Source: http://www.kyrc.org/webnewspro/118298403186109.shtml
Timestamp: 2018-06-23 17:59:49
Document Index: 345433929

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 258', '§4332', '§1508', '§1508', '§1508', '§1508', '§1508', '§1508']

For the reasons stated below, these organizations respectfully request that OSMRE reconsider the proposed approach in the context of development of an Environmental Impact Statement, and that the approach to regulation of the use and disposal of coal combustion wastes in coal mining operations be made more consonant with the recommendations of the both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 2000 Regulatory Determination on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels, 65 FR 32214, May 22, 2000, and the National Academy of Sciences report Managing Coal Combustion Residues In Mines, March 1, 2006.
Instead, while inviting comment on “how these recommendations should be implemented, i.e., how we should revise the regulations implementing Titles IV and V of SMCRA to regulate the placement of CCBs on active and abandoned coal minesites and what type of guidance documents we should issue, if any[,]” OSMRE outlines an approach which does not address the recommendations of the National Academies of Science, but instead proposes simply to “identify the permit application requirements and performance standards in our existing regulations in 30 CFR Chapter VII that apply to the use and disposal of CCBs in mines.” This approach is at variance with the recommendations of the National Academies of Science and is underprotective of public health and the environment. The answer to the question posed by the agency, which is “whether our existing permit application requirements and performance standards are sufficient to ensure proper management of CCBs,” is a resounding “no,” as is reflected in the pages that follow.
The proposed approach to regulation of placement of coal combustion wastes (called “coal combustion residues” by the NAS and “coal combustion by-products” by OSMRE in its proposal) that is outlined in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking almost entirely fails to address the recommendations of the National Academies of Science. Rather than developing a specific set of regulations that require characterization of the waste and of the site, a plan for management and performance standards as well as monitoring to demonstrate achievement of the goals, OSMRE proposes to rely on the existing permitting and performance standards that were neither designed nor intended for management of wastes generated by combustion of the coal.
Coal combustion wastes are being backhauled and disposed, or “beneficially reused,” in mine workings (including both underground mine voids and more commonly, in surface mine backfills or spoil/mine waste fills) not because of the inherently beneficial or desirable attributes of the wastes relative to other backfill or soil amendment materials, or the lack of alternative locations available to utilities and non-utility customers for coal combustion waste disposal. Rather, such use and disposal is occurring largely because the coal companies offer the backhauling and disposal as a "service" or incentive in order to attract buyers for their coal in an increasingly competitive marketplace.
5.	A comprehensive site characterization specific to CCW placement should be conducted at all mine sites prior to substantial placement of CCW.
6.	Site-specific management plans, including site-specific performance standards that are tailored to address potential environmental problems associated with CCW disposal, should be required.
The OSMRE ANPR highlights, without citation to peer-reviewed studies to support the assertions, the “benefits of placing CCBs in active and abandoned coal mines,” yet fails to properly grasp and reflect the limitations and potential problems of introducing metals-laden combustion wastes into the mine environment.
What is known concerning the potential toxicity of the leachate from coal combustion ash suggests that a federal floor of management standards is needed. It is a myth of dangerous proportion to suggest that there is no potential public health and environmental impact of improper management of coal combustion wastes because the wastes are not classified as “hazardous.” The 1988 US Environmental Protection Agency Report to Congress concerning coal combustion wastes acknowledged the existence of potential for causing groundwater contamination among and within the categories of coal combustion waste. According to the Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants, EPA/530-SW-88-002:
While the findings of the EPA Report and review of industry-generated studies indicated generally that metals did not, utilizing the TCLP test, leach out of coal combustion waste at levels 100x the primary drinking water standard (i.e. characteristically hazardous by TCLP toxicity), hazardous levels of cadmium and arsenic were found in ash and sludge samples, and boiler cleaning wastes sometimes contained hazardous levels of chromium and lead. Id. EPA has subsequently recognized that the characterization was based on a “worst-case scenario” of co-disposal of the coal wastes in MSW landfills and may not reflect concentrations liberated from ash in other disposal conditions.
