ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF FEDERAL COAL ACTIVITY
Submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF FEDERAL COAL ACTIVITY
An Analysis of EPA Opportunities to Affect Coal
Surface Mine Related Actions Including Environ-
mental Assessments Considering Scoping; Deter-
mination of Significant Impacts; Generation,
Evaluation and Selection of Alternatives; and
Mitigation and Monitoring Measures, With Recom-
mendations for Improving Environmental Review
and Protection
JRB Associates
8400 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102
David Howard Davis, Ph.D.
University of Wyoming
Principal Investigator
Dale Manty, Ph.D.
Office of Federal Activities, EPA
Project Manager
EPA Contract No. 68-01-6388
JRB Project No. 2-813-03-852-83

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION	1
CHAPTER II COAL PROGRAMS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT	3
LEASING	3
SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION	11
CHAPTER III NEPA COMPLIANCE FOR COAL ACTIVITIES	22
CHAPTER IV CURRENT ISSUES, PROBLEMS AND ANALYSIS	29
CHAPTER V RECOMMENDATIONS	44
APPENDICES	52

-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Coal, the "fuel of the future," is cheap, and plentiful, yet environmentally
destructive to mine. To balance the nation's need for energy with protection
of the mountains, plains, streams and rivers, Congress, through the Department
of the Interior, both leases Federal coal and controls mining of all coal—
private, state, Indian and Federal. The Environmental Protection Agency's
Office of Federal Activities (OFA) is responsible for environmental review
under provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Air
Act (Section 309).
This report reviews the full scope of OFA's responsibility for Federal
coal activity, examining the major laws and agencies and the NEPA compliance
procedures. It then analyzes current issues and problems in order to make a
series of practical recommendations.
This review, which covered a period of three months, involved interviewing
44 people in EPA, the Bureau of Land Management, the Office of Surface Mining,
other Interior bureaus, Congressional agencies, industry and environmental
groups. The principal investigator, who was based in Washington, visited
Philadelphia and Denver to meet with EPA and Interior staff. Where appro-
priate he incorporated information from prior work on the topic.

-------
2
The report is designed for multiple purposes. Staff new to the subject
will gain a general overview of the programs, actors, and issues. Experienced
staff will find a series of recommendations which are all practical but range
from the obvious (be timely) to the controversial (centralize coal responsi-
bility). Indeed, a few are intentionally provocative.

-------
CHAPTER II
COAL PROGRAMS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Federal government coal activity has two major components: (1) leasing
and (2) surface mining control and reclamation. Both fall chiefly under the
jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. Of the two, leasing is the
older activity, dating back at least 80 years. It is characterized by a western
focus and limited state authority. Surface mining control is newer, national
in scope and has a major role for state governments.
LEASING
Leasing Federally owned coal is primarily a western phenomenon. The
Great Plains and Rocky Mountains overlie billions of tons of coal, much of it
in thick seams close to the surface. Virtually all came to Federal ownership
as part of the public domain acquired in the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican
cession. Throughout the nineteenth century the government sold or gave land
to homesteaders, railroads, and state and local governments. From 1906 on, it
usually conveyed only the surface and retained the coal, hence splitting the
estate. A second complicating factor in the West is the mixed pattern of
Federal, state, and private ownership. In the case of land granted to the
railroads, the government gave in a checkerboard under the presumption, based
on midwestern farming, that each section of 640 acres would become a single
farm or ranch alternatively homesteaded or purchased from the railroad. Other
3

-------
4
times the mixture resulted from farmers and ranchers selecting the best agri-
cultural land and no one ever selecting the surrounding land. These public
domain lands—surface and coal—come under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) of the Department of the Interior. BLM owns a total of
343 million acres nationwide.
The Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture is the second largest ¦
land owner. Some national forests and national grasslands came from direct
transfer from the public domain. Others were acquired from private owners,
many during the 1930s in a New Deal program to buy marginal farms. Often the
Forest Service purchased only the surface, leaving the coal in private hands,
a situation found in national forests in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia,
and Virginia. Other Federal agencies owning coal, or land overlying coal, are
the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department
of the Interior, and the Department of Defense.
The Laws
The three major laws governing coal leasing are the Mineral Leasing Act
of 1920 (MLA), the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 (FCLAA), and
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Although the
latter two amend the MLA, they are customarily referred to independently.
The Mineral Leasing Act provided for two ways to acquire coal:
competitively and non-competitively. Upon application, BLM leased tracts of
known reserves to the highest bidder. On land without known reserves, BLM

-------
permitted prospecting. If a prospector found coal in commercial quantities,
he applied to BLM for a non-competitive lease, known as a "preference right
lease." Many of these, filed before 1976 and known as PRLAs for "preference
right lease application," still exist throughout the West.
The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act (FCLAA) was passed in response
to two problems: poor reclamation and speculation. In May 1971 BLM imposed
a moratorium on coal leasing and the Geological Survey (GS) began to require
submission of an exploration or mine plan that included adequate reclamation
In August 1976 Congress passed FCLAA which provided a comprehensive scheme f
leasing and developing Federal coal by providing:
All leasing was competitive; no bid could be accepted if below
fair market value
Preference right leasing was abolished, subject to valid existing
rights
Leases would be consolidated into logical mining units (LMUs) when
necessary to insure maximum economic recovery; all LMU reserves were
to be mined within 40 years
Leases to a single firm were limited to 46,080 acres in a single
state and 100,000 acres,nationwide
BLM's practice of completing land use plans prior to issuing
competitive leases was ratified
The Secretary of the Interior was required to approve a mine plan
for operation and reclamation (MLA Section 7(c)).
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), enacted just three

-------
6
months later, complemented FCLAA. FLPMA set out the purposes, goals and
authority for BLM to manage its 343 million acres. The bureau was to plan
comprehensively with due consideration of environmental resources. BLM was
to maintain an inventory of public land resources, project all future uses
(not just coal mining), and recommend appropriate development or conservation.
Criteria included multiple use, sustained yield of renewable resources, and
conservation of depletable resources. BLM was to coordinate with other
Federal, state, and local agencies and provide for public participation.
Other laws governing coal leasing are the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield
Act and the Resource Planning Act. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977 will be discussed later in this chapter.
The Federal Agencies
The Bureau of Land Management is the central agency involved with coal
leasing because (1) it owns 343 million acres, nationwide, much of which is
underlain by coal and (2) it is responsible for leasing coal owned by other
agencies, such as the Forest Service. BLM, successor to the General Land
Office established in 1812, is a highly autonomous agency with strong
political ties to the Western states. Its staff numbers about 10,000, up
from 6,000 in 1969. BLM is decentralized, with 12 state offices responsible
for Federal lands within those states or adjoining states. A single Eastern
office covers the 31 states east of the Mississippi Valley. Although most
state offices have an assistant director for energy and minerals, the
traditional professional orientation of the BLM staff is range management,

-------
7
not mining. This accounts for the standard criticism of the bureau
as weak in the skills needed for leasing coal: engineering, geology, hydro-
logy, biology, and economics.
The Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture ranks second to BLM
in the number of acres owned: 184 million. Yet these acres have proportion-
ately less coal since most was acquired from private owners who either had
mined the coal or who sold only the surface, retaining the mineral rights.
Like BLM, the Forest Service is an old bureau, established in 1905. Its full
time staff is about 30,000. Within the Department of Agriculture, it is
highly autonomous with a large degree of authority delegated to the nine
regional foresters and the forest supervisors. The Service's multistate
regions and personnel recruitment, training, and rotation policies prevent
the same degree of alliance with the states as found in BLM. It is also
more Eastern in orientation than BLM, having extensive holdings in the coal
fields of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio. The Service is weak
in professional expertise in coal mining. Forest Service personnel adhere
to their own forestry discipline, which has a strong professional identity.
BLM and the Forest Service are the two Federal agencies that manage the
land directly. In this role they are responsible for land use planning prior
to leasing coal. This includes NEPA compliance. Other Federal agencies con-
tributing to land use planning are the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the
National Park Service (NPS), both of the Department of the Interior. While
coal mining is not absolutely forbidden in wildlife refuges and national parks,
in practical terms it is proscribed. When coal companies wish to mine in these

-------
8
areas, the typical resolution is to compensate owners of coal deposits within
the boundaries of refuges and parks with exchanges for coal in the public
domain lands. Thus, these two bureaus participate in coal leasing as expert
advisors to BLM. The FWS may analyze the wildlife impacts with special atten-
tion to endangered species. The NPS is responsible for historic sites and
archeology.
The Geological Survey provides information to the BLM prior to leasing on
the location, amount, and quality of the coal. Prior to 1981 it also estimated
the economic value of the deposit, necessary to determine whether a claim or
lease could be processed, a function transferred to the Minerals Management
Service, then in 1983 transferred to BLM. Thus, familiarity with the Survey
is important both for its present responsibilities and for understanding its
role in pre-1981 leases. Established in 1879, the Survey is the most autono-
mous of the ten Interior bureaus. Its staff numbers 11,000. In comparison
to BLM and the Forest Service, it is centralized. Unlike them, the staff's
knowledge of coal mining is very good. GS has many geologists, hydrologists,
and engineers. Indeed, the common criticism of the Survey is that its exper-
tise is too great. Detractors accuse it of being too oriented toward science
rather than the practicalities of managing natural resources.
As mentioned above, from 1981 to 1983 on-shore leasing jurisdiction
resided in the Minerals Management Service (MMS) until transferred to the BLM.
MMS was established in 1981, combining the on-shore leasing function of GS's
Conservation Division with the off-shore functions of the BLM.

