USWAG reiterates its recommendation that EPA issue a regulatory determination that all " remaining" FFC wastes do not warrant RCRA Subtitle C or similar regulation and that the Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 3 III  3 beneficial uses of FFC products identified in the Report to Congress are environmentally sound and do not constitute waste management. ( 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 this RTC should be subjected to national Subtitle C regulation. The extension of federal Subtitle C authority over these uses would undermine the core objectives of RCRA. C. IBO asserts that all available data demonstrates that all wastes and applications covered by the RTC should remain under the Bevill exemption. ( CIBO00280)

Accordinglv we call upon EPA to designate all fossil fuel wastes including those covered in the first Bevill Determination as hazardous waste in its Final Determination. ( HEC00056)

The 49 undersigned local, regional, and national environmental and public health organizations urge the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency to reverse its pending decision to exempt fossil fuel combustion wastes from regulation under RCRA Subtitle C. ( 49CAO00058)

We request that US EPA regulate fossil fuel wastes including coal combustion wastes to be disposed in mines as a hazardous waste under RCRA subtitle C. We ask that at a minimum, the risk mitigation alternative outlined in the draft Determination be applied nationally to all disposal sites for CCW and other fossil fuel combustion wastes, wastes mixed with these wastes or wastes whose parent materials are coburned with these wastes. We believe that the requirements for liners, leachate collection and ground water monitoring outlined under this alternative in the Determination are basic protections that must be afforded to the environment and/ or citizens who live adjacent to or near sites where these wastes are disposed. ( HEC00332) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 1 IV  1 IV. MILL REJECTS ( PYRITES)

EPA tentatively concluded to retain the exemption for pyrite comanagement with coal combustion wastes ( CCWs) in light of the development of a voluntary industry program of management controls. Comments were received on both sides of this issue. Several commenters, primarily from industry, expressed support for continuing to exclude pyrite comanagement disposal from Subtitle C regulation under the Bevill amendment, given the industry's voluntary program. Public interest group commenters argued that voluntary controls are inadequate and supported Subtitle C regulation. Specific concerns are summarized below.

Response: The Agency has determined that national regulation under Subtitle D authority is appropriate for coal combustion wastes managed in surface impoundments and landfills, as explained in Section I of this document. Therefore co management with pyritic wastes will be covered by the regulations.

We remain encouraged by the utility industry program to educate its members and promote implementation of guidance on the proper management of coal mill rejects. However, as pointed out by commenters, there is no guarantee that facilities where coal combustion wastes are comanaged with pyritic wastes will adhere to the guidance developed by industry. At this time, to ensure that the Agency is aware of all stakeholders views on the adequacy of the control approaches described in the guidance to protect human health and the environment, we are soliciting public comment on the final version of the industry coal mill rejects guidance. This guidance is available in the docket supporting today's decision. We will take comments into account as we incorporate the guidance into national regulations as appropriate EPA has considered the specific concerns raised by the commenters with regard to this decision. These are addressed in the sub topic responses below. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 2 IV  2 IV. MILL REJECTS ( PYRITES) Verbatim Commenter Statements At USWAG's request, EPRI has prepared a comprehensive guidance document to assist the industry in understanding the nature of the problem and to provide the industry with a set of options for co managing pyrites and coal combustion wastes to minimize pyrite oxidation. Once again, we are proud to report that USWAG members have ` stepped up to the plate' to address an environmental problem without the need for a regulatory prod. We are committed to continuing that educational effort. For that reason, we fully concur with EPA's recommendation that no additional regulations are necessary to address the potential consequences of pyrite oxidation when comanaged with coal combustion wastes. ( USWAG00037)

TVA generally supports the conclusions of the RTC. We are fully supportive of the comments submitted by the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group ( USWAG). ( TVA00049)

I have reviewed EPA's March 1999 Report to Congress on Waste from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels. I am highly pleased that following 18 years of study pursuant to the 1980 Bevill Amendment to RCRA, EPA has finally concluded that electric utilities and independent power producers generally manage fossil fuel combustion wastes in an environmentally responsible manner and that the combustion wastes do not warrant hazardous waste regulation under RCRA. ( BCHRL0002)

The Agency proposes to exempt pyritic wastes ( coal mill rejects) from Subtitle C regulation... These decisions fail the Administrator's tests of consistency and reasonableness in decision making... The Agency must not exempt pyritic wastes on these bases. ( ALA00036)

We believe that the limited credible information in this Report as well as the extensive information demonstrating damages to the environment from these wastes unambigouslv supports regulation of fossil fuel wastes as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of RCRA. Accordinglv we call upon EPA to designate all fossil fuel wastes including those covered in the first Bevill Determination as hazardous waste in its Final Determination. ( HEC00056)

The 49 undersigned local, regional, and national environmental and public health organizations urge the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency to reverse its pending decision to exempt fossil fuel combustion wastes from regulation under RCRA Subtitle C. We are concerned that this decision, once again, would create a loophole to reduce the regulatory obligations for coal fired power plants. ( 49CAO00058) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 4 FF2P S0397. Guidance for Comanagement of Mill Rejects at Coal fired Power Plants. EPRI. Draft. January 1999.

5 FF2P S0405. Guidance for Comanagement of Mill Rejects at Coal fired Power Plants. EPRI. Final. June 1, 1999.

3 IV  3 IV. MILL REJECTS ( PYRITES) A. Voluntary Controls Not In Docket Several public interest groups commented that it would be very inappropriate to endorse a program the details of which were not included in the docket for public comment.

Response: At the time the Report to Congress was released, the voluntary industry guidance document was not finalized.. The final draft version of the industry guidance document, however, was included in the docket4 when the RTC was published. The final, published version of the guidance is now available in the docket. 5 This final, published version is substantively the same as the version made available earlier for public comment. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 4 IV  4 IV. MILL REJECTS ( PYRITES) A. Voluntary Controls Not In Docket Verbatim Commenter Statements It is completely inadequate for the Agency to rely on an industry proposal which is never elucidated ( nor is it in the docket). ( ALA00036)

Industry EPA discussions about " voluntary control proposals" are not in the record, although the Agency relies on them in malting its draft Regulatory Determinations. The Agency does not present any information about what the voluntary industry proposals are. ( ALA00036)

The Agency has referenced in several places its discussions with industry regarding " voluntary control proposals," or options, for managing the wastes short of Subtitle C regulatory requirements. However, it appears that those proposals have not been provided to the public to evaluate, although the Agency seems to be relying on them in lieu of Subtitle C rules. ( 49CAO00058) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 5 IV  5 IV. MILL REJECTS ( PYRITES) B. Voluntary Program is No Substitute for a Regulation One public interest group commented that a voluntary program can not replace a regulation because adherence to the guidance is not guaranteed. The commenter suggested regulation is justified based on the characteristics of the waste and the damage case identified by the Agency. The commenter suggested a better approach would be to promulgate regulations and offer a delayed compliance schedule to facilities entering a voluntary early reduction program.

Response: The Agency has decided to develop national regulations for management of coal combustion wastes in landfills and surface impoundments. These regulations will cover comanaged pyritic wastes as well. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 6 IV  6 IV. MILL REJECTS ( PYRITES) B. Voluntary Program is No Substitute for Regulation Verbatim Commenter Statements The Agency proposes to exempt pyritic wastes ( coal mill rejects) from Subtitle C regulation. This proposal is despite evidence presented by the Agency that shows acidic leachate from such material meets the RCRA characteristics test. In addition, the Agency presents proof of a damage case from pyritic waste disposal. The Agency is quick to point out, however that there are limited waste characterization data for pyritic waste and that the data could not be extrapolated to the industry as a whole ( in other words, just because the samples that were gathered were toxic, doesn't mean all pyritic waste would be as toxic). This careful use of limited data is in direct contrast to the Agency's proposed actions to exempt co burning wastes based on similarly limited data and, on no data at all as the basis for exempting beneficial uses. These decisions fail the Administrator's tests of consistency and reasonableness in decision making. ( ALA00036)

Instead of meeting its obligations under RCRA Subtitle C to regulate pyritic wastes, the Agency is " encouraged" by an industry proposal to control these wastes and offers to " follow up on industry's progress" and " revisit if necessary". This decision has no basis in RCRA. The Report does not address whether there is adequate authority to control these wastes, nor is an economic analysis clone. It is completely inadequate for the Agency to rely on an industry proposal which is never elucidated ( nor is it in the docket) and to offer a vague noncommittal oversight program which would be completely unenforceable. The Agency must not exempt pyritic wastes on these bases. ( ALA00036)

In addition, the Agency provides no explanation as to why these voluntary proposals would be considered equivalent to federal or state regulatory authority. In the three step decision making process described in the Report, the Agency states it will assess whether regulatory authority exists which would be adequate in the absence of a Subtitle C finding. A voluntary industry program is clearly not an adequate substitute for Federal or state regulatory authority. ( ALA00036)

If all of the wastes are exempted from regulation ( and the 44 states which follow the federal program also continue to exempt them). Where is the incentive for industry to enact voluntary controls? Why haven't they done it sooner if their intent was to change their practices ? A better approach would be to promulgate regulations and offer a delayed compliance schedule to facilities entering a voluntary early reduction program. The Clean Air Act offers this precedence in section 112( e) of the 1990 amendments. ( ALA00036)