In choosing the appropriate regulatory endpoint for assertion of jurisdiction over the disposal of these wastes in mine workings, the goal should be not be whether the waste leaches at 100 times the drinking water standards (which is the relevant TCLP characteristic of the wastes' "hazard"), but should be whether, if improperly managed or undermanaged, the wastes will leach constituents of health concern into groundwater at above the maximum contaminant level goals. Much of the groundwater resource in the coalfields is utilized through private water supply wells rather than from public drinking water supplies, and elevations in metals well below a “hazardous” level are of public health concern and render the water unusable. Since the evidence shows that such leaching does occur, intervention to assure proper siting, construction, and use of barrier technology to prevent the wastes from contacting groundwater or rainfall percolation is needed.
Does the co-disposal of coal combustion wastes in mining areas present heightened risks of contamination of ground water and injury to public health that warrant adoption by USEPA of specific standards governing such practices? Clearly it does. The evidence of ground water contamination from disposal of coal combustion wastes in situations comparable to the dumping of such wastes in mine backfill, is more than sufficient to warrant federal involvement in establishing baseline standards for coal combustion waste disposal in mining sites and for “beneficial reuse” of such wastes.
In the absence of federal action, coal combustion wastes are being undermanaged, and the harms intended to be avoided by Congress are becoming manifest. USEPA should cease dithering and adopt a comprehensive regulatory program governing management (including “beneficial reuse” and “disposal”) of CCW.
Both USEPA and OSM have flirted with the concept of deferring any regulatory action in light of OSM’s regulatory authority. While SMCRA may provide supplemental authority to regulate the potential adverse consequences of CCW disposal/use at minesites, SMCRA was never intended nor is it structured to be the primary mechanism for assuring that CCW is properly managed.
OSMRE’s proposal to reference existing regulations and to rely on “guidance” documents rather than regulations is not a sufficient or appropriate solution. The failure of EPA to complete the commitment to promulgate regulations establishing minimum standards for coal combustion waste disposal, including "beneficial" uses of coal combustion wastes and the disposal of coal combustion wastes at mine sites, and the proposal by EPA and now OSMRE to instead issue "guidance" raises a number of regulatory and environmental concerns.
It must be understood that the "drivers" concerning the disposal of coal combustion wastes backhauled and disposed of in mine workings (including both underground mine voids and more commonly, in surface mine backfills or spoil/mine waste fills) is not the inherently preferential beneficial attributes of the wastes relative to other backfill materials, or the lack of alternative locations available to utilities and non-utility customers for coal combustion waste disposal. The primary “drivers” are certain companies within the coal industry seeking to improve their relative contractual position with utilities by offering backhauling and disposal as a “service” or incentive in order to attract buyers for their coal in an increasingly competitive marketplace.
* Additionally, where CCW use or disposal at a mine is contemplated, the typical mining permit public notice and public comment period would not be adequate to inform the public. The proposed consideration of disposal / placement of CCWs in mines as being a “significant revision” would trigger only one public notice – plainly insufficient in both content and duration to allow for meaningful public comment. In contrast, the enhanced public participation provisions of RCRA encourage a broad and active program of outreach and public involvement prior to submittal of applications for RCRA permits and during the permit review process. Four newspaper notices does not achieve the active stakeholder involvement recommended by the NAS Committee.
SMCRA is a poor fit as the primary or sole regulatory vehicle for management of CCW use and disposal at minesites, as it was never intended by Congress that OSM take the lead in regulating disposal of CCW, but instead OSM’s authority was supplemental to but not to supplant RCRA and EPA's role in standard setting. Current SMCRA regulations do not fully address issues of proper characterization of and long-term management of CCWs.
