Comite Dialogo Ambiental
AdvocacyOppose
Coal ash regulation rollback
Weakening environmental protections
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities; Legacy/CCRMU Amendments; Public Hearing
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0107-1376NPRM
Comments
1,784
Last activity Jul 23, 2026
Deadline
Closed on Jun 30, 2026
Closed Jun 30, 2026
Net supportiSupport minus oppose · campaigns included
-55%
-55% excluding campaigns
Document
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities; Legacy/CCRMU Amendments; Public Hearing
Federal Register for Monday, April 13, 2026 (91 FR 18968) [FRL-7814.3-01-OLEM]
- Posted
- Apr 13, 2026
- Comment period
- Apr 13, 2026 – Jun 30, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2026-07061
- CFR
- 40 CFR Part 257
Analysis
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Include campaigns
Stance breakdown
-55%
Net support
Support355Oppose1,340Other89
Aggregates include form-letter campaigns. Excluding them, net support is -55% across organic comments.
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Individual
1,608
Government
21
Trade association
13
Advocacy
88
Academic
7
Business
41
Other
6
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Posted Apr 13, 2026Deadline Jun 30, 2026
Apr 6Apr 27May 18Jun 8Jun 29Jul 20
Support355Oppose1,340Other89
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Support
Oppose
Other
Individual
17%
78%
5%
Advocacy
17%
77%
6%
Business
85%
12%
2%
Government
76%
14%
10%
Trade association
77%
23%
0%
Academic
29%
71%
0%
Other
0%
67%
33%
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Weakening environmental protections1,514
Environmental health and safety845
Coal ash regulation rollback749
Water quality protection421
Coal ash cleanup standards152
Environmental justice151
Data center environmental impact116
Health and economic impacts of coal ash102
Coal ash waste management101
Beneficial use of coal ash90
Position map
Who stands where on each issue?
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Uncheck an issue to choose another.
| Organization | Coal ash regulation rollback | Weakening environmental protections | Coal ash cleanup standards | Closure timeframe criteria | Coal ash storage and transport |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Comite Dialogo Ambiental AdvocacyOppose Ruth Santiago, a lawyer for the advocacy group Comite Dialogo Ambiental, opposes the proposed CCR rule amendments becaus | · | · | · | ||
Downstream Strategies AdvocacyOppose Downstream Strategies, representing a coalition of environmental groups, opposes the proposed rollback of federal regula | · | · | |||
Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Altamaha Riverkeeper, Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, Clean Power Lake County, Comite Diálogo Ambiental, Coosa River Basin I AdvocacyOppose A coalition of environmental advocacy organizations opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it weakens protections for c | · | · | |||
League of Women Voters of Indiana AdvocacySupport Cheryl Chapman, representing the League of Women Voters of Indiana, supports the 2015 and 2024 CCR rules to ensure the s | · | · | |||
The Alliance for Appalachia AdvocacyOppose The Alliance for Appalachia, a coalition of 24 organizations, opposes the proposed rule changes regarding coal combustio | · | · |
Downstream Strategies
AdvocacyOppose
Coal ash regulation rollback
Weakening environmental protections
Coal ash cleanup standards
Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Altamaha Riverkeeper, Chattahoochee Riverkeeper, Clean Power Lake County, Comite Diálogo Ambiental, Coosa River Basin I
AdvocacyOppose
Coal ash regulation rollback
Weakening environmental protections
Closure timeframe criteria
League of Women Voters of Indiana
AdvocacySupport
Coal ash regulation rollback
Weakening environmental protections
Coal ash storage and transport
The Alliance for Appalachia
AdvocacyOppose
Coal ash regulation rollback
Weakening environmental protections
Coal ash cleanup standards
70 organization-typed comments could not be identified.
Comments
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
Filter:
- May 25, 2026Anonymous public commentOtherIndividual
A private citizen expresses general concern about the EPA's regulatory oversight and the importance of clean water for future generations. The commenter does not take a specific position on the proposed action regarding coal combustion residuals, but rather calls for better networking of ideas and broader consultation with the public.
Read comment → - May 23, 2026Anonymous public commentOpposeIndividual
A private resident from Michigan opposes the proposed reduction in regulations for coal combustion residuals, arguing that it will lead to environmental pollution and health issues. The commenter expresses concern over the lack of accountability for industrial operations and the finite nature of natural resources.
Read comment → - May 23, 2026Anonymous public commentOpposeIndividualRead comment →
- May 23, 2026Comment submitted by Paula SeraphimOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposal, arguing that it prioritizes the needs of the tech industry and AI development over the preservation of irreplaceable water sources and ecosystems. They suggest that the environmental impact of AI is a primary reason for its unpopularity and that this action will increase public opposition.
Read comment → - May 22, 2026Anonymous public commentOtherIndividualRead comment →
- May 21, 2026Comment submitted by Cammi VanceOtherIndividualRead comment →
- May 20, 2026Anonymous public commentSupportIndividualRead comment →
- May 20, 2026Comment submitted by H. A. (no full name provided)OpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed action, expressing strong opposition to the environmental impact and pollution associated with data centers and the "AI revolution." They argue that these developments harm local communities and contribute to environmental collapse.
Read comment → - May 20, 2026Comment submitted by Danielle GerberOpposeIndividualRead comment →
- May 19, 2026Anonymous public commentOpposeIndividualRead comment →