IV. MILL REJECTS ( PYRITES) C. Definition of Pyrites An industry commenter requested that EPA clarify the meaning of pyrites as intended in the regulatory determination, stating that not all coal mill rejects are " pyritic." The commenter noted EPA has not defined a threshold concentration of pyritic material that would cause a mixture of large volume FFC wastes and mill rejects to be considered pyrites subject to the guidance. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 7 IV  7 Response: The mill rejects ( pyrites) guidance document provides information on how to determine, based on certain analytical tests, whether a particular pyritic waste and coal combustion waste mixture might create special management problems and thus be subject to the waste management techniques and practices recommended in the guidance. Hazardous waste regulations that the Agency will propose and promulgate will either contain or refer to a similar process for determining the need for special management of pyritic and coal combustion waste mixtures. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 8 IV  8 IV. MILL REJECTS ( PYRITES) C. Definition of Pyrites Verbatim Commenter Statements The Agency has identified several situations where " pyrite" materials described as sulfur bearing components of mill rejects may be of some concern. We would urge the Agency to clearly define these " pyrite" materials. Typical coal mill systems reject many various materials as " pyrites" which will not meet grinding criteria, although very few of the materials rejected from low sulfur western coals are " pyritic." It is unlikely that much material collected by the so called " pyrite" systems in our coal mills are truly high sulfur bearing minerals. ( NCE00031) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 1 V  1 V. WASTE FROM CO BURNING EPA included wastes from co burning coal and other non fossil fuels ( provided that the coal component is at least 50 percent of the total fuel feed) in its tentative decision to continue the exemption from hazardous waste regulation for co managed CCWs. Many commenters, primarily from industry, generally supported the tentative decision. Public interest group commenters, on the other hand, disagreed with the conclusion, stating that EPA's characterization of these wastes was wholly inadequate to come to any conclusion. One of these commenters expressed concern that coverage of co burning would lead to the combustion of large volumes of hazardous waste in utility boilers, with the end result of power plants serving as de facto unregulated hazardous waste incinerators.

Response: The Agency has decided, in its regulatory determination, that co burning wastes ( i. e., combustion wastes from burning mixtures of coal and other non fossil fuels) when disposed in landfills and surface impoundments should be regulated under Subtitle D authority . This is because the co burning wastes contain levels of several hazardous metals that are similar or even higher than found in waste or leachate from combusting coal alone. Because of the presence of metals at those levels, the Agency believes these co burning wastes have the potential to pose the same risks as coal combustion wastes which will be subject to national regulations, as explained in Section I of this document.

In the RTC, EPA identified 17 types of materials that had been reported by industry as sometimes being co burned with coal. Characterization data ( whole waste and TCLP test results for metals) were available for wastes from co burning mixtures containing ten of these types of materials. For five of these ten materials, metals concentrations were within the ranges reported for utility wastes from coal combusted alone in the characterization data supporting the 1993 Regulatory Determination. The other five materials variously displayed maximum levels of several constituents ( selenium, barium, chromium, copper, lead, zinc) in either whole waste or TCLP samples in excess of those reported for utility waste from coal combusted alone.

EPA acknowledged in the RTC the limitations of the available characterization data on wastes from co burning coal and other non fossil fuels. For example, a limited number of samples are available from any given fuel mixture and it is not possible to say with certainty whether the few elevated concentrations result from the coal or the other fuels in the mixture. However, the Agency properly concluded that many of the metals levels in wastes from co burning coal and other non fossil fuels are similar to wastes from coal burned alone. ( Waste from fuel mixtures consisting of less than 50 percent coal are not, and never have been, covered under the Bevill exclusion. This 50 percent rule further limits the influence non coal materials can have on the characteristics of the combustion waste. Typically, when coal is co burned with other non fossil fuels, the proportion of coal is 80 percent or higher.) No commenters provided any additional waste characterization data. The waste characterization data is available in the docket. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 6See 40 CFR 266.112.

2 V  2 With regard to the comment about the co burning of coal and hazardous waste, burners of coal and hazardous waste mixtures are subject to the Boiler and Industrial Furnace ( BIF) rule under RCRA6 and thus are not unregulated hazardous waste burners. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 3 V  3 V. WASTE FROM CO BURNING Verbatim Commenter Statements ARIPPA supports the tentative conclusion of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) to retain the exemption for disposal of co managed and co burning coal combustion waste at utilities; coal combustion wastes at non utilities; petroleum coke combustion waste; and for fluidized combustion waste. ARIPPA recommends that EPA continue to retain exemptions. ( ARIPP00019)

PG& E Gen supports EPA's preliminary determination to retain the hazardous waste exemption for ... co burning of coal with other fuels. ( PG& E00023)

We respectively ask that EPA not bow to pressure to extend the regulatory development timetable. It is time to put this issue to bed and allow us to move forward with the clean up of or scarred land. We also ask that the EPA base its decision on a fully informed process and sound science. In doing so, we are confident the Agency will see that there is no justification for expanding RCRA to include waste coal CFB, oil ash and mixtures of coal ash with other waste. ( PAC00029).

Although EPA expressed some concern that the data were fairly limited, 129 EPA correctly concluded that the combustion residuals from co burning fuel mixtures consisting primarily of coal do no warrant hazardous waste regulation. ( USWAG00037)

Virginia Power fully supports the Agency's decision to exempt from RCRA Subtitle C requirements, co managed wastes, which include petroleum coke combustion wastes, as well as mixtures of other fuels co fired with coal. ( VAP00042)

TVA generally supports the conclusions of the RTC. ( TVA00049).

In its report, Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) made several tentative decisions to retain the exemption for the disposal of co managed and co burning coal combustion wastes at utilities, coal combustion wastes at non utilities, petroleum coke combustion wastes; fluidized bed combustion wastes; and natural gas combustors. We agree and support these determinations. ( CIBO00052)

The Maryland Coal Association appreciates the opportunity to make these comments on behalf of the existing exclusion of fossil fuel combustion by products. ( MDCAL0001)

I am highly pleased that following 18 years of study pursuant to the 1980 Bevill Amendment to RCRA, EPA has finally concluded that electric utilities and independent power producers generally manage fossil fuel combustion wastes in an environmentally responsible manner and that the combustion wastes do no warrant hazardous waste regulations under RCRA. ( BCHRL002)

USWAG reiterates its recommendation that EPA issue a regulatory determination that all " remaining" FFC wastes do not warrant RCRA Subtitle C or similar regulation. ( 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 Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 4 V  4 should be subjected to national Subtitle C regulation. CIBO asserts that all available data demonstrates that all wastes and applications covered by the RTC should remain under the Bevill exemption ( CIBO00280)

I believe that we have amply and effectively demonstrated the successful balance between economic issues and the environmental concerns through adherence of the Pennsylvania regulations for CFB ash disposal and beneficial use and can see no benefit to the expansion of RCRA to include waste coal CFB ash and mixtures of coal ash with other fuel ash produced in a CFB. ( GPC00297).

We believe that the limited credible information in this Report as well as the extensive information demonstrating damages to the environment from these wastes unambiguously supports regulation for fossil fuel wastes as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C or RCRA. Accordingly we call upon EPA to designate all fossil fuel wastes including those covered in the first Bevil Determination as hazardous waste in its Final Determination.. ( HEC00056)

No attempt is made to estimate the volumes of such materials being coburned or the resulting wastes or to even qualitatively state whether those volumes are large or small. There are a few sentences about the characterization of these wastes based on the data from a " small number of samples" for individual fuel mixtures collected by ERPI. Furthermore, EPA concedes the potential for elevated metals and organics in these wastes. Yet incredulously, there is no data in the report or referencing of any data in the Docket supporting any characterization of these wastes. ( HEC00056)

EPA has not adequately characterized the waste, particularly wastes from co burning coal with other potentially hazardous materials. It is unclear the extent to which EPA evaluated co burning wastes. This is critical because EPA concludes that co burning certain fuel mixtures may result in higher concentration in some metals although the limited sampling prevents any inference to be made but that no public health or environmental risks exist. ( ALA00036)

The 49 undersigned local, regional, and national environmental and public health organizations urge the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency to reverse its pending decision to exempt fossil fuel combustion wastes from regulation under RCRA Subtitle C. ( 49CAO00058)

We request that US EPA regulate fossil fuel wastes including coal combustion wastes to be disposed in mines as hazardous waste under RCRA subtitle C. We ask that at a minimum, the risk mitigation alternative outlined in the draft Determination be applied nationally to all disposal sites for CCW and other fossil fuel combustion wastes, waste mixed with these wastes or wastes whose parent materials are coburned with these wastes. We believe that the requirements for liners, leachate collection and ground water monitoring outlined under this alternative in the Determination are basic projections that must be afforded to the environment and/ or citizens who live adjacent to or near sites where these wastes are disposed. ( HEC00332)

The Agency has tentatively concluded that co managed wastes, including wastes from other fuels co fired with coal generally present a low inherent toxicity, are seldom characteristically hazardous, and generally do not present a risk to human health or the environment. With respect to co burning other fuels, this conclusion has no basis and is clearly unfounded. ( ALA0036) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 5 V  5 The result of this exemption would be an increase in co firing waste fuels with fossil fuels. Under the Clean Air Act, hazardous waste incinerators are subjected to emission limits for hazardous air pollutants ( HAP). Because power plants are currently exempt from HAP regulations, the end results will be power plants serving as de facto unregulated hazardous waste incinerators. Waste from co burning waste fuels should not be exempt from Subtitle C. ( ALA0036) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 1 VI  1 VI. BENEFICIAL USE In the Report to Congress, EPA stated its tentative intention to grant permanent exemption from hazardous waste regulation for most beneficial uses of fossil fuel combustion ( FFC) wastes ( agricultural use is discussed in greater detail below). State, federal government, industry, and academic commenters expressed support for this conclusion given the absence of identifiable damage cases, fixation of waste in finished products, existing regulations, and/ or low probability of adverse exposures. Several of these commenters pointed out EPA's opportunity ( or responsibility) to promote beneficial use of FFC wastes beyond mere exemption. Public interest group commenters argued that retaining the exemption would be inappropriate because these beneficial uses were not adequately studied by EPA.

