1
These
meeting
notes
are
summary
in
nature
and
should
be
read
in
conjunction
with
the
meeting
materials,
overheads,
and
handouts
included
on
the
meeting
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
States/
Tribes/
Federal
Meeting
on
Mine
Placement
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
San
Antonio,
TX
November
14­
15,
2001
Opening
Remarks
(
Greg
Conrad,
Executive
Director,
IMCC)

Greg
Conrad
welcomed
attendees
and
provided
a
brief
history
of
IMCC's
participation
in
discussions
concerning
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
coal
combustion
wastes
(
CCW).
2
He
noted
that
a
meeting
in
May
of
this
year
opened
the
dialog
among
EPA,
other
federal
agencies
(
OSM
and
DOE),
and
State
regulators
(
including
tribal
regulators)
to
assess
mine
placement
of
CCW.
In
August
of
this
year,
State
regulators
met
to
continue
discussions
and
drafted
a
discussion
outline
to
convey
the
direction
they
felt
CCW
mine
placement
policy
should
go.
He
noted
that
his
use
of
the
term
"
State"
includes
Tribes
as
well.

Part
I:
EPA's
Minefill
Risk
Assessment/
Modeling
("
MRAM")
Project
(
Robert
Wahlstrom,
DPRA)

The
purpose
of
this
presentation
was
to
provide
a
status
report
on
EPA's
MRAM
project
and
explain
its
relationship
to
the
EPA
regulatory
development
effort.
Robert
Wahlstrom
explained
that
EPA
has
contracted
to
DPRA
the
task
of
gathering
the
multitude
of
ground­
water
studies
of
individual
CCW
minefill
sites
that
exist
nationwide
into
one
computerized,
sortable
database.
The
goal
is
to
use
the
data
to
understand
the
nature
of
existing
minefilling
activities
and
their
impact
on
ground
water
and
to
more
accurately
assess
what
data
needs
exist
or
what
areas
of
control
should
be
"
guiding
principles"
for
ground­
water
protection.
EPA
emphasized
that
the
database
effort
is
currently
in
a
very
early
stage
of
data
gathering,
and
quality
assurance
efforts
have
not
been
performed.
It
is
on
a
separate
track
from
the
CCW
minefill
rulemaking
activity
and
will
most
likely
not
be
finished
before
any
proposed
rule
 
making
it
most
useful
for
the
implementation
stage
when
developing
policy,
rather
than
when
developing
the
regulatory
Joint
IMCC­
EPA
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
San
Antonio
Page
2
direction.
The
system,
which
distinguishes
between
underground
and
surface
mines,
will
be
tested
for
a
few
sites
and
then
the
full
range
of
data
that
is
available
nationwide
will
be
added.

The
database
is
an
Excel
spreadsheet
that
includes:
°
Data
for
69
mine
sites
as
provided
by
States,
OSM,
and
DOE.
The
data
is
primarily
from
mines
but
also
some
power
plants.
°
Site
characteristics,
such
as:
mine
characteristics,
CCW
placement
characteristics,
mine
site
characteristics.
°
Ash
and
leachate
characteristics,
such
as:
CCW
source,
solid
CCW
chemical
characteristics
(
i.
e.,
whole
waste
concentration),
CCW
leachate
chemical
characteristics.
°
Ground­
water
data
summary,
including:
selected
wells,
sample
date,
constituent,
average
concentration.
°
Ground­
water
data
detail,
a
"
dump"
of
the
raw
data
available.
°
Like­
site
characteristics,
a
summary
page
that
can
select
parameters
to
categorize
like
sites
together.
Many
changes
have
been
suggested
for
this
summary.
°
The
data
do
not
include
the
source
of
the
coal
that
generated
the
ash.

Future
actions
will
include:
°
DPRA:
 
Changes
to
the
data
and
categorization
procedures
based
on
recent
input
and
any
additional
input
(
i.
e.,
new
data
or
corrections)
from
the
States.
One
suggestion
is
to
distinguish
the
source
of
the
coal
and
dates
of
ash
generation
(
e.
g.,
pre­
NOx
control
or
post­
NOx
control).
 
Addition
of
definitions
for
the
reader.
°
IMCC/
EPA:
Provide
the
States
with
the
list
of
69
sites
currently
included
in
the
database
and
an
explanation
of
the
type
of
additional
data
needed
(
Mr.
Walstrom
noted
that
complete
data
is
not
available
for
each
site
listed).
°
States:
States
willing
to
provide
EPA
with
additional
data,
comments
regarding
data,
or
the
names
of
appropriate
State
contact
persons,
should
send
that
information
to:

Mike
Clipper
USEPA
(
5307W)
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW
Washington,
DC
20460
Tel
703­
308­
8763;
Fax
703­
308­
0509
clipper.
mike@
epa.
gov
Joint
IMCC­
EPA
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
San
Antonio
Page
3
3Illinois
classifies
coal
combustion
material
as
coal
combustion
waste
if
disposed
and
coal
combustion
byproduct
if
beneficially
used.
Part
II:
Presentation
of
Illinois
Data
Management
System
for
Mine
Placement
Activities
(
Dan
Wheeler,
Illinois
Department
of
Natural
Resources)

Dan
Wheeler
is
the
staff
hydrologist
for
the
Illinois
Department
of
Natural
Resources's
Office
of
Mines
&
Minerals
and
is
responsible
for
managing
all
data
that
come
into
the
office
related
to
mining
activities,
including:
°
Surface
water
data
as
required
by
SMCRA
and
the
NPDES
permitting
programs
°
Ground­
water
data
as
required
by
SMCRA
and
State
regulations
(
35
IAC
620)
°
Coal
combustion
material3
data
as
required
by
SMCRA
and
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
(
for
coal
combustion
waste
(
CCW)
 
