2009 Pennsylvania Annual Evaluation Report

Pittsburgh Field Division – Harrisburg Office

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement
U.S. Department of the Interior

 OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Annual Evaluation Report

for the

Regulatory and Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Programs

Administered by the Commonwealth
of
Pennsylvania
for

Evaluation Year 2009
(July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009)

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.

Introduction…………………………………………………………...……..1

II

Summary…………………………………………………………………………..1

III.

Overview of the Pennsylvania Coal Mining Industry………………………….2

IV.

Overview of Public Participation in the Program………………………………3
A. Public Involvement in PADEP’s Regulatory Process………………...…......3
B. Outreach by OSM……………………………………………...…………...….8

V.

VI.

Major Accomplishments/Issues/Innovations……………………….…….……..8
A.

ABS Forfeiture Permits with Post Mining Discharges……………………...8

B.

Coal Combustion By-Products on Mine Permits…..………………...….…...9

C.

Amendments to the Pennsylvania Approved Regulatory Program .…...…...11

D.

Mine Drainage Treatment Technologies……..……………….………….....13

E.

Growing Greener ……………………………………………………..…….13

F.

Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative (ARRI)…………….………14

G.

Other Initiatives and Accomplishments …………………….………….......15

H.

Title IV of SMCRA AML Reclamation..……………………………...…....18

Success in Achieving the Purposes of SMCRA…………………………......26
A. Off-Site Impacts…………………………………………………..…...….26
B. Reclamation Success…………………………………………..………….........30

C. Customer Service…………………………………………………..……...31
D. Refuse Disposal Mine Permit Study……………………………………...…31
VII

OSM Assistance……………………….……………………………………...33

i

 A. AML/AMD Treatment Systems GIS and Information Data Base …….……..…33
B. AMD Inventory Maintenance (Primacy Permits) …………………………...….34
C. Watershed Cooperative Agreement Program…………………………….……...35

VIII

General Oversight Topic Reviews……………………………….….…….….36
A.

Oversight Inspections…………………………………………………..........36

B.

Abandoned Mine Lands Project Reviews……………………………….…..41

C.

Conventional Bonds and Treatment Trust Funds………………………........42

D.

Internal Control Study………………………………………………………..43

E.

Status of LC&N Permit………………………………………………………44

On the cover is the Whitney GFCC project, which is discussed in detail in the report.

ii

 APPENDIX A:

Acronyms used in the Report ……………………………....47

APPENDIX B:

Tabular Summaries of Data Pertaining to Mining, Reclamation
and Program Administration……………………………. ….48

Table 1 -

Coal Production

Table 2 -

Inspectable Units

Table 3 -

State Permitting Activity

Table 4 -

Off-Site Impacts

Table 5 -

Annual State Mining and Reclamation Results

Table 6 -

State Bond Forfeiture Activity

Table 7 -

Pennsylvania Staffing

Table 8 -

Funds Granted to Pennsylvania by OSM

Table 9 -

State of Pennsylvania Inspection Activity

Table 10 -

State of Pennsylvania Enforcement Activity

Table 11 -

Lands Unsuitable Activity

iii

 I.

Introduction

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) created the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) in the Department of the Interior.
SMCRA provides authority to OSM to oversee the implementation of and provide Federal
funding for State regulatory programs that have been approved by OSM as meeting the minimum
standards specified by SMCRA. This report contains summary information regarding the
Pennsylvania Program and the effectiveness of the Pennsylvania Program in meeting the
applicable purposes of SMCRA as specified in Section 102. This report covers the 2009
evaluation year, from July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009. Detailed background information and
comprehensive reports for the program elements evaluated during the period are available for
review and copying at OSM’s Harrisburg Office of the Pittsburgh Field Division (PFD).
The OSM Harrisburg Office develops an annual work plan in conjunction with the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), to review and assess Pennsylvania’s
administration of its approved Abandoned Mine Reclamation, and Coal Mining Regulatory
programs. The work plan also focuses on technical and program assistance activities jointly
undertaken by OSM and PADEP staff to improve the effectiveness of Abandoned Mine Lands
(AML) and Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) reclamation, and coal mining regulatory programs. A
copy of the 2009 work plan is available from the OSM Harrisburg Office.
A list of acronyms used in this report is located in Appendix A.

II.

Summary

This Evaluation Year 2009 (July 2008 through June 2009) the Pennsylvania coal regulatory and
abandoned mine land programs continued to provide for increased environmental improvement
for coal field citizens. The OSM oversight data of the Pennsylvania coal program indicate
PADEP is administering a program where active mining sites are, with few exceptions, in
compliance with planning, mining, and reclamation standards. Reclamation of active mining sites
is thorough and proceeds in a contemporaneous fashion. PADEP abandoned mine land program
restoration is effective in abating safety and environmental problems on previously mined sites.
These Pennsylvania programs continue to effectively achieve or exceed the regulatory and
reclamation goals of SMCRA.
During this review period, OSM conducted 319 permit inspections including 113 oversight
complete inspections, and 68 state enforcement follow ups. OSM conducted 24 abandoned mine
reclamation project inspections. Data show PADEP is administering a regulatory program where
active mining sites are, with very few exceptions, in compliance with the approved program
requirements. Very few off-site impacts were identified and when identified were reported as
having mostly minor adverse impacts. Bond releases data show active mine sites are being fully
restored to pre-mining conditions in timely manner. Project file field verification data show
abandoned mine reclamation projects result in successful hazard elimination and environmental
stabilization and enhancement.

1

 III. Overview of the Pennsylvania Coal Mining Industry
The coal geology of Pennsylvania is dominated by the Appalachian Mountains running northeast
to southwest and dividing the State into two distinct coal regions. Mountains and gently rolling
hills characterize the western bituminous region of the State, where the majority of mines are
located. Areas within this region containing acidic overburden often require special reclamation
efforts. The bituminous coal seams underlay about 12,000 square miles in 28 counties of the
State. The coal is found in four fields; the Main Bituminous Field in the southwest counties; the
Georges Creek Field in the southern counties; the Broad Top Field in the south-middle counties;
and the North-Central Field in the north-central counties of the State.
The anthracite coal region is located in the northeast quarter of Pennsylvania and covers
approximately 3,300 square miles. The coal is found in four fields; the Northern Field; the
Eastern-Middle Field; the Western-Middle Field; and the Southern Field. The Southern Field has
the greatest amount of reserves that can be mined. The coal lies almost entirely in synclinal
basins oriented in a general direction of N 70 degrees E. The more than 20 different coal seams
vary in thickness from a few inches to 50 or 60 feet. The anthracite region is characterized by
steeply pitching seams, some with dips in excess of 60 degrees. Such seams require highly
specialized mining techniques, and present unique challenges for solving problems such as mine
subsidence associated with abandoned anthracite mines.
For more than a century, coal has played a major role in the economic and industrial development
of Pennsylvania, particularly the steel making industry, and has historically employed thousands
of workers. Although Pennsylvania has experienced a decline in coal production over the past
decade, it continues to be a leading coal producing State, due to its estimated bituminous reserves
that total 23 billion tons, or 5.3 percent of U.S. reserves, and anthracite reserves that total 7.1
billion tons, or 97 percent of U.S. anthracite reserves.

.
Anthracite Coal Mine Site

2

 In calendar year 2008, Pennsylvania produced approximately 68.3 million tons 1 of bituminous
and anthracite coal on surface and underground mines, which is virtually the same amount as
reported in 2007. Of the total coal production, bituminous mining accounted for 65.8 million
tons, and the remaining 2.5 million tons were mined in the anthracite region. In addition, coal
refuse mine sites were responsible for producing 7.8 million tons of material, of which 2.4
million tons were reported in the bituminous region and 5.4 million tons were reported in the
anthracite region. This is a decrease from the 8.4 million tons of coal refuse material mined in
2007.
Underground mining accounted for almost 81% of the total coal mined from surface and
underground mines in the bituminous region and 78% of coal mined statewide. The eight
underground mines in Greene County accounted for 77% of all coal mined from underground
operations. Conversely, in 2008, bituminous and anthracite surface mining companies produced
14.8 million tons of coal, which was 22% of the total surface and underground coal mined in
Pennsylvania. The largest surface coal producing county, with 3.03 million tons, occurred in
Somerset County with Clearfield County in second place, reporting 2.7 million tons.
In 2008, 161 bituminous mine operators reported production at 409 mine sites. That number
includes 39 underground mines, 347 surface mines, and 23 coal refuse sites and is down from the
415 active mining operations reported in 2007. This figure includes 360 surface mines. Eighty
anthracite mine operators reported production at 126 mine sites. That number included 58
surface mines, 56 coal refuse sites, and 12 underground mines.
Anthracite mining production increased slightly in 2008, with 2.5 million tons of coal produced
on 70 mine sites. Of these sites, 0.24 million tons were produced at 12 underground mine sites,
while 91% of the coal production occurred on 58 surface mines, reporting 2.3 million tons. In
2008, 7,696 people were employed in the coal mining industry in Pennsylvania.

IV. Overview of the Public Participation Opportunities in the
Oversight Process and the State Program
During this evaluation period, PADEP and OSM continued several ongoing initiatives that
provided opportunity for public involvement.
A.

Public Involvement in PADEP’s Regulatory Process

Citizens Advisory Council
PADEP solicits and/or receives public input on proposed changes to the Pennsylvania mining
program from the Citizens Advisory Council (CAC). The Council consists of eighteen appointed
citizen volunteers who serve staggered three year terms. The Governor, the Speaker of the House
of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of The Senate appoints these members. No
more than half of the appointees are from the same political party. Since its creation in 1971, the

1 This figure represents a PADEP compilation based on reporting efforts by PADEP and Mine Safety Health
Administration
3

 CAC has been actively involved in Commonwealth environmental issues. The Council is the
only legislatively mandated advisory committee with the comprehensive charge to review all
environmental legislation, regulations and policies affecting PADEP.
During this evaluation year, the CAC conducted 8 meetings and provided comments to PADEP
on a number of mining related issues.
Mining and Reclamation Advisory Board
The Mining and Reclamation Advisory Board (MRAB) was created in 1984 by Act 181, which
amended the Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), of the Pennsylvania
General Assembly. MRAB’s purpose is to assist and advise the Secretary of the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection on all matters pertaining to mining and reclamation. The
advisory role of the board also covers Title IV of the Federal SMCRA, relating to abandoned mine
land reclamation issues. The MRAB is comprised of the Citizen Advisory Council, the coal
industry, county conservation districts, and the Pennsylvania General Assembly. The full board
meets four times per year and the subcommittees meet regularly to address a number of coal program
areas each year. The meeting minutes, handouts, and MRAB’s annual report are available on the
PADEP website.
During the year, the MRAB was provided information regarding a variety of mining and
abandoned mine land reclamation topics including the following:
●

Changes in the Department’s beneficial use of coal ash technical guidelines. Two draft
guidelines were issued for comments.

●

2009 proposed Bond Rate Guidelines.

●

Status of BAMR’s AML reclamation projects.

●

The proposed elimination of the Federal emergency response program.

●

The Anthracite Region Mine Pool Mapping Project under the administration of the
Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation (EPCAMR).

●

The status of Primacy Bond Forfeiture Reclamation Program in the Moshannon District.

●

The status of the ABS Legacy Fund, and AMD Treatment Trust Funds.

●

The Department’s position on OSM’s proposed Remining Incentives rulemaking.

●

Proposed revisions to the Pennsylvania Statewide Comprehensive AML Reclamation
Plan, as a result of the AML Reauthorization, and other changes in the program.

Environmental Hearing Board
The Environmental Hearing Board (EHB) is an independent quasi-judicial agency that includes a
Chairman and four members. Members are administrative law judges with a minimum of five
years of relevant legal experience. The EHB has the sole power to hear and decide appeals of
4

 PADEP’s actions. Litigants have the right to appeal EHB decisions to the Commonwealth Court.
During this evaluation period, the EHB issued several decisions pertaining to the approved state
program. The most significant decisions are summarized below.
On November 10, 2008, the EHB issued a decision in regards to EHB Docket No. 2006-234-R.
In this appeal of a Departmental order, brought by Cumberland Coal Resources, L.P., the EHB
ruled that Cumberland Coal had successfully rebutted the presumption of liability for pollution,
found in title 25 § 87.119(b)(1). In summary, Cumberland Coal Resources constructed a
temporary access road and exploratory core hole in advance of its underground mining operation.
The road was soon reclaimed and reseeded, and the bore hole was cased to 20 feet and later filled
with cement. A domestic water supply, consisting of a spring was located within 1,000 feet of the
mining activity. Therefore, Cumberland Coal Resources was presumed liable for the water
supply in accordance with the regulations cited above. After the hole was drilled, the property
owner complained of a diminution in the quantity of the spring water. Cumberland Coal
Resources promptly installed a temporary water supply in August of 2005, which was maintained
until the EHB decision. PADEP conducted an investigation and found the mining activity was
not responsible for the loss of water in the spring. The complainant requested an informal review,
and that review reversed the original decision and found that the mining activities had resulted in
a decrease in flow. Cumberland Coal Resources appealed the Department’s decision to the EHB,
which conducted a five day trial in May 2008. EHB’s decision found that Cumberland Coal
Resources had demonstrated, through a preponderance of evidence, that the pollution or
diminution of the spring water was not as a result of the mining activity, and was more likely due
to low rainfall, and a fouled collection box.
On March 20, 2009, the EHB issued a decision in regards to EHB Docket No. 2007-140-L. In
this appeal of a Departmental decision, Mystic Brooke Development, L.P. contended that
Helvetia Coal Company, which holds the permit to a refuse disposal area, is allowing sulfate
contamination of a water supply from discharges originating from the refuse disposal permit.
Water supply contamination issues are subject to Title 25 § 87.119. However, the 1,000 foot
rebuttable presumption of liability does not apply in this case because the permit was issued prior
to February 16, 1993, the effective date of this provision. PADEP investigated the complaint and
found that, while the sulfate contamination was originating from Helvetia’s refuse disposal
permit and even increasing in loading, the contamination did not affect the purpose served by the
water supply. Mystic Brooke contended the water supply was developed as, and intended to be
used as a potable water supply for the facility. PADEP’s investigation found no evidence that the
water supply had ever been used as anything but industrial water. The EHB ruling found that the
water supply (D-4) still served its intended purposes, even with the increased sulfate
contamination, and that the Department had acted reasonably and lawfully in determining that
Helvetia is not required to replace water supply D-4 or provide a potable water supply.
On May 21, 2009, the EHB issued a decision regarding EHB Docket No. 2007-041-R. In this
appeal of a Departmental Decision, PDG Land Development, Inc. appealed the Department’s
decision to deny a surface mining permit for a 613 acre tract of partially mined area in the City of
Pittsburgh. At issue was the proposal to construct four valley fills, to create a post mining land
use suitable for residential and commercial development. These valley fills would destroy 8,000
feet of perennial and intermittent streams. The Department found the destruction of 8,000 feet of
5

