In the Kentucky coal business we often talk about “getting a permit.” However, there are several “permits” and other ap-provals necessary before commencing coal mining operations. While there are many steps involved in the permitting process, I hope this brief overview is helpful.

First, let’s have a brief history of how we got here. Difficult as it may be for some to believe, Kentucky has issued coal mine permits since the mid 1960s, though obvi-ously changing much over the intervening years.

There had been several attempts toward regulating surface coal mining, begin-ning in the late 1940s, but most laws had little impact or importance. The first sig-nificant statute came in 1964, followed by regulations adopted in 1965. These regu-

lations required cast overburden to be regraded and lim-ited bench widths on eastern Kentucky con-tour mining.

In 1966 Kentucky began requiring per-mits for mining. These permits involved completing a triplicate application form that addressed specifications about land regrading, revegetation, drainage details, and other now familiar items. The appli-cation required an enlarged topographic map, certified by a professional engineer and had to be accompanied by a reclama-tion bond, as well as permit and acreage fees.

Around this same time, many other states were taking similar steps. One of the most

significant was the 1972 Ohio Strip Mine Law. Some of its striking requirements included topsoil removal, storage, and replacement; backfilling and regrading to approximate original contour; drain-age and sediment control plans; success-ful revegetation; more detailed mapping and P.E. (professional engineering) over-sight, topped off with increased paperwork and subsequent inspection/enforcement. Many believe—and perhaps rightly so—that Ohio’s 1972 law became the outline for the U.S. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). (An interesting sidelight is that the origi-nal 1972 law specified that maps had to be certified by a professional civil engi-neer, not a professional mining engineer. That strange error was corrected in a 1975 amendment.)

One may ask, “What has changed?” Although performance standards have changed over the intervening years, typically getting tougher, the biggest changes in SMCRA permitting have been in the permit application process, i.e., the “paperwork.”

Michael Munday, Patriot Coal

Getting Your Coal Mine Permit(s) in Kentucky

Did uYoKnow?

Presented by the University of Kentucky’s Center for Applied Energy Research Vol. 23 No. 2/2012

CAER/Minova/DHS Press Conference Shows Off New Product

The Trials, Frustrations, and Issues Related to Getting a Permit for Mining

continued on page 3

continued on page 3

see page 2

Imagine a tragedy where an act of terror damages a building, runway, tunnel, bridge or dam.

Now imagine a quick-curing concrete that can be sprayed to reinforce the struc-ture almost immediately before it fails catastrophically, providing safety for res-cue workers, who risk their lives minutes after disasters hit.

A technology developed at the University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research (CAER) and Minova North America headquartered in Georgetown, Ky., does just that. The products, called Tekcrete Fast and Tekcrete Fast M (with a

1

In 1820 the first commercial coal mine in Kentucky opened.

The Trials, Frustrations, and Issues Related to Getting a Permit for MiningSteve Gardner, President and CEO, ECSI, LLC

As an engineer and scientist I have been involved in the mining in-dustry since 1975. I saw the passage of the Surface Mining Control and Reclama-tion Act of 1977 (SMCRA) and

worked through the implementation and industry transitions that ensued. One point that I don’t believe everyone re-members is that SMCRA was intended to include the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and provide an effi-cient permitting process for government, industry and the public by allowing state regulatory agencies primacy, with federal agencies in oversight roles. Nationwide Coal permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under CWA provisions were essentially in place to codify state-issued SMCRA.

Many in the mining industry felt that SMCRA would be the end of surface mining in Appalachia, and it did have a tremendous impact. However, with the six-year transition time granted by the law, mining companies found ways to adapt through engineering and techno-logical innovations. Mountaintop re-moval mining (MTR) was specifically provided for in the law and strongly en-couraged by government research and development as it was viewed as an inno-vative mining method that could improve production while minimizing environ-mental impacts. One result of SMCRA was to greatly expand MTR mining in the region. The Clean Air Act require-ments already affected Illinois Basin coal production since the higher sulfur coals there made it difficult for power plants to comply without installation of costly equipment. Low sulfur coals produced in the Powder River Basin and the Appa-lachian region rapidly replaced much of that production.

