Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0054-0267
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2002-11-22T05:00Z

Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
(
EPA
Docket
#
F­
2000­
FF2F­
FFFFF)

Public
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Solid
Waste
Washington,
D.
C.

April
25,
2000
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
64
FR
22820.
April
28,
1999.

2
64
FR
50788.
September
20,
1999.

Introduction
­
1
INTRODUCTION
This
document
presents
a
summary
of
and
response
to
comments
submitted
by
interested
parties
on
EPA's
Report
to
Congress
(
RTC)
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels,
published
in
March
1999.
The
RTC
was
prepared
pursuant
to
Sections
3001(
b)(
3)(
A)(
i)
and
8002(
n)
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA),
which
require
that
EPA
study
certain
large­
volume
wastes
generated
primarily
from
the
combustion
of
coal
or
other
fossil
fuels.
These
fossil
fuel
combustion
(
FFC)
wastes
are
"
special
wastes"
excluded
from
regulation
under
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA,
pending
the
results
of
this
study.
The
March
1999
RTC
represents
Part
2
of
EPA's
study
of
FFC
wastes
and
addresses
the
following
waste
types:

°
Coal
combustion
wastes
(
CCWs)
that
are
comanaged
with
low­
volume
wastes,
wastes
from
the
combustion
of
petroleum
coke,
and
wastes
from
mixtures
of
coal
and
other
fuels
("
coburning")
generated
by
electric
utilities.
°
CCWs,
petroleum
coke
combustion
wastes,
and
wastes
from
coburning
generated
by
non­
utilities.
°
Coal
combustion
wastes,
petroleum
coke
combustion
wastes,
and
wastes
from
coburning
generated
by
facilities
that
employ
fluidized
bed
combustion
(
FBC)
technology.
°
Oil
combustion
wastes
(
OCWs)
generated
by
utilities
and
non­
utilities.
°
Natural
gas
combustion
wastes
generated
by
utilities
and
non­
utilities.

Utility
CCWs
that
are
managed
alone
(
Part
1
wastes)
were
the
subject
of
a
previous
Report
to
Congress
in
1988
and
a
Regulatory
Determination
in
1993
that
concluded
to
retain
the
exemption
for
these
wastes.

The
comment
period
initially
lasted
from
April
28,
1999
through
June
14,
1999.1
EPA
received
65
comment
letters
during
and
immediately
following
this
period.
EPA
also
held
a
public
hearing
on
May
21,
1999.
Nineteen
commenters,
many
of
whom
also
submitted
comment
letters,
presented
testimony
at
this
hearing.
Following
the
initial
comment
period,
the
comment
period
was
reopened
until
September
24,
1999
as
the
result
of
a
court
order
dated
September
2,
1999.2
EPA
received
more
than
100
additional
comment
letters
during
the
reopened
period,
many
of
them
from
the
same
commenters
who
responded
during
the
initial
comment
period.
Table
1
specifically
lists
the
commenters,
along
with
the
codes
that
are
used
to
identify
the
commenters
in
this
document.

The
commenters
included
public
interest
groups
and
private
citizens,
most
of
whom
requested
an
extension
to
the
comment
period.
Public
interest
group
commenters
generally
disagreed
with
the
tentative
conclusions
of
the
RTC.
The
commenters
also
included
utilities;
nonutility
fossil
fuel
combustors;
coal,
oil,
and
gas
interests;
ash
marketers
and
users;
and
trade
associations
representing
these
groups.
They
also
included
academics,
state
regulatory
agencies,
federal
agencies,
state
legislators,
and
a
U.
S.
congressman.
These
commenters
generally
supported
the
tentative
conclusions
of
the
RTC.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
Introduction
­
2
In
preparing
this
document,
EPA
carefully
reviewed
and
summarized
all
of
the
individual
comments.
Next,
comments
were
assigned
a
major
topic
category
and
sub­
category.
Table
2
lists
the
topic
categories
used
in
this
analysis.
The
appendix
to
this
document
is
the
result
of
this
effort.
Specifically,
the
appendix
summarizes
comments,
by
commenter,
with
references
back
to
the
topic
categories
used
here.

The
Agency
then
disaggregated
the
information
contained
in
individual
comment
letters
and
organized
the
verbatim
comments
according
to
category.
In
cases
where
several
commenters
raised
a
similar
issue,
EPA
consolidated
the
comments
into
a
generic
summary,
taking
care
to
ensure
that
every
argument
and
topic
was
fairly
represented.
The
goal
was
to
capture
all
of
the
major
ideas
and
issues
identified
by
commenters
in
a
concise
manner
for
efficiency
of
response.
With
this
in
mind,
comments
are
summarized
in
the
body
of
this
document
by
topic,
followed
by
responses
to
each
issue
under
the
topic
area.
The
summary
and
response
is
followed
by
a
list
of
the
verbatim
comments
from
the
commenters
related
to
that
topic.
Each
verbatim
comment
is
referenced
with
the
commenter
code
so
that
the
individual
commenters
with
issues
in
that
topic
area
may
be
identified.

Table
1:
List
of
Commenters
by
Commenter
Code
Commenter
Code
Commenter
49CAO00058
49
Citizen
Action
Organizations
ACAA00022
American
Coal
Ash
Association
(
initial
comments)

ACAA00276
American
Coal
Ash
Association
(
supplemental
comments)

ACV00307
ACV
Power
Corporation
AEP00060
American
Electric
Power
AES00250
Allegheny
Energy
Supply
AFPA00016,
AFPA00061
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
(
request
for
extension
only)

AIRP00270
Air
Products,
Inc.

ALA00012
American
Lung
Association,
et
al.
(
request
for
extension
only)

ALA00036
American
Lung
Association,
et
al.
(
initial
comments)

ALA00292
American
Lung
Association,
et
al.
(
supplemental
comments)

ALAXXXX
American
Lung
Association,
et
al.
(
additional
supplemental
comments)

AMI00372
Amerikohl
Mining,
Inc.

APSC00043
Arizona
Public
Service
Company
ARIPPA00019
Anthracite
Region
Independent
Power
Producers
Association
(
initial
comments)

ARIPPA00273
Anthracite
Region
Independent
Power
Producers
Association
(
supplemental
comments)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
Table
1:
List
of
Commenters
by
Commenter
Code
Commenter
Code
Commenter
Introduction
­
3
BCHRL0002
Congressman
Boucher
BUCK00333
Buckeye
Forest
Council
BG00063
Bio
Gro
BMT00032
Boral
Material
Technologies
Inc.

CAAM00009
Clean
Air
Alliance
of
Michigan
(
request
for
extension
only)

CAC00014
Clean
Air
Council
(
request
for
extension
only)

CATF00001
Clean
Air
Task
Force
(
request
for
extension
only)

CCC00310
Citizens
Coal
Council
CIBO00052
Council
of
Industrial
Boiler
Owners
(
initial
comments)

CIBO00280
Council
of
Industrial
Boiler
Owners
(
supplemental
comments)

CIN00254
Cinergy
Corporation
CITZ00256
Robert
O.
Tintsman
CITZ00257
Bobby
Atkinson
(
initial
comments)

CITZ00260
Janet
Thorndike
CITZ00261
Samuel
Cook
CITZ00262
David
Charbon
CITZ00263
Eve
Early
CITZ00264
Paul
Goettlich
CITZ00265
Dixie
Wagner
CITZ00267
Nicholas
Noe
CITZ00268
Tom
Rodd
CITZ00271,
CITZ00347
Richard
A.
Stout
CITZ00284
Enid
Sisskin
CITZ00286
Rebecca
Roth
CITZ00287,
CITZ00288
Steve
Oaks
CITZ00289
Teri
Blanton
CITZ00290
Elizabeth
Cauvel
CITZ00291
Elizabeth
Fine
CITZ00303
Arthur
Edelstein
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
Table
1:
List
of
Commenters
by
Commenter
Code
Commenter
Code
Commenter
Introduction
­
4
CITZ00304
Gregory
Buck
CITZ00311
Stephen
Jr.
and
Patricia
Hall
CITZ00312
Mary
Ealine
Lefler
CITZ00313
Kenneth
Mann
CITZ00314
Jeff
Jarrett
CITZ00315
John
M.
Morgan
CITZ00316
Jack
Jarrett
CITZ00317
Gary
Alvah
Eck,
P.
E.

CITZ00318
Paul
Lefler
CITZ00319
Kenneth
W.
Page
CITZ00320
Daniel
Lefler
CITZ00321
Ricki
Smith
Newman
CITZ00322
Karl
Halwes
CITZ00323
Rader
Hoffman
CITZ00324
Alpha
Beckett
CITZ00325
Richard
P.
Lefler
CITZ00326
Al
Tinsley
CITZ00327
Dana
Nixon
CITZ00328
William
A.
Miller
CITZ00329
Ronald
F.
Clark
CITZ00330
Marietta
Smith
CITZ00331
Thomas
Mosley
CITZ00335
Kathy
Van
Dame
CITZ00336
Randy
and
Mary
Netzley
CITZ00337
Dianne
Burnham
CITZ00338
David
Scott
Coker
CITZ00339
Valerie
J.
West
CITZ00340
Judy
Page
CITZ00341
John
Ciresi
CITZ00342
David
Helm
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
Table
1:
List
of
Commenters
by
Commenter
Code
Commenter
Code
Commenter
Introduction
­
5
CITZ00343
Benjamin
E.
Saller
CITZ00344
Lauren
M.
Carling
CITZ00345
Bobby
L.
Atkinson
(
additional
comments)

CITZ00346
Doyle
Coakley
CITZ00348
Larry
E.
Wira,
Sr.

CITZ00349
Thomas
and
Sandra
Tokarski
CITZ00350
Unknown
CITZ00351
Susan
Vonderheide
CITZ00352
Nancy
Gehlhausen
CITZ00353
Anita
Besing
CITZ00354
David
E.
and
Dorothy
French
CITZ00355
Mare
W.
Waller
CITZ00356
Ruth
Page
CITZ00357
Elaine
Waller
CITZ00358
Sarah
Elizabeth
Frey
CITZ00360
John
F.
Gurnitz
CITZ00361
Jody
Gurnitz
CITZ00362
Ethel
Zink
CITZ00363
Linda
Dively
CITZ00364
Travis
Pinkston
CITZ00365
Julia
Gurnitz
CITZ00366
Scott
Pinkston
CITZ00367
Perry
Dively
CITZL0008
Larry
D.
Brown
CITZL0011
Alice
Bostwick
CITZL0013
Vivian
Stockman
CITZL0015
David
Cole
DCCC00359
Bernard
Reilly,
Dickenson
County
Citizens
Committee
DOE00020
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy
DTC00038
Dravo
Technology
Center
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
Table
1:
List
of
Commenters
by
Commenter
Code
Commenter
Code
Commenter
Introduction
­
6
EDF00021
Law
Office
of
David
J.
Lennett
(
representing
the
Environmental
Defense
Fund)

EERC00044
Energy
and
Environmental
Research
Center
EMEAC00010
Eastern
Michigan
Environmental
Action
Council
(
request
for
extension
only)

EPC00255
Ebensburg
Power
Company
EPCAMR00248
Eastern
Pennsylvania
Coalition
for
Abandoned
Mineland
Reclamation
FW00277
Foster
Wheeler
Mt.
Carmel,
Inc.

G&
KL0016
Gallagher
&
Kennedy
G&
L00252
Law
Offices
of
Greco
&
Lander,
P.
C.

GHIL0012
Geo­
Hydro,
Inc.

GPC00297,
GPC00370
Gilberton
Power
Company
HEC00055
Hoosier
Environmental
Council
(
initial
comments)

HEC00056
Hoosier
Environmental
Council
(
additional
comments)

HEC00281,
HEC00332
Hoosier
Environmental
Council
(
supplemental
comments)

HECL0009
Hoosier
Environmental
Council
(
additional
supplemental
comments)

HECL0014
Hoosier
Environmental
Council
(
additional
supplemental
comments)

ICC00269
Indiana
Coal
Council,
Inc.

IDNR00062
Indiana
Department
of
Natural
Resources
IEU00018
Indiana
Electric
Utilities
ILDNR00026
Illinois
Department
of
Natural
Resources
IMCC00027
Interstate
Mining
Compact
Commission
ISG00048
ISG
Resources
IWLA00006
Izaak
Walton
League
of
America
(
request
for
extension
only)

KCC00298
Kerry
Coal
Company
KYC00285
Kentuckians
for
the
Commonwealth
LEAF00005
Legal
Environmental
Assistance
Foundation
(
request
for
extension
only)

LRCAXXXX
Lackawanna
River
Corridor
Association
MCC00051
Mettiki
Coal
Corporation
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
Table
1:
List
of
Commenters
by
Commenter
Code
Commenter
Code
Commenter
Introduction
­
7
MDCAL0001
Maryland
Coal
Association
MDE00047
Maryland
Department
of
the
Environment
NCCLP00282,
NCCLP00371
National
Citizens
Coal
Law
Project
NCE00031
New
Century
Energies
NCSEA00334
Richard
Karkrader,
North
Carolina
Solar
Energy
Association
NMA00013
National
Mining
Association
(
request
for
extension
only)

NMA00024
National
Mining
Association
(
initial
comments)

NMA00272
National
Mining
Association
(
supplemental
comments)

NPCA00259
Don
Barger,
National
Parks
and
Conservation
Association
NRCM00004
Natural
Resources
Council
of
Maine
(
request
for
extension
only)

NSP00057
Northern
States
Power
Company
NVIC00039
N­
Viro
International
Corporation
OA00011
Ozone
Acton
(
request
for
extension
only)

ODOD00017
Ohio
Department
of
Development
(
initial
comments)

ODOD00054
Ohio
Department
of
Development
(
additional
comments)

OHDNR00028
Ohio
Department
of
Natural
Resources
ORBCL0002
Ohio
River
Basin
Commission
OSM00283
U.
S.
Department
of
the
Interior,
Office
of
Surface
Mining
OSU00015
Tartinjit
Butalia,
Ohio
State
University
OSU00046
Warren
A.
Dick,
Ohio
State
University
OVEC00003
Ohio
Valley
Environmental
Coalition
(
request
for
extension
only)

PA00045
Mary
Jo
White,
Pennsylvania
Senate
PA00247
Raphael
Musto,
Pennsylvania
Senate
PA00253
Samuel
H.
Smith,
Pennsylvania
House
of
Representatives
PA00293
Pennsylvania
Joint
Legislative
Air
&
Water
Pollution
Control
&
Conservation
Commission
PA00296
Carole
Rubley,
Pennsylavnia
House
of
Representatives
PA00300
John
N.
Wozniak,
Pennsylvania
Senate
PA00301
J.
Barry
Stout,
Pennsylvania
Senate
PA00302
Edward
W.
Helfrick,
Pennsylvania
Senate
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
Table
1:
List
of
Commenters
by
Commenter
Code
Commenter
Code
Commenter
Introduction
­
8
PA00305
Jennifer
L.
Mann,
Pennsylvania
House
of
Representatives
PA00368
Julie
Harhart,
Pennsylvania
House
of
Representatives
PAL0004
Charles
W.
Dent,
Pennsylvania
Senate
PAC00029
Pennsylvania
Anthracite
Council
PADEP00025
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
initial
comments)

PADEP00246
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
supplemental
comments)

PAEC00251
Pennsylvania
Environmental
Council
PAL0001
Pennsylvania
State
Senate
Environmental
Resources
and
Energy
Committee
PMRABL0003
Pennsylvania
Mining
and
Reclamation
Advisory
Board
PCA00034
Pennsylvania
Coal
Association
PCCL0007
Pennsylvania
Coal
Caucus
PCLP00249
Piney
Creek
LP
PEACE00306
Protect
Environment
and
Children
Everywhere
PG&
E00023
PG&
E
Generating
(
initial
comments)

PG&
E00274
PG&
E
Generating
(
supplemental
comments)

PHS001
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council
(
public
hearing
statement)

PHS002
Clean
Air
Network
(
public
hearing
statement)

PHS003
Clean
Air
Task
Force
(
public
hearing
statement)

PHS004
Council
of
Industial
Boiler
Owners
(
public
hearing
statement)

PHS005
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
(
public
hearing
statement)

PHS006
Detroit
Edison
and
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
(
public
hearing
statement)

PHS007
American
Coal
Ash
Association
(
public
hearing
statement)

PHS008
Florida
Power
and
Light
(
public
hearing
statement)

PHS009
Northern
States
Power
Company
(
public
hearing
statement)

PHS010
Hoosier
Environmental
Council
(
public
hearing
statement)

PHS011
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
(
public
hearing
statement)

PHS012
Barry
E.
Sheetz,
Penn
State
University,
representing
the
Anthracite
Region
Independent
Power
Producers
Association
(
public
hearing
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
Table
1:
List
of
Commenters
by
Commenter
Code
Commenter
Code
Commenter
Introduction
­
9
statement)

PHS013
Pennsylvania
Power
and
Light
and
the
American
Coal
Ash
Association
(
public
hearing
statement)

PHS014
National
Mining
Association
and
Anchor
Energy
(
public
hearing
statement)

PHS015
W.
L.
Daniels,
Virginia
Tech
(
public
hearing
statement)

PHS016
Bradley
Paul,
University
of
Southern
Illinois
(
public
hearing
statement)

PHS017
Indiana
Electric
Association
(
public
hearing
statement)

PHS018
W.
Miller,
University
of
Georgia
(
public
hearing
statement)

PHS019
U.
S.
Generating
Company
(
public
hearing
statement)

POW00369
Protect
Our
Woods
PSU00040
Richard
Stehouwer,
Penn
State
University
PURD00294
Kenneth
J.
Eck,
Purdue
University
RICE00041
H.
C.
Clark,
Rice
University
SAVV00266
Save
the
Valley,
Inc.

SIERRA00278
B.
Hayden,
Hoosier
Chapter,
Sierra
Club
SMC00299
Shamrock
Minerals
Corporation
SOCM00279
Save
Our
Cumberland
Mountains,
Inc.

SCRBL0006
Susquehanna
River
Basin
Commission
SRELXXXX
William
A.
Hopkins,
Savannah
River
Ecology
Laboratory
STR00050
Stream
Restoration
Incorporated
TBCC00035
Thunder
Basin
Coal
Company
TEGI00308
Tractebel
Electric
&
Gas
International
TFEEE00007
Texas
Fund
for
Energy
&
Environmental
Education
(
request
for
extension
only)

TRI00295
Tri­
State
Citizens
Mining
Network
TVA00049
Tennessee
Valley
Authority
TXU00053
TXU
Business
Services
USWAG00037
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
(
initial
comments)

USWAG00275
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
(
supplemental
comments)

VAP00042
Virginia
Power
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
Table
1:
List
of
Commenters
by
Commenter
Code
Commenter
Code
Commenter
Introduction
­
10
VAT00033
W.
L.
Daniels,
Virginia
Tech
VAT00309
Donald
S.
Cherry,
Virginia
Tech
(
initial
comments)

VATL0010
Donald
S.
Cherry,
Virginia
Tech
(
additional
comments)

VW00258
Valley
Watch,
Inc.

WSERC00002
Western
Slope
Environmental
Resource
Council
(
request
for
extension
only)

WVA00059
West
Virginia
Oil
and
Natural
Gas
Association
and
the
Independent
Oil
and
Natural
Gas
Association
of
West
Virginia
WVCAG00008
West
Virginia
Citizen
Action
Group
(
request
for
extension
only)

WVDEPL0003
West
Virginia
Division
of
Environmental
Protection
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
Introduction
­
11
Table
2:
Topic
Categories
I
Coal
Combustion
Wastes
(
including
comanaged
utility
waste,
non­
utility
waste,
and
FBC
waste)

II
Oil
Combustion
Wastes
III
Natural
Gas
Combustion
Wastes
IV
Pyrites
Comanaged
with
Coal
Combustion
Wastes
V
Waste
from
Coburning
VI
Beneficial
Use
VII
Minefill
VIII
Agricultural
Use
IX
Duration
of
Comment
Period
X
Scope
of
the
Exemption
XI
Completeness
of
Report
and
Record
XII
Transparency
of
Report
and
Record
XIII
Waste
Characterization
XIV
Risk
Methodology
in
General
XV
Ground­
water
Risk
Modeling
XVI
Non­
groundwater
Risk
Modeling
XVII
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
XVIII
Risk
Characterization
XIX
Damage
Cases
XX
Adequacy
of
State
Regulations
XXI
Costs
and
Economic
Impacts
XXII
Environmental
Justice
XXIII
Incorporation
by
Reference
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
I
­
1
I.
COAL
COMBUSTION
WASTES
(
includes
comanaged
utility,
non­
utility,
and
FBC
wastes)

EPA
tentatively
concluded
to
retain
the
Bevill
exemption
for
comanaged
utility
coal
combustion
wastes
(
UCCWs),
non­
utility
coal
combustion
wastes,
and
fluidized
bed
combustion
(
FBC)
wastes.
Comments
were
received
on
both
sides
of
this
issue.
Many
industry,
academic,
state,
and
federal
government
commenters
expressed
support
for
the
conclusion.
Some
of
these
commenters
specifically
cited
the
infrequency
of
exceedences
of
the
toxicity
characteristic
as
justification
for
this
conclusion.

Public
interest
group,
academic,
and
citizen
commenters,
on
the
other
hand,
suggested
that
the
recommendation
was
incorrect
or
premature
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
and
requested
that
the
issue
be
reconsidered.
A
number
of
these
commenters
specifically
requested
that
EPA
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
discussed
in
the
Report
to
Congress.
The
specific
reasons
cited
by
these
commenters
for
disagreeing
with
the
recommendation
included
concerns
about
the
completeness
of
the
report
and
record,
the
adequacy
of
the
Agency's
waste
characterization,
the
risks
identified
in
the
Report
to
Congress,
the
adequacy
of
the
risk
assessment
process,
the
adequacy
of
EPA's
consideration
of
damage
cases,
and
the
adequacy
of
existing
state
regulations.
These
specific
concerns
are
summarized
in
greater
detail
under
the
other
topic
areas
covered
by
this
document
Response:
Based
on
our
collection
and
analysis
of
information
reflecting
the
criteria
in
Section
8002(
n)
of
RCRA
that
EPA
must
consider
in
making
today's
regulatory
determination,
materials
developed
in
preparing
the
RTC
and
supportive
background
materials,
existing
state
and
federal
regulations
and
programs
that
affect
the
management
of
coal
combustion
wastes,
and
comments
received
from
the
public
on
the
findings
we
presented
in
the
RTC,
we
have
concluded
the
following:

1.
Beneficial
Uses
To
the
extent
coal
combustion
wastes
are
used
for
beneficial
purposes,
we
believe
they
should
continue
to
remain
exempt
from
being
regulated
as
hazardous
wastes
under
RCRA.
Beneficial
purposes
include
waste
stabilization,
beneficial
construction
applications
(
e.
g.,
cement,
concrete,
brick
and
concrete
products,
road
bed,
structural
fill,
blasting
grit,
wall
board,
insulation,
roofing
materials),
agricultural
applications
(
e.
g.,
as
a
substitute
for
lime)
and
other
applications
(
absorbents,
filter
media,
paints,
plastics
and
metals
manufacture,
snow
and
ice
control,
waste
stabilization).
For
the
reasons
presented
in
section
3
below,
we
are
separately
addressing
the
use
of
coal
combustion
wastes
to
fill
surface
or
underground
mines.
For
beneficial
uses
other
than
minefilling,
we
have
reached
this
decision
because:
(
a)
we
have
not
identified
any
beneficial
uses
that
are
likely
to
present
significant
risks
to
human
health
or
the
environment;
and
(
b)
no
documented
cases
of
damage
to
human
health
or
the
environment
have
been
identified.
Additionally,
we
do
not
want
to
place
any
unnecessary
barriers
on
the
beneficial
use
of
coal
combustion
wastes
so
that
they
can
be
used
in
applications
that
conserve
natural
resources
and
reduce
disposal
costs.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
2
I
­
2
Disposal
can
be
burdensome
and
fails
to
take
advantage
of
beneficial
characteristics
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes.
About
one­
quarter
of
the
coal
combustion
wastes
now
generated
are
diverted
to
beneficial
uses.
Currently,
the
major
beneficial
uses
of
coal
combustion
wastes
include:
construction
(
including
building
products,
road
base
and
sub­
base,
blasting
grit
and
roofing
materials)
accounting
for
approximately
21%;
sludge
and
waste
stabilization
and
acid
neutralization
accounting
for
approximately
3%;
and
agricultural
use
accounting
for
0.1%.
Based
on
our
conclusion
that
these
beneficial
uses
of
coal
combustion
wastes
are
not
likely
to
pose
significant
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment,
we
support
increases
in
these
beneficial
uses
of
coal
combustion
wastes.

Off­
site
uses
in
construction,
including
wallboard,
present
low
risk
due
to
the
coal
combustion
wastes
being
bound
or
encapsulated
in
the
construction
materials
or
because
there
is
low
potential
for
exposure.
Use
in
waste
and
sludge
stabilization
and
in
acid
neutralization
are
either
regulated
(
under
RCRA
for
hazardous
waste
stabilization
or
when
placed
in
municipal
solid
waste
landfills,
or
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
in
the
case
of
municipal
sewage
sludge
or
wastewater
neutralization),
or
appear
to
present
low
risk
due
to
low
exposure
potential.
While
in
the
RTC,
we
expressed
concern
over
risks
presented
by
agricultural
use,
we
now
believe
our
previous
analysis
assumed
unrealistically
high­
end
conditions,
and
that
the
risk,
which
we
now
believe
to
be
on
the
order
of
10­
6,
does
not
warrant
national
regulation
of
coal
combustion
wastes
that
are
used
in
agricultural
applications.

In
the
RTC,
we
were
not
able
to
identify
damage
cases
associated
with
these
types
of
beneficial
uses,
nor
do
we
now
believe
that
these
uses
of
coal
combustion
wastes
present
a
significant
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
While
some
commenters
disagreed
with
our
findings,
no
data
or
other
support
for
the
commenters'
position
was
provided,
nor
was
any
information
provided
to
show
risk
or
damage
associated
with
agricultural
use.
Therefore,
we
conclude
that
none
of
the
beneficial
uses
of
coal
combustion
wastes
listed
above
pose
risks
of
concern.

2.
Disposal
in
landfills
and
surface
impoundments
In
this
section,
we
discuss
available
information
regarding
the
potential
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment
from
the
disposal
of
coal
combustion
wastes
into
landfills
and
impoundments.
In
sum,
our
conclusion
is
these
wastes
can
pose
significant
risks
when
mismanaged
and,
while
significant
improvements
are
being
made
in
waste
management
practices
due
to
increasing
state
oversight,
gaps
in
the
current
regulatory
regime
remain.

We
have
determined
that
the
establishment
of
national
regulations
is
warranted
for
coal
combustion
wastes
when
they
are
disposed
in
landfills
and
surface
impoundments,
because:
(
a)
the
composition
of
these
wastes
has
the
potential
to
present
danger
to
human
health
and
the
environment
under
some
circumstances
and
"
potential"
damage
cases
identified
by
EPA
and
commenters,
while
not
definitively
demonstrating
damage
from
coal
combustion
wastes,
lend
support
to
our
conclusion
that
these
wastes
have
the
potential
to
pose
such
danger;
(
b)
we
have
identified
eleven
cases
of
proven
damage
to
human
health
and
the
environment
by
improper
management
of
these
wastes
when
land
disposed;
(
c)
while
industry
management
practices
have
improved
measurably
in
recent
years,
there
is
sufficient
evidence
these
wastes
are
currently
being
managed
in
a
significant
number
of
landfills
and
surface
impoundments
without
proper
controls
in
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
I
­
3
place,
particularly
in
the
area
of
groundwater
monitoring;
and
(
d)
while
there
have
been
substantive
improvements
in
state
regulatory
programs,
we
have
also
identified
significant
gaps
either
in
states'
regulatory
authorities
or
in
their
exercise
of
existing
authorities.
Moreover,
we
believe
that
the
costs
of
complying
with
regulations
that
specifically
address
these
problems,
while
large
in
absolute
terms,
are
only
a
small
percentage
of
industry
revenues.

When
we
considered
a
tailored
Subtitle
C
regulatory
approach,
we
estimated
the
potential
costs
of
regulation
of
coal
combustion
wastes
(
including
the
utility
coal
combustion
wastes
addressed
in
the
1993
Part
1
determination)
to
be
$
1
billion
per
year.
While
large
in
absolute
terms,
we
estimate
that
these
costs
are
less
than
0.4
percent
of
industry
sales.
Our
preliminary
estimate
of
impact
on
profitability
is
a
function
of
facility
size,
among
other
factors.
For
the
larger
facilities,
we
estimate
that
reported
pre­
tax
profit
margins
of
about
13
percent
may
be
reduced
to
about
11
percent.
For
smaller
facilities,
margins
may
be
reduced
from
about
nine
percent
to
about
seven
percent.

We
identified
that
the
constituents
of
concern
in
these
wastes
are
metals,
particularly
hazardous
metals.
We
further
identified
that
leachate
from
various
large
volume
wastes
generated
at
coal
combustion
facilities
infrequently
exceed
the
hazardous
waste
toxicity
characteristic,
for
one
or
more
of
the
following
metals:
arsenic,
cadmium,
chromium,
lead,
and
mercury.
Additionally,
when
we
compared
waste
leachate
concentrations
for
hazardous
metals
to
their
corresponding
MCLs
(
or
potential
MCLs
in
the
case
of
arsenic),
we
found
that
there
was
a
potential
for
risk
as
a
result
of
arsenic
leaching
from
these
wastes.
The
criteria
we
examined
included
the
existing
arsenic
MCL,
a
lower
health
based
number
presented
in
the
RTC,
and
two
assumed
values
in
between.
We
examined
this
range
of
values
because,
as
explained
earlier
in
this
notice,
EPA
is
in
the
process
of
revising
the
current
MCL
for
arsenic
to
a
lower
value
as
a
result
of
a
detailed
study
of
arsenic
in
drinking
water
and
we
wanted
to
assess
the
likely
range
of
values
that
would
be
under
consideration
by
EPA.
Once
we
have
completed
a
review
of
our
groundwater
model
and
made
necessary
changes,
we
will
reevaluate
the
potential
risks
from
metals
in
coal
combustion
wastes
and
compare
any
projected
groundwater
contamination
to
the
MCLs
that
exist
at
that
time.

We
also
identified
situations
where
the
improper
management
of
mill
rejects,
a
low
volume
and
uniquely
associated
waste,
with
high
volume
coal
combustion
wastes
has
the
potential
to
cause
releases
of
higher
quantities
of
hazardous
metals.
When
these
wastes
are
improperly
managed,
the
mill
rejects
can
create
an
acidic
environment
which
enhances
leachability
and
can
lead
to
the
release
of
hazardous
metals
in
high
concentrations
from
the
co­
managed
wastes
to
ground
water
or
surface
waters.
Thus,
our
analysis
of
the
characteristics
of
coal
combustion
wastes
leads
us
to
conclude
that
these
wastes
have
the
potential
to
pose
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
We
also
plan
to
address
such
waste
management
practices
in
our
subsequent
rulemaking.

Additionally,
we
identified
11
proven
damage
cases
that
documented
disposal
of
coal
combustion
wastes
in
unlined
landfills
or
surface
impoundments
that
involved
exceedences
of
primary
MCLs
or
other
health­
based
standards
in
ground
water
or
drinking
water
wells.
Three
of
the
proven
damage
cases
were
on
the
EPA
Superfund
National
Priorities
List.
Although
these
damage
cases
indicate
that
coal
combustion
wastes
can
present
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment,
they
also
show
the
effectiveness
of
states'
responses
when
damages
were
identified.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
4
I
­
4
All
of
the
sites
were
at
older,
unlined
units,
with
disposal
occurring
prior
to
1993.
None
of
these
cases
involved
actual
human
exposure.
Given
the
large
number
of
facilities
that
do
not
now
conduct
groundwater
monitoring,
we
have
a
concern
that
additional
cases
of
damage
may
be
undetected.

As
detailed
in
the
RTC
and
explained
earlier
in
this
notice,
we
identified
that
the
states
and
affected
industry
have
made
considerable
progress
in
recent
years
toward
more
effective
management
of
coal
combustion
wastes.
We
also
identified
that
the
ability
for
most
states
to
impose
specific
regulatory
controls
for
coal
combustion
wastes
has
increased
almost
three­
fold
over
the
past
15
years.
Forty­
three
states
can
now
impose
a
liner
requirements
at
landfills
whereas
15
years
ago,
11
had
the
same
authority.
In
addition
to
regulatory
permits,
the
majority
of
states
now
have
authority
to
require
siting
controls,
liners,
leachate
collection,
groundwater
monitoring,
closure
controls,
and
other
controls
and
requirements
for
surface
impoundments
and
landfills.

Nonetheless,
we
have
concluded
that
there
are
still
gaps
in
the
actual
application
of
these
controls
and
requirements,
particularly
for
surface
impoundments.
While
most
states
now
have
the
appropriate
authorities
and
regulations
to
require
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
that
would
reduce
or
minimize
the
risks
that
we
have
identified,
we
have
also
identified
numerous
situations
where
these
controls
are
not
being
applied.
For
example,
only
26
percent
of
utility
surface
impoundments
and
57
percent
of
utility
landfills
have
liner
systems
in
place.
We
have
insufficient
information
to
determine
whether
the
use
of
these
controls
is
significantly
different
for
non­
utility
disposal
units,
due
to
a
small
sample
size.

While
many
of
these
unlined
units
may
be
subject
to
grandfathering
provisions
that
allow
them
to
continue
to
operate
without
being
lined,
or
may
not
need
to
be
lined
due
to
sitespecific
conditions,
we
are
especially
concerned
that
a
substantial
number
of
units
do
not
employ
groundwater
monitoring
to
ensure
that
if
significant
releases
occur
from
these
unlined
units,
they
will
be
detected
and
controlled.
In
1995,
groundwater
was
monitored
at
only
38
percent
of
utility
surface
impoundments.
While
monitoring
is
more
frequent
at
landfills,
there
are
still
many
units
at
which
releases
of
hazardous
metals
could
go
undetected.
For
example,
of
the
approximately
300
utility
landfills,
45
newer
landfills
(
15
%)
do
not
monitor
ground
water.
We
are
concerned
that
undetected
releases
could
cause
exceedences
of
drinking
water
or
other
health­
based
standards
that
may
threaten
public
health
or
groundwater
and
surface
water
resources.
Thus,
we
conclude
that
national
regulations
would
lead
to
substantial
improvements
in
the
management
of
coal
combustion
wastes.

3.
Minefilling
We
have
determined
that
the
establishment
of
national
regulations
is
warranted
for
coal
combustion
wastes
when
they
are
placed
in
surface
or
underground
mines
because:
(
a)
we
find
that
these
wastes
when
minefilled
have
the
potential
to
present
a
danger
to
human
health
and
the
environment,
(
b)
minefilling
of
these
wastes
has
been
an
expanding
practice
and
there
are
few
states
that
currently
operate
comprehensive
programs
that
specifically
address
the
unique
circumstances
of
minefilling,
making
it
more
likely
that
any
damage
to
human
health
or
the
environment
would
go
unnoticed
or
unaddressed,
and
(
c)
we
believe
that
the
cost
of
complying
with
regulations
that
address
these
potential
dangers
may
not
have
a
substantial
impact
on
this
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
5
I
­
5
practice
because
minefilling
continues
to
grow
in
those
few
states
that
already
have
comprehensive
programs.

We
recognize
that
at
this
time,
we
cannot
quantify
the
nature
of
damage
that
may
be
occurring
or
may
occur
in
the
future
as
a
result
of
using
coal
combustion
wastes
as
minefill.
It
is
often
impossible
to
determine
if
existing
groundwater
quality
has
been
impacted
by
previous
mining
operations
or
as
a
result
of
releases
of
hazardous
constituents
from
the
coal
combustion
wastes
used
in
minefilling
applications.
We
have
not
as
yet
identified
proven
damage
cases
resulting
from
the
use
of
coal
combustion
wastes
for
minefilling.

We
also
acknowledge
that
when
the
complexities
related
to
site­
specific
geology,
hydrology,
waste
chemistry
and
interactions
with
the
surrounding
matrix,
and
other
relevant
factors
are
properly
taken
into
account,
coal
combustion
wastes
used
as
minefill
can
provide
significant
benefits.
However,
when
not
done
properly,
minefilling
has
the
potential
to
contaminate
ground
water
to
levels
that
could
damage
human
health
and
the
environment.
Based
on
materials
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period,
coal
combustion
wastes
used
as
minefill
can
lead
to
increases
in
hazardous
metals
released
into
ground
water
if
the
acidity
within
the
mine
overwhelms
the
capacity
of
the
coal
combustion
wastes
to
neutralize
the
acidic
conditions.
This
is
due
to
the
increased
leaching
of
hazardous
metals
from
the
wastes.
The
potential
for
this
to
occur
is
further
supported
by
data
showing
that
management
of
coal
combustion
wastes
in
the
presence
of
acid­
generating
pyritic
wastes
has
caused
metals
to
leach
from
the
combustion
wastes
at
much
higher
levels
than
are
predicted
by
leach
test
data
for
coal
combustion
wastes
when
strongly
acidic
conditions
are
not
present.
Such
strongly
acidic
conditions
often
exist
at
mining
sites.

Although
we
have
identified
no
damage
cases
involving
minefilling,
we
are
also
aware
of
situations
where
coal
combustion
wastes
are
being
placed
in
direct
contact
with
ground
water
in
both
surface
and
underground
mines.
We
concluded
in
our
recent
study
of
cement
kiln
dust
management
practices
that
placement
of
cement
kiln
dust
in
direct
contact
with
ground
water
led
to
a
substantially
greater
release
of
hazardous
metals
than
we
predicted
would
occur
when
the
waste
was
placed
above
the
water
table.
For
this
reason,
we
find
that
there
is
a
potential
for
increased
releases
of
hazardous
metals
as
a
result
of
placing
coal
combustion
wastes
in
direct
contact
with
groundwater.
Also,
there
are
damage
cases
associated
with
coal
combustion
wastes
in
landfills.
The
Agency
believes
it
is
reasonable
to
be
concerned
when
similar
quantities
of
coal
combustion
wastes
are
placed
in
mines,
which
often
are
not
engineered
disposal
units
and
in
some
cases
involve
direct
placement
of
wastes
into
direct
contact
with
ground
water.

We
are
concerned
that
government
oversight
is
necessary
to
ensure
that
minefilling
is
done
appropriately
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment,
particularly
since
minefilling
is
a
recent,
but
rapidly
expanding
use
of
coal
combustion
wastes.
Government
oversight
has
not
yet
"
caught
up"
with
the
practice
consistently
across
the
country.
There
are
some
states
that
have
programs
that
specifically
address
minefilling
practices.
We
are
likely
to
find
that
their
programs
or
certain
elements
of
their
programs
could
serve
as
the
basis
for
a
comprehensive,
flexible
set
of
national
management
standards
that
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
We
also
believe
that
these
state
programs
will
provide
valuable
experience
in
coordinating
with
SMCRA
program
requirements.
However,
at
this
time,
few
of
the
programs
are
comprehensive.
Commenters
pointed
out,
and
we
agree,
there
are
significant
gaps
in
other
states.
We
believe
that
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
6
I
­
6
additional
requirements
for
long­
term
groundwater
monitoring,
and
controls
on
wastes
placed
directly
into
groundwater
might
be
prudent.

Fluidized
Bed
Combustion
Wastes:
In
response
to
issues
raised
concerning
fluidized
bed
combustion
(
FBC)
waste,
these
wastes
are
covered
by
the
determination
for
coal
combustion
ash
because
these
wastes
are
substantially
similar
to
coal
combustion
wastes
that
result
from
conventional
combustion
technologies.
A
comparison
of
FBC
data
to
other
co­
managed
coal
combustion
wastes
is
presented
in
the
following
table.
FBC
data
in
the
coal
burner
data
base
influenced
our
decision
as
much
as
conventional
coal
burner
data.

In
response
to
a
comment
urging
EPA
to
designate
FFC
wastes
covered
by
the
Part
1
decision
as
hazardous,
we
believe
that
these
wastes
are
substantially
similar
to
the
wastes
covered
by
today's
determination
and
therefore
do
not
warrant
Subtitle
C
regulation.
However,
we
intend
that
the
national
regulations
we
develop
for
coal
combustion
wastes
managed
in
landfills
and
surface
impoundments
and
used
for
minefilling
will
also
be
applicable
to
those
wastes
covered
by
the
Part
1
determination,
so
that
all
coal
combustion
wastes
are
consistently
regulated
for
placement
in
landfills,
surface
impoundments,
and
minefills,
for
the
following
reasons:

(
1)
The
co­
managed
coal
combustion
wastes
that
we
studied
extensively
in
making
today's
regulatory
determination
derive
their
characteristics
largely
from
these
largevolume
wastes
and
not
from
the
other
wastes
that
are
co­
managed
with
them.
(
2)
We
believe
that
the
risks
posed
by
the
co­
managed
coal
combustion
wastes
result
principally
from
the
large­
volume
wastes.
(
3)
These
large­
volume
wastes,
on
a
dry
basis,
account
for
over
95%
of
coal
combustion
wastes
Comparison
of
Facility
Average
Leachate
Concentrations
Fluidized
Bed
Combustion
Waste
versus
Conventional
Coal
Combustion
Waste
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
7
I
­
7
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
8
I
­
8
I.
COAL
COMBUSTION
WASTES
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
EPA
Administrator
and
her
staff
are
to
be
commended
for
the
comprehensive
evaluation
that
has
already
taken
place
with
respect
to
many
of
the
issues
addressed
n
the
Phase
II
Report.
IEU
supports
the
EPA
tentative
conclusions
that
coal­
fired
utility
co­
managed
wastes
should
remain
exempt
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulation.
(
IEU00018)

ARIPPA
supports
the
tentative
conclusion
of
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
to
retain
the
exemption
for
disposal
of
co­
managed
and
co­
burning
coal
combustion
waste
at
utilities;
coal
combustion
wastes
at
non­
utilities;
petroleum
coke
combustion
waste;
and
for
fluidized
combustion
waste.
ARIPPA
recommends
that
EPA
continue
to
retain
exemptions.
(
ARIPP00019)

Based
on
our
analyses
and
research
of
the
issue,
DOE
supports
maintaining
the
Bevill
exemption
for
all
fossil
fuel
combustion
(
FFC)
wastes.
(
DOE00020)

PG&
E
Gen
supports
EPA's
preliminary
determination
to
retain
the
hazardous
waste
exemption
for:
°
fluidized
bed
combustion
wastes;
°
co­
management
of
coal
ash
and
coal
pile
runoff,
boiler
blowdown,
cooling
tower
blowdown
and
sludge,
regeneration
waste
streams,
air
heater
and
precipitator
wash
water,
boiler
chemical
cleaning
wastes,
floor
and
yard
drains/
slumps,
laboratory
wastes,
wastewater
treatment
sludge;
(
PG&
E00023)

NMA
supports
EPA's
tentative
conclusion
that
disposal
of
these
wastes
should
remain
exempt
from
RCRA
regulation.
NMA
urges
EPA
to
adopt
his
position
in
the
upcoming
Regulatory
Determination.
(
NMA00024)

The
Department
has
worked
closely
with
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
in
implementing
the
ACT
and
in
our
opinion
the
steps
taken
by
ILLINOIS
to
address
the
disposal
and
use
of
CCW
and
CCB
preclude
the
need
for
federal
regulations
in
this
area
and
that
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
should
retain
their
exemption
from
the
hazardous
waste
regulations
of
RCRA.
(
ILDNR00026)

We
respectively
ask
that
EPA
not
bow
to
pressure
to
extend
the
regulatory
development
timetable.
It
is
time
to
put
this
issue
to
bed
and
allow
us
to
move
forward
with
the
clean
up
of
or
scarred
land.
We
also
ask
that
the
EPA
base
its
decision
on
a
fully
informed
process
and
sound
science.
In
doing
so,
we
are
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB,
oil
ash
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
PAC00029).

On
March
31,
the
Agency
issued
the
"
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels"
in
two
volumes.
In
this
report,
the
Agency
has
tentatively
concluded
that
the
disposal
of
coal­
fired
utility
comanaged
wastes
should
remain
exempt
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C.
New
Century
Energies
and
its
operating
companies,
Public
Service
Company
of
Colorado
(
PSCo)
and
Southwestern
Public
Service
Company
(
SPS)
would
like
to
affirm
this
conclusion
and
fully
supports
the
Agency's
position
that
continued
use
of
site
and
region
specific
approaches
by
states
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
9
I
­
9
is
more
appropriate
for
addressing
the
limited
health
and
environmental
risks
that
may
be
associated
with
the
wastes.
(
NCE00031)

We
see
no
need
for
federal
regulation
under
Subtitle
C
and
believe
the
proper
management
of
CCBs
is
a
sound
environmental
practice.
(
NCE00031)

PCA
also
refers
EPA
to
the
voluminous
technical
information
and
comments
submitted
by
the
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP),
which
show
the
Commonwealth's
history
of
responsible
management
of
these
substances,
and
the
resulting
benefits
of
such
use.
This
evidence
clearly
demonstrates
that
management
of
coal
combustion
wastes
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
is
unnecessary
and
counterproductive.
(
PCA00034)

Virginia
Power
fully
supports
the
Agency's
decision
to
exempt
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements,
co­
managed
wastes,
which
include
petroleum
coke
combustion
wastes,
as
well
as
mixtures
of
other
fuels
co­
fired
with
coal.
(
VAP00042)

Virginia
Power
also
fully
supports
the
Agency's
position
to
maintain
the
exemption
of
fluidized
bed
combustion
wastes
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C
Regulations.(
VAP00042)

In
general,
APS
is
in
agreement
with
EPA's
recommendations
in
the
RTC.
We
mostly
seek
to
support
the
agencies
tentative
conclusions.
In
particular,
we
strongly
support
the
tentative
conclusion
that
comanaged
wastes
from
coal­
fired
utilities
should
remain
exempt
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulation.
(
APSC00043)

For
the
most
part
I,
agree
with
EPA's
overall
conclusion
that
comanaged
wastes
are
also
generally
not
corrosive,
reactive,
ignitable,
or
toxic.
The
logical
conclusion
resulting
from
a
detailed
examination
of
these
materials
is
that
they
should
remain
exempt
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C
and
that
region­
specific
approaches
by
the
states
are
appropriate.
(
EERC00044)

I
am
confident
that
the
agency
will
see
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
PA00045)

It
appears
that
current
regulation
of
these
activities
is
more
that
adequate.
Subtitle
D
regulatory
authority
should
remain
adequate
for
governing
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
CCPs
in
the
future.
(
ISG00048)

TVA
generally
supports
the
conclusions
of
the
RTC.
(
TVA00049).

EPA
must
base
its
decision
on
a
fully
informed
process
and
sound
science.
In
doing
so
I
am
confident
that
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
CFB
coal
ash
with
other
wastes.
(
STR00050)

In
its
report,
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
made
several
tentative
decisions
to
retain
the
exemption
for
the
disposal
of
co­
managed
and
co­
burning
coal
combustion
wastes
at
utilities,
coal
combustion
wastes
at
non­
utilities,
petroleum
coke
combustion
wastes;
fluidized
bed
combustion
wastes;
and
natural
gas
combustors.
We
agree
and
support
these
determinations.
(
CIBO00052)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
10
I
­
10
TXU
supports
the
general
conclusion
reached
by
EPA
in
the
RTC
that
disposal
of
co­
managed
wastes
generated
at
coal­
fired
utilities,
including
beneficial
utilization,
should
remain
exempt
from
the
provisions
of
subtitle
C
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA).
(
TXU00053)

TXU
supports
the
general
conclusion
reached
by
EPA
in
the
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
("
RTC")
that
disposal
of
co­
managed
wastes
generated
at
coalfired
utilities
should
remain
exempt
from
the
requirements
of
subtitle
C
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA).
(
TXU00053)

TXU
concurs
with
EPA's
tentative
conclusion
that
non­
utility
coal
combustion
wastes
and
beneficial
uses
of
such
wastes
should
remain
exempt
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C.
(
TXU00053)

AEP's
experience
supports
EPA's
tentative
conclusions
that
Coal­
Fired
Utility
Comanaged
Wastes
(
i.
e.
CCPs)
should
remain
exempt
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulation.
(
AEP00060)

The
Maryland
Coal
Association
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
make
these
comments
on
behalf
of
the
existing
exclusion
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
by­
products.
(
MDCAL0001)

I
am
highly
pleased
that
following
18
years
of
study
pursuant
to
the
1980
Bevill
Amendment
to
RCRA,
EPA
has
finally
concluded
that
electric
utilities
and
independent
power
producers
generally
manage
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
in
an
environmentally
responsible
manner
and
that
the
combustion
wastes
do
no
warrant
hazardous
waste
regulations
under
RCRA.
(
BCHL0002)

DEP
supports
EPA's
tentative
conclusion
that
disposal
of
these
waters
should
remain
exempt
from
RCRA
regulation.
DEP
urges
EPA
to
adopt
this
position
in
the
upcoming
Regulatory
Determination.
(
WVDEPL0003)

The
agency's
tentative
conclusion
not
to
impose
Subtitle
C
rules
on
the
use
and
disposal
of
such
CCPs
is
well­
founded.
(
WVDEPL0003)

This
evidence
clearly
demonstrates
that
management
of
coal
combustion
wastes
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
is
unnecessary
and
counterproductive.
(
PCA00034)

The
data
collected
by
EPA
shows
that
neither
oil
ash
nor
fluidized­
bed
combustion
wastes
meet
the
criteria
of
hazardous
wastes,
and
therefore
do
not
warrant
regulation
under
RCRA.
Furthermore,
an
EPA
determination
that
waste
CFB
(
Circulating
Fluidized
Bed)
waste
and
other
ash
byproducts
are
hazardous
would
have
far
reaching
effects
on
Pennsylvania's
taxpayers
and
the
environment.
Furthermore,
the
Agency's
conclusion
are
not
all
supported
by
the
technical
data
they
themselves
collected.
(
EPACAMR00248)

An
EPA
determination
the
CFB
(
circulating
fluidized­
bed)
waste
coal
ash
and
other
ash
byproducts
are
hazardous
would
have
far
reaching
effects
on
Pennsylvania's
taxpayers
and
the
state's
environment.
Not
only
that,
but
these
conclusions
are
not
all
supported
by
the
technical
data
gathered
by
the
Agency.
(
PCLP00249)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
11
I
­
11
I
urge
EPA
to
base
its
decision
on
a
fully
informed
regulatory
process
and
sound
science.
In
doing
so,
I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
PCLP00249)

I
urge
EPA
to
base
its
decision
on
a
fully
informed
regulatory
process
and
sound
science.
In
doing
so
I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
G&
L00252)

I
urge
EPA
to
base
its
decision
on
a
fully
informed
regulatory
process
and
sound
science.
In
doing
so
I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
PA00253)

I
urge
EPA
to
base
its
decision
on
a
fully
informed
regulatory
process
and
sound
science.
In
doing
so
I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash.
(
CIN00254)

I
urge
EPA
to
base
its
decision
on
a
fully
informed
regulatory
process
and
sound
science.
In
doing
so
I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
EPC00255)

PG&
E
Gen
agrees
with
the
tentative
conclusions
to
exempt
coal
ash
from
regulation
under
Subtitle
C
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
("
RCRA").
(
PG&
E00274)

USWAG
reiterates
its
recommendation
that
EPA
issue
a
regulatory
determination
that
all
"
remaining"
FFC
wastes
do
not
warrant
RCRA
Subtitle
C
or
similar
regulation.
(
USWAG00275)

I
urge
EPA
to
base
its
decision
on
a
fully
informed
regulatory
process
and
sound
science.
In
doing
so
I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
FW00277)

As
set
forth
in
its
initial
comments,
CIBO
asserts
that
available
scientific,
analytic,
demonstrative,
and
other
data
clearly
sustain
the
conclusion
that
no
aspect
of
the
substances
addressed
in
the
RTC
should
be
subjected
to
national
Subtitle
C
regulation.
Further,
sound
RCRA
policy
requires
this
outcome.
CIBO
asserts
that
all
available
data
demonstrates
that
all
wastes
and
applications
covered
by
the
RTC
should
remain
under
the
Bevill
exemption
(
CIBO00280)

I
believe
that
we
have
amply
and
effectively
demonstrated
the
successful
balance
between
economic
issues
and
the
environmental
concerns
through
adherence
of
the
Pennsylvania
regulations
for
CFB
ash
disposal
and
beneficial
use
and
can
see
no
benefit
to
the
expansion
of
RCRA
in
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
fuel
ash
produced
in
a
CFB.
(
GPC00297).

An
EPA
determination
the
CFB
(
circulating
fluidized­
bed)
waste
coal
ash
and
other
ash
byproducts
are
hazardous
would
have
far
reaching
effects
on
Pennsylvania's
taxpayers
and
the
state's
environment.
Not
only
that,
but
these
conclusions
are
not
all
supported
by
the
technical
data
gathered
by
the
Agency.
(
KCC00298)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
12
I
­
12
I
urge
EPA
to
base
its
decision
on
a
fully
informed
regulatory
process
and
sound
science.
In
doing
so
I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
KCC00298)

An
EPA
determination
the
CFB
(
circulating
fluidized­
bed)
waste
coal
ash
and
other
ash
byproducts
are
hazardous
would
have
far
reaching
effects
on
Pennsylvania's
taxpayers
and
the
state's
environment.
Not
only
that,
but
these
conclusions
are
not
all
supported
by
the
technical
data
gathered
by
the
Agency.
(
SMC00299)

I
urge
EPA
to
base
its
decision
on
a
fully
informed
regulatory
process
and
sound
science.
In
doing
so
I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
SMC00299)

I
urge
EPA
to
base
its
decision
on
a
fully
informed
regulatory
process
and
sound
science.
In
doing
so
I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
PA00300)

I
urge
EPA
to
base
its
decision
on
a
fully
informed
regulatory
process
and
sound
science.
In
doing
so
I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
PA00301)

I
urge
EPA
to
base
its
decision
on
a
fully
informed
regulatory
process
and
sound
science.
In
doing
so
I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
PA00302)

Please
urge
EPA
to
base
its
decision
on
careful
scientific
evidence.
In
doing
so,
I
am
confident
that
the
EPA
will
reach
the
same
the
conclusions
that
Pennsylvania's
DEP
has
already
concluded
on
this
matter.
There
is
simply
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
PA00305)

I
urge
EPA
to
base
its
decision
on
a
fully
informed
regulatory
process
and
sound
science.
In
doing
so
I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
ACV00307)

I
urge
EPA
to
base
its
decision
on
a
fully
informed
regulatory
process
and
sound
science.
In
doing
so
I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
TEGI00308)

I
urge
EPA
to
base
its
decision
on
a
fully
informed
regulatory
process
and
sound
science.
In
doing
so
I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
PA00368)

I
urge
EPA
to
base
its
decision
on
a
fully
informed
regulatory
process
and
sound
science.
In
doing
so
I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
AMI00372)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
13
I
­
13
An
EPA
determination
that
CFB
(
circulating
fluidized­
bed)
waste
coal
ash
and
other
ash
byproducts
are
hazardous
would
have
far
reaching
effects
on
Pennsylvania's
taxpayers
and
the
state's
environment.
(
PAL0001)

The
Commission
opposes
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
efforts
to
regulate
waste
coal
ash
as
a
hazardous
waste
as
considered
in
EPA's
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants.
(
ORBCL0002)

I
concur
that
the
electric
generating
industries
generally
manage
fossil
fuel
combustion
waste
in
a
responsible
manner
and
that
the
wastes
do
not
represent
a
significant
hazard
requiring
more
stringent
regulation.
(
LRCAXXXX)

Ash
generated
at
PG&
E
Gen's
FBC
facilities
does
not
exhibit
any
of
the
four
hazardous
waste
characteristics
that
identify
hazardous
waste.
With
respect
to
toxicity,
ash
from
PG&
E
Gen's
facilities
consistently
test
below
the
TCLP
test
leaching
standards
for
RCRA
constituents,
including
arsenic
and
mercury.
FBC
ash
should
not
be
regulated
as
a
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
where
the
test
data
clearly
show
levels
of
contamination
far
below
the
RCRA
hazardous
waste
definition
standards.
(
PG&
E00023)

Furthermore,
EPA's
data
showed
"
no
exceedances
of
TC
levels
in
any
TCLP
[
Toxicity
Characteristic
Leaching
Procedure]
sample
of
comanaged
wastes,
and
...
only
infrequent
exceedances
of
TC
levels
in
situ
pore
water
samples
from
some
impoundments."
Id.,
3­
2.
This
data
again
lead
inescapably
to
the
conclusion
that
coal­
fired
utility
comanaged
wastes
did
not
warrant
the
imposition
of
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
rules.
(
NMA00024)

The
data
collected
by
EPA
shows
that
neither
oil
ash
nor
fluidized­
bed
combustion
wastes
meet
the
criteria
of
hazardous
wastes,
and
therefore
do
not
warrant
regulation
under
RCRA.
Furthermore,
an
EPA
determination
that
waste
CFB
(
Circulating
Fluidized
Bed)
waste
and
other
ash
byproducts
are
hazardous
would
have
far
reaching
effects
on
Pennsylvania's
taxpayers
and
the
environment.
Furthermore,
the
Agency's
conclusion
are
not
all
supported
by
the
technical
data
they
themselves
collected.
(
EPACAMR00248)

Indeed
the
analysis
presented
in
the
Report
can
only
support
a
different
Regulatory
Determination
 
EPA
has
identified
sufficiently
significant
risks
to
support
a
Regulatory
Determination
that
the
co­
managed
FFC
wastes
be
regulated
as
RCRA
Subtitle
C
wastes.
(
ALA00036)

We
believe
that
the
limited
credible
information
in
this
Report
as
well
as
the
extensive
information
demonstrating
damages
to
the
environment
from
these
wastes
unambiguously
supports
regulation
for
fossil
fuel
wastes
as
hazardous
wastes
under
Subtitle
C
or
RCRA.
Accordingly
we
call
upon
EPA
to
designate
all
fossil
fuel
wastes
including
those
covered
in
the
first
Bevil
Determination
as
hazardous
waste
in
its
Final
Determination..
(
HEC00056)

The
49
undersigned
local,
regional,
and
national
environmental
and
public
health
organizations
urge
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
to
reverse
its
pending
decision
to
exempt
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
from
regulation
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C.
(
49CAO00058)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
14
I
­
14
I
think
we
need
some
kind
of
protection
on
the
ground
water,
like
liners,
leachate
collection
systems,
adequate
ground
water
monitoring
at
each
site
to
ensure
that
the
CCW
is
disposed
of
in
the
right
way,
so
that
we
won't
be
bothered
with
cancer
or
something
else.
(
CITZ00257)

Analysis
of
CCW
indicates
that
it
would
be
properly
regulated
under
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA.
(
NPCA00259)

CCW
needs
to
much
more
strictly
regulated,
and
EPA
should
do
its
own
studies.
(
CITZ00268)

I
am
writing
to
urge
the
EPA
to
strictly
regulate
the
disposal
of
coal
combustion
waste
(
CCW).
(
CITZ00271)

We
urge
you
to
regulate
CCW
as
the
hazardous
waste
that
recently
available
research
shows
it
to
be.
(
CITZ00271)

National
regulations
on
the
disposal
of
CCW
such
as
requirements
for
liners,
ground
water
monitoring,
and
leachate
collection
systems
are
essential
for
the
protection
of
the
environment.
(
SIERRA00278)

EPA
should
required
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
discussed
in
its
report
to
Congress
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
SIERRA00278)

In
regards
to
this
matter,
EPA
should
address
long
term
impacts
caused
by
CCW.
(
SOCM00279)

EPA
should
address
Congress
about
the
danger
of
not
having
any
national
regulations
on
the
disposal
of
CCW.
(
SOCM00279)

Written
enforcement
rules
and
fines
for
companies
or
individuals
who
violate
any
part
of
the
procedures
and
requirements
for
carry
out
CCW
waste
disposal
operations,
be
approved
by
Congress
and
individual
states,
before
any
report
or
recommendations
are
acted
upon
by
Congress.
(
SOCM00279)

EPA
should
recommend
that
Congress
ban
any
future
dumping
of
CCW
in
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
old
stripmine
sites,
or
any
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
SOCM00279)

No
CCW
waste
disposal
operation
be
conducted
without
public
notice,
public
hearings,
environmental
impact
studies,
which
involves
full
participation
of
the
general
public
(
community)
being
impacted
by
such
operations.
(
SOCM00279)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
ground
and
surface
water
around
the
country.
(
KYC00285)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
ground
and
surface
water
around
the
country.
(
CIT00286)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
15
I
­
15
As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
ground
and
surface
water
around
the
country.
(
CIT00287)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
ground
and
surface
water
around
the
country.
(
CIT00289)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
ground
and
surface
water
around
the
country.
(
CIT00290)

Based
on
this
review,
we
believe
that
EPA's
Draft
Regulatory
Determination
(
that
co­
managed
FFC
wastes
should
continue
to
be
exempt
from
regulation
under
subtitle
C
of
the
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Act/
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act)
is
unwarranted,
or
at
best
premature.
We
continue
to
hold
the
view
that
the
information
included
in
the
Report
on
the
potential
risks
of
damage
to
human
health
and
the
environment
from
current
FFC
waste
management
and
disposal
practices,
and
proposed
reuse
of
these
materials,
can
support
only
an
Agency
Determination
that
these
wastes
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
subtitle
C.
(
ALA00292)

As
a
university
specialist
working
in
the
area
of
water
quality
in
SW
Indiana,
I
feel
that
stronger
placement,
monitoring
and
containment
regulations
are
needed
to
encourage
proper
disposal
of
CCW's.
(
PURD000294)

Tri­
State
Citizens
Mining
Network
is
asking
the
EPA
for
strict
national
standards
for
Coal
Combustion
Waste
(
CCW).
(
TRI00295)

Stand
firm
on
protecting
Indiana's
water
supplies
from
Coal
Combustion
Waste
(
CCW)
contamination.
Please
fulfill
the
promise
of
the
EPA
and
the
pledge
of
the
Clinton/
Gore
administration
to
protect
our
environment
by
adopting
the
strongest
possible
regulations
for
Coal
Combustion
Waste.
(
CITZ00303)

Given
the
overwhelming
evidence
of
contamination
from
CCW
it
seems
only
logical
to
treat
CCW
as
any
other
hazardous
waste
and
regulate
it
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C.
(
CITZ00303)

Among
other
prudent
projections
it
seems
only
logical
to
do
the
following:
1.
Separate
CCW
form
our
water
supplies
with
liners.
(
CITZ00303)
3.
Hold
those
who
benefit
from
CCW
disposal
responsible
for
any
damages
it
causes.
It
is
the
utilities
and
mine
operators
that
should
be
financially
responsible
for
damage
cause
by
CCW
dumping.
Not
taxpayers.
(
CITZ00303)

We
strongly
feel
that
such
coal
wastes,
and
mixed
waste
need
regulation
under
RCRA,
consistent
with
their
hazardous
nature.
(
PEACE00306)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000311)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
16
I
­
16
As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000312)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000313)

As
a
resident
of
an
area
which
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000314)

As
a
resident
of
an
area
which
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000316)

I
recommend
that
the
federal
government
regulate
the
dumping
of
CCW
as
a
hazardous
waste.
When
disposed
of,
there
should
be
a
liner
system,
and
monitoring
systems
in
place.
(
CITZ00317)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000318)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000319)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000320)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000321)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000322)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000323)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000324)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
17
I
­
17
As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000325)

I
am
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
form
contaminating
ground
water
supplies.
(
CITZ00327)

At
a
minimum,
we
must
have
liner,
close
groundwater
monitors
and
regulation
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
to
protect
us.
More
basically,
there
needs
to
be
more
resource
recovery
to
prevent
toxic
chemicals
etc.
form
being
dumped
in
the
first
place.
(
CITZ00330)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
coal
combustion
waste
(
CCW)
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000331)

We
encourage
the
EPA
to
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
waster
supplies
in
the
United
States.
(
BUCK00333)

I
and
our
members
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
ground
and
surface
water
in
North
Caroline
and
around
the
country.
(
NCSEA00334)

We
are
asking
that
CCW
be
disposed
of
in
a
safe,
common
sense
manner
to
prevent
contamination.
(
NCSEA00334)

As
citizens
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ00336)

All
we
are
asking
is
that
CCW
is
disposed
of
in
a
safe,
common
sense
manner
to
prevent
contamination.
People
should
not
have
to
worry
about
the
water
that
comes
out
of
their
tap.
This
is
1999
not
1899.
WAKE
UP!
(
CITZ00336)

I
am
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
coal
combustion
waste
(
CCW)
from
contaminating
the
water
supply
in
the
state
of
Indiana
and,
indeed,
the
United
States
of
America.
(
CITZ00339)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000340)

Minimum
Federal
Regulations
are
essential
to
protect
me
from
these
wealthy
powerful
entities.
(
CITZ00342)

I
am
all
for
any
regulations
governing
the
handling
of
and
disposal
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
properly.
(
CITZ00342)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
18
I
­
18
As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000343)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000344)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000345)

I
urge
the
EPA
to
enact
federal
regulations
that
prevent
coal
combustion
waste
from
contaminating
ground
and
surface
water
in
the
future.
(
CITZ00346)

I
am
writing
to
urge
the
EPA
to
strictly
regulate
the
disposal
of
coal
combustion
waste
(
CCW).
(
CITZ00347)

We
urge
you
to
regulate
CCW
as
the
hazardous
waste
that
recently
available
research
shows
it
to
be.
(
CITZ00347)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000348)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000350)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000351)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000352)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000353)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000354)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
19
I
­
19
As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000355)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000356)

As
a
citizen
who
will
be
greatly
affected
by
the
EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
I'm
writing
to
ask
that
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
CCW
from
contaminating
my
water
supply.
(
CITZ000357)

EPA
should
go
beyond
a
suggestion
and
require
that
CCW
AS
A
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
BE
REGULATED
UNDER
OUR
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
LAWS.
(
CITZ00358)

This
letter
is
a
request
for
detailed
and
stringent
regulation
regarding
the
disposal
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
in
America.
(
DCCC00359)

The
long
lasting
detrimental
effect
of
CCW
disposal
on
ground
and
surface
wasters
is
something
we
never
want
to
see
in
Virginia.
(
DCCC00359)

We
ask
you
to
find
that
CCW
is
a
hazardous
or
toxic
waste
and
that
it
must
be
handled
and
disposed
of
as
such.
We
also
support
your
risk
mitigation
alternative
for
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
DCCC00359)

Please
reject
the
proposed
coal
combustion
waste
rule
and
support
the
strongest
possible
regulation
of
coal
combustion
waste.
Please
protect
our
groundwater
by
requiring
proper
linings.
(
CITZL0008)

Please
issue
a
national
rule
requiring
that
action
be
taken
to
protect
our
drinking
water.
(
CITZL0011)

The
EPA
report
(
as
it
stood
several
months
ago)
would
give
the
green
light
for
other
types
of
wastes
involved
in
the
production
or
burning
of
coal
to
being
"
comanaged"
with
CCW.
That's
a
rotten
idea.
(
CITZL0013)

EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
discussed
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
CITZ00256)

EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
discussed
in
its
report
to
Congress
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundment,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
VWI00258)

Fourthly,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
described
in
its
report
to
Congress
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
sites.
(
CITZ00261)

EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
discussed
in
its
report
to
Congress
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
CITZ00263)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
20
I
­
20
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
discussed
in
its
report
to
Congress
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
CITZ00264)

EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
discussed
in
its
report
to
Congress
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
SAVV00266)

All
other
disposal
sites
[
other
than
mine
disposal]
should
be
assessed
for
the
proper
risk
mitigation
alternatives.
(
CITZ00267)

EPA
should
required
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
discussed
in
its
report
to
Congress
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
SIERRA00278)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
described
in
its
report
to
Congress
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
CITZ00284)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners,
leachate
collection
systems
and
ground
water
monitoring
wells
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
KYC00285)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners,
leachate
collection
systems
and
ground
water
monitoring
wells
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CIT00286)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners,
leachate
collection
systems
and
ground
water
monitoring
wells
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CIT00287)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners,
leachate
collection
systems
and
ground
water
monitoring
wells
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CIT00289)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners,
leachate
collection
systems
and
ground
water
monitoring
wells
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CIT00290)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
21
I
­
21
Tri­
State
is
asking
the
EPA
to
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
described
in
its
report
to
Congress
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
TRI00295)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00311)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00312)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00313)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00314)

The
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
described
in
its
report
to
Congress
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
CITZ00315)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00316)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00318)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00319)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00320)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
22
I
­
22
At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00321)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00322)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00323)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00324)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00325)

EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00327)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00331)

We
ask
that
at
a
minimum,
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
outlined
in
the
draft
Determination
be
applied
nationally
to
all
disposal
sites
for
CCW
and
other
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
waste
mixed
with
these
wastes
or
wastes
whose
parent
materials
are
coburned
with
these
wastes.
We
believe
that
the
requirements
for
liners,
leachate
collection
and
ground
water
monitoring
outlined
under
this
alternative
in
the
Determination
are
basic
projections
that
must
be
afforded
to
the
environment
and/
or
citizens
who
live
adjacent
to
or
near
sites
where
these
wastes
are
disposed.
(
HEC00332)

The
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
described
in
its
report
to
Congress
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
BUCK00333)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
23
I
­
23
At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners,
leachate
collection
systems
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
NCSEA00334)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
systems
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00336)

Also,
the
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
described
in
its
report
to
Congress
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
CITZ00337)

In
the
upcoming
report
to
Congress,
the
EPA
should
require
that
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
be
used
at
all
CCW
disposal
sites
including
landfills,
surface
impoundment's
and
lagoon.
In
the
name
of
public
safety,
EPA
should
requires
the
installation
of
liners
and
long­
term
monitoring
systems
to
protect
the
nearby
aquifers
and
potential
water
systems
of
nearby
residents.
(
CITZ00338)

In
its
draft
report
to
Congress,
the
EPA
should
require
that
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
be
used
all
CCW
disposal
sites
including
landfills,
surface
impoundment's,
and
lagoons.
In
my
opinion,
a
common
sense
concern
for
safety
of
our
groundwater
supply
requires
the
installation
of
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
that
would
detect
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
be
mandated.
(
CITZ00339)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00340)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00343)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00344)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00345)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
24
I
­
24
At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
described
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundment's,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
CITZ00346)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00348)

EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
discussed
in
its
report
to
Congress
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
CITZ00349)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00350)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00351)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00352)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00353)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem,
should
be
common
sense.
(
CITZ00354)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00355)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00356)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
25
I
­
25
At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
Congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
Installing
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
capable
of
detecting
contamination
before
it
becomes
a
problem
should
be
basic
common
sense.
(
CITZ00357)

We
ask
you
to
find
that
CCW
is
a
hazardous
or
toxic
waste
and
that
it
must
be
handled
and
disposed
of
as
such.
We
also
support
your
risk
mitigation
alternative
for
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
DCCC00359)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundment's,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sights.
(
CITZ00360)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundment's,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sights.
(
CITZ00361)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundment's,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sights.
(
CITZ00362)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundment's,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sights.
(
CITZ00363)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundment's,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sights.
(
CITZ00364)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundment's,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sights.
(
CITZ00365)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundment's,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sights.
(
CITZ00366)

At
a
minimum,
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
in
its
draft
report
to
congress
to
be
employed
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundment's,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sights.
(
CITZ00367)

EPA
should
ensure
the
objectivity,
accuracy,
and
completeness
of
this
report
by
...
requiring
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
discussed
in
its
report
to
Congress
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
POW00369)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
26
I
­
26
One
more
point
 
The
EPA
should
require
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
discussed
its
report
to
Congress
for
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
and
all
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
CITZL0013)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
II
­
1
II.
OIL
COMBUSTION
WASTES
In
the
Report
to
Congress,
EPA
indicated
that
it
was
tentatively
considering
addressing
the
potential
risks
associated
with
management
of
oil
combustion
wastes
(
OCWs)
either
using
Subtitle
C
regulatory
authority
or
by
encouraging
voluntary
changes
in
industry
practices.
Comments
were
received
on
both
sides
of
this
issue.
Many
industry
and
state
and
federal
government
commenters
supported
continuing
to
exclude
OCW
disposal
from
Subtitle
C
regulation
under
the
Bevill
amendment.
Two
of
the
commenters
specifically
supported
continuing
the
exclusion
for
both
utility
and
non­
utility
OCWs.
One
of
the
commenters
supported
voluntary
controls
and
suggested
that
EPA
cooperate
with
states
to
encourage
these.
Others
argued
that
voluntary
controls
were
unnecessary,
given
the
infrequency
of
toxicity
characteristic
exceedences,
the
lack
of
documented
damage
cases,
current
industry
practices,
current
state
regulations,
the
small
number
of
facilities,
and
small
quantity
of
waste
generated.
One
of
these
commenters
suggested
that
even
if
lining
of
OCW
impoundments
was
justified,
a
single
liner,
rather
than
a
composite
liner,
would
be
adequate.

Public
interest
group
commenters,
on
the
other
hand,
argued
that
voluntary
controls
would
be
inadequate
and
recommended
Subtitle
C
regulation,
given
current
state
regulations,
the
risks
identified
in
the
Report
to
Congress,
the
low
cost
of
control,
and
the
identification
of
a
damage
case
associated
with
OCWs.
One
of
these
commenters
proposed
that
a
better
approach
would
be
to
promulgate
regulations
and
offer
a
delayed
compliance
schedule
to
facilities
entering
a
voluntary
early
reduction
program.

A
number
of
industry
and
public
interest
group
commenters
also
submitted
detailed
critiques
of
EPACMTP,
the
model
used
for
analysis
of
potential
groundwater
risks.

Response:
In
the
RTC,
we
identified
that
our
only
concern
about
oil
combustion
wastes
was
based
on
the
potential
for
migration
of
arsenic,
nickel,
and
vanadium
from
unlined
surface
impoundments.
We
requested
information
on
this
issue
and
did
not
receive
any
additional
data
and/
or
information
to
refute
our
tentative
finding
stated
in
the
RTC
that
these
unlined
surface
impoundments
could
pose
a
significant
risk.

We
are
carefully
reviewing
all
of
the
comments
on
the
model
and
have
determined
that
the
process
of
thoroughly
investigating
all
of
the
comments
will
take
substantially
more
time
to
complete
than
is
available
within
the
court
deadline
for
issuing
this
regulatory
determination.
(
See
Section
XV
for
a
more
thorough
discussion
of
comments
and
responses
on
groundwater
risk
modelling.)
At
this
time,
we
are
uncertain
of
the
overall
outcome
of
our
analysis
of
the
issues
raised
in
the
comments.
Accordingly,
we
have
decided
not
to
use
the
results
of
our
ground
water
pathway
risk
analysis
in
support
of
today's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes.
As
explained
below,
we
believe
that
actions
have
been
taken
or
are
under
way
by
specific
companies
and/
or
the
state
Massachusetts
to
address
potential
risks
at
the
six
impoundments
that
we
have
been
able
to
identify.
Therefore
we
believe
that
further
groundwater
analysis
is
unnecessary
at
this
time.

Meanwhile,
we
will
continue
with
our
analysis
of
comments
on
the
groundwater
model
and
risk
analysis.
This
may
involve
changing
or
re­
structuring
various
aspects
of
the
model,
if
appropriate.
It
may
also
include
additional
analyses
to
determine
whether
any
changes
to
the
model
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
FF2P­
S0429.

2
II
­
2
or
modeling
methodology
would
materially
affect
the
groundwater
risk
analysis
results
that
were
reported
in
the
RTC.
If
our
investigations
reveal
that
a
re­
analysis
of
groundwater
risks
is
appropriate,
we
will
conduct
the
analysis
and
re­
evaluate
today's
decisions
as
warranted
by
the
reanalysis.

As
stated
in
the
RTC,
there
are
only
six
sites
involving
two
utility
companies
that
have
unlined
surface
impoundments.
Four
of
the
sites
are
in
Florida
and
are
operated
by
one
company.
The
company
operating
four
the
unlined
impoundments
in
Florida
is
undertaking
projects
to
mitigate
potential
risks
posed
by
their
unlined
management
units.
At
a
May
21,1999
public
hearing,
the
company
announced
its
plans
to
remove
all
the
oil
ash
and
basin
material
from
its
unlined
impoundments
and
to
line
or
close
the
units.
The
company
informed
us
in
January
2000
that
it
had
completed
the
lining
of
all
the
units.
Based
on
this
information,
we
do
not
believe
that
these
units
pose
a
significant
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
According
to
USWAG's
comments,
a
seventh
site
in
Florida
no
longer
places
OCWs
in
its
unlined
impoundment.
The
unlined
impoundment
remains
subject
to
ground­
water
monitoring,
and
the
monitoring
shows
a
consistent
pattern
of
compliance
with
the
applicable
ground­
water
protection
standards
at
the
point
of
compliance
with
a
downward
concentration
trend
since
OCW
placement
in
that
unit
ended
in
1998.

The
other
two
sites
with
unlined
impoundments
are
operated
by
one
utility
in
Massachusetts.
Both
sites
are
permitted
under
Massachusetts'
ground
water
discharge
permit
program
and
have
monitoring
wells
around
the
unlined
basins.
Arsenic
is
monitored
for
compliance
with
state
regulations.
Although
the
company
expressed
no
plans
to
line
their
impoundments,
they
are
preparing
to
implement
monitoring
for
nickel
and
vanadium
in
ground
water
around
the
waste
management
units.
Massachusetts
maintains
an
MCL
for
arsenic
of
0.05
mg/
L.
Massachusetts'
MCL
for
nickel
was
remanded,
but
the
State
maintains
a
guideline
concentration
of
0.1
mg/
L
for
nickel.
Therefore,
Massachusetts'
regulatory
program
already
provides
some
degree
of
control
on
these
unlined
impoundments
with
regard
to
arsenic
and
nickel.
The
State
has
no
standard
or
guideline
for
vanadium.
We
have
been
working
with
the
State
and
the
company
to
obtain
additional
information
to
evaluate
these
two
management
units.
We
will
continue
this
effort
and
will
work
with
the
company
and
the
State
to
ensure
that
any
necessary
measures
are
taken
so
that
these
wastes
are
managed
in
a
manner
that
protects
human
health
and
the
environment.

Based
on
further
discussions
with
the
company,
the
monitoring
wells
surrounding
the
unlined
units
are
sampled
on
a
quarterly
or
monthly
basis
for
inorganics,
metals,
and
organic
compounds
under
three
separate
monitoring
plans
filed
with
three
separate
regulating
agencies.
The
company
also
is
in
the
process
of
preparing
a
single,
universal
monitoring
plan,
to
go
into
effect
in
late
1999,
that
meets
the
needs
of
the
three
regulating
agencies.
Since
the
publication
of
the
Report
to
Congress,
PG&
E
Generating
has
provided
EPA
with
the
results
of
recent
years
of
monitoring
at
the
sites.
These
monitoring
data
have
been
included
in
the
public
record.
3
Concerning
the
occurrence
of
oil
combustion
waste
surface
impoundments
at
industrial
or
other
non­
utility
facilities;
during
development
of
the
Report
to
Congress
we
consulted
with
the
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
II
­
3
Council
of
Industrial
Boiler
Operators
(
CIBO),
who
represent
non­
utility
fossil
fuel
burning
facilities.
CIBO
did
not
identify
any
oil
ash
surface
impoundments.
We
believe
that
non­
utility
boilers
are
too
small
in
size
to
generate
sufficient
waste
to
manage
in
a
surface
impoundment
dedicated
only
to
those
wastes.
Such
facilities
are
more
likely
to
manage
oil
ash
wastes
in
landfills.
If
they
use
surface
impoundments
it
is
likely
that
the
oil
ash
is
combined
with
other
nonfossil
fuel
wastes.
In
addition,
two
commenters,
both
industry
trade
associations,
submitted
information
concerning
the
likelihood
of
non­
utility
combustors
managing
OCW
in
unlined
surface
impoundments.
Both
commenters
believed
there
were
not
a
significant
number
of
unlined
impoundments
managing
OCW
in
the
non­
utility
sector.
This
is
consistent
with
the
results
of
our
research
in
the
Report
to
Congress,
which
failed
to
identify
any
surface
impoundments
(
lined
or
unlined)
managing
OCWs
in
the
non­
utility
sector.

One
commenter,
an
industry
trade
association
objected
to
the
Agency's
suggestion
that
oil
ash
basins
should
have
a
composite
liner
and
leachate
collection
system
and
further
objected
to
the
Agency
even
considering
supplanting
state
ground­
water
policy
through
imposition
of
a
liner
requirement.
For
purposes
of
the
RTC,
we
selected
liners
as
a
means
to
determine
costs
associated
with
potential
management
options
to
address
identified
risks.
As
demonstrated
by
today's
decision
and
our
ongoing
coordination
with
the
State
of
Massachusetts,
we
continue
to
rely
on
state
regulation
of
ground­
water
protection
for
these
wastes.

We
have
determined
that
it
is
not
appropriate
to
establish
national
regulations
applicable
to
oil
combustion
wastes
because:
(
a)
we
have
not
identified
any
beneficial
uses
that
are
likely
to
present
significant
risks
to
human
health
or
the
environment;
and
(
b)
except
for
unlined
surface
impoundments,
we
have
not
identified
any
significant
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment
associated
with
other
waste
management
practices.
As
explained
in
the
previous
section,
we
intend
to
work
with
the
State
of
Massachusetts
and
the
owners
and
operators
of
the
remaining
two
oil
combustion
facilities
that
currently
manage
their
wastes
in
unlined
surface
impoundments
to
ensure
that
any
necessary
measures
are
taken
so
that
their
wastes
are
managed
in
a
manner
that
protects
human
health
and
the
environment.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
4
II
­
4
II.
OIL
COMBUSTION
WASTES
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Additional
regulation
of
oil
combustion
management
practices
is
unwarranted.
(
PG&
E00023)

Managing
oil
combustion
wastes
as
hazardous
wastes
is
inappropriate
for
the
following
reasons:
°
Oil
combustion
wastes
typically
do
not
exhibit
the
characteristics
of
hazardous
waste;
°
Oil
combustion
wastes
comprise
a
very
small
volume
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
generated;
°
The
PG&
E
Gen
oil
ash
management
areas
are
adjacent
to
surface
water
bodies.
There
are
no
drinking
water
receptors
at
or
near
the
PG&
E
Gen
oil
ash
management
sites;
°
There
is
a
significant
amount
of
groundwater
quality
at
our
plant
sites
because
state
discharge
permits
require
quarterly
groundwater
monitoring
adjacent
to
the
ash
impoundments.
Groundwater
is
monitored
for
metals,
inorganics
,
and
selected
organics.
Current
data
from
ash
management
activities
indicate
there
are
no
adverse
impacts
to
the
environment.
°
Current
ash
management
and
disposal
technologies
have
greatly
improved
over
the
past
20
years.
(
PG&
E00023)

The
two
PG&
E
Gen
oil
combustion
sites
were
described
in
EPA's
March
1999
Report
to
Congress.
Both
sites
use
solids
settling
basins
for
treatment
of
oil
ash
and
other
low
volume,
nonhazardous
waste.
These
sites
dispose
of
solids
from
the
basins
to
lined
landfills.
Both
of
these
sites
are
regulated
under
the
state
groundwater
discharge
permit
program,
and
both
have
monitoring
wells
around
the
unlined
basins
to
determine
groundwater
quality.
The
monitoring
wells
around
the
unlined
basins
for
inorganics,
metals
and
organic
compounds.
There
are
no
drinking
water
receptors
impacted
by
these
sites.
In
the
event
there
are
unacceptable
impacts
to
human
health
or
the
environment
from
our
unlined
basins,
PG&
E
Gen
is
prepared
to
take
appropriate
actions
to
mitigate
the
unacceptable
risks.
(
PG&
E00023)

In
addition
to
the
solids
settling
basins,
PG&
E
Gen
has
one
facility
in
Massachusetts
with
on­
site,
lined
oil
ash
landfills.
All
landfills
are
lined,
and
the
closed
landfill
cells
are
capped
with
PVC
liners.
There
are
two
active,
double­
lined
oil
combustion
waste
landfills.
Each
landfill
is
approximately
1.5
acres
in
size,
and
there
are
groundwater
monitoring
wells
around
the
active,
and
the
closed
landfills.
As
required
by
operating
permits
and
state
solid
waste
regulations,
the
groundwater
is
monitored
around
the
closed
landfills
three
times
per
year
for
metals,
and
on
a
quarterly
basis
around
the
active
landfill
cells
for
metals,
inorganics,
and
selected
organic
compounds.
In
a
recent
review
of
site
conditions,
it
has
been
determined
that
the
landfills
are
not
leaking
or
adversely
impacting
the
environment.
(
PG&
E00023)

Oil
combustion
wastes
should
not
be
regulated
as
hazardous
wastes.
As
EPA
notes
in
Volume
II
of
the
Report
to
Congress,
oil
combustion
wastes
typically
do
not
exhibit
hazardous
characteristics.
In
addition,
there
is
little
evidence
that
there
are
unacceptable
risks
at
sites
with
current
industry
practices.
There
is
not
the
weight
of
evidence
at
our
sites
or
others
to
warrant
regulation
of
oil
combustion
wastes
under
Subtitle
C.
(
PG&
E00023)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
5
II
­
5
In
doing
so,
we
are
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB,
oil
ash
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
PAC00029)

In
most
respects,
USWAG
concurs
with
EPA's
recommendations
and
findings
regarding
oil
combustion
wastes
("
OCWs")...
EPA's
recommendation
that
OCWs
(
either
managed
as
waste
or
beneficially
used)
generally
do
not
warrant
Subtitle
C
regulation
is
fully
supported
by
the
record.
The
characterization
data
show
that
OCWs
rarely
exhibit
hazardous
characteristics
­
roughly
six
percent
of
the
samples
in
the
record.
This
de
minimis
level
of
samples
is
about
the
same
as
EPA
found
in
1993
in
the
Bevill
regulatory
determination
on
the
four
high
volume
coal
combustion
wastestreams.
(
USWAG00037)

The
record
is
also
clear
that
the
risk
of
groundwater
contamination
is
minimal.
First,
OCW
management
units
are
typically
located
near
large
surface
water
bodies,
such
as
in
Florida,
the
Atlantic
Ocean
or
the
Gulf
of
Mexico.
144
EPA
found
no
examples
of
drinking
water
contamination
or
other
environmental
damage
down
gradient
between
the
OCW
management
unit
and
the
surface
water
body.
It
is
also
quite
probable
that
the
groundwater
adjacent
to
the
these
large
salt
water
bodies
is
itself
brackish
and
hence
unfit
for
drinking
water
consumption.
It
is
also
highly
significant
that
despite
the
many
years
of
OCW
management
in
a
number
of
regions
of
the
country,
EPA
was
able
to
identify
only
one
proven
damage
case
at
Possum
Point,
Virginia.
(
USWAG00037)

The
crucial
point
is
that
OCW
management
is
actively
regulated
by
the
states
and
EPA
has
correctly
concluded
that
as
a
general
rule
these
wastes
require
no
additional
regulation
under
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA.
(
USWAG00037)

EPA
has
not
justified
its
recommendation
to
consider
either
tailored
Subtitle
C
regulations
for
unlined
surface
impoundments
or
encouraging
voluntary
changes
to
industry
practices.
Despite
our
overall
concurrence
with
EPA's
recommendation
on
OCWs,
USWAG
believes
that
EPA
has
failed
to
justify
its
recommendation
to
achieve
lining
of
the
existing
universe
of
unlined
OCW
surface
impoundments
either
through
regulatory
requirement
or
inducement
of
voluntary
industry
action.
(
USWAG00037)

In
the
utility
industry
sector,
there
may
be
as
few
as
seven
affected
sites,
four
of
which
are
owned
by
a
single
company,
FPL.
This
company
formally
announced
at
the
EPA
Public
Hearing
on
May
21,
1999,
that
it
had
already
made
the
business
decision
to
remove
all
the
oil
ash
and
basin
material
from
its
unlined
impoundments
and
to
line
these
units.
As
the
company's
representative
at
the
hearing
stated,
"
Three
of
the
units
will
continue
to
manage
oil
ash
while
the
fourth
unit
will
be
converted
into
a
lined
storm­
water
management
basin."
(
USWAG00037)

Two
Massachusetts
sites
with
unlined
basins
were
recently
acquired
by
U.
S.
Generating
Company
(
now
PG&
E
Generating)
from
New
England
Electric
System.
According
to
that
company's
representative
at
the
hearing,
these
basins
are
permitted
by
the
Commonwealth
of
Massachusetts
under
that
state's
groundwater
discharge
permit
program
and
are
subject
to
groundwater
monitoring
requirements
at
those
sites.
There
are
no
drinking
water
receptors
at
those
locations,
and
PG&
E
Generating
is
committed
"
to
take
appropriate
actions
to
mitigate
[
any]
unacceptable
risks"
to
human
health
and
the
environment
from
those
basins.
(
USWAG00037)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
6
II
­
6
The
last
site
with
an
unlined
impoundment
is
owned
by
Florida
Power
Corporation
("
FPC").
That
company
has
authorized
USWAG
to
inform
EPA
that
it
no
longer
places
OCWs
in
that
impoundment.
Rather,
FPC
stores
its
OCWs
in
on­
site
rolloff
containers,
and
when
sufficient
quantities
of
OCWs
are
collected,
the
OCWs
are
transported
to
acommercial
lined
landfill
for
permanent
disposal.
The
unlined
impoundment
remains
subject
to
groundwater
monitoring
under
the
permit
issued
by
the
Florida
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
("
DEP"),
and
the
monitoring
shows
a
consistent
pattern
of
compliance
with
the
applicable
groundwater
protection
standards
at
the
point
of
compliance
with
a
downward
concentration
trend
since
OCW
placement
in
that
unit
ended
in
1998.
(
USWAG00037)

Although
we
do
not
have
precise
data
on
the
non­
utility
units
that
manage
OCWs,
we
believe
the
probability
that
there
are
any
significant
number
of
such
unlined
units
in
that
sector
is
quite
small.
Given
the
competing
pressures
within
EPA
for
scarce
agency
resources,
we
cannot
seriously
believe
that
EPA
would
commence
a
Subtitle
C
rulemaking
that
might
affect
as
few
as
two
facilities.

To
the
extent
there
exists
any
problem
­
it
appears
to
be
wholly
a
function
of
EPA's
flawed
modeling
­
this
problem
is
small
to
begin
with
and
is
likely
to
diminish
and
perhaps
even
disappear
in
the
next
few
years.
(
USWAG00037)

Second,
it
is
far
from
clear
that
these
unlined
basins
pose
any
significant
environmental
problem.
EPA
has
not
identified
any
proven
damage
cases
stemming
from
management
of
oil
ash
at
any
unlined
basin
and
the
RTC
correctly
notes
that
these
impoundments
are
close
to
large
surface
water
bodies
such
as
the
Atlantic
Ocean
and
estuaries
and
no
drinking
water
wells
are
located
between
the
units
and
the
surface
water
body.
(
USWAG00037)

Third,
as
EPA
acknowledges,
these
impoundments
are
not
unregulated
units.
In
Florida,
for
example,
these
units,
known
as
percolation
basins,
are
permitted
by
the
Florida
DEP
under
Florida
law,
and
as
we
described
with
respect
to
the
FPC
unit
above,
they
must
comply
with
groundwater
standards
at
a
specified
point
of
compliance
outside
the
zone
of
discharge.
Florida's
policy
in
this
respect
is
analogous
to
the
150
meter
point
of
compliance
for
groundwater
compliance
in
EPA's
Part
258
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
rules.
In
addition,
all
four
of
FPL's
percolation
basins
have
a
graded
lime
rock
floor
to
chelate
any
leachable
metals
prior
to
percolation,
and
all
of
these
units
have
groundwater
monitoring
to
ensure
compliance
with
state
groundwater
standards.
(
USWAG00037)

Fourth,
even
if
there
was
a
case
for
lining
these
units,
we
do
not
agree
with
EPA's
suggestion
that
the
management
of
oil
ash
in
basins
should
include
the
use
of
composite
liners
with
leachate
collection
systems.
Such
an
elaborate
liner
system,
characteristic
of
a
Subtitle
D
municipal
landfill,
is
more
elaborate
than
necessary
for
a
temporary
storage
area
...
The
purpose
to
be
served
by
the
proposed
leachate
collection
system
is
unclear
in
the
RTC.
Is
the
leachate
collection
system
intended
to
detect
liner
leaks,
or
is
it
intended
to
collect
leachate
for
treatment
prior
to
discharge?
The
physical
properties
of
oil
ash
do
not
lend
themselves
to
this
method
of
wastewater
treatment.
In
the
case
of
oil
ash
settling
basins,
the
basins
are
cleaned
out
periodically,
which
allows
visual
inspection
of
the
liner
to
evaluate
it
for
defects.
If
a
damaged
area
is
discovered
it
can
be
repaired
prior
to
returning
the
basin
back
to
service.
Given
this
management
practice,
a
single
liner
for
an
ash
basin
should
be
sufficient.
(
USWAG00037)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
7
II
­
7
And
finally,
given
EPA's
strong
policy
of
deference
to
state
groundwater
decision­
making,
we
fail
to
understand
why
EPA
in
this
instance
is
even
considering
supplanting
state
groundwater
policy
for
what
amounts
to
a
Federally­
imposed
zero­
discharge
policy
through
imposition
of
a
liner
requirement.
Such
an
inflexible
requirement
goes
well
beyond
the
options
EPA
is
considering
in
the
Industrial
Solid
Waste
Guidance
Document.
(
USWAG00037)

In
sum,
the
tailored
Subtitle
C
option
that
EPA
proposed
in
the
RTC
for
addressing
its
concerns
with
the
unlined
percolation
basins
would
be
a
classic
case
of
regulatory
overkill
­
a
Federal
solution
to
overrule
and
disregard
state
primacy
in
groundwater
management
policy
to
solve
an
environmental
problem
whose
existence
has
not
been
established
and
for
which
EPA
admits
there
is
no
evidence
of
environmental
damage.
(
USWAG00037)

Virginia
Power
supports
EPA's
encouragement
of
voluntary
changes
in
industry
practices.
The
Company
does
not
support
establishing
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
the
management
of
oil
combustion
wastes.
(
VAP00042)

Therefore,
Virginia
Power
supports
the
solicitation
of
industry
practices
at
the
state
level.
The
establishment
of
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
one
oil
combustion
unit
would
prove
to
be
overkill
for
the
management
of
a
site.
This
would
be
a
prime
opportunity
for
the
development
of
a
partnership
comprised
of
governing
agencies,
facilities
that
have
instituted
various
voluntary
industry
practices,
and
representatives
from
the
oil
combustion
waste
site
that
need
to
address
site
specific
concerns.
To
this
end,
Virginia
Power
recommends
the
Agency
request
the
states
governing
the
oil
waste
combustion
sites
to
obtain
industry
practices
from
known
sites,
and
coordinate
efforts
to
address
site
issues.
(
VAP00042)

I
am
confident
that
the
Agency
will
see
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
PA00045)

TVA
generally
supports
the
conclusions
of
the
RTC.
(
TVA00049)

CIBO
disagrees
with
any
suggestion
in
the
RTC
that
some
regulation
under
Subtitle
C
may
be
necessary
for
mine
reclamations/
minefill
applications,
use
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
ash
for
agricultural
purposes,
and
oil
ash
disposal.
CIBO
submits
that
data
­­
and
sound
RCRA
policy
­­
support
the
conclusion
that
no
aspect
of
these
substances
warrants
subjecting
them
to
national
Subtitle
C
regulation
in
any
form.
CIBO
disagrees
with
any
suggestion
that
national
regulation
should
supplant
or
duplicate
State
regulation,
for
sound
policy
and
practical
reasons.
(
CIBO00052)

At
this
time,
ash
from
oil
burning
is
typically
not
separately
collected
and
is,
therefore
of
little
concern
to
the
industrial
community.
Natural
gas
and
coal
are
the
primary
fuels
of
industry
today.
Given
the
slim
and
decreasing
use
of
this
fuel
in
the
industrial
sector,
in
the
very
rare
case
where
oil
ash
is
collected,
it
is
expected
to
be
handled
offsite
in
lined
landfills.
We
do
not
believe
there
is
any
need
to
develop
new
national
regulations
or
classifications
for
industrial
combustion
ash
or
by­
products
from
the
combustion
of
oil.
We
believe
current
regulations
and
State
management
programs
are
sufficient
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
(
CIBO00052)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
8
II
­
8
TXU
concurs
with
EPA's
recommendations
and
findings
regarding
oil
combustion
wastes
("
OCWs").
(
TXU00053)

TXU
believes
that
EPA's
recommendation
that
OCWs
(
either
managed
as
waste
or
beneficially
used)
generally
do
not
warrant
Subtitle
C
regulation
is
fully
supported
by
the
record.
(
TXU00053)

The
commenters
support
of
EPA's
conclusion
to
retain
the
Bevill
exclusion
for
oil
and
natural
gas.
(
WVA00059)

The
Maryland
Coal
Association
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
make
these
comments
on
behalf
of
the
existing
exclusion
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
by­
products.
(
MDCAL0001)

I
am
highly
pleased
that
...
EPA
has
finally
concluded
that
electric
utilities
and
independent
power
producers
generally
manage
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
in
an
environmentally
responsible
manner
and
that
the
combustion
wastes
do
not
warrant
hazardous
waste
regulation
under
RCRA.
(
BCHRL0002)

The
data
collected
by
EPA
shows
that
neither
oil
ash
nor
fluidized­
bed
combustion
wastes
meet
the
criteria
of
hazardous
wastes,
and
therefore
do
not
warrant
regulation
under
RCRA.
(
EPACAMR00248)

I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
PCLP00249)

I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
G&
L00252)

I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
PA00253)

I
am
confident
the
Agency
wilI
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
EPC00255)

The
oil
ash
exemption
should
be
continued;
EPA's
concern
regarding
management
in
unlined
landfills
is
adequately
addressed
by
current
case­
by­
case
monitoring
and
control
programs
that
have
been
established
by
state
environmental
programs,
making
regulation
under
RCRA's
Subtitle
C
regulations
superfluous.
(
PG&
E00274)

USWAG
reiterates
its
recommendation
that
EPA
issue
a
regulatory
determination
that
all
"
remaining"
FFC
wastes
do
not
warrant
RCRA
Subtitle
C
or
similar
regulation.
(
USWAG00275)

I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
FW00277)

CIBO
asserts
that
available
scientific,
analytic,
demonstrative,
and
other
data
clearly
sustain
the
conclusion
that
no
aspect
of
the
substances
addressed
in
this
RTC
should
be
subjected
to
national
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
9
II
­
9
Subtitle
C
regulation.
...
CIBO
asserts
that
the
available
data
demonstrates
that
all
wastes
and
applications
covered
by
the
RTC
should
remain
under
the
Bevill
exemption.
(
CIBO00280)

I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
KCC00298)

I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste
(
PA00300)

I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
PA00301)

I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
PA00302)

I
am
confident
that
the
EPA
will
reach
the
same
conclusions
that
Pennsylvania's
DEP
has
already
concluded
on
this
matter.
There
is
simply
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
PA00305)

I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
ACV00307)

I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
TEGI00308)

I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
PA00368)

I
am
confident
the
ARCTICS
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash,
oil
ash,
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
AMI00372)

The
Agency
clearly
must
make
findings
that
Subtitle
C
regulation
of
oil
combustion
wastes
is
appropriate
and
necessary.
First,
there
is
a
demonstration
of
clear
public
health
hazards
from
current
disposal
practices
of
these
wastes
(
as
summarized
on
page
6­
l).
Second,
the
Agency
found
that
state
agencies
have
few,
if
any,
requirements
for
oil
combustion
waste
management
units
and
in
fact
some
allow
discharges
to
groundwater
from
these
units.
Third,
the
Agency
found
that
the
costs
of
control
represent
less
than
one­
tenth
of
one
percent
of
the
value
of
sales.
Lastly,
the
Agency
asks
for
identification
of
a
single
damage
case.
However,
the
Agency
has
already
identified
a
damage
case
from
these
units.
Clearly
the
Agency
should
exercise
its
RCRA
authority
for
these
units.
To
rely
on
an
unspecified
voluntary
proposal
from
industry
is
unacceptable.
(
ALA00036)

We
believe
that
the
limited
credible
information
in
this
Report
as
well
as
the
extensive
information
demonstrating
damages
to
the
environment
from
these
wastes
unambigouslv
supports
regulation
of
fossil
fuel
wastes
as
hazardous
wastes
under
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA.
Accordingly,
we
call
upon
EPA
to
designate
all
fossil
fuel
wastes
including
those
covered
in
the
first
Bevill
Determination
as
hazardous
waste
in
its
Final
Determination.
(
HEC00056)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
10
II
­
10
The
49
undersigned
local,
regional,
and
national
environmental
and
public
health
organizations
urge
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
to
reverse
its
pending
decision
to
exempt
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
from
regulation
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C.
(
49CAO00058)

We
request
that
US
EPA
regulate
fossil
fuel
wastes
including
coal
combustion
wastes
to
be
disposed
in
mines
as
a
hazardous
waste
under
RCRA
subtitle
C.
We
ask
that
at
a
minimum,
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
outlined
in
the
draft
Determination
be
applied
nationally
to
all
disposal
sites
for
CCW
and
other
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
wastes
mixed
with
these
wastes
or
wastes
whose
parent
materials
are
coburned
with
these
wastes.
(
HEC00332)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
III
­
1
III.
NATURAL
GAS
COMBUSTION
WASTES
Those
that
commented
specifically
on
this
issue
supported
EPA's
conclusion
to
retain
the
exemption
for
natural
gas
combustion
waste.
One
industry
association
encouraged
EPA
to
foster
the
use
of
natural
gas.
While
some
public
interest
group
commenters
disagreed
broadly
with
EPA's
conclusions
about
retaining
the
exemption
for
fossil
fuel
combustion
(
FFC)
wastes
generally,
they
did
not
address
natural
gas
combustion
waste
specifically.

Response:
The
burning
of
natural
gas
generates
virtually
no
solid
waste.
We,
therefore,
believe
that
there
is
no
basis
for
EPA
developing
hazardous
waste
regulations
applicable
to
natural
gas
combustion
facilities.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
2
III
­
2
III.
NATURAL
GAS
COMBUSTION
WASTES
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
PG&
E
Gen
supports
EPA's
preliminary
determination
to
retain
the
hazardous
waste
exemption
for:
natural
gas
combustion
wastes.
(
PG&
E00023)

Given
the
Bevill
Amendment's
criteria
for
issuing
a
regulatory
determination,
EPA
has
arrived
at
the
only
conceivable
recommendation
for
natural
gas
combustion
wastes:
`
that
[
Subtitle
C]
regulations
are
unwarranted.'
USWAG
fully
concurs
with
EPA's
recommendation.
(
USWAG00037)

In
its
report,
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
made
several
tentative
decisions
to
retain
the
exemption
for:
the
disposal
of
co­
managed
and
co­
burning
coal
combustion
wastes
at
utilities,
coal
combustion
wastes
at
non­
utilities,
petroleum
coke
combustion
wastes;
fluidized
bed
combustion
wastes;
and
natural
gas
combustors.
We
agree
and
support
these
determinations.
(
CIBO00052)

IOGA
and
WVONGA
support
EPA's
recommendation
on
wastes
from
natural
gas;
that
is:
`
The
Agency
has
tentatively
concluded
that
it
will
retain
the
Subtitle
C
exemption
for
natural
gas
combustors.'
The
associations
would
prefer,
of
course,
that
the
agency
permanently
conclude
that
the
Subtitle
C
exemption
be
retained
for
natural
gas
combustion.
As
the
agency
states,
"
Because
of
its
negligible
ash
content,
combustion
of
natural
gas
generates
virtually
no
solid
waste."
It
is
only
logical,
and
environmentally
sound,
to
retain
the
Subtitle
C
exemption
for
natural
gas
combustion
"
since
there
are
no
solid
wastes
generated
by
the
process."
In
sum,
IOGA
and
WVONGA
strongly
support
the
Bevill
Amendment
for
wastes,
if
any,
from
thecombustion
of
natural
gas.
(
WVA00059)

In
summary,
IOGA
and
WVONGA
encourage
EPA
to
foster
the
use
of
natural
gas
and
electric
generation
and
industrial
facilities
by
encouraging
the
following:
1.
Co­
firing:
natural
gas
mixed
with
coal
or
oil
which
reduces
emission
of
SO2
and
Nox;
2.
Re­
burning:
using
natural
gas
injected
into
a
boiler
to
"
re­
burn"
emissions
reducing
Nox.
3.
Fuel
switching:
substitute
natural
gas
for
other
combustion
fuels
during
warm
weather
months
when
smog
generation
is
at
its
highest;
and
4.
Co­
generation:
utilizing
natural
gas
to
also
generate
steam
for
resale.
In
some
natural
gas
fired
power
plants
and
utilization
of
natural
gas
in
combination
with
other
fossil
fuels
reduces
the
emission
of
pollutants
into
the
atmosphere.
(
WVA00059)

We
support
EPA's
conclusion
that
the
combustion
of
natural
gas
does
not
produce
solid
wastes
and,
therefore,
should
be
exempt
from
RCRA
regulation.
In
addition,
the
facts
clearly
point
out
that
natural
gas
is
superior
to
other
fossil
fuels
in
the
pollution
attributed
to
energy
generation
in
terms
of
emissions
and
waste
disposal.
As
the
American
Gas
Association
states:
natural
gas
is
"
America's
Natural
Wonder."
We
encourage
EPA
to
promote
the
use
of
the
cleanest
burning
fuel,
natural
gas.
(
WVA00059)

USWAG
reiterates
its
recommendation
that
EPA
issue
a
regulatory
determination
that
all
"
remaining"
FFC
wastes
do
not
warrant
RCRA
Subtitle
C
or
similar
regulation
and
that
the
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
III
­
3
beneficial
uses
of
FFC
products
identified
in
the
Report
to
Congress
are
environmentally
sound
and
do
not
constitute
waste
management.
(
USWAG00275)

As
set
forth
in
its
initial
comments,
CIBO
asserts
that
available
scientific,
analytic,
demonstrative,
and
other
data
clearly
sustain
the
conclusion
that
no
aspect
of
the
substances
addressed
in
this
RTC
should
be
subjected
to
national
Subtitle
C
regulation.
The
extension
of
federal
Subtitle
C
authority
over
these
uses
would
undermine
the
core
objectives
of
RCRA.
C.
IBO
asserts
that
all
available
data
demonstrates
that
all
wastes
and
applications
covered
by
the
RTC
should
remain
under
the
Bevill
exemption.
(
CIBO00280)

Accordinglv
we
call
upon
EPA
to
designate
all
fossil
fuel
wastes
including
those
covered
in
the
first
Bevill
Determination
as
hazardous
waste
in
its
Final
Determination.
(
HEC00056)

The
49
undersigned
local,
regional,
and
national
environmental
and
public
health
organizations
urge
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
to
reverse
its
pending
decision
to
exempt
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
from
regulation
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C.
(
49CAO00058)

We
request
that
US
EPA
regulate
fossil
fuel
wastes
including
coal
combustion
wastes
to
be
disposed
in
mines
as
a
hazardous
waste
under
RCRA
subtitle
C.
We
ask
that
at
a
minimum,
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
outlined
in
the
draft
Determination
be
applied
nationally
to
all
disposal
sites
for
CCW
and
other
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
wastes
mixed
with
these
wastes
or
wastes
whose
parent
materials
are
coburned
with
these
wastes.
We
believe
that
the
requirements
for
liners,
leachate
collection
and
ground
water
monitoring
outlined
under
this
alternative
in
the
Determination
are
basic
protections
that
must
be
afforded
to
the
environment
and/
or
citizens
who
live
adjacent
to
or
near
sites
where
these
wastes
are
disposed.
(
HEC00332)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
IV
­
1
IV.
MILL
REJECTS
(
PYRITES)

EPA
tentatively
concluded
to
retain
the
exemption
for
pyrite
comanagement
with
coal
combustion
wastes
(
CCWs)
in
light
of
the
development
of
a
voluntary
industry
program
of
management
controls.
Comments
were
received
on
both
sides
of
this
issue.
Several
commenters,
primarily
from
industry,
expressed
support
for
continuing
to
exclude
pyrite
comanagement
disposal
from
Subtitle
C
regulation
under
the
Bevill
amendment,
given
the
industry's
voluntary
program.
Public
interest
group
commenters
argued
that
voluntary
controls
are
inadequate
and
supported
Subtitle
C
regulation.
Specific
concerns
are
summarized
below.

Response:
The
Agency
has
determined
that
national
regulation
under
Subtitle
D
authority
is
appropriate
for
coal
combustion
wastes
managed
in
surface
impoundments
and
landfills,
as
explained
in
Section
I
of
this
document.
Therefore
co­
management
with
pyritic
wastes
will
be
covered
by
the
regulations.

We
remain
encouraged
by
the
utility
industry
program
to
educate
its
members
and
promote
implementation
of
guidance
on
the
proper
management
of
coal
mill
rejects.
However,
as
pointed
out
by
commenters,
there
is
no
guarantee
that
facilities
where
coal
combustion
wastes
are
comanaged
with
pyritic
wastes
will
adhere
to
the
guidance
developed
by
industry.
At
this
time,
to
ensure
that
the
Agency
is
aware
of
all
stakeholders
views
on
the
adequacy
of
the
control
approaches
described
in
the
guidance
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment,
we
are
soliciting
public
comment
on
the
final
version
of
the
industry
coal
mill
rejects
guidance.
This
guidance
is
available
in
the
docket
supporting
today's
decision.
We
will
take
comments
into
account
as
we
incorporate
the
guidance
into
national
regulations
as
appropriate
EPA
has
considered
the
specific
concerns
raised
by
the
commenters
with
regard
to
this
decision.
These
are
addressed
in
the
sub­
topic
responses
below.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
2
IV
­
2
IV.
MILL
REJECTS
(
PYRITES)
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
At
USWAG's
request,
EPRI
has
prepared
a
comprehensive
guidance
document
to
assist
the
industry
in
understanding
the
nature
of
the
problem
and
to
provide
the
industry
with
a
set
of
options
for
co­
managing
pyrites
and
coal
combustion
wastes
to
minimize
pyrite
oxidation.
Once
again,
we
are
proud
to
report
that
USWAG
members
have
`
stepped
up
to
the
plate'
to
address
an
environmental
problem
without
the
need
for
a
regulatory
prod.
We
are
committed
to
continuing
that
educational
effort.
For
that
reason,
we
fully
concur
with
EPA's
recommendation
that
no
additional
regulations
are
necessary
to
address
the
potential
consequences
of
pyrite
oxidation
when
comanaged
with
coal
combustion
wastes.
(
USWAG00037)

TVA
generally
supports
the
conclusions
of
the
RTC.
We
are
fully
supportive
of
the
comments
submitted
by
the
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
(
USWAG).
(
TVA00049)

I
have
reviewed
EPA's
March
1999
Report
to
Congress
on
Waste
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels.
I
am
highly
pleased
that
following
18
years
of
study
pursuant
to
the
1980
Bevill
Amendment
to
RCRA,
EPA
has
finally
concluded
that
electric
utilities
and
independent
power
producers
generally
manage
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
in
an
environmentally
responsible
manner
and
that
the
combustion
wastes
do
not
warrant
hazardous
waste
regulation
under
RCRA.
(
BCHRL0002)

The
Agency
proposes
to
exempt
pyritic
wastes
(
coal
mill
rejects)
from
Subtitle
C
regulation...
These
decisions
fail
the
Administrator's
tests
of
consistency
and
reasonableness
in
decision­
making...
The
Agency
must
not
exempt
pyritic
wastes
on
these
bases.
(
ALA00036)

We
believe
that
the
limited
credible
information
in
this
Report
as
well
as
the
extensive
information
demonstrating
damages
to
the
environment
from
these
wastes
unambigouslv
supports
regulation
of
fossil
fuel
wastes
as
hazardous
wastes
under
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA.
Accordinglv
we
call
upon
EPA
to
designate
all
fossil
fuel
wastes
including
those
covered
in
the
first
Bevill
Determination
as
hazardous
waste
in
its
Final
Determination.
(
HEC00056)

The
49
undersigned
local,
regional,
and
national
environmental
and
public
health
organizations
urge
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
to
reverse
its
pending
decision
to
exempt
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
from
regulation
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C.
We
are
concerned
that
this
decision,
once
again,
would
create
a
loophole
to
reduce
the
regulatory
obligations
for
coal­
fired
power
plants.
(
49CAO00058)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
4
FF2P­
S0397.
Guidance
for
Comanagement
of
Mill
Rejects
at
Coal­
fired
Power
Plants.
EPRI.
Draft.
January
1999.

5
FF2P­
S0405.
Guidance
for
Comanagement
of
Mill
Rejects
at
Coal­
fired
Power
Plants.
EPRI.
Final.
June
1,
1999.

3
IV
­
3
IV.
MILL
REJECTS
(
PYRITES)
A.
Voluntary
Controls
Not
In
Docket
Several
public
interest
groups
commented
that
it
would
be
very
inappropriate
to
endorse
a
program
the
details
of
which
were
not
included
in
the
docket
for
public
comment.

Response:
At
the
time
the
Report
to
Congress
was
released,
the
voluntary
industry
guidance
document
was
not
finalized..
The
final
draft
version
of
the
industry
guidance
document,
however,
was
included
in
the
docket4
when
the
RTC
was
published.
The
final,
published
version
of
the
guidance
is
now
available
in
the
docket.
5
This
final,
published
version
is
substantively
the
same
as
the
version
made
available
earlier
for
public
comment.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
4
IV
­
4
IV.
MILL
REJECTS
(
PYRITES)
A.
Voluntary
Controls
Not
In
Docket
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
It
is
completely
inadequate
for
the
Agency
to
rely
on
an
industry
proposal
which
is
never
elucidated
(
nor
is
it
in
the
docket).
(
ALA00036)

Industry­
EPA
discussions
about
"
voluntary
control
proposals"
are
not
in
the
record,
although
the
Agency
relies
on
them
in
malting
its
draft
Regulatory
Determinations.
The
Agency
does
not
present
any
information
about
what
the
voluntary
industry
proposals
are.
(
ALA00036)

The
Agency
has
referenced
in
several
places
its
discussions
with
industry
regarding
"
voluntary
control
proposals,"
or
options,
for
managing
the
wastes
short
of
Subtitle
C
regulatory
requirements.
However,
it
appears
that
those
proposals
have
not
been
provided
to
the
public
to
evaluate,
although
the
Agency
seems
to
be
relying
on
them
in
lieu
of
Subtitle
C
rules.
(
49CAO00058)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
5
IV
­
5
IV.
MILL
REJECTS
(
PYRITES)
B.
Voluntary
Program
is
No
Substitute
for
a
Regulation
One
public
interest
group
commented
that
a
voluntary
program
can
not
replace
a
regulation
because
adherence
to
the
guidance
is
not
guaranteed.
The
commenter
suggested
regulation
is
justified
based
on
the
characteristics
of
the
waste
and
the
damage
case
identified
by
the
Agency.
The
commenter
suggested
a
better
approach
would
be
to
promulgate
regulations
and
offer
a
delayed
compliance
schedule
to
facilities
entering
a
voluntary
early
reduction
program.

Response:
The
Agency
has
decided
to
develop
national
regulations
for
management
of
coal
combustion
wastes
in
landfills
and
surface
impoundments.
These
regulations
will
cover
comanaged
pyritic
wastes
as
well.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
6
IV
­
6
IV.
MILL
REJECTS
(
PYRITES)
B.
Voluntary
Program
is
No
Substitute
for
Regulation
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
Agency
proposes
to
exempt
pyritic
wastes
(
coal
mill
rejects)
from
Subtitle
C
regulation.
This
proposal
is
despite
evidence
presented
by
the
Agency
that
shows
acidic
leachate
from
such
material
meets
the
RCRA
characteristics
test.
In
addition,
the
Agency
presents
proof
of
a
damage
case
from
pyritic
waste
disposal.
The
Agency
is
quick
to
point
out,
however
that
there
are
limited
waste
characterization
data
for
pyritic
waste
and
that
the
data
could
not
be
extrapolated
to
the
industry
as
a
whole
(
in
other
words,
just
because
the
samples
that
were
gathered
were
toxic,
doesn't
mean
all
pyritic
waste
would
be
as
toxic).
This
careful
use
of
limited
data
is
in
direct
contrast
to
the
Agency's
proposed
actions
to
exempt
co­
burning
wastes
based
on
similarly
limited
data
and,
on
no
data
at
all
as
the
basis
for
exempting
beneficial
uses.
These
decisions
fail
the
Administrator's
tests
of
consistency
and
reasonableness
in
decision­
making.
(
ALA00036)

Instead
of
meeting
its
obligations
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
to
regulate
pyritic
wastes,
the
Agency
is
"
encouraged"
by
an
industry
proposal
to
control
these
wastes
and
offers
to
"
follow­
up
on
industry's
progress"
and
"
revisit
if
necessary".
This
decision
has
no
basis
in
RCRA.
The
Report
does
not
address
whether
there
is
adequate
authority
to
control
these
wastes,
nor
is
an
economic
analysis
clone.
It
is
completely
inadequate
for
the
Agency
to
rely
on
an
industry
proposal
which
is
never
elucidated
(
nor
is
it
in
the
docket)
and
to
offer
a
vague
noncommittal
oversight
program
which
would
be
completely
unenforceable.
The
Agency
must
not
exempt
pyritic
wastes
on
these
bases.
(
ALA00036)

In
addition,
the
Agency
provides
no
explanation
as
to
why
these
voluntary
proposals
would
be
considered
equivalent
to
federal
or
state
regulatory
authority.
In
the
three­
step
decision
making
process
described
in
the
Report,
the
Agency
states
it
will
assess
whether
regulatory
authority
exists
which
would
be
adequate
in
the
absence
of
a
Subtitle
C
finding.
A
voluntary
industry
program
is
clearly
not
an
adequate
substitute
for
Federal
or
state
regulatory
authority.
(
ALA00036)

If
all
of
the
wastes
are
exempted
from
regulation
(
and
the
44
states
which
follow
the
federal
program
also
continue
to
exempt
them).
Where
is
the
incentive
for
industry
to
enact
voluntary
controls?
Why
haven't
they
done
it
sooner
if
their
intent
was
to
change
their
practices
?
A
better
approach
would
be
to
promulgate
regulations
and
offer
a
delayed
compliance
schedule
to
facilities
entering
a
voluntary
early
reduction
program.
The
Clean
Air
Act
offers
this
precedence
in
section
112(
e)
of
the
1990
amendments.
(
ALA00036)

IV.
MILL
REJECTS
(
PYRITES)
C.
Definition
of
Pyrites
An
industry
commenter
requested
that
EPA
clarify
the
meaning
of
pyrites
as
intended
in
the
regulatory
determination,
stating
that
not
all
coal
mill
rejects
are
"
pyritic."
The
commenter
noted
EPA
has
not
defined
a
threshold
concentration
of
pyritic
material
that
would
cause
a
mixture
of
large­
volume
FFC
wastes
and
mill
rejects
to
be
considered
pyrites
subject
to
the
guidance.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
7
IV
­
7
Response:
The
mill
rejects
(
pyrites)
guidance
document
provides
information
on
how
to
determine,
based
on
certain
analytical
tests,
whether
a
particular
pyritic
waste
and
coal
combustion
waste
mixture
might
create
special
management
problems
and
thus
be
subject
to
the
waste
management
techniques
and
practices
recommended
in
the
guidance.
Hazardous
waste
regulations
that
the
Agency
will
propose
and
promulgate
will
either
contain
or
refer
to
a
similar
process
for
determining
the
need
for
special
management
of
pyritic
and
coal
combustion
waste
mixtures.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
8
IV
­
8
IV.
MILL
REJECTS
(
PYRITES)
C.
Definition
of
Pyrites
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
Agency
has
identified
several
situations
where
"
pyrite"
materials
described
as
sulfur­
bearing
components
of
mill
rejects
may
be
of
some
concern.
We
would
urge
the
Agency
to
clearly
define
these
"
pyrite"
materials.
Typical
coal
mill
systems
reject
many
various
materials
as
"
pyrites"
which
will
not
meet
grinding
criteria,
although
very
few
of
the
materials
rejected
from
low
sulfur
western
coals
are
"
pyritic."
It
is
unlikely
that
much
material
collected
by
the
so­
called
"
pyrite"
systems
in
our
coal
mills
are
truly
high
sulfur
bearing
minerals.
(
NCE00031)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
V
­
1
V.
WASTE
FROM
CO­
BURNING
EPA
included
wastes
from
co­
burning
coal
and
other
non­
fossil
fuels
(
provided
that
the
coal
component
is
at
least
50
percent
of
the
total
fuel
feed)
in
its
tentative
decision
to
continue
the
exemption
from
hazardous
waste
regulation
for
co­
managed
CCWs.
Many
commenters,
primarily
from
industry,
generally
supported
the
tentative
decision.
Public
interest
group
commenters,
on
the
other
hand,
disagreed
with
the
conclusion,
stating
that
EPA's
characterization
of
these
wastes
was
wholly
inadequate
to
come
to
any
conclusion.
One
of
these
commenters
expressed
concern
that
coverage
of
co­
burning
would
lead
to
the
combustion
of
large
volumes
of
hazardous
waste
in
utility
boilers,
with
the
end
result
of
power
plants
serving
as
de
facto
unregulated
hazardous
waste
incinerators.

Response:
The
Agency
has
decided,
in
its
regulatory
determination,
that
co­
burning
wastes
(
i.
e.,
combustion
wastes
from
burning
mixtures
of
coal
and
other
non­
fossil
fuels)
when
disposed
in
landfills
and
surface
impoundments
should
be
regulated
under
Subtitle
D
authority
.
This
is
because
the
co­
burning
wastes
contain
levels
of
several
hazardous
metals
that
are
similar
or
even
higher
than
found
in
waste
or
leachate
from
combusting
coal
alone.
Because
of
the
presence
of
metals
at
those
levels,
the
Agency
believes
these
co­
burning
wastes
have
the
potential
to
pose
the
same
risks
as
coal
combustion
wastes
which
will
be
subject
to
national
regulations,
as
explained
in
Section
I
of
this
document.

In
the
RTC,
EPA
identified
17
types
of
materials
that
had
been
reported
by
industry
as
sometimes
being
co­
burned
with
coal.
Characterization
data
(
whole
waste
and
TCLP
test
results
for
metals)
were
available
for
wastes
from
co­
burning
mixtures
containing
ten
of
these
types
of
materials.
For
five
of
these
ten
materials,
metals
concentrations
were
within
the
ranges
reported
for
utility
wastes
from
coal
combusted
alone
in
the
characterization
data
supporting
the
1993
Regulatory
Determination.
The
other
five
materials
variously
displayed
maximum
levels
of
several
constituents
(
selenium,
barium,
chromium,
copper,
lead,
zinc)
in
either
whole
waste
or
TCLP
samples
in
excess
of
those
reported
for
utility
waste
from
coal
combusted
alone.

EPA
acknowledged
in
the
RTC
the
limitations
of
the
available
characterization
data
on
wastes
from
co­
burning
coal
and
other
non­
fossil
fuels.
For
example,
a
limited
number
of
samples
are
available
from
any
given
fuel
mixture
and
it
is
not
possible
to
say
with
certainty
whether
the
few
elevated
concentrations
result
from
the
coal
or
the
other
fuels
in
the
mixture.
However,
the
Agency
properly
concluded
that
many
of
the
metals
levels
in
wastes
from
co­
burning
coal
and
other
non­
fossil
fuels
are
similar
to
wastes
from
coal
burned
alone.
(
Waste
from
fuel
mixtures
consisting
of
less
than
50
percent
coal
are
not,
and
never
have
been,
covered
under
the
Bevill
exclusion.
This
50
percent
rule
further
limits
the
influence
non­
coal
materials
can
have
on
the
characteristics
of
the
combustion
waste.
Typically,
when
coal
is
co­
burned
with
other
non­
fossil
fuels,
the
proportion
of
coal
is
80
percent
or
higher.)
No
commenters
provided
any
additional
waste
characterization
data.
The
waste
characterization
data
is
available
in
the
docket.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
6See
40
CFR
266.112.

2
V
­
2
With
regard
to
the
comment
about
the
co­
burning
of
coal
and
hazardous
waste,
burners
of
coal
and
hazardous
waste
mixtures
are
subject
to
the
Boiler
and
Industrial
Furnace
(
BIF)
rule
under
RCRA6
and
thus
are
not
unregulated
hazardous
waste
burners.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
V
­
3
V.
WASTE
FROM
CO­
BURNING
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
ARIPPA
supports
the
tentative
conclusion
of
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
to
retain
the
exemption
for
disposal
of
co­
managed
and
co­
burning
coal
combustion
waste
at
utilities;
coal
combustion
wastes
at
non­
utilities;
petroleum
coke
combustion
waste;
and
for
fluidized
combustion
waste.
ARIPPA
recommends
that
EPA
continue
to
retain
exemptions.
(
ARIPP00019)

PG&
E
Gen
supports
EPA's
preliminary
determination
to
retain
the
hazardous
waste
exemption
for
...
co­
burning
of
coal
with
other
fuels.
(
PG&
E00023)

We
respectively
ask
that
EPA
not
bow
to
pressure
to
extend
the
regulatory
development
timetable.
It
is
time
to
put
this
issue
to
bed
and
allow
us
to
move
forward
with
the
clean
up
of
or
scarred
land.
We
also
ask
that
the
EPA
base
its
decision
on
a
fully
informed
process
and
sound
science.
In
doing
so,
we
are
confident
the
Agency
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB,
oil
ash
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
waste.
(
PAC00029).

Although
EPA
expressed
some
concern
that
the
data
were
fairly
limited,
129
EPA
correctly
concluded
that
the
combustion
residuals
from
co­
burning
fuel
mixtures
consisting
primarily
of
coal
do
no
warrant
hazardous
waste
regulation.
(
USWAG00037)

Virginia
Power
fully
supports
the
Agency's
decision
to
exempt
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements,
co­
managed
wastes,
which
include
petroleum
coke
combustion
wastes,
as
well
as
mixtures
of
other
fuels
co­
fired
with
coal.
(
VAP00042)

TVA
generally
supports
the
conclusions
of
the
RTC.
(
TVA00049).

In
its
report,
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
made
several
tentative
decisions
to
retain
the
exemption
for
the
disposal
of
co­
managed
and
co­
burning
coal
combustion
wastes
at
utilities,
coal
combustion
wastes
at
non­
utilities,
petroleum
coke
combustion
wastes;
fluidized
bed
combustion
wastes;
and
natural
gas
combustors.
We
agree
and
support
these
determinations.
(
CIBO00052)

The
Maryland
Coal
Association
appreciates
the
opportunity
to
make
these
comments
on
behalf
of
the
existing
exclusion
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
by­
products.
(
MDCAL0001)

I
am
highly
pleased
that
following
18
years
of
study
pursuant
to
the
1980
Bevill
Amendment
to
RCRA,
EPA
has
finally
concluded
that
electric
utilities
and
independent
power
producers
generally
manage
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
in
an
environmentally
responsible
manner
and
that
the
combustion
wastes
do
no
warrant
hazardous
waste
regulations
under
RCRA.
(
BCHRL002)

USWAG
reiterates
its
recommendation
that
EPA
issue
a
regulatory
determination
that
all
"
remaining"
FFC
wastes
do
not
warrant
RCRA
Subtitle
C
or
similar
regulation.
(
USWAG00275)

As
set
forth
in
its
initial
comments,
CIBO
asserts
that
available
scientific,
analytic,
demonstrative,
and
other
data
clearly
sustain
the
conclusion
that
no
aspect
of
the
substances
addressed
in
the
RTC
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
4
V
­
4
should
be
subjected
to
national
Subtitle
C
regulation.
CIBO
asserts
that
all
available
data
demonstrates
that
all
wastes
and
applications
covered
by
the
RTC
should
remain
under
the
Bevill
exemption
(
CIBO00280)

I
believe
that
we
have
amply
and
effectively
demonstrated
the
successful
balance
between
economic
issues
and
the
environmental
concerns
through
adherence
of
the
Pennsylvania
regulations
for
CFB
ash
disposal
and
beneficial
use
and
can
see
no
benefit
to
the
expansion
of
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
fuel
ash
produced
in
a
CFB.
(
GPC00297).

We
believe
that
the
limited
credible
information
in
this
Report
as
well
as
the
extensive
information
demonstrating
damages
to
the
environment
from
these
wastes
unambiguously
supports
regulation
for
fossil
fuel
wastes
as
hazardous
wastes
under
Subtitle
C
or
RCRA.
Accordingly
we
call
upon
EPA
to
designate
all
fossil
fuel
wastes
including
those
covered
in
the
first
Bevil
Determination
as
hazardous
waste
in
its
Final
Determination..
(
HEC00056)

No
attempt
is
made
to
estimate
the
volumes
of
such
materials
being
coburned
or
the
resulting
wastes
or
to
even
qualitatively
state
whether
those
volumes
are
large
or
small.
There
are
a
few
sentences
about
the
characterization
of
these
wastes
based
on
the
data
from
a
"
small
number
of
samples"
for
individual
fuel
mixtures
collected
by
ERPI.
Furthermore,
EPA
concedes
the
potential
for
elevated
metals
and
organics
in
these
wastes.
Yet
incredulously,
there
is
no
data
in
the
report
or
referencing
of
any
data
in
the
Docket
supporting
any
characterization
of
these
wastes.
(
HEC00056)

EPA
has
not
adequately
characterized
the
waste,
particularly
wastes
from
co­
burning
coal
with
other
potentially
hazardous
materials.
It
is
unclear
the
extent
to
which
EPA
evaluated
co­
burning
wastes.
This
is
critical
because
EPA
concludes
that
co­
burning
certain
fuel
mixtures
may
result
in
higher
concentration
in
some
metals
although
the
limited
sampling
prevents
any
inference
to
be
made
but
that
no
public
health
or
environmental
risks
exist.
(
ALA00036)

The
49
undersigned
local,
regional,
and
national
environmental
and
public
health
organizations
urge
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
to
reverse
its
pending
decision
to
exempt
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
from
regulation
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C.
(
49CAO00058)

We
request
that
US
EPA
regulate
fossil
fuel
wastes
including
coal
combustion
wastes
to
be
disposed
in
mines
as
hazardous
waste
under
RCRA
subtitle
C.
We
ask
that
at
a
minimum,
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
outlined
in
the
draft
Determination
be
applied
nationally
to
all
disposal
sites
for
CCW
and
other
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
waste
mixed
with
these
wastes
or
wastes
whose
parent
materials
are
coburned
with
these
wastes.
We
believe
that
the
requirements
for
liners,
leachate
collection
and
ground
water
monitoring
outlined
under
this
alternative
in
the
Determination
are
basic
projections
that
must
be
afforded
to
the
environment
and/
or
citizens
who
live
adjacent
to
or
near
sites
where
these
wastes
are
disposed.
(
HEC00332)

The
Agency
has
tentatively
concluded
that
co­
managed
wastes,
including
wastes
from
other
fuels
co­
fired
with
coal
generally
present
a
low
inherent
toxicity,
are
seldom
characteristically
hazardous,
and
generally
do
not
present
a
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
With
respect
to
co­
burning
other
fuels,
this
conclusion
has
no
basis
and
is
clearly
unfounded.
(
ALA0036)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
5
V
­
5
The
result
of
this
exemption
would
be
an
increase
in
co­
firing
waste
fuels
with
fossil
fuels.
Under
the
Clean
Air
Act,
hazardous
waste
incinerators
are
subjected
to
emission
limits
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
HAP).
Because
power
plants
are
currently
exempt
from
HAP
regulations,
the
end
results
will
be
power
plants
serving
as
de
facto
unregulated
hazardous
waste
incinerators.
Waste
from
co­
burning
waste
fuels
should
not
be
exempt
from
Subtitle
C.
(
ALA0036)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
VI
­
1
VI.
BENEFICIAL
USE
In
the
Report
to
Congress,
EPA
stated
its
tentative
intention
to
grant
permanent
exemption
from
hazardous
waste
regulation
for
most
beneficial
uses
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
(
FFC)
wastes
(
agricultural
use
is
discussed
in
greater
detail
below).
State,
federal
government,
industry,
and
academic
commenters
expressed
support
for
this
conclusion
given
the
absence
of
identifiable
damage
cases,
fixation
of
waste
in
finished
products,
existing
regulations,
and/
or
low
probability
of
adverse
exposures.
Several
of
these
commenters
pointed
out
EPA's
opportunity
(
or
responsibility)
to
promote
beneficial
use
of
FFC
wastes
beyond
mere
exemption.
Public
interest
group
commenters
argued
that
retaining
the
exemption
would
be
inappropriate
because
these
beneficial
uses
were
not
adequately
studied
by
EPA.

Response:
The
Agency
is
retaining
the
exemption
for
beneficial
uses
of
coal
combustion
wastes
other
than
minefilling.
(
We
are
also
retaining
the
exemption
for
agricultural
uses
of
coal
combustion
wastes,
which
is
discussed
separately
in
Section
VIII.)
We
have
reached
this
decision
because:
(
a)
we
have
not
identified
that
any
of
the
other
beneficial
uses
are
likely
to
present
significant
risks
to
human
health
or
the
environment;
and
(
b)
no
documented
cases
of
damage
to
human
health
or
the
environment
have
been
identified.
Additionally,
we
do
not
want
to
place
any
unnecessary
barriers
on
the
beneficial
use
of
coal
combustion
wastes
so
that
they
can
be
used
in
applications
that
conserve
natural
resources
and
reduce
disposal
costs.

Disposal
can
be
burdensome
and
fails
to
take
advantage
of
beneficial
characteristics
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes.
About
one­
quarter
of
the
coal
combustion
wastes
now
generated
are
diverted
to
beneficial
uses.
Currently,
the
major
beneficial
uses
of
coal
combustion
wastes
include:
construction
(
including
building
products,
road
base
&
sub­
base,
blasting
grit
and
roofing
materials)
accounting
for
about
21%;
sludge
and
waste
stabilization
and
acid
neutralization
accounting
for
about
3%;
and
agricultural
use
accounting
for
0.1%.
Provided
the
practices
do
not
pose
risks,
we
support
increases
in
the
beneficial
use
of
these
wastes.

Off­
site
uses
in
construction,
including
wallboard,
present
low
risk
due
to
the
coal
combustion
wastes
being
bound
or
encapsulated
in
the
construction
materials
or
because
there
is
low
potential
for
exposure.
Use
in
waste
and
sludge
stabilization
and
in
acid
neutralization
are
either
regulated
(
under
RCRA
for
hazardous
waste
stabilization
or
when
placed
in
municipal
solid
waste
landfills,
or
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
in
the
case
of
municipal
sewage
sludge
or
wastewater
neutralization),
or
appear
to
present
low
risk
due
to
low
exposure
potential.

The
Agency
evaluated
a
number
of
case
studies
(
available
in
the
docket)
of
beneficial
uses
of
coal
combustion
wastes,
other
than
for
agriculture.
The
Agency
was
not
able
to
identify
adverse
effects
associated
with
these
types
of
beneficial
uses,
nor
do
we
now
believe
that
these
uses
of
coal
combustion
wastes
present
a
significant
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
While
some
commenters
disagreed
with
our
findings,
no
data
or
other
support
for
the
commenters'
position
was
provided,
nor
was
any
information
provided
to
show
risk
or
damage
associated
with
agricultural
use.
Therefore,
we
conclude
that
none
of
these
beneficial
uses
of
coal
combustion
wastes
pose
risks
of
concern.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
2
VI
­
2
VI.
BENEFICIAL
USE
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
IEU
supports
the
EPA
tentative
conclusions
that
coal­
fired
utility
co­
managed
wastes
should
remain
exempt
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulation
and
that
most,
if
not
all,
beneficial
uses
of
these
wastes
should
also
remain
exempt
from
Subtitle
C
regulation.
(
IEU00018)

EPA
can
give
strong
encouragement
to
these
beneficial
uses
of
CCPs,
and
carry
out
one
of
the
principal
objectives
of
RCRA:
"
promoting
the
demonstration,
construction,
and
application
of
waste
management,
resource
recovery,
and
resource
conservation
systems
which
preserve
and
enhance
the
quality
of
air,
water,
and
land
resources..."
(
NMA00024)

IMCC
believes
regulation
under
Subtitle
C
would
promote
a
"
one­
size
fits
all"
approach
that
will
discourage
recycling
of
coal
ash
and
thereby
encourage
the
placement
of
coal
ash
in
less
suitable
or
more
expensive
disposal
environments.
(
IMCC00027)

Th[
e]
evidence
clearly
demonstrates
that
management
of
coal
combustion
wastes
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
is
unnecessary
and
counterproductive.
(
PCA00034)

Thunder
Basin
Coal
encourages
the
EPA
to
not
regulate
these
materials
under
RCRA,
and
adds
that
any
federal
regulations
on
CCW's,
such
as
those
already
imposed
under
TRI
reporting
would
further
inhibit
the
beneficial
use
of
Coal
Combustion
Byproducts.
(
TBCC00035)

Virginia
Power
supports
the
Agency's
decision
cited
in
the
March
1999
"
Report
To
Congress"
to
maintain
the
beneficial
use
exemption
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C
for
the
use
of
co­
managed
wastes,
including
petroleum
coke,
and
wastes
generated
from
the
combustion
of
other
fuels
with
coal.
(
VAP00042)

Ash
researchers
at
the
EERC
have
long
thought
that
reuse
is
nearly
always
a
preferred
option
to
disposal
of
CCBs
which
used
beneficially
are
not
FFC
wastes
but
rather
a
valuable
resource.
(
EERC00044)

First,
I
am
pleased
that
the
report
does
provide
support
for
beneficial
uses
of
coal
combustion
byproducts
(
CCBs).
(
OSU00046)

It
appears
that
current
regulation
of
these
activities
is
more
that
adequate.
Subtitle
D
regulatory
authority
should
remain
adequate
for
governing
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
CCPs
in
the
future.
(
ISG00048)

In
short,
TVA
believes
that
beneficial
reuse
of
CCPs
preserves
natural
resources
and
can
be
used
in
an
environmentally
responsible
manner.
(
TVA00049)

TXU
supports
the
general
conclusion
reached
by
EPA
in
the
RTC
that
disposal
of
co­
managed
wastes
generated
at
coal­
fired
utilities,
including
beneficial
utilization,
should
remain
exempt
from
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
VI
­
3
the
provisions
of
subtitle
C
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA).
(
TXU00053)

We
also
concur
with
the
EPA's
recommendation
that
most
beneficial
uses
of
these
wastes
should
also
remain
exempt
from
Subtitle
C
in
light
of
the
absence
of
identifiable
damage
cases,
fixation
of
waste
in
finished
products,
and/
or
low
probability
of
adverse
exposures.
(
TXU00053)

TXU
concurs
with
EPA's
tentative
conclusion
that
non­
utility
coal
combustion
wastes
and
beneficial
uses
of
such
wastes
should
remain
exempt
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C.
(
TXU00053)

AEP
would
further
assert
that
beneficial
uses
of
co­
managed
CCPs
should
also
remain
exempt
from
Subtitle
C
regulation,
and
even
encouraged
by
EPA.
(
AEP00060)

I
am
highly
pleased
that
following
18
years
of
study
pursuant
to
the
1980
Bevill
Amendment
to
RCRA,
EPA
has
finally
concluded
that
electric
utilities
and
independent
power
producers
generally
manage
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
in
an
environmentally
responsible
manner
and
that
the
combustion
wastes
do
no
warrant
hazardous
waste
regulations
under
RCRA.
(
BCHRL0002)

The
agency's
tentative
conclusion
not
to
impose
Subtitle
C
rules
on
the
use
and
disposal
of
such
CCPs
is
well­
founded.
(
WVDEPL0003)

USWAG
reiterates
its
recommendation
that
EPA
issue
a
regulatory
determination
that
all
"
remaining"
FFC
wastes
do
not
warrant
RCRA
Subtitle
C
or
similar
regulation
and
that
the
beneficial
uses
of
FFC
products
identified
in
the
Report
to
Congress
are
environmentally
sound
and
do
not
constitute
waste
management.
(
USWAG00275)

EPA
can
remove
barriers
and
encourage
the
use
of
coal
fly
ash
to
the
maximum
extent
possible
with
its
regulatory
determination
following
its
RTC
on
fossil
fuel
combustion.
(
ACAA00276)

USWAG
concurs
with
EPA's
recommendation
that
beneficial
uses
of
OCWs
remain
excluded
from
Subtitle
C.
The
record
fully
supports
EPA's
conclusion
that
"[
n]
o
significant
risks
to
human
health
exist
for
the
identified
beneficial
uses
of
these
wastes."
162
(
USWAG00037)

The
Agency
should
not
issue
a
blanket
exemption
for
other
beneficial
uses
of
FFC
waste
because
none
of
the
other
beneficial
uses
were
considered
in
the
risk
assessment.
Therefore,
the
Agency
has
no
basis
for
granting
this
exemption.
(
ALA00036)

We
believe
that
the
limited
credible
information
in
this
Report
as
well
as
the
extensive
information
demonstrating
damages
to
the
environment
from
these
wastes
unambiguously
supports
regulation
for
fossil
fuel
wastes
as
hazardous
wastes
under
Subtitle
C
or
RCRA.
Accordingly
we
call
upon
EPA
to
designate
all
fossil
fuel
wastes
including
those
covered
in
the
first
Bevill
Determination
as
hazardous
waste
in
its
Final
Determination..
(
HEC00056)

Several
commenters
requested
that
EPA
promote
increased
beneficial
use
of
FFC
wastes
by
excluding,
or
encouraging
states
to
exclude,
FFC
wastes
from
the
definition
of
solid
wastes
when
beneficially
used.
In
support
of
this,
one
of
the
commenters
stated
that
beneficial
use
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
4
VI
­
4
declined
by
25
percent
as
a
result
of
Indiana's
inclusion
of
these
materials
within
its
definition
of
waste.

Response:
The
Agency
will
not
exclude
FFC
wastes
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
when
beneficially
used.
Some
states
that
are
generally
supportive
of
beneficial
uses
exercise
oversight
and
controls
over
the
beneficial
uses
under
their
authority
to
regulate
waste
management.
If
EPA
were
to
exclude
these
uses
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste,
it
could
undermine
state
programs,
which
we
believe
are
important
to
ensure
that
beneficial
uses
are
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

In
addition,
the
RTC
did
not
discuss
exempting
FFC
wastes
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste
when
beneficially
used.
Before
the
Agency
could
consider
any
such
action,
we
would
have
to
go
through
a
full
notice
and
comment
period
to
allow
all
interested
parties
full
opportunity
to
provide
input.

Do
perceptions
make
a
difference?
YES.
The
beneficial
reuse
of
CCP
(
excluding
mine
placement
for
reclamation)
declined
by
25%
as
a
result
of
Indiana's
characterization
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
products
as
coal
combustion
waste.
(
IEU00018)

EPA
can
[
encourage
beneficial
use]
by
...
recognizing
that
CCPs,
when
beneficially
used
in
accordance
with
state
statutory
and
regulatory
requirements
and
procedures,
are
not
wastes.
Placement
of
CCPs
on
the
ground
as
part
of
their
beneficial
use
does
not
constitute
"
disposal"
of
a
waste
under
RCRA.
Rather,
when
beneficially
used,
CCPs
are
materials
with
a
clear
environmental
and
commercial
value.
In
the
case
of
CCPs,
removing
these
regulatory
barriers
will
have
only
positive
environmental
and
economic
results.
(
NMA00024)

Regulations
send
messages
to
people
interested
in
use
of
coal
combustion
products.
The
words
waste
and
RCRA
scare
customers
away.
EPA
has
an
opportunity
in
it's
coming
decision
to
tell
people
there
will
be
no
Federal
RCRA
regulations
of
these
materials
and
to
clear
the
way
for
states
to
develop
regulatory
programs
that
eliminate
the
word
"
waste"
following
recycled
materials
even
after
they
are
put
to
reuse.
(
NMA00024A)

First,
to
help
level
the
competitive
playing
field
for
CCPs
and
competing
virgin
material
products,
EPA
should
strongly
urge
all
Federal
and
State
agencies
to
refrain
from
applying
waste
regulations
to
CCPs
when
used
in
a
recognized
on­
site
application
as
a
substitute
for
other
competing
products.
(
USWAG00037)

I
am
also
pleased
to
observe
in
the
Report
that
EPA
has
determined
that
the
recycling
of
these
combustion
residuals
into
useful
commercial
applications
is
environmentally
safe.
I
would
urge
you
to
take
this
"
clean
bill
of
health"
for
coal
ash
utilization
and
actively
promote
increased
utilization
of
this
product
by,
among
other
things,
encouraging
State
and
Federal
regulatory
programs
to
avoid
applying
"
waste"
regulations
to
coal
ash
when
it
is
beneficially
used
in
a
product.
In
my
opinion,
coal
combustion
products
should
be
subject
to
the
same
regulatory
requirements
applicable
to
competing
products
using
virgin
materials.
(
BCHRL0002)

USWAG
reiterates
its
recommendation
that
EPA
issue
a
regulatory
determination
that
all
"
remaining"
FFC
wastes
do
not
warrant
RCRA
Subtitle
C
or
similar
regulation
and
that
the
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
5
VI
­
5
beneficial
uses
of
FFC
products
identified
in
the
Report
to
Congress
are
environmentally
sound
and
do
not
constitute
waste
management.
(
USWAG00275)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
6
VI
­
6
VI.
BENEFICIAL
USE
B.
General
Promotion
of
Beneficial
Use
Some
of
the
industry
and
academic
commenters
suggested
EPA
take
specific
steps
to
promote
beneficial
use.
These
commenters
stated
that
the
broad
requirements
of
RCRA
include
promotion
of
resource
conservation,
and
that
promotion
of
beneficial
uses
of
FFC
wastes
is
most
consistent
with
RCRA
and
the
responsibility
of
EPA.
One
of
the
commenters
suggested
specifically
adding
all
of
the
identified
beneficial
uses
to
the
annual
EPA
Comprehensive
Procurement
Guidelines.
One
public
interest
group
commenter
suggested
that
more
stringent
regulation
of
disposal
would
help
promote
alternative
beneficial
uses.

Response:
The
Agency
agrees
that
beneficial
uses
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
waste
that
are
environmentally
protective
are
desirable
and
believes
that
the
decision
to
retain
the
Bevill
exemption
for
these
wastes
is
an
incentive
both
for
generators
and
potential
users
to
pursue
more
extensive
beneficial
uses.
As
documented
by
the
industry
in
data
provided
to
support
the
Report
to
Congress
and
Regulatory
Determination,
companies
are
extensively
pursuing
beneficial
uses
when
they
are
economically
feasible.
In
addition,
the
Agency
recently
promulgated
a
Comprehensive
Procurement
Guideline
(
CPG)
for
Flowable
Fill
Containing
Coal
Fly
Ash
and/
or
Ferrous
Foundry
Sands
(
65FR
3070,
January
19,
2000;
40
CFR
247.12
(
i))
to
encourage
beneficial
use
of
coal
fly
ash.
The
Agency
does
not
agree
that
more
stringent
regulation
of
disposal
practices
will
promote
alternative
beneficial
uses.
Current
beneficial
uses
are
usually
limited,
in
part,
by
transportation
costs,
to
uses
in
relative
proximity
to
the
facilities
where
they
are
generated.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
7
VI
­
7
VI.
BENEFICIAL
USE
B.
General
Promotion
of
Beneficial
Use
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Responsible
beneficial
use
of
CCP
should
be
advocated
by
EPA
and
the
regulatory
determination
should
not
place
additional
barriers,
institutional
or
regulatory,
or
existing
or
future
practices.
(
IEU00018)

EPA
can
give
strong
encouragement
to
these
beneficial
uses
of
CCPs,
and
carry
out
one
of
the
principal
objectives
of
RCRA:
"
promoting
the
demonstration,
construction,
and
application
of
waste
management,
resource
recovery,
and
resource
conservation
systems
which
preserve
and
enhance
the
quality
of
air,
water,
and
land
resources..."
RCRA
Section
1003(
10).
(
NMA00024)

Given
EPA's
positive
findings
on
the
environmental
performance
of
such
use,
EPA
should
"
step
up
to
plate"
and
join
in
a
meaningful
way
with
the
industry
and
many
states
to
encourage
increased
diversion
of
these
materials
from
waste
management
to
product
use.
(
USWAG00037)

First,
to
help
level
the
competitive
playing
field
for
CCPs
and
competing
virgin
material
products,
EPA
should
strongly
urge
all
Federal
and
State
agencies
to
refrain
from
applying
waste
regulations
to
CCPs
when
used
in
a
recognized
on­
site
application
as
a
substitute
for
other
competing
products.
Second,
EPA
should
commit
to
adding
to
the
annual
EPA
Comprehensive
Procurement
Guidelines
all
of
the
beneficial
uses
identified
in
the
RTC
that
are
likely
to
meet
the
procurement
needs
of
Federal
or
State
procurement
agencies.
(
USWAG00037)

EPA
is
presented
with
an
opportunity
to
continue
to
expand
its
role
in
the
promotion
of
increased
use
of
CCBs
by
continuing
to
actively
promote
ash
used
under
the
policy
of
procurement
of
environmentally
preferable
products.
It
is
our
belief
at
CARRC
that
EPA
is
in
a
key
position
to
promote
and
increase
the
safe
and
environmentally
responsible
utilization
and
recycling
of
CCBs
as
a
preferred
option
to
disposal
as
wastes.
(
EERC00044)

First,
I
am
pleased
that
the
report
does
provide
support
for
beneficial
uses
of
coal
combustion
byproducts
(
CCBs).
This
must
be
continued
and
strongly
encouraged
in
the
future.
(
OSU00046)

AEP
would
further
assert
that
beneficial
uses
of
co­
managed
CCPs
should
also
remain
exempt
from
Subtitle
C
regulation,
and
even
encouraged
by
EPA.
(
AEP00060)

EPA
can
remove
barriers
and
encourage
the
use
of
coal
fly
ash
to
the
maximum
extent
possible
with
its
regulatory
determination
following
the
RTC
on
fossil
fuel
(
ACAA00276)

The
Report
is
completely
oblivious
to
the
possibility
that
many
beneficial
uses
of
fossil
fuel
wastes
are
an
alternative
to
current
disposal
methods
and
that
the
level
of
such
uses
might
be
closely
related
to
the
stringency
of
disposal
requirements.
Greater
efforts
to
invest
in
research
and
development
of
safe
beneficial
uses
would
likely
be
encouraged
by
requirements
that
prohibit
the
open
dumping
of
these
wastes
and
effectively
hold
waste
generators
liable
for
the
contamination
created
by
their
disposal
practices.
Indeed
in
Indiana,
where
regulators
have
developed
ash
reuse
policies
with
environmental
safeguards
that
are
deliberately
more
streamlined
that
such
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
8
VI
­
8
requirements
in
their
disposal
rules
to
encourage
reuse
instead
of
disposal.
This
Determination
must
examine
the
relationship
between
disposal
and
reuse.
(
HEC00056)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
7
FF2P­
S0265.
Technical
Background
Document:
Beneficial
Use
of
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion
Wastes.
EPA.
October,
1998.

8
FF2P­
S0265.

9
VI
­
9
VI.
BENEFICIAL
USE
C.
Adequacy
of
EPA's
Study
of
Beneficial
Use
Public
interest
groups
commented
that
the
Agency
has
not
adequately
analyzed
the
socalled
beneficial
uses
and,
therefore,
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
exempt
beneficial
uses
at
this
time.
One
group
expressed
particular
concern
with
cross­
media
releases
of
mercury
from
these
uses.
Another
group
commented
that
the
Agency
had
not
appropriately
considered
the
costs
of
regulating
such
uses.
An
industry
commenter
stated
that,
to
the
best
of
its
knowledge
and
contrary
to
statements
in
the
Report,
no
oil
combustion
wastes
have
been
used
for
structural
fill
or
construction
applications.

Response:
EPA
believes
that
it
has
adequately
studied
the
beneficial
uses
of
FFC
wastes.
The
Agency
conducted
an
extensive
review
of
industry
and
academic
literature
describing
these
uses
and
analyzing
their
benefits,
economic
potential,
and
environmental
impact.
The
results
of
this
review
are
presented
in
the
rulemaking
docket.
7
This
study
supports
the
conclusion
that
there
are
real
benefits
to
beneficial
uses
of
FFC
wastes
and
potential
markets
for
many
of
these
uses.
One
industry
commenter
(
ACAA00276)
provided
additional
documentation
regarding
the
benefits
of
several
of
these
uses.

Included
in
the
Agency's
review
were
a
number
of
studies
considering
the
environmental
impacts
of
a
variety
of
specific
beneficial
uses.
EPA
notes
that
most
of
these
studies
did
not
conclude
that
there
was
a
significant
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment
from
the
beneficial
uses
studied.
The
paragraphs
below
describe
each
of
the
beneficial
use
categories
identified
in
EPA's
review.

In
the
Technical
Background
Document
on
Beneficial
Use
of
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion
Wastes,
8
the
Agency
identified
the
following
categories
of
beneficial
use:

°
agricultural
uses,
°
mining
applications,
°
use
in
cement
and
concrete
products,
°
use
in
other
products
(
wallboard,
mineral
fill,
etc.),
°
construction
fills,
°
waste
management,
and
°
use
as
blasting
grit
or
in
snow
and
ice
control.

In
its
risk
assessment,
EPA
specifically
modeled
the
potential
risks
associated
with
agricultural
use.
The
Agency's
conclusions
with
regard
to
this
category
of
use
are
discussed
under
Topic
VIII.
For
the
other
categories
of
beneficial
use,
EPA
believes
that
the
scenarios
modeled
in
its
risk
assessment
adequately
bound,
and
likely
overestimate,
the
potential
risks
as
discussed
below.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
10
VI
­
10
When
used
in
cement
and
concrete
products,
FFC
wastes
are
encapsulated
in
the
cement
matrix.
Similarly,
when
used
in
other
products,
such
as
wallboard,
plastics,
ceramics,
and
mineral
wool
insulation,
FFC
wastes
are
encapsulated
within
the
product
and
exposure
of
the
final
product
to
the
environment
is
limited.
Leaching
and
other
test
results
reported
in
the
literature
support
this
conclusion
(
EPRI,
1985,
Coal­
Waste
Artificial
Reef
Program,
EPRI
Report
No.
CS­
3936,
Docket
#
FF2P­
S0204;
and
EPRI,
1996,
Environmental
and
Physical
Properties
of
Autoclaved
Cellular
Concrete,
Volumes
1­
3,
EPRI
Report
No.
TR­
105821,
Docket
#
FF2P­
S0219).
Furthermore,
the
quantities
of
FFC
wastes
used
in
these
applications
at
a
given
site
are
much
less
than
those
managed
in
a
typical
disposal
unit.
Therefore,
once
FFC
wastes
are
incorporated
in
these
products,
potential
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment
are
less
than
those
from
unlined
disposal
units.

Construction
fill
uses
of
FFC
wastes
include
backfills,
embankments,
area
fills,
grouts,
and
road
base
and
road
subbase
applications.
Some,
but
not
all,
of
these
uses
involve
incorporation
of
the
FFC
wastes
into
a
cementitious
matrix,
mitigating
potential
risks
as
discussed
for
cement
and
concrete
products.
Some
of
these
uses
also
involve
the
use
of
cover
materials
that
can
limit
mobilization
of
FFC
waste
constituents.
For
example,
in
road
base
construction,
FFC
wastes
are
covered
by
an
upper
layer
of
asphalt.
Some
other
construction
fills
employ
a
cover
layer
of
soil.
Even
for
non­
cementitious,
uncovered
construction
fills,
however,
the
potential
for
mobilization
of
constituents
of
concern
is
likely
to
be
no
greater
than
that
for
disposal
units.
Given
that
construction
fills
are
smaller
in
size
than
typical
disposal
units
and
typically
combine
FFC
wastes
with
other
materials,
the
potential
for
leaching
to
ground
water,
erosion
to
surface
water,
or
airborne
transport
from
construction
fills
is
expected
to
be
less
than
that
from
disposal
units.
It
is
possible
that
direct
human
exposures
to
FFC
wastes
in
some
construction
fills
where
the
site
is
uncontrolled
could
be
greater
than
for
disposal
units.
Direct
plant
uptake
also
might
be
greater
where
plant
growth
is
encouraged
on
the
construction
fill.
Potential
risks
from
these
two
pathways,
however,
are
expected
to
be
similar
to,
but
no
greater
than,
those
modeled
for
agricultural
soil
amendment.
Therefore,
the
scenarios
modeled
for
the
risk
assessment
adequately
bound
the
potential
risks
from
even
uncovered,
non­
cementitious
construction
fills.

Waste
management
uses
of
FFC
wastes
include
use
in
waste
stabilization/
solidification
and
use
in
landfill
construction
as
liner
or
cover
material.
In
waste
stabilization
or
solidification,
the
FFC
wastes
become
part
of
a
cementitious
matrix,
as
discussed
for
cement
and
concrete
products.
The
stabilized
or
solidified
wastes
also
typically
are
disposed
in
a
Subtitle
C
landfill,
further
mitigating
potential
risks.

Uses
of
FFC
waste
as
blasting
grit
and
for
snow
and
ice
control
are
similar
to
agricultural
application,
in
that
these
uses
may
result
in
spreading
FFC
waste
over
an
area.
In
blasting
grit
and
snow
and
ice
control
uses,
however,
the
area
to
which
FFC
waste
is
applied
is
likely
to
be
smaller
than
a
typical
agricultural
field.
The
quantity
of
waste
used
per
application
and
the
frequency
of
application
also
are
likely
to
be
less.
Also,
because
these
uses
do
not
involve
direct
application
to
areas
growing
crops,
the
potential
for
direct
plant
uptake
may
be
somewhat
reduced.
Thus,
the
agricultural
soil
application
scenario
modeled
for
the
risk
assessment
can
be
expected
to
reasonably
bound
potential
risk
from
these
uses.

With
regard
to
the
comment
about
economic
impacts
of
regulating
beneficial
use,
EPA
did
not
explicitly
study
such
impacts
because
no
risks
were
identified
to
warrant
such
regulation.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
9
FF2P­
S0326.
Oil
Combustion
By­
Products:
Chemical
Characteristics,
Management
Practices,
and
Groundwater
Effects.
EPRI.
March
1,
1998.

11
VI
­
11
With
regard
to
the
comment
that
beneficial
uses
could
increase
substantially
if
disposal
requirements
are
tightened,
the
Agency
believes
that
there
must
be
a
risk
basis
for
imposing
more
stringent
disposal
requirements.
Increasing
beneficial
use
of
material
is
not
a
sufficient
reason
to
impose
more
stringent
requirements,
in
the
absence
of
a
showing
of
risk.

With
regard
to
the
comment
about
use
of
oil
combustion
wastes
in
construction
applications,
the
information
in
the
Report
to
Congress
was
derived
from
an
EPRI
report
on
oil
combustion
waste
management.
9
This
report
identified
use
in
concrete
products
as
a
waste
management
practice
when
economically
viable
at
several
facilities
and
explicitly
stated
that
"
construction
uses
include
concrete
products,
structural
fill
and
roadbed
fill.
Currently,
only
minor
amounts
of
oil
ash
are
used
in
construction
application,
although
one
utility
is
preparing
to
pursue
this
option
more
vigorously
in
the
near
future."
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
12
VI
­
12
VI.
BENEFICIAL
USE
C.
Adequacy
of
EPA's
Study
of
Beneficial
Use
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Except
for
agricultural
applications,
the
"
beneficial
uses"
of
these
wastes
are
not
considered
at
all.
These
uses
should
be
considered
particularly
from
the
standpoint
of
cross­
media
releases
of
mercury.
For
example,
FBC
sludge
use
for
cement
manufacturing
will
certainly
release
mercury
to
the
environment.
(
ALA00036)

The
Agency
should
not
issue
a
blanket
exemption
for
other
beneficial
uses
of
FFC
waste
because
none
of
the
other
beneficial
uses
were
considered
in
the
risk
assessment.
Therefore,
the
Agency
has
no
basis
for
granting
this
exemption.
(
ALA00036)

The
Report
discusses
beneficial
uses
of
fossil
fuel
wastes
and
includes
some
estimates
of
the
volume
of
wastes
consumed
for
"
beneficial
use,"
for
example
see
Table
3­
16
outlining
such
volumes
for
uses
of
utility
CCW
in
1997.
However,
the
Report
contains
no
credible
discussion
of
the
potential
utilization
of
fossil
fuel
wastes.
As
previously
pointed
out,
the
possibility
that
the
utilization
of
these
wastes
for
certain
beneficial
purposes
could
increase,
even
skyrocket,
if
disposal
requirements
are
tightened
is
not
discussed.
(
HEC00056)

There
are
also
no
estimates
of
the
costs
of
beneficial
uses
of
these
wastes
in
the
Report.
(
HEC00056)

There
is
an
inaccurate
statement
on
oil
ash
use:
to
the
best
of
PG&
E
Gen's
knowledge,
no
oil
combustion
waste
have
been
used
for
structural
fill
or
construction
applications.
(
PG&
E00023)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
VII
­
1
VII.
MINEFILL
In
the
Report
to
Congress,
EPA
requested
further
information
on
minefill
practices
and
impacts
to
provide
a
better
basis
for
evaluating
the
appropriateness
of
more
stringent
regulation
of
the
range
of
such
practices.
Several
commenters
from
industry
and
a
federal
agency
supported
the
Agency's
decision
to
study
the
issue
further
and
not
attempt
to
model
minefill
risks
using
existing
methodologies.
These
and
many
other
commenters
responded
to
the
Agency's
request
for
further
information
by
providing
detailed
case
studies,
descriptions
of
state
regulations,
and
other
data.

Many
industry,
academic,
and
state
and
federal
government
commenters
encouraged
EPA
not
to
adopt
federal
regulations
and/
or
voluntary
restrictions
on
minefilling
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
as
further
discussed
below.
Some
commenters
recommended
EPA
take
steps
to
encourage
minefilling.

A
public
interest
group
commenter
encouraged
EPA
to
take
steps
to
regulate
or
prohibit
minefilling
because
of
weaknesses
in
state
regulatory
programs,
environmental
performance
of
existing
minefills,
and
environmental
justice
issues,
as
also
discussed
below.
This
commenter
expressed
concern
that
EPA
did
not
attempt
to
calculate
the
risk
associated
with
minefilling.
A
number
of
other
public
interest
group,
academic,
and
citizen
commenters
also
requested
that
EPA
regulate
minefilling
under
Subtitle
C
or
other
statutory
authority,
or
ban
the
practice
altogether.

Other
public
interest
commenters
expressed
concern
that
lack
of
regulation
on
minefilling
would
result
in
an
increasing
trend
toward
use
of
this
practice,
particularly
given
deregulation
of
electricity
generators.
Another
public
interest
group
commenter
stated
that
EPA
should
undertake
a
systematic
study
evaluating
minefilling,
and,
in
the
absence
of
this
study,
should
not
allow
minefilling.
This
commenter
further
stated
that
federal
regulation
would
be
desirable
to
provide
a
common
framework
for
analysis
of
minefilling
projects.

In
sum,
many
comments
were
received
on
both
sides
of
this
issue
as
to
whether
or
not
minefilling
as
practiced
on
a
nationwide
basis
is
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

Response:
Commenters
provided
very
extensive
information
on
minefilling.
EPA
completed
an
analysis
of
this
information,
along
with
a
review
of
the
information
previously
collected
in
support
of
the
Report
to
Congress.
We
determined
that
it
is
appropriate
to
establish
national
regulations
under
RCRA
Subtitle
D
applicable
to
the
placement
of
coal
combustion
wastes
in
surface
or
underground
mines.
We
have
determined
that
the
establishment
of
national
regulations
is
warranted
for
coal
combustion
wastes
when
they
are
placed
in
surface
or
underground
mines
because:
(
a)
we
find
that
these
wastes
when
minefilled
have
the
potential
to
present
a
danger
to
human
health
and
the
environment,
(
b)
minefilling
of
these
wastes
has
been
an
expanding
practice
and
there
are
few
states
that
currently
operate
comprehensive
programs
that
specifically
address
the
unique
circumstances
of
minefilling,
making
it
more
likely
that
any
damage
to
human
health
or
the
environment
would
go
unnoticed
or
unaddressed,
and
(
c)
we
believe
that
the
cost
of
complying
with
regulations
that
address
these
potential
dangers
may
not
have
a
substantial
impact
on
this
practice
because
minefilling
continues
to
grow
in
those
few
states
that
already
have
comprehensive
programs.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
2
VII
­
2
We
recognize
that
at
this
time,
we
cannot
quantify
the
nature
of
damage
that
may
be
occurring
or
may
occur
in
the
future
as
a
result
of
using
coal
combustion
wastes
as
minefill.
It
is
often
impossible
to
determine
if
existing
groundwater
quality
has
been
impacted
by
previous
mining
operations
or
as
a
result
of
releases
of
hazardous
constituents
from
the
coal
combustion
wastes
used
in
minefilling
applications.
We
have
not
as
yet
identified
proven
damage
cases
resulting
from
the
use
of
coal
combustion
wastes
for
minefilling.

We
also
acknowledge
that
when
the
complexities
related
to
site­
specific
geology,
hydrology,
waste
chemistry
and
interactions
with
the
surrounding
matrix,
and
other
relevant
factors
are
properly
taken
into
account,
coal
combustion
wastes
used
as
minefill
can
provide
significant
benefits.
However,
when
not
done
properly,
minefilling
has
the
potential
to
contaminate
ground
water
to
levels
that
could
damage
human
health
and
the
environment.
Based
on
materials
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period,
coal
combustion
wastes
used
as
minefill
can
lead
to
increases
in
hazardous
metals
released
into
ground
water
if
the
acidity
within
the
mine
overwhelms
the
capacity
of
the
coal
combustion
wastes
to
neutralize
the
acidic
conditions.
This
is
due
to
the
increased
leaching
of
hazardous
metals
from
the
wastes.
The
potential
for
this
to
occur
is
further
supported
by
data
showing
that
management
of
coal
combustion
wastes
in
the
presence
of
acid­
generating
pyritic
wastes
has
caused
metals
to
leach
from
the
combustion
wastes
at
much
higher
levels
than
are
predicted
by
leach
test
data
for
coal
combustion
wastes
when
strongly
acidic
conditions
are
not
present.
Such
strongly
acidic
conditions
often
exist
at
mining
sites.

Although
we
have
identified
no
damage
cases
involving
minefilling,
we
are
also
aware
of
situations
where
coal
combustion
wastes
are
being
placed
in
direct
contact
with
ground
water
in
both
surface
and
underground
mines.
We
concluded
in
our
recent
study
of
cement
kiln
dust
management
practices
that
placement
of
cement
kiln
dust
in
direct
contact
with
ground
water
led
to
a
substantially
greater
release
of
hazardous
metals
than
we
predicted
would
occur
when
the
waste
was
placed
above
the
water
table.
For
this
reason,
we
find
that
there
is
a
potential
for
increased
releases
of
hazardous
metals
as
a
result
of
placing
coal
combustion
wastes
in
direct
contact
with
groundwater.
Also,
there
are
damage
cases
associated
with
coal
combustion
wastes
in
landfills.
The
Agency
believes
it
is
reasonable
to
be
concerned
when
similar
quantities
of
coal
combustion
wastes
are
placed
in
mines,
which
often
are
not
engineered
disposal
units
and
in
some
cases
involve
direct
placement
of
wastes
into
direct
contact
with
ground
water.

