March 26, 2009 

The Honorable Lisa Jackson 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code 1101A 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Administrator Jackson: 

 Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it 

would be undertaking the development of a regulatory proposal for the disposal of 

coal combustion waste (coal ash) by the end of the year. This announcement follows 

on the heels of several Congressional actions to address the matter, including Senate 

Resolution No. 64 and a bill introduced by House Natural Resources Committee 

Chairman Nick Rahall II (H.R. 493). As state agencies responsible for regulating the 

placement of coal ash at both coal and noncoal mines nationwide, we have a vested 

interest in EPA’s future proposal and request the opportunity to work closely with 

EPA as co-regulators in the development of the proposal, whatever form it may take. 

As you know, in May of 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) published a Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the 

Combustion of Fossil Fuels. Among other things, and of particular concern to the 

states, EPA found that, although coal combustion wastes (CCWs) did not warrant 

regulation under subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

as “hazardous waste”, the agency had determined that national regulations under 

subtitle D of RCRA and/or possible modifications to existing regulations established 

under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) are 

warranted when these materials are used as fill in surface or underground mines. 

IMCC was especially concerned about the “mine placement” aspects of the 

determination given the significant interplay between approved state regulatory 

programs under SMCRA and any potential adjustments to the SMCRA federal 

regulations (which serve as a template for state regulatory programs). 

Following publication of EPA’s notice, IMCC took the lead on behalf of the 

states to address the matter and initiated a series of discussions between states, the 

Office of Surface Mining (OSM) and EPA concerning next steps pursuant to the 

regulatory determination. The first of the state/federal dialogues occurred in May of 

2001 and over the course of the next three years, the parties shared and discussed 

information and analyses of their respective regulatory programs under SMCRA and 
RCRA. The states also provided data and information from state approved permits where mine 

placement was predominant to demonstrate the types of environmental controls applicable in 

these situations and the environmental protection afforded by exiting regulatory standards. 

Copies of the various documents and notes generated at the four state/federal dialogues are 

available at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/fossil/index.htm. 

 On March 1, 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) within the National Academy 

of Sciences released a report entitled Managing Coal Combustion Residues in Mines. The 

study was in response to a request from Congress and was initiated in June of 2004. The NRC 

conducted the study to examine the health, safety, and environmental risks associated with 

using coal combustion residues (also referred to as coal combustion wastes or coal ash) in 

reclamation at active and abandoned coal mines. The study was to determine whether CCWs 

were placed and disposed of in coal mines with adequate safeguards and whether this activity is 

degrading water supplies in coal mines in contravention of SMCRA. IMCC, on behalf of the 

states, once again provided data and information to the NRC regarding the nature and status of 

state regulatory program requirements for the placement of CCWs in mines. 

 Most recently, IMCC submitted statements to the House Energy and Mineral Resources 

Subcommittee for inclusion in the record of two hearings held by the Subcommittee: one on 

June 10, 2008 regarding “How Should the Federal Government Address the Health and 

Environmental Risks of Coal Combustion Wastes?” and another on February 12 concerning 

H.R. 493, the “Coal Ash Reclamation, Environment and Safety Act of 2009”. Copies of those 

statements are attached. In both statements IMCC articulates the perspective of the states as 

primary regulators in the area of mine placement concerning the development of any new 

federal regulatory program by OSM or EPA. In this regard, we would note that OSM has 

already developed a draft proposed rule on mine placement which we believe serves as an 

reasonable starting point for further discussions about developing a new federal regulatory 

framework. 

 The states, through the IMCC, have been active participants in the regulatory 

development arena with OSM and EPA over the past ten years. As noted in the attached 

resolution adopted by IMCC, we trust that we will continue our close working relationship on 

this important matter. In this regard, we would request an opportunity to meet with you or 

members of your staff to discuss the specifics of your regulatory proposal and provide early 

input from the states. 

