1
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."

Page
1
of
14
Joint
IMCC­
EPA
Summary
Meeting
Notes
from
the
States/
Tribes/
Federal
Meeting
on
Mine
Placement
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
Golden,
Colorado
April
15­
16,
2002
Opening
Remarks
(
Greg
Conrad,
Executive
Director,
IMCC)

Greg
Conrad
welcomed
attendees
and
explained
that
the
purpose
of
this
meeting
was
to
discuss
EPA's
and
OSM's
reactions
to
the
States's
Outline
of
Coal
Ash
Management
and
to
discuss
EPA's
regulatory
concerns
regarding
the
minefilling
of
coal
combustion
wastes
(
CCW).
1
He
noted
that
the
aim
is
to
move
away
from
general
discussions
and,
instead,
look
more
programmatically
at
the
issues
in
order
to
find
some
agreement
on
a
common
protocol
and
baseline
for
CCW
mine
placement
programs
and
policy.

Part
I:
Update
on
EPA's
Mine
Risk
Assessment/
Modeling
("
MRAM")
Project
(
Greg
Conrad,
Executive
Director,
IMCC)

Robert
Wahlstrom
(
DPRA)
provided
an
overview
of
the
MRAM
Project
at
the
last
CCW
meeting
in
San
Antonio,
Texas
(
November
2001)
and
requested
comments
and
data
from
the
States.
Mr.
Conrad
explained
that
little
activity
has
occurred
since
then
beyond
processing
the
information
submitted
by
several
States
and
reformatting
the
database.
He
provided
notice
that
Andrew
Wittner
(
EPA)
was
scheduled
to
provide
a
more
extensive
MRAM
update
at
the
Coal
Combustion
By­
Products
and
Western
Coal
Mines:
A
Technical
Interactive
Forum
("
OSM
Forum")
later
in
the
week.

Part
II:
Update
on
EPA's
Reports
on
State
Regulations
(
Truett
DeGeare,
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste)

EPA
distributed
the
following
draft
reports
on
State
regulations
at
the
San
Antonio
meeting:

°
"
Regulation
and
Policy
Concerning
Mine
Placement
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
in
26
States"
°
"
Mine
Placement
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
 
State
Program
Elements
Analysis"

Both
reports
are
available
on
EPA's
website
at
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
other/
fossil/
index.
htm.
Truett
DeGeare
explained
that
these
reports
try
to
accurately
capture
the
key
elements
of
existing
State
regulatory
programs
for
CCW
mine
placement.
The
States
were
invited
at
the
last
meeting
CCW
Meeting
Notes:
Golden,
Colorado
*
DRAFT*
05/
17/
02
Page
2
of
14
to
comment
on
the
reports
and
six
States
have
responded:
Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania,
Illinois,
Colorado,
Ohio
and
Indiana.
The
reports
soon
will
be
revised
to
reflect
State
comments
and
to
incorporate
information
from
the
recent
OSM
report
titled
"
An
Overview
of
SMCRA
Regulations
Applied
to
CCBs."
Additional
comments
from
the
States
may
be
submitted
(
preferably
electronically,
not
by
mail)
by
May
31st
to:

Bonnie
Robinson
(
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste)
Phone:
703­
308­
8429
Fax:
703­
308­
8686
Email:
robinson.
bonnie@
epa.
gov
Ms.
Robinson
estimated
that
revised
versions
of
the
reports
would
be
available
by
June
and
will
be
provided
to
States
to
review
before
they
are
uploaded
to
the
EPA
website.

Part
III:
Update
on
EPA's
Program
of
Site
Visits
and
Interviews
with
Individual
State
and
Tribal
Offices
(
Truett
DeGeare,
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste)

Mr.
DeGeare
provided
an
update
on
EPA's
site
visit
and
interview
efforts
with
State
and
tribal
offices
that
regulate
mine
placement
of
CCW.
He
explained
that
the
goals
are
to
learn
the
reality
of
how
CCW
is
handled
at
coal
and
noncoal
mines
and
to
better
understand
the
activities
in
the
field.
To
aid
this
effort,
EPA
has
developed
a
detailed
discussion
guide
to
structure
the
interviews.
The
guide
is
available
at
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
other/
fossil/
index.
htm.
EPA
has
completed
visits
to
two
States
(
Illinois
and
Indiana)
and
the
Navajo
Nation
so
far
and
plans
to
visit
Ohio
and
Pennsylvania
in
mid­
May.
EPA
is
also
considering
visits
to
Maryland,
North
Dakota,
West
Virginia,
New
York,
and
possibly
Oklahoma.
EPA
will
prepare
a
site
visit
report
for
each
State
and
will
share
the
draft
report
with
the
host
State
for
review
and
comment
to
ensure
accuracy.
The
reports
will
eventually
be
combined
into
a
single
report
that
will
be
placed
in
the
docket
as
public
information
and
made
available
to
the
IMCC
States,
but
not
made
publicly
available
on
the
EPA
website.

