### 1



# Comment Summary and Response Document

Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities;

Proposed Rule

(Docket # EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640)

Volume 1 

# General Comments

December 2014

### 2

Background The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Agency or EPA) proposed regulations for the management of coal combustion residuals (CCR) which was published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2010. This proposal, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), addressed the risks from disposal of CCR generated from the combustion of coal at electric utilities and from independent power producers. Two regulatory options w ere proposed. Under the first option, EPA proposed to reverse its August 1993 Bevill Regulatory and May 2000 Bevill Regulatory Determinations regarding CCR and to list CCR as a special waste subject to hazardous waste regulations under subtitle C of RCRA w hen destined for disposal in landfill or surface impoundments. Under the second option, EPA proposed to leave the Bevill
D etermination in place and regulate the disposal of CCR under subtitle D of RCRA by issuing minimum national criteria. Both options w ould require composite liners, groundwater monitoring, structural stability requirements, corrective action, and closure/post closure care. EPA also solicited comments on all aspects of both proposed options. The Agency received over 450,000 comments on the proposed rule. The majority of the comments focused on which regulatory path the Agency should pursue for regulating CCR, i.e., under RCRA’s subtitle
C or subtitle D provisions . EPA also conducted eight public hearings and took additional

comments on the proposed rule. EPA has established three dockets for this regulatory action:
EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640 ; EPA

- HQ

- 2011

- 0392; and EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028. All of
these dockets can be accessed through regulations.go v

. After reviewing all of the comments and additional data received, EPA is promulgating a final rule to regulate the disposal of CCR as solid waste under subtitle D of RCRA. This rule addresses the risks from structural failures of CCR surface impoundmen ts, groundwater contamination from the improper management of CCR in landfills and surface impoundments and fugitive dust emissions. The Agency has developed seventee n volumes of a comment summary and response
document summarizing comments on major topi cs covered in the proposed rule (see table below) and the Agency’s responses to those comments, as well as a separate volume (i.e., volume 18) summarizing comments provided during public hearings. Since EPA is finalizing a rule under subtitle D of RCRA, o nly those comments submitted on the proposed subtitle C rule that are also applicable to the final rule are addressed in the comment summary and r esponse document.

### 3

Volume Topic
1 General Comments

2 RCRA Subtitle D Regulatory Approach (Legal issues/Self

- implementing

Design/Reliance on Certifications by an Independent Professional Engineer/Recordkeeping, State Submissions, Posting to the Internet/Finance Assurance/Alternative Approaches)

3 Scope and Purpose/Effective Dates/Applicability/Off

- site Disposal/Definitions
4 Location Restrictions
5 Design Criteria: Liners and Leachate Collection Systems
6 Design Criteria: Structural Integrity

7 Operating Criteria: Endangered species/Surface water/Inspections/Run

- on

Run

- off
8 Operating Criteria: Air Criteria
9 Groundwater and Corrective Action
10 Closure and Post

- Closure Care
11 Additional Comments including Overfills/ Harmonization with E LG.
12 Beneficial Use
13 Risk Assessment
14 State Authorities, Programs and Regulations
15 Compendium of Damage Cases
16 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
17 EPA’s Assessment Program
18 Public Hearings

Summary of General Comments General comments included general support for regulating CCRs as well as general support for coordination of the ELG and CCR rules; general opposition for regulating CCRs with some commenters; personal descriptions or anecdotes of adverse impacts from CCR s; general comments related to EPA’s proposal of multiple regulatory options; support for comments

### 4

submitted by others related to the coordination of the ELG and CCR rules; and requests for extensions to the comment period and for additional public hearing s. General support for regulating CCRs General comments supporting EPA’s proposal to regulate CCRs included comments from advocacy groups, private citizens, trade associations, beneficial users, academia, and companies. The commenters encouraged EPA to set strong, federally enforceable safeguards for CCRs that are protective of human health and the environment. Commenters also cited the need for federal standards to address various issues including: (1) inconsistencies in state and local policies and regula tions for CCR; (2) the potential for disproportionate impacts to communities with less state oversight or less consistent state enforcement; (3) the potential eminent danger posed by an inadequately regulated hazardous waste stream (CCR) should there be a release from a CCR surface impoundment or landfill; and (4) inconsistencies in the beneficial use of CCR. Several commenters commended EPA for undertaking this rulemaking effort and for offering multiple public hearings on the proposed rulemaking.
Gener al support for coordination of the ELG and CCR rules Commenters supported EPA’s efforts to harmonize the ELG and CCR rulemakings, including EPA’s efforts to coordinate the design of any final substantive CCR regulatory requirements with the final ELG rule, as well as the timing and implementation of final rule requirements. Commenters indicated that by coordinating the two rules
, facilities would not have to make compliance decisions without understanding the implications of those decisions for both
rules. However, some commenters noted that EPA’s suggested approach to coordinating the rules might not be sufficient to address many important overlapping concerns between the two
rules. General opposition for regulating CCR General comments opposing EPA’s prop osal to regulate CCR included comments from advocacy groups, trade associations, private citizens, states, beneficial users, and companies. Comments included opposition to any federal regulation of CCR, opposition to regulating CCR

as a hazardous waste und er s ubtitle C, as well as opposition to various aspects of the s ubtitle D option. Commenters argued that CCR do es not warrant regulation as a hazardous waste, indicating that the environmental and health risk from CCR ranges from very minimal to zero.
Other commenters stated that the issues with CCR releases is related to the structural integrity of

### 5

the surface impoundment rather than the characteristics of the CCR and that the focus of any new requirements should be limited to the improved design and m anagement of surface impoundments, rather than the broad expansion of regulation contemplated by the proposed rule. Several commenters indicated that to consider coal ash waste, currently classified as a non

hazardous subtitle D waste , as a subtitle C haza rdous waste , would be totally illogical and that EPA is inappropriately seeking to broaden its regulatory control over all management of CCR. Other commenters expressed concern that EPA’s proposed rule would be detrimental to the beneficial use of by

- prod ucts such as FGD gypsum. Several commenters stated that the existing regulatory structure adequately protects public health and the environment and creates sufficient incentives for the s tates and industry to implement improved disposal techniques in the normal course. Therefore, additional EPA requirements are not necessary. Personal descriptions or anecdotes of adverse impacts from CCR Several commenters, including private citizens and advocacy groups, provided comments based on personal experiences, stories from residents, videos, and expressed their opinion regarding the adverse impacts from CCRs to human health and the environment. Commenters cited stories about adverse impacts to the health of residents and to the surrounding environment
near coal fields and coal ash ponds. Several commenters mentioned observed water quality impairments resulting from releases from coal ash ponds which the commenters did not feel that the state had adequately addressed. Others cited inadequate oversight by states of 'solution by dilution' as a means of dealing with coal ash contamination. One commenter noted that the ash and other residuals have become more toxic over the years as cleaner burning coal has been improved, and residuals can be expected to become even more toxic. EPA’s proposal of multiple regulatory options Comments related to EPA’s proposal of multiple regulatory options generally indicated that EPA had made the rulemaking process more complicated by proposing two primary options along with numerous o ther variations of these options. One commenter noted that the Subtitle D and D Prime options appeared to be an EPA afterthought. These commenters stated that EPA should withdraw the Proposed Rule, and re

- propose one approach. Support for comments submitte d by others related to the coordination of the ELG and CCR rules

### 6

Several commenters indicated support for comments submitted by others related to the coordination of the ELG and CCR rules. Commenters cited support for comments submitted by Utility Water A ct Group (UWAG), the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the Ohio Utility Group (OUG), the Association of Electric Companies of Texas (AECT), among others. Request s for extensions to the comment period and for additional public hearings Commenters requested extension to the comment period for the proposed rule as well as for NODAs, citing the complexity of the proposed rule/NODA. In addition, commenters requested
th at EPA hold additional public hearings, including suggesting additional specific locations.

### 7

C CR

– Excerpts for the General Comments

Section 1.1

- General support for regulating CCRs (without specifying any proposed or alternative regulatory option)

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 00905

- 2 Organization 1 : The SEFA Group Commenter 1 : Jimmy Knowless Commenter Type: Beneficial User Comment Excerpt Text: The SEFA Group supports disposal regulations that protect human health and the environment. SEFA also supports continued beneficial use of Coal Combustion Products (CCPs).



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion o f EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. The commenter is also referred to Units IV and VI for a complete discussion of the beneficial use aspects of the rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 01829

- 1 Organization 1 : Coal Boiler Slag Cons ortium Commenter 1 : Sean Todd Commenter Type: Trade Association Comment Excerpt Text: As companies who represent the boiler slag industry, we write in support of the current proposed rule on coal combustion residues (CCRs). We are hopeful that your leadersh ip will provide an opportunity to strongly support the safe and protective beneficial use of boiler slag as a coal combustion residue.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion o f EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. The commenter is also referred to Units IV and VI for a complete discussion of the beneficial use aspects of the rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 02930

- 1 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Gloria Griffith Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: Coal Ash, by any name, is hazardous and should be regulated by strict federal standards



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion on our decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 02930

- 2 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Gloria Griffith Commenter Type: Private Citizen

### 8

Comment Excerpt Text: The nearly 130 million tons of coal ash generated each year is full of harmful toxins like arsenic, lead, cadmium, chromium, selenium and mercury. The EPA and the National Academy of Sciences have years of research making it clear that coal ash is be coming increasingly toxic and confirming time and again that coal ash poses a threat to the environment and human health. I urge US EPA to set the strongest, federally enforceable safeguards for coal ash disposal.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and ap preciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion on our decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 03275

- 13 Organization 1 : Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Commenter 1 : Jeff Ruch Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: Additionally, stringent federal regulation for coal ash that tracks storage, transportation, and disposal and that applies across state lines will help prevent a ‘rac e to the bottom" and ensure that EPA failure to regulate does not contribute to disproportionate impacts to communities with less state oversight or less consistent state enforcement.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The com menter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion on our decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 03934

- 2 Organization 1 : Kentuckians For The Commonwealth (KFTC) Commenter 1 : Nancy L. Reinhart C ommenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: As both the recent BP oil and TVA coal ash disasters have shown, our nation is not prepared to deal with the heartbreaking consequences that result from poor governmental oversight of exploitative, profit

seeking corporations. In Kentucky, people will likely die if one of the several high hazard coal combustion residue (CCR) impoundments in our state breaks

– a looming tragedy for which we have no correctional plans in motion and no response plan. To avoid eminent danger, we urge that the EPA take the critical steps necessary to adequately regulate this hazardous waste stream too long ignored by our government, immediately.
As Kentuckians, we know the true costs of coal along its entire lifecycle all too w ell. Our state suffers the largest impacts of devastating mountaintop removal coal mining. There are 21 utility coal

- burning power plants in Kentucky that emit pollutants to which we are exposed everyday. And, amongst all states, Kentucky stores one of the largest total volumes of CCR and houses the second highest number of impoundments. Annually at least 9.1 million tons of CCR is stored in 44 known impoundments, 7 of which are characterized by the EPA as “high hazard.” This decision is crucial to us

– and we look forward to the opportunity to voice our recommendations at the Louisville hearing in September


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is

### 9

referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion on our decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 04005

- 4 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : James Burch, Ph.D., et. al. Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: We urge the EPA to enact immediate, interim and long term mitigation strategies to characterize the extent of off

- site releases and halt exposure of the public and ecosystems to coal ash and CCR wastes.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. T he commenter is referred to Unit VI of the final rule for a discussion of the technical requirements, particularly groundwater monitoring and corrective action, that will apply to landfills and surface impoundments that accept CCR.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 04022

- 2 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Larry D. Conley Commenter Type: Private Citizen Other Sections: 9.2.5 Comment Excerpt Text: Listen to the American taxpayers. We do not want to pay higher energy prices because the EPA has another useless idea. We just need to regulate what we have in the first place.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 04041

- 1 Organization 1 : Environment Maryland Research & Policy Center Commenter 1 : Brad Heavner Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: CCRs are comprised mostly of fly ash but also consist of bottom ash, coal slag and flue gas desulfurization (“FGD”). The improper management of these CCRs has resulted in contaminated ground and surface waters, poisoned drinking water and harmful air emissions

-- serious public health and environmental threats. This warrants federally enforceable, nationally consistent standards for the handling and disposal of CCRs.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of the preamble for a discussion on our decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 05439

- 12 Organization 1 : Commen ter 1 : Robert D. Edstrom, Ph.D. Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text:

### 10

It appears to me that the environmental concerns about CCR regulation have been created out of the charge to use industrial waste materials in infrastructure projects where ever possible while inconsistently protecting soil and water. As stated in this proposed rule, "the control of CCRs over the last decade ... has not shown to be at all acceptable". It appears that more restrictive and consistent regulation by the US EPA i s warranted. I hope the EPA will develop new regulations that promote a new understanding of CCR beneficial use going forward.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discu ssion on our decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 05675

- 1 Organization 1 : Waccamaw RIVERKEEPER Commenter 1 : Christine Ellis Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: Recently, I attended the coal ash hearing that took place in Charlotte, NC on September 14. 1 was in attendance to voice the concerns of my community and my concerns for our rivers and ecosystem due to the lack of regulations regarding hazardous coal ash.


### Response: The Agency ac knowledges and appreciates the comment

.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 05752

- 3 Organization 1 : Foothills Group of the Sierra Club Commenter 1 : G. Preschle Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: Furthermore, I am privileged to have been elected as Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Foothills Group of the Sierra Club. Our Group has almost 1,000 members in the six county area including Forsyth, Davie, Davidson, Stokes, Surry, and Yadkin. The members from Stokes live in general prox imity to the Belews Creek Steam Station. Our members also travel to affected counties for recreation, work, shopping, family visits, etc. We are concerned for our health and the protection of the environment in which we live. This is not a theoretical exercise for us. Coal ash is a real hazard, which can too easily affect us in our daily lives. 

### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of the preamble for a discussion on our decision to regulat e CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 05752

- 7 Organization 1 : Foothills Group of the Sierra Club Commenter 1 : G. Preschle Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: I want to thank the EPA for recognizing the very real health and environmental risks posed by toxic coal ash. Given the seriousness of these risks, enforceable federal safeguards, not suggested state guidelines, are necessary to protect our communities.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciate s the comment.

### 11

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06068

- 2 Organization 1 : Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment Commenter 1 : John Veranth Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: However, either of the EPA proposals (C, D, or D

- prime) would be a great improvement over current practice and EPA is to be commended for undertaking this rulemaking effort. Environmental regulation involves balancing the risk assessment with practical con siderations of implementation and EPA will receive many comments from the regulated community regarding implementation issues. 

### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06068

- 9 Organization 1 : Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment Commenter 1 : John Veranth Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: Regarding “new developments since the May 2000 determination” FR page 35142, I agree that utilities have made great improvements in thei r current practices. However, it must be remembered that these “voluntary” measures are being driven by both liability concerns and the potential for future prescriptive regulation. Thus, this rulemaking process is important and needs to be pushed to compl etion. Market forces and the talent of engineers can provide the technology to achieve environmental goals, usually at far less than initially projected cost. However, there is no incentive to develop these technologies until the legislative and rulemaking processes create the compelling need.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06192

- 1 Organization 1 : Powder River Basin Resource Council Commenter 1 : Sharon Anderson Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: We appreciate your efforts to garner public input about the rule, including holding hearings across the nation, extending the public comment period, and otherwise seeking stakeholder involvement. As you know, there is a lot of interest in the proposed rule and citizens from across the nation, including our members, want to see EPA take effective, immediate action to prevent damage to the environment, and consequently our public health. Many of our members live near Wyoming’s coa l

- fired power plants and have a direct personal stake in the outcome of this regulatory process.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06192

- 5 Organization 1 : Powder River Basin Resource Council Commenter 1 : Sharon Anderson Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text:

### 12

We believe minimum federal standards are needed and will help to create a national solution for what it is a national problem.


### Response: The Age ncy acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06196

- 3 Organization 1 : Comite Dialogo Ambiental Commenter 1 : Ruth Santiago Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: Due to the urgent need for adequate regula tion of CCRs in Puerto Rico, we take this opportunity to comment on the proposed rule to regulate CCR disposal.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06331

- 1 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Jonathon Gray Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: Coal ash regulation has fallen between the cracks in general energy policy for far too long. TVA's Kingston Fossil Plant slurry spill provided insight into the ecological implications of a n under regulated hazardous waste. Corporate neglect of the storage facilities further weakens these regulations, ensuring that similar incidences will occur in the future unless more stringent guidelines are in place for the storage and disposal of coal r esiduals.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06349

- 7 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Mollie Freebairn Commenter Type: Private Citizen Other Sections: 4.4.7.1 3.7.2 6.1.1 Comment Excerpt Tex t: The hazardous nature of the toxic heavy metals and many of the organics calls for a major program to: Identify both the organic and elemental constituents of coal ash waste disposed of throughout the U.S. Measurements of waters including drinking water supplies, ambient air, and land in proximity to current coal ash impoundments, many of which have been in place for a number of decades and contamination to the surrounding environment is likely to be extensive. Conduct medical assessments and studies to e valuate the health effects and the extent to which populations are currently affected with respect to diseases such as cancer, heart disease, lupus, multiple sclerosis, cystic fibrosis, IQ, even hampering our capacity as a civilization to address serious p roblems of which this is one.Permanently contain all current coal ash waste sites in view of the fact that the elemental constituents have no half life and are never destroyed.

### 13

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06400

- 1 Organization 1 : Waste Management (WM) Commenter 1 : Susan Briggum Commenter Type: Other Company Comment Excerpt Text: Overview and Programmatic Recommendation: WM appreciates EPA’s leadership in determining that consistent and protective national standards are needed to assure that the disposal and beneficial use of CCRs are consistent with protection of human health and the environment. It is particularly notable that the utility industry itself has embraced this goal, and we share their views that timely implementation of new standards is necessary and appropriate.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06400

- 19 Organization 1 : Waste Management (WM) Commenter 1 : Susan Briggum Commenter Type: Other Company Other Sections: 11.3 Comment Excerpt Text: Conclusion: Waste Management strongly urges EPA to use its policy discretion to determine that RCRA Section 4010 affords it authority to establish a mandatory federa l program for permitting CCRs. This determination

– embraced by the regulated sector itself

– will give EPA power to require protective standards, public input and participation, and governmental oversight of CCR handling much more expeditiously and certai nly than the two options included in the CCR Proposal. Unlike the proposed options, this path forward does not depend for its success on unlikely developments in RCRA Subtitle C disposal capacity or radical changes public perception to support expanded ben eficial use. Nor does the Section 4010 option entail the delay and uncertainty likely to ensue in the years it would take to implement a RCRA Subtitle C mandate.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Units IV and V of the preamble discussion for the Agency’s rationale for promulgating this subtitle D rule for the disposal of CCR in landfills and surface impoundments.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06434

- 5 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Mass Commen t Campaign sponsoring organization unknown (272) Commenter Type: Private Citizen Other Sections: 8.2 Comment Excerpt Text: We need to take the lessons from the proven and potential coal combustion waste damage cases and regulate beneficial uses along with disposal until we are sure that effective measures are in place to adequately protect human health and the environment.

### 14

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is also referred to Unit XI of the preamble for a detai led discussion of damage cases.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06554

- 3 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Kristina Keeling Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: The public health in particular is protected under the auspices of the EPA, and it is this administration’s job to encourage public knowledge of the ‘unseen’ dangers inherent to coal combustion residuals (CCRs).



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06556

- 10 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Renee Reber Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: The American public cannot afford the associated health risk s to continue anymore. Please protect our health and the health of the environment we live in. Please regulate one of America’s largest waste streams.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06589

- 1 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Paul Benedict Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: I am writing in support of the efforts of your agency (EPA) to ensure coal ash is disposed of in an environmentally safe manner. 

### Re sponse: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The Agency urges the commenter to read the preamble regarding EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. The commenter is also urged to review the technical criteria the Agency i s promulgating for CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06852

- 3 Organization 1 : Green Delaware Commenter 1 : Alan Muller Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Other Sections: 10.1.2 Comment Excerpt Text: 3. The EPA has not only failed to regulate coal ash in a manner consistent with the RCRA, but has been actively involved in advocating harmful actions. This advocacy has been adopted by state environmental

### 15

regulatory agencies and departments of transportation and agricul ture, as well as other entities public and private, to justify inaction, and harmful policies and actions. Because of this unfortunate background, it is particularly important that EPA act as soon as possible to correct past errors.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The Agency urges the commenter to read the preamble regarding EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. The commenter is also urged to review the technical criteria the Agency is promulgating for C CR landfills and CCR surface impoundments.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06852

- 7 Organization 1 : Green Delaware Commenter 1 : Alan Muller Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Other Sections: 7.1 Comment Excerpt Text: Both state and federal regulatory agen cies have failed to regulate coal ash effectively or in accord with existing law. The situation is in fact one of the great scandals in the history of US environmental regulation. The integrity of state and federal has agencies buckled under pressure. This integrity needs to be restored. Our interactions with Delaware regulators have convinced use that they lack the understanding, the will, and perhaps the capacity to undertake effective regulation at the state level. Thus, it is essential that EPA take pro mpt and unambiguous action.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The Agency urges the commenter to read the preamble regarding EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. The commenter is also urged to review the technical criteria the Agency is promulgating for CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 08441

- 1 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Nancy Holt Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: Carolina Concerned Citizens appreciates the opportunity to express concern for the numerous impoundments of toxic coal combustion waste within North Carolina and across the nation. The fact that this waste is not regulated, monitored or considered hazardou s is outrageous when the components of the waste are well known as toxic pollutants and are substantial radioactive waste that impact the air, human health, groundwater, and human food sources. Radioactive coal combustion waste is one issue the Department of Energy knows, and the EPA well knows as shown in their 1984 report "Background Information Document (Integrated Risk Assessment); Final Rule for Radionuclides." EPA and RCRA have known for decades about the risks to human health from coal combustion ra dioactive materials in the emission and impounded waste/coal ash. The agencies well know the impact this waste with the many toxic heavy metals and radioactive emissions/ash could contaminate ground or surface waters and even our food supply. Yet the two E PA proposed plans offer no substantial protection of human health which should be the US

- EPA's most prominent concern

-- based on the mission of the agency.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The Agency urges the commenter to r ead the preamble regarding EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. The commenter is also urged to review the technical criteria the Agency is promulgating

### 16

for CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 08441

- 4 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Nancy Holt Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: New regulations should list coal combustion materials as toxic waste with strict regulatory requirements as the only moral, sound scientific method of p rotecting this society and earth.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The Agency urges the commenter to read the preamble regarding EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. The commenter is also urged to revie w the technical criteria the Agency is promulgating for CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 08826

- 10 Organization 1 : Duquesne University School of Law Commenter 1 : Kirk W. Junker Commenter Type: Academia Comment Excerpt Text: But before I do, let me note that I applaud the EPA’s willingness to hold these hearings and to have added hearings such as this one, in reconsideration of the seriousness of the issue and the degree of citizen concern that it raises. And that brings me to my first point

— the perspective from citizens in other parts of the world. One of the strengths of environmental law is that it is as much driven by nature as it is by culture. Thus how other cultures react to the same forces of natur e is relevant.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 08826

- 8 Organization 1 : Duquesne University School of Law Commenter 1 : Kirk W. Junker Commenter Type: Academia Comment Excerpt Text: At this point in history, inaction or the status quo ante on fly ash regulation is not an option. The U.S. was inactive when it came to registering and controlling chemical production and shipment, and thus for those industries, the worldwide benchmark is no w the European REACH [footnote 11: Registration, Evaluation, Restriction and Authorization of Chemicals, EC 1907/2006] regulations. The U.S. was inactive when it came to controlling greenhouse gas emissions and now is trying to play catch

- up with those cou ntries who, under the framework of the Kyoto Protocol have made advances to protect the health and welfare of their people and their natural environment. We have an opportunity now to address facts of science with advanced tools of law regarding the hazard s of fly ash. Let us not wait for some other country to take the lead. 

### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The Agency urges the commenter to read the preamble regarding EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. The commenter is also urged to review the technical criteria the Agency is promulgating for CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments.

### 17

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 08852

- 7 Organization 1 : Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC) Commenter 1 : Patrick Sweeney Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: The beneficial use of coal ash is a controversial subject. We applaud EPA in its efforts to create an atmosphere that promotes reuse of coal ash over disposal.



### Response: Th e Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion o f EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. The commenter is also referred to Units IV and VI for a complete discussio n of the beneficial use aspects of the rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 09510

- 1 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Dr. Patricia Matteson Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: I strongly urge you to adopt protective and federally enforceable regulations for coal ash disposal .



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 09510

- 4 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Dr. Patricia Matteson Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: The EPA must set strict rules for coal ash handling, transportation, storage and disposal, and for pollution prevention and monitoring at disposal facilities . Furthermore, the EPA should phas e out dangerous coal ash ponds, such as the one that led to the massive December 2008 spill of more than one billion gallons of contaminated coal ash sludge in Kingston, Tennessee . Needless to say, the EPA must prevent ash from being placed onto land with out liners or other pollution prevention measures under the excuse of "beneficial use." . Once again, I urge you to adopt federally enforceable standards to protect the environment and health of communities near coal ash disposal facilities .



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion o f EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. The commenter is also referred to Units IV and VI for a complete discuss ion of the beneficial use aspects of the rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 09883

- 5 Organization 1 : Holland Board of Public Works Commenter 1 : David G. Koster Commenter Type: Electric Utility Facility Comment Excerpt Text: The HBPW encourages regulations that protect human health and the environment without sacrificing the reliability and the diversity that public power entities such as ourselves contribute to the national electric

### 18

system and our local communities. We look f orward to a common sense based coal combustion residual rule.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 10520

- 2 Organization 1 : New York Construction Materials Association (NY Materials) Commente r 1 : David S. Hamling Commenter Type: Trade Association Comment Excerpt Text: Our involvement with the NewYork State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the local regional office of the EPA, had sensitized us to the issues regarding coal combustion byproducts. Likewise, NYMaterials agrees with your efforts to improve the monitoring and the proper storage and/or disposal of these materials.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit I V of t he preamble for a discussion o f EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 10538

- 16 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Raymond von Drehle Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: Our drinking water supply cannot incorporate constant discharges of arsenic and other heavy metals, and remain a viable community asset for generations to come. It's time for the Environmental Protection Agency to set strong federally enforceable safeguards th at protect our health, our communities and our future.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion o f EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Com ment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 10538

- 2 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Raymond von Drehle Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: As you evaluate the development of federal regulations for coal ash and coal combustion residuals (CCR), we urge you to craft an approach that properly protects public health and the environment.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion o f EPA’s decision to regulate CCR unde r subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 10718_DEN

- 030

- 2 Organization 1 : Rocker Six Cattle Company Commenter 1 : Clint McRae

### 19

Commenter Type: Other Company Other Sections: 8.6.1 7.1 Comment Excerpt Text: Subtitle C is wholly insufficient to stop groundwater impacts from the PP&L power plants. Such requirements have been in place for decades in Montana, and the state has done nothing to stem the contamination in our livestock wells.

PP&L’s $25 million settlement to 60 homeowners in Colstri p is an admission that ash pond effluent is hazardous. This leak creates a human health issue. The 3 and 4 EHP leaks water that is 16 times the toxic level to cause death in cattle. This is an agricultural herd health issue. This is not benign, it is hazar dous, and as a rancher who lives down gradient of a leaking ash pond, I ask you to please designate coal ash as hazardous.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion o f EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 11150_CHA

- 137

- 3 Organization 1 : League of Women Voters of Columbia, South Carolina Commenter 1 : Suzanne Rhodes Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: Thank you, EPA, for reopening this important issue. I live near the McMeekin Plant

- Lake Murray Dam

- which feeds into Congaree National Park through the Saluda River. The Park and the Saluda River, as well as citizens in the area, deserve long

- ran ge protection. This 58

- year old plant has an ash pile, and because of budget cutbacks, the State water monitoring has been reduced. We need to come up with strategies to facilitate effective monitoring, enforcement, and remediation.

The visible level of s oot on my back porch disappeared when the coal plant was upgraded. If we ever get to “Clean Coal,” the ash will probably be even nastier. Now is the time to assess facts, and prepare to better protect our citizens and environment.
Duke has been monitoring voluntarily recently. I think that is great!

– particularly if they are working with the states and EPA to move toward a useful protocol we might all use. Yesterday I briefly reviewed the web sites of the utilities speaking today. Progress Energy site add ressed coal ash

- and they included a fact sheet from EPRI, which was reassuring and addressed TCLP. That’s all I found at these utility sites.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion o f EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 11150_CHA

- 137

- 4 Organization 1 : League of Women Voters of Columbia, South Carolina Commenter 1 : Suzanne Rhodes Commenter Type: Advoc acy Group Comment Excerpt Text: We need to work together to develop hazardous waste regulations and avoid future problems with coal ash. Someone may figure out a way to treat, segregate, or use some components of ash for certain

### 20

purposes, but collectively they are hazardous wastes. Fees are needed to fund the ash programs, as now with air permits. Thank you.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion o f EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Section 1.2

- General opposition to regulating CCRs (without specifying any proposed or alternative regulatory option) Total Number of Submissions: 23 Total Number of Comments: 27

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 00368

- 1 Organization 1 : BMC Aggregates L.C. Commenter 1 : Sherman Lundy Commenter Type: Beneficial User Comment Excerpt Text: 1. The response to CCRs appears to be the result of the failure of the surface impoundment structure at the Kin gston, TN, TVA plant. Much of the document vacillates between landfills and surface impoundments instead of defining and addressing the character and conditions of each. In fact, a one size fits all approach is taken in terms of Tide D or Title C classific ation for CCRs in Landfills and surface impoundments.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion o f EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 02867

- 1 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Brett Barkley Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: First, it is important to consider the need for the proposed rule. According to the EPA,

[t]his decision is drive n in part by the failure of a surface impoundment retaining wall in Kingston, TN in December 2009...Ultimately, the approach selected will need to ensure that catastrophic releases such as occurred at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA’s) Kingston, Tennes see facility do no occur and that other types of damage cases associated with CCR surface impoundments and landfills are prevented. (Federal Register, 35132)
It is worth noting that EPA has made a small error in their records. The coal ash spill in Kings ton, TN occurred in December 2008, not December 2009. Nonetheless, as a native of Tennessee, I agree with EPA’s determination to do everything in their power to prevent tragic events like the one that occurred in my home state a couple years ago. Moreover, the safe disposal of CCRs is vitally important to human health and the environment across the United States. Currently, there are landfills or surface impoundments containing coal ash in 47 states. So, it is obviously of national interest, and we should a ll learn from the shortcomings that led to the failure at TVA’s Kingston facilities.

### 21

In order to correct what went wrong, the first step is to figure out just what exactly went wrong. The proximate cause of the “catastrophic release” would not seem to be c oal ash per se. There is nothing inherent in coal ash that caused it to break through the surface impoundment and into neighboring areas. Rather, the main culprit would seem to be the structural integrity of the surface impoundment. In light of this, the p reventive steps that are taken should directly address issues related to the structural integrity of surface impoundments or landfills. The focus on whether coal ash should be labeled hazardous or not seems to be misplaced. If the EPA adopted a subtitle C regulation, which heavily monitors the generation, treatment, and disposal of coal ash, they would be trying to treat the wrong thing. EPA is correct to recognize the damage pursuant to the 2008 coal ash spill, but to reason that, damage occurred, therefor e coal ash must be hazardous’ is not logical.
The same can be said even after considering the possibility of coal ash leaching into groundwater or surface water. Again, the proximate cause of leaching has to do with the structural integrity of surface imp oundments or landfills, not coal ash itself. If the risk to human health and the environment can be addressed solely by improving the structural integrity of such disposal sites (subtitle D), what is the purpose in also subjecting CCRs to hazardous waste t reatment (subtitle C)? The EPA implicitly acknowledges this to be the case: “Composite liners, as modeled in this [risk] assessment, effectively reduce risks from all constituents to below the risk criteria for both landfills and surface impoundments at th e 90th and 50th percentiles” (Federal Register, 35145). Even in the case of clay

- lined or unlined waste management units, all constituents are below the risk criteria at the 50th percentile. Some reputable scholars believe this mean value of the risk shoul d be the appropriate guide when making policy decisions given the fairly broad range of scientific uncertainty (Viscusi in Cutting Green Tape: Toxic Pollutants, Environmental Regulation and the Law, edited by Richard L. Stroup and Roger E. Meiners, Indepen dent Institute, 2000, p. xiii). Seeing that EPA recognizes “significant uncertainties in national risk assessments of this nature”, the legitimacy of a subtitle D regulation, much less a subtitle C regulation, greatly diminishes (Federal Register, 35145).


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion o f EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 02867

- 4 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Brett Barkley Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: Such confusion has clouded industry decisions on whether to recycle or beneficially use waste products for many years. EPA acknowledged the ambiguous nature of regulations pertaining to beneficial use of wastes in their 2008 rule, Definition of Solid Wastes (DSW). An independent study quoted by EPA in their regulatory impact analysis to that rule concludes:
The laws applying to recycling are difficult to understand and impl ement, and the consequences of recycling are uncertain. For many, this becomes an unacceptable risk, and this risk often leads to avoidance. Even the EPA concedes that the current regulations are difficult to implement and discourage safe recycling of haza rdous waste. (The Reason Foundation, “Recycling Hazardous Waste: How RCRA Has Recyclers Running Around in CERCLAS”, by Alexander Volokh, Policy Study nr. 197, October 1995)

. Another independent study speaks particularly to the case of CCRs: Regulatory bar riers result from the EPA RCRA designation of [coal combustion byproducts] as solid wastes even when they are utilized

### 22

rather than disposed of. In the absence of special state exemptions from solid waste regulations for beneficial use, the “waste” designat ion can trigger case

- by

- case approval and permitting procedures that discourage the use of CCBs because of cost and the time required to complete adjudicatory processes. The ineffectiveness of federal agencies to promulgate regulations and guidelines to ov ercome this barrier continues to hinder use of byproducts. (EERC, “Barriers to the Increased Utilization of Coal Combustion/ Desulfurization By

- Products by Government and Commercial Sectors

- Update 1998”, EERC Topical Report, July 1999; p. xix)

This is not the way the regulatory system is supposed to work. According to Executive Order 12866 regulations should be “consistent, sensible, and understandable.” (Federal Register, Vol. 58 No. 190)



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion o f EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. The commenter is also referred to Units IV and VI for a complete discussion of the beneficial use aspects of the rule.

Comme nt Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 03051

- 2 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Robert E. Moore Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: The Kingston coal ash pond failure was preventable by proper design, construction and monitoring. The EPA's first acti on to identify the many coal ash impoundments to improve their integrity and safety with necessary inspections is essential to prevent another dam collapse. Their second action to consider coal ash waste, now rightly classified as non

- hazardous Class D, as hazardous Class C, is totally illogical.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion on our decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06040

- 1 Organization 1 : Longview Power, LLC Commenter 1 : Joseph R. Douglass Commenter Type: Electric Utility Facility Comment Excerpt Text: As EPA provides on their web page describing the proposed rule, "The need for national managemen t criteria was emphasized by the December 2008 spill of CCRs from a surface impoundment near Kingston, TN." The Kingston spill was the result of a preventable structural impoundment failure. However, EPA has leveraged this event to support proposing a broa d expansion of regulations unrelated to structural failure. Considering the nationwide generation of millions of tons per year, over many years, EPA's list of "proven" CCR damage cases to support this rule expansion is limited. And for these "proven" cases , the evidence of damage is less than clear, as detailed by EPRI's "Evaluation of Coal Combustion Product Damage Cases (Volumes 1 and 2), Draft Report, November 2009," provided in the docket. Following the Kingston spill, and EPRI's review of the evidence of damage cases, we believe that the focus of new requirements should be limited to the improved design and management of surface impoundments, rather than the broad expansion of regulation contemplated by this rule proposal. "



### Response: The Agency ackno wledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is

### 23

referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion on our decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06122

- 4 Organization 1 : Port Aggregates, Inc. Commenter 1 : James P. Guinn Sr. Commenter Type: Beneficial User Comment Excerpt Text: We request that the EPA DO NOT CHANGE any regulations on Coal Ash.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 06 40

- 06362

- 5 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Bret Reid, P.E. Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: I would like to point at that this regulation does not seem to be about coal ash, but about the EPA taking state authorities and regulating the coal industry out of existence, which was a focus of the current administrations campaign.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Units IV and V of the preamble discussion for the Agency’s rationale for promulgating this subtitle D rule for the disposal of CCR in landfills and surface impoundments. T he commenter is also referred to Unit IX of the preamble for a discussion on how EPA expect s states to incorporate the CCR rules into state solid waste management plans.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06846

- 1 Organization 1 : Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Commenter 1 : Richard B. Tedder on behalf Mary Jean Yon Commenter Type: State Government Comment Excerpt Text: The Department understands the difficulty EPA faced after the coal slurry impoundment failure in Dec ember, 2008 at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil Plant. Clearly this failure should not have happened, and EPA should take the measures necessary to prevent these types of disasters in the future. However, the Department believes that many o f the approaches suggested by EPA in this proposed rule are extreme and unnecessary. Rather than focusing on the Kingston spill problem, EPA is inappropriately seeking to broaden its regulatory control over all management of coal combustion residuals (CCRs ).



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 08227

- 137 Organization 1 : Gypsum Association Commenter 1 : Michael Gardner Commenter Type: Trade Association Other Sections: 10.1.1 10.2.4 10.2.3.2

### 24

Comment Excerpt Text: The Gypsum Association appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments on EPA's Proposed CCR Rule. The Gypsum Association represents the interests of U.S. and Canadian manufacturers of gypsum board and gypsum panels (collectively "wallboard,,).[Footnote 2: To be consistent with the termi nology used in the Proposed CCR Rule, the Gypsum As sociation comments uses the term "wallboard" to collectively refer to both gypsum board and gypsum panels. The commonality between the board and t he panel is the gypsum core. To be considered a gypsum board or panel, and be regarded as wallboard the core must be predominantly gypsum. Please see Section III for further discussion regarding gypsum products.] Founded in 1930 and incorporated in Illinoi s in 1961, the Gypsum Association me mbership includes all eight U.S. wallboard manufacturers, which produce more than 99 percent of the wallboard sold within the U.S. To qualify as a member of the Gypsum Association, a company must calcine gypsum and manuf

acture gypsum board under the provisions of ASTM International ("ASTM") Standard C1396, Standard Specification for Gypsum Board. For more than 20 years, Gypsum Association members have successfully and safely developed technologies to use FGD gypsum to man ufacture wallboard. As discussed in greater detail below, electric utilities use a multistep manufacturing process to produce gypsum material that is sold to make wallboard. These public comments refer to that gypsum material as "FGD gypsum." It is also co mmonly known as "washed gypsum," "washed FGD gypsum," and "synthetic gypsum." Importantly, FGD gypsum is not fly ash, boiler slag, bottom ash, FGD sludge, or unwashed FGD gypsum.
The latest available figures indicate that in 2009, members of the Gypsum As sociation used 7.3 million short tons of FGD gypsum. In the current market, approximately 45 percent of the gypsum used to manufacture wallboard in the U.S. is FGD gypsum. Gypsum Association members produced the equivalent of seven billion square feet of w allboard from FGD gypsum in 2009, which is enough to finish the interior of 700,000 average size homes.
EPA's Proposed CCR Rule defines CCRs and beneficially used CCPs to include FGD gypsum. As detailed in these public comments, the Gypsum Association mem bers will be negatively impacted by EPA's Proposed CCR Rule regardless of which regulatory option EPA adopts. To avoid that unintended result, the Gypsum Association requests that EPA promulgate clarifying language specifically excluding FGD gypsum from th e scope of the final rule.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion o f EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. The commenter is also referred to Units IV and VI for a complete discussion of the beneficial use aspects of the rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 08246

- 22 Organization 1 : Stinson Morrison Hec ker LLP on behalf of Kansas City Board of Public Utilities Commenter 1 : Parthenia B. Evans and Dennis Lane Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: Both factors strongly suggest that the existing regulatory structure adequately protect s public health and environment and creates sufficient incentives for the States and industry to implement improved disposal techniques in the normal course. In these circumstances, the better course would be to prevent erosion in the current level of over sight and enforcement, not to impose any entirely new regime that presents very real and substantial risks.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

### 25

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 08246

- 3 Organization 1 : Stinson Morrison He cker LLP on behalf of Kansas City Board of Public Utilities Commenter 1 : Parthenia B. Evans and Dennis Lane Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Other Sections: 3.1.2 Comment Excerpt Text: THE PROPOSED RULES WILL NOT IMPROVE PROTECTION AGAINST SPILLS EPA uses the examples of the TVA Kingston Plant and Martins Creek Pennsylvania spills as calling into “question whether the risks that EPA originally identified have been sufficiently mitigated since [EPA’s] May 2000 Regulatory Determination.” 75 FR at 351 50/1

- 2. Initially, it should be noted that both these spills resulted from physical stability problems, rather than from chemical hazards. Yet, the designation of hazardous (special) waste under the subtitle C approach is addressed primarily to chemical is sues, even though a regulatory change on that point would do virtually nothing to solve the physical stability problems at the core of those spills. Looked at from the other side, the physical stability problems could be fully addressed without designating CCRs as hazardous (special) waste at much lower cost and disruption levels without compromising the protection against these types of spills.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion on EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. Contrary to the commenter’s statement, the rule does address structural integrity and the commenter can find the discussion of these provisions in Unit VI of the preamb le and also in the regulatory text; see specifically 257.73

– Structural integrity criteria for existing CCR surface impoundments and 257.74

– Structural integrity for new CCR surface impoundments and any lateral expansion. Structural integrity for surfac e impoundments is also addressed in the location criteria, the inspection requirements, and the hydrologic and hydraulic capacity requirements for CCR surface impoundments.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 08246

- 4 Organization 1 : Stinson Morrison H ecker LLP on behalf of Kansas City Board of Public Utilities Commenter 1 : Parthenia B. Evans and Dennis Lane Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Other Sections: 8.1 Comment Excerpt Text: In addition, at least as to the Pennsylvania spill, it is unclea r what further regulatory prescriptions would have mitigated the risk, given that the “dam failure [violated] the facility’s state

- issued solid waste disposal permit and Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.” Id

. [Footnote 1: EPA does not address whether th e TVA spill resulted from a violation of existing state and/or federal law mandates. See id. and 75 FR at 35239 (indicating that EPA and TVA entered an administrative consent order under CERCLA that required TVA to clean up the spill).] This statement does not show existing state or federal laws governing the permitting of the facility or storage of CCRs were inadequate to minimize the risk of a spill, but, rather, that the spill was caused when existing laws were violated. In other words, compliance with t he existing laws would be adequate to mitigate the risks that the 2000 Determination identified, but obviously cannot protect where they are ignored and violated. It is unclear how adding new laws or modifying existing ones, as the Notice proposes to do, e .g., 75 FR at 35150/3 (suggesting new rules on structural stability and conversion or retrofitting will have substantial benefit in avoided clean up costs), would change that result, as presumably such laws would also have been violated by the actions that led to the spill.

### 26

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 08269

- 1 Organization 1 : Horsehead Corportion Commenter 1 : Patrick T. Currier Commenter Type: Beneficial User Other Sections: 11.2.5 Comment Excerpt Text: Horsehead does not believe additional regulation of coal combustion residuals (“CCR”) is warranted at this time. The states have an effective regulatory infrastructure in place to continue as the principal regulatory authorities to en sure protection of human health and the environment through the safe and secure management of CCR under state solid waste and ground water protection programs. Moreover, Horsehead agrees with EPA’s 2000 regulatory determination that CCRs do not warrant reg ulation as hazardous wastes



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 08841

- 20 Organization 1 : Deseret Generation and Transmission Co

- operative Commenter 1 : Howard Vickers Commenter Type: Electr ic Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: EPA admits in the proposal that there is a large variation in the potential effects of CCRs for any given site. Those effects are based on many factors including TCLP results, PH, site geology, weather, distance to the nearest surface water, distance to the nearest aquifer and the distance to the nearest dwellings. Based on the wide variation of factors that need to be considered, Deseret believes that any regulation of CCRs needs to be risk based. At the Bonanza sit e, the risk is very small because of the clay soils around the plant site, TCLP results which show low leaching potential, low rainfall of about 7 inches per year, the distance to the nearest surface water which is 8.8 miles, the distance to the nearest dw elling which is over 22 miles away and no useable aquifer below the site. Based on these factors the environmental and health risk from CCRs at Bonanza is very minimal to zero. With a risk factor of zero at the Bonanza site, Deseret shouldn’t be forced to pay large sums of money to mitigate a problem that doesn’t exist. These same factors apply to many facilities, especially in the arid, sparsely populated West. Site by site risk determinations need to be made regarding any CCR regulation and sites like Bon anza could be exempted from most if not all of the proposed CCR regulatory burden.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 08857

- 1 Organization 1 : Department of Electric, City of Hamilton, Ohio Commenter 1 : Charles Young Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: Regulation under either Subtitle C or Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") through the CCR Rule will have a significant impact on the operation of the Hamilton municipal Power Plant as well as the citizens of Hamilton. Hamilton implores EPA not to regulate CCR under either Subtitle without further study and analysis of the potential impact on smaller muni cipal generators. 

### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

### 27

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 08857

- 14 Organization 1 : Department of Electric, City of Hamilton, Ohio Commenter 1 : Charles Young Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: More fundamentally, Hamilton questions whether or not EPA needs to move forward with any new federal regulation of CCR under RCRA. 

### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCR A

- 2009

- 0640

- 08858

- 1 Organization 1 : Cogentrix Energy, LLC Commenter 1 : C. Richard Neff Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: Cogentrix believes that the environmental performance of its conventional power fleet is among the best in th e independent power industry. The coal

- fired generating plants have been managing CCRs for over 25 years with a strong emphasis on beneficial reuse and believes that options contained in the proposed rules are neither supported by the body of scientific ev idence nor are they in the best interest of US energy policy.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 09694

- 5 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Mark Morgan Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: One accident in Tennessee should not cause a nationwide change in ash handling policy.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion on our decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 09827

- 1 Organization 1 : Kansas City Board of Public Utilities (BPU) Commenter 1 : John Pettey Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company
Comment Excerpt Text: The Proposed Rule ass umes that change is necessary as to the current requirements associated with the handling, transportation, storage, beneficial use, and disposal of coal combustion residuals. The BPU has carefully considered the Proposed Rule and concludes that there is no t adequate support for any change in the current requirements and programs that govern coal combustion residuals and particularly a change to regulation under RCRA Subtitle C. Our rate payers cannot afford rate increases that would occur as a result of suc h change. As the rate

- setting body we would be hard pressed to justify to our electric customers any increased costs for coal combustion residuals because the benefits are too little and the costs too great.

### 28

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciat es the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion on our decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 09889

- 4 Organization 1 : Texas Association of Business Commenter 1 : Stephen Minick Commenter Type: Trade Association Comment Excerpt Text: It is the position of TAB that adoption of either option is neither necessary nor appropriate at this time.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The comment er is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion on our decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 10192

- 2 Organization 1 : Standard Cements Materials, Inc. Commenter 1 : Mario A. Tamez Commenter Type: Beneficial User Comment Excerpt Text: We are sending you this letter in the above

- mentioned proposed action to regulate the disposal of Coal Ash under Subtitle C and Subtitle D. By taking this action, you will impact the beneficial use of this by

product that a Hazardous Material by your own definition.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion o f EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. The commenter is also referred to Units IV and VI for a complete discussion of the beneficial use aspects of the rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 10573

- 1 Organization 1 : Arizona Rock Products Association (ARPA) Commenter 1 : Steve Trussell Commenter Type: Trade Association Comment Excerpt Text: Beneficial use of CCRs has grown significantly in the last several years and reclassification would create serious unintended consequences.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of the preamble for a discussion of EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. The commenter is also referred to Units IV and VI for a complete discussion of the beneficial use aspects of the rule.

Section 1.3

- Purpose of EPA developing co

- proposals (i.e., proposing two regulatory options) Total Number of Submissions: 7 Total Number of Comments: 10

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 00358

- 19 Organization 1 : Citizens for Clean Power (CCP)

### 29

Commenter 1 : John Austin Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: It was irresponsible of EPA and this Administration to have brought forth a proposal that in one option totally disenfranchised the pu blic and in the other pretends to provide protections. EPA has failed to protect the public. If finalized as proposed, surface impoundments eventually close, but CCW placed in landfills would still go there untreated. There would be little change in the op eration of existing lined landfills unless EPA acts to identify the wastes as the hazardous wastes they are and orders proper treatment and disposal. The public expects nothing less.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of the preamble for a discussion of EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 04138

- 10 Organization 1 : Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection Commenter 1 : R. Bruce Scott Commenter Type: State Government Other Sections: 4.5 Comment Excerpt Text: The Commonwealth of Kentucky strongly believes that approach should be a version under Subtitle D. Imple mentation of clear federal standards under Subtitle D that all states would then implement would be a more effective and appropriate approach for the management of CCR.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is refer red to Unit IV of the preamble for a discussion of EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 04138

- 9 Organization 1 : Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection Commenter 1 : R. Bruce Scott Commenter Type: State Government Comment Excerpt Text: Finally, by proposing 2 primary approaches and an additional D Prime proposal in one rule, EPA has substantially complicated the rulemaking process by making it nearly impossible to provide focused comments on 3 different approaches simultaneously. The Subtitle D and D Prime options appear to be an EPA afterthought with few details on either proposal. In light of this, EPA should withdraw the Proposed Rule, and re

- propose one approach so that all parties can prov ide constructive comments on implementing appropriate changes for the management of CCR.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of the preamble for a discussion of EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. The commenter is further referred to Unit VI of the preamble for a dis cussion of the technical standards EPA is promulgating for the management of CCR landfills, CCR surface impoundments and all lateral expansions of these units.

### 30

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06260

- 10 Organization 1 : Kentucky Department for Environme ntal Protection Commenter 1 : R. Bruce Scott Commenter Type: State Government Comment Excerpt Text: We request that EPA withdraw the current two option proposal as publication has surely led to choice of one program over the other by various interest groups.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment, however the Agency is under a legal obligation to issue a final rule by December 19, 2014.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06260

- 6 Organization 1 : Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection Commenter 1 : R. Bruce Scott Commenter Type: State Government Comment Excerpt Text: By proposing 2 primary approaches and an additional D Prime proposal in one rule, EPA has substantially complicated the rulemaking pr ocess by making it very difficult to provide focused comments on 3 different approaches simultaneously. In light of this, it is strongly encouraged that EPA should withdraw the Proposed Rule, and re

- propose one approach so that all parties can provide

cons tructive comments on implementing appropriate changes for the management of CCR.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of the preamble for a discussion of EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. The commenter is further referred to Unit VI of the preamble for a discussion of the technical standards EPA is promulgating for the management of CCR landfills, CCR surface impoundments and all lateral expansions of these units.

Co mment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06357

- 20 Organization 1 : Kansas City Power & Light Company Commenter 1 : Paul M. Ling Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: By proposing multiple approaches, EPA has substantially complicated the rul emaking by making it difficult to provide focused comments on the multiple approaches simultaneously. In light of this, KCP&L recommends that EPA withdraw the Proposed CCR Rule and re

- propose for comment the Subtitle D Prime option with the modifications i dentified in comments above.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of the preamble for a discussion of EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. The commenter is further referred to Unit VI of the preamble for a discussion of the technical standards EPA is promulgating for the management of CCR landfills, CCR surface impoundments and all lateral expansions of these units . The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment on a re

- proposal, however the Agency is under a legal obligation to issue a final rule by December 19, 2014.

### 31

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 09232

- 13 Organization 1 : Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Commenter 1 : Trudy D. Fisher Commenter Type: State Government Comment Excerpt Text: MDEQ asserts that EPA has created an incredibly complicated rule proposal by offering two primary options along with numerous other variations of these options (e.g. D

- prim e, hybrid CKD rule option, wet vs. dry regulations, etc.) and asking states to comment on the many potential regulatory variations that could develop from this proposal. MDEQ also believes that it is simply unreasonable for EPA to propose rule options for comment but at the same time request additional important information that should have been collected in the developing the rule prior to release. We urge EPA, after review and consideration of public comments, to withdraw the current rule proposal and rel ease a final determination on one proposed rule for the review and comment of the States and the public.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of the preamble for a discussion of EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. The commenter is further referred to Unit VI of the preamble for a dis cussion of the technical standards EPA is promulgating for the management of CCR landfills, CCR surface impoundments and all lateral expansions of these units.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 09239

- 7 Organization 1 : Prairie State Generating Company, LLC (PSGC) Commenter 1 : Keith Bastian Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: The current action consists of two very complex proposals. It is unreasonable to assume that the regulated community has addresse d all of the necessary issues under both regulatory options when EPA has not determined which regulatory option it prefers.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 09239

- 83 Organization 1 : Prair ie State Generating Company, LLC (PSGC) Commenter 1 : Keith Bastian Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: The current action consists of two very complex proposals. It is unreasonable to assume that the regulated community has addres sed all of the necessary issues under both regulatory options when EPA has not determined which regulatory option it prefers.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: TRANS

- LVL

- 0032

- 4 Organization 1 : Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection Commenter 1 : Bruce Scott Commenter Type: State Government Comment Excerpt Text: Finally, by proposing two primary approaches and an additional D Prime proposal in one rule, EPA has

### 32

substantially complicated the rulemak ing process by making it nearly impossible to provide focused comments on three different approaches simultaneously. The Subtitle D and D Prime options appear to be an EPA afterthought with few details on either proposal. In light of this, EPA should withd raw the proposed rule and re

- propose one approach so that all parties can provide constructive comments on implementing appropriate changes for the management of CCR. The Commonwealth of Kentucky strongly believes that approach should be a version under S ubtitle D. Implementation of clear federal standards under Subtitle D that all states would then implement would be a more effective and appropriate approach for the management of CCR



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The co mmenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion on our decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Section 1.4

- Personal descriptions or anecdotes (without data or substantive comment) of adverse impacts from CCRs on self/family/ neighborhood/community/state/nation Total Number of Submissions: 14 Total Number of Comments: 18

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 01833

- 3 Organization 1 : Sierra Club Oklahoma Commenter 1 : Jody Harlan Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: Check out the video Bokoshe: The Air We Breathe, funded by Sierra Club Oklahoma at http://vimeo.com/12533060, about 450 citizens who live near a coal ash dump that is making them sick in Bokoshe (Bo

- ko

- she) in southeastern Oklahoma. The coal ash comp any known as Making Money, Having Fun (now more tactfully renamed Clean Hydro Reclamation) dumps coal ash in Bokoshe from the AES Shady Point power plant in Panama, OK. It ’ s supposed to be reclamation project that would fill up an abandoned lead mine. Inst ead, the owners built a toxic wall 50 feet high. The coal ash flies out of the trucks as fugitive dust on many 18

- mile trips to Bokoshe every day. The coal ash leaks mercury, arsenic and other toxins into the groundwater that supplies drinking water. Thirt een to 14 families who live within a half

- mile of this toxic dump have cancer right now.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit XI of the preamble supporting this rule for a discussion of damage cases involving CCR.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 01833

- 8 Organization 1 : Sierra Club Oklahoma Commenter 1 : Jody Harlan Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: even in public meetings when we show the video “Bokoshe: The Air We Breathe,” which you can see at http://vimeo.com/12533060.
This video, which was funded by Sierra Club Oklahoma, is about what is happening to 450 citizens who

### 33

live near a coal ash dump i n the small town of Bokoshe (“Bo

- ko

- she) in southeastern Oklahoma. The coal ash company initially known as Making Money, Having Fun (now more tactfully renamed Clean Hydro Reclamation) has ruined their property and their lives by dumping coal ash in Bokosh e from the coal

- fired AES Shady Point power plant in nearby Panama, Oklahoma.
Oklahoma law prohibits locating a coal ash dump any closer than three miles from an incorporated city, so when MMHF went to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission for a permit, th ey just left the 100

- year old, incorporated town of Bokoshe off their maps. They got away with it. Bokoshe citizens didn’t know until it was too late.
This is supposed to be reclamation project that would fill up an abandoned lead mine. Instead, the owne rs of Making Money, Having Fun are building a toxic wall at least 50 feet high and growing. They have their own turquoise lake. The coal ash flies out of the trucks as “fugitive dust” on many 18

- mile trips to Bokoshe every day. Sometimes school busses driv e through it. The coal ash then leaks mercury, arsenic and other toxins into the groundwater that supplies drinking water and then runs down the 50 foot hill onto the neighbors’ property. The kids have asthma. The calves are stillborn. And 13 of 14 familie s who live within a half

- mile of this toxic dump have cancer right now, including a toddler with leukemia, an 8th grade boy with breast cancer and a 35

- year

- old teacher who has had cancer twice. Several of her same

age exercise buddies are dead from cancer

. 

### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit XI of the preamble supporting this rule for a discussion of damage cases involving CCR.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06543

- 2 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Falon French Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: As a long

- time Indiana resident, I am very concerned by the quality of our public waterways. The coal ash ponds have already decimated the Town of Pines; I do not want to see my drinking water and recreational waterways decimated in a similar way. After testing water quality in the streams and rivers near my home for over two years, I have observed numerous water quality impairments which the Indiana Department of Environmental M anagement has not adequately addressed. I am not confident in their ability to regulate coal ash in a way that will protect public health or the health of our water bodies.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is

r eferred to Unit XI of the preamble supporting this rule for a discussion of damage cases involving CCR.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06849

- 4 Organization 1 : Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO) Commenter 1 : Keith Harley Comment er Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: LVEJO members who live near these Midwest Generation facilities have longstanding complaints because the ash that is generated, stored and transported through their neighborhoods is released into the ambient ai r. The permanent CCR waste storage areas are open air units, allowing for the runoff and

### 34

leaching of wastes. The CCR wastes are transported from the waste storage units, creating another operation from which releases can occur. LVEJO members are at risk by virtue of the lack of regulation of the generation, storage, and transportation of coal ash. Despite diligent efforts, LVEJO members have not been able to find out how much coal ash is generated in their community, the chemical characteristics of this was te, how long the ash is stored on

- site or nearby, what precautions are taken to prevent releases of this waste from these storage units, where the ash goes when it leaves the power plant, how the ash is transported, who transports the ash, or how the ash i s transported to ensure that it is not released into the community.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit XI of the preamble supporting this rule for a discussion of damage cases involving CCR.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06886

- 2 Organization 1 : Heart of Illinois Group Sierra Club Commenter 1 : Joyce Blumenshine Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Other Sections: 7.1 6.1.1 Comment Excerpt Text: We see the impacts of coal ash in our community. The failure of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to adequately regulate coal ash has meant the “solution by dilution” answer to groundwater contamination by the Ameren Duck Creek Power Plant, near Canton, Fulton County. Our members re side in the immediate area and have private water wells, fish, swim and recreate near this power plant. The IL EPA took over seven years to deal with the boron groundwater contamination from this power plant's ash settling ponds. Now the contaminated water is being allowed to be let into the Illinois River in 'regulated' amounts. The Duck Creek plant had to get piped water from the City of Canton for their potable water as they polluted their groundwater at the plant with their treatment ponds. Our concerns are for the Illinois River mussel beds that were known to be near where the water discharge was proposed to be and other aquatic life. We believe the IL EPA has inadequate oversight of such 'solution by dilution' means of dealing with coal ash contaminati on and that the only way to really have this corrected is with federal regulation of coal ash.
Our members commute to work and meetings by the Ameren A.G. Edwards Power Plant, Peoria County, at the edge of Bartonville. This plant has only a levee between it and the Illinois River.
The coal ash piles are visible from the highway and to our knowledge this ash area has no liners and does not even have water monitoring. These old coal plants and coal ash impoundments are ticking time bombs for our community h ealth and well being. The Peoria metro area has very high asthma rates and high cancer rates for the state of Illinois. We are very concerned that without Subtitle C regulations as Special Waste, the same old practices from fifty years ago will continue to be used at these plants for their handling of coal ash. Our IL EPA is short staffed and does not seem to be able to make headway in any kind of current best science practices to apply to these coal ash sites to improve protections for public health and lo ng

- term safety.
The Dynegy Midwest Havana Power Plant has one of the top 50 most hazardous coal ash impoundments in the nation, according to a listing from the EPA. I have talked to citizens living near this impoundment, and they have never received any i nformation from the power company about emergency procedures or safety regarding the ash impoundment next to their residential area. If this impoundment were to break, the slurry wave is expected to inundate several miles from the waste area, which will in clude many homes. Within the first block north of this coal ash slurry is a home daycare business and retired senior

### 35

citizens. What would become of these citizens if the ash pond fractured? We contend that neither the utility companies nor the IL EPA are d oing their jobs adequately in Illinois to insure protections for current and future generations of citizens from coal ash impacts.

The U.S. EPA must move forward with the known scientific facts that coal ash is toxic. Children, the elderly or those with h ealth problems bear the health burdens of this pollution in our air and water.
We are concerned about the long

- term impacts to our environment and for future generations if coal ash continues to be ignored as a toxic waste, even though it contains many he avy metals.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit XI of the preamble supporting this rule for a discussion of damage cases involving CCR.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06959

- 13 Organiza tion 1 : Prairie Rivers Network, Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club, American Bottom Conservancy Commenter 1 : Traci L. Barkley Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: My wife and I moved to the city of Havana, Illinois in July of 2009. My wife’s parents both passed away in less than a month of each o ther and we decided to purchase the farm house which belonged to her parents. The property is located in the country and we love it here, it‘s peaceful and quite.
The property is next to the City of H avana power plants coal ash pond. The property sits down hill of the ponds walls. The home we have was built in 1870 and we have totally renovated the inside and outside and landscaped it.
We have real concerns about the ponds use, structural integrity, a nd health issues. My wife, myself, and the nearby residents of Havana feel that the above questions deserve and honest and detailed response to our concerns. We don’t want to have another Tennessee on our hands.
Questions below :
1.) What does the liner in the pond consist of, or does it even have one. Is concrete a material that was used in the development of this pond.
What is the support system for reinforcing the structure of the walls to prevent side blowouts or over flow. Also has erosion preventi on been put in place around the dirt walls of the pond.
What precautions have been implemented in preventing leakage, underground contamination to
water and soil nearby, and toxins into the air.
2.) We have noticed a white particle residue on our cars and lying on structures on the property. We are not sure if it is coming from the power plant stacks or the pond from the wind.
3.) Has there been a ground maintenance ( over growth ) plan put in place for around the pond, there doesn’t seem to be any reg ular attention to controllin g it. Wild life is prevalent in side the fenced area.

### 36

4.) Another big concern is the contamination in the air that could be affecting both humans and animals from the residue from the ash pond water and or the coal ash being can noned into the pond from semi trucks. There are many trucks most days that deliver the coal ash to the pond.
I hope that the above information and request is helpful in making our lives safe from being washed away and our community from being contaminated like in Tennessee. We await your response and God Bless Havana.

[ NOTE : This letter from a local resident was included in #6959 to support comments of Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club (SC), American Bottom Conservancy (ABC) and the Prairie Rivers Network (PRN)]


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment . The commenter is referred to Unit XI of the preamble supporting this rule for a discussion of damage cases involving CCR.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06959

- 15 Organization 1 : Prairie Rivers Network, Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club, America n Bottom Conservancy Commenter 1 : Traci L. Barkley Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Other Sections: 3.1.1 Comment Excerpt Text: Over 25 years ago I moved my family to a rural area to escape the pollution and other perils of the city. I lived in this area in harmony with the farming community enjoying the clean water and fresh air.
Little did I know that in 20 years a massive power plant would be built that would destroy all my reasons for rural living. This huge facility is known as Prairie State Generating Company in Lively Grove, Illinois. I have followed every process for the permitting of this facility and we were assured that, outside of a temporary area within the power plant facility, no coal ash waste would be stored off

- site in this area of the coun ty.
We were distraught, however, that old strip pits were issued permits to store mounds of coal ash that would be over 100 feet tall and were located just 2 or three miles from populated areas such as the Town of Marissa.
Things got worse recently whe n my neighbors and I discovered that Prairie State is planning a storage area off

- site of their plant just a mile or so from our homes. This will also be adjacent to my neighbor’s farmland and they are, of course, worried about how the dust and water runof f contaminated with arsenic, lead, selenium and mercury will affect the health of our children, not to mention how it will depress property values.
I am at my wits end at how the local agencies such as the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency bend over backwards for any company that mines or burns coal at the expense of the citizens that live in Southern Illinois. It’s this type of attitude that helped create the BP oil atrocity and the coal ash tragedy in Tennessee.
I am grateful that you are giving us an opportunity to express our concerns about the serious problems posed by toxic coal ash left from the burning of coal. I urge you to stand up to industry pressure and

### 37

quickly issue strong, federally e nforceable safeguards under Subtitle C to protect communities from toxic coal ash. Continuing to ignore scientific and safety concerns comes at a high cost to our families, communities and economy.

[ NOTE : This letter from a local resident was included in #6959 to support comments of Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club (SC), American Bottom Conservancy (ABC) and the Prairie Rivers Network (PRN)]


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit XI of the prea mble supporting this rule for a discussion of damage cases involving CCR.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06959

- 5 Organization 1 : Prairie Rivers Network, Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club, American Bottom Conservancy Commenter 1 : Traci L. Barkley Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: Years of scientific findings support regulation of coal ash with higher protections, yet we understand that the USEPA is under extreme pressure from the coal industry to choose a weak classification for coal ash. In fact there is so much pressure that, rather than having a stack of letters from concerned and impacted citizens, we have several stories of anonymous victims living near these coal ash dumps. Anonymous because they are threatened or already im pacted and they are afraid. They might have made phone calls, tried to get people to listen, but have been silenced through pressure and ridicule. Sadly, they may have been co

- opted by the promise of free bottled water, clean water to replace what has been or may be polluted by coal ash contaminants. These people want to be heard and so several have agreed to speak directly with an official of USEPA, if requested; for now, they refuse to include their names in writing for fear of retribution by their neighb oring power generation facilities. Please contact Traci Barkley of Prairie Rivers Network if such follow

- up is desired.

Voices from coalfield communities in Illinois: In extreme southern Illinois, on the Ohio River, is Electric Energy, Inc. in Joppa, IL,

— Conveniently located right next door is LaFarge Cement, which uses coal waste in the production of cement. When LaFarge has more fly ash than they need, they have been known to get rid of it by giving it to the nearby counties to spread onto gravel count y roads. Delbert and his sister and brother

- in

- law lived on such a road and with each passing vehicle clouds of toxic dust permeated their lives

— they all eventually developed

cancer

— Delbert’s brother

- in

- law has since died.
Air pollution is not the only st ory from Joppa .... the IEPA’s assessment of Joppa revealed that within one mile of its ash pond there are 23 water wells with a high potential for potable well contamination and no remediation plan. Last December, many attended a public hearing for the cons truction of an additional 23

- acre coal combustion waste landfill at the site. Robin, William, Harold, Terry, Angela and Ellen all spoke of their concerns about toxins leaching into the groundwater and into their wells, but since the hearing was for a water discharge permit for the CONSTRUCTION of the landfill, not the landfill itself, their comments were politely brushed off as not relevant to the permit being discussed at the hearing. The permit to build the unpermitted landfill has since been issued.