 Sincerely, 

 Gregory E. Conrad 

 Executive Director 

Attachment 

cc. All Commissioners 

 Matthew Hale 

 Richard Kinch 

 Glenda Owens, OSM 
Statement of Gregory E. Conrad, Executive Director, Interstate Mining Compact 

Commission to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources re the 

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 493, the “Coal Ash Reclamation, Environment, and 

Safety Act of 2009”

 My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I serve as Executive Director of the Interstate 

Mining Compact Commission (IMCC), a multi-state governmental organization 

representing the natural resource and environmental protection interests of its 24 member 

states. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement for the record of the 

legislative hearing held by the Subcommittee on February 12, 2009 regarding H.R. 493, 

the “Coal Ash Reclamation, Environment, and Safety Act of 2009. The IMCC member 

states share the concern of Chairman Rahall, the bill’s sponsor, that effective government 

oversight is necessary, regardless of whether coal ash is placed in surface impoundments, 

landfills or active or abandoned mines. As state agencies responsible for the regulation 

of coal and noncoal mining operations throughout the United States, IMCC’s member 

states are committed to implementing and enforcing national and state laws that provide 

for the proper disposal and placement of coal combustion wastes in a manner that 

protects public health and safety and the environment. 

 Our understanding is that H.R. 493 is targeted primarily at the safety and 

structural stability of coal ash impoundments throughout the United States. We agree 

that this is a very important matter. As Chairman Rahall noted in his opening remarks at 

the February 12th legislative hearing: “The bill I have introduced deals with just one 

aspect of the issue of regulating the management of coal combustion wastes. It is a rifle 

shot aimed at ensuring the structural stability of coal ash impoundments. There remains 

the much broader issue of regulating the disposal of these wastes in landfills and coal 

mines.” We address the “broader issue” of mine placement below. However, with 

respect to the intended purposes of H.R. 493, we have several concerns. 

 The bill anticipates that those states with primacy programs under the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) can elect to implement the 

regulatory requirements under the legislation for the safe storage and disposal of covered 

wastes in impoundments upon approval by the Secretary of the Interior. While we are 

uncertain from the definition of “covered wastes” in H.R. 493 exactly what types of 

waste this might include, we do know that these types of impoundments are generally not 

located at or near surface coal mining operations. Rather, they are generally sited near 

coal-fired power plants. The additional duty to regulate coal ash storage and disposal 

impoundments under SMCRA is a significant expansion of SMCRA’s intent and 

purposes. 

 SMCRA primacy states have a fair amount of experience and expertise with 

respect to coal waste impoundments at surface coal mining sites. Expanding the states’ 

jurisdiction beyond these traditional mining activities to include coal ash impoundments 

wherever they may be found could significantly impact overall program operations. The 

bill does not seem to provide a specific funding mechanism for the additional resources 

that will be required to permit and inspect these coal impoundments, much less undertake 

1
enforcement actions. It could be argued that, since the Secretary would be approving the 

extension of existing SMCRA state programs to include the regulation of coal ash 

impoundments under the bill, Title V funding under SCMRA should be increased to 

include the expenses associated with this additional program activity. However, this 

would likely be a significant fiscal impact and it should therefore be explicitly addressed 

in the legislation. In this regard, we urge that 100 percent federal funding be made 

available to support this new regulatory component of state programs. Even with that, 

some states may still be either unable or uninterested in taking on this additional 

regulatory responsibility under their SMCRA programs due to fiscal and other resource 

constraints. 

 There also remains the problem of how these coal ash impoundments will be 

regulated in those states without SMCRA programs. Obviously, these states will not be 

in a position to consider taking on these regulatory programs, even if they desired to do 

so, without adjustments to the legislation permitting them to do so. If the legislation is 

adjusted to authorize non-SMCRA program states to assume regulation of coal ash 

storage and disposal impoundments, the legislation should also provide the states with the 

necessary funding to perform these regulatory activities. Funding for states to do this 

additional work should be 100 percent federal. 

 We also believe it is critical in the legislation, or in report language, to distinguish 

between the purposes and intent of this bill (i.e. structural stability and safety of coal ash 

impoundments) and the placement of coal ash at active and abandoned mines. The 

IMCC member states recognize that coal ash, in appropriate circumstances, can be 

successfully used in the reclamation of mines. We also are of the view that coal ash is 

only to be used at a mine in a manner that does not cause pollution and is protective of 

the environment and public health and safety. 

