[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 111 (Friday, June 7, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48774-48820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-11692]



[[Page 48773]]

Vol. 89

Friday,

No. 111

June 7, 2024

Part III





 Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





40 CFR Part 257





Alabama: Denial of State Coal Combustion Residuals Permit Program; 
Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 111 / Friday, June 7, 2024 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 48774]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 257

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0903; FRL 11262-02-OLEM]


Alabama: Denial of State Coal Combustion Residuals Permit Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Availability of final decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is denying the 
Alabama Department of Environmental Management's (ADEM) Application for 
approval of the Alabama coal combustion residuals (CCR) permit program 
(Application). After reviewing the State CCR permit program Application 
submitted by ADEM on December 29, 2021, additional relevant materials, 
including permits issued by ADEM, and comments submitted on the 
Proposed Denial, EPA has determined that Alabama's CCR permit program 
does not meet the standard for approval under RCRA.

DATES: This action is effective on July 8, 2024.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0903. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not 
placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy 
form.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Lloyd, Office of Resource 
Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW, MC: 5304T, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 
566-0560; email address: [email protected]. For more information 
on this notification please visit https://www.epa.gov/coalash.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Summary of Final Action
    B. Background
    C. Statutory Authority
    D. Summary of Proposed Denial of Alabama's CCR Permit Program 
Application
II. Final Action on Alabama CCR Permit Program Application
    A. Legal Authority To Evaluate State CCR Permit Program 
Applications
    B. EPA Review of Alabama Regulations for CCR Units
    C. EPA Review of Alabama's Permits Issued Under the State CCR 
Regulations
III. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. Legal and Policy Comments on EPA's Review of Alabama's CCR 
Permit Program
    B. Comments on EPA's Technical Evaluation of Alabama CCR Permits
    C. Miscellaneous Comments
    D. Out of Scope Comments
IV. Final Action

List of Acronyms

ACM Assessment of Corrective Measures
ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management
CCP coal combustion product
CCR coal combustion residuals
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
FR Federal Register
GWMP Groundwater Monitoring Plan
GWPS groundwater protection standard
MCL maximum contaminant level
MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation
MSL mean sea level
NOPV Notice of Potential Violation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RTC Response to Comments
TSD Technical Support Document
TVA Tennessee Valley Authority
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WBWT waste below the water table
WIIN Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation

I. General Information

A. Summary of Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to deny approval of Alabama's CCR permit 
program because the Agency finds that the State's program does not 
require each CCR unit in the State to achieve compliance with either 
the minimum requirements in the Federal CCR regulations or with 
alternative requirements that EPA has determined to be at least as 
protective as the requirements of the Federal CCR regulations in 40 CFR 
part 257, subpart D, for the reasons set forth in the Proposed Denial 
and this final action. See, 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B).

B. Background

    CCR are generated from the combustion of coal, including solid 
fuels classified as anthracite, bituminous coal, subbituminous coal, 
and lignite, for the purpose of generating steam to power a generator 
to produce electricity or electricity and other thermal energy by 
electric utilities and independent power producers. CCR include fly 
ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization materials. 
CCR contain many contaminants that may pose a hazard to human health 
and the environment.
    On April 17, 2015, EPA published a final rule, creating 40 CFR part 
257, subpart D,\1\ that established a comprehensive set of minimum 
Federal requirements for the disposal of CCR in landfills and surface 
impoundments (80 FR 21302, April 17, 2015) (``Federal CCR 
regulations''). Section 2301 of the 2016 Water Infrastructure 
Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act amended section 4005 of RCRA, 
creating a new subsection (d) that establishes a Federal CCR permit 
program that is similar to the permit programs under RCRA subtitle C 
and other environmental statutes. See, 42 U.S.C. 6945(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Unless otherwise specified, all references to parts 257 and 
239 in this notification are to title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal CCR regulations are self-implementing, which means that 
CCR landfills and surface impoundments must comply with the terms of 
the rule even prior to establishment of a Federal CCR permit program, 
and noncompliance with any requirement of the Federal CCR regulations 
can be directly enforced against the facility. Once a final CCR permit 
is issued, the terms of the permit apply in lieu of the terms of the 
Federal CCR regulations, and RCRA section 4005(d)(3) provides a permit 
shield against direct enforcement of the applicable Federal CCR 
regulations (meaning the permit's terms become the enforceable 
requirements for the permittee).
    RCRA section 4005(d) also allows States to seek approval for a 
State CCR permit program that will operate in lieu of a Federal CCR 
permit program in the State. The statute provides that after a State 
submits an application to the Administrator for approval, EPA shall 
approve the State permit program within 180 days after the 
Administrator determines that the State program requires each CCR unit 
located in the State to achieve compliance with either the Federal 
requirements or other State requirements that EPA determines, after 
consultation with the State, are at least as protective as those 
included in the Federal CCR regulations. See, 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B).
    After EPA issued the Federal CCR regulations in 2015, Alabama 
established ADEM Administrative Code Chapter 335-13-15, for the 
portions of

[[Page 48775]]

those regulations for which the State is seeking approval, and language 
in the State's regulations is almost identical to EPA regulations. 
Alabama's regulations became effective in 2018, and soon after the 
State began implementing its State CCR permit program and issuing 
permits. At the time of submission of ADEM's December 29, 2021, 
Application to EPA, ADEM had issued permits for the following CCR 
facilities: (1) the James H. Miller Electric Generating Plant (Permit 
#37-51; issued December 18, 2020); (2) Greene County Electric 
Generating Plant (Permit #32-03: issued December 18, 2020); (3) Gadsden 
Steam Plant (Permit #28-09, issued December 18, 2020); (4) James M. 
Barry Electric Generating Plant (Permit #49-35, issued July 1, 2021); 
(5) E.C. Gaston Electric Generating Plant (Permit #59-16, issued May 
25, 2021); and (6) Charles R. Lowman Power Plant (Permit #65-06, issued 
August 30, 2021). After its Application was submitted to EPA, ADEM 
proceeded to issue permits for the William C. Gorgas Electric 
Generating Plant (Permit #64-12 issued February 28, 2022) and for the 
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Plant Colbert (Permit #17-11, issued 
October 25, 2022).
    Starting in January 2018, EPA began working with ADEM as the State 
developed its Application for the State's CCR permit program, and, over 
the course of several years, EPA had many interactions with ADEM about 
the development of a state CCR permit program. See Unit III.E. of the 
Proposed Denial and Technical Support Document (TSD) Volume II 
(summarizing and listing, respectively, the communications between EPA 
and ADEM concerning the State's CCR permit program and implementation 
of the CCR regulations). As with other States, EPA discussed with ADEM 
the process for EPA to review and approve the State's CCR permit 
program, including ADEM's plans for formally adopting CCR regulations, 
ADEM's anticipated timeline for submitting a CCR permit program 
Application to EPA, and ADEM's regulations for issuing permits. EPA 
also reviewed ADEM's submissions on multiple occasions and sent 
comments to ADEM on those documents. On December 29, 2021, ADEM 
submitted its State CCR permit program Application to EPA Region 4 
requesting approval of the State's partial CCR permit program.\2\ ADEM 
established State CCR regulations that largely mirror the provisions in 
the Federal CCR regulations and contain additional State-specific 
provisions and clarifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Alabama Department of Environmental Management. Application 
For CCR Permit Program Approval. December 2021. The State is seeking 
approval of a partial CCR permit program because certain provisions 
of the Federal Program were not included in the State regulations. 
See Part IV.B. of the Proposed Denial for details on the State's 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time EPA was in discussions with Alabama about its CCR 
permit program, the Agency was also reviewing facility requests for 
extensions of the date to cease sending all waste to unlined surface 
impoundments under Part A of the Federal CCR regulations.\3\ To be 
eligible for an extension under Part A, a facility was required to 
demonstrate that the CCR unit was in compliance with the Federal CCR 
regulations in 40 CFR part 257, subpart D.\4\ The Agency's review of 
the Part A compliance demonstrations showed EPA that there were 
systemic problems with facility compliance with the groundwater 
monitoring, corrective action, and closure requirements.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of 
Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities; A Holistic 
Approach to Closure Part A: Deadline to Initiate Closure 85 FR 
53516, August 28, 2020.
    \4\ Section 257.103(f) required a certification of current 
compliance and that the owner or operator will remain in compliance 
with the applicable requirements of subpart D of part 257 at all 
times and a narrative compliance strategy. See the Part A Final Rule 
at 85 FR 53542-53544.
    \5\ On January 11, 2022, EPA issued proposed determinations on 
demonstrations submitted by facilities for extensions to the cease 
receipt of waste deadline per 40 CFR 257.103(f)(1) and (2), which 
the Agency refers to as ``Part A determinations'' or ``Part A''. The 
CCR Part A Final Rule (85 FR 53516, August 28, 2020) grants 
facilities the option to submit a demonstration to EPA for an 
extension to the deadline for unlined CCR surface impoundments to 
stop receiving waste. Facilities had until November 30, 2020, to 
submit demonstrations to EPA for approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 11, 2022, EPA emailed ADEM copies of the first set of 
proposed Part A decisions, including the proposed decision for the 
General James M. Gavin Power Plant in Cheshire, Ohio. Proposed Denial 
TSD Volume II (listing communications between EPA and ADEM). Three of 
the proposed decisions addressed facilities that had one or more 
unlined surface impoundments with CCR continually saturated by 
groundwater, and that intended to close the units without addressing 
that situation. In each case, EPA explained that the facility failed to 
demonstrate that the closure of these units complied with the plain 
language of the performance standards in Sec.  257.102(d)(2)--which 
include addressing infiltration into and releases from the impoundment 
and eliminating free liquids--given that groundwater appeared to be 
continually saturating CCR in the unlined impoundments. The closure 
regulations limit contact between the waste (CCR) in the unit and 
groundwater after closure because it is critical to minimizing 
contaminants released into the environment and will help ensure 
communities near the sites have access to safe water for drinking and 
recreation.
    After forwarding the proposed decisions, EPA met with ADEM to 
discuss how the Federal regulations apply to situations in which an 
unlined surface impoundment has been constructed in or below the water 
table.\6\ EPA also held a meeting about this topic where all the Region 
4 States were invited, including ADEM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See March 15, 2022, Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0903-
0039. The email included a list of units in Alabama that EPA 
believed were closing with waste in place with waste below the water 
table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After issuing the proposed Part A decisions, EPA looked at several 
of Alabama's State CCR permits for unlined surface impoundments that 
had been issued by that time. Of particular concern to the Agency were 
facilities that were closing (or had already closed) unlined CCR 
surface impoundments while leaving waste (i.e., CCR) below the water 
table (WBWT), and ADEM had issued permits for such surface impoundments 
at Greene County Electric Generating Plant, Gadsden Steam Plant, and 
William C. Gorgas Electric Generating Plant. After a brief review of 
these permits, EPA identified to ADEM aspects of Alabama's permit 
program that appeared to differ from the Federal program, and the 
Agency explained that the differences appear to make the State's 
program less protective than the Federal program. The Agency 
specifically identified problems with the State's permit requirements 
covering closure of unlined surface impoundments, groundwater 
monitoring networks, and corrective action. With respect to some of 
EPA's concerns about compliance with the closure standards in Sec.  
257.102(d)(2) of the Federal CCR regulations, ADEM indicated it 
intended to address any ongoing issues with the facility closure plans 
through corrective action requirements instead of requiring compliance 
with the applicable closure requirements with respect to free liquids 
and infiltration from the bottom and sides.\7\ See Unit IV.C of the 
Proposed

[[Page 48776]]

Denial and Proposed Denial TSD Volume I for a detailed discussion of 
the deficiencies in ADEM's CCR permits.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See July 6, 2022, email from S. Scott Story, ADEM, to 
Meredith Anderson, EPA Region 4, entitled ``Meeting Follow Up'' 
which included two attachments: Plant Gadsden Waste Below the Water 
Table (WBWT) and Closure Questions and Plant Green County Waste 
Below the Water Table (WBWT) and Closure Questions. Docket Number: 
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0903-0065.
    \8\ Technical Support Document Volume III. See Volume III: 
Technical Support Document for the Proposed Notice to Deny Alabama's 
Coal Combustion Residuals Permit Program, EPA Analysis of Alabama 
CCR Permitting and Technical Regulations. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management (5304T), 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. August 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the concerns raised with respect to Plants Greene 
County, Gorgas, and Gadsden, EPA also raised concerns with respect to 
the proposed CCR permit for TVA Plant Colbert. On June 29, 2022, ADEM 
posted public notice of the draft permit for Plant Colbert. The 
proposed permit for Plant Colbert raised many of the same issues 
already being discussed with respect to the previously issued permits 
for CCR surface impoundments at Plants Greene County, Gorgas, and 
Gadsden. On September 15, 2022, EPA submitted a letter to ADEM 
outlining specific concerns with respect to the proposed permit.\9\ On 
October 25, 2022, ADEM issued a CCR permit to Plant Colbert without 
revising the proposed permit to address EPA's concerns. In a letter 
dated October 27, 2022, ADEM responded to EPA's letter regarding Plant 
Colbert, again presenting the flawed interpretation of the requirements 
applicable to closing unlined CCR surface impoundments, even though EPA 
had rejected the State's interpretations of the Federal CCR regulations 
in previous discussions with ADEM. To date, the State has not taken 
action to revise the permits issued to Plants Greene County, Gorgas, 
Gadsden, or Colbert to address the deficiencies EPA noted to ADEM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Letter from Carolyn Hoskinson, Director, Office of Resource 
Conservation and Recovery, to Mr. Russell A. Kelly, Chief, Permits 
and Services Division, and Mr. Steve Cobb, Chief, Land Division. EPA 
Comments on Proposed Permit, Tennessee Valley Authority Colbert 
Fossil Plant, Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Permit 
No. 17-11. September 15, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 18, 2022, EPA issued a final decision to deny the Gavin 
Plant's request to continue disposing CCR into an unlined surface 
impoundment after the deadline to stop such disposal has passed. EPA 
finalized this denial because Gavin had failed to demonstrate 
compliance with the Federal CCR regulations. Among other areas of non-
compliance, EPA specifically noted that Gavin had closed an unlined CCR 
impoundment with at least a portion of the CCR in continued contact 
with groundwater, and without taking any measures to address the 
groundwater continuing to migrate into and out of the impoundment. EPA 
further explained that Gavin's closure of its unlined impoundments 
under these conditions failed to comply with the plain language of the 
closure standards in 40 CFR 257.102(d)(1) and (2).
    Less than a month later, on December 9, 2022, ADEM gave EPA notice 
of its intent to sue EPA under section 7002(a)(1)(A) and (1)(B) of 
RCRA, alleging EPA failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty to approve 
the State's CCR permit program.\10\ Among other things, ADEM asserted 
that EPA failed to comply with the statutory requirement to approve the 
State's CCR permit program within 180 days of the State's submittal of 
the permit program Application on December 29, 2021. On February 1, 
2023, EPA responded to ADEM's Notice of Intent to Sue. EPA informed the 
State that the 180-day timeframe does not start to run until EPA 
determines that a State's Application is administratively complete and 
that, in this case, the State's Application was not complete because 
EPA's concerns with ADEM's interpretation of the minimum requirements 
of the Federal CCR regulations had yet to be resolved, and that EPA was 
providing an opportunity for ADEM to submit further Application 
information.\11\ EPA further stated that the Agency could evaluate the 
State's program on the current record if ADEM decided not to supplement 
its Application with an explanation of how the State's interpretation 
of its regulations is at least as protective as the Federal CCR 
regulations, and EPA expressed concern that the current record would 
not support a proposal to approve the State's partial CCR permit 
program. Id. On February 17, 2023, ADEM responded to EPA that it did 
not intend to supplement the record and that EPA should evaluate its 
program accordingly.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Letter from Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall to EPA 
Administrator Michael Regan, Notice of Endangerment and Intent to 
Sue under Section 7002(a)(1)(A) and (1)(B) of the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act. December 9, 2022.
    \11\ Letter from Barry Breen, Acting Assistant Administrator, 
OLEM, to Lance LeFleur, Director, ADEM, February 1, 2023. Email sent 
February 2, 2023.
    \12\ Letter from Lance LeFleur, Director, ADEM, to Barry Breen, 
Acting Assistant Administrator, OLEM, February 17, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA thereafter reviewed the Application based on the information 
submitted to that date and on other publicly available and relevant 
information. Specifically, because ADEM started issuing permits for 
unlined surface impoundments prior to EPA approval of the State's CCR 
permit program, the Agency determined that the statute required some 
consideration of Alabama CCR permits as part of the permit program 
review to ensure that the State's program requires each CCR unit in the 
State to achieve compliance with either of the standards in RCRA 
section 4005(d)(1)(B). EPA reviewed several of Alabama's State CCR 
permits for unlined surface impoundments and provided comments on 
issues EPA identified with those permits as part of the Agency's 
evaluation of the State's Application.
    On August 14, 2023, EPA proposed to deny approval of Alabama's CCR 
permit program (Proposed Denial).

C. Statutory Authority

    EPA is issuing this final action pursuant to sections 4005(d) and 
7004(b)(1) of RCRA. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d) and 6974(b)(1).
    Under RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(A), States 
seeking approval of a permit program must submit to the Administrator, 
``in such form as the Administrator may establish, evidence of a permit 
program or other system of prior approval and conditions under state 
law for regulation by the State of coal combustion residuals units that 
are located in the State.'' EPA shall approve a State permit program if 
the Administrator determines that the State program requires each CCR 
unit located in the State to achieve compliance with either: (1) The 
Federal CCR requirements at 40 CFR part 257, subpart D; or (2) Other 
State criteria that the Administrator, after consultation with the 
State, determines to be ``at least as protective as'' the Federal 
requirements. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B). The Administrator must make a 
final determination, after providing for public notice and an 
opportunity for public comment, within 180 days of determining that the 
State has submitted a complete application consistent with RCRA section 
4005(d)(1)(A).\13\ See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B). EPA may approve a State 
CCR permit program in whole or in part. Id. Once approved, the State 
permit program operates in lieu of the Federal requirements. 42 U.S.C. 
6945(d)(1)(A). In a State with a partial permit program, only the State 
requirements that have been approved operate in lieu of the Federal 
requirements, and facilities remain

[[Page 48777]]

responsible for compliance with all remaining non-State approved 
requirements in 40 CFR part 257, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Coal Combustion 
Residuals State Permit Program Guidance Document; Interim Final, 
August 2017, Office of Land and Emergency Management, Washington, DC 
20460 (providing that the 180-day deadline does not start until EPA 
determines the application is complete).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal CCR regulations are self-implementing, which means that 
CCR landfills and surface impoundments must comply with the terms of 
the rule even prior to obtaining a Federal permit or permit issued by 
an approved State, and noncompliance with any requirement of the 
Federal CCR regulations can be directly enforced against the facility. 
42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(3). Once a final CCR permit is issued by an approved 
State, the terms of the State permit apply in lieu of the terms of the 
Federal CCR regulations and/or requirements in an approved State 
program. Further, RCRA section 4005(d)(3) provides a permit shield 
against direct enforcement of the applicable Federal standards or State 
CCR regulations (meaning that the permits terms become the enforceable 
requirements for the permittee).

D. Summary of Proposed Denial of Alabama's CCR Permit Program 
Application

    On August 14, 2023, EPA published notice of the proposal to deny 
approval of Alabama's December 29, 2021, CCR permit program 
application. 88 FR 55220 (August 14, 2023). In the document, the Agency 
conducted an analysis of the Alabama CCR permit program Application, 
including a thorough analysis of ADEM's statutory authorities for the 
CCR program, as well as the regulations at Alabama Administrative Code 
Chapter 335-13-15, Standards for the Disposal of Coal Combustion 
Residuals in Landfills and Impoundments. See Unit IV.B.2.b of the 
Proposed Denial and TSD Volume III. EPA also reviewed Alabama's 
permitting regulations and recent and ongoing permit decisions ADEM was 
making under its CCR regulations.
    In the Proposed Denial, EPA provided its interpretation of the 
scope of the Agency's review of a State CCR permit program under 
section 4005(d)(1)(B) of RCRA. That section of the statute provides in 
part that the Administrator ``shall approve, in whole or in part, a 
permit program or other system of prior approval and conditions 
submitted under subparagraph (A) if the Administrator determines that 
the program or other system requires each coal combustion residuals 
unit located in the State to achieve compliance with'' either: (1) The 
Federal CCR requirements at 40 CFR part 257 (i.e., the Federal CCR 
regulations); or (2) Other State criteria that the Administrator, after 
consultation with the State, determines to be at least as protective as 
the Federal requirements. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B) (emphasis added). See 
Proposed Denial Unit IV.A (providing the Agency's interpretation of 
EPA's authority to review State CCR permit program applications). The 
Agency explained that such determinations necessarily include 
consideration not only of a State's statute and regulations, but what 
the State requires ``each CCR unit'' to do, such as in permits or 
orders, when such information is available prior to approval of the 
State program. EPA further explained that because ADEM started issuing 
permits prior to program approval the State's permitting decisions 
under its existing CCR regulations are directly relevant to 
understanding whether the State's program requires ``each [CCR] unit 
located in the State to achieve compliance with'' either the Federal 
regulations or alternative State standards that are at least as 
protective as the Federal CCR regulations as required by RCRA section 
4005(d)(1)(B).
    In the Proposed Denial, EPA first evaluated the terms of Alabama's 
permit program that, as noted above, largely mirror the Federal CCR 
Regulations. The Agency proposed to find that the terms of ADEM's CCR 
permit program regulations demonstrate that the State program includes 
all regulatory provisions required for approval of a partial 
program.\14\ Thus, EPA concluded that the terms of the permit program 
provide ADEM with the authority necessary to issue permits that will 
ensure each CCR unit in the State achieves the minimum required level 
of protection (i.e., the State has the authority to issue permits that 
require compliance with standards that are at least as protective as 
those in the Federal CCR regulations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA conducted a thorough review of the terms of Alabama's 
CCR permit program submittal, consistent with review of submittals 
by states that were granted approval, and that review can be found 
in the Proposed Denial TSD Volume III: Technical Support Document 
for the Proposed Notice to Deny Alabama's Coal Combustion Residuals 
Permit Program, EPA Analysis of Alabama CCR Permitting and Technical 
Regulations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land 
and Emergency Management (5304T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20460. August 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While EPA concluded that the statutes and regulations of the 
Alabama CCR permit program provide the State with sufficient authority 
to require compliance with the Federal requirements or State 
requirements that are as protective as the Federal requirements, EPA 
also proposed to determine that permits issued by ADEM allow CCR units 
in the State to comply with alternative requirements that appeared to 
be less protective than the requirements in the Federal CCR regulations 
with respect to groundwater monitoring, corrective action, and closure. 
EPA reviewed four permits for CCR surface impoundments in Alabama and 
the Agency found that those permits allow CCR in closed units to remain 
saturated by groundwater, without requiring adequate (or any) 
engineering measures to control the groundwater flowing into and out of 
the closed unit. See Proposed Denial Unit IV.C and the TSD Volume I 
(providing a detailed discussion of EPA's concerns with the closure 
requirements for surface impoundments at Alabama CCR permits issued to 
Plants Colbert, Gadsden, Gorgas, and Greene County). EPA also noted 
that ADEM approved groundwater monitoring systems that contain an 
inadequate number of wells, and in incorrect locations, to detect 
groundwater contamination from the CCR units. Id. Finally, EPA proposed 
to find that ADEM issued multiple permits that effectively allow 
permittees to delay implementation of effective measures to remediate 
groundwater contamination both on- and off-site of the facility. Id.
    In addition, EPA proposed that a review of the permit records 
demonstrates a consistent pattern of deficiencies in the permits that 
is allowed to occur because of the State's flawed interpretation of the 
Federal CCR regulation and by a lack of oversight and independent 
evaluation of facilities' proposed permit terms on the part of ADEM. 
For the permits terms reviewed in the proposal, EPA was unable to 
locate any evaluation or record of decision documenting that ADEM had 
critically evaluated the materials submitted as part of the permit 
applications, or otherwise documented its rationale for adopting those 
proposed permit terms prior to approving the application. Because of 
the technical insufficiency of the permit terms as issued and the 
absence of any supporting rationale for why those permit terms were 
protective of human health and the environment notwithstanding their 
deficiencies, EPA could not conclude that the Alabama CCR permits are 
as protective as the Federal CCR regulations; therefore, EPA could not 
conclude that Alabama's program satisfied the requirement for approval 
of a State CCR permit program.
    EPA discussed these general issues with ADEM and the State declined 
to revise the permits to be consistent with the Federal CCR 
regulations. ADEM also declined to demonstrate that its