27
parameters,
including
19
metals;
for
coal
combustion
byproducts
(
CCB)
 
19
metals)

Mr.
Wheeler
exhibited
the
user
interface
and
described
the
capabilities
of
the
Ground­
water
Quality
Database
they
developed
and
maintain
in­
house:
°
The
system
is
a
Paradox­
based
database
that
contains
ground­
water
monitoring
data.
The
database
includes
all
of
the
ground­
water
monitoring
wells
at
mine
placement
sites.
The
relevant
data
(
such
as
well
depth,
casing
elevation,
etc.)
has
been
entered
in
the
database
and
confirmed
by
the
operator
for
about
20%
of
the
wells.
°
Includes
background
information
such
as
well
depth,
ground
elevation,
casing.
°
Includes
data
on
required
monitoring
frequency
(
annually,
bi­
annually,
etc.).
°
Organizes
data
into
three
data
sets:
1
(
SMCRA
parameters),
2
(
35
IAC
620
parameters),
and
3
(
water
elevation).
°
Has
the
ability
to
graph
selected
parameters
in
order
to
see
trends.
°
Can
calculate
statistics
for
wells
including
mean,
standard
deviation,
minimum,
and
maximum.
°
Can
generate
inspector/
regulated
operator
reports
showing
all
the
requirements
for
a
selected
facility.
This
element
is
not
yet
completed.
°
Can
generate
ground­
water
reports
(
raw
data
table
for
each
well).
°
Plan
to
allow
the
electronic
submission
of
data
and
will
include
comments,
such
as
when
the
well
was
sealed.
°
Other
plans
include:
1)
incorporating
information
on
ground­
water
classes,
2)
describing
the
types
of
materials
received
by
the
site
(
e.
g.,
slurry,
CCW,
or
CCB),
3)
showing
the
groundwater
standards
for
each
site
on
the
graphs,
and
4)
completing
data
entry
for
all
monitored
wells.

Mr.
Wheeler
noted
that
another
initiative,
started
about
4
years
ago
but
still
in
its
infancy,
is
a
database
for
the
CCW
characteristics
data
from
the
Ash
Report
Data
Entry
Form
which
is
required
quarterly.
A
goal
is
eventually
to
receive
this
data
electronically.
More
attention
will
be
given
to
this
database
once
ground­
water
database
is
done.
Joint
IMCC­
EPA
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
San
Antonio
Page
4
Mr.
Wheeler
also
stated
that
they
are
in
the
process
of
doing
GIS
well
mapping.
The
GIS
tool
will
enable
the
user
to
simply
click
on
a
well
and
pull
up
all
data
in
the
database
for
that
particular
well.
Additional
data
layers
such
as
county
boundaries,
roads,
and
streams
will
enable
the
user
to
get
a
clear
picture
of
location.

Part
III:
Review
and
Discussion
of
EPA
Reports
on
State
Regulations
EPA
Presentation
(
Bonnie
Robinson,
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste)

In
advance
of
the
meeting,
EPA,
through
IMCC,
provided
copies
of
two
draft
reports
to
the
participants:
°
"
Regulation
and
Policy
Concerning
Mine
Placement
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
in
26
States"
°
"
Mine
Placement
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
 
State
Program
Elements
Analysis"

Bonnie
Robinson
explained
the
two
EPA
reports
are
working
drafts
that
are
being
shared
with
State
and
Tribal
regulatory
authorities
for
their
review
and
comment
to
EPA
regarding
completeness
and
accuracy.
She
emphasized
that
the
documents
are
not
an
evaluation
of
state
programs
and
do
not
comment
on
their
adequacy.
They
are
just
summaries
of
the
information
available
to
EPA.

Regulation
and
Policy
Concerning
Mine
Placement
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
in
26
States
(
the
larger
report):
°
A
detailed
overview
of
State
regulations
and
policy
(
under
both
mining
and
solid
waste
programs)
concerning
CCW
mine
placement,
with
an
emphasis
on
coal
mines.
°
Includes
26
States
that
were
selected
on
the
basis
of
number
of
coal
mines.
°
Summarizes
the
elements
of
state
programs
that
are
applicable
to
CCW
mine
placement.
°
Table
1
is
an
overview
of
Federal
SMCRA
in
relation
to
elements.
°
Tables
2
and
3
have
been
updated
and
expanded
upon
in
the
second
report
(
see
below).
°
Shaded
cells
in
the
State
tables
indicate
requirements
that
are
different
from/
in
addition
to
SMCRA
requirements.

Mine
Placement
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
 
State
Program
Elements
Analysis
(
the
smaller
report):
°
Summarizes
the
CCW
mine
placement
regulations/
policy
from
the
detailed
report.
°
Has
been
referred
to
as
a
"
gaps
analysis,"
but
EPA
is
not
making
a
judgement
that
all
of
the
elements
identified
must
be
addressed
for
a
program
to
be
effective.
°
Lists
the
research
gaps
that
EPA
needs
to
fill
for
each
program
element.
°
Shaded
columns
indicate
that
the
research
for
that
component
is
still
in
progress.

