Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0002-0170
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2002-12-17T05:00Z

1
These
meeting
notes
are
summary
in
nature
and
should
be
read
in
conjunction
with
the
meeting
materials
and
handouts.
Electronic
copies
of
the
meeting
materials
and
handouts
are
included
on
this
same
CD.

2
Throughout
this
meeting,
speakers
used
various
terms
to
refer
to
the
solid
materials
generated
as
a
result
of
the
combustion
of
coal,
including:
coal
combustion
waste,
coal
combustion
byproducts,
coal
combustion
products,
and
coal
ash.
For
ease
of
presentation,
these
notes
use
the
abbreviation
"
CCW"
throughout,
except
in
cases
where
the
speaker
was
making
a
point
regarding
distinctions
between
the
terms
used.
The
use
of
"
CCW"
in
these
notes
is
not
meant
to
imply
a
preference
for
the
categorization
of
these
materials
as
"
waste."
Joint
IMCC­
EPA
Summary
Meeting
Notes1
from
the
IMCC
Intergovernmental
Forum
on
Mine
Placement
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
May
15­
16,
2001
Opening
Remarks
(
Greg
Conrad,
Executive
Director,
IMCC)

Greg
Conrad
welcomed
attendees
and
provided
an
introduction
to
IMCC.
The
impetus
for
this
meeting
was
the
need
for
a
forum
specifically
on
regulatory
issues
associated
with
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
coal
combustion
wastes
(
CCW).
2
Its
purpose
is
to
initiate
a
dialog
among
EPA,
other
federal
agencies
(
OSM),
and
State
regulators
(
including
tribal
regulators).
The
meeting's
focus
is
on
the
mine
placement
of
CCW,
not
on
the
landfill
disposal
aspect
of
EPA's
rulemaking.

It
was
noted
that
EPA
and
a
number
of
States
have
concerns
that
extend
beyond
the
placement
of
CCW
in
coal
mines
to
the
placement
of
CCW
in
mineral,
sand,
gravel,
and
other
non­
coal
mines.

IMCC
is
interested
in
the
following
outcomes
for
the
meeting:
°
Identifying
data
needs
°
Setting
up
a
system
for
information
collection
assistance
°
Addressing
implementation
concerns
°
Considering
how
to
involve
other
stakeholders.
Interest
in
this
forum
from
industry
and
academia
was
noted.
If
there
is
a
continuing
dialog,
there
needs
to
be
some
consideration
of
the
degree
of
involvement
by
these
parties.
°
Benchmarking
and
providing
opportunities
for
States
to
share
the
status
of
their
regulatory
programs
°
Identifying
opportunities
for
improvement
in
regulatory
programs
°
Achieving
an
effective
degree
of
intergovernmental
cooperation,
especially
between
EPA
and
OSM
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
2
3
Some
of
the
points
cited
under
certain
State
program
presentations
were
not
part
of
the
State's
formal
presentation,
but
were
noted
during
discussions
later
in
the
forum.
For
continuity,
these
points
are
presented
in
this
section
at
the
end
of
the
appropriate
State's
formal
presentation.
Part
I:
Presentations3
EPA
Presentation
(
Dennis
Ruddy,
US
EPA,
Office
of
Solid
Waste)

History
of
regulatory
development
effort:
°
RCRA
required
EPA
to
study
four
"
special"
wastes.
The
last
of
these
four
was
fossil
fuel
combustion
waste
(
including
not
only
from
coal
combustion,
but
also
from
oil
and
natural
gas
combustion).
The
statute
required
a
Report
to
Congress
(
RTC)
incorporating
specific
study
factors.
°
EPA
completed
the
RTC
in
March
1999.
The
RTC
acted
as
draft
conclusions
for
regulatory
determination
(
similar
to
a
proposed
rule).
The
RTC
found
no
compelling
need
to
regulate
these
wastes
as
hazardous
on
a
national
basis.
The
RTC,
however,
found
some
instances
of
mismanagement.
°
EPA
has
completed
its
final
regulatory
determination.
The
regulatory
determination
also
concluded
there
is
no
need
for
regulation
of
these
wastes
as
hazardous.
For
some
instances
(
specifically
for
CCW),
however,
the
regulatory
determination
concluded
that
national
regulations
are
warranted
under
RCRA
Subtitle
D
(
which
regulates
non­
hazardous
wastes).
°
The
specific
areas
where
Subtitle
D
regulation
is
warranted
are:
disposal
of
CCW
in
surface
impoundments
(
SIs)
and
landfills
(
LFs)
and
placement
of
CCW
in
mines
(
not
limited
to
coal
mines).

Planned
regulatory
development
efforts:
°
Part
I:
disposal
of
CCW
in
SIs
and
LFs
by
electric
power
producers
(
utilities
and
some
Independent
Power
Producers).
Proposal
in
February
of
2002.
Final
in
February
of
2003.
°
Possible
elements
of
the
Part
I
regulation
include:
ground­
water
monitoring,
choice
between
performance/
design
standards,
possible
corrective
action.
EPA
is
mindful
of
existing
State
programs.
EPA's
concern
is
with
gaps
 
e.
g.,
at
least
at
utilities,
there
is
infrequent
ground­
water
monitoring
for
SIs
(
fewer
than
30%).
°
Part
II:
disposal
of
CCW
in
SIs
and
LFs
by
non­
utilities
AND
mine
placement
and
minefilling
of
CCW.
Proposal
in
March
2003.
Final
in
July
2004.
°
For
the
Part
II
regulation,
there
are
no
preconcieved
notions
on
EPA's
part;
the
Agency's
intent
is
not
to
ban
mine
placement.
EPA
is
looking
to
see
that
the
practice
is
conducted
in
an
environmentally
protective
manner.
EPA
is
seeking
to
identify
best
management
practices.
Issues
currently
under
consideration
include:
direct
placement
in
ground
water,
leaching
potential
in
various
environments,
and
a
need
to
rethink
current
monitoring
practices
(
location
and
duration
to
adequately
detect
problems).
°
A
fundamental
tenet
of
EPA's
regulatory
development
effort
is
to
consult
with
the
States.
The
Agency
is
mindful
to
not
duplicate
or
supercede
existing
State
programs.
OSM
has
been
working
with
EPA
since
EPA
announced
its
intention
to
proceed
with
regulatory
development.
EPA
also
consults
with
DOE
and
ASTSWMO.
°
EPA
notes
that
40
CFR
258
(
which
covers
municipal
solid
waste)
is
a
possible
template
for
regulation.
Some
elements
of
this
section,
however,
are
not
necessarily
applicable
to
minefills.
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
3
Technical
background:
°
The
Agency's
concern
is
with
metals
concentrations
(
not
organics)
 
e.
g.,
arsenic,
lead,
mercury,
selenium.
°
Total
production
of
CCW
is
120­
130
million
tpy.
Electric
utilities
generate
>
90%
of
this.
°
As
much
as
30%
of
electric
utility
CCW
goes
to
beneficial
uses.
Mine
placement
is
an
estimated
10­
12
million
tons
per
year.
°
There
appears
to
be
an
increasing
popularity
for
beneficial
uses.
°
A
significant
increase
in
coal
combustion
is
expected,
meaning
significant
increase
in
CCW
generation.
°
EPA
is
exploring
the
possiblity
of
promoting
bona
fide
beneficial
uses
of
CCW.

Noteworthy
developments:
°
EPA's
air
office
has
announced
development
of
hazardous
air
pollutant
regulations
targeting
mercury
emissions
from
electric
power
plants
(
1/
3
of
all
anthropogenic
mercury).
A
final
rule
is
anticipated
in
December
2004.
This
regulation
could
significantly
affect
the
quality
of
CCW.
The
technologies
needed
for
compliance
are
likely
to
remove
more
than
just
mercury.
Waste
generated
by
these
technologies
likely
is
not
segregable
from
CCW.
This
regulation
may
require
EPA
to
revisit
its
hazardous/
non­
hazardous
determination
for
CCW.
°
In
examining
damage
cases
(
one
of
the
eight
RCRA
study
factors),
EPA
found
no
cases
relating
to
coal
mine
placement,
but
found
five
or
six
cases
involving
sand
and
gravel
pits.
State
requirements
for
ground­
water
monitoring
are
variable,
making
damage
detection
more
problematic.
Potential
problems
can
take
decades
or
centuries
to
emerge;
thus
EPA's
concern
with
duration
of
monitoring.
DOE
had
a
similar
conclusion
in
a
recent
study
of
mine
placement.
°
EPA
notes
the
considerable
technical
development
and
research
at
OSM
and
DOE,
including
efforts
involving
AMD
remediation,
waste
characterization,
leaching
test
methods,
combustion
byproducts
recycling,
new
&
improved
beneficial
uses
and
impact
thereof,
clean
coal
combustion
technologies,
air
pollution
control
technologies.
DOE's
EIA
has
provided
a
wealth
of
information,
as
has
ASTSWMO.
°
EPA
Industrial
D
guidance
effort
is
currently
in
draft
form.
Working
with
the
States
through
ASTSWMO,
EPA
expects
to
finalize
the
guidance
by
next
April.
EPA's
regulatory
development
for
CCW
is
to
remain
compatible
and
consistent
with
this
guidance.