 streams would be in violation of Title 25 § 86.102 (12). This is a prohibition against mining
within 100 feet of a perennial or intermittent stream without a variance in which the applicant
demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that there will be no adverse hydrologic impacts, water
quality impacts or other environmental resources impacts as a result of the variance. The
Department found the mining plan could not be achieved without adverse impacts to the streams.
PDG Land Development, in its appeal, agreed that the streams would be negatively affected, but
that the net environmental impact of its proposed development activities would far outweigh the
damage to the streams, which are heavily AMD impacted, and lifeless. The EHB determined that
there will be severe hydrologic, water quality and environmental resources impacts on these
streams, and that the aquatic condition of the streams is not a test adopted by law. Therefore, the
EHB granted the Department’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of the stream buffer
zone, and dismissed PDG’s appeal.
On June 16, 2009, the EHB issued a decision regarding EHB Docket no. 2009-016-L. In this
appeal, Mystic Brooke Development, L.P. asked EHB to intervene on a letter from the
Department directing Helvetia Coal Company to submit a plan of action for collecting and
treating new seeps that developed on Mystic Brooke property and which are hydrologically
connected to Helvetia’s coal refuse disposal permit. Mystic Brooke alleges that the letter
“permits,” “absolves,” “exempts,” and “authorizes some of the discharges from Helvetia’s
property that flow on Mystic Brooke property. The EHB dismissed the appeal, finding that the
Department’s “letter does not constitute a final appealable action of the Department that the
Board has jurisdiction to review.” The Board found the letter” makes no binding findings, it
confers no rights, and it imposes no liability.” The Board further found that the letter “appears
quite interlocutory in nature, and on the face anticipates further action, such as a permit revision.”
Environmental Quality Board
The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) is a 20 member independent board that reviews and
adopts all PADEP Regulations. The Board, which is chaired by the Secretary of PADEP,
includes members from 11 state agencies, the CAC and the State Senate and House of
Representatives. PADEP, through the EQB, requests comments on all proposed regulations and
holds public hearings or public meetings to provide citizens with the opportunity to provide
input. The EQB addresses all comments received on proposed rules in the preamble of the final
rules that are published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin and are available for public review on the
PADEP Internet site. As part of the development of the regulations required by statute or by
regulatory initiatives, PADEP holds outreach discussions or other public meetings to explain
regulatory initiatives, where there is significant public interest. During the evaluation year, the
EQB did not consider any regulatory packages pertaining to the coal mining program.
Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC)
The General Assembly passed the Regulatory Review Act in 1982, which established the
Independent Regulatory Review Commission. IRRC was created to review Commonwealth
agency regulations, excluding the Game Commission and the Fish and Boat Commission, to
ensure that they are in the public interest.
The Commission's mission is to review regulations to make certain that the agency has the
6

 statutory authority to enact the regulation and determine whether the regulation is consistent with
legislative intent. IRRC then considers economic impact, public health and safety,
reasonableness, and clarity. The Commission also acts as a clearinghouse for complaints,
comments, and other input from the General Assembly and the public regarding not only
proposed and final regulation, but also existing regulations. In addition to staff, five
commissioners serve IRRC. Four are appointed by the General Assembly, and the governor
appoints one. During the evaluation year, the IRRC did not consider any coal mining regulatory
packages.
Public Comment in Permit Review Process
PADEP received 532 applications for permitting related actions that provided for public
comment. The applicant is required to publish notice of the permit application in the local
newspaper. PADEP publishes notices of permit applications and major permit revisions in the
Pennsylvania Bulletin; notifies local municipal governments of permit applications; and holds
public meetings with citizens to discuss pending applications.
Public Comment in the Bond Release Process
PADEP received 1,148 annual bond calculations and completion report applications during the
past year. As part of the required annual bond calculation report, each permittee must notify
every property owner of how much of the property owner's land has achieved Stage I, II and III
standards during the preceding year. This required notice to the property owner also includes
whom in the Department to contact if the property owner disagrees with the adequacy of
reclamation.
The permittee must publish each bond release application in a local newspaper once a week for
four consecutive weeks. This advertisement must include permittee name, and permit number,
precise location and number of acres, total amount of bond and amount of requested release,
summarize the reclamation, and state where written comments should be filed. The permittee
must also provide proof of notification to surface owners, adjacent property owners, local
government bodies, planning agencies and sewage and water treatment facilities. At any time, a
citizen may file a complaint with the local PADEP Mining District Office about the adequacy of
reclamation or about mining activities. The local PADEP office will contact the complaint
within two days and complete the investigation within the next two weeks unless additional time
is needed for additional analysis.
Citizen Complaint Resolution
The public may submit both informal and formal complaints on ongoing and completed mining
operations, and bond release requests with respect to inspection, compliance monitoring and
enforcement activity. During the evaluation year, PADEP received 439 citizen complaints, 412 of
which were investigated, and 430 were successfully resolved at the close of this evaluation year.
Complaints not resolved may have been referred to other PADEP bureaus for action or otherwise
concluded. Complaints can be directed to many aspects of the mining activities including stream
pollution from erosion and mine drainage, blasting effects on structures and water supplies, damage
to public roads, mining off-permit, and dust.
7

 B.

Outreach by OSM

General Outreach
OSM continued interacting with citizens, industry and other State and Federal agencies on
oversight and State program initiatives. The OSM attended the MRAB meetings to provide input
on oversight initiatives and explain new OSM programs.
OSM’s Pittsburgh Field Division (PFD) publishes a quarterly electronic newsletter that covers
Pennsylvania, Maryland and Ohio. The newsletter highlights proposed Federal regulatory changes
and policy guidance, court and IBLA (Interior Board of Lands Hearings and Appeals) decisions, the
status of state program amendments, findings from OSM oversight studies, interaction with
watershed groups and other partners, discussions of AML and AMD reclamation projects
constructed, and innovative activities that states are involved in. The PFD maintains a mailing list of
interested Federal and State individuals and agencies, as well as industry staff, private consultants,
foundations, non-profit organizations, and individuals interested in coal mining and reclamation and
abandoned mine reclamation issues. This newsletter has been well received over the years it has
been published.

V.
A.

Major Accomplishments and Innovations in the
Pennsylvania Program
Alternative Bonding System Bond Forfeited Permits with Post Mining Discharges

In 1991, oversight activities determined that Pennsylvania’s ABS contained unfunded
reclamation liabilities for land reclamation and the treatment of pollutional discharges from bond
forfeiture sites under its purview. As a result, on May 31, 1991, OSM imposed the required
amendment requiring Pennsylvania to demonstrate that the revenues generated by its collection
of the reclamation fee would assure that its Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Fund
(Fund) could be operated in a manner that would meet the ABS requirements contained in 30
CFR 800.11(e). Later that year, on October 1, 1991, OSM sent a notice to Pennsylvania under 30
CFR 732.17, that the Pennsylvania alternative bonding system (ABS)…[was] no longer in
conformance with SMCRA (section 509) and Federal regulations [30 CFR 800.11 (e)].
On August 1, 2008, PADEP submitted a program amendment request to address the outstanding
1991 deficiency notices. The amendment proposal is designed to address numerous funding,
program and policy issues involved with the resolution of the reclamation of land and water
needs which are now present with primacy ABS bond forfeited permits, or may arise with the
future forfeiture of such permits that did not successfully transition to full cost bonding. The
submission consists of changes to Pennsylvania statutes and regulations as well as narrative
demonstrations and support information. Major components of the submission are:
A. Regulatory Changes to Establish Legally Enforceable Means of Funding the O&M
and Recapitalization Costs for the ABS Legacy Sites;
B. The Conversion Assistance Program;
C. Trust Funds as an Alternative System and Other Equivalent Guarantee: Rationale
8

 for Approval;
D. Demonstration of Sufficient Funding for Outstanding Land Reclamation at
Primacy ABS Forfeiture Sites; and
E. Demonstration of Sufficient Funding for Construction of All Necessary Discharge
Treatment Facilities at the Primacy ABS Forfeiture Sites.
Pennsylvania is proposing that the program amendment include provisions that will cover the
costs of all reclamation for sites bonded under the ABS that have had their bonds forfeited, as
well as potential reclamation costs for sites bonded under the ABS and not yet forfeited, but for
which conventional, full cost bonds or other sufficient financial assurance mechanisms have not
been posted. By Federal Register dated January 14, 2009, OSM provided an opportunity for a
public comment. The public comment period is closed and OSM review is ongoing.
Pennsylvania made progress towards the reclamation of surface mine sites forfeited under the
previous alternative bonding system (ABS). During the review period, PADEP continued to manage
and refine the list of sites needing land reclamation and/or mine drainage abatement efforts. Based
upon a report provided to OSM in January 2009, PADEP designated reclamation complete at nine
sites through a variety of efforts; landowner reclamation, contracts with PADEP, conversion to an
active site, completion of reclamation by the operator and reevaluation by PADEP staff. To advance
reclamation of mine drainage problems on ABS forfeiture sites, PADEP developed forms for
landowner access and site management, created a discharge sample information system, initiated or
completed design contracting on ten sites, and began the process for contracting for operation and
maintenance on nine sites.
B.

Use of Coal Combustion By-Products (CCB) on mine permits

The Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act of 1980 was amended in December 1986 to
allow for the beneficial use of coal ash on mine sites including abandoned and permitted coal
mines. PADEP developed technical guidance dated April 30, 1998, to provide for beneficial use
of coal ash in four situations: coal ash placement, coal ash alkaline addition, coal ash as a soil
additive or soil substitute, and coal ash as low-permeability material. These guidances were
updated with the publication of interim final guidance on April 6, 2009. Coal ash to be applied
on mine sites under the beneficial use authority, must meet chemical and physical characteristics
of the Department’s Certification Guidelines, and placement must conform to regulations and
guidelines, and include ground water monitoring as directed by the Department. These
provisions were enhanced with the updated guidance. The updated guidance was the result of
multiple inputs.
PADEP, in an ongoing effort to maintain state of the science programs, did a comprehensive
study of the beneficial use of coal ash in Pennsylvania. The result was a 369 page report titled
“Coal Ash Beneficial Use in Mine Reclamation and Mine Drainage Remediation in
Pennsylvania,” which was published in 2004. The National Academy of Sciences, National
Research Council, in 2006 issued a report titled “Managing Coal Combustion Residues in
Mines”. The NAS study made a variety of recommendations. DEP also met with and obtained
input from numerous stakeholders. Stakeholders included environmental groups (Clean Air Task
Force, Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club, Mountain Watershed Association), industry
(ARIPPA, Electric Power Generation Association, Pennsylvania Coal Association, American
9

 Coal Ash Association, Pennsylvania Anthracite Council, Pennsylvania Mining Professionals) and
advisory groups (Mining Reclamation Advisory Board, Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce,
Solid Waste Advisory Council). Drafts of the technical guidances were published in the
Pennsylvania Bulletin for comment in October and November 2008. Due to the extensive
comments received, the guidances were revised and republished for additional public comment in
February and March 2009. Comments were again considered and the documents were published
as interim final in April 2009.
The revised guidances incorporate the following changes. Ash monitoring now includes 32
chemical parameters (had been 20), monitoring is now required four times per year (had been 2),
and the administrative process has been simplified. The acceptable leaching limits have been
lowered for several parameters, including arsenic. Water monitoring requirements have likewise
been enhanced. Complete chemical analyses are now required four times per year (increased
from one annual test), baseline data is 12 monthly samples (increased from six annual tests), and
PADEP now requires the monitoring of 40 parameters. Three or more down gradient and one up
gradient monitoring points are specified. Wells must be purged, and both total and dissolved
metals are now obtained.
The review process has also been enhanced. PADEP now requires that the certification process
for ash be performed by the ash generator. In the past, ash brokers and others had been allowed
to ask for beneficial use approvals. Additional questions are being asked about the ash, such as
incorporation of additives, influences from air pollution control devices on ash chemistry and
physical properties, and the burning of alternate fuels and how these affect ash chemistry and
physical properties.
PADEP chose to use the Interim Final route for its guidance for several reasons. First, the
program needed to be brought up to current protective standards. Second, the guidance
documents are “interim” because they will be revised as soon as the regulations are in place.
Third, PADEP has limited resources and has chosen to focus those resources on development of
regulations.
The most common comment received from commentators during the technical guidance
document development process was that the Department needs to incorporate much of the
guidance into regulations. The PADEP Bureau of Waste Management has been taking the lead
on development of regulations dealing with the beneficial use of coal ash. Beneficial Use of
Coal Ash has now been given its own chapter. It will be Chapter 290 in the 25 PA Code. The
regulations will incorporate the certification guidelines for the chemical parameters.
The proposed draft regulations include most of the changes listed above regarding the technical
guidance. Placing these programmatic items within the regulations will make them enforceable.

10

 C.

