House Report No. 95-218
|
|
Legislative History House Report No. 95-218 |
| |
Mr . UDALL, from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, submitted
the following
REPORT together with ADDITIONAL, CONCURRING, SEPARATE AND DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2]
[Including the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate]
The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 2) 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 an amendment and
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
INTRODUCTION
57 The future of the coal incustry is bright. This is true for a number
of sound policy reasons, including the country's need to decrease its reliance
on imported oil, conserve its dwindling supply of natural gas and oil, and
proceed cautiously with the development of hazardous nuclear technology.
57 While coal in the past has contributed significantly to the industrial
and economic growth of the United States, the environmental and social costs of
coal extraction have been enormous. To this day coal mining in Appalachia too
often results in a legacy of polluted streams below multilated mountain sides
left treacherously unstable. In the arid West, permanent rehabilitation of
mined areas is yet to be demonstrated. If not properly conducted, current and
planned western coal development could leave behind barren wastelands
susceptible to continual erosion and disrupted groundwater systems,
significantly diminishing the productivity of agricultural areas. By imposing
workable reclamation standards nationwide through the enactment of H.R. 2, the
unnecessary degradation of land and water resources will be avoided as the
country makes good use of its abundant coal supply.
THE PURPOSES OF H.R. 2
57 H.R. 2 is the descendent of a number of bills dating back to the 92d
Congress. Although the Congress passed two bills (in the 93d and 94th
Congresses), both met a Presidential veto. As new environmental problems were
identified and mining practices evolved, the bills were amended so that it can
be rationally asserted that H.R. 2 now benefits from a 6-year evolution being
"fine-tuned" and updated as it moved through the legislative process. The
fundamental concept of "the strip mining bill", however, has remained constant.
Thus H.R. 2 is like its predecessors in that it would enact a set of national
environmental performance standards to be applied to all coal mining operations
and to be enforced by the State with backup authority in the Department of the
Interior. More specifically, H.R. 2 will implement a national system of coal
mining regulation by -
57 (1) Covering all coal surface mining (contour, mountaintop, area
stripping and open-pit operations) and the surface impacts from underground
mines and coal processing;
57 (2) Establishing administrative, environmental, and enforcement standards
for regulatory programs to be administered by the States on non-Federal lands;
57 (3) Providing authority for a Federal regulatory program to augment State
programs if necessary on non-Federal lands;
57 (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;
58 (5) Establishing a program for the reclamation of previously mined and
inadequately reclaimed lands;
58 (6) Establishing a program for designating areas unsuitable for surface
coal mining and a more limited program for minerals other than coal;
58 (7) Establishing a new Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement for implementing provisions on this act;
58 (8) Establishing a Federal grant-in-aid program to the States for State
mining and mineral resource research institutes;
58 (9) Establishing procedures for public review of the administrative and
enforcement program through access to data, hearings, inspections and standing
to sue for damages for noncompliance with the act; and
58 (10) Recognizing the rights of surface owners and offsite water users.
58 THE IMPACT OF CURRENT COAL MINING PRACTICES
58 Many of the hazards and environmental impacts of surface and underground
coal mining practices are well-known and have been documented in the legislative
history of the predecessors to H.R. 2. n1 Hearings conducted by the Subcommittee
on Energy and the Environment of the committee in January and February of this
year established that the problems associated with coal mining have not gone
away. Indeed, as new mining technologies have evolved, new problems have been
identified.
58 n1 See section of this report dealing with the legislative history of
surface mining legislation.
58 Among the side effects of coal mining in the humid areas of the East and
Midwest detailed in previous committee reports were:
58 Acid drainage which has ruined an estimated 11,000 miles of streams; the
loss of prime hardwood forest and the destruction of wildlife habitat by strip
mining; the degrading of productive farmland; 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. n2
58 n2 House Report to accompany H.R. 13950 (H.Rept. 94-1445, Aug. 31, 1976)
at 19.
58 In addition, as the scale of surface coal mining has expanded in
Appalachia, large earth-moving technologies have raised issues of stability and
planning that are not yet fully resolved. Moreover, despite claims from some
quarters that State reclamation laws have improved so significantly that Federal
mining standards are no longer needed, the hearing record abounds with evidence
that this is simply not the case. For a variety of reasons, including the
reluctance of the State to impose stringent controls on its own industry,
serious abuses continue. For example, in one State the Veterans' Administration
has suspended home financing in certain strip mining regions because poorly
regulated blasting practices of the area's mines have diminished residential
property values. The hearing record also contains testimony concerning serious
incidents of landslides, erosion, siltation, and other environmental problems
associated with the modern surface mining industry. In his testimony before the
subcommittee, Maj.Gen. Ernest Graves of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
addressed the corps' experience with loss of the utility of corps water projects
- amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars of wasted tax money - due to
siltation attributable to poorly reclaimed coal mining operations:
59 The most widespread damages resulting from the effect of mining upon the
water resource are environmental in nature. Water users and developers incur
significant economic and financial losses as well.
59 Reduced recreational values, fishkills, reductions in normal waste
assimilation capacity, impaired water supplies, metals and masonry corrosion and
deterioration, increased flood frequencies and flood damages, reductions in
designed water storage capacities at impoundments, and higher operating costs
for commercial waterway users are some of the most obvious economic effects that
stem from mining-related pollution and sedimentation.
59 In some small watersheds, other indirect economic and social problems can
be related to the overall adverse consequences of mining. In others, mining has
posed serious threats to life and property in the form of hazardous flooding
conditions or potentially dangerous pollutants. n3
59 The instream problems, primarily sedimentation and chemical pollution,
are related not just to surface mining, but to various other aspects of the
industry as well. Land disturbances caused by underground mining are equally as
significant as surface mining in some locations, and even more so in others.
59 n3 After the early April 1977 floods in the Appalachian coal fields, the
Appalachian Coalition also provided the Committee with information on the impact
of strip mining on exacerbating flood impacts, which information has been placed
in the Committee files.
59 Issues in the western mining were also addressed in the committee report
accompanying previous legislation:
59 In the Western States and the Northern Great Plains region the discovery
of vast reserves of lignite and subbituminous 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:
59 The potential for rehabilitation of any surface-mined area in the West is
critically site specific. Nevertheless, some broad principles apply to all
sites. The rehabilitation of a specific site will depend on the detailed
ecological and physical conditions at that site, the projected land use for the
site after mining, the available technology that is applied to the site, and the
skill in applying that technology.
60 We believe that those areas receiving 10 inches (250 mm) or more of
annual rainfall can usually be rehabilitated provided that evaporation is not
excessive, if the landscapes are properly shaped, and if techniques that have
been demonstrated successful in rehabilitating disturbed rangeland are applied.
(p. 3)
60 The drier areas, those receiving less than 10 inches (250 mm) of annual
rainfall or with high evapotranspiration rates, pose a more difficult problem.
Revegetation of these areas can probably be accomplished only with major
sustained inputs of water, fertilizer, and management. Range seeding
experiments have had only limited success in the drier areas. Rehabilitation of
the drier sites may occur naturally on a time scale that is unacceptable to
society, because it may take decades, or even centuries, for natural succession
to reach stable conditions. n3
60 n3 House report to accompany H.R. 13950 (H.Rept. 94-1445, Aug. 31, 1976).
60 Recent hearings and field investigations by the committee reveal that
these issues have not been settled with passage of time. If the Nation is to
increase reliance on western coal, at a minimum, the ground rules for mining
should be set and this will be accomplished by enactment of H.R. 2.
60 The committee is satisfied that the reclamation standards and procedures
of the reported bill will not result in any serious disruption of coal supply.
In this regard, the committee notes the concurrence with this view by Dr. James
Schlesinger, assistant to the President. In a letter to the committee
(reprinted later in this report), Dr. Schlesinger notes:
60 From the perspective of energy policy, I should like to express the
position of the administration regarding the strip mining legislation which your
committee has so effectively developed.
60 This Nation cannot expect to increase its reliance on coal unless the
mining and burning can be done in a healthful and environmentally sound manner.
The passage of clear and effective strip mining legislation is therefore a
prerequisite to greater use of coal as part of a sound energy policy.
60 Negative arguments have characterized the strip mining debate for too
long. Adequate safeguards of the land are not in conflict with a policy of
expanded coal production. The Nation's coal resource is quite large and the
portion of that resource made unavailable by this legislation is extremely small
- less than 1 percent of the resource base and no more than 5 percent of total
reserves. The modest costs of reclamation should not noticeably inflate fuel
prices. It is money well spent in terms of benefits to the Nation.
60 And, with expanded deep mining and more intensive reclamation efforts,
more, not fewer, jobs will result.