OSM
Presentation
(
Kimery
Vories,
OSM
MCRCC)

OSM's
concerns
are
with
SMCRA
regulated
mine
sites.

OSM
described
some
of
its
CCW
initiatives:
°
Continuing
technical
outreach
forums
°
A
CCW
information
network
website
°
Combustion
Products
Recycling
Consortium
(
OSM
and
IMCC
are
members)
°
Cooperative
efforts
with
DOE
in
technical
development
°
Participation
in
an
interagency
advisory
group
to
EPA
as
part
of
the
regulatory
determination
°
Joint
EPA­
OSM
fact
finding
efforts
on
mine
placement
°
Technical
assistance
to
ASTM
(
In
response
to
a
question,
OSM
noted
that
the
ASTM
effort
is
primarily
concerned
with
testing
methods
appropriate
to
use)
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
4
The
questions
at
hand
are:
°
Are
additional
federal
regulations
on
mine
placement
needed?
°
If
not,
why
not?
°
If
so,
what
is
the
appropriate
vehicle
(
RCRA,
SMCRA)?

From
OSM's
perspective,
EPA's
logic
regarding
mine
placement
is
as
follows:
°
CCW
generates
toxic
leachate
at
utilities
approximately
2%
of
the
time
°
Toxic
leachate
at
mines
is
equally
likely
°
SMCRA
monitoring
is
inadequate
°
SMCRA
bond
length
is
inadequate
OSM's
position,
however,
is
as
follows:
°
OSM
is
unaware
of
any
scientific
data
showing
that
toxicity
has
occurred
at
mine
sites
°
Mine
placement
has
been
beneficial
°
SMCRA
controls
are
adequate
°
There
are
significant
differences
between
mine
sites
and
utility
sites
(
including
geography,
geology,
ground
water,
CCW
type,
reclamation
required,
regulations
applied)

OSM
also
notes
that:
°
CCW
use
at
mine
sites
is
primarily
fludized
bed
combustion
waste
(
FBCs),
with
a
smaller
percentage
of
non­
FBCs
°
17
of
26
SMCRA
States
have
placed
CCWs
at
mine
sites
°
Additional
federal
regulation
discourages
reuse
°
Under
30
CFR
800.13(
a)(
1),
SMCRA
bond
release
is
triggered
by
performance,
not
time
°
SMCRA
includes
performance
standards
at
30
CFR
816.41
°
SMCRA
includes
permit
requirements
at
30
CFR
780.12
OSM
concludes
that:
°
Do
we
know
everything
we
need
to
on
potential
environmental
effects?
No
°
Do
we
need
more
research?
Yes
If
additional
Federal
regulations
are
to
be
proposed
the
following
questions
must
be
answered:
°
What
is
the
problem?
°
Where
is
the
science?
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
5
Illinois
Presentation
(
Dan
Wheeler,
Illinois
Department
of
Natural
Resources,
Office
of
Mines
and
Minerals;
Larry
Crislip,
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Mine
Pollution
Program)

°
IL
uses
a
unique
approach
that
covers
CCW
at
mine
sites
whether
disposed
or
used
beneficially.
The
program
is
a
joint
venture
between
IOMM
and
IEPA
which
has
been
in
place
approximately
10
years.
°
IL
has
12
disposal
permits,
8
of
which
are
active,
with
a
total
quantity
of
1
million
tons
per
year.
°
Regulated
as
disposal
if
CCW
quantity
exceeds
35%
of
coal
extracted.
°
IL
has
approved
9
beneficial
use
projects.
°
There
are
no
known
surface
or
ground­
water
quality
problems.
°
The
program
is
implemented
through
Memorandum
90­
5,
Memorandum
92­
11,
and
Memoranda
95­
8
and
95­
9,
and
Section
620.
°
Later
in
the
forum,
there
was
a
question
about
the
enforceability
of
IL's
memorandum­
based
program.
The
State
responded
that
90%
of
the
program
is
backed
by
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act,
and
the
other
10%
by
SMCRA,
so
the
program
is
enforceable.

°
A
1994
amendment
to
Section
620
defines
CCW
as
coal
combustion
byproduct
(
CCB)
when
beneficially
used.
°
Characterization
for
CCBs
uses
ASTM,
rather
than
TCLP,
testing
methods.
°
Beneficial
use
of
CCBs
must
meet
the
following
conditions:
 
No
mixing
with
hazardous
waste.
 
Leachate
cannot
exceed
GW
standards
using
ASTM
testing.
 
Notification,
documentation
of
quantity,
and
certification
of
compliance.
 
Dust
control
required.
 
No
speculative
accumulation
°
Some
uses
have
no
specific
regulatory
conditions
 
these
can
receive
written
approval
as
a
beneficial
use
from
IEPA
in
cooperation
with
other
State
agencies.
°
For
use,
there
are
no
additional
requirements
beyond
SMCRA.
°
Abandoned
Mine
Lands
sites
are
exempt
from
the
above
programs.
°
The
presenters
could
not
address
issues
related
to
CCW
placement
in
non­
coal
mines.

°
For
disposal,
CCW
is
specifically
defined
as
coal
combustion
waste
and
the
permitting
guidelines
incorporate
four
provisions:
 
Demonstration
of
vegetative
cover
(
identical
to
SMCRA),
 
protection
from
wind
and
water
erosion,
 
maintain
pH
and
waste
characterization
(
TCLP)
to
prevent
leaching
(
critical
element),
 
surface
and
ground­
water
protection
through
containment
(
also
critical
element).
°
The
permitting
process
for
disposal
requires
joint
submittal
to
IOMM
and
IEPA.
Projects
must
meet
the
requirements
of
SMCRA,
Section
620,
and
the
IL
Env
Protection
Act
(
which
has
the
definitions
and
four
main
provisions
written
in).
Separate
permits
are
issued,
but
they
are
reviewed
in
joint
application
process.
A
joint
guidance
document
implements
requirements.
°
Disposal
of
CCW
requires
ground­
water
monitoring
for
more
parameters
than
SMCRA.
Design
of
program
is
based
on
evaluation
of
site­
specific
conditions
and
leachate
characterization.
°
Ground­
water
standards
are
applied
and
there
are
corrective
action
requirements.
°
IL
has
the
authority
to
require
liners
for
disposal
in
certain
ground­
water
classes.
In­
situ
fire
clay
can
meet
the
liner
requirement.
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
6
Indiana
Presentation
(
Bruce
Stevens,
Indiana
Department
of
Natural
Resources,
Division
of
Reclamation)

°
IN
has
18
permits.
16
have
been
appealed
and
2
are
final.
Total
placement
is
2.9
million
tons.
No
regulatory
distinction
concerning
beneficial
use.
No
statutory
authority
to
permit
FBC
use.
°
The
most
recent
element
of
the
program
is
a
guidance
document.
IN
considers
it
an
enforceable
document
because
most
of
the
document
is
incorporated
in
permit
conditions.
°
The
program
incorporates:
 
