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

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.

Teresa de Lima, a private resident of Palmer, Alaska, opposes the disposal of coal ash. She provides a detailed hypothetical analysis of how dumping coal ash in Fairbanks would contaminate local rivers, groundwater, and the Bering Sea over a century.

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.

Robert S. Mulford, a retired energy sector worker, opposes the proposed rule change and urges the EPA to fully enforce existing 2015 and 2024 coal ash rules. He argues that industrial operators should not be allowed to ease or delay requirements regarding toxic emissions and wastewater standards.

The commenter opposes the proposed amendments to the coal ash disposal rule, expressing concern over the potential for water and air pollution from a local coal ash dump. They argue for stronger federal regulations to protect public health and the environment.

An individual is opposing the proposed rule regarding coal combustion residuals, arguing that the changes will expose Americans to toxins that cause serious health issues like cancer and brain damage. The commenter emphasizes the government's responsibility to maintain strong coal ash regulations to protect public health.

The commenter opposes the proposed amendments to the coal ash disposal rules, arguing that the changes weaken regulations and pose significant health risks to residents. They advocate for uniform federal protections across all states rather than state-by-state regulation.

Robert S. Mulford, a retired energy sector engineer, opposes the proposed rule change and extension of the CCR Part A(f)(2) rule. He argues that the EPA should strictly enforce existing 2015 and 2024 coal ash regulations to protect public health from toxic emissions and leachates.