[[Page 48778]]

alternative requirements satisfy the requirement in RCRA section 
4005(d)(1)(B)(ii). Instead, the Alabama Attorney General, on behalf of 
ADEM, stated in the Notice of Intent to Sue \15\ that EPA does not have 
the authority to consider implementation of the State program when 
determining whether a State program is sufficient, and that the Agency 
may only look to the ``four corners'' of the State program Application 
when evaluating the program for approval. In the Notice of Intent to 
Sue, the ``four corners'' of the application are described as being 
public participation, guidelines for compliance, guidelines for 
enforcement authority, and intervention in civil enforcement 
proceedings. The Notice of Intent further argued that EPA could only 
consider implementation after approval, and then withdraw the program 
if issues were identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Letter from Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall to EPA 
Administrator Michael Regan, Notice of Endangerment and Intent to 
Sue under Section 7002(a)(1)(A) and (1)(B) of the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act. December 9, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Unit IV.A of the preamble to the Proposed Denial, EPA rejected 
ADEM's position that RCRA section 4005(d) prohibits EPA from 
considering the permits issued under the State CCR permit program when 
determining whether to approve the program and that EPA may only 
address such issues after the State program is approved. In Unit IV.B 
of the preamble to the Proposed Denial, the Agency provided a short 
summary of EPA's conclusions after review of the express terms of the 
ADEM statutes and regulations. In Unit IV.C of the preamble to the 
Proposed Denial, EPA identified specific permits that the Agency 
believes are deficient and explained the bases for EPA's proposed 
determination that they are inconsistent with the standard for approval 
in RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(B).

II. Final Action on Alabama CCR Permit Program Application

    After considering comments on the Proposed Denial, EPA is taking 
final action to deny approval of Alabama's CCR permit program for the 
reasons set forth below in summary and as explained in detail in the 
Proposed Denial.

A. Legal Authority To Evaluate State CCR Program Applications

    EPA is affirming the interpretation of the statute set forth in 
detail in Unit IV.A of the Proposed Denial and summarized below.
    The terms and structure of RCRA 4005(d) require EPA to consider the 
CCR permits a State has issued under the CCR program it has submitted 
for EPA approval. Section 4005(d)(1)(B) requires EPA to determine 
whether the State program ``requires each'' CCR unit in the State ``to 
achieve compliance'' with either the Federal regulations at 40 CFR part 
257, subpart D (i.e., the Federal CCR regulations), or with alternative 
requirements at least as protective as the Federal CCR regulations. 
This direction necessarily includes Agency consideration of the 
existing record of what the State actually requires individual CCR 
units to do pursuant to the program that the state has submitted to EPA 
for approval. The statute provides that once a permit is in effect, the 
permit terms replace the regulations as the criteria with which the 
permitted facility must comply. See, 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(6). 
Consequently, once issued, the permits effectively are the program, or 
at the least, a substantial component of the CCR program for the 
individual facilities. The Agency does not believe it can reasonably 
ignore such information, as it falls squarely within the ordinary 
meaning of what the statute expressly directs EPA to consider. The 
overall context of RCRA section 4005(d) further supports consideration 
of State CCR permits when they have been issued prior to approval of a 
State program. Specifically, the Agency concludes that it would not be 
reasonable to ignore permits issued prior to approval of a State CCR 
program because, as noted above, a permit issued pursuant to a Federal 
or approved State permit program acts as a shield to direct enforcement 
of the Federal CCR regulations. Once a permit is issued by an approved 
State, facilities are shielded from enforcement of requirements that 
are addressed in the provisions of the applicable State permit, even if 
those permit provisions are not as protective as the Federal CCR 
regulations. The permit shield supports EPA's conclusion that it would 
be unreasonable to approve a State CCR permit program where the Agency 
knows that permits issued by the State are not at least as protective 
as the Federal CCR regulations because, once the State program is 
approved, neither EPA nor a member of the public can take action to 
require the facility to comply with the minimum level of protection 
contemplated under the statute. Further compounding the problem is the 
fact that once a State CCR program is approved, RCRA requires EPA to 
follow a statutorily established process to either convince the State 
to revise the defective permits or withdraw approval of the State CCR 
program. During the time it takes to address the program deficiencies, 
the CCR units with inadequate permits would be authorized to continue 
to operate in a manner that the EPA believes is not as protective as 
the Federal CCR regulations require. Further, it would arguably be 
arbitrary to ignore such information when it is available given that 
RCRA requires State CCR programs to ensure compliance with the Federal 
standards, yet EPA would effectively be allowing facilities with such 
deficient permits to manage unlined surface impoundments in a manner 
that poses potential ongoing hazards to human health and the 
environment. In sum, EPA approval of a State program that has issued 
deficient permits is also EPA approval of the deficient permits; 
therefore, it is reasonable for EPA to consider State issued CCR 
permits when determining whether a State has satisfied the statutory 
requirements for a State CCR permit program.
    A State's permitting decisions under its CCR regulations are thus 
directly relevant to understanding the submitted program, and to 
determining which statutory standard EPA must use to evaluate the State 
program. If a State interprets its statute and regulations to impose 
the same requirements found in the Federal CCR regulations--or issues 
permits that impose the same requirements--the relevant standard is 
found in subsection (B)(i). 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B)(ii). By contrast, 
where the State interprets its program to impose different requirements 
or issues permits that impose different requirements than the Federal 
CCR regulations, the relevant standard is found in (B)(ii), which 
requires EPA to determine whether the State's alternative standards are 
``at least as protective as the Federal CCR regulations.'' 42 U.S.C. 
6945(d)(1)(B)(ii).
    Here, there is no question that the relevant standard is found in 
section 4005(d)(1)(B)(ii). The State expressly acknowledged that it 
interprets its closure regulations to impose different requirements 
than those found in the Federal CCR regulations, and the State has 
issued permits authorizing closures that are inconsistent with the 
plain language of the Federal CCR regulations. Although the state 
disputes EPA's reliance on the ordinary meaning of the provisions, it 
is well-settled that in the absence of a statutory or regulatory 
definition, reliance on the ordinary meaning is the default. See, 
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 431 (2000)) (``It is fixed law that 
words of statutes or regulations must be given their `ordinary, 
contemporary, common meaning.' ''). And with EPA's recent adoption of 
the ``default'' dictionary

[[Page 48779]]

definitions of infiltration and liquid into the Federal CCR 
regulations, there is no plausible argument that Alabama's CCR program 
is the same as the Federal. See ``Hazardous and Solid Waste Management 
System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; 
Legacy CCR Surface Impoundments'', 89 FR 38950, 39100 (May 8, 2024) 
(e.g., adding a definition of ``infiltration'' to the Federal CCR 
rule).
    The same holds true with respect to the groundwater monitoring and 
corrective action portions of the program. Although ADEM has not 
similarly acknowledged different interpretations of the groundwater 
monitoring and corrective action regulations, it has repeatedly issued 
permits that authorize groundwater monitoring systems and corrective 
actions that do not comply with the Federal CCR regulations.

B. EPA Review of Alabama Regulations for CCR Units

    EPA is taking final action on the proposed determination that the 
express terms of Alabama's CCR regulations provide the State with 
sufficient authority to issue permits that are at least as protective 
as those required under the Federal CCR regulations. See Proposed 
Denial Unit IV.B and TSD Volume III (providing EPA's analysis of the 
laws and regulations for Alabama's CCR permit program). In sum, Alabama 
established State CCR regulations that largely mirror the language in 
the Federal CCR regulations in almost all respects, and, to the extent 
the provisions are different, the differences in the State regulations 
are at least as protective as the Federal CCR regulations. For this 
reason, the Agency believes the record would support approval of 
Alabama's program if the State either modifies its permits to be 
consistent with the Federal requirements or demonstrates that its 
alternative interpretations of the Federal CCR regulations ensure that 
State permits are at least as protective as the Federal CCR 
regulations.

C. EPA Review of Alabama's Permits Issued Under the State CCR 
Regulations

    After consideration of comments, the Agency is taking final action 
denying Alabama's Application because EPA finds that the State's CCR 
permit program does not require each CCR unit in the State to achieve 
compliance with either the minimum requirements in the Federal CCR 
regulations or with alternative State requirements that EPA has 
determined to be at least as protective as the Federal provisions. EPA 
is basing this decision on the evaluations of the Alabama CCR permits 
for Plants Colbert, Gadsden, Greene County, and Gorgas contained in the 
Proposed Denial, and on Alabama's stated interpretation of the closure 
requirements, as discussed in the Proposed Denial and confirmed in 
ADEM's comments on the Proposed Denial. See Proposed Denial Unit IV.C 
and TSD Volume III; see also State of Alabama Comments.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Available in the docket: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0903-0261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA reviewed the permits for the identified plants in part because 
the permits were issued to unlined surface impoundments that have 
closed or are closing with waste that will remain in place below the 
water table. For the review, EPA considered the publicly available 
information about the plants and CCR units at issue. EPA did not 
attempt to catalog every potential inconsistency between the permits 
and the Federal CCR regulations, but only considered the permits' 
consistency with certain fundamental aspects of the closure, 
groundwater monitoring, and corrective action requirements. The review 
revealed a consistent pattern of ADEM issuing permits to CCR units that 
fail to require compliance with significant requirements in 40 CFR part 
257 that are necessary to protect human health and the environment from 
exposure to contamination from leaking CCR units. EPA also identified a 
consistent pattern of ADEM approving documents submitted by the 
facilities, such as closure plans, groundwater monitoring plans, and 
assessments of corrective measures, even though the submissions lack 
critical information or are otherwise deficient. ADEM also did not 
require the permittees to take any action to cure deficiencies in the 
permits even where ADEM previously identified the deficiencies and 
requested further information prior to issuing the final permits. The 
permit information further showed that ADEM issued multiple permits 
allowing CCR in closed units to remain saturated by groundwater, 
without requiring engineering measures that will control the 
groundwater flowing into and out of the closed unit. EPA also found 
that ADEM approved groundwater monitoring systems that contain an 
inadequate number of wells, and in incorrect locations, to monitor all 
potential contaminant pathways and to detect groundwater contamination 
from the CCR units in the uppermost aquifer. Finally, EPA determined 
that ADEM issued multiple permits that allow the permittee to delay 
implementation of effective measures to remediate groundwater 
contamination both on- and off-site of the facility. Overall, EPA's 
review of the permit records and other readily available information 
demonstrates a consistent pattern of deficient permits and a lack of 
oversight and independent evaluation of facilities' permit terms and 
supporting documentation. In each instance described in the proposal, 
EPA was unable to locate any evaluation or record of decision 
documenting that ADEM critically evaluated the materials submitted as 
part of the permit application, or otherwise documented its rationale 
for adopting them.
    EPA confirms the proposed conclusions from the Agency's technical 
review of the four Alabama CCR permits in this final action, and the 
comments responding to some of EPA's technical evaluations of the 
groundwater monitoring networks and corrective action provisions in the 
CCR permits do not address EPA's concerns as explained below. Further, 
the comments do not address all of the technical issues EPA identified 
nor do the comments address the broader concerns with the pattern of 
inadequate review and approval of permit applications by ADEM. Further, 
Alabama specifically acknowledges in its comments that it interprets 
the closure requirements for unlined surface impoundments differently 
than EPA. Alabama's interpretation allows unlined surface impoundments 
to close with CCR in contact with groundwater without requiring 
measures to prevent groundwater from flowing into and out of the closed 
unit indefinitely. EPA rejects the State's interpretation because it is 
inconsistent with the plain language of the Federal CCR regulations and 
because it is not as protective of human health and the environment. 
Thus, Alabama's interpretation of the closure standards for surface 
impoundments alone supports EPA's Final Denial because approval of the 
State program would mean approval of the CCR permits EPA reviewed in 
the Proposed Denial and a permit shield would allow those CCR units to 
continue to operate with inadequate permits until and unless EPA 
withdraws the approval, at which time the Federal CCR Regulation would 
again directly apply to the CCR surface impoundments. Under these 
circumstances, EPA cannot conclude that Alabama's CCR permit program 
requires each CCR unit in the State to achieve compliance with either 
the Federal CCR regulations or with alternative State requirements that 
EPA

[[Page 48780]]

has determined are at least as protective as the Federal CCR 
Regulations as required under section 4005(d) of RCRA.

III. Summary of Comments and Responses

    EPA received 4,775 comments on the Proposed Denial. EPA reviewed 
the comments, and the Agency provides summaries of and responses to the 
comments below and in the Response to Comments document in the docket.

A. Legal and Policy Comments on EPA's Review of Alabama's CCR Permit 
Program

1. Comments Opposing EPA's Process for Reviewing Alabama's CCR Permit 
Program in Accordance With RCRA Section 4005(d)
    Comments: ADEM and other State and industry commenters assert that 
EPA has interpreted the State program approval provisions of RCRA 
incorrectly because the Agency considered CCR permits issued by ADEM to 
support the Proposed Denial of the Alabama CCR permit program and that 
the Agency failed to adequately communicate its concerns to ADEM.
    ADEM appears to disagree with EPA that the State had extensive 
communication with the Agency about development of the State's 
Application for a CCR permit program, that EPA detailed its concerns, 
and that ADEM declined to alter its course by continuing to issue CCR 
permits. ADEM also takes issue with EPA's statement in the Proposed 
Denial that ADEM put the Agency in the position where it had no choice 
but to proceed to program denial. ADEM asserts that its Application was 
a multi-year development project in very close communication with EPA 
Region 4 and Headquarters such that and that Region 4 personnel clearly 
indicated the final application was complete and approvable upon its 
submittal on December 29, 2021, and subsequent transmittal to EPA HQ on 
January 3, 2022. ADEM states that at no time leading up to this point 
in the process, during which EPA was fully aware that ADEM was 
reviewing and processing CCR permit applications and issuing CCR 
permits to the Alabama facilities did EPA identify deficiencies or 
recommend changes to any ADEM CCR permits. ADEM asserts that receipt of 
the pre-publication copy of EPA's Proposed Denial of ADEM's CCR program 
on August 3, 2023, was the first written identification from EPA of any 
alleged deficiencies in ADEM's CCR program Application, or its proposed 
or issued permits. ADEM acknowledges that it did receive several 
questions from EPA regarding specific permits to which ADEM states that 
it provided EPA detailed verbal and written responses. ADEM maintains 
that thereafter EPA made no effort to seek any further clarifications 
and gave no indication that any of its questions remained unanswered. 
Many of the technical issues discussed during the meetings with EPA 
reappear in the Proposed Denial and are framed in a manner to make it 
appear ADEM's program is non-compliant.
    ADEM also maintains that it had no opportunity to correct the 
perceived deficiencies. According to ADEM, EPA made no direct requests 
of ADEM to change or modify any of its CCR program components. ADEM 
states that EPA expressly admits that the ADEM regulations largely 
mirror the Federal rules. ADEM then argues that the sole focus of EPA's 
program approval review is the issued permits which ADEM argues are 
sufficient because language in the permits largely mirror language in 
the Federal CCR regulations. ADEM concludes that it is a ``mystery'' 
exactly what the State would modify to bring the program to the level 
of equivalency that EPA believes to be lacking. ADEM maintains that the 
200-plus page Federal Register notification of EPA's proposed Program 
Denial provides no clarity to this issue.
    ADEM and other commenters note that EPA makes numerous references 
to 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B), and ADEM quoted the provision in whole to 
point out the timing for EPA to review and act on a State CCR permit 
program application. ADEM states that EPA Region 4 transmitted ADEM's 
final permit approval Application to EPA HQ on January 3, 2022 (see 
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0903-0029), seemingly for the purpose of 
final processing. ADEM contends that, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 
6945(d)(1)(B), EPA had until July 2, 2022, to approve ADEM's CCR permit 
program. Instead, ADEM asserts, that what ensued was a series of 
discussions and reviews long after the public comment periods and 
issuance of the CCR permits. ADEM argues that EPA has clearly missed 
the statutorily mandated deadline to approve ADEM's CCR program.
    ADEM states that EPA focuses on the ``such other State criteria'' 
noted in 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B)(ii) as the basis to allow it to review 
issued permits as part of the permit approval record. ADEM argues that 
approach is illogical on its face when considered in the context of 
EPA's specific actions in this matter. Hypothetically, ADEM states it 
could have chosen to delay issuance of the permits until after 
submittal of the final program approval Application, as other States 
with approved programs chose to do. At that hypothetical point, EPA 
would have only ADEM's CCR regulations upon which to review its 
equivalency to the Federal program. ADEM can only assume that EPA would 
have then proceeded directly to program approval in this hypothetical 
scenario. EPA, presumably, would not have waited for ADEM to start 
issuing permits to observe the way it interprets its rules prior to 
approval. ADEM states that EPA clearly did not do this during the 
permitting program approvals for Oklahoma, Georgia, and Texas. ADEM 
argues that if EPA is not requiring other States to issue permits to 
observe their interpretations of their CCR regulations, it is not 
logical or consistent for EPA to incorporate reviews of ADEM's 
previously issued permits into its program approval review. ADEM argues 
this punishes Alabama for its proactive approach to CCR facility 
management.
    ADEM does not agree that 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(D) authorizes EPA to 
review permits as part of the program approval process simply because 
EPA is able to consider permits when the Agency periodically reviews 
approved State programs. ADEM maintains that EPA suggests that there is 
no fundamental difference between it reviewing permits after approval 
and concluding program withdrawal is warranted, versus reviewing 
permits issued prior to approval and determining permit program denial 
is warranted. ADEM argues that because EPA had ample opportunity to 
actively participate in the permit development process, to avail itself 
of the public review process, and to formally outline its permitting 
concerns to ADEM prior to permit issuance, the Agency cannot use 
permits as the basis for program denial because EPA stayed silent about 
permitting concerns until after the permits were issued (years after in 
most cases). ADEM maintains EPA's permitting concerns did not arise 
until after the permits were issued and that EPA did not act in good 
faith. ADEM further contends that even if permit reviews were an 
appropriate part of the program approval process, the State objects in 
the strongest possible terms to EPA's waiting until the program 
approval process to object. ADEM argues EPA's approach makes it 
difficult for ADEM to respond to EPA's concerns, and the State does not 
believe Congress intended for EPA to approach State permit program 
approval in this manner.
    ADEM argues that EPA ultimately proposed to deny ADEM's 
Application,

