Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0002-0214
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-08-04T04:00Z

1
These
meeting
notes
are
summary
in
nature
and
should
be
read
in
conjunction
with
the
meeting
materials
included
on
the
EPA
website.

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
State/
Tribal/
Federal
Meeting
on
Mine
Placement
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
Williamsburg,
Virginia
October
29
and
30,
2002
Opening
Remarks
(
Greg
Conrad,
Executive
Director,
IMCC)

Greg
Conrad
welcomed
attendees
and
provided
some
background
on
the
purpose
of
the
meeting.
A
great
deal
of
information
has
been
shared
over
the
last
two
years
and
the
group
is
moving
closer
to
points
of
understanding.
In
addition,
EPA
and
OSM
are
nearing
the
point
where
key
decisions
will
have
to
be
made
regarding
potential
federal
regulations
for
mine
placement
of
coal
combustion
wastes
(
CCW).
2
In
the
near
future,
EPA
may
be
briefing
its
upper
management
on
the
decision.
The
following
particular
issues
have
been
identified
by
the
group:

°
Should
there
be
a
distinction
between
beneficial
use
and
disposal?
°
Do
gaps
exist
in
current
regulations,
given
consideration
of
SMCRA,
RCRA,
coal
mine
programs,
and
non­
coal
mine
programs?
°
How
should
a
decision
address
the
relationships
between
programs
within
each
State
(
e.
g.,
mining
and
solid
waste
programs,
coal
and
non­
coal
mining
programs)?
°
How
should
a
decision
address
the
relationship
between
the
two
federal
programs
(
SMCRA
and
RCRA)?
°
Prior
to
any
decision
making,
we
need
to
sit
down
with
representatives
of
the
environmental
community,
relay
the
data
and
findings,
and
listen
to
their
perspective.

The
States
held
a
meeting
in
Reston,
Virginia
this
summer
that
focused
on
these
remaining
key
issues.
EPA
should
leave
this
meeting
with
fairly
clear
picture
of
where
this
group
stands
on
these
issues.
IMCC
and
the
States
would
like
to
continue
the
momentum
gained
in
previous
meetings.
Meeting
Notes:
Williamsburg
*
DRAFT
­
11/
27/
02*
Page
2
Part
I:
Update
on
EPA's
State
Minesite
Visits
(
Bonnie
Robinson,
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste)

EPA
has
completed
its
program
of
visits
to
the
following
States:
Oklahoma,
Illinois,
Indiana,
Pennsylvania,
Ohio,
West
Virginia,
Maryland,
North
Dakota,
New
York,
and
the
Navajo
Nation.
The
Agency
hopes
to
have
the
reports
from
all
of
the
visits
completed
and
posted
on
the
website
by
the
end
of
this
year.
EPA
appreciates
the
time
and
effort
contributed
by
the
State
participants
in
setting
up
and
conducting
these
visits.
The
Agency
has
gained
valuable
information
as
a
result
of
the
visits.

According
to
IMCC,
the
States
are
looking
forward
to
seeing
the
results
of
the
visits
to
their
sister
States.
States
that
hosted
visits
since
the
last
meeting
provided
the
following
feedback
on
their
experiences:

°
West
Virginia
hosted
EPA's
visit
during
the
first
part
of
this
month.
The
EPA
discussion
guide
was
useful
in
getting
all
the
nuances
of
the
West
Virginia
mine
placement
program
on
paper.
It
seemed
that
EPA
gained
valuable
experience
as
a
result
of
the
discussions
and
the
site
visits.

°
Oklahoma
hosted
EPA's
visit
at
the
end
of
July.
The
visit
was
very
productive.
On
the
first
day,
EPA
and
the
State
reviewed
permits
and
the
State's
program
guidelines.
On
the
second
day,
they
toured
several
placement
sites,
including
active
and
inactive
sites
and
a
site
in
the
reclamation
phase.
This
provided
different
perspectives
on
different
sites.

°
The
visit
to
Maryland
included
representation
not
only
from
the
State's
mining
program,
but
also
from
the
State's
solid
waste
and
NPDES
programs.
The
EPA
discussion
guide
was
helpful
for
the
State
to
gain
a
broad
perspective
on
the
program
elements
of
interest
to
EPA.
The
participants
visited
a
hard
rock
mining
site
on
the
first
day.
On
the
second
day,
the
group
visited
a
project
involving
underground
injection
of
flue
gas
desulfurization
(
FGD)
material
at
a
coal
mine
and
a
cogen
power
facility.

°
The
New
York
visit
included
representation
from
the
State's
solid
waste
program
and
the
division
of
mineral
resources.
The
participants
visited
the
only
minefill
site
in
the
State,
which
is
a
70­
acre
dolomite
quarry
near
Rochester.
The
State
believes
that
EPA
was
satisfied
with
the
project
and
the
procedures
in
place
to
monitor
its
performance.

IMCC
believes
it
is
key
to
marry
the
results
from
these
visits
with
EPA's
continuing
regulatory
concerns
and
hopes
the
insights
gained
inform
EPA's
final
decision.
Meeting
Notes:
Williamsburg
*
DRAFT
­
11/
27/
02*
Page
3
Part
II:
Update
on
EPA's
State
Regulatory
Program
Analysis
Reports
(
Greg
Conrad,
Executive
Director,
IMCC)

EPA,
through
IMCC,
has
provided
the
latest
drafts
(
dated
August
2002)
of
the
following
two
reports:

°
Regulation
and
Policy
Concerning
Mine
Placement
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
in
Selected
States
°
Mine
Placement
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
 
State
Program
Elements
Analysis
EPA
is
still
incorporating
information
from
some
of
the
last
few
State
visits,
but
the
reports
are
essentially
final.
States
should
make
sure
these
reports
are
accurate.
Any
remaining
comments
should
be
submitted
to
EPA
within
30
days
before
the
reports
become
part
of
EPA's
administrative
record.
Contact
Bonnie
Robinson
(
phone:
703­
308­
8429;
email:
robinson.
bonnie@
epa.
gov)
to
submit
comments.

Part
III:
Update
on
MRAM
Project
(
Andy
Wittner,
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste)

EPA
is
in
the
process
of
an
empirical
evaluation
of
monitoring
data
from
mine
placement
sites.
The
Agency
appreciates
the
monitoring
data
provided
by
the
States
participating
in
this
meeting.
To
date,
EPA
has
conducted
preliminary
evaluations
of
eight
sites
 
four
in
Indiana
and
four
in
Pennsylvania.
This
presentation
will
show
a
great
deal
of
detail
regarding
these
eight
sites,
but
EPA
has
not
yet
drawn
conclusions
from
the
analysis.
EPA
is
not
prepared
to
draw
conclusions
because
the
analysis
to
date
covers
only
a
small
sample
with
limited
geographic/
geochemical
representativeness,
and
the
analysis
is
not
even
complete
for
this
small
sample.
Therefore,
EPA
is
presenting
its
preliminary
analysis
here,
but
not
offering
conclusions
based
on
the
analysis.