61 SUMMARY OF CHANGES
61 As indicated previously in this report, the provisions of H.R. 2 have
evolved over years of congressional consideration of the legislation. In the
last Congress, H.R. 13950 (a bill reported by the committee after the House
sustained the President's veto of H.R. 25) contained a number of changes
designed to meet the previous administration's objections to previous versions
of the strip mining bill. These modifications - largely retained in H.R. 2 -
were designed to help the smallto medium-size operator comply with the
requirements of the new act and include: (1) the assumption by the State
regulatory authority of the cost associated with water and core sampling
analysis operators; (2) the elimination of a coal exploration permit process;
(3) making certain permit application requirements optional; (4) giving the
State flexibility in setting the permit fees; (5) generally reducing the amount
of information required in the application and (6) limiting notice requirements
and permitting informal procedures rather than formal hearing on bond release.
61 The following is a summary of major modifications of H.R. 2 included in
the committee amendment:
MAJOR MODIFICATIONS - COMMITTEE REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO H.R. 2 AS
INTRODUCED
61 TITLE I - STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND POLICY
61 Section 101(d) and (g) - Findings
61 The committee amendment recognizes the urgent need for minimum national
environmental protection standards in light of the pending increases in coal
production to meet national energy needs and in order to eliminate competitive
advantages or disadvantages caused by possible production cost savings due to
inadequate environmental protection standards.
61 TITLE II - OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT
61 Section 201(b) - Creation of Office
61 The committee amendment increases the Secretary's administrative
flexibility by authorizing the use when appropriate of employees of the
Department or other Federal agencies to carry out purposes of the Office. This
allows the multiple use of skilled manpower.
61 TITLE III - STATE MINING AND MINERAL RESOURCES AND RESEARCH INSTITUTES
61 The committee amendment includes no significant change in this title from
H.R. 2.
61 TITLE IV - ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION
61 Section 401(b), (e-g), and (h) - Reclamation fund
61 The committee amendment sets aside 10 percent of the reclamation fee in
the first year and the period for which the fee is imposed by law, for
hydrologic planning and core drilling assistance on behalf of the small mine
operator. It sets a limit of $10 million for such assistance.
62 Subsection (e-g) provide requirements for the reporting of quarterly coal
production, penalties for misreporting and requirements of collection of the
reclamation fees.
62 Subsection (h) was modified by the committee to make discretionary the
reservation of up to 50 percent of the reclamation fee collected in any State to
be expended in that State, through an approved State reclamation program, for
mined land reclamation. Nonreserved funds are to be expended by the Secretary
for reclamation on the basis of need.
62 Section 404 - State reclamation programs
62 The committee amendment establishes a new authority for States to develop
their own mine reclamation program which identify priority areas for reclamation
based on criteria in section 402. Project proposals to carry out this program
are to be submitted to the Secretary annually after approval of the State
reclamation program and the State program for regulating coal surface mine
operations.
62 Section 406(a) and (b) - Acquisition and reclamation of abandoned and
unreclaimed mined lands
62 The committee amendment in subsection (a) provided a broad range of
options to the Secretary in acquisition of interests in lands in order to
enhance and expedite reclamation projects rather than limiting such
acquisition to "fee simple."
62 The committee also deleted the authority to construct public facilities
necessary to support housing for miners (subsection (b)) and substituted
authority for construction of a more limited range of facilities only as part of
mined land reclamation which creates public outdoor recreation areas.
62 TITLE V - CONTROL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF SURFACE COAL MINING
62 Section 502(b) and (c). Interim standards
62 A number of amendments to section 501 were adopted by the committee to
establish a mechanism to expedite the issuance of regulations covering the
so-called interim period after enactment of the act but prior to the
implementation of a full State or Federal surface mining program under the act.
62 Under subsection (a), the Secretary of the Interior is to issue interim
regulations within 90 days following the date of enactment. In order to avoid
any procedural delay in the issuance of the interim regulations, subsection (a)
waives any requirement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to
prepare an environmental impact statement.
62 Subsection (b) gives the Secretary up to 1 year to promulgate regulations
to implement the full regulatory program including technical requirements,
permit processor, and procedures for submission of State programs.
63 Section 502(b) and (c). Interim standards
63 Subsection (b) (and (c) were modified by the committee to accomplish two
changes: (1) To require existing operations to comply with the interim standards
within 9 months after enactment (H.R. 2 required existing operations to comply
within 1 year after enactment); and (2) to include the blasting provisions
within the interim standards and incorporate the modified mountaintop removal
provision of section 515 (see discussion of section 515(b)).
63 H.R. 2 gives the Secretary of Interior only a limited enforcement role
during the interim period (a step back from previous bills which required
regular Federal inspection).
63 Section 502(f)(2). Notice to State
63 Under H.R. 2, Federal inspeciton is to be ordered only when there is
reason to believe the act is being violated. The committee further modified
subparagraph (f)(2) to require that the Secretary to give notice to the State
regulatory agency prior to any Federal inspection during the interim period.
63 Section 502(f). Trained personnel
63 At the suggestion of State industry groups, the committee amended the
bill to require that Federal inspectors in the interim period be trained in the
techniques of surface coal mining.
63 Section 503(a). Non-Federal land
63 This subsection was amended to make it clear that a State normally has
jurisdiction over surface mining on non-Federal lands under the act unless the
State enters into an agreement with the Secretary to exercise jurisdiction over
Federal coal pursuant to sections 521 and 523 of the act.
63 Section 504(a)(5). Designations of Federal lands
63 H.R. 2 establishes a process for designating lands unsuitable for surface
coal mining. Pursuant to a series of amendments to clarify the role of the
States and the Secretary under the act, this section was amended to establish
clearly that only the Secretary of the Interior shall designate Federal lands as
unsuitable for mining.
63 Section 504(a). Time limit on submission of State programs
63 Consistent with the other modifications of the bill, to facilitate the
process of State compliance, the committee modified this section to give each
State up to 34 months to submit and receive approval of a State program (an
increase from 30 months under H.R. 2).
63 Section 506(b). Extension and transferability of permit term
63 The committee approved a number of changes in H.R. 2 to enhance security
of tenure in a permit issued under the act. For example, subsection (b) now
authorizes the issuance of a permit for a time period longer than the 5 years
authorized by H.R. 2 (where necessary for the lead-time financing of the
operation). Related modifications are discussed immediately below.
63 Section 506(c). Extension of due diligence requirement
63 H.R. 2 required the termination of a permit if mining has not commenced
with 3 years unless the operation is to supply coal to a synthetic fuel
facility. Under the committee amendment, termination may be avoided if the
regulatory authority finds that commencement of operations were delayed by
litigation. Moreover, the subsection was modified to provide that where a mine
is to supply coal to a specific major electric generating facility, the time
period requirement is satisfied at the commencement of the construction of the
generating facility itself.
64 Section 506(d). Renewal of permit procedure
64 The committee made a number of changes to the bill's provisions regarding
renewal of permits for the same area already under permit. Under the committee
amendments, the mandatory public hearing provision of H.R. 2 is eliminated so
that a hearing is necessary only when requested by a person having an interest
in the matter. Moreover, the committee amendment clearly places the burden on
opponents to the issuance of a permit renewal to demonstrate that the permittee
is not in compliance with the act.
64 Section 506(d)(1)(E).Limitation on information required on permit
renewal
64 The committee amendment adds the language "and necessary to carry out the
purposes of this act" limits the type of information that may be requested by
the regulatory authority on a permit renewal.
64 Section 507(b)(11). Application requirements
64 Inclusion of the term "probable" with respect to the determination of the
hydrologic consequences of mining, clarifies the intent of this planning
standard.
64 Critics of the H.R. 2 provision indicated that it might force operators
into a long period of monitoring prior to all mine applications.While in some
instances this may be needed, a clarifying amendment indicated that the
determination is to be a judgment based on existing as well as any necessary new
data. With respect to small mine operators, other provisions specify that such
data can be developed by a third party and supported by moneys from the
reclamation fund.(Section 507(c)).
64 Section 507(c). State regulatory authority analysis of core samples
64 H.R. 2 provides for assistance to smaller operators in the performance of
required core samples and hydrologic impact analysis. As modified, only
operators who mine less than 100,000 tons annually total from all operations
(H.R. 2 sets the limit at 250,000 tons) will be eligible to have the State pay
for their analysis. In addition, the committee amendment designates that such
work will be performed by a qualified public or private laboratory with the
costs assumed by the regulatory authority.
64 Section 507(f). Certification of insurance - explosives
64 The committee amendment inserts the phrase "including use of explosives"
in this section to clarify the intent that insurance is to be obtained to cover
all damages including damages resulting from the use of explosives.
64 Section 508(a)(2)(C). Land productivity
64 Pursuant to a number of modifications adopted by the committee to protect
prime agricultural lands, this new subparagraph was inserted to require that the
reclamation plan include an indication of land productivity prior to mining.
65 Section 508(a). Deletion of reclamation planning requirement regarding
air and water quality laws
65 The committee eliminated section (a)(6) that would have required that
applicant to indicate the "steps to be taken" to comply with other environmental
laws.
65 Section 509(a). Amount of bond
65 H.R. 2 and the committee amendment both set forth procedures for
determining the amount of a performance bond to cover the costs of reclamation.
H.R. 2 required that the level of coverage be based upon two independent
estimates. The committee eliminated this requirement and substituted various
factors to be considered in setting the amount of bond.
