Response: As stated in the Phase IV LDR Rule, 63 Fed. Reg. 28591 ( May 26, 1998), " The Agency assessed the impact of applying a high volume criteria to making uniquely associated determinations and found that such an application would make virtually all such wastes nonuniquely associated with mining and mineral processing. EPA does not believe that it would be appropriate to ignore altogether the extent to which a particular waste is associated with mining and mineral processing activities that are subject to the Bevill exclusion, since the exclusion on its face applies to wastes from these processes. In addition, the Agency believes that a certain degree of flexibility is needed for making uniquely associated determinations due to the complex and varied mineral operations and site specific factors that must be considered in making these decisions."

After assessing fossil fuel combustion wastes, we find the same considerations apply. A large volume criteria would make virtually all such wastes non uniquely associated, a result which is inconsistent with the legislative history, which recognized the exclusion of some small volume wastes when co managed with fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, or flue gas desulferiation sludge. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels 15 X  15 X. SCOPE OF THE EXEMPTION D. Consideration of Low Volume Waste Characteristics Verbatim Commenter Statements EPA completely fails to address whether any or all of the low volume wastes are amenable to Subtitle C management. In short, the current Report to Congress contains remarkably little new information regarding the salient features of the low volume wastes, notwithstanding EPA's prior concerns and the recognition ten years ago that additional information was required. To correct these deficiencies, EPA must perform the " high volume" and " low hazard" analyses necessary to delineate the appropriate boundaries of the fossil fuel combustion wastes irrespective of whether the wastes are co managed. As consistently observed by both EPA and the Court of Appeals, these analyses are properly performed on a waste specific, as generated basis. ( EDF00021)

The EPA Report and Boulding study indicate that the management of special wastes must be attuned to the variability of the concentrations of potentially toxic elements in the waste, and to the different problems presented by disposal sites, and by the type of special waste ( i. e. FBC v. non FBC wastes). The draft Report to Congress fails to clearly require characterization of individual waste streams prior to commingling, and the segregation in management of hazardous components of the waste stream; instead allowing dilution of those lower volume, higher toxicity components by co disposal with lower toxicity wastes ( such as bottom ash). Characterization of wastes should be required, and commingling of higher toxicity waste streams associated with coal combustion with higher volume wastes should be prohibited as improper treatment, or the entire resulting commingled waste stream should be considered hazardous. ( NCCLP00282)

EPA should consider the low volume, but potentially high hazard FFC wastes that are currently co mingled with high volume FFC wastes, as separate waste streams potentially subject to Subtitle C regulation, rather than assuming future FFC waste co management. ( ALA00292)

The present Report to Congress concerns all other fossil fuel combustion wastes   and pertains as welt to the four previously permanently exempted waste categories Insofar as they are co managed with other waste streams from fossil fuel combustion. EPA reports that over 80 percent of the wastes from fossil fuel combustion are covered by the present Report, as current practice is primarily to co mingle the waste streams for disposal purposes. EPA has chosen to evaluate these wastes for purposes of this Report to Congress as simply co managed  that is there has not been any rigorous attempt to segregate the component waste streams of the co managed waste, and make a determination for each, based on its volume and toxicity. Instead the Agency simply assumes that industry can continue its practice of commingling these waste streams, effectively using the high volume tower hazard wastes to dilute the toxicity of low volume waste streams. ( ALA00292)

In comments submitted on June 14, 1999 on the Report to Congress,' the Environmental Defense Fund (" EDF") incorrectly asserts, among other things, that the Bevill exclusion from RCRA Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels 16 X  16 Subtitle C regulation for wastes from the combustion of fossil fueIs, RCRA Section 3001( b)( 3)( 4)( i). 42 U. S. C. 6 6921( b)( 3)( A)( i), does not extend to coal fired utility combustion wastes that are co managed with fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emission control wastes (" co managed wastes"). Instead, EDF appears to argue that EPA should perform some type of " high volume" and/ or " low hazard" analysis for co managed wastes to determine if they are " Bevill Wastes." EDF Comments at 8. EDF is wrong. RCRA, its legislative history, and the case law are clear that co managed wastes are covered by and subject to the regulatory approach mandated by Congress in the Bevill Amendment. ( NMA00272)

The Bevill Amendment and its legislative history are clear that all co managed wastes fall within the scope of the Bevill Amendment ... Congress intended the Bevill Amendment to " be read broadly, to incorporate the waste products generated in the real world ," 126 Cong. Rec. 3302 ( 1980) ( remarks of Rep. Tom Bevill). In the real world, wastes generated by the utility industry often are co managed, a fact noted with approval by the sponsors of the Bevill Amendment ... [ commenter cites remarks of Rep. Nick Rahall] ... As demonstrated by Rep. Rahall's example, the Bevill Amendment includes not only the Bevill wastes specifically enumerated in the Statute, but also these " other wastes" from the utility industry that are co managed with them. Were it otherwise the " context specific" Bevill Amendment regulatory approach would not reflect real world management practices, and would be an empty gesture. EDF I, 852 F. 2d at 13 14. ( NMA00272)

Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue, i. e., whether co managed wastes are covered by the Bevill Amendment. The legislative history and purpose of the Bevill Amendment demonstrate that the answer is " yes." EDF's allegation that co managed wastes are not subject to the Bevill Amendment is contrary to the Statute. ( NMA00272)

The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Congressionally ratified EPA long standing interpretation that all co managed wastes fall within the scope of the Bevill Amendment. In January of 1981, shortly after the adoption of the Bevill Amendment, EPA addressed the very question raised by EDF in its 1999 comments, i. e. whether co managed wastes fall within the scope of the Bevill Amendment. In a letter written by Gary N. Dietrich, then Associate Deputy Administrator for Solid Waste, to the utility industry, EPA correctly decided that co managed wastes fell within the scope of the Bc\, ill Amendment, based in part on the legislative history cited above. Since that time, EPA and the utility industry, have relied upon this EPA determination that co managed wastes are subject to the Bevill Amendment. ( NMA00272)

Between 1981 and 1984, neither EDF nor any other party raised any question or issue questioning the Bevill status of co managed wastes. Faced with a consistent and uninterrupted interpretation regarding co managed wastes, Congress amended RCRA in 1984, enacting the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (" HSWA"), including section 3004( x) ( also known as the " Simpson Amendment" after its sponsor, Senator Alan Simpson). Section 3004( x) was enacted because of Congressional concerns that certain new regulatory requirements mandated elsewhere in HSWA Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels 17 X  17 would have serious economic impacts if applied to Bevill industry wastes ... [ commenter quotes sections of the Simpson Amendment] ... The statutory description of the wastes covered by section 3004( s)   fly ash waste, bottom ash waste, slag waste, and flue gas   is identical to the language that appears in the 1980 BeviII Amendmen. and is the precise language EPA in the Deitrich Letter had interpreted to include co managed wastes. Statutes are constructed with reference to the circumstance existing at the time of passage ... when Congress adopts statutory language for which an agency has had a long standing interpretation, it ratifies such an interpretation. YLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U. S. 267 ( 1974). Accordingly, Congress's enactment of section 3004( x) of the 19S4 HSWA ratified EPA's long standing interpretation under which co managed wastes fall within the scope of the Bevill Amendment. ( NMA00272)

EDF's argument is evidently aimed at forcing EPA to revisit its long standing interpretation of the Bevill Amendment as encompassing the four FFC waste streams named in the statute when comanaged with so called " low volume wastes" by assuming that EPA has classified the low volume wastes as themselves constituting Bevill wastes and therefore requiring the low volume wastes to satisfy the ` special waste' criteria. But EDF has misunderstood EPA's interpretation because the low volume wastes, most of which are not hazardous ( 2 RTC at 3 13  3 15), are not themselves Bevill wastes, but, as EPA found in the Report to Congress, they are an integral part of the way utility Bevill wastes are managed at roughly 80 percent of the utility industry's combustion waste management units. See 1 RTC at 3 l; 2 RTC at 3 24. When in 1978 EPA estimated the volume of utility " special wastes" as 66 million metric tons per year, a large percentage of that universe was co managed FFC waste. Given EPA's statutory obligation to study utility FFC wastes as they are actually managed, EPA's study of co managed utility FFC wastes fully discharged that statutory requirement. ( USWAG00275)

The Report to Congress shows that most low volume wastes co managed with FFC wastes in fact are not hazardous wastes, and therefore the vast majority of co management would not be affected by the Bevill mixture rule even if it were applicable to FFC wastes. And finally, the Report also demonstrates that none of the co managed waste mixtures exhibited a hazardous characteristic even in those few cases where the low volume waste may have exhibited a characteristic as generated. Even the Bevill mixture rule, were it applicable to FFC wastes, would not apply to this situation because, by its terms, Subtitle C applies only if the mixture exhibits a hazardous characteristic. In sum, EDF's argument for applying the Bevill mixture rule to co managed FFC wastes should be firmly rejected. ( USWAG00275) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels 18 X  18 X. SCOPE OF THE EXEMPTION E. Decision to Reopen Should Not Be Based on Comanagement Alone Two industry commenters expressed concern that the fact of comanagement alone does not warrant reopening the Part 1 determination. The commenters were concerned that no proportional relationship of comanagement is defined to delineate the level at which low volume waste addition has any effect on the quality and environmental effects of the combined, comanaged waste. Any regulation of the material should be done on the basis of the material constituents and not on the fact that it is a mixture.

Response: The Agency believes, in light of today's regulatory determination, that revisiting the exemption of Part 1 wastes is unnecessary. However, the Agency intend that national Subtitle D regulations will also be applicable to Part 1 waste disposed in surface impoundments and landfills or used as fill in surface and underground mines so that all coal combustion wastes are consistently regulated across all waste management scenarios, for the following reasons:

a. The co managed coal combustion wastes that we studied extensively in making today's regulatory determination derive their characteristics largely from these large volume wastes and not from the other wastes that are co managed with them. b. We believe that the risks posed by the co managed coal combustion wastes result principally from the large volume wastes. c. These large volume wastes, on a dry basis, account for over 20% of coal combustion wastes. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels 19 X  19 X. SCOPE OF THE EXEMPTION E. Decision to Reopen Should Not Be Based on Comanagement Alone Verbatim Commenter Statements MCC is concerned that EPA has taken results from " recent studies conducted by EPRI" demonstrating that " most utility operators comanage some or all of their large volume wastes as they are actually managed " as an opportunity to completely re open the 1993 rulemaking on all combustion wastes. No proportional relationship of comanagement is specified or defined in the 1999 Report to delineate the level at which low volume waste addition has any effect on the quality and environmental effects of the combined, comanaged waste. Any regulation of the material should be done on the basis of the material constituents and not on the fact that it is a mixture. ( MCC00051)

We believe regulations should not be passed directly based on co mingling or co management, but it must be done on the material constituents not because it is a mixture. Cement is as much of a mixture of combustion products as common salt is a mixture of two poisonous elements. ( MDCAL0001) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels 20 X  20 X. SCOPE OF THE EXEMPTION F. Inclusion of New Technologies in Scope of Exclusion One industry commenter asked that EPA explicitly state that Orimulsion is included in the scope of the exemption until such time as EPA has studied wastes from the combustion of this new fuel.

Response New technologies and fuels, such as orimulsion, are included in the scope of the exemption. We find no reason to treat new technologies differently. The expectation is that the nature of the waste is primarily driven by the nature of the fuel. In dealing with fluidized bed combustors, the Agency found the resultant coal combustion wastes were similar to coal combustion wastes from older combustion technologies.

Regarding new fuels, the current regulatory determination spans a broad array of fossil fuels, from gas to oil to coal. At this time, the only emerging fuel is orimulsion, which has properties somewhat between oil and coal. It seems reasonable that the nature of new fuels will have properties in the range of the fuels already addressed.

Given the expectation of similar wastes, the Agency is providing similar treatment. If a new technology or fuel emerges which for some reason has the potential to pose risks beyond those considered in today's regulatory determination, the Agency can re open the determination for the new technology or fuel. Finally the Agency does not want to impede the development of new technologies or fuels due to differences in Bevill Status, especially where we have yet to identify the nature of the new technology or fuel and its potential impacts. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels 21 X  21 X. SCOPE OF THE EXEMPTION F. Inclusion of New Technologies in Scope of Exclusion Verbatim Commenter Statements EPA should commit to undertaking a Bevill Study of the combustion wastes from Orimulsion at Such time as a United States power plant converts to the combustion of Orimulsion to generate electric power. The RTC observes that some oil fired utilities have considered burning a fuel produced in Venezuela known commercially as Orimulsion. This fuel is a mixture of bitumen and water, and performs in a manner similar to Fuel Oil No. 6. EPRI provided EPA with a brief report on the limited data available on Orimulsion combustion residuals, generally derived from a handful of power plants outside the United States that burn this new type of fuel. We understand EPA's reluctance to study the combustion residues of a new fuel where the data base is sparse and almost wholly from sources outside the United States. We believe it is only a matter of time before the combustion of Orimulsion becomes a viable option in the United States, and the circumstances that led Congress to direct EPA to undertake a Bevill study of conventional FFC wastes warrants the same conclusion for the wastes from the combustion of Orimulsion. By stating explicitly in the regulatory determination that Orimulsion retains its eligibility for the Bevill exclusion and will be studied by EPA at such time as the waste is actually generated in the United States, EPA makes a modest contribution to promoting technological innovation in electric power generation simply by removing a regulatory ambiguity that could retard future use of this new fuel. It also reaffirms EPA's commitment to setting regulatory policy for the combustion residues from fossil fuels  new fuels as well as the established ones  based on the eight study factors listed in section 8002( n) of RCRA. ( USWAG00037) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels 22 X  22 X. SCOPE OF THE EXEMPTION G. Inclusion of Leaks and Spills in Scope of Exclusion A law firm requested that EPA clarify that the utility Bevill exclusion extends to leaks and spills of commercial products listed in 40 CFR Part 261.33 that are comanaged with large volume wastes. The inclusion of leaks or spills of chemicals listed in 40 CFR Part 261.33 as low volume wastes in the comanagement concept would avoid the unreasonable expense to segregate and separately manage such materials.

Response: The materials listed in 40 CFR Part 261.33 are listed hazardous wastes when they are discarded commercial chemical products, off specification products, or container or spill residues, sometimes referred to as " P" and " U" wastes. While certain low volume and " uniquely associated" wastes may be subject to the RCRA Sectiom 3001 ( b) ( 3) ( C) exemption, the P and U wastes are not uniquely associated with fossil fuel combustion and therefore not subject to the exemption.

Facilities that burn fossil fuels generate combustion wastes and also generate other wastes from processes that are related to the main fuel combustion processes. Often, as a general practice, facilities co dispose these wastes with the large volume wastes that are subject to the RCRA Section 3001 ( b) ( 3) ( C) exemption. Examples of these related wastes are:

C precipitation runoff from the coal storage piles at the facility. C waste coal or coal mill rejects that are not of sufficient quality to burn as fuel. C wastes from cleaning the boilers used to generate steam.

There are numerous wastes like these, collectively known as " low volume" wastes. Further, when one of these low volume wastes, during the course of its generation or normal handling at the facility, comes into contact with either fossil fuel ( e. g., coal, oil) or fuel combustion waste ( e. g., coal ash or oil ash) and it takes on at least some of the characteristics of the fuels or combustion wastes, we call it a " uniquely associated" waste. When uniquely associated wastes are co managed with fossil fuel combustion wastes, they fall within the coverage of today's regulatory determination. When managed separately, uniquely associated wastes are subject to regulation as hazardous waste if they are listed wastes or exhibit the characteristic of a hazardous waste ( see 40 CFR 261.20 and 261.30, which specify when a solid waste is considered to be a hazardous waste).

The Agency recognizes that determining whether a particular waste is uniquely associated with fossil fuel combustion involves an evaluation of the specific facts of each case. In the Agency's view, the following qualitative criteria should be used to make such determinations on a case by case basis: ( 1) Wastes from ancillary operations are not " uniquely associated" because they are not properly viewed as being " from" fossil fuel combustion. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels 23 X  23 ( 1) In evaluating a waste from non ancillary operations, one must consider the extent to which the waste originates or derives from the fossil fuels, the combustion process, or combustion residuals, and the extent to which these operations impart chemical characteristics to the waste.

The low volume wastes that are not uniquely associated with fossil fuel combustion are not subject to today's regulatory determination. That is, they are not accorded an exemption from RCRA Subtitle C, whether or not they are co managed with any of the exempted fossil fuel combustion wastes. Instead, they are subject to the RCRA characteristic standards and hazardous waste listings. The exemption applies to mixtures of an exempt waste with a non hazardous waste, but when an exempt waste is mixed with a hazardous waste, the mixture is not exempt.

Based on the Agency's identification and review of low volume wastes associated with the combustion of fossil fuels, we are considering the following guidance concerning our views on which low volume wastes are uniquely associated with and which are not uniquely associated with fossil fuel combustion. Unless there are some unusual site specific circumstances, we would generally consider that the following lists of low volume wastes are uniquely and non uniquely associated wastes:

Uniquely Associated ° Coal Pile Runoff ° Coal Mill Rejects and Waste Coal ° Air Heater and Precipitator Washes ° Floor and Yard Drains and Sumps ° Wastewater Treatment Sludge ° Boiler Fireside Chemical Cleaning Wastes Not Uniquely Associated ° Boiler Blowdown ° Cooling Tower Blowdown and Sludges ° Intake or Makeup Water Treatment and Regeneration Wastes ° Boiler Waterside Cleaning Wastes ° Laboratory Wastes ° General Construction and Demolition Debris ° General Maintenance Wastes Moreover, we do not generally consider spillage or leakage of materials used in the processes that generate these non uniquely associated wastes, such as boiler water treatment chemicals, to be uniquely associated wastes, even if they occur in close proximity to the fossil fuel wastes covered by this regulatory determination. Other industries that have leaks or spills from these same materials must manage these wastes as hazardous if they are listed or characteristically hazardous. The Bevill status was not intended so select industries could escape hazardous waste Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels 24 X  24 requirements for wastes identical to other industries, thus the concept of uniquely associated. These spills and leaks will generally not be uniquely associated.

EPA solicits comment on this discussion of uniquely associated wastes in the context of fossil fuel combustion and will issue final guidance after reviewing and evaluating information we receive as a result of this request. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels 25 X  25 X. SCOPE OF THE EXEMPTION G. Inclusion of Leaks and Spills in Scope of Exclusion Verbatim Commenter Statements The purpose of this letter is to request that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (" EPA") clarify in its final Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels that the utility Bevill exclusion extends to leaks and spills of commercial chemical products listed in 40 C. F. R. § 261.33 that are co managed with large volume wastes ... Chapter 3 ( Volume 2, Section 3.1, page 3.3) provides that low volume wastes include, among other things: " Floor and yard drains and sumps  [ defined as] wastewaters collected by drains and sumps, including precipitation runoff, piping and equipment leakage, and wash water" ( emphasis added). This language would appear to include spills or leaks of commercial chemical products listed in 40 C. F. R. § 261.33 from piping and equipment used to support the combustion process. For instance, chemicals listed in 40 C. F. R. § 261.33 commonly are used at coal fired utilities as chemical additives to treat water used in on site boilers. ( G& KXXXX)

The inclusion of spills or leaks of chemicals listed in 40 C. F. R. § 261.33 in the Bevill comanagement concept also is consistent with the exemption from the mixture rule in 40 C. F. R. § 261.3( a)( 2)( iv)( D) for leaks or spills of 40 C. F. R. § 261.33 chemicals that are mixed with wastewater that is subject to Clean Water Act regulation. The rationale behind the mixture rule exemption for leaks or spills of chemicals listed in 40 C. F. R. § 261.33 is that it would be unreasonably expensive to segregate and separately manage such leaks and spills. See 46 Fed. Reg. 56,586 ( Nov. 17, 1981). In addition, the amount of such leaks and spills typically would be very small in relation to the total quantity of wastewater otherwise managed and would therefore not pose any type of hazard to human health or the environment. See id. These same considerations also are applicable to the co management concept. The inclusion of leaks or spills of chemicals listed in 40 C. F. R. § 261.33 as low volume wastes in the co management concept would avoid the unreasonable expense to segregate and separately manage such materials. In addition, the amount of such leaks or spills clearly would be minor in relation to the amount of other low volume wastes that would be typically be co managed, and would be extremely minor in relation ot the corresponding large volume wastes. ( G& KXXXX)

Based on the above discussion, and because the March 1999 Report does not specifically state whether the co management concept would extend to spills or leaks of chemicals listed in 40 C. F. R. § 261.33, EPA should clarify in its final Report to Congress on Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels that the " floor and yard drains and sumps" low volume waste category would include leaks and spills of chemicals, including chemicals listed in 40 C. F. R. § 261.33. ( G& KXXXX) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 1 XI  1 XI. COMPLETENESS OF REPORT AND RECORD Various commenters criticized the completeness of the Report in that they were unable to find certain supporting information in the Docket or had concerns about the adequacy of peer review or stakeholder involvement. These concerns are summarized in more detail below.

