The practice of mountaintop removal (MTR) coal mining has been carried out on at least 500 Appalachian peaks. MTR mining is controversial for its environmental impacts: “Spoil”—the earth and rock dislodged by mining—is deposited in the valleys of this hilly and steep terrain, by some estimates burying almost 2,000 miles of headwater streams that ultimately feed the Mississippi River. Slurry, the residue from cleaning the coal, is impounded in ponds or injected into abandoned underground mine shafts, where it can leach potentially toxic constituents such as arsenic, lead, manganese, iron, sodium, strontium, and sulfate that ultimately may end up in groundwater. Now research studies are beginning to link these environmental impacts to adverse outcomes in community health, raising questions about whether the benefits of MTR mining come at too high a health cost.For most of MTR mining’s history, permits had been relatively easy to obtain, but under the Obama administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began conducting more stringent reviews of applications. By late January 2010, the agency had scrutinized roughly 175 proposed mines and signed off on only 48, according to The Washington Post. Then, on 1 April 2010, the EPA issued what it described as comprehensive guidance, based on strong science, designed to strengthen permitting requirements for Appalachian MTR and other surface coal mining projects.Subsequently, on 13 January 2011, in a decision that opponents of MTR mining considered a major victory, the agency halted disposal of mining waste at the proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine, which would have buried more than 6 miles of streams in Logan County, West Virginia, and dynamited roughly 3.5 square miles of mountaintop and forestland.MTR Mining in Progress. Trees are clearcut, and explosives and massive machines are used to remove earth and access coal seams from the top down. Mining waste, or “spoil,” is dumped into valleys. The landscape changes incurred by MTR mining and valley fills can increase the risk of flash flooding.Reclamation. Valley fills are smoothed, terraced, and replanted. Native species are often slow to recolonize the reclaimed land, and planted trees may perform poorly in the compromised soil.Joseph Tart/EHPA form of surface mining, MTR mining first emerged in the late 1960s but remained a small source of coal until the mid-1990s. Now it is a major form of coal mining in West Virginia and Kentucky—the second and third largest coal-producing states after Wyoming—and it also occurs in Virginia and Tennessee. A few factors account for its rise. First, the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 encouraged companies to seek low-sulfur coal, which is abundant in central Appalachia. MTR mining also uses less labor than underground mining, with massive draglines able to move 100 cubic yards of earth in a single scoop. And with underground coal supplies significantly depleted, MTR mining allows the harvest of seams of coal too thin to work from traditional coal mines.The literature on health impacts of MTR mining has been both scant—encompassing a mere three-quarters of a page in the 99-page decision on the Spruce Mine—and circumstantial. The dearth of literature is not surprising; just 10 investigators study the public health impact of MTR mining, says Michael Hendryx, an associate professor in the Community Medicine Department of West Virginia University in Morgantown. That’s partly because large-scale MTR mining is such a recent development. But a round of research articles published in 2011 has begun backing up anecdotal evidence of health effects with peer-reviewed data showing strong associations. The combination of the new studies along with the previous anecdotal and circumstantial evidence begs for more research to be conducted, Hendryx says.
Health studies that have been conducted in Appalachia have revealed direct and indirect links to MTR mining. For starters, Gregory J. Pond, an environmental biologist with EPA Region 3 in Wheeling, showed that more than 90% of 27 Appalachian streams below valley fill sites were impaired as per Clean Water Act standards, while none of 10 streams sampled in nonmined valleys were impaired. The Clean Water Act specifies that streams must be suitable for “designated uses,” which include recreation, consumption of fish by humans, and protection of the health of aquatic life.To determine whether the streams were healthy, Pond and colleagues monitored benthic macroinvertebrates—insects and other invertebrates that are visible to the naked eye and live on the bottom of streams. These organisms respond predictably to stressors, and they “are the best indicators of stream health,” says Pond, noting that they have been used as such for more than a century. He adds that fish are often absent from small streams, reducing their utility as indicators.“It turns out that in those places where the mining density is highest, the benthic communities are in the worst shape,” says Nathaniel P. Hitt, a research fish biologist in the Aquatic Ecology Branch of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Leetown Science Center in Kearneysville, West Virginia. “We’re not going to protect public health by restoring insects in streams,” he adds, but their disappearance is a warning for public health.In a novel investigation, Hitt and Hendryx found that ecological impairment of streams correlated with humancancer mortality rates in surrounding areas. First they calculated a “stream condition index,” which reflects the presence of a healthy, well-functioning ecosystem. In this case they used metrics including the sum of taxonomic groups present, the sum of individuals from three specific taxa, and percentages from various other taxa. The cancers that rose with the declining stream condition index measure of impairment included respiratory, breast, and urinary cancers. Poverty, smoking, and urbanization, which predict cancer mortality, failed to account for the observed correlations.The investigators are quick to note that the correlations between stream quality impairment and the rates of certain cancers are only associations, not clearly cause and effect. Moreover, in the context of the study, mining activity is two steps removed from the cancers, and so any conclusion regarding causality would be a major stretch. However, Hitt and Hendryx wrote, such stream health assessments could contribute to a better understanding of human health: “Although [the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection] conducts benthic macroinvertebrate sampling to assess the biological integrity of streams, our study reveals that these assessments may also improve our understanding of human health in nearby areas. As a result, biological monitoring and assessment may provide important social benefits.”
Critics of MTR mining say changes in the EPA’s permitting practices are welcome but not sufficient. “The Obama administration has certainly done an improved job of scrutinizing individual projects,” says Jon Devine, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. These actions include addressing scientific issues that had previously been ignored and either stopping projects or forcing companies to make improvements. However, some projects are still allowed to proceed despite the fact there is no way to mitigate stream burial that likely will result.But in early October 2011, a U.S. district judge ruled that, during review of pending mine proposals, the EPA had overstepped its authority with the guidance it issued in April 2010, providing coordination and oversight to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and mine owners as to what is legal under the Clean Water Act. However, the ruling leaves the EPA with the option of vetoing mine permits, which it has previously been able to do. Devine says this probably means that more permits will be vetoed unless the Corps strictly follows the Clean Water Act.Meanwhile, the evidence that MTR mining may directly and adversely affect public health has become significantly stronger since it was written in the Spruce Mine decision that the research studies to that point “by their nature could not and do not establish any causal linkage between surface coal mining and these elevated rates of adverse health effects.” Says Hendryx: “More research may still be needed, but the time has come to shift the burden of proof to the mining companies.”
Authors: Jeffrey A Simmons; William S Currie; Keith N Eshleman; Karen Kuers; Susan Monteleone; Tim L Negley; Bob R Pohlad; Carolyn L Thomas Journal: Ecol Appl Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 4.657
Authors: Melissa M Ahern; Michael Hendryx; Jamison Conley; Evan Fedorko; Alan Ducatman; Keith J Zullig Journal: Environ Res Date: 2011-06-22 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Abee L Boyles; Robyn B Blain; Johanna R Rochester; Raghavendhran Avanasi; Susan B Goldhaber; Sofie McComb; Stephanie D Holmgren; Scott A Masten; Kristina A Thayer Journal: Environ Int Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Travis L Knuckles; Phoebe A Stapleton; Valerie C Minarchick; Laura Esch; Michael McCawley; Michael Hendryx; Timothy R Nurkiewicz Journal: Microcirculation Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 2.628