III.    Overview of the Public Participation Opportunities in the Oversight Process and the State Program

During this year the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) continued several ongoing initiatives and undertook several important new initiatives that provided opportunity for public involvement, one of which was its bonding program.

Since graining program primacy in 1982, Pennsylvania has bonded mines under either of two systems, a conventional bonding system (CBS) covering underground mines and coal preparation plants and an alternative bonding system (ABS) for surface mines, refuse reprocessing, and coal refuse disposal.  The ABS consists of a per-acre bond rate schedule and a supplemental bond fund.  The statewide supplemental bond fund is supported primarily through a per-acre reclamation fee collected at permit issuance.  In the event of forfeiture, the money in the bond fund (pool) supplements the per-acre permit bond to reclaim the site.  During the last review period, PADEP initiated the process of converting existing permits, presently bonded under the ABS, to a CBS through individual bond adjustments based on revised bonding rate schedules.  PADEP conducted extensive outreach on the issue with citizens, the coal industry, the legislature and the congressional delegation.  During this review period, PADEP continued the transition to full cost bonding.  As of the end of this review period, PADEP had completed the transition of approximately 320 permits where the conversion required an increase in site bond amount.  A total of almost 600 permits had been converted to full cost bonding.  PADEP is currently working on permits where mining is completed and the conversion is not likely to result in an increase in bond amount.

Annually, the Field Office develops a workplan to review and support the implementation of Federal SMCRA, through Pennsylvania=s Abandoned Mine Reclamation and Regulatory Programs.  The draft is provided to PADEP with the intent of developing and finalizing a joint workplan for both oversight activities and support of approved SMCRA program initiatives.

Opportunities for public interaction and input were provided during workplan development with citizen groups and with the coal industry, and throughout the year.  A copy of the 2002 work plan is available from the HFO.

Examples of public involvement included:

A.        THE PADEP PROGRAMS

• The Mining and Reclamation Advisory Board

The Mining and Reclamation Advisory Board (MRAB) was created in 1984 by Act 181 of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.  The board's purpose is to assist PADEP in expending reclamation funds provided by the Pennsylvania Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act and to advise PADEP on matters pertaining to mining and reclamation.  The MRAB also advises PADEP on abandoned mine land reclamation issues.  Significant public involvement in the PADEP regulatory program occurs through MRAB.  MRAB advises PADEP on coal mining and reclamation issues, such as regulations, proposed legislation, experimental practices, alternate methods of backfilling, selection of reclamation projects, alternate reclamation methods, obligations for pre-existing pollution liability, alteration of reclamation plans, reclamation fees and bonding rates and methods.  MRAB and its subcommittees address a number of coal program areas each year and publish an annual report on its activities.  Last year (2001), MRAB continued consideration of PADEP’s proposed conversion from an ABS to a CBS.  MRAB will publish a combined report that incorporates 2002 and 2003 issues at the end of fiscal year 2003.  In 2002, a proposed rule making amends Chapter 86 by adding a new § 86.6, which implements the exemptions provided by the definition of “surface mining activities” in SMCRA.  The proposed § 86.6 will exclude coal extraction incidental to government-financed highway construction from the requirements of Chapters 86 – 88.  Section 86.6 also will codify the SMCRA exemption of government-financed reclamation from the coal mining regulatory program.  The provisions of § 86.6 are consistent with, and are no more stringent than the corresponding federal regulations.  The Department presented the proposed amendment to the MRAB at its meeting on October 25, 2001.  While discussing the proposed §86.6, several members voiced their concerns that the unique resources, which led to areas being designated unsuitable for mining, are not, and will not be protected through the Department’s normal permitting activities.  These concerns were subsequently discussed in detail with the Regulatory, Legislative and Technical Committee of the MRAB on November 19.  On January 3, 2002, that committee recommended the MRAB support this rulemaking with the understanding that the Department will establish internal notification procedures to protect the unique resources in areas designated unsuitable for mining.  The minutes of the meetings, as well as handouts and MRAB’s annual report are available on PADEPs website.

