Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities; Federal CCR Permit Program

The commenter opposes the proposed Federal CCR Permit Program in its current form, specifically arguing against reducing the permit application deadline from 18 months to six months. They also advocate for prioritizing sites based on documented environmental risks rather than state administrative choices and demand mandatory participation in the federal RCRAInfo database for all state-issued permits to ensure public accountability.

A retired environmental scientist opposes the proposed revision of coal ash disposal requirements, arguing that relaxing standards unfairly rewards non-compliant companies and poses significant environmental and safety risks. The commenter also expresses concern that the technology for extracting minerals from coal seams is still experimental and potentially dangerous for large-scale implementation.

A resident of Indiana opposes the proposed changes to the Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) rule, arguing that it weakens environmental protections. The commenter expresses concern that allowing coal ash to be stored in unlined piles and used in construction projects poses significant health and environmental risks to families and workers.

The commenter, a private individual, opposes the proposed federal action because they believe it rolls back environmental protections for coal ash. They argue that coal ash is toxic and poses significant health and environmental risks, particularly to low-income communities and communities of color.

An individual opposes the proposed weakening of the EPA Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Rule, citing specific instances of documented pollution and groundwater contamination at Alabama Power's Plant Barry. The commenter urges the EPA to prioritize groundwater protection over the proposed regulatory changes.

Deborah Scott, a concerned citizen, opposes the proposed Federal CCR Permit Program as currently structured, specifically arguing against shortening the permit application deadline and prioritizing sites based on state administrative preferences rather than environmental risk. She advocates for a longer application window, risk-based tiering, and mandatory participation in a centralized federal database for public accountability.