It’s nice that some things never change in West Virginia … like the lengths my friend Congressman Nick Rahall is willing to go to show his loyalty to the coal industry.
Rahall’s office today is promoting this letter that Rahall — along with Rep. Alan Mollahan, D-W.Va., and Rick Boucher, D-Va. — sent to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to complain about EPA’s latest effort to try to reduce the pollution from mountaintop removal coal mining.
The letter focuses on EPA’s recent guidance for how states should handle coal-mining pollution that dangerously increases the electrical conductivity of Appalachian streams.
In a press release, Rahall’s office said:
The legislators argued that much more work must be done to understand the broad effects of the policies contained in the Guidance on coal mining and other economic activities throughout Appalachia. In particular, the Guidance contains newly proposed limitations on the level of conductivity (electrical charge) in streams impacted by surface mining operations, a matter that has become a central and controversial issue in surface mining permit applications in the Appalachian states over recent months.
What’s missing from that?
Well, how about any suggestion from Rep. Rahall that perhaps the Environmental Protection Agency should be looking at what the impacts of increased conductivity is on Appalachian headwaters streams and water quality downstream from mining operations?
I’ve blogged before about all of the things that Rep. Rahall could be — but is not — doing that would try to find a balance between coal mining and environmental protection. This is yet another example of what has become a more and more one-sided view from the congressman who has represented Southern West Virginia’s coalfields for more than 30 years.
There are a couple of claims in Rahall’s letter that are especially interesting:
First, the letter says:
Essentially, EPA is seeking to bootstrap conductivity as a section 402 effluent limitation standard through the section 404 process.
Wrong. While EPA’s guidance (right it here) does note that conductivity must be taken into account during the Clean Water Act 404 “dredge-and-fill” permit process, the agency specifies a clear focus and preference for dealing with it through CWA Section 402 water pollution permits.
Second, the Rahall letter says:
And to do so only in Appalachia, and only with respect to surface coal mining operations. Not only is there no precedent for such an action, but it is also patently a wrong approach to implementing the Clean Water Act. This is a national law and should be applied evenly and equally throughout the country as has been done in the past, and there is simply no justification for departing from that practice
And:
Never before this Administration has the Appalachian coal mining industry been required to address questions of conductivity and much remains to be learned before we can possibly understand how conductivity limits will impact coal mining B both surface and underground B as well as any number of essential economic activities, such as road construction that is also critical to allowing the Appalachian region to achieve economic equity. To wit, we must question why a hardrock mining operation in California, or a shopping mall construction project in New Jersey, which may impact an intermittent or ephemeral stream, should not be held to the same standard.
We’ve been over this before, too … See the previous post, New EPA standards: Is this only about coal?
For example:
So, is EPA treating coal or Appalachian coal differently? Well, yes and no.
Is EPA putting resources into examining the environmental problems associated with coal mining — especially mountaintop removal — in West Virginia? Absolutely. But perhaps that’s because there is so much scientific evidence about the magnitude of those problems, as well as plenty of evidence that we in Appalachia aren’t doing a very good job of addressing those problems on our own.
But, to quote from the EPA guidance:
Permits for discharges associated with activities other than surface coal mining should also be evaluated to determine whether they are likely to result in in-stream conductivity levels above 500 …
… EPA should coordinate with the permitting authority to consider relevant information when conducting a reasonable potential analysis for other activities on a case by case basis.
And:
We believe that circumstances unique to surface coal mining, however, are principally responsible for the increase in conductivity levels observed in surface waters downstream of mining practices. Surface coal mining involves disturbing large volumes of rock and dirt, land clearing, and spoil disposal activities at a scale not typically associated with activities such as development practices or forestry.
We do not have studies of other non-mining activities demonstrating a likelihood that they will have a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards.
In his new commentary yesterday, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., urged West Virginians not to allow coal to dominate our state’s politics to the detriment of local communities:
… The coal industry has an immensely powerful lobby in Washington and in Charleston. For nearly a hundred years they have come to our presidents, our members of Congress, our legislators, our mayors, and our county commissioners to demand their priorities. It is only right that the people of West Virginia speak up and make the coal industry understand what is expected of it in return.
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
“Too much like Kojack instead of being like Barry Miller” is the problem — EPA is suppose to change but just keep doing the same.
You know, like OSM “going to put all-hand on deck in West Virginia,” but just keep doing the same. (Wasn’t Rahall going to do something about OSM(RE) a couple of years ago?)
If all the agencies would be like OSM then Congress wouldn’t have such problems. For example, OSM has no problem that Ohio never-ever did even the minimal frequency of inspections on its mine sites or that Ohio’s performance bonding program remains unapproved for nearly three decades.
http://groups.google.com/group/bob-mooney/web/oh-inspections
The mantra of this administration “Change is comining” seems to be somewhat like the mantra of the previous administration “It’s hard work.”
Are you suggesting the one sign represents the entire “coal industry” and that Nick Joe is wrongfully supporting his political enemies? Ken, you never tell the truth but you do write good editorials. And that is why I will never buy anything from your customers until your work product is placed on the editorial page and removed from the front page as “NEWS” Who is your biggest customer? C&O Motors. I suspect there are many places for coal miners to buy a car. What do you think?
Congressman Nick Rahall, Rep. Alan Mollahan, D-W.Va., and Rick Boucher, D-Va. letter ‘to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to complain about EPA’s latest effort to try to reduce the pollution from mountaintop removal coal mining.’ says it all. We do not want any changes, we like things the way they are. These politicians take their research and marching orders from the coal industry lobbyists not from the Sierra Club, a miner’s interest group, etc.
