The EPA's draft Report declares that the movement from unlined to lined impoundments is concentrated in Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, and Texas and that all surface impoundments in these states built after 1982 have liners. Yet in the case of Texas, the Natural Resource Conservation Commission does not require a regulatory permit for any onsite CCW disposal facility. In Georgia and Indiana, no surface impoundments have been built since 1982, and none of the impoundments in these states are lined. Kentucky regulators know of no lined lagoons on their state, and Kentucky law requires no groundwater monitoring at lagoons. In Missouri, two new surface impoundments are lined. However, Missouri law only allows surface impoundments as storage for CCW, and liners are not required. Liners were installed at these two sites by a utility attempting to gain permanent disposal sites. ( HEC00332)

The EPA report discusses a move toward better environmental regulation being carried out by the states, yet one of the states generating the largest volumes of UCCW which has experienced substantial damages from UCCW has moved toward no environmental regulation of UCCW. ( HEC00332) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 15 XX  15 In the Electric Power Research Institute ( EPRI) survey which is quoted in the Report, only 41 percent of the total sites reporting are lined and three fourths of surface impoundments are unlined. Furthermore, despite their high potential to contaminate groundwater, only 38% of surface impoundments had groundwater monitoring systems as of 1995. This amounts to a rise of less than 10% in the number of impoundments that reportedly monitor groundwater over the number that monitored groundwater twenty years previously according to the EPRI survey ( see figure 3 11 in the Report). This reality contrasts starkly with the assertion in the text on page 3 34 of the Report. ( HEC00332)

The statements made about the environmental controls at CCW surface impoundments in section 3.3.4 of the Report are very misleading. The Report discusses a trend toward lined landfills, but failed to mention the move toward mine disposal sites that would offset this trend particularly if the move toward deregulation of electricity sales continues in the utility industry. ( HEC00332) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 16 XX  16 XX. ADEQUACY OF STATE REGULATIONS C. Adequacy of Regulations Public interest group commenters stated that state regulations provide inadequate control of risks because they do not universally require liners, leachate collection systems, and ground water monitoring. As evidence of inadequate regulation, some of the commenters pointed to the presence of grandfather clauses for older management units, the imposition of controls on a case by case basis, failure to monitor for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and radionuclides, and " blurred lines of authority" within state programs. Also of particular concern was an apparent lack of controls on surface impoundments. One of the commenters also stated that the Report incorrectly assumed that TMDLs under the NPDES program adequately protect aquatic life.

Industry and state government commenters, on the other hand, stated that state regulations are adequate and that additional federal regulation would limit states' ability to address sitespecific concerns. One of these commenters pointed to the frequency of corrective actions and liner requirements as evidence that state regulations are adequate.

Response: The Agency believes that it is appropriate for states to retain some flexibility in addressing site specific circumstances that may affect the appropriate controls needed for that site, as long as the state is applying certain standards of protectiveness. We believe that national regulations can be developed in such a way to ensure a standard of protection, while providing some flexibility. We see a trend toward significantly improving state programs that we believe can mitigate potential risks over time. However, we identified significant gaps in controls already in place and, in particular, requirements that may be lacking in some states, either in authority to impose the requirements or potentially in exercising that authority. Considering these gaps, along with the potential to present danger to human health and the environment, we are concerned at the possibility that gaps may go unaddressed and that the timeframe for improvement of current practices is likely to be longer in the absence of federal regulations.

The Agency collected samples of coal combustion wastes in support of its effluent limitations guidelines for the steam electric power point source category ( Oct. 19, 1982) and analyzed them for organic compounds, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ( PAH), among other types of analytes. These data were also used to formulate this regulatory determination. Basically, EPA found in 1982 that levels of PAH in these wastes were either below detection limits or else were present in only a limited number of samples which indicated that they are not commonly present in these types of wastes. For its conclusions regarding radionuclides, EPA relied on information and scientific studies that were conducted and published by EPA and others prior to issuance of the RTC ( discussed on pp. 3 17 and 3 18 of the RTC and in section XIII of this document), which adequately addresses this subject.

XX. ADEQUACY OF STATE REGULATIONS C. Adequacy of Regulations Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 17 XX  17 Verbatim Commenter Statements Practices are currently subject to industry best management practices and state regulatory controls that are effective. ( IEU00018)

Some Indiana CCP landfill sites have undergone or are currently undergoing corrective actions on either a voluntary or a state agency directed basis. These corrective actions are required by state landfill regulations whenever a release exceeds background concentrations. In some instances old CCP landfills are being capped or leachate is being collected even though these protective measures were not required when the landfills were constructed. Today, any new construction or major modification of CCP landfill is subject to state regulations that require the utilization of liners. At a minimum, all Indiana CCP landfills are being monitored to ensure that any problems are identified in a timely manner. In Indiana, the groundwater monitoring wells at CCP landfills are placed within 50 feet of the solid waste disposal boundary compared to the 150 meters required by federal Subtitle D regulations. In short, Indiana disposal sites are in full compliance with applicable state and federal regulations including, when appropriate, corrective action requirements. ( IEU00018)

We agree with EPA's determination that: ° The electric generation industry has a significant level of installed environmental controls for managing the wastes studied in the Report; ° The majority of states have regulations controlling the management and monitoring of ash management; ( PG& E00023)

EPA mentioned numerous state and federal regulations pertaining to electric generating facilities, yet not all of the regulations pertaining to ash management in Massachusetts were described or listed in this section ... Clearly, these activities are closely regulated by appropriate agencies that know and understand the regional issues, geologic setting, and hydrogeology. ( PG& E00023)

PG& E Gen's comments document extensive and ongoing regulatory scrutiny of both its facilities, including monitoring requirements. ( PG& E00023)

The Department has worked closely with ` the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency in implementing the [ Illinois Environmental Protection] Act and in our opinion the steps taken by Illinois to address the disposal and use of CCW and CCB preclude the need for federal regulations in this area. ( IDNR00023)

The WRAG would like to affirm the majority of conclusions in the Agency's report and fully supports the Agency's position that continued use of site and region specific approaches by states is more appropriate for addressing the limited health and environmental risks that may be associated with the wastes. It has been WRAG's experience that state, county and municipal agencies are fully cognizant of the use of CCBs. and. provide appropriate oversight of these Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 18 XX  18 activities. As each county or municipality has land use regulations or ordinances, these local agencies are best equipped to determine the impact non hazardous waste activities have on their areas. ( WRAG00030)

Continued use of site and region specific approaches by states is more appropriate for addressing the limited health and environmental risks that may be associated with the wastes. It has been our experience that the States of Colorado, New Mexico and Texas, county and municipal agencies are fully cognizant of the disposal of these wastes and provide appropriate oversight of these waste activities. As each county or municipality has land use regulations or ordinances, these local agencies are best equipped to determine the impact non hazardous waste activities have on their areas. Additionally, state solid waste regulations clearly identify the requirements that solid waste uses, including disposal, must meet and additional regulatory oversight from the Agency is unnecessary. ( NCE00031)

The trend among electric utilities is to install more environmental controls at waste management facilities, including liners, covers, and groundwater monitoring. ( USWAG00037)

Most utility industry co management occurs in surface impoundments and landfills, with an increasing trend toward dry landfill management of co managed combustion wastes. EPA identified a clear trend among these units to increased use of environmental controls such as liners, covers, leachate collection systems, and groundwater monitoring. This is the result of several factors: ( 1) changes in state regulatory requirements; ( 2) requirements imposed by state permit writers on an ad hoc basis; and ( 3) voluntary action by individual utility companies as old units are taken out of service and replaced by modern state of the art waste management units. Thus, as of 1995, more than 50% of all landfills and more than 25% of all impoundments at which utility combustion waste co management occurs were lined, and as older units are closed or removed from service, the trend toward greater environmental controls is likely to accelerate. ( USWAG00037)

The states have developed a comprehensive body of regulations applicable to the waste management units in which utilities store and dispose of combustion wastes. ( USWAG00037)

There is no point in restating the complex array of state regulations that EPA surveyed in the RTC, but the significance of this information is that both EPA and the states have adopted wide ranging regulatory requirements that apply to these management units under federal and state air, water and solid waste programs. ( USWAG00037)