Cap
requirements
 
Ground­
water
monitoring
for
30+
parameters
 
Waste
characterization
using
ASTM
°
The
program
does
not
require
ground­
water
modeling,
but
there
are
certain
hydrogeologic
conditions
under
which
disposal
is
not
permitted
(
e.
g.,
alluvial
aquifers).
°
Acid
mine
drainage
is
not
a
problem
in
IN
(
alkaline
overburden).
°
CCW
projects
constitute
a
significant
revision
under
SMCRA,
and
therefore
require
public
announcement
and
provide
for
appeal
°
IN
has
specific
definitions
for
backfills
and
monofills
°
Requiring
liners
and
placement
above
the
water
table
are
the
biggest
most
issues.
IN
can
require
a
liner,
but
generally
does
not
allow
disposal
in
conditions
that
would
warrant
a
liner.
In­
situ
fire
clay
serves
well
as
a
liner.
°
While
CCW
is
not
deposited
into
ground
water,
facilities
generally
re­
hydrate
over
time
such
that
the
water
table
rises
into
the
CCW.
°
Preplacement
conditions
are
such
that
placement
of
CCW
does
not
result
in
degradation.
A
survey
of
29,000
water
supplies
showed
that
there
is
no
use
of
spoil
water
as
a
drinking
water
resource
in
IN
and
there
is
significant
attenuation.
°
The
biggest
environmental
justice
issue
is
in
Southwest
IN,
where
most
mines
are
located.
°
IDEM
has
not
yet
promulgated
ground­
water
standards.
NPDES
provisions
apply.
°
There
is
no
CCW
volume
restriction
in
Memorandum
92­
1.
Volume
restrictions
can
be
incorporated
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
This
has
been
done
at
only
one
site.
IN's
proposed
new
requirements
incorporate
a
volume
restriction:
50%
of
the
quantity
of
coal
removed.
°
Ground­
water
monitoring
wells
are
constructed
to
collect
from
multiple
strata,
unless
there
is
a
single
zone
drinking
water
use,
in
which
case
zone­
specific
monitoring
would
be
required.
°
Bond
release
provisions
are
the
same
as
SMCRA.
IDNR
proposed
more
stringent
requirements,
but
these
were
found
to
go
beyond
the
Department's
authority
(
under
State
statutes,
IN
cannot
regulate
more
stringently
than
SMCRA).
°
There
is
a
State
fund
to
replace
water
supply
wells
if
contamination
occurs
after
bond
release.
This
fund
has
not
been
used
yet.
°
The
first
instance
of
disposal
in
IN
was
an
illegal
operation.
EP
tox
was
required
at
that
site
for
characterization.
°
IN
has
provisions
for
structural
fill
projects.

°
IN
has
post­
closure
authority
for
30
years
for
landfills.
SMCRA
bond
release
usually
occurs
in
5
to
13
years
following
closure.

Missouri
Presentation
(
Bruce
Waltrip,
Missouri
Department
of
Natural
Resources,
Solid
Waste
Program;
Brian
Hicks,
Missouri
Department
of
Natural
Resources,
Land
Reclamation
Program)
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
7
°
In
MO,
CCW
is
regulated
as
a
solid
waste.
°
There
are
5
coal
ash
landfills
in
MO.
All
have
monitoring.
Probably
all
have
clay
liners,
at
least
one
has
membrane.
Liners
are
required
for
new
landfills.
°
Under
the
solid
waste
program,
there
are
specific
regulatory
exemptions
for
a
number
of
beneficial
uses.
Other
uses
fall
under
the
State's
Section
9(
b)
generic
exemption.
Requirements
under
this
generic
exemption
are
mostly
logistical,
but
the
exemption
does
incorporate
some
testing.
°
For
beneficial
use,
hydrogeologic
characterization
is
required
that
proves
placement
is
above
seasonal
high
water
mark.
Because
this
process
requires
a
certified
hydrogeologist,
it
effectively
limits
beneficial
use
to
users
with
resources
(
larger
companies).
°
If
placement
is
covered
by
an
engineered
clay
cap,
the
only
characterization
requirement
is
to
show
the
CCW
is
non­
hazardous
using
TCLP.
If
there
is
any
potential
for
ground­
water
contact
or
no
cap,
ASTM
characterization
is
required.
°
The
solid
waste
program
has
no
monitoring
requirements,
closure
requirements,
or
financial
assurance
requirements.
The
land
reclamation
program
does
have
such
requirements.
°
There
are
no
volume
restrictions,
other
than
a
2
foot
limit
on
structural
fills.
°
There
is
no
sand
or
gravel
pit
placement
in
MO,
although
clay
pit
reclamation
with
CCW
has
occurred.

°
Under
the
land
reclamation
program,
MO
has
two
laws:
one
for
coal
mines,
one
for
industrial
minerals
mines.
°
If
there
is
a
beneficial
use
exemption
from
the
solid
waste
program,
the
land
reclamation
program
regulates
by
incorporating
it
under
mining
permit.
°
The
land
reclamation
program
requires:
 
A
surface
water
monitoring
plan
 
Hydrologic
balance
requirements
 
Bonding
 
Annual
ground­
water
monitoring
for
16
parameters.
 
An
annual
report
showing
placement
locations
and
volume
of
materials.
°
One
coal
mine
currently
has
a
beneficial
use
exemption.
°
Bond
release
requires
analysis
of
monitoring
data
to
determine
if
there
has
been
impact.

°
In
MO,
fly
ash
slurries
that
are
injected
are
exempt
from
solid
waste
regulations
and
are
regulated
by
the
underground
injection
control
program
(
water
office).
°
There
are
specific
exemptions
for
CCW
when
beneficially
use
as
road
base,
soil
stabilization
or
amendment
(
limited
to
6
inches),
and
for
stabilizing
underground
mines
(
limited
to
2
feet).
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
8
Pennsylvania
Presentation
(
Michael
Menghini,
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection,
District
Mining
Operations;
Bill
Pounds,
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection/
ASTSWMO)

°
PA
has
had
a
regulatory
program
since
1973,
a
beneficial
use
policy
since
1986,
and
an
ash
certification
program
since
1997.
Ash
disposal
is
handled
via
an
MOU
between
the
mining
and
solid
waste
divisions
of
DEP.
°
PA
has
100+
placement
projects;
significant
mine
acreage
is
reclaimed
annually.
°
PA
receives
CCW
from
out
of
state
(
CT,
NY,
NJ)
for
abandoned
mine
lands
remediation.
°
Total
placement
is
7­
8
million
tons
per
year,
75%
of
which
is
FBC.
°
For
an
active
mine,
CCW
quantity
cannot
exceed
the
quantity
of
coal
removed;
otherwise,
regulated
as
disposal.
For
inactive
mines,
DEP
decides
how
much
CCW
can
be
placed
for
reclamation.
°
95%
of
placement
is
in
pre­
SMCRA
sites
(
non­
virgin)
related
to
remining
operations
or
reclamation
areas.
°
Placement
methods
vary.
Many
are
monofills.
Ash
also
is
used
as
alkaline
addition
as
part
of
remining
operations
to
address
acid
mine
drainage.
Most
placement
continues
for
an
extended
period
of
time,
i.
e,
some
sites
are
over
10
years
old
and
some
of
those
sites
still
have
another
10
years
of
placement
area.
°
The
Bureau
of
Mining
and
Reclamation
enforces
the
Land
Recycling
Program's
regulations
under
a
Memorandum
or
Agreement.
°
All
project
types
except
for
soil
additive
require
public
notice.
°
PA
requires:
 
A
permit
 
An
approved
ground­
water
monitoring
plan
 
Monitoring
before
and
after
placement
 
All
ash
must
meet
minimum
pH
and
leaching
limits
to
be
approved
for
placement
under
the
terms
of
any
permit
 
Placement
8
feet
above
the
regional
ground­
water
table
 
A
4
foot
soil
cap
at
closure
 
Annual
sampling
for
16
parameters;
quarterly
sampling
for
indicators
 
Twice­
yearly
ash
characterization
 
Compaction
analysis
is
required
for
monofill
ash
placement
(
to
eliminate
infiltration
and
leaching)
 
Optimal
moisture
content
to
ensure
compaction
and
minimize
fugitive
dust.
°
Receipt
of
CCW
from
new
sources
does
not
require
public
notice
in
newspaper,
but
approval
of
new
sources
is
appealable.
Public
notice
is
required
for
any
disposal.
°
Bond
release
is
in
three
stages:
(
1)
pre­
vegetative
cover:
requires
examination
of
ground­
water
impact;
(
2)
70%
vegetative
cover
complete:
requires
examination
of
ground­
water
impact,
but
further
monitoring
can
be
eliminated
at
this
point;
(
3)
final
release.
°
FGD
sludge
is
not
covered
under
the
ash
regulations,
but
general
permitting
exemption
program
can
be
used
to
incorporate
this
material
in
Land
Reclamation
Permits.
°
PA
has
corrective
action
authority
for
mine
placement
of
CCW.

°
PA
has
several
current
demonstration
projects
(
e.
g.,
placement
in
water
filled
pit;
wet
to
dry
placement)
to
examine
new
disposal
methods.
PA
is
trying
to
find
methods
that
can
safely
be
used
to
remediate
safety
hazard
sites
that
are
within
the
regional
ground­
water
table.
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
9
°
A
major
concern
is
dealing
with
different
types
of
ash.
FBC
sets
up
well,
while
bituminous
ash
creates
fugitive
dust
concerns.
°
PA
has
provided
some
upgradient
monitoring
waivers
due
to
historical
mining
impacts.
°
PA
has
12+
years
of
data,
with
no
evidence
of
degradation.
This
ground­
water
database
is
available.
°
PA
has
faced
a
number
of
issues
that
other
States
seem
to
be
concerned
with
right
now.

°
One
reason
there
is
not
more
use
of
power
company
CCWs
in
PA
is
that
the
companies
have
already
sunk
the
costs
for
the
disposal
facility.
Disposal
in
an
existing
solid
waste
management
unit
is
cheaper
than
transportation
to
a
mine
site.
°
Deep
mine
injection
is
under
a
different
program
in
PA
 
combination
of
mining,
solid
waste,
and
water
regulatory
program.

°
PA
regulations
allow
utilization
of
CCW
in
non­
coal
mines,
but
little
has
happened
yet.
Under
a
demonstration
projection,
CCW
was
placed
in
a
limestone
quarry
and
monitored
for
ten
years.
The
State
has
denied
subsequent
permit
applications
for
placing
ash
in
quarries.
°
PA
has
25
years
of
monitoring
data.
This
shows
that
sulfates
and
chlorides
go
up,
but
there
are
few
metals
exceedences.
This
is
true
even
at
limestone
quarry
demonstration
site
in
PA.

Ohio
Presentation
(
Bob
Baker,
Ohio
Department
of
Natural
Resources,
Division
of
Mineral
Resource
Management)

°
OH's
mining
program
just
began
regulating
beneficial
uses
(
not
disposal)
under
a
law
passed
in
1999.
This
includes
CCW
placement
in
mines.
The
program's
guidelines
are
still
in
draft.
°
The
guidelines
include:
 
Ground­
water
monitoring
 
Acid­
base
accounting
 
Ground­
water
standards
 
Leaching
tests
for
waste
characterization
with
maximum
acceptable
concentrations
30x
drinking
water
standards
 
pH
limits
for
acid
mine
drainage
projects
 
Hydraulic
conductivity
limits
 
Background
ground­
water
sampling
 
Placement
8
feet
above
regional
ground­
water
table,
unless
it
is
demonstrated
that
this
is
not
needed
 
Location
restrictions
with
respect
to
streams,
wetlands,
drinking
water
sources,
occupations
 
Limits
for
boron,
or
a
requirement
for
cover,
for
soil
additive
applications
 
Public
notice
as
in
the
normal
coal
mining
permit
 
Coordination
with
other
agencies
°
The
guidelines
will
be
used
only
as
a
reference
for
abandoned
mine
lands
projects.
°
4
projects
have
been
accepted.
One
was
rejected
because
the
volume
constituted
disposal.
In
addition,
this
project
proposed
to
use
CCW
from
an
out
of
state
source.

°
Some
of
the
limitations
incorporated
in
the
guidelines
are
based
on
OH's
experience.
For
example:
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
10
 
The
Broken
Arrow
project:
An
acid
mine
drainage
abatement
project
under
the
abandoned
mine
lands
program
that
incorporated
sealing
an
underground
mine
with
FGD.
The
project
found
a
97%
pollutant
reduction.
Available
as
a
University
of
Ohio
study.
 
Rehobeth:
This
project
involved
a
gob
pile
and
drainage
abatement.
This
project
tested
several
applications:
FGD
2'
cap
for
coal
refuse,
buffer
material
of
FGD/
coal
waste
mixed,
and
FGD/
yard
waste/
spoil
mixed.
Boron
problems
arose,
resulting
in
degradation
of
vegetative
cover.
Coal
refuse
overwhelmed
alkalinity,
mobilized
boron.
Also,
the
project
tested
a
CCW
liner
system
for
a
pond
with
no
problems
observed.
 
Fleming
project:
A
PFBC
project
with
6
years
of
monitoring.
High
boron,
but
no
impact
on
vegetation.
Available
as
EPRI
study.

°
OH
would
like
comments
on
its
draft
mine
placement
program.

West
Virginia
Presentation
(
Harold
"
Rocky"
Parsons,
West
Virginia
Department
of
Environmental
Protection,
Office
of
Mining
and
Reclamation)

°
WV's
first
policy
was
developed
in
the
1980s.
The
current
policy
was
issued
in
1998.
°
The
policy
covers
beneficial
uses,
maximum
volume
limit
is
8:
1
ratio.
°
CCW
use
was
initially
treated
as
a
significant
modification
to
the
SMCRA
permit
(
meaning
public
comment
and
more
stringent
review).
As
WV
has
become
more
comfortable
with
the
practice,
CCB
use
has
become
treated
as
a
minor
modification,
and
some
uses
are
pre­
approved
(
notification
only).
°
The
program
incorporates:
 
Waste
characteristic
limits
 
Maps
and
geologic
information
as
part
of
the
permit
application
 
Waste
characterization
when
the
CCW
source
changes.
Companies
using
the
same
source
are
allowed
to
share
information.
 
Preplacement
water
quality
monitoring
 
Specific
formulas
for
alkaline
amendment.
°
The
ground­
water
program
is
tied
to
the
SMCRA
program
and
details
are
determined
on
a
sitespecific
basis.
°
Disposal
of
CCW
at
a
mine
would
be
covered
under
the
solid
waste
program.

°
WV
has
observed
that
as
long
as
a
site
is
alkaline,
there
are
no
metal
leaching
problems.
°
Alkaline
addition
is
a
significant
use
in
WV,
particularly
with
regard
to
remining
operations
because
of
the
presence
of
acid
mine
drainage.
Encapsulation
also.
Other
uses
include
capping
refuse
piles;
lining
pits;
and
backstoing
deep
mines
for
subsidence
control.
°
WV
would
like
to
see
acid­
base
accounting
procedures
updated.
°
WV
has
observed
some
stability
problems
with
scrubber
sludge,
and
does
not
consider
this
an
acceptable
cap
material
on
steep
slopes.
Also,
some
ash
does
not
make
a
good
soil
amendment;
significant
amounts
of
alkaline
ash
are
used
to
counteract
acid
mine
drainage.
°
WV
has
3
FBC
facilities.
WV
will
not
issue
a
permit
to
mine
sites
with
marginally
acidic
overburden
without
an
alkaline
amendment
and
best
material
for
that
is
FBC.
Also,
WV
allows
substituting
1'
of
FBC
for
2'
of
soil
in
encapsulation.
The
result
is
a
lot
of
FBC
material
beneficially
used.
The
only
use
of
scrubber
sludge
is
out
of
state
in
Maryland.
°
A
small
limestone
quarry
accepts
CCW
under
a
solid
waste
permit.
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
11
°
A
UIC
permit
is
required
for
injection
of
wastes
into
underground
mines.

Maryland
Presentation
(
Connie
Lyons,
Maryland
Department
of
the
Environment,
Mining
Program)

°
MD
regulates
CCW
mine
placement
by
policy
only.
The
solid
waste
program
signs
off
on
the
mining
program's
policy.
°
Pozzolan
definition
in
MD's
law
allows
an
exception
for
FBC
ashes.
°
The
policy
requires:
 
Maintaining
documentation
as
part
of
the
SMCRA
permit
program
 
TCLP
testing
of
materials,
with
additional
characterization
for
soil
amendment
uses
 
A
CCW
disposal
plan
 
Description
of
dust
controls
and
methods
for
mitigation
of
any
potential
ground­
water,
surface
water,
or
worker
safety
hazards.