Before
moving
on
to
the
next
agenda
item,
Kim
Vories
announced
that
Lisa
Evans,
of
the
Clean
Air
Task
Force
(
CATF),
would
be
making
a
presentation
at
the
OSM
Forum
that
week.
In
January
2002,
the
CATF
along
with
the
Hoosier
Environmental
Council
(
HEC)
sent
a
letter
to
Marianne
Horinko,
EPA's
Assistant
Administrator
for
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response,
requesting
a
meeting.
A
copy
of
the
letter
to
Ms.
Horinko
was
provided
to
the
States
in
the
meeting
packet.
Mr.
Conrad
also
distributed
a
copy
of
a
letter
dated
February
22,
2002,
that
he
sent
to
Ms.
Horinko
regarding
the
States'
perspective
on
the
regulation
of
CCWs
at
minesites.
Although
a
potential
meeting
between
the
States
and
Ms.
Horinko
was
suggested
in
the
letter,
Mr.
Conrad
reported
that
this
decision
has
been
delayed
pending
developments
over
the
coming
months.
CCW
Meeting
Notes:
Golden,
Colorado
*
DRAFT*
05/
17/
02
Page
3
of
14
Part
IV:
Presentation
by
Indiana
Department
of
Natural
Resources
on
Coal
Combustion
Waste
Data
Management
System
(
Bruce
Stevens,
Indiana
Department
of
Natural
Resources
)

Bruce
Stevens
presented
an
overview
of
the
Indiana
Department
of
Natural
Resources'
CCW
and
surface
and
ground­
water
databases
that
were
developed
in­
house
over
the
last
few
years.
A
copy
of
his
PowerPoint
presentation
is
attached.
For
additional
information,
contact
Mr.
Stevens
at
812­
665­
2207.
The
following
are
Mr.
Stevens'
responses
to
comments
from
the
States:

°
In
regards
to
QA/
QC,
there
is
currently
no
electronic
submission
or
formal
review
of
the
data
but
there
are
several
steps
in
the
process
where
something
out
of
place
could
be
caught
and
corrected.
<
Mr.
Conrad
added
that
Virginia,
West
Virginia,
Wyoming,
and
Kentucky
have
electronic
permitting
and
he
envisions
matching
up
that
effort
with
the
database
effort
and
working
together
in
the
future.
Virginia
helps
smaller
companies
without
computers
or
Internet
access
work
with
consultants
that
do
have
the
necessary
capabilities.

°
If
a
number
is
placed
into
the
database
that
exceeds
the
permit
limit,
the
lab
is
contacted
to
see
if
there
was
an
error
in
reporting.
If
not,
Indiana
gives
an
order
to
cease
CCW
disposal
operations
(
mining
may
continue)
and
re­
analyze.
This
has
happened
in
the
past,
but
the
reassessment
showed
the
parameter
well
below
the
limit.
Disposal
of
CCW
may
resume
after
resampling
and
analysis
(
that
demonstrates
the
CCW
is
again
within
the
allowable
limit)
is
conducted,
submitted,
reviewed,
and
approved
by
the
Department.
The
exceedence
stays
in
the
database,
but
there
is
an
area
for
commentary
to
explain
the
outcome
of
the
resampling
and
analysis.

New
York
noted
that
they
are
about
to
roll
out
a
new
database
and
electronic
permitting
system
with
separate
databases
for
mines,
solid
waste,
etc.
New
York
has
thousands
of
mines,
mostly
aggregate.

Illinois
suggested
that
OSM
develop
a
generic/
prototype
database
based
on
the
proven
systems
in
use
by
a
few
states.
Mr.
Conrad
surveyed
the
States
as
to
whether
they
would
be
interested
in
a
prototype
database.
The
response
was
positive,
in
general,
but
there
was
great
concern
that
even
with
a
good,
workable
prototype,
there
was
enormous
effort
and
cost
involved
in
organizing
paper
(
i.
e.,
historical
data),
populating
the
database,
and
performing
the
necessary
QA/
QC.

Part
V:
Reaction
of
Federal
Agencies
to
States'
Discussion
Outline
on
Coal
Ash
Management
Mr.
Conrad
explained
that
at
the
last
meeting
in
San
Antonio,
he
requested
of
EPA
and
OSM
that
they
provide
their
reaction
to
the
"
States'
Discussion
Outline
on
Coal
Ash
Management"
and
responses
were
received
from
both.
He
summarized
for
the
group
the
States'
Discussion
Outline
which
categorized
coal
ash
management
into
four
areas
(
three
categories
of
beneficial
use
plus
one
for
disposal),
laid
out
management
principles
and
regulatory
principles
for
beneficial
use
of
CCW,
provided
conclusions,
and
addressed
disposal
of
CCW.
He
emphasized
to
the
States
that,
CCW
Meeting
Notes:
Golden,
Colorado
*
DRAFT*
05/
17/
02
Page
4
of
14
as
they
listen
to
the
EPA
and
OSM
responses,
they
need
to
agree
which
elements
are
critical
to
a
regulatory
program
for
CCW
mine
placement
and
highlight
whether
each
element
is
found
in
existing
regulations
or
will
need
to
be
addressed
through
regulatory
changes.

EPA's
Reaction
(
Truett
DeGeare,
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste)

Mr.
DeGeare
walked
through
EPA's
document
titled
"
EPA
Response
to
IMCC
Discussion
Outline,"
March
15,
2002
Draft,
a
copy
of
which
is
attached.
Because
EPA
was
not
present
when
the
State
Discussion
Outline
was
prepared,
he
noted
that
EPA's
draft
response
is
based
on
EPA's
best
interpretation
of
what
the
States'
Discussion
Outline
was
trying
to
say.