65 Section 510(a). Modification of permits
65 The committee amendment to H.R. 2 provides that in addition to the
authority to grant or deny an application, the regulatory authority may "require
modification" of the application. This allows the regulatory authority to
require that the applicant make changes in the plan during review of the
application. Such a process more fairly represents what actually happens and
provides more flexibility.
65 Section 510(a).Burden on renewal
65 Consistent with a number of modifications to section 505 designed to
assure security of tenure of permit, the committee amendment deletes the words
"or renewal" in subsection (a) to make it clear that the applicant does not have
the burden of demonstrating compliance upon renewal of a permit for the same
area already under permit.Rather, consistent with other provisions of the act,
the permit carries with it the right of renewal for the same area if the
operation is in compliance with the law.
65 Section 510(b)(3). Hydrologic impacts
65 Under H.R. 2, prior to approval of a permit application, the regulatory
authority is to make an assessment of the cumulative hydrologic impact of all
mining in the area of concern. The committee amendment clarifies the test to be
applied to this review. The words "significant irreparable offsite" damage have
been deleted in favor of language that specifies that the mine is to be designed
to prevent damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area.
65 Section 510(b)(5). Alluvial valley floor modification
65 H.R. 2 and the committee amendment contain a prohibition on mining of
alluvial valley floors - areas of agricultural significance in the Western
United States - in certain circumstances. In addition to adding clarifying
language in subsection (A), the committee amendment incorporates the test that
operations off alluvial valley floors but affect water systems that supply such
valley floors should "not materially damage" the supply systems. The phrase
"not adversely affect" was deleted in order to avoid a possible interpretation
that any operation off an alluvial valley floor may have some adverse effect on
the water system that supplies an alluvial valley floor.
66 The committee amendment also contains an expanded "grandfather" clause
exempting certain operations from the alluvial valley floor prohibition. Under
the amendment, the prohibition shall not affect operations engaged in the
commercial production of coal in the year preceding enactment, operations for
which the Secretary determines there were substantial legal and financial
commitments made prior to January 4, 1977, or operations subject to an approved
State permit to operate within the alluvial valley floor prior to January 4,
1977.
66 Section 510(c). Application requirement
66 Under the committee amendment, the applicant is to supply information
regarding previous violations of environmental laws for a period of 5 years
prior to the date of application. (As opposed to the original text of H.R. 2
which required this information for only 1 year.)
66 Section 510(b)(6). Surface owner consent over privately owned coal
66 The committee amendment includes a new condition for permit approval
designed to assure that coal rights which have been severed from the surface
estates will not be surface mined unless the parties to the severance, or the
surface owner or his assignee, contemplated that the coal would be extracted by
surface mining methods.
66 Section 511(a)(2). Deletion of requirement for permit revision on
proposed modified land use
66 Under the committee amendment and H.R. 2, the operator must apply for
revision of a permit when there is to be significant alteration in the
reclamation plan. The specific requirement for a permit revision prior to
modification of proposed future land use was deleted as unnecessary.
66 Section 511(c). Notice and hearing requirements on permit revision
66 The committee modification of subsection (c) requires notice and hearing
only when a major revision is proposed.
66 Section 512(d). Coal exploration on Federal lands
66 New subsection (d) of the committee amendment specifies that exploration
on Federal lands is to be governed by the Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1975.
66 Section 513. Hearing requirements
66 A number of modifications have been made to the public notice and hearing
section. These changes include establishing a test of standing consistent with
other provisions of the bill, clarification that the applicant is entitled to
request a hearing prior to the issuance of the permit, allowing the regulatory
authority to refuse a hearing if the objections filed are frivolous, deletion of
the requirement that the regulatory authority issue a preliminary proposal on
the permit application and establishing an informal conference procedure.
66 Section 514(a). Extension of period for action on permit
66 Under the committee amendment, the regulatory authority is required to
act on the permit application within 60 days of the close of the hearing. As
opposed to 30 days as provided by H.R. 2.
67 Section 515. Environmental protection standards
67 A number of amendments to section 515 were adopted by the committee
primarily to either clarify particular standards or to strengthen provisions
where recent information so indicated.
67 A new subsection 515(b)(7) was adopted which specifies certain standards
concerning soil preservation and reconstruction by horizons. These standards
apply only to the highly productive prime agricultural lands which have been and
are being used for agricultural production. The standards are designed to
assure full reclamation of the natural productivity of these lands.
67 The committee amended subsection 515(b)(10) to require the cleaning and
removal of siltation ponds in order to prevent the necessity for continued
maintenance of such structures after reclamation is complete.
67 The committee added a new subsection 515(b)(11) pertaining to the
disposal of surplus spoil which for instance is that spoil, due to expansion,
not necessary for the return of the site to its approximate original contour.
Specific standards, with respect to site selection, controlled placement,
compaction, drainage, configuration and engineering design are included in this
subsection.
67 The committee increased the flexibility of the standard controlling the
coincidence of surface and underground mining operations by providing that such
operations are jointly approved by regulatory authorities concerned with surface
mines and the health and safety of underground miners (section 515(b)(12)).
67 The committee amendment includes more comprehensive requirements
concerning notice to persons prior to blasting and maintenance of blasting
records (section 515(b)(15)).
67 The committee modified subsection 515(b)(17) by stipulating that access
roads could be left as part of reclamation to approximate original contour in
conformity with the change in section 701(2).
67 The committee amendment to subsection 515(c) removed the variance
procedure for mountaintop mining operations, reduced the economic, land
development and other tests required as justification for such an operation and
broadened the applicable postmining land use to include all types of
agriculture.The subsection specifies that a permit is required, and this is the
same permit required under sections 507 and 508 and the same hearing and other
procedures apply.
67 The committee amendment deletes the discretionary capability of mine
operators on steep slopes to place the spoil from the first short or initial
block cut on the downslope immediately below the bench. Surplus spoil is to be
disposed of as required in section 515(b)(11) as discussed above.
67 Section 516. Surface effects of underground coal mining operations
67 The committee amendment modifies the concern with potential subsidence
impacts to those surface land uses which could be materially damaged. Both
existing and reasonably foreseeable land uses are so protected.
67 Section 517(c). Inspection and rotation of inspectors
67 The committee amendment adds flexibility to the inspection procedure of
H.R. 2 allowing a partial mining inspection (a complete inspection is required
only every calendar quarter), eliminating duplicative language regarding
availability of reports and deleting the requirement that the regulatory
authority establish a system to rotate inspectors.
68 Section 518(a). Level of penalties
68 H.R. 2 provides that the size of the operator's business may be
considered in determining the level of a penalty for a violation of the act.
The committee amendment deletes this consideration.
68 Section 518(d). Prepayment of penalty
68 This modification provides that the penalty assessed under the Act shall
be prepaid prior to review of the penalty assessment. Upon the successful
opposition to the penalty, the money is repaid with interest.
68 Section 518(e). Penalties from bond
68 The committee amendment provides in addition to authorizing the Attorney
General to bring an action to collect civil penalties imposed under the act, the
Secretary may take the amount of the penalty from the performance bond posted
under the act.
68 Section 519(a). Notice on bond release
68 The committee amendment deletes the requirement that notice on bond
release occur on 5 successive days. Under the committee amendment, notice is to
be given once a week for 3 successive weeks.
68 Section 520(a). Limitation on citizen suits against an operator
68 The predecessor to H.R. 2 was amended in the last Congress to provide
that a citizen plaintaiff could not collaterally attack a permit issued under
the act through a suit against a permittee for a violation of the act itself.
Under the earlier amendment, suits against the permittee could only be brought
for violations of rules, regulations, orders or permits issued under the act but
not for a violation of the act itself. Although this was the intent of the
earlier version, there was a possible interpretation of subsection(a)(1) that
the term "any person" might be construed to allow a suit against an operator for
a violation of the act.
68 The committee amendment modifies the operative language to prevent this
possibility.
68 Section 520(a). Federal jurisdiction
68 Consistent with the Clean Air Act and other Federal laws, language is
included in the committee amendment to establish that the district courts have
jurisdiction over suits brought under the act without regard to the amount in
controversy or citizenship of the parties.
68 Section 520(b). Notice under oath
68 The committee amendment deletes the requirement that notice to relevant
authorities prior to commencement of an action be given under oath.
68 Section 520(d). Attorney's fees
68 The committee amendment authorizes the award of attorney's and expert
withness fees to any party to the litigation.
69 Section 520(f). Federal jurisdiction over tort claim
69 The committee amendment deletes subsection (f) of H.R. 2 which
established jurisdiction in the Federal courts over action for damages and
allowed the awarding of attorney's fees in such cases.
69 Section 521(a)(2). Abatement of violation
69 Although H.R. 2 allows the regulatory authority to order the cessation of
a violation that may cause imminent danger to health or safety or the
environment, the authority to order the abatement of the violation is not clear.
Language inserted in this paragraph is intended to remedy this problem. Similar
language is included in section 521(a)(3).