°
MD's
is
a
small
program.
There
is
only
one
major
mine,
with
no
large
utilities
near
the
mining
region,
except
one
FBC
plant.
°
There
are
two
non­
coal
mines
using
CCW.
These
projects
incorporate
a
100'
buffer,
ground­
water
monitoring
on­
site,
and
characterization
every
3
months.
The
results
so
far
are
that
the
only
problem
is
higher
levels
of
SO4
in
a
well
near
fill
area.
°
MD
has
one
remining
permit
using
FBC
ash.
°
The
Kempton
mine
is
using
CCW
as
grout
to
seal
off
manshaft
to
keep
clean
ground
water
from
being
lost
to
deep
mine.
°
Mettiki
mine
uses
scrubber
sludge
from
West
Virginia
for
alkaline
addition.
pH
has
gone
from
3
to
6.
They
have
observed
no
increase
in
metals,
some
sulfate
increase.
Primary
interest
is
in
alkaline
addition
benefits.

°
MD
has
an
active
research
program.
Examples
include:
 
A
culm/
ash/
overburden
mixture
leach
testing
study
(
study
published
in
1995)
 
A
grout
demonstration
project
(
Winding
Ridge)
with
mixed
results
(
report
available)
 
TCLP
tests
on
Warrior
Run
power
plant
CCW
Louisiana
Presentation
(
Tony
Duplechin,
Louisiana
Department
of
Natural
Resources)

°
LA's
is
a
new
program.
The
issue
of
mine
placement
of
CCW
just
came
up
in
the
last
week
in
LA.

°
LA
has
four
power
plants
and
only
one
uses
local
coal.
CCW
from
this
plant
is
disposed
on
site.
°
Recently,
LA
was
approached
for
use
of
CCW
(
pH
8.76)
as
a
soil
amendment.
The
solid
waste
and
agriculture
programs
have
already
approved
the
project.
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
12
Colorado
Presentation
(
Mike
Long,
Colorado
Department
of
Natural
Resources,
Division
of
Minerals
and
Geology)

°
In
CO,
CCW
placement
projects
require
a
certificate
of
designation
from
county
government.
°
The
solid
waste
program
also
could
apply
standards,
but
has
thus
far
deferred
to
mining
program.
°
CO's
mining
program
has
a
SMCRA
program
for
coal
mines
and
a
non­
coal
mining
program.
Many
of
the
coal
mining
site
requirements
also
apply
to
non­
coal
mines,
except
for
inspection
frequency.
°
CO
finds
the
baseline
SMCRA
requirements
sufficient
to
characterize
a
project
for
CCW
application.
There
are
no
pre­
established
criteria
for
accepting
and
rejecting
projects;
requirements
are
determined
on
a
site­
specific
basis.

°
Two
mines
(
Keensburg,
Trapper)
in
CO
currently
dispose
of
CCW.
One
more
is
closed.
°
Requirements,
as
incorporated
for
these
two
projects,
include:
 
Minimum
12
months
background
monitoring
 
Geologic
background
data
 
No
disposal
in
flood
plain
 
Public
notice
as
part
of
certificate
of
designation
and
SMCRA
program,
public
involvement
required,
and
citizen
suits
are
possible
 
TCLP
at
one
of
the
two
mines
 
Clay
liner
required
at
Keensburg
 
Site­
specific
cover
requirements
 
Zero
degradation
standards
for
ground
water
 
NPDES
permits
 
All
placement
is
above
the
ground­
water
table
 
Long­
term
baseline
ground­
water
and
surface
water
monitoring
 
Volume
restrictions
determined
on
a
site­
specific
basis
 
Closure
requirements
are
the
same
as
for
all
coal
mines,
10
year
minimum.
There
are
revegetation
criteria,
ground­
water
criteria,
and
surface
water
criteria
for
bond
release.
There
are
no
subsequent
use
restrictions
 
Annual
hydrology
reports
and
reclamation
reports
 
Inspection
at
least
once
a
month
 
Quarterly
ground­
water
monitoring
for
all
parameters,
monthly
for
indicators
°
The
mining
program
maintains
a
close
working
relationship
with
DOH.
°
No
enforcement
issues
have
been
observed
to
date.

°
CO
has
denied
two
permits
for
CCW
placement
in
gravel
pits.
°
CO
has
since
approved
one
project
for
a
gravel
pit.
The
CCW
failed
TCLP,
but
passed
SPLP
(
similar
to
ground
water
that
would
be
encountered).
Disposal
at
this
site
is
below
the
water
table.
Contact
with
ground
water
at
this
site
is
expected
to
keep
the
CCW
in
a
chemically
reduced
state,
thus
preventing
leaching
of
contaminants.
The
project
was
approved
by
Dept
of
Public
Health
and
Environment.
This
ground
water
is
a
drinking
water
source.

New
York
Presentation
(
Steven
Potter,
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation)
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
13
°
NY
has
no
coal
mines,
but
generates
large
quantities
of
CCW.
°
CCW
is
regulated
jointly
by
the
Division
of
Solid
Waste
and
the
Division
of
Mineral
Resources.
°
The
type
of
CCW
dictates
the
standards
applied.
Bottom
ash
has
performance
standards;
fly
ash
has
operating
standards.
°
There
are
three
types
of
permits
applicable:
 
Disposal
permit
for
landfills
(
NY
provided
a
list
of
landfills
receiving
CCW)
 
RD&
D
permit
for
innovative
technologies
or
processes.
These
permits
are
performance
standard­
based
and
apply
for
1
year
with
renewal
for
up
to
3
years.
 
Beneficial
use
determinations
°
Mine
placement
currently
falls
under
the
RD&
D
permit.

°
NY
has
one
specific
RD&
D
project
involving
CCW
placement
mixed
with
foundry
sand
as
flowable
fill
in
a
40
acre
quarry.
°
The
permit
for
this
project
was
issued
one
year
ago.
°
There
are
no
pre­
established
requirements;
these
are
site­
specific
in
permit.
In
this
case,
they
include:
 
No
surface
water
in
fill
 
Complete
hydrogeologic
characterization
(
this
was
already
done
under
the
mine
permit)
 
Grab
samples
from
each
truck
(
TCLP,
SPLP)
 
Fill
samples
 
Dust
controls
 
Ground­
water
samples
quarterly
on­
and
off­
site
for
total
metals
and
routine
field
parameters.
 
Must
meet
State
ground­
water
standards
 
Cover
requirements
 
Post­
closure
for
30
years
including
ground­
water
monitoring
at
reduced
frequency,
cover
maintenance,
annual
report,
financial
assurance.

°
NY
plans
to
review
this
project
for
future
approval
as
a
beneficial
use
determination,
but
is
awaiting
EPA's
rulemaking
to
determine
the
proper
approach.
°
Monitoring
and
inspection
data
are
available
for
this
project.

South
Carolina
Presentation
(
Art
Braswell,
South
Carolina
Department
of
Health
and
Environmental
Control)

°
In
SC,
solid
waste
and
mining
are
the
same
division.
°
SC
has
no
coal
mines
and,
thus,
mine
placement
is
limited
to
non­
coal
mines.
°
SC
currently
is
reviewing
an
application
for
CCW
disposal
in
a
rock
quarry.
°
SC
has
no
beneficial
use/
re­
use
program
for
these
materials.
Therefore,
the
mine
reclamation
permit
will
regulate
the
project
as
if
it
were
a
solid
waste
landfill.
°
For
solid
waste
landfills,
waste
characterization,
using
TCLP
or
equivalent,
is
required
every
five
years
or
when
the
waste
changes.
°
Characterization
data
are
compared
to
MCLs
to
determine
the
class
of
the
landfill.
CCW
usually
falls
into
Class
I
(<
10x
MCL)
industrial
landfill.
Class
I
requirements
incorporate:
 
Location
restrictions
 
2'
or
5'
separation
from
ground
water,
2'
from
bedrock
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
14
 
Run­
on/
off
controls
 
GW
monitoring
with
a
compliance
boundary
500
feet
from
waste
boundary
 
Corrective
action
 
Closure
requirements,
including
cover
 
A
post­
closure
period
of
30
years,
which
can
be
reduced
if
warranted
 
Financial
assurance
 
Public
notice
°
In
SC,
construction
uses
would
be
assessed
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
SC
has
no
rules
for
flowable
fill.

DOE
Presentation
(
Lynn
Brickett,
US
DOE,
NETL)

°
DOE's
NETL
conducts
research
on
CCW
environmental
issues
generally,
as
well
as
specific
research
on
clean
coal
technologies
and
their
impact
on
CCW
marketability.
°
DOE's
goal
is
ensuring
that
any
regulation
of
CCW
are
based
on
sound
science.
°
DOE
would
like
to
provide
their
data
to
inform
the
rulemaking
process.

