Abandoned Mine Posts

By Andy McAllister, Watershed Coordinator

As watershed groups continue to grapple with funding for the operation and maintenance of their treatment systems, one group has developed an innovative way to use the by-products from their passive treatment systems to help them maintain their systems.

The Slippery Rock Watershed Coalition has been working to restore Slippery Rock Creek since 1994 and has installed 12 treatment systems throughout the 40 square mile watershed in western Pennsylvania–an impressive accomplishment. Even more impressive is the method by which they intend to help continue funding their reclamation efforts–by selling pottery.

Two of the by-products of the group’s passive treatment systems, iron oxide and managanese, as it turns out, are useful in creating beautiful glazes for pottery. The group worked with Stream Restoration, Inc. to recover the iron and manganese by-products from the treatment systems, found a local potter who was willing to give these pigments a try and voila, a unique product, “Clean Creek Pottery” was born.

Teapot and cups from Clean Creek Pottery

Although only a young venture, Clean Creek Pottery has rapidly found increasing support within the Slippery Rock Watershed and beyond. When people purchase this “green technology” glazed pottery they contribute to SRWC and SRI’s efforts to treat Abandoned Mine Drainage. You can read about Clean Creek Pottery in the March/April 2008 issue of the Sierra Club magazine which features an article about Margaret Dunn of Stream Restoration, Inc and her group’s efforts to make lemonade from lemons.

To find out more about Clean Creek Pottery and restoration efforts in the Slippery Rock Watershed, visit:

Clean Creek Pottery

Stream Restoration, Inc

The Slippery Rock Watershed Coalition

Sierra Club Magazine’s article “One Small Step: Glazed with What Oozed“

By Andy McAllister, Watershed Coordinator

The Pennsylvania Prevailing wage has been on the minds of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Community for some time now. As funding levels continue to drop and watershed groups and conservation districts look for creative ways to stretch their shrinking reclamation dollar, the issue of prevailing wage forcing higher project costs has begun to come to the forefront.

The current Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act enacted in 1961 requires that all workers on a “public work” project must be paid the prevailing wage determined by the Department of Labor and Industry. ” Public work” means construction, reconstruction, demolition, alteration and/or repair work other than maintenance work, done under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of the funds of a public body (in other words all state and/or taxpayer funds) where the estimated cost of the total project is in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).

To better understand the Commonwealth’s Prevailing Wage, we need to understand the original Federal legislation that spurred the creation of Prevailing Wage Acts within Pennsylvania and other states. The Davis Bacon Act (the Federal prevailing wage act), enacted in 1931, is the brainchild and namesake of two Northeastern politicians; Senator James Davis (R) Pennsylvania and Representative Robert Bacon (R) New York. According to reports, the impetus for creating such legislation revolved around preventing contractors from the Southern US from bringing their cheaply paid labor up North to successfully compete for Northern jobs against Northern contractors who paid their workers a higher wage. Remember, the country was slowly climbing out of the Great Depression and jobs were at a premium. In the end, the Act was meant to “level the playing field” between contractors who performed federal government jobs throughout the country with the main rationale being that a Federal Prevailing Wage would stimulate economic growth. The language of this federal statute was sufficiently ambiguous to require clarification in 1935 before it could be effectively enforced. The Act was modified again in 1964 to include fringe benefits.

Because the U.S. Constitution’s Tenth Amendment constrains the federal government’s ability to dictate contract terms for state government projects, state and municipal governments were required to institute their own prevailing wage laws, if they chose to do so.

After Davis-Bacon was enacted, many states began the process of creating their own prevailing wage acts, popularly known as “Little Davis Bacons”. State prevailing wages were initially set up to protect local wage rates and foster a better qualified work force. Not all states have chosen to go this route however. States such as Virginia have no state prevailing wage act, preferring instead to allow public construction work costs and wages to be whatever the market will bear.

