000
9 Source: U.S. Bureau of Mines.
*2*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
9 n1 Preliminary figures. Source: Bureau of Mines.
$5. - AMOUNT OF
TOTAL U.S. COAL
PRODUCTION PROVIDED
BY SURFACE MINING
Total tonnage
coal produced Percentage
(in million produced by
Year short tons) surface mining
1974 603 n1 54.0
1973 591 49.0
1972 595 48.9
1971 552 50.0
1970 603 43.8
1969 561 38.1
1968 545 36.9
1967 553 36.9
1966 5 34 36.5
1965 512 35.0
1964 487 33.9
1963 459 33.2
1962 422 33.4
1961 403 32.3
1960 416 31.5
1959 412 31.3
1958 410 30.0
1957 493 26.8
1956 501 27.0
1955 465 26.2
1954 392 26.3
1953 457 23.4
9 n1 Preliminary figures reflect reduced productivity in eastern mines due
to wildcat strikes. The percentage for 1975 is expected to be lower than that
for 1974.
9 Source: Bureau of Mines.
*6*TABLE 6. -
SUMMARY OF
ESTIMATED
RESERVES OF
STRIPPABLE
BITUMINOUS
COAL IN THE
UNITED STATES
n1
*6*[Million
short tons]
Minimum coal Maximum Economic
Remaining Available bed overburden stripping
Region and strippable strippable thickness thickness ratio
State reserves reserves (inches) (feet) (feet:feet)
Appalachia:
Alabama 607 134 14 120 24:1
Kentucky -
East 4,609 781 28 120 14:1
Maryland 150 21 28 120 15:1
Ohio 5,566 1,033 28 120 15:1
Pennsylvania 2,272 752 28 120 15:1
Tennessee 483 74 28 120 19:1
Virginia 2,741 258 28 120 15:1
West Virginia 11,230 2,118 28 120 15:1
Subtotal 27,658 5,171
Midwest:
Arkansas 200 149 14 60 30:1
lllinois 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
9 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.
9 n2 Includes 478,000,000 tons of reserves in Northern Alaska fields (North
Slope) that may not be economically strippable at this time.
9 n3 Strippable bituminous coal reserves for Idaho, Montana, New Mexico,
Texas, and Washington were not estimated.
9 Source: "U.S. Energy Outlook, Coal Availability," National Petroleum
Council, 1973.
*6*TABLE 7. -
SUMMARY OF
ESTIMATED
RESERVES OF
STRIPPABLE
SUBBITUMINOUS
AND LIGNITE
COAL IN THE
UNITED STATES
n1
*6*[Million
short tons]
Minimum Maximum Economic
Remaining Available coalbed overburden stripping
Region and strippable strippable thickness thickness ratio
State reserves reserves (inches) (feet) (feet:feet)
Subbituminous n2
Rocky
Mountain and
Pacific
Coast:
Alaska 6,190 n3 3,926 60 120 12:1
Arizona 400 387 60 130 8:1
California 100 25 60 100 1:1
Montana 7,813 3,400 60 60-125 2:1-18:1
New Mexico 3,307 2,474 60 60-90 8:1-12:1
Washington 500 135 60 100 10:1
Wyoming 22,028 13,971 60 60-200 1.5:1-10:1
Tota l 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
9 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.
9 n2 Subbituminous coal reserves not estimated for Colorado and Oregon;
lignite reserves not estimated for Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
9 n3 Includes 179,000,000 tons of undifferentiated subbituminous-lignite and
3,387,000,000 tons of subbituminous coal reserves in the northern Alaska Fields
(North Slope) that may not be economically strippable at this time.
9 Source: U.S. Energy Outlook, Coal Availability, National Petroleum
Council, 1973.
*3*TABLE 9. - STATUS OF
LAND DISTURBED BY COAL
SURFACE MINING IN THE
UNITED STATES AND NEEDING
RECLAMATION AS OF JAN. 1,
1974, BY STATES
*3*[Acres]
Reclamation not required Reclamation required by
State by law law
Alabama 57,878 118
Alaska 2,400
Arizona 150
Arkansas 9,451 494
California
Caribbean area
Colorado 4,687 641
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho 175
Illinois 49,748 2 0,891
Indiana 2,500 6,000
Lowa 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
9 Source: U.S. Soil Conservation Service.
15 SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
15 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.
