Mystery Senator Blocks Obama Pick to Head Key Mining Office

Photo by flickr user <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/davipt/207054744/">davipt</a> used under a <a href="http://www.creativecommons.org">Creative Commons</a> license.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


When President Obama nominated Joseph Pizarchik to head the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, critics blasted the choice, charging that Pizarchik has a history of favoring coal industry interests over the well-being of local residents. Still, it appeared Pizarchik would sail to confirmation this week—until an unknown senator placed a hold on his appointment. Here’s why the mystery senator might be worried that Pizarchik is the wrong man for the job.

Pizarchik has served as the director of Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Mining and Reclamation since 2002. The office, a division of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, oversees mining permits and the enforcement of environmental rules related to mining and waste disposal. And residents of Pennsylvania mining areas are so unhappy with his performance that they’re organizing to oppose the nomination. Under Pizarchik’s watch, the bureau developed new policies for the “beneficial use” of coal ash, including allowing it to be dumped in old surface mining sites—meaning, essentially, that power plant waste could be left in unlined pits around the state.

 

The hazards of coal ash contamination attracted national scrutiny last December when an earthen dike owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston Fossil Plant broke, spewing 1.1 billion gallons of dark grey coal slurry into Tennessee homes and waterways. A 2007 study by the Clean Air Task Force found that 10 out of 15 Pennsylvania mine sites where coal ash had been dumped tested positive for arsenic, lead, cadmium, selenium, and other hazardous materials. The study criticized the role that Pizarchik’s office played in allowing this practice to continue.

Pennsylvania residents have also expressed concerns about longwall mining, which has expanded in the state in recent years. This coal extraction method involves burrowing underground, and has wreaked havoc on both the water systems and property in the state. Residents say Pizarchik did not enforce existing regulations as the head of the office, and that since 2006, the department has made it considerably more difficult for residents to comment on mining permit applications. Public meetings are less frequent and often held during work hours, they say.

The Mountain Watershed Association, Friends of the Earth, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the Alliance for Appalachia, Environmental Integrity Project and Appalachian Voices are all stoking opposition to the nomination. In addition, the Citizens Coal Council recently filed suit against the Office of Surface Mining, accusing it of allowing the Pennsylvania office that Pizarchik headed to commit “chronic and deliberate violations” of surface mining regulations. “He’s unacceptable,” said Aimee Erickson, coordinator of the Citizens Coal Council.

If appointed head of OSM, Pizarchick would not only oversee coal ash disposal, but also the regulation of other mining practices such as mountaintop removal, the controversial method in which mountains are blown up to extract coal and the remaining waste is dumped in valley fills. In his confirmation hearing on August 6 before the Energy and Natural Resources committee, Pizarchik was asked to explain his views on this practice, which is not common in Pennsylvania but is a contentious issue in other Appalachian mining states. Pizarchik’s responses were extremely vague, sometimes even incoherent. When questioned about his views on the Obama administration’s new policies for mountaintop mining, which would require tougher scrutiny of environmental impacts and which the Office of Surface Mining would be directly involved in implementing, Pizarchik said he would have to “learn more about the facts.” He added:

And getting involved and getting a better handle on the details of that as how that is actually being implemented I think in getting an understanding of the facts would be the first basis to determine what has transpired in the past. Has that activity been done in accordance with the law as enacted by Congress and the regulations adopted by the state and federal agencies? And then looking at those facts and deciding what would be the appropriate action to take at that time.

“We would think that the head of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement would be someone who wouldn’t have to be educated about mountaintop removal coal mining,” says Bill Price, an organizer with the Sierra Club environmental justice program. “We need to have someone who…understands the significant impacts of it.”

Although several senators on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee expressed concerns about Pizarchik, only two senators voted against him at an October 8 meeting: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). “Transitioning to a new, clean-energy economy requires people who are willing to break free from the inertia of doing things the way they have always been done,” said Menendez in a statement. “I do not believe Mr. Pizarchik is willing to look at these issues with a fresh eye.”

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), another member of the committee, also cited concerns about the nomination in a written statement, though he supported the nomination with the caveat that the committee should take a more active role in overseeing the office. And committee chair Jeff Bingaman acknowledged in the meeting that Pizarchik’s nomination “has proved controversial,” adding that his office had received several hundred e-mails and letters from coal-field residents opposing the nomination. However, he planned to give Pizarchik the “benefit of the doubt”:

I’m not dismissing or minimizing the serious concerns that were raised. I share many of those concerns. But I don’t agree that all of these problems can be laid at Mr. Pizarchik’s door… I do not think it fair to vilify him for the shortcomings in laws that have been passed by Pennsylvania’s General Assembly or the laws we passed here in Washington.

Bingaman makes a fair point that many existing laws, both federal and state, have enabled harmful mining practices. Yet Pizarchik seems to have allowed environmentally problematic practices to continue, and in some cases, become more prevalent. And his testimony before the Senate did little to allay concerns about his record or his awareness of the issues his office will deal with.

It’s unclear which senator moved to block the floor vote on Pizarchik ‘s appointment, although a spokesperson for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee confirmed the hold was based on concerns about the nominee, not an unrelated matter (as is often the case with holds). Sanders’ office has denied preventing the vote. A spokesperson for Menendez said on Monday that the office does not generally comment on anonymous holds.

So far, the Obama administration is standing behind its pick. A spokesperson for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar issued a statement last week stating that Pizarchik is the “right man at the right time” for the job who will “help move the department forward with coal production in an environmentally responsible way.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate