Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia 

 

Environmental justice and coal mining in Appalachia is the study of environmental justice – the interdisciplinary body of social science literature studying theories of the environment and justice; environmental laws, policies, and their implementations and enforcement; development and sustainability; and political ecology – in relation to Coal mining in Appalachia.

The Appalachian region of the Southeastern United States is a leading producer of coal in the country. Research shows that people who live in close proximity to mountaintop removal (MTR) mines have higher mortality rates than average, and are more likely to live in poverty and be exposed to harmful environmental conditions than people in otherwise comparable parts of the region.

In the late 1990s, several Appalachian women, including Julia Bonds, began to speak out against MTR and its effects on the people and environment of mining communities. Research has shown that MTR is causing "irreparable" environmental damage in Appalachia. The blasting of mountaintops has polluted stream and water supplies have been contaminated by toxic waste from coal processing called slurry ponds. Scientists have noted an increase in respiratory and heart problems among area residents, including lung cancer. Mortality rates and birth defect rates are higher in the areas surrounding surface mining locations.

Coal mining production in Appalachia declined from 1990 to 2015, but there is some debate over why. Cited factors include a rising demand for clean energy, environmental policies and regulations set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and globalization. The number of coal mining jobs in the region remained steady from 2000 to 2010, but declined by 37% between 2011 and 2015. Less production is responsible for much of this job loss, but improved mining techniques like mountain-top removal also contributed. Discourse around coal in the area has sparked a debate in academia over whether it creates wealth or poverty. The core debate centers around coal production's impact on local and national economy.

Background

Coal production

Appalachia is one of three coal-mining regions in the United States; the others are the Interior coal region, and the Western coal region, which includes the Powder River Basin. Eight states lie in the Appalachian coal region: Alabama, eastern Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. West Virginia is the largest coal-producing state in Appalachia, and the second-largest coal-producing state in the United States, accounting for about 11% of the nation's total coal production in 2014 (the largest coal-producing state is Wyoming, which lies in the Western coal region and accounts for 40% of U.S. coal production). Two other states in the Appalachian coal region, Kentucky and Pennsylvania, account for 8% and 6% of U.S. coal production, respectively.

The coal industry in Appalachia has changed over time. According to U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration data, Central Appalachia—consisting of southern West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, western Virginia, and eastern Tennessee—made up almost 29% of U.S. coal production in the U.S. in 1990, but only about 13% by 2013. By contrast, coal production in Northern Appalachian has remained relatively stable, going from 16% in 1990 to 12.5% in 2013. As a result, "both regions account for nearly the same share of U.S. coal production" as of 2014.

In the Appalachian coal region, 72% of coal produced came from underground mines. This is a much higher percentage than in the Western coal region, where 90% of all coal produced comes from surface mines.

History

Historically, "the building of coal towns began in the 1880s, peaked in the 1920s, and virtually ended with the coming of the Great Depression" when the availability of other forms of energy—namely, oil, gas, and hydroelectricity—reduced demand for coal. The company town was particularly dominant in southern Appalachia; in 1925, almost 80% of West Virginia coal miners lived in company towns, while an average of 64.4% of coal miners in Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee lived in company towns.

Impacts of coal mining in Appalachia

Strip mining in Barnesville, Ohio

Since 1995, the Appalachian region has produced about half of the United States' coal. Although Appalachia has played a large role in contributing to the coal supply of the United States, the communities surrounding such mining practices have suffered immensely. Several studies have shown disparities between mining communities and non-mining communities in terms of public health, environmental degradation, pollution, and overall quality of life in Appalachia. Variations of surface coal mining techniques in the Appalachia include contour, area, high-wall, auger, and mountaintop removal mining (MTR).

Surface mining

The damage caused by mountaintop removal strip mining has had a calculable effect on the environment and communities in Appalachia. The resource rich region remains economically deprived and suffers from the externalities of coal mining, including the health problems caused by coal pollution. The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) is the federal agency tasked with regulating strip-mining under the Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). According to OSM, "[t]o the extent that low income populations are prevalent in the coalfields, the impacts of mountaintop mining are felt disproportionately by these environmental justice populations".

Most local residents are unable to see the extent of the damage that has been caused by surface mining. Geologist Sean P. Bemis investigated claims by local residents that the extent of the damage was not easily visible. In interviews with the research team, former miner Chuck Nelson stated that the extent of the destruction is only clearly visible from a plane. Coalfield resident activist Maria Gunnoe gave a similar account to the researchers, saying "I never realized it was so bad. My first fly-over with South Wings [non-profit aviation organization], and that right there is what really fired me up. When I got off the plane that day, I cried all the way across the tarmac, all the way home ..." The Government Accountability Office (GAO) confirmed this in a 2009 report:

Despite the public scrutiny that surface mining in mountainous areas has received, the public is limited in its ability to access information on the scope of these operations - their size, location, and how long they have been in operation - and on what the mountain can be expected to look like after mining operations have ceased and the land has been reclaimed

— Government Accountability Office (GAO), as quoted in Fighting King Coal

There are no official records of the total number of "disturbed acres" that have resulted from surface mining, but geospatial analysis has shown that between 1.05million and 1.28million acres of land and more than 500 mountains in West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia have been surface mined.

Mountaintop removal

One form of surface mining is mountaintop removal (MTR). This technique may remove up to 800 to 1000 feet of mountaintops, to reach coal seams not accessible by other surface mining techniques. This practice was used on a small scale in the 1970's and became heavily used in the 1990's. This extraction technique became popular because the increased demand for high-grade low-sulfur coal, due to the Clean Air Act amendments passed in 1990. The process of MTR begins by the deforestation of a chosen mountaintop, then it is blasted with explosives. Next all of the excess soil and rock or "spoil" is moved out, after the mining operation is complete this will be replaced. Once this rock has been disturbed in this process, swelling will take place. The spoil will expand by fifteen to twenty five percent, due to air incorporation and voids. This excess spoil or "overburden" then is dumped into nearby streams or valleys, this process is called a valley fill. Since the boom in MTR usage as many as 500 mountaintops have been destroyed and 2000 miles of waterways have been filled.  Mountaintop mining and valley fills can lead to large scale landscape changes. These may include: fragmentation of forests, conversion of habitats, and loss of large tracts and forested areas.  There also may be adverse effects to the people living in these Appalachian mining communities Micheal Hendrix a researcher at Indiana State University, in an interview with Yale, stated that “The number of excess deaths every year comes to about 1,200 people who live in these mining communities compared to other parts of Appalachia.” The diseases most prevalent in these MTR areas include: cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and COPD. These are not only the occupational illnesses of miners but of the general public. Birth defects especially heart defects risk goes up by 181% in MTR areas. Researchers are beginning to research smaller particulate matter as the cause of these illnesses, and increased mortality.

