Certain of the responses below address specific concerns raised by commenters on this topic in more detail, for clarification purposes, even though the Agency has now determined that regulation is warranted. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 4 XVIII  4 XVIII. RISK CHARACTERIZATION Verbatim Commenter Statements The inconsistent application of EPA's risk assessment methods and policies seriously jeopardizes the use of the findings in the Report for decision making regarding the appropriate regulatory status of comanaged FFC waste. ( ALA00036)

EPA declares in its Executive Summary, Section 3 page 6, that large surface impoundments can theoretically pose risks to birds, mammals, and amphibians. EPA discounts the idea of taking any action to reduce the risks posed by large surface impoundments on two factors, there is no information on the actual ecological risks posed by large surface impoundments and the cost of eliminating such impoundments is too high. Both of these statements are completely unsubstantiated. ( HEC00056)

The substantial data gaps in the Report suggest that the resulting depiction of risks is incorrect. ( 49CAO00058)

The Report is out of sync with agency policies and priorities. ( 49CAO00058)

But EPA's own analysis in the Report, as discussed below, shows that the comanaged wastes raise serious human health and ecological risks  risks that the Agency disregards in reaching its Draft Regulatory Determination not to require RCRA regulation for these wastes. ( ALA00292)

We strongly disagree with EPA's over reliance on modeling as a risk assessment tool. EPA has ample real world data on utility combustion wastes, and often these data fail to confirm the conclusions generated by the model. ( USWAG00037)

EPA Failed to consider the prevalence of liners in the landfill scenario. ( USWAG00037)

The limited number of actual case studies at mines where groundwater monitoring is performed in a meaningful way jeopardizes the credibility of the study. The report and appendices appear to apologize for this shortcoming. The modeling review often appears to " wish" there were more opportunities for model testing by comparison with real data [ Section 3 4, for example]. The limits of the effort seem to be due to the crunch of time, which is unfortunate. The case study limitation is true in Texas, but here there are a number of municipal and C& D landfill situations in similar settings that could serve as surrogates. The comment here is that modeling conclusions should await an effort to gather real data from case studies for comparison with EPACMPT results. ( RICE00041)

USWAG comments provide detailed, technical information demonstrating the risks are overstated by several orders of magnitude. Reiteration of the technical arguments is unnecessary. However, Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 5 XVIII  5 APS strongly agrees with USWAG's positipn that ... use of modeling is inappropriate when actual field data was made available to the agency. ( APSC00043)

On page 3 3 it was stated that " for arsenic the ( cancer) risk for young children increased roughly 25 percent compared to the adult receptors." Care must be exercised when using this sort of a comparison. For example, a recent article in Issues in Science and Technology pointed out that the way many of the reported increases in childhood cancer are presented may be somewhat misleading. A reported increase of over 40 percent in the annual incidence of kidney and renal pelvis cancer from 1973 74 to 1993 94 actually represents an increase from 0.7 to 1.0 cases per 100,000 children. In 1994 1995, the rate was 0.8 per 100,000, which is an increase of over 14 percent, but represents an increase of 1 additional case per million children. It must be kept in perspective that cancer in children is a relatively rare event ( Huebner and Chilton, 1998). ( EERC00044)

In general terms, CIBO points out that real life data and experience are far superior to modeled projections. Modeling, no matter how good, cannot account for all the variables in geology, hydrology, meteorology, and other flaws. Because of their limitations, environmental models ( including risk assessment models) quite often substantially overstate real world exposure and risks. ( CIBO00052)

The modeling did not account for the current ash management practice of spreading and compacting in thin layers to maximize the structural integrity of the fill. ( CIBO00052)

Modeled predictions are no substitute for actual data, as EPA states in the Report ... Fortunately, there is considerable monitoring data ... and PG& E Gen respectfully asks that it be given due consideration by EPA. ( PG& E00274)

USWAG's initial comments, combined with the wealth of field data in the record, provide the basis for EPA to reevaluate its modeling exercise, reduce its risk estimates by orders of magnitude, and validate those results. ( USWAG00275)

EPA's regulatory determination must be made based upon the totality of the available information with full respect for the real world data and conditions. ( USWAG00275)

In light of significant criticism by other commenters of EPA's risk assessment, CIBO reiterates its earlier recommendation that EPA rely on field data carefully compiled and submitted to the Agency in ample time for its consideration. ( CIBO00280) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 6 XVIII  6 XVIII. RISK CHARACTERIZATION A. Modeling versus Empirical Observation Industry and academic commenters stated that the use of modeling is inappropriate because significant observational data exist to characterize the fate and transport of waste constituents. The commenters suggested that EPA rely on these data rather than modeling to characterize risk, or at the least use these data to validate the model results.

Response: As noted in prior sections of these responses, EPA is not using risk modeling at this time as a component of its characterization of risk. The Agency is basing its characterization of risk on consideration of other factors. Among the factors considered were EPA's review of documented cases of human health and environmental damage ( see Topic XIX) and its review of state programs. The Agency believes this consideration of empirical data in its risk characterization was appropriate and adequate. EPA plans to continue to use risk modeling as a component of overall risk assessment, and, as noted, is currently reviewing the groundwater model used. The Agency notes that the use of empirical data, in many cases, cannot typically substitute entirely for risk modeling because of concerns relative to the question of long term mobility. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 7 XVIII  7 XVIII. RISK CHARACTERIZATION A. Modeling versus Empirical Observation Verbatim Commenter Statements We strongly disagree with EPA's over reliance on modeling as a risk assessment tool. EPA has ample real world data on utility combustion wastes, and often these data fail to confirm the conclusions generated by the model. ( USWAG00037)

EPA should utilize the wealth of real world data to the fullest extent possible ( USWAG00037)

EPA should validate its modeling results by comparison with real world data. ( USWAG00037)

Use of CMTP is inappropriate where significant observational data is available. USWAG and EPRI provided EPA with a wealth of data that were collected and analyzed in close cooperation with the Agency over a period of 18 years. These data were and remain the most comprehensive data available regarding the variability of the waste characteristics resulting from various waste combinations, management practices, geologic, and climatic differences ... Unfortunately, EPA disregarded that wealth of data and erroneously extracted only input values for modeling fate and transport of the constituents. USWAG urges EPA once again to utilize the data that present a clear picture of the fate and transport of these constituents rather than relying upon a questionable mathematical construct. ( USWAG00037)

While the breadth and diversity of the " remaining waste" universe preclude collection of sufficient site specific data to completely characterize risk to human health of the entire waste universe under the full range of management possibilities, we cannot support EPA's decision to use modeling as a surrogate for actual field data ... Certainly where there are gaps in the data, modeling may play an appropriate role in risk assessment; however, we fear that the Agency has become a prisoner of its models. It is almost as though EPA would rather generate numbers from its computers than see what in fact is occurring in the environment. Modeling is not an adequate substitute for the painstaking work of assembling and analyzing readily available facts. The valuable field data EPRI has collected and transmitted to EPA have been used ineffectively. ( USWAG00037)

As we discuss below, where the field data demonstrate that the model's assumptions are unrealistic, EPA is obliged both from scientific and legal perspectives to reassess and appropriately adjust its modeling methodology. As a matter of law, "[ a] n agency's use of a model is arbitrary if that model bears no rational relationship to the reality it purports to represent. Furthermore, EPA retains a duty to examine key assumptions as part of its affirmative burden of promulgating and explaining a non arbitrary, non capricious rule." ( USWAG00037) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 8 XVIII  8 The limited number of actual case studies at mines where groundwater monitoring is performed in a meaningful way jeopardizes the credibility of the study. The report and appendices appear to apologize for this shortcoming. The modeling review often appears to " wish" there were more opportunities for model testing by comparison with real data [ Section 3 4, for example]. The limits of the effort seem to be due to the crunch of time, which is unfortunate. The case study limitation is true in Texas, but here there are a number of municipal and C& D landfill situations in similar settings that could serve as surrogates. The comment here is that modeling conclusions should await an effort to gather real data from case studies for comparison with EPACMPT results. ( RICE00041)

USWAG comments provide detailed, technical information demonstrating the risks are overstated by several orders of magnitude. Reiteration of the technical arguments is unnecessary. However, APS strongly agrees with USWAG's position that ... use of modeling is inappropriate when actual field data was made available to the agency. ( APSC00043)

In general terms, CIBO points out that real life data and experience are far superior to modeled projections. Modeling, no matter how good, cannot account for all the variables in geology, hydrology, meteorology, and other flaws. Because of their limitations, environmental models ( including risk assessment models) quite often substantially overstate real world exposure and risks. ( CIBO00052)

Given this wide range of known inaccuracies in modeling, CIBO questions whether EPA should rely so heavily on these models when making important decisions in this rulemaking. This concern is highlighted by the fact that CIBO and other commenters have submitted thorough data and analyses on which to base a real world decision, obviating the need for admittedly flawed modeling. ( CIBO00052)

Modeled predictions are no substitute for actual data, as EPA states in the Report, especially with FBC coal ash, which is a mixture of materials, applied to the land in varying soils and complex geology. Fortunately, there is considerable monitoring data from actual reclamation and soil amendment uses of this coal ash, which have been provided to EPA for review by industry, academia and by state agencies currently regulating those beneficial uses. This information necessarily takes into account the complex interactions, that elude the model, and PG& E Gen respectfully asks that it be given due consideration by EPA. ( PG& E00274)

USWAG's initial comments, combined with the wealth of field data in the record, provide the basis for EPA to reevaluate its modeling exercise, reduce its risk estimates by orders of magnitude, and validate those results. ( USWAG00275)

EPA's regulatory determination must be made based upon the totality of the available information with full respect for the real world data and conditions. ( USWAG00275) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 9 XVIII  9 As a matter of sound science, EPA is obligated to reassess and appropriately adjust its modeling methodology to correspond to real world data. As a matter of law, "[ a] n agency's use of a model is arbitrary if that model bears no rational relationship to the reality it purports to represent. Furthermore, EPA retains a duty to examine key assumptions as part of its affirmative burden of promulgating and explaining a non arbitrary, non capricious rule." ( USWAG00275)

As should be expected, the models do not provide the ultimate answers to the many issues presented. If EPA is asked whether it is raining, the best answer can be found by looking out the window, not by turning on the computer. Similarly, EPA's regulatory determination should give full weight to what can readily be seen at FFC waste management sites, not the imperfect science of computer models. ( USWAG00275)

In light of significant criticism by other commenters of EPA's risk assessment, CIBO reiterates its earlier recommendation that EPA rely on field data carefully compiled and submitted to the Agency in ample time for its consideration. ( CIBO00280) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 10 XVIII  10 XVIII. RISK CHARACTERIZATION B. Risk Conclusions Inconsistent with Assessment Results Several public interest group commenters stated that EPA's RTC conclusion that FFC wastes do not present risks to human health and the environment was inconsistent with the results of the risk modeling assessment, which found risks in excess of EPA's criteria. Some of the commenters were concerned that EPA had dismissed its conclusions about ecological risk from surface impoundments because of a lack of information and the costs of regulation. One of the commenters was concerned that EPA was dismissing arsenic risks by comparing them to background arsenic levels without providing any data on background arsenic. Other conclusions of particular concern were those regarding agricultural use ( see Topic VIII) and risks to children ( see topic XVIII. D).