15 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.
15 In the Western States and the Northern Great Plains region the discovery
of vast reserves of lignite and sub-bituminous coal has inspired plans for the
expansion of coal surface mining on a very large scale, thus major adverse
impacts to the region's land and people lie ahead. Since the climate is arid
and water therefore in short supply, the removal of thick coal seams and the
consequent disruption of stream and river channels forming part of the
hydrologic regime of the area will pose difficult and in some cases
insurmountable reclamation problems. A 1973 study by the National Academy of
Sciences entitled, Rehabilitation Potential of Western Coal Lands has this to
say about reestablishing vegetation in these circumstances:
15 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
econogical 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.
15 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 strated successful in rehabilitationg disturbed rangeland are
applied.(p. 3)
15 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)
16 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, socieconomic stresses and pollution loads of various kinds brought by
expected westward migration provide cause for genuine concern.
16 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.
16 Joe Begley (Blackey, Letcher County, Kentucky):
16 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 . .
.
16 Rullell Train (then Chairman, President's Council on Environmental
Quality):
16 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.
16 Dr. Moid Ahmad (Professor of Hydrology and Geophysics, Ohio University:
16 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.
17 Liane B. Russell (Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning):
17 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.
17 E. A. Nephew (Oak Ridge Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee):
17 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.
17 Ernest Preate (Attorney, Scranton, Pennsylvania):
17 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.
17 James L. Coen (Blacksburg, Virginia):
17 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.
17 Robert Handley (President, Coal River Improvement Association, West
Virginia):
17 (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."
17 James W. McGlothlin (President, Tri-County Independent Coal Operators
Association, Grundy, Virginia):
17 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.
18 Walter Heine (Associate Deputy Secretary for Mines and Land Protection,
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources):
18 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.
18 Henry Clandillon Phibbs II, Sierra Club, Wilson, Wyoming):
18 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.
18 Bruce Hagen (Commissioner, North Dakota Public Service Commission):
18 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.
18 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.
18 A NATIONAL ISSUE
18 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.
18 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.
19 STATE REGULATION OF COAL SURFACE MINING
19 Thirty-four States, responding to popular discontent regarding the social
and evironmental 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.
19 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. A recent survey of
Selected State laws reveals why such legislation has failed to cure the
environmental abuses associated with strip mining - the laws are, in many cases,
simply inadequate.
19 The survey, compiled by John C. Doyle of the Environmental Policy Center
(a Washington-based organization that favors enactment of a national strip
mining legislation) demonstrates that even recently enacted or modified strip
mining laws fail to measure up to industries claim that the States now provide
adequate protections.
19 For example, in one State not only can revegetation be deferred until the
"soil has become suitable" for planting (a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy as
it is improper mining techniques that can make the soil unsuitable in the
first place), but revegetation of current mining sites can be waived completely
if the operator agrees to revegetate some other previously mined area. Of the
other States examined in this report, many still fail to prohibit highwalls
(leaving an inherently unstable and hazardous condition), allow the
irresponsible placement of spoil on steep mountain slopes, fail to require
sufficient information about the mining and reclamation proposal, fail to give
interested citizens notice or access to the decisionmaking process, tie the
hands of the regulatory authority with unreasonable burdens, and are otherwise
inadequate.
19 Of course, there are strengths in many of these laws and some States have
implemented tough mining reclamation standards. But, on the whole, it is still
true that States are disinclined to impose tough standards on their own industry
because this puts local business at a competitive disadvantage. State officials
are not unconcerned about environmental preservation or the protection of human
health and safety, but as State regulation tends to seek the lowest common
denominator, the answer to this dilemma lies in the enactment of Federal
standards applicable to all operations.
19 The reasons for the failure of State regulation vary from State to State.
One factor in the disappointing record of State regulation is that the State
regulatory machinery has been unable to keep pace with the rapidly growing
industry. Even where State law is strong and unambiguous enforcement agencies
have often been under-staffed, under-equipped and under-financed. Political
influence is another factor in the failure of State regulation. Subtle or
otherwise, it is often used to moderate enforcement of State laws. In States
where the coal industry dominates the economy as a major source of jobs and
taxes, powerful leverage is available.
