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 were 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 when destined for disposal in landfill 

or surface impoundments. Under the second option, EPA proposed to leave the Bevill 

Determination in place and regulate the disposal of CCR under subtitle D of RCRA by issuing 

minimum national criteria. Both options would 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.gov.

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 impoundments, groundwater 

contamination from the improper management of CCR in landfills and surface impoundments 

and fugitive dust emissions. 

The Agency has developed seventeen volumes of a comment summary and response 

document summarizing comments on major topics 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, only those comments submitted on the proposed subtitle C rule that are also 

applicable to the final rule are addressed in the comment summary and response 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 ELG. 

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 CCRs; 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 hearings.

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 

regulations 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. 

General 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 proposal 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 under subtitle C, as well as opposition to various aspects of the subtitle D 

option. Commenters argued that CCR does 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 management 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 nonhazardous subtitle D waste, as a subtitle C hazardous 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-products 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 states 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 other 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 submitted 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 Act 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.

Requests 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 

that EPA hold additional public hearings, including suggesting additional specific locations.
7

CCR – 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

Organization1:The SEFA Group

Commenter1: 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 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. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-01829-1

Organization1:Coal Boiler Slag Consortium

Commenter1: 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 leadership 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 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. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-02930-1

Organization1:

Commenter1: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 the preamble for a discussion on our decision to regulate CCR under 

subtitle D of RCRA. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-02930-2

Organization1:

Commenter1: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 becoming 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 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-2009-0640-03275-13

Organization1:Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility

Commenter1: 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 ‘race 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 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-2009-0640-03934-2

Organization1:Kentuckians For The Commonwealth (KFTC)

Commenter1: Nancy L. Reinhart

Commenter 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, profitseeking 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 well. 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 the preamble for a discussion on our decision to regulate CCR under 

subtitle D of RCRA. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-04005-4

Organization1:

Commenter1: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. The 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

Organization1:

Commenter1: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

Organization1:Environment Maryland Research & Policy Center

Commenter1: 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

Organization1:

Commenter1: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 is 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 the preamble for a discussion on our decision to regulate CCR under subtitle D of 

RCRA. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-05675-1

Organization1:Waccamaw RIVERKEEPER

Commenter1: 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 acknowledges and appreciates the comment. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-05752-3

Organization1:Foothills Group of the Sierra Club

Commenter1: 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 

proximity 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 regulate CCR under 

subtitle D of RCRA. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-05752-7

Organization1:Foothills Group of the Sierra Club

Commenter1: 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 appreciates the comment. 
11

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-06068-2

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment

Commenter1: 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 considerations 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

Organization1:Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment

Commenter1: 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 their 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 completion. 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

Organization1:Powder River Basin Resource Council

Commenter1: 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 coal-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

Organization1:Powder River Basin Resource Council

Commenter1: 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 Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-06196-3

Organization1:Comite Dialogo Ambiental

Commenter1: Ruth Santiago

Commenter Type: Advocacy Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

Due to the urgent need for adequate regulation 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

Organization1:

Commenter1: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 an 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 residuals. 

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-06349-7

Organization1:

Commenter1:Mollie Freebairn

Commenter Type: Private Citizen

Other Sections: 4.4.7.1 3.7.2 6.1.1

Comment Excerpt Text:

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 evaluate 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 problems 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

Organization1:Waste Management (WM)

Commenter1: 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

Organization1:Waste Management (WM)

Commenter1: 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 federal 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 certainly 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 beneficial 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

Organization1:

Commenter1: Mass Comment 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 detailed discussion of damage cases.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-06554-3

Organization1:

Commenter1: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

Organization1:

Commenter1:Renee Reber

Commenter Type: Private Citizen

Comment Excerpt Text:

The American public cannot afford the associated health risks 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

Organization1:

Commenter1: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.

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-2009-0640-06852-3

Organization1:Green Delaware

Commenter1: 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 agriculture, 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 CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-06852-7

Organization1:Green Delaware

Commenter1: Alan Muller

Commenter Type: Advocacy Group

Other Sections: 7.1

Comment Excerpt Text:

Both state and federal regulatory agencies 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 prompt 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

Organization1:

Commenter1: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 hazardous 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 radioactive 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 EPA 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 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 
16

for CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-08441-4

Organization1:

Commenter1: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 protecting 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 review the technical criteria the Agency is promulgating 

for CCR landfills and CCR surface impoundments.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-08826-10

Organization1:Duquesne University School of Law

Commenter1: 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 nature is relevant. 