CCW disposal in mining areas should not be encouraged or “incentivized” through lax regulation. The placement of uncontrolled and unconsolidated deposits of coal combustion waste in mine backfills, valley or hollow fills, or underground mine voids, is irresponsible, and shifts off-budget the costs of management of wastes that will remain chemically active long after responsibility for their containment is extinguished. Ample hydrologic evidence is available to suggest that co-disposal of coal combustion wastes should be prohibited pending development of sufficient standards for the characterization, management, placement and monitoring of such disposal, and that EPA should move promptly to develop such standards in conjunction with OSMRE.
The placement of CCW in active or abandoned coal mines is, under most conditions, the “disposal of solid waste as those terms are defined in RCRA. According to Section 6903(27) of RCRA, solid waste is defined as:
The National Academies of Science acknowledged the threat posed by disposal of coal ash in mines, landfills and surface impoundments. Both the NRC and EPA have documented extensively the poisoning of groundwater and surface water by coal ash. OSM’s proposed rule attempts to address the large scale disposal of millions of tons of coal ash in active and abandoned mines. Yet it is untenable to delegate the responsibility for such disposal to state mining programs that have no experience with solid or hazardous waste disposal. The above-cited report by the Clean Air Task Force describes the damage that occurs when “coal ash placement” is treated as a reclamation activity and not as waste disposal. As shown in the report, in Pennsylvania, where mandatory safeguards are not in place and the state encourages placement of coal ash in active and abandoned mines, widespread damage to water resources is occurring.
A. Coal Ash “Beneficial Use” Programs Fail to Protect Health and the Environment and Provide Inadequate Opportunity for Public Participation
An examination of the Pennsylvania coal ash beneficial use program is illustrative. The Clean Air Task Force’s 2007 study of Pennsylvania minefills, Impacts on Water Quality from Placement of Coal Combustion Waste in Pennsylvania Coal Mines, describes in detail the deficiencies of the program and reveals the damage that has occurred to groundwater and surface water as a result of ash placement. The following deficiencies were noted in a 2006 review of the state program:
• Failure to require effective, long-term water quality monitoring;
• Failure to require adequate waste characterization prior to placement;
• Failure to require corrective action when contamination is detected;
• Failure to require adequate financial assurance sufficient to perform cleanup;
• Failure to provide opportunity for public participation in permitting decisions;
• Failure of the program to set clear and enforceable goals for coal ash placement.
These deficiencies are not specific to the Pennsylvania program. All states fail to impose a minimum of consistent and essential safeguards at CCW minefills. For example, other state programs have serious deficiencies in their waste characterization requirements. Eight of 23 minefilling states surveyed by EPA failed entirely to set characteristic limits (Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, North Dakota, Washington and Wyoming). Twelve of the states also failed to require mine operators to test waste during mine placement (Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming,). In addition, Pennsylvania is not alone in failing to set enforceable corrective action limits. Of the 23 states surveyed by EPA, none had enforceable limits for coal ash placement permits. Furthermore, all states that engage in minefilling lack financial assurance regulations except Kentucky. Thus the promulgation of minimum federal regulations under RCRA is entirely necessary to ensure that these safeguards are employed in every state. Without national standards, state regulators, faced with enormous financial pressures, engage in a “race to the bottom.”
When power plants dispose of coal ash in mines owned by the plant or located adjacent to the power plant, state solid waste programs often exempt the on-site disposal from permitting requirements. This lower standard of scrutiny results in inadequate protection of health and the environment. It may leave a neighboring community wholly without knowledge of coal ash dumping and without recourse to participate in siting decisions. For example, in Texas, the state that generates the largest amount of coal combustion waste in the nation, a solid waste disposal permit is not required for on-site disposal of coal ash. This disposal frequently occurs in lignite mines. Texas’ capacity planning documentation for its approximately 18 coal-burning power plants, its annual waste summaries, the power plant TRI reports and other regulatory data document that the vast majority of Texas’ coal combustion wastes are being managed and disposed of on-site at the generating facilities. Federal RCRA standards are needed to ensure that onsite disposal at minemouth plants does not escape solid waste permitting, public notice and participation requirements, and other necessary safeguards.
Several states provide permitting exemptions and less stringent requirements when coal ash is disposed in a monofill, as opposed to a mixed waste landfill. In Massachusetts, for example, a coal combustion waste monofill need not comply with the state’s stringent siting regulations and may completely bypass local board of health approval. New York has a similar loophole for monofills. The relaxation of disposal standards endangers health and the environment and prevents public participation in siting, expansion and other permitting decisions. A national rule with uniform standards for solid waste disposal under RCRA is needed to eliminate this problem.
D. Examples of Solid Waste Disposal Regulatory Concerns That Were Not Addressed by OSM’s Proposed Rule
In direct contradiction of the NAS / NRC’s directives, OSM states in the ANOPR that SMCRA regulations are already in place that are applicable to coal ash minefilling and that, with a minor exception, these regulations do not need to be supplemented. OSM cites its Western Region Policy Guidance as a prototype for applying existing SMCRA permitting requirements to coal ash landfills. There are many critical regulatory gaps, however, that are not filled by this scheme. The guidance does not address some of the key problems identified by the NAS Committee that arise from the disposal of coal ash in mines.
Coming at this problem from a different direction, EPA, in April 2002, identified many of those same gaps in a memorandum entitled “Minefill Regulatory Concerns.” In this memorandum, EPA compared the protections afforded by RCRA’s Subtitle D municipal solid waste landfill regulations to current SMCRA regulation over coal ash in mines. While the regulations found in 40 C.F.R Part 258 do not apply to placement of coal ash in mines, EPA imagined the regulation of coal ash based on the framework found in these landfill regulations.
This section summarizes the critical concerns of EPA that arose from the RCRA/SMCRA comparison. The section illustrates how the provisions of RCRA, written explicitly to protect health and the environment from waste disposal contain the necessary specificity that is lacking in current SMCRA regulations. The inadequacy of current SMCRA regulations to control waste disposal cannot be solved by guidance from either OSM or EPA. This inadequacy must be solved by enforceable federal regulations, as EPA and the NRC directed. Thus, it is incumbent upon EPA to promulgate regulations that will fill these gaps, since it is apparent from EPA’s own analysis that the framework to regulate waste disposal in mines is well established in RCRA Subtitle D regulations, as well as in the more stringent Subtitle C regulations. We look forward to EPA’s active participation in this process and to future proposed rulemakings under RCRA.
1.	Groundwater Monitoring:
Some of these residues, however, are valuable for other uses. CCR use in the production of cement and wallboard, for example, results in a needed product for society and reduces the impacts of other resource extraction activities (e.g., gypsum or limestone mining). The value of these residues has produced its own industry association—the American Coal Ash Association—founded to promote the use of these CCR products[.]
The NAS Report devotes an entire chapter (Chapter 6) to the need to characterize thoroughly both the CCW and the coal mine where the waste is to be placed. The Report emphasizes the need for doing a much better job than is currently being done at minefill sites. The Report states that “improved methods for characterization are needed” and outlines those improvements by explaining that “decisions regarding CCR placement cannot be made based on broad generalizations but instead require careful specific characterization of both the CCR material and the mine site in the context of CCR placement.” p. 107. Permits must integrate adequate waste- specific and site-specific characterization for decisionmakers to understand the risks that CCW poses and develop competent monitoring systems to ensure that adverse impacts are addressed. The Report states:
The NAS notes that CCW varies greatly in chemical and mineralogical composition. Proponents of dumping frequently describe CCW as being comprised of non-leaching glass-like beads, however, the Report observes that trace elements “can occur as easily leachable coatings on grain surfaces.” Because of the variability of CCW, the Report states that “to understand the potential risks involved in placing significant volumes of a particular CCR in the mine setting, careful CCR characterization is needed.” (Emphasis added, p. 119, Chapter 6)