Response: EPA is not relying on its ground water risk modeling results for this regulatory determination action. Nonetheless, certain key risk modeling comments are addressed below for clarification.

In response to commenters' characterization of EPA analysis predicting cancer risks for children from arsenic contaminated drinking water as high as one in one hundred, this statement arises from an obvious misinterpretation of information in background documents and in the RTC. Risk analyses began with a " screening" evaluation. These screening analyses typically address ingestion of a chemical at the source, often as generated. This is not a reasonable basis for concluding that exposure risk exists.

If we determine in screening analyses that a risk should be transport modeled, we conduct such modeling to better predict exposure. No modeled risk of one in one hundred was reported.

While not relying on the EPACMTP groundwater modeling as presented in the RTC, we have since conducted a general comparison of the metals levels in leachate from coal combustion wastes to their corresponding hazardous waste toxicity characteristic levels. Fossil fuel wastes infrequently exceed the hazardous waste characteristic. For co managed wastes, 2% ( 1 of 51 samples) exceeded the characteristic level. For individual wastes streams, 0% of the coal bottom ash, 2% of the coal fly ash, 3% of the coal flue gas desulfurization, and 7% of the coal boiler slag samples that were tested exceeded the characteristic level. Nevertheless, once we have completed a review of our groundwater model and made any necessary changes, we will reevaluate groundwater risks and take appropriate regulatory actions. We will specifically assess new modeling results as they relate to any promulgated changes in the arsenic MCL.

We also compared leach concentrations from fossil fuel wastes to the drinking water MCLs. In the case of arsenic, we examined a range of values because EPA expects to promulgate a new arsenic drinking water regulation by January 1, 2001. This range includes the existing arsenic MCL ( 50 ug/ l), a lower health based number presented in the FFC Report to Congress Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 11 XVIII  11 ( RTC) ( 0.29 ug/ l), and two assumed values in between ( 10 and 5 ug/ l). We examined this range of values because of our desire to bracket the likely range of values that EPA will be considering in its effort to revise the current MCL for arsenic. The National Research Council's 1999 report on Arsenic in Drinking Water indicated that the current MCL is not sufficiently protective and should be revised downward as soon as possible. For this reason, we selected the current MCL of 50 ug/ L for the high end of the range because EPA is now considering lowering the current MCL and does not anticipate that the current MCL would be revised to any higher value. We selected the health based number presented in the Report to Congress for the low end of the range because we believe this represents the lowest concentration that would be considered in revising the current MCL. Because at this time we cannot project a particular value as the eventual MCL, we also examined values in between these low end and high end values, a value of 5 ug/ L and a value of 10 ug/ L, for our analyses supporting today's regulatory determination. The choice of these midrange values for analyses does not predetermine the final MCL for arsenic.

Those circumstances where the leach concentrations from the wastes exceed the drinking water criteria have the greatest potential to cause significant risks. This " potential" risk, however, may not occur at actual facilities. Pollutants in the leachate of the wastes undergo dilution and attenuation as they migrate through the ground. The primary purpose of models such as EPACMTP is to account for the degree of dilution and attenuation that is likely to occur, and to obtain a realistic estimate of the concentration of contaminants at a groundwater receptor. To provide a view of potential groundwater risk, we tabulated the number of occurrences where the waste leachate hazardous metals concentrations were: ( a) less than the criteria, ( b) between 1 and 10 times the criteria, ( c) between 10 and 100 times the criteria, and ( d) greater than 100 times the criteria. Groundwater models that we currently use, when applied to large volume monofill sources of metals, frequently predict that dilution and attenuation will reduce leachate levels on the order of a factor of 10 under reasonable high end conditions. This multiple is commonly called a dilution and attenuation factor ( DAF). For this reason and because lower dilution and attenuation factors ( e. g., 10) are often associated with larger disposal units such as those typical at facilities where coal is burned, we assessed the frequency of occurrence of leach concentrations for various hazardous metals which were greater than 10 times the drinking water criteria. Based on current MCLs, there was only one exceedence ( for cadmium). However, when we considered the arsenic health based criterion from the RTC, we found that a significant percentage ( 86%) of available waste samples had leach concentrations for arsenic that were greater than ten times the healthbased criterion. Even considering intermediate values closer to the current MCL, a significant percentage of available waste samples had leach concentrations for arsenic that were greater than ten times the criteria ( 30% when the criterion was assumed to be 5 ug/ l, and 14% when the criterion was assumed to be 10 ug/ l). Similar concerns also occurred when comparing actual groundwater samples associated with FFC waste units and this range of criteria for arsenic. We believe this is an indication of potential risks from arsenic. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 12 XVIII  12 XVIII. RISK CHARACTERIZATION B. Risk Conclusions Inconsistent with Assessment Results Verbatim Commenter Statements One of the most serious inconsistencies in the Report is in regard to EPA's risk characterization policies that identify risks above a one in one million ( 1 x 10 6) for carcinogens and a hazard quotient of 1 for non carcinogens as potentially hazardous to public health. In the Report, EPA concludes that FFC wastes " do not present risks to human health and the environment" despite the fact that the risks are consistently above acceptable levels for coal, oil and FBC combustion waste. The incremental risks ( i. e. risks from exposure to FFC. wastes only) are, in fact, as low as one in one hundred for children potentially exposed to contaminated groundwater from coal fired combustion wastes. The only scenarios for which no public health risks were reported are associated with natural gas combustion since no wastes are generated. ( ALA00036)

Contrary to the findings bf the risk assessments, EPA has determined that agricultural use of coalfired and FBC utility combustion wastes poses a public health risk and, therefore, should be considered for regulation. This is despite the fact that no unacceptable risk ( i. e. greater than 1 x 10 6 or HQ> l) for the agricultural soil amendment scenario were reported. On the other hand, risks for all other scenarios exceeded acceptable levels, but EPA concludes that there " is a lack of potential human health risks for virtually all waste constituents." This is simply not true. ( ALA00036)

There are several assumptions and uncertainties in the risk assessments that could underestimate the risk estimates cited in the Report. These uncertainties, in conjunction with the disconnect between the findings of human health risks and EPA recommendations that address those sceqarios where risks were not found, suggest that there is insufficient bases for applying the conclusions drawn from the risk characterization in any subsequent Regulatory Determinations made regarding FFC wastes. ( ALA00036)

EPA's analysis focuses exclusively on incremental risks from FFC wastes. True risks are likely higher especially for metals which bioaccumulate in food or have a variety of anthropogenic and natural sources. Although EPA did not evaluate background concentrations or even mention the issue, it did conclude that " natural As levels have the potential to pose higher risks than nongroundwater pathways." What is the basis for EPA's conclusion? There is not background data on any of the metals evaluated in the risk assessments. The statement suggests a bias by EPA to dismiss impacts despite unacceptable risk levels. ( ALA00036)

The Agency proposes to exempt coal wastes from Subtitle C despite identifying ecological risks from coal combustion wastes managed in impoundments ... The Agency appears to be proposing to exempt these wastes simply because it is difficult to address the ecological impacts. This action has no basis in RCRA. ( ALA00036) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 13 XVIII  13 Despite the potential to underestimate risks, EPA reports risk levels in the range of one in onehundred to one in ten thousand for a known human carcinogen ( arsenic), but concluded " that wastes do not pose human health risks" ... With regard to non groundwater risks, EPA simply ignores its own findings of risks exceeding acceptable levels, especially for children. ( ALA00036)

EPA declares in its Executive Summary, Section 3 page 6, that large surface impoundments can theoretically pose risks to birds, mammals, and amphibians. EPA discounts the idea of taking any action to reduce the risks posed by large surface impoundments on two factors, there is no information on the actual ecological risks posed by large surface impoundments and the cost of eliminating such impoundments is too high. Both of these statements are completely unsubstantiated. ( HEC00056)

The Report identifies potential ecological risks associated with coal combustion wastes, but then declares that no documented impact information was available to compare with the risk modeling results. ( 49CAO00058)

The Report suggests cancer risks to children from coal waste management facilities that are orders of magnitude higher than unacceptable/ action level risks under these policies  and yet these results do not appear to factor into the Agency's conclusions that the wastes do not require Subtitle C regulation. ( 49CAO00058)

In at least one instance, the Report seemingly ignores high levels of cancer risks to children the risk of cancer from exposure to arsenic from coal waste landfills of 1.3 per 100 in concluding that FFC wastes do not require subtitle C regulation. ( 49CA00058)

EPA reports, but ignores ( in its conclusions and draft Regulatory Determination) extremely high potential cancer risks  1 in 100 to 1 in 1000  to children of exposure to arsenic in co managed coal waste contaminated groundwater. EPA similarly disregards reported relatively high cancer risks associated with exposure of adults to groundwater contaminated with FFC waste constituents. ( ALA00292)

But EPA's own analysis in the Report, as discussed below., shows that the comanaged wastes raise serious human health and ecological risks  risks that the Agency disregards in reaching its Draft Regulatory Determination not to require RCRA regulation for these wastes. ( ALA00292)