The RTC demonstrated that the states in which OCW management units are located typically have comprehensive regulatory programs applicable to these units. A majority of states have permit programs, as well as authority to impose regulatory requirements pertaining to siting, liners, leachate collection, groundwater monitoring, closure, daily cover, and fugitive dust controls ... The crucial point is that OCW management is actively regulated by the states. ( USWAG00037) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 19 XX  19 The agency concluded, " current management practices and trends and existing state and federal authorities appear adequate for protection of human health and the environment." APS agrees with the agency that FFC waste disposal is adequately regulated on the state level. ( APSC00043)

APS believes the state agencies have the appropriate regulatory structure in place to effectively manage FFC wastes. ( APSC00043)

The Agency recognizes the states' ability to regulate FBC ashes, as well as utility and non utility ashes, in solid waste management's units ... States have the ability to develop effective landfill, mine reclamation, and agricultural programs. These programs are developed within each state and can best reflect their unique environmental factors, social and economic needs. It appears that current regulation of these activities is more than adequate. ( ISG00048)

Additionally, MCC feels that the materials discussed in the March 1999 Document are properly and duly regulated at the State level. Any attempt to impose Federal restrictions over and above what the States already impose is inappropriate and an ill advised attempt to implement a " one size fits all" regulatory approach to materials that are as varied as the sources producing them. ( MCC00051)

We do not believe there is any need to develop new national regulations or classifications for industrial combustion ash or by products from the combustion of oil. We believe current regulations and State management programs are sufficient to protect human health and the environment. ( CIBO00052)

Existing state and federal regulatory programs insure the proper management of fossil fuel combustion wastes. ( CIBO00052)

State regulatory programs are demonstrably more than adequate to address any risks posed by the use and disposal of CCPs. ( WVDEPL0003)

Extensive federal and state regulatory programs currently in place adequately protect public health and the environment from risks from the management of these non hazardous fossil fuel wastes. ( PG& E00274)

EPA correctly reported in the Report to Congress that most utility industry co management occurs in surface impoundments and landfills, with an increasing trend toward dry landfill management of co managed combustion wastes as well as a clear trend among these units to increased use of environmental controls such as liners, covers, leachate collection systems, and groundwater monitoring. ( USWAG00275)

Based on the information presented by EPA in the Report, the existing regulatory controls imposed by the states are inadequate in terms of unit coverage and stringency, they widely variable across Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 20 XX  20 the states and are primarily based on permitting policies and not enforceable regulations. The following examples illustrate these points:

° Most environmental control requirements are imposed by states on a case by case basis. On page 3 29, the Report states that " therefore if the trend in liner usage is driven by regulatory agencies in these states, ir appears to result from a change in permitting policies rather than written regulations." The EPA should not consider permitting policies to be " adequate regulatory control" and does not to so under any other federal environmental program unless the pemlitting process ( and individual permits) have been approved ( e. g., air programs).

° Most management units surveyed operate under an environmental permit. However, " information on the degree of protection afforded by these permits was not collected in the EPRI survey." The EPA should not be relying on industry surveys of state regulatory agencies and should collect in formation independently to determine the stringency of such permit programs and the extent of their coverage.( ALA00036)

In terms of what the states actually do or do not require, the Report reveals the following:

° Most states do not impose specific requirements for groundwater monitoring of impoundments.

° More than twice as many landfills surveyed were sub. ject to groundwater performance standards compared to impoundments. However, despite of being " subject" to these standards, almost 10 percent of the landfills and fully one half of the impoundments are not required to monitor the groundwater. The EPA correctly notes that " therefore it is unlikely that exceedences would be detected at these facilities." ° Based on examination of permitting programs at five states, the EPA concludes that use of leachate collection systems, groundwater monitoring, and regulatory permits has a " high rate of implementation at landfills," and " significant implementation" at impoundments. This appears to be a generous appraisal of these programs. A close examination of these five state programs ( see pg 3 60 and the. ASTSWMO survey) reveals that while all five appear to require operating permits, only two of five require Ieachate collection and/ or groundwater monitoring at impoundments and only three of five require these controls at landfills. This is neither a " high rate of implementation" nor a " significant rate of implementation."

° In addition, the five state programs examined by EPA each have generous grandfather clauses that typically exempt older existing units. This is likely to also be true of other state programs. This aspect of the state programs needs to be investigated by EPA. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 21 XX  21 ° The ASTSWMO survey of state programs asked the two following questions: Do the states require generators to submit regular reports addressing the quantities of waste generated: and Do the states require regular reports adressing the location of the storage, treatment, and disposal ( i. e., management) facilities? Forty three states answered both of these questions " no" and seven answered " yes." Therefore, it appears that state programs know little or nothing about how much waste is being generated or where it ends up.

° The ASTSWMO survey further states that with respect to impoundments, there are " blurred lines of authority" within state programs. The state approaches are a mixture of widely varying water quality and waste regulatory programs. This piecemeal approach , which is apparent between and even within state agencies, is not an appropriate substitute for federal requirements.

° As a last example of state environmental controls to which the EPA seems willing to defer, the following from page 3 14 of the Groundwater Risk Assessment is offered: " Of the 16 unlined surface impoundments ( surveyed by EPRI), 12 are located in Florida and are percolation basins designed to discharge to groundwater. This practice of discharging to groundwater is allowed under state wastewater permits." ( ALA00036)

The Report indicates that states have exercised their authority to impose stricter controls at landfills more than at surface impoundments. While this may be good news, there is evidence from materials in the docket ( US Department of Energy, 1993) that suggests that surface impoundments continue to be the dominant utility choice for on site management of coal combustion wastes. According to this source, " the large number of impoundments relative to landfills in certain regions may reflect State regulatory issues ( i. e. more flexible design and operating standards for surface impoundments). Many utilities have chosen to extend the life of the impoundments by building up the side walls. of the ponds above the ground  this strategy has been employed instead of more costly alternative management methods, including ( 1) converting the existing wet handling system to direct waste to a different site; ( 2) acquiring land to construct new units ( 3) converting to a new dry handling dry handling system and ( 4) transporting coal combustion waste to off site waste management units." ( ALA00036)

Even though impoundment expansions require state review, the Report indicates that standards for impoundments are not as protective of health and the environment as new units, and in particular dry handling units. Thus, without more evidence to prove otherwise, we are not convinced that state regulations are being effective in applying stricter standards. ( ALA00036)

State regulatory efforts are extremely weak. ( HEC00056)

The Report highlighted Indiana's efforts as one of the best examples of state programs improving its regulation of electric utility impoundments. Yet we have found no evidence of enhanced protection in place at any of these sites. We can locate no evidence of constructed liners or ground Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 22 XX  22 water monitoring at any of the surface impoundments. The only parameters covered by the NPDES permits that had regulated limits were total suspended solids ( TSS), oil and grease, and pH. Copper and iron are only regulated when the plant's turbines are cleaned. Boron, which an Indiana inspector stated should be expected to be a problem almost anywhere you store coal ash, is not regulated at any of these sites. ( HEC00056)

At some sites other parameters are monitored. These include arsenic, lead, cadmium, chromium, and zinc. However, there are no enforceable limits on any of these contaminants so contamination can exceed drinking water standards by several times with no action being taken. Furthermore the permits only require monitoring to be done for these parameters for six to twelve months from the beginning of the permit. Provisions are made in the permit to set limits on these parameters if " significant quantities" of these contaminants are found. But there is no clarification of what " significant quantities" means, and IDEM's permit writers within the Office of Water Management are currently under strict orders not to modify any existing permits. For the past few years, due to a backlog in new permits, they have only been focusing on issuing new permits. Therefore, no real effort by the agency is being made to control the levels of these contaminants being released into the environment. ( HEC00056)

The information we have gathered in just a short time shows little if any real protection being practiced at these sites. ( HEC00056)

The prior EPA Report concluded preliminarily that coal combustion waste need not be regulated under RCRA Subpart C as hazardous, but rather that the wastes should continue to be regulated under Subpart D as solid wastes. This conclusion rested on the assumption that mitigative measures under Subpart D such as installation of liners, leachate collection systems, and groundwater monitoring systems and corrective action to clean up ground water contamination, would be adequate for protecting public health and the environment. The EPA recommendation was predicated on the application of such measures to the management of coal combustion wastes. Id. at ES 4 5. Unfortunately, such measures are not being employed universally among the states. ( NCCLP00282)

