OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by:Joyce Zweben Scall Page 1 of 8

COALEX STATE COMPARISON REPORT - 245

December 1992

Carl Campbell

Deputy Commissioner

No. 2 Hudson Hollow

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

TOPIC: REGULATION OF ASH DISPOSAL

INQUIRY: Do IMCC member states' surface mining programs contain authority for

regulating the disposal of fly ash, bottom ash, etc.? What enforcement problems have

arisen? Please conduct a survey of IMCC member states.

SEARCH RESULTS: The IMCC distributed a questionnaire to member states. The

questionnaire and a summary of the results of the six responses follow. Guidelines and

policies for three states are attached. A copy of COALEX Comparison Report on fly ash

disposal prepared in 1989 is also enclosed.

ATTACHMENTS

A. INDIANA: Memorandum 92-1, "Disposal of Coal Combustion Waste on Surface

Coal Mines" (June, 1992).

B. OHIO: Policy/Procedure Directive, Permitting 92-2, "Permit to Install (PTI)

Applications for Coal Waste Treatment of Disposal Facilities" (September, 1992).

C. PENNSYLVANIA:

a. Summary of 7/4/92 Final Residual Waste Management Regulations

Relative to Beneficial Use of Coal Ash at Coal Mining/Reclamation

Activities.

b. Regulation Sec. 287.601 et seq. (July, 1992).

D. STATE COMPARISON REPORT - 126, "Fly ash disposal" (September, 1989).

Research conducted by IMCC on behalf of Kentucky

ASH DISPOSAL QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Does your state's surface mining program contain authority for regulating the

disposal of fly ash, bottom ash and scrubber sludge on surface mines?

2. If so, does your administration and enforcement grant from OSM fund the

permitting and enforcement of ash disposal?
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by:Joyce Zweben Scall Page 2 of 8

3. Have you promulgated any special regulations for ash disposal activity? If so

please send us a copy.

4. Have any enforcement problems arise as a result of this disposal (e.g., dust,

groundwater contamination, backfill stability)?

5. Have there been any problems with the public's perception of these disposal

practices or of your mining agency's ability to control this disposal effectively?

6. Are there any particular pitfalls we should avoid?

7. Are there any particular approaches, procedural or technical, that you

recommend?

8. Any other comments?

RESULTS OF THE SURVEY

ILLINOIS

1. SURFACE

MINING

PROGRAM'S

AUTHORITY

Yes. Illinois Department of Mines & Minerals, Land Reclamation

Division shares authority with Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency.

2. DOES OSM

GRANT FUND

ASH DISPOSAL?

Yes.

3. HAVE YOU

PROMULGATED

SPECIAL

REGULATIONS?

We have guidelines for disposal, but no regulations.

4. HAVE ANY

ENFORCEMENT

PROBLEMS

ARISEN?

Few problems have arisen to date. The only violations

occurred are from dust.

that have

5. HAVE THERE

BEEN ANY PUBLIC

PERCEPTION

PROBLEMS?

Public perception or opinion of fly ash is poor. There has been

no serious question of regulatory authority to oversee or control

disposal.

6. PITFALLS TO

AVOID

a. There have been a large number of applications and

revisions to dispose. The processing of the applications has

increased workloads considerably.

b. Guard against operations becoming a "landfill".

c. Once Illinois began accepting cash sources besides fluidized

bed, several of the applications that we received showed the

ash to have highly toxic levels (by RCRA standards) of metal

which creates environmental and bonding problems.

7. RECOMMENDED We have developed policy and technical procedures to guard
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by:Joyce Zweben Scall Page 3 of 8

APPROACHES against the above.

8. ADDITIONAL

COMMENTS

None.

INDIANA

1. SURFACE

MINING

PROGRAM'S

AUTHORITY

Yes. The Division of Reclamation (DOR) was given approval by

the Natural Resources Commission (governing body of the

Department of Natural Resources) to administer the disposal of

coal combustion waste on surface coal mines. Authority was

granted in 1988 with the passage of P.L. 103 which exempted

coal combustion waste (cow) from management by the Indiana

Department of Environmental Management (state EPA

equivalent) if the cow facility is regulated by IC 13-4.1

(ISMCRA).

2. DOES OSM

GRANT FUND ASH

DISPOSAL?

The disposal of cow is considered to be a significant permit

revision and incorporated into the existing mining permit. Since

these activities are part of the mining and reclamation process,

they are included in the coverage of OSM grants.

3. HAVE YOU

PROMULGATED

SPECIAL

REGULATIONS?

No. A copy of guidelines are enclosed.

4. HAVE ANY

ENFORCEMENT

PROBLEMS

ARISEN?

Two disposal sites currently exist in Indiana; however, these

were initiated before the existing guidelines were in place. Dust

problems were the only known problems encountered at one of

the sites to date.