EPA
would
appreciate
specific
comments
or
edits
on
either
document
by
January
1,
2002.
These
comments
may
be
directed
to:
Joint
IMCC­
EPA
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
San
Antonio
Page
5
Bonnie
Robinson
USEPA
(
5306W)
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW
Washington,
DC
20460
Tel
703­
308­
8429;
Fax
703­
308­
8686
robinson.
bonnie@
epa.
gov
OSM
Presentation
(
Kimery
Vories,
OSM)

°
Comments/
views
provided
are
Mr.
Vories'
and
are
not
those
necessarily
of
OSM.
°
Complimented
EPA
on
the
time,
resources,
and
effort
spent
thus
far
on
this
issue,
including
site
visits,
damage
case
assessments,
analyzing
SMCRA,
and
looking
at
state
programs.
°
A
fundamental
problem
is
that
EPA
looks
at
the
issue
much
differently
than
OSM.
EPA
seems
to
be
viewing
CCW
minefilling
as
if
the
practice
were
similar
to
a
solid
waste
landfill.
OSM
views
the
practice
as
a
beneficial
use
as
part
of
the
mining
and
reclamation
process
(
for
such
things
as
fill
material,
alkaline
addition,
soil
amendment,
and
grouting
material
in
underground
mines
to
prevent
AMD
or
subsidence).
This
is
illustrated
by
the
tables
in
the
EPA
reports
that
have
categories
corresponding
to
controls
one
would
expect
to
find
on
a
solid
waste
landfill.
°
The
perceived
"
gaps"
in
state
programs
are
really
just
differences.
These
differences
are
due
to
how
States
administer
their
SMCRA
programs.
Some
States
have
more
specific
requirements
for
CCW
than
others.
However,
the
basic
tenets
of
the
State
programs
under
SMCRA
are
the
same
and,
as
such,
all
address
the
categories
delineated
in
the
EPA
reports.
°
The
SMCRA­
based
approach
sets
minimum
performance
standards
with
the
key
being
that
the
Federal
government
establishes
the
minimum.
If
EPA
develops
a
prescriptive
regulation
for
CCW
mine
placement
similar
to
that
for
solid
waste
landfills,
it
would
eliminate
all
existing
beneficial
uses.
An
alternative
would
be
to
propose
regulations
to
complement
the
performance
standard
approach
of
SMCRA,
or
conclude
that
new
regulations
are
not
needed
because
the
activity
can
be
sufficiently
covered
under
SMCRA.
°
Mr.
Vories
stated
that
OSM
would
probably
be
supportive
of
proposing
changes
to
the
SMCRA
program,
if
the
changes
are
based
on
facts.
However,
there
is
no
evidence
of
a
problem
at
SMCRA­
regulated
mine
sites.

Reactions
from
the
States
°
In
Pennsylvania,
the
solid
waste
and
mining
programs
have
worked
together.
The
State
questioned
whether
the
SMCRA
regulations
look
at
items
like
ash
characteristics
and
whether
the
SMCRA
performance
standards
would
address
it.
What
does
SMCRA
consider
to
be
toxic?
°
In
response,
Mr.
Vories
stated
that
the
SMCRA
performance
standard
does
not
allow
degradation
of
water
quality,
so
the
States
should
do
whatever
is
needed
to
avoid
that.
This
could
mean
an
ash
leachate
test.
The
framework
is
there
for
States
to
determine
if
the
CCW
is
toxic
or
benign
in
the
context
of
the
performance
standards.
Whether
the
ash
is
going
back
Joint
IMCC­
EPA
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
San
Antonio
Page
6
to
the
mine
as
beneficial
use
or
as
disposal,
the
activity
is
subject
to
the
performance
standards
under
SMCRA.
°
Bill
Pounds,
representing
both
ASTSWMO
and
Pennsylvania,
stated
that
Pennsylvania
has
developed
criteria
for
the
type
of
CCW
that
can
be
beneficially
used.
However,
minimum
standards
that
are
applicable
nationwide
may
be
needed.
Not
all
States
have
the
technical
expertise
to
develop
their
own
standards.
°
The
Navajo
Nation
emphasized
the
need
for
EPA
oversight
over
mine
placement
of
CCW.
°
Texas
expressed
concern
about
coordination
between
mining
and
solid
waste
agencies
in
some
States
and
the
need
for
clear
definition
of
which
activities
are
subject
to
which
jurisdiction.
°
There
also
are
concerns
about
the
standards
applicable
at
sites
where
SMCRA
does
not
apply
(
e.
g.,
non­
coal
mines,
abandoned
mine
lands).
°
EPA
stated
that
the
Agency
has
not
decided
whether
a
non­
coal
mine
such
as
a
quarry
would
be
considered
a
mine
or
a
landfill
(
there
is
a
separate
track
for
regulations
regarding
the
disposal
of
CCW
in
landfills
and
surface
impoundments).

Some
suggestions
were
made
about
possible
approaches:
°
Exempt
SMCRA­
regulated
sites
and
focus
on
addressing
other
sites.
°
Exempt
abandoned
mine
lands
sites
if
they
are
managed
under
programs
equivalent
to
SMCRA.
°
In
concert
with
States,
develop
science­
based
guidance
for
disposal
and
beneficial
use
of
CCW
on
all
non­
SMCRA
regulated
mine
sites.
°
In
concert
with
States,
develop
guidelines,
not
regulation,
based
on
scientific
research
and
based
on
the
recommendations
of
experienced
States.

Part
IV:
Overview
of
EPA's
Program
of
Site
Visits
and
Interviews
(
Bonnie
Robinson,
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste)

EPA
is
conducting
a
program
of
site
visits
and
interviews
with
individual
state
offices
that
regulate
mine
placement
of
CCW.
The
visits
will
include
touring
coal
and
non­
coal
mine
sites
and
meeting
with
regulators
to
fully
discuss
their
programs:
°
EPA
has
already
visited
Illinois
and
the
Navajo
Nation
and
plans
to
visit
seven
other
States
by
Spring
2002.
°
The
basis
for
selection
of
the
States
to
be
visited
was:
<
Number
of
CCW
minefill
projects
<
Regional
coverage
<
Non­
coal
mines
minefill
activity
<
Citizen
complaints
were
not
considered
°
EPA
has
developed
a
detailed
discussion
guide
with
12
areas
of
information
to
collect.

