THE
SURFACE
MINING
CONTROL
AND
RECLAMATION
ACT:
A
RESPONSE
TO
CONCERNS
ABOUT
PLACMENT
OF
COAL
COMBUSTION
BY­
PRODUCTS
AT
COAL
MINES
Kimery
C.
Vories
Mid­
Continent
Regional
Coordinating
Center
U.
S.
DOI
Office
of
Surface
Mining
Alton,
Illinois
Abstract
The
use
and
disposal
of
Coal
Combustion
By­
Products
(
CCBs)
(
i.
e.
fly
ash,
bottom
ash,
flue
gas
desulfurization
material,
and
fluidized
bed
combustion
material)
at
coalmines
has
become
an
area
of
intense
interest,
research,
activity,
and
controversy
during
the
last
decade.
The
U.
S.
DOI,
Office
of
Surface
Mining
(
OSM)
was
created
in
1977
as
part
of
the
Surface
Mining
Control
and
Reclamation
Act
(
SMCRA)
to
provide
minimum
levels
of
protection
concerning
public
health,
safety,
and
the
environment
and
balance
this
with
the
need
for
a
viable
U.
S.
coal
supply.
Beginning
in
May
of
1994,
OSM
has
taken
an
active
role
in
encouraging
and
promoting
technological
advances,
research,
and
technology
transfer
related
to
the
use
and
disposal
of
those
material
residues
remaining
after
the
combustion
of
coal
to
produce
electric
power.

Currently,
there
are
less
than
2
percent
of
the
CCBs
that
are
produced
in
the
U.
S.
that
are
placed
back
at
less
than
2
percent
of
the
mines
sites
where
they
originated.
Most
of
the
uses
to
date
have
been
extensively
researched.
This
research
indicates
that
the
placement
of
these
materials
on
the
mine
site
usually
results
in
a
beneficial
impact
to
human
health
and
the
environment
when
it
is
used
to
mitigate
other
existing
potential
mining
hazards.
It
can
also
be
used
to
improve
the
economics
of
mining
when
used
as
a
non­
toxic
fill
within
the
spoil
area
prior
to
grading
and
final
reclamation.
Beneficial
uses
include:
(
1)
a
seal
to
contain
acid
forming
materials
and
prevent
the
formation
of
acid
mine
drainage;
(
2)
an
agricultural
supplement
to
create
productive
artificial
soils
on
abandoned
mine
lands
where
native
soils
are
not
available;
(
3)
a
flowable
fill
that
seals
and
stabilizes
abandoned
underground
mines
to
prevent
subsidence
and
the
production
of
acid
mine
drainage;
(
4)
a
construction
material
for
dams
or
other
earth
like
materials
where
such
materials
are
needed
as
a
compact
and
durable
base;
and
(
5)
a
non­
toxic,
earthlike
fill
material
for
final
pits
and
within
the
spoil
area.

The
recycling
of
these
materials
into
useful
products
has
attracted
a
great
deal
of
interest
as
a
raw
material
for
basic
construction
products
off
the
mine
site.
Concerning
CCB
placement
at
coalmine
sites,
some
environmental
groups
believe
the
use
of
these
materials
places
an
unacceptable
risk
on
public
health
and
environmental
quality.
This
paper
will
attempt
to
provide
a
response
to
public
criticism
concerning
the
relative
adequacy
of
SMCRA
programs
that
protect
public
health
and
the
environment
when
CCBs
are
placed
at
a
SMCRA
permitted
mine
site.
A
Brief
History
of
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
Rule­
making
on
CCBs
Related
to
Their
Use
and
Disposal
on
Coal
Mine
Sites.

In
October
of
1980,
Congress
temporarily
exempts
from
regulation,
under
Subtitle
C
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA),
certain
large
volume
fossil
fuel
wastes
(
FFW)
and
then
directed
the
U.
S.
EPA
to
conduct
a
detailed
and
comprehensive
study
of
fossil
fuel
wastes
based
on
8
study
factors.

On
August
9,
1993,
the
U.
S.
EPA
made
a
regulatory
determination
that
the
four
large
volume
FFWs
do
not
warrant
regulation
as
hazardous
under
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA.
EPA
commits
to
a
schedule
to
complete
the
report
to
congress
for
the
remaining
wastes.

In
its
decision
on
May
22,
2000,
the
U.
S.
EPA
determined
that
national
regulations
under
subtitle
D
(
Solid
Waste)
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
[
and/
or
possible
modifications
to
regulations
under
the
Surface
Mining
Control
and
Reclamation
Act
(
SMCRA)]
were
warranted
when
these
wastes
are
used
to
fill
surface
or
underground
mines.
EPA
believes
this
is
necessary
so
that
CCBs
will
be
consistently
managed
across
all
waste
scenarios.
EPA
expects
to
have
a
proposed
rule
out
under
Subtitle
D
of
RCRA
(
Solid
Waste)
in
2003
and
a
final
rule
by
2004.

