Committee Publication No. 93-8
|
|
Legislative History Committee Publication No. 93-8 |
| |
MEMORANDUM OF THE CHAIRMAN
5 To Members and ex officio members of the Senate Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs' National Fuels and Energy Policy Study (S.Res. 45):
5 Legislation to control the adverse environmental and social impacts of
surface mining activities has been pending before the Congress for more than a
decade. I am confident that this session of Congress will see a Federal
regulatory law enacted. Too often, in my view, the Federal Government deals
with critical public policy problems without paying adequate attention to the
full consequences of proposed solutions. This has frequently been true in
matters involving degradation of our environment where actions have been
proposed based on emotional reactions without full consideration of all the
impacts of the proposal.
5 To better understand the problems presented by the admitted abuses of
unregulated surface mining and the policy options available to the Congress,
last November I requested the Council on Environmental Quality to undertake an
in depth study of various regulatory alternatives, their costs and benefits,
their impact on the environment, and how they would influence the social and
economic conditions of local communities. The Council's study was done by a
task force composed of representatives of a number of Federal agencies. It was
received by the committee shortly before the hearings on surface mining
legislation held March 13, 14, 15, and 16. The report contains a good deal of
information which has not been made available before. It should be of
substantial interest to the members of the committee and to the public at large.
5 Accordingly, I have directed that the report and its appendixes be
reproduced as a committee print so that it will be readily available to all
interested parties.
5 HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman.
LETTER OF REQUEST
7 NOVEMBER 2, 1972.
7 Hon. RUSSELL E. TRAIN, Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality,
Washington, D.C.
7 DEAR CHAIRMAN TRAIN: As you know, the 92d Congress devoted a great deal of
time and effort toward the development of Federal legislation to regulate
surface mining activities and to minimize the effects of these activities on the
environment. Unfortunately, Congress did not take final action on pending
measures to regulate surface mining prior to adjournment of the 92d Congress.
7 As chairman of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, I intend
to make every effort to see that strong and effective legislation is developed
to deal with the adverse environmental and social consequences of surface mining
activities early in the next session of the Congress.
7 While a great deal is currently known about the adverse environmental
impacts of many surface and underground mining practices, very little is known
about the transitional problems and the short-and long-term economic
consequences of the various surface mining regulatory proposals which have been
advanced. For example, many of the bills introduced in the 92d Congress
proposed various forms of prohibition and 'slope' degree limitations on surface
mining and reclamation activities. To a major extent, the debate over Federal
surface mining legislation has narrowed to the question of what the impact of
imposing various forms of slope degree limitations would be in terms of
improving the quality of the environment, as well as in terms of the future
availability of mineral and coal production to meet essential national
requirements for energy and materials.The ultimate effects that the proposed
bans and slope degree restrictions might have on the availability of mineable
coal reserves, on environmental improvement, on electrical power reliability,
and on the social and economic conditions of local communities have not been
clearly defined by the testimony received in congressional hearings or in
information currently available from the Federal agencies. In my view, this is
extremely unfortunate. Detailed information on these and other questions is
needed to enable the Congress to develop a regulatory framework which will
protect the environment and serve the interests of the public.
7 As you may know, on October 6, 1972, I introduced an amendment in the
nature of a substitute (amdt. No. 1713) to S. 630, the Surface Mining
Reclamation Act of 1972. Section 217 of my amendment authorized and directed
the Council on Environmental Quality to conduct a detailed study of the impacts
- social, economic, and environmental - of imposing bans and prohibiting surface
mining through the use of slope limitations. I am enclosing a copy of the
amendment, together with my introductory remarks for your ready reference.
8 In order to explore and better understand the extent of current knowledge,
the availability of information and the state of the art of regulating surface
mining activities I request that the Council organize an interagency task force
to explore these subjects in anticipation of further congressional action on
surface mining legislation. In view of the limited time available, I do not
anticipate that the task force would be able to develop the detailed and precise
information contemplated in section 217. I do, however, feel that a very
important purpose would be served if the task force and the Council could
identify existing sources of data and review the state of knowledge of mining
technology and reclamation and provide the committee with tentative answers to
the questions set forth in section 217 of my amendment.
8 I would appreciate it if this report were available to the committee no
later than February 1, 1973.
8 Sincerely yours,
8 HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman.
PREFACE
9 Surface mining withot adequate reclamation is leaving thousands of
acres of land scarred and unstable. Silt and acid mine drainage from surface
mining can pollute streams and lakes, destroy fish populations, impair wildlife
habitat and damage recreational values. Property and lives are also threatened
with landslides and floods.
9 There is no reason for us to continue accepting these damages from strip
mining. High levels of control can substantially reduce adverse environmental
impacts in most areas.
9 Recognizing these problems from surface mining, the President proposed the
Mined Area Protection Act in his 1971 Message on the Environment. Both Houses
of the Congress held extensive hearings, but no bill was enacted. Based on
these hearings and information developed from this study, the Administration
subsequently revised its proposed legislation and has sent to the Congress a
greatly strengthened bill to regulate the enviromental effecrs of surface and
underground mining. That legislation sets forth very stringent performance
standards that must be met by surface and other mining operations to protect
against environmental abuses.
9 On November 2, 1972, Senator Henry M. Jackson, Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, requested the Council on
Environmental Quality to conduct this sutdy of coal surface mining, including
the state of the art of mining and reclamation technology, a review of State
regulatory programs, and the social, economic, and environmental impacts of
slope angle prohibitions.
9 Given the time available, the report cannot be considered definitive or
all inclusive. Rather, it focuses on a number of major issues in regulating the
environmental impacts of coal surface mining which will be considered by the
Congress.
9 Many of the data are new, and they would not have been available without
the assistance of the Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior,
Department of Commerce, Appalachian Regional Commission, Atomic Energy
Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and
the surface mining regulatory agencies in the 16 States whose laws and
enforcement programs were surveyed. These agencies whose laws and enforcement
resources, and completion of the report would not have been possible within the
time available without their help. While the report embodies a great deal of
data and a number of ideas of these agencies, the resulting analyses and
conclusions are those of the Council on Environmental Quality.
9 The Council believes that legislative action is urgently needed during
this session of the Congress, and recommends prompt action on the
Administration's proposed Mined Area Protection Act transmitted to the Congress
as part of the President's Message on Natural Resources and the Environment.
9 RUSSELL E. TRAIN, Chairman.
SUMMARY
1 This report analyzes the environmental impacts and alternatives for
reducing adverse impacts from surface mining of coal; it does not analyze
surface mining or reclamation requirements for other minerals.
1 BACKGROUND
1 Surface mining, in which the overburden is stripped away to expose and
then remove the underlying coal deposit, can be divided into two general types -
area mining and contour mining. Area mining is practiced in relatively flat to
gently rolling terrain. Contour mining is practiced where deposits occur in
hilly or mountainous country. Augering - drilling horizontally into a coal seam
- is usually used in conjunction with contour mining on steep slopes to increase
the coal recovery rate.
1 As of 1972, 4 million acres of land had been disturbed by surface mining;
of this, over half was unreclaimed. Twenty thousand miles of highwalls remain,
and the water quality of thousands of miles of streams and thousands of acres of
lakes has been severely degraded. This disruption of wildlife habitat and
impairment of aesthetic and recreational values increases as mining continues to
be inadequately controlled.
1 SURFACE MINING TECHNIQUES - EFFECTS AND CONTROL COSTS
1 Although environmental damage from surface mining has been severe, it is
not an unavoidable consequence of all forms of surface mining. High levels of
control can substantially reduce adverse environmental impacts in most areas.
The types and severity of environmental damage depend not only on the mining
method used, but also on the level and timing of the reclamation which follows.
Table I contrasts in a subjective way the environmental effects of the different
surface mining techniques because actual quantitative data are not available to
measure differences in environmental impacts among mining techniques or to
measure the significance of such differences. Actual impacts from a given
surface mine depend on conditions specific to the site.
2
*10*
TABLE
1. -
ESTIMAT
ED
ENVIRON
MENTAL
EFFECTS
OF COAL
SURFACE
MINING
*10*[
Scale
for
severit
y of
environ
mental
indicat
ors: n1
3 =
Severe
adverse
impact;
0 =
Negligi
ble
adverse
impact]
*3*
Water
Land
use ( Health
adjacen and
t land safety Wildlif Aesthet
impact ( e ics (
Air and landsli habitat highwal
Mining Surface Changed polluti preclud des and and l and
techniq polluti Ground water on ed land floodin disrupt vegetat Total
ue n2 on water courses (dust) use) g) ion ion) n3
Area
mining:
Without
reclama
tion 1-2 0-1 1-3 2-3 2-3 0 1-2 2-3 9-16
With
reclama
tion n4 0-1 0-1 0-1 1 0 0 0 0 1-4
Contour
mining
(spoils
on
downslo
pe):
Convent
ional
contour
strip 3 0-1 2-3 2-3 3 3 1-3 3 17-22
Contour
strip
with
spoils
shaping 1-3 0 2-3 2-3 2-3 1-3 1-2 2-3 11-20
Contour
strip
with
terrace
backfil
ling 1-2 0 0-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 0-1 4-13
Contour
strip
with
contour
backfil
ling 1 0 0-1 1-2 0-1 0-1 1 1 3-8
Augerin
g from
narrow
bench 1-3 1-3 0-1 0-1 1-2 0-1 0-1 1 3-12
Contour
mining
(no
spoils
on
downslo
pe):
Modifie
d block
cut 1 0 0 1 0 0 0-1 0-1 2-4
Long
wall
surface 0-1 1-2 0 0-1 0-1 0 0 0 1-5
Augerin
g with
backfil
ling 0-1 1-2 0 0-1 0 0 0 0 1-4
2 n1 Indicators are for both temporary and pervasive impacts.
2 n2 Head of hollow fill technique is not rated here because its
environmental effects also depend on the technique(s) for which it serves as a
supplemental method for spoil disposal.
2 n3 Aggregating environmental parameters into a single index is difficult
and often involves value judgments with respect to relative importance of the
factors involved.These totals assume equal weighting of environmental impacts.
Use of other weights could alter the ranking of the techniques.
2 n4 This ranking is for area mining in the eastern and central coal regions
with adequate rainfall for vegetation. Area mining in the far west may well be
unacceptable unless vegetation can be reestablished.
3 For contour mining, several mining techniques can provide concurrent
reclamation with minimal disturbance and environmental impacts on adjacent
lands. One technique, the modified block-cut, although not applicable to all
sites, incorporates reclamation as an integral part of the mining operation.
Lands are reclaimed during mining by backfilling the previously worked area with
newly removed overburden. Except for the initial cut, spoils are not deposited
on the downslopes, and the land is almost immediately restored to its original
contour. As a result, landslides, water pollution, aesthetic blight, and other
environmental effects are reduced, although disruption during the active mining
operation cannot be completely avoided.Although not widely used now, it offers
one promising approach to reduce environmental effects in many, although
certainly not all areas. Auger mining - drilling directly into a mountain,
usually in conjunction with other contour mining - also minimizes environmental
damage when continuous reclamation is practiced. Other mining techniques,
properly carried out on appropriate sites, can produce substantially similar
levels of environmental impacts.
3 Costs of reclamation depend on the character of the desired reclamation,
on soil characteristics, local cost factors, coal seam and overburden thickness,
rainfall, and the like. Table II contracts total and incremental reclamation
costs for the demonstrated contour mining techniques summarized in Table I.
This analysis assumes a given slope and coal seam thickness. Both total costs
and incremental costs would be different under other conditions. The
combination of soe of these techniques with augering could substantially change
both the incremental cost per ton and possibly the relative costs of the
different reclamation techniques. Total costs of reclamation for contour strip
mining are $0.39 per ton for basic reclamation (shaping and revegetation of
spoil banks) and $0 .56 per ton for a higher level of reclamation by the
modified block-cut method. Other reclamation techniques such as terrace or
contour backfilling - which would require pulling spoil back up the downslope -
would cost more than the modified block-cut in achieving similar reclamation.