In May of 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a 

Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels. 

Among other things, and of particular concern to the states, EPA found that, although 

coal combustion by-products (CCBs) (or coal combustion residues (CCRs)) did not 

warrant regulation under subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) as “hazardous waste”, the agency had determined that national regulations under 

subtitle D of RCRA and/or possible modifications to existing regulations established 

under SMCRA are warranted when these materials are used as fill in surface or 

underground mines. IMCC was especially concerned about the “mine placement” 

aspects of the determination given the significant interplay between approved state 

regulatory programs under SMCRA and any potential adjustments to the national 

SMCRA regulations (which serve as a template for state regulatory programs). 

Following publication of EPA’s notice, IMCC took the lead on behalf of the states 

to address the matter and initiated a series of discussions between states, the Office of 

Surface Mining (OSM) and EPA concerning next steps pursuant to the regulatory 

determination. The first of the state/federal dialogues occurred in May of 2001 and over 

the course of the next three years, the parties shared and discussed information and 

2
analyses of their respective regulatory programs under SMCRA and RCRA. The states 

also provided data and information from state approved permits where mine placement 

was predominant to demonstrate the types of environmental controls applicable in these 

situations and the environmental protection afforded by exiting regulatory standards. 

Copies of the various documents and notes generated at the four state/federal dialogues 

are available at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/fossil/index.htm. 

 On March 1, 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) within the National 

Academy of Sciences released a report entitled Managing Coal Combustion Residues in 

Mines. The study was in response to a request from Congress and was initiated in June of 

2004. The NRC conducted the study to examine the health, safety, and environmental 

risks associated with using coal combustion residues (also referred to as coal combustion 

wastes or coal ash) in reclamation at active and abandoned coal mines. The study was to 

determine whether CCRs were placed and disposed of in coal mines with adequate 

safeguards and whether this activity is degrading water supplies in coal mines in 

contravention of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). IMCC, on 

behalf of the states, once again provided data and information to the NRC regarding the 

nature and status of state regulatory program requirements for the placement of CCRs in 

mines. Most recently, IMCC submitted a statement to this Subcommittee for inclusion in 

the record of the hearing held on June 10, 2008 regarding “How Should the Federal 

Government Address the Health and Environmental Risks of Coal Combustion Wastes?” 

A copy of that statement is attached and we request that it be incorporated into the record 

of this hearing. 

As an overall objective in the area of regulating mine placement of CCBs, the 

states have attempted to strike a balance between existing state regulatory program 

requirements and any gaps that may be defined and justified. The few areas within state 

programs that have been targeted for some degree of shoring up, as suggested in the NRC 

report, can best be addressed through continued inter-governmental efforts between the 

states, OSM and EPA. Where specific regulatory gaps are confirmed to exist, then it 

would be appropriate to consider national guidance from OSM (the agency recommended 

by the NRC to take the lead in this area). In this regard, IMCC adopted a resolution in 

May of 2006 that addresses this issue, a copy of which is attached. 

From the states’ perspective, now that the NRC has completed its work and issued 

its report, we are hopeful that OSM, in coordination with EPA, will move forward with 

its position on the need for additional federal regulation of minefill practices for coal 

combustion wastes. We believe that all of the information required by the agency to 

make this decision is now in hand and that it is well poised to render that decision. In this 

regard, we understand that OSM has drafted a proposed rule that addresses placement of 

CCBs at active and abandoned coal mine sites. In the end, we anticipate that OSM, in 

coordination with EPA, can appropriately recommend that the states continue their ongoing efforts to work cooperatively with both agencies to assess the effectiveness of their 

respective regulatory programs and make appropriate adjustments, given the flexibility 

and discretion afforded the states under SMCRA’s state primacy design. In the final 

analysis, we believe that our citizenry and the environment will be well served by state 

3
regulatory programs that fully comply with applicable federal laws and that reflect the 

results of the laboratories of invention inherent in state primacy. We also believe that an 

effective regulatory regime for the mine placement of coal combustion by-products will 

insure that there are effective and safe alternatives to classic land disposal while 

enhancing the reclamation of both active and abandoned mined lands. 