We
are
concerned
that
government
oversight
is
necessary
to
ensure
that
minefilling
is
done
appropriately
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment,
particularly
since
minefilling
is
a
recent,
but
rapidly
expanding
use
of
coal
combustion
wastes.
Government
oversight
has
not
yet
"
caught
up"
with
the
practice
consistently
across
the
country.
There
are
some
states
that
have
programs
that
specifically
address
minefilling
practices.
We
are
likely
to
find
that
their
programs
or
certain
elements
of
their
programs
could
serve
as
the
basis
for
a
comprehensive,
flexible
set
of
national
management
standards
that
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
We
also
believe
that
these
state
programs
will
provide
valuable
experience
in
coordinating
with
SMCRA
program
requirements.
However,
at
this
time,
few
of
the
programs
are
comprehensive.
Commenters
pointed
out,
and
we
agree,
there
are
significant
gaps
in
other
states.
We
believe
that
additional
requirements
for
long­
term
groundwater
monitoring,
and
controls
on
wastes
placed
directly
into
groundwater
might
be
prudent.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
VII
­
3
EPA
has
considered
the
specific
concerns
raised
by
the
commenters
with
regard
to
this
decision.
These
are
addressed
in
the
sub­
topic
responses
below.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
4
VII
­
4
VII.
MINEFILL
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
In
practice,
however,
the
number
of
required
model
inputs
(
whether
hydrologic
or
geochemical)
and
the
uncertainty
associated
with
the
values
of
these
inputs
will
limit
the
ability
for
a
model
or
combination
of
models
to
yield
predictions
that
would
be
of
practical
value.
(
DOE00020)

The
RTC
noted
that
EPA
encountered
difficulty
distinguishing
the
effects
of
mine
placement
activities
from
pre­
existing
environmental
concerns,
such
as
acid
mine
drainage
("
AMD"),
in
the
limited
time
remaining
in
the
study
period
after
identification
of
potential
environmental
issues
related
to
mine
placement.
USWAG
commends
EPA
for
recognizing
its
limitations
and
not
rushing
to
an
uninformed
conclusion.
(
USWAG00037)

USWAG
commends
EPA
for
its
decision
to
distance
itself
from
modeling
where,
as
in
this
case,
use
of
that
tool
is
unlikely
to
produce
reliable
results.
(
USWAG00037)

An
analysis
of
CCP
placement
in
mines
is
not
amenable
to
generic
modeling
of
the
sort
EPA
employed
to
analyze
the
placement
of
CCPs
in
landfills
and
surface
impoundments.
(
USWAG00037)

The
agency
acknowledged
that
it
did
not
have
the
technical
data
or
modeling
capabilities
to
reach
a
conclusion
on
this
issue.
USWAG
commended
the
EPA
for
acknowledging
its
limitation
and
deferring
the
decision.
(
APSC00043)

The
Bureau
suggests
that
further
consideration
of
existing
information
gathered
during
this
current
review
be
compiled
into
an
accessible
database
for
consideration
by
carefully
selected
experts
and
potential
users
before
any
decision
is
made.
(
MDE00047)

However,
OCDO
is
concerned
that
the
report
suggests
a
possible
need
for
federal
regulation
under
Subtitle
C
for
agricultural
and
minefill
applications,
and
strongly
recommends
this
not
be
implemented
for
the
following
reasons.
(
ODOD00017)

Subtitle
C
regulation
would
not
effectively
address
the
issues
associated
with
CCP
placement
in
mines
at
reasonable
costs.
(
IEU00018)

ARIPPA
does
not
support
EPA's
tentative
conclusions
concerning
the
beneficial
use
of
coal
combustion
wastes.
Further,
ARIPPA
can
not
support
a
recommendation
by
EPA
to
either
establish
regulations
under
Subtitle
C
or
RCRA
or
to
establish
a
voluntary
program
for
control
of
the
use
of
ash
as
a
mine
fill
as
part
of
active
or
abandoned
mine
reclamation.
(
ARIPPA00019)

DOE
believes
that
EPA
should
not
subject
the
minefilling
of
coal­
fired
utility
co­
managed
wastes
(
Volume
1,
Section
3,
page
3­
7)
or
fluidized
bed
combustion
wastes
(
Volume
1,
Section
5,
page
5­
4)
to
any
form
of
control
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C.
(
DOE00020)

These
results
support
a
policy
of
not
subjecting
CCW
to
Subtitle
C
regulation
in
surface
mine
backfilling
applications.
(
DOE00020)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
5
VII
­
5
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
6
VII
­
6
VII.
MINEFILL
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
(
continued)

The
experimental
nature
of
this
practice
and
the
lack
of
environmental
damage
related
to
the
beneficial
use
of
these
CCW
support
a
view
that
EPA
should
not
subject
CCW
to
Subtitle
C
regulation
in
underground
mine
backfilling
applications.
(
DOE00020)

DOE
believes
that
these
studies
demonstrate
that
these
beneficial
uses
and
disposal
of
CCW
should
remain
exempt
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulation.
(
DOE00020)

The
states
have
demonstrated
not
only
that
agricultural
and
mining
applications
of
CCPs
are
satisfactorily
regulated
at
the
state
level,
but
also
that
further
regulation
of
the
federal
level
is
not
needed.
(
ACAA00022)

PG&
E
Gen
believes
it
would
be
arbitrary
and
unwarranted
to
restrict
the
use
of
FBC
ash
in
minefilling.
(
PG&
E00023)

For
the
reasons
set
forth
in
detail
below,
NMA
opposes
the
suggestion
by
EPA
that
any
form
of
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulation
is
appropriate
for
the
use
or
disposal
of
CCPs
for
agricultural
purposes
or
for
minefill.
NMA
urges
that
in
the
Regulatory
Determination,
EPA
decide
that
the
beneficial
use
and
disposal
of
CCPs
for
agricultural
purposes
and
for
minefill
should
continue
to
be
exempt
from
RCRA
regulation.
(
NMA00024)

I
am
writing
to
express
my
concern
over
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
incongruous
conclusions
contained
in
its
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants.
For
example,
EPA
determined
that
waste
coal
ash
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation,
yet
it
also
determined
that
its
beneficial
use
in
mine
reclamation
or
agricultural
amendments
should
be
regulated
and
managed
as
hazardous
waste.
(
PAC00029)

To
attempt
to
regulate
a
national
directive
on
minefill
would
negate
those
positive
applications
that
have
already
been
demonstrated
successfully.
(
NCE00031)

EPA
regulatory
guidance
may
not
be
flexible
enough
to
permit
state
and
local
agencies
to
approve
these
applications
when
site­
specific
situations
pose
little
or
no
threat
to
public
health
or
the
environment.
(
NCE00031)

It
is
scientifically
inappropriate
to
apply
blanket
restrictions
to
a
material
that
can
be
beneficially
used
in
a
vast
number
of
applications
based
on
the
above
mentioned
variability's.
Historically
successful
applications
of
CCBs
in
mining
and
agricultural
applications
demonstrate
that
CCBs
can
be
used
beneficially
and
certainly
with
no
negative
environmental
impact.
Therefore,
we
see
no
need
for
federal
regulation
under
Subtitle
C
and
believe
the
proper
management
of
CCBs
is
a
sound
environmental
practice.
(
NCE00031)

This
evidence
clearly
demonstrates
that
management
of
coal
combustion
wastes
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
is
unnecessary
and
counterproductive.
As
DEP's
collected
data
clearly
illustrate,
ash
has
been
used
in
a
variety
of
contexts
­­
including
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
7
VII
­
7
minefilling,
agricultural
soil
supplementation
and
beneficial
use
­­
without
degradation
of
groundwater.
In
fact,
the
use
of
ash
resulted
in
significant
water
quality
improvements
in
many
cases.
(
PCA00034)

The
risks
associated
with
the
use
of
coal
ash
as
minefill
are
extremely
low
and
are
certainly
insufficient
to
warrant
inclusion
of
these
materials
in
subtitle
C
of
RCRA.(
PCA00034)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
8
VII
­
8
VII.
MINEFILL
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
(
continued)

Thunder
Basin
Coal
encourages
the
EPA
to
not
regulate
these
materials
under
RCRA,
and
adds
that
any
federal
regulations
on
CCB's,
such
as
those
already
imposed
under
TRI
reporting
would
further
inhibit
the
beneficial
use
of
Coal
Combustion
Byproducts.
(
TBCC00035)

Indeed,
if
EPA
reviews
the
information
gathered
by
these
other
agencies
and
private
entities,
it
will
become
evident
that
the
only
appropriate
action
is
further
reduction
of
regulatory
barriers
to
the
beneficial
use
of
CCPs
to
remedy
environmental
problems
in
post­
mining
environments.
(
USWAG00037)

USWAG
urges
EPA
to
recognize
mine
placement
as
beneficial
uses
where
the
CCPs
are
utilized
with
no
significant
environmental
degradation
as
substitutes
for
other
commercially
available
materials
or
where
the
economics
of
CCP
placement
enables
mine
reclamation
related
activities
or
prevention
or
mitigation
of
mining­
related
environmental
damage
that
otherwise
not
be
feasible.
(
USWAG00037)

We
agree
and
would
like
to
endorse
these
comments
by
ACAA
and
The
Ohio
Coal
Development
Office
that
specifically
address
their
concern
for
not
interfering
with
or
complicating
beneficial
uses
in
agriculture
and
minefill
applications.
(
DTC00038)

I
have
a
concern
with
the
tentative
recommendation
in
the
EPA
report
that
agricultural
and
mine
reclamation
use
of
FFCWs
be
limited
to
those
materials
with
As
concentrations
no
higher
than
that
found
in
agricultural
lime.
Such
a
restriction
would
severely
limit,
if
not
eliminate,
any
beneficial
use
of
these
materials
as
soil
amendments.
A
much
higher
As
concentration
limit
could
be
used
without
any
real
increase
in
risk.
(
PSU00040)

However,
Virginia
Power
does
not
support
the
Agency's
need
to
possibly
subject
the
minefill
operations
and
agricultural
beneficial
use
applications
to
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements.
(
VAP00042)

Therefore
the
management
of
these
by­
products
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
would
reverse
the
environmental
progress
gained
since
the
1993
EPA
regulatory
determination.
This
reversal
would
create
a
major
setback
for
the
Mettiki
site,
the
Illinois
site,
and
the
Winding
Ridge
site,
not
to
mention
other
successful
minefill
sites
across
the
country.
(
VAP00042)

The
EERC's
experience
(
Beaver
and
others;
1987;
Butler
and
others;
1995)
supports
the
position
that
a
complete
understanding
of
the
CCBs
and
the
placement
settings
provides
state
and
regional
agencies
with
information
on
which
sound
decisions
on
mine
placement
of
CCBs
can
be
made.
(
EERC00044)

States
have
the
ability
to
develop
effective
landfill,
mine
reclamation,
and
agricultural
programs.
These
programs
are
developed
within
each
state
and
can
best
reflect
their
unique
environmental
factors,
social
and
economic
needs.
It
appears
that
current
regulation
of
these
activities
is
more
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
9
VII
­
9
than
adequate.
Consequently,
existing
RCRA
Subtitle
D
regulatory
authority
should
remain
adequate
for
governing
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
CCPs
in
the
future.
(
ISG00048)

We
believe
there
is
abundant
data
that
supports
a
technical
foundation
for
pursuing
commercial
uses
of
CCPs
in
agriculture
and
in
mine
reclamation
without
compromising
the
health
or
safety
of
the
public
or
environment.
(
TVA00049)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
would
jeopardize
the
comprehensive
restoration
effort
throughout
the
coal­
bearing
regions
of
Pennsylvania.
(
STR00050)

CIBO
disagrees
with
any
suggestion
in
the
RTC
that
some
regulation
under
Subtitle
C
may
be
necessary
for
mine
reclamations/
minefill
applications,
use
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
ash
for
agricultural
purposes,
and
oil
ash
disposal.
CIBO
submits
that
data
­­
and
sound
RCRA
policy
­­
support
the
conclusion
that
no
aspect
of
these
substances
warrants
subjecting
them
to
national
Subtitle
C
regulation
in
any
form.
(
CIBO00052)

TXU
supports
the
general
conclusion
reached
by
EPA
in
the
RTC
that
disposal
of
co­
managed
wastes
generated
at
coal­
fired
utilities,
including
beneficial
utilization,
should
remain
exempt
from
the
provisions
of
subtitle
C
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA).
(
TXU00053)

TXU
concurs
with
EPA's
tentative
conclusion
that
non­
utility
coal
combustion
wastes
and
beneficial
uses
of
such
wastes
should
remain
exempt
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C.
We
believe
that
this
finding
is
supported
by
the
data
developed
concerning
waste
management
practices,
potential
risks,
and
existing
regulatory
controls.
(
TXU00053)

AEP
would
further
assert
that
beneficial
uses
of
comanaged
CCPs
should
also
remain
exempt
from
Subtitle
C
regulation,
and
even
encouraged
by
EPA.
(
AEP00060)

The
case
study
information
clearly
supports
our
industry
held
view
that
CCPs
can
be
utilized
in
environmentally
responsible
beneficial
end
use
applications
within
mine
settings.
(
AEP00060)

It
is
examples
such
as
these
that
lead
us
to
encourage
the
USEPA
to
continue
to
exempt
coal
ash
placement
in
coal
mine
environments
from
the
requirements
of
Subtitle
C.
(
IDNR00062)

DEP
joins
in
the
detailed
comments
filed
by
the
National
Mining
Association
to
this
rulemaking
which
opposes
the
suggestion
by
EPA
that
any
form
of
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulation
is
appropriate
for
the
use
or
disposal
of
CCPs
for
agricultural
purposes
or
for
minefill.
DEP
urges
that
in
the
Regulatory
Determination,
EPA
decide
that
the
beneficial
use
and
disposal
of
CCPs
for
agricultural
purposes
and
for
minefill
should
continue
to
be
exempt
from
RCRA
regulation.
(
WVDEPL0003)

The
ACAA
and
PP&
L
believe
the
beneficial
use
of
coal
ash
as
minefill
is
being
effectively
managed
in
Pennsylvania
under
existing
regulatory
mechanisms
and
that
Federal
controls
are
unnecessary
and
may
even
thwart
these
beneficial
initiatives.
(
PHS013)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
10
VII
­
10
The
ACAA
and
PP&
L
believe
that
minefill
should
be
left
to
the
states
to
regulate,
based
on
statespecific
needs
and
priorities.
(
PHS013)

I
urge
EPA
to
consider
these
factors.
In
doing
so,
I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
conclude
that
there
is
no
justification
for
regulating
the
beneficial
use
of
approved
coal
ash
and
waste
coal
ash
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
projects
as
hazardous
waste.
(
PADEP00246)

It
has
come
to
my
attention
that
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
is
contemplating
a
regulatory
change
which
would
require
coal
ash
used
in
mine
reclamation
to
be
managed
as
a
hazardous
waste
under
the
RCRA
Subtitle
C
program.
I
write
today
to
convey
my
concerns
regarding
this
potential
regulatory
determination
and
to
urge
EPA
to
carefully
consider
the
effects
of
such
an
action
on
Pennsylvania's
abandoned
mine
reclamation
and
acid
mine
drainage
abatement
efforts.
(
PA00247)

Requiring
waste
coal
ash
used
as
minefill
to
be
handled
as
hazardous
waste
will
deter
its
beneficial
application
in
mine
reclamation
and
discourage
the
cleanup
of
unsightly
and
dangerous
waste
coal
piles.
Moreover,
such
an
action
appears
inconsistent
with
the
agency's
general
conclusion
that
the
material
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation
under
RCRA.
EPA
has
done
much
in
recent
years
to
eliminate
conflictive
and
inconsistent
regulations
which
reduced
program
effectiveness
and
impeded
environmental
improvements.
The
agency
also
has
voiced
its
willingness
to
let
states
manage
environmental
programs
where
such
management
is
both
protective
and
effective.
I
submit
that
action
by
EPA
to
apply
RCRA
regulation
to
the
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
in
mine
reclamation
would
directly
contravene
these
policy
objectives.
(
PA00247)

I
am
writing
on
behalf
of
the
Eastern
PA
Coalition
for
Abandoned
Mine
Reclamation
(
EPCAMR)
to'express
our
concern
about
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
inconsistent
conclusions
contained
in
its
second
Report,
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants...
Specifically
in
the
report,
the
EPA
determined
that
waste
coal
ash
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation,
yet
surprisingly
the
Agency
determined
that.
the
beneficial
use
of
coal
ash
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
amendments
should
be
regulated
as
hazardous
waste.
(
EPACAMR00248)

I
write
to
express
my
concern
about
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
inconsistent
conclusions
contained
in
its
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
UtiIity
Power
Plants.
Specifically,
EPA
determined
that
waste
coal
ash
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation,
yet
the
Agency
is
considering
regulating
its
beneficial
use
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
amendments
as
hazardous
waste.
(
PCLP00249)

I
write
to
express
my
concern
about
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
conclusions
contained
in
its
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
UtiIity
Power
Plants
...
A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
goal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
could
jeopardize
these
operations.
(
PAEC00251)

I
write
to
express
my
concern
about
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
inconsistent
conclusions
contained
in
its
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants.
Specifically,
EPA
determined
that
waste
coal
ash
itself
is
exempt
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
11
VII
­
11
from
regulation,
yet
the
Agency
is
considering
regulating
its
beneficial
use
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
amendments
as
hazardous
waste.
(
G&
L00252)

I
write
to
express
my
concern
about
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
conclusions
contained
in
its
second
Report
to
Congress
Wastesfiom
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels.
Specifically,
EPA
determined
that
waste
coal
ash
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation,
yet
the
Agency
is
considering
regulating
its
beneficial
use
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
amendments
as
hazardous
waste.
(
PA00253)

I
write
to
express
my
concern
about
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
inconsistent
conclusions
contained
in
its
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants.
Specifically,
EPA
determined
that
waste
coal
ash
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation,
ye:
the
Agency
is
considering
regulating
its
beneficial
use
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
amendments
as
hazardous
waste.
(
CIN00254)

I
write
to
express
my
concern
about
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
inconsistent
conclusions
contained
in
its
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
horn
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants.
Specifically,
EPA
determined
that
waste
coal
ash
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation,
yet
the
Agency
is
considering
regulating
its
beneficial
use
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
amendments
as
hazardous
waste.
(
EPC00255)

The
ICC
believes
a
prohibition
on
coal
ash
disposal
below
the
water
table,
which
would
in
fact
ban
such
disposal
in
Indiana,
is
unwarranted
and
that
EPA's
concern
for
such
is
unfounded.
(
ICC00269)

We
urge
the
Agency
not
to
expand
RCRA
to
include
regulating
the
beneficial
use
of
non­
hazardous
CFB
ash
in
agriculture
or
mine
reclamation.
(
AIRP00270)

ARIPPA
submitted
comments
in
this
proceeding
on
June
12,
1999.
Those
comments
opposed
any
recommendation
by
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
("
EPA")
to
regulate
the
use
of
ash
form
circulating
fluidized
bed
("
CFB")
boilers
for
mine
reclamation
as
a
hazardous
waste
under
Subtitle
C
of
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
ACT
("
RCRA").
ARIPPA's
specific
concern
is
ash
from
coal
refuse,
which
was
included
as
part
of
the
fulidized
bed
combustion
("
FBC")
ash
addressed
by
EPA's
March
1999
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuel
("
Report
to
Congress").
ARIPPA
hereby
reiterates
its
opposition
to
any
such
recommendation.
(
ARIPPA00273)

PG&
E
Gen
urges
EPA
to
continue
the
current
RCRA
exemption
of
coal
ash
in
beneficial
uses
for
soil
amendments
and
mine
reclamation.
(
PG&
E00274)

USWAG
reiterates
its
recommendation
that
EPA
issue
a
regulatory
determination
that
all
"
remaining"
FFC
wastes
do
not
warrant
RCRA
Subtitle
C
or
similar
regulation
and
that
the
beneficial
uses
of
FFC
products
identified
in
the
Report
to
Congress
are
environmentally
sound
and
do
not
constitute
waste
management.
(
USWAG00275)

I
write
to
express
my
concern
about
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
inconsistent
conclusions
contained
in
its
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coat
by
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
12
VII
­
12
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants.
Specifically,
EPA
determined
that
waste
coal
ash
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation,
yet
the
Agency
is
considering
regulating
its
beneficial
use
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
amendments
as
hazardous
waste.
(
FW00277)

As
set
forth
in
its
initial
comments,
CIBO
asserts
that
available
scientific,
analytic,
demonstrative,
and
other
data
clearly
sustain
the
conclusion
that
no
aspect
of
the
substances
addressed
in
the
RTC
should
be
subjected
to
national
Subtitle
C
regulation.
Further,
sound
RCRA
policy
requires
this
outcome.
Environmentally
protective
reuse
policies
for
the
wastes
covered
by
the
RTC
exemplify
the
resource
conservation
and
recovery
that
Congress
encourages
in
RCRA.
See,
e.
g.,
42
U.
S.
C.
6901(
a),
6902(
10).
Further,
that
States
have
overseen
through
regulation
and
monitoring
the
development
of
successful
environment­
protective
reuse
policies
of
these
wastes
also
fulfills
Congress's
goal
of
active
State
participation.
See
e.
g.,
42
U.
S.
C
§
6902.
The
extension
of
federal
Subtitle
C
authority
over
environmentally­
effective
reuse
policies
would
undermine
the
core
objectives
of
RCRA.
CIBO
asserts
that
all
available
data
demonstrates
that
all
wastes
and
applications
covered
by
the
RTC
should
remain
under
the
Bevill
exemption.
(
CIBO00280)

It
has
come
to
the
committee's
attention
that
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
is
considering
regulations
to
require
waste
coal
ash
used
in
mine
reclamation
efforts
to
be
managed
as
hazardous
waste.
We
are
writing
to
express
the
committee's
concerns
with
this
proposal,
particularly
as
it
would
seriously
affect
Pennsylvania's
efforts
to
reclaim
abandoned
mine
land
and
alleviate
acid
mine
drainage
problems.
(
PA00293)

I
am
writing
to
express
my
concern
about
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
EPA)
March,
1999
report
to
Congress
entitled
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
fuels.
The
report
states
that
EPA
lacks
sufficient
information
with
which
to
adequately
assess
risk
associated
with
the
use
of
waste
coal
ash
in
mine
reclamation,
and
as
a
result
is
considering
regulating
such
use
under
RCRA.
(
PA00296)

I
urge
you
to
carefully
review
the
materials
sent
by
DEP.
If
you
do
so,
I
am
confident
that
EPA
will
see
that
there
is
no
justification
for
expanding
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
ash
used
for
mine
reclamation.
(
PA00296)

I
am
writing
this
letter
to
the
agency
in
order
to
express
my
concerns
with
the
conclusions
contained
within
the
EPA's
second
"
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants".
Some
of
the
conclusions
reached
in
that
report
are
inconsistent
with
the
EPA's
recognition
that
waste
coal
ash
is
not
a
hazardous
material
and
is
exempt
from
regulation
while
the
agency
is
continuing
to
consider
the
regulation
of
waste
coal
ash
used
beneficially
in
mine
land
reclamation
and
as
a
soil
amendment
in
agricultural
applications
as
a
hazardous
waste
material.
(
GPC00297)

I
write
to
express
my
concern
about
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
inconsistent
conclusions
contained
in
its
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants.
Specifically,
EPA
determined
that
waste
coal
ash
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation,
yet
the
Agency
is
considering
regulating
its
beneficial
use
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
amendments
as
hazardous
waste.
(
KCC00298)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
13
VII
­
13
I
write
to
express
my
concern
about
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
inconsistent
conclusions
contained
in
its
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants.
Specifically,
EPA
determined
that
waste
coal
ash
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation,
yet
the
Agency
is
considering
regulating
its
beneficial
use
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
amendments
as
hazardous
waste.
(
SMC00299)

I
write
to
express
my
concern
about
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
inconsistent
conclusions
contained
in
its
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants.
Specifically,
EPA
determined
that
waste
coal
ash
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation,
yet
the
Agency
is
considering
regulating
its
beneficial
use
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
amendments
as
hazardous
waste.
(
PA00300)

I
write
to
express
my
concern
about
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
inconsistent
conclusions
contained
in
its
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants.
Specifically,
EPA
determined
that
waste
coal
ash
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation,
yet
the
Agency
is
considering
regulating
its
beneficial
use
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
amendments
as
hazardous
waste.
(
PA00301)

I
write
to
express
my
concern
about
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
inconsistent
conclusions
contained
in
its
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants.
Specifically,
EPA
determined
that
waste
coal
ash
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation,
yet
the
Agency
is
considering
regulating
its
beneficial
use
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
amendments
as
hazardous
waste.
(
PA00302)

I
wish
to
express
my
concern
regarding
recent
attempts
by
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
to
regulate
waste
coal
ash
as
a
hazardous
waste
material
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA),
as
detailed
in
the
EPA's
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants.
Such
a
move
will
prove
deleterious
to
Pennsylvania's
environmental
and
economic
well
being.
(
PA00305)

I
write
to
express
my
concern
about
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
inconsistent
conclusions
contained
in
its
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants.
Specifically,
EPA
determined
that
waste
coal
ash
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation,
yet
the
Agency
is
considering
regulating
its
beneficial
use
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
amendments
as
hazardous
waste.
(
ACV00307)

I
write
to
express
my
concern
about
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
inconsistent
conclusions
contained
in
its
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants.
Specifically,
EPA
determined
that
waste
coal
ash
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation,
yet
the
Agency
is
considering
regulating
its
beneficial
use
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
amendments
as
hazardous
waste.
(
TEGI00308)

I
write
to
express
my
concern
about
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
inconsistent
conclusions
contained
in
its
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants.
Specifically,
EPA
determined
that
waste
coal
ash
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation,
yet
the
Agency
is
considering
regulating
its
beneficial
use
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
amendments
as
hazardous
waste.
(
PA00368)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
14
VII
­
14
I
write
to
express
my
concern
about
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
inconsistent
conclusions
contained
in
its
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants.
Specifically,
EPA
determined
that
waste
coal
ash
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation,
yet
the
Agency
is
considering
regulating
its
beneficial
use
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
amendments
as
hazardous
waste.
(
AMI00372)

We
are
writing
on
behalf
of
the
Pennsylvania
Senate
Environmental
Resources
and
Energy
Committee
to
express
our
concern
over
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
EPA)
conclusions
contained
in
its
second
Report
IO
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants.
Specifically,
EPA
determined
that
waste
coal
ash
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation,
yet
it
also
determined
that
its
use
in
mine
reclamation
or
agricultural
amendments
should
be
regulated
and
managed
as
hazardous
waste.
(
PAL0001)

Despite
the
positive
findings
on
most
beneficial
uses
of
coal
ash,
the
Report
recommends
increased
regulation
for
the
use
of
coal
ash
in
agricultural
applications
and
makes
no
recommendation
for
the
placement
of
coal
ash
in
closed
mines
for
such
beneficial
purposes
as
controlling
acid
mine
drainage.
In
both
cases,
I
believe
EPA
should
look
to
the
states
for
regulatory
oversight
of
these
activities.
(
BCHRL0002)

The
Ohio
River
Basin
Commission
would
like
to
express
its
support
of
the
continued
use
of
waste
coal
ash
in
mine
reclamation
efforts
to
improve
downstream
water
quality.
The
Commission
opposes
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
efforts
to
regulate
waste
coal
ash
as
a
hazardous
waste
as
considered
in
EPA's
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants.
(
ORBCL0002)

I
am
writing
on
behalf
of
the
Pennsylvania
Mining
and
Reclamation
Advisory
Board
(
MRAB)
to
express
our
concern
about
a
potential
regulatory
determination
in
the
above­
captioned
proceeding
the
effectively
would
prohibit
the
use
of
ash
from
the
combustion
of
fossil
fuels
for
mine
reclamation.
Such
a
determination
would
be
very
detrimental
to
Pennsylvania's
efforts
to
clean
up
our
legacy
of
past
unregulated
mining.
(
PMRABL0003)

We
are
confident
that
the
Agency
will
determine
after
balancing
(
1)
the
immediate
and
positive
environmental
impacts
of
using
combustion
ash
for
mine
reclamation
with
(
2)
the
hypothetical
risk
of
contamination
of
a
groundwater
site
over
3,000
years
in
the
future
ate
a
receptor
well
located
in
the
middle
of
the
downgradient
plume
150
meters
from
a
reclaimed
mine,
that
there
is
no
justification
for
regulating
ash
used
for
mine
reclamation
as
a
hazardous
waste.
(
PMRABL0003)

I
have
enclosed
for
your
review
a
copy
of
correspondence
date
9
September
1999
addressed
to
you
by
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
Secretary
James
M.
Seif,
requesting
that
you
determine
coal­
ash
and
waste­
coal
ash
in
mine
reclamati0n
and
agricultural
projects
as
non­
hazardous
waste.
Although
I
am
not
an
expert
in
environmental
issues,
I
defer
to
the
expertise
of
Secretary
Sief
on
this
issue,
and
concur
in
the
arguments
he
makes
in
his
correspondence
for
the
determination
of
this
ash
as
non­
hazardous.
I
respectfully
request
that
you
give
careful
consideration
to
Secretary
Sief's
analysis
on
this
matter.
(
PAL0004)

We
would
like
to
express
support
for
the
continue
use
of
waste
coal
ash
in
mine
reclamation
efforts
to
improve
downstream
water
quality.
We
have
significant
concerns
regarding
the
U.
S.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
15
VII
­
15
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
efforts
to
regulate
waste
coal
ash
as
a
hazardous
waste,
as
considered
in
EPA's
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants.
(
SRBCL0006)

We,
the
undersigned
members
of
the
Pennsylvania
Coal
Caucus,
comprised
of
members
of
the
Pennsylvania
Legislature
are
writing
to
express
our
concern
with
a
potential
regulatory
determination
in
the
above­
captioned
proceeding
the
effectively
would
prohibit
the
use
of
ash
from
the
combustion
of
fossil
fuels
for
mine
reclamation.
Such
a
determination
would
be
very
detrimental
to
Pennsylvania's
efforts
to
clean
up
our
legacy
of
past
unregulated
mining.
(
PCCL0007)

We
are
confident
that
the
Agency
will
determine,
after
balancing
(
1)
the
immediate
and
positive
environmental
impacts
of
using
combustion
ash
for
mine
reclamation
with
(
2)
the
hypothetical
risk
of
contamination
of
a
groundwater
site
over
3,000
years
in
the
future
at
a
receptor
well
located
in
the
middle
of
the
downgradient
plume
150
meters
form
a
reclaimed
coal
mine,
that
there
is
no
justification
for
regulating
ash
used
for
mine
reclamation
as
a
hazardous
waste.
(
PCCL0007)

The
classification
of
CFB
ash
under
RCRA
will
be
counter
productive
to
the
future
ecological
and
human
health
of
the
region.
I
urge
the
EPA
to
allow
the
beneficial
use
of
CFB
ash
to
continue
to
be
regulated
under
the
context
of
SMCRA.
(
LRCAXXXX)

If
EPA
allows
the
utilities
to
continue
and
expand
the
dumping
of
CCW
into
coal
mines,
future
generations
of
coalfield
residents
will
face
the
added
injustice
of
living
with
ground
water
that
is
too
polluted
to
drink
or
use
for
farming
and
other
economic
activities
and
they
will
have
every
reason
to
lay
the
responsibility
on
EPA,
the
one
government
agency
solely
charged
with
protecting
their
health
and
environment.
(
HEC00056)

Using
strip
mines
as
open
dumps
for
nonmine
wastes
is
illegal.
The
Report
downplays
the
significance
of
problems
with
minefills.
(
HEC00056)

The
risk
assessments
do
not
even
attempt
to
calculate
the
risk
from
dumping
large
volumes
of
fossil
fuel
wastes
directly
into
ground
water,
an
alternative
that
is
being
promoted
aggressively
by
the
electric
power
industry
to
minimize
its
disposal
costs.
(
HEC00056)

EPA
should
regulate
CCW
disposed
in
mines
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
as
hazardous
waste.
Only
this
designation
will
keep
aquifers
in
mine
areas
from
becoming
open
dumping
grounds.
(
CITZ00256)

I
think
you
should
think
about
this
and
Please
don't
let
the
coal
mines
dump
the
CCW
in
their
coal
pits.
(
CITZ00257)

p.
s.
Please!
Please!
Stop
this
dumping
and
let
the
Power
Plants
worry
about
a
dump
site.
(
CITZ00257)

EPA
should
regulate
CCW
disposed
in
mines
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
as
hazardous
waste.
Only
this
designation
will
keep
aquifers
in
mine
areas
from
becoming
open
dumping
grounds.
(
VWI00258)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
16
VII
­
16
I
would
offer
the
following:
1.
A
rubble­
filled
hole
blasted
into
coal
geology
is
one
of
the
worst
places
on
the
planet
to
put
anything
that
you
do
not
want
infiltrating
into
the
groundwater
regime.
2.
EPA
must
develop
a
program
to
routinely
split
samples
and
check
operator­
submitted
information
or
do
its
own
testing.
(
NPCA00259)

The
EPA
must
...
regulate
CCW
disposed
in
mines
under
the
federal
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
Subtitle
C,
as
a
hazardous
waste.
(
CITZ00260)

EPA
should
regulate
CCW
disposed
in
mines
under
the
federal
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA),
Subtitle
C,
as
a
hazardous
waste.
ONLY
THIS
WILL
PREVENT
AQUIFERS
IN
MINES
FROM
BECOMING
OPEN
DUMPING
GROUNDS.
(
CITZ00261)

I
think
relying
on
the
strip
mining
industry
to
police
itself
is
not
a
good
course
of
action.
Returning
it
to
former
strip
mines
is
adding
insult
to
the
injury
they've
already
done
to
the
land.
These
wastes
seeping
into
the
groundwater
and
possibly
commingling
other
industrial
wastes
with
them
is
not
a
good
plan.
It
smacks
of
former
Vice
President
Quayle's
council
on
industry
negating
your
agency's
authority
during
his
term
in
office.
Strip
mining
is
not
an
acceptable
practice
to
begin
with,
but
to
allow
this
industry
that
has
already
devastated
the
land
to
return
to
damage
it
further
is
not
acceptable.
If
they're
not
willing
to
accept
the
responsibility
to
find
a
better
way
to
get
rid
of
their
waste,
then
don't
let
them
ruin
the
groundwater
more
than
they
already
have.
Don't
let
them
get
away
with
this
and
making
a
laughingstock
of
your
agency's
mission.
(
CITZ00262)

EPA
should
regulate
CCW
disposed
in
mines
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
as
hazardous
waste.
Only
this
designation
will
keep
aquifers
in
mine
areas
from
becoming
open
dumping
grounds.
(
CITZ00263)

EPA
should
regulate
CCW
disposed
in
mines
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
as
hazardous
waste.
Only
this
designation
will
keep
aquifers
in
mine
areas
from
becoming
open
dumping
grounds.
(
CITZ00264)

Disposal
of
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
and
meet
the
requirements
for
hazardous
waste.
Without
this
protection
in
place,
individual
states
will
allow
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
to
be
dumped
and
come
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater.
(
CITZ00265)

EPA
should
regulate
CCW
disposed
in
mines
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
as
a
hazardous
waste.
Only
this
designation
will
keep
aquifers
in
mines
from
becoming
open
dumping
grounds.
(
SAVV00266)

Mine
disposal
of
CCW's
should
be
regulated
by
RCRA
Sub
c,
with
liners
between
CCW's
and
all
known
aquifers.
(
CITZ00267)

I
am
writing
to
urge
the
EPA
to
strictly
regulate
the
disposal
of
coal
combustion
waste
(
CCW),
including
stopping
the
disposal
of
CCW
in
strip
mines.
(
CITZ00271)

We
would
rather
pay
a
little
more
for
our
electricity
than
to
drink
contaminated
well
water
if
that
is
the
price
for
handling
CCW
properly
and
safely.
(
CITZ00271)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
17
VII
­
17
EPA
should
regulate
CCW
disposed
in
mines
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
as
hazardous
waste.
Only
this
designation
will
keep
aquifers
in
mine
areas
from
becoming
open
dumping
grounds.
(
SIERRA00278)

EPA
should
regulate
CCW
disposed
in
mines
under
the
federal
resources
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA),
Subtitle
C,
as
a
hazardous
waste.
(
SOCM00279)

EPA
should
recommend
that
Congress
ban
any
future
dumping
of
CCW
in
lagoons,
surface
impoundments,
landfills,
old
stripmine
sites,
or
any
other
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
SOCM00279)

Commenters
believe
that
sufficient
evidence
exists
to
warrant
an
immediate
Nationwide
moratorium
on
further
co­
disposal
of
coal
combustion
wastes
in
mine
voids
and
pits
under
Section
7003
of
RCRA,
and
for
the
assertion
of
Subtitle
III
authority
over
the
disposal
of
coal
combustion
wastes
in
mine
pits
and
voids.
(
NCCLP00282)

The
available
evidence
provides
a
sufficient
basis
for
assertion
of
Subtitle
III
jurisdiction
to
prevent
further
damage
from
open
dumping
of
coal
combustion
wastes
in
mined
areas.
(
NCCLP00282)

The
failure
to
assert
jurisdiction
over
coal
combustion
wastes
disposed
of
in
coal
mining
operations
will
result
in
imminent
and
substantial
endangerment
to
health
and
the
environment.
(
NCCLP00282)

Failure
to
establish
appropriate
disposal
standards
for
coal
combustion
wastes
in
mining
areas
will
disadvantage
proper
on­
site
utility
waste
disposal
practices.
(
NCCLP00282)

Blending
of
mine
wastes
with
spoil
in
the
backfill,
rather
than
controlled
placement
of
the
wastes
in
a
designed
facility,
should
be
treated
as
prohibited
open
dumping.
(
NCCLP00282)

The
hydrogeology
of
coal­
bearing
regions
creates
heightened
risk
of
contaminant
migration
and
groundwater
contamination;
justifying
application
of
Subtitle
III.
(
NCCLP00282)

Ample
hydrologic
evidence
is
available
to
suggest
that
further
co­
disposal
of
coal
combustion
wastes
should
be
prohibited
pending
development
of
sufficient
standards
for
the
characterization,
management,
placement
and
monitoring
of
such
disposal,
and
that
EPA
should
move
promptly
to
develop
such
standards.
(
NCCLP00282)

EPA
should
regulate
CCW
disposed
in
mines
under
the
federal
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
Subtitle
C,
as
hazardous
waste.
Only
this
will
keep
aquifers
in
mines
from
becoming
open
dumping
grounds.
(
CITZ00284)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
KYC00285)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
18
VII
­
18
The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00286)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00287)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00288)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00289)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00290)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00291)

I
feel
that
stronger
placement,
monitoring
and
containment
regulations
are
needed
to
encourage
proper
disposal
of
CCW's.
(
PURD00294)

Until
conclusive
results
are
obtained,
I
would
also
hope
that
the
EPA
would
attempt
to
minimize
potential
harm
to
the
U&
public
by
discouraging
dumping
of
CCW's
in
groundwater,
encouraging
the
use
of
liners
and
monitoring
systems,
and
adopting
the
treatment
of
CCW's
as
regulated
materials
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
until
wastes
until
long­
term,
unbiased
data
is
collected.
(
PURD00294)

Tri­
State
is
asking
the
EPA
to
regulate
CCW
disposed
in
mines
under
the
federal
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
Subtitle
C,
as
hazardous
waste.
Many
of
our
members
live
in
rural
areas
and
depend
on
groundwater
for
their
private
water
supplies.
Without
strict
regulations,
surface
and
underground
mine
sites
will
become
dumping
grounds
for
these
hazardous
wastes.
(
TRI00295)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
19
VII
­
19
Hold
those
who
benefit
from
CCW
disposal
responsible
for
any
damages
it
causes.
It
is
the
utilities
and
mine
operators
that
should
be
financially
responsible
for
damage
cause
by
CCW
dumping.
Not
taxpayers.
(
CITZ00303)

I
am
opposed
to
any
policy
that
allows
dumping
of
power
plant
wastes
directly
into
ground
waters.
(
CITZ00304)

RCRA
is
appropriate
here.
A
portion
of
the
profits
these
companies
have
taken
out
of
these
regions
must
be
returned
to
genuinely
restore
them,
and
to
adequate/
y
isolate
the
hazardous
wastes
their
industry
has
created.
We
must
stop
using
the
coalfields
as
hazardous
dumping
grounds.
Our
kids
deserve
better
than
that.
Even
after
all
this
time,
the
people
expect
and
hope
for
protection
from
your
agency.
(
PEACE00306)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00311)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00312)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00313)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00314)

I
request
that
the
EPA
regulate
CCW
disposed
in
mines
under
the
federal
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
Subtitle
C,
as
a
hazardous
waste.
Only
this
will
keep
aquifers
in
mines
from
becoming
open
dumping
grounds.
(
CITZ00315)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00316)

I
am
concerned
about
the
proposed
state
rule
in
Indiana
which
would
allow
for
dumping
of
Coal
Combustion
Wastes
(
CCW)
into
the
strip
coal
mines
here
in
southwestern
Indiana
with
direct
contact
with
ground
water.
After
analyzing
both
sides
of
the
conflict,
I
believe
that
there
are
too
many
questions
unanswered
to
allow
this
method
of
disposal
to
be
used.
(
CITZ00317)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
20
VII
­
20
The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00318)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00319)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00320)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00321)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00322)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00323)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00324)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00325)

EPA
should
regulate
CCW
disposed
in
mines
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
as
a
hazardous
waste.
(
CITZ00326)

CCW
dumping
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
(
hazardous
waste).
(
CITZ00327)

It
will
be
grave
mistake
if
the
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency
does
not
formulate
rules
for
the
disposal
of
various
waste
in
pits
caused
by
surfacing
mining
operations.
These
rules
are
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
21
VII
­
21
necessary
to
ensure
that
one
our
most
valuable
resources
(
drinking
water)
is
protected
forever.
(
CITZ00328)

I
object
to
allowing
the
dumping
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
(
CCW),
on
open
land
from
which
our
water
table
is
replenished.
In
our
area
old
coal
mine
areas
being
reclaimed
are
being
used
by
the
State
of
Indiana,
as
well
as
working
mines
are
being
used
to
dispose
of
millions
of
tons
of
solid
waste
from
power
plants
in
our
area
as
well
as
waste
being
shipped
in
from
other
states
...
Our
water
supply
will
be
ruined
for
future
generations.
This
is
all
taking
place
because
of
the
greed
of
the
large
corporations
who
will
risk
our
future
for
a
quick
profit
now.
I
believe
it
is
your
responsibility
because
of
your
high
position
to
get
control
of
this
situation.
Research
has
been
done
to
find
alternate
methods
but
most
cost
a
little
more.
Please
require
this
practice
to
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
(
CITZ00329)

This
letter
concerns
the
disposal
of
coal
combustion
waste
which
is
of
great
concern
to
me
since
I
am
surrounded
by
coal
mines
...
On
the
"
surface"
of
it
this
is
obviously
unacceptable.
Though
it
may
involve
only
a
few
thousand
of
us
(
at
first),
we
value
our
lives
like
everyone
else!
...
At
a
minimum,
we
must
have
liners,
close
groundwater
moniters
and
regulation
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
to
protect
us.
More
basically,
there
needs
to
be
more
resource
recovery
to
prevent
toxic
chemicals
etc.
from
being
dumped
in
the
first
place.
(
CITZ00330)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00331)

We
request
that
US
EPA
regulate
fossil
fuel
wastes
including
coal
combustion
wastes
to
be
disposed
in
mines
as
hazardous
waste
under
RCRA
subtitle
C.
We
ask
that
at
a
minimum,
the
risk
mitigation
alternative
outlined
in
the
draft
Determination
be
applied
nationally
to
all
disposal
sites
for
CCW
and
other
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
waste
mixed
with
these
wastes
or
wastes
whose
parent
materials
are
coburned
with
these
wastes.
We
believe
that
the
requirements
for
liners,
leachate
collection
and
ground
water
monitoring
outlined
under
this
alternative
in
the
Determination
are
basic
projections
that
must
be
afforded
to
the
environment
and/
or
citizens
who
live
adjacent
to
or
near
sites
where
these
wastes
are
disposed.
(
HEC00332)

CCW
that
is
dumped
into
strip
mining
operations
should
be
covered
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulations
for
hazardous
substances.
Liners,
groundwater
monitoring,
and
leachate
collection
systems
should
be
required
for
the
dumping
of
these
materials.
(
BUCK00333)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
NCSEA00334)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00336)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
22
VII
­
22
I
request
that
the
EPA
regulate
CCW
disposed
in
mines
under
the
federal
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
ACT
(
RCRA)
Subtitle
C,
as
a
hazardous
waste
(
because
that's
what
it
is).
Only
this
will
keep
aquifers
in
mines
form
becoming
open
dumping
grounds.
(
CITZ00337)

RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes
should.
be
applied
to
the
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines.
If
this
step
is­
not
implemented,
it
will
give
this
state's
Department­
of
Natural
Resources
and
the
Natural
Resources
Council
the
green
light
to
continue
to
move
toward
turning
the
Southwestern
corner
of
this
state
into
the
industrial
dumping
ground
for
the
region's
power
companies.
(
CITZ00338)

First,
I
believe
that
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes
should
be
applied
to
the
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines.
If
this
step
is
not
implemented,
I
believe
that
it
will
send
the
wrong
message
to
Indiana
and
other
states,
namely,
that
they
can
dump
any
amount
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
ground
water
and
not
have
to
worry
about
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00339)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00340)

I
am
a
resident
that
has
lived
in
close
proximity
of
coal
mines
for
several
years
...
I
am
convinced
that
open
dumping
of
CCW
that
has
no
restrictions
on
it
is
poisoning
my
drinking
water
...
Why
the
same
safeguards
are
not
required
by
coal
operators
as
any
other
waste
handling
businesses
are
required
is
a
mystery.
Minimum
Federal
Regulations
are
essential
to
protect
me
from
these
wealthy
powerful
entities
...
I
am
all
for
any
regulations
governing
the
handling
and
disposal
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
properly.
(
CITZ00342)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00343)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00344)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00345)

EPA
should
regulate
coal
combustion
waste
disposed
in
mines
under
the
Federal
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
Subtitle
C,
as
a
hazardous
waste.
This
would
prevent
aquifers
in
mines
from
becoming
open
dumping
grounds.
(
CITZ00346)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
23
VII
­
23
I
am
writing
to
urge
the
EPA
to
strictly
regulate
the
disposal
of
coal
combustion
waste
(
CCW),
including
stopping
the
disposal
of
CCW
in
strip
mines.
(
CITZ00347)

We
would
rather
pay
a
little
more
for
our
electricity
than
to
drink
contaminated
well
water
­
if
that
is
the
price
for
handling
CCW
properly
and
safely.
(
CITZ00347)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00348)

EPA
should
regulate
CCW
disposed
in
mines
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
as
a
hazardous
waste.
Only
this
designation
will
keep
aquifers
in
mines
form
becoming
open
dumping
grounds.
(
CITZ00349)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00350)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00351)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00352)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00353)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00354)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00355)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
24
VII
­
24
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00356)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00357)

The
fact
that
CCW
was
declared
"
non­
hazardous"
some
years
ago
has
worked
against
us
securing
proper
controls
over
dumping
CCW
in
open
pit
mines
in
the
State
of
Indiana.
My
first
request
is
that
U.
S.
EPA
right
this
wrong
and
designate
CCW
as
HAZARDOUS
WASTE
as
the
first
step
toward
prevention
of
aquifers
in
mines
form
becoming
open
dumping
grounds.
(
CITZ00358)

This
letter
is
a
request
for
detailed
and
stringent
regulation
regarding
the
disposal
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
in
America
...
Our
coal
mining
sites
already
contain
many
dangerous
substances,
whether
occurring
naturally
or
introduced
by
man,
and
any
additional
toxic
or
hazardous
wastes
would
only
serve
to
compound
our
problems
and
increase
the
threat
to
our
water
resources
...
We
ask
you
to
find
that
CCW
is
a
hazardous
or
toxic
waste
and
that
it
must
be
handled
and
disposed
of
as
such.
(
DCCC00359)

At
this
point
and
time
I
believe
that
it
would
be
criminal
to
allow
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
open
strip
pits
with
the
amount
of
outstanding
evidence
that
is
being
presented
to
you
at
this
time.
(
CITZ00360)

At
this
point
and
time
I
believe
that
it
would
be
criminal
to
allow
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
open
strip
pits
with
the
amount
of
outstanding
evidence
that
is
being
presented
to
you
at
this
time.
(
CITZ00361)

What
will
it
take
for
someone
to
stand
up
and
act
in
a
responsible
manner
and
insist
that
the
EPA
(
will)
regulate
the
disposal
of
CCW
in
active
mines
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
as
a
hazardous
waste.
By
making
this
change
now,
(
you)
will
prevent
further
ground
water
contamination
in
our
state.
(
CITZ00361)

At
this
point
and
time
I
believe
that
it
would
be
criminal
to
allow
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
open
strip
pits
with
the
amount
of
outstanding
evidence
that
is
being
presented
to
you
at
this
time.
(
CITZ00362)

What
will
it
take
for
someone
to
stand
up
and
act
in
a
responsible
manner
and
insist
that
the
EPA
(
will)
regulate
the
disposal
of
CCW
in
active
mines
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
as
a
hazardous
waste.
By
making
this
change
now,
(
you)
will
prevent
further
ground
water
contamination
in
our
state.
(
CITZ00362)

At
this
point
and
time
I
believe
that
it
would
be
criminal
to
allow
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
open
strip
pits
with
the
amount
of
outstanding
evidence
that
is
being
presented
to
you
at
this
time.
(
CITZ00363)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
25
VII
­
25
What
will
it
take
for
someone
to
stand
up
and
act
in
a
responsible
manner
and
insist
that
the
EPA
(
will)
regulate
the
disposal
of
CCW
in
active
mines
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
as
a
hazardous
waste.
By
making
this
change
now,
(
you)
will
prevent
further
ground
water
contamination
in
our
state.
(
CITZ00363)

At
this
point
and
time
I
believe
that
it
would
be
criminal
to
allow
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
open
strip
pits
with
the
amount
of
outstanding
evidence
that
is
being
presented
to
you
at
this
time.
(
CITZ00364)

What
will
it
take
for
someone
to
stand
up
and
act
in
a
responsible
manner
and
insist
that
the
EPA
(
will)
regulate
the
disposal
of
CCW
in
active
mines
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
as
a
hazardous
waste.
By
making
this
change
now,
(
you)
will
prevent
further
ground
water
contamination
in
our
state.
(
CITZ00364)

At
this
point
and
time
I
believe
that
it
would
be
criminal
to
allow
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
open
strip
pits
with
the
amount
of
outstanding
evidence
that
is
being
presented
to
you
at
this
time.
(
CITZ00365)

What
will
it
take
for
someone
to
stand
up
and
act
in
a
responsible
manner
and
insist
that
the
EPA
(
will)
regulate
the
disposal
of
CCW
in
active
mines
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
as
a
hazardous
waste.
By
making
this
change
now,
(
you)
will
prevent
further
ground
water
contamination
in
our
state.
(
CITZ00365)

At
this
point
and
time
I
believe
that
it
would
be
criminal
to
allow
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
open
strip
pits
with
the
amount
of
outstanding
evidence
that
is
being
presented
to
you
at
this
time.
(
CITZ00366)

What
will
it
take
for
someone
to
stand
up
and
act
in
a
responsible
manner
and
insist
that
the
EPA
(
will)
regulate
the
disposal
of
CCW
in
active
mines
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
as
a
hazardous
waste.
By
making
this
change
now,
(
you)
will
prevent
further
ground
water
contamination
in
our
state.
(
CITZ00366)

At
this
point
and
time
I
believe
that
it
would
be
criminal
to
allow
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
open
strip
pits
with
the
amount
of
outstanding
evidence
that
is
being
presented
to
you
at
this
time.
(
CITZ00367)

What
will
it
take
for
someone
to
stand
up
and
act
in
a
responsible
manner
and
insist
that
the
EPA
(
will)
regulate
the
disposal
of
CCW
in
active
mines
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
as
a
hazardous
waste.
By
making
this
change
now,
(
you)
will
prevent
further
ground
water
contamination
in
our
state.
(
CITZ00367)

EPA
should
ensure
the
objectivity,
accuracy,
and
completeness
of
this
report
by
...
regulating
CCW
disposed
in
mines
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
as
a
hazardous
waste.
Only
this
designation
will
keep
aquifers
in
mines
from
becoming
open
dumping
grounds.
(
POW00369)

I
am
also
asking
that
you,
the
EPA
to
keep
us,
the
public
informed
by
making
regular
tests
close
to
the
mines
and
publishing
the
reports
of
the
results.
When
the
tests
show
dangerous
levels
of
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
26
VII
­
26
chemicals
in
a
well
it
must
be
up
to
the
responsible
company
to
clean
it
up,
not
the
taxpayers.
(
CITZL0008)

I
am
concerned
about
new
plans
to
dispose
of
125
million
tons
of
coal
combustion
waste
in
unlined
Indiana
mines...
Please
issue
a
national
rule
requiring
that
action
be
taken
to
protect
our
drinking
water.
(
CITZL0011)

PG&
E's
comments
consider
a
legitimate,
if
overstated,
application
of
a
specific
waste
type
for
a
specific
beneficial
use
in
a
specific
setting.
The
specificity
(
and
limits)
of
these
applications
is
lost
in
the
rhetoric.
The
comments
create
the
impression
that
CCW
wastes
in
general
have
these
properties
and
that
anything
short
of
USEPA's
turning
loose
of
regulation
will
prevent
a
tremendous
landscape
of
beneficial
applications
from
being
realized.
It
is
important
that
distinction
between
legitimate,
engineered
beneficial
use
and
unregulated,
wholesale
dumping
continually
be
drawn
and
emphasized.
(
GHIL0012)

In
addition,
I
believe
the
EPA
should
regulate
CCW
disposed
in
mines
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
as
a
hazardous
waste.
Only
this
designation
will
keep
aquifers
in
mines
from
becoming
open
dumping
grounds.
(
CITZL0013)

I
think
relying
on
the
strip
mining
industry
to
police
itself
is
letting
the
fox
into
the
henhouse.
Allowing
coal
combustion
wastes
to
be
returned
to
former
strip
mines
is
adding
insult
to
the
injury
they've
already
done
to
the
land.
These
wastes
seeping
into
the
groundwater
and
possibly
commingling
other
industrial
wastes
with
them
is
an
unacceptable
answer.
It
smacks
of
former
vice
president
Quayle's
council
on
industry
negating
your
agency's
authority.
Strip
mining
is
not
an
environmentally
acceptable
practice
to
begin
with.
(
CITZL0015)

Many
utilities
will
not
allow
their
wastes
to
be
co­
disposed
in
mine
voids
and
workings,
preferring
to
manage
their
liabilities
associated
with
the
waste
on­
site
or
in
a
manner
more
controlled
that
the
typical
Minesites.
Those
that
do
allow
the
waste
to
be
managed
in
co­
disposal
situations
assume
that
the
problems
with
their
wastes
will
be
masked
by
the
significant
hydrogeologic
and
chemical
disruptions
associated
with
mining
operations,
or
that
the
contamination
will
not
be
discovered
because
of
lack
of
adequate
and
sufficient
monitoring.
In
many
cases,
they
are
correct,
and
absent
EPA
intervention,
such
practices
will
be
encouraged,
placing
those
engaging
in
more
careful,
controlled
disposal,
at
competitive
disadvantage.
(
NCCLP00282)

Coal
strip
mines
could
become
the
dump
of
choice
for
power
plants
an
many
other
industries.
(
CITZ00284)

Without
strict
regulations,
surface
and
underground
mine
sites
will
become
dumping
grounds
for
these
hazardous
wastes.
(
TRI00295)

The
Report
discusses
a
trend
toward
lined
landfills,
but
failed
to
mention
the
move
toward
mine
disposal
sites
that
would
offset
this
trend
particularly
if
the
move
toward
deregulation
of
electricity
sales
continues
in
the
utility
industry.
(
HEC00332)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
27
VII
­
27
Given
the
number
of
underground
mineshafts,
this
form
of
disposal
could
handle
a
great
deal
of
the
fossil
fuel
waste
generated
in
this
country.
Before
any
decision
is
made
to
allow
mine
disposal
there
must
be
well­
documented
answers
to
questions
about
how
the
toxic
constituents
in
these
waste
will
affect
ground
and
surface
waters.
In
collecting
data,
all
quality
scientific
data
should
be
used
to
answer
these
questions.
In
the
absence
of
data,
EPA
should
not
be
allowing
mine
disposal.
EPA
should
look
at
each
of
these
minefilling
pracrices
individually
and
not
lump
them
together.
The
Agency
must
develop
a
systematic
study
protocol
to
raise
the
right
questions,
figure
out
if
the
data
is
available
and
if
it
is
not
available,
support
appropriate
studies.
The
lack
of
data
must
not
be
used
to
mean
that
no
problems
exist.
(
ALA00036)

And
we
believe
that
any
acceptable
minefilling
practice
must
be
federally
regulated.
Federal
regulation
would
provide
a
common
framework
for
determining
under
what
circumstances
any
FFC
wastes
might
be
disposed
of
underground.
(
ALA00292)

MCC
has
gone
through
the
permitting
and
approval
process
in
Maryland
and
currently
uses
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
as
minefill
and
soil
amendment
...
The
project
is
properly
monitored
and
regulated
by
two
(
2)
Maryland
entities,
and
should
not
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C.
(
MCC00051)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
28
VII
­
28
VII.
MINEFILL
A.
Information
Provided
As
noted
above,
commenters
provided
detailed
information
on
minefill
regulations
in
specific
states,
case
studies,
factors
determining
risks
from
the
practices,
costs
and
benefits
of
the
practice,
and
other
research
materials.
In
some
cases,
commenters
made
specific
suggestions
as
to
factual
issues
the
Agency
should
consider
in
coming
to
its
final
determination.

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
the
extensive
information
provided.
As
noted
in
the
general
response
to
Section
VII,
above,
EPA
completed
its
analysis
of
all
this
information,
along
with
the
information
previously
collected
in
support
of
the
Report
to
Congress.
This
analysis
was
a
major
contributor
to
today's
decision.
Most,
if
not
all,
of
the
specific
"
informational"
comments
below
are
addressed
in
the
analytical
response
just
above.
The
results
of
EPA's
analysis
are
discussed
further
in
the
responses
below
and
presented
in
the
final
Docket
for
this
determination.
Documents
in
the
docket
that
summarize
two
specific
categories
of
information
are:
"
Summary
of
Coal
Combustion
Waste
Minefill
Projects
in
the
U.
S."
and
"
State
Regulation
of
Mine
Placement
of
Coal
Combustion
Wastes."
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
29
VII
­
29
VII.
MINEFILL
A.
Information
Provided
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
CCP
placed
as
minefill
represent
less
than
1%
of
the
total
disturbed
material
at
the
mine
site.
(
IEU00018)

Prior
Act
1986­
l
68,
which
amended
Pennsylvania's
Solid
Waste
Management
Act,
coal
ash
was
handled
as
a
type
of
residual
waste
under
25
Pa.
Code
Chapter
75
of
PaDEP's
regulations.
The
1986
Amendment
excluded
coal
ash
that
is
beneficially
used
from
the
definition
of
solid
waste.
Coal
ash
is
defined
as
"
fly
ash,
bottom
ash
or
boiler
slag
resulting
from
the
combustion
of
coal,
that
is
or
has
been
beneficially
used,
reused
or
reclaimed
for
a
commercial,
industrial
or
governmental
purpose."
The
1986
Amendment
also
defined
the
scope
of
beneficial
use
of
coal
ash
to
include
mine
subsidence,
mine
fire
control,
mine
sealing
and
minefill
in
lieu
of
natural
borrow
materials
or
minespoils.
Specific
new
regulations
for
the
beneficial
use
of
coal
ash
were
promulgated
by
the
Environmental
Quality
Board
in
1992
and
recently
amended
based
upon
the
first
five
years
experience
with
beneficial
use
of
coal
ash
under
the
regulatory
program.
25
Pa
Code
§
5287.661
through
287.666.
The
beneficial
use
regulations
authorize
the
use
of
coal
ash
as
part
of
mining
reclamation
activity
if
designed
to
achieve
an
overall
improvement
in
water
quality
or
prevent
the
degradation
of
water
quality.
Ash
may
be
used
beneficially
to
fill
a
pit
or
area
from
which
coal
is
extracted
under
a
surface
coal
mining
permit,
an
abandoned
coal
mining
area
located
within
the
surface
coal
mining
permit
area,
permitted
coal
refuse
disposal
site
and
other
beneficial
uses
that
are
part
of
the
approved
reclamation
plan
of
the
coal
mining
activity.
25
Pa.
Code
5287.663
(
c).
The
regulations
also
require
coal
ash
used
as
a
soil
substitute
or
soil
additive
to
be
applied
at
a
rate
per
acre
that
will
protect
public
health,
safety
and
the
environment,
and
to
be
carried
out
pursuant
to
an
approved
reclamation
plan
to
increase
the
productivity
or
properties
of
the
soil.
9287.663(
e).
The
regulations
require
the
development
of
technical
guidelines
to
facilitate
review
of
proposed
ash
use
at
a
mining
site,
which
establish
specific
contaminant
limits
for
metals
including
arsenic.
Minefill
in
surface
mines
(
including
coal
refuse
disposal)
is
subject
to
the
Surface
Mining
Control
and
Reclamation
Act,
the
Coal
Refuse
Disposal
Act
and
the
Clean
Streams
Law,
as
well
as
the
residual
waste
regulations.
Section
H
of
the
residual
waste
regulations
specifically
sets
forth
procedures
for
the
conventional
placement
of
coal
ash
at
minesites
(
25
Pa.
Code
§
§
287.663­
287.664)
which
include:

°
ash
delivered
to
the
mine
must
have
a
pH
between
7
and
12.5,
and
cannot
produce
a
leachate
that
exceeds
DEP's
Class
III
limits,
which
DEP
has
established
as
safe
for
unlined,
natural
attenuation
facilities.
°
ash
must
be
separated
from
groundwater,
highwalls
and
other
consolidated
rock
features.
°
ash
must
be
delivered
to
the
site
within
an
acceptable
moisture
range
and
compacted
in
layers
not
exceeding
two
feet
in
thickness.
°
groundwater
must
be
monitored.
(
ARRIPA00019)

Over
the
last
decade,
DOE/
FETC
has
conducted
and
published
extensive
empirical
research
to
examine
potential
detrimental
effects
that
FFC
waste
may
have
when
it
is
used
as
mine
fill.
EPA
has
requested
this
type
of
data
and
analyses
in
its
RTC.
DOE
believes
that
the
research
summaries
provided
by
its
FETC
in
the
detailed
comments
that
follow
will
greatly
assist
EPA
in
making
a
fair
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
30
VII
­
30
and
scientifically
based
regulatory
determination
on
waste
disposal
and
beneficial
uses
of
coal
combustion
waste
(
CCW).
DOE's
research
in
this
area
(
which
is
summarized
in
matrix
form
in
Appendix
1),
includes:

°
Data
collection
and
analysis
of
water
quality
data
collected
from
35
surface
mines
in
Pennsylvania
where
CCW
were
used
for
backfill
and
surface
reclamation.
These
data
showed
a
general
lack
of
environmental
damage.
DOE
has
also
produced
summaries
of
inhouse
research
where
the
injection
of
CCW
grouts
into
surface
mine
spoils
produced
neutral
to
slightly
positive
environmental
effects.

°
Several
field
projects
involving
the
injection
of
CCW
into
abandoned
underground
mines
for
the
purpose
of
acid
mine
drainage
(
AMD)
remediation
and/
or
subsidence
control.

Supporting
documentation
and
data
from
each
of
these
studies
are
provided
in
the
body
of
these
comments...
[
the
comment
provides
several
pages
summarizing
the
results
of
its
research].
(
DOE0020)

There
are
several
conferences
which
have
had
sessions
which
address
the
use
of
coal
ash
in
mining,
among
these
are
ACAA's
biannual
International
Symposium
on
the
Management
and
Use
of
Coal
Combustion
Products,
and
the
biannual
International
Ash
Use
Symposium
organized
by
the
University
of
Kentucky,
Center
for
Applied
Energy
Research
(
CAER).
The
American
Society
for
Surface
Mining
and
Reclamation
often
has
a
session
on
ash
use
in
mining
at
its
annual
meeting.
In
1996
the
United
States
Office
of
Surface
Mining,
Sponsored
the
Coal
Combustion
By­
Products
Associated
with
Coal
Mining
­
Interactive
Forum
which
was
held
at
Southern
Illinois
University
at
Carbondale.
These
meetings
provide
for
the
dissemination
of
information
on
the
topic
of
coal
ash
use
in
reclamation
...
[
the
comment
presents
several
pages
summarizing
the
results
of
scientific
studies
and
detailed
information
on
state
programs]
(
ACAA00022)

Several
of
the
documents
that
have
been
referenced
in
the
preceding
comments
concerning
U.
S.
EPA's
March
1999
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
are
included
as
attachments
to
this
submission
to
EPA
Docket
Number
F­
l
999­
FF2P­
FFFFF
as
follows:

°
Attachment
#
2
­
List
of
technical
papers
concerning
mining
applications
of
CCPs
(
14
pages)
°
Attachment
#
4
­
State
Solid
Waste
Regulations
Governing
the
Use
of
Coal
Combustion
Products
(
CCPs),
ACAA,
August
1998
(
57
pages)
[
Also
available
on
DOE/
FETC
Internet
web
site]
°
Attachment
#
6
­
Excerpted
information
from
selected
state
regulations
and
related
documents
concerning
the
management
and
use
of
CCPs
in
mining
applications
(
25
pages)
(
ACAA0022)

PG&
E
Gen
has
attached
case
study
information
and
permit
information
in
this
report
to
help
understand
the
level
of
control
that
state
regulations
have
placed
on
the
electric
generating
industry
...
Attached
in
Appendix
A
is
permit
information
regarding
PG&
E
Gen's
Carneys
Point
ash
which
is
used
for
minefilling
at
Blackville
mine
in
Greene
County,
Pennsylvania.
The
Logan
Generating
Plant
also
uses
its
pulverized
coal
ash
to
reclaim
coal
mines.
Approximately
77
percent
of
Logan's
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
31
VII
­
31
coal
ash
and
93
percent
of
Carneys
Point
coal
ash
is
beneficially
used
in
mine
reclamation.
The
reclamation
activities
are
conducted
under
the
auspice
of
various
state
and
federal
agencies.
(
PG&
E00023)

Coal
ash
from
the
Carneys
Point
facility
is
used
as
a
minefill
reclamation
in
Pennsylvania.
EPA's
review
of
the
regulatory
requirements
for
minefills
does
not
include
the
requirements
for
quality
certification
of
the
coal
ash,
as
do
Pennsylvania's
residual
waste
regulations
for
the
beneficial
use
of
coal
ash
at
mine
sites,
25
PA
Code
Section
287.661­
665.
These
requirements
are
quite
expensive
in
terms
of
testing,
operational
controls
and
monitoring
and
are
further
strengthened
by
the
overlapping
mining
regulatory
program
permits
and
requirements.
These
regulations
are
discussed
in
greater
detail
in
these
comments
on
Section
5.5,
and
copies
of
the
permitting
modules
implementing
key
beneficial
use
of
coal
ash
requirements
are
found
in
Appendix
B.
(
PG&
E00023)

As
noted
in
section
3.4
above,
PG&
E
Gen's
Carneys
Point
and
Logan
facilities
in
New
Jersey
beneficially
reuse
their
ash
in
mine
filling
projects
in
Pennsylvania
and
West
Virginia,
pursuant
to
the
regulatory
programs
discussed
in
some
detail
in
Chapter
5.5.
EPA
mentions
its
concerns
regarding
agricultural
use
and
mine
filling
of
ash
and
requests
further
information
as
to
case
study
experience
with
these
practices.
Specific
information
on
the
Carneys
Point
project
is
provided
in
Appendix
A.
(
PG&
E00023)

The
three
PG&
E
Gen
facilities
produce
about
1
million
tons
of
FBC
ash
annually.
The
two
Pennsylvania
facilities
beneficially
reuse
100
percent
of
their
FBC
ash;
about
99
percent
is
rninefill
and
grouting
material
and
1
percent
is
used
in
soil
amendments
for
revegetation
of
mine
sites.
The
Cedar
Bay
facility
beneficially
reuses
about
6
percent
of
its
FBC
ash
in
soilamendments
as
an
input
in
the
manufacture
of
lime­
stabilized
municipal
sewage
sludge
Class
A
biosolids;
the
remaining
94
percent
is
disposed
in
a
lined
landfill
permitted
under
Kentucky's
waste
management
program
...
EPA
requested
specific
information
and
case
studies
on
the
experience
with
beneficial
uses
of
FBC
ash
for
minefilling
and
soil
amendment.
PG&
E
Gen
selected
several
different
types
of
beneficial
use
projects
to
present
here...
[
the
commenter
presents
several
pages
of
case
study
information].
(
PG&
E00023)

Pennsylvania
regulates
mining
activities
pursuant
to
its
air,
water,
waste
and
mining
laws,
and
implementing
regulations
and
guidelines
...
The
beneficial
use
regulations,
found
at
25
Pennsylvania
Code
Chapters
287.661­
665
require
the
applicant
to
demonstrate,
among
other
things,
that
the
quality
of
the
coal
ash
meets
certification
guidelines
for
20
contaminants,
including
arsenic
and
mercury.
The
applicant
is
also
required
to
demonstrate
that
the
beneficial
use
is
designed
to
achieve
an
overall
improvement
in
water
quality
or
to
prevent
degradation
of
water
quality,
and
that
groundwater
is
monitored
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
federal
and
state
mining
laws.
(
See
attached
copies
of
regulations
and
implementation
guidelines
in
Appendix
B.)
...
[
the
commenter
presents
several
pages
of
information
summarizing
Pennsylvania
state
regulations].
(
PADEP00025)

In
an
effort
to
aid
in
your
decision­
making
process,
we
are
pleased
to
provide
a
representative
sampling
of
data
from
the
nearly
100
mine
sites
throughout
Pennsylvania
where
ash
has
been
used
as
a
supplement
for
soils
or
minefill.
These
cases
cover
a
variety
of
applications.
We
believe
that
the
data
demonstrate
that
the
use
of
ash
does
not
result
in
groundwater
degradation
when
used
in
accordance
with
the
regulations
and
guidance
in
effect
in
Pennsylvania.
This
result
is
the
same
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
32
VII
­
32
whether
the
ash
placement
is
within
or
above
the
water
table.
In
many
of
the
cases
cited,
the
use
of
the
ash
resulted
in
a
significant
improvement
in
water
quality.
The
information
is
presented
in
three
volumes.
Volume
1
provides
an
overview
of
the
beneficial
use
of
ash
in
Pennsylvania,
includes
our
regulations
and
guidance
documents;
and
provides
limited
information
on
the
use
of
ash
as
a
soils
amendment.
Volume
2
includes
data
from
seven
sites
where
the
ash
placement
is
not
in
contact
with
groundwater.
Finally,
Volume
3
includes
data
from
five
sites
where
the
ash
is
in
contact
with
groundwater.
(
PADEP00025)

In
particular,
I
am
responding
to
the
Report's
request
for
additional
information
on
the
potential
for
beneficial
use
of
Coal
Combustion
Products
(
CCPs)
in
mined
land
environments
...
[
the
commenter
presents
several
pages
summarizing
scientific
studies].
(
VAT00033)

Finally,
I
would
like
to
support
the
recently
developed
regulatory
framework
for
beneficial
utilization
of
CCPs
in
the
various
states.
In
Virginia,
for
example,
our
Regulation
Governing
Management
of
Coal
Combustion
By­
Products
(
VR
672­
20­
20)
exempts
eligible
CCPs
from
regulation
as
soJid
waste
when
they
are
beneficially
used
or
recycled
for
specific
purposes
...
[
the
comment
presents
several
pages
summarizing
Virginia
regulations].
(
VAT00033)

In
specific
response
to
EPA's
request
for
scientific
documentation
on
the
potential
for
beneficial
reuse
of
CCPs
in
mined
land
environments,
I
am
submitting
attached
copies
of
the
papers
by
Haering
and
Daniels
(
199
1)
and
Stewart
and
Daniels
(
1997),
and
the
1996
Ph.
D.
dissertation
by
Stewart.
These
materials
contain
extensive
references
on
the
beneficial
reuse
potential
of
coal
fly
ash
in
mined
land
environments
along
with
detailed
coverage
of
the
environmental
concerns
and
appropriate
management
practices.
(
VAT00033)

In
mine
reclamation,
coal
wastes
are
often
mixed
with
other
residuals
i.
e.
biosolids
to
produce
a
low­
cost,
soil
substitute
that
can
be
placed
on
mined
surfaces
to
promote
revegetation.
In
using
wastes
for
this
purpose,
the
benefit
is
that
revegetation
is
promoted
on
sites
that
are
viewed
as
having
low
value.
In
using
coal
waste
for
this
purpose,
the
question
that
needs
to
be
answered
are:
Can
these
wastes
support
vegetation
with
levels
of
application
that
do
not
further
degrade
the
environment?
(
ALA00036)

This
is
an
issue
not
only
for
the
long­
term
mobility
of
metals
but
also
when
trying
to
understand
the
length
of
time
that
these
wastes
will
be
able
to
neutralize
acid
drainage
before
the
alkaline
cations
in
the
wastes
are
leached
out.
If
and
when
leaching
occurs,
how
will
this
change
metal
mobility
and
transport
and
what
will
need
to
be
done
to
"
recharge"
the
neutralizing
capacity?
(
ALA00036)

Mining
states
are
aggressively
pursuing
innovative
mine
placement
strategies
to
address
longstanding
environmental
problems.
In
Pennsylvania,
for
example,
the
State's
mine
placement
initiatives
range
from
conventional
placement,
which
is
subject
to
very
specific
regulatory
requirements
governing
ash
quality
and
placement
to
innovative
CCP
utilization,
such
as
in
the
reclamation
of
crop
falls,
coal
refuse
banks
and
water­
filled
strip
mine
pits.
These
research
reclamation
projects
are
being
performed
as
demonstration
projects
and
involve
significant
testing,
research
and
monitoring
measures
to
ensure
the
placement
of
coal
ash
is
safe
to
the
environment.
(
USWAG00037)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
33
VII
­
33
The
State
of
Maryland
provides
another
example
of
a
state
that
is
actively
researching
the
prospects
for
greater
beneficial
uses
of
coal
combustion
projects.
The
Western
Maryland
Coal
Combustion
By­
Products/
Acid
Mine
Drainage
Initiative
is
a
successful
example
of
a
demonstration
carried
out
through
a
joint
private
and
public
sector
collaboration.
The
Maryland
Department
of
Natural
Resources
Power
Plant
Research
Program,
with
participation
from
the
Maryland
Department
of
the
Environment
Mining
Program,
coal
mining
companies,
and
electric
utility
companies,
has
coordinated
research
to
evaluate
the
use
of
alkaline
CCPs
to
abate
AMD
from
underground
coal
mines.
As
part
of
this
initiative,
a
field
scale
experiment
was
established
at
the
Frazee
Mine
in
Garrett
County,
Maryland
in
November
1996.
Approximately
5,600
cubic
yards
of
grout,
which
consisted
of
`
6,000
tons
of
CCPs
and
52,000
gallons
of
acidic
mine
water,
were
injected
into
both
dry
and
submerged
mine
conditions.
The
State
is
monitoring
the
mine
to
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
the
grout
to
seal
the
mine
and
abate
AMD,
and
to
make
sure
ground
water
is
not
adversely
impacted.
The
ultimate
goal
of
this
research
is
to
use
CCPs
to
address
the
6­
square­
mile
underground
Kempton
mine
complex,
which
discharges
approximately
6
million
gallons
per
day
of
AMD
into
the
Chesapeake
Bay
watershed
in
Maryland.
(
USWAG00037)

USWAG
surveyed
member
companies
for
information
to
help
EPA
evaluate
this
preliminary
concern.
The
data
and
case
studies
are
compiled
in
the
attached
draft
EPRI
report,
Synthesis
of
Available
Information
on
the
Management
of
Coal
Combustion
Products
(
CCPs)
in
Mines
("
EPRI
Synthesis
Report").
USWAG
provided
a
preliminary
draft
of
this
document
to
EPA
on
March
1,
1999.
The
EPRI
Synthesis
Report
describes
some
electric
utility
industry
experience
with
mine
placement
of
CCPs
in
cooperation
with
and
under
the
supervision
of
State,
local,
and
federal
regulatory
agencies.
The
case
studies
represent
a
significant
portion
of
the
total
population
of
active
mine
placement
projects
nationwide.
(
USWAG00037)

The
case
studies
in
the
EPRI
Synthesis
Report
describe
beneficial
utilization
of
CCPs
in
surface
and
underground
mines
both
above
and
below
the
water
table.
The
monitoring
data
generally
show
no
adverse
environmental
effects,
and,
indeed,
sometimes
document
significant
improvements.
The
following
short
descriptions
are
intended
as
a
guide
to
the
detailed
information
presented
in
the
EPRI
Synthesis
Report...
[
the
commenter
provides
several
pages
summarizing
the
case
studies].
(
USWAG00037)

Additionally,
we
would
like
to
offer
any
data
which
EPA
might
need
to
demonstrate
that
mine
placement
of
CCPs
is
an
environmentally
responsible
beneficial
utilization
practice.
(
TVA00049)

However,
much
groundwater
data
does
exist
around
mines
with
ash
reclamation,
especially
in
the
state
of
Pennsylvania.
Also,
site­
specific
parameters
needed
for
accurate
groundwater
transport
modeling
are
available
at
these
mine
sites.
(
CIBO00052)

TXU
has
been
a
advocate,
supporter
and
practitioner
of
mine
placement
of
coal
combustion
wastes,
appropriate
beneficial
utilizations,
and
recycling
of
coal
combustion
by­
products
in
connection
with
our
mining
operations
for
well
over
twenty­
five
years.
TXU
owns
and
operates
three
lignite
fired
electric
generating
stations
in
Texas
which
we
commonly
call
"
mine­
mouth
operations".
That
is,
the
lignite
surface
mine
is
located
adjacent
to
the
electric
generating
plant.
Historically,
TXU
has
utilized
the
surface
mines
as
the
location
for
the
disposal
of
coal
combustion
by­
products
(
CCBPs)
...
[
the
commenter
provides
several
pages
summarizing
its
projects
and
the
applicable
state
regulations].
(
TXU00053)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
34
VII
­
34
The
following
documents,
referenced
in
our
original
comments
(
copy
enclosed)
are
enclosed:

°
"
Injection
of
FGD
Grout
to
Mitigate
Acid
Mine
Drainage
at
the
Roberts­
Dawson
Underground
Coal
Mine,
Coshocton
and
Muskingum
Counties,
Ohio,"
a
seven­
volume
final
report
for
a
project
which
was
carried
out
by
The
Ohio
State
University
and
American
Electric
Power.
This
is
OCDO
Project
D­
95­
17.

°
Attachment
3­
These
tables
present
data
from
"
Product
Development
and
Utilization
of
Zimmer
Station
Wet­
FGD
By­
products,"
(
OCDO
project
D­
931­
8)
being
conducted
by
the
Dravo
Lime
Company.
Studies
of
this
CCP
used
as
a
fertilizer
on
abandoned
mine
land
(
AML),
on
previously
reclaimed
mine
land
(
RML)
and
on
an
acidic
agricultural
soil
in
Ashtabula
County
Ohio
(
AS)
do
not
show
any
accumulations
of
arsenic
in
plant
tissues.
In
Table
4
of
Attachment
3,
the
arsenic
content
of
the
CCPs
and
limestone
was
less
than
4
mg/
kg
in
all
cases.
The
remaining
tables
of
Attachment
3
present
plant
tissue
data
from
the
three
sites
for
one
to
two
crop
years.
In
all
cases
for
both
controls
and
treatments
with
CCPs,
the
arsenic
content
was
less
than
1.75
mg/
kg
and
of
no
adverse
environmental
consequence.
(
ODOD00054)

While
there
are
applications
of
CCW
that
can
neutralize
acid
mine
drainage,
these
applications
must
be
exercized
with
adequate
characterization
of
the
ground
water
systems
and
the
acidity
at
the
site
and
of
the
CCW
and
its
neutralization
capacity.
The
treated
sites
must
be
monitored
closely
and
for
long
periods
of
time.
Repeat
applications
of
CCW
may
be
necessary.
Without
such
measures,
there
is
a
growing
body
of
evidence
indicating
that
the
metals
in
the
CCW
may
be
solubilized
into
the
environment
as
the
neutralization
capacity
of
the
CCW
is
exhausted.
(
HEC00056)

Yet
after
twenty
years
of
telling
us
that
they
can
readily
meet
these
requirements,
the
proponents
of
minefilling
now
want
us
to
believe
that
even
in
the
absence
of
acidity
problems,
the
ground
waters
in
mines
are
so
trashed
that
further
contamination
of
them
from
disposal
of
massive
quantities
of
CCW
and
other
fossil
fuel
wastes
would
be
of
no
consequence!
The
data
does
not
back
them
up.
Instead
it
indicates
that
contamination
from
disposal
of
CCW
will
substantially
worsen
water
quality
that
has
been
degraded
by
mining.
It
shows
that
degraded
spoil
waters
improve
with
time
as
their
oxygen
content
reduces.
It
does
not
show
that
contamination
from
CCW
will
abate
simply
with
the
passage
of
time
...
[
the
commenter
provides
several
pages
summarizing
case
study
information].
(
HEC00056)

Indiana
is
a
good
case
study.
We
note
that
EPA
has
made
a
special
effort
to
investigate
Indiana's
minefitls
in
its
tour
of
this
state
on
May
25.
For
the
past
eight
years,
Indiana
has
aggressively
promoted
unrestricted
open
dumping
in
mines.
As
a
result
we
are
intimately
familiar
with
the
practices
that
this
state
is
utilizing
that
violate
mining
law
and
will
summarize
the
problems
with
Indiana's
approach
here.
It
is
important
to
remember
that
these
problems
may
be
indicative
of
other
states'
approaches
with
minefilling
as
well
...
[
the
commenter
provides
several
pages
summarizing
Indiana's
state
regulations].
(
HEC00056)

Site­
specific
regional
characteristics
and
the
suitability
of
Indiana
surface
mine
environments
are
illustrated
by
the
Little
Sandy
#
10
mine
site
that
was
recently
visited
by
USEPA
representatives.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
35
VII
­
35
USEPA's
May
25,
1999,
observations
revealed
Indiana
mine
sites
are
dry
due
to
very
limited
ground
water
intrusion
caused
by
the
local
Indiana
coal
geology.
Therefore,
Indiana
can
take
advantage
of
the
Pennsylvanian­
age
cyclothems
which
are
dominated
primarily
by
highly
impermeable
shales
with
typically
limited
ground
water
capacity
(~
20
gallons/
minute).
In
addition,
the
vertical
proximity
between
the
coal
ash
disposal
locations
and
deeper
aquifers
is
minimal.
For
example,
the
Little
Sandy
#
10
site
places
ash
on
a
60
foot
thick
bench
of
shale
material
which
provides
an
excellent
attenuation
zone
for
downward
element
migration.
In
addition,
most
Indiana
coal
mine
geological
environments
can
take
advantage
of
a
natural
liner
comprised
of
the
immediate
underclays
or
fireclay
stratigraphic
layers
located
directly
beneath
the
lowest
coal
seams
removed.
Typically,
several
feet
thick,
highly
impermeable
underclays
make
up
the
base
of
the
disposal
environment.
With
hydraulic
conductivities
generally
10"
centimeters/
second
or
less,
these
underclay
units
equal,
or
exceed,
the
standards
for
most
liners
constructed
for
land
fills.
Field
data,
which
is
provided
in
the
appendices
of
this
document,
have
confirmed
the
operation
of
these
natural
processes
in
surface
mines.
Indiana's
data
has
shown
when
mine
site
geology
and
hydrology
are
properly
considered,
coal
ash
is
environmentally
benign
and
sometimes
environmentally
beneficial.
Sites
observed
on
the
May
25,
1999,
USEPA
tour
(
i.
e.
the
Cinergy
Universal
Mine
site
and
the
Midwestern
Mining
bond
forfeiture
reclamation
project)
have
shown
water
quality
improvements
as
a
result
of
coal
ash
disposal
in
mine
sites.
For
example,
Monitoring
Well
#
3
at
the
Cinergy,
Universal
Mine
site
is
located
downgradient
and
within
less
than
50
feet
of
the
ash
fill.
Yet,
water
monitoring
data
shows
it
meets
primary
drinking
water
standards
in
nearly
all
samples.
This
is
due
to
the
unique
nature
of
surface
mine
sites
which
make
them
well­
suited
to
accept
ash
materials.
Moreover,
hydrologically
connected
acid
mine
discharge
seeps
have
been
neutralized
by
the
coal
ash
facility.
(
IDNR00062)

As
a
prelude
to
the
large
amounts
of
attached
data,
the
following
pages
contain
substantial
background
information
about
the
Indiana
coal
mine
coal
ash
disposal
program
that
will
assist
USEPA
in
its
analysis
and
understanding
of
the
data
provided
by
the
IDNR
...
[
the
commenter
provides
several
pages
summarizing
its
regulatory
program]
(
IDNR00062)

The
DoR
believes
that
dilution
and
attenuation
factors,
such
as
dispersion
and
adsorption,
with
respect
to
minefill
in
the
backfill
should
be
considered
when
EPA
makes
it
final
Regulatory
Determination.
(
IDNR00062)

The
DoR
recommends
that
EPA
consider
providing
guidance
on
alkalinity
or
pH
levels
at
which
metals
are
not
expected
to
leach
and
guidance
concerning
levels
which
could
produce
unacceptable
leachate
concentrations.
(
IDNR00062)

The
DoR
also
recommends
that
guidance
be
provided
about
whether
or
not
the
co­
disposal
of
coal
processing
wastes
with
CCW
in
a
reducing
environment
poses
a
threat
and
if
co­
disposal
with
acid
forming
materials
or
coal
processing
wastes
should
have
specific
limitations
or
prohibitions
based
upon
the
findings
of
Dr.
Barry
Stewart
presented
in
Appendix
8.
(
IDNR00062)

The
DoR
recommends
the
EPA
research
reference
material
and
make
observations
of
strata
associated
with
active
coal
mining
operations
to
determine
what
extent
fracturing
occurs
with
respect
to
conduciveness
of
contaminant
transport.
Also,
the
DoR
recommends
the
EPA
determine
the
extent
that
underclays
provide
a
suitable
vertical
barrier
from
CCW
effects
on
aquifers
that
may
exist
beneath
the
floor
of
the
mined
area.
(
IDNR00062)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
36
VII
­
36
Today,
however,
mine
reclamation
is
a
major
component
of
PP&
L's
ash
management
strategy.
Since
1995,
PP&
L
has
increased
the
amount
of
coal
ash
beneficially
used
for
mine
reclamation
from
65,000
tons
in
19995,
to
over
320,000
tons
in
1998.
The
beneficial
use
of
coal
ash
as
minefill
has
significantly
reduced
PP&
L's
ash
handling
costs.
(
PHS013)

The
dramatic
increase
in
the
use
of
coal
ash
as
minefill
in
Pennsylvania
can
initially
be
attributed
to
the
1986
amendment
to
the
Solid
Waste
Management
Act
that
revised
the
definition
of
solid
waste
to
exclude
coal
ash
that
is
beneficially
used
...
[
the
commenter
provides
several
pages
summarizing
Pennsylvania's
regulatory
program].
(
PHS013)

I'm
concerned
about
the
drinking
water
myself.
I
have
<
2>
drilled
wells
of
water
close
too
a
proposed
dumpsite
or
with­
in
1/
4
mile,
of
my
<
2>
wells
in
which
I
get
water
from
these
from
my
cattle
and
my
family.
(
CITZ00257)

ICC
is
submitting
this
comment
because
it
believes
a
more
specific
understanding
of
the
Illinois
basin
geology
and
hydrology,
particularly
in
the
southwestern
Indiana
coalfields,
and
the
formation
and
characteristics
of
mine
spoil
water
(
i.
e.
"
groundwater"
in
the
surface
mined
area)
is
helpful
in
understanding
why
it
believes
disposal
below
the
water
table
is
the
preferred
method
of
disposal
in
Indiana
...
[
The
commenter
provided
several
pages
of
specifics
regarding
case
studies,
hydrology
of
mine
sites,
and
leachate
data].
(
ICC00269)

According
to
Jeff
Stant
of
the
Hoosier
Environmental
Council,
eight
wells
in
Illinois
have
been
contaminated
by
CCW
disposed
of
in
strip
mine
pits.
(
CITZ00271)

Furthermore,
the
internal
pore
structure
of
the
monolithic
body
yields
permeability
(
hydraulic
conductivity)
in
the
range
of
10"
cm/
set;
comparable
to
compacted
plastic
clays.
Compacted
FBC
ash
fills
have
measured
"
dense"
or
"
very
dense"
using
standard
geotechnical
study
auger
borings.
(
See,
Preliminary
Geotechnical
Investigation,
Alden
Ash
Site,
January
1998,
Kimball
Associates,
attached.)
(
PG&
E000274)

A
program
developed
under
RCRA
Section
3004(
x)
should,
among
other
things,
provide
for:

1.
Separation
and
proper
disposal
of
other
fossil
fuel­
related
wastes,
such
as
FBC
wastes,
that
may
contain
residual
unburned
organics
not
associated
with
typical
coal
ash.
Greater
scrutiny
is
warranted
for
FBC
waste,
which
as
noted
in
the
Boulding
Report
presents
a
higher
potential
for
leaching
elements
of
concern;
and
wastes
generated
through
the
firing
of
hazardous
waste
fuels
and
waste
oils
with
or
without
coal,
and
those
which
are
fired
or
co­
fired
with
waste
tires
and
refuse­
derived
fuel.
Each
of
these
categories
adds
constituents
to
the
combustion
process
which
may
significantly
increase
the
hazards
of
improper
disposal
of
the
waste,
including
a
range
of
products
of
incomplete
combustion
of
chlorinated
and
other
synthetic
organic
compounds
that
warrant
extensive
analysis,
characterization
and
careful
management
beyond
that
necessary
for
coal
combustion
waste.
Clarification
should
also
be
provided
that
coal
combustion
wastes
do
not
include
utility
wastes
such
as
metal
and
boiler
cleaning
wastes,
nor
other
wastes
generated
from
power
plants
beyond
those
directly
resulting
from
combustion
of
coal
and
control
of
emissions
from
the
combustion
process.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
37
VII
­
37
2.
All
coal
combustion
wastes
to
be
screened
for
radionuclides
and
managed
as
low­
level
radioactive
wastes
in
accordance
with
the
applicable
state
and
federal
laws,
where
those
wastes
exhibit
activity
that
is
above
background
levels.
Coal
combustion
waste
which
contains
elevated
radionuclides
is
properly
classified
as
technologically­
enhanced
lowlevel
radioactive
waste.

3.
No
disposal
should
be
allowed
absent
the
complete
characterization
of
the
waste
stream(
s)
proposed
for
land
disposal,
and
assurance
that
the
engineering
design
of
the
disposal
facility
will
assure
compliance
with
the
environmental
performance
standards
(
including
no
contamination
of
aquifers
above
drinking
water
standards
and
no
increase
in
groundwater
of
any
constituents
above
background
levels
of
those
contaminants).
Whenever
possible
the
chemical
and
physical
composition
of
the
actual
waste
stream
that
will
be
produced
by
the
combustion
process
at
the
utility
from
which
the
waste
will
be
generated,
should
be
used
for
testing.

4.
In
order
to
properly
design
a
facility
for
disposal
of
coal
combustion
waste,
the
full
extent
of
the
characteristics
of
the
waste
must
be
known,
and
the
leachate
potential
must
be
established
by
use
of
appropriate
modeling
of
the
disposal
site,
the
amount
of
rainfall
infiltration,
the
pH
of
the
waste
and
associated
materials
through
which
the
rainfall
will
pass,
and
a
hydrogeologic
investigation
into
the
location,
extent,
and
characteristics
of
the
surface
and
groundwater
systems
at
the
site.

5.
Groundwater
monitoring
must
be
sufficient
to
allow
for
prompt
detection
of
leachate
migration
at
the
waste
site
(
and
not
the
mine)
boundary.
Monitoring
parameters
and
well
locations
must
be
such
that
they
are
appropriate
to
the
area
in
which
the
waste
is
disposed.
6.
Blending
of
mine
wastes
with
spoil
in
the
backfill,
rather
than
controlled
placement
of
the
wastes
in
a
designed
facility,
should
be
treated
as
prohibited
open
dumping.
(
NCCLP00282)

The
1983
study
by
Kipp,
Dinger
and
Lawrence,
A
Conceptual
Model
of
Ground­
water
Flow
in
the
Eastern
Kentuckv
Coal
Field,
makes
these
observations
concerning
the
nature
and
occurrence
of
fracture­
dominated
groundwater
transport
...
Borchers
and
Wyrick,
Application
of
Stress­
Relief
Fracturing
Concepts
for
Monitoring
the
Effects
of
Surface
Mining
On
Groundwater
in
Appalachian
Plateau
Valleys,
(
1981)
also
note
that
"
stress­
relief
fractures
are
a
near­
surface
phenomenon"
vastly
different
from
the
standard
conceptualization
of
groundwater
flow
...
Summers
noted
that
mining
and
restoration
may
either
increase
or
decrease
the
recharge
rate
to
groundwater
from
the
mined
area.
Summers,
Measuring
the
Impact
of
Mining
on
Groundwater
Recharge
(
1981).
The
stress­
relief
fracture
system
was
noted
also
by
Ferguson,
during
his
foundational
investigations
in
the
Allegheny
Plateau
Region
on
behalf
of
the
Corps
of
Engineers.
Vallev
Stress
Release
in
the
Alleghenv
Plateau,
Engineering
Geology,
Association
of
Engineering
Geologists
Bulletin,
Volume
4,
No.
1,
p.
63­
68
(
1967).
Schubert
noted
that
"
fractures
are
of
considerable
importance
to
groundwater
flow
through
lithified
coal­
bearing
strata,"
relying
on
many
different
studies
in
the
northern
Appalachians
and
northern
Great
Plains
...
As
noted
by
Hobba,
ground
water
and
surface
water
are
intimately
related
in
the
Appalachian
coalfields,
and
underground
mining
and
resulting
subsidence
increases
hydraulic
conductivity
and
interconnection
of
water­
bearing
rock
units
...
Hobba,
Effects
of
Underground
Minino
and
Mine
Collapse
on
the
Hvdroloav
of
Selected
Basins
in
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
38
VII
­
38
West
Virginia,
(
1981)
...
[
the
commenter
provides
several
pages
summarizing
these
scientific
studies].
(
NCCLP000282)

However,
we
know
of
many
examples
where
CCBs
have
been
an
integral
part
of
successful
reclamation
under
both
Title
IV
and
Title
V.
There
is
an
extensive
inventory
of
completed
projects,
and
there
q
a
number
of
ongoing
projects
in
various
stages
of
completion.
As
the
EPA
states
in
its
report,
the
environmental
benefits
achieved
through
this
reclamation
have
been
extensive.
In
all
of
these
projects,
OSM
and
the
States
have
ensured
that
the
potential
environmental
and
health
and
safety
impacts
of
CCBs
were
evaluated.
The
enclosed
copies
of
papers
on
successful
reclamation
were
presented
at
national
AML
meetings
highlighting
the
use
of
CCBs.
(
OSM283)

We
have
experienced
first­
hand
the
water
contamination
caused
by
various
forms
of
coal
mining.
My
students
were
amazed
when
they
saw
a
creek
near
Freeburn,
Kentucky
with
water
that
was
a
milky
white.
I
am
greatly
concerned
about
the
potential
for
even
more
groundwater
contamination
and
the
associated
risks
to
human
beings
and
other
life
forms
if
coal
companies
are
allowed
to
continue
the
practice
of
dumping
coal
combustion
waste
(
CCW)
in
strip
mines.
(
CITZ00291)

Attached
as
Appendices
B
and
C
to
these
comments
are
the
German
laws
(
in
German
and
English")
that
regulate
minefilling
of
wastes,
including
coal­
combustion
wastes.
We
present
this
material
as
a
model
for
EPA
in
considering
whether
and
how
to
regulate
the
minefilling
of
the
range
of
co­
managed
FFC
wastes.
(
ALA00292)

Kerry
Coal
Company
reclaimed
an
old
coal
wash
plant
site
in
Butler
County,
Pa.
that
covered
over
twenty
acres
using
250,000
tons
of
CFB
ash.
That
site
is
now
supporting
a
lush
green
habitat
for
wild
life.
This
site
was
reclaimed
at
no
cost
to
the
commonwealth
or
the
Pennsylvania
taxpayer.
(
KCC00298)

Shamrock
Minerals
Corporation
reclaimed
22
acres
of
an
abandoned
coal
refuse
site
in
Western
Pa.
using
70,000
tons
of
CFB
in
1996.
Today
the
water
runoff
leaving
the
site
meets
DEP
standards
and
the
field
produces
hay.
The
job
was
completed
at
no
cost
to
the
Pennsylvania
taxpayer.
(
SMC00299)

One
very
experienced
toxicologist
looked
at
the
lead
levels
alone
in
samples
submitted
by
the
generators
themselves­­
they
were
in
the
tens
of
thousands
of
ppm
 
he
said
"
They
could
mine
this
stuff
for
lead."
(
Dr.
Karl
Schurr,
Professor
Emeritus,
Medical
College
of
Ohio­­
now
resident
of
Fisher,
Pa.)
Yet
those
ashes­­
and
tons
just
as
bad
and
worse
 
were
submitted
as
part
of
the
example­
plan
for
mixing
in
with
the
dredge
muds
from
NY/
NJ
to
spread
on
abandoned
strip
mines.(
Consolidated
Technologies,
Inc)
(
PEACE00306)

There
are
a
number
of
scientists
concerned
about
flushing
CCW
into
underground
exhausted
coal
mine
shafts
due
to
trace
metal
toxicity
from
fly
ash
particles
accompanied
with
high
levels
of
conductivity,
total
dissolved
solids
(
TDS),
and
sodium
(
Na).
The
last
three
parameters,
by
the
way,
do
not
have
national
water
quality
criteria
(
WQC)
restrictions
to
protect
aquatic
life.
I
have
found
that
effluents
with
conductivity
approaching
4,000
:
mhos/
cm,
3,500
mg/
L
TDS
and
1,100
:
g
Na/
L
to
be
acutely
toxic
to
Ceriodaphnia
dubia
in
my
recent
research
efforts
of
the
latter
1990'
s.
(
VAT00309)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
39
VII
­
39
These
documents
are
attachments
to
the
comments
submitted
under
separate
cover
on
behalf
of
the
Citizens
Coal
Council,
Citizens
Interested
in
Bull
Run,
Inc.,
the
Hoosier
Environmental
Council
and
the
Kentucky
Resources
Council.
(
CCC00310)

Note:
I
am
willing
to
testify
as
a
private
citizen,
to
your
sub.
Committee.
I
have
information
which
the
powers
to
be
do
not
want
to
become
public
information.
(
CITZ00329)

Given
the
instability
of
mine
sites
as
well
as
the
direct
and
indirect
hydrologic
pathways
between
the
wastes
and
groundwater
supplies
at
these
sites,
disposing
CCW,
other
fossil
fuel
wastes,
other
nonmine
wastes
mixed
with
these
wastes
or
wastes
whose
parent
materials
are
coburned
with
fossil
fuels
in
strip
mines
without
substantial
safeguards
violates
the
basic
tenets
of
sound
waste
disposal
policies.
(
HEC00332)

The
connections
between
ground
water
in
the
mined
site
and
deeper
aquifers
are
complex
and
substantial.
(
HEC00332)

Studies
provide
evidence
that
contaminants
in
shallow
aquifers
directly
or
closely
connected
to
surface
mines
could
migrate
to
deeper
aquifers
relatively
easily
in
certain
situations.
(
HEC00332)

Coal
mining
has
major
impacts
on
groundwater
quality
and
quantity
that
often
extend
far
beyond
the
boundary
of
the
mine
area
and
permanently
change
the
hydrologic
regime
for
the
surrounding
region.
We
believe
that
if
EPA
decision­
makers
come
to
understand
these
impacts,
they
will
have
a
sound
scientific
basis
to
effectively
regulate
dumping
of
coal
combustion
waste
(
CCW)
in
mines
so
that
it
will
not
damage
our
nation's
precious
groundwater
resources.
(
HEC00332)

According
to
Jeff
Stant
of
the
Hoosier
Environmental
Council,
eight
wells
in
Illinois
have
been
contaminated
by
CCW
disposed
of
in
strip
mine
pits.
(
CITZ00347)

In
Virginia,
there
is
a
continuing
attempt
by
industry
to
dump
these
wastes
in
old
underground
coal
mines
or
incorporate
them
into
reclamation
materials
on
surface
mines.
To
date,
no
such
permission
has
been
granted
by
the
coalfield
counties
of
far
southwestern
Virginia.
(
DCCC00359)

The
Bureau
suggests
that
further
consideration
of
existing
information
gathered
during
this
current
review
be
compiled
into
an
accessible
database
for
consideration
by
carefully
selected
experts
and
potential
users
before
any
decision
is
made.
Also,
EPA
could
develop
or
recommend
suitable
evaluation
standards
and
require
the
collection
of
vital
and
equivalent
baseline
information
(
toxicity
tests,
old
and
new
methods,
utilization
of
comparable
research
methods)
on
CCBs
in
mine
environments.
(
MDE00047)

Maryland,
for
example,
has
two
different
entities
within
the
Water
Management
Administration
that
regulate
the
use
of
coal
combustion
products
in
mine
applications;
the
Water/
Wastewater
Permits
Program
and
the
Bureau
of
Mines.
Although
the
Code
of
Maryland
Regulations
Title
26,
Subtitle
13,
Chapter
02,
Section
.04­
l
defines
coal
combustion
products
as
non­
hazardous,
the
material
must
be
approved
for
use
by
the
Bureau
of
Mines
and
monitored
for
chemical
content
and
environmental
impact
under
an
NPDES
permit
issued
by
the
Water/
Wastewater
Permits
Program.
The
Bureau
of
Mines
approval
process
involves
a
rigorous
chemical
analysis
of
both
the
material
and
the
potential
leachate
receptors.
A
copy
of
the
application
for
approval
is
enclosed
as
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
40
VII
­
40
Attachment
B.
The
Water
Management
Adminktration
permitting
process
requires
both
a
detailed
chemical
analysis
of
the
material
mimicking
the
RCRA
Hazardous
Waste
characterizing
process
found
in
RCRA
Sec.
3001
142
USC
69211
and
a
public
hearing
prior
to
receiving
authorization
to
utilize
the
material.
Once
approved,
existing
NPDES
permits
required
of
the
coal
industry
are
modified
to
incorporate
tight
limits
on
discharges
from
areas
receiving
the
materials.
(
MCC00051)

MCC
has
gone
through
the
permitting
and
approval
process
in
Maryland
and
currently
uses
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
as
minefill
and
soil
amendment.
MCC
places
the
material
in
direct
contact
with
underground
mine
water
in
an
attempt
to
utilize
the
materials
high
calcium
content
to
increase
the
pH
of
our
mine
pool
to
a
point
where
the
pyrite
oxidation
reaction
ceases.
After
3
years
of
material
placement
and
environmental
monitoring,
the
utilization
of
approximately
400,000
tons
of
material
has
not
shown
any
evidence
of
negative
environmental
impact.
An
overview
of
the
project
is
included
as
Attachment
A.
(
MCC00051)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
41
VII
­
41
VII.
MINEFILL
B.
Appropriateness
of
Site­
specific
Evaluation
and
Control
Industry,
state
and
federal
agency
commenters
noted
that
site­
specific
evaluation
and
control
of
minefill
practices
are
necessary
and
desirable
for
managing
risks
from
this
practice.
Further,
several
of
these
commenters
argued
that
Subtitle
C
controls
would
preclude
such
sitespecific
considerations
without
providing
environmental
benefit.
Public
interest
commenters
did
not
dispute
the
site
specific
nature
of
this
issue
but
noted
that
nationwide
controls
may
be
fashioned
in
a
manner
to
take
into
consideration
both
current
practices
where
deemed
protective
and
site
specific
geochemical
issues.
A
consultant
for
a
public
interest
group
commenter
urged
EPA
to
make
a
distinction
between
legitimate,
engineered
beneficial
use
(
such
as
FBC
waste
used
in
pre­
SMCRA
mines)
and
unregulated,
wholesale
dumping.

Response:
Much
of
the
following
has
been
noted
in
the
above
responses
but
is
repeated
here
in
specific
acknowledgment
of
concerns
as
to
appropriate
regulation.

Based
on
its
review
of
the
extensive
case
study
information
submitted
by
commenters,
EPA
believes
that
many
complexitiies
related
to
site­
specific
geology,
hydrology,
waste
chemistry
and
interactions
with
the
surrounding
matrix,
as
well
as
other
relevant
factors
must
be
taken
into
account
to
evaluate
whether
minefilling
can
be
done
in
a
manner
deemed
to
be
sufficiently
protective.
Environmental
impacts
associated
with
minefilling
will
be
highly
site­
specific.
Therefore,
the
Agency
agrees
that
controls
on
minefill
projects
should
be
designed
based
on
sitespecific
evaluation.
However,
the
complexity
and
variation
in
minefilling
practices
are
compelling
reasons
to
establish
overall
national
regulations
that
will
ensure
consistent
and
thorough
site­
specific
analysis
that
adequately
takes
all
relevant
factors
into
account.
We
intend
to
consider
well
known
and
accepted
geochemical
relationships
in
developing
this
approach.

The
Agency
agrees
that
flexibility
is
important
and
believes
that
such
national
regulations
can
be
effectively
structured
to
lay
out
the
factors
which
must
be
taken
into
consideration.
We
agree
with
commenters
who
stated
that
such
review
is
best
done
at
the
state
level.
The
federal
register
notice
announcing
today's
decision
requests
comments
on
alternative
approaches
to
developing
such
a
national
regulation.
Based
on
the
comments
we
receive,
we
will
develop
a
proposal
for
notice
and
comment
so
that
all
interested
parties
have
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
approaches
to
developing
such
a
regulation.

While
the
approach
that
the
Agency
has
chosen
involves
developing
national
standards
for
minefilling
of
coal
combustion
wastes,
the
intent
is
to
be
as
flexible
as
minefilling
conditions
allow.
States
would
be
responsible
for
ensuring
compliance
with
Subtitle
D
standards.
EPA
and
state
experience
with
revised
Subtitle
D
standards
specifically
for
municipal
landfills
is
that
they
have
allowed
states
flexibility
while
at
the
same
time
providing
a
clear
structure
that
has
resulted
in
significant
improvements
in
environmental
protection.
As
noted
elsewhere
in
this
document,
in
consultation
with
the
Office
of
Surface
Mining,
we
will
also
assess
the
authorities
available
under
SMCRA
to
ensure
protective
and
consistent
minefilling
practices
across
the
country.
We
will
rely
on
RCRA
authorities,
SMCRA
authorities
or
a
combination
of
both
RCRA
and
SMCRA,
based
on
an
assessment
of
which
can
be
used
most
effectively.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
42
VII
­
42
VII.
MINEFILL
B.
Appropriateness
of
Site­
Specific
Evaluation
and
Control
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
DOE
concurs
with
EPA's
stated
consideration
that
"
these
(
minefilling)
operations,
with
their
preexisting
concerns,
may
require
very
site­
specific
determinations
that
do
not
lend
themselves
to
national
standards."
(
DOE00020)

In
providing
such
information,
DOE
believes
it
is
important
to
point
out
the
substantive
differences
in
the
practice
of
CCW
minefilling
as
they
pertain
to
surface
and
underground
mines.
For
example,
while
"
depth
to
ground
water"
is
a
very
important
factor
that
should
be
incorporated
in
any
regulation
for
minefilling
at
surface
mines,
the
term
is
ambiguous
or
irrelevant
for
underground
minefilling
situations,
which
may
occur
at
depths
that
are
hundreds
of
feet
below
any
potable
aquifer.
Also,
private
industries
are
primarily
responsible
for
ensuring
the
environmental
performance
of
active
mine
sites,
while
public
entities
(
usually
State
governments)
are
ultimately
responsible
for
the
environmental
performance
of
abandoned
mine
sites.
This
is
likely
to
affect
the
practical
application
of
CCW
minefilling,
especially
in
situations
where
it
may
help
correct
existing
environmental
or
safety
problems
at
the
mine
sites.
DOE
believes
that
a
more
flexible
regulatory
approach
than
Subtitle
C
is
needed
to
address
these
situations.
(
DOE00020)

DOE
believes
the
use
of
comprehensive,
site­
specific
empirical
data
is
the
most
appropriate
way
in
which
to
assess
the
human
health
and
ecological
risks
associated
with
minefill
projects.
(
DOE00020)

The
removal
of
waste
coal
for
use
as
FBC
fuel,
and
the
subsequent
reclamation
of
the
re­
mined
site
with
the
resulting
FBC
ash,
is
an
integrated
process.
This
process
requires
site
specific
considerations
and
flexibility
to
maximize
both
the
economic
and
the
environmental
benefits.
(
PG&
E00023)

In
case
by
case
evaluations,
supported
by
technical
data
and
environmentally
sound
management,
CCBs
can
be
applied
in
many
uses
which
are
benign
to
the
environment.
(
WRAG00030)

We
believe
that
site­
specific
conditions
merit
individual
review.
This
review
should
be
conducted
by
local
and
state
regulators
rather
than
the
Agency.
(
NCE00031)

In
contrast
to
the
body
of
mature
research
conducted
by
other
institutions,
EPA
is
at
an
initial
stage
of
formulating
the
potential
issues
under
consideration.
Significantly,
EPA
has
not
established
that
mine
placement
of
CCPs
presents
a
problem.
Furthermore,
EPA
acknowledged
that,
should
a
problem
be
established,
the
resolution"
may
require
very
site­
specific
determinations
that
do
not
lend
themselves
to
national
standards."
USWAG
commends
EPA
for
identifying
this
fundamental
argument
against
federal
regulation
of
mine
placement
of
CCPs.
(
USWAG00037)

The
establishment
of
RCRA
Subtitle
C
would
place
all
minefill
operations
under
an
umbrella
of
controls,
requirements,
and
constraints
that
would
not
address
site
specific
conditions.
(
VAP00042)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
43
VII
­
43
In
addition,
APS
and
USWAG
are
greatly
supportive
of
the
agencies
acknowledgment
that,
if
a
problem
exists,
the
resolution
"
may
require
very
site­
specific
determinations
that
do
not
lend
themselves
to
national
standards."
The
hydrogeology
of
each
mine
situation
is
complex
and
peculiar,
and
the
state
agencies
are
best
equipped
to
deal
with
individual
situations.
(
APSC00043)

Again,
a
region­
specific
approach
is
needed
because
of
the
varying
geologic
settings
and
especially
because
of
the
differing
chemical,
mineralogical,
and
physical
properties
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
(
FFC)
wastes.
(
EERC00044)

Ash
in
minefilling
is
another
application
that
must
be
considered
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
(
CIBO00052)

By
contrast,
IDNR
believes
regulation
under
Subtitle
C
would
promote
a
"
one­
size
fits
all"
approach
that
will
discourage
recycling
of
coal
ash
and
thereby
encourage
the
continued
placement
of
coal
ash
in
Indiana's
floodplain
environments.
We
urge
you
to
affirm
that
state
regulatory
authorities
should
continue
to
regulate
placement
of
coal
ash
in
mine
sites
under
existing
state
programs.
(
IDNR00062)

PG&
E
is
not
talking
about
the
universe
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
products
or
its
disposal.
They
are
not
talking
wholesale
disposal
of
coal
combustion
wastes
by
indiscriminate
dumping
of
tens
of
millions
of
tons
at
single
mines.
They
are
not
talking
about
disposal
in
mine
sites
that
have
had
the
benefit
of
toxic
material
handling
plans
required
by
the
surface
mining
laws
(
SMCRA)
to
minimize
damage
related
to
mining.
They
are
not
talking
about
the
full
range
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
with
the
full
range
of
chemical
and
physical
properties.
(
GHIL0012)

PG&
E's
comment's
consider
a
legitimate,
if
overstated,
application
of
a
specific
waste
type
for
a
specific
beneficial
used
in
a
specific
setting.
The
specificity
(
and
limits)
of
these
applications
is
lost
in
the
rhetoric.
The
comments
create
the
impression
that
CCW
wastes
in
general
have
these
properties
and
that
anything
short
of
USEPA's
turning
loose
of
regulation
will
prevent
a
tremendous
landscape
of
beneficial
application
form
being
realized.
It
is
important
that
the
distinction
between
legitimate,
engineered
beneficial
used
and
unregulated,
wholesale
dumping
continually
be
drawn
and
emphasized.
(
GHIL0012)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
44
VII
­
44
VII.
MINEFILL
C.
Adequacy
of
Existing
Regulations
Many
commenters
addressed
the
adequacy
of
existing
regulations
to
address
risks
associated
with
minefilling.
Supporters
of
the
practice
pointed
out
that
federal
controls
(
SMCRA,
NPDES),
state
programs,
and
other
standards
(
e.
g.,
ASTM)
adequately
address
site­
specific
problems,
and
that
additional
federal
involvement
might
limit
state
flexibility
and
effectiveness
without
minimizing
risks
and
might
delay
further
development
of
state
programs.
Some
commenters
offered
individual
states'
programs
(
e.
g.
Pennsylvania)
as
examples
of
effective
programs.
One
commenter
provided
a
study
by
the
Department
of
Interior's
Office
of
Surface
Mining
in
support
of
its
contention
about
the
adequacy
of
Indiana's
program.

Some
citizen
and
public
interest
group
commenters
reported
that
industry
practices
are
not
protective,
that
SMCRA
enforcement
is
lax,
and
that
many
state
programs
do
not
effectively
enforce
SMCRA
provisions
and/
or
do
not
include
enforceable
standards.
One
of
the
commenters
further
stated
that
EPA
should
defer
regulations
only
in
states
where
the
Agency
has
specifically
found
regulations
to
be
adequate.
Many
of
the
commenters
stated
that
failure
of
EPA
to
regulate
minefilling
would
encourage
states
to
continue
with
weak
regulatory
programs.
Another
commenter
stated
that
state
programs
effectively
allow
open
dumps
without
any
design
or
construction
standards
and
few
operational
requirements.
The
commenter
offered
an
individual
state
program
(
Indiana)
as
an
example
of
an
inadequate
regulation.
The
commenter
further
stated
that
programs
in
Illinois
and
Kentucky
also
do
not
provide
for
adequate
characterization
of
aquifers
and
do
not
require
adequate
long
term
monitoring.
A
number
of
other
commenters
similarly
expressed
concerns
about
the
effectiveness
of
Indiana's
program.
One
public
interest
group
commenter
provided
information
on
minefilling
regulations
in
Germany
as
a
model
for
EPA.

Response:
The
summary
table
"
State
Regulation
of
Mine
Placement
of
Coal
Combustion
Wastes"
in
the
docket
documents
the
Agency's
review
of
the
extensive
information
on
state
minefill
regulatory
programs.
The
Agency
concludes
that
many
states
where
this
practice
is
occurring
do
not
have
protective
programs
in
place.
We
find
gaps
such
as
a
lack
of
adequate
controls
and
lack
of
restrictions
on
unsound
practices,
e.
g.,
no
requirement
for
ground­
water
monitoring
and
no
geochemically­
based
control
or
prohibition
of
waste
placement
in
the
aquifer.
As
noted
above,
the
Agency
will
develop
future
regulations
to
have
minimal
effect
on
those
states
that
are
effectively
overseeing
minefilling
operations
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
We
will
consult
with
all
stakeholders
as
we
develop
the
regulations.
In
response
to
commenters
who
cited
the
Department
of
Interior's
Office
of
Surface
Mining
(
OSM)
and
their
responsibilities
under
the
Surface
Mine
Control
and
Reclamation
Act
(
SMCRA),
we
recognize
that
under
SMCRA,
OSM
has
broad
authority
to
ensure
proper
reclamation
of
surface
mines.
Other
commenters
have
noted
alleged
weaknesses
in
the
SMCRA.
While
we
have
not
conducted
a
comprehensive
review
of
existing
SMCRA
authorities
or
implementation
of
those
authorities
by
OSM
and
authorized
states,
EPA
is
committed
to
ensuring
that
any
necessary
improvements
are
made
in
the
management
of
these
wastes
under
the
appropriate
legal
authorities.
Specifically,
EPA
will
work
closely
with
OSM
in
developing
subtiltle
D
regulations
(
and,
as
noted
elsewhere,
may
pursue
with
OSM
revision
to
OSM
regulations)
to
ensure
that
minefill
activities
are
adequately
addressed."
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
45
VII
­
45
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
46
VII
­
46
VII.
MINEFILL
C.
Adequacy
of
Existing
Regulations
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
State
EPA's
typically
regulate
the
mine
placement
applications
with
oversight
and
advice
from
the
state's
department
of
natural
resources
or
mines.
Such
a
regulatory
arrangement
is
prudent
as
well
as
economical.
(
OSU00015)

For
these
reasons,
OCDO
firmly
believes
that
existing
state
regulatory
bodies
are
in
the
best
position
to
review
and
regulate
local
uses
of
CCPs.
(
ODOD00017)

Practices
are
currently
subject
to
industry
best
management
practices
and
state
regulatory
controls
that
are
effective.
(
IEU000018)

With
respect
to
mine
placement
of
CCP
in
Indiana,
the
Department
of
Natural
Resources
has
full
Surface
Mining
Conservation
and
Reclamation
Act
(
SMCRA)
authority.
(
IEU00018)

Since
1992,
Indiana
has
operated
under
a
policy
memorandum
governing
the
use
of
CCP
as
minefill.
In
1998,
formal
rules
were
proposed
and
preliminarily
adopted
by
the
Indiana
Natural
Resources
Commission
in
November
of
1998.
Final
approval
of
these
rules
is
expected
in
late
1999
but
will
be
held
in
abeyance
until
the
EPA
Bevil
Phase
II
regulatory
determination
is
completed.
(
IEU00018)

ARIPPA
believes
that
there
is
an
adequate
regulatory
framework
in
existence
in
the
States
to
insure
the
proper
management
of
coal
combustion
wastes.
The
States
have
developed
their
programs
to
meet
the
unique
aspects
of
their
States.
In
addition,
the
States
also
have
developed
coal
mining
programs
that
meet
the
requirements
of
the
federal
Surface
Mining
Control
and
Reclamation
Act,
which
requires
the
States
to
evaluate
the
impact
of
mining
and
reclamation
on
the
environment,
including
the
hydrologic
balance
and
the
ability
to
revegetate
the
mine
land.
(
ARIPPA00019)

States
have
developed
coal
mining
permit
programs
that
meet
the
requirements
of
the
federal
Surface
Mining
Control
and
Reclamation
Act,
which
requires
the
States
to
evaluate
the
environmental
impacts
of
not
only
mining,
but
reclamation,
including
the
hydrologic
balance
and
the
ability
to
revegetate
the
mine
land.
The
majority
of
the
beneficial
uses
of
FBC
ash
addressed
by
EPA's
Report
were
related
to
mine
reclamation.
As
a
matter
of
state
and
federal
mining
law,
such
reclamation
must
be
approved
as
part
of
a
mining
permit
issued
pursuant
to
the
federal
Surface
Mining
Control
and
Reclamation
Act.
(
ARIPPA00019)

Pennsylvania
has
a
comprehensive
environmental
program
that
has
been
developed
and
implemented
under
which
coal
combustion
wastes
are
regulated
and
managed.
(
ARIPPA00019)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
47
VII
­
47
Pennsylvania's
environmental
regulatory
programs,
including
its
coal
mining
regulatory
programs
(
which
have
received
delegation
of
primacy
under
the
federal
Surface
Mining
Control
and
Reclamation
Program),
and
the
implementation
of
its
other
comprehensive
environmental
regulatory
programs
provide
the
necessary
regulatory
framework
to
adequately
control
the
management
of
coal
combustion
wastes
in
minefill
and
mine
reclamation
programs.
(
ARIPPA00019)

DOE
believes
that
environmental
protection
concerns
with
respect
to
minefilling
of
CCW
at
active
surface
mines
are
best
addressed
at
the
State
level.
(
DOE00020)

As
with
active
surface
mines,
the
minefilling
of
CCW
in
active
underground
mines
is
likely
to
be
overseen
by
one
or
more
State
agencies.
These
agencies
typically
require
the
chemical
properties
of
the
CCW
materials
to
be
characterized,
and
some
type
of
environmental
monitoring
at
the
mine
site
to
be
conducted
as
part
of
the
permit(
s)
associated
with
the
underground
mining
operation.
However,
the
hydrogeologic
settings
associated
with
underground
mine
operations
are
often
far
more
complex
than
for
surface
mines
and
the
monitoring
program
needed
to
adequately
assess
the
environmental
effects
of
underground
minefilling
will
necessarily
be
very
site­
specific.
The
relative
rarity
of
such
applications
suggests
that
State
agencies
should
be
able
to
address
them
successfully
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Therefore,
DOE
believes
that
the
development
of
Subtitle
C
controls
for
minefilling
of
CCW
in
active
underground
mines
would
be
unlikely
to
provide
a
higher
level
of
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
than
existing
regulatory
mechanisms
at
the
State
level.
If
local
concerns
indicate
that
existing
environmental
protections
with
respect
to
minefilling
of
CCW
at
active
underground
mines
need
to
be
strengthened,
these
concerns
are
best
addressed
at
the
State
level,
within
the
agencies
that
are
already
responsible
for
ensuring
the
acceptable
environmental
performance
of
the
active
mining
operation.
(
DOE00020)

A
review
of
selected
state
regulations
indicates
that
satisfactory
procedures
have
been
implemented
at
the
state
level
under
the
authority
of
Subtitle
D
of
RCRA
for
environmentally
safe
and
technically
sound
uses
of
CCPs
in
agricultural
applications.
(
ACAA00022)

The
regulatory
approaches
used
by
the
several
states
selected
for
review
demonstrate
not
only
that
agricultural
applications
of
CCPs
are
satisfactorily
regulated
at
the
state
level,
but
also
that
further
regulation
at
the
federal
level
is
not
needed.
(
ACAA00022)

It
does
not
appear
that
EPA
fully
considered
that
minefilling
and
soil
amendments
at
mine
sites
require
site
specific
individual
permits
under
Pennsylvania
law.
Much
more
significant,
however,
is
that
EPA
apparently
has
not
considered
that
significant
regulatory
controls
are
required
and
exercised
by
the
states
under
the
Federal
Surface
Mining
Conservation
and
Reclamation
Act.
(
PG&
E00023)

EPA's
discussion
of
existing
state
and
regulatory
controls
focuses
on
waste
regulations.
It
omits
any
discussion
of
the
State
and
Federal
Surface
Mining
Conservation
and
Reclamation
Acts
major
regulatory
program
that
particularly
affects
all
mining
relating
uses.
(
PG&
E00023)

While
there
are
concerns
that
must
be
addressed
in
the
utilization
of
CCPs
at
mine
sites,
those
concerns
are
recognized
and
addressed
by
the
existing
state
and
federal
regulatory
regimes.
(
NMA00024)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
48
VII
­
48
States
are
adequately
regulating
the
beneficial
use
and
disposal
of
CCPs,
including
use
for
agricultural
purposes
and
use
and
disposal
in
minefill.
(
NMA00024)

We
believe
that
the
data
demonstrate
that
the
use
of
ash
does
not
result
in
groundwater
degradation
when
used
in
accordance
with
the
regulations
and
guidance
in
effect
in
Pennsylvania.
This
result
is
the
same
whether
the
ash
placement
is
within
or
above
the
water
table.
(
PADEP00025)

The
IMCC
supports
the
recommendations
that
the
Subtitle
C
exemption
be
retained
for
these
materials
in
minefill
applications.
We
urge
you
to
affirm
that
state
regulatory
authorities
should
continue
to
regulate
placement
of
coal
ash
at
minesites
under
existing
state
programs.
We
believe
it
is
important
that
state­
specific
conditions
are
addressed
to
assure
environmentally
safe
and
effective
ash
handling,
since
this
cannot
be
most
effectively
legislated
on
a
broad
national
basis.
(
IMCC00027)

The
existing
state
programs
under
SMCRA
provide
the
necessary
environmental
safeguards
to
protect
the
hydrologic
balance
and
the
public.
(
IMC00027)

The
WRAG
would
urge
the
Agency
not
to
implement
federal
regulations
under
Subtitle
C
for
agricultural
or
minefill
applications
of
CCBs
and
believes
that
current
local
oversight
adequately
addresses
the
issues
raised
by
the
Agency.
(
WRAG00030)

We
believe
that
site­
specific
conditions
merit
individual
review.
This
review
should
be
conducted
by
local
and
state
regulators
rather
than
the
Agency.
(
NCE00031)

EPA
regulatory
guidance
may
not
be
flexible
enough
to
permit
state
and
local
agencies
to
approve
these
applications
when
site­
specific
situations
pose
little
or
no
threat
to
public
health
or
the
environment.
(
NCE00031)

It
is
our
opinion
that
these
engineered
guidelines
adequately
address
the
use
of
CCBs
in
above
ground
minefills
and
therefore
no
additional
guidance
by
the
Agency
is
needed.
Furthermore,
ASTM
is
developing
two
new
standards
that
call
for
the
use
of
CCBs
in
minefill
applications,
both
above
ground
and
underground.
When
issued,
these
standards
will
likewise
provide
adequate
environmental
guidance
for
this
use
and
minimize
the
need
for
any
new
regulations.
(
NCE00031)

In
conclusion,
New
Century
Energies
strongly
believes
that
sufficient
guidance
is
available
at
the
state
and
local
level
pertaining
to
applications
of
CCBs
in
agricultural
and
minefill
applications.
(
NCE00031)

Overall,
it
is
my
opinion
that
the
existing
federal/
state
regulatory
programs
as
described
above
do
allow
for,
and
in
fact
require,
sufficient
testing
and
appropriate
management
practices
of
coal
fly
ash
and
related
CCPs
when
utilized
in
both
mined
land
and
agricultural
environments.
I
do
realize
that
state
regulatory
packages
for
CCPs
vary,
but
all
states
must
comply
with
SMCRA
requirements
for
active
surface
mining
permitted
areas.
(
VAT00033)

State
regulators
are
best
equipped
to
respond
to
the
site­
specific
issues
of
mine
placement.
(
USWAG00037)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
49
VII
­
49
The
fact
that
EPA
has
found
no
proven
damage
cases
indicates
that
the
combination
of
sound
management
practices
and
existing
regulatory
oversight
has
responsibly
addressed
any
significant
risks
that
might
exist.
(
USWAG00037)

The
lack
of
damage
cases
indicates
that
sound
management
practices
and
State
regulations
are
adequate
to
insure
protective
placement
of
CCPs.
To
be
sure,
`[
m]
ost
state
regulations
and
practices
favor
placement
of
materials
above
the
water
table."
Nonetheless,
the
states
recognize
the
complexity
and
diversity
of
potential
mine
placement
projects,
and
in
response,
"
most
regulations
allow
for
the
consideration
of
placement
in
saturated
settings,
given
appropriate
hydrogeology
and
favorable
results
from
leaching
and
characterization
tests."
EERC
cited
the
example
of
North
Dakota's
standards
for
the
use
of
fly
ash­
based
flowable
fill
for
abandoned
underground
mines
in
saturated
settings.
Wyoming
allows
the
placement
of
bottom
ash
in
saturated
settings
in
the
Black
Thunder
mine
contingent
on
favorable
leaching
test
results.
Similarly,
Illinois
and
Indiana
allow
placement
at
or
below
the
water
table
dependent
upon
site­
specific
considerations.
Pennsylvania
regulations
currently
include
restrictions
on
placement
near
the
water
table.
However,
it
is
significant
to
note
the
State
is
reconsidering
that
restriction
based
on
the
positive
results
of
a
demonstration
project
conducted
by
Penn
State.
(
USWAG00037)

EPA
should
not
interfere
with
the
State
programs
without
a
clear
demonstration
that
the
existing
state­
based
regulatory
structure
is
inadequate
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
To
the
contrary,
the
case
studies
cited
above
indicate
that
the
environment
has
benefitted
from
these
projects
conducted
under
existing
state
regulatory
authority.
(
USWAG00037)

States
have
the
ability
to
develop
effective
landfill,
mine
reclamation,
and
agricultural
programs.
(
ISG00048)

CIBO
disagrees
with
any
suggestion
that
national
regulation
should
supplant
or
duplicate
State
regulation,
for
sound
policy
and
practical
reasons.
Controls
should
be
site­
and
applicationspecific
as
ash
reuse
is
already
governed
by
State
regulation,
and
not
through
Subtitle
C
comprehensive
federal
regulation.
Nor
does
CIBO
believe
that
a
voluntary
program
is
necessary;
as
already
stated,
States
have
their
own
regulatory
programs
governing
the
use
of
ash
and
its
disposal
in
minefills.
(
CIBO00052)

Regulatory
programs
already
exist
which
consider
site­
specific
criteria
for
ash
use
in
mine
reclamation,
and
this
should
continue
for
proper
control
of
this
application.
(
CIBO00052)

Disposal
of
CCBPs
in
an
active
surface
mine
is
regulated
by
two
state
agencies,
the
Texas
Natural
Resource
Conservation
Commission
(
TNRCC)
and
the
Railroad
Commission
of
Texas
(
RCT),
with
oversight
from
the
U.
S.
Interior
Department
Office
of
Surface
Mining
Reclamation
and
Enforcement
(
OSMRE).
(
TXU00053)

By
contrast,
IDNR
believes
regulation
under
Subtitle
C
would
promote
a
"
one­
size
fits
all"
approach
that
will
discourage
recycling
of
coal
ash
and
thereby
encourage
the
continued
placement
of
coal
ash
in
Indiana's
floodplain
environments.
We
urge
you
to
affirm
that
state
regulatory
authorities
should
continue
to
regulate
placement
of
coal
ash
in
mine
sites
under
existing
state
programs.
(
IDNR00062)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
50
VII
­
50
In
both
cases,
I
believe
EPA
should
look
to
the
states
for
regulatory
oversight
of
these
activities,
and,
in
fact,
many
states
already
have
robust
regulatory
programs
tailored
to
their
local
circumstances.
(
BCHRL0002)

In
addition,
state
regulatory
programs
are
demonstrably
more
than
adequate
to
address
any
risks
posed
by
the
use
and
disposal
of
CCPs;
the
states
have
clearly
recognized
how
beneficial
the
various
uses
including
agricultural
and
minefill
uses
­
can
be.
(
WVDEPL0003)

The
ACAA
and
PP&
L
believe
the
beneficial
use
of
coal
ash
as
minefill
is
being
effectively
managed
in
Pennsylvania
under
existing
regulatory
mechanisms
and
that
Federal
controls
are
unnecessary
and
may
even
thwart
these
beneficial
initiatives.
(
PHS013)

The
ACAA
and
PP&
L
believe
that
minefill
should
be
left
to
the
states
to
regulate,
based
on
statespecific
needs
and
priorities.
(
PHS013)

The
data
demonstrates
that
the
use
of
ash
does
not
result
in
groundwater
degradation
when
used
in
accordance
with
the
regulations
and
guidance
in
effect
in
Pennsylvania.
In
many
cases,
the
use
of
ash
resulted
in
a
significant
improvement
of
water
quality.
(
PADEP00246)

EPA
has
done
much
in
recent
years
to
eliminate
conflictive
and
inconsistent
regulations
which
reduced
program
effectiveness
and
impeded
environmental
improvements.
The
agency
also
has
voiced
its
willingness
to
let
states
manage
environmental
programs
where
such
management
is
both
protective
and
effective.
I
submit
that
action
by
EPA
to
apply
RCRA
regulation
to
the
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
in
mine
reclamation
would
directly
contravene
these
policy
objectives.
(
PA00247)

The
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
use
of
the
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments;
and
no
adverse
impacts
have
been
discovered
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
EPACAMR00248)

On
behalf
of
the
Eastern
PA
Coalition
for
Abandoned
Mine
Reclamation
(
EPCAMR),
we
believe
that
PA
has
ample
and
effective
waste
disposal
and
arrangement
regulations
already
in
place.
(
EPACAMR00248)

The
state
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments
and
no
adverse
impacts
have
been
discovered
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
PCLP00249)

The
state
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments
and
no
adverse
impacts
have
been
discovered
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
G&
L00252)

I
believe
that
Pennsylvania
has
ample
and
effective
waste
disposal
and
management
regulations
already
in
place.
(
G&
L00252)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
51
VII
­
51
Pennsylvania's
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments
and
no
adverse
impacts
have
been
discovered
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
PA00253)

As
the
Sub­
Committee
Chairman
on
Mining
of
the
Environmental
Resources
and
Energy
Committee,
I
believe
that
Pennsylvania
has
ample
and
effective
waste
disposal
and
management
regulations
already
in
place.
(
PA00253)

The
state
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments
and
no
adverse
impacts
have
been
discovered
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
CIN00254)

As
the
operator
of
the
Westwood
Generating
Station
and
a
member
of
ARIPPA,
I
believe
that
Pennsylvania
has
ample
and
effective
waste
disposal
and
management
regulations
all
ready
in
place.
(
CIN00254)

The
state
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments
and
no
adverse
impacts
have
been
discovered
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
EPC00255)

As
the
Plant
Manager
of
Ebensburg
Power
Company,
I
believe
that
Pennsylvania
has
ample
and
effective
waste
disposal
and
management
regulations
already
in
place.
(
EPC00255)

These
are
the
very
same
principles
midwestem
mines
have
used
since
the
inception
of
the
Surface
Coal
Mining
Reclamation
Act
to
dispose
of
acid­
producing
and
toxic
forming
mine
waste
and
spoil
materials
in
the
mining
pits
below
the
water
table
to
meet
the
Act's
requirement
to
prevent
or
minimize
potential
acid
or
toxic
mine
drainage.
This
method
of
disposal
has
proven
successful
over
the
past
twenty
years
in
eliminating
or
reducing
harmful
mine
drainage
which
occurred
at
surface
coal
mines
prior
to
implementation
of
SMCRA.
Disposal
of
these
coal
mine
wastes
would
not
be
possible
otherwise.
The
same
is
true
for
disposal
of
coal
ash
at
surface
coal
mines.
(
ICC00269)

Air
Products
and
Chemicals,
Inc.
believes
that
both
California
and
Pennsylvania
have
ample
and
effective
environmental
management
programs
applicable
to
the
use
of
CFB
ash.
(
AIRP00270)

The
beneficial
use
of
ash
for
mine
reclamation
is
regulated
in
Pennsylvania
by
PaDEP.
Under
PaDEP
permits,
the
ash
must
be
tested
prior
to
placement,
and
the
groundwater
must
be
monitored
at
the
ash
placement
site.
The
data
demonstrates
that
(
1)
the
concentrations
of
arsenic
and
other
metals
in
the
ash
are
lower
than
the
TCLP
standards,
and
in
many
or
most
cases
are
within
the
range
of
concentrations
in
the
surrounding
native
soils;
(
2)
arsenic
and
other
metals
leach
from
the
ash
at
a
far
lower
rate
than
native
soils;
and
(
3)
the
groundwater
at
the
sites
generally
shows
either
no
change
or
an
improvement
to
background
conditions.
(
ARIPPA00273)

PaDEP's
comments
to
EPA
noted
that
data
from
the
nearly
100
mine
sites
throughout
Pennsylvania
where
ash
has
been
used
as
a
supplement
for
soils
or
minefill
demonstrate
that
"
the
use
of
ash
does
not
result
in
groundwater
degradation
when
used
in
accordance
with
the
regulations
and
guidance
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
52
VII
­
52
in
effect
in
Pennsylvania."
The
three
volumes
of
supporting
data
submitted
by
PaDEP
provide
ample
data
to
support
PaDEP's
conclusions.
(
ARIPPA00273)

The
docket
is
replete
with
descriptions
of
states
regulatory
programs
that
have
evolved
to
monitor
environmental
effects
of
coal
ash
use.
Moreover,
the
mining
uses
are
comprehensively
regulated
by
EPA's
sister
agency,
the
Office
of
Surface
Mining.
PG&
E
Gen
believes
that
EPA
regulation
would
be
duplicative
and
burdensome,
without
corresponding
public
benefit.
(
PG&
E00274)

There
is
no
discussion
in
the
Report
and
little
in
the
docket
regarding
the
significant
regulatory
role
of
the
Office
of
Surface
Mining
in
administering
the
Surface
Mining
Conservation
and
Reclamation
Act,
which
creates
preemptive
federal
authority
over
the
regulation
of
all
surface
mining
activities.
As
noted
in
our
initial
comments,
surface
mining
activities
under
the
act
specifically
include
mining
reclamation.
Environmental
protection,
particularly
from
impacts
upon
water
resources
was
a
principal
reason
for
the
adoption
of
the
federal
mining
laws,
and
prevention
and
minimization
of
water
pollution
from
mining
is
a
primary
purpose
of
the
regulatory
program
administered
by
OSM.
(
PG&
E00274)

The
state
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments
and
no
adverse
impacts
have
been
discovered
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
FW00277)

As
Plant
Manager
of
the
Foster
Wheeler
Mt
Cannel
facility,
I
believe
that
Pennsylvania
has
ample
and
effective
waste
disposal
and
management
regulations
already
in
place.
(
FW00277)

OSM
shares
EPA's
concerns
regarding
the
potential
for
contamination
of
groundwater
and
surface
pathways
from
the
use
of
some
CCBs
in
mine
reclamation.
We
believe
that
is
possible
that
certain
CCBs
and
associated
materials
may
exhibit
hazardous
characteristics
or
pose
unacceptable
risks
in
some
situations.
However,
we
know
of
many
examples
where
CCBs
have
been
an
integral
part
of
successful
reclamation
under
both
Title
IV
and
Title
V.
There
is
an
extensive
inventory
of
completed
projects,
and
there
are
a
number
of
ongoing
projects
in
various
stages
of
completion.
As
the
EPA
states
in
its
report,
the
environmental
benefits
achieved
through
this
reclamation
have
been
extensive.
In
all
of
these
projects,
OSM
and
the
States
have
ensured
that
tie
potential
environmental
and
health
and
safety
impacts
of
CCBs
were
evaluated.
The
enclosed
copies
of
papers
on
successful
reclamation
were
presented
at
national
AML
meetings
highlighting
the
use
of
CCBs.
(
OSM00283)

The
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
has
monitored
these
sites
and
concluded
that
the
application
of
coal
ash
in
accordance
with
state
requirements
does
not
degrade
water
resources.
In
some
cases,
the
use
of
the
coal
ash
has
actually
improved
the
water
quality.
(
PA00293)

At
this
time,
the
EPA
should
not
be
hindering
their
efforts
with
burdensome
and
unnecessary
regulations.
(
PA00293)

As
a
member
of
the
House
Environmental
Resources
and
Energy
Committee,
I
believe
that
Pennsylvania
already
has
effective
management
and
beneficial
use
regulations
in
place
for
this
use.
(
PA00296)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
53
VII
­
53
As
the
General
Manager
of
a
waste
coal
­
fueled
electric
generation
station,
the
Gilberton
Power
Company,
I
believe
that
we
have
amply
and
effectively
demonstrated
the
successful
balance
between
economic
issues
and
environmental
concerns
through
adherence
to
the
Pennsylvania
regulations
for
CFB
ash
disposal
and
beneficial
use
and
can
see
no
benefit
to
the
expansion
of
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
fuel
ash
produced
in
a
CFB.
(
GPC00297)

The
state
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments
and
no
adverse
impacts
have
been
discovered
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
KCC00298)

As
Vem
Kerry,
President
of
Kerry
Coal
Company,
Inc.,
I
believe
that
Pennsylvania
has
ample
and
effective
waste
disposal
and
management
regulations
already
in
place.
(
KCC00298)

The
state
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments
and
no
adverse
impacts
have
been
discovered
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
SMC00299)

As
Vern
Kerry,
President
of
Shamrock
Minerals
Corporation,
I
believe
that
Pennsylvania
has
ample
and
effective
waste
disposal
and
management
regulations
already
in
place.
(
SMC00299)

As
a
State
Senator,
I
believe
that
PA
has
ample
and
effective
waste
disposal
and
management
regulations
already
in
place.
(
PA00300)

The
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments
with
no
discovered
adverse
impact
over
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
PA00301)

I
believe
that
Pennsylvania
has
ample
and
effective
waste
disposal
and
management
regulations
in
place.
(
PA00301)

The
state
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments
and
no
adverse
impacts
have
been
discovered
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
PA00302)

I
believe
that
Pennsylvania
has
ample
and
effective
waste
disposal
and
management
regulations
already
in
place.
(
PA00302)

While
the
EPA
teeters
over
this
decision,
the
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
has,
for
over
a
decade,
comprehensively
overseen
and
regulated
the
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments,
monitoring
and
testing
the
use
of
ash
and
finding
no
adverse
effects
or
impacts
during
this
time
period.
(
PA00305)

The
state
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments
and
no
adverse
impacts
have
been
discovered
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
ACV00307)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
54
VII
­
54
As
President
of
ACV
Power
Corporation.
I
believe
that
Pennsylvania
has
ample
and
effective
waste
disposal
and
management
regulations
already
in
place.
(
ACV00307)

The
state
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments
and
no
adverse
impacts
have
been
discovered
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
TEGI00308)

As
a
Plant
Manager
and
local
resident
I
believe
that
Pennsylvania
has
ample
and
effective
waste
disposal
and
management
regulations
already
in
place.
(
TEGI00308)

As
a
member
of
the
Pennsylvania
House
of
Representatives,
I
believe
that
Pennsylvania
has
ample
and
effective
waste
disposal
and
management
regulations
already
in
place.
(
PA00368)

The
PA
State
Department
of
Environment
of
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
the
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
as
soil
amendments
with
no
adverse
impacts
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
AMI00372)

As
President
and
Owner
of
Amerikohl
Mining,
Inc.,
I
believe
that
Pennsylvania
has
ample
and
effective
waste
disposal
and
management
regulations
already
in
place.
(
AMI00372)

We
believe
that
Pennsylvania
has
ample
and
effective
waste
disposal
and
management
regulations
already
in
place.
(
PAL0001)

The
beneficial
use
of
ash
for
mine
reclamation
is
regulated
extensively
in
Pennsylvania
by
the
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP).
Under
DEP
permits,
the
ash
must
be
tested
prior
to
placement,
and
the
groundwater
at
the
reclamation
sites
generally
shows
either
no
change
or
an
improvement,
often
significant,
to
background
contamination
in
over
a
decade
of
monitoring
ash
samples
and
downgradient
waster.
(
PMRABL0003)

The
beneficial
use
of
ash
for
mine
reclamation
is
regulated
extensively
in
Pennsylvania
by
the
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
("
PaDEP").
Under
PaDEP
permits,
the
ash
must
be
tested
prior
to
placement,
and
the
groundwater
must
be
monitored
at
the
ash
placement
site.
The
data
demonstrates
that
the
groundwater
at
the
reclamation
sites
generally
shows
either
no
change
or
an
improvement,
often
significant,
to
background
conditons.
The
use
of
ash
for
mine
reclamation
has
not
resulted
in
groundwater
contamination
in
over
a
decade
of
monitoring
ash
samples
and
downgradient
waster.
(
PCCL0007)

The
application
of
CFB
ash
in
this
reclamation
work
is
regulated
by
federal
and
state
agencies
under
the
Surface
Mining
Conservation
and
Reclamation
Act
of
1977
(
SMCRA).
I
believe
that
this
act
and
the
monitoring
requirements
undertaken
through
its
administration
by
state
agencies
are
effective
in
the
long
term
management
of
CFB
ash
in
mine
reclamation
uses.
(
LRCAXXXX)

In
addition,
the
Office
of
Surface
Mining
(
OSM),
Indianapolis
Field
Office,
conducted
a
study
in
1997
to
determine
whether
the
Indiana
Division
of
Reclamation
was
properly
administering
its
surface
mining
program
responsibilities
by
requiring
all
operators
to
develop
effective
handling,
disposal,
and
monitoring
plans
to
ensure
the
protection
of
the
hydrologic
balance.
After
reviewing
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
55
VII
­
55
all
thirteen
mine
permits
that
allowed
the
placement
of
CCP
at
mine
sites,
the
OSM
study
concluded
that
Indiana
was
properly
administering
the
mine
placement
of
CCP.
(
IEU00018)

Attached
as
Appendices
B
and
C
to
these
comments
are
the
German
laws
(
in
German
and
English)
that
regulate
minefilling
of
wastes,
including
coal­
combustion
wastes.
We
present
this
material
as
a
model
for
EPA
in
considering
whether
and
how
to
regulate
the
minefilling
of
the
range
of
comanaged
FFC
wastes.
(
ALA00292)

One
defining
feature
of
mine
dumping
practices
can
be
their
size
and
scale.
For
example,
in
two
years
the
Indiana
Department
of
Natural
Resources
(
IDNR)
granted
permits
to
fourteen
active
strip
mines
with
coal
combustion
waste
disposal
plans
that
explicitly
authorized
as
much
disposal
capacity
(
100
million
tons)
as
the
entire
annual
generation
of
CCW
in
the
nation.
(
HEC00056)

Note
that,
there
is
no
claimed
acid
neutralization
benefit
purported
in
any
of
these
minefill
permits.
The
pH
of
spoil
waters
in
these
mines
is
typically
neutral
to
alkaline.
There
is
also
no
contouring,
revegetation,
or
reduced
infiltration
to
mine
workings
being
undertaken
with
CCW
in
these
permits.
(
HEC00056)

Other
features
that
are
often
the
case
with
minefills
include
the
lack
of
good
characterization
of
potentially
affected
ground
water
systems,
the
lack
of
leachate
collection,
the
dumping
of
wastes
directly
into
ground
water,
very
little
ground
water
monitoring,
typically
no
long
term
ground
water
monitoring
and
little
if
any
corrective
action
standards
or
requirements.
(
HEC00056)

There
is
little
if
any
aquifer
specific
information
in
Indiana's
strip
mining
permits.
The
state
does
not
require
that
different
aquifers
be
sampled
individually
for
quality,
or
that
bale
tests
or
pump
tests
be
performed
on
aquifers
individually
to
determine
their
permeability,
rate
of
flow
or
connections
with
other
aquifers.
(
HEC00056)

Indiana's
current
minefill
practices
and
its
proposed
minefill
rule
allow
ash
that
leaches
metals
and
other
constituents
well
beyond
what
is
detrimental
to
human
health,
other
life
or
uses
of
water,
to
be
dumped
into
mines
without
any
steps
to
prevent
or
minimize
contact
of
that
ash
with
ground
water.
(
HEC00056)

We
have
seen
minefilling
operations
in
Illinois
and
Kentucky
under
permits
that
have
not
defined
the
ground
water
systems
well
enough
to
effectively
protect
them.
(
HEC00056)

Nonetheless
there
are
fundamental
differences
in
how
RCRA's
solid
waste
requirements
and
the
requirements
of
SMCRA
are
being
applied
to
protect
the
environment
from
CCW
in
this
case.
One
major
difference
is
in
the
test
used
to
characterize
the
CCW.
We
have
insisted
that
for
any
leachate
test
to
indicate
whether
a
CCW
is
toxic
forming,
it
must
be
designed
to
simulate
the
leachate
likely
to
form
from
CCW
in
the
mine
environment.
This
is
crucial
because
unlike
the
requirements
in
Indiana's
solid
waste
landfill
rules
(
modeled
under
RCRA
Subtitle
D
guidelines),
IDNR
has
steadfastly
refused
to
support
any
engineered
containment
in
its
minefiiling
rule
that
would
separate
the
waste
from
ground
water
in
a
mine.
Thus
the
only
safeguard
that
the
proposed
rule
will
use
to
prevent
contact
between
ground
water
and
ash
that
is
toxic
forming
will
be
the
results
of
the
rule's
leachate
test.
Unfortunately,
it
appears
that
IDNR
and
the
electric
utilities
do
not
want
to
use
a
test
that
can
competently
forwarn
of
environmental
risk,
perhaps
because
it
might
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
56
VII
­
56
necessitate
a
few
safeguards.
Their
minefilling
rule
will
utilize
the
ASTM
D­
3987­
85
leach
test
with
distilled
water.
(
HEC00056)

Indiana
is
permitting
mining
operations
today
that
are
several
thousand
acres
and
larger
with
only
a
few
(
5
to
10)
monitoring
wells.
Subsection
310
IAC
12­
5.
161(
b)
of
its
proposed
rule
will
require
no
monitoring
wells
around
backfilled
CCW
areas
other
than
those
monitoring
wells
already
required
by
the
mining
operation.
(
HEC00056)

In
addition,
310
IAC
12­
5­
161(
c)
confines
placement
of
monitoring
wells
around
monofills
to
"
unmined
strata
no
more
than
300
feet
from
the
coal
extraction
area."
This
allows
down­
gradient
wells
to
be
placed
many
hundreds
if
not
thousands
of
feet
from
the
monofills.
(
HEC00056)

Indiana's
proposed
monitoring
systems
are
far
less
adequate
than
those
requiring
wells
to
be
within
250
feet
of
a
CCW
disposal
site
in
a
Kentucky
strip
mine
(
see
401
KAR
45:
160),
at
the
closest
practical
point
from
CCW
disposal
site
in
an
Ohio
strip
mine
(
see
OAC
3745­
30­
08)
and
within
25
feet
of
a
disposal
site
in
an
Illinois
strip
mine
(
see
IL
Ground
Water
Protection
Act
and
Environmental
Protection
Act
and
35
IAC
620).
(
HEC00056)

The
first
area
concerns
the
fact
that
minefill
permits
are
being
issued
without
any
ground
water
standards
that
would
trigger
corrective
actions
if
exceeded.
(
HEC00056)

Related
to
this
concern
is
the
fact
that
Indiana
and
other
states
engaged
in
minefilling
such
as
Illinois
and
Kentucky
are
not
extending
the
period
for
holding
reclamation
bonds
at
mines
that
have
become
CCW
dumps.
In
many
of
these
situations,
the
mines
are
dewatered
sites
drawing
ground
water
inward
from
all
directions
in
large
cones
of
depression.
In
such
scenarios
involving
large
mines
with
slow
recharge
rates,
long
resaturation
periods
means
that
monitoring
wells
may
be
pulled
out
of
the
ground
long
before
they
could
measure
the
quality
of
waters
leaving
CCW
disposal
sites.
(
HEC00056)

From
1982
till
1993,
I
worked
with
Save
Our
Cumberland
Mountains
(
SOCM)
in
Tennessee
and
spent
a
lot
of
time
tracking
the
federal
Office
of
Surface
Mining's
(
OSM)
very
poor
enforcement
of
any
protections
against
impacts
to
groundwater
resources.
(
NPCA00259)

I
think
relying
on
the
strip
mining
industry
to
police
itself
is
not
a
good
course
of
action.
(
CITZ00262)

At
the
current
time,
Indiana
is
considering
a
state
rule
that
will
allow
dumping
of
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
unlined
strip
mines
in
direct
contact
with
groundwater.
(
CITZ00265)

Unfortunately,
mining
firms
and
government
regulatory
agencies
are
allowing
utilities
to
dump
toxic
CCW
in
mine
pits.
(
CITZ00271)

Many
coal
field
states
have
begun
the
practice
of
dumping
CCW
into
unlined
strip
mines
in
direct
contact
with
groundwater.
In
addition
to
the
numerous
problems
coal
field
residents
already
face,
many
now
have
to
deal
with
the
dumping
of
millions
of
tons
of
toxic
forming
solid
waste
directly
into
the
very
aquifers
that
feed
their
wells.
(
SIERRA00278)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
57
VII
­
57
EPA's
present
report
should
state
clearly
to
Congress
that
SMCRA
regulations
do
not
allow,
or
have
in
place,
that
surface
coal
mining
operations'
procedures
for
reclamation
sites
be
used
at
waste
disposal
sites.
Any
effort
to
change
current
reclamation
rules
and
regulations
will
take
years
in
Congress,
under
the
rules
of
the
Office
of
Surface
Mining
Reclamation
and
Enforcement,
and
create
an
unfunded
mandate
by
EPA.
A
National
Ban
on
CCW
waste
disposal
is
a
better
way
to
address
the
problem
in
the
long
run.
(
SOCM00279)

Many
states
have
begun
allowing
the
dumping
of
CCW
into
unlined
strip
mines
in
direct
contact
with
groundwater.
In
addition
to
the
serious
problems
coal
field
residents
already
face,
many
now
have
to
deal
with
the
dumping
of
millions
of
tons
of
toxic
forming
solid
waste
directly
into
the
very
aquifers
that
supply
their
wells.
(
CITZ00284)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00285)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
estates
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00286)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00287)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00289)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00290)

In
Indiana,
where
disposal
sites
need
not
be
located
and
recorded,
this
opens
the
possibility
of
health
issues
not
related
to
water
quality
should
residential
sites
be
located
in
abandoned
coal
fields.
Again,
additional
data
exploring
all
aspects
of
this
issue
need
to
be
further
examined.
(
PURD00294)

Our
state
has
furthermore
embarked
on
a
disastrous
path
in
that
our
Governor
is
welcoming
the
millions
of
tons
more
of
east
coast
harbor
and
river
muds
and
sediments.
Once
more,
under
the
mixed
rule
­­
these
are
`
blended'
with
more
incinerator
ash
­­
sky
high
in
lead,
cadmium
and
other
dangerous
materials
­­
and
brought
into
our
state
to
spread
on
strip­
mined
land.
EPA's
own
National
Sediments
Survey
called
these
muds
Priority
One
­­
most
likely
to
be
heavily
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
58
VII
­
58
contaminated
with
DDT,
mercury,
PCBs.
Yet
thanks
to
the
weak
and
getting
weaker
regulations
on
coal
combustion
wastes
­­
all
this
additional
polluted
material
is
heralded
as
magically
`
beneficial.'
(
PEACE00306)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00311)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00312)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00313)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00314)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00316)

I
am
concerned
about
the
proposed
state
rule
in
Indiana
which
would
allow
for
the
dumping
of
Coal
Combustion
Wastes
(
CCW)
into
the
strip
coal
mines
here
in
southwestern
lndiana
with
direct
contact
with
ground
water.
(
CITZ00317)

Indiana
is
currently
considering
a
state
rule
that
will
allow
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
unlined
strip
mines
in
direct
contact
with
ground
water.
(
CITZ00318)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00318)

Indiana
is
currently
considering
a
state
rule
that
will
allow
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
unlined
strip
mines
in
direct
contact
with
ground
water.
(
CITZ00319)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
59
VII
­
59
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00319)

Indiana
is
currently
considering
a
state
rule
that
will
allow
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
unlined
strip
mines
in
direct
contact
with
ground
water.
(
CITZ00320)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00320)

Indiana
is
currently
considering
a
state
rule
that
will
allow
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
unlined
strip
mines
in
direct
contact
with
ground
water.
(
CITZ00321)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00321)

Indiana
is
currently
considering
a
state
rule
that
will
allow
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
unlined
strip
mines
in
direct
contact
with
ground
water.
(
CITZ00322)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00322)

Indiana
is
currently
considering
a
state
rule
that
will
allow
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
unlined
strip
mines
in
direct
contact
with
ground
water.
(
CITZ00323)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00323)

Indiana
is
currently
considering
a
state
rule
that
will
allow
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
unlined
strip
mines
in
direct
contact
with
ground
water.
(
CITZ00324)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00324)

Indiana
is
currently
considering
a
state
rule
that
will
allow
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
unlined
strip
mines
in
direct
contact
with
ground
water.
(
CITZ00325)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
60
VII
­
60
The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00325)

Indiana
is
currently
considering
a
state
rule
that
will
allow
millions
of
tons
of
coal
combustion
waste
to
be
dumped
into
direct
contact
with
ground
water.
(
CITZ00327)

Indiana
is
too
lax
in
control
of
protecting
our
drinking
water,
as
well
as
irrigation
water.
(
CITZ00329)

Indiana,
noted
for
its
lax
environmental
regulations,
is
considering
allowing
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
unlined
stripe
mines
in
direct
contact
with
ground
water.
(
CITZ00330)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00331)

Mining
can
have
profound
effects
on
the
quality
and
quantity
of
water
in
ground
water
systems.
Mining
regulators
often
have
little
appreciation
for
impacts
on
ground
water
resources.
(
HEC00332)

Apparently,
EPA
would
like
to
rely
on
state
regulatory
agencies
to
properly
and
fully
regulate
CCW
dumping
in
mines
and
on
the
utility
and
mining
industry
to
do
thorough
analyses
and
present
complete
data
and
plans.
It
doesn't
work
that
way.
(
HEC00332)

In
all
five
[
mine
reclamation
permits],
almost
identical
boiler
plate
language
was
used
to
describe
the
geologic
conditions,
the
geochemistry
of
sites
and
effects
on
groundwater
after
mining.
None
contained
the
detailed
site­
specific
analysis
required
before
a
responsible
determination
can
be
made
of
the
existence
and
integrity
of
the
clay
layer
to
prevent
downward
migration
of
water.
Not
one
contained
any
analysis
­­
much
less
acknowledgment
­­
that
water
moves
sideways
and
downgradient.
(
HEC00332)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater.
(
NCSEA00334)

Indiana
is
currently
considering
a
state
rule
that
will
allow
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
unlined
strip
mines
in
direct
contact
with
ground
water.
(
CITZ00336)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00336)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
61
VII
­
61
In
addition,
counties
should
be
forced
to
take
upon
the
responsibility
of
running
water
lines
to
all
citizens
who
live
in
less
populated
areas
giving
them
the
access
of
clean
drinking
water
instead
of
relying
on
ground
water
which
is
being
threatened
by
CCW.
(
CITZ00336)

Toward
the
end
of
these
discussions,
I
realized
that­
the
fix
was
in.
The
polluters
­
primarily
Indiana­
electric
power
utilities
and
various
coal
companies
around
the
state
­
had
coerced
state
officials
to
draft
rules
that
were
much
more
lenient
than
our
neighboring
states
of
Ohio,
Illinois
and
Kentucky.
(
CITZ00338)

At
the
present
time,
it
seems
we
cannot
rely
on
the
O'Bannon
administration
or
local
elected
officials
to
do
anything
to
protect
the
public
interest
in
this
regard.
(
CITZ00338)

RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes
should
be
applied
to
the
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines.
If
this
step
is
not
implemented,
it
will
give
this
state's
Department
of
Natural
Resources
and
the
Natural
Resources
Council
the
green
light
to
continue
to
move
toward
turning
the
Southwestern
corner
of
this
state
into
the
industrial­
dumping
ground
for
the
region's
power
companies.
(
CITZ00338)

I
am
writing
to
request
that
the
EPA
enact
federal
regulations
that
will
prevent
coal
combustion
waste
(
CCW)
from
contaminating
the
water
supply
in
the
state
of
Indiana
and,
indeed,
the
United
States
of
America.
It
is
my
understanding
that
a
state
rule
is
under
consideration
in
Indiana
that
will
permit
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
unlined
stripmines
in
direct
contact
with
groundwater.
I
believe
that
if
this
is
allowed
then
the
contamination
of
groundwater
in
these
areas
is
only
a
matter
of
time.
(
CITZ00339)

Indiana
is
currently
considering
a
state
rule
that
will
allow
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
unlined
strip
mines
in
direct
contact
with
ground
water.
(
CITZ00340)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00340)

Indiana
has
no
legislation
to
prohibit
combustion
ash
and
all
of
its
heavy
metals
from
being
reburied
in
mines
in
Indiana.
In
fact,
I
understand
that
the
industry
promotes
this
dumping
as
a
practice.
Since
there
are
no
"
lime"
requirements
in
Indiana
our
potable
water
supply
may
be
at
risk.
(
CITZ00341)

The
other
Midwestern
states
that
are
high
coal­
burners
for
power
plants
have
been
able
to
come
up
with
hazardous
waste
laws
governing
this
matter.
To
data
I
understand
the
overseers
­
[
name
not
legible]
/
Water
Quality
personnel
for
our
Department
of
Natural
Resources
State
Department
­
have
succumbed
to
corporate
pressures
to
encourage
refilling
coal
mines
in
his
area
with
coal
ash.
(
CITZ00341)

I
am
convinced
that
open
dumping
of
CCW
that
has
no
restrictions
on
it
is
poisoning
my
drinking
water.
(
CITZ00342)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
62
VII
­
62
Indiana
is
currently
considering
a
state
rule
that
will
allow
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
to
be
dumped
into
unlined
strip
mines
in
direct
contact
with
ground
water.
(
CITZ00343)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00343)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
c
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00344)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00345)

Unfortunately.
mining
firms
and
government
regulatory
agencies
are
allowing
utilities
to
dump
toxic
CCW
in
mine
pits.
(
CITZ00347)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00348)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00350)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00351)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00352)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00353)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
63
VII
­
63
The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCIL4
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00354)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00355)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00356)

The
practice
of
dumping
CCW
in
strip
mines
should
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
wastes.
To
do
any
less
will
give
states
a
green
light
to
dump
millions
of
tons
of
CCW
into
direct
contact
with
groundwater
without
concern
for
the
consequences.
(
CITZ00357)

Many
coal
field
states
have
begun
the
practice
of
dumping
CCW
into
unlined
strip
mines
in
direct
contact
with
granddaughter.
(
POW00369)

We
have
noticed
that
many
permits
applications
in
Indiana
for
the
original
coal
mine
operations
list
as
a
benefit
that
the
excavation
will
break
up
the
water
bearing
strata
so
that
the
resulting
basin
can
serve
as
a
source
of
potable
water
after
the
mine
is
reclaimed
and
the
basin
fills
up
with
ground
water.
Later
a
permit
modification
is
filed
to
allow
for
the
disposal
of
the
CCW
and
then
the
previously
mentioned
benefit
is
dropped
and
the
claim
is
made
that
there
is
not
enough
water
to
backfill
the
waste.
The
fact
that
the
Indiana
Division
of
Reclamation
accepts
this
permit
shell
game
is
a
good
indicator
of
why
EPA
needs
to
provide
adequate
guidance
through
this
report.
(
POW00369)

I
am
concerned
about
the
new
plans
to
dispose
of
125
million
tons
of
coal
combustion
waste
in
unlined
Indiana
mines.
Fourteen
permits
have
been
issued.
They
include
no
safeguards
to
protect
nearby
aquifers.
Two
dumps
near
Michigan
City,
have
been
tested
and
one
was
found
to
have
100
times
the
safe
level
of
arsenic.
The
other
has
21
times
the
safe
level
of
lead.
These
permits
were
approved
in
contradiction
to
stated
department
policy
and
federal
laws
governing
the
use
of
mines.
(
CITZL0011)

Many
coal
field
states
have
begun
the
practice
of
dumping
CCW
into
unlined
strip
mines
in
direct
contact
with
ground
water.
In
West
Virginia
this
grossly
compounds
problems
we
already
face
from
the
coal
industry.
(
CITZL0013)

You
will
also
find
an
editorial
from
the
Terre
Haute
Tribune­
Star
which
criticizes
the
Indiana
CCW
mine
disposal
rule
as
bing
too
weak
to
adequately
protect
groundwater
resources.
This
sediment
has
been
echoed
in
editorials
in
the
Indianapolis
Star,
Bloomington
Herald­
Times,
Evansville
Courier
and
Sullivan
Daily
Times
that
have
official
positions
against
the
state
rule
in
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
64
VII
­
64
its
current
form
for
failing
to
provide
read
protection
of
groundwater
resources.
Thus
every
major
newspaper
in
Indiana's
coal­
field
region
has
come
out
against
the
rule
and
the
Indianapolis
Star,
Evansiville
Courier,
and
Bloomingtion
Herald
Times
have
each
editorialized
twice
calling
for
more
protective
regulation.
(
HECL0014)

I
think
relying
on
the
strip
mining
industry
to
police
itself
is
letting
the
fox
into
the
henhouse.
Allowing
coal
combustion
wastes
to
be
returned
to
former
strip
mines
is
adding
insult
to
the
injury
they've
already
done
to
the
land.
These
wastes
seeping
into
the
ground
water
and
possible
commingling
other
industrial
wastes
with
them
is
an
unacceptable
answer.
(
CITZL0015)

Additionally,
MCC
feels
that
the
materials
discussed
in
the
March
1999
Document
are
properly
and
duly
regulated
at
the
State
level.
Any
attempt
to
impose
Federal
restrictions
over
and
above
what
the
States
already
impose
is
inappropriate
and
an
ill­
advised
attempt
to
implement
a
"
one
size
fits
all"
regulatory
approach
to
materials
that
are
as
varied
as
the
sources
producing
them.
(
MCC00051)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
65
VII
­
65
VII.
MINEFILL
D.
Benefits
of
Minefilling
Some
industry,
academic,
state
government,
and
federal
agency
commenters
stated
that
minefilling
typically
has
no
adverse
environmental
impact.
Other
commenters
further
articulated
a
wide
range
of
benefits
associated
with
minefill
projects
ranging
including
avoided
greenfield
development
for
disposal
areas,
mineland
subsidence
control
and
acid
mine
drainage
controls.
A
few
commenters
claimed
that
minefills
may
be
preferable
to
other
disposal
practices
and
hence
minimize
environmental
release
of
FFC
waste
constituents.
Other
commenters
suggested
that
FFC
wastes
are
similar
or
superior
to
other
natural
materials
(
e.
g.,
soils)
used
in
minefilling.

One
federal
government
commenter
shared
EPA's
concern
about
the
potential
risks
of
minefilling
in
some
cases,
but
stated
that,
in
many
examples,
the
projects
provided
substantial
environmental
benefits.
Public
interest
group
commenters
similarly
stated
that
minefilling
may
be
appropriate
in
some
instances
and
inappropriate
in
others.
An
academic
commenter
stated
that,
while
returning
CCW
to
underground
coal
mines
has
fundamental
merit
as
landfills
become
more
scarce,
EPA
should
study
the
toxicity
and
environmental
impacts
of
these
projects
more
closely
before
reaching
a
decision.

In
general,
public
interest
group
and
citizen
commenters
expressed
concern
that
minefilling
poses
a
threat
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
commenters
characterized
minefills
as
open
dumps
that
are
used
to
avoid
landfill
disposal
costs,
not
provide
environmental
benefits.
Two
commenters
stated
that
the
presumption
of
idealized
circumstances
for
disposal
at
coal
mines
is
a
myth
due
to
the
complex
fractured
hydrogeology
of
mine
sites.
One
of
these
commenters
stated
that,
under
Indiana's
regulatory
program,
minefilling
of
large
volumes
is
authorized
with
no
claimed
acid
neutralization
benefit
and
no
plan
for
contouring,
revegetation,
or
reduced
infiltration.
The
commenter
also
stated
that,
contrary
to
the
claims
of
minefill
supporters,
fire
clay
allegedly
underlying
sites
does
not
provide
a
natural
liner;
neutralization
of
acid
mine
drainage
is
not
always
adequately
planned
or
achieved
by
FFC
waste
(
or
necessary
in
the
first
place),
and
contamination
from
disposal
of
CCW
can
substantially
worsen
even
ground­
water
quality
that
has
already
been
degraded
by
mining.

Another
commenter
stated
that
some
of
the
claims
made
by
minefill
supporters
are
exaggerated.
Specifically,
the
commenter
stated
that,
while
FFC
wastes
can
improve
environmental
problems
caused
by
abandoned
mines,
they
still
result
in
degraded
groundwater
conditions.
Furthermore,
the
solutions
created
by
FFC
wastes
often
are
not
permanent.
The
other
public
interest
group
commenter
stated
CCW
is
not
needed
for
mine
site
contouring
and
the
presumed
benefit
of
avoiding
greenfield
development
is
absurd..
The
commenter
also
stated
that
failure
to
regulate
minefilling
on
a
national
basis
would
expose
the
industry
to
an
open­
ended
web
of
liability.

Response:
We
believe
that
the
use
of
coal
combustion
wastes
to
remediate
mine
lands
can,
depending
on
the
site
specific
hydrological
and
geochemical
conditions,
improve
conditions
caused
by
mining
activities.
We
also
recognize
that
this
often
is
the
lowest
cost
option
for
conducting
these
remediation
activities.
We
generally
encourage
the
practice
of
remediating
mine
lands
with
coal
combustion
wastes
when
minefilling
is
conducted
properly
and
when
there
is
adequate
oversight
of
remediation
activities.
We
continue
to
be
concerned
about
certain
aspects
of
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
66
VII
­
66
minefilling
and
about
a
general
lack
of
information
that
would
enable
us
to
assess
the
current
state
of
this
practice
with
more
certainty.

At
this
time,
we
cannot
reach
definitive
conclusions
about
the
adequacy
of
minefilling
practices
employed
currently
in
the
United
States
and
the
ability
of
government
oversight
agencies
to
ensure
that
human
health
and
the
environment
are
being
adequately
protected.
For
example,
it
is
often
difficult
to
determine
if
existing
groundwater
quality
has
been
impacted
by
previous
mining
operations
or
as
a
result
of
releases
of
hazardous
constituents
from
the
coal
combustion
wastes
used
in
the
minefilling
applications.
Additionally,
information
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period
cautions
that
if
the
chemistry
of
the
mine
relative
to
the
chemistry
of
the
coal
combustion
wastes
is
not
properly
taken
into
account,
the
addition
of
coal
combustion
wastes
can
lead
to
an
increase
in
hazardous
metals
released
into
the
environment.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
67
VII
­
67
VII.
MINEFILL
D.
Benefits
of
Minefilling
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
following
benefits
have
been
identified:
°
The
alkalinity
of
CCP
mitigate
the
negative
environmental
impacts
caused
by
acid
mine
drainage.
°
CCP
are
similar
in
composition
to
the
natural
materials
found
at
mine
sites
and
are
therefore
readily
acclimated
into
the
subsurface
environment
through
adsorption,
attenuation,
dispersion,
and
dilution
processes.
°
The
post­
mining
environment
is
disturbed
by
the
coal
extraction
process.
By
utilizing
CCP
for
minefill,
the
need
for
additional,
undisturbed
green
field
areas
for
CCP
storage
can
be
reduced.
°
The
use
of
CCP
as
minefill
will
minimize
the
need
for
borrow
materials
required
for
mine
reclamation
activities
performed
pursuant
to
Surface
Mining
Control
and
Reclamation
Act
regulations.
(
IEU00018)

The
data
analyzed
to
date
indicate
that
the
placement
of
CCW
in
surface
mines
may
contribute
to
the
control
of
acid
formation,
and
that
trace
element
concentrations
are
not
significantly
elevated
at
down
gradient
sampling
points.
(
DOE00020)

Many
FBC
boilers
burn
coal
refuse
economically;
the
haulback
of
the
FBC
ash
to
the
mine
site
is
often
looked
upon
very
favorably
by
the
State
because
the
FBC
ash
generally
contains
far
fewer
contaminants
than
the
coal
refuse,
and
often
contains
significant
amounts
of
free
lime,
which
helps
neutralize
acid­
forming
materials
that
are
commonly
found
in
the
coal
refuse.
Regrading
of
unstable
slopes
and
establishment
of
vegetation
and
erosion
controls
at
the
coal
refuse
site
also
occurs
as
a
natural
consequence
of
the
minefilling
operation.
The
operation
is
thus
viewed
by
the
State
as
a
means
of
achieving
environmental
remediation
at
no
cost
to
the
taxpayer.
(
DOE00020)

While
acknowledging
that
CCPs
can
contain
trace
elements
of
metals,
the
WVU
researchers,
based
on
monitoring
of
soils
and
plants,
concluded
that
the
trace
elements
in
plants
were
not
present
"
at
levels
toxic
to
animals
or
humans".
Overall,
their
conclusion
was
that
"
there
are
very
limited
chances
of
food
chain
contamination
by
use
of
coal
ash"
and
"
that
it
is
safer
to
use
coal
ash
on
mine
soil
than
to
dispose
of
it
in
landfills."
Id.
(
NMA00024)

Thus,
the
data
does
not
support
EPA's
concern
for
disposal
below
the
water
table
(
a
condition
that
eventually
exists
many
years
later
at
every
disposal
site
in
Indiana
after
the
mined
area
has
hydrologically
recharged).
Moreover,
based
on
Dr.
Banaszak's
comments,
disposal
below
the
water
is
probably
preferred,
due
to
the
attenuative
capacity
of
mine
spoils,
particularly
for
arsenic.
(
NMA00024)

Other
members
have
found
that
CCBs
can
be
used
safely
in
lieu
of
virgin
materials
in
mine
backfill,
as
grout
in
mine
injection
projects
and
to
remediate
acid
mine
drainage
situations.
These
applications
reduce
the
need
for
new
landfill
space
and
permit
recycling
of
a
material
that
substitutes
successfully
for
other
materials.
(
WRAG00030)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
68
VII
­
68
Mine
placement
is
generally
a
beneficial
and
environmentally
protective
use
of
CCPs.
(
USWAG00037)

Mine
placement
is
a
desirable
and
proven
means
to
address
some
mine
reclamation
problems
without
additional
environmental
impacts.
(
USWAG00037)

In
fact,
CCP
mine
placement
is
often
the
only
cost­
effective
way
of
dealing
with
some
of
the
existing
problems
and
can
result
in
a
net
reduction
in
contaminant
loading.
(
USWAG00037)

CCPs
have
been
used
effectively
to
provide
the
following
benefits,
among
others,
to
mined
environments:
°
as
a
grout
to
stabilize
underground
mined
areas,
fill
voids
and
reclaim
land
lost
to
productive
use;
°
as
a
fill
material
to
return
surface
mined
areas
to
grade,
control
acid
mine
drainage,
and
condition
soils;
°
as
a
topical
soil
amendment
to
improve
soil
chemical
and
physical
properties
to
recultivate
mine
area
soils;
°
as
a
capping
material;
°
to
neutralize
pooled
underground
acidic
mine
waters;
°
to
prevent
further
acidification
of
mine
waters;
and
°
to
reduce
oxidation
of
pyrites
present
in
coal
refuse
and
coal
cleaning
residues.
(
USWAG00037)

Thus,
the
disposal
of
coal
ash
in
surface
coal
mine
pits
is
distinctly
different
from
the
typical
utility
or
industrial
site
where
the
coal
ash
is
placed
in
fills
or
impoundments
above
ground
(
often
in
floodplains
where
extensive
surficial
aquifers
may
be
present).
The
so­
called
"
groundwater"
present
in
the
mined
has
already
been
highly
mineralized
by
the
disturbance
caused
by
mining.
Moreover,
certain
constituents
with
high
attenuative
capacity
are
present
in
the
mine
spoil
to
a
much
greater
degree
than
in
typical
surficial
soils
present
at
other
disposal
sites.
Additionally,
these
attenuative
constituents
are
present
in
large
quantities
in
surface
mined
areas
due
to
the
large
amounts
of
overburden
which
must
be
removed
to
extract
the
coal.
Finally,
the
confinement
of
the
mine
spoil
water
during
recharge
and
the
length
of
time
to
complete
this
process
ensures
maximization
of
dilution
and
attenuation
processes
to
reduce
the
already
minimal
concentrations
of
coal
ash
leachate
constituents.
(
ICC00269)

The
chief
environmental
benefits
of
the
Anthracite
region's
[
waste
coal
plants]
are
1)
removal
of
the
coal­
refuse
banks
and
silt
ponds
and
2)
reclamation
of
strip­
mined
lands
through
disposal,
compaction,
and
grading
of
alkaline
ash
from
the
fluidized
bed
boilers.
The
nine
facilities
discussed
here
have
already
consumed
many
millions
of
tons
of
anthracite
"
culm"
and
silt,
and
it
is
likely
in
the
40­
year
useful
life
of
the
plants
as
much
as
250
million
tons
could
be
ultimately
removed
from
the
landscape.
As
to
filling­
in
of
the
old
strip
mines
­­
in
53.0
plant­
years
of
operation
the
nine
plants
have
so
far
generated
a
volume
of
ash
sufficient
to
reclaim
about
250
acres
of
strip­
mined
lands.
This
suggests
that
in
the
360
plant­
years
of
operation
projected
for
these
facilities,
they
will
produce
enough
ash
to
reclaim
nearly
1700
acres.
(
ARIPPA00273)

Another
significant
and
beneficial
environmental
impact
of
the
[
waste
coal]
facilities
arises
from
the
fact
that
several
of
them
neutralize
and
demineralize
acid
waters
from
the
underground
mine
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
69
VII
­
69
pools
for
use
as
cooling­
tower
make­
up,
boiler­
feed
make­
up,
and
ash­
moisture
control.
This
results
in
the
removal
of
contaminated
mine­
water
that
could
otherwise
ultimately
find
its
way
to
surface
outflows.
In
addition,
recent
analyses
of
the
mine
pool
utilized
by
the
Wheelabrator
Frackville
Cogeneration
plant
indicate
a
marked
decrease
in
the
overall
iron
content
since
start­
up.
(
ARIPPA00273)

Through
1998,
Pennsylvania's
14
waste
coal
plants
collectively
have
removed
over
56
million
tons
of
coal
refuse
from
Pennsylvania's
landscape,
and
have
used
the
37
million
tons
of
resulting
alkaline
ash
to
reclaim
nearly
2,300
acres
of
abandoned
surface
mines.
Appendix
II.
Nearly
all
of
the
ash
generated
by
Pennsylvania's
waste
coal
plants
is
beneficially
used
for
mine
reclamation.
The
2,300
acres
of
abandoned
surface
mines
were
reclaimed
at
no
cost
to
taxpayers
and
at
no
cost
to
the
abandoned
mine
land
("
AML")
fund
administered
by
the
federal
Office
of
Surface
Mining
("
OSM").
The
estimated
benefit
of
the
reclamation
work
completed
to
date,
which
is
performed
under
regulation
by
the
Commonwealth's
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
("
PaDEP"),
is
$
46
million.
If
this
reclamation
work
is
allowed
to
continue
without
regulation
under
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA,
Pennsylvania's
waste
coal
plants
expect
to
reclaim
on
average
an
additional
400
acres
every
year,
with
an
estimated
savings
to
taxpayers
of
$
8
million
annually.
(
ARIPPA00273)

The
beneficial
use
of
ash
for
mine
reclamation
is
regulated
in
Pennsylvania
by
PaDEP.
Under
PaDEP
permits,
the
ash
must
be
tested
prior
to
placement,
and
the
groundwater
must
be
monitored
at
the
ash
placement
site.
The
data
demonstrates
that
(
1)
the
concentrations
of
arsenic
and
other
metals
in
the
ash
are
lower
than
the
TCLP
standards,
and
in
many
or
most
cases
are
within
the
range
of
concentrations
in
the
surrounding
native
soils;
(
2)
arsenic
and
other
metals
leach
from
the
ash
at
a
far
lower
rate
than
native
soils;
and
(
3)
the
groundwater
at
the
sites
generally
shows
either
no
change
or
an
improvement
to
background
conditions.
(
ARIPPA00273)

The
state
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments
and
no
adverse
impacts
have
been
discovered
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
FW00277)

By
reclaiming
these
sites,
the
electric
generating
power
industry
is
also
eliminating
many
potential
safety
and
health
hazards
in
the
community.
These
waste
sites
pose
a
threat
of
accidental
fires,
and
they
are
sometimes
used
as
trash
dumps
or
recreational
areas
for
people
using
all­
terrain
vehicles.
(
FW00277)

To
date,
more
than
2,300
acres
have
been
cleaned
up,
saving
Pennsylvania
residents
nearly
$
46,000,000.
(
FW00277)

The
state
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments
and
no
adverse
impacts
have
been
discovered
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
KCC00298)

By
reclaiming
these
sites,
the
electric
generating
power
industry
is
also
eliminating
many
potential
safety
and
health
hazards
in
the
community.
These
waste
sites
pose
a
threat
of
accidental
fires,
and
they
are
sometimes
used
as
trash
dumps
or
recreational
areas
for
people
using
all­
terrain
vehicles.
(
KCC00298)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
70
VII
­
70
To
date,
more
than
2,300
acres
have
been
cleaned
up,
saving
Pennsylvania
residents
nearly
$
46,000,000.
(
KCC00298)

The
state
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments
and
no
adverse
impacts
have
been
discovered
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
SMC00299)

By
reclaiming
these
sites,
the
electric
generating
power
industry
is
also
eliminating
many
potential
safety
and
health
hazards
in
the
community.
These
waste
sites
pose
a
threat
of
accidental
fires,
and
they
are
sometimes
used
as
trash
dumps
or
recreational
areas
for
people
using
all­
terrain
vehicles.
(
SMC00299)

To
date,
more
than
2,300
acres
have
been
cleaned
up,
saving
Pennsylvania
residents
nearly
$
46,000,000.
(
SMC00299)

The
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments
with
no
discovered
adverse
impact
over
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
PA00301)

At
a
cost
of
$
20,000
per
acre
to
clean
up,
Pennsylvania
residents
have
saved
nearly
$
46,000,000
with
the
2,300
acres
that
have
been
cleaned
up
to
date
by
the
waste
coal
power
industry.
(
PA00301)

The
state
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments
and
no
adverse
impacts
have
been
discovered
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
PA00302)

By
reclaiming
these
sites,
the
electric
generating
power
industry
is
also
eliminating
many
potential
safety
and
health
hazards
in
the
community.
(
PA0302)

To
date,
more
than
2,300
acres
have
been
cleaned
up,
saving
Pennsylvania
residents
nearly
$
46,000,000.
(
PA00302)

While
the
EPA
teeters
over
this
decision,
the
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
has,
for
over
a
decade,
comprehensively
overseen
and
regulated
the
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments
monitoring
and
testing
the
use
of
ash
and
finding
no
adverse
effects
or
impacts
during
this
time
period.
(
PA00305)

Having
witnessed
the
reclamation
site
and
process
firsthand,
I
can
tell
you
that
the
benefits
of
this
project
are
quite
enormous.
Undesirable
original
materials
taken
from
beneath
the
surface
and
later
discarded
there
are
now
being
utilized
as
an
energy
source.
Even
the
ash­
waste
by­
product
that
is
produced
is
being
used
effectively
to
fill
underground
mine
sites
and
craters
resulting
from
surface
mining,
and,
as
in
some
cases,
this
alkaline
ash
is
being
used
to
neutralize
and
counter
harmful
acid
mine
drainage.
(
PA00305)

To
date,
waste
coal­
electric
generation
has
cleaned
up
more
than
2,300
acres­
saving
Pennsylvania
taxpayers
$
46,000,000.
(
PA00305)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
71
VII
­
71
The
state
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments
and
no
adverse
impacts
have
been
discovered
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
ACV00307)

By
reclaiming
these
sites,
the
electric
generating
power
industry
is
also
eliminating
many
potential
safety
and
health
hazards
.
in
the
community.
These
waste
sites
pose
a
threat
of
accidental
tires,
and
they
are
sometimes
used
as
trash
dumps
or
recreational
areas
for
people
using
all­
terrain
vehicles.
(
ACV00307)

To
date,
more
than
2,300
acres
have
been
cleaned
up,
saving
Pennsylvania
residents
nearly
$
46,000,000.
(
ACV00307)

The
state
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
soil
amendments
and
no
adverse
impacts
have
been
discovered
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
TEGI00308)

By
reclaiming
these
sites,
the
electric
generating
power
industry
is
also
eliminating
many
potential
safety
and
health
hazards
in
the
community.
These
waste
sites
pose
a
threat
of
accidental
fires,
and
they
are
sometimes
used
as
trash
dumps
or
recreational
areas
for
people
using
all­
terrain
vehicles.
(
TEGI00308)

To
date,
more
than
2,300
acres
have
been
cleaned
up,
saving
Pennsylvania
residents
nearly
$
46,000,000.
(
TEGI00308)

Through
the
end
of
1998,
the
waste
coal
plants
have
removed
over
56
million
tons
of
coal
refuse
from
Pennsylvania's
landscape,
and
have
used
the
resulting
37
million
tons
of
alkaline
ash
to
reclaim
2,300
acres
of
abandoned
mine
lands.
This
reclamation
work
has
been
performed
at
the
plant's
own
expense,
without
any
taxpayer
dollars
or
grants
from
the
limited
AML
funds
that
are
distributed
each
year
to
Pennsylvania.
(
PMRABL0003)

The
data
demonstrates
that
the
groundwater
at
the
reclamation
sites
generally
shows
either
no
change
or
an
improvement,
often
significant,
to
background
conditions.
The
use
of
ash
for
mine
reclamation
has
not
resulted
in
ground
water
contamination
in
over
a
decade
of
monitoring
ash
samples
and
downgradient
water.
(
PMRABL0003)

The
reclamation
work
that
is
being
done
by
private
industry
is
a
necessary
part
of
the
solution
to
an
overwhelming
problem.
(
PCCL0007)

The
use
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
ash
is
one
of
the
best
tools
available
to
us
for
the
reclamation
of
abandoned
surface
mines.
Most
(
approximately
80%)
of
the
ash
that
is
used
for
reclamation
in
Pennsylvania
comes
from
the
14
waste
coal
plants
operating
in
the
state.
These
14
plants
produce
approximately
5
million
tons
of
ash
per
year,
and
remove
8
million
tons
of
waste
coal
from
the
barren
refuse
piles
that
are
polluting
our
environment.
Through
the
end
of
1998,
these
plants
have
removed
over
56
million
tons
of
coal
refuse
from
Pennsylvania's
landscape,
and
have
used
the
resulting
37
million
tons
of
alkaline
ash
to
reclaim
2,300
acres
of
abandoned
mine
lands.
This
reclamation
work
has
been
performed
at
the
plants'
own
expense,
without
the
taxpayer
dollars
or
grants
from
the
limited
AML
funds
that
are
distributed
each
year
to
Pennsylvania.
(
PCCL0007)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
72
VII
­
72
The
data
demonstrates
that
the
groundwater
at
the
reclamation
sits
generally
shows
either
no
change
or
an
improvement,
often
significant,
to
background
conditions.
The
use
of
ash
for
mine
reclamation
has
not
resulted
in
ground
water
contamination
in
over
a
decade
of
monitoring
ash
samples
and
downgradient
water.
(
PCCL0007)

In
addition
to
the
economic
costs
to
industry,
PG&
E
Gen
encourages
EPA
to
consider
the
costs
to
the
public
and
the
environment
if
the
beneficial
uses
of
FBC
are
restricted
and
prohibited
without
evidence
of
damage
to
the
environment.
The
reclamation
efforts
during
the
last
five
years
by
Pennsylvania
FBC
facilities
alone
have
reclaimed
about
400
acres
per
year
of
unreclaimed
lands
at
a
benefit
of
$
6
million
per
year.
This
figure
does
not
include
the
most
important
benefits:
.