USGS
Presentation
(
Rustu
Kalyoncu,
USGS,
Minerals
Information
Team)

°
The
presenter
from
USGS
represents
a
remaining
section
of
US
Bureau
of
Mines
which
was
transferred
to
USGS.
They
are
part
of
a
group
entitled
the
Minerals
Information
Team.
°
The
group
produces
statistical
surveys
of
CCW
as
part
of
Mineral
Commodities
Yearbook,
CCW
annual
reports,
and
other
publications.
°
They
receive
many
questions
about
legal
issues
surrounding
use
of
CCW.
°
The
group
also
has
a
research
division.

Illinois
Commerce
Department
Presentation
(
Ron
Carty,
Illinois
Department
of
Commerce
and
Community
Affairs,
Illinois
Clean
Coal
Institute)

°
The
Department
has
done
considerable
research
on
clean
coal
technology
and
on
beneficial
uses.
This
research
can
be
examined
at
their
website:
icci.
org.
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
15
Programs
in
Other
States
A
number
of
States
did
not
make
formal
presentations,
but
provided
valuable
information
about
their
programs
during
discussions.
This
information
is
presented
here.

°
Texas:
 
TX
doesn't
exercise
SMCRA
jurisdiction
over
"
disposal"
areas
at
mines;
this
practice
is
regulated
under
the
State
solid
waste
authority.
 
There
is
a
basic
decision
about
what
is
a
solid
waste,
what
is
a
product.
 
TX
has
constituent
criteria
for
classifying
non­
hazardous
waste.
"
Inert"
material
exits
the
State
solid
waste
regulatory
system.
 
Materials
that
are
beneficially
used
also
exit
the
State
solid
waste
regulatory
system.
 
Bond
release
conditions
are
based
on
proposed
land
use.
 
In
TX
there
are
2
or
3
active
mines
with
ash
disposal
regulated
by
the
solid
waste
agency.
Some
of
these
projects
are
below
the
water
table.
 
There
are
six
beneficial
reuse
sites,
all
utilizing
bottom
ash.
 
TX
has
a
no
degradation
policy
for
ground
water.
 
TX
has
ground­
water
transport
models
for
mines
 
If
placement
delays
contemporaneous
reclamation,
it
is
regulated
as
disposal
°
Wyoming:
 
Concerned
about
possible
long­
term
ground­
water
impacts.
 
The
WY
legislature
recently
moved
the
regulatory
authority
for
mine
disposal
from
the
solid
waste
agency
to
the
mining
agency.
Is
CCW
placement
disposal
(
regulated)
or
beneficial
use
(
not
regulated)?
 
The
mining
agency
has
little
experience
in
this
area,
but
has
begun
developing
rules
for
non­
coal
mining
waste
(
e.
g.,
CCW),
including
mine­
mouth
power
plant
ash.
 
WY
has
2
mine­
mouth
power
plants
sending
CCW
back
to
the
mine.

°
New
Mexico:
According
to
OSM­
West,
NM
completely
exempts
CCW
from
regulation.

°
Kentucky:
 
KY
regulations
discourage
mine
operators
from
using
mine
sites
as
monofills.
 
CCW
haul­
back
cannot
exceed
the
thickness
of
the
coal
seam
extracted.
 
KY
has
no
mechanism
to
correct
problems
after
bond
release
(
e.
g.,
water
quality)
other
than
landowner
liability
through
water
program.

°
Oklahoma:
 
Proposed
CCW
disposal
regulations
recently.
 
Expect
to
finalize
in
August
2001.

°
Navajo
Nation:
Just
beginning
to
address
regulation
of
CCW
placement/
disposal.
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
16
°
Utah:
 
UT
has
5
power
plants
with
ash
going
to
solid
waste
facilities.
 
There
is
one
co­
generation
facility
that
might
eventually
go
to
mine
placement,
but
there
is
no
mine
placement
at
this
time.
 
UT
expects
that
mine
placement
could
be
proposed
in
the
future.
If
CCW
were
hauled
to
a
mine
site,
the
State
would
probably
want
to
regulate
it
as
disposal.
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
17
Part
II:
Discussion
For
ease
of
presentation,
this
section
is
organized
by
topic,
rather
than
chronologically.

Closure
Requirements
for
Landfills
versus
those
for
Mine
Placement
(
i.
e.,
30
years
post­
closure
under
solid
waste
authorities
for
landfills;
10
to
12
years
bonding
for
mine
placement
under
SMCRA)

°
PA:
landfills
are
large­
volume,
monolithic
facilities
with
engineered
controls
that
must
be
maintained
long­
term.
Mine
placement
projects
have
limitations
on
characteristics
of
the
CCW
that
is
placed
and
the
quantity
of
CCW
is
limited
to
that
sufficient
to
reclaim
the
mine.

°
OSM:
SMCRA
bond
release
is
performance­
based
 
all
permit
conditions
must
be
satisfied.
Phase
1
bond
release
occurs
only
after
untreated
discharges
meet
NPDES
limits.

°
TX:
if
there
is
a
disposal
area
at
the
mine,
the
bond
release
process
doesn't
consider
that,
only
results
of
mining
and
reclamation.

Monitoring
Well
Location
°
IL:
well
location
requirements
for
mine
placement
projects
in
IL
are
very
stringent
(
25
to
50
feet
from
the
CCW
placement
area).

°
IN:
well
placement
depends
on
site­
specific
conditions.
The
preference
is
for
unmined
strata
as
close
as
possible
to
waste.
The
State
seeks
to
avoid
wells
in
spoil
because
water
impact
could
be
masked.

°
PA:
in
certain
areas
(
anthracite,
extensively
mined
areas),
wells
may
be
as
far
away
as
a
mile
(
using
existing
seeps/
overflows).
Mainly,
locations
are
decided
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Often,
the
State
does
not
require
upgradient
monitoring
because
of
pre­
existing
contamination.
Mine
conditions
are
such
that
close­
in
monitoring
wells
wouldn't
work
(
dry
holes).

Prohibition
on
Placement
in
Water
Table
°
IL:
allows
placement
in
the
water
table
because
the
State
has
stringent
monitoring
and
characteristic
limitations.
IL
has
detected
no
adverse
impacts
since
filling
began
in
the
1980s.

°
PA:
State's
regulations
prohibit
placement
within
8
feet
of
water
table.
But
PA
does
have
demonstration
projects,
because
water­
filled
pits
need
to
be
filled.
No
cases
of
mine
placement
in
PA
are
for
disposal
only;
rather,
all
are
for
some
kind
of
beneficial
use
(
reclamation,
acid
mine
drainage
remediation,
etc.).

°
IN:
allows
placement
in
the
water
table
because
ground
water
at
the
sites
is
not
pristine
and
because
of
CCW
characteristic
limits.
Requiring
disposal
above
the
ground­
water
table
would
be
impractical
because
of
the
fluctuating
water
table.
All
placement
in
IN
is
below
the
post­
mining
water
table.
It
takes
5
years
to
decades
for
spoil/
aquifer
to
recharge
following
mining.
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
18
°
TX
allows
placement
below
the
water
table
because
it
has
non­
degradation
policy
for
ground
water.

Defining
Disposal
versus
Reclamation/
Beneficial
Use
°
PA:
In
PA,
the
only
cases
where
placement
goes
beyond
reclamation
are
overfill
sites.
In
these
cases,
PA
requires
a
structural
fill
permit.

°
KY:
fill
volume
may
not
be
greater
than
the
thickness
of
the
coal
seam.

°
IN:
policy
is
50%
of
the
volume
of
coal
removed.

°
TX:
under
SMCRA,
if
placement
disrupts
or
slows
down
reclamation
process,
then
it's
disposal.
If
CCW
replaces
a
construction
material,
it
should
be
in
like
quantities.

°
IL:
Placement
of
CCW
greater
than
35%
of
coal
sales
is
disposal;
beneficial
use
is
restricted
to
a
reasonable
volume
(
i.
e.,
the
volume
needed
to
accomplish
the
use).
Also,
the
State
uses
the
SMCRA
timetable.