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-08826-8

Organization1:Duquesne University School of Law

Commenter1: 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 now 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 countries 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 hazards 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

Organization1:Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC)

Commenter1: 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: 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. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-09510-1

Organization1:

Commenter1: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

Organization1:

Commenter1: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 phase 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 without 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 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. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-09883-5

Organization1:Holland Board of Public Works

Commenter1: 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 forward 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

Organization1:New York Construction Materials Association (NY Materials)

Commenter1: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 IV of the preamble for a discussion of EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under 

subtitle D of RCRA. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-10538-16

Organization1:

Commenter1: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 that protect our health, our communities and our 

future.

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-2009-0640-10538-2

Organization1:

Commenter1: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 the preamble for a discussion of EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under 

subtitle D of RCRA. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-10718_DEN-030-2

Organization1:Rocker Six Cattle Company

Commenter1: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 Colstrip 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 hazardous, 

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 the preamble for a discussion of EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under 

subtitle D of RCRA. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-11150_CHA-137-3

Organization1:League of Women Voters of Columbia, South Carolina

Commenter1: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-range 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 soot 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 addressed 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 the preamble for a discussion of EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under 

subtitle D of RCRA. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-11150_CHA-137-4

Organization1:League of Women Voters of Columbia, South Carolina

Commenter1:Suzanne Rhodes

Commenter Type: Advocacy 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 the preamble for a discussion of 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

Organization1:BMC Aggregates L.C.

Commenter1: 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 

Kingston, 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 classification for CCRs in Landfills and surface 

impoundments.

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-2009-0640-02867-1

Organization1:

Commenter1: 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 driven 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, Tennessee 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 Kingston, 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 all 

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 coal 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 preventive 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, therefore 

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 

impoundments 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 treatment (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 

the 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 should 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, Independent 

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 the preamble for a discussion of EPA’s decision to regulate CCR under 

subtitle D of RCRA. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-02867-4

Organization1:

Commenter1: 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 implement, 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 hazardous 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 barriers 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” designation 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 overcome 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 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. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-03051-2

Organization1:

Commenter1: 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 action 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 the preamble for a discussion on our decision to regulate CCR under 

subtitle D of RCRA. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-06040-1

Organization1:Longview Power, LLC

Commenter1: 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 management 

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 broad 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 acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is 
23

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-2009-0640-06122-4

Organization1:Port Aggregates, Inc.

Commenter1: 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-2009-0640-06362-5

Organization1:

Commenter1: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.

The commenter is also referred to Unit IX of the preamble for a discussion on how EPA expects

states to incorporate the CCR rules into state solid waste management plans. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-06846-1

Organization1:Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)

Commenter1: 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 

December, 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 of 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

Organization1:Gypsum Association

Commenter1: 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 terminology 

used in the Proposed CCR Rule, the Gypsum Association comments uses the term "wallboard" to 

collectively refer to both gypsum board and gypsum panels. The commonality between the board and the 

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 Illinois in 1961, the Gypsum Association membership 

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 manufacture 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 manufacture 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 commonly 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 Association 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 wallboard 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 members 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 the scope of the final rule.

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. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-08246-22

Organization1:Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP on behalf of Kansas City Board of Public Utilities

Commenter1: Parthenia B. Evans and Dennis Lane

Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company

Comment Excerpt Text:

Both factors strongly suggest that the existing regulatory structure adequately protects 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 oversight 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

Organization1:Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP on behalf of Kansas City Board of Public Utilities

Commenter1: 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 35150/1-2. 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 issues, 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 the 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 

preamble 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 surface 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

Organization1:Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP on behalf of Kansas City Board of Public Utilities

Commenter1: 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 unclear 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 

the 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 the 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

Organization1:Horsehead Corportion

Commenter1: 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 ensure 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 regulation as 

hazardous wastes

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-08841-20

Organization1:Deseret Generation and Transmission Co-operative

Commenter1: Howard Vickers

Commenter Type: Electric 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 site, 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 dwelling 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 Bonanza 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

Organization1:Department of Electric, City of Hamilton, Ohio

Commenter1: 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 municipal 

generators. 

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. 
27

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-08857-14

Organization1:Department of Electric, City of Hamilton, Ohio

Commenter1: 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-RCRA-2009-0640-08858-1

Organization1:Cogentrix Energy, LLC

Commenter1: 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 the 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 evidence 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

Organization1:

Commenter1: 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 the preamble for a discussion on our decision to regulate CCR under 

subtitle D of RCRA. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-09827-1

Organization1:Kansas City Board of Public Utilities (BPU)

Commenter1: John Pettey

Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company

Comment Excerpt Text:

The Proposed Rule assumes 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 not 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 such 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 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-2009-0640-09889-4

Organization1:Texas Association of Business

Commenter1: 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 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-2009-0640-10192-2

Organization1:Standard Cements Materials, Inc.

