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

A group of Members of Congress supports the proposed rule as a "good start" but urges the EPA to go further by rescinding the CCRMU subcategory and reinstating the 2015 exclusion for units closed more than a decade ago. They also request more precise definitions for "liquids" and "infiltration," exemptions for on-site beneficial use, and extended compliance deadlines to reduce costs for coal-fueled power plant owners.

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).

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.

The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), an association of over 130 electric utilities and power producers, supports the EPA's proposed revisions to the CCR rule. They argue for greater regulatory flexibility, specifically advocating for the exemption of beneficial uses, the clarification of "dewatering structures" as non-regulated storage, and the expansion of closure exemptions for legacy impoundments.

The Luminant Companies, a group of power generation facilities, support the EPA's proposed revisions to the coal combustion residuals (CCR) regulations. They argue that the proposed site-specific, risk-based approach is more consistent with statutory authority and real-world data than the previous "worst-case" one-size-fits-all standards.

America’s Power, a national trade organization representing the coal industry, opposes the proposed rule because it relies on flawed, overly conservative risk assessments that do not reflect site-specific conditions. They argue that the rule imposes burdensome, impractical requirements on coal combustion residuals (CCR) and call for the rescission of the CCRMU program or the adoption of flexible, risk-based standards.

Xcel Energy, a public utility holding company, supports the EPA's proposed rule to align coal combustion residuals (CCR) requirements with site-specific risks while maintaining environmental protectiveness. They advocate for a flexible, risk-based permit framework that accounts for site-specific conditions, existing state oversight, and the practical realities of managing legacy CCR units.

Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) supports the EPA's proposed amendments to the regulations governing the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR), citing the need for a risk-informed approach that reduces regulatory burdens. The company advocates for specific flexibilities, including expanded closure certification pathways, performance-based slope protection standards, and clearer exemptions for beneficial uses of CCR.

A company that develops and operates technology for the beneficial use and recovery of coal combustion residuals (CCR) supports the Agency's goal of expanding legitimate beneficial use. They recommend specific modifications to ensure the rule prevents unmonitored disposal, including purity standards for agricultural gypsum, oversight for on-site placement, and a framework for managing legacy CCR.

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (AEPCO) supports the proposed rule because it provides relief from the burdensome and costly requirements of the 2024 Legacy Rule while moving toward a more flexible, site-specific regulatory scheme. The cooperative argues that the current "one-size-fits-all" framework is ineffective and advocates for the elimination of the CCRMU category, citing a lack of technical and legal justification for its regulation.