RECYCLING FOR END USE
Mine Operators Can Meet California’s Growing Demand for Inert Debris Disposal Sites By Brad Johnson, Esq., Everview Ltd.
Demand for inert debris disposal sites continues to grow, driven by state waste diversion policies, urban development and redevelopment, and an increasing number of infrastructure projects.
E
ach year, California generates an enormous volume of inert debris, a non-hazardous type of solid waste consisting mostly of broken concrete, cured asphalt, clay products and brick, as well as intermingled gravel and dirt. Demand for inert debris disposal sites continues to grow, driven by state waste diversion policies, urban development and redevelopment, and an increasing number of infrastructure projects. As many mine operators already know, accepting this material for disposal can be economical, and when engineered and placed properly, inert debris material can help prepare the property for a viable second-use. Certain actions can help facilitate an efficient and successful transition from mine to inert debris disposal facility. 12
Mine operators should consider and plan for eventual inert debris disposal as far in advance as possible. Reclamation plans should be designed with future disposal operations as an intended end use. Where uncertainty exists regarding the disposal market or value of post-mining redevelopment, operators can preserve maximum end use flexibility by designating inert debris disposal as a second or additional potential end use. To this point, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) expressly contemplates that a reclamation plan may specify more than one potential post-mining end use. (See SMARA Section 2772(c) (7): a reclamation plan must identify a “proposed use or potential uses of the mined lands after reclamation” – emphasis added.) While a reclamation plan should designate inert debris disposal as a
potential end use, the reclamation plan should not include backfilling the mine pit with inert debris as a component of reclamation. This approach should be avoided for two reasons. First, financial assurances to cover the costs of backfilling the mine site would be required under SMARA (even though the disposal operations would likely be cash positive). Second, incorporating the backfilling activity into the reclamation plan would likely mean that the site would remain subject to SMARA regulation (including inspections, annual reporting, and annual fees) for many years after extractive operations cease. To avoid these costs and delays, a better approach is to plan around commencing inert debris disposal activity only after some or all of the mine site has been fully reclaimed and closed out of The Conveyor • 2022 Winter Issue
