SEEKING SOLUTIONS TO SUBSIDENCE
DEP accused of ineffective response to audits detailing mining damages
HARRISBURG — Environmental groups are frustrated with regulators’ response to a comprehensive report on the surface disruptions caused by underground coal mining in Pennsylvania, saying the Department of Environmental Protection’s “weak” reply reveals a lack of urgency to correct long-acknowledged problems. The department’s written response to the 2014 report by University of Pittsburgh researchers was discussed with a citizens advisory council last week. The Pitt report was essentially an audit of state oversight and an accounting of damage caused by underground mining between 2008 and 2013. It was the fourth in a series of five-year reviews required by a 1994 revision to the state’s mine subsidence law, known as Act 54. The act allows subsidence damage to occur as long as it is fixed through payment or restoration. DEP’s response distilled the audit and developed 45 recommendations for its underground mining program. Sharon Hill, the permitting and technical section chief in the DEP’s bureau of mining programs, said the department is already taking steps to improve its data handling and enhance its mining information system, which the auditors had deemed unreliable for tracking mining impacts because of its many gaps and errors. The agency has also committed to revising its policies for protecting and restoring streams damaged during mining, although that is likely a years-long process that is just beginning.
But DEP declined to set a clear path for action on some of the audit’s suggestions and took issue with parts of the report it considered misleading or misunderstood.
Citizens’ groups and environmental advocates are pushing for robust enforcement and a more fundamental reevaluation of the state’s longwall mining regulations to prevent the coal extraction method’s worst impacts to streams and property.
“The pattern is tiresomely predictable: acknowledge that there may be some problems, give vague assurances that things are being done to correct them, promise that the next five-year report will show improvements, and hope that the public has been placated enough to turn its attention to non-mining matters,” said Stephen Kunz, an
ecologist with the Delaware County consulting firm Schmid & Co.
“Perhaps the real intention of the department is to further delay any meaningful action until the remaining coal has been mined out.”
Coal interests agreed with DEP’s conclusion that data collection should be improved through electronic reporting and better communication, and they were pleased to see the department call out parts of the audit that had been misconstrued.
John Pippy, CEO of the Harrisburg-based Pennsylvania Coal Alliance, said that since the release of the previous installment of the report, which covered the years 2003-2008, “Over 85 percent of the reported issues have been resolved with the remaining cases pending resolutions.
“The industry stands ready to work with DEP on continued reporting and accountability for best practices in environmental quality,” he said in a statement.
The audit by Pitt researchers found that problems with the quality of information the state collects to evaluate mining impacts, as well as how it is stored and sorted, hampers efforts to measure the extent of damage, especially to waterways.
Good data is also necessary to predict where streams might be damaged by mining so it can be avoided.
Regulators will deny mining permits if DEP determines in advance that they will cause severe, irreparable damage to streams. But irreparable damage has occurred — DEP deemed streams unrecoverable at the end of seven investigations, according to the University of Pittsburgh report.
“Making a permit decision is a predictive process,” Ms. Hill said. “We do use the best tools that we have. It’s not a guarantee that no damage will take place.”
DEP officials acknowledged that it is worth looking for ways to improve their predictions, even as they noted in their review that, in most cases, longwall mining throughout southwestern Pennsylvania has not caused unanticipated, irreparable damage and that “100 percent accuracy of prediction is not a reasonable expectation.”
Environmental groups said they appreciate the challenge DEP faces, but they would like to see more evidence of the agency’s commitment to take it on.
“I’m not sure that I heard the department fully have a reckoning about just how far they need to come,” said Patrick Grenter, executive director of the Center for Coalfield Justice in Washington, Pa.
“The pattern is tiresomely predictable ...”
— Stephen Kunz, ecologist, Schmid & Co.