Effects on health

Several studies have found that communities within the Appalachian region surrounding coal mining practices disproportionately experience negative health effects than communities with no coal mining. Such health disparities are largely attributed to the contamination of water and land associated with coal surface mining. MTR has increased salinity, metals, magnesium, and sulfates within Appalachian watersheds, threatening human health. Sixty-three percent of stream beds near coalfields within the Appalachia mountains have been identified as "impaired" due to high toxic chemical and metal contamination. In West Virginia, 14 counties are experiencing water that exceeds safe drinking water standards by seven times more than non-mining counties. Combustion waste and fly ash from MTR lend to toxic dusts pollute the surrounding air and have contributed to increased levels of cancer, cardiovascular disease, liver disease, and kidney disease. Public health costs of pollution in the Appalachia are upwards of 75 billion dollars a year. In a comparative analysis of health-related quality of residences in counties with and without coal mining Appalachia "reported significantly fewer healthy days for both physical and mental health". The same study highlights strong correlations between heavy coal mining counties and a greater risk of depression and severe psychological distress. Areas in the Appalachia with coal surface mining exhibit greater rates of adverse health effects and reduced self-rated health in comparison to the national average. In addition, studies from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have concluded a high "relationship between surface coal mining jobs and the prevalence of pneumoconiosis". Lastly, through examination of mortality rates, county-level poverty rates, and coal mining within counties of the Appalachia, it was identified that coal mining areas of Appalachia experienced higher mortality rates then counties with no coal mining.

Environmental impacts

Mountaintop removal coal mining in Martin County, Kentucky

Coal surface mining has heavily altered the hydrological cycle and landscape of the Appalachia causing environmental degradation and contributing to ecosystem damages beyond repair. Surface coal mining in the Appalachian has contributed to the destruction of over 500 mountain tops. In addition, it has led to the clearance of over 1 million acres of forests and contributed to the degradation or permanent loss of over 12000 miles of streams crucial to the Appalachia watershed from 1985- 2001. Increased salinity and metal contamination of the Appalachian streams have led to toxic effects of fish and bird species. Mountaintop removal, or MTR, is a type of surface mining that has played a major role in negatively impacting the Appalachian environment. When MTR is used, it causes much of the contaminants from the process to be emptied into surrounding valleys which, oftentimes, make their way into nearby streams. These wastes are disposed in "valley fills" which have collapsed and produced heavy flash floods in Appalachia. The Environmental Protection Agency approximates that between 1985 and 2001, over 700 miles worth of streams in the Appalachians were covered by these "valley fills" due to mountaintop removal coal mining.

Social and economic impacts

Appalachia has historically been one of the most impoverished regions of the country.

There is a debate about whether coal production is a source of wealth or poverty in Appalachia. The U.S. geological survey and the U.S. bureau of mines states that there is a coal-wealth paradox in Appalachia. Appalachia is home to some of the largest coal mines yet the average per capita income is only about 68% of the national per capita income. However, work done by Black and Sanders shows that between 1970 and 1980 the increase in coal production substantially boosted the pay of low skilled workers in Appalachia and likely caused a decrease in income inequality.

Although coal mining industries are often associated with increased jobs and economic growth, this association does not hold for Appalachia, where two-thirds of the counties have higher levels of unemployment than the nation and per capita personal wages falling 20% lower than the nation. More specifically, in Hendryx and Zullig's comparative analysis of Appalachia counties, those with coal mining had greater economic disparities and more poverty than those without industry. The shift towards coal surface mining from underground mining led to a 50% decline in mining jobs from 1985 to 2005, and competition from cheap natural gas also decreased demand for coal, leading some mines to close or reduce extraction, which further increased unemployment. From 2014 to 2015, overall mining employment for Appalachia has dropped by 15.9%. A NASA study states that promises of beneficial post-mining development in the Appalachian region have yet to materialize. A 2017 study found that neighborhoods closest to coal impoundments are "slightly more likely to have higher rates of poverty and unemployment, even after controlling for rurality, mining-related variables, and spatial dependence".

Specific events

Buffalo Creek Disaster

In 1972, a slurry pond built by Pittson Coal Company collapsed. In what is known as the Buffalo Creek disaster 130 million gallons of sludge flooded Buffalo Creek. More recently, a waste impoundment owned by Massey burst in Kentucky, flooding nearby streams with 250 tons of coal slurry.

Law and regulation

The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1973 provided payments to coal miners disabled from Coalworker's pneumoconiosis or "black lung disease" and their dependent survivors.

The 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) created two programs: one for regulating active coal mines and a second for reclaiming abandoned mine lands.

In the view of Jedediah Purdy, The Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act improved the quality of air and water for much of America, but created "sacrificial zones" in America, including coal mining communities in Appalachia, that hid the environmental effects of industry and agriculture from people in suburbs but increased exposure to danger for people who lived near sites of pollution.

These laws, along with the National Environmental Policy Act form the basis in law for regulation of coal mining, including mountaintop removal mining. Regulations issued on the basis of these laws focus on issuing or withholding permits for new mining operations; the regulations themselves have been contested. As of 2012, these laws did not take into account direct effects on communities near mines nor economic or racial disparities in those communities, and regulations and executive orders issued that attempted to address such environmental justice concerns had been struck down, and legal challenges based on potential effects on local communities generally failed, since neither the law nor regulations were written to address these concerns and judges ruled based on what the law and regulations actually said.

The Affordable Care Act is a federal government health care law; it includes provisions that amend the Black Lung Benefits program. The Black Lung Benefits program details the extent to which coal miners have their medical coverage compensated by the federal government. The ACA provisions that amend the Black Lung Benefits program are commonly known as the Byrd Amendments taking its name from the late West Virginia Congressman Robert Byrd. The Byrd Amendments are found in Section 1556 of the ACA. Among the many protections the Byrd Amendments provides coal miners, it covers medical expenses for coal miners who worked at least 15 years underground (or comparable surface mining) and who have a totally disabling respiratory impairment. Further, it shifts the burden of proof of disability due to "black lung disease" from these coal miners back to the coal companies. Coalworker's pneumoconiosis or "black lung disease" can be a common health problem faced by retired coal miners.

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

Early attempts to regulate strip-mining on the state level were largely unsuccessful due to lax enforcement. The Appalachian Group to Save the Land and the People was founded in 1965 to stop surface mining. In 1968, Congress held the first hearings on strip mining. Ken Hechler introduced the first strip-mining abolition bill in Congress in 1971. Though this bill was not passed, provisions establishing a process to reclaim abandoned strip mines and allowing citizens to sue regulatory agencies became parts of SMCRA.

SMCRA also created the Office of Surface Mining, an agency within the Department of the Interior, to promulgate regulations, to fund state regulatory and reclamation efforts, and to ensure consistency among state regulatory programs.

Advocacy groups

The study of justice has often been defined by the theories of John Rawls. Justice theory has focused on the principles by the which to distribute goods in a society. The defining arguments of the environmental justice movement were about patterns that violated some of these distributive principles of justice theory. Several contemporary scholars have developed theories of justice that are broader then the distributional theory of justice.

