epa mtg - 10 nov 2010 - longwall report[1]

8/12/2019 EPA Mtg - 10 Nov 2010 - Longwall Report[1]

1/94


2/94

1201 Cedar Grove Road

Media, PA 19063

610-356-1416www.schmidco.com

Experts in: Ecology

Wetlands

Environmental Regulation

Impact Assessment

Dr. James A. Schmid, President

Stephen P. Kunz, Senior Ecologist
http://www.schmidco.com/http://www.schmidco.com/


3/94

The Citizens Coal Council

is a national alliance of

social and environmental justice grassroots groups andindividuals working to protect communities affected by

the mining, processing, and burning of coal through

advocating enforcement and strengthening ofenvironmental laws as they relate to coal.

Aimee Erickson, Executive Director724-222-5602

citizenscoalcouncil.org
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


4/94


5/94

BACKGROUND


6/94

Pennsylvania Coalfields

Longwall Mining Area


7/94

Typically 6 to 8 feet thick


8/94

PA Coal Mining Statistics -

2009

SURFACE

UNDERGROUND

TOTAL

# of Mines

196 (80%)

48 (20%)

244

Coal Production 9,300,000 (16%)

48,679,000 (84%)

57,979,000*

(LWM: 37,985,000)(short tons)

* Peak production, 1918: 277,000,000

Pennsylvania: #4 State in total coal production (after WY, WV, KY)

#1 State in coal produced by Longwall

method

(None MTR)

(None by MTR)


9/94

UNDERGROUND

COAL MINING

Room and Pillar

Surface impacts (subsidence)not expected

LongwallSubsidence (surface impacts) an integral part of method


10/94

Back inthe day

Coal has beenmined in

Pennsylvania since

the late-1700s


11/94

Employment in Coal Mining

Pennsylvania

Peak 1918 330,000*Today 2009 8,081**

* Pennsylvania Geological Survey

** US Dept. of Energy


12/94

Enough coal is left (in pillars)

to prevent roof collapse


13/94


14/94

Room and pillar is used

along gates/entries


15/94


16/94


17/94


18/94

Longwall Mining

has been compared

to a

slow moving

earthquake


19/94

Two examples of

trough subsidence


20/94


21/94

Areas of likely pooling behind gates at arrows

Buffalo Creek (HQ-WWF)


22/94

Stream pooling due to longwall subsidence behind gate


23/94

Streams can bedewatered as cracks

extend all the way to

the surface


24/94


25/94

Surface cracks from subsidence


26/94

Stream water quality appeared degraded

as evidenced by higher conductivity

in

longwall mined streams.

In this study, there was lit tle evidence of

streams recovering from the dewatering

effects of longwall mining.

Temporally, there was no evidence ofstream recovery over the twelve-year

period of t ime

that had elapsed since

longwall mining occurred

Longwall mining resulted in a net loss of

approximately one-half of all headwaterstreams

in Marshall County, West

Virginia. Streams were particularly

impacted near the source .....

.... neither diversity nor longevity of the

macroinvertebrate community recovered

along the stream gradient. There was

no indication that the physical,

chemical, or biological impacts of

longwall mined streams recover

over time.


27/94

Schmid &Company

Report


28/94

Report can be read or

downloaded at:

Schmid & Company website

www.schmidco.comCCC website

www.citizenscoalcouncil.org/

Investigation began

autumn 2009

195 pages
http://www.schmidco.com/http://www.schmidco.com/


29/94

PURPOSE

Determine current effectiveness of

the PA permit application, review,

and monitoring process in protecting

water resources

from the impacts of

longwall coal mining operations


30/94

STUDY METHODOLOGY 75,000+

pages of PADEP regulatory files

3 Major Existing Longwall Coal Mines

Time period: 2007 through 2009

permit applications correspondence

background and ongoing monitoring data

public review and comments


31/94

3 Longwall Mines = 137 square miles approved as of 2009


32/94

Heretofore mostly avoided HQ and (recently recognized) EV Waters


33/94

FINDING

Strong legal framework in PAfor the protection of water resources

(on paper)

State Constitution

Laws

Regulations


34/94

SMCRA - Surface Mining Control andReclamation Act of 1977

MAJOR LEGISLATION

Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land

Conservation Act of 1966

Act 54Amendments of 1994

Clean Streams Law of 1937

Dam Safety and Encroachments Act of 1978

Clean Water Act of 1972, Amendments 1977

FEDERAL

PENNSYLVANIA


35/94

Bituminous Mine Subsidence and

Land Conservation Act(Mine Subsidence Act)

Act of April 27, 1966, P.L. 31, as amended, 52 P.S. 1406.1 -

1406.21

Several of the original purposes:

protection of the health, safety, and general welfare of the

people of the Commonwealth

providing for the conservation of surface land areas

aid in the preservation of surface water drainage

and generally to improve the use and enjoyment of such lands

The clear intent was to prevent environmental damagewhen allowing the underground mining of coal.