20 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:
20 A total of 6,565 linear miles (248,078 acres) were disturbed by contour
strip mining in West Virginia as of October 1971. However, mining affects lands
beyond the limits of the mines themselves. These affected areas could be from 3
to 5 times the area disturbed in mining or from 744,234 acres to 1,240,390
acres.
20 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 acress with less than 50 percent cover, more than 71
percent of all surface mined land would be considered not reclaimed . . .
20 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 . . . "
20 A second study, sponsored by the Appalachian Regional Commission and the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department for National 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
21 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.
21 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.
21 The obvious inability of the States to develop any coherent,
comprehensive national or regional policy covering the surface mining of
Federally-owned coal or coal under Indian lands is a further limiting factor
related to the broader aspects of regulation already mentioned. Federal grants
to the States and Federal enforcement standards uniformly applied to provide the
necessary minimum protection of environmental values and off-site properties
will ensure continuance of coal surface mining to meet the energy needs of the
Nation, and will also eliminate many if not all of the regulatory problems which
have plagued the States and frustrated citizens of the coalproducing regions.
21 SURFACE MINING METHODS AND TECHNIQUES
21 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.
21 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.
22 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.
22 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.
22 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.
22 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.
22 Following removal of the coal, reclamation of the mining site takes
place, in two phases.First comes the back-filling, drainage and regarding
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.
23 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.
23 New surface mining methods, such as mountain-top removal, are generally
modifications of existing methodology, made possible by the increased
versatility of different types of self-propelled machinery now available.
Combinations of rubber-tired and tracked vehicles together with semi-stationary
equipment such as augers, are often used to great effect. Most of this
equipment has been adapted from the construction industry and in fact is
sometimes used interchangeably.
23 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.
23 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.
23 Approximate original contour is equally valid when applied to midwestern
and western coal surface mining, inasmuch as the concept includes the idea of
blending the site into the surrounding terrain to the greatest degree possible.
It also embodies conformity to the prevailing hydrologic pattern. Because low
rainfall and erodability of soil severely handicap reclamation efforts in the
West, minimizing the impacts to the hydrologic balance of the mine site and
surrounding area takes on special significance in assuring that the reclamation
objectives of the Act are met.
23 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.
24 TIMELINESS OF FEDERAL REGULATION
24 A primary constrain upon the coal industry in discharging its reclamation
responsibilities has been the poor competitive position of coal relative to oil
and natural gas. In the 1940's and 1950's the industry experienced the trauma
of losing its steamship market to oil.Subsequently, the switch of railroads to
diesel engines and the relinquishment of the home heating market to oil and gas
further stunted the growth of the coal industry. Economic depression haunted
the coal fields for years, held at bay only by expansion of the electric utility
market for high sulful-low Btu steam coal, and by rising demand of Canadian,
Japanese, and other foreign steel mills for high Btu-low sulfur metallurgical
coal.
24 This picture has altered radically since the onset of the national energy
crisis precipitated by the Arab oil embargo. The Nation's dangerous
overreliance on imported oil and the parallel inadequacy of its domestic oil and
natural gas supplies have brought about a general awareness that increased
development of our coal reserves is necessary to provide for economic and
national security needs. The Federal Government has responded to the crisis
with a series of proposals designed to insure a long-range, continuous demand
for coal.
24 The Federal Energy Administration has instituted a program calling for
the conversion, where possible, of electric power generating plants to coal
consumption.And the Energy Conservation and Oil Policy Act of 1975 extends the
FEA's mandate. In the 93d Congress, the Energy Research and Development
Appropriations Act was approved. The ERDA budget for fiscal year 1977 includes
$4 05 million for coal research and development while the Department of Interior
requested $1 01 million for the coal programs in the Bureau of Mines and the
U.S. Geological Survey (see table No. 11).A large portion of these funds are
earmarked for coal gasification and liquefaction projects. Other funds are to
be expended on stack gas emission removal technology to enable the burning of
medium-and high-sulfur coal by electric utilities which are currently finding
the availability of adequate sources of low-sulfur coal conforming to the
requirements of Federal air quality standards limited.
24 These Federal programs signal a widespread commitment to the development
and utilization of coal in the Nation's energy future. The coal industry has
responded to this renewed interest with major increases in prices (see table No.