States use a variety of tests, primarily leaching tests, to characterize CCW. The NAS Report notes that many of these tests have significant limitations. Chapter 6 finds a host of basic shortcomings in the characterization of CCW being undertaken by the states. None of the CCW leaching tests being used by the states are good predictors of the potential for CCW to contaminate waters at a mine site. The tests are not good predictors because: (1) the tests fail to use leaching fluids that are representative of the range of leaching water in a coal mine; (2) they do not use the liquid (water) to solid (ash) leaching ratios that are in the mine where relatively smaller amounts of water may be moving through much larger, more concentrated quantities of ash; (3) they are done in labs or at ground surface amid lots of atmospheric oxygen unlike “suboxic” leaching conditions that will occur when ash is dumped below the water table that will reestablish in many coal mines; and 4) they are carried out for much shorter periods (usually 18-24 hours) than the indefinite periods for which large volumes of ash are left in disposal sites. To quote from the Report:
Interestingly, the Report shows that the “predetermined criterion” (mentioned in the paragraph above) used as a leaching test limit for whether a CCW can be disposed in a coal mine is dramatically different from state to state. For example, according to Table 6.1 (page 122), the maximum acceptable concentration of arsenic allowed to leach from an ash sample in Illinois before it is rejected for mine placement is equal to the former drinking water standard (DWS) of 0.05 mg/L. Yet the maximum concentration of arsenic that can leach from that ash sample in Pennsylvania is 1.25 mg/L (25 times the old DWS), and the maximum concentration of arsenic that can leach from the sample in West Virginia is 5.0 mg/L (100 times the old DWS and 500 times the current DWS) before the ash would be prohibited from mine placement. West Virginia’s criterion is equal to the level of arsenic that would define a solid waste as a hazardous waste by characteristic. (EPA’s 2000 Regulatory Determination exempts CCW from hazardous waste regulation regardless of its leaching results.) Granted these states are using different leach tests, but the Report does not comment on the degree to which this justifies such different allowable leaching levels from coal ashes. Furthermore Ohio uses the same TCLP test as West Virginia but sets its maximum level of leachable arsenic at 0.30 mg/L, (six times the old DWS).
The Report does point out a central deficiency however by explaining that these standards defining ash as acceptable or not acceptable for mine disposal “do not consider site specific conditions and are applied across an entire state.” (page 121, Sidebar 6.3) By revealing such inconsistencies, Table 6.1 and much of the rest of the discussion of the Report establish a substantive basis for the need for a national minefilling regulation to set requirements that will eliminate such inconsistencies and afford a minimum, acceptable level of protection for all who must live around CCW minefills.
The Report notes that state minefill programs typically characterize the CCW independently of their characterization of the site, performing a leaching test and a bulk analysis on the ash in one part of the permit and discussing the site in another part without ever considering how the CCW might react with the particular site. States should instead be integrating the two into a “site conceptual model” in the permit to predict the risks of the disposal operation more accurately. To quote from the Report:
Not one state minefill program in the country requires that the characterizations of CCW and the disposal site be integrated in a “site conceptual model” much less that any site conceptual model developed in minefill permits be reevaluated annually, for example as additional monitoring data is collected during ash placement. Any new or renewed permit to dump or “beneficially use” ash in a coal mine integrate these characterizations into a conceptual model specific to each disposal site and require its reevaluation by regulators annually or whenever new information emerges suggesting impacts to water quality that were not predicted in the permit.
[t]he utilization of coal combustion by-products (CCB) as bulk fill and mine backfill has raised questions about the potential contamination of surface and groundwater. . . . Leaching is related to the solubility of a specific compound and can be influenced by pH, temperature, complexation, and oxidation/reduction potential. . . . Regulatory tests and standard methods are not necessarily appropriate for leaching tests intended to stimulate natural processes.”