• The Citizens Advisory Council

PADEP solicits and/or receives public input on proposed changes to the Pennsylvania mining program from the Citizens Advisory Council (CAC).  Since its creation in 1971, the CAC has been actively involved in Commonwealth environmental issues.  The Council is the only legislatively mandated advisory committee with the comprehensive charge to review all environmental legislation, regulations and policies affecting PADEP.  The council is composed of 18 appointed citizen volunteers of the Commonwealth.  Water issues are a major topic, including Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).  TMDL is the total of all pollutants allowed in a stream or watershed.  Once a stream or watershed has been assessed, the combined metal or pollution load in the watershed cannot exceed the established TMDL limits.  TMDLs are a priority issue for the Council and will be a regular agenda item.  The Council had concerns about the changes to the Coal Refuse Disposal regulations, Chapters 88 and 90.  The regulatory package included provisions for site selection, groundwater and surface water protection, and a provision to encourage the use of area with preexisting discharges.  The Council raised concerns about these changes, and the lack of specific standards for liners and monitoring wells to protect groundwater, and the size of bonds for coal refuse disposal sites at the MRAB meeting.  Changes were made to include references to appropriate guidance documents.  The Council had the opportunity to review and comment on the Department’s Act 54 Supplemental Report: “The Effects of Mining on Surface Structures and Features, and Water Resources.”  The Council found the report to be more comprehensive in its coverage of confidentiality agreements, and much improved in tone and in clarity.  The Council will continue to provide input on Act 54, particularly with deep mine issues, since no other advisory committee is involved in these issues.

• Environmental Quality Board

The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) is a 20 member independent board that adopts all PADEP regulations.  The Board, which is chaired by the Secretary of PADEP, includes members from 11 state agencies, the CAC and the State Senate and House of Representatives.  PADEP through the EQB requests comments on all proposed regulations and holds public hearings or

public meetings to provide citizens with the opportunity to express their concerns.  The EQB addresses all comments received on proposed rules in the preamble of the final rules that are published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.  As part of the development of regulations required by statute or by regulatory initiatives, PADEP, where there is significant public interest, holds outreach discussions or other public meetings to explain regulatory initiatives.  The Pennsylvania Bulletin is available for public review on the PADEP Internet site.  The EQB adopted the changes to the Coal Refused Disposal regulations, Chapter 88 and 90 as a Final Rulemaking on April 17, 2001.  This action was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on July 14, 2001.

• The Environmental Hearing Board

The Environmental Hearing Board (EHB) is an independent quasi-judicial agency that includes the Chairman and four members.  Members are administrative law judges with a minimum of five years of relevant legal experience.  The EHB has the sole power to hear and decide appeals of PADEP’s actions.  Litigants have the right to appeal EHB decisions to the Commonwealth Court.  The EHB issued a number of decisions that deal with issues related to the approved state program.  On December 5, 2001, the EHB issued an adjudication that changed the way the Department will evaluate Section 702 requests.  The EHB decision indicates that all facts relative to protection afforded personnel are to be considered regardless of their origin.  In other words, it is not appropriate to only consider the protections afforded by the Pennsylvania Bituminous Coa1 Mine Act and exclude consideration of protections afforded by federal law, company policy, or any other initiating cause.

The EHB has dismissed an appeal by the citizens group, People United to Save Homes (PUSH), concerning the renewal of Eighty-Four Mining Company's permit for its Mine 84 longwall coal mine in Washington County.  PUSH had asserted that since Eighty-Four failed to file its renewal application within 180 days of the stated permit expiration date, as provided by PADEP's regulations, the Department is precluded from ever issuing a permit.  The EHB denied the motion on the basis that failing to submit a renewal application 180 days before the permit's stated expiration date did not prevent PADEP from ever issuing the permit, and ruled that PADEP could accept and act upon an application filed later.  The EHB also dismissed PUSH's argument that PADEP could not reissue the permit after its stated expiration date.  The EHB observed that permits carry a presumption of renewal, that the permit was reissued after the stated expiration date to accommodate a request for a public conference, and that there was no evidence that Mine 84 was not operating in compliance with the law.

·        Public Participation in Permitting, Inspection and Enforcement Activities

The PADEP regulatory program receives public input throughout the permitting, inspection, compliance monitoring and enforcement processes.  With respect to permitting activity during this evaluation period, PADEP approved 64 permits.  PADEP provided opportunities for public comments on the adequacy of these individual applications prior to permit issuance.  Typically, the areas of concern addressed in these comments on permit applications are subsidence control plans, blasting plans, sediment controls, post-mining land use, hydrologic balance protection, and the adequacy of maps and supporting information.