12).The f.o.b. price of coal for example, increase 85 percent from 1973 to 1974
while coal production increased percent during that period. The import of these
recent events is to belie the claim that fluctuations in demand for coal and
concomitant price uncertainties make the cost of reclaiming surface mined land
economically unacceptable. For although prices may fluctuate, the demand for
coal will increase.
*2*TABLE No. 11. - Research and development funds for coal as
authorized in the Presidents budget for fiscal year 1977
Energy Research and Development Agency:
Liquefaction $73,900,000
High Btu gasification 42,200,000
Low Btu gasification 33,000,000
Advanced power system 22,500,000
Magnetohydrodynamics 37,400,000
Direct combustion 52,400,000
Advanced research and supporting technology 37,100,000
Demonstration plants 107,200,000
Total 405,700,000
Bureau of Mines:
Coal mining health and safety R. & D 29,601,000
Advanced coal mining technology 59,960,000
Mined land investigation and demonstrations (anthracite) 3,831,000
Drainage of anthracite mines 200,000
Total 93,592,000
U.S. Geological Survey:
Coal resource investigation 2,873,000
Federal coal hydrology program 3,174,000
Federal State cooperative coal 2,000,000
Hydrology program 8,047,000
25 Source: Department of the Interior and the Energy Research and
Development Agency.
25 Because the industry can be confident that the Federal government is
committed to a program of research and development which will vastly expand the
market for coal, the future for the industry is assured.The coal industry can
also be assured of a reasonable return on its investment. On a per-Btu basis,
coal is now the cheapest of all of our energy resources. (See Table No. 13).
25 Thus the argument that reclamation is prohibitively expensive, if it was
ever valid, is certainly no longer so. With respect to the most stringent
performance standards, namely those associated with returning the mining site to
the approximate original contour, recent studies have shown that even in the
steepest Appalachian terrain, reclamation according to these requirements is
economically feasible using currently available equipment. There is evidence,
in fact, that compliance in some cases increases profitability to the oeprator.
25 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:
25 . . . 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.
26 (See Table No. 14).
26 The rise in the price of coal give this statement even greater emphasis.
Responsible spokesmen within the industry have pointed out that reclamation
costs are economically acceptable. For example, a report entitled "Coal and the
Energy Shortage" presented by the Continental Oil Company, (of which
Consolidation Coal Co., the Nation's second largest producer of coal is a wholly
owned subsidiary) states that:
26 even taking the largest of these (reclamation) costs would add only two
to three percent to the average residential electric bill.
26 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."
26 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:
26 . . . Coal prices remained relatively stable during the period
1958-1968, but since that time enormous price increases have occurred. These
price increases cannot be fully explained by increases in the cost of
production, for unit labor cost increases are of much smaller magnitude than
price increases. Nor do available data indicate that the coal operators were
attempting to rapidly expand output, for the evidence indicates that in recent
years the industry has operated substantially below normal capacity. These
finds are summarized in Figure 1.
27 [See Original]
28 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."
28 It therefore appears that the industry can absorb any increased costs of
reclamation consistent with the standards of the Act. (See Tables No. 16(a) and
(b).) When analyzing the price of reclamation one must consider the
opportunity costs of surface mining incurred when arable land is rendered
unusable and water resources are lost.
28 RESEARCH AND TRAINED TECHNICIANS
28 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.
28 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.
29
*4*TABLE 13. - COST
OF COAL VERSUS
OTHER HYDROCARBON
ENERGY RESOURCES,
OCTOBER
1973-OCTOBER 1974
Average price
Quantity Percent of (cents per
delivered total Btu's million 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
October 1975:
Coal (thousand
tons) 40,200 64.2 81.5
Oil (thousand
barrels) 35,900 16.2 198.1
Gas (million cubic
feet) 260,300 19.6 85.5
29 Source: Federal Power Commission.
*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
mined acre mined acre mined acre
$4,000 per 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
29 n1 Based on density of 1,440 tons of bituminous coal per acre-foot at 80
percent recovery, based on 1960 data.
29 n2 Montana entry changed to reflect mining of subbituminous coal in Power
River Basin.
29 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.
30
*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 5.3 3 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 3.2 5 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 3.7 5 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 5.95 6.95 10.67 8.53
1074 n2 n2 n2 15.75
30 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.