Purposes
of
SMCRA
The
purposes
of
SMCRA
are
given
in
the
Act
as
follows,
30
U.
S.
C.
1202:

 
Establish
a
nationwide
program
to
protect
society
and
the
environment
from
the
adverse
effects
of
surface
coal
mining
operations.
 
Assure
that
the
rights
of
surface
landowners
and
other
persons
with
a
legal
interest
in
the
land
or
appurtenances
thereto
are
fully
protected
from
such
operations.
 
Assure
that
surface
mining
operations
are
not
conducted
where
reclamation
as
required
by
the
Act
is
not
feasible.
 
Assure
that
surface
coal
mining
operations
are
so
conducted
as
to
protect
the
environment.
 
Assure
that
adequate
procedures
are
undertaken
to
reclaim
surface
areas
as
contemporaneously
as
possible
with
the
surface
coal
mining
operations.
 
Assure
that
the
coal
supply
essential
to
the
Nation's
energy
requirements,
and
to
its
economic
and
social
well­
being
is
provided
and
strike
a
balance
between
protection
of
the
environment
and
agricultural
productivity
and
the
Nation's
need
for
coal
as
an
essential
source
of
energy.
 
Assist
the
States
in
developing
and
implementing
a
program
to
achieve
the
purposes
of
the
Act.
 
Promote
the
reclamation
of
mined
areas
left
without
adequate
reclamation
prior
to
the
enactment
of
the
Act
and
which
continue,
in
their
unreclaimed
condition,
to
substantially
degrade
the
quality
of
the
environment,
prevent
or
damage
the
beneficial
use
of
land
or
water
resources,
or
endanger
the
health
or
safety
of
the
public.
 
Assure
that
appropriate
procedures
are
provided
for
the
public
participation
in
the
development,
revision,
and
enforcement
of
regulations,
standards,
reclamation
plans,
or
programs
established
by
the
Secretary
or
any
State
under
the
Act.
 
Provide
a
means
for
development
of
the
data
and
analyses
necessary
to
establish
effective
and
reasonable
regulation
of
surface
mining
operations
for
other
minerals.
 
Encourage
the
full
utilization
of
coal
resources
through
the
development
and
application
of
underground
extraction
technologies.
 
Stimulate,
sponsor,
provide
for
and/
or
supplement
present
programs
for
the
conduct
of
research
investigations,
experiments,
and
demonstrations,
in
the
exploration,
extraction,
processing,
development,
and
production
of
minerals
and
the
training
of
mineral
engineers
and
scientists
in
the
field
of
mining,
minerals
resources,
and
technology,
and
the
establishment
of
an
appropriate
research
and
training
center
in
various
States.
 
Wherever
necessary,
exercise
the
full
reach
of
Federal
constitutional
powers
to
insure
the
protection
of
the
public
interest
through
effective
control
of
surface
coal
mining
operations.

Response
to
Concerns
about
the
Placement
of
Fly
Ash,
Bottom
Ash,
Flue
Gas
Desulfurization
Material,
and
Fluidized
Bed
Combustion
Ash
at
SMCRA
Mine
Sites
Concern
#
1:
Mine
filling
(
with
CCBs)
is
not
adequately
addressed
by
SMCRA.

RESPONSE:
There
is
no
exemption
for
any
coal
combustion
by­
product
placed
at
a
SMCRA
mine
site
from
any
of
the
permitting
requirements
and
environmental
performance
standards
contained
in
SMCRA.
When
the
use
or
disposal
of
coal
combustion
by­
products
happens
at
surface
coal
mines,
State
and
Federal
coal
mining
regulators
are
involved
to
the
extent
that
SMCRA
requires2:

 
the
mine
operator
to
ensure
that
all
toxic
materials
are
treated,
buried,
and
compacted,
or
otherwise
disposed
of,
in
a
manner
designed
to
prevent
contamination
of
the
ground
or
surface
water;
 
making
sure
the
proposed
land
use
does
not
present
any
actual
or
probable
threat
of
water
pollution;
and
 
ensuring
the
permit
application
contains
a
detailed
description
of
the
measures
to
be
taken
during
mining
and
reclamation
to
assure
the
protection
of
the
quality
and
quantify
of
surface
and
ground
water
systems,
both
on
and
off­
sites,
from
adverse
effects
of
the
mining
and
reclamation
process
also
to
assure
that
rights
of
present
users
of
such
water
are
protected.

