Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://archive.org/details/coalfuturereserv163rieb NOTICE: Return or renew all Library Materialsl The Minimum Fee for each Lost Book is $50.00. JL)N 9 7 1QQQ The person charging this matertal (s rfe^Wisible for its return to the library from which it was withdrawn on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mu|atif4^o^r^i^^ books are^a^ons for discipli- nary actioTar|f %jfe|f 1 farl»I Iff 1 |r|vers.ty. To renew cali TeleptloTiS CenterrMyMOD UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN L161— O-1096 enter for Advanced Computation UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN URBANA, ILLINOIS 61801 ft* THE COAL ^OTUR& 2%) . Sulfur occurs in coals in two forms, organic (thiosulfates and sulfites) and inorganic (pyrite, marcasite, and hydrated ferrous sulfate) . While these categories have lately. been extensively subdivided, the work has not been related to the wide differences in the Btu content of the coal. Thus, both within rank, and especially across ranks, the tonnages of coal within sulfur categories are not com- parable for purposes of utilization. REFERENCES 1. ASTM, 1973 Standard Specifications for Classification of Coal by Rank, 1973, p. 54-58. Designation D388-66 (Reapp P. 72) . 2. Classification of Coals according to the degree of coali- fication by reflectance of the vitrinite component. J. T. McCartney and M. Leichmuller . Fuel , Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 64-68, January 1972. PRODUCTIVITY IN UNDERGROUND MINING Productivity in underground mines increased steadily from 1960 until the passage of the 1969 Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act. As shown in Table 1, productivity in- creased from 10.64 tons/man-day in 1960 to 14.00 tons/man-day in 1965, and reached 15.61 tons/man-day in 1969, before drop- ping drastically because of the new restrictions. Although tons/man-day increased each year from 1960 to 1969, the rate of increase declined considerably in the later years; while productivity increased substantially over the decade, it appeared to be leveling out. The reasons for changes in productivity and the amount of change attributed to any particular factor are difficult to determine. The main reason for this is that individual mines vary considerably in every factor which might influence pro- ductivity. Thus it is extremely difficult to compare mines on the basis of one or a group of factors. And, the factors are not independent. For example, for thick even seams, a con- tinuous mining system may be most effective but, for thin seams a conventional system may be better. Alternatively, rubber-tired haulage cars are best under certain conditions, but if the mine floor is soft, use of rail cars may be neces- sary. This last problem has sometimes been circumvented by leaving a layer of coal for a haulage road. Now, however, this may have been made illegal by the first provisions of the new safety law. The best data for evaluating productivity gains brought about by new machinery would be comparisons of productivity before and after the equipment was installed. Little or no data of this sort are available. - 2 - Table 1 Productivity per Man-Day Underground Inter- Year Differ- Loading Continuous Year Total 10.64 ence Machines Mining 1960 + .77 1961 11.41 + .56 1962 11.97 + .81 1963 12.78 + .96 1964 13.74 + .26 1965 14.00 + .64 1966 14.64 + .43 1967 15.07 + .37 1968 15.40 + .21 1969 15.61 -1.86 1970 13.75 -1.72 1971 12.03 -.12 11.00 13.00 1972 11.91 -.16 10.00 12.50 1973 11.75 9.75 12.25 Sources : 1960-1970 Minerals Yearbook. 1971-1973 Coal Age, i - 3 - Some of the factors which affect productivity are: a) geological conditions, b) method of mining, c) method of loading, d) type of haulage from the face, e) type of haulage within the mine, f) interfaces between b, c, d, and e, g) peripheral or supportive equipment, h) training of miners, and i) safety regulations. These factors influence productivity in a direct way. There are other quantities which are correlated with pro- ductivity the effect of which is felt only through changes in (1) the above. For example, Risser found a correlation between productivity and mine size; bigger companies usually had higher output per man-day than small companies. Over a period of time, average productivity increased because of the closing of smaller less efficient mines which were unable to use fully the advantages of new equipment or techniques. In fact, for the period 1965 to 1969, the increase in productivity was accompanied by a decrease in the number of underground mines from 5,280 to 3,097. Geological conditions influence not only the level of productivity that can be achieved with a particular equipment configuration, but also dictate which equipment can be used at a particular site. Some relevant factors are depth of cover (determining roof pressure) , thickness of seam, evenness of the seam (faults, etc.), type of roof, type of bottom, and the presence of water, gas, or partings. Differences in these con- ditions lead to different production rates and can also lead to production changes over time if new coal beds are discoverd or if the most easily mined coal beds become depleted. There - 4 - are no data indicating that this has yet had an effect. Aver- age seam thickness, for example, stayed at about 5.3 feet (2) between 1945 and 1965. However, eventually depletion of ■ current economically recoverable coal must begin to have a retarding effect on productivity. In the past, much of the increase in underground mine productivity could be attributed to increased mechanization. By 1970, however, mining had become almost fully mechanized, although not automated. In 1960, 86.3 percent of all coal produced was mechanically loaded, in 1965 it was 89.2 percent, and by 1969 the percentage was up to 96.6 percent. While some increase in productivity can be attributed to this, the effect since 1965 has been slight. Most gains in this period must be attributed to improvements in machinery or techniques . There are three basic mining methods currently being used: conventional (using room and pillar layouts) , contin- uous (also using room and pillar layouts), and longwall. Recently shortwall mining has been developed. In this sytem a longwall layout is used and the hydraulic roof supports of a longwall system are retained, but the mining is done by a con- tinuous miner. The shortwall system allows longwall type mining to be done without the purchase of longwall equipment. (3) It is also reportedly safer than longwallmg. To an extent the different systems are noncompetitive in that they are each best used in different circumstances. Also, since longwalling and shortwalling have only recently been extensively used in the United States, and then only under adverse conditions, their productivity rates are difficult to determine. For example, in 1968, 1.8 percent of all underground production was from longwalls. By 1973, this had increased to only 2.6 percent. It is reasonable to expect that longwall produc- tivity will increase relative to other types of mining as - 5 - longwalling becomes more widely used. There may be an indi- cation of this in that longwall losses due to the 1969 Safety . . (4) Act were less than for other types of mining. It is difficult to determine the relative productivities of continuous and conventional mining. Up to 1970, the Bureau of Mines* Yearbooks did not give productivity estimates for the different mining methods. From 1971 until 1973, produc- tivity for loading machines dropped from 11.00 tons/man-day to 9.75 tons/man-day while that for continuous miners dropped (5) from 13.00 to 12.25. The relative decreases agrees with the results of Straton'.s 1972 study in which it was found that continuous mining suffered less from the new regulations. For continuous miners and loading machines, production, number of mines, and number of units for 1965 to 1969 are