30 n2 Not available.
30 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
30 Source: "Concentration by Competing Raw Fuel Industries in the Energy
Market and its Impact on Small Business," hearings before the Subcommittee on
Special Small Business Problems of the Select Committee on Small Business, House
of Representatives, 92d Cong., 1st sess., vol. 1, p. 41.
*4*TABLE 16. - (B) - COAL
COMPANY SELECTED PROFITS,
3D QUARTER 1973 VERSUS 3D
QUARTER 1974
3d, 1973 3d, 1974 Percent change (sic)
Pittston $3,100,000 $27,500,000 787
Westmoreland Coal Co 1,030,000 12,800,000 1,242
Consolidation Coal Co 200,000 15,900,000 7,850
Island Creek 929,000 35,200,000 3,690
30 Source: American Public Power Association.
30 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.
31 It is well-known that demand for all minerals is growing rapidly, both
domestically and worldwide. Most of the known, rich, easily recoverable
deposits of minerals have been developed. The United States must now turn to
exploration for new deposits and development of known low grade ore
deposits.Research will also be needed into substitution, alternative uses of
minerals, improved mining and processing technology and deep seabed mining.
This effort will require an increasing amount of trained talent in the mining
and minerals engineering fields.
31 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.
31 DATA ON COAL RESERVES AND LEASES
31 Tables presenting following data have been included at the conclusion of
this section of the Report: Total coal reserves (see Table No. 17, p. 32);
Federal coal leases (see Table No. 18, p. 32). Indian coal leases (see Table
No. 19, p. 33).
32
*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]
Remaining measured and indicated reserves
Total -
All ranks Measured
more than and
Anthracit 14 in and indicated
e 3,000 ft as
Bituminou Subbitumi semianthr overburde percent
State s nous Lignite acite Total n of total
Alabama 1,731 0 n(2) 0 1,731 13,444 12.9
Alaska 667 5,345 n(3) n(4) 6,012 130,087 4.6
Arkansas 313 0 n(2) 67 380 2,420 15.7
Col orado 8,811 4,453 0 16 13,280 80,679 16.5
Georgia 18 0 0 0 18 18 100.0
Illinois 60,007 0 0 0 60,007 139,372 43.1
Indiana 11,177 0 0 0 11,177 34,661 32.2
Lowa 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
Virgina 3,561 0 0 125 3,686 9,817 37.3
Washingto
n 312 1,188 0 0 1,500 6,183 24.3
West
Virginia 68,023 0 0 0 68,023 101,186 67.3
Wyoming 3,975 25,937 n(3) 0 29,912 120,684 24.8
Other
States n(6) n(6) 46 0 46 4,721 1.0
Total 261,510 69,080 50,781 12,735 394,106 1,556,840 25.3
32 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 bituminous and anthracite and 5 ft or more for
subbituminous and lignite.
32 n2 Small reserves of lignite in beds less than 5 ft thick.
32 n3 Small reserves of lignite included with subbituminous reserved.
32 n4 Small reserves of anthracite in the Bering River field believed to be
too badly crushed and folded to be economically recoverable.
32 n5 Negligible reserves with overburden less than 1,000 ft.
32 n6 Data not available to make estimate.
32 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 37,013.56
Oregon 3 5,403.18
Utah 194 266,632.49
Washington 2 521.09
Wyoming 89 199,701.04
Total 524 776,756.20
32 Source: U.S. Geological Survey.
33
TABLE 19. - Coal leases on Indian lands
Leases Type of mining on producing leases
1. Peabody Coal co.:
Hopi-Navajo (Arizona):
(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 D Do.
3. Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co.:
Navajo (westtana), 13,237 acres Do.
4. El Paso Natural Gas Co., and
Consolidation Coal Co.: Navajo
(northwestern New Mexico), 40,287 acres
5. Westmoreland Resources: Crow
(southeastern Montana), 2 leases,
30,876 acres Do.
6. American Metals Climax: Crow
(southeastern Montana), 14,237 acres
7. Shell Oil Co.: Crow (southeastern
Montana), 30,248 acres
Source: Bureau of Indian Affairs.
ISSUES
33 MINERAL COVERAGE
33 Like its predecessors S. 425 and H.R. 25, H.R. 9725 carries forth the
decision of the 93rd Congress regarding mineral coverage.