With respect to inspection, compliance monitoring and enforcement activity during the evaluation year, the public may submit both informal and formal complaints on ongoing and completed mining operations, and bond release requests.  PADEP received and investigated approximately 525 citizen complaints, of which 392 were successfully resolved.  The remaining complaints were pending resolution at the close of the evaluation year.  Complaints can be directed to many aspects of the mining activities including stream pollution from erosion and mine drainage, blasting effects on structures and water supplies, damage to public roads, mining off-permit, and dust, among others.

B.        DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF OVERSIGHT AGREEMENTS

The HFO maintained an open process for industry and citizen involvement in oversight activities through the annual workplan.  The plan was provided to PADEP and interest groups for comment or suggestion of additional oversight initiatives that should be incorporated into the plan.  The HFO also met with interested groups to explain the proposed and ongoing activities and to discuss their comments.

C.        General Outreach BY OSM

OSM continued interacting with citizens groups, industry and other State and Federal agencies on oversight and State program initiatives.  The Field Office met with industry representatives such as the Pennsylvania Coal Association (PCA) and attended the MRAB meetings to provide input on oversight initiatives and explain any new OSM programs.

OSM continues to provide assistance to PADEP and numerous local groups and associations in promoting the clean-up of Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) impacted streams through the Appalachian Clean Streams Program (ACSP).  Since 1996, when the program was first funded, about $10.3 million in clean stream grants have been awarded to Pennsylvania.  PADEP has identified 25 projects across the coalfields of Pennsylvania to receive this funding.  These projects are being accomplished in partnership with other agencies and watershed groups to maximize the effectiveness of the cleanup effort.  The Field Office attends workshops, and individual watershed meetings throughout the year in support of AMD clean-up efforts and PADEP programs.  Also, under the umbrella of ACSP, OSM has budget authority to enter into project agreements with local non-profit watershed groups to remediate AMD.  Under this program, OSM has funded 28 watershed cooperative agreement assistance projects in Pennsylvania for a total amount of $2.2 million.  These projects involve multiple partners providing financial and other assistance.  PADEP is providing financial and technical assistance on a significant number of these projects.

D.        Program Amendments

The program amendment process offers the public, industry, and citizen’s groups an opportunity to have input into the approved Pennsylvania program.  During this evaluation year, OSM acted on a number of formal and informal amendments.

OSM approved PADEP’s program amendment (PA 848.25 ) on November 16, 2001 (66 FR 57662-57666) concerning the award of attorney fees.  OSM’s approval removed condition

30 CFR 938.11(i) in this final rule.  As noted in prior Annual Reports, OSM required PADEP to amend its coal mining laws so that costs and fees may be awarded in any coal mining administrative proceeding, resulting in a final order; also providing that the permittee may recover costs and attorney fees from the citizen or PADEP only where it is shown that the citizen or PADEP acted in bad faith for the purpose of harassing or embarrassing the permittee.

OSM published a final rule regarding the repair and/or compensation for damage to structures or water loss caused by subsidence from underground mining.  The formal amendment submission included State Act 54 of 1994, enacted on June 22, 1994, amending Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation act (Act 54) and final rules set forth in Volume 28, Pennsylvania Bulletin, 2761-2791, June 13, 1998, implementing Act 54.  A public hearing was held on June 21, 1999, and OSM reviewed PADEPs submission documents and as a result, forwarded a list of issues to PADEP.  OSM received a response letter on June 1, 2000.  A final letter addressing the remaining issues was sent to PADEP on June 23, 2000, and PADEP’s response to that letter was received on July 14, 2000.  OSM’s final rule (PA 841.48) was published on December 27, 2001, (66 FR 67090-67067) adding 47 required amendments to be addressed by PADEP.  As a result of these findings, two lawsuits were filed on February 26, 2002.  OSM and PADEP agreed that effective resolution of the Act 54 program amendment was of the highest priority to both agencies, and immediately began a series of initiatives to resolve the issues.  OSM and PADEP are participating in a team approach in discussing possible resolutions of each required amendment.  A series of team meetings were held, with the early meetings facilitated by an outside moderator.  The team held meetings with the PCA and Pennsylvania citizen groups concerned with issues of longwall mining, to gain their perspectives on possible approaches to resolving the various issues.  This cooperative effort has proven very effective in allowing the free flowing exchange of ideas and clarification of positions, that has led to proposed resolutions of most of the issues.  Discussions and meetings will continue into the next evaluation year.

