Coal Mining and Processing | Energy Trends Insider

Coal miners use giant machines to remove coal from the ground.
They use two methods: surface or underground mining.
Many U.S.
coal beds are very near the grounds surface, and about two-thirds of coal production comes from
surface mines.
Modern mining methods allow us to easily reach most of our coal reserves.
Due to growth in surface mining and improved mining technology, the amount of coal produced
by one miner in one hour has more than tripled since 1978.
Surface mining is used to produce most of the coal in the U.S.
because it is less expensive than underground mining.
Surface mining can be used when the coal is buried less than 200 feet underground.
In surface mining, giant machines remove the top-soil and layers of rock to expose large beds of
coal.
Once the mining is finished, the dirt and rock are returned to the pit, the topsoil is replaced, and
the area is replanted.
The land can then be used for croplands, wildlife habitats, recreation, or offices or stores.
Underground mining, sometimes called deep mining, is used when the coal is buried several
hundred feet below the surface.
Some underground mines are 1,000 feet deep.

To remove coal in these underground mines, miners ride elevators down deep mine shafts where
they run machines that dig out the coal.
Processing the Coal After coal comes out of the ground, it typically goes on a conveyor belt to a
preparation plant that is located at the mining site.
The plant cleans and processes coal to remove dirt, rock, ash, sulfur, and other unwanted
materials, increasing the heating value of the coal.
Source: Energy Information Administration Next Transporting the Coal
NSW Mining Methods - NSW Mining
Miners innovate to manage risk at annual awards night May 20, 2013 Miners from the States
Hunter, Illawarra and Western NSW regions took out the coveted Innovation Awards on offer at
the annual NSW Mining Health and Safety Conference in the Hunter, attended by over 450
industry employees.
Read more See All Industry News Mining methods Mining techniques have dramatically
transformed over many years, with technological advances improving efficiency and the safety
and health of our people, while minimising the environmental impact of our operations.
NSW has both open-cut and underground mines.
Open-cut mining Open-cut mining usually happens where mineral deposits are close to the
surface.
It involves blasting and removing surface layers of soil and rock to reach the mineral deposit.
When the mineral seam becomes exposed, it is drilled, fractured and the mineral recovered for
processing.
Open-cut mining can be more effective than underground methods, generally recovering 90% of
a mineral deposit, and accounts for about 65% of raw coal production in NSW. Open-cut mining
is also used for some gold and copper production in NSW.

One of Australias largest open-cut coal mines, BHP Billitons Mt Arthur Coal mine, is located in
the Hunter Valley.
Underground mining

Underground mining involves creating tunnels from the surface into

the mineral seam, which can be hundreds of metres below the surface.
These tunnels are used to transport machinery that extracts the mineral.
Underground mining accounts for 60% of world coal production, but is less common in NSW,
making up around 35% of raw coal production.
This method is also used to mine metallic minerals like gold and copper.
The two main types of underground mining in NSW are bord-and-pillar and longwall mining.
Bord-and-pillar: Bord-and-pillar, or room-and-pillar, is the oldest underground mining technique
and was common in NSW before longwall mining began in the 1960s.
This method uses a grid of tunnels and involves progressively cutting panels into the coal seam
whilst leaving behind pillars of coal to support the mine.
This method has been in steady decline as more efficient technologies are introduced, but is still
used in a small number of mines across the state, like Yancoals Tasman Mine near Newcastle.
Longwall mining: Longwall mining revolutionised underground coal mining with its capacity for
safe, cost effective and efficient large-scale extraction.
Longwall mining uses mechanical shearers to cut coal away whilst hydraulic-powered supports
hold up the roof of the mine.
As coal is removed, the supports are moved forward and the roof is collapsed behind them,
which can result in subsidence.
Longwall mining is more efficient than bord-and-pillar as it does not leave behind pillars of coal,
so more of the mineral resource can be extracted.

One example of a longwall mine is Centennial Coals Angus Place mine, near Lithgow.
A newer technique is block-caving, where mineral ores like gold and copper - are extracted by
collapsing the mineral deposits under their own weight. Australias first block cave mine opened
in 1997 near Parkes, in Central West NSW.
Located at Northparkes Mines, it is part of Rio Tintos Mine of the Future program, which aims
to make mining more efficient and safer through increased automation and remote operation.
Coal preparation minerals processing Coal direct from a mine has impurities like rocks and dirt
that are removed through washing and treatment at a coal preparation plant.
Coal preparation makes the resource more profitable by improving its quality and also lowers
transport costs by reducing waste products.

Coal preparation also minimises the impact on air

quality during transportation of coal to power stations or our export ports in Newcastle and
Wollongong.
Minerals processing encompasses a range of activities including exploration, mining and
manufacturing of resources.
NSW leads Australia in minerals processing, with substantial infrastructure in steel, aluminium
and cement production, as well as refractories used to produce a range of materials like linings
for furnaces, kilns and incinerators.
Coal
.blm1144463308484

font-family:Verdana;

font-size:12px;

font-style:normal;

font-

weight:normal; } .blm1145906881515 { font-family:Verdana; font-size:12px; font-style:normal;

font-weight:normal; } .blm1145906920171 { font-family:Verdana; font-size:10px; fontstyle:normal; font-weight:normal; } .blm1162486787864 { font-family:Verdana; font-size:10px;
font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; } .blm1162486751224 { font-family:Verdana; fontsize:9px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; } .blm1162486812399 { font-family:Verdana;
font-size:8px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; } function CFC_popup(/*String*/ url,
/*String*/ name, /*String*/ features) { var defaultWidth = 500; var defaultHeight = 400; if

(url.indexOf("/") == 0) url = "/publish" + url; if (features.indexOf("width") == -1) features +=