Response: EPA believes that the Report and public record are substantially complete and sufficient to support its determination. EPA made specific efforts to assist commenters in finding information they requested during the comment period and supplemented the docket with additional information as necessary. The Agency further believes that peer review of certain analyses contained in the Report was adequate and performed by the appropriate persons. EPA believes that the Agency made sufficient efforts to invite both industry and environmental stakeholders to participate during development of the study, beginning in 1996. Given the court ordered deadline for this rulemaking, it was not possible to transform draft documents into polished final documents. However, the draft documents provided in the docket provided the public an adequate opportunity to comment on the key information that was before the Agency. Moreover, EPA is also soliciting additional comment on certain aspects of our regulatory determination discussed in the FR notice. Specific concerns are addressed in more detail the sub topic responses below. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 2 XI  2 XI. COMPLETENESS OF REPORT AND RECORD Verbatim Commenter Statements The conclusions offered in the coal waste study appear to be based on information that is not in final, tested form. ( RICE00041)

The problem is compounded by the fact that the docket does not contain certain necessary supporting analyses and data apparently relied on by the Agency. ( ALA00036)

Some of the data are not available to the public through the docket. For one database, there is only a cover sheet from an industry representative instructing the EPA project officer that the data are not to be released to the public. Almost nothing from the peer reviewed literature has been incorporated into the analyses. ( ALA00036)

The Report and background risk assessments were inadequately peer reviewed. ( ALA00036)

Contrary to EPA's assertions in the Report, the undersigned groups were not asked to participate in the process of developing this Report or its draft Regulatory Determinations as to whether comanaged FFC wastes should be regulated as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act/ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( SWDALRCRA). ( ALA00036)

We explained that the Report makes basic assertions that are unsubstantiated or refuted by the evidence at hand. ( HEC00056)

We request that EPA ... hold public hearings with adequate notice ( at least two months), in Indiana and other states where the lives of thousands of citizens will be profoundly affected by this Determination ... EPA has ignored any outreach to the affected communities, much less early involvement. ( HEC00056)

EPA's analysis suffers from poor documentation regarding analytical methods and information and data sources, and generally lacks bridges between assumptions and conclusions. ( USWAG00275)

AEP takes exception to the stated claims of some entities that they have not been given a chance to assist in the regulatory process and that they do not have time to digest and comment on the Phase II Report. Industry has long been engaged in the process leading to the Phase II Report, and other entities have had the same opportunity. ( AEP00060) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 1 FF2P S0371. Technical Background Document for the Report to Congress on Remaining Wastes From Fossil Fuel Combustion: Cost and Economic Impact Analysis. EPA. March 30, 1999.

2 e. g., FF2P S0185; FF2P S0186; FF2P S0187; FF2P S0188; FF2P S0189; FF2P S0190; FF2P S0335; FF2P S0336; FF2P S0337; FF2P S0338; FF2P S0339; FF2P S0340.

3 FF2P S0403. Memo: To Andrew Wittner, Re: Response to Margaret Round Questions of 5/ 12/ 99; FF2P S0408. Memo: To Andrew Wittner, Re: Response to Margaret Round Questions of 8/ 30/ 99.

3 XI  3 XI. COMPLETENESS OF REPORT AND RECORD A. Specific Information Not Provided Several commenters questioned the availability of certain analyses or pieces of information. Specific information purported to be missing is identified in the numbered items below, with specific responses to each item.

1. Adequate information on the costs of management alternatives was not available.

Response: Sufficient information on the costs of management alternatives was included in the docket in the Technical Background Document For The Report To Congress on Remaining Wastes From Fossil Fuel Combustion: Cost and Economic Impact Analysis. 1 2. Summary information on sampling protocols validating characterization data was not available, specifically including the analytical data report and final report called for by the Quality Assurance Program Plan ( QAPP).

Response: While information on sampling protocols was not summarized in the Report or Technical Background Documents, extensive information on these protocols is included in each of the studies from which characterization data were taken. These studies were included in the docket. 2 While it is true that the analytical data report and final data report were never completed, the Agency does not believe that these summary documents are necessary to validate the waste characterization results, given the extensive information on sampling protocols available in the individual site reports and EPA's own analysis of the sampling procedures which are available in the docket.

3. Concentrations upon which risks were based were not clearly identified.

Response: While the concentrations used in the risk analyses were not initially included in the docket, EPA provided this information directly to the commenter that requested it. This information is now included in the docket. 3 4. Key descriptors of waste characteristics were not available. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 4 FF2P S0367. Technical Background Document for the Report to Congress on Remaining Wastes from Fossil Fuel Combustion: Waste Characterization. SAIC. March 15, 1999.

5 FF2P S0402. Coal Combustion By Products and Low Volume Wastes Comanagement Data.

6 e. g., FF2P S0363, FF2P S0370.

7 Technical Background Supplement in Support of Rulemaking Adjustment Activities for Reportable Quantities ( RQ) of Radionuclides. Final Draft. EPA, Office of Radiation Programs. February, 1989.

8 Risk Assessments: Environmental Impact Statement for NESHAPs Radionuclides. Volume 2. EPA, Office of Radiation Programs. EPA 520/ 1 89 006 1. September, 1989.

9 Estimate of Health Risks Associated with Radionuclide Emissions from Fossil Fueled Steam Electric Generating Plants. EPA, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. EPA/ 402/ R 95/ 16. August, 1995.

4 XI  4 Response: Key descriptors of waste characteristics were included in the docket in the Technical Background Document for the Report to Congress on Remaining Wastes from Fossil Fuel Combustion: Waste Characterization. 4 In addition, EPA included in the docket an electronic file containing the individual data used to characterize FFC wastes for this study. This information was added to the docket in August 1999, prior to the re opening of the comment period on the RTC. 5 5. Presentation of the major components of risk assessment process was not complete and risk modeling results, data, and statistical distributions supporting the Monte Carlo analysis were not available.

Response: EPA believes that its presentation of the major components of risk assessment process ( including the Monte Carlo analysis) in the Report and supporting documentation is complete and adequate. EPA further believes that its presentation of the modeling results is complete and adequate. This information is included in the docket in the Report itself, as well as in a number of supporting documents. 6 Additionally, EPA supplemented the docket with a compendium of the printouts from its risk assessment modeling exercises. This information was added to the docket in April 2000.

6. Data characterizing radionuclides and dioxins and furans were not available.

Response: In its discussion of radionuclides in the Report to Congress, EPA relied on radionuclide characterization performed in connection with other EPA programs. These characterization efforts are documented in publicly available sources cited in the Report to Congress. 7,8,9 EPA has further documented its consideration of radionuclides in Review of Literature on Radionuclides in Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste available in the docket. EPA's consideration of radionuclides is discussed further under Topic XIII. F. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 10 FF2P S0333. PCDDs and PCDFs in Coal Combustion By Products. EPRI. March 1, 1998 .

11 FF2P S0239. PCDDs and PCDFs in Coal Ash Samples for the Tennessee Valley Authority By Product Marketing and Management. KBK Enterprises, Inc. March 1, 1991.

12 FF2P S0367.

5 XI  5 For characterization of dioxins and furans in coal combustion wastes, EPA relied on the following source, which was included in the docket: PCDDs and PCDFs in Coal Combustion By Products. 10 An additional source of data on dioxins and furans also included in the docket was: PCDDs and PCDFs in Coal Ash Samples for the Tennessee Valley Authority By Product Marketing and Management. 11 EPA's consideration of dioxins and furans ( along with other organics) is discussed further under Topic XIII. F.

7. Data and studies supporting the toxicity values used were not available.

Response: As discussed in the Report and supporting documentation, EPA based the toxicity values used in its risk assessment on publicly available data sources, including the IRIS and HEAST databases. Due to the size and scope of these databases, and their availability to the public, the Agency did not include them in the docket.

8. Characterization of low volume wastes other than pyrites was not presented.

Response: Table 3 5 of the Report to Congress presents general characterization information for all types of low volume waste. The Technical Background Document for the Report to Congress on Remaining Wastes from Fossil Fuel Combustion: Waste Characterization, 12 included in the rulemaking docket, provides the available characterization data for several types of low volume wastes, including boiler blowdown, coal pile runoff, cooling tower blowdown, demineralizer regenerant, fireside washwater, boiler chemical cleaning waste, and mill rejects ( pyrites). In light of the fact that this rulemaking applies to comanaged wastes, not low volume wastes managed alone, EPA believes the degree to which the record characterizes low volume wastes managed alone is adequate.

9. Discussion of the limitations of the characterization data was not presented.

Response: The adequacy of the characterization data, including information regarding the data's advantages and limitations, is discussed in detail in the responses under Topic XIII.

10. One commenter expressed concern that there was no connection between the data in the Waste Characterization Technical Background document and the data used in the risk assessments. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 13 FF2P S0367.

14 FF2P S0403; FF2P S0408.

15 FF2P S0363. Technical Background Document for the Supplemental Report to Congress on Remaining Fossil Fuel Combustion Wastes  Ground water Pathway Human Health Risk Assessment. Revised Final Draft. SAIC. June 1, 1998.

16 e. g., FF2P S0361; FF2P S0369.

6 XI  6 Response: The data presented in the Technical Background Document for the Report to Congress on Remaining Wastes from Fossil Fuel Combustion: Waste Characterization13 were the source of the input concentrations used in the risk assessment. EPA apologizes for the extent to which this was unclear from the risk assessment and waste characterization documentation. EPA has since provided additional explanation of the input concentrations used in the risk assessment and included this information in the docket. 14 11. One commenter was concerned that the discussion of the range of uncertainties in discussed in the risk Technical Background Document was not included in the Report to Congress itself.

Response: The discussion of uncertainties included in the Technical Background Document for the Supplemental Report to Congress on Remaining Fossil Fuel Combustion Wastes  Groundwater Pathway Human Health Risk Assessment15 is far too extensive for verbatim inclusion in the Report to Congress. EPA, however, took into consideration all of the uncertainties described in the background document in its ultimate characterization of risk as presented in the Report to Congress.

12. One commenter was concerned that the revised Sensitivity Study report associated with the risk assessment is a draft, and the cover letter indicates that the work had been suspended pending funding and direction.

Response: Given the court ordered deadline for this rulemaking, it was not possible to transform all draft documents into polished finals. Despite some documents being labeled as " draft," the analyses conducted in support of this rulemaking as presented in the docket are substantially complete, including the sensitivity analyses conducted for the risk assessment. 16 13. One commenter stated that there was no documentation of the sources of critical information in Table 2 5 of the Economic Background Document.

Response: The commenter's concern regarding Table 2 5 of the Technical Background Document for the Report to Congress on Remaining Wastes From Fossil Fuel Combustion: Cost Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 17 FF2P S0371.

7 XI  7 and Economic Impact Analysis17 appears to be related to a footnote that states " computed based on other assumptions." This footnote intends to indicate that this value was computed based on the other assumptions that are specifically footnoted in the table. For example, if the net income before tax is 13 percent of revenues from electricity, the total baseline production cost can be computed to be 87 percent of revenues from electricity. Furthermore, if energy costs are 50 percent of revenues from electricity and interest expenses are 9 percent of revenues from electricity, operating expenses can be computed to be 28 percent of revenues from electricity, given that these three cost components sum to the total baseline production cost which is equal to 87 percent of revenues from electricity. The cost data in this table are relevant to utility operation and not power generation alone ( see further discussion under Topic XXI. C below). Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 8 XI  8 XI. COMPLETENESS OF REPORT AND RECORD A. Specific Information Not Provided Verbatim Commenter Statements For example in Chapter 3, the Report dismisses the alternative of managing fossil fuel wastes generated by electric utilities as hazardous on cost grounds stating that " possibly all beneficial use practices and markets would cease." and " The cost of compliance . . . could reduce the amount of coal consumed in favor of other fuels" and " the cost of generating electricity by burning coal could substantially increase." Yet there are no discussions of requirements, estimates of cost, data, references or foot notes that would explain these basic assertions anywhere in the Report. ( HEC00056)

EPA does not provide adequate information on the costs to plan, build, operate and close management alternatives. The key variables in EPA's analysis of the incremental compliance cost associated with the implementation of Subtitle D requirements are:

° The number of affected plants and current management practices; ° Estimated waste generation quantities; and ° Costs of key components ( in particular, treatment unit liners).