33 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.
33 The case of controlling the environmental impacts from surface coal
mining can be readily made from the experience of strip mining in the
Appalachian and Mid-West coal fields. The potential for irreparable
environmental damage in the West clearly exists since it is not now known what
the long-term effects of area mining will be and whether successful revegetation
can be achieved.
33 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.
33 Surface mining of minerals other than coal also presents environmental
issues. The Committee found however, that the numerous distinctions
34 between the mining technologies and associated environmental problems of
coal surface mining as opposed to surface mining of such minerals as copper,
iron and molybdenum militated against inclusion of all minerals in a single
bill. The Committee however, did adopt a separate title which is applicable
to such minerals. Title VI discussed elsewhere in this report, addresses the
serious problem of the development of minerals owned by the Federal Government
in residential or urban areas or other locations that are inappropriate from a
rational land use planning viewpoint.
34 FLEXIBILITY
34 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.
34 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.
34 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.
35 STATE AND FEDERAL LAND PROGRAMS
35 Every State which has, or contemplates having, coal surface mining
operations is provided with the opportunity to prepare a State program for the
regulation of surface mining within its borders. Within eighteen months after
enactment of this Act, each such State may submit its State program to the
Secretary of Interior for his approval, which must substantiate the existence of
appropriate State laws, adequate funding, qualified personnel, and a permit
system for surface mining and reclamation operations. Sec. 503(a). The
Secretary shall not approve the State program until he has held at least one
public hearing within the State, and he has received the written concurrence of
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (whose views he must
publicly disclose along with those of the Secretary of Agriculture and of
certain other Federal agencies) and unless he has found that the State has the
necessary legal authority and qualified personnel to enforce the Federal
environmental protection standards and has otherwise complied with the
requirements of the Act. Sec. 503(b).
35 Within six months after submission of the State program, the Secretary of
Interior must either approve or disapprove it. Sec. 503(c). In case of
disapproval, the State may resubmit its program within sixty days. The
Secretary has another sixty days to approve or disapprove the resubmitted State
program. Sec. 503(c).
35 A Federal program is to be implemented within a State only whethere the
State fails to submit, or the submittal or resubmittal has failed to be approved
by the Secretary, or where an approved State program or any part thereof is not
enforced or implemented by the State regulatory agency. Sec. 504(a). The
Secretary is required to receive a proposed State program even after the Federal
program has been established and when received must render his decision within
six months. Sec. 504(e). There is no limit placed on the number of times a
State may resubmit its State plan under these circumstances.
36 The bill permits the Secretary to extend the date for the submission of a
State program for 6 months if an act of the State legislature is required to
comply with the act. Sec. 504(a). Operators are required to obtain permits 6
months after approval of a State program of implementation of a Federal program.
Sec. 506(a). Mines operating under existing permits may continue to mine
without a new permit, however, if an administrative decision has not been
rendered during that period. Id.
36 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.
36 Subject to valid existing rights the bill prohibits all surface coal
mining on lands in the National Park System, the National Wilderness
Preservation System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, on Federal lands
within the boundaries of the national forests (exclusive of National
Grasslands), or the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. On all other Federal lands,
the Secretary is to prepare and implement a Federal lands program bringing all
Federal mineral leases, contracts and permits into conformity with all
requirements of the Act. Within six months after enactment of this Act, all
requirements of the Act must be incorporated into the terms and conditions of
every Federal coal lease, permit, or contract issued by the Secretary, rules and
regulations covering the preparation and submission of State programs,
development and implementation of Federal programs, and the permanent regulatory
procedure based on the provisions of Title V must be promulgated by the
Secretary within six months after enactment of this Act.
37 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.
37 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.
37 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 $10 million for the first fiscal
year and increasing to $2 0 million for the next two years and $3 0 million for
each fiscal year thereafter are to be available to the Secretary for these and
administrative purposes.
37 STATE MINING AND MINERAL RESEARCH INSTITUTES
37 In keeping with the decision that the Federal role should be one of
support and encouragement for ongoing State programs, and in view of the
advisability of building on already existing institutions in order to foster the
required growth of research and training in minerals engineering fields, the
Committee has provided for support to the States, on a matching basis to meet
this great need.
