Zinke reopens Federal land coal mining

[brocksw]

The epa has little to nothing to do with mining that is MSHA the mining saftey and heath administration. They are the ones who check air quality and every thing else that has to do with either surface or under ground mining. They are also the ones who make sure reclamation is done in a certain time. If not fines are a lot. They come at a minimum 2 times a year to inspect every mine. Having dealt with them and the epa they make the epa guys look like your best buddies the msha guys are very serious and are not afraid to levy some serious fines.

You may want to look into that a little more KurtR. MSHA is a sister organization to OSHA and is under the umbrella of the Labor Department.
The first paragraph of their mission statement is as follows:
"The U.S. Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) works to prevent death, illness, and injury from mining and promote safe and healthful workplaces for U.S. miners."

The EPA's job is to take what congress passes into law and write it into environmental regulation. The EPA also has the authority to enforce those regulations. MSHA has nothing to do with industry regulation beyond safety and workforce practices, as well as overall workplace conditions as set forth by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) as amended by the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act of 2006.

 

[KurtR]

What mine do you work for? Its not the epa that comes out and checks all our mine sites to make sure they are reclaimed. Its not the epa that checks the air quality and dust control for a mine site. Its also not the epa who checks all out water permits and settling ponds. In all reality the epa has little to do with the surface mining msha has way more control. So what has the epa enacted on the mine sites you work on daily in ND i have done a fair amount of work up there also and never seen the epa.

 

[bline]

Land reclamation is very heavily regulated in the mining industry (which is a good thing), so I don't see it as a significant threat to the land/wildlife. I don't work in the mining industry, but sometimes my work takes me to mine sites and I have spent quite a bit of time talking to the environmental managers at some of the large mines in Wyoming. When you look at the land that has been mined and reclaimed you can't even tell they were ever there. The contours of the land are mapped prior to any ground disturbance so that they can restore it exactly like it was. They also remove all vegetation from a number of random areas and separate the different plants by weight that were growing in each area. Before their restoration is complete, they have to show that the same plants are growing in the same densities that they were before the ground was disturbed and that they are sustaining themselves.

As long as coal mining is done responsibly and the market supports it then I am in favor of it. If natural gas, solar, wind or whatever can take the place of coal without being subsidized by the government then great! But until alternative energy can compete on equal ground without being subsidized, which it probably will before too long then let the energy markets work it out without unnecessary government intervention.

 

[elkduds]

Extractive industries are for-profit corporations. Regulations are the only counterbalance to their mission of getting the mineral/oil/gas for the least possible cost. Safety, air and water quality, reclamation all reduce profitability. Who is paying for black lung deaths/disabilities? Who is paying for Superfund cleanups of nuclear and other toxic sites throughout the USA? Who is paying to keep rivers from running yellow w toxic mine waste? You are, and I am, as taxpayers. The corporations made massive profits in times of little or no regulation, then moved on and left destruction behind them. Anaconda, Kennecot, Peabody, Amax, Homestake, the list goes on. The only reason there are regulations and an EPA are the rape-and-run practices of mining.

Big oil/gas owns the Trump administration and Congress. He promised a return to prosperity for coal miners, though he knew that ship has sailed and coal is winding down. Liar. Handing over federal lands and eliminating the regulations that protect people and environments is the debt they owe to their masters. Voters are the only thing standing in their way, and for the next 22 months @ least, the voters have handed the keys to the kingdom over to despoilers. Read US history and spend time in boom/bust locales before smiling and nodding while the destruction of public lands, air and water accelerates under the current administration. The $ benefits are temporary, and mostly bypass the workers. The costs are permanent, and taxpayers always pick up the tab.

 

[dotman]

Extractive industries are for-profit corporations. Regulations are the only counterbalance to their mission of getting the mineral/oil/gas for the least possible cost. Safety, air and water quality, reclamation all reduce profitability. Who is paying for black lung deaths/disabilities? Who is paying for Superfund cleanups of nuclear and other toxic sites throughout the USA? Who is paying to keep rivers from running yellow w toxic mine waste? You are, and I am, as taxpayers. The corporations made massive profits in times of little or no regulation, then moved on and left destruction behind them. Anaconda, Kennecot, Peabody, Amax, Homestake, the list goes on. The only reason there are regulations and an EPA are the rape-and-run practices of mining.

Big oil/gas owns the Trump administration and Congress. He promised a return to prosperity for coal miners, though he knew that ship has sailed and coal is winding down. Liar. Handing over federal lands and eliminating the regulations that protect people and environments is the debt they owe to their masters. Voters are the only thing standing in their way, and for the next 22 months @ least, the voters have handed the keys to the kingdom over to despoilers. Read US history and spend time in boom/bust locales before smiling and nodding while the destruction of public lands, air and water accelerates under the current administration. The $ benefits are temporary, and mostly bypass the workers. The costs are permanent, and taxpayers always pick up the tab.