The RTC sections describing the cost and economic impact analyses, as well as the technical background document in the docket, do not adequately address the costs to plan, build, operate, and close the management unit alternatives for reducing arsenic risks. These alternatives ( without cost data) are simply described in the risk alternatives section of the RTC. ( DOE00020)

Our preliminary review of the Report indicates that EPA has neglected to provide a complete presentation of the major components of risk assessment process ( i. e., hazard identification, exposure assessment, and dose response assessment). Data are not available to understand how the human health risk assessment was conducted. Because risk assessment is an iterative process, the risk characterization and risk management analyses are also inadequate. Background documents, which were reviewed in an attempt to fill in the data gaps, were also found to be incomplete. ( ALA00036)

However, summary information on sampling acquisition, frequency of detection, the detection limits, sampling locations and media, the sampling protocols representative of waste sites, quality assurance/ quality control, background levels, or other information necessary to validate the FFC waste concentration data used in the Report was not provided by EPA. ( ALA00036) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 9 XI  9 Tables in the Report with risk estimates for the groundwater and non groundwater risk assessments did not contain the standard format that includes the concentrations upon which the risks are based. ( ALA00036)

Tables in the Report provide summaries of the 50th and 95th percentile concentrations, but the key descriptors of exposure including the average, median, standard deviation, and upper bound on the average were not provided. Although the Technical Background Document for the Report on Remaining Wastes from FFC: Waste Characterization ( March 15, 1999) contains a summary of the concentrations of constituents in FFC waste, there is no apparent connection between these data and the data used in the risk assessments. For example, EPA uses the 50th and 95th percentile concentrations as input to the model to predict groundwater concentrations in a hypothetical receptor well; however, the modeling results are not presented in the Report, appendices, or background documents. ( ALA00036)

EPA relied on the finding of a probabilistic analysis ( i. e. Monte Carlo analysis) to determine where the point risk estimates ( i. e. detemlinistic results) fell within the distribution. EPA uses the Monte Carlo analysis to suggest that the point risk estimates are conservative and represent highend scenarios ( 3 42). However, EPA does not provide any data to support the Monte Carlo analysis. A May 15, 1997 memo from Fred Hanson, Deputy Administrator of the EPA, provides the Agency's policy on the use of probabilistic techniques, including Monte Carlo analysis, in risk assessment. The policy states that the minimum conditions for acceptance of a Monte Carlo analysis requires that the: ( 1) purpose and scope of the assessment be clearly articulated, ( 2) methods for the analysis ( including all models, all data upon which the assessment is based, and all assumptions that have a significant impact on the results) be documented and easily located in the report, ( 3) sensitivity analyses be presented and discussed in the report, and ( 4) information for each input and output distribution be provided in the report. None of these conditions are met even in the background groundwater risk assessment report from the EPA contractor. ( ALA00036)

Data are not presented in the Report on the analyses of the concentration of organic compounds or radioactive substances in FFC waste; however, EPA determined that no public health concern exists from these potentially toxic constituents. ( ALA00036)

There is also an incomplete characterization of the dose response assessment in the risk assessment of FFC waste. At a minimum, the overall database, and the critical study on which the toxicity value is based including the critical effect, uncertainty factors and modifying factors should be provided. EPA guidelines require that the dose response assessment examine the quantitative relationships between exposure and effects in the studies used to identify and define effects of concern. No such analysis is in the Report,. appendices, or background documents. ( ALA00036)

The absence of toxicological profiles for health based criteria used to estimate risks of FFC waste prevents any opportunity to comment on this critical risk assessment component. ( ALA00036) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 10 XI  10 There were several points regarding the range of uncertainty in the groundwater risk assessment that were not discussed or considered by EPA in the analysis or risk characterization. For example, in the oil waste monofill scenario the contractor notes. " Risks may be understated by about 20 times. Units with larger areas have risks about 20 higher times that indicated here, due to the presence of an inflection point in model results at areas slightly larger than those modeled here." It was also noted that " Risks range from values given to half the values given based on the use of environmental location parameters ... Because it is difficult to suggest which is more appropriate a range." However, EPA did not present these ranges in the Report ( SAIC, Oct 9, 1998 memo) ( ALA00036)

EPA does not discuss the limitations of the waste characterization in assessing impacts, characterizing the risks, or making a Regulatory Determination. ( ALA00036)

The QAPP also calls for an analytical data report, documenting the data summary, including a synopsis of the quality control, and also all the raw data to be delivered to SAIC personnel. This document could not be located in the docket. Finally, the QAPP requires a final report to the docket, containing the complete sampling and analytical report, including the quality assurance documentation, data validation documentation and analytical results. This document also could not be located in the docket, and many of the memoranda that discuss bits and pieces of this information remain in draft form. ( ALA00292)

EPA did not provide toxicological profiles to evaluate the dose response values used to calculate the hazard benchmark numbers ( HBNs). ( ALA00292)

EPA did not incorporate the range of uncertainties identified by the contractor that are associated with the environmental parameters ( e. g. infiltration rate, hydraulic conductivity) used in the modeling analysis. ( ALA00292)

As discussed in our initial comments, EPA has prominently displayed and integrated the results of the probabilistic analysis to support the finding that a high end conservative analysis was conducted; however, no background information was provided to evaluate the analysis as required by Agency polices ( EPA 1997) ... Therefore, we believe that if EPA continues to rely exclusively on a probabilistic analysis to support its findings it should at least provide the necessary information to assess the validity of the analysis. EPA policy requires that:

( 1) the purpose and scope of the assessment be clearly articulated in a " problem formulation: section that includes a full description of any highly exposed or highly susceptible sub populations evaluated ( e. g. children). ( 2) the methods used for the analysis ( including all model used, all data upon which the assessment is based, and all assumptions that have a significant impact upon the results) are to be documented and easily located in the report. This documentation is to include a discussion of the degree to which the data used are representative of the population under Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 11 XI  11 study. Also, this documentation is to include the names of the models and software used to generate the analysis. Sufficient information is to be provided to allow the results of the analysis to be independently reproduced. ( 3) the results of sensitivity analysis are to be presented and discussed in the report. Probabilistic techniques should be applied to the compounds, pathways, and factors of importance to the assessment, as determined by sensitivity analysis or other basic requirements of the assessment. ( 4) information for each input and output distribution is to be provided in the report. This includes tabular and graphical representations of the distributions ( e. g., probability density, function and cumulative distribution function plots) that indicate the location of any point estimates of interest ( e. g., mean, median, 95th percentile). ( 5) calculations of exposures and risks using deterministic ( e. g., point estimates) methods are to be reported.

If EPA is unable to reconcile Agency policy regarding the use of probabilistic analysis it should be removed from the Report to Congress. ( ALA00292)

Review of the draft RTC was especially complicated because the report nor its background documents did not provide all the information that was used by EPA's contractor in performing the health risk assessment. ( NSP00057)

Nonetheless, in the current Report to Congress, waste contaminant concentrations on only one of the low volume wastes are provided, namely coal mill rejects. For the remaining low volume wastes, EPA merely provides brief summary descriptions of chemical content, and whether " one or more" samples of the wastes exhibited a hazardous waste characteristic. ( EDF00021)

The Revised Sensitivity studies, for example, are particularly disturbing. The results, as far as they go, are very interesting and merit comparison with similar sensitivity tests such as those related to the Industrial Non Hazardous studies. But that report is a draft, and the cover letter [ SAI, 10/ 13/ 98] indicates that the work had been suspended pending funding and direction. ( RICE00041)

One example suffices to demonstrate the inadequacy of the documentation and the spillover effect on the analysis: EPA presents a summary of its financial analysis conclusions for coal combustion in Table 2 5 of the Economic Background Document. There is no documentation of the sources of critical information in the table. ( USWAG00275) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 12 XI  12 XI. COMPLETENESS OF REPORT AND RECORD B. Adequacy of Peer Review A public interest group commented that the report and background risk assessments were inadequately peer reviewed. The commenter suggested the Agency should have the complete report peer reviewed, preferably by EPA's SAB and further expressed specific concern that the data characterizing dioxins and furans had not been peer reviewed. Another public interest group commenter expressed concern that SAB had not reviewed MINTEQA2, one of the elements of EPA's ground water model.

Response: For the formal peer review of the risk assessment, EPA sought reviewers who are recognized experts in, or who have several peer reviewed publications or other written demonstration of expertise in any combination of the following areas: human health risks from exposure to contaminated ground water, human health risks from exposure to contaminants via non ground water pathways, ecological risks from environmental contamination, and familiarity with fossil fuel combustion wastes. The four peer reviewers were: James Butler, Ph. D., Argonne National Lab, University of Chicago; Arthur Gregory, Ph. D., DABT Techto Enterprises; Anne Fairbrother, DVM, Ph. D., Ecological Planning and Toxicology, Inc.: and Carolyn Fordham Terra Technologies. The first two reviewers have expertise in human health risk assessment and the other two reviewers have expertise in ecological risk assessment.

