Comment submitted by Steven Singleton

I write regarding EPA's proposed approval of Louisiana's partial CCR permit program to operate in lieu of the federal CCR rule. The statutory standard for approval is that state criteria be "at least as protective as" the federal baseline. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B). The preamble itself discloses several gaps between the state and federal programs. My concern is not that EPA hid these gaps — it disclosed them — but that the preamble does not analyze their cumulative or distributional effect, and only the comment period can put that analysis on the record. 1. Reconsideration-pending provisions left unaddressed. Louisiana has not adopted the federal groundwater protection standards for cobalt, lead, lithium, and molybdenum (40 CFR 257.95(h)(2)) or the vegetative-cover slope-stability requirements (40 CFR 257.73/257.74), because those federal provisions are "under reconsideration." That is precisely backwards from a protective standpoint: the provisions most likely to be contested are often the ones with the most at stake, and Louisiana facilities would operate without them for an unspecified interim period. I request EPA state, in the final rule, what standard governs these parameters while reconsideration is pending. I further request a defined timeline for revisiting Louisiana's approval once reconsideration concludes. 2. Enforcement fragmentation for legacy units. Louisiana has not adopted EPA's 2024 "Legacy Rule," so legacy CCR surface impoundments and newly defined CCR management units remain entirely under direct federal enforcement, with no state permitting role. RCRA 4005(d)(4) preserves EPA's inspection and enforcement authority, but the preamble never states EPA Region 6's staffing or monitoring commitment to actually exercise it for these categories once the state program takes over routine oversight of the units it does cover. An enforcement authority that is legally preserved but operationally unstated is not meaningfully reviewable by the public. I request EPA disclose its specific enforcement plan for these unadopted categories before finalizing approval. 3. The one exclusion EPA itself found inadequate. EPA determined that Louisiana's exclusion for CCR impoundments that "no longer contain water" (LAC 33:VII.1001.B.2) is not as protective as the federal standard, and preserved direct federal applicability for it. That is the right outcome for that provision, but the preamble does not explain the coordination mechanism between EPA and LDEQ that prevents this from becoming a jurisdictional seam a facility could exploit — for example, by disputing which regulator has authority during a transition in a unit's status. I request that mechanism be specified. 4. Discretionary public hearings. Louisiana's CCR permit hearings are discretionary — LDEQ "may" hold a hearing (LAC 33:VII.509.E.1-4) — which the rule credits as satisfying RCRA 7004(b)'s public-participation mandate. A "may" standard is a lower participatory floor than a defined process, and the "at least as protective as" comparison in section 4005(d)(1)(B) should cover participatory protections as rigorously as technical ones. I request EPA condition approval on LDEQ adopting objective criteria for when a hearing is required, at minimum for permits or major modifications affecting units within a defined distance of residential areas. 5. Missing environmental-justice analysis. The preamble documents EPA's Tribal consultation in detail, including that the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians requested incident notification near the Cleco Brame Power Plant. No comparable analysis appears for low-income or minority communities near Louisiana's nine CCR units at four facilities, despite Louisiana's documented history of environmental-justice concerns in its industrial corridors. I request EPA add this analysis to the final record before approval, consistent with the rigor already applied to Tribal consultation. Approving a state program is a reasonable structure under RCRA 4005(d), and Louisiana's application appears comprehensive on the provisions it did adopt. But the specific, disclosed gaps above are exactly where a public comment period should add value, and the final rule should resolve them on the record rather than leaving them for a future enforcement dispute to sort out.