The EPA has finally issued new guidelines for mountaintop removal mine permits. That warrants some applause, but is far from the death of the most destructive mining practice ever devised. While this decision has been portrayed as a major victory in the fight against mountaintop removal mining, I would call it important but only a minor victory.
Let me curb your enthusiasm with three inconvenient truths about Lisa Jackson's announcement on April 1. I will illustrate these inconvenient truths in a discussion of the fight to stop Spruce Mine, the largest mountaintop removal mine permit.
Three disappointing facts about the new mountaintop removal mine permit rules.
(1) The new rules offer only clarity and standardization of permit requirements. Nothing in these rules stops mountaintop removal mining or prevents the approval of any new permits.
(2) The new rules are mostly aimed at limiting the amount of streams that can be subjected to valley fills and mine waste discharge into streams. Notice the wording of the primary objective.
Using the best available science and following the law, the comprehensive guidance sets clear benchmarks for preventing significant and irreversible damage to Appalachian watersheds at risk from mining activity.
And here is the more detailed explanation of the what the new rules will target.
The guidance clarifies existing requirements of the Section 402 and 404 Clean Water Act permitting programs that apply to pollution from surface coal mining operations in streams and wetlands. The guidance details EPA’s responsibilities and how the agency uses its Clean Water Act (CWA) authorities to ensure that future mining will not cause significant environmental, water quality and human health impacts.
(3) The decision claims to use "strong science" but is far from a moratorium on mountaintop removal mining called for in a recent landmark study in Science.
Moutaintop removal mining is destroying one of the last old growth forests in the eastern United States. Old growth forests are the best carbon sink among vegetation types. The destruction of these forests will continue (now over 1.2 million acres have been gutted for coal profit). Mountaintop removal destroys topsoil, unearths heavy metals, creates massive toxic slurry impoundments to hold residual wastes from processing coal, decimates the topography, and is never restored to original environmental quality. All of these environmentally catastrophic practices will continue. Mountaintop removal also fills and poisons streams in Appalachia. To date, more than 2000 miles of streams have been destroyed. The EPA is going to limit fills in streams and impose a weak water quality control standard.
To protect water quality, EPA has identified a range of conductivity (a measure of the level of salt in the water) of 300 to 500 microSiemens per centimeter. The maximum benchmark conductivity of 500 microSiemens per centimeter is a measure of salinity that is roughly five times above normal levels.
A standard focused on dissolved salts at fives times normal levels is far from a strong standard and does not address heavy metals like selenium and arsenic that have decimated aquatic life and poisoned groundwater throughout Appalachian. Perhaps I have become exceedingly cynical in my old age, but does that sound like a major victory to you?
In case you still have doubts, here is a summary of recent water quality testing in West Virginia and Kentucky conducted under the auspices of the EPA.
The benchmark:
EPA conducted what is known as whole effluent toxicity, or WET, testing. This type of testing is designed to investigate the total toxicity of water that may contain many toxic compounds.
....
EPA recommends a limit of 1.0 toxicity unit to protect against more chronic, or long-term, exposure. West Virginia does not have a water quality standard for toxicity units, and does not require companies to conduct WET tests as part of their water pollution permits. Kentucky has adopted EPA's recommended guideline of 1.0.
The results:
In West Virginia, six of the nine sites tested by EPA turned up WET results greater than 1.0. The results ranged from 3.1 toxicity units to 6.9 toxicity units.
In Kentucky, all eight sites sampled by EPA were greater than 1.0 -- with two sites recording greater than 50 toxicity units.
Charleston Gazette Mail
The use of whole effluent toxicity (WET) is necessary because coal mining dumps many toxins into surface water so the levels of any one are meaningless. Using this data, the EPA has petitioned to take over water pollution permitting for mining from the state of Kentucky because the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection and Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet have completely failed to protect water quality. So ask yourself why the EPA decided to use conductivity rather than WET as a benchmark for mountaintop removal mine permits. The reason is simple - it imposes less stringent requirements for mining operators.
: : : : : : : :
Welcome to Spruce Mine.
Spruce Mine is the largest mountaintop removal mine permit and the most environmentally destructive project ever devised in the United States. It even has its own EPA page.
The Spruce No. 1 Mine is one of the largest surface mining operations ever authorized in Appalachia. It is located in Logan County, West Virginia in the Spruce Fork Watershed, which has been impacted by previous mining activities. The Mingo Logan Coal Company has already been authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District (Corps) to construct six “valley fills” and numerous sedimentation ponds in Seng Camp Branch, Pigeonroost Branch and Oldhouse Branch and certain tributaries to those waters by discharging excess spoil generated by surface coal mining operations. These on-site streams are tributaries of and exhibit surface water connections to Spruce Fork of the Little Coal River, which ultimately flows into the Coal River.
Basically, the original proposal was to destroy over 3000 acres of forest and level much of Logan county as the Spruce MIne area is adjacent to areas already destroyed by Arch Coal. Arch Coal (which owns Mingo Logan Coal Company) has graciously consented to reduce the overall footprint of Spruce Mine to 2300 acres but wants to destroy 7 miles of streams in the Coal River basin.