Commenter1: 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 byproduct that a Hazardous Material by your own definition.

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. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-10573-1

Organization1:Arizona Rock Products Association (ARPA)

Commenter1: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

Organization1:Citizens for Clean Power (CCP)
29

Commenter1: 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 public 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 operation 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

Organization1:Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection

Commenter1: 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. 

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 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-2009-0640-04138-9

Organization1:Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection

Commenter1: 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 provide 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 

discussion 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

Organization1:Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection

Commenter1: 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

Organization1:Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection

Commenter1: 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 process 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 

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 

discussion 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-2009-0640-06357-20

Organization1:Kansas City Power & Light Company

Commenter1: Paul M. Ling

Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company

Comment Excerpt Text:

By proposing multiple approaches, EPA has substantially complicated the rulemaking 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 identified 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

Organization1:Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)

Commenter1: 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-prime, 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 release 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 

discussion 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

Organization1:Prairie State Generating Company, LLC (PSGC)

Commenter1: 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 addressed 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

Organization1:Prairie State Generating Company, LLC (PSGC)

Commenter1: 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 addressed 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

Organization1:Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection

Commenter1: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 rulemaking 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 withdraw 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 Subtitle 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 commenter is 

referred to Unit IV of the 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

Organization1:Sierra Club Oklahoma

Commenter1: 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 company 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. Instead, 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. Thirteen 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

Organization1:Sierra Club Oklahoma

Commenter1: 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 in 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 Bokoshe 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, they 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 owners 

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 drive 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 families 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 sameage 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

Organization1:

Commenter1: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 Management 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 

referred to Unit XI of the preamble supporting this rule for a discussion of damage cases 

involving CCR.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-06849-4

Organization1:Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO)

Commenter1: Keith Harley

Commenter 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 air. 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 waste, 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 is 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

Organization1:Heart of Illinois Group Sierra Club

Commenter1: 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 reside 

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 contamination 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 health 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 long-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 information 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 include 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 doing 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 health 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 heavy 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

Organization1:Prairie Rivers Network, Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club, American Bottom 

Conservancy

Commenter1: 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 other 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 Havana 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, and 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 prevention 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 regular attention to controlling it. Wild life is prevalent inside 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 cannoned 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

Organization1:Prairie Rivers Network, Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club, American Bottom 

Conservancy

Commenter1: 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 county. 

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 when 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 runoff 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 enforceable 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 preamble supporting this rule for a discussion of damage cases 

involving CCR.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-06959-5

Organization1:Prairie Rivers Network, Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club, American Bottom 

Conservancy

Commenter1: 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 impacted 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 neighboring 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 county 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 story 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 construction 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, and 

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 garden, 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 sampling 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 impoundment 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 finished 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 residents 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 them 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 cars 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 

station 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 that 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 Illinois 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 Sclerosis (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 seeping 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 elderly 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 concentrations 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 Groundwater 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 pasture. 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 Southern 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 neighbors 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 living 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 this 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 rights 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 thinks 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

Organization1:Citizens Against Ruining the Environment

Commenter1: Ellen Rendulich and Sandy Burcenski

Commenter Type: Advocacy Group

Other Sections: 7.1

Comment Excerpt Text:

We have two polluting 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

There is an unlined coal ash landfill known as Lincoln Stone Quarry also owned by Midwest Generation 

who has been dumping coal ash and slag 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 contaminates 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” from 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 protect 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 IEPA 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

Organization1:Citizens Against Ruining the Environment

Commenter1: 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 Citizens 

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 preamble supporting this rule for a discussion of damage cases 

involving CCR.
41

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-08017-1

Organization1:

Commenter1: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 wherever 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 water 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 supporting this rule for a discussion of damage cases 

involving CCR.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-08260-3

Organization1:Citizens Against Ruining the Environment (C.A.R.E.)

Commenter1: Carol Stark et al.

Commenter Type: Advocacy Group

Comment Excerpt 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 exists 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

Organization1:

Commenter1: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

Organization1:South Carolina Wildlife Federation (SCWF)

Commenter1: 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 appreciates 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

Organization1:

Commenter1: 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 comment. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-10077-2

Organization1:

Commenter1: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 the 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 agencies.