shown in Table 2. While total production increased 4.4 percent from 1965 to 1969, production by continuous miners increased 21.6 percent by 1969, accounting for 49.7 percent of all under- ground production compared to 42.7 percent in 1965. Mean- while conventional mining, as indicated by mechanical cutter production, decreased by 10.6 percent, from 53.9 percent of the total to 46.2 percent. The number of cutters decreased 41.8 percent while the number of continuous miners increased 29 percent. These figures indicate that while continuous miners were taking over more production, conventional mining was actually becoming more efficient. There may be several reasons for this. First, continuous miners are used for pur- poses that are not strictly limited to taking coal from the face. They are also used, for example, in driving entries. Second, they are a newer development and may have taken over in mines where conventional mining was inefficient. On the other hand, in 1966 Risser stated that conven- tional mining was catching up to continuous mining produc- - 6 - •O >♦- Cr> t- O 3U>,oii 3 O 1— _J O Z ■*-> COO o a. *j Xi «<- •♦-> E o - •3- r— CO f— c o •o c V. ■*-> .a c t_> i/> o 3 :> 4-" x> o o .c «»- «~ ♦-• o IX "— • O t- »- o Q_ CL. cr» c> co O «- ■— 00 vr 0) JO c 5 J-l s- *-> E O-r- tr *A o ■u c. 4-> ru r o O x: v L. ♦ j o C- »-' 3 O u Q> l/l f V O ■T 2T ac c KTt o XJ C tn *J jr V- •tJ O t- r: t/1 n V- ■4 J f o -r- ■J u * •a o tl i^) o a i_ i/i ->J IU c w ("I t . Ti O < ' o x: >. - i. 4 * <_• C «/t o -o •»- C" tA r- 4-> «1 c MU in o *-> 3 11 ■* > O "U o i~ O JC *■ I- «-> (' Q.-. — in t— •— - 7 - (7) .... tivity. Increases in continuous mining productivity were probably due to improvements in loading equipment. Past increases in productivity of continuous miners was probably caused by improvements in peripheral equipment. Risser stated that roof bolting allowed greater use of large continuous miners by eliminating the need for post type roof supports, (8 ) thus giving the miners the necessary room to manuever. Developments in haulage away from the mines have also increased productivity. Partly because of tramming time between faces and partly because of inefficient hauling, con- tinuous miners operate less than 30 percent of the time, al- though their instantaneous mining rates may be 15 tons/ (9) minute. This indicates that, at least under favorable conditions , continuous miner productivity could be consider- ably increased. It should be noted that while the percentage of coal mined by continuous miners increased less than 4 per- cent between 1966 and 1969, it increased nearly 10 percent to 59.3 percent from 1969 to 1973. Continuous miners are in operation less than 30 percent of the time. In 1966, Risser stated that both the mobile loader and the continuous miner, if they could be operated continuously, are capable of loading in three hours as much coal as they commonly load in a full shift today. * ' Calder notes that continuous miners are used only two to three hours per shift, that because of rising costs of roof control, larger machines will not be usable, that no more break- throughs such as roof bolting are in sight, and, that because of this, new gains in productivity must come from the opera- tion of equipment that moves the mined coal away from the face to some point where haulage capacity is not limited. The way this is done is strongly connected with the mining system. - 8 - In conventional mining, the coal must be loaded from the floor. It can be loaded directly onto a conveyor or into shuttle cars which discharge into mine cars or onto a more permanent conveyor. The continuous miner can load directly onto a conveyor, into a shuttle or surge car, or onto the ground. Longwall mining is best suited for continuous haulage because, by the nature of the system, coal is placed directly onto a stationary conveyor after being taken from the face. While it is difficult to glean specific information about the different operations from Bureau of Mines statistics, they do show that production from mines using conveyors (and possibly other haulage equipment) increased 19 percent from 1965 to 1969. During the same period, the number of mines using some sort of conveyor haulage increased 14.6 percent and the number of conveyor units increased 28.9 percent. In the same period production at mines using rubber tired and rail mine cars decreased 36.5 percent and 12.7 percent, respectively, and the number of shuttle cars increased 4.3 percent. This seems to show that conveyors were replacing mine cars for longer haulages but that shuttle cars were still the main mode of haulage from the face . In fact, the difficulties in connecting a conveyor to a loading machine or continuous miner have only recently been (12) partially resolved. Herman describes an all-conveyor system in a mine in Illinois. In this system, a continuous miner discharges into a surge car which unloads onto a bridge conveyor which in turn is connected to a Serpentix conveyor. He claims an increase in coal production per shift from 775 (13) tons to 1,075 tons. Garzes ' reports on the replacement of a shuttle car system with a conveyor system because the mine floor consisted of fire clay which softens and becomes impassable to shuttle cars when water is present. He esti- - 9 - mated production potential to be 30 percent higher with the conveyor system. He also remarks that conveyor use has been extensive in seams under 4 inches thick but that their use in thick seams has been declining. The advantages of shuttle cars also decreases as the distance they must travel in- creases. According to Coal Age Mining Handbook , the maximum distance for a shuttle car run is about 500 feet with two (14) cars per face unit. In the period 1965 to 1969, production in mines using conveyors increased while those using mine cars decreased. This indicates that once the coal has been transported by shuttle car or bridge conveyor away from the immediate mining area to a more permanent area of the mine, it is increasingly being transported from that point by conveyors. This agrees with Laird's statement that: . . . present day accepted practice is to transport coal, by belt conveyor, from the butt entry coal production sections to what we call the main line. This method has been proved to be as economical, if not more economical, flexible, efficient, and the most rapid way of getting the coal to the mine car or main line belt conveyor. (15) He discusses the costs and advantages of various combinations of conveyors and track haulage. For the first 5,000 feet of main entry he finds that an all belt haulage system is cheap- est but, as the distance is increased, other systems become cheaper. Hydraulic and pneumatic haulage systems are now being studied. In these systems, the coal is crushed at the face and then placed into a felxible pipeline through which air or water is flowing. Both systems have the disadvantage of breaking the coal into even smaller pieces as it travels but are clearly safer and provide a truly continuous, uninterrup- - 10 - ted flow of coal from the face. Calder feels that while pneumatic haulage is not efficient because of the required (17) amount of air, hydraulic haulage has great potential. Any system of mining employs equipment that is not directly involved in taking coal from the face. However, the efficiency of this peripheral equipment does affect produc- tivity. Probably the most important items are roof supports. For longwall mining, self -advancing hydraulic roof supports undoubtedly increased productivity by freeing men of the job of moving the supports by hand. The newer, more powerful (18) four-leg supports, which support up to 700 tons have probably incrased productivity by decreasing roof pressure problems . It has already been noted that roof bolting has been very important, especially in connection with the use of contin- uous miners and other large, mobile equipment. The number of drills used in roof bolting increased from 2,529 to 2,980 or 17.8 percent between 1965 and 1969. Recently, roof bolters have been attached to continuous miners in such a way that (19) bolting can keep pace with the miner. A further develop- ment in roof support is the injection of polymers into holes drilled into the roof to bond roof rocks together. Improvement of any piece of machinery, or a general im- provement in the efficiency of the mining layout or system (21) increases productivity. For example, Hinkle describes the development and use of front-end loaders in underground mining. This piece of equipment is very flexible and is used for mine cleaning operations as well as coal loading. Hinkle suggests productivity increases will result from its greater use. FOOTNOTES 1. Risser, Hubert, The Economics of the Coal Industry , Bureau of Business Research, School of Business, University of Kansas, 1958, p. 98. 