Response: The Agency is retaining the exemption for beneficial uses of coal combustion wastes other than minefilling. ( We are also retaining the exemption for agricultural uses of coal combustion wastes, which is discussed separately in Section VIII.) We have reached this decision because: ( a) we have not identified that any of the other beneficial uses are likely to present significant risks to human health or the environment; and ( b) no documented cases of damage to human health or the environment have been identified. Additionally, we do not want to place any unnecessary barriers on the beneficial use of coal combustion wastes so that they can be used in applications that conserve natural resources and reduce disposal costs.

Disposal can be burdensome and fails to take advantage of beneficial characteristics of fossil fuel combustion wastes. About one quarter of the coal combustion wastes now generated are diverted to beneficial uses. Currently, the major beneficial uses of coal combustion wastes include: construction ( including building products, road base & sub base, blasting grit and roofing materials) accounting for about 21%; sludge and waste stabilization and acid neutralization accounting for about 3%; and agricultural use accounting for 0.1%. Provided the practices do not pose risks, we support increases in the beneficial use of these wastes.

Off site uses in construction, including wallboard, present low risk due to the coal combustion wastes being bound or encapsulated in the construction materials or because there is low potential for exposure. Use in waste and sludge stabilization and in acid neutralization are either regulated ( under RCRA for hazardous waste stabilization or when placed in municipal solid waste landfills, or under the Clean Water Act in the case of municipal sewage sludge or wastewater neutralization), or appear to present low risk due to low exposure potential.

The Agency evaluated a number of case studies ( available in the docket) of beneficial uses of coal combustion wastes, other than for agriculture. The Agency was not able to identify adverse effects associated with these types of beneficial uses, nor do we now believe that these uses of coal combustion wastes present a significant risk to human health or the environment. While some commenters disagreed with our findings, no data or other support for the commenters' position was provided, nor was any information provided to show risk or damage associated with agricultural use. Therefore, we conclude that none of these beneficial uses of coal combustion wastes pose risks of concern. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 2 VI  2 VI. BENEFICIAL USE Verbatim Commenter Statements IEU supports the EPA tentative conclusions that coal fired utility co managed wastes should remain exempt from RCRA Subtitle C regulation and that most, if not all, beneficial uses of these wastes should also remain exempt from Subtitle C regulation. ( IEU00018)

EPA can give strong encouragement to these beneficial uses of CCPs, and carry out one of the principal objectives of RCRA: " promoting the demonstration, construction, and application of waste management, resource recovery, and resource conservation systems which preserve and enhance the quality of air, water, and land resources..." ( NMA00024)

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. ( IMCC00027)

Th[ e] evidence clearly demonstrates that management of coal combustion wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) is unnecessary and counterproductive. ( PCA00034)

Thunder Basin Coal encourages the EPA to not regulate these materials under RCRA, and adds that any federal regulations on CCW's, such as those already imposed under TRI reporting would further inhibit the beneficial use of Coal Combustion Byproducts. ( TBCC00035)

Virginia Power supports the Agency's decision cited in the March 1999 " Report To Congress" to maintain the beneficial use exemption from RCRA Subtitle C for the use of co managed wastes, including petroleum coke, and wastes generated from the combustion of other fuels with coal. ( VAP00042)

Ash researchers at the EERC have long thought that reuse is nearly always a preferred option to disposal of CCBs which used beneficially are not FFC wastes but rather a valuable resource. ( EERC00044)

First, I am pleased that the report does provide support for beneficial uses of coal combustion byproducts ( CCBs). ( OSU00046)

It appears that current regulation of these activities is more that adequate. Subtitle D regulatory authority should remain adequate for governing the management and beneficial use of CCPs in the future. ( ISG00048)

In short, TVA believes that beneficial reuse of CCPs preserves natural resources and can be used in an environmentally responsible manner. ( TVA00049)

TXU supports the general conclusion reached by EPA in the RTC that disposal of co managed wastes generated at coal fired utilities, including beneficial utilization, should remain exempt from Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 3 VI  3 the provisions of subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA). ( TXU00053)

We also concur with the EPA's recommendation that most beneficial uses of these wastes should also remain exempt from Subtitle C in light of the absence of identifiable damage cases, fixation of waste in finished products, and/ or low probability of adverse exposures. ( TXU00053)

TXU concurs with EPA's tentative conclusion that non utility coal combustion wastes and beneficial uses of such wastes should remain exempt from RCRA Subtitle C. ( TXU00053)

AEP would further assert that beneficial uses of co managed CCPs should also remain exempt from Subtitle C regulation, and even encouraged by EPA. ( AEP00060)

I am highly pleased that following 18 years of study pursuant to the 1980 Bevill Amendment to RCRA, EPA has finally concluded that electric utilities and independent power producers generally manage fossil fuel combustion wastes in an environmentally responsible manner and that the combustion wastes do no warrant hazardous waste regulations under RCRA. ( BCHRL0002)

The agency's tentative conclusion not to impose Subtitle C rules on the use and disposal of such CCPs is well founded. ( WVDEPL0003)

USWAG reiterates its recommendation that EPA issue a regulatory determination that all " remaining" FFC wastes do not warrant RCRA Subtitle C or similar regulation and that the beneficial uses of FFC products identified in the Report to Congress are environmentally sound and do not constitute waste management. ( USWAG00275)

EPA can remove barriers and encourage the use of coal fly ash to the maximum extent possible with its regulatory determination following its RTC on fossil fuel combustion. ( ACAA00276)

USWAG concurs with EPA's recommendation that beneficial uses of OCWs remain excluded from Subtitle C. The record fully supports EPA's conclusion that "[ n] o significant risks to human health exist for the identified beneficial uses of these wastes." 162 ( USWAG00037)

The Agency should not issue a blanket exemption for other beneficial uses of FFC waste because none of the other beneficial uses were considered in the risk assessment. Therefore, the Agency has no basis for granting this exemption. ( ALA00036)

We believe that the limited credible information in this Report as well as the extensive information demonstrating damages to the environment from these wastes unambiguously supports regulation for fossil fuel wastes as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C or RCRA. Accordingly we call upon EPA to designate all fossil fuel wastes including those covered in the first Bevill Determination as hazardous waste in its Final Determination.. ( HEC00056)

Several commenters requested that EPA promote increased beneficial use of FFC wastes by excluding, or encouraging states to exclude, FFC wastes from the definition of solid wastes when beneficially used. In support of this, one of the commenters stated that beneficial use Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 4 VI  4 declined by 25 percent as a result of Indiana's inclusion of these materials within its definition of waste.

Response: The Agency will not exclude FFC wastes from the definition of solid waste when beneficially used. Some states that are generally supportive of beneficial uses exercise oversight and controls over the beneficial uses under their authority to regulate waste management. If EPA were to exclude these uses from the definition of solid waste, it could undermine state programs, which we believe are important to ensure that beneficial uses are protective of human health and the environment.

In addition, the RTC did not discuss exempting FFC wastes from the definition of solid waste when beneficially used. Before the Agency could consider any such action, we would have to go through a full notice and comment period to allow all interested parties full opportunity to provide input.

Do perceptions make a difference? YES. The beneficial reuse of CCP ( excluding mine placement for reclamation) declined by 25% as a result of Indiana's characterization of fossil fuel combustion products as coal combustion waste. ( IEU00018)

EPA can [ encourage beneficial use] by ... recognizing that CCPs, when beneficially used in accordance with state statutory and regulatory requirements and procedures, are not wastes. Placement of CCPs on the ground as part of their beneficial use does not constitute " disposal" of a waste under RCRA. Rather, when beneficially used, CCPs are materials with a clear environmental and commercial value. In the case of CCPs, removing these regulatory barriers will have only positive environmental and economic results. ( NMA00024)

Regulations send messages to people interested in use of coal combustion products. The words waste and RCRA scare customers away. EPA has an opportunity in it's coming decision to tell people there will be no Federal RCRA regulations of these materials and to clear the way for states to develop regulatory programs that eliminate the word " waste" following recycled materials even after they are put to reuse. ( NMA00024A)

First, to help level the competitive playing field for CCPs and competing virgin material products, EPA should strongly urge all Federal and State agencies to refrain from applying waste regulations to CCPs when used in a recognized on site application as a substitute for other competing products. ( USWAG00037)

I am also pleased to observe in the Report that EPA has determined that the recycling of these combustion residuals into useful commercial applications is environmentally safe. I would urge you to take this " clean bill of health" for coal ash utilization and actively promote increased utilization of this product by, among other things, encouraging State and Federal regulatory programs to avoid applying " waste" regulations to coal ash when it is beneficially used in a product. In my opinion, coal combustion products should be subject to the same regulatory requirements applicable to competing products using virgin materials. ( BCHRL0002)

USWAG reiterates its recommendation that EPA issue a regulatory determination that all " remaining" FFC wastes do not warrant RCRA Subtitle C or similar regulation and that the Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 5 VI  5 beneficial uses of FFC products identified in the Report to Congress are environmentally sound and do not constitute waste management. ( USWAG00275) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 6 VI  6 VI. BENEFICIAL USE B. General Promotion of Beneficial Use Some of the industry and academic commenters suggested EPA take specific steps to promote beneficial use. These commenters stated that the broad requirements of RCRA include promotion of resource conservation, and that promotion of beneficial uses of FFC wastes is most consistent with RCRA and the responsibility of EPA. One of the commenters suggested specifically adding all of the identified beneficial uses to the annual EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines. One public interest group commenter suggested that more stringent regulation of disposal would help promote alternative beneficial uses.