The NAS Report explains that characterizing a site involves developing “a site conceptual model.” The Report states, “[s]ite characterization is a dynamic process of developing and continually refining a site conceptual model, which captures relevant aspects of the site that affect the behavior and potential impacts of CCR’s in the mine environment.” p. 109
The Report also explains that there will be inherent uncertainty in the CCW management decision making process, “given the complex scenario of CCR placement in the mine environment.” The Report proposes several strategies to cope with this uncertainty:
The claim of purported benefits from dumping CCW in coal mines, including the treatment of acid mine drainage (AMD), should never be used to shortchange the characterization of mine sites where CCW is to be “placed.” The Report states:
There is a lot of detailed information needed to understand the hydrogeologic setting at mines that no state is collecting sufficiently in CCW minefill permits. On pages 111-114, the Report lays out the specific data and information that are often overlooked entirely or not provided in enough detail to be useful for decision makers, but that is “essential to site characterization [of the hydrogeologic setting] for CCW placement:
None of these recommendations are properly addressed in the OSMRE proposal to simply reference general permitting and performance standards that were designed for regulation of “surface coal mining operations” and to make them applicable to disposal of non-coal wastes. SMCRA does not provide for ongoing characterization of materials once the permit is issued, nor does it adequately specify test methods, transport of contaminants through the environment (other than a very limited set of parameters that do not include those constituents of most transport concern in CCWs – arsenic, boron, vanadium and selenium).
SMCRA regulations contain specific requirements for the removal and replacement of topsoil. However, stringent topsoil replacement requirements apply only to those areas designated as prime farmland. Some states, like Pennsylvania, allow CCW to be used as a “soil amendment” in reclamation. No fewer than three times in Chapter 7, the NAS Report warns that “uptake of contaminants must be considered when CCW is used as a soil replacement” or additive. p. 135, Chapter 7. When CCW is used as a soil additive to neutralize acidic soil, the NAS Report indicates that “the uptake by vegetation of metals and other contaminants in CCW is a concern, especially when the reclaimed land will be used as farmland.” (p. 138, Chapter 7). Accordingly the Report states that “sufficient soil cover, which is appropriate for the type of vegetation, is necessary to minimize plant uptake. Id.
The NAS states that CCR placement in mines should be designed to minimize reactions with water and flow of water through CCRs. According to the Report, “Regardless of whether the CCR is placed in an active or an abandoned coal mine, the issue of limiting the interactions of CCRs with groundwater should be a priority.” (p. 136, Chapter 7. The utilization of CCRs for soil amendments or for AMD treatment contemplate hydration of the CCRs, and the fate and transport over time of constituents in the CCRs must be evaluated under a range of pH conditions – requirements that are not embedded in the existing SMCRA regulations for soil amendments.
The Report notes that many states have regulations requiring CCW to be placed a minimum distance above the regional or seasonal water table. However the Report emphasizes that these “high and dry” requirements “do not guarantee that there will be no interaction with groundwater.”
1.	Regulatory Framework for Monitoring
The NAS gives reasons for some of this variability by explaining the basic objectives of the two different statutes. While RCRA is concerned with the containment of hazardous wastes, SMCRA is meant to govern the reclamation of mine lands. Thus, RCRA is more prescriptive in many ways than SMCRA, for example imposing specific requirements on the groundwater monitoring network design; sampling and analysis procedures; surface water monitoring; and constituents sampled. While the SMCRA regulations allow a regulatory agency to impose requirements similar to those required in RCRA, adoption of more stringent rules is not required, and in states with “no more stringent than” clauses, imposition of more prescriptive requirements might be determined unlawful absent federal lead. Specific deficiencies in SMCRA that were noted by the committee were:
- The surface and groundwater monitoring plans required by SMCRA “do not specifically address the number and location of wells, spatial coverage of wells or duration of monitoring”
- SMCRA monitoring rules do have a minimum requirement for monitoring of certain constituents, but “they do not address the full suite of contaminants that might be expected to leach from CCRs in a minefill setting”
Thus, merely referencing groundwater monitoring requirements under existing SMCRA regulations would be wholly inadequate. 2.	Assessment of Existing Monitoring Programs
[T]he committee concludes that the number of monitoring wells, the spatial coverage of wells, and the duration of monitoring at CCR minefills are generally insufficient to accurately assess the migration of contaminants.” (p 145.)
