OSM CCB Placement in Coal Mines - Proposed Rulemaking

OSM CCB Placement in Coal Mines - Proposed Rulemaking

John R. Craynon, P.E.Chief, Division of Regulatory SupportOffice of Surface Mining Reclamation and EnforcementWashington, DC

What are CCBs?

• Boiler slag• Bottom ash• Fluidized bed combustion materials• Flue gas desulfurization materials• Fly ash

Mine Placement Economic Realities

Limited to:• Low transportation cost situations

– Mine mouth power plants

• Small power plants without RCRA disposal facilities

• Beneficial applications

Volumes of CCBs placed at mines

• Around 1.4% of all generated CCBs placed in mines

• CCBs placed equal to 0.15% of coal mined• Beneficial use cases: 5% of coal volume

replacement• Mine mouth power plants: maximum 25% of

coal volume

History• OSM has been working on CCB mine

placement issues for a number of years– 1994 Interagency Cooperation – 1996 Policy Statement

• Mine placement is an acceptable practice under SMCRA

– IMCC, OSM, EPA have been meeting regularly since 1999 to formulate regulatory approaches

OSM CCB Activities

• Hosted six interactive forums on CCBs

• Publication of Forum Proceedings

• Provided assistance to ASTM

• Developed CCB Website

Regulatory History

• 1988 EPA Report to Congress– No Subtitle C regulations needed

• 2000 EPA Regulatory Determination– No Subtitle C regulations needed– RCRA, SMCRA or a combination

EPA Information Gathering

• Risk assessment of groundwater data• CCB damage case information

– No SMCRA mine site damage cases

• Field investigations• Comparison of RCRA and SMCRA

requirements• 2002 public listening sessions hosted by EPA,

OSM and IMCC

NAS Study

• Directed by Congress

• Focused on coal mine placement

• Focused on identifying risks

• Released in March 2006

SMCRA Regulatory Background

• No explicit regulatory provisions related to CCBs in SMCRA

• CCB placement subject to all permitting and performance requirements

OSM Rulemaking Process

• Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (March 2007)

• Proposed Rulemaking (2008?)– Currently at OMB for approval

• Final Rulemaking (2009?)

ANPR

• Sought comments on intention to propose rule– Looked for input on what rule should

address

• Over 1,700 comments received, about 40 of which were substantial

Comments received on ANPR

• Coal industry/Electrical utilities– OSM/SMCRA States should regulate– Incorporate into existing regulatory

structure– Allow for flexibility

Comments received on ANPR

• States– States have experience– Rules should be flexible and build on

existing program– Look at characterization of material and

site– Reflect beneficial use of CCBs

Comments received on ANPR

• Individuals/environmental organizations– SMCRA not intended to regulate waste

disposal– Rules must also follow RCRA– OSM should prepare an EIS– Follow NRC recommendations

Proposed Rulemaking

• Proposed rules based solely on existing SMCRA authorities

• Proposed rules draw from existing regulations

• Proposed rules collect CCB placement requirements into a few sections, make implicit requirements explicit, and add new requirements as necessary

Rulemaking Content

• Title V– Permitting– Bonding– Monitoring– Performance Standards

Rules (cont.)

• Title IV (AML)– Limited to sites using AML Fund

monies– Information requirements– Analysis/Design requirements

OSM Rulemaking Approach

• OSM worked with EPA and states to develop proposal

• OSM considered ANPR comments and technical input

• Proposal allows what works to continue and adds only what is needed

OSM Goals in rulemaking

• Balance need for coal and opportunity to enhance mining and reclamation with CCB placement

• Ensure protection of the public and environment

• Enhance reclamation of mined lands

NOTE

• Proposed rule has not been cleared by OMB and is subject to change

• OSM has no control over or idea when the proposed rule will be published

Potential Areas to be Addressed

Types of placement to be covered

• Placement in mined-out area• Use in construction or reclamation of

waste disposal facility• Return of CCBs to coal refuse

reprocessing facility

Potential Areas to be Addressed

Exceptions• Use of CCBs as soil amendments• Use of CCBs for road building• Placement of CCBs in underground mine voids• Placement of CCBs under a RCRA permit• Placement before issuance of final rules

Potential Areas to be Addressed

Regulatory Review of Permits– Regular review of permits with CCBs

after placement begins• Ensure compliance with the plan and

regulatory requirements

Potential Areas to be Addressed

Permit application requirements– Spell out specific information needed

when CCBs are to be placed

Potential Areas to be Addressed

• Potential permit application requirements– Maps– Right to place CCBs– Descriptions and cross-sections of

placement

Potential Areas to be Addressed

• Permit application requirements (cont.)– Volumes of CCBs to be placed– Info on the source of CCBs– Type of CCBs to be placed– Tests and analyses required

Potential Areas to be Addressed

• Permit application requirements (cont.)– Parameters to be tested for– Baseline hydrologic information– Geologic descriptions of placement

areas

Potential Areas to be Addressed

• Permit application requirements (cont.)– Surface and groundwater flow info– Hydrological modeling info– Anticipated effects of CCBs on water

Potential Areas to be Addressed

• Determinations and findings– Set out RA responsibilities in

permitting– Requirement for written finding on

suitability of CCB placement

Potential Areas to be Addressed

• Permit revisions– Permit revisions that include

placement of CCBs are significant and require public involvement

• Addresses concern in NRC report

Potential Areas to be Addressed

• Bonding– Add new requirement for amount

and duration of groundwater monitoring data showing no adverse trends prior to bond release

Potential Areas to be Addressed

• Performance Standards – Adds several specific requirements– Address concerns from NRC report,

comments received on ANPR, and other input

Potential Areas to be Addressed

• Performance standards– Regular testing– Testing when source or character of

CCBs changes– Groundwater monitoring

requirements

Potential Areas to be Addressed

• Performance standards (cont.)– Remedial action requirements– RA review of monitoring– Contemporaneous reclamation

requirements

Potential Areas to be Addressed

• Performance standards (cont.)– Prohibitions on creation of excess spoil as

a result of CCB placement– Requirement for minimum cover– Requirement for prevention of air and

water pollution resulting from placement

Potential Areas to be Addressed

• Abandoned Mine Lands– Add new requirements for projects funded

under Title IV which contemplate CCB placement

– Requirements generally adopt same approach for AML projects as for Title V

– Proposal must recognize unique nature of AML

Comment period

• OSM will likely be proposing a 60-day comment period– We expect requests for extension

• OMB review may result in expanded or contracted comment period

EPA Rulemaking

• EPA will address the few coal sites outside of SMCRA jurisdiction– Operations not classified as “coal mines”– AML sites with no SMCRA involvement

• OSM has worked closely with EPA• Minefilling rules under SMCRA and

EPA rules will complement each other