69 Section 521(a)(4). Continuing violations
69 H.R. 2 included authority to issue an order to show cause why the permit
should not be revoked in the presence of evidence of willfull or unwarranted
violations. The committee amendment modifies with provision so that a cessation
order shall be issued upon the finding of three serious violations within a
90-day period.
69 Section 522(a)(6). The designation of "grandfather"
69 Both H.R. 2 and the committee amendment require implementation of a
system for designated areas unsuitable for surface coal mining. H.R. 2
"grandfather" existing operations and those for which there were substantial
legal and financial commitments prior to September 1, 1974. The applicability
of the grandfather to operations where there has been a substantial legal and
financial commitment is updated to January 4, 1977 in the committee amendment.
69 Section 522(e). Mining in national forests
69 The committee amendment includes an exception to H.R. 2's prohibition of
coal strip mining in national forests. Under the committee amendment, surface
coal mining operations may be permitted on national forests lands without
significant forest cover west of the 100th meridian if the Secretary determines
there are not other specified values incompatible with surface mining and the
Secretary of Agriculture determines that surface mining is in compliance with
certain specified laws. Surface operations and impacts incident to an
underground coal mine are permitted. Surface mining is prohibited within the
boundaries of the Custer National Forest.
69 Section 523(c). Federal coal exploration
69 H.R. 2's requirement for a Federal coal exploration program is deleted in
the committee amendment as this matter is now covered by the Coal Leasing Act
amendments.
69 Section 523(c). Cooperative agreements with the States
69 The committee amendment provides that the Secretary can enter into
cooperative agreements with the States to allow the States to enforce the act's
requirements over Federal lands or Federal coal provided that the Secretary
retains his responsibility to approve or disapprove individual plans and to
designate Federal lands unsuitable for mining.
70 Section 526. Judicial review
70 The committee amendment avoids the possible ambiguity of H.R. 2
establishing judicial review in the "approprate U.S. Court of Appeals". Under
the committee amendment, the Secretary's actions national in scope (such as
promulgation of general regulations) will be subject to review in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia while actions relating to a particular
State's program are appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Circuit in which
the State is located.
70 Section 527 - Special bituminous coal mines
70 The committee amendment includes a modification (sec. 527(b)) to possibly
allow new mines on properties adjacent to those mines qualifying for the special
provisions which may be prescribed under this section.
70 The amendment made the issuance of such special provisions discretionary
on the part of the Secretary or regulatory authority. It also requires the
Secretary to change the special provisions pertaining to new mines to meet the
full environmental protection purposes of this act if the State weakens its
present laws with respect to such mines. These safeguards parallel a similar
provision in section 529 pertaining to anthracite mines and are added in order
to assure that existing State laws, regulations and decisions are not undercut
by the amendment.
70 TITLE VI - DESIGNATION OF LANDS UNSUITABLE FOR NON-COAL MINING
70 No substantial changes.
70 TITLE VII - ADMINISTRATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
70 Section 701(2). "Approximate original contour"
70 The definition of "approximate original contour" is modified in the
committee amendment to establish clearly that the concept includes the terrace
shaping of the spoil and leaving access roads.
70 Section 702(8). "Expectation of Death or Serious Injury"
70 The committee amendment includes new language in the definition of
"imminent danger to the health or safety of the public" to establish a test of
reasonable expectation of death or serious injury which is to be applied in the
enforcement scheme.
70 Section 704. Harassment of Inspectors
70 This new language makes it a criminal violation to unlawfully resist or
impede the performance by the Secretary or his agents in carrying out this act.
70 Section 705. Grants to States
70 The committee amendment authorizes a permanent Federal costsharing
program with the State for regulating surface coal mining operations. Such
cost-sharing is not to exceed 50 percent of annual program costs depending on
the availability of funds and secretarial action.This cost-sharing provision
replaced a phased Federal effort declining over 4 years.
71 Section 711. Experimental Practices
71 A number of witnesses indicated that superior land uses would be obtained
in contour mining by leaving a highwall and a bench. A small number of specific
examples were listed to support this contention.The committee amendment includes
modifications of this section to provide for limited exceptions from approximate
original contour standard on a case-by-case basis. The Secretary is to approve
each exception.
71 Section 712 - Authorization of Appropriations
71 The committee amendment provides a stipulated level of authorization for
the first 3 years and is open-ended thereafter.
71 Section 714. Surface Owner Protection
71 Both H.R. 2 and the committee amendment require that the consent of a
certain class of owner of private surface grant their consent to surface mining
prior to the leasing of federally owned coal beneath privately owned surface.
The committee amendment rewrites this section and deletes H.R. 2's limitations
on the amount of compensation that can be paid to obtain such consent.
71 Section 717(a). Authorization for Hydrological Soil Analysis for Small
Operations
71 The committee amendment limits the authorization to $1 0 million as
opposed to $40 million authorized by H.R. 2.
NEED
71 COAL AND OTHER ENERGY RESOURCES
71 Coal has always filled a major portion of the U.S. energy demand. The
proportion of U.S. demand met by coal, however, has declined throughout this
century. In 1974, coal contributed only 18 percent of the Nation's energy
supply, while petroleum and natural gas combined to produce approximately 76
percent of demand. Hydropower supplied a further 4 percent and nuclear power 2
percent.
71 The fact that coal represents over 90 percent of our total hydrocarbon
energy reserves dictates that coal will supply a significant proportion of our
energy needs in the future. In addition, two of the major factors contributing
to the decrease in the use of coal - the low prices of natural gas and imported
crude oil - have changed drastically since the oil embargo of 1973. As supplies
of natural gas and petroleum diminish and their prices escalate, the demand for
coal can be expected to increase. Coal will be depended upon to fill a larger
and larger proportion of the Nation's energy needs through the year 2000.
71 According to the Bureau of Mines, coal production in 1975 amounted to
654.6 million tons and estimated production for 1976 was more than 671 million
tons (tables 1 and 2). Total U.S. consumption was 556 million tons in 1975,
while 66 million tons were exported (table 3).
72
*3*
TABLE
1. -
TOTAL
U.S.
COAL
PRODUC
TION
AND
PERCEN
T BY
SURFAC
E
MINING
Total tonnage coal produced (in Percentage produced by surface
million short tons) mining
Year:
1976 671 n1 55.9
1975 654 55.2
1974 603 54.0
1973 591 49.0
1972 595 48.9
1971 552 50.0
1970 603 43.8
1969 561 43.8
1968 545 36.9
1 967 553 36.9
1966 534 36.5
1965 512 35.0
1964 487 33.9
1963 459 33.2
1962 422 33.4
1961 403 32.3
1960 416 31.5
1959 412 31.3
1958 410 30.0
1957 493 26.8
1956 501 27.0
1955 465 26.2
1954 392 26.3
1953 457 23.4
72 n1 Estimated figures.
72 Source: Bureau of Mines.
*7*TABLE 2.
- COAL
PRODUCTION
BY STATE
AND BY TYPE
OF MINING
*7*[In
thousands
of short
tons]
State 1975 (actual) 1976 (estimated)
All types Undergroun All types
Underground Surface n1 n2 d Surface n1 n2
Alabama 7,614 15,029 22,644 7,835 13,555 21,390
Alaska 766 766 706 706
Arizona 6,986 6,986 10,242 10,242
Arkansas 488 488 623 623
Colorado 3,446 4,773 8,219 3,309 6,119 9,428
Georgia 74 74 75 75
Illinois 31,875 27 ,661 59,537 31,071 26,874 57,944
Indiana 188 24,936 25,124 432 23,932 24,364
Iowa 363 259 622 291 289 580
Kansas 479 47 9 732 732
Kentucky:
Eastern 40,628 46,628 87,257 43,470 45,915 89,385
Western 25,004 31,353 56,356 24,594 26,221 50,815
Total
Kentucky 65,632 77,981 143,613 68,064 72,136 140,200
Maryland 104 2,502 2,606 234 2,510 2,744
Missouri 5,638 5,638 5,771 5,771
Montana 22,054 22,054 26,106 26,106
New Mexico 764 8,021 8,785 843 8,941 9,784
North
Dakota 8,515 8,515 11,199 11,199
Ohio 15,455 31,315 46,770 16,621 29,872 46 ,493
Oklahoma 2,872 2,872 2,952 2,952
Pennsylvani
a:
Anthracite 641 5,562 6,203 600 5,600 6,200
Bituminous 44,631 39,507 84,137 43,083 40,346 83,429
Total
Pennsylvani
a 45,272 45,069 90,340 43,683 45,946 89,629
Tennessee 3,806 4,400 8,206 4 ,373 3,882 8,255
Texas 11,002 11,002 14,215 14,215
Utah 6,961 6,961 7,880 7,880
Virginia 23,181 12,328 35,510 24,620 13,286 37,906
Washington 13 3,730 3,743 4,087 4,087
West
Virginia 88,357 20,926 109,283 86,400 20,621 107,021
Wyoming 436 23,369 23,804 514 30,360 30,874
Grand total
n1 293,467 361,173 654,640 296,170 375,030 671,200
72 n1 Auger production included in surface because most strip and auger
operators report combined production for the 2 types of mining.
72 n2 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.