OSM reviewed and approved three program amendments submitted by PADEP.  These final rules are expected to be published in the Federal Register in the very near future.  These program amendments pertain to hydrology monitoring, maintenance plans for post-mining roads, permit findings, bond adjustments, and lastly a correction was made to fix a cross reference error.  Upon publication of this final rule, three required amendments coded in 30 CFR 938.16 will be removed.

As stated in our 2001 report, OSM  conditionally approved Act 114 (PA 837.01) amending the Coal Refuse Disposal Control Act until PADEP submits an amendment showing the  implementation of these changes in the Pennsylvania regulations.  As a result, seven required amendments were coded in 30 CFR 938.16.  On December 20, 2001, PADEP submitted an amendment to satisfy this condition and remove the seven required amendments.  OSM is still working with PADEP to finalize this process.

OSM has published a proposed amendment in the Federal Register on April 30, 2002,

(67 FR 21187–21191) revising chapters 210 and 211, which are part of the approved program.  These chapters govern the use of explosives and licensing of blasters.  This program amendment is in the latter stages of review and is expected to be published within the next evaluation year.

OSM is currently reviewing one informal amendment submitted by PADEP pertaining to alternative reclamation plans (addressing five required amendments as coded in section 30 CFR 938.16).  Comments will be provided to PADEP in the next evaluation year.  OSM also provided comments to PADEP on two other submissions pertaining to prime farmland issues and blasting survey issues.

OSM and PADEP are engaging in discussions pertaining to revegetation standards, additional hydrologic testing, ownership and control, and sedimentation pond removal issues in an attempt to remove seven required amendments coded in section 30 CFR 938.16.

IV.    Major Accomplishments/Issues/Innovations in the

Pennsylvania Program

·        Accomplishments/Innovations

Pennsylvania continues to be successful developing remining initiatives aimed at reclaiming lands through additional mining activity.  PADEP has been pro-active in working with other agencies to identify options to existing regulatory requirements to facilitate remining operations.  As noted in previous years, a number of remining incentives were included in amendments to Pennsylvania SMCRA (Act 173 of February 1993).  PADEP=s remining efforts were an important part of the “Reclaim PA” initiative announced on October 23, 1998.  The success of this program has been significant in achieving reclamation of mined lands that otherwise would have remained in an unreclaimed degraded state.  Reclaim PA is a statewide approach to maximizing reclamation of Pennsylvania=s abandoned mineral extraction legacy.  Reclaim PA contains a number of program initiatives that integrate existing and newly created resources.  With respect to the coal program, Reclaim PA provides incentives to operators that do remining; reduces the legal and environmental risks to the operator; and reduces the paperwork required for operators to remine abandoned mine lands (AML).  In addition, part of the initiative includes incentives for mine operators to remine and reclaim abandoned mines at no cost to taxpayers.  This initiative by the state has resulted in almost one thousand acres of land being returned to productive, pre-mining uses, has reduced sedimentation of streams and has enhanced the potential for over-all improvements to stream water quality, quantity and habitats.  During this evaluation year, the Pennsylvania mining industry initiated 43 remining projects involving 1,360 acres for a total reclamation value of $9,164,577.

PADEP has also achieved reclamation success through negotiations with surety companies on bond forfeiture sites and with mining operators under their civil penalty program.  During the review period, PADEP initiated agreements with surety companies that will reclaim four sites totaling 367 acres with a reclamation value of $8.4 million.  PADEP held only $2.2 million of bond for the sites.  In addition, PADEP negotiated “reclamation in-lieu-of civil penalty” agreements for ten sites totaling 45 acres with a reclamation value of $95,800.  To accomplish the work, PADEP waived $59,400 in civil penalties.

On March 26, 1999, OSM approved an amendment to the Pennsylvania AML program to improve the efficiency of the Pennsylvania program by allowing the government financed construction contract (GFCC) exemption in Section 528 of SMCRA to be applied in cases involving less than 50% financing.  The exemption applies in the limited situation where the construction constitutes a government approved and administered abandoned mine land reclamation project under Title IV of SMCRA.  Pennsylvania has continued to excel in implementing this program.  As of March 31, 2002, Pennsylvania awarded 41 GFCC sites representing reclamation of approximately 383 acres for an estimated reclamation savings of $3.6 million.