*4*TABLE II. -
ESTIMATED COSTS OF
MODELS OF CONTOUR
STRIP MINING AND
RECLAMATION
APPROACHES n1
*4*[In dollars per
ton]
Incremental
reclamation costs
Type and degree of Incremental above minimum now
reclamation Production costs n2 reclamation costs required n3
$
No reclamation
(conventional) 3.90
Shaping of spoil
bank n3 4.29 0.39
Terrace backfilling 4.59 .69 0.30
Contour backfilling 4.85 .95 .56
Modified block-cut 4.46 .56 .17
Augering from
narrow bench 3.45
Augering with
backfilling n4 3.51 .06 .03
3 n1 These cost estimates are for a hypothetical mine, using common
assumptions with respect to key variables such as slope, bench width, coal seam
thickness, etc. See Ch. 1 and App. E for details.
3 n2 Does not include coal cleaning, freight, or profits.
3 n3 Shaping of spoil bank required in all major Appalachian mining States.
3 n4 Assumes complete backfilling of bench, but only plugging of the first
few feet of the auger hole.
4 Given that most Appalachian States currently require shaping of spoil
banks, the estimated incremental cost per ton of coal with complete reclamation
would be $.17 per ton using the modified block-cut technique and $. 56 per ton
using contour backfilling. These cost increases represent 3 percent to 9
percent of current coal prices at the mine. Actual price impacts could be
different depending on many factors such as elasticity of demand or industry
pricing policies.
4 IMPACT OF SLOPE ANGLE PROHIBITIONS ON COAL PRODUCTION AND RESERVES
4 Because most mining on steep slopes is located in Appalachia, the impacts
on production and reserves would be greatest in that area. Central and western
United States coal reserves and production usually underlie relatively flat
terrain.
4 There were no existing data on surface coal mining production and reserves
as a function of slope angle. Methodologies were developed to determine these
distributions in Appalachia, and the data are summarized in Tables III and IV.
*8*TABLE
III. -
SURFACE
MINE
PRODUCTIO
N IN
APPALACHI
A AS A
FUNCTION
OF SLOPE
ANGLE,
1971
*8*[In
millions
of tons]
10 15 20 Undergrou
degrees- degrees- degrees- nd mine
0-9.9 14.9 19.9 24.9 25 productio
State Total degrees degrees degrees degrees degrees+ n, 1971
Alabama 11.09 4.66 1.55 1.77 1.77 1.33 6.75
Kentucky
(eastern) 33.10 0 .60 4.20 7.65 20.65 32.99
Maryland 1.47 .43 .66 0 .38 0 .14
Ohio 38.11 4.08 8.00 15.08 6.39 4.56 12.86
Pennsylva
nia 25.76 10.73 9.89 3.63 1.04 .48 44.29
Tennessee 5.34 .40 .13 .71 1.71 2.40 2.65
Virginia 9.00 0 .08 .20 .83 8.07 21.63
West
Virginia 31.92 1.83 4.43 2.71 8.43 14.46 78.76
Total 155.79 22.13 25.34 28.30 28.20 51.95 200.07
Percentag
e 100.0 14.2 16.3 18.2 18.1 33.3
*8*TABLE
IV. -
STRIPPABL
E
RESERVES
IN
APPALACHI
A AS A
FUNCTION
OF SLOPE
ANGLE
*8*[In
millions
of tons]
Total
deep
10 15 20 reserves
degrees- degrees- degrees- in
0-9.9 14.9 19.9 24.9 25 Appalachi
State Total degrees degrees degrees degrees degrees+ a
Alabama 169.84 124.79 16.42 13.19 10.04 5.40 12,774
Kentucky
(eastern) 766.52 44.80 38.84 106.36 219.36 357.16 37,639
Maryland 27.27 25.17 1.71 .26 .13 0 1,117
Ohio 1,334.01 961.04 256.44 102.92 13.42 0 36,505
Pennsylva
nia 1,293.48 1,116.24 161.34 10.16 3.42 2.45 66,011
Tennessee 135.66 75.85 8.51 22.24 24.26 4.80 2,094
Virginia 226.86 0 0 32.06 131.78 63.02 8,324
West
Virginia 2,507.01 364.52 592.04 475.87 608.86 465.72 90,059
Total 6,460.65 2,712.41 1,075.30 763.06 1,011.27 898.55 254,523
Percentag
e 100.0 42.0 16.6 11.8 15.7 13.9
4 The impact of a slope prohibition on production depends on the extent to
which alternative sources of coal production substitute for the production lost
on steep slopes. These alternatives include underground mining and shifting to
less steep slopes. There are a number of constraints to such shifts including
land availability and production lead time, capital availability, and matters of
concern to labor such as job location, working conditions, and health and safety
factors.
5 Tables V and VI summarize three possible impacts on production in
Appalachia from prohibitions of surface mining on slopes greater than 15 degrees
and 20 degrees. The high impact case assumes tht all production on steep slopes
is not replaced by other surface or underground mining. The low impact case
assumes all steep slope production outside of central Appalachia is shifted to
less steep slopes. In central Appalachia, production losses from precluding
mining on steep slopes would only partially be made up by a 10 percent increase
in underground mining and a small amount of shifting to less steep slopes. The
medium impact case assumes that steep slope production is shifted to less steep
slopes outside central Appalachia, with the exception of that conducted by small
miners. In central Appalachia, it assumes no surface mining on less steep
slopes but a 5 percent increase in underground production.
*4*TABLE V. - NET
PRODUCTION LOSS FOR
A 15 DEGREES SLOPE
ANGLE PROHIBITION,
1971
*4*[In million tons
per year]
Region and economic
area High impact case Middle impact case Low impact case
NORTHERN APPALACHIA
11. Williamsport,
Pa 2.81 0.72 0
66. Pittsburgh, Pa 15.12 3.11 0
68. Cleveland,
Ohio 6.20 1.24 0
64. Columbus, Ohio 9.03 1.80 0
65. Clarksburg,
W.Va 7.64 .31 0
Subtotal 40.80 7.18 0
CENTRAL APPALACHIA
52. Huntington,
W.Va.-Ashland, Ohio 25.45 22.18 12.54
53. Lexington, Ky 15.56 15.07 14.58
51. Bristol, Va 10.09 8.26 6.52
50.Knoxville, Tenn 11.60 11.40 8.31
Subtotal 62.60 56.91 41.95
SOUTHERN APPALACHIA
49.Nashville, Tenn 0 0 0
48. Chattanooga,
Tenn .46 .01 0
45. Birmingham,
Ala 4.42 .13 0
Subtotal 4.88 .14 0
Total 108.28 64.23 41.95
*4*TABLE VI. - NET
PRODUCTION LOSS FOR
A 20 DEGREES SLOPE
ANGLE PROHIBITION,
1971
*4*[In million tons
per year]
Region and economic
area High impact case Middle impact case Low impact case
NORTHERN APPALACHIA
11. Williamsport,
Pa 0.77 0.20 0
66.Pittsburgh, Pa 6.33 1.39 0
68. Cleveland,
Ohio 5.75 1.15 0
64. Columbus, Ohio 0 0 0
65. Clarksburg,
W.Va 7.26 .29 0
Subtotal 20.11 3.03 0
CENTRAL APPALACHIA
52. Huntington,
W.Va.-Ashland, Ohio 24.70 9.08 (6.55) n1
53. Lexington, Ky 15.56 15.07 14.58
51. Bristol, Va 9.81 8.06 6.32
50. Knoxville,
Tenn 6.69 4.82 2.96
Subtotal 56.76 37.03 17.31
SOUTHERN APPALACHIA
49. Nashville,
Tenn 0 0 0
48.Chattanooga,
Tenn .39 .01 0
45. Birmingham,
Ala 2.81 .08 0
Subtotal 3.20 .09 0
Total 80.07 40.15 17.31
5 n1 Gain.
6 A 15 degrees prohibition would preclude production of between 42 and 108
million tons annually, representing between 27 percent and 70 percent of
Appalachian surface mine production, 11 percent and 39 percent of total surface
production, or 7 percent and 18 percent of total U.S. production. A 20 degrees
slope angle prohibition would affect between 17 and 80 million tons annually,
representing between 11 percent and 51 percent of Appalachian surface mine
production, 5 percent and 29 percent of total surface production, or 3 percent
to 14 percent of total U.S. production. The immediate production losses from a
ban on steep slopes could approximate the larger quantity in each case. The
period of maximum loss would depend on the time necessary to expand production
from deep mines or from surface mines on lessteep slopes. This analysis dealt
only with production losses in Appalachia and does not take account of possible
substitution of coal production in other areas of the country, domestic
production of other fossil fuels, or imports of petroleum products.
7 An important amount of the coal production that would be precluded by
slope limits is low in sulfur and ash. This coal is not only valuable for steel
production and export, but has become increasingly important to meet the
requirements of the Clean Air Act. Appalachian surface mines produce about 30
percent of all low-sulfur coal used in electric powerplants. In central
Appalachia, which supplies 23 percent of utility low-sulfur coal needs,
virtually all of this surface-mined coal is produced on slopes greater than 20
degrees.
7 In Appalachia 41 percent and 30 percent of total strippable reserves would
be lost with 15 degrees and 20 degrees slope angle prohibitions, respectively.
Because the overwhelming majority of U.S. reserves is recoverable only by
underground mining, and because of large and as yet untapped reserves in the
West, the loss of reserves from a slope angle prohibition represents under 1
percent of the total reserves physically available.
7 REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF SLOPE ANGLE PROHIBITIONS
7 Although conditions are improving, Appalachia remains an economically
depressed area. Many parts of the region are highly dependent on all coal
mining for their existence - over 95 percent of basic earnings in some counties.
Unemployment and poverty levels are high, and per capita income lags behind the
rest of the country. While much of Appalachia is shifting to a more diversified
and viable economic base nonetheless, pockets of severe economic depression
remain.
7 The direct economic impacts of a 15 degrees and 20 degrees slope angle
limitation on Economic Areas in Appalachia are summarized in Tables VII and VII.
Although not definitive, these data indicate that a 15 degrees or 20 degrees
angle prohibition would not have an appreciable economic impact in major
sections of northern and southern Appalachia. The impact, however, could be
significant in nearly all of central Appalachia and especially in those
Appalachian counties where coal mining is a major source of employment and few
alternative employment opportunities exist. The direct earnings and employment
impacts in selected counties in central Appalachia could be severe. The total
economic impact on each area and county would be even greater taking into
account secondary income and employment effects. Because adjacent areas,
already depressed economically, may be experiencing the same economic
dislocations, the number of jobs outside these selected counties may also be
limited. This report does not analyze offsetting economic effects outside
Appalachia or secondary economic impacts.
8
*13*
TABLE
VII. -
DIRECT
ECONOM
IC
IMPACT
OF 15
degree
s
SLOPE
ANGLE
PROHIB
ITION
Econom
ic Baseline economic
Area data Scenarios
Perce Perce
nt of nt of
famil natio
ies nal
below per
Unempl pover capit
oyment ty a
rate level incom
March ( e (
(1970) 1969) 1967) High impact Medium impact Low impact
Perce Perce Perce
nt nt nt
basic basic basic
earni earni earni
ngs Employment ngs Employment ngs Employment
loss loss loss loss loss loss
Perce Numbe Perce Numbe Perce Numbe
nt r nt r nt r
11.
Willia
msport
, Pa 5.1 9.9 84 0.9 0.3 490 0.2 0.1 126 0 0 0
66.
Pittsb
urgh,
Pa 4.5 8.8 97 .4 .1 1,588 .1 n(1) 344 0 0 0
68.
Clevel
and,
Ohio 3.8 6.8 105 .2 .1 987 n(1) n(1) 177 0 0 0
64.
Columb
us,
Ohio 4.2 9.5 92 .5 .1 763 .1 n(1) 160 0 0 0
65.
Clarks
burg,
W.Va 4.8 17.1 73 5.0 1.5 1,527 .2 .1 55 0 0 0
52.
Huntin
gton,
W.Va.
-
Ashlan
d,
Ohio 5.9 21.2 73 3.8 1.2 4,698 2.6 .9 3,168 .4 .1 453
53.
Lexing
ton,
Ky 4.6 24.1 68 2.6 .9 2,080 2.3 .8 1,829 2.0 .7 1,577
51.
Bristo (.3) (.1) (199)
l, Va 5.3 21.3 71 2.1 .6 1,477 .9 .3 640 n1 n1 n1
50.
Knoxvi
lle,
Tenn 5.3 23.4 67 1.9 .6 1,523 1.7 .5 1,353 1.0 .3 801
49.