[[Page 48781]]

not because ADEM's criteria were deficient or its authority to 
implement and enforce those criteria were somehow lacking, but rather 
because EPA believes that proposed and final permits in Alabama 
``contain permit terms that are neither the same as, nor as protective 
as, the Federal CCR regulations.'' ADEM maintains that nothing in the 
WIIN Act or EPA's ``Coal Combustion Residuals State Permit Program 
Guidance Document: Interim Final'' (82 FR 38685, August 15, 2017) 
(``Guidance Document'') indicates that States can, should or must 
submit actual permits to EPA as part of the review and approval 
process.
    ADEM notes that to date, EPA has reviewed and approved (at least in 
part) three other State CCR permit programs--83 FR 30356 (June 28, 
2018) (Oklahoma); 85 FR 1269 (January 10, 2020) (Georgia); and 86 FR 
33892 (June 28, 2021) (Texas). ADEM maintains that those States did not 
submit individual permits as part of their applications, nor did EPA 
ask to review particular permits, or any permit language that any of 
the States contemplated using after their programs were approved. By 
way of example, in Oklahoma, EPA noted in its approval decision that 
four of the five CCR units subject to the Federal CCR regulations in 
the State were already permitted and, once the State's program was 
approved, would be subject to the State's CCR regulations. Instead of 
reviewing any of those permits, EPA focused its review on the State's 
CCR regulations and the ``four corners'' of its legal and regulatory 
framework--public participation opportunities in the permitting 
process, guidelines for compliance, guidelines for enforcement 
authority, and intervention in civil enforcement proceedings. ADEM 
further states that until now, EPA performed the same scope and level 
of ``four corners'' review in each State that submitted an application. 
According to EPA, the WIIN Act ``directs EPA to determine that the 
state has sufficient authority to require compliance from all CCR units 
located within the state'' and ``[t]o make this determination EPA 
evaluates the State's authority to issue permits and impose conditions 
in those permits, as well as the State's authority for compliance 
monitoring and enforcement.'' In short, ADEM argues that EPA's review 
is--and has been--limited to a State's authority, not to any particular 
exercise of such authority for individual permit decisions.
    ADEM states that EPA claims that it would be illogical not to 
review individual permit language because EPA would then be required to 
approve a State permit program that EPA believes it likely will 
eventually have to withdraw. ADEM argues that this ignores EPA's role 
in the State permitting process. ADEM argues that if EPA believes a 
State has drafted a CCR permit that deviates from applicable regulatory 
requirements, EPA would have ample opportunity to comment or object, 
consistent with its general oversight duties. Moreover, if a State 
finalizes a permit in a manner that does not resolve legitimate 
concerns (if any) raised by EPA, then EPA would have the same appeal 
options as any other interested party. Indeed, this opportunity for 
engagement and dispute resolution is precisely what EPA presented in 
its Guidance Document for ``adequate public participation.''
    ADEM argues that the Federal CCR regulations do not specify permit 
terms, so there is no regulatory basis for EPA to compare any 
particular State permit language or find it to be more or less 
protective. ADEM further asserts that EPA has not proffered or 
finalized any particular permit terms that could serve as a basis for 
comparison and that, to the contrary, EPA's Federal permit program 
proposal would specifically allow a permit writer--in its discretion--
to incorporate the regulatory criteria by ``re-writing them into the 
permit or incorporating them by reference.'' ADEM states that it 
followed this approach in its permits but that EPA still found fault 
with the permits. According to ADEM, even if EPA had the authority to 
assess permit language as part of its review of a State permit program, 
there is no rational basis for EPA to reject ADEM's permit language 
since it mirrors what EPA has proposed for its own permit writers.
    Response: EPA does not agree that the Agency's approach to review 
of the Alabama's CCR permit program was in error. In addition, as the 
record shows EPA did inform ADEM of the Agency's concerns with the 
State's interpretation of the Federal CCR regulations before signing 
the Proposed Denial. See TSD Volume II.
    As explained in detail in the Proposed Denial, section 4005(d)(1) 
of RCRA directs EPA to determine whether a State program ``requires 
each'' CCR unit in the State ``to achieve compliance'' with either the 
Federal standards or an alternative State program at least as 
protective as the Federal CCR regulations. See Proposed Denial, 88 FR 
55220, 55226 (August 14, 2023). Given that statutory directive, EPA 
concludes that it cannot ignore permits that are available prior to 
approval of a State CCR program, as in this case. Id. ADEM implies that 
EPA is acting in an unreasonable manner by taking this approach, but in 
fact it would be both unreasonable and arbitrary and capricious to 
ignore issued permits since they are the best evidence of whether a 
State program does in fact require each CCR unit in the State to 
achieve compliance with the Federal CCR regulations or State standards 
that are at least as protective as the Federal regulations.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ EPA detailed the interactions between EPA and Alabama in 
the Proposed Denial. See Proposed Denial Section III.E. With respect 
to ADEM's suggestion that EPA surprised the State with its approach 
to review of the State's CCR program and the Agency's application of 
the Federal CCR regulations, there is information in the record to 
the contrary. Specifically, EPA issued a letter to ADEM concerning 
the Colbert facility on September 15, 2022, and the Agency sent to 
ADEM a list of unlined CCR surface impoundments in the State with 
waste below the water table on March 15, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also disagrees that the Agency is treating ADEM unfairly. ADEM 
complains that EPA is evaluating the permits the State issued and 
asserts that EPA is treating Alabama differently than it treated 
Oklahoma, Georgia, and Texas when it approved those partial State CCR 
permit programs. ADEM is incorrect that EPA is treating Alabama 
differently. As ADEM noted, two of the three approved States had not 
issued permits at the time the Agency approved their programs, but the 
Agency did evaluate Oklahoma's final permits as part of its program 
review and EPA did not identify the persistent problems the Agency 
found when it reviewed Alabama's. In addition, for Alabama as for other 
States, EPA has incorporated a consideration of both final and proposed 
State permits as part of the Agency's review of initial State CCR 
permit program Applications submitted for a completeness determination 
because of concerns with implementation of certain provisions of the 
Federal CCR regulations with respect to unlined CCR surface 
impoundments. In fact, EPA recently sent a letter to the State of 
Wyoming indicating the Agency could not determine the State's 
application to be complete due to a number of issues including a lack 
of clarity in how the State interprets the Federal CCR closure 
performance standard.\18\ The Agency is also in active discussions with 
other States seeking program approval (Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, 
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, 
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina,

[[Page 48782]]

North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West 
Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming) and the Agency intends to consider 
permits as part of its review of those programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Letter from Barry Breen, Principal Deputy Assistant 
Administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management to Mr. 
Todd Parfitt, Director of the Wyoming Department of Environmental 
Quality. December 5, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADEM also argues that the statute requires EPA to delay review of 
the State's CCR permits until after EPA has approved the State program. 
But the statute does not mandate that approach and, further, that 
approach would be unreasonable under the current situation. As noted in 
the Proposed Denial, it would be illogical for EPA to approve a State 
CCR permit program that the Agency believes it likely will eventually 
have to withdraw. Moreover, withdrawing a State CCR permit program 
takes significant time, during which CCR units in the State could 
continue to operate--or new permits could be issued--under conditions 
that are less protective than those required in the Federal CCR 
regulations. Third, if EPA were to approve Alabama's program now (i.e., 
after the deficient CCR permits were issued), the Alabama CCR program, 
including the facility-specific permits, would apply in lieu of the 
Federal CCR regulations pursuant to RCRA section 4005(d)(3)(B), 
preventing enforcement of the Federal standards in the interim. None of 
these outcomes is consistent with RCRA's requirement that each CCR unit 
be subject to a minimum level of protection established in the Federal 
CCR regulations.
    EPA also does not agree that the time it takes a State to satisfy 
the requirements to develop a complete permit application changes the 
Agency's responsibility under the statute to consider the available and 
relevant information when making its decision. ADEM incorrectly 
suggests that EPA is bound by supposedly clear representations from EPA 
Region 4 staff indicating to ADEM that the State's application was 
complete upon submission of the Application on December 29, 2021, and 
because the regulatory provisions of the State's program mirror the 
regulatory provisions in the Federal CCR Regulations.\19\ As an initial 
matter, Region 4 has not been delegated the authority to make a 
completeness determination and EPA does not provide oral completeness 
determinations. In fact, the Agency did not determine at that time or 
since that the State's application was complete because the Agency was, 
prior to that time, aware of facilities in Alabama and other States 
that were planning to close or had closed unlined surface impoundments 
while leaving waste below the water table. EPA discussed with ADEM the 
Agency's concerns with the State's implementation of the closure 
standards for unlined surface impoundments, but the State maintained 
that its interpretation of the Federal CCR regulations was correct and 
EPA's interpretation of the Federal closure standards for unlined 
surface impoundments was wrong. In addition, as EPA reviewed ADEM's 
permits in more detail, EPA identified additional concerns with the 
State's implementation of the program with respect to groundwater 
monitoring systems and corrective action. As a result of these 
discussions, on July 7, 2022, EPA informed ADEM via telephone that the 
Agency was putting on hold its completeness review of ADEM's CCR permit 
program Application until Alabama demonstrated to EPA that the State 
was implementing its program consistent with the Federal CCR 
regulations. Further, EPA explained to ADEM that it was exploring 
options for actions to take at the Federal level with respect to both 
the CCR permit program Application, and at specific facilities where 
there are outstanding concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ EPA provided in the proposed rule a summary of calls, 
emails and letters where EPA brought up specific concerns with the 
State's CCR permit program and specific permit conditions at 
facilities. See Proposed Denial, 88 FR 55223, 55224 (August 14, 
2023). ADEM's account of the situation differs in some regards to 
EPA's, and the Agency stands by its rendering of events. But even if 
the State's characterization of the facts leading up to the proposed 
decision were accurate, those facts do not change EPA's 
responsibility under the statute. EPA cannot ignore information 
indicating that a State program is not as protective as the Federal 
CCR program, no matter the timing of that information. If as here, 
the information is available prior to program approval, the 
information is relevant to program approval and EPA may consider 
that information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA disagrees that the Agency is prohibited from considering the 
State's proposed CCR permits as part of the CCR permit program review 
process and disagrees that EPA is limited to reviewing State permits 
during the State's permit issuance process. As an initial matter, it is 
not possible for EPA to review even a fraction of the State permits 
that are issued to CCR units. But even if it were possible for EPA to 
review all State CCR permits, RCRA does not require it. ADEM cites 
nothing to support its contention that EPA can only review a State 
permit during its issuance. Instead, RCRA provides EPA with authority 
to review CCR permits issued by a State at any time. As discussed 
above, the mandate to determine whether the State program ``requires 
each'' CCR unit in the State ``to achieve compliance'' with either the 
Federal CCR regulations or with standards at least as protective as the 
Federal CCR regulations necessarily includes Agency consideration of 
State permits, when such information is available prior to approval of 
the State program. See, 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B) and the statute 
expressly provides that EPA may review State permits ``as the 
Administrator determines necessary'' as part of a State program review. 
RCRA section 4005(d)(D)(i)(I). In fact, as ADEM recognizes, RCRA 
section 4005(d)(1)(ii)(II) authorizes EPA to evaluate a State program, 
including permits issued under the program, as part of EPA's required 
periodic program review of approved State programs; and the statute 
does not limit the scope of the Agency's periodic review to only the 
permits on which the Agency commented during the State's permit 
issuance process. For these reasons, it is appropriate for EPA to 
consider permits issued under a State CCR permit program as part of an 
initial program review, regardless of whether EPA submitted comments on 
those permits in the State permitting proceeding.
    EPA also disagrees that the Agency has not told ADEM what it must 
do to address the Agency's concerns. All States were on notice when EPA 
published proposed denials of Part A extension requests and when the 
Agency informed States with unlined surface impoundments that EPA was 
concerned about compliance with the closure standards. EPA has also 
directly communicated with Alabama as set forth in the Proposed Denial, 
and the Agency's comments on the Colbert permit explained many of EPA's 
concerns with Alabama's interpretation and implementation of its CCR 
permit program. In any case, to the extent there remains confusion, 
ADEM's permits misapply the Federal closure standards for unlined 
surface impoundments, ADEM is not adequately evaluating groundwater 
monitoring networks in proposed permits to ensure that those networks 
are configured to properly detect contamination coming from permitted 
units, and ADEM is not ensuring timely implementation of corrective 
action measures after contamination is detected. EPA summarized its 
concerns with ADEM's implementation in the Proposed Denial at 88 FR 
55230 where EPA explained that it had identified a consistent pattern 
of ADEM issuing permits to CCR units that fail to demonstrate 
compliance with fundamental requirements in part 257, without requiring 
the permittees to take specific actions to bring the units into 
compliance. EPA went on to say that it

[[Page 48783]]

also identified a consistent pattern of ADEM approving documents 
submitted by the facilities, such as closure plans, groundwater 
monitoring plans, and assessments of corrective measures, even though 
the submissions lacked critical information or are otherwise deficient. 
ADEM also did not require the permittees to take any action to cure 
deficiencies in the permits even where ADEM previously identified the 
deficiencies and requested further information prior to issuing the 
final permits. Further, EPA explained that it was proposing to 
determine that ADEM issued multiple permits allowing CCR in closed 
units to remain saturated by groundwater, without requiring engineering 
measures that will control the groundwater flowing into and out of the 
closed unit. See, 40 CFR 257.102(d). EPA also stated that ADEM approved 
groundwater monitoring systems that contain an inadequate number of 
wells, and in incorrect locations, to monitor all potential contaminant 
pathways and to detect groundwater contamination from the CCR units in 
the uppermost aquifer. See, 40 CFR 257.91. Finally, EPA said it 
proposed to determine that ADEM issued multiple permits that 
effectively allow the permittee to delay implementation of effective 
measures to remediate groundwater contamination both on- and off-site 
of the facility. See, 40 CFR 257.96 and 257.97. Overall, EPA's review 
of the permit records and other readily available information 
documented a consistent pattern of deficient permits and a lack of 
oversight and independent evaluation of facilities' proposed permit 
terms.
    ADEM's comments on the Proposed Denial do not address these 
systemic issues in any substantive manner or explain how it will 
proceed to ensure that CCR permits are at least as protective as the 
Federal CCR regulations and that the records contain all the 
information necessary for EPA and the public to evaluate the terms of 
the permits for compliance with the standards. Instead of addressing 
these issues, ADEM relies on a narrow legal argument that its 
interpretation of EPA's regulations governs, which EPA addresses 
elsewhere.
    For all these reasons, EPA is taking final action to deny approval 
of Alabama's CCR permit program.
    Comment: ADEM stated that it is aware that EPA received a joint 
letter, dated March 11, 2022, from the Sierra Club and the Southern 
Environmental Law Center. The letter transmits several extensive 
technical reports prepared by paid third parties. ADEM only learned of 
this letter months after EPA received it and had to specifically 
request a copy of it. The letter seeks to provide EPA with a detailed 
``outline [of] the legal basis for denying ADEM's State CCR permit 
program'' and includes as attachments several reports contracted for by 
the groups critiquing various CCR permits issued by the Department. 
ADEM states that it is unclear what influence this letter had on EPA's 
decision-making process for Alabama's approval application, but the 
timing of its receipt by EPA falls directly between the time of EPA's 
receipt of Alabama's final program approval application, and the May 
through July conference calls described above. Also, there is a clear 
similarity between the technical concerns raised in the letter and 
those raised by EPA in the months following ADEM's final program 
application. Furthermore, EPA's actions after receiving this letter 
appear to follow the playbook for agency action promoted by the 
advocacy groups. ADEM, and Alabama's citizens, are due an explanation 
why this letter does not appear in the official EPA docket for the 
proposed denial.
    Response: ADEM's suspicions that a letter from Environmental groups 
somehow influenced EPA are baseless. Well before the submission of the 
March 11, 2022, letter, EPA had made it clear to ADEM that EPA had 
concerns about how ADEM was implementing the regulations, especially in 
regard to CCR units closing with waste in place where the waste 
remained in contact with groundwater. In fact, on January 11, 2022, EPA 
emailed ADEM copies of the first set of proposed Part A decisions, 
including the proposed decision for the General James M. Gavin Power 
Plant in Cheshire, Ohio. Three of the proposed decisions addressed 
facilities that had one or more unlined surface impoundments with CCR 
continually saturated by groundwater, and that intended to close the 
units without addressing that situation. EPA explained that in each 
case, the facility had failed to demonstrate that the closure of these 
units complied with the plain language of the performance standards in 
Sec.  257.102(d)(2), which include addressing infiltration into and 
releases from the impoundment, and eliminating free liquids, given that 
groundwater appeared to be continually saturating the unlined 
impoundment. EPA went on to send a list of CCR units with WBWT that had 
indicated they would be closing with waste in place and scheduled 
meetings with ADEM and other Region 4 States to discuss these issues. 
The letter ADEM is concerned with was not placed in the docket because 
it was not considered by EPA during development of the proposed denial.
    Comment: Commenter ADEM states that EPA explicitly acknowledges 
that it has not conducted a complete or detailed review of the facility 
files or background information used by ADEM to issue its CCR permits. 
Commenter states that despite this, EPA drew unfounded conclusions 
about the reviews and analysis conducted by the State prior to issuing 
the permits. Commenter states EPA ignores the facts, including the fact 
that ADEM issued unilateral administrative orders in 2018 and 2019 to 
each Alabama CCR facility requiring the collection and submission of 
detailed and voluminous information related to detailed site 
characterization and assessment for each unit at each facility, 
detailed information related to site geology and hydrogeology, detailed 
information related to existing contamination, development of 
groundwater remediation plans, and other items.
    Commenter states that EPA also ignored that ADEM required each 
facility to submit detailed permit applications for each unit/facility 
including site history, unit construction and operation, planned 
closure methods and procedures, and planned corrective measures to 
address groundwater contamination among other items. Commenter states 
that these applications were subjected to detailed review and 
evaluation by ADEM's staff of multiple Professional Engineers (P.E.s) 
and Professional Geologists (P.G.s) with extensive professional 
experience evaluating environmental assessments, groundwater monitoring 
systems, environmental permit applications, and corrective action 
systems. Commenter states that following these extensive reviews, the 
facilities were required to revise their applications and provide 
additional information to address identified deficiencies. Commenter 
states that EPA's review was perfunctory in nature and that the Agency 
made numerous flawed conclusions that essentially dismiss the dedicated 
work by the many seasoned professionals involved in development of the 
permits. Commenter asserts that EPA is not living up to the standard 
that is expected and that should be demanded from a seasoned, science-
based government agency responsible for protecting human health and the 
environment through the application of sound science and engineering.
    Response: ADEM makes much of the point that EPA states in the 
Proposed Denial that the Agency did not do a complete review of the 
permits. EPA did

[[Page 48784]]

do a thorough review of the portions of the permits discussed in the 
Proposal. The purpose of this statement was merely to be clear that EPA 
had not reviewed every provision of each of the permits, so neither the 
State nor the facilities should assume that EPA has identified all the 
potential problems with the permits. In any case, the problems EPA did 
identify with the four permits reviewed were alone sufficient to 
support the Proposed Denial, and ADEM does not explain how further 
analysis of the permits would have changed EPA's conclusions about the 
provisions that were reviewed. Specifically, EPA reviewed three areas 
that showed consistent problems in facilities' Part A extension 
requests--closure, groundwater monitoring, and corrective action--and 
the Agency documented the findings in the Proposed Denial. EPA found 
that the permits were neither consistent with, nor as protective as the 
Federal CCR regulations with respect to all three areas reviewed.
    The Agency also disagrees that it should defer to the work of 
States or facilities and their P.E.s and P.G.s when reviewing permits. 
EPA has significant technical expertise to evaluate a permit record and 
determine whether the record is complete and demonstrates that the 
permit is at least as protective as the Federal standards. EPA must 
follow the facts. This demands that the Agency conduct its own 
evaluation and reach its own conclusions, and not uncritically adopt 
P.E. and P.G. assessments from other parties. This is the case 
regardless of those individuals' own professionalism. To do otherwise 
for fear of causing offense, would be to abrogate the Agency's 
oversight role.
    Further, as noted below in response to several technical comments, 
ADEM and facilities provide new explanations for actions taken in the 
permits that they say justify the permit terms. But such comments make 
EPA's point. That additional explanations are necessary demonstrates 
the insufficiency of the preexisting permit records with respect to 
both groundwater monitoring networks and corrective actions. In any 
case, the technical comments on the Proposed Denial do not address all 
the technical issues EPA raised and none of the comments satisfactorily 
explain how the closure requirements were met. In addition, even when 
the comments address issues raised in the Proposed Denial, those 
comments do not supplement or substitute for enforceable permit 
conditions and, therefore, the comments do not demonstrate that the 
permits themselves are actually in compliance with the Federal CCR 
regulations or more stringent State requirements.
2. Comments in Support of EPA's Process for Evaluating Alabama's CCR 
Permit Program
    Comment: Environmental and public health commenters state that 
ADEM's operation of its State CCR program and its repeated failure to 
protect Alabama's communities and clean water from dangerous CCR 
disposal and pollution establish that ADEM's application fails the 
protective standards contained in the WIIN Act. Commenters state that 
ADEM has violated the Federal CCR regulations across Alabama by 
approving the cap in place closure of unlined leaking CCR lagoons that 
will pollute and threaten Alabama's clean water, rivers, and 
communities forever. Commenters state that EPA's careful analysis shows 
ADEM has issued permits that would allow Alabama utilities to store 
millions of tons of CCR in groundwater in perpetuity, and the 
commenters cite a memorandum from a licensed hydrogeologist who studied 
the Alabama sites for years and whose analysis is consistent with 
EPA's. Commenters conclude that EPA's Proposed Denial upholds the law 
and protects Alabama's people and water from the illegal permitting 
practices of ADEM. Only the vigorous enforcement of the Federal CCR 
regulations will provide Alabama the protections that it deserves, and 
ADEM has demonstrated that it cannot and will not follow the law and 
protect the State, its communities, and its clean water.
    Response: EPA agrees that the Alabama CCR program is not as 
protective as the Federal CCR regulations, and the Agency is taking 
final action to deny approval of the State program.
    Comment: Several commenters strongly support the proposed decision 
of EPA to deny Alabama's request for approval of its Application. 
Commenters state that ADEM's CCR permit program fails to meet the 
standard for EPA authorization in significant ways. Commenters state it 
is likely that EPA will soon be required to approve or deny additional 
State CCR permit program applications and it is essential that EPA 
apply the same strong reasoning, and fidelity to the Federal CCR 
regulations evidenced in the proposed Alabama denial to any new 
requests to operate State CCR programs. Commenters state that there 
will be scores of permits issued that are not as protective as the 
Federal CCR regulations and consequently harm human health and the 
environment unless EPA maintains the same approach to reviewing other 
State programs that it took with Alabama.
    Commenters state that allowing permit programs like ADEM's to 
operate is particularly damaging because once an approved State issues 
a permit, the permitted facility is shielded from enforcement of any 
requirement other than the provisions contained in the State permit. 
Permit deficiencies such as those EPA identified in Alabama must be 
resolved now, before a State is approved to operate in lieu of the 
Federal program. Commenters further argue that this is a matter of 
considerable urgency because there is no quick fix once an approved 
State issues a permit that fails to protect health and the environment. 
Commenters note that EPA has the authority to withdraw a deficient 
State permit program, but that the statutorily mandated process takes 
considerable time. Commenters state that they conducted a limited 
analysis of State permitting at sites and that it reveals that States 
are regularly permitting companies to dispose of CCR in contact with 
groundwater, even where there is clear evidence that the ash is leading 
to unsafe levels of contamination. Commenters state that they also 
found instances where States are applying a risk-based analysis to 
corrective action--an approach clearly prohibited by the Federal CCR 
regulations--as well as at least one State imposing groundwater 
monitoring requirements that are ineffective and significantly less 
robust than those required by EPA. Commenters further argue it is 
essential for EPA to provide oversight now, before a State applies for 
program authorization. Commenters state that EPA enforcement actions at 
facilities that are violating the prohibition against closure with CCR 
in groundwater, operating deficient groundwater monitoring systems, and 
selecting impermissible and ineffective groundwater remedies are needed 
at many facilities nationwide. Commenters assert that EPA must 
proactively communicate and demonstrate to States that their permitting 
cannot circumvent Federal requirements because noncompliance is 
widespread, and plants are initiating and completing illegal closures 
at a rapid pace pursuant to the Federal requirement to close unlined 
units.
    Commenters state that denial of Alabama's CCR permit program helps 
to protect Alabama, its residents, and its clean water from CCR 
pollution and dangerous CCR storage when ADEM will not. Commenters 
maintain that ADEM has demonstrated that it will authorize unlawful CCR 
storage and

