PA minefilling.

[OnyxCougar]

From Yahoo
Environmentalists Back Plan for Pa. Mine

By MICHAEL RUBINKAM, Associated Press Writer

TAMAQUA, Pa. - A pit at the edge of town is at the center of a scientific and political debate over what to do with the thousands of abandoned strip mines that pock the Appalachian landscape, turning streams and rivers into orange-tinted dead zones and scenic areas into eyesores.

The gaping hole in the earth, called the Springdale Pit, is a barren place where men and machines once extracted thousands of tons of anthracite coal.

A Pottsville company, with encouragement from state environmental officials, wants to fill the Springdale Pit with a potent mixture of coal ash, dust from cement and lime kilns, and river sediments dredged from the harbors and shipping lanes of New York and New Jersey, Philadelphia and Baltimore.

The goal is to prevent acid mine drainage — the contaminated water that flows out of abandoned mines and pollutes waterways — and restore the hillside to something of its original contour.

But neighbors of the Springdale Pit bitterly oppose the plan, fearing the mixture will leach into the groundwater, contaminate their wells and make them sick. They're backed by some environmental groups and at least one geologist who says the state Department of Environmental Protection is about to make a big mistake.

The state agency favors the placement of coal ash and river sludge into abandoned mines as a "beneficial use" for these materials. DEP is considering an application by the Lehigh Coal and Navigation Company for a permit that would allow the Springdale Pit to be filled with 500,000 tons of dredged material and 480,000 tons of coal ash each year.

If approval is granted — and it's not clear when that decision will be made — the implications for abandoned mine reclamation in Pennsylvania are enormous. At DEP's request, LC&N's application asks for a general permit, as opposed to a site-specific permit, meaning that thousands of abandoned mines could eventually be targeted for the ash-sludge mixture.

"We're the pioneers, but others will be able to use our permit," says James J. Curran Jr., president of LC&N, which owns the 700-foot-deep, 3,000-foot-long, 1,500-foot-wide Springdale Pit.

Standing in Curran's way is Dante Picciano, a patent attorney who lives in a wooded area about four miles away from the hole. Picciano, who leads a grassroots group called the Army for a Clean Environment, said he doesn't know whether coal ash and harbor muck are safe or unsafe — but he doesn't want to take any chances until scientists can answer the question definitively.

He cites LC&N's own application as evidence that it should be rejected. The document identifies a variety of toxic substances in the river sediments that would come from harbors in New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore, including PCBs, pesticides and heavy metals. And he points out that coal ash, also called fly ash because the particles are so small that they easily become airborne, contains cancer-causing dioxins.

"They have a propaganda machine that this stuff is good for you," said Picciano, who has a doctorate in genetics. But the DEP, he said, "has a burden of proof to show it's safe. The burden of proof is not on us to show that it's harmful."

State officials insist they've met that burden.

DEP has allowed fly ash to be dumped into abandoned coal mines for decades and says it has detected no environmental degradation whatsoever. Officials say dioxin concentrations in coal ash are so small as to be negligible — often lower than the concentrations one might find in a common soil sample.

They also cite the success of a demonstration project at the former Bark Camp coal mine in Clearfield County, Pa., where for the last several years scientists have been mixing coal ash and river dredge and using it for mine reclamation.

"We feel pretty comfortable that once these materials are placed, and placed properly, that you are not going to see anything leaching out of there," said William Pounds, chief of DEP's division of municipal and residual waste.

Why? Because when river sediments and coal ash are mixed, they harden into a concrete-like material that is nearly impermeable to water. The mixture, when placed into abandoned surface mines, is supposed to reduce acid mine runoff by preventing rainwater from contacting the formerly exposed coal pits.

Yet Charles H. Norris, a geologist familiar with LC&N's permit application, urges caution. Coal ash by itself has been shown to pollute groundwater, he said. And LC&N's proposal to test the harbor muck for contaminants "sounds good on the surface, but if you look at criteria they are using to accept the waste, there is very little of the dredge material" that will be rejected, he said.

"They say they will keep the nasty stuff out. Well, I'm sorry, but your definition and my definition of nasty are a whole lot different," Norris said.