By 1969, 41 states and the District of Columbia enacted prevailing wage laws. But, despite the promise of economic advantages touted by proponents of the prevailing wage laws, beginning in 1979 there were widespread efforts to repeal existing prevailing wage laws. Changes in the dominant political philosophy and government budgetary difficulties are often cited as the cause of the repeal movement. Between 1979 and 1988, nine states repealed their prevailing wage laws. Florida was the first to repeal its legislation, followed by Alabama in 1980. Utah was the third state to repeal, but only after vetoes from its governor. Arizona repealed its statute in 1984, followed by Idaho, Colorado and New Hampshire in 1985.

Currently, 29 states have a prevailing wage act and while some states have chosen to repeal their prevailing wage acts over the years, others have decided to retain Prevailing Wage but provide for exemptions, sometimes temporarily. In 1997 a bill was passed in Ohio which exempted school construction from their state prevailing wage but required a study be performed to assess the effects of this exemption upon the construction cost, quality, and wages. After the exemption expired, the Ohio Legislative Service Commission in 2002 concluded that there was no negative effect on the construction industry and reported a cost savings of 10%. The State of Florida instituted a similar exemption which saved them 15%.

In Pennsylvania, the minimum wage rates listed by the PA Dept. of Labor and Industry have been updated yearly along with the cost of fringe benefits since the enactment of the law in 1961. This wage rate is in large part determined by the union scale rate, which according to reports constitutes less than 23% of Pennsylvania’s construction industry. However, the project cost threshold that dictates whether a project must comply with the state Prevailing Wage, has NEVER been updated since 1961 and still remains at $25,000. Apparently, no mechanism had been put into place in 1961 to adjust the threshold to account for inflation.

Upon further examination, a $25,000 threshold in 1961 dollars, if adjusted for inflation, would be a whopping $172,000 in 2007 dollars. This is quite a difference, a difference that has not gone unnoticed by members of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation community. The potential for cost savings for AMR projects priced below this revised threshold is obvious—some put the cost savings figure at 25%. Of course for the AMR community, cost savings ultimately translates to more systems on the ground and more streams cleaned up.

While the particular reason for lack of inflation adjustments in the original threshold amount remains unclear, the end product for AMD construction projects is that recipients of public funding have to comply with the PA Prevailing Wage Act for projects that cost more than $25,000—a figure that is easily exceeded by virtually every single AMD project.

With funding streams shrinking and project costs skyrocketing, watershed groups, conservation districts and other members of the AMR community are becoming even more cost-conscious than ever before. In a subsequent issue of Abandoned Mine Posts, we will take a look at some proposed legislative changes that are afoot in Harrisburg which would bring equity to this 47 year old problem and we’ll talk about ways for the AMR community to make their voices heard.

by Andy McAllister, Watershed Coordinator

In this new series at Abandoned Mine Posts, we take a fascinating journey back through time. It’s a journey of discovery and a journey of connections. It’s the story of how coal came to be part of Western Pennsylvania life and the story of the coal connections that would shape our future.

Part 2: Necessity is the Mother of Invention

Although Anthracite coal was found in Eastern Pennsylvania in the early 1700s, the problem associated with getting it from where it was found to where it would be used was one of the biggest obstacles preventing its widespread use—not to mention it was really, really difficult to ignite. So as a result, charcoal remained the fuel of choice for iron making in Pennsylvania throughout the period. But while the folks in Penn’s Woods were plodding along with charcoal and limited supplies of imported coal, back in England, the ever-increasing need for coal would result in something big, really big, that would change the course of civilization forever.

By the late 1600s in England, coal usage had certainly caught on. This was mostly due to the previous widespread deforestation which led to a drastic shortage of charcoal. Of course, by that time, underground mining was a staple in England, Scotland, and Wales due to the depletion of surface outcrops. But there was a slight problem, water. You see, as the miners went ever deeper in search of their quarry, the surrounding groundwater seeped into the tunnels and as a result, miners had to work in very damp conditions to say the least. To add additional problems to this burgeoning industry, the simple method of using man (or mule) powered pulleys to get the coal up to the surface really wasn’t keeping up with production. Both man and mule were getting rather tired and the coal was backing up—so was the water. There had to be a better way.

