Comment submitted by Richard Spotts

I’m writing to express my opposition to the current structure of the proposed Federal CCR Permit Program, docket EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0361. This program will set the standards for states across the nation, where only four currently have EPA-approved CCR permits. The federal program’s framework, deadlines, tiering criteria, and data requirements will significantly impact how leniencies in the April rollback translate into actual weakened protections. Questions posed by the EPA now have vital public health implications. The EPA is considering shortening the deadline for first-tier permit applications from 18 months to six months post-final rule. I am against this reduction. The proposed April 2026 amendments necessitate facilities to submit detailed technical analyses for alternative groundwater monitoring, cleanup levels, and closure timelines. Accurate applications require extensive data analysis and site-specific risk assessments, generally taking over a year. A six-month deadline risks incomplete submissions, expanding discretionary power in ways that historically favor operators over communities. The 18-month deadline should remain. Additionally, the EPA is contemplating prioritizing CCR units in states opting out of their own permit programs. I oppose criteria based on state preferences. States opting out usually lack regulatory infrastructure and political resolve to protect from coal ash contamination. Rushing those sites under a tight timeframe and reduced workforce fails to safeguard the most at-risk communities. Prioritization should focus on human health and environmental risks—sites with confirmed groundwater contamination, those near communities without alternative drinking water sources, and legacy sites lacking federal oversight. The EPA is also deciding on requiring states with their own CCR programs to use the EPA’s centralized RCRAInfo database. I strongly support mandatory federal database participation for all CCR permit authorities. Extending this requirement ensures public accountability and consistency across national data. Major coal ash management decisions will occur at the permit level, not through uniform national standards. Without centralized public data access, communities cannot know about site protections or exemptions, and environmental groups cannot track weakened enforcement patterns. A permitting system without accessible data fails as an accountability measure. The EPA must require all state CCR programs to use the federal database, ensuring public access. Communities near coal ash sites have waited long for effective federal oversight. This permit program should honor that commitment. Thank you for your consideration.