2. Young, W. H. , Thickness of Bituminous Coal and Lignite Seams Mined in 1965 , Bureau of Mines Information Circu- lar 8345, August 1967, p. 5. 3. Palowitch, E. R. , and Brisky, T. J., Designing the Hendrix No. 22 Shortwall , Report on Coal Technology 1973, American Mining Congress. 4. Straton, J. W. , Analysis of Productivity at Deep Coal Mines , Report on Coal Technology, 1973, American Mining Congress. 5. "1973 Shipment of Mining Equipment, Production and Pro- ductivity from Various Methods of Mining," Coal Age , February 1974, p. 84. 6. Straton, J. W. , 0£. Cit . 7. Risser, Hubert, Coal Mine Productivity — Some Things the Averages Don't Tell , Illinois State Geological Survey, Report, 1966, p. 231. 8. Ibid . , p. 228. 9. Konchesky, J. L., and George, T. J., Pneumatic Transporta - tion of Coal Underground , Mining Congress Journal, December 1971, p. 42. 10. Risser, Hubert, Coal Mine Productivity — Some Things the Averages Don't Tell , Illinois State Geological Survey, Report, 1966. 11. Calder, A. W. , History-Present Use and Near-Term Potential of Continuous Haulage , Report on Coal Technology, American Mining Congress, 1972. 12. Herman f Tom, Continuous Haulage Behind Remote Control Continuous Miners in High Gears , Mining Congress Journal, June 1974, pp. 42-45. - 12 - 13. Garzes, T. W. , Jr., Continuous Face Haulage at Union Carbide's Fawn Mine , Mining Congress Journal, September 1971, p. 53. 14. Coal Age Mining Handbook , Coal Age, July 1972, p. 150. 15. Laird, W. , Recent Developments in Conveyor vs Track Haulage , American Mining Congress, Report on Coal Tech- nology, 1973. 16. Konchesky, J. L. , and George, T. J., 0£. Cit . , and Dahl , P . H . , and McCain , D . L . , Continuous Underground Slurry Transport of Coal , Mining Congress Journal, May 1974, pp. 30-55. 17. Calder, A. W. , 0£. Cit . 18. Coal Age Mining Handbook , Coal Age, July 1972, p. 148. 19. Coal Age Mining Handbook , Coal Age, July 1972, p. 149. 20. Subramanin, R. V., Austin, H., Ruff, R. A. V., and Franklin, J. C, Mine Roof Reinforcement by Specifically Designed Epoxy Resin Systems , Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations No. 7907, 1974. 21. Hinkle, D. L. , Front End Loader in the Production Cycle , Report on Coal Technology, American Mining Congress, 1973. THE AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC LAND FOR COAL MINING Not all public lands are available for coal mining. The control of the public domain is placed in Congress by the U.S. Constitution, Article IV Section 3. Under the Constitution, the Congress has the power to set aside por- tions of the public domain from sale or other disposition. This Congressional power may be delegated to the Executive branch. In dealing with the availability of public land two questions must be answered. The first is whether the land is open to mining under any general legislation. The second is whether or not the land has been "withdrawn" from the operation of the general mining laws. The general mining laws reflect the policy that Congress adopts concerning the use of our natural resources. Until 1849, the Treasury Department had jurisdiction over public lands and the policy was to sell land to raise revenue. The next phase of government policy was to induce development of the western lands. Accordingly, title in fee simple abso- lute (complete ownership) , was granted to anyone who would develop the mineral resources. The final shift in policy This discussion predominately centers upon western land. Most land East of the Mississippi was under private ownership by the time legislation was inaugurated dealing with mining policy. - 2 - developed after the turn of the century, during the administra- tion of Theodore Roosevelt. At this time, the concept of conserving natural resources began to develop. The major change in policy was the decision to encourage development of the land without transfering complete title to the developer. The initial legislation reflecting the conservation policy was the Leasing Act of 1920 (30 USC §§ 181 et seq) . The act established a leasing system under which title to the lands being developed would remain in the U.S. The act expressly classified as leasable or non-leasable the various kinds of 2 federal lands containing coal. Included generally is the public domain, together with the national forest reserves (except for lands acquired under the Appalachian Forest Act) . In this sense, the public domain includes such lands as are subject to sale or disposal under the general land laws of the U.S. Expressly excluded are those lands in incorporated cities, towns, and villages and in national parks and monuments, those acquired under Acts subsequent to February 25, 1920, and, with exception, lands within the naval petroleum and oil-shale reserves. As noted, the Mineral Leasing Act does not deal with lands acquired under Acts subsequent to February 25, 1920. Accordingly, in 1947, the Congress enacted the Acquired Lands Act (30 USC §§ 351 et seq). "Acquired lands" are lands of 2 The act, as originally enacted, dealt with deposits of coal, phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil, etc. This paper refers only to the aspects of this and other legislation that deal with coal. But, the reader should be aware of the entire scope. - 3 - the U.S. which either were never part of the public domain or, although once part thereof, are in private or state owner- ship at the time of their acquisition by the federal government. Specifically included in this act is Alaska. In general, this act adopts the mechanics of the leasing act. Finally, the Multiple Mineral Development Act of 1954 requires consideration in determining the general availability of public land. This act is designed to deal with situations arising where land may be valuable for other minerals in addition to coal. Having determined the general availability of public land under the various leasing provisions, it is necessary to deter- mine if such lands have been set aside by the Congress or the Executive branch for a special public use (i.e., forest, parks, Indian reservations) and are not subject to disposal under public land laws unless Congress has decreed to the contrary. Withdrawn lands are the equivalent of reserved lands but con- sidered more temporary and the terms are used interchangeably. Current withdrawals are based upon one or more of three bases of authority. 1. Withdrawals by Congress. 2. Withdrawals pursuant to specific Congressional delegations of power. 