At
this
stage
in
EPA's
regulatory
determination
process,
the
Agency
is
still
gathering
information.
EPA
has
until
March
2003
to
develop
its
proposal.
Regardless
of
what
direction
Joint
IMCC­
EPA
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
San
Antonio
Page
7
the
Agency
chooses
(
regulate,
don't
regulate),
they
will
need
the
data
to
support
this
choice
and
the
visits
are
instrumental
in
providing
this
data
 
they
have
helped
EPA
to
understand
CCW
placement
practices
and
regulatory
programs
on
a
site­
by­
site
basis.

Part
V:
EPA's
Perspective
on
CCW
Minefilling
(
Truett
Degeare,
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste)

Truett
Degeare
acknowledged
that
EPA
comes
at
the
CCW
minefilling
issue
from
a
different
perspective
than
OSM
 
that
of
solid
waste
disposal
as
regulated
under
RCRA.
While
there
are
some
similarities
between
RCRA
and
SMCRA
(
they
were
enacted
by
the
same
Congress),
the
Agency
is
still
learning
about
the
SMCRA
program.
It
is
clear
that,
like
RCRA,
a
lot
of
the
details
are
not
spelled
out
in
the
statute,
but
implemented
through
authorized
State
programs.
EPA
appreciates
the
assistance
thus
far
in
the
learning
process.

To
familiarize
participants
with
EPA's
perspective,
Mr.
Degeare
provided
them
with
a
copy
of
the
ground­
water
monitoring
and
corrective
action
portions
of
EPA's
RCRA
Part
258
regulations
for
non­
hazardous,
municipal
solid
waste
landfills.
He
emphasized
that,
in
presenting
these
regulations,
EPA
is
not
suggesting
that
this
program
is
a
model
for
CCW
minefill
regulation.
The
purpose
of
this
exercise
is
only
to
identify
for
the
States
those
concepts
that
the
Agency
has
considered
important
in
other
regulatory
contexts.

The
following
are
some
key
components:
°
RCRA
focuses
heavily
on
a
federal­
State
partnership
and
the
program
depends
on
State
involvement.
°
Relevant
point
of
compliance:
States
define
where
this
should
be;
Part
258
requires
only
that
it
be
within
150
meters
of
the
waste
management
unit
boundary.
°
Ground­
water
monitoring
systems:
Part
258
describes
what
is
appropriate
in
a
ground­
water
monitoring
system,
including
placement
of
wells,
sampling
and
analytical
procedures,
chain
of
custody,
etc.
°
Tiered
ground­
water
monitoring
and
analysis:
Part
258
includes
three
levels
of
monitoring:
<
Semi­
annual
detection
monitoring
for
indicator
parameters.
<
Assessment
monitoring,
which
is
conducted
if
there
is
a
statistically
significant
change
found
for
the
indicator
parameters.
This
includes
monitoring
for
additional
parameters,
establishing
background
concentrations,
and
establishing
ground­
water
protection
standards.
If
no
further
problems
are
found,
a
facility
can
return
to
detection
monitoring.
<
Assessment
of
corrective
measures,
which
is
conducted
if
statistically
significant
exceedences
of
the
ground­
water
protection
standards
are
found.
A
key
element
here
is
public
involvement
 
the
facility
must
discuss
results
in
a
public
meeting.
°
Selection
and
implementation
of
corrective
action:
a
corrective
remedy
should
be
selected
based
on
consideration
for
potential
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment,
consideration
of
potential
future
use
of
the
aquifer,
and
interaction
with
the
State
agency
and
the
public.
Joint
IMCC­
EPA
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
San
Antonio
Page
8
Corrective
actions
are
complete
when
compliance
with
ground­
water
protection
standards
is
achieved.
Financial
assurance
for
corrective
action
can
then
be
released.

Reactions
from
the
States
°
IMCC
commented
that
national
ash
characterization
guidelines
could
be
developed
at
the
State
level.
States
can
help
EPA
build
a
data
base
in
order
to
make
decisions,
as
was
successfully
done
with
remining
°
In
Pennsylvania,
ground­
water
monitoring
standards,
and
requirements
for
ash
placement
and
compaction
were
cited
as
examples
of
criteria
that
the
mining
and
solid
waste
programs
both
agreed
on.
°
Virginia
commented
that
EPA
should
focus
on
non­
coal
mine
placement
and
defer
to
SMCRA
for
coal
mine
placement.
°
ASTSWMO
described
positive
results
while
working
with
EPA
on
guidance
for
nonhazardous
industrial
waste
management
and
stated
that
this
could
be
used
as
a
model.

Part
VI:
State
Round­
Table
Discussion
Greg
Conrad
asked
each
State
to
reflect
on
the
following
questions:
1)
What
is
your
perspective
on
where
we
are
in
the
process
and
what
it
means
to
your
State?
2)
What
is
your
reaction
to
the
present
data
and
information
gathering
process?
3)
Where
would
you
like
to
see
the
process
go
next?