The information provided by the Hoosier Environmental Council in current and past comments, demonstrates the wide variability among states in the caliber of the management programs for coal combustion wastes. ( NCCLP00282)

State programs that regulate disposal of coal combustion wastes, CCW, and other fossil fuel wastes are grossly insufficient, particularly with respect to surface impoundments. ( HEC00332)

Environmental controls enforced by the states at CCW disposal sites are grossly insufficient. In our comments for the first public comment period, we discussed our findings of a review of requirements at surface impoundments in Indiana. HEC found that the only permit required for an Indiana surface impoundment, the Nation Pollution Discharge Elimination System or NPDES Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 23 XX  23 permit, makes no distinction of whether an impoundment has liners or groundwater monitoring and that, according to the relevant state inspectors, none of the CCW surface impoundments in Indiana have liners or groundwater monitoring. Furthermore, only a token effort was made to monitor the surface water discharge at these sites for the metals most commonly found in CCW leachate. ( HEC00332)

Overall, only Illinois appears to have made any progress towards lined surface impoundments. Of the ten states surveyed, only Illinois, South Carolina, and Alabama have established groundwater monitoring at most of their impoundments. Not surprisingly, all nine new contamination cases that we are turning in from these states in these comments are occurring at surface impoundments. This would indicate that at many surface impoundments that do not have groundwater monitoring, groundwater contamination may be occurring undetected. ( HEC00332)

In the Executive Summary EPA declares that states currently have more authority to impose controls at CCW disposal sites, and these controls can potentially mitigate any risk of contamination posed by CCW. However, HEC found that most state laws and regulations do not require liners or groundwater monitoring for new impoundments. Furthermore with or without laws, our survey has found few states are willing to impose these controls ... Indeed our survey found that in most states, little if any effort is being made simply to keep track of the controls being imposed at CCW surface impoundments. ( HEC00332)

As we have already pointed out, most large scale CCW disposal sites have no ground water monitoring. And many of those that do have monitoring provisions are only analyzing for a few parameters in ground waters affected by CCW ... Whole classes of harmful compounds that should be monitored for around CCW disposal sites are not being monitored for. For example polyaromatic hydrocarbons ( PAHs) are a highly carcinogenic family of chemicals commonly found in coal, coal tar and coal combustion products, yet these substances are seldom if ever analyzed for in ash characterization schemes mandated by state regulatory agencies and never included in ground water monitoring schemes for CCW disposal sites ... The situation with radionuclides is similar to that for PAHs in that they are known to be present in coal combustion wastes, yet ground water monitoring for radionuclides at CCW disposal sites rarely occurs. ( HEC00332)

The Report to Congress assumed that the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) and the setting of the Total Maximum Daily Loads ( TMDLs) adequately protected aquatic life in receiving waters. However, this research shows that that is not the case. It shows that ecological damage from surface impoundments has the potential of being a much larger problem. ( ALA00292) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 24 XX  24 XX. ADEQUACY OF STATE REGULATIONS D. Effects of Deregulation One public interest group commenter argued that EPA did not address the effects of deregulation of energy sales in its consideration of state regulations. The commenter believed that, without federal standards to create a level playing field, states may face great pressure to relax their disposal requirements to give their utilities a competitive advantage.

Response: At this time the Agency is unable to anticipate the possible impacts of deregulation on current state regulatory programs for managing fossil fuel combustion waste. We believe that it would be arbitrary and unfair to project theoretical changes in state programs. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 25 XX  25 XX. ADEQUACY OF STATE REGULATIONS D. Effects of Deregulation Verbatim Commenter Statements The effects of the deregulation of electricity sales and its potential to promote unacceptable disposal standards among the states are not recognized or addressed. The Report fails to take into account the effect that an open competitive market in electricity sales may have on disparities in environmental regulation of power plant wastes. If deregulation of electric utilities occurs, utilities in states with responsible disposal standards may face a competitive disadvantage with utilities in states such as Indiana that allow open dumping of power plant wastes into drinking water supplies. Without federal standards to create a level playing field, state may face great pressure to relax their disposal requirements for power plant wastes in order to give their utilities a competitive advantage in selling electricity on the open market. Therefore EPA should consider the effects of deregulation on state programs before making its Final Determination. ( HEC00056) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 1 XXI  1 XXI. COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS Commenters from both industry and public interest groups expressed general concerns about EPA's methodology for computing compliance costs and industry economic impacts. These ranged from comments on basic methodology to quite specific comments on assumptions regarding incremental costing, Subtitle D vs Subtitle C cost factors, impacts on drinking water and industry impacts.

Response: EPA believes its analysis and consideration of costs and economic impacts were sufficiently detailed and adequate to support its determination. Partial equilibrium modeling was not done because of the pace of change in this industry. Consideration of cost and economic impacts beyond the typical facility level costs and industry wide impacts presented in the Report to Congress was not warranted. For this computation only the costs asociated with Subtitle D type liners was considered.. Impacts on drinking water costs and of other regulatory variants will be considered as this regulatory determination warrants. Other specific concerns raised by the commenters with regard to the cost and economic analysis are addressed in the responses below. EPA acknowledges that comments were submitted on the basis of the March1999 RTC. The cost and economic impact analyses will be revised or supplemented as warranted during the development of proposed regulations. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 2 XXI  2 XXI. COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS Verbatim Commenter Statements EPA's general methodology for estimating cost impacts of Subtitle D requirements at FFC waste facilities is comparable with other special waste studies conducted in the past by EPA, other government agencies, and trade associations. However, documentation and a detailed explanation of incremental costs to the industry for managing FFC waste are not adequate to allow for a thorough evaluation of the underlying assumptions. Accordingly, it is not possible to evaluate EPA's estimated incremental compliance costs. The data that are provided, however, indicate discrepancies with previous special waste studies that have estimated the incremental unit costs for FBC waste disposal. ( DOE00020)

PG& E Gen disagrees with EPA's cost analysis. ( PG& E00023)

I have grave concerns that EPA's Report to Congress limits discussion of cost to the economic cost only for management of coal combustion products at a disposal site under RCRA D like requirements ... Even in treatment of the economic cost of coal combustion product cost to the utility industry, the agency has severely under estimated the impact on the economic viability of the industry. ( NMA00024A)

EPA's economic analysis grossly underestimates the impact of Subtitle C regulation. In short, EPA has failed to prepare a satisfactory economic analysis that would justify additional regulatory burdens. As we discuss below, the true economic impacts of the regulatory measures suggested would be greater by orders of magnitude. ( USWAG00275)

The Report dismisses the regulation of fossil fuel wastes under Subtitle C, without any estimates of the costs of implementing the specific requirements of this large Subtitle ... There are also no estimates of the costs of beneficial uses of these wastes in the Report ... In Chapter 3, the Report claims that coal usage would likely decrease if utility coal combustion waste ( UCCW) were regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA. There is no attempt to quantify this decrease in the Report ... Why is conservation not considered a benefit? This basic " impact" is not discussed in this Report. ( HEC00056)

A fundamental incentive in the implementation of effective programs to prevent drinking water contamination that was not evaluated in the Report to Congress is the costs associated with contamination of a drinking water supply. Drinking water contamination is considered a real, economic threat to states and individual communities. ( ALA00292)

I believe that it is well past time for all non renewable energy sources to start " paying their own way," so that an honest competition with renewable energy resources can be obtained in a free marketplace. ( CITZ00267) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 3 XXI  3 The costs of implementing these standards would cause many older coal fired plants to be shut down, and create incentives for switching to cleaner forms of energy. If national standards are not imposed, the coal industry will continue to receive a subsidy in the form of cheap disposal costs that will keep coal cheaper than alternative forms of energy. ( SIERRA00278)

EPA should use this issue of CCW to bring to the attention of Congress the need for alternative energy forms. ( SOCM00279)

National regulations on the disposal of CCW such as requirements for liners, groundwater monitoring, and leachate collection systems would be a serious blow to the reign of King Coal. The EPA report says the costs of implementing these standards under the federal hazardous waste laws would cause many older coal fired plants to be shut down and create an incentive for newer plants to switch to cleaner forms of energy. If national standards are not imposed, the coal industry will continue to be subsidized  cheap waste disposal costs will keep coal cheaper than alternative forms of energy. ( CITZ00284) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 4 XXI  4 XXI. COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS A. Consideration of Site Specific Factors One federal agency commenter expressed concern that EPA had not considered the numerous site specific variables that affect disposal unit design and operation in its cost and economic analysis.