",width=" + defaultWidth; if (features.indexOf("height") == -1) features += ",height=" +
defaultHeight; var w = window.open(url, name, features); w.focus(); } Coal OperationsBLM has
responsibility for coal leasing on approximately 570 million acres where the coal mineral estate
is owned by the Federal Government.
The surface estate of these lands could be controlled by BLM, the United States Forest Service,
private land owners, state land owners, or other Federal agencies.BLM receives revenues on coal
leasing at three points: a bonus paid at the time BLM issues the leasean annual rental payment of
$3.00 per acre or fraction thereofroyalties paid on the value of the coal after it has been
minedThe Department of the Interior and the state where the coal was mined share the
revenues. Federal Coal Leasing The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and the Mineral
Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended, give the BLM responsibility for coal
leasing on approximately 570 million acres of the 700 million acres of mineral estate that is
owned by the Federal Government, where coal development is permissible. The surface estate of
these lands could be controlled by the BLM, United States Forest Service, private landowners,
state landowners, or other Federal agencies.
The BLM works to ensure that the development of coal resources is done in an environmentally
sound manner and is in the best interests of the Nation.Regulations that govern the BLM's coal
leasing program may be found in Title 43, Groups 3000 and 3400 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR).
This publication is available in law libraries and most large public libraries.
The CFR is also available online from the Government Printing Office (www.access.gpo.gov).
Energy Renewable Energy Resources Wind Energy Solar Energy Geothermal Biomass Electric
Transmission Facilities Energy Corridors Oil and Gas Coal Oil Shale Tar Sands Rights-of-Way
Energy Policy Act of 2005 Public Events on Oil and Gas Coal Listening Sessions Comparative
Assessment of the Federal Oil and Gas Fiscal System Minerals Links Coal Lease StatisticsBLM
Mineral Materials SiteSolid Minerals BrochureMining Claims and Sites on Federal Lands Lands

Available for Leasing Public lands are available for coal leasing only after the lands have been
evaluated through the BLM's multiple-use planning process.
Leasing federal coal resources is prohibited on public lands such as military reservations,
National Parks, or National Wildlife Refuges.
In areas where development of coal resources may conflict with the protection and management
of other resources or public land uses, the BLM may identify mitigating measures which may
appear on leases as either stipulations to uses or restrictions on operations. Suitable Lands for
Coal Leasing Not all public lands are available for coal exploration or leasing.
There is a rigorous land use planning process through which all public lands are reviewed for
potential coal leasing. Requirements for the land use plan include multiple use, sustained yield,
protection of critical environmental areas, application of specific unsuitability criteria, and
coordination with other government agencies.
There are four specific land use screening steps that are unique to developing land use planning
decisions for federal coal lands.
These are:Identification of coal with potential for developmentDetermination if the lands are
unsuitable for coal developmentConsideration of multiple use conflictsSurface owner
consultationThe purpose of the coal screening part of the land use planning process (43 CFR
3420.1-4) is to identify those federal lands that are acceptable for further consideration for coal
leasing and development. Lessee Qualifications and Limitations You are qualified to hold a
Federal coal lease if you are one of the following:A citizen of the United StatesAn association of
citizens organized under the laws of the United States or any state thereofA corporation
organized under the laws of the United States, or of any state thereof, including a company or
corporation operating a common carrier railroadA public body, including municipalitiesIn
addition to these general qualifications, you must also comply with several special leasing
qualifications including:The aggregate acreage in leases and applications in which you can hold
an interest, directly or indirectly, cannot exceed 75,000 acres in any one state and no more than
150,000 acres in the United States. You may not acquire any other mineral leases under the

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, if you hold or have held a federal coal lease for 10 or
more years that has not produced commercial quantities of coal.
Other minerals that can be leased under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 include oil, natural gas,
sodium, potassium, phosphate, sulfur, and gilsonite. As a part of your application for a new coal
lease, you must provide a self-certified statement that you are in compliance with all applicable
laws and regulations.An alien may hold interests in leases only by stock ownership in U.S.
corporations holding leases and only if the laws of his/her country do not deny similar privileges
to citizens of the United States.
However, an alien may not hold a lease interest through units in a publicly traded
partnership. Types of Coal Leases The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976
(FCLAA), which amended Section 2 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, requires that all public
lands available for coal leasing be leased competitively.
There are two notable exceptions to this requirement: (1) preference right lease applications
where a lease may be issued on a noncompetitive basis to owners of pre-FCLAA prospecting
permits and (2) modifications of existing leases where contiguous lands of as much as 960 acres
are added noncompetitively to an existing lease. Competitive Leasing Process There are two
distinct procedures for competitive coal leasing: (1) regional leasing where the BLM selects
tracts within a region for competitive sale and (2) leasing by application where the public
nominates a particular tract of coal for competitive sale.Regional coal leasing requires the BLM
to select potential coal leasing tracts based on multiple land use planning, expected coal demand,
and potential environmental and economic impacts.
This process requires close consultation with local governments and citizens through a
Federal/state advisory board known as a Regional Coal Team.
However, because demand for new coal leasing in recent years has been associated with the
extension of existing mining operation on authorized federal coal leases, all current leasing is
done by application.Leasing by application begins with BLM review of an application to lease a