Amendments to the Pennsylvania Approved Regulatory Program

During this evaluation year, several changes to the Pennsylvania coal mining program were initiated
and completed as a result of a cooperative effort by the PADEP and OSM staff. Under this team
approach, OSM and PADEP staff analyze legislative and regulatory requirements, solicit comments
from citizen and industry representatives, and prepare joint proposals consistent with both agency
goals and with Pennsylvania and Federal laws. This is accomplished within existing Pennsylvania
and Federal rulemaking requirements to improve public commenting opportunities and to simplify
and shorten the process for modifying the approved Pennsylvania program. The Pennsylvania
regulatory process can take up to twenty-four months until changes are finalized and published in the
Pennsylvania Bulletin.
PA-148-FOR: On June 8 2006, PADEP submitted a proposed amendment to the approved State
program regarding program changes to address blasting for the development of shafts for
underground mines. The amendment relates to program changes addressing a number of issues
relating to blasting at a mine site and clarifies that the use of explosives in connection with the
construction of a mine opening for an underground mine is a surface mining activity subject to
the applicable requirements in Chapter 87 or 88, and that the person conducting the blasting
activity must possess a blaster’s license. The proposed amendment, PA-148-FOR, was published
in the Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 146 / Monday, July 31, 2006 / Proposed Rules. An
extension of the comment period for the proposed rule was published in the Federal
Register/Vol. 71, No. 175/Monday, September 11, 2006/Proposed Rules. The final rule, approval
of the amendment was published in the Federal Register/ Vol. 73, No. 231/December 1,
2008/Rules and Regulations. On December 17, 2008, PADEP requested a clarification to the
final rule. The final rule: clarification was published in the Federal Register/ Vol. 74, No.
89/May, 11, 2009.
PA-150-FOR: On December 11, 2007, PADEP submitted a required regulatory program
amendment to assert its program is no less effective the federal requirement relating to access to
property and records for coal mining conducted incidentally to non-coal mining. The proposed
amendment, PA-150-FOR, was published in the Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 63/April 1,
2008/Proposed Rules. PADEP sent a withdrawal of the proposed amendment to OSM on
December 11, 2008. PADEP withdrew the program amendment based on comments received
during the comment period. The proposed rule withdrawal was published in the Federal Register/
Vol. 74, No. 34/Monday, February 23, 2009/Proposed Rules.
PA-151-FOR: On Tuesday, July 8, 2008, OSM published a final rule, PA-151-FOR, in the
Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 131/Rules and Regulations to disapprove parts of a previously
submitted program amendment and reinstate a required amendment. Disapproved are the two
changes pertaining to the discontinuation of the $100 per acre reclamation fee. Reinstated is a
modified version of the required amendment 30 CFR 938.16(h). The amendment requires
Pennsylvania to demonstrate that revenues generated by its collection of the reclamation fee
would assure that its Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Fund could be operated in a
manner that would meet the ABS requirements contained in 30 CFR 800.11(e).
PA-152-FOR: On Tuesday, March 24, 2009, OSM published a final rule, PA-152-FOR, in the
11

 Federal Register/Vol.74, No. 55/Rules and Regulations. This final rule reinstated 30 CFR
938.16(h) as it was written on May 31, 1991 except for the last sentence of the original required
amendment.
PA-153-FOR: On August 1, 2008, PADEP submitted a formal program amendment in response
to Part 732 notices and the required program amendment codified in 30 CFR 938.16(h). The
amendment consists of several parts addressing the conversion assistance program, trust funds,
sufficient funding for outstanding land reclamation at primacy ABS forfeiture sites, and
regulatory changes to establish legally enforceable means of funding the O&M and
recapitalization costs for the ABS legacy sites. The proposed amendment, PA-153-FOR, was
published in the Federal Register/Vo. 74, No. 9/Wednesday, January 14, 2009.
OSM and PADEP are working collaboratively to address the program deficiencies of twentyseven remaining required program amendments. PADEP is currently developing an amendment
package to address 938.16 (ccc) permitting for exploration on lands unsuitable for mining, (iii)
seismic safety factor for impoundments, (jjj) six hour precipitation event for impoundments,
(nnn) two officer’s signatures for indemnity agreements, (ppp) notification of decision not to
revoke an exception for extraction of coal incidental to non-coal mining, (ttt) disposal of noncoal waste on refuse area or impoundment, (rr) requirement of permit denial for unabated
violations, and (zz) to correct the cross-reference to 86.63 with a reference section 86.212(c).
On January 15, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the
District Court’s decision upholding Federal rules on valid existing rights (VER) and other
associated rules that OSM published on December 17, 1999. Now that legal appeals have ended
with the courts affirming the Federal VER rules, OSM and PADEP have re-activitated
discussions on an August 22, 2000, 732.17(d) requirement for PADEP to amend its coal
regulatory program to be no less effective than the 1999 Federal regulations. PADEP submitted a
response to OSM’s January 31, 2008, renewal 732 letter on March 31, 2008. The Federal
definition of VER at Chapter 86.1 was previously adopted by cross reference and approved by
OSM on July 7, 2003. The only issues remaining from the 732 letter appear to be the absence of
a state VER determination procedure corresponding with 30CFR 761.16, and a corresponding
location verification procedure when there is uncertainty regarding the precise boundary of a
protected public facility. This requirement is found at 30 CFR 761.17(c).
On December 3, 2007, OSM issued its final Ownership and Control rule, ending many years of
rule writing attempts and litigation with the National Mining Association on this issue. By letter
dated April 20, 2001, OSM had notified PADEP that it was placing in abeyance 11 required
ownership and control program amendments dating from a December 30, 1992 Federal Register
Notice and earlier versions of the rules. Although a new 732 letter has not been issued by OSM
in response to the new rule, OSM and PADEP have been revisiting the 11 required amendments
to determine which are still relevant in light of the new regulations. OSM has also prepared a
comparison of the final ownership and control rule and Pennsylvania regulations, to identify
possible areas of deficiencies. Discussions with PADEP are continuing.

12

 D.

Mine Drainage Treatment Technologies

In October 2006, BAMR issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) (No. OSM PA(AMD-06)) for the
demonstration or implementation of new or innovative in-situ or ex-situ treatment or abatement
technologies or enhanced metals recovery for acid mine drainage. In June 2007, BAMR entered
into Agreements with four applicants under this RFP. The total amount awarded for these
projects is $559,471.70, which will be funded entirely from the 2006 Environmental Stewardship
Fund. The following four proposals have been awarded:
Pennsylvania State University/Burgos, Senko, Bruns - Aeration Terraces for Biological Low pH
Iron (Fe2) Oxidation.
Stream Restoration, Inc/BioMost, Inc. - (ELF) Inter Mine Pool Transfer, Abatement, Treatment or
Reuse.
WPCAMR/Iron Oxide Technologies, LLC - Enhanced Iron Removal for Recovery from Aerobic
Ponds using Retrofit LASAIRE Aeration.
Broad Top Township/Skelly & Loy, Inc. - Ex-Situ Treatment Technology Evaluation of an
Existing Steel Slag Resource in the Six Mile Run Watershed for use as AMD treatment.
All of the AMD-06 Grants remain active. These four projects represent a second round of
innovative technologies RFP’s.
The first round of RFP’s (No. OSM PA(AMD-04)) was issued in January 2005, as an initiative to
promote the implementation of new technologies, and to promote economic development or
industrial application of mine pools and abandoned mine lands. BAMR awarded seven contracts
under the first round from the 2005 Environmental Stewardship Fund. The total amount of the
awards is $1,852,909 including $95,729 from the Title IV ACSP Grant. All of the contracts
awarded under the first RFP have been completed, and Final Reports are posted on BAMR’s
website: http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/abandonedminerec/cwp/view.asp?a=1474&q=520866.
E.

Growing Greener

Growing Greener is the largest single investment of state funds in Pennsylvania's history to
address Pennsylvania's critical environmental concerns of the 21st century.
The original Growing Greener legislation was signed into law by Governor Tom Ridge on
December 15, 1999. Called the Environmental Stewardship and Protection Act, funds were
allocated for farmland preservation, state park and local recreation projects, waste and drinking
water improvements, and watershed restoration programs.
In June 2002, Governor Mark Schweiker signed legislation that increased the funding for
Growing Greener, extending it until 2012. Though authorized funding levels were established,
revenue shortfalls affected actual spending, and the program was in danger of running out of
funds.
In 2004, Governor Rendell proposed the Growing Greener II initiative and a bond issue
13

 resolution were placed on the statewide voting ballot. In May 2005, Pennsylvania residents
approved the resolution with 61% of the vote. This authorized the Commonwealth to borrow up
to $625,000,000 for the maintenance, and protection of the environment, open space and
farmland preservation, watershed protection, abandoned mine reclamation, acid mine drainage
remediation and other environmental initiatives.
Funds are allocated to a variety of government agencies for award to selected projects. BAMR is
authorized to allocate its share of Growing Greener funds for the following mining related
activities:
Watershed restoration and protection; and abandoned mine reclamation.
AML land and water reclamation projects funded by Growing Greener can be designed,
contracted and administered through BAMR, or administered through grants to municipalities
and watershed groups awarded by PADEP with oversight and technical assistance provided by
BAMR and DMO staff. Since 1999, BAMR has received about 29.7 million dollars from the
original Growing Greener program. Under the Growing Greener II program, BAMR has
awarded 47 contracts totaling $68.6 million that includes $45.8 million from Growing Greener II
and $22.8 million from the Title IV grant and other sources.
F.

Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative (ARRI)

The Appalachian Region Reforestation Initiative (ARRI) is a joint effort of Appalachian States,
and the OSM Regional Office. The initiative also includes partnerships with coal industry
representatives, academia, landowners, environmental organizations and various governmental
agencies. The goals include planting more high value hardwood trees, increased tree survival
and increased tree growth and productivity. The initiative uses the Forestry Reclamation
Approach (FRA). This involves the planting of higher quality trees, minimum compaction of the
reclaimed ground, the use of native as well as non-competitive ground covers and proper tree
planting techniques. OSM is working with PADEP in making presentations at appropriate
meetings, and identifying individual permits and reclamation projects where the FRA can be
applied. At the end of the evaluation year, a combination of GFCC, AML reclamation projects,
and coal mine permits have been identified for reclamation using the FRA. These projects
encompass all District Mining, and AML offices and regions. While some of the sites are small
acreages, it is hoped they will encourage the continued program growth in the mining and
reclamation program.
On May 1, and again on May 7, 2009, volunteers from local schools, community, and others
from local and Pennsylvania state agencies and OSM’s VISTA program, assembled on
Mountaintop Coal Mining Company’s Schuylkill County Airport permit in support of the
Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative (ARRI). A 2.5 acre mined and reclaimed tract of
land had been prepared for tree planting by Mountaintop Mining Company, using a large ripping
bar attached to a dozer. The parcel was previously covered in grasses. The site was planted with
hundreds of mixed appalachian hardwood tree species and a mixture of wildlife tree and shrub
species donated by the Pennsylvania Game Commission, and other regional tree nurseries.
This event was organized by the Schuylkill Headwaters Association, in partnership with the
14

 Office of Surface Mining’s VISTA program and the Appalachian Coal Country Watershed Team.
The purpose of the event was to highlight mined land reforestation efforts being made across the
Appalachian Region under the ARRI program. Although the acreage was small, this event was
significant because it marked the first time the principles of ARRI have been used for tree
planting on an anthracite coal mine permit. ARRI promotes loose placement of the top 4 to six
feet of spoil/soil material, and reduction or elimination of competing grasses, in order to enhance
tree survival and growth; and the planting of native hardwood species commonly found on the
surrounding lands.

ARRI Reforestation Award: from left, David Hamilton, OSM; Paul Lohin, Board Chairman Schuylkill
County Conservation District; Bill Reichert, President Schuylkill Headwaters Association; Frank
Staudenmeier, Schuylkill County Commissioner; Tim Vought, Mountaintop Coal Mining Company; Michael
Myers OSM/VISTA.

Recognizing this pioneer effort in the anthracite region, OSM presented an ARRI Reforestation
Award to the primary partners including; the Schuylkill Headwaters Association, the Schuylkill
County Conservation District, the Schuylkill County Commissioners, The Pennsylvania Game
Commission, and Mountaintop Mining Company. The Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection’s Pottsville District Mining Office is also recognized for their support
of the ARRI program and modification of the mining permit to allow the reclamation plan.
G.

Other Initiatives and Accomplishments

Unsuitable For Mining Petitions: PADEP is currently reviewing four Areas Unsuitable for
Mining (UFM) petitions as follows:
Big Run, Graham Township, Clearfield County. Department staff is in the final stages of
completing a technical study of the Big Run area. This review is being completed in response to a
petition submitted by the Graham Township Supervisors, which requests a 2,800 acre tract
within the Big Run and Willholm Run watersheds be designated as unsuitable for surface mining
operations. The petition alleges that surface mining within the area would adversely affect
renewable land resources.
Muddy Run, Reade Township, Cambria County. A technical study was completed in response to
15

 a petition submitted by the Reade Township Water Authority to have 3,690 acres designated as
UFM. The petition alleges that surface mining activities could result in degradation of surface
and groundwater resources used by local public water supply wells. The study documentation is
currently under review by PADEP senior management.
Silver and Big Creek, Blythe Township, Schuylkill County. An application has been received
from Blythe Township, petitioning 336 acres of land. PADEP has not officially accepted the
application.
Rasler Run, Springfield Township, Fayette County. An application has been received from
Mountain Watershed Association, petitioning 4,456 acres of land comprising of the Rasler Run
Watershed. PADEP has not officially accepted the application.
Underground Mine Mapping Projects: PADEP and OSM are jointly funding projects with the
University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) and with the Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP) which will
support the scanning of old underground mine maps. These maps are important for the safe
development of future underground mines in order to prevent mining accidents such as the one
that occurred at the Quecreek Mine. The projects are being coordinated by the California District
Mining Office as part of the Underground Mine Map Initiative to inventory all known maps of
underground coal mines in Pennsylvania.
An agreement was signed with the University of Pittsburgh in February 2007 that will provide for
a restoration and preservation program to stabilize and prepare historical abandoned underground
coal mine maps (donated to Pitt by Consol Energy, Inc.) and which will be provided to the
California DMO for digital scanning.
Because of this agreement, the University of Pittsburgh has so far produced the following:
126 hardback maps have been restored and transported to OSM’s Appalachian Regional Office
for scanning.
100 mines and 91 mine entries have been added or updated on PADEP’s GIS.
51 existing PADEP abandoned mine files have been updated.
43 new abandoned mine files have been added to the PADEP mine map repository.
In July of 2008, Pittsburgh was awarded another mine mapping grant to continue these efforts.
The Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP) was awarded a mine mapping grant to scan the
large format maps from the Rochester & Pittsburg Coal Company map collection located at IUP;
develop a secure and redundant data base of scanned mine map images, and produce a complete
database of all known mine maps for Armstrong County. IUP has also scanned over 300 large
format maps from various collections held by PADEP and others.
PADEP’s work with IUP has resulted in the California District Office being able to complete the
first comprehensive underground mining coverage for Armstrong County. This coverage was
added to an internal web site, which is used by PADEP staff to determine the need for mine
16

 subsidence insurance. This data was also used to create maps accessible to the public through the
Mine Subsidence Insurance web site, www.pamsi.org.
Fluidized Gas Desulfurization: Pennsylvania issued a general permit for use of fluidized gas
desulfurization (FGD) products for mine reclamation. The FGD material is required to meet
performance standards for permeability and compressive strength. The FGD material by itself
does not meet these performance standards, but the standards are achieved by mixing the FGD
with coal ash and an alkaline fixative. The permit also requires extensive monitoring of the
chemistry of the groundwater and the FGD material. A mine site in the Anthracite Region was
selected as the first area for placement. Recently, PADEP met with the company to discuss the
status of the project. Issues have come up having to do with the material meeting the
permeability and compressive strength requirements. Adjustments in moisture content, mixing
standards, and using cement instead of lime as an additive are being tried in order to meet the
general permit requirements so the material can be used on the permit.
Stream Dewatering: PADEP continued a technical study to characterize the nature of stream
dewatering above longwall mining panels. This study is being conducted to determine whether a
list of predictive criteria can be developed so they can be appropriately considered and applied
during subsequent permitting decisions. Ongoing activities include compiling information on
streams, drainage areas, geology, and mine workings for areas where longwall mining has taken
place and converting that information into GIS format. During the past year, an electronic filing
system was established to facilitate compilation and retrieval of inspection reports and other
information needed to assess the recovery of affected streams.
Five Year Report on the Effects of Underground Mining. In February 2009, PADEP
contracted the University of Pittsburgh to prepare a report summarizing the effects of
underground bituminous coal mining on surface land, structures, and water resources for the
2003-2008 period. The report is required by section 18.1 of the Bituminous Mine Subsidence
and Land Conservation Act and will be the third one issued since the statutory reporting
requirement was imposed in 1994. The University has already gathered most of the information
needed for report preparation from Department databases, electronic map files, investigative
reports and permit files. Researchers are currently engaged in analyzing the information
collected. The contract calls for the preparation of a draft report by February 2010 and a final
report by the end of April 2010. Upon completion, the report will be presented to the Governor,
the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the Citizens Advisory Council of the Department.
Copies will also be provided to OSM and posted on the Department’s web site.
Application forms updates. PADEP made updates to permit applications for underground
anthracite coal mining operations and underground bituminous coal mining operations. Notable
updates to the underground bituminous coal mining application included changes arising from
the Department’s 2005 surface water protection guidance and 2005 rulemaking on bituminous
mine subsidence control standards and bond adjustment. Notable updates to the underground
anthracite coal mining, included changes relating to adjacent mine mapping requirements and the
elimination of forms relating to Phase 2 permits (which are being phased out). Revisions to the
underground bituminous application were completed in October 2008. Revisions to the
underground anthracite application were nearing completion in June 2009.
17

