The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ( DEP) comprehensively regulates use of ash in reclamation and soil amendments with no discovered adverse impact over a decade of monitoring. ( PA00301)

At a cost of $ 20,000 per acre to clean up, Pennsylvania residents have saved nearly $ 46,000,000 with the 2,300 acres that have been cleaned up to date by the waste coal power industry. ( PA00301)

The state Department of Environmental Protection ( DEP) comprehensively regulates use of ash in reclamation and soil amendments and no adverse impacts have been discovered despite a decade of monitoring. ( PA00302)

By reclaiming these sites, the electric generating power industry is also eliminating many potential safety and health hazards in the community. ( PA0302)

To date, more than 2,300 acres have been cleaned up, saving Pennsylvania residents nearly $ 46,000,000. ( PA00302)

While the EPA teeters over this decision, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ( DEP) has, for over a decade, comprehensively overseen and regulated the use of ash in reclamation and soil amendments monitoring and testing the use of ash and finding no adverse effects or impacts during this time period. ( PA00305)

Having witnessed the reclamation site and process firsthand, I can tell you that the benefits of this project are quite enormous. Undesirable original materials taken from beneath the surface and later discarded there are now being utilized as an energy source. Even the ash waste by product that is produced is being used effectively to fill underground mine sites and craters resulting from surface mining, and, as in some cases, this alkaline ash is being used to neutralize and counter harmful acid mine drainage. ( PA00305)

To date, waste coal electric generation has cleaned up more than 2,300 acres saving Pennsylvania taxpayers $ 46,000,000. ( PA00305) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 71 VII  71 The state Department of Environmental Protection ( DEP) comprehensively regulates use of ash in reclamation and soil amendments and no adverse impacts have been discovered despite a decade of monitoring. ( ACV00307)

By reclaiming these sites, the electric generating power industry is also eliminating many potential safety and health hazards . in the community. These waste sites pose a threat of accidental tires, and they are sometimes used as trash dumps or recreational areas for people using all terrain vehicles. ( ACV00307)

To date, more than 2,300 acres have been cleaned up, saving Pennsylvania residents nearly $ 46,000,000. ( ACV00307)

The state Department of Environmental Protection ( DEP) comprehensively regulates use of ash in reclamation and soil amendments and no adverse impacts have been discovered despite a decade of monitoring. ( TEGI00308)

By reclaiming these sites, the electric generating power industry is also eliminating many potential safety and health hazards in the community. These waste sites pose a threat of accidental fires, and they are sometimes used as trash dumps or recreational areas for people using all terrain vehicles. ( TEGI00308)

To date, more than 2,300 acres have been cleaned up, saving Pennsylvania residents nearly $ 46,000,000. ( TEGI00308)

Through the end of 1998, the waste coal plants have removed over 56 million tons of coal refuse from Pennsylvania's landscape, and have used the resulting 37 million tons of alkaline ash to reclaim 2,300 acres of abandoned mine lands. This reclamation work has been performed at the plant's own expense, without any taxpayer dollars or grants from the limited AML funds that are distributed each year to Pennsylvania. ( PMRABL0003)

The data demonstrates that the groundwater at the reclamation sites generally shows either no change or an improvement, often significant, to background conditions. The use of ash for mine reclamation has not resulted in ground water contamination in over a decade of monitoring ash samples and downgradient water. ( PMRABL0003)

The reclamation work that is being done by private industry is a necessary part of the solution to an overwhelming problem. ( PCCL0007)

The use of fossil fuel combustion ash is one of the best tools available to us for the reclamation of abandoned surface mines. Most ( approximately 80%) of the ash that is used for reclamation in Pennsylvania comes from the 14 waste coal plants operating in the state. These 14 plants produce approximately 5 million tons of ash per year, and remove 8 million tons of waste coal from the barren refuse piles that are polluting our environment. Through the end of 1998, these plants have removed over 56 million tons of coal refuse from Pennsylvania's landscape, and have used the resulting 37 million tons of alkaline ash to reclaim 2,300 acres of abandoned mine lands. This reclamation work has been performed at the plants' own expense, without the taxpayer dollars or grants from the limited AML funds that are distributed each year to Pennsylvania. ( PCCL0007) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 72 VII  72 The data demonstrates that the groundwater at the reclamation sits generally shows either no change or an improvement, often significant, to background conditions. The use of ash for mine reclamation has not resulted in ground water contamination in over a decade of monitoring ash samples and downgradient water. ( PCCL0007)

In addition to the economic costs to industry, PG& E Gen encourages EPA to consider the costs to the public and the environment if the beneficial uses of FBC are restricted and prohibited without evidence of damage to the environment. The reclamation efforts during the last five years by Pennsylvania FBC facilities alone have reclaimed about 400 acres per year of unreclaimed lands at a benefit of $ 6 million per year. This figure does not include the most important benefits: .

° restored land value once reclaimed for future use for habitat or development l water quality improvements ° stormwater and erosion abatement ° removal of highwalls, pits, shafts and similar hazards ° local economic impacts from improved aesthetics, land values and development opportunities. ( PG& E00023)

In an effort to aid in your decision making process, we are pleased to provide a representative sampling of data from the nearly 100 mine sites throughout Pennsylvania where ash has been used as a supplement for soils or minefill. These cases cover a variety of applications. We believe that the data demonstrate that the use of ash does not result in groundwater degradation when used in accordance with the regulations and guidance in effect in Pennsylvania. This result is the same whether the ash placement is within or above the water table. In many of the cases cited, the use of the ash resulted in a significant improvement in water quality. ( PADEP00025)

IMCC believes regulation under Subtitle C would promote a " one size fits all" approach that will discourage recycling of coal ash and thereby encourage the placement of coal ash in less suitable or more expensive disposal environments. A unique opportunity is afforded by the disposal of coal ash in coal mine spoil, because placement occurs in an environment where potentially harn& l trace elements, contained within the coal ash waste stream, will be neutralized as a source of environmental degradation through natural processes of dispersion, attenuation, dilution and mineralization. These processes can often improve ground water quality in surface mine settings which involve the disposal of acidic coal processing waste or which are hydrologically connected to acid mine drainage from pre law coal mining activities. ( IMCC00027)

The IMCC believes coal ash haul back has the following advantages, among others, that should be considered by USEPA:

° Coal ash is returned to the same environment from which the coal was extracted. ° Returning ash to its place of origin preserves green space. ° Mineralization of the groundwater that accumulates in the mine spoil is an accepted consequence of surface coal mining. Research has shown adding ash to this environment will not cause an incremental increase of the accepted mineralization. ° The existing state programs under SMCRA provide the necessary environmental safeguards to protect the hydrologic balance and the public. ( IMCC00027) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 73 VII  73 The Bureau believes there are important opportunities to improve current acid mine drainage remediation techniques with the proper utilization of coal combustion by products ( CCB). ( MDE00047)

Simply put, we have not been able to find a single case of beneficial use of industrial combustion ash for mine reclamation that has caused deterioration of the environmental structures of concern. In most cases there is a significant net benefit over not using ash to reclaim, stabilize, and ameliorate acid drainage from abandoned mines. ( CIBO00052)

The case study information clearly supports our industry held view that CCPs can be utilized in environmentally responsible beneficial end use applications within mine settings. ( AEP00060)

As discussed in detail in the NMA comments and incorporated by reference herein, this practice presents many benefits ( including, among others, a reduced need for " greenfield" sites for new utility disposal sites, and ameliorating potential acid discharges) and presents significant potential for ameliorating effects of CCP disposal on the environment due to superior attenuative capacity of mine spoils ( compared to geologic materials present at typical CCP disposal sites) and the hydrologic characteristics of surface mine disposal sites. ( WVDEPL0003)

The data demonstrates that the use of ash does not result in groundwater degradation when used in accordance with the regulations and guidance in effect in Pennsylvania. In many cases, the use of ash resulted in a significant improvement of water quality. ( PADEP00246)

By using waste coal as fuel, these plants are cleaning up abandoned mine sites and waste coal piles across the state. The removal of these piles eliminates erosion, sedimentation and the production of acid mine drainage. In many cases the combustion by product, a stabilized ash, is returned to the mine site and is used to recontour the site in a manner that approximates the original site before mining began. In this process, the ash neutralizes other acid bearing materials while supplementing native soils to promote site revegetation. Pennsylvania's waste coal power industry has cleaned up more than 2,300 acres of abandoned mine lands, saving the Commonwealth nearly $ 46,000,000. ( PADEP000246)

The state Department of Environmental Protection ( DEP) has monitored these sites and concluded that the application of coal ash in conformance with state requirements does not degrade groundwater resources. The department's research suggests that in many cases the use of this material actually has improved water quality. ( PA00247)

By reclaiming these sites, the electric power generating industry is also eliminating many potential safety and health hazards in the community. The abandoned waste sites pose the threat of accidental fires, and they are sometimes used as trash dumps or recreational areas for people using all terrain vehicles. Sedimentation and erosion problems are also eliminated in areas where streams are located nearby. ( EPACAMR00248)

To date, more than 2,300 acres have been clean up, saving PA residents nearly $ 460 Million. This estimate does not include the elimination of AMD. ( EPACAMR00248) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 74 VII  74 By reclaiming these sites, the electric generating power industry is also eliminating many potential safety and health hazards in the community. These waste sites pose a threat of accidental fires, and they are sometimes used as trash dumps or recreational areas for people using all terrain vehicles. ( PCLP00249)

To date, more than 2,300 acres have been cleaned up, saving Pennsylvania residents nearly $ 46,000,000. ( PCLP00249)

By reclaiming these sites, the electric generating power industry is also eliminating potential safety and health hazards in the community. These waste sites pose a threat of accidental fires, and they are sometimes used as trash dumps or recreational areas for people using all terrain vehicles. ( PAEC00251)

To date, more than 2,300 acres have been cleaned up, saving Pennsylvania residents nearly $ 446,000,000. ( PAEC00251)

By reclaiming these sites, the electric generating power industry is also eliminating many potential safety and health hazards in the community. These waste sites pose a threat of accidental fires, and they are sometimes used as trash dumps or recreational areas for people using all terrain vehicles. ( G& L00252)

To date, more than 2,300 acres have been cleaned up, saving Pennsylvania residents nearly $ 46,000,000. ( G& L00252)

By reclaiming these sites, the electric generating power industry is also eliminating many potential safety and health hazards in the community. These waste sites pose a threat of accidental fires, and they are sometimes used as trash dumps or recreational areas for people using all terrain vehicles. ( PA00253)

To date, more than 2,300 acres have been cleaned up, saving Pennsylvania residents nearly $ 46,000,000. ( PA00253)

By reclaiming these sites, the electric generating power industry is also eliminating many potential safety and health hazards in the community. These waste sites pose a threat of accidental fires and they are sometimes used as trash dumps or recreational areas for people using all terrain vehicles. ( CIN00254)

To date, more than 2,300 acres have been cleaned up, saving Pennsylvania residents nearly $ 46,000,000. ( CIN00254)

By reclaiming these sites, the electric generating power industry is also eliminating many potential safety and health hazards in the community. These unreclaimed waste sites pose a threat of accidental fires, and they are sometimes used as trash dumps or recreational areas for people using all terrain vehicles. ( EPC00255)

To date, more than 2,300 acres have been cleaned up, saving Pennsylvania residents nearly $ 46,000,000. ( EPC00255) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 75 VII  75 The Ebensburg, Pennsylvania facility is one of 14 waste coal fueled power plants operating in Pennsylvania. By burning waste coal as fuel, these plants are cleaning up abandoned mine sites and waste coal pires across the state. As you know, waste coal sites seriously threaten water quality and public safety. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ( PaDEP) has approved the alkaline CFB ash for use in reclamation programs for both active and abandoned mines. The ash is returned to the mine site to neutralize other acid bearing materials that could not be used as fuel and to supplement native soils to promote site re vegetation. These coal refuse fueled facilities are a prime example of industrial operations that contribute to significant reductions in air, water, and solid waste emissions. By revitalizing abandoned industrial properties and returning thousands of acres of polluted and once wasted land back to a useful state, Pennsylvania's waste coal power industry provides environmental, societal, and economic advantages to the state, region, and country. ( AIRP00270)