Illinois
°
Illinois
has
State
laws
that
implement
SMCRA
for
coal
mines
and
also
regulate
non­
coal
mines
effectively.
°
It
is
important
for
EPA
to
recognize
that
States
like
Illinois
and
Pennsylvania
have
progressive
programs.
These
programs
have
made
self
corrections
as
they
have
developed
over
the
years,
and
they
work
well.
Illinois
would
like
to
see
the
process
accommodate
the
programs
that
currently
exist
and
function
well.
°
Illinois
agrees
that
there
should
be
minimum
requirements
for
approval
of
any
type
of
placement
at
a
coal
mine
site.
These
include
characterizing
the
material,
characterizing
the
site,
and
establishing
points
of
compliance.
Illinois
uses
State
law
to
implement
these
requirements,
but
understands
that
other
States
may
not
have
such
law.
Flexibility
is
important
to
accommodate
ash­
specific
and
site­
specific
conditions.
°
Illinois
appreciates
that
data
collection
is
essential
because
EPA
has
to
base
its
determination
on
science.
°
Illinois
would
like
EPA
to
identify
any
specific
deficiencies
they
perceive
and
would
like
the
opportunity
to
respond
to
these.
Joint
IMCC­
EPA
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
San
Antonio
Page
9
North
Dakota
°
North
Dakota's
Department
of
Health
requires
special
use
permits
with
design
requirements,
including
clay
liners,
and
monitoring
requirements.
°
Beneficial
uses
at
mine
sites
are
important
and
effective.
°
North
Dakota
appreciates
the
need
for
data
collection
and
understands
that
it
will
take
time.
°
EPA
needs
to
collect
data
on
more
sites
and
involve
the
States
to
insure
the
data
is
accurate.
For
example,
the
North
Dakota
site
included
in
the
MRAM
data
is
pre­
regulation
and
may
not
reflect
current
practices.

Missouri
°
Missouri
is
concerned
that
the
focus
has
been
too
much
on
coal
mine
sites
and
not
on
noncoal
mines,
particularly
since
SMCRA
regulates
coal
but
not
non­
coal
mines.
°
In
Missouri,
while
there
is
currently
little
non­
coal
mine
placement,
there
also
are
no
water
monitoring
requirements
for
non­
coal
mines.
°
EPA
should
provide
guidance
on
what
data
is
needed
for
MRAM
and
direction
on
how
to
provide
it.

Montana
°
Montana
is
new
to
the
placement
of
CCW
in
mine
sites
 
there
is
only
one
small
site
in
western
Montana.
The
State
found
problems
in
down­
gradient
wells,
but
cannot
attribute
these
to
mine
placement
of
CCW.
°
CCW
is
exempt
from
solid
waste
regulation
in
Montana,
so
the
practice
must
be
regulated
by
the
mining
agency.
The
State
may
need
a
formal
process
soon,
with
the
increasing
emphasis
on
coal
as
an
energy
source.
Currently,
no
guidelines
or
regulations
in
place.
°
Montana
is
concerned
that
all
of
the
available
data
is
not
reflected
yet
in
MRAM.
°
Montana
appreciates
any
guidance
that
will
help
the
State
develop
its
program,
but
thinks
that
SMCRA
provides
sufficient
authority
to
implement
this
program.

Pennsylvania
­
Mining
°
Pennsylvania
is
fortunate
in
that
the
State
has
a
pre­
SMCRA
program
and
a
non­
coal
mine
program
that
mimics
SMCRA.
°
Waste
characterization
is
critical
in
Pennsylvania
because
CCW
is
received
from
both
within
and
outside
of
the
State
with
variability
among
sources
(
e.
g.,
ash
from
western
coals).
°
Pennsylvania
has
extensive
data
to
provide
for
MRAM,
but
it
will
require
a
visit
from
EPA
to
provide
these
data.
Pennsylvania
will
have
some
comments
on
EPA's
regulatory
documents.
°
In
analyzing
data,
it
is
important
to
examine
long­
term
trends
and
not
focus
on
outliers.
°
Pennsylvania
would
like
to
see
some
agreement
on
what
to
do
next.
This
should
be
in
the
form
of
minimum
guidelines
that
are
acceptable
to
all
parties
and
allow
States
to
develop
their
own
programs.
No
nationwide
regulatory
package
will
be
able
to
account
for
the
variability
between
States.
°
It
is
critical
that
States
not
lose
the
capability
to
facilitate
reclamation
of
mine
lands
using
CCW.
Joint
IMCC­
EPA
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
San
Antonio
Page
10
Pennsylvania
­
Solid
Waste
(
Also
representing
ASTSWMO)
°
States
are
not
interested
in
seeing
another
RCRA­
like
regulatory
program,
but
guidance
would
be
helpful
for
States,
particularly
those
without
developed
programs.
States
do
not
want
something
that
will
override
existing
programs.
°
Flexibility
is
important.
Even
within
Pennsylvania,
there
are
significant
variations
among
sites.
While
Pennsylvania's
requirements
provide
a
minimum
standard
and
allow
for
this
variability,
they
are
probably
not
appropriate
for
every
State.
°
Pennsylvania
believes
ash
characterization
is
critical,
because
not
all
ash
is
appropriate
for
placement
without
controls.
°
After
data
are
collected,
it
is
also
important
how
the
data
are
compared
and
analyzed.
Individual
peer
review
of
the
data
should
be
applied
to
establish
the
data's
validity.
°
One
concern
is
how
the
outcome
of
this
process
will
be
viewed
by
the
public.
The
outcome
should
address
the
technical
needs
of
the
States
and
the
concerns
of
the
public.
Just
indicating
that
SMCRA
incorporates
performance
standards
will
not
address
these
concerns
 
the
substance
of
the
standards
and
how
they
are
implemented
must
be
articulated.

