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.

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.

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.

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.

A water resources engineer opposes the proposed regulatory changes, arguing that weakening protections for coal ash will lead to water contamination and significant health and infrastructural costs. The commenter urges the EPA to uphold and enforce existing strong protections.

A pediatrician specializing in environmental health opposes the proposal, arguing that it will harm children's health and lead to further contamination of groundwater and rivers. The commenter highlights the dangers of heavy metals in coal ash, such as mercury and lead, which cause neurodevelopmental issues and other serious health problems.

The commenter opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it weakens environmental and public health protections for coal ash disposal. They specifically criticize the removal of environmental demonstration requirements and the inclusion of site-specific considerations that could lead to less stringent cleanup standards.

The commenter opposes the proposed rule because it would allow for the waiving of safety rules for coal ash ponds and remove regulations on dry coal ash dumps. They argue that strong federal regulations are necessary to prevent coal ash contamination of groundwater, drinking water, and farmland.