Use of FBC coal ash in soil amendments and mine reclamation is beneficial. ( PG& E00274)

Coal ash generally, and FBC ash in particular, is superior to other till in its ability to be both flowable and compactable. It is an ideal construction material to fill and seal pits and voids, restore original contours of the landscape, stabilize coal refuse, and establish desirable surface water drainage patterns. The high lime content naturally amends the soil, promoting vegetative growth as a soil amendment. This lime content also creates cementitious chemical reactions in the ash, causing it to " set up" like cement when conditioned with water. As shown in comments from ARIPPA and others, FBC coal ash has levels of metal and contaminants generally in the same range as native soils, according to the U. S. Geological Survey, but in a form and in an alkaline environment that makes trace metals less leachable than in soils. These beneficial uses are decidedly not waste disposal, but rather the productive use of the by product because of its desirable characteristics as a land reclamation material. ( PG& E00274)

The cementing applications of fly ash that replace portland cement and avoid CO2 emissions are not limited to fly ash in concrete. Specifically, with respect to EPA's RTC, the use of fly ash in many mining applications, particularly where flowable fill requiring low strengths are required, can eliminate most of all of the cement that would have been used. ( ACAA00276)

Currently, the coal ash that the EPA is proposing to regulate as a hazardous waste is beneficially used as a soil supplement or minefill at 100 sites throughout Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has monitored these sites and concluded that the application of coal ash in accordance with state requirements does not degrade water resources. In some cases, the use of the coal ash has actually improved the water quality. ( PA00293)

Public funds will only address only a small part of this backlog. Power companies are using coal ash to successfully re claim abandoned mine land. Throughout Pennsylvania there are 14 waste coal fueled power plants representing a capital investment of nearly $ 2.5 billion. These facilities have already reclaimed 2,300 acres of abandoned mine land at no cost to taxpayers or the Abandoned Mine Land Trust Fund. ( PA00293)

A by product of the combustion process is an alkaline ash which the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ( DEP) has approved for use in reclamation programs for active and abandoned mines. The alkaline coal ash is returned to the reclamation sites to neutralize other Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 76 VII  76 acidic materials, allowing a reduction or elimination of acid mine drainage. To date, nearly 2,300 acres have been reclaimed this way in Pennsylvania. ( PA00296)

Here in Pennsylvania the State Department of Environmental Protection has been regulating the use of ash in abandoned mines land reclamation and acid mine drainage abatement applications, as well as for agricultural land applications, for more than ten years with no adverse affects. Indeed, the PA DEP has noted a substantial reduction in the public safety risks associated with open, abandoned pits where these plants are situated and reductions in Acid Mine Drainage that have posed significant problems and ground water quality degradation throughout the Commonwealth's coal mining regions. ( GPC00297)

The fourteen waste coal fueled power plants in Pennsylvania have consumed tens of millions of tons of coal mining wastes thus far in their operational lives. The ash by product from these plants consumption of waste, mildly alkaline in nature, has been used to reclaim approximately 2300 acres of heretofore useless blighted land. The reclamation activity has " sealed off' hundreds of acres of land which was open to uncontrolled water ingress that contributed to the degradation of ground and surface waters in the area. Significant watershed improvements have already been noted in the areas where many streams are bereft of aquatic life for many miles. ( GPC00297)

By reclaiming these sites, the electric generation power industry is also eliminate many potential safety and health hazards in the community. These waste sites pose a threat of accidental fires, and they are sometimes used as trash dumps or recreational areas for people using all terrain vehicles. ( PA00300)

To date, more than 2,300 areas have been cleaned up, saving residents nearly $ 46,000,000. ( PA00300)

The PA State Department of Environment of Protection ( DEP) comprehensively regulates the use of ash in reclamation and as soil amendments with no adverse impacts despite a decade of monitoring. ( AMI00372)

To date, more than 2,300 acres have been cleaned up, saving Pennsylvania residents nearly $ 46 million. ( AMI00372)

To date, nearly 2,300 acres have been reclaimed. With an estimated reclamation cost of $ 20,000 per acre, Pennsylvania taxpayers have saved an estimated $ 46 million. ( PAL0001)

The Ohio River Basin Commission would like to express its support of the continued use of waste coal ash in mine reclamation efforts to improve downstream water quality. ( ORBCL0002)

By utilizing waste coal as fuel, many plants are cleaning abandoned mine sites and waste coal piles throughout Pennsylvania. The removal of these piles eliminates erosion, sedimentation, and the production of mine acid drainage which can have far reach regional impacts. ( ORBCL0002)

We would like to express support for the continued use of waste coal ash in mine reclamation efforts to improve downstream water quality. ( SRBCL0006) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 77 VII  77 By using waste coal as fuel, many plants are cleaning abandoned mine sites and waste coal piles. The removal of these piles helps to control erosion, sedimentation, and the production of mine acid drainage which can have far reach, regional impacts. ( SRBCL0006)

The common beneficial use of ash from Circulating Fluidized Bed ( CFB) combustion boilers from electric cogeneration plants in Pennsylvania serves as a vital component in the reclamation of abandoned mine sites in our state. ( LRCAXXXX)

Data collected at many reclaimed sites indicates improvement in surface water quality through the reduction of sediment runoff and surface acid mine drainage ( AMD). Reclaimed sites also help reduce infiltration of surface water into underground mine pools which later discharge into streams and rivers as acid mine drainage. ( LRCAXXXX)

The reclamation of abandoned mine sites in the anthracite fields of Northeast Pennsylvania is crucial to the restoration of ecological values and water quality in many streams and rivers in the Susquehanna and Delaware watersheds. This reclamation effort is also key to the economic and cultural recovery of the human communities adversely affected by the extractive history of the anthracite industry. ( LRCAXXXX)

OSM shares EPA's concerns regarding the potential for contamination of groundwater and surface pathways from the use of some CCBs in mine reclamation. We believe that is possible that certain CCBs and associated materials may exhibit hazardous characteristics or pose unacceptable risks in some situations. However, we know of many examples where CCBs have been an integral part of successful reclamation under both Title IV and Title V. There is an extensive inventory of completed projects, and there are a number of ongoing projects in various stages of completion. As the EPA states in its report, the environmental benefits achieved through this reclamation have been extensive. In all of these projects, OSM and the States have ensured that the potential environmental and health and safety impacts of CCBs were evaluated. The enclosed copies of papers on successful reclamation were presented at national AML meetings highlighting the use of CCBs. ( OSM00283)

We do not doubt that there are situations where underground mine disposal may be an appropriate disposal technique for certain coal combustion wastes. Conversely, we are just as certain that there are situations in which where such disposal practices are not appropriate. ( ALA00292)

PG& E is not talking about the universe of fossil fuel combustion products or its disposal ... It is the specific application of a chemically reactive waste to address the problem of an uncontrolled chemical problem inherited from decades old mining practices. It is a beneficial use of these materials, at least in the short run. Whatever regulatory structure the USEPA settles upon, there is probably a legitimate objective to use these materials for some types of abandoned mined lands reclamation. ( GHIL0012)

It is important that the distinction between legitimate, engineered beneficial use and unregulated, wholesale dumping continually be drawn and emphasized. ( GHIL0012)

PG& E's comments are reasonable, although there is a tendency to exaggerate some claims ... For example, even when the field reactor is built and performs to design, the resulting reactant water Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 78 VII  78 may be neutral in pH and have low dissolved concentrations of RCRA metals, but it will be highly mineralized and, therefore, substantially degraded. It will be an improvement, but it is by no means good water. Further, it is not easy to get effective reaction between the FBC wastes and acid mine drainage ... In cases where flow through is obtained, the reacation continues only until the alkalinity of the FBC waste is consumed ... The fix is often not permanent and is some cases the problem becomes worse after the FBC wastes are neutralized. ( GHIL0012)

The primary difficulties with [ the use of FBC wastes as materials for construction caps to reduce infiltration into acid producing materials] is that the barriers are frequently ineffective and, when initially effective, deteriorate quite quickly with time. The fix is at best temporary. ( GHIL0012)

Although returning CCW to underground coal mines has fundamental merit, as landfills become more scarce, the US EPA and RCRA personnel need to conduct more research on the toxicity issue of CCW rather than ignore it. Toxic underground deposits of CCW will make their way back to the surface as a contaminant in groundwater when it is used for farm irrigation, landscape runoff into streams, public water consumption, etc. ( VAT00309)

The Report downplays the significance of problems with minefills. There are basic differences between minefilling and the other disposal methods examined in this Report, i. e., landfills and lagoons, that are well known and should have been thoroughly discussed in the Report. Despite these obvious dramatic differences, the Report repeatedly gives minefilling the benefit of the doubt with unsubstantiated statements such as, " EPA believes that, under ideal circumstances, placement of wastes in mines should present no increased risks to human health and the environment relative to conventional landfills." in section 3.4.5. The Report erroneously labels minefilling a beneficial use when many minefills are simply open dumps, i. e. landfills without any design or construction standards and few operational requirements, used to avoid the costs of disposal at state solid waste landfills. These dumps are not being used for, " improvement of disturbed mine lands through contouring, revegetation, and reduced infiltration to mine workings, and abatement of acid mine drainage through neutralization an diversion." as emphasized in the Report ( e. g. see page 3 51). ( HEC00056)

While there may be a direct interphase between the wastes and shallow ground water aquifers in some lagoon disposal, many minefills expose ground water aquifers at multiple depths to direct rampant contact with large volumes of CCW that does not occur at power plant lagoons. ( HEC00056)

Arguments in favor of minefilling are specious. Claims made by proponents of minefilling at EPA's May 21 Hearing and at a tour of minefills in Indiana on May 25 arranged for EPA by the Edison Electric Institute and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources appear to be based on the following three arguments:

1) Coal seams are underlain by ` fire clay' that will serve as a natural liner for CCW disposal in mines. 2) Minefilling cleans up the environment by neutralizing acid mine drainage; and 3) Any contamination from coal combustion wastes will be acceptable given that mining has already destroyed the ground waters in mine areas. ( HEC00056) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 79 VII  79 The claim about fire clay is self serving fantasy. There is no material in the geologic record or mine permit applications to support the notion that Mother Nature has benevolently provided ` fire clay' as the floor rock under most strippable coal deposits. Moreover, as we will describe, even in the few places where ` fire clay' is the floor rock, it cannot act as a ` natural liner' preventing toxic contaminants in the CCW from entering the groundwater. If a seam of clay mineral were the floor rock under the stripmined coal seam, could it act as a " natural liner" for CCW dumps? The answer is a resounding NO for these reasons:

A) Liners must be continuous with no weaknesses  Impermeability is only as strong as the weakest link. Underclays are often discontinuous layers. For example, at a fact finding hearing held in 1995 concerning HEC's appeal of the Little Sandy # 10 Mine CCW disposal permit, hydrologist Russell Boulding documented that the claim of underclays retarding CCW leachate at this site was fictitious. A number of the lithologic logs including seven that were reported to be downgradient from or very near CCW monofills showed no underclay underneath the lowest coal seam to be mined where CCW would be placed. With adequate time to comment, we intend to document the absence of underclays at numerous mines and the presence of sand stones and sandy shales immediately beneath the coal seams that are aquifers, not aquitards.