°
PA:
for
reclamation
at
active
mines:
 
the
volume
of
CCW
cannot
exceed
the
volume
of
coal
and
culm
removed,
unless
more
is
necessary
for
reclamation
(
or
to
eliminate
a
safety
and
health
hazard).
 
areas
of
the
site
may
not
be
left
open
for
disposal.
 
placement
may
not
delay
reclamation.
 
there
may
not
be
leftover
spoil
piles.
For
abandoned
sites:
 
placement
must
be
designed
to
prevent
water
quality
degradation,
treat
drainage,
etc.
 
the
maximum
volume
is
determined
by
the
district
mining
office
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.

°
OH:
the
determination
must
be
made,
but
there
are
no
specific
criteria
to
define
"
beneficial
use."
The
mining
agency
regulates
"
beneficial
use,"
not
"
disposal."
The
solid
waste
agency
regulates
disposal.
An
example
of
close
call:
a
capping
project
proposed
to
use
an
excessive
thickness
of
CCW,
so
mining
rejected
it
as
a
beneficial
use.
The
operator
chose
not
to
proceed
under
regulation
by
the
solid
waste
agency.

°
EPA:
in
EPA's
regulatory
determination,
there
is
no
definition
or
decision
criterion
on
what
EPA
considers
"
beneficial
use."
Note
that
EPA
exempted
all
beneficial
uses
other
than
mine
placement.
Mine
placement
covers
the
full
spectrum
of
CCW
activities
at
mines
from
remediation/
reclamation
to
disposal.
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
19
Contentiousness
of
Permit
Issuance
°
PA:
one
contentious
permit.
Most
of
the
non­
mine
reclamation
beneficial
uses
have
presented
no
problems.
One
reopening
of
a
closed
disposal
site
was
a
problem
because
of
new
housing
development
surrounding
the
site.

°
IN:
16
of
18
permits
have
been
appealed.

Use
of
Pre­
placement
Site
Characterization
and
Assessment
Data
Case
examples
of
rejection
on
this
basis:
°
WV:
A
company
wanted
to
mix
Class
F
with
really
nasty
refuse.
WV
asked
for
small
scale
field
test.
The
results
were
worse
than
without
ash
placement,
so
the
State
rejected
the
project.
Lesson:
If
in
doubt,
small
scale
field
tests
can
be
very
helpful/
informative.

°
IL:
sites
with
high
potential
for
ground­
water
contamination
due
to
geologic
setting
are
defined
and
known.
Proposals
for
waste
disposal
at
these
sites
are
evaluated
carefully.
Liners,
additional
wells,
and
additional
monitoring
may
be
required.
An
example
is
a
southwestern
site
where
vegetative
rooting
depth
was
such
that
the
State
required
additional
cap
depth.

°
SC:
for
the
mine
placement
project
at
a
rock
quarry,
it
is
difficult
to
define
the
top
of
the
water
table.
SC
is
going
to
require
interceptor
wells/
drain
system
to
lower
the
ground­
water
table
to
keep
it
below
bottom
of
fly
ash
disposal
area.
They
are
currently
studying
the
engineering
of
that
system.

°
IN:
there
have
been
a
few
cases
of
rejection
due
to
the
waste
characterization
screening
criteria
(
1/
4
RCRA
metals
levels,
18
hr
and
30
day
leach
tests).
Also,
there
was
a
permit
application
(
Pride
Mine)
in
an
area
of
an
alluvial
sand
and
gravel
aquifer
with
a
lack
of
attenuative
material.
The
State
required
the
project
to
stay
out
of
that
lowland
area.

°
PA:
in
two
cases,
applications
were
revised
to
add
fill
material
to
add
safety
factor
on
sites
with
fluctuating
water
table.
Another
site
required
a
membrane
to
prevent
infiltration
in
area
where
there
was
conveyance
across
disposal
area.
The
State
withdrew
approval
for
a
site
that
was
already
reclaimed
with
no
basic
safety
problem.
At
a
scrubber
sludge
general
permit
site,
the
operator
changed
source
to
one
that
did
not
meet
totals
requirements.
The
site
was
shut
down
for
several
months.

How
do
States
arrive
at
a
level
of
comfort
with
a
proposed
operation?
°
IL:
experience
with
use
of
this
material.
The
State
evaluates
the
best
available
information
on
potential
impact
and
characteristics
early
in
permit
process.
Pre­
placement
information
counts
a
lot
(
6
months
of
background
monitoring,
data
on
water
quality,
ash
quality,
placement
design).
Ash
sources
that
are
well
known
add
to
the
comfort
level.
In
addition,
the
existence
of
corrective
action
authority
via
the
solid
waste
statute
is
important.
IL
requires
close­
in
monitoring
wells
and
quarterly
monitoring
during
operation.
Back­
end
corrective
action
is
important
in
case
the
project
is
not
executed
according
to
plan.
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
20
°
IN:
SMCRA
is
preventative
in
nature.
The
State's
program
relies
on
background
information
in
the
mining
permit
application
in
addition
to
that
in
the
CCW
placement
application.
The
presence
of
underclays
is
very
important.
The
placement
of
overburden
materials
provides
attenuation.
A
Cumulative
Hydrologic
Impact
Assessment
is
required.

°
WV:
for
new
sources
or
new
uses,
WV
encourages
a
small
scale,
pre­
placement
demonstration.
The
State
also
requires
appropriate
characterization
of
sources
(
not
TCLP).
There
is
a
need
to
improve
on
TCLP
(
perhaps
using
something
like
sulfuric
acid)
and
on
acid­
base
accounting
methods.

Damage
Case
Identification
Case
examples
of
damage
cases
or
procedural
problems
and
how
they
were
detected
and
resolved:
°
OH:
Problem
with
vegetative
cover
toxicity
attributable
to
boron
at
scrubber
sludge/
spoil
land
cover
site
(
see
OH
presentation).
Lab
tests
had
indicated
there
would
be
no
problem.
However,
it
didn't
work
in
the
field
(
vegetation
kill).

°
IL:
two
corrective
actions
have
been
associated
with
pre­
law
conditions
and
were
not
related
to
CCW
placement.

New
Characterization
Methods
°
Several
States
expressed
desire
for
improved
test
over
the
TCLP.

°
EPA
is
examining
new
characterization
methods.
This
may
be
a
multi­
year
process.

°
DOE
is
working
on
validation
of
tests
vs
field
data.
In
practice,
as
many
of
160
different
tests
have
been
applied.
The
idea
is
to
tailor
a
test
to
be
representative
for
the
application.
A
rhetorical
question
is
how
do
you
handle
the
transition
to
a
new
test?

Suggestions,
Additions,
and
Revisions
to
Existing
Requirements
To
encourage
more
candid
discussion,
EPA
and
IMCC
agreed
not
to
show
attribution
of
comments
during
this
part
of
the
discussion.
A
key
question
for
this
part
of
the
discussion
was:
What
does
any
EPA
rule
need
to
address
in
light
of
SMCRA
regulations
and
your
State's
existing
regulatory
programs
(
mining
and
solid
waste)?

°
The
current
regulatory
environment
is
similar
to
that
when
EPA
first
started
studying
Industrial
D
waste
 
States
already
had
programs,
so
guidance
was
appropriate.
If
EPA
has
to
promulgate
a
regulation
in
this
case,
the
Agency
should
not
start
from
scratch.
Approaches
might
include
a
performance
standard,
minimum
standards,
and
best
management
practices.

°
Mine
placement
is
really
a
disposal
activity
that
may
happen
to
coincide
with
reclamation.
SMCRA
is
not
a
solid
waste
regulation.
SMCRA
is
sufficient
to
control
placement
that
coincides
with
reclamation.
But
disposal
needs
to
be
regulated
under
solid
waste
authority.
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
21
°
The
driving
force
for
regional
differences
in
approach
(
at
least
under
SMCRA)
may
be
the
presence
or
absence
of
acid­
forming
materials.
Appropriate
differences
may
be
site­
specific.

°
SMCRA
is
designed
to
allow
flexibility
to
deal
with
regional
and
State­
specific
differences.
Performance
standards
lend
flexibility.
Design
standards
cannot
account
for
regional
differences.

°
OSM
rules
under
SMCRA
are
not
specific
to
CCW.
One
State
would
like
a
federal
OSM
rule
specific
to
CCW.
This
would
make
it
easier
to
promulgate
regulations.

°
It
seems
that
some
States
lack
authority
under
SMCRA
to
do
things
they
need
to
do.
Under
State
statutes,
some
States
cannot
regulate
more
stringently
than
SMCRA.