Any
disposal
of
coal
combustion
by­
products
at
mine
sites
must
be
in
accordance
with
SMCRA
standards,
State
and
Federal
Clean
Water
Act
requirements,
and
with
applicable
State
solid
waste
disposal
requirements.
The
States
differ
in
their
regulatory
requirements
for
disposal
of
coal
combustion
by­
products
as
solid
waste.
Trace
element
concentrations
in
coal
combustion
by­
products
vary
according
to
where
the
coal
was
mined
and
how
it
was
processed.
Chemical
and
physical
site
characteristics
differ
by
region.
Accordingly,
State
regulatory
programs
that
allow
use
or
disposal
must
be
designed
to
handle
those
differences.

Based
on
the
extensive
body
of
research
1,3
that
has
been
focused
on
this
issue
over
the
last
20+
years
that
has
shown
many
positive
environmental
effects
and
no
negative
effects,
the
author
concludes
that
SMCRA
is
providing
adequate
protection
of
public
health,
safety,
and
the
environment.

Concern
#
2:
These
materials
(
CCBs)
are
wastes
containing
significant
quantities
of
hazardous
constituents.

RESPONSE:
Research4
has
shown
that
less
than
1
percent
of
these
materials
have
the
potential
to
leach
hazardous
constituents
(
According
to
Nationwide
Analysis
by
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy
with
only
2
out
of
288
sources,
or
0.7
percent,
of
the
CCBs
tested
demonstrated
the
potential
to
leach
trace
elements
at
levels
that
would
be
classified
as
hazardous).

Concern
#
3:
Only
RCRA
has
the
authority
to
address
the
problems
presented
by
solid
and
hazardous
waste.

RESPONSE:
Although
no
regulatory
authority
can
contradict
RCRA,
many
other
State
and
Federal
regulations
can
and
do
apply
to
the
handling
of
wastes
or
recycled
materials.
RCRA
is
not
exclusive.
It
is
interesting
to
note
that
all
of
the
few
examples
of
potentially
hazardous
constituents
contaminating
ground
or
surface
water
produced
from
these
materials
were
produced
under
the
regulation
of
the
U.
S.
EPA
that
implements
RCRA
and
none
under
the
U.
S.
OSM
that
regulates
SMCRA.

Concern
#
4:
These
materials,
when
exposed
to
ground
water,
leach
hazardous
constituents.

RESPONSE:
Research4
has
shown
that
less
than
1
percent
of
these
materials
have
the
potential
to
leach
hazardous
constituents
based
on
laboratory
testing
with
the
TCLP
method.
Based
on
U.
S.
EPA
ground
water
monitoring
of
over
1,000
wells
at
electric
utility
CCB
disposal
areas
nationwide,
the
data
has
demonstrated
that
only
12
of
those
wells
have
produced
water
at
levels
considered
hazardous
and
none
from
SMCRA
mine
sites.
All
of
the
SMCRA
water
monitoring
data
I
am
aware
of
to
date,
indicate
that
placement
of
these
materials
at
SMCRA
mine
sites
does
not
produce
ground
water
that
has
hazardous
constituents
and
in
most
cases
is
environmentally
beneficial.

Concern
#
5:
The
leaching
process
may
take
decades,
but
significant
quantities
of
toxic
constituents
will
exit
a
deposit
of
these
materials,
often
severely
impacting
ground
and
surface
water.

RESPONSE:
The
SMCRA
permitting
process
is
designed
to
prevent
both
the
acceptance
of
any
CCB
materials
that
have
the
potential
to
harm
public
health
or
the
environment
and
the
placement
of
materials
in
such
a
manner
on
the
mine
site
that
they
would
have
the
potential
to
leach
toxic
levels
of
constituents.
The
SMCRA
mining
and
reclamation
plan
is
designed
to
ensure
that
the
placement
of
the
material
will
not
have
the
potential
to
contaminate
either
the
ground
or
surface
water.
The
SMCRA
water­
monitoring
plan
is
designed
to
demonstrate
that
the
SMCRA
permitting
and
planning
process
has
been
successful
in
protecting
the
environment
both
during
and
after
mining.

The
author
would
agree
that
in
some
hydrogeologic
settings
it
may
take
decades
to
restore
the
long
term
water
table
at
a
mine
site
(
specifically
in
the
arid
Western
U.
S.).
The
chemical
nature
of
these
CCB
materials,
however,
is
such
that
any
constituents
leached
from
them
will
leach
very
rapidly
at
first
and
then
be
reduced
to
barely
detectable
levels.
This
means
that
water­
monitoring
data
will
quickly
identify
the
worst
possible
leachate
characteristics
that
could
be
expected
from
placement
of
these
materials
at
a
mine
site.
Based
on
the
extensive
body
of
research
1,3
that
has
been
focused
on
this
issue
over
the
last
20+
years
that
has
shown
many
positive
environmental
effects
and
no
negative
effects,
the
author
concludes
that
SMCRA
is
providing
adequate
protection
of
public
health,
safety,
and
the
environment.