EPA
estimates
there
are
roughly
150
coal
mines,
plus
more
non­
coal
mines,
receiving
CCW.
There
are
potentially
600
additional
coal
mines,
and
maybe
1,000'
s
of
non­
coal
mines,
that
could
use
CCW.
Therefore,
if
placement
is
done
protectively,
there
is
a
great
deal
of
upside
potential
for
this
beneficial
use.
As
a
note,
unlike
mine
placement,
other
beneficial
uses
of
CCW
have
a
host
of
competitive
products.
This
may
explain
the
general
lack
of
uptrends
in
these
uses.

EPA
chose
the
sites
evaluated
so
far
from
among
some
65
reports
from
sources
including
academic
institutions,
State
agencies,
OSM,
etc.
EPA
believes
the
data
set
is
as
unbiased
as
possible
because
of
the
variety
of
sources.
EPA
encountered
certain
complexities
in
analyzing
the
eight
sites,
including
changes
in
well
placement
as
mine
placement
progressed
and
changes
in
the
water
table.
EPA
also
notes
that
it
does
not
necessarily
have
all
the
data
available
for
each
site.

EPA
presented
its
preliminary
evaluation
of
the
monitoring
data
for
the
eight
sites.
Copies
of
the
presentation
slides
are
included
among
the
meeting
materials.
EPA
discussed
in
detail
the
Meeting
Notes:
Williamsburg
*
DRAFT
­
11/
27/
02*
Page
4
evaluation
of
three
Pennsylvania
sites
(
Big
Gorilla,
B­
D
Mine,
and
Revloc
Refuse
Site)
with
the
following
overall
comments:

°
None
of
the
results
so
far
show
anything
that
looks
conclusively
like
an
environmental
problem
at
these
sites.
°
It
is
tempting
to
draw
a
null
conclusion
based
on
this,
but
EPA
does
not
yet
have
a
large
enough
sample
of
sites.
°
Therefore,
it
seems
advisable
to
continue
the
analysis.

The
preliminary
evaluation
of
the
other
five
sites
does
not
show
anything
dramatically
different
from
the
evaluation
of
the
first
three,
so
EPA
did
not
discuss
the
remaining
sites
in
detail.

Meeting
participants
had
the
following
questions
and
comments
on
this
presentation:

°
Pennsylvania
commented
that
the
Big
Gorilla
evaluation
compares
an
upgradient
well
to
the
surface
overflow.
The
State
believes
CCW
has
blocked
the
flow
from
the
pit
to
the
underground
mine
complex
to
the
surface
outfall.
A
more
accurate
analysis
would
look
at
contaminant
loading
rates.

°
Question:
How
are
the
results
of
the
MRAM
analysis
going
to
be
factored
into
any
regulatory
decision?
The
previous
understanding
was
that
EPA's
regulatory
determination
is
on
a
separate
track
and
that
the
MRAM
analysis
would
take
longer.
Is
completion
of
the
evaluation
necessary
for
an
effective
administrative
record
for
the
regulatory
determination?
°
Answer:
the
evaluation
should
be
complete
by
January
2004
in
time
for
the
regulatory
determination.
The
results
of
the
evaluation
may
be
an
important
factor
in
the
determination,
as
the
issue
of
whether
or
not
existing
practices
are
protective
is
critical.
It
is
uncertain,
though,
what
EPA's
senior
management
will
view
as
most
critical.

°
Question:
Is
EPA
evaluating
CCW
placement
in
comparison
to
the
alternatives,
such
as
other
fill
materials
or
doing
nothing
at
all?
°
Answer:
No.
The
analysis
is
of
the
impacts
of
CCW
placement
alone,
without
comparison
to
alternatives.

°
IMCC
commented
that
it
appears
EPA
could
use
more
data
to
conduct
this
analysis.
If
States
have
concerns
about
how
the
evaluation
relates
to
the
overall
effort
or
the
methodology
used
to
conduct
the
analysis,
they
should
be
sure
to
articulate
those
to
EPA.
(
Note:
additional
discussion
of
State
concerns
relating
to
the
MRAM
project
occurred
later
in
the
meeting.
See
Section
VIII,
below.)
Meeting
Notes:
Williamsburg
*
DRAFT
­
11/
27/
02*
Page
5
Part
IV:
Presentation
on
Beneficial
Use
of
Dredged
Material
with
CCW
(
Andrew
Voros,
NJ/
NY
Clean
Oceans
and
Shore
Trust)

The
NJ/
NY
Clean
Oceans
and
Shore
Trust
(
COAST)
represents
a
bi­
State
Legislative
committee.
Its
purpose
is
to
address
any
environmental
or
economic
issue
between
the
two
States
 
including
the
major
issue,
disposal
of
dredged
material
from
New
York
Harbor.
For
eight
years,
NJ/
NY
COAST
has
devoted
all
of
its
resources
to
disposal
of
dredged
materials.
New
York
Harbor
generates
approximately
4
million
tons
of
dredged
materials
per
year.
Due
to
increases
in
shipping
and
in
the
size
of
container
ships
(
the
largest
of
which
currently
cannot
enter
New
York
harbor),
there
are
plans
to
deepen
to
50
feet.
This
process
will
cost
approximately
$
2.3
billion
and
generate
approximately
150
million
tons
of
material
containing
trace
contaminants.

Due
to
the
sensitivity
about
interstate
movement
of
waste,
NJ/
NY
COAST
started
consulting
with
the
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
seven
years
ago
about
whether
dredged
material
would
be
appropriate
for
abandoned
mine
reclamation.
Ultimately,
after
one
and
a
half
to
two
years,
they
decided
to
do
a
demonstration
project
using
dredged
materials
amended
with
fly
ash
to
remediate
a
high
wall.
The
goal
was
to
create
a
monolithic
mass
of
cementitious
material
with
low
permeability
that
expands
as
it
cures.
The
site
selected
for
the
demonstration
is
not
optimal
in
terms
of
geographic
location
(
in
western
Pennsylvania,
distant
from
New
York
Harbor).
The
site
was
selected,
however,
because
of
its
long
history
of
baseline
environmental
testing.