For the seventh year, OSM and PADEP jointly developed and conducted a review of the PADEP District Mining Offices to evaluate compliance and effectiveness of selected program areas.  This year’s review focused on the four surface mining District Mining Offices in the Bituminous Region.  Two areas were reviewed: (1) Alkaline Addition Sites and, (2) Project XL Sites. PADEP and OSM have found significant benefit in conducting these joint reviews not only from the standpoint of improving compliance and consistency among the district offices, but also in improving communication and understanding between the agencies.  Additional discussion is located in Section VI, OSM Assistance.

PADEP=s mining bureaus, the Bureau of Mining and Reclamation, the Bureau of District Mining Operations and the Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR), provided significant support to AMD remediation efforts.  These Bureaus provide significant technical and financial assistance to local agencies, municipalities and watershed groups, develop watershed restoration plans, collect stream data, and implement AMD treatment plans.  A number of state and locally administered AML and AMD abatement projects were funded under Pennsylvania=s Growing Greener program.  Growing Greener funds are appropriated by the Pennsylvania Legislature and are not part of those awarded by OSM from the Title IV Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund.  In several projects, Growing Greener funds were combined with ACSP funds to enhance the partnership approach to AMD cleanup.  ACSP Projects completed this year, in financial partnership with Growing Greener funds, are the Keystone and Mill Creek/Allen Point projects.  The total cost of these two projects is $776,060, with  $179,052 from the ACSP and $597,008 from Growing Greener.  Ten of the 25 Pennsylvania ACSP projects also have Growing Greener funds as a part of the project construction budget.  OSM has awarded PADEP $10.3 million in grants for ACSP projects, for the cleanup of streams contaminated by AMD.  Eight projects have been completed and the others are in various stages of design and construction.  These are partnership projects, with local watershed groups, private companies and other Pennsylvania and Federal Agencies often contributing time and financial resources.

PADEP has placed a hold on contracting new projects under its 10% AMD Set Aside funds in order to assess, in the upcoming calendar year, how these funds can most effectively be used to address forfeiture sites with long-term water pollutional discharges.  However, 19 Hydrologic Unit plans were previously approved by OSM and there is currently approximately $18 million in the fund, including grants and interest.  About $29.6 million in grant deposits and interest have come into the 10% set-aside fund since its inception.  Fifteen AMD projects have been completed under these approved Hydrologic Unit plans and several others are ongoing.  BAMR staff involved in the AMD Set-Aside program have provided a valuable service to watershed groups by conducting stream sampling, attending meetings, giving advice and guidance on how to get started in cleaning-up streams, and helping develop partnerships for AMD abatement activities.

Pennsylvania's AML program continued to achieve success in traditional areas of abandoned mine land reclamation such as dangerous highwall removal, subsidence control, and sealing shafts and portals.  Specific accomplishments include completion of 13 major projects and 58 smaller state workforce projects.  Reclamation included 20,150 lineal ft. of highwall (153.70 acres of land), and 6.4 acres of clogged streams.

In September OSM announced that two Pennsylvania permits had received 2002 Excellence in Surface Mining Reclamation Awards, based on a nationwide competition.  They are the Signor Brothers Babb Creek Operation, Bloss Township, and the RFI Energy, Inc., Mine No. 208 in Perry Township.

RFI Energy in conjunction with its 212 acre mining operation, remined and reclaimed 88 acres of AML including 8,000 feet of highwalls and associated spoil piles, water filled pits, and sites of AMD.  Remining successfully restored the AML, and eliminated the AMD.  Reclamation included the incorporation of 55,000 tons of coal combustion ash to promote rapid vegetative growth.