Response: The Agency agrees that beneficial uses of fossil fuel combustion waste that are environmentally protective are desirable and believes that the decision to retain the Bevill exemption for these wastes is an incentive both for generators and potential users to pursue more extensive beneficial uses. As documented by the industry in data provided to support the Report to Congress and Regulatory Determination, companies are extensively pursuing beneficial uses when they are economically feasible. In addition, the Agency recently promulgated a Comprehensive Procurement Guideline ( CPG) for Flowable Fill Containing Coal Fly Ash and/ or Ferrous Foundry Sands ( 65FR 3070, January 19, 2000; 40 CFR 247.12 ( i)) to encourage beneficial use of coal fly ash. The Agency does not agree that more stringent regulation of disposal practices will promote alternative beneficial uses. Current beneficial uses are usually limited, in part, by transportation costs, to uses in relative proximity to the facilities where they are generated. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 7 VI  7 VI. BENEFICIAL USE B. General Promotion of Beneficial Use Verbatim Commenter Statements Responsible beneficial use of CCP should be advocated by EPA and the regulatory determination should not place additional barriers, institutional or regulatory, or existing or future practices. ( IEU00018)

EPA can give strong encouragement to these beneficial uses of CCPs, and carry out one of the principal objectives of RCRA: " promoting the demonstration, construction, and application of waste management, resource recovery, and resource conservation systems which preserve and enhance the quality of air, water, and land resources..." RCRA Section 1003( 10). ( NMA00024)

Given EPA's positive findings on the environmental performance of such use, EPA should " step up to plate" and join in a meaningful way with the industry and many states to encourage increased diversion of these materials from waste management to product use. ( USWAG00037)

First, to help level the competitive playing field for CCPs and competing virgin material products, EPA should strongly urge all Federal and State agencies to refrain from applying waste regulations to CCPs when used in a recognized on site application as a substitute for other competing products. Second, EPA should commit to adding to the annual EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines all of the beneficial uses identified in the RTC that are likely to meet the procurement needs of Federal or State procurement agencies. ( USWAG00037)

EPA is presented with an opportunity to continue to expand its role in the promotion of increased use of CCBs by continuing to actively promote ash used under the policy of procurement of environmentally preferable products. It is our belief at CARRC that EPA is in a key position to promote and increase the safe and environmentally responsible utilization and recycling of CCBs as a preferred option to disposal as wastes. ( EERC00044)

First, I am pleased that the report does provide support for beneficial uses of coal combustion byproducts ( CCBs). This must be continued and strongly encouraged in the future. ( OSU00046)

AEP would further assert that beneficial uses of co managed CCPs should also remain exempt from Subtitle C regulation, and even encouraged by EPA. ( AEP00060)

EPA can remove barriers and encourage the use of coal fly ash to the maximum extent possible with its regulatory determination following the RTC on fossil fuel ( ACAA00276)

The Report is completely oblivious to the possibility that many beneficial uses of fossil fuel wastes are an alternative to current disposal methods and that the level of such uses might be closely related to the stringency of disposal requirements. Greater efforts to invest in research and development of safe beneficial uses would likely be encouraged by requirements that prohibit the open dumping of these wastes and effectively hold waste generators liable for the contamination created by their disposal practices. Indeed in Indiana, where regulators have developed ash reuse policies with environmental safeguards that are deliberately more streamlined that such Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 8 VI  8 requirements in their disposal rules to encourage reuse instead of disposal. This Determination must examine the relationship between disposal and reuse. ( HEC00056) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 7 FF2P S0265. Technical Background Document: Beneficial Use of Fossil Fuel Combustion Wastes. EPA. October, 1998.

8 FF2P S0265.

9 VI  9 VI. BENEFICIAL USE C. Adequacy of EPA's Study of Beneficial Use Public interest groups commented that the Agency has not adequately analyzed the socalled beneficial uses and, therefore, it would be inappropriate to exempt beneficial uses at this time. One group expressed particular concern with cross media releases of mercury from these uses. Another group commented that the Agency had not appropriately considered the costs of regulating such uses. An industry commenter stated that, to the best of its knowledge and contrary to statements in the Report, no oil combustion wastes have been used for structural fill or construction applications.

Response: EPA believes that it has adequately studied the beneficial uses of FFC wastes. The Agency conducted an extensive review of industry and academic literature describing these uses and analyzing their benefits, economic potential, and environmental impact. The results of this review are presented in the rulemaking docket. 7 This study supports the conclusion that there are real benefits to beneficial uses of FFC wastes and potential markets for many of these uses. One industry commenter ( ACAA00276) provided additional documentation regarding the benefits of several of these uses.

Included in the Agency's review were a number of studies considering the environmental impacts of a variety of specific beneficial uses. EPA notes that most of these studies did not conclude that there was a significant risk to human health or the environment from the beneficial uses studied. The paragraphs below describe each of the beneficial use categories identified in EPA's review.

In the Technical Background Document on Beneficial Use of Fossil Fuel Combustion Wastes, 8 the Agency identified the following categories of beneficial use:

° agricultural uses, ° mining applications, ° use in cement and concrete products, ° use in other products ( wallboard, mineral fill, etc.), ° construction fills, ° waste management, and ° use as blasting grit or in snow and ice control.

In its risk assessment, EPA specifically modeled the potential risks associated with agricultural use. The Agency's conclusions with regard to this category of use are discussed under Topic VIII. For the other categories of beneficial use, EPA believes that the scenarios modeled in its risk assessment adequately bound, and likely overestimate, the potential risks as discussed below. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 10 VI  10 When used in cement and concrete products, FFC wastes are encapsulated in the cement matrix. Similarly, when used in other products, such as wallboard, plastics, ceramics, and mineral wool insulation, FFC wastes are encapsulated within the product and exposure of the final product to the environment is limited. Leaching and other test results reported in the literature support this conclusion ( EPRI, 1985, Coal Waste Artificial Reef Program, EPRI Report No. CS 3936, Docket # FF2P S0204; and EPRI, 1996, Environmental and Physical Properties of Autoclaved Cellular Concrete, Volumes 1 3, EPRI Report No. TR 105821, Docket # FF2P S0219). Furthermore, the quantities of FFC wastes used in these applications at a given site are much less than those managed in a typical disposal unit. Therefore, once FFC wastes are incorporated in these products, potential risks to human health and the environment are less than those from unlined disposal units.

Construction fill uses of FFC wastes include backfills, embankments, area fills, grouts, and road base and road subbase applications. Some, but not all, of these uses involve incorporation of the FFC wastes into a cementitious matrix, mitigating potential risks as discussed for cement and concrete products. Some of these uses also involve the use of cover materials that can limit mobilization of FFC waste constituents. For example, in road base construction, FFC wastes are covered by an upper layer of asphalt. Some other construction fills employ a cover layer of soil. Even for non cementitious, uncovered construction fills, however, the potential for mobilization of constituents of concern is likely to be no greater than that for disposal units. Given that construction fills are smaller in size than typical disposal units and typically combine FFC wastes with other materials, the potential for leaching to ground water, erosion to surface water, or airborne transport from construction fills is expected to be less than that from disposal units. It is possible that direct human exposures to FFC wastes in some construction fills where the site is uncontrolled could be greater than for disposal units. Direct plant uptake also might be greater where plant growth is encouraged on the construction fill. Potential risks from these two pathways, however, are expected to be similar to, but no greater than, those modeled for agricultural soil amendment. Therefore, the scenarios modeled for the risk assessment adequately bound the potential risks from even uncovered, non cementitious construction fills.

Waste management uses of FFC wastes include use in waste stabilization/ solidification and use in landfill construction as liner or cover material. In waste stabilization or solidification, the FFC wastes become part of a cementitious matrix, as discussed for cement and concrete products. The stabilized or solidified wastes also typically are disposed in a Subtitle C landfill, further mitigating potential risks.

Uses of FFC waste as blasting grit and for snow and ice control are similar to agricultural application, in that these uses may result in spreading FFC waste over an area. In blasting grit and snow and ice control uses, however, the area to which FFC waste is applied is likely to be smaller than a typical agricultural field. The quantity of waste used per application and the frequency of application also are likely to be less. Also, because these uses do not involve direct application to areas growing crops, the potential for direct plant uptake may be somewhat reduced. Thus, the agricultural soil application scenario modeled for the risk assessment can be expected to reasonably bound potential risk from these uses.

With regard to the comment about economic impacts of regulating beneficial use, EPA did not explicitly study such impacts because no risks were identified to warrant such regulation. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 9 FF2P S0326. Oil Combustion By Products: Chemical Characteristics, Management Practices, and Groundwater Effects. EPRI. March 1, 1998.

11 VI  11 With regard to the comment that beneficial uses could increase substantially if disposal requirements are tightened, the Agency believes that there must be a risk basis for imposing more stringent disposal requirements. Increasing beneficial use of material is not a sufficient reason to impose more stringent requirements, in the absence of a showing of risk.