Categories
°
EPA's
Regulatory
Determination
identified
the
same
management
practices
as
those
in
the
States'
Discussion
Outline
but
grouped
them
differently
into:
(
1)
beneficial
use,
(
2)
minefill,
and
(
3)
landfill
or
impoundment
disposal.
°
EPA
determined
that
regulations
under
RCRA
Subtitle
D
are
necessary
for
landfill/
impoundment
disposal.

Management
Principles
for
Beneficial
Use
°
Because
EPA's
Regulatory
Determination
retained
the
exemption
for
CCW
from
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
regulations,
there
is
no
legal
need
under
RCRA
to
test
via
TCLP
for
hazardous
waste.
However,
consistent
with
the
States'
outline,
EPA
agrees
testing
should
be
done
to
see
if
the
ash
may
pose
a
problem
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
°
EPA
agrees
with
the
benefits
identified
by
the
States.
However,
EPA
doesn't
generalize
that
mines
are
safe
environments
(
for
several
reasons
outlined
in
the
paper);
rather,
caseby
case
determinations
are
needed.

Regulatory
Principles
for
Beneficial
Use
°
Much
of
EPA's
draft
paper
is
consistent
with
the
States'
Discussion
Outline.
°
EPA
is
concerned
that
it
has
found
damage
cases
in
sand
and
gravel
pits
and
wants
to
ensure
similar
problems
don't
occur
in
other
mines.
°
Mines
are
a
challenge
for
ground­
water
modeling
and
monitoring
efforts.
<
Mr.
Conrad
explained
that
the
public
interest
groups'
allegations
are
that
not
enough
time
has
passed
to
really
determine
impacts
or
that
monitoring
hasn't
been
sufficient
to
determine
full
impact.
He
stated
that,
at
some
point,
EPA
wants
to
be
able
to
adequately
respond
to
those
allegations.
He
advised
the
States
to
help
EPA
with
this
issue
by
addressing
the
passage
of
time
issue
and
the
monitoring
issue.

State
and
Federal
Regulatory
Programs
°
Varying
programs
and
approaches
make
it
difficult
for
the
public
to
know
what
is
going
on
and
where
accountability
rests,
even
where
CCW
minefilling
is
adequately
addressed.
°
EPA
agrees
with
States
that
everyone
needs
to
work
together
(
EPA,
OSM,
and
the
States)
to
address
the
issue.
°
EPA
is
being
strongly
encouraged
by
interest
groups
to
ensure
public
and
ecosystem
health.

Public
Involvement
CCW
Meeting
Notes:
Golden,
Colorado
*
DRAFT*
05/
17/
02
Page
5
of
14
°
There
are
several
assurances
which
need
to
be
made
for
the
public
(
outlined
in
the
paper).

Beneficial
Use
at
Minesites
°
EPA
acknowledges
that
ash
can
be
strategically
placed
at
minesites
so
as
to
provide
a
benefit
to
mine
operations
and/
or
reclamation.
EPA's
interest,
however,
extends
beyond
the
benefits
to
the
potential
adverse
impact
of
the
ash
on
the
environment.
°
Need
to
clarify
beneficial
uses,
especially
in
terms
of
monitoring.
°
Does
a
beneficial
use
definition
and
delineation
help?
°
Are
mine
environments
"
safe"
for
CCW
mine
placement?
°
EPA
agrees
with
States
that
a
determination
must
be
made
that
ash
placement
at
selected
sites
will
not
exacerbate
problems
or
cause
new
problems.

Disposal/
Placement
at
Minesites
°
This
section
of
EPA's
paper
is
very
similar
to
the
States'
Discussion
Outline.
°
EPA
is
soliciting
help
from
OSM
and
State
regulatory
authorities
to
document
the
appropriate/
applicable
elements
of
the
regulations.

Conclusions
°
EPA
hopes
any
national
regulations
will
reflect
States'
capabilities.

State
Comments
°
Indiana
asked
what
States
can
do
to
assist
EPA
with
their
review
of
sites
and
the
water
quality
associated
with
mining.
Reliable
data
already
exist
from
which
a
determination
can
be
made
as
to
whether
there
are
water
quality
impacts
or
not.
°
Mr.
Conrad
stated
that
if
the
group
can
agree
on
what
an
adequate
monitoring
program
is,
then
they
don't
need
to
focus
on
the
results
now.
The
public
will
say
the
problems
have
yet
to
be
revealed,
so
it
is
not
so
much
related
to
monitoring
as
to
corrective
action.
The
public
may
want
a
mechanism
in
place
to
take
care
of
water
quality
problems
down
the
road
and
SMCRA
doesn't
necessarily
fit
that
well.
The
States
may
want
to
think
about
a
corrective
action/
financial
assurance
program
that
looks
more
like
RCRA.
If
States
believe
this
is
not
necessary,
they
need
to
articulate
a
good
reason
why
it
is
not
necessary.
°
Colorado
questioned
how
much
time
is
enough
for
a
corrective
action
period.
In
response,
EPA
noted
that
RCRA
Subtitle
D
regulations
require
30
years
for
municipal
solid
waste
landfills.
°
Indiana
pointed
out
that
the
critics
will
never
be
satisfied
with
a
SMCRA
approach
because
they
want
more
RCRA.
Since
they
will
never
be
satisfied,
it
is
a
matter
of
convincing
EPA
that
we
can
provide
these
assurances
under
SMCRA.
°
Ohio
suggested
that
EPA
take
a
closer
look
at
beneficial
uses
and
decide
which
minesite
uses
can
be
added
to
the
list
of
non­
regulated
activities.
EPA
commented
that
they
feel
all
minesite
practices
need
controls
of
some
sort.
°
Indiana
stated
that
regardless
of
whether
a
mine
is
regarded
as
safe,
minesites
are
as
good
as,
if
not
infinitely
better
than,
any
other
sites
for
placing
this
material.
Also,
we
shouldn't
think
of
CCW
as
a
"
foreign
material"
to
minesites.
CCW
Meeting
Notes:
Golden,
Colorado
*
DRAFT*
05/
17/
02
Page
6
of
14
OSM
Reaction
(
Randall
Mills,
Office
of
Surface
Mining)