BEFORE

AFTER

The Signor Brothers operation involved remining and removal of a late 1800’s underground mining refuse pile along the banks of Babb Creek.  The refuse had served as the base for a railroad used to haul coal from mine portals in the watershed.  This watershed has been the focus of an intensive and highly successful effort, over the last decade, to clean up sources of AMD, and restore the creek to a high quality trout stream.  The stream side refuse pile was a significant source of sedimentation and AMD into the creek as well as a visual eyesore in this forested and very scenic watershed.  Signor Brothers, in collaboration with PADEP, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boating Commission, and the Babb Creek Watershed Association, removed 22,000 tons of refuse down to the original soil, established stream bank and habitat improvement features, and replanted the site incorporating wildlife plantings.

BEFORE

AFTER

 
AFTER
Project site to the left of Babb Creek

·        Issues

During this evaluation year, OSM and PADEP have continued to work together to develop a sound approach to resolve a number of bonding issues.  A key aspect of this approach is PADEP’s implementation of a plan to phase out the current ABS and implement a CBS.  PADEP completed the transition to a CBS for land reclamation on 320 mine sites where bonds needed to increase.  PADEP is now in the process of addressing those sites where mining is completed and the new CBS is not likely to result in a bond increase.  PADEP continues to be pro-active in requiring operators to provide funding for long-term treatment of pollutional discharges.  In addition, OSM and PADEP continue to cooperatively maintain and enhance the inventory of long-term pollutional discharges.  The purpose of the inventory is to help determine the magnitude of the potential harm from AMD, to assess the potential for use of passive treatment technologies, to address problem sites, to identify the amount of bond available to treat the discharges and to estimate the cost to abate the pollution.  PADEP has done an excellent job in providing accurate, up-to-date information to this system.  PADEP has also been successful in early identification of these discharges and in requiring operators to provide active/passive treatment of these discharges to mitigate off-site impacts.

An issue that has received significant focus over the past two years is the backlog of required program amendments.  Resolution of these outstanding program amendments has been identified as an area of priority for the upcoming evaluation year.  HFO and PADEP are engaged in a cooperative effort to address this issue.

V.      Success in Achieving the Purposes of SMCRA

OSM’s national regulatory program oversight guidelines known as REG-8 requires an evaluation of off-site impacts, reclamation success, and a component of customer service in its annual oversight work plan with PADEP.  Summaries of those areas of evaluation are discussed below.

A.        Off-Site Impacts

HFO analyzed off-site impacts in terms of types of resources affected by the impact, degree of impact, and the type of impact.  The types of resources affected identified for the purposes of the study were people, land, water and structures.  The degree of impact was divided into three levels.  Those levels are: (1) Minor impacts or impacts that do not affect the public, disturb a small area or have negligible effect on the receiving stream; (2) major impacts, or impacts that have significant impacts to the public, that affect large off-site areas and have major impacts to the receiving stream; and (3) moderate impacts, or impacts that do not fit in either of the first two categories.  The categories of impacts identified for the study were blasting, land stability, hydrology, encroachment and other.

Review of civil penalty assessment and enforcement data found that of the 63 State enforcement actions reviewed, 40 involved off-site impacts.  Effluent standards again were the most prominent violations to result in off-site impacts.  As depicted below in Figure 1, 74% of the off-site impacts were hydrology related impacts.  The impacts to water resources occurred primarily from discharged water that did not meet effluent limitations.  These discharges resulted in the degradation of nearby streams with the addition of acidity, iron, manganese or sedimentation; or a combination of these contaminants.  There were 29 minor, 10 moderate, and one major off-site impact to the water resources adjacent to the mine sites reviewed.  Erosion and sediment control violations represent 20% of the total hydrology impacts.  In these cases, uncontrolled runoff to offsite lands caused destructive erosion and sedimentation to the adjacent land.  The category listed as other (10%) consists of four violations for fugitive dust.  Encroachment (7.5%) resulted from mining outside of the permitted area.  PADEP required that these impacts were quickly corrected.  Land instability violations accounted for 5% of the total impacts.  One blasting violation (2.5%) occurred whereby the blast exceeded the ground vibration limits.  This violation was written during a routine inspection.  Figure 2 identifies, in percentages, the resources affected  (people, land, water or structures).  As demonstrated by this data, it is possible for one off-site impact to affect more than one resource.  For example, an off-site hydrology impact may affect land and water.

figure 3 above, indicates that the large majority of violations observed in the study had only minor to moderate impacts off the permit area.  Further, PADEP worked with the permittee to ensure that these violations, when they did occur, were quickly abated.  This is clearly demonstrated by the short abatement time operators took to resolve impacts.  The average time to correct the impacts observed in the study was 15 days.  When violations are relatively minor and are abated quickly it is unlikely that long-term impacts occurred.

hFO concluded that PADEP’s inspection and enforcement program, and the mine operators and the permittees have done an excellent job in minimizing off-site impacts from surface coal mining operations.  When off-site impacts did occur they were mostly minor to moderate with no long-term effect.  Further, PADEP focused resources toward sites with violations to insure that the conditions that resulted in the off-site impacts were abated rapidly.