Our consultants also found that EPA seemingly disregarded reported high human health and ecological risks of current FFC waste disposal practices in reaching its draft Regulatory Determination  which is, at the least inconsistent with Agency policy, and at worst a disregard for the actual damage that could be caused to human health and the environment from a continued and permanent exemption of these wastes. ( ALA00292) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 14 XVIII  14 EPA's disregard of reported high risks associated with groundwater pathwav is inconsistent with Agency policy. It is EPA policy that cancer risks exceeding one in one million and non cancer risks exceeding a hazard quotient of 1 are considered potential public health concern. As shown in Table 7 below the risks for coal, oil and FBC generated wastes exceed acceptable risk benchmarks for cancer; oil waste also exceeds the non cancer benchmarks. Based on the results of the ground water risk assessment presented in the Report to Congress it appears that the EPA incorrectly concluded that " no significant risks to human health and the environment were identified or believed to exist." ( ALA00292)

Furthermore, while the non groundwater risk assessment does not identify any significant risks due to application of fluidized bed combustion ( FBC) wastes to agricultural land, the draft Report to Congress does identify arsenic concentrations as a potential concern for this waste and other types of waste ( e. g., coal combustion waste  CCW) in this application. ( ALA00292) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 15 XVIII  15 XVIII. RISK CHARACTERIZATION C. Failure to Address Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics Appropriately Public interest group commenters stated that, given the Agency's stated goals in the Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics strategy, EPA failed to address the following in its consideration of risk: a cohesive and coherent control strategy to reduce the overall releases of mercury, arsenic, and nickel; cross media releases of mercury; consideration of groups of pollutants rather than individual pollutants; and methods to avoid transferring problems across media or to chemical substitute.

Response: EPA believes it has adequately addressed these issues as today's decision indicates, within the bounds of the statutory guidelines for this study and the state of risk assessment science. EPA is also planning to consider the ongoing effort to further restrict air emissions as these impact on solid wastes, as noted elsewhere in these responses to comment. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 16 XVIII  16 XVIII. RISK CHARACTERIZATION C. Failure to Address Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics Appropriately Verbatim Commenter Statements Despite the conclusion that mercury is " screened out' of the analysis based on TCLP results, the concentrations measured ( even when the median values are taken) reveal that nationally, tons of mercury are being mobilized in these waste disposal sites. The lack of consideration given to mercury releases runs counter to the Administrator's PBT strategy. ( ALA00036)

These uses should be considered particularly from the standpoint of cross media releases of mercury. For example, FBC sludge use for cement manufacturing will certainly release mercury to the environment. A true life cycle analysis of these wastes and their end uses should be conducted. ( ALA00036)

The Agency's stated goal under the Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics ( PBT) Strategy is " reducing risk to human health in the environment from existing and future exposure to priority persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic pollutants." By proposing to exempt FFC wastes from Subtitle C, the Agency fails to consider the goals of the PBT strategy. ( ALA00036)

The PBT strategy emphasizes a multi media approach and commits the Agency to coordinating Agency actions across programs. The Report fails to coordinate across Agency programs. For example, in 1998 the Agency characterized air emissions from the stacks of power plants and found mercury, arsenic and nickel to be pollutants " of potential concern." While the Report indicates clear risks from arsenic and nickel, the Agency makes no attempt to link the findings made by two different EPA offices in such a way as to present cohesive and coherent control strategy to reduce the overall releases of these pollutants. ( ALA00036)

In an April 9, 1999 memorandum concerning the PBT strategy, Administrator Browner emphasizes, as one of her priori ties, the neeti to control mercury releases and the importance of using the Agency's full complement o! tools to do so. The Report fails to address cross media releases of mercury. Mercury, supposedly one of the Agency's top concerns, was identified by the Utility Hazardous Air Pollutant Report to Congress as the pollutant of greatest concern from the stack emissions of power plants. In this Report, , mercury was given so little consideration that the wastes themselves were not even analyzed for this metal. In addition, the volatilization of mercury from combustion wastes, the most important pathway for mercury releases from wastes, was ignored. This haphazard and incomplete assessment of pollution from power plants is completely out of sync with Administrator Browner's stated policies and priorities. ( ALA00036)

The PBT strategy states as a goal: " Whenever possible, EPA will address groups of pollutants rather than individual pollutants. to prevent or reduce risks from multiple pollutants at the same Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 17 XVIII  17 time. " The Report fails to address this goal. A number of PBTs leach and volatilize from FFC wastes. These include mercury, arsenic, nickel, selenium, and vanadium. In addition to mercury, other metals also have the potential to bioaccumulate in the food chain to levels that are toxic to humans and wildlife. There is little or no recourse to mitigate exposure to toxic chemicals once they have contaminated food and water. Therefore, EPA must require adequate and appropriate disposal of FFC wastes to address the PBT strategy element intended to prevent the release of toxic metals to our environment. ( ALA00036)

The PBT strategy states as a goal: " Maximizing opportunities for integration will avoid transferring problems across media or to chemical substitutes. " The Report fails to address this goal. An equal focus must be placed on all releases. For the fossil fuel burning sector, this should include a holistic examination of air emissions and water discharges, as well as coal washing wastes, FFC wnstcs and all beneficial uses ( e. g., cement manufacturing and wallboard manufacturing). Failure to account for all releases from an industry succeeds only in rearranging the contamination rather than controlling or preventing it. ( ALA00036)

The Report appears to run counter to the Administrator's ... Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics ( PBT) Strategy. The PBT Strategy emphasizes a multi media approach and commits the Agency to coordinating Agency actions across programs. The Report, however, fails to address cross media mercury releases. ( 49CAO00058) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 18 XVIII  18 XVIII. RISK CHARACTERIZATION D. Consideration of Risks to Children Public interest group commenters argued that the risk characterization paid inadequate attention to risk to children, particularly given Agency policy and Executive Orders regarding risks to children. The commenters expressed concern that the Agency did not consider simultaneous exposures to children and cumulative or additive risks to children. One academic commenter stated that care must be exercised in presenting results of cancer risk assessment for children.

Response: As noted under Topic XIV. D, risks to children were explicitly considered by testing the impact of all variables of special impact on children's risk. EPA found that risks to children were occasionally higher than risks to adults, but within the same order of magnitude. The primary reason for this is that sensitive populations are specifically taken into account for many exposure assumptions. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 19 XVIII  19 XVIII. RISK CHARACTERIZATION D. Consideration of Risks to Children Verbatim Commenter Statements As indicated in the peer review comments, the risk assessment of children appears to be tacked on the end of the background document. In addition, EPA does not indicate in any of their discussions regarding the exemption of FFC wastes that the highest risks from exposure are to children. This is inconsistent with not only EPA risk' assessment guidelines intended to protect sensitive populations but EPA's recent emphasis on protecting children from the potentially lifetime exposures to toxic chemicals. ( ALA00036)

EPA does not account for the potential for child cancer risks from ingestion of arsenic to rise by a factor of nine when waste concentration is set at the high end value, as determined in the sensitivity analysis. ( ALA00036)

The Report is counter to the Agency's stated policies concerning risks to children. The EPA's National Agenda to Protect Children's Health front Environmental Threats was developed in recognition that children are more highly exposed to environmental toxins and may be more susceptible to them during pre natal development and childhood. As one of the seven steps of the Agenda, the Agency commits to " ensure as a matter of national policy, that all standards EPA sets are protective enough to address the potentially heightened risk faced by children . . . so as to prevent environmental health threats where possible . . ." In the Report, despite using an extremely unconservative ( central tendency) analysis ( discussed above under comments addressing the risk assessment), the Agency still finds risks to children from groundwater ingestion that exceed health thresholds for antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, selenium, and vanadium. Some of the risk projections are orders of magnitude higher than what the Agency has typically considered action levels. Yet, these results do not appear to factor into the Agency's tentative conci tisions that Subtitle C is inappropriate to address these " limited" human health problems. ( ALA00036)

Another step in the Agenda instructs the Agency to " develop new comprehensive policies to address cumulative and simultaneous exposures faced by children." The Report fails this aspect of the Agenda. First, simultaneous exposures are not even considered given that the groundwater analysis and the above ground multipathway assessment are not coordinated with respect to timing of exposure ( the exposures are essentially sequential rather than simultaneous). Second, the risk assessment does not consider cumulative or additive risks to children ( or any other receptor). ( ALA00036)

The Report appears to run counter to the Administrator's ... Policy on Evaluating Health Risks to Children , and the National Agenda to Protect Children's Health from Environmental Threats. The Report suggests cancer risks to children from coal waste management facilities that are orders of Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 20 XVIII  20 magnitude higher than unacceptable/ action level risks under these policies  and yet these results do not appear to factor into the Agency's conclusions that the wastes do not require Subtitle C regulation. ( 49CAO00058)

Although the risks calculated to children range from 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000 for arsenic, EPA has categorically ignored these risks in the Report to Congress. The Agency has prioritized the need to consider the risks to infants and children " consistently and explicitly as a part of risk assessments generated during it decision making process, including the setting of standards to protect pubic health and the environment." ( EPA, 1997) EPA established the need to consider children because of the likelihood that children are more susceptible to the exposure to environmental contaminants that may affect their growth and development. Therefore, EPA's omission of children's risk in the risk characterization without any rationale or justification represents another inconsistency with Agency policy. It is not sufficient to just report risks ~ especially if they are as high as 1 in 100 to children. EPA needs to incorporate the risks associated with exposure of children to FFC waste contaminated ground water into the regulatory decision making process. ( ALA00292)

On page 3 3 it was stated that " for arsenic the ( cancer) risk for young children increased roughly 25 percent compared to the adult receptors." Care must be exercised when using this sort of a comparison. For example, a recent article in Issues in Science and Technology pointed out that the way many of the reported increases in childhood cancer are presented may be somewhat misleading. A reported increase of over 40 percent in the annual incidence of kidney and renal pelvis cancer from 1973 74 to 1993 94 actually represents an increase from 0.7 to 1.0 cases per 100,000 children. In 1994 1995, the rate was 0.8 per 100,000, which is an increase of over 14 percent, but represents an increase of 1 additional case per million children. It must be kept in perspective that cancer in children is a relatively rare event ( Huebner and Chilton, 1998). ( EERC00044) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 21 XVIII  21 XVIII. RISK CHARACTERIZATION E. Population Risks Public interest group commenters stated that, while data on demographics were presented in Technical Background Documents, EPA did not adequately characterize population risks or comply with EPA guidelines on characterizing population risk.