Randall
Mills
distributed
two
documents
outlining
OSM's
response:
"
An
Overview
of
SMCRA
Regulations
Applied
to
CCBs"
and
"
EPA/
SMCRA
CCB
Overview."
Copies
of
each
are
attached.
Mr.
Mills
noted
that
he
has
been
meeting
with
EPA
to
discuss
how
SMCRA
addresses/
can
address
CCW
mine
placement
and
will
continue
to
do
so
at
EPA's
request.
The
discussion
began
with
the
issue
of
corrective
action.
Mr.
Mills
stated
that
if
a
problem
occurs
after
bond
release,
it
is
conceivable
that
it
can
be
addressed
through
SMCRA
by
saying
the
company
falsified
information
at
bond
release.
Indiana
added
a
caveat
that
this
argument
can
only
be
used
if
there
was
an
intent
to
deceive/
defraud,
it
cannot
be
used
if
the
bond
was
released
in
good
faith.
It
was
then
suggested
that
if
a
CCW­
related
impact
is
found
after
SMCRA
bond
release,
perhaps
CERCLA
can
address
it.

°
EPA
clarified
that,
so
far,
all
EPA
has
done
is
to
exempt
CCW
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C
 
that
doesn't
automatically
bring
into
play
existing
RCRA
Subtitle
D
requirements,
including
corrective
action.
The
purpose
of
EPA's
research
and
these
meetings
is
to
determine
what
regulations,
if
any,
are
needed
for
CCW
minefilling.
EPA
does
not
have
in
mind
a
prohibition
on
CCW
minefilling.
°
Mr.
Conrad
added
that
if
there
are
elements
of
a
RCRA
Subtitle
D
approach
that
EPA
believes
should
be
present
in
a
minefill
regulatory
program,
those
elements
need
to
be
balanced
with
what
the
States
are
doing
under
SMCRA.
That
is
for
coal
mines
only
 
still
have
question
of
what
additional
controls
are
needed
for
noncoal
mine
placement.

Kim
Vories
(
OSM)
stated
that
OSM
wants
to
see
scientific
proof
that
says
what
the
States
are
currently
doing
under
SMCRA
is
a
problem,
is
not
adequate,
and
is
not
protecting
the
environment.
Since
this
proof
does
not
exist,
OSM
feels
that
a
new
program
or
new
regulations
are
not
needed.
Mr.
Vories
admits,
however,
that
there
can
be
some
improvements,
such
as
in
designing
characterization
and
leachate
tests
that
would
be
more
CCW­
type
and
site­
specific.
OSM
supports
more
research
and
placement
scenarios,
but
they
don't
see
a
valid
reason
to
change
the
regulatory
framework
currently
in
place.

DOE
Reaction
(
Lynn
Brickett,
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy)

Lynn
Brickett
explained
that
she
oversees
the
utilization
of
by­
products
from
electricity
production
and
it
is
likely
that
the
quantity
of
CCW
generated
will
increase
in
the
future
and
may
have
characteristics
making
it
less
useable.
Ms.
Brickett
also
stated
that,
as
an
example,
the
impact
on
CCW
characteristics
of
additional
control
of
mercury
from
stack
emissions
is
of
concern
to
EPA,
in
addition
to
arsenic,
selenium,
and
cadmium.
She
said
that
the
States
should
expect
to
hear
more
about
these
co­
pollutants.
In
the
next
10
years,
Ms.
Brickett
predicts
the
industry
will
be
overwhelmed
with
material
and
will
increasingly
need
to
find
new
ways
to
dispose
or
utilize
it.
For
this
reason,
her
main
concern
is
with
any
regulation
that
detracts
from
any
form
of
CCW
utilization
(
i.
e.,
beneficial
use).
Ms.
Brickett
concluded
by
saying
that,
in
her
experience
in
researching
the
environmental
effects
of
mining,
CCW
minefilling
is
a
win­
win
situation.
CCW
Meeting
Notes:
Golden,
Colorado
*
DRAFT*
05/
17/
02
Page
7
of
14
Part
VI:
Review
and
Discussion
of
EPA's
Draft
Report
on
Minefill
Regulatory
Concerns
(
April
9,
2002,
Draft)
(
Truett
DeGeare,
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste)

Mr.
DeGeare
stated
that
EPA's
Minefill
Regulatory
Concerns
report
(
copy
attached)
was
born
out
of
a
RCRA
mindset
and
is
the
result
of
previous
CCW
meetings,
visits
to
mines
and
to
State
offices,
reviews
of
SMCRA
and
RCRA
laws
and
regulations,
and
review
of
public
interest
group
concerns.
He
noted
that
the
concerns
are
applicable
to
both
SMCRA
and
non­
SMCRA
facilities.
Mr.
Conrad
explained
that
the
idea
of
EPA's
report
is
to
get
on
the
table
some
of
EPA's
concerns
from
the
RCRA
perspective
and
see
what
they
might
be
looking
for
as
a
bottom
line,
including
a
deeper
discussion
of
technical
requirements.
Mr.
DeGeare
provided
an
overview
of
the
draft
report.
After
States
debated
briefly
the
need
for
further
discussion
on
whether
SMCRA
addresses
EPA's
concerns,
Mr.
Conrad
walked
the
States
through
the
report
in
the
order
of
priority
chosen
by
the
States.

