By Mia Frederick

September 19, 2007 - The prospect of increased mountain top removal coal mining was the subject of a recent survey conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation for the non-partisan think tank, the Civil Society Institute. The survey found that 88% of Americans, Republicans as well as Democrats, are opposed to expanded mountain top removal coal mining, until existing mines and mining operations are safer, and the environment and the communities they impact are better protected. Mountain top removal mining involves the blasting away of the dirt, rocks, and trees that cover the coal seam after that material (called the overburden), is then pushed into the valleys and streams below. The Civil Society Institute held a telephone press conference last week to announce the surveys findings, and Graham Hueber of the Opinion Research Corporation was on hand to discuss the survey and its findings.

The survey comes on the heels of a proposed rule change by the Bush administration’s Office of Surface Mining (OSM) that would significantly change the language in a rule regarding the ‘stream buffer zone’, which was designed to keep all mining activity at least 100 feet from streams and waterways. The survey also found that the already low level of support for mountain top removal mining drops even lower when those who support it are told that the proposed rule change could result in further environmental destruction.

According to the Office of Surface Mining’s own figures the 100 foot rule has already failed to keep at least 1,200 miles of waterways from being covered by debris from mining activity, and the new rule would effectively eliminate any regulatory barrier to the practice of burying streams, especially on mountain top removal mine sites. There is a sixty day period, ending October 23rd, during which people can send comments about the new language, to the OSM, and Maria Gunnoe an outreach organizer with the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition says that is one way for the 88% of Americans opposed to the rule change to voice their objection.

Some of the concerns about the rule change are due to the fact that under the changed language, mine operators will no longer have to prove that they are not negatively impacting streams, fish, and wildlife, but will only have to “prevent, to the extent possible, using the best technology available, damage to the environment.” OVEC’s Maria Gunnoe says that is unlikely to protect streams and water ways. According to environmental law expert, Ruth Greenspan Bell , although the OSM is required to seriously consider all comments made, any challenge to the rule change will likely be in the judicial arena. Since the announcement of the rule change in late August, there have been many editorials published opposing any further deregulation of an industry that has seen 71 deaths over the last 20 months, most recently the six miners who were killed in the now infamous Crandall Canyon mine disaster in Utah. Coalfield residents like Maria Gunnoe, who would be most affected by the rule change, hope that increased awareness about the change among the general public, will lead them to oppose the proposed rule change by contacting their representatives in Washington, and the Interior Departments Office of Surface Mining before the comment period ends on October 23rd.

Send a comment about the rule change to the OSM by visiting their websiteOffice of Surface Mining

Read the Cilvil Society Institute survey and find out more about the rule change and its impacts on the environment700 Mountains

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition

 

 Standard Podcast [5:40m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Trackback URI | Comments RSS