Concern
#
6:
The
use
of
these
materials
as
mine
fill
threatens
to
cause
problems
more
severe
than
the
conditions
it
was
intended
to
ameliorate
(
i.
e.
reduce
acid
mine
drainage).

RESPONSE:
Recent
studies
by
the
U.
S.
Geologic
Survey5
have
successfully
utilized
magnesium
to
calcium
ratios
and
sulfur­
isotope
ratios
as
tracers
on
Pressurized
Fluidized
Bed
Combustion
(
PFBC)
by­
product
placed
in
an
abandoned
coalmine
to
mitigate
the
effects
of
acid
mine
drainage.
The
study
demonstrates
that
the
application
has
been
environmentally
beneficial
both
in
dramatically
decreasing
the
effects
of
acid
mine
drainage
and
that
any
remaining
trace
elements
in
the
ground
water
are
due
to
acid
mine
drainage
and
not
leachate
from
the
PFBC.

Concern
#
7:
The
standard
leaching
test
on
a
typical
sample
of
these
materials
yields
results
indicating
that
these
materials
meet
SMCRA's
definition
at
30
CFR
701.5
of
a
"
toxic
forming
material"
which
means
"
earth
materials
or
wastes
which,
if
acted
upon
by
air,
water,
weathering,
or
microbiological
processes,
are
likely
to
produce
chemical
or
physical
conditions
in
soils
or
water
that
are
detrimental
to
biota
(
life)
or
uses
of
water."
Yet
nowhere
in
SMCRA,
its
regulations
or
in
OSM
guidance
is
there
any
explanation
or
numerical
standard
that
can
be
used
to
apply
this
definition
in
the
field.
Furthermore,
SMCRA
regulations
employ
confusing
language
that
requires
"
contact
(
of
water)
with
toxic
producing
deposits"
to
be
either
"
prevented,"
removed,"
or
"
minimized"
without
explaining
what
such
deposits
are
or
which
of
these
directives
should
be
applied
in
any
particular
case.
The
result
is
mine
filling
programs
throughout
the
U.
S.
that
range
from
those
isolating
these
materials
many
feet
above
water
tables
to
those
allowing
millions
of
tons
of
toxic
forming
materials
to
be
dumped
directly
into
groundwater
aquifers
that
are
being
used
for
private
and
public
water
supplies.

RESPONSE:
Most
of
these
materials
would
not
meet
the
SMCRA
definition
of
toxic
forming
material
because
most
of
them
have
leachate
characteristics
in
the
same
range
as
non­
toxic
native
soil
materials.
Less
than
2
percent
of
these
materials
have
the
potential
to
produce
toxic
levels
of
leachate.
Because
leachate
tests
are
required
as
part
of
the
SMCRA
permit
applications,
the
permit
can
not
be
approved
until
the
operator
demonstrates
that
the
placement
of
the
material
in
question
on
the
mine
site
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
contamination
of
the
ground
or
surface
water.
SMCRA
language
is
not
confusing.
SMCRA
requirements
differ
from
RCRA
requirements
however
because
they
are
based
on
performance
standards
rather
than
design
standards.
By
using
performance
standards,
which
are
minimum
levels
of
environmental
protection,
SMCRA
allows
for
each
State
Regulatory
Authority
to
develop
methods
and
techniques
which
are
most
appropriate
for
the
climate,
geology,
geography,
and
other
site
conditions
that
occur
locally.
It
also
allows
the
operator
to
design
the
sitespecific
mining
and
reclamation
techniques
that
maximize
the
operator's
efficiency
and
still
insure
the
appropriate
level
of
environmental
protection.
The
result
is
that
each
State
is
allowed
to
develop
a
program
specifically
suited
to
its
needs
to
protect
the
environment
based
on
local
conditions
while
maintaining
a
uniform
national
level
of
environmental
protection.
This
result
is
supported
by
all
existing
scientific
research
and
water
monitoring
which
finds
no
evidence
of
damage
to
public
health
or
environment
due
to
the
placement
of
these
materials
at
SMCRA
mine
sites
and
in
most
cases
actual
improvement
of
ground
or
surface
water
quality.
In
those
cases
where
they
are
used
as
soil
amendments
on
abandoned
mine
projects,
both
researchers
and
State
AML
programs
report
improved
plant
growth.

Concern
#
8:
Ground
water
monitoring
programs
at
active
and
inactive
mines
in
Indiana,
Illinois,
Ohio,
Kentucky,
West
Virginia,
Pennsylvania,
Texas,
North
Dakota,
and
New
Mexico
have
been
reviewed
and
found
that,
without
exception,
none
of
the
ground
water
monitoring
at
these
sites
approaches
the
standard
level
of
ground
water
monitoring
undertaken
at
RCRA
solid
or
hazardous
waste
disposal
facilities.

