Anonymous public comment

I am voicing my opposition to the proposed Federal CCR Permit Program, docket EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0361, in its current form. This permit program is crucial as it will determine how these regulations are applied across most states. Currently, only four states have EPA-approved CCR permit programs. The federal program's structure, timelines, criteria, and data requirements will significantly influence how the April rollback translates into practice, affecting protections. The questions posed by the EPA during this comment period have direct implications for public health. One question is whether to reduce the deadline for first-tier permit applications from 18 months to six months after the final rule becomes effective. I strongly oppose this reduction. Complex, site-specific technical analyses are required by the April 2026 proposed amendments to justify alternative groundwater monitoring requirements, cleanup levels, and closure timelines. These analyses require extensive data and site-specific risk assessments, taking a year or more to complete. A six-month timeframe will result in incomplete applications, giving permit authorities more discretion, often benefitting operators over communities. The 18-month deadline should remain unchanged. The EPA is also considering which facilities should apply first, suggesting prioritizing CCR units in states not seeking their own permit program approval. I oppose such tiering based on state administrative choices. States opting out of their own CCR programs often have minimal regulatory infrastructure and insufficient political will to protect residents from coal ash contamination. Processing these sites first under tight deadlines and limited resources does not adequately protect vulnerable communities. Tiering should be based on documented risks to human health and the environment: sites with confirmed groundwater contamination, locations near communities without alternative drinking water, and legacy sites lacking federal oversight should be prioritized. The EPA must focus on contamination risk and community vulnerability, not state choices. The EPA is asking if states with their own CCR programs should enter permit data into the centralized EPA RCRAInfo database or maintain separate systems. I advocate for mandatory participation in the federal database for all CCR permit authorities. This should be a requirement, not optional. The 2020 proposed rule included a CCR module in RCRAInfo for federally issued permits. Extending it to state-issued permits ensures public accountability and national data consistency. Permitting decisions, critical under a permit-driven compliance system, must be publicly accessible. Without centralized data, communities can't access protection information, and environmental organizations can't track enforcement patterns across states. A system without public data access fails as an accountability mechanism. The EPA should mandate data entry into the federal database for all state CCR programs. Communities near coal ash sites have long awaited effective federal oversight. The program design must honor this commitment. Thank you.