With respect to H.R. 493, we urge the Subcommittee to seriously consider the 

concerns articulated above regarding the potential impacts of the legislation on existing 

state regulatory programs, especially in the area of funding and resources. We welcome 

the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee and others to address these concerns. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement. We would be happy to answer 

any questions that you may have or to provide additional information. 

4
Resolution

Interstate Mining Compact Commission

BE IT KNOWN THAT:

WHEREAS, in 1980 Congress passed the Bevill Amendment to the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. Sec. 6982(n)), which required the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a detailed and comprehensive 

study and submit a report on the adverse effects on human health and the environment, if 

any, from the disposal and utilization of fly ash waste, bottom ash waste, slag waste, flue 

gas emission control waste, and other byproduct materials generated primarily from the 

combustion of coal or other fossil fuels; and 

WHEREAS, on May 22, 2000, EPA published a regulatory determination on wastes from 

the combustion of fossil fuels (65 Fed. Reg. 32214), wherein it concluded that coal 

combustion wastes do not warrant regulation under subtitle C of RCRA when they are 

disposed in landfills or surface impoundments, and that regulations under subtitle D of 

RCRA and/or the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) are warranted 

when these wastes are used to fill surface or underground mines; and 

WHEREAS, concerns about the potential public health and environmental risks 

associated with using coal combustion wastes for reclamation in active and abandoned 

mines led Congress in 2004 to direct EPA to commission an independent study to 

examine this topic, pursuant to which the National Research Council (NRC) established 

the Committee on Mine Placement of Coal Combustion Wastes; and 

WHEREAS, on March 1, 2006, the NRC released its report on Managing Coal 

Combustion Residues in Mines; and 

WHEREAS, beginning in May of 2001, the Interstate Mining Compact Commission 

(IMCC) sponsored and facilitated a series of intergovernmental discussions with the 

Office of Surface Mining (OSM), EPA and other stakeholders concerning existing state 

and federal regulatory programs and controls for the mine placement of coal combustion 

residues; and 

WHEREAS, IMCC endorses the finding in the NRC report that OSM and its SMCRA 

state partners should take the lead in developing any new national standards for the 

placement of coal combustion residues in mines because the framework is already in 

place to deal with mine-related issues 

5
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

That the Interstate Mining Compact Commission encourages OSM and EPA to formally 

confirm OSM=s lead role in the development of any new national rules regarding mine 

placement of coal combustion residues; and 

That OSM, in coordination with EPA, work closely with the states through IMCC in 

responding to the recommendations of the NRC report and developing any new rules. 

Issued this 3rd day of May, 2006 

ATTEST: 

 Gregory E. Conrad [Signed] 

Executive Director 

 

6
Statement of Gregory E. Conrad, Executive Director, Interstate Mining Compact 

Commission to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources re Oversight 

Hearing on “How Should the Federal Government Address the Health and 

Environmental Risks of Coal Combustion Wastes?”

 My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I serve as Executive Director of the Interstate 

Mining Compact Commission (IMCC), a multi-state governmental organization 

representing the natural resource and environmental protection interests of its 24 member 

states. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement to the Subcommittee 

regarding the environmental risks associated with the disposal and/or beneficial use of 

coal combustion by-products (CCB’s) or residues (CCR’s). We will focus our statement 

primarily on the mine placement of CCB’s, given the fact that our organization consists 

of state agencies who regulate both the coal and noncoal mining industries throughout the 

United States. 

In May of 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a 

Notice of Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels. 