Preliminary
State
Comments
°
Indiana
felt
that
EPA
had
an
odd
combination
of
performance­
based
and
design­
based
criteria
that
don't
mix
well.
Under
SMCRA,
this
level
of
detail
is
provided
not
in
regulations;
rather,
it
is
provided
on
a
permit­
specific
basis
in
each
permit.
°
Another
State
said
that
you
can't
take
RCRA
Subtitle
D
requirements
and
use
them
at
a
minefill.
For
example,
a
monitoring
well
150
meters
from
a
CCW
site
makes
no
sense,
particularly
if
that
distance
places
the
well
in
spoil
or
spoil­
contaminated
ground
water.
°
Colorado
noted
that
if
States
document
their
selection
of
well
locations
in
the
CHIA
and
PHC
(
which
is
subject
to
public
comment
and
hearings),
then
they
don't
need
prescriptive
requirements.
°
Indiana
suggested
that
States
might
want
to
start
including
in
CHIAs
and
PHCs,
a
writeup
addressing
EPA
concerns
and
providing
their
rationale
for
their
choice
of
controls.
The
States
need
to
make
the
connection
for
EPA
between
EPA's
concerns
and
SMCRA
controls.
Toward
this
end,
it
was
further
suggested
to
create
a
team
of
OSM,
States,
and
EPA
to
go
through
SMCRA
to
find
out
where
connections/
elements
are
missing
and
come
up
with
a
strategy
to
address
those
gaps.
The
result
could
be
a
guidebook
on
how
to
do
permit
write­
ups
that
include
proper
justification.
°
The
problem
is
communication.
The
specifics
EPA
is
looking
for
are
in
the
permits
so
EPA
should
consider
looking
at
the
permits
to
see
what
they
lack.
°
States
know
what
is
acceptable
to
OSM
through
OSM
oversight
(
off­
site
damage
cases
and
bond
release
process).
With
a
guidance
document
from
EPA,
we
will
know
what
is
or
is
not
acceptable,
so
we
can
adjust
our
program
to
meet
the
minimum
standards.
°
EPA's
paper
seems
to
be
their
checklist
already.
If
States
address
these
concerns
in
permit
write­
ups
under
SMCRA,
will
that
be
enough?
°
In
Pennsylvania,
the
water
group
approved
the
mining
group's
monitoring
program
for
CCW
minefilling.
°
During
discussion
the
question
arose,
why
are
there
no
SMCRA
regulations
specifically
addressing
ash
placement.
OSM
responded
that
no
problem
has
ever
been
identified
that
would
call
for
such
regulations.
CCW
Meeting
Notes:
Golden,
Colorado
*
DRAFT*
05/
17/
02
Page
8
of
14
Before
walking
through
EPA's
report,
Mr.
Conrad
reminded
the
States
to
think
about
whether
and
how
the
elements
are
covered
under
SMCRA
and
what,
if
anything,
do
we
need
to
do
to
enhance
our
efforts
to
address
them.

I.
Ground­
Water
Monitoring
A.
Well
Design
and
Deployment
°
Change
title
to
"
monitoring
point."
Include
springs
as
possible
monitoring
points.
°
Would
no
monitoring
be
acceptable
if
there
is
a
justification
for
it?
°
Monitoring
on­
site
spoil
water
would
be
meaningless.
°
PHC
and
CHIA
explain
why
wells
are
located
and
designed
as
they
are.
These
are
available
for
public
review,
comment,
and
hearing.

III.
Prohibitions
B.
Unacceptable
Ash
Characteristics
°
Supplemental
information
regarding
the
ash
is
required
under
SMCRA.
°
Define
a
baseline..."
no
worse
than
other
on­
site
materials."
1.
Method
°
Provide
a
rationale
for
method
chosen.
°
Methods
include:
TCLP,
ASTM,
synthetic
precipitation
(
SPLP),
synthetic
ground
water,
actual
ground
water,
and
acid­
base
accounting.
°
Testing
is
consistent
within
each
State,
but
one
test
does
not
fit
all
nationally
due
to
variety
of
mining
environments.
°
Suggest
looking
into
research
currently
being
done
on
a
method
for
ash
characterization.
EPA
is
working
on
a
method
because
they
think
TCLP
is
not
the
appropriate
test,
but
each
proposed
test
costs
$
30K
per
sample.
°
In
Indiana,
some
tests
do
exceed
the
MCLs.
Mine
spoil
often
does
not
meet
MCLs.
States
should
be
able
to
use
a
material
that
is
no
worse
than
the
mine
spoil.
°
Much
depends
on
the
use
of
the
aquifer
and
background
levels.
°
Assume
comments
are
all
the
same
for
non­
coal
mines.
°
Pennsylvania
and
Illinois
have
ash
acceptance
criteria
based
on
drinking
water
standards.
2.
Frequency
°
Suggest
a
quarterly
minimum
unless
otherwise
justified.
°
In
Pennsylvania,
the
metals
don't
change
much
but
the
pH
does.
They
test
initially
and
then
biannually.
°
Coal
source
may
impact
frequency.
°
Assume
comments
are
all
the
same
for
non­
coal
mines.

