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

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.

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.

Phyllis DaMota, a resident of the Town of Pines, Indiana, urges the EPA to retain the 2024 national standards for the safe disposal of coal combustion residuals. She argues that lowering these standards would continue the environmental disaster of groundwater contamination caused by fly ash.

The Northern Alaska Environmental Center, a nonprofit organization, opposes the EPA's proposed revisions to coal combustion residuals (CCR) regulations. They argue that the changes would weaken protections for groundwater, air quality, and public health by creating loopholes for utilities to delay cleanup and reduce oversight of legacy coal ash disposal areas.

The commenter argues that the EPA should not expand the proposed risk-based closure standards to include corrective action remedies, asserting that existing regulations already provide sufficient flexibility. They contend that the proposed approach lacks statutory authority, fails to protect the environment, and that the EPA should instead rely on its own established guidance rather than industry-provided frameworks.

The law firm Tobin and Dempf, LLP, is submitting comments on behalf of residents in the Town of Bethlehem, New York, who are concerned about the environmental and health risks posed by a legacy coal ash landfill at Beacon Island. They oppose the proposed 2026 amendments because they believe the rules abdicate federal oversight to state authorities and demand that the EPA maintain strict federal enforcement, including mandatory removal of the coal ash and the imposition of civil and criminal penalties.

The Ohio Utilities and Generation (OUG), an association of electric utilities, supports the EPA's Legacy Amendments, particularly regarding the rescission of CCR Management Unit provisions and expanded recognition of beneficial use. However, they argue that the rules should be further modified to focus on site-specific risk assessments rather than presumed risks and to ensure that work performed under other federal or state programs is not undermined by the new rules.

Santee Cooper, a public-power utility, supports the EPA's proposal to allow a new pathway for certifying closure by removal of legacy CCR impoundments. However, they argue that the EPA should eliminate or revise the "cognizant regulatory authority" requirement, as it arbitrarily excludes sites where closure was completed under state oversight but the initial mandate predated the 2015 CCR Rule.

The Public Service Commission of West Virginia supports the proposed modifications to the Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Rules but argues that the EPA should go further by completely removing Coal Combustion Residual Management Units (CCRMUs) from the regulations. They contend that the current CCRMU requirements are economically unworkable, environmentally disruptive for legacy sites, and create unnecessary logistical hurdles for closure by removal.