Response: The primary objective of the cost and economic analysis was to assess and present representative or typical impacts on affected facilities and industries. This approach was taken in a context of resource constraints, data limitations, and the desire to make the results indicative of the general magnitude of impacts. It is true that each site may have a unique set of variables which can affect disposal unit design and operation. Our analysis was intended to present what the magnitude of impacts on facilities and the industry should be " on average" based on reasonable and representative assumptions. EPA acknowledges that there might be significant variation from plant to plant which could not be addressed given the resource constraints placed on the analysis and the unique site specific variables which occur at fossil fuel burning facilities. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 5 XXI  5 XXI. COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS A. Consideration of Site Specific Factors Verbatim Commenter Statements EPA does not appear to have considered the numerous site specific variables that affect disposal unit design and operation in its analyses. Site specific differences can dramatically affect compliance costs, as documented in several previous EPA special waste studies. ( DOE00020) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 3 FF2P S0248. Coal Combustion Waste Management Study. Draft Report. ICF Resources, Inc. February 1, 1993.

4 FF2P S0199. Coal Combustion By products and Low volume Wastes Comanagement Survey. EPRI. December 1, 1997.

6 XXI  6 XXI. COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS B. Underestimate of Compliance Costs Industry and federal agency commenters expressed concern that EPA had underestimated compliance costs because the Agency overestimated the operating life of equipment. It was suggested that a more appropriate amortization period would be 15 or 20 years. One of the commenters suggested that EPA's discount rate of 7 percent was too low, given impending deregulation of the industry. Another of the commenters questioned why EPA's baseline costs differed from those estimated by industry. An industry commenter stated that EPA did not adequately consider compliance assurance fees and financial assurance requirements, which range from $ 15,000 to $ 30,000 per year for its facilities.

Response: As noted by a DOE commenter, a 1993 DOE Study3 assumed a 15 year equipment lifetime. However, that same study noted that as a result of life extension practices, the average life expectancy for a disposal unit was between 20 and 30 years. In 1997, EPRI and USWAG conducted the Coal Combustion By Products and Low Volume Wastes Comanagement Survey. 4 The survey indicated that the ages of active disposal units range from newly opened to more than 40 years old. In 1997, the median age of active surface impoundments was 22 years with a median anticipated closure date in 16 years, for a total lifetime expectancy of 38 years. The median age of active landfills was 15 years with a median anticipated closure date in 12 years, adding to a total lifetime expectancy of 27 years. It is apparent that the average life expectancy of disposal units is increasing. Therefore, EPA believes the 40 year life expectancy assumed in the cost analysis was a reasonable assumption for newly constructed waste management units. Furthermore, the 40 year assumption was agreed upon between EPA and representatives from industry.

With regard to the comment about amortization, the Office of Management and Budget provides specific guidelines on discount rates to be used in evaluating federal programs whose benefits and costs are distributed over time. This applies to regulatory impact analyses and all agencies of the executive branch of the federal Government. To remain consistent with OMB recommendations and other analyses conducted by the EPA, a real discount rate of 7 percent was used. However, EPA acknowledges that this rate may not reflect the realities of corporate finance. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 5 FF2P S0071. Report to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency on Fossil Fuel Combustion Byproducts from Fluidized Bed Boilers. CIBO Special Project on Non Utility Fossil Fuel Ash Classification and ICF Kaiser Consulting Group. November 1, 1997.

7 XXI  7 The DOE commenter also noted that discrepancies appear to be the result of different baseline costs in the CIBO report5 and EPA's Report to Congress. EPA's baseline unit cost is based on the construction of an unlined FBC ash landfill. CIBO's baseline cost is taken from EPA's work on regulation of cement kiln dust ( CKD). The CKD baseline analysis assumed the construction of a landfill within a pre existing excavated mine located on the property. Therefore, excavation costs are not included in the CIBO baseline costs. Excavation costs are included in the EPA baseline cost for constructing onsite landfills at FBC facilities. In addition, a 20 year operating life for the landfill was assumed for the cement manufacturing industry compared to a 40 year operating life for the utility industry. These two differences likely account for most of the disparity between the two baseline unit cost estimates.

With regard to the comment about consideration of compliance assurance and financial assurance costs, EPA did consider financial assurance fees in its estimate. These costs were included in indirect cost estimates which are determined as a percentage of direct capital and O& M costs. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 8 XXI  8 XXI. COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS B. Underestimate of Compliance Costs Verbatim Commenter Statements EPA appears to have overestimated the operating life of equipment in its analysis of compliance cost. This, in turn, may have resulted in significant underestimation of total compliance costs. EPA's analysis of incremental compliance cost assumed a 40 year operating life for management units. A 1993 DOE analysis based on EPRI and utility company data indicated that 15 years was generally the lifetime used for designing and engineering disposal sites ( Coal Combustion Waste Management Survey, Report Prepared for U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, February 1993). In addition, current life extension practices have increased the average life expectancy of a disposal unit to between 20 and 30 years ( average 25 years). Hence, based on both on a previous DOE study and current life extension practices, a 40 year equipment operating life is a high end life expectancy value and results in lower compliance cost estimates than a 15 25 year life expectancy. Because details of the cost components of the management unit scenarios were lacking both in the RTC and the Technical Background Document, it was not possible for DOE to estimate the anticipated increase in the compliance costs under a 15 25 year life expectancy scenario. ( DOE00020)

EPA's analysis indicates that post regulatory control costs for FBC waste generating facilities amount to $ 32 million per year ( see Technical Background Document For the Report to Congress On Remaining Wastes from Fossil Fuel Combustion: Cost and Economic Impact Analysis, March 30, 1999), which is comparable with the Council of Industrial Boiler Operators' ( CIBO) Subtitle D compliance cost estimate of $ 28 million per year ( See Docket Reference: FF2P S0371). Based on EPA'S RTC background technical document ( See Docket Reference: FF2P S0371), the compliance cost for managing FBC waste under a Subtitle D scenario is $ 30.1 per ton, approximately 2 times the baseline cost of $ 14.7 per ton ( i. e., the incremental compliance cost is slightly over 100 percent of the current material disposal cost). Based on CIBO's analysis, incremental costs, on a unit cost basis, would range between $ 15 and $ 42/ ton, with a weighted average value of $ 18/ ton, more than 4 times the current material cost of $ 4/ ton. These discrepancies appear to be the result of different baseline costs in the CIBO and EPA RTC, despite the fact that EPA's analysis of FBC wastes was based on the same facilities addressed in the CIBO Report. Without access to the actual landfill costs estimated for both the baseline and compliance scenarios, it is difficult to address the cause( s) of these discrepancies. ( DOE00020)

In the case of our facility, which has been operating the oil fired unit for over 25 years, the 40 year amortization time period may be unrealistic. A 20 year additional operating life span for this unit would be more realistic. ( PG& E00023)

In Table 3 27, EPA did not include all annual Operation and Maintenance costs, at least in some states: In Massachusetts, PG& E Gen facilities have annual compliance assurance fees required for Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 9 XXI  9 solid waste landfills and financial assurance requirements. The costs for these items can range from additional $ 15,000 to $ 30,000/ yr depending on the size of the facility and the type and cost of financial assurance. ( PG& E00023)

PG& E Gen disagrees with EPA's cost analysis ... The facility estimates it would incur a single year incremental compliance cost of approximately $ 3.0 million dollars if EPA were to require the facility to immediately line its' unlined SSB with a HDPE liner as indicated in section 6.7.2 of the report. ( PG& E00023)

EPA utilized a 40 year amortization at 7% real interest to convert capital expenses to annual costs. The idea that newly formed deregulated companies will be able to raise money for building facilities that have no ability to generate revenue and do so a rates below prime would seem suspect by comparison to similar types of publicly traded market entities ... Even if 7% capital for building of ash management facilities can be guaranteed, the amortization time is 40 years. The economic life of a coal plant is commonly considered to be in the 50 to 60 year range ... many of the plants to be impacted are around 30 years of age or more now. The idea than an asset ( ash manangement facility) will be amortized for a time period longer than it's useful life has significant problems in the world of finance. ( NMA00024A) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 10 XXI  10 XXI. COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS C. Underestimate of Economic Impacts Federal agency and industry commenters stated that EPA underestimated the economic impact of regulation of FFC waste. Some of these commenters specifically suggested EPA should have gauged its estimate of impacts against coal fired utility sales, rather than total electric power generating industry sales. Other commenters stated that, given deregulation of the industry, EPA should have gauged impacts against the generation sector only ( not the transmission and distribution sectors). One commenter stated that correction for all factors ( to account for the generation sector only, coal fired sales only, and projected future sales) would increase the estimated cost of compliance to 2.2 percent of the value of industry shipments for coal fired utilities and require an increase in the price of wholesale power by 30 percent. As a result, many plants would be placed " on the margin" and subject to closure, creating concerns for future electric reliability.