C.
Location
Restrictions
°
Dislike
term
"
restriction";
instead
be
aware
of
"
sensitive
areas"
 
and
allow
placement
with
justification.
°
Possible
use
of
buffer
zones
and
setbacks.
°
In
any
area
where
subsidence
is
expected,
the
paper
says
we
can't
do
it,
but
we
use
ash
to
stabilize
and
to
prevent
subsidence.
°
Ash
can
benefit
wetlands.
°
Blasting
areas
are
not
of
concern.
Blasting
is
designed
to
be
very
limited
in
impact
because
the
owner/
operator
wishes
to
fragment
only
the
overlying
spoil
and
not
fragment
the
coal
or
underlying
material.
Fragmenting
the
coal
would
cause
operational
problems.
CCW
Meeting
Notes:
Golden,
Colorado
*
DRAFT*
05/
17/
02
Page
9
of
14
VI.
Risk
Assessments
°
What
type
of
risk
assessment
is
envisioned
by
EPA?
This
can
be
a
big
undertaking
and
is
often
considered
a
formal
process.
For
this
reason,
don't
use
the
term
"
risk
assessment"
­­
use
"
impact
assessment."
°
If
a
State
has
looked
at
it
in
a
way
that
it
believes
is
sufficient
under
its
laws,
is
this
sufficient?
When
States
do
a
CHIA,
they
make
an
assessment
that
there
will
be
no
hydrologic
damage
off­
site
and
assess
material
damage,
is
that
good
enough?
°
EPA
stated
that
doing
an
assessment
with
specific
findings
related
to
material
damage
as
defined
by
established
standards
for
air
and
water
may
be
sufficient.
(
The
standards
reflect
risk
analyses
conducted
when
the
standards
were
developed.)
However,
we
can't
just
say
a
project
meets
"
all
existing
standards,"
because
this
is
vague
and
there
is
trouble
in
understanding
what
this
really
means
 
for
example,
for
what
parameters?
<
Some
standards
include:
NPDES,
stream
standards
(
TMDLs),
ground­
water
standards,
drinking
water
standards,
air
quality
(
fugitive
dust
and
other)

III.
Prohibitions
A.
Aquifer
Avoidance
°
All
agree
that
"
aquifer
avoidance"
should
go
under
"
sensitive
areas"
under
Limitations.
°
Consider
use
and
quality
of
water
(
background/
baseline),
e.
g.,
spoil
water
(
characterize
it).
°
Have
to
replace
original
(
pre­
mining)
water
use
with
equivalent
quantity
and
quality?.
°
No
generic
ban.
The
States
want
the
flexibility
to
allow
placement
in
or
near
an
aquifer
and
then
be
able
to
justify
why
they
feel
the
placement
will
not
result
in
any
significant
impacts
to
the
aquifer.
°
It
may
be
important
to
differentiate
among
"
aquifers"
and
address
impacts
to
"
water
table."
°
Mine
is
to
be
designed
to
minimize
hydrologic
impact,
but
there
will
be
some
 
SMCRA
recognizes
that.
Can
mitigate
but
can't
eliminate.
The
CHIA
describes
it
all
in
great
detail.

IV.
Planning/
Permitting
B.
Deed
Recordation
°
There
is
RCRA
authority
for
it,
but
need
to
put
SMCRA
statutory
authority
in
place
to
require
it.
°
Pennsylvania
and
North
Dakota
do
this
already,
but
as
part
of
their
waste
requirements.
°
If
not
done
for
surface
mining
coal
refuse
disposal,
why
is
it
necessary
for
coal
ash?

C.
Baseline
Monitoring
°
SMCRA
regulations
set
forth
minimum
monitoring
requirements
for
the
permit
application.
SMCRA
sets
minimum
parameters,
but
can
ask
for
more
parameters
specific
to
ash
and
more
extensive
monitoring.

A.
Acid­
Base
Balance
°
Fully
addressed
by
SMCRA.
°
It
belongs
under
ash
characterization
and
not
as
a
separate
thing.
However,
EPA
states
that
it
needs
to
be
addressed
separately
because
ash
characterization
was
for
disposal,
but
this
issue
addresses
the
quality
of
ash
and
its
intended
use.
°
There
are
two
issues:
(
1)
good
to
get
for
background,
but
(
2)
if
using
to
treat
acid,
need
to
make
sure
have
the
right
balance.
CCW
Meeting
Notes:
Golden,
Colorado
*
DRAFT*
05/
17/
02
Page
10
of
14
Financial
Assurance
[
Note:
This
is
not
a
section
in
EPA's
draft
report]
°
SMCRA
bonding
regulations
 