coal tract to ensure that it conforms to existing land use plans and contains sufficient geologic
data to determine the "fair market value" of the coal.
Upon review of the application and consideration of public comments, the BLM will reject,
modify, or continue to process the application.Once the BLM accepts an application, the agency
begins either an Environmental Analysis (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
When an EA or a draft version of an EIS has been prepared, the BLM seeks public comment on
the proposed lease sale.
At the same time, the BLM will also consult with other appropriate Federal, state, and tribal
government agencies.Preparations for the actual lease sale begin with the BLM formulating an
estimate of the "fair market value" of the coal.
This number is kept confidential and is only used to evaluate the bids received during the
sale.Sealed bids are accepted prior to the date of the sale and are publicly announced during the
sale.
The winning bid will be the highest bid that meets or exceeds the coal tract's presale estimated
fair market value, assuming that all eligibility requirements are met and the appropriate fees and
payments are attached (at a minimum, this amounts to the first year's annual rental payment and
one-fifth of the amount bid).Remittances associated with the coal leasing process may be made
by personal check, cashier's check, or money order made out to the Department of the Interior.
Although cash will not be accepted, VISA or MasterCard may be used. Related Document: June
20, 2013, MOU between the BLM and OVS re Valuation Processes under the BLM Coal
Management Program.Processing CostsThe applicant for a new federal coal lease is required to
reimburse the BLM for all processing costs that are incurred by the BLM. The BLM will provide
an estimate of the total processing fee before any work begins. The applicant must make
payment toward the total process fee in advance of the BLM initiating any work on the
application. Any excess payments will be refunded to the applicant. The total actual processing
cost that was incurred by the BLM will be disclosed in the lease sale notice. Entities other than
the applicant that may desire to competitively bid on the prospective coal lease must provide, in

addition to their competitive bid for the coal resource, funds equal to the total BLM processing
cost that will be used to reimburse the applicant if the third-party entity is determined to be the
successful high bidder. Lease Terms and Conditions A federal coal lease grants the right to
explore for, extract, remove, and dispose of some or all of the coal deposits that may be found on
the leased lands.Coal leases are granted on the condition that the lessee will obtain the
appropriate permits and licenses from the BLM, the Office of Surface Mining, and any affected
state and local governments.Revenues from Coal LeasingThe BLM receives revenues from coal
leasing at three points: A bonus that is paid at the time BLM issues a lease.
Rental Fees. The annual rental rate for coal leases is $3 per acre (or fraction thereof).
After the lease is issued, rentals must be received by the Department of the Interior's Office of
Natural Resourses Revenue (ONRR) on or before the lease anniversary date to prevent
cancellation of the lease.Production Royalties. The royalty for federal coal has been established
by law at 12.5% of the gross value of the coal produced. The 12.5% royalty rate applies to coal
severed by surface mining methods. For coal mined by underground methods, the statute
provides that the Secretary may establish a lesser royalty rate. By regulation, the BLM requires
an 8% royalty for coal severed by underground mining methods.All receipts from a lease are
shared equally with the state in which the lease is located. Bonding Before the BLM issues a coal
lease, the lessee must furnish a bond in an amount determined by the agency to ensure
compliance with the terms and conditions of the lease.
At a minimum, a bond is required that will cover one-fifth of the bonus bid if there is any
remaining unpaid balance, as well as one year of advance rental and one-quarter year of
estimated royalties if the lease is in production.
In addition, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 requires sufficient
bonding to cover anticipated reclamation costs.
This bond is submitted to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation Enforcement or the state
regulatory office.The BLM may require a change in bond amount, either an increase or decrease,
at any time the agency believes it is warranted. Transfer or Sale of a Lease The BLM must

approve the assignment of a lease in whole or in part to another entity. The other entity must be
qualified to hold a Federal coal lease.
The rights of the entity receiving the lease, however, will not be recognized by the BLM until
the assignment is approved. The original lessee remains responsible for all obligations of the
lease until the assignment is approved by the BLM.Under certain circumstances, an exchange of
coal leases may be allowed for the purposes of compensation, or when the exchange is in the
public interest.Termination of a Lease A federal coal lease has an initial term of 20 years, but it
may be terminated in as few as 10 years if the coal resources are not diligently developed.
A federal coal lease can also terminate if a lessee fails to pay any of the deferred bonus bid
payments.
In addition, if the lessee fails to comply with the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920,
as amended, or fails to comply with any applicable regulations, lease terms, or stipulations, the
BLM may take legal steps to cancel the lease.A lessee may, at any time, seek to surrender a lease
in whole or in part by filing a written request for relinquishment with the jurisdictional BLM
office.
However, the lessee must be in compliance with all lease terms and conditions and have paid all
payments and fees.
The lease bond may be used to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the
lease. Logical Mining Units (LMU)A logical mining unit (LMU) allows the lessee or operator to
consolidate the diligent development and continued operations requirements for all the federal
leases and other coal tracts within the boundaries of a mine. An LMU provides for continuity in
management of the coal resource whenever the geologic characteristics of a coal seam cross
property boundaries.
In addition, LMUs allow development of the coal deposit as a unit in an efficient, economical,
and orderly manner with due regard for conservation of the coal and other resources.

The acreage of both federal and non-federal lands within an LMU cannot exceed 25,000
acres. Formation of an LMU requires an application and approval by BLM.
Kids Korner - Coal Mining
Copyright 2009 Apogee | Acknowledgements Acknowledgements Kids Korner is made
possible by the creative, talented and dedicated team consisting of the following: Valerie
Williams Valerie Williams, Apogees Art Director and Lead Artist is the creator and artistic talent
behind Kids Korner.
In the late 90s, after producing hundreds of illustrations and animations for Apogee online
courses and Internet content over the years, it occurred to Valerie that these expensive art
elements could be re-purposed for communicating complicated energy concepts to children.
Encouraged by the enthusiastic reaction she received from our utility customers, Valerie
undertook the design and began the curriculum development of what has become one of the most
elaborate and comprehensive energy education sites around.
As the site shows, her artistic flair brings technical topics to life, and her proficiency in
Photoshop, Quark, In-Design, Illustrator, Flash and Dreamweaver enable her to create impressive
designs in both electronic and print formats.
Margaret M.
Aderholdt, Teacher Advisory Group Director Margaret M.
Aderholdt, a middle school teacher at Wellborn Elementary in Anniston, Alabama, leads
Apogees teacher advisory group.
In this capacity, she is the spokesperson for the group, providing input to the curriculum
developed for Kids Korner and kid-testing any support materials designed for use with the site
prior to them going into production and distributed to customers or schools.