 Technical Guidance Document: Procedures for Establishing the Quantity of Water in LowYield Wells (563-2112-606).
PADEP developed a technical guidance that establishes alternative procedures for testing low
yield wells in coal mining areas. The guidance was developed by evaluating actual pump test
data from low yielding wells (five gallons or less per minute) located in Southwestern
Pennsylvania, as well as conducting discussions with staff from the Department’s District Mining
Operations, OSM, USGS, Pa. Coal Association (PCA) and mining industry consultants. The
procedures outlined in the guidance will be used to determine the production capacity of a low
yielding well in a consistent and reproducible manner. This is important in identifying mining
induced effects in addition to determining the adequacy of replacement water supplies in
accordance with the Department’s coal mining regulations. A draft of the guidance was posted
for public review and comment in June 2009.
Mine Drainage Treatability and Project Selection Guidelines:
A significant program administration and implementation accomplishment completed by
PADEP, was finalization of guidelines for the review of AMD abatement and treatment projects
within newly proposed hydrologic units. Development of the “AMD Set-Aside Program
Implementation Guidelines” involved outreach meetings and data collection from individual and
groups. As a part of this effort, PADEP conducted 10 town hall meetings, and held a focus group
meeting with 59 participants. It also evaluated a number of passive treatment systems constructed
by PADEP, and conducted information collection on 279 passive treatment systems identified in
OSM’s passive treatment data base. The final guidelines address the development of an upfront
and more direct benefit-cost analysis, the development of an overarching program goal for the
Set-Aside Program, application of the guidelines to entire watershed restoration plans instead of
individual projects, revisions to the project evaluation and scoring procedures, and collection and
review of data on many passive treatment systems constructed by watershed groups. The
guidelines will serve as the primary method for evaluating newly proposed watershed restoration
plans and the abatement or treatment projects identified within these hydrologic units. The
guidelines will also be used to evaluate expenditures for operation, monitoring, maintenance and
replacement of existing systems and contain a transition period where projects previously
committed to by DEP will be completed.
H.

Title IV of SMRCA AML Reclamation

The Pennsylvania Title IV AML Program was approved in July 1982. Even as early as 1982,
Pennsylvania had already put forth years of committed effort to reclaim abandoned mine lands
throughout the Commonwealth with a special state funded reclamation program known as
Operation Scarlift. In the first decade of the approved program, Pennsylvania primarily
addressed priority one and two health and safety hazards through traditional reclamation
contracts. Starting in the early 1990’s and culminating with changes to the approved program for
a special OSM rule that expanded the scope of government financed reclamation opportunities,
the Pennsylvania AML program has diversified and incorporated other agencies and
organizations into productive partnerships.
This year, Pennsylvania continued to address a wide range of environmental, health and safety
18

 problems. The Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR) reclaimed AML features
through traditional construction contracts, entered into partnerships with property owners to
reclaim safety hazards on sites that will provide opportunities for community development, and
worked with other government agencies, private organizations and watershed groups to leverage
additional funding for abatement of pollution from mine drainage. Finally, Pennsylvania
committed substantial sums of funds from both Growing Greener programs to collaborate with
the Title IV program and to independently address sites that would not normally fall under the
approved AML program. Pennsylvania has a diverse and effective AML program.
In December 2006, Congress reauthorized AML fee collections through 2021 and made a
number of changes to fund distribution and programmatic operations of the AML program.
Based on OSM projections it appears that a substantial amount of AML funding will be available
to Pennsylvania over the life of the program. The first significant funding increase resulting from
reauthorization is expected in the 2010 grant when Pennsylvania’s funding is projected to
increase by 49% over the prior year.
Traditional Title IV Reclamation
Abatement of Health and Safety Impacts
Pennsylvania's AML program continued to make progress in traditional areas of abandoned mine
land reclamation such as dangerous highwall removal, subsidence control, and sealing shafts and
portals. Specific accomplishments include completion of 22 major projects for a total of 924
acres of land reclamation. The total construction cost for these projects exceeded $26.6 million
and included $11.5 million of non-Title IV matching funds. Reclamation included 64,574 linear
feet of dangerous highwalls, numerous deep mine shafts and entries, and two water line
extension projects to address impacted drinking water supplies.
During the year, contracts were awarded on 15 new projects at a cost of $9.3 million, which
includes $9.1 million from the Title IV grant and $0.2 million from matching state sources. At
the end of the evaluation period BAMR had 43 projects under construction at a total cost
exceeding $52.4 million. Upon completion, these projects will address approximately 1850 acres
of abandoned mine land. Preparing for future reclamation, BAMR has approximately 100
projects in some stage of design and approximately 80 under development.
Appalachian Reclamation Award Winner
The Gladden Discharge/Fishing Run Reclamation Project
In 2008, Pennsylvania was awarded the Appalachian Regional Award for the Fishing Run
Restoration and Maude Mine Reclamation Project site located in South Fayette Township,
Allegheny County. The project is contained within the lower section of the Chartiers Creek
Watershed to the southwest of the City of Pittsburgh. Significant community interest and support
facilitated this project. A local watershed group, the South Fayette Conservation Group (SFCG),
initiated the project through a grant application and ensuing partnership agreement with BAMR.
Previous watershed studies and AML inventory work by BAMR, SFCG and the Chartiers Nature
Conservancy identified this site as having significant adverse impacts to water quality and high19

 priority AML features that posed a serious threat to public health and safety.
The project reclaimed several Priority 2 AML features including an open portal, a partially sealed
mine opening, approximately 1,500 linear feet of dangerous highwall and numerous dilapidated
coal preparation plant and coal load-out structures. In addition, the open mine portal was
capturing all of the flow from the upper portion of a clean water stream called Fishing Run. The
stream flow entered an abandoned underground mine complex and emerged several miles
downstream as part of a large AMD discharge to Millers Run, known as the Gladden Discharge.
Reclamation also eliminated water inflow into the abandoned mine, reduces pollution load output
at the Gladden Discharge, and restored 1,100 linear feet of Fishing Run to its approximate premining configuration. Because of the hydrology improvements, passive treatment of the
remaining Gladden discharge is now more feasible thus allowing for significant future water
quality improvement in Millers Run and the Chartiers Creek Watershed.

Maude Mine opening before (left) showing Fishing Run stream flowing uncontrolled into the entry and
sealing of the opening (right) during reclamation

Anthracite District and Bituminous District (AD/BD) State Workforce Programs
Pennsylvania addressed many smaller AML problems this year with two special state employee
work crews; located in the Wilkes-Barre and Cambria offices (Anthracite District & Bituminous
District, respectively). These small state workforces conduct maintenance activities and address
small AML problems that are not suited for the more complicated and expensive contractual
bidding approach used for traditional site reclamation.
The Anthracite District (AD) crew, located in the Wilkes-Barre Office, consists of three people; a
foreman, an operator and a maintenance repairman. Though small, the AD Crew is available to
address a variety of Abandoned Mine Land (AML) related problems. AML problems abated by
the AD crew range from re-filling previously filled vertical shafts or areas of recently completed
projects that have settled, to removing debris or repairing ditches which have become clogged by
weather related events. Additionally, the AD Crew assisted at the Rausch Creek Treatment

20

 Plant, maintained a passive treatment system, and is currently involved in securing access to an
active mine fire.
Palo Alto Mine Drainage AD Project
Schuylkill County
In June 2009, the Anthracite District in house construction crew (AD crew) of the Wilkes-Barre
BAMR District Office completed a project to address a mine drainage problem directly affecting
one property owner and indirectly affecting the surrounding neighborhood as the water from the
discharge was flowing across and down the borough street, creating an icing condition during the
winter months and a maintenance issue year round. The drainage was a residual problem from
an AML project conducted in 2006. Returning to the site, the AD crew excavated and installed
approximately thirty-two feet of pipe along with 15 tons of stone. The pipe system was then
connected to a drainage inlet installed under the 2006 contract, thus removing overland flows of
mine drainage. The Palo Alto project is an example of the how the BAMR in house construction
crews satisfy an essential reclamation program need; the ability to quickly address small but
troublesome AML hazards.

Palo Alto Project Pre-Construction

The Bituminous District (BD) crew, located in the Cambria Office, is made up of seven
individuals: two Construction Foremen, four Equipment Operator B's and one Equipment
Operator A. Cambria District Office’s BD Crew is often called upon to correct a variety of AML
problems with a host of hidden dangers and safety concerns for the public, including problems
that include subsidence holes, mine gas problems, abandoned surface mines, acid mine drainage,
clogged french drains and other mine drainage pipes, and mine fires. The BD crew also assists at
active treatment plants, and the operation and maintenance of AMD passive treatment systems.
During the past year the BD Crew completed 93 projects of varying complexity that lasted from
one day to several months.
21

 BD Crew backfilling a 3 acre site with 40 foot highwall

Doud's of Plumville BD Project
Indiana County
This BD project is known as BD 2882 PA 2981- Mine Subsidence Control project at Doud's of
Plumville. The project was located in Plumville Borough, Indiana County. The subsidence
control project was a unique undertaking by the BD Crew and included activities such as;
pneumatic stowing of material to stabilize the store and roadway, installing a mine drain to
eliminate a potential mine pool blowout, using the project for an OSM training class, and
converting an existing exploratory drill hole to a dry hydrant into the mine pool, for use by the
local fire company.
Douds of Plumville, a local furniture store was affected by a localized subsidence event. The
initial subsidence caused the mine pool to rise, potentially causing a future mine blowout.
Exploratory drilling into the portal after the subsidence showed there is additional void space
along the entry which had the potential of subsiding and causing severe surface deformation and
damage to the Douds building and State Route 85. To correct the problem, the BD Crew
excavated the portal opening, installed an eight (8) inch pipe to convey the mine water. The BD
crew helped the subcontractor pneumatically stow aggregate into the entry to support the mine
roof under the building and highway. Also during construction, the site was used as an OSM
training class. The AML Design Workshop for subsidence had 13 students from 7 states
including the Navajo Tribe as well as representatives from the Cambria Office and Pittsburgh's
Greentree OSM office. The project provided the students with a firsthand view of the stowing
and pipe installation. During the completion of the project, the Department was approached by
the local fire company about the possibility of utilizing the mine as a water source. The existing
exploratory drill hole was modified to provide a dry hydrant into the mine pool. The availability
of this additional water supply added greatly to the local Fire Department's ability to provide
water for fire protection for the community. The total cost of the Doud's of Plumville subsidence
control project including the stowing subcontractor's cost was $36,930.84.

22

 Drain pipe installation Doud’s of Plumville

Government Financed Construction Contracts (GFCC)
Pennsylvania leads the nation in achieving reclamation under the AML Enhancement Rule
promulgated by OSM on February 12, 1999. The 1999 “AML Enhancement Rule” was an
amendment to the Federal Regulations to allow incidental coal removal on Title IV AML
reclamation projects in the cases where there is less than 50 percent government financing. Prior
to this rule change, SMCRA Title IV AML reclamation projects that involved incidental coal
removal were required to have at least 50 percent of the cost of reclamation provided by a
governing agency’s budget. The purpose of this regulatory change was to encourage reclamation
of Title IV eligible sites that are unlikely to be reclaimed under an AML grant-funded
reclamation project or a Title V surface mining permit. Many low-rated health/safety and
environmental problems would otherwise go unreclaimed because scarce grant funds would be
expended on higher-priority projects and remining operations would avoid the area because of
the potential risks posed by marginal coal reserves and/or long-term liabilities associated with
pre-existing pollutional discharges or other environmental concerns. Removing the minimum 50
percent government funding threshold in projects involving coal removal incidental to an AML
reclamation contract, encourages reclamation of additional AML at little cost to the public.
According to cumulative information provided by PADEP for previous reports, 316 GFCC
project applications have been submitted since the program’s inception.
During the evaluation year, 15 GFCC projects reclaiming 129 acres were completed. The
completed projects represented approximately $691,900 in reclamation savings to the AML
program. Completed projects reclaimed barren land, eliminated highwalls and addressed water
quality problems. PADEP approved 29 complete applications. During the evaluation year,
PADEP accepted 18 new applications and held 25 pre-application meetings with contractors and
OSM. PADEP has a rigorous site review and application process. PADEP includes OSM in the
initial pre-application site review and the public in the review of the application. During the
period, PADEP rejected 2 applications with an additional one withdrawn by the applicant.
Reasons that applications are rejected by the program can include site eligibility problems,
23

 incomplete documentation, and potential water-related problems. As with year, applications are
occasionally withdrawn by the applicant or are simply not pursued to contract.
PADEP continued to promote AML Enhancement Rule reclamation in the Anthracite region with
one new project being approved. Representatives from the BAMR, the PADEP Pottsville
District Office, and OSM collaborated to meet with a potential contractor, review reclamation
proposals, and develop administrative information in support of project authorization. The
PADEP offices in Pottsville, Wilkes-Barre, and Harrisburg have been developing expertise in
GFCC program operations to promote additional reclamation under the AML Enhancement Rule
in the Anthracite region.
GFCC Project Data
Report Period – July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008
EY2008
EY2009
# Applications Received
42
18
# Applications Approved
28
29
# Applications Rejected/Withdrawn
3
3
# Applications Still Under Review
30
$$ Reclamation Value Approved (Bond $$)
$
# Projects Completed
9
15
# Acres Completed
150
129
$$ Reclamation Value Completed (Bond $$)

$ 831,000

$691,900

Sandy Run South GFCC
Luzerne County
Over the last year, the PADEP Pottsville District Mining Office (DMO) organized a work group
of BAMR, DMO and OSM employees to shepherd through a second Enhancement Rule project
in the Anthracite region. The DMO representative worked closely with the contractor, organized
workgroup meetings, and the coordinated review of a proposal to reclaim abandoned refuse along
Sandy Run Creek. The material to be reclaimed is approximately three to five feet in thickness
covering 4.5 acres. Material will be excavated from along Sandy Run Creek, screened to remove
trash and non-refuse material, and then removed from the site. Once completed, the affected
areas will be re-graded and re-vegetated. Projects conducted under the AML Enhancement Rule
result in reclamation of AML lands at little cost to the public. Completion of reclamation on the
Sandy Run Creek project represents a savings to the AML program of approximately $68,000.