The
project
is
a
$
20
million
demonstration.
There
is
a
port­
side
processing
facility
at
which
the
dredged
material
is
sized
and
amended
with
pozzolanic
material
(
fly
ash
from
New
York
State).
The
dredged
material
is
65%
water,
but
15%
amendment
with
fly
ash
makes
it
stand
up.
The
amended
material
is
transported
via
train
to
a
processing
facility
at
the
site.
The
material
is
then
trucked
onto
the
site,
spread,
and
compacted
in
lifts
to
establish
original
contour.

The
site
is
one
with
exposed
acid
generating
material.
It
has
been
filled
using
0.5
million
tons
of
the
processed
dredged
material
and
0.5
million
tons
of
amendment
(
CCW,
cement
kiln
dust,
other
lime
materials).
The
fill
is
topped
with
artificial
topsoil
material.
Part
of
lift
was
left
unfilled
as
control
site.
The
project
includes
extensive
monitoring
of
the
dredged
material
­
inplace
in
the
harbor,
arriving
by
rail,
and
the
final
pugmill
blend.
The
local
community
has
been
involved
in
every
step
of
the
process.
Their
greatest
concern
was
the
potential
for
using
the
project
as
a
"
cover"
for
disposing
of
something
else.
There
is
extensive
historical
monitoring
data
and
ongoing
surface
water
monitoring
and
ground­
water
monitoring
(
including
6
downgradient
wells
and
12
domestic
wells).
There
have
been
over
18,000
individual
tests,
with
about
4
detects
in
the
waste
itself.
No
contaminants
have
been
detected
in
the
water
monitoring.
They
also
have
conducted
an
extensive
geophysical
underground
profile
of
the
material
in
place,
finding
no
cracks
or
fissures,
no
water
moving
underneath,
and
no
anomalies.
The
reclamation
permit
for
this
project
was
written
so
that
the
bond
covers
removal
of
the
material
should
any
impact
be
detected.
Meeting
Notes:
Williamsburg
*
DRAFT
­
11/
27/
02*
Page
6
From
a
cost­
benefit
standpoint,
this
project
balances
maybe
a
chance
of
1
in
10
million
risk
over
20
years
from
ground­
water
contamination
versus
potential
fatalities
from
falls
and
drownings
and
the
impacts
of
acid
mine
drainage.
It
is
important
to
emphasize
the
situational
aspect
of
contaminant
hazards.

NJ/
NY
COAST
also
is
conducting
a
GIS
analysis
of
dredge
sites,
AML
sites,
fly
ash
generation,
and
rail
connections
to
identify
opportunity
sites.
Even
this
demonstration
project,
which
moves
dredge
material
360
miles,
is
economically
competitive
as
a
means
for
dredge
disposal.
More
information
can
be
obtained
at
www.
nynjcoast.
org.

Part
V:
OSM
Response
to
EPA's
Minefill
Regulatory
Concerns
Document
(
Kim
Vories,
Office
of
Surface
Mining)

OSM
has
prepared
a
technical
response
to
EPA's
minefill
regulatory
concerns
document.
The
details
of
this
response
are
presented
in
a
side­
by­
side
comparison
document,
which
is
included
among
the
meeting
materials.
The
point
of
OSM's
response
is
to
clarify
the
SMCRA
approach,
which
is
presented
incompletely
in
EPA's
regulatory
concerns
document
and
regulatory
reports.
From
OSM's
perspective,
all
of
the
30
CFR
potentially
applies
to
CCW
mine
placement,
even
though
there
are
few
places
where
the
regulations
clearly
mention
CCW.
In
addition
to
30
CFR,
each
State
fills
in
the
details
with
its
own
regulatory
program
as
needed
and
OSM
has
prepared
guidance
documents,
including
the
recently
published
technical
reference
document
entitled
Permitting
Hydrology,
A
Technical
Reference
Document
for
Determination
of
Probable
Hydrologic
Consequences
(
PHC)
and
Cumulative
Hydrologic
Impact
Assessments
(
CHIA)
 
Baseline
Data.

OSM
recommends
that
EPA
delete
the
SMCRA
approach
language
currently
contained
in
the
regulatory
concerns
document
and
replace
it
with
the
language
from
OSM's
technical
response.
OSM
presented
a
brief
overview
of
the
details
of
its
technical
response,
as
follows:

°
Ground­
water
Monitoring:
SMCRA
monitoring
is
permit­
specific,
based
on
extensive
baseline
data
and
the
PHC
and
CHIA.
A
Site­
and
CCW­
specific
monitoring
plan
is
required.
 
Well
Design
and
Deployment:
permit­
specific,
based
on
baseline,
PHC
and
CHIA,
and
operations
plan
data.
The
technical
reference
document
identified
above
contains
detailed
information
on
this
element.
 
Parameters:
determined
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
Analyses
must
use
standard
methods.
 
Frequency:
determined
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
Data
must
be
submitted
every
three
months.
 
Duration:
until
phase
III
liability,
a
5
to
10
year
minimum
and
all
reclamation
requirements
achieved
and
all
State
and
Federal
water
quality
requirements
in
compliance.
Meeting
Notes:
Williamsburg
*
DRAFT
­
11/
27/
02*
Page
7
°
Performance
Standards:
SMCRA
standards
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
the
following:
minimize
disturbance,
prevent
material
damage,
protect
or
replace
water
rights,
support
post­
mining
land
use.
This
approach
allows
operator
and
regulator
creativity.
 
MCLs
and
Non­
degradation:
SMCRA
requires
compliance
with
all
State
and
Federal
water
quality
laws.
Also,
in
preparation
for
this
meeting,
OSM
has
prepared
a
detailed
response
to
the
following
questions:
Does
SMCRA
provide
for/
require
groundwater
standards?
If
so,
where
are
they
in
the
regs.
and/
or
statute?
What,
in
fact,
are
they?
How
do
they
line
up
with
MCLs
(
as
opposed
to
effluent
limits
for
surface
water)?
This
response
is
included
among
the
meeting
materials.

°
Prohibitions:
under
SMCRA,
a
permit
cannot
be
approved
until
the
regulatory
authority
finds
that
hydrologic
performance
standards
can
be
met.
 
Aquifer
Avoidance:
under
SMCRA,
a
permit
cannot
be
approved
until
the
regulatory
authority
finds
that
hydrologic
performance
standards
can
be
met.
 
Unacceptable
Ash
Characteristics:
site­
and
CCW­
specific
information
is
required.
SMCRA
relies
on
the
expertise
of
the
regulator
in
determining
what
characteristics
are
unacceptable.
 
Location
Restrictions:
SMCRA
requires
extensive
detailed
baseline
information
on
the
environmental
resources
within
the
proposed
permit
area.

°
Permitting
and
Planning:
SMCRA
includes
a
comprehensive
program.
 
Acid­
Base
Accounting:
this
element
is
not
included
in
existing
RCRA
regulations.
SMCRA,
however,
requires
it
and
requires
measures
for
protection
from
acid­
and
toxic­
forming
materials.
 
