*. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	12-P-0083
| JfM^ \ Office of Inspector General	November 21, 2011

At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
This review responds to a
request from the Ranking
Member of the Senate
Committee on Environment
and Public Works. The senator
asked us to determine: (1) the
status of a list of 237
mountaintop mining permit
applications and the length of
review time for each permit;
(2)	reasons for the length of
review for each permit; and
(3)	the number of permits that
the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has
processed according to
"enhanced review" and
"conductivity" procedures, and
the average length of time to
process a permit under these
procedures.
Background
The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers issues permits for
surface coal mining under
Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. EPA assesses the
environmental and water
quality impacts of proposed
Section 404 permits.
For further information, contact
our Office of Congressional and
Public Affairs at (202) 566-2391.
The full report is at:
www.epa.aov/oia/reports/2012/
20111121-12-P-0083.pdf
Congressionally Requested Information on the
Status and Length of Review for Appalachian
Surface Mining Permit Applications
What We Found
After reconciling discrepancies and vetting information, we identified
185 surface mining permit applications to review from the list of 237 that we
received from the senator. In response to the senator's first request, we found that
over half of all permit activities—whether permitted, withdrawn, or pending—
have taken a year or longer, with approximately 40 percent exceeding 2 years.
Of our vetted universe of 185 projects, the Corps reviewed and issued 25 permits
within 144 days from the notification/application date. (According to EPA, this is
historically the average length of review for all individual permits, not simply
those for surface coal mining.) Of the 25, the Corps reviewed and issued
20 permits within 90 days and another 3 by 120 days (the Corps" goal). More
than one-third of issued permits took a year or longer to process.
In response to the senator's second request, we found that several reasons
account for the length of time associated with processing permit applications:
•	Complex reviews based on new scientific evidence
•	Applicant factors
•	Involvement of EPA headquarters
•	Corps procedural change
In response to the senator's third request, we found that EPA identified 79 permit
applications for enhanced review and, to date, has issued 8 permits. (The United
States District Court for the District of Columbia recently held that the EPA
operated beyond the scope of its authority under the Clean Water Act when it
instituted the enhanced coordination process, and the court ordered it to be set
aside.) In April 2010, EPA issued interim guidance that included conductivity
benchmarks for Appalachian projects. Conductivity is a measure of a stream's
ability to conduct an electrical current, and an EPA study observed an association
between high conductivities in streams below surface coal mining operations and
impairment of aquatic life. We found that, to date, EPA has commented on
24 projects in light of its April 1, 2010, interim guidance. EPA issued its final
guidance on July 21, 2011, which replaced the interim guidance. EPA said that
regions should begin consulting the final guidance immediately.
This report makes no recommendations to EPA. We plan to report separately to
EPA on one observation pertaining to recordkeeping.

-------