Response: This is a frequent comment in risk assessments. Whether or not population risk needs to be specifically calculated is a clear function of risk levels and population proximity. It is important to bear in mind modeled double high end risks were calculated at very close distances ( 150 meters to receptor wells in the case of ground water and 75 meters to receptor in the case of air releases). While there are indeed individuals in close proximity to waste units, there are very few as close as 150/ 75 meters. Thus very few individuals would be exposed at the risk levels calculated, if available demographics are accurate. At more likely distances, with more population exposure, risk would drop off dramatically. Such reasoning does not in any way diminish the risk to those exposed at the close proximities noted. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 22 XVIII  22 XVIII. RISK CHARACTERIZATION E. Population Risks Verbatim Commenter Statements There is no information on the population potentially affected by the leaching of chemicals from the waste into groundwater or drinking water sources. An appendix with information was provided in the Report but not integrated into the analysis. The FFC waste risk assessment does not comply with EPA risk assessment guidelines in providing probabilistic number of cases, estimated percentage of population with risk greater than some level, and information about the distribution of exposure and risk for different subgroups of the population. ( ALA00036)

While there is individual health risk data reported, the Report did not identify potentially impacted communities, nor did it present community exposure analyses. ( 49CAO00058)

The Report does not include any assessment of the community health risk in areas near the waste management facilities. ( 49CAO00058)

EPA did not characterize the risks according to probabilistic number of cases, estimated percentage of population at risk or risk distribution. ( ALA00292) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 23 XVIII  23 XVIII. RISK CHARACTERIZATION F. Liners in Population Industry commenters stated that EPA should have tempered its characterization of risk using information on the actual waste management practices used by the industry. One of the commenters argued that EPA failed to consider the prevalence of liners in the landfill scenario and should have used 85th percentile concentrations as modeling input to account for the presence of liners. Another commenter suggested that the modeling did not account for the current ash management practice of spreading and compacting in thin layers to maximize the structural integrity of the fill.

Response: EPA modeled unlined units purposely, in order to produce a consistent and conservative baseline ( erring on the side of safety) estimate of risk. The Agency then considered current management practices ( e. g., the prevalence of liners, and practices such as leachate collection and groundwater monitoring) explicitly as important factors in reaching its conclusion about the need for regulation. We find that, among utilities, 20% of landfills and 5% of impoundments appear to have adequate liners. This was explicitly taken into account in costing. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 24 XVIII  24 XVIII. RISK CHARACTERIZATION F. Liners in Population Verbatim Commenter Statements EPA failed to consider the prevalence of liners in the landfill scenario. EPA assumed that all landfills are unlined, whereas the RTC reported that 57% of the landfills represented by EPRl's data are lined. A high end ( 95th percentile) value from the field data actually represents the 98th percentile of all sites due to this overly conservative assumption. The Agency should have either explicitly taken into account the presence of liners in landfills or used the 85th percentile values as the high end bounding estimates. This justified reduction in the imbedded conservatism would have resulted in significant reduction in the calculated risks at receptors over the 10,000 year study period. ( USWAG00037)

The modeling did not account for the current ash management practice of spreading and compacting in thin layers to maximize the structural integrity of the fill. ( CIBO00052)

EPA's determination should be informed not only by the data from the real world, but by the actual waste management practices employed by the industry today. As we discussed in our initial comments, EPA correctly reported in the Report to Congress that most utility industry comanagement 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. These favorable developments vitiate the need for EPA to impose regulatory controls, regardless of the conclusions drawn from EPA's imperfect models. ( USWAG00275) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 25 XVIII  25 XVIII. RISK CHARACTERIZATION G. Time to Risk One public interest group commenter expressed concern that EPA minimized its modeled characterization of risk because of the long migration times. The commenter argued that it would be inappropriate to ignore risks to future generations. The commenter also argued that the long term impacts of dredged sediment from closed impoundments are not adequately assessed.

Response: EPA reported the modeled times to risk as calculated, and agrees that long term risks are risks to future generations. Time to risk is indeed one factor in risk assessment, and near term risk is obviously of some greater concern than very long term risks in view of the many uncertainties in longer term risk assessment, including possibilities for risk management. EPA, however, did not dismiss or minimize the results based on consideration of time to risk exclusively. EPA also believes it has accurately portrayed risks from closed impoundments, within reasonable bounds and the capabilities of the current model. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 26 XVIII  26 XVIII. RISK CHARACTERIZATION G. Time to Risk Verbatim Commenter Statements EPA also recommends regulation of oil fired waste because of the relatively short time ( 50 years) that the metals are predicted to migrate to the receptor well. EPA dismisses the risks associated with the other wastes because the migration predicted by the model is ten times greater. There is no basis in EPA policies that allow potential contamination of drinking water supplies as long as it occurs to future generations. ( ALA00036)

The remediation activities under the National Contingency Plan ( Superfund) and policies under the Safe Drinking Water Act are predicated on protecting and sustaining drinking water supplies from contamination. EPA's conclusions that no action is necessary because contaminant migration is greater than 50 years is arbitrary and capricious. Decisions that run counter to each other are also inconsistent with EPA's overall goal to protect public health and sustain a natural environment. ( ALA00036)

EPA dismisses the significant risks posed by groundwater contamination from FCC wastes because the waste constituents will not reach a hypothetical receptor well for 500 years. This conclusion contradicts the foundation of the safe drinking water program that is based on the protection and sustainability of clean drinking water supplies for future generations. ( ALA00036)

In the Report's characterization of impoundments, it is noted that the impoundments are used for about 40 years, dredged and then covered. What is the fate of the dredged sediment from the impoundments? Are these wastes tested for the RCRA characteristics? It would seem that these wastes would contain high concentrations of metals that would be a consideration for final disposal. Are these impoundment wastes also covered under the blanket exemption proposed bv EPA? If so, they should not be unless subject to a waste characterization analysis. ( ALA00036)

EPA furthermore has suggested that there are no health impacts from the current disposal practices of FFC waste because the model used to estimate FFC waste migration estimates that it will take several hundred years for the contaminants to migrate to a hypothetical receptor well. We believe that EPA's decision not to regulate FFC waste because of the length of time it will take for contamination to migrate to a drinking water supply is shortsighted and inconsistent with EPA policy ... the Agency has a long and comprehensive policy record that supports programs to prevent drinking water contamination. These programs and activities are summarized below ... [ the comment provides several pages summarizing EPA's drinking water protection programs]. ( ALA00292) XVIII. RISK CHARACTERIZATION H. Multimedia Risks, Cumulative and Simultaneous Exposures Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 27 XVIII  27 Two public interest group commenters were concerned that EPA did not characterize the aggregate risks associated with the multimedia contamination of FFC wastes, even qualitatively. The commenters stated that cumulative exposures were not accounted for and that adequately protecting public health require that incremental risks be considered in addition to other plausible exposures to the same chemical, including those from nearby, non FFC facilities. The commenters also expressed concern that the analysis failed to consider that inhalation exposure and groundwater exposure could occur at the same time and stated that EPA should have aggregated the results of the two analyses.

Response: EPA/ OSW typically considers only incremental risks from the waste streams under consideration because consideration of exposures from other sources is not feasible for multi site assessments such as this. However, as noted, EPA plans to take account of the potential for increased solid waste chemical concentrations if added air emission controls are implemented.

Simultaneous exposures from ground water and inhalation ( as well as all other nongroundwater exposure routes) were not considered due to differences in time scale. Migration times for chemicals from the waste to ground water wells range from hundreds to thousands of years depending on the chemical and the scenario.

Even if one were to cumulate very long term risks, on the presumption that inhalation risks might continue for thousands of years and coincide with then occurring ground water risks ( a questionable presumption), the risks would still be at the orders of magnitude calculated and shown. No major cumulative effects can be plausibly argued from the combinations of receptors and times specified for this study. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 28 XVIII  28 XVIII. RISK CHARACTERIZATION H. Multimedia Risks, Cumulative and Simultaneous Exposures Verbatim Commenter Statements According to the Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management one of the most serious flaws in risk assessment is evaluating risks chemical by chemical, medium by medium, and riskby risk. Although EPA conducted risk assessments of multiple pollutants and pathways, EPA did not characterize the aggregate risks associated with the multimedia contamination of FFC wastes, even qualitatively. For example, the child exposure scenario found that for coal fired wastes deposited in an onsite landfill, arsenic, barium, and chromium pose risks from both groundwater and non groundwater pathways. ( ALA00036)

Cumulative exposures were not accounted for in either the groundwater or non groundwater risk assessments. The peer review comments by James Butler recommended that the study " should attempt to evaluate additional major sources of potential exposure for at least the most significant contaminants of concern from FFCs, e. g. residual arsenic resulting from past pesticide applications. Another example would be to estimate existing body burdens and intakes of lead from other sources for children living in close proximity to coal and oil fired utility plants." Adequately protecting public health requires that incremental risks be considered in addition to other plausible exposures to the same chemical. Sources of additional exposure include ingestion of metals in food, other industrial emissions, and air emissions from power plants burning fossil fuels from which the waste is generated. ( ALA00036)

The inhalation exposure is assumed to occur while an impoundment is active. However, no leaching to the groundwater is assumed to occur until the impoundment . is closed ( and the wastes removed). Thus, the analysis fails to consider that inhalation exposure and groundwater exposure could occur at the same time. These concurrent exposures could be important, particularly for arsenic, which is a known human carcinogen by both the inhalation and ingestion pathways. ( ALA00036)