Nashvi
lle,
Tenn 3.8 17.9 78 n(1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
48.
Chatta
nooga,
Tenn n(2) 17.0 n(2) n(2) n(1) 64 n(1) n(1) 2 0 0 0
45.
Birmin
gham,
Ala 4.5 20.0 75 .4 .1 588 n(1) n(1) 15 0 0 0
15,78
Total 5 7,869 2,632
[See Table in Original]
8 n1 Nil.
8 n2 Gain.
8 n3 Not available.
9
*13*
TABLE
VIII.
-
DIRECT
ECONOM
IC
IMPACT
OF 20
degree
s
SLOPE
ANGLE
PROHIB
ITION
Econom
ic Baseline economic
Area data Scenarios
Perce Perce
nt of nt of
famil natio
ies nal
below per
Unempl pover capit
oyment ty a
rate ( level incom
March ( e (
1970) 1969) 1967) High impact Medium impact Low impact
Perce Perce
nt nt
basic basic
earni earni
Employment ngs Employment ngs Employment
loss loss loss loss loss
Perce Numbe Perce Numbe Perce Numbe
nt r nt r nt r
11.
Willia
msport
, Pa 5.1 9.9 84 0.3 0.1 134 0.1 n(1) 35 0 0 0
66.
Pittsb
urgh,
Pa 4.5 8.8 97 .2 .1 729 n(1) n(1) 153 0 0 0
68.
Clevel
and,
Ohio 3.8 6.8 105 .2 .1 917 n(1) n(1) 183 0 0 0
64.
Columb
us,
Ohio 4.2 9.5 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
65.
Clarks
burg,
W. Va 4.8 17.1 73 4.8 1.4 1,451 .2 .1 58 0 0 0
52.
Huntin
gton,
W.Va.
-
Ashlan (
d, (2.6) (.8) 3.070
Ohio 5.9 21.2 73 3.7 1.2 4,487 .6 .2 709 n2 n2 ) n2
53.
Lexing
ton,
Ky 4.6 24.1 68 2.6 .9 2,080 2.3 .8 1,828 2.0 .7 1,578
51.
Bristo (.3) (.1) (226)
l, Va 5.3 21.3 71 2.1 .6 1,450 .9 .3 612 n2 n2 n2
50.
Knoxvi
lle,
Tenn 5.3 23.4 67 1.0 .3 818 .6 .2 444 .1 n(1) 68
49.
Nashvi
lle,
Tenn 3.8 17.9 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
48.
Chatta
nooga,
Tenn n(3) 17.0 n(3) n(3) n(1) 41 n(3) n(1) 1 0 0 0
45.
Birmin
gham,
Ala 4.5 20.0 75 .3 .1 374 n(1) n(1) 11 0 0 0
[See Table in Original]
9 n1 Nil.
9 n2 Gain.
9 n3 Not available.
10 STATE REGULATORY ACTIVITIES
10 The results of a survey of surface mining laws and regulatory programs in
16 major coal-producing States indicates a progression toward more stringent
controls to reduce the environmental damages from surface mining. It is clear,
however, that there is a need for further strengthening of the individual State
programs. Some States now require concurrent reclamation, but only two also
require reshaping to the approximate original contour, or other similarly
appropriate condition, for other than area mining. In only a few States have
performance standards been adopted for reclamation. Despite an increase in use
and amounts of performance bonds, their levels are still generally set at flat
rates, unrelated to actual reclamation costs, which frequently exceed such
rates. They are usually cancelled shortly after reclamation stops, although
environmental damage may continue thereafter or first occur at some future time.
Manpower and funds for enforcement of state programs do not appear generally
adequate.
10 Any regulatory program can only be judged by its results. The new laws
that have been enacted are too new to judge their results, but in general
experience under previous laws has not been good. Unless stronger programs are
instituted and carried out, more land will predictably be left damaged by
surface mining.
10 ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
10 Our findings in this report indicate that at the least three elements of
regulatory programs are necessary to protect environmental quality during
surface mining operations. First, adequate planning, through the careful
preparation and analysis of mining and reclamation plans, is required. These
plans should be prepared and analyzed before mining begins to assure that
operations will result in the achievement of minimal environmental damage.If
difficulties are identified, then the plan can be appropriately modified.
Second, specific performance standards are necessary so that miners can choose
the most effective techniques to meet them. It is clear that some methods such
as the modified block-cut and augering with backfilling can reduce environmental
abuse at costs that are small relative to those of other methods for achieving
similar results and relative to total coal production costs. Third, there must
be sufficiently vigorous enforcement of regulatory programs. Often, in the past,
the results of enforcement programs were not satisfactory for a number of
reasons. The performance standards did not require an adequate level of
reclamation. Earlier reclamation requirements were subject to such broad
interpretation that their achievement was often a matter of unnecessary
contention between the mine operator and the inspector. And, enforcement did
not have behind it adequate performance bonding, manpower, or funding to achieve
the desired performance. With stringent, unambiguous performance standards that
require reclamation concurrent with mining, it will be easier to judge the
adequacy of reclamation performance in each particular case.
10 In the absence of any one of these three components - adequate planning,
adequate performance standards and adequate enforcement - experience indicates
that efforts to curb environmental and other damages from surface mining will
not be truly successful.
CHAPTER 1.
SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION TECHNIQUES
11 Exploitation of the fuel and mineral resources in the earth's crust
probably began with primitive surface mining techniques. Underground mining
followed much later as man developed the ability to locate and exploit deeper
and richer deposits. With the emergence of the steam engine and later the
internal combustion engine, man's ability to expose fuel and mineral deposits by
removing the overlying soil and rock was increased significantly.
11 Although mechanized surface mining for coal began in the late 1800's in
the United States, production was limited prior to World War II. The high
demand for fuel during the war caused rapid growth in surface mining. Another
surge began in the early 1960's. This current expansion is due to the
increasing demand for energy and the competitive edge that surface mined coal
has over underground mined coal. The underground mining industry faces reduced
productivity and increased costs partly because of improved mine health and
safety requirements, while surface mining benefits from the development of
large, more efficient extraction machinery.
11 The recent spectacular growth in surface mining of coal has brought
widespread environmental damage. Surface mining has left substantial areas of
farm, range, and forested lands scarred and unsuitable. In mountainous areas,
unstable banks of earth cast down the mountainside are landslide hazards to life
and property. The water quality of streams has been degraded with siltation and
acid mine drainage from abandoned strip mines. These damages need not continue.
Mining and reclamation methods which significantly reduce these environmental
damages have been developed in the past few years.
11 Surface mining, as the name implies, is any type of mining in which
overburden - topsoil, rock, and other strata - is removed in order to expose and
extract the underlying mineral or fuel deposits.Strip mining is one type of
surface mining, easily recognized by removal of overburden in narrow bands, one
cut at a time.
11 Strip mining methods for recovering coal are of two general types - area
strip and contour strip. Area strip mining is practiced on relatively flat to
gently rolling terrain. Contour strip mining is practiced where deposits occur
in hilly or mountainous country. Augering - drilling horizontally into a coal
seam - is another type of surface mining often associated with strip mining on
steep slopes. Other types of surface mining such as open pit mining, quarrying,
hydraulic mining, and dredging are used to extract minerals other than coal, so
they will not be covered in this study.
12 Most surface mining and reclamation methods are comprised of nine
discrete steps: construction of access roads to the mining site; scalping or
clearing of vegetation from the surface of the mining site; drilling and
blasting to fracture the overburden; removal and placement of the overburden;
removal of the coal; rehandling and grading of the overburden; revegetation;
water drainage control; and sediment basin construction. Each step, which may
either increase or decrease environmental damage from the total mining and
reclamation operation, is described in Appendix A. Differences in the overall
environmental effects among surface mining techniques depend largely on the
damages associated with removal and placement of the overburden, although
damages associated with other steps can also be significant. How the steps are
combined and what environmental effects these combinations produce are described
in the following section.
12 This review of the surface mining and reclamation techniques used to
extract coal does not presume that all areas can be reclaimed with existing
techniques. Special attention is focused on those techniques which reduce the
environmental damages which have come to be associated with strip mining of
coal. Each mining and reclamation plan must be evaluated carefully by experts
familiar with the local terrain, geology, rainfall, and the like to determine
before mining is authorized if the proposed plan can achieve adequate
reclamation. In some cases, mining on steep slopes could result in less
potential environmental harm than other types of mining for the above and
?akk?p?lmki l????a???cnml?ake??ade? aka??e??m??mhe?fiklm??pimh?mhe??oek
12 DESCRIPTION OF TECHNIQUES
12 Area Strip Mining
12 Area strip mining is generally limited to lands with topography of 12
degrees to 14 degrees or less and with coal seams (1,2) that are nearly
horizontal and less than 200 feet deep. It is employed chiefly in the flatter
sections of the Appalachian states of Alabama, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia; in the midwest; and in the far west.
12 In area strip mining, a trench or box cut is made through the overburden
to expose the mineral or fuel to be extracted. The cuts are long narrow
strips.All cuts are made parallel to the first, with the overburden deposited in
the cut just previously excavated. The final cut leaves an open trench bounded
on one side by the last spoil pile and on the other by the undisturbed highwall,
which may be a mile or more from the starting point. The overburden from the
cuts, unless graded or leveled, resembles a gigantic plowed field, as shown in
Figure 1-1.
13 [See Illustration in Original]
13 Shovels (with capacities of up to 180 cubic yards), draglines (up to 220
cubic-yard capacity), wheel excavators, pan scrapers, bulldozers, and front-end
loaders remove the overburden. The exposed mineral or coal is then lifted by
smaller machines before the overburden machine makes the next cut.
13 Although thousands of acres have been disturbed by area strip mining and
have been abandoned or only partially reclaimed, advanced reclamation techniques
can now minimize the environmental damages of such practices. Grading and
reclamation closely following a mining operation can return the land to its
original contour and vegetation or other similarly appropriate condition.
13 Without reclamation, area strip mining can preclude future productive
land use, pollute water with siltation and acid mine drainage, and destroy the
aesthetic values in a large area. With adequate reclamation, the mined area
need not be precluded from future productive land use. Agricultural cropland
can be returned to farming uses, range land can be restored for grazing, etc.
13 Other potential environmental impacts of area mining are changed surface
water courses, ground water pollution, and temporary destruction of ground
cover. The serious hazards of landslides and slumping associated with contour
mining are virtually nonexistent with area mining. Erosion and sedimentation
can be controlled if surface water flow is managed and reclamation is timely.
In effect, substantially more erosion and sediment loss should not result from
an area mining operation than from a large farming enterprise with crops such as
grasses and legumes (as opposed to row crops).
14 Some recently enacted State legislation requires restoring the disturbed
area to its original contour and replanting vegetation or other appropriate
condition. Thus, all spoil ridges and highwalls are eliminated and no
depressions remain to accumulate water, with the exception of the approved water
impoundments. (See Chapter 2 for details.) To accomplish contour grading, the
spoil from the first cut is graded to blend into the contour of the adjoining
land. In addition, several states now require operators to separate topsoil
from the subsoil, stockpile the two separately so that they will not be mixed
during excavation, and restore the topsoil on the graded overburden. If soil
productivity is not restored by saving and replacing the topsoil or by some
other equally effective means, then the land use patterns will likely change.
14 While revegetation is not inherently difficult in most parts of
Appalachia and in the Central coal region - both have adequate rainfall and
sufficient topsoil - there are unanswered questions about the extent to which
lands can be revegetated in the far west, where there is little rainfall and the
topsoil may be poor. In some areas little or no vegetation may exist under
normal circumstances. The largest strippable coal reserves lie in the Fort
Union formation of Montana and Wyoming, where the rainfall is only 14 to 16
inches per year, compared to an average of 40 to 45 inches in Appalachia. In
the Southwest region of New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and Colorado,
conditions are arid, with less than 5 inches of rain and the surface soil
usually alkaline.
14 Experimental reclamation projects in these arid regions are meeting with
mixed results (3, 4). None of the projects has continued for an adequate time
to demonstrate that the vegetation will be successful. With the growing demand
for low sulfur fuels, the answers to questions on reclamation in the far west
become increasingly important.