Deed
Recordation:
RCRA
regulations
require
this
because
RCRA
disposal
areas
change
land
use
potential.
SMCRA
requires
full
support
for
future
land
use.
 
Baseline
Monitoring:
baseline
monitoring
requirements
under
SMCRA
are
extensive.

°
Fugitive
Dust
Control:
this
element
is
not
included
in
existing
RCRA
Subtitle
D
regulations.
SMCRA,
however,
requires
it
for
certain
mines
and
can
require
it
for
all
other
mines.

°
Risk
Assessment:
this
element
is
not
included
in
existing
RCRA
regulations.
Under
SMCRA,
however,
a
permit
cannot
be
approved
unless
it
is
demonstrated
that
the
project
will
not
pose
a
risk.

°
Public
Participation:
SMCRA
requires
public
participation.
 
Monitoring
Information:
public
availability
of
monitoring
information
is
not
required
under
existing
RCRA
Subtitle
D
regulations.
SMCRA,
however,
requires
it.
 
Citizen
Suits:
SMCRA
provides
for
citizen
lawsuits.
Meeting
Notes:
Williamsburg
*
DRAFT
­
11/
27/
02*
Page
8
°
Corrective
Action:
SMCRA
requires
corrective
action.

°
Post­
closure/
Post­
reclamation
Care:
EPA's
regulatory
concerns
document
suggests
care
should
continue
through
the
time
period
for
which
effects
may
be
reasonably
expected.
However,
25
years
of
SMCRA
and
20
plus
years
of
CCW
research
demonstrate
that
impacts
may
NOT
be
reasonably
expected
after
Phase
III
bond
release.

Based
on
this
comparison,
observations
from
projects
in
the
field,
and
research
coming
in,
OSM
believes
there
is
no
problem
with
mine
placement
of
CCW.
OSM
has
been
incredibly
impressed
with
the
State
programs
in
their
handling
of
all
the
details
that
are
merely
concepts
in
30
CFR.

Meeting
participants
had
the
following
questions
and
comments
on
this
presentation:

°
EPA
commented
that
the
characterization
of
RCRA
in
the
regulatory
concerns
document
is
based
on
a
potential
rule
making
that
has
yet
to
occur.
For
example,
while
existing
Subtitle
D
regulations
do
not
cover
fugitive
dust
controls,
EPA
could
propose
such
controls
in
a
new
rule
(
and
has,
for
example,
in
the
proposed
cement
kiln
dust
rule).
The
side­
by­
side
comparison,
however,
is
very
helpful.

°
In
addition
to
the
points
mentioned
in
the
OSM
presentation,
it
is
not
possible
to
compare
siting
requirements
under
RCRA
with
those
of
SMCRA
because
SMCRA
sites
are,
by
definition,
locations
where
coal
is
present.

°
In
addition
to
the
letter
of
30
CFR,
OSM
has
an
oversight
role
in
that,
if
a
state
program
is
not
sufficient,
they
can
come
in
to
assist.

°
Question:
If
we
could
establish
a
level
of
trust
and
understanding
that
States
will
continue
to
work
with
OSM
to
address
problems,
then
could
an
additional
regulatory
regime
under
RCRA
be
avoided?
°
Answer:
EPA
has
demonstrated
a
willingness
to
address
issues
in
that
way
(
for
example,
in
the
oil
and
gas
sector).
The
Office
of
Solid
Waste
is
not
strictly
limited
to
issuing
regulations;
it
also
has
the
role
of
promoting
environmentally
protective
beneficial
uses.
The
Agency
is
open
to
ideas.

Part
VI:
State
Responses
to
to
EPA's
Minefill
Regulatory
Concerns
Document
In
July,
a
working
group
from
among
the
State
participants
spent
two
days
discussing
EPA's
regulatory
concerns
document.
The
working
group
agreed
that
the
best
response
would
be
to
address
four
key
areas
that
capture
the
essence
of
the
debate.
To
this
end,
members
of
the
working
group
prepared
four
draft
documents,
which
are
discussed
separately
below.
These
are
working
draft
documents,
and
have
not
been
reviewed
by
all
of
the
State
participants
yet.
Meeting
Notes:
Williamsburg
*
DRAFT
­
11/
27/
02*
Page
9
Matrix
of
State
Regulatory
Components
(
SMCRA
and
RCRA)
(
Dan
Wheeler,
Illinois
and
Craig
Kennedy,
South
Carolina)

Dan
Wheeler
and
Craig
Kennedy
presented
a
working
draft
regulatory
matrix
and
a
discussion
outline
explaining
the
matrix.
These
draft
documents
are
included
among
the
meeting
materials.
In
terms
of
Federal
regulatory
citations
for
SMCRA
and
RCRA,
the
result
is
similar
to
OSM's
side­
by­
side
analysis.
The
matrix,
however,
includes
citations
to
two
States'
regulations,
using
Illinois
as
an
example
of
State
coal
mine
regulations
and
South
Carolina
as
an
example
of
State
non­
coal
mine
regulations.
The
presenters
emphasized
that
the
matrix
is
an
initial
analysis
by
two
individuals
and
requested
comments.

Meeting
participants
had
the
following
questions
and
comments:

°
EPA
commented
that
the
Federal
RCRA
citations
shown
are
those
applicable
to
municipal
solid
waste
landfills.
EPA
has
provided
those
citations
as
examples
of
the
type
of
regulatory
language
that
might
be
included
in
a
RCRA
regulation
for
mine
placement,
if
one
were
proposed.
A
proposed
RCRA
regulation,
however,
is
not
a
certainty
and
might
also
be
different
from
the
municipal
solid
waste
regulations,
particularly
in
terms
of
triggers.
In
either
case,
it
would
be
misleading
to
construe
these
citations
as
currently
applicable
to
mine
placement.

