Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities; Federal CCR Permit Program

Amy Mickschl, representing HEC, opposes the proposed federal action regarding coal combustion residuals. She argues that coal ash poses a significant threat to groundwater and public health, citing existing contamination and calling for polluters to pay for remediation.

A parent and medical doctor opposes the proposed action, arguing that it "loosens" coal ash cleanup requirements and risks further contamination of water, land, and food with toxins like mercury. The commenter advocates for stricter protections for public health and the environment.

A resident of Indiana opposes the proposed changes to the Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) rule, arguing that it weakens environmental protections. The commenter expresses concern that allowing coal ash to be stored in unlined piles and used in construction projects poses significant health and environmental risks to families and workers.

The commenter, a private individual, opposes the proposed federal action because they believe it rolls back environmental protections for coal ash. They argue that coal ash is toxic and poses significant health and environmental risks, particularly to low-income communities and communities of color.

An individual opposes the proposed weakening of the EPA Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Rule, citing specific instances of documented pollution and groundwater contamination at Alabama Power's Plant Barry. The commenter urges the EPA to prioritize groundwater protection over the proposed regulatory changes.