Response: While most of the impacts will be physically located at coal fired facilities, we believe the economic and financial impacts will be absorbed and recovered by an operating utility, which may operate a mix of coal, oil, combined cycle, natural gas, nuclear and hydroelectric generating facilities. These various generating units are merged by the utility company in setting prices. For example, most of the affected coal fired capacity is controlled by large integrated investor owned utilities which operate a diversified assortment of generating units. Impacts at the plant level, as indicated by a model plant analysis, are based on DOEreported average prices and utility level financial ratios. These are representative of what should be the impact at a generating facility based on a plant owner's typical financial parameters.

In addition, coal is the predominant fuel used to generate electricity in this country. The transmission and distribution sectors cannot exist without the coal fired generator sector of the utility industry under either regulated or deregulated markets. These costs will be shared through contract agreements among the three sectors under both market conditions. Still, EPA acknowledges that operating units of utilities will undoubtedly be impacted differentially, as the commenter claims.

At the macro level, the economic impact analysis presumes impacts and price effects will be passed on to consumers. This is a simplified and worst case assumption and avoids complex and uncertain distributional analysis of intermediate price effects through wholesale markets at regional, state, and local levels. The Agency does concur that wholesale electricity price impacts could vary substantially from area to area. Pending determination of a specific regulatory approach, EPA believes its estimates of incremental compliance cost to be under 1% of sales as stated in the RTC. One commenter projects $ 20 billion decrease in coal fired utility sales. It is unclear if this decrease is projected based on a decrease in electricity use by consumers, a decrease in demand because substitute fuel sources are cheaper, or a decrease in demand because of deregulation of Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 6 DOE Annual Energy Review.

7 DOE/ EIA Annual Energy Outlook.

11 XXI  11 the industry. Demand for electricity has gone up every year from 1949 through 1998, and coal comsumption for electricity has gone up every year from 1949 through 1998, except in 1986 and 1991.6 Also, the commenter does not appear to take into consideration that the price of coal is expected to decline from $ 19 per ton in 1995 to $ 15 per ton in 2010 while natural gas, for the same period, is projected to increase from $ 1.55 per 1000 cubic feet to $ 2.48 per 1000 cubic feet. 7 In addition, if there is a decrease in demand for coal fired power, the cost of compliance with the regulation will decrease because waste generation quantities will decline resulting in an extension of the useful life of the ash landfills and ash impoundments. With the decrease in the price of coal and decrease in waste generation quantities, it appears that operating and compliance costs will be declining along with any projected decrease in sales. Also, the price for substitute goods ( natural gas electrical generation) is increasing which favors an increase in demand for coal electrical generation.

EPA reiterates that the above comments were prepared on the basis of the Agency position set forth in the RTC; analyses will be revisited as the regulatory determination warrants. EPA also acknowledges that many of these cost and economic issues are quite conceptual in nature and will bear revisiting as noted if a final regulatory determination warrants. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 12 XXI  12 XXI. COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS C. Underestimate of Economic Impacts Verbatim Commenter Statements EPA has underestimated the industry impacts for comanaged waste at coal fired utilities under a Subtitle D regulatory scenario. EPA estimated the industry impacts for imposing Subtitle D requirements at co managed waste from coal fired utilities at 0.4 percent of the industry's electricity sales. EPA used an estimate of $ 212 billion per year to represent electric power generating industry sales. However, the coal fired utility component represents only about 56 percent of all electricity generated in the United States ( See page 3 69, Report to Congress, Volume 2). Consequently, it appears that EPA should have used the coal fired generating capacity to estimate the industry impacts as a percentage of sales. Based on the 1999 EIA Annual Energy Outlook, the sales from coal burning generators in 1997 were approximately $ 123.9 billion. This means that the estimate of industry impacts related to comanaged waste from coal fired utilities should be increased to approximately 0.7 percent of the industry's sales ( assuming that all other components of the cost analysis remain unchanged) .( DOE00020)

The restructuring of the utility industry and the resultant competition in the electric industry are fully underway in Pennsylvania. The average wholesale value of electric power hovers in the $ 0.02$ 0.03 per kWh range, not the $ 0.07 assumed by EPA. ( PG& E00023)

EPA indicated that they did not wish to consider the impact under deregulation since many of the details of the deregulated electric power industry are not known. In fact at least one detail of the deregulated market lace is known with certainty. Electric generation, transmission, and distribution costs will be " unbundled". In other words, electric generation will stand on its own economically ... Based on discussions with power companies and electric coops in particular, and utilizing USDOE estimates of transmission system costs, the 7 cents breaks down approximately as 3.1 cents/ KWH to generation, 1.5 cents/ KWH to generators transmission to interconnect points, 2.5 cents/ KWH to transmission and distribution systems. ( NMA00024A)

According to Dr. Paul's analysis, the actual impact to generating sector revenues could be a loss of up to 54.5%; in the case of rural cooperatives, lost revenue from these regulations could reach 64%. Furthermore, those estimates are based on an assumption that EPA's cost estimates are reasonably accurate. In fact, however, Dr. Paul has identified other potential cost impacts that could raise the impact on a rural cooperative's earnings to as high as 76%. ( NMA00024)

The lack of clarity in documentation affected the economic analysis and resulted in inconsistent treatment of utilities relative to other power producers and inconsistent treatment of the utility power sector relative to other industries. ( USWAG00275) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 13 XXI  13 EPA's documentation mentions only in passing the critical and highly significant changes that have taken place over the past three years in the structure of the wholesale and retail electricity markets. Indeed, significant restructuring has already occurred with observable and significant shifts in ownership of generation, the creation of robust wholesale power markets, and the creation of power exchanges and similar institutions to facilitate commerce. These changes have placed significant competitive pressures on the price of power and, therefore, on the operating costs of generators, whether utility or non utility owned. For example, in Texas, which consumes more coal for electrical power generation than any other state, utility industry restructuring has frozen the price of electricity, and any increased cost imposed by the Bevill determination must be borne by the generation companies. However, there is no indication that these changes have been factored into EPA's analysis. For example, the Economic Background Document devotes two paragraphs to acknowledging that restructuring is taking place, but there is no subsequent attempt to translate those changes into a realistic representation of the power sector that would lead to a credible analysis of the economic impacts of these changes. Economic Background Document at 6 3. EPA simply wrote off econometric modeling due to " uncertainty surrounding this restructuring." 2 RTC at 3 68. Without taking the fundamental structure of the industry into account, EPA cannot present a plausible economic analysis. ( USWAG00275)

EPA's documentation does contain data that could have been used to present a somewhat better characterization of the industry and the economic impacts of regulation. For example, the prices of delivered power quoted for 1996 are not relevant to the impact on generators of compliance costs because of the unbundling of generation from transmission and distribution operations, which remain regulated entities. Compliance costs associated with waste management related to generation now fall entirely on the separate generation units, which will be unable to recover those costs because the markets they serve are now deregulated. ( USWAG00275)

Coal fired utility owned generation accounts for about 50% of the power produced nationally.... These quick corrections to EPA's calculations demonstrate the need for a more careful analysis of the cost impacts on coal fired generation. ( USWAG00275)

These plants are generally price takers. Assuming, arguendo, that the proportion of the value of 1996 sales related to generation is 60 percent, and that coal fired plants are responsible for 50% of that value, we can calculate a sales figure of approximately $ 60 billion, compared to the $ 212 billion figure EPA used. Therefore, the approximate $ 1 billion annualized cost of compliance for coal fired plants would represent 1.7 percent, rather than 0.4 percent of the " value of industry shipments," a four fold increase in economic impact. Furthermore, EEI expects the sales figure to be lower by as much as $ 20 billion by 2000. ( USWAG00275)