SMCRA
is
different
from
RCRA
in
that
SMCRA
using
minimum
environmental
performance
standards
that
allow
adaptation
to
site
specific
conditions
while
RCRA
applies
uniform
engineering
design
standards
without
regard
for
local
site
conditions.
Each
uses
different
methods
to
achieve
the
same
end
of
protection
of
public
health
and
the
environment.
SMCRA
requires
that
water
monitoring
plans
at
a
SMCRA
mine
site,
including
those
where
placement
of
these
materials
takes
place
on
the
mine
site,
must
be
designed
to
protect
the
current
and
approved
post­
mining
land
use
and
to
protect
the
hydrologic
balance
and
to
comply
with
existing
State
and
Federal
Water
Quality
laws
and
regulations.
The
final
proof
is
that
there
is
no
credible
evidence
that
SMCRA
has
not
protected
the
public
or
the
environment
where
these
materials
have
been
placed
at
a
SMCRA
mine
site.
All
of
the
scientific
evidence
to
date
shows
that
placement
of
these
materials
at
SMCRA
mine
sites
has
either
been
environmentally
beneficial
or
has
had
no
negative
effect.
Concern
#
9:
At
many
inactive
mines
used
as
fills
for
these
materials,
there
is
no
monitoring
at
all
because
OSM
and
the
States
fail
to
require
such
monitoring
at
abandoned
mine
reclamation
projects.

RESPONSE:
At
SMCRA
abandoned
mine
land
projects,
the
State
Regulatory
Authority
is
required
to
apply
for
a
NPDES
permit
under
the
Clean
Water
Act.
If
the
State
Clean
Water
Authority
requires
an
NPDES
permit,
then
the
project
must
obtain
the
permit
and
comply
with
any
applicable
monitoring
or
water
quality
requirements.
A
recent
study
by
Ralph
Haefner
of
the
U.
S.
Geologic
Survey
5
conducted
testing
and
monitoring
to
determine
the
impact
of
placing
CCBs
at
an
abandoned
mine
land
reclamation
site
contaminated
by
acid
mine
drainage.
This
study
proved
that
water
quality
after
application
of
the
CCBs
was
greatly
improved
following
CCB
placement
at
this
site
and
that
any
remaining
potentially
toxic
elements
were
a
result
of
the
historic
acid
mine
drainage
and
not
due
to
leachate
from
the
CCBs.

Concern
#
10:
In
EPA's
May
2000
Determination
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels,
the
agency
expressed
concern
over
the
lack
of
groundwater
monitoring
at
(
ELECTRIC
UTILITIES
NOT
COVERED
BY
SMCRA)
CCW
landfills
and
surface
impoundments.
EPA
pointed
out
that
62
percent
of
(
ELECTRIC
UTILITIES
NOT
COVERED
BY
SMCRA)
CCW
surface
impoundments
lack
ground
water
monitoring
systems.
The
commenter
supports
EPA's
concern
about
the
lack
of
monitoring
and
liners
at
(
ELECTRIC
UTILITIES
NOT
COVERED
BY
SMCRA)
CCW
landfills
and
surface
impoundments
and
the
need
for
RCRA
controls.
The
commenter
believes
it
follows
logically
that
this
concern
should
extend
to
the
much
greater
quantities
of
these
materials
placed
in
mines,
sometimes
in
direct
contact
with
ground
water.

RESPONSE:
It
is
not
valid
to
compare
utility
fossil
fuel
waste
disposal
sites
where
toxic
leachate
has
occurred
with
SMCRA
mines
sites
where
toxic
leachate
has
not
occurred,
as
they
differ
significantly
in
terms
of
regulatory
requirements,
geology,
geography,
hydrology,
characteristics
of
materials
placed,
and
reclamation
practices.
ELECTRIC
UTILITY
CCB
DISPOSAL
FACILITY
Electric
utility
disposal
sites
where
toxic
leachates
have
occurred
are
typically
characterized
by:

 
geographic
placement
in
a
floodplain;
 
a
geologic
setting
of
alluvial
sand
and
gravel
usually
close
to
a
river;
 
ground
water
that
is
plentiful
and
of
high
quality;
 
all
types
of
fossil
fuel
wastes
are
placed
in
these
facilities
in
a
wet
slurry
without
any
chemical
characterization
of
the
material;
 
reclamation
is
accomplished
with
a
shallow
layer
of
fill
over
the
area
and
revegetated;
and
 
the
Clean
Water
Act
usually
covers
the
area
during
operation
and
State
Solid
Waste
regulations
at
disposal
(
Figure
1).