B) Furthermore a well established fact that Boulding also testified about at this hearing, is that clay seams, as well as other types of floor rock, can, do and will sustain fractures from the blasting, operation of heavy equipment and stress relief from overburden removal in mining operations. " Soft" stripmining techniques have yet to be invented. Moreover, as the coal and overburden are removed, the floor rock will undergo " release fracturing." This means when the weight of the overlying strata is removed, the floor rock will heave and buckle upward as a new equilibrium is achieved. ( HEC00056)

Even if a continuous clay layer were present and somehow, magically, stayed intact throughout the high stresses of the mining operation, could it serve as a ` natural liner' containing CCW and preventing groundwater contamination? The answer is a resounding No. The assumption behind this myth is that groundwater carrying contamination from CCW could only travel downward and would be stopped by the clay seam and so could not affect the lower aquifers. The clay seam would not stop water and contamination from traveling horizontally and outward from the dump site. And, most importantly, stripmine pits are themselves an artificial aquifer system after mining and almost always have high permeability and increased flow rates through the disturbed areas including the areas where CCW is dumped. ( HEC00056)

The fantasy of a ` fire clay' seam acting as a ` natural liner' also conflicts with the second claim that CCW neutralizes acid mine drainage. First, assuming neutralization benefits do occur, acid water must flow into the pit from somewhere, flow through the CCW, then flow out as neutralized water to somewhere else. The point of continuous liners is to prevent outflow. The electric power industry can't have its cake  clay as a ` natural liner'  and eat it too  CCW as a neutralizing agent for acid mine drainage. One claimed virtue will cancel out the other. ( HEC00056)

High acidity is not the only geochemistry faced in mining operations. In fact, the Report should take into account problems that may occur at the other end of the pH scale in Indiana and many western states where the ground waters and spoil waters in active mining operations are alkaline. How Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 80 VII  80 will these systems adequately buffer the excess alkalinity that millions of tons of alkaline ash may add to increased baseflows feeding the streams that drain mine areas? ( HEC00056)

The third claim is perhaps most disturbing because it amounts to a brazen attempt to eviscerate the fundamental purposes of SMCRA. Strip mining can and does seriously degrade ground water. But the purpose of SMCRA is to minimize that impact and restore the environment of mined areas ... Yet after twenty years of telling us that they can readily meet these requirements, the proponents of minefilling now want us to believe that even in the absence of acidity problems, the ground waters in mines are so trashed that further contamination of them from disposal of massive quantities of CCW and other fossil fuel wastes would be of no consequence! ... The data does not back them up. Instead it indicates that contamination from disposal of CCW will substantially worsen water quality that has been degraded by mining. It shows that degraded spoil waters improve with time as their oxygen content reduces. It does not show that contamination from CCW will abate simply with the passage of time. ( HEC00056)

The information on water quality indicates the surface mining law works. Damage is created by mining, but by isolating the toxic forming mine waste from its reactive agent, oxygen, the damage is limited and eventually corrects itself. It takes years, but the progress is real. On the other hand, burying reactive CCW at surface mines puts a toxic forming nonmine waste in the worst possible environment, in direct contact with its reactive agent  water. It is a disposal policy that is antithetical to the concept and practice of the surface mining law and it will condemn untold thousands of acres of useful or recovering mined lands to an indefinite future without usable water and without value. ( HEC00056)

Nonetheless, many cola field residents not to mention entire species of organisms must contend with serious threats to life sustaining water supplies, as CCW dumping in unlined strip mine sites becomes an ever prevalent practice. ( CITZ00261)

Returning it to former strip mines is adding insult to the injury they've already done to the land. These wastes seeping into the groundwater and possibly commingling other industrial wastes with them is not a good plan. ( CITZ00262)

The EPA has the flexibility and discretion to adopt a program that is tailored to the specific problems associated with the " open dumping" of coal combustion wastes in mine backfill and voids, in order to assure protection of human health and the environment. As argued below, the co disposal of coal combustion wastes in mining areas present heightened risks of contamination of groundwater and injury to public health that warrant assertion of Subtitle Ill authority over that disposal practice. ( NCCLP00282)

The failure to assert jurisdiction over coal combustion wastes disposed of in coal mining operations will result in imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment. ( NCCLP00282)

The failure to assert federal leadership in establishing up front baseline standards concerning the disposal of coal combustion wastes under Subtitle III invites significant judicial intrusion into the field, and implicates the disposers, transporters and generators in a web of liability that is as open ended as are the state management programs themselves. ( NCCLP00282) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 81 VII  81 As will be later discussed, the failure to differentiate the rare beneficial uses made of CCW in mines from larger category of use of mines for cheap disposal, and the lumping together of such practices as ` minefill" obscures the reality of why utilities return combustion wastes to mined areas. ( NCCLP00282)

The Council believes that the evidence of groundwater contamination from disposal of coal combustion wastes in situations comparable to the dumping of such wastes in mine backfill, is more than sufficient to warrant federal involvement in establishing baseline standards for coal combustion waste disposal in mining sites. ( NCCLP00282)

It is a myth that there is no potential public health and environmental impact of improper management of coal combustion wastes. ( NCCLP00282)

The available evidence suggests that disposal of coal combustion wastes in mine pits or other workings may be of particular concern, due to a number of factors: the increase in surface area available for leaching of elements resulting from fracturing of overburden and confining layers; higher total dissolved solids levels in mine spoils that compete for sorption sites on solids with toxic elements released from the buried ash; direct communication between surface and underground mine workings and aquifers through stress relief fracture systems and subsidenceinduced fracture flow; the dependence of residents of coal baring regions on private, groundwater supplies and the significant potential for contamination of those supplies; and the presence of site conditions conducive to creation of acid or toxic forming material that can solubilize constituents of concern from the waste. ( NCCLP00282)

The use of the term " minefill" to loosely cover both " beneficial use" of coal combustion wastes and the disposal of such waste on minesites, masks the economic forces which result in such disposal. The presence of utility plants at minesites is a rare occurrence nationally, and the coal combustion wastes are being backhauled and disposed of in mine workings ( including both underground mine voids and more commonly, in surface mine backfills or spoil/ mine waste fills) not because of the beneficial attributes of the wastes relative to other materials or the lack of alternatives available to utilities and non utility customers for coal combustion waste disposal, but because the coal companies offer the backhauling and disposal as a " service" or incentive in order to attract buyers for their coal in an increasingly competitive marketplace. ( NCCLP00282)

Many utilities will not allow their waste to be co disposed in mine voids and workings, preferring to manage their liabilities associated with the waste on site or in a manner more controlled than the typical minesite. Those that do allow the waste to be managed in co disposal situations assume that the problems with their waste streams will be masked by the significant hydrogeologic and chemical disruptions associated with mining operations, or that the contamination will not be discovered because of lack of adequate and sufficient monitoring. ( NCCLP00282)

The report, at p. 3 51, assumes that the use of coal combustion waste can assist in mine " contouring," yet the use of such material is neither beneficial nor needed for " contouring" of mine sites. Rather, such mining sites typically generate excess spoil material that must be disposed of in a separate spoil disposal site. It is the placement of this excess spoil in head of hollow and valley fills that has triggered the controversy over the practice of " mountaintop removal" coal mining in Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 82 VII  82 the Appalachian coalfields, and the introduction of ash into the mined area will displace additional spoil, resulting in larger fills ( and greater in stream disturbances) or will result in larger fills with more direct disturbance to streams where the material is co disposed in the fills rather than on mine benches or mine pits. ( NCCLP00282)

The report assumes also that the dumping of coal wastes in mined areas is appropriate because it will " avoid[ ] development of Greenfield space for UCCW disposal." This proposition is as absurd as it is arrogant, since, in the first instance, the proposition that more waste problems should be heaped on coalfield communities because the area is already disturbed, violates the core principle of the mining law that mining should be a temporary use of the land and that the land should be restored to productive uses comparable to the premining use. In the second instance, the proposition assumes that the location of the alternative disposal sites, which are dedicated ash impoundments or landfills, are " Greenfields", when in fact they are typically located on site at utility plants, on property that is otherwise utilized to buffer the air quality impacts associated with the power plants. ( NCCLP00282)

The presumption of idealized circumstances for disposal at coal mines is a myth as well. Far from the homogenous, isotropic primary media flow through pore spaces in unfractured rock strata, providing for minimal vertical and horizontal groundwater flow, the coalfield regions of the east, midwest and west each present unique and complex hydrogeologic regimes that are naturally questionable at best for such waste disposal, and become more so through the disruption of the hydrologic regime and geology from blasting and subsidence associated with coal recovery from surface and underground mines. ( NCCLP00282)

In sum, the placement of uncontrolled and unconsolidated deposits of coal combustion waste in mine backfills, valley or hollow fills, or underground mine voids, is irresponsible. The groundwater system in many coal fields is particularly vulnerable to contamination because of the high transmissivity of the fracture dominated aquifer system, and because of the high degree of interconnection of aquifers through subsidence induced deformation of strata above underground coal seams. Ample hydrologic evidence is available to suggest that further co disposal of coal combustion wastes should be prohibited pending development of sufficient standards for the characterization, management, placement and monitoring of such disposal, and that EPA should move promptly to develop such standards. ( NCCLP00282)

We have experienced first hand the water contamination caused by various forms of coal mining. My students were amazed when they saw a creek near Freeburn, Kentucky with water that was a milky white. I am greatly concerned about the potential for even more groundwater contamination and the associated risks to human beings and other life forms if coal companies are allowed to continue the practice of dumping coal combustion waste ( CCW) in strip mines. ( CITZ00291)

The waste has very high levels of heavy metals such as mercury, arsenic, iron and many others. The way it is being spread over the land here will allow it to seep into the water table. This will take many years to take place at which time there will be absolutely no way to re mediate the problem. ( CITZ00329)

Our water supply will be ruined for future generations. This is all taking place because of the greed of the large corporations who will risk our future for a quick profit now. ( CITZ00329) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 83 VII  83 Minefilling practices are posing an imminent and substantial endangerment to the environment and human health. ( HEC00332)

Given the stability of mine sites as well as the direct and indirect hydrologic pathways between the wastes and groundwater supplies at these sites, disposing CCW, other fossil fuel wastes, other nonmine wastes mixed with these wastes or wastes whose parent materials are coburned with fossil fuels in strip mines without substantial safeguards violates the basic tenets of sound waste disposal policies. ( HEC00332)

EPA has received testimony that clay beds underlying strip pits serve as " natural liners." ( See, for example, the testimony of Bradley C. Paul, EPA transcript, p. 181) Indiana has permitted strip mine pits as CCW dumps based on the assertion that the presence of a clay layer underlying the pit will serve as a " natural liner." Such assertions are false and misleading, at best, for the following reasons: At best they are a figleaf: Clay beds do not line the sides and bottom of the entire pit. ( HEC00332)

It is highly unlikely that a clay layer will retain its integrity during modern strip mining because of the mines' reliance on blasting and heavy equipment. ( HEC00332)

Moreover, clay layers are often discontinuous and do not extend underneath the entire pit. ( HEC00332)

Indiana has no legislation to prohibit combustion ash and all of its heavy metals from being reburied in mines in Indiana. In fact, I understand that the industry promotes this dumping as a practice. Since there are no " lime" requirements in Indiana our potable water supply may be at risk. ( CITZ00341)

I am convinced that open dumping of CCW that has no restrictions on it is poisoning my drinking water. ( CITZ00342)

When CCW is dumped in mine pits contaminants enter underground aquifers and eventually end up in well water. ( CITZ00347)

I live in Knox County, Illinois where coal strip mines have been a feature of the landscape for decades. According to Jeff Stant of the Hoosier Environmental Council, eight wells in Illinois have been contaminated by CCW disposed of in strip mine pits. Agricultural pesticide and herbicide contamination of many rural wells is bad enough we don't need or want another source of contamination. However, because strip mines continue to operate in Knox County and nearby counties and since there are plans to dump CCW in these mines, we fear that we will have another source of contamination to contend with. The dangers posed by CCW make me and others in rural Illinois even more concerned for the safety of our ground water. ( CITZ00347)

Our coal mining sites already contain many dangerous substances, whether occurring naturally or introduced by man, and any additional toxic or hazardous wastes would only serve to compound our problems and increase the threat to our water resources. ( DCCC00359) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 84 VII  84 I am aware to the new plants to dispose of 125 million tons of coal combustion waste in unlined mines in Indiana over the next five years. In particular I am concerned about the contamination of our water supplies with heavy metals, such as arsenic and lead, this procedure is certain to cause. ( CITZL0008)

There are a number of scientists concerned about flushing CCW into underground exhausted coal mine shafts due to trace metal toxicity from fly ash particles accompanied by high levels of conductivity, total dissolved solids ( TDS), and sodium ( Na). ( VATL0010)

I think relying on the strip mining industry to police itself is letting the fox into the henhouse. Allowing coal combustion wastes to be returned to former strip mines is adding insult to the injury they've already done to the land. These wastes seeping into the ground water and possible commingling other industrial wastes with them is an unacceptable answer. ( CITZL0015) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 85 VII  85 VII. MINEFILL E. Universally Poor Applications EPA specifically asked commenters to identify universally poor minefill practices or scenarios. Commenters explicitly addressing this question ( from industry, academics, and a federal agency) responded that they know of no universally poor practices and that site specific evaluation can prevent difficulties from arising. One of the commenters specifically argued that placement below the water table cannot be considered a universally poor practice.