°
restored
land
value
once
reclaimed
for
future
use
for
habitat
or
development
l
water
quality
improvements
°
stormwater
and
erosion
abatement
°
removal
of
highwalls,
pits,
shafts
and
similar
hazards
°
local
economic
impacts
from
improved
aesthetics,
land
values
and
development
opportunities.
(
PG&
E00023)

In
an
effort
to
aid
in
your
decision­
making
process,
we
are
pleased
to
provide
a
representative
sampling
of
data
from
the
nearly
100
mine
sites
throughout
Pennsylvania
where
ash
has
been
used
as
a
supplement
for
soils
or
minefill.
These
cases
cover
a
variety
of
applications.
We
believe
that
the
data
demonstrate
that
the
use
of
ash
does
not
result
in
groundwater
degradation
when
used
in
accordance
with
the
regulations
and
guidance
in
effect
in
Pennsylvania.
This
result
is
the
same
whether
the
ash
placement
is
within
or
above
the
water
table.
In
many
of
the
cases
cited,
the
use
of
the
ash
resulted
in
a
significant
improvement
in
water
quality.
(
PADEP00025)

IMCC
believes
regulation
under
Subtitle
C
would
promote
a
"
one­
size
fits
all"
approach
that
will
discourage
recycling
of
coal
ash
and
thereby
encourage
the
placement
of
coal
ash
in
less
suitable
or
more
expensive
disposal
environments.
A
unique
opportunity
is
afforded
by
the
disposal
of
coal
ash
in
coal
mine
spoil,
because
placement
occurs
in
an
environment
where
potentially
harn&
l
trace
elements,
contained
within
the
coal
ash
waste
stream,
will
be
neutralized
as
a
source
of
environmental
degradation
through
natural
processes
of
dispersion,
attenuation,
dilution
and
mineralization.
These
processes
can
often
improve
ground
water
quality
in
surface
mine
settings
which
involve
the
disposal
of
acidic
coal
processing
waste
or
which
are
hydrologically
connected
to
acid
mine
drainage
from
pre­
law
coal
mining
activities.
(
IMCC00027)

The
IMCC
believes
coal
ash
haul
back
has
the
following
advantages,
among
others,
that
should
be
considered
by
USEPA:

°
Coal
ash
is
returned
to
the
same
environment
from
which
the
coal
was
extracted.
°
Returning
ash
to
its
place
of
origin
preserves
green
space.
°
Mineralization
of
the
groundwater
that
accumulates
in
the
mine
spoil
is
an
accepted
consequence
of
surface
coal
mining.
Research
has
shown
adding
ash
to
this
environment
will
not
cause
an
incremental
increase
of
the
accepted
mineralization.
°
The
existing
state
programs
under
SMCRA
provide
the
necessary
environmental
safeguards
to
protect
the
hydrologic
balance
and
the
public.
(
IMCC00027)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
73
VII
­
73
The
Bureau
believes
there
are
important
opportunities
to
improve
current
acid
mine
drainage
remediation
techniques
with
the
proper
utilization
of
coal
combustion
by­
products
(
CCB).
(
MDE00047)

Simply
put,
we
have
not
been
able
to
find
a
single
case
of
beneficial
use
of
industrial
combustion
ash
for
mine
reclamation
that
has
caused
deterioration
of
the
environmental
structures
of
concern.
In
most
cases
there
is
a
significant
net
benefit
over
not
using
ash
to
reclaim,
stabilize,
and
ameliorate
acid
drainage
from
abandoned
mines.
(
CIBO00052)

The
case
study
information
clearly
supports
our
industry
held
view
that
CCPs
can
be
utilized
in
environmentally
responsible
beneficial
end
use
applications
within
mine
settings.
(
AEP00060)

As
discussed
in
detail
in
the
NMA
comments
and
incorporated
by
reference
herein,
this
practice
presents
many
benefits
(
including,
among
others,
a
reduced
need
for
"
greenfield"
sites
for
new
utility
disposal
sites,
and
ameliorating
potential
acid
discharges)
and
presents
significant
potential
for
ameliorating
effects
of
CCP
disposal
on
the
environment
due
to
superior
attenuative
capacity
of
mine
spoils
(
compared
to
geologic
materials
present
at
typical
CCP
disposal
sites)
and
the
hydrologic
characteristics
of
surface
mine
disposal
sites.
(
WVDEPL0003)

The
data
demonstrates
that
the
use
of
ash
does
not
result
in
groundwater
degradation
when
used
in
accordance
with
the
regulations
and
guidance
in
effect
in
Pennsylvania.
In
many
cases,
the
use
of
ash
resulted
in
a
significant
improvement
of
water
quality.
(
PADEP00246)

By
using
waste
coal
as
fuel,
these
plants
are
cleaning
up
abandoned
mine
sites
and
waste
coal
piles
across
the
state.
The
removal
of
these
piles
eliminates
erosion,
sedimentation
and
the
production
of
acid
mine
drainage.
In
many
cases
the
combustion
by­
product,
a
stabilized
ash,
is
returned
to
the
mine
site
and
is
used
to
recontour
the
site
in
a
manner
that
approximates
the
original
site
before
mining
began.
In
this
process,
the
ash
neutralizes
other
acid­
bearing
materials
while
supplementing
native
soils
to
promote
site
revegetation.
Pennsylvania's
waste­
coal
power
industry
has
cleaned
up
more
than
2,300
acres
of
abandoned
mine
lands,
saving
the
Commonwealth
nearly
$
46,000,000.
(
PADEP000246)

The
state
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
has
monitored
these
sites
and
concluded
that
the
application
of
coal
ash
in
conformance
with
state
requirements
does
not
degrade
groundwater
resources.
The
department's
research
suggests
that
in
many
cases
the
use
of
this
material
actually
has
improved
water
quality.
(
PA00247)

By
reclaiming
these
sites,
the
electric
power
generating
industry
is
also
eliminating
many
potential
safety
and
health
hazards
in
the
community.
The
abandoned
waste
sites
pose
the
threat
of
accidental
fires,
and
they
are
sometimes
used
as
trash
dumps
or
recreational
areas
for
people
using
all­
terrain
vehicles.
Sedimentation
and
erosion
problems
are
also
eliminated
in
areas
where
streams
are
located
nearby.
(
EPACAMR00248)

To
date,
more
than
2,300
acres
have
been
clean
up,
saving
PA
residents
nearly
$
460
Million.
This
estimate
does
not
include
the
elimination
of
AMD.
(
EPACAMR00248)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
74
VII
­
74
By
reclaiming
these
sites,
the
electric
generating
power
industry
is
also
eliminating
many
potential
safety
and
health
hazards
in
the
community.
These
waste
sites
pose
a
threat
of
accidental
fires,
and
they
are
sometimes
used
as
trash
dumps
or
recreational
areas
for
people
using
all­
terrain
vehicles.
(
PCLP00249)

To
date,
more
than
2,300
acres
have
been
cleaned
up,
saving
Pennsylvania
residents
nearly
$
46,000,000.
(
PCLP00249)

By
reclaiming
these
sites,
the
electric
generating
power
industry
is
also
eliminating
potential
safety
and
health
hazards
in
the
community.
These
waste
sites
pose
a
threat
of
accidental
fires,
and
they
are
sometimes
used
as
trash
dumps
or
recreational
areas
for
people
using
all­
terrain
vehicles.
(
PAEC00251)

To
date,
more
than
2,300
acres
have
been
cleaned
up,
saving
Pennsylvania
residents
nearly
$
446,000,000.
(
PAEC00251)

By
reclaiming
these
sites,
the
electric
generating
power
industry
is
also
eliminating
many
potential
safety
and
health
hazards
in
the
community.
These
waste
sites
pose
a
threat
of
accidental
fires,
and
they
are
sometimes
used
as
trash
dumps
or
recreational
areas
for
people
using
all­
terrain
vehicles.
(
G&
L00252)

To
date,
more
than
2,300
acres
have
been
cleaned
up,
saving
Pennsylvania
residents
nearly
$
46,000,000.
(
G&
L00252)

By
reclaiming
these
sites,
the
electric
generating
power
industry
is
also
eliminating
many
potential
safety
and
health
hazards
in
the
community.
These
waste
sites
pose
a
threat
of
accidental
fires,
and
they
are
sometimes
used
as
trash
dumps
or
recreational
areas
for
people
using
all­
terrain
vehicles.
(
PA00253)

To
date,
more
than
2,300
acres
have
been
cleaned
up,
saving
Pennsylvania
residents
nearly
$
46,000,000.
(
PA00253)

By
reclaiming
these
sites,
the
electric
generating
power
industry
is
also
eliminating
many
potential
safety
and
health
hazards
in
the
community.
These
waste
sites
pose
a
threat
of
accidental
fires
and
they
are
sometimes
used
as
trash
dumps
or
recreational
areas
for
people
using
all­
terrain
vehicles.
(
CIN00254)

To
date,
more
than
2,300
acres
have
been
cleaned
up,
saving
Pennsylvania
residents
nearly
$
46,000,000.
(
CIN00254)

By
reclaiming
these
sites,
the
electric
generating
power
industry
is
also
eliminating
many
potential
safety
and
health
hazards
in
the
community.
These
unreclaimed
waste
sites
pose
a
threat
of
accidental
fires,
and
they
are
sometimes
used
as
trash
dumps
or
recreational
areas
for
people
using
all­
terrain
vehicles.
(
EPC00255)

To
date,
more
than
2,300
acres
have
been
cleaned
up,
saving
Pennsylvania
residents
nearly
$
46,000,000.
(
EPC00255)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
75
VII
­
75
The
Ebensburg,
Pennsylvania
facility
is
one
of
14
waste
coal­
fueled
power
plants
operating
in
Pennsylvania.
By
burning
waste
coal
as
fuel,
these
plants
are
cleaning
up
abandoned
mine
sites
and
waste
coal
pires
across
the
state.
As
you
know,
waste
coal
sites
seriously
threaten
water
quality
and
public
safety.
The
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
PaDEP)
has
approved
the
alkaline
CFB
ash
for
use
in
reclamation
programs
for
both
active
and
abandoned
mines.
The
ash
is
returned
to
the
mine
site
to
neutralize
other
acid
bearing
materials
that
could
not
be
used
as
fuel
and
to
supplement
native
soils
to
promote
site
re­
vegetation.
These
coal
refuse
fueled
facilities
are
a
prime
example
of
industrial
operations
that
contribute
to
significant
reductions
in
air,
water,
and
solid
waste
emissions.
By
revitalizing
abandoned
industrial
properties
and
returning
thousands
of
acres
of
polluted
and
once
wasted
land
back
to
a
useful
state,
Pennsylvania's
waste
coal
power
industry
provides
environmental,
societal,
and
economic
advantages
to
the
state,
region,
and
country.
(
AIRP00270)

Use
of
FBC
coal
ash
in
soil
amendments
and
mine
reclamation
is
beneficial.
(
PG&
E00274)

Coal
ash
generally,
and
FBC
ash
in
particular,
is
superior
to
other
till
in
its
ability
to
be
both
flowable
and
compactable.
It
is
an
ideal
construction
material
to
fill
and
seal
pits
and
voids,
restore
original
contours
of
the
landscape,
stabilize
coal
refuse,
and
establish
desirable
surface
water
drainage
patterns.
The
high
lime
content
naturally
amends
the
soil,
promoting
vegetative
growth
as
a
soil
amendment.
This
lime
content
also
creates
cementitious
chemical
reactions
in
the
ash,
causing
it
to
"
set
up"
like
cement
when
conditioned
with
water.
As
shown
in
comments
from
ARIPPA
and
others,
FBC
coal
ash
has
levels
of
metal
and
contaminants
generally
in
the
same
range
as
native
soils,
according
to
the
U.
S.
Geological
Survey,
but
in
a
form
and
in
an
alkaline
environment
that
makes
trace
metals
less
leachable
than
in
soils.
These
beneficial
uses
are
decidedly
not
waste
disposal,
but
rather
the
productive
use
of
the
by­
product
because
of
its
desirable
characteristics
as
a
land
reclamation
material.
(
PG&
E00274)

The
cementing
applications
of
fly
ash
that
replace
portland
cement
and
avoid
CO2
emissions
are
not
limited
to
fly
ash
in
concrete.
Specifically,
with
respect
to
EPA's
RTC,
the
use
of
fly
ash
in
many
mining
applications,
particularly
where
flowable
fill
requiring
low
strengths
are
required,
can
eliminate
most
of
all
of
the
cement
that
would
have
been
used.
(
ACAA00276)

Currently,
the
coal
ash
that
the
EPA
is
proposing
to
regulate
as
a
hazardous
waste
is
beneficially
used
as
a
soil
supplement
or
minefill
at
100
sites
throughout
Pennsylvania.
The
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
has
monitored
these
sites
and
concluded
that
the
application
of
coal
ash
in
accordance
with
state
requirements
does
not
degrade
water
resources.
In
some
cases,
the
use
of
the
coal
ash
has
actually
improved
the
water
quality.
(
PA00293)

Public
funds
will
only
address
only
a
small
part
of
this
backlog.
Power
companies
are
using
coal
ash
to
successfully
re­
claim
abandoned
mine
land.
Throughout
Pennsylvania
there
are
14
waste
coal­
fueled
power
plants
representing
a
capital
investment
of
nearly
$
2.5
billion.
These
facilities
have
already
reclaimed
2,300
acres
of
abandoned
mine
land
at
no
cost
to
taxpayers
or
the
Abandoned
Mine
Land
Trust
Fund.
(
PA00293)

A
by­
product
of
the
combustion
process
is
an
alkaline
ash
which
the
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)
has
approved
for
use
in
reclamation
programs
for
active
and
abandoned
mines.
The
alkaline
coal
ash
is
returned
to
the
reclamation
sites
to
neutralize
other
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
76
VII
­
76
acidic
materials,
allowing
a
reduction
or
elimination
of
acid
mine
drainage.
To
date,
nearly
2,300
acres
have
been
reclaimed
this
way
in
Pennsylvania.
(
PA00296)

Here
in
Pennsylvania
the
State
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
has
been
regulating
the
use
of
ash
in
abandoned
mines
land
reclamation
and
acid
mine
drainage
abatement
applications,
as
well
as
for
agricultural
land
applications,
for
more
than
ten
years
with
no
adverse
affects.
Indeed,
the
PA
DEP
has
noted
a
substantial
reduction
in
the
public
safety
risks
associated
with
open,
abandoned
pits
where
these
plants
are
situated
and
reductions
in
Acid
Mine
Drainage
that
have
posed
significant
problems
and
ground
water
quality
degradation
throughout
the
Commonwealth's
coal
mining
regions.
(
GPC00297)

The
fourteen
waste
coal­
fueled
power
plants
in
Pennsylvania
have
consumed
tens
of
millions
of
tons
of
coal
mining
wastes
thus
far
in
their
operational
lives.
The
ash
by
product
from
these
plants
consumption
of
waste,
mildly
alkaline
in
nature,
has
been
used
to
reclaim
approximately
2300
acres
of
heretofore
useless
blighted
land.
The
reclamation
activity
has
"
sealed
off'
hundreds
of
acres
of
land
which
was
open
to
uncontrolled
water
ingress
that
contributed
to
the
degradation
of
ground
and
surface
waters
in
the
area.
Significant
watershed
improvements
have
already
been
noted
in
the
areas
where
many
streams
are
bereft
of
aquatic
life
for
many
miles.
(
GPC00297)

By
reclaiming
these
sites,
the
electric
generation
power
industry
is
also
eliminate
many
potential
safety
and
health
hazards
in
the
community.
These
waste
sites
pose
a
threat
of
accidental
fires,
and
they
are
sometimes
used
as
trash
dumps
or
recreational
areas
for
people
using
all­
terrain
vehicles.
(
PA00300)

To
date,
more
than
2,300
areas
have
been
cleaned
up,
saving
residents
nearly
$
46,000,000.
(
PA00300)

The
PA
State
Department
of
Environment
of
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
the
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
as
soil
amendments
with
no
adverse
impacts
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
AMI00372)

To
date,
more
than
2,300
acres
have
been
cleaned
up,
saving
Pennsylvania
residents
nearly
$
46
million.
(
AMI00372)

To
date,
nearly
2,300
acres
have
been
reclaimed.
With
an
estimated
reclamation
cost
of
$
20,000
per
acre,
Pennsylvania
taxpayers
have
saved
an
estimated
$
46
million.
(
PAL0001)

The
Ohio
River
Basin
Commission
would
like
to
express
its
support
of
the
continued
use
of
waste
coal
ash
in
mine
reclamation
efforts
to
improve
downstream
water
quality.
(
ORBCL0002)

By
utilizing
waste
coal
as
fuel,
many
plants
are
cleaning
abandoned
mine
sites
and
waste
coal
piles
throughout
Pennsylvania.
The
removal
of
these
piles
eliminates
erosion,
sedimentation,
and
the
production
of
mine
acid
drainage
which
can
have
far
reach
regional
impacts.
(
ORBCL0002)

We
would
like
to
express
support
for
the
continued
use
of
waste
coal
ash
in
mine
reclamation
efforts
to
improve
downstream
water
quality.
(
SRBCL0006)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
77
VII
­
77
By
using
waste
coal
as
fuel,
many
plants
are
cleaning
abandoned
mine
sites
and
waste
coal
piles.
The
removal
of
these
piles
helps
to
control
erosion,
sedimentation,
and
the
production
of
mine
acid
drainage
which
can
have
far
reach,
regional
impacts.
(
SRBCL0006)

The
common
beneficial
use
of
ash
from
Circulating
Fluidized
Bed
(
CFB)
combustion
boilers
from
electric
cogeneration
plants
in
Pennsylvania
serves
as
a
vital
component
in
the
reclamation
of
abandoned
mine
sites
in
our
state.
(
LRCAXXXX)

Data
collected
at
many
reclaimed
sites
indicates
improvement
in
surface
water
quality
through
the
reduction
of
sediment
runoff
and
surface­
acid­
mine
drainage
(
AMD).
Reclaimed
sites
also
help
reduce
infiltration
of
surface
water
into
underground
mine
pools
which
later
discharge
into
streams
and
rivers
as
acid
mine
drainage.
(
LRCAXXXX)

The
reclamation
of
abandoned
mine
sites
in
the
anthracite
fields
of
Northeast
Pennsylvania
is
crucial
to
the
restoration
of
ecological
values
and
water
quality
in
many
streams
and
rivers
in
the
Susquehanna
and
Delaware
watersheds.
This
reclamation
effort
is
also
key
to
the
economic
and
cultural
recovery
of
the
human
communities
adversely
affected
by
the
extractive
history
of
the
anthracite
industry.
(
LRCAXXXX)

OSM
shares
EPA's
concerns
regarding
the
potential
for
contamination
of
groundwater
and
surface
pathways
from
the
use
of
some
CCBs
in
mine
reclamation.
We
believe
that
is
possible
that
certain
CCBs
and
associated
materials
may
exhibit
hazardous
characteristics
or
pose
unacceptable
risks
in
some
situations.
However,
we
know
of
many
examples
where
CCBs
have
been
an
integral
part
of
successful
reclamation
under
both
Title
IV
and
Title
V.
There
is
an
extensive
inventory
of
completed
projects,
and
there
are
a
number
of
ongoing
projects
in
various
stages
of
completion.
As
the
EPA
states
in
its
report,
the
environmental
benefits
achieved
through
this
reclamation
have
been
extensive.
In
all
of
these
projects,
OSM
and
the
States
have
ensured
that
the
potential
environmental
and
health
and
safety
impacts
of
CCBs
were
evaluated.
The
enclosed
copies
of
papers
on
successful
reclamation
were
presented
at
national
AML
meetings
highlighting
the
use
of
CCBs.
(
OSM00283)

We
do
not
doubt
that
there
are
situations
where
underground
mine
disposal
may
be
an
appropriate
disposal
technique
for
certain
coal
combustion
wastes.
Conversely,
we
are
just
as
certain
that
there
are
situations
in
which
where
such
disposal
practices
are
not
appropriate.
(
ALA00292)

PG&
E
is
not
talking
about
the
universe
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
products
or
its
disposal
...
It
is
the
specific
application
of
a
chemically
reactive
waste
to
address
the
problem
of
an
uncontrolled
chemical
problem
inherited
from
decades­
old
mining
practices.
It
is
a
beneficial
use
of
these
materials,
at
least
in
the
short
run.
Whatever
regulatory
structure
the
USEPA
settles
upon,
there
is
probably
a
legitimate
objective
to
use
these
materials
for
some
types
of
abandoned
mined
lands
reclamation.
(
GHIL0012)

It
is
important
that
the
distinction
between
legitimate,
engineered
beneficial
use
and
unregulated,
wholesale
dumping
continually
be
drawn
and
emphasized.
(
GHIL0012)

PG&
E's
comments
are
reasonable,
although
there
is
a
tendency
to
exaggerate
some
claims
...
For
example,
even
when
the
field
reactor
is
built
and
performs
to
design,
the
resulting
reactant
water
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
78
VII
­
78
may
be
neutral
in
pH
and
have
low
dissolved
concentrations
of
RCRA
metals,
but
it
will
be
highly
mineralized
and,
therefore,
substantially
degraded.
It
will
be
an
improvement,
but
it
is
by
no
means
good
water.
Further,
it
is
not
easy
to
get
effective
reaction
between
the
FBC
wastes
and
acid
mine
drainage
...
In
cases
where
flow­
through
is
obtained,
the
reacation
continues
only
until
the
alkalinity
of
the
FBC
waste
is
consumed
...
The
fix
is
often
not
permanent
and
is
some
cases
the
problem
becomes
worse
after
the
FBC
wastes
are
neutralized.
(
GHIL0012)

The
primary
difficulties
with
[
the
use
of
FBC
wastes
as
materials
for
construction
caps
to
reduce
infiltration
into
acid
producing
materials]
is
that
the
barriers
are
frequently
ineffective
and,
when
initially
effective,
deteriorate
quite
quickly
with
time.
The
fix
is
at
best
temporary.
(
GHIL0012)

Although
returning
CCW
to
underground
coal
mines
has
fundamental
merit,
as
landfills
become
more
scarce,
the
US
EPA
and
RCRA
personnel
need
to
conduct
more
research
on
the
toxicity
issue
of
CCW
rather
than
ignore
it.
Toxic
underground
deposits
of
CCW
will
make
their
way
back
to
the
surface
as
a
contaminant
in
groundwater
when
it
is
used
for
farm
irrigation,
landscape
runoff
into
streams,
public
water
consumption,
etc.
(
VAT00309)

The
Report
downplays
the
significance
of
problems
with
minefills.
There
are
basic
differences
between
minefilling
and
the
other
disposal
methods
examined
in
this
Report,
i.
e.,
landfills
and
lagoons,
that
are
well
known
and
should
have
been
thoroughly
discussed
in
the
Report.
Despite
these
obvious
dramatic
differences,
the
Report
repeatedly
gives
minefilling
the
benefit
of
the
doubt
with
unsubstantiated
statements
such
as,
"
EPA
believes
that,
under
ideal
circumstances,
placement
of
wastes
in
mines
should
present
no
increased
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment
relative
to
conventional
landfills."
in
section
3.4.5.
The
Report
erroneously
labels
minefilling
a
beneficial
use
when
many
minefills
are
simply
open
dumps,
i.
e.
landfills
without
any
design
or
construction
standards
and
few
operational
requirements,
used
to
avoid
the
costs
of
disposal
at
state
solid
waste
landfills.
These
dumps
are
not
being
used
for,
"
improvement
of
disturbed
mine
lands
through
contouring,
revegetation,
and
reduced
infiltration
to
mine
workings,
and
abatement
of
acid
mine
drainage
through
neutralization
an
diversion."
as
emphasized
in
the
Report
(
e.
g.
see
page
3­
51).
(
HEC00056)

While
there
may
be
a
direct
interphase
between
the
wastes
and
shallow
ground
water
aquifers
in
some
lagoon
disposal,
many
minefills
expose
ground
water
aquifers
at
multiple
depths
to
direct
rampant
contact
with
large
volumes
of
CCW
that
does
not
occur
at
power
plant
lagoons.
(
HEC00056)

Arguments
in
favor
of
minefilling
are
specious.
Claims
made
by
proponents
of
minefilling
at
EPA's
May
21
Hearing
and
at
a
tour
of
minefills
in
Indiana
on
May
25
arranged
for
EPA
by
the
Edison
Electric
Institute
and
the
Indiana
Department
of
Natural
Resources
appear
to
be
based
on
the
following
three
arguments:

1)
Coal
seams
are
underlain
by
`
fire
clay'
that
will
serve
as
a
natural
liner
for
CCW
disposal
in
mines.
2)
Minefilling
cleans
up
the
environment
by
neutralizing
acid
mine
drainage;
and
3)
Any
contamination
from
coal
combustion
wastes
will
be
acceptable
given
that
mining
has
already
destroyed
the
ground
waters
in
mine
areas.
(
HEC00056)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
79
VII
­
79
The
claim
about
fire
clay
is
self­
serving
fantasy.
There
is
no
material
in
the
geologic
record
or
mine
permit
applications
to
support
the
notion
that
Mother
Nature
has
benevolently
provided
`
fire
clay'
as
the
floor
rock
under
most
strippable
coal
deposits.
Moreover,
as
we
will
describe,
even
in
the
few
places
where
`
fire
clay'
is
the
floor
rock,
it
cannot
act
as
a
`
natural
liner'
preventing
toxic
contaminants
in
the
CCW
from
entering
the
groundwater.
If
a
seam
of
clay
mineral
were
the
floor
rock
under
the
stripmined
coal
seam,
could
it
act
as
a
"
natural
liner"
for
CCW
dumps?
The
answer
is
a
resounding
NO
for
these
reasons:

A)
Liners
must
be
continuous
with
no
weaknesses
­­
Impermeability
is
only
as
strong
as
the
weakest
link.
Underclays
are
often
discontinuous
layers.
For
example,
at
a
fact
finding
hearing
held
in
1995
concerning
HEC's
appeal
of
the
Little
Sandy
#
10
Mine
CCW
disposal
permit,
hydrologist
Russell
Boulding
documented
that
the
claim
of
underclays
retarding
CCW
leachate
at
this
site
was
fictitious.
A
number
of
the
lithologic
logs
including
seven
that
were
reported
to
be
downgradient
from
or
very
near
CCW
monofills
showed
no
underclay
underneath
the
lowest
coal
seam
to
be
mined
where
CCW
would
be
placed.
With
adequate
time
to
comment,
we
intend
to
document
the
absence
of
underclays
at
numerous
mines
and
the
presence
of
sand
stones
and
sandy
shales
immediately
beneath
the
coal
seams
that
are
aquifers,
not
aquitards.

B)
Furthermore
a
well
established
fact
that
Boulding
also
testified
about
at
this
hearing,
is
that
clay
seams,
as
well
as
other
types
of
floor
rock,
can,
do
and
will
sustain
fractures
from
the
blasting,
operation
of
heavy
equipment
and
stress
relief
from
overburden
removal
in
mining
operations.
"
Soft"
stripmining
techniques
have
yet
to
be
invented.
Moreover,
as
the
coal
and
overburden
are
removed,
the
floor
rock
will
undergo
"
release
fracturing."
This
means
when
the
weight
of
the
overlying
strata
is
removed,
the
floor
rock
will
heave
and
buckle
upward
as
a
new
equilibrium
is
achieved.
(
HEC00056)

Even
if
a
continuous
clay
layer
were
present
and
somehow,
magically,
stayed
intact
throughout
the
high
stresses
of
the
mining
operation,
could
it
serve
as
a
`
natural
liner'
containing
CCW
and
preventing
groundwater
contamination?
The
answer
is
a
resounding
No.
The
assumption
behind
this
myth
is
that
groundwater
carrying
contamination
from
CCW
could
only
travel
downward
and
would
be
stopped
by
the
clay
seam
and
so
could
not
affect
the
lower
aquifers.
The
clay
seam
would
not
stop
water
and
contamination
from
traveling
horizontally
and
outward
from
the
dump
site.
And,
most
importantly,
stripmine
pits
are
themselves
an
artificial
aquifer
system
after
mining
and
almost
always
have
high
permeability
and
increased
flow
rates
through
the
disturbed
areas
including
the
areas
where
CCW
is
dumped.
(
HEC00056)

The
fantasy
of
a
`
fire
clay'
seam
acting
as
a
`
natural
liner'
also
conflicts
with
the
second
claim
that
CCW
neutralizes
acid
mine
drainage.
First,
assuming
neutralization
benefits
do
occur,
acid
water
must
flow
into
the
pit
from
somewhere,
flow
through
the
CCW,
then
flow
out
as
neutralized
water
to
somewhere
else.
The
point
of
continuous
liners
is
to
prevent
outflow.
The
electric
power
industry
can't
have
its
cake
­­
clay
as
a
`
natural
liner'
­­
and
eat
it
too
­­
CCW
as
a
neutralizing
agent
for
acid
mine
drainage.
One
claimed
virtue
will
cancel
out
the
other.
(
HEC00056)

High
acidity
is
not
the
only
geochemistry
faced
in
mining
operations.
In
fact,
the
Report
should
take
into
account
problems
that
may
occur
at
the
other
end
of
the
pH
scale
in
Indiana
and
many
western
states
where
the
ground
waters
and
spoil
waters
in
active
mining
operations
are
alkaline.
How
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
80
VII
­
80
will
these
systems
adequately
buffer
the
excess
alkalinity
that
millions
of
tons
of
alkaline
ash
may
add
to
increased
baseflows
feeding
the
streams
that
drain
mine
areas?
(
HEC00056)

The
third
claim
is
perhaps
most
disturbing
because
it
amounts
to
a
brazen
attempt
to
eviscerate
the
fundamental
purposes
of
SMCRA.
Strip
mining
can
and
does
seriously
degrade
ground
water.
But
the
purpose
of
SMCRA
is
to
minimize
that
impact
and
restore
the
environment
of
mined
areas
...
Yet
after
twenty
years
of
telling
us
that
they
can
readily
meet
these
requirements,
the
proponents
of
minefilling
now
want
us
to
believe
that
even
in
the
absence
of
acidity
problems,
the
ground
waters
in
mines
are
so
trashed
that
further
contamination
of
them
from
disposal
of
massive
quantities
of
CCW
and
other
fossil
fuel
wastes
would
be
of
no
consequence!
...
The
data
does
not
back
them
up.
Instead
it
indicates
that
contamination
from
disposal
of
CCW
will
substantially
worsen
water
quality
that
has
been
degraded
by
mining.
It
shows
that
degraded
spoil
waters
improve
with
time
as
their
oxygen
content
reduces.
It
does
not
show
that
contamination
from
CCW
will
abate
simply
with
the
passage
of
time.
(
HEC00056)

The
information
on
water
quality
indicates
the
surface
mining
law
works.
Damage
is
created
by
mining,
but
by
isolating
the
toxic
forming
mine
waste
from
its
reactive
agent,
oxygen,
the
damage
is
limited
and
eventually
corrects
itself.
It
takes
years,
but
the
progress
is
real.
On
the
other
hand,
burying
reactive
CCW
at
surface
mines
puts
a
toxic
forming
nonmine
waste
in
the
worst
possible
environment,
in
direct
contact
with
its
reactive
agent
­
water.
It
is
a
disposal
policy
that
is
antithetical
to
the
concept
and
practice
of
the
surface
mining
law
and
it
will
condemn
untold
thousands
of
acres
of
useful
or
recovering
mined
lands
to
an
indefinite
future
without
usable
water
and
without
value.
(
HEC00056)

Nonetheless,
many
cola
field
residents­
not
to
mention
entire
species
of
organisms­
must
contend
with
serious
threats
to
life­
sustaining
water
supplies,
as
CCW
dumping
in
unlined
strip
mine
sites
becomes
an
ever­
prevalent
practice.
(
CITZ00261)

Returning
it
to
former
strip
mines
is
adding
insult
to
the
injury
they've
already
done
to
the
land.
These
wastes
seeping
into
the
groundwater
and
possibly
commingling
other
industrial
wastes
with
them
is
not
a
good
plan.
(
CITZ00262)

The
EPA
has
the
flexibility
and
discretion
to
adopt
a
program
that
is
tailored
to
the
specific
problems
associated
with
the
"
open
dumping"
of
coal
combustion
wastes
in
mine
backfill
and
voids,
in
order
to
assure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
As
argued
below,
the
co­
disposal
of
coal
combustion
wastes
in
mining
areas
present
heightened
risks
of
contamination
of
groundwater
and
injury
to
public
health
that
warrant
assertion
of
Subtitle
Ill
authority
over
that
disposal
practice.
(
NCCLP00282)

The
failure
to
assert
jurisdiction
over
coal
combustion
wastes
disposed
of
in
coal
mining
operations
will
result
in
imminent
and
substantial
endangerment
to
health
and
the
environment.
(
NCCLP00282)

The
failure
to
assert
federal
leadership
in
establishing
up­
front
baseline
standards
concerning
the
disposal
of
coal
combustion
wastes
under
Subtitle
III
invites
significant
judicial
intrusion
into
the
field,
and
implicates
the
disposers,
transporters
and
generators
in
a
web
of
liability
that
is
as
open­
ended
as
are
the
state
management
programs
themselves.
(
NCCLP00282)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
81
VII
­
81
As
will
be
later
discussed,
the
failure
to
differentiate
the
rare
beneficial
uses
made
of
CCW
in
mines
from
larger
category
of
use
of
mines
for
cheap
disposal,
and
the
lumping
together
of
such
practices
as
`
minefill"
obscures
the
reality
of
why
utilities
return
combustion
wastes
to
mined
areas.
(
NCCLP00282)

The
Council
believes
that
the
evidence
of
groundwater
contamination
from
disposal
of
coal
combustion
wastes
in
situations
comparable
to
the
dumping
of
such
wastes
in
mine
backfill,
is
more
than
sufficient
to
warrant
federal
involvement
in
establishing
baseline
standards
for
coal
combustion
waste
disposal
in
mining
sites.
(
NCCLP00282)

It
is
a
myth
that
there
is
no
potential
public
health
and
environmental
impact
of
improper
management
of
coal
combustion
wastes.
(
NCCLP00282)

The
available
evidence
suggests
that
disposal
of
coal
combustion
wastes
in
mine
pits
or
other
workings
may
be
of
particular
concern,
due
to
a
number
of
factors:
the
increase
in
surface
area
available
for
leaching
of
elements
resulting
from
fracturing
of
overburden
and
confining
layers;
higher
total
dissolved
solids
levels
in
mine
spoils
that
compete
for
sorption
sites
on
solids
with
toxic
elements
released
from
the
buried
ash;
direct
communication
between
surface
and
underground
mine
workings
and
aquifers
through
stress­
relief
fracture
systems
and
subsidenceinduced
fracture
flow;
the
dependence
of
residents
of
coal­
baring
regions
on
private,
groundwater
supplies
and
the
significant
potential
for
contamination
of
those
supplies;
and
the
presence
of
site
conditions
conducive
to
creation
of
acid
or
toxic­
forming
material
that
can
solubilize
constituents
of
concern
from
the
waste.
(
NCCLP00282)

The
use
of
the
term
"
minefill"
to
loosely
cover
both
"
beneficial
use"
of
coal
combustion
wastes
and
the
disposal
of
such
waste
on
minesites,
masks
the
economic
forces
which
result
in
such
disposal.
The
presence
of
utility
plants
at
minesites
is
a
rare
occurrence
nationally,
and
the
coal
combustion
wastes
are
being
backhauled
and
disposed
of
in
mine
workings
(
including
both
underground
mine
voids
and
more
commonly,
in
surface
mine
backfills
or
spoil/
mine
waste
fills)
not
because
of
the
beneficial
attributes
of
the
wastes
relative
to
other
materials
or
the
lack
of
alternatives
available
to
utilities
and
non­
utility
customers
for
coal
combustion
waste
disposal,
but
because
the
coal
companies
offer
the
backhauling
and
disposal
as
a
"
service"
or
incentive
in
order
to
attract
buyers
for
their
coal
in
an
increasingly
competitive
marketplace.
(
NCCLP00282)

Many
utilities
will
not
allow
their
waste
to
be
co­
disposed
in
mine
voids
and
workings,
preferring
to
manage
their
liabilities
associated
with
the
waste
on­
site
or
in
a
manner
more
controlled
than
the
typical
minesite.
Those
that
do
allow
the
waste
to
be
managed
in
co­
disposal
situations
assume
that
the
problems
with
their
waste
streams
will
be
masked
by
the
significant
hydrogeologic
and
chemical
disruptions
associated
with
mining
operations,
or
that
the
contamination
will
not
be
discovered
because
of
lack
of
adequate
and
sufficient
monitoring.
(
NCCLP00282)

The
report,
at
p.
3­
51,
assumes
that
the
use
of
coal
combustion
waste
can
assist
in
mine
"
contouring,"
yet
the
use
of
such
material
is
neither
beneficial
nor
needed
for
"
contouring"
of
mine
sites.
Rather,
such
mining
sites
typically
generate
excess
spoil
material
that
must
be
disposed
of
in
a
separate
spoil
disposal
site.
It
is
the
placement
of
this
excess
spoil
in
head­
of­
hollow
and
valley
fills
that
has
triggered
the
controversy
over
the
practice
of
"
mountaintop
removal"
coal
mining
in
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
82
VII
­
82
the
Appalachian
coalfields,
and
the
introduction
of
ash
into
the
mined
area
will
displace
additional
spoil,
resulting
in
larger
fills
(
and
greater
in­
stream
disturbances)
or
will
result
in
larger
fills
with
more
direct
disturbance
to
streams
where
the
material
is
co­
disposed
in
the
fills
rather
than
on
mine
benches
or
mine
pits.
(
NCCLP00282)

The
report
assumes
also
that
the
dumping
of
coal
wastes
in
mined
areas
is
appropriate
because
it
will
"
avoid[
]
development
of
Greenfield
space
for
UCCW
disposal."
This
proposition
is
as
absurd
as
it
is
arrogant,
since,
in
the
first
instance,
the
proposition
that
more
waste
problems
should
be
heaped
on
coalfield
communities
because
the
area
is
already
disturbed,
violates
the
core
principle
of
the
mining
law
that
mining
should
be
a
temporary
use
of
the
land
and
that
the
land
should
be
restored
to
productive
uses
comparable
to
the
premining
use.
In
the
second
instance,
the
proposition
assumes
that
the
location
of
the
alternative
disposal
sites,
which
are
dedicated
ash
impoundments
or
landfills,
are
"
Greenfields",
when
in
fact
they
are
typically
located
on­
site
at
utility
plants,
on
property
that
is
otherwise
utilized
to
buffer
the
air
quality
impacts
associated
with
the
power
plants.
(
NCCLP00282)

The
presumption
of
idealized
circumstances
for
disposal
at
coal
mines
is
a
myth
as
well.
Far
from
the
homogenous,
isotropic
primary
media
flow
through
pore
spaces
in
unfractured
rock
strata,
providing
for
minimal
vertical
and
horizontal
groundwater
flow,
the
coalfield
regions
of
the
east,
midwest
and
west
each
present
unique
and
complex
hydrogeologic
regimes
that
are
naturally
questionable
at
best
for
such
waste
disposal,
and
become
more
so
through
the
disruption
of
the
hydrologic
regime
and
geology
from
blasting
and
subsidence
associated
with
coal
recovery
from
surface
and
underground
mines.
(
NCCLP00282)

In
sum,
the
placement
of
uncontrolled
and
unconsolidated
deposits
of
coal
combustion
waste
in
mine
backfills,
valley
or
hollow
fills,
or
underground
mine
voids,
is
irresponsible.
The
groundwater
system
in
many
coal
fields
is
particularly
vulnerable
to
contamination
because
of
the
high
transmissivity
of
the
fracture­
dominated
aquifer
system,
and
because
of
the
high
degree
of
interconnection
of
aquifers
through
subsidence­
induced
deformation
of
strata
above
underground
coal
seams.
Ample
hydrologic
evidence
is
available
to
suggest
that
further
co­
disposal
of
coal
combustion
wastes
should
be
prohibited
pending
development
of
sufficient
standards
for
the
characterization,
management,
placement
and
monitoring
of
such
disposal,
and
that
EPA
should
move
promptly
to
develop
such
standards.
(
NCCLP00282)

We
have
experienced
first­
hand
the
water
contamination
caused
by
various
forms
of
coal
mining.
My
students
were
amazed
when
they
saw
a
creek
near
Freeburn,
Kentucky
with
water
that
was
a
milky
white.
I
am
greatly
concerned
about
the
potential
for
even
more
groundwater
contamination
and
the
associated
risks
to
human
beings
and
other
life
forms
if
coal
companies
are
allowed
to
continue
the
practice
of
dumping
coal
combustion
waste
(
CCW)
in
strip
mines.
(
CITZ00291)

The
waste
has
very
high
levels
of
heavy
metals
such
as
mercury,
arsenic,
iron
and
many
others.
The
way
it
is
being
spread
over
the
land
here
will
allow
it
to
seep
into
the
water
table.
This
will
take
many
years
to
take
place
at
which
time
there
will
be
absolutely
no
way
to
re­
mediate
the
problem.
(
CITZ00329)

Our
water
supply
will
be
ruined
for
future
generations.
This
is
all
taking
place
because
of
the
greed
of
the
large
corporations
who
will
risk
our
future
for
a
quick
profit
now.
(
CITZ00329)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
83
VII
­
83
Minefilling
practices
are
posing
an
imminent
and
substantial
endangerment
to
the
environment
and
human
health.
(
HEC00332)

Given
the
stability
of
mine
sites
as
well
as
the
direct
and
indirect
hydrologic
pathways
between
the
wastes
and
groundwater
supplies
at
these
sites,
disposing
CCW,
other
fossil
fuel
wastes,
other
nonmine
wastes
mixed
with
these
wastes
or
wastes
whose
parent
materials
are
coburned
with
fossil
fuels
in
strip
mines
without
substantial
safeguards
violates
the
basic
tenets
of
sound
waste
disposal
policies.
(
HEC00332)

EPA
has
received
testimony
that
clay
beds
underlying
strip
pits
serve
as
"
natural
liners."
(
See,
for
example,
the
testimony
of
Bradley
C.
Paul,
EPA
transcript,
p.
181)
Indiana
has
permitted
strip
mine
pits
as
CCW
dumps
based
on
the
assertion
that
the
presence
of
a
clay
layer
underlying
the
pit
will
serve
as
a
"
natural
liner."
Such
assertions
are
false
and
misleading,
at
best,
for
the
following
reasons:
At
best
they
are
a
figleaf:
Clay
beds
do
not
line
the
sides
and
bottom
of
the
entire
pit.
(
HEC00332)

It
is
highly
unlikely
that
a
clay
layer
will
retain
its
integrity
during
modern
strip
mining
because
of
the
mines'
reliance
on
blasting
and
heavy
equipment.
(
HEC00332)

Moreover,
clay
layers
are
often
discontinuous
and
do
not
extend
underneath
the
entire
pit.
(
HEC00332)

Indiana
has
no
legislation
to
prohibit
combustion
ash
and
all
of
its
heavy
metals
from
being
reburied
in
mines
in
Indiana.
In
fact,
I
understand
that
the
industry
promotes
this
dumping
as
a
practice.
Since
there
are
no
"
lime"
requirements
in
Indiana
our
potable
water
supply
may
be
at
risk.
(
CITZ00341)

I
am
convinced
that
open
dumping
of
CCW
that
has
no
restrictions
on
it
is
poisoning
my
drinking
water.
(
CITZ00342)

When
CCW
is
dumped
in
mine
pits
contaminants
enter
underground
aquifers
and
eventually
end
up
in
well
water.
(
CITZ00347)

I
live
in
Knox
County,
Illinois
where
coal
strip
mines
have
been
a
feature
of
the
landscape
for
decades.
According
to
Jeff
Stant
of
the
Hoosier
Environmental
Council,
eight
wells
in
Illinois
have
been
contaminated
by
CCW
disposed
of
in
strip
mine
pits.
Agricultural
pesticide
and
herbicide
contamination
of
many
rural
wells
is
bad
enough
we
don't
need
or
want
another
source
of
contamination.
However,
because
strip
mines
continue
to
operate
in
Knox
County
and
nearby
counties
and
since
there
are
plans
to
dump
CCW
in
these
mines,
we
fear
that
we
will
have
another
source
of
contamination
to
contend
with.
The
dangers
posed
by
CCW
make
me
and
others
in
rural
Illinois
even
more
concerned
for
the
safety
of
our
ground
water.
(
CITZ00347)

Our
coal
mining
sites
already
contain
many
dangerous
substances,
whether
occurring
naturally
or
introduced
by
man,
and
any
additional
toxic
or
hazardous
wastes
would
only
serve
to
compound
our
problems
and
increase
the
threat
to
our
water
resources.
(
DCCC00359)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
84
VII
­
84
I
am
aware
to
the
new
plants
to
dispose
of
125
million
tons
of
coal
combustion
waste
in
unlined
mines
in
Indiana
over
the
next
five
years.
In
particular
I
am
concerned
about
the
contamination
of
our
water
supplies
with
heavy
metals,
such
as
arsenic
and
lead,
this
procedure
is
certain
to
cause.
(
CITZL0008)

There
are
a
number
of
scientists
concerned
about
flushing
CCW
into
underground
exhausted
coal
mine
shafts
due
to
trace
metal
toxicity
from
fly
ash
particles
accompanied
by
high
levels
of
conductivity,
total
dissolved
solids
(
TDS),
and
sodium
(
Na).
(
VATL0010)

I
think
relying
on
the
strip
mining
industry
to
police
itself
is
letting
the
fox
into
the
henhouse.
Allowing
coal
combustion
wastes
to
be
returned
to
former
strip
mines
is
adding
insult
to
the
injury
they've
already
done
to
the
land.
These
wastes
seeping
into
the
ground
water
and
possible
commingling
other
industrial
wastes
with
them
is
an
unacceptable
answer.
(
CITZL0015)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
85
VII
­
85
VII.
MINEFILL
E.
Universally
Poor
Applications
EPA
specifically
asked
commenters
to
identify
universally
poor
minefill
practices
or
scenarios.
Commenters
explicitly
addressing
this
question
(
from
industry,
academics,
and
a
federal
agency)
responded
that
they
know
of
no
universally
poor
practices
and
that
site­
specific
evaluation
can
prevent
difficulties
from
arising.
One
of
the
commenters
specifically
argued
that
placement
below
the
water
table
cannot
be
considered
a
universally
poor
practice.

Response:
Based
on
a
review
of
the
extensive
case
study
information
submitted
by
commenters,
EPA
believes
that
the
environmental
outcomes
of
minefilling
are
highly
site­
specific.
Therefore,
the
Agency
generally
agrees
that
at
this
time
there
are
no
specific
practices
or
scenarios
that
can
be
generically
categorized
as
universally
poor.
There
may,
however,
be
site­
and
wastespecific
conditions
that
result
in
negative
outcomes
or
require
a
higher
degree
of
control.
We
will
continue
to
address
this
question
as
we
develop
regulations.

One
commenter
claimed
that
placement
of
coal
combustion
waste
below
the
water
table
should
not
be
considered
a
universally
poor
practice.
While
the
Agency
does
not
have
enough
information
now
to
identify
universally
poor
practices,
we
have
concerns
about
placing
coal
combustion
wastes
in
direct
contact
with
ground­
water
in
both
surface
and
underground
mines.
We
concluded
in
our
recent
study
of
cement
kiln
dust
management
practices
that
placement
of
cement
kiln
dust
in
direct
contact
with
ground­
water
led
to
a
substantially
greater
release
of
hazardous
metals
than
we
predicted
would
occur
when
the
waste
was
placed
above
the
water
table.
For
this
reason,
we
find
that
there
is
a
potential
for
increased
releases
of
hazardous
metals
as
a
result
of
placing
coal
combustion
wastes
in
direct
contact
with
groundwater.
The
Agency
also
recognizes
that
the
very
significant
geochemical
and
hydrological
differences
between
surface
and
underground
mines
may
call
for
a
tailored
approach
to
regulation
development.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
86
VII
­
86
VII.
MINEFILL
E.
Universally
Poor
Applications
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
DOE
is
unaware
of
any
minefill
practices
that
are
universally
poor
and
warrant
specific
attention
with
respect
to
RCRA
Subtitle
C.
DOE/
FETC's
experience
with
a
wide
variety
of
minefilling
projects
indicates
that
none
have
resulted
in
a
consistently
poor
environmental
performance.
Even
though
several
of
the
mine
grouting
projects
described
above
did
not
achieve
their
objective
of
abating
AMD
from
abandoned
underground
coal
mines,
they
have
not
resulted
in
any
significant
environmental
degradation,
especially
with
respect
to
surrounding
ground
water
and
surface
water
resources.
It
should
be
emphasized
that
these
projects
were
experimental
in
nature,
and
additional
experiments
of
this
type
are
needed
to
determine
whether
CCW
minefilling
can
play
a
worthwhile
role
in
the
remediation
of
important
environmental
problems
like
AMD.
For
example,
recent
experimental
work
in
the
State
of
Oklahoma
suggests
that
mine
injection
of
alkaline
FBC
ash
in
dilute
slurry
form
may
have
a
more
beneficial
effect
on
AMD
discharges
from
underground
mines
than
CCW
injection
in
the
form
of
a
low­
permeability
grout.
(
DOE00020)

ACAA's
review
of
numerous
published
documents
has
revealed
no
indication
of
universally
poor
practices
for
mining
applications
of
CCPs.
(
ACAA00022)

Testimony
at
the
May
21
hearing
revealed,
and
these
and
other
comments
confirm,
that
there
are
no
minefill
practices
that,
in
the
agency's
own
words,
"
are
universally
poor".
While
there
are
concerns
that
must
be
addressed
in
the
utilization
of
CCPs
at
mine
sites,
those
concerns
are
recognized
and
addressed
by
the
existing
state
and
federal
regulatory
regimes.
(
NMA00024)

Our
members
believe
there
are
no
universally
poor
applications
for
CCBs
nor
are
there
any
universally
acceptable
applications
either.
In
case
by
case
evaluations,
supported
by
technical
data
and
environmentally
sound
management,
CCBs
can
be
applied
in
many
uses
which
are
benign
to
the
environment.
(
WRAG00030)

NCE
contends
there
are
no
universally
poor
situations
for
using
CCBs
in
minefill,
nor
are
there
universally
acceptable
practices
either.
We
believe
that
site­
specific
conditions
merit
individual
review.
This
review
should
be
conducted
by
local
and
state
regulators
rather
than
the
Agency.
(
NCE00031)

The
RTC
implies
that
EPA
may
consider
the
placement
of
CCPs
below
the
water
table
a
"
universally
poor"
practice.
We
disagree.
It
is
important
to
recognize
that
a
practice
that
is
poor
under
the
conditions
of
a
given
site
may
be
beneficial
at
another.
The
lack
of
damage
cases
indicates
that
sound
management
practices
and
State
regulations
are
adequate
to
insure
protective
placement
of
CCPs.
(
USWAG00037)

EPA
posed
the
question
"
are
there
any
minefill
practices
that
are
universally
poor
and
warrant
specific
attention?"
On
the
basis
over
20
years
of
research
experience
on
coal
combustion
byproducts
(
CCBs)
and
work
with
the
Coal
Ash
Resources
Research
Consortium
(
CARRC,
pronounced
cars),
a
group
with
over
100
years
of
cumulative
experience
in
CCB
research,
at
the
EERC
the
answer
remains
emphatically
"
no."
(
EERC00044)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
87
VII
­
87
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
88
VII
­
88
VII.
MINEFILL
F.
Frequency
of
Damage
Cases
EPA
did
not
identify
any
proven
minefill
damage
cases.
Several
industry
commenters
noted
this
fact
and
emphasized
that
absent
any
evidence
of
damage
EPA
can
not
find
that
existing
practices
are
inadequate
and
therefore
warrant
EPA
involvement.
One
of
the
commenters
argued
that
elevated
levels
of
constituents
sometimes
observed
are
principally
the
result
of
mining
activity,
not
FFC
waste
placement.
On
the
other
hand,
one
public
interest
group
commenter
stated
that
EPA's
study
of
minefill
damage
cases
was
inadequate
and
offered
several
case
studies
as
potential
minefill
damage
cases
for
EPA
review.
Another
public
interest
group
commenter
stated
that
the
lack
of
minefill
damage
cases
is
an
artifact
of
inadequate
monitoring
by
the
states
and
argued
that
EPA
should
conduct
an
independent
inquiry
into
damage
cases
associated
with
minefilling.

Response:
EPA
reviewed
the
extensive
case
study
information
submitted
by
academic,
industry,
and
state
government
commenters
along
with
the
candidate
damage
case
information
submitted
by
the
public
interest
group
commenter.
Based
on
this
review
and
the
damage
case
search
conducted
in
support
of
the
Report
to
Congress,
EPA
still
has
not
identified
any
minefill
sites
with
documentation
of
environmental
damage
sufficient
to
meet
its
"
test
of
proof"
for
a
damage
case.
The
Agency
notes,
however,
some
case
studies
(
including
two
of
the
candidate
damage
cases
submitted
by
the
public
interest
group
commenters)
in
which
the
available
data
are
suggestive
(
although
not
conclusive)
of
environmental
impact
from
FFC
waste
placement.
The
Agency
also
notes
a
number
of
case
studies
in
which
the
available
data
suggest
an
environmental
benefit
from
FFC
waste
placement
and
reiterates
the
statement
made
several
times
above
that
the
results
of
minefilling
are
highly
site­
specific.
We
also
recognize
that
minefilling
is
a
relatively
recent
practice,
and
that
it
may
be
too
soon
to
identify
damage
cases
that
occur
over
an
extended
period
of
time.
This
is
another
reason
suggesting
that
minefilling
be
approached
in
an
environmentally
protective
manner
to
avoid
future
damages.
The
national
regulations
will
address
monitoring
and
oversight
of
minefilling
practices.

Based
on
materials
submitted
during
the
public
comment
period,
coal
combustion
wastes
used
as
minefill
can
lead
to
increases
in
the
quantity
of
hazardous
metals
released
into
ground
water
if
the
acidity
within
the
mine
overwhelms
the
capacity
of
the
coal
combustion
wastes
to
neutralize
the
acidic
conditions.
This
is
due
to
the
increased
leaching
of
hazardous
metals
from
the
wastes.
The
potential
for
this
to
occur
is
further
supported
by
data
showing
that
management
of
coal
combustion
wastes
in
the
presence
of
acid­
generating
pyritic
wastes
has
caused
metals
to
leach
from
the
combustion
wastes
at
much
higher
levels
than
are
predicted
by
leach
test
data
for
coal
combustion
wastes
when
strongly
acidic
conditions
are
not
present.
Such
strongly
acidic
conditions
often
exist
at
mining
sites.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
89
VII
­
89
VII.
MINEFILL
F.
Frequency
of
Damage
Cases
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Furthermore,
since
none
of
these
damage
cases
involve
the
beneficial
use
of
CCPs,
either
for
agricultural
purposes
or
for
minefill,
there
is
no
basis
for
even
considering
subjecting
CCPs
beneficially
used
for
these
purposes
to
Subtitle
C
regulation.
(
NMA00024)

The
Report
to
Congress
is
devoid
of
damage
cases
addressing
use
of
CCPs
for
agricultural
purposes
or
minefill.
(
NMA00024)

The
fact
that
EPA
has
found
no
proven
damage
cases
indicates
that
the
combination
of
sound
management
practices
and
existing
regulatory
oversight
has
responsibly
addressed
any
significant
risks
that
might
exist.
(
USWAG00037)

Furthermore,
the
existing
data
indicate
that
elevated
levels
of
constituents
in
ground
and
surface
water
discharges,
when
they
occur,
are
principally
the
result
of
mining
activity,
not
from
the
placement
of
CCPs
in
the
post­
mining
environment.
(
USWAG00037)

Simply
put,
we
have
not
been
able
to
find
a
single
case
of
beneficial
use
of
industrial
combustion
ash
for
mine
reclamation
that
has
caused
deterioration
of
the
environmental
structures
of
concern.
In
most
cases
there
is
a
significant
net
benefit
over
not
using
ash
to
reclaim,
stabilize,
and
ameliorate
acid
drainage
from
abandoned
mines.
(
CIBO00052)

In
Indiana,
the
state
agency
that
regulates
mining,
the
IDNR,
believes
that
rampant
CCW
disposal
in
post
SMCRA
mines
can't
worsen
the
water
quality
that
is
already
in
them.
Yet
according
to
IDNR
submittals
to
HEC,
it
has
only
begun
requiring
the
installation
of
monitoring
wells
on
any
consistent
basis
in
spoil
at
mines
regulated
under
SMCRA
in
the
last
ten
years,
electing
not
to
require
any
such
monitoring
at
the
large
majority
of
post
SMCRA
mines
it
regulates.
A
comparison
of
two
mines
that
have
wells
in
such
spoil
is
illustrative
...
[
the
commenter
provides
several
pages
of
case
study
information]
...
We
would
like
to
be
given
a
reasonable
period
to
furnish
additional
input
and
data
on
this
fundamental
issue
of
allowing
permanent
damage
of
strip
mine
lands.
(
HEC00056)

The
Report
concedes
that
minefilling
is
a
widespread
practice
yet
makes
no
attempt
to
define
it,
qualify
it
or
quantify
the
extent
of
this
practice.
(
HEC00056)

EPA's
lax
approach
toward
minefills
in
its
Draft
Determination
and
Report
to
Congress
stems
from
the
Agency's
failure
to
carry
out
a
crucially
important
assessment
of
actual
damages
from
CCW
and
other
fossil
fuel
wastes
throughout
the
country.
(
HEC00332)

The
Administrator
is
obligated
to
conduct
independent
inquiry
into
the
nature
and
scope
of
damage
associated
with
co­
disposal
of
coal
combustion
wastes
at
mining
operations
and
to
collect
such
data
as
is
necessary
to
support
the
conclusions
with
respect
to
regulation
or
non­
regulation.
(
NCCLP00282)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
90
VII
­
90
Yet
EPA
has
discounted
the
available
evidence
demonstrating
contamination,
and
assumes
erroneously
that
other
sites
have
no
contamination
because
no
data
exists
demonstrating
contamination.
In
truth,
many
of
the
disposal
sites
have
never
been
monitored
for
groundwater
impacts,
nor
have
surface
mining
permits
contained
the
full
gamut
of
monitoring
parameters,
including
numerous
metals
and
radionuclides,
needed
to
fully
characterize
the
waste,
its
leachate,
and
its
mobility
in
the
chaotic
hydrogeologic
environment
of
an
active
or
"
reclaimed"
mining
operation.
(
NCCLP00282)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
91
VII
­
91
VII.
MINEFILL
G.
Economic
Impacts
of
Restricting
Minefilling
Various
industry
and
state
agency
commenters
suggested
that
the
costs
of
minefill
regulations
or
guidance
were
not
considered
by
EPA.
These
commenters
argued
that
imposition
of
regulations
would
have
an
unreasonable
cost
and/
or
economic
impact.
One
commenter
cited
a
cost
of
$
30
million
dollars
at
one
facility
if
minefilling
were
prohibited.
Another
commenter
stated
that
the
impact
on
Pennsylvania's
waste
coal
plants
would
be
at
least
$
312,500,000.
Some
of
the
commenters
stated
that
minefilling
with
FFC
wastes
may
provide
the
best
or
only
economic
alternative
in
some
cases
of
abandoned
mine
land
reclamation,
and
that
these
applications
would
become
impossible
(
e.
g.,
in
Pennsylvania)
if
certain
restrictions
were
imposed
(
or,
for
example,
if
operators
were
required
to
pay
for
greenfield
development
of
landfill
capacity
and
simultaneously
bear
the
costs
of
reclamation
of
mine
lands).
One
of
the
industry
commenters
indicated
that
Midwestern
coal
producers
would
be
put
at
risk
by
a
prohibition
on
minefilling.
Other
industry
and
state
commenters
specifically
expressed
concern
that
Subtitle
C
regulations
would
discourage
reuse
and
recycling
programs,
to
both
economic
and
environmental
detriment.

Response:
Today's
decision
does
not
prohibit
minefilling.
We
will
establish
national
regulations
applicable
to
the
placement
of
combustion
wastes
in
surface
and
underground
mines.
We
believe
that
the
cost
of
complying
with
regulations
that
address
potential
dangers
will
not
have
a
substantial
impact
on
this
practice,
because
minefilling
is
flourishing
in
those
states
that
now
have
comprehensive
programs.
Transportation
and
other
costs
and
possible
burdens
of
various
alternatives
will
be
considered.
As
stated
elsewhere
in
these
responses,
we
intend
to
develop
regulations
that
take
full
advantage
of
the
flexibility
available
to
the
Agency
under
RCRA
authorities.
Analysis
of
the
economic
impacts
of
the
proposed
regulations,
as
well
as
alternative
approaches,
will
be
an
integral
component
of
the
upcoming
rulemaking.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
92
VII
­
92
VII.
MINEFILL
G.
Economic
Impacts
of
Restricting
Minefilling
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Subtitle
C
regulation
would
not
effectively
address
the
issues
associated
with
CCP
placement
in
mines
at
reasonable
costs.
(
IEU00018)

In
addition,
the
economic
incentives
for
using
CCP
as
minefill
are
marginal
due
to
the
significant
transportation
costs
and
regulatory
compliance
costs
that
are
currently
in
place,
and
any
additional
regulatory
burden
could
easily
tip
the
balance
away
from
using
CCP
as
minefill.
(
IEU00018)

EPA's
suggested
use
of
lined
landfills
is
not
a
feasible
alternative
to
beneficial
use
of
FBC
ash
in
minefilling
and
soil
amendments
for
the
two
Pennsylvania
facilities,
which
now
devote
100
percent
of
their
ash
generation
for
these
uses.
By
excavating
and
removing
the
culm
banks
and
gob
piles,
PG&
E
Gen's
fuels
supplier
acquires
the
reclamation
responsibility
for
the
waste
coal
site.
(
PG&
E00023)

As
described
above,
the
Report
to
Congress
does
not
appreciate
the
symmetry
of
the
reclamation
and
remining
in
waste
coal
reuse
projects
because
it
concludes
that
landfilling
could
be
accomplished
for
an
additional
aggregate
$
52
million
per
year.
Even
if
this
number
was
correct,
and
PG&
E
Gen
believes
it
is
very
much
understated,
it
leaves
out
the
additional
cost
of
paying
for
alternative
materials
to
complete
the
regulatory­
required
reclamation
obligation,
costs
estimated
at
$
15,000­$
20,000
per
acre.
(
PG&
E00023)

Also
not
included
in
EPA's
evaluation
of
costs
is
the
impact
on
the
communities
from
the
loss
of
good
jobs
suited
to
the
skills
of
a
workforce
still
suffering
from
the
continuing
depression
of
the
coal
industry,
if
these
remining
and
reclamation
projects
are
not
undertaken
by
CFB
facilities.
(
PG&
E00023)

The
viability
of
the
FBC
waste­
coal
industry
in
Pennsylvania
depends
on
the
ability
to
remove
the
waste
coal
and
achieve
the
reclamation
standards
required
under
state
and
federal
environmental
laws
at
reasonable
and
manageable
costs.
Placing
the
FBC
ash
in
a
landfill
means
the
facility
will
have
to
pay
for
ash
disposal
and
pay
again
to
obtain
inferior
fill
and
soil
materials
to
reclaim
the
mine
site
from
which
fuels
were
excavated.
(
PG&
E00023)

Realistically,
if
mining
reclamation
with
FBC
ash
is
prohibited
or
burdened
with
additional
regulatory
burdens,
the
FBC
plants
will
not
be
viable
and
will
not
be
able
to
continue
operating
under
their
current
conditions.
(
PG&
E00023)

Imposition
of
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
rules
would
severely
restrict,
if
not
totally
stop,
such
uses.
(
NMA00024)

Any
action
curbing
beneficial
use
of
coal
combustion
products
will
have
a
cost
to
the
environment
because:
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
93
VII
­
93
°
Virgin
materials
will
be
needed
to
supply
needs
that
could
be
met
by
recycled
coal
combustion
products
thus
exposing
the
environment
to
avoidable
resource
draw
and
disruption;
°
Materials
that
could
be
recycled
will
consume
landfill
space
in
the
environment;
°
The
finite
pool
of
environmental
protection
dollars
that
can
be
drawn
from
the
economy
with
acceptable
competitive
and
lifestyle
consequences
will
be
utilized
for
actions
that
provide
no
net
benefit
to
the
environment
while
opportunities
to
make
a
real
difference
still
exist.
(
NMA00024A)

EPA
considered
only
the
incremental
cost
difference
of
the
ash
management
facility.
EPA
is
considering
a
ban
on
minefill
applications.
The
cost
of
materials
handling
and
haulage
to
offsite
disposal
or
utilization
facilities
can
be
a
significant
cost
and
the
size
of
that
cost
is
impacted
by
where
the
ash
is
hauled
to.
Many
FBC
units
and
rural
electric
cooperatives
in
the
Midwest
haul
ash
back
to
the
minesites
from
which
the
buy
their
coal
(
or
to
a
site
only
a
few
miles
way).
This
means
that
the
ash
can
be
moved
on
a
"
back­
haul"
which
costs
only
about
1/
3rd
of
the
cost
of
a
"
front­
haul"
to
another
equidistant
site
...
Thus
there
is
about
a
20%
increase
in
cost
or
the
same
utility
is
now
loosing
76%
of
its
generation
earnings.
(
NMA00024A)

Dr.
Paul's
analysis
indicates
that
some
Midwestern
coal
producers
could
be
put
at
risk
by
an
EPA
prohibition
on
the
use
of
CCPs
for
minefilling
practices.
(
NMA00024)

A
ban
or
major
handling
cost
increase
on
minefills
will
eliminate
the
economic
viability
of
many
Midwestern
coal
producers.
EPA
failed
to
consider
one
other
group.
Many
Midwestern
coal
producers
are
struggling
to
remain
economically
viable.
They
recognize
that
the
utilities
they
supply
must
have
a
low
fuel
cost
to
maximize
their
competitive
posture
for
marginal
generation
cost
(
which
will
control
dispatch
cost).
These
coal
producers
may
take
a
very
low
margin
on
the
coal
they
sell
in
order
to
provide
a
price
per
million
BTU
that
is
competitive.
The
coal
mines,
however,
can
integrate
ash
management
with
mining
operations
and
even
reduce
their
reclamation
expenses.
This
allows
coal
producers
to
reduce
utilities
ash
management
costs
while
at
the
same
time
providing
an
earnings
margin
to
the
coal
company.
In
short,
many
Midwestern
coal
companies
are
making
their
profit
on
the
ash,
not
the
coal.
A
ban
on
minefill
applications
alluded
to
in
the
Report
to
Congress
will
shut
these
mining
operations
down
with
devastating
impact
on
the
rural
communities
they
serve.
(
NMA00024A)

EPA
failed
to
consider
the
economic
benefits
that
will
be
lost
to
end
users
of
coal
combustion
products
if
regulations
impedes
recycling.
Most
businesses
that
are
now
using
coal
combustion
products
are
doing
so
because
it
is
more
economically
viable
than
competing
new
materials.
Taking
away
the
ability
to
use
low
cost
flowable
fills,
liming
reagents,
and
gound
and
subsidence
control
materials
will
raise
costs
to
mining,
agriculture,
and
construction.
With
the
currently
low
margins
in
mining
and
agriculture
these
costs
may
again
be
critical
to
the
economic
viability
of
entire
regional
businesses
classes.
(
NMA00024A)

A
decision
by
the
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
would
jeopardize
all
of
these
operations.
Prohibitively
high
ash
disposal
sites
would
result
in
the
closure
of
many
of
these
facilities,
with
adverse
environmental
and
economic
consequences
for
dozens
of
small
communities.
(
PAC00029)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
94
VII
­
94
On
the
other
hand,
managing
these
materials
under
RCRA
will
have
compound
costs,
both
in
terms
of
material
disposal
and,
in
many
cases,
in
the
use
of
alternate
materials
and
strategies
to
achieve
the
environmental
benefits
provided
by
coal
ash.
PCA
believes
EPA
has
underestimated
these
costs.
(
PCA00034)

Requiring
overly
stringent
blanket
regulations
could
result
in
expensive,
unnecessary,
and
least
beneficial
landfilling
of
CCB
products.
(
MDE00047)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
would
jeopardize
the
comprehensive
restoration
effort
throughout
the
coal­
bearing
regions
of
Pennsylvania.
As
per
my
understanding,
this
regulation
would
create
prohibitively
high
ash
disposal
costs
which
would
result
in
the
closure
of
many
generating
facilities,
with
adverse
environmental
and
economic
consequences
for
dozens
of
small
communities.
(
STR00050)

Further,
waste
minimization
through
ash
reuse
would
be
impeded
with
blanket
regulations
that
would
restrict
certain
applications
unnecessarily.
(
CIBO00052)

If
mine
area
disposal
was
eliminated
as
an
option
for
these
wastes,
we
estimate
that
installation
and
operation
of
an
above­
grade
landfill
to
manage
the
wastes
would
add
over
$
30
million
in
capital
and
operating
costs
over
the
life
of
one
of
our
facilities.
(
TXU00053)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste­
coal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
would
likely
cause
the
mine
reclamation
activities
of
Pennsylvania's
waste­
coal
power
industry
to
cease.
Prohibitively
high
ash
disposal
costs
that
approach
a
7,500
percent
increase
over
today's
cost
levels
would
render
many
of
the
power
production
facilities
economically
unfeasible
to
operate.
(
PADEP00246)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
designate
waste
coal
ash
used
in
mine
reclamation
as
a
hazardous
waste
most
certainly
will
result
in
a
dramatic
increase
in
the
cost
and
complexity
of
mine
reclamation
projects
in
Pennsylvania.
(
PA00247)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
materials
would
jeopardize
these
critical
operations
to
reclaim
abandoned
mine
lands.
(
EPACAMR00248)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
would
jeopardize
these
operations.
(
PCLP00249)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
goal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
could
jeopardize
these
operations.
(
PAEC00251)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
would
jeopardize
these
operations.
In
some
cases,
ash
disposal
costs
would
increase
by
more
than
7,500
percent
resulting
in
the
closure
of
many
of
these
facilities,
creating
adverse
environmental
and
economical
consequences
for
dozens
of
small
communities
across
the
state.
(
G&
L00252)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
95
VII
­
95
A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
would
jeopardize
these
operations.
In
some
cases,
ash
disposal
costs
would
increase
by
more
than
7,500
percent
resulting
in
the
closure
of
many
of
these
facilities,
creating
adverse
environmental
and
economic
consequences
for
dozens
of
small
communities
across
the
state.
(
PA00253)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
would
jeopardize
these
operations.
In
some
cases,
ash
disposal
costs
would
increase
by
more
than
7,500
percent
resulting
in
the
closure
of
many
of
these
facilities.
creating
adverse
environmental
and
economic
consequences
for
dozens
of
small
communities
across
the
state.
(
CIN00254)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
would
jeopardize
these
operations.
In
some
cases,
ash
disposal
costs
would
increase
by
more
that
7,500
percent
resulting
in
the
closure
of
many
of
these
facilities,
creating
adverse
environmental
and
economic
consequences
for
dozens
of
small
communities
across
the
state.
(
EPC00255)

Regarding
cost,
EPA
estimated
the
incremental
cost
of
requiring
FBC
ash
currently
used
for
mine
reclamation
and
agriculture
to
be
disposed
in
commercial.
Subtitle
D
landfill
as
$
52
million
per
year
nationwide.
This
estimate
is
far
below
the
actual
incremental
cost.
ARIPPA
understands
that
the
cost
of
disposing
a
ton
of
material
at
a
commercial
Subtitle
D
landfill
is
$
45
­
90
per
ton
at
current
rates.
Taking
the
mid­
range
of
$
67.50
per
ton,
the
cost
of
landfilling
the
500,000
tons
of
material
that
is
produced
annually
by
Pennsylvania's
waste
coal
plants'
would
be
$
337,500,000
per
year.
Assuming
an
internal
cost
of
mine
reclamation
of
$
5.00
per
ton,
the
incremental
cost
would
be
$
62.50
per
ton,
or
$
312,500,000
per
year
for
Pennsylvania's
waste
coal
plants
alone.
This
incremental
cost
is
approximately
75%
of
the
estimated
total
annual
revenue
of
Pennsylvania's
waste
coal
plants.
The
impact
of
imposing
additional
costs
equal
to
75%
of
an
industry's
total
revenue
is
obvious.
(
ARIPPA00273)

The
cost
of
disposing
a
ton
of
material
in
a
Subtitle
C
landfill
is,
we
understand,
$
155
­
170
per
ton.
At
this
rate,
the
cost
of
land
filling
the
5,000,000
tons
of
ash
produced
annually
by
Pennsylvania's
waste
coal
plants
would
be
$
775,000,000
to
850,000,000
per
year.
This
cost
exceeds
our
industry's
total
collective
revenues.
(
ARIPPA00273)

Requiring
that
the
landfilling
of
the
ash
produced
by
Pennsylvania's
waste
coal
plants
in
either
a
Subtitle
C
or
Subtitle
D
landfill
would,
by
definition,
stop
the
reclamation
work
that
these
plants
currently
are
performing.
The
reclamation
work
that
the
waste
coal
plants
are
performing
has
broad
public
support
in
Pennsylvania,
as
evidenced
by
letters
that
have
been
submitted
to
EPA
by,
among
others,
the
Pennsylvania
Environmental
Council,
the
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection,
the
Joint
Legislative
Air
&
Water
Pollution
Control
and
Conservation
Committee,
the
Majority
and
Minority
Chairman
of
the
Senate
Environmental
Resources
Committee,
the
Chairman
of
the
House
Environmental
Resources
Committee,
and
other
individual
legislators.
Copies
of
these
letters
are
attached
hereto
as
Appendix
IV.
(
ARIPPA00273)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
96
VII
­
96
PG&
E
Gen
notes
that
serious
consequences
would
result
if
agricultural
amendments
or
minefilling
activities
were
regulated
under
Subtitle
C.
Among
these
consequences
are
severe
economic
impacts,
including
the
likely
closure
of
several
power
generation
facilities.
(
PG&
E00274)

In
the
current
competitive
electric
generating
marketplace,
there
can
be
significant
economic
impact
to
the
industries
and
communities
but,
equally
important,
there
would
be
significant
negative
environmental
impacts
if
mine
reclamation
or
agricultural
amendment
uses
of
this
ash
were
to
cease
due
to
hazardous
waste
regulations.
(
PG&
E00274)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
coa1
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
would
jeopardize
these
operations.
In
some
cases,
ash
disposal
costs
would
increase
by
more
than
7,500
percent
resulting
in
the
closure
of
many
of
these
facilities,
creating
adverse
environmental
and
economic
consequences
for
dozens
of
small
communities
across
the
state.
(
FW00277)

A
decision
by
the
EPA
to
designate
waste
coal
ash
used
in
mine
reclamation
fi
as
a
hazardous
waste
will
increase
the
cost
and
complexity
of
mine
reclamation
projects
in
Pennsylvania.
Increased
regulation
on
coal
ash
will
prevent
its
beneficial
application
in
mine
reclamation
and
discourage
the
cleanup
of
unsightly
and
dangerous
coal
piles.
(
PA00293)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
a
hazardous
waste
would
seriously
jeopardize
these
operations.
(
PA00296)

Such
a
designation
would
be
a
devastating
blow
to
the
continued
operation
of
the
fourteen
waste
coal­
fueled
Circulating
Fluidized
Bed
(
CFB)
Boiler
equipped
electric
power
plants
now
operating
in
Pennsylvania
as
well
as
to
the
coal­
fueled
CFB
equipped
plants
operating
in
West
Virginia,
California,
New
York,
Colorado
and
Utah.
(
GPC00297)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
would
jeopardize
these'
operations.
In
some
cases,
ash
disposal
costs
would
increase
by
more
than
7,500
percent
resulting
in
the
closure
of
many
of
these
facilities,
creating
adverse
environmental
and
economic
consequences
for
dozens
of
small
communities
across
the
state.
(
KCC00298)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
would
jeopardize
these'
operations.
In
some
cases,
ash
disposal
costs
would
increase
by
&
ore
than
7,500
percent
resulting
in
the
closure
of
many
of
these
facilities,
creating
adverse
environmental
and
economic
consequences
for
dozens
of
small
communities
across
the
state.
(
SMC00299)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
would
jeopardize
these
operations.
In
some
cases,
ash
disposal
costs
would
increase
by
more
than
7,500
percent
resulting
in
the
closure
of
many
of
these
facilities,
creating
adverse
environmental
and
economic
consequences
for
dozens
of
small
communities.
(
PA00300)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
97
VII
­
97
A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
would
jeopardize
these
operations.
(
PA00301)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
would
jeopardize
these
operations.
In
some
cases,
ash
disposal
costs
would
increase
by
more
than
7,500
percent
resulting
in
the
closure
of
many
of
these
facilities,
creating
adverse
environmental
and
economic
consequences
for
dozens
of
small
communities
across
the
state.
(
PA00302)

An
EPA
decision
to
regulate
this
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
would
seriously
undercut
efforts
to
generate
power
and
reclaim
current
waste
coal
sites.
It
is
projected
that
ash
disposal
costs
would
increase
more
than
7,500
percent­
closing
many
facilities
and
greatly
impacting
the
wide­
ranging
advantages
seen
through
these
programs.
(
PA00305)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
would
jeopardize
these
operations.
In
some
cases,
ash
disposal
costs
would
increase
by
more
than
7,500
percent
resulting
in
the
closure
of
many
of
these
facilities,
creating
adverse
environmental
and
economic
consequences
for
dozens
of
small
communities
across
the
state.
(
ACV00307)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
would
jeopardize
these
operations.
In
some
cases,
ash
disposal
costs
would
increase
by
more
than
7,500
percent
resulting
in
the
closure
of
many
of
these
facilities,
creating
adverse
environmental
and
economic
consequences
for
dozens
of
small
communities
across
the
state.
(
TEGI00308)

Regulating
waste
coal
ash
in
this
way
would
have
far
reaching
effects
on
Pennsylvania's
taxpayers
and
the
state's
environment.
(
PA00368)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
as
hazardous
would
create
adverse
environmental
and
economic
consequences
for
dozens
of
small
communities
across
the
state.
(
AMI00372)

A
decision
by
the
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste
coal
ash
for
mine
reclamation
would
jeopardize
these
operations.
(
PAL0001)

I
am
writing
on
behalf
of
the
Pennsylvania
Mining
and
Reclamation
Advisory
Board
(
MRAB)
to
express
our
concern
about
a
potential
regulatory
determination
in
the
above­
captioned
proceeding
that
effectively
would
prohibit
the
use
of
ash
from
the
combustion
of
fossil
fuels
for
mine
reclamation.
Such
a
determination
would
be
very
detrimental
to
Pennsylvania's
efforts
to
clean
up
our
legacy
of
past
unregulated
mining.
(
PMRABL0003)

A
decision
by
the
Agency
to
regulate
the
beneficial
use
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
ash
for
mine
reclamation
under
Subtitle
C
would
remove
one
of
the
few
tools
available
to
us
for
reclaiming
abandoned
mine
lands,
and
would
lead
to
the
closure
of
the
waste
coal
plants
due
to
the
economic
impacts.
The
closure
of
the
plants
in
turn
would
result
in
eight
million
tons
of
coal
refuse
and
400
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
98
VII
­
98
acres
of
abandoned
surface
mines
per
year
remaining
unreclaimed
for
every
year
that
the
plants
would
have
operated.
(
PMRABL0003)

I
am
concerned
that
the
EPA
would
regulate
the
beneficial
use
of
these
wastes
in
a
more
rigorous
and
counterproductive
manner.
The
scientific
models
and
risk
analysis
criteria
for
human
health
and
ecological
pathways
used
in
EPA's
analysis
seem
to
be
extremely
conservative
and
lean
toward
regulatory
confinement
of
these
materials
to
the
economic
detriment
of
the
common
beneficial
uses.
(
LCRAXXXX)

The
classification
of
CFB
ash
under
RCRA
will
be
counter
productive
to
the
future
ecological
and
human
health
of
the
region.
(
LRCAXXXX)

I
have
a
concern
with
the
tentative
recommendation
in
the
EPA
report
that
agricultural
and
mine
reclamation
use
of
FFCWs
be
limited
to
those
materials
with
As
concentrations
no
higher
than
that
found
in
agricultural
lime.
Such
a
restriction
would
severely
limit,
if
not
eliminate,
any
beneficial
use
of
these
materials
as
soil
amendments.
(
PSU00040)

By
contrast,
IDNR
believes
regulation
under
Subtitle
C
would
promote
a
"
one­
size
fits
all"
approach
that
will
discourage
recycling
of
coal
ash
and
thereby
encourage
the
continued
placement
of
coal
ash
in
Indiana's
floodplain
environments.
We
urge
you
to
affirm
that
state
regulatory
authorities
should
continue
to
regulate
placement
of
coal
ash
in
mine
sites
under
existing
state
programs.
(
IDNR00062)

Imposition
of
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
rules
would
severely
restrict,
if
not
totally
stop,
such
uses.
(
WVDEPL0003)

Due
to
the
geologic
and
hydrologic
characteristics
of
Indiana
surface
coal
mines,
a
ban
on
placement
of
coal
ash
below
the
water
table
would
in
fact
be
a
prohibition
on
disposal
of
coal
ash
disposal
many
midwestem
mines.
(
ICC00269)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
waste­
coal
ash
for
reclamation
as
hazardous
would
likely
cause
mine
reclamation
activities
to
cease,
which
would
impact
regional
water
quality.
(
ORBCL0002)

A
decision
by
EPA
to
regulate
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
coal
ash
for
reclamation
could
jeopardize
mine
reclamation
efforts.
This
could
impede
the
significant
progress
that
is
being
made
to
improve
water
quality
in
those
areas
of
the
Susquehanna
River
Basin
that
are
affected
by
past
mining
practices.
(
SRBCL0006)

We,
the
undersigned
members
of
the
Pennsylvania
Coal
Caucus,
comprised
of
members
of
the
Pennsylvania
Legislature
are
writing
to
express
our
concern
with
a
potential
regulatory
determination
in
the
above­
captioned
proceeding
that
effectively
would
prohibit
the
use
of
ash
from
the
combustion
of
fossil
fuels
for
mine
reclamation.
Such
a
determination
would
be
very
detrimental
to
Pennsylvania's
efforts
to
clean
up
our
legacy
of
past
unregulated
mining.
(
PCCL0007)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
99
VII
­
99
A
decision
by
your
Agency
to
regulate
the
beneficial
use
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
ash
for
mine
reclamation
under
Subtitle
C
would
remove
one
of
the
few
tools
available
to
us
for
reclaiming
abandoned
mine
lands,
and
would
lead
to
the
closure
of
the
waste
coal
plants
due
to
the
economic
impacts.
The
closure
of
the
plants
in
turn
would
result
in
8
million
tons
of
coal
refuse
and
400
acres
of
abandoned
surface
mines
per
year
remaining
unreclaimed
for
every
year
that
the
plants
have
operated.
The
legacy
of
such
a
decision
by
EPA
would
be
200
million
tons
of
coal
refuse
continuing
to
blight
our
landscape,
and
10,000
acres
of
abandoned
surface
mines
continuing
to
scar
our
environment.
(
PCCL0007)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
100
VII
­
100
VII.
MINEFILL
H.
Clarification
of
Minefill
Definition
One
federal
agency
commenter
noted
that
any
minefill
proposal
from
EPA
should
include
a
definition
of
minefill
practices
that
are
within
the
scope
of
the
proposed
rule,
noting
that
some
applications
of
FFC
wastes
in
mining
operations
are
too
small
to
warrant
attention.
One
public
interest
group
commenter
expressed
concern
that
the
determination
would
cover
coal
gasification
waste
and
allow
large
volumes
of
this
waste
to
be
"
dumped
into
ground
water"
through
minefilling.
The
commenter
purported
that
large
volumes
of
this
waste
currently
are
minefilled
under
coal
combustion
waste
provisions
of
state
regulations.
The
commenter
provided
information
on
coal
gasification,
including
site
summaries
for
coal
gasification
plants
on
the
National
Priorities
List.
Another
public
interest
group
commenter
expressed
concern
that
the
determination
would
allow
unregulated
minefilling
of
CCWs
mixed
with
municipal
incinerator
ash
and
east
coast
river
sediments
and
sludges.
A
citizen
commenter
was
concerned
that
the
determination
would
allow
industry
to
minefill
"
almost
anything"
and
call
it
CCW.

Another
public
interest
group
commenter
stated
that
the
use
of
the
term
minefill
to
cover
both
"
beneficial
use"
of
CCW
and
the
disposal
of
wastes
on
mine
sites
masks
the
economic
forces
which
result
in
such
disposal.
The
CCW
is
not
being
hauled
to
the
mine
because
of
the
beneficial
attributes
of
the
wastes
relative
to
the
alternatives
but
because
the
coal
companies
offer
the
backhauling
and
disposal
as
an
incentive
in
order
to
attract
buyers
in
an
increasingly
competitive
marketplace.
Another
public
interest
group
commenter
was
concerned
about
ambiguity
in
the
term
minefilling.
Without
common
understanding
as
to
what
the
word
minefilling
means,
one
cannot
expect
that
minefilling
will
be
regulated
well
or
with
consistency
across
states.
Federal
oversight
should
be
employed
to
ensure
that
common
definitions
are
used.

Response:
The
Agency
will
carefully
consider
the
definition
of
minefilling
during
regulation
development
and
address
it
in
the
proposal
so
that
all
stakeholders
have
full
opportunity
for
notice
and
comment.
The
Agency
will
consider
the
appropriateness
of
addressing
coal
gasification.
We
believe
that
addressing
the
complex
site­
specific
factors
relating
to
geology,
hydrology,
waste
chemistry
and
waste/
geochemistry
interactions,
as
well
as
other
relevant
factors
will
address
the
issues
raised
by
commenters.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
101
VII
­
101
VII.
MINEFILL
H.
Clarification
of
Minefill
Definition
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Because
of
the
costs
associated
with
underground
placement
of
CCW,
the
minefilling
of
CCW
at
abandoned
underground
mines
has
been
limited
to
cases
where
the
filling
of
selected
portions
of
the
abandoned
underground
workings
has
been
perceived
to
provide
a
potential
low­
cost
means
of
sealing
off
the
entrances
to
mine
workings
from
the
surface,
or
controlling
other
problems
such
mine
fires,
mine
subsidence,
or
acid
mine
drainage.
For
example,
the
injection
of
fly
ash
grouts
(
typically
greater
than
95
percent
fly
ash
and
5
percent
­
10
percent
cement)
into
boreholes
to
prevent
or
control
mine
subsidence
in
localized
areas
beneath
structures
and
roadways
has
become
a
fairly
routine
practice
over
the
past
30
years.
Stabilized
flue
gas
cleaning
wastes
have
also
seen
increased
recent
use
in
such
applications.
The
quantities
of
CCW
used
in
these
applications
are
typically
small,
and
the
mine
workings
are
typically
far
removed
from
drinking
water
sources.
States
may
require
that
the
CCW
be
chemically
characterized
to
confirm
their
non­
hazardous
nature,
but
minimal
environmental
monitoring
is
typically
performed
in
the
field.
DOE
questions
whether
it
would
be
appropriate
for
EPA
to
consider
such
small­
scale
grouting
projects
as
"
minefilling"
that
could
possibly
be
subject
to
control
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C.
(
DOE00020)

It
has
no
discussion
or
estimates
of
coal
gasification
wastes
(
also
called
manufactured
gas
plant
or
MGP
wastes)
generated
per
year.
In
Indiana,
regulators
within
the
Department
of
Natural
Resources
have
decided
that
the
wastes
from
one
coal
gasification
plant
are
coal
combustion
bottom
ash
and
without
any
public
notice
or
review
have
begun
dumping
120,000
tons
of
it
into
a
surface
mine
(
see
Attachment
).
EPA's
data
bases
are
replete
with
dozens
of
sites
throughout
Indiana
and
other
midwestern
states
that
contain
large
volumes
of
older
MGP
wastes,
many
of
which
are
seriously
contaminating
the
environment
(
see
Attachment
).
The
Report
does
not
recognize
the
potential
for
large
volumes
of
this
waste
to
be
dumped
into
ground
waters
as
"
coal
combustion
waste"
by
states
as
a
result
of
this
Determination.
(
HEC00056)

Our
very
real
concern
is
that
these
wastes
are
being
spread
and
plowed
over
as
`
reclamation
limes'­­
the
so­
called
`
alkaline
addition'
­­
that
is,
as
if
they
were
not
only
not
hazardous,
but
`
beneficial.'
You
and
I
both
know
that
the
heavy­
metal
wastes
and
the
radiation
contamination
alone
of
coal
ought
to
preclude
such
reckless
behavior
on
the
part
of
our
states.
Yet,
not
only
are
millions
of
tons
of
such
wastes
dumped
on
old
and
new
strip
jobs
across
our
region­­
but
because
of
the
mixed
wastes
loophole­­
we
are
having
municipal
incineration
waste
ashes
mixed
in
with
coal
ash
used
for
such
bogus
`
reclamations.'
(
PEACE00306)

Our
state
has
furthermore
embarked
on
a
disastrous
path
in
that
our
Governor
is
welcoming
the
millions
of
tons
more
of
east
coast
harbor
and
river
muds
and
sediments.
Once
more,
under
the
mixed
rule­
­
these
are
`
blended'
with
more
incinerator
ash­­
sky
high
in
lead,
cadmium
and
other
dangerous
materials­­
and
brought
into
our
state
to
spread
on
strip­
mined
land.
EPA's
own
National
Sediments
Survey
called
these
muds
Priority
One­­
most
likely
to
be
heavily
contaminated
with
DDT,
mercury,
PCBs.
Yet
thanks
to
the
weak
and
getting
weaker
regulations
on
coal
combustion
wastes­­
all
this
additional
polluted
material
is
heralded
as
magically
`
beneficial.'
(
PEACE00306)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
102
VII
­
102
Not
only
do
coal
companies
propose
to
dispose
of
bottom
ash,
fly
ash
and
scrubber
sludge
from
electrical
generating
stations,
they
propose
to
dispose
of
a
other
mine
wastes
that
there
may
be.
And
this
is
in
addition
to
wastes
which
mining
personnel
dump
into
the
pit
just
before
it
is
covered
over.
There
is
considerable
data
indicating
that
there
are
some
extremely
harmful
elements
in
generating
station
wastes
commonly
called
CCW's
or
Coal
Combustion
Wastes.
This
is
not
a
satisfactory
term
to
use
since
the
coal
operators
want
to
dispose
of
almost
anything
in
these
pits
and
call
them
CCW's.
(
CITZ00328)

The
presence
of
utility
plants
at
minesites
is
a
rare
occurrence
nationally,
and
the
coal
combustion
wastes
are
being
backhauled
and
disposed
of
in
mine
workings
(
including
both
underground
mine
voids
and
more
commonly,
in
surface
mine
backfills
or
spoil/
mine
waste
fills)
not
because
of
the
beneficial
attributes
of
the
wastes
relative
to
other
materials
or
the
lack
of
alternatives
available
to
utilities
and
non­
utility
customers
for
coal
combustion
waste
disposal,
but
because
the
coal
companies
offer
the
backhauling
and
disposal
as
a
"
service"
or
incentive
in
order
to
attract
buyers
for
their
coal
in
an
increasingly
competitive
marketplace.
(
NCCLP00282)

As
one
example,
based
on
the
March
Report
and
the
comments
received
in
response
to
it,
it
is
apparent
that
the
term
minefilling
has
many
meanings.
In
some
cases.
commenters
treat
it
as
surface
mine
reclamation,
others
assume
it
means
activities
to
reduce
acid
mine
drainage,
some
defend
its
role
in
mine
subsidence,
others
assume
it
means
disposing
of
wastes
in
underground
mineshafts.
If
there
remains
ambiguity
at
this
entry
point;
if
there
is
not
a
common
understanding
as
to
what
the
word
minefilling
means.
one
cannot
expect
that
minefilling
will
be
regulated
well
or
with
consistency
across
states
in
the
US.
(
ALA00292)

Taking
federal
action
in
no
way
means
developing
a
one­
size­
fits
all
law.
Instead,
federal
oversight
will
make
sure
that
the
same
questions
are
being
answered
independently
of
the
location
of
the
minesite.
Additionally,
it
will
insure
that
common
definitions
are
used.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
103
VII
­
103
VII.
MINEFILL
I.
Minefill
Risk
Modeling
A
few
commenters
offered
specific
criticisms
of
the
ground­
water
risk
modeling
of
minefills
that
was
presented
in
the
background
documents
for
the
Report
to
Congress.

Response:
EPA
performed
some
limited
modeling
of
minefill
scenarios
during
its
early
ground­
water
risk
assessment.
While
the
results
of
this
preliminary
modeling
were
presented
in
background
documents,
EPA
concluded
in
the
Report
to
Congress
that
the
available
tools
were
not
suitable
for
modeling
underground
and
surface
mine
situations
because,
for
example,
they
are
not
able
to
account
for
conditions
such
as
fractured
flow
that
are
typical
of
the
hydrogeology
associated
with
mining
operations.
Therefore,
EPA
has
chosen
not
to
rely
on
the
preliminary
minefill
risk
modeling
presented
in
the
background
documents
in
making
its
Regulatory
Determination.
EPA,
as
noted
in
the
discussions
of
risk
modeling,
will
revisit
this
issue
if
the
model
review
warrants.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
104
VII
­
104
VII.
MINEFILL
I.
Minefill
Risk
Modeling
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
geochemistry
of
the
reactions
that
will
be
expected
in
the
disposal
of
coal
combustion
waste
in
mine
spoil
and
the
final
water
quality
to
be
expected
at
a
receptor
well
is
an
issue
EPA
made
a
valiant
effort
to
model.
That
model,
however,
has
some
unfortunate
shortcomings
which,
hopefully,
are
remediable.
(
NMA00024B)

The
fundamentals
of
the
chemistry
are
not
adequately
considered
in
the
EPA
modeling
(
EPACMTP).
The
modeling
produced
similar
results
for
the
metals
and
arsenic
in
particular
for
a
landfill
and
a
minefill.
After
review
of
the
inputs
for
the
model
(
Appendix
A
of
the
Risk
Report),
the
values
used
in
the
modeling
for
recharge
and
for
the
content
of
organic
carbon
were
less
in
the
minefill
than
in
the
landfill
and
the
values
for
the
content
of
iron
in
the
unsaturated
and
the
saturated
zones
were
the
same
for
both.
All
of
these
inputs
are,
at
the
very
least,
arguably
incorrect
in
the
direction
which
would
lead
to
higher
final
values
for
metals,
especially
arsenic.
Finally,
the
value
(
9.65
ppm)
assumed
for
the
starting
concentration
of
the
arsenic
in
the
minefill
and
the
landfill
is
roughly
twice
the
hazardous­
waste
standard
(
5
ppm).
This
assumption,
while
fine
for
an
initial
study
looking
at
the
distribution
of
metals
in
the
overall
category
of
combustion
wastes,
is
contrary
to
what
the
states
would
allow.
A
fairer
representation
of
the
conditions
in
a
minefill,
especially
the
recharge
and
the
iron,
would
lead
to
even
more
dramatically
lower
numbers
for
the
minefill
environment.
The
risk
associated
with
the
expected
concentration
of
arsenic
should
be
less
for
mine
spoil
environments
than
for
landfills.
The
modeling
is
not
representative
of
the
minefill
environment.
(
NMA00024B)

Dr.
Banaszak's
analysis
of
EPA's
input
values
for
modeling
arsenic
levels
for
a
landfill
and
a
minefill
determined
that
EPA
incorrectly
failed
to
account
for
the
presence
of
iron
oxides
in
the
minefill
scenarios,
but
assumed
the
presence
of
iron
oxides
in
the
landfill
scenario.
According
to
Dr.
Banaszak,
iron
hydroxide
is
the
single
most
effective
remover
of
arsenic
from
solution;
failure
to
account
for
such
iron
oxides
in
the
minefill
scenario
leaves
the
buffering
affects
unaccounted
for,
resulting
in
unrealistic
arsenic
levels.
Dr.
Banaszak
suggests
that
if
EPA
were
to
rerun
the
minefill
model
accounting
for
the
appropriate
iron
oxide
levels,
the
resulting
levels
of
arsenic
expected
in
a
minefill
scenario
would
not
exceed
and
could
very
well
be
considerably
less
than,
the
levels
of
arsenic
predicted
in
a
landfill
scenario.
Dr.
Banaszak's
analysis
also
concluded
that
EPA
wrongly
assumed
a
starting
concentration
of
the
arsenic
at
roughly
twice
the
hazardous
waste
standard,
contrary
to
all
state
regulations
and
therefore
a
level
that
would
likely
never
occur.
(
NMA00024)

Predictions
with
a
Monte
Carlo
model
(
such
as
EPA
used)
are
not
valuable
unless
mine
locations
are
considered.
(
CIBO00052)

The
modeling
activities
of
EPA
also
did
not
take
into
consideration
the
physical
characteristics
of
the
engineered
ash
minefills.
A
properly
placed
FBC
minefill
develops
physical
characteristics
that
begin
to
approach
the
properties
of
portland
cement
concrete;
modest
strength
[
1200
psi
to
4500
psi],
a
monolithic
structure
[
i.
e.
minimization
of
surface
area
for
contacting
waters]
and
low
hydraulic
conductivity
[
10­
5
to
10­
7cm/
sec].
All
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
105
VII
­
105
of
these
characteristics
contribute
to
a
significant
reduction
of
labile
metals
to
contacting
groundwater.
In
contrast,
the
EPA
modelers
assumed
a
lateral
hydraulic
conductivity
for
the
placed
ash
of
300m/
y
[
1
x
10­
3cm/
sec]
which
is
fully
2­
to
3­
orders
of
magnitude
larger
than
what
might
be
anticipated
in
engineered
minefills
composed
of
FBC
ash.
(
ARIPPA00019)

I
am
concerned
that
the
EPA
would
regulate
the
beneficial
use
of
these
wastes
in
a
more
rigorous
and
counterproductive
manner.
The
scientific
models
and
risk
analysis
criteria
for
human
health
and
ecological
pathways
used
in
EPA's
analysis
seem
to
be
extremely
conservative
and
lean
toward
regulatory
confinement
of
these
materials
to
the
economic
detriment
of
the
common
beneficial
uses.
(
LRCAXXXX)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
106
VII
­
106
VII.
MINEFILL
J.
Coordination
with
Other
Agencies
One
federal
government
commenter
requested
the
opportunity
to
work
with
EPA
in
evaluating
what
controls
might
be
appropriate
for
the
use
of
coal
combustion
wastes
in
mine
reclamation.

Response:
EPA
plans
to
work
with
the
Department
of
the
Interior's
Office
of
Surface
Mining,
DOE
and
all
other
stakeholders
as
it
develops
regulations
to
implement
this
decision
concerning
minefilling.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
107
VII
­
107
VII.
MINEFILL
J.
Coordination
with
Other
Agencies
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
We
also
request
the
opportunity
to
work
with
EPA
in
evaluating
what
controls
might
be
appropriate
for
the
use
of
CCBs
in
mine
reclamation.
(
OSM00283)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
VIII
­
1
VIII.
AGRICULTURAL
USE
The
Report
to
Congress
noted
that
EPA
found
risk
at
the
10­
5
level
associated
with
agricultural
application
of
FFC
wastes.
Based
on
this
preliminary
finding,
EPA
tentatively
proposed
to
regulate
agricultural
practices
or
encourage
voluntary
limitations
on
practices,
limiting
the
arsenic
content
in
wastes
to
be
land
applied.
In
addition,
EPA
proposed
that
such
limitations
or
regulations
would
extend
to
large­
volume
wastes
managed
alone
(
i.
e.,
Part
1
wastes).

Comments
were
received
on
both
sides
of
this
issue.
Many
industry,
academic,
state
government,
and
federal
agency
commenters
disagreed
with
EPA's
tentative
conclusion.
They
indicated
that
EPA
used
unrealistically
conservative
levels
for
four
key
inputs
used
in
our
risk
analysis
and
that
use
of
a
realistic
level
for
any
one
of
these
inputs
would
result
in
a
risk
level
less
than
1
x
10­
6.
The
four
inputs
identified
by
the
commenters
were:
application
rate
of
the
wastes
to
the
land,
the
rate
of
soil
ingestion
by
children,
the
bioavailability
of
arsenic
and
the
phytoavailability
of
arsenic.

These
commenters
further
recommended
that
EPA
not
regulate
or
encourage
voluntary
restrictions
because:
o
agricultural
use
of
coal
combustion
wastes
creates
no
adverse
environmental
impacts
and
EPA
identified
no
damage
cases
associated
with
this
practice;
o
agricultural
use
of
these
wastes
has
significant
technical
and
economic
benefits;
o
federal
controls
would
be
unnecessarily
costly
and
would
create
a
barrier
for
research
and
development
on
the
practice;
o
existing
regulatory
programs
are
sufficient
to
control
any
risks
from
this
practice;
and
o
the
limits
suggested
in
the
RTC
for
arsenic
levels
in
coal
combustion
wastes
are
inconsistent
with
limits
applied
to
other
materials
used
in
agriculture.

A
public
interest
group
commenter
urged
the
Agency
to
apply
restrictions
to
the
use
of
FFC
wastes
in
agriculture
because
of
concerns
that
the
Agency's
analysis
of
the
risks
and
benefits
of
this
practice
was
inadequate,
as
discussed
in
more
detail
under
the
sub­
topics
below.
This
commenter
further
suggested
EPA
should
ban
the
application
of
conventional
coal
combustion
wastes,
and
apply
sewage
sludge
arsenic
limits
to
the
application
wastes
generated
by
fluidized
bed
combustors,
which
add
lime
as
part
of
the
process.
One
academic
commenter,
while
disagreeing
with
aspects
of
the
Agency's
analysis,
indicated
that
it
would
not
be
unreasonable
for
some
sort
of
quality
control
to
be
applied
using
a
regional
approach.

Response:
In
the
RTC
we
expressed
concern
over
potential
risks
presented
by
agricultural
use.
We
now
believe
our
previous
analysis
assumed
one
unrealistically
high
model
input,
and
that
the
risk
across
all
reasonable
scenarios,
which
we
now
estimate
at
high
end
to
be
approximately
3X10­
6
,
does
not
now
warrant
regulation
of
coal
combustion
wastes
that
are
used
in
agricultural
applications.
This
reduction
in
risk
is
based
on
reducing
one
of
the
key
inputs
identified
by
commenters,
the
soil
ingestion
rate
for
exposed
children.
The
three
other
inputs
identified
by
commenters
as
driving
this
analysis
were
also
re­
examined
and
EPA
believes
no
change
to
these
is
warranted.
This
re­
analysis
is
explained
next.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
2
VIII
­
2
Upon
further
review
of
the
Agency's
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
(
EFH),
we
decided
to
model
a
children's
soil
ingestion
rate
of
0.4
grams
per
day
instead
of
the
1.4
grams
per
day
that
underlay
the
results
given
on
the
RTC.

Many
studies
have
been
conducted
to
estimate
soil
ingestion
by
children.
Early
studies
focused
on
dirt
present
on
children's
hands.
More
recently,
studies
have
focused
on
measuring
trace
elements
in
soil
and
then
in
feces
as
a
function
of
internal
absorption.
These
measurements
are
used
to
estimate
amounts
of
soil
ingested
over
a
specified
time
period.
The
EFH
findings
for
children's
soil
ingestion
is
based
on
seven
key
studies
and
nine
other
relevant
studies
that
the
Agency
reviewed
on
this
subject.
These
studies
showed
that
mean
values
for
soil
ingestion
ranged
from
39
mg/
day
to
271
mg/
day
with
an
average
of
146
mg/
day.
These
results
are
characterized
for
studies
that
were
deemed
for
short
periods
with
little
information
reported
for
pica
behavior.
To
account
for
longer
periods
of
time,
the
EFH
reviewed
the
upper
percentile
ranges
of
the
data
studied
and
found
ingestion
rates
that
ranged
from
106
mg/
day
to
1,432
mg/
day
with
an
average
of
383
mg/
day
for
soil
ingestion.
Rounding
to
one
significant
figure,
the
EFH
recommended
an
upper
percentile
children's
soil
ingestion
rate
of
400
mg/
day.
The
Agency
believes
that
this
recommendation
is
the
best
available
information
to
address
children's
exposure
through
the
soil
ingestion
route.
Reducing
the
ingestion
rate
to
the
EFH
handbook
recommended
level
of
400
mg/
day
reduced
the
calculated
risk
to
3.4
x
10­
6
for
this
one
child
risk
situation
and
suggests
that
agricultural
use
of
FFC
wastes
does
not
cause
a
risk
of
concern.

There
currently
is
uncertainty
as
to
whether
the
central
tendency
value
should
be
100
mg/
day
or
200
mg/
day,
but
this
was
not
a
factor
in
the
high
end
analyses.
There
is
also
considerable
uncertainty
on
pica
child
ingestion,
with
lack
of
data
the
primary
problem.
The
EFH
notes
that
as
much
as
10
g/
day
can
be
used
in
acute
exposure
assessments.

Phytoavailability
is
discussed
in
Section
XVI.
EPA
believes
its
inputs
for
this
variable
are
accurate,
although
there
are
studies
that
suggest
phytoavailability
will
decrease
over
time.
Arsenic
bioavailability
is
a
function
of
all
sources
of
arsenic
and
EPA
believes
it
has
characterized
this
accurately.
However,
as
noted
in
the
conclusion
to
this
response,
arsenic
toxicity
is
now
being
studied
by
the
Agency
in
conjunction
with
a
proposed
new
arsenic
MCL
and
may
necessitate
re­
visiting
today's
judgement
on
agricultural
use.

Our
technical
analysis
that
resulted
in
revised
risk
is
explained
in
a
document
titled
Reevaluation
of
Non­
groundwater
Pathway
Risks
from
Agricultural
Use
of
Coal
Combustion
Wastes,
which
is
available
in
the
docket
for
this
action.

The
comment
on
inappropriateness
of
application
frequency
was
caused
by
a
misunderstanding
of
the
language
in
the
RTC.
The
rate
used
was
actually
every
two
or
three
years,
not
two
or
three
times
per
year.

Two
ongoing
studies
of
wastes
of
potential
use
as
agricultural
soil
supplements
relate
to
the
use
of
FFC
wastes
for
this
purpose.
Although
these
did
not
play
a
direct
role
in
EPA's
decision
regarding
FFC
wastes,
they
are
summarized
below
and
may
play
a
role
in
any
future
review
of
today's
decision.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
VIII
­
3
(
1)
On
August
20,
1999,
the
agency
proposed
risk­
based
standards
for
cement
kiln
dust
when
used
as
a
liming
agent
(
see
64
FR
45632;
August
20,
1999).
This
analysis
was
completed
in
1998
just
prior
to
our
completion
of
the
analysis
of
FFC
wastes
when
used
as
agricultural
supplements.
The
CKD
analysis
underwent
a
special
peer
review
by
a
standing
committee
that
is
used
by
the
Department
of
Agriculture.
We
were
not
able
to
respond
to
the
peer
review
comments
in
either
the
CKD
proposal
or
in
our
assessment
for
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
prior
to
publication
of
the
Report
to
Congress.
The
comment
period
for
the
CKD
proposal
closed
on
February
17,
2000,
and
we
will
soon
begin
our
review
and
analyses
of
the
public
and
peer
review
comments.

(
2)
In
December
1999,
EPA
proposed
new
risk
based
standards
for
the
use
of
municipal
sewage
sludge
under
Section
503
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
the
"
503
standards").
It
is
important
to
note
that
municipal
sludge
has
unique
properties,
application
rates,
and
uses.
This
makes
it
inappropriate
to
transfer
the
503
standards
directly.
Even
though
the
standards
cannot
be
used
directly,
there
may
be
interest
in
the
risk
assessment
methodologies
used
to
support
the
development
of
these
standards.
We
disagree
that
it
is
appropriate
to
establish
an
arsenic
limitation
for
coal
combustion
ash
when
used
for
agricultural
purposes
equivalent
to
that
contained
in
the
EPA
sewage
sludge
land
application
regulations.
The
organic
nature
of
sewage
sludge
makes
it
behave
very
differently
from
inorganic
wastes
such
as
coal
combustion
wastes.

In
the
RTC
we
were
not
able
to
identify
damage
case
associated
with
agricultural
use.
Nor
do
we
now
believe
that
this
use
of
coal
combustion
waste
presents
a
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
While
some
commenters
supported
restricting
or
banning
agricultural
use
of
coal
combustion
waste,
no
commenters
provided
information
to
show
risk
or
damage
associated
with
agricultural
use
or
could
show
that
existing
regulatory
practices
are
inadequate.

We
recognize
the
comment
that
this
practice
is
considered
by
many
to
offer
economic
benefits
and
that
controls
would
have
an
associated
cost.
If
future
regulation
is
considered,
these
factors
will
be
investigated
.

We
conclude
at
this
time
that
arsenic
levels
in
coal
combustion
wastes
do
not
evidence
potential
for
risk
to
human
health
when
used
for
agricultural
purposes.
We
expect
to
continue
to
review
and
refine
the
related
risk
assessments
noted
above,
and
will
consider
comments
on
the
Agency's
CKD
and
municipal
sludge
proposals,
as
well
as
new
scientific
developments
related
to
this
issue
such
as
additional
review
of
the
EPA
MINTEQ
model
that
was
used
as
a
component
of
our
risk
analysis.
Also,
the
ongoing
research
into
arsenic
toxicity
may
impact
today's
finding.
If
these
efforts
lead
us
to
a
different
understanding
of
the
risks
posed
by
coal
combustion
wastes
when
used
for
agricultural
purposes,
we
will
take
appropriate
action
to
reevaluate
today's
regulatory
determination.

Specific
concerns
raised
by
the
commenters
with
regard
to
this
decision
are
addressed
in
the
additional
responses
below.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
4
VIII
­
4
VIII.
AGRICULTURAL
USE
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
regulation
of
some
CCBs
for
agricultural
uses
under
Subtitle
C,
would
result
in
unnecessary
federal
regulation
of
these
materials,
in
spite
of
existing
effective
and
less
costly
state
mechanisms.
(
OSU00015)

However,
OCDO
is
concerned
that
the
report
suggests
a
possible
need
for
federal
regulation
under
Subtitle
C
for
agricultural
and
minefill
applications,
and
strongly
recommends
this
not
be
implemented
for
the
following
reasons.
(
ODOD00017)

It
would
be
unwise
and
overly
restrictive
to
establish
federal
standards
that
would
apply
to
broad
categories
of
CCPs
and
uses.
(
ODOD00017)

The
results
of
these
projects
show
that
EPA
should
not
subject
the
beneficial
use
of
CCW
to
Subtitle
C
regulation
in
agricultural
applications,
and
that
Subtitle
C
regulation
should
not
be
applied
to
the
previously­
exempted
large­
volume
CCW.
(
DOE00020)

DOE
believes
that
EPA
should
not
subject
practices
involving
the
use
of
coal­
fired
utility
comanaged
wastes
(
Volume
1,
Section
3,
Recommendation
No.
3,
page
3­
6)
or
fluidized
bed
combustion
wastes
(
Volume
1,
Section
5,
Recommendation
No.
3,
page
5­
3)
for
agricultural
purposes
to
some
form
of
regulation
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C.
DOE
also
believes
that
EPA
should
not
reconsider
the
part
1
wastes
in
this
respect,
as
stated
in
Volume
1,
Section
3,
page
3­
7.
(
DOE00020)

In
1999,
the
regulation
of
agricultural
applications
of
CCPs
under
Subtitle
C,
or
some
management
system
between
Subtitle
C
and
Subtitle
D
regulation,
is
not
needed.
(
ACAA00022)

The
states
have
demonstrated
not
only
that
agricultural
and
mining
applications
of
CCPs
are
satisfactorily
regulated
at
the
state
level,
but
also
that
further
regulation
at
the
federal
level
is
not
needed.
(
ACAA00022)

While
PG&
E
Gen's
utilization
of
ash
in
agricultural
uses
is
less
significant,
ash
serves
as
an
effective
soil
amendment
and
substitute,
is
physically
and
chemically
similar
to
soil
and
agricultural
lime
and,
again,
adequate
regulatory
controls
are
in
place.
(
PG&
E00023)

To
the
extent
that
EPA
is
considering
the
option
of
subjecting
coal
combustion
wastes
used
for
agricultural
purposes
to
some
form
of
regulation
under
Subtitle
C,
PG&
E
Gen
does
not
believe
the
analysis
undertaken
to
date
supports
that
conclusion.
(
PG&
E00023)

PG&
E
Gen
disagrees
with
the
tentative
option
of
subjecting
practices
involving
the
use
of
FBC
wastes
for
agricultural
purposes
(
i.
e.,
as
a
soil
nutrient
supplement
of
other
amendment)
to
some
form
of
regulation
under
Subtitle
C.
(
PG&
E00023)

For
the
reasons
set
forth
in
detail
below,
NMA
opposes
the
suggestion
by
EPA
that
any
form
of
RCRA
Subtitle
C
regulation
is
appropriate
for
the
use
or
disposal
of
CCPs
for
agricultural
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
5
VIII
­
5
purposes
or
for
minefill.
NMA
urges
that
in
the
Regulatory
Determination,
EPA
decide
that
the
beneficial
use
and
disposal
of
CCPs
for
agricultural
purposes
and
for
minefill
should
continue
to
be
exempt
from
RCRA
regulation.
(
NMA00024)

The
WRAG
would
urge
the
Agency
not
to
implement
federal
regulations
under
Subtitle
C
for
agricultural
or
minefill
applications
of
CCBs
and
believes
that
current
local
oversight
adequately
addresses
the
issues
raised
by
the
Agency.
(
WRAG00030)

In
conclusion,
New
Century
Energies
strongly
believes
that
sufficient
guidance
is
available
at
the
state
and
local
level
pertaining
to
applications
of
CCBs
in
agricultural
and
minefill
applications.
Coals
differ
widely
in
their
composition,
and
site
specific
water,
soil
and
climatic
conditions
vary
enormously
across
the
United
States.
It
is
scientifically
inappropriate
to
apply
blanket
restrictions
to
a
material
that
can
be
beneficially
used
in
a
vast
number
of
applications
based
on
the
above
mentioned
variability's.
Historically
successful
applications
of
CCBs
in
mining
and
agricultural
applications
demonstrate
that
CCBs
can
be
used
beneficially
and
certainly
with
no
negative
environmental
impact.
Therefore,
we
see
no
need
for
federal
regulation
under
Subtitle
C
and
believe
the
proper
management
of
CCBs
is
a
sound
environmental
practice.
(
NCE00031)

Therefore,
regulations
on
agricultural
uses
of
CCPs
should
fall
under
some
form
of
state
or
regional
control
based
on
the
state
or
region's
specific
agricultural
need
or
criteria.
(
BMT00032)

PCA
also
refers
EPA
to
the
voluminous
technical
information
and
comments
submitted
by
the
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP),
which
show
the
Commonwealth's
history
of
responsible
management
of
these
substances,
and
the
resulting
benefits
of
such
use.
This
evidence
clearly
demonstrates
that
management
of
coal
combustion
wastes
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
is
unnecessary
and
counterproductive.
As
DEP's
collected
data
clearly
illustrate,
ash
has
been
used
in
a
variety
of
contexts
­­
including
minefilling,
agricultural
soil
supplementation
and
beneficial
use
­­
without
degradation
of
groundwater
.(
PCA00034)

USWAG
disputes
EPA's
preliminary
conclusion
that
agricultural
applications
of
coal
combustion
products
may
present
unacceptable
risks.
EPA's
preliminary
findings
are
based
on
a
seriously
flawed
risk
assessment
performed
without
consultation
with
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
and
without
reference
to
the
tremendous
body
of
scientific
research
sponsored
by
Federal
agencies,
the
states,
and
industry.
If
EPA
takes
full
advantage
of
the
available
information,
it
will
recognize
that
agricultural
applications
of
coal
combustion
products
are
environmentally
sound
beneficial
uses
with
significant
market
potential.
If
for
some
reason
EPA
doubts
the
adequacy
of
that
information,
it
should
undertake
a
comprehensive
joint
study
with
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
to
address
agricultural
applications
of
waste
products.
(
USWAG00037)

We
agree
and
would
like
to
endorse
these
comments
by
ACAA
and
The
Ohio
Coal
Development
Office
that
specifically
address
their
concern
for
not
interfering
with
or
complicating
beneficial
uses
in
agriculture
and
minefill
applications.
(
DTC00038)

We
feel
using
the
lower
concentration
level,
i.
e.
that
found
in
agricultural
limestone
as
a
standard
limit
would
be
too
restrictive.
Site
specific
controls
would
best
be
administered
at
the
state
government
level,
i.
e.
RCRA
Subtitle
D.
(
DTC00038)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
6
VIII
­
6
N­
Viro
strongly
supports
the
appropriate
regulation
of
potentially
harmful
materials
that
are
added
to
our
soils
during
recycling
and
our
own
QA/
QC
program
is
our
commitment
to
the
goal
of
marketing
the
highest
quality
products.
We
insist,
however,
that
such
regulations
be
based
on
sound
science.
A
reexamination
by
EPA
of
the
As
risk
assessment
will
show
that
appropriate
use
of
CCBs
for
waste
treatment
and
as
soil
amendments
is
a
wise
use
of
these
materials.
(
NVIC00039)

I
have
a
concern
with
the
tentative
recommendation
in
the
EPA
report
that
agricultural
and
mine
reclamation
use
of
FFCWs
be
limited
to
those
materials
with
As
concentrations
no
higher
than
that
found
in
agricultural
lime.
Such
a
restriction
would
severely
limit,
if
not
eliminate,
any
beneficial
use
of
these
materials
as
soil
amendments.
(
PSU00040)

Virginia
Power
does
not
agree
with
the
Agency's
conclusion
on
re­
opening
the
1993
regulatory
determination
for
agricultural
beneficial
use
because
of
concerns
with
a
specific
co­
management
practice.
(
VAP00042)

Once
again,
APS
is
generally
in
agreement
with
the
EPA's
tentative
conclusions
presented
in
the
RTC.
Our
concerns
are
primarily
associated
with
the
apparent
overstatement
of
the
arsenic
risk
associated
with
land
disposal
and
agricultural
application
of
coal­
fired
FFC
wastes.
(
APSC00043)

The
"
Report
to
Congress"
also
raises
some
issues
that
need
to
be
addressed.
Specifically
the
need
for
regulation
of
CCBs
for
agriculture
and
mineland
reclamation
is
proposed.
Many
very
beneficial
products
used
in
agriculture
(
e.
g.
fertilizers
and
pesticides)
have
both
great
potential
for
good
and
also
potential
for
harm.
The
key
is
to
provide
a
proper
framework
within
which
these
products
can
be
used.
(
OSU00046)

States
have
the
ability
to
develop
effective
landfill,
mine
reclamation,
and
agricultural
programs.
These
programs
are
developed
within
each
state
and
can
best
reflect
their
unique
environmental
factors,
social
and
economic
needs.
It
appears
that
current
regulation
of
these
activities
is
more
than
adequate.
Consequently,
existing
RCRA
Subtitle
D
regulatory
authority
should
remain
adequate
for
governing
the
management
and
beneficial
use
of
CCPs
in
the
future.
(
ISG00048)

TVA
generally
supports
the
conclusions
of
the
RTC,
but
does
not
agree
with
EPA's
recommendation
to
consider
some
form
of
Subtitle
C
standards
for
the
use
of
CCPs
in
agricultural
use.
(
TVA00049)

We
believe
there
is
abundant
data
that
support
a
technical
foundation
for
pursuing
commercial
use
of
CCPs
in
agriculture
and
in
mine
reclamation
without
compromising
the
health
or
safety
of
the
public
or
the
environment.
(
TVA00049)

However,
EPA
tentatively
decided
that
some
regulation
or
voluntary
controls
may
be
needed
for
beneficial
use
of
coal
combustion
wastes
in
agricultural
applications
and
for
the
disposal
of
oil
combustion
wastes.
We
believe
there
is
sufficient
detailed
information
in
the
docket
from
public
testimony
to
support
continued
exemption
from
Subtitle
C
for
these
uses
and
applications
as
well.
(
CIBO00052)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
7
VIII
­
7
In
summary,
the
conclusions
presented
by
EPA
on
arsenic
health
risks
for
agricultural
uses
of
coal
ash
were
not
based
on
sound
science.
To
impose
a
higher
standard
on
coal
ash
for
health
risk
analyses
compared
to
other
EPA
health
risk
analyses
(
i.
e.
EPA
503(
b)
Sludge
Rules)
is
not
fair
to
farmers
or
to
industry.
NSP
and
industry
has
extensive
experience
using
coal
ash
in
agriculture,
and
state
regulatory
agencies
provide
regulatory
controls
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
purported
risk
"
documented"
in
the
EPA
health
risk
analysis
does
not
reasonably
exist,
and
there
is
no
justification
for
EPA
to
consider
additional
regulatory
controls
based
on
a
flawed
analysis.
Until
EPA
corrects
the
flaws
in
the
health
risk
analysis,
those
flawed
conclusions
will
continue
to
undermine
both
EPA
credibility
and
the
state
permitting
process.
(
NSP00057)

With
policy
to
tackle
the
higher
risks
first,
it
seems
clear
that
such
intense
focus
on
FFCB
inappropriate
when
the
large
land
area
with
excessive
soil
As
is
known
to
exist
in
the
US.
Orchard
soils
are
being
converted
to
housing
developments
with
high
As
soils
except
where
State
Agencies
have
worked
to
regulate
this
risk.
Especially
considering
the
multiple
errors
in
risk
assessment
evident
for
As
in
FFCB,
potential
designation
of
such
beneficial
products
as
hazardous
is
not
appropriate.
(
PHS011)

I
urge
EPA
to
consider
these
factors.
In
doing
so,
I
am
confident
the
Agency
will
conclude
that
there
is
no
justification
for
regulating
the
beneficial
use
of
approved
coal
ash
and
waste
coal
ash
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
projects
as
hazardous
waste.
(
PADEP00246)

We
urge
the
Agency
not
to
expand
RCRA
to
include
regulating
the
beneficial
use
of
non­
hazardous
CFB
ash
in
agriculture
or
mine
reclamation.
(
AIRP00270)

PG&
E
Gen
urges
EPA
to
continue
the
current
RCRA
exemption
of
coal
ash
in
beneficial
uses
for
soil
amendments
and
mine
reclamation.
(
PG&
E00274)

In
our
initial
comments,
we
explained
that
EPA's
agricultural
use
risk
assessment
is
grossly
inadequate
to
support
a
determination
to
impose
restrictions
on
this
beneficial
use
...
The
current
record
would
not
support
a
determination
to
impose
Subtitle
C
or
Subtitle
C­
like
limitations
on
this
use
of
FFC
products.
(
USWAG00275)

As
set
forth
in
its
initial
comments,
CIBO
asserts
that
available
scientific,
analytic,
demonstrative,
and
other
data
clearly
sustain
the
conclusion
that
no
aspect
of
the
substances
addressed
in
the
RTC
should
be
subjected
to
national
Subtitle
C
regulation.
Further,
sound
RCRA
policy
requires
this
outcome.
Environmentally
protective
reuse
policies
for
the
wastes
covered
by
the
RTC
exemplify
the
resource
conservation
and
recovery
that
Congress
encourages
in
RCRA.
See,
e.
g.,
42
U.
S.
C.
6901(
a),
6902(
10).
Further,
that
States
have
overseen
through
regulation
and
monitoring
the
development
of
successful
environment­
protective
reuse
policies
of
these
wastes
also
fulfills
Congress's
goal
of
active
State
participation.
See
e.
g.,
42
U.
S.
C
§
6902.
The
extension
of
federal
Subtitle
C
authority
over
environmentally­
effective
reuse
policies
would
undermine
the
core
objectives
of
RCRA.
CIBO
asserts
that
all
available
data
demonstrates
that
all
wastes
and
applications
covered
by
the
RTC
should
remain
under
the
Bevill
exemption.
(
CIBO00280)

Some
of
the
conclusions
reached
in
that
report
are
inconsistent
with
the
EPA's
recognition
that
waste
coal
ash
is
not
a
hazardous
material
and
is
exempt
from
regulation
while
the
agency
is
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
8
VIII
­
8
continuing
to
consider
the
regulation
of
waste
coal
ash
used
beneficially
in
mine
land
reclamation
and
as
a
soil
amendment
in
agricultural
applications
as
a
hazardous
waste
material.
(
GPC00297)

I
write
to
express
my
concern
about
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
inconsistent
conclusions
contained
in
its
second
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Coal
by
Electric
Utility
Power
Plants.
Specifically,
EPA
determined
that
waste
coal
ash
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation,
yet
the
Agency
is
considering
regulating
its
beneficial
use
in
mine
reclamation
and
agriculture
amendments
as
hazardous
waste.
(
PA00368)

I
would
like
to
express
my
concern
about
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
inconsistent
conclusions
contained
in
the
above
referenced
report
to
Congress.
Specifically,
EPA
has
determined
that
waste
coal
ash
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation,
yet
the
Agency
is
considering
regulating
its
beneficial
use
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
amendments
as
hazardous
waste.
(
AMI00372)

I
have
enclosed
for
your
review
a
copy
of
correspondence
date
9
September
1999
addressed
to
you
by
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
Secretary
James
M.
Seif,
requesting
that
you
determine
coal­
ash
and
waste­
coal
ash
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
projects
as
non­
hazardous
waste.
Although
I
am
not
an
expert
in
environmental
issues,
I
defer
to
the
expertise
of
Secretary
Sief
on
this
issue,
and
concur
in
the
arguments
he
makes
in
his
correspondence
for
the
determination
of
this
ash
as
non­
hazardous.
I
respectfully
request
that
you
give
careful
consideration
to
Secretary
Sief's
analysis
on
this
matter.
(
PAL0004)

As
a
result
of
these
concerns
and
because
we
question
whether
use
of
these
wastes
for
agricultural
purposes
can
be
termed
beneficial,
we
recommended
that
EPA
develop
federal
threshold
standards
for
use
of
co­
combustion
coal
wastes
that
mimics
the
effort
the
Agency
has
undertaken
for
land
application
of
biosolids.
Because
of
the
wide
variability
in
metal
content
within
wastes,
these
standards
should
require
that
each
batch
of
ash
be
tested
prior
to
be
deemed
acceptable
for
land
application.
Tested
waste
should
be
kept
segregated
until
results
have
been
obtained.
(
ALA00036)

Land
application
of
FFC
wastes,
particularly
fly
ash
and
bottom
ash
from
coal
combustion
and
oil
wastes,
should
not
be
permitted.
Land
application
of
fluidized
bed
combustion
waste
material
should
not
occur
in
the
absence
of
federal
oversight,
anti
arsenic
concentrations
in
this
waste
should
be
limited
to
levels
currently
required
for
land
application
of
sewage
sludge.
(
ALA00292)

We
requested
that
EPA
distinguish
between
those
wastes
that
were
suitable
for
land
application
and
those
that
are
not.
Additionally,
it
is
EPA's
role
to
explicitly
distinguish
beneficial
use
of
wastes
and
land
disposal
of
wastes.
We
continue
to
recommend
that
the
rules
regarding
the
land
application
of
sewage
sludge,
40
C.
F.
R.
part
503,
be
used
to
define
acceptable
metal
concentrations
in
FFC
wastes
to
be
disposed
of
via
land
application.
(
ALA00292)

This
research
raises
important
questions
both
from
a
land
application
perspective
and
from
the
perspective
of
collecting
and
disposing
of
leachate
prior
to
land
application
of
fly
ash.
Until
these
are
issues
are
resolved,
EPA
cannot
consider
allowing
land
application
of
FFC
wastes
to
occur
without
federal
oversight.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
9
VIII
­
9
We
urge
the
Agency
to
restrict
the
application
of
FFC
waste
to
agricultural
land
to
FBC
wastes
only.
First,
the
other
types
of
waste
­
CCW
and
oil
waste
­
have
higher
concentrations
of
arsenic
and
other
metals
in
them,
and
second,
the
only
risk
analysis
done
was
for
FBC
wastes.
In
addition,
arsenic
concentrations
should
be
limited
to
the
levels
currently
required
for
land
application
for
sewage
sludge.
(
ALA00292)

The
agency
has
stated
that
some
form
of
control
under
Subtitle
C
may
be
appropriate
given
identified
potential
risks
from
exposure
to
arsenic.
Although
I
do
agree
with
others
that
the
risk
assessment
was
flawed,
it
would
not
be
unreasonable
for
some
sort
of
quality
control
to
be
applied
for
agricultural
use
as
is
the
case
for
other
fertilizers
utilized
in
agriculture.
(
EERC00044)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
10
VIII
­
10
VIII.
AGRICULTURAL
USE
A.
Information
Provided
Many
commenters
provided
detailed
information
on
agricultural
application
regulations
and
guidelines
in
specific
states,
case
studies,
factors
determining
risks
from
the
practices,
and
other
research
materials.

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
the
extensive
information
provided.
EPA
has
considered
this
information
in
its
entirety.
This
information
is
reflected
in
today's
revised
estimate
of
risk
from
agricultural
application.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
11
VIII
­
11
VIII.
AGRICULTURAL
USE
A.
Information
Provided
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
food
and
feed
uses
of
CCBs
has
been
studied
by
researchers
for
over
20
years.
A
vast
amount
of
research
information
is
currently
available
on
this
subject.
I
have
enclosed
a
selected
list
of
reference
information
for
the
review
of
the
agency.
This
reference
list
contains
information
on
the
food
and
feed
uses
of
many
different
types
of
CCBs
(
particularly
flue
gas
desulfurization
(
FGD)
­
gypsum
quality
and
fixated,
fluidized
bed
combustion
(
FBC)
ash,
fly
ash,
bottom
ash),
lime,
and
sewage
sludge.
It
includes
plant
uptake
data
for
over
a
dozen
elements
(
arsenic,
selenium,
boron,
cadmium,
lead,
molybdenum,
zinc,
calcium,
magnesium,
phosphorous,
sulfur,
aluminum,
copper,
etc.).
The
effects
of
using
CCB's
on
many
different
types
of
plants
and
animals
have
been
evaluated.
The
plants
evaluated
include
vegetables
(
cabbage,
bean,
lettuce),
crops
(
alfalfa,
corn,
wheat,
barley,
oats,
soybean,
cotton,
tobacco),
fruits
(
apple,
peach),
forage
species,
legumes,
sweet
clover,
millet,
ryegrass,
red
clover
and
trees.
The
animal
species
studied
include
sheep,
swine,
lamb,
goat,
finishing
steers,
bees,
quail,
and
aquatic
organisms.
It
seems
that
USPEPA
has
not
evaluated
the
results
of
these
laboratory
and
field
studies
while
evaluating
the
risks
related
to
agricultural
uses.
(
OSU00015)

DOE's
research
in
this
area
(
which
is
summarized
in
matrix
form
in
Appendix
1),
includes
...
Field­
scale
projects
involving
the
agricultural
application
of
CCW
which
showed
that
the
release
of
arsenic
is
negligible
...
Supporting
documentation
and
data
from
each
of
these
studies
are
provided
in
the
body
of
these
comments.
(
DOE00020)

Summaries
of
several
pertinent
research
studies
sponsored
by
FETC
are
provided
below.
Special
emphasis
is
placed
on
the
results
of
these
studies
(
summarized
in
Table
4)
as
they
pertain
to
arsenic,
because
this
is
the
pollutant
of
concern
identified
by
EPA
in
its
RTC
...
[
comment
provides
several
pages
summarizing
research
studies].
(
DOE00020)

A
summary
of
a
research
study
recently
completed
for
FETC
by
the
USDA
is
provided
below.
Special
emphasis
is
placed
on
the
results
of
this
study
pertinent
to
arsenic,
since
this
is
the
pollutant
of
concern
identified
by
EPA
in
its
recommendations
...
[
comment
provides
several
pages
summarizing
a
study
of
feed
lot
applications].
(
DOE00020)

The
use
of
CCPs
in
agricultural
applications
has
been
a
topic
of
research
for
over
50
years.
In
the
last
20
years
more
than
20
electric
utilities
have
funded
research
on
the
use
of
CCPs
as
soil
amendments
and
in
land
reclamation,
the
results
of
these
studies
have
been
summarized
in
a
report
by
Horn
(
1995).
In
addition,
more
than
60
research
papers
on
agricultural
applications
have
been
presented
and
published
at
symposia
sponsored
by
ACAA
from
1967
through
1999
(
Attachment
1).
Furthermore,
research
concerning
the
use
of
CCPs
has
been
conducted
by
the
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
(
USDA),
the
United
States
Department
of
Energy
(
DOE),
the
United
States
Bureau
of
Mines
(
BOM),
the
United
States
Office
of
Surface
Mining,
Reclamation
and
Enforcement
(
OSM),
and
the
Tennessee
Valley
Authority
(
TVA).
The
types
of
CCPs
investigated
have
included
fly
ash
,
bottom
ash,
FGD
material,
FGD
gypsum,
and
fluidized
bed
combustion
(
FBC)
ash.
(
ACAA00022)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
12
VIII
­
12
There
have
been
several
recent
publications
which
summarize
large
volumes
of
work
done
on
the
agricultural
applications
of
CCPs.
A
recent
report
(
Horn,
1995)
contains
a
survey
of
existing
information
on
studies
in
the
USA
of
agricultural
applications
of
CCPs
with
emphasis
on
unpublished
information
volunteered
by
many
electric
utilities.
The
information
was
obtained
through
research
and
demonstration
projects
by
electric
utilities
concerning
the
potential
for
landapplication
uses
of
CCPs
from
their
own
power
plants.
Most
of
this
research
was
accomplished
with
supporting
projects
conducted
by
state
agricultural
universities
that
used
CCPs
as
experimental
materials
in
agronomic
research.
As
a
result
of
the
studies
being
done
at
different
locations
and
by
different
institutions,
the
database
on
the
effects
of
CCPs
on
crops
and
soils
encompasses
a
wide
range
of
experimental
conditions,
approaches
and
objectives.
While
this
makes
the
extrapolation
of
the
data
to
other
regions
difficult,
the
experience
and
data
obtained
is
extremely
valuable
to
an
overall
understanding
of
the
effects
of
CCP
interactions
with
soils
and
plants
grown
under
very
different
conditions;
and,
it
further
facilitates
the
identification
of
potential
problems
and
benefits.
The
unpublished
work
covered
in
this
survey
was
augmented
by
a
review
of
the
published
literature,
which
helps
to
provide
a
sound
framework
for
the
consideration
of
the
results
obtained
in
the
various
studies.
It
is
noted
that
much
of
the
published
information
specifically
dealing
with
the
use
of
CCPs
in
agricultural
applications
has
been
supported
by
the
electric
utility
industry.
This
subject
study
(
Horn,
1995)
found
that
...
[
comment
provides
several
pages
summarizing
this
study].
(
ACAA00022)

A
comprehensive
study
of
fly
ash
and
FGD
materials
done
in
Georgia
(
Sumner
et.
al.,
1995)
examined
the
environmental
characteristics
as
well
as
agronomic
characteristics
of
several
fly
ash
and
FGD
products
in
both
greenhouse
and
field
experiments.
This
study
is
unique
in
that
it
also
includes
some
marketing
data
that
puts
dollar
values
on
CCPs
as
a
soil
amendment.
Some
of
the
findings
or
this
study
are
as
follows
...
[
comment
provides
several
pages
summarizing
this
study].
(
ACAA00022)

A
chapter
(
Korcak,
1998)
on
CCPs
is
included
in
a
recent
USDA
report
titled
Agricultural
Uses
of
Municipal,
Animal,
and
Industrial
Byproducts.
This
chapter
outlines
the
potential
benefits
from
CCPs
including:
alleviating
trace
element
deficiencies;
modifying
soil
pH;
increasing
the
levels
of
needed
Ca
and
S;
and
improving
water
infiltration
rates,
increasing
depth
of
rooting
and
drought
tolerance.
Both
FGD
and
FBC
materials
were
found
to
have
particularly
high
potentials
for
improving
water
use
efficiency,
product
quality
and
productivity
of
soil­
crop
systems.
The
need
for
on­
farm
implementations
to
assess
how
CCPs
fit
into
agricultural
systems
is
also
mentioned.
(
ACAA00022)

Some
CCP­
based
soil
amendments
are
reaching
the
marketplace.
A
paper
by
Franciosi
(
1997)
outlines
how
a
mixture
of
select
organics
and
coal
fly
ash
was
composted
to
produce
a
potting
mixture
used
in
the
greenhouse
industry
in
North
Carolina.
This
product
met
the
approval
of
both
the
North
Carolina
Department
of
Health,
Environment
and
Natural
Resources
and
the
North
Carolina
Department
of
Agriculture,
Plant
Division.
A
pelletized
FGD
material
has
also
been
marketed
as
a
soil
amendment
(
Fisher
and
Franciosi,
1997).
This
product
was
registered
as
a
byproduct
landplaster
in
North
Carolina
and
as
a
fertilizer
in
Virginia.
A
composted
product
containing
spray­
dryer
material
(
a
type
of
FGD
material
including
fly
ash)
is
being
marketed
in
South
Carolina.
(
ACAA00022)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
13
VIII
­
13
EPA's
Report
to
Congress
includes
limited
information
on
state
regulation
of
agricultural
CCP
applications.
Some
examples
of
such
regulations
that
have
been
successfully
developed
and
implemented
at
the
state
level
are
reviewed
in
the
following
sections
...
[
comment
provides
several
pages
summarizing
state
regulation
of
agricultural
use].
(
ACAA00022)

EPA
would
like
to
limit
the
amounts
of
As
applied
through
agricultural
applications
of
CCPs
to
be
similar
to
the
amounts
of
As
applied
through
the
use
of
agricultural
limestone
(
ag­
lime).
A
recent
publication
on
limestone
(
Oates,
1998)
gives
ranges
for
impurities/
trace
elements
in
commercial
limestones.
Another
study
of
carbonate
rocks
in
the
Ohio
Valley
(
Dever,
1999)
gives
a
range
of
0.41
to
250
mg/
kg.
This
is
quite
similar
to
a
range
reported
in
CCPs
by
EPA
0.2
to
279
mg/
kg
(
EPA,
1988).
(
ACAA00022)

EPA
requested
specific
information
and
case
studies
on
the
experience
with
beneficial
uses
of
FBC
ash
for
minefilling
and
soil
amendment.
PG&
E
Gen
selected
several
different
types
of
beneficial
use
projects
to
present
here
...
[
comment
provides
several
pages
summarizing
case
studies].
(
PG&
E00023)

When
used
as
a
soil
amendment
at
a
mine
site
in
Pennsylvania,
the
beneficial
use
of
FBC
ash
requires
both
a
beneficial
use
approval
under
the
waste
management
regulations
and
a
mining
permit
module
27
approval,
similar
to
the
regulatory
structure
described
above.
The
module
27
approval
requires
consideration
of
the
specific
characteristics
of
the
ash
and
the
existing
soils,
and
establishes
specific
loading
limits
for
contaminants
of
potential
concern
such
as
arsenic
and
mercury
and
testing
and
monitoring
requirements.
The
use
of
the
Cedar
Bay
FBC
ash
as
a
processing
input
in
the
manufacture
of
Class
A
biosolids
from
municipal
sludge
is
regulated
by
the
permit
for
the
processing
facility
under
Florida
law,
and
the
federal
program
under
section
503
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
The
latter
limits
the
land
application
of
sewage
sludge,
based
on
its
constituents
and
quality.
(
PG&
E00023)

With
regard
to
the
use
of
CCPs
as
a
soil
amendment,
it
is
Dr.
Daniels'
and
the
states'
experience
that
coal
fly
ash
can
be
used
both
as
an
amendment
for
rocky
mine
soils
and
for
direct
revegetation
of
acidic
coal
wastes.
In
Dr.
Daniels'
words:
"
we
have
observed
significant
long
term
plant
growth
benefits
from
this
practice,
presumably
due
to
enhanced
water
holding
capacity
along
with
improved
availability
of
certain
nutrients"(
emphasis
added).
In
using
CCPs
for
these
purposes,
one
must
be
cognizant
of
the
salt
content
of
the
soil/
ash
mixture,
particularly
if
there
is
saltsensitive
vegetation
present.
As
Dr.
Daniels
points
out,
however,
in
Virginia
all
beneficially
used
CCPs
must
pass
the
Toxicity
Characteristic
Leaching
Procedure
(
TCLP)
and
can
only
be
applied
in
compliance
with
the
state's
"
Regulation
Governing
Management
of
Coal
Combustion
By­
Products"
(
VR
672­
20­
20,
copy
included
with
NMA
comments
in
Attachment
D)
...
More
specifically,
under
Virginia
law,
beneficial
use
of
CCPs
as
soil
amendments
requires
specific
testing
and
approval
of
the
CCP
by
the
state
Department
of
Agriculture
and
Consumer
Services.
The
testing
includes
extensive
total
elemental
and
equilibrium
extract
testing,
as
well
as
a
greenhouse
bioassay
using
the
appropriate
soils
and
crops.
Only
then
can
the
CCP
be
labeled
and
certified
for
such
use.
Nor
is
the
experience
of
Dr.
Daniels
in
Virginia
unique.
The
state
of
West
Virginia
also
has
recognized,
for
decades,
the
beneficial
use
of
CCPs
as
a
soil
amendment
both
for
croplands
and
for
mine
reclamation.
(
NMA00024)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
14
VIII
­
14
Since
early
1995,
we
also
have
had
a
Cooperative
Research
and
Development
Agreement
(
CRADA)
with
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
­
Agricultural
Research
Service
(
USDA­
ARS)
on
studying
FGD
by­
products
for
agricultural
use
as
"
acid
soilamendments".
Our
joint
interest
focused
on
how
the
low
levels
of
magnesium
in
our
FGD
gypsum
were
found
to
improve
soils
for
plant
growth
and
deeper
roots.
They
have
had
an
on­
going
program
in
this
area
of
beneficial
uses
of
FGD
by­
product
since
1978.
For
example,
Docket
index
#
SO162,
Manual
for
Applying
Fluidized
Bed
Combustion
Residue
to
Agricultural
Lands,
was
published
in
1988.
In
that
manual,
arsenic
was
not
even
considered
a
possible
pollutant
in
land
application.
The
manual
was
updated
in
1996
to
include
arsenic
because
of
the
503
Rules
for
bio­
solids
included
arsenic
limits.
However,
the
update
was
never
released.
Other
docket
entries
described
their
work:
S0155,
S0156,
SO158
and
S0166.
Currently,
the
USDA­
ARS
is
writing
more
comprehensive
guidelines
for
use
of
FGD
products
on
agricultural
land.
They
state
many
potential
agricultural
benefits
can
come
from
FGD
by­
products.
(
DTC00038)

The
following
documents,
referenced
in
our
original
comments
(
copy
enclosed)
are
enclosed:

°
"
Land
Application
Uses
for
Dry
Flue
Gas
Desulfurization
By­
Products,"
a
four­
volume
final
report
consisting
of
an
Executive
Summary
and
Phase
1,
2
and
3
Reports.
This
project
was
carried
out
by
The
Ohio
State
University
and
Dravo
Lime
Company,
among
others,
and
is
OCDO
Project
D­
89­
35.

°
Attachment
l
­
These
tables
presents
data
from
an
on­
going
project
entitled
"
Fluesorbent
Injection
By­
product"
(
OCDO
project
D­
95­
l
8).
This
coal
combustion
product
(
CCP)
results
from
the
injection
of
a
vermiculite­
Ca(
OH)
2
or
perlite­
Ca(
OH)
t
sorbent
into
a
flue
gas
stream
for
removal
of
SO*.
Dr.
Warren
Dick
of
The
Ohio
State
University's
Ohio
Agricultural
Research
and
Development
Center
is
carrying
out
this
study,
which
is
investigating
the
use
of
this
CCP
as
a
fertilizer
on
acid
soils
and
soils
low
in
sulfur
fertility
for
alfalfa,
corn,
turf
grass
and
soybeans.
It
has
been
found
that
fertilization
with
this
CCP
increased
yields
of
alfalfa
and
turf
grass,
and
had
no
effect
on
corn
yields,
Fertilization
of
soybeans
is
being
studied
this
year.
In
Table
2
of
this
attachment,
it
is
noted
that
the
arsenic
content
of
the
CCP
is
higher
than
the
arsenic
content
of
agricultural
limestone.
The
second
table
shows
there
is
little
difference
between
control
soils
and
treated
soils
in
the
concentration
of
soil
extracts.
These
data
do
not
show
any
adverse
environmental
consequences
from
the
use
of
Fluesorbent
CCP
as
an
agricultural
fertilizer.

°
Attachment
2
­
This
table
presents
data
from
`
Re­
use
of
Clean
Coal
Technology
Byproducts
in
the
Construction
of
Impervious
Liners"
(
OCDO
project
D­
95­
19)
being
conducted
by
Drs.
Butalia
and
Wolfe
of
The
Ohio
State
University.
This
project
used
CCP
from
the
magnesium­
enhanced
lime
FGD
units
at
AEP's
Conesville
plant,
to
construct
a
liner
for
a
hog
manure
lagoon.
The
data
presented
in
the
table
show
the
trace
metal
content
of
the
water
above
the
liner
in
the
pond,
water
in
the
sump
beneath
the
liner,
and
water
in
a
nearby
well,
over
a
period
of
about
ten
months,
and
prior
to
filling
the
lagoon
with
manure.
In
all
cases,
the
arsenic
content
of
water
samples
is
below
0.035
ppm
and
of
no
environmental
consequence.

°
Attachment
3­
These
tables
present
data
from
"
Product
Development
and
Utilization
of
Zimmer
Station
Wet­
FGD
By­
products,"
(
OCDO
project
D­
931­
8)
being
conducted
by
the
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
15
VIII
­
15
Dravo
Lime
Company.
Studies
of
this
CCP
used
as
a
fertilizer
on
abandoned
mine
land
(
AML),
on
previously
reclaimed
mine
land
(
RML)
and
on
an
acidic
agricultural
soil
in
Ashtabula
County
Ohio
(
AS)
do
not
show
any
accumulations
of
arsenic
in
plant
tissues.
In
Table
4
of
Attachment
3,
the
arsenic
content
of
the
CCPs
and
limestone
was
less
than
4
mg/
kg
in
all
cases.
The
remaining
tables
of
Attachment
3
present
plant
tissue
data
from
the
three
sites
for
one
to
two
crop
years.
In
all
cases
for
both
controls
and
treatments
with
CCPs,
the
arsenic
content
was
less
than
1.75
mg/
kg
and
of
no
adverse
environmental
consequence.
(
ODOD00054)

[
Attachments
to
comments
include
several
scientific
studies
of
agricultural
use
and
risk
assessment.]
(
PHS011)

To
supplement
our
earlier
comments,
we
refer
to
the
peer­
reviewed
literature,
particularly
McMurphy,
LM
and
Raybum,
AL
(
1993)
and
McMurphy,
LM,
et.
al,
(
1996).
These
studies
of
the
agricultural
application
of
certain
FFC
wastes
are
included
as
Appendices
to
these
comments.
These
researchers
found
...
[
comment
provides
several
pages
summarizing
this
reasearch].
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
16
VIII
­
16
VIII.
AGRICULTURAL
USE
B.
Flawed
Risk
Assessment
Invalidates
Conclusion
Industry
and
academic
commenters
concluded
that
the
non­
groundwater
human
health
risk
assessment
for
land
application
as
reported
in
the
RTC
was
seriously
flawed
and
therefore
overstated
risks.
Specific
concerns
included
EPA's
estimates
of
typical
amounts
of
arsenic
in
FFC
waste,
assumptions
about
the
chemical
form
and
availability
of
the
arsenic,
the
potential
exposure
paths
and
time
dependent
concentrations,
and
comparisons
of
total
and
available
arsenic
in
typical
fly
ash
to
common
soils.
These
concerns
are
discussed
further
in
Sections
XIII,
XIV,
XVI,
and
XVIII,
below.
Some
specific
comments
(
see
Section
XVI
below)
attempted
to
quantify
the
magnitude
of
the
overestimates
and
asserted
that
revisions
to
the
study
would
demonstrate
that
beneficial
uses
do
not
present
any
risks
and
should
not
be
subjected
to
any
additional
limitations
by
EPA.

Response:
Based
on
these
comments
taken
as
a
whole,
EPA
re­
examined
its
key
risk
modeling
assumptions.
As
discussed
above
in
this
section,
EPA
determined
that
one
key
factor
used
in
the
analysis
was
overly
conservative.
Accordingly,
EPA
now
estimates
risk
from
agricultural
use
of
FFC
waste
at
below
the
10­
5
level.
However,
the
entire
question
of
arsenic
toxicity
is
being
reviewed,
as
also
stated
above.
EPA
notes
that
arsenic
concentrations
were
provided
to
EPA
by
industry,
as
noted
in
response
to
general
comments
about
data
sufficiency.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
17
VIII
­
17
VIII.
AGRICULTURAL
USE
B.
Flawed
Risk
Assessment
Invalidates
Conclusion
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Overall,
the
risk
predictions
evaluated
by
USEPA
seem
to
be
overestimated
for
agricultural
applications.
Further,
there
is
a
need
for
a
detailed
study
into
the
bio­
availability
of
arsenic
and
its
uptake
by
plants,
animals,
and
human
beings.
The
results
of
extensive
laboratory
and
field
data
collected
over
the
last
two
decades
needs
to
be
reviewed
before
coming
to
a
conclusion
on
the
potential
risks
associated
with
the
use
of
CCBs.
(
OSU00015)

However,
the
relevant
issue
with
respect
to
EPA's
concerns
expressed
in
the
Report
to
Congress
about
As
in
agricultural
applications
may
really
be
whether
EPA's
concerns
are
actually
based
on
technically
sound
information.
Information
to
the
contrary
was
introduced
at
EPA's
May
21,
1999,
public
hearing
on
the
Report
to
Congress
by
two
individual
speakers
from
the
USDA
and
from
the
University
of
Georgia
(
R.
Chaney,
and
W.
P.
Miller,
respectively,
EPA
Docket
Number
F­
l
999­
FF2P­
FFFFF).
Their
comments
primarily
focused
on
the
need
to
modify
and/
or
correct
various
assumptions
made
by
EPA
in
the
Report
to
Congress
about
the
typical
amounts
of
As
in
CCPs,
particularly
in
fly
ash,
the
chemical
form
and
availability
of
the
As,
the
potential
exposure
paths
and
time­
dependent
concentrations,
and
comparisons
of
total
and
available
As
in
typical
fly
ash
to
similar
As
levels
in
common
soils.
(
ACAA00022)

PG&
E
Gen
disagrees
with
the
tentative
option
of
subjecting
practices
involving
the
use
of
FBC
wastes
for
agricultural
purposes
(
i.
e.,
as
a
soil
nutrient
supplement
of
other
amendment)
to
some
form
of
regulation
under
Subtitle
C.
This
conclusion
is
not
supported
by
the
data
presented,
and
is
based
principally
on
the
unwarranted
concern
over
arsenic
risks,
which
are
over­
estimated
by
EPA's
model.
(
PG&
E00023)

As
was
made
painfully
evident
at
the
May
21
public
hearing,
the
agency's
"
more
thorough"
arsenic
risk
assessment
is
fatally
flawed,
and
cannot
support
a
conclusion
that
there
is
an
unreasonable
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment
posed
by
arsenic
in
the
subject
ashes.
To
grasp
the
scope
of
the
flaws
in
the
arsenic
risk
assessment,
it
is
only
necessary
to
recall
the
testimony
of
Dr.
Rufus
L.
Cheney,
Senior
Research
Agronomist
at
the
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
at
the
May
21
EPA
public
hearing
...
[
the
comment
presents
several
pages
summarizing
the
testimony]
...
Considering
all
these
errors
in
the
agency's
risk
assessment,
Dr.
Cheney
reached
a
well­
founded
conclusion
that
"...
the
Risk
Assessment
for
arsenic
in
land­
applied
FFCB
is
so
severely
flawed
that
it
is
not
a
valid
basis
for
public
policy."
(
NMA00024)

In
light
of
the
wealth
of
expert
testimony
on
the
beneficial
use
of
CCP
(
or
FFCB
or
coal
ash)
as
a
soil
amendment,
the
rigorous
oversight
of
such
uses
by
state
governments,
and
the
overwhelming
number
of
fatal
flaws
in
EPA's
arsenic
risk
assessment,
no
reasonable
basis
exists
for
the
imposition
of
RCRA
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
rules
on
CCPs
when
used
for
agricultural
purposes.
(
NMA00024)

The
agency
must
re­
examine
and
reverse
its
tentative
conclusion
to
impose
Subtitle
C
regulation
on
the
beneficial
use
or
disposal
of
CCPs
for
agricultural
purposes
and
as
minefill.
EPA's
arsenic
risk
assessment
is
so
flawed
it
cannot
support
imposition
of
such
regulations.
(
NMA00024)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
18
VIII
­
18
EPA's
risk
assessment
is
overly
conservative
and
does
not
support
Subtitle
C
regulation
of
agricultural
use
of
CCPs
...
The
risk
assessment
upon
which
EPA
based
its
conclusion
is
seriously
flawed
through
utilization
of
multiple
unrealistic,
overly
conservative
assumptions
and
provides
no
defensible
foundation
for
a
decision
to
pursue
further
regulation
of
this
beneficial
use
of
CCPs.
Several
significant
assumptions
used
in
the
risk
analysis
are
substantially
more
conservative
than
scientific
research
can
justify.
The
overly
conservative
nature
of
several
assumptions
would
each
result
in
the
overestimation
of
risk
by
an
order
of
magnitude.
When
conservative
values
are
chosen
for
most
or
all
of
the
variables
in
the
risk
equation,
the
multiplicative
effect
generates
excessive
risk
estimates
that
cannot
approximate
real
world
risk
for
even
a
minute
percentage
of
the
most
vulnerable
population.
The
conservative
assumptions
that
undermine
the
accuracy
of
the
risk
assessment
include
the
following
...
[
the
comment
provides
several
pages
summarizing
these
concerns,
see
Topic
XVI]
...
These
errors
indicate
EPA
has
over­
predicted
risk
from
agricultural
applications
of
CCPs
by
orders
of
magnitude.
This
discussion
has
highlighted
only
some
of
the
most
significant
errors.
At
the
May
21,
1999
EPA
public
hearing,
Dr.
Chaney
provided
a
careful
critique
of
the
risk
assessment
that
identified
additional
significant
flaws.
(
USWAG00037)

I
believe
that
the
risk
assumptions
made
by
EPA
with
respect
to
As
in
CCBs
is
flawed
and
egregiously
conservative,
causing
unnecessary
fears
on
the
part
of
the
public
and
potentially
driving
the
power
industry
to
costly
disposal
options.
EPA
was
soundly
criticized
in
early
drafts
of
the
503
risk
assessment
for
producing
risk
values
that
defied
reality.
The
same
is
true
with
the
CCB
risk
assessment
for
As.
When
the
result
of
the
assessment
is
a
critical
soil
concentration
that
is
well
within
the
range
of
normal
soil
levels,
than
the
agency
has
no
other
option
but
to
critically
reassess
the
assumptions
in
the
risk
model.
In
this
regard,
I
strongly
support
the
comments
made
on
the
risk
assessment
by
my
colleague,
Dr.
Rufus
Chaney,
USDA­
ARS,
with
whom
I
worked
on
the
503
risk
assessment.
Dr.
Chaney
is
one
of
the
preeminent
trace
element
biogeochemists
in
the
world
and
his
critique
of
the
As
risk
assessment
should
be
strongly
heeded
...
A
reexamination
by
EPA
of
the
As
risk
assessment
will
show
that
appropriate
use
of
CCBs
for
waste
treatment
and
as
soil
amendments
is
a
wise
use
of
these
materials.
(
NVIC00039)

Although
I
do
agree
with
others
that
the
risk
assessment
was
flawed,
it
would
not
be
unreasonable
for
some
sort
of
quality
control
to
be
applied
for
agricultural
use
as
is
the
case
for
other
fertilizers
utilized
in
agriculture.
Again,
a
regional
approach
would
be
preferable,
considering
the
variables
including
local
soil
and
hydrogeology,
crops
on
which
ash
was
used
a
soil
amendment,
and
consideration
for
the
widely
varied
chemical
and
mineralogical
properties
of
FFC
wastes.
(
EERC00044)

Another
reviewer,
specifically
Dr.
Rufus
L.
Chancy
(
USDA),
has
largely
addressed
ISG's
concerns
about
methods
for
risk
assessment.
(
ISG00048)

There
are
many
more
agricultural
applications
than
EPA
has
considered.
In
fact,
EPA
has
only
considered
direct
field
placement
and
not
other
applications
such
as
agricultural
uses
on
animal
feedlots,
municipal
sludge,
and
in
potting
soil,
where
the
suggested
control
of
limestone
arsenic
quantification
would
not
be
appropriate
...
When
looking
at
the
agricultural
applications
that
EPA
did
consider,
such
as
direct
field
placement,
the
modeling
used
did
not
truly
evaluate
existing
agricultural
practices.
(
CIBO00052)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
19
VIII
­
19
While
most
of
EPA's
conclusions
were
based
on
sound
science,
NSP
must
address
certain
technical
oversights
which
resulted
in
EPA's
preliminary
conclusion
that
agricultural
uses
of
coal
ash
could
result
in
arsenic
exposure
health
risks.
This
letter
will
attempt
to
clarify
those
technical
oversights
by
EPA
which
NSP
believes
will
demonstrate
that
no
such
health
risks
reasonably
exist.
(
NSP00057)

The
underlying
assumptions
used
in
this
risk
analysis
appear
to
be
substantially
more
conservative
than
assumptions
used
in
previous
health
risk
analyses
performed
by
the
EPA
for
other
materials.
EPA
must
maintain
a
consistent,
objective
basis
in
evaluating
health
risks
for
the
public;
this
draft
RTC
appears
to
subjectively
identify
risks
that
do
not
objectively
exist.
The
EPA
health
risk
analysis
assumed
questionable
values
for
ash
application
rate,
ash
application
frequency,
ash
arsenic
concentrations,
child
ingestion
rate,
arsenic
cancer
slope
factor
&
reference
dose,
and
coal
ash­
arsenic
bioavailability,
as
discussed
below
...
[
the
comment
presents
several
pages
documenting
concerns
with
each
of
these
inputs,
see
Topic
XVI].

In
summary,
the
conclusions
presented
by
EPA
on
arsenic
health
risks
for
agricultural
uses
of
coal
ash
were
not
based
on
sound
science.
To
impose
a
higher
standard
on
coal
ash
for
health
risk
analyses
compared
to
other
EPA
health
risk
analyses
(
i.
e.
EPA
503(
b)
Sludge
Rules)
is
not
fair
to
farmers
or
to
industry.
NSP
and
industry
has
extensive
experience
using
coal
ash
in
agriculture,
and
state
regulatory
agencies
provide
regulatory
controls
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
purported
risk
"
documented"
in
the
EPA
health
risk
analysis
does
not
reasonably
exist,
and
there
is
no
justification
for
EPA
to
consider
additional
regulatory
controls
based
on
a
flawed
analysis.
Until
EPA
corrects
the
flaws
in
the
health
risk
analysis,
those
flawed
conclusions
will
continue
to
undermine
both
EPA
credibility
and
the
state
permitting
process.
(
NSP00057)

We
believe
that
the
Agency
should
re­
evaluate
the
risk
assessment
prepared
for
this
report
using
the
scientific
information
compiled
by
the
USDA.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
the
science
specifically
developed
about
the
suitability
of
recycling
these
by­
products
is
appropriately
evaluated
and
applied
in
order
to
make
the
best
decisions
about
using
these
materials
with
demonstrated
benefits
to
the
environment.
(
BG00063)

I
am
concerned
that
a
number
of
science
issues
have
been
handled
inappropriately
in
the
development
of
an
approach
to
regulate
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
(
FFCW)
...
These
concerns
include
...
methods
to
estimate
risks
from
arsenic
and
other
trace
elements
applied
to
cropland
in
fossil
fuel
combustion
byproducts
...
and
...
recent
research
and
interpretation
of
research
which
might
affect
scientific
risk
assessment
for
soil
arsenic
and
arsenic
in
land­
applied
byproducts
including
FFCW.
(
PHS011)

Any
risk
assessment
is
only
as
valid
as
the
assumptions
used
in
the
calculations
of
exposure
and
risk.
The
risk
assessment
for
beneficial
use
of
these
FFCB
is
replete
with
errors
regarding
application
rate,
fate
of
As
in
soil,
bioavailability
of
soil
As,
amounts
of
soil
ingested
by
children,
etc.
...
[
the
comment
provides
several
pages
summarizing
each
of
these
concerns,
see
Topic
XVI].
(
PHS011)

In
conclusion,
the
Risk
Assessment
for
As
in
land­
applied
FFCB
is
so
severely
flawed
that
it
is
not
a
valid
basis
for
public
policy.
This
report
should
be
revised
to
correct
these
many
identified
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
20
VIII
­
20
errors
of
EPA
before
it
is
submitted
to
Congress
regardless
of
"
due
dates"
for
the
report.
Only
bad
policy
can
result
from
such
a
severely
flawed
Report.
(
PHS011)

Input
variables
for
the
oral
cancer
risk
associated
with
land
application
of
FFC
wastes
as
soil
amendments
(
lime
substitutes)
were
assessed,
and
values
used
by
RTI/
EPA
in
their
risk
assessment
of
soil
ingestion
were
found
to
result
in
substantial
cancer
risk
to
children
in
uncontaminated
soils
containing
background
As
levels.
Re­
estimation
of
some
of
the
input
variables
based
on
agronomic
practices
and
pica
behavior
in
children
resulted
in
maximum
safe
As
levels
in
the
range
of
37
to
>
300
ppm.
In
the
authors
opinion,
the
value
of
41
ppm
used
in
40
CFR
503
for
As
in
land­
applied
municipal
sludge
should
be
considered
for
land­
applied
FFC
wastes.
(
PHS018)

In
our
initial
comments,
we
explained
that
EPA's
agricultural
use
risk
assessment
is
grossly
inadequate
to
support
a
determination
to
impose
restrictions
on
this
beneficial
use
...
EPA
used
numerous
assumptions
in
the
risk
assessment
that
are
overly
conservative
and
conflict
with
scientific
research.
(
USWAG00275)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
21
VIII
­
21
VIII.
AGRICULTURAL
USE
C.
Adequacy
of
Existing
Regulations
and
Practices
Many
industry,
academic,
and
state
and
federal
agency
commenters
suggested
that
existing
regulatory
programs
(
e.
g.
under
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
and
state
regulations)
and
industry
practices
are
adequate
and
appropriate
to
control
risks
associated
with
agricultural
applications,
and
that
additional
federal
involvement
would
be
an
unreasonable
interference
with
state
authority.
One
commenter
specifically
supported
agricultural
use
when
the
applicable
state
agriculture
department
has
determined
it
to
be
beneficial
.

Response:
While
we
have
concluded
that
agricultural
uses
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
do
not
pose
significant
risk,
we
believe
that
it
is
generally
prudent
to
excersize
oversight
or
guidance
over
the
use
of
any
type
of
wastes
as
agricultural
amendment.
Given
the
Agency's
revised
estimate
of
risk
from
agricultural
application
of
FFC
wastes,
EPA
generally
agrees
at
this
time
that
existing
state
regulations
are
adequate
to
control
these
risks.
The
Agency
will
continue
to
review
and
refine
agricultural
risk
assessments
for
CKD
and
municipal
sewage
sludge
proposals,
as
well
as
new
scientific
developments
related
to
this
issue,
such
as
review
of
EPA
MINTEQ
model
that
was
used
as
a
component
of
our
risk
analysis,
and
as
noted
above
monitor
the
continuing
study
of
arsenic
toxicity.
If
these
efforts
lead
us
to
understand
that
risks
posed
by
coal
combustion
wastes
used
for
agricultural
purposes
may
be
higher
than
we
have
estimated
here,
we
will
take
appropriate
action
to
reevaluate
today's
regulatory
determination.
We
would
then
also
reconsider
whether
existing
programs
are
adequate
to
control
risks.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
22
VIII
­
22
VIII.
AGRICULTURAL
USE
C.
Adequacy
of
Existing
Regulations
and
Practices
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
For
most
states,
the
use
of
agricultural
lime
and
fertilizer
is
regulated
through
the
state's
department
of
agriculture.
For
example,
in
the
state
of
Ohio,
this
function
is
carried
out
by
the
Ohio
Department
of
Agriculture.
For
CCBs,
it
would
be
prudent
to
have
state
EPA's
regulate
the
agricultural
uses
with
oversight
from
the
state
department
of
agriculture.
The
regulation
of
some
CCBs
for
agricultural
uses
under
Subtitle
C,
would
result
in
unnecessary
federal
regulation
of
these
materials,
in
spite
of
existing
effective
and
less
costly
state
mechanisms.
(
OSU00015)

OCDO's
decade­
plus
experience
indicates
that
when
local
conditions
(
soil
type,
hydrology,
etc.)
are
taken
into
account
and
when
the
product
is
prepared
(
if
necessary)
and
applied
properly,
it
is
possible
to
use
CCPs
successfully
in
an
environmentally
benign
or
beneficial
manner,
with
no
adverse
environmental
consequences.
State
regulatory
bodies
are
in
the
best
position
to
oversee
this
activity.
(
ODOD00017)

For
these
reasons,
OCDO
firmly
believes
that
existing
state
regulatory
bodies
are
in
the
best
position
to
review
and
regulate
local
uses
of
CCPs.
(
ODOD00017)

A
review
of
selected
state
regulations
indicates
that
satisfactory
procedures
have
been
implemented
at
the
state
level
under
the
authority
of
Subtitle
D
of
RCRA
for
environmentally
safe
and
technically
sound
uses
of
CCPs
in
agricultural
applications.
(
ACAA00022)

The
regulatory
approaches
used
by
the
several
states
selected
for
review
demonstrate
not
only
that
agricultural
applications
of
CCPs
are
satisfactorily
regulated
at
the
state
level,
but
also
that
further
regulation
at
the
federal
level
is
not
needed.
(
ACAA00022)

Clearly,
all
of
the
beneficial
uses
engaged
in
by
PG&
E
Gen
facilities
with
respect
to
beneficial
use
of
FBC
ash
are
currently
regulated
under
multiple
regulatory
programs.
These
programs
include
appropriate
site­
specific
permits
designed
to
assess
the
appropriateness
of
the
particular
ash
for
the
proposed
use.
They
restrict
and
monitor
any
potential
release
of
contaminants
to
the
environment.
(
PG&
E00023)

The
management
of
these
materials
is
adequately
regulated
through
nutrient
management
and
land
application
programs
administered
by
USDA
and
pursuant
to
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
by
state
programs.
(
p.
3­
74).
(
PG&
E00023)

It
is
difficult
to
see
the
environmental
benefit
from
prohibiting
the
recycling
of
this
useful
soil
component
in
the
production
of
biosolids
which
must
meet
rigorous
chemical
tests
under
federal
law
before
they
are
available
for
use.
The
suggested
alternative
of
establishing
a
maximum
standard
for
agricultural
use
is
already
in
place
with
respect
to
PG&
E
Gen's
soil
amendment
uses
in
both
Pennsylvania
and
Florida.
EPA
has
not
demonstrated
that
there
is
an
absence
of
such
standards
in
land
applications
of
FBC
ash.
If
such
a
standard
is
developed,
it
should
take
into
consideration
the
considerable
testing
and
monitoring
evidence
of
low
leachability
from
beneficial
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
23
VIII
­
23
use
of
these
ash
materials,
rather
than
the
theoretical
health­
based
standard
proposed
in
the
Report.
This
theoretical
standard
is
200
times
more
stringent
than
the
drinking
water
standard
for
arsenic.
(
PG&
E00023)

In
light
of
the
wealth
of
expert
testimony
on
the
beneficial
use
of
CCP
(
or
FFCB
or
coal
ash)
as
a
soil
amendment,
the
rigorous
oversight
of
such
uses
by
state
governments,
and
the
overwhelming
number
of
fatal
flaws
in
EPA's
arsenic
risk
assessment,
no
reasonable
basis
exists
for
the
imposition
of
RCRA
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
rules
on
CCPs
when
used
for
agricultural
purposes.
(
NMA00024)

States
are
adequately
regulating
the
beneficial
use
and
disposal
of
CCPs,
including
use
for
agricultural
purposes
and
use
and
disposal
in
minefill.
(
NMA00024)

The
WRAG
would
urge
the
Agency
not
to
implement
federal
regulations
under
Subtitle
C
for
agricultural
or
minefill
applications
of
CCBs
and
believes
that
current
local
oversight
adequately
addresses
the
issues
raised
by
the
Agency.
(
WRAG00030)

A
number
of
states
have
guidelines
pertaining
to
the
use
of
fertilizers
and
soil
conditioners.
The
Virginia
Department
of
Agriculture
and
Consumer
Services
has
issued
"
Guidelines
for
Approving
Industrial
Co­
Products
For
Agricultural
Use
Under
the
Virginia
Fertilizer
and
Agricultural
Liming
Materials
Laws."
This
document
provides
guidelines
for
approving
a
variety
of
industrial
products
in
land
use
and
contains
maximum
pollutant
concentrations
for
a
variety
of
elements,
including
arsenic.
The
State
of
Colorado's
Department
of
Agriculture
has
issued
two
documents
"
Article
12
­
Commercial
Fertilizers
and
Soil
Conditioners,"
and
"
Rules
and
Regulations
Pertaining
to
Fertilizers,
Soil
Conditioners,
Plant
Amendments
and
Agricultural
Liming
Materials."
Additionally,
Colorado
uses
EPA's
existing
"
Cumulative
Loading
Rates"
taken
from
40
CFR
50
and
Canadian
Cumulative
Loading
Rates
for
heavy
metals
in
determining
state
approval
of
materials
for
agricultural
fertilizers
and
amendments.
These
documents
demonstrate
that
additional
national
guidelines
that
might
be
proposed
by
the
Agency
are
unnecessary.
(
NCE00031)

EPA
regulatory
guidance
may
not
be
flexible
enough
to
permit
state
and
local
agencies
to
approve
these
applications
when
site­
specific
situations
pose
little
or
no
threat
to
public
health
or
the
environment.
(
NCE00031)

In
conclusion,
New
Century
Energies
strongly
believes
that
sufficient
guidance
is
available
at
the
state
and
local
level
pertaining
to
applications
of
CCBs
in
agricultural
and
minefill
applications.
(
NCE00031)

Therefore,
regulations
on
agricultural
uses
of
CCPs
should
fall
under
some
form
of
state
or
regional
control
based
on
the
state
or
region's
specific
agricultural
need
or
criteria.
(
BMT00032)

Furthermore,
there
is
no
regulatory
void
for
EPA
to
fill.
Existing
regulatory
controls
are
adequate
to
ensure
protective
agricultural
application
of
CCPs.
(
USWAG00037)

Using
their
discretion,
states
have
adopted
a
range
of
programs
to
suit
their
needs,
ranging
from
range
from
agricultural
product
registration
programs
to
regulatory
programs
based
on
the
Canadian
regulations
or
the
EPA
sewage
sludge
regulations,
to
elaborate
permit
programs.
These
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
24
VIII
­
24
existing
regulations
provide
a
valid
framework
for
ensuring
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment
in
agricultural
applications
of
coal
ash.
State
and
federal
authorities
have
thoroughly
investigated
the
issue,
enacted
regulations
appropriate
to
their
state
conditions,
and
remain
actively
engaged
in
research
to
promote
the
advancement
of
this
beneficial
use
in
a
manner
that
is
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
There
is
no
lack
of
supporting
scientific
research.
There
is
no
need
for
EPA
to
take
further
action.
(
USWAG00037)

Based
on
its
flawed
risk
analysis,
EPA
specifically
suggested
that
potential
Subtitle
C
regulation
of
agricultural
uses
of
CCPs
might
restrict
the
arsenic
content
of
CCPs
to
the
level
present
in
commercial
lime
products.
An
arsenic
content
restriction
based
on
levels
present
in
commercial
lime
is
not
justified.
EPA
has
provided
no
support
for
such
a
federal
restriction
that
would
be
an
unreasonable
interference
with
federal
and
State
research
and
regulatory
efforts.
(
USWAG00037)

We
feel
using
the
lower
concentration
level,
i.
e.
that
found
in
agricultural
limestone
as
a
standard
limit
would
be
too
restrictive.
Site
specific
controls
would
best
be
administered
at
the
state
government
level,
i.
e.
RCRA
Subtitle
D.
(
DTC00038)

States
have
the
ability
to
develop
effective
landfill,
mine
reclamation,
and
agricultural
programs.
(
ISG00048)

However,
the
Agency's
RTC
does
not
recognize,
to
any
significant
extent,
the
numerous
states
that
allow
the
use
of
CCPs
for
use
in
agricultural
application
and
their
approval
of
methods
for
their
use.
(
ISG00048)

CIBO
disagrees
with
any
suggestion
that
national
regulation
should
supplant
or
duplicate
State
regulation,
for
sound
policy
and
practical
reasons.
Controls
should
be
site­
and
applicationspecific
as
ash
reuse
is
already
governed
by
State
regulation,
and
not
through
Subtitle
C
comprehensive
federal
regulation.
Nor
does
CIBO
believe
that
a
voluntary
program
is
necessary;
as
already
stated,
States
have
their
own
regulatory
programs
governing
the
use
of
ash
and
its
disposal
in
minefills.
(
CIBO00052)

Various
standards
already
exist
for
agricultural
products
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
those
standards
are
equally
applicable
for
agricultural
use
of
coal
ash.
US
EPA
standards
for
land
application
of
sewage
sludge
in
40
CFR
5
503(
b)
provide
an
initial
basis
for
such
agricultural
standards.
(
NSP00057)

In
both
cases,
I
believe
EPA
should
look
to
the
states
for
regulatory
oversight
of
these
activities,
and,
in
fact,
many
states
already
have
robust
regulatory
programs
tailored
to
their
local
circumstances.
(
BCHRL0002)

In
addition,
state
regulatory
programs
are
demonstrably
more
than
adequate
to
address
any
risks
posed
by
the
use
and
disposal
of
CCPs;
the
states
have
clearly
recognized
how
beneficial
the
various
uses
including
agricultural
and
minefill
uses
­
can
be.
(
WVDEPL0003)

Our
efforts
to
beneficially
use
CFB
ash
began
in
1989,
when
a
program
was
developed
with
the
California
Regional
Water
Quality
Board
and
the
California
Department
of
Food
and
Agriculture,
to
use
the
CFB
coal
ash
as
an
agricultural
mineral
and
liming
agent.
In
more
recent
years
the
our
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
25
VIII
­
25
program
has
also
been
evaluated
by
the
California
Integrated
Waste
Management
Board,
the
San
Joaquin
County
Department
of
Health,
and
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture's,
Natural
Resource
Conservation
Service
and
Agricultural
Research
Service.
Our
CFB
coal
ash
is
a
California
Department
of
Food
and
Agriculture
registered
agricultural
mineral
and
has
been
successfully
applied
to
thousands
of
acres
of
crop
land
for
more
than
ten
years.
In
the
past
three
years
we
have
begun
to
use
Stockton's
CFB
coal
ash
for
the
construction
of
feedlot
foundations.
The
CFB
coal
ash
feedlot
foundations
have
enabled
livestock
owners
to
significantly
improve
the
management
of
concentrated
animal
feedlot
runoff.
The
Natural
Resource
Conservation
Service
is
currently
in
the
process
of
approving
the
use
of
CFB
coal
ash
under
the
Service's,
Environmental
Quality
Improvement
Program
(
EQIP).
We
have
spent
more
than
ten
years
and
thousands
of
man­
hours
working
with
state
and
federal
environmental
and
agricultural
representatives
in
the
development
and
evaluation
of
our
programs
to
use
CFB
coal
ash
in
agriculture.
The
programs
have
been
both
an
environmental
and
agricultural
success.
(
AIRP00270)

Air
Products
and
Chemicals,
Inc.
believes
that
both
California
and
Pennsylvania
have
ample
and
effective
environmental
management
programs
applicable
to
the
use
of
CFB
ash.
(
AIRP00270)

EPA
has
ignored
the
results
of
available
scientific
research
and
existing
federal
and
state
regulatory
controls
on
agricultural
applications.
(
USWAG00275)

As
the
General
Manager
of
a
waste
coal
­
fueled
electric
generation
station,
the
Gilberton
Power
Company,
I
believe
that
we
have
amply
and
effectively
demonstrated
the
successful
balance
between
economic
issues
and
environmental
concerns
through
adherence
to
the
Pennsylvania
regulations
for
CFB
ash
disposal
and
beneficial
use
and
can
see
no
benefit
to
the
expansion
of
RCRA
to
include
waste
coal
CFB
ash
and
mixtures
of
coal
ash
with
other
fuel
ash
produced
in
a
CFB.
(
GPC00297)

The
PA
State
Department
of
Environment
of
Protection
(
DEP)
comprehensively
regulates
the
use
of
ash
in
reclamation
and
as
soil
amendments
with
no
adverse
impacts
despite
a
decade
of
monitoring.
(
AMI00372)

As
President
and
Owner
of
Amerikohl
Mining,
Inc.,
I
believe
that
Pennsylvania
has
ample
and
effective
waste
disposal
and
management
regulations
already
in
place.
(
AMI00372)

The
Company
supports
the
utilization
of
coal
combustion
by­
products
for
agricultural
purposes
when
the
applicable
state
agricultural
department
has
concluded
that
the
application
is
beneficial
to
human
health
and
the
environment
based
upon
specific
agricultural
tests,
compliance
with
agricultural
regulations,
or
specific
agency
issued
approvals.
(
VAP0042)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
26
VIII
­
26
VIII.
AGRICULTURAL
USE
D.
Consistency
with
Other
Programs
Industry
and
academic
commenters
stated
that
it
is
unfair
and
inappropriate
for
EPA
to
propose
arsenic
limitations
on
FFC
wastes
that
are
significantly
more
stringent
than
those
applicable
to
the
materials
the
FFC
wastes
replace
in
this
beneficial
use
application
(
e.
g.
municipal
sludge
under
Part
503)
or
that
would
exceed
arsenic
levels
in
background
soils.
One
of
the
commenters
added
that
EPA
should
not
regulate
arsenic
in
FFC
wastes
when
more
important
sources
of
human
arsenic
exposure
go
unregulated.
Some
of
these
commenters,
along
with
a
public
interest
group
coalition,
added
that
existing
standards
(
e.
g.,
the
levels
in
potting
soil,
Part
503
biosolids
regulations,
Canadian
regulations,
etc.)
for
metals
concentrations
in
waste­
based
soil
amendments
should
be
employed.
One
of
the
commenters
insisted
that,
if
restrictions
are
imposed,
they
should
be
consistent
with
EPA's
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics'
Background
Report
on
Fertilizer
Use,
Contaminants
and
Regulations.
Another
commenter
stated
that,
if
restrictions
are
imposed,
they
should
be
based
on
testing
and
monitoring
data
on
leachability
from
actual
beneficial
uses,
rather
than
a
theoretical
health­
based
standard.

Response:
If
the
Agency
concludes
that
standards
are
warranted
in
the
future
as
part
of
its
broader
review
of
agricultural
application,
such
standards
will
be
fully
consistent
with
existing
programs.
As
noted
in
the
general
response
to
this
Section
VIII,
the
Agency
believes
that
it
is
inappropriate
to
establish
an
arsenic
limitation
for
coal
combustion
ash
when
used
for
agricultural
purposes
that
is
equivalent
to
the
contained
in
the
EPA
sewage
sludge
land
application
regulations.
The
organic
nature
of
sewage
sludge
makes
it
behave
very
differently
from
inorganic
wastes
auch
as
coal
comustion
waste.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
27
VIII
­
27
VIII.
AGRICULTURAL
USE
D.
Consistency
with
Other
Programs
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
It
is
our
experience
that
the
trace
quantities
of
these
nine
elements
in
CCBs
do
not
ever
approach
the
limits
outlined
in
40
CFR
503.
It
then
seems
unnecessary
to
single
out
CCBs
for
possible
regulation
under
Subtitle
C
if
the
trace
elements
do
not
approach
or
exceed
limits
already
approved
for
sewage
sludge.
(
NCE00031)

An
arsenic
content
restriction
based
on
levels
present
in
commercial
lime
is
not
justified.
EPA
has
provided
no
support
for
such
a
federal
restriction
that
would
be
an
unreasonable
interference
with
federal
and
State
research
and
regulatory
efforts.
Even
if
EPA's
risk
assessment
conclusions
were
based
on
sound
assumptions,
they
provide
no
basis
for
comparison
with
agricultural
lime
standards.
Furthermore,
the
proposed
approach
would
represent
a
higher
degree
of
regulatory
controls
than
EPA
has
imposed
on
other
agricultural
products
with
similar
chemical
constituents
and
agricultural
uses.
(
USWAG00037)

EPA's
proposed
regulatory
recommendations
are
also
potentially
in
conflict
with
its
own
initiative
to
develop
a
comprehensive
strategy
for
industrial
waste
management.
(
USWAG00037)

In
January
1999,
EPA's
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics
released
a
document
titled
Background
Report
on
Fertilizer
Use,
Contaminants
and
Regulations,
which
contains
a
compilation
of
existing
information
on
inorganic
fertilizers
and
liming
agents
and
addresses
background
information
on
fertilizer
use,
consumption
patterns,
composition
and
regulations.
Unfortunately,
neither
the
RTC
nor
the
docket
index
refer
to
that
document,
which,
despite
its
depth,
represents
only
the
beginning
of
a
thorough
study.
The
Fertilizer
Report
identifies
numerous
data
gaps
that
must
be
addressed
before
further
regulatory
action
is
feasible.
EPA's
Office
of
Solid
Wastes
is
in
no
position
to
recommend
specific
regulatory
action
when
it
has
not
yet
digested
and
applied
the
data
compiled
by
the
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics.
(
USWAG00037)

The
practice
of
subjecting
FFC
wastes
to
more
stringent
regulation
standards
than
other
comparable
materials
is
difficult
to
justify.
(
EERC00044)

In
fact,
potting
soil
or
even
natural
soil
characteristics
would
be
better
references
than
limestone
for
making
decisions
about
ash
in
soil
substitution
applications
like
agricultural
and
minefilling.
(
CIBO00052)

Various
standards
already
exist
for
agricultural
products
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
those
standards
are
equally
applicable
for
agricultural
use
of
coal
ash.
US
EPA
standards
for
land
application
of
sewage
sludge
in
40
CFR
503(
b)
provide
an
initial
basis
for
such
agricultural
standards.
(
NSP00057)

Use
of
a
market
controlled
application
system,
where
the
seller
can
only
apply
the
quantity
of
FGDB
required
to
replace
a
normal
commercial
application
of
limestone,
based
on
the
soil
analysis
of
the
limestone
requirement
of
the
coil,
limits
the
application
over
time.
The
state
regulatory
agency
could
require
that
records
of
the
evidence
of
lime
requirement
from
a
qualified
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
28
VIII
­
28
laboratory
be
held
for
inspection.
And
the
generator
has
to
monitor
the
composition
and
report
this
regularly
to
assure
that
changes
in
the
quality
or
risk
of
the
product
is
not
changed
substantially
over
time
that
a
change
in
the
permit
would
be
required
...
The
composition
and
benefits
of
each
FFCB
would
have
to
be
evaluated
to
assure
that
the
trace
elements
it
contained
would
be
safe
in
long
term
beneficial
use
before
it
were
permitted
in
the
way
we
described
...
The
discussion
of
"
market
controlled
regulatory
protections"
noted
above
suggest
that
different
approaches
to
regulation
of
FFCB
might
be
even
more
in
the
public
interest
than
the
"
prohibit"
attitude
endemic
in
the
Report
to
Congress.
(
PHS011)

Much
more
important
sources
of
human
As
exposure
have
not
been
considered
for
regulation
by
EPA,
but
most
agree
that
the
higher
risk
should
be
dealt
with
first.
(
PHS011)

Risk
assessment
for
biosolids
indicated
that
at
least
41
mg
As/
kg
biosolids
was
acceptable
for
beneficial
use,
and
including
bioavailability
in
the
risk
calculation
would
increase
the
allowed
concentration
significantly.
(
PHS011)

In
the
authors
opinion,
the
value
of
41
ppm
used
in
40
CFR
503
for
As
in
land­
applied
municipal
sewage
sludge
should
be
considered
for
land­
applied
FFC
wastes.
(
PHS018)

As
a
result
of
these
concerns
and
because
we
question
whether
use
of
these
wastes
for
agricultural
purposes
can
be
termed
beneficial,
we
recommended
that
EPA
develop
federal
threshold
standards
for
use
of
co­
combustion
coal
wastes
that
mimics
the
effort
the
Agency
has
undertaken
for
land
application
of
biosolids.
(
ALA00036)

In
our
research
we
have
used
the
EPA
503
rules
as
a
guide
to
plan
our
treatment
rates.
These
rules
were
developed
for
biosolids
which
are
highly
organic
in
nature.
The
arsenic
in
CCBs
is
often
tightly
bound
into
a
glassy
or
inorganic
matrix
and
is
not
available
for
plant
uptake
or
leachate.
(
OSU00046)

Land
application
of
FFC
wastes,
particularly
fly
ash
and
bottom
ash
from
coal
combustion
and
oil
wastes,
should
not
be
permitted.
Land
application
of
fluidized
bed
combustion
waste
material
should
not
occur
in
the
absence
of
federal
oversight,
anti
arsenic
concentrations
in
this
waste
should
be
limited
to
levels
currently
required
FOR
land
application
of
sewage
sludge.
(
ALA00292)

The
suggested
alternative
of
establishing
a
maximum
standard
for
agricultural
use
is
already
in
place
with
respect
to
PG&
E
Gen's
soil
amendment
uses
in
both
Pennsylvania
and
Florida.
EPA
has
not
demonstrated
that
there
is
an
absence
of
such
standards
in
land
applications
of
FBC
ash.
If
such
a
standard
is
developed,
it
should
take
into
consideration
the
considerable
testing
and
monitoring
evidence
of
low
leachability
from
beneficial
use
of
these
ash
materials,
rather
than
the
theoretical
health­
based
standard
proposed
in
the
Report.
This
theoretical
standard
is
200
times
more
stringent
than
the
drinking
water
standard
for
arsenic.
(
PG&
E00023)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
29
VIII
­
29
VIII.
AGRICULTURAL
USE
E.
Economic
Impacts
of
Restricting
Agricultural
Use
One
industry
commenter
criticized
the
lack
of
consideration
of
economic
impacts
associated
with
limiting
agricultural
uses.
Additionally,
some
commenters
suggested
that
regulations
and/
or
unfavorable
classification
of
FFC
wastes
would
be
excessively
costly,
reinforce
market
barriers
creating
a
disincentive
for
agricultural
use,
squelch
any
further
research
and
development
on
agricultural
use,
or
eliminate
such
beneficial
uses
altogether
.
One
of
these
commenters
argued
that
such
a
disincentive
to
recycling
would
be
contrary
to
RCRA's
statutory
objectives.

Response:
EPA's
decision
is
to
not
regulate
this
practice
at
this
time.
If
this
determination
is
revised,
for
reasons
noted
above
or
for
other
reasons,
economic
impacts
will
be
considered.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
30
VIII
­
30
VIII.
AGRICULTURAL
USE
E.
Economic
Impacts
of
Restricting
Agricultural
Use
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA
improperly
disregarded
the
economic
impacts
of
regulatory
restrictions
on
the
agricultural
application
of
CCPS.
Agricultural
application
is
a
beneficial
use
of
CCPs
with
significant
market
potential
...
EPA's
decision
to
disregard
the
economic
implications
of
its
recommendations
indicates
a
fundamental
lack
of
appreciation
of
the
value
of
this
beneficial
use
for
the
electric
utility
industry
as
well
as
the
agricultural
community.
(
USWAG00037)

The
market
for
agricultural
utilization
of
CCPs
presents
significant
potential.
Years
of
research
have
reached
maturity,
and
the
market
for
this
beneficial
use
is
poised
to
expand
significantly.
Additional,
unnecessary
federal
regulation
will
reinforce
market
barriers
that
will
retard
the
growth
of
this
important
market
and
deprive
farmers,
the
environment,
and
the
utility
industry
of
its
benefits.
Such
action
would
be
directly
contrary
to
RCRA's
statutory
objective
of
promoting
the
conservation
of
natural
resources
and
recovery
of
valuable
materials
from
the
country's
wastestreams.
(
USWAG00037)

Imposition
of
Subtitle
C
hazardous
waste
rules
would
severely
restrict,
if
not
totally
stop,
such
uses.
CCP
generators
would
have
to
seek
new
landfill
capacity
for
these
materials,
thus
increasing
the
greenfields
impact.
At
the
same
time,
agricultural
and
mining
industry
users
would
be
forced
to
seek
more
expensive,
but
no
more
effective,
"
virgin"
substitutes
for
these
lost
ash
resources.
Production
of
substitute
virgin
resources
would
again
increase
the
greenfields
impact.
All
of
these
results,
and
others,
would
occur
without
any
net
improvement
in
environmental
protection;
indeed,
considering
greenfields
impacts
and
the
loss
of
the
value
of
these
CCPs
for
agricultural
and
minefill
purposes,
society
would
suffer
a
clear
net
loss
both
environmentally
and
economically.
(
NMA00024)

In
1999,
the
regulation
of
agricultural
applications
of
CCPs
under
Subtitle
C,
or
some
management
system
between
Subtitle
C
and
Subtitle
D
regulation,
is
not
needed;
and,
such
regulation
would
likely
lead
to
the
discontinuation
of
research,
development
and
implementation
of
agricultural
uses
of
CCPs.
(
ACAA00022)

A
requirement
allowing
only
CCPs
which
meet
a
certain
criteria
for
As
content
to
be
used
would
be
detrimental
to
the
use
of
all
CCPs.
This
would
attach
a
stigma
to
CCPs
and
suggest
that
there
is
a
problem.
(
ACAA00022)

I
believe
that
the
risk
assumptions
made
by
EPA
with
respect
to
As
in
CCBs
is
flawed
and
egregiously
conservative,
causing
unnecessary
fears
on
the
part
of
the
public
and
potentially
driving
the
power
industry
to
costly
disposal
options.
(
NVIC00039)

I
have
a
concern
with
the
tentative
recommendation
in
the
EPA
report
that
agricultural
and
mine
reclamation
use
of
FFCWs
be
limited
to
those
materials
with
As
concentrations
no
higher
than
that
found
in
agricultural
lime.
Such
a
restriction
would
severely
limit,
if
not
eliminate,
any
beneficial
use
of
these
materials
as
soil
amendments.
(
PSU00040)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
31
VIII
­
31
Further,
waste
minimization
through
ash
reuse
would
be
impeded
with
blanket
regulations
that
would
restrict
certain
applications
unnecessarily.
As
EPA
has
found,
many
beneficial
reuses
of
ash
work
to
the
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
Inappropriate
use
of
Subtitle
C
RCRA
authority
can
chill
reuse
and
recycling
programs,
to
both
economic
and
environmental
detriment.
(
CIBO00052)

PG&
E
Gen
notes
that
serious
consequences
would
result
if
agricultural
amendments
or
minefilling
activities
were
regulated
under
Subtitle
C.
Among
these
consequences
are
severe
economic
impacts,
including
the
likely
closure
of
several
power
generation
facilities.
(
PG&
E00274)

EPA
has
ignored
the
economic
consequences
of
applying
hazardous
waste
controls
to
agricultural
use
of
FFC
products,
which
would
effectively
kill
this
beneficial
use
option
and
bring
to
a
halt
scientific
research
on
the
issue.
(
USWAG00275)

Specifically,
EPA
determined
that
waste
ash
itself
is
exempt
from
regulation,
yet
the
Agency
is
considering
regulating
its
beneficial
used
in
mine
reclamation
and
agriculture
amendments
as
hazardous
waste.
Regulating
waste
coal
ash
in
this
way
would
have
far
reaching
effects
on
Pennsylvania's
taxpayers
and
the
state's
environment.
(
PA00368)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
32
VIII
­
32
VIII.
AGRICULTURAL
USE
F.
Benefits
of
Agricultural
Use
Some
academic
and
state
agency
commenters
stated
that
agricultural
use
(
and
specifically
arsenic
in
FFC
wastes)
has
no
adverse
environmental
impact.
Other
industry
commenters
went
on
to
state
the
potential
benefits
of
agricultural
application.
One
commenter
suggested
that
FBC
wastes
are
similar
or
superior
to
natural
soils
in
terms
of
arsenic
bioavailability
and
metals
concentrations
in
general.