TYPICAL
UTILITY
CCB
STORAGE/
DISPOSAL
AREA
SAND
&
GRAVEL
CCBS
RIVER
Figure
1.
Typical
cross­
section
of
an
electric
utility
disposal
site
where
toxic
leachate
has
occurred.
SMCRA
MINE
SITE
CCB
PLACEMENT
CCB
placement
at
mine
sites
typically
is
characterized
by:

 
a
geographic
placement
in
an
upland
position;
 
a
geologic
setting
of
bedrock
sandstone,
shale,
and
limestone
underlain
by
an
impermeable
fire
clay
below
the
lowest
coal
seam
that
was
mined;
 
ground
water
is
limited
and
of
poor
quality;
 
only
those
CCBs
that
are
leachate
tested
and
approved
in
the
SMCRA
permit
are
allowed
for
placement
on
the
mine
site;
 
reclamation
is
accomplished
with
a
deep
layer
of
spoil
over
the
area
followed
by
topsoil
and
then
revegetated;
and
 
at
all
phases,
the
placement
is
regulated
by
the
environmental
protection
permitting
and
performance
standards
of
SMCRA,
which
include
the
requirements
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
applicable
State
Solid
Waste
program
requirements
(
Figure
2).

T
Y
P
IC
A
L
C
C
B
F
IL
L
A
T
M
IN
E
C
C
B
S
S
PO
IL
F
IR
E
C
LA
Y
Figure
2.
Typical
cross­
section
of
CCB
placement
at
a
reclaimed
coalmine
site.

According
to
the
U.
S.
Geologic
Survey
and
the
American
Coal
Ash
Association
6,
in
2000
the
total
production
of
these
materials
was
98.2
million
metric
tons.
Of
that
total,
29.1
percent
was
recycled
as
commercial
products
and
1.55
million
metric
tons
or
1.6
percent
was
placed
at
mines
sites.
The
remaining
69.6
million
metric
tons
or
70.9
percent
was
placed
in
surface
impoundments
of
landfills
under
the
control
of
the
electric
utility
industry.
Neither
logic
nor
simple
arithmetic
would
support
the
claim
that
much
larger
quantities
of
these
materials
are
placed
at
mine
sites
than
by
electric
utilities
in
surface
impoundments
or
landfills.
Concern
#
11:
Without
exception,
OSM
and
State
mine
regulatory
officials
interpret
the
requirements
of
SMCRA
to
mean
that
groundwater
monitoring
at
mine
fills
need
only
take
place
through
the
final
release
of
mine
reclamation
bonds.
This
typically
occurs
within
3
to
8
years
after
mining
when
surface
revegetation
is
met
and
mine
operators
have
demonstrated
that
the
post­
mine
groundwater
recharge
capacity
exists.
Thus,
given
the
slow
and
usually
unpredictable
rate
of
groundwater
re­
saturation
around
mine
fills,
monitoring
is
stopped
many
years
if
not
decades
before
down
gradient
flows
of
groundwater,
much
less
plumes
of
fossil
fuel
waste
contaminants,
would
even
be
detectable
from
these
sites.
Without
the
bonds
being
held
for
much
longer
periods,
no
financial
assurance
is
available.
Furthermore,
the
commenter
has
yet
to
find
a
mine
reclamation
bond
valued
at
a
level
that
would
cover
the
costs
for
post­
closure
monitoring
or
maintenance
of
a
mine
fill
placement
site
nor
has
the
commenter
found
a
ground
water
monitoring
program
at
such
a
site
with
a
numeric
standard
or
concentration
of
pollution
that
could
constitute
a
corrective
action
standard.

RESPONSE:
OSM
has
not
provided
any
interpretation
of
the
SMCRA
requirements
for
duration
of
performance
bonds
other
than
the
plain
language
of
30
CFR
800.13(
a)(
1)
that
performance
bond
liability
shall
be
for
the
duration
of
the
surface
coal
mining
and
reclamation
operation
and
for
a
period
which
is
coincident
with
the
operator's
period
of
extended
responsibility
for
successful
revegetation
provided
in
816.116
or
until
achievement
of
the
reclamation
requirements
of
the
Act,
regulatory
programs,
and
permit,
whichever
is
later.
At
a
minimum,
30
CFR
816.116(
c)
requires
the
period
of
extended
responsibility
for
successful
revegetation
after
the
last
year
of
augmented
seeding .
And
in
areas
with
more
than
26
inches
of
annual
precipitation
for
5
full
years
and
in
areas
with
less
than
26
inches
of
annual
precipitation
for
10
full
years.
In
practice,
OSM
has
found
that
most
operators
do
not
achieve
a
phase
III
release
until
long
after
this
minimum
time
period.
In
the
year
2000
OSM
annual
report,
OSM
records
that
there
were
4,530,710
acres
under
SMCRA
permit.
In
that
same
year
63,071
acres,
or
1.4
percent
of
that
acreage,
received
a
full
Phase
III
bond
release.
At
that
rate
of
release,
it
would
take
almost
72
years
to
release
the
remainder
of
the
acreage
currently
under
permit.