With more than 16 years teaching experience, Margaret has been awarded numerous grants and
honors for herself and the various schools at which she has instructed.
Most recently, she was named the 2004 Teacher of the Year for her outstanding work increasing
her students test scores, expanding their involvement in academic pursuits, and her tireless
efforts to stimulate and challenge her students to higher achievement.
Margaret spends her summers attending professional development conferences, workshops, and
classes to stay abreast of the latest research in science education.
Margaret earned her B.A.
in Business Administration at Transylvania University and holds a masters degree in
International Commerce from the University of Kentucky. After raising two college age
daughters, Margaret returned to the classroom herself to earn a masters degree in Elementary
Education.
Michael Overstreet, Product Manager Michael Overstreet is Apogees Kids Korner Product
Manager and the mastermind of the sites programming and navigational design.
In his role as product manager, Michael assists utilities with the implementation of their
customized Kids Korner application.
In addition, he leads Apogees field testing of all Kids Korner website activities and
supplemental material, conducting classroom trials in local schools.
Susan Gilbert, Curriculum Development Susan Gilbert brings to Kids Korner and its growing
number of support materials her education and experience as an instructional designer and her
enthusiasm for energy education.
As president and co-founder of Apogee, Susan is the primary architect behind Apogees online
energy courses and web content divisions, effectively translating her nearly 25 years of energy
efficiency and training experience into highly interactive, online training courseware and Web
site tools.

Drawing upon her masters degree in Curriculum and Instruction, Susan directs the instructional
design process for all Apogee eLearning initiatives, including her personal favorite, Kids Korner.
Dick Niess, Technical Director Dick Niess is Kids Korners technical reviewer responsible for
assuring accuracy and clarity of the concepts covered on the site.
A distinguished Tau Beta Pi graduate of the Virginia Military Institute, Mr.
Niess earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering.
Mr.
Niess is a Fellow of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE), is immediate past Chairman of the Applied Heat Pump and Heat
Recovery Technical Committee, and serves on the Geothermal Energy Utilization and
Centrifugal Machines Technical Committees.
He is a repeat contributor to the ASHRAE Systems Handbook, and has authored numerous
technical publications for the energy industry.
Coal waste - SourceWatch
Issues at AEP surface impoundments in West Virginia An engineering report submitted to EPA in
November 2009 recommended upgrading the rating of two surface impoundments at the Philip
Sporn Power Plant in West Virginia from "poor" to "fair." Engineers from Dewberry, an EPA
contractor, said the dams were likely to hold in the event of an earthquake, but that repairs and
additional tests were still necessary.
EPA said it would consider the recommendations, and American Electric Power said it would
conduct further tests at the site.
In addition to these investigations, the Department of Environmental Protection also discovered
two nearby coal ash dams that officials were not aware existed, and that did not meet state safety
regulations.[45] 2010: Reports identify more "damage case" coal waste sites On February 24,

2010 Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice released a report, "Out of Control:
Mounting Damages from Coal Ash Waste Sites" indicating that at least 31 new damage cases
were not listed by the EPA in its 2010 coal-ash pollution sites.
The groups identified the sites by assembling contamination data from state files using similar
criteria to those sites the EPA had already identified.
The 31 identified sites are spread across 14 states, including Delaware (1), Florida (3), Illinois
(1), Indiana (2), Maryland (1), Michigan (1), Montana (1), Nevada (1), New Mexico (1), North
Carolina (6), Pennsylvania (6), South Carolina (3), Tennessee (2), and West Virginia (2).
Arsenic, selenium, and boron were among the dangerous chemicals found to have migrated off
nearly half of the 31 sites where coal-fired power plants store their coal ash.
The report concluded that the EPA must regulate coal ash waste in order to protect the public and
the environment from the negative effects of coal waste.[46] The 2010 EarthJustice,
Environmental Integrity Project, and Sierra Club report, "In Harm's Way: Lack of Federal Coal
Ash Regulations Endangers Americans and their Environment," identified an additional 39 coal
combustion waste (CCW) disposal sites in 21 states that have contaminated groundwater or
surface water with toxic metals and other pollutants, based on monitoring data and other
information available in state agency files.[47] When the findings from the two reports are added
to the 67 damage cases that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) acknowledged in 2010, the total number of sites
polluted by coal ash or coal scrubber sludge comes to at least 137 in 34 states.[47] In December
2011, the EIP released another report identifying 20 additional coal ash dump sites causing
groundwater and soil contamination in 10 states Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kentucky, Nevada, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas - with 19 sites containing contaminated
groundwater with arsenic or other pollutants at levels above Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCL).
The new report brings the total number of damage cases identified by EPA and other groups to
157.[48] Coal waste regulation Coal waste dumps contain billions of gallons of fly ash and other

coal waste containing toxic heavy metals, which the EPA considers a threat to water supplies and
human health.
However, they are not subject to federal regulation, and there is little monitoring of their impacts
on the local environment.[49] The EPA reclassified fly ash from waste to a reusable material in
the 1980s.
The agency exempted ash from regulations for hazardous waste beginning in 1993.[6] In 2001,
the EPA said it wanted to set a national standard for ponds or landfills used for the disposal of
coal waste.
However, the agency has yet to act, and coal ash ponds are currently subject to less regulation
than landfills accepting household trash, despite the tens of thousands of pounds of toxic heavy
metals stored in ash ponds across the U.S.
State regulations vary, but most ash ponds are unlined and unmonitored.[50] In January 2009,
Sue Sturgis of the Institute for Southern Studies looked into political contributions by the
electrical utilities industry to the members of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee.
According to data Sturgis gathered from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org
website, members of the Senate committee accepted a total of $1,079,503 from the electric
utilities industry in the 2008 elections.[51] Current bills Senate Bill 1751 Coal Residuals Reuse
and Management Act [52], introduced in the 112th United States Congress by Sen.
John Hoeven (R-ND).
To amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to facilitate recovery and beneficial use,
and provide for the proper management and disposal, of materials generated by the combustion
of coal and other fossil fuels.
The bill would allow construction of ash dumps that don't meet drinking water standards for
arsenic, lead and other pollutants; allow indefinite operation of unstable and dangerous ash
ponds; shut out citizens who live near coal ash sites from permitting decisions that affect their

