,Xcei EnergF

RESPONSIBLE BY NATURETM

Jul} 14, 2010

VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION & U.S. MAIL

414 Nic~llet Mall

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1993

Mr. Steve Souders

Office 0f Resource Conservation and Recovery

Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code: 5304P

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Email: souders.steve@epa.gov

Request for’ Extension of Comment Period

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Identification and Listing of Special

Wastes: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities

75 Fed. Reg. 35128 (June 21, 2010))

Docket No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640

Dear Mr. Sanders:

Public Service Company of Colorado, Northern States Power of Minnesota,

Northern States Power of Wisconsin, and Southwestern Public Service Company,

collective d/b/a Xcel Energy ("Xcel Energy") hereby request a 120-day extension to the

comment period on EPA’s Proposed Rulemaking for the "Identification and Listing of

Special Wastes: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities." 75 Fed.

Reg. 35128 (June 21, 2010).

Xcel Energy provides electricity in eight states (Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota,

New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin). Xcel Energy provides

generation, transmission, and distribution of power throughout its territory and is

concerned with the potential impacts of possible future regulations regarding CCRs.

An extension is necessary because of the breadth and complexity of the proposal.

The proposal contains at least four major components, all of which involve multifaceted .

policy, legal, and technical issues, including (1) EPA’s proposed reversal of its 2000 Final

Regulatory Detemaination for coat combustion residuals ("CCRs"), (2) detailed and highly

complex proposed Subtitle C regulations for CCRs, (3) detailed and equally complex

proposed Subtitle D regulations for CCRs, and (4) a range of possible regulatory controls

for the beneficial use Of CCRs. In addition, EPA seeks comment on a voluminous and

complex regulatory impact analysis ("RIA"), as well as on a myriad of additional issues

including, EPA’s compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and EPA’s proposed

findings under Executive Order 13211 for "Actions that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use." Xcel Energy respectfully suggests that a 90-day conmaent

period is not adequate to allow members of the public to respond to the literally hundreds

of detailed policy, technical, legal, and other substantive issues raised in this far-reaching

co-proposal.

As EPA cola’ectly acknowledges, the magnitude and significance of this rulemaking

initiative demand that any final rule be based on sound science and that EPA’s decisionmaking processes "are transparent and encourage the greatest degree of public

participation." 73 Fed. Reg. at 35133. Given the breadth of options presented in the

proposal and the detailed issues associated with each option, a final rule based on the

greatest degree of public participation and sound science will require more time for the

public to evaluate and properly respond to the co-proposal. For example, in responding to

the RIA alone, it will be necessary to develop technical economic reports evaluating the

cost impacts of the vmious regulatory scenarios, including some cost impacts that EPA

readily acknowledges are not included in the eurrent RIA (i. e., compliance costs under the

Subtitle C option for CCR management units located upstream of CCR disposal units). In

addition, the collection, compilation and analysis of market data on the adverse impacts to

CCR beneficial use that would result under the Subtitle C option will take more than the 90

days cun’ently allowed for under the proposal.

It is imperative that EPA allow adequate time for the public to fully analyze,

understand and respond to this multifaceted proposal which has enormous environmental,

energy, and policy implications. An extension is especially appropriate where, as here, the

Agency is not under any statutory or court-ordered deadline to complete this rulemaking

initiative by a specified date. Xcel Energy therefore respectfully requests that EPA extend

the comment period on the co-proposal by an additional 120 days to provide the public

with adequate time to respond.

Thank you for your consideration of our request.

Sincerely,

Terry Coss, PE

Environmental Director

Xcel Energy

414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401

terry.e.coss@xcelenergy.com

cc: Robert Dellinger, EPA; dellinger.robert@epa.gov

Betsy Devlin, EPA; devlin.betsy@epa.gov

2