What
is
important,
concerning
SMCRA
performance
bonding
duration,
is
that
SMCRA
requires
that
the
bond
not
be
released
until
all
of
the
reclamation
requirements
of
the
SMCRA,
including
protection
of
water
quality,
is
achieved.
To
date,
there
has
been
no
scientific
evidence
to
support
the
claim
that
water
monitoring,
where
these
materials
are
placed
at
a
mine
site,
needs
to
be
longer
than
that
required
for
proof
of
revegetation
success.
If
such
evidence
were
eventually
produced,
then
SMCRA
would
require
that
the
bond
be
maintained
until
the
minimum
performance
standards
were
met
regardless
of
the
time
it
took.

The
argument
that
a
determination
of
potential
water
quality
contamination
cannot
be
determined
until
the
volume
of
ground
water
has
reached
complete
re­
saturation
is
not
scientifically
valid.
Research
to
date
1,3,
indicates
that
release
of
leachable
trace
elements
from
CCBs
placed
at
mine
sites:
(
1)
is
not
at
levels
that
threatens
public
health
or
the
environment,
(
2)
takes
place
very
quickly
when
placed
in
contact
with
water,
(
3)
that
most
elements
leached
from
these
materials
are
usually
quickly
absorbed
by
the
surrounding
spoil
materials
(
usually
dominated
by
clay
and
silt
sized
particles
produced
by
shale
rock
in
the
overburden),
and
(
4)
that
any
long
term
leachate
from
these
materials
at
SMCRA
mine
sites
does
not
pose
any
threat
to
public
health
or
the
environment.

Concerning
the
bond
amount,
no
value
for
post
closure
monitoring
and
maintenance
of
the
placement
sites
can
be
assessed
when
the
best
science
available
indicates
that
none
will
be
necessary.
Concerning
a
numeric
standard
for
water
quality,
SMCRA
requires
that
water
monitoring
plans
at
a
SMCRA
mine
site,
including
those
where
placement
of
these
materials
takes
place
on
the
mine
site,
must
be
designed
to
protect
the
current
and
approved
post­
mining
land
use
and
to
protect
the
hydrologic
balance
and
to
comply
with
existing
State
and
Federal
Water
Quality
laws
and
regulations.
SMCRA
is
based
on
performance
standards
rather
than
design
standards.
By
using
performance
standards,
which
are
minimum
levels
of
environmental
protection,
SMCRA
allows
for
each
State
Regulatory
Authority
to
develop
methods
and
techniques
which
are
most
appropriate
for
the
climate,
geology,
geography,
and
other
site
conditions
that
occur
locally.
It
also
allows
the
operator
to
design
the
site­
specific
mining
and
reclamation
techniques
that
maximize
the
operator's
efficiency
and
still
insure
the
appropriate
level
of
environmental
protection.
The
result
is
that
each
State
is
allowed
to
develop
a
program
specifically
suited
to
its
needs
to
protect
the
environment
based
on
local
conditions
while
maintaining
a
uniform
national
level
of
environmental
protection.
This
result
is
supported
by
all
existing
scientific
research
and
water
monitoring
which
finds:
(
1)
no
evidence
of
damage
to
public
health
or
the
environment
due
to
the
placement
of
these
materials
at
SMCRA
mine
sites;
(
2)
in
most
cases,
actual
improvement
of
ground
or
surface
water
quality;
and,
(
3)
in
the
cases
where
they
are
used
as
soil
amendments,
improved
plant
growth
on
the
surface.

Concern
#
12:
In
contrast
to
(
RCRA)
landfills,
there
are
no
on­
site
restrictions
for
future
use
of
mine
fill
properties.
Placement
of
these
materials
at
mine
sites
can
cover
large
areas
up
to
several
thousand
acres.
The
commenter
has
yet
to
find
a
State
mine
fill
program
or
OSM
requirement
that
obligates
a
mine
operator
to
post
a
notice
that
disposal
of
fossil
fuel
waste
has
even
occurred
at
a
mine
fill,
no
matter
how
large
the
scale.