a.	Defining Subsurface Flow Paths
b.	Number and Placement of Wells and Length of Monitoring
The committee found that monitoring networks were “inadequate to accurately assess the movement of contaminants within a reasonable timeframe.” At some sites there were large distances (up to a mile) between the monitoring network and the CCW placement. In these cases, monitoring over a limited time period would not detect a problem if one existed. In addition, the committee noted concerns with the locations of upgradient or background monitors which are critical to collect long-term baseline data for comparison to data collected after CCW placement.
c.	Characterization of Field Leachate
d.	Constituents Analyzed in Surface and Groundwater
e.	Information and Data Management
3.	Recommended Monitoring Strategies
In general, the committee recommends that the number and location of monitoring wells, the frequency and duration of sampling, and the water quality parameters selected for analysis be carefully determined for each site, in order to accurately assess the present and potential movement of CCR-associated contaminants.” (p. 146.)
2.	The number of monitoring wells and the spatial coverage of the wells should be consistent with the potential for material damage to groundwater. 3.	Wells should be installed at multiple locations and multiple depths concentrated in the direction of probably groundwater flow with additional wells located upgradient to measure background water quality.
4.	Well screens should be placed in a variety of materials including the CCR, coal spoils, blended materials and undisturbed sites. At least one, preferably two wells should be placed directly in the CCR. Results of the CCR monitoring should be compared to the site modeling projections.
5.	Downstream wells should be located along predicted flow paths and should be placed with an understanding of travel time of contaminants to reach these points. Several monitoring points should be established downgradient of the CCR placement that will yield data during the established bonding period.
6.	The duration of groundwater monitoring should be addressed on a site-specific basis. Terminating groundwater monitoring at the time of bond release may underestimate contaminant release from many sites.
7.	The frequency of monitoring should reflect the variation in chemistry expected at a site. Where groundwater velocity is high, sampling should occur more frequently.
8.	A rigorous CCR characterization should be performed to identify potentially leachable contaminants. Results of this characterization should inform the field monitoring program.
3.	The frequency of surface water monitoring should capture the change over time of the upgradient background condition plus any change in point or non-point discharges. 4.	Surface water monitoring should continue for the same duration as groundwater monitoring. 5.	Parameters measured should include water chemistry (pH, temperature, conductivity, major cations and anions, hardness, total organic carbon, CCR-related metals), and suspended sediments. Constituents should be analyzed from both filtered and non-filtered samples. 6.	In addition, hydraulic monitoring data may need to be collected at every site where water chemistry is monitored.
As outlined above, OSMRE’s preferred approach is to simply adopt a regulation identifying existing surface mining regulations that would be deemed applicable to coal combustion waste disposal at active and abandoned mines, rather than to develop a comprehensive set of regulations for characterization of the material, the site, fate and transport of the constituents in the coal combustion wastes, and other components of an effective enforceable program as outlined by the NAS.
It is past time for both OSMRE and EPA to begin the scoping process under the National Environmental Policy Act for an Environmental Impact Statement on the human and ecological consequences of the proposed approaches to federal management of such wastes. The decisions by EPA not to follow-through on the development of a regulatory program for coal combustion waste management, and the proposal by OSMRE to merely reference existing general mining regulations rather than to respond to the NAS recommendations for a specific program for characterization and management of such wastes, are under any fair interpretation of the phrase “major federal actions” that will significantly affect the human environment.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires all federal agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C). The statutory delineation of when NEPA applies is intentionally broad. Scientists’ Institute for Public Information, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commission, 481 F.2d 1079, 1088 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Federal actions that potentially fall under the gamut of “major Federal actions” include revisions to agency rules, regulations, plans, policies and procedures. Id. at 1088; 40 C.F.R. §1508.18(a). In fact, NEPA regulations specifically identify one category of typical federal actions as including:
Adoption of official policy, such as rules, regulations, and interpretations adopted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.; …[and] formal documents establishing an agency’s policies which will result in or substantially alter agency programs.