Response: Based on a review of the extensive case study information submitted by commenters, EPA believes that the environmental outcomes of minefilling are highly site specific. Therefore, the Agency generally agrees that at this time there are no specific practices or scenarios that can be generically categorized as universally poor. There may, however, be site and wastespecific conditions that result in negative outcomes or require a higher degree of control. We will continue to address this question as we develop regulations.

One commenter claimed that placement of coal combustion waste below the water table should not be considered a universally poor practice. While the Agency does not have enough information now to identify universally poor practices, we have concerns about placing coal combustion wastes in direct contact with ground water in both surface and underground mines. We concluded in our recent study of cement kiln dust management practices that placement of cement kiln dust in direct contact with ground water led to a substantially greater release of hazardous metals than we predicted would occur when the waste was placed above the water table. For this reason, we find that there is a potential for increased releases of hazardous metals as a result of placing coal combustion wastes in direct contact with groundwater. The Agency also recognizes that the very significant geochemical and hydrological differences between surface and underground mines may call for a tailored approach to regulation development. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 86 VII  86 VII. MINEFILL E. Universally Poor Applications Verbatim Commenter Statements DOE is unaware of any minefill practices that are universally poor and warrant specific attention with respect to RCRA Subtitle C. DOE/ FETC's experience with a wide variety of minefilling projects indicates that none have resulted in a consistently poor environmental performance. Even though several of the mine grouting projects described above did not achieve their objective of abating AMD from abandoned underground coal mines, they have not resulted in any significant environmental degradation, especially with respect to surrounding ground water and surface water resources. It should be emphasized that these projects were experimental in nature, and additional experiments of this type are needed to determine whether CCW minefilling can play a worthwhile role in the remediation of important environmental problems like AMD. For example, recent experimental work in the State of Oklahoma suggests that mine injection of alkaline FBC ash in dilute slurry form may have a more beneficial effect on AMD discharges from underground mines than CCW injection in the form of a low permeability grout. ( DOE00020)

ACAA's review of numerous published documents has revealed no indication of universally poor practices for mining applications of CCPs. ( ACAA00022)

Testimony at the May 21 hearing revealed, and these and other comments confirm, that there are no minefill practices that, in the agency's own words, " are universally poor". While there are concerns that must be addressed in the utilization of CCPs at mine sites, those concerns are recognized and addressed by the existing state and federal regulatory regimes. ( NMA00024)

Our members believe there are no universally poor applications for CCBs nor are there any universally acceptable applications either. In case by case evaluations, supported by technical data and environmentally sound management, CCBs can be applied in many uses which are benign to the environment. ( WRAG00030)

NCE contends there are no universally poor situations for using CCBs in minefill, nor are there universally acceptable practices either. We believe that site specific conditions merit individual review. This review should be conducted by local and state regulators rather than the Agency. ( NCE00031)

The RTC implies that EPA may consider the placement of CCPs below the water table a " universally poor" practice. We disagree. It is important to recognize that a practice that is poor under the conditions of a given site may be beneficial at another. The lack of damage cases indicates that sound management practices and State regulations are adequate to insure protective placement of CCPs. ( USWAG00037)

EPA posed the question " are there any minefill practices that are universally poor and warrant specific attention?" On the basis over 20 years of research experience on coal combustion byproducts ( CCBs) and work with the Coal Ash Resources Research Consortium ( CARRC, pronounced cars), a group with over 100 years of cumulative experience in CCB research, at the EERC the answer remains emphatically " no." ( EERC00044) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 87 VII  87 Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 88 VII  88 VII. MINEFILL F. Frequency of Damage Cases EPA did not identify any proven minefill damage cases. Several industry commenters noted this fact and emphasized that absent any evidence of damage EPA can not find that existing practices are inadequate and therefore warrant EPA involvement. One of the commenters argued that elevated levels of constituents sometimes observed are principally the result of mining activity, not FFC waste placement. On the other hand, one public interest group commenter stated that EPA's study of minefill damage cases was inadequate and offered several case studies as potential minefill damage cases for EPA review. Another public interest group commenter stated that the lack of minefill damage cases is an artifact of inadequate monitoring by the states and argued that EPA should conduct an independent inquiry into damage cases associated with minefilling.

Response: EPA reviewed the extensive case study information submitted by academic, industry, and state government commenters along with the candidate damage case information submitted by the public interest group commenter. Based on this review and the damage case search conducted in support of the Report to Congress, EPA still has not identified any minefill sites with documentation of environmental damage sufficient to meet its " test of proof" for a damage case. The Agency notes, however, some case studies ( including two of the candidate damage cases submitted by the public interest group commenters) in which the available data are suggestive ( although not conclusive) of environmental impact from FFC waste placement. The Agency also notes a number of case studies in which the available data suggest an environmental benefit from FFC waste placement and reiterates the statement made several times above that the results of minefilling are highly site specific. We also recognize that minefilling is a relatively recent practice, and that it may be too soon to identify damage cases that occur over an extended period of time. This is another reason suggesting that minefilling be approached in an environmentally protective manner to avoid future damages. The national regulations will address monitoring and oversight of minefilling practices.

Based on materials submitted during the public comment period, coal combustion wastes used as minefill can lead to increases in the quantity of hazardous metals released into ground water if the acidity within the mine overwhelms the capacity of the coal combustion wastes to neutralize the acidic conditions. This is due to the increased leaching of hazardous metals from the wastes. The potential for this to occur is further supported by data showing that management of coal combustion wastes in the presence of acid generating pyritic wastes has caused metals to leach from the combustion wastes at much higher levels than are predicted by leach test data for coal combustion wastes when strongly acidic conditions are not present. Such strongly acidic conditions often exist at mining sites. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 89 VII  89 VII. MINEFILL F. Frequency of Damage Cases Verbatim Commenter Statements Furthermore, since none of these damage cases involve the beneficial use of CCPs, either for agricultural purposes or for minefill, there is no basis for even considering subjecting CCPs beneficially used for these purposes to Subtitle C regulation. ( NMA00024)

The Report to Congress is devoid of damage cases addressing use of CCPs for agricultural purposes or minefill. ( NMA00024)

The fact that EPA has found no proven damage cases indicates that the combination of sound management practices and existing regulatory oversight has responsibly addressed any significant risks that might exist. ( USWAG00037)

Furthermore, the existing data indicate that elevated levels of constituents in ground and surface water discharges, when they occur, are principally the result of mining activity, not from the placement of CCPs in the post mining environment. ( USWAG00037)

Simply put, we have not been able to find a single case of beneficial use of industrial combustion ash for mine reclamation that has caused deterioration of the environmental structures of concern. In most cases there is a significant net benefit over not using ash to reclaim, stabilize, and ameliorate acid drainage from abandoned mines. ( CIBO00052)

In Indiana, the state agency that regulates mining, the IDNR, believes that rampant CCW disposal in post SMCRA mines can't worsen the water quality that is already in them. Yet according to IDNR submittals to HEC, it has only begun requiring the installation of monitoring wells on any consistent basis in spoil at mines regulated under SMCRA in the last ten years, electing not to require any such monitoring at the large majority of post SMCRA mines it regulates. A comparison of two mines that have wells in such spoil is illustrative ... [ the commenter provides several pages of case study information] ... We would like to be given a reasonable period to furnish additional input and data on this fundamental issue of allowing permanent damage of strip mine lands. ( HEC00056)

The Report concedes that minefilling is a widespread practice yet makes no attempt to define it, qualify it or quantify the extent of this practice. ( 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. ( HEC00332)

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) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 90 VII  90 Yet EPA has discounted the available evidence demonstrating contamination, and assumes erroneously that other sites have no contamination because no data exists demonstrating contamination. In truth, many of the disposal sites have never been monitored for groundwater impacts, nor have surface mining permits contained the full gamut of monitoring parameters, including numerous metals and radionuclides, needed to fully characterize the waste, its leachate, and its mobility in the chaotic hydrogeologic environment of an active or " reclaimed" mining operation. ( NCCLP00282) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 91 VII  91 VII. MINEFILL G. Economic Impacts of Restricting Minefilling Various industry and state agency commenters suggested that the costs of minefill regulations or guidance were not considered by EPA. These commenters argued that imposition of regulations would have an unreasonable cost and/ or economic impact. One commenter cited a cost of $ 30 million dollars at one facility if minefilling were prohibited. Another commenter stated that the impact on Pennsylvania's waste coal plants would be at least $ 312,500,000. Some of the commenters stated that minefilling with FFC wastes may provide the best or only economic alternative in some cases of abandoned mine land reclamation, and that these applications would become impossible ( e. g., in Pennsylvania) if certain restrictions were imposed ( or, for example, if operators were required to pay for greenfield development of landfill capacity and simultaneously bear the costs of reclamation of mine lands). One of the industry commenters indicated that Midwestern coal producers would be put at risk by a prohibition on minefilling. Other industry and state commenters specifically expressed concern that Subtitle C regulations would discourage reuse and recycling programs, to both economic and environmental detriment.

