Comment submitted by Persistence Analytics Group LLC

To the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — Re: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-3325 — Virginia: Approval of State Coal Combustion Residuals Permit Program Persistence Analytics Group LLC respectfully submits this comment regarding EPA’s proposed approval of Virginia’s partial Coal Combustion Residuals permit program under RCRA. PAG is a national security and infrastructure risk analytics firm focused on implementation-assumption verification, decision assurance, public-cost exposure, critical-infrastructure risk, and regulatory implementation integrity. This proposal should not be evaluated only as a legal delegation question. It is an implementation-risk question. If approved, Virginia’s CCR permit program would operate in lieu of the Federal CCR program for approved provisions, while certain Federal provisions would remain directly applicable. That structure creates a practical accountability question: What assumptions must be verified before EPA concludes that Virginia’s partial CCR permit program can protect communities, water resources, public health, and the public interest at least as effectively as the Federal framework? PAG respectfully recommends that EPA’s final review explicitly address the following implementation-verification issues: 1. Permit-Capacity Verification Does VADEQ have sufficient staffing, expertise, technical systems, regional consistency, funding, and enforcement capacity to administer CCR permitting over the life of each facility, including closure and post-closure care? 2. Compliance-Monitoring Verification What evidence demonstrates that monitoring, inspection, groundwater data review, corrective action oversight, and public reporting will be timely, consistent, and technically rigorous? 3. Enforcement Authority and Execution What evidence shows that Virginia can identify noncompliance, compel corrective action, and enforce permit conditions without delay, political pressure, resource constraints, or procedural gaps? 4. Partial-Program Boundary Risk Because this is a partial program, EPA should clearly verify which requirements are delegated, which remain Federal, how conflicts will be resolved, and how regulated facilities and the public will know which authority controls. 5. Groundwater and Surface-Water Protection What assumptions support EPA’s conclusion that Virginia’s technical criteria and permit implementation will be at least as protective as Federal CCR requirements for groundwater monitoring, corrective action, closure, and post-closure care? 6. Public Participation and Transparency What evidence demonstrates that affected communities will have meaningful access to permit documents, monitoring data, enforcement actions, hearing procedures, and intervention rights? 7. Emergency and Release Response What controls are in place if there is an unauthorized significant release from a CCR unit, and how quickly would EPA reassess the state program if implementation fails? 8. Downside Ownership If the program fails to detect or correct risk, who bears the cost: utilities, ratepayers, taxpayers, local governments, landowners, water users, or affected communities? PAG is not opposing state implementation as a category. The issue is that federal delegation should be based on verified implementation capacity, not only legal authority or paper compliance. Coal ash regulation is a long-duration infrastructure and environmental-risk issue. The public interest depends on whether the permitting system works in practice: monitoring, enforcement, transparency, correction, cost allocation, and public trust. Trust the state program. Verify the implementation. Respectfully submitted, Neil P. Osnato Founder Persistence Analytics Group LLC | United Grid National Security & Infrastructure Risk Analytics Demand Durability | Grid Stress | Load Integrity neil@persistenceanalyticsgroup.com 609-464-9055 https://persistenceanalyticsgroup.com/ SAM.gov Registered Vendor UEI: D3VYU39H6DX9 | CAGE: 19T34 D-U-N-S: 142849930