The study of justice theory, as applied to the environmental justice, has primarily focused on "maldistribution". In other words, this area of study has concentrated on the fact that poor communities, indigenous communities and communities of color are often disproportionately impacted by environmentally-related negative externalities and receive less environmental protection.

Environmental justice has been identified by scholars as a movement that acknowledged the disproportionate effects of environmental damage and toxic contamination on the poor and people of color. It has also been noted that the race and class of the parties effects the community's chances of success in enacting reforms. Environmental justice groups were community grassroots organizations that combined environmentalism with issues of race a class equality. These groups organized in opposition to the disproportionate threat mountain communities faced from health hazards like acid mine drainage.

Save Our Cumberland Mountains

Save Our Cumberland Mountains (SOCM, pronounced "sock 'em") was founded when thirteen residents of the Tennessee coalfields petitioned their state government to make coal landholders pay a fair share of taxes. SOCM later grew into one of most significant community organizations in the region and went on to lead a major legislative campaign against employers who replaced their permanent employees with long-term temporary workers.

J.W. Bradley was the president of SOCM for its first five years. He had worked in the deep mines and was outspoken about what he called the "evils of strip mining." He believed in using litigation to pursue reform. In 1974, SOCM established the East Tennessee Research Corporation as a public interest law firm. By 1976, SOCM was trying to ban strip mining and targeting individual strip mining operations.

An attorney who worked with SOCM in the 1970s has written that very few people of color were involved with SOCM in the early years. He highlights the importance of regional organizations like the Highlander Research and Education Center that "seek to bring together diverse communities to share their knowledge about the inner dynamics of environmental justice issues".

Mountain Justice

Mountain Justice began in 2005 as a summer-long campaign for the abolition of MTM. The organization was started after a 2004 mining accident in Virginia. A three year old was killed when a boulder rolled off a MTM site above his home. The first MJ meeting took place in Knoxville, Tennessee and included activists from Coal River Mountain Watch (CRMW), the Sierra Club, Appalachian Voices, and Katuah Earth First (KEF!). Their mission statement includes a commitment to non-violence.

Coal pollution mitigation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_pollution_mitigation

 

Government Accountability Office diagram showing emissions controls at a coal fired power plant

Coal pollution mitigation, often called clean coal, is a series of systems and technologies that seek to mitigate the pollution and other environmental effects normally associated with the burning (though not the mining or processing) of coal, which is widely regarded as the dirtiest of the common fuels for industrial processes and power generation.

Approaches attempt to mitigate emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gases, and radioactive materials, that arise from the use of coal, mainly for electrical power generation, using various technologies. Historical efforts to reduce coal pollution focused on flue-gas desulfurization starting in the 1850s and clean burn technologies. These efforts have been very successful in countries with strong environmental regulation, where emissions of acid-rain causing compounds and particulates have been reduced by up to 90% since 1995. More recent developments include carbon capture and storage, which pumps and stores CO₂ emissions underground, and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) involve coal gasification, which provides a basis for increased efficiency and lower cost in capturing CO₂ emissions.

There are seven technologies deployed or proposed by the National Mining Association for deployment in the United States:

• flue-gas desulfurization,
• fluidized bed combustion,
• integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC),
• low-nitrogen oxide burners,
• selective catalytic reduction (SCR),
• electrostatic precipitators, and
• carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Of the 22 clean coal demonstration projects funded by the U.S. Department of Energy since 2003, none are in operation as of February 2017, having been abandoned or delayed due to capital budget overruns or discontinued because of excessive operating expenses.

Regulations

Since the 1970s, various policy and regulatory measures have driven coal pollution mitigation. In the US, the Clean Air Act was the primary driving force in reducing particulate emissions and acid rain from coal combustion. As regulations have increased the demand for coal pollution mitigation technologies, costs have fallen and performance has improved.

The widespread deployment of pollution-control equipment to reduce sulfur dioxide, NO_x and dust emissions is just one example that brought cleaner air to many countries. The desire to tackle rising CO₂ emissions to address climate change later introduced Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

Within the United States, Carbon Capture and Storage technologies, also sometimes referred to as carbon capture and sequestration, are mainly being developed in response to regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency—most notably the Clean Air Act—and in anticipation of legislation that seeks to mitigate climate change.

Loan guarantees and tax incentives have a long history of use in Australia, EU countries, and the US to encourage the introduction of coal pollution mitigation and other technologies to reduce environmental impact.

Environmental impact of coal

Greenhouse gases

Combustion of coal—which is mostly carbon—produces carbon dioxide as a product of combustion. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the burning of coal, a fossil fuel, is a significant contributor to global warming. (See the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report). Burning 1 ton of coal produces 2.86 tons of carbon dioxide.

Carbon sequestration technology has yet to be tested on a large scale and may not be safe or successful. Sequestered CO₂ may eventually leak up through the ground, may lead to unexpected geological instability or may cause contamination of aquifers used for drinking water supplies.

As a quarter of world energy consumption in 2019 was from coal, reaching the carbon dioxide reduction targets of the Paris Agreement will require modifications to how coal is used.

Measurement of pollution and availability of pollution data

In some countries, such as the EU, smokestack measurements from individual power plants must be published. Whereas in some countries, such as Turkey, they are only reported to the government not the public. However, since the late 2010s satellite measurements of some pollutants have been available.

Combustion By-products

By-products of coal combustion are compounds which are released into the atmosphere as a result of burning coal. Coal includes contaminants such as sulfur compounds and non-combustible minerals. When coal is burned, the minerals become ash (i.e. particulate matter or PM) and the sulfur forms sulfur dioxide (SO₂). Since air is mostly nitrogen, combustion of coal often leads to production of nitrogen oxides. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are primary causes of acid rain. For many years—before greenhouse gasses were widely understood to be a threat—it was thought that these by-products were the only drawback to using coal. These by-products are still a problem, but they have been greatly diminished in most advanced countries due to clean air regulations. It is possible to remove most of the sulfur dioxide (SO₂), nitrogen oxides (NO_x), and particulate matter (PM) emissions from the coal-burning process. For example, various techniques are used in a coal preparation plant to reduce the amount of non-combustible matter (i.e. ash) in the coal prior to burning. During combustion, fluidized bed combustion is used to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions. After burning, particulate matter (i.e. ash and dust) can be reduced using an electrostatic precipitator and sulfur dioxide emissions can be further reduced with flue-gas desulfurization. Trace amounts of radionuclides are more difficult to remove.

Coal-fired power plants are the largest aggregate source of the toxic heavy metal mercury: 50 tons per year come from coal power plants out of 150 tons emitted nationally in the US and 5000 tons globally. However, according to the United States Geological Survey, the trace amounts of mercury in coal by-products do not pose a threat to public health. A study in 2013 found that mercury found in the fish in the Pacific Ocean could possibly be linked to coal-fired plants in Asia.

Potential financial impact

Whether carbon capture and storage technology is adopted worldwide will "...depend less on science than on economics. Cleaning coal is very expensive." 