These quick corrections to EPA's calculations demonstrate the need for a more careful analysis of the cost impacts on coal fired generation. Many plants would be potentially affected and placed " on the margin" and subject to closure if EPA imposed the controls discussed in the Report to Congress. Indeed, this effect could occur quicker than the rate at which new substitute, alternative Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 14 XXI  14 fuel plants could be constructed. Thus, we have significant concerns about the effects EPA's regulatory determination could have on electric reliability. ( USWAG00275)

An alternative approach to assessing the economic impact on the power markets would be to examine the effect of imposition of costs of increased regulatory controls on the wholesale price of power ( i. e., the commodity price) ... The competitively determined wholesale price of power nationwide averages about 2.5 cents/ kWh ( not the 7.1 cents/ kWh assumed in Table 2 5, which represents the delivered, fully bundled price of power) ... Therefore, the compliance cost estimate of 0.8 cents/ kWh would suggest the price of wholesale power would need to increase by approximately 30 percent for coal fired plants to remain competitive. ( USWAG00275) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 8 National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

15 XXI  15 XXI. COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS D. Inadequate Consideration of Costs and Benefits One public interest group commenter stated that EPA should have estimated the costs of Subtitle C regulations and estimated the costs of beneficial uses. The commenter also was concerned with the failure to quantify the decrease in coal usage if CCW were regulated. Another public interest group commenter argued that the Agency should have considered the economic impact of the threat to drinking water supplies posed by FFC waste management.

An industry commenter stated that EPA should have considered the cost of materials handling and haulage to offsite disposal that would be associated with a ban on minefilling. The commenter also stated that EPA should consider the environmental justice impact that would result from regulation of FFC wastes, which the commenter purported would preferentially devastate the Electric Cooperatives that supplying barely subsisting farmers across much of rural America.

Response: The Agency's cost and economic analysis considered a risk mitigation alternative that assumed generators would construct composite lined landfills and impoundments. This alternative was chosen for costing ( as opposed to full Subtitle C regulation) because it was identified as an alternative that would be practical and effective to target and mitigate the potential risks identified in EPA's risk assessment. EPA acknowledges the possibility of reductions in coal use and of drinking water resource impacts, depending on the ultimate regulatory option, if any, selected. These will be investigated as work proceeds if warranted.

At the time the cost analysis was conducted, EPA had not identified any potential minefilling procedures or regulations. This is still the case. Pending further work, EPA is uncertain as to what type of regulation might be warranted for minefilling. Therefore, no cost and economic analysis was conducted for these uses. However, EPA notes that minefilling is a clear function of proximity to available fill sites as a cost avoidance mechanism, given the high cost of transport. The cost elasticity of demand for minefilling will reflect this, as well, of course, as well as the cross elasticities of alternatives. Elasticities are entirely dependent on clearly defined alternative products.

Economic effects of potential FFC waste environmental regulation on electric cooperatives and their customers will be further examined if regulatory options warrant. Electric cooperatives serve some 32 million people in 46 states. Their customers, while rural in characteristic, include a great number of non farmers including businesses, schools, county and small city governments, churches, and nonfarming rural residents. Also, many farmers now obtain electricity from noncooperatives In addition, 875 electric cooperatives distribute electricity as compared to only 60 electric cooperatives that generate and distribute electricity. 8 Thus, the distributional effects to Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 16 XXI  16 farmers would be extremely difficult to determine. Moreover, farmers, as well as electric cooperatives, are experiencing rapidly changing markets which, compared to fossil fuel waste management requirements, will have much greater effects on their ability to remain competitive and profitable. EPA acknowledges impact on electric cooperatives to be an important factor. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 17 XXI  17 XXI. COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS D. Inadequate Consideration of Costs and Benefits Verbatim Commenter Statements EPA is considering a ban on minefill applications. The costs of materials handling and haulage to offsite disposal or utilization facilities can be a significant cost and the size of that cost is impacted by where the ash is hauled to. Many FBC units and rural electric cooperatives in the Midwest haul ash back to the minesites from which they buy their coal ( or to site only a few miles away). This means that the ash can be moved on a " back haul" which costs only about 1/ 3rd of the cost of a " front haul" to another equidistant site. Since a ban on minefill applications would imply a RCRA subtitle D style landfill as an alternate destination the additional transportation cost becomes an incremental cost. ( NMA00024A)

In their Report to Congress, EPA expressed concerns about environmental justice if subsistence farmers near ash management sites were preferentially affected by various receptor paths ... It is interesting that the economic analysis done by EPA lays the groundwork to realize that the proposed regulations will preferentially devastate the Electric Cooperatives that are supplying today's barely subsisting farmers across rural America and yet there is no mention of fundamental fairness in this respect. ( NMA00024A)

The Report dismisses the regulation of fossil fuel wastes under Subtitle C, without any estimates of the costs of implementing the specific requirements of this large Subtitle. These estimates could vary substantially based on different scenarios of Subtitle C that could be invoked. For example, the cost for regulating fossil fuel wastes as a listed hazardous waste versus the cost for regulating these wastes as hazardous based on the characteristics of specific waste streams to be disposed could differ substantially. There is no discussion of such scenarios or estimates of their costs in this Report. There are also no estimates of the costs of beneficial uses of these wastes in the Report. ( HEC00056)

In Chapter 3, the Report claims that coal usage would likely decrease if utility coal combustion waste ( UCCW) were regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA. There is no attempt to quantify this decrease in the Report. Furthermore, Section 3.8, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Chapter 3 declares this decrease unacceptable without explanation. What about the major environmental benefits to be gained from this decrease? Would not an increase in disposal costs encourage the conservation of our coal resources? Why is conservation not considered a benefit? This basic " impact" is not discussed in this Report. ( HEC00056)

A fundamental incentive in the implementation of effective programs to prevent drinking water contamination that was not evaluated in the Report to Congress is the costs associated with contamination of a drinking water supply. Drinking water contamination is considered a real, economic threat to states and individual communities. ( ALA00292) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 18 XXI  18 Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 19 XXI  19 XXI. COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS E. Regulation as an Incentive for Alternative Energy Sources A few citizen and public interest group commenters suggested that EPA should consider regulating FFC waste management in order to increase the cost of reliance on non renewable energy sources and make renewable energy sources more competitive in the marketplace.

Response: Analysis of the impact of any potential regulation of FFC waste on the competitiveness of renewable energy sources was beyond the scope of the economic analysis conducted for the RTC. Furthermore, while promotion of alternative energy sources may be a desirable goal, it is not a primary consideration under RCRA, nor is it one of the Bevill study factors EPA is required to consider. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 20 XXI  20 XXI. COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS E. Regulation as an Incentive for Alternative Energy Sources Verbatim Commenter Statements I believe that it is well past time for all non renewable energy sources to start " paying their own way," so that an honest competition with renewable energy resources can be obtained in a free marketplace. ( CITZ00267)

The costs of implementing these standards would cause many older coal fired plants to be shut down, and create incentives for switching to cleaner forms of energy. If national standards are not imposed, the coal industry will continue to receive a subsidy in the form of cheap disposal costs that will keep coal cheaper than alternative forms of energy. ( SIERRA00278)

EPA should use this issue of CCW to bring to the attention of Congress the need for alternative energy forms. ( SOCM00279)

National regulations on the disposal of CCW such as requirements for liners, groundwater monitoring, and leachate collection systems would be a serious blow to the reign of King Coal. The EPA report says the costs of implementing these standards under the federal hazardous waste laws would cause many older coal fired plants to be shut down and create an incentive for newer plants to switch to cleaner forms of energy. If national standards are not imposed, the coal industry will continue to be subsidized  cheap waste disposal costs will keep coal cheaper than alternative forms of energy. ( CITZ00284) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 1 XXII  1 XXII. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE A public interest group commenter argued that the environmental and public health hazards of FFC waste management are inequitably borne by economically disadvantaged and racial and ethnic minority populations. The commenter based this argument on demographic analysis of 22 selected facilities. In the commenter's analysis, more than half of the selected facilities are surrounded by communities with average incomes at or below $ 15,000 per year and almost half by communities with minority populations greater than the national average. The commenter requested that EPA undertake additional analysis of environmental justice impacts. Another public interest group commenter argued that impacts from minefilling will be disproportionately borne by low income communities and that the Agency was therefore violating the Executive Order on environmental justice.