°
IMCC
asked
for
reactions
from
EPA
and
OSM.
Can
we/
should
we
use
this
document?
Is
it
useful?
Would
it
be
helpful
for
other
States
to
fill
in
the
matrix
with
citations
to
their
individual
regulations?
°
One
State
commented
that
their
responses
to
the
discussion
guide
from
EPA's
State
visit
included
the
applicable
regulatory
citations.
It
might
be
helpful,
however,
for
those
States
that
EPA
did
not
visit
to
fill
in
this
matrix.
°
Another
State
commented
that
some
program
elements
are
handled
on
a
site­
or
permitspecific
basis,
and
there
is
no
particular
regulatory
citation
specific
to
these
elements.
That
might
lead
someone
reviewing
the
matrix
to
believe
there
is
a
gap
in
program
coverage
for
a
particular
State
when
there
really
isn't
one.
°
Another
State
commented
that
the
addition
of
more
State
citations
would
not
resolve
the
basic
issue
of
differences
between
the
RCRA
and
SMCRA
regulatory
approaches.
°
EPA
commented
that
the
matrix
has
great
visual
impact,
but
it
begs
the
question
of
the
substance
and
detail
behind
each
citation.
From
this
standpoint,
the
OSM
side­
by­
side
analysis
is
more
useful.
There
is
no
danger
in
adding
States
to
the
matrix,
but
the
result
might
not
be
persuasive.
Meeting
Notes:
Williamsburg
*
DRAFT
­
11/
27/
02*
Page
10
Beneficial
Use
Versus
Disposal
(
Susi
Ferguson,
Texas)

Susi
Ferguson
presented
a
working
draft
document
outlining
and
describing
beneficial
uses
of
CCW
at
mine
placement
sites.
This
draft
document
is
included
among
the
meeting
materials.
The
presenter
explained
that
the
basic
concept
behind
the
document
is
that
an
application
should
be
considered
beneficial
use,
as
opposed
to
disposal,
when
CCW
is
substituting
for
a
material
that
would
otherwise
be
used,
with
no
additional
environmental
impact.
The
purpose
of
the
document
is
to
define
a
segment
of
beneficial
uses
that
the
States
believe
do
not
require
additional
regulation
aside
from
the
existing
regulatory
"
safety
net."
The
categories
of
beneficial
use
covered
in
the
draft
document
are
the
following:

(
1)
On­
site
construction
applications:
where
CCW
is
used
as
a
substitute
for
cement.
(
2)
Soil
stabilization:
where
CCW
is
used
to
reduce
shrink­
swell
(
e.
g.,
in
road
base).
(
3)
Soil
amendment/
acid
mine
drainage:
where
CCW
is
used
as
a
substitute
for
agricultural
lime
or
as
an
amendment
to
neutralize
coal
refuse.
(
4)
Structural
fill/
compaction:
where
CCW
is
used
as
a
substitute
to
prevent
underground
mine
subsidence,
not
necessarily
for
its
pozzolanic
properties,
but
for
its
soil/
aggregate
properties.
(
5)
Ramp
advancement:
where
CCW
is
used
as
a
substitute
to
construct
ramps
in
active
mine
pits.
(
6)
Approximate
Original
Contour:
where
CCW
is
used
as
an
alternative
source
of
reclamation
fill
instead
of
spoil/
overburden
in
cases
of
shortage.

Meeting
participants
had
the
following
comments:

°
One
State
suggested
that
item
number
6
should
be
entitled
"
use
as
a
non­
toxic
fill,"
rather
than
approximate
original
contour.

°
EPA
commented
that,
in
the
May
2002
Regulatory
Determination,
it
decided
additional
regulation
was
not
needed
for
the
large
scale
non­
minefill
beneficial
uses
primarily
because
these
uses
generally
involve
incorporation
into
a
product
or
encapsulation.
EPA
does
not
need
to
be
convinced
that
there
are
benefits
to
minefilling;
the
Agency
recognizes
the
subsidence,
acid
mine
drainage,
and
contouring
benefits.
For
minefilling,
particularly
as
you
move
to
the
final
three
or
four
categories
you've
defined,
the
question
remains
as
to
whether
there
are
environmental
concerns.
If
there
are
potential
problems,
EPA
would
balance
the
environmental
impacts
versus
the
benefits.
If
the
potential
problems
are
being
adequately
addressed,
there
should
be
no
disruption
of
the
beneficial
uses.
Also,
EPA,
as
part
of
its
overall
regulatory
deliberations
and
determinations
regarding
CCW,
is
interested
in
knowing
how
it
can
help
the
States
develop
meaningful
and
appropriate
incentives
for
the
environmentally
protective
beneficial
use
of
CCW,
especially
with
regard
to
State­
initiated
or
­
sponsored
activities.
Meeting
Notes:
Williamsburg
*
DRAFT
­
11/
27/
02*
Page
11
Jurisdictional
Framework
and
Diagram
(
Mike
Menghini,
Pennsylvania)

Mike
Menghini
presented
a
working
draft
document
outlining
the
State
jurisdictional
and
regulatory
framework
concerning
CCW
placement
and
utilization.
This
draft
document
is
included
among
the
meeting
materials.
The
document
identifies
the
regulatory
authorities
that
are
generally
associated
with
each
of
the
following
types
of
CCW
placement:

°
Active
coal
sites,
°
Abandoned
mine
lands
(
AML),
°
Non­
coal
sites,
and
°
Beneficial
uses.

Meeting
participants
had
the
following
questions
and
comments:

°
EPA
believes
it
has
a
a
pretty
clear
picture
of
State­
Federal
oversight
of
active
coal
sites,
but
is
still
unclear
about
AML
sites
and
non­
coal
mines.
°
Regulation
of
AML
sites
is
discussed
in
detail
as
part
of
the
next
presentation.
°
For
non­
coal
mines,
federal
SMCRA
doesn't
apply,
but
there
is
usually
a
State
regulatory
program
that
applies.
This
may
be
either
a
State
SMCRA­
like
program
for
non­
coal
mines
(
as
in
Pennsylvania)
or
a
separate
permit
from
the
State
solid
waste
authority
for
CCW
disposal
(
as
in
Virginia)
on
a
site
permitted
by
State
mining
authority.
Other
States
offered
the
following
examples:
 
In
Oklahoma,
the
mining
authority
has
jurisdiction
over
non­
coal
mine
placement,
but
will
not
issue
a
permit
until
the
site
has
all
appropriate
permits
from
the
State's
water
and
air
authorities.
 
In
Montana,
there
is
shared
regulatory
jurisdiction
between
the
mining
and
solid
waste
programs.
 
The
West
Virginia
solid
waste
act
exempts
mining
sites
because
they
are
already
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
mining
program.
°
EPA
also
asked
about
the
regulation
of
abandoned
non­
coal
mines.
The
general
response
was
that
this
varies
from
State
to
State.
For
example,
in
South
Carolina,
if
there
is
an
abandoned
mine
site
not
covered
by
mining
authority,
the
operator
must
characterize
the
CCW.
Unless
the
CCW
characterizes
as
inert
fill,
the
placement
is
regulated
as
industrial
solid
waste
disposal.
Oklahoma
has
one
site
where
no
mining
ever
occurred
and
this
site
is
permitted
under
a
non­
coal
mine
permit.