A woman living next to the Coffeen Power Plan, whose husband has worked for the plant for over 30 years, fears that the levee might break and smother her home, located just 1⁄4 mile downhill from the coal ash impoundment. Though the power plant officials have assured her that she will be called if the levee is

### 38

breached and evacuation becomes necessary, she and her husband know there will be not be enough time to even answer the phone. She is also concerned that the constant fly ash “sparkle” on her home, car, a nd yard might also be in her lungs. In fact, on the days that coal ash is being placed in the landfill, they cannot leave their windows or doors open because the dust is so pervasive. She also worries about using contaminated well water to water their gard en, wash their car and water their animals. She has complained about the coal ash being applied on roadways near her home but has not seen any change in operations.
A gentleman living in Douglas County near a site where fly ash is being used to “reclaim” an abandoned mine impoundment has reported coal ash contamination of air and water to the Illinois EPA several times with no response. He has witnessed coal ash clouds so thick cars have had to stop on the road. A recent visit to the site for stream sampl ing revealed that there had been a recent mussel kill in the stream just 1⁄2 mile downstream of the dump; every fingernail clam seen was open and dead. Fly ash coated the surface of the stream and banks. The long

- term “reclamation” plan is to fill the impoun dment with 500,000 tons of ash and then cover with 2

- 4 feet of “non

- acid producing cover material”. As of March 2010, the impoundment was 70% full. Several households are downgradient of the UNLINED coal ash dump site and draw their water from wells finish ed in the sand and gravel lenses between ten to forty feet in depth. Many of these residents are experiencing various health problems and are beginning to wonder if they might have polluted drinking water.

Then there are the 50 or so households that are just downhill from a high hazard dam that stores 9o acres of coal ash generated by Dynegy’s Havana Power Station. Dynegy officials have identified a few red flags from their inspection of the dam’s stability but have opted to ignore the signs. Several resi dents have been told by Dynegy that the impoundment is a cooling water pond. All residents were alarmed to discover what they thought was a “pond” is actually a coal ash impoundment, with a dam classified as “high hazard.” No one from Dynegy had alerted th em to these risks. A young mother is particularly concerned about the levee breaking because she has small children and runs an in

- home daycare center. A commercial fisherman in the neighborhood is worried about all of the elderly residents in the area and their inability to leave if the dam were to break. He also worries about all of the coal ash containing mercury that is spilled along the river, getting into the fish he relies on for his business. Several complain of white dust covering their homes and c ars and worry about whether they should be planting a vegetable garden next year, for fear of ash contamination. A mother living within one block of the ash impoundment and her husband have been worrying more about the impact of living next to the power st ation and coal ash pond since they discovered dangerous levels of lead in their son’s bloodstream. Another woman says it is common knowledge that Havana residents have high cancer rates. Until coal ash is taken seriously and given the due consideration tha t science and suffering has warranted, these problems will not be corrected.
In the heart of coal mining country in Randolph County, at Peabody’s Gateway Coulterville Mine, coal combustion waste is being trucked in from the power plant at Southern Illino is University, where it is placed in an open pit along with the coalmine waste. Locals have shared that breast cancer and neurological disease is 3 times the national average in the Coulterville area. Gretchen, a photographer and journalist has Multiple Sc lerosis (MS). Carolyn has breast cancer and MS. Laura and Tony have small children and worry about their health and their future. Susanne has serious health issues. Leonard and Jeannette are farmers

— they worry about the leaking gob and ash pile that’s seep ing into one of their cattle pastures

— they’ve had to move the cattle off the land. Mike is also a farmer

— he’s concerned about how high the gob and ash pile has gotten and wants to know when it will be covered

— he’s also concerned about his well water. An el derly couple had to move from their home because their water well was contaminated.
At the Southern Illinois Power Cooperative, Lake of Egypt plant near Marion, IL, toxic coal ash and

### 39

sludge have been placed in six unlined ponds, one unlined landfill and one lined pond since 1963. The landfill was built in the floodplain between the confluence of Saline Creek and South Fork Saline Creek. Groundwater monitoring has been required in the vicinity of the landfill and ponds only since 1994, and high concentrati ons of the toxic heavy metal cadmium were first detected in 1997. In the wake of the 2008 Kingston, Tennessee disaster Illinois conducted a statewide review of ash impoundments

– Illinois EPA found elevated boron, cadmium and iron above Illinois Class I Gr oundwater Standards at the Marion site

— the Little Saline Creek is now contaminated. Other ash from the plant is trucked off

- site and placed in an abandoned strip mine. Gene, a farmer, worries about the leachate from this dump contaminating his cattle pastu re. Sue, who works at a nearby federal prison, worries about the groundwater pollution and the high rate of cancer among her co

- workers. Other people are worried too, but they’re afraid to speak up

– those that live in Lake of Egypt feel intimidated by Sou thern Illinois Power because the company owns the lake they live on.
Another story comes from Washington County where Prairie State Generating Station, the country’s largest new coal fired power plant, is currently under construction. Peabody lied to Dale and his neighbors when Peabody said there wouldn’t be an on

- site coal combustion waste landfill. Dale and his family moved to the Lively Grove area 25 years ago to live a peaceful life away from the city and its pollution

— now he and his family and neighbo rs are faced with having a huge coal ash landfill in their backyard. Dale’s neighbors are also upset, but since Peabody has purchased most of the land in the area and leases it back to the farmers, these people are afraid to speak up.
An elderly woman li ving near the Ameren Hutsonville Power Station in the southeastern part of Illinois signed away not only her groundwater rights, but also the future rights for anyone wanting to purchase her home and farm in years to come. The price? ONE DOLLAR, because th is woman didn’t know she had an option. This was due to the fact that Ameren became aware that one of their coal ash impoundments had been leaking for years and had contaminated groundwater under her property. Their solution was to buy the groundwater righ ts to prevent future legal problems and then apply for a permit to pump the groundwater to keep it from moving further offsite (otherwise known as a groundwater management zone). But the pumped groundwater needs to go somewhere too and so the next step of the plan is to pipe the pumped contaminated groundwater to the Wabash River for discharge. The folks drinking water from the nearby Wabash River need to know EPA will call for closure requirements at these contaminated sites past what our Illinois EPA thin ks is necessary for cleanup

- pumping and dumping

- from the ground to the river.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit XI of the preamble supporting this rule for a discussion of damage cases involving CCR.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 07798

- 1 Organization 1 : Citizens Against Ruining the Environment Commenter 1 : Ellen Rendulich and Sandy Burcenski Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Other Sections: 7.1 Comment Excerpt Text: We have two pol luting coal fired power plants in Will County, owned by Midwest Generation; one of these plants is in Romeoville and one here in Joliet. They are both grandfathered from the Clean Air Act and since 1996 the Joliet facility has been exempt from the IL Class 1 Groundwater Standards. The Joliet facility also ranks in the top 40 for contaminated sites in the United States.

### 40

T here is an unlined coal ash landfill known as Lincoln Stone Quarry also owned by Midwest Generation who has been dumping coal ash and sla g in this quarry since 1962. Since 1995 the IEPA has been aware that this landfill is the source of toxic contaminates and heavy metals such as "arsenic" which have already been detected off site. They also know there is a strong indication that these cont aminates and toxic metals can potentially impact our drinking water.
According to the report by Environmental Integrity, the IEPA has allowed “ground water with concentrations up to 52 times standards for protection of public health to flow off site” fro m Midwest Generation’s unlined coal ash landfill. Why are they allowing them to continue poisoning our water?
Why have exemptions, adjusted and relaxed standards been given to this unlined coal ash landfill? There are approximately 94 private wells within a one mile radius of this facility and the majority of Will County’s water is well water. What is the IEPA doing to protect these wells, our groundwater and the DesPlaines River from contamination? How do we know that we aren’t contaminated already? We’d like to reiterate, that while the IL Environmental Protection Agency has known, since 1995, that contamination is flowing toward our groundwater they have not forced them to comply to the same standards as other industries. What do they intend to do to pro tect our groundwaters?
IEPA’s own reports confirm contamination has flowed off site, and may have already contaminated private wells and major waterways, and up to this point has done has done nothing to rectify past exceedances. It is obvious that the I EPA is not doing their job to protect the health of the public and the environment.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit XI of the preamble supporting this rule for a discussion of damage cases involving CCR.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 07798

- 4 Organization 1 : Citizens Against Ruining the Environment Commenter 1 : Ellen Rendulich and Sandy Burcenski Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: Throughout the United States stories from coal ash hearings are the same

– arsenic and other toxic metals found in homeowners’ drinking water. Locally, Will County’s Romeoville and Joliet coal facilities, owned by Midwest Generation insist they are not contaminating groundwater or air. Yet, these facilities are listed as top polluters in the U.S.
A report “In Harms Way” has documents from the IL Environmental Protection Agency that Midwest Generation’s unlined quarry in Joliet has polluted our groundwaters! Let’s not forget for 15 years Cit izens Against Ruining the Environment has requested this same company abide by the same Clean Air Act regulations as other industries by adding pollution controls.
We have also provided enough evidence that we are breathing poisonous toxins such as lead and arsenic from fugitive toxic dust that the United States EPA is in litigation with the same company that insists they are not contaminating!


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit XI of the pre amble supporting this rule for a discussion of damage cases involving CCR.

### 41

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 08017

- 1 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Richard E. Shore, Ph.D. Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: First, the water I drink (and most of the 300,000 folk Lexington with me) comes from Pool Nine of the Kentucky River. The intake stands just a few miles down stream from an unlined CCR pond on the banks of the Kentucky River. I am greatly concerned because I understand that wherev er the groundwater around such ponds has been examined, it is found to be contaminated with toxic substances that are found in CCR and presumably have leached out into the ground water. The groundwater flows into the river. My granddaughter drinks the wate r at my house too. I do not want to risk poisoning me or her. Your proposed rule change will go a long ways toward eliminating that risk


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit XI of the preamble s upporting this rule for a discussion of damage cases involving CCR.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 08260

- 3 Organization 1 : Citizens Against Ruining the Environment (C.A.R.E.) Commenter 1 : Carol Stark et al. Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Exce rpt Text: Here in the Joliet/Lockport area in Illinois we have 3 coal fired power plants in our immediate community and there are 2 just east of us in the Cook County area. We also have had studies that provide information that ground water contamination e xists in the area near the Joliet Coal Fired Plant. Many people there have private wells that have been affected by the heavy industrial influence surrounding them.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit XI of the preamble supporting this rule for a discussion of damage cases involving CCR.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 08413

- 3 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Nancy Cain, Ph.D. Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: I have also experienced another hazard from fly ash. When used as a road component, it is very slippery



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

.
Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 09637

- 1 Organization 1 : South Carolina Wildlife Federation (SCWF) Commenter 1 : Sarah Lloyd on behalf of Ben Gregg Commenter Type: Advocacy Group

### 42

Other Sections: 3.1.1 Comment Excerpt Text: One of our colleagues reports that several years ago he found, while fishing in the rocks below the coal plant above the Lake Murray Dam, particle seeps from the ash pile pond. Hopefully these seeps were from the earliest, decades

- old ash. Because of limited state resources, there has been no study of potential problems. A funding mechanism to provide for regulation, monitoring, reporting and enforcement of air and water potentially affected by coal ash must be developed.
This situation is just one example of a problem in South Carolina that needs addressing through additional funding for environmental resource agencies.

SCWF a ppreciates the Department of Energy’s proposal to reconsider coal ash regulation. The ash and other residuals have become more toxic over the years as cleaner burning coal has been improved, and residuals can be expected to become even more toxic. We urge that EPA require federally enforceable testing and increased safeguards to protect human health, wildlife, and the environment from the hazardous wastes in coal ash.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit XI of the preamble supporting this rule for a discussion of damage cases involving CCR.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 09694

- 3 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Mark Morgan Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: My step

- son works at a coal fired generating station here in New Hampshire. The coal ash from that plant is made into sandblasting grit. This has been done for years with no recorded ill effects on anybody concerned!



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the c omment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 10077

- 2 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Mary Zalar Commenter Type: Private Citizen Comment Excerpt Text: I was totally unaware of coal ash in my community of Fairbanks, Alaska until May 19, 2010. My husband and I are vendors at our local Farmer's Market which is on land adjacent to College Peat, a business that stockpiles coal ash from our local power plants and redistributes it for local construction projects. A strong northwind blew coal ash from the stockpiles through the Market. Our product (wood bowls) was coated with a very persistent, insidious, and pervasive black ash. It was difficult to remove from t he bowls and made me curious about the nature of this substance. I was amazed to discover that the ash is widely used in our community for construction projects, but is largely unregulated and untested. No current test reports were available from state ag encies.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion o f EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. The commenter is also referred to Units IV and VI for a complete discussion

### 43

of the beneficial use aspects of the rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 11337_P

- 050

- 1 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Steven W. Smith Commenter Type: Private Citizen Other Sections: 6.1.1 6.1.2 Comment Excerpt Text: I have wa tched as the Little Blue take slowly consumed hundreds of acres of wooded forest that was once heavily populated with game and watched its lifeless waters poison fertile streams and lakes that once teamed with aquatic life. Now Little Blue Lake continues t o encroach upon the residents that live near its border. The residents of this area were told how beautiful the lake would be years down the road and that it would be a recreation area for all to use. Look at it now. The area is nothing but a rotting cessp ool of filth and pollution. One cannot drive or walk around the Lake’s borders without smelling the stench that it emits. Those that live on the leeward side of the lake deal with this stench on a daily basis. I live just over 4/10 of a mile west of the la ke’s previous waterline. The outline of the lake’s western border is now filled with silt from the fly ash residue that was pumped into its depths. Rain water and other runoff waters that land on the surface of the lake now seep through the fly ash into th e water table below. The lake is on a plateau above most of the neighboring community and any water that runs off from the lake travels downhill to the residents below. The wetter flows through resident’s yards and exposing inhabitants to even more of this toxic soup. MY OWN water supply lies about 150 to 200 feet below the bed of the lake. We have all heard that cliché of what rolls downhill. Water rolls downhill too! The water leaches into my water table and it is this water that I bathe in daily. I quit drinking the water over 10 years ago due to my own concerns and although I know of several instances where First Energy has compensated some for damage to their wells I have heard nothing from First Energy concerning that. The water has damaged appliances in the home and quite possibly me as I had cancer at the age of 45 when I did not drink or smoke? I have always been assured that my drinking water that was tested was safe but now I hear that First Energy has to remove the silt/fill from the lake and inst all a liner. Why should they have to install a liner if everything is safe? First Energy has been feeding us a pile of lies from the get go. Congress or the proper institution needs to make First Energy accountable for what they have exposed this community to and make full restitution to all.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit XI of the preamble supporting this rule for a discussion of damage cases involving CCR.

Section 1.5

- Requests for extension of comment period Total Number of Submissions: 92 Total Number of Comments: 107

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 02818

- 1 Organization 1 : We Energies (WE) Commenter 1 : Kristine M. Krause Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Other Sections: 10.1.1 10.4.3 3.1.2 Comment Excerpt Text: Our involvement in the rule making process over the past year has made us aware of the complexity of regulating the disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) while protecting beneficial use pract ices. We have attempted to illustrate the environmental and economic advantages of our own beneficial use

### 44

program, and we share a concern for maintaining the integrity of that program. We feel that a Subtitle C approach for CCR is inappropriate and the sti gma effect has already had a negative impact on some valuable beneficial uses as evidenced by cancelled or deferred projects which we are documenting.
Undue restriction of well established and safe beneficial uses for CCR under some of the proposed rulem aking provisions is a concern for We Energies, especially in light of our long term commitment to maintain and develop a wide range of beneficial uses

-- an effort which has taken many years to propose, test and promote. We have achieved a high beneficial u se rate relative to our peers in the electric power industry over the past 40 years and hope to continue that performance.
We understand the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's desire to maintain and encourage beneficial uses for CCR. However, we bel ieve that reversing previous regulatory determinations regarding the safety and environmental efficacy of some beneficial uses will result in negative environmental and economic effects.
The scope of the information and comments requested by EPA in the d ocket requires more time to accumulate and submit properly in view of the potential impacts that the regulation can have on our beneficial use program. We are currently working with our marketers, customers and legal counsel to produce valid data for our c omments and wish to make them complete. The 90 day comment period is insufficient for this purpose.

Response: This comment is no longer relevant.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 03443

- 1 Organization 1 : Iowa Department of Natural Resources Commenter 1 : B. Tormey Commenter Type: State Government Comment Excerpt Text: The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) wants to express its support for the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials' (ASTSWMO) recent request for a 1 20

- day extension of the comment period for EPA's proposed rulemaking for the Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System,' Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities.

Response: This comment is no longer relevant.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 03936

- 1 Organization 1 : Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) Commenter 1 : Mary T. Zdanowicz Commenter Type: State Government

Comment Exce rpt Text: The Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) respectfully requests a 120 day extension of the comment period for EPA's proposed rule making for the Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities.

Response: This comment is no longer relevant.

### 45

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 03936

- 2 Organization 1 : Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Ma nagement Officials (ASTSWMO) Commenter 1 : Mary T. Zdanowicz Commenter Type: State Government Comment Excerpt Text: EPA has requested information on 64 specific items. There are at least 45 requests that are relevant to States, many of which require signific ant research and resources in order to provide thorough responses.

Response: This comment is no longer relevant.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 04003

- 1 Organization 1 : Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) Commenter 1 : Lia Parisien on behalf of John W. Mitchell Commenter Type: State Government Comment Excerpt Text: The Waste Committee of the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) respectfully requests a 120

- day extension of the comment period for EPA's proposed rulemaking for the Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities ("CCR Rule").

Response: This comment is no longer relevant.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06410

- 14 O rganization 1 : Commenter 1 : Anonymous Commenter Type: Anonymous Comment Excerpt Text: To continue EPA’s transparency and public participation, a docket folder should be set up to include any newly generated information including emails between EPA personnel, environmental groups, and industry concerning CCRs. All information used for decision making should be viewable by the public at any time and be open to public comment. This information is available by the Freedom of Information Act, however, to encourage the greatest degree of public participation, this information should be readily viewable on a timely basis to provide the most up

- to

- date information. A monthly comment period should be set up for newly generated information to encourage continued public comment through out the decision making process.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06424

- 2 Organization 1 : Garrett & Moore, Inc. Commenter 1 : Bernie Garrett Commenter Type: Other Company Other Sections: 3.1.2 9.7.1 5.5.5.1

### 46

Comment Excerpt Text: Subtitle C Applicability

- The Subtitle C option is not practical as it will result in a shortfall of landfill disposal capacity
Currently, there is very limited regional and national commercial h azardous waste landfill disposal capacity. Permitting a non

- hazardous landfill can take upwards of 5 to 10 years to complete, while permitting a hazardous waste landfill can nearly be an impossible task due to public opposition and never ending legal chall enges, as witnessed by the fact that there are only 18 hazardous waste landfills nationwide and none in North and South Carolina. Given the proposal timelines, it is foreseeable in the near future that there will be a period where there simply isn’t any av ailable hazardous waste disposal capacity under the Subtitle C option. This situation will limit new electricity production as well as limit the option for landfilling legacy wastes currently stored in existing ash impoundments. In comparison, while Subtit le D landfill capacity is not infinite, it is much more readily available and could likely be used as a contingency to ensure uninterrupted power generation and waste disposal capacity while utilities permit additional Subtitle D landfills.
All subsequent comments are based on the assumption that EPA will not pursue Subtitle C rules. If EPA elects to pursue Subtitle C rules, we request an additional public comment period to adequately address the Subtitle C option.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and app reciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of the preamble for a discussion on our decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06424

- 3 Organization 1 : Garrett & Moore, Inc. Commenter 1 : Bernie Garrett Commenter Type: Other Company Other Sections: 4.2.2 4.2.4 7.4.2 Comment Excerpt Text: State Adoption of EPA Rules
EPA should use the same methodology for regulating CCRs as was used in implementing the Subtitle D landfill rules for municipal soli d waste. EPA should adopt rules setting a minimum standard, provide for the adoption of these rules by the states, and maintain enforcement authority for these rules in states that EPA determines have not adequately implemented these rules.
All subsequent comments are based on the assumption that EPA will allow for state adoption of the proposed rule. If EPA elects not to allow for state adoption of the proposed rules, we request an additional public comment period to adequately address the proposed rules.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment, the commenter is referred to Units V and IX of the preamble for discussions as to how this subtitle D rule will be implemented and enforced. The reader is also referred to Unit IV of the prea mble for a discussion relating to the decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. In addition, Unit II of the preamble discusses EPA’s statutory authorities under a subtitle D rule.

### 47

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06832

- 20 Organization 1 : SC ANA Corporation Commenter 1 : Shirley M. Ruffin Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: All subsequent comments are based on the assumption that the EPA will not pursue Subtitle C rules. If the EPA elects to pursue Subtitle C rules, we request an additional public comment period to adequately address the Subtitle C option.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit IV of t he preamble for a discussion on our decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06832

- 21 Organization 1 : SCANA Corporation Commenter 1 : Shirley M. Ruffin Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: All subsequent comments are based on the assumption that the EPA will allow for state adoption of the proposed rule. If the EPA elects not to allow for state adoption of the proposed rules, we request an additional public comment period to adequately address the proposed rules.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment, the commenter is referred to Units V and IX of the preamble for discussions as to how this subtitle D rule will be implemented and enforced. The reader is also re ferred to Unit IV of the preamble for a discussion relating to the decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of RCRA. In addition, Unit II of the preamble discusses EPA’s statutory authorities under a subtitle D rule

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 07802

- 6 Organization 1 : Alpha Natural Resources Commenter 1 : Michael R. Peelish Commenter Type: Other Company Comment Excerpt Text: Alpha agrees with other commentators who have requested EPA to extend the comment period by 120 days. Th is issue is too important and the potential risks and costs too massive to limit arbitrarily EPA's evaluation of its action.

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 09806

- 12 Organization 1 : Washington State Department of Transportation Commenter 1 : J. C. Lenzi Commenter Type: State Government Comment Excerpt Text: A lengthy comment period should also be allowed before any proposed regulations related to beneficial use are adopted.

### 48

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 10134

- 1 Organization 1 : Tennessee Concrete Association (TCA) Commenter 1 : Alan Sparkman Commenter Type: Trade Association Comment Excerpt Text: First, it is the posit ion of our Board that the comment period on the current rule making process be extended. We believe it is vital that the wide

- ranging impacts of this issue be thoroughly studied, and that rushing this process will not produce the best decision.

