|
Speak Out
Surface Mining: How to balance economic and environmental concerns?
When you switch on your computer, charge your cell phone or leave your bedroom light on, do you know where that energy comes from?
From electricity, obviously. Which comes from power lines. Which are sourced from a local power plant. Many of which get their power from natural resources – specifically, coal. Coal accounts for almost 50 percent of U.S. electricity generation, according to the U.S. Government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA).
That coal is mined from very specific regions of the country that are particularly coal-rich. West Virginia, for instance, came in second only to Kentucky in the volume of coal produced in 2009, according to the EIA. It’s strange to think about, but when you see lights on in New York City, that’s happening because of coal that came from the West Virginia mountains.
However, a certain type of coal mining has stirred up much controversy in that state.
| The mining permit for Spruce No. 1 was originally issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a branch of the military that handles public engineering (dams, canals, flood protection) hand in hand with environmental regulation. So what gives the EPA the right to take away the permit? The Clean Water Act of 1972. It says that the EPA is in charge of pollution control when it comes to waste in waterways; if a business or industrial operation is found to be polluting (or in danger of polluting, as was the case here), the EPA steps in, administers fines and can ultimately halt operations. |
This week, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked the mining permit of one of the nation’s largest coal companies because of dangers associated with the type of mining it practiced. It’s called surface mining – though opponents use the much more vivid term “mountaintop removal.” Rather than digging a traditional mine shaft deep into the earth, and removing coal through carts on tracks, this mining process levels hilltops in the coal region, clearing out the trees and rock with bulldozers and TNT, and retrieving the mineral from above instead of below. When the mining is complete, soil is piled back on, grass and trees are planted, and the area is left to restore itself.
Because surface mining doesn’t involve digging deep, unstable underground shafts, there is less chance of a cave-in – so it’s a safer process for the workers. It’s also less expensive, since it can be conducted with smaller teams and less material, which keeps the cost of coal (and thus the cost of energy) down.
But critics say that the process decimates the country’s natural resources and pollutes its environment. The mine that had its license revoked, Spruce No. 1, didn’t just knock down a forest and level a mountain, the EPA says. When it vetoed the mine’s permit, using authority given under the Clean Water Act, the EPA said the operation would have:
...blasted more than 2,200 acres of mountains and forests.
...buried six miles of streams and killed the fish and wildlife using them.
...tainted downstream waters with chemicals.
The owners of Spruce No. 1 – Arch Coal Inc., based in St. Louis – responded by saying that the mine would have been a boon for the region. It would have provided Logan County with 250 “well-paying jobs,” according to the company, and would have pumped some $250 million into the local economy. The owners said that the EPA’s actions could have a ripple effect across the industry.
“Every business possessing or requiring a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act will fear similar overreaching by the EPA," said a statement from Arch Coal. The company’s view was echoed by other voices in the industry. Bill Raney, president of the West Virginia Coal Association, told CNN, “The negative impact of this decision will be felt not only by West Virginians and the energy industry but across all sectors of our economy.”
The EPA, however, said it was willing to work with Arch Coal to find alternative plans that would allow Spruce No. 1 to stay open under the Clean Water Act, but the company did not “offer any new proposed mining configurations.”
“We don’t think people in West Virginia have to make the false choice between healthy waters and a healthy economy,” said the EPA’s statement. “They can have both.”
What do you think?
How should the government balance economic and environmental concerns? Should surface mining face harsher restrictions? Should the EPA take more consideration of mining jobs and economic impact? Do you live near a mining operation? If so, does it affect your life? How? Join the discussion!
|
Join the Discussion
|