Response: Today's decision does not prohibit minefilling. We will establish national regulations applicable to the placement of combustion wastes in surface and underground mines. We believe that the cost of complying with regulations that address potential dangers will not have a substantial impact on this practice, because minefilling is flourishing in those states that now have comprehensive programs. Transportation and other costs and possible burdens of various alternatives will be considered. As stated elsewhere in these responses, we intend to develop regulations that take full advantage of the flexibility available to the Agency under RCRA authorities. Analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed regulations, as well as alternative approaches, will be an integral component of the upcoming rulemaking. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 92 VII  92 VII. MINEFILL G. Economic Impacts of Restricting Minefilling Verbatim Commenter Statements Subtitle C regulation would not effectively address the issues associated with CCP placement in mines at reasonable costs. ( IEU00018)

In addition, the economic incentives for using CCP as minefill are marginal due to the significant transportation costs and regulatory compliance costs that are currently in place, and any additional regulatory burden could easily tip the balance away from using CCP as minefill. ( IEU00018)

EPA's suggested use of lined landfills is not a feasible alternative to beneficial use of FBC ash in minefilling and soil amendments for the two Pennsylvania facilities, which now devote 100 percent of their ash generation for these uses. By excavating and removing the culm banks and gob piles, PG& E Gen's fuels supplier acquires the reclamation responsibility for the waste coal site. ( PG& E00023)

As described above, the Report to Congress does not appreciate the symmetry of the reclamation and remining in waste coal reuse projects because it concludes that landfilling could be accomplished for an additional aggregate $ 52 million per year. Even if this number was correct, and PG& E Gen believes it is very much understated, it leaves out the additional cost of paying for alternative materials to complete the regulatory required reclamation obligation, costs estimated at $ 15,000$ 20,000 per acre. ( PG& E00023)

Also not included in EPA's evaluation of costs is the impact on the communities from the loss of good jobs suited to the skills of a workforce still suffering from the continuing depression of the coal industry, if these remining and reclamation projects are not undertaken by CFB facilities. ( PG& E00023)

The viability of the FBC waste coal industry in Pennsylvania depends on the ability to remove the waste coal and achieve the reclamation standards required under state and federal environmental laws at reasonable and manageable costs. Placing the FBC ash in a landfill means the facility will have to pay for ash disposal and pay again to obtain inferior fill and soil materials to reclaim the mine site from which fuels were excavated. ( PG& E00023)

Realistically, if mining reclamation with FBC ash is prohibited or burdened with additional regulatory burdens, the FBC plants will not be viable and will not be able to continue operating under their current conditions. ( PG& E00023)

Imposition of Subtitle C hazardous waste rules would severely restrict, if not totally stop, such uses. ( NMA00024)

Any action curbing beneficial use of coal combustion products will have a cost to the environment because: Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 93 VII  93 ° Virgin materials will be needed to supply needs that could be met by recycled coal combustion products thus exposing the environment to avoidable resource draw and disruption; ° Materials that could be recycled will consume landfill space in the environment; ° The finite pool of environmental protection dollars that can be drawn from the economy with acceptable competitive and lifestyle consequences will be utilized for actions that provide no net benefit to the environment while opportunities to make a real difference still exist. ( NMA00024A)

EPA considered only the incremental cost difference of the ash management facility. EPA is considering a ban on minefill applications. The cost of materials handling and haulage to offsite disposal or utilization facilities can be a significant cost and the size of that cost is impacted by where the ash is hauled to. Many FBC units and rural electric cooperatives in the Midwest haul ash back to the minesites from which the buy their coal ( or to a site only a few miles way). This means that the ash can be moved on a " back haul" which costs only about 1/ 3rd of the cost of a " front haul" to another equidistant site ... Thus there is about a 20% increase in cost or the same utility is now loosing 76% of its generation earnings. ( NMA00024A)

Dr. Paul's analysis indicates that some Midwestern coal producers could be put at risk by an EPA prohibition on the use of CCPs for minefilling practices. ( NMA00024)

A ban or major handling cost increase on minefills will eliminate the economic viability of many Midwestern coal producers. EPA failed to consider one other group. Many Midwestern coal producers are struggling to remain economically viable. They recognize that the utilities they supply must have a low fuel cost to maximize their competitive posture for marginal generation cost ( which will control dispatch cost). These coal producers may take a very low margin on the coal they sell in order to provide a price per million BTU that is competitive. The coal mines, however, can integrate ash management with mining operations and even reduce their reclamation expenses. This allows coal producers to reduce utilities ash management costs while at the same time providing an earnings margin to the coal company. In short, many Midwestern coal companies are making their profit on the ash, not the coal. A ban on minefill applications alluded to in the Report to Congress will shut these mining operations down with devastating impact on the rural communities they serve. ( NMA00024A)

EPA failed to consider the economic benefits that will be lost to end users of coal combustion products if regulations impedes recycling. Most businesses that are now using coal combustion products are doing so because it is more economically viable than competing new materials. Taking away the ability to use low cost flowable fills, liming reagents, and gound and subsidence control materials will raise costs to mining, agriculture, and construction. With the currently low margins in mining and agriculture these costs may again be critical to the economic viability of entire regional businesses classes. ( NMA00024A)

A decision by the EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coal for mine reclamation as hazardous would jeopardize all of these operations. Prohibitively high ash disposal sites would result in the closure of many of these facilities, with adverse environmental and economic consequences for dozens of small communities. ( PAC00029) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 94 VII  94 On the other hand, managing these materials under RCRA will have compound costs, both in terms of material disposal and, in many cases, in the use of alternate materials and strategies to achieve the environmental benefits provided by coal ash. PCA believes EPA has underestimated these costs. ( PCA00034)

Requiring overly stringent blanket regulations could result in expensive, unnecessary, and least beneficial landfilling of CCB products. ( MDE00047)

A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coal ash for mine reclamation as hazardous would jeopardize the comprehensive restoration effort throughout the coal bearing regions of Pennsylvania. As per my understanding, this regulation would create prohibitively high ash disposal costs which would result in the closure of many generating facilities, with adverse environmental and economic consequences for dozens of small communities. ( STR00050)

Further, waste minimization through ash reuse would be impeded with blanket regulations that would restrict certain applications unnecessarily. ( CIBO00052)

If mine area disposal was eliminated as an option for these wastes, we estimate that installation and operation of an above grade landfill to manage the wastes would add over $ 30 million in capital and operating costs over the life of one of our facilities. ( TXU00053)

A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coal ash for mine reclamation as hazardous would likely cause the mine reclamation activities of Pennsylvania's waste coal power industry to cease. Prohibitively high ash disposal costs that approach a 7,500 percent increase over today's cost levels would render many of the power production facilities economically unfeasible to operate. ( PADEP00246)

A decision by EPA to designate waste coal ash used in mine reclamation as a hazardous waste most certainly will result in a dramatic increase in the cost and complexity of mine reclamation projects in Pennsylvania. ( PA00247)

A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coal ash for mine reclamation as hazardous materials would jeopardize these critical operations to reclaim abandoned mine lands. ( EPACAMR00248)

A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coal ash for mine reclamation as hazardous would jeopardize these operations. ( PCLP00249)

A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste goal ash for mine reclamation as hazardous could jeopardize these operations. ( PAEC00251)

A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coal ash for mine reclamation as hazardous would jeopardize these operations. In some cases, ash disposal costs would increase by more than 7,500 percent resulting in the closure of many of these facilities, creating adverse environmental and economical consequences for dozens of small communities across the state. ( G& L00252) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 95 VII  95 A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coal ash for mine reclamation as hazardous would jeopardize these operations. In some cases, ash disposal costs would increase by more than 7,500 percent resulting in the closure of many of these facilities, creating adverse environmental and economic consequences for dozens of small communities across the state. ( PA00253)

A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coal ash for mine reclamation as hazardous would jeopardize these operations. In some cases, ash disposal costs would increase by more than 7,500 percent resulting in the closure of many of these facilities. creating adverse environmental and economic consequences for dozens of small communities across the state. ( CIN00254)

A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coal ash for mine reclamation as hazardous would jeopardize these operations. In some cases, ash disposal costs would increase by more that 7,500 percent resulting in the closure of many of these facilities, creating adverse environmental and economic consequences for dozens of small communities across the state. ( EPC00255)

Regarding cost, EPA estimated the incremental cost of requiring FBC ash currently used for mine reclamation and agriculture to be disposed in commercial. Subtitle D landfill as $ 52 million per year nationwide. This estimate is far below the actual incremental cost. ARIPPA understands that the cost of disposing a ton of material at a commercial Subtitle D landfill is $ 45  90 per ton at current rates. Taking the mid range of $ 67.50 per ton, the cost of landfilling the 500,000 tons of material that is produced annually by Pennsylvania's waste coal plants' would be $ 337,500,000 per year. Assuming an internal cost of mine reclamation of $ 5.00 per ton, the incremental cost would be $ 62.50 per ton, or $ 312,500,000 per year for Pennsylvania's waste coal plants alone. This incremental cost is approximately 75% of the estimated total annual revenue of Pennsylvania's waste coal plants. The impact of imposing additional costs equal to 75% of an industry's total revenue is obvious. ( ARIPPA00273)

The cost of disposing a ton of material in a Subtitle C landfill is, we understand, $ 155  170 per ton. At this rate, the cost of land filling the 5,000,000 tons of ash produced annually by Pennsylvania's waste coal plants would be $ 775,000,000 to 850,000,000 per year. This cost exceeds our industry's total collective revenues. ( ARIPPA00273)

Requiring that the landfilling of the ash produced by Pennsylvania's waste coal plants in either a Subtitle C or Subtitle D landfill would, by definition, stop the reclamation work that these plants currently are performing. The reclamation work that the waste coal plants are performing has broad public support in Pennsylvania, as evidenced by letters that have been submitted to EPA by, among others, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the Joint Legislative Air & Water Pollution Control and Conservation Committee, the Majority and Minority Chairman of the Senate Environmental Resources Committee, the Chairman of the House Environmental Resources Committee, and other individual legislators. Copies of these letters are attached hereto as Appendix IV. ( ARIPPA00273) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 96 VII  96 PG& E Gen notes that serious consequences would result if agricultural amendments or minefilling activities were regulated under Subtitle C. Among these consequences are severe economic impacts, including the likely closure of several power generation facilities. ( PG& E00274)

In the current competitive electric generating marketplace, there can be significant economic impact to the industries and communities but, equally important, there would be significant negative environmental impacts if mine reclamation or agricultural amendment uses of this ash were to cease due to hazardous waste regulations. ( PG& E00274)

A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coa1 ash for mine reclamation as hazardous would jeopardize these operations. In some cases, ash disposal costs would increase by more than 7,500 percent resulting in the closure of many of these facilities, creating adverse environmental and economic consequences for dozens of small communities across the state. ( FW00277)

A decision by the EPA to designate waste coal ash used in mine reclamation fi as a hazardous waste will increase the cost and complexity of mine reclamation projects in Pennsylvania. Increased regulation on coal ash will prevent its beneficial application in mine reclamation and discourage the cleanup of unsightly and dangerous coal piles. ( PA00293)

A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coal ash for mine reclamation as a hazardous waste would seriously jeopardize these operations. ( PA00296)

Such a designation would be a devastating blow to the continued operation of the fourteen waste coal fueled Circulating Fluidized Bed ( CFB) Boiler equipped electric power plants now operating in Pennsylvania as well as to the coal fueled CFB equipped plants operating in West Virginia, California, New York, Colorado and Utah. ( GPC00297)

A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coal ash for mine reclamation as hazardous would jeopardize these' operations. In some cases, ash disposal costs would increase by more than 7,500 percent resulting in the closure of many of these facilities, creating adverse environmental and economic consequences for dozens of small communities across the state. ( KCC00298)

A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coal ash for mine reclamation as hazardous would jeopardize these' operations. In some cases, ash disposal costs would increase by & ore than 7,500 percent resulting in the closure of many of these facilities, creating adverse environmental and economic consequences for dozens of small communities across the state. ( SMC00299)

A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coal ash for mine reclamation as hazardous would jeopardize these operations. In some cases, ash disposal costs would increase by more than 7,500 percent resulting in the closure of many of these facilities, creating adverse environmental and economic consequences for dozens of small communities. ( PA00300) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 97 VII  97 A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coal ash for mine reclamation as hazardous would jeopardize these operations. ( PA00301)

A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coal ash for mine reclamation as hazardous would jeopardize these operations. In some cases, ash disposal costs would increase by more than 7,500 percent resulting in the closure of many of these facilities, creating adverse environmental and economic consequences for dozens of small communities across the state. ( PA00302)

An EPA decision to regulate this beneficial use of waste coal ash for mine reclamation would seriously undercut efforts to generate power and reclaim current waste coal sites. It is projected that ash disposal costs would increase more than 7,500 percent closing many facilities and greatly impacting the wide ranging advantages seen through these programs. ( PA00305)