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0141

- 1 Organization 1 : American Electric Power (AEP) Commenter 1 : Thomas Webb Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: American Electric Power (AEP) respectfully requests a 60 day extension of the comment period on USEPA's recently released Notice of Data Availability ("NODA'') pertaining to the coal combustion residuals ("CCR") rulemaking [Footnote 1]. 76 Fed. Reg. 63252 (October 12, 2011). We b elieve that there is no basis for USEPA to limit the comment period to only 30 days on a NODA seeking comment on such an enormous amount of information and involving a rulemaking of this magnitude and significance. Given that there is not a statutory or ju dicial deadline for issuing the final CCR rule, we believe that there is no reasonable justification for providing the public with only 30 days to review, analyze and prepare comments on an array of new information that will be critical to USEPA's final de cision in this highly complex rulemaking.
Given the above, providing a 60 day extension to the comment period will afford the public a meaningful opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA, in keeping with Executive Order 12866, and not inter fere with any statutory or judicial deadline or unduly delay USEPA's schedule for completion of the rulemaking. An extension will give the public the opportunity to provide USEPA with more thoughtful, and thus more useful, comments on the NODA which will i n turn facilitate the development of a more efficient and effective CCR regulatory program.
AEP requests that USEPA extend the comment period as soon as possible so that the stakeholders reviewing the NODA can plan accordingly in reviewing and preparing c ommenting on the data contained in this important document

. Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0143

- 1 Organization 1 : Sunflower Electric Power Corporation (SEPC) Commenter 1 : Paul Reynolds Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text:

### 49

There is absolutely no basis for EPA to limit the comment period to only 30 days on a NODA seeking comment on such an enormous amount of information and involving a rulemaking of this magnitude and significance. Given that there is not a statutory or judicial deadline

– or even a self

- imposed EPA target date

– for issuing the final CCR rule, there is no reasonable justification for providing the public with only 30 days to review, analyze and pr epare comments on an array of new information that will be critical to EPA’s final decision in this highly complex rulemaking.
Given the above, it is inexplicable and unacceptable for EPA to provide the public with only 30 days to comment on the volume of complex data contained in the NODA. Indeed, in issuing a similar NODA on CCR in 2007, which contained less information than the current NODA, EPA initially provided for a 90 day comment period and then extended that comment period two more times, ultimate ly providing for a total of five and a half months to comment on a smaller NODA data set.
Given the amount of time EPA provided for commenting on the earlier CCR NODA, providing for only a 30 day comment period on the instant NODA is fundamentally unfair and inconsistent with the principles of Executive Order 12866. This order directs federal agencies to afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment on the development of proposed regulations, which in most cases should include a comment period of n ot less than 60 days. Executive Order 12866, Sec. 6(a).
Providing a 60 day extension to the comment period will afford the public a meaningful opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA, in keeping with Executive Order 12866, and not interfer e with any statutory or judicial deadline or unduly delay EPA’s schedule for completion of the rulemaking. An extension will give the public the opportunity to provide EPA with more thoughtful, and thus more useful, comments on the NODA which will in turn facilitate the development of a more efficient and effective CCR regulatory program.
SEPC respectfully requests that EPA extend the comment period as soon as possible so that the stakeholders reviewing the NODA can plan accordingly in reviewing and prepar ing commenting on the data contained in this important document

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0150

- 1 Organization 1 : Ameren Corporation Commenter 1 : Paul Pike Commenter Type: Electric U tility Company Comment Excerpt Text: It is unacceptable for EPA to provide the public with only 30 days to comment on the volume of complex data contained in the NODA. In issuing a similar NODA on CCR in 2007, which contained less information than the current NODA, EPA initially provided for a 90 day comment period and then extended that comment period two more times, ultimately providing for a total of five and a half months to comment on a smaller NODA data set.
Ameren and many others have a critical interest in this rulemaking, as it will result in comprehensive federal regulations for the management of CCR that will have enormous practical and economic implications for state governments, our industry and hundreds of small businesses engaged in CCR

r ecycling. Given the amount of time EPA provided for commenting on the earlier CCR NODA, providing for only a 30 day comment period on the instant NODA is fundamentally unfair and inconsistent with the principles of Executive Order 12866. This order directs federal agencies to afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment on the development of proposed regulations, which in most cases should include

### 50

a comment period of not less than 60 days. Executive Order 12866, Sec. 6(a).
Providing a 60 day exten sion to the comment period will afford the public a meaningful opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA, in keeping with Executive Order 12866, and not interfere with any statutory or judicial deadline or unduly delay EPA's schedule for comp letion of the rulemaking. An extension will give the public the opportunity to provide EPA with more thoughtful, and thus more useful, comments on the NODA which will in turn facilitate the development of a more efficient and effective CCR regulatory progr am.
Ameren respectfully requests that EPA extend the comment period as soon as possible so that the stakeholders reviewing the NODA can plan accordingly in reviewing and preparing commenting on the data contained in this important document

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0164

- 1 Organization 1 : Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. Commenter 1 : James Vick Commenter Type: Trade Association Comment Excerpt Text: The Florida Electri c Power Coordinating Group, Inc. Environmental Committee (FCG) [Footnote 1: The FCG is a non

- profit association consisting of twenty

- eight (28) investor

- owned, municipally

- owned, and cooperatively

- owned electric utilities engaged in the business of providi ng the majority of electric power to the public in the State of Florida. A list of the FCG member electric utilities is provided in Attachment “A.”] respectfully requests a 60 day extension of the public comment period on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recently released Notice of Data Availability (NODA) pertaining to the coal combustion residuals (CCR) rulemaking. 76 Fed. Reg. 63252 (October 12, 2011).
Consistent with the October 12, 2011, extension request of the Utility Solid Waste Act ivities Group (USWAG), the FCG questions EPA's decision to limit the public comment period to only 30 days when seeking comment on such an extensive amount of information related to a federal rulemaking of this importance. There is no statutory or judicial deadline

- or even an internal EPA target

- for issuing the final CCR rule. Thus, there is no legitimate justification for limiting important public comment through the provision of only 30 days to review, analyze and prepare comments on new information t hat will be critical to EPA's decision in this rulemaking.
While the FCG is aware of EPA's general statement that no extensions to the public comment period will be granted,2 the FCG believes EPA should reconsider its decision. It is important that an ext ension of the public comment period be granted in the interest of advancing meaningful public review and comment on federal agency rulemaking matters particularly on significant matters like the CCR rulemaking.

EPA's assertion in its October 17 letter to USWAG that the NODA information may not ultimately be critical or even playa role in supporting the agency's final rule decision makes no sense. EPA October 17, 2011 letter to USWAG at page 1. If this were the case, the FCG questions why EPA would solicit public comment in the first instance on the new information it received as part of this rulemaking thereby expending significant agency resources to review and compile the information ultimately made part of the NODA docket and further subjecting its effor t to OMS review. If this agency exercise is merely a whim, this represents yet another example of federal government inefficiency and waste of valuable time and

resources.

### 51

EPA's argument that a "significant amount of this information was provided by publi c commenters during the comment period" and, therefore, has been "publicly available for several months" also rings hollow. Id. at page 1. While some of this information may have been available, it is extremely presumptuous of the agency to maintain that t he public should have been reviewing all of the public comments and information received in this rulemaking with no guidance from EPA on what specific information it considers relevant and potentially important to its ultimate rulemaking decision.

Additio nally, EPA's agreement that the rule "presents significant issues relating to the environmental and public health concerns posed by coal ash, as well as the complexities associated with the implementation of the first national rule regulating coal ash disp osal" is the very reason why an extended public comment period should be provided. Id. at page 1. Moreover, EPA admits that it has received an extensive amount of information and analyses including "complicated policy and implementation questions." Id. at page 1, [Footnote 2: In addition to the statement on EPA's CCR rule website, the FCG is aware of EPA's October 17, 2011 letter denying USWAG's well

- reasoned and practical request for an extension of the public comment period.]. Given the extreme importance and technical nature of this rulemaking, sufficient opportunity to comment and deliberate agency consideration of those comments is necessary for a scientifically

- founded, balanced approach to environmental regulation of CCRs.
As set out by USWAG in its October 12 extension request, providing a 60 day extension to the comment period will allow for a meaningful opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA, consistent with Executive Order 12866. Such an extension would not interfere with any sta tutory or judicial deadline or delay EPA's schedule for completion of the rulemaking.
The FCG respectfully requests that EPA extend the comment period as soon as possible so that the interested public reviewing the NODA can plan accordingly in analyzing a nd commenting on the data contained in the NODA

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0238

- 1 Organization 1 : Southern Company Commenter 1 : Chris Hobson Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: II. EPA HAS PROVIDED INSUFFICIENT TIME TO COMMENT.
EPA has denied the requests of Southern Company [Footnote 6: Doc. No. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0139 (Southern Company’s request for extension); Doc. No. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0156 (EPA response).] and many other entities for an extension of time to respond to the Notice. EPA’s letter denying the request is inadequate and unresponsive.
For example, Southern Company’s extension request notes the large volume and technical nature of the data subject to the notice. EPA’s letter answers as follows:
But to address concerns about the volume of information, EPA has taken measures to help the public navigate through the information. For example, EPA identified the information that it received from comments on the proposed rule by referencing the proposed rule docket number; thus, if commenters wish to focus on the new data that EPA has collected since publication of the proposal, they should be able to distinguish that information with minimal effort.

### 52

In other words, EPA lauds itself for identifying the information for which public comment is sought. However, that fails to address the concern about the volume and nature of the data. The only way to comment meaningfully on the data is to take the time necessary to assess it, and 30 days is not enough.
EPA appears to concede tacitly that no one could possibly review the data subject to the Notice in the time provided. EPA states, “We also do not believe that most commenters will be interested in all of the available documents.” However, that is not helpful to those who want that opportunity. EPA also states, “it appears that most commenters focused on one or two areas of concern.” That does not apply to Southern Company’s comments, [Footnote 7: See Southern Company Comments, supra note 2.] which comprised more than 200 pages and included numerous attachments, some of which were themselves lengthy and technical in nature.
Finally, EPA refers to the significance of the issues addressed by EPA’s proposed rules and the data received in the rulemaking process. Southern Company agrees that the issues are important. That consideration weighs in favor of taking such time as is necessary to consider the information thoughtfully and respond appropriately

. EPA’s insistence on a hurried process is unnecessary and comes at the expense of potentially useful deliberation. Because of the compressed schedule, Southern Company has not had sufficient time to engage the material as fully as we would prefer. Yet E PA’s inspections of CCB impoundments have repeatedly demonstrated that CCB disposal facilities do not pose any immediate risk to health and safety, and the failure at the Kingston facility of the Tennessee Valley Authority was an unfortunate aberration. [F ootnote 8: Southern Company made this point previously, Southern Company Comments, supra note 2, Part V.A, and expands on it below at Part IV.B.] In any event, EPA’s field work has provided the agency every opportunity to identify and respond to any site

- s pecific issues or concerns. EPA is under no deadline.

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0240

- 1 Organization 1 : Tri

- State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. Commenter 1 : Barbara W alz Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: Tri

- State provided comments on the proposed rule and appreciated the opportunity to do so. Tri

- State believes that EPA provided a reasonable amount of time to generate our comments on the p roposed rule. However, in the NODA, EPA has provided only a limited amount of time to respond to enormous amounts of information. EPA has broadly asked members of the public to comment on the validity and propriety of the data provided in the NODA and prov ided no other guidance on what type of information they seek, or how they may be viewing the information provided in the NODA. EPA limited the amount of time to review the data, conduct analyses, and prepare responsive comments to just 30 days. Tri

- State b elieves that the 30

- day time period provided for review and public comment is simply inadequate. EPA limited the comment period to 30 days based on the notion that the data in the NODA has been publicly available in the record since the close of the public comment period on the proposed rule. This is grossly insufficient. EPA has made the erroneous assumption that members of the public with a significant interest in the proceeding have been engaged in active, ongoing review of this data as if there were no other proposed environmental requirements worthy of consideration. The 30

- day comment period is an inadequate amount of time for the pubic to review the data presented in the NODA, make any attempt to validate the data, and comment on the propriety of the data to this rulemaking activity.

### 53

Tri

- State has only made limited efforts to assess the validity of the data presented in this NODA. Tri

- State did timely request additional time for review and development of comments, however, that request was denied by E PA. Tri

- State believes that it would require considerably longer than the 30 days provided for public comment to assess the validity of the data presented in the NODA. Tri

- State did not pursue assessment of the data and information in the rulemaking record once the record was closed, and does not believe that EPA’s assumption that the public should have assessed this data for its validity once the comment period was closed is valid or reasonable on the part of EP A. However, the NODA does seek public commen t on the “propriety” of the data to the proposed rulemaking activity. Tri

- State offers the following comments on the propriety of the data presented in the NODA

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0241

- 1 Organization 1 : Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric) Commenter 1 : Claire Olson Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: Basin Electric respectfully request a 60 day extension of the comment period of EPA's recently released NODA pertaining to the CCR rulemaking, 76 Fed. Reg. 63252 (October 12, 2011 ). With a NODA seeking comment on such an enormous amount of information and involving a rulemaking of this magnitude and significance, it is unreasonable for EPA to limit the comment period to only 30 days. There is neither a statutory nor judicial deadline for issuing the final CCR rule

- and we fail to see any reason for providin g the public with only 30 days to review, analyze and prepare comments on an array of new information that will be critical to EPA's final decision in this highly complex rulemaking.
Basin Electric also reaffirms its previous comments, submitted on Novemb er 10, 2010. (Copy attached.) Basin Electric wants to ensure all pertinent information is considered in this important decision.

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0262

- 1 Organization 1 : Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. Commenter 1 : James Vick Commenter Type: Trade Association Comment Excerpt Text: The FCG, along with a number of interested stakeholders, requested a 60

- day extension to the original 30

- day comment period. Howev er, the FCG’s request was denied by letter dated November 1, 2011. The FCG still questions EPA’s decision to limit the public comment period to only 30 days when seeking comment on such an extensive amount of information related to a federal rulemaking of this importance. In short, there is no justification for limiting important public comment through the provision of a mere 30 days to review, analyze and prepare comments on new information that will be critical to EPA’s decision in this rulemaking

Respon se : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

### 54

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0279

- 4 Organization 1 : Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) Commenter 1 : Melinda Tomaino Commenter Type: Trade Association Comment Excerpt Text: Because EPA has just released hundreds of pages of pertinent information related to the reuse of CCRs in construction applications and because the public has not had continuous access to the information in the docket during the comment period (many of the studies/materials are not accessible electronically and must be viewed by visiting the EPA docket reading room), AGC adds to the record its request for more time to respond to EPA’s Oct. 12 notice of data availability (NODA). Much of the new information, d ata and reports are exceptionally long and complex; AGC’s did not have sufficient time to adequately screen, review and assess all of the materials and would have greatly benefitted from an extended period for public comment.

AGC is aware that EPA denied all requests to extend the comment period. However, Given that there is not a statutory or judicial deadline for issuing the final CCR rule, AGC finds that there is no reasonable justification for providing the public with only 30 days to review, analyze and prepare comments on an array of new information that will be critical to EPA’s final decision in this highly complex rulemaking

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2011

- 0392

- 0290

- 1 Organization 1 : Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. on behalf of Interstate Power and Light Company and Wisconsin Power and Light Company Commenter 1 : Douglas Kopp Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: Comment Period for NODA is Unnecessarily Brief:
This NODA includes over 100 documents with additional data and information. EPA provided the regulated community with only a 30

- day review period for comments despite the fact that EPA is under no statutory or judicial deadline to complete this CCR rulemaking. Alliant Energy believes longer time period would have been reasonable under the circumstances and could have been easily accommodated. The 30

- day time period has resulted in Alliant Energy having limited time to review the extensive list of da ta. Furthermore, it was all the more difficult to formulate comments in the short time frame because the NODA provided no guidance as to how this additional information might be used by EPA in developing a final rule. Accordingly, the following comments ar e based on a review of selected portions of the NODA, and are general in nature

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0022

- 1 Organization 1 : Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Comme nter 1 : James Roewer Commenter Type: Trade Association Comment Excerpt Text: I write on behalf of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (“USWAG”) [Footnote 1: USWAG is an association of over one hundred and ten energy utilities, utility operating companies, energy companies and associations, including the Edison Electric Institu te (“EEI”), the American Public Power Association

### 55

(“APPA”), and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (“NRECA”). EEI is the principal national association of investor

- owned electric power and light companies. APPA is the national association of publicly

- owned electric utilities. NRECA is the national association of rural electric cooperatives. Together, USWAG members represent more than 73 percent of the total electric generating capacity of the United States and service more than 95 percent o f the nation’s consumers of electricity.] to request a 60

- day extension on the recently released Notice of Data Availability (“NODA”) in the coal combustion residuals (“CCR”) rulemaking. The 30

- day comment period provided by EPA is an unreasonably short pe riod of time to review, evaluate and prepare comment on the massive amount of significant new information and proposed rule revisions on which EPA seeks comment.
As EPA itself recognizes, the new technical data that the Agency has noticed with respect to possible revisions to the CCR risk assessment and Regulatory Impact Analysis (“RIA”) can have a profound impact on EPA’s final regulatory decision. It is critical, therefore, that the regulated community be provided adequate time to evaluate these new data . The Agency’s abbreviated 30

- day timeframe appears to be predicated on the belief that some of this information has already been available to the regulated community. However, the NODA contains new and previously undisclosed information that can have a

ma terial impact on the final risk assessment and RIA. For example, EPA references new information regard surface water flow rates and a report by the U.S. Census Bureau characterizing the percentage of residents who are fresh waters anglers that can signific antly influence EPA CCR risk assessment.
Equally important, EPA for the first time has noticed for comment the mathematical procedure that it is considering employing to model the interpretation of groundwater plumes by surface water bodies that may exist between a waste management units and a down

- gradient drinking water well. This is potentially one of the most critical elements of the noticed information and limiting review to only 30 days will unfairly deprive many in the regulated community of time to adequately evaluate the complex details of this procedure and assess its impact on the risk assessment and the RIA.
In addition to the above, EPA has requested comment on several key technical issues associated with the proposal that will have a direct e ffect on its scope and implementation. EPA has requested comment on revising the proposed timeframes for implementing and completing closure of CCR units, better defining what constitutes “large scale fills,” and developing technical standards for “overfil ls”

– circumstances where CCR landfills are constructed on top of closed impoundments or landfills. While USWAG appreciates the Agency’s seeking comment on these important issues, these are complex matters that EPA itself has been struggling with for month s (if not longer) to address. Providing the regulated community with only 30 days to respond to a series of new regulatory options is not only unwarranted but, more importantly, will unnecessarily compromise the ability of the public to suggest workable op tions to address these key compliance matters.
For example, EPA’s request for comment on how to develop technical requirements for “overfills” is a subject matter that EPA concedes it did not consider in the initial proposal. The Agency now requests

comme nt on at least 15 engineering and design related issues with respect to how best develop technical standards for these unique units. Assessing and developing the most useful responses for EPA will require the input of engineers and other professionals. A 3 0

- day public comment period seriously compromises the ability for the public to provide comments that will assist EPA in ensuring working and environmentally protective regulations for these units.
In light of the above, we believe that the interests of t he public, EPA and the regulated community are best served by ensuring that EPA receives detailed and technically sound comments. Foreclosing opportunities for meaningful comment from the affected industry thwarts information exchange when it can be most u seful and compromises EPA’s ability to produce a rule that is scientifically sound and

### 56

legally defensible. Extending the comment period by 60

- days will afford the public a meaningful opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA.

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0023

- 1 Organization 1 : Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy) Commenter 1 : Cari Boyce Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: Duke Energy Corporation [Footnote 1: Duke Energy Business Services LLC , Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc., Duke Energy Ohio Inc., Duke Energy Progress, Inc., and Duke Energy Florida, Inc.] (Duke Energy), for itself and on behalf o f its direct and indirect subsidiaries, respectfully requests a 60

- day extension on the Notice of Data Availability (“NODA”) published in the Federal Register by EPA on August 2, 2013.
The amount of new information is significant and a 3D

- day comment peri od is an unreasonably short period of time to review, evaluate and prepare comment on such important issues that have significant financial and operational impacts on our operations. Key areas of concern for Duke Energy include:

1. CCR Risk Assessment and Regulatory Impact Analysis (“RIA”)

- The NODA contains new and previously undisclosed information that must be reviewed and studied. This new data can have a profound impact on EPA’s final regulatory decision and Duke Energy needs time to evaluate the new information and provide comment.