5. HAVE THERE

BEEN ANY PUBLIC

PERCEPTION

PROBLEMS?

The Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC) and various other

groups have taken a strong stand against cow disposal on

mine sites. The contention is that without the promulgation of

specific regulations, the guidelines are unenforceable. The

Natural Resources' decision to adopt the regulatory approach

(guidelines based on SMCRA regulation) defined in the

attached memorandum is currently being appealed by HEC.

6. PITFALLS TO

AVOID

Develop an integrated operations and testing plan before any

program is initiated. Maintain consistency and thoroughness

throughout the plan, but build in enough flexibility to deal with

site specific conditions and problems as they arise.

7. RECOMMENDED

APPROACHES

Develop a characterization and monitoring program that

requires a minimum of quality assurance and quality control by

using ASTM or EPA methods for analysis.

8. ADDITIONAL

COMMENTS

The University of North Dakota is one of the leading authorities

in this area and their assistance was vital to Indiana's

regulatory approach. We suggest you contact Dr. Ray Butler at 

(701) 777-
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by:Joyce Zweben Scall Page 4 of 8

5000 for more information.

MISSOURI

1. SURFACE

MINING

PROGRAM'S

AUTHORITY

Yes and no.

a. OSM stated in a recent oversight that states must regulate

the disposal of fly ash as a mining waste. However, Missouri

argued that the disposal of fly ash was not covered by SMCRA

because the waste was generated outside of the mine. OSM

later agreed with Missouri. The only aspect of fly ash disposal

regulated by Missouri's coal program is where fly ash disposal

conflicts with the company's compliance with the other

performance standards such as achieving revegetation

success.

b. The only type of fly ash disposal allowed on mine sites

without a landfill [? word only partially legible] permit is a lowtonnage disposal that is distributed throughout the mine site as

a mixture with the spoil. Because the solid waste program has

determined that these types of disposal activities have no

significant potential of causing impacts, the activity is exempted

from permitting requirements of the solid waste law.

2. DOES OSM

GRANT FUND ASH

DISPOSAL?

The solid waste program does not provide any supplemental

funding for our review of fly ash disposal plans. The total

amount of time allocated to the task is not significant enough to

warrant separating it from our normal coal duties.

3. HAVE YOU

PROMULGATED

SPECIAL

REGULATIONS?

No. All rules relative to fly ash disposal are promulgated through

the solid waste program. Although all actions involving the

disposal of fly ash at mine sites are reviewed by the coal

program, all final decisions are coordinated through the solid

waste program. Also, any enforcement actions relating to solid

waste laws will be handled by the solid waste program.

4. HAVE ANY

ENFORCEMENT

PROBLEMS

ARISEN?

No.

5. HAVE THERE

BEEN ANY PUBLIC

PERCEPTION

PROBLEMS?

No. However, some concerns have been voiced over the dust

created during fly ash disposal at landfills.

6. PITFALLS TO

AVOID

States should be alert to whether fly ash disposal is causing a

conflict with other performance standards. Also, states should

avoid allowing OSM to convince them that fly ash is a waste

regulated under the surface mining laws.

7. RECOMMENDED In Missouri, the coal program has volunteered to administer
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by:Joyce Zweben Scall Page 5 of 8

APPROACHES both the reclamation and solid waste laws governing the

disposal of fly ash at mine sites. This has been accomplished

through a Memorandum of Understanding between the two

separate programs. This allows the operator to coordinate with

one group and expedite the review and issuance of the permit.

8. ADDITIONAL

COMMENTS

Questions concerning the level of review required for fly ash

disposal plans should be directed to Martha Kipper [? or

Hopper] of the Land Reclamation program at (314) 751-4041.

OHIO

1. SURFACE

MINING

PROGRAM'S

AUTHORITY

While the Division of Reclamation (DOR) acknowledges the

lack of direct statutory authority over disposal of waste material

in general, we do have the authority to regulate all miningrelated activities on an active coal permit. In light of this

authority, DOR requires detailed waste disposal plans as part of

the coal mining permit which are then enforceable by our

inspection staff.

2. DOES OSM

GRANT FUND

DISPOSAL?

ASH

Not applicable.

3. HAVE YOU

PROMULGATED

SPECIAL

REGULATIONS?

DOR has not promulgated special regulations specific to waste

disposal; however, we do use statutory language relating to

protection of the hydrologic balance and water resources as the

basis for the coal waste policy/procedure directive (Permitting

92-2, effective 9/1/92, copy attached) and the fly ash/nonoil

waste disposal guidelines (copy attached). DOR developed

these documents in order to allow our inspection staff

enforcement capabilities over what we perceive to be miningrelated activities on active coal permits.

4. HAVE ANY

ENFORCEMENT

PROBLEMS

ARISEN?