Placement
of
Coal
Ash
at
Abandoned
Mine
Lands
(
AML)
Sites
(
Bruce
Stevens,
Indiana)

Bruce
Stevens
presented
a
working
draft
document
describing
the
use
of
CCW
in
reclamation
of
AML
sites.
This
draft
document
is
included
among
the
meeting
materials.
The
AML
program
is
under
Title
IV
of
SMCRA,
while
active
coal
mines
are
under
Title
V.
The
two
programs
have
very
different
purposes.
Title
IV
covers
sites
that
were
abandoned
or
left
in
an
inadequate
reclamation
status
prior
to
1977.
Title
V
regulates
post­
1977
sites
to
make
sure
these
sites
don't
Meeting
Notes:
Williamsburg
*
DRAFT
­
11/
27/
02*
Page
12
become
like
the
abandoned
Title
IV
sites.
Title
IV
is
funded
by
a
tonnage
fee
on
coal
that
is
collected
by
the
Department
of
the
Interior,
then
distributed
to
the
States
for
use
in
reclaiming
AML
sites.
While
the
purpose
of
the
two
programs
is
different,
AML
projects
often
employ
very
similar
controls
to
active
mine
sites.
The
design
of
AML
controls,
however,
is
much
more
site­
specific,
dependent
on
the
specific
use.
Also,
the
implementation
of
the
AML
program
varies
from
State
to
State.

The
AML
program
has
been
widely
recognized
as
the
best
"
white
hat"
program
in
the
nation,
and
has
done
more
good
than
any
other
program
in
terms
of
environmental
remediation
and
public
safety.
There
are
a
large
number
of
sites,
over
5,000
miles
of
streams
affected
by
acid
mine
drainage,
and
over
400,000
acres
subject
to
subsidence.
The
program
incorporates
a
clean
streams
program
that
involves
local
grassroots
efforts.
Considering
all
the
good
that
has
come
out
of
the
AML
program
and
the
fact
that
there
are
really
no
other
materials
available
to
use
in
remediation,
it
is
critical
for
this
group
to
cover
the
program
in
its
discussions.
There
is
a
real
concern
that
there
could
be
a
disincentive
for
the
use
of
CCW
that
would
threaten
the
viability
of
AML
reclamation,
if
CCW
is
regulated
too
tightly.

Meeting
participants
had
the
following
questions
and
comments:

°
Question:
where
CCW
is
placed
on
an
AML
site
with
no
remining,
does
OSM
have
oversight
of
State
regulatory
authority?
°
Answer:
OSM
has
oversight
for
State
AML
programs,
so
there
would
be
consultation
on
AML
projects.

°
States
had
the
following
comments
about
the
design
of
their
AML
programs:
 
In
Indiana,
either
the
State
AML
staff
designs
a
remediation
project
or
a
coal
mine
operator
proposes
something
for
an
adjacent
AML
site.
In
most
case,
once
the
design
is
done,
it
is
put
out
for
competitive
bid.
A
coal
mine
operator
or
electric
utility
may
come
in
and
complete
a
project
at
low
cost
if
it
is
beneficial
for
them.
 
In
promulgating
its
State
CCW
regulations,
the
Illinois
EPA
exempted
the
AML
program
because
they
recognized
that
the
program
tries
to
make
a
bad
situation
better.
Still,
AML
projects
often
apply
similar
controls
to
those
required
under
the
active
mine
program.
 
In
West
Virginia,
AML
projects
have
to
go
through
a
NEPA­
type
procedure,
involving
other
State
agencies.
 
North
Dakota
has
some
AML
sites
that
are
permitted
as
landfills
and
regulated
by
the
State
Department
of
Health,
which
is
a
bit
unique.
Also,
there
are
some
grouting
sites
that
are
using
CCW.
The
State's
mining
program
applies
controls
to
these,
especially
where
there
are
concerns
about
groundwater
quality.
The
grout
mixes
are
approved
by
the
Department
of
Health.
 
In
Pennsylvania,
almost
all
active
sites
are
actually
AML
sites,
but
the
AML
reclamation
is
accomplished
as
part
of
an
active
mine
permit
(
i.
e.,
remining).
 
Ohio's
beneficial
use
program
covers
both
active
and
AML
sites.
Meeting
Notes:
Williamsburg
*
DRAFT
­
11/
27/
02*
Page
13
 
In
Maryland,
reclamation
of
abandoned
non­
coal
mines
is
regulated
under
the
ground­
water
permit
program.
Reclamation
of
abandoned
coal
mines
is
covered
under
the
SMCRA
Title
IV
AML
program.

Part
VII:
Discussion
of
EPA's
CCW
Regulatory
Development
Plans
From
the
perspective
of
IMCC
and
the
State
representatives,
this
process
has
reached
a
crossroads.
The
States
have
provided
a
great
deal
of
information,
including
monitoring
data,
site
visits,
regulatory
reports,
an
outline
on
positions,
and
the
four
working
draft
documents
discussed
here.
This
leaves
the
States
with
the
following
questions
and
concerns:

°
The
States
are
uncertain
what
more
EPA
wants
from
them,
but
would
like
to
know.
Is
there
value
in
continuing
to
meet?
If
so
what
would
be
the
topic
of
discussion?
°
The
States
are
more
convinced
than
ever
that
the
existing
process
is
adequate.
If
this
is
not
the
case,
what
would
be
the
most
effective
way
for
the
States
to
communicate
their
position?
By
specific
issue?
°
The
States
do
not
want
to
receive
an
urgent
information
request
six
months
from
now
that
is
difficult
to
respond
to
in
a
timely
manner
or
to
hear
about
EPA
moving
forward
with
a
decision
without
the
opportunity
to
be
informed
of
the
direction
of
that
decision.
°
The
States
are
aware
of
the
four
issues
identified
in
the
Clean
Air
Task
Force/
Hoosier
Environmental
Council
letter
to
Marianne
Horinko.
Is
there
an
additional
list
of
issues
important
to
EPA?

EPA
responded
to
these
questions
and
concerns
as
follows:

°
EPA
appreciates
the
useful
products
IMCC
and
the
States
have
provided.
°
Although
the
Agency
may
come
back
to
the
States
with
issues/
problem
areas,
it
does
not
mean
the
Agency
does
not
recognize
the
potential
benefits
of
mine
placement.
°
There
are
a
number
of
analytical
steps
EPA
still
needs
to
complete.
These
include:
 
Finalizing
the
State
Regulatory
Program
Analysis
Reports,
incorporating
information
from
the
most
recent
State
visits
and
any
outstanding
State
comments.
 
Additional
work
on
the
MRAM
project,
including
a
determination
of
how
much
additional
data
and
information
is
needed
to
complete
the
analysis.
 
A
meeting
with
the
environmental
community
to
further
discuss
their
concerns.
EPA's
inclination
would
be
to
include
OSM
and
IMCC
in
this
meeting.
 