73
TABLE 3. -
Annual U.S.
consumption of
bituminous
coal, 1963-76
*2*[
In
thous
ands
of
tons]
1963 409,225
1964 431,116
1965 459,164
1966 486,266
1967 480,416
1968 498,930
1969 507,275
1970 517,158
1971 494,862
1972 516,776
1973 556,022
1974 552,709
1975 556,301
597,000
1976 n1
73 n1 Estimated figures.
73 Source: Bureau of Mines.
73 DISTURBED LANDS
73 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.
73 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. 4 and
5.) The fact that many of these deposits are extremely thick, as compared with
those of the Eastern and Midwestern 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.
73 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.
73 "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. 6.)
74
*6*TABLE 4. -
SUMMARY OF
ESTIMATED
RESERVES OF
STRIPPABLE
BITUMINOUS
COAL IN THE
UNITED STATES
n1
*6*[Millions
short tons]
Minimum coal Maximum Economic
Remaining Available bed overburden stripping
Region and strippable strippable thickness thickness ratio
State reserves reserves (inches) (feet) (feet:feet)
Appalachia:
Alabama 607 134 14 120 24:1
Kentucky -
East 4,609 781 28 120 14:1
Maryland 150 21 28 120 15:1
Ohio 5,566 1,033 28 120 15:1
Pennsylvania 2,272 752 28 120 15:1
Tennessee 483 74 28 120 19:1
Virginia 2,741 258 28 120 15:1
West Virginia 11,230 2,118 28 120 15:1
Subtotal 27,658 5,171
Midwest:
Arkansas 200 149 14 60 30:1
Illinois 18,845 3,247 18 150 18:1
Indiana 2,741 1,096 14 90 20:1
Iowa 1,000 180 28 120 18:1
Kansas 1,388 375 12 120 15:1
Kentucky -
West 4,746 977 24 150 18:1
Michigan 6 1 28 100 20:1
Missouri 3,425 1,160 12 120 15:1
Oklahoma 343 111 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
74 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.
74 n2 Includes 478,000,000 tons of reserves in Northern Alaska fields (North
Slope) that may not be economically strippable at this time.
74 n3 Strippable bituminous coal reserves for Idaho, Montana, New Mexico,
Texas, and Washington were not estimated.
74 Source: "U.S. Energy Outlook, Coal Availability," National Petroleum
Council, 1973.
75
*6*TABLE 5. -
SUMMARY OF
ESTIMATED
RESERVES OF
STRIPPABLE
SUBBITUMINOUS
AND LIGNITE
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)
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
Total 40,338 24,318
Lignite
Southwest:
Arkansas 32 25 60 100 15:1
Texas 3,272 1,309 60 90 15:1
Subtotal 3,304 1,334
Rocky
Mountain and
Pacific
Coast:
Alaska 8 5 0 0 0
Montana 7,058 3,497 60 60-125 2:1-18:1
North Dakota 5,239 2,075 60 50-125 3:1-12:1
South Dakota 399 160 60 100 12:1
Subtotal 12,704 5,737
Total 16,008 7,071
Total, all
ranks 119,112 44,986
75 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 Virignia 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.
75 n2 Subbituminous coal reserves not estimated for Colorado and Oregon;
lignite reserves not estimated for Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
75 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.
75 Source: U.S. Energy Outlook, Coal Availability, National Petroleum
Council, 1973.
76
*3*TABLE 6. - STATUS OF
LAND DISTURBED BY COAL
SURFACE MINING IN THE
UNITED STATES AND NEEDING
RECLAMATION AS OF JAN. 1,
1974, BY STATES
*3*[Acres]
Reclamation not required Reclamation required by
State by law law
Alabama 57,878 118
Alaska 2,400
Arizona 150
Arkansas 9,451 494
California
Caribbean area
Colorado 4,687 641
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho 175
Illinois 49,748 20,891
Indiana 2,500 6,000
Iowa 25,650
Kansas 43,700 2,500
Kentucky 69,000 117,000
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland 2,250 3,851
Massachusetts
Michigan 500
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri 75,506 1,250
Montana 300 300
Nebraska
Nevada
New 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
76 Source: U.S. Soil Conservation Service.
76 SURFACE MINING METHODS AND TECHNIQUES
76 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.
77 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
down-hill 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. Traditional
Appalachian contour mine is shown in Figure 1. Mountaintop mining is another
practice occurring on the steep topography of the Appalachian Mountains. 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. Often the overburden is dumped 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.
77 In recent years, some mountaintop removal operations have caused serious
environmental problems in the Appalachian area. The key cause of these problems
has been the "valley" fill or "head-of-hollow" fill techniques utilized to
dispose of excess spoil material. Valley fills require complex engineering to
insure stability of the fill and sound drainage control. Mountaintop removal
operations which maintain virtually all the spoil material on the mountaintop
avoid such complexities. While design of such operations is site-specific, in
areas which have previously been contour mined, it is quite feasible to keep all
the excess spoil on the mountaintop. This has the added advantage of achieving
reclamation of a previously mined and in many cases unreclaimed abandoned area.
77 Area mining occurs on flat or rolling countryside, 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 can result 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.
77 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.
78 [See Original]
79 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 draglines, wheel
excavators and power shovels are preferred (Big Muskie, the world's largest
dragline, based near Cumberland, Ohio, weighs 27 million pounds and is capable
of moving 325 tons of rock at a time). Overburden removed is also usually the
limiting operation in production of coal from surface mines by virtue of the
characteristics of the equipment (swing time for shovels or draglines, etc.) and
the relative volume of material being handled.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.
79 Following removal of the coal, reclamation of the mining site takes
place, in two phases. First comes the back-filling, drainage and regrading
required to achieve the desired configuration of the surface and proper drainage
of water on or under it. Next comes revegetation: the preparation of topsoil,
fertilization, cultivation, and seeding or planting desired species.Special
equipment designed to spray a mixture of fertilizer, seed and mulch is widely
utilized either with trucks or with helicopters for revegetation on rough
terrain.
79 Both regarding and revegetation must be integrated into the total mining
plan of the operator. Some of the most serious offsite 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 on stable spoil areas. In
order to achieve this, performance standards relating to environmental
protection must be carried on concurrently with the mining operations, except
under special circumstances.
79 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 semistationary
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.
79 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.
80 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 offsite effects which threaten downstream
areas. The basic concept embodying this principle is returning the mining site
to its approximate original contour.
80 Approximate original contour is equally valid when applied to midwestern
and western coal surface mining, inasmuch as the concept also 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.
80 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.
80 TIMELINESS OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
80 Both the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974 and the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 have mandated, where possible, the
conversion of electric power generating plants to the use of coal. The Federal
Energy Administration's conversion program required by these two laws is
complemented by the work of the Energy Research and Development Administration
created in the 93d Congress, the ERDA budget for fiscal year 1977 included $4 05
million for coal research and development. The Department of Interior has
continued its coal programs in both the Bureau of Mines and the U.S. Geological
Survey and requested $1 01 million in fiscal year 1977. A large portion of
these funds finance 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 that currently
have difficulty locating adequate sources of low-sulfur coal conforming to the
requirements of Federal air quality standards.
80 These Federal programs signal a widespread commitment to the development
and utilization of coal in the Nation's energy future. In addition, the
increasing curtailments of natural gas and dependence upon imported oil can be
expected to increase the pressure to convert to the use of coal for boiler fuel.
The coal industry has responded to this renewed interest with major increases in
prices (see table No. 7). The cost of coal used in the generation of
electricity has more than doubled from 1973 to 1976, while quantities delivered
have increased only 20 percent. These events belie the claim that fluctuations
in demand for coal and concomitant price uncertainties make the cost of
reclaiming surface mined land economically unacceptable.
81 RESEARCH AND TRAINED TECHNICIANS
81 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 United States, 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.
81 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 nonrenewable resources in the United States; the
failure of the United States 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.