A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coal ash for mine reclamation as hazardous would jeopardize these operations. In some cases, ash disposal costs would increase by more than 7,500 percent resulting in the closure of many of these facilities, creating adverse environmental and economic consequences for dozens of small communities across the state. ( ACV00307)

A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coal ash for mine reclamation as hazardous would jeopardize these operations. In some cases, ash disposal costs would increase by more than 7,500 percent resulting in the closure of many of these facilities, creating adverse environmental and economic consequences for dozens of small communities across the state. ( TEGI00308)

Regulating waste coal ash in this way would have far reaching effects on Pennsylvania's taxpayers and the state's environment. ( PA00368)

A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coal ash for mine reclamation as hazardous would create adverse environmental and economic consequences for dozens of small communities across the state. ( AMI00372)

A decision by the EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coal ash for mine reclamation would jeopardize these operations. ( PAL0001)

I am writing on behalf of the Pennsylvania Mining and Reclamation Advisory Board ( MRAB) to express our concern about a potential regulatory determination in the above captioned proceeding that effectively would prohibit the use of ash from the combustion of fossil fuels for mine reclamation. Such a determination would be very detrimental to Pennsylvania's efforts to clean up our legacy of past unregulated mining. ( PMRABL0003)

A decision by the Agency to regulate the beneficial use of fossil fuel combustion ash for mine reclamation under Subtitle C would remove one of the few tools available to us for reclaiming abandoned mine lands, and would lead to the closure of the waste coal plants due to the economic impacts. The closure of the plants in turn would result in eight million tons of coal refuse and 400 Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 98 VII  98 acres of abandoned surface mines per year remaining unreclaimed for every year that the plants would have operated. ( PMRABL0003)

I am concerned that the EPA would regulate the beneficial use of these wastes in a more rigorous and counterproductive manner. The scientific models and risk analysis criteria for human health and ecological pathways used in EPA's analysis seem to be extremely conservative and lean toward regulatory confinement of these materials to the economic detriment of the common beneficial uses. ( LCRAXXXX)

The classification of CFB ash under RCRA will be counter productive to the future ecological and human health of the region. ( LRCAXXXX)

I have a concern with the tentative recommendation in the EPA report that agricultural and mine reclamation use of FFCWs be limited to those materials with As concentrations no higher than that found in agricultural lime. Such a restriction would severely limit, if not eliminate, any beneficial use of these materials as soil amendments. ( PSU00040)

By contrast, IDNR believes regulation under Subtitle C would promote a " one size fits all" approach that will discourage recycling of coal ash and thereby encourage the continued placement of coal ash in Indiana's floodplain environments. We urge you to affirm that state regulatory authorities should continue to regulate placement of coal ash in mine sites under existing state programs. ( IDNR00062)

Imposition of Subtitle C hazardous waste rules would severely restrict, if not totally stop, such uses. ( WVDEPL0003)

Due to the geologic and hydrologic characteristics of Indiana surface coal mines, a ban on placement of coal ash below the water table would in fact be a prohibition on disposal of coal ash disposal many midwestem mines. ( ICC00269)

A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of waste coal ash for reclamation as hazardous would likely cause mine reclamation activities to cease, which would impact regional water quality. ( ORBCL0002)

A decision by EPA to regulate the management and beneficial use of coal ash for reclamation could jeopardize mine reclamation efforts. This could impede the significant progress that is being made to improve water quality in those areas of the Susquehanna River Basin that are affected by past mining practices. ( SRBCL0006)

We, the undersigned members of the Pennsylvania Coal Caucus, comprised of members of the Pennsylvania Legislature are writing to express our concern with a potential regulatory determination in the above captioned proceeding that effectively would prohibit the use of ash from the combustion of fossil fuels for mine reclamation. Such a determination would be very detrimental to Pennsylvania's efforts to clean up our legacy of past unregulated mining. ( PCCL0007) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 99 VII  99 A decision by your Agency to regulate the beneficial use of fossil fuel combustion ash for mine reclamation under Subtitle C would remove one of the few tools available to us for reclaiming abandoned mine lands, and would lead to the closure of the waste coal plants due to the economic impacts. The closure of the plants in turn would result in 8 million tons of coal refuse and 400 acres of abandoned surface mines per year remaining unreclaimed for every year that the plants have operated. The legacy of such a decision by EPA would be 200 million tons of coal refuse continuing to blight our landscape, and 10,000 acres of abandoned surface mines continuing to scar our environment. ( PCCL0007) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 100 VII  100 VII. MINEFILL H. Clarification of Minefill Definition One federal agency commenter noted that any minefill proposal from EPA should include a definition of minefill practices that are within the scope of the proposed rule, noting that some applications of FFC wastes in mining operations are too small to warrant attention. One public interest group commenter expressed concern that the determination would cover coal gasification waste and allow large volumes of this waste to be " dumped into ground water" through minefilling. The commenter purported that large volumes of this waste currently are minefilled under coal combustion waste provisions of state regulations. The commenter provided information on coal gasification, including site summaries for coal gasification plants on the National Priorities List. Another public interest group commenter expressed concern that the determination would allow unregulated minefilling of CCWs mixed with municipal incinerator ash and east coast river sediments and sludges. A citizen commenter was concerned that the determination would allow industry to minefill " almost anything" and call it CCW.

Another public interest group commenter stated that the use of the term minefill to cover both " beneficial use" of CCW and the disposal of wastes on mine sites masks the economic forces which result in such disposal. The CCW is not being hauled to the mine because of the beneficial attributes of the wastes relative to the alternatives but because the coal companies offer the backhauling and disposal as an incentive in order to attract buyers in an increasingly competitive marketplace. Another public interest group commenter was concerned about ambiguity in the term minefilling. Without common understanding as to what the word minefilling means, one cannot expect that minefilling will be regulated well or with consistency across states. Federal oversight should be employed to ensure that common definitions are used.

Response: The Agency will carefully consider the definition of minefilling during regulation development and address it in the proposal so that all stakeholders have full opportunity for notice and comment. The Agency will consider the appropriateness of addressing coal gasification. We believe that addressing the complex site specific factors relating to geology, hydrology, waste chemistry and waste/ geochemistry interactions, as well as other relevant factors will address the issues raised by commenters. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 101 VII  101 VII. MINEFILL H. Clarification of Minefill Definition Verbatim Commenter Statements Because of the costs associated with underground placement of CCW, the minefilling of CCW at abandoned underground mines has been limited to cases where the filling of selected portions of the abandoned underground workings has been perceived to provide a potential low cost means of sealing off the entrances to mine workings from the surface, or controlling other problems such mine fires, mine subsidence, or acid mine drainage. For example, the injection of fly ash grouts ( typically greater than 95 percent fly ash and 5 percent  10 percent cement) into boreholes to prevent or control mine subsidence in localized areas beneath structures and roadways has become a fairly routine practice over the past 30 years. Stabilized flue gas cleaning wastes have also seen increased recent use in such applications. The quantities of CCW used in these applications are typically small, and the mine workings are typically far removed from drinking water sources. States may require that the CCW be chemically characterized to confirm their non hazardous nature, but minimal environmental monitoring is typically performed in the field. DOE questions whether it would be appropriate for EPA to consider such small scale grouting projects as " minefilling" that could possibly be subject to control under RCRA Subtitle C. ( DOE00020)

It has no discussion or estimates of coal gasification wastes ( also called manufactured gas plant or MGP wastes) generated per year. In Indiana, regulators within the Department of Natural Resources have decided that the wastes from one coal gasification plant are coal combustion bottom ash and without any public notice or review have begun dumping 120,000 tons of it into a surface mine ( see Attachment ). EPA's data bases are replete with dozens of sites throughout Indiana and other midwestern states that contain large volumes of older MGP wastes, many of which are seriously contaminating the environment ( see Attachment ). The Report does not recognize the potential for large volumes of this waste to be dumped into ground waters as " coal combustion waste" by states as a result of this Determination. ( HEC00056)

Our very real concern is that these wastes are being spread and plowed over as ` reclamation limes' the so called ` alkaline addition'  that is, as if they were not only not hazardous, but ` beneficial.' You and I both know that the heavy metal wastes and the radiation contamination alone of coal ought to preclude such reckless behavior on the part of our states. Yet, not only are millions of tons of such wastes dumped on old and new strip jobs across our region but because of the mixed wastes loophole we are having municipal incineration waste ashes mixed in with coal ash used for such bogus ` reclamations.' ( PEACE00306)

Our state has furthermore embarked on a disastrous path in that our Governor is welcoming the millions of tons more of east coast harbor and river muds and sediments. Once more, under the mixed rule  these are ` blended' with more incinerator ash sky high in lead, cadmium and other dangerous materials and brought into our state to spread on strip mined land. EPA's own National Sediments Survey called these muds Priority One most likely to be heavily contaminated with DDT, mercury, PCBs. Yet thanks to the weak and getting weaker regulations on coal combustion wastes all this additional polluted material is heralded as magically ` beneficial.' ( PEACE00306) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 102 VII  102 Not only do coal companies propose to dispose of bottom ash, fly ash and scrubber sludge from electrical generating stations, they propose to dispose of a other mine wastes that there may be. And this is in addition to wastes which mining personnel dump into the pit just before it is covered over. There is considerable data indicating that there are some extremely harmful elements in generating station wastes commonly called CCW's or Coal Combustion Wastes. This is not a satisfactory term to use since the coal operators want to dispose of almost anything in these pits and call them CCW's. ( CITZ00328)

The presence of utility plants at minesites is a rare occurrence nationally, and the coal combustion wastes are being backhauled and disposed of in mine workings ( including both underground mine voids and more commonly, in surface mine backfills or spoil/ mine waste fills) not because of the beneficial attributes of the wastes relative to other materials or the lack of alternatives available to utilities and non utility customers for coal combustion waste disposal, but because the coal companies offer the backhauling and disposal as a " service" or incentive in order to attract buyers for their coal in an increasingly competitive marketplace. ( NCCLP00282)

As one example, based on the March Report and the comments received in response to it, it is apparent that the term minefilling has many meanings. In some cases. commenters treat it as surface mine reclamation, others assume it means activities to reduce acid mine drainage, some defend its role in mine subsidence, others assume it means disposing of wastes in underground mineshafts. If there remains ambiguity at this entry point; if there is not a common understanding as to what the word minefilling means. one cannot expect that minefilling will be regulated well or with consistency across states in the US. ( ALA00292)

Taking federal action in no way means developing a one size fits all law. Instead, federal oversight will make sure that the same questions are being answered independently of the location of the minesite. Additionally, it will insure that common definitions are used. ( ALA00292) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 103 VII  103 VII. MINEFILL I. Minefill Risk Modeling A few commenters offered specific criticisms of the ground water risk modeling of minefills that was presented in the background documents for the Report to Congress.

