Eriki Peterson over at West Virginia Public Broadcasting had an interesting piece today in which Gov. Joe Manchin’s Department of Environmental Protection Secretary, Randy Huffman, went off on the Obama administration’s move to take a closer look at mountaintop removal permits being issued by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Among other things, Huffman said:
“We are the environmental regulators here in West Virginia. We are the ones on the front line here. We are the ones responsible for protecting the environment. We have a very rigorous and robust regulatory program that is basically being challenged.”
Let me first say that I get along fine with Randy. Unlike many of his predecessors, Randy takes my phone calls, answers my questions, and is generally about as patient as I could expect from a DEP Secretary. I also think that, by and large, there are lots of really good and hard-working people at DEP who want to do their jobs well and make West Virginia a better place to live and work.
But wow. Methinks Randy protests too much … let’s look at some of what he said in this public broadcasting piece …
– “… primacy for regulating surface mining in West Virginia belongs to the state and not the federal government.”
Yes. Under the surface mining act, West Virginia has primacy to enforce the 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. But, those aren’t the permits EPA is looking at. EPA is reviewing valley fill permit proposed to be issued by the federal Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. West Virginia’s DEP does not have primacy for those permits. And while one thing the Bush administration considered was giving state agencies primacy under Section 404, that hasn’t happened.
– “Mainly what we’re concerned about as regulators is the ability to develop land after mining,” he said. “You need valley fills if you’re going to have a viable post mining economy. You need flat land. And in order to have flat land you need to have valley fills, and one of our biggest concerns is that EPA is wanting to reduce the size and number of valley fills in Appalachia.â€
Since when is DEP’s primary job supposed to be focused on the ability to develop land after mining? Silly me … I thought it was to protect the environment.
– “… [EPA's] objection letters to these permits kind of came out of the blue and caught everyone off-guard.”
Were DEP officials not paying attention during the election? Then-candidate and now-President Barack Obama made it clear he was concerned about mountaintop removal and thought it was a practice that should be stopped. While Obama never said exactly what he would do about mountaintop removal, the fact that EPA has gotten more involved should not have surprised anyone at DEP or in the coal industry.
– “We have a very rigorous and robust regulatory program …“
Come now. Remember first that mountaintop removal got out of control because for years DEP didn’t do its job, by failing to enforce the approximate original contour reclamation standard and the post-mining land development rules already on the books.
And, as I’ve written before, the state under former Gov. Cecil Underwood basically dared EPA to come in and take a closer look at valley fills when it insisted on passing a greatly weakened stream “mitigation bill.”
Today, the state is doing the same thing again, having passed the Stalling Selenium legislation, with hardly a word against it from DEP. Truth be told, this legislation is patterned after what DEP has already tried to do: Give coal operators more and more time to avoid actually complying with water pollution standards for a chemical that has pushed at least one West Virginia watershed to the “brink of a major toxic event.”
DEP’s standard line on mountaintop removal goes something like this: Sure, we made some mistakes years ago. But we’ve learned a lot and beefed up our program. We are tougher on the coal industry than any state in the country.
But you have to wonder …
If that’s true, why did it take EPA and the Justice Department to come in and fine Massey Energy $20 million for thousands of water pollution violations across the state’s southern coalfields?
Well, that’s because the folks at DEP for four or five years simply shoved “discharge monitoring reports,” or DMRs, that companies file into a drawer somewhere, not bothering to check and see if Massey and other companies were complying with their pollution permit limits.
And let’s not forget, DEP has repeatedly missed legislative deadlines to complete a study on whether coal slurry injected underground is pollution water supplies and making people sick.
Or, the fact that it took a federal court order for DEP to even consider beginning to write permits and comply with water pollution limits at the abandoned mine sites it controls under its Special Reclamation Program. DEP also proposed legislation this year that doesn’t got nearly as far as its own advisory panel said was needed to fix the finances of the Special Rec program.
And recently, the federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement found serious problems with the way DEP polices coal-slurry impoundments, which is one of the agency’s most important jobs.