Cost of converting a single coal-fired power plant

Conversion of a conventional coal-fired power plant is done by injecting the CO
2 into ammonium carbonate after which it is then transported and deposited underground (preferably in soil beneath the sea). This injection process however is by far the most expensive. Besides the cost of the equipment and the ammonium carbonate, the coal-fired power plant also needs to use 30% of its generated heat to do the injection (parasitic load). A test-setup has been done in the American Electric Power Mountaineer coal-burning power plant.

One solution to reduce this thermal loss/parasitic load is to burn the pulverised load with pure oxygen instead of air.

Cost implications for new coal-fired power plants

Newly built coal-fired power plants can be made to immediately use gasification of the coal prior to combustion. This makes it much easier to separate off the CO
2 from the exhaust fumes, making the process cheaper. This gasification process is done in new coal-burning power plants such as the coal-burning power plant at Tianjin, called "GreenGen".

Costs for China

As of 2019 costs of retrofitting CCS are unclear and the economics depends partly on how the Chinese national carbon trading scheme progresses.

Costs for India

As of 2019 some argue that "with the right policy initiatives and market design" gasification with CCS would be cost effective for some coal plants.

Politics

Australia

In Australia, carbon capture and storage was often referred to by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as a possible way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (The previous Prime Minister John Howard had stated that nuclear power was a better alternative, as CCS technology may not prove to be economically feasible.)

Canada

In 2014 SaskPower a provincial-owned electric utility finished renovations on Boundary Dam's boiler number 3 making it the world's first post-combustion carbon capture storage facility. The renovation project ended up costing a little over $1.2 billion and can scrub out CO2 and toxins from up to 90 percent of the flue gas that it emits.

China

Since 2006, China releases more CO
2 than any other country. Researchers in China are focusing on increasing efficiency of burning coal so they can get more power out of less coal. It is estimated that new high efficiency power plants could reduce CO2 emission by 7% because they won't have to burn as much coal to get the same amount of power.

Japan

Following the catastrophic failure of the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant in Japan that resulted from the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, and the subsequent widespread public opposition against nuclear power, high energy, lower emission (HELE) coal power plants were increasingly favored by the Shinzō Abe-led government to recoup lost energy capacity from the partial shutdown of nuclear power plants in Japan and to replace aging coal and oil-fired power plants, while meeting 2030 emission targets of the Paris Agreement. 45 HELE power plants have been planned, purportedly to employ integrated gasification fuel cell cycle, a further development of integrated gasification combined cycle.

Japan had adopted prior pilot projects on IGCC coal power plants in the early-1990s and late-2000s.

United States

In the United States, "clean coal" was mentioned by former President George W. Bush on several occasions, including his 2007 State of the Union Address. Bush's position was that carbon capture and storage technologies should be encouraged as one means to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil.

During the US Presidential campaign for 2008, both candidates John McCain and Barack Obama expressed interest in the development of CCS technologies as part of an overall comprehensive energy plan. The development of pollution mitigation technologies could also create export business for the United States or any other country working on it.

The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, signed in 2009 by President Obama, allocated $3.4 billion for advanced carbon capture and storage technologies, including demonstration projects.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that "we should strive to have new electricity generation come from other sources, such as clean coal and renewables", and former Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu has said that "It is absolutely worthwhile to invest in carbon capture and storage", noting that even if the U.S. and Europe turned their backs on coal, developing nations like India and China would likely not.

During the first 2012 United States presidential election debate, Mitt Romney expressed his support for clean coal, and claimed that current federal policies were hampering the coal industry.

Office of Clean Coal and Carbon Management

The Office of Clean Coal and Carbon Management is part of the United States Department of Energy. It sponsors research into "clean coal" technology. 

Criticism of the approach

Environmentalists such as Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming and Energy Program, believes that the term "clean coal" is misleading: "There is no such thing as clean coal and there never will be. It's an oxymoron." The Sierra Club's Coal Campaign has launched a site refuting the clean coal statements and advertising of the coal industry.

Complaints focus on the environmental impacts of coal extraction, high costs to sequester carbon, and uncertainty of how to manage end result pollutants and radionuclides. In reference to sequestration of carbon, concerns exist about whether geologic storage of CO₂ in reservoirs, aquifers, etc., is indefinite/permanent.

The palaeontologist and influential environmental activist Tim Flannery made the assertion that the concept of clean coal might not be viable for all geographical locations.

Critics also believe that the continuing construction of coal-powered plants (whether or not they use carbon sequestration techniques) encourages unsustainable mining practices for coal, which can strip away mountains, hillsides, and natural areas. They also point out that there can be a large amount of energy required and pollution emitted in transporting the coal to the power plants.

The Reality Coalition, a US non-profit climate organization composed of the Alliance for Climate Protection, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the League of Conservation Voters, ran a series of television commercials in 2008 and 2009. The commercials were highly critical of attempts to mitigate coal's pollution, stating that without capturing CO₂ emissions and storing it safely that it cannot be called "clean coal".

Greenpeace is a major opponent of the concept, because they view emissions and wastes as not being avoided but instead transferred from one waste stream to another. According to Greenpeace USA's Executive Director Phil Radford speaking in 2012, "even the industry figures it will take 10 or 20 years to arrive, and we need solutions sooner than that. We need to scale up renewable energy; 'clean coal' is a distraction from that."

Clean coal

The term Clean Coal in modern society often refers to the carbon capture and storage process. The term has been used by advertisers, lobbyists, and politicians such as Donald Trump.

Prior terminology

The industry term "clean coal" is increasingly used in reference to carbon capture and storage, an advanced theoretical process that would eliminate or significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal-based plants and permanently sequester them. More generally, the term has been found in modern usage to describe technologies designed to enhance both the efficiency and the environmental acceptability of coal extraction, preparation, and use.

U.S. Senate Bill 911 in April, 1987, defined clean coal technology as follows:

"The term clean coal technology means any technology...deployed at a new or existing facility which will achieve significant reductions in air emissions of sulfur dioxide or oxides of nitrogen associated with the utilization of coal in the generation of electricity."

Before being adopted in this fashion, historically "clean coal" was used to refer to clean-burning coal with low levels of impurities, though this term faded after rates of domestic coal usage dropped. The term appeared in a speech to mine workers in 1918, in context indicating coal that was "free of dirt and impurities." In the early 20th century, prior to World War II, clean coal (also called "smokeless coal") generally referred to anthracite and high-grade bituminous coal, used for cooking and home heating.