An industry trade group commenter, on the other hand, stated that it had surveyed its members and identified no environmental justice claims related to FFC waste management. The commenter further stated that its members are not aware of subsistence farming occurring in the proximity of FFC waste management units. Similarly, it is highly unlikely that subsistence farmers ( or their children) would come in contact with FFC wastes used as agricultural soil amendments because current applications primarily involve field scale research and the projected future market is comprised of large farming enterprises. The commenter additionally argued that consideration of environmental justice issues would be more appropriate in facility specific permitting than in a rulemaking with national scope because, while some sites are located within one to five miles of predominantly minority or low income areas, the vast majority are in areas with predominantly non low income and Caucasian populations. The commenter believed that EPA had adequately responded to the Executive Order on environmental justice and noted that this Order does not alter the permissible scope of the Bevill study and cannot override congressional intent.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenters time and efforts for submitting the additional information on environmental justice issues. EPA has reviewed this information and conducted an additional analysis of the available demographic data for populations surrounding fossil fuel combustion facilities. This additional analysis is based on 1990 Census data for minority populations around coal fired utilities, coal fired non utilities, and oil fired utilities. Data were not readily available for FBC facilities or minefill sites, nor were income statistics.

This additional EPA analysis compared minority populations within one mile of fossil fuel combustion facilities to the national average of approximately 16 percent. As shown in Table 5 below, overall minority populations ( 29 percent) near FFC facilities is greater ( statistically significant) than the national average. As shown in Table 6, however, this observation holds at a relatively small number of facilities ( 188 of the 1409 facilities identified, or 13 percent) with large ( statistically significant) minority populations. Many facilities ( 36 percent of facilities) have no population at all within one mile. Based on this analysis, EPA concludes that, on a national basis, minority populations are not disproportionately located near fossil fuel burners, i. e., 13 % Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 2 XXII  2 of facilities have minority populations greater than the national average but 31 % of facilities have minority populations less than the national average. Thus, while some facilities do have minority populations that are greater than the national avaerage, site specific issues affecting nearby populations at those facilities should be considered on a case by case basis. The Agency, therefore, concludes that consideration of environmental justice issues at coal burning facilities is more appropriate on a case by case basis than in a national rulemaking. The Agency believes that the information presented by commenters on the 22 facilities also supports this conclusion. That is, for the 22 facilities presented by commenters, the majority of the facilities have minority populations equal to or less than the national average. For minefilling, the Agency will evaluate environmental justice considerations in further detail when it undertakes the development of national regulations for this practice.

Table 5. Minority Populations within One Mile of Fossil Fuel Combustion ( FFC) Facilities Sector Number of Facilities Population within one mile Percent Minority Coal fired Utilities 471 836,097 21.5%

Coal fired Non utilities 842 4,468,898 28.7%*

Oil fired Utilities 96 1,207,593 35.6%*

Total FFC Facilities 1,409 6,512,588 29.0%*

Total U. S. Population  248,765,000 16.1%

* Percent minority significantly greater than U. S. average at the 5 percent significance level. Population data based on 1990 U. S. Census estimates. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 3 XXII  3 Table 6. Minority Populations by Facility Sector Number of Facilities Percent of Facilities No Population within one mile Minority Population Significantly Less than Average Minority Population Not Significantly Different than Average Minority Population Significantly Greater than Average Coal fired Utilities 471 58% 24% 11% 6%

Coal fired Nonutilities 842 24% 36% 24% 16%

Oil fired Utilities 96 36% 21% 16% 27%

Total FFC Facilities 1,409 36% 31% 19% 13% Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 4 XXII  4 XXII. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Verbatim Commenter Statements The environmental and public health hazards associated with on site FFC waste management and disposal facilities at electric generating stations are inequitably borne by economically disadvantaged and racial and ethnic minority populations. ( ALA00292)

The information presented here illustrates that there are environmental justice concerns for people residing close to FFC waste facilities ... In Appendix A, maps showing the location of 22 power plants are provided. These plants were selected based on an initial screening of a national power plant database and sorting the plants by population within 1 mile and median income. The maps illustrate the bodies of water within 1 mile of the plant and provide some summary demographic information about median income and age of residents within 1 mile ... In Table 9 below, we also present median income and race statistics. More than half have average incomes at or below $ 15,000 per year. Almost half of the facilities are surrounded by communities with minority populations greater than the national average. This demonstrates that the environmental hazards from FFC waste facilities, which are felt most keenly by those living closest to the plants, are inequitably distributed by race and income. ( ALA00292)

In order to reduce risks for all communities the Agency must examine how environmental problems converge in these locations and how the people who live in these places are cumulatively affected by them. The draft regulatory determination must be revised accordingly to address these issues. An analysis of populations living near FFC waste facilities, and reliant on private drinking water wells, also should be undertaken and the results evaluated  not only to identify additional environmental issues generally, but also specifically to identify additional impacts to persons of color or economically disadvantaged persons in these areas. ( ALA00292)

The Citizens Coal Council has carefully examined data from the U. S. Census Bureau ( 1992 City County Yearbook) and found that coal mines are located in communities that suffer from poverty and unemployment rates higher than the national average and per capita income below the national average. The 1990 census data shows that for 118 of the 120 coal producing counties, the trend is the more coal produced, the higher the poverty rate. The sole exception is two coal producing counties in Wyoming. Unless the federal government enacts strict regulations on the dumping of CCW, utilities will dump CCW into strip mine pits located in Pike, Perry, Harlan and Leslie Counties, Kentucky; Mingo, Boone, and Logan Counties, West Virginia; Greene and Indiana County, Pennsylvania; San Juan and McKinley Counties, New Mexico: Perry, Saline and Franklin Counties, Illinois; Navajo County, Arizona; and Warrick, Sullivan, Daviess, and Pike Counties, Indiana. Census data shows all these counties share common problems  their populations are poorer, less educated and less employed than those without coal mining. Their homes are damaged by the blasts at coal mines. They breathe the dust from coal mines and live near power plants that belch toxic air pollution. Their water supplies are polluted or too often completely destroyed. Their homes are destroyed when companies mine coal beneath their property and the land caves Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 5 XXII  5 in. If the EPA allows utilities to dump CCW into strip pits, the future water pollution problems will be disproportionately borne by these low income communities. In its " Report to Congress and Draft Federal Regulatory Determination on Fossil Fuel Wastes," the Environmental Protection Agency has shown gross insensitivity to its avowed advocacy role for environmental justice. EPA's report is so seriously deficient that it violates President Clinton's environmental justice executive order by failing to recommend strict federal regulation of CCW disposal  disposal that will disproportionately impact low income coalfield communities. ( HEC00056)

The management of FFC wastes and products does not Adversely impact low income or minority communities. Based upon a review of EPA's demographic database and member company inquiries, USWAG believes that EPA has adequately responded to Executive Order 12898 ( Feb. 11, 1994) and considered whether its regulatory determination may have disproportionate impacts. It is important to remember that the specialized interests addressed by Executive Order 12898 do not alter the permissible scope of the Bevill study or regulatory determination. ( USWAG00275)

In response to EPA's request in the Report to Congress for comment on environmental justice implications ( 2 RTC at 2 5) USWAG requested its members to identify any environmental justice issues associated with their FFC waste management facilities. None was identified. EPA's demographic database, based on the 1990 U. S. census data, indicates no disproportionate impacts from FFC waste management. Indeed, it should come as no surprise that EPA found that electric utility generation sites are located throughout the country in various settings, including highly industrialized urban areas and sparsely settled rural areas. While some sites are located within one to five miles of predominantly minority or low income areas, the vast majority are in predominantly non low income and Caucasian. ( USWAG00275)

EPA's regulatory determination on FFC wastes will affect the spectrum of locations throughout the country. To the extent, if any, that environmental justice considerations have any bearing on FFC waste regulatory policy, EPA must keep in mind that this is not a facility permit renewal proceeding where impacts on discrete populations in proximity to individual facilities should be analyzed. Rather, this is a national policy making proceeding that requires a macroscopic focus. We stress that even at the community level, we know of no environmental justice claims related to FFC waste management. ( USWAG00275)