A
public
interest
group
commenter
questioned
the
adequacy
of
EPA's
evaluation
of
benefits
of
this
practice.
The
commenter
suggested
that,
in
the
absence
of
showing
that
crops
actually
grow
better
as
a
result
of
land
application
of
these
residuals,
agricultural
use
would
be
land
disposal
rather
than
beneficial
use.

Response:
Based
on
its
study
of
agricultural
use
in
support
of
the
Report
to
Congress,
along
with
the
information
submitted
by
the
commenters,
the
Agency
generally
agrees
that
agricultural
application
of
FFC
wastes
can
have
beneficial
effects
under
the
appropriate
conditions.
This
is
reflected
in
the
Agency's
decision
to
not
regulate
at
this
time.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
33
VIII
­
33
VIII.
AGRICULTURAL
USE
F.
Benefits
of
Agricultural
Use
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Using
CCPs
as
soil
amendments
can
provide
several
potential
benefits
including:
addition
of
essential
nutrients;
neutralization
of
soil
acidity;
and
improvement
of
moisture
retention,
infiltration,
drainage,
structure
and
soil
tilth.
These
benefits
are
important
to
plant
growth
and
production;
and,
they
aid
in
the
control
of
soil
erosion
by
improving
the
physical
and
chemical
conditions
in
the
plant
root
zone.
High­
calcium
CCPs
have
been
used
to
improve
the
physical
condition
of
soils
in
agricultural
settings,
by
improving
bearing
capacity
and
resistance
to
drying,
and
for
constructing
dry
areas
for
animal
traffic
and
feed
storage.
(
ACAA00022)

Probably
the
element
that
has
received
the
greatest
scrutiny,
as
related
to
agricultural
and
mineland
reclamation
uses
of
CCBs,
is
arsenic.
We
have
conducted
extensive
study
on
the
relationship
between
(
1)
the
concentration
of
arsenic
in
CCBs
(
specifically
clean
coal
CCBS)
and
(
2)
the
relationship
between
the
total
loading
of
arsenic
in
CCBs
and
the
uptake
of
arsenic
into
plants
and
movement
into
water
coming
from
the
CCB
treated
areas.
I
have
attached
summary
tables
of
our
work.
This
work
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
1.
Concentrations
of
arsenic
in
CCBs
are
generally
slightly
higher
than
those
found
in
most
soils
in
Ohio
and
in
agricultural
limestone.
2.
Concentrations
of
arsenic
in
TCLP
leachates
(
used
to
assess
whether
a
material
should
be
listed
as
hazardous
or
not)
are
much
below
the
RCRA
solid
waste
standard
and
sometimes
even
approach
the
drinking
water
standard.
3.
Concentrations
of
arsenic
in
CCBs
that
are
below
the
EPA
503
rules
levels
do
not
pose
any
significant
uptake
threat
into
alfalfa,
a
commonly
used
test
crop.
4.
Concentrations
of
arsenic
in
CCBs
that
are
below
the
EPA
503
rules
levels
do
not
pose
any
significant
threat
to
water
quality.
(
OSU00046)

In
our
research
we
have
used
the
EPA
503
rules
as
a
guide
to
plan
our
treatment
rates.
These
rules
were
developed
for
biosolids
which
are
highly
organic
in
nature.
The
arsenic
in
CCBs
is
often
tightly
bound
into
a
glassy
or
inorganic
matrix
and
is
not
available
for
plant
uptake
or
leachate.
(
OSU00046)

NSP
has
completed
substantial
work
which
demonstrates
that
agricultural
use
of
coal
ash
is
beneficial
without
adverse
impacts
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
This
work
included
extensive
chemical
characterization
of
coal
ash,
greenhouse
testing
in
containers,
pilot­
scale
field
testing
and
full
scale
field
testing.
NSP
had
worked
extensively
with
the
University
of
Minnesota
Agricultural
Research
Services,
the
USDA,
the
Minnesota
Department
of
Agriculture
and
the
Minnesota
Department
of
Health,
to
establish
the
efficacy
and
safety
for
agricultural
uses
of
coal
ash.
(
NSP00057)

Results
of
these
studies
all
demonstrate
that
beneficial
use
of
coal
ash
when
used
in
agronomic
amounts
leads
to
no
adverse
impacts
on
human
health
and
the
environment.
NSP's
Sherco
3
coal
ash
has
significant
liming
capability,
and
it
also
contains
agronomic
quantities
of
sulfur,
boron,
and
other
nutrients.
Market
studies
have
shown
that
farmers
will
pay
a
premium
for
a
coal
ash
product
compared
to
quarried
aglime
because
of
the
nutrient
value
in
the
coal
ash.
Crop
productivity
is
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
34
VIII
­
34
improved
at
a
lower
total
cost
to
the
farmer
when
he
uses
a
coal
ash
liming
fertilizer,
instead
of
using
aglime
plus
commercially
available
sulfur,
boron,
and
other
nutrients.
This
reduction
in
agricultural
costs
will
result
in
an
improved
agricultural
economy.
(
NSP00057)

Using
coal
ash
in
agriculture
can
also
provide
significant
environmental
benefits.
Mining
and
production
of
other
liming
materials
or
fertilizers
is
reduced.
A
byproduct
would
be
beneficially
reused
for
its
inherent
nutrient
value.
The
need
for
landfilling
of
coal
ash
would
be
reduced.
Soil
erosion
would
be
reduced
by
allowing
farmers
to,
for
example,
revitalize
a
3
year
old
stand
of
alfalfa
with
a
coal
ash
top­
dressing
instead
of
plowing
that
field
down
and
planting
a
high
intensity
row
crops
such
as
corn.
(
NSP00057)

Our
efforts
to
beneficially
use
CFB
ash
began
in
1989,
when
a
program
was
developed
with
the
California
Regional
Water
Quality
Board
and
the
California
Department
of
Food
and
Agriculture,
to
use
the
CFB
coal
ash
as
an
agricultural
mineral
and
liming
agent.
In
more
recent
years
the
our
program
has
also
been
evaluated
by
the
California
Integrated
Waste
Management
Board,
the
San
Joaquin
County
Department
of
Health,
and
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture's,
Natural
Resource
Conservation
Service
and
Agricultural
Research
Service.
Our
CFB
coal
ash
is
a
California
Department
of
Food
and
Agriculture
registered
agricultural
mineral
and
has
been
successfully
applied
to
thousands
of
acres
of
crop
land
for
more
than
ten
years.
In
the
past
three
years
we
have
begun
to
use
Stockton's
CFB
coal
ash
for
the
construction
of
feedlot
foundations.
The
CFB
coal
ash
feedlot
foundations
have
enabled
livestock
owners
to
significantly
improve
the
management
of
concentrated
animal
feedlot
runoff.
The
Natural
Resource
Conservation
Service
is
currently
in
the
process
of
approving
the
use
of
CFB
coal
ash
under
the
Service's,
Environmental
Quality
Improvement
Program
(
EQIP).
We
have
spent
more
than
ten
years
and
thousands
of
man­
hours
working
with
state
and
federal
environmental
and
agricultural
representatives
in
the
development
and
evaluation
of
our
programs
to
use
CFB
coal
ash
in
agriculture.
The
programs
have
been
both
an
environmental
and
agricultural
success.
(
AIRP00270)

Use
of
FBC
coal
ash
in
soil
amendments
and
mine
reclamation
is
beneficial.
(
PG&
E00274)

Our
documented
experience
is
that
FBC
coal
ash,
both
chemically
and
physically,
is
the
material
of
choice
for
soil
amendment
...
The
high
lime
content
naturally
amends
the
soil,
promoting
vegetative
growth
as
a
soil
amendment
...
As
shown
in
comments
from
ARIPPA
and
others,
FBC
coal
ash
has
levels
of
metal
and
contaminants
generally
in
the
same
range
as
native
soils,
according
to
the
U.
S.
Geological
Survey,
but
in
a
form
and
in
an
alkaline
environment
that
makes
trace
metals
less
leachable
than
in
soils.
These
beneficial
uses
are
decidedly
not
waste
disposal,
but
rather
the
productive
use
of
the
by­
product
because
of
its
desirable
characteristics
as
a
land
reclamation
material.
(
PG&
E00274)

Studies
by
the
USDA
with
agricultural
uses
of
FBC
ash
have
shown
that
these
materials
do
indeed
provide
valuable
nutrients
for
plant
growth.
Use
of
FBC
ash
with
high
lime
content
improves
the
growing
capacity
of
poor
or
acidic
soils
and
increases
the
density
of
plant
growth.
Promotion
of
higher
plant
density
reduces
erosion
and
the
transport
of
sediment
to
receiving
streams.
Ultimately,
the
use
of
this
material
reduces
the
amount
of
dissolved
solids
in
the
receiving
stream.
Additionally,
these
studies
have
shown
that
FBC
ash
actively
limits
phosphate
from
agricultural
waters,
diminishing
downstream
eutrophication
potential.
(
PG&
E00274)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
35
VIII
­
35
The
FBC
ash
may
be
used
for
its
lime
content
and
alkalinity
which,
when
used
as
a
soil
amendment,
can
make
it
possible
to
achieve
excellent
revegetation
results
on
sites
where
available
soils
are
incapable
of
sustaining
growth
or
where
the
cost
of
bringing
in
the
amount
of
soil
needed
precludes
reclamation.
(
PG&
E00023)

Given
this
information,
PG&
E
Gen
believes
it
would
be
arbitrary
and
unwarranted
to
restrict
the
use
of
FBC
ash
in
minefilling
and
soil
amendments,
and
require
costly
unregulated
soils
to
be
utilized,
which
contain
a
similar
level
of
arsenic,
in
what
may
well
be
a
more
bioavailable
form
than
in
FBC
ash.
(
PG&
E00023)

An
important
question
to
ask
is:
What
benefits
do
these
waste
products
offer?
The
term
beneficial
use
must
be
used
carefully
and
should
mean
that
the
waste
product
on
its
own
provides
some
benefit.
In
the
absence
of
showing
that
crops
actually
grow
better
as
a
result
of
land
application
of
these
residuals,
a
more
appropriate
term
would
be
land
disposal.
(
ALA00036)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
36
VIII
­
36
VIII.
AGRICULTURAL
USE
G.
Frequency
of
Damage
Cases
EPA
did
not
identify
any
agricultural
use
damage
cases
in
the
RTC.
An
industry
commenter
noted
this
fact
and
emphasized
that
absent
any
evidence
of
damage
EPA
can
not
find
that
existing
practices
are
inadequate
and
therefore
warrant
EPA
involvement.

Response:
EPA's
decision
is
to
not
regulate
this
practice
at
this
time.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
37
VIII
­
37
VIII.
AGRICULTURAL
USE
G.
Frequency
of
Damage
Cases
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Furthermore,
since
none
of
these
damage
cases
involve
the
beneficial
use
of
CCPs,
either
for
agricultural
purposes
or
for
minefill,
there
is
no
basis
for
even
considering
subjecting
CCPs
beneficially
used
for
these
purposes
to
Subtitle
C
regulation.
(
NMA00024)

The
Report
to
Congress
is
devoid
of
damage
cases
addressing
use
of
CCPs
for
agricultural
purposes
or
minefill.
(
NMA00024)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
38
VIII
­
38
VIII.
AGRICULTURAL
USE
H.
Clarification
of
Agricultural
Use
Definition
Federal
agency
and
academic
commenters
asked
that
any
agricultural
use
proposal
from
EPA
should
include
a
definition
of
practices
that
are
within
the
scope
of
proposed
rule.
One
of
the
commenters
noted
that
some
applications
of
FFC
wastes
in
agricultural
operations
(
e.
g.
feedlot
pads)
are
not
contemplated
in,
and
would
not
be
reflected
by
the
agriculture
use
scenario
risk
assessment.
The
commenter
argued
that
such
small­
scale
applications
should
not
be
included
in
agricultural
uses
subject
to
potential
restrictions.
A
public
interest
group
commenter
requested
that
EPA's
definition
of
agricultural
use
should
explicitly
distinguish
beneficial
use
from
land
disposal
and
distinguish
between
those
wastes
that
are
suitable
for
land
application
and
those
that
are
not.

Response:
EPA
is
not
proposing
any
regulations
for
agricultural
applications;
therefore
it
is
not
necessary
to
further
define
"
agricultural
use"
at
this
time.
EPA
agrees
that,
if
this
decision
is
re­
visited,
that
various
agricultural
uses
will
need
to
be
addressed
separately.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
39
VIII
­
39
VIII.
AGRICULTURAL
USE
H.
Clarification
of
Definition
of
Agricultural
Use
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
A
more
precise
detailed
description
of
agricultural
uses
is
necessary.
(
OSU00015)

It
is
not
clear
whether
small­
scale
agricultural
applications
of
CCW
such
as
cattle
feed
lots
and
hay
storage
pads
were
viewed
by
EPA
as
"
agricultural
purposes
(
i.
e.,
as
a
soil
nutrient
supplement
or
other
amendment)"
that
would
be
subject
to
some
form
of
Subtitle
C
regulation.
Because
the
impact
of
such
small­
scale
applications
is
negligible
when
considered
on
a
farm­
wide
basis,
DOE
believes
that
such
applications
should
not
be
considered
by
EPA
as
one
of
the
"
agricultural
purposes"
to
which
Subtitle
C
regulation
would
be
applied.
(
DOE00020)

Commenters
voiced
concerns
in
the
earlier
round
of
comments
about
land
application
of
comanaged
FFC
wastes
for
two
primary
reasons.
First
there
are
range
of
co­
managed
wastes.
some
of
which
are
entirely
unsuitable
for
land
application.
Second,
even
among
those
wastes
that
are
suitable
for
land
application,
analyses
included
in
the
docket
indicated
that
the
range
of
heavy
metals
could
make
one
batch
of
ash
acceptable
for
land
application
but
another
batch
unacceptable.
For
these
reasons
we
requested
that
EPA
distinguish
between
those
wastes
that
were
suitable
for
land
application
and
those
that
are
not.
Additionally,
it
is
EPA's
role
to
explicitly
distinguish
beneficial
use
of
wastes
and
land
disposal
of
wastes.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
40
VIII
­
40
VIII.
AGRICULTURAL
USE
I.
Coordination
with
Other
Agencies
Industry
and
federal
government
commenters
stated
that,
if
adopting
any
standards
for
agricultural
applications,
EPA
should
do
so
with
the
full
concurrence
of
the
Department
of
Agriculture.
One
of
the
commenters
further
stated
that
EPA
should
also
draw
on
the
expertise
of
recultivation
experts
in
the
Office
of
Surface
Mining.

Response:
If
the
Agency
concludes
that
standards
are
warranted
as
part
of
its
broader
review
of
agricultural
application,
such
standards,
if
and
when
proposed,
will
be
fully
coordinated.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
41
VIII
­
41
VIII.
AGRICULTURAL
USE
I.
Coordination
with
Other
Agencies
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
USWAG
suggests
that
if,
after
a
thorough
review
of
the
existing
research,
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
continues
to
believe
agricultural
application
of
CCPs
represents
a
threat
to
the
environment,
the
Agency
should
support
a
broad
joint
with
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
to
develop
a
comprehensive
and
consistent
approach
to
the
agricultural
application
of
waste
derived
products.
(
USWAG00037)

Similarly,
in
the
case
of
agricultural
uses,
I
think
it
would
be
extremely
unwise
for
EPA
to
adopt
Federal
standards
without
the
full
concurrence
of
the
Department
of
Agriculture
that
such
regulations
will
not
hurt
the
American
farmer
and
are
necessary
to
address
a
documented
threat
to
human
health
that
is
not
being
adequately
addressed
by
the
states.
(
BCHRL0002)

Perhaps
most
troubling
is
EPA's
apparent
willingness
to
make
regulatory
decisions
and
issue
public
pronouncements
on
related
agricultural
risks
with
little
or
no
consultation
with
the
agency
of
government
primarily
responsible
for
agricultural
issues
(
with
little
or
no
consultation
even
where
there
were
no
pressing
statutory
deadlines
as
there
are
in
this
proceeding.)
(
USWAG00275)

Now
that
the
deadline
for
the
regulatory
determination
has
been
extended
to
March
10,
2000,
EPA
should
take
advantage
of
the
additional
time
to
fully
address
this
important
issue
and
follow­
up
with
USDA
on
its
offer
of
assistance.
EPA
should
conduct
a
thorough
inter­
agency
review,
drawing
upon
the
expertise
not
only
of
USDA,
but
also
of
abandoned
mine
land
reclamation
and
recultivation
experts
in
the
Office
of
Surface
Mining.
(
USWAG00275)

However,
since
is
appears
unlikely
that
EPA
will
conduct
a
thorough
inter­
agency
review
of
fertilizer
issues
in
the
context
of
a
broad
fertilizer
rulemaking,
it
is
ever
more
important
for
EPA
to
correctly
address
the
issue
in
the
specific
waste
decisions
currently
pending.
(
USWAG00275)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
IX
­
1
IX.
DURATION
OF
COMMENT
PERIOD
EPA
initially
established
a
45­
day
period
after
release
of
the
Report
to
Congress
during
which
interested
parties
could
submit
comments
to
the
RCRA
Docket
for
consideration
by
EPA
in
developing
its
final
regulatory
determination.
A
wide
range
of
public
interest
groups,
plus
a
few
industry
commenters,
requested
that
EPA
extend
the
comment
period
for
the
Report
to
Congress,
arguing
that
the
RTC
and
the
supporting
record
were
too
voluminous
and
complicated
to
allow
thorough
review
and
comment
in
only
45
days.
State
government
and
industry
commenters
urged
EPA
to
move
forward
with
its
regulatory
determination
and
not
extend
the
comment
period.

Response:
Because
the
Agency
was
initially
subject
to
a
court­
approved
consent
decree
to
issue
its
regulatory
determination
by
October
1,
1999,
EPA
was
not
immediately
able
to
grant
an
extension
of
the
comment
period,
since
any
extension
would
leave
insufficient
time
for
EPA
to
complete
a
regulatory
determination
by
that
date.
However,
the
plaintiffs
in
Gearhart
versus
Reilly
moved
to
modify
the
consent
decree
to
allow
EPA
until
March
10,
2000
to
complete
the
regulatory
determination
to
allow
EPA
to
reopen
the
comment
period.
EPA
supported
this
motion,
and,
on
September
2,
1999,
the
Court
granted
the
motion.
EPA
therefore
reopened
the
comment
period
to
extend
until
September
24,
1999.
Based
on
the
large
number
of
comments
received
during
the
reopened
comment
period,
the
Agency
believes
the
extended
comment
period
was
sufficient
for
all
interested
parties
to
complete
their
analysis
and
submit
comments.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
2
IX
­
2
IX.
DURATION
OF
COMMENT
PERIOD
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Given
the
number
of
issues
raised
and
the
number
of
issues
about
which
you
are
soliciting
stakeholder
input,
the
45
comment
period
is
not
enough,
especially
with
a
public
hearing
in
just
over
three
weeks.
It
seems
as
if
an
extension
is
definitely
needed
in
this
case.
(
CATF00001)

The
EPA
has
been
obligated
to
produce
this
report
for
over
17
years,
yet
the
public
now
has
only
45
days
to
comment;
we
request
that
you
extend
the
comment
period
for
six
months
until
November
1999
so
our
members
will
have
time
to
evaluate
the
report
and
make
comments.
(
WSERC00002)

Your
Agency,
in
its
April
28,
1999
Notice
of
Availability
of
the
Report,
announced
a
public
comment
deadline
of
June
14,
1999.
The
Report
is,
however,
extremely
technical,
and
the
underlying
record
includes
over
800
documents.
We
therefore,
request
an
extension
of
time
to
comment
on
the
Report
and
its
draft
recommendations.
An
additional
six
months
would
allow
for
a
meaningful
review
by
the
environmental
community
of
the
Report
and
the
studies
on
which
it
relies.
(
OVEC00003)

The
Report
is,
however,
extremely
technical,
and
the
underlying
record
includes
over
800
documents!
We
therefore
respectfully
request
an
extension
of
time
to
comment
on
the
Report
and
its
draft
recommendations.
Specifically,
we
request
an
additional
six
months
to
allow
for
a
meaningful
review
by
the
environmental
community
of
the
Report
and
the
studies
on
which
it
relies.
(
NRCM00004)

The
Report
is,
however,
extremely
technical,
and
the
underlying
record
includes
over
800
documents.
We
therefore
respectfully
request
an
extension
of
time
to
comment
on
the
Report
and
its
draft
recommendations.
Specifically,
we
request
an
additional
six
months
to
allow
for
a
meaningful
review
by
the
environmental
community
of
the
Report
and
the
studies
on
which
it
relies.
(
LEAF00005)

The
Report
is,
however,
extremely
technical,
and
the
underlying
record
includes
over
800
documents.
We
therefore
respectfully
request
an
extension
of
time
to
comment
on
the
Report
and
its
draft
recommendations.
Specifically,
we
request
an
additional
six
months
to
allow
for
a
meaningful
review
by
the
environmental
community
of
the
Report
and
the
studies
on
which
it
relies.
(
IWLA00006)

The
Report
is,
however,
extremely
technical,
and
the
underlying
record
includes
over
800
documents.
We
therefore
respectfully
request
an
extension
of
time
to
comment
on
the
Report
and
its
draft
recommendations.
Specifically,
we
request
an
additional
six
months
to
allow
for
a
meaningful
review
by
the
environmental
community
of
the
Report
and
the
studies
on
which
it
relies.
(
TFEEE00007)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
IX
­
3
The
Report
is,
however,
extremely
technical,
and
the
underlying
record
includes
over
800
documents.
We
therefore
respectfully
request
an
extension
of
time
to
comment
on
the
Report
and
its
draft
recommendations.
Specifically,
we
request
an
additional
six
months
to
allow
for
a
meaningful
review
by
the
environmental
community
of
the
Report
and
the
studies
on
which
it
relies.
(
WVCAG00008)

Your
agency
only
recently
announced
a
public
comment
period
ending
on
June
14,
1999,
and
since
the
report
is
extremely
technical
with
volumes
of
underlying
documents,
we
are
requesting
an
extension
of
time
to
provide
comment
on
the
Report
and
its
draft
recommendations.
Specifically,
we
request
an
additional
six
months
to
allow
for
a
meaningful
review
of
the
Report
by
the
environmental
community.
(
CAAM00009)

The
Report
is,
however,
extremely
technical,
and
the
underlying
record
includes
over
800
documents.
We
therefore
respectfully
request
an
extension
of
time
to
comment
on
the
Report
and
its
draft
recommendations.
Specifically,
we
request
an
additional
six
months
to
allow
for
a
meaningful
review
by
the
environmental
community
of
the
Report
and
the
studies
on
which
it
relies.
(
EMEAC00010)

The
Report
is,
however,
extremely
technical,
and
the
underlying
record
includes
over
800
documents.
We
therefore
respectfully
request
an
extension
of
time
to
comment
on
the
Report
and
its
draft
recommendations.
Specifically,
we
request
an
additional
six
months
to
allow
for
a
meaningful
review
by
the
environmental
community
of
the
Report
and
the
studies
on
which
it
relies.
(
OA00011)

Your
agency
only
recently
announced
a
public
comment
period
ending
on
June
14,
1999,
and
since
the
report
is
extremely
technical
with
volumes
of
underlying
documents,
we
are
requesting
an
extension
of
time
to
provide
comment
on
the
Report
and
its
drafty
recommendations.
Specifically,
we
request
an
additional
six
months
to
allow
for
a
meaningful
review
of
the
Report
by
the
environmental
community.
(
ALA00012)

The
National
Mining
Association
(
NMA)
requests
that
the
deadline
for
commenting
on
the
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
(
64
FR
22820)
be
extended
for
a
period
of
two
weeks
to
provide
NMA
and
other
affected
parties
the
time
necessary
to
compile
and
submit
meaningful
input.
(
NMA00013)

The
Report
is,
however,
extremely
technical,
and
the
underlying
record
includes
over
800
documents.
Clean
Air
Council
therefore
respectfully
requests
an
extension
of
time
to
comment
on
the
Report
and
its
draft
recommendations.
Specifically,
the
Council
requests
an
additional
six
months
to
allow
for
a
meaningful
review
by
the
environmental
community
of
the
Report
and
the
studies
on
which
it
relies.
(
CAC00014)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
4
IX
­
4
This
is
to
request
an
extension
of
the
comment
period
to
respond
to
the
EPA
notice
regarding
the
availability
of
EPA's
Report
to
Congress
on
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion
until
July
2,
1999
...
The
full
Report
to
Congress
is
difficult
to
obtain
(
we
ordered
it
from
NTIS
and
have
not
received
it
as
of
this
writing).
As
such,
we
have
only
the
Executive
Summary
upon
which
to
prepare
comments.
The
technical
basis
for
the
recommendations
is
not
provided
in
the
Executive
Summary
so
we
cannot
confirm
or
refute
the
Report's
findings.
Because
this
issue
crosses
over
both
environmental
issues
and
energy
issues,
AF&
PA
has
distributed
the
Executive
Summary
to
industry
experts
in
both
fields.
This
additional
coordination
is
necessary
to
assure
that
our
industry's
comments
address
all
issues
associated
with
wastes
from
fossil
fuel
combustion.
Although
EPA
is
under
a
consent
decree
to
issue
a
regulatory
determination
by
October
I,
1999,
AF&
PA
believes
that
the
additional
weeks
will
not
impinge
on
EPA'S
ability
to
meet
that
deadline.
Furthermore,
EPA's
determination
will
be
enhanced
by
public
input.
For
all
of
the
above­
articulated
reasons,
we
respectfully
request
an
extension
of
the
comment
period.
Please
do
not
hesitate
to
contact
me
if
you
have
any
question
on
this
issue.
(
AFPA00016)

The
problems
identified
in
these
comments
are
the
product
of
only
a
preliminary
analysis
of
the
Report
to
Congress,
because
the
45
day
comment
period
provided
was
insufficient
to
conduct
a
complete
review
of
the
Report
and
the
underlying
data.
For
example,
EDF
was
unable
to
address
the
adequacy
of
current
state
program
requirements
during
the
current
comment
period,
or
examine
state
files
for
additional
damage
cases.
Nor
did
EDF
review
the
non­
groundwater
risk
assessments,
or
portions
of
the
report
regarding
non­
coal
combustion
wastes.
It
is
our
understanding
that
EPA
intends
to
support
an
effort
by
the
environmental
plaintiffs
(
the
Bull
Run
Coalition,
an
Oregon
group)
to
modify
the
applicable
Consent
Decree
and
provide
a
four
month
extension
of
the
comment
period.
EDF
concurs
such
an
extension
is
warranted,
and
would
greatly
benefit
from
such
an
extension.
In
this
regard,
EDF
notes
the
industries
generating
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
have
had
years
to
selectively
collect,
assess
and
interpret
the
data,
and
discuss
their
implications
with
the
Agency.
Fairness
dictates
that
EPA
provide
more
than
45
days
to
other
interested
parties.
(
EDF00021)

We
have
formally
requested
the
Agency
to
extend
the
period
for
written
comments
on
this
Report
to
allow
us
the
opportunity
to
review
it
and
the
underlying
analyses,
documents,
and
appendices
which
the
Agency
claims
support
its
draft
Regulatory
Determinations
concerning
the
appropriate
management
and
disposal
of
FFC
wastes.
As
was
expressed
in
oral
comments
before
the
Agency,
a
45
day
period
to
review
a
Report
of
this
complexity
is
simply
insufficient.
The
problem
is
compounded
by
the
fact
that
the
docket
does
not
contain
certain
necessary
supporting
analyses
and
data
apparently
relied
on
by
the
Agency.
Our
experts
have
not
had
the
time
to
date
to
conduct
what
we
would
consider
a
thorough
or
comprehensive
review
of
the
Report
and
its
many
underlying
documents
and
appendices,
particularly
since
their
efforts
have
uncovered
the
fact
that
much
necessary
supporting
information
is
not
currently
contained
in
the
docket.
Based
on
the
review
they
have
been
able
to
complete
in
the
45­
day
period,
we
can
provide
some
comments
and,
concerns
about
the
Report
and
about
the
draft
Regulatory
Determination
it
contains.
(
ALA00036)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
5
IX
­
5
Certain
of
the
analyses
underlying
EPA's
conclusions
and
Regulatory
Determination
are
not
included
in
the
docket,
or
have
been
withheld
from
public
review,
and
also
because
the
amount
and
complexity
of
material
presented
in
the
Report
cannot
be
adequately
reviewed
in
a
mere
45­
day
period.
It
is
notable
that
while
only
providing
45
days
for
public
review
of
its
analyses
and
decision,
EPA
is
now
17
years
past
the
statutory
deadline
for
submittal
of
the
Report
on
FFC
Wastes
to
Congress.
42
U.
S.
C.$
6982(
n)
(
original
deadline:
October
21,
1982).
It
also
is
notable
that
EPA
will
have
five
months
to
review
these
public
comments
before
it
must
finalize
its
Regulatory
Determination
under
the
terms
of
the
consent
decree
currently
governing
this
process.
(
ALA00036)

The
Hoosier
Environmental
Council
(
HEC)
and
Citizens
Coal
Council
(
CCC)
continue
to
strongly
object
to
the
outrageously
condensed
and
grossly
unfair
period
for
public
review
and
comment
on
the
Executive
Summary
and
Report
to
Congress
regarding
Wastes
From
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels,
Volume
2.
Nonetheless
to
establish
a
record
of
extensive
objections
that
we
have
about
these
extremely
biased
documents,
we
will
submit
the
following
statement
today.
We
plan
to
finish
our
comments
and
encourage
comment
from
the
public
in
a
reopened
public
comment
period.
To
facilitate
such
comments
we
request
that
EPA
reopen
the
public
comment
period
for
this
Determination
for
a
five
to
six
month
period
and
hold
public
hearings
with
adequate
notice
(
at
least
two
months),
in
Indiana
and
other
states
where
the
lives
of
thousands
of
citizens
will
be
profoundly
affected
by
this
Determination.
(
HEC00056)

Our
testimony
at
the
May
21
Public
Hearing
explained
in
detail
why
more
time
was
needed
than
45
days
for
the
public
to
review
and
comment
meaningfully
on
this
Draft
Regulatory
Determination.
To
recap,
we
explained
that
the
Report
would
have
potentially
far
reaching
adverse
effects
on
tens
of
thousands
of
citizens
who
live
in
the
vicinity
of
sites
that
are
or
may
be
used
as
dumping
grounds
for
the
wastes
involved
in
this
determination.
We
explained
that
these
wastes
include
more
than
four
fifths
of
all
coal
ash
generated
in
the
country,
sludge
generated
from
scrubbing
coal
fired
emissions,
any
other
fossil
fuel
wastes,
many
other
wastes
mixed
with
these
wastes
and
wastes
whose
parent
materials
are
coburned
with
coal.
The
Report
could
give
a
green
light
to
states
to
allow
all
of
these
wastes
to
be
dumped
right
into
the
drinking
water
of
those
citizens,
and
we
explained
that
certain
states,
such
as
Indiana,
are
in
fact
attempting
to
legalize
this
practice
on
a
widescale
at
this
very
moment.
We
explained
that
the
public
wants
to
have
a
meaningful
say,
as
demonstrated
by
the
more
than
200
faxes
that
US
EPA
received
from
citizens
and
groups
all
over
the
country
within
a
few
days
asking
for
a
six
month
comment
period.
We
explained
that
the
Report
and
the
Docket
that
supposedly
supports
it
are
extremely
voluminous
and
noted
that
it
has
taken
US
EPA
some
17
years
beyond
the
original
deadline
in
RCRA
to
produce
this
Draft
Determination.
(
HEC00056)

While
these
costs
and
benefits
may
be
explained
somewhere
in
the
459
documents
that
comprise
the
Docket
for
this
Report,
the
public
is
left
to
wade
through
this
sea
of
paper
to
figure
out
where
EPA
could
have
come
up
with
its
conclusions
about
the
unacceptable
cost
of
Subtitle
C.
THAT
TAKES
FAR
MORE
TIME
THAN
45
DAYS!
(
HEC00056)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
6
IX
­
6
Nowhere
is
Section
3004(
x)
or
any
other
section
of
RCRA
explained
in
this
Report.
This
places
an
unreasonable
burden
on
citizens
living
around
potential
disposal
sites
who
are
not
professionals
steeped
in
the
nuances
of
RCRA
which
is
a
complex
law
implemented
by
voluminous
technical
regulations.
To
digest
this
Report
and
figure
out
what
to
say
about
its
vague
implications,
they
must
first
educate
themselves
from
square
one
on
RCRA
and
its
provisions.
THAT
TAKES
FAR
MORE
TIME
THAN
45
DAYS!
(
HEC00056)

We
explained
that
the
Report
is
asking
commenters
to
provide
highly
technical
information.
Regardless
of
whether
such
information
can
be
produced
in
45
days,
the
Report
indicates
EPA
will
make
its
final
determination
anyway
on
issues
as
fundamental
as
whether
the
federal
government
will
condone
the
dumping
of
massive
quantities
of
fossil
fuel
wastes
directly
into
drinking
water.
For
example,
in
Chapter
3,
the
Report
concedes
that,
"
the
Agency
currently
lacks
sufficient
information
with
which
to
adequately
assess
the
risk
associated
with
this
practice
(
minefilling)."
It
then
asks
commenters
for
"
additional
case
studies
of
minefill
situations,
with
the
following
types
of
information:
minefill
project
design
including
areal
extent,
volumes,
depth,
environmental
controls,
mine
spoils
mixing
ratio;
characterization
of
combustion
wastes
that
are
involved;
the
background,
pre­
existing
conditions
in
ground
water
at
the
mine
location;
and
the
depth
to
ground
water
at
the
mine
location.
The
Agency
is
also
interested
in
obtaining
information
on
analytical
modeling
tools
that
can
simulate
fractured
flow
conditions
and
facilitate
prediction
of
alkalinity
consumption
by
acid
mine
drainage
intrusion
into
the
combustion
wastes."
This
is
a
patently
ridiculous
request
to
make
of
anyone
within
the
time
frame
provided
other
than
a
mining
operation
that
is
financially
benefitting
from
a
permit
to
dump
fossil
fuel
wastes
in
its
mine.
EPA
could
not
find
this
information
in
seventeen
years
of
effort.
The
public
will
face
an
almost
insurmountable
obstacle
course
from
obstinate,
disinterested
state
bureaucrats,
corporate
"
scientists"
or
the
permit
holders
themselves
that
will
prevent
it
from
readily
finding
this
information.
Yet
it
is
crucial
for
the
Agency
to
obtain
as
much
objective
technical
information
as
it
can
on
this
issue.
THAT
TAKES
FAR
MORE
TIME
THAN
45
DAYS!
(
HEC00056)
AF&
PA
(
along
with
numerous
other
interested
parties)
requested
an
extension
of
the
comment
period
because
the
complex
Report
requires
careful
review
by
the
Association
and
its
members.
Moreover,
a
printed
copy
of
Volume
2
of
EPA's
Report
was
available
only
from
NTIS,
which
we
received
less
than
a
week
before
the
June
14,
1999
comment
deadline.
It
is
simply
not
possible
to
review
this
lengthy
and
complex
document
and
prepare
intelligent
comments
on
it
in
less
than
a
week.
EPA's
denial
of
the
numerous
requests
for
a
comment
deadline
extension
effectively
denies
the
interested
public
of
an
opportunity
to
submit
comments
on
the
Report.
The
Agency's
claim
that
a
consent
decree
prevents
it
from
granting
an
extension
is
not
persuasive.
EPA
knew
about
the
consent
decree
timetable
and
should
have
adjusted
its
own
internal
deadlines
accordingly,
instead
of
penalizing
the
public
for
the
Agency's
tardiness.
(
AFPA00061)

Therefore,
we
request
that
EPA
reopen
the
comment
period
until
all
pertinent
data
have
been
compiled,
all
analytical
tools
employed,
and
a
reasonable
period
of
time
is
set
aside
for
public
inspection
of
these
data.
(
OSM00283).
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
7
IX
­
7
I
ask
that
EPA
adhere
to
its
regulatory
timetable
and
resolve
this
issue
by
October
1,
1999.
(
PA00045)

AEP
takes
exception
to
the
stated
claims
of
some
entities
that
they
have
not
been
given
a
chance
to
assist
in
the
regulatory
process
and
that
they
do
not
have
time
to
digest
and
comment
on
the
Phase
II
Report.
Industry
has
long
been
engaged
in
the
process
leading
to
the
Phase
II
Report,
and
other
entities
have
had
the
same
opportunity.
(
AEP00060)

Finally,
it
has
come
to
my
attention
that
EPA
published
a
notice
in
the
June
10,
199
Federal
Register
advising
that
EPA
is
seeking
to
negotiate
an
extension
of
the
court­
ordered
deadline
for
completing
the
Bevill
Amendment
regulatory
determination
beyond
October
1,
1999.
Under
both
the
statute
(
RCRA
§
3001(
b)(
3)(
C))
and
the
judicial
deadline
embodied
in
a
Consent
Decree,
EPA
has
six
months
following
the
Report
to
Congress
to
receive
public
comment
on
the
Report
and
to
make
a
final
regulatory
determination.
I
fully
understand
that
this
is
a
relatively
short
time
period,
but
Congress
struck
the
balance
in
favor
of
a
fairly
expeditious
process
for
both
public
comment
and
agency
decision­
making,
and
EPA
should
not
be
negotiating
to
thwart
the
statutory
schedule
when
the
Agency
is
already
16
years
late
in
discharging
its
Bevill
Amendment
responsibilities.
Any
further
delay
would
be
unconscionable.
(
BCHRL0002)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
1
X
­
1
X.
SCOPE
OF
THE
EXEMPTION
EPA
indicated
that
it
considered
the
beneficial
use
conclusions
to
affect
both
Part
1
and
Part
2
wastes.
Some
industry
commenters
found
the
extension
of
the
scope
to
include
Part
1
wastes
inappropriate
based
on
policy
and
legal
grounds.
One
of
these
commenters
specifically
stated
that
EPA
has
previously
recognized,
and
the
court
has
affirmed,
that
Bevill
determinations
are
"
one­
time"
decisions
that
cannot
be
revisited.
Some
industry
commenters
also
requested
that
EPA
include
certain
wastes
(
e.
g.,
combustion
wastes
from
new
technologies,
comanaged
chemical
leaks
and
spills)
within
the
scope
of
the
exemption.
Public
interest
group
commenters
supported
the
inclusion
of
Part
1
wastes
based
on
precedent
and
stated
that
the
distinction
between
Part
1
and
2
wastes
was
itself
not
consistent
with
previous
policies
or
court
decisions,
essentially
meaning
that
comanaged
wastes
should
not
be
included
within
the
Bevill
Amendment
(
EDF00021,
NCCLP00282).
Industry
commenters
presented
arguments
rebutting
this
latter
position
(
NMA00272,
USWAG00275).
Specific
arguments
raised
in
support
of
each
of
these
positions
are
summarized
below.
One
state
government
commenter
was
unclear
as
to
whether
EPA
intended
to
include
Part
1
wastes
in
the
scope
of
its
determination
and
requested
a
clearer
definition
in
the
final
determination
(
IDNR00062).

Response:
EPA
believes
it
has
the
discretion
and
authority
to
revise
its
Part
1
determination,
if
it
determines
that
to
be
appropriate,
and
that
EPA's
prior
position
with
regard
to
mineral
processing
wastes
and
the
Solite
decision
are
not
to
the
contrary.
Commenters
who
argued
that
EPA
may
not
revise
prior
Bevill
determinations
in
light
of
new
information
misunderstand
the
holding
in
Solite
affirming
EPA's
position
that
the
Bevill
Amendment
requires
only
a
"
one
time
determination"
that
"
would
not
be
allowed
to
evolve
over
time."

Solite
only
addresses
whether
EPA
has
an
obligation
under
the
Bevill
Amendment
to
revise
its
regulatory
determinations
over
time,
by
considering
whether
newly
generated
waste
streams
fall
within
the
exemption.
Industry
argued
that
EPA
was
required
to
study
newly
generated
waste
streams
(
i.
e.,
those
that
did
not
exist
at
the
time
of
EPA's
regulatory
determination)
and
exempt
those
that
met
the
high­
volume/
low
toxicity
criteria.
54
Fed.
Reg.
at
36,595­
96.
The
Solite
court
held
that
the
statute
did
not
require
EPA
to
continually
revise
its
regulatory
determination
over
time
in
this
manner.
952
F.
2d
at
491.
This
decision
in
no
way
purports
to
restrict
EPA's
authority
to
revisit
prior
Bevill
determinations
based
on
new
information
or
analyses.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
2
X
­
2
X.
SCOPE
OF
THE
EXEMPTION
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
There
is
no
justification
for
re­
opening
of
the
1993
Regulatory
Determination's
provisions
affecting
the
use
of
CCPs
for
agricultural
purposes.
Moreover,
EPA
is
barred
by
law
from
reopening
its
earlier
Regulatory
Determination.
(
NMA00024)

Because
state
regulation
of
beneficial
uses
of
CCPs,
including
use
as
minefill
and
for
agricultural
purposes,
is
sufficient
to
protect
public
health
and
the
environment,
EPA
should
not
re­
open
the
1993
Regulatory
Determination.
(
NMA00024)

Although
EPA
asserts
that
its
1999
Report
to
Congress
in
effect
re­
opens
the
1993
regulatory
determination
on
the
use
of
CCPs
for
agricultural
purposes,
the
agency
has
previously
recognized
in
the
case
of
mining
and
mineral
processing
industry
wastes
that
regulatory
determinations
are
"
one­
time"
decisions
that
cannot
be
revisited.
EPA
cannot
now
reverse
its
earlier
position,
suggesting
that
it
can
reopen
its
Regulatory
Determination.
In
1989,
the
Agency
proposed
a
rule
on
the
management
of
mineral
processing
wastes
as
part
of
the
Bevill
process
for
mineral
processing
wastes.
54
FR
153
16
(
April
17,
1989).
In
that
proposed
rule,
EPA
categorically
rejected
the
idea
of
doing
any
further
studies
and
reports
to
Congress
on
these
wastes,
asserting
that
"
a
one­
time
decision
will
serve
to
encourage
rather
than
discourage
environmentally
sound
mineral
production
and
waste
treatment
process
innovations"
and
provide
industry
with
"
substantial
knowledge
of
the
regulatory
regime
that
it
will
face".
54
FR
15338.
EPA
maintained
that
position
in
the
final
rule.
54
FR
36592
(
September
1,
1989).
In
Solite
Corn.
v.
EPA,
952
F.
2d
473
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1991),
NMA
and
others
challenged
EPA's
position
that
the
Bevill
Amendment
required
only
a
one­
time
study
and
regulatory
determination.
The
federal
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
disagreed,
however,
and
sided
with
the
Agency.
Citing
its
earlier
opinion
in
American
Mining
Congress
v.
EPA,
907
F.
2d
1179
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1990),
the
Court
held
that
"
we
clearly
enough
rejected
the
theory
that
Congress
intended
the
coverage
of
the
Bevill
exclusion
to
evolve
with
time."
Solite,
952
F.
2d
at
491.
(
NMA00024)

In
the
case
of
CCPs
used
for
agricultural
purposes,
EPA
now
asserts
that
it
can
re­
open
its
1993
regulatory
determination.
In
doing
so,
EPA
is
ignoring
the
position
that
it
has
repeatedly
taken
in
rulemakings
affecting
Bevill
Amendment
regulatory
determinations
on
mining
and
mineral
processing
wastes.
Further,
the
agency
ignores
the
position
it
took
before
the
D.
C
Circuit
in
the
Solite
case,
and
turns
its
back
on
that
Court's
decision
that
a
Bevill
Amendment
regulatory
determination
is
a
one­
time
matter.
Just
as
the
mining
industry
has
been
bound
by
EPA's
1986
and
1991
regulatory
determinations,
so
also
the
utility
industry,
and
those
who
beneficially
use
CCPs,
have
been
bound
by
the
1993
regulatory
determination
on
utility
CCPs.
EPA
cannot
reverse
its
course
but
instead
must
be
held
to
its
earlier
(
and
correct)
interpretation
that
RCRA
requires
a
one­
time
study
and
report
on
wastes
subject
to
the
Bevill
Amendment.
(
NMA00024)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
3
X
­
3
MCC
is
concerned
that
EPA
has
taken
results
from
"
recent
studies
conducted
by
EPRI"
demonstrating
that
"
most
utility
operators
comanage
some
or
all
of
their
large­
volume
wastes
as
they
are
actually
managed
"
as
an
opportunity
to
completely
re­
open
the
1993
rulemaking
on
all
combustion
wastes.
(
MCC00051)

We
believe
regulations
should
not
be
passed
directly
based
on
co­
mingling
or
co­
management,
but
it
must
be
done
on
the
material
constituents­­
not
because
it
is
a
mixture.
(
MDCAL0001)

The
comment
has
been
made
that
EPA
should
reevaluate
its
1993
determination
with
respect
to
coal
ash
practices.
PG&
E
Gen
disagrees
with
this
assertion.
The
1993
decision
was
a
sound
determination.
Current
coal
ash
management
activities
are
adequately
controlled
by
the
state
environmental
programs
and
should
remain
exempt
from
hazardous
waste
regulations.
The
1993
decision
remains
valid
and
supportable,
and
should
not
be
reopened.
(
PG&
E00274)

By
stating
explicitly
in
the
regulatory
determination
that
Orimulsion
retains
its
eligibility
for
the
Bevill
exclusion
and
will
be
studied
by
EPA
at
such
time
as
the
waste
is
actually
generated
in
the
United
States,
EPA
makes
a
modest
contribution
to
promoting
technological
innovation
in
electric
power
generation
simply
by
removing
a
regulatory
ambiguity
that
could
retard
future
use
of
this
new
fuel.
(
USWAG00037)

In
short,
given
(
i)
the
limited
application
of
the
1993
regulatory
determination
in
the
real
world,
(
ii)
the
limited
risk
assessment
and
damage
case
analysis
conducted
in
support
of
that
determination,
and
(
iii)
the
additional
damage
cases
on
the
risks
posed
by
monofilled
largevolume
wastes,
EPA
should
not
shirk
its
obligations
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
by
refusing
to
reevaluate
the
merits
of
its
1993
decision.
(
EDF00021)

EPA
also
indicated
the
low­
volume
wastes
identified
in
the
1988
Report
to
Congress
m
within
the
scope
of
the
exclusion
when
co­
managed
with
large­
volume
wastes.
This
EPA
interpretation
was
questionable
at
the
time,
since
neither
the
EDF
or
Solite
opinions
directly
or
indirectly
suggest
mere
co­
management
can
expand
the
scope
of
the
exclusion.
(
EDF00021)

Characterization
of
wastes
should
be
required,
and
commingling
of
higher
toxicity
waste
streams
associated
with
coal
combustion
with
higher
volume
wastes
should
be
prohibited
as
improper
treatment,
or
the
entire
resulting
commingled
waste
stream
should
be
considered
hazardous.
(
NCCLP00282)

EPA
should
consider
the
low­
volume,
but
potentially
high­
hazard
FFC
wastes
that
are
currently
co­
mingled
with
high­
volume
FFC
wastes,
as
separate
waste
streams
potentially
subject
to
Subtitle
C
regulation,
rather
than
assuming
future
FFC
waste
co­
management.
(
ALA00292)

The
plain
language
of
the
Bevill
Amendment,
as
well
as
its
legislative
history,
clearly
demonstrates
that
all
co­
managed
wastes
fall
within
the
scope
of
that
Amendment.
In
reauthorizing
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
4
X
­
4
RCRA
in
1984,
Congress
ratified
the
long­
standing
interpretation
that
co­
managed
wastes
are
within
the
scope
of
the
Bevill
Amendment.
Furthermore,
judicial
decisions
fully
support
the
inclusion
of
co­
managed
materials
within
the
Bevill
Amendment.
(
NMA00272)

It
is
unclear
as
to
the
intention
of
EPA
with
regard
to
considering
some
form
of
regulation
under
Subtitle
C
of
only
coal­
fired
utility
comanaged
wastes,
non­
utility
CCW
and
FBC
wastes
or
if
EPA
intends
to
apply
this
determination
to
all
CCW
including
those
that
have
been
studied
previously.
The
DoR
suggests
that
EPA
be
very
clear
and
concise
as
to
what
the
recommendations
resultant
of
this
review
are
to
ensure
that
it
is
quite
clear
as
to
what
the
recommendations
apply.
(
IDNR00062)

DOE
does
not
believe
reconsideration
of
the
1993
regulatory
determination
is
warranted
with
regard
to
the
part
1
CCW
used
in
minefilling
applications.
(
DOE00020)

DOE
also
believes
that
EPA
should
not
reconsider
the
part
1
wastes
in
this
respect
[
agricultural
use],
as
stated
in
Volume
1,
Section
3,
page
3­
7.
(
DOE00020)

The
purpose
of
this
letter
is
to
request
that
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
("
EPA")
clarify
in
its
final
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
that
the
utility
Bevill
exclusion
extends
to
leaks
and
spills
of
commercial
chemical
products
listed
in
40
C.
F.
R.
§
261.33
that
are
co­
managed
with
large­
volume
wastes.
(
G&
KXXXX)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
5
X
­
5
X.
SCOPE
OF
THE
EXEMPTION
A.
Precedent
to
Reopen
based
on
Advances
in
Risk
Assessment
A
public
interest
group
commenter
observed
that
the
risk
assessments
performed
for
the
current
Report
to
Congress
are
more
comprehensive
than
previous
efforts
and
that
it
would
be
consistent
with
previous
decisions
to
reopen
the
decision
based
on
these
advances.
An
industry
commenter
and
a
federal
government
commenter
stated
that
the
risk
assessment
was
not
more
thorough
and,
therefore,
reopening
the
decision
was
not
warranted.
The
federal
government
commenter
specifically
addressed
the
risk
assessment
for
minefills.

Response:
EPA
agrees
with
the
general
principle
that
wastes
covered
by
the
Part
1
and
2
determinations
should
be
regulated
in
a
similar
fashion,
given
similarities
between
these
wastes
and
the
importance
of
ensuring
consistent
regulation
across
management
scenarios
so
as
to
avoid
confusion
and
uncertainty.
As
explained
elsewhere,
the
Agency
intends
to
apply
the
same
regulatory
approaches
to
both
part
1
and
part
2
wastes.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
6
X
­
6
X.
SCOPE
OF
THE
EXEMPTION
A.
Precedent
to
Reopen
Based
on
Advances
in
Risk
Assessment
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Given
the
flaws
in
the
agency's
current
risk
analysis,
as
demonstrated
during
the
May
21
hearing
and
in
comments
on
the
Report,
there
is
no
new
risk
information
that
would
support
reopening
the
earlier
Regulatory
Determination.
(
NMA00024)

First,
EPA
correctly
observes
the
risk
assessments
performed
for
the
current
Report
to
Congress
are
more
comprehensive
than
the
analogous
effort
for
the
1988
Report
to
Congress
and
the
subsequent
regulatory
determination.
For
example,
the
current
Report
to
Congress
reflects
the
consideration
of
non­
groundwater
exposure
pathways,
while
the
prior
effort
largely
focused
on
the
groundwater
pathway.
This
shortcoming
of
the
earlier
work
is
particularly
important
since
in
this
Report
to
Congress
non­
groundwater
exposure
pathways
prove
to
be
important,
particularly
when
evaluating
so­
called
beneficial
uses.
For
other
Bevill
wastes,
EPA
has
regarded
similar
advances
in
risk
assessment
procedures
as
grounds
for
reviewing
prior
regulatory
determinations.
(
EDF00021)

Because
EPA
has
not
explained
its
reasons
for
reconsidering
its
1993
regulatory
determination
pertinent
to
the
part
1
CCW
(
fly
ash,
bottom
ash,
boiler
slag,
and
flue
gas
cleaning
wastes),
DOE
does
not
understand
what
pollutants
are
of
concern
to
EPA.
In
its
discussion
of
potential
Subtitle
C
regulation
of
agricultural
applications
of
utility
co­
managed
wastes
(
Volume
1,
page
3­
7
and
Volume
2,
page
3­
75),
EPA
justified
its
reconsideration
of
the
part
1
wastes
on
the
basis
that
(
1)
the
part
1
wastes
were
identified
as
the
source
of
the
pollutant
of
concern
(
arsenic);
and
(
2)
EPA's
current
risk
analysis
for
this
practice
(
agricultural
application)
was
more
thorough
than
that
conducted
for
the
part
1
wastes
originally.
However,
in
its
discussion
of
potential
Subtitle
C
regulation
of
minefilling
applications
of
utility
co­
managed
wastes,
EPA
did
not
identify
a
specific
pollutant(
s)
of
concern,
and
did
not
conduct
a
more
thorough
risk
analysis
than
was
previously
conducted
for
the
part
1
wastes.
Given
the
lack
of
these
justifying
factors,
DOE
does
not
believe
reconsideration
of
the
1993
regulatory
determination
is
warranted
with
regard
to
the
part
1
CCW
used
in
minefilling
applications.
It
is
worth
noting
that
the
portions
of
the
EPA
recommendations
pertaining
explicitly
to
minefill
applications
(
Volume
1,
page
3­
7
and
Volume
2,
page
3­
75)
did
not
specifically
mention
the
reconsideration
of
the
part
1
wastes.
(
DOE00020)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
7
X
­
7
X.
SCOPE
OF
THE
EXEMPTION
B.
Precedent
to
Reopen
Based
on
New
Damages
Cases
A
public
interest
group
commenter
suggested
that
the
identification
of
new
damage
cases
that
appear
to
relate
to
CCWs
managed
alone
justifies
reopening
the
Part
1
decision.
An
industry
commenter
argued
that
none
of
these
damage
cases
involved
agricultural
use
or
minefilling,
and
therefore
they
cannot
be
used
to
justify
reopening
the
decision
for
these
uses.

Response:
EPA
agrees
with
the
general
thrust
of
the
comment
that
EPA
should
seek
to
regulate
wastes
covered
by
the
part
1
and
part
2
determinations
in
the
same
manner.
EPA's
evaluation
of
the
damage
cases
is
addressed
elsewhere
in
this
document.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
8
X
­
8
X.
SCOPE
OF
THE
EXEMPTION
B.
Precedent
to
Reopen
Based
on
New
Damage
Cases
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
Report
to
Congress
is
devoid
of
damage
cases
addressing
use
of
CCPs
for
agricultural
purposes
or
minefill.
As
noted
earlier
in
these
comments,
and
as
pointed
out
by
USWAG
testimony
on
May
21,
EPA's
six
damage
cases
involve
older,
unlined
utility
CCP
management
units,
not
agricultural
or
minefill
uses
of
CCPs.
Thus,
these
six
damage
cases
cannot
possibly
justify
revisiting
an
earlier
Regulatory
Determination.
(
NMA00024)

Even
for
sites
involving
the
management
of
high
volume
coal
combustion
wastes
alone,
these
new
damage
cases
should
call
into
question
the
previous
regulatory
determination
based
largely
on
a
finding
of
damage
at
only
"
a
very
limited
number
of
sites."
(
EDF00021)

Assuming
arguendo
the
damage
cases
originated
from
the
disposal
of
high
volume
CCW
only,
a
significant
number
of
additional
damage
cases
not
reflected
in
the
earlier
EPA
study
covering
such
wastes
should
cause
EPA
to
revisit
its
earlier
conclusion
that
the
high­
volume
wastes
when
managed
alone
do
not
warrant
regulation
based
upon
their
purported
low­
risk
potential.
(
EDF00021)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
9
X
­
9
X.
SCOPE
OF
THE
EXEMPTION
C.
Scope
of
Exclusion
Too
Broad,
Given
Precedent
A
public
interest
group
commenter
argued
that
EPA's
position
that
comanaged
wastes
are
within
the
scope
of
the
exclusion
is
inconsistent
with
the
Phase
IV
LDR
rules
and
a
Court
of
Appeals
decision.
Industry
commenters
disagreed
with
this
argument,
stating
that
the
Bevill
Amendment
and
its
legislative
history
are
clear
that
all
comanaged
wastes
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
Bevill
Amendment.

Response:
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
assertion
that
recent
actions
by
EPA
and
the
decision
of
the
D.
C.
Circuit
in
the
Horsehead
Resource
Development
Company
v.
EPA,
16
F.
3d
1246
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1994),
compels
EPA
to
exclude
from
the
scope
of
the
Bevill
exemption
any
small
volume
wastes
that
are
co­
managed
with
exempted
FFC
wastes.
The
commenter
first
asserts
that
EPA's
recent
amendments
to
the
"
mixture
rule"
applicable
to
mining
and
mineral
processing
wastes
requires
the
Agency
to
exclude
co­
management
of
small­
volume
FFC
wastes
from
the
Bevill
amendment.
The
commenter
has
apparently
misunderstood
EPA's
recent
revisions
to
the
mixture
rule.
That
rule
addresses
the
mixture
of
Bevill­
exempt
wastes
with
non­
exempt
hazardous
wastes.
It
in
no
way
purports
to
address
what
kinds
of
wastes
themselves
qualify
as
Bevill
wastes.
As
stated
in
EPA's
regulatory
determination
for
FFC
wastes,
the
agency
believes
that
certain
small­
volume
wastes
that
are
uniquely
associated
with
exempt
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
qualify
as
Bevill
wastes.
The
mixture
rule
would
not,
and
could
not,
have
any
effect
on
the
Bevill
status
of
wastes
that
EPA
determines
are
themselves
within
the
scope
of
the
exemption.
Moreover,
application
of
the
uniquely
associated
test
ensures
that
FFC
wastes
do
not,
as
commenter
asserts,
become
unregulated
dumping
grounds
for
other
hazardous
wastes,
since
the
exemption
would
only
extend
to
wastes
that
satisfy
the
uniquely
associated
criteria.

Neither
does
the
Horsehead
decision
address
the
issue
here.
That
case
merely
found
that
the
special
waste
concept
was
inherent
in
all
the
Bevill
exempt
wastes,
including
FFC
wastes.
It
did
not
purport
to
restrict
the
Agency's
discretion
in
deciding
what
wastes
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
Bevill
exemption.
Consistent
with
EPA's
longstanding
interpretation
of
the
Bevill
exemption,
EPA
considers
certain
wastes
to
be
exempt
provided
they
are
"
uniquely
associated"
with
the
processes
that
enjoy
Bevill­
exempt
status.
EPA
recently
articulated
criteria
that
it
would
apply
this
concept
to
mining
and
mineral
processing
wastes.
63
Fed.
Reg.
28590­
593
(
May
26,
1998).
Our
regulatory
determination
for
FFC
wastes
states
that
the
Agency
will
follow
these
same
criteria
with
regard
to
FFC
wastes,
and
solicits
comment
on
the
proposed
application
of
those
criteria
to
certain
low
volume
wastes
that
can
be
co­
managed
with
FFC
wastes.
Therefore,
EPA's
approach
here
is
entirely
consistent
with
the
Agency's
current
policies
and
practices
with
regard
to
other
Bevill­
exempt
wastes.
Finally,
EPA
believes
that
the
commenter's
arguments
are
inconsistent
with
the
legislative
history
of
the
Bevill
exemption
as
applied
to
FFC
wastes,
which
expressly
contemplated
that
it
would
apply
to
small­
volume
wastes
produced
in
conjunction,
and
comanaged
with
FFC
wastes,
provided
there
is
not
evidence
of
substantial
environmental
damage
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
10
X
­
10
from
them.
(
See
Congressional
Record,
February
20,
1980,
p.
H1102,
H1104,
remarks
of
Congressmen
Bevill
and
Rahall).
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
11
X
­
11
X.
SCOPE
OF
THE
EXEMPTION
C.
Scope
of
the
Exclusion
Too
Broad,
Given
Precedent
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Based
upon
these
decisions,
EPA
addressed
the
scope
of
the
fossil
fuel
combustion
waste
exclusion
in
the
1993
regulatory
determination.
Specifically,
EPA
indicated
that
low
volume
wastes
independently
managed
"
are
not
and
never
have
been
within
the
scope
of
the
exclusion."
However,
EPA
also
indicated
the
low­
volume
wastes
identified
in
the
1988
Report
to
Congress
are
within
the
scope
of
the
exclusion
when
co­
managed
with
large
volume
wastes.
This
EPA
interpretation
was
questionable
at
the
time,
since
neither
the
EDF
or
Solite
opinions
directly
or
indirectly
suggest
mere
co­
management
can
expand
the
scope
of
the
exclusion.
Indeed,
EPA
made
no
such
distinctions
for
low­
volume
mineral
processing
wastes
in
the
subsequent
rulemakings
mandated
by
the
EDF
Court.
(
EDF00021)

Perhaps
more
to
the
point,
two
post­
1993
actions
by
EPA
and
the
Court
of
Appeals
compel
EPA
to
revise
its
previous
interpretation
regarding
the
boundaries
of
the
FFCW
exclusion.
First,
EPA
recently
amended
the
Bevill
mixture
rule
so
that
disposal
units
in
which
exempt
high
volume
mining
wastes
and
low­
volume
mineral
processing
wastes
are
co­
managed
would
not
be
exempted
and
thus
would
be
regulated
under
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA.
EPA
expressly
rejected
the
co­
disposal
rationale
for
expanding
the
mining
waste
exclusion,
so
that
"
Bevill
wastes
not
be
allowed
as
an
unregulated
dumping
ground
for
normal
Subtitle
C
wastes".
(
EDF00021)

Second,
in
Horsehead
Resource
Development
Companv
v.
EPA,
16
F.
3d
1246
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1994),
the
Court
of
Appeals
expressly
addressed
the
scope
of
the
FFCW
exclusion
...
[
comment
quotes
sections
of
the
court's
decision]
...
Therefore,
under
the
holding
in
this
post­
1993
regulatory
determination
case,
the
Court
applied
the
special
waste
limitation
to
the
specific
exclusion
and
wastes
at
issue
in
this
Report
to
Congress.
Moreover,
as
both
the
Court
and
EPA
fully
acknowledge,
the
special
waste
concept
incorporates
both
high
volume
and
low
hazard
eligibility
criteria,
and
these
criteria
apply
to
wastes
as
they
are
generated
since­
one
of
their
purposes
is
to
differentiate
wastes
amenable
to
Subtitle
C
management.
Notwithstanding
this
clear
and
contrary
Agency
and
judicial
precedent,
EPA
apparently
continues
to
adhere
to
its
position
articulated
in
the
1993
regulatory
determination.
EPA
simply
chooses
to
ignore
the
Horsehead
opinion
and
Phase
IV
LDR
rules
as
if
they
were
never
issued.
(
EDF00021)

Contrary
to
EDF's
allegations,
D.
C.
Circuit
case
law
supports
the
determination
that
all
comanaged
wastes
are
subject
to
the
Bevill
Amendment.
EDF
also
argues
in
its
comments
that
"
two
post­
1993
actions
by
EPA
and
the
[
D.
C.
Circuit]
Court
of
Appeals
compel
EPA
to
revise
its
previous
interpretation
regarding
the
boundaries
of
the
FFCW
[
fossil
fuel
combustion
waste]
exclusion."
EDF
Comments
at
5
(
emphasis
in
original).
EDF
seems
to
argue
that
EPA's
adoption
in
the
"
Phase
IV"
Rule
of
a
mixture
rule
for
mixtures
of
mineral
processing
wastes
and
Bevill
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
12
X
­
12
mining
industry
waste
demands
that
EPA
revisit
the
scope
of
the
utility
waste
exclusion,
63
Fed.
Reg.
28,596
(
May,
26,
1998).
EDF
also
alleges
that
the
D.
C.
Circuit's
decision
in
Horsehead
Resource
Development
Company
v.
EPA,
16
F.
3d
1246
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1994),
requires
the
same
result.
EDF
is
incorrect
on
both
counts.
The
bottom
line
is
that
EDF
overstates
the
scope
of
EPA's
authority
under
RCRA.
The
threshold
question
under
RCRA
is
whether
the
waste
is
a
Bevill
waste.
If
the
answer
under
the
Statute
and
its
legislative
history
is
"
yes",
EPA
has
no
jurisdiction
to
decide
the
scope
of
the
Bevill
exclusion.
As
noted
above,
the
legislative
history
and
purpose
of
the
Bevill
Amendment
are
clear
that
by
statute
all
co­
managed
wastes
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
Bevill
Amendment,
i.
e.
they
are
all
"
special
wastes."
Nothing
in
the
"
Phase
IV
Rule"
or
Horsehead
affects,
or
could
affect,
this
Congressional
determination.
Accordingly,
EPA
lacks
the
authority
to
overturn
the
Congressional
decision
that
all
co­
managed
wastes
are
subject
to
the
Bevill
Amendment.
(
NMA00272)

Despite
the
fact
that
EPA
has
consistently
adhered
to
this
construction
of
the
Bevill
Amendment,
the
Environmental
Defense
Fund
("
EDF")
submitted
comments
that
urged
EPA
to
adopt
a
radically
constricted
interpretation
of
the
amendment
based
on
a
misreading
of
three
court
decisions
that
explained
the
scope
of
the
Bevill
Amendment.
The
essential
principal
of
those
cases
was
established
in
Environmental
Defense
Fund
v.
EPA,
852
F.
2d
1316
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1988)
("
EDF"),
which
held
that
Congress
intended
the
mining
waste
clause
of
the
Bevill
Amendment
­
specifically
the
ambiguous
statutory
phrase
"`
waste
from
.
.
.
processing
of
ores
and
minerals'"
(
id.
at
1327)
­
to
"
encapsulate
the
`
special
waste'
concept
articulated
by
EPA
in
1978
(
id.
at
1329).
The
effect
of
the
decision,
as
later
explained
by
the
court,
was
to
limit
the
Bevill
exemption
to
`
only
those
mining
wastes
that
would
have
fallen
within
the
category
of
`
special
wastes.'"
Horsehead
Resource
Development
Co.,
Inc.
v.
Browner,
16
F.
3d
1246,
1255
(
D.
C.
Cir.),
cert.
denied,
513
U.
S.
816
(
1994).
See
also
Solite
Corp.
v.
EPA,
952
F.
2d
473,479
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1991).
It
is
true
that
those
cases
established
the
principle
that
the
Bevill
Amendment
incorporates
the
"
special
waste"
concept
as
defined
in
the
proposed
1978
hazardous
waste
rules,
but
EDF
fails
to
disclose
that
the
courts
interpretation
of
the
mining
waste
clause
was
based
in
part
on
the
conclusion
that
other
Bevill
waste
categories
­
specifically
utility
wastes
and
cement
kiln
dust
­
were
clearly
"
special
wastes"
and
had
been
expressly
identified
as
such
by
EPA
in
the
1978
proposal.
See
EDF,
852
F.
2d
at
1327
("
interpretation
is
reinforced
by
the
fact
that
the
other
wastes
singled
out
for
exclusion
in
the
Bevill
Amendment
are
also
large
volume
wastes,
namely
`
fly
ash
waste,
bottom
ash
waste,
slag
waste,
and
flue
gas
emission
control
waste
generated
primarily
from
the
combustion
of
coal
and
other
fossil
fuels'").
The
court
specifically
referenced
a
table
of
"
special
wastes"
in
the
1978
proposal
that
classified
utility
wastes
as
a
single
waste
category
comprised
of
fly
ash,
bottom
ash,
and
scrubber
sludge
with
a
total
volume
at
the
time
of
66
million
metric
tons
per
year.
Id.
(
citing
43
Fed.
­
Reg.
58946,
58992
(
Dec.
18,
1978)).
Plainly,
that
universe
of
utility
wastes
met
the
criteria
of
"
special
wastes"
and
constituted
the
baseline
from
which
the
court
determined
that
the
Bevill
status
of
mining
wastes
was
in
doubt,
which
required
a
remand
to
EPA
for
resolution.
(
USWAG00275)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
13
X
­
13
EDF
also
ignored
the
explicit
congressional
intent
that
the
Bevill
Amendment
cover
co­
managed
FFC
wastes.
As
noted
in
our
initial
comments,"
Rep.
Bevill
used
the
terms
"
fly
ash
waste,
bottom
ash
waste,
slag
waste,
and
flue
gas
emission
control
waste
generated
primarily
from
the
combustion
of
coal
or
other
fossil
fuels"
to
make
clear
that
the
Amendment
extends
broadly
to
the
wastes
actually
generated
by
utilities
that
bum
fossil
fuel
to
generate
electric
power.
Rep.
Rahall
was
even
more
emphatic
in
noting
that
the
wastes
typically
generated
by
utility
power
plants
"
do
not
include
solely
fly
ash,
bottom
ash,
slag,
or
scrubber
sludge"
but
often
include
"
materials
which
are
mixed
with
these
large
volume
wastestreams,
with
no
environmental
harmful
effects,
and
often
with
considerable
benefit
.
.
.
."
He
provided
the
example
of
a
mixture
of
boiler
cleaning
acids
and
alkaline
fly
ash
to
achieve
neutralization.
The
point
of
the
example
is
that
co­
management
was
typical
of
the
way
most
utilities
managed
FFC
wastes
at
the
time
the
Bevill
Amendment
was
enacted.
EPA's
study
of
co­
managed
FFC
wastes
is
consistent
with
this
statutory
mandate.
(
USWAG00275)

EDF
is
also
in
error
when
it
claims
that
the
recent
amendment
to
the
Bevill
mixture
rule
"
compel[
s]
EPA
to
revise
its
previous
interpretation
regarding
the
boundaries
of
the
FFCW
exclusion.""
First,
the
Bevill
mixture
rule,
by
its
terms,
applies
only
to
mining
wastes
excluded
from
the
definition
of
hazardous
waste
under
40
C.
F.
R.
§
261.4(
b)(
7)
of
EPA's
rules."
FFC
wastes,
on
the
other
hand,
are
covered
by
40
C.
F.
R.
§
261.4(
b)(
4),
not
§
261.4(
b)(
7).
Second,
the
preamble
discussion
of
the
Bevill
mixture
rule
amendment
was
presented
in
the
final
Land
Disposal
Restrictions
("
LDR")
Phase
IV
rule
as
part
of
the
Agency's
resolution
of
"
Issues
Relating
to
Newly­
Identified
Mineral
Processing
Wastes."
Neither
FFC
wastes
nor
low
volume
wastes
are
"
Newly­
Identified
Mineral
Processing
Wastes."
EPA
characterized
USWAG's
comments
on
the
LDR
Phase
IV
proposal
as
expressing
concern
"
that
the
rhetoric
contained
in
the
preamble,
while
it
does
not
apply
to
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
might
give
the
impression
that
EPA
was
modifying
the
entire
scope
of
Bevill
in
the
[
Phase
IV
LDR]
rulemaking,
rather
than
addressing
only
mining
and
mineral
processing
wastes."
EPA
responded
emphatically,
"
Today's
rule
does
not
in
any
way
affect
the
RCRA
Bevill
regulatory
status
of
wastes
from
the
combustion
of
fossil
fuels."
(
USWAG00275)

The
Bevill
Amendment's
legislative
history
states
unambiguously
that
the
utility
combustion
waste
clause
covers
co­
management
of
FFC
wastes.
It
would
thwart
the
legislative
purpose
to
remove
the
Bevill
exclusion
from
mixtures
of
FFC
wastes
and
low
volume
wastes,
as
EDF
urges.
(
USWAG00275)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
14
X
­
14
X.
SCOPE
OF
THE
EXEMPTION
D.
Consideration
of
Low­
Volume
Waste
Characteristics
Public
interest
group
commenters
stated
that
EPA
should
consider
low­
volume
wastes
separately
from
large­
volume
wastes.
One
of
these
commenters
specifically
argued
that
EPA
must
perform
the
"
high­
volume"
and
"
low­
hazard"
analyses
for
low­
volume
wastes
to
determine
if
they
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
exemption.
Industry
commenters
suggested
that
this
position
is
based
on
a
misunderstanding
of
EPA's
interpretation
and
argued
that
low­
volume
wastes
are
not
themselves
Bevill
wastes,
but
an
integral
part
of
the
way
utility
Bevill
wastes
are
managed.

Response:
As
stated
in
the
Phase
IV
LDR
Rule,
63
Fed.
Reg.
28591
(
May
26,
1998),
"
The
Agency
assessed
the
impact
of
applying
a
high
volume
criteria
to
making
uniquely
associated
determinations
and
found
that
such
an
application
would
make
virtually
all
such
wastes
nonuniquely
associated
with
mining
and
mineral
processing.
EPA
does
not
believe
that
it
would
be
appropriate
to
ignore
altogether
the
extent
to
which
a
particular
waste
is
associated
with
mining
and
mineral
processing
activities
that
are
subject
to
the
Bevill
exclusion,
since
the
exclusion
on
its
face
applies
to
wastes
from
these
processes.
In
addition,
the
Agency
believes
that
a
certain
degree
of
flexibility
is
needed
for
making
uniquely
associated
determinations
due
to
the
complex
and
varied
mineral
operations
and
site
specific
factors
that
must
be
considered
in
making
these
decisions."

After
assessing
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
we
find
the
same
considerations
apply.
A
large
volume
criteria
would
make
virtually
all
such
wastes
non­
uniquely
associated,
a
result
which
is
inconsistent
with
the
legislative
history,
which
recognized
the
exclusion
of
some
small
volume
wastes
when
co­
managed
with
fly
ash,
bottom
ash,
boiler
slag,
or
flue
gas
desulferiation
sludge.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
15
X
­
15
X.
SCOPE
OF
THE
EXEMPTION
D.
Consideration
of
Low­
Volume
Waste
Characteristics
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA
completely
fails
to
address
whether
any
or
all
of
the
low
volume
wastes
are
amenable
to
Subtitle
C
management.
In
short,
the
current
Report
to
Congress
contains
remarkably
little
new
information
regarding
the
salient
features
of
the
low­
volume
wastes,
notwithstanding
EPA's
prior
concerns
and
the
recognition
ten
years
ago
that
additional
information
was
required.
To
correct
these
deficiencies,
EPA
must
perform
the
"
high­
volume"
and
"
low­
hazard"
analyses
necessary
to
delineate
the
appropriate
boundaries
of
the
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
irrespective
of
whether
the
wastes
are
co­
managed.
As
consistently
observed
by
both
EPA
and
the
Court
of
Appeals,
these
analyses
are
properly
performed
on
a
waste­
specific,
as­
generated
basis.
(
EDF00021)

The
EPA
Report
and
Boulding
study
indicate
that
the
management
of
special
wastes
must
be
attuned
to
the
variability
of
the
concentrations
of
potentially
toxic
elements
in
the
waste,
and
to
the
different
problems
presented
by
disposal
sites,
and
by
the
type
of
special
waste
(
i.
e.
FBC
v.
non­
FBC
wastes).
The
draft
Report
to
Congress
fails
to
clearly
require
characterization
of
individual
waste
streams
prior
to
commingling,
and
the
segregation
in
management
of
hazardous
components
of
the
waste
stream;
instead
allowing
dilution
of
those
lower­
volume,
higher­
toxicity
components
by
co­
disposal
with
lower­
toxicity
wastes
(
such
as
bottom
ash).
Characterization
of
wastes
should
be
required,
and
commingling
of
higher
toxicity
waste
streams
associated
with
coal
combustion
with
higher
volume
wastes
should
be
prohibited
as
improper
treatment,
or
the
entire
resulting
commingled
waste
stream
should
be
considered
hazardous.
(
NCCLP00282)

EPA
should
consider
the
low­
volume,
but
potentially
high­
hazard
FFC
wastes
that
are
currently
co­
mingled
with
high­
volume
FFC
wastes,
as
separate
waste
streams
potentially
subject
to
Subtitle
C
regulation,
rather
than
assuming
future
FFC
waste
co­
management.
(
ALA00292)

The
present
Report
to
Congress
concerns
all
other
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
 
and
pertains
as
welt
to
the
four
previously
permanently
exempted
waste
categories
Insofar
as
they
are
co­
managed
with
other
waste
streams
from
fossil
fuel
combustion.
EPA
reports
that
over
80
percent
of
the
wastes
from
fossil
fuel
combustion
are
covered
by
the
present
Report,
as
current
practice
is
primarily
to
co­
mingle
the
waste
streams
for
disposal
purposes.
EPA
has
chosen
to
evaluate
these
wastes
for
purposes
of
this
Report
to
Congress
as
simply
co­
managed
­­
that
is
there
has
not
been
any
rigorous
attempt
to
segregate
the
component
waste
streams
of
the
co­
managed
waste,
and
make
a
determination
for
each,
based
on
its
volume
and
toxicity.
Instead
the
Agency
simply
assumes
that
industry
can
continue
its
practice
of
commingling
these
waste
streams,
effectively
using
the
high
volume
tower
hazard
wastes
to
dilute
the
toxicity
of
low
volume
waste
streams.
(
ALA00292)

In
comments
submitted
on
June
14,
1999
on
the
Report
to
Congress,'
the
Environmental
Defense
Fund
("
EDF")
incorrectly
asserts,
among
other
things,
that
the
Bevill
exclusion
from
RCRA
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
16
X
­
16
Subtitle
C
regulation
for
wastes
from
the
combustion
of
fossil
fueIs,
RCRA
Section
3001(
b)(
3)(
4)(
i).
42
U.
S.
C.
6
6921(
b)(
3)(
A)(
i),
does
not
extend
to
coal­
fired
utility
combustion
wastes
that
are
co­
managed
with
fly
ash,
bottom
ash,
boiler
slag
and
flue
gas
emission
control
wastes
("
co­
managed
wastes").
Instead,
EDF
appears
to
argue
that
EPA
should
perform
some
type
of
"
high­
volume"
and/
or
"
low­
hazard"
analysis
for
co­
managed
wastes
to
determine
if
they
are
"
Bevill
Wastes."
EDF
Comments
at
8.
EDF
is
wrong.
RCRA,
its
legislative
history,
and
the
case
law
are
clear
that
co­
managed
wastes
are
covered
by
and
subject
to
the
regulatory
approach
mandated
by
Congress
in
the
Bevill
Amendment.
(
NMA00272)

The
Bevill
Amendment
and
its
legislative
history
are
clear
that
all
co­
managed
wastes
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
Bevill
Amendment
...
Congress
intended
the
Bevill
Amendment
to
"
be
read
broadly,
to
incorporate
the
waste
products
generated
in
the
real
world
,"
126
Cong.
Rec.
3302
(
1980)
(
remarks
of
Rep.
Tom
Bevill).
In
the
real
world,
wastes
generated
by
the
utility
industry
often
are
co­
managed,
a
fact
noted
with
approval
by
the
sponsors
of
the
Bevill
Amendment
...
[
commenter
cites
remarks
of
Rep.
Nick
Rahall]
...
As
demonstrated
by
Rep.
Rahall's
example,
the
Bevill
Amendment
includes
not
only
the
Bevill
wastes
specifically
enumerated
in
the
Statute,
but
also
these
"
other
wastes"
from
the
utility
industry
that
are
co­
managed
with
them.
Were
it
otherwise
the
"
context
specific"
Bevill
Amendment
regulatory
approach
would
not
reflect
real
world
management
practices,
and
would
be
an
empty
gesture.
EDF
I,
852
F.
2d
at
13
14.
(
NMA00272)

Congress
has
directly
spoken
to
the
precise
question
at
issue,
i.
e.,
whether
co­
managed
wastes
are
covered
by
the
Bevill
Amendment.
The
legislative
history
and
purpose
of
the
Bevill
Amendment
demonstrate
that
the
answer
is
"
yes."
EDF's
allegation
that
co­
managed
wastes
are
not
subject
to
the
Bevill
Amendment
is
contrary
to
the
Statute.
(
NMA00272)

The
1984
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
Congressionally
ratified
EPA
long­
standing
interpretation
that
all
co­
managed
wastes
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
Bevill
Amendment.
In
January
of
1981,
shortly
after
the
adoption
of
the
Bevill
Amendment,
EPA
addressed
the
very
question
raised
by
EDF
in
its
1999
comments,
i.
e.
whether
co­
managed
wastes
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
Bevill
Amendment.
In
a
letter
written
by
Gary
N.
Dietrich,
then
Associate
Deputy
Administrator
for
Solid
Waste,
to
the
utility
industry,
EPA
correctly
decided
that
co­
managed
wastes
fell
within
the
scope
of
the
Bc\,
ill
Amendment,
based
in
part
on
the
legislative
history
cited
above.
Since
that
time,
EPA
and
the
utility
industry,
have
relied
upon
this
EPA
determination
that
co­
managed
wastes
are
subject
to
the
Bevill
Amendment.
(
NMA00272)

Between
1981
and
1984,
neither
EDF
nor
any
other
party
raised
any
question
or
issue
questioning
the
Bevill
status
of
co­
managed
wastes.
Faced
with
a
consistent
and
uninterrupted
interpretation
regarding
co­
managed
wastes,
Congress
amended
RCRA
in
1984,
enacting
the
Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
("
HSWA"),
including
section
3004(
x)
(
also
known
as
the
"
Simpson
Amendment"
after
its
sponsor,
Senator
Alan
Simpson).
Section
3004(
x)
was
enacted
because
of
Congressional
concerns
that
certain
new
regulatory
requirements
mandated
elsewhere
in
HSWA
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
17
X
­
17
would
have
serious
economic
impacts
if
applied
to
Bevill
industry
wastes
...
[
commenter
quotes
sections
of
the
Simpson
Amendment]
...
The
statutory
description
of
the
wastes
covered
by
section
3004(
s)
 
fly
ash
waste,
bottom
ash
waste,
slag
waste,
and
flue
gas
 
is
identical
to
the
language
that
appears
in
the
1980
BeviII
Amendmen.
and
is
the
precise
language
EPA
in
the
Deitrich
Letter
had
interpreted
to
include
co­
managed
wastes.
Statutes
are
constructed
with
reference
to
the
circumstance
existing
at
the
time
of
passage
...
when
Congress
adopts
statutory
language
for
which
an
agency
has
had
a
long­
standing
interpretation,
it
ratifies
such
an
interpretation.
YLRB
v.
Bell
Aerospace
Co.,
416
U.
S.
267
(
1974).
Accordingly,
Congress's
enactment
of
section
3004(
x)
of
the
19S4
HSWA
ratified
EPA's
long­
standing
interpretation
under
which
co­
managed
wastes
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
Bevill
Amendment.
(
NMA00272)

EDF's
argument
is
evidently
aimed
at
forcing
EPA
to
revisit
its
long­
standing
interpretation
of
the
Bevill
Amendment
as
encompassing
the
four
FFC
waste
streams
named
in
the
statute
when
comanaged
with
so­
called
"
low
volume
wastes"
by
assuming
that
EPA
has
classified
the
low
volume
wastes
as
themselves
constituting
Bevill
wastes
and
therefore
requiring
the
low
volume
wastes
to
satisfy
the
`
special
waste'
criteria.
But
EDF
has
misunderstood
EPA's
interpretation
because
the
low
volume
wastes,
most
of
which
are
not
hazardous
(
2
RTC
at
3­
13
­
3­
15),
are
not
themselves
Bevill
wastes,
but,
as
EPA
found
in
the
Report
to
Congress,
they
are
an
integral
part
of
the
way
utility
Bevill
wastes
are
managed
at
roughly
80
percent
of
the
utility
industry's
combustion
waste
management
units.
See
1
RTC
at
3­
l;
2
RTC
at
3­
24.
When
in
1978
EPA
estimated
the
volume
of
utility
"
special
wastes"
as
66
million
metric
tons
per
year,
a
large
percentage
of
that
universe
was
co­
managed
FFC
waste.
Given
EPA's
statutory
obligation
to
study
utility
FFC
wastes
as
they
are
actually
managed,
EPA's
study
of
co­
managed
utility
FFC
wastes
fully
discharged
that
statutory
requirement.
(
USWAG00275)

The
Report
to
Congress
shows
that
most
low
volume
wastes
co­
managed
with
FFC
wastes
in
fact
are
not
hazardous
wastes,
and
therefore
the
vast
majority
of
co­
management
would
not
be
affected
by
the
Bevill
mixture
rule
even
if
it
were
applicable
to
FFC
wastes.
And
finally,
the
Report
also
demonstrates
that
none
of
the
co­
managed
waste
mixtures
exhibited
a
hazardous
characteristic
even
in
those
few
cases
where
the
low
volume
waste
may
have
exhibited
a
characteristic
as
generated.
Even
the
Bevill
mixture
rule,
were
it
applicable
to
FFC
wastes,
would
not
apply
to
this
situation
because,
by
its
terms,
Subtitle
C
applies
only
if
the
mixture
exhibits
a
hazardous
characteristic.
In
sum,
EDF's
argument
for
applying
the
Bevill
mixture
rule
to
co­
managed
FFC
wastes
should
be
firmly
rejected.
(
USWAG00275)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
18
X
­
18
X.
SCOPE
OF
THE
EXEMPTION
E.
Decision
to
Reopen
Should
Not
Be
Based
on
Comanagement
Alone
Two
industry
commenters
expressed
concern
that
the
fact
of
comanagement
alone
does
not
warrant
reopening
the
Part
1
determination.
The
commenters
were
concerned
that
no
proportional
relationship
of
comanagement
is
defined
to
delineate
the
level
at
which
low­
volume
waste
addition
has
any
effect
on
the
quality
and
environmental
effects
of
the
combined,
comanaged
waste.
Any
regulation
of
the
material
should
be
done
on
the
basis
of
the
material
constituents
and
not
on
the
fact
that
it
is
a
mixture.

Response:
The
Agency
believes,
in
light
of
today's
regulatory
determination,
that
revisiting
the
exemption
of
Part
1
wastes
is
unnecessary.
However,
the
Agency
intend
that
national
Subtitle
D
regulations
will
also
be
applicable
to
Part
1
waste
disposed
in
surface
impoundments
and
landfills
or
used
as
fill
in
surface
and
underground
mines
so
that
all
coal
combustion
wastes
are
consistently
regulated
across
all
waste
management
scenarios,
for
the
following
reasons:

a.
The
co­
managed
coal
combustion
wastes
that
we
studied
extensively
in
making
today's
regulatory
determination
derive
their
characteristics
largely
from
these
large­
volume
wastes
and
not
from
the
other
wastes
that
are
co­
managed
with
them.
b.
We
believe
that
the
risks
posed
by
the
co­
managed
coal
combustion
wastes
result
principally
from
the
large­
volume
wastes.
c.
These
large­
volume
wastes,
on
a
dry
basis,
account
for
over
20%
of
coal
combustion
wastes.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
19
X
­
19
X.
SCOPE
OF
THE
EXEMPTION
E.
Decision
to
Reopen
Should
Not
Be
Based
on
Comanagement
Alone
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
MCC
is
concerned
that
EPA
has
taken
results
from
"
recent
studies
conducted
by
EPRI"
demonstrating
that
"
most
utility
operators
comanage
some
or
all
of
their
large­
volume
wastes
as
they
are
actually
managed
"
as
an
opportunity
to
completely
re­
open
the
1993
rulemaking
on
all
combustion
wastes.
No
proportional
relationship
of
comanagement
is
specified
or
defined
in
the
1999
Report
to
delineate
the
level
at
which
low­
volume
waste
addition
has
any
effect
on
the
quality
and
environmental
effects
of
the
combined,
comanaged
waste.
Any
regulation
of
the
material
should
be
done
on
the
basis
of
the
material
constituents
and
not
on
the
fact
that
it
is
a
mixture.
(
MCC00051)

We
believe
regulations
should
not
be
passed
directly
based
on
co­
mingling
or
co­
management,
but
it
must
be
done
on
the
material
constituents­­
not
because
it
is
a
mixture.
Cement
is
as
much
of
a
mixture
of
combustion
products
as
common
salt
is
a
mixture
of
two
poisonous
elements.
(
MDCAL0001)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
20
X
­
20
X.
SCOPE
OF
THE
EXEMPTION
F.
Inclusion
of
New
Technologies
in
Scope
of
Exclusion
One
industry
commenter
asked
that
EPA
explicitly
state
that
Orimulsion
is
included
in
the
scope
of
the
exemption
until
such
time
as
EPA
has
studied
wastes
from
the
combustion
of
this
new
fuel.

Response
New
technologies
and
fuels,
such
as
orimulsion,
are
included
in
the
scope
of
the
exemption.
We
find
no
reason
to
treat
new
technologies
differently.
The
expectation
is
that
the
nature
of
the
waste
is
primarily
driven
by
the
nature
of
the
fuel.
In
dealing
with
fluidized
bed
combustors,
the
Agency
found
the
resultant
coal
combustion
wastes
were
similar
to
coal
combustion
wastes
from
older
combustion
technologies.

Regarding
new
fuels,
the
current
regulatory
determination
spans
a
broad
array
of
fossil
fuels,
from
gas
to
oil
to
coal.
At
this
time,
the
only
emerging
fuel
is
orimulsion,
which
has
properties
somewhat
between
oil
and
coal.
It
seems
reasonable
that
the
nature
of
new
fuels
will
have
properties
in
the
range
of
the
fuels
already
addressed.

Given
the
expectation
of
similar
wastes,
the
Agency
is
providing
similar
treatment.
If
a
new
technology
or
fuel
emerges
which
for
some
reason
has
the
potential
to
pose
risks
beyond
those
considered
in
today's
regulatory
determination,
the
Agency
can
re­
open
the
determination
for
the
new
technology
or
fuel.
Finally
the
Agency
does
not
want
to
impede
the
development
of
new
technologies
or
fuels
due
to
differences
in
Bevill
Status,
especially
where
we
have
yet
to
identify
the
nature
of
the
new
technology
or
fuel
and
its
potential
impacts.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
21
X
­
21
X.
SCOPE
OF
THE
EXEMPTION
F.
Inclusion
of
New
Technologies
in
Scope
of
Exclusion
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA
should
commit
to
undertaking
a
Bevill
Study
of
the
combustion
wastes
from
Orimulsion
at
Such
time
as
a
United
States
power
plant
converts
to
the
combustion
of
Orimulsion
to
generate
electric
power.
The
RTC
observes
that
some
oil­
fired
utilities
have
considered
burning
a
fuel
produced
in
Venezuela
known
commercially
as
Orimulsion.
This
fuel
is
a
mixture
of
bitumen
and
water,
and
performs
in
a
manner
similar
to
Fuel
Oil
No.
6.
EPRI
provided
EPA
with
a
brief
report
on
the
limited
data
available
on
Orimulsion
combustion
residuals,
generally
derived
from
a
handful
of
power
plants
outside
the
United
States
that
burn
this
new
type
of
fuel.
We
understand
EPA's
reluctance
to
study
the
combustion
residues
of
a
new
fuel
where
the
data
base
is
sparse
and
almost
wholly
from
sources
outside
the
United
States.
We
believe
it
is
only
a
matter
of
time
before
the
combustion
of
Orimulsion
becomes
a
viable
option
in
the
United
States,
and
the
circumstances
that
led
Congress
to
direct
EPA
to
undertake
a
Bevill
study
of
conventional
FFC
wastes
warrants
the
same
conclusion
for
the
wastes
from
the
combustion
of
Orimulsion.
By
stating
explicitly
in
the
regulatory
determination
that
Orimulsion
retains
its
eligibility
for
the
Bevill
exclusion
and
will
be
studied
by
EPA
at
such
time
as
the
waste
is
actually
generated
in
the
United
States,
EPA
makes
a
modest
contribution
to
promoting
technological
innovation
in
electric
power
generation
simply
by
removing
a
regulatory
ambiguity
that
could
retard
future
use
of
this
new
fuel.
It
also
reaffirms
EPA's
commitment
to
setting
regulatory
policy
for
the
combustion
residues
from
fossil
fuels
­
new
fuels
as
well
as
the
established
ones
­
based
on
the
eight
study
factors
listed
in
section
8002(
n)
of
RCRA.
(
USWAG00037)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
22
X
­
22
X.
SCOPE
OF
THE
EXEMPTION
G.
Inclusion
of
Leaks
and
Spills
in
Scope
of
Exclusion
A
law
firm
requested
that
EPA
clarify
that
the
utility
Bevill
exclusion
extends
to
leaks
and
spills
of
commercial
products
listed
in
40
CFR
Part
261.33
that
are
comanaged
with
large­
volume
wastes.
The
inclusion
of
leaks
or
spills
of
chemicals
listed
in
40
CFR
Part
261.33
as
low­
volume
wastes
in
the
comanagement
concept
would
avoid
the
unreasonable
expense
to
segregate
and
separately
manage
such
materials.

Response:
The
materials
listed
in
40
CFR
Part
261.33
are
listed
hazardous
wastes
when
they
are
discarded
commercial
chemical
products,
off­
specification
products,
or
container
or
spill
residues,
sometimes
referred
to
as
"
P"
and
"
U"
wastes.
While
certain
low
volume
and
"
uniquely
associated"
wastes
may
be
subject
to
the
RCRA
Sectiom
3001
(
b)
(
3)
(
C)
exemption,
the
P
and
U
wastes
are
not
uniquely
associated
with
fossil
fuel
combustion
and
therefore
not
subject
to
the
exemption.

Facilities
that
burn
fossil
fuels
generate
combustion
wastes
and
also
generate
other
wastes
from
processes
that
are
related
to
the
main
fuel
combustion
processes.
Often,
as
a
general
practice,
facilities
co­
dispose
these
wastes
with
the
large
volume
wastes
that
are
subject
to
the
RCRA
Section
3001
(
b)
(
3)
(
C)
exemption.
Examples
of
these
related
wastes
are:

C
precipitation
runoff
from
the
coal
storage
piles
at
the
facility.
C
waste
coal
or
coal
mill
rejects
that
are
not
of
sufficient
quality
to
burn
as
fuel.
C
wastes
from
cleaning
the
boilers
used
to
generate
steam.

There
are
numerous
wastes
like
these,
collectively
known
as
"
low­
volume"
wastes.
Further,
when
one
of
these
low­
volume
wastes,
during
the
course
of
its
generation
or
normal
handling
at
the
facility,
comes
into
contact
with
either
fossil
fuel
(
e.
g.,
coal,
oil)
or
fuel
combustion
waste
(
e.
g.,
coal
ash
or
oil
ash)
and
it
takes
on
at
least
some
of
the
characteristics
of
the
fuels
or
combustion
wastes,
we
call
it
a
"
uniquely
associated"
waste.
When
uniquely
associated
wastes
are
co­
managed
with
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes,
they
fall
within
the
coverage
of
today's
regulatory
determination.
When
managed
separately,
uniquely
associated
wastes
are
subject
to
regulation
as
hazardous
waste
if
they
are
listed
wastes
or
exhibit
the
characteristic
of
a
hazardous
waste
(
see
40
CFR
261.20
and
261.30,
which
specify
when
a
solid
waste
is
considered
to
be
a
hazardous
waste).

The
Agency
recognizes
that
determining
whether
a
particular
waste
is
uniquely
associated
with
fossil
fuel
combustion
involves
an
evaluation
of
the
specific
facts
of
each
case.
In
the
Agency's
view,
the
following
qualitative
criteria
should
be
used
to
make
such
determinations
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis:
(
1)
Wastes
from
ancillary
operations
are
not
"
uniquely
associated"
because
they
are
not
properly
viewed
as
being
"
from"
fossil
fuel
combustion.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
23
X
­
23
(
1)
In
evaluating
a
waste
from
non­
ancillary
operations,
one
must
consider
the
extent
to
which
the
waste
originates
or
derives
from
the
fossil
fuels,
the
combustion
process,
or
combustion
residuals,
and
the
extent
to
which
these
operations
impart
chemical
characteristics
to
the
waste.

The
low­
volume
wastes
that
are
not
uniquely
associated
with
fossil
fuel
combustion
are
not
subject
to
today's
regulatory
determination.
That
is,
they
are
not
accorded
an
exemption
from
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
whether
or
not
they
are
co­
managed
with
any
of
the
exempted
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes.
Instead,
they
are
subject
to
the
RCRA
characteristic
standards
and
hazardous
waste
listings.
The
exemption
applies
to
mixtures
of
an
exempt
waste
with
a
non­
hazardous
waste,
but
when
an
exempt
waste
is
mixed
with
a
hazardous
waste,
the
mixture
is
not
exempt.

Based
on
the
Agency's
identification
and
review
of
low
volume
wastes
associated
with
the
combustion
of
fossil
fuels,
we
are
considering
the
following
guidance
concerning
our
views
on
which
low
volume
wastes
are
uniquely
associated
with
and
which
are
not
uniquely
associated
with
fossil
fuel
combustion.
Unless
there
are
some
unusual
site­
specific
circumstances,
we
would
generally
consider
that
the
following
lists
of
low
volume
wastes
are
uniquely
and
non­
uniquely
associated
wastes:

Uniquely
Associated
°
Coal
Pile
Runoff
°
Coal
Mill
Rejects
and
Waste
Coal
°
Air
Heater
and
Precipitator
Washes
°
Floor
and
Yard
Drains
and
Sumps
°
Wastewater
Treatment
Sludge
°
Boiler
Fireside
Chemical
Cleaning
Wastes
Not
Uniquely
Associated
°
Boiler
Blowdown
°
Cooling
Tower
Blowdown
and
Sludges
°
Intake
or
Makeup
Water
Treatment
and
Regeneration
Wastes
°
Boiler
Waterside
Cleaning
Wastes
°
Laboratory
Wastes
°
General
Construction
and
Demolition
Debris
°
General
Maintenance
Wastes
Moreover,
we
do
not
generally
consider
spillage
or
leakage
of
materials
used
in
the
processes
that
generate
these
non­
uniquely
associated
wastes,
such
as
boiler
water
treatment
chemicals,
to
be
uniquely
associated
wastes,
even
if
they
occur
in
close
proximity
to
the
fossil
fuel
wastes
covered
by
this
regulatory
determination.
Other
industries
that
have
leaks
or
spills
from
these
same
materials
must
manage
these
wastes
as
hazardous
if
they
are
listed
or
characteristically
hazardous.
The
Bevill
status
was
not
intended
so
select
industries
could
escape
hazardous
waste
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
24
X
­
24
requirements
for
wastes
identical
to
other
industries,
thus
the
concept
of
uniquely
associated.
These
spills
and
leaks
will
generally
not
be
uniquely
associated.

EPA
solicits
comment
on
this
discussion
of
uniquely
associated
wastes
in
the
context
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
and
will
issue
final
guidance
after
reviewing
and
evaluating
information
we
receive
as
a
result
of
this
request.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
25
X
­
25
X.
SCOPE
OF
THE
EXEMPTION
G.
Inclusion
of
Leaks
and
Spills
in
Scope
of
Exclusion
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
purpose
of
this
letter
is
to
request
that
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
("
EPA")
clarify
in
its
final
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
that
the
utility
Bevill
exclusion
extends
to
leaks
and
spills
of
commercial
chemical
products
listed
in
40
C.
F.
R.
§
261.33
that
are
co­
managed
with
large­
volume
wastes
...
Chapter
3
(
Volume
2,
Section
3.1,
page
3.3)
provides
that
low­
volume
wastes
include,
among
other
things:
"
Floor
and
yard
drains
and
sumps
­­
[
defined
as]
wastewaters
collected
by
drains
and
sumps,
including
precipitation
runoff,
piping
and
equipment
leakage,
and
wash
water"
(
emphasis
added).
This
language
would
appear
to
include
spills
or
leaks
of
commercial
chemical
products
listed
in
40
C.
F.
R.
§
261.33
from
piping
and
equipment
used
to
support
the
combustion
process.
For
instance,
chemicals
listed
in
40
C.
F.
R.
§
261.33
commonly
are
used
at
coal­
fired
utilities
as
chemical
additives
to
treat
water
used
in
on­
site
boilers.
(
G&
KXXXX)

The
inclusion
of
spills
or
leaks
of
chemicals
listed
in
40
C.
F.
R.
§
261.33
in
the
Bevill
comanagement
concept
also
is
consistent
with
the
exemption
from
the
mixture
rule
in
40
C.
F.
R.
§
261.3(
a)(
2)(
iv)(
D)
for
leaks
or
spills
of
40
C.
F.
R.
§
261.33
chemicals
that
are
mixed
with
wastewater
that
is
subject
to
Clean
Water
Act
regulation.
The
rationale
behind
the
mixture
rule
exemption
for
leaks
or
spills
of
chemicals
listed
in
40
C.
F.
R.
§
261.33
is
that
it
would
be
unreasonably
expensive
to
segregate
and
separately
manage
such
leaks
and
spills.
See
46
Fed.
Reg.
56,586
(
Nov.
17,
1981).
In
addition,
the
amount
of
such
leaks
and
spills
typically
would
be
very
small
in
relation
to
the
total
quantity
of
wastewater
otherwise
managed
and
would
therefore
not
pose
any
type
of
hazard
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
See
id.
These
same
considerations
also
are
applicable
to
the
co­
management
concept.
The
inclusion
of
leaks
or
spills
of
chemicals
listed
in
40
C.
F.
R.
§
261.33
as
low­
volume
wastes
in
the
co­
management
concept
would
avoid
the
unreasonable
expense
to
segregate
and
separately
manage
such
materials.
In
addition,
the
amount
of
such
leaks
or
spills
clearly
would
be
minor
in
relation
to
the
amount
of
other
low­
volume
wastes
that
would
be
typically
be
co­
managed,
and
would
be
extremely
minor
in
relation
ot
the
corresponding
large­
volume
wastes.
(
G&
KXXXX)

Based
on
the
above
discussion,
and
because
the
March
1999
Report
does
not
specifically
state
whether
the
co­
management
concept
would
extend
to
spills
or
leaks
of
chemicals
listed
in
40
C.
F.
R.
§
261.33,
EPA
should
clarify
in
its
final
Report
to
Congress
on
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
that
the
"
floor
and
yard
drains
and
sumps"
low­
volume
waste
category
would
include
leaks
and
spills
of
chemicals,
including
chemicals
listed
in
40
C.
F.
R.
§
261.33.
(
G&
KXXXX)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
XI
­
1
XI.
COMPLETENESS
OF
REPORT
AND
RECORD
Various
commenters
criticized
the
completeness
of
the
Report
in
that
they
were
unable
to
find
certain
supporting
information
in
the
Docket
or
had
concerns
about
the
adequacy
of
peer
review
or
stakeholder
involvement.
These
concerns
are
summarized
in
more
detail
below.

Response:
EPA
believes
that
the
Report
and
public
record
are
substantially
complete
and
sufficient
to
support
its
determination.
EPA
made
specific
efforts
to
assist
commenters
in
finding
information
they
requested
during
the
comment
period
and
supplemented
the
docket
with
additional
information
as
necessary.
The
Agency
further
believes
that
peer
review
of
certain
analyses
contained
in
the
Report
was
adequate
and
performed
by
the
appropriate
persons.
EPA
believes
that
the
Agency
made
sufficient
efforts
to
invite
both
industry
and
environmental
stakeholders
to
participate
during
development
of
the
study,
beginning
in
1996.
Given
the
court­
ordered
deadline
for
this
rulemaking,
it
was
not
possible
to
transform
draft
documents
into
polished
final
documents.
However,
the
draft
documents
provided
in
the
docket
provided
the
public
an
adequate
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
key
information
that
was
before
the
Agency.
Moreover,
EPA
is
also
soliciting
additional
comment
on
certain
aspects
of
our
regulatory
determination
discussed
in
the
FR
notice.
Specific
concerns
are
addressed
in
more
detail
the
sub­
topic
responses
below.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
2
XI
­
2
XI.
COMPLETENESS
OF
REPORT
AND
RECORD
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
conclusions
offered
in
the
coal
waste
study
appear
to
be
based
on
information
that
is
not
in
final,
tested
form.
(
RICE00041)

The
problem
is
compounded
by
the
fact
that
the
docket
does
not
contain
certain
necessary
supporting
analyses
and
data
apparently
relied
on
by
the
Agency.
(
ALA00036)

Some
of
the
data
are
not
available
to
the
public
through
the
docket.
For
one
database,
there
is
only
a
cover
sheet
from
an
industry
representative
instructing
the
EPA
project
officer
that
the
data
are
not
to
be
released
to
the
public.
Almost
nothing
from
the
peer­
reviewed
literature
has
been
incorporated
into
the
analyses.
(
ALA00036)

The
Report
and
background
risk
assessments
were
inadequately
peer­
reviewed.
(
ALA00036)

Contrary
to
EPA's
assertions
in
the
Report,
the
undersigned
groups
were
not
asked
to
participate
in
the
process
of
developing
this
Report
or
its
draft
Regulatory
Determinations
as
to
whether
comanaged
FFC
wastes
should
be
regulated
as
hazardous
wastes
under
Subtitle
C
of
the
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Act/
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
SWDALRCRA).
(
ALA00036)

We
explained
that
the
Report
makes
basic
assertions
that
are
unsubstantiated
or
refuted
by
the
evidence
at
hand.
(
HEC00056)

We
request
that
EPA
...
hold
public
hearings
with
adequate
notice
(
at
least
two
months),
in
Indiana
and
other
states
where
the
lives
of
thousands
of
citizens
will
be
profoundly
affected
by
this
Determination
...
EPA
has
ignored
any
outreach
to
the
affected
communities,
much
less
early
involvement.
(
HEC00056)

EPA's
analysis
suffers
from
poor
documentation
regarding
analytical
methods
and
information
and
data
sources,
and
generally
lacks
bridges
between
assumptions
and
conclusions.
(
USWAG00275)

AEP
takes
exception
to
the
stated
claims
of
some
entities
that
they
have
not
been
given
a
chance
to
assist
in
the
regulatory
process
and
that
they
do
not
have
time
to
digest
and
comment
on
the
Phase
II
Report.
Industry
has
long
been
engaged
in
the
process
leading
to
the
Phase
II
Report,
and
other
entities
have
had
the
same
opportunity.
(
AEP00060)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
FF2P­
S0371.
Technical
Background
Document
for
the
Report
to
Congress
on
Remaining
Wastes
From
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion:
Cost
and
Economic
Impact
Analysis.
EPA.
March
30,
1999.

2
e.
g.,
FF2P­
S0185;
FF2P­
S0186;
FF2P­
S0187;
FF2P­
S0188;
FF2P­
S0189;
FF2P­
S0190;
FF2P­
S0335;
FF2P­
S0336;
FF2P­
S0337;
FF2P­
S0338;
FF2P­
S0339;
FF2P­
S0340.

3
FF2P­
S0403.
Memo:
To
Andrew
Wittner,
Re:
Response
to
Margaret
Round
Questions
of
5/
12/
99;
FF2P­
S0408.
Memo:
To
Andrew
Wittner,
Re:
Response
to
Margaret
Round
Questions
of
8/
30/
99.

3
XI
­
3
XI.
COMPLETENESS
OF
REPORT
AND
RECORD
A.
Specific
Information
Not
Provided
Several
commenters
questioned
the
availability
of
certain
analyses
or
pieces
of
information.
Specific
information
purported
to
be
missing
is
identified
in
the
numbered
items
below,
with
specific
responses
to
each
item.

1.
Adequate
information
on
the
costs
of
management
alternatives
was
not
available.

Response:
Sufficient
information
on
the
costs
of
management
alternatives
was
included
in
the
docket
in
the
Technical
Background
Document
For
The
Report
To
Congress
on
Remaining
Wastes
From
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion:
Cost
and
Economic
Impact
Analysis.
1
2.
Summary
information
on
sampling
protocols
validating
characterization
data
was
not
available,
specifically
including
the
analytical
data
report
and
final
report
called
for
by
the
Quality
Assurance
Program
Plan
(
QAPP).

Response:
While
information
on
sampling
protocols
was
not
summarized
in
the
Report
or
Technical
Background
Documents,
extensive
information
on
these
protocols
is
included
in
each
of
the
studies
from
which
characterization
data
were
taken.
These
studies
were
included
in
the
docket.
2
While
it
is
true
that
the
analytical
data
report
and
final
data
report
were
never
completed,
the
Agency
does
not
believe
that
these
summary
documents
are
necessary
to
validate
the
waste
characterization
results,
given
the
extensive
information
on
sampling
protocols
available
in
the
individual
site
reports
and
EPA's
own
analysis
of
the
sampling
procedures
which
are
available
in
the
docket.

3.
Concentrations
upon
which
risks
were
based
were
not
clearly
identified.

Response:
While
the
concentrations
used
in
the
risk
analyses
were
not
initially
included
in
the
docket,
EPA
provided
this
information
directly
to
the
commenter
that
requested
it.
This
information
is
now
included
in
the
docket.
3
4.
Key
descriptors
of
waste
characteristics
were
not
available.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
4
FF2P­
S0367.
Technical
Background
Document
for
the
Report
to
Congress
on
Remaining
Wastes
from
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion:
Waste
Characterization.
SAIC.
March
15,
1999.

5
FF2P­
S0402.
Coal
Combustion
By­
Products
and
Low
Volume
Wastes
Comanagement
Data.

6
e.
g.,
FF2P­
S0363,
FF2P­
S0370.

7
Technical
Background
Supplement
in
Support
of
Rulemaking
Adjustment
Activities
for
Reportable
Quantities
(
RQ)
of
Radionuclides.
Final
Draft.
EPA,
Office
of
Radiation
Programs.
February,
1989.

8
Risk
Assessments:
Environmental
Impact
Statement
for
NESHAPs
Radionuclides.
Volume
2.
EPA,
Office
of
Radiation
Programs.
EPA­
520/
1­
89­
006­
1.
September,
1989.

9
Estimate
of
Health
Risks
Associated
with
Radionuclide
Emissions
from
Fossil­
Fueled
Steam
Electric
Generating
Plants.
EPA,
Office
of
Radiation
and
Indoor
Air.
EPA/
402/
R­
95/
16.
August,
1995.

4
XI
­
4
Response:
Key
descriptors
of
waste
characteristics
were
included
in
the
docket
in
the
Technical
Background
Document
for
the
Report
to
Congress
on
Remaining
Wastes
from
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion:
Waste
Characterization.
4
In
addition,
EPA
included
in
the
docket
an
electronic
file
containing
the
individual
data
used
to
characterize
FFC
wastes
for
this
study.
This
information
was
added
to
the
docket
in
August
1999,
prior
to
the
re­
opening
of
the
comment
period
on
the
RTC.
5
5.
Presentation
of
the
major
components
of
risk
assessment
process
was
not
complete
and
risk
modeling
results,
data,
and
statistical
distributions
supporting
the
Monte
Carlo
analysis
were
not
available.

Response:
EPA
believes
that
its
presentation
of
the
major
components
of
risk
assessment
process
(
including
the
Monte
Carlo
analysis)
in
the
Report
and
supporting
documentation
is
complete
and
adequate.
EPA
further
believes
that
its
presentation
of
the
modeling
results
is
complete
and
adequate.
This
information
is
included
in
the
docket
in
the
Report
itself,
as
well
as
in
a
number
of
supporting
documents.
6
Additionally,
EPA
supplemented
the
docket
with
a
compendium
of
the
printouts
from
its
risk
assessment
modeling
exercises.
This
information
was
added
to
the
docket
in
April
2000.

6.
Data
characterizing
radionuclides
and
dioxins
and
furans
were
not
available.

Response:
In
its
discussion
of
radionuclides
in
the
Report
to
Congress,
EPA
relied
on
radionuclide
characterization
performed
in
connection
with
other
EPA
programs.
These
characterization
efforts
are
documented
in
publicly
available
sources
cited
in
the
Report
to
Congress.
7,8,9
EPA
has
further
documented
its
consideration
of
radionuclides
in
Review
of
Literature
on
Radionuclides
in
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion
Waste
available
in
the
docket.
EPA's
consideration
of
radionuclides
is
discussed
further
under
Topic
XIII.
F.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
10
FF2P­
S0333.
PCDDs
and
PCDFs
in
Coal
Combustion
By­
Products.
EPRI.
March
1,
1998
.

11
FF2P­
S0239.
PCDDs
and
PCDFs
in
Coal
Ash
Samples
for
the
Tennessee
Valley
Authority
By­
Product
Marketing
and
Management.
KBK
Enterprises,
Inc.
March
1,
1991.

12
FF2P­
S0367.

5
XI
­
5
For
characterization
of
dioxins
and
furans
in
coal
combustion
wastes,
EPA
relied
on
the
following
source,
which
was
included
in
the
docket:
PCDDs
and
PCDFs
in
Coal
Combustion
By­
Products.
10
An
additional
source
of
data
on
dioxins
and
furans
also
included
in
the
docket
was:
PCDDs
and
PCDFs
in
Coal
Ash
Samples
for
the
Tennessee
Valley
Authority
By­
Product
Marketing
and
Management.
11
EPA's
consideration
of
dioxins
and
furans
(
along
with
other
organics)
is
discussed
further
under
Topic
XIII.
F.

7.
Data
and
studies
supporting
the
toxicity
values
used
were
not
available.

Response:
As
discussed
in
the
Report
and
supporting
documentation,
EPA
based
the
toxicity
values
used
in
its
risk
assessment
on
publicly
available
data
sources,
including
the
IRIS
and
HEAST
databases.
Due
to
the
size
and
scope
of
these
databases,
and
their
availability
to
the
public,
the
Agency
did
not
include
them
in
the
docket.

8.
Characterization
of
low­
volume
wastes
other
than
pyrites
was
not
presented.

Response:
Table
3­
5
of
the
Report
to
Congress
presents
general
characterization
information
for
all
types
of
low­
volume
waste.
The
Technical
Background
Document
for
the
Report
to
Congress
on
Remaining
Wastes
from
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion:
Waste
Characterization,
12
included
in
the
rulemaking
docket,
provides
the
available
characterization
data
for
several
types
of
low­
volume
wastes,
including
boiler
blowdown,
coal
pile
runoff,
cooling
tower
blowdown,
demineralizer
regenerant,
fireside
washwater,
boiler
chemical
cleaning
waste,
and
mill
rejects
(
pyrites).
In
light
of
the
fact
that
this
rulemaking
applies
to
comanaged
wastes,
not
low­
volume
wastes
managed
alone,
EPA
believes
the
degree
to
which
the
record
characterizes
low­
volume
wastes
managed
alone
is
adequate.

9.
Discussion
of
the
limitations
of
the
characterization
data
was
not
presented.

Response:
The
adequacy
of
the
characterization
data,
including
information
regarding
the
data's
advantages
and
limitations,
is
discussed
in
detail
in
the
responses
under
Topic
XIII.

10.
One
commenter
expressed
concern
that
there
was
no
connection
between
the
data
in
the
Waste
Characterization
Technical
Background
document
and
the
data
used
in
the
risk
assessments.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
13
FF2P­
S0367.

14
FF2P­
S0403;
FF2P­
S0408.

15
FF2P­
S0363.
Technical
Background
Document
for
the
Supplemental
Report
to
Congress
on
Remaining
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion
Wastes
­
Ground­
water
Pathway
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment.
Revised
Final
Draft.
SAIC.
June
1,
1998.

16
e.
g.,
FF2P­
S0361;
FF2P­
S0369.

6
XI
­
6
Response:
The
data
presented
in
the
Technical
Background
Document
for
the
Report
to
Congress
on
Remaining
Wastes
from
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion:
Waste
Characterization13
were
the
source
of
the
input
concentrations
used
in
the
risk
assessment.
EPA
apologizes
for
the
extent
to
which
this
was
unclear
from
the
risk
assessment
and
waste
characterization
documentation.
EPA
has
since
provided
additional
explanation
of
the
input
concentrations
used
in
the
risk
assessment
and
included
this
information
in
the
docket.
14
11.
One
commenter
was
concerned
that
the
discussion
of
the
range
of
uncertainties
in
discussed
in
the
risk
Technical
Background
Document
was
not
included
in
the
Report
to
Congress
itself.

Response:
The
discussion
of
uncertainties
included
in
the
Technical
Background
Document
for
the
Supplemental
Report
to
Congress
on
Remaining
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion
Wastes
­
Groundwater
Pathway
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment15
is
far
too
extensive
for
verbatim
inclusion
in
the
Report
to
Congress.
EPA,
however,
took
into
consideration
all
of
the
uncertainties
described
in
the
background
document
in
its
ultimate
characterization
of
risk
as
presented
in
the
Report
to
Congress.

12.
One
commenter
was
concerned
that
the
revised
Sensitivity
Study
report
associated
with
the
risk
assessment
is
a
draft,
and
the
cover
letter
indicates
that
the
work
had
been
suspended
pending
funding
and
direction.

Response:
Given
the
court­
ordered
deadline
for
this
rulemaking,
it
was
not
possible
to
transform
all
draft
documents
into
polished
finals.
Despite
some
documents
being
labeled
as
"
draft,"
the
analyses
conducted
in
support
of
this
rulemaking
as
presented
in
the
docket
are
substantially
complete,
including
the
sensitivity
analyses
conducted
for
the
risk
assessment.
16
13.
One
commenter
stated
that
there
was
no
documentation
of
the
sources
of
critical
information
in
Table
2­
5
of
the
Economic
Background
Document.

Response:
The
commenter's
concern
regarding
Table
2­
5
of
the
Technical
Background
Document
for
the
Report
to
Congress
on
Remaining
Wastes
From
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion:
Cost
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
17
FF2P­
S0371.

7
XI
­
7
and
Economic
Impact
Analysis17
appears
to
be
related
to
a
footnote
that
states
"
computed
based
on
other
assumptions."
This
footnote
intends
to
indicate
that
this
value
was
computed
based
on
the
other
assumptions
that
are
specifically
footnoted
in
the
table.
For
example,
if
the
net
income
before
tax
is
13
percent
of
revenues
from
electricity,
the
total
baseline
production
cost
can
be
computed
to
be
87
percent
of
revenues
from
electricity.
Furthermore,
if
energy
costs
are
50
percent
of
revenues
from
electricity
and
interest
expenses
are
9
percent
of
revenues
from
electricity,
operating
expenses
can
be
computed
to
be
28
percent
of
revenues
from
electricity,
given
that
these
three
cost
components
sum
to
the
total
baseline
production
cost
which
is
equal
to
87
percent
of
revenues
from
electricity.
The
cost
data
in
this
table
are
relevant
to
utility
operation
and
not
power
generation
alone
(
see
further
discussion
under
Topic
XXI.
C
below).
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
8
XI
­
8
XI.
COMPLETENESS
OF
REPORT
AND
RECORD
A.
Specific
Information
Not
Provided
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
For
example
in
Chapter
3,
the
Report
dismisses
the
alternative
of
managing
fossil
fuel
wastes
generated
by
electric
utilities
as
hazardous
on
cost
grounds
stating
that
"
possibly
all
beneficial
use
practices
and
markets
would
cease."
and
"
The
cost
of
compliance
.
.
.
could
reduce
the
amount
of
coal
consumed
in
favor
of
other
fuels"
and
"
the
cost
of
generating
electricity
by
burning
coal
could
substantially
increase."
Yet
there
are
no
discussions
of
requirements,
estimates
of
cost,
data,
references
or
foot
notes
that
would
explain
these
basic
assertions
anywhere
in
the
Report.
(
HEC00056)

EPA
does
not
provide
adequate
information
on
the
costs
to
plan,
build,
operate
and
close
management
alternatives.
The
key
variables
in
EPA's
analysis
of
the
incremental
compliance
cost
associated
with
the
implementation
of
Subtitle
D
requirements
are:

°
The
number
of
affected
plants
and
current
management
practices;
°
Estimated
waste
generation
quantities;
and
°
Costs
of
key
components
(
in
particular,
treatment
unit
liners).

The
RTC
sections
describing
the
cost
and
economic
impact
analyses,
as
well
as
the
technical
background
document
in
the
docket,
do
not
adequately
address
the
costs
to
plan,
build,
operate,
and
close
the
management
unit
alternatives
for
reducing
arsenic
risks.
These
alternatives
(
without
cost
data)
are
simply
described
in
the
risk
alternatives
section
of
the
RTC.
(
DOE00020)

Our
preliminary
review
of
the
Report
indicates
that
EPA
has
neglected
to
provide
a
complete
presentation
of
the
major
components
of
risk
assessment
process
(
i.
e.,
hazard
identification,
exposure
assessment,
and
dose­
response
assessment).
Data
are
not
available
to
understand
how
the
human
health
risk
assessment
was
conducted.
Because
risk
assessment
is
an
iterative
process,
the
risk
characterization
and
risk
management
analyses
are
also
inadequate.
Background
documents,
which
were
reviewed
in
an
attempt
to
fill
in
the
data
gaps,
were
also
found
to
be
incomplete.
(
ALA00036)

However,
summary
information
on
sampling
acquisition,
frequency
of
detection,
the
detection
limits,
sampling
locations
and
media,
the
sampling
protocols
representative
of
waste
sites,
quality
assurance/
quality
control,
background
levels,
or
other
information
necessary
to
validate
the
FFC
waste
concentration
data
used
in
the
Report
was
not
provided
by
EPA.
(
ALA00036)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
9
XI
­
9
Tables
in
the
Report
with
risk
estimates
for
the
groundwater
and
non­
groundwater
risk
assessments
did
not
contain
the
standard
format
that
includes
the
concentrations
upon
which
the
risks
are
based.
(
ALA00036)

Tables
in
the
Report
provide
summaries
of
the
50th
and
95th
percentile
concentrations,
but
the
key
descriptors
of
exposure
including
the
average,
median,
standard
deviation,
and
upper
bound
on
the
average
were
not
provided.
Although
the
Technical
Background
Document
for
the
Report
on
Remaining
Wastes
from
FFC:
Waste
Characterization
(
March
15,
1999)
contains
a
summary
of
the
concentrations
of
constituents
in
FFC
waste,
there
is
no
apparent
connection
between
these
data
and
the
data
used
in
the
risk
assessments.
For
example,
EPA
uses
the
50th
and
95th
percentile
concentrations
as
input
to
the
model
to
predict
groundwater
concentrations
in
a
hypothetical
receptor
well;
however,
the
modeling
results
are
not
presented
in
the
Report,
appendices,
or
background
documents.
(
ALA00036)

EPA
relied
on
the
finding
of
a
probabilistic
analysis
(
i.
e.
Monte
Carlo
analysis)
to
determine
where
the
point
risk
estimates
(
i.
e.
detemlinistic
results)
fell
within
the
distribution.
EPA
uses
the
Monte
Carlo
analysis
to
suggest
that
the
point
risk
estimates
are
conservative
and
represent
highend
scenarios
(
3­
42).
However,
EPA
does
not
provide
any
data
to
support
the
Monte
Carlo
analysis.
A
May
15,
1997
memo
from
Fred
Hanson,
Deputy
Administrator
of
the
EPA,
provides
the
Agency's
policy
on
the
use
of
probabilistic
techniques,
including
Monte
Carlo
analysis,
in
risk
assessment.
The
policy
states
that
the
minimum
conditions
for
acceptance
of
a
Monte
Carlo
analysis
requires
that
the:
(
1)
purpose
and
scope
of
the
assessment
be
clearly
articulated,
(
2)
methods
for
the
analysis
(
including
all
models,
all
data
upon
which
the
assessment
is
based,
and
all
assumptions
that
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
results)
be
documented
and
easily
located
in
the
report,
(
3)
sensitivity
analyses
be
presented
and
discussed
in
the
report,
and
(
4)
information
for
each
input
and
output
distribution
be
provided
in
the
report.
None
of
these
conditions
are
met
even
in
the
background
groundwater
risk
assessment
report
from
the
EPA
contractor.
(
ALA00036)

Data
are
not
presented
in
the
Report
on
the
analyses
of
the
concentration
of
organic
compounds
or
radioactive­
substances
in
FFC
waste;
however,
EPA
determined
that
no
public
health
concern
exists
from
these
potentially
toxic
constituents.
(
ALA00036)

There
is
also
an
incomplete
characterization
of
the
dose­
response
assessment
in
the
risk
assessment
of
FFC
waste.
At
a
minimum,
the
overall
database,
and
the
critical
study
on
which
the
toxicity
value
is
based
including
the
critical
effect,
uncertainty
factors
and
modifying
factors
should
be
provided.
EPA
guidelines
require
that
the
dose­
response
assessment
examine
the
quantitative
relationships
between
exposure
and
effects
in
the
studies
used
to
identify
and
define
effects
of
concern.
No
such
analysis
is
in
the
Report,.
appendices,
or
background
documents.
(
ALA00036)

The
absence
of
toxicological
profiles
for
health­
based
criteria
used
to
estimate
risks
of
FFC
waste
prevents
any
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
critical
risk
assessment
component.
(
ALA00036)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
10
XI
­
10
There
were
several
points
regarding
the
range
of
uncertainty
in
the
groundwater
risk
assessment
that
were
not
discussed
or
considered
by
EPA
in
the
analysis
or
risk
characterization.
For
example,
in
the
oil
waste
monofill
scenario
the
contractor
notes.
"
Risks
may
be
understated
by
about
20
times.
Units
with
larger
areas
have
risks
about
20
higher
times
that
indicated
here,
due
to
the
presence
of
an
inflection
point
in
model
results
at
areas
slightly
larger
than
those
modeled
here."
It
was
also
noted
that
"
Risks
range
from
values
given
to
half
the
values
given
based
on
the
use
of
environmental
location
parameters
...
Because
it
is
difficult
to
suggest
which
is
more
appropriate
a
range."
However,
EPA
did
not
present
these
ranges
in
the
Report
(
SAIC,
Oct
9,
1998
memo)
(
ALA00036)

EPA
does
not
discuss
the
limitations
of
the
waste
characterization
in
assessing
impacts,
characterizing
the
risks,
or
making
a
Regulatory
Determination.
(
ALA00036)

The
QAPP
also
calls
for
an
analytical
data
report,
documenting
the
data
summary,
including
a
synopsis
of
the
quality
control,
and
also
all
the
raw
data
to
be
delivered
to
SAIC
personnel.
This
document
could
not
be
located
in
the
docket.
Finally,
the
QAPP
requires
a
final
report
to
the
docket,
containing
the
complete
sampling
and
analytical
report,
including
the
quality
assurance
documentation,
data
validation
documentation
and
analytical
results.
This
document
also
could
not
be
located
in
the
docket,
and
many
of
the
memoranda
that
discuss
bits
and
pieces
of
this
information
remain
in
draft
form.
(
ALA00292)

EPA
did
not
provide
toxicological
profiles
to
evaluate
the
dose­
response
values
used
to
calculate
the
hazard
benchmark
numbers
(
HBNs).
(
ALA00292)

EPA
did
not
incorporate
the
range
of
uncertainties
identified
by
the
contractor
that
are
associated
with
the
environmental
parameters
(
e.
g.
infiltration
rate,
hydraulic
conductivity)
used
in
the
modeling
analysis.
(
ALA00292)

As
discussed
in
our
initial
comments,
EPA
has
prominently
displayed
and
integrated
the
results
of
the
probabilistic
analysis
to
support
the
finding
that
a
high­
end
conservative
analysis
was
conducted;
however,
no
background
information
was
provided
to
evaluate
the
analysis
as
required
by
Agency
polices
(
EPA
1997)
...
Therefore,
we
believe
that
if
EPA
continues
to
rely
exclusively
on
a
probabilistic
analysis
to
support
its
findings
it
should
at
least
provide
the
necessary
information
to
assess
the
validity
of
the
analysis.
EPA
policy
requires
that:

(
1)
the
purpose
and
scope
of
the
assessment
be
clearly
articulated
in
a
"
problem
formulation:
section
that
includes
a
full
description
of
any
highly
exposed
or
highly
susceptible
sub
populations
evaluated
(
e.
g.
children).
(
2)
the
methods
used
for
the
analysis
(
including
all
model
used,
all
data
upon
which
the
assessment
is
based,
and
all
assumptions
that
have
a
significant
impact
upon
the
results)
are
to
be
documented
and
easily
located
in
the
report.
This
documentation
is
to
include
a
discussion
of
the
degree
to
which
the
data
used
are
representative
of
the
population
under
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
11
XI
­
11
study.
Also,
this
documentation
is
to
include
the
names
of
the
models
and
software
used
to
generate
the
analysis.
Sufficient
information
is
to
be
provided
to
allow
the
results
of
the
analysis
to
be
independently
reproduced.
(
3)
the
results
of
sensitivity
analysis
are
to
be
presented
and
discussed
in
the
report.
Probabilistic
techniques
should
be
applied
to
the
compounds,
pathways,
and
factors
of
importance
to
the
assessment,
as
determined
by
sensitivity
analysis
or
other
basic
requirements
of
the
assessment.
(
4)
information
for
each
input
and
output
distribution
is
to
be
provided
in
the
report.
This
includes
tabular
and
graphical
representations
of
the
distributions
(
e.
g.,
probability
density,
function
and
cumulative
distribution
function
plots)
that
indicate
the
location
of
any
point
estimates
of
interest
(
e.
g.,
mean,
median,
95th
percentile).
(
5)
calculations
of
exposures
and
risks
using
deterministic
(
e.
g.,
point
estimates)
methods
are
to
be
reported.

If
EPA
is
unable
to
reconcile
Agency
policy
regarding
the
use
of
probabilistic
analysis
it
should
be
removed
from
the
Report
to
Congress.
(
ALA00292)

Review
of
the
draft
RTC
was
especially
complicated
because
the
report
nor
its
background
documents
did
not
provide
all
the
information
that
was
used
by
EPA's
contractor
in
performing
the
health
risk
assessment.
(
NSP00057)

Nonetheless,
in
the
current
Report
to
Congress,
waste
contaminant
concentrations
on
only
one
of
the
low­
volume
wastes
are
provided,
namely
coal
mill
rejects.
For
the
remaining
low­
volume
wastes,
EPA
merely
provides
brief
summary
descriptions
of
chemical
content,
and
whether
"
one
or
more"
samples
of
the
wastes
exhibited
a
hazardous
waste
characteristic.
(
EDF00021)

The
Revised
Sensitivity
studies,
for
example,
are
particularly
disturbing.
The
results,
as
far
as
they
go,
are
very
interesting
and
merit
comparison
with
similar
sensitivity
tests
such
as
those
related
to
the
Industrial
Non­
Hazardous
studies.
But
that
report
is
a
draft,
and
the
cover
letter
[
SAI,
10/
13/
98]
indicates
that
the
work
had
been
suspended
pending
funding
and
direction.
(
RICE00041)

One
example
suffices
to
demonstrate
the
inadequacy
of
the
documentation
and
the
spillover
effect
on
the
analysis:
EPA
presents
a
summary
of
its
financial
analysis
conclusions
for
coal
combustion
in
Table
2­
5
of
the
Economic
Background
Document.
There
is
no
documentation
of
the
sources
of
critical
information
in
the
table.
(
USWAG00275)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
12
XI
­
12
XI.
COMPLETENESS
OF
REPORT
AND
RECORD
B.
Adequacy
of
Peer
Review
A
public
interest
group
commented
that
the
report
and
background
risk
assessments
were
inadequately
peer­
reviewed.
The
commenter
suggested
the
Agency
should
have
the
complete
report
peer
reviewed,
preferably
by
EPA's
SAB
and
further
expressed
specific
concern
that
the
data
characterizing
dioxins
and
furans
had
not
been
peer
reviewed.
Another
public
interest
group
commenter
expressed
concern
that
SAB
had
not
reviewed
MINTEQA2,
one
of
the
elements
of
EPA's
ground­
water
model.

Response:
For
the
formal
peer
review
of
the
risk
assessment,
EPA
sought
reviewers
who
are
recognized
experts
in,
or
who
have
several
peer
reviewed
publications
or
other
written
demonstration
of
expertise
in
any
combination
of
the
following
areas:
human
health
risks
from
exposure
to
contaminated
ground­
water,
human
health
risks
from
exposure
to
contaminants
via
non­
ground­
water
pathways,
ecological
risks
from
environmental
contamination,
and
familiarity
with
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes.
The
four
peer
reviewers
were:
James
Butler,
Ph.
D.,
Argonne
National
Lab,
University
of
Chicago;
Arthur
Gregory,
Ph.
D.,
DABT
Techto
Enterprises;
Anne
Fairbrother,
DVM,
Ph.
D.,
Ecological
Planning
and
Toxicology,
Inc.:
and
Carolyn
Fordham
Terra
Technologies.
The
first
two
reviewers
have
expertise
in
human
health
risk
assessment
and
the
other
two
reviewers
have
expertise
in
ecological
risk
assessment.

In
response
to
the
comment
urging
a
peer
review
of
the
entire
Report
to
Congress,
the
RTC
builds
on
technical
and
scientific
analyses
and
proposes
certain
policy
and
regulatory
positions
that
are
most
appropriately
released
for
comment
in
the
broad
arena
of
public
policy
debate,
as
the
Agency
did,
in
accordance
with
the
statutory
directive
of
RCRA
section
3001
(
b)
(
3)
(
C).
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
13
XI
­
13
XI.
COMPLETENESS
OF
REPORT
AND
RECORD
B.
Adequacy
of
Peer
Review
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA.
states
on
page
3­
13
of
the
Executive
Summary
that
"
although
an
exhaustive
review
of
the
organics
data
has
not
been
conducted,
based
on
available
information;
total
and
leachable
organics
are
generally
reported
to
be
at
or
below
analytical
detection
limits."
EPA
references
two
studies
from
1987
and
1982.
However,
the
Technical
Background
Document
for
the
Report
to
Congress
on
Remaining
Wastes
from
FFC:
Waste
Characterization
(
March
15,
1999)
indicates
that
more
recent
analysis
have
been
provided
to
EPA
but
not
considered
in
the
Report.
For
example,
page
2­
10
of
the
Technical
Support
Document
states:
"
In
addition,
data
characterizing
dioxins
and
furans
in
comanaged
wastes
are
available
from
an
EPRI
(
l998)
study.
This
study
analyzed
samples
from
11
disposal
sites
for
17
polychlorinated
dibenzo­
p­
dioxins
(
PCDDs)
and
polychlorinated
dibenzofurans
(
PCDFs)
that
are
currently
considered
to
be
of
toxicological
significance.
Fifteen
samples
were
taken,
two
of
which
were
analyzed
twice
for
a
total
of
17
analyses.
This
data
are
not
referenced
or
discussed
in
the
Report
or
background
risk
assessment
documents.
It
should
also
be
noted
that
the
peer
reviewers
were
not
provided
this
data
to
review,
and
at
least
one
reviewer
noted
this
in
their
comments
(
Butler,
1998).
(
ALA00036)

The
Report
and
background
risk
assessments
were
inadequately
peer­
reviewed
...
The
Agency
states
that
as
part
of
the
risk
assessment
process
for
this
study,
two
peer
reviewers
reviewed
the
multipathway
assessment
and
two
peer
reviewers
reviewed
the
ecological
assessment.
This
level
of
review
is
completely
inadequate
for
a
report
of
this
magnitude,
especially
one
that
contains
a
Regulatory
Determination.
The
Agency
should
have
the
complete
report
peer
reviewed,
including
the
conclusions
derived
from
the
various
analyses,
by
a
panel
of
independent
scientists.
The
preferable
review
panel
would
be
EPA's
Science
Advisory
Board
(
SAB).
There
is
ample
precedence
for
the
Agency
to
have
a
Report
to
Congress
extensively
peer­
reviewed.
Recent
examples
include
the
Residual
Risk
Report,
The
Utility
Air
Toxics
Study,
and
the
Mercury
Study
Report
to
Congress.
Despite
the
fact
that
the
Mercury
Study
did
not
contain
a
Regulatory
Determination
and
had
gone
through
extensive
peer
review,
the
White
House
Office
of
Science
Technology
(
OSTP)
protested
the
"
minimal
peer
review"
and
the
Report
was
subsequently
vetted
by
the
SAB
prior
its
release.
(
ALA00036)

In
fact,
MINTEQA2
was
expressly
not
evaluated,
and
SAB
indicated
"
the
accuracy
of
the
model
estimates
must
be
verified
and
the
documentation
of
this
use
needs
to
be
clarified."
Therefore,
SAB
has
not
reviewed
one
of
the
most
crucial
components
of
EPA's
groundwater
modeling
underlying
the
Report
to
Congress.
(
EDF00021)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
14
XI
­
14
XI.
COMPLETENESS
OF
REPORT
AND
RECORD
C.
Adequacy
of
Agency
Solicitation
of
Stakeholder
Involvement
Public
interest
groups
indicated
that,
contrary
to
EPA's
assertions
in
the
Report,
the
commenters
were
not
asked
to
participate
in
the
process
of
developing
the
Report.
One
of
the
commenters
stated
that
EPA's
public
hearings
were
not
conveniently
located
for
all
affected
parties
to
express
their
concerns.
A
number
of
citizen
and
public
interest
group
commenters
requested
that
EPA
hold
public
hearings
in
the
states
or
regions
affected
by
CCW
disposal.
One
industry
commenter
took
exception
to
the
claim
that
some
commenters
did
not
have
the
opportunity
to
participate.

Response:
Beginning
in
1996,
EPA
invited
industry,
public
interest
and
other
stakeholder
groups
to
participate
during
the
conduct
of
this
study.
Two
environmental
groups,
the
Environmental
Defense
Fund
(
EDF)
and
the
Hoosier
Environmental
Council
(
HEC)
did
so.
Both
EDF
and
HEC
were
explicitly
asked
to
invite
all
interested
parties
in
their
stakeholder
group.
The
Agency
believes
that
reasonable
opportunities
were
offered
to
public
interest
stakeholders
to
participate
during
development
of
the
study
and
during
the
public
comment
period.
Because
of
the
time
constraints
of
the
court
schedule
under
which
EPA
was
operating
to
conduct
the
study,
the
Agency
had
to
limit
the
number
of
public
hearings
to
just
one.

The
RTC
was
issued
on
March
31,
1999
and
the
April
28
Federal
Register
notice
provided
a
45
day
public
comment
period,
until
June
14,
1999.
The
Agency
held
a
public
hearing
on
May
21,
1999
in
Washington
DC.
We
regret
that
we
were
not
able
to
provide
60
days
notice
in
advance
of
the
meeting,
however
we
were
obligated
by
a
court­
ordered
deadline
to
issue
our
final
determination
by
October
1,
1999.
In
response
to
commenters
who
stated
that
the
Agency
should
have
held
hearings
in
states
affected
by
coal
combustion
waste
disposal,
we
were
constrained
by
our
court­
ordered
deadline
and
by
resource
limitations
from
holding
a
series
of
meetings.
We
believe
that
by
conducting
the
public
meeting
in
Washington
DC
we
provided
a
reasonable
location
to
accommodate
the
broad
range
of
stakeholders
who
have
an
interest
in
this
determination.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
15
XI
­
15
XI.
COMPLETENESS
OF
REPORT
AND
RECORD
C.
Adequacy
of
Agency
Solicitation
of
Stakeholder
Involvement
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Contrary
to
EPA's
assertions
in
the
Report,
the
undersigned
groups
were
not
asked
to
participate
in
the
process
of
developing
this
Report
or
its
draft
Regulatory
Determinations
as
to
whether
comanaged
FFC
wastes
should
be
regulated
as
hazardous
wastes
under
Subtitle
C
of
the
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Act/
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
SWDALRCRA).
(
ALA00036)

We
request
that
EPA
...
hold
public
hearings
with
adequate
notice
(
at
least
two
months),
in
Indiana
and
other
states
where
the
lives
of
thousands
of
citizens
will
be
profoundly
affected
by
this
Determination.
(
HEC00056)

EPA
has
spent
17
years
coming
up
with
this
report
but
we're
still
waiting
for
its
"
outreach
and
communication."
"
Partnership"
with
EPA
is
out
of
the
question
until
agency
officials
start
understanding
the
history
and
current
situation
in
the
coalfields.
(
HEC00056)

EPA
has
ignored
any
outreach
to
the
affected
communities,
much
less
early
involvement.
Indeed,
the
following
examples
show
that
EPA
officials
apparently
have
no
respect
for
our
communities,
only
contempt
...

°
The
one
field
trip
by
EPA
that
we're
aware
of
took
place
after
the
draft
report
was
issued
and
involved
state
officials
and
industry
representatives.
To
date,
EPA
has
ignored
our
requests
to
meet
with
the
people
affected
by
CCW
dumping
...
°
EPA's
one
hearing,
in
Washington
D.
C.,
was
hundreds
of
miles
from
the
communities
where
CCW
is
being
dumped.
Airfare
and
accommodations
were
so
expensive,
we
could
send
only
one
representative
to
testify.
Apparently,
EPA
set
the
location
for
the
convenience
of
the
agency
officials
and
well­
heeled
utility
industry
lobbyists,
and
discounted
the
needs
of
our
community
residents.(
HEC00056)

EPA
should
hold
public
hearings
in
states
affected
by
CCW
disposal,
including
Texas.
(
CITZ00256)

EPA
should
hold
public
hearings
in
states
affected
by
CCW
disposal.
(
VWI00258)

The
EPA
must
...
hold
public
hearings
in
states
affected
by
CCW
disposal.
(
CITZ00260)

EPA
should
hold
public
hearings
in
states
(
and
communities
therein)
affected
by
CCW
disposal.
Contrary
to
the
method
used
to
collect
data
for
the
report
to
Congress,
THE
EPA
IS
SUPPOSED
TO
EXERCISE
REGULATORY
OVERSITE
OVER
THE
INDUSTRY
ON
BEHALF
OF
CITIZENS.
(
CITZ00261)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
16
XI
­
16
EPA
should
hold
public
hearings
in
states
affected
by
CCW
disposal.
(
CITZ00263)

EPA
should
hold
public
hearings
in
states
affected
by
CCW
disposal.
(
CITZ00264)

The
public
should
be
offered
a
chance
to
comment
on
CCW
disposal
by
the
availability
of
hearings
in
all
affected
states.
(
CITZ00267)

EPA
should
hold
public
hearings
in
states
affected
by
CCW
disposal.
(
SIERRA00278)

EPA
should
hold
public
hearing
in
states
affected
by
CCW
Disposal.
(
SOCM00279)

EPA
should
hold
public
hearings
in
states
affected
by
CCW
disposal.
(
CITZ00284)

Hold
public
hearings
in
states
affected
by
CCW
disposal.
(
CITZ00291)

Tri­
State
is
asking
the
EPA
to
hold
public
hearings
in
all
states
affected
by
CCW
in
order
to
supplement
the
process
of
gathering
technical
data.
(
TRI00295)

We
urge
you
to
go
into
the
communities
and
talk
with
watershed
groups
and
citizen
groups
about
these
issues­­
to
rely
so
heavily
on
industry's
assessments
is
unbalanced,
unscientific,
and
unwise.
(
PEACE00306)

EPA
should
hold
public
hearings
in
states
affected
by
CCW
disposal.
(
CITZ00326)

Justice
would
seem
to
require
that
those
most
impacted
by
these
decisions,
those
on
the
land
where
CCW
would
be
deposited,
who
will
be
drinking
(
or
be
unable
to
drink)
that
groundwater
have
an
opportunity
to
be
heard
at
public
hearings.
(
CITZ00335)

I
urge
the
EPA
hold
public
hearings
in
states
that
will
be
affected
by
Coal
Combustion
Wastes.
(
CITZ00337)

EPA
should
hold
public
hearings
in
all
states
affected
by
coal
combustion
waste
disposal.
(
CITZ00346)

EPA
should
hold
public
hearings
in
states
affected
by
CCW
disposal.
The
concerns
of
citizens
whose
water
resources
are
impacted
by
CCW
dumping
must
be
the
highest
consideration
by
EPA.
(
CITZ00349)

EPA
should
ensure
the
objectivity,
accuracy,
and
completeness
of
this
report
by
...
holding
public
hearings
in
states
affected
by
CCW
disposal
in
order
to
get
a
comprehensive
understanding
of
how
individuals
and
communities
are
being
affected
by
CCW.
(
POW00369)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
17
XI
­
17
I
think
the
EPA
should
hold
public
hearings
in
states
affected
by
CCW
disposal.
(
CITZL0013)

AEP
takes
exception
to
the
stated
claims
of
some
entities
that
they
have
not
been
given
a
chance
to
assist
in
the
regulatory
process
and
that
they
do
not
have
time
to
digest
and
comment
on
the
Phase
II
Report.
Industry
has
long
been
engaged
in
the
process
leading
to
the
Phase
II
Report,
and
other
entities
have
had
the
same
opportunity.
(
AEP00060)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
18
FF2P­
S0403.
Memo:
To
Andrew
Wittner,
Re:
Response
to
Margaret
Round
Questions
of
5/
12/
99;
FF2P­
S0408.
Memo:
To
Andrew
Wittner,
Re:
Response
to
Margaret
Round
Questions
of
8/
30/
99.

1
XII
­
1
XII.
TRANSPARENCY
OF
REPORT
AND
RECORD
Several
commenters
found
the
Report
or
specific
aspects
of
the
analysis,
such
as
the
risk
assessment,
opaque
or
difficult
to
understand.
A
public
interest
group
commenter
suggested
that
efforts
to
understand
the
Report
would
place
an
unreasonable
burden
on
ordinary
citizens
and
urged
EPA
to
rewrite
the
report
following
the
principles
of
President
Clinton's
"
plain
language"
memorandum.

Response:
EPA
made
every
effort,
given
the
highly
technical
nature
of
the
information
presented,
to
make
the
Report
and
supporting
documentation
as
accessible
as
possible
to
the
widest
possible
audience.
Given
the
court­
ordered
deadline
for
this
rulemaking,
it
was
not
possible
to
transform
draft
documents
into
polished
final
documents.
However,
the
draft
documents
provided
in
the
docket
provided
the
public
an
adequate
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
key
information
that
was
before
the
Agency.
EPA
attempted
to
redress
this
by
responding
directly
to
the
questions
asked
during
the
comment
period,
by
offering
repeatedly
to
meet
with
stakeholders
(
including
public
interest
groups),
and
by
supplementing
the
docket
with
additional
information
during
and
following
the
initial
comment
period,
which
was
subsequently
reopened
by
the
Agency.

With
regard
to
the
comments
specifically
on
the
transparency
of
the
risk
assessment,
EPA
attempted
to
assist
commenters
in
their
understanding
of
the
risk
assessment
by
answering
questions
and
providing
additional
information
directly
to
commenters
during
the
comment
period,
as
discussed
in
more
detail
under
Topic
XI.
EPA's
responses
to
specific
commenter
questions
about
the
risk
assessment
are
included
in
the
docket.
18
Furthermore,
while
EPA
acknowledges
that
aspects
of
the
highly
technical
risk
assessment
documentation
may
have
been
difficult
to
understand
or
follow,
the
Agency
notes
that
any
such
difficulty
does
not
appear
to
have
prevented
commenters
from
providing
informed,
insightful,
and
detailed
comments
on
the
risk
assessment.
These
comments
include
analysis
of
the
risk
assessment
methodology,
underlying
science,
input
values,
calculations,
and
ultimate
characterization
of
results.
These
comments
reflect
a
thorough
understanding
of
the
risk
assessment.
Indeed,
as
discussed
under
Topics
XIV
through
XVIII,
EPA
has
revised
aspects
of
its
non­
groundwater
risk
assessment
and
is
conducting
an
intensive
review
of
its
groundwater
model
as
a
result
of
these
comments.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
2
XII
­
2
XII.
TRANSPARANCY
OF
REPORT
AND
RECORD
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
It
should
be
noted
at
the
outset
that
in
our
initial
comments
to
EPA
we
provided
a
detailed
discussion
regarding
the
lack
of
transparency
in
the
ground
water
risks
to
human
health
presented
in
the
Report
to
Congress.
Since
then
the
review
of
materials
available
in
the
docket
have
not
provided
any
additional
information
to
assist
us
in
replicating
the
rusk
assessment
results.
This
inconsistency
with
the
guiding
principles
of
EPA's
risk
assessment
and
characterization
policy
(
USEPA,
1995)
is
striking
and
substantially
limits
public
participation
in
the
regulatory
process.
(
ALA00292)

The
Report
is
far
too
vague,
makes
too
many
unsubstantiated
assertions
and
leaves
out
large
areas
of
needed
discussion.
To
begin
with,
the
Report
does
not
contain
the
information
necessary
to
address
the
"
eight
study
factors"
required
to
be
addressed
by
Section
8002(
n)
of
RCRA.
We
explained
that
the
Report
is
vague
and
unintelligible.
Much
discussion
centers
on
a
"
risk
mitigation
alternative"
that
would
protect
the
public
by
requiring
disposal
of
most
utility
fossil
fuel
wastes
in
lined
sites
with
leachate
collection
and
ground
water
monitoring.
Ordinary
people
and
the
members
of
Congress
can't
read
EPA's
report.
It
is
written
in
technojargon,
and
poorly
written
at
that.
(
HEC00056)

Unfortunately,
EPA's
non­
groundwater
risk
assessment
methodology
is
too
opaque
for
USWAG
to
fully
comprehend
or
simulate
in
order
to
offer
specific,
more
realistic
numbers.
Indeed,
Dr.
Chaney
commented
at
the
May
21st
public
hearing
that
he
found
the
risk
assessment
impenetrable.
(
USWAG00037)

EPA's
Risk
Assessment
Policies
and
Guidelines,
including
the
1995
EPA
Risk
Characterization
Program,
and
the
1995
Guidance
for
Risk
Characterization.
These
policies
require
EPA
offices
to
conduct
risk
assessments
reflecting
transparency,
clarity,
consistency,
and
reasonableness.
The
Report
falls
short
on
each
of
these
requirements.
(
49CAO00058)

One
comment
is
applicable
to
the
entire
Risk
Assessment
and
Report
to
Congress,
the
failure
of
EPA
to
make
this
a
"
transparent"
document.
If
one
must
consult
many
other
"
hard
to
obtain"
EPA
documents,
and
search
deeply
into
secondary
documents
to
find
the
actual
calculation
methods
used
by
EPA
in
the
risk
assessment,
citizens
are
done
a
disservice.
Understanding
risk
assessment
is
difficult
under
any
circumstances.
But
finding
out
what
the
actual
risk
assessment
was,
especially
for
most
limiting
pathways
for
High
End
exposed
susceptible
populations,
should
not
be
as
difficult
as
it
has
been
with
these
documents.
(
PHS011)

We
urge
EPA
to
rewrite
the
report
following
the
principles
laid
out
in
President
Clinton's
"
plain
language"
memorandum
of
June
1,
1998.
This
memorandum
instructed
all
agencies
by
January
1,
1999
to
write
all
new
documents
in
plain
language.
He
said,
"
The
Federal
Government's
writing
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
XII
­
3
must
be
in
plain
language....
Plain
language
saves
the
Government
and
the
private
sector
time,
effort,
and
money."
(
HEC00056)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
XIII
­
1
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
A
variety
of
commenters
expressed
concerns
about
EPA's
characterization
of
FFC
wastes.
Some
public
interest
group,
citizen,
and
academic
commenters
considered
the
characterization
inadequate
because
of
concerns
about
reliance
on
industry
data,
the
statistical
representativeness
of
the
data,
the
adequacy
of
the
analytical
test
methods
and
quality
assurance
procedures
used,
lack
of
consideration
of
certain
constituents,
and/
or
potential
future
changes
in
waste
characteristics
due
to
pending
Clean
Air
Act
regulations.
One
industry
commenter
expressed
specific
concern
about
EPA's
characterization
of
FBC
wastes.
Other
industry
commenters
defended
EPA's
use
of
industry
data
and
selection
of
analytical
test
methods.
Other
industry
and
federal
agency
commenters
provided
information
and
research
on
waste
characteristics
and
leaching.
Specific
issues
are
summarized
below.

Response:
EPA
used
all
of
the
data
available
to
it
in
its
characterization
of
FFC
wastes.
The
Agency
is
obligated
to
make
use
of
the
best
available
data
and
has
done
so
in
this
case
with
full
and
explicitly
noted
consideration
of
its
potential
limitations.
EPA
believes
its
characterization
to
be
complete
and
accurate.
With
regard
to
the
constituents
considered,
EPA
believes
it
has
described
all
the
constituents
that
were
tested
for
and
likely
to
be
present
in
FFC
waste
as
completely
as
possible
based
on
the
available
data.
The
single
commenter
that
expressed
concern
about
the
Agency's
characterization
of
FBC
waste
did
not
identify
specifically
how
this
characterization
might
be
inaccurate.
These
and
other
specific
concerns
raised
by
the
commenters
with
regard
to
waste
characterization
are
addressed
in
more
detail
in
the
sub­
topic
responses
below.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
2
XIII
­
2
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA
candidly
admits
the
data
voluntarily
provided
are
too
limited
for
coming
to
any
definitive
conclusions
regarding
their
representativeness
on
a
national
basis.
(
EDF00021)

EPA
relied
exclusively
upon
the
electric
power
industry
to
fill
this
data
gap,
and
EPA
admits
the
data
provided
are
much
too
limited
to
answer
the
fundamental
questions.
(
EDF00021)

First,
EPA
consistently
relies
upon
TCLP
data
as
the
waste
contaminant
concentration
input
to
the
groundwater
model
for
landfills
and
some
surface
impoundments
(
where
pore
water
sample
data
were
unavailable),
regardless
of
whether
the
leaching
procedure
accurately
measures
the
leaching
potential
of
the
wastes
under
consideration.
(
EDF00021)

The
Report
is
exclusively
based
on
industry­
provided
data
without
information
on
the
data
collection,
quality
assurance,
and
quality
control
of
analyses.
This
raises
the
issue
of
bias
inherent
in
data
provided
by
the
industry
potentially
regulated
by
this
proposal.
(
ALA00036)

Inadequate
sampling
of
FFC
wastes
severely
limits
the
characterization
of
FFC
waste.
(
ALA00036)

However,
EPA
has
not
adequately
characterized
the
waste,
particularly
wastes
from
cobuming
coal
with
other
potentially
hazardous
materials.
(
ALA00036)

EPA
did
not
adequately
characterize
FFC
wastes,
including
mercury
releases
...
the
sampling
size
and
statistical
analysis
of
the
data
used
in
characterizing
FFC
waste
is
inadequate.
(
ALA00036)

In
the
groundwater
risk
assessment,
concentrations
may
not
be
reflective
of
actual
conditions
due
to
the
tests
used.
Specifically,
the
tests
used
to
estimate
the
extent
to
which
the
metals
leach
from
the
waste
may
be
inadequate.
(
ALA00036)

The
important
point
is
that
the
Agency
should
have
low
confidence
in
the
waste
characterization
because
the
small
data
set
and
the
leachate
test
results
may
not
be
representative
of
real­
world
facilities.
(
ALA00036)

It
is
unfortunate
that
the
EPA
chose
to
use
TCLP
as
the
test
for
evaluating
wastes
from
FFC.
(
EERC00044)

We
demand
that
EPA
independently
verify
the
validity
of
data,
particularly
data
and
information
submitted
bv
those
who
stand
to
gain
direct
financial
benefits
from
the
outcome
of
this
Determination.
(
HEC00056)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
XIII
­
3
EPA
must
gather
its
own
data
and
verify
the
validity
of
information
received
from
private
sources
to
make
definitive
judgements
and
meet
the
burden
of
proof
under
RCRA
for
this
determination.
(
HEC00056)

The
Report
and
its
risk
assessments
do
not
address
the
changing
characteristics
of
fossil
fuel
wastes
that
may
result
from
attempts
to
comply
with
new
air
pollution
control
standards.
(
HEC00056)

Specifically,
we
find
that
the
conclusions
being
drawn
to
support
continued
exemption
are
inadequate
and
flawed
in
the
following
respects
...
the
Report
is
exclusively
based
on
industryprovided
data
...
the
wastes
are
not
adequately
characterized.
(
49CAO00058)

EPA
should
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00256)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
VWI00258)

It
will
be
critical
to
the
success
of
any
regulations
promulgated
by
EPA
that
the
agency
either
gather
its
own
information
or,
at
a
minimum,
establish
a
program
to
routinely
split
samples
and
check
analyses
submitted
by
applicants.
(
NPCA00259)

The
EPA
must
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
only
on
industry's
biased
reports.
(
CITZ00260)

I
am
very
concerned
by
the
fact
that
the
EPA
relied
heavily
on
the
cola
industry
as
a
primary
source
of
information
in
compiling
this
report,
and
not
enough
on
other
sources.
(
CITZ00261)

I
think
relying
on
the
strip
mining
industry
to
police
itself
is
not
a
good
course
of
action.
Their
data
on
coal
combustion
wastes
is
sure
to
be
self
­
serving.
(
CITZ00262)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00263)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00264)

Rather
than
rely
on
industry
biased
information,
EPA
should
gather
its
own
information
in
regard
to
CCW
contamination.
(
CITZ00265)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
SAVV00266)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
4
XIII
­
4
The
EPA
should
be
attempting
to
use
its
own
resources
to
build
a
body
of
empirical
evidence
regarding
coal
combustion.
(
CITZ00267)

CCW
needs
to
much
more
strictly
regulated,
and
EPA
should
do
its
own
studies.
(
CITZ00268)

Unfortunately,
EPA
has
relied
heavily
upon
the
very
industry
it
is
regulating
as
the
major
source
of
information
in
the
report.
(
SIERRA00278)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination,
rather
than
relying
on
industry.
(
SOCM00279)

Neither
EP
nor
TCLP
tests
provide
a
good
indication
of
leachability
of
CCW
in
natural
disposal
settings.
(
NCCLP00282)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00284)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
KYC00285)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00286)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00287)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00289)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00290)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00291)

The
Report's
use
of
questionable
waste
characterization
data
(
which
are
at
the
heart
of
any
analysis
of
whether
or
not
to
regulate
as
a
hazardous
waste)
suggests
that
EPA's
quantification
of
human
health
risks
associated
with
exposure
to
groundwater
contaminated
with
FFC
waste
is
uncertain
and
likely
underestimated.
(
ALA00292)

Due
to
the
potential
long
term
impacts
of
CCW
burial
on
groundwater
quality
and
the
high
cost
in
terms
of
funds,
man­
power,
and
environmental
concerns
should
CCW's
be
proven
to
negatively
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
5
XIII
­
5
affect
aquifers
in
which
they're
buried,
I
encourage
EPA
to
research
or
obtain
needed
unbiased
data
from
independent
sources.
Until
conclusive
results
are
obtained,
I
would
also
hope
that
the
EPA
would
attempt
to
minimize
potential
harm
to
the
public
by
discouraging
dumping
of
CCW's
in
groundwater,
encouraging
the
use
of
liners
and
monitoring
systems,
and
adopting
the
treatment
of
CCW's
as
regulated
materials
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
until
wastes
until
long­
term,
unbiased
data
is
collected.
(
PURD00294)

The
EPA
must
develop
its
own
technical
background
information
and
not
rely
only
on
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
TRI00295)

I
would
urge
you
to
collect
your
own
data
to
confirm
this.
It
would
certainly
be
unwise
to
rely
on
the
regulated
industry
for
information.
(
CITZ00303)

We
urge
you
to
go
into
the
communities
and
talk
with
watershed
groups
and
citizen
groups
about
these
issues­­
to
rely
so
heavily
on
industry's
assessments
is
unbalanced,
unscientific,
and
unwise.
Many
of
the
elements
they
feel
will
be
`
locked
up'
in
the
high
pH
of
ashes
for
instance,
in
reality
leach
out
easily
at
high
pHs,
as
well
as
at
the
more
acidic.
(
PEACE00306)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00311)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00312)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00313)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00314)

First,
I
urge
you
to
gather
information
on
Coal
Combustion
Wastes
from
independent
sources,
not
sources
paid
by
the
coal
industry.
(
CITZ00315)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00316)

I
have
been
informed
that
a
significant
amount
of
the
early
studies
were
based
on
data
supplied
by
the
studies
of
the
industries
who
would
benefit
the
most
from
improper
disposal
of
CCW's.
Your
decision
should
be,
obviously,
based
on
your
own
data.
The
information
from
industry
and
environmental
groups
should
be
taken
with
a
grain
of
salt
­
each
will
present
data
that
support
their
respective
views.
(
CITZ00317)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
6
XIII
­
6
EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00318)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00319)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00320)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00321)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00322)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00323)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00324)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00325)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00326)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00327)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00331)

Currently,
there
is
a
growing
nationwide
movement
to
place
mercury
emission
controls
on
coalfired
plants.
If
these
controls
are
enacted,
mercury
concentrations
will
rise
in
CCW
as
more
mercury
is
retained
in
the
ash.
Without
responsible
CCW
disposal
standards,
emissions
standards
will
not
prevent
mercury
contamination
from
degrading
the
environment.
We
will
only
be
changing
the
pathway
by
which
it
enters
our
streams
and
lakes.
The
impacts
of
mercury
from
CCW
and
higher
concentrations
of
mercury
in
CCW
created
by
mercury
emission
controls
needs
to
be
further
studied
by
EPA.
(
HEC00332)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
7
XIII
­
7
It
is
also
imperative
that
the
EPA
not
depend
upon
industry
data
regarding
CCW
contamination.
There
is
a
likelihood
that
these
numbers
are
biased
in
the
favor
of
the
interests
of
polluters.
It
is
a
matter
of
common
sense
for
the
agency
to
collect
its
own
information
as
to
the
risks
associated
with
these
toxic
materials.
(
BUCK00333)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
NCSEA00334)

There
are
many
cases
where
CCW
had
caused
contamination
of
drinking
water
&
ecological
damage.
Please
conduct
a
diligent
literature
search
so
past
mistakes
can
be
avoided.
It
is
important
for
the
EPA
not
rely
solely
on
the
information
provided
by
industry,
as
it
is
difficult
for
anyone
to
provide
information
detrimental
to
their
own
benefit.
(
CITZ00335)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00336)

First,
I
urge
you
to
gather
information
on
Coal
Combustion
Wastes
from
independent
sources,
not
sources
paid
by
the
coal
industry.
The
industry
is
famous
for
it's
bias,
slanted
and
carefully
crafted
designed
"
research"
that
would
pass
through
NO
peer
reviews
of
neutral
technical
or
scientific
experts.
Many
people,
homeowners,
farmers,
and
much
land
have
already
been
greatly
harmed
because
the
government
agencies
have
relied
on
this
kind
of
industry
"
research".
(
CITZ00337)

I
wish
to
emphasize
my
belief
that
the
EPA
do
an
independent
study
instead
of
relying
on
data
supplied
by
corporate
interests.
Simply
put,
when
push
comes­
to­
shove,
I
do
not
trust
those
folks
to
put
the
long­
term
interest
oft
he
public
above
the
short­
term
interests
of
the­
bottom
line.
(
CITZ00339)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00340)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00343)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00344)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00345)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00346)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
8
XIII
­
8
EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00348)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00349)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00350)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00351)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00352)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00353)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00354)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00355)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00356)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00357)

Your
agency
has
been
studying
the
disposal
problem
for
many
years
and
decision
time
is
at
hand.
The
industry
has
used
every
method
they
could
muster
to
minimize
the
hazardous
and
toxic
nature
of
these
wastes
and
get
the
agency
to
treat
them
as
benign
substances.
More
competent
studies
are
now
available
to
you
and
we
hope
you
will
give
them
the
attention
they
deserve.
(
DCCC00359)

EPA
should
ensure
the
objectivity,
accuracy,
and
completeness
of
this
report
by:
gathering
its
own
information
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
the
industry
and
state
agencies
which
behave
more
as
advocates
than
observers.
(
POW00369)

I
hope
the
EPA
will
strive
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination,
rather
than
relying
on
coal
company
information.
(
CITZL0013)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
9
XIII
­
9
Considering
the
lack
of
testing
or
monitoring
for
phenols
at
other
ash
sites
around
the
country
,
further
consideration
and
study
of
the
presence
of
phenols
in
CCW
is
needed.
(
HECL0014)

Strip
mining
is
not
an
environmentally
acceptable
practice
to
begin
with,
but
to
allow
this
industry
to
give
you
data
on
this
important
item
is
unconsionable.
(
CITZL0015).

To
understand
the
environmental
properties
of
a
material,
it
is
necessary
to
understand
its
chemical
and
physical
nature.
EPA's
discussion
of
FBC
fly
ash
and
bed
ash
existing
as
oxides
of
major
constituents
(
Al,
Si.,
Fe,
Ca,
etc.)
contains
incorrect
or
inaccurate
statements.
Reference
to
oxides
of
major
constituents
is
only
a
result
of
convention
by
analytical
laboratories
for
mineral
analyses.
The
ashes
from
FBCs
are
a
mixture
of
reacted
bed
material,
calcined
bed
material,
unreacted
bed
material
and
calcined
mineral
impurities
in
fossil
fuels
(
these
impurities
ate
primarily
clays).
These
fundarnental
characteristics
of
PBC
ashes
were
provided
to
the
Agency
(
ClBO
1997­
Chapter
5).
I
n
that
report,
citations
were
provided
to
further
elucidate
the
material
properties
of
these
CCPs.
Statements
by
the
Agency
in
the
RTC
concerning
utility
coal
combustion
ashes
indicate
a
similar
incorrect
understanding
of
those
materials.
To
understand
the
nature
of
these
materials
is
fundamental
to
many
other
evaluations
contained
in
the
RTC.
A
correct
understanding
is
necessary
to
properly
interpret
applicable
chemical
and
physical
data.
Further,
it
is
essential
to
accurately
determine
related
factors
in
human
and
environmental
risk
analysis.
(
ISG00048).

Certain
cornmenters
have
attacked
the
TCLP
test
as
a
flawed
methodology
...
That
TCLP
may
not
perfectly
model
leaching
behavior
in
every
waste
and
in
every
application
is
neither
surprising
nor
relevant
to
this
determination.
(
PG&
E00274)

EPA
properly
relied
on
voluntarily
submitted
industry
data
in
lieu
of
issuance
of
compulsory
information
demands.
(
USWAG00275)

These
data
are
the
most
comprehensive
data
base
ever
assembled
on
the
characteristics
of
FFC
wastes
and
how
they
are
managed
as
well
as
the
geologic
and
climatic
characteristics
of
FFC
waste
management
units.
(
USWAG00275)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
10
XIII
­
10
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
A.
Information
Provided
Industry
trade
group
and
federal
government
commenters
provided
information
and
research
on
waste
characteristics
and
leaching.

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
the
extensive
information
provided.
EPA
has
considered
this
information
as
appropriate
in
the
subtopic
responses
below.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
11
XIII
­
11
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
A.
Information
Provided
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
On
the
issue
of
the
comanaged
FFC
wastes,
research
carried
out
at
the
Energy
&
Environmental
Research
Center
(
EERC)
at
the
University
of
North
Dakota
has
indicated
that
there
exists
the
possibility
of
beneficial
and
synergistic
chemical
reactions
that
can
be
enhanced
by
well
thought
out
combining
of
select
process
streams.
In
a
research
project
on
codisposal
of
coal
gasification
ash
(
Stevenson
and
others,
1988)
it
was
shown
that
reductions
of
leachability
of
potentially
problematic
trace
elements
such
as
selenium
and
boron
could
be
as
high
as
a
factor
of
over
300.
This
effect
was
calculated
independently
of
any
effects
of
dilution
and
was
found
to
be
a
result
of
the
formation
of
the
mineral
ettringite.
The
understanding
of
reactions
and
mineralogical
transformations
that
resulted
from
this
and
other
projects
are
directly
relatable
to
other
FFC
wastes.
The
effects
of
ettringite
formation
and
implications
for
regulation
are
discussed
further
below.
(
EERC00044)

The
availability
of
alkaline
constituents
to
provide
the
required
high
pH
conditions
are
often
the
limiting
factor
with
CCBs.
Extensive
research
into
ettringite
formation
has
been
carried
out
at
the
EERC
in
conjunction
with
North
Dakota
State
University.
I
n
this
study,
numerous
substituted
ettringites
were
synthesized
in
the
laboratory.
The
substituents
were
elements
that
tend
to
exist
as
oxonians
in
aqueous
solution
and
enter
into
the
ettringite
structure
by
substituting
for
sulfate.
Ettringites
substituted
with
arsenic,
boron,
chromium,
molybdenum,
vanadium,
and
selenium
have
been
prepared
in
the
laboratory.
Thus
ettringite
formation
has
the
potential
to
influence
the
solution
concentrations
of
these
and
probably
numerous
other
elements,
including
aluminum,
calcium,
and
sulfate,
major
constituents
of
the
ettringite
structure.
It
is
also
important
to
note
that
the
rate
of
formation
of
ettringite
in
CCBs
is
dependent
on
the
availability
of
the
key
ingredients
in
the
structure.
Since
many
of
these
are
leached
from
the
ash
from
various
crystalline
and
amorphous
phases,
the
formation
of
ettringite
can
take
from
hours
to
months,
depending
on
the
characteristics
of
the
individual
ash.
Each
ash,
because
of
the
variability
of
the
phases
making
up
these
materials,
is
unique
in
this
manner
(
Hassett
and
others,
1991).
(
EERC00044)

The
leachate
data
can
be
interpreted
in
terms
of
the
equilibrium
solubilities
of
calcium
arsenate
phases.
Nishimura
and
Robins
(
1997)
and
more
recently
Bothe
and
Brown
(
1999)
have
identified
a
series
of
new
hydrated
arsenates
of
calcium
that
are
stable
in
the
pH
regime
represented
by
FBC
fly
ashes.
Nishimura
and
Robins
(
1997)
show
data
for
the
solubility
of
a
series
of
four
calcium
arsenates
as
a
function
of
pH
that
spans
the
entire
range
for
0­
14.
These
demonstrate
an
extreme
pH
dependence
on
the
solubility
of
arsenic.
At
acidic
pH's,
arsenic
exhibits
a
solubility
approximating
75g/
l.
Between
pH
3
and
10
the
solubility
steadily
decreases,
and
between
10
and
12
it
drops
abruptly
by
a
factor
of
10,000
to
a
minimum
of
7.5
x
10­
6
g/
L.
At
a
pH
of
approximately
11,
the
solubility
of
arsenic
reaches
drinking
water
standards
or
0.05mg/
L.
From
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
12
XIII
­
12
these
two
publications,
it
can
be
inferred
that
for
the
bituminous
derived
FBC
fly
ash,
the
average
arsenic
concentration
is
controlled
by
the
solubility
of
Ca3(
AsO4)
23.66H2O.
Bothe
and
Brown
(
1999)
have
described
a
hitherto
unidentified
compound
Ca3(
AsO4)
23.66H2O
in
the
same
pH
range
which
may
likely
be
the
stable
phase
controlling
the
arsenic
concentration
in
solution.
The
FBC
ash
derived
from
anthracite
culm
is
under
saturated
with
respect
to
the
reported
equilibrium
arsenic
phases
by
a
factor
of
100
times
at
the
recorded
pH.
This
may
in
part
be
reflected
by
the
lower
initial
concentration
of
arsenic
in
the
ash
or
perhaps
associated
with
the
metamorphic
origin
of
the
arsenic
in
the
original
coals.
(
ARIPPA00019)

PG&
E
Gen
regularly
tests
the
chemical
properties
of
the
FBC
ash
byproduct
produced
by
PG&
E
Gen's
FBC
facilities
using
standard
EPA
test
methods.
PG&
E
Gen's
data
were
provided
to
EPA
by
CIBO
in
November
1997
for
use
in
the
Report.
These
data
support
EPA's
findings
in
the
Report
that
the
FBC
ash
is
not
a
hazardous
waste
as
defined
by
RCRA.
(
PG&
E
Gen's
data
were
also
prepared
for
the
more
comprehensive
data
analysis
appended
to
the
ARIPPA
comments
and
is
not
repeated
here.)
Ash
generated
at
PG&
E
Gen's
FBC
facilities
does
not
exhibit
any
of
the
four
hazardous
waste
characteristics
that
identify
hazardous
wastes.
With
respect
to
toxicity,
ash
from
PG&
E
Gen's
facilities
consistently
test
below
the
TCLP
test
leaching
standards
for
RCRA
constituents,
including
arsenic
and
mercury.
(
PG&
E00023)

It
has
come
to
my
attention
that
some
misinterpretations
may
have
arisen
from
the
article
forwarded
to
you
by
Dr.
H.
M.
"
Skip"
Kingston
titled
"
Treating
Hexavalent
Chromium
In
Fly
Ash
Leachate
Using
Acid
Mine
Drainage."
As
prima?
author
of
that
paper,
I
would
like
to
clarify
any
possible
misinterpretations
before
they
advance
too
far.
It
was
never
my
intent
to
suggest
that
Cr(
VI)
is
a
serious
problem
at
electric
generating
ash
disposal
sites
generally.
The
data
proposed
in
the
paper
supports
no
such
notion.
I
n
fact,
exhaustive
research
by
:
he
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
demonstrates
the
opposite
­­
that
Cr(
VI)
in
fly
ash
is
not
widespread.
The
point
of
the
paper
is
that
when
Cr(
VI)
is
found
to
be
present
in
a
landfill
leachate
(
be
it
a
fly
ash
landfill
or
otherwise),
it
may
represent
a
problem
to
be
addressed
through
remediation.
Specifically,
my
sole
intent
in
writing
the
paper,
and
the
supporting
data
contained
within
the
paper,
are
designed
to
illustrate
that
reduction
of
Cr(
VI)
by
use
of
acid
mine
drainage
is
a
viable
remediation
option
worth
consideration
at
any
site
where
Cr(
VI)
is
a
problem.
(
AES00250)

Attached
as
Appendix
III
is
a
coal
and
ash
leachate
analysis
prepared
by
Panther
Creek
Partners
in
Carbon
County
comparing
ash
to
local
native
garden
soil
and
to
local
clay.
The
arsenic
concentration
of
the
ash
was
18
ppm,
compared
to
17
ppm
for
the
native
garden
soil
and
10
ppm
for
the
clay.
The
ash
leachate
analysis
yielded
0.008
mg/
L
arsenic,
compared
to
0.031
mg/
L
for
the
garden
soil
and
0.01
for
the
clay.
These
results
are
similar
to
the
results
of
comparative
laboratory
tests
from
other
waste
coal
plants.
See,
e.
g.,
Appendices
II
and
III
to
ARIPPA's
6/
l2/
99
Comments,
showing
24
ppm
arsenic
content
in
ash
from
the
Northampton
Generating
Plant
in
Northampton
County.
(
ARIPPA00273)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
13
XIII
­
13
The
cementitious
nature
of
the
ash
from
a
waste
coal
plant
is
such
that,
if
a
truck
back­
hauling
ash
to
a
mine
site
has
a
flat
tire
and
is
delayed
by
more
than
a
couple
of
hours,
the
ash
has
to
be
jackhammered
out
of
the
truck.
In
short,
CFB
ash
has
physical
characteristics
that
begin
to
approach
the
properties
of
Portland
cement
concrete,
including
a
hydraulic
conductivity
of
10(­
5)
to
10(­
7)
cm/
sec.
(
ARIPPA00273)

CIBO
further
commends
to
the
Agency's
attention
significant
research
and
analysis
of
fluidized
bed
ash
characteristics
conducted
by
Mr.
Sarma
Pisupati
of
(
Pennsylvania
State
University).
(
CIBO00280)

There
are
a
number
of
scientists
concerned
about
flushing
CCW
into
underground
exhausted
coal
mine
shafts
due
to
trace
metal
toxicity
from
fly
ash
particles
accompanied
with
high
levels
of
conductivity,
total
dissolved
solids
[
TDS,
and
sodium
(
Na).
The
last
three
parameters,
by
the
way,
do
not
have
national
water
quality
criteria
(
WQC)
restrictions
to
protect
aquatic
life.
I
have
found
that
effluents
with
conductivity
approaching
4,000
mmhos/
cm,
3,500
mg/
L
TDS
and
1,100
m/
lg
Na/
L
to
be
acutely
toxic
to
Ceriodaphnia
dubia
in
my
recent
research
efforts
of
the
latter
1990'
s.
A
number
of
underground
deposition
areas
of
CCW
exceed
these
limits
according
to
data
being
generated
by
the
HEC.
They
are
condensing
their
data
and
will
make
it
available
to
you
shortly.
(
VAT00309)

I
published
a
study
in
1987
(
Cherry,
Van
Hassel,
Ribbe
and
Cairns
­
Factors
Influencing
Acute
Toxicity
of
Coal
Ash
to
Rainbow
Trout
and
Bluegill
Sunfish)
in
the
Water
Resources
Bulletin
(
23:
293­
306)
that
documented
trace
metal
distribution
on
fly
ash
particle
surfaces
and
the
resulting
acute
toxicity
to
fish.
Surface
and
subsuface
enrichment
of
fly
ash
was
found
for
cadmium,
copper.
chromium,
nickel,
lead,
mercury,
titanium,
arsenic
and
selenium
using
ion
microscopy.
Metal
enrichment
develops
when
the
fly
ash
particles
are
caught
in
the
electrostatic
precipitators
where
trace
metal
fumes
condense
on
the
trapped
cooler
ash
particles.
Bottom
ash,
which
is
collected
from
the
furnaces
and
bypasses
the
electrostatic
precipitator
process,
is
void
of
trace
metal
enrichment
and
is
not
toxic.
This
latter
fact
was
also
documented
in
my
1987
publication.
I
can
expand
upon
the
results
of
this
study
in
the
future
but
time
constraints
prevent
that
from
occurring
here.
(
VAT00309)

DOE's
research
in
this
area
(
which
is
summarized
in
matrix
form
in
Appendix
1),
includes:

°
In­
house
leaching
tests
on
28
fly
ash
samples.
These
studies
showed
that
the
release
of
trace
elements
was
variable
but
relatively
small.
Summaries
of
field
tests
in
Colorado
and
Illinois
that
showed
that
release
of
trace
elements
to
the
environment
was
negligible
when
FBC
wastes
were
placed
in
simulated
landfill
disposal
cells.
(
DOE00020)

For
example
poly­
aromatic
hydrocarbons
(
PAHs)
are
a
highly
carcinogenic
family
of
chemicals
commonly
found
in
coal,
coal
tar
and
coal
combustion
products,
yet
these
substances
are
seldom
if
ever
analyzed
for
in
ash
characterization
schemes
mandated
by
state
regulatory
agencies
and
never
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
14
XIII
­
14
included
in
ground
water
monitoring
schemes
for
CCW
disposal
sites.
Wise
et
al
demonstrated
the
presence
of
numerous
PAHs
in
a
coal
tar
standard
reference
material
[
Determination
of
Polycyclic
Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
in
a
coal
tar
standard
reference
material,
Stephen
A.
Wise,
Bruce
A.
Benner,
Gary
D.
Byrd,
Stephen
N.
Chesler,
Richard
E.
Rebbert,
and
Michele
M.
Schantz,
1988,
Anal.
Chem.
60:
887­
894].
They
also
noted
the
presence
of
sulfur,
nitrogen
and
oxygen
containing
poly­
cyclic
aromatic
heterocyclic
compounds.
In
an
analysis
of
PAHs
in
coal­
derived
sources,
Nishioka
et
al
readily
identified
PAHs
with
up
to
six
rings.
In
samples
a
coal
tar,
a
heavy
distillate
of
coal,
and
a
carbon
black
sample,
they
detected
25,
34,
and
25
different
PAHs,
respectively
[
Structural
characteristics
of
polycyclic
aromatic
hydrocarbon
isomers
in
coal
tars
and
combustion
products,
Masaharu
Nishioka,
Huey­
Ching
Chang,
&
Milton
L.
Lee,
1986,
Environ,
Sci.
Technol.
20:
1023­
1027].
In
addition,
many
compounds
with
sulfur
substitutions
were
identified.
(
HEC00332)

The
PAH
content
of
coal
combustion
waste
depends
upon
a
variety
of
factors
including
the
type
of
coal,
the
rate
of
burning,
and
whether
the
plant
is
mechanically
or
manually
fired.
PAHs
are
products
of
incomplete
combustion.
Hanson
et
al
have
detected
many
PAHs
and
related
compounds
in
extracts
of
filter
bag
ash
[
Detection
of
nitroaromatic
comounds
on
coal
combustion
particles,
R.
L.
Hanson,
T.
R.
Henderson,
C.
H.
Hobbs,
C.
R.
Clark,
R.
L.
Carpenter,
J.
S.
Dutcher,
T.
M.
Harvery,
&
D.
F.
Hunt.
1983,
J.
Toxicol.
Environ.
Health
11:
971­
980].
Srivastava
et
al
used
a
benzene
extract
of
coal
fly
ash
to
study
the
effects
of
PAHs
on
rats
[
Fetal
translocation
and
metabolism
of
PAH
obtained
from
coal
fly
ash
gitien
intra­
tracheally
to
pregnant
rats,
V.
K.
Srivastava,
S.
S.
Chauhan,
P.
K.
Srivastava,
V.
Kumar,
&
U.
K.
Misra,
1986,
J.
Tox.
Environ.
Halth
18:
459­
469].
Harrison
et
al
found
that
the
total
quantities
of
PAHs
were
greater
for
ash
from
an
electrostatic
precipitator
than
for
ash
from
a
wet
scrubber
[
Comparison
of
organic
combustion
products
in
fly
ash
collected
by
a
venturi
wet
scrubber
and
an
electrostatic
precipitator
at
a
coal
fired
power
station,
Florence
L.
Harrison,
Dorothy
J.
Bishop
&
Barbara
J.
Mallon,
1985,
Environ.
Sci.
Technol.
19:
186­
193].
Their
results
revealed
PAHs
with
two
three
or
four
ring
structures
and
no
PAHs
with
five
or
more
rings,
though
they
acknowledge
that
their
recovery
rates
were
low,
especially
for
PAHs
with
more
than
four
rings.
(
HEC00332)

Griest
and
Guerin
found
that
many
organic
compounds
are
still
volatile
at
ESPtemperatures
and
pass
up
the
stack
[
Identification
and
Quantification
of
Polynuclear
Organic
Matter
(
POM)
on
Particulates
from
a
coal
fired
power
plant,
W.
H.
Griest
and
M.
R.
Guerin,
1979
interim
report,
Oak
Ridge
National
Laboratory].
Griest
and
Guerin
also
found
more
PAHs
in
stack
ash
than
in
ash
from
an
electrostatic
precipitator.
As
more
impurities
are
removed
from
the
stack
to
cornply
with
evolving
air
regulations,
more
products
of
incomplete
combustion
are
likely
to
end
up
in
coal
combustion
waste.
(
HEC00332)

While
the
Harrison
study
[
ibid]
concludes
that
the
concentrations
of
PAHs
detected
in
fly
ash
probably
would
not
pose
an
environmental
hazard,
they
acknowledge
that
their
recovery
of
these
compounds
was
low
when
they
injected
known
concentrations
of
standards
into
their
column.
It
is
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
15
XIII
­
15
often
difficult
to
identify
PAH
isomers
because
of
their
similar
retention
times
and
fragmentation
patterns
when
using
high
resolution
chromatography
and
mass
spectrometry.
Nishioka
et
al
[
ibid]
found
that
it
was
possible
to
identify
isomeric
PAHs
with
two
to
six
rings
using
a
specialized
column
substrate
in
the
gas
chromatograph.
Wise
et
al
[
ibid]
certified
concentrations
of
12
PAHs
in
coal
tar
based
on
agreement
between
gas
chromatography
and
liquid
chromatographic
techniques.
They
provided
informational
values
for
18
additional
compounds.
Many
PAHs
are
toxic,
carcinogenic
and/
or
mutagenic.
Their
bioaccumulation
is
limited
due
to
metabolism.
However,
the
metabolism
itself
may
produce
oxidation
damage
in
tissues.
Further,
the
metabolic
breakdown
products
can
be
more
mutagenic
than
their
precursors
[
Hanson
et
al].
PAHs
can
undergo
chemical
reactions
with
nitrogen,
oxygen
and
sulfur
compounds
to
form
substituted
aromatic
compounds.
Hanson
et
al
reported
that
treating
fly
ash
samples
with
N,
O,
at
1
or
10
ppm
greatly
increased
the
mutagenicity
of
the
samples
(
up
to
3200­
fold).
They
attribute
this
to
the
formation
of
dinitropyrenes
and
dinitrofluoranthenes.
It
should
be
noted
that
these
nitro
PAHs
were
found
in
untreated
flyash,
presumably
due
to
reaction
with
nitrous
oxides
in
combustion
gases.
(
HEC00332)

PAHs
adhere
strongly
to
ash,
making
analysis
of
quantities
and
types
of
PAHs
difficult.
Griest
and
Guerin
[
ibid]
found
that
only
18%
of
PAHs
were
recovered
from
fly
ash.
Harrison
et
al
report
that
large
losses
occurred
when
known
concentrations
of
PAHs
were
injected
into
the
gas
chromatograph­
mass
spectrometer.
It
was
not
known
whether
these
degraded
or
adhered
to
the
column.
However,
it
was
concluded
that
the
absence
of
detection
of
high
molecular
weight
PAHs
in
the
GC­
MS
analyses
did
not
imply
that
these
were
not
present
in
the
ash.
Larger
PAHs
with
more
than
four
rings
are
generally
thought
to
be
insoluble.
However;
little
is
known
about
the
chemical
reactions
and
or
microbial
transformations
that
may
occur
under
storage
conditions.
These
transformations
could
result
in
increased
mobility
and
or
increased
mutagenicity
of
the
constituents
[
Harrison
et
al].
Indeed,
Hanson
et
al
[
ibid]
indicate
that
some
nitro
PAHs
may
be
mutagenic
at
concentrations
too
low
to
be
detected
by
direct
gas
chromatography­
mass
spectrometry.
(
HEC00332)

The
situation
with
radionuclides
is
similar
to
that
for
PAHs
in
that
they
are
known
to
be
present
in
coal
combustion
wastes,
yet
ground
water
monitoring
for
radionuclides
at
CCW
disposal
sites
rarely
occurs.
According
to
the
National
Council
on
Radiation
Protection
and
Measurements
(
NCRP)
the
average
radioactivity
in
a
short
ton
of
coal
is
0.00427
millicuries/
ton,
primarily
in
the
form
of
uranium
and
thorium.
During
combustion
the
volume
of
the
coal
is
reduced
by
over
85%,
but
the
uranium
and
thorium
content
is
reduced
very
little.
Therefore
the
ash
is
enriched
in
radionuclides.
Since
the
half­
lives
of
these
radionuclides
are
practically
infinite
in
terms
of
human
lifetimes,
the
accumulation
of
these
substances
in
the
biosphere
over
time
is
a
significant
health
concern
that
has
not
been
addressed.
[
Coal
Combustion:
Nuclear
Resource
or
Danger,
Alex
Gabbard,
1993,
Oak
Ridge
National
Laboratory
REVIEW
No.
3
and
4.]
Gabbard
[
ibid]
points
out
that
the
low
levels
radiation
emitted
by
coal
ash
would
provoke
an
enormous
public
outcry
if
similar
amounts
were
released
by
a
nuclear
powered
electric
utility.
He
even
suggests
that
coal
combustion
waste
could
be
refined
to
produce
fuel
for
nuclear
powered
facilities.
(
HEC00332)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
16
XIII
­
16
In
a
study
of
the
effects
on
coal
fly
ash
settling
ponds
at
the
Baily
Power
Station
on
water
quality
in
and
around
the
Indiana
Dunes
National
Lakeshore
in
northwestern
Indiana,
the
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
found
an
increase
in
gross
alpha
and
beta
radioactivity
in
the
settling
ponds
and
in
an
interdunal
pond
fed
by
seepage.
EPA
recommends
further
analysis
if
gross
alpha
and
beta
radioactivity
exceeds
l5
pCI/
L
and
5
pCi,
respectively.
Results
suggest
that
these
levels
were
not
exceeded
at
this
particular
site.
[
Effects
of
coal
fly­
ash
disposal
on
water
quality
in
and
around
the
Indiana
Dunes
National
Lakeshore,
Indiana,
1981,
Mark
A.
Hardy,
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
Water
Resources
Investigation
81­
161].
However,
the
cumulative
effects
of
continuing
to
dispose
of
coal
combustion
waste
in
this
manner
is
a
concern.
Despite
the
paucity
of
monitoring
at
CCW
disposal
sites
for
radionuclides,
HEC
has
uncovered
a
number
of
reports
indicating
the
concentration
of
radioactivity
`
in
coals
and
coal
combustion
wastes.
(
See
attachment
23)
(
HEC00332)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
17
XIII
­
17
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
B.
Reliance
on
Industry
Data
Public
interest
group
and
citizen
commenters
stated
that
the
Report
was
exclusively
based
on
industry­
provided
data.
The
commenters
were
concerned
over
the
potential
bias
inherent
in
data
provided
by
the
industry
potentially
regulated
by
this
proposal.
An
industry
commenter,
on
the
other
hand,
argued
that
EPA
properly
relied
on
voluntarily
submitted
industry
data
in
lieu
of
issuance
of
compulsory
information
demands.

