Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: Unmanaged Combustion Residual Leachate

Vonda Van Farowe, a private citizen from Cleveland, Ohio, opposes the proposed rule. She argues that the proposal weakens wastewater pollution standards and requests that the EPA withdraw it to protect public health.

The commenter opposes the proposed action, arguing that it facilitates the continued use of outdated and polluting coal industries. They advocate for a transition to renewable energy and express concern over the environmental and economic damages caused by fossil fuel production and deregulation.

Christina Stanton, a private resident, opposes the proposed rule to weaken wastewater pollution standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category. She argues that the proposal will allow harmful pollutants into waterways, causing illness and death to people and wildlife, and urges the EPA to withdraw it.

Larry Dembrun, a private citizen, supports the development of effluent limitation standards for unmanaged combustion residual leachate. He argues that regulations should be based on scientific research and practical implementation while prioritizing water quality protection, transparency, and public accountability.

The Utility Water Act Group (UWAG), a non-profit group representing 129 energy companies, supports the EPA's proposed rule to replace national arsenic and mercury limits for FEDD UCRL with a case-by-case Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) approach. They also support maintaining current limits and extending the compliance deadline to 2034 for Pumped UCRL, while continuing to advocate for the repeal of the 2024 Rule's zero-discharge requirements.

America’s Power, a national trade organization representing the coal-fired electricity supply chain, supports the EPA's proposed Option 1 to establish case-specific "best professional judgment" (BPJ) effluent limitations for unmanaged coal residual leachate. They argue that uniform national standards for mercury and arsenic are technically and economically unfeasible due to the high variability of groundwater-derived waste streams and advocate for similar BPJ flexibility for pumped and treated leachate as well as exclusions for retired plants.

Three Rivers Waterkeeper opposes the proposed revisions to the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for unmanaged combustion residual leachate, arguing that the proposal weakens existing protections and creates regulatory inconsistency. The organization contends that the EPA has not demonstrated that the 2024 standards are technologically infeasible and urges the agency to retain nationally applicable Best Available Technology (BAT) requirements to protect water quality from legacy coal ash pollution.

Susan Solomon, a private individual, opposes the proposal to roll back coal pollution dumping standards. She argues that the proposal is illogical and suggests it is motivated by financial interests rather than environmental safety.

Clean Water Action, representing 1,340 individuals, opposes the proposed rule because it weakens wastewater pollution standards for coal-fired power plants. They argue the rule allows the coal industry to avoid cleaning up toxic unmanaged combustion residual leachate, which poses health risks to nearby communities.

The Clean Air Coalition of Western New York, a non-profit environmental justice organization, opposes the proposed rule change because it rolls back protections for treating toxic "unmanaged" leachate wastewater from coal plants. They argue that the EPA should instead strengthen Clean Water Act protections to ensure corporate polluters are held accountable for cleaning up legacy coal ash pollution.