14 Both Great Britain and West Germany have successfully returned to
productive use lands disturbed by area mining. Their experience is described in
Appendix B.
14 Contour Strip Mining
14 Contour strip mining is practiced on rolling to very steep terrain above
12 degrees to 14 degrees (1, 2). In contour strip mining, the overburden is
removed from the coal seam, creating a bench with a highwall often exceeding 100
feet in height. After the coal is removed from the uncovered seam, successive
cuts are made into the hillside until the overburden becomes too deep for
economical recovery of the mineral. Then the operation continues along the
hillside until the seam becomes too thin or the slope too steep. Methods for
handling the overburden are described below.
14 Conventional Contour Mining
14 In conventional contour strip mining, the overburden removed from above
the coal bed is cast down the hillside and stacked along the outer edge of the
bench, creating a mound which is often unstable, as shown in Figure 1-2. The
unstable spoil material results in severe erosion and landslides; thus many more
acres are affected than those disturbed by the original cut and overburden
placement. n1
14 n1 A 1967 Interior Department study, Surface Mining and Our Environment
(5) estimated that, of the 25,000 miles of existing contour bench, spoil
material was stacked on the outer edge for about 18,000 miles and pushed
entirely off the bench on the remaining 7,000 miles.Approximately 1,700 miles of
outslope were affected by massive slides and about 20,000 miles of highwalls
were created by coal mining in Appalachia alone.
15 When the overburden or spoil is stabilized by regrading, compaction, and
revegetation, the most severe problems are reduced. These measures, however,
are only partially successful on steep slopes and in areas of high rainfall. n2
In addition, a permanent bench and exposed [See Graph in Original] highwall are
left on the hillside. To mitigate these problems, several major coal mining
States have enacted legislation which prohibits contour strip mining on slopes
greater than 27 degrees to 28 degrees and establishes limits for the width of
the mining cut in relation to slope for the less steep slopes. For instance,
Kentucky regulations stipulate that bench widths for the first cut may not
exceed 80 feet for a 27 degrees slope, 90 feet for a 26 degrees slope, etc., to
reduce the amount of material pushed off the bench and therefore the hazards of
landslides, erosion, and flooding. While such measures provide partial
protection, landslides as well as erosion, sedimentation and other environmental
problems still occur.
15 n2 The stabilization of spoil material in steep terrain is complex. In
addition to the slope angle, other factors affecting soil stability are the type
of spoil material, amount of rainfall, location of the spoil on the hillside,
methods of compaction, and type and timing of revegetation. Even with
engineered safeguards, these factors interact, often leading to unexpected and
undesirable results - landslides, slumps, and massive erosion. This subject is
discussed further in Appendix C.
16 Erosion increases dramatically when the protective vegetative cover is
removed and the soil is not stabilized. For example, suspended sediment
concentration in small Appalachian streams draining strip mined areas can be
increased 100 times over that in forest lands (6). Over 7,000 miles of streams
have been affected by surface runoff from coal stripping operations (5).
16 Acid mine drainage is another major problem from contour strip mining.
Until the mid-1960's, topsoil was normally placed on the bottom of the spoil
pile and covered by low-quality and often toxic overburden. The material next
to the coal deposit often contains pyrites and other acid forming substances.
When such harmful materials are exposed to weathering, they are converted to
soluble acids and minerals and are carried away to streams and ground
water.About 12 percent of the acid mine drainage in Appalachian streams derives
from abandoned coal surface mines and access roads, while the rest comes from
underground mines (7).
16 Unstable highwalls are a hazard to life and property. Highwalls that
crumble and erode from weathering ruin drainage patterns and significantly add
to water pollution. Material falling off the highwall can retard surface water
flow and thereby prolong the contact between water and acid producing materials.
16 Contour Mining with Shaping of Spoil Bank
16 The potential for landslides and erosion can be reduced by spreading and
stabilizing the spoil over a large area. (1) In this approach, all vegetation
is removed from the hillside below the cut, and the overburden is spread over
the downslope in compacted layers. Part of the spoil material can be stored
along the edge of the bench and, after coal is removed, redistributed on the
bench.
16 Two methods of shaping the spoil material on the downslope are slope
reduction and parallel slope. In the first, the spoil is graded to form a
reduced slope angle on the spoil bank. In the second method, the spoil is
spread over the downslope in layers parallel to the original slope of the
hillside. These two methods are diagrammed in Figure 1-3.
17 [See Graph in Original]
17 Establishing a sufficient vegetative cover on the large spoil disposal
area on the slope is generally difficult, however. While reducing the potential
for landslides, both methods may cause massive sheet and gully erosion and
slumping on the slopes, especially in a high rainfall area such as Appalachia.
17 Even when spoil piles are graded, problems have occurred in the past.
With grading toward the highwall and improper design of the drainage system,
water may accumulate on the bench and may come in contact with pyritic material,
leading to acid mine drainage. This impact has been considerably reduced in
recent years. Where underground mining is conducted behind the highwall,
grading toward it can result in surface water flowing into the underground mine.
Such flow often flushes toxic material from the mine.
18 Erosion may be as bad or worse when spoil piles are graded away from the
highwall. Water management practices - such as diversion ditches across the top
of the highwall, ditches or terraces across the slope to break the slope length,
and control structures to remove the water from the mining area - can minimize
erosion from these spoil piles.
18 Grading should be accompanied by adequate revegetation. A vegetative
cover should be established to hold the bare surface in place. First
consideration should be given to plant species that quickly cover and hold the
soil. Neither planting nor grading alone is a satisfactory answer to the spoil
bank problem, but a combination of the two can reduce many of the environmental
damages.
18 Exposed highwalls remain with either of these two approaches. Aesthetic
blight, interference with land access, disruption of wildlife patterns and
potential water pollution can be reduced somewhat by grading the spoil back
against the highwall and "knocking off" the top of the highwall, but some of
these problems will remain.
18 Contour Mining with Backfilling of Bench
18 In bench backfilling, the material in the spoils bank is moved back onto
the bench and regraded to a specified shape (1, 2, 8) If contour backfilling is
used, most of the spoil material is returned to the bench and regraded to
approximately the original contour of the hillside. Because the volume of the
spoil material is typically larger than the volume of the cut, part of the
spoils is usually stabilized on the downslope. This method is depicted in
Figure 1-4a.
18 [See Graph in Original]
19 If a slope is too steep or the soil condition would lead to excessive
erosion, a modified form of backfilling can be used. In terrace backfilling,
part of the spoil bank is used to cover the acid-producing spoil in the face of
the highwall and part is used to reduce the slope below the bench. This method
usually reduces the bench width by creating a series of terraces. This method
is shown in Figure 1-4b. As with the methods discussed previously, this
technique applied in the wrong places leads to substantial erosion and bank
movement, especially from the materials placed on the outslope. However, it
does eliminate the highwall and leaves the mined area in a configuration roughly
resembling the pre-mining condition.
19 [See Graph in Original]
19 One conventional contour strip mining approach which lends itself easily
to the terrace backfilling method is the box-cut (1). This is an adaptation of
area mining techniques to recover coal from a wide bench.It is generally used
when, because of the limitations of the machinery, it is not possible to remove
the overburden from the coal across the entire bench. Thus several cuts are
made parallel to the bench and the spoil material from successive cuts is moved
back into the previous cut, as in area mining. Because spoil is continually
placed in the previous cut, less spoil material is placed on the downslope, thus
under a broad range of circumstances reducing the potential for landslides and
slumping.
19 In the two-cut box-cut technique, part of the overburden is first used to
create a fill bench resting on an undisturbed section of the outside edge of the
bench (see Figure 1-5). Then the remaining overburden above the coal nearest
the highwall is stacked on the fill bench and the coal removed. The stacked
overburden is pushed back into the previous cut, and the overburden over the
coal on the outside half of the bench is stacked against the highwall. The
remaining coal is removed, the fill bench is graded back into the second pit,
and the mined area is graded for revegetation.
20 [See graph in Original]
20 Reclamation can proceed concurrently with the mining operat ion in order
to reduce both the costs of reclamation and the environment al impacts that
occur prior to reclamation.
20 Contour Mining Usin g Modified Block-Cut
20 The modified block-cut method of contour strip mining is also basically
an adaptation of the conventional area mining method for steep terrain (1, 2, 9,
10, 11). The method is also known as cut and fill, fill and haul back, and pit
storage, depending on the locality. In the modified block-cut method, an
initial box-cut is made into the hillside at a site along the coal seam selected
to minimize landslide potential. As with other types of contour mining, the
overburden from the initial cut is placed on the edge of the bench on the
downslope so that the coal can be removed. However, the overburden from
successive cuts along the coal seam is not pushed over the edge of the bench but
is deposited in the void left by the previous cut, as
21 [See Graph in Original] shown in Figure 1-6. Mining is continuous,
working in both directions around the hill as indicated in Figure 1-6, or in
only one direction. The bench is totally backfilled, and the excess spoil
material that accumulates during mining can be used to reclaim the final cut.
22 The salient feature of this method is that the removal of the overburden
and the reforming of the original contour are integral processes. Topsoil can
be saved and spread over the regraded spoils. This method minimizes impact on
the downslope, disturbing only onethird to one-fifth the total area disturbed by
the techniques previously described. Consequently, it tends to reduce many of
the associated environmental impacts which occur prior to complete reclamation.
22 [See Illustration in Original] Optimally, the spoils from the first cut
are stored for restoration of the last cut if needed or a stable permanent
disposal site should be used.
23 It should be noted that the modified block-cut technique is being
successfully used in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and eastern Kentucky, and it
is thought to be applicable in other areas with steeper slopes. The Tennessee
Valley Authority demonstration project is using this method in Campbell County,
Tennessee, and should have both physical results and cost data in the near
future.
23 Head of Hollow Fill Method
23 The head of hollow fill is used in conjunction with one or more of the
techniques previously described (1). Head of hollow fill has been used
primarily with contour strip mining where all of the overburden is removed from
the bench and deposited in a fill, leaving an unreclaimed bench and highwall.
It has also been used to store spoil from the removal of entire mountain tops
where the entire coal seam is mined as in area mining. More recently it has
been used as a supplement to the more advanced mining techniques previously
described.
23 Narrow V-shaped, steep-sided hollows, near the ridge top, that are free
of underground mine openings or wet weather springs, are selected for filling.
The size of the selected hollow must be such that the overburden generated by
the mining operation will completely fill the prepared head of hollow. A
diagram of the head of hollow fill technique is shown in Figure 1-7.
23 [See Illustration in Original]
24 Unless the fill is graded, compacted, and revegetated as soon as
possible, erosion and sediment transport may be severe. Much care must be given
to the design of such fills, particularly regarding water management, in order
to ensure stability of the fill.
24 Of equal or more importance is the condition in which the mined area is
left. If the bench and highwall are not reclaimed, the highwall will be a
potential hazard to life and property and both the highwall and bench may cause
sedimentation and acid drainage problems. If the head of hollow fill is used
only for permanent disposal of excess spoils from a modified block-cut or
contour backfilling operation, the likelihood of damages will be minimized.
24 Auger Mining
24 Auger mining extracts coal from the seam by boring horizontally into the
seam from its exposed edge (1, 2). It is often done after contour stripping is
completed, thus allowing the removal of additional tonnage after the economical
overburden-to-coal ratio has been reached. In this case, the auger mining
machine is mounted on the bench remaining from the contour mining operation.
Sometimes auger mining is performed only from a narrow bench constructed along
the hillside below the natural coal outcrop. In this case, only augering is
used to extract the coal so the efficiency of recovery is reduced and future
exploitation of the unmined coal is probably precluded by the auger cavities.
24 The cutting heads of some augers are as large as 7 feet in diameter,
although most are much smaller. By adding sections behind the cutting head,
holes can be drilled in excess of 200 feet into the coal seams. It is possible
to set up and operate a large augering machine on a bench which is only 15 feet
wide. By reducing the bench width, the resulting environmental impacts would
also be substantially reduced.
24 Augering from a narrow bench disturbs far less area than the other
contour mining methods discussed. It does, however, have the potential for
substantially disturbing both the flow and quality of ground water. It also has
the potential for penetrating water-filled underground mines, thus releasing
acidic water.
24 Long Wall Surface Mining
24 With the exception of auger mining, all methods discussed above depend
upon excavating all overburden above the coal to get at the resource (1, 10).