With regard to the comment about use of oil combustion wastes in construction applications, the information in the Report to Congress was derived from an EPRI report on oil combustion waste management. 9 This report identified use in concrete products as a waste management practice when economically viable at several facilities and explicitly stated that " construction uses include concrete products, structural fill and roadbed fill. Currently, only minor amounts of oil ash are used in construction application, although one utility is preparing to pursue this option more vigorously in the near future." Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 12 VI  12 VI. BENEFICIAL USE C. Adequacy of EPA's Study of Beneficial Use Verbatim Commenter Statements Except for agricultural applications, the " beneficial uses" of these wastes are not considered at all. These uses should be considered particularly from the standpoint of cross media releases of mercury. For example, FBC sludge use for cement manufacturing will certainly release mercury to the environment. ( ALA00036)

The Agency should not issue a blanket exemption for other beneficial uses of FFC waste because none of the other beneficial uses were considered in the risk assessment. Therefore, the Agency has no basis for granting this exemption. ( ALA00036)

The Report discusses beneficial uses of fossil fuel wastes and includes some estimates of the volume of wastes consumed for " beneficial use," for example see Table 3 16 outlining such volumes for uses of utility CCW in 1997. However, the Report contains no credible discussion of the potential utilization of fossil fuel wastes. As previously pointed out, the possibility that the utilization of these wastes for certain beneficial purposes could increase, even skyrocket, if disposal requirements are tightened is not discussed. ( HEC00056)

There are also no estimates of the costs of beneficial uses of these wastes in the Report. ( HEC00056)

There is an inaccurate statement on oil ash use: to the best of PG& E Gen's knowledge, no oil combustion waste have been used for structural fill or construction applications. ( PG& E00023) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 1 VII  1 VII. MINEFILL In the Report to Congress, EPA requested further information on minefill practices and impacts to provide a better basis for evaluating the appropriateness of more stringent regulation of the range of such practices. Several commenters from industry and a federal agency supported the Agency's decision to study the issue further and not attempt to model minefill risks using existing methodologies. These and many other commenters responded to the Agency's request for further information by providing detailed case studies, descriptions of state regulations, and other data.

Many industry, academic, and state and federal government commenters encouraged EPA not to adopt federal regulations and/ or voluntary restrictions on minefilling for a variety of reasons, as further discussed below. Some commenters recommended EPA take steps to encourage minefilling.

A public interest group commenter encouraged EPA to take steps to regulate or prohibit minefilling because of weaknesses in state regulatory programs, environmental performance of existing minefills, and environmental justice issues, as also discussed below. This commenter expressed concern that EPA did not attempt to calculate the risk associated with minefilling. A number of other public interest group, academic, and citizen commenters also requested that EPA regulate minefilling under Subtitle C or other statutory authority, or ban the practice altogether.

Other public interest commenters expressed concern that lack of regulation on minefilling would result in an increasing trend toward use of this practice, particularly given deregulation of electricity generators. Another public interest group commenter stated that EPA should undertake a systematic study evaluating minefilling, and, in the absence of this study, should not allow minefilling. This commenter further stated that federal regulation would be desirable to provide a common framework for analysis of minefilling projects.

In sum, many comments were received on both sides of this issue as to whether or not minefilling as practiced on a nationwide basis is protective of human health and the environment.

Response: Commenters provided very extensive information on minefilling. EPA completed an analysis of this information, along with a review of the information previously collected in support of the Report to Congress. We determined that it is appropriate to establish national regulations under RCRA Subtitle D applicable to the placement of coal combustion wastes in surface or underground mines. We have determined that the establishment of national regulations is warranted for coal combustion wastes when they are placed in surface or underground mines because: ( a) we find that these wastes when minefilled have the potential to present a danger to human health and the environment, ( b) minefilling of these wastes has been an expanding practice and there are few states that currently operate comprehensive programs that specifically address the unique circumstances of minefilling, making it more likely that any damage to human health or the environment would go unnoticed or unaddressed, and ( c) we believe that the cost of complying with regulations that address these potential dangers may not have a substantial impact on this practice because minefilling continues to grow in those few states that already have comprehensive programs. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 2 VII  2 We recognize that at this time, we cannot quantify the nature of damage that may be occurring or may occur in the future as a result of using coal combustion wastes as minefill. It is often impossible to determine if existing groundwater quality has been impacted by previous mining operations or as a result of releases of hazardous constituents from the coal combustion wastes used in minefilling applications. We have not as yet identified proven damage cases resulting from the use of coal combustion wastes for minefilling.

We also acknowledge that when the complexities related to site specific geology, hydrology, waste chemistry and interactions with the surrounding matrix, and other relevant factors are properly taken into account, coal combustion wastes used as minefill can provide significant benefits. However, when not done properly, minefilling has the potential to contaminate ground water to levels that could damage human health and the environment. Based on materials submitted during the public comment period, coal combustion wastes used as minefill can lead to increases in 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.

Although we have identified no damage cases involving minefilling, we are also aware of situations where coal combustion wastes are being placed 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. Also, there are damage cases associated with coal combustion wastes in landfills. The Agency believes it is reasonable to be concerned when similar quantities of coal combustion wastes are placed in mines, which often are not engineered disposal units and in some cases involve direct placement of wastes into direct contact with ground water.

We are concerned that government oversight is necessary to ensure that minefilling is done appropriately to protect human health and the environment, particularly since minefilling is a recent, but rapidly expanding use of coal combustion wastes. Government oversight has not yet " caught up" with the practice consistently across the country. There are some states that have programs that specifically address minefilling practices. We are likely to find that their programs or certain elements of their programs could serve as the basis for a comprehensive, flexible set of national management standards that ensure protection of human health and the environment. We also believe that these state programs will provide valuable experience in coordinating with SMCRA program requirements. However, at this time, few of the programs are comprehensive. Commenters pointed out, and we agree, there are significant gaps in other states. We believe that additional requirements for long term groundwater monitoring, and controls on wastes placed directly into groundwater might be prudent. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 3 VII  3 EPA has considered the specific concerns raised by the commenters with regard to this decision. These are addressed in the sub topic responses below. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 4 VII  4 VII. MINEFILL Verbatim Commenter Statements In practice, however, the number of required model inputs ( whether hydrologic or geochemical) and the uncertainty associated with the values of these inputs will limit the ability for a model or combination of models to yield predictions that would be of practical value. ( DOE00020)

The RTC noted that EPA encountered difficulty distinguishing the effects of mine placement activities from pre existing environmental concerns, such as acid mine drainage (" AMD"), in the limited time remaining in the study period after identification of potential environmental issues related to mine placement. USWAG commends EPA for recognizing its limitations and not rushing to an uninformed conclusion. ( USWAG00037)

USWAG commends EPA for its decision to distance itself from modeling where, as in this case, use of that tool is unlikely to produce reliable results. ( USWAG00037)

An analysis of CCP placement in mines is not amenable to generic modeling of the sort EPA employed to analyze the placement of CCPs in landfills and surface impoundments. ( USWAG00037)

The agency acknowledged that it did not have the technical data or modeling capabilities to reach a conclusion on this issue. USWAG commended the EPA for acknowledging its limitation and deferring the decision. ( APSC00043)

The Bureau suggests that further consideration of existing information gathered during this current review be compiled into an accessible database for consideration by carefully selected experts and potential users before any decision is made. ( MDE00047)

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)

Subtitle C regulation would not effectively address the issues associated with CCP placement in mines at reasonable costs. ( IEU00018)

ARIPPA does not support EPA's tentative conclusions concerning the beneficial use of coal combustion wastes. Further, ARIPPA can not support a recommendation by EPA to either establish regulations under Subtitle C or RCRA or to establish a voluntary program for control of the use of ash as a mine fill as part of active or abandoned mine reclamation. ( ARIPPA00019)

DOE believes that EPA should not subject the minefilling of coal fired utility co managed wastes ( Volume 1, Section 3, page 3 7) or fluidized bed combustion wastes ( Volume 1, Section 5, page 5 4) to any form of control under RCRA Subtitle C. ( DOE00020)

These results support a policy of not subjecting CCW to Subtitle C regulation in surface mine backfilling applications. ( DOE00020) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 5 VII  5 Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 6 VII  6 VII. MINEFILL Verbatim Commenter Statements ( continued)

The experimental nature of this practice and the lack of environmental damage related to the beneficial use of these CCW support a view that EPA should not subject CCW to Subtitle C regulation in underground mine backfilling applications. ( DOE00020)

DOE believes that these studies demonstrate that these beneficial uses and disposal of CCW should remain exempt from RCRA Subtitle C regulation. ( DOE00020)

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 of the federal level is not needed. ( ACAA00022)

PG& E Gen believes it would be arbitrary and unwarranted to restrict the use of FBC ash in minefilling. ( 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 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)

I am writing to express my concern over the Environmental Protection Agency's incongruous conclusions contained in its second Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants. For example, EPA determined that waste coal ash itself is exempt from regulation, yet it also determined that its beneficial use in mine reclamation or agricultural amendments should be regulated and managed as hazardous waste. ( PAC00029)

To attempt to regulate a national directive on minefill would negate those positive applications that have already been demonstrated successfully. ( NCE00031)

EPA regulatory guidance may not be flexible enough to permit state and local agencies to approve these applications when site specific situations pose little or no threat to public health or the environment. ( NCE00031)

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)

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 Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 7 VII  7 minefilling, agricultural soil supplementation and beneficial use  without degradation of groundwater. In fact, the use of ash resulted in significant water quality improvements in many cases. ( PCA00034)