*5*TABLE 7. -
COST OF COAL
VERSUS OTHER
HYDROCARBON
ENERGY
RESOURCES AS
USED IN THE
GENERATION OF
ELECTRICITY,
OCTOBER
1973-OCTOBER
1975
Coal prices as
Average price a percentage of
Quantity Percent of (cents per the cost of
delivered total Btu's million Btu's) other fuels
October 1973:
Coal (thousand
tons) 33,600 56.1 41.9
Oil (thousand
barrels) 44,800 20.6 88.9 47.0
Gas (million
cubic feet) 302,600 23.3 35.5 118.0
October 1974:
Coal (thousand
tons) 38,900 60.1 80.9
Oil (thousand
barrels) 43,300 19.1 198.9 41.0
Gas (million
cubic feet) 284,600 20.8 53.2 152.0
October 1975:
Coal (thousand
tons) 40,200
64.2 81.5
Oil (thousand
barrels) 35,900 16.2 198.1 41.0
Gas (million
cubic feet) 260,300 19.6 85.5 95.0
October 1976:
Coal (thousand
tons) 40,100 64.7 86.9
Oil (thousand
barrels) 38,400 17.6 201.1 43.0
Gas (million
cubic feet) 233,100 17.7 109.9 79.0
81 Source: Federal Power Commission.
82
*6*TABLE 8. -
ESTIMATED
INCREMENTAL
PRODUCTION
COSTS FOR
VARIOUS
RECLAMATION
COSTS
Costs of reclamation, cents/ton
Calculated
production
per acre $1,000 per $2,000 per $3,000 per $3,000 per
mined n1 mined acre mined acre mined acre mined acre
Appalachia
region:
Alabama 4,030 24.8 49.6 74.4 99.2
Kentucky
(eastern) 4,460 22.4 44.8 67.2 89.6
Ohio 5,330 18.8 17.6 56.4 35.2
Pennsylvania 4,610 21.8 43.6 65.4 87.2
Tennessee 4,180 24.0 48.0 72.0 96.0
Virginia 5,900 17.0 34.0 51.0 68.0
West Virginia 7,060 14.2 28.4 42.6 56.8
Average 5,080 20.4 40.8 61.2 81.6
Central
region:
Illinois 7,200 13.8 27.6 41.4 55.2
Indiana 6,620 15.0 30.9 45.0 60.0
Kentucky
(western) 7,340 13.6 27.2 40.8 54.4
Average 7,050 14.2 28.4 42.6 56.8
Western
region:
Colorado 12,100 8.2 16.4 24.6 32.8
Montana n2 66,000 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
82 n1 Based on density of 1,440 tons of bituminous coal per acre-foot at 80
percent recovery, based on 1960 data.
82 n2 Montana entry changed to reflect mining of subbituminous coal in
Powder River Basin.
82 Source: Advance from Surface Mining and Our Environment, Department of
the Interior, 1967, p. 114. Coal Surface Mining and Reclamation An
Environmental and Economic Assessment of Alternatives, Council on Enironmental
Quality.
82 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.
82 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.
82 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 nees.
82 DATA ON COAL RESERVES AND LEASES
82 Tables presenting following data have been included at the conclusion of
this section of the report: Total coal reserves (see table No. 9); Federal coal
leases (see table No. 10). Indian coal leases (see table No. 11).
83
*8*TABLE
9. -
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]
State 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
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
Color ado 8,811 4,453 0 16 13,280 80,679 16.5
Georgia 18 0 0 0 18 18 100.0
Illinois 60,007 0 0 0 60,007 139,372 43.1
Indiana 11,177 0 0 0 11,177 34,661 32.2
Iowa 2,159 0 0 0 2,159 6,513 33.1
Kansas 328 0 0 0 328 18,678 1.8
Kentucky
west 20,876 0 0 0 20,876 36,482 57.2
Kentucky
east 11,049 0 0 0 11,049 28,850 38.3
Maryland 557 0 0 0 557 1,168 47.7
Michigan 125 0 0 0 125 220 56.8
Missouri 12,623 0 0 0 12,623 23,339 54.1
Montana 862 31,228 6,878 0 38,968 221,698 17.6
New
Mexico 1,339 779 0 2 2,120 61,455 3.4
North
Carolina n(5) 0 0 0 (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
Virginia 3,561 0 0 125 3,686 9,817 37.3
Washingto
n 312 1,188 0 0 1,500 6,183 24.3
West
Virginia 68,023 0 0 0 68,023 101,186 67.3
Wyoming 3,975 25,937 n(3) 0 29,912 120,684 24.8
Other
States n(5) 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
83 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 inches in bed thickness for bituminous and anthracite and 5 ft or more for
subbituminous and lignite.
83 n2 Small reserves of lignite in beds less than 5 ft thick.
83 n3 Small reserves of lignite included with subbituminous reserved.
83 n4 Small reserves of anthracite in the Bering River field believed to be
too badly crushed and folded to be economically recoverable.
83 n5 Negligible reserves with overburden less than 1,000 ft.
83 n6 Data not available to make estimate.
83 Source: "U.S. Energy Outlook, Coal Availability," National Petroleum
Council, 1973.
*3*TABLE 10. - COAL LEASES
ON FEDERAL LANDS
State Number of leases Tota acreage
Alabama 1 200.00
Alaska 5 2,753.14
California 1 80.00
Colorado 111 120,905.56
Montana 17 36,232.27
New Mexico 29 41,038.12
North Dakota 19 16,275.75
Oklahoma 53 87,103.56
Oregon 3 5,403.18
Utah 194 266,632.49
Washington 2 521.09
Wyoming 89 199,701.04
Total 524 776,756.20
83 Source: U.S. Geological Survey.
84
TABLE 11. - Coal leases on Indian lands
Leases Type of mining on producing leases
1. Peabody Coal Co: Surface mining.
Hopi-Navajo (Arizona): Surface mining.
(a) Hopi-Navajo, 40,000 acres Surface mining.
(b) Navajo, 24,858 acres Surface mining.
Southern Ute (southern Colorado),
19,452 acres Surface mining.
Northern Cheyenne (southeastern
Montana), 6
leases,, 16,035 acres Surface mining.
2. Utah International, Inc.: Navajo
(northwestern New
Mexico), 31,416 Surface mining.
3. Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co.:
Navajo (western
New Mexico), 13,237 acres Surface mining
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 Surface mining
6. American Metals Climax: Crow
(southeastern Montana),
14,237 acres
7.Shell Oil Co.: Crow (southeastern
Montana), 30,248
acres
84 Source: Bureau of Indian Affairs.
ISSUES
84 MINERAL COVERAGE
84 Like its predecessors S. 425 and H.R. 25, H.R. 2 carries forth t he
decision of the 93d Congress regarding mineral coverage.
84 Legislation introduced in the 93d 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.
84 The case of controlling the enviromental impacts from surface coal mining
can be readily made from the experience of strip mining in the Appalachian and
Midwest coalfields. The potential for irreparable environmental damage in the
West clearly exists since it is not now known what the long-term effect of area
mining will be and whether succesful revegetation can be achieved.
84 Moreover, the necessity to include regulation of the surface effects of
underground coal mining is also apparent to the committee. The Buffalo Creek
disaster, in which over 125 people were killed, resulted from the failure of an
impoundment constructed from waste from an underground mine. 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.
85 Surface mining of minerals other than coal also present environmental
issues. The committee found however, that the numerous distinctions between the
mining technologies and associated environmental problems of coal surface mining
as opposed to surface mining of such minerals as copper, iron and molybdenum
militated against inclusion of all minerals in a single bill.H.R. 2, however
does contain 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.
85 FLEXIBILITY
85 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, and establishment of viable vegetative cover 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.
85 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 it approval of H.R. 2 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.
85 STATE AND FEDERAL LAND PROGRAMS
85 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 18 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. Section 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. Section 503(b).
86 Within 6 months after submission of the State program, the Secretary of
Interior must either approve or disapprove it. Section 503(b).In case of
disapproval, the State may resubmit its program within 60 days. The Secretary
has another 60 days to approve or disapprove the resubmitted State program.
Section 503(c).
86 A federal program is to be implemented within a State only where the
State fails to submit, or the submittal or resubmittal has failed to be approved
by the Secretary, or where an approved State program or any part thereof is
not enforced or implemented by the State regulatory agency. Section 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 6 months. Section 504(e). There is no limit placed on the number of
times a State may resubmit its State plan under these circumstances.
86 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. Section 504(a). Operators are required to obtain permits
8 months after approval of a State program of implementation of a Federal
program. Section 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.
86 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.
86 Except where mining is prohibited under section 522 on 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 6 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 6 months after enactment of this act.
86 The Secretary may enter into an agreement with a State for State
regulation of operations on Federal lands under the criteria set out in section
523(c).
86 The committee amendment 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.
87 Assistance to the States for implementing interim programs is provided on
a nonmatching basis (section 712(a)). Additional assistance to the States in
developing, administering, and enforcing their State programs has been provided
on a matching basis, 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 712(b)) beginning
at $20 million for the first fiscal year and increasing to $3 0 million for the
next 2 years and such funds as necessary for each fiscal year thereafter are to
be available to the Secretary for these and administrative purposes.
87 STATE MINING AND MINERAL RESEARCH INSTITUTES
87 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.
87 The rationale for establishing mining and mineral research centers for
the purpose of tranining manpower to meet mining industry's requirements for the
1970's and 1980's is illustrated by projected 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
87 By contrast, preliminary figures supplied by the National Association of
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges - indicate that the supply of trained
individuals in these areas will be severely deficient:
Number graduating per
Category year
1974 1975 1976 1977
Metallurgical engineers 269 314 285 327
Mining engineers 388 329 351 412
Petroleum engineers 395 381 398 547
88 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 industrywide 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.
88 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 5
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.
88 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 2 years, employing at least four fulltime 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.
88 Although the institutes will conduct research in mining and mineral
resources, primary emphasis is expected to be placed on the training of
mineral engineers and scientists. Research may include "exploration;
extraction; processing; development; production of mineral resources; mining and
mineral technology; supply and demand for minerals; the economic, legal and
social engineering, recreational, biological, geographic, ecological, and other
aspects of mining, mineral, resources and mineral reclamation."