In most instances, this amounts to a massive earthmoving operation. This
operation along with the changed site characteristics are the causes of most of
the environmental damage of surface mining. Auger mining, the only existing
surface mining alternative and the one with the highest labor productivity (38
tons per man-day) is relatively inefficient when measured in terms of resource
recovery. Some underground techniques are considerably more efficient in
recovering a larger fraction of the available coal. Conceptually it is possible
to adapt some of the high-recovery underground mining techniques to a
combination surface and underground mine.
24 The long wall surface mining technique is one possibility for applying
underground long wall mining equipment to a surface approach. The idea is to
work the equipment from a narrow bench similar to but much narrower than those
prepared for contour strip mining. The coal cutting and removal equipment would
operate back and forth along a wide coal face accompanied by self-moving jacks
to prevent the overburden which subsides behind the operation from binding the
cutting machine. Land disturbance would be small and would be limited primarily
to controlled surface subsidence during the course of mining.
25 This technique has only been proposed as a conceptual alternative to the
massive earth moving techniques of surface mining. A feasibility study has been
funded by the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate the economic and
environmental desirability of this mining method. Although showing promise for
almost any type of terrain, longwall surface mining would substantially increase
the capital costs of surface mining and thus may not be used by many present
mining operations.
CHAPTER 2
STATE REGULATORY PROGRAMS
35 During the past four decades as surface mining has affected more and
more acreage, and as the adverse environmental effects of surface mining have
become more apparent, a number of state legislatures have enacted laws in an
attempt to regulate or control the environmental effects of surface mining.
West Virginia first enacted legislation to regulate surface mining of coal in
1939. By 1955, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, and Maryland had enacted
similar legislation. Most current State legislation, however, has been enacted
since 1965.
35 In the seven years between 1965 and 1972, the 16 major coal-producing
states surveyed for this report (see list in Figure 2-1) n5 have taken a total
of 28 major legislative actions. As shown in Figure 2-1, only 7 of these states
had enacted surface mining legislation prior to 1965. Since then, the remaining
9 states have enacted new legislation. In the past three years alone, 13 of the
16 states have enacted new legislation or amended their existing authority.
35 n5 These States account for more than 90% of total U.S. coal production.
35 Throughout the past seven years, there has been a general trend in state
laws away from post-mining reclamation requirements to more extensive
reclamation requirements that must be carried out as an [See Illustration in
Original] integral part of mining operations. This development can be closely
correlated with changes in surface mining technology and research results.
36 While differing in requirements, state reclamation laws are similar in
general outline. The following sections summarize the general characteristics
of the regulatory authorities of the 16 states surveyed, focusing particular
attention on their recent changes and new requirements.
36 Evaluation of the material presented in this chapter and in Appendix F,
which contains a summary of each of the survey state's laws, should be tempered
by two important considerations. First, most of the laws have been enacted or
significantly amended very recently - 1971 or later in 11 of the 16 states.As a
result, it is too early in many cases to measure results meaningfully in terms
of the condition of surface-mined lands. The results of reclamation under
earlier laws have been largely unsatisfactory, with a 1967 survey revealing
inadequate vegetation on 53 percent of the reclaimed sites surveyed and sites
incapable of supporting vegetation in another 18 percent of the cases. Second,
substantial discrepancies may exist between what a law says and the regulations
that are actually imposed and enforced. Further, some laws are phrased in such
general terms that weak rules and regulations can be promulgated without
violating the law.In addition, regardless of a law's specificity, its impact
depends on the extent to which it is actually enforced.
36 ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY
36 In all States, an administrative agency is given the authority to oversee
the surface mining regulatory programs. This is the Department of Natural
Resources in Colorado, Indiana, Maryland, Ohio, West Virginia, and Washington;
the Department of Mines in Illinois and Oklahoma; the Department of Industrial
Relations in Alabama; the Department of Conservation and Economic Development in
Virginia; and the Public Service Commission in North Dakota.For the Western
States of Montana and Wyoming, the State lands agency is responsible. The
Department of Conservation administers the program in Tennessee; the Department
of Environmental Protection in Kentucky; and the Department of Environmental
Resources in Pennsylvania.
36 The responsibilities of these agencies include issuing rules and
regulations for the administration of the State law, issuing surface mining
permits or licenses, supervising mining operations, and approving completed
reclamation work. The laws of Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington
explicitly require a separate permit or approval for drainage from the State
water quality agency.
36 REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITATIONS
36 Procedural Permits
36 All of the States surveyed require an operator to have a valid operating
permit for conducting surface mining activities, although the requirement is
limited to a minimum amount of overburden (10,000 cubic yards) in Montana and a
minimum depth of overburden (10 ft.) in North Dakota. In Illinois, a permit is
not required if the overburden is less than 10 ft. in depth or less than 10
acres/year will be affected. In Montana, the permit is called a "reclamation
contract," which gives the State the additional enforcement option of suing for
breach of contract. Montana also requires that the Department of State Lands
prepare an environmental impact statement, pursuant to the Montana Environmental
Policy Act, for each reclamation contract (reclamation plan) that covers a major
coal mining operation. Illinois has a similar requirement in its surface mining
law, under which permit applicants are required to prepare a statement of
environmental effects that the Department of Mines and Minerals must consider
before issuing a permit. Maryland requires both a general operator's license
and a permit for each mining operation. In general, the operating permits are
issued (or renewed) annually. In Maryland, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming,
however, the operating permit is valid for the life of the operation. North
Dakota issues permits for a three-year term.
37 The permit application ordinarily must be accompanied by a wide variety
of information as well as one or more mining, drainage or reclamation "plans".
Most of the States surveyed require that a reclamation plan accompany the permit
application. The notable exceptions to this requirement are Alabama, Colorado,
North Dakota, and Wyoming. Alabama requires a "statement" of the intended
reclamation program, but the law does not require that it be approved. North
Dakota requires the reclamation plan to be submitted in the December following
the issuance of a permit. Operators in Wyoming are required only to submit an
annual reclamation report, although they may submit a plan which, if approved,
becomes the basis for all reclamation requirements. There are substantial
differences among the States as to the content of the reclamation plan.
37 New permit and plan requirements have been added by several States over
the past several years. The new regulations of Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and
Tennessee, adopted in the past three years, require either a separate drainage
(water discharge) permit or an erosion and silt control plan that must be
approved before the issuance of a surface mining permit. The Virginia law, as
amended in 1972, requires the operator to submit a plan of operation discussing
his proposed method of mining operation, including the expected impact on the
environment, along with drainage and reclamation plans.
37 All the States require a fee to obtain a permit. These fees are
generally a fixed amount of $50 to $2 50 per acre. The proceeds in Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming go to a special State fund to be
used for reclaiming abandoned lands. Maryland and West Virginia assess a
separate reclamation charge of $30/acre and $6 0/acre, respectively, which is
devoted to the reclamation of abandoned or "orphaned" mined areas. Ohio's new
law, enacted in 1972, levies a Severance Tax of 4 cents/ton of coal which is
deposited in the State's general fund to be used for environmental protection
activities of the State and for the reclamation of land affected by strip
mining.
37 Of the 16 States surveyed, only seven have requirements for a general
public notice of intent to surface mine or for holding public hearings on
surface mining activities. Tennessee requires a public notice in a newspaper of
general circulation in the county of proposed operation. Both West Virginia and
Montana require the application to be published as a legal advertisement in the
county of operation. In West Virginia, written protests may be filed within 30
days. Pennsylvania's regulations require that the pending application be
published in the monthly Pennsylvania Bulletin at least 15 days before a strip
mining permit is issued. Illinois requires the operator to file his
conservation and reclamation plan with the county governing body for its
recommendations on future land use, and the plan is available for public
inspection at the county offices. Indiana's Natural Resources Commission
reviews permit applications in public meetings, and Maryland holds monthly
public hearings to review such applications.
38 Performance Bonds
38 To assure compliance with State regulations and completion of required
reclamation work, all of the States surveyed require the filing of a
performance bond. For most of the States the bond is $100 to $600 per acre,
with a required minimum amount of $1 000 to $2 000 per mining operation.
Maryland law provides for a separate revegetation bond of$50- $125 per acre, in
addition to a regrading bond of $4 00 per acre. The actual reclamation costs
for a particular project can be much greater than the maximum bond allowed under
most State laws, depending on the type of mining and reclamation techniques.
Only the Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wyoming laws which
establish no maximum bond limitations are sufficiently flexible to allow bond
amounts to be set by reference to the estimated costs of reclamation. In each
of these States except Tennessee, the law explicitly requires the bond to be
based on estimated reclamation costs. Under the new Ohio law, performance bonds
of $800-$3 000 per acre are being required.
38 Substantive
38 It has been recognized for nearly a decade that the most severe adverse
environmental efforts occur or are caused during the mining operation itself,
although such effects may continue for an extended period of time after the
mining operation has ceased. The greatest adverse environmental impacts from
bench cuts, removal of vegetation, and soil disturbance occur during the mining
operation. Some of the greatest impacts on water quality occur during mining,
and a major cause of failure of revegetation has been the presence of highly
acidic and other non-organic material unearthed during the mining (and
reclamation) process. In spite of this realization, the necessary controls were
essentially non-existent in the early 1960's.
38 Prior to the mid-1960's the Appalachian States had very few requirements
for the abatement of pollution and siltation during the mining operation.For
example, Maryland and West Virginia had no statutory provisions at all.
Kentucky had only minimum provisions that required covering the pit being mined,
burying acid producing material under adequate fill, and sealing any
breakthrough of acid water creating a "hazard." Only Pennsylvania required the
operator to have a drainage permit for the mining operation. None of the States
during the early 1960's had any restrictions on bench width and the replacement
of overburden as they relate to slope angle.
38 Since the mid-1960's, however, there have been significant changes in
several States' statutes that are designed to prevent the adverse environmental
consequences of surface mining. The States of Pennsylvania sylvania,
Kentucky, Maryland, Tennessee, and West Virginia have adopted mine drainage
and/or bench width limitations to reduce sedimentation, acid mine drainage,
landslides, and aesthetic blight.
39 Drainage
39 The States of Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland have
established minimum acceptable standards for mine drainage. Pennsylvania
regulations allow no discharge of mine drainage with a pH content of less than
6.0 or greater than 9.0, or with an iron content of greater than 7
milligrams/liter. Kentucky and West Virginia have similar stipulations,
requiring the construction of facilities such as collection basins, silt dams,
and water diversion measures prior to the commencement of mining and maintenance
of these facilities in working order during the mining process. Maryland
requires the prevention of avoidable pollution and maintenance of facilities to
divert surface water from the mining operation. Maryland also requires that a
50-foot barrier be left between the mining operation and any permanent stream.
Few States rewuire maintenance of water-impounding facilities after reclamation
is completed.
39 The foregoing discussion of drainage requirements is essentially limited
to provisions in the surface mining laws. Drainage problems are also covered by
State water quality laws and by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
39 Bench Width
39 The States of Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Maryland restrict,
in relation to slope angle, the allowable bench width and the placement of
overburden. These limitations, designed primarily to prevent landslides and
excessive erosion, apply in areas where the slope of the ground originally
covering the coal seam exceeds 15 degrees (12 degrees in Kentucky). As seen in
Table 2-1 the maximum width of the solid benech produced by the first cut varies
substantially among the States. The mining operation must be conducted so that
no overburden from second or subsequent parallel cuts is placed beyond the solid
bench. These requirements reportedly have resulted in substantial reductions in
the frequency and severity of landslides.
*2*TABLE 2-1. - MAXIMUM BENCH WIDTH
DIMENSIONS IN KENTUCKY, WEST VIRGINIA,
MARYLAND, AND TENNESSEE (FIRST CUT
ONLY)
Maximum bench width
Maryland and West Virginia:
Slope in degrees:
15 250
20 150
25 120
30 100
33 60
33 plus n(1)
Kentucky:
Slope in degrees:
12 to 14 220
15 to 18 170
19 to 20 155
21 140
22 130
24 110
25 100
26 90
27 80
28 n2 60
29 to 30 n2 55
31 to 33 n2 45
Tennessee:
Slope in degrees:
15 to 18 125
18.1 to 20 106
20.1 to 22 94
22.1 to 24 82
24.1 to 26 71
28 plus n(1)
39 n1 No fill bench allowed.