-------
9
The Role of the States
In comparison to reclamation and environmental protection, leasing is
more centralized. Although the BLM state offices are often accused of "going
native," the bureau's philosophy is still that of a Federal government agency
leasing Federal government property. Nevertheless, the BLM has not been
totally immune to the Sagebrush Rebellion.
With the passage of FLPMA and FCLAA in 1976 and the end of the leasing
moratorium in 1979, BLM began planning a series of five regional leases:
(1) Fort Union, (2) Powder River, (3) Green River-Hams Fork, (4) Uinta-
Southwest Utah, and (5) San Juan River. After preliminary planning in-house,
BLM established five regional coal teams (RCTs) to manage the sales. Since
all five regions included two states each, the RCTs composition was parallel:
the BLM director from each state, a state representative appointed by the
governor of each state, and a chairman who was a BLM state director from out-
side the region. Meeting' about half a dozen times, these five members made
the formal decisions. In July 1984, BLM announced that in response to the
recommendations of a report by the Congressional Office of Technology Assess-
ment, the RCTs would have more authority. The Secretary of Interior pledged
to accept the team's recommendations unless he had a clear reason not to.
The environmental review process is the second avenue for state partici-
pation, albeit one in which the state role is not formal. For each of the five
regional lease sales, the BLM prepared an EIS.

-------
10
Policies and Issues
The Linowes Commission brought to the fore a number of coal leasing
problems. After a ten-year moratorium, the BLM began a series of regional
sales in January 1981. The second of these, Powder River, held in 1982,
provoked charges of giveaway, and even fraud. In May 1983, the General
Accounting Office estimated that BLM sold the coal for $100 million less than
fair market value. In July, Congress provided for a commission, later named
for its chairman, David F. Linowes, a University of Illinois economist, to
evaluate whether or not the government got fair market value. At the same
time, Congress directed the Office of Technology Assessment to evaluate the
Interior Department's environmental protection responsibilities associated
with or required by the leasing. The Linowes Commission made 36 specific
recommendations and the BLM accepted virtually all of them. While OTA's
recommendations were not as explicit, BLM attributed changes in the duties
of the RCTs to that report.
One issue raised by DOI in conjunction with the five regional coal EISs
was EPA's participation in the NEPA compliance process. Interior Department
staff voiced a number of criticisms. One was EPA's perceived reluctance to
participate fully in planning, preferring to wait until an EIS was complete,
then sitting in judgment. Another criticism was that EPA lacked the staff
and technical capacity to review the EISs. An alleged consequence was that
EPA merely passed through criticisms of citizen environmental groups rather
than performing its own analysis. A third criticism was that EPA only
reacted to the information set before it. Thus a detailed EIS on a good
project would bring forth more objection than a vague EIS on a bad project

-------
11
since the EPA staff simply dealt with the draft statement rather than consid-
ering what data and analysis were appropriate. A fourth criticism was a
perceived arrogance where EPA seemed to act as if environmental values out-
ranked development of the coal. A final criticism was variation among the
regional offices. Region VIII appeared tough while Region VI appeared lax.
SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION
Prior to 1977 a number of states had enacted laws to control surface
mining. Pennsylvania, which historically bore the brunt of irresponsible
mining, was a leader in the East. In the West, Montana enacted a strict
reclamation law. (The Pennsylvania and Montana laws served as models for the
Federal legislation.) West Virginia and Kentucky also had notable laws. One
problem with these laws was the danger that the coal mining industry would
shift from states with rigorous requirements to states with lax requirements,
thereby causing unemployment, secondary economic decline, and reduced tax
revenues.
To prevent this competition in leniency, and to extend the environmental
benefits nationwide, Congress in 1968 began considering a national law. In
1974 it passed a bill, essentially the same as the present law, which was
pocket vetoed when Congress adjourned. In 1975, Congress again passed the
surface mining bill, which was vetoed. Finally, in 1977 Congress passed a
surface mining bill which the newly elected president signed into law.

-------
The Law
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) regulates coal
surface mining and the surface effects of deep mining. The SMCRA has two
components: (1) control of current mining, and (2) restoration of abandoned
mine lands.
Title V establishes national standards to be implemented either in the
states by the Federal OSM, or by the states themselves. Section 503 allows
individual states to assume primary responsibility for regulating surface
surface mining, a status dubbed "primacy." Of the 27 states that mine coal,
25 chose to do so." In the remaining two, coal mining is insignificant. For
a state to have primary regulatory authority, it must meet several criteria:
1.	A state law paralleling SMCRA which includes sanctions and a
permit system
2.	State rules and regulations consistent with those of the
Department of Interior's Office of Surface Mining
3.	A state regulatory authority with sufficient personnel and
funding.
As the Federal law and regulations change, the state's laws and regulations
must change accordingly. While, to date, SMCRA has not been amended, the
Federal regulations have been revised extensively. The recent extensive
revisions to the Federal regulations have not yet been reflected in
Tennessee will lose primacy effective October 1, 1984.

-------
13
amendments to state regulatory programs, in part, awaiting the outcome of
numerous legal challenges.
The reclamation standards themselves are another dimension of the
bifurcated process under SMCRA where the Office of Surface Mining (OSM)
develops national regulations and the states develop conforming regulations.
Title V of the Act establishes a set of environmental protection performance
standards to assure that the land will be restored or upgraded after mining.
These include requirements to return the land to its approximate original
contours, to stabilize it, to properly dispose of water, to protect its water
drainage and hydrological balance, to restore its topsoil, and to revegetate
it. Specific provisions address problems of prime farm lands, blasting,
access roads, and steep slopes.
The tool for this restoration is the mining permit. Before issuing a
permit, the state regulatory authority requires the operator to submit a
reclamation plan and post bond guaranteeing its performance.
SMCRA also anticipates that certain lands will be found unsuitable for
coal mining under any conditions. Examples are: land inside parks, public
roads, occupied dwellings, schools and churches, and cemeteries. Mining that
would affect a park is included also. Coal in national forests may be unsuit-
able, but the criteria are more flexible. The unsuitability of private or
state land is determined by the state regulatory authority. The unsuitability
of Federal land is determined by the Secretary of the Interior. Section 522(b)

-------
14
directs the Secretary to conduct a review of Federal lands to determine
which are unsuitable for all or certain types of surface coal mining. SMCRA
authorizes citizens to petition the state regulatory authority or the Secretary
in a quasi-legal proceeding. Title V also includes other provisions such as an
exemption from SMCRA for mines of less than two acres, and authority to
regulate the surface effects of underground mines.
Title IV provides for reclamation of abandoned mine land (AML). AML is
land for which no operator is responsible, usually because the company is no
longer in business. It establishes a trust fund, composed of money which comes
from a fee of 35 cents per ton on surface mined coal and 15 cents per ton on
underground mined coal. The differential reflects the differing surface impacts
of the two methods. Nationwide, the annual revenues are approximately $230
million. Half of this money goes to the state in which the fees are
collected, and the other half goes to the Department of the Interior (the
Secretary's share). The secretary may spend his or her share anywhere in the
country. Thus, much of the money will be generated in the .West where sur-
face mining is the dominant method and fewer coal mines are abandoned, and will
be expended in the East, where surface mining is a smaller proportion of total
mining and more coal mined land is abandoned. In terms of management, the pro-
gram may be seen as one national trust fund and a series of state trust funds.
SMCRA does provide for Title IV funds to be spent to reclaim non-coal
abandoned mine lands. Montana and Wyoming, which have relatively little
abandoned coal mine lands, have asked for AML money for uranium, copper,

-------
15
bentonite, and other mines. While in general OSM has insisted coal AML must
come first, it is considering seriously approval of these requests.
The AML funds are to be spent according to the following priorities:
1.	Extreme danger to health and safety
2.	Danger to health and safety
3.	Restoration
4.	Research and demonstration
5.	Public facilities
6.	Recreation and conservation.
The Federal Agency
The Office of Surface Mining (OSM), established in 1977, lacks the auto-
nomy and authority of the older Interior agencies. Its personnel number only
800. In 1981-82 it underwent an extensive and controversial reorganization
which critics saw as an attempt to destroy the bureau. The five regions were
dissolved and many personnel were moved from one city to another. According
to at least one observer, at the GS-15 level all officials except one were
moved or replaced and at the GS-14 level, half were moved or replaced. Many
senior staff members left at that time.
Two regional technical centers—Western and Eastern—are located in
Denver and Pittsburgh. Their purpose is to coordinate technical services

-------
16
and to maintain quality control. Their staffs include experts in engineering,
reclamation, the environment, and geology.
The 13 field offices oversee approved state programs, or when no state
program is approved, administer Federal programs or help develop state programs.
In general, these are located in the capital cities of major coal producing
states to provide on the spot guidance and assistance. In some cases, juris-
diction is assigned to a nearby field office. For example, the Maryland
program comes under the scope of the Charleston, West Virginia, office. The
Casper, Wyoming, office covers Montana as well as North Dakota, Alaska, and
Washington State.
While the OSM staff's professional orientation is clearly focused on
mining, some observers have questioned the depth of its professional talent.
Engineers, geologists, hydrologists, etc., are comparatively scarce for an
agency devoted exclusively to coal mining.
The Role of the States
In comparison to BLM and Forest Service, OSM is highly decentralized with
the states playing a major role. As discussed above, qualifying states can assume
primary regulatory authority, and 25 states have chosen to do so. A state
granted "primacy" (to use the jargon) administers its own program. Besides
the general rationale for decentralization popular in welfare, employment,
pollution control, and other programs, is the more specific rationale that
coal mining conditions vary widely in different states. For example, certain

-------
17
reclamation techniques in New Mexico (such as zero discharge of water) would
be inappropriate in Pennsylvania, and vice versa.
The quality of the state programs varies. Montana is known for the high
quality of its program. Tennessee's program is so unsatisfactory that OSM is
planning to revoke its authority and substitute direct administration on
October 1. Other endangered programs are in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa. In
general, the Western states have stronger programs than the East or the Mid-
West. In the East, Kentucky and West Virginia are considered strong, and
Virginia and Pennsylvania are considered weak. In the West, Montana, Wyoming,
and Texas are considered strong, and Utah and New Mexico are considered weak.
Primary regulatory authority by a state covers private- and state-owned land
and but not Federal or Indian land. However, section 523 provides that the OSM can
enter into a cooperative agreement with a state so that state can regulate mining
on Federal lands. Five states have done so: Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota,
Colorado, and New Mexico. A July 6, 1984 ruling by Judge Flannery has called
into question the extent to which the OSM can delegate regulation of Federal
lands. Since the Western Technical Center has played an active role in permit-
ting mines in the five cooperative agreement states, the practical effect may
not be as great as the court's ruling seems to indicate. SMCRA does not
provide for a state agency to regulate mining on Indian lands. Section 710
anticipates amendment to the law which would allow an Indian tribe to gain
primacy on the same status as a state.