 B.                 Reclamation Success

HFO evaluated PADEP’s bond release program.  The HFO found PADEP and the permittees are doing a very good job in achieving reclamation of lands affected by surface coal mining operations.  Of the 66 bond release inspections the HFO conducted, only two cases were found that required follow-up inspections by OSM.  In one case, equipment had to be removed from the bond release area (Anthracite), and in the second case, a notarized letter from the landowner was obtained for leaving a pond as part of the post-mining land use.  Joint bond release inspections were conducted with State Inspectors in 51 of the 66 inspections.  Table 1 gives a breakdown showing the stages of bond releases reviewed:

Data from bond release inspection reports reviewed in this study, as summarized in Table 2, indicate that the PADEP program is effective in achieving stages of reclamation in a timely manner.  This is an important indicator that the approved program is achieving contemporaneous reclamation and is effectively minimizing the time that the permit is disturbed and not revegetated. (Stage II and III releases indicate successful revegetation.).

For the 66 permits reviewed in this study for Stage II and III bond releases, the PADEP achieved successful revegetation of 1371 acres.  (Stage II and III bond release indicates successful revegetation.)  The amount of acres in the completion reports for each stage of reclamation is summarized in Table 3 below.

Of the 66 bond release cases reviewed, PADEP denied the release request on three.  In one case, the permittee withdrew the request for release when PADEP noted that a Sub-Chapter F (1991) iron loading effluent limit was exceeded.  In another case the release was denied because the 5-year revegetation period had not yet elapsed.  In the final case, PADEP denied a release request due to insufficient number of trees per acre on the release area.

Pennsylvania achieved the post-mining land use in all sites reviewed in this study.  The post-mining use was changed from the pre-mining use in only eight of the cases reviewed.  Table 4 provides a summary of the land use changes by category:

Two of the bond releases reviewed for this study had been successfully converted to and were released under the standards for the new conventional bonding program.  Pennsylvania is in the process of converting all permits from an ABS, where a bond pool is used to offset bonding costs to a CBS, where the permittee must post the full amount of the bond.  As of the date of this report, PADEP had converted approximately 600 permits to the new CBS.  This CBS should become a focus of attention in next year’s study of the Pennsylvania bond release program.  Converted permits can be identified with a listing maintained by the Remining and Reclamation Coordinator for PADEP in the Harrisburg office.

In addition, the reviewers were advised that PADEP conducted training sessions about the conventional bonding program for their permit review staff, field inspectors and private consultants to enable them to calculate the amount of bond and to maintain compliance with new bonding related permit requirements.  PADEP has also developed Bond Rate Guidelines and a Bond Calculation Worksheet for use in establishing conventional bonds.

During the review period, PADEP released Stage I bonds on 4,532.29 acres, Stage II bonds on 6,182.07 acres, and Stage III bonds on 7,231.09 acres.  The average length of time between the initiation of mining and the completion of backfilling has been approximately 3.5 years.  A large majority of sites have been reclaimed to approximate original contour.  Alternative configurations have been approved in several cases mostly for refuse disposal and refuse reclamation operations.  The most common alternative configuration employed has been a terrace backfill.  A detailed report is available in the HFO public evaluation file.

C.                 Customer Service

This year HFO selected PADEP’s response to citizen complaints regarding blasting operations of surface mining permits as its customer service component.  The purpose of the evaluation was to determine if the citizen participation requirements of the approved Pennsylvania coal mining regulatory program are being met by PADEP when blasting complaints are received from citizens.  These requirements include written acknowledgment of the alleged violation; citizens being offered the opportunity to accompany the state inspector on the inspection; written notification of the results of inspection; and written notification of the citizens appeal rights.

