by Jan Niehaus
To Help Stop this Destruction:
- Comment on rule changes by Oct 23, 2007
- Write to support Clean Water Protection Act
Coal issues are commanding a lot of our attention lately, from escalating concern about greenhouse gases to the tragic deaths of coal miners in Utah’s Crandall Canyon.
The topic of mountaintop removal (MTR) coal mining is also gaining national attention. Larry Gibson, a West Virginia activist opposed to MTR, was featured as one of CNN’s “Heroes” in a program that aired August 14, 18, and 19.
Completely surrounded by MTR mines, Gibson clings to a tiny section of Kayford Mountain that his family has owned for generations. Local Sierran Jan Niehaus visited Gibson’s land in October 2006 and reported in the Dec 2006-Jan 2007 SierraScape.
MTR Coal Mining Primer
MTR coal mining involves blasting away 500-800 feet of a mountaintop to get at the coal beneath. (Imagine a multi-layer cake, with the frosting between layers representing coal seams.) Further digging is then required to remove the coal and separate it from the soil and debris. For years, this soil-and-debris mix was considered “waste” material, and dumping it into U.S. waters was a violation of the Clean Water Protection Act.
Then in 2001, the Army Corps of Engineers redefined the terms “waste” and “fill,” allowing mine operators to dump this same material—now called “fill”—into valleys, burying streams and surrounding habitat. Current estimates place the total loss of mountain streams at 1200 miles. With the mountains’ forest cover removed and vast “valley fills” created, unprecedented flooding has resulted in deaths and the destruction of residents’ homes and communities.
Large amounts of water and multiple chemicals are required to “clean” the coal. This step produces a toxic, liquid called “coal sludge,” which contains arsenic, mercury, lead, and other heavy metals.
This sludge is stored in huge impoundments, which are themselves grave hazards.
More Bad News
In August 2007 the Bush administration took another step to further facilitate MTR coal mining.
Under current “stream buffer zone” legislation, mine operators may not disturb land within 100 feet of a stream unless they prove that the water quality and quantity will not be adversely affected. The “proof” required by local agency authorities has been minimal, and it’s been very easy for mining companies to secure variances.
But a few recent lawsuits initiated by environmental organizations have succeeded in U.S. District Courts.
And the Bush administration is responding with a proposed rule change that purports to “clarify” requirements and “end the ambiguity in interpretation of the stream buffer zone rule.” The proposed change was published by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) on August 24. It would effectively remove the 100-foot buffer, requiring only that mining operators protect fish, wildlife and related environment “to the extent possible,” using “best technology currently available.” The new ruling also specifies that the buffer zone rule does not apply to valley fills, coal sludge dams, or sludge impoundments.
What You Can Do
A 60-day period of public comment on the proposed rule is mandatory, which gives us until October 23.
Before October 23, send your written comments about the proposed rule to:
OSMRE
Administrative Record
Room 252 SIB
1951 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20240
In all communications, refer explicitly to Docket Number RIN 1029AC04, which is titled “Excess Spoil, Coal Mine Waste, and Buffers for Waters of the United States.”
Specific talking points are provided by the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment.
Encourage your U.S Representatives to support the Clean Water Protection Act (HR 2169), which would restore provisions of the Clean Water Act that the Bush administration removed in 2001. Specifically, it would re-establish earlier definitions of “waste” and “fill” materials.
As of this writing, Representative Wm. Lacy Clay is the only Missouri representative who has signed as a co-sponsor of the Clean Water Protection Act. The November-December issue of the SierraScape contains an article about Representative Clay’s actions.