24

 Sandy Run GFCC prior to reclamation

Whitney Mine Site GFCC
Westmoreland County
The Whitney site in Unity Township, Westmoreland County contained coal refuse from the
Whitney Mine that was operated by the now defunct Frick Coal Company. For many decades,
this material washed and eroded into an unnamed tributary of Nine Mile Run causing flooding
and pollution. Local government officials were anxious to have the pile removed but lacked
financial resources to complete the cleanup with public funds.
PADEP contracted with Robindale Energy Services Inc. of Seward, Indiana County to remove
the refuse from site. The material was taken to a nearby waste coal power plant. As part of the
refuse removal project, Robindale cleaned up a bond-forfeited site adjacent to the main pile,
relocated the stream to its original channel, and established vegetation on the reclaimed land.
Throughout the process, Robindale Energy Services maintained good working relationships with
neighboring property owners and the local municipal government. The former wasteland,
containing erosion, pollution and flooding problems, is now restored to usable land and the
property owner and his church group are raising funds to begin construction of a K-12 Christian
school on the site.
Pennsylvania’s AMD Set-Aside Program
Pennsylvania currently has a balance of $20.6 million in the Set-Aside fund. The total
accumulated revenue with interest that has been placed into the fund since inception is $47.3
million. Future plans for the Set-Aside fund include watershed-wide abatement projects to keep
surface streams from entering deep mine pools, and the construction of active treatment facilities
where the AMD problem is too large to address with passive facilities.
Since 2004, Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek has been the focus of a comprehensive multiprogram effort to restore water quality. To date, accomplishments include the restoration of the
Dents Run Tributary to net alkaline water quality for the first time in over a century. This project
alone eliminated over one-quarter of the acid load to Bennett Branch. In addition, the effort has
25

 included the restoration of over 800 acres of abandoned surface mine land into rangeland for
Pennsylvania’s growing elk herd, and partnering with the active mining industry to reclaim
several coal refuse piles and several hundred acres of AML at no cost to Pennsylvania’s AML
Program. During the last review period, PADEP finalized its plan for the Bennett Branch
Hydrologic Unit. State funding for capital construction of the much needed treatment plant was
approved by the governor on June 11, 2009 and contracting and construction should begin in late
2009 or early 2010. Addressing mine drainage on Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek and the
headwaters of the West Branch Susquehanna River are part of a larger effort by the
Commonwealth to improve the opportunities for tourism and economic development in north
central Pennsylvania by improving water quality. PADEP also continued to support five mine
drainage treatment plants with AMD Set-Aside funding.
During the review period, PADEP also committed to construction of the Lancashire No. 15 Mine
Drainage Treatment Project with AMD Set-Aside funding. The project addresses AMD from the
former Barnes and Tucker mining operation conducted as late as the 1960’s. The new treatment
plant will provide additional water to the Susquehanna River Basin to offset agricultural
consumption. The Pennsylvania General Assembly approved funding for a long-term operation
and maintenance trust fund. It is anticipated that up to 10 million gallons per day will be treated
and discharged to the Susquehanna River Basin during the low flow season each year. The new
plant will employ a circular clarifier and dense sludge recirculation technology. At the end of the
review period, PADEP reported that their plans for future Set-Aside hydrologic units include
additional treatment in the West Branch, as well as units in Blacklick Creek, Little Conemaugh,
and Clearfield Creek watersheds.

VI. Success in Achieving the Purposes of SMCRA
OSM’s national regulatory program oversight guidelines known as REG-8 requires an evaluation
of off-site impacts, reclamation success, and a component of customer service in its annual
oversight work plan with PADEP. Summaries of those evaluations and other significant program
evaluations are discussed below.
A.

Off-Site Impacts

OSM Directive REG-8, Oversight of State Regulatory Programs, requires an annual evaluation of
the success of mining and reclamation as determined by the number and severity of impacts
outside of the mining permit boundary. This information is one of OSM’s Government
Performance Results Act (GPRA) program performance measures. Off-site impact information is
presented in Table 4 of the Pennsylvania Annual Report. The information presented in Table 4
comes from PADEP’s data management system, e-FACTS. Off-Site Impacts are grouped as
impacts on people, land, water, and structures, and includes blasting, land stability, hydrology,
encroachment, and other impacts. Severity is determined as minor, moderate and major.
An off-site impact is defined as anything resulting from a surface coal mining and reclamation
activity or operation that causes a negative effect on resources (people, land, water, and
structures.) To count as an off-site impact, Pennsylvania must regulate or control the mining or
reclamation activity causing an off-site impact. In addition, the impact must be outside the area
26

 authorized by the permit for conducting mining and reclamation activities.
The impacts are classified by degree as minor, moderate, and major. A minor impact would not
affect the public, only disturb a small area or have negligible effect on the receiving stream. A
moderate impact would be any impact not fitting the criteria for minor or major. A major impact
would be defined as having a significant impact to the public, affect a large area; have a major
impact to the receiving stream, and would include mining without a permit.
Collection of off-site impact data is an integral part of permit monitoring and begins with the
state inspector. PADEP inspection staff record off-site impacts as part of the permit inspection
process. Off-site impacts result in compliance orders, which can initiate the assessment of civil
penalties. When a compliance order is written for a violation causing off-site impacts, the
inspection report includes a civil penalty work sheet that is provided to the compliance officer for
assessment of a civil penalty. The inspector’s report, determining off-site impacts, is reviewed by
the supervisor and verified for correctness. The compliance officer reviews the information
provided in the inspection report and the district compliance officer or legal assistant determines
the impact and severity of the impact, and enters the data in eFACTS.
During this evaluation year quarterly offsite reports were provided to OSM staff by Bureau of
Mining and Reclamation (BMR) staff. The reports were reviewed and comments provided to
PADEP on the completeness of data reporting and consistency in the data screens. All comments
were considered and changes were made to data reporting and recording to make the information
consistent and more complete.
Discussion of impacts
During the 2009 evaluation year PADEP inspectors conducted partial and complete inspections
on 1912 surface, underground, refuse, and preparation plant permits and reported 142 off-site
impacts. Out of the 142 impacts reported, 46 were determined to be administrative, with no on
the ground impacts, and were eliminated from the discussion. There are 96 remaining that meet
the criteria of off-site impacts. Twenty four of the off-site impacts were recorded on the same
permits. Therefore, there were 72 unique permits with violations involving off-site impacts. In
statistical terms, 96% of the permits were free of off-site impacts. The 2008 annual report
showed 91% of the permits were free of off-site impacts. Pennsylvania continues to maintain a
very high level of permits free of off-site impacts, and meets OSM’s Government Performance
Results Act (GPRA) goal of 93% of permits free of off-site impacts.

27

 The 96 off-site impacts collected this year are identified by PADEP as 10 major, 23 moderate
and 63 minor. They are categorized as follows: 56 hydrology (58% of total), 23 other (25% of
total), 7 land stability (7% of total), 7 blasting (7% of total), 3 encroachment (3% of total.)

Off-Site Impacts by Category
The majority of the impacts continue to be categorized as hydrology, resulting from the discharge
of improperly treated or untreated water that exceeds the numerical effluent limitation specified
in the permit and in Pennsylvania Title 25 Chapter 87.102. There were 56 hydrology impacts
(58% of the total). Of the 56 hydrology impacts, 5 were major, 11 were moderate, and 40 were
minor. The five major hydrology impacts were for the following violations:
-Failure to restore or replace an affected water supply.
-Failure to provide existing use protection.
-Discharging water that does not meet water quality limits.
-Failure to conduct mining activities to protect fish and wildlife.
-Failure to protect the prevailing hydrologic balance.
28

 The majority of the minor and moderate hydrological off-site impacts were for the following
violations: failure to properly design, construct or maintain erosion & sedimentation controls,
and discharging water that does not meet quality limits.
The second largest category of off-site impacts fell into the other category with 23 impacts (25%
of the total). Four of the impacts were major and cited for the following violations:
- Two for conducting mining activities without a permit.
-Two for failure to file a notice of intent to explore prior to conducting coal exploration.
There were 7 off-site blasting impacts (7% of the total) with one moderate impact cited for
failure to employ adequate air pollution controls. The remainder were categorized as minor.
Land stability resulted in 7 off-site violations (7%) of the total.) There was a major land stability
violation cited for conducting mining activities without a permit. Two land stability violations
were classified as moderate for conducting mining on an unbonded area and failure to plant
disturbed areas during the first planting season after backfilling.
Encroachment was the smallest category with 3 violations which comprise 3% of the total. There
were no major encroachment off-site impacts reported for the period. There were two moderate
impacts for conducting mining activities in a barrier area without first obtaining a variance and
conducting mining activities on an unbonded area. The one minor impact was cited for
conducting mining activities on an unbonded area.
OSM inspectors conducted 113 oversight complete inspections in the bituminous and
anthracite areas. As an independent check of the data collected by PADEP, OSM’s oversight
complete inspections note any observed off-site impacts. OSM observed 18 off-site impacts
which are broken down as follows: 8 hydrology, 7 encroachment, 1 land stability, 1 other and 1
blasting. Thus, 84% of the permits inspected by OSM over the course of the evaluation period
were free of off-site impacts.
An analysis of the data provided by PADEP indicated that a violation of 25 PA Code §86.11,
conducting mining activities without a permit, and 25 PA Code §86.133, a failure to file a notice
of intent to explore, prior to conducting coal exploration, were all classified as major off-site
impacts. In accordance with OSM’s REG 8, this is a major impact. OSM and PADEP staff
previously discussed the inconsistencies in reporting these violations and it appears to be
resolved.
Another issue, that has been resolved, is the reporting of off-site impacts if a violation of 25 PA
Code §87.102 was cited. A violation of §87.102 is discharging water that does not meet effluent
standards. In past evaluation years, OSM noted that PADEP inspectors may choose not to report
an off-site impact if the non compliant discharge did not affect the water quality of the receiving
stream (already severely degraded). For the 2009 evaluation year, PADEP reported off-site
impacts for all citations issued under 25 PA Code §87.102.
In past discussions with PADEP staff, there was agreement that mining without a permit, mining
outside the permit boundary, and mining without a license would be classified as a violation with
29

 a major off-site impact. All of the citations issued this year for these violations were correctly
classified.
The number of permits with no off site impacts has remained consistently high for the last
several evaluation years. Hydrology still remains the highest source of off-site impacts with
failure to properly design, construct or maintain erosion & sedimentation controls being overall
the largest violation. The total number of off-site impacts cited has fallen from the 2008
evaluation year, when 165 off-site impacts were recorded for 1667 permits. This could in part be
a result of increased understanding, among the inspection and enforcement staff, with the process
for identifying and recording off-site impacts, and BMR staff efforts to assure the eFACTS data
is properly entered. There is also more consistency in reporting off-site impacts when non
compliant water leaves the permit and flows into a degraded stream.
B.

Reclamation Success

OSM Directive REG-8, Oversight of State Regulatory Programs, requires a yearly evaluation of
the success of reclamation as determined by the acres of bond release. In Pennsylvania, acres
reclaimed to Stage I, II, and III standards is used instead of acres with bond release because this
provides a more contemporary measure of the reclamation activity. This information is one of
OSM’s GPRA (Government Performance Results Act) program performance measures. Bond
release information is presented in Table 5 of the Pennsylvania Annual Report. The information
presented in Table 5 comes from PADEP’s eFACTS data management system.
In Evaluation Year 2009, PFD inspection staff reviewed a sample of permits with reports of acres
reclaimed during the evaluation year, using the most recently filed Annual Bond Calculation or
Coal completion Report. In EY 2007, OSM’s review determined that data entry into eFACTS
from these reports was good, so no review of this activity was scheduled for EY 2009. However,
in EY2010, PFD will again be evaluating the field component of the process to determine data
validation and entry efficiency. The 2009 Reclamation Success Inspection Form was completed
for 18 permits where reclaimed acreage was reported. Sixteen were for bituminous permits and
two were for anthracite permits. Seventeen of the permits reported acreage meeting Stage I
requirements (mining completed and area backfilled and planted). Six of the permits reported
acreage meeting Stage II reclamation standards (vegetation established, with 70% coverage).
Two of the permits sampled reported Stage III reclamation (vegetation requirements met for 5
years). A total of 429 acres of Stage I reclamation was reported by the operators, and OSM
verified that all reported acreage met Stage I requirements. A total of 515 Stage II acres were
reported by the operators, and all reported acreage except 4 acres was verified as meeting Stage II
standards. On that permit, four acres reported as meeting Stage II standards did not have the
required trees. Ninety-six acres was reported and confirmed as meeting Stage III requirements.
PADEP accumulates acres meeting Stage I, II and III reclamation success through operator
reporting on the Annual Bond Calculation and Coal Completion Reports. This information is
entered into eFACTS and compiled every year for Table 5. For the current evaluation year,
PADEP reports 7,471 Stage I acres; 4,546 Stage II acres; and 4,120 Stage III acres.

30

 C.

Customer Service

OSM Directive REG-8, Oversight of State Regulatory Programs, requires a yearly evaluation of a
component of PADEP’s public participation and customer service provisions in the approved
regulatory program. This year OSM selected public participation in the bond release program for
evaluation. Pennsylvania coal mine permittees and PADEP District Mining Office staff have
various regulatory responsibilities, policy guidelines, and administrative programs for notifying
the general public on issues involving bond release of a mining permit. These include publishing
bond release notification, soliciting comments on bond release actions, and possibly holding
public meetings. The manner in which permittees and PADEP carry out these responsibilities can
impact the number and severity of concerns expressed by land owners and the public. This study
reviewed PADEP’s regulations and the implementation of public participation procedures in
notifying the public of meetings and the process of accepting and responding to citizen input. The
review consisted of a file review of public participation, notification issues, and citizen responses
for the period July 1, 2008 through April 30, 2009. Files were reviewed for notification of
meetings and bond release actions.
Overall, the study was able to demonstrate that regulatory responsibilities, policy guidelines, and
administrative programs for notifying the general public on issues involving bond release of a
mining permit are being met. Generally, the district offices have effective file maintenance
systems and provide easy access for the public to review bond release documentation and
information. However, it is recommended that the Pottsville District Office develop a method to
track bond release documentation and a more efficient way of providing the information to the
public. The other district offices should consider developing a checklist to verify that all
information required to be in a bond release newspaper advertisement is part of the
advertisement.
OSM determined that the PADEP District Mining Offices are cognizant of the requirements of
the bond release process. They demonstrate, in file maintenance, documentation tracking, and
information accessibility, their effort to provide an effective public participation process.
D.