Clean coal technology is a collection of technologies being developed in attempts to lessen the negative environmental impact of coal energy generation and to mitigate worldwide climate change. When coal is used as a fuel source, the gaseous emissions generated by the thermal decomposition of the coal include sulfur dioxide (SO₂), nitrogen oxides (NO_x), mercury, and other chemical byproducts that vary depending on the type of the coal being used. These emissions have been established to have a negative impact on the environment and human health, contributing to acid rain, lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. As a result, clean coal technologies are being developed to remove or reduce pollutant emissions to the atmosphere. Some of the techniques that would be used to accomplish this include chemically washing minerals and impurities from the coal, gasification (see also IGCC), improved technology for treating flue gases to remove pollutants to increasingly stringent levels and at higher efficiency, carbon capture and storage technologies to capture the carbon dioxide from the flue gas and dewatering lower rank coals (brown coals) to improve the calorific value, and thus the efficiency of the conversion into electricity. Concerns exist regarding the economic viability of these technologies and the timeframe of delivery, potentially high hidden economic costs in terms of social and environmental damage, and the costs and viability of disposing of removed carbon and other toxic matter.

In its original usage, the term "Clean Coal" was used to refer to technologies that were designed to reduce emission of pollutants associated with burning coal, such as washing coal at the mine. This step removes some of the sulfur and other contaminants, including rocks and soil. This makes coal cleaner and cheaper to transport. More recently, the definition of clean coal has been expanded to include carbon capture and storage. Clean coal technology usually addresses atmospheric problems resulting from burning coal. Historically, the primary focus was on SO₂ and NO_x, the most important gases in causation of acid rain, and particulates which cause visible air pollution and have deleterious effects on human health.

Technology

Several different technological methods are available for the purpose of carbon capture as demanded by the clean coal concept:

• Pre-combustion capture – This involves gasification of a feedstock (such as coal) to form synthesis gas, which may be shifted to produce a H₂ and CO₂-rich gas mixture, from which the CO₂ can be efficiently captured and separated, transported, and ultimately sequestered, This technology is usually associated with Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle process configurations.
• Post-combustion capture – This refers to capture of CO₂ from exhaust gases of combustion processes.
• Oxy-fuel combustion – Fossil fuels such as coal are burned in a mixture of recirculated flue gas and oxygen, rather than in air, which largely eliminates nitrogen from the flue gas enabling efficient, low-cost CO₂ capture.

The Kemper County IGCC Project, a proposed 582 MW coal gasification-based power plant, was expected to use pre-combustion capture of CO₂ to capture 65% of the CO₂ the plant produces, which would have been utilized and geologically sequestered in enhanced oil recovery operations. However, after many delays and a cost runup to $7.5 billion (triple the initial budget), the coal gasification project was abandoned and as of late 2017, Kemper is under construction as a cheaper natural gas power plant.

The Saskatchewan Government's Boundary Dam Integrated Carbon Capture and Sequestration Demonstration Project will use post-combustion, amine-based scrubber technology to capture 90% of the CO₂ emitted by Unit 3 of the power plant; this CO₂ will be pipelined to and utilized for enhanced oil recovery in the Weyburn oil fields.

An oxyfuel CCS power plant operation processes the exhaust gases so as to separate the CO₂ so that it may be stored or sequestered

 

An early example of a coal-based plant using (oxy-fuel) carbon-capture technology is Swedish company Vattenfall’s Schwarze Pumpe power station located in Spremberg, Germany, built by German firm Siemens, which went on-line in September 2008. The facility captures CO₂ and acid rain producing pollutants, separates them, and compresses the CO₂ into a liquid. Plans are to inject the CO₂ into depleted natural gas fields or other geological formations. Vattenfall opines that this technology is considered not to be a final solution for CO₂ reduction in the atmosphere, but provides an achievable solution in the near term while more desirable alternative solutions to power generation can be made economically practical.

Other examples of oxy-combustion carbon capture are in progress. Callide Power Station has retrofitted a 30-MWth existing PC-fired power plant to operate in oxy-fuel mode; in Ciuden, Spain, Endesa has a newly built 30-MWth oxy-fuel plant using circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFBC) technology. Babcock-ThermoEnergy's Zero Emission Boiler System (ZEBS) is oxy-combustion-based; this system features near 100% carbon-capture and according to company information virtually no air-emissions.

Other carbon capture and storage technologies include those that dewater low-rank coals. Low-rank coals often contain a higher level of moisture content which contains a lower energy content per tonne. This causes a reduced burning efficiency and an increased emissions output. Reduction of moisture from the coal prior to combustion can reduce emissions by up to 50 percent.

Demonstration projects in the United States

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) began conducting a joint program with the industry and State agencies to demonstrate clean coal technologies large enough for commercial use. The program, called the Clean Coal Technology & Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI), has had a number of successes that have reduced emissions and waste from coal-based electricity generation. The National Energy Technology Laboratory has administered three rounds of CCPI funding and the following projects were selected during each round:

• Round 1 CCPI Projects
  • Advanced Multi-Product Coal Utilization By-Product Processing Plant
  • Demonstration of Integrated Optimization Software at the Baldwin Energy Complex
  • Gilberton Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Co-Production Project
  • Increasing Power Plant Efficiency: Lignite Fuel Enhancement
  • TOXECON Retrofit for Mercury and Multi-Pollutant Control on Three 90-MW Coal-Fired Boilers
  • Western Greenbrier Co-Production Demonstration Project
  • Commercial Demonstration of the Airborne Process
  • Integration of Advanced Emission Controls to Produce Next-Generation Circulating Fluid Bed Coal Generating Unit
• Round 2 CCPI Projects
  • Airborne Process Commercial Scale Demonstration Program
  • Demonstration of a Coal-Based Transport Gasifier
  • Mercury Species and Multi-Pollutant Control Project
  • Mesaba Energy Project
• Round 3 CCPI Projects
  • American Electric Power Project
  • Antelope Valley Station Post-Combustion CO₂ Project
  • Hydrogen Energy California Project
  • NRG Energy Project
  • Southern Company Carbon Capture Kemper Project (switching to natural gas)
  • Summit Texas Clean Energy Project

These programs have helped to meet regulatory challenges by incorporating pollution control technologies into a portfolio of cost-effective regulatory compliance options for conventional and developmental coal-fired power plants. This portfolio has positioned the U.S. as a top exporter of clean coal technologies such as those used for SOx, NOx and mercury, and more recently for carbon capture, consistent with a goal of deploying advanced coal-based power systems in commercial service with improved efficiency and environmental performance to meet increasingly stringent environmental regulations and market demands, leading to widespread, global deployment which will contribute to significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The DOE continues its programs and initiatives through regional sequestration partnerships, a carbon sequestration leadership forum and the Carbon Sequestration Core Program, a CCS research and development program.

According to a report by the assistant secretary for fossil energy at the U.S. Department of Energy, clean coal technology has paid measurable dividends. Technological innovation introduced through the CCT Program now provides consumers cost-effective, clean, coal-based energy.

Clean coal and the environment

According to United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the burning of coal, a fossil fuel, is a major contributor to global warming. (See the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report). As 26% of the world's electrical generation in 2004 was from coal-fired generation (see World energy resources and consumption), reaching the carbon dioxide reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol will require modifications to how coal is utilized.