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 
43

of the beneficial use aspects of the rule. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-11337_P-050-1

Organization1:

Commenter1:Steven W. Smith

Commenter Type: Private Citizen

Other Sections: 6.1.1 6.1.2

Comment Excerpt Text:

I have watched 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 to 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 cesspool 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 lake’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 the 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 install 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

Organization1:We Energies (WE)

Commenter1: 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 practices. 

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 stigma 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 

rulemaking 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 use 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 believe 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 docket 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 comments 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

Organization1:Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Commenter1: 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 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.

Response: This comment is no longer relevant.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-03936-1

Organization1:Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO)

Commenter1: Mary T. Zdanowicz

Commenter Type: State Government

Comment Excerpt 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

Organization1:Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO)

Commenter1: 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 significant 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

Organization1:Environmental Council of the States (ECOS)

Commenter1: 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

Organization1:

Commenter1: 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

Organization1:Garrett & Moore, Inc.

Commenter1: 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 hazardous 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 challenges, 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 available 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 Subtitle 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 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-2009-0640-06424-3

Organization1:Garrett & Moore, Inc.

Commenter1: 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 solid 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 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.
47

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-06832-20

Organization1:SCANA Corporation

Commenter1: 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 the preamble for a discussion on our decision to regulate CCR under 

subtitle D of RCRA. 

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-06832-21

Organization1:SCANA Corporation

Commenter1: 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 referred 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

Organization1:Alpha Natural Resources

Commenter1: 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. This issue is too important and the potential risks and costs too massive to limit arbitrarily EPA's 

evaluation of its action.

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

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-09806-12

Organization1:Washington State Department of Transportation

Commenter1: 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-10134-1

Organization1:Tennessee Concrete Association (TCA)

Commenter1: Alan Sparkman

Commenter Type: Trade Association

Comment Excerpt Text:

First, it is the position 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392-0141-1

Organization1:American Electric Power (AEP)

Commenter1: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 believe 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 judicial 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 

decision 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 interfere 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 in 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 commenting on the data contained 

in this important document.

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

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392-0143-1

Organization1:Sunflower Electric Power Corporation (SEPC)

Commenter1: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 prepare 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, ultimately 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 not 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 interfere 

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 preparing commenting on the 

data contained in this important document

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

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392-0150-1

Organization1:Ameren Corporation

Commenter1:Paul Pike

Commenter Type: Electric Utility 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 

recycling. 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 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 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.

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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392-0164-1

Organization1:Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc.

Commenter1:James Vick

Commenter Type: Trade Association

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-eight (28) investor-owned, municipally-owned, and 

cooperatively-owned electric utilities engaged in the business 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 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 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 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 that 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 extension 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 effort 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 public 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 the 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.

Additionally, 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 disposal" 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 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 data contained in the NODA

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

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392-0238-1

Organization1:Southern Company

Commenter1: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 EPA’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. 

[Footnote 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-specific issues or concerns. EPA is under no 

deadline.

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

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392-0240-1

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.

Commenter1:Barbara Walz

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 proposed 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 provided 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 

believes 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 EPA. 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 comment 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392-0241-1

Organization1:Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric)

Commenter1: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 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.

Basin Electric also reaffirms its previous comments, submitted on November 10, 2010. (Copy attached.) 

Basin Electric wants to ensure all pertinent information is considered in this important decision.

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

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392-0262-1

Organization1:Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc.

Commenter1: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. However, 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

Response: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.
54

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392-0279-4

Organization1:Associated General Contractors of America (AGC)

Commenter1: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, data 

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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392-0290-1

Organization1:Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. on behalf of Interstate Power and Light Company 

and Wisconsin Power and Light Company

Commenter1: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 

data. 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 are based on a review of selected portions of the NODA, 

and are general in nature

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

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0022-1

Organization1:Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG)

Commenter1: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 Institute (“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 of 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 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 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 

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 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 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 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 

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 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 

importantly, 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 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. Assessing and developing the most useful responses for EPA will require 

the input 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 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 
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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0023-1

Organization1:Duke Energy Corporation (Duke Energy)

Commenter1: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 of 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 period 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 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. 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 engineering 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 technically 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 meaningful opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA

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

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0026-1

Organization1:American Coal Ash Association (ACAA)

Commenter1:

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 Jackson 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0027-1

Organization1:American Electric Power (AEP)

Commenter1: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 commenters 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 ponds, 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 other 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0028-1

Organization1:Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. Environmental Committee (FCG)

Commenter1:Michael Petrovich

Commenter Type: Trade Association

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 business 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. 