3. Withdrawals pursuant to general Congressional delegations of power. Of these three areas, the great preponderance of withdrawals is made by the Executive branch pursuant to general delegations of power . - 4 - The President's authority to withdraw land from disposition under the general land laws comes from two sources. The Presi- dent possesses express authority under the Pickett Act (43 USC 141-43) and he possesses implied authority under the United States Supreme Court decision in U.S. vs. Midwest Oil . The Pickett Act (also referred to as the Withdrawal Act) delegated to the President the broad, discretionary power to temporarily withdraw public lands from sale or entry. But, prior to the enactment of the Pickett Act, President Taft had withdrawn cer- tain lands in California and Wyoming. The constitutionality of this withdrawal was tested in U.S. vs. Midwest Oil Co. In that case, the Supreme Court noted that the executive branch could not create a power where none existed, but that the with- drawal of public lands raised a presumption that such power was exercised with the consent of Congress. Emerging from the decision, therefore, is an Executive with broad supervisory powers over public lands, limited only by expressly declared Congressional policy. It is important to determine whether a withdrawal has been made under the Pickett Act or under the President's implied withdrawal power. Decisions of the Department of the Interior have held that Pickett Act withdrawals do not bar 3 In this context, temporary is used in the sense that the withdrawals may be revoked by the President or Congress, but they remain in force in the absence of such revocation. - 5 - leasing. But, withdrawals made pursuant to the authority of the "Midwest" case can effectively bar leasing if so provided in the withdrawal order. Under Executive Order No. 10355, the President delegated his withdrawal powers to the Secretary of the Interior. The announced policy of the Secretary is to keep withdrawals to a minimum, to permit maximum public use of withdrawn land con- sistent with the purpose of the withdrawal, to review with- drawals periodically, and to revoke withdrawals when they are no longer necessary. Since 1935, withdrawal orders have been published in the Federal Register. These are the orders that must be reviewed to determine if leasing is forbidden under the Executive's implied powers of withdrawal. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (hereinafter NEPA) , was written to establish a uniform policy of the nations' role in dealing with the environment. The purposes of this Act are: To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environ- ment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; , and to establish a Council on Environmental Policy. Accordingly, the general policy is stated in Section 101: ...it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government. . .to use all praticable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exists in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other require- 2 ments of present and future generations of Americans. Schematically, the NEPA is divided into separate titles. Title I, entitled, "Declaration of National Policy," consists of five separate sections which set out the Act's policy and provide action forcing procedures to foster implementation of the policy. Title II, entitled, "Council on Environmental Quality," consists of seven sections which create the Council, establish its com- 3 position and authority, and outline its duties and functions. - 2 - The provisions of the NEPA apply to all federal agencies and are to be interpreted as being supplementary to the policies and goals set forth in existing federal laws and programs. All federal agencies are expected to interpret policies, regulations, and statutes in accordance with the environmental policies set forth in NEPA and are required to do so unless existing law applicable to the agency's operations expressly prohibits or makes compliance impossible. The agencies must continue to review their policies, procedures and regulations and revise them whenever necessary to ensure full compliance with the Act. The most important provision of the Act is Section 102. Section 102 outlines steps which federal agencies are required to take to assure implementation of NEPA's broad environmental goals, specifically, section 102(2) (c) requires: to the fullest extent possible. . . , •" «f "f^ery of the Federal Government shall. . .include *« e ^ry recormendation or report °n.proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affect ?ng the quality of the human environment, a detailed (impact) statement... in understanding the effects of this section, two fundamental questions must be answered: 1) For what actions is an impact statement to be prepared; and, 2) what steps are involved in the preparation of a statement. While NEPA clearly requires the preparation of statements in connection with any major Federal action which may signifi- cantly affect the quality of the human environment, the question - 3 - of NEPA's applicability for some courts has been whether the statutory mandate involves one or two separate analytical tests. The statutory language appears to suggest that proposed actions must first be major, then they must have potentially signficant effects on environmental quality. Not surprisingly, judicial opinion on the point is split, although most courts tend to prefer the two-test approach. None of the courts has gone so far, however, as to suggest that each test can be applied com- pletely independent of the other. In practice, a "major Federal action" is likely to have "significant environmental effects," so that in most cases the distinction in the judicial analysis may not be critical. Some light is shed on the type of action that requires an impact statement in the Guidelines issued by the President's Council on Environmental Quality. Section 5(a) (ii) of the Guide- lines states: 'Actions 1 include but are not limited to... Projects and continuing activities. . .involving a Federal lease, permit, license, certificate or other entitlement for use;... 6 It appears from the Guidelines that whether an action is a "major" action or will have "significant" environmental impact depends not only upon the nature of the action, but on its magni- tude and on the circumstances of the place where it is proposed to be taken. Taken in one place, an action may require an impact statement while in a different locale, the same type of action - 4 - might not be a major action significantly affecting the quality 7 of the human environment. 8 Citizens Organized to Defend Environment, Inc. v. Volpe illustrates the broad interpretation of what constitutes major actions that signficantly affect the quality of the human envi- ronment. The case involved permission for the new huge shovel used in surface mining, the "Gem of Egypt," to cross a federal aid highway. Since the crossing involved temporary re-routing of the highway, federal approvals were necessary under 23 U.S.C. 101(b) and associated regulations. Most of the approvals had occurred prior to the passage of NEPA and the only approval "reserved for future action was the right to approve the proposed future crossings after determining that the 'points of crossing would not adversely affect traffic operations on the Interstate highway facility. 