Response:
EPA
considered
all
available
information
in
this
determination.
The
Agency
also
conducted
some
independent
sampling
to
compare
to
industry
supplied
data.
We
found
that
our
sampling
results
were
consistent
with
data
supplied
by
industry.

In
addition,
EPAconducted
sensitivity
analyses
to
assess
a
potentially
broader
range
of
constituent
concentration
levels.
For
key
variables,
we
selected
a
range
of
values
to
bound
our
analysis
and
understand
the
impact
of
values
outside
those
provided
voluntarily
by
industry.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
18
XIII
­
18
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
B.
Reliance
on
Industry
Data
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA
relied
exclusively
upon
the
electric
power
industry
to
fill
this
data
gap,
and
EPA
admits
the
data
provided
are
much
too
limited
to
answer
the
fundamental
questions.
(
EDF00021)

The
Report
is
exclusively
based
on
industry­
provided
data
without
information
on
the
data
collection,
quality
assurance,
and
quality
control
of
analyses.
This
raises
the
issue
of
bias
inherent
in
data
provided
by
the
industry
potentially
regulated
by
this
proposal.
(
ALA00036)

We
demand
that
EPA
independently
verify
the
validity
of
data,
particularly
data
and
information
submitted
bv
those
who
stand
to
gain
direct
financial
benefits
from
the
outcome
of
this
Determination.
(
HEC00056)

EPA
must
gather
its
own
data
and
verify
the
validity
of
information
received
from
private
sources
to
make
definitive
judgements
and
meet
the
burden
of
proof
under
RCRA
for
this
determination.
(
HEC00056)

The
report
is
exclusively
based
on
industry­
provided
data.
This
Report
is
based
almost
entirely
on
data
provided
by
industry
strongly
suggesting
the
possibility
of
conflict
of
interest.
One
of
the
Report's
peer
reviewers
pointed
out
this
problem,
noting
the
potential
for
bias,
however
it
is
not
apparent
anywhere
that
EPA
took
action
based
on
the
reviewer's
comment.
(
49CAO00058)

EPA
should
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00256)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
VWI00258)

It
will
be
critical
to
the
success
of
any
regulations
promulgated
by
EPA
that
the
agency
either
gather
its
own
information
or,
at
a
minimum,
establish
a
program
to
routinely
split
samples
and
check
analyses
submitted
by
applicants.
(
NPCA00259)

The
EPA
must
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
only
on
industry's
biased
reports,
report
all
cases
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
has
caused
ecological
damage,
hold
public
hearings
in
states
affected
by
CCW
disposal
and
regulate
CCW
disposed
in
mines
under
the
federal
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
Subtitle
C,
as
a
hazardous
waste.
(
CITZ00260)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
19
XIII
­
19
I
am
very
concerned
by
the
fact
that
the
EPA
relied
heavily
on
the
cola
industry
as
a
primary
source
of
information
in
compiling
this
report,
and
not
enough
on
other
sources.
Rather
than
relying
on
the
blatantly­
biased
"
data"
provided
by
the
industry,
the
EPA
needs
to
uphold
its
duty
as
a
federal
agency
to
exercise
oversite
in
matters
such
as
these,
and
to
collect
its
own
data.
There
are
a
number
of
factors
to
consider.
(
CITZ00261)

I
think
relying
on
the
strip
mining
industry
to
police
itself
is
not
a
good
course
of
action.
Their
data
on
coal
combustion
wastes
is
sure
to
be
self
­
serving.
(
CITZ00262)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00263)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00264)

Rather
than
rely
on
industry
biased
information,
EPA
should
gather
its
own
information
in
regard
to
CCW
contamination.
(
CITZ00265)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
SAVV00266)

The
EPA
should
be
attempting
to
use
its
own
resources
to
build
a
body
of
empirical
evidence
regarding
coal
combustion.
(
CITZ00267)

CCW
needs
to
much
more
strictly
regulated,
and
EPA
should
do
its
own
studies.
(
CITZ00268)

Unfortunately,
EPA
has
relied
heavily
upon
the
very
industry
it
is
regulating
as
the
major
source
of
information
in
the
report.
(
SIERRA00278)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination,
rather
than
relying
on
industry.
(
SOCM00279)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00284)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
KYC00285)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00286)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
20
XIII
­
20
EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00287)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00289)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00290)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00291)

EPA
extensively
relied
on
data
from
the
regulated
community
in
developing
the
Report
to
Congress,
which
practice
the
Agency
knew
potentially
could
bias
the
outcomes
of
the
various
studies
forming
the
basis
for
its
Regulatory
Determination.
(
ALA00292)

Due
to
the
potential
long
term
impacts
of
CCW
burial
on
groundwater
quality
and
the
high
cost
in
terms
of
funds,
man­
power,
and
environmental
concerns
should
CCW's
be
proven
to
negatively
affect
aquifers
in
which
they're
buried,
I
encourage
EPA
to
research
or
obtain
needed
unbiased
data
from
independent
sources.
Until
conclusive
results
are
obtained,
I
would
also
hope
that
the
EPA
would
attempt
to
minimize
potential
harm
to
the
public
by
discouraging
dumping
of
CCW's
in
groundwater,
encouraging
the
use
of
liners
and
monitoring
systems,
and
adopting
the
treatment
of
CCW's
as
regulated
materials
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
requirements
for
hazardous
until
wastes
until
long­
term,
unbiased
data
is
collected.
(
PURD00294)

The
EPA
must
develop
its
own
technical
background
information
and
not
rely
only
on
information
supplied
by
industry
...
It
is
the
responsibility
of
the
EPA
to
make
an
unbiased
evaluation
of
all
of
the
technical
information
available.
(
TRI00295)

I
would
urge
you
to
collect
your
own
data
to
confirm
this.
It
would
certainly
be
unwise
to
rely
on
the
regulated
industry
for
information.
(
CITZ00303)

We
urge
you
to
go
into
the
communities
and
talk
with
watershed
groups
and
citizen
groups
about
these
issues­­
to
rely
so
heavily
on
industry's
assessments
is
unbalanced,
unscientific,
and
unwise.
(
PEACE00306)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00311)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00312)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
21
XIII
­
21
EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00313)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00314)

First,
I
urge
you
to
gather
information
on
Coal
Combustion
Wastes
from
independent
sources,
not
sources
paid
by
the
coal
industry.
(
CITZ00315)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00316)

I
have
been
informed
that
a
significant
amount
of
the
early
studies
were
based
on
data
supplied
by
the
studies
of
the
industries
who
would
benefit
the
most
from
improper
disposal
of
CCW's.
Your
decision
should
be,
obviously,
based
on
your
own
data.
The
information
from
industry
and
environmental
groups
should
be
taken
with
a
grain
of
salt
­
each
will
present
data
that
support
their
respective
views.
(
CITZ00317)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00318)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00319)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00320)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00321)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00322)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00323)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00324)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00325)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
22
XIII
­
22
EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00326)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00327)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00331)

It
is
also
imperative
that
the
EPA
not
depend
upon
industry
data
regarding
CCW
contamination.
There
is
a
likelihood
that
these
numbers
are
biased
in
the
favor
of
the
interests
of
polluters.
It
is
a
matter
of
common
sense
for
the
agency
to
collect
its
own
information
as
to
the
risks
associated
with
these
toxic
materials.
(
BUCK00333)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
NCSEA00334)

It
is
important
for
the
EPA
not
rely
solely
on
the
information
provided
by
industry,
as
it
is
difficult
for
anyone
to
provide
information
detrimental
to
their
own
benefit.
(
CITZ00335)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00336)

First,
I
urge
you
to
gather
information
on
Coal
Combustion
Wastes
from
independent
sources,
not
sources
paid
by
the
coal
industry.
The
industry
is
famous
for
it's
bias,
slanted
and
carefully
crafted
designed
"
research"
that
would
pass
through
NO
peer
reviews
of
neutral
technical
or
scientific
experts.
Many
people,
homeowners,
farmers,
and
much
land
have
already
been
greatly
harmed
because
the
government
agencies
have
relied
on
this
kind
of
industry
"
research".
(
CITZ00337)

I
wish
to
emphasize
my
belief
that
the
EPA
do
an
independent
study
instead
of
relying
on
data
supplied
by
corporate
interests.
Simply
put,
when
push
comes­
to­
shove,
I
do
not
trust
those
folks
to
put
the
long­
term
interest
oft
he
public
above
the
short­
term
interests
of
the­
bottom
line.
(
CITZ00339)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00340)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00343)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00344)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
23
XIII
­
23
EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00345)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00346)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00348)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00349)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00350)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00351)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00352)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00353)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00354)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00355)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00356)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00357)

Your
agency
has
been
studying
the
disposal
problem
for
many
years
and
decision
time
is
at
hand.
The
industry
has
used
every
method
they
could
muster
to
minimize
the
hazardous
and
toxic
nature
of
these
wastes
and
get
the
agency
to
treat
them
as
benign
substances.
More
competent
studies
are
now
available
to
you
and
we
hope
you
will
give
them
the
attention
they
deserve.
(
DCCC00359)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
24
XIII
­
24
EPA
should
ensure
the
objectivity,
accuracy,
and
completeness
of
this
report
by:
gathering
its
own
information
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
the
industry
and
state
agencies
which
behave
more
as
advocates
than
observers.
(
POW00369)

I
hope
the
EPA
will
strive
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination,
rather
than
relying
on
coal
company
information.
(
CITZL0013)

I
think
relying
on
the
strip
mining
industry
to
police
itself
is
like
letting
the
fox
into
the
henhouse.
(
CITZL0015).

EPA
properly
relied
on
voluntarily
submitted
industry
data
in
lieu
of
issuance
of
compulsory
information
demands.
EDF
sounds
an
alarm
over
EPA's
reliance
upon
industry
data
and
"
failure"
to
invoke
its
authority
under
RCRA
§
3007
to
demand
information
from
the
industry.
EDF's
alarm
is
misplaced
and
fails
to
appreciate
the
statutory
instruction
for
the
Bevill
study
to
proceed
in
a
cooperative
and
efficient
manner.
Section
8002(
n)
of
RCRA
states
that
"
the
Administrator
shall
.
.
.
invite
participation
by
other
concerned
parties,
including
industry
and
other
Federal
and
State
agencies,
with
a
view
toward
avoiding
duplication
of
effort."
64
In
response
to
EPA's
invitation
to
participate,
USWAG
and
EPRI
provided
EPA
with
a
wealth
of
data
that
were
collected
and
analyzed
in
close
cooperation
with
the
Agency
over
a
period
of
18
years.
Industry's
cooperation
rendered
it
unnecessary
for
EPA
to
resort
to
its
compulsory
process
authority.
Whether
or
not
such
demands
were
necessary
in
other
Bevill
studies
is
irrelevant.
EPA
has
been
provided
with
the
extensive
data
necessary
to
make
a
fully
informed
determination
in
full
consultation
with
EPA
staff
who
defined
the
scope
of
the
Agency's
information
needs.
And
EPA
conducted
its
own
analysis
of
data
samples
and
conducted
site
visits
to
locations
of
its
own
choosing
to
verify
the
reliability
of
the
data
it
had
received.
From
the
outset
of
the
study,
USWAG
and
EPRI
have
worked
to
inform
EPA's
decisionmaking
by
providing
all
available
information.
We
have
done
so
because
we
are
confident
that
an
informed,
science­
based
evaluation
will
confirm
our
long­
held
belief
that
no
hazardous
waste
regulation
of
FFC
waste
management
units
is
warranted.
It
is
clearly
in
our
best
interest
for
that
decision
to
be
reached
as
soon
as
possible
­
without
time
consuming
clashes
over
document
requests
­
to
remove
uncertainty
and
unwarranted
apprehension
among
our
investors,
State
and
local
regulators,
our
employees,
and
the
public
that
lives
near
our
sites
and
are
our
customers.
There
was
simply
no
reason
for
EPA
to
transform
a
cooperative
study
into
a
contentious,
adversarial
contest.
The
claim
that
EPA
has
neglected
its
duties
by
not
serving
information
request
letters
when
that
information
was
already
forthcoming
is
ludicrous.
(
USWAG00275)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
25
XIII
­
25
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
C.
Representativeness
of
Data
Several
public
interest
group
commenters
argued
that
the
sampling
size
and
statistical
analysis
of
the
data
used
in
characterizing
FFC
waste
was
inadequate.
One
of
the
commenters
further
compared
the
site
averaged
data
to
published
values
from
literature
to
support
its
argument
that
the
comanaged
waste
data
were
not
adequately
representative.
The
commenter
further
stated
that,
based
on
the
literature,
EPA
should
have
used
higher
values
in
its
risk
assessment.
An
industry
commenter,
on
the
other
hand,
characterized
the
data
as
the
most
comprehensive
data
base
ever
assembled
on
the
characteristics
of
FFC
wastes.

Response:
In
terms
of
sampling
size,
for
FBC
wastes
and
oil
combustion
wastes,
EPA
believes
the
population
of
facilities
sampled
was
adequate
and
representative.
Sampling
data
were
available
for
approximately
30
percent
of
the
facilities
in
these
sectors.
EPA
acknowledges
concerns
that
data
were
available
for
a
relatively
small
number
of
sites
for
comanaged
coal
combustion
wastes.
The
Agency,
however,
is
obligated
to
make
use
of
the
best
available
data.
Furthermore,
EPA
notes
that
the
comanaged
waste
sites
sampled,
although
few
in
number,
were
from
a
wide
range
of
geographic
regions
throughout
the
U.
S.
They
were
also
representative
in
terms
of
the
combinations
of
large­
volume
and
low­
volume
wastes
comanaged
(
see
page
3­
16
of
the
Report
to
Congress).

EPA
believes
its
analysis
of
the
available
waste
characterization
data
to
be
complete
and
accurate
as
well
as
adequate
for
the
intended
uses.
First,
the
Agency
used
all
of
the
available
data
in
its
statistical
analyses
of
waste
characterization
data.
Second,
the
Agency
complied
with
its
own
Agency­
wide
guidance
concerning
the
analysis
of
the
data,
including
treatment
of
the
data,
calculation
of
relevant
statistics,
and
appropriate
use
of
quality
assurance
procedures.
Third,
no
commenters
or
other
parties
identified
specific
instances
of
problems
or
issues
with
EPA's
treatment
of
data.
Fourth,
no
commenters
or
other
parties
identified
or
suggested
specific
instances
where
alternate
methods
of
data
treatment
are
more
appropriate
than
those
used
by
the
Agency..

In
general,
the
data
from
EPA's
characterization
efforts
are
roughly
similar
to
the
literature
data
cited
by
the
public
interest
group
commenter
(
similar
means
and
ranges).
This
supports
the
representativeness
of
EPA's
characterization
data.
The
commenter
compares
the
maximum
values
cited
in
the
literature
to
the
site
averaged
data
presented
in
EPA's
characterization.
The
Agency
points
out
that
the
data
presented
in
the
literature
are
not
site
averaged.
Therefore,
the
maximum
values
presented
represent
single
sample
results
that
may
not
be
broadly
representative
of
the
majority
of
waste
generated
over
time
at
a
given
facility.
EPA
believes
that
the
use
of
these
single­
sample
maxima
in
the
risk
assessment
would
result
in
an
overestimate
of
risk.
As
discussed
under
Topic
XIV.
G,
EPA
believes
that
site
averaging
is,
for
purposes
of
this
study,
an
appropriate
way
to
generate
representative,
yet
conservative
(
i.
e.,
erring
on
the
side
of
safety),
input
values
for
risk
assessment.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
26
XIII
­
26
EPA
acknowledges
that
the
input
values
(
95th
percentile
site
averages)
used
in
the
risk
assessment
are,
as
stated
by
the
commenter,
similar
to
the
mean
values
presented
in
the
literature
for
some
constituents.
The
Agency
notes,
however,
that
not
only
are
the
data
in
the
literature
not
site
averaged,
but
the
mean
values
reported
in
the
literature
represent
the
mean
of
detected
concentrations.
In
its
characterization,
EPA
treated
samples
reported
as
below
the
detection
limit
as
½
the
reported
detection
limit.
The
failure
to
account
for
samples
reported
below
the
detection
limit
would
result
in
mean
values
that
are
not
representative
of
the
full
range
of
concentrations
that
may
be
present
in
the
waste,
particularly
for
constituents
(
such
as
arsenic)
for
which
a
large
number
of
samples
may
be
below
detection.
Therefore,
because
they
are
not
site
averaged
and
do
not
account
for
samples
below
detection
limits,
it
is
unsurprising
the
"
mean"
values
in
the
literature
are
comparable
to
the
high­
end
values
used
in
the
risk
assessment.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
27
XIII
­
27
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
C.
Representativeness
of
Data
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA
candidly
admits
the
data
voluntarily
provided
are
too
limited
for
coming
to
any
definitive
conclusions
regarding
their
representativeness
on
a
national
basis.
For
coal
combustion
wastes,
the
data
provided
covered
onlv
1%
of
landfill
and
3%
of
impoundments
(
17
facilities
in
total),
and
the
number
of
landfills
from
which
the
TCLP
data
were
derived
"
may
contribute
to
uncertainty
in
these
results."
(
EDF00021)

The
sample
size
and
statistical
analvsis
of
the
data
used
in
characterize
FFC
waste
is
inadequate.
One
of
the
key
parameters
in
the
risk
assessment
is
the
concentration
of
the
various
constituents
in
the
waste.
The
Agency
admits
that
it
is
unsure
whether
the
data
characterizing
the
wastes
are
representative.
How
could
they
be
representative
when
less
than
one
percent­
of
the
landfills
were
sampled
and
less
the
three
percent
of
the
impoundments?
EPA
has
not
provided
any
information
to
support
whether
the
sampling
conducted
for
the
Report
adequately
characterizes
FFC
wastes.
(
ALA00036)

The
wastes
are
not
adequately
characterized.
The
lack
of
supportive
data
on
the
extent
to
which
FFC
waste
has
been
characterized
in
the
Report
undermines
the
Report's
conclusions
and
findings
with
respect
to
potential
impacts
on
public
health
and
the
environment.
For
example:
Only
17
sites
and
limited
samples
were
used
to
characterize
600
management
sites.
The
Agency
admits
that
it
is
unsure
whether
the
data
characterizing
the
wastes
are
representative.
Sophisticated
modeling
is
of
no
use
without
adequate
input
data.
(
49CAO00058)

The
limited
sampling
data
used
to
characterize
FFC
waste
constituents
and
other
serious
problems
with
the
site
investigations
indicates
that
the
concentration
range
of
FFC
waste
constituents
has
not
been
adequately
characterized
in
the
Report
to
Congress.
As
discussed
below,
there
should
be
low
confidence
placed
on
the
database
used
to
characterize
FFC
waste.
(
ALA00292)

We
reviewed
the
peer­
reviewed
literature
to
check
whether
other
researchers
have
characterized
the
constituents
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes.
Table
3
summarizes
these
findings.
for
the
eight
metals
included
in
the
EPA
analysis
as
constituents
of
concern.
for
coal
fly
ash
and
bottom
ash.
Data
were
not
located
in
the
literature
for
co­
managed
wastes.
We
found
that
for
the
eight
metals
selected
for
review,
the
values
used
by
EPA
are
all
in
the
range
of
published
values.
However,
the
facility
maximums
reported
by
EPA
are
all
lower
than
the
maximums
in
the
literature
for
fly
ash.
For
nickel
and
lead,
this
difference
is
more
than
an
order
of
magnitude.
The
facility­
averaged
95th
percentile
values
used
by
EPA
are
closer
to
the
mean
fly
ash
values
in
the
literature.
Perhaps
most
importantly,
in
the
draft
Report
to
Congress,
the
EPA
recognizes
that
"
the
industry­
provided
contaminant
data
presented
a
problem"
(
see
page
l­
8
of
the
Report
to
Congress).
The
Report
goes
on
to
say:
"
EPA
tested
these
at
up
to
three
times
reported
levels.
but
did
not
test
for
the
possibility
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
28
XIII
­
28
that
even
higher
levels
might
exist.
Uncertainty
still
exists
as
to
the
nationwide
representativeness
of
this
key
input
variable."
Although
it
is
not
stated
what
"
reported
level"
was
tested
(
i.
e.,
was
it
the
mean,
maximum,
median?),
the
data
in
Table
3
illustrate
that,
with
the
exception
of
cadmium,
maximum
values
reported
in
the
literature
(
using
fly
ash
as
an
example)
are
significantly
higher
than
3
times
the
facility­
averaged
value
used
by
EPA.
This
suggests
that
while
the
industryprovided
values
used
by
EPA
may
represent
the
high­
end
values
for
the
facilities
tested
they
may
underestimate
the
concentrations
found
industry­
wide.
(
ALA00292)

Less
than
3
percent
of
the
waste
management
units
operating
in
the
U.
S.
were
sampled
for
the
Report
to
Congress.
EPA
is
relying
on
only
14
site
investigations
to
characterize
­
both
spatially
and
temporally
­
a
complex
mixture
of
FFC
waste
disposed
of
in
waste
management
units
(
WMUs)
that
varied
in
size
from
as
small
as
a
few
acres
to
more
than
1,500
acres.
In
addition,
these
WMUs
comanage
waste
ranging
from
1
to
15
different
low­
volume
waste
streams
along
with
1,
2,
or
3
different
large
volume
wastes.
EPA
presents
no
scientific
basis
to
support
the
notion
that
the
14
site
investigations
provide
sufficient
statistical
power
to
distinguish
variations
between
facilities
­
or
even
variations
within
facilities.
It
should
also
be
noted
that
the
inadequacy
of
the
analytical
monitoring
data
used
to
characterize
the
toxic
constituents
in
FFC
waste
was
consistently
identified
by
EPA
and
the
contractors
that
conducted
both
the
groundwater
risk
assessment
and
the
non­
groundwater
risk
assessment.
(
ALA00292)

These
data
are
the
most
comprehensive
data
base
ever
assembled
on
the
characteristics
of
FFC
wastes
and
how
they
are
managed
as
well
as
the
geologic
and
climatic
characteristics
of
FFC
waste
management
units.
EPRl's
data
collection
efforts
included
in
situ
samples
obtained
from
18
sites
with
active
or
recently
closed
management
units,
as
well
as
porewater
samples
from
drill
cores
taken
from
impoundments
and
landfills
used
to
co­
manage
fly
ash,
bottom
ash,
and/
or
flue
gas
desulfurization
waste
with
low
volume
wastes.
Additional
data
were
provided
principally
through
an
EPRI
study
of
co­
management
practices,
which
surveyed
253
active
coal
combustion
waste
management
units.
This
study
was
developed
in
consultation
with
EPA
staff
to
ensure
the
quality
and
representativeness
of
the
data.
See
USWAG
Initial
Comments
at
22­
23.
(
USWAG00275)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
29
XIII
­
29
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
D.
Adequacy
of
TCLP
and
EP
Tests
Industry,
academic,
and
public
interest
group
commenters
questioned
whether
the
TCLP
test
adequately
represents
the
leachate
from
FFC
wastes.
Commenters
variously
expressed
concern
that
the
TCLP
may
underestimate
or
overestimate
the
leaching
of
the
various
waste
constituents.
Specific
concerns
raised
were
that:
the
TCLP
underestimates
the
leaching
potential
of
alkaline
wastes;
the
TCLP
underestimates
leaching
in
acidic
environments
such
as
might
be
created
by
mill
rejects;
the
TCLP
does
not
adequately
represent
long­
term
leaching
following
ettringite
formation;
and
the
EP
test
was
found
to
be
inadequate
by
the
SAB
in
1991.
Another
commenter
pointed
to
the
SAB's
recommendations
about
revising
the
TCLP.
One
of
the
commenters
stated
that
TCLP
or
EP
tests
would
not
be
appropriate
unless
FFC
waste
were
disposed
in
a
municipal
landfill.
Another
commenter
suggested
that
long
term
leaching
tests
using
a
solution
approximating
percolating
ground
water
would
be
more
appropriate
and
accurate.

One
industry
commenter
supported
the
use
of
the
TCLP
as
a
reflection
of
probable
leaching
conditions
in
soil
amendment
applications
of
CCW,
but
stated
that
the
TCLP
may
overstate
leachate
concentrations
in
minefill
operations.
This
commenter
concluded
that
it
is
neither
surprising
nor
relevant
to
the
determination
that
the
TCLP
may
not
perfectly
model
leaching
behavior
in
every
waste
and
in
every
application.

Response:
The
Agency
acknowledges
that
the
TCLP
is
designed
to
simulate
the
leaching
conditions
found
at
a
typical
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
and
that
conditions
in
FFC
waste
management
units
may
be
different
from
those
in
municipal
solid
waste
landfills.
EPA
has
no
evidence,
however,
to
indicate
that
these
differences
are
significant
enough
to
invalidate
TCLP
or
EP
test
results
as
reasonably
representative
of
FFC
waste
leachate.
Furthermore,
for
many
of
the
waste
types
studied,
the
only
leaching
test
results
available
to
EPA
were
TCLP
and/
or
EP
results.
In
the
one
case
where
EPA
had
porewater
data
for
comanaged
coal
combustion
wastes
in
surface
impoundments,
the
Agency
made
use
of
these
data
in
its
characterization
and
risk
assessment.
For
other
wastes
and
management
scenarios,
EPA
made
use
of
the
best
available
leachate
characterization
data,
which
were
TCLP
and/
or
EP
data.
The
Agency
notes
that
most
of
the
commenters
did
not
provide
any
suggestion
as
to
leaching
procedures
that
would
be
more
accurately
representative.
Some
commenters
did
recommend
alternate
leaching
test
procedures,
including
a
synthetic
ground
water
leach
procedure
and
an
ASTM
leach
extraction
procedure.

EPA
agrees
that
results
of
long­
term
leaching
using
a
solution
designed
to
simulate
ground
water
would
be
a
useful
tool
in
waste
characterization.
However,
insufficient
amounts
of
such
data
were
available
for
this
study.
Furthermore,
the
resources
required
to
develop
site­
specific
methods
and
collect
and
evaluate
such
data
likely
would
be
prohibitive.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
30
XIII
­
30
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
D.
Adequacy
of
TCLP
and
EP
Tests
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Perhaps
in
an
effort
to
minimize
the
inappropriate
use
of
TCLP
data
in
this
case,
EPA
does
not
provide
the
pH
of
the
coal
combustion
or
other
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
that
are
described
in
the
current
Report
to
Congress,
on
either
an
as­
generated
or
co­
managed
basis.
However,
in
the
general
descriptions
of
low­
volume
coal
combustion
wastes
provided,
the
Agency
notes
boiler
chemical
cleaning
waste
and
water
treatment
wastes
exhibit
the
corrosivity
characteristic,
and
thus
may
have
a
pH
greater
than
or
equal
to
12.5.
See
1999
Report
to
Congress,
Table
3­
5.
And
in
the
earlier
Report
to
Congress,
EPA
indicated
dual
alkali
FGD
sludge
has
a
pH
of
12.1,
and
boiler
blowdown
has
a
pH
of
up
to
12.0.
See
1988
Report
to
Congress,
Exhibits
3­
17,
3­
20.
(
EDF00021)

First,
EPA
consistently
relies
upon
TCLP
data
as
the
waste
contaminant
concentration
input
to
the
groundwater
model
for
landfills
and
some
surface
impoundments
(
where
pore
water
sample
data
were
unavailable),
regardless
of
whether
the
leaching
procedure
accurately
measures
the
leaching
potential
of
the
wastes
under
consideration.
For
example,
EPA
is
fully
aware
that
the
TCLP
seriously.
understates
the
leaching
potential
of
highly
alkaline
wastes.
Although
some
coal
combustion
wastes
under
consideration
(
and
perhaps
others
as
well)
are
highly
alkaline,
EPA
still
uses
TCLP
data
in
the
groundwater
model.
Moreover,
at
least
one
of
the
low
volume
wastes
(
coal
mill
rejects)
can
become
reactive
if
sufficient
concentrations
of
pyrites
are
present.
(
EDF00021)

Moreover,
at
least
one
of
the
low
volume
wastes
(
coal
mill
rejects)
can
become
reactive
if
sufficient
concentrations
of
pyrites
are
present.
Over
time,
these
wastes
can
present
"
acid
causing
conditions"
at
some
disposal
locations.
Yet
there
is
absolutely
no
discussion
in
the
Report
as
to
whether
TCLP
data
can
be
used
to
represent
reasonable
worst­
case
waste
leachability
under
such
acidic
disposal
conditions.
(
EDF00021)

A
good
indication
of
the
weakness
of
the
TCLP
for
the
wastes
in
question
can
be
found
in
Table
3­
9
of
the
Report
to
Congress.
In
this
table,
EPA
provides
TCLP
data
(
covering
wastes
in
both
landfills
and
surface
impoundments)
and
pore
water
sample
data
(
covering
surface
impoundments)
for
co­
managed
coal
combustion
wastes.
For
every
toxic
contaminant
but
mercury,
both
the
mean
and
upper
range
of
the
pore
water
data
exceed
the
TCLP
data,
typically
by
an
order
of
magnitude
or
more.
In
the
case
of
arsenic
wastes,
a
particularly
important
contaminant
in
coal
combustion
the
difference
between
the
mean
pore
water
and
TCLP
data
is
almost
two
orders
of
magnitude.
Insofar
as
the
pore
water
data
represent
"
actual
leachate"
results
for
surface
impoundments,
it
is
clear
that
the
TCLP
data
consistently
fail
to
predict
the
actual
concentration
of
contaminants
available
for
migration
into
groundwater.
(
EDF00021)

EPA
cannot
simply
rely
upon
the
TCLP
because
it
is
the
test
used
in
the
current
toxicity
characteristic.
The
procedures
employed
in
EPA's
risk
modeling
must
bear
some
rationale
relationship
to
anticipated
disposal
conditions,
particularly
where
the
TCLP
underpredicts
waste
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
31
XIII
­
31
leachability
and
therefore
is
not
a
valid
indicator
of
"
potential"
risks.
See
Columbia
Falls,
supra,
at
922­
3.
(
EDF00021)

While
EPA
claims
TCLP
data
"
are
believed"
to
better
represent
leaching
conditions
in
landfills,
it
never
explains
the
reasons
for
this
belief.
Report
to
Congress
at
3­
18.
In
fact,
the
TCLP
data
in
Table
3­
9
are
provided
for
both
landfills
and
surface
impoundments,
and
appear
to
be
dominated
by
surface
impoundments
given
the
Agency's
concern
that
"
a
much
smaller
number
of
landfills
are
reflected
in
the
data."
Report
to
Congress.
(
EDF00021)

In
the
groundwater
risk
assessment,
concentrations
may
not
be
reflective
of
actual
conditions
due
to
the
tests
used.
Specifically,
the
tests
used
to
estimate
the
extent
to
which
the
metals
leach
from
the
waste
may
be
inadequate.
EPA
has
not
demonstrated
that
the
leachate
tests
(
Toxicity
Characteristic
Leaching
Procedure,
TCLP)
for
landfills
and
leachate
represented
by
pore
water
samples
for
impoundments
is
adequate
for
risk
assessment.
In
a
February
26,
1999
memo
from
the
Science
Advisory
Board's
(
SAB)
Environmental
Engineering
Committee
to
the
Administrator,
the
SAB
reminds
EPA
that
in
1991
the
SAB
recommended
improvements
to
leaching
test
procedures.
The
Agency
has
not
used
the
SAB's
recommendations
to
revise
the
TCLP
or
to
develop
other
protocols.
Use
of
the
TCLP
may
underestimate
or
overestimate
the
leaching
of
the
various
waste
constituents.
The
SAB
subcommittee
noted
that
leach
testing
needs
to
account
for
more
leaching
parameters
because
these
parameters
have
a
direct
affect
on
actual
leaching
of
contaminants
from
waste
in
the
field.
The
important
point
is
that
the
Agency
should
have
low
confidence
in
the
waste
characterization
because
the
small
data
set
and
the
leachate
test
results
may
not
be
representative
of
real­
world
facilities.
(
ALA00036)

Since
significant
alteration
of
chemistry
and
mineralogy
is
exhibited
by
certain
classes
of
FFC
wastes,
it
is
imperative
that
testing
methods
used
to
evaluate
the
potential
for
adverse
environmental
impact
be
flexible
and
up
to
date
to
incorporate
state­
of­
the­
art
scientific
understanding.
Leaching
characterization,
for
example,
should
incorporate
long­
term
equilibration
times
to
allow
for
potential
mineralogical
changes
such
as
formation
of
ettringite
to
take
place
and
should
utilize
a
leaching
solution
that
reflects
what
would
happen
at
specific
sites.
The
toxicity
characteristic
leaching
procedure
(
TCLP)
and
extraction
procedure
(
EP)
toxicity
test
procedures
using
acetate
buffer
or
dilute
acetic
acid
with
an
l8­
hour
equilibration
time
would
likely
never
be
appropriate
unless
FFC
wastes
were
to
be
disposed
in
a
sanitary
landfill.
(
EERC00044)

It
is
unfortunate
that
the
EPA
chose
to
use
TCLP
as
the
test
for
evaluating
wastes
from
FFC.
It
has
been
demonstrated
and
it
is
well
known
that
many
FFC
wastes,
especially
alkaline
types
from
combustion
of
lower­
rank
coals
or
from
advanced
coal
combustion
processes
such
as
fluid­
bed
combustion,
undergo
chemical
and
mineralogical
transformations
upon
contact
with
water.
One
important
mineral
that
is
often
formed
during
the
hydration
of
alkaline
or
lower­
rank
CCBs
is
the
mineral
ettringite
...
If
the
proper
concentrations
of
components
are
provided
along
with
high
alkalinity,
ettringite
forms
readily.
These
conditions
are
often
met
when
low­
rank
CCBs
contact
water.
The
ash
in
most
cases
has
all
of
the
potential
ingredients
for
ettringite
formation
and
it
has
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
32
XIII
­
32
been
found
that
many
low­
rank
CCBs
do
form
ettringite
as
a
primary
hydration
product
...
A
shortterm
leaching
test
of
18­
hour
duration
such
as
the
TCLP
or
American
Society
for
Testing
and
Materials
(
ASTM)
water
shake
test
may
be
concluded
before
ettringite
has
even
begun
to
form
in
some
CCBs.
This
could
result
in
highly
misleading
information
regarding
leachability
of
several
very
important
and
potentially
problematic
trace
elements.
Since
these
transformations
can
chemically
fix
certain
trace
elements,
particularly
those
that
exist
in
aqueous
solution
as
oxonians
such
as
arsenic,
boron,
chromium,
molybdenum,
selenium,
and
vanadium,
and
because
these
chemical
and
mineralogical
transformations
can
take
up
to
months,
TCLP
is
clearly
an
inappropriate
test
for
evaluation
of
wastes
from
FFC
in
monofills.
(
EERC00044)

Alternative
tests
to
the
TCLP
exist
that
are
more
appropriate.
One
of
these,
the
ASTM
shake
extraction,
and
another,
the
synthetic
groundwater
leaching
procedure
(
SGLP)
developed
at
the
University
of
North
Dakota
(
Hassett,
1987),
can
provide
more
relevant
data,
especially
if
leachate
concentrations
are
measured
over
time
periods
of
up
to
2
months
and
greater.
Potentially
problematic
trace
elements,
including
those
listed
above,
have
been
found
to
decrease
in
concentration
over
time
(
Hassett,
1991;
Hassett,
1994).
The
use
of
an
acetate­
based
short­
term
leaching
is
clearly
inappropriate.
Although
the
TCLP
is
appropriate
for
wastes
in
sanitary
landfills,
FFC
wastes,
often
disposed
in
monofills,
require
a
different
approach.
The
argument
that
the
TCLP,
being
acidic
in
nature,
represents
a
worst­
case
scenario
is
also
a
fallacy.
SGLP
or
ASTM
leaching
do
not
provide
data
that
can
be
generally
characterized
as
higher
or
lower
in
quality,
but
rather
as
more
scientifically
valid
and
legally
defensible.
Alternative
and
more
scientifically
valid
procedures
such
as
the
EERC's
SGLP
and
the
ASTM
shake
extraction
test
are
also
in
line
with
the
performance­
based
measurement
system
(
PBMS)
approach
to
compliance
monitoring
recently
initiated
by
EPA.
Since
leaching
data
on
FPC
wastes
generated
using
TCLP
or
other
short­
term
leaching
tests
may
be
flawed,
care
must
be
exercised
in
the
application
of
these
data
for
environmental
impact
projections
or
modeling.
(
EERC00044)

The
toxicity
characterization
of
the
wastes
relied
on
two
tests,
one
of
which
the
EPA's
own
Science
Advisory
Board
in
1991
noted
was
inadequate.
(
49CAO00058)

Among
the
findings
of
the
Boulding
report,
which
was
based
on
extensive
literature
review
and
analysis
of
coals
burned
in
Indiana
utilities
(
including
Kentucky
coals),
that
bear
on
the
EPA
assessment
of
the
risks
associated
with
coal
combustion
waste
(
CCW)
disposal,
are
these
...
Neither
EP
nor
TCLP
tests
provide
a
good
indication
of
leachability
of
CCW
in
natural
disposal
settings.
Long­
term
leaching
tests
conducted
until
equilibrium
has
been
achieved
for
each
element
of
concern,
using
a
leaching
solution
that
approximated
percolating
groundwater,
would
give
a
more
accurate
depiction
of
ground­
water
contamination
potential
at
a
disposal
site.
(
NCCLP00282)

Many
of
the
elements
they
feel
will
be
`
locked
up'
in
the
high
pH
of
ashes
for
instance,
in
reality
leach
out
easily
at
high
pHs,
as
well
as
at
the
more
acidic.
(
PEACE00306)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
33
XIII
­
33
Certain
cornmenters
have
attacked
the
TCLP
test
as
a
flawed
methodology.
TCLP
was
designed
to
approximate
the
behavior
of
metals
in
a
typical
landfill
environment.
TCLP
reflects
probable
leaching
characteristics
in
soil
amendment
application
of
coal
ash.
However,
TCLP
probably
overstates
the
concentration
of
toxics
in
leachate
from
mine
reclamation
and
minefilling,
because
the
alkalinity
of
the
FBC
ash
and
its
pozzolonic
(
cement­
like)
nature,
combined
with
the
compaction
in
the
backfilling
process,
will
decrease
the
mobility
of
metals
significantly,
in
contrast
to
a
landfill
disposal.
PG&
E
Gen
has
documented
compaction
densities
in
FBC
ash
reclamation
projects
that
achieve
permeability
rates
of
less
than
10­
6
crn/
sec
or
better,
approaching
the
permeability
requirement
for
municipal
solid
waste
landfill
liners.
(
See
also,
attached
geotechnical
report
for
additional
information
on
compaction
density
of
FBC
ash
fill.)
Thus,
TCLP
data
most
likely
significantly
overstates
the
actual
leachability
of
toxics
from
FBC
ash
in
the
mine
reclamation
context.
Equally
important,
TCLP
is
the
bright
line
test
for
waste
toxicity
for
all
wastes
and
all
uses
established
by
EPA.
That
TCLP
may
not
perfectly
model
leaching
behavior
in
every
waste
and
in
every
application
is
neither
surprising
nor
relevant
to
this
determination.
(
PG&
E00274)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
19
FF2P­
S0367.

34
XIII
­
34
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
E.
Characterization
of
Mercury
Several
public
interest
group
commenters
suggested
that
EPA's
characterization
of
mercury
was
inadequate,
with
some
of
the
commenters
suggesting
the
characterization
failed
to
even
test
for
mercury.
The
commenters
found
the
lack
of
attention
to
mercury
egregious
in
light
of
the
perceived
risks,
the
current
attention
to
mercury
throughout
the
Agency,
and
the
high
levels
of
mercury
emissions
from
utilities.

Response:
The
Technical
Background
Document
for
the
Report
to
Congress
on
Remaining
Wastes
from
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion:
Waste
Characterization19
does
present
characterization
data
on
mercury.
Specifically,
leachate
and/
or
porewater
mercury
data
were
presented
in
Tables
3­
15
and
3­
16
for
comanaged
wastes,
Tables
3­
18
through
3­
23
for
oil
combustion
wastes,
and
Tables
3­
24
through
3­
28
for
FBC
wastes.
Whole
waste
mercury
concentration
data
were
presented
in
Tables
2­
10
through
2­
12
for
oil
combustion
wastes
and
Tables
2­
13
through
2­
15
for
FBC
wastes.
For
comanaged
wastes,
only
one
site
reported
whole
waste
mercury
concentration,
a
single
sample
below
a
detection
limit
of
0.13
milligrams
per
kilogram
(
mg/
kg).
EPA
used
these
characterization
data
for
mercury
in
its
risk
assessment
as
discussed
below
under
Topic
XIV.
C.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
35
XIII
­
35
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
E.
Characterization
of
Mercury
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA
did
not
adequately
characterize
FFC
wastes,
including
mercury
releases.
(
ALA00036)

The
waste
characterization
analyses
fail
to
even
test
for
mercury,
or
if
they
do,
the
report
fails
to
present
the
data.
If
the
data
were
available,
it
would
be
possible
to
calculate
the
mercury
content
of
and
mercury
fluxes
from
the
various
wastes
streams.
(
ALA00036)

It
appears
that
the
waste
characterization
analyses
fail
even
to
test
for
mercury.
(
49CAO00058)

EPA
requested
analyses
for
mercury,
however
the
EPRI
contractor
did
not
collect
or
preserve
samples
for
mercury
analysis
and
none
were
done.
(
ALA00292)

In
addition,
the
field
sampling,
as
documented
by
SAIC
did
not
follow
the
QAPP
decontamination
procedures,
nor
was
the
complete
list
of
target
analytes
analyzed
for
(
e.
g.,
mercury
and
chromium
(
VI)).
(
ALA00292)

Mercury
was
not
modeled
in
the
human
health
assessment
portion
of
the
non­
groundwater
analysis.
One
reason
for
this
is
that
mercury
was
not
reported
in
the
co­
managed
waste
analytical
data.
This
shortcoming
is
noted
above
in
the
waste
characterization
section
­
the
EPRI
contractor
did
not
collect
or
preserve
samples
for
mercury
analysis
although
mercury
is
specified
in
the
QAPP
as
a
target
analyte.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
36
XIII
­
36
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
F.
Characterization
of
Organics,
Radionuclides,
and
Dioxins/
Furans
Public
interest
group
and
academic
commenters
argued
that
EPA's
characterization
data
for
organics,
dioxins
and
furans,
and/
or
radionuclides
were
inadequate
and/
or
inadequately
presented.
Particularly,
some
of
the
commenters
suggested
that
the
characterization
was
insufficient
to
rule
out
these
constituents
from
risk
assessment.
One
of
the
commenters
was
particularly
concerned
about
polycyclic
aromatic
hydrocarbons
(
PAHs)
and
phenols.
Another
commenter
suggested
that
FBC
wastes
retain
volatile
and
semi­
volatile
organics
in
the
bottom
ash
to
a
greater
extent
than
conventional
pulverized
coal
combustion
wastes.

Response:
EPA
based
its
characterization
of
organic
constituents
(
including
dioxins
and
furans)
on
the
following
sources:

°
Inorganic
and
Organic
Constituents
in
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion
Residue,
Volume
1:
A
Critical
Review.
Electric
Power
Research
Institute.
EP­
5176.
August,
1987.
°
Development
Document
for
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
Standards
and
Pretreatment
Standards
for
the
Steam
Electric
Point
Source
Category.
EPA,
Office
of
Water.
EPA
44/
1­
82/
029.
November,
1982.
°
PCDDs
and
PCDFs
in
Coal
Combustion
By­
Products
(
CCBS).
Final
Report.
Electric
Power
Research
Institute.
March,
1998.
°
Organics
data
reported
in
the
Fossil
Fuel
Fluidized
Bed
Combustion
By­
Products
Survey
electronic
database
provided
by
the
Council
of
Industrial
Boiler
Owners.
°
Organics
data
reported
in
the
Oil
Combustion
By­
Products
Database
provided
by
the
Electric
Power
Research
Institute.
°
Letter
to
Dennis
Ruddy,
EPA,
from
James
R.
Lindsay,
Florida
Power
and
Light,
transmitting
analytical
data
for
split
samples
at
FPL's
Riviera
Facility.
June
18,
1997.

Based
on
these
sources,
EPA
concluded
that
organic
constituents,
including
PAHs,
are
infrequently
present
in
FFC
wastes
at
levels
above
analytical
detection
limits.
This
conclusion
is
consistent
with
the
expectation
that
organics
are
destroyed
in
the
combustion
process
or
pass
out
the
stack.
Given
this
conclusion,
the
Agency
did
not
consider
organics
in
its
risk
assessment.
EPA
also
did
not
include
a
detailed
summary
of
the
organics
characterization
data
from
these
sources
in
the
docket,
because
any
such
summary
would
consist
primarily
of
non­
detects.
EPA
does
not
disagree
that
there
is
a
possibility
that
FBC
combustion
conditions
might
result
in
wastes
that
retain
organics
to
a
greater
extent
than
conventional
coal
combustion
wastes.
The
analytical
data
for
FBC
wastes,
however,
still
show
that
organic
constituents
are
rarely
present
above
analytical
detection
limits.

EPA
based
its
characterization
of
radionuclides
on
a
variety
of
sources,
as
discussed
under
Topic
XI.
A
(
see
the
report
in
the
docket
"
Review
of
Literature
on
Radionuclides
in
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion
Wastes).
To
avoid
duplication
of
effort
with
the
more
detailed
study
of
radionuclides
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
37
XIII
­
37
in
FFC
wastes
being
conducted
by
the
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation,
the
Agency
did
not
consider
radionuclides
in
its
risk
assessment
or
present
a
detailed
summary
of
radionuclides
data
in
the
docket.
EPA
has
reviewed
rationuclide
concentrations
in
coal
and
ash
in
connection
with
other
regulatory
programs
(
EPA1989a,
1989b,
1995c).
One
of
these
studies
examined
potential
exposures
of
worker
and
nearby
resident
to
ratioactivity
from
ash
released
from
a
coal
pile
through
wind
and
runoff
erosion.
Exposure
from
direct
contact,
inhalation,
and
ingesiton
were
estimated
to
fall
below
natural
background
ratiation
exposure
levels
even
for
a
worker
standing
on
the
ash
pile
(
EPA,
1989a).
In
addition,
EPA
is
currently
studying
coal
combustion
wastes
as
part
of
a
larger
study
of
naturally
occurring
radioactive
materials
UNORM).
The
report
from
this
NORM
study
is
expected
to
be
published
later
in
2000.
Due
to
the
low
expected
risks
associated
with
nadionuclides
in
coal
ash,
and
to
prevent
duplicaiton
of
effort
with
the
NORM
study,
EPA
eliminated
radionuclides
from
further
consideration
in
this
study.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
38
XIII
­
38
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
F.
Characterization
of
Organics,
Radionuclides,
and
Dioxins/
Furans
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Data
are
not
presented
in
the
Report
on
the
analyses
of
the
concentration
of
organic
compounds
or
radioactive­
substances
in
FFC
waste;
however,
EPA
determined
that
no
public
health
concem
exists
from
these
potentially
toxic
constituents.
It
is
particularly
important
that
organic
emissions,
including
dioxins/
furans,
that
can
be
generated
when
coal
is
combusted
with
other
materials
such
as
tires,
used
oil,
railroad
ties,
and
sewage
sludge
(
i.
e.
cobuming)
be
carefully
considered
in
the
risk
assessment.
EPA
states
on
page
3­
13
of
the
Executive
Summary
that
"
although
an
exhaustive
review
of
the
organics
data
has
not
been
conducted,
based
on
available
information;
total
and
leachable
organics
are
generally
reported
to
be
at
or
below
analytical
detection
limits."
(
ALA00036)

Data
on
organic
or
radioactive
substances
in
the
wastes
are
not
reported,
although
EPA
concludes
that
they
represent
no
human
health
risks.
(
49CAO00058)

As
with
PAH's
the
draft
Determination
relies
on
a
few
reports
by
third
parties
to
dismiss
the
existence
and
environmental
threat
of
radioactivity
without
sufficient
justification.
Dismissing
the
need
to
analyze
for
or
monitor
such
constituents
on
financial
or
technical
grounds
is
not
valid.
(
HEC00332)

Considering
the
lack
of
testing
or
monitoring
for
phenols
at
other
ash
sites
around
the
country
,
further
consideration
and
study
of
the
presence
of
phenols
in
CCW
is
needed.
(
HECL0014)

Fluidized
bed
combustion
(
FBC)
wastes
retain
volatile
and
semi­
volatile
elements
in
the
bottom
ash
to
a
greater
extent
than
conventional
pulverized
coal
combustion,
thus
enhancing
the
leachability
of
FBC
waste
elements.
(
NCCLP00282)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
39
XIII
­
39
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
G.
Impacts
of
HAP/
NOx
Regulations
Public
interest
group
commenters
argued
that
EPA
had
not
considered
the
effect
on
waste
characteristics
of
upcoming
requirements
under
the
Clean
Air
Act.
The
commenters
suggested
changes
in
air
pollution
control
technology
would
cause
metal
concentrations
in
waste
to
increase.

Response:
We
have
carefully
considered
the
issue
of
cross­
media
impacts
and
the
commenters'
specific
concerns
that
future
air
regulations
could
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
characteristics
of
coal
combustion
wastes.
We
have
concluded
that
it
is
premature
to
consider
the
possible
future
impact
of
such
new
air
pollution
controls
on
the
wastes
that
are
subject
to
today's
regulatory
determination.
The
Agency
plans
to
issue
a
regulatory
determination
in
the
latter
part
of
2000
regarding
hazardous
air
pollutant
(
HAP)
controls
at
coal­
burning,
power
generating
facilities.
If
EPA
decides
to
initiate
a
rulemaking
process,
final
rulemaking
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
is
projected
to
occur
in
2004.
Thus,
no
final
decision
has
been
made
on
what,
if
any,
constituents
will
be
regulated
by
future
air
pollution
control
requirements.
Additionally,
the
regulatory
levels
of
the
those
specific
pollutants
that
might
be
controlled
and
the
control
technologies
needed
to
attain
any
regulatory
requirements
have
not
yet
been
identified.
Therefore,
we
believe
there
is
insufficient
information
at
this
time
for
evaluating
the
characteristics
and
potential
environmental
impacts
of
solid
wastes
that
would
be
generated
as
a
result
of
new
Clean
Air
Act
requirements.

When
any
rulemaking
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
proceeds
to
a
point
where
we
can
complete
an
assessment
of
the
likely
changes
to
the
character
of
coal
combustion
wastes,
we
will
evaluate
the
implications
of
these
changes
relative
to
today's
regulatory
determination
and
take
appropriate
action.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
40
XIII
­
40
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
G.
Impacts
of
HAP/
NOx
Regulations
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Nor
has
EPA
taken
into
account
the
anticipated
increases
in
metal
concentrations
of
pollution
control
wastes
associated
with
upcoming
requirements
promulgated
under
the
Clean
Air
Act.
(
EDF00021)

The
Report
and
its
risk
assessments
do
not
address
the
changing
characteristics
of
fossil
fuel
wastes
that
may
result
from
attempts
to
comply
with
new
air
pollution
control
standards.
For
example,
there
is
no
discussion
of
the
effects
of
installing
controls
for
nitrogen
oxides
on
the
character
of
the
coal
combustion
waste
that
would
be
produced
by
utility
coal­
fired
power
plants
and
its
potential
for
harming
the
environment.
With
more
time
to
comment
we
hope
to
submit
a
detailed
analysis
of
the
risk
assessments
done
for
this
Report.
(
HEC00056)

Currently,
there
is
a
growing
nationwide
movement
to
place
mercury
emission
controls
on
coalfired
plants.
If
these
controls
are
enacted,
mercury
concentrations
will
rise
in
CCW
as
more
mercury
is
retained
in
the
ash.
Without
responsible
CCW
disposal
standards,
emissions
standards
will
not
prevent
mercury
contamination
from
degrading
the
environment.
We
will
only
be
changing
the
pathway
by
which
it
enters
our
streams
and
lakes.
The
impacts
of
mercury
from
CCW
and
higher
concentrations
of
mercury
in
CCW
created
by
mercury
emission
controls
needs
to
be
further
studied
by
EPA.
(
HEC00332)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
41
XIII
­
41
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
H.
Characterization
of
Mill
Rejects
One
industry
commenter
contended
that
the
Report's
statement
that
coal
mill
rejects
could
"
potentially"
be
reactive
is
mistaken
because
coal
mill
rejects
do
not
emit
any
gases
and
fumes.

Response:
The
Agency
has
not
conducted
a
detailed
evaluation
of
mill
rejects
with
regard
to
the
RCRA
characteristic
of
reactivity.
EPA's
primary
concern
with
mill
rejects
is
that,
if
not
properly
managed,
their
pyritic
component
has
the
potential
to
generate
acid
that
can
mobilize
constituents
in
comanaged
wastes.
This
concern
is
addressed
under
Topic
IV,
above.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
42
XIII
­
42
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
H.
Characterization
of
Mill
Rejects
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA's
speculation
that
coal
mill
rejects
could
"
potentially"
be
reactive
is
mistaken.
This
potential
in
fact
is
nonexistent
because
coal
mill
rejects
do
not
emit
any
gases
and
fumes.
EPA
should
correct
this
misstatement
in
the
final
regulatory
determination.
(
USWAG00037)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
20
FF2P­
S0092.
Memorandum
to
Dennis
Ruddy,
EPA,
Regarding
Corrected
Final
EPA/
EPRI
Analytical
Data
Assessment
and
Comparison.
Ray
Anderson
and
Chris
Long,
SAIC.
August
13,
1997.

43
XIII
­
43
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
I.
Sampling
and
Analysis
Quality
Assurance
One
public
interest
group
commenter
stated
that
sampling,
handling,
and
analysis
procedures
utilized
by
the
industry
contractor
performing
the
waste
characterization
analysis
did
not
conform
to
EPA's
protocols
adopted
for
the
study,
and
potentially
biased
the
outcomes.

General
Response:
EPA
acknowledges
that
there
were
certain
deviations
from
the
procedures
specified
in
the
Quality
Assurance
Project
Plan
(
QAPP)
at
three
sites
where
EPA
performed
verification
sampling
in
conjunction
with
industry
sampling
efforts.
The
Agency
notes,
however,
that
these
deviations
were
noted
only
at
three
sites,
not
at
all
of
the
sites
sampled
by
the
industry.
Furthermore,
EPA
compared
the
results
of
the
industry
sampling
at
these
sites
to
its
own
analytical
results
from
split
samples
at
these
sites.
As
documented
in
the
docket,
20
EPA
found
a
high
degree
of
comparability
between
the
EPA
and
EPRI
results,
suggesting
that
the
data
are
valid
and
representative.
Finally,
many
of
the
deviations
from
QAPP
procedures
noted,
if
significant,
would
tend
to
overestimate,
not
underestimate,
contaminant
concentrations.
Thus,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
the
minor
deviations
in
procedures
found
at
three
sites
are
sufficient
basis
to
invalidate
the
representativeness
and
conservatism
of
the
characterization
of
FFC
wastes
used
in
this
study.
Specific
problems
with
data
collection
and
analysis
cited
by
the
commenter
are
identified
in
the
numbered
items
below,
with
specific
responses
to
each
item.

1.
At
the
FP&
L
site,
no
field
quality
control
samples
were
taken
and
there
was
no
decontamination
of
equipment.

Response:
Field
quality
control
samples
were
taken
and
equipment
decontamination
was
conducted
at
the
FP&
L
site.
The
commenter's
concern
appears
to
be
based
on
a
misinterpretation
of
the
information
presented
in
a
memorandum
describing
the
field
activities
at
the
site.
The
statements
in
this
memorandum
were
intended
to
indicate
that
there
were
no
issues
noted
with
the
field
quality
control
samples
and
equipment
decontamination,
not
that
these
activities
were
not
conducted.
The
Agency
apologizes
if
the
presentation
of
the
information
was
unclear.

2.
At
three
other
sites,
field
blanks
were
used
as
both
field
blanks
and
equipment
blanks.

Response:
Chapter
One
of
EPA's
"
Test
Methods
for
Evaluating
Solid
Waste
SW­
846"
does
not
specifically
recommend
the
inclusion
of
field
blanks
in
the
suite
of
field
QC
samples.
SW­
846
does,
however,
recommend
the
use
of
equipment
(
rinsate)
blanks.
The
blanks
in
question
were
useful
as
equipment
blanks
because
each
water
sample
was
collected
after
it
passed
through
or
over
(
i.
e.,
rinsed)
the
sampling
equipment.
The
Agency's
own
QAPP
for
the
verification
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
44
XIII
­
44
sampling
effort
did
not
call
for
the
use
of
field
blanks,
and
we
are
not
concerned
about
the
lack
of
field
blanks
in
the
verification
sampling
effort.

3.
Reagent
grade
water
was
not
used
for
blank
water;
locally
purchased
distilled
water
was
used
instead
at
two
sites.

Response:
Reagent
grade
water
is
preferred
for
use
as
blank
water
because
the
quality
of
the
water
is
know
prior
to
its
use.
While
quality
of
the
locally­
purchased
distilled
water
was
not
known
in
advance,
the
sample
analysis
results
for
the
blanks
indicate
that
the
water
was
of
adequate
quality
for
its
intended
use.
For
example,
constituents
of
concern
(
As,
Se,
Cr,
and
Fe)
were
not
detected
at
or
below
the
reporting
limit
in
any
of
the
field/
equipment
blank
samples
with
the
exception
of
chromium
which
was
detected
in
two
of
the
blanks
at
concentrations
just
greater
than
the
detection
limits.

4.
At
three
other
sites,
the
EPRI
team
failed
to
perform
equipment
decontamination
in
accordance
with
the
EPRI
work
plan.

Response:
The
deviations
in
equipment
decontamination
procedures
noted
could
cause
the
sample
analysis
results
to
be
biased
high
(
i.
e.,
increase
the
concentration
of
contaminants
in
the
sample)
if
the
procedure
failed
to
remove
chemical
or
material
contamination
from
the
sampling
equipment.
The
sample
analysis
results
for
the
field/
equipment
blanks
indicate
most
constituents
of
concern
were
either
not
detected
or
detected
at
concentration
near
the
detection
limits
for
the
constituents
of
concern
in
the
blanks.
The
Agency
notes
that
even
if
the
deviations
from
the
decontamination
procedures
did
introduce
bias,
such
bias
would
only
result
in
an
overestimate,
rather
than
underestimate,
of
contaminant
concentrations
thus
leading
to
a
more
conservative
(
i.
e.,
erring
on
the
side
of
safety)
waste
characterization
for
the
three
sites.

5.
The
samples
for
iron
speciation
were
preserved
incorrectly,
therefore
rendering
useless
the
speciation
analysis
for
iron.

Response:
EPA
acknowledges
that,
because
of
issues
with
the
sample
preservation,
its
contractor
laboratory
(
Columbia
Analytical)
did
not
perform
iron
speciation
analyses.
This
lack
of
iron
speciation
data,
however,
had
no
significant
impact
on
EPA's
waste
characterization,
as
iron
speciation
was
not
considered
as
part
of
the
risk
assessment.

6.
The
sample
volume
collected
by
the
EPRI
contractor
for
sample
splits
was
only
200
:
L,
rather
than
the
typical
5
liter
volume
required
to
obtain
the
lowest
achievable
detection
limits
and
the
standard
quality
assurance
analyses
of
duplicate
and
spike
samples.
Neither
the
EPRI
contractor
nor
EPA's
independent
contractor
could
perform
all
of
the
quality
assurance
procedures,
because
the
small
sample
size
collected
by
the
EPRI
contractor
precluded
the
analysis
of
duplicate
or
spike
samples.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
45
XIII
­
45
Response:
Because
EPA
substituted
½
the
detection
limit
for
analyses
reported
to
be
below
a
detection
limit,
the
inability
to
obtain
the
lowest
achievable
detection
limits
would
result
in
an
overestimate
of
contaminant
concentrations,
except
in
cases
where
the
actual
concentration
was
greater
than
½
the
achieved
detection
limit
and
greater
than
the
lowest
achievable
detection
limit.
Because
this
concern
applies
only
in
these
cases
and
only
at
three
sites,
the
effect
on
EPA's
overall
characterization
is
not
likely
to
be
significant.

EPA's
analysis
of
field
duplicates
for
the
three
sites
indicated
that
the
laboratory
analytical
systems
were
operating
efficiently
and
could
effectively
reproduce
the
sample
concentrations.
Therefore,
the
inability
to
perform
all
the
analyses
of
duplicate
and
spike
samples
is
not
a
major
concern.

7.
The
EPRI
contractor
lab
had
detection
limits
for
8
metals
that
were
between
25
and
10,000
times
higher
than
the
independent
EPA
lab.
This
discrepancy
cannot
be
explained,
as
both
labs
used
identical
procedures.

Response:
In
response
to
EPA's
concerns
about
the
differences
between
detection
limits,
the
industry
contractor
lab
(
Battelle)
provided
an
explanation
for
the
differences.
The
difference
appears
to
be
based
on
methodology
used
to
determine
the
detection
limit.
Battelle
detection
limits
are
set
based
on
analyses
of
standard
samples
where
the
repeated
analyses
of
lowest
standard
produces
a
large
variability
in
measure
concentrations
(
25
to
50
percent),
as
opposed
to
using
high
concentration
standards.
Furthermore,
most
of
the
positive
results
reported
by
the
EPA
contractor
lab
(
Columbia
Analytical),
where
Battelle
reported
results
below
the
detection
limit,
should
be
considered
trace
level
concentrations
that
were
slightly
above
the
Columbia
detection
limit.
Therefore,
given
the
very
good
agreement
between
results
from
the
two
labs
overall,
EPA
does
not
consider
the
difference
in
detection
limits
to
be
a
critical
concern.
As
discussed
above,
given
EPA's
characterization
methodology,
the
higher
detection
limits
are
more
likely
to
result
in
conservative
estimates
of
concentration
(
i.
e.,
overestimates).
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
46
XIII
­
46
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
I.
Sampling
and
Analysis
Quality
Assurance
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
For
example,
the
record
demonstrates
that
EPA
was/
is
aware
(
as
documented
in
various
memoranda
in
the
docket)
that
data
sampling,
handling,
and
analysis
procedures
utilized
by
the
industry
contractor
performing
the
waste
characterization
analysis
did
not
conform
to
EPA's
protocols
adopted
for
the
study,
and
potentially
biased
the
outcomes.
(
ALA00292)

In
the
course
of
this
work
our
consultants
discovered
that
the
Agency
was
aware
of
serious
flaws
in
the
data
collection
and
analyses
underlying
the
Report
and
the
Regulatory
Determination,
but
chose
to
go
ahead
despite
these
issues.
(
ALA00292)

In
fact,
numerous
data
collection
and
analysis
problems
are
documented
by
SAIC
in
the
record
underlying
the
Report
to
Congress.
It
is
clear
that
the
sample
collection
and
analysis
activities
did
not
meet
the
data
quality
objectives
outlined
in
the
QAPP,
as
set
forth
in
more
detail
below.
This
calls
into
question
the
quality
and
accuracy
of
the
results
of
the
waste
characterization
analyses.
Two
memoranda
to
the
docket
document
the
site
visits
to
the
four
power
plants.
Both
memoranda
point
out
problems
with
the
field
activities.
At
the
FP&
L
site,
no
field
quality
control
samples
were
taken
and
there
was
no
decontamination
of
equipment.
At
the
other
three
sites,
more
serious
problems
were
observed
by
SAIC
as
summarized
below:

°
Field
qualitv
control
samples.
Field
quality
control
samples
differed
from
those
specified
in
the
EPRI
work
plan
and
the
QAPP.
Field
blanks
were
used
as
both
field
blanks
and
equipment
blanks,
an
approach
that
differs
from
EPA
guidance.
Also,
reagent
grade
was
not
used
for
blank
water;
locally
purchased
distilled
water
was
used
instead
at
two
sites.
°
Equipment
decontamination.
The
EPRI
team
failed
to
perform
equipment
decontamination
in
accordance
with
EPRI
work
plans...
°
Iron
speciation.
The
samples
for
iron
speciation
were
preserved
incorrectly,
therefore
rendering
useless
the
speciation
analysis
for
iron.
°
Sample
volume.
The
sample
volume
designated
by
the
EPRI
contractor
for
sample
splits
was
only
200
m1,
rather
the
typical
5
liter
volume
required
to
obtain
the
lowest
achievable
detection
limits
and
standard
quality
assurance
analyses
of
duplicate
and
spike
samples.
(
ALA00292)

Neither
the
EPRI
contractor
nor
EPA's
independent
contractor
could
perform
all
of
the
quality
assurance
procedures,
because
the
small
sample
size
collected
by
the
EPRI
contractor
precluded
the
analysis
of
duplicate
or
spike
samples.
Furthermore,
with
regards
to
the
duplicate
samples
that
were
analyzed
by
the
Independent
laboratory,
the
EPRI
contractor
lab
had
detection
limits
for
8
metals
that
were
between
25
and
10,000
times
higher
than
the
independent
lab.
(
This
discrepancy
cannot
be
explained,
as
both
labs
used
identical
procedures).
The
result
of
this
is
that
the
EPRI
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
47
XIII
­
47
contractor
reported
non­
detectable
concentrations
for
the
eight
metals,
compared
to
positive
concentrations
reported
by
the
independent
lab
...
In
summary,
our
review
of
the
QAPP
requirements
for
this
project,
and
other
docket
materials
reveals
that
the
sampling
methods
and
the
analyses
performed
on
the
waste
samples
do
not
meet
the
data
quality
objectives
in
at
least
the
following
areas:
accuracy,
precision,
and
completeness.
In
addition,
the
field
sampling,
as
documented
by
SAIC
did
not
follow
the
QAPP
decontamination
procedures,
nor
was
the
complete
list
of
target
analytes
analyzed
for
(
e.
g.,
mercury
and
chromium
(
VI)).
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
21
FF2P­
S0048.
Effect
of
Pore
Size
of
Filters
on
the
Observed
Aqueous
Concentrations
in
Filtrates.
Draft
Report.
EPRI.
June,
1997.

48
XIII
­
48
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
J.
Filtration
of
Samples
One
public
interest
group
commenter
expressed
concern
with
the
filtration
of
ground­
water
and
low­
volume
waste
samples
at
three
sites,
and
the
filtration
of
ground­
water
and
porewater
samples
at
another
site.
The
commenter
stated
that
the
filtration
performed
by
the
industry
contractor
in
these
cases
was
inconsistent
with
EPA
guidance
and
likely
to
bias
the
results
low.

Response:
EPA
initially
expressed
concern
with
the
filtration
of
samples
early
on
in
the
study
process.
In
response,
EPRI
conducted
a
study
of
the
effects
of
filter
pore
size
on
observed
concentrations
at
the
sites
where
filtration
was
conducted.
This
study
is
included
in
the
docket.
21
This
report
compared
concentrations
in
0.0007
:
m
filtrates
with
those
in
0.45
:
m
filtrates
and
found
that
in
almost
all
samples
the
percentage
difference
between
the
observed
concentrations
in
the
two
different
filtrates
was
far
less
than
25
percent
and
within
the
experimental
error.
Based
on
these
results,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
the
filtration
of
samples
biased
the
results
low.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
49
XIII
­
49
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
J.
Filtration
of
Samples
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
At
the
other
three
sites,
more
serious
problems
were
observed
by
SAIC
as
summarized
below
...

°
Filtration
of
ground
water
samples.
The
field
procedures
observed
were
inconsistent
with
EPA
guidance
recommending
against
the
filtration
of
ground
water
samples
prior
to
analysis
for
metals
(
although
consistent
with
EPRI
work
plans).
The
aggressive
filtration
step
used
by
the
EPRI
contractors
for
the
groundwater
samples
is
likely
to
bias
the
results
low,
so
that
the
metals
concentration
detected
may
not
represent
the
total
mobile
contaminant
loading
on
the
aquifer.
°
Filtration
of
aqueous
waste
sampIes.
EPRI
contractors
pressure
filtered
all
low
volume
waste
samples.
This
approach
is
inconsistent
with
EPA
methodologies.
SAIC
expressed
concern
that
filtration
to
this
extent
could
bias
the
results
low
because
mobile
contaminants
associated
with
colloid­
sized
particles
would
be
concluded
from
the
analysis.
(
ALA00292)

The
filtration
issue
is
critically
important
and
is
reiterated
by
SAIC
in
a
different
memorandum
to
EPA
regarding
a
draft
EPRI
site
report.
In
that
memorandum,
SAIC
writes
that
the
most
significant
concern
regarding
the
data
in
the
report
relates
to
the
3.6
nanometer
filtration
step
performed
on
porewater
samples
and
ground
water
samples.
Filtration
to
this
level
will
remove
porewater
components
capable
of
movement
through
the
groundwater,
In
short.
SAIC
states
that
the
porewater
samples
and
groundwater
samples
may
be
expected
to
consistently
underestimate
the
metals
concentration
and
will
lead
to
an
underestimation
of
the
contribution
of
the
waste
unit
leachate
to
the
surrounding
groundwater.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
50
XIII
­
50
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
K.
Characterization
of
Chromium
VI
One
public
interest
group
commenter
stated,
although
EPA
requested
data
for
the
hexavalent
species
of
chromium,
the
industry
failed
to
provide
this
data,
and
that
the
characterization
and
risk
assessment
therefore
failed
to
adequately
consider
chromium.

Response:
The
commenter
is
correct
that
speciated
data
were
not
available
for
chromium.
Ample
data,
however,
were
available
on
total
chromium
concentrations.
To
account
for
the
lack
of
speciated
data,
EPA's
risk
assessment
made
the
conservative
assumption
that
all
chromium
present
was
in
the
more
toxic
hexavalent
state.
Thus,
the
characterization
and
risk
assessment
adequately
and
conservatively
considered
chromium.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
51
XIII
­
51
XIII.
WASTE
CHARACTERIZATION
K.
Characterization
of
Chromium
VI
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA
requested
analysis
for
chromium
(
VI)
however
the
EPRI
contractors
did
not
collect
these
samples.
(
ALA00292)

In
addition,
the
field
sampling,
as
documented
by
SAIC
did
not
follow
the
QAPP
decontamination
procedures,
nor
was
the
complete
list
of
target
analytes
analyzed
for
(
e.
g.,
mercury
and
chromium
(
VI)).
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
XIV
­
1
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
2
XIV
­
2
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
A
number
of
commenters
expressed
concern
about
the
methodology
used
by
EPA
in
the
risk
assessment
process.
Specific
concerns
included
the
level
of
conservatism
inherent
in
the
methodology,
the
specific
constituents
considered,
the
methodology
for
considering
risks
to
children,
the
selection
of
toxicity
benchmarks,
the
specific
values
used
for
arsenic
toxicity,
the
use
of
site
averaging
and
inclusion
of
data
from
certain
sites
in
selecting
source
terms,
and
the
adequacy
of
coordination
between
various
parts
of
the
risk
assessment.
These
concerns
are
all
addressed
below.

The
focus
in
these
comments
was
on
risk
modeling,
not
on
the
overall
weighing
of
modeling,
state
programs
and
damage
cases
in
the
final
risk
characterization
underlying
today's
decision.
EPA
wishes
to
point
out,
again,
that
groundwater
modeling
was
not
used
as
a
basis
for
today's
decision;
yet,
in
an
effort
to
clarify
certain
questions
below
address
many
groundwater
modeling
related
issues.

Response:
EPA
believes
its
overall
risk
modeling
methodology
was
appropriately
protective
(
erring
on
the
side
of
safety),
based
on
state­
of­
the­
art
science,
and
adequately
coordinated
and
fully
peer
reviewed.
Four
peer
reviewers
examined
those
aspects
of
the
risk
assessment
within
their
areas
of
expertise.
EPA
believes
it
appropriately
considered
all
of
the
constituents
of
greatest
concern
based
on
the
available
characterization
data.
EPA
believes
it
appropriately
selected
toxicity
benchmarks
and
that
its
use
of
site
averaging,
described
in
Section
XIV.
G
below,
was
reasonable
and
appropriate.
The
Agency
agrees
that
there
is
substantial
uncertainty
surrounding
the
values
used
for
arsenic
toxicity,
but
believes
it
applied
values
based
on
the
best
available
current
scientific
knowledge
(
See
Sections
VIII
and
XIV.
F
below.)
These
and
other
specific
concerns
raised
by
the
commenters
with
regard
to
risk
assessment
methodology
are
addressed
in
more
detail
in
the
sub­
topic
responses
below.

The
essence
of
this
section
is
that
EPA
received
comment
that
we
both
over­
and
underestimated
risk
in
our
risk
modeling.
EPA
used
the
data
available
and
conducted
risk
modeling
in
accordance
with
practices
developed
for
past
rulemakings.
It
is
important
to
note
here
that
EPA
is
reviewing
its
groundwater
model
in
response
to
specific
comments.
We
have
not
yet
reached
conclusions
based
on
our
review.
Iif
this
review
warrants,
groundwater
risk
modeling
will
be
revisited.
Specific
comments
are
addressed
below.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
XIV
­
3
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
It
appears
that
EPA's
modeling
effort
has
created,
in
EPA's
attempt
to
be
conservative,
an
unrealistic
scenario
for
the
use
of
FBC
ash.
The
extreme
conservatism
has
resulted
in
the
application
of
unreliable,
mutually
exclusive
data
that,
on
occasion,
results
in
scenario
parameters
that
break
basic
scientific
principals.
Selecting
the
input
parameters
more
carefully
in
order
to
more
realistically
represent
even
extreme
conditions
for
managed
FBC
ashes
should
dramatically
change
the
outcome
of
the
Report
and
position
of
the
EPA
on
FBC
ash.
(
ARIPPA00019)

There
seems
to
be
some
concern
with
regard
to
the
actual
assumptions
that
went
into
assigning
the
toxicity
to
arsenic
that
clearly
needs
to
be
evaluated.
(
ARIPPA00019)

The
risk
analyses
undertaken
thus
far
regarding
FFCW
are
grossly
inadequate.
The
methodologies
employed
to
date
involved
incomplete
and/
or
invalid
data
and
risk
modeling,
resulting
in
substantial
understatements
of
actual
and
potential
risks.
(
EDF00021)

Key
deficiencies
include
the
following
...
methodology
used
to
estimate
potential
risks
via
the
groundwater
pathway
which
systematically
and
substantially
understates
such
risks
due
to
reliance
on
TCLP
data
for
highly
alkaline
wastes,
the
use
of
facility­
averaged
TCLP
data
instead
of
actually
measured
high­
end
values,
and
myriad
technical
deficiencies
identified
in
the
modeling
itself.
(
EDF00021)

The
EPACMTP's
risk
assessment
model
significantly
overestimates
the
risk
to
human
health
theoretically
presented
by
potential
releases
from
combustion
ashes
into
the
environment.
(
PG&
E00023)

Moreover,
as
demonstrated
in
the
bulk
of
the
testimony
delivered
at
the
agency's
May
21
public
hearing
on
the
Report,
these
results
would
occur
despite
the
fact
that
the
agency's
risk
analysis
seriously
overstates
the
alleged
risk
from
arsenic
in
CCPs.
(
NMA00024)

PCA
shares
the
US
Department
of
Agriculture's
concerns
about
the
risk
assessment
methodologies
and
assumptions
used
by
EPA
in
evaluating
risks.
(
PCA00034)

The
assumption
used
in
the
exposure
assessment
and
toxicity
assessment
could
significantly
underestimate
the
quantitative
risk
estimates
reported
by
EPA.
(
ALA00036)

Unfortunately,
the
overly
conservative
assumptions
and
simplified
modeling
methodologies
resulted
in
numerical
risk
estimates
that
do
not
comport
with
real
world
observations.
(
USWAG00037)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
4
XIV
­
4
In
1997
USWAG
commented
on
EPA's
proposed
risk
analysis
methodology
for
the
Phase
II
Bevill
study,
and
in
1998
USWAG
commented
in
detail
on
the
"
revised
draft
final"
groundwater
pathway
risk
assessment.
Those
comments
sounded
three
consistent
themes:
(
1)
EPA
should
utilize
the
wealth
of
real
world
data
to
the
fullest
extent
possible;
(
2)
when
modeling
is
necessary,
EPA
should
avoid
excessively
conservative
assumptions
that
undermine
the
validity
of
its
conclusions;
and
(
3)
EPA
should
validate
its
modeling
results
by
comparison
with
real
world
data.
USWAG's
previous
criticism
of
EPA's
modeling­
based
risk
assessment
remain
valid,
and
we
incorporate
them
here
in
full.
(
USWAG00037)

The
EPA
expressed
concern
regarding
the
groundwater
pathway
risk
associated
with
arsenic
from
the
land
disposal
of
comanaged
FFC
wastes
from
coal­
fired
utilities.
USWAG
comments
provide
detailed,
technical
information
demonstrating
the
risks
are
overstated
by
several
orders
of
magnitude.
Reiteration
of
the
technical
arguments
is
unnecessary.
However,
APS
strongly
agrees
with
USWAG's
position
(
APSC00043)

The
methodology
used
in
the
risk
assessment
that
is
based
on
EPACMTP
modeling,
is
fundamentally
flawed.
There
are
errors
of
logic,
of
implementation,
of
programming,
and
simple
quality
control,
These
errors
almost
universally
understate
risks.
Even
under
the
conditions
that
the
Agency
purportedly
models,
the
modeling
undercalculates
by
orders
of
magnitudes
the
risks
from
FFCW.
(
HEC00056)

Omissions
and
errors
in
the
draft
RTC
which
combined
to
overstate
calculated
risks
for
agricultural
uses
of
coal
ash
by
several
orders
of
magnitude.
The
underlying
assumptions
used
in
this
risk
analysis
appear
to
be
substantially
more
conservative
than
assumptions
used
in
previous
health
risk
analyses
performed
by
the
EPA
for
other
materials.
EPA
must
maintain
a
consistent,
objective
basis
in
evaluating
health
risks
for
the
public...
The
EPA
health
risk
analysis
assumed
questionable
values
for
...
arsenic
cancer
slope
factor
&
reference
dose.
(
NSP00057)

The
risk
assessments
are
not
adequate.
There
are
several
ways
in
which
the
risk
assessment
and
exposure
analyses
contained
in
the
Report
are
inadequate
and
inconsistent
with
Agency
policy.
(
49CAO00058)

Moreover,
as
demonstrated
in
the
buIk
of
the
testimony
delivered
at
the
agency's
May
21
public
hearing
on
the
Renort,
these
results
would
occur
despite
the
fact
that
the
agency's
risk
analysis
seriously
overstates
the
alleged
risk
from
arsenic
in
CCPs.
(
WVDEPL0003)

Choice
of
values
for
the
variables
in
the
risk
equations
is
often
difficult
due
to
uncertainties
in
the
distribution
of
these
values
in
the
environment
or
exposed
population.
"
Conservative"
values
are
often
chosen
in
order
to
adequately
protect
the
greatest
proportion
of
the
exposed
population;
however,
when
"
conservative"
values
are
used
for
most
or
all
of
the
variables
in
the
equation,
the
multiplicative
effect
is
to
generate
very
large
cancer
risk
that
can
only
represent
a
minute
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
5
XIV
­
5
percentage
of
the
actual
population
exposed.
This
in
essence
represents
a
multiple
high­
end
scenario
that
is
not
consistent
with
accepted
risk
assessment
practice.
(
PHS018)

EPA's
risk
assessment
model,
which
projected
a
remote
health
risk
potential
for
arsenic
through
groundwater,
used
assumptions
that
we
believe
overstated
the
actual
risk.
(
PG&
E00274)

PG&
E
Gen's
initial
comments
included
risk
assessment
criticism
of
EPA's
model
and
assumptions
that
were
used
to
generate
the
remote
risk
to
human
health
for
arsenic
from
agricultural
use
of
FBC
coal
ash.
PG&
E
Gen's
review
identified
numerous
problems
that
cause
the
model
to
overestimate
the
potential
risk
presented
by
this
beneficial
use
of
coal
ash,
such
as
...
use
of
unrealistic
toxicity
factors
from
a
highly
criticized
health
risk
study.
Other
commenters
to
the
docket
have
criticized
EPA's
risk
assessment
model
as
flawed
in
ways
alleged
to
understate
the
actual
risks
presented.
(
PG&
E00274)

EPA's
groundwater
risk
assessment
does
not
under­
predict
concentrations
of
metals
in
groundwater.
As
USWAG
documented
in
its
initial
comments,
EPA's
groundwater
risk
analysis
is
based
upon
compound
and
overly
conservative
assumptions
that
over­
estimate
risk
by
orders
of
magnitude.
USWAG's
initial
comments,
combined
with
the
wealth
of
field
data
in
the
record,
provide
the
basis
for
EPA
to
reevaluate
its
modeling
exercise,
reduce
its
risk
estimates
by
orders
of
magnitude,
and
validate
those
results.
At
this
time,
USWAG
finds
it
necessary
to
provide
additional
comment
on
EPA's
risk
modeling
to
specifically
address
comments
filed
by
the
Environmental
Defense
Fund
(
EDF).
Those
comments
allege
that
EPA's
modeling
under­
predicts
concentrations
of
contaminants.
However,
those
views
are
not
based
upon
a
plausible
scientific
foundation
and
do
not
stand
up
to
simple
field
validation.
(
USWAG00275)

There
are
significant
deficiencies
in
each
of
the
steps
in
EPA's
assessment
of
the
human
health
impacts
of
current
FFC
waste
disposal
practices.
(
ALA00292)

Additionally,
recent
data
from
University
of
Tennessee
and
Wright
Patterson
Air
Force
Base's
School
of
Engineering
(
OH)
show
that
concentrated
wastes
may
increase
health
concerns
outside
of
the
water
quality
arena,
such
as
radon
emissions
...
Again,
additional
data
exploring
all
aspects
of
this
issue
need
to
be
further
examined.
(
PURD00294)

We
urge
the
agency
to
take
this
lead
threat
to
the
public
health
just
as
seriously
as
you
have
lead
paint
in
the
past.
We
keep
hearing
from
the
industry
side
about
`
sound
science.'
Where
is
the
soundness
in
a
so­
called
`
science'
that
would
raise
lead
action
levels
by
several
magnitudes?
(
PEACE00306)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
6
XIV
­
6
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
A.
Response
to
Peer
Review
Comments
Several
commenters
expressed
concern
that
EPA
had
not
adequately
addressed
peer
review
comments
on
its
draft
risk
assessment.
One
of
these
commenters
specifically
referred
to
peer
review
comments
about
the
bias
in
using
industry­
provided
data.

Response:
EPA
believes
the
peer
review
conducted
for
the
draft
risk
assessment
was
complete
and
appropriate
to
this
task.
Four
skilled
peer
reviewers
were
involved.
Modeling
methodology,
with
the
exception
of
the
MINTEQA2
component
of
EPACMTP,
had
been
previously
peer
reviewed,
and
a
request
for
MINTEQA2
SAB
review
has
been
received
in
context
of
the
ongoing
critique
of
EPACMTP,
noted
below
under
Topic
XV.
Comments
about
the
potential
bias
of
industry­
provided
data
are
addressed
under
Topic
XIII.
B.

Peer
reviewers
in
general
requested
more
explicit
modeling
treatment
of
variables
for
which
considerable
uncertainty
existed.
This
was
done,
as
detailed
in
the
docket,
for
both
the
groundwater
and
above
ground
pathways
and
in
official
response
to
comment.
In
some
cases,
key
input
variables
were
held
at
3­
5
times
reported
values,
with
the
result
that,
for
this
one
speculative
change,
risk
changed
proportionately.
(
Eg
3
times
2x10­
4
=
6x10­
4).
However,
very
little
may
be
inferred
from
such
analyses
as
to
the
likelihood
of
occurrence
and
its
importance
in
a
multivariate
setting.
One
peer
reviewer
expressed
concern
that
EPA
do
a
more
thorough
ecological
risk
assessment,
but
EPA
was
constrained
in
this
regard
by
resources
and
believed
that
resources
were
better
spent
on
human
health
risk
assessment.
Aside
from
adjusting
for
the
sheer
volume
of
FFC
wastes,
there
was
little
new
in
the
risk
modeling
methodology
for
today's
rulemaking.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
7
XIV
­
7
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
A.
Response
to
Peer
Review
Comments
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
peer
reviewers
for
the
human
health
and
ecological
risk
assessment
offered
a
number
of
valuable
suggestions.
While
a
summary
of
the
comments
is
included
in
the
docket,
there
is
no
indication
that
comments
were
either
used
to
revise
the
assessment
or
considered
in
the
Report
to
Congress.
(
ALA00036)

This
Report
is
based
almost
entirely
on
data
provided
by
industry
strongly
suggesting
the
possibility
of
conflict
of
interest.
One
of
the
Report's
peer
reviewers
pointed
out
this
problem,
noting
the
potential
for
bias,
however
it
is
not
apparent
anywhere
that
EPA
took
action
based
on
the
reviewer's
comment.
(
49CAO00058)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
8
XIV
­
8
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
B.
Level
of
Conservatism
Industry,
academic,
and
state
government
commenters
expressed
concern
that,
because
they
combine
numerous
conservative
(
protective)
assumptions,
EPA's
modeling
results
exaggerate
the
degree
of
risk.
Several
of
these
commenters
found
the
risk
assessment
for
arsenic
in
particular
to
be
unrealistically
conservative.

In
contrast,
several
public
interest
groups
stated
that
errors
in
assumptions
and
study
design
resulted
in
gross
underestimation
of
risk.
One
of
these
commenters
stated
that
the
assessment
did
not
assess
above
average
exposure
conditions
and
risks
to
sensitive
populations
because
EPA
used
central
tendency
values
for
all
the
driving
parameters.

Response:
Central
tendency
and
deterministic
high­
end
analyses
were
performed
for
the
risk
assessment.
For
the
central
tendency
risk
estimation,
all
parameters
are
set
to
their
central
tendency
value
and
the
risk
or
hazard
quotient
for
each
constituent
is
calculated.
The
high­
end
risk
estimation
uses
a
double­
high­
end
assessment
methodology,
consistent
with
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
past
risk
assessments.
With
this
approach,
two
parameters
at
a
time
are
set
to
their
high­
end
value
while
the
remainder
of
the
parameters
are
set
at
central
tendency,
and
risk
values
are
calculated.
Another
combination
of
parameters
is
then
set
at
their
high­
end
values
while
the
remainder
are
set
at
central
tendency,
and
this
set
of
results
is
calculated.
This
continues
until
risk
values
are
calculated
for
all
possible
high­
end
parameter
combinations.
Therefore,
only
two
variables
are
set
to
their
high­
end
values
for
any
particular
run.
The
above
was
done
for
all
sensitive
and
exposed
sub­
populations,
including
children
in
general
and
children
of
a
farmer.

The
FFC
assessment
was
national
in
scope
because
the
thousands
of
facilities
with
widely
varying
characteristics
covered
by
the
study
are
located
throughout
the
country.
Site
specific
parameter
inputs
values
were
not
feasible.
Given
the
uncertainty
about
characteristics
of
facilities
and
waste
management
units,
conservative
assumptions
concerning
parameter
values
are
necessary
to
ensure
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.
EPA
believes
that
the
values
that
were
used
were
reasonable
given
the
high
degree
of
variability
that
can
be
expected
across
the
industry.
The
risk
assessment
for
arsenic
was
no
more
nor
less
conservative
than
the
risk
assessment
for
all
other
chemicals.
Comments
on
more
specific
assumptions
regarding
arsenic
are
discussed
under
Topics
XIV.
F
and
XVI.
B.

Specific
comments
about
exposure
assumptions
and
sensitive
populations
are
discussed
in
Section
XV.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
9
XIV
­
9
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
B.
Level
of
Conservatism
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
It
appears
that
EPA's
modeling
effort
has
created,
in
EPA's
attempt
to
be
conservative,
an
unrealistic
scenario
for
the
use
of
FBC
ash.
The
extreme
conservatism
has
resulted
in
the
application
of
unreliable,
mutually
exclusive
data
that,
on
occasion,
results
in
scenario
parameters
that
break
basic
scientific
principals.
Selecting
the
input
parameters
more
carefully
in
order
to
more
realistically
represent
even
extreme
conditions
for
managed
FBC
ashes
should
dramatically
change
the
outcome
of
the
Report
and
position
of
the
EPA
on
FBC
ash.
(
ARIPPA00019)

As
discussed
in
this
section
of
the
comments,
the
groundwater
modeling
conducted
by
EPA
grossly
understated
the
risks
posed
by
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes.
This
understatement
is
the
result
of
a
series
of
methodological
flaws
which
individually
would
be
significant,
but
when
considered
together,
lead
to
profoundly
invalid
results.
(
EDF00021)

The
EPACMTP's
risk
assessment
model
significantly
overestimates
the
risk
to
human
health
theoretically
presented
by
potential
releases
from
combustion
ashes
into
the
environment.
The
model's
assumptions
do
not
reflect
the
current
scientific
knowledge
regarding
the
behavior
of
the
model,
using
arsenic
as
an
example,
but
with
general
applicability
to
other
potential
contaminants.
Inputs
to
the
model
are
overly
conservative
a,
therefore
they
substantially
overestimate
the
potential
for
health
risk.
Adual
data
collected
by
EPA
and
industry
fail
to
show
any
evidence
of
harm
to
the
environment
or
public
health,
which
is
confirming
evidence
of
the
overstatement
of
potential
risk
by
the
models.
(
PG&
E00023)

EPA
estimates
potential
risks
associated
with
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
throughout
the
Report
that
are
based
on
a
risk
assessment
for
ground­
water
pathway
human
health
and
above­
ground
multi
­
pathway
human
health
and
ecological
risk
assessment.
Both
of
these
risk
assessment
models
are
overly
conservative
and
likely
over
estimate
actual
risks,
Therefore,
the
results
of
these
risk
assessments
should
not
be
used
as
the
basis
for
public
policy
decisions
with
respect
to
risks
from
fossil
fuel
waste
products.
(
PG&
E00023)

Therefore,
the
risk
assessment
methodology
used
in
this
risk
assessment
overstates
the
potential
risks
to
human
health
or
to
the
environment.
This
is
futher
supported
by
the
fact
that
EPA
has
not
found
documentation
of
actual
harm
or
significant
releases
of
toxins
such
as
arsenic
despite
considerable
experience
and
monitoring
of
these
practices.
(
PG&
E00023)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
10
XIV
­
10
Moreover,
as
demonstrated
in
the
bulk
of
the
testimony
delivered
at
the
agency's
May
21
public
hearing
on
the
Report,
these
results
would
occur
despite
the
fact
that
the
agency's
risk
analysis
seriously
overstates
the
alleged
risk
from
arsenic
in
CCPs.
(
NMA00024)

Indeed,
the
risk
assessment
employed
by
EPA
for
the
1999
Renort
to
Congress
is
fatally
flawed,
thus
greatly
overstating
the
risk.
(
NMA00024)

The
assumption
used
in
the
exposure
assessment
and
toxicity
assessment
could
significantly
underestimate
the
quantitative
risk
estimates
reported
by
EPA.
(
ALA00036)

Because
the
concentrations
of
chemicals
in
FFC
waste
are
suspect,
the
exposure
estimates
are
also
suspect.
As
a
result,
the
analysis
could
underestimate
risks,
especially
to
populations
with
above
average
exposures.
(
ALA00036)

The
exposure
parameters
are
based
on
central
tendency
values
for
such
factors
as
ingestion
rates,
and
residence
time
and,
therefore,
do
not
account
for
above­
average
exposures.
(
ALA00036)

There
are
several
assumptions
and
uncertainties
in
the
risk
assessments
that
could
underestimate
the
risk
estimates
cited
in
the
Report.
(
ALA00036)

EPA
has
failed
to
conduct
the
human
health
risk
assessment
according
to
Agency
guidelines
and
policies
to
ensure
that
above
average
exposure
conditions
and
risks
to
sensitive
populations
are
addressed.
EPA
used
central
tendency
values
for
all
the
driving
parameters
in
the
risk
assessments
­
starting
waste
concentration,
size
of
unit,
exposure
duration,
and
distance
to
receptor.
(
ALA00036)

By
using
extremely
conservative
assumptions
in
the
model
that
fail
to
mimic
real
world
conditions,
the
model
produces
exaggerated
risk
conclusions
divorced
from
reality
and
ceases
to
be
a
tool
for
sound
regulatory
decision­
making.
(
USWAG00037)

To
the
extent
that
EPA
has
based
recommendations
against
further
regulatory
action
on
the
risk
assessment
results,
those
recommendations
are
sound
because
the
modeling
skewed
the
analysis
towards
overly
conservative
predictions
and
the
Agency
quite
properly
discounted
the
inflated
risk
numbers.
However,
in
the
few
instances
where
EPA
relied
on
the
risk
assessment
to
justify
consideration
of
additional
regulation,
the
flawed
assumptions
and
analysis
fatally
undermine
the
risk
assessment
as
a
tool
for
regulatory
decisionmaking.
(
USWAG00037)

Not
only
did
EPA
neglect
the
wealth
of
real
world
data
in
favor
of
a
model
that
is
ill­
equipped
to
simulate
the
conditions
occurring
in
FFC
waste
landfills
and
surface
impoundments,
but
the
Agency
modeled
conditions
that
are
too
far
removed
from
reality
to
form
a
defensible
foundation
for
regulatory
action.
Conservative
assumptions
may
well
have
their
place
in
policymaking
where
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
11
XIV
­
11
there
is
irreconcilable.
But,
where
uncertainty
can
be
reduced
by
reference
to
observational
data,
such
conservative
assumptions
no
longer
are
justified.
Furthermore,
the
compound
effect
of
numerous
simultaneous
conservative
assumptions
must
be
avoided
if
the
modeling
results
are
to
have
any
basis
in
reality.
In
both
the
groundwater
and
non­
groundwater
pathway
risk
assessments,
EPA
selected
overly­
conservative
assumptions
for
numerous
key
parameters,
compounding
errors
by
orders
of
magnitude.
The
results
of
that
effort
show
that
arsenic
risk
potential
exceeds
conservative
protective
levels
by
two
orders
of
magnitude
in
the
worst
case
scenario.
Those
results
are
merely
noise
generated
by
the
extremely
conservative
assumptions
and
are
indefensible.
(
USWAG00037)

The
modeling
incorporated
numerous
overly
conservative
and
technically
inappropriate
assumptions
including
the
questionable
application
of
pore
water
data.
(
APSC00043)

The
risk
assessment
that
models
the
fate
and
transport
of
contaminants
in
ground
water
dramatically
and
falsely
understates
the
real
risks
that
are
occurring
from
disposal
of
fossil
fuel
wastes.
The
methodology
used
in
the
risk
assessment
that
is
based
on
EPACMTP
modeling,
is
fundamentally
flawed.
There
are
errors
of
logic,
of
implementation,
of
programming,
and
simple
quality
control,
These
errors
almost
universally
understate
risks.
Even
under
the
conditions
that
the
Agency
purportedly
models,
the
modeling
undercalculates
by
orders
of
magnitudes
the
risks
from
FFCW.
(
HEC00056)

Omissions
and
errors
in
the
draft
RTC
which
combined
to
overstate
calculated
risks
for
agricultural
uses
of
coal
ash
by
several
orders
of
magnitude.
The
underlying
assumptions
used
in
this
risk
analysis
appear
to
be
substantially
more
conservative
than
assumptions
used
in
previous
health
risk
analyses
performed
by
the
EPA
for
other
materials.
EPA
must
maintain
a
consistent,
objective
basis
in
evaluating
health
risks
for
the
public.
(
NSP00057)

The
exposure
and
risk
assessments
seemingly
do
not
represent
a
"
high­
end"
analysis,
but
rather
represent
averaged
data.
(
49CA00058).

Moreover,
as
demonstrated
in
the
buIk
of
the
testimony
delivered
at
the
agency's
May
21
public
hearing
on
the
Renort,
these
results
would
occur
despite
the
fact
that
the
agency's
risk
analysis
seriously
overstates
the
alleged
risk
from
arsenic
in
CCPs.
(
WVDEPL0003)

Choice
of
values
for
the
variables
in
the
risk
equations
is
often
difficult
due
to
uncertainties
in
the
distribution
of
these
values
in
the
environment
or
exposed
population.
"
Conservative"
values
are
often
chosen
in
order
to
adequately
protect
the
greatest
proportion
of
the
exposed
population;
however,
when
"
conservative"
values
are
used
for
most
or
all
of
the
variables
in
the
equation,
the
multiplicative
effect
is
to
generate
very
large
cancer
risk
that
can
only
represent
a
minute
percentage
of
the
actual
population
exposed.
This
in
essence
represents
a
multiple
high­
end
scenario
that
is
not
consistent
with
accepted
risk
assessment
practice.
(
PHS018)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
12
XIV
­
12
EPA's
risk
assessment
model,
which
projected
a
remote
health
risk
potential
for
arsenic
through
groundwater,
used
assumptions
that
we
believe
overstated
the
actual
risk.
(
PG&
E00274)

PG&
E
Gen's
initial
comments
included
risk
assessment
criticism
of
EPA's
model
and
assumptions
that
were
used
to
generate
the
remote
risk
to
human
health
for
arsenic
from
agricultural
use
of
FBC
coal
ash.
PG&
E
Gen's
review
identified
numerous
problems
that
cause
the
model
to
overestimate
the
potential
risk
presented
by
this
beneficial
use
of
coal
ash.
(
PG&
E00274)

EPA's
groundwater
risk
assessment
does
not
under­
predict
concentrations
of
metals
in
groundwater.
As
USWAG
documented
in
its
initial
comments,
EPA's
groundwater
risk
analysis
is
based
upon
compound
and
overly
conservative
assumptions
that
over­
estimate
risk
by
orders
of
magnitude.
USWAG's
initial
comments,
combined
with
the
wealth
of
field
data
in
the
record,
provide
the
basis
for
EPA
to
reevaluate
its
modeling
exercise,
reduce
its
risk
estimates
by
orders
of
magnitude,
and
validate
those
results.
At
this
time,
USWAG
finds
it
necessary
to
provide
additional
comment
on
EPA's
risk
modeling
to
specifically
address
comments
filed
by
the
Environmental
Defense
Fund
(
EDF).
Those
comments
allege
that
EPA's
modeling
under­
predicts
concentrations
of
contaminants.
However,
those
views
are
not
based
upon
a
plausible
scientific
foundation
and
do
not
stand
up
to
simple
field
validation.
(
USWAG00275)

EPA
used
numerous
assumptions
in
the
risk
assessment
that
are
overly
conservative
and
conflict
with
scientific
research.
(
USWAG00275)

The
Report's
use
of
questionable
waste
characterization
data
(
which
are
at
the
heart
of
any
analysis
of
whether
or
not
to
regulate
as
a
hazardous
waste)
suggests
that
EPA's
quantification
of
human
health
risks
associated
with
exposure
to
groundwater
contaminated
with
FFC
waste
is
uncertain
and
likely
underestimated.
(
ALA00292)

There
are
significant
deficiencies
in
each
of
the
steps
in
EPA's
assessment
of
the
human
health
impacts
of
current
FFC
waste
disposal
practices.
The
cumulative
effect
of
these
deficiencies
indicates
that
EPA
has
underestimated
the
human
health
impacts
associated
with
exposure
to
FFC
wastes,
particularly
to
individuals
with
above­
average
exposures.
(
ALA00292)

Based
on
a
comparison
of
the
values
used
by
EPA
in
the
ground
water
risk
assessment
and
the
values
representing
the
90th
percentile
for
the
U.
S.
population,
it
is
apparent
that
EPA
has
not
evaluated
the
high­
end
reasonable
exposures.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
22
see
FF2P­
S0363
for
documentation
of
these
results.

13
XIV
­
13
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
C.
Constituents
Considered
Several
public
interest
group
and
academic
commenters
expressed
concern
that
EPA
did
not
consider
specific
constituents
in
the
risk
assessment
or
questioned
the
methodology
used
to
characterize
and
assess
certain
constituents.
Several
commenters
expressed
concern
that
EPA
did
not
consider
mercury
in
the
risk
assessment.

Other
specific
constituents
about
which
the
commenters
expressed
concern
are
identified
in
the
numbered
items
below,
with
specific
responses
to
each
concern.

Response:
The
data
provided
to
EPA
contained
only
inorganics.
The
risk
assessment
did
not
initially
consider
secondary
parameters
(
i.
e.,
parameters
for
which
only
secondary
MCL's
exist)
because
these
parameters
are
of
concern
mainly
for
non­
human
health
ground­
water
impacts
(
e.
g.,
taste,
smell,
appearance).
Exceedences
of
secondary
MCL's
have
not
been
the
basis
for
regulatory
action
in
the
past.
Nonetheless,
EPA
recognizes
the
potential
importance
of
such
measures
both
in
long
term
ground­
water
quality
and
as
possible
precursors
to
metals
mobility.
The
issue
of
observed
exceedences
of
secondary
MCL's
is
discussed
further
under
Topic
XIX.
D
and
was
taken
into
consideration
for
today's
rulemaking.
No
evidence
of
radionuclides
was
provided
to
EPA.
(
The
question
concerning
the
presence
of
radionuclides
is
also
address
in
Section
XIII
F.)

The
initial
ground­
water
risk
assessment
did
consider
mercury
and
found
that
mercury
concentrations
were
below
levels
of
concern.
22
Subsequently,
EPA
conducted
additional
analysis
of
risks
from
mercury
using
a
more
protective
(
i.
e.,
erring
on
the
side
of
safety)
assumption
about
the
speciation
of
mercury
(
i.
e.,
assuming
all
mercury
present
was
in
the
more
toxic
methyl
mercury
form).
No
hazard
quotients
in
excess
of
1
were
found.

Below
are
the
specific
constituent­
related
comments
and
responses.

1.
One
of
the
commenters
expressed
concern
about
eight
metals
for
which
the
commenter
believed
industry
data
included
only
non­
detect
levels.
The
commenter
was
uncertain
how
(
or
whether)
input
concentrations
were
calculated
for
these
metals.

Response:
The
commenter's
concern
about
industry
data
including
only
values
below
detection
limits
for
eight
metals
appears
to
be
based
on
a
misinterpretation
of
docket
materials.
In
a
memorandum
regarding
EPA's
validation
sampling
in
conjunction
with
industry
sampling
efforts
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
23
FF2P­
S0092.

14
XIV
­
14
at
three
sites,
23
it
was
observed
that
approximately
eight
metals
per
sample
were
reported
below
detection
limits
in
the
industry
data.
This
observation
applies
only
for
the
three
sites
discussed
in
the
memorandum
and
the
specific
metals
found
below
detection
limits
varied
from
sample
to
sample.
Therefore,
for
most
metals,
EPA
was
able
to
calculate
input
values
from
a
distribution
of
samples
that
included
both
detected
and
non­
detect
values.
Furthermore,
EPA
incorporated
the
non­
detected
values
in
the
calculation
by
substituting
½
the
reported
detection
limit.
The
only
exceptions
were
antimony,
beryllium,
and
silver
in
comanaged
wastes.
Antimony
and
silver
were
not
present
above
detection
limits
in
any
comanaged
waste
pore
water
sample
and
beryllium
was
present
above
detection
limits
in
only
one
of
11
samples.
Given
the
low
frequency
of
detection
for
these
three
metals
in
comanaged
waste,
EPA
does
not
believe
they
are
present
at
levels
of
concern
and
did
not
include
them
in
the
risk
assessment
modeling.
EPA
acknowledges
some
concern
with
the
comparitive
results
of
different
labs
and
if
groundwater
modeling
is
re­
visited
will
address
thi.
s
2.
One
commenter
was
concerned
that
EPA
did
not
evaluate
certain
metals
for
which
adsorption
isotherms
were
unavailable
in
the
ground­
water
model.

EPA
acknowledges
that
there
are
several
constituents
(
boron,
fluoride,
manganese,
molybdenum,
nitrate,
nitrite,
and
strontium)
detected
in
FFC
wastes
for
which
the
ground­
water
model
does
not
include
adsorption
isotherms.
Based
on
the
Agency's
screening
analysis,
however,
none
of
these
constituents
exceeded
HBLs
for
OCWs
and
only
manganese
and
molybdenum
exceeded
HBLs
for
FBC
wastes.
Screening
hazard
quotients
(
HQs)
for
manganese
and
molybdenum
in
FBC
wastes
were
1.51
and
2.80,
respectively,
meaning
only
limited
dilution
and
attenuation
in
the
environment
would
be
required
to
reduce
these
constituents
below
levels
of
concern.
Therefore,
the
Agency
does
not
believe
any
of
these
constituents
would
be
of
concern
for
the
oil
and
FBC
sectors.

In
comanaged
coal
combustion
wastes,
the
screening
analysis
showed
that
all
of
the
unmodeled
constituents
except
strontium
would
exceed
HBLs,
with
screening
HQs
ranging
from
14.3
to
133.
Dilution
and
attenuation
factors
calculated
for
other,
modeled
constituents
in
comanaged
coal
combustion
wastes
ranged
from
1.77
to
greater
than
1019.
Therefore,
it
is
possible,
although
not
certain,
that
some
of
the
unmodeled
constituents
could
have
continued
to
exceed
HBLs
in
a
high­
end
deterministic
scenario
for
comanaged
coal
combustion
wastes,
had
modeling
been
possible.
The
Agency
notes,
however,
that,
even
had
some
of
the
unmodeled
constituents
exceeded
HBLs
after
modeling,
none
of
the
constituents
are
among
those
that
make
up
the
toxicity
characteristic
for
hazardous
wastes.
Nevertheless,
EPA
is
conducting
a
broad
review
of
the
ground­
water
model.
If,
in
the
course
of
this
review,
it
is
determined
that
development
of
adsorption
isotherms
for
these
constituents
is
possible,
given
the
state
of
science,
and
warranted,
the
Agency
may
revisit
its
conclusions
regarding
these
constituents.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
24
FF2P­
S0370.
Non­
groundwater
Pathways,
Human
Health
and
Ecological
Risk
Analysis
for
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion
Phase
2
(
FFC2).
Draft
Final
Report.
RTI.
June
5,
1999.

15
XIV
­
15
3.
One
commenter
pointed
to
the
use
of
a
technology­
based
action
level
for
lead
in
the
ground­
water
assessment,
while
the
non­
groundwater
risk
assessment
did
not
evaluate
lead
because
it
does
not
have
toxicity
benchmarks.
Another
public
interest
group
commenter
was
concerned
that
EPA
did
not
seriously
consider
risks
from
lead.

Response:
EPA's
risk
assessment
considered
lead.
Because
lead
does
not
have
human
health
toxicity
benchmarks
(
i.
e.,
RfC,
RfD,
CSF),
risks
or
hazard
quotients
cannot
be
calculated.
However,
lead
does
have
the
potential
for
adverse
health
and
developmental
effects,
especially
for
children.
To
estimate
the
potential
for
adverse
effects
from
lead,
the
ground­
water
risk
assessment
uses
the
so­
called
action
level
(
400
mg/
kg)
for
lead
as
the
best
available
benchmark
for
drinking
water
ingestion.
Lead
concentrations
at
receptor
wells,
using
available
data
and
the
current
ground­
water
model,
were
below
action
levels.
Table
3
(
which
was
originally
presented
as
Table
5­
18
on
page
46
of
the
non­
groundwater
risk
assessment
technical
background
document24)
presents
the
maximum
lead
soil
concentrations
that
were
calculated
for
each
scenario
modeled.
All
lead
soil
concentrations
fall
well
below
400
mg/
kg.
The
Agency,
therefore,
concluded
that
lead
levels
resulting
from
the
management
of
FFC
wastes
are
unlikely
to
cause
a
significant
threat
to
human
health.

Table
3.
Maximum
Estimated
Lead
Concentrations
in
Soil
Per
Scenario
Scenario
Lead
Soil
Concentration
(
mg/
kg)

Utility
Coal­
fired
Comanaged
Waste
Onsite
Landfill
7.63
Utility
Coal­
fired
Comanaged
Waste
Dewatered
Surface
Impoundment
1.30
Utility
Oil­
fired
Waste
Onsite
Landfill
0.98
FBC
Onsite
Landfill
0.81
FBC
Used
as
Soil
Amendment
0.009
Non­
utility
Coal­
fired
Waste
Onsite
Landfill
0.21
Non­
utility
Coal­
fired
Waste
Offsite
Landfill
1.33
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
16
XIV
­
16
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
C.
Constituents
Considered
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Despite
the
conclusion
that
mercury
is
"
screened
out'
of
the
analysis
based
on
TCLP
results,
the
concentrations
measured
(
even
when
the
median
values
are
taken)
reveal
that
nationally,
tons
of
mercury
are
being
mobilized
in
these
waste
disposal
sites.
The
lack
of
consideration
given
to
mercury
releases
runs
counter
to
the
Administrator's
PBT
strategy.
(
ALA00036)

There
is
inconsistency
between
the
dose­
response
assessment
used
in
the
groundwater
and
nongroundwater
risk
assessment.
For
example,
the
hazard
benchmark
level
for
lead
in
groundwater
is
a
technology­
based
action
level.
The
peer
review
comments
by
Dr.
James
Butler
(
1998)
noted
that
"
a
technology­
based
interim
standard
is
not
the
most
appropriate
value
to
use
as
a
benchmark
value
(
especially
for
evaluating
risks
to
children)"
In
the
non­
groundwater
risk
assessment,
lead
was
not
evaluated
"
because
lead
does
not
have
human
health
toxicity
benchmarks
risks
or
hazard
quotients
cannot
be
calculated."
(
ALA00036)

The
risk
assessments
do
not
model
or
even
consider
the
potential
for
serious
damages
from
constituents
in
these
wastes
other
than
from
a
select
group
of
metals.
Constituents
in
coal
ash
that
have
caused
such
damage
include
sulfates,
boron,
TDS,
sodium,
chlorides,
fluorides
and
pH.
In
many
cases
these
constituents
have
made
potable
ground
waters
well
offsite
virtually
unusable.
(
HEC00056)

The
potential
for
harm
from
greater
amounts
of
nitrogen
compounds
in
fluidized
boiler
wastes
is
not
addressed.
(
HEC00056)

The
human
health
risks
of
non­
groundwater
exposure
to
mercury
were
not
modeled,
even
though
mercury
is
an
acknowledged
constituent
of
co­
managed
FFC
wastes,
and
a
toxic
chemical
that
is
a
priority
pollutant
for
EPA.
(
ALA00292)

Furthermore,
with
regards
to
the
duplicate
samples
that
were
analyzed
by
the
Independent
laboratory,
the
EPRI
contractor
lab
had
detection
limits
for
8
metals
that
were
between
25
and
10,000
times
higher
than
the
independent
lab.
(
This
discrepancy
cannot
be
explained,
as
both
labs
used
identical
procedures).
The
result
of
this
is
that
the
EPRI
contractor
reported
non­
detectable
concentrations
for
the
eight
metals,
compared
to
positive
concentrations
reported
by
the
independent
lab.
In
the
waste
characterization,
these
non­
detects
were
treated
as
one­
half
the
detection
limit,
however
in
cases
where
most
of
the
samples
did
not
have
detectable
levels,
no
statistical
analyses
were
performed
(
i.
e..
mean
median
and
various
percentiles).
If
the
statistical
analyses
were
not
available
then
it
is
unclear
whether
these
constituents
were
included
in
the
risk
assessments
or
whether
they
were
dropped.
If
these
constituents
were
included,
it
is
unclear
what
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
17
XIV
­
17
the
input
values
would
be
because
the
50th
and
95th
percentile
values
were
not
calculated.
(
ALA00292)

In
addition
to
uncertainties
associated
with
quantifying
the
concentration
of
inorganic
FFC
waste
constituents
discussed
above,
EPA
eliminated
the
organic
and
radioactive
constituents
in
FFC
waste
from
the
risk
assessment
without
any
justification.
This
is
despite
the
fact
that
these
potentially
toxic
organic
constituents,
including
dioxins
and
furans,
were
detected
in
the
samples
from
site
investigations,
as
reported
in
the
Background
Technical
Support
Document
on
Waste
Characterization
(
page2­
13).
(
ALA00292)

EPA
did
not
evaluate
certain
metals
because
of
lack
of
data
on
adsorption
isotherms
that
describe
the
tendency
of
metals
to
remain
bound
to
particle
surfaces.
(
ALA00292)

Additionally,
recent
data
from
University
of
Tennessee
and
Wright
Patterson
Air
Force
Base's
School
of
Engineering
(
OH)
show
that
concentrated
wastes
may
increase
health
concerns
outside
of
the
water
quality
arena,
such
as
radon
emissions.
Minute
traces
of
K­
40,
Th­
232,
U­
238,
and
Rn­
222,
present
naturally
in
the
soil,
are
concentrated
through
coal
combustion
to
levels
of
concern.
Studies
at
Wright­
Patterson
calculated
that
the
indoor
radon
concentrations
in
a
structure
built
near
such
a
CCW
site
would
be
11.48
pCi/
l,
well
above
the
EPA's
action
level
of
4.0
pCi/
l.
In
Indiana,
where
disposal
sites
need
not
be
located
and
recorded,
this
opens
the
possibility
of
health
issues
not
related
to
water
quality
should
residential
sites
be
located
in
abandoned
coal
fields.
Again,
additional
data
exploring
all
aspects
of
this
issue
need
to
be
further
examined.
(
PURD00294)

We
urge
the
agency
to
take
this
lead
threat
to
the
public
health
just
as
seriously
as
you
have
lead
paint
in
the
past.
We
keep
hearing
from
the
industry
side
about
`
sound
science.'
Where
is
the
soundness
in
a
so­
called
`
science'
that
would
raise
lead
action
levels
by
several
magnitudes?
(
PEACE00306)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
18
XIV
­
18
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
D.
Methodology
for
Considering
Child
Risks
One
public
interest
group
commenter
questioned
why
specific
models
(
e.
g.,
guidance
on
the
evaluation
of
lead
exposure
in
children
by
the
Integrated
Exposure
Uptake
Biokinetic
(
IEUBK)
model;
the
multi­
pathway
risk
assessment
(
MPRA)
model)
were
not
used
to
assess
child
risks.

Response:
Based
on
the
analysis
for
lead
that
is
discussed
under
Topic
XIV.
C,
that
showed
lead
levels
well
below
the
appropriate
benchmarks,
it
was
decided
that
assessing
child
lead
exposures
with
IEUBK
was
not
necessary.
Risks
to
children
were
explicitly
considered
by
varying
all
risk
parameters
in
all
pathways
of
special
relevance
to
children.
These
included
ingestion
rates,
inhalation
rates,
body
weights,
exposures
times,
et
al.
Where
risks
to
children
were
found
at
actionable
levels,
and
where
these
differed
to
any
significant
degree
from
risks
to
adults,
they
are
noted
in
all
documents.
The
MPRA
model
was
not
available
in
time
for
this
regulatory
determination
action.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
19
XIV
­
19
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
D.
Methodology
for
Considering
Child
Risks
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Both
these
assessments
overlook
guidance
established
by
EPA
on
the
evaluation
of
lead
exposure
in
children.
"
The
Integrated
Exposure
Uptake
Biokinetic
(
IEUBK)
is
a
menu­
driven,
user­
friendly
model
designed
to
determine
exposure
from
lead
in
air,
water,
soil,
dust,
diet,
paint,
and
other
sources.
Pharmacokinetic
modeling
is
used
to
predict
blood
lead
levels
in
children
6
months
to
7
years
of
age.
The
four
main
components
of
the
current
IEUBK
model
are:
(
1)
an
exposure
model
that
relates
environmental
lead
concentrations
to
age­
dependent
intake
of
lead
into
the
gastrointestinal
tract;
(
2)
an
absorption
model
that
relates
lead
intake
into
the
gastrointestinal
tract
and
lead
uptake
into
the
blood;
(
3)
a
biokinetic
model
that
relates
lead
uptake
in
the
blood
to
the
concentrations
of
lead
in
several
organ
and
tissue
compartments;
and
(
4)
a
model
for
uncertainty
in
exposure
and
for
population
variability
in
absorption
and
biokinetics.
This
model
is
used
in
conjunction
with
the
Guidance
Manual
and
other
supporting
documentation
by
several
EPA
offices.
(
ALA00036)

In
the
EPA's
Children's
Environmental
Health
Yearbook
(
EPA
100­
S­
98­
002,
June
.1998,
page
125),
it
is
stated
that
"
EPA
requires
that
assessments
of
children's
risk
include
the
use
of
Agency
methods
for
assessing
risk
specifically
to
children
(
e.
g.,
Guidance
Manual
for
the
Integrated
Exposure
Uptake
Biokinetic
Model
for
Children).
No
mention
or
use
of
this
model
is
made
in
the
Report.
Also
in
the
Yearbook
(
page
126),
there
is
a
section
on
Office
of
Solid
Waste
(
OSW)
Risk
Assessments.
It
reads:
"
EPA
continues
to
include
children
when
considering
risks
posed
by
contaminants.
A
new
multi­
pathway
risk
assessment
(
MPRA)
model
evaluates
human
and
ecological
risks
from
the
disposal
of
nlorc
than
100
waste
constituents
(
50
evaluated
for
ecological
risk).
The
MPRA
evaluates
the
movement
of
contaminants
through
the
air,
surface
water,
groundwater
and
soil
and
the
chemical
changes
that
occur
during
this
movement.
Because
of
their
small
body
weight
and
lifestyle,
children
may
be
more
likely
to
encounter
higher
exposures
per
unit
bo<
iy
weight
than
adults.
In
addition,
children
are
more
sensitive
to
certain
toxics
such
as
lead
and
mercury."
Given
that
OSW
prepared
the
FFC
report,
why
is
no
mention
or
use
of
this
model
in
the
risk
assessment?
(
ALA00036)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
20
XIV
­
20
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
E.
Selection
of
Benchmarks
(
HBL
versus
MCL)

Industry
commenters
and
a
single
public
interest
group
commenter
believed
EPA
should
use
MCLs
as
benchmark
values
for
the
risk
assessment
and
calculate
HBLs
only
when
MCLs
are
not
available.
The
industry
commenters
also
disagreed
specifically
with
using
the
HBL
for
arsenic
because
it
is
below
detection
limits
or
below
background
levels
of
arsenic.
The
public
interest
group
commenter
also
stated
that
the
HBLs
were
based
on
inappropriate
toxicity
values.

Response:
EPA
agrees
that
MCLs
should
be
one
of
the
values
to
be
considered
in
its
risk
assessment,
and
for
this
reason
compared
arsenic
levels
against
the
current
MCL
and
a
range
of
potential
MCLs.
(
See
Topic
XIV.
F
following.)
However,
in
the
RCRA
program
EPA
uses
HBLs
as
the
primary
consideration
in
its
risk
assessments
because
HBLs
represent
health
effects
of
the
contaminant
using
the
most
current
toxicity
and
exposure
assumption
information
available.
Also,
HBLs
are
not
influenced
by
technical
and
economic
factors.
Thus
EPA
used
both
MCLs
and
HBLs.

The
arsenic
MCL,
as
is
noted
in
XIV.
F
below,
is
now
under
careful
review
in
the
scientific
community.
EPA's
comparision
of
leachate,
sampling
and
receptor
well
concentrations
to
arsenic
MCLs
was
begun
on
the
October
groundwater
1998
report,
and
subsequent
comparisons
found
that
arsenic
concentrations
have
the
potential
to
exceed
various
plausible
arsenic
MCLs
(
as
well
as
the
HBL)
for
comanaged
impoundments
and
landfills,
and
FBC
management
units.

Thus,
EPA
recognizes
and
took
account
of
the
possibility
that
the
arsenic
MCL,
now
under
review,
is
likely
to
change
when
EPAs
Office
of
Water
publishes
a
revised
MCL
(
now
due
under
court
order
by
January
1,
2001.)

EPA
does
not
dispute
the
commenter's
assertion
that
the
resulting
HBL
for
arsenic
may
be
within
the
range
of
background
concentrations
(
at
certain
sites)
or
below
detection
limits.
EPA's
modeling,
however,
is
based
on
incremental
risk,
above
background,
and
the
modeled
source
terms
were
based
on
reported
concentrations
of
arsenic.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
21
XIV
­
21
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
E.
Selection
of
Benchmarks
(
HBL
versus
MCL)
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
derivation
of
a
health­
based
number
for
arsenic
was
unnecessary
given
that
EPA
has
already
established
0.05
mg/
L.
as
the
drinking
water
standard.
(
PG&
E00023)

The
absence
of
toxicological
profiles
for
health­
based
criteria
used
to
estimate
risks
of
FFC
waste
prevents
any
opportunity
to
comment
on
this
critical
risk
assessment
component.
Briefly,
it
is
apparent
that
the
hazard
benchmark
Ievels
used
in
the
Report
were
based
on
average
exposure
parameters
and
inappropriate
toxicity
values.
(
ALA00036)

EPA
inappropriately
calculated
HBLs
where
MCLs
are
available.
EPA
unnecessarily
calculated
a
benchmark
value
for
arsenic
(
0.00029
mg/
L)
that
is
two
orders
of
magnitude
lower
than
the
MCL
value
(
0.05
mg/
L).
Furthermore,
the
benchmark
value
is
not
detectable.
In
contrast,
the
benchmark
values
derived
for
the
other
metals
are
larger
than
the
MCL.
EPA
should
use
MCLs
for
all
constituents
where
MCLs
are
available
and
use
calculated
HBLs
only
when
MCLs
are
not
available.
(
USWAG00037)

HBNs
are
not
protective
of
public
health
...
As
discussed
in
the
initial
comments
made
to
the
docket,
EPA
did
not
provide
toxicological
profiles
to
evaluate
the
dose­
response
values
used
to
calculate
the
hazard
benchmark
numbers
(
HBNs).
The
most
serious
concern
regarding
the
doseresponse
assessment
conducted
in
the
groundwater
risk
assessment
is
the
considerable
differences
between
the
Hazard
Benchmark
Numbers
(
HBNs)
and
maximum
contaminant
levels
or
MCLs
...
The
MCLs
listed
in
Table
5
are
primary
legally
enforceable
standards
that
apply
to
drinking
water
systems.
Primary
standards
are
intended
to
protect
drinking
water
quallty
by
limiting
the
levels
of
a
specific
contaminant
that
can
adversely
affect
public
health.
Since
state
regulations
can
be
no
less
stringent
than
the
federal
MCLs,
action
would
be
taken
to
address
the
potential
public
health
hazards
from
FFC
waste
contamination
in
drinking
water
at
much
lower
levels
than
HBNs
suggest.
Furthermore,
comparisons
of
peak
concentrations
of
selected
FFC
waste
constituents
that
were
provided
in
the
June
25th
memo
from
SAIC
are
presented
in
Table
6.
These
comparison
indicate
that
the
95th
percentile
concentration
­
which
we
believe
are
likely
underestimated
­
exceed
primary
MCLs,
and,
therefore,
constitute
potential
public
health
risks.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
22
XIV
­
22
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
F.
Arsenic
Toxicity
Several
industry
and
academic
commenters
suggested
that
EPA
used
an
inappropriate
cancer
slope
factor
(
CSF)
for
arsenic
(
based
on
a
study
that
overpredicts
cancer
risk
for
U.
S.
populations)
and/
or
misapplied
this
CSF
in
its
risk
assessment,
particularly
for
child
risks,
resulting
in
an
overestimate
of
risk.
According
to
some
of
these
commenters,
the
resulting
arsenic
RfD
should
have
been
0.0008
mg/
kg/
day
rather
than
0.0003
mg/
kg/
day.
Other
industry
commenters
stated
that
we
evolved
as
a
species
in
an
environment
that
contains
arsenic
and,
therefore,
small
incremental
exposure
are
extremely
difficult
to
monitor
and
the
risks
associated
with
that
exposure
become
even
more
problematic
to
assign
and
evaluate.
A
public
interest
group
commenter,
however,
stated
that
if
EPA
were
to
apply
the
reanalysis
of
epidemiological
data
regarding
the
carcinogenicity
of
arsenic
by
the
National
Research
Council,
the
potency
of
arsenic
may
increase
by
ten
times.
This
commenter
further
stated
that
analysis
underway
at
EPA's
Office
of
Water
suggests
the
arsenic
CSF
is
likely
to
be
revised
downwards
in
the
future,
increasing
arsenic's
estimated
toxicity.

Response:
EPA
recognizes
that
the
CSF
for
arsenic
has
been
debated
for
several
years
and
acknowledges
the
uncertainties
associated
with
the
risk
assessment.
The
recent
National
Research
Council
(
NRC)
study
("
Arsenic
in
Drinking
Water",
National
Research
Council,
National
Academy
Press,
1999)
suggesting
a
lower
drinking
water
MCL
has
heightened
our
concern
with
regard
to
the
potential
presence
of
arsenic.
EPA's
Office
of
Water
(
OW)
is
now
considering
reducing
the
MCL
as
recommended
by
the
NRC
study,
and
is
charged
with
finalizing
an
MCL
for
arsenic
by
January
1,
2001.
It
was
because
of
this
uncertainty
that
EPA
compared
contaminant
concentrations
to
a
postulated
range
of
possible
MCLs,
as
well
as
the
HBL,
in
its
risk
characterization.

The
ongoing
debate
as
to
the
appropriate
drinking
water
MCL
is
part
of
a
much
larger
arsenic
debate
involving
possible
cancer
types
(
including
skin,
bladder
and
lung)
and
incidence
as
a
function
of
genetics,
sex,
nutrition
and
other
factors.
Bioavailability
as
a
function
of
arsenic
speciation
and
associated
mobility
is
another
complicating
factor,
especially
where,
as
in
this
FFC
analysis,
no
speciation
data
were
available.
Another
factor
making
any
arsenic
risk
characterization
difficult
is
continuing
uncertainty
concerning
low
dose
extrapolation.
The
NRC
study
concluded
that
the
dose­
response
curve
might
exhibit
sublinear
characteristics
in
the
low
dose
region,
but
went
on
to
qualify
this
by
stating
that
there
was
no
assurance
that
a
departure
from
linearity
was
yet
justified.
Justification
for
reducing
the
MCL
is
thus
based
on
weight
of
evidence
as
set
forth
in
the
NRC
report
rather
than
on
resolution
of
low
dose
response
issues.

The
current
CSF,
contained
in
EPA's
IRIS
data
base,
was
based
on
skin
cancer
effects
alone
and
did
not
other
cancers
now
considered
to
pose
potential
risk.
A
revised
risk
characterization
will
be
conducted
to
support
any
new
CSF.
Until
the
arsenic
risk
characterization
is
updated,
the
current
CSF
in
IRIS
remains
as
the
recommended
value.
While
the
implication
of
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
23
XIV
­
23
the
NRC
study
is
that
a
new
CSF
is
justified,
the
NRC
study
did
not
make
a
specific
recommendation
in
this
regard.

For
non­
carcinogenic
effects,
IRIS
lists
an
RfD
of
0.0003
mg/
kg/
day
for
inorganic
arsenic.
IRIS
notes
that
valid
arguments
can
be
made
that
would
increase
or
decrease
the
RfD
by
a
factor
of
perhaps
2
or
3,
resulting
in
a
possible
range
of
0.0001
to
0.0008
mg/
kg/
day.
Using
an
RfD
of
0.0008
mg/
kg/
day
instead
of
0.0003
mg/
kg/
day,
however,
would
have
little
effect
on
the
outcome
of
the
risk
assessment.
In
addition,
RfD
methodology
is
considered
to
embody
values
with
uncertainty
spanning
at
least
an
order
of
magnitude.
Furthermore,
risk
estimates
identified
for
arsenic
were
based
on
cancer
effects,
which
is
independent
of
the
RfD.
(
It
is
not
correct,
as
stated
in
several
of
the
comments,
that
the
CSF
is
used
to
derive
the
RfD.

See
Section
VIII
for
additional
discussion
of
this
issue.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
24
XIV
­
24
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
F.
Arsenic
Toxicity
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
There
seems
to
be
some
concern
with
regard
to
the
actual
assumptions
that
went
into
assigning
the
toxicity
to
arsenic
that
clearly
needs
to
be
evaluated.
Arsenic
fails
in
all
cases
because
of
the
larger
risk
that
EPA
has
associated
with
it.
For
example,
the
biota
in
which
we
have
evolved
in
has
developed
in
a
sea
of
radioactivity.
We
are
what
and
who
we
are
because
of
the
environment,
including
the
radioactive
background.
If
small
incremental
increases
to
radioactive
exposures
occur,
our
ability
to
quantify
the
impact
of
this
event
is
very
limited.
Modeling
exposure
consequences
for
high
dose
events
and
extrapolating
through
these
events
is
straightforward.
However,
extrapolating
to
the
background
exposure
becomes
very
tricky.
Our
exposure
to
arsenic
follows
exactly
the
same
scenario.
We
evolved
as
a
species
in
an
environment
that
contains
arsenic
(
see
Appendices
II
and
III).
Small
incremental
exposures
are
extremely
difficult
to
monitor
and
the
risks
associated
with
that
exposure
become
even
more
problematic
to
assign
and
evaluate.
(
ARIPPA00019)

EPA's
approach
in
establishing
a
health­
based
number
of
0.00029
mg/
l,
a
value
which
is
greater
than
200
times
less
than
EPA's
current
standard,
was
overly
conservative
based
upon
current
human
health
population
statistics,
published
background
conditions
throughout
the
united
states
and
toxicity
factors
critiqued
by
EPA.
Health­
based
numbers
were
calculated
using
toxicological
information,
ingestion
rate,
frequency,
duration,
and
receptor
body
weight
based
on
current
acceptable
population
statistics.
EPA's
assumption
that
human
health
population
statistics
will
not
evolve
at
all
over
the
next
400
years
is
highly
speculative.
Changes
in
human
diet,
living
conditions,
and
medical
advances
alone
in
the
past
400
years
demonstrate
how
speculative
this
assumption
is.
The
literature
background
concentrations
for
arsenic
in
natural
groundwater
range
from
0.00
1
to
0.03
mg/
l
(
Dragun,
1988).
Background
concentrations
of
arsenic
in
the
absence
of
any
fossil
fuel
combustion
waste
are
typically
3.4
to
100
times
greater
than
the
health­
based
number
used
by
EPA
in
the
Report
(
0.00029
mg/
l).
Again,
this
results
in
overly
conservative
assumptions
and
conclusions
that
are
not
based
on
real­
world
conditions.
The
toxicity
factors
used
to
calculate
a
health­
based
number
for
Arsenic
are
based
on
the
prevalence
of
normally
nonfatal
skin
cancer
observed
in
a
Taiwan
epidemiological
study
conducted
by
Tseng
et
al.
This
study
has
been
peer
reviewed
and
has
been
shown
to
have
study
limitations
that
likely
over
predict
actual
cancer
risks
for
US
populations.
The
results
of
this
study
likely
over
predict
actual
cancer
risks
for
U.
S.
populations.
That
this
modeling
seriously
overstates
the
potential
risks
to
human
health
or
to
the
environment
is
supported
by
the
fact
that
EPA
has
not
found
documentation
of
actual
harm
or
significant
releases
of
toxins
such
as
arsenic
despite
considerable
experience
and
monitoring
of
these
practices.
(
PG&
E00023)

As
discussed
previously
(
Section
C­.
2)
the
toxicity
factors
used
to
calculate
a
Heath­
based
number
for
arsenic
are
inappropriate
and
have
been
questioned
by
EPA
and
other
health
scientists.
The
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
25
XIV
­
25
toxicity
factors
are
based
on
the
prevalence
of
normally
non­
fatal
skin
cancer
observed
in
a
Taiwan
epidemiological
study
conducted
by
Tseng
et
al.
This
study
has
been
peer
reviewed
and
has
been
shown
to
have
study
limitations
that
likely
over
predict
actual
cancer
risks
for
US
populations.
(
PG&
E00023)

The
risk
assessment
should
not
have
utilized
data
from
the
Taiwan
arsenic
epidemiological
studies,
since
those
studies
have
major
flaws
that
"
invalidate
the
use
of
these
data
for
most
exposed
individuals
in
the
US".
(
NMA00024)

Arsenic
is
consistently
identified
in
each
of
the
waste
management
scenarios
at
levels
of
public
health
concern.
If
we
were
to
apply
the
recent
reanalysis
of
epidemiological
data
regarding
the
carcinogenicity
of
arsenic
by
the
National
Research
Council,
the
potency
of
arsenic
may
increase
by
ten
times.
This
would
increase
the
highest
risks
reported
for
arsenic
from
groundwater
contamination
by
coal
waste
from
one
in
one­
hundred
to
one
in
ten.
(
ALA00036)

The
cancer
slope
factor
used
to
derive
the
reference
dose
(
RfD)
of
0.0003
mg/
kg/
day
used
in
the
nongroundwater
risk
asseT;
ment
is
based
upon
a
fundamentally
flawed
epidemiological
study.
In
the
40
C.
F.
R.
Part
503
Subpart
B
biosolids
rulemaking,
EPA
used
a
reasonable
RfD
value
of
0.0008
mg/
kg/
day.
If
the
biosolids
risk
assessment
had
used
an
RfD
value
of
0.00CB2mg/
kg/
day,
it
would
return
an
acceptable
limit
for
As
of
only
1
ppm.
To
put
the
absurdity
of
that
result
in
context,
note
that
the
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
has
reported
a
nationwide
mean
soil
background
As
concentration
of
5.2
ppm
with
a
standard
deviation
of
2.23
ppm.
(
USWAG00037)

Testimony
presented
by
Dr.
Chaney
or
the
USDA
at
the
EPA
Public
Hearing
on
May
21,
1999,
highlighted
serious
flaws
in
the
determination
of
the
arsenic
cancer
slope
factor
used
for
justifying
the
arsenic
reference
dose
of
0.0003
mg/
kg/
day.
In
this
RTC
health
risk
analysis,
results
indicate
that
potential
health
risks
from
children
ingesting
soil
with
a
arsenic
concentration
of
1
ppm.
If
this
is
indeed
the
case,
we
need
to
enact
national
regulations
against
any
child
eating
any
native
soil,
as
the
USGS
has
determined
that
the
average
soil
in
the
United
States
contains
over
5
times
the
"
safe"
concentration
of
arsenic!
(
Refer
to
USGS
Professional
Paper
1270.)
Previous
EPA
health
risk
analyses,
notably
for
land
application
of
sewage
sludge
(
40
CFR
503(
b)
Rules),
used
an
arsenic
reference
dose
of
0.0008
mg/
kg/
day,
resulting
in
a
more
realistic
"
safe"
arsenic
concentration
of
41
ppm.
(
NSP00057)

Cancer
Slope
Factor
(
CSF):
EPA
determines
this
value
from
reviews
of
the
available
toxicological
literature;
prior
to
about
1997
an
oral
dose
of
0.0008
mg/
kg­
d
As
was
considered
acceptable,
but
this
was
subsequently
reduced
to
0.0003
mg/
kg­
d.
EPA
acknowledges
considerable
uncertainty
in
this
value
(
see
comments
in
IRIS
database,
U.
S.
EPA),
and
states
that
this
uncertainty
gives
environmental
managers
"
considerable
flexibility"
in
assessing
risk
for
a
given
scenario.
The
CSF
factor
of
1.5
is
based
on
limited
data,
and
is
likely
to
be
on
the
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
26
XIV
­
26
conservative
side.
However,
given
the
lack
of
further
information
it
is
difficult
to
treat
this
value
as
an
"
adjustable"
parameter
in
the
risk
assessment.
(
PHS018)

Errors
in
Taiwan
epidemiological
study
prevent
it
use
in
risk
assessment.
During
consideration
of
changes
in
the
As
limit
for
drinking
water,
EPA
was
informed
that
the
major
Taiwan
epidemiological
study
by
Tseng
et
al.
was
seriously
flawed
during
data
collection.
Individuals
in
the
same
village
had
high
As
and
very
low
As
well
water,
and
drank
the
water
from
their
own
well
during
their
life.
Nevertheless,
it
has
been
found
that
the
median
well
As
concentration
was
used
to
classify
the
village
As
exposure
when
assessing
cancer
outcomes
may
decades
later.
Further,
errors
were
found
in
the
method
of
analysis
of
As
in
water
at
lower
concentrations.
Together
these
errors
cannot
be
corrected
since
the
low
response
of
persons
with
low
exposure
cannot
be
separated
reliably
from
the
overall
data.
EPA
should
not
be
using
the
cancer
slope
factor
based
on
that
work
in
development
of
risk
assessments,
regulations,
or
Reports
to
Congress,
nor
a
RfD
which
is
based
on
this
cancer
slop
factor.
(
PHS011)

Water
consumption
by
the
exposed
Taiwanese
population
is
greater
than
the
2
L/
day
assumed
by
EPA
in
risk
assessment,
which
increased
the
cancer
slope
factor
inappropriately.
During
the
drinking
water
As
risk
assessment,
the
volume
of
water
required
by
persons
working
outdoors
in
sunny
rice
fields
in
the
summer
in
Taiwan
became
a
subject
of
debate.
With
recent
experience
within
DOD
of
water
requirements
of
persons
in
such
hot
climates,
EPA
was
advised
to
shift
to
8
L
water
per
day
rather
than
2
L/
day
assumed
in
US
risk
assessments.
This
change
would
reduce
the
cancer
slope
factor
by
about
4­
fold.
(
PHS011)

Inorganic
As
in
rice
contributed
significantly
to
As
exposure
in
the
Taiwanese
exposed
population,
which
increased
the
cancer
slope
factor
inappropriately.
Research
by
Schoof
et
al.
(
1998)
and
Yost
et
al.
(
1998)
identified
a
separate
error
in
the
As
dose
estimation
for
the
Taiwan
population.
It
had
been
assumed
by
EPA's
Office
of
Drinking
Water
that
most
As
in
plants
was
organic.
Measurement
of
the
species
of
As
in
rice
and
dried
yams,
principle
foods
of
the
exposed
farm
populations
in
Taiwan,
showed
these
foods
to
contain
largely
inorganic
As.
This
As
would
have
added
to
the
inorganic
As
dose;
with
constant
measured
response,
the
cancer
slope
factor
would
have
been
found
to
be
lower.
(
PHS011)

Research
has
shown
that
the
extent
of
harm
to
the
Taiwanese
and
other
As­
harmed
populations
was
partially
related
to
poor
nutrition
of
this
population
during
their
exposure.
Although
there
is
no
clear
way
to
deal
with
the
effect
of
malnutrition
in
risk
assessment
for
US
populations
other
than
consideration
of
"
High­
End"
exposures,
evidence
from
many
locations
where
humans
have
suffered
skin
disease
from
excessive
long­
term
consumption
of
As­
rich
drinking
water
has
indicated
that
persons
with
the
same
water,
but
better
diets,
did
not
suffer
evident
skin
lesions.
Some
evidence
suggested
the
main
difference
might
be
the
intake
of
meats
with
more
methyl­
donor
amino
acids,
etc.,
which
might
have
increased
the
rate
of
As
detoxification
by
persons
with
improved
nutritional
status.
Because
exposed
US
populations
are
not
so
severely
malnourished
as
the
subsistence
rice
consuming
populations
in
Asia,
it
may
be
appropriate
to
reconsider
the
dose­
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
27
XIV
­
27
response
relationship
estimated
for
the
Asian
populations.
When
safety
factors
are
hidden
in
risk
assessment,
unnecessary
concerns
are
raised.
(
PHS011)

PG&
E
Gen's
review
identified
numerous
problems
that
cause
the
model
to
overestimate
the
potential
risk
presented
by
this
beneficial
use
of
coal
ash,
such
as
...
use
of
unrealistic
toxicity
factors
from
a
highly
criticized
health
risk
study.
(
PG&
E00274)

There
were
several
comments
regarding
the
cancer
slope
factor
for
arsenic
and
arsenic
bioavailability
provided
to
EPA
during
the
public
review
period.
We
believe
that
the
comments
do
not
reflect
the
wealth
of
information
the
Agency
is
currently
considering
regarding
the
health
effects
of
arsenic.
First.
the
cancer
slope
factor
for
arsenic
is
likely
to
be
revised
downward.
EPA
should
be
aware
of
the
considerable
effort
currently
underway
in
the
Office
of
Water
to
comply
with
the
I996
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
provision
that
requires
EPA
to
establish
a
MCL
for
arsenic
by
January
1,
2000.
This
effort
has
included
the
establishment
of
a
Subcommittee
on
Arsenic
of
the
Committee
of
Toxicology
of
the
National
Research
Council
(
NRC)
and
an
Expert
Panel
on
Arsenic
Carcinogenicity
under
the
Integrated
Risk
Information
System
(
NRC,
1999,
EPA,
1999).
The
findings
of
these
efforts
reflect
the
state­
of­
the
science
by
the
leading
experts
on
the
health
effects
of
arsenic.
In
addition,
there
is
an
extensive
research
program
that
has
been
established
under
the
1996
Strategic
Plan
for
the
Office
of
Research
and
Development
to
involve
Agency­
wide
research
activities
to
contribute
to
the
development
of
an
arsenic
drinking
water
regulation.
It
is
beyond
the
scope
of
these
comments
to
provide
a
summary
of
these
substantive
activities
currently
underway
at
the
Agency.
However,
it
is
imperative
that
EPA
actively
engage
the
Office
of
Water
in
the
FFC
waste
regulation
to
respond
to
public
comments
that
suggests
that
the
slope
factor
overestimates
cancer
risk,
because
this
viewpoint
is
not
supported
by
the
current
analysis
underway
at
your
Agency.
EPA
should
consider
the
information
in
the
risk
characterization
of
FFC
waste.
(
ALA00292)

The
Subcommittee
on
Arsenic
of
the
Committee
of
Toxicology
of
the
National
Research
Council
published
a
final
report
in
March
1999,
which
concluded
that
recent
studies
suggest
that
drinking
water
with
high
levels
of
arsenic
can
lead
to
bladder,
and
lung
cancer,
which
can
be
more
fatal
than
skin
cancer.
The
Subcommittee
examined
seven
International
epidemiological
studies,
including
research
from
Taiwan,
Argentina,
and
Chile.
All
these
studies
show
that
in
addition
to
causing
skin,
bladder,
and
lung
cancer
­
exposure
to
arsenic
in
drinking
water
can
cause
skin
lesions,
anemia,
nerve
damage
and
circulatory
problems.
Finally,
and
most
importantly
with
regard
to
the
groundwater
risk
assessment
of
FFC
waste,
the
report
concluded
that
"
the
epidemiological
findings,
experimental
data
on
the
mode
of
action
of
arsenic,
and
available
information
on
the
variations
in
human
susceptibility,
it
is
the
Subcommittee's
consensus
that
the
current
EPA
MCL
in
drinking
water
of
50
ug/
L
does
not
achieve
EPA's
goal
for
public­
health
protection
and,
therefore,
requires
downward
revision
as
promptly
as
possible."
Based
on
the
incidence
of
bladder
cancer
from
Taiwan
studies,
that
are
qualitatively
confirmed
by
data
from
Chile
and
Argentina
the
NRC
determined
that
the
difference
in
the
potency
at
the
modeled
point
of
departure
(
POD)
is
around
10­
fold
less
than
the
current
cancer
slope
factor.
There
are
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
28
XIV
­
28
uncertainties
in
this
extrapolation.
Extrapolations
below
100
ppb
become
nonlinear
and
should
be
caveated
as
probable
overestimates
and
both
the
POD
and
the
environmental
exposure
(
real
or
projected)
should
be
examined
as
the
NRC
did.
Based
on
this
analysis
by
the
NRC,
the
suggestion
that
arsenic
is
less
toxic
than
and
the
state­
of­
the­
science
regarding
the
health
effects
of
arsenic
should
be
incorporated
into
the
Report
to
Congress.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
29
XIV
­
29
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
G.
Site
Averaging
Industry
commenters
suggested
that
site
averaging
overestimated
risk.
One
of
the
commenters
stated
that
using
a
numerical
average
to
represent
a
typical
value
for
concentrations
that
are
likely
characterized
by
a
lognormal
distribution
would
be
an
overestimate.
A
geometric
mean
would
have
been
a
more
appropriate
representation
of
a
typical
value
for
a
given
site.
Another
of
the
commenters
stated
that
EPA
should
have
used
the
all
the
data
as
independent
observations
and
fitted
the
best
probability
density
function,
rather
than
use
the
95th
percentile
siteaveraged
concentrations.
According
to
the
commenter,
under
this
approach,
the
95th
percentile
porewater
concentration
for
arsenic
would
have
been
less
than
0.5
mg/
L,
rather
than
9.64
mg/
L.
The
commenter
also
suggested
that
EPA
overlooked
the
variations
within
each
waste
management
unit
and
inappropriately
assumed
the
release
of
uniform
concentrations
across
the
unit.

Public
interest
group
commenters,
on
the
other
hand,
argued
that
site
averaging
underestimated
risk
by
cutting
off
extreme
observations.
These
extremes
reflect
"
hot
spots"
of
non­
uniform
mixing
that
should
be
modeled.
One
of
these
commenters
further
stated
that
variation
within
facilities
is
at
least
as
important
as
variation
between
facilities.
Another
of
these
commenters
stated
that
EPA
should
have
used
the
95th
percentile
upper
confidence
limit
of
the
arithmetic
mean
of
a
lognormal
distribution.
This
commenter
also
specifically
addressed
the
site
averaging
approach
for
OCW
(
oil
combustion
wastes),
which
changed
between
the
draft
risk
assessment
and
the
sensitivity
analysis,
and
requested
an
explanation
of
why
the
revised
approach
would
not
underestimate
high­
end
concentrations.

Response:
EPA
believes
its
approach
to
site
averaging
was
both
reasonable
and
appropriate
as
a
method
of
producing
a
typical,
yet
conservative
input
value
for
use
in
the
risk
assessment.
The
approach
allowed
characterization
of
the
variations
between
sites
without
overweighting
sites
with
more
characterization
data
and
without
overweighting
unusually
high
or
low
values
that
would
not
be
typical
of
entire
management
units.
EPA
believes
use
of
this
approach
produced
an
appropriate
estimate
of
upper­
bound
and
probabilistic
risk
for
purposes
of
this
study
without
unnecessarily
over­
or
under­
estimating
risk.
EPA
checked
this
approach
in
each
case
with
the
available
site
data
to
be
sure
mischaracterization
would
be
minimized,
if
not
avoided
entirely.
EPA
used
a
log
normal
distribution
as
suggested
by
one
commenter.

EPA
disagrees
with
the
comment
that
it
assumed
uniform
release
of
contaminants
from
a
particular
comanaged
waste
management
unit.
Contaminant
supply
is
finite,
and
release
will
vary
over
time
depending
on
opening
and
closing
of
landfill
cells,
closing
of
an
impoundment
and
many
environmental
factors.
Variations
of
measured
contaminant
within
each
management
unit
are
reflected
in
the
data.
To
simplify
its
analysis,
EPA
calculated
a
single
contaminant
concentration
for
each
site,
as
noted
above,
to
represent
the
overall
effects
of
this
variability,
but
this
calculation
does
not
imply
that
contaminant
release
is
uniform.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
30
XIV
­
30
EPA
disagrees
that
its
site
averaging
approach
underestimates
risks.
The
management
units
in
question
are
large
in
size
and
have
compositional
variations.
The
management
units
may
contain
"
hot
spots"
but
may
also
contain
wastes
with
relatively
low
contaminant
release.
While
EPA
intended
its
analysis
to
be
conservative,
an
analysis
which
focuses
on
the
extremes
posed
within
individual
sites
would
be
unrealistic.
While
EPA
has
found
instances
of
localized
high
contaminant
concentrations,
it
has
not
found
instances
where
an
entire
management
unit
has
these
characteristics
and
believes
such
an
instance
is
unrealistic.
Therefore
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenters
that
these
localized
effects
were
not
adequately
addressed
in
the
risk
assessment.
EPA
contends
that
its
use
of
site
averaging,
with
the
subsequent
selection
of
the
95th
percentile
concentration,
represents
a
defensible
high­
end
initial
concentration.
EPA
utilized
the
data
collected
and
provided
by
industry,
in
reaching
the
risk
findings
noted
for
coal
combustion
wastes.

The
above
issue
concerns
the
best
way
to
characterize
a
waste
management
unit,
and
EPA
acknowledges
that
opinions
may
vary.
At
one
site,
measured
concentrations
varied
from
below
.01
mg/
l
to
over
80
mg/
l.
This
reflected
a
very
thorough
data
collection
effort;
yet
no
argument
can
be
made
that
either
extreme
is
representative
of
the
volume
of
waste
in
that
unit.

EPA
also
maintains
that
the
site
averaging
methodology
adopted
in
the
sensitivity
analysis
is
appropriate
for
OCWs.
EPA
has
found
that
oil
combustion
facilities
operating
surface
impoundments
commonly
manage
their
fly
ash
along
with
low­
volume
wastes
in
a
single
impoundment
or
series
of
impoundments.
The
dredged
solids
are
subsequently
landfilled
offsite.
The
bottom
ash
is
typically
managed
separately
from
the
fly
ash
but
also
landfilled
offsite.
Therefore,
all
of
these
wastes
are
eventually
landfilled,
and
it
would
be
plausible
for
a
generating
facility
to
use
a
single
landfill
location
for
the
disposal
of
its
different
wastes.
In
conclusion,
because
facilities
may
combine
different
types
of
oil
combustion
wastes
in
a
single
management
unit,
EPA
believes
that
its
calculations
are
appropriate
and
do
not
underestimate
potential
risks
for
the
landfill
scenario.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
31
XIV
­
31
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
G.
Site
Averaging
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
TCLP
input
data
used
for
EPA's
groundwater
modeling
represent
"
facility­
averaged"
values,
and
thus
do
not
represent
actual
high­
end
values.
EPA
rationalized
the
use
of
average
values
because
"
the
Agency
was
more
interested
in
variation
between
facilities
than
variation
within
facilities."
This
rationale
is
both
misguided
and
fails
to
support
the
intended
objective
anyway.
The
Report
to
Congress
and
the
associated
regulatory
determination
are
supposed
to
ascertain
whether
FFCW
wastes
warrant
regulation.
Thus
for
this
purpose,
variation
at
individual
facilities
is
at
least
as
important
to
capture
as
the
variation
between
facilities.
Moreover,
high
and
low
values
at
individual
facilities
are
actually
better
indications
of
the
full
extent
of
variations
on
a
national
basis
when
aggregated.
Perhaps
more
importantly,
the
measured
high­
end
values
at
individual
facilities
represent
real­
world
"
hot
spots"
reflective
of
non­
uniform
mixing
of
various
wastes
within
very
large
units.
Indeed,
it
is
not
unreasonable
to
expect
that
contaminants
migrating
from
these
units
may
preferentially
reflect
areas
where
one
or
more
low­
volume
wastes
have
been
placed,
subsequently
enhancing
the
migratory
potential
of
other
wastes
coming
into
contact
with
them.
Therefore,
unless
EPA
can
demonstrate
uniform
mixing
and/
or
only
"
average"
waste
contamination
migration
at
these
facilities,
the
"
potential"
risks
from
the
co­
management
units
in
the
Report
to
Congress
are
equally
or
more
accurately
reflected
by
releases
from
"
hot
spot"
areas.
(
EDF00021)

EPA
also
cannot
vouch
for
the
representativeness
of
the
TCLP
data
on
a
facility­
specific
basis,
therefore
the
Agency
hasn't
a
clue
what
it
is
combining
to
achieve
a
so­
called
"
average"
result.
The
term
itself
is
misleading
in
this
regard.
Averaging
non­
representative
data
for
a
facility
does
not
magically
yield
a
representative
facility
average.
For
all
these
reasons,
EPA's
objective
of
capturing
variations
between
facilities
using
facility­
averaged
data
is
extremely
problematic
based
upon
the
data
now
available,
and
in
fact
national
variation
would
be
better
captured
by
incorporating
true
high­
end
values
measured
at
particular
facilities.
As
a
consequence
of
relying
upon
facility­
averaged
data
instead
of
actual
high­
end
measured
values,
the
"
screening
analyses"
relied
upon
by
EPA
to
exclude
most
hazardous
constituents
that
"
might"
be
a
threat
were
far
from
the
conservative
analyses
EPA
describes
in
the
Report
to
Congress.
For
these
assessments,
EPA
claimed
to
use
the
95th
percentile
waste
concentrations,
but
by
using
the
95th
percentile
of
the
facility
average
data,
the
Agency
failed
to
utilize
actual
high­
end
values
measured
consistent
with
risk
assessments
performed
in
support
of
listing
determinations
and
other
RCRA
proceedings.
The
same
is
true
of
EPA's
subsequent
monte
carlo
analyses,
because
none
of
the
2,000
model
runs
reflect
actually
measured
high­
end
values.
(
EDF00021)

Some
of
the
documents
I
have
examined
indicate
that
the
sample
giving
the
9.64
ppm
arsenic
value
from
the
deterministic
case
came
from
a
site
in
Missouri
where
pore
water
sample
were
taken
up
and
down
the
length
of
the
core
from
above
the
water
table
and
that
the
concentrations
were
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
32
XIV
­
32
attenuating
rapidly
downward
through
the
sample
before
the
water
table
was
reached.
If
this
is
true
then
the
use
of
this
sample
in
the
deterministic
case
was
a
technical
catastrophe.
Not
only
was
the
wrong
kind
of
sample
used
and
averaged
as
if
it
represented
an
intercept
with
the
water
table
down
the
entire
length,
but
the
sample
showed
that
attenuation
far
beyond
the
value
used
had
occurred
befor
contact
with
the
water
table
...
Using
a
simple
averaging
process
to
reduce
data
from
many
levels
in
several
cores
to
a
single
value
for
a
site
was
a
statistical
blunder.
The
fact
that
the
procedure
was
allowed
to
mask
data
in
direct
conflict
with
the
way
the
model
was
run
is
exceptionally
hurtful
to
good
science
has
resulted
in
claiming
a
water
table
contact
concentration
that
was
nearly
two
orders
of
magnitude
off
from
what
the
data
actually
showed.
(
NMA00024A)

EPA
first
averaged
pore
water
concentrations
numerically
up
and
down
the
entire
length
of
the
cores
sampled.
The
problem
with
taking
numerical
averages
of
samples
from
a
lognormal
distribution
(
trace
element
distributions
are
almost
alway
lognormal
and
coversations
with
the
EPA's
contractor
on
the
modeling
indicated
that
they
had
confirmed
lognormality
of
the
data
 
another
fact
not
apparently
in
the
report)
is
that
values
from
the
upper
X%
of
tail
are
much
further
from
the
value
of
the
bulk
of
the
samples
than
the
corresponding
X%
value
from
the
lower
tail.
Although
mathematicians
give
a
little
more
hairy
an
explanation
of
what
is
happening
the
result
is
that
the
numerical
average
value
will
(
except
by
pure
luck)
always
drastically
over­
estimate
the
typical
value
for
the
population.
Taking
numerical
averages
also
distorts
the
shape
of
the
distribution
of
averages
relative
to
the
original
population.
Those
familiar
with
statistics
usually
know
that
the
most
basic
theorem
is
the
"
Central
Limit
Theorem"
which
says
that
the
distribution
of
average
values
will
tend
to
be
a
normal
distribution
regardless
of
what
the
original
underlying
distribution
was
(
ie.,
EPA's
action
of
creating
secondary
populations
by
taking
numerical
averages
was
already
reducing
skewness
and
distorting
the
data
toward
a
normal
distribution).
EPA
then
took
all
the
already
once
averaged
pore
water
concentrations
from
samples
over
entire
sites
and
took
another
numerical
average
pore
water
concentration
for
the
site
...
Remember,
however,
that
the
typical
values
of
this
population
have
already
been
shifted
upwards
through
the
use
of
numerical
averages
instead
of
geometric
means
and
that
the
skewness
of
the
distribution
has
been
reduced
shifting
more
weight
into
the
upper
tails.
(
NMA00024A)

The
high­
end
deterministic
assessment
was
designed
to
provide
an
estimate
of
exposure
(
and
risk)
that
is
greater
than
or
equal
to
the
risk
expected
at
any
site.
To
establish
this,
EPA
determined
the
50th
and
95th
percentile
concentrations
by
averaging
all
the
samples
from
a
given
site
to
arrive
at
a
single
leachate
concentration.
These
average
values
were
then
arrayed
to
develop
the
50th
and
95th
percentile
for
each
constituent
in
each
waste
type.
In
other
words,
the
50th
and
95th
percentile
concentrations
were
generated
from
facility­
wide
averages
and
do
not
necessarily
reflect
high­
end
estimates.
(
ALA00036)

EPA
changed
the
concentration
data
for
individual
wastes
for
the
oil
ash
scenarios.
The
facility
average
95th
percentile
concentration
that
was
calculated
for
each
waste
type
was
revised
to
include
all
wastes.
Since
there
are
significant
differences
in
the
concentration
of
chemicals
in
the
various
waste
types,
EPA
needs
to
provide
an
explanation.
as
to
why
this
approach
would
not
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
33
XIV
­
33
underestimate
the
high­
end
concentrations
by
combining
waste
that
have
relatively
high
levels
with
wastes
that
have
relatively
low
levels
of
contamination.
(
ALA00036)

For
inputs
to
the
deterministic
model
for
each
waste
management
scenario
and
each
constituent
of
concern,
EPA
calculated
the
average
value
of
all
porewater
data
for
each
waste
management
scenario
and
each
constituent
of
concern
for
each
given
site.
EPA
then
chose
the
conservative
95th
percentile
concentration
as
the
"
high
end"
value
for
model
input.
Where
there
were
data
available
from
fewer
than
20
sites,
EPA
used
the
highest
available
value
as
the
input
concentration.
This
approach
accentuated
and
magnified
anomalous
data
points.
(
USWAG00037)

As
discussed
above,
a
more
representative
selection
of
high­
end
values
would
have
provided
a
more
accurate
assessment.
EPRI
provided
over
100
porewater
concentration
data
points
taken
from
over
15
landfills
and
impoundments.
Rather
than
the
95th
percentile
site­
averaged
concentration,
EPA
should
have
used
these
data
as
independent
observations
and
treated
them
as
random
values
for
statistical
purposes.
This
approach
would
have
provided
the
best
definition
of
porewater
concentration
probability
distribution.
The
Agency
should
then
have
fitted
the
best
probability
density
function
to
the
data
to
obtain
an
estimate
of
the
central
tendency
as
well
as
the
high
end
value.
An
examination
of
the
arsenic
data,
for
example,
indicates
that
the
95th
percentile
concentration
should
have
been
less
than
0.5
mg/
L,
compared
to
the
value
9.64mglL
used
in
the
risk
assessment.
Thus,
EPA
used
an
input
concentration
value
almost
20
times
too
high.
(
USWAG00037)

The
waste
characterization
data
were
averaged
for
each
facility
and
then
the
averages
were
averaged
­­
which
completely
masks
any
high
values,
and
is
inconsistent
with
a
conservative
approach.
(
49CAO00058)

The
exposure
and
risk
assessments
seemingly
do
not
represent
a
"
high­
end"
analysis,
but
rather
represent
averaged
data.
(
49CA00058).

Demonstrating
that
the
upper
bound
concentrations
of
FFC
waste
constituents
have
been
evaluated
in
the
Report
to
Congress
is
central
to
EPA's
contention
that
the
risks
have
been
overstated
and,
therefore,
should
be
dismissed.
EPA
calculated
facility­
wide
averages
for
14
sites.
These
averages
were
then
arrayed
and
the
95th
percentile
was
determined.
Because
facility­
wide
averages
were
used,
the
95
percentile
values
represents
the
95th
percentile
of
the
average
FFC
waste
concentrations
and
not
of
the
95th
percentile
of
the
distribution.
This
concept
is
illustrated
in
Figure
1.
According
to
EPA
policy
these
statistical
values
are
considered
central
tendency
and
not
high­
end
values.
Figure
1
also
illustrates
that
as
the
sample
size
increases
the
UCL
of
the
mean
moves
closer
to
the
true
mean,
while
the
95th
percentile
of
the
distribution
remains
at
the
upper
end
of
the
distribution
(
EPA,
1992).
(
ALA00292)

The
waste
characterization
data
presented
in
the
Report
to
Congress
shows
that
FFC
waste
is
highly
variable.
SAIC
observed
that
the
concentration
of
some
metals
in
waste
leachates
was
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
34
XIV
­
34
found
to
vary
by
up
to
three
or
four
orders
of
magnitude
(
SAIC,
1998,
page
2­
l).
To
address
the
uncertainties
associated
with
estimating
the
true
average
concentration
that
results
from
variability
of
environmental
contaminants,
the
Agency
has
established
the
use
of
the
95th
percent
upper
confidence
limit
(
UCL)
of
the
arithmetic
mean
in
exposure
assessments
(
USEPA,
1992).
It
does
not
appear
that
the
facility­
wide
averages
calculated
from
the
14
site
investigations
is
the
most
appropriate
statistical
approach
to
address
the
limited
sampling
data
and
variability
in
the
FFC
waste
constituents.
However,
we
are
unable
to
calculate
the
95
percent
UCL
of
the
average
for
FFC
wastes
and
compare
it
to
the
values
used
in
the
Report
to
Congress
because,
as
previously
mentioned,
the
analytical
data
are
not
provided
in
the
Report
to
Congress
or
technical
background
documents.
The
June
25th
SAIC
memo
to
CATF
does
indicate
that
the
FFC
waste
characterization
data
are
log­
normally
distributed.
Therefore,
the
following
equation
(
Figure
2)
should
be
used
to
calculate
the
upper
confidence
limit
of
the
arithmetic
mean
for
a
lognormal
distribution.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
25
FF2P­
S0361,
Attachment
1
(
Deterministic
Results).

35
XIV
­
35
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
H.
Inclusion
of
Montour
An
industry
commenter
indicated
that
the
inclusion
of
the
Montour
site
skewed
the
risk
results
because
this
site
is
not
representative
of
actual
management
practices
at
the
majority
of
sites.
A
public
interest
group
commenter
was
concerned
that
the
Monte
Carlo
analysis
did
not
incorporate
the
concentrations
from
this
site
and
another
site
with
a
high­
end
arsenic
concentration.

Response:
EPA
believes
the
inclusion
of
the
Montour
site
was
reasonable
and
appropriate.
The
highest
arsenic
pore
water
concentrations
were
found
at
this
site,
and
were
subsequently
used
as
input
concentrations
in
the
risk
assessment.
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter
that
this
particular
site
has
unusual
management
practices
and
may
not
represent
a
"
typical"
facility.
One
objective
of
EPA's
risk
assessment
was
to
identify
high­
end
risks.
Therefore,
the
assessment
used
high­
end
initial
concentrations
as
source
concentrations.
High
end
initial
concentrations
may
be
found
at
a
minority
of
sites,
such
as
Montour.
These
data
were
provided,
voluntarily,
by
industry,
presumably
to
be
used
and
not
dismissed
as
typical
of
an
"
outlier."
There
is
no
assurance
that
such
data
might
in
fact
represent
an
"
outlier".

EPA
simply
used
the
data
it
had,
and
described
the
data
used
in
each
case.
The
data
point
used
was
not
the
highest
reported
at
Montour
by
a
factor
of
approximately
ten;
the
data
point
used
was
the
average
of
the
data
set
provided
by
industry.

At
the
same
time,
EPA
appreciates
the
commenter's
concern
that
inclusion
of
this
particular
site
may
have
given
excessive
weight
to
the
worst­
case
observations
of
arsenic
concentration
in
the
relatively
small
sample
size.
As
part
of
its
revised
analyses
in
October
1998,
EPA
performed
a
high­
end
deterministic
analysis
removing
the
Montour
site
from
the
distribution
of
arsenic
data.
The
next
highest
site­
averaged
arsenic
concentration
was
approximately
half
of
the
value
observed
at
Montour
(
5.4
mg/
L
at
CASJ
site
vs
9.6
mg/
L
at
the
Montour
site).
Resulting
risk
decreased
by
the
same
amount
(
i.
e.,
approximately
half).
25
Therefore,
this
change
in
input
concentration
did
not
result
in
a
statistically
significant
reduction
in
risk...
e.
g.
one
half
of
an
estimated
4x10­
4
is
2x10­
4.

In
response
to
the
public
interest
group
commenter,
the
Monte
Carlo
analysis
does
incorporate
the
full
distribution
of
calculated
input
concentrations
from
all
sites,
including
Montour
and
the
CASJ
site
(
i.
e.,
the
site
with
the
second
highest
site
average
arsenic
concentration).
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
36
XIV
­
36
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
H.
Inclusion
of
Montour
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
In
the
case
of
arsenic,
it
is
clear
that
a
statistical
outlier
skewed
the
entire
modeling
effort
and
rendered
the
results
unfit
for
a
generic
nationwide
determination
to
regulate.
Arsenic
concentrations
in
surface
impoundment
pore
water
samples
ranged
from
0.0075
to
9.64
with
a
mean
value
of
1.57
mg/
L.
EPA
used
the
high
end
value
9.64
mg/
L
to
characterize
all
electric
utility
industry
co­
management
surface
impoundments.
This
high­
end
value
was
the
maximum
observed
value
at
the
Montour
("
MO")
site.
After
a
simple
review
of
the
full
set
of
available
data,
it
becomes
evident
that
the
arsenic
concentrations
at
the
MO
site
are
not
representative
of
the
arsenic
concentrations
in
waste
management
units
in
the
industry.
For
that
matter,
this
value
is
not
representative
of
arsenic
concentrations
at
this
site,
as
discussed
in
detail
in
the
next
bullet
point.
Nonetheless,
EPA
used
the
MO
concentration
data
to
model
arsenic
risk
that
is
orders
of
magnitude
higher
than
would
be
the
case
if
a
representative
sample
were
used.
(
USWAG00037)

EPA's
arsenic
source
term
concentration
is
based
upon
anomalous
management
practices
at
one
site.
EPA's
source
term
selection
process
also
overlooked
the
variations
occuring
within
each
waste
management
unit,
and
the
Agency
inappropriately
assumed
the
release
of
uniform
concentrations
across
the
unit.
The
high
arsenic
concentrations
at
the
MO
site
were
observed
only
in
porewater
in
the
upper
portion
of
the
mill
rejects
area,
which
contained
only
mill
rejects
over
an
ash
base.
This
dedicated
mill
rejects
area
represented
less
than
7
percent
of
the
total
area
of
the
144
acre
impoundment.
The
assumption
that
arsenic
is
being
released
to
groundwater
from
the
entire
facility
at
the
porewater
concentration
in
the
mill
rejects
area
grossly
overestimates
the
arsenic
release
to
groundwater.
Segregated
management
of
mill
rejects
as
was
practiced
at
the
MO
site
is
not
typical
of
most
utility
impoundments.
(
USWAG00037)

It
does
also
appear
that
the
runs
did
not
include
the
higher
end
concentrations
reported
in
two
site
investigations.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
26
FF2P­
S0363.

37
XIV
­
37
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
I.
Adequacy
of
Coordination
Public
interest
group
commenters
expressed
concern
that
the
ground­
water
and
nongroundwater
risk
assessments
were
not
adequately
coordinated.
One
of
the
commenters
was
specifically
concerned
that
the
assessments
were
not
conducted
in
such
a
way
as
to
allow
aggregation
of
risks.
The
commenter
was
also
concerned
that
the
assessments
used
different
receptor
characteristics.

Response:
EPA
believes
that
the
ground­
water
and
non­
groundwater
risk
assessments
were
adequately
coordinated.
Both
assessments
used
data
from
the
same
waste
characterization
sources
and
used
identical
values
for
waste
management
unit
characteristics.
Both
assessments
were
double
high­
end
assessments,
used
similar
screening
procedures,
presented
results
in
similar
format,
and
were
subject
to
the
same
degree
of
peer
review.
The
Agency
acknowledges
that
it
did
not
attempt
to
aggregate
risks
from
the
ground­
water
and
non­
groundwater
pathways,
but
does
not
believe
such
aggregation
is
appropriate,
given
that
very
different
populations
would
be
exposed
via
these
pathways.
Exposures
to
above
ground
risks
from
agricultural
use
are
to
current
populations.
Ground­
water
contamination
may
take
generations
or
hundreds
of
years
to
reach
human
populations.

The
commenter's
concern
regarding
the
use
of
different
receptor
characteristics
centered
on
the
premise
that
using
different
receptor
characteristics
"
makes
it
impossible
to
aggregate
the
ground­
water
and
non­
groundwater
risks
into
a
total
human
health
risk."
As
mentioned
in
the
preceding
paragraph,
EPA
asserts
that
it
is
inappropriate
to
aggregate
risks
that
are
occurring
at
different
time
periods.
Review
of
Table
5­
23
in
Technical
Background
Document
for
the
Supplemental
Report
to
Congress
on
Remaining
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion
Wastes:
Ground­
Water
Pathway
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment26
shows
that
the
time
to
reach
risk
generally
requires
time
periods
that
are
in
the
thousands
of
years.
However,
the
time
to
reach
maximum
risk
for
the
nongroundwater
pathways
is
achieved
during
the
operating
life
of
the
waste
management
unit
which,
depending
on
the
waste
management
scenario,
is
assumed
to
be
30
to
40
years.
The
one
possible
exception
to
this
involves
vanadium
in
oil
combustion
wastes
managed
in
an
onsite
monofill
where
the
time
to
peak
ground­
water
concentration
was
80
years.
For
this
scenario
the
non­
groundwater
analysis
assumed
a
monofill
life
of
30
years
and
therefore
maximum
risks
would
have
been
achieved
within
that
30
year
period.
While
the
times
to
maximum
risk
were
much
closer
for
this
scenario,
EPA
still
considers
the
aggregation
of
ground­
water
and
non­
groundwater
risks
inappropriate,
primarily
because,
as
noted
in
other
responses,
they
occur
at
times
that
may
be
as
much
as
hundreds
of
years
apart.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
38
XIV
­
38
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
I.
Adequacy
of
Coordination
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
There
is
inconsistency
between
the
dose­
response
assessment
used
in
the
groundwater
and
nongroundwater
risk
assessment.
(
ALA00036)

Despite
the
Agency's
assurance
that
every
effort
was
made
to
coordinate
the
groundwater
pathway
analysis
and
the
aboveground
exposure
assessment,
a
close
reading
reveals
that
the
modeling
assumptions
for
each
are
such
that
the
exposures
are
evaluated
separately.
(
ALA00036)

While
the
Agency
claims
that
every
effort
was
made
to
coordinate
the
groundwater
pathway
analysis
and
the
aboveground
exposure
assessment,
it
appears
that
these
evaluations
were
done
completely
separately.
(
49CAO00058)

EPA
has
not
included
such
aggregate
human
health
risk
figures
in
its
Report
to
Congress.
It
seems
that
this
was
not
done.
in
part.
because
the
analyses
were
not
conducted
in
such
a
way
as
to
facilitate
or
allow
for
it.
(
ALA00292)

However,
as
stated
in
the
EPA's
own
draft
Groundwater
Pathway
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment,
the
groundwater
and
non­
groundwater
analyses
are
inconsistent
with
respect
to
the
characteristics
of
the
receptors.
This
is
the
inconsistency
that
makes
it
impossible
to
aggregate
the
groundwater
and
non­
groundwater
risks
into
a
total
human
health
risk
estimate.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
27
FF2P­
S0326.

39
XIV
­
39
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
J.
Waste
Management
Unit
Size
A
public
interest
group
commenter
stated
that
no
data
were
available
on
the
area
of
oil
combustion
waste
surface
impoundments
and
argued
that
EPA
should
collect
this
data.
The
commenter
also
argued
that
EPA
consistently
underestimated
waste
management
unit
sizes.

Response:
Data
were
available
on
the
area
of
oil
combustion
waste
surface
impoundments
in
the
EPRI
report
on
oil
combustion
waste
management.
27
EPA
used
these
data
to
describe
oil
combustion
impoundment
size
in
the
Report
to
Congress
and
to
calculate
input
values
for
the
risk
assessment.
EPA
also
disagrees
that
waste
management
unit
sizes
were
consistently
underestimated.
For
its
assessments,
EPA
used
data
from
surveys
sponsored
by
industry
associations
to
estimate
the
size
and
characteristics
of
the
waste
management
units.
These
data
represented
the
best
available
for
characterizing
these
particular
waste
management
units.
EPA
used
the
distribution
of
these
values
as
inputs
in
its
Monte
Carlo
analyses,
including
very
large
units.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
40
XIV
­
40
XIV.
RISK
METHODOLOGY
IN
GENERAL
J.
Waste
Management
Unit
Size
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
In
the
assumptions
for
developing
hypothetical
waste
management
units,
EPA
desired
to
use
50th
and
95th
percentile
values
for
estimating
the
unit
size.
However,
comparison
the
area
selected
in
the
assessment
with
data
from
an
industry
survey
indicates
that
EPA
consistently
underestimated
the
size
of
the
units
in
the
assessment
compared
to
actual
field
data.
(
ALA00036)

lt
is
difficult
to
assess
the
parameters
chosen
for
WMU
area
as
only
summary
data
are
provided
in
the
docket,
from
the
EPRI
survey
of
waste
management
practices.
Even
the
technical
background
document
fails
to
provide
any
detailed
information.
Based
on
the
summary
statistics
provided,
the
WMU
area
chosen
for
the
CCW
and
FBC
landfills
seem
reasonable.
In
contrast,
no
data
are
available
regarding
the
area
of
oil
waste
impoundments.
As
a
result.
only
one
oil
waste
unit
was
modeled,
with
dimensions
calculated
from
an
estimate
of
oil
waste
generation.
The
Agency
should
request
impoundment
area
information
from
the
oil
waste
facilities
that
participated
in
the
EPRI
survey.
This
information
should
be
readily
available
and
is
critical
to
evaluating
wind
erosion
from
surface
impoundments.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
XV
­
1
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
Many
commenters
provided
input
on
the
design
of
EPACMTP,
the
groundwater
model
used
in
the
analysis.
One
of
the
commenters
stated
that
even
the
selection
and
use
of
EPACMTP
was
inappropriate.
These
and
other
commenters
questioned
one
or
more
of
the
specific
assumptions
or
input
values
used
in
its
application.
Specific
concerns
are
addressed
below
in
this
section
following
this
general
response.

Response:
EPA
is
carefully
reviewing
all
of
the
comments
on
the
model.
The
process
of
thoroughly
investigating
all
of
the
comments
will
take
substantially
more
time
to
complete
than
is
available
within
the
court
deadline
for
issuing
this
regulatory
determination.
Accordingly,
we
are
not
relying
on
the
results
of
our
ground
water
pathway
risk
analysis
in
support
of
today's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes.
As
explained
elsewhere,
in
making
today's
regulatory
determination
we
have
relied
on
other
information
related
to
the
potential
danger
that
may
result
from
the
management
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes.

Meanwhile,
we
will
continue
with
our
analysis
of
comments
on
the
groundwater
model
and
risk
analysis.
At
this
time,
we
have
not
determined
which,
if
any,
changes
are
appropriate
to
make
to
the
model.
If
our
investigations
reveal
that
a
re­
analysis
of
groundwater
risks
is
appropriate,
we
will
re­
evaluate
today's
decisions
as
warranted.

In
addition
to
our
ongoing
review
of
comments
on
the
groundwater
model,
one
element
of
the
model
 
the
metals
partitioning
component
called
"
MINTEQ"
 
has
been
proposed
for
review
by
EPA's
Science
Advisory
Board
(
SAB).
When
such
additional
review
is
completed,
we
will
take
this
into
account
in
any
overall
decision
to
re­
evaluate
today's
regulatory
determination.