Coal, which is primarily used for the generation of electricity, is the second largest domestic contributor to carbon dioxide emissions in the US. The public has become more concerned about global warming which has led to new legislation. The coal industry has responded by running advertising touting clean coal in an effort to counter negative perceptions and claiming more than $50 billion towards the development and deployment of "traditional" clean coal technologies over the past 30 years; and promising $500 million towards carbon capture and storage research and development. There is still concern about clean coal technology being perceived as more environmentally friendly than it is, and the term "Clean Coal" has been used as an example of "greenwashing". According to the Sierra Club, "Despite the industry's hype, there's no such thing as 'clean coal.' But new technologies and policies can help reduce coal plants' deadly emissions."

Conjunction with enhanced oil recovery and other applications; commercial-scale CCS is currently being tested in the U.S. and other countries. Proposed CCS sites are subjected to extensive investigation and monitoring to avoid potential hazards, which could include leakage of sequestered CO₂ to the atmosphere, induced geological instability, or contamination of water sources such as oceans and aquifers used for drinking water supplies.

The Great Plains Synfuels plant supports the technical feasibility of carbon dioxide sequestration. Carbon dioxide from the coal gasification is shipped to Canada where it is injected into the ground to aid in oil recovery. A drawback of the carbon sequestration process is that it is expensive compared to traditional processes.

Mountaintop removal mining

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining 

Mountaintop removal site

 

Mountaintop removal site in Pike County, Kentucky

Mountaintop removal mining (MTR), also known as mountaintop mining (MTM), is a form of surface mining at the summit or summit ridge of a mountain. Coal seams are extracted from a mountain by removing the land, or overburden, above the seams. This method of coal mining is conducted in the Appalachian Mountains in the eastern United States. Explosives are used to remove up to 400 vertical feet (120 m) of mountain to expose underlying coal seams. Excess rock and soil is dumped into nearby valleys, in what are called "holler fills" ("hollow fills") or "valley fills". Less expensive to execute and requiring fewer employees, mountaintop removal mining began in Appalachia in the 1970s as an extension of conventional strip mining techniques. It is primarily occurring in Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, and Tennessee.

The practice of mountaintop removal mining has been controversial. The coal industry cites economic benefits and claims that mountaintop removal is safer than underground mining.

Overview

Mountaintop removal mining (MTR), also known as mountaintop mining (MTM), is a form of surface mining that involves the topographical alteration and/or removal of a summit, hill, or ridge to access buried coal seams. 

The MTR process involves the removal of coal seams by first fully removing the overburden lying atop them, exposing the seams from above. This method differs from more traditional underground mining, where typically a narrow shaft is dug which allows miners to collect seams using various underground methods, while leaving the vast majority of the overburden undisturbed. The overburden from MTR is either placed back on the ridge, attempting to reflect the approximate original contour of the mountain, and/or is moved into neighboring valleys.

Excess rock and soil containing mining byproducts are disposed into nearby valleys, in what are called "holler fills" or "valley fills".

MTR in the United States is most often associated with the extraction of coal in the Appalachian Mountains, where the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 2,200 square miles (5,700 km²) of Appalachian forests will be cleared for MTR sites by the year 2012. Sites range from Ohio to Virginia. It occurs most commonly in West Virginia and Eastern Kentucky, the top two coal-producing states in Appalachia. At current rates, MTR in the U.S. will mine over 1.4 million acres (5,700 km²) by 2010, an amount of land area that exceeds that of the state of Delaware. More than 500 mountains in the US have been destroyed by this process, resulting in the burial of 3,200 km (2,000 mi) of streams.

Mountaintop removal has been practiced since the 1960s. Increased demand for coal in the United States, sparked by the 1973 and 1979 petroleum crises, created incentives for a more economical form of coal mining than the traditional underground mining methods involving hundreds of workers, triggering the first widespread use of MTR. Its prevalence expanded further in the 1990s to retrieve relatively low-sulfur coal, a cleaner-burning form, which became desirable as a result of amendments to the U.S. Clean Air Act that tightened emissions limits on high-sulfur coal processing.

Process

US EPA diagram of mountaintop mining:

"Step 1. Layers of rock and dirt above the coal (called overburden) are removed."
"Step 2. The upper seams of coal are removed with spoils placed in an adjacent valley."
"Step 3. Draglines excavate lower layers of coal with spoils placed in spoil piles."
"Step 4. Regrading begins as coal excavation continues."
"Step 5. Once coal removal is completed, final regrading takes place and the area is revegetated."

Land is deforested prior to mining operations and the resultant lumber is either sold or burned. According to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), the topsoil is supposed to be removed and set aside for later reclamation. However, coal companies are often granted waivers and instead reclaim the mountain with "topsoil substitute". The waivers are granted if adequate amounts of topsoil are not naturally present on the rocky ridge top. Once the area is cleared, miners use explosives to blast away the overburden, the rock and subsoil, to expose coal seams beneath. The overburden is then moved by various mechanical means to areas of the ridge previously mined. These areas are the most economical area of storage as they are located close to the active pit of exposed coal. If the ridge topography is too steep to adequately handle the amount of spoil produced then additional storage is used in a nearby valley or hollow, creating what is known as a valley fill or hollow fill. Any streams in a valley are buried by the overburden.

A front-end loader or excavator then removes the coal, where it is transported to a processing plant. Once coal removal is completed, the mining operators back stack overburden from the next area to be mined into the now empty pit. After backstacking and grading of overburden has been completed, topsoil (or a topsoil substitute) is layered over the overburden layer. Next, grass seed is spread in a mixture of seed, fertilizer, and mulch made from recycled newspaper. Depending on surface land owner wishes the land will then be further reclaimed by adding trees if the pre-approved post-mining land use is forest land or wildlife habitat. If the land owner has requested other post-mining land uses the land can be reclaimed to be used as pasture land, economic development or other uses specified in SMCRA.

Because coal usually exists in multiple geologically stratified seams, miners can often repeat the blasting process to mine over a dozen seams on a single mountain, increasing the mine depth each time. This can result in a vertical descent of hundreds of extra feet into the earth.

Economics

As of 2015, approximately one third of the electricity generated in the United States is produced by coal-fired power plants. MTR accounted for less than 5% of U.S. coal production as of 2001. In some regions, however, the percentage is higher, for example, MTR provided 30% of the coal mined in West Virginia in 2006.

Historically in the U.S. the prevalent method of coal acquisition was underground mining which is very labor-intensive. In MTR, through the use of explosives and large machinery, more than two and a half times as much coal can be extracted per worker per hour than in traditional underground mines, thus greatly reducing the need for workers. In Kentucky, for example, the number of workers has declined over 60% from 1979 to 2006 (from 47,190 to 17,959 workers). The industry overall lost approximately 10,000 jobs from 1990 to 1997, as MTR and other more mechanized underground mining methods became more widely used. The coal industry asserts that surface mining techniques, such as mountaintop removal, are safer for miners than sending miners underground.