health and safety; allow states to waive any health and safety standards and require EPA to defer
to those decisions, and prevent EPA from ever revisiting a coal ash rule, even in the event of
increased risk from ash dumps.
The bill is nearly identical to HR 2273.
See Earthjustices fact sheet for SB 1751.[53] EPA considers regulating coal ash In May 2009, an
EPA representative announced at an energy industry conference that the agency is preparing
regulations on how to handle ash from coal-fired power plants.
Matt Hale, the EPA official, said coal ash may be reclassified as hazardous waste.
Although industry officials were vocal with objections, saying such a change would greatly
increase disposal costs, Hale indicated that EPA hoped to have a proposal for national regulations
by the end of the year.
"The catastrophe at TVA changed the discussion and focused the discussion," he said.[54] EPA is
holding public hearings and accepting public comments on its Coal Combusion Residuals Proposed Rule through November 19, 2010.[55] Internet sign-on comment letters on EPA's
Proposed Rule asking that coal waste be regulated as hazardous waste have been developed by
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility,Green America, Credo Action, and Sierra
Club.
Regulations delayed On December 17, 2009, EPA announced it was postponing its findings on
coal ash regulations.
A final decision had been expected before the end of the year.
EPA attributed the delay to "the complexity of the analysis the agency is currently finishing," but
said the delay would only last "a short period."[56] Earlier, in October of 2009 the EPA sent the
White House a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Toxic Coal Ash.
President Obama's choice as the head of the White House Office of Management and Budget,
Cass Sunstein, oversees such policies but as of March 2010 has refused to act on the EPA's plea.

Sunstein has come under scrutiny for allowing his office to meet with coal industry
representatives more than 20 times since October 2010.
All such meetings took place behind closed doors and were not open to the public.
An anti-Sunstein website was launched in response in an attempt to force Sunstein and the White
House to act on the EPA's proposed rule.[57] Alabama Proposes Coal Ash Regulation On March
4, 2010 the Alabama House introduced a bill that would allow Perry County, Alabama to levy a
$5 per ton fee on coal ash disposed at a privately owned landfill in the city of Uiontown.
Alabama Rep.
Ralph Howard of Greensboro, Alabama introduced the bill.
Currently the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is shipping coal sludge that breached the
Kingston Fossil Plant in Tennessee.
TVA anticipates that it will ship approximately 3 million cubic feet of coal and ash to the landfill
before the clean-up is completed.
Revenue from the levy would be spent evenly between the towns of Uniontown and Marion.
The total amount raised could be as much as $15 million.
Democratic Rep.
Ralph Howard of Greensboro introduced the bill.
The Tennessee Valley Authority is shipping coal ash and sludge that breached an earthen dike at
the Kingston Fossil Plant in Tennessee to the landfill.
TVA plans to ship about 3 million cubic feet of coal and ash to the landfill.
Howard said revenue from the fee would be split evenly between the cities of Uniontown and
Marion.

Howard estimated the fee could raise as much as $15 million.

If the legislation passes voters would have to approve the measure in their November 2010
election.[58] Office of Inspector General Investigates EPA's 'Partnership' with Coal Industry On
November 2, 2009 the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) announced in a report that a
formal investigation into the EPA's "partnership" with the coal industry to market coal ash reuse
in consumer, agricultural and industrial products was underway.
The report also criticized the EPA for not releasing a report about cancer risks associated to the
exposure of coal ash until March of 2009, a full seven years after the study was completed.
The OIG investigation is a result of CBS's "60 Minutes" piece on coal ash in which EPA
Administrator Lisa Jackson admitted that her agency had not produced any studies indicating
that the re-use of coal ash was safe.[59] Coal Ash Industry-EPA Interference Coal Ash
Contamination in New Mexico.
On January 27, 2010, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) released a
report that indicated the coal ash industry, with direct access to the EPA, manipulated reports and
publications about the dangers of coal combustion waste.
The group stated that the Environmental Protection Agency allowed the multi-billon dollar coal
ash industry to have access to the EPA during the Bush administration years as well as under
President Obama.
The result has been a watering-down of crucial reports on human and environmental health
related to coal waste.
Documents obtained by PEER indicate that industry had access to a variety of EPA coal ash
reports over the years and were successful in manipulating the information presented to the
public about its negative effects.
The EPA reports were altered in several ways.

References indicating the high-risk potential of coal combustion waste were deleted from
PowerPoint presentations.
Cautionary language about coal waste uses in agricultural practices was altered in order to
remove negative connotations about the practice.
And in 2007 the coal ash industry inserted language in an EPA report to Congress about how
industry and EPA [need to] work together in order to block or water-down state regulations
[that] are hindering progress in the use of coal ash waste.[60] Western Governors Say States
Should Regulate Coal Ash On March 8, 2010 governors from the Western Governor's
Association made a statement that the Obama administration should leave coal ash regulation to
the states and resist the EPA's effort to reclassify coal ash as a hazardous material.
Montana Gov.
Brian Schweitzer, the pro-coal chairman of the governor's group, says the EPA's move to regulate
coal ash would undercut what he described as "effective regulation by Western states." The
governors state that the EPA's reclassification would prevent coal ash from being used in
industrial practices like surface pavement.
Utah Gov.
Gary Herbert says coal-fired electric generation in the West would also be hurt, which would cost
ratepayers more money.
Gov.
Gary Herbert of Utah states that coal-fired electric generation in his state and others would also
be hurt and would cost ratepayers more money.[61] South Carolina Coal Waste Permit Issues On
March 8, 2010 it was announced that the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control agreed to eliminate arsenic limits in a wastewater discharge permit for
South Carolina Electric Gas Company's (SCEG) Wateree Station.