Refuse Disposal Mine Permit Study

During the evaluation year, the Harrisburg Field Office initiated an oversight study focused on
identifying and assessing the permitting techniques used by PADEP to prevent coal refuse
disposal sites from developing post-mining discharges, and during mining, to minimize
disturbances to the prevailing hydrologic balance in the permit and adjacent areas and to prevent
material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area. The study is divided into two
phases. In the first phase, completed during the 2009 oversight year, contained four objectives.
The first objective was to present the regulatory requirements relating to the protection of the
hydrologic balance at refuse disposal sites. The second objective of the study was to document
the PADEP’s permitting strategies used for refuse operations to prevent post-mining discharges.
The third objective was to determine whether PADEP’s refuse disposal permitting strategy is
consistent with Federal Regulation and OSM’s AMD policy. The fourth objective was to
provide a characterization of the permit status of refuse disposal sites in Pennsylvania.

31

 The study found that PADEP uses a “zero discharge” permitting strategy to prevent post-mining
discharges at refuse operations. The program requires refuse piles to be “encapsulated” by
installing a liner and capping system to prevent ground and surface water infiltration into the
refuse material, after reclamation. The program contains a technical guidance document that
outlines the testing and standards that must be achieved before a material can be used to
construct a cap or liner. The program also requires a professional engineer certify the
construction of the refuse pile and requires in-situ of the liner and cap to ensure proper
construction. The testing and certification requirements are part of PADEP’s strategy to ensure
the cap and liner are designed and constructed with materials that will prevent infiltration after
reclamation and prevent a perpetual discharge. While the permitting strategy is designed to
prevent a perpetual post-mining discharge, the program does recognize that a temporary
discharge will occur during active refuse disposal and before reclamation. Every refuse disposal
permit application must submit a treatment plan to address the temporary discharge. The study
found that PADEP’s zero discharge permitting strategy is consistent with Federal regulations that
require operations to be designed to minimize impacts to the hydrologic balance within the
permit area and prevent material damage outside the permit area.
The study produced a characterization of non-forfeited primacy refuse disposal pile permits in
Pennsylvania. PADEP’s eFACTS was queried to identify refuse permits and permit status.
Figure 1 shows that 127 refuse disposal permits, which were not forfeited, were issued since
primacy. Of the 127 permits, 65 have achieved reclamation and full bond release. The query
showed that ~12% of the refuse permits are in reclamation stage and 26% of the permits are still
active.

Figure 1: Breakout of refuse disposal permits by permit status

Of the 127 refuse disposal permits identified in the query, 20% of them contain a post-mining
discharge. Figure 2 provides insight into the refuse disposal sites that contain a perpetual
32

 discharge. Figure 2 shows that 10 of the 25 sites with discharges contain an “active” permit
status, meaning that refuse is still be disposed of on site or the site has not achieved the
reclamation requirements for stage 1 bond release. Figure 2 also shows that 13 of the 25 sites
have achieved all land reclamation standards and 3 sites are still in the process of being
reclaimed but have a perpetual discharge.

Figure 2: Breakout of refuse disposal permits that contain a perpetual discharge by permit status

All objectives of Phase I were met. During the 2010 evaluation year, Phase 2 of the refuse study
will be completed. Phase 2 contains three objectives. The first objective is to perform permit
and onsite reviews to ensure the prevention and minimization techniques are being implemented.
The second objective is to document the hydrologic review process at bond release for refuse
piles. The third objective is to validate the “reclamation complete” status in eFACTS by visiting
several permits that contain that status and field validating the hydrologic reclamation.

VII. OSM Assistance
A.

AML/AMD Treatment Systems GIS and Information Data Base

The number of passive AMD treatment systems installed in Pennsylvania to remediate the effects
of abandoned mine drainage in streams is rapidly growing. Treatment systems are being funded
and/or installed by or under the supervision of PADEP’s BAMR and DMO, County
Conservation Districts, local governments and non-profit organizations. Pennsylvania’s Growing
Greener Program provides significant funding to PADEP and numerous local municipalities and
watershed groups for the construction of AMD treatment facilities. OSM’s WCAP also provides
direct assistance to watershed groups for AMD remediation. There are numerous foundations,
conservancies and other organizations providing funding for AMD treatment facilities. Because
of the large numbers of entities involved in the funding, construction and operation/maintenance
33

 of these systems, no one agency or organization had compiled a complete list of basic GIS
information on the projects. However, there is general consensus on the need to maintain one
data base of all passive treatment projects.
Through June 30, 2009, approximately 280 individual passive treatment project sites have been
entered into the Pennsylvania GIS data base. These projects have a total capital investment of
over 70 million dollars. It is noted that there are often multiple treatment systems at each project
site, and the data base contains information on the type and number of treatment systems
associated with each project. Information on projects is collected from a wide range of sources
including consultants, State and Federal agencies, conservation districts, and non-profit
watershed groups. In 2007/2008, PADEP made extensive use of the data base in preparation for
the state wide meetings to solicit input for future use of Title IV AML funds anticipated under
AML Reauthorization. PADEP also used the data base in developing the Program
Implementation Guidelines for BAMR’s AMD Set-Aside Program. BAMR also conducted
significant outreach to sponsoring organizations soliciting updated information regarding the
passive treatment systems in the data base. This effort provided valuable information regarding
the condition of the treatment systems and the need for a state-wide operation and maintenance
program. All of the data collected was converted into electronic format and is being uploaded to
a publicly available website, www.datashed.org. OSM and BAMR are in agreement that there is
value in continuing to maintain and update the data base as new AMD treatment projects are
constructed, or as existing treatment systems are modified or rehabilitated. Discussions are
underway regarding how this objective will be accomplished.
B.

AMD Inventory Maintenance (Primacy Permits)

PADEP and OSM continued their cooperative approach to maintenance of a statewide mine
drainage inventory (MDI) of long-term pollutional discharges from sites mined under the
Pennsylvania primacy program. The purpose of the inventory is to provide a data base with
which PADEP and OSM can determine the number and size of post mining pollutional
discharges on primacy permits assess the potential treatment technologies to address problem
sites, identify the amount of bond available to treat the discharges and estimate the cost to abate
the pollution. Currently, PFD maintains the MDI and shares information with PADEP.
The inventory is a dynamic tool, which is being updated, as new information is made available.
Throughout the evaluation year PFD inspectors inspect permitted sites with pollutional
discharges, and collect water samples. This information is then updated in the inventory.
PADEP is in the process of incorporating the MDI into eFACTS. This integration will eliminate
the necessity for OSM and PADEP to maintain two versions of the MDI. Having the MDI on
eFACTS will provide transparency of the MDI and an avenue for the public sector to access
discharge information. It will also facilitate the process for identifying permits to be reviewed by
OSM in future studies.
For this year’s study, OSM inspectors inspected the following permits and provided an analysis
for each discharge:

34

 Permit Number

Operator

Site Name

03801302

Keystone Coal Mining Corp.

Margaret No 7

03851305

Cannel Coal Co. Inc.

Cannel #1

11831301

Meadows & Leonard Mining Inc.

Shuster Mine

32921301

Keystone Coal Mining Corp.

Plumcreek #1

33841303

Doverspike Bros. Coal Co.

Dora #6

41920101

Fisher Mining Co.

Frazier Mine

56823108

C & O Coal Co.

Burkholder

56841306

Lion Mining Co.

Grove #1

56841328

Rosebud Mining

Windber 78

63891301

Mon Valley Steel

Clyde

PFD conducted file reviews on these ten AMD discharge sites listed on the MDI to collect the
most recent PADEP discharge sampling information. Sites are selected as part of a multi-year
systematic plan to continually update information on the MDI. The MDI currently lists 261
primacy permits with a total of 428 AMD discharges. OSM will continue to update the MDI with
new discharges, and updated flow and chemistry information, as they become known through
OSM and PADEP inspections.
C.

Watershed Cooperative Agreement Program

In 1999, OSM established the Watershed Cooperative Agreement Program (WCAP), funded
under the Appalachian Clean Streams Program (ACSP). To date, 77 WCAP grants have been
awarded to Pennsylvania non-profit watershed groups for a total of about 7 million dollars. Total
costs for these projects including all partner cash and in-kind donations of labor and services are
about 32 million dollars. In total, OSM’s contribution to the projects averages about 22 percent.
Seventy-two of the projects have been awarded to construct passive treatment systems with most
projects involving more than one treatment system. Two projects were for land reclamation to
reduce or eliminate a source of mine drainage. Three projects were for active treatment of mine
water. Seventy-two projects have been completed. In the evaluative year, there was one new
project grant awarded for a total of $100,000. PADEP is frequently involved as a primary
partner in these direct assistance grants, either providing funding and or technical assistance, and
OSM Harrisburg Office staff coordinates with PADEP to help assure the successful completion
of the projects. Funds provided by OSM complete the remediation budget, and OSM receives a
large number of financial assistance requests from Growing Greener program applicants. Other
financial partners involved in WCAP projects include the NRCS, Environmental Protection
Agency, the Eastern and Western Pennsylvania Coalitions for Abandoned Mine Reclamation, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and numerous foundations, conservancies, watershed
groups, industries and coal mining companies, and individuals. Because of the partnership
nature of the WCAP, the OSM Harrisburg Office is routinely involved in meetings and site visits
35

 with watershed groups, PADEP and other project partners, helping to coordinate the technical
and programmatic aspects, and to resolve issues. The OSM has dedicated a significant amount of
staff resources in administering this program, and provides significant technical help to
watershed groups seeking the best available technology to remediate their mine drainage
problems.

VIII. General Oversight Topic Reviews
Each year the OSM, in consultation with PADEP, develops an oversight work plan, as required
by the OSM Directive REG-8, Oversight of State Regulatory Programs. This plan includes
various aspects of Pennsylvania’s approved coal regulatory and Title IV AML programs that
OSM will evaluate for effectiveness, innovation, and compliance. OSM’s oversight is not
process driven. It focuses on the on-the-ground/end result success of Pennsylvania’s program in
achieving the purposes of SMCRA. A review team is established for each topic and a team
leader is designated. PADEP is invited to appoint team members, and in some cases, joint
OSM/PADEP team leaders are designated. At the conclusion of the evaluation, a report is
written and provided to PADEP for comment prior to finalization. Copies of the reports are
maintained in the public evaluation file located in the OSM Harrisburg Office.
Several evaluation studies have been discussed earlier in this report and are not repeated here. A
summary and results of each remaining study follows.
A.

Oversight Inspections

The oversight inspection study is conducted to fulfill responsibilities as specified in OSM’s
Oversight policy REG-8, regarding review of PADEP’s permitting and inspection program for
surface coal mining operations. This study includes reviews of applicable mine permit files and
on-site inspections focused on identification of off site impacts resulting from various mining
activities. Inspections are documented using OSM’s Mine Site Evaluation and addendum forms.
Inspection data is entered into a national data base. Specifically, this study provides monitoring
capability for the entire spectrum of State program operations and gives an up-to-date perspective
of the on-the-ground successes of Pennsylvania’s mining program. In addition, data was
collected in support of other studies identified in the 2009 Work Plan.
OSM conducted a total of 251 inspections during the evaluation year. Of those inspections, 113
were oversight complete inspections (OC) of mine sites, with 80 conducted in the bituminous
region and 33 conducted in the anthracite region. These inspections covered 6% of the total
number of active mining permits in Pennsylvania. The other 138 inspections were in support of
other oversight work plan evaluations, document reviews, the mine drainage inventory,
Government Financed Construction Contract (GFCC) proposals, responses to citizen complaints,
Ten-Day Notices, and state enforcement action follow-ups.
The 113 OCs inspections revealed 51 permits had violations which represents 45% of the sites
inspected. In the bituminous region, 35% of the permits inspected had violations noted. In the
anthracite region, 67% of the permits inspected had violations noted. This marks an improvement
over the last evaluation period in which 52% of the total permits inspected had violations. A total
of 122 violations were identified during OC inspections this year and referred to PADEP for
36

 resolution. This represents a slight improvement in the violation per inspection ratio from 2008
(1.07 in 2009 versus 1.13 in 2008). This year, multiple violations were observed on 27 permits.
Of the 122 violations identified, 6 were for pond certifications, and 4 were for haul road
certifications. In 2008, there were 36 violations identified for pond and haul road certification.
On June 6, 2008, PADEP issued guidance to the operators requiring annual pond certifications to
be submitted with the annual bond review commencing on July 1, 2008, and road certifications
for all new roads, as constructed. At the end of the evaluation year, PADEP was preparing
guidance for certifying roads constructed before July 1, 2008. OSM will continue to monitor this
activity.
All of the 122 violations discovered pursuant to OC s were deferred to DEP for enforcement
action. OSM tracked the resolution of these deferred violations and found that PADEP took
action to have all the violations abated. This year, 18 of the 122 violations (14.7%) observed
were considered to have resulted in off-site impacts. This also represents an improvement from
2008, when 20 of the violations noted resulted in off-site impacts. The off-site impacts included
8 violations related to “hydrologic impacts;” 7 violations related to “encroachment;” 1 violation
related to “land stability;” 1 violation related to “blasting” and 1 violation is categorized as
“other,” further identified as violations due to exploration activities without authorization by
DEP.
During this evaluation period OSM initiated a study to acquire data regarding violations noted
during OSM oversight inspections compared to complete and/or partial inspections conducted by
PADEP inspectors performing inspections, without OSM present, during the six month period
prior to the OSM OC inspection. The results of this study are outlined in Table 2 below:

PADEP
OSM inspections
District Mining
per DMO
Office

OSM violations
noted during
inspection

DEP violations
noted during
inspection*

Ebensburg

23

5

5

Greensburg

29

34

11

Moshannon

18

18

7

Knox

10

13

1

Pottsville

33

52

4

Total

113

122

28

*Note: DEP violation data included the total for all inspections conducted in the past 6 months

In the chart above, column two shows the total number of permits inspected by OSM and the
distribution by District Office. Column three shows the total number and distribution of
violations observed on the 113 permits inspected by OSM. Column four shows the total number
37

 of violations cited by PADEP on the same permits, in the previous six months. All of the 122
violations deferred by OSM to PADEP for action were found resolved in OSM’s follow up
inspections. The data illustrates the large difference in violation citation rates between OSM and
PADEP. Further evidence of this difference is found in the total ratio of violations cited by
PADEP per inspection. With 16,685 partial and complete inspections conducted in EY09 and
612 violations issued, PADEP inspectors cited .04 violations per inspection, whereas PADEP
inspectors identified 1.07 violations per inspection when OSM was present for an OC inspection.
The following two graphs illustrate the distribution of violations noted during OSM’s OC
inspections.