-------
18
Policies and Issues
Issues OSM currently faces include the revised regulations, takeback of
primacy, oversight, direct administration, Federal lands, and a series of
technical issues.
In 1982-83 OSM issued major revisions to its regulations intended to ease
the burden on the coal industry in fulfillment of the administration's regula-
tory reform efforts. Environmental and industry groups sued on a range of issues.
On July 6, 1984 Judge Flannery, of the District Court for the District of Columbia,
issued the first of the three decisions expected. While upholding three of the
revisions, the judge overturned two others. These revised sections of the regula-
tions covered processing facilities off-site and Federal lands. The decision
says SMCRA must regulate tipples, preparation plants, and spoil piles, wherever
located. This will add 500 to 600 coal piles to the program's regulatory
responsibilities. Judge Flannery also interpreted more narrowly OSM's authority
to delegate regulation of mining on Federal lands. Presumably this will restrict
significantly the authority of the five states with cooperative agreements.
Judge Flannery's next two decisions are unlikely to make any major changes
but are likely to make many minor ones. The Supreme Court and the Court of
Appeals have already upheld the constitutionality of the law and the basic
legality of the regulations. In his two decisions in 1980 and in his July 6
decision, Judge Flannery displayed both deference toward the Secretary's
discretion when it conforms to SMCRA, the Administrative Procedures Act, etc.,
and a disposition to remand regulations when they do not. Hence Flannery's

-------
19
next two decisions are likely to produce a series of specific item by item
findings. If the weight of these individual findings goes heavily against
OSM in the second decision, the bureau may try to negotiate a settlement
with the plaintiffs.
Tennessee's implementation of its surface mining program has become so poor
that OSM plans to evoke its "primacy" as of October 1, 1984. Permits have not
been issued. Enforcement has been lax- Cooperation has been poor. Revocation
of Tennessee's authority under provisions of Section 733 of OSM's regulations
is "a first," although it is by no means the first inadequate state program,
nor the worst. In the opinion of some this represents a failure for the concept
of decentralization. Takeback of the program will strain the bureau's technical
capabilities as it mobilizes inspectors, engineers, and lawyers. In preparation
for the takeback, OSM is preparing an EIS which it intends to use as a basis for
issuing permits after October 1. In the three other states with weak programs,
Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa, OSM has begun the preliminary steps to warn the states.
Oversight of approved programs is a continuing issue. In concept, OSM's
oversight scheme is logical, sophisticated, yet simple. In practice, it is
uneven and often misunderstood. The scheme is to assess the state programs by
conducting parallel inspections and permit reviews of a portion of the mines
chosen randomly. The proportion in each state is determined according to a
statistical formula designed to give a 95 percent confidence level. The exis-
tence of OSM state offices appears to critics to produce less rigorous standards
in certain states since the OSM offices identify too closely with the state
government and industry. Another criticism is that an alleged pro-industry

-------
20
bias tones down unfavorable assessments by inspectors and technical staff.
The OSM retains direct authority for (1) states without approved programs
(e.g., Washington State), (2) Indian lands, and (3) Federal lands in states
without cooperative agreements (e.g., Wayne National Forest in Ohio). Further-
more, Judge Flannery's July 6 decision may enhance OSM's responsibilities for
Federal lands. Although at present "primacy" states represent 96 percent
of the tonnage, OSM's four per cent most likely will yield a number of contro-
versial cases. Since these permits are likely to qualify as "significant
Federal actions" the OSM expects to have to prepare EISs. Over the next
two or three years, OSM expects to issue or reissue 30 to 40 permits in national
forests. The bureau prefers not to require EISs for these since the operators
are usually small companies that, in its opinion, cannot cope with the supposed
complexity of the NEPA process. While officially OSM prepares an EIS, in
actuality the bureau customarily transfers the work by requiring virtually the
whole statement be prepared by the applicant.
OSM currently faces a number of technical issues ranging from remining aban-
doned coal fields to Corps of Engineer permits for dredging and filling, and
wetlands. Remining promises both resource and environmental benefits, providing
the legal uncertainty can be resolved. In a number of regions in the Appalachian
Mountains, previous mining has reduced the overburden and exposed acidic rock to
such a degree that complete restoration is impossible. Operators willing to
mine deeper seams with modern equipment are reluctant to assume perpetual
responsibility for the damage already done. While nearly all observers agree
that remining followed by the best reclamation would be better than leaving

-------
21
the abandoned mines as is, questions remain whether SMCRA and the Clean Water
Act permit this. Coal dredging is a lesser technical issue. Although not a
widespread method, coal is dredged from rivers in Kentucky, West Virginia,
and Pennsylvania. OSM is exploring the possibility of a nationwide permit
from the Corps of Engineers, in effect, delegating approval to the state regu-
latory authorities. Upland wetlands is another technical issue. In the West
Virginia mountains and in adjoining states, bogs exist whose ecology is based
on highly acidic water. To require pH neutral discharges into the streams
feeding these wetlands would destroy them. Other current issues OSM faces
relate to the AML program, the NEPA process, and unsuitability petitions.

-------
CHAPTER III
NEPA COMPLIANCE FOR COAL ACTIVITIES
Responsibility for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
rests with the Federal agency undertaking the "significant action." For coal
activities this means chiefly BLM for leasing and OSM for mining planning.
In the case of Indian lands it means the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In the past
the Geological Survey was responsible for mine planning. On one occasion the
Department of Interior Environmental Office prepared the EIS. In general EPA
does not prepare EISs under the rationale that its mission is environmental
protection, hence a formal statement would be superfluous. Nevertheless EPA
prepares the "functional equivalent" of an EIS when warranted. Occasionally
it does write an EIS.
In concept a bureau begins by preparing an Environmental Assessment,
perhaps only two to three pages long. If the EA finds no significant impact,
it issues a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). If not, it prepares
an EIS. In fact, OSM skips writing an EA if it anticipates an EIS. At the
other extreme, EPA sometimes prepares detailed EAs several hundred pages long
to serve as the functional equivalents of EIS's. The five EAs on river basins
in West Virginia are examples. (Although not for coal mining per se, EPA has
a responsibility to satisfy NEPA-EIS requirements for new source NPDES permits
associated with coal mining. These EAs were the basis for subsequent FONSIs
but rival any coal EIS in quality and scope.)
22

-------
23
EPA, in particular OFA, serves as the government-wide clearing house for
EISs. Upon receiving an EIS, OFA assigns it for review. For prograraatic
actions headquarters assumes the lead. Others are assigned to the appropriate
region. As indicated by the subject matter or scope, other regions contribute.
Observation of OFA procedures indicated several opportunities for improve-
ment. These included improved EIS tracking, rating, and timeliness. A related
area was monitoring of EAs. Although EPA at present has no obligation or authority
to monitor these, evidence exists suggesting that a number of EAs should result
in EISs but result in FONSIs instead. Since BLM and OSM write hundreds of EAs
each year, EPA could only monitor them if the bureaus were obliged to report
some basic statistics such as the total number, broken down into a few major
categories.
Review of EIS tracking showed several instances of statements prepared
by Interior bureaus but not found in the OFA records. While further investi-
gation would be necessary for a definitive conclusion, it appears likely that
these EISs were not properly filed.
OFA records show that DOI has filed a total of 49 EISs on its coal acti-
vities since 1974. See Table 3.1. They divided evenly between leasing (22) and
mining planning (22), with an additional five programatic statements. BLM
wrote the most, 19. GS wrote 14, OSM wrote 13, BIA wrote two and the depart-
ment environmental office wrote one. Since GS is no longer responsible for
mining planning this is not representative of expected future EISs. The
regional distribution within EPA is striking. Region VIII reviewed 43 of

-------
24
the 49. Four were national, hence, they were reviewed by headquarters.
Region IV and VI reviewed one each.
EPA gave LO ratings to 13, ER ratings to 21 and EU ratings to three.
Ratings could not be determined for 12. EPA rated the quality of eight of the
statements as hightest ("1"), 27 as middle ("2") and five as lowest ("3").
Data were missing for nine EISs.
The number of EISs filed per year varied from one each in 1975 and 1978
to ten in 1979. For analytical purposes, the project ratings were assigned
scores of L0=1, ER=2 and EU=3. This showed a gradual trend indicating
that the environmental quality of the coal projects was improving. Similar
time series data of statement quality ratings showed no significant trend.
Since both sets of ratings cover a nine-year period, including four different
EPA administrators and pre-and post SMCRA, FCLAA and FLPMA, many caveats are in
order. Nevertheless, the general upward trend in project quality is supported
by the professional judgment of those involved in writing or reviewing. Indeed
some suggest that rising environmental standards cause the improvement to be
understated. On the other hand, the simple mean scores support the observation
of one EPA official that "we rate most EISs an ER-2."
As alluded to above, the 49 EISs on coal activities do not include some
important environmental evaluation by EPA. For example, it does not include
the Holly Grove mining proposal in West Virginia (for which EPA prepared a new
source NPDES EIS). This was virtually the only Appalachian mine EIS prepared

-------
25
by any Federal agency. It also omits lignite mining proposals in the south
central states.
The major conclusions of this statistical analysis are (1) the prepon-
derant role played by Region VIII, and (2) the even division between leasing
and mining planning, both of which are expected to continue. The major
question remaining is the thoroughness and validity of the EPA ratings.