You would think we are still using mining practices from the 20's and that all corporations are evil. I'm glad I don't view society as gloom and doom. Yes companies have to make a profit, unlike a government they can't survive without one.

 

[brocksw]

What mine do you work for? Its not the epa that comes out and checks all our mine sites to make sure they are reclaimed. Its not the epa that checks the air quality and dust control for a mine site. Its also not the epa who checks all out water permits and settling ponds. In all reality the epa has little to do with the surface mining msha has way more control. So what has the epa enacted on the mine sites you work on daily in ND i have done a fair amount of work up there also and never seen the epa.

Well you are sort of correct, it is definitely MSHA who has concerns over air quality/dust control and many things that are tied into safety and health, and this is primarily for the mine workers. However, if you go look at coal mining regulations, power plants regulations, oil and gas regulations, on a federal level the EPA is the entity responsible for writing and enforcing those regulations after congress enacts them, not MSHA. So I while I don't necessarily disagree with all of your statements, the idea that MSHA has more power over coal mining regulation as it relates to the environment and reclamation is completely false. Do MSHA and the EPA have some overlap as it relates to safety and health, sure I would be willing to concede to that. I would even be willing to concede to the fact that perhaps, MSHA has some authority to put regulation into play when concerning coal mining facilities, but again this is all with the intent to protect worker safety and health. Sort of a micro vs macro comparison would be appropriate.

Now, if you actually look at the laws put into place by congress, who writes them and what regulations are set forth for the mining industry to follow, you'll see a direct arrow pointing to the EPA. This isn't really debatable, this is settled governmental process and part of the reason that much of the private energy sector would like to eliminate the EPA, hence H.R. 861 which has a sole purpose of terminating the EPA in 2018.

 

[KurtR]

You would think we are still using mining practices from the 20's and that all corporations are evil. I'm glad I don't view society as gloom and doom. Yes companies have to make a profit, unlike a government they can't survive without one.

No doubt... My brother in law sends me pics of 200" inch mule deer from the mine he works on in wyoming that never leave the site so either they are some kind of mutant that survives the apocalypse or it must not be that bad to never leave the mine site.

 

[KurtR]

Well you are sort of correct, it is definitely MSHA who has concerns over air quality/dust control and many things that are tied into safety and health, and this is primarily for the mine workers. However, if you go look at coal mining regulations, power plants regulations, oil and gas regulations, on a federal level the EPA is the entity responsible for writing and enforcing those regulations after congress enacts them, not MSHA. So I while I don't necessarily disagree with all of your statements, the idea that MSHA has more power over coal mining regulation as it relates to the environment and reclamation is completely false. Do MSHA and the EPA have some overlap as it relates to safety and health, sure I would be willing to concede to that. I would even be willing to concede to the fact that perhaps, MSHA has some authority to put regulation into play when concerning coal mining facilities, but again this is all with the intent to protect worker safety and health. Sort of a micro vs macro comparison would be appropriate.

Now, if you actually look at the laws put into place by congress, who writes them and what regulations are set forth for the mining industry to follow, you'll see a direct arrow pointing to the EPA. This isn't really debatable, this is settled governmental process and part of the reason that much of the private energy sector would like to eliminate the EPA, hence H.R. 861 which has a sole purpose of terminating the EPA in 2018.

What mine do you work for? What experience do you have in mines and dealing with mining regulations?

 

[COSA]

I work in the mining industry, here's generally how & who regulates what:
MSHA regulates safety, which would include air monitoring from an industrial hygiene perspective - not an emissions perspective. As someone mentioned, they are very tight and not afraid to write citations/fine companies.
State DEQ does the bulk of the environmental regulation (air quality, reclamation, water quality, waste management, etc.). In my experience, the state agencies/regulators are good/fair folks, and work together with the mining companies to comply with the regs and do what's right.
EPA does not regulate mining from a hands on perspective; EPA develops/writes the regs, which at times don't seem to have any common sense involved. If EPA visits your site, you generally have a big problem.....
BLM & Forest Service become involved if the mine is located on their land.
There's several other government agencies that also regulate their specific area of concern.

 

[pierceje]

No doubt... My brother in law sends me pics of 200" inch mule deer from the mine he works on in wyoming that never leave the site so either they are some kind of mutant that survives the apocalypse or it must not be that bad to never leave the mine site.

I grew up in a coal mining family and worked in a coal mine before joining the military. We actually hunted above/around/near coal mines all the time. Didn't see a problem then, don't see a problem now.

 

[KurtR]

I work in the mining industry, here's generally how & who regulates what:
MSHA regulates safety, which would include air monitoring from an industrial hygiene perspective - not an emissions perspective. As someone mentioned, they are very tight and not afraid to write citations/fine companies.
State DEQ does the bulk of the environmental regulation (air quality, reclamation, water quality, waste management, etc.). In my experience, the state agencies/regulators are good/fair folks, and work together with the mining companies to comply with the regs and do what's right.
EPA does not regulate mining from a hands on perspective; EPA develops/writes the regs, which at times don't seem to have any common sense involved. If EPA visits your site, you generally have a big problem.....
BLM & Forest Service become involved if the mine is located on their land.
There's several other government agencies that also regulate their specific area of concern.

this is my exact experience also.