[[Page 48785]]

pollution to continue indefinitely and that it will not enforce the law 
and the Rule's protections against the powerful utilities in Alabama. 
Commenters state that, by denying ADEM's application, EPA will prevent 
ADEM from being able to put in place CCR regulations permits that 
violate the Federal CCR regulations and will ensure that citizens and 
EPA can enforce the Federal CCR regulations and see that Alabama 
communities receive its protections. Commenters maintain that EPA will 
also communicate to other State agencies, utilities, and communities 
across the nation that the protective standards of the Federal CCR 
regulations will be upheld.
    Commenters agree with EPA's draft denial stating that RCRA 
establishes clear standards that States must meet to receive approval 
for a State CCR permit program. Specifically, RCRA requires ``each CCR 
unit located in the state to achieve compliance with'' either the 
Federal criteria in part 257 or other State criteria that ``are at 
least as protective as'' the Federal regulations. Commenters agree that 
EPA demonstrated in its Proposed Denial that it is not enough that 
State regulations parrot the language of the Federal CCR regulations; 
they must adhere to its substance. Commenters state that EPA's 
examination of permits issued by ADEM reveals that the State is 
implementing its regulations in a manner that is significantly less 
protective than the plain language of the Federal CCR regulations. 
Commenters state that the permits issued by ADEM impose requirements 
that are less protective than the Federal CCR regulations with respect 
to groundwater monitoring, corrective action, and closure. Commenters 
state that, for example, ADEM has issued multiple permits allowing CCR 
in closed units to remain saturated by groundwater, without requiring 
any engineering measures to control the groundwater flowing into and 
out of the closed unit. Thus, according to the comments, ADEM is 
allowing multiple regulated facilities to violate one of the most 
critical requirements of the Federal CCR regulations.
    Response: EPA agrees that the Alabama CCR program is not as 
protective as the Federal CCR regulations and the Agency is taking 
final action to deny approval of the State program. EPA agrees that its 
approach to evaluating State CCR programs should be similar in similar 
circumstances, and so it intends to consider proposed and final State 
CCR permits when determining whether to approve all State CCR permit 
programs as it has in evaluating the Alabama program.
    Comment: Commenter states that its members rely on good quality 
water in the Black Warrior River for drinking, fishing, swimming, 
hunting, and boating. The commenter agrees with EPA's preliminary 
determination that the State's application for and implementation of 
its own CCR program is significantly less stringent than the Federal 
minimum standard requirements and does not meet the standard for 
approval under RCRA. Commenter states that CCR has been mismanaged by 
Alabama Power Company for roughly 100 years and improperly regulated by 
ADEM for nearly 40 years, allowing toxic contamination of groundwater, 
streams and rivers at Plant Gorgas, Plant Miller, and Plant Greene 
County (all located within the Black Warrior River watershed). 
Commenter supports denial of Alabama's CCR permit program and hope it 
forces Alabama Power to properly dispose of its toxic CCR waste away 
from water resources. Commenter states proper disposal of CCR is 
critical to the health and success of future generations of humans and 
wildlife that depend on the river. Commenter maintains that across the 
Southeast, States like Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina 
have required utilities to clean up CCR contamination, with over 250 
million tons of hazardous CCR being excavated from unlined pits near 
waterways. These materials are either recycled or disposed of in 
modern, lined landfills away from rivers. Commenter states that even 
Alabama Power's sister company, Georgia Power, has recycled or properly 
disposed of over 65 million tons of ash. Commenter states EPA's 
decision makes clear that Alabama can no longer be the outlier and must 
implement similar safeguards. Commenter states the following problems 
exist with ADEM's permits: (1) The Draft Permits and Closure Plans, as 
written, do not require the Ash Pond facilities to come into compliance 
with Federal and State CCR regulations; (2) The Draft Permits and 
Closure Plans allow the continued location of the Ash Ponds in areas 
where they cannot be permitted by law; (3) The Draft Permits and 
Closure Plans should require and include more information about the 
extent of contamination from the Ash Ponds; (4) The Draft Permits and 
Closure Plans do not consider contamination that has migrated offsite, 
or the remediation of that contamination; (5) The Draft Permits and 
Closure Plans do not consider the long-term maintenance of artificial 
caps; (6) The Draft Permits and Closure Plans do not consider 
responsibility for the facilities after the 30-year post closure care 
period; (7) The Draft Permits and Closure Plans lack key modeling 
information; (8) ADEM unnecessarily grants the Company variances from 
including boron as an Appendix IV Monitoring parameter; (9) Neither 
ADEM nor the Company provide any information about alternative closure 
methods; therefore, the public is limited in its knowledge about 
closure techniques that would be more protective of human health and 
the environment; and (10) Alabama Power's closure plans approved under 
ADEM's regulatory program allow CCR to remain in groundwater, in 
violation of the Federal CCR regulations.
    The commenter states that the list is representative, but not 
exhaustive of all the deficiencies with the permits ultimately issued 
by ADEM. Because ADEM's application does not meet the standards 
established under RCRA and because the permits issued under ADEM's non-
approved CCR program are also deficient, the commenters believe that 
EPA has made the correct decision to deny the ADEM's Application to 
manage the State's CCR program.
    Response: EPA agrees that Alabama's permits are not as protective 
as the Federal CCR regulations and EPA is taking final action to deny 
approval of the program. The remainder of the comment addresses issues 
that are outside the scope of the Final Decision and no response is 
required.
3. EPA Should Defer to State's Interpretation of the Federal CCR 
Regulations
    Comments: Several comments state that the 2017 Guidance Document 
and the information required for the Oklahoma, Georgia, and Texas 
permit programs applications do not require States to provide EPA with 
issued permits or proposed permits if the State begins to implement the 
State permit program prior to EPA approval. Commenters maintain that 
State agencies should be allowed reasonable latitude to interpret 
regulations, particularly where EPA guidance has not been issued. 
Commenters recommend that EPA review all State permit programs with the 
same criteria and in accordance with the Interim Final Guidance, RCRA 
4005, and WIIN Act section 2301.
    Commenters disagree that Alabama's interpretation of the Federal 
CCR regulations is flawed. Commenters argue that because the Federal 
regulations are self-implementing in all but three States (Oklahoma, 
Georgia, and Texas) that

[[Page 48786]]

EPA should leave interpretation up to the regulated community and the 
States who have received State CCR permit program approval from EPA. 
Commenters state that EPA has no plans to provide implementation 
guidance through rulemaking but will instead provide guidance to States 
seeking permit program approval. Commenters maintain that EPA has not 
provided formal comprehensive written guidance on implementation to 
States or the regulated community.
    Commenters maintain it is unreasonable and unrealistic for EPA to 
direct States to EPA's Part A determinations for guidance on the 
correct interpretation of the plain language of the Federal 
regulations. Commenters argue it is not reasonable for EPA to provide a 
comprehensive interpretation of Federal regulations by comparing one 
facility's final Part A determination in one State to another 
facility's proposed Part A decision (that includes different hydrologic 
and geologic conditions) in a different State. Commenters argue that 
States should not be forced to look at EPA decisions in other States to 
determine how to implement Federal regulations within their own State. 
Commenters argue that States do not have the resources to review 
several proposed and one final Part A decisions (and Part B decisions) 
to evaluate how EPA may interpret Federal CCR regulations in their own 
State.
    Commenters argue that the requirements of the Federal CCR 
regulations are subject to interpretation and the plain language of the 
Federal CCR regulations can reasonably be interpreted in more than one 
way as the interpretation often depends on site-specific circumstances. 
Commenters state that in March 2022, comments regarding proposed Part A 
determinations noted that the proposed decisions seek to clarify 
several interpretive issues involving the closure of unlined CCR 
surface impoundments. Commenters argue that the clarifications are a 
significant shift in policy from long standing regulations, guidance, 
and interpretations of closure requirements including those pertaining 
to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 
Act (CERCLA) remedial actions, RCRA subtitle C closure actions, RCRA 
subtitle D closure actions for sanitary landfills and open dumps, and 
more recently for RCRA subtitle D CCR unit closures. Commenters urged 
EPA to employ a more formal approach (i.e., rulemaking, policy memo, 
guidance document) to establish such interpretations if EPA finalizes 
these determinations and thus makes a substantial shift in the 
interpretation and policies for closure requirements for CCR or other 
units. Commenters argue that absent formal comprehensive written 
guidance, State agencies should be allowed latitude to interpret the 
regulations.
    Response: EPA does not agree with the comments suggesting EPA 
should defer to the varying interpretations of the Federal CCR 
regulations of the 50 States and the regulated community until EPA has 
revised the Guidance Document or revised the CCR regulations. EPA is 
aware of no authority that supports--or requires--such an approach and 
the comments do not provide any. Further, such an approach would lead 
to inconsistent interpretations of the regulations and, as the Agency 
is seeing here, interpretations that are leading to State permits that 
are not as protective as the Federal CCR regulations.
    EPA also disagrees that directing States to the Part A and Part B 
determinations is in any way inappropriate or unreasonable. At the same 
time EPA was reviewing Alabama's and other States' CCR permit program 
applications, EPA was reviewing requests for Part A extensions of the 
deadline to cease receipt of waste to unlined surface impoundments and 
Part B submissions for alternate liner demonstrations. When conducting 
those reviews, the Agency was required to review facility compliance 
with the Federal CCR regulations as part of the decision-making 
process. What EPA found during the Part A and Part B reviews was 
significant noncompliance with the requirements of the Federal CCR 
regulations, particularly noncompliance with the closure requirements 
for unlined surface impoundments, the groundwater monitoring network 
requirements, and the corrective action requirements.\20\ As explained 
in the Proposed Denial, the proposed Part A determinations and comments 
on those determinations brought to light the extent to which some 
States and members of the regulated community were not interpreting the 
regulations correctly, particularly with respect to the closure 
requirements for unlined surface impoundments. 88 FR 55229. EPA 
thereafter informed States and facilities with unlined surface 
impoundments of the Agency's concerns and directed them to the Part A 
determinations for the guidance on implementing the rules. The proposed 
and final Part A decisions were internally consistent and available to 
States to explain EPA's concerns with CCR permits, and all States with 
unlined surface impoundments then had detailed descriptions of EPA's 
concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ This web page contains links to Part A decisions that EPA 
proposed in 2022 and 2023. It also links to the Gavin final 
decision: CCR Part A Implementation: https://www.epa.gov/coalash/coal-combustion-residuals-ccr-part-implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA further disagrees that the litigation on the Agency's 
interpretation of the closure requirements means the Agency must 
approve or defer decisions on State programs that the Agency believes 
are less protective than the Federal CCR regulations. As noted above, 
EPA disagrees with the comments against EPA's interpretation of the 
closure requirements and those issues are being litigated. In this 
case, EPA is simply applying its consistent position on the matter. The 
fact that that a similar dispute over the meaning of EPA's regulations 
is occuring in an unrelated action is no reason for EPA to refuse to 
apply this position or to act inconsistently with its stated position. 
Further, no commenter has explained how it would be reasonable to for 
EPA to approve a State program that the Agency concludes does not in 
fact require each CCR unit to comply with standards at least as 
protective as Federal CCR regulations. EPA has not identified a 
rationale either. Furthermore, as noted above, EPA also proposed to 
deny approval of Alabama's program due to deficiencies in the 
groundwater monitoring networks and corrective action requirements and 
a general pattern of inadequate review and documentation of CCR permit 
applications. 88 FR 55230. Thus, even if EPA did not consider the 
closure issues, the Agency would still be unable to conclude that 
Alabama's CCR program requires each CCR unit to achieve at least the 
minimum level of protection.
    EPA also disagrees that it is changing long standing regulations, 
guidance, and interpretations of closure requirements, including those 
pertaining to the CERCLA remedial actions, RCRA subtitle C closure 
actions, RCRA subtitle D closure actions for sanitary landfills and 
open dumps, and more recently for RCRA subtitle D CCR unit closures. 
All of these arguments related to closure are addressed in the Gavin 
Decision \21\ and the litigation on the closure standards, and EPA is 
maintaining the interpretations set forth therein. Further, EPA 
disagrees that it must or should wait to rely on the Agency's 
interpretation of the closure requirements until the litigation is

[[Page 48787]]

resolved or wait to consider CCR permits as part of the state permit 
program review until the Agency revises the Guidance or regulations. 
EPA has identified a problem and it would not be reasonable to ignore 
information relevant for determining whether a State CCR program is 
sufficiently protective simply because the Guidance has not caught up 
to the facts. Finally, as noted above, EPA has now revised the CCR 
regulations to include new definitions that make clear Alabama's CCR 
program is inconsistent with and less protective than the Federal 
program with respect to closure of unlined surface impoundments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Final Decision: Denial of Alternate Closure Deadline for 
General James M. Gavin Plant, Cheshire, Ohio, EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0100 
November 22, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. EPA Should Consider CCR Permits in Its State Program Approval 
Process
    Comment: Commenter agrees with EPA's approach to considering State 
CCR permits when reviewing State CCR permit programs and states that 
Georgia is an instructive example of why it is important to take this 
approach. Commenter states that Georgia had not issued State CCR 
permits when EPA approved the State's CCR permitting program in January 
2020, so the Agency did not have the benefit of knowing how the State 
would administer its State regulations. Commenter states that since EPA 
approval, Georgia issued a proposed permit in July 2021 for a CCR 
impoundment at Georgia Power Company's Plant Hammond, which would 
authorize closure with waste left in the impoundment and installing a 
cap which would leave CCR deep in groundwater forever. Commenter states 
that Georgia's disregard of the plain language of the Federal CCR 
regulations led to EPA writing Georgia Environmental Protection 
Division (EPD) concerning its permitting practices. Commenter states 
that since that time, Georgia has not issued a final permit for Plant 
Hammond,\22\ has not issued proposed permits for any other CCR 
impoundment in Georgia, and, in effect, has stopped operating its CCR 
program. Commenter States that the Georgia fiasco should not be 
repeated. Commenter states that through this denial, EPA will avoid an 
even worse outcome in Alabama, where ADEM has issued illegal final 
permits. Commenter also states that by its action EPA will also 
communicate to Georgia and other State agencies that a State CCR permit 
program must actually follow the requirements of the Federal CCR 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ EPA notes that Georgia EPD issued a final CCR permit on 
November 13, 2023, for Plant Hammond's Ash Pond 3 (AP-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: EPA agrees that considering State CCR permits when 
determining whether to approve a State CCR permit program application 
is consistent with the statute and necessary to ensure no State program 
is approved unless it requires each CCR unit in the State to comply 
with the minimum level of protection (i.e., the Federal CCR 
regulations). In part because EPA concludes that Alabama's permits are 
not as protective as the Federal CCR regulations, EPA is taking final 
action to deny approval of Alabama's CCR permit program. Comments 
related to Georgia are outside the scope of this action and no response 
is required.
5. EPA Should Not Consider CCR Permits in Its State Program Approval 
Process
    Comment: Commenters maintain that EPA relies on its recent, 
disputed, and legally contested interpretations of the regulatory 
closure performance standards, groundwater monitoring conditions, and 
corrective action requirements in the Federal CCR regulations to 
conclude that several ADEM-issued permits are inadequate because they 
allegedly fail to achieve those requirements (as interpreted by EPA). 
More specifically, commenters state that EPA faults ADEM for issuing 
permits:
    1. ``allowing CCR in closed units to remain saturated by 
groundwater, without requiring engineering measures that will control 
the groundwater flowing into and out of the closed unit;''
    2. ``approv[ing] groundwater monitoring systems that contain an 
inadequate number of wells, and in incorrect locations, to monitor all 
potential contaminant pathways and to detect groundwater contamination 
from the CCR units in the uppermost aquifer;'' and
    3. ``allow[ing] the permittee to delay implementation of effective 
measures to remediate groundwater contamination both on- and off-site 
of the facility.''
    Commenters assert that EPA's allegations of deficiency are 
predicated on EPA's recent and disputed interpretations, none of which 
have been formally promulgated through notice and comment rulemaking, 
as well as its own unilateral technical review, without regard to the 
role of--or certifications provided by--P.E.s. Commenters believe EPA's 
allegations are improper and cannot lawfully be used as a basis for 
denying ADEM's CCR permit program.
    Commenters further argue that EPA acted improperly because it 
reviewed available State issued and proposed permits. Commenter notes 
that EPA stated ``unlike Georgia, Texas, and Oklahoma (currently the 
only three States with EPA approval for State CCR permit programs), 
Alabama had already begun implementing its State CCR Permit program and 
issuing permits prior to its submittal of an Application for EPA 
approval of the State's CCR permit program''. Commenters further note 
that EPA stated ``to the extent the state implements its CCR 
regulations prior to EPA's determination of state program adequacy, EPA 
will also discuss that state's interpretation and implementation of its 
program to ensure EPA fully understands the program and to determine 
which of the two statutory standards EPA will use to evaluate the state 
program. EPA took the same approach with Alabama as with other states 
seeking approval.''
    Commenters argue EPA is wrong to take this approach because the 
2017 Guidance Document and the information required for the Oklahoma, 
Georgia and Texas permit programs applications do not require States to 
provide EPA with issued permits or proposed permits if the State begins 
to implement the State permit program without EPA approval. Commenters 
also argue this is the correct approach because State agencies should 
be allowed reasonable latitude to interpret regulations; especially 
where EPA guidance has not been issued. Commenters further recommend 
that EPA review all State permit programs with the same criteria and in 
accordance with the 2017 Guidance Document and RCRA section 4005(d).
    Response: As stated above, EPA does not agree that it must approve 
a State program where the Agency has determined State permits are less 
protective than the Federal CCR regulations. Instead, in light of EPA's 
review, it would be unreasonable to approve the State program since the 
Agency has concluded that the State permits do not in fact require 
compliance with at least the minimum level of protection required. 
Further, in this case, Alabama would have to acknowledge EPA's concerns 
and take steps to start revising flawed permits for EPA to approve the 
State's CCR permit program.
    Further, despite the commenters' assertion, not all of the bases 
for the proposed and final denial are subject to litigation and, even 
if they were, it would make sense for EPA to maintain consistent 
positions across different actions. With respect to P.E. assessments, 
EPA made clear in the 2015 Rule that it would not rely exclusively on 
engineer certification to

[[Page 48788]]

ensure compliance with technical standards, but that other mechanisms 
would also help to ensure compliance. 80 FR 21312, 21334-35. First, the 
performance standards in the regulations are independent requirements 
and are enforceable regardless of whether a P.E. certification was 
obtained. The 2015 rulemaking preamble made this clear in response to 
commenters concerned that the proposed regulations relied too heavily 
upon the judgment of P.E. In the preamble, EPA explained that it 
disagreed that the rules rely ``almost entirely'' on professional 
engineers to protect human health and the environment. The final rule 
relies on multiple mechanisms to ensure that the regulated community 
properly implements requirements in this rule. As one part of this 
multi-mechanism approach, owners or operators must obtain 
certifications by qualified individuals verifying that the technical 
provisions of the rule have been properly applied and met. However, a 
more significant component is the performance standards that the rules 
lay out. These standards impose specific technical requirements. The 
certifications required by the rule supplement these technical 
requirements, and while they are important, they are not the sole 
mechanism ensuring regulatory compliance. Id. at 80 FR 21335.
    In addition, information the P.E. uses to assess compliance is 
required to be publicly posted on a website specifically to allow for 
interested parties to evaluate the accuracy of the P.E. certifications. 
80 FR 21339. EPA did not have enforcement authority in 2015, and the 
statute instead left enforcement to States and citizens. See 42 U.S.C. 
6972(a)(1)(A). 80 FR 21309. To facilitate such enforcement, the 2015 
rule required engineer certifications and other underlying compliance 
data to be posted to the internet, as this would allow states and the 
public to evaluate the accuracy of the certifications in assessing 
whether to sue. Id. at 21335. If EPA intended P.E. certification to 
effectively serve as a shield, there would be no reason to require 
posting on a publicly accessible website of the majority of compliance 
data that underly the certifications. EPA confirmed this in the 
preamble to the 2015 regulations, stating that making this information 
available to other parties (e.g., state agencies and citizens) was 
another mechanism to ensure technical performance standards established 
in the regulations would be achieved. ``EPA has developed a number of 
provisions designed to facilitate citizens to enforce the rule pursuant 
to RCRA section 7002. Chief among these is the requirement to publicly 
post monitoring data, along with critical documentation of facility 
operations, so that the public will have access to the information to 
monitor activities at CCR disposal facilities.'' Id. In sum, the 
certifications do not act as prohibitions on state or citizen 
enforcement, and they certainly do not bar EPA from using its WIIN Act 
authority to enforce standards in the regulations. Thus, despite 
commenters' assertions, a P.E. certification does not demonstrate or 
assure actual compliance with the Federal CCR regulations (or any 
rule), nor does it deprive EPA of its ability to conduct an independent 
assessment or to reach a contrary conclusion from a P.E. In this case, 
comments have not provided sufficient evidence to rebut EPA's 
conclusions in favor of the conclusions reached by the P.E.'s hired by 
the relevant facilities as part of the State permitting processes.
    As stated above, EPA does not agree that its approach with respect 
to Oklahoma, Georgia, and Texas prevent EPA from now considering 
proposed and final permits that are available for review at the time 
the Agency is evaluating a State program. EPA was not aware of the 
potential widespread issues with implementation of the Federal CCR 
regulations when approving those State programs, and it was not until 
the Agency reviewed the Part A applications and received comments on 
the Part A Proposed Denials that the Agency realized the extent of the 
problems. Since that time, EPA has proactively engaged States and 
facilities to ensure compliance with the Federal CCR regulations. In 
any event, EPA considered Oklahoma's permits as part of the review 
approval process, and EPA is currently engaged with both Georgia and 
Texas as they issue State CCR permits.
    EPA also disagrees that the Agency should defer to potentially many 
different State interpretations of the Federal CCR regulations.
6. EPA Must Approve Alabama's CCR Permit Program Because Alabama's 
Regulations Mirror the Federal CCR Regulations
    Comments: Commenters argue that ADEM's permit program meets 
statutory requirements because it mirrors the Federal CCR regulations 
and it is consistent with EPA's 2017 Guidance Document, so EPA must 
approve without looking to implementation of the regulations. 
Commenters maintain that ADEM complied with the WIIN Act because the 
State provided ``evidence of a permit program or other system of prior 
approval and conditions under State law'' for CCR units and showed that 
the State program is ``at least as protective as'' the Federal CCR 
regulations. Commenters state that EPA reviewed ADEM's authority, State 
public participation procedures, technical criteria, and other relevant 
factors in the Proposed Denial and the Agency found that ``these 
aspects of the Alabama CCR permit program provide the State with the 
necessary authority to implement an adequate State program.'' 
Commenters also state that EPA does not question ADEM's resources to 
administer the program.
    Commenters note that EPA did not stop its review with the State's 
CCR permit program regulations, as it should according to comments, and 
EPA instead based its disapproval of ADEM's program on the Agency's 
review of Alabama CCR permits and on recent statements of 
interpretation which were not subject to proper notice and comment 
rulemaking and are currently being challenged in the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Commenters conclude that EPA should 
approve because, according to the commenters, ADEM has implemented 
regulations that are identical in text and substance to those of EPA as 
to the standards at issue; ADEM's provisions for public participation 
are satisfactory to EPA; there is no risk to human health or the 
environment; and ADEM has demonstrated that it has the appropriate 
resources and expertise to implement the CCR program, backed by decades 
of implementation of parallel RCRA programs.
    Commenters state that the WIIN Act requires EPA to approve a State 
CCR permit program application no later than 180 days after submission 
if the Agency ``determines that the program or other system requires 
each coal combustion residuals unit located in the State to achieve 
compliance with the applicable criteria for coal combustion residuals 
units under part 257 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations . . . or 
such other State criteria that the Administrator, after consultation 
with the State, determines to be at least as protective'' as the 
Federal CCR regulations. Thus, according to commenters, the plain text 
of Alabama's regulations requires CCR units in the State to comply with 
all of the substantive Federal CCR regulations requirements, including 
those related to closure, corrective action, and groundwater 
monitoring, and EPA has determined that ADEM's standards are

