Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities; Legacy/CCRMU Amendments; Public Hearing

Indra Frank, representing the Hoosier Environmental Council and a coalition of Indiana organizations, opposes the EPA's proposed changes to the Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) rule. The group argues that the proposal weakens cleanup standards, allows for hazardous unencapsulated use of coal ash as fill, and creates loopholes for monitoring and regulation of legacy sites (CCRMUs).

The submission is a technical placeholder or administrative notice regarding attachments for comments filed by Earthjustice, et al. It does not contain a specific position or argument from the submitter.

Downstream Strategies, representing a coalition of environmental groups, opposes the proposed rollback of federal regulations regarding Coal Combustion Residuals Management Units (CCRMUs). They argue that these units are significant sources of groundwater contamination and that removing them from regulation will hinder site cleanups and endanger public health.

Earthjustice submitted a set of attachments, including an Environmental Assessment Report for the John Sevier Fossil Plant, as part of a larger joint comment with several other environmental organizations. The comment serves as a technical submission of data and reports rather than a direct statement of support or opposition to the proposed rule.

The comment is a formal legal brief submitted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a court case regarding coal combustion residuals. It serves as a response to a petition for review and does not express a specific stance on the proposed rule itself, but rather argues legal points regarding the agency's jurisdiction and previous actions.

This submission is a collection of technical documents and attachments (specifically a Sitewide Groundwater Remedial Action Plan for the E.W. Brown Generating Station) submitted by a coalition of environmental advocacy groups. The comment does not express a specific stance on the proposed rule but provides supporting documentation for their position.

Earthjustice, along with several other environmental organizations, submitted a series of technical documents and evidence regarding the health and environmental impacts of coal combustion residuals (CCR). The submission highlights numerous "damage cases" involving fugitive dust, groundwater contamination, and air quality risks to support the need for stricter federal regulations on CCR disposal.

Earthjustice, along with 77 other public interest groups, opposes the proposed rule because it weakens protections for toxic coal ash waste piles. They request a 120-day public comment period, Spanish translations of all documents, and a public hearing in Guayama, Puerto Rico, to ensure meaningful participation from impacted communities.

Earthjustice submitted a set of attachments to the EPA supporting the proposed rule on coal ash disposal. The submission includes data on EPA-confirmed coal ash reuse damage cases and environmental justice data to highlight the risks associated with coal ash.

A coalition of environmental advocacy organizations opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it weakens protections for coal combustion residuals (CCR) and violates the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). They contend that the proposal improperly expands exemptions for "beneficial use," fails to provide minimum criteria for disposal, and ignores the significant risks to human health and the environment.