88 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 6 years. These
moneys are to be available by application to the Secretary.
88 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
88 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 other
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 citizens access to administrative
appellate procedures and the courts is a practical and legitimate method of
assuring the regulatory 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.
89 Major citizen participation provisions are as follows:
89 Regulatory programs
89 (a) Regulations - Ninety days following enactment, the Secretary is to
promulgate regulations for the act's interim program after holding at least
one public hearing.(Section 501) Within 1 year after enactment the Secretary is
to issue regulations covering the full regulatory program and a public hearing
must also be held on these regulations as proposed. [Section 501(b)]
89 (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)
89 Permit process
89 (a) Permit approval or denial - Under H.R. 2 prior to submitting an
application for a mining permit, the applicant must give notice of intention to
submit such application through newspaper advertisements and H.R. 2 required
that a hearing be held upon the filing of objections to the application.
(Section 513) Under the committee amendment, the regulatory authority may
establish an informal conference procedure and a hearing is not required if the
objections to the permit are frivolous.
89 (b) Bond release - A public hearing on a proposed bond release is
authorized by section 519 but the regulatory authority may establish an informal
conference procedure without prejudice to the rights of the objectors.
89 Enforcement
89 (a) During the interim program, upon 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 inspection during the inspection. Under the
committee amendment, notice must be given the State prior to such an inspection
(section 502(f)).
89 (b) A provision similar to that described immediately above is operative
after the interim period (section 521).
89 Section 520 - Citizen Suits
89 This section permits any person having an interest which is or may be
adversely affected to commence a civil action in a U.S. district court against
(1) the United States, any other governmental instrumentality or agency alleged
to be in violation of any provision of the act or regulations promulgated
thereunder or order issued by the regulatory authority or any other person who
is alleged to be in violation of any rule, regulation, order, or permit issued
pursuant to the act; or (2) a regulatory authority where there is a failure to
perform any act or duty under this act excepting discretionary actions,
including the Secretary. This section does not affect any rights including the
right to bring suit or remedies that the person bringing the suit may have under
any other law. It is the intent of the committee that the phrase "any person
having an interest which is or may be adversely affected" shall be construed to
be coterminous with the broadest standing requirements enunciated by the U.S.
Supreme Court.
90 Any resident of the United States injured in any manner through failure
of any operator to comply with the provisions of this act, regulations issued
thereto, order, or permits issued by the Secretary, may bring an action for
damages in U.S. district court.
90 Citizen suits in some instances may not be commenced before the
expiration of 60 days after an operator is notified of the alleged violation,
or, if the Secretary or State commenced and is diligently prosecuting a civil or
criminal action to require compliance with a mining permit, orders, or
provisions of the act. However, in such instances, the person may intervene as
a matter of right.
90 The court in issuing any final order may award litigation costs
(including reasonable attorneys and expert witness fees) to any party whenever
appropriate. This provision is intended to allow the courts to provide the
traditional remedy of reasonable counsel fee awards to private citizens who go
to court to insure that the act's requirements are being met. The provision
will not deter citizens acting as private attorneys general from bringing good
faith actions to insure the bill is being enforced by the prospect of having to
pay their opponent's counsel fees should they lose. It is the committee's
intention that this section be construed consistently with the history of
similar Federal statutes providing for award of attorneys' fees in citizen suit
actions. See Senate Report No. 414, 92d Congress, 2d session, 1972 United
States Code Congressional and Administration News 3747 (Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972); Senate Report No. 451, 92d Congress, 2d
session, 1972 United States Code Congressional and Administration News 4249-50
(Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972).
90 Thus, it is the Committee's intention that this provision be construed
consistently with the general principle that an award may be made to a defendant
only if the plaintiff has instituted the action solely "to harass or embarrass"
the defendant. United States Steel Corp. v. United States, 519 F.2d 354, 364,
(3d Cir. 1975). If the plaintiff is "motivated by malice and vindictiveness"
then the court may award counsel fees to the prevailing defendant. Carrion v.
Yeshiva University, 535 F.2d 722 (2d Cir. 1976). Thus, if the action is not
brought in bad faith, such fees should not be allowed. See Wright v. Stone
Container Corp., 524 F.2d 1058 (8th Cir. 1975); see also, Richardson v. Hotel
Corp. of America, 332 F.Supp. 519 (E.D.La. 1971); affixed without published
opinion, 468 F.2d 951 (5th Cir. 1972). This standard will not deter plaintiffs
from seeking relief under these statutes, and yet will prevent their being used
for clearly unwarranted harassment purposes.
91 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.
ELEMENTS OF MINE REGULATION PROGRAM
91 PERMIT SYSTEM
91 In any coal surface mining regulatory system, the determination that
reclamation can or cannot be accomplished in an area proposed to be mined
depends initially upon the judgment of the regulatory agency. Experience has
shown that without a thorough and comprehensive data base presented with the
permit application, and absent analysis and review both by the agency and by
other affected parties based upon adequate data, thus judgment has often
traditionally reflected the economic interest in expanding a State's mining
industry. Valid environmental factors tend to receive short shrift. To meet
this problem the bill delineates in detail the type of information required in
permit applications in section 507 and 508 and the criteria for assessing the
merits of the application in section 510.
91 The physical parameters of the mining site and its environs must be
clearly set forth in the application, so as to yield an accurate picture of the
geological, hydrologic, surficial, developmental, ecological and general land
use features of the landscape which will be affected directly or indirectly by
the operator. Due to the movement of water through the environment, the
hydrologic aspects of the application requirements will have the most profound
implications for offsite residents and the community as a whole. Both the
quantity and the quality of water supplies available to downstream users have
been destroyed by the abysmal operational and reclamation practices of coal
operators in areas where the State laws were insufficient or not enforced.
Except for selected information derived from test borings relating to
quantitative and qualitative analysis of the coal seam, all other such
information shall be open to public scrutiny, especially that pertaining to
toxicity.
91 The operator must show, through the vehicle of a mining and reclamation
plan, just how he intends to protect surface and ground water, (both on- and
off-site) and the rights of water users.
91 As part of a detailed description of measures to be taken in conformity
with the Act to prevent hazards to public health and safety, a certificate of
insurance covering on-site and off-site damage and personal injury is required.
91 Section 507 requires the submission of a reclamation plan along with the
permit application. The reclamation plan, the requirements for which are
detailed in section 508, is a blueprint for action, revealing the degree of
practicality of the operator's commitment. Postmining land uses are to be set
forth in detail along with necessary public or private support activities, so
that the transition from one mode of premining land use to a possibly different
mode of postmining land use is shown to be in keeping with the act and also
feasible. The plan must include a time schedule indicating how each step in the
procedure is to be carried out.
92 If mining is proposed on highly productive prime agricultural lands
(prime, unique, and other farmlands as defined by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Land Inventory, and Monitoring
Memorandum - 3), soil and productivity surveys are required for such lands
affected by the mining operation. Since special reclamation requirements
pertaining to soil reconstruction, and productivity are stipulated, the
application and reclamation plan will have to set forth specific measures to
achieve these standards.
92 Each application will be available for public review at an appropriate
place. The applicant must supply proof of newspaper notice that acquaints local
residents with the location of the operation and where the application may be
examined. This requirement responds to the committee's awareness of the
severe difficulty which local people frequently experience in attempting to
investigate the nature of impending surface mine operations.
92 Permit approval or denial must be based on a written finding by the
regulatory authority that (1) all the requirements of the act and rules and
regulations of the Secretary will be met; (2) reclamation that is required by
the act and the State or Federal program can be accomplished under the
reclamation plan contained in the permit application; and (3) the proposed
surface mining operation, if located west of the 100th meridian west longitude
would not interrupt, discontinue, or prevent farming on alluvial valley floors
or damage the quantity or quality of water in surface or underground water
systems that serve the valley floor (unless the area is subject to one of the
exceptions set forth in section 510(b)(5)).
92 In its review of the application, the regulatory authority must determine
specifically that the affected land does not lie within an area either under
study or under designation as unsuitable for mining pursuant to section 522.
Moreover, the regulatory authority must find that the operation is designed to
prevent off-site impacts to the hydrologic balance of the area affected as well
as performing an assessment of the probable cumulative impact of all anticipated
mining in the area on the hydrologic balance, and that any operation under the
applicant's ownership or control currently in violation of the act or of other
Federal air or water protection statutes is in the process of being corrected in
a satisfactory manner to respective regulatory agency.
92 Any valid permit issued pursuant to this act shall carry with it the
right of successive renewal upon expiration with respect to areas within the
boundaries of the existing permit and upon written finding by the regulatory
authority that terms of the existing permit are being met; that the operation is
in compliance with the environmental protection standards and with the approved
State program; that renewal will not jeopardize the operator's continuing
responsibility to satisfy any remaining reclamation responsibility; and that the
performance bond will continue in full force and effect. However, any portion
of a renewal application which concerns land areas beyond the boundaries
authorized in the existing permit shall be treated as a new application, subject
to all the provisions of the act pertaining thereto.