°
Concerns
are
with
volume
restrictions,
closure,
liners,
monitoring
(
specifically
ground­
water
monitoring),
corrective
action
after
bond
release,
testing/
characterization
methods,
clear
direction
on
environmental
justice.

°
Characterization
testing
methods
are
an
area
of
concern.
Several
States
would
like
to
see
development
of
an
appropriate
leaching
test
method,
maybe
one
specific
to
CCW
and
better
than
TCLP.

°
Several
States
would
like
to
have
some
mechanism
to
address
potential
environmental
problems
that
may
arise
after
SMCRA
bond
release.
One
State
specifically
suggested
a
fund/
financial
assurance
instrument
to
cover
issues
that
might
arise
after
bond
release
 
in
interest
of
making
peace
with
the
public,
not
because
the
commenter
State
is
concerned
that
major
problems
might
arise.

°
Intrastate
coordination:
mining
people
need
to
coordinate
with
their
solid
waste
counterparts
on
mine
placement
of
CCW.

°
OSM/
EPA
coordination
is
a
concern.

°
Defining
beneficial
use
versus
disposal:
should
there
be
some
consideration
of
the
nature
of
the
waste
material?
Are
there
some
mine
site
activities
that
deserve
some
special
consideration
because
they
are
similar
to
exempt
beneficial
uses?

°
Any
approach
should
provide
for
flexibility/
discretion
 
no
"
one
size"
fits
all.

°
Deed
notation
regarding
placement.

°
Better
assessment
of
how
to
allow
or
allocate
potential
haulback
capacities
among
permits.

°
Site
investigations
under
some
State's
programs
are
similar
to
Subtitle
D
solid
waste
investigations.
These
processes
could
utilize
more
information
from
the
mine
permit
program.

°
Important
to
have
placement
procedure/
plan
explicitly
described
so
inspectors
can
tell
over
time
whether
placement
is
being
done
properly.
More
planning
and
reporting
of
placement
process/
practice.
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
22
°
Could
use
more
resources
for
inspection
and
enforcement
 
both
to
keep
things
in
line
and
to
learn.

°
No
regulatory
framework
in
some
States
for
placement
in
non­
coal
mines
(
industrial
mineral
mines)
 
cannot
require
ground­
water
or
surface
water
monitoring.
These
could
be
more
problematic
because
they
are
monofills.

°
Structural
fill
(
non­
mine)
situations
generally
don't
require
monitoring
in
some
States.
General
permits
valid
State­
wide
don't
incorporate
public
involvement
for
each
project.

°
Update
acid­
base
accounting.

°
Define
disposal
versus
beneficial
use.
States
with
newly
developing
programs
are
concerned
that
mine
operators
will
want
to
call
all
mine
placement
"
beneficial
use"
to
avoid
regulation.
One
State
requested
clarification
of
what
practices
OSM
considers
reclamation
or
use.

°
Environmental
justice:
States
need
clear
direction.

°
If
mine
ground
water
is
already
degraded,
how
can
we
identify
ash
impact,
if
any?
Some
suggestions
were
to
look
at
parameters
indicative
of
CCW
(
chlorides,
molybdenum,
potassium,
boron)
or
establish
performance
standards
that
look
at
water
quality
improvement.

°
There
was
some
disagreement
among
States
and
within
OSM
as
to
whether
SMCRA
and
current
SMCRA
regulations
can/
should
handle
mine
placement.

°
Suggestions
for
guidance
on
sound
environmental
practices
°
Economic
incentives,
level
playing
field
among
States.

°
How
to
regulate
CCW
where
other
materials
(
tires,
papermill
sludges,
etc.)
are
co­
fired
with
coal?

Miscellaneous
Questions
and
Answers
Question
(
TX):
Is
EPA
open
to
considering
a
level
of
contaminants
where
regulation
is
less
stringent?
Answer
(
EPA):
No,
because
problems
could
occur
regardless
of
the
level
of
constituents
of
concern
in
the
wastes,
depending
on
how
they
are
placed.

Question
(
DOE):
Does
EPA
have
the
authority
to
promulgate
regulations
under
Subtitle
D,
particularly
for
beneficial
use?
Answer
(
EPA):
Yes.
Comments:
ASTSWMO
requested
additional
clarification
on
this
point
in
its
comments
on
the
regulatory
determination.
TX,
also,
would
like
clarification
regarding
industrial
waste
in
general
and
beneficial
uses.
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
23
Question
(
WY):
What
kinds
of
problems
arose
at
sand
and
gravel
operations
to
cause
damages?
Answer
(
EPA):
EPA
will
attach
to
the
meeting
notes
a
summary
of
EPA's
sand/
gravel
pit
damage
cases;
e.
g.,
which
constituents
were
problematic.

Question
(
DOE):
Is
additional
national
regulation
a
fait
accompli?
Answer
(
EPA):
The
Agency
has
announced
its
intentions
to
issue
Subtitle
D
regulations.
However,
the
specific
form
of
the
regulation
is
fluid
at
this
point
(
among
the
possibilities:
guidance­
type
content,
gap­
filling,
minimum
criteria/
aspects
to
consider
for
mine
placement.)
State
programs
are
not
static,
i.
e.,
they
change
and
evolve
with
time.
As
such,
EPA
is
developing
an
updated
status
summary
of
State
programs
re:
mine
placement.
The
results
of
this
effort
may
affect
the
Agency's
conclusions
and
direction
in
this
area.
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
24
Part
III:
Next
Steps
OSM
°
OSM
discussed
specific
OSM
policy
explaining
how
OSM
views
CCW
placement
and
how
SMCRA
should
apply
to
it.

°
OSM
has
found
no
scientific
evidence
of
problems
with
CCW
placement,
so
there
is
no
basis
for
rulemaking.
OSM
will
continue
technology
transfer
and
research.
If
there
was
evidence
of
a
problem,
they
would
be
concerned.
But
there
isn't,
so
they
are
satisfied
with
State
programs.

EPA
°
Based
on
the
presentations
and
discussion,
it
is
apparent
that
no
States
prohibit
mine
placement
and
all
States
have
some
process
for
overseeing
the
practice
(
although
a
diversity
in
levels
of
oversight
exists).

°
Oversight
is
not
necessarily
formal
in
all
States,
but
is
moving
in
that
direction.

°
There
is
variation
among
States
in
their
range
of
experience.
States
with
mature
programs
don't
have
much
desire
for
additional
fundamental
regulatory
tools.

°
There
are
individual
technical
issues
and
variation
among
States
in
approaches
and
allowances.

°
EPA
would
like
to
continue
with
this
process
on
the
individual
broad
issues,
either
in
a
larger
or
smaller
group
format
as
decided
by
IMCC.

IMCC:

IMCC
suggested
several
options:
°
Another
benchmarking
forum
focused
on
specific
topics.
°
A
meeting
to
continue
dialog:
beneficial
use
v
disposal,
status
of
State
programs,
agency
coordination
intrastate
and
State/
federal,
regulatory
approaches
at
the
national
level
(
yes/
no).
°
A
meeting
on
information
needs
to
support
EPA
rulemaking
(
assuming
that
is
a
fait
accompli).

IMCC
requested
opinions
on
the
following:
°
Same
or
smaller
group
to
continue
this
process?
°
At
what
point
do
we
include
other
stakeholders?

Reactions/
Discussion
°
States
requested
an
opportunity
to
review
EPA's
State
regulatory
survey
and
information
on
what
gaps
(
data
or
regulatory)
EPA
still
thinks
exist
in
State
programs.
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
IMCC
Forum
Page
25
Conclusion
°
Another
meeting
to
discuss
critical
issues
­
July
time
frame.
1st
day:
States
only,
probably
2nd
day:
States
plus
federal
agencies
°
IMCC
and
EPA
will
distribute
EPA's
State
regulatory
analysis,
notes
of
this
meeting,
and
information
on
what
gaps
(
data
or
regulatory)
EPA
still
thinks
exist
in
State
programs
a
month
ahead
of
next
meeting.

°
This
will
allow
some
time
to
see
the
impact
of
the
new
administration
on
EPA
and
OSM
and
the
projected
impact
of
the
new
national
energy
policy.

°
For
other
stakeholders,
IMCC
will
share
meeting
notes,
but
keep
the
next
meeting
closed
to
other
stakeholders,
because
EPA­
State
issue
development
is
still
occurring.