-------
26
TABLE 3.1
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF 49 COAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
BY TOPIC
Leasing	22
Mining Planning	22
Programatic		5_
Total	49
BY AGENCY
Bureau of Land Management	19
Geological Survey	14
Office of Surface Mining	13
Bureau of Indian Affairs	2
Departmental Environmental Office	1
Total	49
BY REGION
III	0
IV	1
V	0
VI	1
VII	0
VIII	43
Headquarters	4
Total	49

-------
27
BY RATING OF PROJECT
Lack of Objection (LO)	13
Environmental Reservations (ER)	21
Environmentally Unsatisfactory (EU)	3
Missing Data	12
Total	49
BY RATING OF STATEMENT
Highest ("1")	8
Middle ("2")	27
Lowest ("3")	5
Missing Data		9
Total	49

-------
28
BY YEAR
Mean Mean
Environ. Statement
Year	Number	Rating	Rating
1974	2	3.0	1.0
1975	1	2.0	2.0
1976	3	2.3	2.0
1977	5	2.0	2.3
1978	1	2.0	2.0
1979	10	1.9	2.2
1980	5	1.8	1.8
1981	5	1.6	1.4
1982	4	1.0	1.8
1983	9	1.6	1.7
1984	4
1974-83
49
1.8
1.9

-------
CHAPTER IV
CURRENT ISSUES, PROBLEMS AND ANALYSIS
Review of EPA's relations with Department of the Interior agencies brings
forth a spectrum of issues ranging from organizational to scientific. These
issues have consequences for EPA's workload, procedures, communications, and
policies.
WORKLOAD
Issues determining EPA's workload are both the standard ones related to
BLM leasing, OSM mining plan approval, and EPA water permitting, and the
emerging ones such as coal development in Alaska and cumulative impacts.
Since EIS review derives from the activities of leasing coal, approving
mining plans, and permitting water discharges, projecting these activities
foretells the EPA workload and location. Over the next few years BLM anti-
cipates a second round of leasing for the same five regions which may require
additional or supplemental EISs. It also anticipates planning for leasing
about 180 preference right lease applications (PRLAs). These will be combined
into groups of two to four for EIS preparation. Low priority and duplication
of existing EISs will reduce the number of statements well below the 60 that
simple division would indicate. Nearly all these regional and PRLA leases are
29

-------
30
in Region VIII, hence, they will be reviewed by the Denver office. Nearly all
the remaining ones are in Region VI. This is consistent with the pattern
discussed in Chapter III which noted that 43 of the 49 EISs were in Region VIII.
It also continues the pattern in which half the EISs are generated by BLM.
OSM's workload over the next two or three years will show a slight shift
away from the West. One reason is that the coal market slump has reduced the
number of new mines to be developed. Another is that regions like the Powder
River basin are now so well studied that a complete statement is no longer
necessary. The Western Technical Center now issues a "Finding of No Signifi-
cant Difference" after preparing an Environmental Assessment. (It is not
clear whether Council on Environmental Quality regulations permit a "FONSD.")
In the near future OSM expects to repermit 30 to 40 mines in national forests,
mostly east of the Mississippi. Unlike the typical situation in the West
where OSM has signed cooperative agreements with the five major coal states
for permitting mining on Federal lands, in these cases OSM will issue the
permit directly. As a "Federal action" this repermitting will be subject
to NEPA. According to the locations of these national forests, NEPA review
will fall to Regions III, IV, V, VI and VII, as well as to Region VIII (which
is well-accustomed to the process).
EPA itself generates similar routine actions which call for NEPA compli-
ance. Although, for the most part the agency is exempt from preparing EISs,
it can opt to prepare the functional equivalent analyses. Coal states where
EPA retains NPDES authority and retains NEPA compliance responsibility, include
all of Region VI, Utah in Region VIII, Arizona in Region IX, and Alaska in

-------
31
Region X. One coal state in Region VIII may lose its NPDES authority, in which
case EPA would resume issuing NPDES permits.
Other issues are less routine. From time to time, a bureau issues a
programatic EIS. For example BLM is preparing another EIS on its changes in
the leasing program in the wake of criticism by the Linowes Commission and the
Office of Technology Assessment. This would call for review by EPA headquarters
with assistance from Regions VI and VIII, and possibly others. For OSM, the
current set of three decisions from Judge Flannery may provoke regulatory
changes. While DOI regulations appear to exempt OSM from the requirement to
write an EIS, the bureau may do so anyway.
While EPA can anticipate most of its future workload which is related to
these standard issues, other issues are just emerging. Examples are cumulative
impacts, development of Alaskan coal, remining, and pollution where the legal
jurisdiction is unclear. Cumulative impacts and Alaskan coal are issues which
might have important implications for EPA staffing and organization. Recent
hydrologic studies in western Colorado suggest that mining, even when conducted
in full accordance with OSM regulations, may result in high amounts of total
dissolved solids which can overload the capacity of the receiving streams.
This implies that mining on the entire watershed would have to be limited. The
detailed technical and scientific analysis needed for 309 review would require
EPA to increase its capability either by adding hydrologists to its staff or by
extensive contracting with engineering firms. Development of Alaskan coal
presents similar staff shortages. Region X has only one person familiar with
coal. EPA might consider giving the lead to Region VIII which has several staff

-------
32
familiar with the subject and is convenient to OSM's Western Technical Center.
On the other hand, Region X does have the advantage of an Anchorage Field Office
and might be able to obtain consulting engineers in Alaska familiar with EPA
and OSM. In making this organizational decision headquarters has to balance
the need for a "critical mass" of technical expertise found in Denver against
the rightful autonomy of Region X.
NEPA COMPLIANCE REVIEW PROCEDURES
EPA coordination with BLM, OSM and other parts of the Department of the
Interior appears to be uneven and to offer a number of opportunities for improve-
ment. The basic framework itself may be inadequate. In 1979-80, EPA and OSM
negotiated several memoranda of understanding on state program approval and
amendments, NPDES requirements, technical regulations, and research, etc. One
MOU was signed which provides for EPA concurrence with granting primacy to state
programs under Section 503 and requires EPA concurrence with the regulatory
program under Section 501. Another MOU on NPDES was negotiated but not signed.
This failure to sign is attributed by many to personal quibbling unrelated to
the merits of the MOU. The failure to sign the agreement was frequently cited
by OSM staff as a symbol of lack of cooperation. Thus EPA suffers from a poor
image regardless of the actual effect. With respect to BLM, EPA has no memoranda
of understanding in effect.
Lack of regular meetings between EPA and BLM and EPA and OSM appears
to be another problem. In the case of EPA-OSM meetings, a few contentious

-------
33
personalities were blamed, distributed about evenly between the two agencies.
Of the half dozen officials seen as impediments to cooperation, all but two
have left government service, thus offering a better ground for cooperation.
Monitoring NEPA compliance by BLM and OSM appears to have been less
complete than EPA would like. Most serious is that EPA has virtually no
tracking of Environmental Assessments. OSM writes hundreds of EAs each year.
EPA is uninformed as to such basic information as the total number, the
general topics, bureau policies such as the FONSD finding, and so forth.
Apparently OSM itself lacks this basic information also. On one hand it is
not appropriate or efficient for EPA to reach too deeply into the routine
business of another agency. On the other EPA has the responsibility to be
sure NEPA is not circumvented through EAs resulting in FONSIs which really
should become EISs.
EPA's relationship with the two Interior bureaus appears to lack an
extensive network of informal communications that often characterizes agencies
with related missions. Staff from one agency often could not even name their
counterparts, let alone mention a professional or personal friendship. In a
typical response a BLM official from the Santa Fe office said the most helpful
thing EPA could do was to "drop by to get acquainted." In general Interior
staff spoke very favorably of working with EPA on specific projects but noted
a lack of long-term communication, cooperation, and coordination.
EPA interacts with BLM and OSM in scoping and reviewing EISs. The agency
is not a member of BLM regional coal teams, although this suggestion is often

-------
34
made. Since EISs and RCTs are a Western phenomenon, this means it is largely
a Region VIII issue. For programmatic EISs, headquarters takes the lead.
In recent years EPA has emphasized the scoping stage on the rationale that
the agency can be more influential earlier in the process. OSM has welcomed
EPA's participation in scoping while BLM has been more reticent. BLM's concern
is that EPA requires a level of detail too great for the more general level of
planning BLM conducts. OSM finds EPA's participation more compatible because
mining planning is appropriate for the level at which EPA assesses impacts.
Yet bureaucratic congeniality is not the proper goal. If BLM must proceed at
a high level of generality, it may be necessary for EPA to adapt. Waiting for
a more receptive stage in the process may mean foregoing the influence sought.
Techniques for influencing land management planning include simple, standardized
computer models, threshholds of land, air or water affected and utilization of
existing data bases.
Review of EISs is the chief procedure by which EPA interacts with BLM and
OSM to assure NEPA compliance. While EPA's formal authority is greatest at
this point, it may be too late in the process to exert its maximum influence.
EPA's review of EISs is the procedure which garnered the most criticism.
Criticisms included lack of systematic evaluation, inconsistencies between
regions, and late letters. EIS review is indeed unsystematic. EPA apparently
does not have a manual or even a detailed list of factors for the reviewer
of a BLM land management plan EIS or an OSM mining plan EIS. Interior staff
describes EPA as reactive. If an Interior bureau gives it a detailed state-
ment, EPA will return a detailed review. If a bureau gives it a vague
statement, EPA will return a vague review. Several examples were given where a

-------
35
detailed EIS for an environmentally sound project produced a critical letter
whereas a vague EIS for an environmentally bad project passed without objection.
EPA's review varies region by region. Region VIII is considered thorough
and rigorous. Region VI is considered less so. The remaining Western regions
have a very low volume of past and projected EISs, again raising the question
of whether Region VIII should have the lead for all coal EISs west of the
Mississippi. East of the Mississippi, EISs have been rare since "significant
Federal actions" are rare. There is little Federal coal and the NPDES program
is delegated in all the states with coal. Repermitting the mines in national
forests might generate a flurry of EISs. With the exceptions of Regions III
and VIII, no other region is considered to be adequately staffed for dealing
with coal issues.
Late letters was one EPA failing which Interior officials mentioned fre-
quently. It seemed to symbolize the differing perspectives and conclusions
and the resulting frustrations of interagency coordination to a greater degree
than the actual tardiness would warrant. Although timeliness may be the scape-
goat for frustration, nevertheless EPA has an image problem that could be
corrected with relative ease.
As discussed above, EPA does not participate on the regional coal teams.
While BLM does not permit other agencies to be voting members, it does have some
as ex officio cooperating agencies. This would seem to be a natural role for
EPA. The Secretary of the Interior's responses to the Linowes and OTA reports
appear to enhance the RCT's authority. RCT decisions will not be overruled
in Washington as they were in 1982-83. This would imply EPA's participation