SCEG needs State approval for its coal ash ponds because wastewater from the site runs directly
into the Wateree River.
The ponds take waste from the company's 40-year-old coal-fired plant.
Since the 1990s, high levels of arsenic, a carcinogen, have been found in groundwater and in
seepage to the Wateree River from coal ash ponds at the power plant.
Sierra Club and other environmental groups are posing to fight the permit on the grounds that
arsenic ought not be eliminated from regulation.[62] EPA Proposes Competing Approaches To
Regulate Coal-Ash Waste On May 4, 2010 the U.S.
EPA announced two competing proposals to regulate coal-ash waste produced by coal-fired
power plants.
Both options fall under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Under the first proposal, EPA would list coal ash and coal waste residuals as "special wastes," or
hazardous wastes, subject to regulation under subtitle C of RCRA, when destined for disposal in
landfills or surface impoundments.
Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) manage hazardous wastes under RCRA
Subtitle C, and generally must have a permit in order to operate, with land disposal restrictions.
Under the second proposal, EPA would regulate coal ash under subtitle D of RCRA, the section
for non-hazardous wastes.
Under section D, no permit is required, monitoring is done by citizens, not the federal
government, and there are no restrictions on land disposal of the waste.[63] Click here for more
on the key differences between the proposed rules.
The proposal means the EPA will not necessarily declare coal ash a hazardous waste as desired
by environmental groups, and the waste material could continue to be reused in various ways,
EPA officials said.

The final decision on which proposal the EPA will choose was to happen in July 2010,[64] but
has been delayed.
The EPA decided not to choose a single option amid pressure from industry and environmental
groups.
The federal agency said both proposals for the first time would place "national rules on the
disposal and management of the waste material from coal-fired power plants." Yet the EPA's plan
leaves open the question of whether to phase out wet storage impoundments in favor of landfills,
with the dueling proposals differing on the issue, according to an EPA press briefing.[65] On
May 10, 2010 the Illinois-based Prairie Rivers Network released a press memo criticizing the
EPA's decision stating: The agency presented two options with vastly differing approaches to
handling the 4.4 million tons of coal ash that is generated each year in Illinois.
Recent USEPA reports indicate that coal waste leaches hazardous pollution in much greater
quantities than had been recognized previously, contributing to over 100 documented
contamination sites nationwide, several of which are in Illinois.
But another big concern for Illinois is the giant loophole left in the rules that will allow the coal
industry to dump toxic coal ash in under-regulated and unprotected mines.[66] Investors urge
EPA action In September 2010, a group of investors representing over $240 billion in assets
under management sent in a public comment letter to the EPA reading: The catastrophic coal
ash spill at the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) pond in December 2008 demonstrated that
current regulations are not enough to mitigate environmental and financial risk for utilities and
their shareholders." The investors go on to highlight the financial assurance requirement in the
proposed regulations as a critical measure to assist shareholders in understanding the financial
risks associated with coal ash and evaluating which companies are financially prepared to
manage the costs of closing down coal ash sludge ponds or dealing with coal ashrelated
impacts: Beyond the TVA spill, the disastrous oil well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico
demonstrates that unforeseen accidents can occur that create unpredictably large environmental
and financial risk for energy companies.

We believe it is critical that utilities be required to assure shareholders and the public that they
are financially prepared to manage the costs associated with a catastrophic coal ash spill or other
ashrelated events that could require significant clean up costs."[67] The letter was organized by
Green Century Capital Management (Green Century) and As You Sow, and signed by 22
institutional investors including the Connecticut State Treasurers Office, New York State
Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, and Oregon Treasurer Ted Wheeler; investors including Trillium
Asset Management Corporation and First Affirmative Financial Network; and religious investors
including Catholic Healthcare West and the Sisters of St.
Francis of Philadelphia.[67] Public Meetings Held on Proposed Coal Ash Regulation In late
August through October 2010 the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of
Resource Conservation and Recovery scheduled seven public meetings across the country to
discuss the agency's proposed regulation of coal ash.
The meetings locations included Arlington, Virginia; Denver, Colorado; Dallas, Texas; Charlotte,
North Carolina; Chicago, Illinois; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Louisville, Kentucky and Knoxville,
Tennessee.[68] Supporters and opponents alike attended the public meeting held in Louisville,
Kentucky on September 28, 2010.
Industry workers argued that the ash can be recycled and used in the manufacture of drywall and
concrete, but they argue stiffer environmental rules would hurt business by placing a stigma on
the substance, also called fly ash.
They said 15 million tons of the ash is used by the concrete industry each year.
Supporters of coal ash regulation stated that the substance was harming waterways and causing
human health hazards.
"It's destroying the health of the men, women and children of our communities," said Thomas
Pearce, a Sierra Club member who used to live near a coal ash storage site in Louisville.[69]
Study: Weak Coal Ash Regulations in Tennessee Highlight Need for Federal Law A report
released in October 2010 by Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) and other