1 " The court therefore held that the granting of additional approval under these circumstances was not "major Q federal action" requiring an impact statement. However, the court did state: The Secretary's 1964 approval of the project agreement was a major federal action significantly affecting the human environment. This federal action included approval of the reservation in Consol of a right to cross 1-70. One of the secon- dary environmental impacts was that the agreement would permit Consol to use the highway to facilitate continued strip mining. The environmental effect of strip mining, or more accurately the project^ agreement's impact upon the activity of strip mining as it affects the environment, would have been sub- ject to the requirements of the NEPA had the Act been in force at the time. 10 - 5 - Thus, a relatively insignificant permit such as a highway crossing permit which would allow a large strip mining shovel to cross the highway, triggers an impact statement requirement, since the highway crossing permit in turn facilitates strip mining on private lands. Literally every federal permit can generate the need for an environmental impact statement. Another example, of the effect on coal, would be leasing. In the leasing process, the "major federal action" that may give rise to a need for an environmental impact statement is the act of issuing the lease or holding a competitive sale. The actual act of issuing a lease, in and of itself, has no effect at all on the environment But, a lease confers upon the lessee rights to conduct explora- tory and exploitive activities, such as drilling, and these activities do have environmental impact and may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the statement must be prepared prior to the action which inevitably leads to consequences such as drilling, and in addition, the environmental impacts of these consequences must be thoroughly analyzed in that statement. Because the statement initially prepared for the lease issuance will cover the effects of all these actions, a subsequent statement need not be prepared prior to the Geological Survey giving its approval of specific lease exploratory or developmental activities. The "major federal action" is the lease issuance, not the subsequent incidental approvals. - 6 - Given that am impact statement is required, the require- ments are outlined in the provisions of section 102(2) (c) : • . .every agency of the Federal Government must "include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on (i) the environmental impact of the pro- posed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between local short- term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved , 3 in the proposed action should it be implemented." " The impact statement also must describe and assess any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. Simply put, the environmental impact statement is nothing more than a device to assist the preparing agency in its decisionmaking by providing relevant information to that agency, other Federal agencies, the Council on Environmental Quality, etc., about the possible environmental consequences of 14 the proposed action. The Guidelines provide for two versions of the impact statement, a "draft statement" and a "final statement." On completion, the draft statement is submitted to the Council on Environmental Quality and the comments of State and local agencies authorized to develop and enforce environmental stan- dards are obtained. Comments of other federal agencies must also - 7 - be obtained within thirty days. Then, following submission and review of federal, state and local comments, the final impact statement is prepared. With regard to the consideration of alternatives, the neces- sary depth of the considerations is unclear. In Udall v. FPC , the Supreme Court overturned the licensing of a hydroelectric power project on the Snake River because the FPC failed to ade- quately consider alternatives to the proposed action. Some indication of the scope of the required discussion of alternatives is also provided by the CEQ Guidelines. Section 6(a) (iv) requires "a rigorous exploration and objective evaluation of alternative actions that might avoid some or all of the adverse environmental effects." 17 Finally, what provisions of the Act, if any, provide a basis for court enforcement. It has been suggested that section 101(c) recognizes a legal right in every individual to a health- ful environment. However, this conclusion is not supported in 18 the legislative history of the Act. In contrast to the non- enforceability by court action of 101(c) is 102(2) (c) . The impact statement requirement has been enforced by means of a preliminary injunction in several cases. The notable ones are the trans-Alaska pipeline case, Wilderness Society v. Hickel , I.E.L.R. 20042, and the Gilham Dam case, Environmental Defense 19 Fund, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers 2 ERC 1260. However, while the courts have been quick to enjoin governmental agencies from proceeding until environmental impact has been considered, - 8 - language in cases indicate that court review will be limited to a determination as to whether the administrator has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner or otherwise not in accordance with law, or if the action failed to meet statutory procedural or constitutional requirements. In other words, the court will not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency on the merits of the proposed program but will only require that 20 the agency comply with the procedural requirements of NEPA. Besides 102(2) (c) , it is unclear whether any other provision of NEPA may form the basis for a cause of action. Inasmuch as NEPA is primarily a statute that establishes procedures to ensure consideration of environmental factors in decisionmaking, it is submitted that other parts of NEPA were not intended by Congress to be court enforceable. - 9 - FOOTNOTES 1. Section 2, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, 83 Statute 852 (1970). 2. Ibid . , Section 101. 3. 1 Commerce Clearing House Pollution Control Guide 5106. 4. Ibid , at 5116. 5. Supra, Note 3 at 5132-33. , 6. Lindgren, David, "Conservation, The Environment and Federal Oil and Gas Operations: The Future Under the National Envi- ronmental Policy Act of 1969," 17 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute 113 at 122, 1972. 7. Supra, Note 5 at 123. 8. 353 F Supplement 520. 9. Friedman, Frank B. , "The Operational Impact of NEPA and Releated Environmental Law, Regulations, and Orders on Mineral Operations," 19 Rocky Mountain Mineral Institute 54, 1974. 10. Supra, Note 8 at 540. 11. Supra, Note 9 at 54. 12. Supra, Note 7 at 124. 13. Supra, Note 3 at 5127. 14. Ibid . 15. Supra, Note 6 at 126. 16. Ibid , at 129. 17. Ibid , at 131. 18. Supra, Note 6 at 135. 19. Ibid , at 136. 20. Lindberg, Charles S., "Environmental Delays Affecting Mineral Lessess on Public Lands," 18 Rocky Mountain Mineral Institute 45 at 70, 1973. THE CLEAN AIR ACT The Clean Air Amendments of 1970 [hereinafter, "the Act"] made drastic changes in the federal anti-air-pollution program. The Act represents a radical departure in legislative approach to the problem of air pollution. Instead of following the procedure of establishing air pollution standards commensurate with existing technological feasibility, Congress has shifted to a policy which forces technology to catch up with the newly promulgated standards. With regard to coal, A • The Act served to strengthen the role of the federal government in air pollution enforce- ment activities, by empowering the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency to adopt mandatory (1) national ambient air quality standards for air pollutants which have an adverse effect on public health and welfare, (2) national new source per- formance standards for categories of stationary sources that contribute significantly to air pollution, and (3) national standards for "hazardous" air pollutants. 