In the last few years, the Corps, respond-ing to EPA pressure, changed long-standing mining permitting practices relating to the CWA, almost retroactively and with little notice for transition at best. Since this controversy has evolved, EPA has redefined all surface mining in Appalachia to be Mountaintop Mining (MTM) (2005 EPA Mountaintop Min-ing EIS). Perhaps an unintended conse-quence of this reinterpretation of laws will be a restriction on underground min-ing activities, as well, if EPA decides to apply water quality standards consistent-ly. Not all surface coal mining requires coal preparation, that is the separation of rock and waste from the coal, but almost 100% of underground mined coal does. What does that mean? That means you need slurry impoundments. Many er-roneously connect slurry impoundments solely with MTR. To the contrary, it is underground mining that requires slurry impoundments and therefore EPA ac-tions are also going to dramatically im-pact the ability to underground mine in the Appalachia region.

These new retroactive standards are only being applied in Appalachia and have contributed to reduced mining there. In-terestingly at the same time Illinois coal mining is now booming.

Many are also questioning EPA’s author-ity from a legal standpoint, including the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Many have also questioned EPA’s willingness to understand the many complex techni-cal and ecological issues of mining and reclamation operations. The Corps of Engineers has spent several years assess-ing potential impacts and understand-ing appropriate mining techniques and restoration of mined areas. Now, EPA has started objecting to the established Corps review process, thereby delaying, and in some cases halting permits. En-gineers and scientists who work in the industry agree that the EPA objections to permits have shown a fundamental lack

of understanding of basic engineering and science and are based on incomplete science at best. University scientists who actually know something about mining at UK, Virginia Tech and West Virginia, are rapidly showing the limited studies that EPA has based its decisions on to be flawed at best.

Further exacerbating the permitting un-certainty, the US Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining (OSM), is in the process of rewriting SMCRA regu-lations which in effect will codify and put in place the reinterpretations of the CWA under SMCRA. This new Stream Protection Rule (SPR) is the first rewrite of SMCRA since it was implemented and is aimed primarily at the Appala-chian Region, although it will impact coal mining nationwide. The Environ-mental Impact Statement is due to be re-leased very soon. The contracting process utilized by OSM has been very contro-versial in that the first group of contrac-tors chosen to prepare the EIS was re-placed after preliminary job loss numbers due to the SPR were leaked and OSM attempted to change the assumptions to reduce the projected impact. These new regulations will greatly add to the com-plexity of permitting, adding time and expense, and perhaps making large areas of US coal fields unmineable, particularly in Appalachia.

The people of Appalachia who actually own the land that is being mined want it mined and realize it can be done respon-sibly. Reclaimed mine land is some of the most valuable land in Eastern Kentucky and will provide a key for economic de-velopment for the region in the future.I am the first to admit that there have been problems with mining, but we have learned from the mistakes of the past. These problems can be solved with good engineering and COMPLETE science, given adequate transition time.

2

specific application for mining safety), have been licensed by Minova, and can be used by engineers to immediately stabilize damaged structures. It is a high-strength, quick-setting concrete that achieves set and structural strength in minutes. Mi-nova has licensed the technology for application in the underground mining, civil and tunneling industries as well.Minova North America is a part of Mi-nova International, a company that pro-vides mechanical, structural and chem-ical-based solutions for underground mining, infrastructure, tunneling and civ-il engineering applications. The research and joint patent leading to the Minova license began in 2009 when CAER part-nered with Minova on a project for the U. S. Department of Homeland Secu-rity, Science & Technology Directorate (DHS). This ongoing development and deployment project for the structural sta-bilization of shock-damaged structures is managed by the National Institute for Hometown Security (NIHS) in Somer-set, Ky.

“It’s vitally important that the discoveries made in the lab find their way out of the test tube environment and into the every-day environment in which we live,” said Congressman Hal Rogers, at a recent press conference at CAER heralding the product. “When this type of research is

applied, we can strengthen our homeland security, improve our protection from ter-rorist threats and add to our nation’s resil-iency when natural disasters strike.”

Why would CAER, a center that prin-cipally performs energy research, develop a national security project? According to associate director and principal investiga-tor Tom Robl, “This project takes advan-tage of expertise developed in nontradi-tional (i.e. non-Portland) cement systems at the UK CAER stemming from work with coal combustion byproducts. Also

critical has been a long-standing collabo-ration between researchers at Minova and CAER. These two factors allowed us to work together to develop solutions for these problems that are unique.”

CAER has the largest program in the United States looking at the use of coal combustion byproducts.

continued...CAER/Minova/DHS Press Conference Shows Off New Product

continued...Getting Your Coal Mine Permit(s) in Kentucky

Although Congress approved SMCRA on August 3rd, 1977, most of its provi-sions did not become fully effective or require implementation until May 3rd, 1978. Subsequently, coal operators began the fast and furious pursuit of the newer, more stringent permitting and perfor-mance requirements.