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
Ken, Thanks for your insight on this.
I was wondering myself about DEP’s lax enforcement on the water monitoring. DEP has short memories.
The unfilled jobs at DEP is also worrisome as well to residents that might need to call an inspector for possible violations.
Recently a resident had to call OSM to inspect possible violations at a surface mine site. I was told the OSM did indeed write violations at that site.
I totally agree that DEP Randy Huffman’s job is to protect the environment, but it seems as if he is confused about his job duties.
The DEP can’t even do a simple water study in Prenter. Thank GOD for the EPA. I think the EPA should take over the DEP.
AMAZING post. Thanks for once again setting the record straight. I’m very clear when lecturing nationally that the people of WV pointed out the illegality of many of the surface mining practices first and investigative journalism brought it to national attention. No public official or regulator had the moral courage or integrity to address it. The WV DEP should be ashamed for presenting coal industry public relations sound bites instead of the truth. Incredibly disappointing.
Thank God we have someone like Mr. Huffman who isn’t afraid to stand up and speak the truth. I feel the DEP does a really good job.
The DEP does a good job backing the coal companies. Not the environment or the people.
Mr. Huffman’s job is not to run interference for the coal industry. It is to protect the environment. As a person that must depend upon the DEP , I am very concerned.
After reading Mr. Huffman’s quotes, I don’t see how anyone could be confused about the wrong attitude that the DEP has taken.
I can only assume that it is the corrupt grip that the coal industry has on this state and public officials.
Randy Huffman has the gall. He is tired of the EPA trying to step on his toes. In truth his toes need to be mashed a little harder. The DEP is a joke and has been for many years. I hope the EPA does come in here and cleans up this mess. The DEP has been a total waste of taxpayer money. We don’t pay taxes for a department of the state government to shield the coal companies. They don’t do their jobs, they turn a blind eye. They can’t even do a proper water test, can’t or won’t. That is the question. I believe it is the latter.
Great post. Thanks for setting forth the facts, as opposed to accepting Huffman’s pro-industry, anti-EPA propaganda, which many in WV media accept unquestioningly.
The fact is that for years, WV government has enabled and protected coal operators and created the very circumstances that are now forcing the EPA to act. If WV had adequate regulators or an adequate regulatory structure, the EPA’s involvement wouldn’t be necessary.
I think Mr. Huffman is either not in the loop or just fails to accept the reality of the situation inside the WV DEP.
At a recent dep/citizens conference a dep inspector was asked by a citizen to view, on foot, a permitted mtr site that was obviously breaking the law. The citizen was told by the inspector (witnesses present) that his knees were bad and that he wasn’t about to walk below a blast area anyway. The inspectors boss was standing there and heard the conversation as did numerous citizens. A week later the citizen contacted the fed Office of Surface Mining. The feds then walked up the mountain, on foot, as requested, and their inspection resulted in four violations against the mountain demolition coal company.
Perhaps Randy Huffman should think a little longer and harder before going off on the EPA. They do have the power and the authority to take over the WV DEP if they determine that the DEP is not an effective agency. The Fed Office of Surface Mining also has the authority and power to take over. Going off on them may not be a very good idea. There are obvious problems inside the DEP. I agree with Mr. Ward that there are DEP personnel that do want to do their job, and try to do their job. But there are others that seem to act as though they are being paid by the coal industry. Some of the things they do and some of the things they don’t do certainly are confusing, if not questionable. Personally, I think, the fed’s should take over on the short term until an effective new state environmental agency is developed, and then monitored closely until the coal industry moves out of WV. That probably wouldn’t be more than 15 years.
Makes you wonder if it’s not time for DOJ to take a long look at DEP.
Huffman’s argument that all these valley fills are needed for development seems, to me, wrong-headed if not specious. Is there even a statewide or regional plan to tell him where this growth is needed? Economically viable development needs population, infrastructure, commerce & jobs. Viable developments are clustered & linked together. Flattening mountains and filling valleys helter-skelter, scattershot across the southern half of West Virginia is unlikely to prefigure a similar dispersion of office parks, suburbs and small factories. The truth seems to be that rural sites with few development prospects are more likely to be mined than sites where there is current demand for build-able land.