environmental groups titled "State of Coal Ash Regulations in Tennessee" cited weak state
regulations in Tennessee as an example of the need for federal reform regarding coal ash.
As such, the report noted that regulation should not be left up to state governments.
"Given that states like Tennessee have failed to accept regulatory responsibility for coal ash in
the past, it is unwise to rely solely on states to ensure that electric generators safely dispose of
their coal waste," the report said.
For example, in Tennessee, the report noted, two years after the TVA Kingston Fossil Plant coal
ash spill, the largest industrial spill in U.S.
history, the state had not beefed up laws to handle toxic waste from its coal-fired power plants.
"Unfortunately, Tennessee has failed to become a leader in setting strong standards for coal ash
disposal," the authors wrote.[70] The state of Tennessee disputed the report and wrote in a press
release that the study "was aimed at supporting the management of coal as a hazardous waste and
SACE chose to attack the state's response to the Kingston ash spill as a means to make that
case."[71] Coal lobbyists wooed White House staff to influence coal ash regulations A report
released by DeSmogBlog and PolluterWatch released in late October 2010 stated that coal
industry lobbyists held 33 secretive meetings with the White House to peddle their influence
over proposed coal ash regulation.
The report noted that this was over three times more meetings than the administration held with
environmental groups on the same issue.[72] The report noted that the Utility Solid Waste
Activities Group (USWAG) was one of the main front groups that represented the coal industry
on coal ash regulation.
USWAG, the report stated, operated out of the Edison Electric Institute and has argued that
disposing of coal ash as hazardous waste could cost the industry $20 billion annually.
USWAG lobbyists Jim Rower and Douglas Green were the only individuals granted two
meetings with the White House on coal ash regulations.

In addition, the American Coal Ash Association (ACAA), an umbrella group for all coal ash
interests, including major coal burners Duke Energy, Southern Company and American Electric
Power and dozens of other organizations, also argued that a hazardous designation would wipe
out the so-called "beneficial-use industry" that used coal ash to produce construction and
household products.
ACAA set up a front group during this period called Citizens for Recycling First to argue on the
industry's behalf that using toxic coal ash as fill in products was safe.
A review of lobbying disclosure records reveals at least 30 lobbyists representing ACAA member
companies who reported lobbying White House, Congressional and agency staff on coal ash
issues in the first half of 2010.[73] Enviros criticize EPA analysis on coal ash In December 2010
environmentalists stated that the EPA's report on cost-benefit analysis of coal ash waste was
riddled with errors.
As a result, environmentalists stated that they fear that the EPA's analysis would lead to less
stringent standards for the substance, a move they said would disregard the potential health
effects of coal-ash exposure.
The environmentalists stated the EPA's cost-benefit analysis overstated the benefits of coal-ash
recycling, a process by which coal ash is used to make a number of common products.
In overstating the benefits, the agency was seen as perpetuating the idea that more stringent coal
ash regulation will make it harder to recycle the substance.[74] House Committee votes to bar
regulation as hazardous waste A House committee approved legislation on July 13, 2011 that
would bar federal regulation of coal ash as hazardous waste.
The bill, passed 35-12 by the Energy and Commerce Committee, now moves to the House floor,
where a Republican majority is expected to pass it.
Six Democrats joined the committees Republicans in voting for the bill.

While barring the EPA from regulating coal ash, the legislation would allow states to treat the ash
as municipal waste, placing it in the same category as household garbage and cleaning
chemicals, wastewater and construction debris.
It was reported that landfills and ponds holding coal ash generally would be subject to the same
rules for design, lining and groundwater testing as landfills containing municipal garbage.[75]
Current EPA regulations regarding coal waste: "Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste" and "Coal
Combustion Residuals" Scientists at Duke University find environmental monitoring methods
for coal ash lacking A study conducted by Duke University researchers found that contaminants
from coal waste can linger in river sediment much longer than surface water.
The study "documents contaminant levels in aquatic ecosystems over an 18-month period
following a massive coal sludge spill in 2008 at a Tennessee Valley Authority power plant in
Kingston, Tennessee".
The team also found different factors that could influence how much of the contaminants escape
into the environment, including water acidity and oxygen levels.
Avner Vengosh, a professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke's Nicholas School of the
Environment, believes "The take-away lesson is we need to change how and where we look for
coal ash contaminants.
Risks to water quality and aquatic life don't end with surface water contamination, but much of
our current monitoring does...
As long as coal ash isn't regulated as hazardous waste, there is no way to prevent discharges of
contaminants from these facilities and protect the environment." The study is published in the
journal Environmental Science and Technology.[76] Labeling coal waste "hazardous" could
motivate coal plants to minimize waste dumps Scott Slesinger, legislative director for the Natural
Resources Defense Council, believes that if the EPA labels coal waste as hazardous waste,
recycling can function as cost savings.
Slesinger explains, "If something is a hazardous waste, it has to go to a hazardous waste landfill.

That is more expensive than what [the waste producers] had done before."[77] Keystone, Coal
Ash Dropped From Highway Bill On June 27, 2012 language that would have barred
Environmental Protection Agency regulation of coal-ash waste were dropped from a highway
spending bill being negotiated by U.S.
lawmakers.[78] Coal waste lawsuits Maryland $54 million fly ash groundwater contamination
class action settlement A sweeping $54 million settlement against a Constellation Energy Group
subsidiary was approved by a Baltimore judge in 2008.
Anne Arundel County, Maryland residents and thier attorneys settled a two year class action
claiming groundwater contamination by coal ash.[79] Virginia Battlefield Golf Club $1 billion
suit against Dominion Lawsuit over dry ash disposal site in Maryland On November 19, 2009,
environmental groups filed a notice-of-intent-to-sue against Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC and
Mirant Maryland Ash Management LLC.
The groups, including the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), Sierra Club, Defenders of
Wildlife and others, allege Clean Water Act violations at the Brandywine Coal Combustion
Waste Landfill in Prince Georges County, MD.
The landfill does not use liners to prevent the coal waste from leaching into groundwater, and
activists say an expected hazardous designation from EPA would require such liners and other
means to prevent water contamination.
The notice-of-intent against Mirant charges the company with "illegally discharging toxic
pollutants into Mataponi Creek" through landfill leaching and violating the conditions of its
permit, actions which have "injured, and will continue to injure, the health, environmental,
aesthetic and economic interest of the plaintiffs." According to Jennifer Peterson of EIP, "The
TVA spill dramatized the devastation that is caused when coal waste surface impoundments burst
their banks.
But slow motion toxic leaks and discharges from so-called 'dry' landfills also pose unacceptable
risks to the environment and public health." Environmentalists suggest the new suit may lead to
more lawsuits, especially if EPA classifies coal waste disposed in landfills as non-hazardous.