Picciano is pushing for a moratorium on fly ash dumping until more is known about its effects. He's had some success, getting at least one lawmaker, Republican state Rep. David Argall, to at least consider the idea.

Argall said he's torn between industry arguments that fly ash is safe and the complaints of residents he has known for decades. "They are people I see in church, people I see when I go to the store, and they are scared. Nervous about what this is going to mean to their children and grandchildren," he said.

Fly ash is a byproduct of electricity generated by coal-fired power plants. Power companies that must dispose of the ash see abandoned strip mines as a cheaper alternative to putting the material into landfills. Likewise, port officials are eager to find an inexpensive home for dredged materials.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) ruled three years ago that fly ash need not be regulated as a hazardous waste, although the agency is developing guidelines for how the material should be handled and disposed of, said Paul Gotthold, chief of the EPA's Pennsylvania operations branch.

LC&N already uses coal ash to fill abandoned strip mines on its 8,400-acre property in Schuylkill County. One former mine, called "Little Italy," that was filled with ash was recently seeded and is starting to resemble a grassy meadow.

Michael Coia, an LC&N consultant, accused opponents of the Springdale proposal of deliberately twisting the facts to scare residents. "I'm happy to listen to Dante's army if they can prove to me that it's dangerous. I haven't seen it," he said.

But Sharon and Joe Zonca, who live more than a mile from the Springdale Pit, said the proof can be found in the thin layer of fly ash that they routinely find on their porch and yard. They worry the brownish-gray ash particles will make them sick.

Mrs. Zonca, in particular, is concerned for her health because she suffered a stroke several years ago and has a weakened immune system. When the Zoncas built their house four years ago, near the woods at the end of a quiet street, they assumed it would be a place where she could convalesce.

The couple, both 60, bitterly accuse environmental regulators of shirking their responsibilities.

"The DEP and EPA are not for us," said Mrs. Zonca. "They don't give a damn if we die here."

Any of you easties near here? What's your view?

[xoxoxoBruce]

The river sludge is scary in that it contains far more than Tony Soprano's former partners. The fly ash should be safer.
I am concerned however about moving the crap. 500k tons of each every year over the road. If the other trucks you see, with the tarp on an arm that swings over the load like an awning, are any indication of the way this stuff will be transported, we're in trouble.

I assume the sludge will be thoroughly drained to cut shipping costs. If it's allowed to dry then dust becomes a problem like the fly ash. The trucks I see going by work everyday that haul trash into the County Trash-to-Steam plant and haul the ash out to the landfills, leave a trail of dirt and drippy stuff. I'd bet it's not good for children and other living things.

[Elspode]

I don't live out East, but I, too, would be leery of the harbor muck of NYC being put anywhere except at the bottom of NYC Harbor. The effluent of a significant portion of America's population has settled there, containing anything and everything that people have thought to flush down a toilet or pour into a storm drain or creek. That's some pretty goddamn nasty stuff, indeed.

I would be willing to reconsider if someone had done any testing of the fly ash and muck "hard" mixture to show that it remains stable, but I guarantee you that it will erode over time. Might be a long time, but erode it will, taking with it all those nasties and redepositing them somewhere else.

[tw]

That would be the Schuylkill River - the river that is the source of most Philly water west of the Delaware River. Even Philadelphia gets all its water from the Schuylkill. Currently due to open pit mines and mine tailings, garbage dumps, leaking spetic systems, etc; the only source of clean water in the entire Schuylkill valley are French Creek and Pickering Run.

Doing nothing is not a viable alternative either. And since so many of us let dirt wash downstream (we don't practice soil conservation) and since so many advocate use of energy inefficient 'toys', then those rivers must have the bottom cleaned anyway - with those toxic materials dumped somewhere.

Last I looked, the Delaware was only dredged to something around 30 feet deep. Then entire Delaware must be dredged to well over 40 feet - for almost 100 miles. Necessary for things such as SUVs. Where is all that material suppose to be dumped?

In the meantime, 500+ tones of material on the highways is nonsnese. After all, that material was removed from the mines. Where do we think it all went to?