2. Technical Issues

- EPA has requested comment on several key technical issues associated with the proposal that will have a direct effect on its scope and implementation of the proposed rule. These issues include revisi ng the proposed timeframes for implementing and completing closure of CCR units, better defining what constitutes “large scale fills,” and developing technical standards for “overfills”

– circumstances where CCR landfills are constructed on top of closed i mpoundments or landfills. EPA is requesting comment on at least 15 engineering and design related issues with respect to how technical standards for landfills and surface impoundments can best be developed. Duke Energy is committed to working with our engi neering staff to provide EPA with workable options to address these key compliance matters but will be severely limited in our ability to do so with only 30 days to respond.
EPA and Duke Energy are best served by ensuring that EPA receives detailed and te chnically sound comments. A 30

- day comment period severely constrains the opportunity for meaningful comment and limits information exchange. Therefore, Duke Energy respectfully requests that EPA extend the comment period by 60

- days and provide a meaningfu l opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0026

- 1 Organization 1 : American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Trade Association Comment Excerpt Text: As the Notice of Data Availability posits significant questions on beneficial use, particularly on structural fills, that are critical to the rulemaking and future beneficial use, we are requesting an additional sixty

### 57

days for submittal of comments. A deadline of November 4, 2013 is far more realistic to complete the work necessary.
The current effort at rulemaking for disposal of coal combustion products commenced in January, 2009 when former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackso n made a commitment during her confirmation hearings before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Last October Suzanne Rudzinski stated in a pleading in the matter of Appalachian Voices, et al vs. USEPA in US District Court for the District of Columbia that the EPA could not complete work on a rule before the end of 2013. There has been no sense of urgency demonstrated in this matter. Given that the work at hand has no deadline from Congress or any judicial entity, it is entirely reasonable to take additional time to try to get accurate and complete data into the record. Fast tracking responses on a large beneficial use structural fills is not conducive to reaching the shared goal of all parties

- maximizing the environmentally safe recycling of millions of tons of coal combustion products

. Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0027

- 1 Organization 1 : American Electric Power (AEP) Commenter 1 : Tom Webb Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: I am writing on behalf of American Electric Power to request please a 60

- day extension to comment on the recently issued NODA in the CCR rulemaking. We believe that USEPA can benefit from a longer commenting period since comme nters will be able to provide more in

- depth input if given more time. One item of particular note is that the Electric Power Research Institute is developing data that speak to important issues related to closure of CCR ponds, including dewatering ash pond s, ash stability, building over closed ash ponds and capping ash ponds. This research will address important aspects of CCR management for which USEPA has requested input during the NODA window. To the extent that the commenting period can be extended, the likelihood of additional helpful information becoming available, and subsequently being entered into the docket, will be increased.
Besides the ability to receive the forthcoming EPRI information as part of the official rulemaking docket, there are the o ther issues upon which USEPA has requested input, and allowing more time for commenters to pull together thoughtful responses will benefit and inform the final rulemaking process we believe.
Please consider extending the NODA commenting period by 60 days

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0028

- 1 Organization 1 : Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. Environmental Committee (FCG) Commenter 1 : Michael Petrovich Commenter Type: Trade A ssociation Comment Excerpt Text: The Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. Environmental Committee (FCG) [Footnote 1: The FCG is a non

- profit association consisting of twenty

- six (26) investor

- owned, municipally

- owned, and cooperatively

- owned electric utilities engaged in the bu siness of providing the majority of electric power to the public in the State of Florida. A list of the FCG member electric utilities is provided in

### 58

Attachment “A.”] respectfully requests a 60

- day extension of the public comment period on the U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently released Notice of Data Availability (NODA) pertaining to the coal combustion residuals (CCR) rulemaking. 78 Fed. Reg. 46940 (August 2, 2013).
Consistent with the August 5, 2013, extension request of the Utility So lid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), the FCG questions EPA’s decision to limit the public comment period to only 30 days when seeking comment on such an extensive amount of new technical information as well as proposed rule provisions. As noted by USW AG, E PA’s 30

- day time frame appears to be based on the belief that some of the technical information related to the CCR risk assessment and Regulatory Impact Analysis has been available to the regulated community. That is not the case, however, and the NODA con tains new and previously undisclosed information that can have a material impact on the final risk assessment and Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Moreover, EPA has requested comment on several key technical issues associated with the CCR proposal that will be ar directly on its scope and implementation. EPA has requested comment on revising the proposed time frames for implementing and completing closure of CCR units, better defining what constitutes large scale fills,” and developing technical standards for “o verfills”

– circumstances where CCR landfills are constructed on top of closed impoundments or landfills. While FCG appreciates EPA’s seeking comment on these important issues, these are complex matters that the Agency itself has been evaluating for some t ime. Providing stakeholders with only 30 days to respond to a series of important technical issues unnecessarily compromises the ability of the public to provide meaningful comment on these and other potential ways to address these key compliance matters.
Providing a 60

- day extension to the comment period will allow for a meaningful opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA. Such an extension would not interfere with any statutory or judicial deadline or delay EPA’s schedule for completion of the rulemaking.
The FCG respectfully requests that EPA extend the comment period as soon as possible so that the interested public reviewing the NODA can plan accordingly in analyzing and commenting on the information and technical issues contained in th e NODA

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0029

- 1 Organization 1 : Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) Commenter 1 : Kara Montalvo Commenter Type: Electric Util ity Company Comment Excerpt Text: I write on behalf of the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) to request a 60

- day extension on the recently released Notice of Data Availability (NODA) in the coal combustion residuals (CCR) rulemaking. Given the significant and complex new information on which EPA seeks comment and the importance of this information to EPA’s development of a final CCR rule, a 30

- day comment period is an unreasonably short period of time for the regulated com munity to review, evaluate and prepare comments on the new data. For example, EPA has stated that the new technical data noticed with respect to possible revisions to the CCR risk assessment and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) can have a profound impact o n EPA’s final regulatory decision. It is important, therefore, that the regulated community be provided adequate time to evaluate these new data. Significantly, the NODA contains new and previously undisclosed information that can have a material impact on the final risk assessment and RIA, including new information regarding surface water flow rates and a report by the U.S. Census Bureau characterizing the percentage of residents who are fresh waters anglers that can significantly

### 59

influence EPA CCR risk as sessment. EPA also has noticed for the first time the mathematical procedure that it is considering employing to model the interpretation of groundwater plumes by surface water bodies that may exist between waste management units and down

- gradient drinking water wells.
In addition, EPA has requested comment on several key technical issues that will have a direct effect on the final rule’s scope and implementation, including revising the proposed timeframes for implementing and completing closure of CCR uni ts, better defining what constitutes “large scale fills,” and developing technical standards for “overfills”

- circumstances where CCR landfills are constructed on top of closed impoundments or landfills.
In light of the above, SRP believes that the inter ests of the public, EPA and the regulated community are best served by ensuring that EPA receives detailed and technically sound comments. Foreclosing opportunities for meaningful comment from the affected industry hinders information exchange when it

can be most useful and compromises EPA’s ability to produce a rule that is scientifically sound and legally defensible. Extending the comment period by 60 days will afford the public a meaningful opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0030

- 1 Organization 1 : Entergy Services, Inc. Commenter 1 : Chuck Barlow Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: Entergy Corporation requests that EPA grant a 60

- day extension of the comment period regarding the recently released Notice of Data Availability (“NODA”) in the coal combustion residuals (“CCR”) rulemaking. Entergy Corporation is an integrated energy company engaged primarily in elec tric power production and retail distribution operations. Entergy owns and operates power plants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity, including coal units in Arkansas and Louisiana. Entergy delivers electricity to 2.8 millio n utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas and owns or operates generating facilities in several other states.
Given the significant and complex new information on which EPA seeks comment and the importance of this information to E PA’s development of a final CCR rule, a 30

- day comment period is an unreasonably short period of time for the regulated community to review, evaluate, and prepare comments on the new data.
For example, EPA has stated that the new technical data noticed wi th respect to possible revisions to the CCR risk assessment and Regulatory Impact Analysis (“RIA”) can have a profound impact on EPA’s final regulatory decision. It is important, therefore, that the regulated community be provided adequate time to evaluate these new data. Significantly, the NODA contains new and previously undisclosed information that can have a material impact on the final risk assessment and RIA, including new information regarding surface water flow rates and a report by the U.S. Census Bureau characterizing the percentage of residents who are fresh waters anglers that can significantly influence EPA CCR risk assessment. EPA also has given notice for the first time regarding the mathematical procedure that it is considering employing to m odel the interpretation of groundwater plumes by surface water bodies that may exist between waste management units and down

- gradient drinking water wells.
In addition, EPA has requested comment on several key technical issues that will have a direct effe ct on the final rule’s scope and implementation, including revising the proposed timeframes for implementing

### 60

and completing closure of CCR units, better defining what constitutes “ large scale fills,” and developing technical standards for “overfills”

- ci rcumstances where CCR landfills are constructed on top of closed impoundments or landfills.
In light of the above, we believe that the interests of the public, EPA, and the regulated community are best served by ensuring that EPA receives detailed and tec hnically sound comments. Foreclosing opportunities for meaningful comment from the affected industry hinders information exchange when it can be most useful and compromises EPA’s ability to produce a rule that is scientifically sound and legally defensible . Extending the comment period by 60 days will afford the public a meaningful opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0031

- 1 Organization 1 : LG&E and KU Energy, LLC. Commenter 1 : Ralph Bowling Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: LG&E and KU Energy, LLC respectfully requests a 60

- day extension of the comment period on the EPA’s recently released Notice of D ata Availability (“NODA”) pertaining to the coal combustion residuals (“CCR”) rulemaking. LG&E and KU Energy owns over 6,500 megawatts of coal

- fired generation in Kentucky.

The 30

- day comment period provided by the EPA is an unreasonably short period of t ime to review, evaluate, and prepare comment on the massive amount of significant new information and proposed rule revisions on which the EPA seeks comment.
As the EPA itself recognizes, the new technical data the Agency has noticed, with respect to poss ible revisions to the CCR risk assessment and Regulatory Impact Analysis (“RIA”), can have a profound impact on the EPA’s final regulatory decision. It is critical, therefore, that the regulated community be provided adequate time to evaluate these new dat a. The Agency’s abbreviated 30

- day timeframe appears to be predicated on the belief that some of this information has already been available to the regulated community. However, the NODA contains new and previously undisclosed information that can have a

m aterial impact on the final risk assessment and RIA. For example, the EPA references new information regarding surface water flow rates and a report by the U.S. Census Bureau characterizing the percentage of residents who are fresh waters anglers can signi ficantly influence the EPA CCR risk assessment.
Equally important, the EPA for the first time has noticed for comment the mathematical procedure that it is considering employing to model the interpretation of groundwater plumes by surface water bodies tha t may exist between a waste management unit and a down

- gradient drinking water well. This is potentially one of the most critical elements of the noticed information and limiting review to only 30 days will unfairly deprive many in the regulated community of time to adequately evaluate the complex details of this procedure and assess its impact on the risk assessment and the RIA.
In addition to the above, the EPA has requested comment on several key technical issues associated with the proposal that will h ave a direct effect on its scope and implementation. The EPA has requested comment on revising the proposed timeframes for implementing and completing closure of CCR units, better defining what constitutes “large scale fills,” and developing technical stan dards for “overfills”

- circumstances where CCR landfills are constructed on top of closed impoundments or landfills. While LG&E and KU Energy appreciates the Agency’s seeking comment on these important issues, these are

### 61

complex matters the EPA itself has been struggling with for months (if not longer) to address. Providing the regulated community with only 30 days to respond to a series of new regulatory options is not only unwarranted but, more imp0l1antiy, will unnecessarily compromise the ability of the public to suggest workable options to address these key compliance matters.
For example, the EPA’s request for comment on how to develop technical requirements for “overfills” is a subject matter the EPA concedes it did not consider in the initial propos al. The Agency now requests comment on at least 15 engineering and design related issues with respect to how best develop technical standards for these unique storage units. Assessing and developing the most useful responses for the EPA will require the in put of engineers and other professionals. A 30

- day public comment period seriously compromises the ability for the public to provide comments that will assist the EPA in ensuring working and environmentally protective regulations for these units.
In light of the above, LG&E and KU Energy respectfully requests the EPA extend the comment period as soon as possible so the stakeholders reviewing the NODA can plan accordingly in reviewing and preparing comments on the data contained in this important document. Thank you for your consideration of our request

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0032

- 1 Organization 1 : Dominion Commenter 1 : Dennis Slade Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: Dominion is writing to request a 60

- day extension on the recently released Notice of Data Availability (“NODA”) in the coal combustion residuals (“CCR”) rulemaking. Given the significant and complex new information on which EPA seeks comment and the importance of this information to EPA’s development of a final coal combustion residuals (“CCR”) rule, a 30

- day comment period is an unreasonably short period of time for us to review, evaluate and prepare comments on the new data.
For example, E PA has stated that the new technical data noticed with respect to possible revisions to the CCR risk assessment and Regulatory Impact Analysis (“RIA”) can have a profound impact on EPA’s final regulatory decision in the final CCR rule. Therefore based upon the potential decisions that will result from this NOOA, it is important that we be provided adequate time to evaluate these new data.
In addition, EPA has requested comment on several key technical issues that will have a direct effect on the final rule ’s scope and implementation, including revising the proposed timeframes for implementing and completing closure of CCR units, better defining what constitutes “large scale fills,” and developing new technical standards for “overfills”

- circumstances where CCR landfills are constructed on top of closed impoundments or landfills.
In light of the above, we believe that the interests of the public, EPA, and the regulated community are best served by ensuring that EPA receives detailed and technically sound co mments. Extending the comment period by 60

- days will afford the public a meaningful opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA and ensure that EPA has the input necessary to develop a final rule that is scientifically sound

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

### 62

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0033

- 1 Organization 1 : We Energies Commenter 1 : Bob Meidl Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: In relation to the above referenced docket and the coal combustion residuals (“CCR”) rulemaking Notice of Data Availability (“NODA”) published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2013, We Energies hereby requests an extension of 60 days to the public comment period. The NODA includes a significant amount of new and detailed information on which EPA seeks public comments related to the use of this information in EPA’s development of a final coal combustion residuals (“CCR”) rule. Given the complex nature of the information and significant impacts of the CC R rule, a 30 day comment period is an unreasonably short period of time for the public to review, evaluate and prepare comments on the new data.
As an example, EPA has indicated that the technical data included as part of the NODA may be considered in rev isions to the CCR risk assessment and Regulatory Impact Analysis (“RIA”) and may have a profound impact on EPA’s final regulatory decision. With this in mind, it is important that the regulated community and public be provided adequate time to evaluate the se new data. Significantly, the NODA contains new and previously undisclosed information that can have a material impact on the final risk assessment and RIA, including information regarding surface water flow rates and a report by the U.S. Census Bureau c haracterizing the percentage of residents who are fresh waters anglers that can influence the EPA CCR risk assessment. EPA also has noticed for the first time the mathematical procedure that it may employ to model the interpretation of groundwater plumes b y surface water bodies that may exist between waste management units and down

- gradient drinking water wells.
In addition, EPA has requested comment on several key technical issues that will have a direct effect on the final rule’s scope and implementation , including revising the proposed timeframes for implementing and completing closure of CCR units, better defining what constitutes “large scale fills,” and developing technical standards for “overfills”

– circumstances where CCR landfills are constructed on top of closed impoundments or landfills.
In light of the above, we believe that the interests of the public, EPA and the regulated community are best served by ensuring that EPA receives detailed and technically sound comments. A 30 day comment period will hinder meaningful and relevant information exchange and compromise EPA’s ability to produce a rule that is scientifically sound and legally defensible. Extending the comment period by 60 days will afford the public an opportunity to analyze, assess, a nd comment on the NODA

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0034

- 1 Organization 1 : Ameren Energy Resources Company, L.L.C. Commenter 1 : Paul Pike Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comme nt Excerpt Text: I write on behalf of Ameren Energy Resources Company, L.L.C. to request a 60

- day extension on the recently released Notice of Data Availability (“NODA”) in the coal combustion residuals (“CCR”) rulemaking. The 30

- day comment period provide d by EPA is an unreasonably short period of time to review, evaluate and prepare comment on the massive amount of significant new information and proposed rule revisions on which EPA seeks comment.

### 63

Ameren Energy Resources Company, L.L.C. is based in Colli nsville, IL, and has a generating capacity of 5,522 megawatts with coal

- fired generation accounting for 76 percent of our total electric generation.
It is critical that the regulated community be provided adequate time to evaluate these new technical data that the Agency has noticed with respect to possible revisions to the CCR risk assessment and Regulatory Impact Analysis (“RIA”). The NODA contains new and previously undisclosed information that can have a profound impact on EPA’s final regulatory decisi on.
EPA has requested comment on revising the proposed timeframes for implementing and completing closure of CCR units, better defining what constitutes “large scale fills,” and developing technical standards for “overfills”

- circumstances where CCR land fills are constructed on top of closed impoundments or landfills. Providing the regulated community with only 3D days to respond to a series of new regulatory options is not only unwarranted but, more importantly, will unnecessarily compromise the ability of the public to suggest workable options to address these key compliance matters.
An example of an issue that requires additional time for commenting is EPA’s request for comment on how to develop technical requirements for “overfills”. This is a subject matter that EPA concedes it did not consider in the initial proposal. The Agency now requests comment on at least 15 engineering and design related issues with respect to how best develop technical standards for these unique units. We believe that the ove rfill issue will be important for facilities that may need to build new surface impoundments or landfills on closed impoundments due to limited availability of real estate near the facility. A 3~

- day public comment period seriously compromises the ability for the public to provide comments that will assist EPA in ensuring working and environmentally protective regulations for these facilities.
Ameren Energy Resources Company, L.L.C. respectfully requests that EPA extend the comment period as soon as possib le so that the stakeholders reviewing the NODA can plan accordingly in reviewing and preparing commenting on the data contained in this important document

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0035

- 1 Organization 1 : SCANA Corporation (SCANA) Commenter 1 : Jean

- Claude Younan Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: The CCR rule will have a major impact on future operations and expenditures at SCE&G’s coal

- b urning generation facilities, and we are diligently formulating anticipatory ash management plans and ash storage procedures. Therefore, we request that the EPA extend for 60 days the comment period concerning the new data the agency has received on the CC Rs rulemaking. A 30

- day comment does not allow sufficient time to review, evaluate, and prepare comments on the significant and complex new data the EPA is considering for use as they prepare a final rule. We would like to have an opportunity to thoroughly review the following:

- The validity of the mathematical procedure that will be used to model the interception of groundwater plumes by surface water bodies that may exist between a waste management unit and a down

- gradient drinking water well. (We would like to see concrete details, not those that are theoretical.)

- The use of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service statistics for urban and rural areas from each state to

### 64

estimate the total number of fresh water anglers near coal plants.

- The feasibility o f complying with the EPA’s proposed time frames for closing surface impoundments in the Subtitle D option.

- The technical requirements (including the design and operating requirements for new CCR landfills), and how they relate to CCR overfill units that have been constructed on top of closed surface impoundments or landfills.
Again, we request that the EPA extend the comment period by 60 days. Allowing more time to evaluate the data will help ensure that national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information, in accordance with the EPA’s mission statement

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0036

- 1 Organization 1 : Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. Commenter 1 : Mike Roddy Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: Consistent with the August 5,2013, extension request of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), Seminole questions EPA’s decision to limit the public comme nt period to only 30 days when seeking comment on such an extensive amount of new technical information as well as proposed rule provisions. As noted by USWAG, EPA’s 30

- day time frame appears to be based on the belief that some of the technical information related to the CCR risk assessment and Regulatory Impact Analysis have been available to the regulated community. That is not the case, however, and the NODA contains new and previously undisclosed information that can have a material impact on the final risk assessment and Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Moreover, EPA has requested comment on several key technical issues associated with the CCR proposal that will bear directly on its scope and implementation. EPA has requested comment on revising the propose d time frames for implementing and completing closure of CCR units, better defining what constitutes “large scale fills,” and developing technical standards for “overfills”

- circumstances where CCR landfills are constructed on top of closed impoundments o r landfills. While Seminole appreciates EPA’s seeking comment on these important issues, these are complex matters that the Agency itself has been evaluating for some time. Providing stakeholders with only 30 days to respond to a series of new regulatory o ptions unnecessarily compromises the ability of the public to provide meaningful comment on these and other potential ways to address these key compliance matters.
Providing a 60

- day extension to the comment period will allow for a meaningful opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA. Such an extension would not interfere with any statutory or judicial deadline or delay EPA’s schedule for completion of the rulemaking. Seminole requests that EPA extend the comment period as soon as possible so that the interested public reviewing the NODA can plan accordingly in analyzing and commenting on the information and technical issues contained in the NODA

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 201 2

- 0028

- 0037

- 1 Organization 1 : Xcel Energy

### 65

Commenter 1 : Karen Holliway Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCO), Northern States Power of Minnesota (NSPM), Northern States Power of Wisconsin (NSP

- W), and Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS), all d/b/a Xcel Energy submit this request for a 60

- day extension on the recently released Notice of Data Availability (NODA), part of the coal combustion residuals (CCR) rulemaking. Given the signific ant and complex new information on which EPA seeks comment and the importance of this information to EPA’s development of a final CCR rule, a 30

- day comment period is an unreasonably short period of time for the regulated community to review, evaluate and prepare comments on the new data and information requests.
Given that EPA has stated that the new technical data noticed with respect to possible revisions to the CCR risk assessment and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) can have a profound impact on EPA’s final regulatory decision. It is important, therefore, that the regulated community be provided adequate time to evaluate the new data. The NODA contains new and previously undisclosed information that can have a material impact on the final risk assessme nt and RIA, including new information regarding surface water flow rates and a report by the U.S. Census Bureau characterizing the percentage of residents who are fresh waters anglers that can significantly influence EPA CCR risk assessment. EPA also has n oticed for the first time the mathematical procedure that it is considering employing to model the interpretation of groundwater plumes by surface water bodies that may exist between waste management units and down

gradient drinking water wells.

In additi on, EPA has requested comment on several key technical issues that will have a direct effect on the final rule’s scope and implementation, including revising the proposed timeframes for implementing and completing closure of CCR units, better defining what constitutes “large scale fills,” and developing technical standards for “overfills”

- circumstances where CCR landfills are constructed on top of closed impoundments or landfills.
In light of the above, Xcel Energy believes that the interest of the publi c, EPA and the regulated community are best served by ensuring that EPA receives detailed and technically sound comments. Shortening opportunities for meaningful comment from the affected industry hinders information exchange when it can be most useful, an d compromises EPA’s ability to produce a rule that is scientifically sound and legally defensible. Extending the comment period by 60

- days will afford the public a meaningful opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA

Response : T his comment i s no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0038

- 1 Organization 1 : National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) Commenter 1 : Dorothy Kellogg Commenter Type: Trade Association Comment Excerpt Text: On behalf of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) and the more than 900 not

for

- profit rural electric utilities and the consumers they serve, I request a 60

- day extension on the recently released Notice of Data Availability (“NODA”) in the coal comb ustion residuals (“CCR”) rulemaking. The 30

- day comment period provided by EPA is an unreasonably short period of time to review, evaluate and prepare substantive comment on the massive amount of significant new information and proposed rule revisions cont ained in the NODA.

### 66

NRECA participates in the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) and supports that organization’s request for a similar 60

- day extension (attached) since:
• the NODA contains new and previously undisclosed information that can ha ve a material impact on the final risk assessment and RIA including new information on surface water flow rates and estimates of fresh water anglers.
• EPA for the first time is soliciting comments on the mathematical procedure to model potential connecti ons between waste management unit and down

- gradient drinking water wells

– an element critical to the risk assessment and RIA.
• EPA is requesting comment on significant technical issues including revising the proposed timeframes for implementing and comp leting closure of CCR units, better defining what constitutes “large scale fills,” and developing technical standards for “overfills.”
We believe that the interests of the public, EPA and the regulated community are best served by ensuring that EPA receiv es detailed and technically sound comments. Foreclosing opportunities for meaningful comment from the affected industry thwarts information exchange when it can be most useful and compromises EPA’s ability to produce a rule that is scientifically sound and legally defensible. Extending the comment period by 60

- days will afford the public a meaningful opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0039

- 1 Organization 1 : Arizona Public Service Company (APS) Commenter 1 : Neal Brown Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: I write on behalf of Arizona Public Service Company to request a 60

- day extension on the recently released Notice of Data Availability (“NODA”) in the coal combustion residuals (“CCR”) rulemaking. Given the significant and complex new information on which EPA seeks comment and the importance of this information to EPA’s development of a final coal combustion residuals (“ CCR”) rule, a 30

- day comment period is an unreasonably short period of time for the regulated community to review, evaluate and prepare comments on the new data.
For example, EPA has stated that the new technical data noticed with respect to possible revisions to the CCR risk assessment and Regulatory Impact Analysis (“RIA”) can have a profound impact on EPA’s final regulatory decision. It is important, therefore, that the regulated community be provided adequate time to evalua te these new data. Significantly, the NODA contains new and previously undisclosed information that can have a material impact on the final risk assessment and RIA, including new information regarding surface water flow rates and a report by the U.S. Censu s Bureau characterizing the percentage of residents who are fresh waters anglers that can significantly influence EPA CCR risk assessment. EPA also has noticed for the first time the mathematical procedure that it is considering employing to model the inte rpretation of groundwater plumes by surface water bodies that may exist between waste management units and down

- gradient drinking water wells.
In addition, EPA has requested comment on several key technical issues that will have a direct effect on the fin al rule’s scope and implementation, including revising the proposed timeframes for implementing and completing closure of CCR units, better defining what constitutes “large scale fills,” and developing

### 67

technical standards for” overfills”

- circumstances wh ere CCR landfills are constructed on top of closed impoundments or landfills.
In light of the above, we believe that the interests of the public, EPA and the regulated community are best served by ensuring that EPA receives detailed and technically sound comments. Foreclosing opportunities for meaningful comment from the affected industry hinders information exchange when it can be most useful and compromises EPA’s ability to produce a rule that is scientifically sound and legally defensible. Extending the comment period by 60

- days will afford the public a meaningful opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0041

- 1 Organization 1 : PPL Generat ion, LLC Commenter 1 : Craig Shamory Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: PPL Generation, LLC respectfully requests a 60

- day extension of the comment period on EPA’s recently released Notice of Data Availability (“NODA”) pertaining t o the coal combustion residuals (“CCR”) rulemaking. PPL Generation owns and/or operates over 5,000 megawatts of coal

- fired generation in Pennsylvania and Montana.