No. Non-remedial, long-term, or otherwise significant violations

have been found to be connected to waste disposal activities.

5. HAVE THERE

BEEN ANY PUBLIC

PERCEPTION

PROBLEMS?

Public perception has not been a problem other than the

appearance of the importation of "out-of-state" waste. This

issue has arisen with haul-backs of ash as part of Ohio coal

contracts. Problems associated with disposal of these materials

have been with the definition of coal waste, the permitting

process and the inter-agency communication.
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by:Joyce Zweben Scall Page 6 of 8

6. PITFALLS TO

AVOID

a. As suggested in the response to item #5, DOR's problems

arise from ineffective interagency communication. Federal

statutory language is too vague and general to apply to the

state's program. Neither federal oversight agency (i.e., OSMRE

or USEPA) has taken an active role in resolving inconsistencies

or programmatic problems on this issue. Mining-related

activities, including waste disposal, are not high on Ohio EPA's

priority list, consequently making it difficult to come to

agreement on even the most basis of matters(i.e., definition of

what constitutes coal waste, fly ash, nonoil waste, etc.). While

Ohio EPA acknowledges staffing and time constraints make it

difficult to process/enforce waste disposal permits, they have

been unwilling to relinquish much control to date. DOR has

taken a very pro-active position on waste disposal with Ohio

EPA and after two years of negotiations we are beginning to

see positive changes in the overall process and development of

trust between the agencies.

b. Technical pitfalls are generally difficult to enumerate because

of the highly specific nature of each individual disposal plan.

DOR has also attempted to educate the industry, when

necessary, as to the importance of providing site-specific plans,

avoiding "boiler plate" responses, and the need to recognize

disposal plans require a longer and more detailed review.

7. RECOMMENDED

APPROACHES

a. We have utilized these materials under our AML program for

resoiling (fly ash) and as lime substitutes (scrubber waste). We

have not used bottom ash except in minor amounts mixed with

fly ash. Our resoiling experience has been with alkaline material

applied to acidic spoil in lieu of topsoil. At 200-400 tons per

acre, this met with good success. Alkaline ash has also been

layered into coal refuse piles during reclamation in an attempt to

achieve buffering of the refuse. The Division just recently

completed a site where scrubber waste was used as a liming

agent for the reclamation of a coal refuse pile.

b. Our uses consider set-back distances from waterways,

protection from off-site transport and contamination of ground

water. Ohio EPA approves all beneficial re-uses prior to

incorporation into the AML project.

8. ADDITIONAL

COMMENTS

None.

PENNSYLVANIA

1. SURFACE Yes, via an interdepartmental agreement between the mining

MINING program and waste management program and our residual
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by:Joyce Zweben Scall Page 7 of 8

PROGRAM'S

AUTHORITY

waste management regulations.

2. DOES OSM

GRANT FUND ASH

DISPOSAL?

Yes, since this relates to reclamation plan reviews.

3. HAVE YOU

PROMULGATED

SPECIAL

REGULATIONS?

See attached excerpts

regulations.

from our residual waste management

4. HAVE ANY

ENFORCEMENT

PROBLEMS

ARISEN?

No.

5. HAVE THERE

BEEN ANY PUBLIC

PERCEPTION

PROBLEMS?

The public is inquisitive about proposals to use ash for mine site

reclamation. The public seems to be more concerned, however,

about proposals for use of sewage sludge as a soil additive for

land reclamation than for ash disposal.

6. PITFALLS TO

AVOID

Be careful not to create full-blown ash disposal sites under

guise of mining (see 7. below).

the

7. RECOMMENDED

APPROACHES

Pennsylvania has new restrictions (effective 7/4/92) relative to

ash placement at coal mining activities. See attached material.

8. ADDITIONAL

COMMENTS

None.

TENNESSEE

1. SURFACE

MINING

PROGRAM'S

AUTHORITY

No.

2. DOES OSM

GRANT FUND

DISPOSAL?

ASH

Not applicable.

3. HAVE YOU

PROMULGATED

SPECIAL

REGULATIONS?

The Division of Solid

areas.

Waste has a permit-by-rule for coal ash fill

4. HAVE ANY

ENFORCEMENT

PROBLEMS

ARISEN?

None known.

5. HAVE THERE

BEEN ANY PUBLIC

PERCEPTION

The public is inquisitive about proposals to use ash for mine site

reclamation. The public seems to be more concerned, however,

about proposals for use of sewage sludge as a soil additive for
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by:Joyce Zweben Scall Page 8 of 8

PROBLEMS? land reclamation than for ash disposal.

6. PITFALLS TO

AVOID

Contact with acidic water (pH 2-3) can release metals in the

ash.

7. RECOMMENDED

APPROACHES

No.

8. ADDITIONAL

COMMENTS

None.