In response to the comment urging a peer review of the entire Report to Congress, the RTC builds on technical and scientific analyses and proposes certain policy and regulatory positions that are most appropriately released for comment in the broad arena of public policy debate, as the Agency did, in accordance with the statutory directive of RCRA section 3001 ( b) ( 3) ( C). Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 13 XI  13 XI. COMPLETENESS OF REPORT AND RECORD B. Adequacy of Peer Review Verbatim Commenter Statements EPA. states on page 3 13 of the Executive Summary that " although an exhaustive review of the organics data has not been conducted, based on available information; total and leachable organics are generally reported to be at or below analytical detection limits." EPA references two studies from 1987 and 1982. However, the Technical Background Document for the Report to Congress on Remaining Wastes from FFC: Waste Characterization ( March 15, 1999) indicates that more recent analysis have been provided to EPA but not considered in the Report. For example, page 2 10 of the Technical Support Document states: " In addition, data characterizing dioxins and furans in comanaged wastes are available from an EPRI ( l998) study. This study analyzed samples from 11 disposal sites for 17 polychlorinated dibenzo p dioxins ( PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans ( PCDFs) that are currently considered to be of toxicological significance. Fifteen samples were taken, two of which were analyzed twice for a total of 17 analyses. This data are not referenced or discussed in the Report or background risk assessment documents. It should also be noted that the peer reviewers were not provided this data to review, and at least one reviewer noted this in their comments ( Butler, 1998). ( ALA00036)

The Report and background risk assessments were inadequately peer reviewed ... The Agency states that as part of the risk assessment process for this study, two peer reviewers reviewed the multipathway assessment and two peer reviewers reviewed the ecological assessment. This level of review is completely inadequate for a report of this magnitude, especially one that contains a Regulatory Determination. The Agency should have the complete report peer reviewed, including the conclusions derived from the various analyses, by a panel of independent scientists. The preferable review panel would be EPA's Science Advisory Board ( SAB). There is ample precedence for the Agency to have a Report to Congress extensively peer reviewed. Recent examples include the Residual Risk Report, The Utility Air Toxics Study, and the Mercury Study Report to Congress. Despite the fact that the Mercury Study did not contain a Regulatory Determination and had gone through extensive peer review, the White House Office of Science Technology ( OSTP) protested the " minimal peer review" and the Report was subsequently vetted by the SAB prior its release. ( ALA00036)

In fact, MINTEQA2 was expressly not evaluated, and SAB indicated " the accuracy of the model estimates must be verified and the documentation of this use needs to be clarified." Therefore, SAB has not reviewed one of the most crucial components of EPA's groundwater modeling underlying the Report to Congress. ( EDF00021) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 14 XI  14 XI. COMPLETENESS OF REPORT AND RECORD C. Adequacy of Agency Solicitation of Stakeholder Involvement Public interest groups indicated that, contrary to EPA's assertions in the Report, the commenters were not asked to participate in the process of developing the Report. One of the commenters stated that EPA's public hearings were not conveniently located for all affected parties to express their concerns. A number of citizen and public interest group commenters requested that EPA hold public hearings in the states or regions affected by CCW disposal. One industry commenter took exception to the claim that some commenters did not have the opportunity to participate.

Response: Beginning in 1996, EPA invited industry, public interest and other stakeholder groups to participate during the conduct of this study. Two environmental groups, the Environmental Defense Fund ( EDF) and the Hoosier Environmental Council ( HEC) did so. Both EDF and HEC were explicitly asked to invite all interested parties in their stakeholder group. The Agency believes that reasonable opportunities were offered to public interest stakeholders to participate during development of the study and during the public comment period. Because of the time constraints of the court schedule under which EPA was operating to conduct the study, the Agency had to limit the number of public hearings to just one.

The RTC was issued on March 31, 1999 and the April 28 Federal Register notice provided a 45 day public comment period, until June 14, 1999. The Agency held a public hearing on May 21, 1999 in Washington DC. We regret that we were not able to provide 60 days notice in advance of the meeting, however we were obligated by a court ordered deadline to issue our final determination by October 1, 1999. In response to commenters who stated that the Agency should have held hearings in states affected by coal combustion waste disposal, we were constrained by our court ordered deadline and by resource limitations from holding a series of meetings. We believe that by conducting the public meeting in Washington DC we provided a reasonable location to accommodate the broad range of stakeholders who have an interest in this determination. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 15 XI  15 XI. COMPLETENESS OF REPORT AND RECORD C. Adequacy of Agency Solicitation of Stakeholder Involvement Verbatim Commenter Statements Contrary to EPA's assertions in the Report, the undersigned groups were not asked to participate in the process of developing this Report or its draft Regulatory Determinations as to whether comanaged FFC wastes should be regulated as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act/ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( SWDALRCRA). ( ALA00036)

We request that EPA ... hold public hearings with adequate notice ( at least two months), in Indiana and other states where the lives of thousands of citizens will be profoundly affected by this Determination. ( HEC00056)

EPA has spent 17 years coming up with this report but we're still waiting for its " outreach and communication." " Partnership" with EPA is out of the question until agency officials start understanding the history and current situation in the coalfields. ( HEC00056)

EPA has ignored any outreach to the affected communities, much less early involvement. Indeed, the following examples show that EPA officials apparently have no respect for our communities, only contempt ...

° The one field trip by EPA that we're aware of took place after the draft report was issued and involved state officials and industry representatives. To date, EPA has ignored our requests to meet with the people affected by CCW dumping ... ° EPA's one hearing, in Washington D. C., was hundreds of miles from the communities where CCW is being dumped. Airfare and accommodations were so expensive, we could send only one representative to testify. Apparently, EPA set the location for the convenience of the agency officials and well heeled utility industry lobbyists, and discounted the needs of our community residents.( HEC00056)

EPA should hold public hearings in states affected by CCW disposal, including Texas. ( CITZ00256)

EPA should hold public hearings in states affected by CCW disposal. ( VWI00258)

The EPA must ... hold public hearings in states affected by CCW disposal. ( CITZ00260)

EPA should hold public hearings in states ( and communities therein) affected by CCW disposal. Contrary to the method used to collect data for the report to Congress, THE EPA IS SUPPOSED TO EXERCISE REGULATORY OVERSITE OVER THE INDUSTRY ON BEHALF OF CITIZENS. ( CITZ00261) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 16 XI  16 EPA should hold public hearings in states affected by CCW disposal. ( CITZ00263)

EPA should hold public hearings in states affected by CCW disposal. ( CITZ00264)

The public should be offered a chance to comment on CCW disposal by the availability of hearings in all affected states. ( CITZ00267)

EPA should hold public hearings in states affected by CCW disposal. ( SIERRA00278)

EPA should hold public hearing in states affected by CCW Disposal. ( SOCM00279)

EPA should hold public hearings in states affected by CCW disposal. ( CITZ00284)

Hold public hearings in states affected by CCW disposal. ( CITZ00291)

Tri State is asking the EPA to hold public hearings in all states affected by CCW in order to supplement the process of gathering technical data. ( TRI00295)

We urge you to go into the communities and talk with watershed groups and citizen groups about these issues to rely so heavily on industry's assessments is unbalanced, unscientific, and unwise. ( PEACE00306)

EPA should hold public hearings in states affected by CCW disposal. ( CITZ00326)

Justice would seem to require that those most impacted by these decisions, those on the land where CCW would be deposited, who will be drinking ( or be unable to drink) that groundwater have an opportunity to be heard at public hearings. ( CITZ00335)

I urge the EPA hold public hearings in states that will be affected by Coal Combustion Wastes. ( CITZ00337)

EPA should hold public hearings in all states affected by coal combustion waste disposal. ( CITZ00346)

EPA should hold public hearings in states affected by CCW disposal. The concerns of citizens whose water resources are impacted by CCW dumping must be the highest consideration by EPA. ( CITZ00349)

EPA should ensure the objectivity, accuracy, and completeness of this report by ... holding public hearings in states affected by CCW disposal in order to get a comprehensive understanding of how individuals and communities are being affected by CCW. ( POW00369) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 17 XI  17 I think the EPA should hold public hearings in states affected by CCW disposal. ( CITZL0013)

AEP takes exception to the stated claims of some entities that they have not been given a chance to assist in the regulatory process and that they do not have time to digest and comment on the Phase II Report. Industry has long been engaged in the process leading to the Phase II Report, and other entities have had the same opportunity. ( AEP00060) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 18 FF2P S0403. Memo: To Andrew Wittner, Re: Response to Margaret Round Questions of 5/ 12/ 99; FF2P S0408. Memo: To Andrew Wittner, Re: Response to Margaret Round Questions of 8/ 30/ 99.

1 XII  1 XII. TRANSPARENCY OF REPORT AND RECORD Several commenters found the Report or specific aspects of the analysis, such as the risk assessment, opaque or difficult to understand. A public interest group commenter suggested that efforts to understand the Report would place an unreasonable burden on ordinary citizens and urged EPA to rewrite the report following the principles of President Clinton's " plain language" memorandum.

Response: EPA made every effort, given the highly technical nature of the information presented, to make the Report and supporting documentation as accessible as possible to the widest possible audience. Given the court ordered deadline for this rulemaking, it was not possible to transform draft documents into polished final documents. However, the draft documents provided in the docket provided the public an adequate opportunity to comment on the key information that was before the Agency. EPA attempted to redress this by responding directly to the questions asked during the comment period, by offering repeatedly to meet with stakeholders ( including public interest groups), and by supplementing the docket with additional information during and following the initial comment period, which was subsequently reopened by the Agency.

With regard to the comments specifically on the transparency of the risk assessment, EPA attempted to assist commenters in their understanding of the risk assessment by answering questions and providing additional information directly to commenters during the comment period, as discussed in more detail under Topic XI. EPA's responses to specific commenter questions about the risk assessment are included in the docket. 18 Furthermore, while EPA acknowledges that aspects of the highly technical risk assessment documentation may have been difficult to understand or follow, the Agency notes that any such difficulty does not appear to have prevented commenters from providing informed, insightful, and detailed comments on the risk assessment. These comments include analysis of the risk assessment methodology, underlying science, input values, calculations, and ultimate characterization of results. These comments reflect a thorough understanding of the risk assessment. Indeed, as discussed under Topics XIV through XVIII, EPA has revised aspects of its non groundwater risk assessment and is conducting an intensive review of its groundwater model as a result of these comments. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 2 XII  2 XII. TRANSPARANCY OF REPORT AND RECORD Verbatim Commenter Statements It should be noted at the outset that in our initial comments to EPA we provided a detailed discussion regarding the lack of transparency in the ground water risks to human health presented in the Report to Congress. Since then the review of materials available in the docket have not provided any additional information to assist us in replicating the rusk assessment results. This inconsistency with the guiding principles of EPA's risk assessment and characterization policy ( USEPA, 1995) is striking and substantially limits public participation in the regulatory process. ( ALA00292)

The Report is far too vague, makes too many unsubstantiated assertions and leaves out large areas of needed discussion. To begin with, the Report does not contain the information necessary to address the " eight study factors" required to be addressed by Section 8002( n) of RCRA. We explained that the Report is vague and unintelligible. Much discussion centers on a " risk mitigation alternative" that would protect the public by requiring disposal of most utility fossil fuel wastes in lined sites with leachate collection and ground water monitoring. Ordinary people and the members of Congress can't read EPA's report. It is written in technojargon, and poorly written at that. ( HEC00056)

Unfortunately, EPA's non groundwater risk assessment methodology is too opaque for USWAG to fully comprehend or simulate in order to offer specific, more realistic numbers. Indeed, Dr. Chaney commented at the May 21st public hearing that he found the risk assessment impenetrable. ( USWAG00037)

EPA's Risk Assessment Policies and Guidelines, including the 1995 EPA Risk Characterization Program, and the 1995 Guidance for Risk Characterization. These policies require EPA offices to conduct risk assessments reflecting transparency, clarity, consistency, and reasonableness. The Report falls short on each of these requirements. ( 49CAO00058)

One comment is applicable to the entire Risk Assessment and Report to Congress, the failure of EPA to make this a " transparent" document. If one must consult many other " hard to obtain" EPA documents, and search deeply into secondary documents to find the actual calculation methods used by EPA in the risk assessment, citizens are done a disservice. Understanding risk assessment is difficult under any circumstances. But finding out what the actual risk assessment was, especially for most limiting pathways for High End exposed susceptible populations, should not be as difficult as it has been with these documents. ( PHS011)

We urge EPA to rewrite the report following the principles laid out in President Clinton's " plain language" memorandum of June 1, 1998. This memorandum instructed all agencies by January 1, 1999 to write all new documents in plain language. He said, " The Federal Government's writing Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 3 XII  3 must be in plain language.... Plain language saves the Government and the private sector time, effort, and money." ( HEC00056) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 1 XIII  1 XIII. WASTE CHARACTERIZATION A variety of commenters expressed concerns about EPA's characterization of FFC wastes. Some public interest group, citizen, and academic commenters considered the characterization inadequate because of concerns about reliance on industry data, the statistical representativeness of the data, the adequacy of the analytical test methods and quality assurance procedures used, lack of consideration of certain constituents, and/ or potential future changes in waste characteristics due to pending Clean Air Act regulations. One industry commenter expressed specific concern about EPA's characterization of FBC wastes. Other industry commenters defended EPA's use of industry data and selection of analytical test methods. Other industry and federal agency commenters provided information and research on waste characteristics and leaching. Specific issues are summarized below.