[[Page 48789]]

at least as protective as the Federal CCR regulations. Commenters state 
that because ADEM's application fulfills the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 
6945(d) to require compliance with the Federal CCR regulations criteria 
or State-specific criteria that are at least as protective as the 
Federal CCR regulations, EPA must approve the application and the 
Agency should not consider information beyond the four corners of the 
application when evaluating a State CCR permit program application, 
particularly when the new positions at issue were put forth without 
proper notice and comment and are subject to litigation as discussed 
below.
    Commenters argue that the WIIN Act provides a separate mechanism 
for EPA to review an approved State permit program and address alleged 
deficiencies with implementation of the approved State program. 
According to commenters, the WIIN Act directs EPA to provide a notice 
of deficiencies and an opportunity for a public hearing if ``the State 
has not implemented an adequate permit program'' or if ``the State has, 
at any time, approved or failed to revoke a permit for a coal 
combustion residuals unit, a release from which adversely affects or is 
likely to adversely affect the soil, groundwater, or surface water of 
another State.'' Based on this language, commenters assert EPA must 
approve an application first before addressing any alleged issues with 
implementation.
    Commenters also state that RCRA subtitle D ``envisions that states 
are primarily responsible for regulating disposal of nonhazardous 
wastes in landfills and dumps.'' Commenters further assert that EPA's 
principal role under subtitle D ``is to announce Federal guidelines for 
state management of nonhazardous wastes. . . .'' Thus, according to 
commenters, States have the primary role to interpret and implement 
waste regulations and EPA should not attempt to supplant the 
cooperative federalism approach that is enshrined in RCRA by requiring 
strict compliance with the Agency's flawed positions as a prerequisite 
for approving a State program.
    Commenters note that in August 2017, EPA issued the Guidance 
Document for States with information and procedures on how to develop 
and submit their State CCR permit programs to EPA for approval. The 
guidance includes frequently asked questions about the WIIN Act and the 
process for States to seek approval, as well as detailed checklists for 
State program submittals. Commenters further state that ADEM initially 
submitted its application for State permit program approval to EPA over 
five years ago on July 12, 2018. Commenters state that ADEM submitted 
revised applications on February 26, 2021, and December 29, 2021. 
Commenters state that ADEM's latest application (i.e., its ``evidence 
of a permit program'') contains all of the information and followed all 
of the procedures outlined by EPA in its interim final guidance, and, 
after review of the State's submission, EPA confirmed that ``the 
express terms of ADEM's CCR permit program . . . include[ ] all 
regulatory provisions required for approval'' and ``provide the State 
with sufficient authority to require compliance with the Federal 
requirements or equivalent State requirements.''
    Commenters further state that EPA changed its approach and took a 
sharp turn and began describing its evaluation of Alabama's program 
against criteria not only outside of EPA's statutory directive but also 
beyond any regulatory authority of the Agency. Commenters state this 
approach is troubling for many reasons and that the proper standard for 
comparison exists in 40 CFR part 257. Commenters further state that 
Alabama has easily satisfied both criteria, and its program should be 
approved expeditiously. Commenters assert that EPA has appropriately 
determined that Alabama's approach to CCR permit applications and 
approvals is adequate. See, 88 FR 55229, August 14, 2023. Commenters 
also assert that EPA found that the Alabama CCR program will provide 
robust implementation and enforcement of the State's CCR requirements 
and afford adequate opportunity for citizen intervention in civil 
enforcement proceedings. 88 FR 55229; see also Docket ID EPA-HQ-OLEM-
2022-0903-0133, Proposed Denial TSD Volume III. Commenters state that 
the Alabama CCR program constitutes a well-developed permit program 
that, as required by the WIIN Act, ``provide[s] evidence of a permit 
program or other system of prior approval and conditions under State 
law for regulation by the State of coal combustion residuals units that 
are located in the State.'' 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(A). Commenters 
maintain that Alabama's CCR permit program will provide more than 
adequate opportunities for public participation in the permitting 
process. Commenters state that to the extent there are any differences, 
``the differences do not on their face substantively make the State 
regulations less protective than the Federal CCR regulations.'' Id. 
Commenters maintain that the State's CCR regulations contain all the 
technical elements of the Federal CCR regulations, including 
requirements for location restrictions, design and operating criteria, 
groundwater monitoring and corrective action, closure requirements, 
post-closure care, recordkeeping, notification and publicly accessible 
website posting requirements. EPA TSD Volume III at 6-9; 88 FR 55228. 
For these reasons, commenters state that EPA should approve Alabama's 
CCR permit program, such that it will apply in lieu of the Federal 
regulations.
    Commenters point to the program review and withdrawal provisions of 
RCRA 4005(d) and state that the key takeaways from this portion of the 
statute are that: (1) In the event the State were to fail to cure 
program implementation deficiencies identified during EPA's periodic 
review of the State program, or if the State were to fail to deliver on 
its commitment to update its approved program at such time as the 
Federal requirements change, EPA has the authority and responsibility 
to withdraw the State's program approval, after appropriate notice and 
opportunity for a public hearing; and (2) Once a program withdrawal 
occurs, the State has the opportunity to have its program approval 
restored upon correction of the offending program deficiencies. 
Commenters maintain that the review and withdrawal provisions support a 
conclusion that EPA may not consider implementation and State CCR 
permits when evaluating a State CCR permit program.
    Response: EPA agrees that Alabama's State CCR regulations in large 
part mirror the Federal CCR regulations and that, for this reason, the 
State's regulations provide Alabama with sufficient authority to 
implement a CCR program that meets the standard for approval under 
section 4005(d)(1)(B). But EPA disagrees that copying the Federal CCR 
regulations alone is sufficient to require EPA to approve a State 
program when the Agency has concluded that the program, as implemented 
through State permits, is in practice, not as protective as the Federal 
CCR regulations. As noted above, section 4005(d)(1)(B) of RCRA requires 
EPA to conclude that a State program ``requires each CCR unit . . . to 
achieve compliance'' with at least the minimum level of protection 
(i.e., the Federal CCR regulations or equivalent State standards) 
before approving the program, not, as the commenters contend, to simply 
require compliance with those standards. Congress was thus clear that a 
requirement to comply is insufficient; this is why EPA evaluates not 
only the CCR specific requirements but also the State's general 
authority to

[[Page 48790]]

issue permits and impose conditions in those permits, as well as the 
State's authority for compliance monitoring and enforcement, and 
whether the State has the resources to implement and enforce the 
program. Consequently, the RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(B) standard is not 
met where, whatever the State regulations may say, the permits issued 
to implement those regulations authorize actions that are inconsistent 
with the plain language of the Federal CCR regulations. This is because 
Congress specified that what matters is what the State program actually 
requires the permittee to achieve; and, for example, a permit that 
simply recites the regulations while simultaneously approving a clearly 
deficient closure or groundwater monitoring plan cannot plausibly be 
argued to require the facility to achieve compliance with those 
regulations. And where, as here, the Agency has concluded the State 
program is not as protective, EPA does not have a basis to approve the 
program under the statute.
    At the same time, however, none of the comments appear to question 
EPA's authority to withdraw a State CCR program if, after approval, the 
Agency determines that a State is not implementing its CCR permit 
program in a manner that ensures permits require at least the minimum 
level of protection. See RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(D). The withdrawal 
provisions of the statute presume that EPA disagrees with how a State 
is implementing its CCR permit program (e.g., EPA believes the state 
permits are inadequate) when EPA takes action to withdraw a State CCR 
program, and the statute gives EPA the authority to review all State 
CCR permit programs, including those that mirror the Federal CCR 
regulations. Notwithstanding, the comments appear to suggest that EPA 
cannot question implementation of a State program that adopts the 
Federal CCR rule terms because States are allowed to interpret the 
regulations differently than EPA. Taken to its logical conclusion, 
there would be separate standards for withdrawal based on whether the 
program was approved under RCRA 4005(d)(1)(B)(i) or (ii), and EPA would 
be essentially precluded from withdrawing approval of a State program 
if approval was based on RCRA 4005(d)(1)(B)(i). The commenters' 
interpretation would read a limitation on State withdrawal that has no 
basis in the statute. EPA declines to read such a limitation into the 
statute or adopt a position that requires the Agency to ignore 
information (e.g., final State permits) that is clearly relevant to the 
finding that EPA must make when determining whether a State program in 
fact meets the statutory requirements. Finally, EPA does not see any 
benefit to a system where EPA must first approve a deficient program to 
only then be forced to expend further resources on withdrawing that 
same program for the same deficiencies.
    In addition, comments do not address all the technical issues with 
the Alabama CCR permits that EPA identified in the Proposed Denial. For 
example, the comments do not demonstrate EPA's interpretations of the 
requirements for groundwater monitoring systems and corrective action 
are novel or a change in the standards, and many of the issues 
identified in the Proposed Denial were either not addressed or 
insufficiently addressed in the comments. Without some response to the 
issues, EPA cannot conclude that the permits in fact require each CCR 
unit to achieve the minimum level of protection. As EPA explained in 
the proposal, because the permits issued by Alabama appear to interpret 
the Federal CCR regulations differently than EPA, Alabama is 
essentially submitting ``other State criteria,'' and consistent with 
RCRA 4005(d)(1)(B)(ii), in order for EPA to approve such a program, 
Alabama must provide the information to support a determination that 
the State criteria are ``at least as protective as the [Federal CCR 
regulations].'' Further, none of the comments address the general 
concern that Alabama is not exercising sufficient review and oversight 
of the program, and, conversely, the fact that information beyond what 
is in the permit record is necessary to explain why the permits are 
sufficient demonstrates that ADEM's permit program implementation is 
insufficient. See Comment Response above.
    EPA also disagrees that the Agency is prohibited from considering 
State permits in the program review process because the Guidance 
Document does not contemplate review of permits. The Guidance Document 
does not, and indeed cannot, prevent EPA from considering information 
that falls squarely within the ordinary meaning of what the statute 
expressly directs EPA to consider, even if that information is not 
described therein when such an instance arises. In this instance, the 
reason the Guidance Document does not address the issue is because, as 
noted above, EPA was not aware of the widespread problems with State 
CCR permits until the Agency reviewed the Part A requests for 
extensions and received the comments from States and industry on the 
Proposed Denials of Part A requests in 2021, three years after issuance 
of the Guidance Document. EPA also did not anticipate that a State 
might demonstratively contend that EPA should adopt a fundamentally 
different interpretation of the CCR regulations than what EPA intended 
in writing them. In addition, as noted above, EPA has since raised the 
issue of permits with every State requesting approval of a State CCR 
permit program and with the three States that have approved State 
programs.
    Finally, EPA disagrees that it is attempting to supplant the 
cooperative federalism approach enshrined in RCRA. Even under the more 
limited authority conferred on the Agency prior to the WIIN Act, EPA's 
subtitle D criteria established minimum national standards with which 
facilities were required to comply, irrespective of state law. The 
Federal criteria are intended to establish a consistent minimum 
national floor; if States could simply reinterpret those criteria to 
establish different requirements (e.g., a different floor specific to 
the state), this would defeat the purpose. Moreover, the commenter has 
misunderstood both the intent and effect of the WIIN Act. Congress 
deliberately expanded EPA's role under the existing subtitle in 2016 
when it granted EPA the authority to enforce the Federal criteria, 
issue permits in non-participating states, and to establish the minimum 
national standards that are both applicable directly to facilities and 
used to evaluate state programs.
7. Lack of a Federal Permit Program To Serve as Comparative Basis
    Comment: Commenters state that in the Proposed Denial, EPA 
specifies that section 2301 of the WIIN Act amended section 4005 of 
RCRA, creates a new subsection (d) that establishes a Federal CCR 
permitting program similar to permit programs under RCRA subtitle C and 
other environmental statutes. Commenters further state that the WIIN 
Act only establishes a Federal permit program; it does not specify it 
be under RCRA subtitle C. Commenters note that on April 17, 2015, EPA 
published the first Federal CCR regulations regulating CCR as a 
subtitle D solid waste. Commenters conclude that section 2301 of the 
WIIN Act and section 4005 of RCRA do not specify the establishment of a 
Federal CCR permitting program similar to permit programs under RCRA 
subtitle C. Commenters state that Chapter 2 Item 1 of the 2017 Guidance 
Document states that EPA is using 40 CFR part 239, which are the 
requirements for determining adequacy of State subtitle D permit 
programs, as a guide for what a State submission

[[Page 48791]]

should include. Commenters argue that this is the reason States are 
drafting CCR State permit programs that are in line with their EPA 
approved subtitle D permit programs.
    Commenters recommend EPA approve State permit programs that permit 
and interpret the Federal regulations in line with RCRA subtitle D 
solid waste programs since EPA promulgated national CCR standards under 
RCRA subtitle D and not RCRA subtitle C.
    Commenters argue that the lack of a Federal permitting program is a 
key weakness in EPA's Proposed Denial. Commenters maintain that EPA has 
no Federal permit program for States to compare to the State programs 
and that EPA does not have any practical experience developing and 
issuing CCR permits. Commenters appear to believe that EPA cannot 
evaluate permits until the Agency has established a Federal CCR permit 
program and started issuing permits under the program.
    Commenters note that the Proposed Denial contends that once a 
permit is issued, the permit serves as a ``shield'' to the regulations 
and at that point the facility is only responsible for compliance with 
the permit and the Federal regulations are no longer the governing 
rules (88 FR 55223, August 14, 2023). Commenters state that these 
assertions by EPA are incorrect. Commenters note that EPA has no CCR 
permitting program. Commenters question how the Federal CCR regulations 
requires a facility to achieve compliance without a Federal permit 
program. Commenters also state that because ADEM regulations are 
equivalent to the Federal rules, inclusion of ADEM regulations in ADEM-
issued permits is equivalent to inclusion of Federal rules in the 
permit. Commenters state that, for this reason, if EPA considers the 
current Federal rules sufficient to require facilities to ``achieve 
compliance'', then the ADEM-issued permits that refer to these rules 
must also meet the same standard. Commenters argue that EPA is 
attempting to hold ADEM to a higher standard than EPA itself is 
required to achieve and seeks to punish ADEM for having a permitting 
program when EPA does not. Commenters conclude that, at best, it seems 
premature to move directly to program denial until EPA has, through the 
traditional, long-standing regulatory development and approval process, 
promulgated a set of Federal permitting standards.
    Response: EPA disagrees that it is holding ADEM to a higher 
standard than EPA itself is required to achieve. The statute imposes 
the same standard on EPA permits that it imposes on State permit 
programs. See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(2)(B) (``Administrator shall implement 
a permit program to require each coal combustion residuals unit located 
in the nonparticipating State to achieve compliance with applicable 
criteria established by the Administrator under part 257 . . .'') 
(emphasis added). EPA has interpreted this provision to require a 
Federal CCR permit to include specific provisions to ensure that the 
permittee achieves compliance with the Federal CCR regulations, rather 
than merely reiterating the regulations. See, 85 FR 9964-9965 
(describing examples of permit conditions).
    Commenters are also incorrect to the extent they suggest the 
Federal CCR regulations cannot be enforced because EPA has yet to take 
final action on the Federal CCR permit program regulations. The Federal 
CCR regulations are directly enforceable against facilities until they 
receive a permit from an approved State or pursuant to a Federal permit 
program. For this reason, if EPA approved Alabama's CCR permit program, 
the Federal CCR regulations would no longer apply to the final CCR 
permits that EPA believes are insufficiently protective, and facilities 
would have a permit shield for their flawed permits. Absent approval 
and the attendant permit shields, EPA can proceed with actions at any 
time to require the facilities to come into compliance with the Federal 
CCR regulations. Indeed, EPA is currently pursuing a number of 
enforcement actions. Further, the comments imply that Alabama's CCR 
permits simply recite the applicable regulations, but, in fact, the 
permits not only cite the applicable regulations but also specify the 
actions required to be taken to comply with the provisions. In this 
case, many of the actions being required in the permits are not 
sufficient to meet the requirements of the Federal CCR regulations.
    EPA also disagrees with comments stating the Agency must approve 
Alabama's program because the regulations are identical. Because the 
State's interpretation of EPA's regulations is different from the 
Agency's (as demonstrated by the permits it has issued), Alabama is in 
fact operating a different program than EPA, even if the terms of the 
regulations are the same. Under the statute, the State must explain how 
its alternative standards are as protective and ADEM has refused to 
provide an explanation. RCRA 4005(d)(1)(B)(ii).
    The fact that EPA's permitting regulations have not yet been 
promulgated is irrelevant to the fact that permits issued by ADEM allow 
CCR units in the State to comply with alternative requirements that are 
less protective than the requirements in the Federal CCR regulations 
with respect to groundwater monitoring, corrective action, and closure. 
Even absent a Federal CCR permit program, the Federal CCR requirements 
apply directly to facilities until the facility obtains a permit from 
an authorized State or EPA after it promulgates the Federal CCR permit 
program.
    For example, as discussed in the Proposed Denial, ADEM has issued 
multiple permits allowing CCR in closed units to remain saturated by 
groundwater, without requiring adequate, or in some cases any, 
engineering measures to control the groundwater flowing into and out of 
the closed unit. ADEM has also approved groundwater monitoring systems 
that contain an inadequate number of wells, and in incorrect locations, 
to detect groundwater contamination from the CCR units. Finally, ADEM 
has issued multiple permits that effectively allow the permittee to 
delay implementation of effective measures to remediate groundwater 
contamination both on- and off-site of the facility. Overall, EPA's 
review of the permit records demonstrates a consistent pattern of 
deficiencies in the permits and a lack of oversight and independent 
evaluation of facilities' proposed permit terms on the part of ADEM.
    EPA further disagrees with the comments stating that EPA must 
approve State programs consistent with the way State programs are 
approved under RCRA subtitle D for non-CCR units, and that EPA is 
approving State CCR permit programs under RCRA subtitle C. In fact, EPA 
is not evaluating State CCR permit programs the same as the approach 
for evaluating other State permit programs under either subtitle D for 
non-CCR units or subtitle C for hazardous waste units, and instead the 
Agency is evaluating State CCR permit programs based on RCRA section 
4005(d), which is a unique State program approval provision that is 
different from the other State program approval provisions in RCRA 
subtitle C and D. In addition, EPA's advice in the Guidance Document to 
look at the process for approval of State programs under RCRA subtitle 
D when developing the regulations and procedures for a State CCR 
program was not an indication that those regulations apply or that the 
standard for approval of non-CCR RCRA State programs applies to 
approval of State CCR permit programs. Instead, EPA must comply with 
RCRA section 4005(d) when