Texas
­
Solid
Waste
°
Texas
believes
the
existing
SMCRA
and
RCRA
State
programs
are
sufficiently
protective.
If
EPA
adds
another
layer
of
regulatory
requirements,
they
risk
losing
the
benefits
of
existing
reuse/
recycling
projects.
°
Texas
understands
that
EPA
must
be
able
to
respond
to
public
concerns
and
needs
the
data
to
do
so.
°
Sufficient
data
exists
to
support
exempting
certain
uses
of
CCW.
The
States
and
OSM
are
in
a
position
to
provide
EPA
with
this
data
quickly.
°
Additional
thought
is
needed
about
how
to
address
non­
coal
mines
and
abandoned
mines.
°
A
good
outcome
would
be
one
where
States
are
allowed
to
demonstrate
that
their
programs,
regardless
of
whether
they
are
under
SMCRA
or
RCRA,
are
sufficient
or
meet
certain
specific
guidelines.

Texas
­
Mining
°
Texas
would
like
to
see
data
collection
move
forward
as
fast
as
possible
to
help
EPA
reach
a
decision
point.
°
Texas
probably
produces
more
CCW
than
any
other
State,
although
most
is
not
placed
in
mines.
°
Texas
would
like
to
see
nationwide
guidance
on
what
constitutes
a
beneficial
use
of
CCW.

Ohio
°
It
is
unfortunate
that
this
process
is
being
driven
by
alleged
problems,
rather
than
proven
problems.
°
The
site
visits
and
data
gathering
are
essential
and
Ohio
believes
they
will
lead
to
the
conclusion
that
CCW
is
being
properly
managed.
°
Ohio
supports
the
States'
discussion
outline:
exempting
beneficial
mine
uses
makes
sense,
and
States
should
be
allowed
to
define
these
beneficial
uses.
Joint
IMCC­
EPA
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
San
Antonio
Page
11
°
Furthermore,
CCW
disposal
at
mine
sites
should
not
be
prohibited
either,
in
order
to
save
green
space
and
avoid
brownfields.
°
Ohio
is
concerned
about
the
potential
for
a
national
regulation
because
of
the
variations
among
States.
For
example,
water
table
restrictions
may
be
appropriate
in
one
State
but
not
in
others.
Existing
SMCRA
programs
have
been
tailored
to
State
conditions,
so
additional
programs
are
not
needed.

New
York
°
New
York
is
concerned
there
is
too
much
emphasis
on
coal
mines,
particularly
when
existing
SMCRA
mechanisms
address
those
sites.
New
York
is
concerned
that
non­
coal
States
will
be
left
out
of
the
process
and
left
to
develop
programs
on
their
own.
°
New
York
has
no
coal
mines,
but
lots
of
CCW
and
is
allowing
small­
scale
placement
in
noncoal
mines
under
research
and
demonstration
permits.
°
New
York
has
data
on
non­
coal
mine
placement
that
should
be
examined
and
EPA
should
visit
other
non­
coal
mine
States
and
sites.
°
EPA
should
make
a
determination
that
mine
placement
of
CCW
is
a
beneficial
use
if
it
meets
certain
criteria.
Until
EPA
makes
this
determination,
large­
scale
placement
will
not
be
possible
in
New
York.
The
State
also
is
concerned
that
if
EPA
doesn't
properly
address
noncoal
mine
placement,
the
practice
will
be
prohibited.

Colorado
°
Colorado
is
concerned
that
there
is
a
misunderstanding
on
the
part
of
environmental
groups
about
actual
CCW
mine
placement
practices
and
regulations.
Uncontrolled
disposal
is
not
occurring.
Colorado,
for
example,
has
an
effective
SMCRA
program
and
non­
coal
mine
regulations
that
are
similar
to
SMCRA.
°
There
are
currently
adequate
State
and
federal
regulations
(
NPDES,
SDWA,
SMCRA,
RCRA,
etc.),
so
that
an
additional
one
is
not
needed;
we
need
only
to
clarify
how
the
existing
regulations
apply
and
interact.
°
If
EPA
is
classifying
use
of
CCW
as
structural
fill,
road
base,
and
anti­
skid
material
as
beneficial
uses,
not
to
be
regulated,
why
is
mine
placement
being
treated
differently?
°
EPA
should
rely
on
OSM's
expertise
for
data
on
mine
placement.
°
Colorado
has
no
problem
providing
data,
as
long
as
it
will
be
used
and
characterized
properly.
Colorado
will
have
some
comments
on
EPA's
regulatory
documents.
°
Before
coming
up
with
a
new
scheme,
EPA
should
analyze
what's
in
place
(
via
existing
statutes
and
regulations)
and
move
forward
only
if
there
are
problems
or
gaps.
Regulation
should
not
be
based
on
a
perceived
problem.

Virginia
°
The
issue
here
appears
to
be
a
public
perception
problem,
so
the
solution
should
be
one
of
education,
not
regulation.
°
Virginia
has
authorization
under
both
SMCRA
and
RCRA
and
the
mining
program
oversees
all
activities
at
mine
sites,
so
there
is
no
gap
in
regulation.
°
EPA
should
determine
what
data
is
needed
and
work
through
OSM
to
obtain
it.
Joint
IMCC­
EPA
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
San
Antonio
Page
12
°
EPA
should
focus
its
efforts
on
non­
SMCRA
sites.
If
some
problem
is
identified
at
SMCRA
sites,
EPA
should
work
with
OSM
and
the
States
to
address
it
through
guidelines,
not
regulation.