Another step in the Agenda instructs the Agency to " develop new comprehensive policies to address cumulative and simultaneous exposures faced by children." The Report fails this aspect of the Agenda. First, simultaneous exposures are not even considered given that the groundwater analysis and the above ground multipathway assessment are not coordinated with respect to timing of exposure ( the exposures are essentially sequential rather than simultaneous). Second, the risk assessment does not consider cumulative or additive. risks to children ( or any other receptor). ( ALA00036)

It appears that the inhalation exposure is assumed to occur while an impoundment is active, but no leaching to the groundwater is assumed to occur until the impoundment is closed. Concurrent, Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 29 XVIII  29 cumulative exposures, however, could occur in the real world, and would be significant, particularly for arsenic. ( 49CAO00058)

The Report ... fails to address cross media mercury releases. ( 49CAO00058)

We note one major omission/ oversight in the Report: in analyzing human health impacts, the groundwater and non groundwater pathway risks to the same human should be aggregated, such that a total health risk from all pathways is calculated and becomes part of the consideration whether and how the FFC wastes should be regulated. EPA has not included such aggregate human health risk figures in its Report to Congress. It seems that this was not done, in part, because the analyses were not conducted in such a way as to facilitate or allow for it. But that is a major oversight in the Report and in its findings. ( ALA00292)

EPA did not evaluate the total risks associated with FFC waste contamination of groundwater and non groundwater pathways. ( ALA00292)

Aggregate risks to people from the same facility must be characterized in order to make the decision whether and how to regulate FFC wastes. ( ALA00292) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 1 XIX  1 XIX. DAMAGE CASES Many industry commenters emphasized EPA's finding of few damage cases as important support for the tentative conclusion to exempt the wastes from hazardous waste regulation. Some of these commenters further argued that the few damage cases ( e. g., Schafer, A. B. Brown) found were not representative of current industry management practices. Public interest groups and citizen commenters, however, argued that the low apparent frequency of damages is an artifact of inadequate analysis and an over reliance on industry data. A few of these commenters offered information on a number of additional candidate damage cases. These concerns are summarized in more detail below.

Response: EPA has carefully considered the additional candidate damage cases submitted by the public interest group commenters. Based on damage case information presented in the RTC and our review of comments, we conclude that there are 11 proven damage cases associated with wastes covered by today's regulatory determination. We identified seven of these damage cases in the RTC, so there are four new proven damage cases that were identified by commenters. We did find that for all 11 of the proven damage cases, either the state or EPA provided adequate followup to require or else undertake corrective action.

Additionally, we determined that another 25 of the commenter submitted cases are potential damage cases for the reasons described above. Thus, including the 11 potential damage cases that we identified in the background documents that support the RTC, we are aware of 36 potential damage cases. While we do not believe the latter 36 cases satisfy the statutory criteria of documented, proven damage cases because damage to human health or the environment has not been proven, we believe that these cases are indicative that these wastes pose a " potential" danger to human health and the environment. EPA's detailed analysis of the damage case information is available in the docket for this proceeding.

While the absolute number of documented, proven damage cases is not large, we believe that the evidence of proven and potential damage is significant when considered in light of the large numbers of facilities, particularly surface impoundments, that today lack basic environmental controls such as liners and groundwater monitoring. Given the huge volume of coal combustion wastes generated nationwide and the large number of facilities that currently lack groundwater monitoring, there is at least a substantial likelihood that other cases of actual and potential damage exist.

The review of potential damage cases was based only partly on industry submitted data. However, we did not rely on the industry to identify or evaluate candidate damage cases. The specific concerns raised by the commenters with regard to the adequacy of its damage case analysis are addressed in the sub topic later in this section.

Background Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 2 The Part 1 determination identified six cases of documented damages. Upon further review, we determined that two of these cases involve utility coal ash monofills which are covered by the Part 1 determination. However, the other four cases involved remaining wastes that are covered by today's determination.

2 XIX  2 Prior to issuing the RTC, we sought and reviewed potential damage cases related to these particular wastes. The activities included:

° a re analysis of the potential damage cases identified during the Part 1 determination, ° a search of the CERCLA Information System for instances of these wastes being cited as causes or contributors to damages, ° contacts and visits to regulatory agencies in five states with high rates of coal consumption to review file materials and discuss with state officials the existence of damage cases, ° a review of information provided by the Utility Solid Waste Act Group and the Electric Power Research Institute on 14 co management sites, and ° a review of information provided by the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners on eight fluidized bed combustion ( FBC) facilities.

These activities yielded three damage case sites in addition to the four cases initially identified in the Part 1 determination2. Five of the damage cases involved surface impoundments and the two other cases involved landfills. The waste management units in these cases were all older, unlined units. The releases in these cases were confined to the vicinity of the facilities and did not affect human receptors. None of the damages impacted human health. We did not identify any damage cases that were associated with beneficial use practices. Regarding ecological damage, while we did not identify any ecological damage cases in the RTC associated with management of coal combustion wastes, we reviewed the information on ecological damage submitted by commenters and agree that four of the seven submitted are documented damage cases that involve FFC wastes. All of these involve some form of discharge from waste management units to nearby lakes or creeks. These confirm our risk modeling conclusions as presented in the RTC that there could be adverse impacts on amphibians, birds, or mammals if they were subject to the elevated concentrations of selected chemicals that had been measured in some impoundments. However, no information was submitted in comments that would lead us to alter our conclusion that these threats are not substantial enough to cause large scale, system level ecological disruptions. These damage cases, attributable to runoff or overflow that is already subject to Clean Water Act discharge or stormwater regulations, are more appropriately addressed under the existing Clean Water Act requirements.

Our FFC analysis drew a distinction between primary and secondary MCL exceedences because we believe this factor is appropriate in weighing the seriousness of FFC damage in terms of indicating risk to human health and the environment. For FFC, in the RTC, we reported only the " proven" damage ( i. e., exceedence of a health based standard such as a primary MCL and Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 3 XIX  3 measurement in ground water or surface water). We also identified a number of potential FFC damage cases ( eleven) which were included in the background documents that support the RTC.

Unlike the primary MCLs, secondary MCLs are not based on human health considerations. ( Examples are dissolved solids, sulfate, iron, and chloride for which ground water standards have been established because of their effect on taste, odor, and color.) While some commenters believe that elevated levels of some secondary MCL parameters such as soluble salts are likely precursors or indicators of future hazardous constituent exceedences that could occur at coal combustion facilities, we are not yet able and will not be able to test their hypothesis until we complete our analysis of all comments received on our groundwater model and risk analysis, which will not be concluded until next year.

Of the 59 damage cases reported by commenters, 11 cases appear to involve exceedences of primary MCLs or other health based standards as measured either in off site ground water or in nearby surface waters, the criteria we used in the RTC to identify proven damage cases. Of these eleven cases, two are coal ash monofills which were included in the set of damage cases described by EPA in its record supporting the Part 1 regulatory determination. The remaining nine cases involve the co management of large volume coal combustion wastes with other low volume and uniquely associated coal combustion wastes. We had already identified five of these nine cases in the RTC. Thus, only four of these eleven damage cases are newly identified to us. Briefly, the four new cases involve:

° Exceedence of a state standard for lead in downgradient ground water at a coal fly ash landfill in New York. There were also secondary MCL exceedences for sulfate, dissolved solids, and iron. ° Primary MCL exceedences for arsenic and selenium in downgradient monitoring wells for a coal ash impoundment at a power plant in North Dakota. There were also secondary MCL exceedences for sulfate and chloride. ° Primary MCL exceedences for fluoride and exceedence of a state standard for boron in downgradient monitoring wells at a utility coal combustion waste impoundment in Wisconsin. There was also a secondary MCL exceedence for sulfate. ° Exceedence of a state standard for boron and the secondary MCL for sulfate and manganese in downgradient monitoring wells at a utility coal combustion landfill in Wisconsin. We found that in each of the 11 proven damage cases the state ( or EPA in two cases under the Superfund program) took appropriate action to require or conduct remedial activities to reduce or eliminate the cause of contamination.

Nineteen of the candidate damage cases submitted by commenters involve either on site or off site exceedences of secondary MCLs, but not primary MCLs or other health based standards. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 4 XIX  4 Consistent with our CKD analysis, we consider these cases to be indicative of a potential for damage to occur at these sites because they demonstrate that there has been a release to ground water from the waste management unit.

Regarding the remaining 29 cases submitted by commenters:

° Six involve primary MCL exceedences, but measurements were in ground water either directly beneath the waste or very close to the waste boundary, i. e., no off site ground water or receptor measurements indicated that ground water standards had been exceeded. Consistent with our analysis of damage cases for cement kiln dust, we consider these six cases to be indicative of a potential for damage to occur at these sites because they demonstrate that there has been a release to ground water from the waste management unit.. ° Eighteen case summary submissions contained insufficient documentation and data for us to verify and draw a conclusion about whether we should consider these to be potential or proven damage cases. Of these 18 cases, commenters claimed that 11 cases involve primary MCL exceedences, and another two involve secondary MCLs, but not primary MCLs. The other five cases lacked sufficient information and documentation to determine whether primary or secondary MCLs are involved. Examples of information critical to assessing and verifying candidate damage cases that was not available for these particular cases include: identification of the pollutants causing the contamination; identification of where or how the damage case information was obtained ( e. g., facility monitoring data, state monitoring or investigation, third party study or analysis); monitoring data used to identify levels of contaminants; and/ or sufficient information to determine whether the damages were actually attributable to fossil fuel combustion wastes; and/ or location of the identified contamination ( i. e., directly beneath the unit or very close to the waste boundary or at a point some distant ( e. g., 150 meters) from the unit boundary). ° Three case submissions are cases we identified in the Part 1 determination and involve monofilled utility coal ash wastes. However, as explained in the Report to Congress for the Part 1 determination, EPA determined that there was insufficient evidence to consider them to be documented damage cases. ° One case did not involve fossil fuel combustion wastes. ° One case involved coal combustion wastes and other unrelated wastes in an illegal, unpermitted dump site. This site was handled by the state as a hazardous waste cleanup site. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 5 XIX  5 In summary, based on damage case information presented in the RTC and our review of comments, we conclude that there are 11 proven damage cases associated with wastes covered by today's regulatory determination. We identified seven of these damage cases in the RTC, so there are four new proven damage cases that were identified by commenters. We did find that for all 11 of the proven damage cases, either the state or EPA provided adequate follow up to require or else undertake corrective action. We were not able to identify any proven damage cases involving minefilling practices and beneficial uses of coal combustion wastes.