Perhaps the inhabitants of southwest portion of WV should be removed and the entire area bulldozed for the coal. After all, China and India will buy every bit of it, and it’s all about the money as far as the politicians are concerned; let the people and the environment be dammed.
Sadly, the death by 1000 cuts will continue under the guidance of these ‘elected’ officials.
The EPA guidance states it clearly: Permits for discharges associated with activities (other) than surface coal mining should (also) be evaluated.
I guess the people in that part of the state are getting the representation they want. The choices are pro-coal and pro-Massey.
The EPA guidance states it clearly: Really???????? Just wondering what the legal difference between “should” and “shall” is? Guess it means they do what ever they want to do. Sound familar.
“Surface coal mining involves disturbing large volumes of rock and dirt,land clearing,and spoil disposal activities” ……. Sounds just like a discription of highway construction in southern W V.
EPA is in fact not looking at other industries. In a conference call on April 1 after the memo was released EPA said they had no science to show elevated conductivity for other earth disturning activities or mining in other regions and did not intend to question those permits and they aren’t. That is not true. There are elevated conductivity levels for mining in the Illinois coal basin as well as the Powder River basin. Conductivity is not caused by the coal but rather the rock strata in the overburden. Especially calcareous materials. EPA is ignoring that data and is attempting to use this as a means to stop all mining in Appalachia including underground mining. They are issuing general objections on underground mines just as they are surface mines.
I am sure that Ken Ward has read the guidance, but based on his comments I am not sure that he fully understands it, or if he does, puts a spin on it.
This notion about it applying to other entities. If it does, and EPA is a bit evasive on this point, then it is only in ecoregions 68, 69 and 70, and not in other areas of the U.S. which is what Rahall’s letter says. Ward misquotes that point, I assume for toward his own bias.
And, if it does apply to other entities besides coal mining, then is everyone prepared to cease road construction, developments, treated wastewater, and many other activities, along with coal mining?
Sure the data currently available is predominantly just in Appalachia, but is Mr. Ward and EPA trying to say that the same science and arguments are unable to be used in other states? You suppose there might be a bias there? Last time I looked mining (of various minerals) occurs in a lot of locations.
Give credit to OSM, at least the rule-making they are pursuing is a national rulemaking, subject to comments and judicial review. This EPA final interim guidance attempts to avoid that altogether and goes so far to say that it doesn’t even hold legal weight to anybody. In the end, it will still only be guidance because EPA doesn’t want to subject themselves to the rulemaking or judicial review processes which many find disingenious.
On the conductivity issue, we could talk science a long time. Some of what EPA says is correct, some is not. Head water streams do exhibit some correlation with conductivity and biology. For higher order streams, the science starts to fall apart. Plus, the SAB process isn’t even complete, nor are the technical documents which EPA is relying upon to prematurely issue this guidance.
We could talk EPA’s motivation on all of this, and no doubt there would be a variety of views therein, but at the end of the day this guidance creates a lot more questions than it does answers and only complicates matters at this point.
For very sure, the EPA will have to be able to withstand administrative and judicial review for not pursuing this matter through rulemaking. That’s a procedural issue which is separate from the scientific basis for changing how EPA determines compliance with the Clean Water Act.
Every scientific analysis of water quality has employed conductivity measures. Conductivity has been an indicator of water quality forever.
The only scientific issue is the thershold level that EPA is using in its determininations. That can be well agrued on a case-by-case basis due to the many influences and considerations that are reflected in conductivity levels are specific locations. (In areas that have been already mined the background level of conductivity will already be high so that modern mining methods could be able to decrease that level.)
—
4/30/2010
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/article.asp?articleid=99782
(Excerpt)
EPA’s latest weapon in its war against the Appalachian coal industry seeks to bypass the rulemaking process established by Congress in the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Normally, when an agency wishes to propose a new regulatory standard, the APA requires that public notice of the proposed new rule be provided, along with an adequate opportunity for those who have an interest to review it and submit comments on it. In this instance, EPA has decided that its April 1 “Guidance” is just that; since EPA was only issuing a memorandum to itself, it declared that the memorandum is not “a regulation,” because it “does not impose legally binding requirements…” and therefore does not need to be issued in accordance with APA rulemaking procedures. Tell that to the coal companies who will receive “no or very few” valley fill permits.
Lo the hand-wringing! Ladies, get a grip. EPA is looking at water quality problems due to major ground disturbance in Appalachia because no where else in North America is earth moving happening at this intensity on this scale; not from agriculture, not from road building, not from urban development, not even from natural erosion into the largest rivers on the continent. Arguing that destructive surface mining is acceptable because other industries do the same is a misdirection play. Sure, you may mislead some folks this way. Perhaps more importantly, you are misleading yourselves.
Red Desert,
The use of GEMs (Giant Earth Movers or Giant Electric Machines) to surface mine coal began in the mid 1950s and continued until the last one stopped in the early 1990s.
Those GEMs mined through hundreds of square miles in Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kenkucky and Ohio.
For sure, what’s happening in the Appalachian Mountains is greatly different.
What Sen, Byrd had to say to the people of WV must have fell on deaf ears.
Change is coming ! like it or not. The electric power plants are going with natural gas, due to the high cost of scrubbers,environmental cleanup. There will always be mining jobs for those into metalurigal coal; but the days of steam coal are coming to an end