bonds
typically
held
for
longer
than
the
five­
year
minimum.
°
It
may
depend
on
the
postmining
land
use:
(
1)
if
a
landfill,
RCRA
regulations
would
apply
and
(
2)
if
agriculture,
look
at
productivity
and
bond
release
regulations.
°
Differentiate
between
closure
(
SMCRA
jurisdiction)
and
post­
closure
(
continuing
RCRA
and
CWA
jurisdiction).
°
Potential
use
of
State
trust
funds
for
future
corrective
actions,
to
be
paid
for
by
generators
°
Should
monitoring
regulations
be
dependent
on
size/
amount
of
ash
placement?
°
Financial
assurance
does
not
exist
under
SMCRA.
Need
to
put
in
place
a
mechanism
that
kicks
in
assurance,
but
not
under
SMCRA.
°
SMCRA
has
no
provision
for
long­
term
monitoring.
°
Following
SMCRA
bond
release,
there
are
no
owner/
operator
responsibilities
under
SMCRA.
This
is
true
also
for
acid
mine
drainage.
°
In
North
Dakota,
ash
placement
in
coal
mines
is
permitted
under
North
Dakota's
solid
waste
law,
while
the
mining
is
permitted
under
the
North
Dakota
SMCRA
program.
After
SMCRA
bonding
ends,
solid
waste
financial
assurance
requirements
continue.

II.
Performance
Standards
A.
MCLs
°
SMCRA
requires
compliance
with
applicable
State
and
federal
air
and
water
standards
(
These
help
to
define
"
material
damage,"
but
the
term
hasn't
actually
been
defined).
Over
the
years,
the
definition
of
"
material
damage"
has
been
heavily
debated.
Historically,
it
has
not
been
defined
in
order
to
preserve
flexibility.
°
Indiana,
Illinois,
and
Pennsylvania
are,
in
practice,
looking
at
MCLs.

B.
Non­
degradation
°
Relative
to
baseline.
°
For
all
parameters.
°
Key
to
this
is
effective
monitoring,
especially
with
regard
to
off­
site
migration.
°
Under
SMCRA,
the
quality
of
on­
site
ground
water
is
open;
SMCRA
is
concerned
mostly
with
off­
site
water
quality.

V.
Operational
Requirements
A.
Fugitive
Dust
Controls
°
Required
as
part
of
SMCRA
permits
(
as
well
as
MSHA
and
CAA
permits).
­
Apply
to
entire
minesite
(
ash,
roads,
cover,
spoil,
etc.).
Requires
temporary
cover
of
ash
stockpiles
if
not
controlled
by
other
methods.

VII.
Public
Participation
A.
Planning
and
Permitting
°
Under
SMCRA,
public
participation
is
provided
for
at
time
of
permit
application
and
for
significant
permit
revisions.
In
Pennsylvania,
for
ash
as
soil
amendment
or
additive
or
for
adding
a
new
source
of
the
ash,
there
is
no
public
participation
unless
requested.
CCW
Meeting
Notes:
Golden,
Colorado
*
DRAFT*
05/
17/
02
Page
11
of
14
°
In
Colorado,
the
proposed
SMCRA
permit
DECISION
is
available
for
public
review/
comment.
Most
States
don't
do
this;
rather,
the
permit
APPLICATION
is
the
focus
of
public
review/
comment.
Colorado's
process
is
similar
to
that
under
RCRA.
°
Several
opportunities
are
provided
to
comment
throughout
the
life
of
a
SMCRA
permit.
One
impression
is
that
SMCRA
has
more
opportunity
for
public
involvement
than
other
statutes
 
for
example,
a
single
person
can
request
a
hearing.
Comments
are
addressed
in
a
findings
document.
°
Following
SMCRA
permit
issuance,
the
public
has
the
right
to
object,
comment,
and
request
hearing.
°
A
citizen
can
send
a
letter
to
say
there
is
a
violation
and
the
State
is
obligated
to
investigate.
If
the
citizen
complains
to
OSM,
the
State
receives
a
letter
from
OSM
and
must
give
a
rationale
for
whether
or
not
a
violation
was
found.
°
SMCRA
permits
are
for
five
years
only
and
then
must
be
renewed
with
opportunity
for
public
participation
at
each
renewal.
At
mid­
life
of
the
five­
year
permit,
the
State
conducts
a
mid­
point
review.
°
SMCRA
provides
opportunity
for
the
public
to
participate
in
site
inspections.

B.
Monitoring
Information
°
All
public
information,
unless
proprietary,
is
maintained
at
State
offices.
Some
information
is
also
available
on­
site.

C.
Citizen
Suits
°
SMCRA's
is
identical
to
RCRA's.

VII.
Next
Steps
(
Greg
Conrad,
Executive
Director,
IMCC)

Regulatory
Gaps
Document
Workgroup
Based
on
the
comments
of
the
States,
Mr.
Conrad
proposed
that
a
smaller
workgroup
develop
a
document
that
clearly
shows
the
connection
or
inter­
relatedness
between
SMCRA
and
RCRA
regulations
in
addressing
mine
placement
of
CCW
with:

°
A
side­
by­
side
analysis,
and
°
Potential
standardization
of
terms
and
protocols.