2 * Federal enforcement authority of air pollution controls is based on the assumption that primary responsibility for pollution control rests with the states and local governments. The Act requires EPA to prescribe national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for each air pollutant designated as having an adverse effect on public health and welfare. An ambient air quality standard measures air pollution in a given area from many different sources, rather than measur- 3 ing the pollution from any particular source. Primary and secondary standards are distinguished as follows: a) A primary air quality standards are ones, the attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administrator, based on such criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public health. < b) A secondary air quality standard is one, the attainment and maintenance of which in the ' judgment of the Administrator, based on such criteria, is requisite to protect the public from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air. 4 The primary standard, while based on the air quality criteria for that pollutant, also includes a margin of safety deemed adequate by the EPA to protect the public health from any adverse effect that science may not have yet discovered. A primary stan- dard, therefore, represents a limit on the concentration of a pollutant in the atmosphere which, in the judgment of the EPA, must be maintained to protect the public health. A secondary standard, on the other hand, is a specific level of air quality designed to protect the public welfare from any known or antici- pated adverse effects associated with the presence of the pollu- tant in the ambient air. Specific national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards have been issued for particulate matter, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. Of these, air quality stan- dards for sulfur oxides bear heavily upon the coal industry. Sulfur oxides in the air have various harmful effects on public health and welfare. With regard to health, sulfur oxides 7 are related to irritation of the respiratory system. With regard to public welfare sulfur oxides increase the corrosion rates of various metals, contribute to the damage of electrical equipment of all kinds, and attack a variety of building materials 8 as well as statutory and other works of art causing discoloration. And, finally, sulfur oxide may cause acute or chronic leaf injury to plants. Accordingly, national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards have been set out at 40 Code of Federal Regulations § 50.4-50.5. The control of sulfur oxide weighs heavily upon the coal industry. The burning of coal produces about 60 percent of all sulfur oxides emissions with the majority of the coal being burned in electric power generation plants. While the problem can be alleviated by use of low, sulfur coal and various cleaning processes, the use of coal is affected to extent that air quality standards cannot be met. The Act also authorizes the EPA to adopt standards of per- formance for categories of new and modified stationary sources of pollution. A standard of performance for a stationary source applied to emissions from only a single source and thus differs from a national ambient air quality standard. The standards demand the best technology for each source as the goal of the standards is to prevent new pollution problems from developing. Among the facilities for which regulations have been adopted are municipal incinerators, cement plants, nitric acid plants, and sulfuric acid plants. While no standards for stationary sources dealing with coal have been set, among those sources 1 4- 12 slated for future regulation are coal cleaning plants. Finally, standards of performance are required by the Act for both hazardous air pollutants and mobile sources of pollution. However, neither of these areas bears a relation to the use of coal. While the federal government is responsible for the creation of. the various standards, the individual states are responsible for implementation. The Act requires each state to adopt and submit to the EPA a plant providing for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the national ambient air Stan- di A~ 13 dards . To aid the states in developing and carrying out implemen- tation plans, the EPA, after consultation with state and local authorities, designated specific air quality control regions. The quality control regions include major intrastate areas and, where applicable, interstate areas overlapping the state's A • 14 boundaries. • , - These regions . . . generally encompass " portions of states, and are based on D urisdictional boundaries, urban concentrations, atmospheric con- ditions, and various other factors, so that all localities within the air quality control region have similar problems presumably r f^ uir ^ similar V solutions ... The more serious the pollution, the higher the priority, and the more strinjent the control measures that will be required. For sulfur oxides, there are three categories of regions: 16 Priority I, Priority II, or Priority III. Federal enforcement authority of air pollution controls is based on the assumption that primary responsibility for 17 pollution control rests with the state and local governments. The Act authorizes the Administrator to issue a compliance order to any person violating a requirement of an applicable 18 state air implementation plan. In addition, if the violations are widespread because of state inaction, after sufficient notice, the Administrator may assume federal enforcement until the state satisfies him that it will use its enforcement power. Any person who knowingly violates any requirement of an applicable state implementa- tion plan during a period of federal enforce- ment, or who refuses to comply with an order issued by the Administrator, is subject to a fine of not more than $25,000 per day of viola- tion, or to imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. If convicted for a violation committed after the first conviction, the person is subject to a fine of $50,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than two years, or both. ^ and, with regard to required documentation, Any person who knowingly falsifies a state- ment, representation, or certification in any document required under the Act, or who falsifies or tampers with a measuring or monitoring device required under the Act, is subject to a fine not exceeding $10,000, or to imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. In addition, any person may commence a civil action on his own behalf against any person, including the United States, who I is allegedly violating an emission standard or limitation. However, such a suit is not allowed if the Administrator or a state has begun and is diligently prosecuting a civil action. 21 FOOTNOTES 1^ 61 American Jurisprudence 2nd 832, 1972. 2. 1 Commerce Clearing House Pollution Control Guide 3801, 1975. 3. Marc Fleischaker and Mark Johnson, "The Clean Air Act," 19 The Practical Lawyer 53, 1973. 4. 42 USCA § 1857c-4, 1975 Supplement. 5. Supra , note 2 at 3011. 6. A thorough discussion of sulfur oxide as an air pollutant can be found in "Air Quality Criteria for Sulfur Oxides," published by the National Air Pollution Control Administra- tion, Pub. No. AP-50, January 1969. 7. Ibid at 155. 8. Ibid at 159-160. 9. Ibid. 10. Supra , note 2 at 3031. 11. Supra , note 3 at 57. 12. A listing of all present and future sources for limitation is available at U 3325 of the Commerce Clearing House Pollution Control Guide. 13. The requirements for the state plans include the following: a. The attainment of all national primary standards as expeditiously as practicable, but generally not later than three years after the date of approval of the plan [no later than January 31, 1975, unless a two-year extension is granted under 42 USC § 1857c-5(e)]. b. The attainment of national secondary standards within a reasonable time. c. Emission limitations, schedules, and timetables for complying, and other necessary measures, including land use and transportation controls. d. Assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority to carry out the imple- mentation plan. e. Intergovernmental cooperation. f . The establishment and operation of appropriate measure- ment techniques to compile and analyze data on ambient air quality. g. Authority to require owners or operators of stationary sources of pollution (such as industrial plants and other buildings that emit pollutants) to install, main- . tain, and use emission-monitoring devices, and to make periodic reports to the state on the nature and amount of emissions from these stationary sources. h. Periodic inspection and testing of motor vehicles to the extent necessary and practical to enforce compliance with emission standards. i. Authority to prevent the construction, modification, or operation of any new source of pollution that would prevent the attainment or maintenance of a national standard. j. A procedure providing for review, prior to construction or modification, of the location of new sources. k. Procedures to ease pollution during emergency high pollution episodes. 