Is this a good or bad idea? I don't know. But action is required. Worst case scenario is to do nothing.

[Griff]

Why doesn't DEP want to issue a site specific permit? It would make sense to me that you'd test the process in a small isolated mine, rather than throw the dice.

[xoxoxoBruce]

In the meantime, 500+ tones of material on the highways is nonsnese. After all, that material was removed from the mines. Where do we think it all went to?

It's 500 THOUSAND tons. Per year. The coal that came out of those holes went out by rail but that's not the point. Coal is not toxic sludge/dust and not nearly the hazard.
I read they wanted to dredge the Delaware to 55 feet but were going to settle for less. The reason they want to dredge is for container ships and has nothing to do with SUV's..or aluminum tubes. :p

[tw]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
I read they wanted to dredge the Delaware to 55 feet but were going to settle for less. The reason they want to dredge is for container ships and has nothing to do with SUV's..or aluminum tubes.

500 tons or 500 thousand tons. By rail or road. It does not matter. What comes out will go in by the same method.

55 feet or less. Container ship today. Natural gas ship tomorrow. That is the point. Super tankers for imported energy (for more SUVs) means that channel must be dredged deeper.

Let's see. N Alaska is chock full of natural gas. So much that they keep putting it back in the ground. A 300 mile pipe to Canada would deliver this gas directly to pipelines in mainland America. But Sen Stevens, the current champion of porkbarrel politics - Republican style - has put forth a law that bans any pipeline to Canada and then specifically bans the 300 mile one. He demands gas be delivered across the state of Alaska AND that natural gas ships necessary.

The low performance engines in SUVs makes super tankers necessary.

Where is all that gasoline and natural gas to come from? The world's third and first largest producer of both must also import that stuff. Which is why the Delaware River must be deepened and why that 'rumored to be' toxic stuff must go somewhere.

Doing nothing is the one option that does not exist.

Griff asks the important question. Why is a site specific permit not good enough - unless of course they have already bought George Jr with campaign contributions. Unless, of course, the permits are a defacto conclusion. Remember the nuclear reactor that had eaten away all 6 feet of carbon steel? They too did what is necessary to not shut down that reactor. They too bribed the current administration making hearings on the shutdown of Davis Besse irrelevant.

If it means more oil can be imported, guaranteed what the administration's position will be. According to them, we still don't consume enough oil - meaning deeper channels are a defacto reality. Meaning all those dredge tailings must go somewhere.

[xoxoxoBruce]

500 tons or 500 thousand tons. By rail or road. It does not matter. What comes out will go in by the same method

No, it will not. It went out by railroad to specific destinations that took a hundred years to connect and less to destroy. The way it came out does not exist anymore. It will go over the road by truck.

55 feet or less. Container ship today. Natural gas ship tomorrow. That is the point. Super tankers for imported energy (for more SUVs) means that channel must be dredged deeper.

Jesus Fucking Christ give me a break. Read my fucking lips. CONTAINER SHIPS!!!. As usual you brush off reality, insert wild speculation about what might happen to set up a scenario to rant about some bullshit you tapped from the Economist and mainlined into vein like a desperate junkie.
If SUV's bother you so much go some place where they aren't. I don't have one because I never found I needed one but if you keep it up I might buy 2 and drive one while the other idles in the driveway all day.

Where is all that gasoline and natural gas to come from? The world's third and first largest producer of both must also import that stuff. Which is why the Delaware River must be deepened and why that 'rumored to be' toxic stuff must go somewhere.

Wrong. The Delaware valley is a lattice of pipeline with more than enough capacity to handle our needs, present and future. The river muck has been tested six ways to Sunday by every agency and enviromentalist group in the country. It's an alphabet soup of organic compounds that have been proven to be unhealthy and subsequently banned.

If it means more oil can be imported, guaranteed what the administration's position will be. According to them, we still don't consume enough oil - meaning deeper channels are a defacto reality. Meaning all those dredge tailings must go somewhere.