EPA's detailed analysis of the damage cases submitted by commenters is available in the public docket for this regulatory determination ( Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases and Additional Information Regarding Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases; SAIC to Dennis Ruddy, EPA; April 20, 2000) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 6 XIX  6 XIX. DAMAGE CASES Verbatim Commenter Statements General Comments As set forth in greater detail below, key deficiencies include the following ... Grossly incomplete data gathering, and improperly restrictive tests of proof, regarding FFCW damage cases. ( EDF00021)

The damage case analysis performed for both Reports to Congress is wholly inadequate. ( EDF00021)

Many of the rationales offered to exclude the damage cases are legally deficient and otherwise inappropriate. ( EDF00021)

The damage case data gathering was unduly limited, and the tests of proof applied were arbitrarily restrictive. ( EDF00021)

The Report is devoid of discussion of the dozens of cases of contamination and damage to the environment throughout the country from disposal of coal combustion and other fossil fuel wastes, many of which pose danger to human health. Every one of these is documented by state and/ or federal agencies. The failure to present this evidence amounts to an egregious failure to address the third study factor. This appears to have been a deliberate deficiency designed to support the conclusions of minimal risks in the risk assessments underlying the Report. ( HEC00056)

The vast majority of scientific investigations and reports that we have seen which document contamination of ground or surface waters from coal combustion wastes have not been part of any litigation or state enforcement action. Yet involvement in such formal actions is a criteria for the " test of proof" utilized in this Report to determine whether damage has occurred. By avoiding discussion of the documented evidence of damage unless this criteria is met, the Report presents a deficient and false picture in which the great preponderance of damage from fossil fuel wastes is presumed not to exist. ( HEC00056)

We are aware of at least 41 cases of disposal of coal combustion waste in " which danger to human health or the environment has been proved." None of these were mentioned in this Report. ( HEC00056)

EPA has stated they can only find six damage cases caused by CCW. What constitutes a damage case? With limited resources, HEC has located over fifty cases from around the country where CCW has resulted in contamination of ground and surface water many times the drinking water and health standards for a variety of chemicals. We have sent detailed reports on several of these cases Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 7 XIX  7 to EPA, but none of them were discussed in the report. This is further evidence that EPA must take the time to examine all of the data available. ( HEC00056)

All six of these cases have rendered groundwater unusable for drinking and/ or irrigation, but EPA has not considered a single one as a damage case. The " burden of proof" EPA used for its determination excludes all but a few cases of where CCW has caused significant damage to groundwater sources. Groundwater is a valuable resource throughout the country. Yet, EPA does not consider the dozens of cases where CCW has rendered groundwater useless to be damage cases. For EPA to write a determination that takes adequate steps to protect the rights and property of citizens living next to ash disposal sites who use groundwater; they must take the time to examine each case of contamination from CCW, or give us more time to submit full reports on the cases we have found. ( HEC00056)

EPA's lax approach toward minefills in its Draft Determination and Report to Congress stems from the Agency's failure to carry out a crucially important assessment of actual damages from CCW and other fossil fuel wastes throughout the country. HEC has gathered information and data about 34 new cases of damage to groundwaters as part of these comments. This brings the total number of cases submitted by HEC to EPA before the release of the Draft Determination and during public comment on the Determination to 56 cases of damage to the environment, ecosystems and ground water supplies from CCW. ( HEC00332)

HEC has uncovered 34 additional damage cases that EPA has apparently overlooked. EPA must assess and acknowledge the extent of damage caused by lax regulation of CCW and other fossil fuel combustion wastes. ( HEC00332)

Damage Cases: This is probably the heart of the problem with this Report to Congress as well as the USEPA's previous determination for high volume, non co managed wastes ... The only way that full deregulation can be justified is by using so narrow a definition of damage that almost nothing qualifies as damage. This is what the USEPA did in the Report to Congress and this is what USWAG is arguing to retain. ( GHIL0012)

There are two aspects of the criteria used by USEPA in the Report to Congress that will unduly and severely limit sites that qualify as damage cases. The first is the requirement that the site or incident have the imprimatur of a court action or finding, and the second is that only RCRA elements be considered as damaging contaminants. Each leads to its own set of under reporting of damages. ( GHIL0012)

The Report to Congress and the public should include a realistic assessment of the damage that CCW has caused to water and the environment under the present disposal scenarios. That assessment should not be limited to any particular list of contaminants. If a resource is lost or impaired, the inventory should reflect that. If the environment has been damaged, the inventory Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 8 XIX  8 should reflect that. If human health or safety has been or is endangered, the inventory should reflect that. Only once that inventory is known can intelligent policy decisions be made. ( GHIL0012)

EPA's policy decision to accept as " damage" cases for inclusion in the Report to Congress pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 6982( n)( 4), only cases in which an enforcement action or other litigation has been brought, rather than documented cases of actual physical damage to the environment for which an enforcement proceeding has not hcen initiated, is contrary to legal authority and precedent. " Actual" damage cases for FFC waste exist and will be included in this docket. ( ALA00292)

The damage case analysis included in this Report to Congress is wholly inadequate. ( ALA00292)

Unfortunately, EPA has relied heavily upon the very industry it is regulating as the major source of information in the report. EPA has also rejected the grand majority of evidence of contamination from CCW due to a " test of proof" that is far more strict than what is required by law and what EPA has used in other reports. As a result, the report whitewashed the real threat posed by CCW. ( SIERRA00278)

The Administrator is obligated to conduct independent inquiry into the nature and scope of damage associated with co disposal of coal combustion wastes at mining operations and to collect such data as is necessary to support the conclusions with respect to regulation or non regulation. ( NCCLP00282)

EPA has chosen to rely almost entirely on data submitted by third parties to support an assessment of whether the risks associated with improper disposal warrant such effort, yet has inexplicably failed to acknowledge the full range of evidence of groundwater contamination associated with current CCW disposal practices. ( NCCLP00282)

The rejection of such information as has been developed demonstrating contamination because of questions concerning quality control or background, is an easy but inappropriate response. ( NCCLP00282)

U. S. EPA should base its recommendations and decisions not on risk assessment or a harsh interpretation of " test of proof", but on the precautionary principle, assuring that there will be no adverse effects to public health and the environment associated with disposal of CCW. ( CITZ00358)

In oral and written comments by the HEC, three Indiana sites were characterized as " damage cases." Mr. Stant of the HEC at the public hearing stated that these sites do not meet the EPA criteria to be damage cases. Therefore, they were not identified as " damage cases" in the Report to Congress. The HEC has claimed that the Schafer Station Landfill and A. B. Brown Station Landfill Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 9 XIX  9 are sites having significant environmental concerns and that EPA should pay special attention to these sites in reaching its final regulatory determination. HEC's suggestion that these particular sites are somehow representative of CCP disposal sites is incorrect. The two landfill sites are not representative of CCP sites in general. In those isolated instances referenced above in which peculiar circumstances have resulted in minor environmental impacts, the materials disposed of and the placement practices followed are not representative of current industry management practices and materials. ( IEU0018)

In any event, the Schafer and AB Brown sites are landfills that are atypical CCP sites. They are simply poor candidates as case studies for making generalizations about CCP. ( IEU00018)

In general, we agree with EPA's determination that ... There are few documented damage cases associated with the management of the wastes studied. ( PG& E0023)

The only documented cases of proved environmental damages attributable to co managed combustion wastes were the four sites identified in the 1993 Bevill regulatory determination and a newly identified site in North Dakota. EPA correctly pointed out that each of these sites involved older, unlined units, and that the releases were confined to the immediate vicinity of the facility and resulted in no human health effects. The significance of this finding is that the few documented damage cases show that co managed combustion wastes have virtually no effect on human health receptors and that the trend toward lining and other environmental controls at newer facilities shows that any problem that might exist is limited to a small declining universe of older facilities. ( USWAG00037)

We believe that EPA generally established an appropriate basis for identifying documented cases of environmental damage. ( USWAG00037)

EPA's standard for identifying damage cases is a Permissible interpretation of the Bevill amendment ... EPA's " Tests of Proof' constitutes a generally appropriate and reasonable methodology for identifying proven damage cases. ( USWAG00275)

Treatment of exceedances of secondary drinking water standards as damage cases would be inappropriate. ( USWAG00275)

EPA needs to consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as damage cases in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00256)

EPA needs to consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as damage cases in its regulatory determination. ( VWI00258) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 10 XIX  10 The EPA must gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying only on industry's biased reports, report all cases where CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or has caused ecological damage. ( CITZ00260)

The EPA needs to consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards, or has caused ecological damage. ( CITZ00261)

EPA needs to consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as damage cases in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00263)

EPA needs to consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as damage cases in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00264)

In making its regulatory determination, EPA should consider all instances in which CCW contamination has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards. Additionally, EPA should rely on scientific articles and reports, which document exceedences, which have led to ecological damage from the disposal of CCW. ( CITZ00265)

EPA needs to consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as damage cases in its regulatory determination. ( SAVV00266)

Any documented cases of CCW contamination should be carefully examined by the EPA to determine their impact upon drinking water and fisheries. ( CITZ00267)

EPA needs to consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or has caused ecological damage. ( SOCM00279)

EPA needs to consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded state and federal health advisories and drinking water standards or has caused ecological damage. ( CITZ00284)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal drinking water standards, secondary use standards or health advisory levels or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( KYC00285)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal drinking water standards, secondary use standards or health advisory levels or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00286) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 11 XIX  11 EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal drinking water standards, secondary use standards or health advisory levels or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00287)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal drinking water standards, secondary use standards or health advisory levels or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00289)

EPA needs to consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as damage cases in its regulatory determination. ( SIERRA00278)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal drinking water standards, secondary use standards or health advisory levels or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00290)

I believe that EPA should ... Consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded state and federal health advisories and drinking water standards or has caused ecological damage. ( CITZ00291)