OSMRE’s announced intention to revise its existing regulations to allow for the placement of CCWs on active and abandoned mine sites and to draft additional guidance documents on the placement and handling of CCWs is unquestionably a federal action for the purposes of NEPA as it proposes to revise agency regulations, create new policy and procedures, and adopt formal documents which will substantially and substantively alter the agency’s SMCRA program. 40 C.F.R. §1508.1; National Wildlife Federation v. Babbitt, 835 F.Supp. 654, 670 (D.D.C. 1993).
A federal action is considered “major” whenever it has or may have significant environmental impacts. See 40 C.F.R. §1508.18 (“Major reinforces but does not have a meaning independent of significantly (§1508.27).”). The determination of whether an action may significantly impact the environment requires the consideration of numerous factors related to the context of the action and the severity of impact. 40 C.F.R. §1508.27.
“In general, "new or revised agency rules, regulations ... or procedures," … constitute "major federal actions" requiring an EA or EIS pursuant to NEPA.” California v. Dept. of Agriculture, 459 F.Supp.2d at 894 (citations omitted). Consistent with the general rule regarding the application of NEPA to agency rulemaking, the proposed OSMRE rulemaking would constitute a major federal action triggering NEPA review. The OSM has posited that its proposed rulemaking concerning the use of CCWs in coal mine reclamation was urged by the National Research Council (NRC), which had acknowledged the possible significant adverse effects of the placement of CCWs and the need for federal involvement in the regulation of this waste. OSMRE has already acknowledged that it has undertaken this rulemaking to affect public health and safety. 40 C.F.R. §1508.27(b)(2).
The proposal to craft rules allowing the disposal and placement of coal combustion residues in active and abandoned coal mines is one that is fraught with environmental justice concerns. Despite the wealth realized from those who extract coal from this nation’s coal-bearing regions, the wealth is not realized by the residents who live downhill, downstream and downwind of the mining activities; rather many of the coal-producing communities have significant low-income populations and suffer disproportionately the effects of coal extraction, transportation and beneficiation. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations demands that each Federal agency must make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minorities and low-income populations. 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994. Executive Order 12898 requires OSMRE and EPA to take into account the environmental justice consequences of their actions. Id. EPA states that its goals are “to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, income, or net worth bears disproportionately high and adverse human health an environmental impacts as a result of EPA’s policies, programs and activities.” 72 Fed. Reg. 14214.
It is incumbent upon OSMRE and EPA to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental impacts on low-income populations in coalfield communities that could be adversely affected in (a) diminished air quality associated with transportation and placement of coal ashes; (b) diminished surface and groundwater quality associated with contamination caused by leaching of constituents from disposed of or “beneficially used” coal ash; (c) diminished use of active or abandoned coal mine properties from use of such properties for long-term waste disposal. Both EPA and OSMRE guidance demand that environmental justice issues be considered at all stages of policy, guidance and regulation development, beginning with preliminary efforts. The agencies should, in consultation with the Office of Civil Rights, evaluate the subject matter for the possibility of disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income communities, the ecological, human health (taking into account subsistence patterns and sensitive populations) and socio-economic impacts of the proposed regulatory approach in minority and low-income communities; and at all critical stages of development, there should be meaningful input from stakeholders, including members of the environmental justice community and members of the regulated community.
There is little doubt that OSMRE’s proposal raises significant environmental justice issues. The suggestion in the Advance Notice that disposal of coal combustion wastes would be appropriate at minesites even if for no beneficial purpose since the lands were already disturbed, adds insult to injury for landowners whose lives are adversely affected by the mining activities. Their expectation that mining will be a temporary use of land resulting in proper reclamation, and that those mining activities will not result in a determination from a federal agency that they should also be obligated to host the dumping of coal combustion wastes, is entitled to the same protection as that of individuals residing outside of the coalfields.