Among other things, and of particular concern to the states, EPA found that, although 

coal combustion by-products (CCBs) (or coal combustion residues (CCRs)) did not 

warrant regulation under subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) as “hazardous waste”, the agency had determined that national regulations under 

subtitle D of RCRA are warranted when these wastes are disposed in landfills or surface 

impoundments, and that regulations under subtitle D and/or possible modifications to 

existing regulations established under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

(SMCRA) are warranted when these materials are used as fill in surface or underground 

mines. IMCC was especially concerned about the “mine placement” aspects of the 

determination given the significant interplay between approved state regulatory programs 

under SMCRA and any potential adjustments to the national SMCRA regulations (which 

serve as a template for state regulatory programs). 

Following publication of EPA’s notice, IMCC suggested to both EPA and the 

Office of Surface Mining (OSM) that an intergovernmental forum would serve as a 

valuable mechanism to initiate discussions between state and federal governments 

concerning next steps pursuant to the regulatory determination. This suggestion followed 

on the heels of a resolution adopted by IMCC in May of 2000 affirming the 

appropriateness and effectiveness of state regulations and policies for the safe handling, 

recycling, beneficial use and placement of coal combustion by-products and supporting 

the management of CCBs without the application of federal RCRA subtitle C 

requirements. 

The first of the state/federal dialogues occurred in May of 2001 and over the 

course of the next three years, the parties shared and discussed information and analyses 

of their respective regulatory programs under SMCRA and RCRA. The states also 

provided data and information from state approved permits where mine placement was 

predominant to demonstrate the types of environmental controls applicable in these 

situations and the environmental protection afforded by exiting regulatory standards. 

7
Copies of the various documents and notes generated at the four state/federal dialogues 

are available at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/fossil/index.htm. 

 On March 1, 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) within the National 

Academy of Sciences released a report entitled Managing Coal Combustion Residues in 

Mines. The study was in response to a request from Congress and was initiated in June of 

2004. The NRC conducted the study to examine the health, safety, and environmental 

risks associated with using coal combustion residues (also referred to as coal combustion 

wastes or coal ash) in reclamation at active and abandoned coal mines. The study was 

sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The NRC looked at the 

placement of coal combustion residues (CCRs) in abandoned and active surface and 

underground coal mines in all major coal basins. The study also considered coal mines 

receiving large quantities of coal combustion residues. A profile of the utility industry 

was taken into consideration in designing the study to focus on the sources producing the 

greatest quantities of coal combustion residues. The study was to determine whether 

CCRs were placed and disposed of in coal mines with adequate safeguards and whether 

this activity is degrading water supplies in coal mines in contravention of the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). 

Throughout the state/federal discussions referenced above and in response to the 

NRC study, the states consistently articulated the following concerns to NAS, EPA and 

OSM, several of which were addressed in the NRC report: 

1. most importantly, it is abundantly clear that states are in the best position to 

regulate in this area. Those states that have seen a significant amount of mine 

placement activity have developed sophisticated, comprehensive, high quality 

regulatory programs that incorporate, among other things, adequate ash and site 

characterization and clear performance standards. 

2. SMCRA appears to serve as an adequate and effective baseline for any type of 

regulatory analysis concerning mine placement of CCBs. In this regard, the states 

see the SMCRA permit serving as the platform for CCB mine placement at coal 

mines. For non-coal mines, the states believe that the existing state permitting 

framework, which is often RCRA-based, is adequate. 

3. it is essential to examine the effectiveness and comprehensive nature of existing 

state programs before adding additional regulatory requirements. Experience at 

the state level in implementing existing state and federal laws substantiates the 

overall adequacy of the existing regulatory structure. 

4. there is a need to coordinate among all applicable statutes/regulations that impact 

the regulation of mine placement of CCBs, including SMCRA, RCRA, the Clean 

Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. There is a belief that many of the 

necessary regulatory requirements are already in place in the context of these 

statutes and their respective regulatory programs. 

5. there is an absolute need for flexibility to accommodate differences among the 

states related to geology, climate, ash characterization and agency operation. 

Comprehensive federal regulation will be difficult to implement on a nationwide 

basis due to these differences. 

8
6. there needs to be consideration given to both coal and noncoal sites and the 

differences between them. In this regard, heavy-handed federal efforts to achieve 

some sort of uniformity will only undermine effective and efficient regulation at 

the state level. 