Environmental 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 Solid 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, 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 has 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 

proposed 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 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 time. 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 the NODA

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

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0029-1

Organization1:Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP)

Commenter1:Kara Montalvo

Commenter Type: Electric Utility 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 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 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 assessment. 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 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, SRP believes 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0030-1

Organization1:Entergy Services, Inc.

Commenter1: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 electric 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 million 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 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.

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 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 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 
60

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. 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0031-1

Organization1:LG&E and KU Energy, LLC.

Commenter1: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 Data 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 time 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 possible 

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 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 

material 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 significantly 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 that 

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 have 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 standards 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 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 storage units. Assessing and developing the most useful responses for the EPA 

will require the input 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0032-1

Organization1:Dominion

Commenter1: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, 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 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 comments. 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.
62

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0033-1

Organization1:We Energies

Commenter1: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 CCR 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 revisions 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 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 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 

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 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 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, and comment on the NODA

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

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0034-1

Organization1:Ameren Energy Resources Company, L.L.C.

Commenter1:Paul Pike

Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company

Comment 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 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.
63

Ameren Energy Resources Company, L.L.C. is based in Collinsville, 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 decision.

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 landfills 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 overfill 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 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0035-1

Organization1:SCANA Corporation (SCANA)

Commenter1: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-burning 

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 CCRs 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 of 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0036-1

Organization1:Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Commenter1: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 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 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 

proposed 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 or 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 options 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0037-1

Organization1:Xcel Energy
65

Commenter1: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 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 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 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 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 downgradient 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, Xcel Energy believes that the interest of the public, 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, 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0038-1

Organization1:National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)

Commenter1:Dorothy Kellogg

Commenter Type: Trade Association

Comment Excerpt Text:

On behalf of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) and the more than 900 notfor-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 combustion 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 contained 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 have 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 

connections 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 completing 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 receives 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0039-1

Organization1:Arizona Public Service Company (APS)

Commenter1: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 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 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 units, better defining what constitutes “large scale fills,” and developing 
67

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. 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0041-1

Organization1:PPL Generation, LLC

Commenter1: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 to 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 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 

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 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 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 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 

where 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 address. 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 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 

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 responses for EPA will require 

the input 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, PPL Generation 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0042-1

Organization1:PowerSouth Energy Cooperative (PowerSouth)

Commenter1: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 rural 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 are 

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 comment 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 Analysis (“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 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 
69

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.

PowerSouth believes that the interests of the public, EPA and the regulated 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 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0043-1

Organization1:Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO)

Commenter1:Kelly Carmichael

Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company

Comment Excerpt Text:

Northern Indiana Public Service Company (“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 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 

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 businesses 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 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 not 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 interfere 

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. 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

Response: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.
70

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0044-1

Organization1:Southern Company

Commenter1: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 byproducts (“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 comments 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 EPA 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, that 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 

contains 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 percentage 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 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 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 issues, 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 importantly, 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 concedes 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 responses 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 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.

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 information 

contained in the NODA

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

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0045-1

Organization1:Dynegy Inc.

Commenter1:Dean Ellis

Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company

Comment Excerpt Text:

Dynegy 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 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.

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 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 water anglers. 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.

EPA also 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. 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 defensible. Extending the comment period by 60-days will afford the public a meaningful 

opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA

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

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0046-1

Organization1:Citizens Coal Council

Commenter1: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 days 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 discussions 

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 these 

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 involved 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0047-1

Organization1:Buckeye Power, Inc.

Commenter1: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 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 
73

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 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 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 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. 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0048-1

Organization1:The Dayton Power and Light Company (DP&L)

Commenter1: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 released 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 in 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 technically 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 potential 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 water 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 key 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 structural 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 afford the 

public a meaningful opportunity to analyze, assess, and comment on the NODA

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

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0049-1

Organization1:Homer City Generation, L. P. (Homer City)

Commenter1: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 by 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 

that 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, Homer 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0050-1

Organization1:Electric Power Generation Association (EPGA)

Commenter1: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 Availability (“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 and 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0028-0105-1

Organization1:CME Engineering LP

Commenter1: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 responses 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 developing 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Section 1.6 - Requests for additional public hearings

Total Number of Submissions: 9

Total Number of Comments: 9

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-03934-1

Organization1:Kentuckians For The Commonwealth (KFTC)

Commenter1: 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: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-05693-2

Organization1:North Carolina House of Representatives

Commenter1: 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 state 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 that 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

Response: This comment is no longer relevant to the final rule.
77

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-06959-8

Organization1:Prairie Rivers Network, Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club, American Bottom 

Conservancy

Commenter1: 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 have information to share or concerns to voice.