39 n2 Only auger mining is permitted over 27 degrees.
40 Reclamation
40 As with the other provisions of the State laws the reclamation
requirements vary substantially among the States. The four basic
characteristics which were identified are the following: (1) the time, relative
to the mining operation itself, within which regrading and backfilling
activities must be initiated; (2) the influence of future land use on the degree
of reclamation; (3) backfilling and regrading requirements; and (4) revegetation
requirements.
40 Timing. - With respect to the timing for initiation of regrading and
backfilling, the reclamation requirements of the 16 States surveyed have been
classified as either "standard" or "concurrent," terms defined in the text that
follows. Table 2-2 identifies the States in each category.
*2*TABLE 2-2. - CLASSIFICATION OF STATE
SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS
ON THE BASIS OF TIMING
"Standard" reclamation requirement "Concurrent" reclamation requirement
Alabama Indiana
Colorado Kentucky
Illinois Maryland
Montana Ohio n1
North Dakota Oklahoma n2
Washington Pennsylvania n2
Wyoming Tennessee
Virginia
West Virginia
40 n1 Must commence 3 months after mining starts and "whenever possible" take
place as mining progresses.
40 n2 Required by regulations, not by statute.
40 Concurrent reclamation regulations essentially require the operator to
conduct his reclamation (backfilling and regrading) activities as an integrated
part of the ongoing mining operation rather than allowing him to begin after the
mining operation is completed. Stipulations for concurrent reclamation have
been established for both contour mining and area mining.
40 For contour mining, the States generally specify a time and/or linear
distance beyond which the mining operation cannot proceed before backfilling is
initiated. Regulations have not yet been promulgated for Ohio, but the specific
time and distance requirements for the six other States with such regulations
for contour mining are shown in Table 2-3.
*3*TABLE 2-3. - CONTOUR
MINING CONCURRENT
RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS
FOR GRADING AND
BACKFILLING n1
State Time (days) n2 Distance (feet) n3
West Virginia:
Stripping 60 3,000
Auger, highwall 30 1,000
Pennsylvania 1,500
Kentucky: Bench mining
(contour strip, auger,
highwall) 15 1,500
Maryland 2,000
Tennessee:
Strip 15 1,500
Auger 15 1,500
Virginia:
Strip 60 700
Auger 30 350
40 n1 Whichever limit is first reached - time or distance - is the governing
restriction.
40 n2 Time following mining within which grading and backfilling must start.
40 n3 Linear distance beyond which mining cannot proceed until grading and
backfilling is started.
41 Indiana and Oklahoma, in addition to the States in Table 2-3, require
concurrent reclamation for area mining. In most of these states, grading and
backfilling for area mining must not be more than two spoil ridges behind the
pit being worked. For both area and contour mining, all grading and backfilling
is usually required to be completed from within 90 days to one year after
completion or abandonment of the mining operation.
41 "Standard" reclamation requirements generally allow the initiation of
reclamation activities after the completion (or abandonment) of a mining
operation. Reclamation is essentially a separate job from the mining operation.
In general, backfilling and regrading operations are required at "the earliest
possible time" and are to be completed within a 2 or 3 year period after the
completion of mining.
41 Alabama law has no provision for when the reclamation work is to start,
requiring only that grading be completed within three years after the permit
period expires. Colorado's law requires reclamation to be completed "with all
reasonable diligence" and completed within three years after the date on which
the operator reports that his reclamation work has started. North Dakota's
legislative statement of policy provides for reclamation after the surface
mining operations are completed. Wyoming only requires the operator to submit
an annual report stating what steps have been taken to reclaim the mined area.
There are no time requirements.
41 Prior to 1969, most of the States currently imposing the "standard"
reclamation requirements were essentially without any form of surface mining
regulations, and most of the States now requiring "concurrent" reclamation were
conducting their reclamation programs under the "standard" reclamation
requirements. During the 1968-1972 period, the States with no reclamation
requirements adopted the "standard" reclamation requirements, while many States
which already had "standard" requirements shifted to the "concurrent" form of
regulation.
41 Land Use. - Prior to the 1969-1970 period, reclamation requirements
generally did not include explicit consideration of the use of the land prior to
mining or its intended use after mining and reclamation. Now many of the States
surveyed require the surface mining operator to specify in his reclamation plan
proposed land use activities for the reclaimed mined area. A commonly stated
objective is to return surface mined land to a productive use.Such land use
activities as agriculture, corps, forestry, water-oriented real estate
developments, and industrial sites are frequently encouraged by the laws. Such
approved uses can function as general performance standards or guides for the
conduct of grading, backfilling, and revegetation activities. The relationship
between land use considerations and reclamation activities is discussed below in
connection with regrading and revegetation requirements.
41 Grading and Backfilling. - There are three general types of backfilling
and grading requirements often imposed by the States.These are (1) regrading to
the approximate original contour, (2) some form of terrace backfilling, and (3)
grading to create a "rolling topography." In general the Eastern States surveyed
require either regrading to the approximate original contour or terrace
backfilling.
42 The laws of Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia n3
require that area mined lands be graded to the approximate original contour.
Tennessee requires approximate original contour or rolling topography for such
lands. Only the Pennsylvania and Ohio laws require reclamation to approximate
original contour for both area and contour mining. In both States, however, the
laws permit terracing or other alternatives under certain conditions.
42 n3 The law requires backfilling "not to exceed" original contour.
42 Pennsylvania's regulations require the operator to regrade and backfill
the mined area to its approximate original contour or submit a full explanation
of the conditions which do not permit contouring. If the alternative of terrace
backfilling is permitted, the steepest contour of the restored highwall is
limited to 35 degrees. The operator may propose other alternatives requiring
less grading in conjunction with such future land uses as water-oriented real
estate development, recreational area development, or industrial site
development.Such alternatives may be permitted if they are "reasonable" and do
not pose water quality problems.
42 Ohio's law is similar to Pennsylvania's. The operator must regrade and
backfill the mined area to the approximate original contour, unless natural
conditions preclude this or "contouring" would not allow vegetative growth. In
addition, an alternative that will permit equal or greater "economic or public
use of the land" may also be permitted. The most common acceptable alternative
is terracing with the resulting slope usually limited to 35 degrees.
42 While regrading to the approximate original contour is the primary
reclamation standard in Ohio and Pennsylvania, some form of terrace
backfilling is the principal regrading requirement for contour mining for the
other Eastern States surveyed. For example, both Maryland and Kentucky require
terrace backfilling with the maximum slope angle of the highwall and outslope
limited to 45 degrees. Tennessee's regulations are similar, but the slope angle
of the remaining highwall and outslope is limited to 35 degrees. Virginia's
law, however, only requires the reduction of the ultimate highwall to the
maximum extent feasible. In addition, all of the above States require that some
minimum amount of over-burden be placed over the coal pit.
42 The primary regrading standard for most of the western States (Colorado,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Washington, and Wyoming) and for Alabama, Illinois, and
Indiana is creation of a "rolling topography9" That is, the peaks and ridges of
spoil banks must be rounded (or struck off to a specified width) to allow the
planting of trees and shrubs, to create a "rolling topography," or to create a
gently undulating skyline. The regulations further stipulate that the reclaimed
area must be traversable by livestock if its future use is range land or by
agricultural equipment if the future use is agriculture. Montana requires only
that the land be reclaimed for "productive use," with no physical
specifications.
42 Revegetation Requirements. - All of the States surveyed require the
operator at least to replant or reseed the mined area upon the completion of
regrading and backfilling. While these requirements vary substantially among
the States, they generally set out the objective or purpose of revegetation and
include stipulations on the number of seeding attempts, timing and/or seeding
rates per acre to achieve that objective.The new regulations of Tennessee, for
example, require the operator's plan to provide for planting that will achieve
"quick and permanent" soil stabilization while Ohio requires operators to
"provide for immediate establishment of grasses or other plant cover to prevent
soil erosion." The Western States of Montana and Wyoming, however, only require
two seeding attempts, regardless of the success of the vegetative growth. For
many of the States, reseeding must take place no later than the planting season
following completion of backfilling, with the objective of obtaining a
"satisfactory vegetative cover," which is subject to the approval of the
administrative agency, after two growing seasons. Extension of time may be
granted up to 10 to 15 years.
43 Of the 16 States surveyed, only four - Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, and
West Virginia - have specified in their regulations performance standards in
terms of vegetative survival rates for approved future uses of the reclaimed
mine site.
43 As noted above, a major cause of failure of revegetation is the presence
of highly acidic or other non-organic material unearthed during the mining
process. The laws of Illinois, Tennessee, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
West Virginia now require in most cases that the topsoil be separately removed
and then redeposited upon the completion of regrading. Tennessee requires that
topsoil be saved for area mining only. Topsoil restoration requirements
generally assist in more quickly stabilizing the reclaimed area, hence reducing
soil erosion.
43 Table 2-4 summarizes the basic features of the State reclamation
provisions discussed above. The new requirements that have been
*10*
Table
2-4
*10*
State
Surface
Mining
Reclama
tion
Require
ments
*2*
Timing Grading/Backfilling Revegetation
Approxi Plantin Surviva
Future mate Rolling g l
Concurr Standar Land Orig. Terraci Topogra Topsoil Require Standar
State ent d Use Contour ng phy Saved d ds
Alabama x x x x n1
Colorad
o x x x x
Illinoi
s x x x n2 x x x x
Indiana x x x x
Kentuck
y x x n3 x n4 x x
Marylan
d x x x n3 x n4 x x
Montana x x x
N.
Dakota x x x x
Ohio x x x x n5 x x
Oklahom
a x x x x
Pennsyl
vania x x x x n5 x x
Tenness
ee x x x n3 x n6 x n3 x x
Virqini
a x x x n7 x
Washing
ton x x x x
W.
Virgini
a x x x n3 x n8 x n9 x x
Wyoming x x x
43 n1 Where soil conditions do not inhibit growth.
43 n2 Grade to 30% on all outslopes over 40 vertical feet.
43 n3 Area mining only.
43 n4 Maximum slope angle limited to 45 degrees.
43 n5 If approved by administrating agency in conjunction with approved land
use, slope angle limited to 35 degrees.
43 n6 Slope angle of highwall and outslope limited to 35 degrees.
43 n7 Reduce highwall to maximum extent possible, no slope angle
limitations.
43 n8 Slope angle limited to 32 degrees for highwall and outslope.
43 n9 In acia producing areas only enacted since the mid-1960's include
"concurrent" reclamation, the consideration of future uses of the reclaimed
areas, regrading to the original contour or a satisfactory alternative, and
replacement of topsoil. The adoption of these new reclamation requirements,
together with drainage and bench width limitations, reflects an effort to reduce
both the level and duration of the adverse environmental impacts associated with
surface mining and to restore mined lands to productive use.
CHAPTER 3.
IMPACT OF SLOPE ANGLE PROHIBITIONS ON COAL PRODUCTION AND RESERVES
49 A Chapter 1 analyzed a number of technologies that would greatly
reduce environmental impacts on steep slopes. This chapter analyzes the impacts
on reserves and production (including low sulfur coal) from complete
prohibitions of surface mining on steep slopes. Although some proposals would
only partially preclude mining on steep slopes, it has not been possible to
evaluate their impacts because of the wide range of potential administrative
discretion in considering such factors as use of different technologies, soil
stability, and the like. To the extent legislation is enacted which only
partially excludes mining on steep slopes, the impacts would be reduced.
49 Coal is the Nation's most abundant fuel resource. Known coal resources
total 1,552 billion tons, or over 2,500 years' supply at current coal
consumption rates (1). Coal now provides over 18 percent of current energy
requirements and over 44 percent of the fuel that enerates electric power (2).
49 Total U.S. coal production in 1971 was 552 million tons; half, or 276
million tons, was surface mined (3). As indicated in Table 3-1, 68 percent of
U.S. coal production is in Appalachia, which accounts for 56 percent of total
U.S. surface mined coal.
*7*TABLE
3-1. - U.S.
BITUMINOUS
COAL AND
LIGNITE
PRODUCTION,
1971
Total
Underground Strip and production
n1 Percent auger n1 Percent n1 Percent
Appalachia 219 80 155 56 374 68
Central
States 48 17 88 32 136 25
Western
States 9 3 32 12 42 7
Alaska 0 0 1 0 1 0
Total 276 100 276 100 552 100
49 n1 Million tons per year.
