FR 2025-00847

The document in focus is a proposed rule by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) aimed at making corrections and clarifications to a previously published rule regarding the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR) from electric utilities. This original regulation was intended to set standards for handling and disposing of these byproducts of coal burning, known as CCR, which can pose environmental and health risks if not managed properly.

General Summary

The EPA is addressing the need to correct errors and clarify the language in the rule issued on May 8, 2024. This is important because the rule deals with legacy CCR surface impoundments, which are essentially large ponds or containers holding coal ash waste. These clarifications are necessary to ensure that the rule accurately reflects the EPA's intention and the requirements set forth in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

The proposal invites the public to comment on these corrections by March 17, 2025. If there are no significant objections, the corrections will become effective automatically. However, if there are adverse comments, the EPA will assess the feedback and may revise the corrections accordingly before the rule is finalized.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several issues arise from the document that may concern various stakeholders:

• Communication and Comprehension: The document contains several technical terms such as "CCR surface impoundments" and references specific acts like the RCRA. Without providing definitions or context, these terms might not be easily understood by all readers, particularly by those without a background in environmental law or policy.

• Lack of Financial Transparency: The proposal does not clearly state any potential financial impacts, such as costs associated with compliance or how these corrections might affect funding or operational costs for the entities involved. This could be critical information for stakeholders evaluating the proposal.

• Technical Language: The document uses language that might be complex for individuals not familiar with regulatory processes, which could lead to misunderstandings or difficulty in providing informed commentary.

• Stakeholder Impact: While the rule specifies that it applies to entities classified under the NAICS code 221112, it lacks guidance for other entities that might also be affected, leaving a gap in clarity about the rule's applicability.

Public Impact

For the general public, the corrections proposed by the EPA aim to ensure that coal combustion residuals are managed in a way that protects human health and the environment. Proper management of these materials can prevent contamination of water supplies and limit exposure to hazardous substances. Thus, these corrections have a significant positive impact by reinforcing environmental safety and health standards.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

• Electric Utilities and Power Producers:

These entities are directly affected as they are responsible for complying with the rule. The correction aims to make compliance and interpretation more straightforward by aligning the regulatory text with the EPA's original intentions. This can help avoid potential legal issues or non-compliance due to ambiguous language.

• Regulatory Bodies:

For agencies responsible for enforcing or monitoring compliance, this clarification may streamline the regulatory process and reduce confusion. However, they might also need to adjust their procedures to accommodate any changes that stem from these corrections.

• Environmental and Public Health Advocates:

These groups might view the proposed corrections positively, as they affirm ongoing federal commitment to environmental health and responsible waste management. The clarity and precision these corrections bring may strengthen their advocacy efforts by ensuring the legal framework is sound.

The administrative aspects of the rulemaking process, including public comments and potential modifications, exemplify democratic engagement by allowing stakeholders to express their views. This highlights the broader effort to ensure regulatory rules effectively balance industry, community, and environmental needs.