Proponents argue that in certain geologic areas, MTR and similar forms of surface mining allow the only access to thin seams of coal that traditional underground mining would not be able to mine. MTR is sometimes the most cost-effective method of extracting coal.

Several studies of the impact of restrictions to mountaintop removal were authored in 2000 through 2005. Studies by Mark L. Burton, Michael J. Hicks and Cal Kent identified significant state-level tax losses attributable to lower levels of mining (notably the studies did not examine potential environmental costs, which the authors acknowledge may outweigh commercial benefits). Mountaintop removal sites are normally restored after the mining operation is complete, but "reclaimed soils characteristically have higher bulk density, lower organic content, low water-infiltration rates, and low nutrient content".

Legislation in the United States

In the United States, MTR is allowed by section 515(c)(1) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. Although most coal mining sites must be reclaimed to the land's pre-mining contour and use, regulatory agencies can issue waivers to allow MTR. In such cases, SMCRA dictates that reclamation must create "a level plateau or a gently rolling contour with no highwalls remaining".

Different organizations have tried to revise a stream buffer rule placed in 1977. The rule states that certain conditions must be met, or the mining operation must take place “within 100 feet of a stream”.  The Obama Administration, in July 2015, wrote up a draft "Stream Protection Rule". This draft adds “more protections to downstream waters”, but it will also debilitate the current buffer requirements.

In February 2017, President Trump signed a bill that did away with the stream protection rule previously administered by the Obama Administration.

Permits must be obtained to deposit valley fill into streams. On four occasions, federal courts have ruled that the US Army Corps of Engineers violated the Clean Water Act by issuing such permits. Massey Energy Company is currently appealing a 2007 ruling, but has been allowed to continue mining in the meantime because "most of the substantial harm has already occurred," according to the judge.

The Bush administration appealed one of these rulings in 2001 because the Act had not explicitly defined "fill material" that could legally be placed in a waterway. The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers changed a rule to include mining debris in the definition of fill material, and the ruling was overturned.

On December 2, 2008, the Bush Administration made a rule change to remove the Stream Buffer Zone protection provision from SMCRA allowing coal companies to place mining waste rock and dirt directly into headwater waterways.

A federal judge has also ruled that using settling ponds to remove mining waste from streams violates the Clean Water Act. He also declared that the Army Corps of Engineers has no authority to issue permits allowing discharge of pollutants into such in-stream settling ponds, which are often built just below valley fills.

On January 15, 2008, the environmental advocacy group Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to end a policy that waives detailed federal Endangered Species Act reviews for new mining permits. Under current policy, as long as a given MTR mining operation complies with federal surface mining law, the agency presumes conclusively, despite the complexities of intra- and inter-species relationships, that the instance of MTR in question is not damaging to endangered species or their habitat. Since 1996, this policy has exempted many strip mines from being subject to permit-specific reviews of impact on individual endangered species. Because of the 1996 Biological Opinion by FWS making case-by-case formal reviews unnecessary, the Interior's Office of Surface Mining and state regulators require mining companies to hire a government-approved contractor to conduct their own surveys for any potential endangered species. The surveys require approval from state and federal biologists, who provide informal guidance on how to minimize mines' potential effects to species. While the agencies have the option to ask for formal endangered species consultations during that process, they do so very rarely.

On May 25, 2008, North Carolina State Representative Pricey Harrison introduced a bill to ban the use of mountaintop removal coal from coal-fired power plants within North Carolina. This proposed legislation would have been the only legislation of its kind in the United States; however, the bill was defeated.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Interagency Action Plan (IAP) were signed by officials of EPA, the Corps, and the Department of the Interior on June 11, 2009. The MOU and IAP outlined different administrative actions that would help decrease “the harmful environmental impacts of mountaintop mining”. The plan also includes near and long-term actions that highlight “specific steps, improved coordination, and greater transparency of decisions”.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) stated that the Clean Water Rule was completed on May 27, 2015 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army.  The Clean Water Rule “more precisely defines waters protected under the Clean Water Act”. The EIA also stated that the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), the EPA and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers are collaborating with each other to make an environmental impact statement (EIS) “analyzing environmental impacts of coal surface mining in the Appalachian region”.

On Tuesday, April 9, 2019, the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources held a legislative hearing, "Health and Environmental Impacts of Mountaintop Removal Mining". This hearing involved the H.R. 2050 (Rep. Yarmuth ) bill. This bill stated that “until health studies are conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services", there will be a suspension on permitting for mountaintop removal coal mining.

Environmental and health impacts

The Hobet mine in West Virginia taken by NASA LANDSAT in 1984

 

The Hobet mine in West Virginia taken by NASA LANDSAT in 2009

Critics

Critics contend that MTR is a destructive and unsustainable practice that benefits a small number of corporations at the expense of local communities and the environment. Though the main issue has been over the physical alteration of the landscape, opponents to the practice have also criticized MTR for the damage done to the environment by massive transport trucks, and the environmental damage done by the burning of coal for power.

Blasting at MTR sites also expels dust and fly-rock into the air, which can disturb or settle onto private property nearby. This dust may contain sulfur compounds, which corrodes structures and is a health hazard.

2010 report

A January 2010 report in the journal Science reviews current peer-reviewed studies and water quality data and explores the consequences of mountaintop mining. It concludes that mountaintop mining has serious environmental impacts that mitigation practices cannot successfully address. For example, the extensive tracts of deciduous forests destroyed by mountaintop mining support several endangered species and some of the highest biodiversity in North America. There is a particular problem with burial of headwater streams by valley fills which causes permanent loss of ecosystems that play critical roles in ecological processes.

In addition, increases in metal ions, pH, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids due to elevated concentrations of sulfate are closely linked to the extent of mining in West Virginia watersheds. Declines in stream biodiversity have been linked to the level of mining disturbance in West Virginia watersheds.

Published studies

Published studies also show a high potential for human health impacts. These may result from contact with streams or exposure to airborne toxins and dust. Adult hospitalization for chronic pulmonary disorders and hypertension are elevated as a result of county-level coal production. Rates of mortality, lung cancer, as well as chronic heart, lung and kidney disease are also increased. A 2011 study found that counties in and near mountaintop mining areas had higher rates of birth defects for five out of six types of birth defects, including circulatory/respiratory, musculoskeletal, central nervous system, gastrointestinal, and urogenital defects.

These defect rates were more pronounced in the most recent period studied, suggesting the health effects of mountaintop mining-related air and water contamination may be cumulative. Another 2011 study found "the odds for reporting cancer were twice as high in the mountaintop mining environment compared to the non mining environment in ways not explained by age, sex, smoking, occupational exposure, or family cancer history".

Impact statement

A United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) environmental impact statement finds that streams near some valley fills from mountaintop removal contain higher levels of minerals in the water and decreased aquatic biodiversity. Mine-affected streams also have high selenium concentrations, which can bioaccumulate and produce toxic effects (e.g., reproductive failure, physical deformity, mortality), and these effects have been documented in reservoirs below streams. Because of higher pH balances in mine-affected streams, metals such as selenium and iron hydroxide are rendered insoluble, bringing attendant chemical changes to the stream.