EPA specifically posed the question whether low income or minority subsistence farmers may be at heightened risk. 2 RTC at 2 5. USWAG members are not aware of " subsistence farming" occurring in the proximity of its FFC waste management units. Similarly, it is highly unlikely that subsistence farmers ( or their children) would ever come in contact with coal combustion products beneficially used as agricultural soil amendments. Current soil amendment applications primarily involve field scale research conducted by research institutions and industry, and the projected future market for this use is comprised of large farming enterprises. ( USWAG00275) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 1 XXIII  1 XXIII. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE A number of commenters incorporated by reference, cited, or specifically agreed with the comments submitted by other commenters. To aid in understanding the commenter population, the specific instances are listed below:

° Two commenters supported the comments of the Ohio Department of Development. ° Four commenters supported the comments of the National Mining Association. ° One commenter supported the comments of Bradley Paul of the University of Southern Illinois and Konrad Banaczak. ° One commenter supported the comments of Barry Sheetz of Penn State University. ° One commenter supported the comments of the Anthracite Region Independent Power Producers Association. ° Two commenters supported the comments of the American Coal Ash Association. ° Three commenters supported the comments of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. ° Six commenters supported the comments of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. ° Four commenters supported the comments of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group. ° One commenter supported the comments of members of the Pennsylvania State Legislature, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, and Stream Restoration Incorporated. ° One commenter supported the comments of the Environmental Defense Fund. ° One commenter supported the comments of the Hoosier Environmental Council. ° One commenter supported the comments of the National Citizens Coal Law Project. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 2 XXIII  2 XXIII. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE Verbatim Commenter Statements The DMR supports the comments and positions of OCDO regarding this report contained in their letter of June 1, 1999 which is enclosed. ( OHDNR00028)

We are a member of the American Coal Ash Association ( ACAA). They and our co sponsors in research have submitted comments on the EPA report referenced above. We agree and would like to endorse these comments by ACAA and The Ohio Coal Development Office that specifically address their concern for not interfering with or complicating beneficial uses in agriculture and minefill applications. ( DTC00038)

PCA endorses the comments and testimony submitted by and on behalf of the National Mining Association and its members; ARIPPA, which is an associate member of PCA; and the American Coal Ash Association. PCA also refers EPA to the voluminous technical information and comments submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ( DEP), which show the Commonwealth's history of responsible management of these substances, and the resulting benefits of such use. ( PCA00034)

PCA shares the US Department of Agriculture's concerns about the risk assessment methodologies and assumptions used by EPA in evaluating risks. We join USDA in recommending that these concerns be resolved prior to submitting a final report to Congress. ( PCA00034)

Mettiki Coal Corporation ( MCC) ... is also a member of the National Mining Association ( NMA) and fLlly supports the comments filed by the NMA. ( MCC00051)

DEP provides the following summary of issues and incorporates by reference the detailed comments of the National Mining Association (" NMA"). ( WVDEPL0003)

In its March 1999 comments the National Mining Association ( NMA) well supported its conclusion that the agency's concerns are unfounded with site specific examples of ash disposal sites in Illinois and Indiana where disposal below the water table had created no problems ... ICC concurs with Dr. Banaszak's and Dr. Paul's conclusions. ( ICC00269)

To cite but one flaw, one cannot determine whether the EPA CMTP risk assessment code utilized by EPA included the utilization of the 13 steps recommended by the peer review committee. This flaw is fully explained in materials prepared by Professor Barry E. Sheetz ( Pennsylvania State University), which have been submitted to EPA. ( CIBO00280)

PaDEP's comments to EPA noted that data from the nearly 100 mine sites throughout Pennsylvania where ash has been used as a supplement for soils or minefill demonstrate that " the use of ash does Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 3 XXIII  3 not result in groundwater degradation when used in accordance with the regulations and guidance in effect in Pennsylvania." The three volumes of supporting data submitted by PaDEP provide ample data to support PaDEP's conclusions. ( ARIPPA00273)

I have enclosed for your review a copy of correspondence dated 9 September 1999 addressed to you by Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection secretary James M. Seif, requesting that you determine coal ash and waste coal ash in mine reclamation and agricultural projects as non hazardous waste. ( PAL0004)

I strongly support the comments made on the risk assessment by my colleague, Dr. Rufus Chaney, USDA ARS, with whom I worked on the 503 risk assessment. Dr. Chaney is one of the preeminent trace element biogeochemists in the world and his critique of the risk assessment should be strongly heeded. ( NVIC00039)

These results coupled with Dr. Chaney's comments on the flawed risk assessments used in the report, indicate very low As risk from agricultural or mine reclamation uses of FFCWs. To Dr. Chaney's comments, I would add that risk assessment of mine reclamation use of FFCW should recognize that plant material grown on these sites is not used as feed or fodder and so does not enter the food chain. It is only several years after reclamation that some mined areas are returned to production agriculture use. ( PSU00040)

Virginia Power defers all technical comments to the submittal provided by the Department of Agriculture during the May 21 public hearing, and other related documents submitted by the Department of Agriculture on the use of coal combustion by products in beneficial agricultural applications. ( VAP00042)

Another reviewer, specifically Dr. Rufus L. Chaney ( USDA), has largely addressed ISG's concerns about methods for risk assessment. ISG agrees with Dr. Chaney that significant amounts of research have already been performed on the interaction of fluidized bad ashes with forage crops, livestock, and food chain effects. ISG also wants to bring to EPA's attention the USDA research articles that have already been cited to EPA in the CIBO 1997 document submitted to the agency. ( ISG00048)

I received a copy of comments on the above referenced document which were authored by Dr. Rufus Chaney. with the USDA's Agricultural Research Service. Dr. Chaney also worked on the risk assessment that was conducted to develop the USEPA's regulations controlling the beneficial use and disposal of biosolids ( 40 CFR Part 503). After reading Dr. Chaney's comments, Bio Gro was compelled to comment on this report. Bio Gro wishes to reiterate all of the scientific comments that were made by Dr. Chaney to you in his letter to dated on May 21, 1999. We respectfully submit a copy of his letter to you as our comments on this particular report. ( BG00063) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 4 XXIII  4 APS is also a member of the Utility Solid Wastes Activities Group ( USWAG). APS fully supports and endorses the separate detailed comments of USWAG in response to EPA's RTC. ( APSC00043)

We are fuIly supportive of the comments submitted by the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ( USWAG) and would like to offer the following additional comments. ( TVA00049)

TXU also supports comments on the RTC submitted on behalf of the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (" USWAG") under separate cover.( TXU00053)

AEP's views and detailed comments on the Phase II Report are expressed in comments filed by USWAG. ( AEP00060)

The reclamation work that the waste coal plants are performing has broad public support in Pennsylvania, as evidenced by letters that have been submitted to EPA by, among others, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the Joint Legislative Air & Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee, the Majority and Minority Chairman of the Senate Environmental Resources Committee, the Chairman of the House Environmental Resources Committee, and other individual legislators. Copies of these letters are attached hereto as Appendix IV. ( ARIPPA00273)

Other commenters have ably discussed this Issue on the record m this case. See Comment letter of the Environmental Defense Fund ( June 14, 1999), Docket F 1999 FF2P FFFFF. We agree with these commenters that EPA's practice inI this docket to date is, at best highly irregular, and likely illegal, given Agency precedent ( ALA00292)

We want to emphasize in the strongest possible terms, our support of the Hoosier Environmental Council's efforts in this regard  we have seen the file after file, the manifold documents and studies which show that coal wastes dumped over watersheds leaches dangerous materials. We feel that it is not only dangerous to the many on well and spring water, but to those coming onto municipal water systems as well most of those systems rely also on well and spring water or draw from the rivers fed by such aquifers. ( PEACE00306)

Here we defer to comments being submitted on our behalf under separate cover by Tom FitzGerald, Director of the Kentucky Resources Council. ( HEC00332)


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3523-3524]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02117]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 14, 2019.

PLACE: The meeting will be held at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Roisman, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Regulatory matters regarding a financial institution;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed;
please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at
(202) 551-5400.

    Dated: February 7, 2019.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02117 Filed 2-8-19; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management ( SAICM)

Stakeholder Consultation EPA East ( 1200 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC) Room 1153 ( 1st floor)

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 1: 00  3: 00 pm Agenda I. Introductions Charlie Auer/ Bob Ford II. Brief overview of SAICM and Inter sessional Work update Jim Willis III. Stakeholder comments