EPA
would
welcome
additional
information
regarding
regulation
and
environmental
impacts
of
non­
coal
mine
placement.
 
EPA
retains
an
open
mind
about
efforts
to
increase
environmentally
protective
beneficial
use
of
CCW
and
would
welcome
ideas
in
this
area.
Meeting
Notes:
Williamsburg
*
DRAFT
­
11/
27/
02*
Page
14
The
mention
of
a
meeting
with
the
environmental
community
prompted
additional
discussion,
which
included
the
following
points:

°
Question:
could
the
meeting
include
State
environmental
groups
that
have
been
supportive
of
State
reclamation
programs?
°
Answer:
Yes.

°
Question:
Are
the
environmental
community's
issues
primarily
related
to
process/
public
involvement
or
to
technical
standards?
°
Answer:
Both,
but
it
is
most
important
to
get
their
feedback
on
what
technical
standards
they
would
like
to
see,
based
on
the
information
that
is
available
about
existing
standards.

°
It
will
be
important
to
set
out
what
the
agenda
and
discussion
points
are
going
to
be
for
such
a
meeting
in
advance
so
that
participants
are
prepared
to
discuss
the
issues
at
hand.

°
It
was
noted
that
industry
has
requested
representation
at
past
meetings
as
well.
A
proposal
was
made
for
a
sequential
meeting:
one
day
involving
the
environmental
community,
one
day
involving
the
industry,
and
one
day
of
follow­
up
among
the
State
and
Federal
regulators.

Part
VIII:
Next
Steps
Key
Next
Steps
The
following
were
identified
as
key
next
steps:

°
States
should
comment
on
EPA's
draft
site
visit
reports
and
discussion
guides.

The
final
reports
from
the
States
visited
should
be
available
on
the
EPA
web
site
by
the
end
of
the
year.
To
the
extent
that
States
that
were
not
visited
want
to
respond
to
EPA's
discussion
guide,
it
would
be
welcomed.

°
The
State
participants
should
finalize
the
working
draft
documents
presented
here.

For
the
final
three
documents,
comments
should
be
sent
to
the
authors
within
30
days
after
these
meeting
notes
are
published.
For
the
second
document
(
beneficial
use
versus
disposal)
there
may
be
a
change
in
format,
so
that
document
may
require
a
second
iteration
of
comments
after
the
first
revision.
There
was
some
discussion
of
the
first
working
draft
document
(
regulatory
matrix).
The
addition
of
regulatory
citations
from
additional
States
might
not
be
the
best
use
of
time,
but
the
Federal
RCRA
and
SMCRA
citations
should
be
included
in
the
side­
by­
side
analysis
prepared
by
OSM.
It
was
proposed
that
the
regulatory
matrix
be
merged
with
the
third
working
draft
document
(
jurisdictional
framework).
Meeting
Notes:
Williamsburg
*
DRAFT
­
11/
27/
02*
Page
15
°
Set
up
the
next
meeting
to
include
the
environmental
community.

This
meeting
should
be
arranged
for
sometime
after
the
start
of
next
year.
The
agenda
should
be
developed
in
advance
and
State
attendees
identified
to
make
sure
there
is
representation
(
regional,
SMCRA,
RCRA,
coal,
non­
coal)
without
being
uncomfortably
large.
Should
this
be
a
3­
session
program
(
i.
e.,
one
session
each
for
the
environmental
community,
industry,
and
State
and
Federal
representatives)?
Make
sure
we
give
comment
and
finalize
state
regulatory
documents.

Discussion
Issues
IMCC
presented
a
list
of
the
issues
likely
to
be
raised
at
the
next
meeting.
The
first
four
of
these
are
from
the
Clean
Air
Task
Force/
Hoosier
Environmental
Council
letter
to
Marianne
Horinko.
The
purpose
of
this
list
is
not
to
limit
the
agenda
for
the
meeting,
but
to
prepare
for
what
might
be
discussed.
The
list
is
as
follows:

°
Placement
of
CCW
in
ground
water
°
Ground­
water
monitoring
°
Post­
closure
monitoring,
financial
assurance,
and
corrective
action
°
Lack
of
restrictions
for
post­
reclamation
use
of
property
°
Imbalance
among
State
programs
°
Acid­
forming
materials
and
acid
mine
drainage
There
was
further
discussion
of
the
first
issue,
placement
in
ground
water.
This
issue
is
of
concern
to
EPA,
particularly
given
the
presence
of
this
factor
at
the
sand
and
gravel
damage
case
sites.
EPA
would
like
some
response
to
the
question
of
why
the
problems
that
occurred
at
those
sites
might
not
happen
at
coal
mine
sites
or
sites
under
current
regulations.
OSM
noted
that
it
presented
a
discussion
on
a
response
to
environmental
concerns
in
a
paper
presented
at
its
Technical
Interactive
Forum
on
"
Coal
Combustion
By­
Products
and
Western
Coal
Mines"
in
Golden
Colorado
in
April
of
2002.
This
document
is
included
among
the
meeting
materials.
It
would
also
be
useful
to
receive
a
response
from
State
solid
waste
programs
and
the
Association
of
State
and
Territorial
Solid
Waste
Management
Officials
(
ASTSWMO).
A
format
for
such
response
might
be
to
analyze
the
damage
cases
as
hypotheticals,
and
show
how
a
given
program
would
evaluate
such
a
proposed
scenario
and
prevent
similar
damage.

MRAM
Concerns
There
was
also
additional
discussion
of
State
concerns
regarding
the
MRAM
project,
including
the
following
topics:

°
How
do
you
anticipate
using
the
data
in
the
regulatory
determination
process?
Meeting
Notes:
Williamsburg
*
DRAFT
­
11/
27/
02*
Page
16
The
States
were
concerned
about
conflicting
information
on
the
timing
and
track
of
MRAM
with
regard
to
the
regulatory
determination.
EPA
clarified
that
further
discussions
at
EPA
would
take
place
regarding
the
future
MRAM
analyses,
the
timing,
and
its
use.

°
The
States
have
the
following
"
conditions"
for
providing
additional
data:
they
need
to
understand
(
1)
how
the
data
will
be
used,
(
2)
how
it
will
be
analyzed,
and
(
3)
their
role
in
determining
its
use,
the
methodology
for
analysis,
and
the
conclusions
drawn
from
it.