Due to the potential long term impacts of CCW burial on groundwater quality and the high cost in terms of funds, man power, and environmental concerns should CCW's be proven to negatively affect aquifers in which they're buried, I encourage EPA to research or obtain needed unbiased data from independent sources. ( PURD00294)

The EPA must develop its own technical background information and not rely only on information supplied by industry. The potential for toxins in the waste will have long term detrimental effects not only on our environment, but to our own health and the health of our future generations. The EPA must consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards. It is the responsibility of the EPA to make an unbiased evaluation of all of the technical information available. ( TRI00295)

I would urge you to collect your own data to confirm this. It would certainly be unwise to rely on the regulated industry for information. ( CITZ00303)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00311) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 12 XIX  12 EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW as exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00312)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00313)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00314)

I also urge the EPA to consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or has caused ecological damage. ( CITZ00315)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00316)

I have been informed that a significant amount of the early studies were based on data supplied by the studies of the industries who would benefit the most from improper disposal of CCBs. Your decision should be, obviously, based on your own data. The information from industry and environmental groups should be taken with a grain of salt  each will present data that support their respective views. ( CITZ00317)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00318)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00319)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00320)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00321) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 13 XIX  13 EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00322)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00323)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00324)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00325)

EPA needs to consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded state and federal heath and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as damage cases in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00326)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which drinking water standards ( state & federal) have been exceeded ( violated). EPA should also consider documented scientific articles that cause damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00327)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00331)

It is also imperative that the EPA not depend upon industry data regarding CCW contamination. There is a likelihood that these numbers are biased in the favor of the interests of polluters. ( BUCK00333)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal drinking water standards, secondary use standards or health advisory levels or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( NCSEA00334)

There are many cases where CCW had caused contamination of drinking water & ecological damage. Please conduct a diligent literature search so past mistakes can be avoided. It is important for the EPA not rely solely on the information provided by industry, as it is difficult for anyone to provide information detrimental to their own Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 14 XIX  14 benefit. The EPA should make a strong effort to review information from other sources when making decisions that have the potential to impact seriously current & future generations. ( CITZ00335)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00336)

I also urge the EPA to consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or has caused ecological damage. ( CITZ00337)

Likewise, EPA needs to do an independent assessment of federal and state health and drinking water standards to learn of they have been exceeded due to CCW contamination. Also, it should seriously consider scientific literature where CCW contamination has been documented as causing damage to the ecology of the areas under study. ( CITZ00338)

I strongly believe that, in making its regulatory determination, the EPA needs to do an independent assessment of the following: 1. Those cases in which federal and state health and drinking water standards have been exceeded due to CCW contamination, and , 2. Instances in the scientific literature where CCW contamination has been documented as causing damage to the ecology of the areas under study. ( CITZ00339)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00340)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00343)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00344)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00345)

EPA needs to consider all cases of contamination where coal combustion waste has exceeded state and federal health advisories and drinking water standards or has caused ecological damage. ( CITZ00346) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 15 XIX  15 EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00348)

EPA needs to consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as damage cases in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00349)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00350)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00351)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00352)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00353)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00354)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00355)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00356)

EPA needs to consider all cases in which contamination from CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as examples of damage in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00357)

If the EPA would gather its own information on CCW contamination and not rely on information supplied by industry, there would be a completely different light shed on the amount of ground Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 16 XIX  16 water contamination caused by the dumping of fossil fuel waste. The EPA must consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded, state and federal health and drinking standards as well as the documented scientific articles that show ecological damage, as damage cases in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00360)

If the EPA would gather its own information on CCW contamination and not rely on information supplied by industry, there would be a completely different light shed on the amount of ground water contamination caused by the dumping of fossil fuel waste. The EPA must consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded, state and federal health and drinking standards as well as the documented scientific articles that show ecological damage, as damage cases in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00361)

If the EPA would gather its own information on CCW contamination and not rely on information supplied by industry, there would be a completely different light shed on the amount of ground water contamination caused by the dumping of fossil fuel waste. The EPA must consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded, state and federal health and drinking standards as well as the documented scientific articles that show ecological damage, as damage cases in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00362)

If the EPA would gather its own information on CCW contamination and not rely on information supplied by industry, there would be a completely different light shed on the amount of ground water contamination caused by the dumping of fossil fuel waste. The EPA must consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded, state and federal health and drinking standards as well as the documented scientific articles that show ecological damage, as damage cases in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00363)

If the EPA would gather its own information on CCW contamination and not rely on information supplied by industry, there would be a completely different light shed on the amount of ground water contamination caused by the dumping of fossil fuel waste. The EPA must consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded, state and federal health and drinking standards as well as the documented scientific articles that show ecological damage, as damage cases in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00364)

If the EPA would gather its own information on CCW contamination and not rely on information supplied by industry, there would be a completely different light shed on the amount of ground water contamination caused by the dumping of fossil fuel waste. The EPA must consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded, state and federal health and drinking standards as well as the documented scientific articles that show ecological damage, as damage cases in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00365)

If the EPA would gather its own information on CCW contamination and not rely on information supplied by industry, there would be a completely different light shed on the amount of ground Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 17 XIX  17 water contamination caused by the dumping of fossil fuel waste. The EPA must consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded, state and federal health and drinking standards as well as the documented scientific articles that show ecological damage, as damage cases in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00366)

If the EPA would gather its own information on CCW contamination and not rely on information supplied by industry, there would be a completely different light shed on the amount of ground water contamination caused by the dumping of fossil fuel waste. The EPA must consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded, state and federal health and drinking standards as well as the documented scientific articles that show ecological damage, as damage cases in its regulatory determination. ( CITZ00367)

EPA should ensure the objectivity, accuracy, and completeness of this report by ... gathering its own information rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by the industry and state agencies which behave more as advocates than observers ... considering all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage as damage cases in its regulatory determination. ( POW00369)

I hope the EPA will strive to gather its own information on CCW contamination, rather than relying on coal company information. I hope the EPA will consider all cases of contamination where CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or been documented in scientific articles to cause ecological damage. ( CITZL0013) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 18 XIX  18 XIX. DAMAGE CASES A. Information Provided One public interest group commenter provided information on a number of candidate damage cases based on the commenter's collection and review of state file information and monitoring data. A number of other public interest group and citizen commenters made reference to the candidate cases submitted and urged EPA to consider them closely. Other public interest group and academic commenters submitted reports on scientific studies that present cases describing ecological damage caused by coal combustion wastes.

Response: EPA appreciates the efforts expended by commenters to provide documentation of damage cases. EPA has carefully considered all of the candidate damage cases submitted by the public interest group commenters through the close of the public comment period. Based on damage case information presented in the RTC and our review of comments, we conclude that there are 11 proven damage cases associated with coal combustion wastes covered by today's regulatory determination. We identified seven of these damage cases in the RTC, so there are four new proven damage cases that were identified by commenters.

Additionally, we determined that another 25 of the commenter submitted cases concerning coal combustion wastes are potential damage cases for the reasons described earlier in this section. Thus, including the 11 potential damage cases that we identified in the background documents that support the RTC, we are aware of 36 potential damage cases. While we do not believe the latter 36 cases satisfy the statutory criteria of documented, proven damage cases because damage to human health or the environment has not been proven, we believe that these cases are indicative that these wastes pose a " potential" danger to human health and the environment.

A discussion of EPA's analysis of commenter submitted damage cases appears at the beginning of this section. EPA's detailed analysis of the commenter submitted damage case information, which includes evaluation of the case specific points and arguments made by commenters, is available in the docket for this proceeding ( Rationale and Conclusions Regarding Commenter Identified Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases, and Additional Information Regarding Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Damage Cases; SAIC to Dennis Ruddy; April 20, 2000.) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 19 XIX  19 XIX. DAMAGE CASES A. Information Provided Verbatim Commenter Statements The Hoosier Environmental Council wishes to submit the following attached information for the record of public comment on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Report to Congress, Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels. Volume I  Executive Summay, and Volume 2  Methods, Findings, and Recommendations. Two copies each of the following ten cases of damages to the environment. particularly ground waters at disposal sites for coal combustion wastes in Illinois and Wisconsin ... [ comment provides several pages summarizing alleged cases with additional information provided in attachments]. ( HEC00055)

EPA has stated they can only find six damage cases caused by CCW. What constitutes a damage case? With limited resources, HEC has located over fifty cases from around the country where CCW has resulted in contamination of ground and surface water many times the drinking water and health standards for a variety of chemicals. We have sent detailed reports on several of these cases to EPA, but none of them were discussed in the report. This is further evidence that EPA must take the time to examine all of the data available. The following are just a few examples of cases of contamination that have not been considered by EPA to be damage cases ... [ comment provides several pages summarizing alleged damage cases]. ( HEC00056)

Thus EPA overlooked or rejected numerous cases where contamination from CCW has rendered ground and surface water unusable or caused other serious environmental damage ... [ comment provides several pages summarizing alleged damage cases with additional information provided in attachments]. ( HEC00332)

Nonetheless, EPA's search of the CERCLA Information System does not appear to be very thorough. HEC located two Superfund sites where CCW has been documented to be causing contamination that are located on the CERCLA list: the Dixie Caverns County Landfill in Virginia and the Vitale Fly Ash Pit in Massachusetts. While several different types of waste were disposed at these sites in both cases, EPA reports contamination occurring that is clearly linked to fly ash. Yet, these sites were not considered in the report as damage cases. A more complete discussion of each site is given below ... [ comment provides several pages summarizing alleged damage cases with additional information provided in attachments]. ( HEC00332)

The following sites are considered relevant damage cases because, in each case, the site has been identified by the responsible state agency as a site with contamination by one or more regulated constituents at levels beyond that State's standards, as documented by state required monitoring systems, using state mandated sampling protocols. The following data summaries the data presently available to HEC as a result of its search efforts ... [ comment provides several pages Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 20 XIX  20 summarizing alleged damage cases with additional information provided in attachments]. ( HEC00332)