The statement also estimates that 724 miles (1,165 km) of Appalachian streams were buried by valley fills between 1985 and 2001. On September 28, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) independent Science Advisory Board (SAB) released their first draft review of EPA’s research into the water quality impacts of valley fills associated with mountaintop mining, agreeing with EPA’s conclusion that valley fills are associated with increased levels of conductivity threatening aquatic life in surface waters.

Reclamation

Established in 1977, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act set up a program “for the regulation of surface mining activities and the reclamation of coal-mined lands”. Although U.S. mountaintop removal sites by law must be reclaimed after mining is complete, reclamation has traditionally focused on stabilizing rock formations and controlling for erosion, and not on the reforestation of the affected area. However, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 list "the restoration of land and water resources" as a priority. Fast-growing, non-native flora such as Lespedeza cuneata, planted to quickly provide vegetation on a site, compete with tree seedlings, and trees have difficulty establishing root systems in compacted backfill.

Consequently, biodiversity suffers in a region of the United States with numerous endemic species. In addition, reintroduced elk (Cervus canadensis) on mountaintop removal sites in Kentucky are eating tree seedlings.

Advocates

Advocates of MTR claim that once the areas are reclaimed as mandated by law, the area can provide flat land suitable for many uses in a region where flat land is at a premium. They also maintain that the new growth on reclaimed mountaintop mined areas is better suited to support populations of game animals.

While some of the land is able to be turned into grassland which game animals can live in, the amount of grassland is minimal. The land does not retake the form it had before the MTR. As stated in the book Bringing Down the Mountains: "Some of the main problems associated with MTR include soil depletion, sedimentation, low success rate of tree regrowth, lack of successful revegetation, displacement of native wildlife, and burial of streams." The ecological benefits after MTR are far below the level of the original land.

Art, entertainment, and media

Documentaries

• Catherine Pancake released a feature-length documentary on mountaintop removal, Black Diamonds: Mountaintop Removal and the Search for Coalfield Justice (2006), a selection in the Documentary Fortnight at the Museum of Modern Art. The film features Julia Bonds, who won the 2003 Goldman Environmental Prize.
• The documentary, Mountain Top Removal (2007), focuses on Mountain Justice Summer activists, coal field residents, and coal industry officials. On April 18, 2008, the film received the Reel Current award selected and was presented by Al Gore at the Nashville Film Festival.
• The feature documentary, Burning the Future: Coal in America (2008), was awarded the International Documentary Association's 2008 Pare Lorentz award for Best Documentary.
• The Last Mountain (2011), directed by Bill Haney, details the effects on the land and people living near mountaintop removal and coal burning sites. Maria Gunnoe, the 2009 Goldman Environmental Prize winner, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and others present the devastation, confront the politicians and corporate interests, and offer wind power as one solution for Coal River Mountain, West Virginia.
• The autoethnographic documentary film Goodbye Gauley Mountain: An Ecosexual Love Story (2013), by Beth Stephens with Annie Sprinkle, raises awareness on the issue of mountain top removal in West Virginia by bringing together environmental activism, performance art, and queer activism against the issue. Stephens says: "My hope for this film, is that in addition to it being a compelling story, it will inspire and raise awareness in groups of people not normally associated with the environmental movement, and especially in LGBTQ communities. There are relatively few films about environmental issues that feature out queers."

Non-fiction books

• In April 2005, a group of Kentucky writers traveled together to see the devastation from mountaintop removal mining, and Wind Publishing produced the resulting collection of poems, essays and photographs, co-edited by Kristin Johannesen, Bobbie Ann Mason, and Mary Ann Taylor-Hall in Missing Mountains: We went to the mountaintop, but it wasn't there.
• Dr. Shirley Stewart Burns, a West Virginia coalfield native, wrote the first academic work on mountaintop removal, titled Bringing Down The Mountains (2007), which is loosely based on her internationally award-winning 2005 Ph.D. dissertation of the same name.
• Dr. Burns was also a co-editor, with Kentucky author Silas House and filmmaker Mari-Lynn Evans, of Coal Country (2009), a companion book for the nationally recognized feature-length film of the same name.
• House, Silas & Howard, Jason (2009). Something's Rising: Appalachians Fighting Mountaintop Removal.
• Howard, Jason (Editor) (2009). We All Live Downstream: Writings about Mountaintop Removal.
• Dr. Rebecca Scott, another native West Virginian, examined the sociological relationship of identity and natural resource extraction in central Appalachia in her book, Removing Mountains (2010).
• Hedges, Chris; Sacco, Joe (2012). Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt. Chapter 3. "Days of Devastation: Welch, West Virginia."
• Cultural historian Jeff Biggers published The United States of Appalachia, which examined the cultural and human costs of mountaintop removal.

Additionally, many personal interest stories of coalfield residents have been written, including:

• Lost Mountain: A Year in the Vanishing Wilderness—Radical Strip Mining and the Devastation of Appalachia (2006) by Erik Reese
• Moving Mountains: How One Woman and Her Community Won Justice from Big Coal (2007) by Penny Loeb

Fiction books

• Mountaintop removal is a major plot element of Jonathan Franzen's best-selling novel Freedom (2010), wherein a major character helps to secure land for surface mining with the promise that it will be restored and turned into a nature reserve.
• Same Sun Here by Silas House and Neela Vaswani is a novel for middle grade readers that deals with issues of mountaintop removal and is set over the course of one school year 2008-2009.
• In John Grisham's novel Gray Mountain (2014), Samantha Kofer moves from a large Wall Street law firm to a small Appalachian town where she confronts the world of coal mining.

Music

• Caroline Herring's song "Black Mountain Lullaby" (on the album Camilla, 2012) is based on the story of Jeremy Davidson, age 3, who was killed by a mountaintop mining accident in 2004. She was inspired to write the song after reading an editorial about mountaintop removal written by Silas House that appeared in the New York Times on 19 February 2011.
• Lissie's album Back to Forever contains a moving protest song on the topic called simply "Mountaintop Removal".
• Liam Wilson of The Dillinger Escape Plan wore a homemade shirt saying "stop mtm/vf" during the band's performance on Late Night with Conan O'Brien.
• Jean Ritchie's song "Black Waters" describes the horror of coal mining in the Appalachians.
• John Prine's song "Paradise" addresses the impacts of strip mining in Appalachia, referencing the impacts of the technique on the Green River area in Kentucky.
• In 2010, David Rovics wrote and performed a song titled "Hills of Tennessee", lamenting the tragedy of mountaintop removal mining near Nashville.
• In 2010, a concert series titled "Music Saves Mountains" raised funds and awareness for mountaintop removal, featuring artists Ben Sollee, Big Kenny, Buddy Miller, Dave Matthews, Emmylou Harris, Gloriana, Kathy Mattea, Naomi Judd, Patty Griffin, Patty Loveless, and Alison Krauss.