Comment submitted by Madelyn Hittle

AnonymousSupportIndividual
Summary: The commenter supports Virginia's State Coal Combustion Residuals Permit Program but argues that the current language is insufficiently specific and could create jurisdictional gaps. They recommend that the EPA provide clearer guidance to facilities, define the specific boundaries of the "partial" approval between the EPA and VADEQ, and provide a geographical map of the respective jurisdictions.
I am submitting this comment in support of Virginia's State Coal Combustion Permit Program. I am interested in this topic because of knowledge from college courses, as well as personal research. My comment pertains to 40 CFR part 257 (subpart D) of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act. Published by the EPA on April 17, 2015, it lays out the minimum Federal requirements for the disposal of CCR in landfills and surface impoundments (Federal Register). More specifically, it states that the State must submit an application to the Administrator for approval, and the EPA shall approve it if the Administrator determines the State program requires each CCR unit in the State to attain compliance with either: (1) the Federal requirements; (2) other State requirements that the EPA determines, after consultation with the State, are "at least as protective as" those included in the Federal CCR regulations (Federal Reserve). Additionally, I am commenting on the revision on March 4, 2026 when VADEQ submitted its CCR permit program application to EPA Region 3. This was a request for the Commonwealth's partial CCR permit program. Stating that the State's regulations need to be "as protective as" Federal regulations is insufficient. This is insufficient because it allows for states to largely adopt the language in the Federal CCR regulations into its state regulations. Specificity is required in order to implement this successfully. The language "as good as" can become a loophole for states. This can be seen in the case of Alabama's Coal Ash Permit Program request. In this case, the EPA denied Alabama's permit program due to it being less protective of people and waterways than the federal regulation requires (EPA, 2023). Under Federal regulations, facilities must prevent groundwater from infiltrating and flowing out of the closed unit to prevent additional groundwater contamination, which Alabama did not follow. Alabama did not require that the groundwater infiltration be adequately addressed during the closure of these coal ash units (EPA, 2023). The Alabama Department of Environmental Management largely adopted the language in the federal CCR regulations, but was denied by the EPA due to the interpretation of the language. Additionally, I want to touch on the "partial" permit program submitted to EPA Region 3. By obtaining a partial program while still acting "in lieu" of the Federal CCR program, with certain provisions identified, it becomes ambiguous. There needs to be specific language on what is covered by the EPA and what is covered by VADEQ. Also, tribal consultation will be conducted with the EPA policy, which can cause jurisdictional gaps. This is because certain areas are under different rules and regulations, which can become confusing and conflicting with one another. I recommend that the agency: (1) specify and provide clear guidance to facilities on the state and federal regulations; (2) provide specific language on what is covered by the EPA and what is covered under VADEQ; (3) provide a geographical map of the areas under regulation of VADEQ, and areas under regulation of the EPA. I support Virginia's State Coal Combustion Residuals Permit Program and hope to see it succeed. However, I believe there are gaps in the current language of the permit. In order for it to best succeed, I believe it needs clarification of language provided to facilities on the guidelines to follow, defining the specific regulations of the "partial" approval between the EPA and VADEQ, and a geographical map showing the jurisdictions that are under EPA regulation and those that are under VADEQ regulation. Thank you for your attention to this matter. US EPA, OA. “EPA Proposes to Deny Alabama’s Coal Ash Permit Program and Better Protect Local Communities from Pollution.” Www.epa.gov, 3 Aug. 2023, www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-deny-alabamas-coal-ash-permit-program-and-better-protect-local. “Virginia: Approval of State Coal Combustion Residuals Permit Program.” Federal Register, 4 May 2026, www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/04/2026-08662/virginia-approval-of-state-coal-combustion-residuals-permit-program.

View on Regulations.gov