The 30

- day comment period provided by EPA is an unreasonably short period of time to review, evaluate and prepare comment on the massive amount of significant new information and proposed rule revisions on which EPA seeks comment.
As EPA itself recognizes, the new technical data that the Agency has noticed with respect to possible revisions to t he CCR risk assessment and Regulatory Impact Analysis (“RIA”) can have a profound impact on EPA’s final regulatory decision. It is critical, therefore, that the regulated community be provided adequate time to evaluate these new data. The Agency’s abbrevia ted 30

- day timeframe appears to be predicated on the belief that some of this information has already been available to the regulated community. However, the NODA contains new and previously undisclosed information that can have a material impact on the fi nal risk assessment and RIA. For example, EPA references new information regard surface water flow rates and a report by the U.S. Census Bureau characterizing the percentage of residents who are fresh waters anglers that can significantly influence EPA CCR risk assessment.
Equally important, EPA for the first time has noticed for comment the mathematical procedure that it is considering employing to model the interpretation of groundwater plumes by surface water bodies that may exist between a waste manage ment units and a down

- gradient drinking water well. This is potentially one of the most critical elements of the noticed information and limiting review to only 30 days will unfairly deprive many in the regulated community of time to adequately evaluate th e complex details of this procedure and assess its impact on the risk assessment and the RIA.
In addition to the above, EPA has requested comment on several key technical issues associated with the proposal that will have a direct effect on its scope and implementation. EPA has requested comment on revising the proposed timeframes for implementing and completing closure of CCR units, better defining what constitutes “large scale fills,” and developing technical standards for “overfills”

- circumstances whe re CCR landfills are constructed on top of closed impoundments or landfills. While PPL appreciates the Agency’s seeking comment on these important issues, these are complex matters that EPA itself has been struggling with for months (if not longer) to addr ess. Providing the regulated community with only

### 68

30 days to respond to a series of new regulatory options is not only unwarranted but, more importantly, will unnecessarily compromise the ability of the public to suggest workable options to address these ke y compliance matters.
For example, EPA’s request for comment on how to develop technical requirements for “overfills” is a subject matter that EPA concedes it did not consider in the initial proposal. The Agency now requests comment on at least 15 enginee ring and design related issues with respect to how best develop technical standards for these unique units. Assessing and developing the most useful responses for EPA will require the input of engineers and other professionals. A 30

- day public comment peri od seriously compromises the ability for the public to provide comments that will assist EPA in ensuring working and environmentally protective regulations for these units.
In light of the above, PPL Generation respectfully requests that EPA extend the co mment period as soon as possible so that the stakeholders reviewing the NODA can plan accordingly in reviewing and preparing commenting on the data contained in this important document

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comm ent Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0042

- 1 Organization 1 : PowerSouth Energy Cooperative (PowerSouth) Commenter 1 : Wesley Pearce Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: PowerSouth Energy Cooperative (PowerSouth) respectfully requests a 60

- day extension to the comment period on the recently released Notice of Data Availability (“NODA”) in the coal combustion residuals (“CCR”) rulemaking. PowerSouth Energy Cooperative is a nonprofit, electric generation and transmission cooperative serving sixteen nonprofit electric distribution cooperatives and four municipal electric distribution systems in Alabama and northwest Florida. Through those member

- owners, PowerSouth provides electric service to more than one million consumers in the mostly rura l areas of 39 counties in Alabama and 10 counties in Florida.
PowerSouth owns and operates the Charles R. Lowman Power Plant in Leroy, AL, and is a minority owner in the James H. Miller Power Plant located near West Jefferson, AL. Both Lowman and Miller a re baseload, coal

- fired plants that will be directly impacted by the proposed CCR rule. Given the significant and complex new information on which EPA seeks comment and the importance of this information to EPA’s development of a final CCR rule, a 30

- day c omment period is an unreasonably short period of time for the regulated community to review, evaluate and prepare comments on the new data.
EPA has stated that the NODA information can have a profound impact on final regulatory decisions. It is important, therefore, that the regulated community be provided adequate time to evaluate these new data. Significantly, the NODA contains new and previously undisclosed information that can have a material impact on the final risk assessment and Regulatory Impact An alysis (“RIA”), including new information regarding surface water flow rates and a report by the U.S. Census Bureau characterizing the percentage of residents who are fresh water anglers that can significantly influence EPA CCR risk assessment. EPA also ha s noticed for the first time the mathematical procedure that it is considering employing to model the interpretation of groundwater plumes by surface water bodies that may exist between waste management units and down

- gradient drinking water wells.

In add ition, EPA has requested comment on several key technical issues that will have a direct effect on the final rule’s scope and implementation, including revising the proposed timeframes for implementing

### 69

and completing closure of CCR units, better defining w hat constitutes “large scale fills,” and developing technical standards for “overfills”

- circumstances where CCR landfills are constructed on top of closed impoundments or landfills.
PowerSouth believes that the interests of the public, EPA and the regul ated community are best served by ensuring the EPA receives detailed and technically sound comments. Foreclosing opportunities for meaningful comment from the affected industry hinders information exchange when it can be most useful and compromises EPA’s a bility to produce a rule that is scientifically sound and legally defensible. Extending the comment period by 60

- days will afford the public a meaningful opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0043

- 1 Organization 1 : Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) Commenter 1 : Kelly Carmichael Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: Northern Indiana Public Service Comp any (“NIPSCO”) respectfully requests a 60 day extension of the comment period on EPA’s recently released Notice of Data Availability (“NODA”) pertaining to the coal combustion residuals (“CCRU) rulemaking. 78 Fed. Reg. 149 (August 2, 2013). Given that ther e is not a statutory or judicial deadline

- or even a self

- imposed EPA target date

- for issuing the final CCR rule, there is no reasonable justification for providing the public with only 30 days to review, analyze and prepare comments on an array of new information that will be critical to EPA’s final decision in this highly complex rule making. More time to review provides for the opportunity to produce better rulemaking.
NIPSCO, state regulators, the CCR beneficial use industry, and many others have a critical interest in this rulemaking, as it could result in comprehensive federal regulations for the management of CCR that could have significant practical and economic implications for state governments, the electric power industry, hundreds of small bu sinesses engaged in CCR recycling and for the public. Given the amount of time EPA provided for commenting on an earlier CCR NODA, providing for only a 30 day comment period on this NODA is inconsistent with the principles of Executive Order 12866. This or der directs federal agencies to afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment on the development of proposed regulations, which in most cases should include a comment period of not less than 60 days. Executive Order 12866, Sec. 6(a).
Providing a 6 0 day extension to the comment period will afford the public a meaningful opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA, in keeping with Executive Order 12866, and not interfere with any statutory or judicial deadline or unduly delay EPA’s schedu le for completion of the rulemaking. An extension will give the public the opportunity to provide EPA with more thoughtful, and thus more useful, comments on the NODA which will in turn facilitate the development of a more efficient and effective CCR regul atory program. NIPSCO respectfully requests that EPA extend the comment period as soon as possible so that the stakeholders reviewing the NODA can plan accordingly in reviewing and preparing commenting on the data contained in this important document

Respo nse : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

### 70

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0044

- 1 Organization 1 : Southern Company Commenter 1 : Chris Hobson Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has issued a Notice of Data Availability (“NODA”) that pertains to information EPA has obtained in response to its proposal to regulate coal combustion by

products (“CCBs”). See 78 Fed. Reg. 46,940 (Aug. 2, 2013). EPA has provided a comment period of 30 days, which ends on September 3, 2013. Id. Southern Company [Footnote 1: With 4.4 million customers and more than 42,000 megawatts of generating capacity, Atlanta

- based Southern Company is one of the nation’s largest producers of electricity. Southern Company owns four retail operating companies in the southeast serving 120,000 square miles: Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power and Mississippi Power. Southern Company’s operating companies will be subject to EPA’s proposed CCB rules because of pollution control equipment at the coal

- fired plants that captures CCBs and reduces emissions into the air.] hereby requests an extension of 60 days to the comment period on the NODA. Southern Company provides these com ments on behalf of itself and its four subsidiaries that own and operate the power plants and CCB facilities that would be subject to the proposed rules: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, and Mississippi Power Company.

As E PA itself recognizes, the new technical data that EPA has noticed with respect to possible revisions to its risk assessment and Regulatory Impact Analysis (“RIA”) can have a profound impact on EPA’s final regulatory decision. It is critical, therefore, tha t the regulated community be provided adequate time to evaluate these new data. The abbreviated 30

- day timeframe appears to be predicated on the belief that some of this information has already been available to the regulated community. However, the NODA

c ontains new and previously undisclosed information that can have a material impact on the final risk assessment and RIA. For example, EPA references new information regard surface water flow rates and a report by the U.S. Census Bureau characterizing the p ercentage of residents who are fresh waters anglers that can significantly influence EPA CCB risk assessment.
Equally important, EPA for the first time has noticed for comment the mathematical procedure that it is considering employing to model the interp retation of groundwater plumes by surface water bodies that may exist between a waste management units and a down

- gradient drinking water well. This is potentially one of the most critical elements of the noticed information and limiting review to only 30 days will unfairly deprive many in the regulated community of time to adequately evaluate the complex details of this procedure and assess its impact on the risk assessment and the RIA.
In addition to the above, EPA has requested comment on several key te chnical issues associated with the proposal that will have a direct effect on its scope and implementation. EPA has requested comment on revising the proposed timeframes for implementing and completing closure of CCB units, better defining what constitutes “large scale fills,” and developing technical standards for “overfills”

– circumstances where CCB landfills are constructed on top of closed impoundments or landfills. While Southern Company appreciates EPA’s solicitation of comments on these important is sues, these are complex matters that EPA itself has been struggling with for months (if not longer) to address. Providing the regulated community with only 30 days to respond to a series of new regulatory options is not only unwarranted but, more important ly, will unnecessarily compromise the ability of the public to suggest workable options to address these key compliance matters.
For example, EPA’s request for comment on how to develop technical requirements for “overfills” is a subject matter that EPA c oncedes it did not consider in the initial proposal. EPA now requests comment on at least 15 engineering and design related issues with respect to how best develop technical standards for these unique units. Assessing and developing the most useful respons es for EPA will require the input

### 71

of engineers and other professionals. A 30

- day public comment period seriously compromises the ability for the public to provide comments that will assist EPA in ensuring working and environmentally protective regulations for these units.
In light of the above, we believe that the interests of the public, EPA and the regulated community are best served by ensuring that EPA receives detailed and technically sound comments. Foreclosing opportunities for meaningful comment fr om the affected industry thwarts information exchange when it can be most useful and compromises EPA’s ability to produce a rule that is scientifically sound and legally defensible. Extending the comment period by 60

- days will afford the public a meaningfu l opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA.
Accordingly, Southern Company respectfully requests that EPA extend the comment period by 60 days as soon as possible, so that it can plan accordingly in reviewing and preparing comments on the in formation contained in the NODA

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0045

- 1 Organization 1 : Dynegy Inc. Commenter 1 : Dean Ellis Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: D ynegy Inc. hereby respectfully requests a 60

- day extension on the recently released Notice of Data Availability (“NODA’’) in the coal combustion residuals (“CCR”) rulemaking. 78 Fed. Reg. 46940 (Aug. 2, 2013). Given the significant and complex new informat ion on which EPA seeks comment and the importance of this information to EPA’s development of a final coal combustion residuals (“CCR”) rule, a 30

- day comment period is an unreasonably short period of time for the regulated community to review, evaluate an d prepare comments on the new data.
EPA has stated that the new technical data noticed with respect to possible revisions to the CCR risk assessment and Regulatory Impact Analysis (“RIA”) can have a profound impact on EPA’s final regulatory decision. It i s important, therefore, that the regulated community be provided adequate time to evaluate these new data. Significantly. the NODA contains new and previously undisclosed information that can have a material impact on the final risk assessment and RIA, inc luding new information regarding surface water flow rates and a report by the U.S. Census Bureau characterizing the percentage of residents who are fresh water anglers. EPA also has noticed for the first time the mathematical procedure that it is consideri ng employing to model the interpretation of groundwater plumes by surface water bodies that may exist between waste management units and down

- gradient drinking water wells.
EPA also has requested comment on several key technical issues that will have a di rect effect on the final rule’s scope and implementation, including revising the proposed timeframes for implementing and completing closure of CCR units, better defining what constitutes “large scale fills,” and developing technical standards for “overfil ls”

- circumstances where CCR landfills are constructed on top of closed impoundments or landfills.
In light of the above, we believe that the interests of the public, EPA and the regulated community are best served by ensuring that EPA receives detailed and technically sound comments. Foreclosing opportunities for meaningful comment from the affected industry hinders information exchange when it can be most useful and compromises EPA’s ability to produce a rule that is scientifically sound and

### 72

legally def

ensible. Extending the comment period by 60

- days will afford the public a meaningful opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0046

- 1 Org anization 1 : Citizens Coal Council Commenter 1 : Jeff Stant Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: The undersigned individuals and organizations are asking for the comment period on this Notice of Data Availability, NODA, to be extended for 30 day s from September 3 until October 3, or alternatively for at least 17 additional days to September 20, the close of the comment period on the proposed rule setting Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Power Plants (Docket No. EPAHQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819 ).
EPA characterizes the information in this NODA as, “having the potential to weigh significantly in our decisions.” (46942 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 149/Friday, August 2, 2013/Notices) The information identified in the NODA and the framing of input that EPA is soliciting, including the use of higher flow rates in surface waters and one

- sided, unsubstantiated perspectives promoting dilution of groundwater contamination by large water bodies to reduce risks modeled from coal ash, in addition to discuss ions about extending the Agency’s proposed time frames for closing surface impoundments and authorizing CCR overfills on top of unlined waste sites regardless of the serious problems posed by these existing waste sites, suggests that EPA may be overlooking or not sufficiently appreciating its obligation to protect human health and the environment. The imperative need for the agency to take a balanced approach in final decision

- making on the RCRA coal ash rule makes information that we can contribute on thes e matters as third parties whose primary interest is not driven by financial motives, extremely important. Collecting and submitting this information is a very time consuming and laborious task for third parties, given the multiple technical topics involve d and lack of objectivity and resistance that electric power providers and many state agencies have toward providing this information to EPA let alone the public. For these reasons we believe that the current thirty

- day time period for comment on the NODA is too short and this request for additional time to be quite reasonable and needed.
Accordingly, we are asking for 30 additional days to comment on the matters presented in this NODA or at a minimum, to serve the objective of “harmonization” that EPA is purportedly seeking between the RCRA and ELG rules, at least 17 additional days to provide comments until the close of the period for commenting on the ELG rule. We look forward to your prompt reply

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0047

- 1 Organization 1 : Buckeye Power, Inc. Commenter 1 : Pat O'Loughlin Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: I write on behalf of Buckeye Power, Inc. to request a 60

- day extension on the recently released Notice of Data Availability (“NODA”) in the coal combustion residuals (“CCR”) rulemaking. Given the significant and complex new information on which EPA seeks comment and the importance of this information to EPA’s development of a fi nal coal combustion residuals (“CCR”) rule, a 30

- day comment period is an unreasonably short period of time for the regulated community to review, evaluate and prepare comments

### 73

on the new data.
For example, EPA has stated that the new technical data notic ed with respect to possible revisions to the CCR risk assessment and Regulatory Impact Analysis (“RIA”) can have a profound impact on EPA’s final regulatory decision. It is important, therefore, that the regulated community be provided adequate time to eva luate these new data. Significantly, the NODA contains new and previously undisclosed information that can have a material impact on the final risk assessment and RIA, including new information regarding surface water flow rates and a report by the U.S. Ce nsus Bureau characterizing the percentage of residents who are fresh waters anglers that can significantly influence EPA CCR risk assessment. EPA also has noticed for the first time the mathematical procedure that it is considering employing to model the i nterpretation of groundwater plumes by surface water bodies that may exist between waste management units and down

- gradient drinking water wells.
In addition, EPA has requested comment on several key technical issues that will have a direct effect on the final rule’s scope and implementation, including revising the proposed timeframes for implementing and completing closure of CCR units, better defining what constitutes “large scale fills,” and developing technical standards for “overfills”

- circumstances where CCR landfills are constructed on top of closed impoundments or landfills.
In light of the above, we believe that the interests of the public, EPA and the regulated community are best served by ensuring that EPA receives detailed and technically sou nd comments. Foreclosing opportunities for meaningful comment from the affected industry hinders information exchange when it can be most useful and compromises EPA’s ability to produce a rule that is scientifically sound and legally defensible. Extending the comment period by 60

- days will afford the public a meaningful opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0048

- 1 Organization 1 : The Dayt on Power and Light Company (DP&L) Commenter 1 : Scott Arentsen Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: The Dayton Power and Light Company (DP&L) requests a 60 day extension to the deadline for submitting comments on the recently release d Notice of Data Availability (NODA) related to the USEPA coal combustion residuals (CCR) rulemaking (78 FR 46940 August 2, 2013). While the Agency has made clear that it will only be accepting input and comments related to the specific issues identified i n the NODA, these issues and the associated additional information outlined in the NODA that USEPA is considering as part of the rulemaking are significant and complex. Given the importance of this information to USEPA’s development of a reasonable and tec hnically supported final CCR rule, a 30 day comment period is an unreasonably short period of time for DP&L to review, evaluate and prepare comments on these new data.
USEPA has indicated that the new technical data outlined in the NODA relative to potent ial revisions to the CCR risk assessment and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) may have a profound impact on EPA’s ultimate regulatory decision. It is imperative that the regulated community that will eventually be affected by the rule be provided adequate time to assess these new data. Among these new data are previously undisclosed information that could have a material impact on the final risk assessment and RIA, including new information regarding surface water flow rates and a report by the U.S. Census Bureau characterizing the percentage of residents in each state who are fresh water fishers. USEP A also has noticed for the first

### 74

time that it is considering utilizing a mathematical procedure to model the interception of groundwater plumes by surface wat er bodies that may exist between waste management units and a down

- gradient drinking water well and is soliciting comments on the validity of the procedure. This review alone merits additional time.
Additionally, USEP A has requested comment on several ke y technical issues that will have a direct effect on the final rule’s scope and implementation. These include:
• better defining what constitutes “large scale fills”;
• inclusion of information obtained from the Agency’s assessment of impoundment structu ral integrity;
• revising the proposed timeframes for initiating and completing closure of CCR units; and
• developing technical standards for “overfills”

- circumstances where CCR landfills are constructed on top of closed impoundments or landfills.

In light of the above, DP&L believes that the interests of the public, USEPA and the regulated community are fully served only by ensuring that the Agency receives detailed and technically sound comments. Foreclosing opportunities for meaningful comment from affected entities hinders the rulemaking process precisely at the time when it can be most useful and compromises USEP A’s ability to craft a rule that is both scientifically sound and legally defensible. Extending the comment period by 60 days will affor d the public a meaningful opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0049

- 1 Organization 1 : Homer City Generation, L. P. (Homer City) Commenter 1 : David Chung Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: On behalf of Homer City Generation, L.P. (“Homer City”), we hereby respectfully request a 60

- day extension of the deadline for comments on the recently released Notice of Data Availability (NODA) in the above

- referenced rulemaking. As the owner of the Homer City Power Generation Station, a 1,884 megawatt coal

- fired power plant located in Indiana County, Pennsylvania, Homer City will be directly and significantly affected b y any change to the regulatory status of coal combustion residuals. Given the importance of this rulemaking to Homer City and the power sector generally, and the complexity and quantity of the new information on which the Environmental Protection Agency (“ EPA”) seeks comment, the September 3, 2013 deadline simply does not afford sufficient time to review, evaluate, and prepare meaningful comments on the new data.
In its NODA, EPA raises important technical questions concerning the scope of the rule and its implementation. EPA acknowledges that its “proposed technical requirements generated a significant number of technical comments and have presented some very complex issues.” 78 Fed. Reg. at 46,942. Thus, it seeks additional comments on the feasibility of complying with proposed time frames for closing surface impoundments and on how technical requirements relate to coal combustion residual overfill units that have been constructed on top of closed surface impoundments or landfills. EPA also has indicated t hat new information and data it received could be used in potential updates and enhancements to the Regulatory Impact Analysis or risk assessment for the final rule. As EPA acknowledges, the public needs “a full and complete opportunity” to review, analyze , and comment on this new information and data that

### 75

the Agency says may “weigh significantly in [its] decisions.” 78 Fed. Reg. at 46,942. Thirty days, however, does not provide such an opportunity.
Given the “very complex issues” under consideration, Home r City believes that a 60

- day extension of the comment period is reasonable and would best serve the interests of all stakeholders and members of the public. Such an extension will allow members of the public the time they need to review and comment on the NODA

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0050

- 1 Organization 1 : Electric Power Generation Association (EPGA) Commenter 1 : Jake Smeltz Commenter Type: Trade Association Comment Excerpt Text: I am writing on behalf of the members of the Electric Power Generation Association (“EPGA”) who are collectively requesting a 60

- day extension of the comment period on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA’s”) recently released Notice of Data Availab ility (“NODA”) relating to the coal combustion residuals (“CCRs”) rulemaking.
EPGA members who own and operate coal

- fired generating stations believe additional time is necessary in order to prepare an appropriate response to EPA’s NODA on CCRs, which is a critical issue that merits the development of a full and complete record. Indeed, EPA has recognized that such additional information may help inform the agency and have an impact on EPA’s final regulatory decision.
Given the scope of EPA’s rulemaking a nd the importance of the proceeding to the safe and reliable production of electrical power from coal

- fired electric generating stations, we respectfully request a 60

- day extension

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2012

- 0028

- 0105

- 1 Organization 1 : CME Engineering LP Commenter 1 : Chet Thompson Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Other Sections: 6.8.10 9.3.12 Comment Excerpt Text: EPA solicits comments on whether it should rely on responding data to the “Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines;” (ELG Questionnaire) that EPA distributed to 733 plants in 20 10, pursuant to its Clean Water Act section 308 authority of the Clean Water Act. According to EPA, the respons es to this questionnaire are the principal source of information used to develop the proposed revised Effluent Limitation Guidelines for electric power generating sources.
The data collected in response to the ELG Questionnaire appear to be relevant to de veloping a technology

- based and sound RIA document. Moreover, these data may very well address some of the uncertainties associated with EPA’s draft risk assessment, entitled Human and Ecological Risk Assessment o/Coal Combustion Wastes, including model se lection, particular scenarios, and parameter values. Reducing these uncertainties would greatly improve the quality of the risk assessment. Unfortunately, due to the large volume of data contained in the Access database (38 MB, consisting of

### 76

more than 80 tables and thousands of records), Homer City is unable to evaluate in any meaningful way whether it would be appropriate for EPA to rely on these data to revise the RIA or risk assessment. Accordingly, EPA should extend the comment period for an additional 60

- days.
If the agency does decide to use all or portions of the newly collected data, then it should also reconsider modifying some of the model assumptions, such as the assumption that 100 percent of the contaminant mass will leach from a landfill and the I O,OOO

- year timeframe for short

- term risks. Because the EPA’s model assumes that leaching stops once the unit is closed, there is no need for an extended timeframe

.