-------
36
would be more important and influential. Still, the same problems remain that
BLM does not find EPA's contribution sufficiently general to be compatible with
BLM's planning. If excluded from regional planning, EPA may find its interven-
tion at the mining plan stage to be too late.
Assuming EPA wishes to participate earlier in the NEPA process, EPA
may face internal impediments. A common observation is that, as a regulatory
agency, EPA works best when dealing with a specific document—a permit, an
EIS, or a report. Because scoping is amorphous, it fails to get a high
priority within the agency. Further, there appears to be a reluctance by EPA
to commit itself to a set of environmental issues early in what is often a
several-year process. Unless considerable care is exercised clearly to provide
for additional information and shifting positions throughout the process, EPA
participation in scoping may exarcerbate BLM and OSM frustrations.
COMMUNICATION, COORDINATION, AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT
EPA gathers information about Interior's coal programs through a number
of channels. Diverse as they are, a consensus exists that they are not fully
adequate.
With respect to policy and NEPA compliance, communication with OSM goes
through the Office of Federal Activities. With respect to technical issues,
EPA's program offices in Washington deal with their counterparts in OSM's
Directorate of Technical Services. For example, the EPA Office of Water
lations and Standards deals with the OSM Division of Reclamation Technology.

-------
37
Outside Washington communication is poorer. Region III reports occasional
contact with the Eastern Technical Center in Pittsburgh. Region XVII
does not report frequent contact with the Western Technical Center even
though both are located in Denver. Technical liaison for the other regions
is weaker. As mentioned above, the framework is inadequate. The NPDES MOU
was not signed; meetings are infrequent; informal contacts are sparse. OSM
headquarters does not appear to welcome EPA involvement enthusiastically.
OSM officials described EPA as slow, poorly informed and "bureaucratic."
Several argued that OSM has a strong legal mandate and a technical and
enforcement staff on the ground fully capable of protecting the environment,
therefore EPA should stop interfering and turn its attention to other areas
where its expertise and authority could be employed better.
Communication with BLM appears to be less extensive and less centralized
than with OSM. EPA and BLM have less shared subject matter that could be
described as technical. NEPA compliance for land management is the chief
joint concern. Whereas OSM finds EPA interfering, BLM finds it superfluous.
BLM seeks EPA's required approvals of its land planning but does not get very
very engaged. On the other hand, BLM does not see EPA as duplicating its
mission.
In order to improve its internal communication, coordination and capacity,
OSM frequently holds staff retreats outside of Washington lasting two to five
days. For example, all grants administration officials met at St. Mary's
College in Emmitsburg, Maryland for one week's training last June. The 13
state office directors meet several times a year for two to three days at

-------
38
locations around the country. OSM feel these retreats promote both intense
concentration on the topic and informal exchange of ideas, techniques and
solutions to common problems. Senior OSM officials noted the benefits of
holding the retreats at fairly remote locations to avoid both the Scylla of
the telephone and the Charybdis of the bar.
To improve EPA-OSM-BLM communication, one OSM official proposed a Western
coal forum bringing together staff from the three agencies. Topics suggested
were scoping, EIS review, RCT activity, and likely emerging issues. While
neither EPA nor BLM holds retreats routinely, officials from both agencies
favored the idea. One EPA official particularly stressed the need for sound
preparation. Appendix B develops this proposal. An Eastern coal forum would
be an appropriate way to bring together EPA staff from headquarters, Region
III and Region IV with OSM state offices and the Eastern Technical Center.
BLM's role in the East is quite limited but Forest Service participation is
relatively greater.
Personnel exchanges are another technique to improve communication and
coordination. EPA headquarters and regions might exchange staff. Since the
coal program is concentrated in Regions III and VIII, this means OFA per-
sonnel going to Philadelphia or Denver and Region III and VIII personnel going
to Washington. Appropriate time periods appear to be several weeks to several
months. Longer assignments might be less attractive to the participants because
they would disrupt professional and domestic stability. A different sort of
personnel exchange could take place between agencies. For example, a Region
VIII staffer might go to the OSM Western Technical Center. Such an assignment

-------
39
might be for one to two years. A longer assignment would raise serious ques-
tions of replacement at the donor agency. In any case, whether within EPA or
with other agencies, all but the shortest personnel exchanges need to be eval-
uated according to the specific project.
Briefings by BLM and OSM are a third method by which to improve interagency
communication and coordination. Both BLM and OSM staff stated that EPA
appeared ignorant of basic information about their programs and procedures.
Since EPA's duties derive from BLM and OSM programs, the complaint (assuming
it is valid) is serious. Even if the complaint is not valid, EPA may gain
good will by allowing the Interior bureaus their "day in court." Such one-way
communication might have several benefits. As just mentioned, it would generate
the good will of the briefing bureau. Even if EPA is better informed than BLM
and OSM claim, the staff is likely to learn something. It would counteract
EPA's reputation for sitting in judgment. Finally it would be good prepara-
tion for a regional coal forum or other two-way communication.
EMERGING ISSUES LIKELY TO AFFECT POLICY
A number of technical, legal and financial issues are emerging that may
affect EPA's, and hence, OFA's duties. By definition these are less routine
than the usual issues related to leasing, mining planning and water permitting.
Some of these are cumulative impacts, Corps of Engineer permits, remining, the
NPDES, environmental problems falling between two laws or under two laws, and
AML funding for pollution control.

-------
40
Cumulative impacts are more difficult to understand technically than indi-
vidual project impacts, and more difficult to manage once they are understood.
The example of total dissolved solids found in western Colorado was mentioned
earlier in this chapter. In this case water flowing from new springs after
the watertable and aquifers reestablish themselves following reclamation have
a higher level of total dissolved solids than were found in the stream or
river originally. The stream can assimulate a certain amount but not an
unlimited amount. Hydrologic studies of the Yampa River and other streams
indicate the cumulative effect to be near the assimulative capability of
the river. While the obvious appropriate response is to restrict the total
amount of mining in the watershed, this would encounter resistence from
owners of coal reserves not yet developed. Cumulative impacts on air quality
are less likely to occur from coal mining by itself but may occur when there
is a mine mouth plant. Coal gasification in North Dakota presents this problem.
Virtually all instances of cumulative impacts present difficult problems of
scientific and technical analysis. EPA may find it must go beyond just
augmenting its staff to invest in research and development in hydrology,
chemistry and atmospheric science.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act sets forth the relationship between EPA
and the Corps of Engineers. With respect to coal mining, this section affects
upland bogs, coal dredging, and stream relocation. Region III recently has
focused attention on upland bogs in the Appalachian Mountains. These unique
ecosystems depend on receiving highly acidic water. If the acidity of influent
water is neutralized the vegetation dies. A benefit of these bogs is that they
naturally neutralize the water so that their own discharge is not acidic. Region

-------
41
III is concerned that the Corps lacks sensitivity to these unique and beneficial
ecosystems. Coal dredging is a second point of interaction with the Corps. In a
few Appalachian rivers operators dredge to recover coal deposited on the river
bottom either naturally or from pre-SMCRA mining spoil. OSM and the Corps are
discussing a single nationwide permit for these operations. EPA has reserva-
tions about the adequacy of the technical evaluation of this proposal. A third
function covered under Section 404 is disturbing a stream or wetlands. Although
the OSM technical regulations cover this, new aspects may appear.
Remining is a major and, so far, intractable issue. On one hand some
coal fields have been so degraded that complete restoration is technically
impossible indicating operators wishing to remine should be perhaps allowed
more lenient standards. On the other hand, to do so may not be legal under
SMCRA and CWA and in any case sets a bad precedent. Two approaches to resolve
the problem are legislative and regulatory. Congresssman Rahall proposes to
amend the CWA to allow remining subject to lower standards. Alternatively
EPA's Office of Water Regulations and Standards is cooperating with Pennsyl-
vania in a program known as "Subchapter F" which would allow case by case
determinations of proposed mining permits. If successful the Pennsylvania
program would serve as a model for other states.
Uncertainties of the NPDES program raise several issues such as the
relationship between EPA and OSM in non-delegated states, the advisability
of additional extensive river basin EAs like those prepared by Region III,
and EPA's image due to tardy issuance of permits. Oversight of the NPDES

-------
42
program when delegated to the states is a major concern. EPA does not appear
to oversee the NPDES program with the same sophistication and completeness
as OSM uses to oversee its primacy states. Regional review of "major review
of "major dischargers" covers only about five mines (all in one state) out of
18,000 mines nationwide. Regions do not appear to have any handle on mine
discharge even though coal mining contributes up to half the stream degrada-
tion in some states. OSM's oversight program whereby the Federal agency
conducts parallel inspections of mines and reviews permits selected according
to a random sample designed to give a 95 per cent confidence level offers EPA
a model that might be applicable to its oversight of NPDES permit programs.
Some environmental problems fall between two laws or may be subject to
two laws. Waste from coal mining is subject to regulation under SMCRA. If
it were regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act the
administrative burden on EPA would be enormous. In this case EPA and OSM
might want to develop a cooperative regulatory program. Similar potential
overlap occurs for abandoned mine which are now regulated under SMCRA Title
IV but might be subject to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen-
sation and Liability Act (CERCLA or "Superfund"). If covered by Superfund,
EPA would look for the responsible party, who would be legally liable under
CERCLA, not SMCRA. Groundwater contaminated by coal mining falls between
the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The SMCRA provisions in Section 515(b)(10) appear to some observers as inade-
quate, particularly for groundwater protection.
Use of the AML trust fund for ameliorating water pollution has an obvious
appeal to EPA. The problem, noted earlier, is that abating pollution ranks

-------
43
third in the Congressionally mandated priorities for use of the fund. At
present the trust fund resources seem adequate only for Priorities I and II.
Region III staff have visited state agencies to urge consideration of projects
which improve water quality as a byproduct of a Priority I or II purpose.
Combining the resources of the AML trust fund and the Superfund is another
approach that deserves development.
While these six issues cover the range of those expected to emerge over
the next two or three years, thereby affecting EPA, and in turn OFA, the
listing can never be complete. Undoubtedly other issues bear watching as well.