Response: EPA used all of the data available to it in its characterization of FFC wastes. The Agency is obligated to make use of the best available data and has done so in this case with full and explicitly noted consideration of its potential limitations. EPA believes its characterization to be complete and accurate. With regard to the constituents considered, EPA believes it has described all the constituents that were tested for and likely to be present in FFC waste as completely as possible based on the available data. The single commenter that expressed concern about the Agency's characterization of FBC waste did not identify specifically how this characterization might be inaccurate. These and other specific concerns raised by the commenters with regard to waste characterization are addressed in more detail in the sub topic responses below. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 2 XIII  2 XIII. WASTE CHARACTERIZATION Verbatim Commenter Statements EPA candidly admits the data voluntarily provided are too limited for coming to any definitive conclusions regarding their representativeness on a national basis. ( EDF00021)

EPA relied exclusively upon the electric power industry to fill this data gap, and EPA admits the data provided are much too limited to answer the fundamental questions. ( EDF00021)

First, EPA consistently relies upon TCLP data as the waste contaminant concentration input to the groundwater model for landfills and some surface impoundments ( where pore water sample data were unavailable), regardless of whether the leaching procedure accurately measures the leaching potential of the wastes under consideration. ( EDF00021)

The Report is exclusively based on industry provided data without information on the data collection, quality assurance, and quality control of analyses. This raises the issue of bias inherent in data provided by the industry potentially regulated by this proposal. ( ALA00036)

Inadequate sampling of FFC wastes severely limits the characterization of FFC waste. ( ALA00036)

However, EPA has not adequately characterized the waste, particularly wastes from cobuming coal with other potentially hazardous materials. ( ALA00036)

EPA did not adequately characterize FFC wastes, including mercury releases ... the sampling size and statistical analysis of the data used in characterizing FFC waste is inadequate. ( ALA00036)

In the groundwater risk assessment, concentrations may not be reflective of actual conditions due to the tests used. Specifically, the tests used to estimate the extent to which the metals leach from the waste may be inadequate. ( ALA00036)

The important point is that the Agency should have low confidence in the waste characterization because the small data set and the leachate test results may not be representative of real world facilities. ( ALA00036)

It is unfortunate that the EPA chose to use TCLP as the test for evaluating wastes from FFC. ( EERC00044)

We demand that EPA independently verify the validity of data, particularly data and information submitted bv those who stand to gain direct financial benefits from the outcome of this Determination. ( HEC00056) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 3 XIII  3 EPA must gather its own data and verify the validity of information received from private sources to make definitive judgements and meet the burden of proof under RCRA for this determination. ( HEC00056)

The Report and its risk assessments do not address the changing characteristics of fossil fuel wastes that may result from attempts to comply with new air pollution control standards. ( HEC00056)

Specifically, we find that the conclusions being drawn to support continued exemption are inadequate and flawed in the following respects ... the Report is exclusively based on industryprovided data ... the wastes are not adequately characterized. ( 49CAO00058)

EPA should gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00256)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( VWI00258)

It will be critical to the success of any regulations promulgated by EPA that the agency either gather its own information or, at a minimum, establish a program to routinely split samples and check analyses submitted by applicants. ( NPCA00259)

The EPA must gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying only on industry's biased reports. ( CITZ00260)

I am very concerned by the fact that the EPA relied heavily on the cola industry as a primary source of information in compiling this report, and not enough on other sources. ( CITZ00261)

I think relying on the strip mining industry to police itself is not a good course of action. Their data on coal combustion wastes is sure to be self  serving. ( CITZ00262)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00263)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00264)

Rather than rely on industry biased information, EPA should gather its own information in regard to CCW contamination. ( CITZ00265)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( SAVV00266) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 4 XIII  4 The EPA should be attempting to use its own resources to build a body of empirical evidence regarding coal combustion. ( CITZ00267)

CCW needs to much more strictly regulated, and EPA should do its own studies. ( CITZ00268)

Unfortunately, EPA has relied heavily upon the very industry it is regulating as the major source of information in the report. ( SIERRA00278)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination, rather than relying on industry. ( SOCM00279)

Neither EP nor TCLP tests provide a good indication of leachability of CCW in natural disposal settings. ( NCCLP00282)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00284)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( KYC00285)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00286)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00287)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00289)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00290)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00291)

The Report's use of questionable waste characterization data ( which are at the heart of any analysis of whether or not to regulate as a hazardous waste) suggests that EPA's quantification of human health risks associated with exposure to groundwater contaminated with FFC waste is uncertain and likely underestimated. ( ALA00292)

Due to the potential long term impacts of CCW burial on groundwater quality and the high cost in terms of funds, man power, and environmental concerns should CCW's be proven to negatively Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 5 XIII  5 affect aquifers in which they're buried, I encourage EPA to research or obtain needed unbiased data from independent sources. Until conclusive results are obtained, I would also hope that the EPA would attempt to minimize potential harm to the 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)

The EPA must develop its own technical background information and not rely only on information supplied by industry. ( TRI00295)

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

We urge you to go into the communities and talk with watershed groups and citizen groups about these issues to rely so heavily on industry's assessments is unbalanced, unscientific, and unwise. Many of the elements they feel will be ` locked up' in the high pH of ashes for instance, in reality leach out easily at high pHs, as well as at the more acidic. ( PEACE00306)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00311)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00312)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00313)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00314)

First, I urge you to gather information on Coal Combustion Wastes from independent sources, not sources paid by the coal industry. ( CITZ00315)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00316)

I have been informed that a significant amount of the early studies were based on data supplied by the studies of the industries who would benefit the most from improper disposal of CCW's. Your decision should be, obviously, based on your own data. The information from industry and environmental groups should be taken with a grain of salt  each will present data that support their respective views. ( CITZ00317) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 6 XIII  6 EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00318)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00319)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00320)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00321)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00322)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00323)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00324)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00325)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00326)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00327)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00331)

Currently, there is a growing nationwide movement to place mercury emission controls on coalfired plants. If these controls are enacted, mercury concentrations will rise in CCW as more mercury is retained in the ash. Without responsible CCW disposal standards, emissions standards will not prevent mercury contamination from degrading the environment. We will only be changing the pathway by which it enters our streams and lakes. The impacts of mercury from CCW and higher concentrations of mercury in CCW created by mercury emission controls needs to be further studied by EPA. ( HEC00332) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 7 XIII  7 It is also imperative that the EPA not depend upon industry data regarding CCW contamination. There is a likelihood that these numbers are biased in the favor of the interests of polluters. It is a matter of common sense for the agency to collect its own information as to the risks associated with these toxic materials. ( BUCK00333)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( NCSEA00334)

There are many cases where CCW had caused contamination of drinking water & ecological damage. Please conduct a diligent literature search so past mistakes can be avoided. It is important for the EPA not rely solely on the information provided by industry, as it is difficult for anyone to provide information detrimental to their own benefit. ( CITZ00335)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00336)

First, I urge you to gather information on Coal Combustion Wastes from independent sources, not sources paid by the coal industry. The industry is famous for it's bias, slanted and carefully crafted designed " research" that would pass through NO peer reviews of neutral technical or scientific experts. Many people, homeowners, farmers, and much land have already been greatly harmed because the government agencies have relied on this kind of industry " research". ( CITZ00337)

I wish to emphasize my belief that the EPA do an independent study instead of relying on data supplied by corporate interests. Simply put, when push comes to shove, I do not trust those folks to put the long term interest oft he public above the short term interests of the bottom line. ( CITZ00339)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00340)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00343)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00344)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00345)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00346) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 8 XIII  8 EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00348)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00349)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00350)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00351)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00352)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00353)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00354)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00355)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00356)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00357)

Your agency has been studying the disposal problem for many years and decision time is at hand. The industry has used every method they could muster to minimize the hazardous and toxic nature of these wastes and get the agency to treat them as benign substances. More competent studies are now available to you and we hope you will give them the attention they deserve. ( DCCC00359)

EPA should ensure the objectivity, accuracy, and completeness of this report by: gathering its own information rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by the industry and state agencies which behave more as advocates than observers. ( POW00369)

I hope the EPA will strive to gather its own information on CCW contamination, rather than relying on coal company information. ( CITZL0013) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 9 XIII  9 Considering the lack of testing or monitoring for phenols at other ash sites around the country , further consideration and study of the presence of phenols in CCW is needed. ( HECL0014)

Strip mining is not an environmentally acceptable practice to begin with, but to allow this industry to give you data on this important item is unconsionable. ( CITZL0015).

To understand the environmental properties of a material, it is necessary to understand its chemical and physical nature. EPA's discussion of FBC fly ash and bed ash existing as oxides of major constituents ( Al, Si., Fe, Ca, etc.) contains incorrect or inaccurate statements. Reference to oxides of major constituents is only a result of convention by analytical laboratories for mineral analyses. The ashes from FBCs are a mixture of reacted bed material, calcined bed material, unreacted bed material and calcined mineral impurities in fossil fuels ( these impurities ate primarily clays). These fundarnental characteristics of PBC ashes were provided to the Agency ( ClBO 1997 Chapter 5). I n that report, citations were provided to further elucidate the material properties of these CCPs. Statements by the Agency in the RTC concerning utility coal combustion ashes indicate a similar incorrect understanding of those materials. To understand the nature of these materials is fundamental to many other evaluations contained in the RTC. A correct understanding is necessary to properly interpret applicable chemical and physical data. Further, it is essential to accurately determine related factors in human and environmental risk analysis. ( ISG00048).

