Key Regulatory Issues Planned And Controlled Subsidence

The year was 1974. The event - the United States Congress was embroiled over what issues should be included in the proposed national surface mining law. The question - what should be done with underground mines? The leading bills ultimately addressed the environmental impacts associated with underground mines including provisions to protect the surface from subsidence impacts. Amid the fears that this subsidence language might discourage underground mining, sponsors of the bill were asked to explain the meaning of the provision that read "to prevent subsidence to the extent technologically and economically feasible." Was this an attempt to limit mining that caused planned and controlled subsidence? Former Deputy Director of the Office of Surface Mining, Dean Hunt, reviewed some of these historical events in a 1985 presentation before the Eastern Mineral Law Foundation. He reported that in 1974 Congressman Morris Udall took the floor to respond to these concerns expressed by other members of Congress and the industry. Mr. Hunt cited Congressman Udall's July 10, 1974 Congressional Record statement: "The House bill contemplates rules 'to prevent subsidence to the extent technologically and economically feasible.' The word prevent led to fears expressed by the Secretary of the Interior Morton, that the effect would be to outlaw longwall mining, with its obvious subsidence ... in fact the bill's sponsors consider longwall mining ecologically preferable and it and other methods of controlled subsidence are explicitly endorsed." Further, the report that accompanied the front-running bill, HR11500, provided the following clarification on the issue of subsidence prevention: "It is the intent of this section to provide the Secretary with the authority to require the design and conduct of underground mining methods to control subsidence to the extent technologically and economically feasible in order to protect the value and use of surface lands. Some of the measures available for subsidence control include: (1) leaving sufficient original mineral for support; (2) refraining from mining under certain areas---or (3) causing subsidence to occur at a predictable time and in a relatively uniform and predictable manner. This specifically allows for the uses of longwall and other mining techniques which completely remove the coal." It is clear from the preceding statements that Congress considered the removal of all the coal and causing subsidence in a predictable and uniform manner to be equal to or better than leaving support coal and causing no subsidence. While the actual provision in the bills talked of preventing subsidence, a subsequent exception made it clear that the real intent was to control it. This is evidenced in the specific planned subsidence language that appeared in the bills and ultimately in Section 516 (b) (1) of PL95-87, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. It reads: "...adopt measures...to prevent subsidence ... except in those instances where the mining technology used requires planned subsidence in a predictable and controlled manner..." In spite of this historic record that supports controlled subsidence, something has been lost in the implementation. The primary focus by many regulators over the past few years has been on the "prevent" aspect irrespective of mining method being used. This has appeared to change the original intent of Congress from one of controlling subsidence to one of minimizing damage. The objective of this report is to review some of the current regulatory issues that impede full extraction mining and offer some suggestions on possible ways to deal with these issues.