The
workgroup
would
make
an
attempt,
using
EPA's
Regulatory
Concerns
Report,
to
bridge
the
gaps
between
RCRA
and
SMCRA
requirements
and
create
a
document
that
says
how
to
do
it.
This
may
result
in
a
supplemental
procedural
document
for
the
mining
permit
that
addresses
the
critical
program
elements
and
shows
how
RCRA­
type
procedures
are
already
being
done
under
SMCRA.
It
would
be
a
two­
day
working
session
to
develop
a
document
to
circulate
to
States
and
then
to
EPA
and
OSM.
This
document
would
then
be
the
basis
of
the
next
meeting.
In
forming
the
workgroup,
Mr.
Conrad
expressed
the
desire
to
have
at
least
eight
States
that
represent
East/
Central/
West,
coal/
noncoal,
RCRA/
SMCRA
(
see
below)
and
requested
volunteers.
He
stated
that
RCRA
representation
from
Pennsylvania,
Texas,
and
North
Dakota
is
key.
CCW
Meeting
Notes:
Golden,
Colorado
*
DRAFT*
05/
17/
02
Page
12
of
14
NY
$
noncoal
SC
$
noncoal
IN
$
SMCRA
PA
$
RCRA/
SMCRA
CO
$
coal/
noncoal
TX
$
RCRA/
SMCRA
ND
$
RCRA/
SMCRA
MO
$
RCRA
IL
$
SMCRA
Future
Meetings
°
The
workgroup
meeting
is
tentatively
scheduled
for
mid­
July
2002
in
the
Washington,
DC
area
at
the
IMCC
offices.
°
The
next
meeting
of
the
Mine
Placement
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
group
will
be
in
the
September/
October
2002
timeframe.
°
The
next
IMCC
meeting
is
in
November
2002
in
Annapolis,
Maryland.

Action
Items
°
States
should
submit
comments
on
EPA's
Reports
on
State
Regulations
by
May
31st
to
Bonnie
Robinson
(
EPA).
°
EPA
will
provide
revised
versions
of
the
Reports
on
State
Regulations
by
the
end
of
June.
°
EPA
should
make
any
changes
to
the
Minefill
Regulatory
Concerns
Report
within
30­
45
days.

Meeting
Summary
Attachments:
°
Meeting
Agenda
°
Meeting
Attendees
Available
on
EPA's
web
site
at
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
other/
fossil/
index.
htm:
°
Indiana's
Data
Management
Systems
Presentation
 
PowerPoint
Overheads
°
EPA
Response
to
IMCC
Discussion
Outline,
March
15,
2002
Draft
°
An
Overview
of
SMCRA
Regulations
Applied
to
CCBs,
April
10,
2002
°
EPA/
SMCRA
CCB
Overview,
April
10,
2002
°
EPA's
Minefill
Regulatory
Concerns,
April
9,
2002
Draft
CCW
Meeting
Notes:
Golden,
Colorado
*
DRAFT*
05/
17/
02
Page
13
of
14
AGENDA
State/
Tribal/
Federal
Meeting
on
Mine
Placement
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
April
15
and
16,
2002
Golden,
Colorado
I.
Welcome
and
Introductions
II.
Update
on
EPA's
Mine
Risk
Assessment/
Modeling
(
MRAM)
Project
III.
Update
on
EPA's
Reports
on
"
Regulation
and
Policy
Concerning
Mine
Placement
of
Coal
Combustion
Wastes
in
26
States"
and
"
Mine
Placement
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
 
State
Program
Elements
Analysis"

IV.
Update
on
EPA's
Program
of
Site
Visits
and
Interviews
with
Individual
State
and
Tribal
Offices
V.
Presentation
by
Indiana
Department
of
Natural
Resources
on
Coal
Combustion
Waste
Database
VI.
Reaction
of
Federal
Agencies
to
States'
Discussion
Outline
on
Coal
Ash
Management
!
EPA
!
OSM
!
Others
VII.
Review
and
Discussion
of
EPA's
Draft
Report
on
Minefill
Regulatory
Concerns
VIII.
Next
Steps
CCW
Meeting
Notes:
Golden,
Colorado
*
DRAFT*
05/
17/
02
Page
14
of
14
ATTENDEES
LIST
States/
Tribes/
Federal
Meeting
on
Mine
Placement
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
Marriott
Denver
West
­
Golden,
Colorado
April
15­
16,
2002
Name
Affiliation
Phone
Christine
M.
Garrow
SAIC
703­
318­
4687
Truett
DeGeare
U.
S.
EPA
703­
308­
8292
Paul
Ehret
Indiana
DNR
317­
232­
4020
Bruce
Stevens
Indiana
DNR
812­
665­
2207
Peter
Michael
OSM
412­
937­
2867
Randall
Mills
OSM
202­
208­
2928
Bob
Baker
Ohio
Division
of
Mineral
Resources
Management
614­
265­
1092
Connie
Lyons
Maryland
Bureau
of
Mines
301­
689­
6764
x.
302
John
Carey
Maryland
Bureau
of
Mines
301­
689­
6764
x.
206
Bret
R.
Sholar
Oklahoma
Dept.
of
Mines
405­
521­
3859
x.
35
Darrell
Shults
Oklahoma
Dept.
of
Mines
405­
521­
3859
x.
27
Greg
Conrad
IMCC
703­
709­
8654
Daniel
Wheeler
Illinois
IDCCA­
Office
of
Coal
Development
217­
558­
2645
Scott
Fowler
Illinois
DNR/
OMM/
LRD
217­
558­
4333
Rocky
Parsons
West
Virginia
DEP
304­
457­
3219
Joseph
Moskiewicz
New
York
Dept.
of
Environmental
Conservation
315­
426­
7461
Steve
Tillotson
North
Dakota
Dept.
of
Health
701­
328­
5163
Mike
Long
Colorado
DMG
303­
866­
3567
Lynn
Brickett
U.
S.
DOE
412­
386­
6574
Kimery
Vories
OSM
618­
463­
6463
x.
103
Michael
J.
Menghini
Pennsylvania
DEP:
District
Mining
Operations
570­
621­
3118
