The Skyline Coal Company 2001 Acid Mine Drainage Inspection Overview and Data Presentation, that TDEC graciously supplied, points out the similarity of problems in the Sewanee seam and the need for at least a yearly thorough going evaluation. It was somewhat reassuring that the earth does mend itself to some degree and some ground water did improve. The numerous mine seeps (springs) that appeared in the vicinity of Basin 003 with elevated total manganese and the black sludge deposited in the flood plain and upper edge of an existing beaver impoundment adjacent to Big Brush Creek substantiated the need for visits after a mine is closed and reclamation is completed. It supports the contention that reclamation is never quite adequate and the problems are likely perpetual. It supports, as I suspect the yet to be completes studies will also confirm, namely YOU WILL HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT TASK IN SCIENTIFICALLY SUPPORTING A CONTENTION THAT THE STRIP MINE OF THE CUMBERLAND COAL COMPANY WILL NOT NEED PERPETUAL TREATMENT, THAT ITS RECLAMATION PLAN WILL WORK. THIS MEANS TO US THAT ANOTHER PERMIT CANNOT BE ISSUED ON THIS SITE.  (Sec.510 B 2) THEREFORE WE CONTEND THAT THIS IS ONE BASIS FOR DECLINING TO ISSUE THE NPDES PERMIT.

We stand in the ready to help TDEC get the legislation and regulations that are necessary to protect the public and the environment. Give us legislation to champion the public good and ammunition to expose the industry misinformation and pressures.
Help us make democracy work.

With the Spencer situation now going worldwide, it behooves us all to give science a chance, department experts the tools they need and to make TDEC immune from political and industry pressures. The world is now watching or will be shortly.

We have very grave concern about the effects of past explosions in the acquifer that is under another one that provides artesian well water to residents some distance away. What will underground mining operations do to the aquifers already impacted by the past blasting.   We know that much of the groundwater eventually surfaces but that the NPDES only deals with surface water from the mine site. Somehow we believe that the result of blasting under the weakest of regulations in existence is a concern of TDEC in that it effects drinking water, etc.  By permitting only mine site runoff, what does a homeowner need to do whose well goes dry or gets rusty. What State or EPA law comes into play and what say does TDEC have in the blasting that creates so much havoc? The SMCRA permit gets reworked to offer a modicum of protection without seeming to consider that a permit should not be issued for fear of a takings litigation. We find this unjust. TDEC waits until the SMCRA is complete and then seemingly follows along with the OSM decisions and define that all they need to do is protect the waters of the state from mine site runoff. We have noticed that OSM seems not to know what TDEC is about and blasting regulations are enforced by the Dept. of Commerce & Insurance without so much as a seismograph of their own. Blasting done for the surface mine has caused property damage several miles away and reports of a least 6 wells gone bad miles away indicate that lots of damage has already been done.  The SMCRA permit says that properties only 1/2 mile away need to be assessed and we have $45,000 worth of damage to a property just under a mile away.  The 1/2-mile is inadequate for property damage and certainly for well testing. You are to protect the interests and viability of people and creation, not limit the liability of CCC and thereby make victims of the whole area.

We contend that TDEC needs monthly or at least quarterly meetings with environmental stakeholders where these kind of issues can be addressed and we can be working together to get environmental laws and regulations that are effective and preventative.

We know that Lou Devillon is suggesting in his testimony that a small "working group" be formed for the CCC mining operation that would meet periodically to discuss outstanding issues. It would consist of community, mining interests and regulators. WE SUPPORT HIS RECOMMENDATION FOR A WORKING GROUP. BUT WE CONTEND THAT THE MINING PERMIT MUST BE DENIED.

The Lion & the Lamb op-ed of March 20 in the Crossville Chronicle asks: WHERE IS ALL THE 6,900,600 cubic feet of water that is being discharged from the mine coming from. Is it coming out of existing wells? What impact will that pumping have on artesian wells miles away? Will the basins supply the water? Will it be treated before being pumped into the mine? What will happen to the streams when all this water is added?  We found no answers. We got no reply from previous testimony at the INFORMAL CONFERENCE on January 3. The requirement that the CCC will restore or replace water resources of equivalent quality and quantity for all those using groundwater in the Rogers community and Millstone Creeks area is fine. The area covered is very likely inadequate. The residents and we need to know how many are to be notified and have their wells tested by qualified personnel. They are understandably very skeptical because there were no notifications or assessments when the surface mine stated operating. And they wonder about the bonding.the liability coverage for destroying all the wells in the territory. OSM did not do its job with the surface mine that has resulted in many victims in the watershed. TDEC needs to do the job this time. Give us the answers cited above, and explain them to the residents of the area. It will be a hard sell.
 

FRANKLY, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE REGULATORS HAVE THE LAWS TO DO THE JOB THAT IS NEEDED IN THE BOILERPLATE STUFF THAT APPEARS IN THE PERMITS. YET YOU DO HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE WATERS OF THE STATE.  DOING THAT REQUIRES YOU TO DENY THIS PERMIT. 
IF YOU DO THIS YOU WILL NOT NEED TO TRY TO DEFEND WHAT WE CONTEND IS NOT DEFENSIBLE AND WHICH WILL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE OR LOGICAL TO THINKING PEOPLE 

WE HAVE INQUIRED ABOUT THE PRESENT PERMIT FOR SURFACE MINING THAT IS EXPIRING. WE HAVE ASKED ABOUT HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING AND AN INFORMAL CONFERENCE ON IT AND RECEIVED NO WORD.  THE RESIDENTS AND WE WANT TO CONTEST THE RENEWAL OF THE SURFACE MINING PERMIT AND IF NECESSARY REQUEST THAT IT BE REOPENED FOR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.  THEY AND WE WANT ALL MINING TO CEASE FORTHWITH. 

WE JOIN WITH THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA IN REQUESTING A 30 DAY EXTENSION OF THE COMMENT PERIOD AFTER THIS HEARING SO THAT ADDITIONAL RESEARCH CAN BE DONE AND THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CAN ADOPT A RESOLUTION AT A REGULAR MEETING ON THIS MATTER 

BECAUSE AREA RESIDENTS DO NOT RECEIVE THE PAPER IN WHICH OFFICIAL NOTICES ARE PUBLISHED, THEY ARE REQUESTING A REOPENING OF THE SCRA PERMIT 3065 FOR ANOTHER INFORMAL CONFERENCE OR PERHAPS A MEETING WITH AREA RESIDENTS AND ANSWERS TO THEIR QUESTIONS. WE SUPPORT THIS AND HAVE MADE THE REWQUEST OURSELVES. WE REQUEST THAT TDEC HOLD OFF ANY DECISION ON THE PERMIT UNTIL AFTER THIS REQUEST IS ACCEPTED OR DENIED AND APPEALED.

We have not seen much about making and using risk assessments in OSM and TDEC.  We are curious to know what statistical decision making process you employ in deciding whether a permit should be granted based on established risk assessments and probability.  We want to know the chances of past blasting causing the aquifer to leak into the underground mine based on size and frequency of the blasts, as well as the chances that acid mine drainage will last virtually forever. Presumably such things enter your assessments.
 

Donald Clark on behalf of
Cumberland Countians for Peace & Justice &
Obed Watershed Association &
United Church of Christ
Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility
P.O.Box 220 54 Peterson Lane
Pleasant Hill, TN 38578
(931) 277-5467 fax: 277-5593 [email protected]