Oklahoma
°
Oklahoma
has
sufficient
means,
through
SMCRA
for
coal
mines
and
through
State
statutes
for
non­
coal
mines,
to
handle
disposal
of
CCW.
°
Oklahoma
does
not
yet
have
any
placement
in
coal
mines,
although
there
has
been
one
request.
°
If
there
are
specific
areas
that
are
not
covered,
these
should
be
defined
very
specifically
and
addressed
through
guidelines
only
 
for
example,
for
ash
characterization.

Maryland
°
Maryland
is
not
convinced
there
is
a
problem,
but
understands
that
EPA
is
not
convinced
either.
°
Maryland
would
like
assurances
that
EPA
will
use
the
data
submitted
by
the
States
and
use
it
properly.
°
If,
after
looking
at
the
data,
EPA
perceives
there
is
a
problem,
States
should
be
allowed
to
develop
guidelines
to
address
this
with
EPA
comment.
A
national
regulation
is
not
needed.
°
Defining
the
material
as
coal
combustion
waste
creates
a
problem
right
away.
°
Some
mines
have
contractual
obligations
to
haul
back
ash,
so
more
regulation
might
conflict
with
this.
°
EPA
should
show
the
States
the
data/
information
that
makes
EPA
believe
there
is
a
problem;
the
States
will
then
help
EPA
define
the
problem
and
develop
a
solution.
°
Maryland
submitted
data
to
MRAM,
but
it
doesn't
appear
to
be
included.
°
Maryland
uses
the
pollution
prevention
portion
of
NPDES
program
to
control
non­
coal
mine
placement.
°
SMCRA
plus
State
programs
adequately
handle
coal
minefills.

South
Carolina
°
South
Carolina
is
not
a
coal
producing
State,
but
has
mechanisms
in
place
through
its
solid
waste
program
to
manage
CCW
placement
in
non­
coal
mines.
°
Such
placement
has
not
occurred
yet,
but
South
Carolina
may
have
some
useful
data
for
EPA
as
a
result
of
its
waste
classification
system.
°
As
in
the
States'
discussion
outline,
South
Carolina
would
like
to
see
EPA
promote
the
use
of
CCW
as
a
product
(
i.
e.,
for
cement).
°
Whether
CCW
placement
can
be
classified
as
a
beneficial
use
should
be
predicated
on
characterization.
It
appears
that
everyone
agrees
that
some
CCW
should
not
be
used.
Given
this,
attention
to
the
analytical
methods
used
for
this
characterization
is
required.
°
The
most
efficient
use
of
resources
would
be
for
EPA
to
use
OSM's
expertise
in
coal
mining.
°
The
States
should
be
involved
in
the
interpretation
of
the
data
to
make
sure
it
is
used
correctly
and
not
out
of
context.
Joint
IMCC­
EPA
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
San
Antonio
Page
13
°
States
must
be
allowed
flexibility
to
manage
their
programs
 
they
do
not
want
anything
that
will
minimize
the
use
of
CCW
as
a
resource.

Navajo
Nation
°
The
Navajo
Nation
has
some
specific
concerns
with
CCW
management
practices
on
tribal
lands.
However,
the
Navajo
Nation
EPA
has
no
program
to
specifically
address
this.
EPA
needs
to
recognize
that
the
Navajo
Nation
does
not
have
RCRA
authority
and
will
not
in
the
future
because
the
tribe
is
considered
a
municipality
under
RCRA.
°
The
Navajo
Nation
is
interested
in
learning
from
the
other
States
and
is
particularly
interested
in
States,
like
Montana,
that
are
currently
developing
programs.
°
The
Navajo
Nation
agrees
that
EPA
is
looking
at
mine
placement
from
a
waste
disposal
perspective.
The
dilemma
is
how
to
balance
protective
requirements
with
recycling
consistent
with
the
objective
of
RCRA..
°
EPA
should
also
talk
with
the
Pueblo
Zuni
(
New
Mexico),
another
tribe
that
is
about
to
develop
a
coal
mine,
in
this
process.
°
Waste
characterization
should
determine
how
CCW
is
managed
and
monitored
and
the
Navajo
Nation
supports
issuing
guidelines
on
waste
characterization.
°
If
EPA
does
come
up
with
regulations,
the
Navajo
Nation
will
need
additional
resources
to
implement
them.

West
Virginia
°
West
Virginia
has
spent
considerable
time
defining
beneficial
uses
and
determined
that
ash
characterization
is
very
important.
There
are
certain
classes
of
CCW
that
are
not
appropriate
for
mine
placement.
°
There
are
plenty
of
regulatory
vehicles
in
place
right
now.
What
is
needed
is
to
clarify
the
interaction
of
these
to
determine
if
they
are
adequately
and
consistently
applied.
°
The
existing
regulations
and
the
best
available
data
need
to
be
examined
before
anyone
determines
what
else
is
needed.

Summary
IMCC
provided
the
following
summary
of
the
roundtable
comments:

Perspective
on
Status:
°
SMCRA
is
an
adequate
baseline
°
Examine
the
effectiveness
of
existing
State
programs
before
adding
more
regulations.
°
Need
to
coordinate
among
all
applicable
statutes/
regulations
(
e.
g.,
SMCRA,
RCRA,
CWA,
SDWA).
°
Absolute
need
for
flexibility
to
accommodate
differences
among
States.
°
Focus
on
both
coal
and
non­
coal
sites
(
there
may
be
value
to
a
segmented
approach
to
discussions).
Joint
IMCC­
EPA
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
San
Antonio
Page
14
Suggested
Next
Steps:
°
Update/
revise
the
MRAM
database
and
EPA's
State
regulatory
reports
using
State
input
regarding
use
and
analysis.
This
is
critical
to
EPA
being
able
to
further
articulate
direction.
°
Consider
developing
national
guidelines,
not
as
a
substitute
for
current
programs
but
as
a
gap­
filling/
baseline
measure.
°
Identify
differences
among
existing
State
programs/
approaches.
°
Strive
for
consensus
regarding
beneficial
use
of
CCW
versus
disposal.
°
EPA
and
OSM
analysis
of
inter­
related
statutory/
regulatory
requirements.
°
Clarify,
define,
and
articulate
the
"
problem"
we
are
"
fixing"
 
EPA
and
OSM
need
to
better
coordinate
this
in
light
of
their
data.