New EPA regulations regarding coal ash disposal are expected by the end of 2009.[80]
Environmental groups sue EPA for release of confidential information Arsenic on your cereal?
On December 1, 2009, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, and the Environmental Integrity Project filed a
lawsuit to force the Environmental Protection Agency to release information including storage
capacity, inspection results, and records of violations, for over 70 coal waste storage sites across
the U.S.
Some power companies, such as Duke Energy, FirstEnergy, and Southern Company subsidiaries
Alabama Power and Georgia Power, have asked the EPA to withhold the data as "confidential
business information." The environmental groups filed a complaint in federal district court under
the Freedom of Information Act, arguing that access to the information is vital to the health and
safety of the communities surrounding the potentially hazardous sites.[81] In December 2009,
there was a Congressional hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on
"Drinking Water and Public Health Impacts of Coal Combustion Waste Disposal." Dr.
Donald MacGraw, the GOP's expert witness at the hearing, testified that arsenic is natural and
coal waste benign, as seen in this video.
Dominican Republic toxic coal ash birth defects case In 2003 and 2004, approximately 100
million pounds of toxic coal waste was dumped onto pristine beaches in Arroyo Barril and
Manzanillo in the Dominican Republic by AES Corporation, ("AES") a multi-national,
Arlington, Virginia-based power generating conglomerate with plants in 29 countries.
The coal wastes dumped contained varying amounts of dangerous heavy metals including
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel and vanadium.
Immediate injuries The toxic coal ash immediately caused breathing problems and skin injuries
to residents of Arroyo Barril who constantly were buffeted with onshore breezes loaded with
wind-blown ash.
Breathing and skin problems continue today.

Much of the mountains of ash was taken away and the remaining material has been whittled
down by being dissolved into the groundwater, flowing into the water's edge or being dispersed
across the Samana region by the winds.
Some of the coal ash was transported to another island location.
The toxic coal ash that remains today is hidden in many areas by a thick growth of vegetation.
Birth defects Following the dumping and its immediate consequences, an even more grotesque
chapter is being written in this environmental horror story.
The ash that islanders were told was harmless but caused acute and chronic health problems is a
toxic time bomb causing horrendous birth defects.
Dominican Republic government settlement In 2006 AES settled a federal lawsuit with the
Dominican Republic for just the environmental consequences of the illegal dumping.
The settlement including nothing to compensate Dominicans injured by the illegal coal ash
dumping.
Details of the settlement remain under seal.
Victims suit On November 4, 2009, on behalf of eleven plaintiffs in Arroyo Barril, two of whom
died after birth, a landmark Complaint was filed in Delaware Superior Court seeking damages
from AES and its companies for the human toll the illegal dumping has caused.
Law firms in New York City, Philadelphia and Wilmington, Delaware comprise the legal team
prosecuting this case.[82] The Complaint also seeks to compel AES to provide a comprehensive
medical monitoring regime for the plaintiffs during their lifetimes.
Serious medical problems, including lung and other cancers which take decades to appear, are
expected to develop from pervasive exposure to toxic coal ash.
Environmental Groups to Sue EPA over Coal Ash It was reported in January 2012 that a coalition
of environmental groups will sue the EPA to speed the release of new environmental safeguards

for the country's power plants' coal ash dumps.[83] The groups involved in the letter of intent to
sue were listed as: Appalachian Voices, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Environmental
Integrity Project, French Broad Riverkeeper, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, Moapa Band
of Pauites, Montana Environmental Information Center, Physicians for Social Responsibility,
Prairie Rivers Network, Sierra Club and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.
The groups are suing for what they call the EPA's "failure to perform nondiscretionary duties
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)".
The groups claim the EPA failed to fulfill its duty under RCRA section 2002(b) to review and
revise regulation that have been: inadequate to address the widespread risks posed by the unsafe
disposal of coal ash (40 C.F.R.
261.4(d) and 40 C.F.R.
Part 257); inadequate to determine the toxicity of certain solid wastes because they establish a
test that does not accurately measure the leaching properties of many waste streams (40 C.F.R.
261.24); and insufficient to establish guidelines to protect groundwater and surface water and
define prohibited open dumps under RCRA (40 C.F.R.
257.3-3 and 257.3- 4).[84] Coal waste ponds in the United States A January 2009 study by
The New York Times following the enormous TVA coal ash spill found that there are more than
1,300 surface impoundments across the U.S., each of which can reach up to 1,500 acres.
Shaila Dewan, "Hundreds of Coal Ash Dumps Lack Regulation," New York Times, January 7,
2009.[49] Also in January 2009, an Associate Press study found that 156 coal-fired power plants
store ash in surface ponds similar to one that ruptured at Kingston Fossil Plant.
The states with the most storage in coal ash in ponds are Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Georgia and
Alabama.

The AP's analysis found that in 2005, 721 power plants generating at least 100 MW of electricity
produced 95.8 million tons of coal ash, about 20 percent of which - or almost 20 million tons ended up in surface ponds.
The rest of the ash winds up in landfills or is sold for other uses.[50] Top 100 coal waste storage
sites in the U.S.
Also in January 2009, Sue Sturgis of the Institute of Southern Studies compiled a list of the 100
most polluting coal plants in the United States in terms of CCW stored in surface impoundments
like the one at TVA's Kingston Fossil Plant.
Sturgis used data from the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) for 2006, the most recent year
available.[85] The following table represents the amount of coal combustion waste released to
surface impoundments in 2006 by the top 100 polluters.
Sue Sturgis, "Coal's ticking timebomb: Could disaster strike a coal ash dump near you?,"
Institute for Southern Studies, January 4, 2009.[5]