Aside
from
model
design
issues,
EPA
believes
the
assumptions
and
input
values
it
used
in
this
application
of
EPACMTP
were
appropriate,
given
the
specific
characteristics
of
FFC
wastes
and
the
environmental
settings
of
FFC
facilities.
The
concerns
raised
by
the
commenters
with
regard
to
individual
FFC
waste­
specific
EPACMTP
inputs
and
assumptions
are
addressed
in
the
responses
below.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
2
XV
­
2
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
workhorse
model
that
the
EPA
has
adopted
for
deterministic
risk
assessment
does
not
appear
to
be
robust
enough
to
adequately
address
the
many
and
varied
conditions
that
are
encountered
with
the
management
practices
of
FBC
ashes.
It
was
developed
as
a
"
generalized"
model
to
fit
national
needs.
(
ARIPPA00019)

The
extreme
conservatism
has
resulted
in
the
application
of
unreliable,
mutually
exclusive
data
that,
on
occasion,
results
in
scenario
parameters
that
break
basic
scientific
principals.
Selecting
the
input
parameters
more
carefully
in
order
to
more
realistically
represent
even
extreme
conditions
for
managed
FBC
ashes
should
dramatically
change
the
outcome
of
the
Report
and
position
of
the
EPA
on
FBC
ash.
(
ARIPPA00019)

The
human
health
risk
assessment
used
a
hypothetical
groundwater
exposure
that
is
overly
conservative.
The
EPA
should
have
used
more
realistic
exposure
point
concentrations
within
a
realistic
time
frame.
In
PG&
E
Gen's
view,
the
selection
of
the
EPACMTP
fate
and
transport
model,
input
parameters
to
that
model
...
are
overly
conservative,
as
discussed
below.
(
PG&
E00023)

The
selection
and
use
of
EPACMTP
to
model
the
fate
and
transport
of
metals
in
the
environment
is
inappropriate.
The
model
oversimplifies
what
happens
to
metals
in
the
environment
and
fails
to
consider
likely
documented
reactions
(
see
comments
below).
EPA,
in
fact,
recommends
the
use
of
other
models
(
such
as
MINTEQA2,
GEOCHEM)
for
predicting
metals
fate
and
transport
(
McLean
and
Bledsoe,
1992).
(
PG&
E00023)

Dr.
Paul
of
Southern
Illinois
University
also
noted
some
fundamental
flaws
in
the
EPA
computer
model
used
to
construct
a
risk
assessment
on
the
groundwater
pathway.
Dr.
Paul
highlighted
some
of
those
concerns­
in
his
May
2
1
testimony,
and
his
final
written
comments
provide
considerably
greater
detail.
(
NMA00024)

It
is
my
belief
that
the
real
world
could
not
validate
even
the
isolated
harms
identified
in
the
computer
models
because
the
models
were
fed
extreme
inputs
and
because
the
model
does
not
treat
important
natural
attenuation
processes.
(
NMA00024A)

To
summarize,
the
pertinent
part
of
EPA's
groundwater
modeling
methodology
was
not
reviewed
by
SAB,
and
the
modeling
methodology
suffers
from
substantial
flaws
as
identified
in
the
enclosed
report
(
which
in
some
cases
were
previously
acknowledged
by
EPA
in
other
contexts
but
never
properly
revised
for
this
effort).
These
flaws
produce
substantial
understatements
of
potential
groundwater
risks,
and
consequently
explain
(
at
least
in
large
part)
why
EPA's
metals
modeling
is
inconsistent
with
EPA
damage
case
information
in
a
variety
of
RCRA
contexts.
(
EDF00021)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
XV
­
3
The
inadequacies
of
the
risk
assessment
suggest
that
the
depiction
of
risks
is
incorrect
in
the
risk
characterization
portion
of
the
analysis.
(
ALA00036)

By
using
extremely
conservative
assumptions
in
the
model
that
fail
to
mimic
real
world
conditions,
the
model
produces
exaggerated
risk
conclusions
divorced
from
reality
and
ceases
to
be
a
tool
for
sound
regulatory
decision­
making.
(
USWAG00037)

As
discussed
in
detail
below,
the
chosen
model,
Composite
Model
for
Leachate
Migration
with
Transformation
Product
("
CMTP"),
has
been
applied
to
conditions
beyond
its
capabilities,
and
extremely
conservative
assumptions
have
compounded
the
error.
(
USWAG00037)

Not
only
did
EPA
neglect
the
wealth
of
real
world
data
in
favor
of
a
model
that
is
ill­
equipped
to
simulate
the
conditions
occurring
in
FFC
waste
landfills
and
surface
impoundments,
but
the
Agency
modeled
conditions
that
are
too
far
removed
from
reality
to
form
a
defensible
foundation
for
regulatory
action.
(
USWAG00037)

However,
with
the
decision
to
use
a
predictive
model
as
a
policymaking
tool
comes
the
obligation
to
base
the
selection
of
input
parameters
on
sound
science.
The
assumptions
that
form
the
basis
of
the
Bevill
modeling
effort
run
afoul
of
that
duty
and
undermine
their
national
applicability.
As
one
of
the
two
peer
reviewers
of
the
non­
groundwater
risk
analysis
stated,
"
The
scenarios
addressed
by
the
document
cannot
be
applied
on
a
nationwide
basis.
"
(
USWAG00037)

USWAG
comments
provide
detailed,
technical
information
demonstrating
the
risks
are
overstated
by
several
orders
of
magnitude.
Reiteration
of
the
technical
arguments
is
unnecessary.
However,
APS
strongly
agrees
with
USWAG's
position
that
...
the
modeling
incorporated
numerous
overly
conservative
and
technically
inappropriate
assumptions
including
the
questionable
application
of
pore
water
data
...
Cumulatively,
the
numerous
technical
issues
associated
with
the
model
invalidate
the
agency's
concern
with
respect
to
the
groundwater
risk
associated
with
arsenic.
(
APSC00043)

Because
of
their
limitations,
environmental
models
(
including
risk
assessment
models)
quite
often
substantially
overstate
real­
world
exposure
and
risks.
They
are
even
more
conservative
when
their
screening
levels
are
set
at
unrealistically
low
thresholds
and
their
internal
("
default")
assumptions
maximize
projected
impacts,
defining
"
significant"
impacts
very
stringently.
(
CIBO00052)

The
groundwater
modeling
on
which
the
analysis
is
based,
according
to
peer
review
comments,
has
deficiencies
in
at
least
13
steps,
including
but
not
limited
to
fracture
flow,
the
understanding
of
the
complex
hydrogeologic
conditions
found
in
mine­
land
areas,
and
a
tendency
to
overestimate
leachate
production
rates
and
leachate
concentrations.
(
CIBO00052)

The
risk
assessment
that
models
the
fate
and
transport
of
contaminants
in
ground
water
dramatically
and
falsely
understates
the
real
risks
that
are
occurring
from
disposal
of
fossil
fuel
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
4
XV
­
4
wastes.
The
methodology
used
in
the
risk
assessment
that
is
based
on
EPACMTP
modeling,
is
fundamentally
flawed.
There
are
errors
of
logic,
of
implementation,
of
programming,
and
simple
quality
control,
These
errors
almost
universally
understate
risks.
Even
under
the
conditions
that
the
Agency
purportedly
models,
the
modeling
undercalculates
by
orders
of
magnitudes
the
risks
from
FFCW,
(
See
Use
of
EPACMTP
to
Estimate
Groundwater
Pathway
Risks
From
Land
Disposal
of
Selected
Inorganic
Compounds
by
Norris
and
Hubbard).
(
HEC00056)

At
this
time,
USWAG
finds
it
necessary
to
provide
additional
comment
on
EPA's
risk
modeling
to
specifically
address
comments
filed
by
the
Environmental
Defense
Fund
(
EDF).
Those
comments
allege
that
EPA's
modeling
under­
predicts
concentrations
of
contaminants.
However,
those
views
are
not
based
upon
a
plausible
scientific
foundation
and
do
not
stand
up
to
simple
field
validation.
EDF's
comments
are
based
upon
a
report
by
Noms
&
Hubbard
designed
to
support
the
argument
that
EPA's
model
significantly
understates
the
risk
of
coal
combustion
waste
management.
(
USWAG00275)

In
earlier
comments,
CIBO
pointed
out
with
specificity
the
many
flaws
in
the
models
so
heavily
relied
on
by
EPA.
(
CIBO00280)

There
are
significant
deficiencies
in
each
of
the
steps
in
EPA's
assessment
of
the
human
health
impacts
of
current
FFC
waste
disposal
practices.
The
cumulative
effect
of
these
deficiencies
indicates
that
EPA
has
underestimated
the
human
health
impacts
associated
with
exposure
to
FFC
wastes,
particularly
to
individuals
with
above­
average
exposures.
(
ALA00292)

The
modeling
that
forms
the
basis
of
the
recommendations
fails
to
consider
the
strong
bias
impressed
by
natural
and
manmade
geologic
processes.
(
RICE00041)

The
risk
assessments
are
not
adequate.
There
are
several
ways
in
which
the
risk
assessment
and
exposure
analyses
contained
in
the
Report
are
inadequate
and
inconsistent
with
Agency
policy.
(
49CAO00058)

It
appears
that
EPA's
concern
is
based
on
the
results
of
a
model
that
indicates
that
the
concentration
of
arsenic
in
groundwater
at
a
receptor
well
could
reach
the
health­
based
level
of
arsenic
after
3,000
years.
EPA's
model,
among
other
items,
does
not
appear
to
account
for
the
potential
for
these
wastes
to
exhibit
self­
cementing
properties
leading
to
very
low
hydraulic
conductivity
...
Other
issues
raised
by
EPA's
model
were
discussed
in
ARIPPA's
6/
l2/
99
comments,
which
are
incorporated
herein
by
reference.
(
ARIPPA00273)

PG&
E
Gen's
initial
comments
included
risk
assessment
criticism
of
EPA's
model
and
assumptions
that
were
used
to
generate
the
remote
risk
to
human
health
for
arsenic
from
agricultural
use
of
FBC
coal
ash.
PG&
E
Gen's
review
identified
numerous
problems
that
cause
the
model
to
overestimate
the
potential
risk
presented
by
this
beneficial
use
of
coal
ash,
such
as
the
choice
of
an
inappropriate
fate
and
transport
model,
unrealistic
geochemical
process
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
5
XV
­
5
assumptions.
(
PG&
E00274)

The
bulk
of
the
[
USWAG]
comments
discuss
...
the
Norris
and
Hubbard
report
on
EPACMTP
modeling.
These
are
the
topics
to
which
I
will
respond.
(
GHIL0012)

It
is
observed
that
the
EPACMTP
modeling
results
under­
predict
concentrations
of
metals
relative
to
the
observations
in
the
real
world
data.
(
GHIL0012)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
6
XV
­
6
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
A.
Model
Design
In
General
EPA's
groundwater
model,
EPACMTP,
was
subjected
to
careful
review
by
stakeholders
on
both
sides
of
today's
rulemaking.
The
following
captures
the
essence
of
this
review.

Industry
commenters
stated
that
prior
SAB
review
of
the
model
concluded
that
the
model
needs
validation
and
has
deficiencies
in
manifesting
an
understanding
of
the
complex
hydrogeologic
conditions
found
in
waste
placement
areas
with
the
resultant
tendency
to
overestimate
leachate
production
rates
and
leachate
concentrations.
Other
specific
design
concerns
raised
by
industry
commenters
included
the
following:
the
model
uses
insufficient
thermodynamic
data
for
metal
species
and
interactions;
the
model
does
not
account
for
the
effect
of
redox
potential
on
metal
speciation
and
mobility;
the
model
has
the
potential
to
produce
initial
concentrations
for
metals
that
exceed
known
chemical
solubilities;
and
the
model
does
not
addresses
the
situation
in
which
a
background
concentration
of
the
metal
of
concern
exists
in
either
the
vadose
or
saturated
zone.
One
of
these
commenters
suggested
that
the
Department
of
Energy
(
DOE)
has
developed
technically
sophisticated
models
to
assess
certain
complex
geologies
and
that
EPA
should
coordinate
with
DOE
to
improve
its
model
design.

Public
interest
group
commenters
also
raised
specific
questions
about
the
design
of
the
model.
These
included
the
following
major
concerns:
The
model
incorrectly
assumes
an
unsaturated
soil
zone
that
will
absorb
contaminant
metals;
the
model
assumes
there
is
no
change
to
ground
water
except
for
the
addition
of
one
RCRA
metal
as
a
contaminant
(
thus
ignoring
metals
loading
from
multiple
contaminants
that
compete
for
a
finite
number
of
adsorption
sites);
the
model
assumes
ground
water
will
remain
buffered
with
respect
to
pH
and
not
change
as
a
result
of
waste
leachate;
and
the
model
produces
a
virtually
inexhaustible
and
unrealistic
pollution
sink
in
the
unsaturated
zone.
One
of
these
commenters
provided
a
detailed
technical
report
documenting
model
deficiencies
that
may
have
led
to
an
underestimate
of
risk.

Response:
As
a
direct
result
of
comments
received,
EPA/
OSW
and
EPA/
ORD
are
engaged
in
an
item­
by­
item
review
of
EPACMTP
and
its
metals
partitioning
component,
MINTEQA2.
As
appropriate,
we
will
review
other
modeling
approaches.
While
it
is
not
known
at
this
time
whether
risk
estimates
will
change,
either
up
or
down,
EPA
expects
when
the
review
is
completed
to
have
greater
assurance
of
the
model's
reliability.
The
review
may
result
in
a
reevaluation
of
the
potential
groundwater
risks
posed
by
management
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
and
EPA
action
to
revise
today's
determination,
if
appropriate.
Specific
comments
are
addressed
below,
but
in
many
cases
must
await
the
model/
MINTEQ
review
already
noted.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
7
XV
­
7
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
A.
Model
Design
in
General
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
However,
when
attempts
to
apply
it
to
site
specific
or
regional
applications,
many
of
which
are
very
complex
due
to
pre­
existing
deep
mines,
the
over
simplifications
that
are
required
to
be
made
in
order
to
make
it
function
result
in
"
high­
end"
scenarios
that
are
not
only
unrealistic
but
which
violate
basic
scientific
principals.
(
ARIPPA00019)

If
we
are
to
assess
the
"
quality"
of
the
EPACMTP
risk
assessment
code,
we
can
only
judge
it
on
the
basis
of
the
public
documents
provided
by
the
EPA.
The
latest
retrievable
citation
to
this
code
is
EPA­
SAB­
EEC­
95­
010,
which
constitutes
a
peer
review
of
the
code
initiated
by
the
EPA.
In
this
review,
the
committee
is
critical
of
the
coding
and
has
recommended
13
steps
to
insure
its
validity.
Since
this
recommendation
is
the
last
public
reference
to
the
code,
we
can
not
make
any
assumptions
on
the
status
of
the
implementation
of
the
peer
committee's
recommendations
and
can
only
go
by
the
peer
review
committees
published
statements.
(
ARIPPA00019)

Recent
publications
by
Nishimura
and
Robins
[
1998]
and
Bothe
and
Brown
[
1998,1999]
both
contribute
new
thermodynamic
data
relating
to
the
solubilities
of
calcium
arsenate
compounds.
Indeed
these
new
data
support
the
identification
of
new
compounds
in
the
phase
stability
ranges
that
encompasses
the
chemical
and
environmental
conditions
under
consideration
in
this
review.
The
Ground­
Water
Pathway
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment
suggests
that
only
16
metal
species
were
considered
in
the
modeling
activity.
This
restricted
use
of
thermodynamic
data
is
clearly
inadequate
especially
in
light
of
the
importance
of
ion
pairing
in
this
predictive
calculation
and
the
impact
of
ionic
strength.
Additionally,
Eh
can
and
does
play
an
important
role
for
poly­
valent
metals
where
solubilities
can
vary
significantly
for
different
valence
states
e.
g.
the
EPA's
reevaluation
of
chromium.
(
ARIPPA00019)

Insufficient
thermodynamic
data
for
metal
species
and
their
interactions
were
considered
in
the
model.
(
ARIPPA00019)

The
assessment
that
is
required
of
EPA
is
not
at
all
different
from
the
activities
that
are
being
undertaken
for
the
assessment
of
a
Federal
nuclearwaste
repository.
The
performance
assessment
groups
must
deal
with
release
and
the
transport
and
fate
of
radionuclides
in
the
environment.
This
community
of
researchers
has
developed
models
that
address
fluid
flow
in
fractured
media,
in
saturated
and
unsaturated
zone
and
structurally
complex
geology.
Both
the
Performance
Assessment
Group
at
Sandia
National
Laboratory
and
Argonne
National
Laboratory
­­
West
have
the
capabilities
to
conduct
such
risk
assessments
and
have
performed
them
on
comparably
complex
designs.
Golder
Associates
of
Seattle,
WA
have
developed
what
appears
to
be
the
code
that
will
establish
the
benchmark
for
all
future
assessment
calculations.
Lawrence
Livermore
Laboratory
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
8
XV
­
8
has
for
decades
maintained
the
state­
of­
the­
art
geochemical
codes
for
thermodynamic
calculation
of
reaction
pathways.
Perhaps
inter­
agency
cooperation
between
the
DOE
and
EPA
is
appropriate
at
this
point.
(
ARIPPA00019)

The
mobility
of
metals
is
also
largely
dependent
upon
metal
speciation.
The
redox
potential
or
oxidation/
reduction
potential
(
ORP)
of
the
surrounding
aquifer
materials
determines
the
speciation
of
a
metal
(
Deutsch,
1997).
The
EPACMTP
model
does
not
account
for
the
effects
of
ORP
on
metal
specification,
and
hence,
mobility.
Natural
changes
in
the
speciation
can
significantly
further
decrease
the
dissolved
metal
concentration
downgradient
from
source
areas.
(
PG&
E00023)

While
EPA
claims
EPACMTP
was
reviewed
by
EPA's
Science
Advisory
Board
(
SAB),
this
assertion
is
only
partially
true.
In
fact,
MINTEQA2
was
expressly
not
evaluated,
and
SAB
indicated
"
the
accuracy
of
the
model
estimates
must
be
verified
and
the
documentation
of
this
use
needs
to
be
clarified".
Therefore,
SAB
has
not
reviewed
one
of
the
most
crucial
components
of
EPA's
groundwater
modeling
underlying
the
Report
to
Congress.
(
EDF00021)

As
the
CKD
experience
demonstrates,
the
releases
from
these
large
volume
waste
disposal
units
can
overwhelm
any
neutralization
capacity
the
uncontaminated
groundwater
may
offer,
and
thus
background
pH
offers
only
temporary
protection
in
such
circumstances.
In
ascertaining
"
potential"
risks,
it
is
appropriate
for
EPA
to
assume
the
groundwater
underneath
and
in
close
proximity
to
the
management
units
will
reflect
the
pH
of
the
waste
when
large
quantities
of
waste
is
disposed
in
or
near
or
the
water
table.
(
EDF00021)

In
effect,
the
errors
in
EPA's
modeling
for
the
Report
to
Congress
produce
a
virtually
inexhaustible
and
unrealistic
pollution
sink
in
the
unsaturated
zone,
effectively
capturing
most
of
the
pollutants
so
that
they
never
reach
the
groundwater.
(
EDF00021)

EPA's
CMTP
groundwater
fate
and
transport
model
is
ill­
suited
for
modeling
some
of
the
complex
physical­
chemical
phenomena
present
in
the
utility
waste
management
units
under
study.
In
particular,
the
model's
defects
preclude
accurate
modeling
of
arsenic
fate
and
transport.
(
USWAG00037)

The
groundwater
modeling
on
which
the
analysis
is
based,
according
to
peer
review
comments,
has
deficiencies
in
at
least
13
steps,
including
but
not
limited
to
fracture
flow,
the
understanding
of
the
complex
hydrogeologic
conditions
found
in
mine­
land
areas,
and
a
tendency
to
overestimate
leachate
production
rates
and
leachate
concentrations.
For
example,
the
peer
review
panel
recognized
in
1995
that
the
model
had
the
potential
to
produce
initial
concentrations
for
metals
that
exceed
the
known
chemical
solubilities.
The
Science
Advisory
Board
(
EPA­
SAB­
EEC­
92­
003)
first
disclosed
this
defect
in
1992.
Again
in
its
draft
of
the
Ground­
Water
Impact
Assessment
Document,
EPA
freely
admits
that
it
"
most
likely
overestimated
leachate
generation
and
leachate
concentrations."
Furthermore,
no
mechanism
appears
to
be
available
to
address
the
situation
in
which
a
background
concentration
of
the
metal
of
concern
exists
in
either
the
vadose
or
saturated
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
9
XV
­
9
zone,
thus
further
exacerbating
the
overestimate
of
leachate
generation
and
its
impact.
(
CIBO00052)

To
cite
but
one
flaw,
one
cannot
determine
whether
the
EPA
CMTP
risk
assessment
code
utilized
by
EPA
included
the
utilization
of
the
13
steps
recommended
by
the
peer
review
committee.
This
flaw
is
fully
explained
in
materials
prepared
by
Professor
Barry
E.
Sheetz
(
Pennsylvania
State
University),
which
have
been
submitied
to
EPA.
(
CIBO00280)

We
recommend
that
EPA
refer
to
the
Agency's
Soil
Screening
Guidance
that
addresses
the
risks
associated
with
ground
water
contamination
from
contaminants
leaching
from
soil.
This
guidance
provides
an
extensive
review
of
the
EPACMTP
model
and
other
unsaturated
zone
models
that
was
conducted
by
EPA's
ORD
laboratories
in
Oklahoma
and
Georgia
(
EPA,
1998,
pages
68­
80).
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
10
XV
­
10
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
B.
Precipitation/
co­
precipitation
Several
industry
commenters
indicated
that
EPACMTP
is
not
capable
of
modeling
the
significant
precipitation
and
co­
precipitation
phenomena
that
they
believe
takes
place
in
waste
management
units.
As
a
result
of
not
considering
these
natural
attenuation
phenomena,
industry
argues
contaminant
transport
was
overestimated
and
risks,
therefore,
were
overestimated.

Response:
The
extent
of
precipitation/
co­
precipitation
occurring
will
be
governed
by
chemistry
of
the
vadose
zone
and
the
saturated
zone,
and
EPA
acknowledges
that
the
methodology
for
calculating
this
may
be
improved
as
part
of
the
examination
of
broader
geochemical
interactions
as
planned
for
the
overall
model
review.
Precipitation
and
co­
precipitation
are
dependent
phenomena.
This
issue
is
discussed
further
under
Topix
XV.
L,
below.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
11
XV
­
11
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
B.
Precipitation/
co­
precipitation
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
concentration
of
dissolved
metals
can
be
attenuated
in
the
subsurface
environment
by
three
main
processes:
1)
dispersion,
2)
adsorption,
and
3)
precipitation
(
Deutsch,
1997)
as
well
as
others
(
McLean
and
Bledsoe,
1992).
The
EPACMTP
model
assumes
that
metals
undergo
attenuation
by
dispersion
and
adsorption
o&
and
does
not
account
for
the
effects
of
precipitation.
This
is
a
shortcoming
because
the
precipitation
of
metal
minerals
in
the
subsurface
has
been
well
documented
to
occur
naturally
(
Deutsch,
1997;
Lindsay,
1979;
McBride,
1980;
McLean
and
Bledsoe,
1992;
Rai,
et
al.,
1987;
and
Sposito,
1989)
and
can
significantly
decrease
the
metal
concentrations
in
groundwater
downgradient
from
source
areas.
(
PG&
E00023)

EPA
modeling
did
not
consider
all
natural
attenuation
factors
...
The
model
appears
to
neglect
coprecipitation
with
iron
or
adsorptive
processes
on
soils
or
even
the
coal
combustion
product
itself.
In
my
work
I
have
found
these
processes
to
be
extremely
significant.
(
NM00024A)

While
CMTP
can
model
adsorption
and
desorption
effects,
it
cannot
account
for
precipitation
and
co­
precipitation,
which
are
significant
processes
that
are
undeniably
occurring
in
the
waste
management
units.
In
the
co­
management
unit
and
mine
placement
contexts,
these
chemical
processes
are
controlling."
Without
consideration
of
attenuation
by
precipitation
and
coprecipitation
EPA
used
the
input
porewater
concentrations
obtained
from
within
the
waste
management
unit
or
mine
in
effect
to
represent
the
leachate
emerging
from
the
unit.
As
a
result,
the
modeled
dilution
and
attenuation
factors
("
DAFs")
are
much
lower
than
the
real
world
data
demonstrate.
(
USWAG00037)

CMTP
is
not
capable
of
modeling
the
geochemistry
that
occurs
in
the
waste
management
units
under
study.
Precipitation
and
co­
precipitation
of
arsenic
in
co­
management
units
is
a
significant
and
well­
understood
process.
The
oxidation
of
pyrites
in
the
waste
management
unit
yields
a
low
pH
and
high
concentrations
of
iron.
When
the
resulting
acidic
leachate
flows
through
the
ash,
neutralization
and
co­
precipitation
occur
very
rapidly
and
within
a
short
distance.
This
geochemical
process
is
very
clearly
demonstrated
in
the
vertical
concentration
distribution
in
porewater
samples.
The
full
data
set
indicates
that
concentrations
attenuated
rapidly
downward
through
the
sample
before
the
water
table
was
reached.
The
high
end
value
of
9.64
mg/
L
chosen
by
EPA
is
two
orders
of
magnitude
higher
than
the
value
measured
at
contact
with
the
water
table.
Figure
4­
5
of
the
MO
report
shows
that
the
arsenic
concentration
dropped
to
approximately
0.025
mg/
L
vertically
through
the
sample
core.
Since
the
model
does
not
perform
an
attenuation
calculation,
EPA
has
effectively
multiplied
the
arsenic
concentration
entering
the
water
table
by
two
orders
of
magnitude.
Dr.
Paul
labeled
EPA's
failure
to
account
for
this
natural
attenuation
a
"
technical
catastrophe."
(
USWAG00037)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
12
XV
­
12
In
light
of
the
field
data
and
knowledge
of
the
prevalence
of
precipitation
and
co­
precipitation
in
these
units,
EPA
used
unrealistically
low,
fixed
values
for
distribution
coefficient
(
Kd)
for
several
metals.
The
low
Kd
resulted
in
an
unnecessarily
long
modeled
transport
distance
and
high
modeled
concentration
of
constituents
in
groundwater.
The
retardation
factor
(
Rd)
value
(
calculated
based
on
an
assumed
Kd
value)
used
by
EPA
is
representative
of
reversible
arsenic
adsorption
reactions
but
not
irreversible
precipitation
and
co­
precipitation
reactions.
The
EPRI
field
data
indicate
that
precipation
and
co­
precipitation
are
the
controlling
reactions.
(
USWAG00037)

APS
strongly
agrees
with
USWAG's
position
that
...
precipitation
and
co­
precipitation
are
significant
processes
occurring
in
waste
management
units,
and
the
use
of
the
model
Composite
Model
for
Leachate
Migration
with
Transformation
Products
(
CMTP),
as
applied,
is
inappropriate
since
CMTP
can
not
account
for
these
processes.
(
APSC00043)

The
risk
assessment
that
models
the
fate
and
transport
of
contaminants
in
ground
water
dramatically
and
falsely
understates
the
real
risks
that
are
occurring
from
disposal
of
fossil
fuel
wastes.
The
methodology
used
in
the
risk
assessment
that
is
based
on
EPACMTP
modeling,
is
fundamentally
flawed.
There
are
errors
of
logic,
of
implementation,
of
programming,
and
simple
quality
control.
These
errors
almost
universally
understate
risks.
Even
under
the
conditions
that
the
Agency
purportedly
models,
the
modeling
undercalculates
by
orders
of
magnitudes
the
risks
from
FFCW.
(
See
Use
of
EPACMTP
to
Estimate
Groundwater
Pathway
Risks
From
Land
Disposal
of
Selected
Inorganic
Compounds
by
Norris
and
Hubbard).
(
HEC00056)

The
agency
modeling
assumes
an
unsaturated
soil
zone
beneath
the
site
that
will
absorb
contaminant
metals
before
they
reach
groundwater,
and
a
saturated
aquifer
of
clean
water
that
will
serve
to
dilute
contaminants.
These
assumptions
ignore
the
fact
that
FFCW,
and
CCW
in
particular,
are
sometimes
currently
disposed
and
are
proposed
to
be
disposed
in
a
setting
below
the
water
table
and
where
the
waste
mass
itself
replaces
the
entire
thickness
of
the
aquifer(
s).
The
agency
assumes
there
is
no
change
to
groundwater
except
the
addition
of
one
RCRA
metal
as
a
contaminant.
This
assumption
ignores
the
fact
that
metals
loading
from
multiple
contaminants
compete
for
a
finite
number
of
absorption
sites.
(
HEC00056)

The
Agency
modeling
assumes
a
pristine
soil
and
a
dilute
groundwater,
with
no
natural,
predisposal
loading
of
absorption
sites.
This
assumption
ignores
natural
soil
conditions
and
the
fact
that
millions
of
tons
of
FFCW
disposed
in
lagoons
and
monofills
below
the
water
table
will
not
leave
the
natural
groundwater
chemistry
intact.
Rather,
the
leachate
will
displace
natural
groundwater
with
vastly
higher
concentrations
of
contaminants
other
than
RCRA
metals.
Studies
performed
for
EPA's
Determination
on
cement
kiln
dust
(
CKD)
demonstrated
the
enhanced
migration
and
increased
risk
afforded
by
leachates
with
high
dissolved
solid
loads,
but
these
lessons
are
ignored
in
this
Determination.
(
HEC00056)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
13
XV
­
13
The
Agency
modeling
assumes
the
natural
groundwater
will
remain
buffered
with
respect
to
pH.
This
assumption
ignores
the
fact
that
natural
groundwater
used
in
the
exercise
has
very
little
buffering
capacity
and
the
mountainous
masses
of
wastes
not
only
generate
dangerous
pHs
but
also
incredible
concentrations
of
alkalinity
or
acidity.
This
choice
to
ignore
this
fact
is,
again,
in
spite
of
what
was
learned
with
the
earlier
CKD
determination.
And,
while
FFCWs
can
range
from
alkaline
to
acidic,
the
ability
of
soil
to
retard
contamination
migration
is
highest
in
the
neutral
range
modeled
by
the
agency
and
lowest
at
both
the
low
and
high
pH
ranges
demonstrated
by
the
FFCW.
(
HEC00056)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
28
FF2P­
S0363,
Section
8.

29
FF2P­
S0361,
Attachment
6
(
Sensitivity
Analysis):
Mass
Balance
Check.

14
XV
­
14
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
C
and
D.
Constant
Source
and
Ultimate
Leachability
Several
industry
commenters
stated
that
the
model
inappropriately
used
a
constant
source
concentration,
while
actual
source
concentrations
should
decline
over
time.
Commenters
also
expressed
concern
that
the
model
appeared
to
assume
that
100
percent
of
the
mass
of
trace
constituents
is
available
for
leaching,
and
suggested
that
only
10
percent
of
the
constituents
in
CCW
are
leachable.

Response:
EPA
agrees
that
the
`
constant
source'
assumption
may
be
conservative,
depending
on
the
total
contaminant
available,
and
configuration
and
life
of
the
waste
unit..
The
commenters
correctly
state
that
EPACMTP
uses
a
constant
source
concentration
for
the
landfill
scenario.
The
concentration
of
the
contaminant
as
well
as
the
infiltration
rate
(
leachate
generation
rate)
are
both
held
constant
for
the
duration
of
the
study
period.
EPA
acknowledges
that
these
assumptions
would
overstate
risk
if
the
actual
leachate
concentration
from
the
management
unit
decreases
over
time.
28
The
Agency
did
not
assume
100
percent
availability
for
every
management
scenario.
For
surface
impoundments,
the
model
assumes
a
constant
leaching
rate
for
the
life
of
the
impoundment,
while
for
landfills,
the
model
assumes
a
constant
leaching
rate
for
the
study
period
or
until
100
percent
of
the
contaminant
is
released
from
the
management
unit,
whichever
comes
first.
EPA
has
conducted
follow­
up
analyses
to
verify
that
these
scenarios
did
not
overstate
the
quantity
of
constituents
available
for
leaching.
For
all
constituents
showing
a
risk
greater
than
10­
6
or
HQ=
1
in
the
June
1998
report
for
any
scenario,
a
mass
balance
was
conducted
to
determine
if
the
total
quantity
of
contaminant
that
leaches
out
was
less
than
the
maximum
quantity
that
reasonably
be
placed
in
the
unit.

Results
of
these
analyses
are
presented
in
the
October
1998
Sensitivity
analysis.
29
In
this
analysis,
the
total
quantity
of
contaminant
released
from
the
landfill
scenario
as
assumed
by
the
model
was
found
to
be
no
more
that
13
percent
for
the
principal
contaminants
of
interest,
which
is
consistent
with
the
leachable
proportion
of
10
percent
suggested
by
the
commenter.
These
percentages
are
based
on
the
initial
leachate
concentrations
presented
in
the
June
report;
lower
concentrations
were
used
in
the
October
revised
analyses.
The
percentages
for
the
October
analyses,
if
calculated,
would
be
even
lower
than
those
presented
here.

For
the
surface
impoundment
scenario,
the
results
show
that
33
percent
of
arsenic
would
be
released
under
the
model
assumptions
in
the
impoundment
scenario.
EPA
conducted
a
sensitivity
analysis
for
the
impoundment
infiltration
rate
which
can
be
used
for
assessing
the
commenter's
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
30
FF2P­
S0361,
Attachment
6
(
Sensitivity
Analysis):
Hydraulic
Conductivity
of
Surface
Impoundment
Liners.

15
XV
­
15
suggestion
that
10
percent
leachability
would
be
more
reasonable.
The
results
of
this
sensitivity
analysis
are
presented
in
the
October
1998
report.
30
The
results
suggest
that
the
peak
concentration,
and
therefore
the
risk,
would
decrease
by
approximately
3.3
times
using
this
assumption
(
i.
e.,
the
sensitivity
analysis
suggests
a
linear
relationship
between
peak
receptor
concentration
and
infiltration
rate).
This
would
decrease
the
high­
end
receptor
risk
from
5
x
10­
4
to
about
2
x
10­
4.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
16
XV
­
16
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
C
and
D.
Constant
Source
and
Ultimate
Leachability
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
model
defines
the
concentration
of
metals
present
in
the
ash
and
then
assumes
a
linear
release
with
time.
This
erroneous
assumption
can
result
in
a
total
inventory
of
metals
released
that
exceeds
the
original
inventory
of
metals
specified
in
the
model.
The
linear
release
of
the
metals
over
an
arbitrary
time
interval
has
no
scientific
basis.
(
ARIPPA00019)

Because
of
the
inconsistency
in
the
availability
of
data,
EPA
chose
to
make
sweeping
assumptions
in
order
to
implement
the
modeling.
The
impact
of
this
action
is
to
effectively
provide
an
infinite
source
of
metals
with
infinite
availability
to
groundwater,
which
can
also
result
in
a
total
inventory
of
metals
released
that
exceeds
the
original
inventory
of
metals
specified
in
the
model.
The
linear
release
assumption
presupposes
a
zeroth
order
dissolution
mechanism
for
the
constituents
of
the
FBC
ash
when
in
reality
the
mechanistic
controls
are
diffusion
related.
A
review
of
the
data
presented
to
the
EPA
by
CIBO
and
the
accompanying
ARIPPA
data
clearly
demonstrate
the
3­
to
4­
order
of
magnitude
difference
in
the
bulk
content
of
arsenic
in
the
FBC
ash
and
the
arsenic
that
is
released
upon
leaching
that
can
be
expected.
The
presence
of
a
metal
in
the
solid
waste
does
not
necessarily
mean
that
it
is
labile
when
placed
in
contact
with
water.
Data
in
the
scientific
literature
published
since
this
review
would
support
the
observations
made
by
CIBO
and
ARIPPA.
(
ARIPPA00019)

An
incorrect
dissolution
mechanism
for
the
FBC
ash
is
used.
(
ARIPPA00019)

The
metals
in
the
ash
are
not
released
linearly
over
time
as
the
model
assumes.
(
ARIPPA00019)

The
models
used
a
constant
source
concentration
while
real
coal
combustion
products
exhibit
order
of
magnitude
plus
declining
concentrations
...
The
computer
models
used
by
EPA
in
their
risk
assessment
did
not
reach
the
well
concentrations
used
for
evaluation
for
500
or
3000
years
or
more
at
constant
leachate
source
concentration.
Coal
combustion
products
could
not
be
expected
to
maintain
the
source
concentrations
at
these
original
levels
for
even
the
right
order
of
magnitude
in
the
number
of
years
to
support
this
outcome.
The
model
is
thus
spitting
out
data
that
simply
cannot
happen
outside
of
a
programmed
microchip.
(
NMA00024A)

The
computer
model
assumed
that
all
of
the
trace
metals
in
a
mostly
vitrified
material
were
leachable.
Under
ordinary
water
leaching
conditions,
a
glass
phase
can
be
one
of
the
most
"
leach
proof"
structures
into
which
trace
elements
can
be
placed
...
Although
the
EPA
drew
heavily
on
EPRI
reports
to
obtain
the
concentration
data
for
their
database,
it
appears
the
parts
of
those
reports
stating
that
only
around
10%
of
the
elements
in
a
typical
coal
combustion
product
were
leachable
got
lost
somewhere
before
the
data
reached
the
input
lines
of
the
model.
(
NMA00024A)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
17
XV
­
17
One
related
problem
with
the
analysis
is
that
trace
elements
concentrations
in
the
solids
was
set
using
a
ratio
of
leachate
to
solid
concentration
at
either
the
median
or
95th
percentile.
To
say
that
trace
element
concentration
in
a
solid
is
a
linear
function
of
initial
concentration
requires
a
leap
of
faith
I
could
not
make,
especially
when
I
had
a
set
of
data
on
directly
measured
concentrations
in
the
solids.
(
NMA00024A)

EPA
inappropriately
used
a
constant
source
concentration.
In
the
real
world,
coal
combustion
waste
constituent
source
concentrations
are
expected
to
decline
by
an
order
of
magnitude
or
greater
over
a
short
period
of
time.
However,
EPA's
modeling
exercise
assume
a
constant
highend
source
term.
The
decaying
source
term
concentration
is
readily
apparent
by
reference
to
the
coal
combustion
process.
Combustion
of
coal
results
in
vitrification
of
much
of
the
ash,
producing
a
leach
resistant
glass
phase.
Mineral
phases
settle
and
condense
in
layers
around
the
glass
nuclei,
resulting
in
a
layered
structure.
The
outer
layers
have
a
very
porous
structure
that
provides
a
high
surface
area
and
high
leachability.
However,
the
inner
layers
are
more
resistant
to
leaching.
As
a
result,
open
column
leach
testing
of
coal
ash
generally
exhibits
rapid
arsenic
leaching
from
the
outer
layers,
followed
by
a
decline
to
non­
detect
levels
after
several
months.
(
USWAG00037)

EPA
Incorrectly
assumed
total
availability
of
arsenic
in
coal
combustion
wastes
for
leaching.
EPRI
reports
demonstrate
that
only
approximately
10%
of
the
constituents
in
a
typical
coal
combustion
waste
are
leachable.
Nonetheless,
EPA's
modeling
assumed
that
100%
of
the
mass
of
trace
constituents
is
available
for
leaching.
This
single
erroneous
assumption
resulted
in
excessive
modeled
risk
by
an
order
of
magnitude.
(
USWAG00037)

Professor
Sheetz
further
expressed
concern
about
the
method
in
the
model
for
defining
the
concentration
of
metals
in
the
ash
and
assuming
a
linear
release
time:
"
This
erroneous
assumption
can
result
in
a
total
inventory
of
metals
released
that
exceeds
the
original
inventory
of
metals
specified
in
the
model.
The
linear
release
of
the
metals
over
an
arbitrary
time
interval
haa
no
scientific
basis."
As
part
of
this
discussion,
Professor
Sheetz
pointed
out
that
a
review
of
data
presented
to
EPA
by
CIBO
and
the
accompanying
ARIPPA
data
clearly
demonstrate
the
3
­
to­
4
order
of
magnitude
difference
in
the
bulk
contentof
arsenic
in
the
FBC
ash
and
the
arsenic
that
is
released
upon
leaching
that
can
be
expected.
(
CIBO00280)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
18
XV
­
18
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
E.
Duration
of
Modeling
An
industry
commenter
suggested
that
modeling
to
a
time
horizon
of
10,000
years
was
too
long
a
period
(
given,
for
example,
uncertainty
about
climatic
conditions),
and
suggested
a
period
of
100
years
would
be
more
appropriate.
In
contrast,
a
public
interest
group
commenter
expressed
concern
that
the
modeling
accounted
for
release
during
an
impoundment's
active
lifetime
only,
without
accounting
for
a
post­
closure
period
that
may
have
been
preceded
by
impoundment
drainage
and
reclamation.

Response:
EPA
disagrees
that
a
100
year
time
frame
should
be
used
in
evaluating
receptor
risks
from
landfill
disposal
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes.
EPA
believes
such
a
time
frame
to
be
far
too
brief.
EPA
has
used
the
10,000
year
time
period
assumption
in
other
solid
waste
risk
assessments
for
landfill
disposal.
EPA
reported
both
the
peak
receptor
well
concentration
and
the
time
to
reach
this
concentration
in
the
Report
to
Congress,
in
order
to
show
the
time
period
for
which
risks
may
be
anticipated.

It
is
true
that
EPACMTP
assumes
that
releases
from
a
surface
impoundment
end
at
the
end
of
the
impoundment's
useful
life.
In
other
words,
the
model
assumes
that
impoundments
are
dredged
and
clean­
closed.
In
some
cases,
however,
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
managed
in
a
surface
impoundment
may
be
left
in
place,
rather
than
removed,
at
closure.
In
these
cases,
releases
might
continue
after
closure,
but
would
not
be
considered
by
the
modeled
impoundment
scenario.
EPA
believes
that
the
release
mechanisms
during
the
post­
closure
period
of
a
surface
impoundment
would
be
similar
to
those
from
a
landfill.
For
each
waste
where
a
surface
impoundment
scenario
was
modeled,
EPA
also
modeled
a
landfill
scenario.
While
there
are
some
differences
in
the
input
parameters
used
between
the
two
scenarios,
EPA
believes
that
the
landfill
scenarios
provide
a
reasonable
bound
on
the
risks
that
would
be
expected
from
surface
impoundments
in
the
post­
closure
period.

EPA
believes
that
factors
that
would
tend
to
under­
or
overestimate
transport
are
in
general
balanced,
within
the
state
of
the
art
of
nationwide
ground­
water
risk
assessment.
(
See
response
to
Topic
XV.
L,
below)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
19
XV
­
19
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
E.
Duration
of
Modeling
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
As
described
in
Table
A­
4
(
page
A­
13)
of
the
Technical
Background
Document
for
the
Supplemental
Report
to
Congress
on
Remaining
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion
Wastes:
Ground­
Water
Pathway
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment
(
revised
Draft
Final,
June
1998),
the
source
for
recharge
(
RCHRG)
and
infiltration
(
SINFIL)
rate
input
parameters
is
historical
(
throughout
the
last
60
years)
climatological
data
generated
from
the
HELP
model.
The
assumption
that
these
rates
remain
constant
over
the
length
of
the
study
period
(
10,000
years)
is
highly
unlikely.
For
example,
10,000
years
ago
the
earth
was
near
the
end
of
the
last
Ice
Age
and
large
portions
of
the
globe
were
under
sheets
of
ice
at
least
one
mile
thick
(
Press
and
Siever,
1974;
Montgomery,
C.
W.,
1990).
The
uncertainty
in
the
variation
of
climatic
conditions
over
a
10,000­
year
period
leads
to
a
large
uncertainty
in
the
predicted
concentrations
of
metals
in
the
receptor
well.
These
time
durations
are
unrealistic
and
add
yet
another
layer
of
conservative
assumptions
than
is
typical
in
models.
A
more
practical
time
duration
used
in
fate
and
transport
modeling
is
100
years.
(
PG&
E00023)

For
onsite
surface
impoundments
for
coal­
and
oil­
fired
managed
waste,
EPA
assumed
that
the
leachate
is
released
during
the
active
lifetime
of
40
years
for
the
waste
management
unit
only.
At
the
end
of
the
operational
life,
it
was
assumed
that
leaching
would
cease
and
all
waste
would
be
removed
from
the
impoundment.
The
model
did
not
account
for
a
post­
closure
period
that
may
have
been
preceded
by
impoundment
drainage
and
reclamation.
For
the
onsite
landfill
for
coaland
oil­
fired
managed
waste,
no
leaching
would
take
place
during
the
operational
life
of
the
unit
(
40
years).
At
the
close
of
the
landfill,
the
unit
would
be
capped
and
leaching
would
begin
at
a
constant
infiltration
rate
and
an
initial
leachate
concentration.
(
ALA00036)

Waste
management
unit
scenarios
assumed
no
leaching
from
active
unlined
impoundments
over
a
40
year
period.
For
landfills
it
assumes
no
leaching
during
the
operational
life
and
that
leaching
would
begin
at
a
constant
infiltration
rate
and
leachate
rate
at
the
end
of
the
active
iife
of
the
unit.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
31
FF2P­
S0363,
Sections
7
and
8.

20
XV
­
20
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
F.
Hydraulic
Conductivity
Industry
commenters
disagreed
with
the
hydraulic
conductivity
input
values
used
in
modeling.
Specifically,
the
comment
noted
that
modeling
did
not
address
the
physical
and
chemical
properties
of
FBC
wastes
that
may
result
in
much
lower
conductivity
and
hencelower
infiltration
rates
for
these
wastes.
The
commenters
stated
that
this
omission
resulted
in
hydraulic
conductivity
being
overstated
by
2
to
3
orders
of
magnitude.

Response:
The
characteristics
of
FBC
wastes
may
be
different
than
those
used
in
its
modeling,
as
suggested
by
the
commenter.
31
Such
effects
might
result
in
modeled
receptor
well
risks
lower
than
those
calculated
by
EPACMTP.
However,
the
potential
variance
in
wastes,
for
which
no
data
were
available,
made
estimating
such
differences
problematical.
This
was
acknowledged
in
the
RTC
in
which
it
was
stated
that
FBC
risk
as
calculated
by
the
model
may
be
overstated
for
this
reason.
(
As
noted
elsewhere
in
this
set
of
responses
to
comments,
EPA
believes
the
likelihood
of
either
over­
or
underestimating
modeled
risk
to
be
approximately
equal,
all
factors
considered,
pending
review
of
the
model.)
While
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter's
suggestion
that
the
hydraulic
conductivity
is
probably
lower
for
FBC
wastes,
sufficient
data
were
not
available
to
determine
a
more
appropriate
value
for
this
parameter.
EPA
reported
the
results
of
sensitivity
testing
of
this
variable
in
its
October
1998
sensitivity
analysis,
and
agrees,
if
groundwater
modeling
is
re­
visited,
to
re­
examine
this
issue..
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
21
XV
­
21
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
F.
Hydraulic
Conductivity
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA's
model
does
not
take
into
consideration
any
of
the
characteristics
of
the
FBC
ash
that
beneficially
contribute
to
retention
of
metals.
(
ARIPPA00019)

The
modeling
activities
of
EPA
also
did
not
take
into
consideration
the
physical
characteristics
of
the
engineered
ash
minefills.
A
properly
placed
FBC
minefill
develops
physical
characteristics
that
begin
to
approach
the
properties
of
portland
cement
concrete;
modest
strength
[
1200psi
to
4500psi],
a
monolithic
structure
[
i.
e.
minimization
of
surface
area
for
contacting
waters]
and
low
hydraulic
conductivity
[
10­
5
to
10­
7cm/
secl.
All
of
these
characteristics
contribute
to
a
significant
reduction
of
labile
metals
to
contacting
groundwater.
In
contrast,
the
EPA
modelers
assumed
a
lateral
hydraulic
conductivity
for
the
placed
ash
of
300m/
y
[
1
x
10­
3cm/
sec]
which
is
fully
2­
to
3­
orders
of
magnitude
larger
than
what
might
be
anticipated
in
engineered
minefills
composed
of
FBC
ash.
(
ARIPPA00019)

The
high
compaction
and
cementitious
behavior
of
the
ash
and
its
resultant
low
hydraulic
conductivity
are
not
properly
considered.
(
ARIPPA00019)

The
hydraulic
conductivity
of
the
placed
ash
was
overstated
by
2
to
3
orders
of
magnitude.
(
ARIPPA00019)

The
model
failed
to
account
for
the
beneficial
ongoing
reaction
of
the
lime
(
CaO)
and
the
Anhydrite
(
CaS04)
in
the
presence
of
water.
The
lime
(
CaO)
will
react
with
water
to
form
Ca(
OH)
2
that
further
produces
cemetitous
reactions.
In
addition,
the
Anhydrite
reacts
with
water
to
form
Gypsum
(
CaS04
+
2/
H20).
The
presence
of
the
lime
(
CaO)
and
Anhydrite
(
CaS04)
and
their
on­
going
reactions
with
water
along
with
the
interactions
with
aluminosilicates
from
calcined
clays
provide
the
ash
with
some
of
its
beneficial
physical
properties,
such
as
compressive
ash
strengths
measured
of
1000
to
4000
pounds
PSI;
expansive
nature
due
to
"
hydration
reactions;"
self­
cementing
properties;
high
densities
and
very
low
permeabilities;
and
highly
alkaline
quality.
(
CIBO00052)

It
appears
that
EPA's
concern
is
based
on
the
results
of
a
model
that
indicates
that
the
concentration
of
arsenic
in
groundwater
at
a
receptor
well
could
reach
the
health­
based
level
of
arsenic
after
3,000
years.
EPA's
model,
among
other
items,
does
not
appear
to
account
for
the
potential
for
these
wastes
to
exhibit
self­
cementing
properties
leading
to
very
low
hydraulic
conductivity.
This
apparent
oversight
is
far
from
trivial,
and
renders
the
results
of
EPA's
model
and
risk
assessment
invalid.
The
cementitious
nature
of
the
ash
from
a
waste
coal
plant
is
such
that,
if
a
truck
back­
hauling
ash
to
a
mine
site
has
a
flat
tire
and
is
delayed
by
more
than
a
couple
of
hours,
the
ash
has
to
be
jack­
hammered
out
of
the
truck.
In
short,
CFB
ash
has
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
22
XV
­
22
physical
characteristics
that
begin
to
approach
the
properties
of
Portland
cement
concrete,
including
a
hydraulic
conductivity
of
l0(­
5)
to
l0(­
7)
cm/
sec.
Other
issues
raised
by
EPA's
model
were
discussed
in
ARIPPA's
6/
l
2/
99
comments,
which
are
incorporated
herein
by
reference.
(
ARIPPA00273)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
32
FF2P­
S0363,
Table
A­
1.

33
Gelhar,
L.
W.;
C.
Welty;
K.
R.
Rehfldet.
A
Critical
Review
of
Data
on
Field­
scale
Dispersion
in
Aquifers.
Water
Resources
Research,
28(
7).
1992.

34
See
discussion
in
EPA's
Composite
Model
for
Leachate
Migration
with
Transformation
Products,
EPACMTP
User's
Guide,
1995,
Section
6.5.9.
This
discussion
references
L.
W.
Gelhar,
C.
Welty,
K.
R.
Rehfeldt,
A
Critical
Review
of
Data
on
Field
Scale
Dispersion
in
Aquifers,
Water
Resour.
Res.,
28(
7),
1992.

35
FF2P­
S0363,
Appendix
K
(
Table
K­
3).

36
FF2P­
S0363,
Section
5.

23
XV
­
23
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
G.
Dispersivity
USWAG
suggested
that
EPA
selected
artificially
low
values
for
transverse
and
longitudinal
dispersivity.

Response:
In
its
evaluation
of
comanaged
coal
combustion
wastes,
EPA
used
a
longitudinal
dispersivity
value
of
4.64
m
and
a
transverse
dispersivity
value
which
is
1/
8
of
this
value32.
The
dispersivity
values
used
in
the
model
were
the
median
values
based
on
a
scale
dependent
dispersivity
distribution
given
by
Gelhar.
33
The
value
of
4.64
m
was
selected
because
this
represented
the
50th
percentile
from
this
data.
34
EPA
also
conducted
a
sensitivity
analysis
to
examine
the
effects
of
changing
dispersivity
values
on
results.
It
conducted
this
analysis
using
a
longitudinal
dispersivity
value
of
68
m/
y,
which
is
consistent
with
the
value
recommended
by
the
commenter.
For
the
comanaged
coal
combustion
wastes
in
both
a
landfill
and
a
surface
impoundment,
the
effect
of
this
parameter
on
receptor
well
concentration
was
found
to
be
much
less
than
the
effect
of
other
parameters.
35
EPA
notes
that
in
its
Monte
Carlo
analysis
the
full
distribution
of
dispersivity
values
(
from
the
Gelhar
source)
were
used.
These
results
were
presented
together
with
the
deterministic
highend
results.
36
EPA
notes
that,
ceteris
paribus,
an
increase
in
longitudinal
dispersivity
may
increase
longitudinal
contaminant
transport.
Of
course,
this
may
be
offset
by
reduced
concentration
if
in
fact
a
higher
value
is
selected
for
transverse
dispersivity
as
well.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
24
XV
­
24
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
G.
Dispersivity
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA
selected
artificially
low
dispersivity
values.
For
example,
EPA
set
the
value
for
longitudinal
dispersivity
at
4.84
m,
whereas
a
value
in
excess
of
15
m
would
be
reasonable.
Transverse
dispersivity
values
are
likewise
unrealistic.
The
combination
of
increased
dispersivity
and
higher
values
for
Kd
(
to
reflect
the
chemical
precipitation
process
discussed
above)
would
yield
higher
DAFs
that
better
reflect
real
world
conditions
and
that
will
be
corroborated
by
real
world
data.
(
USWAG00037)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
37
FF2P­
S0361.

38
FF2P­
S0363,
Section
5.

25
XV
­
25
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
H.
Well
Locations
not
Realistic
Industry
commenters
stated
that
the
assumption
of
a
well
location
of
150
meters
away
and
on
the
centerline
of
the
plume
was
unrealistic.
One
of
the
commenters
suggested
that
real
well
locations
are
on
the
order
of
kilometers
away.
A
public
interest
group
commenter
believed
that
this
fixed
well
location
was
not
justified
with
any
information
about
actual
well
locations
and
stated
that
EPA
should
conduct
a
review
of
actual
well
locations.
This
commenter
further
stated
that
the
receptor
well
location
was
changed
to
430
meters
for
EPA's
October
sensitivity
analysis
and
stated
that
the
available
data
demonstrate
receptors
living
much
closer
than
this
distance.

Response:
As
one
of
its
high­
end
assumptions,
EPA
selected
a
well
location
which
was
150
meters
from
the
source,
on
the
plume
centerline.
The
results
of
its
sensitivity
analyses
suggest
that
well
location
is
very
important
in
determining
receptor
exposure,
and
therefore
was
set
equal
to
this
high­
end
value
to
maintain
a
conservative
analysis.
The
public
interest
group
commenter
is
correct
that
some
of
the
scenarios
modeled
in
the
October
sensitivity
analysis37
used
a
well
location
of
430
meters.
These
scenarios
were
the
deterministic
central
tendency
scenarios
used
in
the
sensitivity
analysis
to
provide
estimates
of
central
tendency
risk.
These
scenarios,
therefore,
appropriately
used
a
central
tendency
estimate
for
well
location.
The
high­
end
scenarios
modeled
in
the
October
sensitivity
analysis
and
presented
in
the
Report
to
Congress,
however,
all
used
a
high­
end
receptor
well
location
of
150
meters.

EPA
found
that
its
data
characterizing
receptor
well
distances
from
fossil
fuel
combustion
management
units
is
incomplete.
In
the
absence
of
such
information,
EPA
is
using
the
well
distances
from
the
Subtitle
D
Survey
Database,
used
for
the
1995
HWIR
analyses.
EPA
is
also
employing
this
data
because
wells
may
be
placed
closer
to
the
waste
management
unit
in
the
future,
over
the
study
period.
For
these
reasons
EPA
relied
on
distances
obtained
from
the
OSW
database
as
representative
of
potential
well
locations
at
the
high
end.

EPA
notes
that
in
its
Monte
Carlo
analysis,
the
full
distribution
of
available
receptor
well
distances
was
used
including
wells
at
distances
up
to
one
mile
and
off
of
the
plume
centerline.
These
results
were
presented
together
with
the
deterministic
high­
end
results.
38
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
26
XV
­
26
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
H.
Well
Locations
Not
Realistic
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
As
the
second
of
the
two
most
important
parameters
that
control
the
outcome
of
the
deterministic
risk
assessment
calculation,
the
model
assumes,
as
a
"
high­
end"
scenario,
that
an
adult
individual
places
a
well
directly
into
the
water
table
150
yards
along
the
down­
gradient
flow
path
from
the
fly
ash
site.
Break
through
calculation
show
that
the
transit
times
to
this
well
are
measured
mostly
in
the
thousands
of
years,
with
the
exception
of
arsenic,
which
was
500
years.
The
decision
to
select
this
distance
is
therefore
extremely
critical
to
the
outcome
of
the
model.
Place
it
a
little
farther
away
and
the
transit
time
increases.
In
the
CIBO
survey,
proximity
to
the
ash
site
is
generally
measured
on
the
order
of
kilometers,
or
approximately
an
order
of
magnitude
farther
away
from
the
fly
ash
source
than
was
used
in
the
model.
(
ARIPPA00019)

The
likelihood
of
a
drinking
water
well
being
placed
150
meters
on
plume
centerline
are
infmitesimaly
small
and,
therefore,
the
predicted
contaminant
concentrations
and
the
time
for
them
to
reach
the
receptor
well
are
greatly
overstated.
(
PG&
E00023)

EPA
well
locations
are
probably
not
realistic
...
EPA
set
the
location
of
the
critical
well
just
150
meters
away
from
the
edge
of
the
coal
combustion
product
fill.
Although
EPA
modeling
of
mine
sites
was
limited
and
more
of
an
interpolation
off
of
the
impoundment
results
the
notion
that
the
users
well
is
150
meters
away
is
highly
questionable
given
typical
State
regulatory
programs
for
mine
sites
in
the
Midwest.
(
NMA00024A)

In
the
groundwater
risk
assessment
EPA
used
a
fixed
well
location
at
the
50th
percentile
 
or
430
meters
 
without
justification.
There
are
no
data
to
indicate
the
extent
to
which
this
is
a
realistic
value
or
whether
there
are
receptor
wells
located
closer
to
waste
management
units.
EPA
does
not
provide
data
that
are
available
on
groundwater
contamination
around
these
waste
management
units.
In
addition,
this
major
change
occurred
after
the
draft
risk
assessment
was
subject
to
peer
review
(
SAIC
memo,
1998).
This
change
resulted
in
reducing
the
risk
estimates
for
groundwater
ingestion
posed
by
FFC
waste.
(
ALA00036)

EPA
assumed
that
the
adult
resident
(
and
child)
drank
tap
water
derived
from
ground
water
that
had
been
contaminated
by
the
migration
of
metals
to
a
receptor
well
430
meters
from
the
WMU
(
about
one­
quarter
of
a
mile).
EPA's
sensitivity
analysis
detemlined
that
the
waste
concentration
and
the
receptor
well
location
are
the
driving
parameters
in
the
risk
assessment.
In
the
October
1998
risk
assessment
supplement
the
contractor
reported
that
the
receptor
well
location
was
extended
from
150
meters
to
430
meters.
The
contractor
states
that
the
430
m
value
corresponds
to
the
50th
percentile
used
in
the
HWIR
analysis
(
SAIC,
1998).
Since
receptor
well
location
is
critical
to
estimating
risks
associated
with
FFC
w'astes,
it
seems
appropriate
for
EPA
to
justify
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
27
XV
­
27
this
significant
change
in
the
risk
assessment
to
a
less
conservative
distance
at
the
50th
percentile.
This
is
particularly
important
since
drinking
water
wells
have
been
reported
to
be
150
feet
from
waste
management
units
surveyed
in
the
site
investigations.
(
ALA00292)

The
Agency
has
not,
to
date,
analyzed
the
proximity
of
private
drinking
water
wells
to
FFC
waste
management
and
disposal
facilities.
It
is
clearly
a
responsibility
of
the
Agency
to
conduct
such
a
review.
It
is
likely
that
either
the
Agency
or
industry
has
already
obtained
this
information
for
at
least
some
facilities.
In
a
memorandum
to
the
docket.
SAIC
describes
one
site
as
having
17
wells
within
1
mile,
with
the
closest
within
150
feet
of
the
facility.
Another
memorandum
states
that
415
people
using
well
water
within
1
mile
of
that
facility,
yet
EPRI
had
characterized
only
5
wells.
SAIC
recommended
that
EPRI
better
characterize
the
wells
near
this
site.
A
third
example
is
yet
another
SAIC
memorandum
to
EPA
that
describes
a
site
as
having
numerous
wells
within
1
mile.
with
groundwater
betng
affecting
to
600
feet
from
the
facility.
With
this
information
in
hand.
why
did
the
EPA
choose
the
receptor
well
for
the
groundwater
analysts
to
be
1.477
feet
(
450
meters)
from
the
facility?
Secondly,
why
has
the
Agency
not
conducted
a
review
of
private
drinking
wells
near
these
facilities
when
it
has
had
some
knowledge
of
the
location
of
these
wells
for
almost
two
years
(
and
more
than
3
years
in
the
case
of
one
facility)?
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
39
FF2P­
S0361,
Attachment
2
(
Monte
Carlo
Results).

28
XV
­
28
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
I.
Characterization
of
Source
Term
(
TCLP
versus
Porewater)

An
industry
commenter
stated
that
EPA
may
have
used
defective
concentration
distributions
(
i.
e.,
uniform
or
normal
distributions)
in
their
Monte
Carlo
simulations
resulting
in
too
many
high­
end
concentration
runs.
Several
industry
commenters
also
questioned
whether
the
specific
analyses
(
e.
g.,
porewater
data)
used
were
appropriately
representative
of
leachate
from
waste
management
units.
One
of
the
commenters
suggested
that
vacuum
drawn
pore
water
samples
will
almost
always
overpredict
the
concentration
that
will
be
exchanging
out
of
a
source
layer
of
ash
and
into
a
productive
aquifer
system.
One
of
the
commenters
was
concerned
that
the
Agency
interchangeably
used
data
from
porewaters,
TCLP
results,
SPLP
results,
and
data
for
FBC
waste
and
mixed
waste.
The
commenter
also
stated
that
non­
standard
leachate
procedures
(
i.
e.,
2:
1
water
extracts)
were
mixed
with
the
data.
This
commenter
also
was
concerned
that
the
source
term
did
not
consider
the
alkalinity
of
FBC
waste.

Public
interest
group
commenters
also
questioned
the
adequacy
of
porewater
data
to
represent
surface
impoundment
leachate
and
TCLP
data
to
represent
landfills.
One
of
the
commenters
stated
that,
based
on
comparison
with
pore
water
data,
TCLP
data
consistently
fail
to
predict
the
actual
concentration
of
contaminants
available
for
migration
into
ground
water.
The
commenter
also
expressed
concern
that
EPA
could
not
vouch
for
the
representativeness
of
the
TCLP
data
on
a
facility­
specific
basis.
Another
commenter
questioned
the
change
from
porewater
data
to
represent
landfills
in
the
draft
risk
assessment
to
TCLP
data
for
landfills
in
the
sensitivity
analysis.
This
commenter
also
was
concerned
that
the
assessment
did
not
consider
waste
effluents
such
as
sluice
wastes
and
low­
volume
wastes.
The
commenter
further
expressed
concern
that
no
distinction
was
drawn
between
filtered
and
unfiltered
samples.

Response:
In
the
assessments
performed
for
the
October
1998
analyses,
EPA
did
in
fact
use
lognormal
distributions
of
the
site­
averaged
waste
leachate
concentrations
in
all
of
the
Monte
Carlo
assessments
presented.
39
Thus,
in
its
Monte
Carlo
assessments
EPA
used
the
type
of
distribution
recommended
by
the
commenter.

While
responding
to
specific
comments
below,
EPA
notes
that
it
used
all
the
data
made
available
and
in
accordance
with
its
best
judgement
knowing
the
advantages
and
disadvantages
of
data
collected
by
varying
means.

EPA
believes
that,
given
the
constraints
imposed
by
available
data,
it
appropriately
used
specific
analyses
to
represent
the
appropriate
wastes
and
management
scenarios.
For
example,
for
comanaged
wastes,
EPA
believes
its
use
of
porewater
and
TCLP
analyses
was
appropriate
to
represent
surface
impoundments
and
landfills,
respectively.
Each
of
these
tests
were
performed
to
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
40
FF2P­
S0363,
Section
7.1.

41
FF2P­
S0361.

42
FF2P­
S0363,
Section
3.3.2.
The
data
were
recalculated
in
the
October
report
(
FF2P­
S0361,
Attachment
1)
with
no
difference
in
the
types
of
data
included
(
i.
e.,
TCLP
and
EP
data
were
used
in
both
instances).

29
XV
­
29
simulate
different
leaching
environments.
Specifically,
the
porewater
data
were
collected
principally
from
surface
impoundments,
and,
therefore,
these
data
were
used
in
the
surface
impoundment
scenarios
as
the
best
available
representation
of
leachate
from
these
units.

In
its
June
1998
report,
EPA
used
the
porewater
data
for
its
landfill
assessment
but
acknowledged
that
the
resulting
analysis
was
expected
to
be
very
conservative.
40
One
reason
for
this
is
that
the
porewater
data
driving
the
analysis
were
collected
from
impoundments
with
standing
water
and
high
infiltration,
a
situation
different
than
a
landfill
with
relatively
little
free
liquid.
The
TCLP
is
intended
to
simulate
leaching
in
a
particular
landfill
environment.
While
neither
the
impoundment
porewater
data
nor
the
TCLP
data
may
perfectly
reflect
the
conditions
in
a
comanaged
landfill,
EPA
expects
that
the
TCLP
data
better
reflect
these
conditions.
The
Agency,
therefore,
revised
its
analysis
for
landfills
to
use
TCLP
data
and
presented
these
revised
results
in
the
October
analyses.
41
EPA
acknowledges
that
the
TCLP
data
collected
from
each
facility
may
not
be
representative
of
the
conditions
at
the
site
but
disagrees
that
the
collected
data
are
necessarily
over­
or
under­
predicting
the
site
conditions.
These
data
were
collected
from
a
portion
of
the
samples
collected
at
the
site;
typically
between
2
and
4
were
analyzed
for
TCLP.
These
samples
were
collected
from
different
cores
throughout
the
site.
EPA
did
not
identify
any
particular
bias
in
the
selection
of
samples
analyzed
for
TCLP.

EPA
also
disagrees
with
the
comments
that
leaching
test
results
were
improperly
interchanged.
The
specific
test
results
used
for
the
comanaged
waste
scenarios
and
EPA's
logic
in
selecting
them
are
described
above.
In
the
case
of
the
modeling
of
FBC
wastes,
EPA
used
data
specific
to
FBC
wastes
using
only
the
TCLP
and
EP
leaching
procedures.
42
Similarly,
in
modeling
OCWs,
EPA
used
TCLP
and
EP
data
specific
to
OCWs.
While
EPA
acknowledges
that
the
TCLP
and
EP
tests
represent
two
different
leaching
procedures,
they
are
similar
in
that
both
use
organic
acids
as
extraction
media.
EPA
did
not
have
available
any
data
representing
FBC
waste
or
OCW
pore
fluids;
it
also
did
not
combine
the
TCLP/
EP
data
with
SPLP
data.

EPA
disagrees
that
low­
volume
and
sluice
wastes
should
have
been
considered
in
its
assessment.
EPA's
study
for
this
determination
was
of
large­
volume
wastes
comanaged
with
lowvolume
wastes,
and,
therefore,
EPA
used
data
that
represent
these
comanagement
scenarios.
Lowvolume
wastes
and
sluice
waters
managed
alone
are
outside
the
scope
of
this
determination.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
30
XV
­
30
With
regard
to
its
evaluation
of
filtered
and
unfiltered
data,
EPA
attempted
to
consistently
use
the
same
type
of
data
in
its
analyses
(
i.
e.,
filtered).
However,
at
some
sites
with
comanagement
data,
only
unfiltered
data
were
available
(
or
the
type
of
analyses
was
not
specified).
In
these
cases,
EPA
elected
to
use
the
data
available
because
the
remaining
alternative
would
be
to
disregard
the
data
or
evaluate
it
separately.
To
maximize
the
use
of
all
its
data
and
develop
relevant
statistical
parameters,
EPA
elected
to
combine
these
types
of
analyses.

In
sum,
EPA
made
every
effort
to
use
the
only
data
it
had
in
a
balanced,
representative,
and
consistent
manner,
while
minimizing
known
data
deficiencies.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
31
XV
­
31
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
I.
Characterization
of
Source
Term
(
TCLP
versus
Porewater)
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Data
from
different
leachants
with
different
metal
chelating
properties
are
mixed
inappropriately.
(
ARIPPA00019)

The
reference
data
used
for
the
leachate
concentrations
are
also
questionable.
It
is
reported
that
EPA's
data
can
be
pore
fluids,
TCLP
leachate
data
or
SPLP
leachate
data,
or
the
numbers
may
be
derived
from
FBC
wastes
or
mixed
wastes.
In
one
instance,
the
attempts
to
recover
samples
from
cores
drilled
into
a
fly
ash
pile
did
not
produce
any
liquids,
a
typical
condition
for
engineered
minefill
fly
ash
placements.
However,
in
order
to
report
some
numbers
for
the
site,
the
ash
was
mixed
2:
l
with
water
and
leached
to
produce
a
liquid
sample.
[
The
Ground­
Water
Pathway
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment,
p7­
3,
1998].
These
data
are
derived
from
a
non­
standard
leach
procedure,
which
is
uncontrolled
and
hence
the
data
should
not
be
utilized.
In
the
modeling
activities,
these
various
leachates
have
been
used
interchangeable
when
in
fact
the
nature
of
the
different
leachants
is
radically
different
and
results
in
different
amounts
of
metals
in
solution.
Organic
acids
will
tend
to
chealate
certain
metals
and
hold
them
in
solution
giving
artificially
inflated
solubilities.
(
ARIPPA00019)

To
summarize
our
concerns
with
the
Source
term
of
the
EPA's
model,
we
believe
that
the
model
is
flawed
because...
The
alkalinity
of
the
FBC
ash
was
not
considered.
(
ARIPPA00019)

Non
standard
leachate
procedures
were
used
to
collect
a
portion
of
the
data
and
the
data
from
these
tests
was
mixed
with
standard
test
data.
(
ARIPPA00019)

The
data
used
for
input
concentrations
may
have
been
misinterpreted
allowing
extreme
values
to
be
used
inappropriately
in
the
model.
This
is
a
critical
issue
because,
according
to
EPA's
Report
to
Congress,
the
source
concentration
is
the
most
sensitive
parameter
in
the
whole
model
for
controlling
outcome.
As
one
who
has
personally
run
laboratory
analysis
on
coal
combustion
products
for
years
I
have
found
that
solid
to
liquid
ratio
has
a
profound
influence
on
leachate
concentration
for
most
trace
elements
...
I
have
grave
concerns
with
the
way
pore
water
samples
were
used
in
the
impoundment
case.
EPA
averaged
the
concentration
down
the
length
of
the
entire
sample
(
and
indeed
the
sample
values
over
the
entire
site)
...
Much
of
the
data
in
the
data
base
was
apparently
vacuum
drawn
pore
water
samples,
but
these
values
were
averaged
and
used
as
if
they
were
samples
drawn
up
and
down
the
length
of
an
as
used
aquifer
unit.
Remember
that
vacuum
drawn
pour
water
samples
do
not
represent
flowing
and
exchanging
water
moving
through
an
aquifer
unit
...
vacuum
drawn
pour
water
samples
will
almost
always
over­
predict
badly
the
concentration
that
will
be
exchanging
out
of
a
source
layer
of
ash
and
into
a
productive
aquifer
system
...
The
problem
is
that
the
sample
was
averaged
and
treated
like
a
sample
across
a
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
32
XV
­
32
productive
aquifer
when
it
was
not.
The
results
of
the
deterministic
analysis
are
completely
invalid
as
a
result.
(
NMA00024A)

EPA
used
defective
concentration
distributions
in
their
Monte
Carlo
simulations
resulting
in
too
many
high
end
concentration
runs.
Obviously
this
problem
will
cause
the
Monte
Carlo
runs
to
overpredict
risk.
From
what
is
written
in
the
risk
assessment
report
of
Oct.
1998
and
the
Report
to
Congress
the
problem
would
be
a
catastrophe,
because
these
reports
talk
about
taking
a
midpoint
central
tendency
value
plus
or
minus
50%
with
parameters
having
a
similar
role
to
concentration.
This
would
cause
may
readers,
including
myself,
to
assume
that
a
uniform
distribution
or
maybe
on
a
good
day
a
normal
distribution
had
been
used.
I
understand
from
conversations
with
EPA
personnel
and
their
contractor
following
the
hearing
on
May
21,
1999
that
a
lognormal
distribution
of
source
concentrations
was
used.
If
this
action
was
taken
and
simply
omitted
from
the
report,
the
agency
avoided
compounding
an
already
critical
problem.
High
concentration
values
are
far
more
scarce
in
lognormal
distributions
than
in
uniform
or
normal
distributions
and
running
the
Monte
Carlo
simulation
with
the
number
of
high
concentration
cases
way
off
from
reality
would
be
a
fatal
flaw.
(
NMA00024A)

A
good
indication
of
the
weakness
of
the
TCLP
for
the
wastes
in
question
can
be
found
in
Table
3­
9
of
the
Report
to
Congress.
In
this
table,
EPA
provides
TCLP
data
(
covering
wastes
in
both
landfills
and
surface
impoundments)
and
pore
water
sample
data
(
covering
surface
impoundments)
for
co­
managed
coal
combustion
wastes.
For
every
toxic
contaminant
but
mercury,
both
the
mean
and
upper
range
of
the
pore
water
data
exceed
the
TCLP
data,
typically
by
an
order
of
magnitude
or
more.
In
the
case
of
arsenic
wastes,
a
particularly
important
contaminant
in
coal
combustion
the
difference
between
the
mean
pore
water
and
TCLP
data
is
almost
two
orders
of
magnitude.
Insofar
as
the
pore
water
data
represent
"
actual
leachate"
results
for
surface
impoundments,
it
is
clear
that
the
TCLP
data
consistently
fail
to
predict
the
actual
concentration
of
contaminants
available
for
migration
into
groundwater.
(
EDF00021)

EPA
also
cannot
vouch
for
the
representativeness
of
the
TCLP
data
on
a
facility­
specific
basis,
therefore
the
Agency
hasn't
a
clue
what
it
is
combining
to
achieve
a
so­
called
"
average"
result.
The
term
itself
is
misleading
in
this
regard.
Averaging
non­
representative
data
for
a
facility
does
not
magically
yield
a
representative
facility
average.
(
EDF00021)

In
the
groundwater
risk
assessment,
concentrations
may
not
be
reflective
of
actual
conditions
due
to
the
tests
used.
Specifically,
the
tests
used
to
estimate
the
extent
to
which
the
metals
leach
from
the
waste
maybe
inadequate.
EPA
has
not
demonstrated
that
the
leachate
tests
(
Toxicity
Characteristic
Leaching
Procedure,
TCLP)
for
landfills
and
leachate
represented
by
pore
water
samples
for
impoundments
is
adequate
for
risk
assessment.
(
ALA00036)

EPA
replaced
the
pore
water
samples
used
in
the
April
1998
groundwater
risk
assessment
with
TCLP
data.
The
use
of
TCLP
data
resulted
in
a
significant
decrease
in
the
concentration
of
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
33
XV
­
33
toxicologically
significant
metals
and
a
decrease
in
the
risk
estimates
to
levels
above
one­
in­
ten
thousand
for
cancer
risks
and
below
a
HQ
of
1
for
non­
cancer
risks
(
see
table
below).
EPA
does
not
explain
this
significant
change
in
the
groundwater
risk
assessment,
which
occurred
after
the
peer
review
in
the
Report.
(
ALA00036)

Data
from
pond
waters
from
comanaged
coal
waste
also
did
not
include
waste
effluents
 
such
as
sluice
wastes
and
low
volume
wastes.
These
were
not
considered
because
it
was
believed
that
these
wastes
represent
only
localized
effects.
It
should
be
noted,
however,
that
these
aqueous
wastes
have
the
potential
to
be
transported
off­
site.
In
addition,
although
most
of
the
samples
were
filtered,
some
were
not
and
no
distinction
was
between
these
two
sampling
methods
in
the
data
compilation.
(
ALA00036)

We
requested
clarification
of
the
waste
characterization
data
in
the
Report
to
Congress
during
the
public
comment
period.
EPA
responded
through
their
contractor,
SAIC,
on
June
25,
1990.
SAIC
indicated
that
the
porewater
data
used
in
the
June
1998
draft
version
of
the
ground
water
risk
assessment
was
changed
to
the
Toxicity
Characteristic
Leaching
Proccdure
(
TCLP)
data
in
the
October
1998
final
risk
assessment.
This
highly
unusual
exchange
of
analytical
results
after
the
risk
assessment
was
completed
and
peer
reviewed
resulted
in
substantial
understatement
of
the
risks
associated
with
leaching
of
FFC
waste
constttuents
from
a
hypothetical
landfill
to
a
drinking
water
source.
Although
EPA
justtlies
this
change
because
only
3
landfills
of
a
known
population
of
500
were
included
in
the
site
in\,
estigations,
the
use
of
TCLP
data
appears
equally
problematic
...
In
addition,
this
major
change
is
not
adequately
explained
in
the
technical
background
document
and
simply
not
mentioned
in
the
Report
to
Congress.
Since
this
change
occurred
after
the
risk
assessment
was
peer
reviewed
EPA
should,
at
a
minimum,
explain
their
rationale
and
discuss
the
uncertainties
associated
with
the
use
of
TCLP
data
in
the
ground
water
risk
assessment.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
43
Exposure
Factors
Handbook,
Draft.
Volume
I
­
General
Factors.
EPA,
Office
of
Research
and
Development.
April,
1996.

44
Johnson,
T.
and
Capel,
J.
A
Monte
Carlo
Approach
to
Simulating
Residential
Occupancy
Periods
and
its
Application
to
the
General
U.
S.
Population.
EPA,
Office
of
Air
Quality
and
Standards.
1992.

34
XV
­
34
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
J.
Fixed
Exposure
Assumptions
Some
public
interest
group
commenters
expressed
concern
that
the
exposure
parameters
are
based
on
central
tendency
values
for
such
factors
as
ingestion
rates,
and
residence
time
and,
therefore,
do
not
account
for
above­
average
exposures.
One
of
the
commenters
suggested
EPA
use
90th
percentile
values
for
exposure
factors.
The
commenter
also
specifically
stated
that
the
exposure
duration
for
elderly
residents
may
be
far
longer
than
9
years.

Response:
The
commenter
correctly
notes
that
exposure
duration
is
dependent
on
age.
In
EPA's
Exposure
Factors
Handbook,
43
EPA
compiles
various
studies
regarding
population
mobility
and
concluded
that
a
9
year
residence
time
is
representative
of
the
50th
percentile
from
the
studies.
One
of
these
studies44
presented
residence
time
by
age,
showing
that
the
elderly
population
(
age
63
to
84)
had
a
median
residence
time
of
19
years
or
more,
while
a
33
year
old
had
a
median
residence
time
of
9
years
(
i.
e.,
the
residence
time
used
in
the
risk
assessment).
All
such
data
are
taken
directly
form
the
Exposure
Factors
Handbook.

EPA's
Office
of
Solid
Waste
includes
above­
average
exposures
as
a
part
of
its
risk
analyses.
EPA
did
so
in
this
case.
As
part
of
its
deterministic
high­
end
analysis,
EPA
conducted
a
sensitivity
analysis
seeking
those
parameters
most
affecting
exposure
to
ground
water.
EPA
found
that
setting
two
parameters
to
their
high­
end
values
(
leachate
concentration
and
well
location)
resulted
in
the
case
of
highest
double
high­
end
risk.
EPA
did
not
set
additional
parameters,
such
as
length
of
exposure,
to
their
high­
end
values
(
e.
g.,
90th
percentile
exposure
duration
or
a
duration
more
appropriate
to
elderly
subpopulations)
because
the
end
result
would
have
been
an
overly
conservative
(
i.
e.,
multiple
high­
end,
instead
of
double
high­
end)
analysis.
Again,
this
is
a
matter
of
EPA
Office
of
Solid
Waste
policy
and
is
not
unique
to
this
study.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
35
XV
­
35
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
J.
Fixed
Exposure
Assumptions
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Because
the
concentrations
of
chemicals
in
FFC
waste
are
suspect,
the
exposure
estimates
are
also
suspect.
As
a
result,
the
analysis
could
underestimate
risks,
especially
to
populations
with
above
average
exposures.
(
ALA00036)

The
exposure
parameters
are
based
on
central
tendency
values
for
such
factors
as
ingestion
rates,
and
residence
time
and,
therefore,
do
not
account
for
above­
average
exposures.
In
the
groundwater
risk
assessment,
EPA
assumed
that
drinking
water
exposure
would
occur
for
only
nine
years
(
residence
time)
and
at
an
ingestion
rate
of
1.4
liters
per
day.
These
are
average
exposure
factors
and
do
not
protect
people
who,
for
examples,
live
in
their
homes
throughout
their
childhood
and
high
school
years
and
drink
more
than
one
and
one
half
liters
of
water
per
day.
(
ALA00036)

EPA
is
required
to
assess
the
risks
associated
with
highly
exposed
subgroups.
"
This
descriptor
is
useful
when
there
is
(
or
is
expected
to
be)
a
subgroup
experiencing
significantly
different
exposures
or
doses
from
that
of
the
large
population.
These
subgroups
may
be
identified
by
age,
sex,
lifestyle,
economic
factors.
or
other
demographic
variables."
(
EPA.
1995)
...
the
reasonable
maximum
exposure
concentration
is
determined
by
setting
the
exposure
frequency
and
duration
at
the
90th
percentile
concentration
...
Based
on
a
comparison
of
the
values
used
by
EPA
in
the
ground
water
risk
assessment
and
the
values
representing
the
90th
percentile
for
the
U.
S.
population,
it
is
apparent
that
EPA
has
not
evaluated
the
high­
end
reasonable
exposures.
(
ALA00292)

These
facility­
specific
maps
illustrate
that
there
are
real
people
living
near
power
plant
FFC
waste
facilities,
not
just
"
hypothetical
receptors".
Included
in
these
populations
are
children,
who
are
a
more
sensitive
subpopulation
and
the
elderly
whose
duration
of
exposure
may
be
far
longer
than
the
9
years
estimated
for
the
"
high­
end"
groundwater
exposure.
(
ALA00292)

Some
of
the
drinking
water
risk
assessment
assumptions
seem
to
be
inadequate­
for
example,
the
assumption
that
an
adult
resides
in
a
home
and
is
exposed
to
contaminated
groundwater
for
only
9
years
and
drinks
only
1.4
liters
of
water
per
day.
What
about
the
adult
who
lives
in
the
same
home
for
18
years
and
consumes
twice
that
amount
of
water­
a
completely
reasonable
assumption?
(
49CAO00058)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
45
FF2P­
S0363,
Section
7.

36
XV
­
36
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
K.
Other
Input
Assumptions
Fixed
Industry
and
academic
commenters
stated
that
modeling
did
not
account
for
all
the
variable
geologic
conditions
or
site­
specific
situations
possible.
One
of
these
commenters
specifically
noted
that
the
model
is
not
capable
of
evaluating
landfills
in
downgradient
areas,
or
landfilling
below
the
water
table
(
a
common
practice
on
the
Texas
Gulf
Coast)

A
public
interest
commenter
argued
that
EPA
has
not
taken
into
account
variable
conditions
that
exist
throughout
the
U.
S.
regarding
proximity
to
receptor
well,
unit
liner
characteristics
and
infiltration
rate,
meteorological
and
hydrologeological
settings,
unit
size
and
waste
characteristics.
Specifically,
the
commenter
was
concerned
about
not
accounting
for
karst
terrain
or
sensitive
environments
such
as
wetlands.
This
commenter
also
was
concerned
that
EPA
did
not
vary
waste
characteristics
to
reflect
variability
in
feed
and
operating
conditions
over
time.

Response:
EPA
notes
that
downgradient
and
below­
watertable
fill
may
be
minefilling;
the
commenter
was
not
clear
on
this.
EPA
does
agree
that
current
modeling
does
not
address
this
problem
well.
Section
VII
of
these
comments
and
responses
discusses
minefilling
and
EPA's
planned
action.
We
will
address
site
specific
below­
watertable
landfilling
issues
in
the
same
manner.

EPA
agrees
that
the
EPACMTP
modeling
does
not
address
several
of
the
site
or
regionally
speciifc
variable
geologic
conditions
noted
by
the
commenters.
As
is
well
known,
this
is
not
a
comment
unique
to
today's
rulemaking.
EPACMTP
is
targeted
on
assessing
risk
on
a
nationwide
basis
and
EPA
has
previously
acknowledged
areas
in
which
the
modeling
results
are
not
applicable.
45
In
any
event,
EPA
determined
not
to
rely
on
modeling
in
making
its
regulatory
determination
for
minefilling.
For
other
waste
management
scenarios,
the
Agency
believes
that
its
selection
of
typical
geologic
conditions
was
appropriate
for
a
national
level
risk
assessment,
as
noted
next.

EPA
disagrees
with
the
comments
that
other
variable
conditions
such
as
receptor
well
location
and
infiltration
rate
were
not
considered.
The
variability
of
such
factors
were
explicitly
considered
in
its
Monte
Carlo
and
deterministic
sensitivity
analyses,
where
values
used
as
input
parameters
were
allowed
to
vary
over
a
plausible
range.
In
deterministic
analysis,
EPA
evaluated
all
factors
adjudged
to
affect
results
most
significantly.

EPA
also
disagrees
that
waste
management
unit
sizes
were
consistently
underestimated
and
that
waste
characteristics
did
not
account
for
variable
conditions.
For
its
assessments,
EPA
used
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
37
XV
­
37
data
from
surveys
sponsored
by
industry
associations
to
estimate
the
size
and
characteristics
of
the
waste
management
units.
These
data
represented
the
best
available
for
characterizing
particular
waste
management
units.
EPA
used
the
distribution
of
these
values
as
inputs
in
its
Monte
Carlo
analyses,
including
very
large
units.
In
sensitivity
analysis
for
its
deterministic
analyses,
EPA
identified
central
tendency
and
high­
end
values
for
waste
management
unit
size.
EPA
found
that
these
parameters
were
not
as
significant
as
others,
such
as
initial
waste
concentration.

EPA
also
disagrees
that
waste
characteristics
did
not
account
for
variable
operating
conditions.
EPA
used
the
complete
distributions
of
site­
averaged
waste
characteristics
as
inputs
in
its
Monte
Carlo
analyses,
thus
reflecting
the
full
range
of
variation
represented
in
the
available
data.
In
its
deterministic
analyses,
EPA
used
a
high­
end
value
for
initial
leachate
concentration.
The
use
of
this
value
would
account
for
higher
levels
of
contaminant
release
that
would
occur
in
a
small
section
of
the
population.
These
higher
levels
of
release
represent
the
high­
end
scenario
over
the
range
of
operating
conditions
for
which
data
were
available.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
38
XV
­
38
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
K.
Other
Input
Assumptions
Fixed
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
An
assumption
was
made
that
the
sampling
data
reflect
the
overall
population
of
landfill
wastes
and
that
the
leachate
composition
is
not
variable.
Although
EPA
notes
that
the
assumptions
were
not
tested
and
would
be
affected
by
variability
in
feed
and
operating
conditions
over
time,
there
is
no
further
consideration
of
these
effects.
(
ALA00036)

Each
management
scenario
was
described
and
modeled
in
terms
of
the
proximity
to
the
nearest
groundwater
receptor
well,
unit
liner
characteristics
and
infiltration
rate,
the
meteorological
an
hydrogeological
settings
affecting
the
unit,
unit
size
and
waste
characteristics
(
discussed
above).
In
all
cases
EPA
has
not
taken
into
account
variable
conditions
that
exist
throughout
the
U.
S.
regarding
these
parameters.
(
ALA00036)

There
are
concerns
that
the
use
of
model
parameters
does
not
account
for
the
variability
of
conditions
across
the
U.
S.
For
example,
the
different
geologic
characteristics
of
the
areas
where
waste
landfills
or
impoundments
are
located
are
not
taken
into
account.
Sensitive
environments,
such
as
facilities
located
in
karst
terrain,
could
allow
contaminants
to
quickly
and
easily
migrate
to
groundwater.
Under
certain
circumstances,
this
migration
may
occur
largely
unattenuated
and
in
an
undiluted
fashion.
In
addition,
waste
sites
near
wetlands
areas
may
have
a
greater
likelihood
of
contaminating
groundwater
due
to
the
role
of
wetlands
as
groundwater
recharge
areas
(
EPA,
1995).
These
factors
are
critical
to
EPA's
assessment
because
EPA
dismisses
significant
public
health
risks
because
modeling
predictions
indicate
that
the
contamination
will
not
occur
for
several
hundred
years.
Suppose
the
model
under
predicted
migration?
(
ALA00036)

EPA
used
central
tendency
values
for
all
the
driving
parameters
in
the
risk
assessments
 
starting
waste
concentration,
size
of
unit,
exposure
duration,
and
distance
to
receptor.
(
ALA00036)

The
comment
at
this
point
is
that
it
does
not
appear
that
the
modeling,
in
either
the
Deterministic
or
Monte
Carlo
case,
deals
with
the
realities
of
the
geologic
situation.
I
have
had
a
little
experience
with
review
of
these
techniques
as
a
Citizen
member
of
the
EPA
focus
group
on
Industrial
Nonhazardous
Waste
Guidance,
and
it
certainly
appears
that
there
is
opportunity
to
add
geologic
reality
to
at
least
some
of
the
modeling.
The
response
to
this
comment
may
be
that
this
is
built
into
the
models.
I
would
not
agree.
(
RICE00041)

The
study
did
not
evaluate
several
situations
that
are
typical
in
the
Texas
Gulf
Coast
lignite
area.
One
was
minefilling
­
because
it
is
difficult
to
evaluate
because
of
the
interference
by
the
backfilling
operation.
The
same
could
be
said
for
landfills
in
areas
subsequently
backfilled
on
the
downdip
or
downgradient
side.
Another
admitted
shortcoming
was
the
present
inability
to
model
the
results
of
landfilling
below
the
water
table
­
which
SAI
[
Revised
Sensitivity
Study]
regretted.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
39
XV
­
39
But
again,
this
landfilling
below
the
water
table
operation
is
common
in
the
Gulf
Coast,
for
both
municipal
and
coal
mine
landfills.
Most
of
the
lignite
mines
dewater
the
associated
sands
by
wellpointing
long
before
mining
begins.
That
is,
groundwater
has
a
significant
involvement
in
the
Gulf
Coast
regiorrwhere
the
study
failed
to
deal
with
at
least
two
very
real
situations.
(
RICE00041)

The
comment
is
that
the
tentative
conclusions
fail
to
consider
basic
real
situations
in
the
Gulf
Coast
region
that
involves
a
significant
number
of
coal
waste
disposal
situations.
(
RICE00041)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
40
XV
­
40
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
L.
Specific
Technical
Comments
on
Model
Design
As
noted
under
Topic
XV.
A,
a
public
interest
group
commenter
provided
a
detailed
technical
report
addressing
issues
related
to
the
ground­
water
model
(
EPACMTP).
These
comments
were
directed
primarily
at
MINTEQA2,
the
metals
partitioning
input
component
of
CMTP,
but
many
comments
affect
the
overall
model
(
EPACMTP)
itself.
An
industry
commenter
stated
that
it
shares
some
of
EDF's
general
concerns
with
EPA's
utilization
of
CMTP
beyond
its
capabilities,
and
supports
a
thorough
review
of
MINTEQA2.
The
industry
commenter
argued,
however,
that
the
specific
modifications
suggested
by
EDF
commenters
are
unrealistic.

This
industry
commenter
also
cautioned
that
the
specific
risk
results
presented
in
the
EDF
report
were
based
on
unrealistic
input
concentrations,
and
are,
therefore,
designed
to
produce
extreme
results
to
draw
attention
to
deficiencies
in
EPA's
approach.
The
contractor
that
prepared
the
report
for
EDF
clarified
that
the
report
was
intended
to
be
a
general
review
and
critique
of
the
model
the
Agency
is
using
in
a
broad
spectrum
of
regulatory
determinations.

EDF's
comments
were
summarized
in
two
tables
for
delivery
to
EPA.
For
ease
of
presentation
and
general
review,
these
are
complied
into
the
several
points
summarized
below
where
both
industry
response
and
the
status
of
EPA's
review
is
noted.

General
Response:
EPA
is
carefully
reviewing
all
of
these
very
specific
comments
on
the
model.
The
process
of
thoroughly
investigating
all
of
the
comments
will
take
substantially
more
time
to
complete
than
is
available
within
the
court
deadline
for
issuing
this
regulatory
determination.
At
this
time,
we
are
uncertain
of
the
overall
outcome
of
our
analysis
of
the
issues
raised
in
the
comments.
Accordingly,
we
are
not
relying
on
the
results
of
our
ground
water
pathway
risk
analysis
in
support
of
today's
regulatory
determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes.
In
making
today's
regulatory
determination,
we
have
relied
on
other
information
related
to
the
potential
danger
that
may
result
from
the
management
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes.

Because
all
of
these
comments
are
the
subject
of
the
thorough,
long
term
analysis
cited
several
times
throughout
this
section,
it
is
premature
to
attempt
responses
to
each
individual
comment
at
this
time.
Therefore,
we
have
not
attempted
to
respond
to
these
points
for
today's
rulemaking.

At
this
time,
we
have
not
determined
what,
if
any,
changes
are
appropriate
to
make
to
the
model.
However,
the
conclusions
of
our
analyses
may
may
involve
changing
or
re­
structuring
various
aspects
of
the
model,
if
appropriate.
It
may
also
include
additional
analyses
to
determine
whether
any
changes
to
the
model
or
modeling
methodology
would
materially
affect
the
groundwater
risk
analysis
results
that
were
reported
in
the
RTC.
If
our
investigations
reveal
that
a
re­
analysis
of
groundwater
risks
is
appropriate,
we
will
conduct
the
analysis
and
re­
evaluate
today's
decisions
as
warranted
by
the
reanalysis.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
41
XV
­
41
In
addition
to
our
ongoing
review
of
comments
on
the
overall
groundwater
model,
one
element
of
the
model
 
the
metals
partitioning
component
called
"
MINTEQ"
 
has
been
proposed
for
review
by
EPA's
Science
Advisory
Board
(
SAB).
We
will
take
the
findings
of
this
review
into
account
in
any
overall
decision
to
re­
evaluate
today's
regulatory
determination.

In
response
to
the
industry
commenter,
EPA
is
aware
that
the
results
presented
in
EDF's
analysis
are
the
results
of
a
theoretical
exercise
designed
to
call
attention
to
issues
with
the
model
and
do
not
duplicate
or
replace
the
analysis
conducted
for
the
FFC
risk
assessment.
Specific
concerns
with
the
suggested
modifications
raised
by
the
industry
commenter
are
included
in
the
numbered
items
below.
Specific
FFC
chemical
contaminations
were
not
used
in
this
critique,
despite
the
industry
commenter
stating
to
the
contrary.

Below
are
listed
the
specific
comments
as
submitted
by
EDF,
the
initial
comment
in
response
by
industry
commenters
and
the
status
of
EPA's
review.
As
noted,
EPA's
analysis
of
these
comments
is
underway
and
it
would
be
very
premature
to
offer
judgments
as
to
how
these
might
impact
on
risk
modeling.
EPA
believes
certain
comments
to
have
merit,
but
the
collective
effect
remains
to
be
studied.
As
noted
elsewhere
in
this
response
,
this
will
take
far
more
time
than
was
available
under
this
court
schedule,
and,
if
warranted,
groundwater
isk
modeling
will
be
revisited.

Comments
in
EDF
table
entitled
"
Summary
of
MINTEQA2
Critique
and
Improvements
to
Isotherm
Generation
Method"

­
Flawed
Chemistry
of
the
Basic
Ground
Water
­
EDF
raised
concerns
with
regard
to
ion
charge
imbalance
in
ground
water,
to
improper
geochemical
relationships
in
the
STORET
data
base,
to
the
presence
of
exclusively
oxidized
elements
(
carbon,
sulfur,
iron,
nitrogen),
to
mineral
phase
disequilibrium,
to
low
input
concentrations
for
calcium,
magnesium,
phosphorous
and
sulfur,
and
relative
to
ignoring
of
colloidal
phase
iron
and
aluminum.
USWAG
disagreed
with
EDF's
concerns
about
colloidal
transport
and
EDF's
interpretation
of
the
STORET
data.
EPAs
study
of
these
interrelated
issues
is
underway.
(
These
are
items
1­
7
in
the
EDF
critique.)

­
Leachate
Chemistry
­
EDF
raised
concerns
that
leachate
chemistry
was
not
considered
in
isotherm
calculations,
that
other
contaminants
may
be
present
in
leachate,
and
that
leachate
pH
may
overwhelm
an
aquifer.
USWAG
disagreed
with
the
potential
for
leachate
pH
to
overwhelm
aquifer
pH.
EPA
is
just
beginning
to
study
these.
(
These
are
items
8­
10
of
the
EDF
critique..

EPA
is
just
beginning
to
address
the
following
comments.

­
USEPA
Master
Variables
­
EDF
raised
concerns
that
arbitrary
pH
cutoff
values
are
used,
that
high
pH
isotherms
are
missing,
that
inappropriate
surface
area
and
concentration
range
for
iron
substrate
are
used,
that
LOM
appears
to
have
a
low
impact
on
Kds,
that
POM/
DOM
sorption
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
42
XV
­
42
capacity
is
overestimated,
that
inappropriate
charge
balances
are
used
for
POM
species,
and
that
there
are
other
problems
with
the
POM
variable.
USWAG
argued
that
the
suggested
changes
to
iron
oxide
surface
area
are
not
scientifically
justifiable.
(
These
are
items
11­
18
of
the
EDF
critique)

­
Calculation
Errors
­
EDF
identified
two
alleged
calculation
errors:
treatment
of
particulate
organic
substrate
and
miscalculation
of
saturated
zone
Kd
for
lead.
(
These
are
items
19
and
20
of
the
EDF
critique.)

Comments
in
EDF
table
entitled
"
Supplemental
Critique
of
CMTP
Metals
Modeling"

There
were
five
of
these,
all
not
yet
addressed
by
EPA:

(
1)
Shaky
Assumptions
­
EDF
raised
concerns
that
model
geochemistry
is
not
related
to
local
waste
units,
soil
water
partitioning
is
linear
in
the
saturated
zone.

(
2)
Unreasonable
Program
Requirements
­
EDF
raised
concerns
about
inappropriate
Kd
for
saturated
zone,
monotonic
isotherms,
and
inappropriate
selection
of
isotherms.

(
3)
Implementation
Errors
­
EDF
noted
that
EPACMTP
master
variable
values
do
not
always
map
against
MINTEQA2
values.

(
4)
Counter­
Intuitive
Input
­
EDF
raised
concerns
about
the
selection
of
very
limited
number
of
FFC
isotherms
from
wide
range
possible,
questionable
FFC
infiltration
rate,
and
questionable
FFC
median
model
inputs
for
Monte
Carlo
runs.

(
5)
Inadequate
or
Confusing
Output
­
EDF
raised
concerns
about
negative
time
to
peak
values,
inadequate
calculation
of
times
to
peak
vs
HBN
concentrations,
steady
state
vs.
transient
concentration
measurement.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
43
XV
­
43
In
sum,
EPA
notes
that
these
comments
taken
as
a
whole
are
substantive
and
need
study.
Many
are
related
in
that
they
depend
on
ensuring
proper
ion
balance,
and
many
relate
to
well
known
issues
of
national
vs.
site
specific
rulemaking.
All
are
under
investigation.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
44
XV
­
44
XV.
GROUNDWATER
RISK
MODELING
L.
Specific
Comments
on
Model
Design
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
As
the
enclosed
report
entitled
Use
of
MINTEQA2
and
EPACMTP
to
Estimate
Groundwater
Pathway
Risks
from
the
Land
Disposal
of
Metal­
Bearing
Wastes
indicates,
the
Agency's
use
of
MINTEQA2
to
generate
the
sorption
isotherms
systematically
understates
the
potential
for
metals
contaminant
migration,
often
by
many
orders
of
magnitude.
The
report
documents
20
important
technical
errors
built
into
EPA's
use
of
the
model
related
to
the
chemistry
of
the
groundwater
assumed
in
MINTEQA2,
the
effect
of
waste
leachate
chemistry
on
the
groundwater,
and
the
application
of
the
model
to
generate
the
sorption
isotherms.
Addressing
just
four
of
these
errors
resulted
in
vastly
different
modeling
results,
in
terms
of
receptor
well
concentrations
and
resulting
risks,
and
the
time
of
travel
required
wells
for
the
contaminants
to
reach
the
receptor.
These
differences
were
observed
for
both
the
coal
combustion
waste
and
HWIR
waste
management
scenarios
modeled.
(
EDF00021)

Lead
is
the
most
frequently
detected
groundwater
contaminant
in
the
Scoping
Study,
but
it
is
one
for
which
the
Agency's
modeling
methodology
is
a
particularly
poor
risk
predictor.
EPA's
modeling
produces
extremely
steep
Dilution
and
Attenuation
Factor
(
DAF)
curves
for
lead,
particularly
for
leachate
concentrations
below
1
ppm,
and
thus
extraordinarily
high
DAFs
result
for
most
modeling
runs.
In
contrast,
the
alternative
isotherms
produced
by
the
authors
of
the
enclosed
report,
after
correcting
only
four
of
the
20
errors,
produced
much
flatter
DAF
curves,
particularly
for
the
lower
leachate
concentrations.
(
EDF00021)

USWAG
and
EPRI
have
reviewed
Norris
&
Hubbard's
work.
While
we
share
some
of
the
authors'
general
concerns
with
EPA's
utilization
of
CMTP
beyond
its
capabilities,
and
support
a
thorough
review
of
MINTEQA2,
we
believe
it
is
imperative
for
EPA
to
recognize
that
the
specific
modifications
Norris
&
Hubbard
suggest
are
unrealistic.
Their
work
is
a
theoretical
modeling
exercise,
designed
to
produce
extreme
results
to
draw
attention
to
deficiencies
in
EPA's
approach.
(
USWAG00275)

In
general,
the
extreme
difference
between
EPA's
modeling
results
and
those
obtained
by
Norris
&
Hubbard
is
due
largely
to
differences
in
the
input
data.
There
are
three
major
sources
of
error
in
Norris
&
Hubbard's
modeling
that
led
to
vast
overestimates
of
groundwater
concentrations
for
cadmium,
lead,
and
mercury:
(
1)
the
leachate
concentration
ranges;
(
2)
iron
oxide
adsorption
surface
area;
and
(
3)
facilitated
transport
via
iron
oxide
colloids.
Furthermore,
Norris
&
Hubbard
performed
no
validation
of
their
modeling.
In
addition,
Norris
&
Hubbard's
claim
that
EPA's
model
under­
predicts
the
effect
of
high
pH
is
unsupportable.
(
USWAG00275)

Noms
&
Hubbard
modeled
the
fate
and
transport
of
three
metals
­
lead,
cadmium,
and
mercury
­
using
input
leachate
concentrations
that
are
orders
of
magnitude
higher
than
observed
data
can
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
45
XV
­
45
support
...
It
is
clear
from
these
plots
that
the
input
concentrations
used
by
Norris
&
Hubbard
are
not
representative
of
leachate
concentrations
at
FFC
co­
management
sites
...
Not
only
did
the
authors
select
arbitrarily
high
leachate
input
concentrations,
but
they
then
chose
only
the
upper
90th
percentile
of
the
Monte
Carlo
results.
Their
results
thus
focus
on
the
upper
end
of
an
exaggerated,
conservative
modeling
exercise.
(
USWAG00275)

Norris
&
Hubbard
acknowledge
that
iron
oxide
surface
area
available
for
adsorption
is
g
key
parameter
influencing
attenuation
of
metals.
However,
the
authors
provide
no
reference
or
justification
for
decreasing
the
value
of
this
sensitive
parameter
by
more
than
four
orders
of
magnitude,
from
600
m2/
g
to
0.038
m2/
g.
Such
manipulation
has
a
significant
effect
on
modeling
results
and
is
unreasonable.
Research
supports
values
for
iron
oxide
surface
area
and
adsorption
site
density
at
least
as
large
as
those
used
by
EPA.
For
example,
for
iron
hydroxide,
Davis
and
Leckie
report
a
surface
area
of
700
m2/
g,
and
Gitvin,
et
al.
report
a
surface
area
of
600
m2/
g.
Furthermore,
these
two
references
support
the
use
of
a
surface
density
of
l01
sites
/
m2,
more
than
4
times
higher
than
that
used
by
EPA.
EPRI
research
determined
that
a
clay
fraction
(
iron
hydroxide
as
well
as
non­
iron
clay
minerals)
in
two
soils
from
electric
power
plants
had
total
surface
areas
of
118
m2/
g
and
160
m2/
g,
almost
four
orders
of
magnitude
higher
than
the
value
used
by
Norris
&
Hubbard
for
iron
hydroxide.
The
EPRI
data
also
document
iron
concentrations
of
1.3
percent
to
6.4
percent
in
soils
at
five
power
plants.
These
values
are
significantly
higher
than
those
used
by
EPAand
by
Norris
&
Hubbard
and
demonstrate
significant
additional
adsorption
capacity
is
available.
(
USWAG00275)

In
addition
to
substituting
their
own
values
for
numerous
key
assumptions,
Norris
&
Hubbard's
approach
differs
significantly
from
EPA's
in
the
use
of
a
custom
designed
FORTRAN
program
to
address
facilitated
transport
of
metals
via
entrained
colloidal
iron.
The
program
projects
transport
of
increased
amounts
of
trace
metals
adsorbed
to
the
surface
of
colloidal
iron.
However,
there
is
no
reliable
support
for
the
proposition
that
the
transport
of
metals
from
FFC
co­
management
units
is
enhanced
by
a
colloidal
transport
phenomenon.
(
USWAG00275)

The
authors
attempt
to
justify
their
approach
based
on
several
dubious
assumptions.
First,
Norris
&
Hubbard
assume
that
the
data
for
iron
in
EPA's
STORET
database
represent
filtered
concentrations.
However,
many
regulatory
agencies
require
either
unfiltered,
or
both
filtered
and
unfiltered
concentrations.
Therefore,
this
assumption
is
likely
to
be
invalid.
Based
on
the
first
questionable
assumption,
the
authors
then
made
a
second
questionable
assumption
that
any
iron
concentrations
in
excess
of
a
hypothetical
threshold
value
must
represent
colloidal
iron.
Finally,
the
authors
assumed
that
this
colloidal
iron
is
entrained
and
travels
with
groundwater.
The
authors
provide
no
reference
for
any
of
these
assumptions.
(
USWAG00275)

Facilitated
transport
by
colloids
is
a
complex
issue.
While
the
occurrence
of
facilitated
transport
has
been
postulated,
and
descriptive
models
have
been
developed,
­
the
role
of
facilitated
transport
is
at
best
a
point
of
scientific
debate.
Ryan
and
Gehwend
suggest
that
potential
colloid
transport
may
be
limited
in
groundwater.
Roy
and
Dzombak
suggest
that
colloid
transport
may
be
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
46
XV
­
46
significant
only
under
very
specific
geochemical
and
hydrogeologic
conditions.
The
state
of
the
science
is
such
that
significantly
more
research,
including
field
investigations,
is
necessary
to
describe
facilitated
transport
before
reliable
models
can
be
developed
and
validated
for
regulatory
use.
The
data
from
the
EPRI
co­
management
site
investigations
show
that
colloidal
transport
is
not
a
significant
issue
for
coal
combustion
waste
management
units.
At
EPA's
request,
EPRI
examined
at
each
field
investigation
site
the
differences
in
constituent
concentrations
at
two
filter
pore
sizes,
0.007
microns
and
0.45
microns.
If
colloidal
transport
were
a
significant
mechanism
at
these
sites,
we
would
expect
higher
constituent
concentrations
in
the
samples
filtered
using
the
larger
pore
size.
However,
as
the
analytical
results
for
paired
samples
of
cadmium,
lead,
and
iron
shown
in
Figure
4
demonstrate,
this
was
not
the
case.
(
USWAG00275)

Norris
&
Hubbard
have
not
attempted
to
validate
their
suggested
approach,
despite
the
ready
availability
of
field
data.
They
compare
their
modeling
results
only
to
EPA's
modeling
results.
However,
the
most
important
test
for
any
model
is
validation
against
field
data.
A
simple
validation
exercise
proves
Noms
&
Hubbard's
model
fails
to
predict
real
world
conditions
...
The
authors
present
no
evidence
that
their
revised
model
provides
better
or
more
accurate
results
than
the
EPA
model.
In
fact,
groundwater
data
collected
at
co­
management
sites
demonstrate
that
model
predictions
of
widespread
occurrence
of
high
concentrations
of
these
constituents
100
meters
from
the
site
are
clearly
in
error.
(
USWAG00275)

Norris
&
Hubbard
note
that
groundwater
pH
is
the
most
significant
factor
influencing
&
isotherms.
However,
throughout
the
report
the
authors
suggest
that
the
range
of
pH
values
that
EPA
used
was
not
representative
of
FFC
waste
management
sites.
Their
argument
is
unpersuasive
and
does
not
support
their
claims
that
EPA
has
under­
predicted
leachate
concentrations.
The
argument
that
the
model
should
be
adjusted
because
some
coal
combustion
wastes
have
pH
values
of
10
or
higher
is
simply
not
on
point.
The
relevant
isotherms
must
be
calculated
using
groundwater
pH,
not
waste
pH.
(
USWAG00275)

Norris
&
Hubbard's
additional
assertion
that
the
high
pH
in
the
waste
may
overwhelm
the
buffering
capacity
of
the
natural
system,
resulting
in
a
higher
groundwater
pHs
is
unpersuasive
because
it
fails
to
acknowledge
real
world
conditions.
Data
from
the
CL
co­
management
study
site,
for
example,
demonstrate
that
the
high
pH
of
the
ash
porewater
does
not
persist
even
a
few
feet
below
the
pond.
Norris
&
Hubbard
do
not
provide
a
citation
to
their
anecdotal
reference
to
a
site
in
Wisconsin
which
they
claim
demonstrates
that
high
pH
persists
in
groundwater
at
comanagement
sites.
See
Norris
&
Hubbard
at
23.
Nonetheless,
this
conclusion
defies
the
weight
of
evidence.
Norris
&
Hubbard
are
probably
referring
to
the
P4
site
documented
in
an
EPRI
site
investigation
report.
The
P4
site
manages
high
pH
ash
from
western
coal.
There
are
approximately
60
monitoring
wells
at
the
P4
site,
and
EPRI
data
indicate
that
leachate
pH
ranges
from
8.3
to
12.5.
Porewater
samples
collected
from
borings
extended
through
the
ash
and
into
the
underlying
soil
indicate
a
pH
decrease
of
two
to
four
pH
units
in
the
soil
immediately
below
the
ash.
Samples
from
ten
downgradient
wells
located
within
approximately
100
feet
of
the
edge
of
the
CCB
had
pH
values
ranging
from
6.5
­
9.9,
indicating
that
the
high
pH
in
the
ash
does
not
persist
in
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
47
XV
­
47
the
groundwater
system.
Historical
data
demonstrate
that
one
well
at
the
site
exhibited
a
pH
of
12.0,
similar
to
the
leachate.
This
shallow
well
is
located
on
the
edge
of
the
ash
disposal
area,
and
is
believed
to
be
sampling
leachate
from
a
small
area
that
is
poorly
drained.
The
high
pH
conditions
were
not
found
in
the
intermediate
or
deep
groundwater
wells
in
that
well
nest
or
in
other
wells
not
in
contact
with
the
edge
of
management
unit.
(
USWAG00275)

Although
the
topic
of
the
greatest
volume
of
comment
in
the
USWAG
document
concerns
the
EPACMTP
modeling
review,
it
does
not
appear
that
USWAG
understood
the
purpose
or
method
of
the
report.
USWAG's
discussion
seems
predicated
on
the
Norris
and
Hubbard
report
as
being
a
fate
and
transport
modeling
exercise
for
CCW
waste.
It
was
not,
nor
was
it
to
be.
The
model
was
not
attempting
to
model
CCW.
It
was
evaluating
the
implementation
of
four
changes
to
the
EPACMTP
program
input,
relative
to
the
outcome
calculated
by
EPACMTP
as
used
by
USEPA.
(
GHIL0012)

The
EPACMTP
report
was
a
general
review
and
citique
of
the
program
that
has
been
is
being
used
in
a
broad
spectrum
of
regulatory
determinations.
It
focused
only
on
those
applications
for
inorganic
contaminants,
because
it
is
observed
that
the
EPACMTP
modeling
results
under­
predict
concentrations
of
metals
relative
to
the
observations
in
the
real
world
data.
(
GHIL0012)

The
assessment
was
to
determine
whether
there
were
identifiable
aspects
of
the
modeling
that
could
lead
to
systematic
under­
calculation
of
metals
mobility
in
a
variety
of
applications
...
The
report
was
not
prepared
as
a
comment
document
on
the
CCW
determination
and
would
have
been
submitted
absent
any
regulatory
determination
on
that
particular
waste
stream.
(
GHIL0012)

Much
of
the
USWAG
discussion
is
irrelevant
in
the
light
of
the
actual
purpose
of
the
study.
For
example,
USWAG
objects
strenuously
to
the
three
contaminant
concentrations
used
for
the
comparison
scenarios.
These
contaminant
source­
term
concentrations
were
not
selected
to
represent
a
particular
waste
stream.
(
GHIL0012)

Another
manifestation
of
USWAG's
failure
to
understand
the
objectives
of
the
Norris
and
Hubbard
report
is
it
discussion
in
V.
A.
3.
regarding
the
need
to
verify
(
USWAG
presumably
means
validate,
rather
than
verify)
the
results
of
the
modeling
against
real
world
data.
The
model
was
not
attempting
to
model
CCW.
It
was
evaluating
the
implementation
of
four
changes
to
the
EPACMTP
program
input,
relative
to
the
outcome
calculated
by
EPACMTP
as
used
by
USEPA.
(
GHIL0012)

The
element
generating
the
least
comment
is
the
impact
of
high
pH
on
the
mobility
of
dissolved
metals.
Here
there
is
no
disagreement
as
to
the
chemical
importance
of
high
pH
to
metals
mobility,
only
a
dismissal
of
the
concern
in
the
field
and
the
observation
that
high
pHs
are
not
characteristic
of
CCW
sites
study
by
EPRI.
USWAG
dismisses
the
persistence
of
high
pH
by
citing
data
from
two
sites
selected
by
EPRI
for
its
study.
The
two
sites
appear
to
suggest
that
high
pH
values
in
CCW
leachate
do
not
persist
in
ground
water
at
any
significant
distance
away
from
the
boundary
of
disposal
...
One
of
the
critical
errors
in
USWAG's
discussion
is
the
position
that
it
is
the
pH
of
the
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
48
XV
­
48
ground
water
that
is
relevant,
and
not
the
pH
of
the
leachate
from
the
waste
...
There
is
presumed
to
be
an
unsaturated
zone
separating
the
waste
from
the
water
table
and
the
leachate
first
migrates
through
the
unsaturated
zone
and
then
enters
the
underlying
aquifer.
The
EPRI
data
cited
in
USWAG's
discussion
of
their
site
P4,
as
well
as
multiple
sites
identified
by
HEC
to
USEPA
over
the
last
year,
shows
that
the
EPACMTP
assumption
that
the
pH
of
ground
water
in
the
unsaturated
zone
is
unaffected
by
the
pH
of
the
waste
leachate
is
invalid.
Not
only
does
leachate
with
high
pH
overwhelm
the
pH
in
the
unsaturated
zone,
it
can,
and
sometimes
does,
persist
in
the
saturated
zone
aquifer.
(
GHIL0012)

Another
aspect
that
USWAG
chooses
not
to
consider
is
the
potential
disposal
scenarios
that
are
contemplated
for
these
wastes
if
current
policy
and
deregulation
continue.
Whereas
now
these
wastes
are
disposed
above
water
tables,
future
disposal
will
be
done
in
trenches
that
literally
replace
the
aquifer
over
its
full
thickness
with
these
wastes
...
Under
such
condition,
one
will
expect
high
pHs
to
persist
considerable
distances
from
the
disposal
site.
(
GHIL0012)

A
final
aspect
of
the
difference
between
the
scenarios
considered
by
the
EPRI
studies
and
the
new
disposal
practices
should
be
considered.
USWAG's
comments
imply
that
no
one
will
be
coming
in
contact
with
the
disposed
ash
and
its
in
situ
leachate,
only
with
ground
water
at
some
distance
from
the
disposal
area
...
In
Indiana,
where
wholesale
dumping
of
this
waste
is
being
permitted,
there
are
no
restrictions
whatsoever
regarding
the
land
use
of
disposal
sites
...
Under
such
conditions,
it
must
be
presumed
that
people
will
be
exposed
directly
to
CCW
leachate
and
not
some
downgradient,
attenuated
plume.
(
GHIL0012)

One
of
the
major
issues
USWAG
finds
with
the
EPACMTP
study
is
the
inclusion
of
enhanced
mobility
of
metals
adsorbed
onto
colloidal
particles
of
iron
oxyhydroxdes.
USWAG
identifies
what
it
perceives
as
three
assumptive
errors
on
the
part
of
Norris
and
Hubbard
that
are
made
with
"
no
references
for
any
of
the
assumptions."
The
first
is
that
the
water
analyses
used
by
EPA
for
its
modeled
ground
water
is
derived
from
filtered
samples.
The
second
is
that
iron
in
the
analyses
in
excess
of
equilibrium
concentrations
is
colloidal
iron.
The
third
assumption
is
that
the
colloidal
iron
is
mobile
and
travels
with
ground
water
...
It
is
not
the
assumption
of
Norris
and
Hubbard
that
this
ground
water
composition
is
appropriate
for
geochemical
modeling,
it
is
the
understanding
of
those
USEPA
scientists
most
familiar
with
the
STORET
data
base.
Second,
the
concentrations
selected
by
USEPA
as
representative
of
iron
concentrations
measured
in
analysis
of
the
ground
water
are
clearly
in
excess
of
equilibrium
concentrations.
The
iron
system
is
very
well
studied
...
Since
the
iron
is
present
at
concentrations
too
high
to
be
dissolved
concentrations,
it
must
be
present
in
some
other
form
than
dissolved.
The
other
form
of
iron
that
is
chemically
likely
is
colloidal
iron.
It
is
how
iron
forms
when
it
precipitates
from
solution.
It
is
the
standard
form
of
analytical
iron
present
at
concentrations
higher
than
dissolved
concentrations,
whether
in
the
laboratory
or
the
field.
Finally,
the
observation
that
the
colloidal
iron
is
mobile
is
also
a
conclusion
based
upon
empirical
evidence,
not
an
assumption.
If
the
colloidal
iron
were
not
entrained
in
the
ground
waster
and
did
not
move
with
the
ground
water,
it
would
not
be
captured
in
the
ground
water
sample
and
would
not
show
up
in
the
water
analyses.
(
GHIL0012)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
49
XV
­
49
The
reduced
surface
area
proposed
by
the
Norris
and
Hubbard
report
does
make
a
substantial
difference
in
the
ability
of
the
iron
substrate
to
retard
the
migration
of
metals.
However,
USWAG
is
in
error
in
suggesting
that
there
is
no
justification
for
the
smaller
[
surface
area
of
the
iron
substrate
proposed
by
the
Norris
and
Hubbard
report].
In
fact,
the
EPACMTP
report
provides
considerable
discussion
of
the
justification
...
The
use
of
the
suggested
grain
size
is
a
significant
departure
from
the
USEPA
input
values
to
MINTEQA2.
However,
it
is
justified,
logical
and
defendable.
It
considers
only
iron
oxyhydroxides
in
aquifer
materials
with
characteristics
used
by
EPACMTP.
(
GHIL0012)

EPACMTP,
as
implemented
by
USEPA,
does
routinely
under­
predict
metals
concentration
relative
to
the
real
world,
regardless
of
the
waste
scenario
being
evaluated
...
If
the
EPACMTP
were
even
approximately
predicting
a
realistic
mobility
for
metals,
one
would
expect
results
that
are
consistent
with
concentrations
observed
in
unimpacted
ground
water
due
to
natural
sources.
But,
EPACMTP
will
not
allow
concentrations
to
build
or
remain
at
even
natural
levels.
Instead,
if
one
inputs
natural
ground
water
concentrations
into
EPACMTP,
the
model
cleans
up
the
ground
water.
(
GHIL0012)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
1
1
XVI.
ABOVE
GROUND
RISK
MODELING
Many
commenters
provided
input
on
the
design
of
the
above
ground
risk
assessment
and
the
specific
assumptions
used
in
its
application.
A
number
of
industry
and
academic
commenters
directed
their
criticism
specifically
at
the
agricultural
use
scenario,
the
input
values
used
in
considering
risks
to
children,
and/
or
EPA's
characterization
of
soil
arsenic
toxicity.
Public
interest
group
commenters
expressed
concerns
about
the
consideration
of
volatilization
pathways
and
cumulative
exposures
and
questioned
specific
input
assumptions.
Specific
concerns
are
addressed
in
detail
below.

(
The
phrase
"
above
ground"
means
all
risk
pathways
other
than
the
explicit
groundwater
leaching
pathway.
"
Above
ground"
thus
includes
many
disparate
and
yet
related
pathways,
embodying
both
indirect
and
direct
exposures,
ingestion
and
inhalation.
This
set
includes
air
emissions
and
depositions,
runoff,
erosion
and
agricultural
use.
Transport
modeling
for
these
pathways
would
also
be
relevant
for
ecological
risk
assessment.)

Response:
EPA
believes
the
design
of
its
above
ground
risk
assessment
was
appropriately
protective
(
erring
on
the
side
of
safety)
and
based
on
sound
scientific
principles.
In
general,
EPA
also
believes
the
assumptions
and
input
values
it
used
for
the
above
ground
risk
assessment
were
appropriate,
given
the
specific
characteristics
of
FFC
wastes
and
the
environmental
settings
of
FFC
facilities.
Based
on
specific
comments
about
the
assessment
of
risk
from
agricultural
use,
however,
EPA
re­
examined
key
assumptions
for
the
agricultural
use
scenario.
From
this,
EPA
revised
its
estimate
of
risk
from
agricultural
use
of
FFC
waste
as
discussed
in
Section
VIII,
above.
The
responses
below
address
concerns
about
the
overall
above
ground
risk
assessment
in
more
detail.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
2
2
XVI.
ABOVE
GROUND
RISK
MODELING
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
EPA
conducted
a
human
health
risk
assessment
for
potential
human
health
risks
to
soil
amendments
for
agricultural
use.
The
risk
assessment
associated
with
agricultural
uses
has
many
errors
associated
with
the
calculations,
which
include
the
bioavailability
of
arsenic
in
soil,
the
amounts
of
soil
ingested
by
children,
and
the
toxicity
values
used
by
EPA.
(
PG&
E00023)

USWAG
disputes
EPA's
preliminary
conclusion
that
agricultural
applications
of
coal
combustion
products
may
present
unacceptable
risks.
EPA's
preliminary
findings
are
based
on
a
seriously
flawed
risk
assessment
performed
without
consultation
with
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
and
without
reference
to
the
tremendous
body
of
scientific
research
sponsored
by
Federal
agencies,
the
states,
and
industry.
(
USWAG00037)

EPA's
flawed
modeling
of
arsenic
fate
and
transport
clouded
the
conclusion
regarding
two
economically
and
environmentally
significant
beneficial
uses
of
these
materials:
mine
placement
of
CCPs
and
agronomic
application
of
CCPs.
(
USWAG00037)

In
both
the
groundwater
and
non­
groundwater
pathway
risk
assessments,
EPA
selected
overlyconservative
assumptions
for
numerous
key
parameters,
compounding
errors
by
orders
of
magnitude.
The
results
of
that
effort
show
that
arsenic
risk
potential
exceeds
conservative
protective
levels
by
two
orders
of
magnitude
in
the
worst
case
scenario.
Those
results
are
merely
noise
generated
by
the
extremely
conservative
assumptions
and
are
indefensible.
(
USWAG00037)

In
the
non­
groundwater
risk
assessment's
agricultural
use
scenario
for
the
child
ingestion
pathway,
EPA
calculated
an
arsenic
risk
of
5
x
10­
5
and
concluded
that
"[
t]
he
risks
identified
with
this
practice
are
of
sufficient
concern
to
consider
whether
some
form
of
control
under
Subtitle
C
is
appropriate,
given
the
increasing
trend
for
use
of
these
materials
as
agricultural
amendments."
The
risk
assessment
upon
which
EPA
based
its
conclusion
is
seriously
flawed
through
utilization
of
multiple
unrealistic,
overly
conservative
assumptions
and
provides
no
defensible
foundation
for
a
decision
to
pursue
further
regulation
of
this
beneficial
use
of
CCPs.
(
USWAG00037)

While
most
of
EPA's
conclusions
were
based
on
sound
science,
NSP
must
address
certain
technical
oversights
which
resulted
in
EPA's
preliminary
conclusion
that
agricultural
uses
of
coal
ash
could
result
in
arsenic
exposure
health
risks.
(
NSP00057)

NSP
was
still
able
to
uncover
several
technical
oversights,
omissions
and
errors
in
the
draft
RTC
which
combined
to
overstate
calculated
risks
for
agricultural
uses
of
coal
ash
by
several
orders
of
magnitude.
The
underlying
assumptions
used
in
this
risk
analysis
appear
to
be
substantially
more
conservative
than
assumptions
used
in
previous
health
risk
analyses
performed
by
the
EPA
for
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
3
3
other
materials.
EPA
must
maintain
a
consistent,
objective
basis
in
evaluating
health
risks
for
the
public;
this
draft
RTC
appears
to
subjectively
identify
risks
that
do
not
objectively
exist.
The
EPA
health
risk
analysis
assumed
questionable
values
for
ash
application
rate,
ash
application
frequency,
ash
arsenic
concentrations,
child
ingestion
rate,
arsenic
cancer
slope
factor
&
reference
dose,
and
coal
ash
arsenic
bioavailability,
as
discussed
below.
(
NSP00057)

I
am
concerned
that
a
number
of
science
issues
have
been
handled
inappropriately
in
the
development
of
an
approach
to
regulate
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes
(
FFCW),
and
am
taking
this
opportunity
to
provide
scientific
comments
on
the
Report
and
on
the
risk
assessment
which
is
the
basis
for
the
Report.
These
concerns
include
...
methods
to
estimate
risks
from
arsenic
and
other
trace
elements
applied
to
cropland
in
fossil
fuel
combustion
byproducts
...
recent
research
and
interpretation
of
research
which
might
affect
scientific
risk
assessment
for
soil
arsenic
and
arsenic
in
land­
applied
byproducts
including
FFCW.
(
PHS011)

Any
risk
assessment
is
only
as
valid
as
the
assumptions
used
in
the
calculations
of
exposure
and
risk.
The
risk
assessment
for
beneficial
use
of
these
FFCB
is
replete
with
errors
regarding
application
rate,
fate
of
As
in
soil,
bioavailability
of
soil
As,
amounts
of
soil
ingested
by
children,
etc.
(
PHS011)

In
conclusion,
the
Risk
Assessment
for
As
in
land­
applied
FFCB
is
so
severely
flawed
that
it
is
not
a
valid
basis
for
public
policy.
(
PHS011)

The
results
for
the
EPA
calculations
(
Table
2)
show
very
low
acceptable
soil
As
levels
...
These
extremely
low
acceptable
As
levels
mean
either,
that
the
most
exposed
individuals
(
pica
children,
in
this
case)
are
currently
being
exposed
to
cancer­
causing
As
levels
in
uncontaminated,
natural
soils,
or
that
there
is
some
flaw
in
the
EPA
risk
assessment
calculations
...
Given
the
uncertainties
in
this
information,
the
choice
of
more
reasonable
values,
as
demonstrated
under
"
Alternative
Scenarios"
in
Table
2,
results
in
clearly
more
realistic
values
for
maximum
As
levels
in
landapplied
wastes.
(
PHS018)

The
Risk
assessments
are
not
adequate.
There
are
several
ways
in
which
the
risk
assessment
and
exposure
analyses
contained
in
the
Report
are
inadequate
and
inconsistent
with
Agency
policy,
including
the
following
...
The
most
important
pathway
for
mercury
releases
­­
the
volatilization
of
mercury
from
landfills,
impoundments,
coal
storage
piles,
fly
ash,
and
agricultural
application
­­
apparently
has
not
been
considered
at
all
in
this
Report.
Indeed,
it
appears
that
the
air
pathway
is
completely
ignored.
(
49CA00058)

We
reviewed
EPA`
s
non­
groundwater
risk
assessment,
and
found
it
to
have
been
performed
using
an
acceptable
methodology
based
on
current
EPA
guidance
...
In
this
review,
aside
from
a
general
review
of
methodology,
particular
attention
was
paid
to
the
parameters
identified
by
the
sensitivity
analysis
as
being
the
most
important.
As
discussed
above,
the
constituent
concentration
is
by
far
the
most
important
(
and
most
uncertain)
parameter.
Other
parameters
important
for
the
non­
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
4
4
groundwater
analysis
are
waste
management
unit
(
WMU)
area,
exposure
duration,
and
distance
to
the
receptor.
These
are
discussed
below
along
with
other
specific
comments
on
other
aspects
of
the
assessment
(
e.
g.,
the
lack
of
a
mercury
analysis).
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
46
FF2P­
S0370.

XVI
­
5
5
XVI.
ABOVE
GROUND
RISK
MODELING
A.
Application
Rate
for
Agricultural
Use
Several
commenters
from
industry,
academics,
and
federal
agencies
indicated
that
the
risk
assessment
assumed
an
unrealistically
high
application
rate
for
agricultural
use.

Response:
After
review
of
the
comments
on
application
rate
and
frequency,
it
is
apparent
that
application
frequency,
as
presented
in
the
RTC
and
the
non­
groundwater
risk
assessment
technical
background
document,
46
was
misunderstood.
The
commenters
apparently
presumed
application
frequencies
of
three
times
per
year
for
high­
end
and
twice
per
year
for
central
tendency.
The
risk
assessment,
however,
actually
used
application
frequencies
of
once
every
3
years
for
central
tendency
and
once
every
2
years
for
high­
end.
This
was
noted
in
Section
VIII.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
6
6
XVI.
ABOVE
GROUND
RISK
MODELING
A.
Application
Rate
for
Agricultural
Use
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
risk
assessment
assumed
a
much
greater
application
rate
for
fossil
fuel
combustion
byproducts
(
FFCBs
which
includes
CCPs)
than
would
be
the
real
case,
since
application
rates
would
be
determined
by
the
soil's
lime
requirements.
(
NMA00024)

A
CCP
application
rate
in
excess
of
a
reasonable
agronomic
rate.
The
risk
assessment
assumed
an
annual
CCP
application
rate
of
10
t/
ha
for
100
consecutive
years.
Dr.
Rufus
Chaney
of
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture
stated
that
the
real
world
rate
of
application
is
limited
by
the
agronomic
limit,
which
is
dictated
by
the
calcium
carbonate
equivalent
or
nutrient
the
CCP
is
applied
to
supply.
As
an
example,
Dr.
Chaney
cited
the
application
of
5­
10
t/
ha
FGD
material
once
every
3­
5
years
to
raise
soil
pH
for
alfalfa
cultivation.
Application
as
a
fertilizer
for
boron,
sulfate
or
selenium
content
would
dictate
an
even
lower
agronomic
rate.
Dr.
William
Miller
of
the
University
of
Georgia
stated
that
the
risk
assessment
should
have
assumed
a
central
tendency
value
of
0.5
t/
ha/
y
and
a
high
end
value
of
1.2
t/
ha/
year.
(
USWAG00037)

Table
4.1
of
the
"
Draft
Final
Report:
Non­
Groundwater
Pathways,
Human
Health
and
Ecological
Risk
Analysis
for
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion
Phase
2,"
dated
June
5,
1998
identified
the
input
values
for
Agricultural
Liming
Practice
Parameters,
including
Central
Tendency
and
high
end
values
for
applications
rate
and
application
frequency.
The
central
tendency
values
were
specified
at
3
tons/
acre/
application,
with
an
application
frequency
of
every
1/
3
year.
The
high
end
values
were
specified
at
5
tons/
acre/
application,
wit
an
application
frequency
of
every
1/
2
year.
This
would
correspond
to
9­
10
ton
acre/
year
over
the
assumed
period
of
100
years
active
use.
These
values
defy
any
definition
of
agronomic
requirements
which
must
be
considered
when
using
liming
materials,
including
coal
ash,
for
agricultural
purposes.
In
the
State
of
Minnesota,
there
are
approximately
29
million
acres
of
farmland
in
production.
In
1991,
about
1,000,000
tons
of
liming
materials
were
applied
to
Minnesota
soils.
Not
all
soils
or
crops
require
liming.
A
typical
aglime
application
rate
and
frequency
for
soils
and
crops
that
need
liming
is
about
2
­
5
tons,
once
every
three
to
five
years.
(
NSP00057)

When
FFCB
are
used
beneficially
as
soil
amendments
to
satisfy
fertilizer
or
limestone
needs
of
crop
production
systems,
the
rate
of
application
will
be
limited
by
the
Ca
carbonate
equivalent
or
nutrient
the
FFCW
is
applied
to
supply.
The
rate
of
application
assumed
in
the
Risk
Assessment
is
inappropriate.
The
Risk
assessment
is
based
on
5
t/
ha,
twice
yearly.
But
the
limestone
value
of
such
a
product
is
applied
to
replace
the
amount
of
neutralizing
value
required
for
the
field
being
treated.
One
example
for
use
is
the
application
to
rais
soil
pH
before
one
plants
alfalfa,
a
crop
which
requires
near
neutral
pH
at
planting
to
give
economic
production
for
3­
5
years
of
the
perennial
crop.
Application
of
5­
10
t
FGD­
byproduct
would
raise
soil
pH
to
6.5­
7,
based
on
a
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
7
7
lime
requirement
soil
test,
and
no
further
application
would
occur
for
3­
5
years.
Use
at
fertilizer
rates
for
B,
sulfate
or
Se
would
require
even
lower
application
rates,
but
those
could
be
done
more
frequently.
The
assumption
about
application
rate
drives
the
risk
assessment
over
time.
It
is
certainly
appropriate
to
consider
a
100
year
application
period,
and
even
the
40
year
postapplication
period
in
such
modeling,
but
the
cumulative
rate
during
that
period
would
be
much
lower
than
assumed
by
EPA.
(
PHS011)

The
application
rates
used
by
RTI
(
Table
4­
1,
RTI
report)
were
3
t/
a
once
every
3
y
(
average
annual,
1
t/
a/
y)
as
the
central
tendency,
and
5
t/
a
once
every
2
years
(
2.5
t/
a/
y)
as
the
95th
percentile.
Justification
of
these
values
was
not
given
in
the
RTI
report,
but
are
in
the
author's
opinions
excessive.
(
PHS018)

A
more
reasonable
approach
is
to
observe
that
in
Georgia
in
1985,
approximately
900,000
tons
of
liming
materials
were
applied
to
4.8
million
acres
of
cropland,
giving
an
average
application
rate
of
0.2
t/
a/
y
(
Georgia
Dept.
of
Agric.,
1985).
Georgia
soils
are
less
buffered
than
other
U.
S.
soils,
but
are
generally
quite
acidic,
and
this
rate
of
lime
application
is
likely
to
represent
average
conditions
across
the
country.
Using
a
2.5
multiplier
to
arbitrarily
set
the
95th
percentile,
we
would
propose
0.2
t/
a/
y
as
a
central
tendency
and
0.5
t/
a/
y
as
a
high
end
scenario
for
ag
lime
application.
Commerical
lime
typically
has
a
neutralizing
value
of
roughly
90%
that
of
pure
CaCO3
(
calcium
carbonate
equivalence,
CCE).
FBC
waste
has
a
median
CCE
of
60%,
ranging
from
30%
to
100%
(
Stout,
et
al,
date
unknown).
Thus,
FBC
would
need
to
be
applied
at
a
higher
rate
than
ag
lime,
using
the
multiplier
(
90/
CCE
of
FBC)
in
order
to
account
for
the
lower
liming
effectiveness
of
FBC.
The
resulting
matrix
of
lime
application
rates
and
CCE
values
(
Table
1)
shows
that
the
central
tendency
case
requires
0.3
t/
a/
y
of
FBC,
the
single
high­
end
cases
requires
0.6
to
0.75
t/
a/
y,
while
the
double
high­
end
case
requires
1.5
t/
a/
y.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
8
8
XVI.
ABOVE
GROUND
RISK
MODELING
B.
Soil
Arsenic
Toxicity
Several
industry
commenters
stated
that
this
risk
assessment
did
not
appropriately
account
for
the
unique
aspects
of
evaluating
exposures
to
arsenic
in
soil.
The
commenters
stated
that
the
assessment
unrealistically
assumed
that
100
percent
of
arsenic
is
bioavailable,
even
though
landapplied
arsenic
becomes
much
less
phytoavailable
over
time,
and
that
soil
arsenic
in
terrestrial
food
chains
is
not
biomagnified.
One
of
the
commenters
additionally
stated
that,
because
of
differences
in
chemical
form,
bioavailability,
and
excretion
kinetics,
arsenic
toxicity
in
soil
should
be
lower
than
arsenic
toxicity
in
drinking
water.
A
public
interest
group
commenter,
on
the
other
hand,
stated
that,
while,
the
bioavailability
of
arsenic
may
be
as
low
as
10
percent,
it
has
been
reported
to
be
as
high
as
52
percent
under
certain
environmental
conditions.

Response:
EPA
agrees
that
it
is
unlikely
that
100
percent
of
arsenic
in
soil
is
available
for
plant
uptake
and
that
arsenic
does
not
biomagnify
in
the
terrestrial
food
chain.
Modeling
did
not
predict
the
biomagnification
of
arsenic
in
beef
and
milk
(
i.
e.
concentrations
of
arsenic
did
not
increase
from
soil
to
plants
and
into
cattle).
Soil­
to­
plant
uptake
factors
as
given
in
the
table
below,
based
on
empirical
studies,
were
used
in
the
risk
assessment
to
account
for
reductions
in
plant
uptake.
The
fertilizers
analysis
referenced
in
this
table
accounted
for
the
interaction
among
multiple
soil
parameters
by
using
a
distribution
of
measured
values
collected
from
the
literature
for
soil­
plant
uptake
factors.
The
distributions
reflect
actual
agricultural
soil
conditions
in
multiple
locations
across
the
country.

Values
were
computed
from
the
distribution
of
the
various
plant­
soil
uptake
factors
for
the
fertilizers
project
and
compared
to
the
plant­
soil
uptake
factors
that
were
used
in
FFC.
Presented
in
the
last
column
of
the
table
are
the
values
within
which
the
FFC
point
estimates
fall.
As
can
be
seen,
all
FFC
values
fall
between
the
40
and
65th
percentile
values
that
were
presented
in
the
fertilizers
project.
It
was
therefore
concluded
that
the
values
that
were
used
for
FFC
are
representative
of
typical
soil­
plant
uptake
factors
at
the
national
level
and
appropriate
for
the
FFC
risk
assessment.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
9
9
Soil
to
Plant
Uptake
Units
FFC
Value
Fertilizer
Uptake
Factor
Percentile
Values
Leafy
Vegetables
(
:
g/
g
DW
plant)
/
(
:
g/
g
soil)
3.6E­
02
45th
3.36E­
02
50th
3.96E­
02
Root
Vegetables
(
RCF)
(
:
g/
g
WW
plant)
/
(
:
g/
mL
soil
water)
8.0E­
03
60th
7.09E­
03
65th
9.20E­
03
Forage
(
:
g/
g
DW
plant)
/
(
:
g/
g
soil)
6.0E­
02
40th
5.58E­
02
45th
6.12E­
02
EPA
agrees
that
the
biogeochemistry
of
arsenic
is
complex
and
that
one
species
will
not
predominate
under
all
environmental
conditions.
Generally,
arsenic(+
5)
is
the
predominant
species
in
well­
oxidized
environmental
systems,
and
arsenic(+
3)
occurs
predominantly
in
reduced
environmental
systems.
However,
because
the
redox
transformation
is
slow,
both
arsenic(+
5)
and
arsenic(+
3)
may
be
present
in
either
system.
Ideally,
both
species
should
be
considered
in
risk
analyses.
However,
FFC
data
did
not
provide
data
for
individual
arsenic
species.
Therefore,
in
order
to
assess
the
risk
posed
by
arsenic
in
the
environment,
one
species
must
be
assumed
to
be
present
in
the
system.
It
was
assumed
that
the
total
arsenic
concentration
was
present
as
arsenic(+
3)
for
purposes
of
this
risk
analysis.
This
assumption
yields
the
most
protective
results
because
arsenic(+
3)
is
the
more
toxic
and
generally
the
more
mobile
of
the
two
forms.
Despite
the
development
of
pharmokinetic
models
that
simulate
the
absorption,
distribution,
metabolism
and
excretion
of
various
forms
of
arsenic,
study
data
are
still
insufficient
to
quantify
relationships
between
arsenic
in
soil
and
arsenic
in
drinking
water
The
Office
of
Water
currently
is
reviewing
the
drinking
water
standard
based
on
recent
recommendations
from
the
National
Research
Council
(
NRC).
The
NRC
concluded
that
the
drinking
water
standard
for
arsenic
should
be
more
stringent
based
on
new
information
on
arsenic
exposure
and
cancer.
It
also
suggested
,
without
specifying
a
revised
slope
factor,
that
the
existing
slope
factor
should
be
revised.
The
cancer
slope
factor
listed
in
IRIS
considered
only
skin
tumors
while
new
data
indicate
that
other
tumors
also
should
be
considered.
EPA
is
scheduled
to
promulgate
a
new
arsenic
drinking
water
standard
in
January
2001.
Until
the
arsenic
drinking
water
evaluation
is
completed,
the
current
health
benchmarks
listed
in
IRIS
will
be
used.
However,
it
appears
at
this
writing
that
arsenic
standards
will
be
revised
to
be
more
protective.

XVI.
ABOVE
GROUND
RISK
MODELING
B.
Soil
Arsenic
Toxicity
(
Bioavailability,
etc.)
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
10
10
This
health
risk
assessment
did
not
take
into
account
the
unique
aspects
of
evaluating
exposures
to
arsenic
in
soil.
For
example,
risks
from
incidental
ingestion
of
arsenic
in
soil
were
based
on
toxicity
factors
derived
from
studies
of
arsenic
(
soluble
arsenate
or
arsenite)
in
drinking
water
(
IRIS,
1999).
The
toxicity
of
arsenic
in
drinking
water
should
not
be
directly
extrapolated
to
the
toxicity
of
soil
arsenic
because
of
differences
in
chemical
form,
bioavailability,
and
excretion
kinetics
(
Valberg
et
al,
Freeman
et
al).
Based
on
these
differences
between
soil
arsenic
and
water
arsenic,
risks
from
arsenic
in
soil
should
be
lower
than
what
are
calculated
using
default
USEPA
toxicity
values
for
arsenic
in
drinking
water.
(
PG&
E00023)

The
risk
assessment
assumed
a
much
higher
level
of
availability
for
soil
arsenic
being
transferred
to
plants.
"
This
assessment
failed
to
consider
that
As
[
arsenic]
in
land­
applied
[
FFCBs]
becomes
less
phytoavailable
over
time.
(
NMA00024)

The
risk
assessment
did
not
consider
the
fact
that
soil
arsenic
in
terrestrial
food
chains
is
not
biomagnified,
an
important
factor
in
considering
risk
from
trace
elements.
(
NMA00024)

While
EPA
has
established
a
maximum
pollutant
concentration
of
41
mg/
kg
for
arsenic
in
sewage
sludge
that
is
applied
to
land
(
40
CFR
503.13(
b)(
3)),
based
on
an
assumption
that
children
were
directly
ingesting
the
material
from
fertilizer
and
soil
conditioners
available
for
home
use.
Had
this
limit
been
adjusted
to
reflect
actual
arsenic
bioavailabilty,
the
limit
would
have
been
93mg/
kg.
(
NMA00024)

EPA
failed
to
consider
the
speciation
and
availability
of
arsenic.
Without
discussion
or
justification,
EPA
assumed
that
100%
of
arsenic
is
bioavailable.
However,
scientific
research
has
demonstrated
that
arsenic
in
soils
is
only
10%
bioavailable
to
mammals.
(
USWAG000037)

The
non­
groundwater
risk
assessment
assumes
that
arsenic
in
land­
applied
CCPs
is
100%
bioavailable.
However,
this
assumption
is
contrary
to
the
body
of
scientific
research
that
demonstrates
that
arsenic
in
soils
is
only
10%
bioavailable
to
mammals.
This
error
alone
results
in
overestimation
of
risk
by
a
factor
of
10.
In
addition,
the
risk
assessment
ignores
the
widely
accepted
research
that
demonstrates
that
arsenic
in
land­
applied
CCPs
becomes
less
phytoavailable
over
time
and
that
plant
absorbed
arsenic
is
not
biomagnified
in
higher
trophic
levels.
(
USWAG000037)

The
draft
RTC
health
risk
analysis
assumed
100%
bioavailability
of
arsenic
in
coal
ash.
Dr.
Chaney
of
the
USDA
testified
at
the
EPA
Public
Hearing
on
May
21,
1999,
that
numerous
studies
demonstrate
that
only
10%
of
arsenic
in
coal
ash
would
be
bioavailable.
(
NSP00057)

One
of
the
pathways
evaluated
was
the
plant
absorption
of
As
and
harm
to
consumers
of
such
plants.
This
assessment
failed
to
consider
that
As
in
land­
applied
CCFBs
becomes
less
phytoavailable
over
time.
Even
when
studies
have
found
increased
uptake
of
As
in
the
year
of
CCFB
application,
plant
As
declined
to
insignificantly
increased
concentrations
by
the
second
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
11
11
year
and
subsequent
years
(
e.
g.,
Guenmann
et
al.,
1979).
Further,
many
such
studies
were
conducted
with
"
disposal"
rates
of
CCFB
application,
50
or
100
T/
A,
which
also
increases
potential
for
plant
uptake
due
to
temporary
changes
in
soil
electrical
conductivity
or
dissolved
organic
carbon.
Basic
studies
of
the
fate
of
soluble
As
added
to
soils
also
indicates
that
soil
As
becomes
less
phytoavailable
after
application,
following
natural
soil
chemistry
of
aging
of
trace
element
residues
on
adsorption
surfaces.
Consider
repeated
intermittent
use
over
100
year
at
limestone
replacement
rates,
and
the
effect
of
CCFB
constituents
on
bioavailability
of
soil
As
to
plants,
beneficial
use
of
CCFB
is
not
expecte
to
comprise
any
risk
in
the
environment
through
plant
uptake.
(
PHS011)

Soil
As
is
not
biomagnified
in
terrestrial
food
chains.
This
important
consideration
was
not
discussed
in
the
Risk
Assessment.
It
is
important
that
citizens
recognize
the
difference
in
risk
from
trace
elements
which
can
be
biomagnified
in
higher
trophic
levels
and
those
which
are
clearly
not
biomagnified.
Thus
risk
assessment
for
soil
As
or
As
in
forage
crops
completes
the
risk
assessment.
(
PHS011)

Research
has
been
reported
in
the
last
decade
on
the
bioavailability
of
soil
As
to
mammals
(
Freeman
et
al.,
1993;
Freeman
et
al.,
1995;
Groen
et
al.,
1993;
Rodriguez
et
al.,
1999).
This
work
has
been
conducted
in
risk
assessment
for
Superfund
contaminated
sites
from
mining,
smelting,
CCA­
wood
treatment,
etc.,
as
well
as
geogenic
As
bound
in
Fe
oxides
in
soils
(
e.
g.
Groen
et
al.,
1993).
These
studies
have
provided
reliable
data
on
bioavailability
of
soil
As
for
use
in
risk
assessment.
The
most
applicable
study,
in
which
soil
and
house
dust
from
a
Cu
smelter
community
were
fed
to
monkeys
(
Freeman
et
al.,
1995),
showed
that
soil
As
bioavailability
was
low
compared
to
arsenate
used
as
the
positive
control,
only
about
10%
of
arsenate.
A
feeding
study
in
the
Netherlands
with
dogs
also
showed
very
low
bioavailability
of
genogenic
soil
As,
less
than
10%
(
Groen
et
al.,
1993).
Because
EPA
failed
to
consider
the
low
bioavailability
to
mammals
of
As
in
ingested
soils
at
levels
relevant
to
FFCB,
EPA's
estimated
risk
is
about
10­
fold
higher
than
it
should
have
been
found
to
be.
Correction
of
this
error
alone
would
have
prevented
EPA
from
concluding
that
FFCB
comprised
risk
when
used
on
cropland.
(
PHS011)

The
range
of
bioavailability
of
arsenic
is
as
low
as
10%
but
has
been
reported
to
be
as
high
as
52%.
Again,
EPA
needs
to
carefully
scrutinize
the
information
received
in
public
comments
regarding
arsenic.
Any
decision
to
alter
the
assumptions
used
in
the
risk
assessment
must
be
supported
by
scientific
data
and
be
consistent
with
EPA`
s
risk
assessment
guidelines.
(
ALA00292)

Finally,
it
should
be
mentioned
that
the
behavior
of
arsenic
in
the
environment
changes
depending
on
the
environmental
conditions.
The
suggestion
that
one
species
predominates
over
the
other
under
all
conditions
is
incorrect.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
47
Mercury
Study
Report
to
Congress.
EPA.
EPA­
452/
R­
97­
003.
December,
1997.

XVI
­
12
12
XVI.
ABOVE
GROUND
RISK
MODELING
C.
Volatilization
Pathways
and
Mercury
in
General
Public
interest
group
commenters
expressed
concern
that
the
assessment
did
not
account
for
potential
exposure
to
volatile
organic
compounds
through
volatilization
from
landfills.
Public
interest
group
commenters
also
expressed
concern
that
EPA
did
not
consider
mercury
(
particularly
mercury
volatilization)
in
its
non­
groundwater
(
i.
e.
above
ground)
risk
assessment.
One
of
the
commenters
considered
this
to
be
a
significant
oversight
given
that
the
risk
of
non­
ground­
water
pathway
mercury
exposures
was
included
in
the
ecological
risk
assessment.
The
commenter
stated
that
if
piscivorous
bird
mercury
exposures
have
been
assessed,
EPA
must
be
able
to
model
the
fate,
transport,
and
bioaccumulation
of
mercury
in
the
aquatic
food
chain
and
should
therefore
be
able
to
assess
human
fisher
exposures.
An
industry
commenter
suggested
that
the
small
quantities
of
mercury
present
were
in
a
form
unlikely
to
volatilize.

Response:
As
discussed
in
Section
XIII,
available
data
showed
that
organic
constituents
are
infrequently
present
in
FFC
wastes
at
levels
above
analytical
detection
limits.
This
conclusion
is
consistent
with
the
expectation
that
organics
are
destroyed
in
the
combustion
process
or
pass
out
the
stack.
Given
this
conclusion,
and
the
absence
of
data
showing
the
presence
of
organic
compounds,
the
Agency
did
not
consider
organic
compounds
in
its
risk
assessment.

Fate
and
transport
of
mercury
in
the
environment
was
not
modeled
for
the
ecological
risk
assessment.
Rather,
mercury
concentrations
in
surface
impoundments
were
taken
from
the
analytical
data
provided
as
the
water
concentrations
from
which
ecological
risk
results
were
calculated.
EPA
noted
this
potential
for
ecological
risk
in
this
assessment.
For
human
health,
since
impoundment
concentrations
would
have
limited
relevance,
EPA
did
consider
volatilization
and
did
perform
modeling,
as
described
next.

At
the
time
the
initial
non­
groundwater
risk
assessment
was
performed,
the
1997
mercury
Report
to
Congress
(
mercury
RTC)
47
was
being
finalized.
This
evaluation
did
not
include
mercury
volatilization.
After
consideration
of
the
public
interest
group
and
industry
comments,
however,
EPA
undertook
a
further
review
of
the
scientific
literature
on
volatilization
and
mobilization
of
mercury
specifically
in
FFC
wastes.
The
Agency
concludes
that
while
scientific
research
on
this
topic
is
progressing,
the
best
available
scientific
data
supports
the
contention
that
the
percentage
of
mercury
in
FFC
wastes
not
already
volatilized
in
combustion
does
not
easily
volatilize
when
in
the
solid
waste.
We
found
no
evidence
to
refute
this.

It
may,
however,
be
blown
about
or
transported
overland
and
accumulate
in
fish,
and
we
have
now
modeled
these
pathways,
based
on
methodology
resulting
from
the
mercury
Report
to
Congress
,
and
reported
this
in
the
docket.
No
potential
for
risk
to
human
health
was
calculated
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
13
13
from
the
mercury
concentrations
reported
in
available
data.
EPA
plans
to
monitor
and
possibly
reexamine
this
as
wastes
from
potentially
increased
emission
controls
are
considered.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
14
14
XVI.
ABOVE
GROUND
RISK
MODELING
C.
Volatilization
Pathways
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
This
assessment
fails
to
consider
the
most
important
pathway
for
mercury
releases:
the
volatilization
of
mercury
from
landfills,
impoundments,
coal
storage
piles,
fly
ash
and
agricultural
application.
The
air
pathway
is
completely
ignored
in
this
analysis.
The
disposal
and
use
of
waste
products
which
contain
mercury
raises
the
question
of
whether
these
wastes
stabilize
the
mercury
or
act
as
additional
downstream
sources.
Recent
research
suggests
that
mercury
is
not
stable
in
most
of
these
wastes
and
is
subsequently
emitted.
Emissions
of
mercury
from
waste
&
waste
products
have
been
measured
from
landfills,
contaminated
soils,
municipal
waste
sludge,
chloralkali
wastes
and
vegetation
(
Carpi
et
al.,
1997;
Carpi
and
Lindberg,
1997;
Leonard
et
al.,
1998).
(
ALA00036)

Despite
the
conclusion
that
mercury
is
"
screened
out'
of
the
analysis
based
on
TCLP
results,
the
concentrations
measured
(
even
when
the
median
values
are
taken)
reveal
that
nationally,
tons
of
mercury
are
being
mobilized
in
these
waste
disposal
sites.
(
ALA00036)

By
not
accounting
for
potential
exposure
to
volatile
organic
compounds,
the
potential
exposure
from
air
emissions
from
landfills
in
the
non­
groundwater
assessment,
and
the
volatilization
of
organics
from
the
use
of
groundwater
in
showering
or
bathing
are
not
addressed.
(
ALA00036)

The
most
important
pathway
for
mercury
releases
­­
the
volatilization
of
mercury
from
landfills,
impoundments,
coal
storage
piles,
fly
ash,
and
agricultural
application
 
apparently
has
not
been
considered
at
all
in
this
Report.
Indeed,
it
appears
that
the
air
pathway
is
completely
ignored.
(
49CAO00058)

The
human
health
risks
of
non­
groundwater
exposure
to
mercury
were
not
modeled,
even
though
mercury
is
an
acknowledged
constituent
of
co­
managed
FFC
wastes,
and
a
toxic
chemical
that
is
a
priority
pollutant
for
EPA.
(
ALA00292)

The
second
reason
given
for
the
lack
of
mercury
modeling
is
basically
that
such
modeling
is
difficult.
While
this
is
certainly
true,
the
Agency
has
modified
several
models
to
specifically
model
mercury
air
dispersion,
runoff
and
bioaccumulation.
These
models
should
be
available
from
the
Office
of
Research
and
Development.
In
addition,
EPRI
has
developed
the
Mercury
Cycling
Model,
which
can
be
adapted
for
site­
specific
use.
With
regards
to
not
having
speciated
mercury
data,
any
mercury
that
will
volatilize
from
the
waste
will
be
elemental
mercury.
The
EPA
models
can
be
adapted
to
handle
any
speciation
profile,
including
100
percent
elemental
mercury.
With
the
additional
6
month
extension
granted
to
EPA,
mercury
volatilization
from
the
WMU's
and
agricultural
application
of
FBC
waste
should
be
explicitly
modeled.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
15
15
This
is
a
significant
oversight,
particularly
since
the
risk
of
non­
groundwater
pathway
mercury
exposures
was
included
in
the
ecological
risk
assessment.
(
ALA00292)

However,
if
piscivorous
birds
have
been
modeled
then
it
stands
to
reason
that
the
fate
and
transport
of
mercury
through
runoff
and
overland
transport
has
also
been
modeled
as
well
as
bioaccumulation
in
the
aquatic
food
chain.
Why
then,
couldn't
mercury
exposure
to
the
human
fisher
be
modeled.
g:
lven
that
mercury
fish
concentrations
have
obviously
been
estimated?
(
ALA00292)

What
little
mercury
may
be
found
in
these
combustion
wastes
is
the
oxidized
form
of
mercury,
and
this
form
will
not
reduce
back
to
elemental
mercury
or
pose
any
significant
risk
of
volatilization.
Thus,
even
though
EPA
did
not
eliminate
mercury
from
consideration
in
the
risk
analysis,
EPA
was
correct
in
its
conclusion
that
mercury
is
not
a
constituent
of
concern
in
co­
managed
coal
combustion
wastes.
(
USWAG0037)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
16
16
XVI.
ABOVE
GROUND
RISK
MODELING
D.
Cumulative
Exposures
One
public
interest
group
commenter
expressed
concern
that
the
person
exposed
to
metals
from
fish
consumption
is
not
exposed
to
any
other
potentially
contaminated
food.
The
commenter
suggested
the
assessment
should
account
for
existing
fish
consumption
advisories
for
two
constituents:
methyl
mercury
and
selenium.

Response:
EPA
agrees
that
there
is
potential
for
an
individual
to
be
exposed
to
fish
as
well
as
other
contaminated
foods.
The
farmer
or
the
farmer's
child
will
be
exposed
through
the
ingestion
of
home
grown
fruits,
vegetables,
milk,
fish
and
beef
products.
The
fisher,
however,
will
be
exposed
by
virtue
of
his
high
intake
of
fish,
but
is
presumed
to
procure
other
foods
from
non
contaminated
sources.
These
represent
very
different
exposure
patterns.
In
this
analysis,
risks
to
the
fisher
consistently
were
orders
of
magnitude
greater
than
risks
to
the
farmer,
and
these
were
the
primary
risks
in
the
above
ground
analysis.
(
Note:
This
was
the
case
for
all
scenarios
except
for
agricultural
use,
where
the
farmer
scenario
dominated.)
It
should
be
noted,
however,
that
concentrations
in
fish
issue
predicted
in
the
FFC
analysis
were
below
fish
advisory
levels.
This
does
not
in
any
way
diminish
the
force
of
such
advisories.

In
accordance
with
EPA
guidance,
all
potentially
cumulative
risk
pathways
associated
with
each
exposure
scenario
were
investigated.
Risks
were
summed
if
occurring
together
in
the
same
time
and
space,
for
similar
toxicological
endpoints.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
17
17
XVI.
ABOVE
GROUND
RISK
MODELING
D.
Cumulative
Exposures
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
In
the
receptors
evaluated
in
the
non­
groundwater
risk
assessment,
the
person
exposed
to
metals
from
fish
consumption
is
not
exposed
to
any
other
potentially
contaminated
food.
EPA
found
no
risks
associated
with
consumption
of
fish
potentially
contaminated
by
FFC
waste.
However,
EPA
did
not
account
for
existing
fish
consumption
advisories
for
two
waste
constituents:
methylmercury
and
selenium.
(
ALA00036)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
18
18
XVI.
ABOVE
GROUND
RISK
MODELING
E.
Input
Values
for
Assessing
Risk
to
Children
Industry
and
academic
commenters
questioned
the
soil
ingestion
rate
used
for
children,
variously
stating
that
it
should
have
been
100
to
400
mg/
day
at
the
high­
end.
Another
commenter
directed
criticism
at
a
number
of
input
values
used,
including
ingestion
rate,
exposure
frequency,
exposure
duration,
and
body
weight,
indicating
that
the
selection
of
overly
protective
estimates
for
all
these
inputs
resulted
in
overestimation
of
risk.

Response:
Comments
on
ingestion
rates
are
addressed
in
detail
in
Section
VIII
of
these
comments
and
responses.

EPA
notes,
however,
that
cancer
risk
estimates
for
a
child
(
or
adult)
are
not
based
exclusively
on
a
70­
year
exposure
period
as
stated
by
one
of
the
commenters.
Risk
estimates
are
provided
for
central
tendency
calculations
(
i.
e.,
all
parameters
are
set
at
a
mean
or
median
value)
and
a
reasonable
high­
end
scenario
(
two
parameters
are
set
at
high­
end
values
while
all
other
parameters
remain
at
central
tendency
values).
The
two
driving
high­
end
parameters
for
children
in
this
study
were
soil
intake
and
waste
concentration
(
i.
e.,
this
combination
of
high­
end
parameters
yielded
the
highest
risk
results).
The
exposure
duration
for
children's
soil
ingestion
was
set
at
the
central
tendency
value
of
6.0
years.
Other
exposure
factors
for
children
(
e.
g.,
eating,
breathing)
were
set
at
central
tendency
values
as
well.

EPA
further
notes
that
exposure
variables
are
all
specified
in
the
EPA's
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
(
EFH).
These
include
ingestion
rates,
exposure
durations,
exposure
frequency,
and
body
weight.
It
is
true
that
the
calculation
of
an
RfD
is
based
partly
on
these
exposure
assumptions,
but
EPA
believes
that
highly
exposed
subpopulations
are
relevant
to
developing
chemical
exposure
risk
estimates.
RfD
calculations
typically
contain
central
tendency
values,
in
that
high
end
risks
are
considered
in
setting
other
model
input
variables.

EPA
also
reiterates,
as
noted
in
Section
VIII,
that
the
ongoing
review
of
arsenic
toxicity
may
require
re­
visiting
this
analysis.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
19
19
XVI.
ABOVE
GROUND
RISK
MODELING
E.
Input
Values
for
Assessing
Risk
to
Children
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
In
fact,
USEPA
updated
its
soil
ingestion
rates
in
the
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
(
1996)
to
reflect
realistic
ingestion
rates
for
children.
In
this
document,
EPA
recommends
using
a
soil
ingestion
rate
of
100
mg/
day
as
an
average
concentration
and
400
mg/
day
as
an
upper
percentile
rate.
Therefore,
the
use
of
1,000
mg
soil/
day
grossly
overestimates
risks
to
children.
(
PG&
E00023)

Children
normally
ingest
soil
for
a
period
of
up
to
six
years,
but
the
risk
assessment
assumed
`
exposure
to
soil
arsenic
over
a
lifetime
(
70
years)
of
ingestion.
(
NMA00024)

Excessive
child
soil
ingestion
rate
of
1000
mg/
day.
Previous
EPA
health
risk
analyses
considered
ingestion
rates
of
100
or
200
mg
per
day
as
the
high­
end
exposure.
(
USWAG0037)

Furthermore,
there
is
a
consensus
in
the
scientific
community
that
modeling
a
child
soil
consumption
period
of
6
years
using
an
RfD
derived
from
a
cancer
slope
factor
based
on
a
70
year
exposure
period,
as
EPA
did,
results
in
a
significant
over­
prediction
of
risk.
(
USWAG00037)

The
ash
ingestion
rate
used
in
the
risk
analysis
was
1000
mg/
day,
compared
to
100
­
200
mg/
day
as
used
in
previous
EPA
health
risk
analyses.
(
NSPS00057)

Epa
made
important
errors
in
the
assumption
about
soil
ingestion.
In
all
previous
risk
assessment
form
soil
ingestion,
EPA
has
used
100
or
200
mg
soil
per
day
as
"
high­
end"
exposure.
Data
from
study
of
soil
ingestion
by
free­
living
children,
after
correction
and
re­
interpretation
as
the
quality
of
the
soil
estimation
based
soil­
borne
element
is
feces,
showed
that
the
geometric
mean
soil
ingestion
was
only
about
20­
30
mg/
day,
and
that
the
95th
percentile
of
soil
ingestion
was
no
higher
than
150­
200
mg/
day.
And
these
numbers
are
the
values
listed
in
the
EPA
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
(
1996)
which
is
available
online.
It
should
be
recognized
that
soil
ingestion
measurement
has
improved
over
the
last
decade
and
the
results
were
reviewed
more
thoroughly
by
the
scientific
community.
The
team
lead
by
Calbrese
at
the
University
of
Massachusetts
has
"
corrected"
their
methods
to
calculate
soil
ingestions
based
on
food
and
fecal
analysis
repeatedly
over
this
period,
each
time
achieving
greater
reliability
in
ingestion
estimates
(
see
Stanek
and
Calabrese,
1995,
wher
the
<
250
:
m
particle
size
of
the
"
soil"
presumed
to
be
ingested
was
used
in
the
calculation
rather
than
the
composition
of
soil
sieved
to
<
2
mm).
The
95th
percentile
level
of
exposure
is
EPA's
definition
of
"
high­
end"
exposure,
but
EPA
assumed
1000
mg
soil/
day
according
to
the
published
FFCB
risk
assessment
...
Correction
of
this
error
would
have
independently
prevented
EPA
from
concluding
that
beneficial
use
of
FFCW
comprised
risk
from
As.
(
PHS011)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
20
20
Exposure
Frequency
(
EF):
This
factor,
in
d/
y
is
set
by
EPA
at
350
for
many
risk
assessments;
this
means
the
individual
is
exposed
to
the
contaminant
for
this
many
days
per
year,
and
in
the
case
of
the
child
ingesting
soil,
that
such
ingestion
occurs
nearly
every
day.
Chaney
and
Ryan
(
1994),
among
others,
have
criticized
this
assumption
as
unrealistic,
given
that
weather
conditions,
parental
supervision,
and
many
other
factors
would
reduce
exposure
far
below
this
frequency.
It
would
seem
more
realistic
to
use
the
percentile
approach
for
this
factor,
rather
than
assign
it
a
fixed
(
maximum)
value.
In
a
temperate
climate
children
might
only
be
exposed
about
175
d/
y
as
a
central
tendency;
the
95th
percentile
might
then
be
set
at
350
d/
y.
This
estimate
assumes
the
largest
exposure
is
due
to
children
playing
directly
in
contaminated/
amended
soil
in
outdoor
play
areas.
(
PHS018)

Exposure
Duration
(
ED):
Pica
or
pica­
like
behavior
is
typically
associated
with
young
children
(
age
<
6).
In
their
assessment
of
FBC
risk,
RTI
use
6
y
as
the
50th
percentile,
and
18
y
as
the
95th
percentile.
Certainly
this
later
value
must
be
considered
extreme,
if
not
pathological.
Once
children
enter
school
it
seems
likely
that
extreme
pica
behaviors
would
be
curtailed
due
to
greater
supervision;
the
author
believes
ED
should
be
set
at
6
y
the
95th
percentile,
and
a
50th
percentile
more
reasonably
set
at
3
y.
(
PHS018)

Ingestion
Rate
(
IR):
Considerable
debate
surrounds
the
rate
of
soil
ingestion
by
children;
RTI
used
0.2
g/
d
(
0.0002
kg/
d)
as
the
central
tendency,
and
1
g/
d
as
the
high
end.
Chaney
and
Ryan
(
1994)
suggest
0.5
g/
d
as
the
95th
percentile,
and
note
that
research
measuring
soil
ingestion
has
often
"
grossly
overestimated"
this
factor
by
systematic
errors
in
experimental
methods.
The
author
suggest
0.1
g/
d
as
a
central
value
and
0.5
g/
d
at
the
high
end
case.
(
PHS018)

Body
Weight
(
BW)
is
the
exposed
individual's
mass,
but
since
this
varies
over
time
of
exposure,
there
is
judgement
involved
in
its
selection.
In
the
RTI
report,
the
most
conservative
(
i.
e.,
lowest)
body
weight
is
used,
which
is
12.3
kg
for
a
1­
2
y
old
child.
This
mass
is
important
in
the
assessed
risk,
since
intake
is
computed
as
mg
As
per
kg
body
weight
per
day.
DOE
(
no
date)
shows
a
weighted
average
approach
to
account
for
changes
in
both
IR
and
BW
over
various
time
segments
of
exposure
time
(
ED).
(
PHS018)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
48
FF2P­
S0370.

XVI
­
21
21
XVI.
ABOVE
GROUND
RISK
MODELING
F.
Source
Term
A
public
interest
group
commenter
stated
that
the
underlying
analytical
data
for
the
ash
and
porewater
samples
did
not
list
thallium
or
beryllium
as
analytes,
so
it
is
unclear
where
the
input
data
for
the
non­
groundwater
pathways
came
from
for
these
metals.

Response:
Appendix
B
of
the
risk
assessment
background
document48
presents
the
analytical
data
that
were
used
in
the
analysis.
Table
B­
2
presents
the
data
for
comanaged
coal
combustion
wastes
from
utilities
and
these
data
were
used
for
both
the
utility
and
non­
utility
comanaged
coal
combustion
waste
streams.
Table
B­
4
presents
similar
data
for
the
FBC
waste
streams.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
22
22
XVI.
ABOVE
GROUND
RISK
MODELING
F.
Source
Term
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
We
note,
however
that
the
underlying
analytical
data
for
the
ash
and
porewater
samples
does
not
list
thallium
or
beryllium
as
analytes,
so
it
is
unclear
where
the
Input
data
for
the
non­
groundwater
pathway
came
from
for
these
metals.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
49
55
FR
25454.

XVI
­
23
23
XVI.
ABOVE
GROUND
RISK
MODELING
G.
Distance
to
Receptor
A
public
interest
group
commenter
argued
that,
rather
than
selecting
preset
distances
to
the
receptor,
the
receptor
should
be
placed
at
a
location
where
the
modeled
concentration
represents
the
50th
and
95th
percentile.
The
commenter
also
argued
that
a
high­
end
analysis
would
place
the
active
cell
of
the
landfill
along
the
boundary
of
the
landfill,
not
the
center,
and
was
concerned
that
no
information
was
available
on
the
distance
of
the
agricultural
field
from
the
landfill.
The
commenter
stated
that,
as
modeled,
air
emissions
are
emanating
from
the
center
of
the
landfill,
which
in
the
case
of
the
large
CCW
landfill
is
actually
576
meters
from
the
boundary
of
the
landfill,
putting
the
high­
end
receptor
at
651
meters
away
(
not
75
meters)
and
the
50th
percentile
receptor
at
876
meters
(
not
300
meters).
The
commenter
further
stated
that
the
analysis
of
deposition
and
runoff
to
the
stream
seems
to
arbitrarily
select
the
stream
to
be
75
meters
from
the
boundary
of
the
agricultural
field,
placing
the
stream
from
0.8
miles
to
over
a
mile
from
the
emission
source.

Response:
EPA
agrees
that
the
lack
of
data
on
receptor
distances
introduces
uncertainty
into
the
analysis.
Indeed,
EPA
acknowledges
that
receptor
placement
for
exposure
scenarios
developed
to
represent
national
risk
profiles
is
a
difficult
undertaking.
Consequently,
the
Agency
has
invested
considerable
resources
to
develop
modeling
tools
and
databases
for
site­
based
analyses
that
may
be
used
to
increase
the
level
of
resolution
in
national
assessments
such
as
that
performed
for
FFC.
However,
until
independent
testing
of
this
"
site­
based"
methodology
has
been
completed,
modeling
requires
that
receptors
be
placed
at
discrete
distances
from
the
waste
management
unit.

EPA
currently
uses
on
receptor
data
based
on
a
statistical
survey
of
treatment,
storage,
and
disposal
facilities
(
TSDFs).
49
Statistical
analysis
of
data
indicates
that
the
distance
to
the
nearest
residence
is
250
feet
(
or
approximately
75
meters,
for
high
end
risk)
and
the
typical
distance
to
the
nearest
residence
is
1,000
feet
(
or
approximately
300
meters,
for
central
tendency
risk),
based
on
the
median
distance
in
a
random
sample
of
distances
to
the
nearest
residence;
both
values
represent
the
distance
from
the
edge
of
the
waste
management
unit
to
the
residence.
EPA
regards
this
database
as
the
most
appropriate
source
for
typical
and
high­
end
receptor
distances
and,
lacking
other
information
on
receptor
distances,
will
continue
to
use
these
values
in
risk
modeling
efforts.

EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
suggestion
that
receptor
distance
be
placed
according
to
the
50th
and
95th
modeled
concentrations.
Placing
receptors
at
central
tendency
and
high­
end
concentration
values
does
not
bear
any
relationship
to
actual
distances.
Receptor
distances
should
be
considered
as
independent
variables.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
50
FF2P­
S0370.

XVI
­
24
24
The
commenter
is
correct
in
asserting
that
EPA
assumed
that
the
emissions
source
was
from
the
center
of
the
landfill.
EPA
believes
that
it
is
appropriate
to
locate
the
emissions
source
at
the
center
of
the
landfill
rather
than
at
any
cell
along
the
edge
for
the
following
reasons.
Because
the
landfill
model
assumes
that
active
cells
are
retired
as
new
cells
come
on­
line,
the
emissions
source
in
the
landfill
would
be
moving
over
time.
Modeling
the
emissions
source
as
the
center
of
the
square
landfill
results
in
an
effective
average
over
time
that
covers
all
of
the
active
cells
in
the
landfill.
The
commenter
is
correct
in
implying
that,
for
short
periods
of
time,
the
location
of
the
active
cell
relative
to
the
receptor
could
be
a
critical
determinant
of
exposure.
However,
"
turning
on"
the
active
cell
closest
to
the
receptor
implies
a
level
of
knowledge
that
is
absent
in
a
representative
exposure
assessment
(
i.
e.,
the
analysis
is
not
site­
based).
In
essence,
this
would
serve
to
compound
conservative
assumptions
without
a
sufficient
technical
basis
to
do
so.

For
all
scenarios
except
agricultural
soil
amendment,
the
stream
is
not
arbitrarily
set
at
75
meters
from
the
agricultural
field.
The
overland
transport
model
defines
a
watershed
subbasin
drainage
system
that
is
based
on
the
relative
sizes
of
the
waste
management
unit
and
the
receiving
field
(
i.
e.,
the
area
of
the
agricultural
field,
home
garden,
or
pasture).
The
drainage
subbasin
is
made
up
of
two,
square,
equal
sized
components
(
one
contains
the
waste
management
unit
and
the
other
contains
the
receiving
field).
The
area
for
each
of
these
subbasin
components
is
equal
to
the
area
of
the
waste
management
unit
or
the
receiving
field,
whichever
is
larger
(
this
results
in
a
buffer
area
around
the
smaller
of
the
two).
If
the
waste
management
unit
is
larger
than
the
receiving
field,
the
distance
from
the
receiving
field
to
the
stream
is
based
on
the
size
of
the
receiving
field
relative
to
the
size
of
the
subbasin
component
(
which,
for
this
senario,
is
set
equal
to
the
waste
management
unit).
The
larger
the
receiving
field
relative
to
the
subbasin
area,
the
closer
it
will
be
to
the
stream.
Under
this
construct,
the
stream
could
be
greater
than
or
less
than
75
meters
from
the
receiving
field.
If,
however,
the
receiving
field
is
larger
than
the
waste
management
unit,
then
the
subbasin
area
will
be
defined
by
the
area
of
the
receiving
field.
In
this
case,
the
stream
will
abut
the
receiving
field.
The
overland
transport
model
is
detailed
in
Appendix
C
of
the
non­
groundwater
risk
assessment
technical
background
document.
50
The
distance
to
the
stream
for
the
agricultural
soil
amendment
scenario
was
set
at
75
meters.
EPA
has
been
unable
to
identify
any
suitable
data
sources
to
locate
the
stream
relative
to
the
agricultural
field.
EPA
was
concerned
with
compounding
the
conservative
assumptions
built
into
the
erosion
and
runoff
models
and
was
reticent
to
place
the
stream
immediately
adjacent
to
the
agricultural
field.

It
should
be
noted
that
analyses
of
this
simplified
system
revealed
that
the
stream
distance
is
not
an
important
determinant
of
the
surface
water
load
from
the
landfill
due
to
model
construct
and
the
fact
that
the
system
reaches
steady
state
within
the
simulation
period.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
25
25
The
agricultural
field,
home
garden,
and
residential
plot
were
all
assumed
to
be
300
meters
and
75
meters
from
the
source
for
central
tendency
and
high­
end
respectively.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
26
26
XVI.
ABOVE
GROUND
RISK
MODELING
G.
Distance
to
Receptor
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
inhalation
scenario
for
the
CCW
and
FBC
onsite
landfills
is
not
a
conservative
analysis,
insofar
as
the
assumed
distances
to
receptor.
(
ALA00292)

The
problem
with
this
approach
is
that
the
emissions,
as
modeled,
are
emanating
from
the
center
of
the
landfill,
which
in
the
case
of
the
large
CCW
landfill
is
actually
576
meters
from
the
boundary
of
the
landfill,
which
puts
the
high­
end
receptor
at
65
1
meters
away
(
not
75
meters)
and
the
50th
percentile
receptor
at
876
meters
(
not
300
meters).
(
ALA00292)

Rather
than
selecting
pre­
set
distances
to
the
receptor,
the
receptor
should
be
"
placed"
at
the
location
where
the
modeled
air
concentration
represents
the
50th
and
95th
percentile.
This
would
better
reflect
the
exposure
of
potential
central
tendency
and
high­
end
receptors.
In
addition,
a
high­
end
analysis
would
place
the
active
cell
of
the
landfill
along
the
boundary
of
the
landfill,
not
the
center.
(
ALA00292)

The
analysis
of
deposition
and
runoff
to
the
stream
seems
to
arbitrarily
select
the
stream
to
be
75
meters
from
the
boundary
of
the
agricultural
field.
When
the
distance
from
the
active
cell
of
the
landfill
is
calculated,
and
assumptions
are
made
about
the
shape
of
the
field
(
i.
e.,
square
or
rectangular),
this
places
the
stream
from
8/
10th
of
a
mile
to
over
a
mile
from
the
emission
source.
(
ALA00292)

In
addition.
no
information
is
provided
about
the
distance
of
the
agricultural
field
from
the
landfill.
Thus
distance
affects
the
concentration
of
constituents
from
air
deposition.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
27
27
XVI.
ABOVE
GROUND
RISK
MODELING
H.
Exposure
Duration
A
public
interest
group
commenter
stated
that
the
exposure
duration
for
elderly
residents
may
be
far
longer
than
the
33
years
assumed
in
this
risk
assessment.

Response:
The
above
ground
risk
assessment
used
high­
end
exposure
durations
of
32.3
for
the
adult
resident,
the
home
gardener,
and
the
adult
fisher
and
58.4
years
for
the
farmer.
These
exposure
durations
are
based
on
data
presented
in
the
Exposure
Factors
Handbook.
EPA
acknowledges
that
there
is
the
potential
for
an
individual
to
have
an
exposure
duration
that
is
longer
than
these
assumptions;
however,
EPA
feels
that
these
values
are
reasonable
high­
end
values
(
reflective
of
a
95th
percentile
exposure
duration)
for
a
national
assessment.
It
should
also
be
noted
that
both
cancer
and
non­
cancer
human
health
benchmarks
are
intended
to
be
protective
of
sensitive
sub­
populations
including
children
and
the
elderly.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
XVI
­
28
28
XVI.
ABOVE
GROUND
RISK
MODELING
H.
Exposure
Duration
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
These
facility­
specific
maps
illustrate
that
there
are
real
people
living
near
power
plant
FFC
waste
facilities,
not
just
"
hypothetical
receptors".
Included
in
these
populations
are
children,
who
are
a
more
sensitive
subpopulation
and
the
elderly
whose
duration
of
exposure
may
be
far
longer
than
the
9
years
estimated
for
the
"
high­
end"
groundwater
exposure
and
the
33
years
estimated
for
the
"
high­
end"
non­
groundwater
exposure.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
XVII
­
1
XVII.
ECOLOGICAL
RISK
ASSESSMENT
Many
public
interest
group
commenters
provided
input
on
the
design
of
the
ecological
risk
assessment
and
the
specific
assumptions
used
in
its
application.
Comments
included
criticism
of
field
data
and
damage
case
assessment,
of
receptor
and
end
point
evaluation,
and
of
pathways
considered.
Specific
concerns
are
summarized
below
in
this
section.

Response:
EPA
believes
the
design
of
its
ecological
risk
assessment
was
appropriate
and
based
on
state­
of­
the­
art
science.
EPA
also
believes
that
the
assumptions
and
input
values
it
used
in
the
ecological
risk
assessment
were
appropriate,
given
the
specific
characteristics
of
FFC
wastes
and
the
environmental
settings
of
FFC
facilities.
Field
(
literature)
data
were
considered,
and
significant
pathways
and
receptor/
end
point
combinations
were
considered,
with
the
caveat
that
resource
constraints
necessitated
emphasizing
human
health
risk
assessment.