Response: EPA performed some limited modeling of minefill scenarios during its early ground water risk assessment. While the results of this preliminary modeling were presented in background documents, EPA concluded in the Report to Congress that the available tools were not suitable for modeling underground and surface mine situations because, for example, they are not able to account for conditions such as fractured flow that are typical of the hydrogeology associated with mining operations. Therefore, EPA has chosen not to rely on the preliminary minefill risk modeling presented in the background documents in making its Regulatory Determination. EPA, as noted in the discussions of risk modeling, will revisit this issue if the model review warrants. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 104 VII  104 VII. MINEFILL I. Minefill Risk Modeling Verbatim Commenter Statements The geochemistry of the reactions that will be expected in the disposal of coal combustion waste in mine spoil and the final water quality to be expected at a receptor well is an issue EPA made a valiant effort to model. That model, however, has some unfortunate shortcomings which, hopefully, are remediable. ( NMA00024B)

The fundamentals of the chemistry are not adequately considered in the EPA modeling ( EPACMTP). The modeling produced similar results for the metals and arsenic in particular for a landfill and a minefill. After review of the inputs for the model ( Appendix A of the Risk Report), the values used in the modeling for recharge and for the content of organic carbon were less in the minefill than in the landfill and the values for the content of iron in the unsaturated and the saturated zones were the same for both. All of these inputs are, at the very least, arguably incorrect in the direction which would lead to higher final values for metals, especially arsenic. Finally, the value ( 9.65 ppm) assumed for the starting concentration of the arsenic in the minefill and the landfill is roughly twice the hazardous waste standard ( 5 ppm). This assumption, while fine for an initial study looking at the distribution of metals in the overall category of combustion wastes, is contrary to what the states would allow. A fairer representation of the conditions in a minefill, especially the recharge and the iron, would lead to even more dramatically lower numbers for the minefill environment. The risk associated with the expected concentration of arsenic should be less for mine spoil environments than for landfills. The modeling is not representative of the minefill environment. ( NMA00024B)

Dr. Banaszak's analysis of EPA's input values for modeling arsenic levels for a landfill and a minefill determined that EPA incorrectly failed to account for the presence of iron oxides in the minefill scenarios, but assumed the presence of iron oxides in the landfill scenario. According to Dr. Banaszak, iron hydroxide is the single most effective remover of arsenic from solution; failure to account for such iron oxides in the minefill scenario leaves the buffering affects unaccounted for, resulting in unrealistic arsenic levels. Dr. Banaszak suggests that if EPA were to rerun the minefill model accounting for the appropriate iron oxide levels, the resulting levels of arsenic expected in a minefill scenario would not exceed and could very well be considerably less than, the levels of arsenic predicted in a landfill scenario. Dr. Banaszak's analysis also concluded that EPA wrongly assumed a starting concentration of the arsenic at roughly twice the hazardous waste standard, contrary to all state regulations and therefore a level that would likely never occur. ( NMA00024)

Predictions with a Monte Carlo model ( such as EPA used) are not valuable unless mine locations are considered. ( CIBO00052)

The modeling activities of EPA also did not take into consideration the physical characteristics of the engineered ash minefills. A properly placed FBC minefill develops physical characteristics that begin to approach the properties of portland cement concrete; modest strength [ 1200 psi to 4500 psi], a monolithic structure [ i. e. minimization of surface area for contacting waters] and low hydraulic conductivity [ 10 5 to 10 7cm/ sec]. All Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 105 VII  105 of these characteristics contribute to a significant reduction of labile metals to contacting groundwater. In contrast, the EPA modelers assumed a lateral hydraulic conductivity for the placed ash of 300m/ y [ 1 x 10 3cm/ sec] which is fully 2 to 3 orders of magnitude larger than what might be anticipated in engineered minefills composed of FBC ash. ( ARIPPA00019)

I am concerned that the EPA would regulate the beneficial use of these wastes in a more rigorous and counterproductive manner. The scientific models and risk analysis criteria for human health and ecological pathways used in EPA's analysis seem to be extremely conservative and lean toward regulatory confinement of these materials to the economic detriment of the common beneficial uses. ( LRCAXXXX) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 106 VII  106 VII. MINEFILL J. Coordination with Other Agencies One federal government commenter requested the opportunity to work with EPA in evaluating what controls might be appropriate for the use of coal combustion wastes in mine reclamation.

Response: EPA plans to work with the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining, DOE and all other stakeholders as it develops regulations to implement this decision concerning minefilling. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 107 VII  107 VII. MINEFILL J. Coordination with Other Agencies Verbatim Commenter Statements We also request the opportunity to work with EPA in evaluating what controls might be appropriate for the use of CCBs in mine reclamation. ( OSM00283) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 1 VIII  1 VIII. AGRICULTURAL USE The Report to Congress noted that EPA found risk at the 10 5 level associated with agricultural application of FFC wastes. Based on this preliminary finding, EPA tentatively proposed to regulate agricultural practices or encourage voluntary limitations on practices, limiting the arsenic content in wastes to be land applied. In addition, EPA proposed that such limitations or regulations would extend to large volume wastes managed alone ( i. e., Part 1 wastes).

Comments were received on both sides of this issue. Many industry, academic, state government, and federal agency commenters disagreed with EPA's tentative conclusion. They indicated that EPA used unrealistically conservative levels for four key inputs used in our risk analysis and that use of a realistic level for any one of these inputs would result in a risk level less than 1 x 10 6. The four inputs identified by the commenters were: application rate of the wastes to the land, the rate of soil ingestion by children, the bioavailability of arsenic and the phytoavailability of arsenic.

These commenters further recommended that EPA not regulate or encourage voluntary restrictions because: o agricultural use of coal combustion wastes creates no adverse environmental impacts and EPA identified no damage cases associated with this practice; o agricultural use of these wastes has significant technical and economic benefits; o federal controls would be unnecessarily costly and would create a barrier for research and development on the practice; o existing regulatory programs are sufficient to control any risks from this practice; and o the limits suggested in the RTC for arsenic levels in coal combustion wastes are inconsistent with limits applied to other materials used in agriculture.

A public interest group commenter urged the Agency to apply restrictions to the use of FFC wastes in agriculture because of concerns that the Agency's analysis of the risks and benefits of this practice was inadequate, as discussed in more detail under the sub topics below. This commenter further suggested EPA should ban the application of conventional coal combustion wastes, and apply sewage sludge arsenic limits to the application wastes generated by fluidized bed combustors, which add lime as part of the process. One academic commenter, while disagreeing with aspects of the Agency's analysis, indicated that it would not be unreasonable for some sort of quality control to be applied using a regional approach.

Response: In the RTC we expressed concern over potential risks presented by agricultural use. We now believe our previous analysis assumed one unrealistically high model input, and that the risk across all reasonable scenarios, which we now estimate at high end to be approximately 3X10 6 , does not now warrant regulation of coal combustion wastes that are used in agricultural applications. This reduction in risk is based on reducing one of the key inputs identified by commenters, the soil ingestion rate for exposed children. The three other inputs identified by commenters as driving this analysis were also re examined and EPA believes no change to these is warranted. This re analysis is explained next. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 2 VIII  2 Upon further review of the Agency's Exposure Factors Handbook ( EFH), we decided to model a children's soil ingestion rate of 0.4 grams per day instead of the 1.4 grams per day that underlay the results given on the RTC.

Many studies have been conducted to estimate soil ingestion by children. Early studies focused on dirt present on children's hands. More recently, studies have focused on measuring trace elements in soil and then in feces as a function of internal absorption. These measurements are used to estimate amounts of soil ingested over a specified time period. The EFH findings for children's soil ingestion is based on seven key studies and nine other relevant studies that the Agency reviewed on this subject. These studies showed that mean values for soil ingestion ranged from 39 mg/ day to 271 mg/ day with an average of 146 mg/ day. These results are characterized for studies that were deemed for short periods with little information reported for pica behavior. To account for longer periods of time, the EFH reviewed the upper percentile ranges of the data studied and found ingestion rates that ranged from 106 mg/ day to 1,432 mg/ day with an average of 383 mg/ day for soil ingestion. Rounding to one significant figure, the EFH recommended an upper percentile children's soil ingestion rate of 400 mg/ day. The Agency believes that this recommendation is the best available information to address children's exposure through the soil ingestion route. Reducing the ingestion rate to the EFH handbook recommended level of 400 mg/ day reduced the calculated risk to 3.4 x 10 6 for this one child risk situation and suggests that agricultural use of FFC wastes does not cause a risk of concern.

There currently is uncertainty as to whether the central tendency value should be 100 mg/ day or 200 mg/ day, but this was not a factor in the high end analyses. There is also considerable uncertainty on pica child ingestion, with lack of data the primary problem. The EFH notes that as much as 10 g/ day can be used in acute exposure assessments.

Phytoavailability is discussed in Section XVI. EPA believes its inputs for this variable are accurate, although there are studies that suggest phytoavailability will decrease over time. Arsenic bioavailability is a function of all sources of arsenic and EPA believes it has characterized this accurately. However, as noted in the conclusion to this response, arsenic toxicity is now being studied by the Agency in conjunction with a proposed new arsenic MCL and may necessitate re visiting today's judgement on agricultural use.

Our technical analysis that resulted in revised risk is explained in a document titled Reevaluation of Non groundwater Pathway Risks from Agricultural Use of Coal Combustion Wastes, which is available in the docket for this action.

The comment on inappropriateness of application frequency was caused by a misunderstanding of the language in the RTC. The rate used was actually every two or three years, not two or three times per year.

Two ongoing studies of wastes of potential use as agricultural soil supplements relate to the use of FFC wastes for this purpose. Although these did not play a direct role in EPA's decision regarding FFC wastes, they are summarized below and may play a role in any future review of today's decision. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 3 VIII  3 ( 1) On August 20, 1999, the agency proposed risk based standards for cement kiln dust when used as a liming agent ( see 64 FR 45632; August 20, 1999). This analysis was completed in 1998 just prior to our completion of the analysis of FFC wastes when used as agricultural supplements. The CKD analysis underwent a special peer review by a standing committee that is used by the Department of Agriculture. We were not able to respond to the peer review comments in either the CKD proposal or in our assessment for fossil fuel combustion wastes, prior to publication of the Report to Congress. The comment period for the CKD proposal closed on February 17, 2000, and we will soon begin our review and analyses of the public and peer review comments.

( 2) In December 1999, EPA proposed new risk based standards for the use of municipal sewage sludge under Section 503 of the Clean Water Act ( the " 503 standards"). It is important to note that municipal sludge has unique properties, application rates, and uses. This makes it inappropriate to transfer the 503 standards directly. Even though the standards cannot be used directly, there may be interest in the risk assessment methodologies used to support the development of these standards. We disagree that it is appropriate to establish an arsenic limitation for coal combustion ash when used for agricultural purposes equivalent to that contained in the EPA sewage sludge land application regulations. The organic nature of sewage sludge makes it behave very differently from inorganic wastes such as coal combustion wastes.

In the RTC we were not able to identify damage case associated with agricultural use. Nor do we now believe that this use of coal combustion waste presents a risk to human health or the environment. While some commenters supported restricting or banning agricultural use of coal combustion waste, no commenters provided information to show risk or damage associated with agricultural use or could show that existing regulatory practices are inadequate.

We recognize the comment that this practice is considered by many to offer economic benefits and that controls would have an associated cost. If future regulation is considered, these factors will be investigated .

We conclude at this time that arsenic levels in coal combustion wastes do not evidence potential for risk to human health when used for agricultural purposes. We expect to continue to review and refine the related risk assessments noted above, and will consider comments on the Agency's CKD and municipal sludge proposals, as well as new scientific developments related to this issue such as additional review of the EPA MINTEQ model that was used as a component of our risk analysis. Also, the ongoing research into arsenic toxicity may impact today's finding. If these efforts lead us to a different understanding of the risks posed by coal combustion wastes when used for agricultural purposes, we will take appropriate action to reevaluate today's regulatory determination.