Analysis of the data shown above demonstrates two major trends: hydrologic impacts, within the
bituminous region, continue to be the most prevalent environmental concern and there is a
growing trend of significant administrative violations, particularly in the Anthracite Region. The
specific types of administrative violations in the anthracite region include: violations for mining
without a permit; mining outside a bonded area; terms and conditions of a permit; failure to
provide sufficient permit information; improper signs and markers; insufficient drainage control
38

 and violation of temporary cessation orders.
A trend noted is the decreasing number of inspections even as the total number of permits is
increasing. The number of inspections has decreased from 18,181 in 2007 to 16,685 in 2009,
while the number of permits has grown from 1,767 in 2007 to 1,912 in 2009. PADEP is required
to inspect a permit every month, in a combination of partial and complete, with a complete
inspection at least every quarter. The frequency of partial inspections of inactive (Phase II
complete or temporary cessation) permits is discretionary as necessary to ensure compliance with
the permit. Assuming the most aggressive inspection frequency, PADEP could have conducted
22,944 inspections on 1,912 permits. For 2009, PADEP conducted 73% of this expected
number. Of more concern is that the number of complete inspections required (four per year)
should be 7,648 for 1,912 permits, while only 6,397 were reported. PADEP reports that
budgetary restrictions and the resulting inability to fill vacancies resulted in inspection frequency
prioritization and stratification.
OSM believes this reduction in the number of inspections shows up in Table 10, State
Enforcement Activity. In EY 2008, PADEP reported that 744 violations were issued. In the
current year PADEP reports 612 violations, an 18% drop in one year. However, the rate of
violations cited per inspection remains the same from 2008 to 2009 at .04%. OSM will further
investigate this issue during the 2010 Evaluation Year.

Fifty of the operations inspected had provisions in their permit for “re-mining.” Several positive
impacts were noted on the majority of these 50 operations. Reduction of lineal feet of high wall
and abandoned acreage reclamation were common positive impacts. The OSM inspectors
examining these sites anticipate additional positive impacts from re-mining; however reclamation
had not yet reached the applicable reclamation phases at the point in time of the OSM OC
inspection. Thirteen of the operations inspected were permitted with “Subchapter F” conditions.
Each OC inspection provided a focused evaluation of the bond and bond calculations for the
disturbed area, distance and item limits allowed within the permit. Of the 80 OC inspections
39

 conducted within the bituminous region, two sites were determined to have inadequate bonding.
However, in one case, the permit was forfeited in 1995, and there is inadequate bond for
reclamation, and in the other case, the permit expired in 2006 without bond being posted. This
case is in litigation. Of the 33 OC inspections conducted within the anthracite region, two sites
were determined to have inadequate bonding. Bond inadequacy is being addressed through a
CO&A at one permit, and in the other, the bonding shortfall was identified in a deficiency letter
and will be resolved in the upcoming annual bond review. All other permits reviewed were found
to be adequately bonded in accordance with the bonding guidelines.
There were six new Ten Day Notices (TDN) issued during the evaluation year. Five TDNs were
issued on the basis of citizen’s complaints and one was issued on the basis of an OSM
inspection. The TDNs resulted in the deferral of 20 alleged violations to PADEP for action. The
TDNs are summarized below.
TDN 08-121-50-001 Waroquier Coal Co. This TDN was issued based on a citizen complaint that
the permit had not been properly revegetated and that a sediment control structure was not
adequately maintained. PADEP responded that the revegetation issues had been addressed by the
operator, and that a violation had been issued to remove sediment from the pond. OSM found
PADEP had taken appropriate action to have the violation corrected and shown good cause that
no violations existed regarding the other two allegations. The citizen did not request an informal
review.
TDN 08-121-273-002 Helvetia Coal Company. This TDN was issued based on a citizen
complaint that mine seeps were entering private property from an adjacent permitted refuse
disposal area. This TDN was the second of three issued against this permit. PADEP responded
that one of the seeps was covered by an existing permit, and that it had directed the permittee to
develop a plan to address the other 3 seeps. PFD found that PADEP had demonstrated good
cause for not taking action regarding the one seep and appropriate action to have the other seeps
addressed. The complainant filed a request for informal review, and the Regional Director is
reviewing the case.
TDN 09-121-147-001 Mulligan Mining Inc. This TDN was issued based on a citizen complaint
that topsoil was not being properly conserved and re-spread on the farm after mining, that
approximate original contour was not being achieved, and that ruts in a field, left by equipment,
were not removed. PADEP responded that it had met with the complainant and that all issues had
been resolved. OSM found PADEP had demonstrated good cause for not taking action in that
there were no violations of the permit requirements. Sufficient topsoil was being spread on the
permit, approximate original contour will be achieved when the sediment pond is removed, and
the ruts had been filled. The citizen did not request an informal review.
TDN 09-121-011-002 TDK Coal Sales Inc. This TDN was issued on the basis of an OSM
oversight inspection. OSM noted that a required haul road certification was not in the permit
file. PADEP responded that program changes were being made to provide instructions for
certifying roads in existence before July 1, 2008, and that once those guidelines were issued, road
certifications for pre-existing roads would be required with the annual bond review. OSM
accepted this response as appropriate action to have the violation corrected.
40

 TDN 09-121-273-001 Helvetia Coal Company. This TDN was issued on the basis of a citizen
complaint that a refuse disposal permit was creating off-site impacts on an adjacent property.
This is the third TDN issued for this permit on behalf of the adjacent landowner. There were a
total of six alleged violations including off permit seeps, failure to acquire landowner access,
inadequate bonding for the seeps, and failure to comply with permit requirements when
discharging surface water into an underground mine. PADEP responded that the permittee had
been ordered to submit a permit revision to address all of the violations. PFD accepted the
response as appropriate action to have the violations corrected. The complainant requested an
informal review from the Regional Director, and that review is underway.
TDN 09-121-011-001 Albert Stiffler Mining Company. This TDN was issued on the basis of a
citizen complaint that blasting activities at a nearby mining operation had resulted in the
contamination of a well water supply, and damages to the residence. PADEP response
documented that there was no correlation between the damages at the residence, or the well water
contamination, and blasting activities at the mine. PFD accepted this response as demonstrating
good cause that no violations existed. The citizen requested an informal review from the
Regional Director of the decision regarding blasting damages at the residence, and the review is
under way.
There are two continuing actions from a prior evaluation year, regarding ground water
contamination from the placement of coal combustion by-products on mine refuse disposal
permits. In both these cases, PFD found PADEP’s response demonstrated “good cause” for not
taking action. One of these coal ash complaints received an informal review from the Regional
Director. The Regional Director upheld PFD’s “good cause” determination, and the complainant
appealed the decision to Interior’s Board of Land Hearings and Appeals (IBLA). IBLA
remanded OSM’s decision for further review, and OSM is currently reviewing the decision to
determine what action is needed. The other coal ash complaint is under informal review by the
Regional Director.
One other continuing case was reviewed by IBLA at the request of the complainant, following a
“good cause” determination by PFD, which was subsequently upheld during an informal review.
This case involved off permit mine discharges from Helvetia Coal Company’s refuse disposal
permit, which were allegedly contaminating a private water supply. IBLA remanded the case to
OSM to address information gaps in the record. OSM is addressing IBLA’s comments. This case
was the first of three interrelated TDN’s on the Helvetia Mining Company’s refuse disposal
permit, as discussed above.
B.

Abandoned Mine Lands Project Reviews

OSM conducts site reviews of AML projects to understand how PADEP controls the reclamation
process and to determine whether the program is meeting stated goals and objectives. During the
evaluation year, the Harrisburg office conducted 24 site visits to approved AML projects during
various phases of completion. When possible, site visits were coordinated with BAMR which is
offered the opportunity to accompany OSM during the review. OSM gathered information on
site status, BAMR monitoring, overall project success, and the existence of actual or potential
problems. The site visits conducted by OSM included 11 construction phase reviews, 5 final
41

 inspection phase reviews, and 8 post-completion phase reviews. Overall, OSM construction,
final, and post-final reviews confirm that BAMR successfully manages the AML project
reclamation process. BAMR develops effective designs and monitors contractor performance to
ensure that the projects meet the goals and objectives of the AML program.
C.

Use of Conventional Bonds and Treatment Trust Funds for long term treatment

PADEP continued to negotiate and implement Trust Funds and Conventional Bonds for the
perpetual treatment of primacy permits with post mining discharges. PADEP uses AMDTreat,
and/or actual water treatment cost data the coal company or a third party provides, as instruments
to aid in the establishment of the bond or treatment trust funds amount. Other factors such as the
trust’s life span, market rate, and administration costs are also taken into consideration for
establishing trust fund accounts.
PADEP has developed a database type instrument to track the operators and facilities requiring a
pollutional discharge financial instrument. This Treatment Trusts database is sectioned by district
office and agreement status to track pollutional discharge agreements and bonding. Offices
identified are California, Cambria, District Mining, Greensburg, Knox, Moshannon, and
Pottsville. Agreement status includes data collection in progress, initial calculations are
completed, negotiations are ongoing, agreement has been reached, and Trust/Bond is finalized.
Included in the database are pre-primacy and non-coal permits along with primacy coal mining
permits. This data base is being converted to an eFACTS format, and will include information on
payments and payment schedules, disbursements and reports.
The treatment trust database contains 107 agreements associated with primacy, coal mining
related pollutional discharges. The 107 primacy pollutional discharge agreements encompass 184
permits and address 317 discharges. The process to have a financially solvent reclamation
guarantee for each discharge requires several steps. Agreements are in various stages of financial
execution. They are:
Fully Funded/Bond
Fully Funded/Trust
Partially Funded
Not Started/Bond Req.

– 46
– 23
– 9
– 29

During the Evaluation Year, PFD selected three trust agreements to determine if basic
information required by the agreements was present in the files, and to evaluate implementation
of the agreements. The review found the basic information required by parts H through N of the
agreement was present. However, the review found that the trusts are not reaching or maintaining
their financial goals. The review found that required treatment systems upgrades are not being
completed, and, in one case, associated reclamation bonds were released before the trust was
fully funded. The review also found that required annual financial reviews are not being
consistently conducted. PFD also noted the absence of income and disbursement ledger sheets,
which would make it easier to track the financial status of the trust funds. Upgrading the
treatment trusts into eFACTS should remedy the financial concerns.

42

 D.

Internal Control Study

The OSM and PADEP conducted a joint review of the DMO offices for the tenth year during the fall
of 2008. The team reviewed two areas:
Procedures for the dissemination and actions required when processing water monitoring reports
received by the district offices.
Pit variance procedures, concurrent reclamation, and on bond calculations on pits exceeding 1,500
feet in length or 300 feet in width.
The review teams consisted of two representatives from DMO and OSM. Prior to the offices’ visits,
questionnaires were sent to each District Mining Office to gather initial information on water
monitoring reports and pit variance requests procedures. Each mining office provided data on water
monitoring procedures and compiled a list of sites with pits longer than 1,500 feet or wider than 300
feet. The California District Office is the regulatory authority for underground mining, refuse
disposal sites and coal preparation plants and therefore participated only in the water monitoring
portion of the study.
The review teams conducted 72 office reviews on water monitoring reports and procedures. The
Mine Conservation Inspector (MCI) for each site was solicited to provide information about his
responsibilities and the office’s procedures regarding water monitoring reports and the course of
action when a non-compliant sampling is observed.
The review teams conducted 51 permit reviews of mining sites with pit variances to review bond
adequacy and documentation for concurrent reclamation. The review teams performed 20 field
inspections on surface mining sites with pit variances.
Selected Findings:
Water monitoring was found to be generally complete and current except for one office where
several discrepancies between what is listed in the Sample Information System (SIS), the permit
requirements, and what the operator is submitting were evident.
The Department relies heavily on the MCI to review the water monitoring reports. Although this
is an important aspect of the MCI’s duties, it is easy for them to miss a problem early on when it
can readily be addressed.
The Pottsville Office has some very large pits in the Anthracite region using “Phased Bonding.”
This bonding is based on 25 PA Code 86.161, and is a payment schedule over a period of time to
allow for complete bonding of the sites. Although these sites are closely monitored by the district
office, it does expose the Department to a potentially large backfilling obligation. Also, as bond
rates continue to escalate, it raises the question if the mine site would ever achieve full bonding.
It is difficult in the anthracite region to determine bond adequacy at any given point in time
because of the nature of open pit mining. In some cases it seems a great deal of confidence is put
in the consultants calculations as being accurate even though the Pottsville District Office does
perform spot checks of the calculations.
43

 The current Technical Guidance Document (TGD) allows for a 15% overage and this amount
could result in sites being vastly under bonded while still meeting the spirit of the TGD.
In all of the district offices it was difficult to follow the paper trail on how determinations were
made to issue a pit variance and what the appropriate bonding amounts should be. It appears that
the offices looked at various criteria for determining bonds. Some counted access ramps as part
of the pit while others chose not to address the ramps. It was also difficult to determine how the
cut off for bonding was determined in whether the site was bonded at less than 500 feet or greater
than 500 feet or how much of each applied to the site.
In one office, where sites met the requirements for an exemption request, it was found that the
requests were granted but the bond calculations were never upgraded. Some sites were still
bonded at rates from 2006 and 2007.
PFD will follow up on these findings during EY2010.
E.

Status of LC&N Permit

LC&N is in bankruptcy and operating under a Consent Order and Agreement (CO&A) initially
executed in September 2002, and amended on April 26, 2006 and June 2, 2008. A third
amendment is pending. This is an 8,000 acre permit near Tamaqua, Schuylkill County PA. The
permit is an Alternative Bonding System (ABS) permit that has not converted to full cost
bonding. Forfeiture of this permit could have a significant impact on the financial ability of
PADEP to complete its land and water reclamation obligations remaining under the former ABS
program. To help understand the potential implications of this possibility, OSM conducted a
review of the status of the permit and was provided the following information by PADEP.
The primary features of the permit are two large un-reclaimed pits (Springdale and 99/111) and a
discharge (Route 309) with a flow rate between 3 and 4 thousand gpm, which is currently being
treated with a pebble quick lime system. The CO&A establishes backfilling and payment
schedules for the two pits and the AMD treatment system trust fund.
The CO&A, amendment No. 2 established a backfilling schedule of 425,000cyds per quarter into
the pits, and a bond payment of $575,000 per quarter beginning in the first quarter of 2009. In
2010 the quarterly bond payment grows to $700,000, and in 2011, the quarterly payment grows
to $777,500. In 2012, the remaining bond amount liability will be calculated and reconciled. If
425,000cyds of material is placed in the pits, the required bond posting is $575,000/quarter.
There is about a dollar for dollar ratio between material placed and bond posted. Therefore, for
every cubic yard of material placed above the 425,000, the amount of bond required for that
quarter is reduced by one dollar. Should the amount of material placed fall below 425,000cyds,
the bond amount increases correspondingly.
In the first quarter of 2009, LC&N reported almost 1 million cubic yards of material deposited
into the two pits. The information is being verified by PADEP, but if true, the required bond
deposit would be about $9,500. In the first two months of the second quarter, LC&N reports
609,000cyds of material deposited (subject to PADEP verification). The 2008 Annual Bond
Review for the LC&N permit shows a total land reclamation bond liability for the permit of
44

 $14,723,407. There is a total of $7,605,878 posted, including $2,100,000 in conversion
assistance. This leaves a deficit of $7,117,529. As the amount of material deposited grows, and
quarterly bond deposits are made, the bond deficit will decrease.
PADEP is confident that, should LC&N default on its obligations and the permit is forfeited,
there will be opportunities for other companies to take over, or carve out sections of the permit
for continued operation. PADEP believes there are sufficient coal reserves, and coal deposits in
the associated refuse material, to interest other companies, or to keep LC&N operating. Based on
current progress, the land reclamation should be fully bonded by the end of 2010.
The CO&A, amendment No. 2 established a payment schedule into a treatment escrow account
of $50,000/month beginning in January 2009, for the Route 309 discharge. This escrow will
eventually be converted to a treatment trust fund. LC&N is currently treating the Route 309
discharge, and expending about $500,000/year. It is estimated that approximately 11 million
dollars would be needed in a trust fund to maintain the current treatment system. At the time of
the evaluation, there was between $600,000 and $650,000 in the escrow account for treatment,
and LC&N was behind $115,000 in treatment escrow payments for 2009. This is a consideration
of Amendment No. 3 to the CO&A, which is in progress. OSM is concerned that there is
substantial unfunded treatment liability for this ABS discharge, which would substantially impact
the Reclamation Fee O&M Trust Account, if the permit is forfeited.