-------
CHAPTER V
RECOMMENDATIONS
Besides the overall purpose of better understanding of the coal programs,
this review and evaluation of EPA's relations with BLM, OSM and other Department
of the Interior bureaus involved with coal suggests opportunities for improve-
ment for EPA in (1) managing its workload, (2) NEPA compliance review procedures,
(3) communication, coordination and staff development, and (4) anticipation of
emerging issues affecting EPA as a whole, hence OFA.
WORKLOAD
1. EPA-OFA should develop an annual work plan based on anticipated workload.
This would begin by estimating the number of EISs as well as the likely
topics. The number of scoping letters (or meetings) would be a second factor.
The areas of expertise would be a third factor. For example,it seems likely
EPA will need more hydrologists. Geographic distribution is a fourth factor.
For example, repermitting in the national forests would affect Region V and
Alaskan coal development would affect Region X, both of which are weak in coal
expertise.
44

-------
45
2.	EPA should centralize all coal work in Regions III and VIII.
Efficient, high quality analysis of any specialized topic, in this case coal,
requires a "critical mass." It appears that only Regions III and VIII have
and can sustain this expertise. A precedent for such centralization within
EPA is the bottom-land hardwood team based in Region IV. For coal, Region III
would handle mining east of the Mississippi and Region VIII would handle mining
west of the Mississippi, the same division OSM uses for its two Technical
Centers and one compatible with the BLM organization. If other regions object
to a loss of jurisdiction, EPA headquarters might decide on the basis of whether
that region has and can sustain the technical expertise.
NEPA COMPLIANCE REVIEW PROCEDURES
3.	EPA should renew its MOU with OSM on state programs and sign MOUs
on NPDES.
This MOU forms a framework for interagency cooperation on standard,
recurring issues, hence logic dictates their use as good management practice.
In addition, failure to sign the MOU is seen by OSM as evidence of bad faith.
EPA needs to overcome its image problem as well as its coordination problem.
4.	EPA should participate earlier in the planning process.
Scoping now plays a decisive role in the environmental protection process.
Indeed many decisions made during scoping determine the final outcome. The

-------
46
EPA comment letter on a draft EIS may well have virtually no influence because
it comes too late in the process. Since EPA seems to work best in terms of a
decision document, EPA might consider a formal Scoping Letter to focus the
attention of agency managers.
5.	EPA should assure letters commenting on draft EISs are submitted on time.
Late letters have created an extremely negative image for EPA. No other
difficulty in coordination was cited more often or with more derision than this
seemingly trivial tardiness. Timely submission would greatly improve EPA's
reputation for professionalism and cooperation.
6.	EPA should urge the Council on Environmental Quality to promulgate
regulations to monitor Environmental Assessments by other agencies.
At present EPA-OFA has no accurate and specific knowledge of EAs written
by BLM, OSM, or other bureaus. Anecdotal evidence suggests the possible use of
EAs to circumvent NEPA compliance. At a minimum CEQ should require bureaus
to report the number of EAs, broken down by general topic.
7.	EPA should develop two EIS review manuals, one for leasing and the
other for mining planning.
Currently EPA's review of these EISs is unsystematic, depending on the
skills and intuition of the individual reviewer. The 309 Manual might serve as
a model. Until a manual is available, EPA should prepare a detailed checklist.

-------
47
8.	EPA should be an ex officio member of any Regional Coal Team.
EPAs formal participation in RCTs would provide greater environmental
protection than the present system of minimal coordination at the last phase
of EIS preparation.
COMMUNICATION, COORDINATION AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT
9.	EPA should hold semi-annual meetings with BLM and with OSM in Washington
and the regions.
Such regular meetings with a general agenda would foster an atmosphere of
cooperation and good will, would keep each agency informed, and would improve
personal and professional contacts. Past meetings have often focused solely on
problems, thus leaving a residue of conflict and tension.
10.	EPA should hold two regional coal forums with BLM and OSM.
These forums, to kick-off a revitalized relationship, one for the West
and one for the East, would follow the OSM pattern of a two-to three-day
retreat in an isolated location stressing an exchange of ideas. For several
reasons—more coal activity, greater concentration of staff, etc.—the
Western forum should be held first.
11• EPA should undertake a series of personnel exchanges.
Exchanges between Washington and the regions would be the easiest to start

-------
48
with. OFA staff might go to Philadelphia or Denver for two to three weeks.
Regional staff might be assigned to OFA for two to four months. EPA might
consider longer assignments with BLM or OSM. In all cases except the very
shortest, great attention should be paid to the particular assignment.
12.	EPA should ask BLM to brief it on a routine basis.
BLM believes, with some justification, that EPA is ignorant of many of
its programs and policies. Indeed, since BLM's mission is land use planning,
the bureau comes first in the sequence of coal development. Routine briefings,
perhaps a half-day twice a year, would overcome this perceived problem. Brief-
ings should be held in Washington, Denver, and perhaps Dallas.
13.	EPA-OFA should develop a brief reading list for new staff.
This would be useful to personnel new to OFA, or new to NEPA compliance
duties in the regions. It would also be useful to staff in other EPA offices,
such as Water Permits for example, who are newly assigned to a coal project.
EMERGING ISSUES LIKELY TO AFFECT POLICY
14.	EPA should give more emphasis in EISs to cumulative effects.
Environmental scientists are just recognizing the importance of cumulative
effects. Hydrology is a prime example. The effects often present difficult
technical situations requiring sophisticated analysis. This may require
additional staff resources.

-------
49
15.	EPA should clarify its policy with respect to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act.
As applied to coal, Section 404 yields a triangle among EPA, the Corps of
Engineers and OSM. The technical issues include upland bogs, coal dredging
and stream relocation. The first of these is newly recognized and technically
unresolved. While OSM and the Corps are pursuing comprehensive permits, EPA
has not participated in these discussions to a significant degree, leading to
the possibility that EPA may find itself faced with a OSM-Corps proposal that
it must either wholly accept or reject.
16.	EPA should encourage remining.
Although remining does require compromising some environmental values,
a strong consensus among operators, OSM, state regulatory authorities, and
a number of environmental groups favors remining. EPA is seen by some to be
clinging to excessive environmental purity in its slow acceptance of remining.
17.	EPA should issue NPDES permits more promptly.
After late EIS letters and failure to sign MOUs, slow issuance of NPDES
permits was the third most frequent complaint by Interior officials. While no
one argues that EPA should favor speed to the point of negligence, seemingly
unwarranted delay in obtaining discharge permits harms EPA's image and delays
environmental protection.

-------
50
18.	EPA should oversee NPDES programs delegated to the states using OSM
oversight methods.
EPA oversight of state programs appears far inferior to OSM oversight.
OSM methods to copy include (1) the concept of overseeing the state program,
not the permit holder, (2) use of a random sample, and (3) parallel inspection.
Indeed EPA's NPDES program might be relatively easier due to a greater number
of permit holders and more objective data to measure.
19.	EPA should initiate a review of its legal authority for problems that
fall between two laws or are subject to two conflicting laws.
Ground water seeping in from coal mines appears to fall between the Clean
Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Coal waste may be subject to regu-
lation under SMCRA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, with very
different consequences for the coal industry and the Federal Treasury.
20.	EPA should investigate the possibility of combined funding by AML and
the Superfund.
Since both the AML trust fund and the Superfund, large though they may be,
are still inadequate to clean up toxic waste from coal mining, combining the
resources of both on a case by case basis could maximize the effectiveness of
the cleanup effort.

-------
51
21. EPA should develop technical guidance for non-point source policies.
The National Non-Point Source Task Force has developed	strategies and
policies to control this source of water pollution. To the	extent these
apply to coal, particularly abandoned mine lands, EPA needs to develop
supporting technical guidance.

-------
APPENDIX A
ANNOTATED READING LIST
EPA staff new to Federal coal activities may wish to read or browse
through some of the following books, reports, documents, etc. to familiarize
themselves with the topic. The list is designed to be covered in one or two
days.
Written information on leasing Federal coal is relatively more plentiful
than that on surface mining control. The Office of Technology Assessment
report Environmental Protection in the Federal Coal Leasing Program (May 1984)
takes a perspective closely matching that of EPA. OTA prepared it as a
companion to the Linowes Commission study. The report synthesized the wisdom
of several dozen coal and environmental experts using a series of workshops
and six case studies (due to be published this fall). While comprehensive and
topical, its poor organization necessitates careful and detailed reading. A
second note of caution is that OTA adopted the premise (perhaps because it was
the wish of the Senate Committee staff) that the key to good reclamation was to
be found in the leasing program and not in the surface mining program. Since
coal leased now will not be mined for five to ten years and will not be
reclaimed fully for many years after that, EPA may wish to consider whether
the surface mining program deserves higher priority in its own evaluations.
OTA is now beginning a related study on reclamation of Federal coal which
promises to rectify some of these problems. Workshops are scheduled for
January and February and the report is due to be completed in the Spring.
52

-------
53
Although not environmentally oriented, the Linowes Commission report on
Fair Market Value Policy for Federal Coal Leasing (February 1984) includes
clear descriptions of the leasing program. While it appears true that the
Linowes Commission adopted its recommendations prior to having its staff
write the supporting material, this does not harm its instructional value.
The Department of the Interior's response to the Linowes Commission basically
accepts all but one of the recommendations. Similarly DOI's response to the
OTA report accepts most of the recommendations. A number of reports by the
General Accounting Office and the Congressional Research Service which both
sparked and evaluated the leasing controversy contain the same material in
greater depth.
Robert Nelson, The Making of Federal Coal Policy (Durham, Duke University
Press, 1983), a comprehensive though biased account, is one of the few books
on the subject. The author's ideology may offend some readers.
If written accounts of the leasing program are sparse, the situation is
far worse for the surface mining program. Donald C. Menzel, "Redirecting the
Implementation of a Law: The Reagan Administration and Coal Surface Mining
Regulation," in the Public Administration Review (September-October 1983, pp.
411-420) gives an overview. David Howard Davis provides a shorter overview in
Energy Politics, 3rd ed., (New York, St. Martins, 1982, pp. 34-41). The book
also has a bibliography on coal. A General Accounting Office report on OSM
scheduled for release in October includes much useful information but the
focus is financing rather than the environment. Landmarc, the trade magazine
of the Mining and Reclamation Council, frequently contains relevant, short
articles, as do Coal Age and other industry publications.