The risks associated with the use of coal ash as minefill are extremely low and are certainly insufficient to warrant inclusion of these materials in subtitle C of RCRA.( PCA00034) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 8 VII  8 VII. MINEFILL Verbatim Commenter Statements ( continued)

Thunder Basin Coal encourages the EPA to not regulate these materials under RCRA, and adds that any federal regulations on CCB's, such as those already imposed under TRI reporting would further inhibit the beneficial use of Coal Combustion Byproducts. ( TBCC00035)

Indeed, if EPA reviews the information gathered by these other agencies and private entities, it will become evident that the only appropriate action is further reduction of regulatory barriers to the beneficial use of CCPs to remedy environmental problems in post mining environments. ( USWAG00037)

USWAG urges EPA to recognize mine placement as beneficial uses where the CCPs are utilized with no significant environmental degradation as substitutes for other commercially available materials or where the economics of CCP placement enables mine reclamation related activities or prevention or mitigation of mining related environmental damage that otherwise not be feasible. ( 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)

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. A much higher As concentration limit could be used without any real increase in risk. ( PSU00040)

However, Virginia Power does not support the Agency's need to possibly subject the minefill operations and agricultural beneficial use applications to RCRA Subtitle C requirements. ( VAP00042)

Therefore the management of these by products under RCRA Subtitle C would reverse the environmental progress gained since the 1993 EPA regulatory determination. This reversal would create a major setback for the Mettiki site, the Illinois site, and the Winding Ridge site, not to mention other successful minefill sites across the country. ( VAP00042)

The EERC's experience ( Beaver and others; 1987; Butler and others; 1995) supports the position that a complete understanding of the CCBs and the placement settings provides state and regional agencies with information on which sound decisions on mine placement of CCBs can be made. ( EERC00044)

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 Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 9 VII  9 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)

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

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. ( STR00050)

CIBO disagrees with any suggestion in the RTC that some regulation under Subtitle C may be necessary for mine reclamations/ minefill applications, use of fossil fuel combustion ash for agricultural purposes, and oil ash disposal. CIBO submits that data  and sound RCRA policy  support the conclusion that no aspect of these substances warrants subjecting them to national Subtitle C regulation in any form. ( CIBO00052)

TXU supports the general conclusion reached by EPA in the RTC that disposal of co managed wastes generated at coal fired utilities, including beneficial utilization, should remain exempt from the provisions of subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA). ( TXU00053)

TXU concurs with EPA's tentative conclusion that non utility coal combustion wastes and beneficial uses of such wastes should remain exempt from RCRA Subtitle C. We believe that this finding is supported by the data developed concerning waste management practices, potential risks, and existing regulatory controls. ( TXU00053)

AEP would further assert that beneficial uses of comanaged CCPs should also remain exempt from Subtitle C regulation, and even encouraged by EPA. ( AEP00060)

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)

It is examples such as these that lead us to encourage the USEPA to continue to exempt coal ash placement in coal mine environments from the requirements of Subtitle C. ( IDNR00062)

DEP joins in the detailed comments filed by the National Mining Association to this rulemaking which opposes the suggestion by EPA that any form of RCRA Subtitle C regulation is appropriate for the use or disposal of CCPs for agricultural purposes or for minefill. DEP 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. ( WVDEPL0003)

The ACAA and PP& L believe the beneficial use of coal ash as minefill is being effectively managed in Pennsylvania under existing regulatory mechanisms and that Federal controls are unnecessary and may even thwart these beneficial initiatives. ( PHS013) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 10 VII  10 The ACAA and PP& L believe that minefill should be left to the states to regulate, based on statespecific needs and priorities. ( PHS013)

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)

It has come to my attention that the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) is contemplating a regulatory change which would require coal ash used in mine reclamation to be managed as a hazardous waste under the RCRA Subtitle C program. I write today to convey my concerns regarding this potential regulatory determination and to urge EPA to carefully consider the effects of such an action on Pennsylvania's abandoned mine reclamation and acid mine drainage abatement efforts. ( PA00247)

Requiring waste coal ash used as minefill to be handled as hazardous waste will deter its beneficial application in mine reclamation and discourage the cleanup of unsightly and dangerous waste coal piles. Moreover, such an action appears inconsistent with the agency's general conclusion that the material itself is exempt from regulation under RCRA. EPA has done much in recent years to eliminate conflictive and inconsistent regulations which reduced program effectiveness and impeded environmental improvements. The agency also has voiced its willingness to let states manage environmental programs where such management is both protective and effective. I submit that action by EPA to apply RCRA regulation to the beneficial use of waste coal ash in mine reclamation would directly contravene these policy objectives. ( PA00247)

I am writing on behalf of the Eastern PA Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation ( EPCAMR) to'express our 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 in the report, the EPA determined that waste coal ash itself is exempt from regulation, yet surprisingly the Agency determined that. the beneficial use of coal ash in mine reclamation and agricultural amendments should be regulated as hazardous waste. ( EPACAMR00248)

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 UtiIity 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 agricultural amendments as hazardous waste. ( PCLP00249)

I write to express my concern about the Environmental Protection Agency's conclusions contained in its second Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric UtiIity Power Plants ... 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)

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 Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 11 VII  11 from regulation, yet the Agency is considering regulating its beneficial use in mine reclamation and agricultural amendments as hazardous waste. ( G& L00252)

I write to express my concern about the Environmental Protection Agency's conclusions contained in its second Report to Congress Wastesfiom the Combustion of Fossil Fuels. 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 agricultural amendments as hazardous waste. ( PA00253)

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, ye: the Agency is considering regulating its beneficial use in mine reclamation and agricultural amendments as hazardous waste. ( CIN00254)

I write to express my concern about the Environmental Protection Agency's inconsistent conclusions contained in its second Report to Congress on Wastes horn 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 agricultural amendments as hazardous waste. ( EPC00255)

The ICC believes a prohibition on coal ash disposal below the water table, which would in fact ban such disposal in Indiana, is unwarranted and that EPA's concern for such is unfounded. ( ICC00269)

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)

ARIPPA submitted comments in this proceeding on June 12, 1999. Those comments opposed any recommendation by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (" EPA") to regulate the use of ash form circulating fluidized bed (" CFB") boilers for mine reclamation as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery ACT (" RCRA"). ARIPPA's specific concern is ash from coal refuse, which was included as part of the fulidized bed combustion (" FBC") ash addressed by EPA's March 1999 Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuel (" Report to Congress"). ARIPPA hereby reiterates its opposition to any such recommendation. ( ARIPPA00273)

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)

USWAG reiterates its recommendation that EPA issue a regulatory determination that all " remaining" FFC wastes do not warrant RCRA Subtitle C or similar regulation and that the beneficial uses of FFC products identified in the Report to Congress are environmentally sound and do not constitute waste management. ( USWAG00275)

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 Coat by Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 12 VII  12 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 agricultural amendments as hazardous waste. ( FW00277)

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)

It has come to the committee's attention that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering regulations to require waste coal ash used in mine reclamation efforts to be managed as hazardous waste. We are writing to express the committee's concerns with this proposal, particularly as it would seriously affect Pennsylvania's efforts to reclaim abandoned mine land and alleviate acid mine drainage problems. ( PA00293)

I am writing to express my concern about the Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA) March, 1999 report to Congress entitled Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil fuels. The report states that EPA lacks sufficient information with which to adequately assess risk associated with the use of waste coal ash in mine reclamation, and as a result is considering regulating such use under RCRA. ( PA00296)

I urge you to carefully review the materials sent by DEP. If you do so, I am confident that EPA will see that there is no justification for expanding RCRA to include waste coal ash used for mine reclamation. ( PA00296)

I am writing this letter to the agency in order to express my concerns with the conclusions contained within the EPA's second " Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants". 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 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 agricultural amendments as hazardous waste. ( KCC00298) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 13 VII  13 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 agricultural amendments as hazardous waste. ( SMC00299)

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 agricultural amendments as hazardous waste. ( PA00300)

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 agricultural amendments as hazardous waste. ( PA00301)

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 agricultural amendments as hazardous waste. ( PA00302)

I wish to express my concern regarding recent attempts by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to regulate waste coal ash as a hazardous waste material under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA), as detailed in the EPA's second Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants. Such a move will prove deleterious to Pennsylvania's environmental and economic well being. ( PA00305)

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 agricultural amendments as hazardous waste. ( ACV00307)

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 agricultural amendments as hazardous waste. ( TEGI00308)

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 agricultural amendments as hazardous waste. ( PA00368) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 14 VII  14 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 agricultural amendments as hazardous waste. ( AMI00372)

We are writing on behalf of the Pennsylvania Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee to express our concern over the Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA) conclusions contained in its second Report IO 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 it also determined that its use in mine reclamation or agricultural amendments should be regulated and managed as hazardous waste. ( PAL0001)

Despite the positive findings on most beneficial uses of coal ash, the Report recommends increased regulation for the use of coal ash in agricultural applications and makes no recommendation for the placement of coal ash in closed mines for such beneficial purposes as controlling acid mine drainage. In both cases, I believe EPA should look to the states for regulatory oversight of these activities. ( BCHRL0002)

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. The Commission opposes the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to regulate waste coal ash as a hazardous waste as considered in EPA's second Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants. ( ORBCL0002)

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 the 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)

We are confident that the Agency will determine after balancing ( 1) the immediate and positive environmental impacts of using combustion ash for mine reclamation with ( 2) the hypothetical risk of contamination of a groundwater site over 3,000 years in the future ate a receptor well located in the middle of the downgradient plume 150 meters from a reclaimed mine, that there is no justification for regulating ash used for mine reclamation as a hazardous waste. ( PMRABL0003)