93 A successor in interest to the permittee is granted the right to continue
the coal surface mining operation while his application for a permit is under
consideration by the regulatory authority, so long as the operation is in
compliance with the permittee's mining and reclamation plan and so long as the
permittee's performance bond continues in full force and effect.
93 Since the act covers surface impacts of underground coal mining
concurrently with those of surface mining, underground coal operators will be
bound by permit requirements of the act. They are required to apply for
permits, the terms of which include standards relating to minimizing surface
subsidence, sealing portals and openings, disposing of mine wastes, constructing
impoundments for mine wastes, revegetating disturbed areas, preventing off-site
damages, and discharge of waterborne pollutants.
93 The Secretary is required to review the basic environmental protection
standards of the act and to make those necessary adjustments in the regulations
reflecting the inherent difference between surface and underground operations.
The Mine Enforcement Safety Administration is to concur in the issuance of such
regulations in order to assure full coordination between the Office and MESA and
the protection of the health and safety of miners, both on and off the mine
site.
93 LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS
93 With few exceptions, surface coal mining operation should constitute a
temporary use of the land. This concept is reflected in the permit approval
process as well as the environmental protection standards established by H.R. 2.
Both are premised on the goals of the legislation that land affected by surface
mining be returned to a form and productivity at least equal to that of its
premining condition, and that such condition will not contribute to
environmental deterioration and is consistent with the surrounding landscape.
93 Obviously, the principal performance standards (regarding to approximate
original contour, avoiding reckless spoil placements, revegetation and others)
have the same goal - restoration. Moreover, the permit process requires the
submission and approval of postmining land use and thus is designed to elicit an
evaluation of the operator's plan and ability to return the land to a useful
condition. The environmental and social stresses engendered by surface mining,
discussed elsewhere in this report, are well documented. It is this combination
of performance criteria and procedural requirements (coupled with the
designation process discussed below) to be established by H.R. 2 that will
assure the greatest possible minimization of the undesirable consequences of
surface mining.
94 On the other hand, surface mining also presents possible land planning
benefits as such mining involves the opportunity to reshape the land surface to
a form and condition more suitable to man's uses. In such instances, the
overburden and spoil become a resource to achieve desired configurations rather
than a waste material to be disposed of or handled by the most economic means.
The performance standards recognize that return to approximate premining
conditions may not always be the most desirable goal of reclamation and thus
appropriate exceptions to the general requirements are provided. As the
realization of such alternative postmining land uses as industrial, commercial
or residential development will often depend on the commitments or assurances
that necessary services will be available, evidence of such availability prior
to mining is a necessary part of the permit approval process.
94 The process for designation of land areas as unsuitable for surface coal
mining is also premised on the notion that successful management of suface
mining depends, in large part, on the application of rational planning
principles. While coal surface mining may be an important and productive use of
land, it also involves certain hazards and is but one of many alternative land
uses. In some circumstances, therefore, coal surface mining should give away to
competing uses of higher benefit. Section 522 establishes a program by which
such decisions can be made. Under this section, to become eligible to assume
regulatory responsibility a State must establish a process designed to provide
the technical data needed to enable the regulatory authority to make objective
decisions as to which, if any, land areas in a State are unsuitable for all or
certain types of surface mining.
94 The committee wishes to emphasize that this section does not require the
designation of areas as unsuitable for surface mining other than where it is
demonstrated that reclamation of an area is not physically or economically
feasible under the standards of the act. The other criteria for designation,
which relate to general planning and environmental concerns, are discretionary
and thus the State could determine that no lands should be designated
thereunder, or, on the other hand, could prohibit all or some types of surface
mining entirely. In addition to the discretionary designation criteria, the
designation process includes other elements of flexibility. For example, the
designation of unsuitability will not necessarily result in a prohibition of
mining. The designation can merely limit specific types of mining and thus the
coal resource may still be extracted by a mining technology which would protect
the values upon which the designation is premised. In addition, after an area
is designated, coal development is not totally precluded as exploration for coal
may continue. Moreover, any interested person may petition for termination of a
designation.
94 The designation process is not intended to be used as a process to close
existing mine operations, although the area in which such operations are located
may be designated with respect to future mines. The committee recognized that
an existing mine might not be one actually producing coal, because it was in a
substantial stage of development prior to coal production. Thus the meaning of
existing operations is extended to include operations for which there are
"substantial legal and financial commitments."
95 The phrase "substantial legal and financial commitments" in the
designation section and other provisions of the act is intended to apply to
situations where, on the basis of a long-term coal contract, investments have
been made in powerplants, railroads, coal handling and storage facilities and
other capital-intensive activities. The committee does not intend that mere
ownership or acquisition costs of the coal itself or the right to mine it should
constitute "substantial legal and financial commitments."
95 It should be noted that the designation process is structured to be
applied on an area basis, rather than a site by site determination which
presents issues more appropriately addressed in the permit application process.
The committee believes that the area by area approach of section 522 thus serves
the industry since such a process may, in advance of application, identify lands
which are either not open to surface mining or where surface mining is subject
to restrictions.
95 Although the designation process will serve to limit mining where such
activity is inconsistent with rational planning in the opinion of the committee,
the decision to bar surface mining in certain circumstances is better made by
Congress itself. Thus section 522(e) provides that, subject to valid existing
rights, no surface coal mining operation except those in existence on the date
of enactment, shall be permitted on lands within the boundaries of units of
certain Federal systems such as the national park system and national wildlife
refuge system), on Federal lands within the boundaries of any national forest
(except in those circumstances set forth in Sec. 522(c) of the committee
amendment) or in other special circumstances, that is within 100 feet of public
roads, 300 feet of public buildings or churches, or 100 feet of a cemetery.
95 As subsection 522(e) prohibits surface coal mining on lands within the
boundaries of national forests, subject to valid existing rights, it is not the
intent, nor is it the effect of this provision to preclude surface coal mining
on private inholdings within the national forests. The language "subject to
valid existing rights" in section 522(e) is intended, however, to make clear
that the prohibition of strip mining on the national forests is subject to
previous court interpretations of valid existing rights. For example, in West
Virginia's Monongahela National Forest, strip mining of privately owned coal
underlying federally owned surface has been prohibited as a result of United
States v. Polino, 133 F.Supp. 722 (1955). In this case the court held that
"stripping was not authorized by mineral reservation in a deed executed before
the practice was adopted in the county where the land lies, unless the contract
expressly grants stripping rights by use of direct or clearly equivalent words.
The party claiming such rights must show usage or custom at the time and place
where the contract is to be executed and must show that such rights were
contemplated by the parties." The phrase "subject to existing rights" is thus in
no way intended to open up national forest lands to strip mining where previous
legal precedents have prohibited stripping.
96 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS
96 Because of the evolution of the surface coal mining industry, reclamation
and environmental protection actions are often viewed as necessary evils to be
tacked on to the end of a process that has been developed for the purpose of
producing coal at the least possible cost. Experience with sound reclamation
practices, however, indicates that the best approach to mining and reclamation
involves the combining of both of these activities in one process. Thus there
is ample evidence to reject assertions that "the reclamation and mining
processes cannot be combined." In fact, the opposite is true.
96 The authors of one recent engineering study concerned with the design of
new and more environmentally acceptable mining systems observed in reviewing
current practices that "preproduction mine planning and design is not a
prerequisite to profitable mining" and thus for the surface mining industry in
the Eastern coal fields, "the mining methods employed in the early 1970's
remain essentially unchanged since their inception, even though equipment used
has changed over the years (e.g., the front-end loader has replaced the power
shovel for stripping and coal loading)." In addition "because reclamation
consists of a series of distinct post-mining activities - appended, as it were,
to existing mining methods - the potential for significant further reduction in
the environment impacts of surface mining is severly limited." (Mathematica,
page -.)
96 A basic tenet underlying this legislation is the priciple that the
environmental protection and reclamation, at a minimum meeting the standards in
this act, are a coequal objective with that of producing coal. The continued
selection of mining techniques by engineers whose primary objectives are the
most efficient removal of the overburden and transport of the coal is not
sufficient to be fully responsive to the purposes and intent of the act.
Moreover, if the mine design objectives include the environmental performance
standards as elements to be thoroughly integrated in the overall mining process
instead of treated as separate rituals to be performed merely because they are
required, then it is quite probable that accomplishment of the environmental
practices will become cost-effective.
96 The following is a discussion of the key environmental performance
standards of H.R. 2.
96 Return to approximate original contour
96 H.R. 2 requires that the mine site be regraded to the approximate
original contour. Moreover, the regrading standard of H.R. 2 was formulated to
cover all types of mining operations under all conditions. Thus it is, of
necessity, a flexible standard which contemplates different mining
circumstances. The bill's critics have alleged, to the contrary, that the term
"approximate original contour" imposes an overly rigid and impractical
requirement. It should be emphasized, therefore, that a reasonable
interpretation of H.R. 2 cannot justify the assertion that the bill requires
either the impossible task of restoration of the original contour or the useless
act of digging a new pit to obtain fill material to achieve full restoration of
the original topography.
97 As defined in the bi