 

[Gobbler36]

I could agree that the EPA has been inefficient and certainly added to a bloated bureaucracy. However, I don't believe letting Congress have more control is any better. In fact, I believe it may be worse. Let's not forget that this Congress is in the pocket of many of these large corporations and they will set regulation and make laws that are in the best interest of those corporations. I concur that the EPA has gone a little to far to the left in terms of political agenda... But I think that's a good example of having balance. Once an EPA is removed the scale tips too far to the right and corporatism is free to run rampant. Balance is needed and the state and local governments will not have as much say as one might think when it comes to federal land. I'm in the Oil and Gas industry and I see first hand how little say the state has in energy development on federal land, how inefficient and slow the EPA can be, and how the forest service is really the only organization that's fighting for the wellbeing and preservation of the lands themselves and not for profit or agenda.

We must not forget that the states typically profit via taxes when energy industries are doing their thing. This can cloud judgement and is one of the reasons we as outdoors enthusiasts have been against the transfer of federal land to the states.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Couldn't agree more, get rid completely of the EPA and these lands will fall victim to mans greed when energy development money is thrown at congress and they are setting regulations I honestly don't see what could be worse for wildlife

 

[brocksw]

KurtR That is literally the same exact point I was trying to make.

 

[KurtR]

No you were saying without the epa that hell fire and brimstone was soon to follow and in the real world operations of mines and how they effect wild life and land the epa has little to do with keeping them safe as the states denr and msha do more than the epa does as they do not show up and do regular inspections and dont know till it is way to late. Then what good are the regulations if the damage is already done. How it works in the real world and how you think it works are two different things

 

[ChrisS]

It seems some people have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the EPA works.

 

[brocksw]

No you were saying without the epa that hell fire and brimstone was soon to follow and in the real world operations of mines and how they effect wild life and land the epa has little to do with keeping them safe as the states denr and msha do more than the epa does as they do not show up and do regular inspections and dont know till it is way to late. Then what good are the regulations if the damage is already done. How it works in the real world and how you think it works are two different things

Well my apologies to everyone then! What COSA said in his last post, in my mind is exactly the point that I was trying to make. I've read over a number of my posts to try and see where I failed to project that same message correctly, and I will be honest, I still don't see it. I certainly don't see the "hell fire and brimstone" part.

"MSHA regulates safety, which would include air monitoring from an industrial hygiene perspective - not an emissions perspective."
I said this, but perhaps not as clearly

"State DEQ does the bulk of the environmental regulation (air quality, reclamation, water quality, waste management"
I may have alluded to this, but this can vary and is still under heavy influence from the federal government. Sometimes the states have to follow federal law or federal jurisdiction, sometimes states can create their own regulations in their rulebook. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) is the primary law that regulates surface coal mining and reclamation, that is a federal law devoid of MSHA. SMCRA also promulgate regulations, and funds state regulatory and reclamation efforts, and ensures consistency among state regulatory programs. The EPA is still responsible for a majority of environmental legislation.
It is true, that it is the states that are predominately responsible for permitting and enforcement of surface mining, but the Department of Interior and EPA are responsible for oversight and assistance.

"EPA develops/writes the regs"
I know I said this

 

[dotman]

It seems some people have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the EPA works.

Yeah I've noticed that as well.

 

[COSA]

I think getting rid of the EPA is a bad idea. The EPA is between a rock and a hard place due to changing political power, industry, special interest groups, and NGO lawyers. Here's some major issues:
A political agenda drives regulations instead of common sense. This agenda changes every election cycle which drives companies crazy trying to comply with changing regs or interpretations.
Getting sued by fringe NGO groups that judge shop
Too many lawyers involved
Seems like they target their recruiting to the college environmental elitist; who bring an agenda and no real world work experience.
Not working well with industries at times. Most industries do not want the media attention, stock devaluation, or clean up costs of a serious environmental event.

 

[KurtR]

I agree getting rid of epa as a whole could be bad but they need some definite reorganization . If they would use common sense as you say cut some of the red tape with all the organizations and actually be proactive with enforcing regulations it would be better for every one involved. Coal mines and surface mines in general now when reclaimed create more habitat and help wildlife more than it hurts it now.

 

[elkyinzer]

I don't think it's a bad thing. Let coal die a slow natural death in the open marketplace over the next several decades, as it was well on its way to doing already.

As for the EPA, obviously it has a role due to interstate commerce, but they've far overstepped their bounds in countless real world examples. Rebuild from the ground up with more scientists, less lawyers.