1, Authority to abate pollutant emissions on an emergency basis to prevent substantial danger to the health of persons. m. Revision of the plant after public hearings whenever revision is necessary. 14. A geographical listing of these regions can be found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 81. 15. Supra , note 3. 16. The ambient concentration limits for the various sulfur oxide regions are listed at II 4010 of Commerce Clearing House Pollution Control Guide. 17. Supra , note 2. 18. Supra ; note 3 at 61. 19. Ibid . 20. Ibid . 21. Ibid at 62. "\ THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT On October 18, 1972, the Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 (hereinafter the "FWPCA") entirely replacing the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which included the Water Quality Act of 1965. The act is based on recognition of the fact that the nation's waters are already polluted and that existing technology is inadequate to permit immediate reduction of the pollution to acceptable limits. Congress did not impose any immediate water quality levels or discharge restrictions, but instead required that certain results be achieved by certain future dates. Primary responsibility to assure the reduction of pollution is placed on the states, with the federal government, through the Environmental Protection Agency, exercising general standard setting and oversight responsibilities. The FWPCA consists of five Titles. Titles I and II provide for research programs concerning water quality, and authorize federal grants to assist states to administer water-pollution- control programs and to construct publicly owned waste-treatment facilities. Title III mandates the establishment of effluent limitations that require industry to employ the "best practicable" pollution- control technology by July 1, 1983. Title IV estab- lishes a national permit system under which local government, industry, and agriculture must obtain discharge permits from the EPA or an appropriate state agency before discharging any pollutants into navigable waters. 2 Title V includes some general provisions including authorization for citizen suits to enforce compliance with the FWPCA. Title I deals with "Research and Related Programs" and includes an explanation of the goals and policy of the act. Among the duties delegated to the EPA is the preparation and development of programs to assist states in dealing with many areas of water pollution by providing grants based on the extent of the problem in the particular state. In addition, Title I also encourages interstate cooperation and compacts, research and dissemination of information, and scholarships and grants to educational institu- tions for the purpose of solving the water pollution problem. Section 107 is a provision dealing specifically with a coal related area. Under this section the EPA, in cooperation with the Appala- chian Regional Commission and other Federal Agencies, is authorized to make grants or contracts dealing with the elimination of acid .3 mine drainage and other forms of pollution from mining operations. Title II deals with "Grant for Construction of Treatment Works . " In addition to the general training, research, and planning activities envisioned and funded under Title I, Congress, in Title II, authorized the EPA # to offer to any state, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency grants for the construction of publicly owned waste- treatment facilities, up to a maximum of 75 percent of the cost of construction... Title II also calls on the states to develop and implement by July 1976 areawide waste-treatment- management plans for those areas that, as a result of urban- industrial concentrations or other factors, have substantial water-quality control problems. 4 Title III deals with "Standards and Enforcement" and, for this reason, is probably the most important part of the act. The primary thrust is to establish limits, otherwise known as "effluent limita- 5 tions" on pollutants dumped by so-called point sources directly into navigable waters. These effluent limitations are in addi- tion to the water quality standards also required by the act. Prior to 1972, the discharge of pollutants was regulated solely by reference to the quality of the receiving water. The experience of prior legislation showed that water quality standards form a cumbersome basis for a pollution control program because of the difficulty in establishing a direct relationship between the quantity and quality of pollutant discharges and the resulting 7 quality of the receiving water. Therefore, Congress decided to complement the water quality standards program with an independent system of effluent limitations set by reference to control tech- nology applicable to the source of the discharge rather than by reference to the quality of the receiving water. The water-quality based effluent limitations are determined by the state and are administered through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (hereinafter NPDES) . Only where the source-based effluent limitations are not stringent enough to meet the water quality standards for the receiving water will reliance on water quality o standards be required. Water quality standards are to be established for all navigable waters. Water quality standards classify each state's waters according to their use for recreation, propagation of fish and wild- life, public water supplies, agriculture, industry or navagation, and establish "water quality criteria" to support each designated use. Water quality criteria specify the minimum physical, chemical and biological parameters necessary to support the designated use of a given stream. 9 Each state has the primary responsibility for the establishment of standards for the navigable waters within its boundaries. However, these standards are subject to EPA approval 10 and the EPA may itself promulgate the standards where a state fails to take appropriate action. Once water quality standards are established for all the nation's waters, the implementation portion of the standards will be incorporated into the NPDES. At least once every three years the water quality standards of each state 12 must be reviewed by the appropriate state agency. Title IV deals with "Permits and Licenses Certification" and establishes the NPDES. Under the new provisions, it is unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant directly into the navi- gable waters from any point source without having obtained a permit. 13 Section 401 provides that before any federal license or permit can be issued by any federal agency, the applicant must secure confirmation from the situs state that the proposed discharge 14 will conform to the discharge limitations of the Act. The Section 401 certificate states the discharge limitations, monitoring requirements, and other limitations upon which the issuance is con- ditioned. 15 Section 402 provides for the issuance of permits to discharge effluents into the nation's waters upon the condition that the discharge will comply with the applicable discharge limitations, water quality standards, and monitoring and reporting requirements of the Act. In other words, no discharge may take place without a Section 402 permit, but the permit is conditioned upon a state certification under Section 401. This two-tiered system serves as a doubie-check operation. 