-------
54
In the face of this paucity of synthesized information, the best source
is the law itself. From the environmental perspective the key is Title V,
especially Section 515 which sets forth the environmental standards. An OSM
publication useful to EPA is the partially complete "Draft Federal Procedures
for Processing Permit Application Packages." Although OSM staff frequently
alluded to their "Environmental Manual" none was found to be available.
Finally as with any agency, detailed study of the annual Budget Justifications
yields a wealth of information.
Reviewing EIS's shows both the assessment process and the issues. The
following are current examples in the various categories.
Category	Bureau
Title
Number
Leasing
Programactic BLM Surface Management of Public 082280
lands 43CFR3809
Regional
BLM Powder River
811033
Surface Mining
Programatic
OSM Revision of Regulations 1983 830030
Mining Planning OSM North Rochelle Mine
830219
OSM Rojo Caballos Mine
810074
OSM Rosebud Mine Area C
820517

-------
APPENDIX B
REGIONAL COAL FORUM
BACKGROUND
Management analysis of EPA's relationship to the Department of the
Interior coal activity showed opportunities for improvement in communication,
coordination and cooperation. Developing informal, routine channels emerged
as a particular need. One aid would be holding two regional coal forums—one
in the West and one in the East. This was specifically suggested by a senior
OSM official. OSM frequently conducts such "retreats" for training and coor-
dination. This appendix proposes conducting the Western Coal Forum first
due to a Federal role in the west seen in BLM leasing, OSM permiting and EPA
reviews of EISs. This proposed Western Coal Forum would serve as a model for
an Eastern Coal Forum, which would have certain variations such as a diminished
role for BLM and an enhanced role for the Forest Service. This appendix
anticipates about 30 Federal government participants and five non-Federal
participants (who would attend briefly). Depending on interest, participants
could be as few as 10. Due to EPA's limited staff knowledgeable about coal,
40 is the maximum recommended.
PURPOSE
To improve communication, coordination, and cooperation between EPA and
Interior bureaus responsible for coal activity, in particular OSM and BLM.
55 ¦

-------
56
PARTICIPANTS
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Activities	2
Region VIII	6
Region VI	1-2
Regions VII, IX, X	0-3
9-13
Bureau of Land Management
Headquarters	3
State and Regional offices
Colorado	1-3
Montana	1-2
New Mexico	1-2
Utah	1-2
Wyoming	1-2
8-iZ
Office of Surface Mining
Headquarters	3
Western Technical Center	5
Field Offices
Casper	1
Albuquerque		1_
10
National Park Service	1-2
Bureau of Indian Affairs	1-2
DOI Environmental Office	1-2
Outside
Industry	1-2
Environmental groups	1-2
State governments	2-4

-------
57
SCHEDULE
First Day
4:00-5:30
6:00-7:30
7:30-8:30
Welcome and Orientation
Dinner
Slide presentation
Second Day
8:30-10:00
10:00-11:30
12:00-1:00
1:00-3:30
3:30-5:30
6:00-7:30
7:30-8:30
Third Day
8:30-11:30
12:00-1:30
1:30
Presentations by EPA, OSM,
and BLM
Discussion among EPA, OSM,
BLM
Lunch
Presentations by industry,
environmental group, state
government.
Discussion with outside
presenters
Dinner
EPA-BLM-OSM needs assessment
Develop action plan for
briefings, coordination and
cooperation
Lunch
Departure
SITES
Western Research Institute, Laramie
YMCA of the Rockies, Estes Park
Vee Bar Ranch, Laramie

-------
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
BOX 3197, UNIVERSITY STATION
THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
LARAMIE, WYOMING 82071



HC/f*6
ofA

-------
NAME: David Howard Davis
ADDRESS:
73LA Delaware Avenue^^S.W
Washington, DX^^20024
(202) 48'J^f^Tjhome)
(202)55^098ZlWfii<^)
(71?-)334-3131 Ext. 46tJ>sr 396 (office) "S.O7-/<=><=> > ,od
s	~	jci "
, (w^.Tviu^ k* - %¦*
International Energy Associates Limited, Washington, D.C.
-	Senior Associate Consultant
U.S..Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
-	Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy and Minerals (Acting)
-	Special Assistant
Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
-	Analyst
General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.
-	Auditor
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
-	Associate Professor
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
-	Assistant Professor
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
^'Analyst	~ "		_____
U.S. Army
-	Artillery Officer, 2nd Lt. to Captain
EDUCATION:
Johns Hopkins University, 1967-1971 - M.A., Ph.D.
Cornell University, 1959-1963 - A.B.
International School of Geneva, Switzerland, 1958-1959
ICPR Program in Statistics at the University of Michigan, 1971
BOOKS:
Energy Politics. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1st ed. 1974, 2nd ed. 1978,
3rd ed. 1982
How the Bureaucracy Makes Foreign Policy. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath,
1972

-------
David Howard Davis
Page 2
MEMBERSHIPS AND HONORS:
Appointed to Board of Editors, Public Administration Review 1982
Elected to NCAC Council, American Society for Public Administration (ASPA)
1979; organized GAO Sub-chapter, ASPA, 1978
Elected to vestry of St. Augustine's Episcopal Church 1980; elected Junior
Warden 1981-1982
NASPAA Public Administration Fellow, 1973-1974 (National competition)
Wbodrow Wilson Dissertation Fellow, 1970-1971 (National competition)
American Men and Women of Science (13th Ed.)
Who's Who in the East (18th Ed.)
DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIENCE:
1/81 to - International Energy Associates Limited, Washington, D.C.
present - Senior Associate Consultant
Led project surveying coal and synthetic fuel development in six
countries for report to Japanese client. Visited business and
government leaders in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom to
obtain information. Contributed to reports on uranium enrich-
ment. Served on expert panel for electrical industry forecast
for Technology Futures, Inc. Advised on coal mining investiga-
tion by GAO. Taught at Gettysburg College as adjunct professor.
3/80 to - U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
1/81	- Deputy Assistant Secretary for Ehergy and Minerals (Acting)
- Special Assistant
Supervised and monitored daily operations of the Office of Surface
Mining, a bureau of 800-1000 personnel with a budget of $200
million; major focus was approval of state mining programs?
worked with Geological Survey and Bureau of Mines; recommended
policy options and budget requests to the Assistant Secretary;
represented DOI at the White House Regulatory Council.
1/79 to - Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
3/80	- Analyst, Congressional Research Service
Advised and aided members of Congress and their senior staffs;
led a project on oil importation options; wrote reports and papers;
lectured and held seminars which focused on government institutions.
6/78 to - General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.
1/79	- Auditor, Energy and Minerals Division
Coordinated a report on energy issues; helped prepare the divi-
sion program plan for 1979; wrote speeches for the director.

-------
David Howard Davis
Page 3
1977	to - Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
1978	- Associate Professor
Taught courses on energy policy, executive-level decision-making,
Congress, and public policy. Faculty seminars on nuclear energy,
law and economics, and international relations.
1971 to - Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
1977	- Assistant Professor
Taught courses on energy, public administration, the environ-
ment, organizational theory, the presidency, foreign policy,
and race relations. Administered IR Graduate Program 1975-1977.
1973	to - Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
1974	- Analyst
Administered research contracts, wrote reports, and coordinated
legislative proposals that focused on financing water pollution
control, nuclear radiation, Puerto Rico, and intergovernmental
relations.
1964 to - U.S. Army
1967	- Artillery Officer, 2nd Lt. to Captain
Served in Vietnam in 5th Artillery, 1st Infantry Division, as
forward observer and battery executive officer. Also organized
and commanded 175mm gun battery at Fort Carson, Colorado, and
served in Korea.
MISCELLANEOUS:
Colorado School of Mines, Energy Field Institute, 1979
Centre pour la Recherche sur l'Afrique Mediteraneene, Aix-en-Provence, France,
1968
Operation Crossroads Africa project in Somali Republic, East Africa, 1963

-------
IEAL-207
INTERNATIONAL
f ENERGY
^ ASSOCIATES
LIMITED
POLICY AND PROGRAMS
OF NEW ENERGY SOURCES
DEVELOPMENT OVERSEAS
Final Report
Submitted to
Nomura Research Institute
Kamakura, Japan
Submitted by
International Energy Associates Limited
Washington, DC 20037
August 7, 19S1
600 NEW HAMPSHIRE £VENUE, N W
WASHINGTON D C 20037
202 - 342 - 6700
Telex 89-2680 Cable IEAL WASHDC

-------

L/ (1 ir- tflj
J ^ ^
R 3?	s<
it B	^
0	-c
x
-r <£ N
• V U	c£.
' ^ T
1	CD	^
>j tij	»i
^ fig	*a
fcsl	7S
-,q	' —
s? #	^
7
r3-



<
*G
S

S?T
1
r^i
o
t"c
-¦«
J
Cfl
C7^
f35
'¦pi
s

&
iS

•b
Zi
r~c
-ft
P-5
;
T

CD

\


£fJ

J
JU





ab
!B
tit
)
1
i j_
!s_

1
-<6
-3
2)
59



D
;~

¦*
.'i
\



>

v.
5
zn

35

)




j
;i/



J
I
n
•+¦
a

ff
t \
(C
)«e
1
Id.
o
> ^

A
\
o
s
CD
|
9f
—
u
5J
(J
«
fe

ffS
A


s


a
j)
P2
S§


%

S

u
?ij
111
CO
(O
•>

7X
R
cz
tD
fC
I?
CS

Tji
Rfl
431
VI
2
T
y/
Srr
zs
T^Z
CD
o
{m
;.^
-
n
(j.

m


s


a

S
• if5


/ u


1


o

i&
52
CD
7^1

t5

o
O
tix
13

as
X
CD





f5


3

• y
C.
§
o

o

CD
ia

a
^

ilj

?ij
—
T2J
fcS

55


3^t
»b
ra

o

h

-"^
¦i
n
el
s
;i/
F9
^3

c
IA
bfi
V-
! l_

>
CD
—
WT
H'
	
199

43
n
«
;i^

fe5
'jS.