[[Page 48792]]

evaluating State CCR permit programs and the commenters do not explain 
how EPA could ignore that provision and apply a different RCRA State 
program approval process.
8. Comments in Support of EPA's Interpretation of the Closure Standards 
for Unlined Surface Impoundments
    Comment: Commenters state that the governing standards for closure 
in place, monitoring, and corrective action are set out clearly in the 
Federal CCR regulations, and EPA consistently has applied the plain 
language of the Federal CCR regulations as it has in the Proposed 
Denial. Commenters state that Alabama has adopted regulations that 
mimic the language of the Federal CCR regulations, but as EPA points 
out, ADEM has disregarded the plain language of the regulations and 
instead has allowed utilities in Alabama to leave CCR in old, unlined, 
leaking riverfront pits saturated in water, below the water table and 
even below sea level. Commenters state that EPA has clearly applied the 
straightforward requirements of the Federal CCR regulations in its 
Gavin decision and has replied to all the arguments made by ADEM, 
Alabama Power, and Alabama Power's trade associations in its responses 
to comments on the proposed Gavin decision. Commenters state that EPA 
has also applied those standards in issuing a Notice of Potential 
Violations to the Alabama Power Company (Alabama Power) for its 
violations of the Federal CCR regulations at Plant Barry near Mobile. 
Commenter notes that, in the Proposed Denial, EPA applied the plain 
language of the Federal CCR regulations and the WIIN Act and followed 
the same course it has followed repeatedly in the past.
    Commenters note that Duke Energy, one of the largest energy 
companies in the country, also recognizes and understands the plain 
language of the Federal CCR regulations. Commenters state that Duke 
Energy has set out that the 2015 CCR Rule's closure performance 
standards prohibit closure-in-place where groundwater is in actual or 
likely contact with the CCR unless effective engineering measures can 
be installed to control, minimize, or eliminate such conditions. 
Commenters further assert that contrary to the closure and storage 
practices ADEM has repeatedly permitted, the utility industry's 
research arm, the Electric Power Research Institute, long ago informed 
its members that capping an unlined CCR impoundment in place is 
inappropriate where the ash remains in contact with groundwater: ``Caps 
are not effective when [coal ash] is filled below the water table, 
because groundwater flowing through the [coal ash] will generate 
leachate even in the absence of vertical infiltration through the [coal 
ash].'' Commenters state that the legal standards are clear, and EPA 
has fully explained them in the Proposed Denial, the Notice of 
Potential Violations sent to Alabama Power, the Gavin decision, the 
Agency's response to Gavin comments, and elsewhere.
    Commenters state that the Federal CCR regulations plainly states 
that if a CCR impoundment is to be capped in place, ``[f]ree liquids 
must be eliminated,'' the utility must ``[p]reclude the probability of 
future impoundment of water, sediment, or slurry,'' and the utility 
must ``[c]ontrol, minimize or eliminate, to the maximum extent 
feasible, post-closure infiltration of liquids into the waste and 
releases of CCR, leachate, or contaminated run-off to the ground or 
surface waters or to the atmosphere.'' 40 CFR 257.102(d)(2)(i) and 
(d)(1)(ii) and (i). Yet, as EPA sets out in its Proposed Denial and its 
Notice of Potential Violation (NOPV) for Plant Barry, ADEM has allowed 
utilities to cap in place unlined leaking CCR impoundments across 
Alabama, in violation of all these provisions. Commenter argues that 
ADEM seeks to justify approval of its Application despite its pervasive 
violations of the Federal CCR regulations by pointing out that its 
State CCR regulations copy the relevant language of the Federal CCR 
regulations. Commenters assert that ADEM asks EPA to put on blinders, 
to read just the bare language of ADEM's regulation, and to ignore what 
ADEM is doing in practice across the State to allow CCR impoundments to 
fall far short of the Federal standards. Commenters state that ADEM's 
argument asks EPA to allow Alabama to nullify the Federal CCR 
regulations and the WIIN Act and to violate the requirements and 
purpose of the WIIN Act. Commenters argue that the WIIN Act requires 
much more than EPA merely reviewing a State application to see if the 
language of the State regulations matches the language of the Federal 
CCR regulations, and, instead, the WIIN Act requires EPA to determine 
that ``the program or other system [of the State] requires each coal 
combustion residuals unit located in the State to achieve compliance 
with'' either the criteria set out in the Federal CCR regulations or 
other State criteria that EPA determines to be as protective as the 
criteria of the Federal CCR regulations. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B). 
Commenters maintain that EPA is not directed to perform a word check of 
the State regulations but rather to determine whether the State's 
program or other system actually requires all the CCR units in the 
State to achieve compliance with the Federal CCR regulations or other 
criteria that are as protective. Commenters maintain that ADEM's 
program miserably fails to achieve that compliance and that ADEM's 
argument, if adopted, would make compliance with the WIIN Act and the 
protective standards of the Federal CCR regulations a farce. Commenters 
believe a State agency like ADEM, which has acted contrary to the plain 
language of the Federal CCR regulations and refuses to address EPA's 
concerns with its program, would be able to disregard entirely the 
standards designed to protect the public, communities, and clean water 
and allow CCR to be stored permanently in unlined pits sitting deep in 
groundwater beside major waterways--despite the plain language of the 
Federal CCR regulations and State regulations to the contrary if 
Alabama's State CCR permit program were approved. Commenter states 
further that EPA maintains that approval would not only violate the 
plain language of the WIIN Act, it would also eliminate the protections 
the Federal CCR regulations provides for all people and all waters in 
the United States, including all Alabamians and the waters in Alabama.
    Commenters also state that Alabama is an outlier and that in the 
Southeast, over 250 million tons of CCR are being cleaned up. 
Commenters note that by contrast, every unlined CCR impoundment in 
South Carolina is being excavated; every unlined CCR impoundment in 
North Carolina is being excavated; all of Dominion's unlined CCR 
lagoons in Virginia are being excavated; notwithstanding Georgia EPD's 
failure to implement the CCR regulations, Georgia Power has committed 
to excavate about two-thirds of its CCR from unlined impoundments in 
Georgia; and to date the TVA has been required to excavate CCR 
impoundments at its Gallatin plant near Nashville and its Allen plant 
in Memphis. Commenters maintain that every unlined CCR impoundment in 
the coastal region of these Southeastern States is being excavated--but 
not in Alabama. Commenters state that only Alabama is allowing every 
utility in the State--regardless of where the CCR impoundment is 
located and even though all the impoundments have ash sitting deep in 
groundwater--to leave all their millions of tons of CCR in unlined, 
leaking impoundments beside the State's waterways.
    Commenters further allege that all eight of the final CCR permits 
ADEM

[[Page 48793]]

has issued violate the Federal CCR regulations. Commenters note that 
EPA focused on four Alabama CCR Permits that were issued to 
impoundments that are being closed with waste in place below the water 
table in the Proposed Denial: TVA's Plant Colbert and Alabama Power's 
Plants Gadsden, Gorgas, and Greene County. Commenters state that while 
EPA concentrated on these permits, the four additional CCR permits 
issued by ADEM--for Alabama Power's Plants Barry, Gaston, and Miller 
and PowerSouth Energy Cooperative's Plant Lowman--share similar 
fundamental flaws and further demonstrate that Alabama's permit program 
fails to meet the statutory standard for approval. Commenter states 
that the permits for Plants Barry, Gaston, Miller, and Lowman also 
``allow[] CCR in closed units to remain saturated by groundwater, 
without requiring engineering measures that will control the 
groundwater flowing into and out of the closed unit.'' 88 FR 55220, 
55230 (August 14, 2023).
    Commenters state that there are additional instances where ADEM has 
allowed noncompliance with the Federal CCR regulations and that these 
additional flaws further support EPA's denial of ADEM's permitting 
program. Commenters state that ADEM adopted the location restrictions, 
including a requirement that by October 17, 2018, that utilities make a 
demonstration that their CCR impoundments are not located in wetlands. 
40 CFR 257.61(a), (c). Commenters state that ADEM CCR regulations 
contain the same requirement. Alabama Administrative Code r. 335-13-
15.03(2). Commenters state that Alabama Power posted its wetlands 
demonstration for Plant Barry for both the Federal and State CCR 
regulations on its CCR website and that its demonstration states that 
the Plant Barry CCR impoundment is a wastewater treatment facility and 
that wastewater treatment facilities are excluded from the definition 
of wetlands. According to commenters, based on these conclusions, 
Alabama Power states that the Plant Barry CCR impoundment is not in 
wetlands. Commenters state that this approach makes a mockery of the 
wetlands location demonstration because many, and perhaps all, CCR 
impoundments have been permitted under the Clean Water Act as 
wastewater treatment facilities. Commenters state that the approach 
Alabama Power takes under both the Federal and Alabama CCR regulations 
would result in all permitted CCR impoundments satisfying the wetlands 
location restriction--even though they are in wetlands, within the 
floodplain, and built on top of a stream, as is true with the Plant 
Barry CCR impoundment. Commenters state that the standard is whether 
the impoundment is ``in'' wetlands, not whether the impoundment ``is'' 
a wetland, but that ADEM has allowed Alabama Power to get away with 
this nonsensical response to the wetlands location restriction. A 
review of Alabama Power's website demonstrates that it has filed such 
meaningless and evasive wetlands location demonstrations for all its 
CCR facilities. Commenters state that this approach to wetlands 
requirements has not been taken in other jurisdictions. For example, 
Duke Energy reported that its CCR impoundment at its H.F. Lee facility 
in North Carolina did not meet the location restriction because of 
leakage into surrounding wetlands. Duke Energy reached the same 
conclusion for its West Ash Basin at its Roxboro facility also in North 
Carolina.
    Response: EPA agrees with the comments that the Agency's 
application of the closure requirements in Sec.  257.102(d) to the 
unlined surface impoundments at issue is reasonable and reflects the 
plain meaning of the regulations. The Agency also agrees that it is 
appropriate to consider State CCR permits when evaluating whether to 
approve a State CCR permit program. EPA also agrees that allowing 
unlined impoundments to comply with only the standards in Sec.  
257.102(d)(3) relating to the cover system is not as protective as the 
Federal CCR regulations. As the commenters note, this conclusion is 
consistent with a technical report from the Electric Power Research 
Institute (EPRI) that was included in attachments to the comment. The 
report says, ``Capping is usually performed to prevent or reduce 
infiltration of water into CCPs, which subsequently reduces the volume 
of leachate generated. Caps can be installed on both legacy and 
recently filled CCP sites. Depending on climatic conditions, designs 
can range from barrier caps utilizing low permeability materials such 
as PVC, to evapotranspirative caps that utilize soil sequencing and 
vegetation to promote runoff and evaporation of water. Caps are not 
effective when CCP is filled below the water table, because groundwater 
flowing through the CCP will generate leachate even in the absence of 
vertical infiltration through the CCP.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Groundwater Remediation of Inorganic Constituents at Coal 
Combustion Product Management Sites, EPRI Technical Report (2006), 
SELC Comment Attachment 11 at p. 3-6. Docket Number EPA-HQ-OLEM-
2022-0903-0260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also agrees that the Agency's review of the Alabama CCR permits 
was not exhaustive--EPA did not attempt to identify every potential 
inconsistency with the Federal requirements, either in the permits 
reviewed in the Proposed Denial or in other permits that were not 
reviewed by EPA. EPA stated in the Proposed Denial that it was not 
conducting a comprehensive review because the purpose of the 
evaluations of the permits was not to evaluate compliance by the 
regulated facilities, but instead to determine whether the facilities' 
permits require facilities to comply, regardless of actual compliance 
by the facilities (stated differently, it is theoretically possible 
that the facilities reviewed in the Proposed Denial are in compliance 
with the Federal CCR regulations even though their permits by the terms 
do not require compliance).
    The remainder of the comment address issues outside the scope of 
this action and no response is required.
9. Comments in Support of EPA's Evaluation of CCR Permits Issued by 
ADEM
    Comment: Commenter states that the Black Warrior river watershed 
flows through one of the most biodiverse regions in the country and 
provides a source of drinking water for dozens of communities across 
north-central Alabama; the river drains parts of 17 Alabama counties 
and the area the river drains, its watershed, covers 6,276 square miles 
in Alabama and measures roughly 300 miles from top to bottom; the 
watershed is home to over 1 million residents and contains 16,145 miles 
of mapped streams; thousands of people use the river and its 
tributaries for fishing, swimming, hunting, and watersports, 
contributing to Alabama's $14 billion outdoor recreation economy; and 
the river supports numerous freshwater species, including some that 
occur in the Black Warrior basin and nowhere else in the world. 
Commenter states that despite the river's importance to the State, 
Alabama Power plans to keep three unlined, leaking CCR pits along the 
river: Plant Gorgas (Mulberry Fork, Walker County), Plant Miller 
(Locust Fork, Jefferson County), and Plant Greene County (lower Black 
Warrior River). Commenter states that these three pits contain a total 
of about 55 million cubic yards of CCR, or an estimated 55 million tons 
(110 billion pounds, or 10 times the amount released in the Kingston 
disaster). Commenter states that Alabama Power's federally mandated 
groundwater monitoring

[[Page 48794]]

indicates that groundwater around the pits contains unsafe levels of 
toxic contaminants such as arsenic, cobalt, lithium, and molybdenum. 
Commenter states that but for the mandated monitoring and reporting 
requirements of the Federal CCR regulations, Alabama residents would 
have no idea of the extent of this contamination or the risk it 
presents to their communities.
    Commenter states that Plant Greene County Ash Pond was constructed 
between 1960 and 1965, and the ash pond currently occupies 
approximately 489 acres on the banks of the Black Warrior River near 
Forkland, Alabama. Commenter states that, according to United States 
Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, the unlined ash pond was 
built across Big Slough, and associated wetlands, which flows into 
Backbone Creek, a tributary of the Black Warrior River. Commenter 
states Alabama Power stopped burning coal at Plant Greene County in 
March 2016 after converting all of its electric production to natural 
gas, meaning that the plant is no longer generating new CCR. Commenter 
states that at the last inspection, the ash pond was determined to be 
filled to its capacity, containing 10,300,000 cubic yards (yd\3\) of 
CCR.
    Commenter states that EPA's environmental justice mapping and 
screening tool shows Plant Greene County has three environmental 
justice indexes above the 80th percentile. Commenter states that these 
indexes measure the environmental burden upon the surrounding 
community; the higher the index score, the greater the burden on the 
local community. Plant Greene County's score for wastewater discharge 
concerns is 90.4. Commenter states that the Plant Greene County pond 
was constructed over 5 decades ago and the pond does not meet the 
specifications required under current regulations for the proper 
disposal of CCR. Commenter states that the ash pond was constructed 
without any currently acceptable form of bottom liner, leaving the CCR 
and its toxic constituents to leach into groundwater, the average level 
of which is less than 5 feet below the pond.
    Commenter states that a stream named Big Slough was essentially cut 
in half by the construction of Plant Greene County, its CCR pond, and 
its barge canal in the mid-1960s. Commenter states that the Big Slough 
and surrounding wetlands throughout the middle of this large river bend 
were buried beneath and contaminated by toxic CCR. Big Slough continues 
to flow from the west side of the CCR pond to the southwest into 
Backbone Creek, which flows into the Black Warrior downriver. Commenter 
states that the CCR pond is surrounded by a large earthen dike that 
contains over fifty years-worth of toxic CCR waste, now estimated to be 
10.3 million tons. Commenter states that capping CCR in place at Plant 
Greene County will not erase the very real connection that exists 
between Alabama Power's toxic CCR, Big Slough buried underneath it, the 
wetlands and floodplain it was constructed in, and the groundwater it 
sits in. All of this water is dynamic, flowing and moving constantly, 
creating an ongoing pathway for continued contamination of groundwater 
throughout the area, local streams, wetlands, and the lower Black 
Warrior River.
    Commenter states that the deficiencies in the construction of the 
ash pond at Plant Greene County have damaged the groundwater below and 
around the pond. Commenter states that Alabama Power's own testing 
demonstrates that the groundwater is contaminated with arsenic, cobalt, 
and lithium concentrations that exceed levels deemed safe by EPA. 
Commenter states that arsenic levels in the groundwater at Plant Greene 
County have been measured at levels up to 7.5 times greater than the 
action level determined by EPA. Commenter states that every semi-annual 
groundwater sampling event at Plant Greene County since Alabama Power 
began testing has shown levels of pollutants that exceed GWPS. 
Commenter states that without the effective removal of the CCR waste, 
the contamination of ground and surface water at Plant Greene County 
will continue for decades.
    Commenter states that the CCR pond at Plant Miller was originally 
constructed in the late 1970s, and the primary dike impounding the CCR 
disposal facility stands at 170 feet tall and 3,300 feet long, or about 
0.625 miles, creating an unlined pond that occupies approximately 321 
acres and is located near Quinton, Alabama. Commenter states that 
Alabama Power built the Plant Miller Ash Pond on the bank of the Locust 
Fork of the Black Warrior River and it was constructed to contain a 
maximum of 22,000,000 cubic yards of CCR. Commenter states that the 
pond now holds more than 18,500,000 cubic yards, and discharges 
wastewater at a rate of approximately 11.5 million gallons per day 
(MGD). Commenter states that the CCR disposal facility at Plant Miller 
was constructed prior to modern regulations and does not meet current 
regulatory safety requirements. The commenter states that the pond does 
not have a bottom liner to prevent toxic CCR leachate from 
contaminating the underlying water table, which is located less than 5 
vertical feet from the base of the bottom of the pond. Commenter states 
that two unnamed tributaries (UTs) to the Locust Fork of the Black 
Warrior River were partially buried when Alabama Power constructed its 
CCR pond at Plant Miller in the late 1970s. Commenter states that the 
West UT's three headwater streams were buried beneath the toxic CCR 
waste repository and the South UT's headwater reaches were also buried. 
Essentially, the upper half of each stream's watershed was buried by 
Alabama Power's CCR. Commenter states that both streams were filled 
with large dams made of clay, soil, and rock fill, and the dam is 
approximately 170 ft. tall at its highest point, and over 3,300 ft. 
long. The commenter states that the dam connects to a large earthen 
dike that flanks the southwest side of the ash pond and that the dike 
holds back the ponded water along the entire western side of the ash 
pond and all of the 18.5 million tons of toxic ash deposited there 
since the 1970s, which looms over the remaining lower reaches of the 
UTs and the Locust Fork below. Commenter states that capping CCR in 
place at Plant Miller will not erase the very real connection that 
exists between Alabama Power's toxic CCR, the two streams buried 
underneath it, and the groundwater it is sitting in. All of this water 
is flowing and moving constantly, creating an ongoing pathway for 
continued contamination of groundwater throughout the area, local 
streams, and the Locust Fork. Commenter states that these fundamental 
deficiencies in the facility construction have led to significant 
contamination of groundwater in the area surrounding the pond. 
Commenter states that groundwater monitoring at Plant Miller 
demonstrates contamination but the full extent of which is still 
unknown.
    Commenter states that Alabama Power's Plant Gorgas is located in 
Walker County, Alabama, near the town of Parrish, where Baker Creek 
flows into the Mulberry Fork of the Black Warrior River. Commenter 
states that after more than 100 years of generating electricity by 
burning coal, Plant Gorgas was decommissioned on April 15, 2019. 
Commenter states that Alabama Power disposed of CCR in several 
different areas around the facility and that the largest of these ash 
dumps, the primary CCR pond known locally as Rattlesnake Lake, has 
received the bulk of the electric plant's CCR waste over the last 60+ 
years. Commenter states that the

[[Page 48795]]

facility's gypsum pond, which has only been in operation for about 14 
years, also receives some CCR residue mixed with spent gypsum from the 
plant's air pollution emissions scrubbers, and Alabama Power has used 
three onsite landfill structures for additional CCR disposal, one each 
for bottom ash, fly ash, and gypsum. Commenter states that the primary 
CCR disposal facility for the waste created at Plant Gorgas 
(Rattlesnake Lake) is a 420-acre impoundment on the opposite bank of 
the Mulberry Fork from the electric generating facility. Commenter 
states that it was constructed in 1953 as a cross-valley dam blocking 
Rattlesnake Creek. Currently, the dam stands at about 140 feet above 
the elevation of the river below. Commenter states that as of a May 1, 
2018, inspection, Rattlesnake Lake contained approximately 25 million 
cubic yards of CCR, according to documents published on the power 
company's website. Commenter states that the Rattlesnake Lake was 
constructed without the minimum 5-foot buffer between the base of the 
CCR unit and the uppermost limit of the uppermost, underlying aquifer 
and it was also constructed without any bottom liner to prevent 
contamination of the underlying aquifer. Commenter states that 
Rattlesnake Lake does not meet current State and Federal regulations 
and that it must be safely and permanently closed without ash sitting 
in groundwater, just like the ash ponds at Plants Miller and Greene 
County.
    Rattlesnake Creek was dammed by Alabama Power in the early 1950s to 
form Rattlesnake Lake for CCR waste storage. The majority of the creek 
and its tributaries are impounded as a result. Only the tail end of the 
creek remains below the dam before it flows into the Mulberry Fork. 
This part of the creek is a slough due to being part of the Mulberry 
Fork's reservoir effect caused by Bankhead Dam far downstream on the 
Black Warrior River.
    Commenter states that Alabama Power elected cap-in-place as its 
preferred method for closing the ash pond at Plant Gorgas. However, 
Alabama Power announced plans do not seem to take into account the 
inherent difficulty in removing the water from a continuously flowing 
creek that drains a watershed of over 1,300 acres. Commenter states 
that the plans do not address exactly how the left-over CCR will be 
separated from the natural course of Rattlesnake Creek. Instead, 
according to commenter, the plans simply state the CCR will be 
consolidated to an area somewhat smaller than its current footprint and 
covered with a low-permeability liner. Commenter states that Alabama 
Power has not indicated any form of protective bottom liner will be 
employed to prevent future contamination of groundwater. Commenter 
states that Alabama Power's monitoring has detected contamination of 
arsenic, lithium and molybdenum in the underlying aquifer.
    Commenter states that capping CCR in place at Plant Gorgas' 
Rattlesnake Lake will not erase the very real connection between 
Alabama Power's toxic CCR, the creek buried underneath it, and the 
groundwater it is sitting in. Commenter states that all of this water 
is flowing and moving constantly, creating an ongoing pathway for 
continued contamination of groundwater throughout the area, local 
streams, Rattlesnake Creek, and the Mulberry Fork. Commenter states 
that a flowing creek, fed by groundwater and springs, cannot be 
dewatered. Commenter maintains that no matter what Alabama Power 
endeavors to do at Rattlesnake Lake, leaving toxic CCR in place there 
will cause continued intermingling of ash waste with the creek and 
groundwater for future generations to deal with.
    Commenter maintains that using cap-in-place in these circumstances, 
as allowed by the closure plans approved under ADEM's deficient 
regulatory program, also fails to address the threat of a potential 
catastrophic dam failure or release of ash at all three facilities on 
the Black Warrior River. Commenter states that over 55 million cubic 
yards of CCR are stored along the banks of the Black Warrior River at 
the facilities and that improper maintenance or the possibility of 
extreme weather events or natural disasters damaging the dike and/or 
dam systems could result in breaches or failures that could release 
massive quantities of toxic CCR into the river. Commenter states that 
the Federal CCR regulations require a risk assessment evaluation at CCR 
ponds (40 CFR 257.73), and the ash ponds at Plant Greene County and 
Plant Miller were classified as a Significant Hazard, meaning that dam 
failure or improper operation of the facility would likely result in 
significant economic loss or environmental damage. Commenter states 
that the dam at Plant Gorgas was assessed as a High Hazard Potential, 
meaning that in addition to economic loss and environmental damage, dam 
failure would also likely result in the loss of human life. Commenter 
states that the inundation maps provided by Alabama Power (available to 
EPA) depict the areas that could be flooded with CCR and contaminated 
water under current conditions at the ponds in the event of such a 
catastrophe. Commenter states that the inundation maps demonstrate that 
failure at any one of the three facilities would be devastating to the 
river and the surrounding communities.
    Commenter states that even after final pond closure, the remaining 
ash will continue to be located in close proximity to the underlying 
aquifers and will likely intermingle with the groundwater table at 
times. Commenter states that Alabama Power's Assessment of Corrective 
Measures (ACM) filed with ADEM for all three facilities propose to 
address the groundwater contamination primarily with a process known as 
monitored natural attenuation (MNA). Commenter states that the selected 
remedy of MNA here means that the Company will continue to monitor 
groundwater while allowing natural chemical and physical processes in 
the subsurface environment to remove, dilute, or immobilize the 
contaminants. Commenter states this means that Alabama Power will do 
little to treat the groundwater contamination on site or in the 
surrounding environment, other than adopt a wait-and-see attitude with 
possible (not guaranteed) future actions. Commenter states that the 
ACMs contemplate several other potentially viable corrective measures, 
but the Company has not committed to employing these measures, 
asserting that one or more of these technologies may be used as 
adaptive site management as a supplement to the selected remedy, if 
necessary.
    Commenter states that EPA guidance (2015) \24\ recommends a four-
tiered approach should be used to establish whether MNA can be 
successfully implemented at a given site. Commenter states that the 
first step is to demonstrate that the extent of groundwater impacts is 
stable, and that the Company has failed to do at all three facilities. 
Commenter states that, second, Alabama Power should determine the 
mechanisms and rates of attenuation, and that the Company has failed to 
do that. Third, Alabama Power should determine if the capacity of the 
aquifers is sufficient to attenuate the mass of constituents in 
groundwater and that the immobilized constituents are stable. Id. The 
fourth and final step is for Alabama Power to design performance 
monitoring programs based on the mechanisms of attenuation and 
establish contingency remedies (tailored