16 Procedurally, a violation of the Act occurs whenever there has been a discharge of pollutants in violation of the permit system 17 section. Whenever the EPA finds that any person is vio- lating any effluent limitation or standard of per- formance, any recordkeeping, reporting, or monitoring requirement, or any permit condition or limitation, it may issue an order requiring compliance with such standard, limitation, or requirement. If compliance is not forthcoming, it may assess a civil penalty up to a maximum of $10,000 per day. In addition, the EPA may commence a civil action for appropriate relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction... And, there are possible criminal penalties. . . .Any person who willfully or negligently violates any regulation or any condition of a federal or state permit is subject to a fine of not less than $2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, he shall be subject to a fine of not more than $50,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than two years, or both. Any person who knowingly makes false state- ment, representation, or certification in any applica- tion, record, report, plan, or other document filed or required to be maintained under the FWPCA, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be main- tained under the Act, is subject to a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. 18 Title V deals with "General Provisions" among which are addi- tional judicial procedures. Under Section 510, the states are expressly reserved the right to prosecute violators of state effluent limitations. Under Section 511(a), federal agencies other than EPA are reserved the right to enforce other laws and regula- tions "not inconsistent with this act. Citizen suits to enforce various provisions of the act are authorized in Section 505 by anyone "having an interest which is or may be adversely affected." Section 504 gives EPA emergency powers to enjoin the discharge of any pollutant which imposes imminent and substantial danger to health, welfare or livelihood. Section 508 also provides that no federal agency may enter into any contract to be performed at a 19 facility operated in violation of the Act. The FWPCA and the Coal Industry : The FWPCA has a great effect oft coal mining from both the standpoint of the mining operation and from the standpoint of the industrial use of coal. During the mining operation, mine operators must be cognizant of any potential violations of either effluent limitations or water quality standards. Similarly, any industry may face similar effluent limitations with respect to its use of I coal. While there may be many potential forms of water pollution from coal mining, acid mine drainage 20 is the most prevalent and j serious. Drainage from coal mines has been described as the nation's most serious and complex water pollution problem and the I most costly to remedy. More than 3.5 million tons of acid mine J water are discharged annually into the nation's streams and waters. The most significant contribution of federal water pollution control legislation to the acid mine drainage problem is funding for research and development of control technology. 22 (see discussion of FWPCA - Title I) State legislative adoption of water quality standards applicable to intrastate waters is required by FWPCA. An example of the statutory response to the problem can be found 23 in the Water Pollution Control Act of West Virginia. The Water Pollution Control Act of West Virginia ecompasses 24 acid mine drainage in its definition of pollution. The Act requires that a permit be obtained from the State Department of Natural Resources to "open, reopen, operate or abandon any mine... or dispose of any ref use ... from any such mine... [if] the aforementioned activities cause... or might reasonably be expected to cause a dis- 25 charge into or pollution of waters of the State..." And, since a permit may be issued upon reasonable terms and conditions, the Department can require the treatment of acid mine drainage as a condition to open a mine. 26 Also under the authority of the Act, the Water Resources Board sets forth administrative regulations. These regulations include general acid mine control measures. (1) Mine water, refuse, and acid-producing materials must, where practicable, be handled and disposed of in a manner which will prevent or minimize acid production; (2) the amount of discharge must be regulated to equalize the daily flow into streams; (3) chemical treatment of acid drainage is required "under appropriate circumstances" to "mitigate its pollutional properties;" and (4) Mine sealing methods upon abandonment must be designed both to promote safety and to minimize the formation and discharge of acid mine drain- age. 27 8 With regard to enforcement, the Department Chief is authorized to inspect mine operations, compel compliance with conditions of the permit, and order the mine drainage stopped when a clear and pre- sent danger to public health exists. And, finally, injunctive 28 relief is available for violations of the Act. Aside from the pollution problems of mining operations, the industrial use of coal often results in water pollution contrary to source-based effluent limitations. An example of the problem 29 is the effluent limitations for Raw Steelmaking Operations. Among the limitations are those to process waste water discharges from the coke making operations conducted by the heating of coal in slot type ovens in the absence of air to produce coke. (By- product Coke) And, limitations applicable to process water dis- charges resulting from the coke making operations conducted by the heating of coal with the admission of air in controlled amounts for the purpose of producing coke (Beehive Coke) . Among the liquid waste from by-product coke is excess ammonia liquor resulting from the condensation of moisture originally present in 31 the raw coal before coking. The pollutants are similar in bee- hive waste waters but are much lower since the volatile components 32 are allowed to escape to the atmosphere. Accordingly, effluent limitations which reflect the application of the best technology available have been established. These limitations must be met or the industry is in violation of the FWPCA. From the above example, the effect of the FWPCA on the coal industry can be seen. Whenever the mining or use of coal in indus- try causes water pollution, the requirements of the appropriate water quality standards or effluent limitations must be met. FOOTNOTES 1. Joelsen and Fleischaker, "The Water Pollution Control Act," 20-2 The Practical Lawyer , 29 at 30, 1974 2. Ibid , at 29. 3. Ibid , at 31. 4 . Ibid . 5. "Point source" is defined as any installation or conduit from which pollutants may be discharged. 6. Supra , note 1 at 32. 7 . 1 Pollution Control Guide (Commerce Clearing House Topical Law Reports) 601, 1975. 8. Ibid . 9. 1 Commerce Clearing House Pollution Control Guide 551. 10. Those water quality standards that have been approved by EPA appear at A88 00 of the Commerce Clearing House Pollution Control Guide. 11. 1 Commerce Clearing House Pollution Control Guide 575. 12. Ibid , at 579. 13. Supra , note 1 at 37. 14. Charles W. Smith, "Highlights of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972," 77 Dickinson Law Review 477, 1973. 15. Ibid , at 478. 16. Ibid , at 479. 17. Ibid , at 483. 18. Supra , note 1 at 39. 19. Supra , note 14 at 483-85. 20. Mine drainage is surface or ground water which flows from a surface or underground mine or mining site. Acid formation occurs when pyrite and marcasite — sulfur bearing materials associated with a coal — are exposed to oxygen and water. A series of reactions occurs producing concentrations of acids sulfates, etc. 21. "Environmental Law - Acid Mine Drainage," 76 West Virginia Law Review 508, 1974. 22. Ibid , at 516 N 45. 23. West Virginia Code Annal, § 20-5A-1 to 16, 1973. 24. Ibid , § 2 (f), (h). 25. Ibid , § 5 (a) (6) . 26. Supra , note 21 at 517. 27. Ibid . 28. Ibid . 29. 1 Commerce Clearing House Pollution Control Guide 1053. 30. Ibid . 31 - Ibid , at 1057. 32. Ibid, at 1059. $1 l UUBMHIMim