HFO’s review identified that PADEP’s blasting complaint procedures are in compliance with the approved program requirements.  HFO also found that PADEP responded in a timely and professional manner to the citizen complaints, providing much technical guidance and advice to citizens regarding coal mining blasting operations and the effects of blasting at nearby residences.  A detailed report is available in the HFO public evaluation file.

VI.    OSM Assistance

This evaluation year OSM provided technical assistance to PADEP in resolution of citizens complaints and provided assistance through participation on teams to develop program enhancements, including the AMD inventory, AMD treatment cost estimating, compliance monitoring, Appalachian Clean Streams Program and historic properties.

PADEP continues to maintain its AMD inventory on sites with long-term pollutional discharges. In conjunction with this effort, the Field Office updates the HFO inventory of forfeited permits with discharges.  These individual AMD site inventories are part of a State and Field Office effort to compile and maintain a single, comprehensive inventory of long-term pollutional mine discharges.  The purposes of the combined inventory are to pinpoint the geographic location where coal mine drainage problems occur, to provide information for the characterization of the magnitude and abatement cost of water pollution for defined geographic areas, and to provide information for the establishment of strategies for addressing the impacts of actual and potential discharges.

In regard to the effort of characterizing abatement costs, OSM has assisted PADEP by jointly developing a computer program, termed AMDTreat, designed to estimate the capital and annual costs to abate pollutional mine discharges.  AMDTreat uses a three-step approach to estimate treatment costs:  (1) Users enter water quality and quantity data, (2) Users “build” an active and/or passive treatment system by selecting the applicable treatment components from the software menu, and (3) Users customize each treatment system to site-specific conditions by controlling the size, quantity, and unit cost of treatment components.  Treatment types for which AMDTreat can estimate costs include vertical flow pond, anoxic limestone drain, Mn removal bed, anaerobic and aerobic wetlands, oxic limestone channel, hydrated lime, caustic soda, anhydrous ammonia, pebble quicklime, and soda ash.  The model combines costs from these treatment methods with costs of ancillary treatment components, such as settling ponds and ditching, to calculate a site-specific capital cost.  Similarly, AMDTreat calculates annual costs by taking into account user-provided information regarding sampling, labor, maintenance, pumping, chemical consumption, and sludge removal.  Capital and annual costs can be used in conjunction with AMDTreat’s financial forecasting utility to evaluate the economics of long-term treatment.  Additional features of the application include the ability to forward predict or back calculate costs, and an “expert” help system.  AMDTreat was designed for anyone interested in mine drainage treatment; including State and Federal agencies, industry, and watershed groups.  The versatile program has many applications and is a significant accomplishment.

For the past seven years, PADEP has invited HFO to participate in its Internal Management Control Program.  The purpose of the program is for PADEP to evaluate the effectiveness and consistency of selected program areas across its District Mining Offices.  Many aspects of the compliance and enforcement programs have been reviewed and resulted in more consistency among the District Mining Offices.  The program has also fostered a closer working relationship between PADEP and HFO, and a better understanding of how each agency views implementation of the approved Pennsylvania coal mining regulatory program.  This year PADEP and OSM jointly designed and conducted two management control studies in the bituminous coal region.  These studies focused on Alkaline Addition Sites, and the XL (eXcellence in Leadership) Project.

The PADEP considers proposals for alkaline addition on mine sites under certain limited conditions, including some sites that, without alkaline addition, a permit, would not be issued.  Alkaline addition is the importation of offsite material that produces alkalinity and prevents the formation of AMD.  The use of alkaline addition in conjunction with alkaline redistribution is an accepted practice.  A total of 26 alkaline addition sites, and 6 Best Management Practices sites were reviewed among the four bituminous surface mining District Mining Offices. 

Project XL, which stands for “eXcellence and Leadership,” is a national initiative that tests innovative ways of achieving better and more cost effective public health and environmental protection.  The PADEP has proposed the XL Project to explore a new approach to encourage coal operators to remine and reclaim AML.  The XL Project proposes to replace numeric effluent limits at individual discharge points for pre-existing discharges, with requirements to use Best Management Practices (BMPs), as well as to comply with in-stream pollutant concentration standards.  Coal operators will remain responsible for maintaining an equally protective standard of overall water quality, and are expected to improve overall water quality.  This new approach is expected to be tested in up to eight watersheds with significant AMD pollution.