49 Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Division of
Fossil Fuels. "Coal - Bituminous and Lignite in 1971." Washington, D.C.:
Department of the Interior. Sept. 27, 1972. p. 12.
49 Although surface mining accounts for half of current coal production,
most of the Nation's coal resources will have to be deep mined if they are to be
exploited. Table 3-2 indicates that only 45 billion tons of the total 1,552
billion tons of mapped resources, less than 3 percent, can now be classified as
strippable reserves. Almost 70 percent of the strippable reserves is in the
West, including Alaska. Only 13 percent is in Appalachia.
50
*5*TABLE 3-2. -
U.S. BITUMINOUS
AND LIGNITE
COAL RESOURCES
AND STRIPPABLE
RESERVES
Total coal reserves Strippable coal reserves
Billion tons Percent Billion tons Percent
Appalachia 304 20 6 13
Central States 239 15 9 20
Western States 878 57 26 58
Alaska 130 8 4 9
Total 1,552 100 45 100
50 Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Division of
Fossil Fuels."Coal - Bituminous and Lignite in 1971." Washington, D.C.:
Department of the Interior. Sept. 27, 1972. p. 8.
50 PRODUCTION AND RESERVES BY ANGLE OF SLOPE IN APPALACHIA
50 Much of the surface mining production in Appalachia is on slopes of 15
degrees or more. On the other hand, surface mining production in the central
and western coal regions typically comes from slopes of less than 10 degrees
(4).
50 In conducting this study, the Council found that there were no
preexisting data on surface mining coal production or reserves as a function of
slope angle. Therefore, methodologies were devised to develop these data
rapidly. Appendix G briefly describes the methodology used.
50 Surface Mine Production
50 Surface mine production on various slope angle ranges is presented in
Table 3-3 for the Appalachian States. Similar data are given in Table 3-4 for
the economic areas of Appalachia. n1 Appalachian surface mining represents about
28 percent of all U.S. coal production and 56 percent of all U.S. surface mine
production. Because less than 10 percent of the surface mining in other coal
regions comes from slopes greater than 15 degrees, these data may be used to
determine with sufficient precision the impact of slope limitations on the
Nation's coal production.
50 n1 The economic areas are defined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Department of Commerce. These economic areas are delineated according to the
concept of cities as the hubs around and within which integrated economic
activity concentrates. Figure 3-1 shows the location of these economic areas
relative to the coal reserves in Appalachia. For purposes of this analysis,
Appalachia is represented by the composite of 12 economic areas, which are
identified in Table 3-4.
51
*8*TABLE
3-3. -
CURRENT
SURFACE
MINE
PRODUCTIO
N IN
APPALACHI
A AS
FUNCTION
OF SLOPE
ANGLE,
1971
*8*[In
millions
of tons
per year]
Undergrou
nd mine
productio
Surface mine production, 1971, as function of slope angle n, 1971
10 15 20
degrees- degrees- degrees-
0-9.9 14.9 19.9 24.9 25
State Total degrees degrees degrees degrees degrees+
Alabama 11.09 4.66 1.55 1.77 1.77 1.33 6.75
Kentucky
(eastern) 33.10 0 .60 4.20 7.65 20.65 32.99
Maryland 1.47 .43 .66 0 .38 0 .14
Ohio 38.11 4.08 8.00 15.08 6.39 4.56 12.86
Pennsylva
nia 25.76 10.73 9.89 3.63 1.04 .48 44.29
Tennessee 5.34 .40 .13 .71 1.71 2.40 2.65
Virginia 9.00 0 .08 .20 .83 8.07 21.63
West
Virginia 31.92 1.83 4.43 2.71 8.43 14.46 78.76
Total 155.79 22.13 25.34 28.30 28.20 51.95 200.07
Percentag
e 100.00 14.2 16.3 18.2 18.1 33.3
51 n1 May be less than quantity of all coal produced in these States because
data on slope angle distributions were not available for all mines.
51 Source: 1971 data supplied by Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines, Division of Fossil Fuels. "Coal - Bituminous and Lignite in 1971."
Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, Sept. 27, 1972. Pp. 26-36. See
App. G for slope angle distribution.
*8*TABLE
3-4. -
CURRENT
SURFACE
MINE
PRODUCTIO
N IN
APPALACHI
A AS
FUNCTION
OF SLOPE
ANGLE
*8*[In
millions
of tons
per year]
Undergrou
nd mine
productio
Surface mine production, 1971, as function of slope angle n, 1971
10 15 20
degrees- degrees- degrees-
Economic 0-9.9 14.9 19.9 24.9 25
Area Total degrees degrees degrees degrees degrees+
11.
Williamsp
ort, Pa 8.51 3.15 2.55 2.04 0.60 0.17 1.65
66.
Pittsburg
h, Pa 44.04 12.10 16.84 8.77 2.87 3.46 59.42
68.
Cleveland
, Ohio 6.89 .69 0 .45 4.34 1.41 .79
64.
Columbus,
Ohio 12.32 .60 2.69 9.03 0 0 2.54
65.
Clarksbur
g, W. Va 7.64 0 0 .38 7.25 0 24.27
52.
Huntingto
n, W.Va.-
Ashland,
Ohio 27.27 .53 1.30 .75 1.55 23.15 65.52
53.
Lexington
, Ky 15.56 0 0 0 5.91 9.65 9.76
51.
Bristol,
Va 10.09 0 .08 .20 .87 8.94 22.80
50.
Knoxville
, Tenn 11.97 .12 .26 4.91 3.03 3.66 6.46
49.
Nashville
, Tenn .29 .28 .01 0 0 0 .10
48.
Chattanoo
ga, Tenn 1.04 .44 .15 .17 .17 .12 0
45.
Birmingha
m, Ala 10.04 4.22 1.41 1.61 1.61 1.20 6.75
Total 155.66 22.13 25.29 28.31 28.21 51.76 200.06
Percentag
e 100.0 14.2 16.2 18.2 18.1 33.3
[See Table in Original]
51 Source: See references for Table 3-3.
52 As indicated in the tables, a large percentage of surface mined coal now
comes from steep slopes. Indeed, only 14 percent of surface mining in
Appalachia is on slopes of less than 10 degrees, 16 percent is on slopes of 10
degrees to 15 degrees, 18 percent on 15 degrees to 20 degrees, 18 percent on 29
degrees to 25 degrees, and 33 percent over 25 degrees. If a 15 degrees slope
limitation were applied immediately, it would affect:
52 70 percent of Appalachian surface mining production
52 39 percent of total U.S. surface mining production
52 20 percent of total U.S. production.
52 If a 20 degrees slope limitation were applied immediately, it would
affect:
52 51 percent of Appalachian surface production
52 29 percent of total U.S. surface mining production
52 14 percent of total U.S. production.
52 These figures do not say that all this production would necessarily be
lost if contour strip and auger mining were phased out over a period of time,
for there are several ways of compensating for loss of surface mining on steep
slopes. These alternatives and their implications for mitigating the production
and reserve losses which might otherwise be associated with a slope angle ban
are discussed later in this chapter.
52 Strippable Reserves
52 Strippable coal reserves are but a small percentage of the Nation's total
coal resources. Further, although the Nation's strippable reserves are largely
in the West, it is apparent from Tables 3-5 and 3-6 that sizable strippable coal
reserves are found in Appalachia. Of the 6.5 billion tons of strippable
reserves in this region, 41 percent would be precluded from mining by a 15
degrees slope angle limitation.As seen in Table 3-5, there are strippable
reserves on relatively flat land in Alabama, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee
to support current levels of production for many years. This fact suggests that
it may be possible to shift surface mining production on steep slopes to less
steeply sloped areas. The potential impact of this alternative to surface
mining on steep slopes is discussed below.
*8*TABLE
3-5. -
STRIPPABL
E
RESERVES
IN
APPALACHI
A AS A
FUNCTION
OF SLOPE
ANGLE
*8*[
Millions
of tons]
Total
deep
10 15 20 reserves
degrees- degrees- degrees- in
0-9.9 14.9 19.9 24.9 25 Appalachi
State Total degrees degrees degrees degrees degrees + a
Alabama 169.84 124.79 16.42 13.19 10.04 5.40 12,774
Kentucky
(eastern) 766.52 44.80 38.84 106.36 219.36 357.16 37,639
Maryland 27.27 25.17 1.71 .26 .13 0 1,117
Ohio 1,334.01 961.04 256.44 102.92 13.42 0 36,505
Pennsylva
nia 1,293.48 1,116.24 161.34 10.16 3.42 2.45 66,011
Tennessee 135.66 75.85 8.51 22.24 24.26 4.80 2,094
Virginia 226.86 0 0 32.06 131.78 63.02 8,324
West
Virginia 2,507.01 364.52 592.04 475.87 608.86 465.72 90,059
Total 6,460.65 2,712.41 1,075.30 763.06 1,011.27 898.55 254,523
Percentag
e 100.0 42.0 16.6 11.8 15.7 13.9
52 Source: All data sources and analytical techniques are described in
App.G.
53
*7*TABLE
3-6. -
STRIPPABLE
RESERVES IN
APPALACHIA
AS FUNCTION
OF SLOPE
ANGLE
*7*[In
millions of
tons]
10 15 20
degrees- degrees- degrees-
Economic 0-9.9 14.9 19.9 24.9 25 degrees
Area Total degrees degrees degrees degrees +
11.
Williamspor
t, Pa 235.89 208.04 25.51 2.34 0 0
66.
Pittsburgh,
Pa 1,284.76 1,040.40 183.01 41.58 15.04 2.73
68.
Cleveland,
Ohio 412.19 337.64 72.87 1.68 0 0
64.
Columbus,
Ohio 596.12 480.05 63.87 50.37 1.83 0
65.
Clarksburg,
W.Va. 600.19 62.62 420.09 104.25 13.23 0
52.
Huntington,
W.Va.,
Ashland,
Ohio 2,122.84 248.40 236.40 445.65 630.59 561.80
53.
Lexington,
Ky 276.62 0 0 0 78.06 198.56
51.
Bristol, Va 313.88 0 0 44.36 182.32 87.20
50.
Knoxville,
Tenn 274.06 65.02 31.09 56.95 78.80 42.20
49.
Nashville,
Tenn 41.09 40.41 .68 0 0 0
48.
Chattanooga
, Tenn 32.05 23.55 3.10 2.49 1.89 1.02
45.
Birmingham,
Ala 157.41 115.66 15.22 12.22 9.30 5.01
Total 6,347.10 2,621.79 1,053.84 761.89 1,011.06 898.52
Percentage 100.0 41.3 16.6 12.0 15.9 19.6
[See Table in Original]
53 Source: See sources for Table 3-5.
53 IMPORTANCE OF CENTRAL APPALACHIA
53 It is not difficult to see that the areas that would be affected most by
slope angle prohibitions are southern West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, western
Virginia, and northeastern Tennessee, those largely covered by Economic Areas
50, 51, 52 and 53. n2 In this discussion, this region will be identified as
central Appalachia. $
53 n2 These four EA's roughly coincide with Districts 7 "Southern Numbered
1" and District 8 "Southern Numbered 2" defined in the Bituminous Coal Act of
1937.
53 In Table 3-7, the production and reserve data for the central Appalachian
region are aggregated for comparison. As Table 3-7 shows, less than 4 percent
of the coal surface mined in central Appalachia currently comes from slopes of
less than 15 degrees, whereas almost 20 percent of the strippable reserves
underlie slopes of less than 15 degree. At the other extreme, over 70 percent
of current surface production in this region comes from slopes of more than 25
degrees while only 30 percent of the strippable reserves underlie slopes of more
than 25 degrees. Even more dramatic is the fact that in western Virginia and
eastern Kentucky (Economic Areas 51 and 53), there is little current surface
production and virtually no strippable reserves underlying slopes of less than
15 degrees.
