Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency quietly gave its tentative approval to a significant new mountaintop removal mining permit in Logan County, W.Va.
EPA signed off on the permit for Arch Coal Inc.’s Coal-Mac subsidiary and its Pine Creek Surface Mine, southwest of Omar. A key approval document is posted online here, but EPA hasn’t made any sort of public announcement about the action.
Obama administration officials apparently agreed to allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit for the 760-acre mine after officials from Coal-Mac made several changes EPA believes improved the project:
– Impacts to 22 percent of the stream resources were avoided, with the company agreeing to haul 4.1 million tons of waste rock and dirt to an adjacent mine site;
– The company agreed to raise the deck of the valley fills 100 feet beyond what is required by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s “approximate original contour’ formula.
According to EPA:
Where practicable, the applicant has maximized the amount of spoil returned to the mine bench and minimized the amount of excess spoil that must be disposed of in streams.
… The applicant evaluated alternatives to valley fill construction and has incorporated best management practices that are expected to reduce the likelihood of increased loading of total dissolved solids (TDS) and specific conductivity levels to minimize water quality impacts and protect against significant degradation of downstream aquatic resources.
These include a materials handling plan to minimize exposure of mineral-rich overburden to surface waters and groundwater, and modification of fill construction to maximize surface water runoff and minimize infiltration of water through the fill.
But, EPA’s approval of the permit is based on the company making some changes, as outlined in the agency’s June 21 letter to the Corps:
Coal-Mac’s original mine plan proposed to have the full mine area disturbed and three valley fills active within 12 to 18 months of starting the operation. The revised mine plan currently proposes the concurrent use of Valley Fills 1 and 3 within 6 months (See more details of the operation, including maps here), but represents a reduction of surface acres disturbed at any one time by up to 25 percent. According to EPA:
The applicant’s proposal would delay the use of Valley Fill 2 until approximately 3 years from the beginning of the operation. While the applicant’s efforts in this regard are appreciated, the proposal essentially calls for concurrent construction of Valley Fills 1 and 3.
But:
… EPA recommends that the three valley fills be constructed sequentially, with earlier valley fills fully constructed and monitored prior to initial construction of subsequent valley fills to ensure that predicted water quality outcomes are achieved.
Essentially, then, EPA wants Coal-Mac to build the valley fills one at a time, completing one before starting another, to ensure that the operation’s runoff complies with the new federal water quality guidance for conductivity.
No word yet on whether Coal-Mac will agree to this additional requirement, but EPA is taking heat from environmental groups over its decision, as evidenced by this statement from the Rainforest Action Network:
“This is a devastating first decision under guidelines that had offered so much hope for Appalachian residents who thought the EPA was standing up for their health and water quality in the face of a horrific mining practice,” said Amanda Starbuck of the Rainforest Action Network. “The grand words being spoken by Administrator Jackson in Washington are simply not being reflected in the EPA’s actions on-the-ground. This continues the inconsistent and contradictory decisions that have plagued the EPA’s process on mountaintop removal coal mining all along.”
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
I’m not clear as to whether the 14,530 feet (2.75 miles) of streams impacted is before or after the 22% “avoidance” of impacts. That still means that 78% of impacts were not avoided. I’m also really curious about their “restoration and creation” of nearly 8 miles of functioning streams. Has any coal company ever created a living stream? I mean, beyond something with algae and mosquitoes, something like a real Appalachian stream and not a drainage ditch?
As soon as we come up with a way for the state to no longer be reliant upon such practices, as well as the local governments via. taxes. Then we will have an opportunity to offer alternatives to these horrible practices.
Maybe we can begin with the already existing technological infrastructure and somehow link this to other surrounding regions. This may be a good place to start.
We could even spur new developments in renewable energy.
Just some thought!
What the Feds havent considered in granting coal removal permits is possible hard times in the future ; If coal sales plummit, then these cos will pull out and leave a sorry mess of environmental damage. during the great depression, many coal cos folded. They left behiind coal spoils some of which may still be burning. Others did not seal their mines at all. A bond should be applicable to insure such damages do not happen again
Hmmm … so now the US EPA is jumping on the stealth permitting bandwagon? I thought only the WV DEP rode that particular one. I guess maybe this is their version of hide it in plain sight?
Isnt this a example of the middle ground that ken is talking about. Mine size is reduced, enviromental impact is limited, and jobs are saved. Sounds like a win win for all.
Scott14, you make a good point. The lesson of this mine will not be lost on those seeking permits in the future.
However, there is something crucial missing from the equation — a price on carbon pollution, that will incentivize carbon capture and sequestration, and permit a long-term future for coal.
Come on, Senator Rockefeller, we need some leadership for West Virginia coal in the US Senate! Or has the gas industry already made it clear that coal is a fuel of the past?
Good, open pit mining is much safer than underground mining.
How do we call this kind of permit – where the devastation allowed is a little less than the devastation requested – a “win?” I certainly wouldn’t call it that.
I would tend to agree with you, Jim – if EPA was even remotely proud of this deal, they would have done a press release. Instead, they buried it in the general daily administrative hoo ha and hoped no one would notice. It is a win in that the company may – or may not – only be able to build one valley fill at a time, but it essentially leaves unresolved EPA’s new conductivity rules, of which this permit may have served as a test case.
Reading the entire EPA letter that Ken has included a link to (I recommend doing this), it seems to me that EPA has fairly persuasively found that the proposed mining plan has been significantly changed to reduce/minimize adverse water quality impacts, which is EPA’s stated policy and goal.
It might be missing the point to focus on the “lack of a press release” by EPA on this. If people think the EPA letter reflects some kind of substantive sham or scam, maybe it would be better to dissect the letter on the merits, rather than fault whether EPA chose to assertively publicize an individual permit decision. (Have they ever done so?)
They seem to be operating in the sunshine, which is the main thing.
Tom,
Given that EPA has been very vocal — issuing lots of press statements — about its desire to crack down on mountaintop removal, and the fact that previous permit deals such as Hobet 45 have prompted press releases, I thought it worth pointing out that EPA did this one very quietly.
Ken.
You’ll get no argument from me, Ken, on that “very quietly” point, because I don’t follow their press practices and you assuredly do. (You’d think EPA would be sophisticated enough to be consistent in this regard.)
I’m still wondering — do any readers besides Vernon have comments on the details of EPA’s (fairly lengthy) letter of explanation?
Coal will mined for many, many years to come, both underground and top side. I just hope that there could be a peaceful agreement between the pro-mtr and the anti-mtr groups. Try to be good neighbors and friends.