[[Page 48796]]

to site-specific conditions) should MNA not perform adequately. 
Commenter states that Alabama Power failed to take these steps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ U.S. EPA. Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation for 
Inorganic Contaminants in Groundwater at Superfund Sites. Office of 
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). August 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenter states that Alabama Power has yet to demonstrate how MNA 
will work, evaluate whether it is a feasible remedy based upon site 
specific conditions at all three facilities or even analyze whether the 
aquifer has sufficient capacity to absorb all the toxic CCR pollution. 
Commenter states that even without these assurances, the ACMs note that 
the process of MNA could take two decades or more after final closure 
to allow contaminants to bleed out of the source and move through the 
groundwater into the environment so that the groundwater monitoring 
will begin to measure levels that meet GWPS, meaning that it may be 
2045 or later before the CCR contaminants have moved out of the 
measured groundwater sites into the surrounding environment, even 
generously assuming MNA could even work here.
    Commenter states that EPA's Proposed Denial correctly points out 
multiple additional deficiencies with the Company's selection of MNA as 
a proposed remedy at all three facilities, with ADEM's permitting of 
the ash pond closure at all three facilities with deficient ACMs, with 
ADEM's oversight of the selection of remedial measures, with Alabama 
Power's implementation of groundwater monitoring and ADEM's oversight 
of groundwater monitoring. The commenter agrees with the Agency's 
assessment on each of these points.
    Commenter supports EPA's Proposed Denial of Alabama's CCR 
regulatory program 100%. Commenter states that but for Federal 
oversight of CCR pollution, Alabama's citizens would have absolutely no 
data about the danger that CCR pollution presents to public health and 
the environment. Commenter states there was no meaningful groundwater 
monitoring performed at Alabama CCR sites and no public data about the 
migration of dangerous CCR contaminants into adjacent ground and 
surface waters until the Federal CCR regulations required it.
    Commenter states that Alabama rushed to submit its own CCR 
regulatory program, a program that EPA has correctly found fails to 
meet Federal standards. Commenter states that it is important to 
realize that Alabama submitted its regulatory program not to protect 
people and special places from CCR pollution but to protect Alabama 
Power. Commenter states that they filed technical comments every step 
of the way during Alabama's development and implementation of its 
flawed CCR program. Commenter states that the State failed to follow 
the data, the science, and the law to develop a protective regulatory 
scheme that would require Alabama Power to clean up the CCR pollution 
that the power company's own sampling shows is contaminating Alabama's 
groundwater, rivers, and streams. Commenter made many of the same 
arguments that EPA made in support of its meticulously supported 
Proposed Denial.
    Commenters state that despite the irrefutable evidence that leaving 
CCR in primitive unlined pits does not stop water pollution or mitigate 
risks of spills during extreme weather events, ADEM chose to stubbornly 
persist with its dangerous and deficient regulatory program. Commenter 
states that Alabama's program unlawfully allows CCR to remain saturated 
by groundwater after closure; fails to require appropriate groundwater 
monitoring; and permits Alabama Power to delay indefinitely the 
implementation of measures to remediate documented groundwater 
pollution. Commenter states that without EPA's Proposed Denial of 
Alabama's CCR program, the State's residents and special places would 
be at the mercy of a substandard regulatory system that ignores the 
documented dangers of CCR. According to commenter, Alabama Power 
forecasts rate increases that will be implemented if the power company 
is forced to comply with the rule, increases that will hit hardest in 
Alabama's poor communities. Commenter maintains that Alabama Power has 
earned more than $1 billion in profits from 2014-2018 compared to the 
industry average, and that for over a decade, Alabama's residential 
electricity bills have been in the top three highest in the nation 
while Alabama Power banked higher profits than comparable electric 
utilities in other southern States. Commenter states that Alabama Power 
earned a 38% higher profit margin than sister company Georgia Power, 
and that the people in Georgia have electric bills averaging $134.11 
per month, people in Mississippi average $135.31, and Alabamians 
averaged $147.75 in 2021, according to the most recent available data 
from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, up from $143.95 in 
2020. Commenter states that Alabama Power's return on average equity 
(ROE) for 2018 to 2020 was 12.76 percent. Commenter states that in 
comparison, Florida Power & Light earned 11.39%, Mississippi Power 
11.11%, Duke Energy Carolinas 9.37%, Georgia Power 9.24% and Louisville 
Gas & Electric 8.67%. Commenter asserts that if Alabama Power's ROE had 
instead been the average for the industry, Alabama Power customers 
would have saved $1.02 billion since 2014. Commenter states that if 
Alabama Power puts its record profits toward cleaning up CCR to comply 
with the 2015 CCR Rule, it can limit the impact of rate increases on 
its poorest customers.
    Commenter also states that Alabama Power insists that it will have 
to implement a logistically challenging trucking scheme to dispose of 
its CCR in remote landfills, but that this argument is another red 
herring. Commenter states that power companies in Virginia, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia have built upland 
lined landfills to properly dispose of their CCR. Alabama Power, as one 
of the largest landowners in the State, will surely do the same to 
limit the costs of cleaning up CCR. Alabama Power has constructed and 
operated other landfills and there is no reason to expect it will not 
do the same here. For all of the reasons cited in this letter, as well 
as all of the reasons stated in EPA's proposed rule, commenter believes 
that the Agency has taken the appropriate action in proposing to deny 
the State of Alabama's application for a State CCR permit program.
    Response: EPA agrees that closure with waste in place in the 
groundwater without taking measures to ensure that liquid does not 
enter the units or that free liquids and contaminants do not migrate 
out of the unit after closure is inconsistent with the Federal CCR 
regulations. EPA also agrees that permits allowing such closure are not 
as protective as the Federal CCR regulations require and that such 
units pose a potential ongoing hazard to human health and the 
environment. EPA also agrees that Alabama's CCR permits do not 
adequately implement corrective action.
10. Comments Opposed to EPA's Application of the Closure Performance 
Standards
    Comment: Commenters state that EPA's current ``no waste below the 
water table'' interpretation is based on three terms: infiltration, 
future impoundment, and free liquids. Commenters state that just as the 
word ``groundwater'' does not appear in the close-in-place regulations, 
none of these three terms appears in EPA's groundwater regulations, nor 
does any of the text around them refer to groundwater. Commenters state 
that these terms have meanings that easily harmonize with the purposes 
and goals

[[Page 48797]]

of facility closure, which are primarily to achieve a stable and secure 
base and to install a protective cover.
    Commenters state that a protective cover that is designed and 
installed to EPA's specifications repels stormwater to prevent it from 
infiltrating downward into the waste, where it could become a source of 
leachate. Commenters note that this is not to say that some other 
source of water (such as laterally flowing groundwater) cannot also 
generate leachate, nor does ``infiltrate'' as a general vocabulary word 
always refer to movement in a single direction. Rather, commenters 
state that for over more than 40 years of usage under RCRA, in the 
context of closing a waste facility in place, EPA has consistently used 
the word ``infiltration'' to describe the potential for stormwater to 
penetrate downward into the waste.
    Commenters also discuss future impoundments and contend that ash is 
dewatered and stabilized to ensure the closed unit maintains a slope, 
so rainwater runs off. Commenters state that if not adequately pre-
stabilized, ash could settle over time and create a bowl or indentation 
on top of the cap where rainwater could pond. Commenters note that the 
longer impounded water stands on top of the ash, the greater the 
possibility that the cap could fail and water could infiltrate 
downward. Commenters assert that the obligation to prevent future 
impoundment refers to the need to ensure the cap is adequately 
supported and settlement of this nature does not occur.
    With reference to free liquids, commenters assert that the 
regulations require the free liquids that must be removed are the 
relatively free-flowing liquids which otherwise could contribute to 
instability and affect the cap. Commenters state that there has never 
been an obligation to remove all liquids, nor is it true as a principle 
of engineering that CCR or other waste must achieve a moisture content 
of zero before it can be sufficiently stabilized. Commenters maintain 
that stability is determined by engineers who investigate and perform 
calculations according to well understood principles and procedures, 
taking into account liquids that may be present and any other relevant 
factors.
    Commenters state that the terminology in the close-in-place 
performance standard reflects concepts and functions that naturally 
harmonize with the goals of facility closure. Commenters state that 
there is no need to search for a groundwater-related purpose where none 
is named, because a different division of EPA's regulations addresses 
groundwater quality issues.
    Commenters note that EPA has stated recently that it has 
consistently held its current position on waste below the water table 
since 1982, and it cites documents dating back to then that refer to 
the need to address groundwater. Commenters do not dispute the 
requirement to protect groundwater, but commenters maintain that, if 
EPA had held a consistent position on this point since 1982, that means 
EPA also must have had a relatively complete understanding of both the 
closure and corrective action processes at that time. Commenters state 
that, otherwise, EPA could not have determined which elements were 
required for closure versus corrective action (or both) or identified a 
specific engineering response as mandatory in a particular scenario 
(such as waste below the water table). Commenters maintain that was not 
the case in 1982. Commenter states that, for example, in 1998, EPA 
described the history of hazardous waste regulations as follows:

    The closure process in Parts 264 and 265 was promulgated in 
1982, before the Agency had much experience with closure of RCRA 
units. Since that time, EPA has learned that, when a unit has 
released hazardous waste or constituents into surrounding soils and 
groundwater, closure is not simply a matter of capping the unit, or 
removing the waste, but instead may require a significant 
undertaking to clean up contaminated soil and groundwater. The 
procedures established in the closure regulations were not designed 
to address the complexity and variety of issues involved in 
remediation. Most remediation processes, on the other hand, were 
designed to allow site-specific remedy selection, because of the 
complexity of and variation among sites.

    Commenters assert that this passage emphasizes the need for 
remediation to address groundwater impacts, an unremarkable and 
undisputed proposition. In terms of understanding the respective 
purposes of closure and corrective action, the commenters contend that 
the statement is contrary to the notion that EPA's views on the 
selection of measures for remediation, whether at the time of closure 
or otherwise, had already crystallized in 1982. Commenters state that 
rather, according to the agency, EPA ``learned'' after then that it was 
unwise if not impossible to mandate particular responses in advance or 
from the top down without a ``site specific'' evaluation that accounted 
for ``the complexity and variation among sites.''
    Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter that the Agency has 
incorrectly applied the Federal CCR regulations. Further, the comments 
are substantively the same as comments submitted to EPA in response to 
the proposed Part A decision for Gavin, and EPA responded to the 
comment in the Response to Comments (RTC) for the final Part A decision 
for Gavin. See e.g., Gavin RTC, pages 65 and 102. EPA adopts the 
responses from Gavin for this final action. See also Gavin Final 
Decision \25\ pages 24-41; 89 FR 38987-38995, 39077-39078.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Final Decision: Denial of Alternate Closure Deadline for 
General James M. Gavin Plant, Cheshire, Ohio, EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0100 
November 22, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Commenters assert that if EPA's interpretations are indeed 
new--as is more likely the case--then it is clear that 2015 rules do 
not require removal of CCR as a part of a closure-in-place closure, and 
do not require the complete isolation of the CCR from all potential 
sources of moisture in order to meet the performance standards required 
as a part of the closure-in-place. Rather, these issues are addressed 
as a part of the post-closure risk-based corrective action process, as 
clearly contemplated in the 2015 rules.
    Response: EPA disagrees that its interpretations of closure are new 
and notes that EPA responded to comments that are substantively the 
same in several instances, including in the RTC to the final Part A 
decision for Gavin Final. See e.g., Gavin RTC pages 65 and 96. EPA 
adopts the responses from Gavin in response to the comments. See also 
Gavin Final Decision, pages 24-41.
    Comment: Commenter ADEM states that it promulgated CCR regulations 
in 2018 that reflect the same options for closure established by EPA. 
Commenter states it has issued permits to Alabama Power approving the 
Company's plans to close its ash ponds using the closure-in-place 
method and Alabama Power has acted in accordance with those permits. 
Commenter states that if closure-in-place is not available, the only 
alternative is closure-by removal. Commenter states that as of the 3rd 
quarter of 2023, Alabama Power estimates the costs of closure-in-place 
to be $3.5B and that at the present time, closure-by-removal is 
estimated to be three to five times more costly than closure-in-place. 
Commenter states this is due to, for example, the associated cost of 
excavation, transportation, and disposal in an offsite landfill 
compared to the costs of closure-in-place.
    Commenter states that not only are the costs associated with 
closure-by-removal significantly higher and more burdensome to Alabama 
citizens, but the timeframe to complete closure is also significantly 
greater. Commenter states that Alabama Power has already completed 
closure-in-place at one of its

[[Page 48798]]

plants, with the remainder projected to be completed by 2032 or 
earlier. Commenter states that based on initial evaluations, closure-
by-removal can take anywhere from 16 years to 54 years, depending on 
the plant site. Commenters state that in addition, the initial 
evaluations assumed landfill sites within a reasonable proximity to 
each plant would be readily available, but the commenter asserts this 
has proven not to be the case, which may further extend the time 
necessary to complete closure-by-removal.
    Response: Comments do not provide support for the claimed costs of 
closure by removal, which in any event, are not relevant under RCRA. 
But, in any case, the differential cost of closure approaches does not 
equate to a conclusion that EPA is improperly requiring all CCR surface 
impoundments to close by removal. Nor does the cost of closure by 
removal allow a facility to close a unit without concern for the 
continued movement of liquid into and out of a unit closed with waste 
in the water table. Instead, as EPA has repeatedly stated, whether any 
particular unit can meet the closure in-place standards is a fact- and 
site-specific determination that will depend on a number of 
considerations, such as the hydrogeology of the site, the engineering 
of the unit, and the kinds of engineering measures implemented at the 
unit. Accordingly, the fact that, prior to closure, the base of a unit 
intersects with groundwater does not mean that the unit may not 
ultimately be able to meet the performance standards for closure with 
waste in place. In other words, EPA is not mandating that a unit 
submerged in groundwater prior to closure must necessarily close by 
removal. Depending on the site conditions the facility may be able to 
meet the performance standards in Sec.  257.102(d) by demonstrating 
that a combination of engineering measures and site-specific 
circumstances will ensure that, after closure of the unit has been 
completed, the groundwater would no longer remain in contact with the 
waste in the closed unit. See Gavin RTC page 103. See also Gavin Final 
Decision pages 28-30.
    Comment: Commenter states that EPA has approved closures with waste 
below the water table. Commenter states that EPA's primary disagreement 
with ADEM's implementation of the CCR program is the approval of 
closures in place where waste (i.e., saturated ash) remains below the 
water table. Commenter states that, under such circumstances, according 
to EPA, the facility must either remove the waste below the water table 
or execute certain as yet unspecified engineering measures. Commenter 
also noted that EPA asserts that it has held the same view consistently 
since the early 1980s as to waste at hazardous waste and municipal 
solid waste facilities.
    Commenter disagrees and states that, over a period of decades, EPA 
has repeatedly approved the closure of sites with hazardous waste and 
materials below the water table and found that such closures both 
protected human health and the environment and complied with RCRA 
subtitle C standards. Commenter states that EPA could not have approved 
closures in this fashion if it had been impossible to protect human 
health and the environment with waste below the water table or if a 
closure in place under such circumstances violated RCRA closure 
standards.
    Commenter states that EPA approved these closures under the primary 
authority of CERCLA, commonly referred to as the Superfund program. 
Commenter states that section 121 of CERCLA imposes two important 
statutory obligations. First, as under RCRA, EPA must ensure closures 
protect human health and the environment. Second, ``[w]ith respect to 
any hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant that will remain 
onsite,'' EPA must ensure that a CERCLA closure also complies with 
``any standard, requirement, criteria, or limitation under any Federal 
environmental law,'' explicitly including RCRA, that may impose a 
``legally applicable or relevant and appropriate standard, requirement, 
criteria, or limitation'' (which EPA references as ``ARAR''). Commenter 
states that, thus, where EPA identified RCRA closure standards as ARARs 
at a CERCLA site, EPA was under a statutory obligation to confirm 
compliance with those standards, which applied the same terms and 
concepts as those found in Sec.  257.102(d).
    Commenter states that EPA's Superfund closures with waste below the 
water table thus stand for two important propositions: first, if waste 
remains below the water table, RCRA does not impose an absolute 
requirement to close by removal or to implement any particular 
engineering measures, nor does that circumstance necessarily preclude 
protection of health or the environment; and second, even if those are 
EPA's interpretations through these decisions, EPA repeatedly expressed 
a contrary view in the past.
    Commenter states that when EPA promulgated the CCR regulations in 
2015, it was under an obligation to prepare a Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (RIA) that included, among other things, an estimate of 
compliance costs. Commenter states that the cost analysis prepared by 
EPA ``assume[d] that all surface impoundments undergo closure as 
landfills, meaning that surface impoundments are not excavated, nor is 
their ash trucked off-site.'' Commenter states that EPA referred to the 
cost of closure throughout the RIA as the ``capping and post-closure 
monitoring costs,'' and EPA did not estimate the cost of excavation and 
redisposal. Commenter states that EPA acknowledged in its Risk 
Assessment for the final rule that some CCR impoundments ``come in 
direct contact with the water table for at least part of the year.'' 
Commenter states that, if EPA knew some ash ponds had ash in contact 
with groundwater and believed that its rule required closure by removal 
(or some other special engineering response) in that scenario, then EPA 
was required to include the costs of that response in the RIA. 
Commenter states that the absence of consideration of costs of that 
nature indicates that EPA did not believe closure in place was 
necessarily prohibited or that measures beyond those currently planned 
at Alabama facilities were required for units with ash below the water 
table.
    Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter's assertion that 
all CERLA actions constitute a determination by EPA that a selected 
remedy meets all requirements of RCRA, and therefore the existence of 
Superfund cleanup decisions that allow waste to remain in place in 
groundwater at certain sites means that RCRA generally allows closure 
with waste remaining in groundwater. The quotations provided in the 
comments are incomplete and strung together by words not found in the 
statute (see section 121 of CERCLA). This inaccuracy, combined with the 
lack of consideration of the specific facts and circumstances at the 
Superfund sites with remedy documents referenced in Attachment 2 of the 
comment,\26\ render the commenter's conclusions flawed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Comment submitted by Energy Institute of Alabama, Docket 
ID: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0903-0182.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CERCLA is a risk-based cleanup program that does not require that 
RCRA standards be met in all cases. CERCLA requires consideration of 
costs in selecting remedies. Additionally, CERCLA cleanups can be 
divided into portions (i.e., operable units) which approach cleanups 
from multiple perspectives to address risks. This means that a remedy 
selected for a landfill could leave waste in place, even if it had some 
contact with groundwater,

[[Page 48799]]

but engineering controls that would be required by RCRA (e.g., to 
prevent groundwater contact with waste) could be required in a remedy 
selected for another operable unit (e.g., a contaminated groundwater 
plume).
    Attachment 2 referenced by the commenter does not provide any 
information about the remedies selected in the Records of Decision 
(RODs) listed. It does not indicate whether RCRA was considered an ARAR 
in the RODs, whether the remedies selected in the listed RODs included 
engineering controls to control, minimize or eliminate post-closure 
infiltration of groundwater into the waste and releases of 
contaminants, or whether there were other operable units with selected 
remedies at these sites whose remedies may have required these 
controls. In any case, the commenter's attempt to rely on a handful of 
CERCLA RODs to demonstrate the proper interpretation of the 
requirements in the CCR regulations is not reasonable.
    Regarding the comment about the RIA, the conclusions in the risk 
assessment and the RIA were based on the factual scenarios EPA believed 
were most likely to occur. See Gavin RTC page 69. Simply put, at the 
time the risk assessment and the RIA were developed, EPA had not been 
made aware by any facility that a significant proportion of unlined CCR 
surface impoundments were constructed in groundwater several feet deep. 
No commenter during the 2015 rulemaking identified the prevalence of 
such conditions, or even noted their existence. Thus, the RIA was based 
on the best information EPA had at the time, and unfortunately, the 
regulated community did not provide this information to EPA when 
commenting on the 2015 rule. To now argue that underestimates in the 
RIA should dictate how the regulation must be interpreted is 
unreasonable, particularly because their interpretation would mean the 
regulations fall short of the statutory mandate, as explained in 
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group v. EPA, 901 F.3d 414 (D.C. 2018).