0
r4
¦y
SS

CO

<2)

V
S
•
HJ
S

(D
K

a
pg
5^
a
d
<£

its
1=
n
hrl


3^
X

>b
;E3
ff
tr >
£3
CD
0

ra
ii

i—

0
~b


n
C9
im
0
n
it
5!

+
1/

~
3a
wd
T*
g'


(C
a
d


^3
fi£
O
W
m


lit
r?
??
c=
•N
Wt
CD
>+
CD
EB
c
3E
S
-3



%
'•^

*3t
5¥

0
St
53
?§

13

S3
»5
tc
a>

m
O

-C3
~
s
i
s
i*
<
.a

©
%>
m
¦m

<&*
£S
na
CD
f~S
S
A
¦(t


U
T"

C±3
*x
©

a
a
m


-t^
sa
'C

.¦a
•0

yi
ia


-z:

J*
tr
>
0
0
•TC

l»
N

rz.
.^f

O

Ct3

>¦
a:

56
>sj
«



X
sS
BS
3
;i/
«5
;i/
a
W
g


3t)
-^r

-e>

Jw?
1

1

&
t- ^


#T
O



a

U
cp
4%
g
'ek
i-j-



y
c
a
:r
O




75
c
A
©
s
is
rt9

SZ
S
~T»



(D
O
7b
N
>
i5
€Si
u


SS
7^

•a

ra

rW

I ^

ft
s
vi

u


c!I'
l-
-?


O
fe
u

>
"\
«
?0
3
O

5
~V
cj
>

"7"
rt
:~
-c

©

c:


<
V
y ^
-¦*



r~fc

CD
'V


1 ^
u
h

5§
^5
CK

"s
0
/V
s

•0
0

S5

s
T
;-
N

fi

75

(D
0
	
r^

^fc»
O
O
V
n
¦'*?
A
• f
"O

•£
A
V.
h
_h
0



a?

rg
L±
		
-7


-7

;=5
s




a 5?
O

Q
f95
-J

:f5
;a
3?
¦5
•0^

•N
_Cv
JS
0

te

>
>
M

-il

>c

JT
i"
;u
v-
>
K
¦¦ t mi
•7
V
©
w
L/ ^
•b U
t



B9

555


V.

-5
iS
<

at



U
N
-r
,-a
>
H/

r>
ac
Ix
?a
yff

tan

a

O
;a
£

CD
_b
0

w
?§


CD
0
X
ffi
9!
7.
r-S
C2

s
c
,-c-
•*
"


•S

E
'Sr
(C
^s.
2.
tc
s
-?
D


s
ft
>

v*
w
rt:
im




Si

5a
cK
Hi
j

»
%
era

0
S
a
g
t..73
U
^5>

*. • *

re

ii.


i


u
U
0


CD
/5:

\


s«,

3a
5
3
•n
i *

.0


;'3
fir


a
>3 ^ ^
i ;l- ns
L- ~ '
1
<2 © T
X2 *6 "
" ^ »?
'.ft
>a
C ;rt
^ « CD
n ~r i«
~}
3
S i
3%
s
i±
-3"
o 3 <	A
© :c	-
- B "?	i,
? is n	iii
h> in
H

- '-)¦	n
J
i i
. **
jn^ffi^rS BE^S5J]O70*r
Sffi^f-ioo
3ES 03 (211) 1551 ft2£.
isSng • KS8-632
eESS ijii5iE41i63«3'"ja
«5S 06 (04) 4301
5^Q®-*SI 26 I O
IL's&ULQDMXMH h]
*	S(?r-s:)^e5(^^s).
#	etsOij^Bfc: s>
E9 H(fie)WiUfa 151"
©B":£S5tt3£lS8) -
m
,&
It
~ £> #3
~7 ~7
^ C .j
i/ ©
=5l
'3 3s
oO i *
i!3 fti
-¦«	~
S6	~r
CD
;#	S
n	_2
Ez	a
Hi	££
>'c

00
©
HI ;t>	*	->
'•is c	*r	T
it m	su	"> :;
£> H	zfe a
S O	M	® ,:3
S 3	2	a ©
.•*	—- -
-
tv
!5F
Mi
¦4d
*>
-r
o *"3 ^ o
~ s ^ -
— V 9t

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION	i
II. COUNTRY ANALYSES
The United States	1
Canada	28
Australia	44
The Federal Republic of Germany	66
The United Kingdom	80
France	91
III. TECHNOLOGY/PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Overview and Leadership in Coal Gasification	102
Overview and Leadership in Coal Liquefaction	128
Overview and Leadership in Shale Oil	146
Overview and Leadership in Tar Sands and	Heavy Oil 162
Overview and Leadership in Fluidized Bed Combustion 180
Overview and Leadership in Solar Power	190
Overview and Leadership in Geothermal Development	200
IV. U.S. WESTERN ENERGY STATES	2 24
State of Montana	223
State of Wyoming	236
State of Alaska	240
State of Colorado	243
State of Utah	246
State of North Dakota	249
State of New Mexico	252
State of California	255
State of Arizona	258

-------
INTRODUCTION
The development and utilization of new energy sources -- coal
(burned directly, gasified, or liquefied), shale oil, tar sands,
heavy oils, solar power, and geotherraal power -- has\ the highest
priority in Japanese energy policy. This policy must fit into
the corresponding energy policies of Japan's suppliers and other
industrial countries. Hence, this report reviews policy with
respect to new energy sources in six countries — the United
States, Canada, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, and
France. The energy situation for each of the six has many les-
sons for Japanese policy making.
ORGANIZATION
The report has three major divisions -- by country, by energy
source, and a review of nine American western states that will
produce coal and synthetic fuels.
Discussion of each country begins with an essay outlining the
policy-making structure and trends, including the degree to
which each country uses formal policy statements. For example,
French planning is highly structured whereas the British eschew
official "policy." The essay next examines research and develop-
ment (R&D) policy. For the three countries that will be major
coal suppliers to Japan — the United States, Canada, and Australia
— the coal export situation is reviewed. Finally, in a more
speculative vein, IEAL comments on topics of particular concern
in each country.
Basic statistics for the country come second. Because of
different reporting dates and systems in each country, recon-
ciling conflicting data proved difficult, sometimes impossible.
Australian statistics run from July 1 to June 30. The United
States reports natural gas liquids separately, whereas some
other countries include them with oil, and still others include
i

-------
them with gas. The International Energy Agency computes the
value of hydropower as if oil were burned to produce the elec-
tricity, a logical but unique methodology. Rather than presume
the statistics can be reconciled, IEAL reports alternative
numbers.
Organization charts for" the major governmental bodies involved
in energy policy form the third section of the country portion.
These include the ministries responsible for energy, for research
and development, and environment and quasi-governmental corpora-
tions such as the U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corporation and the
British National Coal Board. Finally, maps illustrate the loca-
tions of major projects, resources, or regions.
Discussion of the synthetic fuels and advanced combustion tech-
niques is the second part of the report. Each essay begins with
an overview of the technology of leadership. For example, the
United Kingdom leads in fluidized bed combustion, and Germany
leads in coal gasification. For nearly every technology, the
United States plays a major role. The essay leads into fact
sheets describing a number of the leading projects. For some
technologies, such as liquefaction, the list is fairly inclusive.
For others, such as solar power, it is merely representative
since solar projects are far too numerous for a single list.
An essay on coal for direct burning is omitted since the tech-
nology and reserves are so widely understood.
The third part of the report discusses energy policy in nine
states of the American West. The states are chosen for their
energy potential as much as their present production. Alaska,
for instance, has only one coal mine and one synfuel project at
present. In the future, it will probably have many mines and
many synfuel plants. On the other hand, Wyoming already is a
large coal producer; in the future, it will be even larger.
Utah and Colorado have high Btu coal more suitable for export
to Japan than Wyoming and Montana. The fact sheets for the

-------
nine states which follow include data on resources, population,
surface mining regulations, Indian tribes, railroads, and other
information that will influence energy development. Organiza-
tional charts show the state government structure. The maps
locate important energy centers.
IMPORTANCE
The report will be useful from three different perspectives.
First is its review of energy policy, particularly for synthetic
fuels and advanced combustion technique R&D in the six countries
that, in general, lead the world. Obviously, for specific fuels
other countries deserve attention — South Africa for gasifica-
tion, Italy for geothe:rmal, and Venezuala for heavy oils.
Second is a discussion of coal supplies from the three countries
from which Japan will buy coal in the next 20 years — the United
States, Canada, and Australia. The report introduces the basic
issues of resources, transportation, labor, and perhaps most
important, politics for these countries. For the nine western
states of the United States, the detail is considerably greater.
Third, in its evaluation of France, Germany and the United
Kingdom, the report provides three models from which Japan may
learn. In terms of industrialization, size, natural resource
endowment, and democratic government, the three share many simi-
larities with Japan. The contrasts among them are interesting,
particularly between France and Germany. France has opted for
coal; Germany has opted for synthetic liquid fuels. France has
chosen to refine conventional technologies; Germany has chosen
to develop new technologies. French R&D is modest; German R&D
is extensive; and Britain has chosen a middle course of dab-
bling in R&D. Both France and Germany believe in elaborate
formal planning, yet this planning has led the two countries to
adopt contrasting energy policies. The United Kingdom, on the

-------
other hand, does not bel
report offers lessons in
as interesting as the te
ieve in formal planning.
policy-making procedures
chnical lessons.
Thus, this
that may be
iv

-------