45

 APPENDIX A

Acronyms used in this Report

ABS
AMD
AML
AMLIS
BAMR
BMR
CAC
CBS
CO&A
COE
DCED
DMO
eFACTS
EHB
EQB
GFCC
GPRA
HUP
MRAB
NEPA
NRCS
OSM
PADEP
PASMCRA
PFD
SMCRA
TMDL
WCAP

Alternative Bonding System
Acid Mine Drainage (Relates to all mining related pollutional discharges)
Abandoned Mine Lands
Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System
Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation
Bureau of Mining and Reclamation
Citizens Advisory Council
Conventional Bonding System
Consent Order and Agreement
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Department of Community and Economic Development
Bureau of District Mining Operations
Environment Facility Application Compliance Tracking System
Environmental Hearing Board
Environmental Quality Board
Government Financed Construction Contract
Government Performance Results Act
Hydrologic Unit Plan
Mining and Reclamation Advisory Board
National Environmental Policy Act
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Pennsylvania Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act
Pittsburgh Field Division
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
Total Maximum Daily Load
Watershed Cooperative Assistance Program

46

 APPENDIX B
Tabular Summaries of Data Pertaining to Mining, Reclamation and Program
Administration
These tables present data pertinent to mining operations and State and Federal regulatory
activities within Pennsylvania. They also summarize funding provided by OSM and
Pennsylvania staffing. Unless otherwise specified, the reporting period for the data contained in
all tables is the same as the evaluation year. Additional data used by OSM in its evaluation of
Pennsylvania’s performance is available for review in the evaluation files maintained by the
Harrisburg OSM Office.
When OSM's Directive REG-8, Oversight of State Programs, was revised in December 2006, the
reporting period for coal production on Table 1 was changed from a calendar year basis to an
evaluation year basis. The change was effective for the 2007 evaluation year. However, with
Change Notice REG-8-1, effective July 1, 2008, the calendar year reporting period in Table 1 for
coal produced for sale, transfer or use was reestablished and is effective for the 2008 evaluation
year. In addition, for the 2008 evaluation report, coal production for the two prior years reported
on Table 1 was recalculated on a calendar year basis so that all three years of production reported
in the table are directly comparable. This difference in reporting periods should be noted when
attempting to compare coal production figures from annual evaluation reports originating both
before and after the December 2006 revision to the reporting period.

47

 Pennsylvania
EY 2009, ending June 30, 2009

TABLE 1
Coal Produced for Sale, Transfer, or Use
(Millions of Short Tons)

Period

Surface
Mines

Underground
Mines

Total

Coal productionA for entire State:

Calendar Year

A

CY 2006

11.818

56.155

67.973

CY 2007

11.672

54.649

66.321

CY 2008

11.878

54.521

66.399

Coal production as shown in this table is the gross tonnage and includes coal produced
during the calendar year (CY) for sale, transfer or use. The coal produced in each CY
quarter is reported to OSM during the following quarter by each mining company on line 8
(a) of form OSM-1, 'Coal Reclamation Fee Report.' Gross tonnage does not provide for a
moisture reduction. OSM verifies tonnage reported through routine auditing of mining
companies. This production may vary from that reported by States or other sources due to
varying methods of determining and reporting coal production.
Provide production information for the latest three full calendar years to include the
last full calendar year for which data is available.

 Pennsylvania
EY 2009, ending June 30, 2009

TABLE 2
Inspectable Units
As of June 30, 2009

Number and Status of Permits
Coal mines
and related
facilities

Active or
temporarily
inactive

IP

PP

Inactive
Phase II
bond
release
IP

Abandoned

Permitted Acreage
(100's of acres)

Nbr.of
Insp.

Totals

UnitsA

State/Private
Lands

Federal Lands

PP

IP

PP

IP

PP

IP

B

PP

IP

PP

All
Lands
Total

LANDS FOR WHICH THE STATE IS THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Surface
mines

0

769

0

542

0

87

0

1,398

1,398

0.0

0.0

0.0

2,958.0

2,958.0

Underground
mines

0

128

0

39

0

17

0

184

184

0.0

0.0

0.0

477.0

477.0

Other
facilities

0

257

0

49

0

24

0

330

330

0.0

0.0

0.0

438.0

438.0

Total

0

1,154

0

630

0

128

0

1,912

1,912

0.0

0.0

0.0

3,873.0

3,873.0

1,912

Total number of permits:
Average number of permits per inspectable unit (excluding exploration sites):
Average number of acres per inspectable unit (excluding exploration sites):

1.00
202.56

Number of exploration permits on State and private lands:

0

On Federal landsC :

0

Number of exploration notices on State and private lands:

430

On Federal landsC :

0

IP: Initial regulatory program sites
PP: Permanent regulatory program sites
A Inspectable units include multiple permits that have been grouped together as one unit for inspection frequency purposes by some State
programs.
B When a single inspectable unit contains both Federal lands and State/Private lands, enter the permitted acreage for each land type in the

appropriate category.
C Includes only exploration activities regulated by the State pursuant to a cooperative agreement with OSM or by OSM pursuant to a Federal

lands program. Excludes exploration regulated by the Bureau of Land Management.

 Pennsylvania
EY 2009, ending June 30, 2009

TABLE 3
State Permitting Activity
As of June 30, 2009

Type of
Application

Surface
mines
App.
Issued
Rec.

New Permits

79

49

Renewals

219

Transfers, sales,
and assignments of
permit rights
Small operator
assistance

Underground
mines
App.
Issued
Rec.

Acres
6,901

2

3

169

16

35

31

0

5

Acres

Other
facilities
App.
Issued
Rec.

A

201

6

6

28

37

2

8

0

0

Totals
App.
Issued
Rec.

Acres
449

87

58

35

272

232

11

6

48

45

0

0

0

5

0

0

Exploration permits
Exploration notices

Acres
7,551

453

B

Revisions
(exclusive of
incidential
boundary revisions)

175

45

35

255

Revisions (adding
acreage but are not
incidental boundary
revisions)

62

56

249

40

33

0

11

12

16

113

101

265

Incidental boundary
revisions

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

395

485

7,150

60

117

201

65

94

465

520

1,149

7,816

OPTIONAL - Number of midterm permit reviews completed that are not reported as revisions:

0

Totals

A
B

Includes only the number of acres of proposed surface disturbance.
State approval not required. Involves removal of less than 250 tons of coal and does not affect lands designated unsuitable for mining.

 Pennsylvania
EY 2009, ending June 30, 2009

TABLE 4
OFF-SITE IMPACTS (excluding bond forfeiture sites)
RESOURCES AFFECTED

People

Land

Water

Structures

DEGREE OF IMPACT

Minor Moderate Major

Minor Moderate Major

Minor Moderate Major

Minor Moderate Major

TYPE OF
IMPACT
AND
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
EACH
TYPE

Blasting

7

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

0

0

Land Stability

7

0

0

0

3

2

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

56

0

0

1

1

0

0

39

11

4

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Other

23

1

2

0

9

2

4

5

0

0

0

0

0

Total

96

2

3

1

14

6

5

44

11

4

6

1

1

Hydrology
Encroachment

Total number of inspectable units (excluding bond forfeiture sites):

1,766

Inspectable units free of off-site impacts:

1,694
72

Inspectable units with off-site impacts:

OFF-SITE IMPACTS ON BOND FORFEITURE SITES
RESOURCES AFFECTED

People

Land

Water

Structures

DEGREE OF IMPACT

Minor Moderate Major

Minor Moderate Major

Minor Moderate Major

Minor Moderate Major

TYPE OF
IMPACT
AND
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
EACH
TYPE

Blasting

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Land Stability

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Hydrology

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

70

0

0

0

0

0

Encroachment

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Other

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

70

0

0

0

0

0

Total number of inspectable units (only bond forfeiture sites):

146

Inspectable units free of off-site impacts:

76

Inspectable units with off-site impacts:

70

 Pennsylvania
EY 2009, ending June 30, 2009

TABLE 5
Annual State Mining and Reclamation Results
Bond
release
phase
A
Phase
I
Phase
II

During this Evaluation Year
Applicable performance standard

Total acreage
released

B

C

Acreage also
Acreage also
released
released under
under Phase I
Phase II

D

E

- Approximate original contour restored
- Topsoil or approved alternative replaced

7,471

- Surface stability
- Establishment of vegetation

4,546

0

4,120

0

- Post-mining land use/productivity restored

Phase - Successful permanent vegetation
- Groundwater recharge, quality and quantity restored
III

0

- Surface water quality and quantity restored

Bonded Acreage

Acres during this
evaluation year

A

46,118

Total number of new acres bonded during this evaluation year
Number of acres bonded during this evaluation year that are considered remining, if available

471

Number of acres where bond was forfeited during this evaluation year

241

Bonded Acreage Status

Cumulative Acres

Total number of acres bonded as of the end of last review period ( June 30, 2008)

B

350,517

Total number of acres bonded as of the end of this review period ( June 30, 2009)

B

387,338

Sum of acres bonded that are between Phase I bond release and Phase II bond
B
release as of June 30, 2009
Sum of acres bonded that are between Phase II bond release and Phase III bond
B
release as of June 30, 2009

Disturbed Acreage

0
0

Acres

Number of Acres Disturbed during this evaluation year

2,956

Number of Acres Disturbed at the end of the
evaluation year (cumulative)

5,829

A
B

Bonded acreage is considered to approximate and represent the number of acres disturbed by surface coal mining and reclamation operations.
Bonded acres in this category are those that have not received a Phase III or other final bond release (State maintains jurisdiction).

Brief explanation of columns D & E. The States will enter the total acreage under each of the three phases (column C). The additional columns (D & E & E)
will "break-out" the acreage among Phase II and/or Phase III. Bond release under Phase II can be a combination of Phase I and II acreage, and Phase III
acreage can be a combination of Phase I, II, and III. See "Instructions for Completion of Specific Tables," Table 5 for example.

 Pennsylvania
EY 2009, ending June 30, 2009

TABLE 6
State Bond Forfeiture Activity
(Permanent Program Permits)
Bond Forfeiture Reclamation Activity by SRA

Number of
Sites

Sites with bonds forfeited and collected that were unreclaimed as of
June 30, 2008 (end of previous evaluation year) A

Dollars

91

Acres

1,939

Sites with bonds forfeited and collected during Evaluation Year 2009
current evaluation year)

7 $

Sites with bonds forfeited and collected that were re-permitted during
Evaluation Year 2009 (current evaluation year)

5

369

Sites with bonds forfeited and collected that were reclaimed during
Evaluation Year 2009 (current evaluation year)

2

317

Sites with bonds forfeited and collected that were unreclaimed as of
June 30, 2009 (end of current evaluation year)A

95

1,998

51

535

12

846

Sites where surety/other party agreed to do reclamation during
Evaluation Year 2009 (current evaluation year)

1

81

Sites being reclaimed by surety/other party that were re-permitted
during Evaluation Year 2009 (current evaluation year)

1

10

Sites with reclamation completed by surety/other party during
Evaluation Year 2009 (current evaluation year) C

4

672

Sites being reclaimed by surety/other party as of June 30, 2009
(current evaluation year) B

3

344

109,020

294

Sites with bonds forfeited but uncollected as of June 30, 2009 (end of
current evaluation year)
Surety/Other Reclamation (In Lieu of Forfeiture)
Sites being reclaimed by surety/other party as of June 30, 2008 (end
of previous evauation year) B

A

Includes data only for those forfeiture sites not fully reclaimed as of this date

B

Includes all sites where surety or other party has agreed to complete reclamation and site is not fully reclaimed as of this date

C

This number also is reported in Table 5 as Phase III bond release has been granted on these sites

 Pennsylvania
EY 2009, ending June 30, 2009

TABLE 7

State Staffing
(Full-time equivalents at end of evaluation year)

Function

EY 2009

Regulatory Program
Permit Review

47.00

Inspection

82.25

Other (administrative, fiscal, personnel, etc.)

105.75

Regulatory Program Total

235.00

AML Program Total

127.40

Total

362.40

 Pennsylvania
EY 2009, ending June 30, 2009

TABLE 8
Funds Granted To Pennsylvania
BY OSM
(During the Current Evaluation Year)

(Actual Dollars, Rounded to the Nearest Dollar)
Federal Funds Awarded Federal Funding as a
During Current
Percentage of Total
Evaluation Year
Program Costs

Type of Funding
Regulatory Funding

Administration and Enforcement Grant

$ 12,684,550

Other Regulatory Funding, if applicable

$
$

Subtotal

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Funding

Totals
A

A

$

0.00 %

12,684,550

$

Small Operator Assistance Program

0

50.00 %

0

100 %

$ 29,975,292

100 %

42,659,842

Includes funding for AML Grants, the Clean Streams Initiative and the Watershed Cooperative Agreement Program.

 Pennsylvania
EY 2009, ending June 30, 2009

TABLE 9
State Inspection Activity
During Current Evaluation Year
Inspectable Unit
Status

Active

A

Inactive

A

Abandoned

A

Total
Exploration
A

Number of Inspections Conducted
Complete

Partial

4,507

9,105

1,525

880

365

303

6,397

10,288

97

22

Use terms as defined by the approved State program.

 Pennsylvania
EY 2009, ending June 30, 2009

TABLE 10
State Enforcement Activity
During Current Evaluation Year
Type of Enforcement Action
Notice of Violation

Number of Number of
A
A
Actions
Violations
502

612

Failure-to-Abate Cessation Order

15

16

Imminent Harm Cessation Order

41

51

A

Do not include those violations that were vacated.

 Pennsylvania
EY 2009, ending June 30, 2009

TABLE 11
Lands Unsuitable Activity
During Current Evaluation Year
Number

Acreage

Number Petitions Received

2

Number Petitions Accepted

0

Number Petitions Rejected

0

Number Decisions Declaring Lands Unsuitable

0

0

Number Decisions Denying Lands Unsuitable

0

0