36/94


37/94

FINDING

Protections on paper ......

... to ensure the protection of the hydrological balance

and to prevent adverse hydrological consequences ...


38/94


39/94

FINDING

Permit Decisions Permit Enforcement(routine) (rare)

based on incompleteor inaccurate data


40/94

TEN

YEARSAGO

2000


41/94

REGULATORY

DISCONNECT


42/94

Applicants not collecting or providingany baseline information

on surface water

features necessary to evaluate potential oractual impacts, as required by existing

laws and regulations.

PADEP-BMR issuing longwall miningpermits anyway.

Streams and wetlands being destroyed

without notice or mitigation.

Findings 10 years ago:


43/94

FIVE

YEARSAGO

2005

The department shall compile and analyze the information contained in deep mine

permit applications, monitoring reports, enforcement actions, etc., and determine

the effects of deep mining on surface structures and features and on waterresources. and provide a report at five-year intervals.

Act 54 Section 18.1.


44/94

2005

Walter N. Heine, Chairperson

The report de-emphasizes concerns based on

insufficient or no data. Stating that no data in thisstudy has been able to support that belief maytechnically be accurate, but

a lack of data is not

equivalent to disproving a hypothesis, which is the

conclusion the reader is led to.

If

available data is

insufficient to reach a valid conclusion, then the

solution is to address the data issue and ensure that

we are collecting the needed information.

The report acknowledges the need for regional

base level studies of wetlands to serve as abaseline.

Citizens Advisory Council


45/94

If a wetland is

dried up,

and no regulator

notices,

is there an

impact?


46/94

FIVE

YEARSAGO

2005

A revised PADEPTechnical Guidance Document

Surface Water Protection -Underground Bituminous Coal

Mining Operations

effective 8 October 2005

A glimmer of hope:


47/94

TODAY

2010 Not only is detailedpremining information on

streams and wetlandsnow being required, it

actually is being provided

by mine applicants. This

is a great improvement

from a decade ago.

GOOD NEWS!


48/94


49/94

ANTIDEGRADATION

Under the CWA, States are required to adopt an antidegradationpolicy and standards that meet minimum federal requirements.

Maintain and protect existing uses of all waters [floor] - fishable/swimmable standard

Maintain and protect uses and quality of high quality

waters

-

degradation allowed if SEJ

Maintain and protect outstanding resource waters (EV, in PA)

- no degradation

allowed

40 CFR 131.12


50/94

PENNSYLVANIA ANTIDEGRADATIONPROGRAM

25 Pa. Code Chapter 93

Water Quality Standards

Recognizes EV and HQ waters as special protection

waters


51/94

93.2. Scope.

(a) This chapter sets forth water

quality standards for surface

waters of this Commonwealth,

including wetlands.


52/94

93.4c. Implementation of

antidegradation requirements.

(a)(1)

(i) Existing use protection shall be provided when the

Departments evaluation of information (including data gathered atthe Departments own initiative, data contained in a petition to

change a designated use submitted to the Environmental Quality

Board pursuant to 93.4d(a), or data considered in the context

of a Department permit or approval action) indicates that asurface water has attained an existing use.

and

(iv) The Department will make a final determination of existinguse protection for the surface water as part of the final approval

action.

[Existing use never investigated for mine applications,seldom for any PADEP permits statewide.]


53/94

Technical Guidance Document 563-2000-655


54/94

Previously:

Year-round flow in stream?

If not, no protection.

Stream Survey Protocol for Delineating


55/94

Stream Survey Protocol for Delineating

Protected Stream Segments

Statewide Surface Water Assessment Program (SSWAP)

TGD


56/94

PreminingBioassessment

Inventories 800

1,000 pages in length

Comprehensive documentation

regarding wetlands, streams, waterquality, and macroinvertebrate

communities

Example


57/94

Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC)

Pittsburgh PA 986 p.

BAILEY MINE

EXPANSION AREA

(3,135 acres)

p

Example


58/94

Biostation

p


59/94


60/94

When field-checking actually

is done,mining industry data turn out to

be questionable.

Outright falsehood in wetland

reporting was encountered at

Vesta

(Schmid 1998), but

PADEP and Corps readilyapproved permits.

Instead of downgradingstreams, PADEP upgraded them

to Exceptional Value (highest

class), repeating and confirming

our work.