The
responses
below
address
the
concerns
raised
by
the
commenters
about
the
ecological
risk
assessment
in
more
detail.
As
noted,
resource
constraints
dictated
that
human
health
risk
assessment
be
emphasized
in
situations
where
funding
allocation
was
critical.
EPA
did
nonetheless
find
the
potential
for
risk
to
specified
receptors
when
exposed
to
concentrations
to
be
found
in
large
impoundments
or
in
overflow
from
such
impoundments.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
2
XVII
­
2
XVII.
ECOLOGICAL
RISK
ASSESSMENT
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Documented
ecological
damages
are
overlooked
by
the
Report.
We
find
the
shortcomings
in
EPA's
assessment
of
the
potential
ecological
risk
presented
by
CCW
to
be
unacceptable.
(
HEC00056)

With
limited
time
and
resources,
we
have
been
able
to
find
evidence
that
ecological
risks
from
CCW
are
not
just
theoretical,
are
not
mostly
limited
to
large
surface
impoundments,
and
should
not
only
be
examined
for
mammals,
birds,
and
amphibians.
Studies
would
indicate
that
selenium
contamination
from
CCW
does
travel
through
the
food
chain
and
poses
a
danger
to
both
ecosystems
and
humans.
Furthermore,
they
indicate
the
need
for
more
study
on
bioaccumulation
of
contaminants
found
in
CCW.
The
cases
listed
above
also
show
that
contamination
from
CCW
transported
through
subsurface
pathways
can
cause
damage
to
organisms.
At
the
very
least,
EPA
should
take
the
necessary
time
to
fully
evaluate
these
two
factors.
EPA
has
not
gathered
existing,
easily
accessible
information
on
ecological
damage
that
can
and
has
been
caused
by
CCW
and
therefore
cannot
legitimately
make
the
claim
that
no
evidence
of
ecological
impact
exists.
(
HEC00056)

Despite
the
availability
of
field
data,
the
analysis
relied
on
modeling
potential
impacts.
(
ALA00036)

While
field
information
on
ecological
damage
is
included
in
both
the
risk
assessment
and
materials
in
the
docket,
the
Report
contends
that
there
is
"
no
documented
or
anecdotal
ecological
impact
information
with
which
to
compare
the
risk
modeling
results."
(
3­
74).
It
is
never
made
clear
why
the
information
cited
in
the
risk
assessment
is
not
considered
either
"
documented
or
anecdotal."
(
ALA00036)

The
only
indication
that
fish
may
be
affected
by
surface
impoundments
comes
in
the
conclusion
of
the
risk
assessment
on
page
85
where
the
authors
suggest
that
birds
may
not
be
at
risk
at
these
waste
units
because
"
the
absence
of
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
may
limit
the
capacity
of
ponds
to
support
large
populations
of
birds."
We
feel
that
it
is
a
serious
oversight
that
no
attempt
was
made
to
answer
this
question
for
the
risk
assessment.
(
ALA00036)

The
assessment
suffers
from
not
including
an
ana;
ysis
of
FFC
releases
on
estuarine
systems
and
associated
receptors.
(
ALA00036)

When
tentatively
concluding
that
wastes
should
remain
exempt
from
Subtitle
C,
the
Report
indicates
that
uncertainty
is
more
related
to
"
unavailability
of
information
on
actual
receptor
exposure
rates."
(
3­
74).
As
indicated
in
earlier
comments,
we
disagree
with
this
assertion
and
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
XVII
­
3
support
the
statement
in
the
risk
assessment
"
the
absence
of
data
cannot
be
construed
to
mean
that
adverse
ecological
effects
will
not
occur."
(
p.
75)
(
ALA00036)

More
information
about
the
ecological
impacts
of
current
management
and
disposal
practices
for
co­
managed
FFC
wastes
can
and
should
be
gathered
from
the
published
peer­
reviewed
literature
before
a
regulatory
determination
is
made
not
to
subject
co­
managed
wastes
to
regulation
under
Subtitle
C.
(
ALA00292)

The
Report
indicates
that
there
is
no
site­
based
work
by
which
to
support
modeling
data
showing
potential
ecological
risk
from
the
disposal
and
utilization
of
fossil
fuel
wastes
­
even
though
the
RTI
work
prepared
for
EPA
indicates
quite
the
contrary.
(
ALA00292)

From
an
ecological
perspective,
the
question
that
needs
to
be
answered
is
at
what
tissue
concentrations
are
fish
negatively
affected
by
selenium
and
what
water
concentrations
yield
this
fish
tissue
concentration.
(
ALA00292)

Because
of
emerging
questions
of
the
bioaccumulation
factors
associated
with
selenium,
EPA's
Office
of
Water
is
currently
conducting
a
review
of
the
ambient
water
quality
criterion
for
selenium
...
Any
Regulatory
Determination
should
also
maintain
some
flexibility
to
deal
with
a
changed
selenium
water
quality
criterion
in
2001.
(
ALA00292)

What
is
clear
is
that
ecological
impacts
extend
beyond
the
disposal
site.
With
surface
impoundments,
there
is
demonstrated
evidence
that
aquatic
populations
are
negatively
impacted
by
the
discharge
waters
from
impoundments.
In
addition,
there
is
data
showing
that
unlined
sites
will
degrade
the
microbiota
of
waters
beneath
disposal
sites.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
See
Christopher
L.
Rowe,
Owen
M.
Kinney,
Alison
P.
Fiori,
and
Justin
D.
Congdon.
Oral
Deformities
in
Tadpoles
(
Rana
Catesbeiana)
Associated
with
Coal
Ash
Deposition:
Effects
on
Grazing
Ability
and
Growth.
Freshwater
Biology
36,
723­
730.
1996.

4
XVII
­
4
XVII.
ECOLOGICAL
RISK
ASSESSMENT
A.
Failure
to
Consider
Field
Data
Public
interest
group
commenters
expressed
concern
that
the
ecological
risk
assessment
failed
to
consider
field
data
on
ecological
risks.
One
of
the
commenters
suggested
that
the
lack
of
observational
data
is
due
to
reliance
on
industry
data.
This
commenter
further
stated
that
more
information
about
the
ecological
impacts
can
and
should
be
gathered
from
the
published
peerreviewed
literature.
This
and
other
commenters
identified
several
candidate
cases
of
ecological
damage
and
studies
of
ecological
effects.

Response:
EPA
agrees,
of
course,
that
case
studies
and
field
data
must
support
the
ecological
risk
assessment
process.
As
described
in
the
non­
groundwater
risk
assessment
technical
background
document,
EPA
evaluated
case
study
data
and
journal
articles
covering
a
number
of
site
investigations
including,
but
not
limited
to,
Belews
Lake
in
North
Carolina,
Martin
Lake
in
Texas,
and
the
Savannah
River
Site
in
Aiken,
South
Carolina.
This
review
was
used
to
(
1)
identify
the
constituents
of
potential
concern
(
e.
g.,
selenium
was
of
particular
concern
at
several
sites),
(
2)
identify
key
exposure
pathways
(
e.
g.,
the
bioaccumulation
of
selenium
through
the
food
web
was
correlated
with
adverse
effects
to
reproducing
populations
of
birds),
and
(
3)
identify
particularly
sensitive
species
(
e.
g.,
amphibian
populations
were
highly
impacted
by
exposure
to
FFC
wastes).
A
number
of
articles
were
identified
linking
adverse
effects
in
amphibians
with
exposure
to
sluiced
ash
that
was
pumped
into
a
series
of
settling
basins,
and
ultimately,
into
a
2­
hectare
drainage
swamp
that
received
effluent
from
other
coal
ash
settling
basins.
1
We
reviewed
the
information
on
ecological
damage
submitted
by
commenters
and
agree
that
four
of
the
seven
submitted
are
documented
damage
cases
that
involve
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes.
All
of
these
involve
some
form
of
discharge
from
waste
management
units
to
nearby
lakes
or
creeks.
These
confirm
our
risk
modeling
conclusions
as
presented
in
the
RTC
that
there
could
be
adverse
impacts
on
amphibians,
birds,
or
mammals
if
they
were
subject
to
the
elevated
concentrations
of
selected
chemicals
that
had
been
measured
in
some
impoundments.
This
will
be
considered
in
any
subsequent
evaluation
of
potential
risks
from
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes.

Although
case
studies
are
useful
tools
for
the
problem
formulation
phase,
they
do
not
provide
a
sufficient
basis
from
which
to
draw
risk
conclusions
for
a
national
assessment.
In
addition
to
numerous
confounders
in
those
studies
(
e.
g.,
multiple
stressors),
the
release
and
exposure
scenarios
were
not
always
relevant
to
the
current
risk
analysis.
In
many
instances,
the
case
studies
present
mismanagement
scenarios
no
longer
used.
As
a
result,
these
studies
must
be
carefully
weighed
with
respect
to
their
applicability
to
analysis
of
FFC
waste.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
5
XVII
­
5
The
evidence
of
ecological
damages
identified
in
several
studies
was
also
used
in
the
selection
of
assessment
endpoints
and
in
the
development
of
the
conceptual
model
during
the
problem
formulation
phase.
In
addition,
this
information
was
considered
in
the
risk
characterization
in
interpreting
the
results
of
the
modeling
simulation
and
in
identifying
uncertainties
in
the
analysis
(
e.
g.
ground
water
to
surface
pathway
was
not
modeled).
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
6
XVII
­
6
XVII.
ECOLOGICAL
RISK
ASSESSMENT
A.
Failure
to
Consider
Field
Data
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Documented
ecological
damages
are
overlooked
by
the
Report.
We
find
the
shortcomings
in
EPA's
assessment
of
the
potential
ecological
risk
presented
by
CCW
to
be
unacceptable.
EPA
states
in
the
Report
that
only
theoretical
information
exists
on
the
ecological
damage
that
can
be
caused
by
CCW.
We
have
found
several
documented
cases
were
CCW
contamination
has
led
to
ecological
damage.
HEC
will
provide
more
detailed
information
on
these
cases
if
given
more
time
to
comment.
However,
given
the
current
time
constraint
we
can
only
give
this
basic
overview
of
what
was
found.
(
HEC00056)

One
of
the
documented
cases
of
ecological
damage
caused
by
CCW
is
presented
by
EPA
as
one
of
its
six
damage
cases
in
the
report
on
fossil
fuel
wastes
released
in
1993,
the
release
of
130
million
gallons
of
caustic
solution
into
the
Clinch
River
in
Virginia.
Virtually
all
bottom
dwelling
fish
were
killed
within
3
to
4
miles
of
the
spill,
and
large
numbers
of
fish
were
killed
up
to
90
miles
from
the
spill.
EPA
does
not
even
mention
this
spill
in
its
assessment
of
ecological
damage.
(
HEC00056)

The
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
has
done
extensive
studies
on
the
ecological
effects
of
selenium
concentration
at
Martin
Lake
in
Texas.
High
selenium
concentrations
in
the
lake
were
the
result
of
the
dumping
of
fly
ash
into
the
lake,
and
caused
massive
fish
kills
over
a
nine
month
period.
Samples
of
restocked
fish
taken
five
years
later
showed
selenium
levels
in
the
fish
to
be
9­
21
higher
than
the
national
mean
of
1.9
ppm
dry
weight.
Studies
also
revealed
potentially
toxic
levels
of
selenium
in
omnivorous
and
insectivorous
birds
nesting
close
to
the
lake.
The
study
showed
that
the
selenium
contamination
had
traveled
through
the
food
chain
to
contaminate
virtually
every
component
of
the
Martin
Lake
ecosystem
including
fish,
both
adult
birds
and
eggs,
and
invertebrates.
We
would
suggest
EPA
take
the
time
to
contact
the
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
to
obtain
what
information
they
have
on
ecological
damage
caused
by
CCW
before
they
make
such
a
broad
statement
as
no
documented
information
exists.
(
HEC00056)

The
Texas
Department
of
Health
was
forced
in
1992
to
issue
a
fish
consumption
advisory
for
three
reservoirs
in
Texas;
Martin
Creek,
Brandy
Branch,
and
Welsh.
Selenium
contamination
from
CCW
was
the
reason
for
these
advisories.
Children
under
7
and
women
who
are
pregnant
or
may
soon
be
pregnant
were
advised
not
to
eat
any
fish
from
these
reservoirs.
Officials
at
the
Department
of
Health
expected
to
have
to
enforce
the
advisory
for
some
time,
and
that
the
selenium
contamination
would
also
affect
fish
restocking
programs
these
reservoirs.
Clearly,
the
CCW
is
having
a
long­
term
ecological
impact
on
the
reservoirs,
and
this
impact
presents
a
threat
to
human
health.
(
HEC00056)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
7
XVII
­
7
Articles
published
both
in
the
"
Journal
of
Herpetology"
and
the
"
Canadian
Journal
of
Zoology"
link
high
levels
of
heavy
metal
contamination
in
amphibians
to
CCW
storage
in
nearby
water
ways.
Elevated
levels
of
arsenic,
cadmium,
selenium,
strontium,
and
mercury
were
found
in
bullfrog
tadpoles
and
softshell
turtles
living
in
and
around
a
fly
ash
basin
located
close
to
the
Savannah
River
in
South
Carolina.
When
compared
with
tadpoles
from
a
pond
unaffected
by
fly
ash,
the
tadpoles
from
the
basin
were
found
to
have
a
much
higher
rate
of
behavioral
abnormalities.
Part
of
the
research
of
the
Savannah
River
site
was
conducted
by
the
Department
of
Energy
so
we
do
not
understand
why
EPA
is
having
such
difficulties
finding
this
information.
(
HEC00056)

EPA
declares
in
its
Executive
Summary,
Section
3
page
6,
that
large
surface
impoundments
can
theoretically
pose
risks
to
birds,
mammals,
and
amphibians.
EPA
discounts
the
idea
of
taking
any
action
to
reduce
the
risks
posed
by
large
surface
impoundments
on
two
factors,
there
is
no
information
on
the
actual
ecological
risks
posed
by
large
surface
impoundments
and
the
cost
of
eliminating
such
impoundments
is
too
high.
Both
of
these
statements
are
completely
unsubstantiated.
HEC
has
found
documented
cases
of
ecological
damage
occurring
at
large
surface
impoundments.
At
least
two
of
these
cases
were
investigated
by
other
federal
agencies
which
should
provide
easily
accessible
information
to
EPA
on
this
issue.
(
HEC00056)

With
limited
time
and
resources,
we
have
been
able
to
find
evidence
that
ecological
risks
from
CCW
are
not
just
theoretical
...
EPA
has
not
gathered
existing,
easily
accessible
information
on
ecological
damage
that
can
and
has
been
caused
by
CCW
and
therefore
cannot
legitimately
make
the
claim
that
no
evidence
of
ecological
impact
exists.
(
HEC00056)

What
field
data
is
being
used
in
the
ecological
risk
assessment?
It
is
very
hard
to
understand
how
field
data
has
been
used
in
the
analysis.
For
instance,
page
54
of
the
risk
assessment
summarizes
field
data.
However,
this
paragraph
serves
more
to
provide
a
backdrop
to
the
ecological
issues
than
to
provide
field
data
that
is
used
in
the
risk
assessment.
Despite
the
availability
of
field
data,
the
analysis
relied
on
modeling
potential
impacts.
(
ALA00036)

Of
the
twelve
waterbodies
in
the
country
with
selenium
fish
advisories,
six
are
located
at
sites
that
have
received
wastewater
from
coal
waste
and/
or
coal
waste
impoundments.
Three
of
these
advisories
in
Texas
­
Welsh
Reservoir,
Brandy
Branch
Reservoir,
and
Martin
Creek
Reservoir
­
are
included
in
the
docket
of
the
Report,
although
there
is
no
discussion
of
them
in
the
risk
assessment.
Not
included
in
the
docket
is
information
about
advisories
at
Belews
and
Hyco
Lake
in
North
Carolina
and
Sweitzer
Lake
in
Colorado.
(
ALA00036)

While
field
information
on
ecological
damage
is
included
in
both
the
risk
assessment
and
materials
in
the
docket,
the
Report
contends
that
there
is
"
no
documented
or
anecdotal
ecological
impact
information
with
which
to
compare
the
risk
modeling
results."
(
3­
74).
It
is
never
made
clear
why
the
information
cited
in
the
risk
assessment
is
not
considered
either
"
documented
or
anecdotal."
That
there
is
no
actual
information
about
the
scale
and
frequency
at
which
receptors
are
actually
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
8
XVII
­
8
exposed
"...
to
quantify
the
magnitude
of
the
actual
ecological
impacts"
at
surface
impoundments"
(
3­
74),
is
likely
due
more
to
a
reliance
on
voluntary,
industry­
derived
data
than
to
actual
in
availability
of
data.
(
ALA00036)

When
tentatively
concluding
that
wastes
should
remain
exempt
from
Subtitle
C,
the
Report
indicates
that
uncertainty
is
more
related
to
"
unavailability
of
information
on
actual
receptor
exposure
rates."
(
3­
74).
As
indicated
in
earlier
comments,
we
disagree
with
this
assertion
and
support
the
statement
in
the
risk
assessment
"
the
absence
of
data
cannot
be
construed
to
mean
that
adverse
ecological
effects
will
not
occur."
(
p.
75)
(
ALA00036)

More
information
about
the
ecological
impacts
of
current
management
and
disposal
practices
for
co­
managed
FFC
wastes
can
and
should
be
gathered
from
the
published
peer­
reviewed
literature
before
a
regulatory
determination
is
made
not
to
subject
co­
managed
wastes
to
regulation
under
Subtitle
C.
(
ALA00292)

We
commend
Research
Triangle
Institute
(
RTI)
for
conducting
an
extremely
thorough
literature
search
on
the
ecological
damage
associated
with
fossil
fuel
wastes,
as
background
to
the
Report
to
Congress.
The
journal
articles
included
in
the
references
to
their
Draft
Final
Report,
Nongroundwater
Pathways,
Human
Health
and
Ecological
Risk
Analysis
for
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion
Phase
2
(
FFC2)
are
excellent.
What
is
surprising
is
that
the
Report
to
Congress
is
written
as
if
RTI's
good
work
and
these
articles
and
the
issues
they
raise
do
not
exist.
In
fact,
the
Report
indicates
that
there
is
no
site­
based
work
by
which
to
support
modeling
data
showing
potential
ecological
risk
from
the
disposal
and
utilization
of
fossil
fuel
wastes
­
even
though
the
RTI
work
prepared
for
EPA
indicates
quite
the
contrary.
(
ALA00292)

While
the
RTI
risk
analysis
takes
the
first
step
in
identifying
the
research
that
has
looked
at
ecological
issues
associated
with
fossil
fuel
combustion
by­
products,
it
is
only
a
first
step.
More
must
be
done
to
look
at
the
literature
to
determine
what
is
known
about
the
ecological
impacts
from
these
wastes.
At
the
same
time,
it
is
critical
to
know
where
the
gaps
in
our
collective
knowledge
base
lies
regarding
ecological
impacts
and
figure
out
how
to
answer
the
most
critical
of
the
ecological
questions.
(
ALA00292)

There
are
a
number
of
scientists
concerned
about
flushing
CCW
into
underground
exhausted
coal
mine
shafts
due
to
trace
metal
toxicity
from
fly
ash
particles
accompanied
with
high
levels
of
conductivity,
total
dissolved
solids
(
TDS),
and
sodium
(
Na).
The
last
three
parameters,
by
the
way,
do
not
have
national
water
quality
criteria
(
WQC)
restrictions
to
protect
aquatic
life.
I
have
found
that
effluents
with
conductivity
approaching
4,000
mmhos/
cm,
2,640
mg/
L
TDS,
and
900
mg/
L
Na/
L
to
be
acutely
toxic
to
Ceriodaphnia
dubia
in
my
recent
research
efforts
of
the
latter
1990'
s.
A
number
of
groundwater
wells
associated
with
CCW
landfills
exceed
these
limits
according
to
data
being
generated
by
the
HEC.
They
are
condensing
their
data
and
will
make
it
available
to
you
shortly.
(
VATL0010)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
9
XVII
­
9
The
enclosed
packet
includes
some
of
out
recent
peer­
reviewed
publications
on
environmental
impacts
of
coal
combustion
wastes
in
South
Carolina.
While
downstream
water
quality
parameters
at
our
study
site
are
within
the
NPDES
criteria,
the
40
hectare
disposal
area
is
heavily
contaminated
and
used
by
many
aquatic,
terrestrial,
and
avian
species.
In
several
species,
exposure
to
coal
ash
and
accumulation
of
trace
elements
is
associated
with
deformities
which
affect
feeding
and
swimming,
behavioral
modifications
that
increase
susceptibility
to
predation,
disruption
of
endocrine
systems,
severe
modifications
to
energy
budgets,
inability
to
complete
metamorphosis,
and
impaired
reproduction.
Research
by
other
investigators
in
other
states
(
for
example,
North
Carolina
and
Texas)
indicate
that
biological
responses
to
coal
ash
may
be
widespread.
We
hope
that
the
enclosed
materials
will
be
useful
in
producing
your
Report
to
Congress
on
Coal
Combustion
Wastes.
(
SRELXXXX).
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
2
FF2P­
S0370.

10
XVII
­
10
XVII.
ECOLOGICAL
RISK
ASSESSMENT
B.
Receptors
Considered
Several
public
interest
group
commenters
expressed
concern
that
the
assessment
did
not
consider
receptors
other
than
birds,
mammals,
and
amphibians.
Commenters
expressed
specific
concern
about
fish
(
particularly
with
regard
to
selenium
and
bioaccumulation),
plants,
and
invertebrates.
One
of
the
commenters
cited
extensive
research
on
the
ecological
impacts
of
selenium
in
fish.
This
commenter
stated
that,
because
of
emerging
questions
of
the
bioaccumulation
factors
associated
with
selenium,
EPA's
Office
of
Water
is
currently
conducting
a
review
of
the
ambient
water
quality
criterion
for
selenium.

Response:
The
non­
groundwater
risk
assessment
technical
background
document2
describes
the
suite
of
assessment
endpoints
and
ecological
receptors
selected
to
represent
freshwater
and
terrestrial
systems.
Risks
to
this
suite
of
ecological
receptors
were
evaluated
for
indirect
exposure
pathways;
that
is,
constituent
releases
from
the
unit,
transport
in
the
environment,
and
exposure
through
the
food
chain
and
direct
contact
and/
or
ingestion
with
contaminated
media
were
predicted.
For
the
freshwater
ecosystem,
these
receptors
included
mammals
and
birds,
amphibians,
aquatic
community
(
e.
g.,
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates),
benthic
community,
and
algal
and
aquatic
plants.
For
the
terrestrial
ecosystem,
these
receptors
included
mammals
and
birds,
the
soil
community
(
e.
g.,
earthworms),
and
terrestrial
plants.
Based
on
the
results
of
this
modeling
exercise,
significant
risks
were
not
indicated
for
these
receptors
for
either
the
high­
end
or
central
tendency
exposure
scenarios
(
beyond
the
risks
noted
for
the
impoundments
themselves,
see
following).

In
addition
to
the
assessment
of
indirect
exposure
pathways,
EPA
also
evaluated
the
potential
impacts
from
direct
exposure
to
surface
impoundments.
This
simulation
selected
a
subset
of
the
suite
of
ecological
receptors
based
on
case
study
data
suggesting
that
this
subset
may
be
adversely
affected
through
direct
exposures
to
contaminated
impoundment
waters.
These
receptors
included
mammals,
birds,
and
amphibians.
The
aquatic
community,
the
benthic
community,
and
aquatic
plants
were
excluded
from
this
analysis
because
surface
impoundments
are
not
designed
as
habitat
for
aquatic
life
and,
therefore,
are
not
subject
to
the
same
standards
as
surface
waters.
Based
on
the
results
of
this
assessment,
the
potential
for
adverse
ecological
effects
was
indicated
for
all
three
receptor
groups
considered
(
i.
e.,
mammals,
birds,
and
amphibians)
at
both
high­
end,
and
central
tendency
constituent
concentrations
in
the
impoundment.
These
findings
were
supported
by
the
case
study
data
reviewed
and
presented
in
the
Technical
Background
Document.
As
noted
in
the
Technical
Background
Document,
however,
there
is
considerable
uncertainty
in
delineating
the
ecological
significance
of
these
results
given
the
screening­
level
approach
adopted
for
this
analysis.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
11
XVII
­
11
The
chronic
ambient
water
quality
criterion
currently
available
for
selenium
was
used
in
this
analysis
to
estimate
the
potential
ecological
risks
to
the
freshwater
community.
EPA
is
reviewing
this
criterion
based
on
new
information
related
to
the
toxicity
and
chemical
speciation
of
selenium
in
surface
water.
Pending
this
review,
EPA
may
choose
to
revise
the
selenium
criterion
used
to
evaluate
FFC
wastes.
The
mammalian
surface
water
criterion
for
selenium
was
used
to
calculate
hazard
quotients
because
it
was
an
order
of
magnitude
lower
than
the
freshwater
community
criterion.
Consequently,
the
risk
estimates
will
not
change
significantly
unless
the
freshwater
community
criterion
is
lowered
by
more
than
an
order
of
magnitude.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
12
XVII
­
12
XVII.
ECOLOGICAL
RISK
ASSESSMENT
B.
Receptors
Considered
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
Report
also
only
takes
into
account
the
potential
risk
to
mammals,
birds,
and
amphibians.
EPA
has
ignored
the
risk
to
both
fish
and
plants
when
documented
cases
exist
of
CCW
contamination
plumes
causing
death
among
these
organisms.
This
oversight
is
especially
serious
in
the
case
of
plants
when
water
flowing
out
of
CCW
disposal
sites
has
regularly
been
shown
to
have
boron
concentrations
several
times
what
is
considered
to
be
toxic
to
plants.
The
report
also
does
not
consider
any
possible
risk
to
invertebrates.
Invertebrates
can
be
used
as
an
excellent
indicator
of
environmental
quality.
Species
composition
of
the
invertebrate
community
is
commonly
used
to
evaluate
stream
quality.
There
is
no
valid
reason
not
to
consider
these
organisms
when
examining
potential
ecological
risk.
(
HEC00056)

With
limited
time
and
resources,
we
have
been
able
to
find
evidence
that
ecological
risks
from
CCW
...
should
not
only
be
examined
for
mammals,
birds,
and
amphibians.
Studies
would
indicate
that
selenium
contamination
from
CCW
does
travel
through
the
food
chain
and
poses
a
danger
to
both
ecosystems
and
humans.
Furthermore,
they
indicate
the
need
for
more
study
on
bioaccumulation
of
contaminants
found
in
CCW.
(
HEC00056)

It
is
particularly
surprising
how
fish
are
evaluated
in
the
ecological
risk
assessment.
While
fish
are
included
in
Table
6­
1
­
Suite
of
Assessment
Endpoints
Considered
for
the
FFC
ERA,
the
risk
assessment
for
surface
impoundments
does
not
treat
them
as
a
receptor
group.
This
makes
no
sense,
particularly
with
regards
to
selenium,
where
toxicity
to
fish
has
been
documented
in
waterbodies
where
selenium­
rich
wastewater
was
released
from
surface
impoundments
used
for
coal
waste
disposal.
Selenium
can
bioaccumulate
in
aquatic
food
chains
and
become
a
concentrated
dietary
source
that
is
toxic
to
fish
and
wildlife
(
Lemly
and
Smith,
1987,
Lemly,
1993).
Dietary
selenium
is
passed
from
parents
to
offspring's
in
the
eggs
and
causes
congenital
malformations
and
reproductive
failure
(
Lemly,
1997).
There
is
documented
evidence
of
reproductive
failure
and
teratogenic
effects
in
a
number
of
exposed
fish
species
(
Lemly,
1997).
Because
of
its
ability
to
bioaccumulate,
relatively
low
concentrations
­
10
:
g/
l
­
have
been
shown
to
accumulate
at
levels
high
enough
to
cause
teratogenic
effects.
(
EPA's
national
water
quality
criterion
for
selenium
is
5
:
g/
l.)
(
ALA00036)

Not
only
is
there
an
impact
on
fish,
but
selenium
in
fish
poses
risks
to
humans
as
well.
Of
the
twelve
waterbodies
in
the
country
with
selenium
fish
advisories,
six
are
located
at
sites
that
have
received
wastewater
from
coal
waste
and/
or
coal
waste
impoundments
...
All
these
advisories
call
for
limiting
consumption
of
fish
because
of
the
dangers
to
humans
of
high
levels
of
selenium
found
in
the
fish
tissues.
Because
there
is
no
discussion
and
assessment
about
selenium
in
fish,
it
is
not
possible
to
know
the
extent
to
which
this
may
be
occurring.
Systems
that
tend
to
accumulate
selenium
are
shallow
wetlands
and
marshes
and
reservoirs
with
low
flushing
rates.
In
these
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
13
XVII
­
13
systems,
biological
productivity
is
often
high,
and
selenium
may
be
trapped
through
immobilization
processes
or
through
direct
uptake
by
organisms
(
Lemly
1997).
How
many
of
the
surface
impoundment
discharge
into
waters
like
that
meet
this
definition?
Both
the
industry
and
states
may
be
sources
for
this
information,
but
it
is
fair
to
assume
that
there
are
some
waterbodies
that
meet
this
definition.
In
his
comments
to
EPA's
Peer
Consultation
and
Workshop
on
Selenium
Aquatic
Toxicity
and
Bioaccumulation
on
May
27­
18
1998,
Robin
Reach
of
the
Utility
Water
Act
Group,
an
association
of
95
individual
electric
utility
companies
and
three
national
trade
associations
of
electric
utilities,
stated
that
his
group
was
"
interested
in
EPA's
re­
evaluation
of
the
freshwater
chronic
aquatic
life
criterion
for
selenium"
because
wastewaters
from
utilities
"
that
use
wet
ash
disposal
of
coal
fly
ash
and
bottom
ash...
are
discharged
to
all
types
of
waterbodies."
(
ALA00036)

The
only
indication
that
fish
may
be
affected
by
surface
impoundments
comes
in
the
conclusion
of
the
risk
assessment
on
page
85
where
the
authors
suggest
that
birds
may
not
be
at
risk
at
these
waste
units
because
"
the
absence
of
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
may
limit
the
capacity
of
ponds
to
support
large
populations
of
birds."
We
feel
that
it
is
a
serious
oversight
that
no
attempt
was
made
to
answer
this
question
for
the
risk
assessment.
(
ALA00036)

We
know
that
selenium
is
found
in
aquatic
ecosystems
at
elevated
levels,
in
part
because
there
are
12
fish
advisories
for
selenium
in
the
United
States.
These
advisories
have
been
set
because
selenium
concentrations
in
fish
tissues
are
high
enough
(
5
mg/
kg
wet
weight
for
North
Carolina;
impoundment­
based
standard
in
Texas)
to
cause
brittle
hair
and
deformed
nails
and
loss
of
feeling
and
control
in
the
arms
and
legs
of
persons
consuming
contaminated
fish.
In
the
case
of
five
of
the
fish
advisories,
coal
ash
disposal
practices
have
been
documented
as
the
source
of
the
elevated
selenium.
(
ALA00292)

Selenium
is
not
routinely
tested
for
by
all
states
in
their
efforts
to
decide
how
and
where
to
warn
residents
about
eating
locally
caught
fish.
Of
the
13
states
with
10
or
more
surface
impoundments,
four
(
Illinois,
Kentucky,
Pennsylvania
and
South
Carolina
­
site
of
the
Savannah
River
Ecology
Laboratory)
do
not
include
selenium
in
the
suite
of
pollutants
analyzed
for
when
setting
fish
consumption
advisories.
In
many
states
where
selemium
is
included
in
the
suite
of
tested
metals,
it
is
only
analyzed
sporadically.
In
some
cases
this
is
because
results
from
past
analyses
have
not
yielded
results
that
show
that
selenium
is
found
at
levels
that
are
a
threat
to
humans.
However,
because
of
the
lack
of
uniformity
in
collection
and
analysis,
it
is
unclear
whether
the
selenium
fish
consumption
advisories
that
are
in
place
and
are
known
to
be
connected
with
coal
waste
disposal,
represent
all
the
potential
fish
advisories
in
the
country
or
whether,
with
more
comprehensive
data
collection
and
analysis,
there
would
be
more
advisories.
(
ALA00292)

From
an
ecological
perspective,
the
question
that
needs
to
be
answered
is
at
what
tissue
concentrations
are
fish
negatively
affected
by
selenium
and
what
water
concentrations
yield
this
fish
tissue
concentration.
There
is
ample
evidence
to
show
that
the
current
water
quality
criterion
of
5
ug/
L
is
not
protective
enough
of
ecological
systems.
In
their
article,
Richard
Engberg,
Dennis
Westcot,
Michael
Delamore
and
Delmar
D.
Holz.
(
Engberg,
et.
al
1998
)
argue
that
the
current
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
14
XVII
­
14
water
quality
criterion,
by
not
taking
bioaccumulation
into
account,
is
not
protective
of
aquatic
systems.
(
ALA00292)

The
tissue
concentrations
at
which
selenium
can
impact
humans
are
likely
to
be
higher
than
concentrations
that
affect
other
organisms
and
in
particular,
fish.
The
National
Biological
Survey
collected
and
analyzed
fish
samples
for
approximately
15
years
from
the
early
70s
to
mid
80s.
While
only
one
fish
tissue
sample
(
collected
at
the
site
of
a
fish
consumption
advisory)
had
levels
above
5
mg/
kg
wet
weight,
there
were
41
samples,
representing
five
sites
where
tissue
concentrations
were
above
1
mg/
kg
wet
weight.
Are
these
concentrations
that
are
high
enough
to
harm
fish?
Dennis
Lemly
has
studied
impacts
of
selenium
on
fish
and
has
found
that
excessive
selenium
can
cause
a
wide
variety
of
toxic
effects
in
fish
at
the
biochemical,
cellular,
organ
and
systems
level
(
Lemly,
1998).
The
most
prominent
manifestation
of
the
toxic
impacts
are
teratogenic
deformities.
These
deformities
are
produced
in
response
to
dietary
exposure
of
parent
fish
and
subsequent
deposition
of
selenium
in
eggs.
At
high
enough
concentrations,
deformed
embryos
develop
as
a
result
of
dysfunctional
proteins
and
enzymes.
Lemly
(
1996)
refers
to
field
studies
that
have
documented
selenium
bioaccumulation
factors
of
500
to
35,000
in
aquatic
habitats
where
concentration
of
waterborne
selenium
were
in
the
2
to
16
:
g/
L
range.
Because
of
this
high
bioaccumulative
capacity,
Lemly
notes
that
waterborne
selenium
concentrations
of
2
:
g/
L
or
higher
will
be
hazardous
to
the
health
and
long­
term
survival
of
fish
and
wildlife
and
that
under
certain
environmental
conditions,
1
:
g/
L
has
the
potential
to
bioaccumulate
to
concentrations
in
the
food
chain
that
are
toxic
to
predatory
species.
(
ALA00292)

Because
of
emerging
questions
of
the
bioaccumulation
factors
associated
with
selenium,
EPA's
Office
of
Water
is
currently
conducting
a
review
of
the
ambient
water
quality
criterion
for
selenium.
According
to
The
Office's
Keith
Sappington,
a
draft
of
the
proposed
acute
water
quality
criterion
is
expected
in
spring
of
2000
and
a
draft
of
the
proposed
chronic
criterion
(
the
5pg/
L
standard)
is
expected
in
spring
of
2001.
Because
of
the
presence
of
selenium
in
coal
wastes
and
the
presence
of
selenium
in
discharge
waters
of
surface
impoundments,
we
would
expect
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
to
be
in
communication
with
the
Office
of
Water
throughout
this
review
process.
The
other
effort
conducted
by
Office
of
Water
that
will
be
relevant
to
relevant
to
understanding
the
ecological
impacts
of
surface
impoundments
and
coal
combustion
wastes
is
the
three­
year
Bioaccumulation
Study
which
began
summer
of
1999.
In
this
study
the
fish
tissues
from
1200
lakes
over
a
three
year
period
will
be
monitored.
This
will
provide
important
information
on
the
extent
to
which
selenium
(
and
other
fossil
fuel­
related
wastes)
are
bioaccumulating
in
fish
across
the
country.
(
ALA00292)

What
is
clear
is
that
ecological
impacts
extend
beyond
the
disposal
site.
With
surface
impoundments,
there
is
demonstrated
evidence
that
aquatic
populations
are
negatively
impacted
by
the
discharge
waters
from
impoundments
...
These
are
serious
concerns
which
make
it
clear
that
these
wastes
should
not
receive
continued
exemption
from
RCRA
subtitle
C
regulations.
Any
Regulatory
Determination
should
also
maintain
some
flexibility
to
deal
with
a
changed
selenium
water
quality
criterion
in
2001.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
FF2P­
S0370.

4
e.
g.,
Benoit,
G.,
S.
D.
Oktay­
Marshall,
A.
Cantu,
II,
E.
M.
Hood,
C.
H.
Coleman,
M.
O.
Corapcioglu,
and
P.
H.
Santschi.
Partitioning
of
Cu,
Pb,
Ag,
Zn,
Fe,
Al,
and
Mn
between
Filter­
retained
Particles,
Colloids,
and
Solution
in
Six
Texas
Estuaries.
Marine
Chemistry
5:
307­
336.
1994;
Hogstrand,
C.,
F.
Galvez,
and
C.
M.
Wood.
Toxicity,
Silver
Accumulation
and
Metallothionein
Induction
in
Freshwater
Rainbow
Trout
during
Exposure
to
Different
Silver
Salts.
Environ.
Toxicol.
and
Chem.
15(
7):
1102­
1108.
1996.

15
XVII
­
15
XVII.
ECOLOGICAL
RISK
ASSESSMENT
C.
Pathways
Considered
One
public
interest
group
commenter
stated
that
the
assessment
suffers
from
not
including
an
analysis
of
FFC
releases
on
estuarine
systems
and
associated
receptors.
This
commenter
also
stated
that,
while
the
assessment
considered
only
direct
contact
with
surface
impoundment
waters,
research
from
Ohio
and
South
Carolina
shows
that
the
ecological
impacts
extend
beyond
the
surface
impoundment
and
into
the
receiving
waters.
The
commenter
argued
that
this
research
demonstrates
that
TMDLs
under
the
NPDES
program
do
not
adequately
protect
aquatic
life.
This
commenter
and
another
public
interest
group
commenter
expressed
concern
about
the
ecological
impacts
of
CCW
transported
through
subsurface
pathways.
One
of
these
commenters
cited
research
showing
that
unlined
sites
will
degrade
the
microbiota
of
waters
beneath
disposal
sites.

Response:
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters'
concerns
and,
in
the
non­
groundwater
risk
assessment
technical
background
document3,
pointed
out
that
the
exclusion
of
estuarine
systems
introduces
uncertainty
into
the
ecological
risk
assessment.
In
addition,
EPA
also
noted
that
the
failure
to
include
the
ground
water
to
surface
water
pathway
may,
for
some
environmental
conditions
(
e.
g.,
high
water
table),
underestimate
the
potential
ecological
risks.
EPA
recognized
the
exclusion
of
estuarine
systems
and
the
subsurface
pathways
as
limitations
of
this
analysis
and
provided
some
perspective
on
these
limitations
in
the
risk
characterization.
In
brief,
evaluating
estuarine
systems
would
require
substantial
effort
in
data
collection
on
estuarine
receptors
(
e.
g.,
ecotoxicity
data)
as
well
as
in
adapting
the
multimedia
modeling
construct
to
simulate
the
complex
environmental
behavior
of
metals
in
brackish
and
marine
waters
of
estuaries.

Although
exclusion
of
estuarine
systems
limits
our
ability
to
interpret
the
risk
results,
data
identified
for
this
analysis
do
not
suggest
that
these
systems
and
receptors
are
at
greater
risk
than
freshwater
systems.
Indeed,
flocculation
of
metal
salts
and
competitive
binding
with
chlorine
ions
acts
to
mitigate
the
toxicity
of
cationic
metals.
4
With
respect
to
the
subsurface
pathways,
the
limited
mobility
of
most
metals
(
due
to
binding
with
FeOx
and
other
charged
ions)
prevents
surface
water
recharge
from
being
an
important
source
of
metal
contamination.
Of
those
metals
that
have
been
shown
to
impact
sediment
and
surface
water
through
this
pathway
(
e.
g.,
arsenic,
boron,
nickel),
it
is
unclear
whether
the
subsurface
contribution
would
be
distinguishable
from
the
background
contribution
for
a
variety
of
conditions.
Nevertheless,
the
ecological
impacts
from
surface
water
recharge
from
contaminated
aquifers
cannot
be
determined
from
the
modeling
simulations
conducted
for
this
analysis.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
16
XVII
­
16
The
direct
discharge
of
water
from
surface
impoundments
to
receiving
waterbodies
is
regulated
by
the
Office
of
Water
under
the
NPDES
guidelines,
and
this
release
scenario
is
not
considered
under
the
purview
of
RCRA.
The
Office
of
Water
uses
NPDES
permits
to
limit
the
overall
loading
of
contaminants
to
waterbodies
such
that
concentrations
do
not
exceed
the
national
or
state
water
quality
criteria.
Protection
of
the
freshwater
community
is
presumed
when
surface
water
concentrations
remain
below
the
water
quality
criteria.

EPA
agrees
that
there
may
be
potential
impacts
to
microbiota
in
subsurface
aquifers
that
receive
leachate
from
unconfined
waste
disposal
sites.
Because
this
is
a
potential
pathway
of
concern
that
was
not
evaluated,
this
is
considered
a
limitation
of
the
analysis.
It
is
atypical,
however,
to
consider
microbiota
in
aquifers
as
a
receptor
category
in
ecological
risk
assessments
and
the
ecological
significance
of
effects
to
microbiota
in
this
habitat
is,
as
present,
unclear.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
17
XVII
­
17
XVII.
ECOLOGICAL
RISK
ASSESSMENT
C.
Pathways
Considered
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
With
limited
time
and
resources,
we
have
been
able
to
find
evidence
that
ecological
risks
from
CCW
...
are
not
mostly
limited
to
large
surface
impoundments
...
The
cases
listed
above
also
show
that
contamination
from
CCW
transported
through
subsurface
pathways
can
cause
damage
to
organisms.
(
HEC00056)

Large
surface
impoundments
are
not
the
only
places
ecological
damage
from
CCW
has
resulted.
HEC
is
submitting
ten
new
cases
of
contamination
from
CCW
along
with
our
comments.
Among
these
cases
are
two
regulated
CCW
landfills
where
state
agencies
found
boron
contamination
from
CCW
was
causing
damage
to
plants.
At
the
CedarSauk
Ash
Landfill
in
Wisconsin,
groundwater
flowing
through
the
site
carried
boron
contamination
from
CCW
to
a
nearby
wetlands.
The
Wisconsin
Department
of
Natural
Resources
observing
vegetation
stress
typical
of
boron
contamination
in
the
summers
of
1980
and
81.
Further
research
into
the
problem
revealed
boron
concentrations
in
leaf
tissue
to
be
between
300
and
1600
ppm,
and
that
the
source
of
the
boron
was
the
landfill.
The
company
in
charge
of
the
landfill
was
ordered
to
install
three
extraction
wells
to
prevent
contamination
spreading
to
the
wetlands.
However,
this
step
did
not
prove
effective,
and
steps
are
now
being
taken
to
upgrade
the
landfill
cover.
In
Section
3
(
page
36)
of
the
report,
EPA
states
"
the
subsurface
pathway
was
not
evaluated
in
this
analysis....".
EPA
goes
on
to
state
that
this
may
be
a
concern
in
areas
with
high
water
table
such
as
wetlands
and
estuaries.
Yet,
they
have
not
taken
the
proper
to
look
for
and
evaluate
sites
where
contamination
is
traveling
via
groundwater
to
these
types
of
ecosystems.
At
the
Coffeen/
White
and
Brewer
Trucking
Fly
Ash
Landfill,
state
regulators
found
a
sizeable
area
of
dead
plants
located
close
to
the
landfill.
Further
investigation
revealed
that
leachate
was
seeping
out
of
the
landfill.
This
would
again
show
a
groundwater
pathway
of
contamination.
Analysis
of
the
seep
revealed
boron
levels
at
314
mg/
l,
over
104
times
the
USEPA
long
term
health
advisory
for
adults
of
3
mg/
l
and
157
times
the
general
irrigation
limit
of
2
mg/
l,
and
iron
levels
at
65.7
mg/
l,
219
times
the
SDWS
of
.3
mg/
l.
In
addition
to
the
problems
associated
with
the
seep,
the
site
was
also
cited
for
violating
state
water
standards
for
sulfates,
TDS,
and
manganese.
(
HEC00056)

The
assessment
suffers
from
not
including
an
anaiysis
of
FFC
releases
on
estuarine
systems
and
associated
receptors.
(
ALA00036)

Some
of
the
most
relevant
of
the
published
research
reported
by
RTI
is
the
work
on
the
ecological
risks
to
receiving
waters,
undertaken
at
the
Savannah
River
Ecology
Laboratory
by
Rowe,
Congdon
and
Hopkins.
We
understand
that
these
researchers
will
be
submitting
all
their
published
papers
as
comments
to
this
docket.
The
relev,
ance
of
this
work
is
extremely
important
when
considering
the
environmental
hazard
associated
with
surface
impoundments.
While
the
Report
to
Congress
suggests
that
the
ecological
risk
associated
with
surface
impoundments
occurs
to
animals
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
18
XVII
­
18
­
mostly
waterfowl
­
that
come
into
direct
contact
with
the
surface
waters,
the
Savannah
River
research
shows
that
the
ecological
impacts
extend
beyond
the
surface
impoundment
and
into
the
receiving
waters
...
[
comment
summarizes
this
research]
...
A
related
study
in
Ohio
(
Hatcher
et.
al
1992)
samples
lake
sediments,
macrozoobenthos
and
fish
near
a
coal
ash
disposal
basin
on
the
western
shore
of
Lake
Erie
...
[
comment
summarizes
this
research]
...
The
results
of
this
research
have
serious
implications
for
surface
impoundments
around
the
United
States.
The
Report
to
Congress
assumed
that
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
and
the
setting
of
the
Total
Maximum
Daily
Loads
(
TMDLs)
adequately
protected
aquatic
life
in
receiving
waters.
However,
this
research
shows
that
that
is
not
the
case.
It
shows
that
ecological
damage
from
surface
impoundments
has
the
potential
of
being
a
much
larger
problem.
The
implication
of
this
research
must
be
taken
into
consideration
when
making
the
final
Regulatory
Determination.
(
ALA00292)

Not
all
ecological
impacts
are
associated
with
surface
impoundments.
There
are
ecological
risks
to
consider
from
long­
term,
above
ground
disposal
as
well.
Many
of
these
risks
are
described
by
other
commenters
and
regard
the
extent
by
which
water
movement
from
disposal
sites
will
contaminate
aquifers.
Brunning,
et.
al.
(
1994)
analyzed
whether
polluted
waters
will
infiltrate
into
aquifers
from
alkaline
coal
combustion
waste
sites
and
whether
the
infiltration
of
these
waters
will
affect
the
microbiology
of
the
aquifer.
The
answer
to
both
these
questions
were
yes.
The
study
demonstrated
the
formation
of
toxic
leachate
with
high
pH,
alkalinity
and
concentrations
of
Ca2­
and
SO2
2­
well
above
drinking
water
standards.
While
the
lime
reduced
the
mobility
of
some
metals.
arsenic
and
strontium
and
elevated
pH
contributed
to
toxic
effects
on
the
microbiota
of
the
aquifer.
This
research
shows
that
any
disposal
method
that
does
not
have
a
proven
confinement
will
result
in
ecological
impacts
to
the
saturated
zone
beneath
the
disposal
site.
(
ALA00292)

What
is
clear
is
that
ecological
impacts
extend
beyond
the
disposal
site.
With
surface
impoundments,
there
is
demonstrated
evidence
that
aquatic
populations
are
negatively
impacted
by
the
discharge
waters
from
impoundments.
In
addition,
there
is
data
showing
that
unlined
sites
will
degrade
the
microbiota
of
waters
beneath
disposal
sites.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
XVIII
­
1
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
2
XVIII
­
2
XVIII.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
Various
commenters
addressed
EPA's
overall
characterization
of
risk
as
portrayed
in
the
RTC,
given
its
modeling
results,
damage
cases,
state
programs
and
other
factors.
Public
interest
group
commenters
stated
that
EPA's
conclusions
as
stated
in
the
RTC
regarding
risk
were
not
supported
by
its
modeling
results
and
that
the
Agency
reached
its
conclusions
without
sufficient
consideration
of
damage
cases,
risks
to
children,
population
risks,
or
cumulative
and
simultaneous
exposures.
Industry
and
academic
commenters
stated
that
EPA
had
not
appropriately
tempered
its
conclusions
about
risk
with
empirical
observations
and
consideration
of
current
management
practices.
In
sum,
EPA's
risk
characterization
was
criticized
from
both
sides,
but
for
different
reasons.

Specific
comments
are
addressed
following
this
overall
response.
In
some
cases,
as
in
earlier
sections
of
the
responses,
we
respond
simply
to
clear
up
certain
technical
points.
The
agency
reiterates
that
groundwater
risk
modeling
was
not
part
of
the
rationale
for
today's
rulemaking,
even
though
certain
groundwater
model
related
comments
are
addressed
below
as
in
foregoing
sections.

Response:
In
the
Report
to
Congress,
EPA
presented
its
risk
modeling
results
as
a
characterization
of
the
high­
end
potential
risks
from
management
of
FFC
wastes
in
unlined
units.
The
Agency
then
characterized
modeled
risk
based
on
the
best
available
information
about
model
uncertainties
and
other
factors
such
as
time
to
risk
and
risks
to
children.
The
overall
characterization
also
included
careful
consideration
of
documented
cases
of
damages
to
human
health
and
the
environment
(
see
Topic
XIX),
current
management
controls
and
the
adequacy
of
state
programs.
As
noted,
as
the
result
of
comments
the
Agency
is
also
conducting
a
thorough
reassessment
of
EPACMTP,
the
model
used
for
the
groundwater
risk
assessment.
As
a
result,
the
Agency
is
not
relying
on
the
ground­
water
risk
assessment
for
today's
regulatory
determination.
After
consideration
of
all
comments,
EPA
now
believes
that
these
wastes
may
pose
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment
when
not
properly
managed,
and
that
there
is
sufficient
evidence
that
adequate
controls
may
not
be
in
place
for
a
significant
number
of
facilities.

New
information
received
by
EPA
in
public
comments
includes
additional
documented
damage
cases,
as
well
as
cases
indicating
at
least
a
potential
for
damage
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
While
the
absolute
number
of
documented
damage
cases
is
not
large,
EPA
believes
that
the
evidence
of
proven
and
potential
damage
is
significant
when
considered
in
light
of
the
large
numbers
of
facilities,
particularly
surface
impoundments,
that
today
lack
basic
environmental
controls
such
as
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring.
EPA
acknowledges,
moreover,
that
its
inquiry
into
the
existence
of
damage
cases
was
focused
primarily
on
a
subset
of
states.
Given
the
huge
volume
of
coal
combustion
wastes
generated
nationwide
and
the
numbers
of
facilities
that
currently
lack
some
basic
environmental
controls,
especially
groundwater
monitoring,
there
is
at
least
a
substantial
likelihood
that
other
cases
of
proven
and
potential
damage
exist.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
XVIII
­
3
Since
the
Report
to
Congress,
EPA
has
also
conducted
additional
analyses
of
the
potential
for
the
constituents
of
coal
combustion
wastes
to
leach
in
dangerous
levels
into
groundwater.
Based
on
a
comparison
of
drinking
water
and
other
appropriate
standards
to
leach
test
data
from
coal
combustion
waste
samples,
we
identified
a
potential
for
significant
risks
from
arsenic
that
we
cannot
dismiss
at
this
time.

EPA
acknowledges
that,
even
without
federal
regulatory
action,
many
facilities
in
the
industry
have
either
voluntarily
instituted
adequate
environmental
controls
or
have
done
so
at
the
direction
of
states
that
regulate
these
facilities.
However,
in
light
of
the
evidence
of
actual
and
potential
damage
to
human
health
or
the
environment
from
these
wastes,
the
sheer
volume
of
wastes
generated
from
coal
combustion,
the
significant
numbers
of
facilities
that
do
not
currently
have
basic
controls
in
place,
and
the
composition
of
these
wastes,
EPA
believes
that,
on
balance,
the
best
means
of
ensuring
that
adequate
controls
are
imposed
where
needed
is
to
develop
tailored
regulations
under
Subtitle
D
of
RCRA.

While
the
Agency
is
making
a
final
decision
pursuant
to
42
U.
S.
C.
§
3001(
b)(
3)(
C)
regarding
these
wastes,
EPA
acknowledges
our
decision
is
a
departure
from
the
approach
described
in
the
Report
to
Congress,
and
we
are
providing
the
public
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
today's
determination.
We
will
consider
these
comments
in
either
developing
regulations
under
Subtitle
D
or
revisiting
and,
if
appropriate,
revising
today's
determination.

Certain
of
the
responses
below
address
specific
concerns
raised
by
commenters
on
this
topic
in
more
detail,
for
clarification
purposes,
even
though
the
Agency
has
now
determined
that
regulation
is
warranted.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
4
XVIII
­
4
XVIII.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
inconsistent
application
of
EPA's
risk
assessment
methods
and
policies
seriously
jeopardizes
the
use
of
the
findings
in
the
Report
for
decision­
making
regarding
the
appropriate
regulatory
status
of
comanaged
FFC
waste.
(
ALA00036)

EPA
declares
in
its
Executive
Summary,
Section
3
page
6,
that
large
surface
impoundments
can
theoretically
pose
risks
to
birds,
mammals,
and
amphibians.
EPA
discounts
the
idea
of
taking
any
action
to
reduce
the
risks
posed
by
large
surface
impoundments
on
two
factors,
there
is
no
information
on
the
actual
ecological
risks
posed
by
large
surface
impoundments
and
the
cost
of
eliminating
such
impoundments
is
too
high.
Both
of
these
statements
are
completely
unsubstantiated.
(
HEC00056)

The
substantial
data
gaps
in
the
Report
suggest
that
the
resulting
depiction
of
risks
is
incorrect.
(
49CAO00058)

The
Report
is
out
of
sync
with
agency
policies
and
priorities.
(
49CAO00058)

But
EPA's
own
analysis
in
the
Report,
as
discussed
below,
shows
that
the
comanaged
wastes
raise
serious
human
health
and
ecological
risks
­­
risks
that
the
Agency
disregards
in
reaching
its
Draft
Regulatory
Determination
not
to
require
RCRA
regulation
for
these
wastes.
(
ALA00292)

We
strongly
disagree
with
EPA's
over
reliance
on
modeling
as
a
risk
assessment
tool.
EPA
has
ample
real
world
data
on
utility
combustion
wastes,
and
often
these
data
fail
to
confirm
the
conclusions
generated
by
the
model.
(
USWAG00037)

EPA
Failed
to
consider
the
prevalence
of
liners
in
the
landfill
scenario.
(
USWAG00037)

The
limited
number
of
actual
case
studies
at
mines
where
groundwater
monitoring
is
performed
in
a
meaningful
way
jeopardizes
the
credibility
of
the
study.
The
report
and
appendices
appear
to
apologize
for
this
shortcoming.
The
modeling
review
often
appears
to
"
wish"
there
were
more
opportunities
for
model
testing
by
comparison
with
real
data
[
Section
3­
4,
for
example].
The
limits
of
the
effort
seem
to
be
due
to
the
crunch
of
time,
which
is
unfortunate.
The
case
study
limitation
is
true
in
Texas,
but
here
there
are
a
number
of
municipal
and
C&
D
landfill
situations
in
similar
settings
that
could
serve
as
surrogates.
The
comment
here
is
that
modeling
conclusions
should
await
an
effort
to
gather
real
data
from
case
studies
for
comparison
with
EPACMPT
results.
(
RICE00041)

USWAG
comments
provide
detailed,
technical
information
demonstrating
the
risks
are
overstated
by
several
orders
of
magnitude.
Reiteration
of
the
technical
arguments
is
unnecessary.
However,
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
5
XVIII
­
5
APS
strongly
agrees
with
USWAG's
positipn
that
...
use
of
modeling
is
inappropriate
when
actual
field
data
was
made
available
to
the
agency.
(
APSC00043)

On
page
3­
3
it
was
stated
that
"
for
arsenic
the
(
cancer)
risk
for
young
children
increased
roughly
25
percent
compared
to
the
adult
receptors."
Care
must
be
exercised
when
using
this
sort
of
a
comparison.
For
example,
a
recent
article
in
Issues
in
Science
and
Technology
pointed
out
that
the
way
many
of
the
reported
increases
in
childhood
cancer
are
presented
may
be
somewhat
misleading.
A
reported
increase
of
over
40
percent
in
the
annual
incidence
of
kidney
and
renal
pelvis
cancer
from
1973­
74
to
1993­
94
actually
represents
an
increase
from
0.7
to
1.0
cases
per
100,000
children.
In
1994­
1995,
the
rate
was
0.8
per
100,000,
which
is
an
increase
of
over
14
percent,
but
represents
an
increase
of
1
additional
case
per
million
children.
It
must
be
kept
in
perspective
that
cancer
in
children
is
a
relatively
rare
event
(
Huebner
and
Chilton,
1998).
(
EERC00044)

In
general
terms,
CIBO
points
out
that
real­
life
data
and
experience
are
far
superior
to
modeled
projections.
Modeling,
no
matter
how
good,
cannot
account
for
all
the
variables
in
geology,
hydrology,
meteorology,
and
other
flaws.
Because
of
their
limitations,
environmental
models
(
including
risk
assessment
models)
quite
often
substantially
overstate
real­
world
exposure
and
risks.
(
CIBO00052)

The
modeling
did
not
account
for
the
current
ash
management
practice
of
spreading
and
compacting
in
thin
layers
to
maximize
the
structural
integrity
of
the
fill.
(
CIBO00052)

Modeled
predictions
are
no
substitute
for
actual
data,
as
EPA
states
in
the
Report
...
Fortunately,
there
is
considerable
monitoring
data
...
and
PG&
E
Gen
respectfully
asks
that
it
be
given
due
consideration
by
EPA.
(
PG&
E00274)

USWAG's
initial
comments,
combined
with
the
wealth
of
field
data
in
the
record,
provide
the
basis
for
EPA
to
reevaluate
its
modeling
exercise,
reduce
its
risk
estimates
by
orders
of
magnitude,
and
validate
those
results.
(
USWAG00275)

EPA's
regulatory
determination
must
be
made
based
upon
the
totality
of
the
available
information
with
full
respect
for
the
real
world
data
and
conditions.
(
USWAG00275)

In
light
of
significant
criticism
by
other
commenters
of
EPA's
risk
assessment,
CIBO
reiterates
its
earlier
recommendation
that
EPA
rely
on
field
data
carefully
compiled
and
submitted
to
the
Agency
in
ample
time
for
its
consideration.
(
CIBO00280)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
6
XVIII
­
6
XVIII.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
A.
Modeling
versus
Empirical
Observation
Industry
and
academic
commenters
stated
that
the
use
of
modeling
is
inappropriate
because
significant
observational
data
exist
to
characterize
the
fate
and
transport
of
waste
constituents.
The
commenters
suggested
that
EPA
rely
on
these
data
rather
than
modeling
to
characterize
risk,
or
at
the
least
use
these
data
to
validate
the
model
results.

Response:
As
noted
in
prior
sections
of
these
responses,
EPA
is
not
using
risk
modeling
at
this
time
as
a
component
of
its
characterization
of
risk.
The
Agency
is
basing
its
characterization
of
risk
on
consideration
of
other
factors.
Among
the
factors
considered
were
EPA's
review
of
documented
cases
of
human
health
and
environmental
damage
(
see
Topic
XIX)
and
its
review
of
state
programs.
The
Agency
believes
this
consideration
of
empirical
data
in
its
risk
characterization
was
appropriate
and
adequate.
EPA
plans
to
continue
to
use
risk
modeling
as
a
component
of
overall
risk
assessment,
and,
as
noted,
is
currently
reviewing
the
groundwater
model
used.
The
Agency
notes
that
the
use
of
empirical
data,
in
many
cases,
cannot
typically
substitute
entirely
for
risk
modeling
because
of
concerns
relative
to
the
question
of
long
term
mobility.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
7
XVIII
­
7
XVIII.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
A.
Modeling
versus
Empirical
Observation
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
We
strongly
disagree
with
EPA's
over
reliance
on
modeling
as
a
risk
assessment
tool.
EPA
has
ample
real
world
data
on
utility
combustion
wastes,
and
often
these
data
fail
to
confirm
the
conclusions
generated
by
the
model.
(
USWAG00037)

EPA
should
utilize
the
wealth
of
real
world
data
to
the
fullest
extent
possible
(
USWAG00037)

EPA
should
validate
its
modeling
results
by
comparison
with
real
world
data.
(
USWAG00037)

Use
of
CMTP
is
inappropriate
where
significant
observational
data
is
available.
USWAG
and
EPRI
provided
EPA
with
a
wealth
of
data
that
were
collected
and
analyzed
in
close
cooperation
with
the
Agency
over
a
period
of
18
years.
These
data
were
and
remain
the
most
comprehensive
data
available
regarding
the
variability
of
the
waste
characteristics
resulting
from
various
waste
combinations,
management
practices,
geologic,
and
climatic
differences
...
Unfortunately,
EPA
disregarded
that
wealth
of
data
and
erroneously
extracted
only
input
values
for
modeling
fate
and
transport
of
the
constituents.
USWAG
urges
EPA
once
again
to
utilize
the
data
that
present
a
clear
picture
of
the
fate
and
transport
of
these
constituents
rather
than
relying
upon
a
questionable
mathematical
construct.
(
USWAG00037)

While
the
breadth
and
diversity
of
the
"
remaining
waste"
universe
preclude
collection
of
sufficient
site­
specific
data
to
completely
characterize
risk
to
human
health
of
the
entire
waste
universe
under
the
full
range
of
management
possibilities,
we
cannot
support
EPA's
decision
to
use
modeling
as
a
surrogate
for
actual
field
data
...
Certainly
where
there
are
gaps
in
the
data,
modeling
may
play
an
appropriate
role
in
risk
assessment;
however,
we
fear
that
the
Agency
has
become
a
prisoner
of
its
models.
It
is
almost
as
though
EPA
would
rather
generate
numbers
from
its
computers
than
see
what
in
fact
is
occurring
in
the
environment.
Modeling
is
not
an
adequate
substitute
for
the
painstaking
work
of
assembling
and
analyzing
readily
available
facts.
The
valuable
field
data
EPRI
has
collected
and
transmitted
to
EPA
have
been
used
ineffectively.
(
USWAG00037)

As
we
discuss
below,
where
the
field
data
demonstrate
that
the
model's
assumptions
are
unrealistic,
EPA
is
obliged
both
from
scientific
and
legal
perspectives
to
reassess
and
appropriately
adjust
its
modeling
methodology.
As
a
matter
of
law,
"[
a]
n
agency's
use
of
a
model
is
arbitrary
if
that
model
bears
no
rational
relationship
to
the
reality
it
purports
to
represent.
Furthermore,
EPA
retains
a
duty
to
examine
key
assumptions
as
part
of
its
affirmative
burden
of
promulgating
and
explaining
a
non­
arbitrary,
non­
capricious
rule."
(
USWAG00037)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
8
XVIII
­
8
The
limited
number
of
actual
case
studies
at
mines
where
groundwater
monitoring
is
performed
in
a
meaningful
way
jeopardizes
the
credibility
of
the
study.
The
report
and
appendices
appear
to
apologize
for
this
shortcoming.
The
modeling
review
often
appears
to
"
wish"
there
were
more
opportunities
for
model
testing
by
comparison
with
real
data
[
Section
3­
4,
for
example].
The
limits
of
the
effort
seem
to
be
due
to
the
crunch
of
time,
which
is
unfortunate.
The
case
study
limitation
is
true
in
Texas,
but
here
there
are
a
number
of
municipal
and
C&
D
landfill
situations
in
similar
settings
that
could
serve
as
surrogates.
The
comment
here
is
that
modeling
conclusions
should
await
an
effort
to
gather
real
data
from
case
studies
for
comparison
with
EPACMPT
results.
(
RICE00041)

USWAG
comments
provide
detailed,
technical
information
demonstrating
the
risks
are
overstated
by
several
orders
of
magnitude.
Reiteration
of
the
technical
arguments
is
unnecessary.
However,
APS
strongly
agrees
with
USWAG's
position
that
...
use
of
modeling
is
inappropriate
when
actual
field
data
was
made
available
to
the
agency.
(
APSC00043)

In
general
terms,
CIBO
points
out
that
real­
life
data
and
experience
are
far
superior
to
modeled
projections.
Modeling,
no
matter
how
good,
cannot
account
for
all
the
variables
in
geology,
hydrology,
meteorology,
and
other
flaws.
Because
of
their
limitations,
environmental
models
(
including
risk
assessment
models)
quite
often
substantially
overstate
real­
world
exposure
and
risks.
(
CIBO00052)

Given
this
wide
range
of
known
inaccuracies
in
modeling,
CIBO
questions
whether
EPA
should
rely
so
heavily
on
these
models
when
making
important
decisions
in
this
rulemaking.
This
concern
is
highlighted
by
the
fact
that
CIBO
and
other
commenters
have
submitted
thorough
data
and
analyses
on
which
to
base
a
real­
world
decision,
obviating
the
need
for
admittedly
flawed
modeling.
(
CIBO00052)

Modeled
predictions
are
no
substitute
for
actual
data,
as
EPA
states
in
the
Report,
especially
with
FBC
coal
ash,
which
is
a
mixture
of
materials,
applied
to
the
land
in
varying
soils
and
complex
geology.
Fortunately,
there
is
considerable
monitoring
data
from
actual
reclamation
and
soil
amendment
uses
of
this
coal
ash,
which
have
been
provided
to
EPA
for
review
by
industry,
academia
and
by
state
agencies
currently
regulating
those
beneficial
uses.
This
information
necessarily
takes
into
account
the
complex
interactions,
that
elude
the
model,
and
PG&
E
Gen
respectfully
asks
that
it
be
given
due
consideration
by
EPA.
(
PG&
E00274)

USWAG's
initial
comments,
combined
with
the
wealth
of
field
data
in
the
record,
provide
the
basis
for
EPA
to
reevaluate
its
modeling
exercise,
reduce
its
risk
estimates
by
orders
of
magnitude,
and
validate
those
results.
(
USWAG00275)

EPA's
regulatory
determination
must
be
made
based
upon
the
totality
of
the
available
information
with
full
respect
for
the
real
world
data
and
conditions.
(
USWAG00275)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
9
XVIII
­
9
As
a
matter
of
sound
science,
EPA
is
obligated
to
reassess
and
appropriately
adjust
its
modeling
methodology
to
correspond
to
real
world
data.
As
a
matter
of
law,
"[
a]
n
agency's
use
of
a
model
is
arbitrary
if
that
model
bears
no
rational
relationship
to
the
reality
it
purports
to
represent.
Furthermore,
EPA
retains
a
duty
to
examine­
key
assumptions
as
part
of
its
affirmative
burden
of
promulgating
and
explaining
a
non­
arbitrary,
non­
capricious
rule."
(
USWAG00275)

As
should
be
expected,
the
models
do
not
provide
the
ultimate
answers
to
the
many
issues
presented.
If
EPA
is
asked
whether
it
is
raining,
the
best
answer
can
be
found
by
looking
out
the
window,
not
by
turning
on
the
computer.
Similarly,
EPA's
regulatory
determination
should
give
full
weight
to
what
can
readily
be
seen
at
FFC
waste
management
sites,
not
the
imperfect
science
of
computer
models.
(
USWAG00275)

In
light
of
significant
criticism
by
other
commenters
of
EPA's
risk
assessment,
CIBO
reiterates
its
earlier
recommendation
that
EPA
rely
on
field
data
carefully
compiled
and
submitted
to
the
Agency
in
ample
time
for
its
consideration.
(
CIBO00280)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
10
XVIII
­
10
XVIII.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
B.
Risk
Conclusions
Inconsistent
with
Assessment
Results
Several
public
interest
group
commenters
stated
that
EPA's
RTC
conclusion
that
FFC
wastes
do
not
present
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment
was
inconsistent
with
the
results
of
the
risk
modeling
assessment,
which
found
risks
in
excess
of
EPA's
criteria.
Some
of
the
commenters
were
concerned
that
EPA
had
dismissed
its
conclusions
about
ecological
risk
from
surface
impoundments
because
of
a
lack
of
information
and
the
costs
of
regulation.
One
of
the
commenters
was
concerned
that
EPA
was
dismissing
arsenic
risks
by
comparing
them
to
background
arsenic
levels
without
providing
any
data
on
background
arsenic.
Other
conclusions
of
particular
concern
were
those
regarding
agricultural
use
(
see
Topic
VIII)
and
risks
to
children
(
see
topic
XVIII.
D).

Response:
EPA
is
not
relying
on
its
ground
water
risk
modeling
results
for
this
regulatory
determination
action.
Nonetheless,
certain
key
risk
modeling
comments
are
addressed
below
for
clarification.

In
response
to
commenters'
characterization
of
EPA
analysis
predicting
cancer
risks
for
children
from
arsenic­
contaminated
drinking
water
as
high
as
one
in
one
hundred,
this
statement
arises
from
an
obvious
misinterpretation
of
information
in
background
documents
and
in
the
RTC.
Risk
analyses
began
with
a
"
screening"
evaluation.
These
screening
analyses
typically
address
ingestion
of
a
chemical
at
the
source,
often
as
generated.
This
is
not
a
reasonable
basis
for
concluding
that
exposure
risk
exists.

If
we
determine
in
screening
analyses
that
a
risk
should
be
transport
modeled,
we
conduct
such
modeling
to
better
predict
exposure.
No
modeled
risk
of
one
in
one
hundred
was
reported.

While
not
relying
on
the
EPACMTP
groundwater
modeling
as
presented
in
the
RTC,
we
have
since
conducted
a
general
comparison
of
the
metals
levels
in
leachate
from
coal
combustion
wastes
to
their
corresponding
hazardous
waste
toxicity
characteristic
levels.
Fossil
fuel
wastes
infrequently
exceed
the
hazardous
waste
characteristic.
For
co­
managed
wastes,
2%
(
1
of
51
samples)
exceeded
the
characteristic
level.
For
individual
wastes
streams,
0%
of
the
coal
bottom
ash,
2%
of
the
coal
fly
ash,
3%
of
the
coal
flue
gas
desulfurization,
and
7%
of
the
coal
boiler
slag
samples
that
were
tested
exceeded
the
characteristic
level.
Nevertheless,
once
we
have
completed
a
review
of
our
groundwater
model
and
made
any
necessary
changes,
we
will
reevaluate
groundwater
risks
and
take
appropriate
regulatory
actions.
We
will
specifically
assess
new
modeling
results
as
they
relate
to
any
promulgated
changes
in
the
arsenic
MCL.

We
also
compared
leach
concentrations
from
fossil
fuel
wastes
to
the
drinking
water
MCLs.
In
the
case
of
arsenic,
we
examined
a
range
of
values
because
EPA
expects
to
promulgate
a
new
arsenic
drinking
water
regulation
by
January
1,
2001.
This
range
includes
the
existing
arsenic
MCL
(
50
ug/
l),
a
lower
health
based
number
presented
in
the
FFC
Report
to
Congress
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
11
XVIII
­
11
(
RTC)
(
0.29
ug/
l),
and
two
assumed
values
in
between
(
10
and
5
ug/
l).
We
examined
this
range
of
values
because
of
our
desire
to
bracket
the
likely
range
of
values
that
EPA
will
be
considering
in
its
effort
to
revise
the
current
MCL
for
arsenic.
The
National
Research
Council's
1999
report
on
Arsenic
in
Drinking
Water
indicated
that
the
current
MCL
is
not
sufficiently
protective
and
should
be
revised
downward
as
soon
as
possible.
For
this
reason,
we
selected
the
current
MCL
of
50
ug/
L
for
the
high
end
of
the
range
because
EPA
is
now
considering
lowering
the
current
MCL
and
does
not
anticipate
that
the
current
MCL
would
be
revised
to
any
higher
value.
We
selected
the
health­
based
number
presented
in
the
Report
to
Congress
for
the
low
end
of
the
range
because
we
believe
this
represents
the
lowest
concentration
that
would
be
considered
in
revising
the
current
MCL.
Because
at
this
time
we
cannot
project
a
particular
value
as
the
eventual
MCL,
we
also
examined
values
in
between
these
low­
end
and
high­
end
values,
a
value
of
5
ug/
L
and
a
value
of
10
ug/
L,
for
our
analyses
supporting
today's
regulatory
determination.
The
choice
of
these
midrange
values
for
analyses
does
not
predetermine
the
final
MCL
for
arsenic.

Those
circumstances
where
the
leach
concentrations
from
the
wastes
exceed
the
drinking
water
criteria
have
the
greatest
potential
to
cause
significant
risks.
This
"
potential"
risk,
however,
may
not
occur
at
actual
facilities.
Pollutants
in
the
leachate
of
the
wastes
undergo
dilution
and
attenuation
as
they
migrate
through
the
ground.
The
primary
purpose
of
models
such
as
EPACMTP
is
to
account
for
the
degree
of
dilution
and
attenuation
that
is
likely
to
occur,
and
to
obtain
a
realistic
estimate
of
the
concentration
of
contaminants
at
a
groundwater
receptor.
To
provide
a
view
of
potential
groundwater
risk,
we
tabulated
the
number
of
occurrences
where
the
waste
leachate
hazardous
metals
concentrations
were:
(
a)
less
than
the
criteria,
(
b)
between
1
and
10
times
the
criteria,
(
c)
between
10
and
100
times
the
criteria,
and
(
d)
greater
than
100
times
the
criteria.
Groundwater
models
that
we
currently
use,
when
applied
to
large
volume
monofill
sources
of
metals,
frequently
predict
that
dilution
and
attenuation
will
reduce
leachate
levels
on
the
order
of
a
factor
of
10
under
reasonable
high
end
conditions.
This
multiple
is
commonly
called
a
dilution
and
attenuation
factor
(
DAF).
For
this
reason
and
because
lower
dilution
and
attenuation
factors
(
e.
g.,
10)
are
often
associated
with
larger
disposal
units
such
as
those
typical
at
facilities
where
coal
is
burned,
we
assessed
the
frequency
of
occurrence
of
leach
concentrations
for
various
hazardous
metals
which
were
greater
than
10
times
the
drinking
water
criteria.
Based
on
current
MCLs,
there
was
only
one
exceedence
(
for
cadmium).
However,
when
we
considered
the
arsenic
health
based
criterion
from
the
RTC,
we
found
that
a
significant
percentage
(
86%)
of
available
waste
samples
had
leach
concentrations
for
arsenic
that
were
greater
than
ten
times
the
healthbased
criterion.
Even
considering
intermediate
values
closer
to
the
current
MCL,
a
significant
percentage
of
available
waste
samples
had
leach
concentrations
for
arsenic
that
were
greater
than
ten
times
the
criteria
(
30%
when
the
criterion
was
assumed
to
be
5
ug/
l,
and
14%
when
the
criterion
was
assumed
to
be
10
ug/
l).
Similar
concerns
also
occurred
when
comparing
actual
groundwater
samples
associated
with
FFC
waste
units
and
this
range
of
criteria
for
arsenic.
We
believe
this
is
an
indication
of
potential
risks
from
arsenic.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
12
XVIII
­
12
XVIII.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
B.
Risk
Conclusions
Inconsistent
with
Assessment
Results
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
One
of
the
most
serious
inconsistencies
in
the
Report
is
in
regard
to
EPA's
risk
characterization
policies
that
identify
risks
above
a
one­
in­
one
million
(
1
x
10­
6)
for
carcinogens
and
a
hazard
quotient
of
1
for
non­
carcinogens
as
potentially
hazardous
to
public
health.
In
the
Report,
EPA
concludes
that
FFC
wastes
"
do
not
present
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment"
despite
the
fact
that
the
risks
are
consistently
above
acceptable
levels
for
coal­,
oil­
and
FBC
combustion
waste.
The
incremental
risks
(
i.
e.
risks
from
exposure
to
FFC.
wastes
only)
are,
in
fact,
as
low
as
one­
in­
one
hundred
for
children
potentially
exposed
to
contaminated
groundwater
from
coal­
fired
combustion
wastes.
The
only
scenarios
for
which
no
public
health
risks
were
reported
are
associated
with
natural
gas
combustion
since
no
wastes
are
generated.
(
ALA00036)

Contrary
to
the
findings
bf
the
risk
assessments,
EPA
has
determined
that
agricultural
use
of
coalfired
and
FBC
utility
combustion
wastes
poses
a
public
health
risk
and,
therefore,
should
be
considered
for
regulation.
This
is
despite
the
fact
that
no
unacceptable
risk
(
i.
e.
greater
than
1
x
10­
6
or
HQ>
l)
for
the
agricultural
soil
amendment
scenario
were
reported.
On
the
other
hand,
risks
for
all
other
scenarios
exceeded
acceptable
levels,
but
EPA
concludes
that
there
"
is
a
lack
of
potential
human
health
risks
for
virtually
all
waste
constituents."
This
is
simply
not
true.
(
ALA00036)

There
are
several
assumptions
and
uncertainties
in
the
risk
assessments
that
could
underestimate
the
risk
estimates
cited
in
the
Report.
These
uncertainties,
in
conjunction
with
the
disconnect
between
the
findings
of
human
health
risks
and
EPA
recommendations
that
address
those
sceqarios
where
risks
were
not
found,
suggest
that
there
is
insufficient
bases
for
applying
the
conclusions
drawn
from
the
risk
characterization
in
any
subsequent
Regulatory
Determinations
made
regarding
FFC
wastes.
(
ALA00036)

EPA's
analysis
focuses
exclusively
on
incremental
risks
from
FFC
wastes.
True
risks
are
likely
higher
especially
for
metals
which
bioaccumulate
in
food
or
have
a
variety
of
anthropogenic
and
natural
sources.
Although
EPA
did
not
evaluate
background
concentrations
or
even
mention
the
issue,
it
did
conclude
that
"
natural
As
levels
have
the
potential
to
pose
higher
risks
than
nongroundwater
pathways."
What
is
the
basis
for
EPA's
conclusion?
There
is
not
background
data
on
any
of
the
metals
evaluated
in
the
risk
assessments.
The
statement
suggests
a
bias
by
EPA
to
dismiss
impacts
despite
unacceptable
risk
levels.
(
ALA00036)

The
Agency
proposes
to
exempt
coal
wastes
from
Subtitle
C
despite
identifying
ecological
risks
from
coal
combustion
wastes
managed
in
impoundments
...
The
Agency
appears
to
be
proposing
to
exempt
these
wastes
simply
because
it
is
difficult
to
address
the
ecological
impacts.
This
action
has
no
basis
in
RCRA.
(
ALA00036)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
13
XVIII
­
13
Despite
the
potential
to
underestimate
risks,
EPA
reports
risk
levels
in
the
range
of
one
in
onehundred
to
one
in
ten­
thousand
for
a
known
human
carcinogen
(
arsenic),
but
concluded
"
that
wastes
do
not
pose
human
health
risks"
...
With
regard
to
non­
groundwater
risks,
EPA
simply
ignores
its
own
findings
of
risks
exceeding
acceptable
levels,
especially
for
children.
(
ALA00036)

EPA
declares
in
its
Executive
Summary,
Section
3
page
6,
that
large
surface
impoundments
can
theoretically
pose
risks
to
birds,
mammals,
and
amphibians.
EPA
discounts
the
idea
of
taking
any
action
to
reduce
the
risks
posed
by
large
surface
impoundments
on
two
factors,
there
is
no
information
on
the
actual
ecological
risks
posed
by
large
surface
impoundments
and
the
cost
of
eliminating
such
impoundments
is
too
high.
Both
of
these
statements
are
completely
unsubstantiated.
(
HEC00056)

The
Report
identifies
potential
ecological
risks
associated
with
coal
combustion
wastes,
but
then
declares
that
no
documented
impact
information
was
available
to
compare
with
the
risk
modeling
results.
(
49CAO00058)

The
Report
suggests
cancer
risks
to
children
from
coal
waste
management
facilities
that
are
orders
of
magnitude
higher
than
unacceptable/
action
level
risks
under
these
policies
­­
and
yet
these
results
do
not
appear
to
factor
into
the
Agency's
conclusions
that
the
wastes
do
not
require
Subtitle
C
regulation.
(
49CAO00058)

In
at
least
one
instance,
the
Report
seemingly
ignores
high
levels
of
cancer
risks
to
children­
the
risk
of
cancer
from
exposure
to
arsenic
from
coal
waste
landfills
of
1.3
per
100
in
concluding
that
FFC
wastes
do
not
require
subtitle
C
regulation.
(
49CA00058)

EPA
reports,
but
ignores
(
in
its
conclusions
and
draft
Regulatory
Determination)
extremely
high
potential
cancer
risks
­­
1
in
100
to
1
in
1000
­­
to
children
of
exposure
to
arsenic
in
co­
managed
coal
waste­
contaminated
groundwater.
EPA
similarly
disregards
reported
relatively
high
cancer
risks
associated
with
exposure
of
adults
to
groundwater
contaminated
with
FFC
waste
constituents.
(
ALA00292)

But
EPA's
own
analysis
in
the
Report,
as
discussed
below.,
shows
that
the
comanaged
wastes
raise
serious
human
health
and
ecological
risks
­­
risks
that
the
Agency
disregards
in
reaching
its
Draft
Regulatory
Determination
not
to
require
RCRA
regulation
for
these
wastes.
(
ALA00292)

Our
consultants
also
found
that
EPA
seemingly
disregarded
reported
high
human
health
and
ecological
risks
of
current
FFC
waste
disposal
practices
in
reaching
its
draft
Regulatory
Determination
­­
which
is,
at
the
least
inconsistent
with
Agency
policy,
and
at
worst
a
disregard
for
the
actual
damage
that
could
be
caused
to
human
health
and
the
environment
from
a
continued
and
permanent
exemption
of
these
wastes.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
14
XVIII
­
14
EPA's
disregard
of
reported
high
risks
associated
with
groundwater
pathwav
is
inconsistent
with
Agency
policy.
It
is
EPA
policy
that
cancer
risks
exceeding
one­
in­
one­
million
and
non­
cancer
risks
exceeding
a
hazard
quotient
of
1
are
considered
potential
public
health
concern.
As
shown
in
Table
7
below
the
risks
for
coal­,
oil­
and
FBC­
generated
wastes
exceed
acceptable
risk
benchmarks
for
cancer;
oil
waste
also
exceeds
the
non­
cancer
benchmarks.
Based
on
the
results
of
the
ground
water
risk
assessment
presented
in
the
Report
to
Congress
it
appears
that
the
EPA
incorrectly
concluded
that
"
no
significant
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment
were
identified
or
believed
to
exist."
(
ALA00292)

Furthermore,
while
the
non­
groundwater
risk
assessment
does
not
identify
any
significant
risks
due
to
application
of
fluidized
bed
combustion
(
FBC)
wastes
to
agricultural
land,
the
draft
Report
to
Congress
does
identify
arsenic
concentrations
as
a
potential
concern
for
this
waste
and
other
types
of
waste
(
e.
g.,
coal
combustion
waste
­­
CCW)
in
this
application.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
15
XVIII
­
15
XVIII.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
C.
Failure
to
Address
Persistent
Bioaccumulative
Toxics
Appropriately
Public
interest
group
commenters
stated
that,
given
the
Agency's
stated
goals
in
the
Persistent
Bioaccumulative
Toxics
strategy,
EPA
failed
to
address
the
following
in
its
consideration
of
risk:
a
cohesive
and
coherent
control
strategy
to
reduce
the
overall
releases
of
mercury,
arsenic,
and
nickel;
cross­
media
releases
of
mercury;
consideration
of
groups
of
pollutants
rather
than
individual
pollutants;
and
methods
to
avoid
transferring
problems
across
media
or
to
chemical
substitute.

Response:
EPA
believes
it
has
adequately
addressed
these
issues
as
today's
decision
indicates,
within
the
bounds
of
the
statutory
guidelines
for
this
study
and
the
state
of
risk
assessment
science.
EPA
is
also
planning
to
consider
the
ongoing
effort
to
further
restrict
air
emissions
as
these
impact
on
solid
wastes,
as
noted
elsewhere
in
these
responses
to
comment.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
16
XVIII
­
16
XVIII.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
C.
Failure
to
Address
Persistent
Bioaccumulative
Toxics
Appropriately
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Despite
the
conclusion
that
mercury
is
"
screened
out'
of
the
analysis
based
on
TCLP
results,
the
concentrations
measured
(
even
when
the
median
values
are
taken)
reveal
that
nationally,
tons
of
mercury
are
being
mobilized
in
these
waste
disposal
sites.
The
lack
of
consideration
given
to
mercury
releases
runs
counter
to
the
Administrator's
PBT
strategy.
(
ALA00036)

These
uses
should
be
considered
particularly
from
the
standpoint
of
cross­
media
releases
of
mercury.
For
example,
FBC
sludge
use
for
cement
manufacturing
will
certainly
release
mercury
to
the
environment.
A
true
life­
cycle
analysis
of
these
wastes
and
their
end
uses
should
be
conducted.
(
ALA00036)

The
Agency's
stated
goal
under
the
Persistent
Bioaccumulative
Toxics
(
PBT)
Strategy
is
"
reducing
risk
to
human
health
in
the
environment
from
existing
and
future
exposure
to
priority
persistent,
bioaccumulative
and
toxic
pollutants."
By
proposing
to
exempt
FFC
wastes
from
Subtitle
C,
the
Agency
fails
to
consider
the
goals
of
the
PBT
strategy.
(
ALA00036)

The
PBT
strategy
emphasizes
a
multi­
media
approach
and
commits
the
Agency
to
coordinating
Agency
actions
across
programs.
The
Report
fails
to
coordinate
across
Agency
programs.
For
example,
in
1998
the
Agency
characterized
air
emissions
from
the
stacks
of
power
plants
and
found
mercury,
arsenic
and
nickel
to
be
pollutants
"
of
potential
concern."
While
the
Report
indicates
clear
risks
from
arsenic
and
nickel,
the
Agency
makes
no
attempt
to
link
the
findings
made
by
two
different
EPA
offices
in
such
a
way
as
to
present
cohesive
and
coherent
control
strategy
to
reduce
the
overall
releases
of
these
pollutants.
(
ALA00036)

In
an
April
9,
1999
memorandum
concerning
the
PBT
strategy,
Administrator
Browner
emphasizes,
as
one
of
her
priori
ties,
the
neeti
to
control
mercury
releases
and
the
importance
of
using
the
Agency's
full
complement
o!
tools
to
do
so.
The
Report
fails
to
address
cross­
media
releases
of
mercury.
Mercury,
supposedly
one
of
the
Agency's
top
concerns,
was
identified
by
the
Utility
Hazardous
Air
Pollutant
Report
to
Congress
as
the
pollutant
of
greatest
concern
from
the
stack
emissions
of
power
plants.
In
this
Report,
,
mercury
was
given
so
little
consideration
that
the
wastes
themselves
were
not
even
analyzed
for
this
metal.
In
addition,
the
volatilization
of
mercury
from
combustion
wastes,
the
most
important
pathway
for
mercury
releases
from
wastes,
was
ignored.
This
haphazard
and
incomplete
assessment
of
pollution
from
power
plants
is
completely
out
of
sync
with
Administrator
Browner's
stated
policies
and
priorities.
(
ALA00036)

The
PBT
strategy
states
as
a
goal:
"
Whenever
possible,
EPA
will
address
groups
of
pollutants
rather
than
individual
pollutants.
to
prevent
or
reduce
risks
from
multiple
pollutants
at
the
same
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
17
XVIII
­
17
time.
"
The
Report
fails
to
address
this
goal.
A
number
of
PBTs
leach
and
volatilize
from
FFC
wastes.
These
include
mercury,
arsenic,
nickel,
selenium,
and
vanadium.
In
addition
to
mercury,
other
metals
also
have
the
potential
to
bioaccumulate
in
the
food
chain
to
levels
that
are
toxic
to
humans
and
wildlife.
There
is
little
or
no
recourse
to
mitigate
exposure
to
toxic
chemicals
once
they
have
contaminated
food
and
water.
Therefore,
EPA
must
require
adequate
and
appropriate
disposal
of
FFC
wastes
to
address
the
PBT
strategy
element
intended
to
prevent
the
release
of
toxic
metals
to
our
environment.
(
ALA00036)

The
PBT
strategy
states
as
a
goal:
"
Maximizing
opportunities
for
integration
will
avoid
transferring
problems
across
media
or
to
chemical
substitutes.
"
The
Report
fails
to
address
this
goal.
An
equal
focus
must
be
placed
on
all
releases.
For
the
fossil
fuel
burning
sector,
this
should
include
a
holistic
examination
of
air
emissions
and
water
discharges,
as
well
as
coal
washing
wastes,
FFC
wnstcs
and
all
beneficial
uses
(
e.
g.,
cement
manufacturing
and
wallboard
manufacturing).
Failure
to
account
for
all
releases
from
an
industry
succeeds
only
in
rearranging
the
contamination
rather
than
controlling
or
preventing
it.
(
ALA00036)

The
Report
appears
to
run
counter
to
the
Administrator's
...
Persistent
Bioaccumulative
Toxics
(
PBT)
Strategy.
The
PBT
Strategy
emphasizes
a
multi­
media
approach
and
commits
the
Agency
to
coordinating
Agency
actions
across
programs.
The
Report,
however,
fails
to
address
cross­
media
mercury
releases.
(
49CAO00058)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
18
XVIII
­
18
XVIII.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
D.
Consideration
of
Risks
to
Children
Public
interest
group
commenters
argued
that
the
risk
characterization
paid
inadequate
attention
to
risk
to
children,
particularly
given
Agency
policy
and
Executive
Orders
regarding
risks
to
children.
The
commenters
expressed
concern
that
the
Agency
did
not
consider
simultaneous
exposures
to
children
and
cumulative
or
additive
risks
to
children.
One
academic
commenter
stated
that
care
must
be
exercised
in
presenting
results
of
cancer
risk
assessment
for
children.

Response:
As
noted
under
Topic
XIV.
D,
risks
to
children
were
explicitly
considered
by
testing
the
impact
of
all
variables
of
special
impact
on
children's
risk.
EPA
found
that
risks
to
children
were
occasionally
higher
than
risks
to
adults,
but
within
the
same
order
of
magnitude.
The
primary
reason
for
this
is
that
sensitive
populations
are
specifically
taken
into
account
for
many
exposure
assumptions.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
19
XVIII
­
19
XVIII.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
D.
Consideration
of
Risks
to
Children
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
As
indicated
in
the
peer
review
comments,
the
risk
assessment
of
children
appears
to
be
tacked
on
the
end
of
the
background
document.
In
addition,
EPA
does
not
indicate
in
any
of
their
discussions
regarding
the
exemption
of
FFC
wastes
that
the
highest
risks
from
exposure
are
to
children.
This
is
inconsistent
with
not
only
EPA
risk'
assessment
guidelines
intended
to
protect
sensitive
populations
but
EPA's
recent
emphasis
on
protecting
children
from
the
potentially
lifetime
exposures
to
toxic
chemicals.
(
ALA00036)

EPA
does
not
account
for
the
potential
for
child
cancer
risks
from
ingestion
of
arsenic
to
rise
by
a
factor
of
nine
when
waste
concentration
is
set
at
the
high­
end
value,
as
determined
in
the
sensitivity
analysis.
(
ALA00036)

The
Report
is
counter
to
the
Agency's
stated
policies
concerning
risks
to
children.
The
EPA's
National
Agenda
to
Protect
Children's
Health
front
Environmental
Threats
was
developed
in
recognition
that
children
are
more
highly
exposed
to
environmental
toxins
and
may
be
more
susceptible
to
them
during
pre­
natal
development
and
childhood.
As
one
of
the
seven
steps
of
the
Agenda,
the
Agency
commits
to
"
ensure
as
a
matter
of
national
policy,
that
all
standards
EPA
sets
are
protective
enough
to
address
the
potentially
heightened
risk
faced
by
children
.
.
.
so
as
to
prevent
environmental
health
threats
where
possible
.
.
."
In
the
Report,
despite
using
an
extremely
unconservative
(
central
tendency)
analysis
(
discussed
above
under
comments
addressing
the
risk
assessment),
the
Agency
still
finds
risks
to
children
from
groundwater
ingestion
that
exceed
health
thresholds
for
antimony,
arsenic,
barium,
beryllium,
cadmium,
chromium,
nickel,
selenium,
and
vanadium.
Some
of
the
risk
projections
are
orders
of
magnitude
higher
than
what
the
Agency
has
typically
considered
action
levels.
Yet,
these
results
do
not
appear
to
factor
into
the
Agency's
tentative
conci
tisions
that
Subtitle
C
is
inappropriate
to
address
these
"
limited"
human
health
problems.
(
ALA00036)

Another
step
in
the
Agenda
instructs
the
Agency
to
"
develop
new
comprehensive
policies
to
address
cumulative
and
simultaneous
exposures
faced
by
children."
The
Report
fails
this
aspect
of
the
Agenda.
First,
simultaneous
exposures
are
not
even
considered
given
that
the
groundwater
analysis
and
the
above
ground
multipathway
assessment
are
not
coordinated
with
respect
to
timing
of
exposure
(
the
exposures
are
essentially
sequential
rather
than
simultaneous).
Second,
the
risk
assessment
does
not
consider
cumulative
or
additive
risks
to
children
(
or
any
other
receptor).
(
ALA00036)

The
Report
appears
to
run
counter
to
the
Administrator's
...
Policy
on
Evaluating
Health
Risks
to
Children
,
and
the
National
Agenda
to
Protect
Children's
Health
from
Environmental
Threats.
The
Report
suggests
cancer
risks
to
children
from
coal
waste
management
facilities
that
are
orders
of
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
20
XVIII
­
20
magnitude
higher
than
unacceptable/
action
level
risks
under
these
policies
­­
and
yet
these
results
do
not
appear
to
factor
into
the
Agency's
conclusions
that
the
wastes
do
not
require
Subtitle
C
regulation.
(
49CAO00058)

Although
the
risks
calculated
to
children
range
from
1
in
100
to
1
in
1000
for
arsenic,
EPA
has
categorically
ignored
these
risks
in
the
Report
to
Congress.
The
Agency
has
prioritized
the
need
to
consider
the
risks
to
infants
and
children
"
consistently
and
explicitly
as
a
part
of
risk
assessments
generated
during
it
decision
making
process,
including
the
setting
of
standards
to
protect
pubic
health
and
the
environment."
(
EPA,
1997)
EPA
established
the
need
to
consider
children
because
of
the
likelihood
that
children
are
more
susceptible
to
the
exposure
to
environmental
contaminants
that
may
affect
their
growth
and
development.
Therefore,
EPA's
omission
of
children's
risk
in
the
risk
characterization
without
any
rationale
or
justification
represents
another
inconsistency
with
Agency
policy.
It
is
not
sufficient
to
just
report
risks
~
especially
if
they
are
as
high
as
1
in
100
to
children.
EPA
needs
to
incorporate
the
risks
associated
with
exposure
of
children
to
FFC
waste
contaminated
ground
water
into
the
regulatory
decision­
making
process.
(
ALA00292)

On
page
3­
3
it
was
stated
that
"
for
arsenic
the
(
cancer)
risk
for
young
children
increased
roughly
25
percent
compared
to
the
adult
receptors."
Care
must
be
exercised
when
using
this
sort
of
a
comparison.
For
example,
a
recent
article
in
Issues
in
Science
and
Technology
pointed
out
that
the
way
many
of
the
reported
increases
in
childhood
cancer
are
presented
may
be
somewhat
misleading.
A
reported
increase
of
over
40
percent
in
the
annual
incidence
of
kidney
and
renal
pelvis
cancer
from
1973­
74
to
1993­
94
actually
represents
an
increase
from
0.7
to
1.0
cases
per
100,000
children.
In
1994­
1995,
the
rate
was
0.8
per
100,000,
which
is
an
increase
of
over
14
percent,
but
represents
an
increase
of
1
additional
case
per
million
children.
It
must
be
kept
in
perspective
that
cancer
in
children
is
a
relatively
rare
event
(
Huebner
and
Chilton,
1998).
(
EERC00044)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
21
XVIII
­
21
XVIII.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
E.
Population
Risks
Public
interest
group
commenters
stated
that,
while
data
on
demographics
were
presented
in
Technical
Background
Documents,
EPA
did
not
adequately
characterize
population
risks
or
comply
with
EPA
guidelines
on
characterizing
population
risk.

Response:
This
is
a
frequent
comment
in
risk
assessments.
Whether
or
not
population
risk
needs
to
be
specifically
calculated
is
a
clear
function
of
risk
levels
and
population
proximity.
It
is
important
to
bear
in
mind
modeled
double
high­
end
risks
were
calculated
at
very
close
distances
(
150
meters
to
receptor
wells
in
the
case
of
ground
water
and
75
meters
to
receptor
in
the
case
of
air
releases).
While
there
are
indeed
individuals
in
close
proximity
to
waste
units,
there
are
very
few
as
close
as
150/
75
meters.
Thus
very
few
individuals
would
be
exposed
at
the
risk
levels
calculated,
if
available
demographics
are
accurate.
At
more
likely
distances,
with
more
population
exposure,
risk
would
drop
off
dramatically.
Such
reasoning
does
not
in
any
way
diminish
the
risk
to
those
exposed
at
the
close
proximities
noted.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
22
XVIII
­
22
XVIII.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
E.
Population
Risks
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
There
is
no
information
on
the
population
potentially
affected
by
the
leaching
of
chemicals
from
the
waste
into
groundwater
or
drinking
water
sources.
An
appendix
with
information
was
provided
in
the
Report
but
not
integrated
into
the
analysis.
The
FFC
waste
risk
assessment
does
not
comply
with
EPA
risk
assessment
guidelines
in
providing
probabilistic
number
of
cases,
estimated
percentage
of
population
with
risk
greater
than
some
level,
and
information
about
the
distribution
of
exposure
and
risk
for
different
subgroups
of
the
population.
(
ALA00036)

While
there
is
individual
health
risk
data
reported,
the
Report
did
not
identify
potentially
impacted
communities,
nor
did
it
present
community
exposure
analyses.
(
49CAO00058)

The
Report
does
not
include
any
assessment
of
the
community
health
risk
in
areas
near
the
waste
management
facilities.
(
49CAO00058)

EPA
did
not
characterize
the
risks
according
to
probabilistic
number
of
cases,
estimated
percentage
of
population
at
risk
or
risk
distribution.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
23
XVIII
­
23
XVIII.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
F.
Liners
in
Population
Industry
commenters
stated
that
EPA
should
have
tempered
its
characterization
of
risk
using
information
on
the
actual
waste
management
practices
used
by
the
industry.
One
of
the
commenters
argued
that
EPA
failed
to
consider
the
prevalence
of
liners
in
the
landfill
scenario
and
should
have
used
85th
percentile
concentrations
as
modeling
input
to
account
for
the
presence
of
liners.
Another
commenter
suggested
that
the
modeling
did
not
account
for
the
current
ash
management
practice
of
spreading
and
compacting
in
thin
layers
to
maximize
the
structural
integrity
of
the
fill.

Response:
EPA
modeled
unlined
units
purposely,
in
order
to
produce
a
consistent
and
conservative
baseline
(
erring
on
the
side
of
safety)
estimate
of
risk.
The
Agency
then
considered
current
management
practices
(
e.
g.,
the
prevalence
of
liners,
and
practices
such
as
leachate
collection
and
groundwater
monitoring)
explicitly
as
important
factors
in
reaching
its
conclusion
about
the
need
for
regulation.
We
find
that,
among
utilities,
20%
of
landfills
and
5%
of
impoundments
appear
to
have
adequate
liners.
This
was
explicitly
taken
into
account
in
costing.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
24
XVIII
­
24
XVIII.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
F.
Liners
in
Population
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA
failed
to
consider
the
prevalence
of
liners
in
the
landfill
scenario.
EPA
assumed
that
all
landfills
are
unlined,
whereas
the
RTC
reported
that
57%
of
the
landfills
represented
by
EPRl's
data
are
lined.
A
high­
end
(
95th
percentile)
value
from
the
field
data
actually
represents
the
98th
percentile
of
all
sites
due
to
this
overly
conservative
assumption.
The
Agency
should
have
either
explicitly
taken
into
account
the
presence
of
liners
in
landfills
or
used
the
85th
percentile
values
as
the
high­
end
bounding
estimates.
This
justified
reduction
in
the
imbedded
conservatism
would
have
resulted
in
significant
reduction
in
the
calculated
risks
at
receptors
over
the
10,000
year
study
period.
(
USWAG00037)

The
modeling
did
not
account
for
the
current
ash
management
practice
of
spreading
and
compacting
in
thin
layers
to
maximize
the
structural
integrity
of
the
fill.
(
CIBO00052)

EPA's
determination
should
be
informed
not
only
by
the
data
from
the
real
world,
but
by
the
actual
waste
management
practices
employed
by
the
industry
today.
As
we
discussed
in
our
initial
comments,
EPA
correctly
reported
in
the
Report
to
Congress
that
most
utility
industry
comanagement
occurs
in
surface
impoundments
and
landfills,
with
an
increasing
trend
toward
dry
landfill
management
of
co­
managed
combustion
wastes
as
well
as
a
clear
trend
among
these
units
to
increased
use
of
environmental
controls
such
as
liners,
covers,
leachate
collection
systems,
and
groundwater
monitoring.
These
favorable
developments
vitiate
the
need
for
EPA
to
impose
regulatory
controls,
regardless
of
the
conclusions
drawn
from
EPA's
imperfect
models.
(
USWAG00275)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
25
XVIII
­
25
XVIII.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
G.
Time
to
Risk
One
public
interest
group
commenter
expressed
concern
that
EPA
minimized
its
modeled
characterization
of
risk
because
of
the
long
migration
times.
The
commenter
argued
that
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
ignore
risks
to
future
generations.
The
commenter
also
argued
that
the
long
term
impacts
of
dredged
sediment
from
closed
impoundments
are
not
adequately
assessed.

Response:
EPA
reported
the
modeled
times
to
risk
as
calculated,
and
agrees
that
long
term
risks
are
risks
to
future
generations.
Time
to
risk
is
indeed
one
factor
in
risk
assessment,
and
near
term
risk
is
obviously
of
some
greater
concern
than
very
long
term
risks
in
view
of
the
many
uncertainties
in
longer
term
risk
assessment,
including
possibilities
for
risk
management.
EPA,
however,
did
not
dismiss
or
minimize
the
results
based
on
consideration
of
time
to
risk
exclusively.
EPA
also
believes
it
has
accurately
portrayed
risks
from
closed
impoundments,
within
reasonable
bounds
and
the
capabilities
of
the
current
model.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
26
XVIII
­
26
XVIII.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
G.
Time
to
Risk
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA
also
recommends
regulation
of
oil­
fired
waste
because
of
the
relatively
short
time
(
50
years)
that
the
metals
are
predicted
to
migrate
to
the
receptor
well.
EPA
dismisses
the
risks
associated
with
the
other
wastes
because
the
migration
predicted
by
the
model
is
ten
times
greater.
There
is
no
basis
in
EPA
policies
that
allow
potential
contamination
of
drinking
water
supplies
as
long
as
it
occurs
to
future
generations.
(
ALA00036)

The
remediation
activities
under
the
National
Contingency
Plan
(
Superfund)
and
policies
under
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
are
predicated
on
protecting
and
sustaining
drinking
water
supplies
from
contamination.
EPA's
conclusions
that
no
action
is
necessary
because
contaminant
migration
is
greater
than
50
years
is
arbitrary
and
capricious.
Decisions
that
run
counter
to
each
other
are
also
inconsistent
with
EPA's
overall
goal
to
protect
public
health
and
sustain
a
natural
environment.
(
ALA00036)

EPA
dismisses
the
significant
risks
posed
by
groundwater
contamination
from
FCC
wastes
because
the
waste
constituents
will
not
reach
a
hypothetical
receptor
well
for
500
years.
This
conclusion
contradicts
the
foundation
of
the
safe
drinking
water
program
that
is
based
on
the
protection
and
sustainability
of
clean
drinking
water
supplies
for
future
generations.
(
ALA00036)

In
the
Report's
characterization
of
impoundments,
it
is
noted
that
the
impoundments
are
used
for
about
40
years,
dredged
and
then
covered.
What
is
the
fate
of
the
dredged
sediment
from
the
impoundments?
Are
these
wastes
tested
for
the
RCRA
characteristics?
It
would
seem
that
these
wastes
would
contain
high
concentrations
of
metals
that
would
be
a
consideration
for
final
disposal.
Are
these
impoundment
wastes
also
covered
under
the
blanket
exemption
proposed
bv
EPA?
If
so,
they
should
not
be
unless
subject
to
a
waste
characterization
analysis.
(
ALA00036)

EPA
furthermore
has
suggested
that
there
are
no
health
impacts
from
the
current
disposal
practices
of
FFC
waste
because
the
model
used
to
estimate
FFC
waste
migration
estimates
that
it
will
take
several
hundred
years
for
the
contaminants
to
migrate
to
a
hypothetical
receptor
well.
We
believe
that
EPA's
decision
not
to
regulate
FFC
waste
because
of
the
length
of
time
it
will
take
for
contamination
to
migrate
to
a
drinking
water
supply
is
shortsighted
and
inconsistent
with
EPA
policy
...
the
Agency
has
a
long
and
comprehensive
policy
record
that
supports
programs
to
prevent
drinking
water
contamination.
These
programs
and
activities
are
summarized
below
...
[
the
comment
provides
several
pages
summarizing
EPA's
drinking
water
protection
programs].
(
ALA00292)
XVIII.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
H.
Multimedia
Risks,
Cumulative
and
Simultaneous
Exposures
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
27
XVIII
­
27
Two
public
interest
group
commenters
were
concerned
that
EPA
did
not
characterize
the
aggregate
risks
associated
with
the
multimedia
contamination
of
FFC
wastes,
even
qualitatively.
The
commenters
stated
that
cumulative
exposures
were
not
accounted
for
and
that
adequately
protecting
public
health
require
that
incremental
risks
be
considered
in
addition
to
other
plausible
exposures
to
the
same
chemical,
including
those
from
nearby,
non­
FFC
facilities.
The
commenters
also
expressed
concern
that
the
analysis
failed
to
consider
that
inhalation
exposure
and
groundwater
exposure
could
occur
at
the
same
time
and
stated
that
EPA
should
have
aggregated
the
results
of
the
two
analyses.

Response:
EPA/
OSW
typically
considers
only
incremental
risks
from
the
waste
streams
under
consideration
because
consideration
of
exposures
from
other
sources
is
not
feasible
for
multi­
site
assessments
such
as
this.
However,
as
noted,
EPA
plans
to
take
account
of
the
potential
for
increased
solid
waste
chemical
concentrations
if
added
air
emission
controls
are
implemented.

Simultaneous
exposures
from
ground
water
and
inhalation
(
as
well
as
all
other
nongroundwater
exposure
routes)
were
not
considered
due
to
differences
in
time
scale.
Migration
times
for
chemicals
from
the
waste
to
ground­
water
wells
range
from
hundreds
to
thousands
of
years
depending
on
the
chemical
and
the
scenario.

Even
if
one
were
to
cumulate
very
long
term
risks,
on
the
presumption
that
inhalation
risks
might
continue
for
thousands
of
years
and
coincide
with
then­
occurring
ground­
water
risks
(
a
questionable
presumption),
the
risks
would
still
be
at
the
orders
of
magnitude
calculated
and
shown.
No
major
cumulative
effects
can
be
plausibly
argued
from
the
combinations
of
receptors
and
times
specified
for
this
study.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
28
XVIII
­
28
XVIII.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
H.
Multimedia
Risks,
Cumulative
and
Simultaneous
Exposures
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
According
to
the
Commission
on
Risk
Assessment
and
Risk
Management
one
of
the
most
serious
flaws
in
risk
assessment
is
evaluating
risks
chemical­
by­
chemical,
medium­
by­
medium,
and
riskby
risk.
Although
EPA
conducted
risk
assessments
of
multiple
pollutants
and
pathways,
EPA
did
not
characterize
the
aggregate
risks
associated
with
the
multimedia
contamination
of
FFC
wastes,
even
qualitatively.
For
example,
the
child
exposure
scenario
found
that
for
coal­
fired
wastes
deposited
in
an
onsite
landfill,
arsenic,
barium,
and
chromium
pose
risks
from
both
groundwater
and
non­
groundwater
pathways.
(
ALA00036)

Cumulative
exposures
were
not
accounted
for
in
either
the
groundwater
or
non­
groundwater
risk
assessments.
The
peer
review
comments
by
James
Butler
recommended
that
the
study
"
should
attempt
to
evaluate
additional
major
sources
of
potential
exposure
for
at
least
the
most
significant
contaminants
of
concern
from
FFCs,
e.
g.
residual
arsenic
resulting
from
past
pesticide
applications.
Another
example
would
be
to
estimate
existing
body
burdens
and
intakes
of
lead
from
other
sources
for
children
living
in
close
proximity
to
coal­
and
oil­
fired
utility
plants."
Adequately
protecting
public
health
requires
that
incremental
risks
be
considered
in
addition
to
other
plausible
exposures
to
the
same
chemical.
Sources
of
additional
exposure
include
ingestion
of
metals
in
food,
other
industrial
emissions,
and
air
emissions
from
power
plants
burning
fossil
fuels
from
which
the
waste
is
generated.
(
ALA00036)

The
inhalation
exposure
is
assumed
to
occur
while
an
impoundment
is
active.
However,
no
leaching
to
the
groundwater
is
assumed
to
occur
until
the
impoundment
.
is
closed
(
and
the
wastes
removed).
Thus,
the
analysis
fails
to
consider
that
inhalation
exposure
and
groundwater
exposure
could
occur
at
the
same
time.
These
concurrent
exposures
could
be
important,
particularly
for
arsenic,
which
is
a
known
human
carcinogen
by
both
the
inhalation
and
ingestion
pathways.
(
ALA00036)

Another
step
in
the
Agenda
instructs
the
Agency
to
"
develop
new
comprehensive
policies
to
address
cumulative
and
simultaneous
exposures
faced
by
children."
The
Report
fails
this
aspect
of
the
Agenda.
First,
simultaneous
exposures
are
not
even
considered
given
that
the
groundwater
analysis
and
the
above
ground
multipathway
assessment
are
not
coordinated
with
respect
to
timing
of
exposure
(
the
exposures
are
essentially
sequential
rather
than
simultaneous).
Second,
the
risk
assessment
does
not
consider
cumulative
or
additive.
risks
to
children
(
or
any
other
receptor).
(
ALA00036)

It
appears
that
the
inhalation
exposure
is
assumed
to
occur
while
an
impoundment
is
active,
but
no
leaching
to
the
groundwater
is
assumed
to
occur
until
the
impoundment
is
closed.
Concurrent,
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
29
XVIII
­
29
cumulative
exposures,
however,
could
occur
in
the
real
world,
and
would
be
significant,
particularly
for
arsenic.
(
49CAO00058)

The
Report
...
fails
to
address
cross­
media
mercury
releases.
(
49CAO00058)

We
note
one
major
omission/
oversight
in
the
Report:
in
analyzing
human
health
impacts,
the
groundwater
and
non­
groundwater
pathway
risks
to
the
same
human
should
be
aggregated,
such
that
a
total
health
risk
from
all
pathways
is
calculated
and
becomes
part
of
the
consideration
whether
and
how
the
FFC
wastes
should
be
regulated.
EPA
has
not
included
such
aggregate
human
health
risk
figures
in
its
Report
to
Congress.
It
seems
that
this
was
not
done,
in
part,
because
the
analyses
were
not
conducted
in
such
a
way
as
to
facilitate
or
allow
for
it.
But
that
is
a
major
oversight
in
the
Report
and
in
its
findings.
(
ALA00292)

EPA
did
not
evaluate
the
total
risks
associated
with
FFC
waste
contamination
of
groundwater
and
non­
groundwater
pathways.
(
ALA00292)

Aggregate
risks
to
people
from
the
same
facility
must
be
characterized
in
order
to
make
the
decision
whether
and
how
to
regulate
FFC
wastes.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
XIX
­
1
XIX.
DAMAGE
CASES
Many
industry
commenters
emphasized
EPA's
finding
of
few
damage
cases
as
important
support
for
the
tentative
conclusion
to
exempt
the
wastes
from
hazardous
waste
regulation.
Some
of
these
commenters
further
argued
that
the
few
damage
cases
(
e.
g.,
Schafer,
A.
B.
Brown)
found
were
not
representative
of
current
industry
management
practices.
Public
interest
groups
and
citizen
commenters,
however,
argued
that
the
low
apparent
frequency
of
damages
is
an
artifact
of
inadequate
analysis
and
an
over­
reliance
on
industry
data.
A
few
of
these
commenters
offered
information
on
a
number
of
additional
candidate
damage
cases.
These
concerns
are
summarized
in
more
detail
below.

Response:
EPA
has
carefully
considered
the
additional
candidate
damage
cases
submitted
by
the
public
interest
group
commenters.
Based
on
damage
case
information
presented
in
the
RTC
and
our
review
of
comments,
we
conclude
that
there
are
11
proven
damage
cases
associated
with
wastes
covered
by
today's
regulatory
determination.
We
identified
seven
of
these
damage
cases
in
the
RTC,
so
there
are
four
new
proven
damage
cases
that
were
identified
by
commenters.
We
did
find
that
for
all
11
of
the
proven
damage
cases,
either
the
state
or
EPA
provided
adequate
followup
to
require
or
else
undertake
corrective
action.

Additionally,
we
determined
that
another
25
of
the
commenter
submitted
cases
are
potential
damage
cases
for
the
reasons
described
above.
Thus,
including
the
11
potential
damage
cases
that
we
identified
in
the
background
documents
that
support
the
RTC,
we
are
aware
of
36
potential
damage
cases.
While
we
do
not
believe
the
latter
36
cases
satisfy
the
statutory
criteria
of
documented,
proven
damage
cases
because
damage
to
human
health
or
the
environment
has
not
been
proven,
we
believe
that
these
cases
are
indicative
that
these
wastes
pose
a
"
potential"
danger
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
EPA's
detailed
analysis
of
the
damage
case
information
is
available
in
the
docket
for
this
proceeding.

While
the
absolute
number
of
documented,
proven
damage
cases
is
not
large,
we
believe
that
the
evidence
of
proven
and
potential
damage
is
significant
when
considered
in
light
of
the
large
numbers
of
facilities,
particularly
surface
impoundments,
that
today
lack
basic
environmental
controls
such
as
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring.
Given
the
huge
volume
of
coal
combustion
wastes
generated
nationwide
and
the
large
number
of
facilities
that
currently
lack
groundwater
monitoring,
there
is
at
least
a
substantial
likelihood
that
other
cases
of
actual
and
potential
damage
exist.

The
review
of
potential
damage
cases
was
based
only
partly
on
industry­
submitted
data.
However,
we
did
not
rely
on
the
industry
to
identify
or
evaluate
candidate
damage
cases.
The
specific
concerns
raised
by
the
commenters
with
regard
to
the
adequacy
of
its
damage
case
analysis
are
addressed
in
the
sub­
topic
later
in
this
section.

Background
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
2
The
Part
1
determination
identified
six
cases
of
documented
damages.
Upon
further
review,
we
determined
that
two
of
these
cases
involve
utility
coal
ash
monofills
which
are
covered
by
the
Part
1
determination.
However,
the
other
four
cases
involved
remaining
wastes
that
are
covered
by
today's
determination.

2
XIX
­
2
Prior
to
issuing
the
RTC,
we
sought
and
reviewed
potential
damage
cases
related
to
these
particular
wastes.
The
activities
included:

°
a
re­
analysis
of
the
potential
damage
cases
identified
during
the
Part
1
determination,
°
a
search
of
the
CERCLA
Information
System
for
instances
of
these
wastes
being
cited
as
causes
or
contributors
to
damages,
°
contacts
and
visits
to
regulatory
agencies
in
five
states
with
high
rates
of
coal
consumption
to
review
file
materials
and
discuss
with
state
officials
the
existence
of
damage
cases,
°
a
review
of
information
provided
by
the
Utility
Solid
Waste
Act
Group
and
the
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
on
14
co­
management
sites,
and
°
a
review
of
information
provided
by
the
Council
of
Industrial
Boiler
Owners
on
eight
fluidized
bed
combustion
(
FBC)
facilities.

These
activities
yielded
three
damage
case
sites
in
addition
to
the
four
cases
initially
identified
in
the
Part
1
determination2.
Five
of
the
damage
cases
involved
surface
impoundments
and
the
two
other
cases
involved
landfills.
The
waste
management
units
in
these
cases
were
all
older,
unlined
units.
The
releases
in
these
cases
were
confined
to
the
vicinity
of
the
facilities
and
did
not
affect
human
receptors.
None
of
the
damages
impacted
human
health.
We
did
not
identify
any
damage
cases
that
were
associated
with
beneficial
use
practices.
Regarding
ecological
damage,
while
we
did
not
identify
any
ecological
damage
cases
in
the
RTC
associated
with
management
of
coal
combustion
wastes,
we
reviewed
the
information
on
ecological
damage
submitted
by
commenters
and
agree
that
four
of
the
seven
submitted
are
documented
damage
cases
that
involve
FFC
wastes.
All
of
these
involve
some
form
of
discharge
from
waste
management
units
to
nearby
lakes
or
creeks.
These
confirm
our
risk
modeling
conclusions
as
presented
in
the
RTC
that
there
could
be
adverse
impacts
on
amphibians,
birds,
or
mammals
if
they
were
subject
to
the
elevated
concentrations
of
selected
chemicals
that
had
been
measured
in
some
impoundments.
However,
no
information
was
submitted
in
comments
that
would
lead
us
to
alter
our
conclusion
that
these
threats
are
not
substantial
enough
to
cause
large
scale,
system
level
ecological
disruptions.
These
damage
cases,
attributable
to
runoff
or
overflow
that
is
already
subject
to
Clean
Water
Act
discharge
or
stormwater
regulations,
are
more
appropriately
addressed
under
the
existing
Clean
Water
Act
requirements.

Our
FFC
analysis
drew
a
distinction
between
primary
and
secondary
MCL
exceedences
because
we
believe
this
factor
is
appropriate
in
weighing
the
seriousness
of
FFC
damage
in
terms
of
indicating
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
For
FFC,
in
the
RTC,
we
reported
only
the
"
proven"
damage
(
i.
e.,
exceedence
of
a
health­
based
standard
such
as
a
primary
MCL
and
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
XIX
­
3
measurement
in
ground
water
or
surface
water).
We
also
identified
a
number
of
potential
FFC
damage
cases
(
eleven)
which
were
included
in
the
background
documents
that
support
the
RTC.

Unlike
the
primary
MCLs,
secondary
MCLs
are
not
based
on
human
health
considerations.
(
Examples
are
dissolved
solids,
sulfate,
iron,
and
chloride
for
which
ground
water
standards
have
been
established
because
of
their
effect
on
taste,
odor,
and
color.)
While
some
commenters
believe
that
elevated
levels
of
some
secondary
MCL
parameters
such
as
soluble
salts
are
likely
precursors
or
indicators
of
future
hazardous
constituent
exceedences
that
could
occur
at
coal
combustion
facilities,
we
are
not
yet
able
and
will
not
be
able
to
test
their
hypothesis
until
we
complete
our
analysis
of
all
comments
received
on
our
groundwater
model
and
risk
analysis,
which
will
not
be
concluded
until
next
year.

Of
the
59
damage
cases
reported
by
commenters,
11
cases
appear
to
involve
exceedences
of
primary
MCLs
or
other
health­
based
standards
as
measured
either
in
off­
site
ground
water
or
in
nearby
surface
waters,
the
criteria
we
used
in
the
RTC
to
identify
proven
damage
cases.
Of
these
eleven
cases,
two
are
coal
ash
monofills
which
were
included
in
the
set
of
damage
cases
described
by
EPA
in
its
record
supporting
the
Part
1
regulatory
determination.
The
remaining
nine
cases
involve
the
co­
management
of
large
volume
coal
combustion
wastes
with
other
low
volume
and
uniquely
associated
coal
combustion
wastes.
We
had
already
identified
five
of
these
nine
cases
in
the
RTC.
Thus,
only
four
of
these
eleven
damage
cases
are
newly
identified
to
us.
Briefly,
the
four
new
cases
involve:

°
Exceedence
of
a
state
standard
for
lead
in
downgradient
ground
water
at
a
coal
fly
ash
landfill
in
New
York.
There
were
also
secondary
MCL
exceedences
for
sulfate,
dissolved
solids,
and
iron.
°
Primary
MCL
exceedences
for
arsenic
and
selenium
in
downgradient
monitoring
wells
for
a
coal
ash
impoundment
at
a
power
plant
in
North
Dakota.
There
were
also
secondary
MCL
exceedences
for
sulfate
and
chloride.
°
Primary
MCL
exceedences
for
fluoride
and
exceedence
of
a
state
standard
for
boron
in
downgradient
monitoring
wells
at
a
utility
coal
combustion
waste
impoundment
in
Wisconsin.
There
was
also
a
secondary
MCL
exceedence
for
sulfate.
°
Exceedence
of
a
state
standard
for
boron
and
the
secondary
MCL
for
sulfate
and
manganese
in
downgradient
monitoring
wells
at
a
utility
coal
combustion
landfill
in
Wisconsin.
We
found
that
in
each
of
the
11
proven
damage
cases
the
state
(
or
EPA
in
two
cases
under
the
Superfund
program)
took
appropriate
action
to
require
or
conduct
remedial
activities
to
reduce
or
eliminate
the
cause
of
contamination.

Nineteen
of
the
candidate
damage
cases
submitted
by
commenters
involve
either
on­
site
or
off­
site
exceedences
of
secondary
MCLs,
but
not
primary
MCLs
or
other
health­
based
standards.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
4
XIX
­
4
Consistent
with
our
CKD
analysis,
we
consider
these
cases
to
be
indicative
of
a
potential
for
damage
to
occur
at
these
sites
because
they
demonstrate
that
there
has
been
a
release
to
ground
water
from
the
waste
management
unit.

Regarding
the
remaining
29
cases
submitted
by
commenters:

°
Six
involve
primary
MCL
exceedences,
but
measurements
were
in
ground
water
either
directly
beneath
the
waste
or
very
close
to
the
waste
boundary,
i.
e.,
no
off­
site
ground
water
or
receptor
measurements
indicated
that
ground
water
standards
had
been
exceeded.
Consistent
with
our
analysis
of
damage
cases
for
cement
kiln
dust,
we
consider
these
six
cases
to
be
indicative
of
a
potential
for
damage
to
occur
at
these
sites
because
they
demonstrate
that
there
has
been
a
release
to
ground
water
from
the
waste
management
unit..
°
Eighteen
case
summary
submissions
contained
insufficient
documentation
and
data
for
us
to
verify
and
draw
a
conclusion
about
whether
we
should
consider
these
to
be
potential
or
proven
damage
cases.
Of
these
18
cases,
commenters
claimed
that
11
cases
involve
primary
MCL
exceedences,
and
another
two
involve
secondary
MCLs,
but
not
primary
MCLs.
The
other
five
cases
lacked
sufficient
information
and
documentation
to
determine
whether
primary
or
secondary
MCLs
are
involved.
Examples
of
information
critical
to
assessing
and
verifying
candidate
damage
cases
that
was
not
available
for
these
particular
cases
include:
identification
of
the
pollutants
causing
the
contamination;
identification
of
where
or
how
the
damage
case
information
was
obtained
(
e.
g.,
facility
monitoring
data,
state
monitoring
or
investigation,
third
party
study
or
analysis);
monitoring
data
used
to
identify
levels
of
contaminants;
and/
or
sufficient
information
to
determine
whether
the
damages
were
actually
attributable
to
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes;
and/
or
location
of
the
identified
contamination
(
i.
e.,
directly
beneath
the
unit
or
very
close
to
the
waste
boundary
or
at
a
point
some
distant
(
e.
g.,
150
meters)
from
the
unit
boundary).
°
Three
case
submissions
are
cases
we
identified
in
the
Part
1
determination
and
involve
monofilled
utility
coal
ash
wastes.
However,
as
explained
in
the
Report
to
Congress
for
the
Part
1
determination,
EPA
determined
that
there
was
insufficient
evidence
to
consider
them
to
be
documented
damage
cases.
°
One
case
did
not
involve
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes.
°
One
case
involved
coal
combustion
wastes
and
other
unrelated
wastes
in
an
illegal,
unpermitted
dump
site.
This
site
was
handled
by
the
state
as
a
hazardous
waste
cleanup
site.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
5
XIX
­
5
In
summary,
based
on
damage
case
information
presented
in
the
RTC
and
our
review
of
comments,
we
conclude
that
there
are
11
proven
damage
cases
associated
with
wastes
covered
by
today's
regulatory
determination.
We
identified
seven
of
these
damage
cases
in
the
RTC,
so
there
are
four
new
proven
damage
cases
that
were
identified
by
commenters.
We
did
find
that
for
all
11
of
the
proven
damage
cases,
either
the
state
or
EPA
provided
adequate
follow­
up
to
require
or
else
undertake
corrective
action.
We
were
not
able
to
identify
any
proven
damage
cases
involving
minefilling
practices
and
beneficial
uses
of
coal
combustion
wastes.

EPA's
detailed
analysis
of
the
damage
cases
submitted
by
commenters
is
available
in
the
public
docket
for
this
regulatory
determination
(
Rationale
and
Conclusions
Regarding
Commenter­
Identified
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion
Waste
Damage
Cases
and
Additional
Information
Regarding
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion
Waste
Damage
Cases;
SAIC
to
Dennis
Ruddy,
EPA;
April
20,
2000)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
6
XIX
­
6
XIX.
DAMAGE
CASES
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
General
Comments
As
set
forth
in
greater
detail
below,
key
deficiencies
include
the
following
...
Grossly
incomplete
data
gathering,
and
improperly
restrictive
tests
of
proof,
regarding
FFCW
damage
cases.
(
EDF00021)

The
damage
case
analysis
performed
for
both
Reports
to
Congress
is
wholly
inadequate.
(
EDF00021)

Many
of
the
rationales
offered
to
exclude
the
damage
cases
are
legally
deficient
and
otherwise
inappropriate.
(
EDF00021)

The
damage
case
data
gathering
was
unduly
limited,
and
the
tests
of
proof
applied
were
arbitrarily
restrictive.
(
EDF00021)

The
Report
is
devoid
of
discussion
of
the
dozens
of
cases
of
contamination
and
damage
to
the
environment
throughout
the
country
from
disposal
of
coal
combustion
and
other
fossil
fuel
wastes,
many
of
which
pose
danger
to
human
health.
Every
one
of
these
is
documented
by
state
and/
or
federal
agencies.
The
failure
to
present
this
evidence
amounts
to
an
egregious
failure
to
address
the
third
study
factor.
This
appears
to
have
been
a
deliberate
deficiency
designed
to
support
the
conclusions
of
minimal
risks
in
the
risk
assessments
underlying
the
Report.
(
HEC00056)

The
vast
majority
of
scientific
investigations
and
reports
that
we
have
seen
which
document
contamination
of
ground
or
surface
waters
from
coal
combustion
wastes
have
not
been
part
of
any
litigation
or
state
enforcement
action.
Yet
involvement
in
such
formal
actions
is
a
criteria
for
the
"
test
of
proof"
utilized
in
this
Report
to
determine
whether
damage
has
occurred.
By
avoiding
discussion
of
the
documented
evidence
of
damage
unless
this
criteria
is
met,
the
Report
presents
a
deficient
and
false
picture
in
which
the
great
preponderance
of
damage
from
fossil
fuel
wastes
is
presumed
not
to
exist.
(
HEC00056)

We
are
aware
of
at
least
41
cases
of
disposal
of
coal
combustion
waste
in
"
which
danger
to
human
health
or
the
environment
has
been
proved."
None
of
these
were
mentioned
in
this
Report.
(
HEC00056)

EPA
has
stated
they
can
only
find
six
damage
cases
caused
by
CCW.
What
constitutes
a
damage
case?
With
limited
resources,
HEC
has
located
over
fifty
cases
from
around
the
country
where
CCW
has
resulted
in
contamination
of
ground
and
surface
water
many
times
the
drinking
water
and
health
standards
for
a
variety
of
chemicals.
We
have
sent
detailed
reports
on
several
of
these
cases
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
7
XIX
­
7
to
EPA,
but
none
of
them
were
discussed
in
the
report.
This
is
further
evidence
that
EPA
must
take
the
time
to
examine
all
of
the
data
available.
(
HEC00056)

All
six
of
these
cases
have
rendered
groundwater
unusable
for
drinking
and/
or
irrigation,
but
EPA
has
not
considered
a
single
one
as
a
damage
case.
The
"
burden
of
proof"
EPA
used
for
its
determination
excludes
all
but
a
few
cases
of
where
CCW
has
caused
significant
damage
to
groundwater
sources.
Groundwater
is
a
valuable
resource
throughout
the
country.
Yet,
EPA
does
not
consider
the
dozens
of
cases
where
CCW
has
rendered
groundwater
useless
to
be
damage
cases.
For
EPA
to
write
a
determination
that
takes
adequate
steps
to
protect
the
rights
and
property
of
citizens
living
next
to
ash
disposal
sites
who
use
groundwater;
they
must
take
the
time
to
examine
each
case
of
contamination
from
CCW,
or
give
us
more
time
to
submit
full
reports
on
the
cases
we
have
found.
(
HEC00056)

EPA's
lax
approach
toward
minefills
in
its
Draft
Determination
and
Report
to
Congress
stems
from
the
Agency's
failure
to
carry
out
a
crucially
important
assessment
of
actual
damages
from
CCW
and
other
fossil
fuel
wastes
throughout
the
country.
HEC
has
gathered
information
and
data
about
34
new
cases
of
damage
to
groundwaters
as
part
of
these
comments.
This
brings
the
total
number
of
cases
submitted
by
HEC
to
EPA
before
the
release
of
the
Draft
Determination
and
during
public
comment
on
the
Determination
to
56
cases
of
damage
to
the
environment,
ecosystems
and
ground
water
supplies
from
CCW.
(
HEC00332)

HEC
has
uncovered
34
additional
damage
cases
that
EPA
has
apparently
overlooked.
EPA
must
assess
and
acknowledge
the
extent
of
damage
caused
by
lax
regulation
of
CCW
and
other
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes.
(
HEC00332)

Damage
Cases:
This
is
probably
the
heart
of
the
problem
with
this
Report
to
Congress
as
well
as
the
USEPA's
previous
determination
for
high
volume,
non­
co­
managed
wastes
...
The
only
way
that
full
deregulation
can
be
justified
is
by
using
so
narrow
a
definition
of
damage
that
almost
nothing
qualifies
as
damage.
This
is
what
the
USEPA
did
in
the
Report
to
Congress
and
this
is
what
USWAG
is
arguing
to
retain.
(
GHIL0012)

There
are
two
aspects
of
the
criteria
used
by
USEPA
in
the
Report
to
Congress
that
will
unduly
and
severely
limit
sites
that
qualify
as
damage
cases.
The
first
is
the
requirement
that
the
site
or
incident
have
the
imprimatur
of
a
court
action
or
finding,
and
the
second
is
that
only
RCRA
elements
be
considered
as
damaging
contaminants.
Each
leads
to
its
own
set
of
under­
reporting
of
damages.
(
GHIL0012)

The
Report
to
Congress
and
the
public
should
include
a
realistic
assessment
of
the
damage
that
CCW
has
caused
to
water
and
the
environment
under
the
present
disposal
scenarios.
That
assessment
should
not
be
limited
to
any
particular
list
of
contaminants.
If
a
resource
is
lost
or
impaired,
the
inventory
should
reflect
that.
If
the
environment
has
been
damaged,
the
inventory
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
8
XIX
­
8
should
reflect
that.
If
human
health
or
safety
has
been
or
is
endangered,
the
inventory
should
reflect
that.
Only
once
that
inventory
is
known
can
intelligent
policy
decisions
be
made.
(
GHIL0012)

EPA's
policy
decision
to
accept
as
"
damage"
cases
for
inclusion
in
the
Report
to
Congress
pursuant
to
42
U.
S.
C.
§
6982(
n)(
4),
only
cases
in
which
an
enforcement
action
or
other
litigation
has
been
brought,
rather
than
documented
cases
of
actual
physical
damage
to
the
environment
for
which
an
enforcement
proceeding
has
not
hcen
initiated,
is
contrary
to
legal
authority
and
precedent.
"
Actual"
damage
cases
for
FFC
waste
exist
and
will
be
included
in
this
docket.
(
ALA00292)

The
damage
case
analysis
included
in
this
Report
to
Congress
is
wholly
inadequate.
(
ALA00292)

Unfortunately,
EPA
has
relied
heavily
upon
the
very
industry
it
is
regulating
as
the
major
source
of
information
in
the
report.
EPA
has
also
rejected
the
grand
majority
of
evidence
of
contamination
from
CCW
due
to
a
"
test
of
proof"
that
is
far
more
strict
than
what
is
required
by
law
and
what
EPA
has
used
in
other
reports.
As
a
result,
the
report
whitewashed
the
real
threat
posed
by
CCW.
(
SIERRA00278)

The
Administrator
is
obligated
to
conduct
independent
inquiry
into
the
nature
and
scope
of
damage
associated
with
co­
disposal
of
coal
combustion
wastes
at
mining
operations
and
to
collect
such
data
as
is
necessary
to
support
the
conclusions
with
respect
to
regulation
or
non­
regulation.
(
NCCLP00282)

EPA
has
chosen
to
rely
almost
entirely
on
data
submitted
by
third
parties
to
support
an
assessment
of
whether
the
risks
associated
with
improper
disposal
warrant
such
effort,
yet
has
inexplicably
failed
to
acknowledge
the
full
range
of
evidence
of
groundwater
contamination
associated
with
current
CCW
disposal
practices.
(
NCCLP00282)

The
rejection
of
such
information
as
has
been
developed
demonstrating
contamination
because
of
questions
concerning
quality
control
or
background,
is
an
easy
but
inappropriate
response.
(
NCCLP00282)

U.
S.
EPA
should
base
its
recommendations
and
decisions
not
on
risk
assessment
or
a
harsh
interpretation
of
"
test
of
proof",
but
on
the
precautionary
principle,
assuring
that
there
will
be
no
adverse
effects
to
public
health
and
the
environment
associated
with
disposal
of
CCW.
(
CITZ00358)

In
oral
and
written
comments
by
the
HEC,
three
Indiana
sites
were
characterized
as
"
damage
cases."
Mr.
Stant
of
the
HEC
at
the
public
hearing
stated
that
these
sites
do
not
meet
the
EPA
criteria
to
be
damage
cases.
Therefore,
they
were
not
identified
as
"
damage
cases"
in
the
Report
to
Congress.
The
HEC
has
claimed
that
the
Schafer
Station
Landfill
and
A.
B.
Brown
Station
Landfill
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
9
XIX
­
9
are
sites
having
significant
environmental
concerns
and
that
EPA
should
pay
special
attention
to
these
sites
in
reaching
its
final
regulatory
determination.
HEC's
suggestion
that
these
particular
sites
are
somehow
representative
of
CCP
disposal
sites
is
incorrect.
The
two
landfill
sites
are
not
representative
of
CCP
sites
in
general.
In
those
isolated
instances
referenced
above
in
which
peculiar
circumstances
have
resulted
in
minor
environmental
impacts,
the
materials
disposed
of
and
the
placement
practices
followed
are
not
representative
of
current
industry
management
practices
and
materials.
(
IEU0018)

In
any
event,
the
Schafer
and
AB
Brown
sites
are
landfills
that
are
atypical
CCP
sites.
They
are
simply
poor
candidates
as
case
studies
for
making
generalizations
about
CCP.
(
IEU00018)

In
general,
we
agree
with
EPA's
determination
that
...
There
are
few
documented
damage
cases
associated
with
the
management
of
the
wastes
studied.
(
PG&
E0023)

The
only
documented
cases
of
proved
environmental
damages
attributable
to
co­
managed
combustion
wastes
were
the
four
sites
identified
in
the
1993
Bevill
regulatory
determination
and
a
newly
identified
site
in
North
Dakota.
EPA
correctly
pointed
out
that
each
of
these
sites
involved
older,
unlined
units,
and
that
the
releases
were
confined
to
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
facility
and
resulted
in
no
human
health
effects.
The
significance
of
this
finding
is
that
the
few
documented
damage
cases
show
that
co­
managed
combustion
wastes
have
virtually
no
effect
on
human
health
receptors
and
that
the
trend
toward
lining
and
other
environmental
controls
at
newer
facilities
shows
that
any
problem
that
might
exist
is
limited
to
a
small
declining
universe
of
older
facilities.
(
USWAG00037)

We
believe
that
EPA
generally
established
an
appropriate
basis
for
identifying
documented
cases
of
environmental
damage.
(
USWAG00037)

EPA's
standard
for
identifying
damage
cases
is
a
Permissible
interpretation
of
the
Bevill
amendment
...
EPA's
"
Tests
of
Proof'
constitutes
a
generally
appropriate
and
reasonable
methodology
for
identifying
proven
damage
cases.
(
USWAG00275)

Treatment
of
exceedances
of
secondary
drinking
water
standards
as
damage
cases
would
be
inappropriate.
(
USWAG00275)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00256)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
VWI00258)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
10
XIX
­
10
The
EPA
must
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
only
on
industry's
biased
reports,
report
all
cases
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
has
caused
ecological
damage.
(
CITZ00260)

The
EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards,
or
has
caused
ecological
damage.
(
CITZ00261)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00263)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00264)

In
making
its
regulatory
determination,
EPA
should
consider
all
instances
in
which
CCW
contamination
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards.
Additionally,
EPA
should
rely
on
scientific
articles
and
reports,
which
document
exceedences,
which
have
led
to
ecological
damage
from
the
disposal
of
CCW.
(
CITZ00265)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
SAVV00266)

Any
documented
cases
of
CCW
contamination
should
be
carefully
examined
by
the
EPA
to
determine
their
impact
upon
drinking
water
and
fisheries.
(
CITZ00267)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
has
caused
ecological
damage.
(
SOCM00279)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
advisories
and
drinking
water
standards
or
has
caused
ecological
damage.
(
CITZ00284)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
drinking
water
standards,
secondary
use
standards
or
health
advisory
levels
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
KYC00285)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
drinking
water
standards,
secondary
use
standards
or
health
advisory
levels
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00286)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
11
XIX
­
11
EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
drinking
water
standards,
secondary
use
standards
or
health
advisory
levels
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00287)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
drinking
water
standards,
secondary
use
standards
or
health
advisory
levels
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00289)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
SIERRA00278)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
drinking
water
standards,
secondary
use
standards
or
health
advisory
levels
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00290)

I
believe
that
EPA
should
...
Consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
advisories
and
drinking
water
standards
or
has
caused
ecological
damage.
(
CITZ00291)

Due
to
the
potential
long
term
impacts
of
CCW
burial
on
groundwater
quality
and
the
high
cost
in
terms
of
funds,
man­
power,
and
environmental
concerns
should
CCW's
be
proven
to
negatively
affect
aquifers
in
which
they're
buried,
I
encourage
EPA
to
research
or
obtain
needed
unbiased
data
from
independent
sources.
(
PURD00294)

The
EPA
must
develop
its
own
technical
background
information
and
not
rely
only
on
information
supplied
by
industry.
The
potential
for
toxins
in
the
waste
will
have
long­
term
detrimental
effects
not
only
on
our
environment,
but
to
our
own
health
and
the
health
of
our
future
generations.
The
EPA
must
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards.
It
is
the
responsibility
of
the
EPA
to
make
an
unbiased
evaluation
of
all
of
the
technical
information
available.
(
TRI00295)

I
would
urge
you
to
collect
your
own
data
to
confirm
this.
It
would
certainly
be
unwise
to
rely
on
the
regulated
industry
for
information.
(
CITZ00303)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00311)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
12
XIX
­
12
EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
as
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00312)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00313)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00314)

I
also
urge
the
EPA
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
has
caused
ecological
damage.
(
CITZ00315)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00316)

I
have
been
informed
that
a
significant
amount
of
the
early
studies
were
based
on
data
supplied
by
the
studies
of
the
industries
who
would
benefit
the
most
from
improper
disposal
of
CCBs.
Your
decision
should
be,
obviously,
based
on
your
own
data.
The
information
from
industry
and
environmental
groups
should
be
taken
with
a
grain
of
salt
­
each
will
present
data
that
support
their
respective
views.
(
CITZ00317)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00318)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00319)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00320)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00321)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
13
XIX
­
13
EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00322)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00323)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00324)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00325)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
heath
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00326)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
drinking
water
standards
(
state
&
federal)
have
been
exceeded
(
violated).
EPA
should
also
consider
documented
scientific
articles
that
cause
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00327)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00331)

It
is
also
imperative
that
the
EPA
not
depend
upon
industry
data
regarding
CCW
contamination.
There
is
a
likelihood
that
these
numbers
are
biased
in
the
favor
of
the
interests
of
polluters.
(
BUCK00333)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
drinking
water
standards,
secondary
use
standards
or
health
advisory
levels
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
NCSEA00334)

There
are
many
cases
where
CCW
had
caused
contamination
of
drinking
water
&
ecological
damage.
Please
conduct
a
diligent
literature
search
so
past
mistakes
can
be
avoided.
It
is
important
for
the
EPA
not
rely
solely
on
the
information
provided
by
industry,
as
it
is
difficult
for
anyone
to
provide
information
detrimental
to
their
own
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
14
XIX
­
14
benefit.
The
EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
review
information
from
other
sources
when
making
decisions
that
have
the
potential
to
impact
seriously
current
&
future
generations.
(
CITZ00335)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00336)

I
also
urge
the
EPA
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
has
caused
ecological
damage.
(
CITZ00337)

Likewise,
EPA
needs
to
do
an
independent
assessment
of
federal
and
state
health
and
drinking
water
standards
to
learn
of
they
have
been
exceeded
due
to
CCW
contamination.
Also,
it
should
seriously
consider
scientific
literature
where
CCW
contamination
has
been
documented
as
causing
damage
to
the
ecology
of
the
areas
under
study.
(
CITZ00338)

I
strongly
believe
that,
in
making
its
regulatory
determination,
the
EPA
needs
to
do
an
independent
assessment
of
the
following:
1.
Those
cases
in
which
federal
and
state
health
and
drinking
water
standards
have
been
exceeded
due
to
CCW
contamination,
and
,
2.
Instances
in
the
scientific
literature
where
CCW
contamination
has
been
documented
as
causing
damage
to
the
ecology
of
the
areas
under
study.
(
CITZ00339)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00340)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00343)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00344)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00345)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
coal
combustion
waste
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
advisories
and
drinking
water
standards
or
has
caused
ecological
damage.
(
CITZ00346)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
15
XIX
­
15
EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00348)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00349)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00350)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00351)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00352)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00353)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00354)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00355)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00356)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00357)

If
the
EPA
would
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
and
not
rely
on
information
supplied
by
industry,
there
would
be
a
completely
different
light
shed
on
the
amount
of
ground
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
16
XIX
­
16
water
contamination
caused
by
the
dumping
of
fossil
fuel
waste.
The
EPA
must
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded,
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
standards
as
well
as
the
documented
scientific
articles
that
show
ecological
damage,
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00360)

If
the
EPA
would
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
and
not
rely
on
information
supplied
by
industry,
there
would
be
a
completely
different
light
shed
on
the
amount
of
ground
water
contamination
caused
by
the
dumping
of
fossil
fuel
waste.
The
EPA
must
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded,
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
standards
as
well
as
the
documented
scientific
articles
that
show
ecological
damage,
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00361)

If
the
EPA
would
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
and
not
rely
on
information
supplied
by
industry,
there
would
be
a
completely
different
light
shed
on
the
amount
of
ground
water
contamination
caused
by
the
dumping
of
fossil
fuel
waste.
The
EPA
must
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded,
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
standards
as
well
as
the
documented
scientific
articles
that
show
ecological
damage,
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00362)

If
the
EPA
would
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
and
not
rely
on
information
supplied
by
industry,
there
would
be
a
completely
different
light
shed
on
the
amount
of
ground
water
contamination
caused
by
the
dumping
of
fossil
fuel
waste.
The
EPA
must
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded,
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
standards
as
well
as
the
documented
scientific
articles
that
show
ecological
damage,
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00363)

If
the
EPA
would
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
and
not
rely
on
information
supplied
by
industry,
there
would
be
a
completely
different
light
shed
on
the
amount
of
ground
water
contamination
caused
by
the
dumping
of
fossil
fuel
waste.
The
EPA
must
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded,
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
standards
as
well
as
the
documented
scientific
articles
that
show
ecological
damage,
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00364)

If
the
EPA
would
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
and
not
rely
on
information
supplied
by
industry,
there
would
be
a
completely
different
light
shed
on
the
amount
of
ground
water
contamination
caused
by
the
dumping
of
fossil
fuel
waste.
The
EPA
must
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded,
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
standards
as
well
as
the
documented
scientific
articles
that
show
ecological
damage,
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00365)

If
the
EPA
would
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
and
not
rely
on
information
supplied
by
industry,
there
would
be
a
completely
different
light
shed
on
the
amount
of
ground
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
17
XIX
­
17
water
contamination
caused
by
the
dumping
of
fossil
fuel
waste.
The
EPA
must
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded,
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
standards
as
well
as
the
documented
scientific
articles
that
show
ecological
damage,
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00366)

If
the
EPA
would
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
and
not
rely
on
information
supplied
by
industry,
there
would
be
a
completely
different
light
shed
on
the
amount
of
ground
water
contamination
caused
by
the
dumping
of
fossil
fuel
waste.
The
EPA
must
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded,
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
standards
as
well
as
the
documented
scientific
articles
that
show
ecological
damage,
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00367)

EPA
should
ensure
the
objectivity,
accuracy,
and
completeness
of
this
report
by
...
gathering
its
own
information
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
the
industry
and
state
agencies
which
behave
more
as
advocates
than
observers
...
considering
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
POW00369)

I
hope
the
EPA
will
strive
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination,
rather
than
relying
on
coal
company
information.
I
hope
the
EPA
will
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage.
(
CITZL0013)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
18
XIX
­
18
XIX.
DAMAGE
CASES
A.
Information
Provided
One
public
interest
group
commenter
provided
information
on
a
number
of
candidate
damage
cases
based
on
the
commenter's
collection
and
review
of
state
file
information
and
monitoring
data.
A
number
of
other
public
interest
group
and
citizen
commenters
made
reference
to
the
candidate
cases
submitted
and
urged
EPA
to
consider
them
closely.
Other
public
interest
group
and
academic
commenters
submitted
reports
on
scientific
studies
that
present
cases
describing
ecological
damage
caused
by
coal
combustion
wastes.

Response:
EPA
appreciates
the
efforts
expended
by
commenters
to
provide
documentation
of
damage
cases.
EPA
has
carefully
considered
all
of
the
candidate
damage
cases
submitted
by
the
public
interest
group
commenters
through
the
close
of
the
public
comment
period.
Based
on
damage
case
information
presented
in
the
RTC
and
our
review
of
comments,
we
conclude
that
there
are
11
proven
damage
cases
associated
with
coal
combustion
wastes
covered
by
today's
regulatory
determination.
We
identified
seven
of
these
damage
cases
in
the
RTC,
so
there
are
four
new
proven
damage
cases
that
were
identified
by
commenters.

Additionally,
we
determined
that
another
25
of
the
commenter­
submitted
cases
concerning
coal
combustion
wastes
are
potential
damage
cases
for
the
reasons
described
earlier
in
this
section.
Thus,
including
the
11
potential
damage
cases
that
we
identified
in
the
background
documents
that
support
the
RTC,
we
are
aware
of
36
potential
damage
cases.
While
we
do
not
believe
the
latter
36
cases
satisfy
the
statutory
criteria
of
documented,
proven
damage
cases
because
damage
to
human
health
or
the
environment
has
not
been
proven,
we
believe
that
these
cases
are
indicative
that
these
wastes
pose
a
"
potential"
danger
to
human
health
and
the
environment.

A
discussion
of
EPA's
analysis
of
commenter­
submitted
damage
cases
appears
at
the
beginning
of
this
section.
EPA's
detailed
analysis
of
the
commenter­
submitted
damage
case
information,
which
includes
evaluation
of
the
case­
specific
points
and
arguments
made
by
commenters,
is
available
in
the
docket
for
this
proceeding
(
Rationale
and
Conclusions
Regarding
Commenter­
Identified
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion
Waste
Damage
Cases,
and
Additional
Information
Regarding
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion
Waste
Damage
Cases;
SAIC
to
Dennis
Ruddy;
April
20,
2000.)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
19
XIX
­
19
XIX.
DAMAGE
CASES
A.
Information
Provided
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
Hoosier
Environmental
Council
wishes
to
submit
the
following
attached
information
for
the
record
of
public
comment
on
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
Report
to
Congress,
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels.
Volume
I
­
Executive
Summay,
and
Volume
2
­
Methods,
Findings,
and
Recommendations.
Two
copies
each
of
the
following
ten
cases
of
damages
to
the
environment.
particularly
ground
waters
at
disposal
sites
for
coal
combustion
wastes
in
Illinois
and
Wisconsin
...
[
comment
provides
several
pages
summarizing
alleged
cases
with
additional
information
provided
in
attachments].
(
HEC00055)

EPA
has
stated
they
can
only
find
six
damage
cases
caused
by
CCW.
What
constitutes
a
damage
case?
With
limited
resources,
HEC
has
located
over
fifty
cases
from
around
the
country
where
CCW
has
resulted
in
contamination
of
ground
and
surface
water
many
times
the
drinking
water
and
health
standards
for
a
variety
of
chemicals.
We
have
sent
detailed
reports
on
several
of
these
cases
to
EPA,
but
none
of
them
were
discussed
in
the
report.
This
is
further
evidence
that
EPA
must
take
the
time
to
examine
all
of
the
data
available.
The
following
are
just
a
few
examples
of
cases
of
contamination
that
have
not
been
considered
by
EPA
to
be
damage
cases
...
[
comment
provides
several
pages
summarizing
alleged
damage
cases].
(
HEC00056)

Thus
EPA
overlooked
or
rejected
numerous
cases
where
contamination
from
CCW
has
rendered
ground
and
surface
water
unusable
or
caused
other
serious
environmental
damage
...
[
comment
provides
several
pages
summarizing
alleged
damage
cases
with
additional
information
provided
in
attachments].
(
HEC00332)

Nonetheless,
EPA's
search
of
the
CERCLA
Information
System
does
not
appear
to
be
very
thorough.
HEC
located
two
Superfund
sites
where
CCW
has
been
documented
to
be
causing
contamination
that
are
located
on
the
CERCLA
list:
the
Dixie
Caverns
County
Landfill
in
Virginia
and
the
Vitale
Fly
Ash
Pit
in
Massachusetts.
While
several
different
types
of
waste
were
disposed
at
these
sites
in
both
cases,
EPA
reports
contamination
occurring
that
is
clearly
linked
to
fly
ash.
Yet,
these
sites
were
not
considered
in
the
report
as
damage
cases.
A
more
complete
discussion
of
each
site
is
given
below
...
[
comment
provides
several
pages
summarizing
alleged
damage
cases
with
additional
information
provided
in
attachments].
(
HEC00332)

The
following
sites
are
considered
relevant
damage
cases
because,
in
each
case,
the
site
has
been
identified
by
the
responsible
state
agency
as
a
site
with
contamination
by
one
or
more
regulated
constituents
at
levels
beyond
that
State's
standards,
as
documented
by
state­
required
monitoring
systems,
using
state­
mandated
sampling
protocols.
The
following
data
summaries
the
data
presently
available
to
HEC
as
a
result
of
its
search
efforts
...
[
comment
provides
several
pages
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
20
XIX
­
20
summarizing
alleged
damage
cases
with
additional
information
provided
in
attachments].
(
HEC00332)

We
are
sending
more
detailed
information
on
some
of
the
sites
discussed
in
our
comments
on
the
draft
Regulatory
Determination
on
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes.
The
enclosed
sites
are
located
in
North
Dakota
and
Alabama.
These
were
all
sites
that
staff
within
the
respective
state
agencies
have
identified
as
cases
of
contamination
from
coal
combustion
waste
(
CCW).
We
have
also
received
further
information
on
the
sites
in
Virginia,
and
will
be
sending
reports
on
these
sites
as
soon
as
possible
...[
comment
provides
several
pages
summarizing
alleged
damage
cases
with
additional
information
provided
in
attachments].
(
HECL0009)

We
have
been
gathering
further
information
on
phenol
contamination
at
the
C.
R.
Huntley
and
Danskammer
sites.
At
the
Huntley
site,
groundwater
monitoring
data
clearly
shows
the
phenol
contamination
coming
from
a
closed
ash
disposal
cell
within
the
landfill.
A
state
inspector,
Richard
Sthor,
has
also
stated
to
us
that
the
phenol
contamination
is
occurring
from
the
ash.
Phenol
contamination
is
also
occurring
at
the
Danskammer
site,
but
the
data
is
not
as
conclusive.
Considering
the
lack
of
testing
or
monitoring
for
phenols
at
other
ash
sites
around
the
country,
further
consideration
and
study
of
the
presence
of
phenols
in
CCW
is
needed.
We
will
be
submitting
a
report
on
the
Huntley
and
Danskammer
sites
as
soon
as
possible,
and
urge
you
to
consider
the
implications
of
the
findings
at
these
sites
in
the
final
Determination.
(
HECL0014)

We
have
enclosed
a
chart
of
61
cases
of
contamination
from
CCW.
This
chart
demonstrates
that
CCW
contamination
is
not
isolated
to
a
few
special
cases,
and
that
this
contamination
is
damaging
public
water
supplies
and
the
environment.
(
HECL0014)

I
have
enclose
a
review
of
the
adverse
environmental
impacts
that
can
occur
from
CCW
constituents.
The
landfill
sites
from
which
the
data
were
obtained
came
from
efforts
by
the
HEC.
(
VATL0010)

The
enclosed
packet
includes
some
of
our
recent
peer­
reviewed
publications
on
environmental
impacts
of
coal
combustion
wastes
in
South
Carolina.
While
downstream
water
quality
parameters
at
our
study
site
are
within
the
NPDES
criteria,
the
40
acre
disposal
area
is
heavily
contaminated
and
used
by
many
aquatic,
terrestrial,
and
avian
species.
In
several
species,
exposure
to
coal
ash
and
accumulation
of
trace
elements
is
associated
with
deformities
which
affect
feeding
and
swimming,
behavioral
modifications
that
increase
susceptibility
to
predation,
disruption
of
endocrine
systems,
severe
modifications
to
energy
budgets,
inability
to
complete
metamorphosis,
and
impaired
reproduction.
(
SRELXXXX)

Some
of
the
most
relevant
of
the
published
research
reported
by
RTI
is
the
work
on
the
ecological
risks
to
receiving
waters,
undertaken
at
the
Savannah
River
Ecology
Laboratory
by
Rowe,
Congdon
and
Hopkins.
We
understand
that
these
researchers
will
be
submitting
all
their
published
papers
as
comments
to
this
docket
...
[
comment
summarizes
this
research]
...
A
related
study
in
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
21
XIX
­
21
Ohio
(
Hatcher
et.
al
1992)
samples
lake
sediments,
macrozoobenthos
and
fish
near
a
coal
ash
disposal
basin
on
the
western
shore
of
Lake
Erie
...
[
comment
summarizes
this
research]
...
We
believe
that
the
data
collected
by
these
researchers
meets
the
test
of
proof
to
be
treated
as
a
damage
case.
Certainly
this
will
be
true
if
EPA
follows
precedent
set
in
other
Bevill
waste
reports
and
permits
scientifically
proven
damage
cases.
(
ALA00292)

The
IEU
review
of
the
administrative
record
compiled
to
date
indicates
that
several
Indiana
sites
have
been
suggested
as
so­
called
"
damage
cases."
The
IEU
comments
will
also
address
this
issue
and
demonstrate
how
these
characterizations
are
misleading.
Of
the
three
Indiana
sites
about
which
concerns
have
been
raised
to
the
EPA
by
the
Hoosier
Environmental
Council
(
HEC),
the
Universal
Mine
site
will
be
addressed
in
the
USWAG
comments
titled
the
"
Synthesis
of
Available
Information
on
the
Management
of
Coal
Combustion
Products
in
Mines."
The
other
two
sites
are
landfills
and
do
not
meet
the
criteria
for
co­
managed
sites.
We
have
submitted
comments
regarding
these
two
sites
today
even
though
they
were
covered
under
the
first
phase
of
the
Bevill
Determination.
(
IEU00018)

Both
Schafer
and
A.
B.
Brown
are
on­
site
landfills
that
disposed
of
flue
gas
desulfurization
(
FGD)
materials
from
dual
alkali
scrubber
systems.
Again,
these
materials
are
neither
co­
managed,
nor
are
they
from
co­
burning
of
alternative
fuels.
Therefore
these
materials
are
not
CCP
subject
to
this
regulatory
determination.
These
CCP
sites
were
addressed
by
the
Phase
I
Bevill
regulatory
determination.
The
type
of
FGD
material
placed
in
these
landfills
is
unique
to
these
two
sites
in
Indiana
and
perhaps
the
country.
Both
facilities
have
or
are
in
the
process
of
correcting
the
minor
environmental
impacts
and
are
actively
seeking
ways
to
beneficially
reuse
the
FGD
products
they
currently
are
producing.
The
Schafer
Station
converted
its
dual
alkali
scrubber
system
in
late
1997
and
no
longer
produces
this
type
of
FGD
material.
This
site
now
makes
wallboard­
grade
calcium
sulfate
(
gypsum)
and
will
be
utilizing
100%
of
the
materials
in
wallboard
production
as
soon
as
the
on­
site
wallboard
plant
construction
is
completed.
(
IEU00018)

The
HEC
often
mischaracterize
groundwater
data
collected
at
Indiana
Utility
sites.
The
concerns
raised
by
the
HEC
regarding
the
Schafer
site
has
been
from
localized
monitoring
wells(
two
of
which
are
placed
at
the
waste
boundary)
which
show
contamination
from
soluble
salts.
Other
down
gradient
monitoring
wells
placed
farther
away
but
within
the
company
property
boundary
show
no
contamination.
Most
importantly,
one­
half
of
the
closed
portion
of
the
landfill
was
capped
with
a
membrane
barrier
in
1998
and
the
other
half
is
being
capped
this
year
with
an
impermeable
membrane.
The
Schafer
site
was
not
a
typical
site
and
is
not
representative
of
CCP
sites
in
general.
(
IEU00018)

SIGECO
A.
B.
Brown
plant
uses
a
dual
alkali
scrubbing
system
and
is
the
only
power
plant
in
Indiana
that
currently
utilizes
this
scrubbing
process.
To
address
problems
with
material
that
was
placed
in
the
landfill
during
the
scrubbers
first
few
years
in
operation,
the
SIGECO
voluntarily
installed
a
slurry
wall
which
was
completed
in
February
1987
to
capture
any
contaminants.
There
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
22
XIX
­
22
has
been
no
significant
increase
or
decrease
in
the
monitored
levels
in
the
two
wells
to
which
the
Hoosier
Environmental
Council
referred
to
in
their
testimony
(
MW­
3
and
MW­
4.3B)
in
the
last
5­
10
years.
Because
the
numbers
appear
to
be
relatively
constant,
it
is
believed
that
a
small
pocket
of
contaminants
is
trapped
outside
the
slurry
wall
in
the
vicinity
of
MW­
3
and
MW­
4.3B
and
this
is
what
is
being
sampled
at
these
well
locations.
It
is
reasoned
that
the
above
mentioned
wells
have
not
seen
reduced
levels
of
contamination
even
after
the
installation
of
the
slurry
wall
because
the
same
groundwater
is
being
sampled
over
and
over
again.
SIGECO
has
recently
installed
continuous
pumps
in
these
wells
in
an
attempt
to
eliminate
any
"
pooled"
materials,
and
they
are
hopeful
the
concerns
about
these
two
wells
will
finally
be
put
to
rest.
Other
wells
located
outside
the
slurry
wall
do
not
show
an
impact.
SIGECO
has
recently
replaced
three
wells
that
were
located
within
the
landfill
footprint
with
two
additional
wells
located
downstream
of
MW­
3
and
MW­
4.3B
to
insure
the
groundwater
off­
site
is
not
being
impacted.
As
a
final
note,
SIGECO
has
stated
numerous
times
that
the
dual
alkali
scrubber
materials
from
the
A.
B.
Brown
plant
will
not
be
back­
hauled.
In
any
event,
the
Schafer
and
AB
Brown
sites
are
landfills
that
are
atypical
CCP
sites.
They
are
simply
poor
candidates
as
case
studies
for
making
generalizations
about
CCP.
(
IEU00018)

CCW
has
contaminated
ground
and
surface
water
at
dozens
of
sites
around
the
country
many
times
over
the
federal
drinking
water
standards
for
contaminants
such
as
arsenic,
boron,
cadmium,
chromium,
vanadium,
lead,
selenium,
sulfates,
and
chlorides.
Contamination
from
CCW
has
also
been
documented
in
a
number
of
scientific
studies
to
cause
deformities,
reproductive
problems,
and
even
death
in
a
wide
variety
of
organisms
ranging
from
plankton
to
amphibians
and
mammals.
(
SIERRA00278)

Because
of
the
inadequacy
of
EPA's
damage
case
investigation
to
date,
the
Hoosier
Environmental
Council
(
HEC)
and
others
have
collected
damage
information
and
forwarded
it
to
EPA
for
inclusion
in
the
Report
and/
or
consideration
in
the
upcoming
regulatory
determination.
For
a
variety
of
reasons,
EPA
has
thus
far
refused
to
acknowledge
these
damage
cases.
(
EDF00021)

Using
the
very
restrictive
criteria
of
the
Report
to
Congress,
the
USEPA
listed
only
six
damage
cases
nationwide.
However,
these
six
are
not
a
complete
accounting
of
damage
cases,
even
by
these
criteria.
Using
its
own
limited
resources
and
volunteer
contributions,
the
Hoosier
Environmental
Council
(
HEC)
more
than
tripled
the
number
of
cases
that
qualified
as
damage
under
the
restrictive
criteria
in
a
period
of
less
than
a
year.
This
effort
is
ongoing
and
has
by
no
means
identified
all
damage
cases.
(
GHIL0012)

HEC's
ongoing
search
for
sites
with
serious
CCW
contamination
has
produced
more
than
60
sites
to
date
that
involve
state
regulatory
action
due
to
violations
of
state
water
quality
standards,
data
from
state
regulatory
files,
or
published
studies
using
data
collected
with
protocols
equivalent
to
state
agency
protocols.
(
GHIL0012)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
23
XIX
­
23
To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
occurring
from
CC
W
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00256)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
occurring
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
VWI00256)

As
I'm
sure
you
are
aware,
environmental
groups
have
already
identified
60
contamination
cases,
numerous
scientific
reports,
and
five
advisories
against
eating
fish
as
a
result
of
CCW.
Why
were
these
Instances
ignored
in
EPAs
Report
to
Congress?
(
CITZ00261)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
occurring
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00263)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
occurring
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00264)

I
am
aware
that
CCW
has
contaminated
both
surface
and
ground
water
at
several
sites
around
the
country.
(
CITZ00265)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
occurring
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
SAVV00266)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
occurring
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
SIERRA00278)

Coal
combustion
wastes
have
polluted
ground
and
surface
water
at
dozens
of
sites
around
the
country
many
times
over
the
federal
drinking
water
standards
for
contaminants
such
as
arsenic,
boron,
cadmium,
chromium,
vanadium,
lead,
selenium,
sulfates,
and
chlorides.
A
number
of
scientific
studies
have
shown
that
contamination
from
CCW
has
caused
deformities,
reproductive
problems,
and
even
death
in
a
wide
variety
of
organisms
ranging
from
plankton
to
amphibians
and
mammals.
(
CITZ00284)

Environmental
groups
have
already
identified
60
ground
water
contamination
cases,
40­
50
scientific
reports,
and
5
advisories
against
eating
fish
as
a
result
of
contamination
from
CCW.
All
these
show
damage
occurring
from
CCW
and
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00284)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
24
XIX
­
24
To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
cases
of
groundwater
contamination,
40­
50
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
KYC00285)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
cases
of
groundwater
contamination,
40­
50
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00286)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
cases
of
groundwater
contamination,
40­
50
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00287)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
cases
of
groundwater
contamination,
40­
50
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00289)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
cases
of
groundwater
contamination,
40­
50
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00290)

Environmental
groups
have
already
identified
60
ground
water
contamination
cases,
40­
50
scientific
reports,
and
5
advisories
against
eating
fish
as
a
result
of
contamination
from
CCW.
All
these
show
damage
occurring
from
CCW
and
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00291)

Given
the
overwhelming
evidence
of
contamination
from
CCW
it
seems
only
logical
to
treat
CCW
as
any
other
hazardous
waste
and
regulate
it
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C.
(
CITZ00303)

We
want
to
emphasize
in
the
strongest
possible
terms,
our
support
of
the
Hoosier
Environmental
Council's
efforts
in
this
regard
­­
we
have
seen
the
file
after
file,
the
manifold
documents
and
studies
which
show
that
coal
wastes
dumped
over
watersheds
leaches
dangerous
materials.
We
feel
that
it
is
not
only
dangerous
to
the
many
on
well
and
spring
water,
but
to
those
coming
onto
municipal
water
systems
as
well­­
most
of
those
systems
rely
also
on
well
and
spring
water­­
or
draw
from
the
rivers
fed
by
such
aquifers.
(
PEACE00306)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00311)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00312)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
25
XIX
­
25
To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00313)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00314)

Environmental
groups
have
already
identified
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
5
advisories
against
eating
fish.
All
these
show
damage
occurring
from
CCW
and
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00315)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00316)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00318)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00319)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00320)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00321)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00322)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00323)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
26
XIX
­
26
To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00324)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00325)

Environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
occurring
from
CCW.
(
CITZ00326)

To
date,
Environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
5
fish
consumption
advisories
all
due
to
damage
from
CCW.
These
cases
were
ignored
in
the
Report
to
Congress
(
although
it
took
17
years
to
complete).
(
CITZ00327)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00331)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
cases
of
groundwater
contamination,
40­
50
scientific
reports,
and
5
fish
ccnsmrption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
NCSEA00334)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00336)

Environmental
groups
have
already
identified
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
5
advisories
against
eating
fish.
All
these
show
damage
occurring
from
CCW
and
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00337)

Presently,
there
are
at
least
13
permitted
disposal
sites
all
within
I20
miles
of
Evansville,
and
another
22­
year­
old
monofill
at
the
A.
B.
Brown
electric
power
plant
in
nearby
Posey
County
which
has
already
demonstrated
contamination
to
area
water
resources.
SIGCORP,
the
company
which
operates
the
plant,
should
be
commended
for
installing
monitoring
wells
which
identified
the
NPDES
exceedenees
which
were
found
as
the
result
of
a
lined
facility.
Nevertheless,
had
these
monitoring
wells
not
been
in
place,
nobody
would
have
ever
learned
of
the
contamination
which
was
found.
(
CITZ00338)

This
has
already
occurred
in
numerous
instances
and
a
map
of
these
contamination
sites
is
available
on
the
web
page
of
the
Hoosier
Environmental
Council.
To
date,
at
least
60
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
27
XIX
­
27
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reportsand
at
least
five
fish
consumption
advisories
in
which
damages
resulted
from
CCW
dumping
have
been
cited.
All
of
these
studies
have
apparently
been
ignored
by
the
agency.
(
CITZ00338)

I
have
been
informed
that
to
date,
groups
concemed
abut
the
environment
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports
and
at
least
five
fish
consumption
advisories
in
which
damage
from
CCW
dumping
was
cited.
All
of
these
studies
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00339)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00340)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00343)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00344)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
repcrts,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00345)

Here
in
Webster
County,
West
Virginia
we
experienced
in
1990,
a
serious
case
of
stream
pollution
because
of
the
mishandling
of
coal
combustion
waste
(
CCW)
(
flyash)
by
a
local
coal
company.
(
CITZ00346)

Environmental
groups
have
already
identified
sixty
ground
water
contamination
cases,
over
forty
scientific
reports
and
five
advisories
against
eating
fish
as
a
result
of
contamination
from
coal
combustion
waste.
(
CITZ00346)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00348)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
occurring
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00349)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
28
XIX
­
28
To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00350)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00351)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00352)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00353)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00354)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00355)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00356)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
were
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00357)

HEC
and
other
environmental
groups
have
documented
the
hazardous
nature
of
CCW
and
cited
to
U.
S.
EPA
60
some
cases
of
CCW
contamination
which
have
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards,
and
many
scientific
articles
on
ecological
damage
from
CCW,
and
5
fish
consumption
advisories,
which
were
ignored
by
U.
S.
EPA
in
its
Draft
Report.
Since
then,
many
more
cases
of
serious
ground
water
contamination,
scientific
reports
on
deformities,
reproductive
problems,
etc.
have
been
added
to
this
substantial
body
of
evidence,
which
should
serve
as
a
basis
for
U.
S.
EPA's
decisions
and
regulatory
requirements.
(
CITZ00358)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
29
XIX
­
29
To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
was
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00360)

The
evidence
of
ground
water
contamination
is
alarming
and
everyone
is
still
standing
around
while
these
reports
are
poring
in
to
your
office.
(
CITZ00361)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
was
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00361)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
was
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00362)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
was
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00363)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
was
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00364)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
was
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00365)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
was
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00366)

To
date,
environmental
groups
have
identified
at
least
60
contamination
cases,
several
dozen
scientific
reports,
and
at
least
5
fish
consumption
advisories
which
show
damage
from
CCW
that
was
ignored
in
the
report.
(
CITZ00367)

CCW
has
already
contaminated
ground
and
surface
water
at
dozens
of
sites
around
the
country
many
times
over
the
federal
drinking
water
standards
for
contaminants.
(
POW00369)

Two
dumps
near
Michigan
City,
have
been
tested
and
one
was
found
to
have
100
times
the
safe
level
of
arsenic.
The
other
has
21
times
the
safe
level
of
lead.
(
CITZL0011)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
30
XIX
­
30
CCW
contaminates
ground
and
surface
water
at
dozens
of
sites
around
the
country
many.
The
toxic
substance
associated
with
CCW
 
contaminants
such
as
arsenic,
boron,
cadmium,
chromium,
vanadium,
lead,
selenium,
sulfates,
and
chlorides
 
are
associated
with
human
and
wildlife
health
problems
 
sometimes
even
death
for
some
life
forms.
(
CITZL0013)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
31
XIX
­
31
XIX.
DAMAGE
CASES
B.
Appropriateness
of
Tests
of
Proof
Several
public
interest
group
and
citizen
commenters
argued
that
EPA's
scientific
investigation
test
of
proof
was
overly
restrictive.
By
requiring
litigation
or
state
enforcement,
cases
are
eliminated
where
environmental
damage
has
occurred,
but
the
state
has
not
taken
action
or
the
unit
is
unregulated.
One
industry
trade
group
stated
that
EPA's
scientific
investigation
test
of
proof
was
reasonable
and
consistent
with
past
Agency
studies,
but
commented
that
EPA
should
not
use
out­
of­
court
settlements
to
satisfy
the
test
of
proof
for
damage
cases.

Response:
The
Agency,
in
its
tests
of
proof
for
damage
case
identification,
does
not
make
litigation
or
state
enforcement
cases
a
necessary
condition
or
pre­
condition
for
identifying
damage
cases.
The
overview
description
of
damage
case
analysis
for
FFC
in
the
RTC
clearly
does
not
require
that
litigation
or
state
enforcement
be
involved
with
every
damage
case
(
see
March
1999
RTC
at
pp.
1­
8
and
1­
9).
Moreover,
the
Agency
was
not
arbitrary
in
defining
the
tests
of
proof.
As
explained
in
the
FFC
RTC
(
p.
1­
8),
the
Agency
subjected
the
tests
to
public
comment
and
has
used
the
same
tests
of
proof
in
prior
reports
to
Congress
for
Mineral
Processing
(
1990)
and
Cement
Kiln
Dust
(
1993).

The
Agency
has
and
would
still
consider
using
documentation
of
out­
of­
court
settlements
as
a
basis
for
proven
damages
in
cases
where
there
is
evidence
or
otherwise
an
admission
of
damages.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
32
XIX
­
32
XIX.
DAMAGE
CASES
B.
Appropriateness
of
Tests
of
Proof
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA's
scientific
investigation
test
of
proof
is
overly
restrictive.
First,
EPA's
'
tests
of
proof"
for
damage
cases
are
arbitrary,
capricious,
and
unsupported
by
law
...
Specifically,
all
of
the
tests
of
proof
require
either
the
initiation
of
state
enforcement
action,
or
a
formal
administrative
or
judicial
resolution,
regardless
of
the
nature
and
extent
of
scientific
data
available
regarding
the
site.
Consequently,
valid
environmental
monitoring
data
alone,
even
when
submitted
by
the
regulated
entity
in
accordance
with
state
requirements,
would
not
be
sufficient
absent
subsequent
state
enforcement
activity
or
litigation
of
some
kind.
This
interpretation
of
Section
8002(
o)(
4)
is
unreasonable
because
there
is
no
demonstrated
nexus
between
a
state
decision
to
commence
an
enforcement
action
and
the
"
documentation"
or
"
proof"
of
environmental
damage
required
by
the
statute.
Indeed,
EPA
routinely
accepts
monitoring
data
alone
as
evidence
of
environmental
damage
in
other
RCRA
contexts.
(
EDF00021)

In
addition,
requiring
"
litigation
or
a
state
enforcement
action"
presumes
a
violation
of
law
has
arisen
which
should
trigger
such
an
action,
and
the
state
is
willing
or
able
to
undertake
such
action.
However,
environmental
damage
has
occurred
irrespective
of
the
state
response,
and
irrespective
of
whether
the
state
has
standards
in
place
(
i.
e.,
groundwater
protection
standards
for
the
particular
pollutants
detected
in
the
groundwater)
it
can
claim
to
be
violated.
(
EDF00021)

Significantly,
under
comparable
statutory
direction
in
Section
8004(
m)
of
RCRA,
EPA
published
a
Report
to
Congress
on
wastes
from
the
exploration
and
production
of
crude
oil
and
natural
gas,
where
the
test
of
proof
for
scientific
investigation
allowed
for
the
use
of
environmental
monitoring
data
only.
(
EDF00021)

In
sum,
there
is
no
statutory,
scientific,
or
policy
basis
for
the
overly
restrictive
scientific
investigation
test
of
proof
in
the
current
Report
to
Congress.
To
the
contrary,
these
tests
of
proof
improperly
result
in
the
rejection
of
reliable
data
on
environmental
damage,
and
thereby
invalidate
EPA's
proposed
no­
action
regulatory
determination
premised
(
at
least
in
part)
on
the
purported
lack
of
damage
cases.
(
EDF00021)

The
vast
majority
of
scientific
investigations
and
reports
that
we
have
seen
which
document
contamination
of
ground
or
surface
waters
from
coal
combustion
wastes
have
not
been
part
of
any
litigation
or
state
enforcement
action.
Yet
involvement
in
such
formal
actions
is
a
criteria
for
the
"
test
of
proof"
utilized
in
this
Report
to
determine
whether
damage
has
occurred.
By
avoiding
discussion
of
the
documented
evidence
of
damage
unless
this
criteria
is
met,
the
Report
presents
a
deficient
and
false
picture
in
which
the
great
preponderance
of
damage
from
fossil
fuel
wastes
is
presumed
not
to
exist.
(
HEC00056)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
33
XIX
­
33
In
the
Report,
EPA
failed
to
examine
extensive
evidence
of
contamination
from
coal
combustion
waste
(
CCW).
Dozens
of
cases
exist
in
which
CCW
has
contaminated
groundwater
above
federal
and
state
health
and
use
standards
and
advisory
levels
for
a
wide
variety
of
contaminants
including
arsenic,
selenium,
lead,
cadmium,
chromium,
molybdenum,
vanadium,
boron,
sulfates,
and
chlorides.
Yet
by
utilizing
a
"
test
of
proof"
that
went
far
beyond
what
is
required
by
law
to
prove
"
danger
to
human
health
or
the
environment,"
a
draft
Determination
has
been
made
that
is
oblivious
to
virtually
all
instances
of
damage
from
CCW.
This
"
test
of
proof"
also
rejected
numerous
scientific
articles
and
reports
which
have
examined
reproductive,
developmental,
hormonal,
and
health
problems
caused
by
CCW
in
microorganisms,
plants,
invertebrates,
amphibians,
fish,
reptiles,
and
mammals.
(
HEC00332)

USWAG
argues
that
the
USEPA
has
the
discretion
and
authority
to
define
damage
cases
in
just
about
any
manner
it
wants.
It
is
dealing
with
"
scientific
uncertainty"
and
has
the
scientific
and
professional
obligation
to
exercise
best
judgement
and
not
overstate
risks.
However,
the
USEPA
also
has
the
scientific
and
professional
obligation
to
publish
a
document
that
does
not
mislead
either
Congress
or
the
public
by
understating
the
risks.
And,
since
the
existing
criteria
unquestionably
will
fail
to
include
known
examples
of
gross
environmental
damage
and
destruction
of
water
resources,
they
are
misleading
and,
therefore,
inappropriate.
(
GHIL0012)

Cases
of
environmental
damage
do
not
typically
reach
a
courtroom
in
the
United
States.
Most
are
resolved
by
settlement,
negotiation,
or
arbitration.
Fewer
still
are
cases
in
which
CCW
contamination
at
a
disposal
site
end
up
in
court.
The
courts
generally
deal
with
either
agency
lawsuits
of
an
operator
who
will
not
co­
operate
or
in
cases
of
disputed
liability
among
multiple
parties.
CCW
is
overwhelmingly
disposed
on
the
property
of
the
generator
and
there
are
seldom
questions
of
responsible
parties.
CCW
contamination
issues,
when
they
arise,
are
generally
handled
administratively
with
the
regulatory
agency,
not
through
court
action.
Thus
requiring
a
court
finding
or
court
ordered
action
effectively
eliminates
most
of
the
known
CCW
problem
sites.
(
GHIL0012)

For
the
USEPA
to
move
away
from
this
requirement
does
not
immediately
subject
a
damage
assessment
to
the
realm
of
rumor
or
anecdote,
as
suggested
by
USWAG.
All
that
needs
to
be
done
is
to
expand
the
criteria
to
include
evidence
derived
from
the
regulatory
agencies
collecting
the
information
and/
or
requiring
administrative
action.
Damage
that
is
documented
using
agency
protocols
within
agency
monitoring
programs
is
damage
that
should
be
inventoried
and
reported
to
Congress
and
the
public.
Site
which
are
under
some
form
of
agency
compliance
action
should
a
prior
be
considered
damage
cases.
Presently
the
individual
state
agencies
are
the
regulatory
authorities,
and
if
an
agency
identifies
environmental
damage
sufficient
to
cause
action,
it
should
be
inventoried
and
reported
to
Congress
and
the
public.
Finally,
for
those
sites
which
are
not
subject
to
monitoring
by
a
state
agency
(
and
disturbingly
that
is
not
a
rare
situation),
any
data
collected
using
protocols
at
least
equivalent
to
agency
protocols
and
assessed
as
damage
using
appropriate
and
valid
scientific
methodologies
should
be
usable
to
document
damage,
and
such
damage
should
be
reported
to
Congress
and
the
public.
(
GHIL0012)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
34
XIX
­
34
EPA's
policy
decision
to
accept
as
"
damage"
cases
for
inclusion
in
the
Report
to
Congress
pursuant
to
42
U.
S.
C.
§
6982(
n)(
4),
only
cases
in
which
an
enforcement
action
or
other
litigation
has
been
brought,
rather
than
documented
cases
of
actual
physical
damage
to
the
environment
for
which
an
enforcement
proceeding
has
not
been
initiated,
is
contrary
to
legal
authority
and
precedent.
(
ALA00292)

It
should
be
noted
that
in
other
Bevill
waste
contexts,
EPA
policy
has
been
to
accept
published
scientific
studies
demonstrating
damage
to
human
health
and
environment
as
"
damage
cases"
pursuant
to
the
Report
requirements
listed
above.
That
is,
it
has
been
sufficient
for
EPA's
purposes,
and
taken
as
proof
of
damage,
that
scientists
have
studied
and
proved
to
the
satisfaction
of
peer­
reviewers
that
such
damage
has
occurred.
However
in
the
present
case,
for
co­
managed
fossil
fuel
wastes,
EPA
has
declared
that
it
will
accept
only
those
cases
which
have
been
litigated
or
in
which
enforcement
actions
have
been
formally
brought
as
"
damage
cases"
for
consideration
in
making
its
Regulatory
Determination
whether
and
how
to
regulate
these
waste
under
Subtltle
C
of
RCRA.
This
means
that
the
damage
case
analysis
included
in
this
Report
to
Congress
is
wholly
inadequate.
(
ALA00292)

EPA
has
also
rejected
the
grand
majority
of
evidence
of
contamination
from
CCW
due
to
a
"
test
of
proof"
that
is
far
more
strict
than
what
is
required
by
law
and
what
EPA
has
used
in
other
reports.
As
a
result,
the
report
whitewashed
the
real
threat
posed
by
CCW.
(
SIERRA00278)

U.
S.
EPA
should
base
its
recommendations
and
decisions
not
on
risk
assessment
or
a
harsh
interpretation
of
"
test
of
proof",
but
on
the
precautionary
principle,
assuring
that
there
will
be
no
adverse
effects
to
public
health
and
the
environment
associated
with
disposal
of
CCW.
(
CITZ00358)

We
believe
that
EPA
generally
established
an
appropriate
basis
for
identifying
documented
cases
of
environmental
damage.
The
`
tests
of
proof'
standards
are
generally
sound
except
where
EPA
relied
on
an
out­
of­
court
settlement.
Such
settlements
are
often
agreed
to
as
a
means
of
avoiding
costly
litigation
and
frequently
these
settlement
specifically
state
that
they
do
not
constitute
an
admission
of
fault
or
liability.
Therefore,
EPA
should
not
consider
a
site
at
which
there
was
a
settlement
as
a
proved
damage
case.
In
any
event,
we
do
agree
with
EPA's
additional
requirement
that
the
proof
must
show
that
FFC
wastes
were
not
only
present,
but
clearly
implicated,
in
the
reported
damage."
(
USWAG00037)

EPA
has
properly
discharged
its
duty
under
the
Bevill
Amendment
to
identify
and
study
"
documented
damage
cases
in
which
danger
to
human
health
or
the
environment
from
surface
runoff
or
leachate
has
been
proved."
EPA's
methodology
for
addressing
this
legislative
criterion
is
set
out
in
the
Report
to
Congress
as
well
as
in
the
Damage
Case
Background
Document.
Despite
the
criticism
of
some
environmental
groups
that
EPA
failed
to
conduct
a
proper
damage
case
analysis
(
see
EDF
Comments
at
8)
EPA
should
be
confident
that
its
approach
(
except
in
its
reliance
on
out­
of­
court
settlements)
is
fully
consistent
with
the
two
elements
prescribed
in
the
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
35
XIX
­
35
statute
­
(
1)
proven
cases
that
(
2)
document
damage
to
human
health
or
the
environment
from
runoff
or
leachate.
So
long
as
EPA
provides
such
an
explanation
in
its
regulatory
determination,
its
methodology
should
easily
withstand
judicial
scrutiny
under
the
familiar
Chevron
doctrine
for
statutory
interpretation.
(
USWAG00275)

The
"
ocumented
damage
case
directive"
is
clear
in
its
general
intent
that
EPA
must
not
consider
every
speculative
claim
of
damages.
However,
the
implementation
of
this
directive
requires
EPA
to
exercise
its
discretion
to
determine
when
a
given
damage
claim
constitutes
a
"
documented"
and
"
proven"
case.
EPA
devised
a
reasonable
standard
for
documentation
and
a
sound
methodology
for
differentiating
"
proven"
from
"
unproven"
cases
of
documented
damage.
EPA's
methodology
­
consideration
of
"
tests
of
proof"
­
is
a
reasonable,
systematic
way
to
address
the
ambiguity.
These
tests
require
documentation
through
scientific
investigation,
administrative
rulings,
or
court
decisions.
In
so
doing,
EPA
chose
to
rely
upon
scientific
investigations,
administrative
rulings,
and
court
decisions
to
screen
speculative
from
real
damage
cases
worthy
of
consideration
pursuant
to
congressional
intent.
(
USWAG00275)

In
implementing
the
highly
complex
subject
matter
under
its
jurisdiction,
EPA
is
constantly
faced
with
scientific
uncertainty.
The
determination
of
which
level
of
uncertainty
can
be
accepted
in
a
proven
damage
case
is
within
the
agency's
discretion.
EPA
has
set
forth
a
clear
methodology
for
categorizing
damage
cases
as
proven
or
unproven
and
has
consistently
employed
that
methodology
throughout
the
study.
Not
only
is
EPA's
approach
reasonable
within
the
context
of
the
wastes
under
consideration,
but
it
is
entirely
consistent
with
the
Agency's
approach
to
consideration
of
damage
cases
in
other
Bevill
studies.
An
agency's
interpretation
of
a
legislative
directive
is
given
substantial
deference,
particularly
where
its
interpretation
is
longstanding
and
consistent.
(
USWAG00275)

EDF
implies
that
EPA
has
not
interpreted
the
Bevill
proven
damage
cases
criterion
consistently,
but
the
lone
example
provided
­
the
1987
Report
to
Congress
on
oil
and
gas
wastes
­
is
deceptive.
EDF
claims
that
EPA
employed
a
more
liberal
"
scientific
documentation"
test
that
did
not
require
the
initiation
of
enforcement
action.
EDF
Comments
at
11.
However,
EPA
simply
stated
that
"
in
some
cases"
it
considered
the
results
of
technical
tests
"
conducted
with
State­
approved
quality
control
procedures."
The
sound
exercise
of
discretion
in
1987
to
supplement
the
more
rigorous
standard
of
proof
for
identifying
damage
cases
does
not
require
the
Agency
to
rely
on
unproved
allegations
of
damage
lacking
rigorous
quality
control
procedures
or
formal
adjudication.
(
USWAG00275)

There
is
no
merit
to
EDF's
claim
that
EPA's
rationale
for
rejecting
some
alleged
damage
cases
is
"
legally
deficient
or
otherwise
inappropriate."
EDF
Comments
at
9.
In
another
attack
on
the
"
tests
of
proof",
EDF
falsely
implies
that
EPA
is
legally
bound
to
weigh
Bevill
damage
cases
by
the
same
standard
used
in
other
RCRA
proceedings,
including
hazardous
waste
delisting
petition
proceedings.
Id
at
10.
EDF
falsely
implies
that
there
is
an
agency­
wide
standard
for
consideration
of
damage
cases
that
would
be
applicable
in
this
context.
However,
the
issue
of
determination
of
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
36
XIX
­
36
"
proven
damage
cases"
is
relevant
only
in
the
context
of
Bevill
determinations,
since
it
is
the
result
of
the
statutory
directive.
Whereas
EDF
believes
damage
cases
should
not
be
tied
to
enforcement
actions
(
id.
at
10)
EPA
determined
that
such
proceedings
provide
the
requisite
level
of
proof,
the
element
specified
in
the
Bevill
Amendment
but
not
in
other
parts
of
RCRA.
EPA,
rather
than
EDF,
is
entrusted
with
interpreting
the
language
of
the
Bevill
Amendment,
and
it
has
done
so
reasonably
and
consistently.
(
USWAG00275)

EPA
notes
that
for
the
FFC
waste
study,
it
employed
a
fourth
test.
That
test
­
that
the
damages
must
be
attributable
to
FFC
wastes
(
2
RTC
at
l­
9)
­
is
clearly
required
by
the
plain
meaning
of
the
Bevill
Amendments
directive
to
study
"
the
adverse
effects
on
human
health
and
the
environment,
if
any,
of
the
disposal
and
utilization
of'
FFC
wastes.
See
RCRA
§
8002(
n),
42
U.
S.
C.
§
6982(
n).
The
statute
makes
clear
that
EPA
must
determine
which
adverse
effects
are
caused
by
FFC
wastes
and
not
attribute
to
FFC
wastes
the
impacts
of
other
wastes.
There
is
no
room
or
need
for
interpretation
of
this
clear
statutory
directive.
(
USWAG00275)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
37
XIX
­
37
XIX.
DAMAGE
CASES
C.
Evidence
of
Comanagement
One
public
interest
group
commenter
stated
that
EPA
wrongfully
rejected
damage
cases
simply
because
evidence
of
comanagement
was
not
available
in
state
files,
without
adequate,
independent
efforts
to
verify
whether
comanagement
took
place.