An item of interest, PBS/Frontline airs “Poisoned Waters” tonight:
http://www.pbs.org/frontline/
Scott,
You are absolutely right; coal companies are going to mine where the coal is, not where the post-mining development opportunities are. This is exactly what makes Huffman’s statement so bizarre:
“You need valley fills if you’re going to have a viable post mining economy. You need flat land. And in order to have flat land you need to have valley fills, and one of our biggest concerns is that EPA is wanting to reduce the size and number of valley fills in Appalachia.â€
The other clarification I’d add is that where development has occurred, it would be more expensive to mine no matter the coal resource. This economic fact will tend to push mining to rural areas.
“We are the environmental regulators here in West Virginia. We are the ones on the front line here. We are the ones responsible for protecting the environment,” Huffman said.
If that’s the case, then why do we have to risk our lives to stop this criminal surface mining and now face possible contempt of court charges? Mr. Huffman, people like us who sit down in front of coal trucks or hang 4-story-tall banners are on the front lines of environmental defense. If you are too, then why aren’t you there beside us? You should be standing beside us in that Raleigh County courtroom on the first, facing the same charges, either because you’re not currently doing your job or because you came and risked your life with us to stop these crimes.
If you and the DEP were doing your jobs to protect the environment, we would never have even started these direct, non-violent civil disobedience actions.
The term valley fill is a misnomer, and Mr. Hoffman knows it. The blasted rock contains the remains of the explosive charges used to destroy the mountain, waste coal, and other materials are. It is a waste dump, and one that contains toxic material. And what about the slurry impoundments, gob piles and sludge ponds that also accompany a valley fill? The EPA has the responsibility to ensure that healthy streams are not covered with toxic waste and that the water downstream is not contaminated. It seems to me that Mr. Huffman not only wants the EPA to saty out of West Virginia, he wants the coal companies to be exempt from the laws that the rest of us must live by.
[...] via Blogs @ The Charleston Gazette – » WVDEP’s Huffman goes off on Obama EPA. [...]
i weep
filled with rage and righteous indignation
i weep
encouraging the verge of rebellion into revolution
i weep
who own’s what? this source of your very life, you force regulation?
i weep
what would you do if someone was raping you
i weep
we all deserve extinction
i weep
one day, dear hills, you will rule again
i weep
Thank you once again for excellent and balanced reporting, Mr. Ward. Mr. Huffman is confused about the duties of DEP. It’s charged in the State Code with protecting the environment as it is “fundamental to the health and welfare of individual citizens.” It seems to me that the only individual citizens being served are MTR mine operators.
It’s strange that anti-coal folks believe that DEP doesn’t do their job and coal operators feel like they are too strict. Most miners never feel like they get any breaks from them. Even if a situation is not an environmental or safety threat, DEP will write a violation based on the letter of the law. Mr. Ward makes some good points to some DEP deficiencies but most of these were uncovered by some intelligent people after countless hours of probing. The anti-coal lawyers largely moved on from the DEP to the Corps after they changed what they could in a quest to stop surface mining. And so it goes…
[...] WV’s Environment Chief Goes Off on EPA (Coal Tattoo) [...]
I believe that the EPA took over Tennessee’s DEP (or whatever it’s called there) because they couldn’t get their act together. Sounds like West Virginia might need that as well.
I always thought that West Virginia politics would make a great political thriller. It’s got all the elements: money, intimidation, corporate sovereignty and unbelievable amounts of corruption.
You might have us confused with Illinois.
“It’s a little bit frustrating in that these permit applications have been through a long and rigorous process over the course of a couple of years and EPA has made their objections known here in the final hour.â€
The reason for this is that Bush’s EPA wasn’t pushing DEP to enforce the laws. Now Coal (thru Huffman) is crying fowl because EPA is actually pushing the issue.