37 The rationale for establishing mining and mineral research centers for
the purpose of training manpower to meet mining industry's requirements for the
1970's and 1980's is illustrated by projected demand figures supplied in a paper
prepared by the National Planning Association, entitled "The Demand for
Scientific and Technical Manpower in Selected Energy-Related Industries -
1970-1985". The following table summarizes that report:
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
38 By contract, preliminary figures supplied by the National Association of
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges - indicate that the supply of trained
individuals in these areas will be severely deficient:
Number graduating per
Category year
1974 1975 1976 1971
Metallurgical engineers 269 314 285 327
Mining engineers 388 329 351 412
Petroleum engineers 395 381 398 547
38 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.
38 A basic grant of $2 00,000 for the first fiscal year, would be limited to
one qualified public college or university in a State conducting research and
education in minerals engineering fields. The grant in the second year would be
increased to $300,000 and to $4 00,000 for each fiscal year thereafter for five
years. An Advisory Committee on Mining and Minerals Research consisting of the
heads of various Federal agencies and four knowledgeable laymen, is to be
organized by the Secretary for the purpose of determining the eligibility of
applicant colleges and universities and to advise the Secretary on other aspects
of the program.
38 A qualified public college or university is one which has a "school,
division or department conducting a program of substantial instruction and
research in mining or minerals extraction or benefication engineering", for a
period of at least two years, employing at least four full-time faculty members
for such length of time. In States where more than one college or university is
eligible, the Governor is to make the designation. Where a State has no
eligible public college or university, the Advisory Committee is authorized to
allocate that State's allotment to one private college or university which it
deems to be eligible.
38 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, blological, geographic, ecological, and other aspects
of mining, mineral, resources and mineral reclamation."
38 Funds for specific mineral research and demonstration projects at the
institutes are to be drawn from annual appropriations of $15 million beginning
in the first fiscal year increasing by $2 million annually for six years. These
monies are to be available by application to the Secretary.
39 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
39 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.
39 H.R. 9725 major citizen participation provisions are as follows:
39 REGULATORY PROGRAMS
39 (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)
39 (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)
39 PERMIT PROCESS
39 (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)
39 (b) Exceptions from general environmental performance standards - H.R.
9725 provides for exceptions to specific environmental performance standings
relating to spoil placement, backfiling, and other specific standards. Notice
and a public hearing are required before such exceptions may be granted.
(Section 515(c)).
39 (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)
40 ENFORCEMENT
40 (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))
40 (b) A provision similar to that described immediately above is operative
after the interim period. (Section 521)
ELEMENTS OF MINE REGULATIONPROGRAM
40 The Committee is aware of the concern expressed by some that the
citizen suit provision will encourage the commencement of frivolous suits
brought by those who oppose all strip mining. Obviously, judges are quite
capable of dismissing frivolous suits early in the proceedings and further
protection is available as the judge may require the filing of a bond or
equivalent security if a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction
is granted.
40 INTERIM PROGRAM
40 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.
40 In the two previous passed-but-vetoed bills, the Committee took pains to
assure that the application of a new regulatory scheme would neither interrupt
ongoing operations nor hinder the opening of new mines. This carefully designed
scheme is described later in this section but it is important to note that in
addition to the various mechanisms adopted to insure continuation of coal
supply, H.R. 9725 contains the significant modification that no existing mine
will have to comply with any new standard for 1 full year after the date of
enactment and no new standard is applicable to any new operations for 6 full
months after the date of enactment. After these periods, operators will be
subject to only seven interim standards which control until the implementation
of the full program well after 2 years from enactment.
40 In other respects, the interim program of H.R. 9725 is similar to that of
the previously passed legislation as it is designed on the following principles:
41 (1) The legislation should require the substantial curtailment of the
most environmentally damaging aspects of surface mining relatively soon after
the enactment date;
41 (2) Requirements imposed upon the States during the interim period should
be capable of ready implementation by the States under present systems or
regulations;
41 (3) The scheme of the interim period should provide a smooth transition
into the implementation of the permanent program;
41 (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).
41 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).
41 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.
41 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.In addition to the procedure noted at the beginning of their discussion,
the Committee was also careful 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.
41 The Committee also recognizes however, 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 procedu