*7*TABLE
3-7. -
SUMMARY OF
SURFACE
PRODUCTION
AND RESERVE
DATA FOR
CENTRAL
APPALACHIA
*7*[Surface
production
and
reserves in
central
Appalachia
as function
of slope
angle]
10 15 20
degrees- degrees- degrees-
0-9.9 14.9 19.9 24.9 25 degrees
Total degrees degrees degrees degrees +
Surface
mining
production:
Millions of
tons per
year 64.89 0.65 1.64 5.86 11.36 45.00
Percentage 100.00 1.00 2.50 9.00 17.50 70.00
Strippable
reserves:
Millions of
tons 2,987.00 313.00 267.00 547.00 970.00 890.00
Percentage 100.00 10.50 9.00 18.00 32.50 30.00
53 Source: Developed from Tables 3-4 and 3-6.
54 Coal Quality
54 The coal produced in Appalachia by both surface and deep mining is
generally of high quality and is in demand for steam electric plants, coke and
gas plants, and exports, particularly to Canada and Japan. The coal produced by
both surface and underground methods in the central Appalachia region - which
could be most highly impacted by a slope angle prohibition - has the lowest
sulfur content of any coal in the Appalachian and central U.S. regions. Table
3-8 presents the sulfur content of surface mined coal in central Appalachia as a
function of slope angle.
54 Low sulfur fuel is already in high demand for use in steam electric
plants to meet national sulfur oxides air quality standards. As indicated in
Table 3-9, utiliyies are paying premium prices of $9 .90 per ton for the surface
mined low sulfur coal from the central Appalachian region, compared with the
average price of $8.16 and $7 .69 for that from other parts of Appalachia and
of the Nation respectively.
*7*TABLE
3-8. -
SULFUR
CONTENT OF
CENTRAL
APPALACHIAN
SURFACE
MINED COAL
AS A
FUNCTION OF
SLOPE ANGLE
*7*[
Millions of
tons per
year]
10 15 20
degrees- degrees- degrees-
Sulfur 0-9.9 14.9 19.9 24.9 25 degrees
Content Total degrees degrees degrees degrees +
1 percent 40.17 0.35 0.53 0.75 6.58 31.96
1 to 1.49
percent 15.80 .12 .41 .44 3.48 11.35
1.5 to 1.99
percent 7.30 .09 .37 4.12 .95 1.77
2 to 2.99
percent 1.42 .19 .32 .22 .36 .33
> 3 percent .34 0 0 .34 0 0
Total 65.03 .75 1.63 5.87 11.37 45.41
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PRODUCTION
1 percent 61.8 0.5 0.8 1.1 10.1 49.1
1 to 1.49
percent 24.3 .2 .6 .7 5.4 17.5
1.5 to 1.99
percent 11.2 .1 .6 6.3 1.5 2.7
2 to 2.99
percent 2.2 .3 .5 .3 .6 .5
> 3 percent .5 0 0 .5 0
Total 100.0 1.1 2.5 8.9 17.6 69.8
54 Source: Based on Bureau of Mines filed survey, January, 1973.
*5*TABLE 3-9. -
COAL PURCHASED
FOR STEAM
ELECTRIC
PLANTS, BY
REGION OF
PRODUCTION
Surface Underground
Quantity Quantity
(million tons Price per ton (million tons
per year) n1 per year) Price per ton
Low sulfur
(less than 1
percent S)
steam electric
coal:
North
Appalachia 3.30 $8.90 1.82 $1 5.01
Central
Appalachia 21.32 9.90 31.01 10.63
South
Appalachia 3.88 7.54 2.00 9.85
Total,
Appalachia 28.50 9.45 34.83 10.80
Total, United
States 57.30 7.69 37.32 10.61
All steam
electric coal:
North
Appalachia 54.42 8.93 50.91 9.29
Central
Appalachia 35.75 9.51 48.14 10.23
South
Appalachia 8.99 8.07 4.11 10.30
Total,
Appalachia 99.16 9.04 103.16 9.75
Central
(western
Kentucky,
Illinois,
Indiana) 87.92 6.95 39.08 7.99
Total, United
States 229.16 7.71 145.02 9.40
[See Table in Original]
54 n1 Value, F.O.B. mine.
54 Source: Based on Federal Power Commission Form 423, data supplied to CEQ
by the FPC, 3d quarter, 1972.
55 Coal produced in central Appalachia also has a high Btu content, a low
ash content, and other physical characteristics which recommend it for coking
and gas plants and for export as metallurgical grade coal. In recent years over
40 percent of the central Appalachian coal, generally that with a sulfur content
under 1 percent, has been used for coking and gas plants (5). This coking coal
cannot be replaced by most coals with higher sulfur and ash content mined
elsewhere in Appalachia or in the central region of the U.S.
55 Over 15 percent of the region's coal, averaging 0.8 percent sulfur,
enters the export market, accounting for about 75 percent of the Nation's coal
exports of $9 00 million in 1971 (6). These exports are rising and may now be
approaching $1.3 billion annually (7).
55 A number of observations can be made about the potential impact of slope
limitations on low sulfur coal production in central Appalachia. First, the 40
million tons of low sulfur, surface mined coal production accounts for 62
percent of total surface mine production in central Appalachia. Virtually all
of this production is on slopes over 20 degrees. Second, about half of this
production is purchased by utilities for steam electric power plants,
representing 23 percent of all low sulfur coal consumed in the Nation's steam
electric plants. Hence, a slope limitation would have significant effects on
the availability of low sulfur coal for both utility and metallurgical uses,
unless production from underground mines increased substantially in central
Appalachia. Because of the costs of transportation, low sulfur Western coal
could make up little of this deficit for electric power production and is not of
high enough quality for metallurgical uses.
*5*TABLE 3-10.
- IMPACT ON
UNDERGROUND
RESERVES OF A
SHIFT TO
UNDERGROUND
FROM STEEP
SLOPES
Percent
increase in
annua
Years remaining underground
Production lost Years remaining for underground production if
on steep slopes for underground production if all steep slope
for 15 degrees mining at all production production lost
restriction current above 15 is recovered by
(million tons production degrees goes to underground
Economic Area per year) levels underground mining
11.
Williamsport,
Pa 2.81 n(1) n(1) 170.0
66.
Pittsburgh, Pa 15.10 915 730 25.4
68. Cleveland,
Ohio 6.20 n(1) n(1) 785.0
64. Columbus,
Ohio 9.03 n(1) n(1) 356.0
65.Clarksburg,
W.Va. 7.64 n(1) n(1) 31.4
52.
Huntington,
W.Va.-Ashland,
Ohio 25.45 529 381 38.9
53. Lexington,
Ky 15.56 542 209 159.0
51. Bristol,
Va 10.09 171 132 28.9
50. Knoxville,
Tenn 11.60 487 126 297.0
49. Nashville,
Tenn 0 n(1) n(1) 0
48.
Chattanooga,
Tenn 0.46 n(1) n(1) n(1)
45.
Birmingham, Ala 4.42 n(1) n(1) 65.4
55 n1 Not available.
55 Source: See sources for Tables 3-4 and 3-6.
55 SUBSTITUTION OF UNDERGROUND PRODUCTION FOR SURFACE PRODUCTION ON STEEP
SLOPES
55 Physical Availability
55 The extensive mining of coal on steep slopes is concentrated in several
economic regions of Appalachia, particularly eastern Kentucky and southern West
Virginia. Production from deep mines in these regions is also significant.
56[See Map in Original]
56 Table 3-10 shows that coal reserves removable by underground mining in
many of the major economic areas would last several hundred years even with a
shift from surface mining on steep slopes to underground mining. In terms of
the available resources, a shift from surface to underground production in the
economic areas discussed would not necessarily lead to coal production
curtailment. However, as indicated in the last column of the table, to make up
for lost production on steep slopes, current underground production would need
to expand significantly. The following analysis focuses on the ability to open
new mines, as well as on other constraints such as capital and equipment
requirements, the economics of such a shift, and the availability of labor.
57 Economic and Technical Constraints
57 In general, switching to deep mining would be constrained by the time
required to expand production from existing deep mines and to open new
underground mines. Opinions differ on whether existing deep mines are now
producing close to capacity. If they are, then new equipment would be required
to expand capacity. If they are not, then expanded capacity is subject to the
availability of labor. Because deep mining requires entirely different mining
equipment than do surface operations, surface mining equipment cannot be used to
expand deep mining production.
57 Significant expansion of deep mining production from new mines and from
existing mines if there is no excess capacity would necessitate the purchase of
highly specialized equipment, such as cutters, loaders, track, ventilation
devices, and roof jacks. The lead time for delivery of this equipment may be up
to several years (8). To open new mines, it may take from 2 to 4 years to
perform geological analyses, develop mining plans, provide railroad spurs,
develop access roads and processing facilities, sink mine shafts to the coal
seams, and install the necessary mining and safety equipment (9).
57 Capital availability may also constrain accelerating deep mine
production. The necessary investment in a new deep mine may vary between $8 and
$2 0 per ton of annual production of uncleaned coal (10). The wide range is a
function of variations in depth of cover, thickness and slope angle of the coal
seam, roof conditions, the number of working faces, and gaseous conditions.
Because economies of scale dictate a deep mine which can produce over 1 million
tons per year, a capital investment of perhaps tens of millions of dollars may
be required.
57 It is not likely that most displaced contour mine operators could easily
enter deep mining, because they lack the necessary capital and mining and
management expertise. Most contour mine operations are relatively small,
producing under 100,000 tons each year (11). Their total investment in
equipment may be as little as the cost of dragline, a coal loader, a bulldozer,
and two trucks, valued at a few hundred thousand dollars.
57 In addition to capital and labor constraints, underground mining may not
substitute for surface mining because it would appear less economic than
alternative surface production. Although costs of surface and underground
mining vary widely due to mine size, topography, and coal seam variations, data
on numbers of mines and total production clearly indicate the relative
competitive advantages of surface mining. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 illustrate the
declining importance of underground mining and the rapid growth of surface
mining - a trend due largely to economics, one which may not be easily
reversed.Similarly, individual decisions to substitute underground mining for
surface mining may be largely influenced by the relative diseconomies of deep
mining.
58 [See Graph in Original]
58 Labor Constraints
58 Slope angle limitations on surface mining would affect many miners.
Limitations of production on slopes over 15 degrees and 20 degrees would affect
an estimated 16,000 and 12,000 employees, respectively.
58 If the amount of coal currently surface mined in Appalachia on slopes of
over 20 degrees were replaced with underground mined coal, given the current
output per man-day for underground mining, there would be a demand for about
36,000 underground miners, almost triple the number of surface miners displaced.
59 Some portion of the displaced surface miners would probably find
employment in underground mines. However, surface miners are operators of
earthmoving equipment. Their skills are more common to heavy construction than
to underground mining. Because of the dissimilarity of surface and underground
mining, a surface miner would generally require about the same training as any
new underground worker. The few jobs common to surface and underground mining,
such as for electricians and mechanics, would require little additional
training.
59 Because of the skill requirements and the danger of accidents, many
States require that new underground employees be accompanied by an experienced
miner for the first 6 months or year (12). With the high employee turnover rate
(approximately 18 percent) and the high absentee rate (approximately 20
percent), even more people would be required (13). And this is in addition to
the manpower required to meet growth in coal demand - 71 percent by 1985 (14).
Hence, even if all the surface miners could be shifted into deep mining, many
additional people would still be needed, necessitating a greatly expanded
recruitment and training program.
59 There are differences of opinion on how difficult it would be to recruit
such a large number of underground miners. Underground mining is a noisy, dirty
and dangerous job, but pays high wages. It does appear likely, however, that
there will be shortages of supervisors at the foreman level. Another manpower
constraint of lesser magnitude may be the lack of engineers with experience in
underground mining, particularly if underground mining is to expand greatly in
the near future.
59 The economic implications of a shift from surface to underground
employment are discussed in Chapter 4. Appendix H details the occupational
health and safety impacts ofsuch a shift in employment.
CHAPTER 4
REGIONAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF SLOPE ANGLE LIMITATIONS
69 The impacts of slope angle restrictions on production and reserves are
discussed in Chapter 3. This chapter explores in a preliminary way the effects
of slope angle prohibitions on the employment, earnings, and the general
economic health of Appalachia.
69 Although some legislative proposals would only partially preclude mining
on steep slopes, it is not possible to evaluate their impacts because of the
wide range of potential administrative discretion in considering such factors as
different technologies, soil stability, and the like. Consequently this chapter
focuses on a complete ban above a specified slope angle. To the extent
legislation is enacted