I wonder about those same “valley fills” used all over southern W V in highway construction that contain all the same toxic material. Does that also make certain roads waste dumps? Who regulates “these” valley fills?
I’m not sure on highway construction but they may not have had to have a permit then to build roads.
I think we are at a saturation point on road building.
We really don’t need any new roads. We should fix the roads and bridges we have before we plan to build new roads.
The cumulative effect of all the surface mining and road construction is at a saturation point in southern West Virginia.
Watcher, Hollergirl:
Any filling of streams for any purpose is regulated by the Corps of Engineers and EPA under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Unless they involved coal removal — such as the King Coal Highway — they are not regulated by the strip mining law.
Watcher — you’ve repeatedly tried to raise this non-issue, and I’ll ask you to drop it. Whether or not road construction fills are properly regulated (often DOH does not get a permit first, and I’ve written lots stories about them getting cited for that) is beside the point.
Thanks, Ken.
Indeed Ken. And even if they were a part of this issue, the amount of road valley fills are dwarfed by the amount of mining valley fills in both tons of material, stream miles buried, and and volume. However, they are more visible in the public’s eye as they are common along the 4-lane highways in WV. Mining valley fills are less visible as they are often off of the main roads. But even this is becoming less so in Southern WV.
I believe that you can build a road and remove coal without a mining permit but if you want to mine additional coal, outside that required for the road base, then a mining permit would be required. And as Ken stated, ANY stream activity requires a Corps permit 404, 21, 14 or whatever.
Sorry to discuss this further but Watcher makes a relevant point regarding roads and additionally malls, housing, and other urban sprawl activities, especially in the hills and mountains. Buildings, houses, concrete and other developments do not grow vegetation and do not have sedimentation ponds that are sampled and reported. And often have valley fills and highwalls that are not required to be backfilled. I guess the point is we allow land uses for so called “progress” to meet our needs. Agriculture is another impact on the planet. We all can do things to lessen the impact on earth, but do we? I suggest concerned citizens lead by example and the current recession should give many the impetus.
“Buildings, houses, concrete and other developments do not grow vegetation and do not have sedimentation ponds that are sampled and reported.”
This is not necessarily true. For example, the Southridge Shopping Complex in Charleston/South Charleston have numerous ponds with the associated fills. The ponds associated with valley fills are not supposed to be permanent structures. After a certain amount of time, they are supposed to be removed if they are no longer needed to catch sediment. However, not many of these ponds have been removed to date on any past mining valley fills. The ponds at Southridge are most likely serving as permanent storm water retention ponds now.
And as far as needing a permit to remove coal while building a road, I believe it would still require some permits (e.g., NPDES water permits, land disturbance/construction, etc.). But since the primary reason for the project is for a higher, permanent purpose (i.e., building a major road that will be long term infastructure asset) the permitting process would be streamlined and more able to get past the obstacles that a traditional mining permit would have. This is why Huffman said, “Mainly what we’re concerned about as regulators is the ability to develop land after mining,â€. The attempt is to justify as many mountaintop permits by stating there is a higher intented purpose for making the flat land. However, there are only so many shopping centers, jails, schools, etc. that can be built. And even then, there are problems with foundations long after the required settling period. For example, I have heard that the Target in Morgantown has had foundation problems relating to being built on a reclaimed mining site.
Dell,
I have looked at two valley fills at Southridge and saw no ponds. The “pond” that I saw at Dudley Farms does not hold water and therefore can not trap sediment. I believe it is designed to moderate sheet flow from parking lots. There have been many ponds removed below reclaimed valley fills after phase II release.
P.S. I like your computers but am thinking about getting a Mac.
The ponds I am refering to are on the eastern side of Southridge behing Wal-Mart/Gander Mountain. The first is located in a small hollow to the Northeast of the Marquee Cinemas. It is about halfway down the hollow towards Middle Fork of Davis Creek. The second is below the fill behind Home Depot and also draining about halfway down towards Middle Fork.