61/94

Physical, chemical, andbiological data being

collected sufficientlycharacterize streams which

likely have existing useshigher than their

designated uses.


62/94

BSW 18


63/94

Characterizedphysical

habitat of

100-meterstream reach


64/94

Habitat

Assessment

Evaluation

BSW 18


65/94

Habitat

Assessment

Evaluation


66/94

Enlow Fork Mine Expansion

Crafts Creek

(TSF)

STATIONBSW 18

5 biological metrics

Possibly EV or HQ?

Enlow Fork Mine


67/94

Possible HQ or EV streams at Stations 15 and 18

Crafts Creek headwaters dewatered not expected

Potential dewatering of HQ Buffalo Creek headwaters

Buffalo Creek

(HQ)

Crafts Creek

(TSF)

18

15

Enlow Fork Mine

Expansion


68/94

CRAFTS CREEK DEWATERING Enlow Fork Mine

Permit Expansion approved

January 2008

Ch. 105 Environmental Review not completed until February 2008 Flow loss/fish kill occurred November 2008

not predicted

Two other flow loss/fish kills by January 2010

(3 in 14-month period)

Required streamflow monitoring done quarterly since 2002

(HMRs)

Quarterly monitoring throughout flow loss period

no indications

Weekly/daily monitoring also done

but kept in Consols files

No change in plans for pending undermining of HQ headwaters

Adverse impact

=


69/94


70/94

Cumulative Hydrologic Impact Assessment

(CHIA)

Done by PADEP for Enlow Fork Expansion

prior to permit approval

Effects on Groundwater?

- Wells and springs may be impacted quantitatively

[no further explanation]Effects on Surface Waters?

- No flow losses expected

[yet Crafts Creek dried up]

Material damage to hydrologic balance? Provide specifics.- see Modules 8 and 15 [no discussions there]

Discuss potential for adverse hydrological impacts.

-

Nothing provided


71/94


72/94


73/94

POST-MINING ASSESSMENTS

WETLANDS

Required 12 months after undermining

-

But cant determine that quickly

-

Not being done anyway

STREAMS

-

Not using premining assessments

COMPREHENSIVE DATA ARE BEING COLLECTED


74/94

* To identify special protection waters andavoid/minimize impacts* To identify the nature and extent of cumulative

hydrologic impacts* To serve as a yardstick for restoring/replacing

individual water resources or the overall

hydrologic balance

DATA ARE NOT

BEING REVIEWED

DATA ARE NOT

BEING USED:

COMPREHENSIVE DATA ARE BEING COLLECTED

BUT


75/94


76/94

1. Antidegradation: Designated and Existing Uses(pre-mining inventory and permit review)2. NPDES Permitting

(during mining):

-

PADEP Basis for Effluent Limitations

-

NPDES Monitoring and Discharge Limits

- Sample DMR (Discharge Monitoring Report)-

Monthly DMRs

-

PADEP Followup/Follow Through

Issues/Problems with Stream Protection

in PADEP Longwall Coal Mine Regulation

PADEP NPDES Permit Effluent Limitations


77/94

Prepared

by Bureau of Water Quality Management in

Southwest Regional Office, Pittsburgh

Engineering review to establish discharge limits for

each(?) outfall

Prepared always

for sanitary sewage, but erratic for

mine discharges (9/17 = 53% unavailable Emerald

)

Recommendations to California DMO permit writers

are seldom adopted (2/8 = 25% at Emerald

) for Part A

discharge limits for mine outfalls

Mine effluent discharge limits never derived from

actually attained uses, only from designated uses

Dramatically different format for sewage and mine DMRs

PADEP NPDES Permit Effluent Limitations



78/94

Errors in stream name (3/15 = 20%at Emerald

), latitude and

longitude (6/15 = 40% at Emerald

)

in Part A for outfalls

enforceable? Monitoring required for a few parameters

varies by outfall

Part A specifies measurement units, sampling type,

frequency for most, but not all, parameters

Average, Maximum, Minimum Outfall-specific Limits set

in Part A but unlike PADEP Bur. Water Qual. Mgmt.recommendations (6/8 = 75% at Emerald

)

Permit Part B Standard Limits

ignored, superfluous (?)