Specific concerns raised by the commenters with regard to this decision are addressed in the additional responses below. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 4 VIII  4 VIII. AGRICULTURAL USE Verbatim Commenter Statements The regulation of some CCBs for agricultural uses under Subtitle C, would result in unnecessary federal regulation of these materials, in spite of existing effective and less costly state mechanisms. ( OSU00015)

However, OCDO is concerned that the report suggests a possible need for federal regulation under Subtitle C for agricultural and minefill applications, and strongly recommends this not be implemented for the following reasons. ( ODOD00017)

It would be unwise and overly restrictive to establish federal standards that would apply to broad categories of CCPs and uses. ( ODOD00017)

The results of these projects show that EPA should not subject the beneficial use of CCW to Subtitle C regulation in agricultural applications, and that Subtitle C regulation should not be applied to the previously exempted large volume CCW. ( DOE00020)

DOE believes that EPA should not subject practices involving the use of coal fired utility comanaged wastes ( Volume 1, Section 3, Recommendation No. 3, page 3 6) or fluidized bed combustion wastes ( Volume 1, Section 5, Recommendation No. 3, page 5 3) for agricultural purposes to some form of regulation under RCRA Subtitle C. DOE also believes that EPA should not reconsider the part 1 wastes in this respect, as stated in Volume 1, Section 3, page 3 7. ( DOE00020)

In 1999, the regulation of agricultural applications of CCPs under Subtitle C, or some management system between Subtitle C and Subtitle D regulation, is not needed. ( ACAA00022)

The states have demonstrated not only that agricultural and mining applications of CCPs are satisfactorily regulated at the state level, but also that further regulation at the federal level is not needed. ( ACAA00022)

While PG& E Gen's utilization of ash in agricultural uses is less significant, ash serves as an effective soil amendment and substitute, is physically and chemically similar to soil and agricultural lime and, again, adequate regulatory controls are in place. ( PG& E00023)

To the extent that EPA is considering the option of subjecting coal combustion wastes used for agricultural purposes to some form of regulation under Subtitle C, PG& E Gen does not believe the analysis undertaken to date supports that conclusion. ( PG& E00023)

PG& E Gen disagrees with the tentative option of subjecting practices involving the use of FBC wastes for agricultural purposes ( i. e., as a soil nutrient supplement of other amendment) to some form of regulation under Subtitle C. ( PG& E00023)

For the reasons set forth in detail below, NMA opposes the suggestion by EPA that any form of RCRA Subtitle C regulation is appropriate for the use or disposal of CCPs for agricultural Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 5 VIII  5 purposes or for minefill. NMA urges that in the Regulatory Determination, EPA decide that the beneficial use and disposal of CCPs for agricultural purposes and for minefill should continue to be exempt from RCRA regulation. ( NMA00024)

The WRAG would urge the Agency not to implement federal regulations under Subtitle C for agricultural or minefill applications of CCBs and believes that current local oversight adequately addresses the issues raised by the Agency. ( WRAG00030)

In conclusion, New Century Energies strongly believes that sufficient guidance is available at the state and local level pertaining to applications of CCBs in agricultural and minefill applications. Coals differ widely in their composition, and site specific water, soil and climatic conditions vary enormously across the United States. It is scientifically inappropriate to apply blanket restrictions to a material that can be beneficially used in a vast number of applications based on the above mentioned variability's. Historically successful applications of CCBs in mining and agricultural applications demonstrate that CCBs can be used beneficially and certainly with no negative environmental impact. Therefore, we see no need for federal regulation under Subtitle C and believe the proper management of CCBs is a sound environmental practice. ( NCE00031)

Therefore, regulations on agricultural uses of CCPs should fall under some form of state or regional control based on the state or region's specific agricultural need or criteria. ( BMT00032)

PCA also refers EPA to the voluminous technical information and comments submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ( DEP), which show the Commonwealth's history of responsible management of these substances, and the resulting benefits of such use. This evidence clearly demonstrates that management of coal combustion wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) is unnecessary and counterproductive. As DEP's collected data clearly illustrate, ash has been used in a variety of contexts  including minefilling, agricultural soil supplementation and beneficial use  without degradation of groundwater .( PCA00034)

USWAG disputes EPA's preliminary conclusion that agricultural applications of coal combustion products may present unacceptable risks. EPA's preliminary findings are based on a seriously flawed risk assessment performed without consultation with the U. S. Department of Agriculture and without reference to the tremendous body of scientific research sponsored by Federal agencies, the states, and industry. If EPA takes full advantage of the available information, it will recognize that agricultural applications of coal combustion products are environmentally sound beneficial uses with significant market potential. If for some reason EPA doubts the adequacy of that information, it should undertake a comprehensive joint study with the U. S. Department of Agriculture to address agricultural applications of waste products. ( USWAG00037)

We agree and would like to endorse these comments by ACAA and The Ohio Coal Development Office that specifically address their concern for not interfering with or complicating beneficial uses in agriculture and minefill applications. ( DTC00038)

We feel using the lower concentration level, i. e. that found in agricultural limestone as a standard limit would be too restrictive. Site specific controls would best be administered at the state government level, i. e. RCRA Subtitle D. ( DTC00038) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 6 VIII  6 N Viro strongly supports the appropriate regulation of potentially harmful materials that are added to our soils during recycling and our own QA/ QC program is our commitment to the goal of marketing the highest quality products. We insist, however, that such regulations be based on sound science. A reexamination by EPA of the As risk assessment will show that appropriate use of CCBs for waste treatment and as soil amendments is a wise use of these materials. ( NVIC00039)

I have a concern with the tentative recommendation in the EPA report that agricultural and mine reclamation use of FFCWs be limited to those materials with As concentrations no higher than that found in agricultural lime. Such a restriction would severely limit, if not eliminate, any beneficial use of these materials as soil amendments. ( PSU00040)

Virginia Power does not agree with the Agency's conclusion on re opening the 1993 regulatory determination for agricultural beneficial use because of concerns with a specific co management practice. ( VAP00042)

Once again, APS is generally in agreement with the EPA's tentative conclusions presented in the RTC. Our concerns are primarily associated with the apparent overstatement of the arsenic risk associated with land disposal and agricultural application of coal fired FFC wastes. ( APSC00043)

The " Report to Congress" also raises some issues that need to be addressed. Specifically the need for regulation of CCBs for agriculture and mineland reclamation is proposed. Many very beneficial products used in agriculture ( e. g. fertilizers and pesticides) have both great potential for good and also potential for harm. The key is to provide a proper framework within which these products can be used. ( OSU00046)

States have the ability to develop effective landfill, mine reclamation, and agricultural programs. These programs are developed within each state and can best reflect their unique environmental factors, social and economic needs. It appears that current regulation of these activities is more than adequate. Consequently, existing RCRA Subtitle D regulatory authority should remain adequate for governing the management and beneficial use of CCPs in the future. ( ISG00048)

TVA generally supports the conclusions of the RTC, but does not agree with EPA's recommendation to consider some form of Subtitle C standards for the use of CCPs in agricultural use. ( TVA00049)

We believe there is abundant data that support a technical foundation for pursuing commercial use of CCPs in agriculture and in mine reclamation without compromising the health or safety of the public or the environment. ( TVA00049)

However, EPA tentatively decided that some regulation or voluntary controls may be needed for beneficial use of coal combustion wastes in agricultural applications and for the disposal of oil combustion wastes. We believe there is sufficient detailed information in the docket from public testimony to support continued exemption from Subtitle C for these uses and applications as well. ( CIBO00052) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 7 VIII  7 In summary, the conclusions presented by EPA on arsenic health risks for agricultural uses of coal ash were not based on sound science. To impose a higher standard on coal ash for health risk analyses compared to other EPA health risk analyses ( i. e. EPA 503( b) Sludge Rules) is not fair to farmers or to industry. NSP and industry has extensive experience using coal ash in agriculture, and state regulatory agencies provide regulatory controls to protect human health and the environment. The purported risk " documented" in the EPA health risk analysis does not reasonably exist, and there is no justification for EPA to consider additional regulatory controls based on a flawed analysis. Until EPA corrects the flaws in the health risk analysis, those flawed conclusions will continue to undermine both EPA credibility and the state permitting process. ( NSP00057)

With policy to tackle the higher risks first, it seems clear that such intense focus on FFCB inappropriate when the large land area with excessive soil As is known to exist in the US. Orchard soils are being converted to housing developments with high As soils except where State Agencies have worked to regulate this risk. Especially considering the multiple errors in risk assessment evident for As in FFCB, potential designation of such beneficial products as hazardous is not appropriate. ( PHS011)

I urge EPA to consider these factors. In doing so, I am confident the Agency will conclude that there is no justification for regulating the beneficial use of approved coal ash and waste coal ash in mine reclamation and agricultural projects as hazardous waste. ( PADEP00246)

We urge the Agency not to expand RCRA to include regulating the beneficial use of non hazardous CFB ash in agriculture or mine reclamation. ( AIRP00270)

PG& E Gen urges EPA to continue the current RCRA exemption of coal ash in beneficial uses for soil amendments and mine reclamation. ( PG& E00274)

In our initial comments, we explained that EPA's agricultural use risk assessment is grossly inadequate to support a determination to impose restrictions on this beneficial use ... The current record would not support a determination to impose Subtitle C or Subtitle C like limitations on this use of FFC products. ( USWAG00275)

As set forth in its initial comments, CIBO asserts that available scientific, analytic, demonstrative, and other data clearly sustain the conclusion that no aspect of the substances addressed in the RTC should be subjected to national Subtitle C regulation. Further, sound RCRA policy requires this outcome. Environmentally protective reuse policies for the wastes covered by the RTC exemplify the resource conservation and recovery that Congress encourages in RCRA. See, e. g., 42 U. S. C. 6901( a), 6902( 10). Further, that States have overseen through regulation and monitoring the development of successful environment protective reuse policies of these wastes also fulfills Congress's goal of active State participation. See e. g., 42 U. S. C § 6902. The extension of federal Subtitle C authority over environmentally effective reuse policies would undermine the core objectives of RCRA. CIBO asserts that all available data demonstrates that all wastes and applications covered by the RTC should remain under the Bevill exemption. ( CIBO00280)

Some of the conclusions reached in that report are inconsistent with the EPA's recognition that waste coal ash is not a hazardous material and is exempt from regulation while the agency is Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 8 VIII  8 continuing to consider the regulation of waste coal ash used beneficially in mine land reclamation and as a soil amendment in agricultural applications as a hazardous waste material. ( GPC00297)

I write to express my concern about the Environmental Protection Agency's inconsistent conclusions contained in its second Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants. Specifically, EPA determined that waste coal ash itself is exempt from regulation, yet the Agency is considering regulating its beneficial use in mine reclamation and agriculture amendments as hazardous waste. ( PA00368)

I would like to express my concern about the Environmental Protection Agency's inconsistent conclusions contained in the above referenced report to Congress. Specifically, EPA has determined that waste coal ash itself is exempt from regulation, yet the Agency is considering regulating its beneficial use in mine reclamation and agricultural amendments as hazardous waste. ( AMI00372)

I have enclosed for your review a copy of correspondence date 9 September 1999 addressed to you by Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Secretary James M. Seif, requesting that you determine coal ash and waste coal ash in mine reclamation and agricultural projects as non hazardous waste. Although I am not an expert in environmental issues, I defer to the expertise of Secretary Sief on this issue, and concur in the arguments he makes in his correspondence for the determination of this ash as non hazardous. I respectfully request that you give careful consideration to Secretary Sief's analysis on this matter. ( PAL0004)

As a result of these concerns and because we question whether use of these wastes for agricultural purposes can be termed beneficial, we recommended that EPA develop federal threshold standards for use of co combustion coal wastes that mimics the effort the Agency has undertaken for land application of biosolids. Because of the wide variability in metal content within wastes, these standards should require that each batch of ash be tested prior to be deemed acceptable for land application. Tested waste should be kept segregated until results have been obtained. ( ALA00036)

Land application of FFC wastes, particularly fly ash and bottom ash from coal combustion and oil wastes, should not be permitted. Land application of fluidized bed combustion waste material should not occur in the absence of federal oversight, anti arsenic concentrations in this waste should be limited to levels currently required for land application of sewage sludge. ( ALA00292)

We requested that EPA distinguish between those wastes that were suitable for land application and those that are not. Additionally, it is EPA's role to explicitly distinguish beneficial use of wastes and land disposal of wastes. We continue to recommend that the rules regarding the land application of sewage sludge, 40 C. F. R. part 503, be used to define acceptable metal concentrations in FFC wastes to be disposed of via land application. ( ALA00292)