Certain cornmenters have attacked the TCLP test as a flawed methodology ... That TCLP may not perfectly model leaching behavior in every waste and in every application is neither surprising nor relevant to this determination. ( PG& E00274)

EPA properly relied on voluntarily submitted industry data in lieu of issuance of compulsory information demands. ( USWAG00275)

These data are the most comprehensive data base ever assembled on the characteristics of FFC wastes and how they are managed as well as the geologic and climatic characteristics of FFC waste management units. ( USWAG00275) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 10 XIII  10 XIII. WASTE CHARACTERIZATION A. Information Provided Industry trade group and federal government commenters provided information and research on waste characteristics and leaching.

Response: EPA thanks the commenters for the extensive information provided. EPA has considered this information as appropriate in the subtopic responses below. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 11 XIII  11 XIII. WASTE CHARACTERIZATION A. Information Provided Verbatim Commenter Statements On the issue of the comanaged FFC wastes, research carried out at the Energy & Environmental Research Center ( EERC) at the University of North Dakota has indicated that there exists the possibility of beneficial and synergistic chemical reactions that can be enhanced by well thought out combining of select process streams. In a research project on codisposal of coal gasification ash ( Stevenson and others, 1988) it was shown that reductions of leachability of potentially problematic trace elements such as selenium and boron could be as high as a factor of over 300. This effect was calculated independently of any effects of dilution and was found to be a result of the formation of the mineral ettringite. The understanding of reactions and mineralogical transformations that resulted from this and other projects are directly relatable to other FFC wastes. The effects of ettringite formation and implications for regulation are discussed further below. ( EERC00044)

The availability of alkaline constituents to provide the required high pH conditions are often the limiting factor with CCBs. Extensive research into ettringite formation has been carried out at the EERC in conjunction with North Dakota State University. I n this study, numerous substituted ettringites were synthesized in the laboratory. The substituents were elements that tend to exist as oxonians in aqueous solution and enter into the ettringite structure by substituting for sulfate. Ettringites substituted with arsenic, boron, chromium, molybdenum, vanadium, and selenium have been prepared in the laboratory. Thus ettringite formation has the potential to influence the solution concentrations of these and probably numerous other elements, including aluminum, calcium, and sulfate, major constituents of the ettringite structure. It is also important to note that the rate of formation of ettringite in CCBs is dependent on the availability of the key ingredients in the structure. Since many of these are leached from the ash from various crystalline and amorphous phases, the formation of ettringite can take from hours to months, depending on the characteristics of the individual ash. Each ash, because of the variability of the phases making up these materials, is unique in this manner ( Hassett and others, 1991). ( EERC00044)

The leachate data can be interpreted in terms of the equilibrium solubilities of calcium arsenate phases. Nishimura and Robins ( 1997) and more recently Bothe and Brown ( 1999) have identified a series of new hydrated arsenates of calcium that are stable in the pH regime represented by FBC fly ashes. Nishimura and Robins ( 1997) show data for the solubility of a series of four calcium arsenates as a function of pH that spans the entire range for 0 14. These demonstrate an extreme pH dependence on the solubility of arsenic. At acidic pH's, arsenic exhibits a solubility approximating 75g/ l. Between pH 3 and 10 the solubility steadily decreases, and between 10 and 12 it drops abruptly by a factor of 10,000 to a minimum of 7.5 x 10 6 g/ L. At a pH of approximately 11, the solubility of arsenic reaches drinking water standards or 0.05mg/ L. From Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 12 XIII  12 these two publications, it can be inferred that for the bituminous derived FBC fly ash, the average arsenic concentration is controlled by the solubility of Ca3( AsO4) 23.66H2O. Bothe and Brown ( 1999) have described a hitherto unidentified compound Ca3( AsO4) 23.66H2O in the same pH range which may likely be the stable phase controlling the arsenic concentration in solution. The FBC ash derived from anthracite culm is under saturated with respect to the reported equilibrium arsenic phases by a factor of 100 times at the recorded pH. This may in part be reflected by the lower initial concentration of arsenic in the ash or perhaps associated with the metamorphic origin of the arsenic in the original coals. ( ARIPPA00019)

PG& E Gen regularly tests the chemical properties of the FBC ash byproduct produced by PG& E Gen's FBC facilities using standard EPA test methods. PG& E Gen's data were provided to EPA by CIBO in November 1997 for use in the Report. These data support EPA's findings in the Report that the FBC ash is not a hazardous waste as defined by RCRA. ( PG& E Gen's data were also prepared for the more comprehensive data analysis appended to the ARIPPA comments and is not repeated here.) Ash generated at PG& E Gen's FBC facilities does not exhibit any of the four hazardous waste characteristics that identify hazardous wastes. With respect to toxicity, ash from PG& E Gen's facilities consistently test below the TCLP test leaching standards for RCRA constituents, including arsenic and mercury. ( PG& E00023)

It has come to my attention that some misinterpretations may have arisen from the article forwarded to you by Dr. H. M. " Skip" Kingston titled " Treating Hexavalent Chromium In Fly Ash Leachate Using Acid Mine Drainage." As prima? author of that paper, I would like to clarify any possible misinterpretations before they advance too far. It was never my intent to suggest that Cr( VI) is a serious problem at electric generating ash disposal sites generally. The data proposed in the paper supports no such notion. I n fact, exhaustive research by : he Electric Power Research Institute demonstrates the opposite  that Cr( VI) in fly ash is not widespread. The point of the paper is that when Cr( VI) is found to be present in a landfill leachate ( be it a fly ash landfill or otherwise), it may represent a problem to be addressed through remediation. Specifically, my sole intent in writing the paper, and the supporting data contained within the paper, are designed to illustrate that reduction of Cr( VI) by use of acid mine drainage is a viable remediation option worth consideration at any site where Cr( VI) is a problem. ( AES00250)

Attached as Appendix III is a coal and ash leachate analysis prepared by Panther Creek Partners in Carbon County comparing ash to local native garden soil and to local clay. The arsenic concentration of the ash was 18 ppm, compared to 17 ppm for the native garden soil and 10 ppm for the clay. The ash leachate analysis yielded 0.008 mg/ L arsenic, compared to 0.031 mg/ L for the garden soil and 0.01 for the clay. These results are similar to the results of comparative laboratory tests from other waste coal plants. See, e. g., Appendices II and III to ARIPPA's 6/ l2/ 99 Comments, showing 24 ppm arsenic content in ash from the Northampton Generating Plant in Northampton County. ( ARIPPA00273) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 13 XIII  13 The cementitious nature of the ash from a waste coal plant is such that, if a truck back hauling ash to a mine site has a flat tire and is delayed by more than a couple of hours, the ash has to be jackhammered out of the truck. In short, CFB ash has physical characteristics that begin to approach the properties of Portland cement concrete, including a hydraulic conductivity of 10( 5) to 10( 7) cm/ sec. ( ARIPPA00273)

CIBO further commends to the Agency's attention significant research and analysis of fluidized bed ash characteristics conducted by Mr. Sarma Pisupati of ( Pennsylvania State University). ( CIBO00280)

There are a number of scientists concerned about flushing CCW into underground exhausted coal mine shafts due to trace metal toxicity from fly ash particles accompanied with high levels of conductivity, total dissolved solids [ TDS, and sodium ( Na). The last three parameters, by the way, do not have national water quality criteria ( WQC) restrictions to protect aquatic life. I have found that effluents with conductivity approaching 4,000 mmhos/ cm, 3,500 mg/ L TDS and 1,100 m/ lg Na/ L to be acutely toxic to Ceriodaphnia dubia in my recent research efforts of the latter 1990' s. A number of underground deposition areas of CCW exceed these limits according to data being generated by the HEC. They are condensing their data and will make it available to you shortly. ( VAT00309)

I published a study in 1987 ( Cherry, Van Hassel, Ribbe and Cairns  Factors Influencing Acute Toxicity of Coal Ash to Rainbow Trout and Bluegill Sunfish) in the Water Resources Bulletin ( 23: 293 306) that documented trace metal distribution on fly ash particle surfaces and the resulting acute toxicity to fish. Surface and subsuface enrichment of fly ash was found for cadmium, copper. chromium, nickel, lead, mercury, titanium, arsenic and selenium using ion microscopy. Metal enrichment develops when the fly ash particles are caught in the electrostatic precipitators where trace metal fumes condense on the trapped cooler ash particles. Bottom ash, which is collected from the furnaces and bypasses the electrostatic precipitator process, is void of trace metal enrichment and is not toxic. This latter fact was also documented in my 1987 publication. I can expand upon the results of this study in the future but time constraints prevent that from occurring here. ( VAT00309)

DOE's research in this area ( which is summarized in matrix form in Appendix 1), includes:

° In house leaching tests on 28 fly ash samples. These studies showed that the release of trace elements was variable but relatively small. Summaries of field tests in Colorado and Illinois that showed that release of trace elements to the environment was negligible when FBC wastes were placed in simulated landfill disposal cells. ( DOE00020)

For example poly aromatic hydrocarbons ( PAHs) are a highly carcinogenic family of chemicals commonly found in coal, coal tar and coal combustion products, yet these substances are seldom if ever analyzed for in ash characterization schemes mandated by state regulatory agencies and never Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 14 XIII  14 included in ground water monitoring schemes for CCW disposal sites. Wise et al demonstrated the presence of numerous PAHs in a coal tar standard reference material [ Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in a coal tar standard reference material, Stephen A. Wise, Bruce A. Benner, Gary D. Byrd, Stephen N. Chesler, Richard E. Rebbert, and Michele M. Schantz, 1988, Anal. Chem. 60: 887 894]. They also noted the presence of sulfur, nitrogen and oxygen containing poly cyclic aromatic heterocyclic compounds. In an analysis of PAHs in coal derived sources, Nishioka et al readily identified PAHs with up to six rings. In samples a coal tar, a heavy distillate of coal, and a carbon black sample, they detected 25, 34, and 25 different PAHs, respectively [ Structural characteristics of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon isomers in coal tars and combustion products, Masaharu Nishioka, Huey Ching Chang, & Milton L. Lee, 1986, Environ, Sci. Technol. 20: 1023 1027]. In addition, many compounds with sulfur substitutions were identified. ( HEC00332)

The PAH content of coal combustion waste depends upon a variety of factors including the type of coal, the rate of burning, and whether the plant is mechanically or manually fired. PAHs are products of incomplete combustion. Hanson et al have detected many PAHs and related compounds in extracts of filter bag ash [ Detection of nitroaromatic comounds on coal combustion particles, R. L. Hanson, T. R. Henderson, C. H. Hobbs, C. R. Clark, R. L. Carpenter, J. S. Dutcher, T. M. Harvery, & D. F. Hunt. 1983, J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 11: 971 980]. Srivastava et al used a benzene extract of coal fly ash to study the effects of PAHs on rats [ Fetal translocation and metabolism of PAH obtained from coal fly ash gitien intra tracheally to pregnant rats, V. K. Srivastava, S. S. Chauhan, P. K. Srivastava, V. Kumar, & U. K. Misra, 1986, J. Tox. Environ. Halth 18: 459 469]. Harrison et al found that the total quantities of PAHs were greater for ash from an electrostatic precipitator than for ash from a wet scrubber [ Comparison of organic combustion products in fly ash collected by a venturi wet scrubber and an electrostatic precipitator at a coal fired power station, Florence L. Harrison, Dorothy J. Bishop & Barbara J. Mallon, 1985, Environ. Sci. Technol. 19: 186 193]. Their results revealed PAHs with two three or four ring structures and no PAHs with five or more rings, though they acknowledge that their recovery rates were low, especially for PAHs with more than four rings. ( HEC00332)