In walks a Mr. Thomas Savery. Mr. Savery had for many years, been interested in engineering for use in naval applications—the paddle wheel and so forth. However, hanging out at the local pubs, he heard all about the problems the mining industry was having. He saw the need for something “mechanical” which could help the coal mining industry with their water problem. So, Mr. Savery set out to invent something that could help. He knew of something called a “wind ball” invented by Heron, an ancient Greek geometer and engineer from Alexandria in the first century AD. Heron was the first to invent the steam engine, oddly enough, as a toy. This early Greek toy is the first known device to transform steam power into rotary motion. Armed with this knowledge, Savery set his sights on creating a steam –powered device to pump water out of the coal mines.

Once Mr. Savery finally patented his steam engine in 1698 and put it to use powering pumps at some of the coal mines, things began to look up and production started to get back on schedule. However, after a time, it was found that this device really didn’t have the power to pump enough water. By the early 1700s, a Mr. Newcomen decided there had to be a better way and set about to improve Savery’s crude device. Mr. Newcomen’s improvements to the primitive steam engine led to more water being pumped out of the mines, which led to more coal being produced. The Newcomen engine remained relatively unchanged for the next fifty years or so but during that time, the coal industry grew. More coal meant more and deeper mines which meant more water to be pumped out and more coal to be winched up. Newcomen’s engine started to become obsolete.

The Newcomen Steam Engine

By the mid 1700s a Scottish inventor and engineer by the name of Mr. James Watt, saw the inefficiency of the Newcomen engine and began working to improve it. You see, the main problem with Newcomen’s design was that when the water sprayed into the cylinder to condense the steam, it also cooled the cylinder. Efficiency of subsequent strokes was then reduced because it took forever to heat the cylinder up again—not a good thing when you have water backing up in the mines.

Watt added a second cylinder, a condenser, which allowed the main cylinder to run at a reasonably hot temperature without cooling off and pre-condensing the steam. He also used bored cylinders which sealed better and so produced better vacuums than the old cast ones. Watt’s improvements to the steam engine by 1781 would start to lead to even more inventions that would increase not only mining efficiency but the demand for coal itself. It was the beginning of the Industrial Age.

In the meantime, while news of those wondrous contraptions being invented back in England reached America, Anthracite coal in Eastern Pennsylvania was quite literally going nowhere—well, almost nowhere. Apparently, enough of those barges were able to make the trip down the river and a few people decided to give this Anthracite coal a try. But, igniting the stuff was difficult and few really wanted to give anthracite the time of day. Those few customers who did purchase this unknown type of coal became incensed when it wouldn’t ignite. They hurled the hard coal at the peddlers, calling them crooks and running them out of town. It was a trying time. But through it all, the idea of using Anthracite as a reliable fuel source hung on.

One of the challenges for Anthracite was that Pennsylvania was still hooked on charcoal and to some extent, imported coal from England. The charcoal addiction in particular leads us back to a problem that we’ve seen elsewhere. Sound familiar? Penn’s Woods was rapidly becoming Penn’s “Farmland” and trees were becoming increasingly scarce. Folks in Pennsylvania finally started realizing that their dependence on dwindling supplies of charcoal and expensive imported coal was the only thing keeping them afloat. If they were to get anywhere,they had to find a good, abundant, reliable fuel source. Anthracite was poised to fill that void. But, while all of this was going on in the East, settlers in the wilds of Western Pennsylvania would discover something that would eventually add another level of complexity to the situation.

By the turn of the 19th century in Eastern Pennsylvania, things were beginning to look up for the fledgling Anthracite industry. In 1808, a determined businessman, Mr. Jesse Fell from Wilkes Barre, invented a fireplace grate that would foster the use of anthracite to heat homes. This was a fortunate breakthrough because by 1812, things really started heating up. The supply of coal from England to America was about to be interrupted.