Exceedances to be discussed quarterly by permittee --

cause, corrective measures, expected compliance

Dry weather versus precipitation event discharge limitsNever meaningful, no relevant data recorded



79/94

Bl k DMR f E h O tf ll


80/94

Provided by PADEP to permittee as guidance

for each months DMR format and content

Frequent conflict with Part A directives - neverquestioned or resolved (9/11 = 82% at Emerald

)

Inappropriate sampling frequencies for limits Inappropriate measurement units

No relationship to designated or attained uses Errors in latitude and longitude

Some add-in limits absent from Part A, some dont

Blank DMR for Each Outfall

Typical Blank DMR

L t/L f thi E ld


81/94

Lat/Long for this Emerald

Mine

Outfall 13

contradict

Part A of the permit

Numeric values for iron

and manganese limits

contradict Part A of permit

DMR limits for aluminum

and osmotic pressure are

not in Part A of permit

No monitoring frequency or

sample types noted

Part A has limit for

settleable solids

(0.5 ml/l),

but Blank DMR has limits for

suspended sol ids

(35/70

mg/l)

No provision to record

floating solids or visible foam

No provision to indicate

weather conditions or torecord dry-weather effluent

Monthly Permittee DMRs


82/94

Parameters, limits, units, frequencies often atodds with NPDES Part A and Sample DMR Data confusion with HMRs, anonymouslabs (Consol), no professed accreditation

DMR self-monitoring data often incomplete,

sampling optional, pre-printed results notdependent on actual sampling

Exceedances on DMRs seldom explained; Part

B exceedances never addressed

Exceedances not terminated for months, years

Some outfalls always report zero flow

Monthly Permittee DMRs

Completed DMR

Emerald Mine


83/94

Emerald Mine

Outfall 013

Req.

for iron

matches

neither Blank DMR

nor Part A

Temperature

parameter

added, but not reported

No quarterly mention of

high specific conductance

(no limit set)

but Part B?

No mention of high sulfates

in excess of Part B (>500mg/l; or routinely >100 mg/l)Order of parametersrearranged alphabetically

Permittee investigating

osmotic pressure, monthafter month, per note inquarterly transmittal

Exceedance of Permit Limitations


84/94

Exceedance of Permit Limitations

No Emerald mine outfall with credible, complete data set for the

27 months under review

One or more exceedances self-reported in data from 9/14 = 64%of Emerald outfalls with any monitoring data Some, but not all, exceedances of iron, manganese, osmotic

pressure acknowledged by permittee Nearly 150 sulfate

measurements at Emerald above Part B re-

porting threshold (often >1,000 mg/l); none acknowledged

Specific conductance

typically 10x local background data in

HMRs; often >2,000 mhos/cm at 8 outfalls; highest 16,300

at 016 and averaged >11,750 there in 2008-2009 DMRs


85/94


86/94

Grimes Run at Emerald MineOutfall 017, 13 August 2008


87/94

, g

(PADEP photo)


88/94

PADEP Followup/Follow Through


89/94

PADEP unaware of data gaps, wrong parameters, or

exceedances at mine outfalls (or chooses to ignore them) No professional competence, knowledge ofdiscrepancies in monitoring or violations ornonsensical, bogus data submitted

No PADEP mention of exceedances in DMR or

correspondence or enforcement files

No comparison of PADEP monthly random samples

with permittee monitoring data

No review of DMR data when investigating

complaints, fish kills

Sewage DMRs show perfect compliance butno PADEP inspection for 10 years

Laws are being broken or not enforced


90/94

THE REAL PROBLEMS:

No incentive to minimize impacts

Highest quality waters are being destroyed

Communities are being put in danger from loss &

pollution of groundwater and drinking water supplies

Future generations are being denied safe, cleanwater that most people expect and take for granted Data just gather dust

PA Department of Environmental Pretense?

Indifference, political directive, corruption?

No oversight!


91/94

Looking Forward


92/94

Longwall mining is equally destructive to streams as

mountaintop removal, but less obvious

One consequence of slowing or stopping MTR wil l be

pressure to increase LWM. Impacts will increase as more EV/HQ waters are

subsided in Washington and Greene Counties

Marcellus shale gas threatens 54 counties, not 2; PADEPcurrently is as inept when faced by shale gas

as it was in 1994 faced by longwall mining

Official state policy is to keep environmental regulationto the minimum allowed by federal laws

These industrial extraction activit ies need oversight

Review of Clean Water Act 402 Permitting

for Surface Coal Mines by Appalachian States:


93/94

The CWA entrusts EPA with overall responsibility to administer its

provisions, including protection of human health, water

quality, and the environment in coalfield communities

throughout Appalachia. This responsibility also includespreserving the long-term integrity of Appalachian

watersheds, which is important in protecting their ecological

condition and maintaining safe, clean, and abundant water forlocal communities.

for Surface Coal Mines by Appalachian States:

Findings & Recommendations

July 13, 2010

Water Permits Division

Office of Wastewater Management

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.

Washington D.C. 20460

SUMMARY


94/94

THE END

epa mtg - 10 nov 2010 - longwall report[1]

Documents