RESPONSE:
SMCRA
requires
mining
and
reclamation
plans,
including
those
incorporating
placement
of
these
materials
at
the
mine
site,
to
be
proposed,
reviewed,
and
approved
as
a
part
of
the
permitting
process.
SMCRA
requires
at
30
CFR
773.13
that
all
permit
applications,
significant
revisions,
and
renewals
of
all
permits
be
advertised
in
local
newspapers
and
copies
of
the
application
materials
be
made
available
to
the
public.
All
SMCRA
permitting
documents,
except
for
certain
proprietary
information,
are
a
matter
of
public
record.
Since
SMRCA
also
requires
that
the
pre­
mining
capability
of
the
land
be
restored
following
mining
and
reclamation,
there
is
no
need
for
on­
site
restrictions.
Conclusion
OSM
has
been
extensively
involved
with
the
development
and
distribution
of
technical
information
related
to
the
beneficial
placement
of
CCBs
at
coal
mine
sites.
Because
of
the
complexity
of
the
issues
involved
and
the
importance
of
protection
of
public
health
and
the
environment
during
surface
coal
mining
and
reclamation,
OSM
is
very
supportive
of
additional
research
into
the
potential
environmental
effects
of
CCB
placement
at
coal
mine
sites.
The
author's
assessment
of
the
20+
years
of
research
on
the
subject
to
date
indicates
that
the
placement
of
these
materials
on
SMCRA
mine
sites
usually
results
in
a
beneficial
impact
to
human
health
and
the
environment
when
it
is
used
to
mitigate
other
existing
potential
mining
hazards
or
as
a
non­
toxic
fill
to
reduce
reclamation
costs.
Any
additional
Federal
regulation
of
CCB
placement
at
SMCRA
mine
sites,
however,
should
be
based
on
sound
scientific
evidence
that
the
existing
regulatory
framework
is
not
adequate.

References
[
1]
Chugh,
Y.
P.,
B.
M.
Sangunett,
and
K.
C.
Vories
(
eds.).
1996.
Proceedings
of
ACoal
Combustion
By­
Products
Associated
with
Coal
Mining
­
Interactive
Forum@.
Southern
Illinois
University
at
Carbondale.
304
p.

[
2]
Henry,
K.
L.
1996.
IN
Chugh,
Y.
P.,
B.
M.
Sangunett,
and
K.
C.
Vories
(
eds.).
1996.
Proceedings
of
Coal
Combustion
By­
Products
Associated
with
Coal
Mining
­
Interactive
Forum.
Southern
Illinois
University
at
Carbondale.
Pp.
37­
39.

[
3]
Vories,
K.
C.
and
D.
Throgmorton
(
eds.).
2000.
Proceedings
of
AThe
Use
and
Disposal
of
Coal
Combustion
By­
Products
at
Coal
Mines:
A
Technical
Interactive
Forum.@
National
Energy
Technology
Center,
Morgantown,
West
Virginia.
Published
by
the
Coal
Research
Center,
Southern
Illinois
University,
Carbondale,
IL.
271p.

[
4]
Kim,
A.
G.,
W.
Aljoe,
and
S.
Renninger.
2001.
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels:
Research
Perspective
on
the
Regulatory
Determination.
U.
S.
DOE
National
Energy
Technology
Laboratory,
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
21
p.

[
5]
Haefner,
R.
J.
2001.
Effects
of
PFBC
Byproducts
on
Water
Quality.
Ashlines.
Vol.
2.
No.
1.
Spring
2001.
Combustion
Byproducts
Recycling
Consortium.
National
Mined
Land
Reclamation
Center.
West
Virginia
University.

[
6]
Kalyoncu,
R.
S.
2001.
Coal
Combustion
Products­
Production
and
Uses.
IN:
Proceedings
of
the
18th
International
Pittsburgh
Coal
Conference.
Session
34
Coal
Combustion
Byproducts
Utilization
I.
Newcastle,
New
South
Wales,
Australia.

[
7]
Murarka,
I.
P.
Winter
2000.
The
CBRC
Promotes
CCB
Use
to
State
and
Federal
Regulatory
Agencies.
Vol.
1
No.
4.
Combustion
By­
products
Recycling
Consortium
Ashlines.
pg.
3.
Kimery
Vories
is
a
Natural
Resource
Specialist
with
the
Office
of
Surface
Mining
since
1987.
He
is
chairperson
of
several
multi­
agency,
multi­
interest
group
steering
committees
that
hold
forums,
publish
proceedings,
and
manage
Internet
Websites
on
mining
and
reclamation
issues
related
to
the
technical
aspects
of
Coal
Combustion
By­
Products,
Prime
Farmland
Reclamation,
Reforestation,
and
Bat
Conservation.
He
has
been
professionally
employed
in
coal
mining
and
reclamation
since
1979
with
37
related
professional
publications.
He
serves
on:
(
1)
the
National
Steering
Committee
for
the
Combustion
By­
Products
Recycling
Consortium;
and
(
2)
the
Technical
Program
Committee
of
the
International
Ash
Utilization
Symposium
at
the
University
of
Kentucky.
He
holds
a
BA
&
MA
in
Biology/
Geology
from
Western
State
College
of
Colorado
with
an
additional
3
years
Post
MA
Graduate
work
in
Ecology
and
Reclamation
at
the
University
of
Massachusetts
and
Colorado
State
University.