Based
on
the
presentation
summarized
under
Part
III,
above,
States
are
concerned
about
what
the
project
is
looking
at.
Specifically,
is
the
analysis
using
the
right
parameters
and
comparisons,
given
the
concerns?
For
example,
some
of
the
parameters
analyzed
(
sulfate,
iron,
aluminum)
can
be
mining­
related,
not
ash­
related.
There
are
concerns
that
conclusions
are
being
drawn
without
looking
at
the
big
picture
of
the
analysis,
that
raw
data
is
being
presented
without
an
analysis,
and
that
the
methodology
is
not
clear.
States
would
like
some
input
on
how
the
data
is
interpreted,
so
the
selected
sites
are
analyzed
in
a
complete
manner
and
based
on
information
from
those
familiar
with
the
sites.
The
data
need
to
be
evaluated
in
a
manner
that's
defensible.
EPA
responded
that
these
comments
are
clear
and
well
taken,
and
committed
to
providing
more
information
to
the
States
on
the
MRAM
project.

Non­
Coal
Mine
Concerns
There
was
also
discussion
of
how
to
best
address
non­
coal
mine
concerns.
Suggestions
included:

°
An
expanded
matrix
of
regulatory
citations
specific
to
the
non­
coal
sector.
°
A
side­
by­
side
analysis
for
non­
coal
regulations
similar
to
that
prepared
by
OSM.
°
A
process
of
benchmarking
or
review
of
regulatory
information.
°
A
technical
guidance
document
or
demonstration
of
equivalent
performance
standards
to
those
contained
in
the
Industrial
D
guidance
or
some
other
Federal
guidance.
°
A
focus
on
several
key
issues.

EPA
responded
that
its
State
Regulatory
Program
Analysis
Reports
include
review
of
non­
coal
mine
regulations
and
States
should
review
and
comment
on
these
sections
of
the
reports.
It
also
would
be
helpful
for
States
to
evaluate
the
non­
coal
mine
(
sand
and
gravel
pit)
damage
cases
as
discussed
above
under
placement
in
ground
water
 
analyze
these
cases
as
hypotheticals,
and
show
how
a
given
non­
coal
regulatory
program
would
evaluate
such
a
proposed
scenario
and
prevent
similar
damage.
To
this
end,
EPA
committed
to
providing
the
States
detailed
information
on
the
sand
and
gravel
damage
cases.
Meeting
Notes:
Williamsburg
*
DRAFT
­
11/
27/
02*
Page
17
Remaining
EPA
Concerns/
Issues
Finally,
the
States
want
to
understand
EPA's
primary
concerns
in
the
following
specific
areas:

°
Risk
assessment
 
Question:
RCRA
Part
258
does
not
include
risk
assessment,
so
what
brought
it
up
in
this
case
and
is
this
an
element
likely
to
be
added
for
CCW
mine
placement?
 
Answer:
If
EPA
decides
to
promulgates
a
regulation,
it
will
likely
be
an
element.

 
Question:
What
type
of
risk
assessment
is
EPA
contemplating
in
its
regulatory
concerns
document?
The
PHC
and
CHIA
performed
under
SMCRA
can
be
considered
a
risk
assessment,
even
though
they
are
not
called
that.
But
they
are
not,
in
a
strict
sense,
what
EPA
calls
a
formal
risk
assessment.
Therefore,
would
risk
assessment
be
a
formal
(
potentially
expansive
and
expensive)
process
that
involves
a
great
deal
of
toxicology
and
modeling
or
the
type
of
risk
assessment
that
already
occurs
under
the
PHC
and
CHIA?
 
Answer:
The
Office
of
Solid
Waste
would
likely
defer
to
the
Clean
Water
Act
to
control
impacts
to
surface
water
and
focus
on
ground­
water
impacts.
Therefore,
this
should
be
a
part
of
what
is
already
done
under
SMCRA.
The
assessment
should
consider
both
CCW
characteristics
and
site
characteristics
and
determine
whether
key
constituents
present
in
CCW
would
adversely
impact
ground
water.

°
Material
damage
 
Question:
Does
it
trouble
EPA
that
there's
no
specific
definition
of
this
SMCRA
concept,
but
that
it
is
an
element
of
analysis
interpreted
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis?
 
Answer:
The
environmental
community
views
this
concept
as
vague
and
confusing.
We
should
discuss
this
further
with
them.

°
Post­
closure
care
EPA
commented
that
the
Agency's
decision
on
this
depends
on
the
evaluation
of
whether
up
front
planning
is
sufficiently
protective.
It
may
be
the
case
that
if
a
project
is
designed
to
correct
a
problem
and
there
is
no
potential
for
long
term
issues,
post­
closure
care
becomes
less
of
an
issue.
If,
however,
a
remediation
project
involves
something
that
is
long
term
in
nature
(
e.
g.
AMD
treatment),
an
alternate
means
of
financial
assurance
beyond
the
SMCRA
bond
might
be
required.
EPA
would
like
input
on
why
this
should
be
viewed
from
a
solid
waste
perspective
versus
a
reclamation/
remediation
perspective.
Also,
if
there's
going
to
be
a
long­
term
groundwater
monitoring
program,
should
it
be
done
separately
from
SMCRA
program,
allowing
that
bond
and
permit
to
terminate?
Meeting
Notes:
Williamsburg
*
DRAFT
­
11/
27/
02*
Page
18
°
Monitoring
There
was
no
additional
discussion
of
this
issue.

Action
Items
°
EPA,
IMCC,
and
OSM
will
plan
the
next
meeting,
to
include
the
environmental
community,
for
after
the
first
of
the
year.
°
The
States
have
one
final
opportunity
to
review
EPA's
State
Regulatory
Program
Analysis
Reports.
°
States
will
have
the
opportunity
to
examine
all
of
EPA's
State
visit
reports
and
discussion
guides.
°
States
that
were
not
visited
are
welcome
to
prepare
their
own
responses
to
the
discussion
guide.
°
The
States
will
finalize
the
working
draft
documents
presented
here
before
the
next
meeting.
°
EPA
will
provide
additional
information
on
the
MRAM
project.
°
EPA
will
make
available
detailed
information
on
the
sand
and
gravel
damage
cases.

Meeting
Materials
available
on
EPA's
web
site
at
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
other/
fossil/
index.
htm:

°
Meeting
Attendees
°
EPA's
MRAM
Presentation
Slides
°
OSM's
Side
by
Side
Comparison
of
RCRA
to
SMCRA
°
OSM's
Response
to
Questions
Regarding
Ground­
water
Standards
Under
SMCRA
°
States'
Working
Draft
Regulatory
Matrix
°
Discussion
Outline
for
States'
Working
Draft
Regulatory
Matrix
°
States'
Working
Draft
Description
of
Beneficial
Uses
°
States'
Working
Draft
CCB
Placement
and
Utilization
Jurisdictional
Framework
and
Diagram
°
States'
Working
Draft
on
Placement
of
Coal
Ash
at
Abandoned
Mine
Land
Sites
°
OSM's
Response
to
Environmental
Concerns