Arch Coal Inc. apparently issued a statement late Friday about the U.S. EPA’s decision to begin proceedings to veto its Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan County, W.Va., the largest mountaintop removal proposal in West Virginia history.
Here’s what they had to say:
We are shocked that the EPA would take such an action in light of the strong support for the Spruce permit voiced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
As the most carefully scrutinized and fully considered mine permit in West Virginia’s history, the Spruce No. 1 permit was legally issued in 2007. The nearly 10-year permitting process included the preparation of a full environmental impact statement. The EPA was intimately involved in the preparation and approval of the Spruce permit, making today’s news even more difficult to understand.
We agree with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the West Virginia DEP in their recent assertions to the EPA that the Spruce permit should be allowed to move forward without any further delay.
Businesses need a stable and predictable regulatory climate in order to move forward with new, job-creating investments; the mining industry is no different.
We intend to engage EPA in the regulatory process provided by law in order to defend the permit and the Corps’ decision to issue it.
The St. Louis-based company also included a list of “background facts” which I’ll post below:
The West Virginia DEP on Sept. 26 and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on Sept. 30 indicated that the EPA (in requesting that the Spruce permit be “revoked, suspended or modified”) had provided no new information and raised no new concerns.
As the West Virginia DEP stated: “[A]t some point, a project must be deemed to have been studied enough to meet NEPA’s requirements. This is the most heavily studied and scrutinized surface mining coal operation in the history of a state which has a long history with the coal mining industry.”
The WVDEP went on to say: “The WVDEP is committed to the application of the existing laws, rules and policies to protect the environment. … It does not support retroactive, ad hoc departures from existing laws rules and guidelines.”
And finally, the WVDEP stated: “As regulators, operating within the authority of existing rules and laws, such an approach is unsupportable and undermines the considerable efforts over the years by the WVDEP, Corps and USEPA to develop consistent, predictable and fair permitting programs and procedures.”
In its letter to EPA refusing to “suspend, modify or revoke” the permit, the Corps stated that the decision to issue the permit in 2007 “followed extensive coordination with your agency [EPA] for nearly 10 years concerning the project’s scope, alternatives and compensatory mitigation.”
Gov. Joe Manchin also issued this statement:
To say that I am mad would be an understatement,” Gov. Joe Manchin said about his learning of the EPA’s announcement today.
The Spruce Number 1 Mine permit was one of the most reviewed and carefully examined permits in history, taking almost 10 years to get approval finally in 2007, and now the EPA is telling the employees and the business that made the investment that no you cannot work. This is a prime example of how the federal government is not working for the people.
This federal bureaucracy is misleading, and is adding excessive red tape that is affecting people’s livelihoods. Government should be a facilitator and partner, not a hindrance to Americans working to obtain the American Dream – and that is to have a good job, make a decent wage and provide for their family.
Neither Arch Coal nor Gov. Manchin bothered to point out that EPA has never really backed off its criticism of this particular permit, even when the Republicans and President George W. Bush were running the country. As I explained in Saturday’s Gazette-Mail story:
However, public records show that the EPA has consistently raised the same concerns about the Spruce Mine, even during the Bush administration.
During the comment period on the current Spruce Mine permit, in June 2006, the EPA issued a letter that ranked the proposal as “EC-2,” or “Environmental Concerns and Insufficient Information.”
The EPA praised the company and the corps for reducing the mine’s impacts, but said the permit still did not contain adequate mitigation for water-quality damage, sufficient study of cumulative impacts or a detailed review of potential environmental justice effects of the operation.
“We have remaining environmental concerns based on the uncertainty of the mitigation proposals and as yet incomplete cumulative impact assessment and management plans for the Little Coal River watershed,” wrote then-EPA regional administrator Donald Welsh.
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
“[A]t some point, a project must be deemed to have been studied enough to meet NEPA’s requirements.”
So DEP’s contention would appear to be that the amount of STUDY that has gone into a project should be a criterion for deciding whether the NEPA’s requirements have been met? Can you say “non sequitur”?
The AMOUNT of study is second only to the QUALITY and workmanship of the study. I’m sure there are plenty of smart people involved in the review process, but I’m also sure the possibilty of small pockets of lobbyists are indirectly involved in streering this big flagship project. Any academic professional can easlier produce a 1000 page study on whatever the assigned task is; that doesn’t mean all 1000 pages are the holy grail of knowledge…..