Part
VII:
Review
and
Discussion
of
States'
Outline
of
Coal
Ash
Management
Mr.
Conrad
explained
that
the
State's
draft
discussion
outline
for
coal
ash
management
was
born
out
of
the
need
to
categorize
the
different
types
of
coal
ash
management
 
the
first
three
are
beneficial
uses
and
the
fourth
is
disposal.
The
document
emphasizes
the
experience
of
the
States
with
their
laws
and
assumes
there
is
a
difference
between
how
a
program
would
approach
beneficial
use
versus
disposal.
The
purpose
is
to
define
certain
uses
that
are
exempt
 
not
altogether
exempt
from
regulation,
but
exempt
from
solid
waste
regulation.
The
outline
also
highlights
the
importance
of
data
and
information
efforts.

EPA
commented
that
regardless
of
whether
a
practice
is
termed
disposal
or
beneficial
use,
one
should
be
concerned
with
waste
characteristics
and
ensuring
environmental
protection.

OSM
commented
that
the
distinction
is
not
relevant
where
SMCRA
applies,
because
the
SMCRA
environmental
performance
standards
apply
no
matter
how
the
practice
is
defined.
States
are
free,
however,
to
make
the
distinction
as
long
as
the
result
does
not
circumvent
the
SMCRA
performance
standards.
Such
a
distinction
might
be
appropriate
for
States
in
determining
what
they
want
to
regulate
as
a
landfill
and
what
they
want
to
regulate
under
SMCRA
alone.

A
State
inquired
of
OSM
whether
SMCRA's
performance
standards
extend
into
characterization
of
the
waste.
OSM
responded
that
if
materials
are
potentially
toxic­
forming,
they
must
be
controlled
so
they
don't
harm
the
environment.
The
permittee
must
submit
data
and
plans
to
convince
the
permitting
authority
that
the
placement
of
CCW
will
not
degrade
the
environment.

Mr.
Conrad
then
asked
the
States
to
comment
on
their
comfort
level
with
the
discussion
outline,
if,
as
a
hypothetical,
EPA
took
it
to
their
management
to
illustrate
what
the
States
are
thinking.
The
States
raised
no
objections.
Joint
IMCC­
EPA
Summary
Meeting
Notes:
San
Antonio
Page
15
EPA
commented
that
the
outline
would
raise
a
lot
of
questions
from
management
because
many
critical
issues
lie
within
the
details
that
are
not
included
in
the
outline.
EPA
further
stated
that
they
didn't
necessarily
want
details
to
the
outline
but
would
welcome:

1)
more
details
on
State
regulatory
programs
that
currently
address
CCW
minefilling,
2)
corrections
to
the
EPA's
State
regulatory
reports,
and
3)
comments
on
whether
the
categories
in
the
reports
are
really
what
is
needed
and
if
there
are
elements
of
your
program
that
EPA
is
missing.

One
State
questioned
whether
is
it
safe
to
assume
that
the
categories
included
in
the
State
regulatory
reports
form
what
would
be
a
satisfactory
program
to
EPA.
EPA
explained
that
the
categories
reflect
elements
EPA
has
included
in
previous
regulations
and
which
EPA
has
observed
to
be
in
State
programs;
thus,
on
a
preliminary
basis,
yes
this
was
an
accurate
assumption.

Part
VIII:
Next
Steps
°
Review
and
discussion
of
revised
EPA
State
regulatory
reports.
States
should
submit
their
comments
on
the
reports
to
EPA
by
January
1,
2002.
OSM
offered
to
provide
comments
by
January
31,
2002.
EPA
will
attempt
to
issue
revised
reports
by
March
1,
2002.
°
States
should
provide
MRAM
data
and
information
to
EPA
(
Mike
Clipper)
as
soon
as
possible.
There
will
be
an
update
on
the
MRAM
project
at
the
next
meeting.
°
States
should
ideally
have
an
opportunity
to
review
full
MRAM
State
reports
before
the
next
meeting.
°
Develop
prototype
guidelines
for
beneficial
use
or
ash
characterization
(
depends
on
the
results
of
the
first
two
bullets).
To
aid
this
process,
States
were
asked
to
provide
their
guidelines
to
EPA
(
if
they
haven't
done
so
already).
Consider
developing
a
discussion
outline
to
accompany
any
prototype
guidelines,
addressing
such
issues
as
components,
use,
definitions,
etc.
°
Review/
revise
State's
Outline
of
Coal
Ash
Management.
States
request
EPA's
reaction
and
opinion
on
what
is
needed
to
make
it
acceptable
at
least
30
days
before
the
next
meeting.
°
Next
meeting
is
tentatively
scheduled
for
April
15th
and
16th
in
Golden,
Colorado.
It
would
occur
at
the
beginning
of
the
OSM
Coal
Ash
Symposium
 
all­
day
on
Monday
and
a
halfday
on
Tuesday.
This
is
a
week
before
IMCC's
annual
meeting.