Griest and Guerin found that many organic compounds are still volatile at ESPtemperatures and pass up the stack [ Identification and Quantification of Polynuclear Organic Matter ( POM) on Particulates from a coal fired power plant, W. H. Griest and M. R. Guerin, 1979 interim report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory]. Griest and Guerin also found more PAHs in stack ash than in ash from an electrostatic precipitator. As more impurities are removed from the stack to cornply with evolving air regulations, more products of incomplete combustion are likely to end up in coal combustion waste. ( HEC00332)

While the Harrison study [ ibid] concludes that the concentrations of PAHs detected in fly ash probably would not pose an environmental hazard, they acknowledge that their recovery of these compounds was low when they injected known concentrations of standards into their column. It is Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 15 XIII  15 often difficult to identify PAH isomers because of their similar retention times and fragmentation patterns when using high resolution chromatography and mass spectrometry. Nishioka et al [ ibid] found that it was possible to identify isomeric PAHs with two to six rings using a specialized column substrate in the gas chromatograph. Wise et al [ ibid] certified concentrations of 12 PAHs in coal tar based on agreement between gas chromatography and liquid chromatographic techniques. They provided informational values for 18 additional compounds. Many PAHs are toxic, carcinogenic and/ or mutagenic. Their bioaccumulation is limited due to metabolism. However, the metabolism itself may produce oxidation damage in tissues. Further, the metabolic breakdown products can be more mutagenic than their precursors [ Hanson et al]. PAHs can undergo chemical reactions with nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur compounds to form substituted aromatic compounds. Hanson et al reported that treating fly ash samples with N, O, at 1 or 10 ppm greatly increased the mutagenicity of the samples ( up to 3200 fold). They attribute this to the formation of dinitropyrenes and dinitrofluoranthenes. It should be noted that these nitro PAHs were found in untreated flyash, presumably due to reaction with nitrous oxides in combustion gases. ( HEC00332)

PAHs adhere strongly to ash, making analysis of quantities and types of PAHs difficult. Griest and Guerin [ ibid] found that only 18% of PAHs were recovered from fly ash. Harrison et al report that large losses occurred when known concentrations of PAHs were injected into the gas chromatograph mass spectrometer. It was not known whether these degraded or adhered to the column. However, it was concluded that the absence of detection of high molecular weight PAHs in the GC MS analyses did not imply that these were not present in the ash. Larger PAHs with more than four rings are generally thought to be insoluble. However; little is known about the chemical reactions and or microbial transformations that may occur under storage conditions. These transformations could result in increased mobility and or increased mutagenicity of the constituents [ Harrison et al]. Indeed, Hanson et al [ ibid] indicate that some nitro PAHs may be mutagenic at concentrations too low to be detected by direct gas chromatography mass spectrometry. ( HEC00332)

The situation with radionuclides is similar to that for PAHs in that they are known to be present in coal combustion wastes, yet ground water monitoring for radionuclides at CCW disposal sites rarely occurs. According to the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ( NCRP) the average radioactivity in a short ton of coal is 0.00427 millicuries/ ton, primarily in the form of uranium and thorium. During combustion the volume of the coal is reduced by over 85%, but the uranium and thorium content is reduced very little. Therefore the ash is enriched in radionuclides. Since the half lives of these radionuclides are practically infinite in terms of human lifetimes, the accumulation of these substances in the biosphere over time is a significant health concern that has not been addressed. [ Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger, Alex Gabbard, 1993, Oak Ridge National Laboratory REVIEW No. 3 and 4.] Gabbard [ ibid] points out that the low levels radiation emitted by coal ash would provoke an enormous public outcry if similar amounts were released by a nuclear powered electric utility. He even suggests that coal combustion waste could be refined to produce fuel for nuclear powered facilities. ( HEC00332) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 16 XIII  16 In a study of the effects on coal fly ash settling ponds at the Baily Power Station on water quality in and around the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore in northwestern Indiana, the U. S. Geological Survey found an increase in gross alpha and beta radioactivity in the settling ponds and in an interdunal pond fed by seepage. EPA recommends further analysis if gross alpha and beta radioactivity exceeds l5 pCI/ L and 5 pCi, respectively. Results suggest that these levels were not exceeded at this particular site. [ Effects of coal fly ash disposal on water quality in and around the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana, 1981, Mark A. Hardy, U. S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation 81 161]. However, the cumulative effects of continuing to dispose of coal combustion waste in this manner is a concern. Despite the paucity of monitoring at CCW disposal sites for radionuclides, HEC has uncovered a number of reports indicating the concentration of radioactivity ` in coals and coal combustion wastes. ( See attachment 23) ( HEC00332) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 17 XIII  17 XIII. WASTE CHARACTERIZATION B. Reliance on Industry Data Public interest group and citizen commenters stated that the Report was exclusively based on industry provided data. The commenters were concerned over the potential bias inherent in data provided by the industry potentially regulated by this proposal. An industry commenter, on the other hand, argued that EPA properly relied on voluntarily submitted industry data in lieu of issuance of compulsory information demands.

Response: EPA considered all available information in this determination. The Agency also conducted some independent sampling to compare to industry supplied data. We found that our sampling results were consistent with data supplied by industry.

In addition, EPAconducted sensitivity analyses to assess a potentially broader range of constituent concentration levels. For key variables, we selected a range of values to bound our analysis and understand the impact of values outside those provided voluntarily by industry. Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 18 XIII  18 XIII. WASTE CHARACTERIZATION B. Reliance on Industry Data Verbatim Commenter Statements EPA relied exclusively upon the electric power industry to fill this data gap, and EPA admits the data provided are much too limited to answer the fundamental questions. ( EDF00021)

The Report is exclusively based on industry provided data without information on the data collection, quality assurance, and quality control of analyses. This raises the issue of bias inherent in data provided by the industry potentially regulated by this proposal. ( ALA00036)

We demand that EPA independently verify the validity of data, particularly data and information submitted bv those who stand to gain direct financial benefits from the outcome of this Determination. ( HEC00056)

EPA must gather its own data and verify the validity of information received from private sources to make definitive judgements and meet the burden of proof under RCRA for this determination. ( HEC00056)

The report is exclusively based on industry provided data. This Report is based almost entirely on data provided by industry strongly suggesting the possibility of conflict of interest. One of the Report's peer reviewers pointed out this problem, noting the potential for bias, however it is not apparent anywhere that EPA took action based on the reviewer's comment. ( 49CAO00058)

EPA should gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00256)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( VWI00258)

It will be critical to the success of any regulations promulgated by EPA that the agency either gather its own information or, at a minimum, establish a program to routinely split samples and check analyses submitted by applicants. ( NPCA00259)

The EPA must gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying only on industry's biased reports, report all cases where CCW has exceeded state and federal health and drinking water standards or has caused ecological damage, hold public hearings in states affected by CCW disposal and regulate CCW disposed in mines under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) Subtitle C, as a hazardous waste. ( CITZ00260) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 19 XIII  19 I am very concerned by the fact that the EPA relied heavily on the cola industry as a primary source of information in compiling this report, and not enough on other sources. Rather than relying on the blatantly biased " data" provided by the industry, the EPA needs to uphold its duty as a federal agency to exercise oversite in matters such as these, and to collect its own data. There are a number of factors to consider. ( CITZ00261)

I think relying on the strip mining industry to police itself is not a good course of action. Their data on coal combustion wastes is sure to be self  serving. ( CITZ00262)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00263)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00264)

Rather than rely on industry biased information, EPA should gather its own information in regard to CCW contamination. ( CITZ00265)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( SAVV00266)

The EPA should be attempting to use its own resources to build a body of empirical evidence regarding coal combustion. ( CITZ00267)

CCW needs to much more strictly regulated, and EPA should do its own studies. ( CITZ00268)

Unfortunately, EPA has relied heavily upon the very industry it is regulating as the major source of information in the report. ( SIERRA00278)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination, rather than relying on industry. ( SOCM00279)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00284)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( KYC00285)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00286) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 20 XIII  20 EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00287)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00289)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00290)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00291)

EPA extensively relied on data from the regulated community in developing the Report to Congress, which practice the Agency knew potentially could bias the outcomes of the various studies forming the basis for its Regulatory Determination. ( ALA00292)

Due to the potential long term impacts of CCW burial on groundwater quality and the high cost in terms of funds, man power, and environmental concerns should CCW's be proven to negatively affect aquifers in which they're buried, I encourage EPA to research or obtain needed unbiased data from independent sources. Until conclusive results are obtained, I would also hope that the EPA would attempt to minimize potential harm to the 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)

The EPA must develop its own technical background information and not rely only on information supplied by industry ... It is the responsibility of the EPA to make an unbiased evaluation of all of the technical information available. ( TRI00295)

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

We urge you to go into the communities and talk with watershed groups and citizen groups about these issues to rely so heavily on industry's assessments is unbalanced, unscientific, and unwise. ( PEACE00306)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00311)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00312) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 21 XIII  21 EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00313)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00314)

First, I urge you to gather information on Coal Combustion Wastes from independent sources, not sources paid by the coal industry. ( CITZ00315)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00316)

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

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00318)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00319)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00320)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00321)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00322)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00323)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00324)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00325) Comment Summary and Response Document Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Fossil Fuels April 2000 22 XIII  22 EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00326)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00327)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00331)

It is also imperative that the EPA not depend upon industry data regarding CCW contamination. There is a likelihood that these numbers are biased in the favor of the interests of polluters. It is a matter of common sense for the agency to collect its own information as to the risks associated with these toxic materials. ( BUCK00333)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( NCSEA00334)

It is important for the EPA not rely solely on the information provided by industry, as it is difficult for anyone to provide information detrimental to their own benefit. ( CITZ00335)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00336)

First, I urge you to gather information on Coal Combustion Wastes from independent sources, not sources paid by the coal industry. The industry is famous for it's bias, slanted and carefully crafted designed " research" that would pass through NO peer reviews of neutral technical or scientific experts. Many people, homeowners, farmers, and much land have already been greatly harmed because the government agencies have relied on this kind of industry " research". ( CITZ00337)

I wish to emphasize my belief that the EPA do an independent study instead of relying on data supplied by corporate interests. Simply put, when push comes to shove, I do not trust those folks to put the long term interest oft he public above the short term interests of the bottom line. ( CITZ00339)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00340)

EPA should make a strong effort to gather its own information on CCW contamination rather than relying on highly biased information supplied by industry. ( CITZ00343)