Response:
The
Agency
attempted
to
verify
all
relevant
facts,
circumstances
and
conditions
that
it
could
investigate
for
each
candidate
damage
case
with
available
resources
in
the
schedule
allotted
to
conduct
the
study
and
formulate
the
regulatory
determination.
This
includes
issues
and
questions
concerning
the
comanagement
of
electric
utility
coal
combustion
waste.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
38
XIX
­
38
XIX.
DAMAGE
CASES
C.
Evidence
of
Comanagement
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
damage
case
analysis
performed
for
both
Reports
to
Congress
is
wholly
inadequate.
In
supplementing
the
record
for
the
current
Report
to
Congress,
commenters
will
likely
find
sites
where
specific
evidence
of
electric
utility
coal
combustion
waste
co­
management
is
not
expressly
identified
in
state
files,
because
co­
management
is
the
norm
in
the
industry
so
permit
terms
or
other
relevant
documents
do
not
address
the
activity
in
any
detail.
(
EDF00021)

EPA
should
not
fail
to
consider
otherwise
documented
damage
cases
simply
because
comanagement
is
not
explicitly
documented
at
these
sites,
given
co­
management
is
the
norm
and
state
files
may
not
contain
information
related
to
the
nature
and
extent
of
waste
co­
management
at
a
particular
site.
Such
lack
of
consideration.
would
be
particularly
inappropriate
if
EPA
failed
to
conduct
follow­
up
with
the
companies
operating
these
sites,
using
Section
3007
and
other
information­
gathering
authorities,
to
request
any
documentation
or
confirmation
of
co­
management
the
Agency
may
require.
If
EPA
is
provided
substantial
information
regarding
potential
damage
cases
the
Agency
must
bear
some
responsibility
to
fill
in
the
remaining
data
gaps
it
believes
remain.
(
EDF00021)

EPA
wrongfully
rejected
damage
cases
where
documentary
evidence
of
waste
co­
management
was
unavailable
in
state
files
...
EPA
staff
have
indicated
orally
that
damage
cases
would
be
rejected
where
evidence
of
co­
management
of
high
and
low­
volume
coal
combustion
wastes
is
not
expressly
provided.
Since
both
EPA
and
the
industry
believe
CCW
waste
co­
management
is
by
far
the
prevailing
industry
practice,
and
EPA
admits
the
physical
and
chemical
characteristics
of
comanaged
low
and
high­
volume
wastes
are
very
similar
to
high­
volume
wastes
managed
a1one,
documentation
of
co­
management
is
irrelevant
and
unnecessary,
particularly
where
states
do
not
expressly
require
paperwork
detailing
the
variety
of
wastes
that
may
be
managed
in
CCW
units.
Moreover,
if
EPA
is
provided
substantial
information
regarding
potential
damage
cases
the
Agency
must
bear
some
responsibility
to
fill
in
the
data
gaps
it
believes
remain.
EPA
should
emnlov
its
Section
3007
and
other
data
gathering
authorities
to
obtain
the
relevant
information
from
the
companies
themselves.
(
EDF00021)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
39
XIX
­
39
XIX.
DAMAGE
CASES
D.
Consideration
of
Secondary
Parameters
Public
interest
group
and
citizen
commenters
stated
that
EPA
wrongfully
rejected
cases
of
ground­
water
contamination
demonstrated
by
elevated
concentrations
of
secondary
parameters.
One
of
the
commenters
stated
that
some
state
agencies
(
e.
g.,
Wisconsin)
require
monitoring
for
secondary
parameters
only
and
use
these
parameters
as
an
indicator
that
problems
are
occurring.
An
industry
commenter,
on
the
other
hand,
stated
that
treatment
of
exceedences
of
secondary
drinking
water
standards
(
particularly
for
sulfate)
as
damage
cases
would
be
inappropriate,
because
these
standards
address
contaminants
that
primarily
affect
the
aesthetic
qualities
relating
to
public
acceptance
of
drinking
water
and
are
not
legally
binding
or
federally
enforceable.

Response:
Our
damage
case
analysis
drew
a
distinction
between
primary
and
secondary
MCL
exceedences
because
we
believe
this
factor
is
appropriate
in
weighing
the
seriousness
of
FFC
damage
in
terms
of
indicating
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
For
FFC,
in
the
RTC,
we
reported
only
the
"
proven"
damage
(
i.
e.,
exceedence
of
a
health­
based
standard
such
as
a
primary
MCL
and
measurement
in
ground
water
or
surface
water).
Unlike
the
primary
MCLs,
secondary
MCLs
are
not
based
on
human
health
considerations.
(
Examples
are
dissolved
solids,
sulfate,
iron,
and
chloride
for
which
ground
water
standards
have
been
established
because
of
their
effect
on
taste,
odor,
and
color.)
While
some
commenters
believe
that
elevated
levels
of
some
secondary
MCL
parameters
such
as
soluble
salts
are
likely
precursors
or
indicators
of
future
hazardous
constituent
exceedences
that
could
occur
at
coal
combustion
facilities,
we
are
not
yet
able
and
will
not
be
able
to
test
their
hypothesis
until
we
complete
our
analysis
of
all
comments
received
on
our
groundwater
model
and
risk
analysis,
which
will
not
be
concluded
until
next
year.

In
formulating
the
regulatory
determination,
EPA
also
relied
on
the
potential
damage
cases
that
were
identified
in
the
docket
supporting
the
RTC
and
also
the
potential
damage
cases
that
were
identified
from
the
candidate
damage
cases
submitted
by
commenters.
This
reliance
on
potential
damage
cases
that
involve
secondary
MCL
exceedences
and
exceedences
of
primary
MCL
in
ground
water
beneath
or
near
the
waste
source
is
explained
at
the
beginning
of
this
section.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
40
XIX
­
40
XIX.
DAMAGE
CASES
D.
Consideration
of
Secondary
Parameters
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA
wrongfully
rejected
cases
of
groundwater
contamination
demonstrated
by
elevated
concentrations
of
secondary
parameters
EPA
apparently
rejected
damage
cases
where
the
detected
pollutants
in
the
groundwater
were
not
those
for
which
primary
federal
or
state
drinking
water
standards
had
been
issued.
According
to
EPA,
"
danger"
to
the
environment
is
unproven
where
a
groundwater
resource
is
rendered
unusable
as
a
drinking
water
source
because
of
the
presence
of
secondary
drinking
water
parameters,
such
as
sulfates,
chlorides
or
total
dissolved
solids.
This
EPA
reasoning
is
also
misguided
and
in
conflict
with
prior
Reports
to
Congress.
The
environment
is
clearly
harmed
where
a
pristine
aquifer
is
rendered
unusable.
Ironically,
EPA's
drinking
water
program
recognizes
such
harm
since
the
regulation
of
underground
injection
by
that
program
is
expressly
designed
to
protect
"
underground
sources
of
drinking
water
(
USDWs).
USDWs
are
defined
to
aquifers
sufficiently
large
to
supply
a
public
water
system
and
which
currently
supplies
human
drinking
water
or
contains
fewer
than
10,000
mg/
l
total
dissolved
solids.
(
EDF00021)

In
the
Oilfield
Waste
Report
to
Congress,
EPA
included
damage
cases
even
though
the
contaminants
of
concern
lacked
primary
MCLs
...
EPA
has
historically
considered
groundwater
and
drinking
water
"
damaged"
due
to
elevated
levels
of
chloride
and
conductivity
and
EPA
has
relied
upon
its
secondary
drinking
water
quality
standards
to
ascertain
whether
such
damage
has
indeed
occurred.(
EDF00021)

In
addition,
the
secondary
parameters
are
frequently
employed
as
indicator
parameters
by
state
regulatory
agencies
as
evidence
of
groundwater
contamination,
to
avoid
more
expensive
metals
sampling
and
analysis
(
i.
e.,
groundwater
monitoring
requirements
in
Wisconsin
for
ash
disposal
units).
Therefore,
while
there
is
no
state
standard
governing
the
secondary
parameters,
the
groundwater
monitoring
program
is
designed
so
that
these
parameter
exceedences
are
considered
evidence
of
groundwater
contamination,
and
thus
environmental
damage.
By
insisting
upon
primary
MCL
violations,
EPA
makes
no
allowance
for
state
programs
where
groundwater
monitoring
is
reliant,
in
whole
or
in
part,
on
detecting
the
secondary
parameters.
(
EDF00021)

Constituents
in
coal
ash
that
have
caused
such
damage
include
sulfates,
boron,
TDS,
sodium,
chlorides,
fluorides
and
pH.
In
many
cases
these
constituents
have
made
potable
ground
waters
well
offsite
virtually
unusable
...
The
"
burden
of
proof"
EPA
used
for
its
determination
excludes
all
but
a
few
cases
of
where
CCW
has
caused
significant
damage
to
groundwater
sources.
Groundwater
is
a
valuable
resource
throughout
the
country.
Yet,
EPA
does
not
consider
the
dozens
of
cases
where
CCW
has
rendered
groundwater
useless
to
be
damage
cases.
(
HEC00056)

To
limit
the
definition
of
a
damage
case
to
the
eight
RCRA
metals
with
MCLs
ignores
dozens
upon
dozens
of
cases
of
contamination
from
CCW
on
two
fronts.
First,
CCW
routinely
contaminates
ground
water
and
surface
water
to
levels
beyond
any
possible
use
(
except,
I
suppose,
fire
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
41
XIX
­
41
suppression)
on
the
basis
of
other
constituents,
regardless
of
RCRA
metals
concentrations
...
Contaminants
on
these
sites
that
render
water
useless,
independent
of
RCRA
metals
concentrations,
routinely
include
sulfate,
boron,
sodium,
iron,
manganese
and
total
dissolved
solids.
There
may
not
be
MCLs
for
all
these
contaminants,
but
there
are
health
based
concentration
and
exposure
limits
that
are
recognized,
or
there
are
environmental
damages
associated
with
them,
regardless
of
human
exposure
limits.
Less
commonly,
but
occasionally
documented,
are
compounds
such
as
phenols
and
chlorinated
solvents.
Some
are
almost
certainly
due
to
comanagement
of
the
wastes.
Some
may
be
rarely
documented
because
they
are
rarely
required
to
be
analyzed.
But,
the
damage
is
damage
and
should
be
inventoried
as
damage
prior
to
any
regulatory
determination.
(
GHIL0012)

The
state
agencies
responsible
for
managing
this
material
at
present
fully
recognize
the
damage
CCW
does
to
water
and
the
environment
that
is
absolutely
independent
of
RCRA
metals.
This
recognition
by
regulators
is
so
solid
that
some
agencies,
e.
g.
in
Wisconsin,
do
not
require
analysis
for
RCRA
metals
as
part
of
compliance
and
remediation
monitoring.
In
order
to
save
the
facility
operator
money,
only
the
"
biggies"
need
be
monitored.
The
agency
doesn't
need
RCRA
metals
concentrations
to
define
a
violation
of
standards,
doesn't
need
RCRA
metals
concentrations
to
generate
a
compliance
order,
doesn't
need
RCRA
metals
concentrations
to
delineate
the
problem,
and
doesn't
need
RCRA
metals
concentrations
to
determine
whether
remediation
is
being
effective.
And
yet
USWAG
would
argue
that
without
RCRA
metals
concentration,
there
is
no
damage
that
should
be
reported
to
Congress
or
the
public.
Such
a
position
is
absurd.
(
GHIL0012)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
drinking
water
standards,
secondary
use
standards
or
health
advisory
levels
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
KYC00285)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
drinking
water
standards,
secondary
use
standards
or
health
advisory
levels
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00286)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
drinking
water
standards,
secondary
use
standards
or
health
advisory
levels
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00287)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
drinking
water
standards,
secondary
use
standards
or
health
advisory
levels
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00289)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
42
XIX
­
42
EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
drinking
water
standards,
secondary
use
standards
or
health
advisory
levels
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00290)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
drinking
water
standards,
secondary
use
standards
or
health
advisory
levels
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
NCSEA00334)

EPA
has
correctly
focused
on
constituents
for
which
there
is
an
established
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Standard.
It
would
be
inappropriate
for
EPA
to
determine
whether
a
waste
should
be
regulated
as
hazardous
under
RCRA
Subtitle
C
based
upon
criteria
that
are
not
designed
to
reflect
human
health.
Pursuant
to
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
("
SDWA"),
42
U.
S.
C.
3
300f
et
seq.,
EPA
is
responsible
for
establishing
concentration
limits
for
contaminants
in
drinking
water
that
"
may
have
an
adverse
effect
on
human
health".
See
42
U.
S.
C.
§
4009­
l(
b).
The
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Standards
contain
the
limits
EPA
has
deemed
appropriate
after
study
and
review
by
the
Office
of
Groundwater
and
Drinking
Water.
Those
standards
represent
the
Agency's
expert
determination
whether
a
constituent
poses
a
significant
threat
to
human
health.
The
Secondary
Drinking
Water
Standards,
on
the
other
hand,
address
"
contaminants
in
drinking
water
that
primarily
affect
the
aesthetic
qualities
relating
to
the
public
acceptance
of
drinking
water."
40
C.
F.
R.
§
143.1.
Those
regulations
are
not
legally
binding
or
federally
enforceable
but
are
intended
as
guidelines
to
the
States.
(
USWAG00275)

Sulfate
in
particular
is
a
potential
contaminant
to
drinking
water
that
has
been
observed
at
some
FFC
waste
management
sites.
However,
EPA
has
not
determined
that
sulfate
presents
a
threat
to
human
health.
Sulfate
in
drinking
water
has
a
secondary
maximum
contaminant
level
(
MCL)
of
250
milligrams
per
liter
(
mg/
L),
based
on
aesthetic
effects
(
i.
e.,
taste
and
odor).
40
C.
F.
R.
§
143.3.
EPA
estimates
that
about
3%
of
the
public
drinking
water
systems
in
the
country
may
have
sulfate
levels
of
250
mg/
L
or
greater.
(
USWAG00275)

The
SDWA
requires
EPA,
in
cooperation
with
the
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
("
CDC"),
to
conduct
a
comprehensive
study
to
establish
a
reliable
dose­
response
relationship
for
the
adverse
human
health
effects
from
exposure
to
sulfate
in
drinking
water,
including
the
health
effects
that
may
be
experienced
by
sensitive
subpopulations,
such
as
infants
and
travelers.
SDWA
§
1412(
b)(
l2)(
B),
42
U.
S.
C.
5
300g­
l(
b)(
l2)(
B).
The
SDWA
specifies
that
the
study
must
be
based
on
the
best
available
peer­
reviewed
science
and
supporting
studies,
conducted
in
consultation
with
interested
States.
It
would
be
premature
and
improper
for
EPA
to
base
a
regulatory
determination
to
impose
Federal
hazardous
waste
regulation
on
secondary
drinking
water
standards
that
Congress
has
determined
are
mere
aesthetic
guidance
and
not
federally
enforceable.
Although
there
has
been
speculation
that
there
may
be
concerns
for
public
health
related
to
concentrations
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
43
XIX
­
43
far
in
excess
of
the
secondary
standard,
the
Agency's
water
experts
do
not
consider
the
current
state
of
knowledge
sufficient
to
warrant
additional
controls.
(
USWAG00275)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
44
XIX
­
44
XIX.
DAMAGE
CASES
E.
Adequacy
of
Study
Public
interest
group
commenters
stated
that
EPA's
damage
case
investigation
was
inadequate
in
that
EPA
visited
only
five
states
and
failed
to
use
its
Section
3007
authority
to
collect
more
information.
Four
commenters
also
argued
that
EPA
inappropriately
rejected
cases
because
of
the
lack
of
adequate
monitoring
data,
but
that
the
lack
of
this
data
is
an
artifact
of
inadequate
state
regulation
of
these
waste
sites.
Some
of
these
groups
and
a
number
of
citizen
commenters
argued
that
EPA's
damage
case
analysis
relied
too
heavily
on
data
submitted
by
industry.
Many
of
these
commenters
urged
additional
study
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage.

Response:
EPA
believes
its
investigation
of
damage
cases
was
adequate
and
sufficient
to
fulfill
the
RCRA
statutory
factor
concerning
identification
of
instances
where
the
wastes
pose
a
danger
to
human
health
or
the
environment..
EPA
visited
five
states
to
gather
specific
information
about
state
regulatory
programs,
FFC
waste
generators,
waste
management
practices
and
candidate
damage
cases
related
to
fossil
fuel
combustion.
The
five
states
we
examined
in
great
detail
were:
Indiana,
Pennsylvania,
North
Carolina,
Wisconsin,
and
Virginia.
We
also
conducted
additional
information
collection
and
analysis
activities
in
support
of
damage
case
identification,
as
described
at
the
beginning
of
this
section.

While
the
Agency's
damage
case
investigation
was
somewhat
limited,
these
five
states
account
for
almost
20
percent
of
coal­
fired
utility
electrical
generation
capacity.
This
is
significant
sample
of
the
entire
U.
S.
coal
burning
capacity.
The
Agency
chose
not
to
rely
on
its
RCRA
Section
3007
authorities
because
it
decided
that
communication
with
state
offices
and
officials
was
the
most
efficient
means
for
identification
of
damage
cases.

The
damage
case
investigation
did
not
rely
on
industry
identification
of
damages,
but
rather
on
information
collected
by
state
and
federal
government
regulatory
agencies.
EPA
expanded
its
investigation
to
include
those
candidate
damage
cases
that
were
submitted
by
public
interest
group
commenters,
as
discussed
at
the
beginning
of
this
section.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
45
XIX
­
45
XIX.
DAMAGE
CASES
E.
Adequacy
of
Study
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
damage
case
analysis
performed
for
both
Reports
to
Congress
is
wholly
inadequate
...
Indeed,
we
note
EPA
relies
heavily
upon
an
EPRI
survey
of
co­
management
practices,
in
lieu
of
information
from
state
files
even
where
EPA
staff/
contractors
visited
the
states,
because
data
on
co­
management
are
often
unavailable
in
state
records.
(
EDF00021)

Unfortunately,
despite
its
importance,
EPA
failed
to
conduct
a
proper
damage
case
analysis.
First,
EPA
only
visited
five
states,
and
then
failed
to
supplement
these
state
visits
with
other
meaningful
data
gathering
activities
in
the
remaining
jurisdictions,
therefore
the
scope
of
the
evaluation
was
extremely
and
unduly
limited.
(
EDF00021)

For
other
waste
studies,
and
in
listing
determinations,
EPA
routinely
solicits
the
information
necessary
to
identify
damage
cases
from
the
regulated
community
using
its
authorities
under
Section
3007
of
RCRA.
Questionnaires
are
distributed,
requesting
specific
information
on
groundwater
and
surface
water
releases.
The
information
is
then
entered
into
a
date
base
and
assessed
for
possible
follow­
up
investigation
work,
thereby
enabling
EPA
to
target
available
damage
evaluation
resources.
EPA's
failure
to
utilize
its
Section
3007
authorities
for
the
current
Report
to
Congress
is
indefensible.
(
EDF00021)

Prior
to
a
final
regulatory
determination,
EPA
must
undertake
a
more
comprehensive
damage
case
evaluation.
If
a
questionnaire
is
not
employed,
EPA
must
make
the
necessary
funds
available
to
conduct
a
comprehensive
damage
case
review.
(
EDF00021)

According
to
the
industry
data
provided
to
EPA,
fewer
than
half
of
the
coal
combustion
waste
surface
impoundments
are
subject
to
groundwater
protection
standards,
some
of
the
units
subject
to
these
standards
are
not
even
required
to
conduct
groundwater
monitoring,
and
the
consequences
of
violating
the
groundwater
standards
are
unclear
in
the
event
violations
would
be
detected
at
the
remaining
facilities.
See
Report
to
Congress
at
3­
34.
Therefore,
under
EPA's
misguided
reasoning,
no
matter
how
much
contamination
is
caused
by
these
surface
impoundments,
in
a
majority
of
potential
instances
impoundment­
caused
groundwater
contamination
could
not
qualify
as
a
damage
case
because
no
state
law
is
violated
as
a
result
of
such
contamination.
(
EDF00021)

The
Report
is
devoid
of
discussion
of
the
dozens
of
cases
of
contamination
and
damage
to
the
environment
throughout
the
country
from
disposal
of
coal
combustion
and
other
fossil
fuel
wastes,
many
of
which
pose
danger
to
human
health.
Every
one
of
these
is
documented
by
state
and/
or
federal
agencies.
The
failure
to
present
this
evidence
amounts
to
an
egregious
failure
to
address
the
third
study
factor.
This
appears
to
have
been
a
deliberate
deficiency
designed
to
support
the
conclusions
of
minimal
risks
in
the
risk
assessments
underlying
the
Report.
(
HEC00056)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
46
XIX
­
46
Throughout
the
report,
EPA
relies
heavily
on
the
industry
this
determination
will
effect
to
supply
the
information
that
EPA
uses
to
form
its
opinion
on
CCW.
The
discussion
of
environmental
controls
at
CCW
disposal
sites
and
the
search
for
damage
cases
are
just
examples
of
this
problem
...
When
working
to
identify
damage
cases,
EPA
again
relied
heavily
upon
EPRI
as
a
source.
To
expect
utilities
to
voluntarily
supply
information
that
would
leave
them
open
for
enforcement
action
or
liability
is
absurd.
EPA
needs
to
do
its
own
research
and
further
investigation
of
sites
supplied
by
both
EPRI
and
other
sources
to
determine
if
information
does
indeed
exist
that
would
validate
cases
of
CCW
contamination
as
damage
cases
under
the
"
test
of
proof".
EPA
must
gather
its
own
data
and
verify
the
validity
of
information
received
from
private
sources
to
make
definitive
judgements
and
meet
the
burden
of
proof
under
RCRA
for
this
determination.
(
HEC00056)

In
the
Report,
EPA
failed
to
examine
extensive
evidence
of
contamination
from
coal
combustion
waste
(
CCW).
Dozens
of
cases
exist
in
which
CCW
has
contaminated
groundwater
above
federal
and
state
health
and
use
standards
and
advisory
levels
for
a
wide
variety
of
contaminants
including
arsenic,
selenium,
lead,
cadmium,
chromium,
molybdenum,
vanadium,
boron,
sulfates,
and
chlorides
...
The
lack
of
independent
information
gathering
on
the
part
of
EPA
contributed
to
the
small
number
of
damage
cases
in
the
report.
EPA
relied
heavily
upon
industry
to
supply
the
information
used
in
the
report.
Furthermore,
this
information
was
only
requested
on
a
voluntary
basis.
Evidence
of
contamination
from
UCCW
opens
a
utility
up
to
litigation,
remediation
costs,
fines,
and
more
costly
disposal
regulations.
Therefore,
supplying
this
information
to
EPA
poses
a
clear
cut
conflict
of
interest
for
groups
such
as
the
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
(
EPRI)
and
Edison
Electric
Institute
(
EEI).
(
HEC00332)

Due
to
EPA's
small
amount
of
independent
data
gathering,
HEC
was
compelled
to
perform
its
own
damage
case
search.
In
addition
to
the
22
cases
HEC
submitted
to
EPA
before
and
during
the
original
comment
period,
we
have
since
located
over
34
new
cases
of
contamination
in
14
states.
During
the
period
between
the
close
of
comments
in
June
and
the
end
of
the
three­
week,
newcomment
period
on
September
24,
1999,
HEC
has
had
one
employee
working
full­
time
on
identifying
new
damage
cases
and
a
consultant
working
part
time
reviewing
data
as
it
has
been
produced.
It
is
not
the
level
of
effort
that
should
be
devoted
to
the
problem.
But,
it
is
a
level
of
effort
beyond
that
which
HEC
can
afford
and
which
has
relied
upon
extensive
donations
of
time
and
materials
from
concerned
individuals.
These
comments
are
based
upon
that
effort.
It
is
an
effort
that
is
not
complete,
and
is,
in
fact,
just
scratching
the
surface
of
the
problem.
In
many
cases,
these
sites
are
not
part
of
any
database
of
contaminated
sites
or
are
not
listed
as
CCW
disposal
sites
on
such
databases,
and
our
contacts
within
the
state
agencies
most
often
learned
of
these
cases
through
word
of
mouth
within
the
agency.
EPA's
search
of
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
of
1980
(
CERCLA)
Information
System
would
not
have
found
the
majority
of
contamination
cases
located
by
HEC.
(
HEC00332)

Nonetheless,
EPA's
search
of
the
CERCLA
Information
System
does
not
appear
to
be
very
thorough.
HEC
located
two
Superfund
sites
where
CCW
has
been
documented
to
be
causing
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
47
XIX
­
47
contamination
that
are
located
on
the
CERCLA
list:
the
Dixie
Caverns
County
Landfill
in
Virginia
and
the
Vitale
Fly
Ash
Pit
in
Massachusetts.
While
several
different
types
of
waste
were
disposed
at
these
sites
in
both
cases,
EPA
reports
contamination
occurring
that
is
clearly
linked
to
fly
ash.
Yet,
these
sites
were
not
considered
in
the
report
as
damage
cases.
(
HEC00332)

The
process
of
documenting
environmental
or
resource
damage
from
the
disposal
of
CCW
is
further
handicapped
by
HEC's
outsider
status.
There
is
little
motivation
for
state
agencies
to
expend
time,
energy
and
resources
helping
an
environmental
organization
from
another
state
obtain
data
for
purposes
that
bear
no
discernible
benefit
to
the
agency.
An
equivalent
search
program
by
the
USEPA,
or
its
designated
contractor,
would
unquestionably
produce
quicker
and
more
thorough
results
with
fewer
iterations.
It
is
a
search
program
that
should
have
been
undertaken,
and
still
should
be
undertaken,
by
the
Agency
before
any
determination
for
these
wastes
occurs.
An
addendum
to
the
Report
to
Congress
should
be
issued
to
reflect
the
results
of
the
search
and
document
the
true
levels
of
damage
resulting
from
current
disposal
practices
and
lax
oversight
by
many
state
agencies.
(
HEC00332)

The
following
data
summaries
the
data
presently
available
to
HEC
as
a
result
of
its
search
efforts.
Less
than
full
documentation
of
damage
at
a
site,
or
even
conditions
at
a
site,
does
not
indicate
that
documenting
data
do
not
exist.
It
indicates
only
that
the
search
program
has
not
yet
been
able
to
obtain
such
data.
Regardless
of
whether
HEC
is
able
to
complete
this
search,
it
is
incumbent
upon
the
Agency
to
pursue
additional
documentation
it
to
provide
an
accurate
and
complete
assessment
of
damages
to
Congress
and
the
public
potentially
affected
by
this
determination.
(
HEC00332)

The
absence
of
a
site
from
a
particular
state
does
not
mean
there
are
no
problem
sites
within
that
state.
It
indicates
only
that
the
HEC
search
program
has
not
yet
approached
that
state
or
has
not
yet
identified
within
the
state
the
appropriate
information
contacts.
Similarly,
the
absence
of
contamination
by
specific
CCWs
or
specific
disposal
scenarios
in
a
given
state
is
not
evidence
that
such
contamination
does
not
exist.
It
may
be
a
waste
that
is
not
subject,
in
that
state,
to
monitoring
that
would
detect
contamination
(
e.
g.
fly
ash
disposal
in
Indiana,
where
only
FGD
requires
monitoring).
It
is
incumbent
upon
the
Agency
to
pursue
damage
cases
in
additional
states
and
additional
damage
cases
in
these
aforementioned
states
before
it
makes
assertions
regarding
the
frequency
or
degree
of
damage
from
current
CCW
disposal
practices.
(
HEC00332)

Failure
to
monitor
many
CCW
disposal
sites
and
types
of
CCW
contamination
underestimates
the
magnitude
of
the
problem.
As
we
have
already
pointed
out,
most
large
scale
CCW
disposal
sites
have
no
ground
water
monitoring.
And
many
of
those
that
do
have
monitoring
provisions
are
only
analyzing
for
a
few
parameters
in
ground
waters
affected
by
CCW.
(
HEC00332)

Using
the
very
restrictive
criteria
of
the
Report
to
Congress,
the
USEPA
listed
only
six
damage
cases
nationwide
...
One
of
the
curiosities
of
this
research
is
that
sites
analyzed
by
the
USEPA
itself
as
endangering
human
health
and
safety
due
to
CCW
disposal
did
not
make
the
list
of
six.
(
GHIL0012)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
48
XIX
­
48
Finally,
for
those
sites
which
are
not
subject
to
monitoring
by
a
state
agency
(
and
disturbingly
that
is
not
a
rare
situation),
any
data
collected
using
protocols
at
least
equivalent
to
agency
protocols
and
assessed
as
damage
using
appropriate
and
valid
scientific
methodologies
should
be
usable
to
document
damage,
and
such
damage
should
be
reported
to
Congress
and
the
public.
(
GHIL0012)

The
Report
to
Congress
considers
the
number
of
damage
case
it
lists
relative
to
the
number
of
disposal
sites
in
the
country,
with
the
implication
that
all
sites
not
on
the
list
are
proven
not
contaminated,
or
at
least
not
damaged.
One
of
the
interesting
insights
that
has
come
from
the
HEC
research
is
that
not
all
CCW
disposal
sites
are
even
monitored.
It
is
a
true
statement
that
there
is
no
evidence
of
water
contamination
or
environmental
damage
from
any
fly
ash
disposal
site
at
any
utility
in
Indiana.
It
is
also
a
misleading
statement.
There
is
no
monitoring
required
around
fly
ash
disposal
sites
at
utilities
in
Indiana.
Based
upon
similar
sites
that
are
monitored
in
Wisconsin,
one
should
presume
that
there
is
comparable
damage
in
Indiana.
But,
it
is
true
that
there
is
no
evidence
of
that
damage
today.
(
GHIL0012)

EPA
failed
to
adequately
survey
current
impacts
of
FFC
wastes.
The
EPA
relies
on
scant
and
inadequate
monitoring
data
of
groundwater
contamination
around
WMU
to
ostensibly
support
the
finding
that
no
impact
has
occurred.
(
ALA00292)

Unfortunately,
EPA
has
relied
heavily
upon
the
very
industry
it
is
regulating
as
the
major
source
of
information
in
the
report
...
As
a
result,
the
report
whitewashed
the
real
threat
posed
by
CCW.
(
SIERRA00278)

The
Administrator
is
empowered
by
Section
8002(
n)
[
42
U.
S.
C.
69821,
to
invite
participation
by
other
agencies,
industry
and
the
public
and
to
review
studies
and
other
action
by
such
parties
"
as
he
deems
appropriate
.
.
.
with
a
view
toward
avoiding
duplication
of
effort."
The
statute
does
not,
however,
indicate
that
the
scope
of
the
Administrator's
study
is
to
be
limited
to
a
file
review
of
third­
party
data.
While
such
data
can
be
reviewed
in
order
to
minimize
duplication
of
"
effort,"
it
is
clear
that
the
Congress
contemplated
that
independent
effort
would
be
expended
by
EPA
in
order
to
produce
a
"
detailed
and
comprehensive
study"
of
the
consequences
of
management
and
disposal
of
material
generated
from
the
combustion
of
coal
and
other
fossil
fuels.
EPA
has
chosen
to
rely
almost
entirely
on
data
submitted
by
third
parties
to
support
an
assessment
of
whether
the
risks
associated
with
improper
disposal
warrant
such
effort,
yet
has
inexplicably
failed
to
acknowledge
the
full
range
of
evidence
of
groundwater
contamination
associated
with
current
CCW
disposal
practices.
(
NCCLP00282)

The
HEC
comments
outline
numerous
"
documented
cases
in
which
danger
to
human
health
or
the
environment"
has
been
demonstrated,
yet
the
agency
has
previously
rejected
that
information
because
of
the
absence
of
pre­
disposal
background.
Much
of
the
information
available
regarding
disposal
practices
may
not
conform
to
laboratory
protocols,
since
the
hodgepodge
of
state
controls
over
the
disposal
of
this
waste
results,
in
many
case,
in
disposal
without
proper
characterization
of
background
conditions
or
the
waste
stream
for
those
constituents
of
concern
present
in
this
waste.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
49
XIX
­
49
The
rejection
of
such
information
as
has
been
developed
demonstrating
contamination
because
of
questions
concerning
quality
control
or
background,
is
an
easy
but
inappropriate
response.
To
the
extent
that
EPA
determines
that
additional
"
background"
or
other
information
is
needed
regarding
any
studies
submitted
documenting
contamination,
it
is
obligated
to
secure
that
information
and
conduct
further
inquiry
rather
than
merely
discounting
the
information.
(
NCCLP00282)

The
lack
of
background,
characterization,
hydrologic
and
other
information
regarding
these
past
disposal
activities,
is
itself
is
a
product
of
uneven
and
inadequate
state
regulation
of
the
waste
stream,
and
speaks
volumes
of
the
need
for
establishment
of
a
federal
"
floor"
of
regulation
of
coal
combustion
wastes.
(
NCCLP00282)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
SIERRA00278)

EPA
should
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00256)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00256)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
VWI00258)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
VWI00258)

The
EPA
must
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
reiying
only
on
industry's
biased
reports,
report
all
cases
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
has
caused
ecological
damage.
(
CITZ00260)

I
am
very
concerned
by
the
fact
that
the
EPA
relied
heavily
on
the
cola
industry
as
a
primary
source
of
information
in
compiling
this
report,
and
not
enough
on
other
sources.
Rather
than
relying
on
the
blatantly­
biased
"
data"
provided
by
the
industry,
the
EPA
needs
to
uphold
its
duty
as
a
federal
agency
to
exercise
oversite
in
matters
such
as
these,
and
to
collect
its
own
data.
(
CITZ00261)

The
EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards,
or
has
caused
ecological
damage.
(
CITZ00261)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
50
XIX
­
50
EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00263)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00263)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00264)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00264)

Rather
than
rely
on
industry
biased
information,
EPA
should
gather
its
own
information
in
regard
to
CCW
contamination.
(
CITZ00265)

In
making
its
regulatory
determination,
EPA
should
consider
all
instances
in
which
CCW
contamination
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards.
Additionally,
EPA
should
rely
on
scientific
articles
and
reports,
which
document
exceedances,
which
have
led
to
ecological
damage
from
the
disposal
of
CCW.
(
CITZ00265)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
SAVV00266)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
SAVV00266)

The
EPA
should
be
attempting
to
use
its
own
resources
to
build
a
body
of
empirical
evidence
regarding
coal
combustion
wastes
(
CCW's)
rather
than
depending
on
outside
sources.
(
CITZ00267)

Any
documented
cases
of
CCW
contamination
should
be
carefully
examined
by
the
EPA
to
determine
their
impact
upon
drinking
water
and
fisheries.
(
CITZ00267)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination,
rather
than
relying
on
industry.
(
SOCM00279)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
has
caused
ecological
damage.
(
SOCM00279)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
51
XIX
­
51
EPA
relied
heavily
upon
the
very
industry
it
is
regulating
as
the
major
source
of
information
in
the
report
and
it
whitewashed
the
real
threats
posed
by
CCW
...
EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00284)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
advisories
and
drinking
water
standards
or
has
caused
ecological
damage.
(
CITZ00284)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
drinking
water
standards,
secondary
use
standards
or
health
advisory
levels
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
KYC00285)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
KYC00285)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00286)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
drinking
water
standards,
secondary
use
standards
or
health
advisory
levels
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00286)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
drinking
water
standards,
secondary
use
standards
or
health
advisory
levels
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00287)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00287)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
drinking
water
standards,
secondary
use
standards
or
health
advisory
levels
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00289)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00289)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
drinking
water
standards,
secondary
use
standards
or
health
advisory
levels
or
been
documented
in
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
52
XIX
­
52
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00290)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00290)

I
believe
that
EPA
should
...
Make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00291)

I
believe
that
EPA
should
...
Consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
advisories
and
drinking
water
standards
or
has
caused
ecological
damage.
(
CITZ00291)

Due
to
the
potential
long
term
impacts
of
CCW
burial
on
groundwater
quality
and
the
high
cost
in
terms
of
funds,
man­
power,
and
environmental
concerns
should
CCW's
be
proven
to
negatively
affect
aquifers
in
which
they're
buried,
I
encourage
EPA
to
research
or
obtain
needed
unbiased
data
from
independent
sources.
(
PURD00294)

The
EPA
must
develop
its
own
technical
background
information
and
not
rely
only
on
information
supplied
by
industry.
The
potential
for
toxins
in
the
waste
will
have
long­
term
detrimental
effects
not
only
on
our.
environment,
but
to
our
own
health
and
the
health
of
our
future
generations.
The
EPA
must
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards.
It
is
the
responsibility
of
the
EPA
to
make
an
unbiased
evaluation
of
all
of
the
technical
information
available.
(
TRI00295)

I
would
urge
you
to
collect
your
own
data
to
confirm
this.
It
would
certainly
be
unwise
to
rely
on
the
regulated
industry
for
information.
(
CITZ00303)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00311)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00311)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
as
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00312)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00312)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
53
XIX
­
53
EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00313)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00313)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00314)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00314)

I
urge
you
to
gather
information
on
Coal
Combustion
Wastes
from
independent
sources,
not
sources
paid
by
the
coal
industry.
(
CITZ00315)

I
also
urge
the
EPA
to
consider
a11
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
has
caused
ecological
damage.
(
CITZ00315)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00316)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00316)

I
have
been
informed
that
a
significant
amount
of
the
early
studies
were
based
on
data
supplied
by
the
studies
of
the
industries
who
would
benefit
the
most
from
improper
disposal
of
CCBs.
Your
decision
should
be,
obviously,
based
on
your
own
data.
The
information
from
industry
and
environmental
groups
should
be
taken
with
a
grain
of
salt
­
each
will
present
data
that
support
their
respective
views.
(
CITZ00317)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00318)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00318)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
54
XIX
­
54
EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00319)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00319)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00320)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00320)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00321)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00321)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00322)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00322)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00323)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00323)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00324)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00324)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
55
XIX
­
55
EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00325)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00325)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry
(
CITZ00326)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
wheke
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
heath
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00326)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
drinking
water
standards
(
state
&
federal)
have
been
exceeded
(
violated).
EPA
should
also
consider
documented
scientific
articles
that
cause
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00327)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00327)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00331)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00331)

It
is
also
imperative
that
the
EPA
not
depend
upon
industry
data
regarding
CCW
contamination.
There
is
a
likelihood
that
these
numbers
are
biased
in
the
favor
of
the
interests
of
polluters.
(
BUCK00333)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
drinking
water
standards,
secondary
use
standards
or
health
advisory
levels
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
NCSEA00334)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
NCSEA00334)

There
are
many
cases
where
CCW
had
caused
contamination
of
drinking
water
&
ecological
damage.
Please
conduct
a
diligent
literature
search
so
past
mistakes
can
be
avoided.
It
is
important
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
56
XIX
­
56
for
the
EPA
not
rely
solely
on
the
information
provided
by
industry,
as
it
is
difficult
for
anyone
to
provide
information
detrimental
to
their
own
benefit.
The
EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
review
information
from
other
sources
when
making
decisions
that
have
the
potential
to
impact
seriously
current
&
future
generations.
(
CITZ00335)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00336)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00336)

I
urge
you
to
gather
information
on
Coal
Combustion
Wastes
from
independent
sources,
not
sources
paid
by
the
coal
industry.
The
industry
is
famous
for
it's
bias,
slanted
and
carefully
crafted
designed
"
research"
that
would
pass
through
NO
peer
reviews
of
neutral
technical
or
scientific
experts.
Many
people,
homeowners,
farmers,
and
much
land
have
already
been
greatly
harmed
because
the
government
agencies
have
relied
on
this
kind
of
industry
"
research".
(
CITZ00337)

I
also
urge
the
EPA
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
has
caused
ecological
damage.
(
CITZ00337)

Likewise,
EPA
needs
to
do
an
independent
assessment
of
federal
and,
state
health
and
drinking
water
standards
to
learn
of
they
have
been
exceeded
due
to
CCW
contamination.
Also,
it
should
seriously
consider
scientific
literature
where
CCW
contamination
has
been
documented
as
causing
damage
to
the
ecology
of
the
areas
under
study.
(
CITZ00338)

I
strongly
believe
that,
in
making
its
regulatory
determination,
the
EPA
needs
to
do
an
independent
assessment
of
the
following:
1.
Those
cases
in
which
federal
and
state
health
and
drinking
water
standards
have
been
exceeded
due
to
CCW
contamination,
and
,
2.
Instances
in
the
scientific
literature
where
CCW
contamination
has
been
documented
as
causing
damage
to
the
ecology
of
the
areas
under
study.
(
CITZ00339)

I
wish
to
emphasize
my
belief
that
the
EPA
do
an
independent
study
instead
of
relying
on
data
supplied
by
corporate
interests.
Simply
put,
when
push
comes
to
shove,
I
do
not
trust
those
folks
to
put
the
long­
term
interest
of
the
public
above
the
short­
term
interests
of
the
bottom
line.
(
CITZ00339)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00340)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
57
XIX
­
57
EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00340)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00343)

EPA
shou!
d
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00343)

EPA
needs
to
constder
ail
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articfes
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00344)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00344)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00345)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gathe:
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00345)

Epa
should
gather
its
own
information
on
coal
combustion
waste
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00346)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
coal
combustion
waste
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
advisories
and
drinking
water
standards
or
has
caused
ecological
damage.
(
CITZ00346)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00348)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00348)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00349)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
58
XIX
­
58
EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00349)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00350)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00350)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00351)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00351)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00352)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00352)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00353)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00353)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00354)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00354)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00355)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
59
XIX
­
59
EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00355)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00356)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00356)

EPA
needs
to
consider
all
cases
in
which
contamination
from
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
examples
of
damage
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00357)

EPA
should
make
a
strong
effort
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
industry.
(
CITZ00357)

If
the
EPA
would
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
and
not
rely
on
information
supplied
by
industry,
there
would
be
a
completely
different
light
shed
on
the
amount
of
ground
water
contamination
caused
by
the
dumping
of
fossil
fuel
waste.
The
EPA
must
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded,
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
standards
as
well
as
the
documented
scientific
articles
that
show
ecological
damage,
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00360)

If
the
EPA
would
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
and
not
rely
on
information
supplied
by
industry,
there
would
be
a
completely
different
light
shed
on
the
amount
of
ground
water
contamination
caused
by
the
dumping
of
fossil
fuel
waste.
The
EPA
must
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded,
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
standards
as
well
as
the
documented
scientific
articles
that
show
ecological
damage,
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00361)

If
the
EPA
would
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
and
not
rely
on
information
supplied
by
industry,
there
would
be
a
completely
different
light
shed
on
the
amount
of
ground
water
contamination
caused
by
the
dumping
of
fossil
fuel
waste.
The
EPA
must
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded,
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
standards
as
well
as
the
documented
scientific
articles
that
show
ecological
damage,
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00362)

If
the
EPA
would
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
and
not
rely
on
information
supplied
by
industry,
there
would
be
a
completely
different
light
shed
on
the
amount
of
ground
water
contamination
caused
by
the
dumping
of
fossil
fuel
waste.
The
EPA
must
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded,
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
standards
as
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
60
XIX
­
60
well
as
the
documented
scientific
articles
that
show
ecological
damage,
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00363)

If
the
EPA
would
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
and
not
rely
on
information
supplied
by
industry,
there
would
be
a
completely
different
light
shed
on
the
amount
of
ground
water
contamination
caused
by
the
dumping
of
fossil
fuel
waste.
The
EPA
must
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded,
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
standards
as
well
as
the
documented
scientific
articles
that
show
ecological
damage,
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00364)

If
the
EPA
would
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
and
not
rely
on
information
supplied
by
industry,
there
would
be
a
completely
different
light
shed
on
the
amount
of
ground
water
contamination
caused
by
the
dumping
of
fossil
fuel
waste.
The
EPA
must
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded,
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
standards
as
well
as
the
documented
scientific
articles
that
show
ecological
damage,
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00365)

If
the
EPA
would
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
and
not
rely
on
information
supplied
by
industry,
there
would
be
a
completely
different
light
shed
on
the
amount
of
ground
water
contamination
caused
by
the
dumping
of
fossil
fuel
waste.
The
EPA
must
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded,
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
standards
as
well
as
the
documented
scientific
articles
that
show
ecological
damage,
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00366)

If
the
EPA
would
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination
and
not
rely
on
information
supplied
by
industry,
there
would
be
a
completely
different
light
shed
on
the
amount
of
ground
water
contamination
caused
by
the
dumping
of
fossil
fuel
waste.
The
EPA
must
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded,
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
standards
as
well
as
the
documented
scientific
articles
that
show
ecological
damage,
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
CITZ00367)

EPA
should
ensure
the
objectivity,
accuracy,
and
completeness
of
this
report
by
...
gathering
its
own
information
rather
than
relying
on
highly
biased
information
supplied
by
the
industry
and
state
agencies
which
behave
more
as
advocates
than
observers
...
considering
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage
as
damage
cases
in
its
regulatory
determination.
(
POW00369)

I
hope
the
EPA
will
strive
to
gather
its
own
information
on
CCW
contamination,
rather
than
relying
on
coal
company
information.
I
hope
the
EPA
will
consider
all
cases
of
contamination
where
CCW
has
exceeded
state
and
federal
health
and
drinking
water
standards
or
been
documented
in
scientific
articles
to
cause
ecological
damage.
(
CITZL0013)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
XX
­
1
XX.
ADEQUACY
OF
STATE
REGULATIONS
Many
industry
and
state
government
commenters
stated
that
EPA
presented
an
accurate
and
comprehensive
analysis
of
state
regulatory
controls
and
stated
that
existing
regulations
are
adequate.
Several
public
interest
group
commenters,
however,
believe
EPA's
analysis
to
be
inaccurate
and
expressed
concern
about
the
adequacy
of
state
regulations.
These
concerns
are
summarized
in
more
detail
below.
One
public
interest
group
commenter
provided
information
on
the
environmental
controls
in
place
at
surface
impoundments
in
Indiana
and
other
states.
Several
industry
commenters
and
state
government
provided
information
on
existing
state
requirements
as
evidence
of
the
adequacy
of
these
programs.

Response:
We
believe
that
state
programs
have,
in
fact,
substantially
improved
over
the
last
15
years
or
so,
as
evidenced
by
the
large
number
of
states
that
have
authority
to
impose
protective
management
standards
on
surface
impoundments
and
landfills,
especially
for
groundwater
monitoring,
liners,
and
leachate
collection,
which
mitigate
potential
risks
posed
by
these
units.
In
addition,
we
believe
that
the
trend
to
line
and
install
groundwater
monitoring
for
new
surface
impoundments
and
landfills
is
positive.
However,
as
some
commenters
noted,
we
acknowledge
that
our
state
program
review
looked
at
the
authorities
available
to
states
and
their
overall
regulatory
requirements,
not
the
specific
requirements
applied
to
any
given
facility,
which
could
be
more
or
less
stringent.
In
addition,
we
recognize
that
many
individual
state
programs
have
some
gaps
in
coverage,
as
indicated
below,
so
that
some
controls
may
not
now
be
required
at
coal
combustion
waste
impoundments
and
landfills.

One
consistent
trend
that
raises
concern
for
the
Agency,
and
was
identified
by
a
number
of
public
interest
commenters,
is
that
surface
impoundment
controls
occur
at
a
significantly
lower
rate
than
at
landfills.
Hydraulic
pressure
in
a
surface
impoundment
increases
the
likelihood
of
releases;
and
groundwater
monitoring,
at
a
minimum,
in
existing
as
well
as
new
impoundments,
is
a
reasonable
approach
to
monitor
performance
of
the
unit
and
a
critical
first
step
to
addressing
groundwater
damage
that
may
be
caused
by
the
unit.
Only
38
percent
of
currently
operating
utility
surface
impoundments
have
groundwater
monitoring
and
only
26
percent
have
liners.

While
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring
are
applied
more
frequently
at
landfills,
there
are
still
many
utility
and
non­
utility
landfills
that
do
not
have
liners.
In
addition,
15
percent
of
utility
landfills
do
not
have
groundwater
monitoring
and
some
small
proportion
of
non­
utility
landfills
do
not
have
groundwater
monitoring.

The
utility
industry
through
its
trade
associations
has
demonstrated
a
willingness
to
work
with
EPA
to
develop
protective
management
practices,
and
individual
companies
have
committed
to
upgrading
their
own
practices.
However,
the
Agency
recognizes
the
validity
of
the
comment
that
adherence
to
voluntary
programs
is
not
assured.
Also,
individual
facilities
and
companies
may
not
implement
protective
management
practices
and
controls,
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
in
spite
of
their
endorsement
by
industry­
wide
groups.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
2
XX
­
2
We
see
a
trend
toward
significantly
improving
state
programs
and
voluntary
industry
investment
in
liners
and
ground­
water
monitoring
that
we
believe
can
mitigate
potential
risks
over
time.
However,
we
identified
significant
gaps
in
controls
already
in
place
and,
in
particular,
requirements
that
may
be
lacking
in
some
states,
either
in
authority
to
impose
the
requirements
or
potentially
in
exercising
that
authority.
In
response
to
comments,
we
further
analyzed
risks
posed
by
coal
combustion
wastes
taking
into
account
waste
characteristics
and
potential
and
actual
damage
cases.
Based
on
these
analyses,
we
concluded
that
coal
combustion
wastes
have
the
potential
to
present
danger
to
human
health
and
the
environment
and
that
a
number
of
proven
damages
have
been
documented
and
that
more
are
likely
if
we
had
been
able
to
conduct
a
more
thorough
search
of
available
state
records
and
if
groundwater
monitoring
data
were
available
for
all
units.
We
recognize
that
there
will
probably
continue
to
be
some
gaps
in
practices
and
controls
and
are
concerned
at
the
possibility
that
these
will
go
unaddressed.
We
also
believe
that
the
timeframe
for
improvement
of
current
practices
is
likely
to
be
longer
in
the
absence
of
federal
regulations.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
XX
­
3
XX.
ADEQUACY
OF
STATE
REGULATIONS
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Practices
are
currently
subject
to
industry
best
management
practices
and
state
regulatory
controls
that
are
effective.
(
IEU00018)

we
agree
with
EPA's
determination
that:
°
The
electric
generation
industry
has
a
significant
level
of
installed
environmental
controls
for
managing
the
wastes
studied
in
the
Report;
°
The
majority
of
states
have
regulations
controlling
the
management
and
monitoring
of
ash
management;
(
PG&
E00023)

The
Department
has
worked
closely
with
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
in
implementing
the
[
Illinois
Environmental
Protection]
Act
and
in
our
opinion
the
steps
taken
by
Illinois
to
address
the
disposal
and
use
of
CCW
and
CCB
preclude
the
need
for
federal
regulations
in
this
area.
(
IDNR00023)

The
WRAG
would
like
to
affirm
the
majority
of
conclusions
in
the
Agency's
report
and
fully
supports
the
Agency's
position
that
continued
use
of
site
and
region
specific
approaches
by
states
is
more
appropriate
for
addressing
the
limited
health
and
environmental
risks
that
may
be
associated
with
the
wastes.
It
has
been
WRAG's
experience
that
state,
county
and
municipal
agencies
are
fully
cognizant
of
the
use
of
CCBs.
and.
provide
appropriate
oversight
of
these
activities.
As
each
county
or
municipality
has
land
use
regulations
or
ordinances,
these
local
agencies
are
best
equipped
to
determine
the
impact
non­
hazardous
waste
activities
have
on
their
areas.
(
WRAG00030)

Continued
use
of
site
and
region
specific
approaches
by
states
is
more
appropriate
for
addressing
the
limited
health
and
environmental
risks
that
may
be
associated
with
the
wastes.
It
has
been
our
experience
that
the
States
of
Colorado,
New
Mexico
and
Texas,
county
and
municipal
agencies
are
fully
cognizant
of
the
disposal
of
these
wastes
and
provide
appropriate
oversight
of
these
waste
activities.
As
each
county
or
municipality
has
land
use
regulations
or
ordinances,
these
local
agencies
are
best
equipped
to
determine
the
impact
non­
hazardous
waste
activities
have
on
their
areas.
Additionally,
state
solid
waste
regulations
clearly
identify
the
requirements
that
solid
waste
uses,
including
disposal,
must
meet
and
additional
regulatory
oversight
from
the
Agency
is
unnecessary.
(
NCE00031)

The
trend
among
electric
utilities
is
to
install
more
environmental
controls
at
waste
management
facilities,
including
liners,
covers,
and
groundwater
monitoring.
(
USWAG00037)

The
states
have
developed
a
comprehensive
body
of
regulations
applicable
to
the
waste
management
units
in
which
utilities
store
and
dispose
of
combustion
wastes.
(
USWAG00037)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
4
XX
­
4
EPA
presented
a
comprehensive
and
accurate
analysis
of
existing
regulatory
controls
applicable
to
co­
managed
combustion
waste
management
units.
(
USWAG00037)

The
RTC
demonstrated
that
the
states
in
which
OCW
management
units
are
located
typically
have
comprehensive
regulatory
programs
applicable
to
these
units.
(
USWAG00037)

APS
agrees
with
the
agency
that
FFC
waste
disposal
is
adequately
regulated
on
the
state
level.
(
APSC00043)

APS
believes
the
state
agencies
have
the
appropriate
regulatory
structure
in
place
to
effectively
manage
FFC
wastes,
(
APSC00043)

The
Agency
recognizes
the
states'
ability
to
regulate
FBC
ashes,
as
well
as
utility
and
non­
utility
ashes,
in
solid
waste
management's
units
...
States
have
the
ability
to
develop
effective
landfill,
mine
reclamation,
and
agricultural
programs.
These
programs
are
developed
within
each
state
and
can
best
reflect
their
unique
environmental
factors,
social
and
economic
needs.
It
appears
that
current
regulation
of
these
activities
is
more
than
adequate.
(
ISG00048)

Additionally,
MCC
feels
that
the
materials
discussed
in
the
March
1999
Document
are
properly
and
duly
regulated
at
the
State
level.
Any
attempt
to
impose
Federal
restrictions
over
and
above
what
the
States
already
impose
is
inappropriate
and
an
ill­
advised
attempt
to
implement
a
"
one
size
fits
all"
regulatory
approach
to
materials
that
are
as
varied
as
the
sources
producing
them.
(
MCC00051)

We
do
not
believe
there
is
any
need
to
develop
new
national
regulations
or
classifications
for
industrial
combustion
ash
or
by­
products
from
the
combustion
of
oil.
We
believe
current
regulations
and
State
management
programs
are
sufficient
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
(
CIBO00052)

Existing
state
and
federal
regulatory
programs
insure
the
proper
management
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes.
(
CIBO00052)

State
regulatory
programs
are
demonstrably
more
than
adequate
to
address
any
risks
posed
by
the
use
and
disposal
of
CCPs.
(
WVDEPL0003)

Extensive
federal
and
state
regulatory
programs
currently
in
place
adequately
protect
public
health
and
the
environment
from
risks
from
the
management
of
these
non­
hazardous
fossil
fuel
wastes.
(
PG&
E00274)

EPA
correctly
reported
in
the
Report
to
Congress
that
most
utility
industry
co­
management
occurs
in
surface
impoundments
and
landfills,
with
an
increasing
trend
toward
dry
landfill
management
of
co­
managed
combustion
wastes
as
well
as
a
clear
trend
among
these
units
to
increased
use
of
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
5
XX
­
5
environmental
controls
such
as
liners,
covers,
leachate
collection
systems,
and
groundwater
monitoring.
(
USWAG00275)

Agency
deference
to
regulation
exclusively
by
states,
based
on
alleged
trends
towards
state
management
practices
and
the
notion
that
state
programs
require
adequate
environmental
controls,
is
misplaced.
(
ALA00036)

Based
on
the
information
presented
by
EPA
in
the
Report,
the
existing
regulatory
controls
imposed
by
the
states
are
inadequate
in
terms
of
unit
coverage
and
stringency,
they
widely
variable
across
the
states
and
are
primarily
based
on
permitting
policies
and
not
enforceable
regulations.
(
ALA00036)

State
regulatory
efforts
are
extremely
weak.
(
HEC00056)

The
Report
has
little
discussion
of
requirements
actually
in
place
at
lagoons.
Its
general
inferences
about
those
requirements
and
the
retrofitting
of
lagoons,
based
once
again
on
information
from
EPRI,
appear
to
be
completely
mistaken.
(
HEC00056)

The
information
we
have
gathered
in
just
a
short
time
shows
little
if
any
real
protection
being
practiced
at
these
sites.
(
HEC00056)

The
Report's
conclusions
regarding
controls
are
inadequate
...
.
The
Agency
seems
willing
to
defer
to
state
regulation
of
co­
managed
FFC
wastes,
citing
trends
in
improvements
to
waste
management
facilities.
In
fact,
the
"
trends"
we
are
aware
of
show
that
few
if
any
improvements
have
been
made.
For
example,
in
25
years
there
has
been
only
a
10
percent
increase
in
the
use
of
lined
impoundments.
Fewer
than
one
percent
of
the
impoundments
have
leachate
collection
systems.
Furthermore,
the
Agency
admits
that
it
did
not
conduct
state
specific
analyses
to
determine
whether
states
are
adequately
exercising
their
authority
to
regulate
the
disposal
of
these
wastes.
(
49CAO00058)

The
information
provided
by
the
Hoosier
Environmental
Council
in
current
and
past
comments,
demonstrates
the
wide
variability
among
states
in
the
caliber
of
the
management
programs
for
coal
combustion
wastes.
(
NCCLP00282)

The
state
capacity
to
regulate
coal
combustion
waste
is
not
what
is
at
issue.
The
question
is,
quite
simply,
whether
the
wastes
are
being
properly
subject
to
those
controls,
and
the
answer
is
a
checkered
one,
depending
on
the
political
will
of
the
state
to
impose
controls.
EPA
cannot
avoid
a
determination
to
manage
such
wastes
by
identifying
the
possibility
of
state­
imposed
controls
(
or
other
federal
controls).
(
NCCLP00282)

State
programs
that
regulate
disposal
of
coal
combustion
wastes,
CCW,
and
other
fossil
fuel
wastes
are
grossly
insufficient,
particularly
with
respect
to
surface
impoundments.
(
HEC00332)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
6
XX
­
6
As
we
have
already
pointed
out,
most
large
scale
CCW
disposal
sites
have
no
ground
water
monitoring.
And
many
of
those
that
do
have
monitoring
provisions
are
only
analyzing
for
a
few
parameters
in
ground
waters
affected
by
CCW
...
Whole
classes
of
harmful
compounds
that
should
be
monitored
for
around
CCW
disposal
sites
are
not
being
monitored
for.
(
HEC00332)

The
statements
made
about
the
environmental
controls
at
CCW
surface
impoundments
in
section
3.3.4
of
the
Report
are
very
misleading.
(
HEC00332)

The
Report
to
Congress
assumed
that
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
and
the
setting
of
the
Total
Maximum
Daily
Loads
(
TMDLs)
adequately
protected
aquatic
life
in
receiving
waters.
However,
this
research
shows
that
that
is
not
the
case.
It
shows
that
ecological
damage
from
surface
impoundments
has
the
potential
of
being
a
much
larger
problem.
(
ALA00292)

Therefore,
since
(
1)
EPA
estimates
that
43%
of
the
landfills
and
74%
of
the
surface
impoundments
for
FFC
waste
are
unlined
(
Figure
3­
9
in
Report
to
Congress),
and
(
2)
according
to
EPA
analysis
ground
water
contamination
is
expected
to
occur
from
uncontrolled
WMUs,
then
unregulated
FFC
waste
pose
a
potentially
significant
threat
to
the
drinking
water
supplies
in
many
states.
Although
regulations
involving
the
siting,
construction,
and
monitoring
of
landfills
have
changed
dramatically,
it
is
important
to
note
that
past
practices
continue
to
cause
a
threat
to
ground
water
quality.
Landfills
and
surface
impoundments,
in
general,
have
been
identified
by
states
as
among
the
top
5
major
sources
of
ground
water
contamination.
(
ALA00292)

Although
regulations
involving
the
siting,
construction,
and
monitoring
of
landfills
have
changed
dramatically,
it
is
important
to
note
that
past
practices
continue
to
cause
a
threat
to
ground
water
quality.
Landfills
and
surface
impoundments,
in
general,
have
been
identified
by
states
as
among
the
top
5
major
sources
of
ground
water
contamination.
(
ALA00292)

The
effects
of
the
deregulation
of
electricity
sales
and
its
potential
to
promote
unacceptable
disposal
standards
among
the
states
are
not
recognized
or
addressed.
The
Report
fails
to
take
into
account
the
effect
that
an
open
competitive
market
in
electricity
sales
may
have
on
disparities
in
environmental
regulation
of
power
plant
wastes.
If
deregulation
of
electric
utilities
occurs,
utilities
in
states
with
responsible
disposal
standards
may
face
a
competitive
disadvantage
with
utilities
in
states
such
as
Indiana
that
allow
open
dumping
of
power
plant
wastes
into
drinking
water
supplies.
Without
federal
standards
to
create
a
level
playing
field,
state
may
face
great
pressure
to
relax
their
disposal
requirements
for
power
plant
wastes
in
order
to
give
their
utilities
a
competitive
advantage
in
selling
electricity
on
the
open
market.
Therefore
EPA
should
consider
the
effects
of
deregulation
on
state
programs
before
making
its
Final
Determination.
(
HEC00056)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
7
XX
­
7
XX.
ADEQUACY
OF
STATE
REGULATIONS
A.
Information
Provided
One
public
interest
group
commenter
provided
information
on
the
environmental
controls
in
place
at
surface
impoundments
in
Indiana
and
other
states.
Several
industry
and
state
government
commenters
provided
information
on
existing
state
requirements
as
evidence
of
the
adequacy
of
these
programs.

Response:
EPA
thanks
the
commenters
for
the
extensive
information
provided.
EPA
has
carefully
reviewed
this
information,
along
with
the
information
previously
collected
in
support
of
the
Report
to
Congress.
This
results
of
this
review
are
discussed
further
in
the
sub­
topic
responses
below.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
8
XX
­
8
XX.
ADEQUACY
OF
STATE
REGULATIONS
A.
Information
Provided
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Some
Indiana
CCP
landfill
sites
have
undergone
or
are
currently
undergoing
corrective
actions
on
either
a
voluntary
or
a
state
agency­
directed
basis.
These
corrective
actions
are
required
by
state
landfill
regulations
whenever
a
release
exceeds
background
concentrations.
In
some
instances
old
CCP
landfills
are
being
capped
or
leachate
is
being
collected
even
though
these
protective
measures
were
not
required
when
the
landfills
were
constructed.
Today,
any
new
construction
or
major
modification
of
CCP
landfill
is
subject
to
state
regulations
that
require
the
utilization
of
liners.
At
a
minimum,
all
Indiana
CCP
landfills
are
being
monitored
to
ensure
that
any
problems
are
identified
in
a
timely
manner.
In
Indiana,
the
groundwater
monitoring
wells
at
CCP
landfills
are
placed
within
50
feet
of
the
solid
waste
disposal
boundary
compared
to
the
150
meters
required
by
federal
Subtitle
D
regulations.
In
short,
Indiana
disposal
sites
are
in
full
compliance
with
applicable
state
and
federal
regulations
including,
when
appropriate,
corrective
action
requirements.
(
IEU00018)

The
following
regulations
control
oil
ash
management
activities
at
PG&
E
Gen
facilities
and
require
monitoring
and/
or
reporting
to
the
state:

Massachusetts
Site
Assignment
Regulations
(
required
for
siting
landfills)
Massachusetts
Solid
Waste
Regulations
Massachusetts
Groundwater
Discharge
Permit
Regulations
Massachusetts
Groundwater
Quality
Standards
Massachusetts
Contingency
Plan
Regulations
(
in
the
event
of
an
uncontrolled
release
to
the
environment).

Monitoring
wells
around
active
landfills
monitor
groundwater
quality
on
a
quarterly
basis.
(
see
the
solid
waste
regulations,
3
10
CMR
19.000).
Leachate
collection
is
required
for
landfills
because
PG&
E
Gen
has
disposal
units
(
double
lined
landfills).
Leachate
collection
is
not
required
for
impoundments.
(
Impoundments
are
treatment
structures,
not
disposal
facilities).
EPA
does
not
mention
that
in
Massachusetts,
there
are
groundwater
discharge
permit
regulations
controlling
unlined
impoundments
(
see
3
14
CMR
5.00).
In
addition,
Massachusetts
has
regulations
on
groundwater
quality
standards
(
see
3
14
CMR
6.00).
Finally,
Massachusetts
has
regulations
based
on
risk:
if
there
is
shown
to
be
an
unacceptable
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment,
then
actions
must
be
taken
to
mitigate
the
risk
(
Solid
Waste
Regulations,
3
10
CMR
19.000;
and
the
Massachusetts
Contingency
Plan,
3
10
CMR
40.0000).
(
PG&
E00023)

The
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
(
Act)
addresses
both
the
disposal
of
coal
combustion
waste
(
CCW)
and
the
beneficial
use
of
coal
combustion
byproducts
(
CCB).
It
defines
both
terms
and
stipulates
the
manner
in
which
each
may
either
be
disposed
of
or
used.
The
Act
requires
that
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
9
XX
­
9
CCB
not
exceed
Illinois'
Class
I
Groundwater
Standards
for
metals
and
that
it
not
be
mixed
with
hazardous
wastes
prior
to
use.
Concerning
CCW,
the
Act
requires
that
the
disposal
area
be
covered
and
vegetated,
be
protected
from
wind
and
water
erosion,
and
that
the
pH
will
be
maintained
so
as
to
prevent
excessive
leaching
of
metal
ions,
and
the
disposal
plan
adequately
protect
surface
water
and
ground
water
from
contamination.
(
IDNR00026)

APS
would
also
like
to
provide
additional
information
for
the
agency's
consideration
regarding
the
regulation
of
FFC
waste
disposal
in
Arizona.
The
State
of
Arizona
does
not
exempt
FFC
wastes
from
the
definition
of
a
solid
waste.
Consequently,
FFC
disposal
facilities
including
landfills
and
surface
impoundments
are
subject
to
state
solid
waste
regulations.
Arizona
has
also
established
a
complex
program
designed
to
protect
the
qualityof
groundwater
in
the
state.
The
Aquifer
Protection
Program
(
APP)
requires
a
permit
for
any
facility
with
a
potential
to
discharge
to
groundwater
including
landfills
and
surface
impoundments.
The
APP
program
establishes
a
"
point
of
compliance"
for
each
permitted
facility,
and
each
facility
is
required.
to
monitor
groundwater
quality
at
that
point.
In
addition,
each
permit
establishes
alert
levels,
reporting
requirements,
and
contingency
plans
that
must
be
implemented
in
the
event
of
a
violation.
(
APSC00043)

We
therefore
decided
to
conduct
a
survey
of
Indiana
surface
impoundments
to
determine
how
much
improvement
in
environmental
protection
at
these
facilities
has
been
made
...
We
are
gathering
our
information
from
both
the
National
Pollution
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permits
for
Indiana
surface
impoundments
and
the
state
inspectors
who
monitor
these
sites
...
We
can
locate
no
evidence
of
constructed
liners
or
ground
water
monitoring
at
any
of
the
surface
impoundments.
The
only
parameters
covered
by
the
NPDES
permits
that
had
regulated
limits
were
total
suspended
solids
(
TSS),
oil
and
grease,
and
pH.
Copper
and
iron
are
only
regulated
when
the
plant's
turbines
are
cleaned.
Boron,
which
an
Indiana
inspector
stated
should
be
expected
to
be
a
problem
almost
anywhere
you
store
coal
ash,
is
not
regulated
at
any
of
these
sites.
These
permits
are
also
not
categorized
in
an
accessible
form.
A
list
of
power
plant
surface
impoundments
is
not
even
available
at
the
Indiana
Department
of
Environmental
Management,
IDEM.
Gathering
information
about
these
sites
requires
hours
of
sorting
through
IDEM's
files
of
the
power
plants
in
Indiana.
(
HEC00056)

At
some
sites
other
parameters
are
monitored.
These
include
arsenic,
lead,
cadmium,
chromium,
and
zinc.
However,
there
are
no
enforceable
limits
on
any
of
these
contaminants
so
contamination
can
exceed
drinking
water
standards
by
several
times
with
no
action
being
taken.
Furthermore
the
permits
only
require
monitoring
to
be
done
for
these
parameters
for
six
to
twelve
months
from
the
beginning
of
the
permit.
Provisions
are
made
in
the
permit
to
set
limits
on
these
parameters
if
"
significant
quantities"
of
these
contaminants
are
found.
But
there
is
no
clarification
of
what
"
significant
quantities"
means,
and
IDEM's
permit
writers
within
the
Office
of
Water
Management
are
currently
under
strict
orders
not
to
modify
any
existing
permits.
For
the
past
few
years,
due
to
a
backlog
in
new
permits,
they
have
only
been
focusing
on
issuing
new
permits
...
We
have
tabularized
the
results
of
our
survey
to
date
as
follows
...
[
comment
provides
a
table
of
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
10
XX
­
10
impoundment
controls
at
surface
impoundments
in
Indiana]
...
One
site
on
the
table
is
of
special
note.
The
Michigan
City
impoundment
has
recorded
arsenic
levels
in
downgradient
groundwater
of
up
to
one
hundred
times
the
federal
drinking
water
standards.
Yet
arsenic
levels
are
not
monitored
for
at
this
site.
(
HEC00056)

In
the
past
six
weeks
HEC
has
conducted
a
state
by
state
survey
of
CCW
surface
impoundments
in
Ohio,
Kentucky,
Georgia,
Illinois,
Missouri,
Texas,
Iowa,
South
Carolina,
and
Alabama.
We
asked
each
state
how
many
sites
had
liners
and
groundwater
monitoring,
and
if
any
of
the
impoundments
had
a
history
of
contamination.
As
with
Indiana,
in
all
of
these
states
there
is
no
database
operated
by
the
relevent
regulatory
agency
showing
which
sites
are
lined
or
have
groundwater
monitoring.
Information
had
to
be
gathered
through
personal
knowledge
of
the
inspectors
of
each
site
or
our
contacts
within
each
state
examining
the
files.
Overall,
only
Illinois
appears
to
have
made
any
progress
towards
lined
surface
impoundments.
Of
the
ten
states
surveyed,
only
Illinois,
South
Carolina,
and
Alabama
have
established
groundwater
monitoring
at
most
of
their
impoundments.
Not
surprisingly,
all
nine
new
contamination
cases
that
we
are
turning
in
from
these
states
in
these
comments
are
occurring
at
surface
impoundments.
This
would
indicate
that
at
many
surface
impoundments
that
do
not
have
groundwater
monitoring,
groundwater
contamination
may
be
occurring
undetected.
Our
contact
in
the
Alabama
Department
of
Environmental
Management
was
told
by
one
of
his
staff
geologists
that
without
question
that
sites
without
a
liner
will
leach
metals
into
the
ground.
Brunning
et
al
(
1994)
also
states
in
reference
to
CCW
disposal
sites
"
any
failure
of
confinement
technologies
at
disposal
sites
would
adversely
affect
both
the
chemistry
and
microbiology
of
the
underlying
saturated
zone."
(
see
attachment
1)
(
HEC00056)

The
EPA's
draft
Report
declares
that
the
movement
from
unlined
to
lined
impoundments
is
concentrated
in
Georgia,
Illinois,
Indiana,
Kentucky,
Missouri,
and
Texas
and
that
all
surface
impoundments
in
these
states
built
after
1982
have
liners.
Yet
in
the
case
of
Texas,
the
Natural
Resource
Conservation
Commission
does
not
require
a
regulatory
permit
for
any
onsite
CCW
disposal
facility.
In
Georgia
and
Indiana,
no
surface
impoundments
have
been
built
since
1982,
and
none
of
the
impoundments
in
these
states
are
lined.
Kentucky
regulators
know
of
no
lined
lagoons
on
their
state,
and
Kentucky
law
requires
no
groundwater
monitoring
at
lagoons.
In
Missouri,
two
new
surface
impoundments
are
lined.
However,
Missouri
law
only
allows
surface
impoundments
as
storage
for
CCW,
and
liners
are
not
required.
Liners
were
installed
at
these
two
sites
by
a
utility
attempting
to
gain
permanent
disposal
sites
...
[
comment
provides
several
pages
summarizing
state
regulatory
controls
at
impoundments].
(
HEC00332)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
11
XX
­
11
XX.
ADEQUACY
OF
STATE
REGULATIONS
B.
Characterization
of
State
Regulations
Incomplete
or
Inaccurate
A
public
interest
group
commenter
argued
that
EPA's
analysis
of
state
regulations
was
founded
only
on
whether
the
states
have
the
capacity
to
regulate
FFC
wastes
and
should
have
considered
whether
the
wastes
are
being
properly
subjected
to
the
controls.
Several
other
public
interest
group
commenters
stated
that
EPA's
investigation
of
state
regulations
was
insufficient
because
it
covered
only
a
few
states
in
detail.
The
commenters
also
stated
that
the
presentation
of
trends
in
state
regulation
and
environmental
controls
in
management
units
was
incorrect,
misleading,
or
overly
generous.
One
industry
commenter,
on
the
other
hand,
argued
that
the
Agency
accurately
characterized
a
trend
toward
dry
landfill
management
and
toward
increased
use
of
environmental
controls.
Another
industry
commenter
stated
that
EPA's
characterization
of
Massachusetts'
regulations
was
incomplete.
The
commenter
stated
that
the
State's
regulation
of
its
facilities
are
more
stringent
than
characterized
by
EPA.

Response:
The
Agency
believes
that
its
investigation
of
state
regulations
was
sufficiently
complete
and
adequate
to
support
its
regulatory
determination.
Survey
data
were
available
for
nearly
all
50
states.
The
case
study
states
reviewed
in
detail
by
EPA
represent
from
20
to
60
percent
of
electrical
generating
capacity
depending
on
the
FFC
waste
sector.
EPA's
characterization
of
surface
impoundment
regulatory
requirements
is
based
on
two
independent
surveys
of
requirements
in
a
number
of
states
(
50
states
were
surveyed
by
the
Association
of
State
and
Territorial
Solid
Waste
Management
Officials,
30
states
were
surveyed
by
the
Council
of
Industrial
Boiler
Owners)
and
information
for
more
than
100
surface
impoundments
provided
in
an
industry
survey.
EPA's
characterization
of
regulatory
requirements
in
the
10
states
surveyed
by
the
commenter
does
not
differ
dramatically
from
the
commenter's
characterization.
Both
characterizations
show
that
these
10
states
require
controls
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.

As
commenters
noted,
we
acknowledge
that
our
state
program
reviews
looked
at
the
authorities
available
to
states
and
their
overall
regulatory
requirements,
not
the
specific
requirments
applied
to
any
given
facility,
which
may
be
more
or
less
stringent.
In
addition,
while
we
believe
that
there
is
a
positive
trend,
both
in
the
protectiveness
and
level
of
coverage
of
state
programs
and
in
the
application
of
controls
at
individual
units,
we
agree
the
trends
cannot
be
looked
at
separately
from
the
larger
picture
of
how
many
facilities
actually
apply
controls.

We
found
that
more
than
40
states
have
the
authority
to
require
liners
and
ground­
water
monitoring
at
surface
impoundments
and
landfills.
We
also
found
the
following:

°
Of
20
surface
impoundments
opened
since
1985,
65
percent
monitor
ground
water,
60
percent
have
liners
and
ground­
water
performance
standards,
and
5
percent
have
leachate
collection
systems;
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
12
XX
­
12
°
Of
34
landfills
opened
since
1985,
88
percent
monitor
ground
water,
85
percent
have
ground­
water
performance
standards,
75
percent
have
liners
and
56
percent
have
leachate
collection.

We
agree
that
we
must
also
take
into
account
the
less
positive
trend
that
over
a
20­
25
year
period,
as
some
commenters
pointed,
out
ground­
water
monitoring
and
the
use
of
liners
at
utility
surface
impoundments
has
increased
only
about
ten
percent.
There
is
sufficient
evidence
that
there
are
and
are
likely
to
continue
to
be
gaps
in
the
protective
controls
that
are
actually
applied
at
these
units.

As
we
weighed
all
the
information
that
was
available
to
us
on
the
coverage
of
and
improvements
in
state
programs,
controls
currently
in
place
at
units,
and
the
actual
and
potential
damages
that
may
be
associated
with
coal
combustion
wastes,
we
are
concerned
that
the
timeframe
for
improvement
is
likely
to
be
considerably
longer
in
the
absence
of
federal
regulations.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
13
XX
­
13
XX.
ADEQUACY
OF
STATE
REGULATIONS
B.
Characterization
of
State
Regulations
Incomplete
or
Inadequate
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA
mentioned
numerous
state
and
federal
regulations
pertaining
to
electric
generating
facilities,
yet
not
all
of
the
regulations
pertaining
to
ash
management
in
Massachusetts
were
described
or
listed
in
this
section
...
Clearly,
these
activities
are
closely
regulated
by
appropriate
agencies
that
know
and
understand
the
regional
issues,
geologic
setting,
and
hydrogeology.
(
PG&
E00023)

EPA
presented
a
comprehensive
and
accurate
analysis
of
existing
regulatory
controls
applicable
to
co­
managed
combustion
waste
management
units.
(
USWAG00037)

The
Agency
cites
"
trends"
in
liner
use
at
manages.
lent
units,
yet
examination
of
the
data
presented
(
in
only
graphical,
not
tabular
form
­
see
figure
3­
8)
reveals
that
over
a
35
year
period,
there
has
been
only
a
2.5
percent
increase
in
liners
at
landfills
and
barely
a
ten
percent
increase
in
liners
at
impoundments.
In
addition,
the
EPRI
survey
indicates
that
there
is
no
trend
towards
using
leachate
collection
systems
in
new
units
compared
to
old
units.
The
end
result
of
this
supposed
increased
oversight
by
state
agencies
is
that
less
than
one
percent
of
the
impoundments
have
leachate
collection
systems,
only
25
percent
of
impoundments
are
lined,
and
only
one­
half
of
landfills
are
lined...
As
discussed
below,
most
state
programs
have
generous
grandfather
clauses
for
older
management
units
and
as
a
result
are
unlikely
to
cover
the
units
that
present
the
most
risk.
(
ALA00036)

Section
3.3.4
cites
data
from
an
EPRI
survey
regaing
state
environmental
controls.
The
data
as
presented
are
misleading
because
only
the
results
of
the
surveyed
facilities
are
presented,
and
no
caveat
is
given
as
to
how
many
facilities
these
data
represent.
For
example,
page
3­
34
states
that
"
85
percent
of
landfills
have
groundwater
monitoring."
This
should
state
thnt
85
percent
of
the
surveyed
facilities
have
groundwater
monitoring,
but
the
surveyed
facilities
account
for
less
than
25
percent
of
the
population
of
management
units.
Given
the
variability
in
state
programs,
these
data
can
hardly
be
considered
representative.
This
type
of
misleading
presentation
is
found
throughout
the
Report.
(
ALA00036)

The
Report
has
little
discussion
of
requirements
actually
in
place
at
lagoons.
Its
general
inferences
about
those
requirements
and
the
retrofitting
of
lagoons,
based
once
again
on
information
from
EPRI,
appear
to
be
completely
mistaken.
(
HEC00056)

Section
3.3.4
(
pages
3­
28)
of
the
Report
presents
the
impression
that
CCW
surface
impoundments
around
the
country
are
improving
because
state
programs
are
becoming
more
effective
at
regulating
this
waste,
and
utilities
are
voluntarily
practicing
safer
disposal
methods.
The
EPA
appears
to
base
much
of
the
belief
that
improvements
are
occurring
on
a
survey
conducted
by
the
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
14
XX
­
14
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
(
EPRI)
of
surface
impoundments
around
the
country.
The
survey
found
that
all
impoundments
in
Georgia,
Illinois,
Indiana,
Kentucky,
Missouri,
and
Texas
built
after
1982
are
lined.
This
statement
creates
a
false
picture
that
the
power
industry
is
making
steady
improvements
in
its
storage
of
CCW
in
surface
impoundments.
However,
the
large
majority
of
impoundments
currently
being
used
were
built
before
1982.
The
sites
built
since
1982
only
account
for
a
ten
percent
increase
in
the
total
number
of
surface
impoundments
that
are
lined.
While
the
evidence
of
the
potential
problems
from
surface
impoundments
has
been
growing
for
many
years,
three
fourths
of
all
surface
impoundments
still
remain
unlined.
(
HEC00056)

The
Report's
conclusions
regarding
controls
are
inadequate
...
.
The
Agency
seems
willing
to
defer
to
state
regulation
of
co­
managed
FFC
wastes,
citing
trends
in
improvements
to
waste
management
facilities.
In
fact,
the
"
trends"
we
are
aware
of
show
that
few
if
any
improvements
have
been
made.
For
example,
in
25
years
there
has
been
only
a
10
percent
increase
in
the
use
of
lined
impoundments.
Fewer
than
one
percent
of
the
impoundments
have
leachate
collection
systems.
Furthermore,
the
Agency
admits
that
it
did
not
conduct
state
specific
analyses
to
determine
whether
states
are
adequately
exercising
their
authority
to
regulate
the
disposal
of
these
wastes.
(
49CAO00058)

The
state
capacity
to
regulate
coal
combustion
waste
is
not
what
is
at
issue.
The
question
is,
quite
simply,
whether
the
wastes
are
being
properly
subject
to
those
controls,
and
the
answer
is
a
checkered
one,
depending
on
the
political
will
of
the
state
to
impose
controls.
EPA
cannot
avoid
a
determination
to
manage
such
wastes
by
identifying
the
possibility
of
state­
imposed
controls
(
or
other
federal
controls).
(
NCCLP00282)

The
EPA's
draft
Report
declares
that
the
movement
from
unlined
to
lined
impoundments
is
concentrated
in
Georgia,
Illinois,
Indiana,
Kentucky,
Missouri,
and
Texas
and
that
all
surface
impoundments
in
these
states
built
after
1982
have
liners.
Yet
in
the
case
of
Texas,
the
Natural
Resource
Conservation
Commission
does
not
require
a
regulatory
permit
for
any
onsite
CCW
disposal
facility.
In
Georgia
and
Indiana,
no
surface
impoundments
have
been
built
since
1982,
and
none
of
the
impoundments
in
these
states
are
lined.
Kentucky
regulators
know
of
no
lined
lagoons
on
their
state,
and
Kentucky
law
requires
no
groundwater
monitoring
at
lagoons.
In
Missouri,
two
new
surface
impoundments
are
lined.
However,
Missouri
law
only
allows
surface
impoundments
as
storage
for
CCW,
and
liners
are
not
required.
Liners
were
installed
at
these
two
sites
by
a
utility
attempting
to
gain
permanent
disposal
sites.
(
HEC00332)

The
EPA
report
discusses
a
move
toward
better
environmental
regulation
being
carried
out
by
the
states,
yet
one
of
the
states
generating
the
largest
volumes
of
UCCW
which
has
experienced
substantial
damages
from
UCCW
has
moved
toward
no
environmental
regulation
of
UCCW.
(
HEC00332)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
15
XX
­
15
In
the
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
(
EPRI)
survey
which
is
quoted
in
the
Report,
only
41
percent
of
the
total
sites
reporting
are
lined
and
three
fourths
of
surface
impoundments
are
unlined.
Furthermore,
despite
their
high
potential
to
contaminate
groundwater,
only
38%
of
surface
impoundments
had
groundwater
monitoring
systems
as
of
1995.
This
amounts
to
a
rise
of
less
than
10%
in
the
number
of
impoundments
that
reportedly
monitor
groundwater
over
the
number
that
monitored
groundwater
twenty
years
previously
according
to
the
EPRI
survey
(
see
figure
3­
11
in
the
Report).
This
reality
contrasts
starkly
with
the
assertion
in
the
text
on
page
3­
34
of
the
Report.
(
HEC00332)

The
statements
made
about
the
environmental
controls
at
CCW
surface
impoundments
in
section
3.3.4
of
the
Report
are
very
misleading.
The
Report
discusses
a
trend
toward
lined
landfills,
but
failed
to
mention
the
move
toward
mine
disposal
sites
that
would
offset
this
trend
particularly
if
the
move
toward
deregulation
of
electricity
sales
continues
in
the
utility
industry.
(
HEC00332)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
16
XX
­
16
XX.
ADEQUACY
OF
STATE
REGULATIONS
C.
Adequacy
of
Regulations
Public
interest
group
commenters
stated
that
state
regulations
provide
inadequate
control
of
risks
because
they
do
not
universally
require
liners,
leachate
collection
systems,
and
ground­
water
monitoring.
As
evidence
of
inadequate
regulation,
some
of
the
commenters
pointed
to
the
presence
of
grandfather
clauses
for
older
management
units,
the
imposition
of
controls
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
failure
to
monitor
for
polycyclic
aromatic
hydrocarbons
and
radionuclides,
and
"
blurred
lines
of
authority"
within
state
programs.
Also
of
particular
concern
was
an
apparent
lack
of
controls
on
surface
impoundments.
One
of
the
commenters
also
stated
that
the
Report
incorrectly
assumed
that
TMDLs
under
the
NPDES
program
adequately
protect
aquatic
life.

Industry
and
state
government
commenters,
on
the
other
hand,
stated
that
state
regulations
are
adequate
and
that
additional
federal
regulation
would
limit
states'
ability
to
address
sitespecific
concerns.
One
of
these
commenters
pointed
to
the
frequency
of
corrective
actions
and
liner
requirements
as
evidence
that
state
regulations
are
adequate.

Response:
The
Agency
believes
that
it
is
appropriate
for
states
to
retain
some
flexibility
in
addressing
site­
specific
circumstances
that
may
affect
the
appropriate
controls
needed
for
that
site,
as
long
as
the
state
is
applying
certain
standards
of
protectiveness.
We
believe
that
national
regulations
can
be
developed
in
such
a
way
to
ensure
a
standard
of
protection,
while
providing
some
flexibility.
We
see
a
trend
toward
significantly
improving
state
programs
that
we
believe
can
mitigate
potential
risks
over
time.
However,
we
identified
significant
gaps
in
controls
already
in
place
and,
in
particular,
requirements
that
may
be
lacking
in
some
states,
either
in
authority
to
impose
the
requirements
or
potentially
in
exercising
that
authority.
Considering
these
gaps,
along
with
the
potential
to
present
danger
to
human
health
and
the
environment,
we
are
concerned
at
the
possibility
that
gaps
may
go
unaddressed
and
that
the
timeframe
for
improvement
of
current
practices
is
likely
to
be
longer
in
the
absence
of
federal
regulations.

The
Agency
collected
samples
of
coal
combustion
wastes
in
support
of
its
effluent
limitations
guidelines
for
the
steam
electric
power
point
source
category
(
Oct.
19,
1982)
and
analyzed
them
for
organic
compounds,
including
polycyclic
aromatic
hydrocarbons
(
PAH),
among
other
types
of
analytes.
These
data
were
also
used
to
formulate
this
regulatory
determination.
Basically,
EPA
found
in
1982
that
levels
of
PAH
in
these
wastes
were
either
below
detection
limits
or
else
were
present
in
only
a
limited
number
of
samples
which
indicated
that
they
are
not
commonly
present
in
these
types
of
wastes.
For
its
conclusions
regarding
radionuclides,
EPA
relied
on
information
and
scientific
studies
that
were
conducted
and
published
by
EPA
and
others
prior
to
issuance
of
the
RTC
(
discussed
on
pp.
3­
17
and
3­
18
of
the
RTC
and
in
section
XIII
of
this
document),
which
adequately
addresses
this
subject.

XX.
ADEQUACY
OF
STATE
REGULATIONS
C.
Adequacy
of
Regulations
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
17
XX
­
17
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
Practices
are
currently
subject
to
industry
best
management
practices
and
state
regulatory
controls
that
are
effective.
(
IEU00018)

Some
Indiana
CCP
landfill
sites
have
undergone
or
are
currently
undergoing
corrective
actions
on
either
a
voluntary
or
a
state
agency­
directed
basis.
These
corrective
actions
are
required
by
state
landfill
regulations
whenever
a
release
exceeds
background
concentrations.
In
some
instances
old
CCP
landfills
are
being
capped
or
leachate
is
being
collected
even
though
these
protective
measures
were
not
required
when
the
landfills
were
constructed.
Today,
any
new
construction
or
major
modification
of
CCP
landfill
is
subject
to
state
regulations
that
require
the
utilization
of
liners.
At
a
minimum,
all
Indiana
CCP
landfills
are
being
monitored
to
ensure
that
any
problems
are
identified
in
a
timely
manner.
In
Indiana,
the
groundwater
monitoring
wells
at
CCP
landfills
are
placed
within
50
feet
of
the
solid
waste
disposal
boundary
compared
to
the
150
meters
required
by
federal
Subtitle
D
regulations.
In
short,
Indiana
disposal
sites
are
in
full
compliance
with
applicable
state
and
federal
regulations
including,
when
appropriate,
corrective
action
requirements.
(
IEU00018)

We
agree
with
EPA's
determination
that:
°
The
electric
generation
industry
has
a
significant
level
of
installed
environmental
controls
for
managing
the
wastes
studied
in
the
Report;
°
The
majority
of
states
have
regulations
controlling
the
management
and
monitoring
of
ash
management;
(
PG&
E00023)

EPA
mentioned
numerous
state
and
federal
regulations
pertaining
to
electric
generating
facilities,
yet
not
all
of
the
regulations
pertaining
to
ash
management
in
Massachusetts
were
described
or
listed
in
this
section
...
Clearly,
these
activities
are
closely
regulated
by
appropriate
agencies
that
know
and
understand
the
regional
issues,
geologic
setting,
and
hydrogeology.
(
PG&
E00023)

PG&
E
Gen's
comments
document
extensive
and
ongoing
regulatory
scrutiny
of
both
its
facilities,
including
monitoring
requirements.
(
PG&
E00023)

The
Department
has
worked
closely
with
`
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
in
implementing
the
[
Illinois
Environmental
Protection]
Act
and
in
our
opinion
the
steps
taken
by
Illinois
to
address
the
disposal
and
use
of
CCW
and
CCB
preclude
the
need
for
federal
regulations
in
this
area.
(
IDNR00023)

The
WRAG
would
like
to
affirm
the
majority
of
conclusions
in
the
Agency's
report
and
fully
supports
the
Agency's
position
that
continued
use
of
site
and
region
specific
approaches
by
states
is
more
appropriate
for
addressing
the
limited
health
and
environmental
risks
that
may
be
associated
with
the
wastes.
It
has
been
WRAG's
experience
that
state,
county
and
municipal
agencies
are
fully
cognizant
of
the
use
of
CCBs.
and.
provide
appropriate
oversight
of
these
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
18
XX
­
18
activities.
As
each
county
or
municipality
has
land
use
regulations
or
ordinances,
these
local
agencies
are
best
equipped
to
determine
the
impact
non­
hazardous
waste
activities
have
on
their
areas.
(
WRAG00030)

Continued
use
of
site
and
region
specific
approaches
by
states
is
more
appropriate
for
addressing
the
limited
health
and
environmental
risks
that
may
be
associated
with
the
wastes.
It
has
been
our
experience
that
the
States
of
Colorado,
New
Mexico
and
Texas,
county
and
municipal
agencies
are
fully
cognizant
of
the
disposal
of
these
wastes
and
provide
appropriate
oversight
of
these
waste
activities.
As
each
county
or
municipality
has
land
use
regulations
or
ordinances,
these
local
agencies
are
best
equipped
to
determine
the
impact
non­
hazardous
waste
activities
have
on
their
areas.
Additionally,
state
solid
waste
regulations
clearly
identify
the
requirements
that
solid
waste
uses,
including
disposal,
must
meet
and
additional
regulatory
oversight
from
the
Agency
is
unnecessary.
(
NCE00031)

The
trend
among
electric
utilities
is
to
install
more
environmental
controls
at
waste
management
facilities,
including
liners,
covers,
and
groundwater
monitoring.
(
USWAG00037)

Most
utility
industry
co­
management
occurs
in
surface
impoundments
and
landfills,
with
an
increasing
trend
toward
dry
landfill
management
of
co­
managed
combustion
wastes.
EPA
identified
a
clear
trend
among
these
units
to
increased
use
of
environmental
controls
such
as
liners,
covers,
leachate
collection
systems,
and
groundwater
monitoring.
This
is
the
result
of
several
factors:
(
1)
changes
in
state
regulatory
requirements;
(
2)
requirements
imposed
by
state
permit
writers
on
an
ad
hoc
basis;
and
(
3)
voluntary
action
by
individual
utility
companies
as
old
units
are
taken
out
of
service
and
replaced
by
modern
state­
of­
the­
art
waste
management
units.
Thus,
as
of
1995,
more
than
50%
of
all
landfills
and
more
than
25%
of
all
impoundments
at
which
utility
combustion
waste
co­
management
occurs
were
lined,
and
as
older
units
are
closed
or
removed
from
service,
the
trend
toward
greater
environmental
controls
is
likely
to
accelerate.
(
USWAG00037)

The
states
have
developed
a
comprehensive
body
of
regulations
applicable
to
the
waste
management
units
in
which
utilities
store
and
dispose
of
combustion
wastes.
(
USWAG00037)

There
is
no
point
in
restating
the
complex
array
of
state
regulations
that
EPA
surveyed
in
the
RTC,
but
the
significance
of
this
information
is
that
both
EPA
and
the
states
have
adopted
wide
ranging
regulatory
requirements
that
apply
to
these
management
units
under
federal
and
state
air,
water
and
solid
waste
programs.
(
USWAG00037)

The
RTC
demonstrated
that
the
states
in
which
OCW
management
units
are
located
typically
have
comprehensive
regulatory
programs
applicable
to
these
units.
A
majority
of
states
have
permit
programs,
as
well
as
authority
to
impose
regulatory
requirements
pertaining
to
siting,
liners,
leachate
collection,
groundwater
monitoring,
closure,
daily
cover,
and
fugitive
dust
controls
...
The
crucial
point
is
that
OCW
management
is
actively
regulated
by
the
states.
(
USWAG00037)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
19
XX
­
19
The
agency
concluded,
"
current
management
practices
and
trends
and
existing
state
and
federal
authorities
appear
adequate
for
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment."
APS
agrees
with
the
agency
that
FFC
waste
disposal
is
adequately
regulated
on
the
state
level.
(
APSC00043)

APS
believes
the
state
agencies
have
the
appropriate
regulatory
structure
in
place
to
effectively
manage
FFC
wastes.
(
APSC00043)

The
Agency
recognizes
the
states'
ability
to
regulate
FBC
ashes,
as
well
as
utility
and
non­
utility
ashes,
in
solid
waste
management's
units
...
States
have
the
ability
to
develop
effective
landfill,
mine
reclamation,
and
agricultural
programs.
These
programs
are
developed
within
each
state
and
can
best
reflect
their
unique
environmental
factors,
social
and
economic
needs.
It
appears
that
current
regulation
of
these
activities
is
more
than
adequate.
(
ISG00048)

Additionally,
MCC
feels
that
the
materials
discussed
in
the
March
1999
Document
are
properly
and
duly
regulated
at
the
State
level.
Any
attempt
to
impose
Federal
restrictions
over
and
above
what
the
States
already
impose
is
inappropriate
and
an
ill­
advised
attempt
to
implement
a
"
one
size
fits
all"
regulatory
approach
to
materials
that
are
as
varied
as
the
sources
producing
them.
(
MCC00051)

We
do
not
believe
there
is
any
need
to
develop
new
national
regulations
or
classifications
for
industrial
combustion
ash
or
by­
products
from
the
combustion
of
oil.
We
believe
current
regulations
and
State
management
programs
are
sufficient
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment.
(
CIBO00052)

Existing
state
and
federal
regulatory
programs
insure
the
proper
management
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
wastes.
(
CIBO00052)

State
regulatory
programs
are
demonstrably
more
than
adequate
to
address
any
risks
posed
by
the
use
and
disposal
of
CCPs.
(
WVDEPL0003)

Extensive
federal
and
state
regulatory
programs
currently
in
place
adequately
protect
public
health
and
the
environment
from
risks
from
the
management
of
these
non­
hazardous
fossil
fuel
wastes.
(
PG&
E00274)

EPA
correctly
reported
in
the
Report
to
Congress
that
most
utility
industry
co­
management
occurs
in
surface
impoundments
and
landfills,
with
an
increasing
trend
toward
dry
landfill
management
of
co­
managed
combustion
wastes
as
well
as
a
clear
trend
among
these
units
to
increased
use
of
environmental
controls
such
as
liners,
covers,
leachate
collection
systems,
and
groundwater
monitoring.
(
USWAG00275)

Based
on
the
information
presented
by
EPA
in
the
Report,
the
existing
regulatory
controls
imposed
by
the
states
are
inadequate
in
terms
of
unit
coverage
and
stringency,
they
widely
variable
across
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
20
XX
­
20
the
states
and
are
primarily
based
on
permitting
policies
and
not
enforceable
regulations.
The
following
examples
illustrate
these
points:

°
Most
environmental
control
requirements
are
imposed
by
states
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
On
page
3­
29,
the
Report
states
that
"
therefore
if
the
trend
in
liner
usage
is
driven
by
regulatory
agencies
in
these
states,
ir
appears
to
result
from
a
change
in
permitting
policies
rather
than
written
regulations."
The
EPA
should
not
consider
permitting
policies
to
be
"
adequate
regulatory
control"
and
does
not
to
so
under
any
other
federal
environmental
program
unless
the
pemlitting
process
(
and
individual
permits)
have
been
approved
(
e.
g.,
air
programs).

°
Most
management
units
surveyed
operate
under
an
environmental
permit.
However,
"
information
on
the
degree
of
protection
afforded
by
these
permits
was
not
collected
in
the
EPRI
survey."
The
EPA
should
not
be
relying
on
industry
surveys
of
state
regulatory
agencies
and
should
collect
in
formation
independently
to
determine
the
stringency
of
such
permit
programs
and
the
extent
of
their
coverage.(
ALA00036)

In
terms
of
what
the
states
actually
do
or
do
not
require,
the
Report
reveals
the
following:

°
Most
states
do
not
impose
specific
requirements
for
groundwater
monitoring
of
impoundments.

°
More
than
twice
as
many
landfills
surveyed
were
sub.
ject
to
groundwater
performance
standards
compared
to
impoundments.
However,
despite
of
being
"
subject"
to
these
standards,
almost
10
percent
of
the
landfills
and
fully
one­
half
of
the
impoundments
are
not
required
to
monitor
the
groundwater.
The
EPA
correctly
notes
that
"
therefore
it
is
unlikely
that
exceedences
would
be
detected
at
these
facilities."
°
Based
on
examination
of
permitting
programs
at
five
states,
the
EPA
concludes
that
use
of
leachate
collection
systems,
groundwater
monitoring,
and
regulatory
permits
has
a
"
high
rate
of
implementation
at
landfills,"
and
"
significant
implementation"
at
impoundments.
This
appears
to
be
a
generous
appraisal
of
these
programs.
A
close
examination
of
these
five
state
programs
(
see
pg
3­
60
and
the.
ASTSWMO
survey)
reveals
that
while
all
five
appear
to
require
operating
permits,
only
two
of
five
require
Ieachate
collection
and/
or
groundwater
monitoring
at
impoundments
and
only
three
of
five
require
these
controls
at
landfills.
This
is
neither
a
"
high
rate
of
implementation"
nor
a
"
significant
rate
of
implementation."

°
In
addition,
the
five
state
programs
examined
by
EPA
each
have
generous
grandfather
clauses
that
typically
exempt
older
existing
units.
This
is
likely
to
also
be
true
of
other
state
programs.
This
aspect
of
the
state
programs
needs
to
be
investigated
by
EPA.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
21
XX
­
21
°
The
ASTSWMO
survey
of
state
programs
asked
the
two
following
questions:
Do
the
states
require
generators
to
submit
regular
reports
addressing
the
quantities
of
waste
generated:
and
Do
the
states
require
regular
reports
adressing
the
location
of
the
storage,
treatment,
and
disposal
(
i.
e.,
management)
facilities?
Forty­
three
states
answered
both
of
these
questions
"
no"
and
seven
answered
"
yes."
Therefore,
it
appears
that
state
programs
know
little
or
nothing
about
how
much
waste
is
being
generated
or
where
it
ends
up.

°
The
ASTSWMO
survey
further
states
that
with
respect
to
impoundments,
there
are
"
blurred
lines
of
authority"
within
state
programs.
The
state
approaches
are
a
mixture
of
widely
varying
water
quality
and
waste
regulatory
programs.
This
piecemeal
approach
,
which
is
apparent
between
and
even
within
state
agencies,
is
not
an
appropriate
substitute
for
federal
requirements.

°
As
a
last
example
of
state
environmental
controls
to
which
the
EPA
seems
willing
to
defer,
the
following
from
page
3­
14
of
the
Groundwater
Risk
Assessment
is
offered:
"
Of
the
16
unlined
surface
impoundments
(
surveyed
by
EPRI),
12
are
located
in
Florida
and
are
percolation
basins
designed
to
discharge
to
groundwater.
This
practice
of
discharging
to
groundwater
is
allowed
under
state
wastewater
permits."
(
ALA00036)

The
Report
indicates
that
states
have
exercised
their
authority
to
impose
stricter
controls
at
landfills
more
than
at
surface
impoundments.
While
this
may
be
good
news,
there
is
evidence
from
materials
in
the
docket
(
US
Department
of
Energy,
1993)
that
suggests
that
surface
impoundments
continue
to
be
the
dominant
utility
choice
for
on­
site
management
of
coal
combustion
wastes.
According
to
this
source,
"
the
large
number
of
impoundments
relative
to
landfills
in
certain
regions
may
reflect
State
regulatory
issues
(
i.
e.
more
flexible
design
and
operating
standards
for
surface
impoundments).
Many
utilities
have
chosen
to
extend
the
life
of
the
impoundments
by
building
up
the
side
walls.
of
the
ponds
above
the
ground
­
this
strategy
has
been
employed
instead
of
more
costly
alternative
management
methods,
including
(
1)
converting
the
existing
wet
handling
system
to
direct
waste
to
a
different
site;
(
2)
acquiring
land
to
construct
new
units
(
3)
converting
to
a
new
dry
handling
dry
handling
system
and
(
4)
transporting
coal
combustion
waste
to
off­
site
waste
management
units."
(
ALA00036)

Even
though
impoundment
expansions
require
state
review,
the
Report
indicates
that
standards
for
impoundments
are
not
as
protective
of
health
and
the
environment
as
new
units,
and
in
particular
dry
handling
units.
Thus,
without
more
evidence
to
prove
otherwise,
we
are
not
convinced
that
state
regulations
are
being
effective
in
applying
stricter
standards.
(
ALA00036)

State
regulatory
efforts
are
extremely
weak.
(
HEC00056)

The
Report
highlighted
Indiana's
efforts
as
one
of
the
best
examples
of
state
programs
improving
its
regulation
of
electric
utility
impoundments.
Yet
we
have
found
no
evidence
of
enhanced
protection
in
place
at
any
of
these
sites.
We
can
locate
no
evidence
of
constructed
liners
or
ground
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
22
XX
­
22
water
monitoring
at
any
of
the
surface
impoundments.
The
only
parameters
covered
by
the
NPDES
permits
that
had
regulated
limits
were
total
suspended
solids
(
TSS),
oil
and
grease,
and
pH.
Copper
and
iron
are
only
regulated
when
the
plant's
turbines
are
cleaned.
Boron,
which
an
Indiana
inspector
stated
should
be
expected
to
be
a
problem
almost
anywhere
you
store
coal
ash,
is
not
regulated
at
any
of
these
sites.
(
HEC00056)

At
some
sites
other
parameters
are
monitored.
These
include
arsenic,
lead,
cadmium,
chromium,
and
zinc.
However,
there
are
no
enforceable
limits
on
any
of
these
contaminants
so
contamination
can
exceed
drinking
water
standards
by
several
times
with
no
action
being
taken.
Furthermore
the
permits
only
require
monitoring
to
be
done
for
these
parameters
for
six
to
twelve
months
from
the
beginning
of
the
permit.
Provisions
are
made
in
the
permit
to
set
limits
on
these
parameters
if
"
significant
quantities"
of
these
contaminants
are
found.
But
there
is
no
clarification
of
what
"
significant
quantities"
means,
and
IDEM's
permit
writers
within
the
Office
of
Water
Management
are
currently
under
strict
orders
not
to
modify
any
existing
permits.
For
the
past
few
years,
due
to
a
backlog
in
new
permits,
they
have
only
been
focusing
on
issuing
new
permits.
Therefore,
no
real
effort
by
the
agency
is
being
made
to
control
the
levels
of
these
contaminants
being
released
into
the
environment.
(
HEC00056)

The
information
we
have
gathered
in
just
a
short
time
shows
little
if
any
real
protection
being
practiced
at
these
sites.
(
HEC00056)

The
prior
EPA
Report
concluded
preliminarily
that
coal
combustion
waste
need
not
be
regulated
under
RCRA
Subpart
C
as
hazardous,
but
rather
that
the
wastes
should
continue
to
be
regulated
under
Subpart
D
as
solid
wastes.
This
conclusion
rested
on
the
assumption
that
mitigative
measures
under
Subpart
D
such
as
installation
of
liners,
leachate
collection
systems,
and
groundwater
monitoring
systems
and
corrective
action
to
clean
up
ground­
water
contamination,
would
be
adequate
for
protecting
public
health
and
the
environment.
The
EPA
recommendation
was
predicated
on
the
application
of
such
measures
to
the
management
of
coal
combustion
wastes.
Id.
at
ES
4­
5.
Unfortunately,
such
measures
are
not
being
employed
universally
among
the
states.
(
NCCLP00282)

The
information
provided
by
the
Hoosier
Environmental
Council
in
current
and
past
comments,
demonstrates
the
wide
variability
among
states
in
the
caliber
of
the
management
programs
for
coal
combustion
wastes.
(
NCCLP00282)

State
programs
that
regulate
disposal
of
coal
combustion
wastes,
CCW,
and
other
fossil
fuel
wastes
are
grossly
insufficient,
particularly
with
respect
to
surface
impoundments.
(
HEC00332)

Environmental
controls
enforced
by
the
states
at
CCW
disposal
sites
are
grossly
insufficient.
In
our
comments
for
the
first
public
comment
period,
we
discussed
our
findings
of
a
review
of
requirements
at
surface
impoundments
in
Indiana.
HEC
found
that
the
only
permit
required
for
an
Indiana
surface
impoundment,
the
Nation
Pollution
Discharge
Elimination
System
or
NPDES
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
23
XX
­
23
permit,
makes
no
distinction
of
whether
an
impoundment
has
liners
or
groundwater
monitoring
and
that,
according
to
the
relevant
state
inspectors,
none
of
the
CCW
surface
impoundments
in
Indiana
have
liners
or
groundwater
monitoring.
Furthermore,
only
a
token
effort
was
made
to
monitor
the
surface
water
discharge
at
these
sites
for
the
metals
most
commonly
found
in
CCW
leachate.
(
HEC00332)

Overall,
only
Illinois
appears
to
have
made
any
progress
towards
lined
surface
impoundments.
Of
the
ten
states
surveyed,
only
Illinois,
South
Carolina,
and
Alabama
have
established
groundwater
monitoring
at
most
of
their
impoundments.
Not
surprisingly,
all
nine
new
contamination
cases
that
we
are
turning
in
from
these
states
in
these
comments
are
occurring
at
surface
impoundments.
This
would
indicate
that
at
many
surface
impoundments
that
do
not
have
groundwater
monitoring,
groundwater
contamination
may
be
occurring
undetected.
(
HEC00332)

In
the
Executive
Summary
EPA
declares
that
states
currently
have
more
authority
to
impose
controls
at
CCW
disposal
sites,
and
these
controls
can
potentially
mitigate
any
risk
of
contamination
posed
by
CCW.
However,
HEC
found
that
most
state
laws
and
regulations
do
not
require
liners
or
groundwater
monitoring
for
new
impoundments.
Furthermore
with
or
without
laws,
our
survey
has
found
few
states
are
willing
to
impose
these
controls
...
Indeed
our
survey
found
that
in
most
states,
little
if
any
effort
is
being
made
simply
to
keep
track
of
the
controls
being
imposed
at
CCW
surface
impoundments.
(
HEC00332)

As
we
have
already
pointed
out,
most
large
scale
CCW
disposal
sites
have
no
ground
water
monitoring.
And
many
of
those
that
do
have
monitoring
provisions
are
only
analyzing
for
a
few
parameters
in
ground
waters
affected
by
CCW
...
Whole
classes
of
harmful
compounds
that
should
be
monitored
for
around
CCW
disposal
sites
are
not
being
monitored
for.
For
example
polyaromatic
hydrocarbons
(
PAHs)
are
a
highly
carcinogenic
family
of
chemicals
commonly
found
in
coal,
coal
tar
and
coal
combustion
products,
yet
these
substances
are
seldom
if
ever
analyzed
for
in
ash
characterization
schemes
mandated
by
state
regulatory
agencies
and
never
included
in
ground
water
monitoring
schemes
for
CCW
disposal
sites
...
The
situation
with
radionuclides
is
similar
to
that
for
PAHs
in
that
they
are
known
to
be
present
in
coal
combustion
wastes,
yet
ground
water
monitoring
for
radionuclides
at
CCW
disposal
sites
rarely
occurs.
(
HEC00332)

The
Report
to
Congress
assumed
that
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
and
the
setting
of
the
Total
Maximum
Daily
Loads
(
TMDLs)
adequately
protected
aquatic
life
in
receiving
waters.
However,
this
research
shows
that
that
is
not
the
case.
It
shows
that
ecological
damage
from
surface
impoundments
has
the
potential
of
being
a
much
larger
problem.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
24
XX
­
24
XX.
ADEQUACY
OF
STATE
REGULATIONS
D.
Effects
of
Deregulation
One
public
interest
group
commenter
argued
that
EPA
did
not
address
the
effects
of
deregulation
of
energy
sales
in
its
consideration
of
state
regulations.
The
commenter
believed
that,
without
federal
standards
to
create
a
level
playing
field,
states
may
face
great
pressure
to
relax
their
disposal
requirements
to
give
their
utilities
a
competitive
advantage.

Response:
At
this
time
the
Agency
is
unable
to
anticipate
the
possible
impacts
of
deregulation
on
current
state
regulatory
programs
for
managing
fossil
fuel
combustion
waste.
We
believe
that
it
would
be
arbitrary
and
unfair
to
project
theoretical
changes
in
state
programs.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
25
XX
­
25
XX.
ADEQUACY
OF
STATE
REGULATIONS
D.
Effects
of
Deregulation
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
effects
of
the
deregulation
of
electricity
sales
and
its
potential
to
promote
unacceptable
disposal
standards
among
the
states
are
not
recognized
or
addressed.
The
Report
fails
to
take
into
account
the
effect
that
an
open
competitive
market
in
electricity
sales
may
have
on
disparities
in
environmental
regulation
of
power
plant
wastes.
If
deregulation
of
electric
utilities
occurs,
utilities
in
states
with
responsible
disposal
standards
may
face
a
competitive
disadvantage
with
utilities
in
states
such
as
Indiana
that
allow
open
dumping
of
power
plant
wastes
into
drinking
water
supplies.
Without
federal
standards
to
create
a
level
playing
field,
state
may
face
great
pressure
to
relax
their
disposal
requirements
for
power
plant
wastes
in
order
to
give
their
utilities
a
competitive
advantage
in
selling
electricity
on
the
open
market.
Therefore
EPA
should
consider
the
effects
of
deregulation
on
state
programs
before
making
its
Final
Determination.
(
HEC00056)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
XXI
­
1
XXI.
COSTS
AND
ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
Commenters
from
both
industry
and
public
interest
groups
expressed
general
concerns
about
EPA's
methodology
for
computing
compliance
costs
and
industry
economic
impacts.
These
ranged
from
comments
on
basic
methodology
to
quite
specific
comments
on
assumptions
regarding
incremental
costing,
Subtitle
D
vs
Subtitle
C
cost
factors,
impacts
on
drinking
water
and
industry
impacts.

Response:
EPA
believes
its
analysis
and
consideration
of
costs
and
economic
impacts
were
sufficiently
detailed
and
adequate
to
support
its
determination.
Partial
equilibrium
modeling
was
not
done
because
of
the
pace
of
change
in
this
industry.
Consideration
of
cost
and
economic
impacts
beyond
the
typical
facility­
level
costs
and
industry­
wide
impacts
presented
in
the
Report
to
Congress
was
not
warranted.
For
this
computation
only
the
costs
asociated
with
Subtitle
D
type
liners
was
considered..
Impacts
on
drinking
water
costs
and
of
other
regulatory
variants
will
be
considered
as
this
regulatory
determination
warrants.
Other
specific
concerns
raised
by
the
commenters
with
regard
to
the
cost
and
economic
analysis
are
addressed
in
the
responses
below.
EPA
acknowledges
that
comments
were
submitted
on
the
basis
of
the
March1999
RTC.
The
cost
and
economic
impact
analyses
will
be
revised
or
supplemented
as
warranted
during
the
development
of
proposed
regulations.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
2
XXI
­
2
XXI.
COSTS
AND
ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA's
general
methodology
for
estimating
cost
impacts
of
Subtitle
D
requirements
at
FFC
waste
facilities
is
comparable
with
other
special
waste
studies
conducted
in
the
past
by
EPA,
other
government
agencies,
and
trade
associations.
However,
documentation
and
a
detailed
explanation
of
incremental
costs
to
the
industry
for
managing
FFC
waste
are
not
adequate
to
allow
for
a
thorough
evaluation
of
the
underlying
assumptions.
Accordingly,
it
is
not
possible
to
evaluate
EPA's
estimated
incremental
compliance
costs.
The
data
that
are
provided,
however,
indicate
discrepancies
with
previous
special
waste
studies
that
have
estimated
the
incremental
unit
costs
for
FBC
waste
disposal.
(
DOE00020)

PG&
E
Gen
disagrees
with
EPA's
cost
analysis.
(
PG&
E00023)

I
have
grave
concerns
that
EPA's
Report
to
Congress
limits
discussion
of
cost
to
the
economic
cost
only
for
management
of
coal
combustion
products
at
a
disposal
site
under
RCRA
D­
like
requirements
...
Even
in
treatment
of
the
economic
cost
of
coal
combustion
product
cost
to
the
utility
industry,
the
agency
has
severely
under­
estimated
the
impact
on
the
economic
viability
of
the
industry.
(
NMA00024A)

EPA's
economic
analysis
grossly
underestimates
the
impact
of
Subtitle
C
regulation.
In
short,
EPA
has
failed
to
prepare
a
satisfactory
economic
analysis
that
would
justify
additional
regulatory
burdens.
As
we
discuss
below,
the
true
economic
impacts
of
the
regulatory
measures
suggested
would
be
greater
by
orders
of
magnitude.
(
USWAG00275)

The
Report
dismisses
the
regulation
of
fossil
fuel
wastes
under
Subtitle
C,
without
any
estimates
of
the
costs
of
implementing
the
specific
requirements
of
this
large
Subtitle
...
There
are
also
no
estimates
of
the
costs
of
beneficial
uses
of
these
wastes
in
the
Report
...
In
Chapter
3,
the
Report
claims
that
coal
usage
would
likely
decrease
if
utility
coal
combustion
waste
(
UCCW)
were
regulated
under
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA.
There
is
no
attempt
to
quantify
this
decrease
in
the
Report
...
Why
is
conservation
not
considered
a
benefit?
This
basic
"
impact"
is
not
discussed
in
this
Report.
(
HEC00056)

A
fundamental
incentive
in
the
implementation
of
effective
programs
to
prevent
drinking
water
contamination
that
was
not
evaluated
in
the
Report
to
Congress
is
the
costs
associated
with
contamination
of
a
drinking
water
supply.
Drinking
water
contamination
is
considered
a
real,
economic
threat
to
states
and
individual
communities.
(
ALA00292)

I
believe
that
it
is
well
past
time
for
all
non­
renewable
energy
sources
to
start
"
paying
their
own
way,"
so
that
an
honest
competition
with
renewable
energy
resources
can
be
obtained
in
a
free
marketplace.
(
CITZ00267)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
XXI
­
3
The
costs
of
implementing
these
standards
would
cause
many
older
coal­
fired
plants
to
be
shut
down,
and
create
incentives
for
switching
to
cleaner
forms
of
energy.
If
national
standards
are
not
imposed,
the
coal
industry
will
continue
to
receive
a
subsidy
in
the
form
of
cheap
disposal
costs
that
will
keep
coal
cheaper
than
alternative
forms
of
energy.
(
SIERRA00278)

EPA
should
use
this
issue
of
CCW
to
bring
to
the
attention
of
Congress
the
need
for
alternative
energy
forms.
(
SOCM00279)

National
regulations
on
the
disposal
of
CCW
such
as
requirements
for
liners,
groundwater
monitoring,
and
leachate
collection
systems
would
be
a
serious
blow
to
the
reign
of
King
Coal.
The
EPA
report
says
the
costs
of
implementing
these
standards
under
the
federal
hazardous
waste
laws
would
cause
many
older
coal­
fired
plants
to
be
shut
down
and
create
an
incentive
for
newer
plants
to
switch
to
cleaner
forms
of
energy.
If
national
standards
are
not
imposed,
the
coal
industry
will
continue
to
be
subsidized
­­
cheap
waste
disposal
costs
will
keep
coal
cheaper
than
alternative
forms
of
energy.
(
CITZ00284)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
4
XXI
­
4
XXI.
COSTS
AND
ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
A.
Consideration
of
Site­
Specific
Factors
One
federal
agency
commenter
expressed
concern
that
EPA
had
not
considered
the
numerous
site­
specific
variables
that
affect
disposal
unit
design
and
operation
in
its
cost
and
economic
analysis.

Response:
The
primary
objective
of
the
cost
and
economic
analysis
was
to
assess
and
present
representative
or
typical
impacts
on
affected
facilities
and
industries.
This
approach
was
taken
in
a
context
of
resource
constraints,
data
limitations,
and
the
desire
to
make
the
results
indicative
of
the
general
magnitude
of
impacts.
It
is
true
that
each
site
may
have
a
unique
set
of
variables
which
can
affect
disposal
unit
design
and
operation.
Our
analysis
was
intended
to
present
what
the
magnitude
of
impacts
on
facilities
and
the
industry
should
be
"
on
average"
based
on
reasonable
and
representative
assumptions.
EPA
acknowledges
that
there
might
be
significant
variation
from
plant
to
plant
which
could
not
be
addressed
given
the
resource
constraints
placed
on
the
analysis
and
the
unique
site­
specific
variables
which
occur
at
fossil
fuel
burning
facilities.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
5
XXI
­
5
XXI.
COSTS
AND
ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
A.
Consideration
of
Site­
Specific
Factors
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA
does
not
appear
to
have
considered
the
numerous
site­
specific
variables
that
affect
disposal
unit
design
and
operation
in
its
analyses.
Site­
specific
differences
can
dramatically
affect
compliance
costs,
as
documented
in
several
previous
EPA
special
waste
studies.
(
DOE00020)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
FF2P­
S0248.
Coal
Combustion
Waste
Management
Study.
Draft
Report.
ICF
Resources,
Inc.
February
1,
1993.

4
FF2P­
S0199.
Coal
Combustion
By­
products
and
Low­
volume
Wastes
Comanagement
Survey.
EPRI.
December
1,
1997.

6
XXI
­
6
XXI.
COSTS
AND
ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
B.
Underestimate
of
Compliance
Costs
Industry
and
federal
agency
commenters
expressed
concern
that
EPA
had
underestimated
compliance
costs
because
the
Agency
overestimated
the
operating
life
of
equipment.
It
was
suggested
that
a
more
appropriate
amortization
period
would
be
15
or
20
years.
One
of
the
commenters
suggested
that
EPA's
discount
rate
of
7
percent
was
too
low,
given
impending
deregulation
of
the
industry.
Another
of
the
commenters
questioned
why
EPA's
baseline
costs
differed
from
those
estimated
by
industry.
An
industry
commenter
stated
that
EPA
did
not
adequately
consider
compliance
assurance
fees
and
financial
assurance
requirements,
which
range
from
$
15,000
to
$
30,000
per
year
for
its
facilities.

Response:
As
noted
by
a
DOE
commenter,
a
1993
DOE
Study3
assumed
a
15
year
equipment
lifetime.
However,
that
same
study
noted
that
as
a
result
of
life
extension
practices,
the
average
life
expectancy
for
a
disposal
unit
was
between
20
and
30
years.
In
1997,
EPRI
and
USWAG
conducted
the
Coal
Combustion
By­
Products
and
Low­
Volume
Wastes
Comanagement
Survey.
4
The
survey
indicated
that
the
ages
of
active
disposal
units
range
from
newly
opened
to
more
than
40
years
old.
In
1997,
the
median
age
of
active
surface
impoundments
was
22
years
with
a
median
anticipated
closure
date
in
16
years,
for
a
total
lifetime
expectancy
of
38
years.
The
median
age
of
active
landfills
was
15
years
with
a
median
anticipated
closure
date
in
12
years,
adding
to
a
total
lifetime
expectancy
of
27
years.
It
is
apparent
that
the
average
life
expectancy
of
disposal
units
is
increasing.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
the
40­
year
life
expectancy
assumed
in
the
cost
analysis
was
a
reasonable
assumption
for
newly
constructed
waste
management
units.
Furthermore,
the
40­
year
assumption
was
agreed
upon
between
EPA
and
representatives
from
industry.

With
regard
to
the
comment
about
amortization,
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
provides
specific
guidelines
on
discount
rates
to
be
used
in
evaluating
federal
programs
whose
benefits
and
costs
are
distributed
over
time.
This
applies
to
regulatory
impact
analyses
and
all
agencies
of
the
executive
branch
of
the
federal
Government.
To
remain
consistent
with
OMB
recommendations
and
other
analyses
conducted
by
the
EPA,
a
real
discount
rate
of
7
percent
was
used.
However,
EPA
acknowledges
that
this
rate
may
not
reflect
the
realities
of
corporate
finance.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
5
FF2P­
S0071.
Report
to
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
on
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion
Byproducts
from
Fluidized
Bed
Boilers.
CIBO
Special
Project
on
Non­
Utility
Fossil
Fuel
Ash
Classification
and
ICF
Kaiser
Consulting
Group.
November
1,
1997.

7
XXI
­
7
The
DOE
commenter
also
noted
that
discrepancies
appear
to
be
the
result
of
different
baseline
costs
in
the
CIBO
report5
and
EPA's
Report
to
Congress.
EPA's
baseline
unit
cost
is
based
on
the
construction
of
an
unlined
FBC
ash
landfill.
CIBO's
baseline
cost
is
taken
from
EPA's
work
on
regulation
of
cement
kiln
dust
(
CKD).
The
CKD
baseline
analysis
assumed
the
construction
of
a
landfill
within
a
pre­
existing
excavated
mine
located
on
the
property.
Therefore,
excavation
costs
are
not
included
in
the
CIBO
baseline
costs.
Excavation
costs
are
included
in
the
EPA
baseline
cost
for
constructing
onsite
landfills
at
FBC
facilities.
In
addition,
a
20­
year
operating
life
for
the
landfill
was
assumed
for
the
cement
manufacturing
industry
compared
to
a
40­
year
operating
life
for
the
utility
industry.
These
two
differences
likely
account
for
most
of
the
disparity
between
the
two
baseline
unit
cost
estimates.

With
regard
to
the
comment
about
consideration
of
compliance
assurance
and
financial
assurance
costs,
EPA
did
consider
financial
assurance
fees
in
its
estimate.
These
costs
were
included
in
indirect
cost
estimates
which
are
determined
as
a
percentage
of
direct
capital
and
O&
M
costs.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
8
XXI
­
8
XXI.
COSTS
AND
ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
B.
Underestimate
of
Compliance
Costs
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA
appears
to
have
overestimated
the
operating
life
of
equipment
in
its
analysis
of
compliance
cost.
This,
in
turn,
may
have
resulted
in
significant
underestimation
of
total
compliance
costs.
EPA's
analysis
of
incremental
compliance
cost
assumed
a
40­
year
operating
life
for
management
units.
A
1993
DOE
analysis
based
on
EPRI
and
utility
company
data
indicated
that
15
years
was
generally
the
lifetime
used
for
designing
and
engineering
disposal
sites
(
Coal
Combustion
Waste
Management
Survey,
Report
Prepared
for
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy,
Office
of
Fossil
Energy,
February
1993).
In
addition,
current
life
extension
practices
have
increased
the
average
life
expectancy
of
a
disposal
unit
to
between
20
and
30
years
(
average
25
years).
Hence,
based
on
both
on
a
previous
DOE
study
and
current
life
extension
practices,
a
40­
year
equipment
operating
life
is
a
high­
end
life­
expectancy
value
and
results
in
lower
compliance
cost
estimates
than
a
15­
25
year
life
expectancy.
Because
details
of
the
cost
components
of
the
management
unit
scenarios
were
lacking
both
in
the
RTC
and
the
Technical
Background
Document,
it
was
not
possible
for
DOE
to
estimate
the
anticipated
increase
in
the
compliance
costs
under
a
15­
25
year
life
expectancy
scenario.
(
DOE00020)

EPA's
analysis
indicates
that
post­
regulatory
control
costs
for
FBC
waste
generating
facilities
amount
to
$
32
million
per
year
(
see
Technical
Background
Document
For
the
Report
to
Congress
On
Remaining
Wastes
from
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion:
Cost
and
Economic
Impact
Analysis,
March
30,
1999),
which
is
comparable
with
the
Council
of
Industrial
Boiler
Operators'
(
CIBO)
Subtitle
D
compliance
cost
estimate
of
$
28
million
per
year
(
See
Docket
Reference:
FF2P­
S0371).
Based
on
EPA'S
RTC
background
technical
document
(
See
Docket
Reference:
FF2P­
S0371),
the
compliance
cost
for
managing
FBC
waste
under
a
Subtitle
D
scenario
is
$
30.1
per
ton,
approximately
2
times
the
baseline
cost
of
$
14.7
per
ton
(
i.
e.,
the
incremental
compliance
cost
is
slightly
over
100
percent
of
the
current
material
disposal
cost).
Based
on
CIBO's
analysis,
incremental
costs,
on
a
unit
cost
basis,
would
range
between
$
15
and
$
42/
ton,
with
a
weighted
average
value
of
$
18/
ton,
more
than
4
times
the
current
material
cost
of
$
4/
ton.
These
discrepancies
appear
to
be
the
result
of
different
baseline
costs
in
the
CIBO
and
EPA
RTC,
despite
the
fact
that
EPA's
analysis
of
FBC
wastes
was
based
on
the
same
facilities
addressed
in
the
CIBO
Report.
Without
access
to
the
actual
landfill
costs
estimated
for
both
the
baseline
and
compliance
scenarios,
it
is
difficult
to
address
the
cause(
s)
of
these
discrepancies.
(
DOE00020)

In
the
case
of
our
facility,
which
has
been
operating
the
oil
fired
unit
for
over
25­
years,
the
40­
year
amortization
time
period
may
be
unrealistic.
A
20­
year
additional
operating
life
span
for
this
unit
would
be
more
realistic.
(
PG&
E00023)

In
Table
3­
27,
EPA
did
not
include
all
annual
Operation
and
Maintenance
costs,
at
least
in
some
states:
In
Massachusetts,
PG&
E
Gen
facilities
have
annual
compliance
assurance
fees
required
for
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
9
XXI
­
9
solid
waste
landfills
and
financial
assurance
requirements.
The
costs
for
these
items
can
range
from
additional
$
15,000
to
$
30,000/
yr
depending
on
the
size
of
the
facility
and
the
type
and
cost
of
financial
assurance.
(
PG&
E00023)

PG&
E
Gen
disagrees
with
EPA's
cost
analysis
...
The
facility
estimates
it
would
incur
a
single
year
incremental
compliance
cost
of
approximately
$
3.0
million
dollars
if
EPA
were
to
require
the
facility
to
immediately
line
its'
unlined
SSB
with
a
HDPE
liner
as
indicated
in
section
6.7.2
of
the
report.
(
PG&
E00023)

EPA
utilized
a
40
year
amortization
at
7%
real
interest
to
convert
capital
expenses
to
annual
costs.
The
idea
that
newly
formed
deregulated
companies
will
be
able
to
raise
money
for
building
facilities
that
have
no
ability
to
generate
revenue
and
do
so
a
rates
below
prime
would
seem
suspect
by
comparison
to
similar
types
of
publicly
traded
market
entities
...
Even
if
7%
capital
for
building
of
ash
management
facilities
can
be
guaranteed,
the
amortization
time
is
40
years.
The
economic
life
of
a
coal
plant
is
commonly
considered
to
be
in
the
50
to
60
year
range
...
many
of
the
plants
to
be
impacted
are
around
30
years
of
age
or
more
now.
The
idea
than
an
asset
(
ash
manangement
facility)
will
be
amortized
for
a
time
period
longer
than
it's
useful
life
has
significant
problems
in
the
world
of
finance.
(
NMA00024A)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
10
XXI
­
10
XXI.
COSTS
AND
ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
C.
Underestimate
of
Economic
Impacts
Federal
agency
and
industry
commenters
stated
that
EPA
underestimated
the
economic
impact
of
regulation
of
FFC
waste.
Some
of
these
commenters
specifically
suggested
EPA
should
have
gauged
its
estimate
of
impacts
against
coal­
fired
utility
sales,
rather
than
total
electric
power
generating
industry
sales.
Other
commenters
stated
that,
given
deregulation
of
the
industry,
EPA
should
have
gauged
impacts
against
the
generation
sector
only
(
not
the
transmission
and
distribution
sectors).
One
commenter
stated
that
correction
for
all
factors
(
to
account
for
the
generation
sector
only,
coal­
fired
sales
only,
and
projected
future
sales)
would
increase
the
estimated
cost
of
compliance
to
2.2
percent
of
the
value
of
industry
shipments
for
coal­
fired
utilities
and
require
an
increase
in
the
price
of
wholesale
power
by
30
percent.
As
a
result,
many
plants
would
be
placed
"
on
the
margin"
and
subject
to
closure,
creating
concerns
for
future
electric
reliability.

Response:
While
most
of
the
impacts
will
be
physically
located
at
coal­
fired
facilities,
we
believe
the
economic
and
financial
impacts
will
be
absorbed
and
recovered
by
an
operating
utility,
which
may
operate
a
mix
of
coal,
oil,
combined
cycle,
natural
gas,
nuclear
and
hydroelectric
generating
facilities.
These
various
generating
units
are
merged
by
the
utility
company
in
setting
prices.
For
example,
most
of
the
affected
coal­
fired
capacity
is
controlled
by
large
integrated
investor­
owned
utilities
which
operate
a
diversified
assortment
of
generating
units.
Impacts
at
the
plant
level,
as
indicated
by
a
model
plant
analysis,
are
based
on
DOEreported
average
prices
and
utility
level
financial
ratios.
These
are
representative
of
what
should
be
the
impact
at
a
generating
facility
based
on
a
plant
owner's
typical
financial
parameters.

In
addition,
coal
is
the
predominant
fuel
used
to
generate
electricity
in
this
country.
The
transmission
and
distribution
sectors
cannot
exist
without
the
coal­
fired
generator
sector
of
the
utility
industry
under
either
regulated
or
deregulated
markets.
These
costs
will
be
shared
through
contract
agreements
among
the
three
sectors
under
both
market
conditions.
Still,
EPA
acknowledges
that
operating
units
of
utilities
will
undoubtedly
be
impacted
differentially,
as
the
commenter
claims.

At
the
macro
level,
the
economic
impact
analysis
presumes
impacts
and
price
effects
will
be
passed
on
to
consumers.
This
is
a
simplified
and
worst
case
assumption
and
avoids
complex
and
uncertain
distributional
analysis
of
intermediate
price
effects
through
wholesale
markets
at
regional,
state,
and
local
levels.
The
Agency
does
concur
that
wholesale
electricity
price
impacts
could
vary
substantially
from
area
to
area.
Pending
determination
of
a
specific
regulatory
approach,
EPA
believes
its
estimates
of
incremental
compliance
cost
to
be
under
1%
of
sales
as
stated
in
the
RTC.
One
commenter
projects
$
20
billion
decrease
in
coal­
fired
utility
sales.
It
is
unclear
if
this
decrease
is
projected
based
on
a
decrease
in
electricity
use
by
consumers,
a
decrease
in
demand
because
substitute
fuel
sources
are
cheaper,
or
a
decrease
in
demand
because
of
deregulation
of
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
6
DOE
Annual
Energy
Review.

7
DOE/
EIA
Annual
Energy
Outlook.

11
XXI
­
11
the
industry.
Demand
for
electricity
has
gone
up
every
year
from
1949
through
1998,
and
coal
comsumption
for
electricity
has
gone
up
every
year
from
1949
through
1998,
except
in
1986
and
1991.6
Also,
the
commenter
does
not
appear
to
take
into
consideration
that
the
price
of
coal
is
expected
to
decline
from
$
19
per
ton
in
1995
to
$
15
per
ton
in
2010
while
natural
gas,
for
the
same
period,
is
projected
to
increase
from
$
1.55
per
1000
cubic
feet
to
$
2.48
per
1000
cubic
feet.
7
In
addition,
if
there
is
a
decrease
in
demand
for
coal­
fired
power,
the
cost
of
compliance
with
the
regulation
will
decrease
because
waste
generation
quantities
will
decline
resulting
in
an
extension
of
the
useful
life
of
the
ash
landfills
and
ash
impoundments.
With
the
decrease
in
the
price
of
coal
and
decrease
in
waste
generation
quantities,
it
appears
that
operating
and
compliance
costs
will
be
declining
along
with
any
projected
decrease
in
sales.
Also,
the
price
for
substitute
goods
(
natural
gas
electrical
generation)
is
increasing
which
favors
an
increase
in
demand
for
coal
electrical
generation.

EPA
reiterates
that
the
above
comments
were
prepared
on
the
basis
of
the
Agency
position
set
forth
in
the
RTC;
analyses
will
be
revisited
as
the
regulatory
determination
warrants.
EPA
also
acknowledges
that
many
of
these
cost
and
economic
issues
are
quite
conceptual
in
nature
and
will
bear
revisiting
as
noted
if
a
final
regulatory
determination
warrants.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
12
XXI
­
12
XXI.
COSTS
AND
ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
C.
Underestimate
of
Economic
Impacts
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA
has
underestimated
the
industry
impacts
for
comanaged
waste
at
coal­
fired
utilities
under
a
Subtitle
D
regulatory
scenario.
EPA
estimated
the
industry
impacts
for
imposing
Subtitle
D
requirements
at
co­
managed
waste
from
coal­
fired
utilities
at
0.4
percent
of
the
industry's
electricity
sales.
EPA
used
an
estimate
of
$
212
billion
per
year
to
represent
electric
power
generating
industry
sales.
However,
the
coal­
fired
utility
component
represents
only
about
56
percent
of
all
electricity
generated
in
the
United
States
(
See
page
3­
69,
Report
to
Congress,
Volume
2).
Consequently,
it
appears
that
EPA
should
have
used
the
coal­
fired
generating
capacity
to
estimate
the
industry
impacts
as
a
percentage
of
sales.
Based
on
the
1999
EIA
Annual
Energy
Outlook,
the
sales
from
coal­
burning
generators
in
1997
were
approximately
$
123.9
billion.
This
means
that
the
estimate
of
industry
impacts
related
to
comanaged
waste
from
coal­
fired
utilities
should
be
increased
to
approximately
0.7
percent
of
the
industry's
sales
(
assuming
that
all
other
components
of
the
cost
analysis
remain
unchanged)
.(
DOE00020)

The
restructuring
of
the
utility
industry
and
the
resultant
competition
in
the
electric
industry
are
fully
underway
in
Pennsylvania.
The
average
wholesale
value
of
electric
power
hovers
in
the
$
0.02­$
0.03
per
kWh
range,
not
the
$
0.07
assumed
by
EPA.
(
PG&
E00023)

EPA
indicated
that
they
did
not
wish
to
consider
the
impact
under
deregulation
since
many
of
the
details
of
the
deregulated
electric
power
industry
are
not
known.
In
fact
at
least
one
detail
of
the
deregulated
market
lace
is
known
with
certainty.
Electric
generation,
transmission,
and
distribution
costs
will
be
"
unbundled".
In
other
words,
electric
generation
will
stand
on
its
own
economically
...
Based
on
discussions
with
power
companies
and
electric
coops
in
particular,
and
utilizing
USDOE
estimates
of
transmission
system
costs,
the
7
cents
breaks
down
approximately
as
3.1
cents/
KWH
to
generation,
1.5
cents/
KWH
to
generators
transmission
to
interconnect
points,
2.5
cents/
KWH
to
transmission
and
distribution
systems.
(
NMA00024A)

According
to
Dr.
Paul's
analysis,
the
actual
impact
to
generating
sector
revenues
could
be
a
loss
of
up
to
54.5%;
in
the
case
of
rural
cooperatives,
lost
revenue
from
these
regulations
could
reach
64%.
Furthermore,
those
estimates
are
based
on
an
assumption
that
EPA's
cost
estimates
are
reasonably
accurate.
In
fact,
however,
Dr.
Paul
has
identified
other
potential
cost
impacts
that
could
raise
the
impact
on
a
rural
cooperative's
earnings
to
as
high
as
76%.
(
NMA00024)

The
lack
of
clarity
in
documentation
affected
the
economic
analysis
and
resulted
in
inconsistent
treatment
of
utilities
relative
to
other
power
producers
and
inconsistent
treatment
of
the
utility
power
sector
relative
to
other
industries.
(
USWAG00275)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
13
XXI
­
13
EPA's
documentation
mentions
only
in
passing
the
critical
and
highly
significant
changes
that
have
taken
place
over
the
past
three
years
in
the
structure
of
the
wholesale
and
retail
electricity
markets.
Indeed,
significant
restructuring
has
already
occurred
with
observable
and
significant
shifts
in
ownership
of
generation,
the
creation
of
robust
wholesale
power
markets,
and
the
creation
of
power
exchanges
and
similar
institutions
to
facilitate
commerce.
These
changes
have
placed
significant
competitive
pressures
on
the
price
of
power
and,
therefore,
on
the
operating
costs
of
generators,
whether
utility
or
non­
utility
owned.
For
example,
in
Texas,
which
consumes
more
coal
for
electrical
power
generation
than
any
other
state,
utility
industry
restructuring
has
frozen
the
price
of
electricity,
and
any
increased
cost
imposed
by
the
Bevill
determination
must
be
borne
by
the
generation
companies.
However,
there
is
no
indication
that
these
changes
have
been
factored
into
EPA's
analysis.
For
example,
the
Economic
Background
Document
devotes
two
paragraphs
to
acknowledging
that
restructuring
is
taking
place,
but
there
is
no
subsequent
attempt
to
translate
those
changes
into
a
realistic
representation
of
the
power
sector
that
would
lead
to
a
credible
analysis
of
the
economic
impacts
of
these
changes.
Economic
Background
Document
at
6­
3.
EPA
simply
wrote
off
econometric
modeling
due
to
"
uncertainty
surrounding
this
restructuring."
2
RTC
at
3­
68.
Without
taking
the
fundamental
structure
of
the
industry
into
account,
EPA
cannot
present
a
plausible
economic
analysis.
(
USWAG00275)

EPA's
documentation
does
contain
data
that
could
have
been
used
to
present
a
somewhat
better
characterization
of
the
industry
and
the
economic
impacts
of
regulation.
For
example,
the
prices
of
delivered
power
quoted
for
1996
are
not
relevant
to
the
impact
on
generators
of
compliance
costs
because
of
the
unbundling
of
generation
from
transmission
and
distribution
operations,
which
remain
regulated
entities.
Compliance
costs
associated
with
waste
management
related
to
generation
now
fall
entirely
on
the
separate
generation
units,
which
will
be
unable
to
recover
those
costs
because
the
markets
they
serve
are
now
deregulated.
(
USWAG00275)

Coal­
fired
utility­
owned
generation
accounts
for
about
50%
of
the
power
produced
nationally....
These
quick
corrections
to
EPA's
calculations
demonstrate
the
need
for
a
more
careful
analysis
of
the
cost
impacts
on
coal­
fired
generation.
(
USWAG00275)

These
plants
are
generally
price
takers.
Assuming,
arguendo,
that
the
proportion
of
the
value
of
1996
sales
related
to
generation
is
60
percent,
and
that
coal­
fired
plants
are
responsible
for
50%
of
that
value,
we
can
calculate
a
sales
figure
of
approximately
$
60
billion,
compared
to
the
$
212
billion
figure
EPA
used.
Therefore,
the
approximate
$
1
billion
annualized
cost
of
compliance
for
coal­
fired
plants
would
represent
1.7
percent,
rather
than
0.4
percent
of
the
"
value
of
industry
shipments,"
a
four
fold
increase
in
economic
impact.
Furthermore,
EEI
expects
the
sales
figure
to
be
lower
by
as
much
as
$
20
billion
by
2000.
(
USWAG00275)

These
quick
corrections
to
EPA's
calculations
demonstrate
the
need
for
a
more
careful
analysis
of
the
cost
impacts
on
coal­
fired
generation.
Many
plants
would
be
potentially
affected
and
placed
"
on
the
margin"
and
subject
to
closure
if
EPA
imposed
the
controls
discussed
in
the
Report
to
Congress.
Indeed,
this
effect
could
occur
quicker
than
the
rate
at
which
new
substitute,
alternative
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
14
XXI
­
14
fuel
plants
could
be
constructed.
Thus,
we
have
significant
concerns
about
the
effects
EPA's
regulatory
determination
could
have
on
electric
reliability.
(
USWAG00275)

An
alternative
approach
to
assessing
the
economic
impact
on
the
power
markets
would
be
to
examine
the
effect
of
imposition
of
costs
of
increased
regulatory
controls
on
the
wholesale
price
of
power
(
i.
e.,
the
commodity
price)
...
The
competitively
determined
wholesale
price
of
power
nationwide
averages
about
2.5
cents/
kWh
(
not
the
7.1
cents/
kWh
assumed
in
Table
2­
5,
which
represents
the
delivered,
fully­
bundled
price
of
power)
...
Therefore,
the
compliance
cost
estimate
of
0.8
cents/
kWh
would
suggest
the
price
of
wholesale
power
would
need
to
increase
by
approximately
30
percent
for
coal­
fired
plants
to
remain
competitive.
(
USWAG00275)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
8
National
Rural
Electric
Cooperative
Association.

15
XXI
­
15
XXI.
COSTS
AND
ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
D.
Inadequate
Consideration
of
Costs
and
Benefits
One
public
interest
group
commenter
stated
that
EPA
should
have
estimated
the
costs
of
Subtitle
C
regulations
and
estimated
the
costs
of
beneficial
uses.
The
commenter
also
was
concerned
with
the
failure
to
quantify
the
decrease
in
coal
usage
if
CCW
were
regulated.
Another
public
interest
group
commenter
argued
that
the
Agency
should
have
considered
the
economic
impact
of
the
threat
to
drinking
water
supplies
posed
by
FFC
waste
management.

An
industry
commenter
stated
that
EPA
should
have
considered
the
cost
of
materials
handling
and
haulage
to
offsite
disposal
that
would
be
associated
with
a
ban
on
minefilling.
The
commenter
also
stated
that
EPA
should
consider
the
environmental
justice
impact
that
would
result
from
regulation
of
FFC
wastes,
which
the
commenter
purported
would
preferentially
devastate
the
Electric
Cooperatives
that
supplying
barely
subsisting
farmers
across
much
of
rural
America.

Response:
The
Agency's
cost
and
economic
analysis
considered
a
risk
mitigation
alternative
that
assumed
generators
would
construct
composite­
lined
landfills
and
impoundments.
This
alternative
was
chosen
for
costing
(
as
opposed
to
full
Subtitle
C
regulation)
because
it
was
identified
as
an
alternative
that
would
be
practical
and
effective
to
target
and
mitigate
the
potential
risks
identified
in
EPA's
risk
assessment.
EPA
acknowledges
the
possibility
of
reductions
in
coal
use
and
of
drinking
water
resource
impacts,
depending
on
the
ultimate
regulatory
option,
if
any,
selected.
These
will
be
investigated
as
work
proceeds
if
warranted.

At
the
time
the
cost
analysis
was
conducted,
EPA
had
not
identified
any
potential
minefilling
procedures
or
regulations.
This
is
still
the
case.
Pending
further
work,
EPA
is
uncertain
as
to
what
type
of
regulation
might
be
warranted
for
minefilling.
Therefore,
no
cost
and
economic
analysis
was
conducted
for
these
uses.
However,
EPA
notes
that
minefilling
is
a
clear
function
of
proximity
to
available
fill
sites
as
a
cost
avoidance
mechanism,
given
the
high
cost
of
transport.
The
cost
elasticity
of
demand
for
minefilling
will
reflect
this,
as
well,
of
course,
as
well
as
the
cross
elasticities
of
alternatives.
Elasticities
are
entirely
dependent
on
clearly
defined
alternative
products.

Economic
effects
of
potential
FFC
waste
environmental
regulation
on
electric
cooperatives
and
their
customers
will
be
further
examined
if
regulatory
options
warrant.
Electric
cooperatives
serve
some
32
million
people
in
46
states.
Their
customers,
while
rural
in
characteristic,
include
a
great
number
of
non­
farmers
including
businesses,
schools,
county
and
small
city
governments,
churches,
and
nonfarming
rural
residents.
Also,
many
farmers
now
obtain
electricity
from
noncooperatives
In
addition,
875
electric
cooperatives
distribute
electricity
as
compared
to
only
60
electric
cooperatives
that
generate
and
distribute
electricity.
8
Thus,
the
distributional
effects
to
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
16
XXI
­
16
farmers
would
be
extremely
difficult
to
determine.
Moreover,
farmers,
as
well
as
electric
cooperatives,
are
experiencing
rapidly
changing
markets
which,
compared
to
fossil
fuel
waste
management
requirements,
will
have
much
greater
effects
on
their
ability
to
remain
competitive
and
profitable.
EPA
acknowledges
impact
on
electric
cooperatives
to
be
an
important
factor.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
17
XXI
­
17
XXI.
COSTS
AND
ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
D.
Inadequate
Consideration
of
Costs
and
Benefits
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
EPA
is
considering
a
ban
on
minefill
applications.
The
costs
of
materials
handling
and
haulage
to
offsite
disposal
or
utilization
facilities
can
be
a
significant
cost
and
the
size
of
that
cost
is
impacted
by
where
the
ash
is
hauled
to.
Many
FBC
units
and
rural
electric
cooperatives
in
the
Midwest
haul
ash
back
to
the
minesites
from
which
they
buy
their
coal
(
or
to
site
only
a
few
miles
away).
This
means
that
the
ash
can
be
moved
on
a
"
back­
haul"
which
costs
only
about
1/
3rd
of
the
cost
of
a
"
front­
haul"
to
another
equidistant
site.
Since
a
ban
on
minefill
applications
would
imply
a
RCRA
subtitle
D
style
landfill
as
an
alternate
destination
the
additional
transportation
cost
becomes
an
incremental
cost.
(
NMA00024A)

In
their
Report
to
Congress,
EPA
expressed
concerns
about
environmental
justice
if
subsistence
farmers
near
ash
management
sites
were
preferentially
affected
by
various
receptor
paths
...
It
is
interesting
that
the
economic
analysis
done
by
EPA
lays
the
groundwork
to
realize
that
the
proposed
regulations
will
preferentially
devastate
the
Electric
Cooperatives
that
are
supplying
today's
barely
subsisting
farmers
across
rural
America
and
yet
there
is
no
mention
of
fundamental
fairness
in
this
respect.
(
NMA00024A)

The
Report
dismisses
the
regulation
of
fossil
fuel
wastes
under
Subtitle
C,
without
any
estimates
of
the
costs
of
implementing
the
specific
requirements
of
this
large
Subtitle.
These
estimates
could
vary
substantially
based
on
different
scenarios
of
Subtitle
C
that
could
be
invoked.
For
example,
the
cost
for
regulating
fossil
fuel
wastes
as
a
listed
hazardous
waste
versus
the
cost
for
regulating
these
wastes
as
hazardous
based
on
the
characteristics
of
specific
waste
streams
to
be
disposed
could
differ
substantially.
There
is
no
discussion
of
such
scenarios
or
estimates
of
their
costs
in
this
Report.
There
are
also
no
estimates
of
the
costs
of
beneficial
uses
of
these
wastes
in
the
Report.
(
HEC00056)

In
Chapter
3,
the
Report
claims
that
coal
usage
would
likely
decrease
if
utility
coal
combustion
waste
(
UCCW)
were
regulated
under
Subtitle
C
of
RCRA.
There
is
no
attempt
to
quantify
this
decrease
in
the
Report.
Furthermore,
Section
3.8,
FINDINGS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
of
Chapter
3
declares
this
decrease
unacceptable
without
explanation.
What
about
the
major
environmental
benefits
to
be
gained
from
this
decrease?
Would
not
an
increase
in
disposal
costs
encourage
the
conservation
of
our
coal
resources?
Why
is
conservation
not
considered
a
benefit?
This
basic
"
impact"
is
not
discussed
in
this
Report.
(
HEC00056)

A
fundamental
incentive
in
the
implementation
of
effective
programs
to
prevent
drinking
water
contamination
that
was
not
evaluated
in
the
Report
to
Congress
is
the
costs
associated
with
contamination
of
a
drinking
water
supply.
Drinking
water
contamination
is
considered
a
real,
economic
threat
to
states
and
individual
communities.
(
ALA00292)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
18
XXI
­
18
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
19
XXI
­
19
XXI.
COSTS
AND
ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
E.
Regulation
as
an
Incentive
for
Alternative
Energy
Sources
A
few
citizen
and
public
interest
group
commenters
suggested
that
EPA
should
consider
regulating
FFC
waste
management
in
order
to
increase
the
cost
of
reliance
on
non­
renewable
energy
sources
and
make
renewable
energy
sources
more
competitive
in
the
marketplace.

Response:
Analysis
of
the
impact
of
any
potential
regulation
of
FFC
waste
on
the
competitiveness
of
renewable
energy
sources
was
beyond
the
scope
of
the
economic
analysis
conducted
for
the
RTC.
Furthermore,
while
promotion
of
alternative
energy
sources
may
be
a
desirable
goal,
it
is
not
a
primary
consideration
under
RCRA,
nor
is
it
one
of
the
Bevill
study
factors
EPA
is
required
to
consider.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
20
XXI
­
20
XXI.
COSTS
AND
ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
E.
Regulation
as
an
Incentive
for
Alternative
Energy
Sources
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
I
believe
that
it
is
well
past
time
for
all
non­
renewable
energy
sources
to
start
"
paying
their
own
way,"
so
that
an
honest
competition
with
renewable
energy
resources
can
be
obtained
in
a
free
marketplace.
(
CITZ00267)

The
costs
of
implementing
these
standards
would
cause
many
older
coal­
fired
plants
to
be
shut
down,
and
create
incentives
for
switching
to
cleaner
forms
of
energy.
If
national
standards
are
not
imposed,
the
coal
industry
will
continue
to
receive
a
subsidy
in
the
form
of
cheap
disposal
costs
that
will
keep
coal
cheaper
than
alternative
forms
of
energy.
(
SIERRA00278)

EPA
should
use
this
issue
of
CCW
to
bring
to
the
attention
of
Congress
the
need
for
alternative
energy
forms.
(
SOCM00279)

National
regulations
on
the
disposal
of
CCW
such
as
requirements
for
liners,
groundwater
monitoring,
and
leachate
collection
systems
would
be
a
serious
blow
to
the
reign
of
King
Coal.
The
EPA
report
says
the
costs
of
implementing
these
standards
under
the
federal
hazardous
waste
laws
would
cause
many
older
coal­
fired
plants
to
be
shut
down
and
create
an
incentive
for
newer
plants
to
switch
to
cleaner
forms
of
energy.
If
national
standards
are
not
imposed,
the
coal
industry
will
continue
to
be
subsidized
­­
cheap
waste
disposal
costs
will
keep
coal
cheaper
than
alternative
forms
of
energy.
(
CITZ00284)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
XXII
­
1
XXII.
ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE
A
public
interest
group
commenter
argued
that
the
environmental
and
public
health
hazards
of
FFC
waste
management
are
inequitably
borne
by
economically
disadvantaged
and
racial
and
ethnic
minority
populations.
The
commenter
based
this
argument
on
demographic
analysis
of
22
selected
facilities.
In
the
commenter's
analysis,
more
than
half
of
the
selected
facilities
are
surrounded
by
communities
with
average
incomes
at
or
below
$
15,000
per
year
and
almost
half
by
communities
with
minority
populations
greater
than
the
national
average.
The
commenter
requested
that
EPA
undertake
additional
analysis
of
environmental
justice
impacts.
Another
public
interest
group
commenter
argued
that
impacts
from
minefilling
will
be
disproportionately
borne
by
low­
income
communities
and
that
the
Agency
was
therefore
violating
the
Executive
Order
on
environmental
justice.

An
industry
trade
group
commenter,
on
the
other
hand,
stated
that
it
had
surveyed
its
members
and
identified
no
environmental
justice
claims
related
to
FFC
waste
management.
The
commenter
further
stated
that
its
members
are
not
aware
of
subsistence
farming
occurring
in
the
proximity
of
FFC
waste
management
units.
Similarly,
it
is
highly
unlikely
that
subsistence
farmers
(
or
their
children)
would
come
in
contact
with
FFC
wastes
used
as
agricultural
soil
amendments
because
current
applications
primarily
involve
field
scale
research
and
the
projected
future
market
is
comprised
of
large
farming
enterprises.
The
commenter
additionally
argued
that
consideration
of
environmental
justice
issues
would
be
more
appropriate
in
facility­
specific
permitting
than
in
a
rulemaking
with
national
scope
because,
while
some
sites
are
located
within
one
to
five
miles
of
predominantly
minority
or
low
income
areas,
the
vast
majority
are
in
areas
with
predominantly
non­
low
income
and
Caucasian
populations.
The
commenter
believed
that
EPA
had
adequately
responded
to
the
Executive
Order
on
environmental
justice
and
noted
that
this
Order
does
not
alter
the
permissible
scope
of
the
Bevill
study
and
cannot
override
congressional
intent.

Response:
EPA
appreciates
the
commenters
time
and
efforts
for
submitting
the
additional
information
on
environmental
justice
issues.
EPA
has
reviewed
this
information
and
conducted
an
additional
analysis
of
the
available
demographic
data
for
populations
surrounding
fossil
fuel
combustion
facilities.
This
additional
analysis
is
based
on
1990
Census
data
for
minority
populations
around
coal­
fired
utilities,
coal­
fired
non­
utilities,
and
oil­
fired
utilities.
Data
were
not
readily
available
for
FBC
facilities
or
minefill
sites,
nor
were
income
statistics.

This
additional
EPA
analysis
compared
minority
populations
within
one
mile
of
fossil
fuel
combustion
facilities
to
the
national
average
of
approximately
16
percent.
As
shown
in
Table
5
below,
overall
minority
populations
(
29
percent)
near
FFC
facilities
is
greater
(
statistically
significant)
than
the
national
average.
As
shown
in
Table
6,
however,
this
observation
holds
at
a
relatively
small
number
of
facilities
(
188
of
the
1409
facilities
identified,
or
13
percent)
with
large
(
statistically
significant)
minority
populations.
Many
facilities
(
36
percent
of
facilities)
have
no
population
at
all
within
one
mile.
Based
on
this
analysis,
EPA
concludes
that,
on
a
national
basis,
minority
populations
are
not
disproportionately
located
near
fossil
fuel
burners,
i.
e.,
13
%
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
2
XXII
­
2
of
facilities
have
minority
populations
greater
than
the
national
average
but
31
%
of
facilities
have
minority
populations
less
than
the
national
average.
Thus,
while
some
facilities
do
have
minority
populations
that
are
greater
than
the
national
avaerage,
site­
specific
issues
affecting
nearby
populations
at
those
facilities
should
be
considered
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
The
Agency,
therefore,
concludes
that
consideration
of
environmental
justice
issues
at
coal
burning
facilities
is
more
appropriate
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
than
in
a
national
rulemaking.
The
Agency
believes
that
the
information
presented
by
commenters
on
the
22
facilities
also
supports
this
conclusion.
That
is,
for
the
22
facilities
presented
by
commenters,
the
majority
of
the
facilities
have
minority
populations
equal
to
or
less
than
the
national
average.
For
minefilling,
the
Agency
will
evaluate
environmental
justice
considerations
in
further
detail
when
it
undertakes
the
development
of
national
regulations
for
this
practice.

Table
5.
Minority
Populations
within
One
Mile
of
Fossil
Fuel
Combustion
(
FFC)
Facilities
Sector
Number
of
Facilities
Population
within
one
mile
Percent
Minority
Coal­
fired
Utilities
471
836,097
21.5%

Coal­
fired
Non­
utilities
842
4,468,898
28.7%*

Oil­
fired
Utilities
96
1,207,593
35.6%*

Total
FFC
Facilities
1,409
6,512,588
29.0%*

Total
U.
S.
Population
­­
248,765,000
16.1%

*
Percent
minority
significantly
greater
than
U.
S.
average
at
the
5
percent
significance
level.
Population
data
based
on
1990
U.
S.
Census
estimates.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
XXII
­
3
Table
6.
Minority
Populations
by
Facility
Sector
Number
of
Facilities
Percent
of
Facilities
No
Population
within
one
mile
Minority
Population
Significantly
Less
than
Average
Minority
Population
Not
Significantly
Different
than
Average
Minority
Population
Significantly
Greater
than
Average
Coal­
fired
Utilities
471
58%
24%
11%
6%

Coal­
fired
Nonutilities
842
24%
36%
24%
16%

Oil­
fired
Utilities
96
36%
21%
16%
27%

Total
FFC
Facilities
1,409
36%
31%
19%
13%
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
4
XXII
­
4
XXII.
ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
environmental
and
public
health
hazards
associated
with
on­
site
FFC
waste
management
and
disposal
facilities
at
electric
generating
stations
are
inequitably
borne
by
economically
disadvantaged
and
racial
and
ethnic
minority
populations.
(
ALA00292)

The
information
presented
here
illustrates
that
there
are
environmental
justice
concerns
for
people
residing
close
to
FFC
waste
facilities
...
In
Appendix
A,
maps
showing
the
location
of
22
power
plants
are
provided.
These
plants
were
selected
based
on
an
initial
screening
of
a
national
power
plant
database
and
sorting
the
plants
by
population
within
1
mile
and
median
income.
The
maps
illustrate
the
bodies
of
water
within
1
mile
of
the
plant
and
provide
some
summary
demographic
information
about
median
income
and
age
of
residents
within
1
mile
...
In
Table
9
below,
we
also
present
median
income
and
race
statistics.
More
than
half
have
average
incomes
at
or
below
$
15,000
per
year.
Almost
half
of
the
facilities
are
surrounded
by
communities
with
minority
populations
greater
than
the
national
average.
This
demonstrates
that
the
environmental
hazards
from
FFC
waste
facilities,
which
are
felt
most
keenly
by
those
living
closest
to
the
plants,
are
inequitably
distributed
by
race
and
income.
(
ALA00292)

In
order
to
reduce
risks
for
all
communities
the
Agency
must
examine
how
environmental
problems
converge
in
these
locations
and
how
the
people
who
live
in
these
places
are
cumulatively
affected
by
them.
The
draft
regulatory
determination
must
be
revised
accordingly
to
address
these
issues.
An
analysis
of
populations
living
near
FFC
waste
facilities,
and
reliant
on
private
drinking
water
wells,
also
should
be
undertaken
and
the
results
evaluated
­
not
only
to
identify
additional
environmental
issues
generally,
but
also
specifically
to
identify
additional
impacts
to
persons
of
color
or
economically
disadvantaged
persons
in
these
areas.
(
ALA00292)

The
Citizens
Coal
Council
has
carefully
examined
data
from
the
U.
S.
Census
Bureau
(
1992
City­
County
Yearbook)
and
found
that
coal
mines
are
located
in
communities
that
suffer
from
poverty
and
unemployment
rates
higher
than
the
national
average
and
per
capita
income
below
the
national
average.
The
1990
census
data
shows
that
for
118
of
the
120
coal­
producing
counties,
the
trend
is
the
more
coal
produced,
the
higher
the
poverty
rate.
The
sole
exception
is
two
coal­
producing
counties
in
Wyoming.
Unless
the
federal
government
enacts
strict
regulations
on
the
dumping
of
CCW,
utilities
will
dump
CCW
into
strip
mine
pits
located
in
Pike,
Perry,
Harlan
and
Leslie
Counties,
Kentucky;
Mingo,
Boone,
and
Logan
Counties,
West
Virginia;
Greene
and
Indiana
County,
Pennsylvania;
San
Juan
and
McKinley
Counties,
New
Mexico:
Perry,
Saline
and
Franklin
Counties,
Illinois;
Navajo
County,
Arizona;
and
Warrick,
Sullivan,
Daviess,
and
Pike
Counties,
Indiana.
Census
data
shows
all
these
counties
share
common
problems
­
their
populations
are
poorer,
less
educated
and
less
employed
than
those
without
coal
mining.
Their
homes
are
damaged
by
the
blasts
at
coal
mines.
They
breathe
the
dust
from
coal
mines
and
live
near
power
plants
that
belch
toxic
air
pollution.
Their
water
supplies
are
polluted
or
too
often
completely
destroyed.
Their
homes
are
destroyed
when
companies
mine
coal
beneath
their
property
and
the
land
caves
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
5
XXII
­
5
in.
If
the
EPA
allows
utilities
to
dump
CCW
into
strip
pits,
the
future
water
pollution
problems
will
be
disproportionately
borne
by
these
low­
income
communities.
In
its
"
Report
to
Congress
and
Draft
Federal
Regulatory
Determination
on
Fossil
Fuel
Wastes,"
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
has
shown
gross
insensitivity
to
its
avowed
advocacy
role
for
environmental
justice.
EPA's
report
is
so
seriously
deficient
that
it
violates
President
Clinton's
environmental
justice
executive
order
by
failing
to
recommend
strict
federal
regulation
of
CCW
disposal
­­
disposal
that
will
disproportionately
impact
low­
income
coalfield
communities.
(
HEC00056)

The
management
of
FFC
wastes
and
products
does
not
Adversely
impact
low
income
or
minority
communities.
Based
upon
a
review
of
EPA's
demographic
database
and
member
company
inquiries,
USWAG
believes
that
EPA
has
adequately
responded
to
Executive
Order
12898
(
Feb.
11,
1994)
and
considered
whether
its
regulatory
determination
may
have
disproportionate
impacts.
It
is
important
to
remember
that
the
specialized
interests
addressed
by
Executive
Order
12898
do
not
alter
the
permissible
scope
of
the
Bevill
study
or
regulatory
determination.
(
USWAG00275)

In
response
to
EPA's
request
in
the
Report
to
Congress
for
comment
on
environmental
justice
implications
(
2
RTC
at
2­
5)
USWAG
requested
its
members
to
identify
any
environmental
justice
issues
associated
with
their
FFC
waste
management
facilities.
None
was
identified.
EPA's
demographic
database,
based
on
the
1990
U.
S.
census
data,
indicates
no
disproportionate
impacts
from
FFC
waste
management.
Indeed,
it
should
come
as
no
surprise
that
EPA
found
that
electric
utility
generation
sites
are
located
throughout
the
country
in
various
settings,
including
highly
industrialized
urban
areas
and
sparsely
settled
rural
areas.
While
some
sites
are
located
within
one
to
five
miles
of
predominantly
minority
or
low
income
areas,
the
vast
majority
are
in
predominantly
non­
low
income
and
Caucasian.
(
USWAG00275)

EPA's
regulatory
determination
on
FFC
wastes
will
affect
the
spectrum
of
locations
throughout
the
country.
To
the
extent,
if
any,
that
environmental
justice
considerations
have
any
bearing
on
FFC
waste
regulatory
policy,
EPA
must
keep
in
mind
that
this
is
not
a
facility
permit
renewal
proceeding
where
impacts
on
discrete
populations
in
proximity
to
individual
facilities
should
be
analyzed.
Rather,
this
is
a
national
policy
making
proceeding
that
requires
a
macroscopic
focus.
We
stress
that
even
at
the
community
level,
we
know
of
no
environmental
justice
claims
related
to
FFC
waste
management.
(
USWAG00275)

EPA
specifically
posed
the
question
whether
low­
income
or
minority
subsistence
farmers
may
be
at
heightened
risk.
2
RTC
at
2­
5.
USWAG
members
are
not
aware
of
"
subsistence
farming"
occurring
in
the
proximity
of
its
FFC
waste
management
units.
Similarly,
it
is
highly
unlikely
that
subsistence
farmers
(
or
their
children)
would
ever
come
in
contact
with
coal
combustion
products
beneficially
used
as
agricultural
soil
amendments.
Current
soil
amendment
applications
primarily
involve
field
scale
research
conducted
by
research
institutions
and
industry,
and
the
projected
future
market
for
this
use
is
comprised
of
large
farming
enterprises.
(
USWAG00275)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
1
XXIII
­
1
XXIII.
INCORPORATION
BY
REFERENCE
A
number
of
commenters
incorporated
by
reference,
cited,
or
specifically
agreed
with
the
comments
submitted
by
other
commenters.
To
aid
in
understanding
the
commenter
population,
the
specific
instances
are
listed
below:

°
Two
commenters
supported
the
comments
of
the
Ohio
Department
of
Development.
°
Four
commenters
supported
the
comments
of
the
National
Mining
Association.
°
One
commenter
supported
the
comments
of
Bradley
Paul
of
the
University
of
Southern
Illinois
and
Konrad
Banaczak.
°
One
commenter
supported
the
comments
of
Barry
Sheetz
of
Penn
State
University.
°
One
commenter
supported
the
comments
of
the
Anthracite
Region
Independent
Power
Producers
Association.
°
Two
commenters
supported
the
comments
of
the
American
Coal
Ash
Association.
°
Three
commenters
supported
the
comments
of
the
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection.
°
Six
commenters
supported
the
comments
of
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture.
°
Four
commenters
supported
the
comments
of
the
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group.
°
One
commenter
supported
the
comments
of
members
of
the
Pennsylvania
State
Legislature,
the
Pennsylvania
Environmental
Council,
and
Stream
Restoration
Incorporated.
°
One
commenter
supported
the
comments
of
the
Environmental
Defense
Fund.
°
One
commenter
supported
the
comments
of
the
Hoosier
Environmental
Council.
°
One
commenter
supported
the
comments
of
the
National
Citizens
Coal
Law
Project.
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
2
XXIII
­
2
XXIII.
INCORPORATION
BY
REFERENCE
Verbatim
Commenter
Statements
The
DMR
supports
the
comments
and
positions
of
OCDO
regarding
this
report
contained
in
their
letter
of
June
1,
1999
which
is
enclosed.
(
OHDNR00028)

We
are
a
member
of
the
American
Coal
Ash
Association
(
ACAA).
They
and
our
co­
sponsors
in
research
have
submitted
comments
on
the
EPA
report
referenced
above.
We
agree
and
would
like
to
endorse
these
comments
by
ACAA
and
The
Ohio
Coal
Development
Office
that
specifically
address
their
concern
for
not
interfering
with
or
complicating
beneficial
uses
in
agriculture
and
minefill
applications.
(
DTC00038)

PCA
endorses
the
comments
and
testimony
submitted
by
and
on
behalf
of
the
National
Mining
Association
and
its
members;
ARIPPA,
which
is
an
associate
member
of
PCA;
and
the
American
Coal
Ash
Association.
PCA
also
refers
EPA
to
the
voluminous
technical
information
and
comments
submitted
by
the
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP),
which
show
the
Commonwealth's
history
of
responsible
management
of
these
substances,
and
the
resulting
benefits
of
such
use.
(
PCA00034)

PCA
shares
the
US
Department
of
Agriculture's
concerns
about
the
risk
assessment
methodologies
and
assumptions
used
by
EPA
in
evaluating
risks.
We
join
USDA
in
recommending
that
these
concerns
be
resolved
prior
to
submitting
a
final
report
to
Congress.
(
PCA00034)

Mettiki
Coal
Corporation
(
MCC)
...
is
also
a
member
of
the
National
Mining
Association
(
NMA)
and
fLlly
supports
the
comments
filed
by
the
NMA.
(
MCC00051)

DEP
provides
the
following
summary
of
issues
and
incorporates
by
reference
the
detailed
comments
of
the
National
Mining
Association
("
NMA").
(
WVDEPL0003)

In
its
March
1999
comments
the
National
Mining
Association
(
NMA)
well­
supported
its
conclusion
that
the
agency's
concerns
are
unfounded
with
site­
specific
examples
of
ash
disposal
sites
in
Illinois
and
Indiana
where
disposal
below
the
water
table
had
created
no
problems
...
ICC
concurs
with
Dr.
Banaszak's
and
Dr.
Paul's
conclusions.
(
ICC00269)

To
cite
but
one
flaw,
one
cannot
determine
whether
the
EPA
CMTP
risk
assessment
code
utilized
by
EPA
included
the
utilization
of
the
13
steps
recommended
by
the
peer
review
committee.
This
flaw
is
fully
explained
in
materials
prepared
by
Professor
Barry
E.
Sheetz
(
Pennsylvania
State
University),
which
have
been
submitted
to
EPA.
(
CIBO00280)

PaDEP's
comments
to
EPA
noted
that
data
from
the
nearly
100
mine
sites
throughout
Pennsylvania
where
ash
has
been
used
as
a
supplement
for
soils
or
minefill
demonstrate
that
"
the
use
of
ash
does
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
3
XXIII
­
3
not
result
in
groundwater
degradation
when
used
in
accordance
with
the
regulations
and
guidance
in
effect
in
Pennsylvania."
The
three
volumes
of
supporting
data
submitted
by
PaDEP
provide
ample
data
to
support
PaDEP's
conclusions.
(
ARIPPA00273)

I
have
enclosed
for
your
review
a
copy
of
correspondence
dated
9
September
1999
addressed
to
you
by
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
secretary
James
M.
Seif,
requesting
that
you
determine
coal­
ash
and
waste­
coal
ash
in
mine
reclamation
and
agricultural
projects
as
non­
hazardous
waste.
(
PAL0004)

I
strongly
support
the
comments
made
on
the
risk
assessment
by
my
colleague,
Dr.
Rufus
Chaney,
USDA­
ARS,
with
whom
I
worked
on
the
503
risk
assessment.
Dr.
Chaney
is
one
of
the
preeminent
trace
element
biogeochemists
in
the
world
and
his
critique
of
the
risk
assessment
should
be
strongly
heeded.
(
NVIC00039)

These
results
coupled
with
Dr.
Chaney's
comments
on
the
flawed
risk
assessments
used
in
the
report,
indicate
very
low
As
risk
from
agricultural
or
mine
reclamation
uses
of
FFCWs.
To
Dr.
Chaney's
comments,
I
would
add
that
risk
assessment
of
mine
reclamation
use
of
FFCW
should
recognize
that
plant
material
grown
on
these
sites
is
not
used
as
feed
or
fodder
and
so
does
not
enter
the
food
chain.
It
is
only
several
years
after
reclamation
that
some
mined
areas
are
returned
to
production
agriculture
use.
(
PSU00040)

Virginia
Power
defers
all
technical
comments
to
the
submittal
provided
by
the
Department
of
Agriculture
during
the
May
21
public
hearing,
and
other
related
documents
submitted
by
the
Department
of
Agriculture
on
the
use
of
coal
combustion
by­
products
in
beneficial
agricultural
applications.
(
VAP00042)

Another
reviewer,
specifically
Dr.
Rufus
L.
Chaney
(
USDA),
has
largely
addressed
ISG's
concerns
about
methods
for
risk
assessment.
ISG
agrees
with
Dr.
Chaney
that
significant
amounts
of
research
have
already
been
performed
on
the
interaction
of
fluidized
bad
ashes
with
forage
crops,
livestock,
and
food
chain
effects.
ISG
also
wants
to
bring
to
EPA's
attention
the
USDA
research
articles
that
have
already
been
cited
to
EPA
in
the
CIBO
1997
document
submitted
to
the
agency.
(
ISG00048)

I
received
a
copy
of
comments
on
the
above­
referenced
document
which
were
authored
by
Dr.
Rufus
Chaney.
with
the
USDA's
Agricultural
Research
Service.
Dr.
Chaney
also
worked
on
the
risk
assessment
that
was
conducted
to
develop
the
USEPA's
regulations
controlling
the
beneficial
use
and
disposal
of
biosolids
(
40
CFR
Part
503).
After
reading
Dr.
Chaney's
comments,
Bio
Gro
was
compelled
to
comment
on
this
report.
Bio
Gro
wishes
to
reiterate
all
of
the
scientific
comments
that
were
made
by
Dr.
Chaney
to
you
in
his
letter
to
dated
on
May
21,
1999.
We
respectfully
submit
a
copy
of
his
letter
to
you
as
our
comments
on
this
particular
report.
(
BG00063)
Comment
Summary
and
Response
Document
Report
to
Congress:
Wastes
from
the
Combustion
of
Fossil
Fuels
April
2000
4
XXIII
­
4
APS
is
also
a
member
of
the
Utility
Solid
Wastes
Activities
Group
(
USWAG).
APS
fully
supports
and
endorses
the
separate
detailed
comments
of
USWAG
in
response
to
EPA's
RTC.
(
APSC00043)

We
are
fuIly
supportive
of
the
comments
submitted
by
the
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
(
USWAG)
and
would
like
to
offer
the
following
additional
comments.
(
TVA00049)

TXU
also
supports
comments
on
the
RTC
submitted
on
behalf
of
the
Utility
Solid
Waste
Activities
Group
("
USWAG")
under
separate
cover.(
TXU00053)

AEP's
views
and
detailed
comments
on
the
Phase
II
Report
are
expressed
in
comments
filed
by
USWAG.
(
AEP00060)

The
reclamation
work
that
the
waste
coal
plants
are
performing
has
broad
public
support
in
Pennsylvania,
as
evidenced
by
letters
that
have
been
submitted
to
EPA
by,
among
others,
the
Pennsylvania
Environmental
Council,
the
Pennsylvania
Department
of
Environmental
Protection,
the
Joint
Legislative
Air
&
Water
Pollution
Control
and
Conservation
Committee,
the
Majority
and
Minority
Chairman
of
the
Senate
Environmental
Resources
Committee,
the
Chairman
of
the
House
Environmental
Resources
Committee,
and
other
individual
legislators.
Copies
of
these
letters
are
attached
hereto
as
Appendix
IV.
(
ARIPPA00273)

Other
commenters
have
ably
discussed
this
Issue
on
the
record
m
this
case.
See
Comment
letter
of
the
Environmental
Defense
Fund
(
June
14,
1999),
Docket
F­
1999­
FF2P­
FFFFF.
We
agree
with
these
commenters
that
EPA's
practice
inI
this
docket
to
date
is,
at
best
highly
irregular,
and
likely
illegal,
given
Agency
precedent
(
ALA00292)

We
want
to
emphasize
in
the
strongest
possible
terms,
our
support
of
the
Hoosier
Environmental
Council's
efforts
in
this
regard
­­
we
have
seen
the
file
after
file,
the
manifold
documents
and
studies
which
show
that
coal
wastes
dumped
over
watersheds
leaches
dangerous
materials.
We
feel
that
it
is
not
only
dangerous
to
the
many
on
well
and
spring
water,
but
to
those
coming
onto
municipal
water
systems
as
well­­
most
of
those
systems
rely
also
on
well
and
spring
water­­
or
draw
from
the
rivers
fed
by
such
aquifers.
(
PEACE00306)

Here
we
defer
to
comments
being
submitted
on
our
behalf
under
separate
cover
by
Tom
FitzGerald,
Director
of
the
Kentucky
Resources
Council.
(
HEC00332)