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Section 1.6

- Reques ts for additional public hearings Total Number of Submissions: 9 Total Number of Comments: 9

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 03934

- 1 Organization 1 : Kentuckians For The Commonwealth (KFTC) Commenter 1 : Nancy L. Reinhart Commenter Type: Advocacy Group
Comment Excerpt Text: We first commend your recent decision to offer multiple public hearings on this issue, including one in Louisville, KY. The Louisville hearing will enable communities in the most affected region of the United States to express their opinion about the issue

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 05693

- 2 Organization 1 : North Carolina House of Representatives Commenter 1 : J. Love Commenter Type: State Elected Official Comment Excerpt Text: In light of the questions which have been raised about the hazards to public health posed by coal ash, it is important to have a full and open debate with an engaged public as these new regulations are formulated. Taking into consideration the large volume of coal ash generated. from coal

- fired power plants and other facilities in the state, North Carolina's legislators will be following this matter closely to determine what, if any, additional steps need to be taken at tl1e st ate level to protect public health and the environment.
Bearing in mind the importance of this issue and the potential impact to the people of North Carolina, we the undersigned legislators of the North Carolina General Assembly, respectfully request tha t the EPA hold one or more public hearings in North Carolina on the administration's anticipated new coal ash regulations. North Carolinians in particular need to have their concerns addressed and their voices heard on this critical matter. JUL 22 2010

Res ponse : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

### 77

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 06959

- 8 Organization 1 : Prairie Rivers Network, Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club, American Bottom Conservancy Commenter 1 : Traci L. Barkley Commenter Type : Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: Because disposal and reuse of toxic coal ash waste has received little to no oversight, we are just beginning to expose the problems resulting from its improper management. For all of the voices shared in this letter, there are likely scores more wondering why they are ill, if their drinking water is safe or what is happening at the industrial site next door. We encourage USEPA to broaden the dialogue and take additional steps to reach members of the public who may hav e information to share or concerns to voice.

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 07002

- 5 Organization 1 : Alabama Environmental Council Commenter 1 : Michael J. Churchman Commenter Type: Advoc acy Group Comment Excerpt Text: Public Knowledge
A greater societal awareness of coal ash and its impacts and danger may help broadcast to people of the nation a better understanding of the effects of coal ash and the ways in which they may be affected. T his could create a “Help thy neighbor” approach where they are on the lookout for potential warning signs that may indicate damage to the environment. Instead of maintaining a quiet front on the matter, advertise how people that are not involved with the c oal ash industry could attempt to combat future environmental damage. With everyone working together, especially under the proposed Subtitle C approach, it may help prevent catastrophic damage as well as raising awareness of the issue at hand.

Response : T his comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Section 1.7

- Support for CCR comments submitted by other commenters specific to ELG coordination issues Total Number of Submissions: 9 Total Number of Comments: 10

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0015

- 9 Organization 1 : PPL Services Corporation Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: In addition to the above comments, PPL supports the comments submitted by the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG), t he Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the Edison Electric Institute (EEI). As described above and in the comments of UWAG, USWAG, EPRI and EEI, PPL believes the proposed BAT for FGD wastewaters, B MPs for surface impoundments, and anti

- circumvention provisions have serious flaws as currently proposed. We urge EPA to conduct additional evaluation of data more reflective of the steam electric power generation in order to develop final ELGs grounded in sound science and operational practicalities. PPL appreciates the

### 78

opportunity to comment on the proposed ELG Rule and coordination with the CCR Rule and we look forward to continued participation in the rulemaking process.


### Response: The Agency acknowledg es and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0016

- 1 Organization 1 : Southern Company Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: Southern Company is a member of the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) and the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) and fully supports the comments of those groups on the Proposed Rule.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0019

- 1 Organization 1 : American Electric Power (AEP) Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: AEP is a member of the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG), the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the Edi son Electric Institute (EEI), the Ohio Utility Group (OUG) and the Association of Electric Companies of Texas (AECT). UWAG, USWAG, EPRI, EEI, OUG and AECT are independently filing comments on this rulemaking. AEP supports those comments and believe that th ey will provide EPA with the necessary technical details to affect rule changes that are warranted.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0023

- 1 Organization 1 : Ameren Missouri Commenter 1 : Co mmenter Type: Electric Utility Company
Comment Excerpt Text: Ameren Missouri is a member of the Electric Power Research Institute, the Edison Electric Institute, the Utility Solid Waste Act Group (USWAG) and the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG), all of whic h are submitting comments on these proposed revisions. We have participated in the development of comments by these industry groups and generally endorse them.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0024

- 1 Organization 1 : Xcel Energy Commenter 1 :

### 79

Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: In addition to our company

- specific comment below, Xcel Energy is a member of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), Electric Power research Institute (EPRI), Utilities Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), and American Coal Ash Association (ACAA). We endorse the comments that USWAG are filing in this docket specific to:
• Harmonization of the ELG proposal with the Subtitle D Pr ime option in the CCR Proposal, where integration is consistent with the goal and directions in RCRA and the Clean Water Act (CWA) as both rules will be regulating the same activity.
• Harmonization of the CCR and ELG rules so existing surface impoundment s are not subject to the specified location restrictions, but rather the same location restrictions as those for existing landfills, along with structural stability requirements for all CCR management units (landfills or surface impoundments), that would e nsure early detection and response to stability issues.
• Elimination of the requirement that CCR management units automatically commence closure on the cessation of receipt of CCR, supports integration of the ELG and CCR where a CCR management unit is

us ed for the management of other specified wastewater under the ELG rulemaking.
• Coordination of timing of implementation between the ELG and CCR rulemaking has to be flexible to allow a facility to understand implications of management of ELG waste stream s and CCRs on its operations and economics associated with capital modifications to meet both rules.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit VIII of the preamble to the rule for a discussion of how EP A harmonized the implementation time frames for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0025

- 1 Organization 1 : Southern Company Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: Southern Company has submitted comments to EPA regarding the 2010 proposed rule for CCRs and will also submit comments to the current ELG proposed rulemaking docket. Southern Company is also a member of the Utilities Solid Waste Activities Group (“USWAG”) and the Utilitie s Water Act Group (“UWAG”) and has assisted in the development of USWAG and UWAG’s comments to this rulemaking. We support the comments submitted to the docket on behalf of USWAG and UWAG.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

C omment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0028

- 1 Organization 1 : Tri

- State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri

- State) Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company
Comment Excerpt Text: Tri

- State is a member of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), which is a member of the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG). Tri

- State is also a member of the Utility Solid Waste

### 80

Activities Group (USWAG). Tri

- State incorporates here by reference the written comments of NRECA, UWAG, and USW AG.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0038

- 1 Organization 1 : Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Trade Association Comment Excerpt Text: We also request that EPA address the concerns raised in our comments and in comments submitted by the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG), Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), individual utilities, and their consultants.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comm ent.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0039

- 1 Organization 1 : Dynegy Inc. (Dynegy) Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: As an initial matter, Dynegy supports the comments filed on the Proposed ELG Rule by the Utility Water Activities Group (UWAG), as well as the comments filed by the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG). Dynegy is an active member in both UWAG and USWAG. Dynegy also supports the comments filed by USWAG and UWAG on the limited reopening of the docket in the CCR rulemaking.
UWAG’s comments on the Proposed ELG Rule demonstrate that, based on a detailed analysis of the costs of additional control technology for existing power plants, the administrative record for the Proposed ELG Rule is no t sufficient to justify imposition of additional controls beyond those required for compliance with the existing ELG limits. EPA is required to consider the cost of compliance (see Clean Water Act § 304(b)(2)(B)) and has a longstanding practice of consider ing cost

- effectiveness in establishing effluent limitations guidelines. As UWAG demonstrates, some of EPA’s proposals cannot be justified as cost

- effective in terms of toxic

- weighted pound

- equivalents (TWPEs) of pollutants removed. Most importantly, Dynegy does not believe that EPA has justified any it of its proposed regulatory options that would prohibit the discharge of bottom ash transport waters or prohibit the discharge of fly ash transport waters. EPA also has not justified applying copper and iron l imits on nonchemical metal cleaning wastewaters.
Dynegy offers the following comments on its specific concerns with the Proposed ELG Rule and to augment the UWAG and USWAG comments.


### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0039

- 11 Organization 1 : Dynegy Inc. (Dynegy) Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text:

### 81

Dynegy supports USWAG’s comments on the need to harmonize the ELG and CCR proposals, as submitted on the l imited reopening of the docket in the CCR rulemaking.



### Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Section 1.8

- General support for coordination of the ELG and CCR rules Total Number of Submissions: 12 Total Number of Comments: 16

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0004

- 1 Organization 1 : Commenter 1 : Anonymous Commenter Type: Anonymous Comment Excerpt Text: Limit the amount of toxic metals that are recklessly dumped into our waterways from dirty power plants. Support the EPA stric test limitations! Four out of five coal plants have no discharge limits and, currently, billions of pounds of toxic metals are dumped into U.S. waterways annually.* Earlier this year, the EPA proposed power plant water pollution standards to begin addressi ng this problem. These standards, known as Effluent Limitation Guidelines, could prevent as little as 470 million or up to 5.3 billion pounds of toxic metals from being released each year. Clean water is a basic human right and we must support the EPA's ef forts to drastically reduce the amount of toxins that coal and other electricity corporations are flushing into our water without repercussion. The comment period is now open and it is critical that we strongly voice our need for safe water. By sending you r comments, we are working together to urge the EPA to enforce strict limits on the pollution entering our water supply.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit VIII of the preamble to the rule for a discussion of how EP A harmonized the implementation time frames for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0009

- 1 Organization 1 : Dominion Resources Services, Inc. Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: We agree with the Agency's conclusion regarding its obligation to integrate the ELG and CCR rules and support its exploration of these two means of integration

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The comme nter is referred to Unit VIII of the preamble to the rule for a discussion of how EP A harmonized the implementation time frames for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0009

- 2 Organization 1 : Dominion Resources Services , Inc. Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text:

### 82

As stated above, both the ELG and CCR proposed rules include requirements for surface impoundments. The Agency has recognized that how facilities decide to modify their operations to be compliant with the ELG rule will determine the requirements necessary in the CCR rule to protect human health and the environment. As an example, if a facility elects to convert from wet sluicing to dry handling of its CCRs and no longer i ntroduce CCRs into the impoundment, then this modification of CCR management should have a corresponding modification to the substantive requirements in the CCR rule. In this example, ceasing the introduction of CCRs into an impoundment will naturally redu ce the risk of potential environmental contamination from the impoundment. We request that this change in risk potential of surface impoundments be reflected in the final CCR rule.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commen ter is referred to Unit VIII of the preamble to the rule for a discussion of how EP A harmonized the implementation time frames for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0016

- 11 Organization 1 : Southern Company Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: Southern operates multiple facilities[Footnote 47: All Southern Company facilities potentially affected by the mentioned proposed rules are owned and operated by the four previously

- named op erating companies and Southern Power. Any reference in these comments to operations or facilities of Southern Company are for convenience only and do not reflect the parent entity’s assets or operational functions.] that will be affected by the final CCR a nd ELG Rules, and it is critical for EPA to integrate the requirements and timelines of the final rules so that industry will be able to make appropriate operational decisions to comply with the final rules.
Southern agrees with EPA that the two rules mus t be coordinated to “minimize the potential for overlapping requirements to avoid imposing any unnecessary burdens on regulated entities and to facilitate implementation and minimize the overall complexity of the regulatory structure....” 78 Fed. Reg. at 34, 441 col. 3.
EPA says it intends to explore two primary means of coordinating the two rules: (1) through coordinating the design of any final substantive CCR ... regulatory requirements, and (2) through coordination of the timing and implementation of final rule requirements to provide facilities with a reasonable timeline for implementation that allows for coordinated planning and protects electricity reliability for consumers.

Id. Southern supports EPA’s suggested means of coordinating the rules. But thos e means may not be sufficient to address many important overlapping concerns between the two rules.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit VIII of the preamble to the rule for a discussion of how EP A harmonized the implementation time frames for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0016

- 3 Organization 1 : Southern Company Commenter 1 :

### 83

Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Other Sections: 15.4 Comment Excerpt Text: Southern further endorses EPA’s goal of ensuring that the implementation deadlines for the ELG and CCR rules are coordinated so that facilities do not have to make compliance decisions without understanding the implications of those decisions for bot h rules.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit VIII of the preamble to the rule for a discussion of how EP A harmonized the implementation time frames for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Com ment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0021

- 12 Organization 1 : The Large Public Power Council (LPPC) Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: LPPC supports the close coordination of the ELG and CCR rules because both rules regulate the s ame waste streams. While LPPC does not prefer the pending CCR rulemaking over the recently House

- passed coal ash legislation, the two issues must be dealt with in concert to avoid overlapping regulations. The CCR rule was proposed in 2010 and has not yet b een finalized. Both the ELG and CCR rules have been in development for a number of years and regulate the same or similar processes at affected facilities. EPA has stated that it would provide the requirements of both programs to facilities before they mak e compliance decisions. It is very important that EPA move forward with this approach, as changes to facilitate compliance should be undertaken in a holistic manner at each source, and will require significant economic decisions.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit VIII of the preamble to the rule for a discussion of how EP A harmonized the implementation time frames for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0022

- 1 Organization 1 : Gypsum Association Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Trade Association Comment Excerpt Text: In the preamble to the Proposed ELG Rule, EPA recognizes the interrelationship between that draft rule and the Proposed CCR Rule and states that it will proceed with the two rules in a coordinated and integrated fashion. The Agency also indicates that it will continue to regulate CCRs as non

- hazardous waste under Subtitle D of RCRA. Insofar as the Agency advances with both rule s, the Gypsum Association encourages the continued concurrent review. The Gypsum Association believes that the Proposed ELG Rule correctly characterizes CCRs as non

- hazardous waste that should continue to be regulated under Subtitle D.

Response: The Age ncy acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is specifically referred to Unit VIII of the preamble to the rule for a discussion of how EP A harmonized the implementation time frames for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EP A

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0022

- 3 Organization 1 : Gypsum Association

### 84

Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Trade Association Comment Excerpt Text: III. THE GYPSUM ASSOCIATION SUPPORTS EPA'S INTENTION TO CONCURRENTLY REVIEW THE PROPOSED ELG RULE AND PROPOSED CCR RULE

EPA acknowledges that there is an interrelationship between the Proposed ELG Rule and the Proposed CCR Rule and the Gypsum Association supports the Agency's stated intent to conduct a coordinated review of the two rules. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 34441. In particula r, EPA states that it intends to "minimize the overall complexity of [ELG and CCR regulations] and facilitate implementation of engineering, financial and permitting activities," consistent with Executive Order 13536, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Re view. Id. It is EPA's goal to "ensure that the two rules work together to effectively address the discharge of pollutants from steam electric generating facilities and the human health and environmental risks associated with the disposal of CCRs, without c reating avoidable or unnecessary burdens." Id. To that end, EPA indicates that it will be focused on coordinating the substantive requirements, timing and implementation of the two proposed rules. Id.
The Gypsum Association supports this regulatory approa ch. EPA correctly acknowledges that while the scope of the two rules differs, there are certain consequences of the Proposed ELG Rule, such as facilities choosing to convert sluicing operations to dry ash

- handling systems and no longer sending such wastes to surface impoundments, that could directly impact technical requirements in the Proposed CCR Rule. 78 Fed. Reg. at 34441

- 42. In addition, new data has been generated in connection with development of the Proposed ELG Rule that could impact the risk asses sment for the Proposed CCR Rule. 78 Fed. Reg. at 34442. Given these important overlaps, it is appropriate for the Agency to see both of these rulemakings to the end before finalizing either proposal in order to ensure there are no unintended consequences, even if such action results in delaying finalization of the rules.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit VIII of the preamble to the rule for a discussion of how EP A harmonized the implementation time frames for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0022

- 8 Organization 1 : Gypsum Association Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Trade Association Comment Excerpt Text: The Gypsum Association appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on EPA's Proposed ELG Rule. The Agency is appropriately conducting this rulemaking in tandem with the Proposed CCR Rule. This concurrent review allows for the correct characterization of CCRs as non

- hazardous waste that should continue to be managed under Subtitle D of RCRA.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0023

- 7 Organization 1 : Ameren Missouri Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: Coordination of the ELG Rule with Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Rulemaking Ameren Missouri

### 85

agrees with EPA's goal of evaluating "how a final RCRA ICCR) rule might be aligned with and structured to account for any final requirements adopted under the ELGs for the Steam Electric Power Generating point source category." (Federal Register, June 7, 2013, Page 34441). We support EPA's evaluation of two primary means of integrating the proposed rules: (1) through coordinating the design of any final substantive CCR regulatory requirements with the final ELG rule, and (2) through coordination of the timing and implementation of final rule requirements "to provide facilities with a reasonable timeline for implementation that allows for coordinated planning and prot ects electricity reliability for consumers." Id.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit VIII of the preamble to the rule for a discussion of how EP A harmonized the implementation time frames for bo th the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0026

- 8 Organization 1 : Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Advocacy Group Comment Excerpt Text: USWAG appreciates EPA opening the CCR rulemaking d ocket for the express purpose of seeking comment on “how any final CCR rule might be aligned and structured to account for any final requirements adopted under the ELGs for the Steam Electric Power Generating point source category.” 78 Fed. Reg. at 34442. USWAG fully agrees with EPA’s goal of evaluating “how a final RCRA [CCR] rule might be aligned with and structured to account for any final requirements adopted under the ELGs for the Steam Electric Power Generating point source category.” Id. at 34441. In deed, EPA has a statutory obligation to harmonize the two rules, as required by RCRA Section 1006(b), which directs the Agency to “integrate all provisions of [RCRA] for purposes of administration and enforcement and shall avoid duplication, to the maximum extent practicable, with the appropriate provisions of . . . the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.” 42 U.S.C § 6905(b).
While EPA must perform such integration consistent with the goal and directives expressed in RCRA and the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), because both rules will be regulating the same activity

— i.e., the placement of CCR in surface impoundments

— EPA must take steps, consistent with RCRA Section 1006(b), to ensure the integration and coordination in the development and implementation of the ru les. EPA also correctly points out that integration of the two rules is directed by Executive Order (“EO”) 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (Jan. 18, 2011), which states that some “sectors and industries face a significant number of regula tory requirements, some of which may be redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping,” and thus directs federal agencies to promote “coordination, simplification, and harmonization.” 78 Fed. Reg. at 34441.
There are few industrial sectors that are coming under as much regulatory scrutiny and control as the electric power industry, especially with respect to coal

- related activities including the generation and management of CCR. Therefore, USWAG is fully supportive of EPA’s exploration of two primary means of in tegrating the proposed rules: (1) through coordinating the design of any final substantive CCR regulatory requirements with the final ELG rule, and (2) through coordination of the timing and implementation of final rule requirements “to provide facilities with a reasonable timeline for implementation that allows for coordinated planning and protects electricity reliability for consumers.” Id.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit

### 86

VIII of the pream ble to the rule for a discussion of how EP A harmonized the implementation time frames for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0027

- 4 Organization 1 : Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: State Government Comment Excerpt Text: The Commonwealth agrees with the proposed integrated approach between the waste and water rules. The Division of Waste Management (DWM) foresees its sister agency, the Division of Water (DOW) working w ith the CCR generator in its KPDES permit renewal implementing these ELGs. The utility will presumably decide whether or not to continue use of surface impoundments, and any date to cease using the surface impoundments for treatment. Once DOW reissues the permit, DWM would review the KPDES permit through its database and communicate with the company and DOW about any pond closures. DWM would then negotiate the closure schedule with the company based on the tier factors, protection of human health and the en vironment and other technical and economic factors.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit VIII of the preamble to the rule for a discussion of how EP A harmonized the implementation time frames for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0028

- 2 Organization 1 : Tri

- State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri

- State) Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: Tri

- State suppo rts the harmonization of the ELG rule with the CCR rule to prevent conflicting regulations addressing legacy wastes in surface impoundments.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit VIII of the preamble to the rule for a discussion of how EP A harmonized the implementation time frames for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0029

- 3 Organization 1 : Midwest Generation, LLC Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Comment Excerpt Text: Midwest Gen supports EPA’s efforts to align the requirements of the CCR rule with the proposed ELGs. Midwest Gen encour ages EPA to continue its regulatory coordination efforts. With careful planning, EPA can reduce the cost and complexity of complying with related and overlapping regulations. Midwest Gen also encourages EPA to focus its surface impoundment BMP efforts on t hose surface impoundments that pose the greatest risk.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit VIII of the preamble to the rule for a discussion of how EP A harmonized the implementation time frames for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

### 87

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0032

- 4 Organization 1 : Siemens Water Technologies LLC (“Siemens”) Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Other Company
Comment Excerpt Text: Moreover, as discussed earlier, such standards should be made to be harmonious with other existing standards such as those under existing NPDES (i.e. TMDL) and RCRA discharge rules and permits

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2013

- 0209

- 0035

- 1 Organization 1 : Minnesota Power (ALLETE) Commenter 1 : Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company Other Sections: 13.3 Comment Excerpt Text: 1. ELG and CCR Rules, Complimentary Regulation. Minnesota Power supports EPA’s intention to develop the final ELG ru le and the pending CCR rules so they complement one

- another and enhance the efficiency of the final regulations (FR page 34441). For example, the ELG and CCR final rules should be consistent:
a. allowing for the ongoing use of impoundments for bottom ash management under either the BPT outcome or the closed loop outcome of the proposed ELG regulation.
b. allowing for the ongoing use of impoundments for FGD wastewaters under any proposed ELG outcome.
c. allowing permit writer discretion for imposing compl imentary and site condition appropriate effective dates for regulation as well as the timing and closure requirements for impoundments.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit VIII of the preamble to the rule for a discussion of how EP A harmonized the implementation time frames for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.