7. to date there have been no proven, documented environmental damage cases 

found with respect to ground water pollution associated with mine placement at 

coal mining sites. Where data has been presented concerning alleged damage 

cases, and states have been provided an opportunity to address this data, the states 

have demonstrated that the allegations relate to pollution parameters that are 

either aberrations, are not associated with mine placement of coal ash, or are 

irrelevant to a determination that ground water pollution has occurred. 

8. it must be kept in mind that mine placement of CCBs is a necessary and beneficial 

alternative to landfills. Inappropriate and unnecessary restrictions on the use of 

this practice will complicate the environmental challenges associated with the 

disposal of coal ash. Upwards of 50 percent of the energy generated in many 

states is produced from coal, with the associated by-product of coal ash that must 

be handled in an appropriate manner, such as mine placement. Furthermore, 

without appropriate beneficial uses of CCBs such as mine placement, those who 

produce energy from waste coal using co-generation technology will find 

themselves in an untenable position. 

9. it is vitally important to understand the value of remining in the overall equation, 

particularly as it impacts the remediation of abandoned mine lands. Without the 

availability of remining operations in areas such as the Anthracite region of 

Pennsylvania, we will miss a once-in-a-lifetime chance to reclaim abandoned 

mines that will otherwise likely go unaddressed. 

As an overall objective in the area of regulating mine placement of CCBs, the 

states have striven to strike a balance between existing state regulatory program 

requirements and any gaps that may be defined and justified. Although there are 

differences among the states in the way they regulate mine placement of CCBs (for 

instance, in terms of sharing jurisdiction among several state agencies; relying primarily 

on the SMCRA program for mine placement at coal mines; and differentiating between 

beneficial use and classic disposal), there has been limited evidence of major gaps that 

require filling through new national regulations under either SMCRA or RCRA. And in 

those states that do not have well defined programs for mine placement of CCBs, it is 

usually because they have not had to deal with the issue within their borders. Even in 

those states, a comparison of their programs with states who actively regulate mine 

placement of CCBs demonstrates that most, if not all, of the program elements are in 

place and would likely operate effectively when needed. 

The few areas within state programs that have been shown to need some degree of 

shoring up, as suggested in the NRC report, can best be addressed through 

intergovernmental discussions, such as have occurred over the past several years. Also, 

through a benchmarking type of approach, states can identify areas in their programs that 

would benefit from fine-tuning and this can be accomplished by patterning these areas 

after other state programs. We have seen this play out in several of our member states 

9
over the past several months, including Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia. If and 

when specific regulatory gaps are confirmed to exist in a significant majority of state 

programs, then it would be appropriate to consider national guidance from OSM (the 

agency recommended by the NAS to take the lead in this area). In this regard, IMCC 

adopted a resolution in May of 2006 that addresses this issue, a copy of which is attached. 

From the states’ perspective, now that the NAS has completed its work and issued 

its report, we are hopeful that OSM, in coordination with EPA, will move forward 

expeditiously with its position on the need for additional federal regulation of minefill 

practices for coal combustion by-products. We believe that all of the information 

required by the agency to make this decision is now in hand and that it is well poised to 

render that decision. In the end, we anticipate that OSM, in coordination with EPA, can 

appropriately recommend that the states continue their on-going efforts to work 

cooperatively with both agencies to assess the effectiveness of their respective regulatory 

programs and make appropriate adjustments, given the flexibility and discretion afforded 

the states under SMCRA’s state primacy design. Furthermore, we anticipate that the 

states will continue their benchmarking initiatives, which provide for the analysis and 

comparison of state program elements with the overall objective of enhancing their 

respective programs through the adoption of lessons learned during program 

implementation and the incorporation of innovative approaches. In the final analysis, we 

believe that our citizenry and the environment will be well served by state regulatory 

programs that fully comply with applicable federal laws and that reflect the results of the 

laboratories of invention inherent in state primacy. We also believe that an effective 

regulatory regime for the mine placement of coal combustion by-products will insure that 

there are effective and safe alternatives to classic land disposal while enhancing the 

reclamation of both active and abandoned mined lands. 

10