The Bush Administration approved the permit for the Spruce Mine project in 2007 and sided with Arch Coal in litigation aimed at stopping the project. When Obama took office, the Spruce Mine permit was reviewed and the EPA attempted to negotiate with Arch Coal to scale back valley fills in the Coal River tributaries by approximately 50% in exchange for petitioning courts to drop legal challenges and permit approval. In a testament to unmitigated greed and contempt for even modest environmental protections, not to mention the people of Logan County, Arch Coal refused. Arch Coal is run by people devoid of conscience and decency.
After months of delays and further negotiations with Arch Coal, the EPA announced this week a proposal to veto the Spruce Mine permit.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced its proposal under the Clean Water Act to significantly restrict or prohibit mountain top mining at the Spruce No. 1 surface mine in Logan County, W. Va. Spruce No.1 mine is one of the largest mountaintop removal operations ever proposed in Central Appalachia. The project was permitted in 2007 and subsequently delayed by litigation. The Spruce No. 1 mine would bury over 7 miles of headwater streams, directly impact 2,278 acres of forestland and degrade water quality in streams adjacent to the mine.
EPA’s proposed determination comes after extended discussions with the company failed to produce an agreement that would lead to a significant decrease of the environmental and health impacts of the Spruce No. 1 mine.
This is only a proposal and you can bet Gov. Manchin and his good friends at Arch Coal will fight this decision. It is therefore vital for the EPA to receive as much feedback as possible to support the veto. The death of Spruce Mine will not end mountaintop removal mining, but will be a major victory because of the scope of the project.
: : : : : : : : : :
Connecting the dots.
How do the new permitting requirements relate to the Spruce Mine decision? The coal companies have complained there is no single standard for permitting requirements. This situation was fostered by the Bush administration which shackled the EPA from enforcing the Clean Water Act, allowing coal friendly state government agencies and the Army Corps of Engineers to approve every permit with few limitations. As a result, coal companies under the Bush administration destroyed over 350 mountains, cleared over 750,000 acres of old growth forest, polluted water throughout the region, and filled over 1000 miles of streams. The Obama administration began to review new permits and the EPA was charged with enforcement of the Clean Water Act.
In order to circumvent legal changes to EPA decisions on single permits like Spruce Mine, the EPA needed a single set of guidelines for mountaintop removal permits. Those guidelines were just released and they are built entirely around clarifying standards for Sections 402 and 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The EPA attempted to negotiate with Arch Coal to scale back valley fills to reduce the water impact and impose minimal water quality standards to comply with Clean Water Act. Arch Coal refused and demanded to move ahead with the permit already approved by Army Corps of Engineers and lackeys in the Manchin administration.
The EPA has now strengthened its hand with the new regulations in dealing with future permits. The veto of the Spruce Mine permit will stand until Arch Coal agrees to comply with the new regulations. The new regulations will not stop Arch Coal from:
(a) clearing 2300 acres of old growth forest;
(b) destroying topsoil and leveling the terrain;
(c) polluting streams with heavy metals (as long as conductivity < 500 microSiemens per centimeter)
(d) burying several miles worth of streams in valley fills.
Do you still think the new regulations are a major victory in the fight against mountaintop removal mining?
: : : : : : : :
>>>>>TAKE ACTION<<<<<</p>
The public hearing in West Virginia will take place in the next several months. Please attend if possible.
The purpose of holding a public hearing is to obtain public testimony or comment on the Environmental protection Agency’s 404(c) action on the Spruce No. 1 Mine project. The Regional Administrator has determined that there is significant degree of public interest in the proposed determination for Spruce No. 1 Mine and believes a public hearing would be in the public interest. As a result, a hearing will be held to obtain comments on whether the proposed determination should become the final determination and corrective action that could be taken to reduce the adverse impact of the discharge.
The date, time and place of the public hearing on Spruce No. 1 Mine have yet to be determined.
EPA
I implore everyone to support the veto of the Spruce Mine permit:
Federal eRulemaking Portal (recommended method of comment submission): http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Note: There will be a lag time before the Federal Register Notice is published. Until it is, you will not be able to submit comments this way.
E-mail: ow-docket@epamail.epa.gov. Include the docket number, EPA-R03-OW-2009-0985, in the subject line of the message.
Although the recommended method of commenting is through the regulations.gov site, there is no page set up yet for comments and the site will be undergoing maintenance over the weekend. In the meantime, please email your comments to the EPA and be sure to include the docket number. Please consider making the following points in your comment: The scale of the Spruce Mine project will produce large and lasting adverse environmental and public health impacts; Arch Coal has refused to comply with Sections 402 and 404 of the Clean Water Act under EPA guidelines; the West Department of Environmental Protection has failed to protect water quality and enforce meaningful site reclamation for existing permits; the site will offer no little or no long-term economic benefits for residents of Logan County and West Virginia.