HENRY "WANE" JOHSON, JA — swore Congress of the United States — ARMED SERVICES House of Representatives wraucench Eenain TEs Washington, BE 20515-1004 sewcstome March 4, 2016 Honorable Martin R, Casto Chain US. Commission on Civ Rights 1351 Pennapvania Ave, NW, ete 1150 Washington, D.C. 20125 [RE: Comment on Briefing for “Environmental Justice: Tosie Materials, Poor Economies and the Impact on the Evironment of Low-Income, Minority Commanites” eae Commissioner Casto “The constiuens of Georgia have mised concern! over the dumping of coal ash in ites not quipped to handle safely col combustion residuals (coal eh” ot “CCR") thus exposing communities, the lel envionment, nd groundwater suppes to potentially dangerous chemical. do not want Georgia residents, egtdes of income level to be utasy and useasonsby exposed to toxic chemical beeause the coal ash i being deposited in imdequntaly protected faites. Jn its fnal coal ash republished on Api 17,2015, he Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA”) exempted municipal solid waste MSW") land frm the requicements ofthe coal ash Aisposa regulations ("CCR Rule")? Consequeny, when coal sh is deposited in a MSW lndil the federal safegacds are les steingent than if the coal ash was dgposed ina new existing coal ‘combustion residual andl rsuface impoundment under the CCR mle. CCR lands ae specially lined with sythetc and natural material o preven toxins fom leaching into the ground. These safeguards ste not ia place in mort MSW landfill. While the EPA nally engaging inthe cos ach debates commendable, his gyp in the rules risks exposing vulnerable commanies to various Tea eisks. Pan Ch, Sa Gl La Epo Pa Sh To Carn ASNT JOURNAL CORSHIUPON, 312016, 7 Dan Chapman Sus Gog oneal Opals On i anil NAT JR onstri0s, Ja. 25,2016 igh aan, Gri Cet Prat “arn Dit" ANAWTAJOUN- Di Tey Dicaon, Wage Coty Rett Worl la Raab Pr To Bay Cob Lon Nr Alsen Je Fuoaioa Ts Uso, Jan. 3, 216, hpchsom com news /ecrga/206 26 tons cnt. $Haeedous and Sold Wate Manageme! Sst: Dipl of Coal Combution Residue From Elie Utes 40 (CER 95257 & 261 015). hap rw edoneegiser go arces/ 18/0 /17/2018 09257 hana od a‘To be clear, am not saying col ash should be subject to unnecessary regulations that minimize ts production of use. When coal ah ie reused, it has numerous envizonmentl, economic, and industrial benefits. The beneficial revs of coal ach prevents this waste from going into andl, ‘wasting other natural resources, and reducing disposal costs. Over the past three decades, the EPA. has exempted beneficial reuse of coal ath from both solid and hazardous waste regulation and the EPA's final coal ash rule codified this exemption into federal regulation. Under the final EPA ule, “henefcinl wees” of enal ach in ennerete, rick, ronfing material and wallhoard ara eeemp Fram regulation, Furthermore, an EPA study ofthe encapsulated uses of coal ash concluded that, vironmental releases of constituents of potential concein (COPCs) fom CCR fl ash concrete and FGD gypsum wallboacd ducing use by the consumer are compatable to of lower than those fom analogous non-CCR products, orate ator below relevant regulatory and health-based ‘benchmasks for human and ecological receptors.” There are significant benefits to this industiial by-product including its reuse ae a material in construction. However, Ihave concerns as tothe coal sash tha remains unused and ie disposal in facilities not equipped to handle it “The threat co communities near MSW landfills is growing because the CCR Rule encourages the closure of inactive col ach surface impoundments and provides incentives for ealy closure of active col ach impoundments. This has aleady resulted in significant increase inthe volume of coal ash being moved from impoundments to landfills - lands that are not properly suited to house such an industri by-product. There ate plans in several state, including Georgia, Vicgnia, and South Carolina to dispose of millions of tons of coal ash in offsite lanl. is ely that ‘substantial volumes of coal ash will continue to be disposed of in MSW landfills in the neat Future ax active and inactive coal ash impoundments undergo closure. Disposal of coal ach in « MSW landfill has alzeady caused great atm to adjacent ‘communities in the south du tothe lack of proper safeguards, Prom 2009-2010, mote than million tone of col ach from the diastroue spill atthe Tenneccee Valley Authosity’s Kingeton Fossil Plant wa dumped in the Arrowherd Land&ll~ 2 MSW landfill in Petey County, Alabama “Arrowhesd's landfill permit fied to requite adequate measutes to minimize toxic fugitive dust, ‘tablish proundwater monitoring for common coal arh contaminants, address structural stability hres from ware piles, and prevent hazardous interactions between coal ash and municipal solid waste. These safeguards ae stil lacking atthe andl, which is curently permitted to accept coal ash from 33 states US Environmental Protein Agen, CO: COMBUSTION RESIDUAL Bs, US:EVALU SHON FLY ASH Conc: NO FGD GrYSLHIWAL9O MRD (eb 2019, ha NI 3 ABUlsADncseA ae =aeTine=dfndime=4Scach Nth = 14 oxen ent Loc=AeoLnu=R