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

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-07002-5

Organization1:Alabama Environmental Council

Commenter1: Michael J. Churchman

Commenter Type: Advocacy 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. This 

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 coal 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: This 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

Organization1:PPL Services Corporation

Commenter1:

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), the 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, BMPs 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 acknowledges and appreciates the comment.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0209-0016-1

Organization1:Southern Company

Commenter1:

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

Organization1:American Electric Power (AEP)

Commenter1:

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 Edison 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 they 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

Organization1:Ameren Missouri

Commenter1:

Commenter 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 which 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

Organization1:Xcel Energy

Commenter1:
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 Prime 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 impoundments 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 ensure 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 

used 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 streams 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 EPA harmonized the implementation time frames 

for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0209-0025-1

Organization1:Southern Company

Commenter1:

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 Utilities 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.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0209-0028-1

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri-State)

Commenter1:

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

Organization1:Edison Electric Institute (EEI)

Commenter1:

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 comment.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0209-0039-1

Organization1:Dynegy Inc. (Dynegy)

Commenter1:

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 not 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 considering 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 limits 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

Organization1:Dynegy Inc. (Dynegy)

Commenter1:

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 limited 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

Organization1:

Commenter1: 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 strictest 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 addressing 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 efforts 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 

your 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 EPA harmonized the implementation time frames 

for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0209-0009-1

Organization1:Dominion Resources Services, Inc.

Commenter1:

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 commenter is referred to Unit 

VIII of the preamble to the rule for a discussion of how EPA harmonized the implementation time frames 

for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0209-0009-2

Organization1:Dominion Resources Services, Inc.

Commenter1:

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 introduce 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 reduce 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 commenter is referred to Unit 

VIII of the preamble to the rule for a discussion of how EPA harmonized the implementation time frames 

for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0209-0016-11

Organization1:Southern Company

Commenter1:

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 operating 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 and 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 must 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 those 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 EPA harmonized the implementation time frames 

for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0209-0016-3

Organization1:Southern Company

Commenter1:
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 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 EPA harmonized the implementation time frames 

for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0209-0021-12

Organization1:The Large Public Power Council (LPPC)

Commenter1:

Commenter Type: Advocacy Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

LPPC supports the close coordination of the ELG and CCR rules because both rules regulate the same 

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 been 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 make 

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 EPA harmonized the implementation time frames 

for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0209-0022-1

Organization1:Gypsum Association

Commenter1:

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 rules, 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 Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is specifically 

referred to Unit VIII of the preamble to the rule for a discussion of how EPA harmonized the 

implementation time frames for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0209-0022-3

Organization1:Gypsum Association
84

Commenter1:

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 particular, 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 Review. 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 creating 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 approach. 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 assessment 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 EPA harmonized the implementation time frames 

for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0209-0022-8

Organization1:Gypsum Association

Commenter1:

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

Organization1:Ameren Missouri

Commenter1:

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 protects 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 EPA harmonized the implementation time frames 

for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0209-0026-8

Organization1:Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG)

Commenter1:

Commenter Type: Advocacy Group

Comment Excerpt Text:

USWAG appreciates EPA opening the CCR rulemaking docket 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. Indeed, 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 rules. 

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 regulatory 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 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 protects electricity reliability for consumers.” Id.

Response: The Agency acknowledges and appreciates the comment. The commenter is referred to Unit 
86

VIII of the preamble to the rule for a discussion of how EPA harmonized the implementation time frames 

for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0209-0027-4

Organization1:Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection

Commenter1:

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 with 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 environment 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 EPA harmonized the implementation time frames 

for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0209-0028-2

Organization1:Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. (Tri-State)

Commenter1:

Commenter Type: Electric Utility Company

Comment Excerpt Text:

Tri-State supports 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 EPA harmonized the implementation time frames 

for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0209-0029-3

Organization1:Midwest Generation, LLC

Commenter1:

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 encourages 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 those 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 EPA harmonized the implementation time frames 

for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.
87

Comment Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0209-0032-4

Organization1:Siemens Water Technologies LLC (“Siemens”)

Commenter1:

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

Organization1:Minnesota Power (ALLETE)

Commenter1:

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 rule 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 complimentary 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 EPA harmonized the implementation time frames 

for both the CCR rule and the ELG rule.