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 reclamati0n 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)

We would like to express support for the continue use of waste coal ash in mine reclamation efforts to improve downstream water quality. We have significant concerns regarding the U. S. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 15 VII  15 Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to regulate waste coal ash as a hazardous waste, as considered in EPA's second Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants. ( 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 the 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)

We are confident that the Agency will determine, after balancing ( 1) the immediate and positive environmental impacts of using combustion ash for mine reclamation with ( 2) the hypothetical risk of contamination of a groundwater site over 3,000 years in the future at a receptor well located in the middle of the downgradient plume 150 meters form a reclaimed coal mine, that there is no justification for regulating ash used for mine reclamation as a hazardous waste. ( PCCL0007)

The classification of CFB ash under RCRA will be counter productive to the future ecological and human health of the region. I urge the EPA to allow the beneficial use of CFB ash to continue to be regulated under the context of SMCRA. ( LRCAXXXX)

If EPA allows the utilities to continue and expand the dumping of CCW into coal mines, future generations of coalfield residents will face the added injustice of living with ground water that is too polluted to drink or use for farming and other economic activities and they will have every reason to lay the responsibility on EPA, the one government agency solely charged with protecting their health and environment. ( HEC00056)

Using strip mines as open dumps for nonmine wastes is illegal. The Report downplays the significance of problems with minefills. ( HEC00056)

The risk assessments do not even attempt to calculate the risk from dumping large volumes of fossil fuel wastes directly into ground water, an alternative that is being promoted aggressively by the electric power industry to minimize its disposal costs. ( HEC00056)

EPA should regulate CCW disposed in mines under RCRA Subtitle C, as hazardous waste. Only this designation will keep aquifers in mine areas from becoming open dumping grounds. ( CITZ00256)

I think you should think about this and Please don't let the coal mines dump the CCW in their coal pits. ( CITZ00257)

p. s. Please! Please! Stop this dumping and let the Power Plants worry about a dump site. ( CITZ00257)

EPA should regulate CCW disposed in mines under RCRA Subtitle C, as hazardous waste. Only this designation will keep aquifers in mine areas from becoming open dumping grounds. ( VWI00258) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 16 VII  16 I would offer the following: 1. A rubble filled hole blasted into coal geology is one of the worst places on the planet to put anything that you do not want infiltrating into the groundwater regime. 2. EPA must develop a program to routinely split samples and check operator submitted information or do its own testing. ( NPCA00259)

The EPA must ... regulate CCW disposed in mines under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) Subtitle C, as a hazardous waste. ( CITZ00260)

EPA should regulate CCW disposed in mines under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA), Subtitle C, as a hazardous waste. ONLY THIS WILL PREVENT AQUIFERS IN MINES FROM BECOMING OPEN DUMPING GROUNDS. ( CITZ00261)

I think relying on the strip mining industry to police itself is not a good course of action. 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. It smacks of former Vice President Quayle's council on industry negating your agency's authority during his term in office. Strip mining is not an acceptable practice to begin with, but to allow this industry that has already devastated the land to return to damage it further is not acceptable. If they're not willing to accept the responsibility to find a better way to get rid of their waste, then don't let them ruin the groundwater more than they already have. Don't let them get away with this and making a laughingstock of your agency's mission. ( CITZ00262)

EPA should regulate CCW disposed in mines under RCRA Subtitle C, as hazardous waste. Only this designation will keep aquifers in mine areas from becoming open dumping grounds. ( CITZ00263)

EPA should regulate CCW disposed in mines under RCRA Subtitle C, as hazardous waste. Only this designation will keep aquifers in mine areas from becoming open dumping grounds. ( CITZ00264)

Disposal of CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C and meet the requirements for hazardous waste. Without this protection in place, individual states will allow millions of tons of CCW to be dumped and come into direct contact with groundwater. ( CITZ00265)

EPA should regulate CCW disposed in mines under RCRA Subtitle C, as a hazardous waste. Only this designation will keep aquifers in mines from becoming open dumping grounds. ( SAVV00266)

Mine disposal of CCW's should be regulated by RCRA Sub c, with liners between CCW's and all known aquifers. ( CITZ00267)

I am writing to urge the EPA to strictly regulate the disposal of coal combustion waste ( CCW), including stopping the disposal of CCW in strip mines. ( CITZ00271)

We would rather pay a little more for our electricity than to drink contaminated well water if that is the price for handling CCW properly and safely. ( CITZ00271) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 17 VII  17 EPA should regulate CCW disposed in mines under RCRA Subtitle C, as hazardous waste. Only this designation will keep aquifers in mine areas from becoming open dumping grounds. ( SIERRA00278)

EPA should regulate CCW disposed in mines under the federal resources Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA), Subtitle C, as a hazardous waste. ( SOCM00279)

EPA should recommend that Congress ban any future dumping of CCW in lagoons, surface impoundments, landfills, old stripmine sites, or any other CCW disposal sites. ( SOCM00279)

Commenters believe that sufficient evidence exists to warrant an immediate Nationwide moratorium on further co disposal of coal combustion wastes in mine voids and pits under Section 7003 of RCRA, and for the assertion of Subtitle III authority over the disposal of coal combustion wastes in mine pits and voids. ( NCCLP00282)

The available evidence provides a sufficient basis for assertion of Subtitle III jurisdiction to prevent further damage from open dumping of coal combustion wastes in mined areas. ( 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)

Failure to establish appropriate disposal standards for coal combustion wastes in mining areas will disadvantage proper on site utility waste disposal practices. ( NCCLP00282)

Blending of mine wastes with spoil in the backfill, rather than controlled placement of the wastes in a designed facility, should be treated as prohibited open dumping. ( NCCLP00282)

The hydrogeology of coal bearing regions creates heightened risk of contaminant migration and groundwater contamination; justifying application of Subtitle III. ( NCCLP00282)

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)

EPA should regulate CCW disposed in mines under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) Subtitle C, as hazardous waste. Only this will keep aquifers in mines from becoming open dumping grounds. ( CITZ00284)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( KYC00285) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 18 VII  18 The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00286)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00287)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00288)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00289)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00290)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00291)

I feel that stronger placement, monitoring and containment regulations are needed to encourage proper disposal of CCW's. ( PURD00294)

Until conclusive results are obtained, I would also hope that the EPA would attempt to minimize potential harm to the U& public by discouraging dumping of CCW's in groundwater, encouraging the use of liners and monitoring systems, and adopting the treatment of CCW's as regulated materials under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous until wastes until long term, unbiased data is collected. ( PURD00294)

Tri State is asking the EPA to regulate CCW disposed in mines under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C, as hazardous waste. Many of our members live in rural areas and depend on groundwater for their private water supplies. Without strict regulations, surface and underground mine sites will become dumping grounds for these hazardous wastes. ( TRI00295) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 19 VII  19 Hold those who benefit from CCW disposal responsible for any damages it causes. It is the utilities and mine operators that should be financially responsible for damage cause by CCW dumping. Not taxpayers. ( CITZ00303)

I am opposed to any policy that allows dumping of power plant wastes directly into ground waters. ( CITZ00304)

RCRA is appropriate here. A portion of the profits these companies have taken out of these regions must be returned to genuinely restore them, and to adequate/ y isolate the hazardous wastes their industry has created. We must stop using the coalfields as hazardous dumping grounds. Our kids deserve better than that. Even after all this time, the people expect and hope for protection from your agency. ( PEACE00306)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00311)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00312)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00313)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00314)

I request that the EPA regulate CCW disposed in mines under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) Subtitle C, as a hazardous waste. Only this will keep aquifers in mines from becoming open dumping grounds. ( CITZ00315)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00316)

I am concerned about the proposed state rule in Indiana which would allow for dumping of Coal Combustion Wastes ( CCW) into the strip coal mines here in southwestern Indiana with direct contact with ground water. After analyzing both sides of the conflict, I believe that there are too many questions unanswered to allow this method of disposal to be used. ( CITZ00317) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 20 VII  20 The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00318)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00319)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00320)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00321)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00322)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00323)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00324)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00325)

EPA should regulate CCW disposed in mines under RCRA Subtitle C, as a hazardous waste. ( CITZ00326)

CCW dumping should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C ( hazardous waste). ( CITZ00327)

It will be grave mistake if the US Environmental Protection Agency does not formulate rules for the disposal of various waste in pits caused by surfacing mining operations. These rules are Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 21 VII  21 necessary to ensure that one our most valuable resources ( drinking water) is protected forever. ( CITZ00328)

I object to allowing the dumping of Coal Combustion Waste ( CCW), on open land from which our water table is replenished. In our area old coal mine areas being reclaimed are being used by the State of Indiana, as well as working mines are being used to dispose of millions of tons of solid waste from power plants in our area as well as waste being shipped in from other states ... 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. I believe it is your responsibility because of your high position to get control of this situation. Research has been done to find alternate methods but most cost a little more. Please require this practice to be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. ( CITZ00329)

This letter concerns the disposal of coal combustion waste which is of great concern to me since I am surrounded by coal mines ... On the " surface" of it this is obviously unacceptable. Though it may involve only a few thousand of us ( at first), we value our lives like everyone else! ... At a minimum, we must have liners, close groundwater moniters and regulation under RCRA Subtitle C to protect us. More basically, there needs to be more resource recovery to prevent toxic chemicals etc. from being dumped in the first place. ( CITZ00330)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00331)