OER 8, ‘ShfasnunDDumsa Fuze Dspes=0selosgsCuaiy=7Sg8/e5g8/o 6/8 lysep ‘TugeontSeuhlack= 7s Aconl Altach= 75 tons kane“ Resa age asaumPaps 73 ‘SSuckTageoxA PRL "'Sanara). Son, Teme She Spl ane On Hames War, CNN.COM, Dee. 24,2008, ‘ase Foca /2008/US/12/23 tennence ge pl Shas Dew, Tne sh Pd Lary Th Il dines, NY Tia, Dex. 26, 2008, d/o 1202 ahs me hala Dewan Cla It lame Cnr Tne Cal uh NY. TMS, Aa. 23, 20, Ing res coo2009/08/30 as Sash{As a result neathy residents expetienced severe respicatory problems, headaches, dizziness, ‘nausea, vomiting insomnia, and interference with outdoor acvites, among other harms." Residents ‘of Uniontown, Alabama were alo exposed to tisborne coal ash, which contains several human carcinogens and other toxins asrociated with increased risks of skin lng, and bladder cancer; neurological disease; and injury to the reproductive system, among other illnesses In the absence of federal efeguards, residents in Uniontown suffered anda fesing of distust has permeated the community? The surrounding community has an unemployment rte of 17 percent, 70% Aftican- American, and third ofall households are below the poverty line. Many of the residents feel they are being taken advantage of by more powerful stakeholders who do not live inthe ares. This pparculaly egregious considering much of the coal ash in not from loeal producers, but seated ‘being tansported in from out of sate ‘The lack of equivalent protections at MSW landéls to protec sir, groundwater and surface ‘water oom coal ash contamination threatens the health and environment of communities ‘throughout the United States where MSW landfills are receiving coal sth EPA recognizes tis critical gap in protections at MSW landfills I the preamble to: final CCR rule, EPA speciealy, nd strongly, recommended numerous waye that individual sate should implement thei municipal solid waste programs to make the MSW landfill standards more protective in the event coal ash is disposed in thee landfills. However, asthe shift to MSW lands becomes more common, thes sites and their governing rues mast be reexamined to help sefeguard communities. Aecording to Section 4004(a) of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRA”), [EPA's subtide D regulations must be sufficient to prevent an unreasonable probability of adverse effets on human heath and the environment.’ To this end, [urge the commission to recommend thar the Adminstator protect Georgia constituents by amending the municipal soli waste adil titra to accomplish the following () Incosporate the fugitive dust criteria of the CCR mile a 40 CER. § 257.80 to effectively ‘minimize coal ssh from becoming aisborne at the feilty, including coal ash fugitive dust, otiginaing fcom the landil as wells oad and other ash management and material handling activities. @ Incorporate the relevant groundwater monitoring nd corrective action requirements of the CCR rule at 40 CER. §§ 257.90 -98 to ensure that releases of coal ash contaminants are promptly detected and remediated (©) Require MSW Landfls to evaluate coal ash for waste compatibility and placement by establishing a “CCR acceptance plan” maintained inthe falty operating record thet ensues the facility is aware of che physical and chemical charactersties ofthe coal ath and handles ‘with the addtional precautions necessary to avoid dust, maintain structural integety, and Gig Douban, Md Fa For Land Ra De Io Alsons MARKT. cOM, Nay 77,2105, ap enemas or 2018/05/27 owned feng lndil-n-Sepcans Jub Lm, Wad Amen Te Wat, Din Ofb—sad No, Th Ft, NCHERJONES COM, Feb, 29, 2016, ronment 1.021 Stas Deas, ls Ie sia On Tent Cal Ah NV. TS, AG 2,209, p/w es com/ 2000/08/30 aac el SPL 107-37 $404) 2002, pL esoeemusnatcgo/oltvoid compromising the gus and leachate collection systems of the landfill eo that human Ihealh and the environment are protected. (@ Requize public notifications equivalent ro the col ach rule to ensure impacted communities are able to access groundwater monitoring data, inspections, and other documents demonstrating compliance. (©) Require weekly and annual inspections of MSW landfill receiving coal ash that are ‘equivalent to 40 CER. § 257.84 and require owners and operators to remedy all deficiencies found at land nepectons (6 Restictthe siting of new MSW landfils and Iateral expansions of MSW landilsto ensure the placement of coal ash above the uppermost aquifer as required by 40 CFR. § 257.60. am concerned Georgia residents, specially those in low-income and minority communities, are facing a greater isk of toxic chemical exposure simply because the coal ash is being disposed of in inadequately protected facilis that happen o bein their neighborhood. On behalf of my constituents, itis cecal that US. Commission on Civil Rights ("USCCR") underscore the importance of all communities receiving the sme level of protection from coal ash and thatthe EPA can easly close this gap in protections by augmenting the federal rules appliable to municipal solid waste landfills “Thank you for your consideration, Respectfully, Awd (bower Henty C. "Hank" Johnson Member of Congrere