Strike three, you're out. Dredged channels mean all that Chinese junk and Contra bananas can offload here instead of Baltimore to be trucked here. Now there's an oil connection. Trucking shit from Baltimore.
Yes the sludge, not tailings (tailings come from mines not dredging) must go somewhere but endandering the continually scarcer potable water is not very smart. Put the shit where they always have, New Jersey.

[tw]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Jesus Fucking Christ give me a break. Read my fucking lips. CONTAINER SHIPS!!!. As usual you brush off reality, insert wild speculation about what might happen to set up a scenario to rant about some bullshit you tapped from the Economist and mainlined into vein like a desperate junkie.

Lets keep this civil or I will have to talk about the head you use to think with (and its not the one between your shoulders).

Why discuss past history as if it is the future? The 55 feet is not just for container ships. Starting about 2000, we must import increasing amounts of energy. Currently supertankers must sit offshore to partially unload their cargos into smaller tankers - because Philly, NY, Baltimore, etc are not deep enough. There will be hundreds of miles of channels dredged. Does it sit dry and blowing in the wind in NJ as xoxoxoBruce advocates? Clearly not if it is toxic. But because we must dredge those channels for the future (not about past container ships as myopically advocated), then that river bottom must go somewhere.

What happens when the world's largest producer of natural gas cannot be efficient? We must import oil and natural gas in larger ships. Those channels must be deeper. The material must be put somewhere. There is no status quo option. Something must be done. Either we build more intelligent vehicles or we dredge those channels. We stop thinking about past history (container ships). And we stop with all the four letter words. You need to learn more so as to not resort to insults and four letter words.

Reality is both the future and larger energy ships. Old and now obsolete reasons were container ships. All I did was brush off what is not relevent to the future - and without four letter words.

Repeat after me. Dredging for container ships is past history. Energy imports require deeper channels. Thinking towards the future is not difficult. And notice that personal insults need not be included.

[xoxoxoBruce]

You're wrong again.
Since we have offloaded our manufacturing base almost everything we use and consume comes in by container ship. That is the future. WalMart demands it.:p
Ok, I'm done . You can babble away about natural gas ships till the cows come home. So exercise you 1st amendment rights to be wrong.

[BrianR]

Tamaqua is right down the road from me...in Hazelton. I can see a strip mine from my front porch. Y'all will have to come up sometime and visit.

Dagney and I are thinking of having a cookout next spring or summer.

Brian

[tw]

Originally posted by BrianR
Tamaqua is right down the road from me...in Hazelton. I can see a strip mine from my front porch.

What is or would be the local opinion? More jobs or enviromental disaster?

[BrianR]

Both, from what I gather. I will look more into it when I get back tomorrow. I will post the local thoughts after Tuesday, when I get my modem installed.

Personally, I'm kinda for it unless someone convinces me otherwise. There are lots of strip mines up there and they are UGLY! I think anything that fills in the holes and restores the landscape is a good thing. Mount Trashmore in VA Bch is a good thing, no discernable leakage, methane vents relieve the pressure to prevent "explosions" and the area has been turned into a park. Ducks and all.

If they can fill those mines with anything (even trash) and cover it with ten feet of dirt and plant a tree on it, I will vote for it. Unless they turn the area into another Love Canal.

Brian

[xoxoxoBruce]

In western PA, WV, and VA they've filled strip mines, recontoured, planted grass and moved in Elk because they're grazers. That keeps the trees and brush from filling in. If they want trees then deer are a better choice. The resulting tourism to see the Elk is supposed to offset the costs. Jury's out on that so far.
The only question is what to use for fill.

[tw]

Originally posted by BrianR
If they can fill those mines with anything (even trash) and cover it with ten feet of dirt and plant a tree on it, I will vote for it. Unless they turn the area into another Love Canal.

NY's Fresh Kill (SE side of Staten Island) has so much garbage that what was a swamp became the highest geographical landmark in all NY City. It has now been covered by dirt and is being restored. Apparently without enviromental problems. It is the sort of thing we need do on small scales today to learn what can be done tommorrow.

However the lands of the Hazeltown area are not just runoff for rivers. It is also the source of many underground rivers that provide well water to lower PA and MD communities. These are the things that must be considered. Science is the major consideration.