We are sending more detailed information on some of the sites discussed in our comments on the draft Regulatory Determination on fossil fuel combustion wastes. The enclosed sites are located in North Dakota and Alabama. These were all sites that staff within the respective state agencies have identified as cases of contamination from coal combustion waste ( CCW). We have also received further information on the sites in Virginia, and will be sending reports on these sites as soon as possible ...[ comment provides several pages summarizing alleged damage cases with additional information provided in attachments]. ( HECL0009)

We have been gathering further information on phenol contamination at the C. R. Huntley and Danskammer sites. At the Huntley site, groundwater monitoring data clearly shows the phenol contamination coming from a closed ash disposal cell within the landfill. A state inspector, Richard Sthor, has also stated to us that the phenol contamination is occurring from the ash. Phenol contamination is also occurring at the Danskammer site, but the data is not as conclusive. Considering the lack of testing or monitoring for phenols at other ash sites around the country, further consideration and study of the presence of phenols in CCW is needed. We will be submitting a report on the Huntley and Danskammer sites as soon as possible, and urge you to consider the implications of the findings at these sites in the final Determination. ( HECL0014)

We have enclosed a chart of 61 cases of contamination from CCW. This chart demonstrates that CCW contamination is not isolated to a few special cases, and that this contamination is damaging public water supplies and the environment. ( HECL0014)

I have enclose a review of the adverse environmental impacts that can occur from CCW constituents. The landfill sites from which the data were obtained came from efforts by the HEC. ( VATL0010)

The enclosed packet includes some of our recent peer reviewed publications on environmental impacts of coal combustion wastes in South Carolina. While downstream water quality parameters at our study site are within the NPDES criteria, the 40 acre disposal area is heavily contaminated and used by many aquatic, terrestrial, and avian species. In several species, exposure to coal ash and accumulation of trace elements is associated with deformities which affect feeding and swimming, behavioral modifications that increase susceptibility to predation, disruption of endocrine systems, severe modifications to energy budgets, inability to complete metamorphosis, and impaired reproduction. ( SRELXXXX)

Some of the most relevant of the published research reported by RTI is the work on the ecological risks to receiving waters, undertaken at the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory by Rowe, Congdon and Hopkins. We understand that these researchers will be submitting all their published papers as comments to this docket ... [ comment summarizes this research] ... A related study in Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 21 XIX  21 Ohio ( Hatcher et. al 1992) samples lake sediments, macrozoobenthos and fish near a coal ash disposal basin on the western shore of Lake Erie ... [ comment summarizes this research] ... We believe that the data collected by these researchers meets the test of proof to be treated as a damage case. Certainly this will be true if EPA follows precedent set in other Bevill waste reports and permits scientifically proven damage cases. ( ALA00292)

The IEU review of the administrative record compiled to date indicates that several Indiana sites have been suggested as so called " damage cases." The IEU comments will also address this issue and demonstrate how these characterizations are misleading. Of the three Indiana sites about which concerns have been raised to the EPA by the Hoosier Environmental Council ( HEC), the Universal Mine site will be addressed in the USWAG comments titled the " Synthesis of Available Information on the Management of Coal Combustion Products in Mines." The other two sites are landfills and do not meet the criteria for co managed sites. We have submitted comments regarding these two sites today even though they were covered under the first phase of the Bevill Determination. ( IEU00018)

Both Schafer and A. B. Brown are on site landfills that disposed of flue gas desulfurization ( FGD) materials from dual alkali scrubber systems. Again, these materials are neither co managed, nor are they from co burning of alternative fuels. Therefore these materials are not CCP subject to this regulatory determination. These CCP sites were addressed by the Phase I Bevill regulatory determination. The type of FGD material placed in these landfills is unique to these two sites in Indiana and perhaps the country. Both facilities have or are in the process of correcting the minor environmental impacts and are actively seeking ways to beneficially reuse the FGD products they currently are producing. The Schafer Station converted its dual alkali scrubber system in late 1997 and no longer produces this type of FGD material. This site now makes wallboard grade calcium sulfate ( gypsum) and will be utilizing 100% of the materials in wallboard production as soon as the on site wallboard plant construction is completed. ( IEU00018)

The HEC often mischaracterize groundwater data collected at Indiana Utility sites. The concerns raised by the HEC regarding the Schafer site has been from localized monitoring wells( two of which are placed at the waste boundary) which show contamination from soluble salts. Other down gradient monitoring wells placed farther away but within the company property boundary show no contamination. Most importantly, one half of the closed portion of the landfill was capped with a membrane barrier in 1998 and the other half is being capped this year with an impermeable membrane. The Schafer site was not a typical site and is not representative of CCP sites in general. ( IEU00018)

SIGECO A. B. Brown plant uses a dual alkali scrubbing system and is the only power plant in Indiana that currently utilizes this scrubbing process. To address problems with material that was placed in the landfill during the scrubbers first few years in operation, the SIGECO voluntarily installed a slurry wall which was completed in February 1987 to capture any contaminants. There Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 22 XIX  22 has been no significant increase or decrease in the monitored levels in the two wells to which the Hoosier Environmental Council referred to in their testimony ( MW 3 and MW 4.3B) in the last 5 10 years. Because the numbers appear to be relatively constant, it is believed that a small pocket of contaminants is trapped outside the slurry wall in the vicinity of MW 3 and MW 4.3B and this is what is being sampled at these well locations. It is reasoned that the above mentioned wells have not seen reduced levels of contamination even after the installation of the slurry wall because the same groundwater is being sampled over and over again. SIGECO has recently installed continuous pumps in these wells in an attempt to eliminate any " pooled" materials, and they are hopeful the concerns about these two wells will finally be put to rest. Other wells located outside the slurry wall do not show an impact. SIGECO has recently replaced three wells that were located within the landfill footprint with two additional wells located downstream of MW 3 and MW 4.3B to insure the groundwater off site is not being impacted. As a final note, SIGECO has stated numerous times that the dual alkali scrubber materials from the A. B. Brown plant will not be back hauled. In any event, the Schafer and AB Brown sites are landfills that are atypical CCP sites. They are simply poor candidates as case studies for making generalizations about CCP. ( IEU00018)

CCW has contaminated ground and surface water at dozens of sites around the country many times over the federal drinking water standards for contaminants such as arsenic, boron, cadmium, chromium, vanadium, lead, selenium, sulfates, and chlorides. Contamination from CCW has also been documented in a number of scientific studies to cause deformities, reproductive problems, and even death in a wide variety of organisms ranging from plankton to amphibians and mammals. ( SIERRA00278)

Because of the inadequacy of EPA's damage case investigation to date, the Hoosier Environmental Council ( HEC) and others have collected damage information and forwarded it to EPA for inclusion in the Report and/ or consideration in the upcoming regulatory determination. For a variety of reasons, EPA has thus far refused to acknowledge these damage cases. ( EDF00021)

Using the very restrictive criteria of the Report to Congress, the USEPA listed only six damage cases nationwide. However, these six are not a complete accounting of damage cases, even by these criteria. Using its own limited resources and volunteer contributions, the Hoosier Environmental Council ( HEC) more than tripled the number of cases that qualified as damage under the restrictive criteria in a period of less than a year. This effort is ongoing and has by no means identified all damage cases. ( GHIL0012)

HEC's ongoing search for sites with serious CCW contamination has produced more than 60 sites to date that involve state regulatory action due to violations of state water quality standards, data from state regulatory files, or published studies using data collected with protocols equivalent to state agency protocols. ( GHIL0012) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 23 XIX  23 To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage occurring from CC W that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00256)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage occurring from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( VWI00256)

As I'm sure you are aware, environmental groups have already identified 60 contamination cases, numerous scientific reports, and five advisories against eating fish as a result of CCW. Why were these Instances ignored in EPAs Report to Congress? ( CITZ00261)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage occurring from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00263)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage occurring from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00264)

I am aware that CCW has contaminated both surface and ground water at several sites around the country. ( CITZ00265)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage occurring from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( SAVV00266)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage occurring from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( SIERRA00278)

Coal combustion wastes have polluted ground and surface water at dozens of sites around the country many times over the federal drinking water standards for contaminants such as arsenic, boron, cadmium, chromium, vanadium, lead, selenium, sulfates, and chlorides. A number of scientific studies have shown that contamination from CCW has caused deformities, reproductive problems, and even death in a wide variety of organisms ranging from plankton to amphibians and mammals. ( CITZ00284)

Environmental groups have already identified 60 ground water contamination cases, 40 50 scientific reports, and 5 advisories against eating fish as a result of contamination from CCW. All these show damage occurring from CCW and were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00284) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 24 XIX  24 To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 cases of groundwater contamination, 40 50 scientific reports, and at least 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( KYC00285)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 cases of groundwater contamination, 40 50 scientific reports, and at least 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00286)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 cases of groundwater contamination, 40 50 scientific reports, and at least 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00287)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 cases of groundwater contamination, 40 50 scientific reports, and at least 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00289)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 cases of groundwater contamination, 40 50 scientific reports, and at least 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00290)

Environmental groups have already identified 60 ground water contamination cases, 40 50 scientific reports, and 5 advisories against eating fish as a result of contamination from CCW. All these show damage occurring from CCW and were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00291)

Given the overwhelming evidence of contamination from CCW it seems only logical to treat CCW as any other hazardous waste and regulate it under RCRA Subtitle C. ( CITZ00303)

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)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and at least 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00311)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and at least 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00312) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 25 XIX  25 To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and at least 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00313)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and at least 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00314)

Environmental groups have already identified 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and 5 advisories against eating fish. All these show damage occurring from CCW and were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00315)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and at least 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00316)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and at least 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00318)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and at least 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00319)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and at least 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00320)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and at least 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00321)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and at least 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00322)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and at least 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00323) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 26 XIX  26 To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and at least 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00324)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and at least 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00325)

Environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage occurring from CCW. ( CITZ00326)

To date, Environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and 5 fish consumption advisories all due to damage from CCW. These cases were ignored in the Report to Congress ( although it took 17 years to complete). ( CITZ00327)

To date, environmental groups have identified at least 60 contamination cases, several dozen scientific reports, and at least 5 fish consumption advisories which show damage from CCW that were ignored in the report. ( CITZ00331)