Skipping over what was known as the “Interim Program,” on January 18th, 1983, Kentucky entered and still endures SMCRA’s “Permanent Program.” The Kentucky Department for Natural Re-sources (KDNR) manages the SMCRA Permanent Program primarily through

two departments. The Division of Mine Permits (DMP) reviews permit applica-tions for either issuance or denial. The Division of Mine Reclamation and En-forcement (DMRE) is responsible for inspection and enforcement.

In many respects, today’s SMCRA-related coal mine permits in the Com-monwealth are not appreciably different from those obtained in 1983 and follow-ing years. A prospective permittee must provide copious data, narratives, maps, and drawings to address wide-ranging questions covering all aspects of the op-eration. All that information is used not

only to describe existing conditions, but also to describe how the mining and rec-lamation operations will be accomplished in ways that comply with SMCRA.

Those wide-ranging questions cover legal and financial issues such as the company’s ownership and control structure, property rights, and liability insurance.

As expected, the technical information requirements are far larger than those for the legal and financial areas and call for input and support from disciplines other than engineering. Those non-engineering areas include the following:

3

Anne Oberlink manipulates the hose, as John Wiseman sprays the TekcreteTM product onto the joint between a damaged beam and supporting column. The reinforced joint will support the damaged structure, within minutes of applica-tion of Tekcrete FastTM. To demonstrate the strength of the applied material the wood beam (seen at right) was knocked free; leaving behind a sound structure that would otherwise have collapsed without the application of Tekcrete FastTM.(photos cont. on page 5)

• Archaeology • Geology • Hydrology quality and quantity (groundwater and surface water) • Fish and wildlife resources • Land uses and capabilities • Soil resources • Vegetation characteristics

These data then are incorporated with the engineered mining layout to de-velop the “mining and reclamation plan” (MRP) for the permit, which will in turn

show how the operations will achieve the desired outcome. That MRP covers the following topics:

• Mining and reclamation schedule • Backfilling and grading to ap- proximate original contour • Topsoil redistribution, land resto- ration, and revegetation • Drainage, erosion, and sediment control • Roads and transportation facilities • Subsidence control (underground mines)

As is probably expected, a permit appli-cation with all this information will in-clude many maps and drawings necessary for providing the needed graphic depic-tions. These are among the many require-ments that we have been addressing and complying with since 1983.

One may ask, “What has changed?” Al-though performance standards have changed over the intervening years, typi-cally getting tougher, the biggest changes

in SMCRA permitting have been in the permit application process, i.e., the “pa-perwork.” The permit application forms continued to grow and mutate, as it were, over the years. They had to be updated periodically in order to address newer de-velopments and mandates. Permit appli-cations generally increased in size to the point where a typical permit application for a surface mine entailed three or four large three-ring binders, per copy.

Fortunately, the SMCRA permitting process in Kentucky is now almost com-

pletely electronic; there are only a few items that can or must be provided as paper documents. That development has in itself made dramatic improvements in permit application preparation, submis-sion, and review timing.

Back to our question, “what has changed?” The most significant changes during the past 20 years or so have not been any increased requirements involving SMCRA-related permits, but additional environmental permits from several other state or federal agencies overseeing vari-ous aspects. Throughout the years since SMCRA became effective, those other environmental permits were much sim-pler and quicker to obtain, often almost as “afterthoughts.” That’s no longer true. They now take as much time—if not more—to acquire as the SMCRA per-mit. In the following, I’ll mention some of the more notable ones. Please under-stand that these will not include detailed explanations, but mere highlights.

Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) —Kentucky coal mines are required to have permits from KDOW known as “Kentucky Pollutant Discharge Elimi-nation System” (KPDES) permits. The KPDES permits for many years were ob-tained almost automatically with KDNR permits. Even when circumstances called for KPDES permits that were more in-volved than normal, they still had rela-tively simple procedures and require-ments. Since the early 2000s, however, the KPDES permitting process has be-come a much more onerous endeavor, with much pre-permit data collection and accompanying paperwork.

Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ) — This agency doesn’t direct-ly affect coal mining quite as much as its sister KDOW, but coal mine opera-

4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

121

100 105

93

121

101110

91

121115

Permits with Amendments

Year

tions that include various processes han-dling the coal after mining will require a KDAQ permit. Some examples are coal crushing activities, overland conveyors with transfer points, preparation plants, and similar support facilities.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US-ACE) — The USACE manages a per-mitting program known as Section 404 (from the federal Clean Water Act). The 404 permits cover impacts on streams and wetlands, such as dredging and filling activities. Although the 404 permits have

been necessary for applicable operations since the early 1970s, usually for dramat-ic impacts to significant water resources, their purview has grown to cover land disturbance effects on almost any streams that may be encountered, even the most minuscule or ephemeral. Nowadays it is nearly a foregone conclusion that a coal mine operation will require a USACE 404 permit before work can commence. The process is long and arduous and seems to become more so with each suc-cessive permit application.

Naturally, like any other commercial or industrial business, there are also many other local, state, or federal agencies and offices with which a coal operator must deal in order to obtain various approv-als, licenses, and other such documents. I won’t further belabor the discussion by trying to list or describe them.

Suffice it to say, “getting your coal mine permits” in Kentucky – or anywhere in the U.S. - is a busy and time-consuming task for an engineering firm.

5

Before the press conference Bob Wilson of NIHS’s Commercializa-tion Team explains the process to U.S. Representative Hal Rogers, 5th district. (right)

Jeanne Lin (Acting Director of the Infrastructure Protection and Disaster Management Division of the DHS Science) unidenti-fied man, and UKCAER Director Rodney Andrews listen to the day’s speakers.

Paul Benda of the Dept. of Home-land Security emphasizes the need of getting the science out of the lab and into industry. (above)

CAER/Minova/DHS Press Conference Photos

* Michael L. Munday, PE is a mining engineer and is Environmental Permitting Manager for Patriot Coal Corporation, with over 38 years of experience in mining and reclamation.

6

Waverly McFarland, Vice President, Minova, North America explains his company’s involve-ment to the crowd. Close up of the repaired structure where the intersection be-

tween the vertical column and intersecting beam has been encased with the rapid-hardening material. The concrete-encased section will now support any additional loads that the damaged structure may encounter. (right)

Researcher Jack Groppo (foreground) pours Tek-crete FastTM into a hopper, which pneumatically feeds it to the nozzle where pressurized water is mixed with the material before it’s sprayed onto the damaged structure.(left)

Project investigator Tom Robl explains the process as researchers demonstrate.

Hal Rogers speaks to the group.

CAER/Minova/DHS Press Conference Photos cont.

7

In the

CAER Director Joins UK President and Top UK Administrators in China Fostering Potential Joint Clean Coal Technologies

Associate Director Don Challman Makes Two Trips to China

CAER Director Rodney Andrews joined University of Kentucky President Eli Capilouto and six high-level administrators on a trip to China recently to develop new student programs, and explore joint coal research endeavors.

“China is really making the most investments right now, with respect to coal use and also in the scale in which they’re doing it,” Andrews said. “They’re willing to do large scale tests that aren’t going on anywhere else.”

Andrews and Liu, visited the Shenhua chemical company in Beijing to discuss its coal-to-liquid technology. They also went to the joint U.S.-Chinese Clean Energy Research Center at Tsing-hua University, where President Capilouto signed a memorandum-of-understanding regarding a project on carbon capture.

In Shanghai, the group met with East China University of Science and Technology.

Last spring CAER Associate Director Don Challman participated in the US-China Intellectual Property Workshop in Hainan, China this spring. The workshop was organized by the US-China Clean Energy Research Center of which the United States and the People’s Republic of China are participants. UK-CAER is a charter member of the US-China CERC and a performing research organization in the Advanced Coal Technology thrust area. The IP workshop celebrated the achievement of landmark intellectual property agreements signed between the nations.

This was followed by a June trip in which he was an invited speaker at the 2012 International Advanced Coal Technologies Con-ference in Xi’an, China. The conference focused on carbon capture and utilization technologies, geological storage and enhanced oil recovery, economics of low carbon technology, and coal conversion alternatives for fuels, products and chemicals.

Energeia is published online four times a year by the University of Kentucky Center for Applied Energy Research (CAER). The newsletter features aspects of energy resource development and environmental topics. Online subscriptions are free and may be requested by sending your email address to: Marybeth McAlister, Editor of Energeia, marybeth.mcalister@uky.edu. The mailing address is: CAER, 2540 Research Park Drive, Lexington, Kentucky 40511. Past issues of Energeia may be viewed on the CAER web site at www.caer.uky.edu Copyright 2012, University of Kentucky