We request that US EPA regulate fossil fuel wastes including coal combustion wastes to be disposed in mines as hazardous waste under RCRA subtitle C. We ask that at a minimum, the risk mitigation alternative outlined in the draft Determination be applied nationally to all disposal sites for CCW and other fossil fuel combustion wastes, waste mixed with these wastes or wastes whose parent materials are coburned with these wastes. We believe that the requirements for liners, leachate collection and ground water monitoring outlined under this alternative in the Determination are basic projections that must be afforded to the environment and/ or citizens who live adjacent to or near sites where these wastes are disposed. ( HEC00332)

CCW that is dumped into strip mining operations should be covered under RCRA Subtitle C regulations for hazardous substances. Liners, groundwater monitoring, and leachate collection systems should be required for the dumping of these materials. ( BUCK00333)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( NCSEA00334)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00336) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 22 VII  22 I request that the EPA regulate CCW disposed in mines under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery ACT ( RCRA) Subtitle C, as a hazardous waste ( because that's what it is). Only this will keep aquifers in mines form becoming open dumping grounds. ( CITZ00337)

RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes should. be applied to the practice of dumping CCW in strip mines. If this step is not implemented, it will give this state's Department of Natural Resources and the Natural Resources Council the green light to continue to move toward turning the Southwestern corner of this state into the industrial dumping ground for the region's power companies. ( CITZ00338)

First, I believe that RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes should be applied to the practice of dumping CCW in strip mines. If this step is not implemented, I believe that it will send the wrong message to Indiana and other states, namely, that they can dump any amount of CCW into direct contact with ground water and not have to worry about the consequences. ( CITZ00339)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00340)

I am a resident that has lived in close proximity of coal mines for several years ... I am convinced that open dumping of CCW that has no restrictions on it is poisoning my drinking water ... Why the same safeguards are not required by coal operators as any other waste handling businesses are required is a mystery. Minimum Federal Regulations are essential to protect me from these wealthy powerful entities ... I am all for any regulations governing the handling and disposal of Coal Combustion Waste properly. ( CITZ00342)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00343)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00344)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00345)

EPA should regulate coal combustion waste disposed in mines under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) Subtitle C, as a hazardous waste. This would prevent aquifers in mines from becoming open dumping grounds. ( CITZ00346) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 23 VII  23 I am writing to urge the EPA to strictly regulate the disposal of coal combustion waste ( CCW), including stopping the disposal of CCW in strip mines. ( CITZ00347)

We would rather pay a little more for our electricity than to drink contaminated well water  if that is the price for handling CCW properly and safely. ( CITZ00347)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00348)

EPA should regulate CCW disposed in mines under RCRA Subtitle C, as a hazardous waste. Only this designation will keep aquifers in mines form becoming open dumping grounds. ( CITZ00349)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00350)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00351)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00352)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00353)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00354)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00355)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 24 VII  24 of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00356)

The practice of dumping CCW in strip mines should be regulated under RCRA Subtitle C requirements for hazardous wastes. To do any less will give states a green light to dump millions of tons of CCW into direct contact with groundwater without concern for the consequences. ( CITZ00357)

The fact that CCW was declared " non hazardous" some years ago has worked against us securing proper controls over dumping CCW in open pit mines in the State of Indiana. My first request is that U. S. EPA right this wrong and designate CCW as HAZARDOUS WASTE as the first step toward prevention of aquifers in mines form becoming open dumping grounds. ( CITZ00358)

This letter is a request for detailed and stringent regulation regarding the disposal of Coal Combustion Waste in America ... 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 ... We ask you to find that CCW is a hazardous or toxic waste and that it must be handled and disposed of as such. ( DCCC00359)

At this point and time I believe that it would be criminal to allow CCW to be dumped into open strip pits with the amount of outstanding evidence that is being presented to you at this time. ( CITZ00360)

At this point and time I believe that it would be criminal to allow CCW to be dumped into open strip pits with the amount of outstanding evidence that is being presented to you at this time. ( CITZ00361)

What will it take for someone to stand up and act in a responsible manner and insist that the EPA ( will) regulate the disposal of CCW in active mines under RCRA Subtitle C, as a hazardous waste. By making this change now, ( you) will prevent further ground water contamination in our state. ( CITZ00361)

At this point and time I believe that it would be criminal to allow CCW to be dumped into open strip pits with the amount of outstanding evidence that is being presented to you at this time. ( CITZ00362)

What will it take for someone to stand up and act in a responsible manner and insist that the EPA ( will) regulate the disposal of CCW in active mines under RCRA Subtitle C, as a hazardous waste. By making this change now, ( you) will prevent further ground water contamination in our state. ( CITZ00362)

At this point and time I believe that it would be criminal to allow CCW to be dumped into open strip pits with the amount of outstanding evidence that is being presented to you at this time. ( CITZ00363) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 25 VII  25 What will it take for someone to stand up and act in a responsible manner and insist that the EPA ( will) regulate the disposal of CCW in active mines under RCRA Subtitle C, as a hazardous waste. By making this change now, ( you) will prevent further ground water contamination in our state. ( CITZ00363)

At this point and time I believe that it would be criminal to allow CCW to be dumped into open strip pits with the amount of outstanding evidence that is being presented to you at this time. ( CITZ00364)

What will it take for someone to stand up and act in a responsible manner and insist that the EPA ( will) regulate the disposal of CCW in active mines under RCRA Subtitle C, as a hazardous waste. By making this change now, ( you) will prevent further ground water contamination in our state. ( CITZ00364)

At this point and time I believe that it would be criminal to allow CCW to be dumped into open strip pits with the amount of outstanding evidence that is being presented to you at this time. ( CITZ00365)

What will it take for someone to stand up and act in a responsible manner and insist that the EPA ( will) regulate the disposal of CCW in active mines under RCRA Subtitle C, as a hazardous waste. By making this change now, ( you) will prevent further ground water contamination in our state. ( CITZ00365)

At this point and time I believe that it would be criminal to allow CCW to be dumped into open strip pits with the amount of outstanding evidence that is being presented to you at this time. ( CITZ00366)

What will it take for someone to stand up and act in a responsible manner and insist that the EPA ( will) regulate the disposal of CCW in active mines under RCRA Subtitle C, as a hazardous waste. By making this change now, ( you) will prevent further ground water contamination in our state. ( CITZ00366)

At this point and time I believe that it would be criminal to allow CCW to be dumped into open strip pits with the amount of outstanding evidence that is being presented to you at this time. ( CITZ00367)

What will it take for someone to stand up and act in a responsible manner and insist that the EPA ( will) regulate the disposal of CCW in active mines under RCRA Subtitle C, as a hazardous waste. By making this change now, ( you) will prevent further ground water contamination in our state. ( CITZ00367)

EPA should ensure the objectivity, accuracy, and completeness of this report by ... regulating CCW disposed in mines under RCRA Subtitle C, as a hazardous waste. Only this designation will keep aquifers in mines from becoming open dumping grounds. ( POW00369)

I am also asking that you, the EPA to keep us, the public informed by making regular tests close to the mines and publishing the reports of the results. When the tests show dangerous levels of Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 26 VII  26 chemicals in a well it must be up to the responsible company to clean it up, not the taxpayers. ( CITZL0008)

I am concerned about new plans to dispose of 125 million tons of coal combustion waste in unlined Indiana mines... Please issue a national rule requiring that action be taken to protect our drinking water. ( CITZL0011)

PG& E's comments consider a legitimate, if overstated, application of a specific waste type for a specific beneficial use in a specific setting. The specificity ( and limits) of these applications is lost in the rhetoric. The comments create the impression that CCW wastes in general have these properties and that anything short of USEPA's turning loose of regulation will prevent a tremendous landscape of beneficial applications from being realized. It is important that distinction between legitimate, engineered beneficial use and unregulated, wholesale dumping continually be drawn and emphasized. ( GHIL0012)

In addition, I believe the EPA should regulate CCW disposed in mines under RCRA Subtitle C, as a hazardous waste. Only this designation will keep aquifers in mines from becoming open dumping grounds. ( CITZL0013)

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 groundwater and possibly commingling other industrial wastes with them is an unacceptable answer. It smacks of former vice president Quayle's council on industry negating your agency's authority. Strip mining is not an environmentally acceptable practice to begin with. ( CITZL0015)

Many utilities will not allow their wastes 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 that the typical Minesites. Those that do allow the waste to be managed in co disposal situations assume that the problems with their wastes 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. In many cases, they are correct, and absent EPA intervention, such practices will be encouraged, placing those engaging in more careful, controlled disposal, at competitive disadvantage. ( NCCLP00282)

Coal strip mines could become the dump of choice for power plants an many other industries. ( CITZ00284)

Without strict regulations, surface and underground mine sites will become dumping grounds for these hazardous wastes. ( TRI00295)

The Report discusses a trend toward lined landfills, but failed to mention the move toward mine disposal sites that would offset this trend particularly if the move toward deregulation of electricity sales continues in the utility industry. ( HEC00332) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 27 VII  27 Given the number of underground mineshafts, this form of disposal could handle a great deal of the fossil fuel waste generated in this country. Before any decision is made to allow mine disposal there must be well documented answers to questions about how the toxic constituents in these waste will affect ground and surface waters. In collecting data, all quality scientific data should be used to answer these questions. In the absence of data, EPA should not be allowing mine disposal. EPA should look at each of these minefilling pracrices individually and not lump them together. The Agency must develop a systematic study protocol to raise the right questions, figure out if the data is available and if it is not available, support appropriate studies. The lack of data must not be used to mean that no problems exist. ( ALA00036)