B. Comments on EPA's Technical Evaluation of Alabama CCR Permits

1. Comments Opposed to EPA's Evaluation of CCR Permits Issued by ADEM
    Comment: Commenter TVA states that it is committed to meeting its 
obligations associated with the Federal CCR regulations and ADEM's CCR 
regulations at the Colbert Plant and in so doing continuing to protect 
human health and the environment and the commenter disagrees with EPA's 
observations and assumptions about ADEM's permit decisions as discussed 
in Unit VI.
    Commenter states that the Colbert Plant was retired in 2016 and 
that closure of Ash Disposal Area 4 (also known as Ash Pond 4 (AP-4)) 
was completed in 2018 in accordance with the Federal CCR regulations 
and State requirements. Commenter states that Ash Disposal Area 4 was 
investigated pursuant to the requirements of the Federal CCR 
regulations and the First Amended Consent Decree between ADEM and TVA. 
Commenter maintains closure was based on site-specific data and that it 
is protective of human health and the environment. Commenter notes that 
there is more work ongoing to address the limited groundwater impacts 
from Ash Disposal Area 4, but no remedy has been selected, or approved 
by ADEM, at this time. Commenter states that ADEM has requested more 
site-specific data and evaluations to support remedy selection. 
Commenter states that once a remedy is selected and approved by ADEM, 
TVA will implement that remedy and continue to monitor the unit as the 
groundwater reaches and maintains GWPS. Commenter asserts that it will 
adjust the remedy and unit, if needed, to maintain compliance with 
performance standards with the oversight of ADEM.
    Response: The commenter describes actions that must be taken beyond 
the terms of the applicable CCR permit record in order for the facility 
to be in compliance with the Federal CCR regulations. However, the fact 
that necessary actions are not reflected in, or required by, the permit 
supports EPA's conclusion that Alabama's CCR program is not as 
protective as the Federal CCR regulations. Specifically, the commenter 
provides information about actions TVA is taking to collect additional 
site-specific data and select a remedy. However, this data collection 
is not required in the final permit issued by ADEM, and the permit 
provides no deadline for remedy selection. Thus, TVA can be in 
compliance with its permit without collecting additional data and 
taking an indefinite amount of time to select a remedy. While this 
inaction would result in compliance with the permit, it would not 
achieve compliance with the Federal regulations. See additional 
discussion of this practice on pages 55241-55242 of the Proposed Denial 
where EPA states, ``What the permittee is required to do in order to 
achieve compliance with the regulations must be determined prior to 
final permit issuance, because the permit must contain these 
requirements.'' The Colbert permit is thus not as protective as the 
Federal CCR regulations, regardless of any voluntary actions the 
facility may be taking.
    The facts demonstrate that the permit is not sufficiently 
protective because Colbert has for several years collected data to 
conduct an ongoing study without specific objectives, but that study 
has still not yet resulted in selection of a remedy; nor does the 
permit provide a deadline for remedy selection. While this protracted 
study without remedy does not appear to violate the permit, it is 
neither consistent with nor as protective as the Federal CCR 
regulations. Specifically, 40 CFR 257.96(a) requires the ACM be 
completed within 180 days unless a 60-day extension is warranted. 
Remedy selection is required as soon as feasible, but no less than 30 
days after the results of the ACM are discussed in a public meeting 
with interested parties. See 40 CFR 257.96(e) and 257.97(a). EPA does 
not agree that permits that allow continued data collection without 
enforceable requirements (e.g., a permit that includes the regulatory 
deadlines) to select and implement a remedy are consistent with these 
requirements. Instead, such permits, if issued pursuant to an approved 
State program, would shield the permittee from enforcement of the 
Federal corrective action provisions while releases continue to migrate 
from the CCR unit. Thus, the Colbert permit is not as protective as the 
Federal CCR regulations. In addition, EPA's review of Alabama's permits 
shows that open ended corrective action is common among the facilities 
permitted by ADEM, which supports EPA's conclusion that the State's 
program does not require each CCR unit in the State to comply with 
standards at least as protective as the Federal regulations.
    Comment: Commenter states that EPA conjectures that ADEM has 
approved a monitoring plan with an insufficient number of monitoring 
wells at necessary locations and vertical depths to ensure that all 
potential pathways have been monitored. Commenter says that EPA further 
asserts that bedrock monitoring wells have not been installed at the 
downgradient boundary as required by 40 CFR 257.91(a)(2) and that some 
wells are located up to hundreds of feet away from the boundary and on 
the other side of Cane Creek. Commenter maintains that this leads EPA 
to conclude that ADEM issued a final permit that approved the bedrock 
monitoring wells to not be installed at the waste boundary as required 
by Federal CCR regulations.

[[Page 48800]]

    Commenter states that the Colbert monitoring system was designed 
and approved by ADEM by considering site-specific technical information 
as required by 40 CFR 257.91(b), and the commenters asserts that EPA 
apparently ignored the information. The commenter maintains that EPA 
fails to consider that some monitoring wells at the facility were 
installed prior to implementation of the CCR program and not directly 
at the unit boundary. Commenter maintains that the geophysical methods 
confirmed fractures present at these locations, implying an existing 
connection to the CCR unit, and because of the high hydraulic 
conductivity in karst due to the presence of preferential pathways, 
commenter asserts that it is appropriate to assume that groundwater 
samples from these monitoring wells located beyond the boundary should 
accurately represent the quality of water that passes it. Commenter 
states that additionally, some specific well locations were chosen 
based on anomalies detected from surface geophysical (electrical 
resistivity) investigations to target areas with preferential pathways. 
Commenter states that EPA also references monitoring wells located on 
the opposite side of Cane Creek from the CCR unit. Commenter maintains 
that Cane Creek is recharged by water from the alluvium, and 
groundwater within the bedrock aquifer is expected to flow beneath the 
creek. Commenter states that ADEM's approval of the Colbert monitoring 
system was based on its review and understanding of the entirety of 
information and data available for the site.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's explanation as to why 
a sufficient number of bedrock compliance wells were not installed at 
the downgradient waste boundary. While EPA appreciates the efforts of 
TVA and ADEM to design and approve a monitoring program before 
implementation of the CCR program, the Federal CCR regulations were 
published in April 2015. Therefore, ADEM has had nearly nine years to 
require and approve modifications to the groundwater monitoring system 
to ensure that the requirements outlined at Sec.  257.91(a)(2) were 
met.
    EPA also disagrees with the commenter's technical rationale for not 
installing additional compliance bedrock wells at the downgradient 
waste boundary. The regulation specifies that ``[t]he downgradient 
monitoring system must be installed at the waste boundary that ensures 
detection of groundwater contamination the uppermost aquifer.'' 40 CFR 
257.91(a)(2). The fact that the facility may have installed wells 
farther away that also accurately represent the quality of groundwater 
passing the waste boundary of the CCR unit does not satisfy the 
requirement for a system at the waste boundary. As explained in the 
2015 final rule, wells installed at the waste boundary ensure early 
detection of contamination so that corrective measures can be 
implemented to protect sensitive receptors. In short, wells installed 
at the waste boundary ensure that worst case contamination is detected 
as quickly as possible. At AP-4, COF-111BR is the sole bedrock well 
installed at the downgradient waste boundary. This well alone does not 
represent the quality of groundwater passing the entire downgradient 
waste boundary of the CCR unit, especially since groundwater 
contamination has been identified in this well and the cross-gradient 
bedrock well COF-114BR. Furthermore, according to the commenter, the 
reason for installing downgradient bedrock wells so far away from the 
waste boundary was because geophysical methods confirmed fractures and 
preferential pathways, implying an existing connection to the CCR unit. 
While those connections serve as potential contaminant pathways, given 
the lack of bedrock wells installed at the downgradient waste boundary, 
it is unclear if those are the only contaminant pathways that exist in 
the bedrock. The permit record, even with the additional comments 
submitted on the Proposed Denial, does not demonstrate that all 
potential contaminant pathways are being monitored. As written, the 
permit is less protective than the Federal requirements at Sec.  
257.91(a)(2).
    Comment: Commenter disagrees with EPA's position with respect to 
the screened or open intervals of monitoring wells and argues that 
site-specific technical information was considered during the design 
and approval of this monitoring well system. Commenter states that for 
monitoring wells COF-111 and COF-111BR, the shallow screened interval 
and the larger open borehole interval were targeted zones to ensure the 
presence of groundwater for monitoring. Commenter states that the ``57-
foot vertical gap'' as described by EPA consists of a fat clay from a 
depth of 18 feet to approximately 60 feet and competent un-fractured 
limestone bedrock from 60 feet to 77 feet, both of which would likely 
not be a productive zone. Commenter maintains that it is also important 
to note that the zone within this ``gap'' should not be connected to 
the zone monitored by monitoring well COF-111BR to prevent cross-
contamination. Commenter concludes that EPA has failed to consider the 
holistic battery of information and technical data in its post-issuance 
review of the Colbert Permit.
    Response: EPA acknowledges the additional information provided by 
the commenter; however, it does not change EPA's assessment that 
critical zones are left unmonitored at COF-111 and COF-111BR. While the 
presence of a fat clay down to 60 feet may partially explain the 
rationale for a long casing, as EPA pointed out in its Proposed Denial, 
transition zones in karst environments such as residuum to epikarst and 
epikarst to ``unweathered'' bedrock are critical zones to monitor for 
potential contamination because the groundwater hydraulics at these 
transition zones are often complex. Therefore, it's EPA assessment that 
the transition from fat clay to ``un-fractured limestone bedrock'' is a 
potential contaminant pathway, especially considering that nearly all 
the downgradient compliance wells are not installed at the waste 
boundary. In other words, there is not sufficient evidence from other 
properly located compliance wells to rule out monitoring this 
transition zone.
    Comment: Commenter states that EPA discusses four CCR facilities in 
Alabama for the proposition that ADEM has approved permits for 
facilities that are allegedly violating Federal standards. Commenter 
asserts that EPA has not identified any harm to human health or the 
environment at these facilities, nor has EPA provided evidence of risk 
of exposure to CCR constituents at harmful levels.
    Commenter states that EPA's discussion of the Greene County ash 
pond provides a helpful example of how closure under a permit issued by 
ADEM addresses the kind of risks RCRA authorizes EPA to address. 
Commenter states that EPA describes various elements of the closure 
plan as reflected in the ADEM-approved permit and finds that the 
closure plan allows water to remain in contact with some ash within the 
disposal unit. Commenter states that fact alone is not direct evidence 
of any potential for harm to health or the environment, and to the 
contrary, the closure elements discussed by EPA show an effective plan 
for source control. Commenter states that CCR at Greene County will be 
consolidated into a smaller area within the original dikes, held in 
place by engineered soil containment berms, covered by a low-
permeability artificial cover, and surrounded below the surface by a

[[Page 48801]]

slurry wall. Commenter states that EPA stated in the Proposed Denial 
that ``a barrier wall keyed into the low permeability Demopolis Chalk 
will be installed around the perimeter of the consolidated CCR material 
to create a hydraulic barrier that limits the movement of interstitial 
water through the constructed interior dike and existing northern 
dike,'' and asserts that EPA found ``[t]his hydraulic barrier will be 
connected to the geomembrane of the final cover system.''
    Commenter argues that EPA thus acknowledges that the CCR at Greene 
County will be surrounded on all sides by features that completely 
separate the ash within the boundaries of the ash unit from the 
surrounding natural environment: on top by the cover system, on the 
sides by containment berms and subsurface barrier walls, and on the 
bottom by the Demopolis Chalk. Commenter states that EPA's analysis 
does not question the efficacy of any of these features. Commenters 
states as an example that EPA did not conclude that the cover or slurry 
wall will not perform as expected or that the Demopolis Chalk will not 
serve as an effective barrier to contaminant migration.
    Commenter states that all of these protections are in addition to 
the removal of free-standing water from the pond. Commenter states that 
EPA has observed:

    EPA's risk assessment shows that the highest risks are 
associated with CCR surface impoundments due to the hydraulic head 
imposed by impounded water. Dewatered CCR surface impoundments will 
no longer be subjected to hydraulic head so the risk of releases, 
including the risk that the unit will leach into the groundwater, 
would be no greater than those from CCR landfills.

    Commenter states that EPA estimates that 640,000 cubic yards will 
remain saturated post-closure. Commenter states that, assuming that 
number to be accurate, that amounts to roughly 6% of the total volume 
of ash, which is approximately 10,300,000 cubic yards. Commenter notes 
that historically all of the ash at Greene County was more or less 
fully saturated and there was also a sizable area of free-flowing 
ponded water. Commenter states that as the volume of water in the pond 
is reduced, the hydraulic head that drove exceedances in the past will 
be similarly reduced.
    Commenter states that after the driving force behind exceedances 
(i.e., free standing water and most other liquid) is removed, 
infiltration of stormwater is contained, and source control is 
achieved, the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence is that 
post-closure migration of constituents from ash to the environment will 
cease. Commenter states that its assessment is backed by detailed 
analyses prepared by qualified and licensed professional engineers and 
geologists, which was submitted to ADEM and is publicly available on 
the internet in closure and corrective action documentation. Commenter 
concludes that the available evidence therefore indicates that CCR and 
its constituents will be safely contained in a manner that suggests 
``no reasonable probability of adverse effects on health or the 
environment.'' Commenter states that EPA offers no evidence or even a 
theory of how appendix IV of part 257 constituents could move from ash 
inside the Greene County ash pond through the post-closure containment 
barriers and into the surrounding environment. Commenter asserts that 
EPA's discussion of the Colbert, Gadsden, and Gorgas facilities 
similarly lacks any plausible linkage from the ash ponds to a 
discernible risk of impacts to drinking water or ecological receptors.
    Response: In the Proposed Denial, EPA acknowledges that the closure 
design outlined in the Closure Plan (Plan) at Plant Greene County could 
be implemented to be consistent with the Federal requirements. However, 
EPA's concern is that ADEM approved a Closure Plan without adequate 
details explaining how the closure requirements would be met, 
especially with respect to the saturated CCR that will remain in the 
unit. Essentially, EPA conducted the saturation analysis that ADEM 
should have required Alabama Power to complete. With that information 
ADEM may have been able to issue a permit specifying what the facility 
needed to do to meet the closure requirements or required the facility 
to submit a revised closure plan. ADEM did neither, and as a 
consequence, there is no binding and enforceable provision in the 
permit that requires the facility to comply with the closure 
performance standards. See Proposed Denial pages 55270-74.
    EPA continues to believe that in many respects, the outlines of the 
closure presented in the Plan could be implemented to be consistent 
with the Federal requirements; however, ADEM approved the Plan without 
requiring Alabama Power to provide the information necessary to confirm 
that several critical closure requirements--which were not addressed or 
were insufficiently described--would be met. Specifically, neither the 
Closure Plan nor other materials in the Permit Application addressed 
how the performance standards in Sec.  257.102(d)(2) will be met with 
respect to the saturated CCR that it appears will remain in the base of 
the consolidated unit. The Permit could either have specified what the 
facility needs to do to meet the requirements, or ADEM could have 
required the facility to submit a revised Closure Plan. ADEM did 
neither, and as a consequence, there is no binding and enforceable 
provision for the facility to comply with these performance standards. 
In essence, ADEM has issued a permit that allows the facility to decide 
whether to comply with Sec.  257.102(b) and (d)(2), rather than 
``requiring each CCR unit to achieve compliance with'' those 
provisions. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1). Thus, while the closure plan for 
Plant Greene County may meet the Federal CCR regulations, the State CCR 
permit does not on its face require the necessary measures, so the 
permit is flawed even if closure actually complies with the Federal CCR 
regulations. In any case, EPA also identified groundwater monitoring 
and corrective action issues with the Plant Greene County permit, and 
neither the comments on the Proposed Denial or the State CCR permit 
record address those issues.
    Further, Plant Greene County is not an adequate representation of 
closure plans for the other Alabama CCR permits discussed in the 
Proposed Denial because none of the other Alabama CCR permit closure 
plans require the types of measures that Plant Greene County plans to 
install (e.g., a slurry wall) to ``control, minimize or eliminate, to 
the maximum extent feasible, post closure infiltration of liquids into 
the waste and releases of CCR leachate, or contaminated run-off to the 
ground or surface waters or to the atmosphere'' and to ``preclude the 
probability of future impoundment of water, sediment, or slurry.'' See 
40 CFR 257.102(d)(1)(i) and (ii). In fact, the other permits do not 
adequately address those requirements or explain why it is not feasible 
to take some measure to prevent the flow of liquids into and out of the 
closed CCR units indefinitely. The lack of such analyses in the permit 
records further supports EPA's conclusion that Alabama's CCR permit 
program is not as protective as the Federal CCR regulations.
    Finally, EPA disagrees that the permits ensure that contamination 
from the closed surface impoundments does not pose a hazard to human 
health or the environment. It is not possible to draw this sort of 
broad conclusion from the permit records because the monitoring well 
networks at those facilities discussed in the Proposed Denial are 
deficient and there are likely unmonitored potential contaminant

[[Page 48802]]

pathways that still exist. Further, in the preamble to the 2015 Federal 
CCR regulations, EPA explained the value of protecting groundwater as a 
resource, regardless of whether there are currently any nearby human 
receptors, and the Federal CCR regulations do not require such a 
finding before requiring corrective action. 80 FR 21452. See response 
to comment below.
    Comment: Commenter states that EPA does not allege any conditions 
that cause harm to human health or the environment in the Proposed 
Denial. Commenter states that EPA does not identify any source of 
drinking water that has been impacted from an ash pond, nor does EPA 
assert that arsenic or any other CCR constituent is exposed to any 
habitat, fish, or wildlife in harmful concentrations. Commenter states 
that EPA provides no evidence that there is any risk of such harms 
developing at any site in Alabama. Commenter states that before source 
control at Plant Lowman is achieved through closure and while 
corrective action is still under consideration at ADEM that the 
groundwater is not connected to any source of drinking water. Commenter 
states that there is no evidence of any impacts off the plant site or 
of any harm to fish or wildlife or their habitat and commenter states 
that conditions will only improve after dewatering and capping. 
Commenter states that the plans were designed by experts whose entire 
careers are focused on closing waste sites safely and correcting 
groundwater issues. Commenter states that as the ash and gypsum dry out 
and stormwater is cut off with a protective cap, that the CCR unit is 
likely to achieve compliance with all applicable GWPS without any 
further action. Commenter states that it will be prepared to execute 
additional measures to protect groundwater if that proves to be 
necessary over time. Commenter states that given this there is every 
indication that ADEM's program is working as required by both RCRA and 
State law to protect human health and the environment.
    Commenter states that if there is no harm to drinking water, to 
fish and wildlife, or to habitat under current conditions, then it 
follows that there is no opportunity to improve conditions for people 
or the environment. Commenter states that the CCR material is safely 
contained on the plant site, where it should be, and safety will only 
improve as closure and corrective action continue. Commenter states 
that, since EPA has yet to approve any engineering control measures, 
the only apparent alternative to closure in place is closure by 
removal. Commenter urges EPA to consider the location of landfills that 
could serve as potential disposal sites in this region and the 
character of neighborhoods near landfills and points between there and 
a power plant. Commenter states that off-site transportation and 
disposals impose challenges for people who live near the facility to 
avoid with a safe, on-site closure as planned.
    Response: EPA agrees that safe on-site closure will avoid off-site 
transportation and disposal challenges, but EPA disagrees that the 
Alabama permits support a conclusion that the subject closure plans 
will protect groundwater resources or that they are as protective as 
the Federal CCR regulations requires. In fact, given the insufficiency 
of the groundwater monitoring networks, it is possible that unmonitored 
releases are occuring and, if so, it is possible those releases are 
posing a hazard to human health and the environment. In addition, with 
the exception of Plant Greene County, the permit records EPA reviewed 
do not support a conclusion that any efforts were made to identify and 
implement feasible engineering measures as required by 40 CFR 
257.102(d)(1)(i). Absent such evaluations, EPA cannot conclude that the 
permits are as protective as the Federal CCR regulations.
    Further, as discussed in the preamble to the final 2015 CCR Rule at 
80 FR 21399, the objective of a groundwater monitoring system is to 
intercept groundwater to determine whether the groundwater has been 
contaminated by the CCR unit. Early contaminant detection is important 
to allow sufficient time for corrective measures to be developed and 
implemented before sensitive receptors are significantly affected. To 
accomplish this, the rule requires that wells be located to sample 
groundwater from the uppermost aquifer at the waste boundary.
    Establishment of a groundwater monitoring network that meets each 
of the performance standards of 40 CFR 257.91 is a fundamental 
component of the CCR program. EPA noted significant deficiencies with 
the groundwater monitoring networks at each CCR unit that was reviewed 
as part of the Proposed Denial. Because of these deficiencies, there is 
potential for additional, unmonitored releases from the CCR units. 
Therefore, it is inappropriate to draw broad conclusions about 
receptors or the lack thereof until the deficiencies in the groundwater 
monitoring networks are addressed.
    In the preamble to the 2015 CCR Rule, EPA explained the value of 
protecting groundwater as a resource, regardless of whether there are 
currently any nearby human receptors at 80 FR 21452. The preamble 
states that: whether the constituent ultimately causes further damage 
by migrating into drinking water wells does not diminish the 
significance of the environmental damage caused to the groundwater 
under the site, even where it is only a future source of drinking 
water. EPA further refers back to the preamble to the original 1979 
open dumping criteria, which are currently applicable to these 
facilities. That preamble states that EPA is concerned with groundwater 
contamination even if the aquifer is not currently used as a source of 
drinking water. Sources of drinking water are finite, and future users' 
interests must also be protected. See 44 FR 53445-53448. EPA believes 
that solid waste activities should not be allowed to contaminate 
underground drinking water sources to exceed established drinking water 
standards. This means that whether or not receptors have been 
identified does not affect the need to comply with all corrective 
action requirements in the CCR regulations.
    Further, Plant Lowman was not one of the sites reviewed, so EPA 
does not have comments on the adequacy of the groundwater monitoring 
networks at Plant Lowman.
    Comment: Commenter states that TVA began closing Ash Disposal Area 
4 at Colbert in accordance with State and Federal requirements and that 
the closure activities included decanting liquid from the unit, 
stabilizing the remaining waste and installing an engineered cap-and-
cover system. Commenter states that the system was designed to be 
consistent with the relevant standards under subtitle D of RCRA. 
Commenter states that consistent with the self-implementing nature of 
the Federal CCR regulations, the closure was completed and certified by 
a qualified professional engineer in the State of Alabama as being in 
accordance with 40 CFR 257.102.
    Commenter states that since completing closure and capping of Ash 
Disposal Area 4, TVA has continued to investigate and monitor 
groundwater as required by the Federal CCR regulations, ADEM's CCR 
Rule, and the First Amended Consent Decree. Commenter states that TVA 
also conducted a Comprehensive Groundwater Investigation (2018-2019) 
and installed 12 additional monitoring wells at Colbert pursuant to the 
consent decree, bringing the total number of monitoring wells at the 
site to 66. The investigation included an extensive evaluation of the

[[Page 48803]]

hydrogeologic conditions and groundwater quality at Colbert.
    Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's assertion that TVA has 
conducted a comprehensive groundwater investigation. However, EPA's 
assertion is that the permit is not as protective as the Federal 
requirements at Sec.  257.91(a)(2). Specifically, a sufficient number 
of wells have not been installed at the downgradient waste boundary to 
ensure detection of groundwater contamination in the uppermost aquifer 
and that all potential contaminant pathways are not being monitored. 
From the available information, EPA concluded that the permit did not 
require a sufficient monitoring system to monitor all potential 
contaminant pathways, making the permit less protective than required 
by the Federal regulations.
    Comment: Commenter stated that, in addition to installing new 
wells, TVA evaluated geochemical conditions within the underlying 
aquifer, performed geophysical surveys of the bedrock, completed 
offsite migration evaluations, and studied potential impacts to surface 
water using ADEM's risk-based model (RM2). Commenter states that the 
data from these activities indicate that the areas of elevated 
groundwater chemistry onsite are limited to a few constituents at low 
concentrations, are isolated to certain wells onsite (i.e., not 
migrating offsite), and do not present a risk to adjacent properties or 
surface waters.
    Commenter states that it is with this understanding that in 2019 
TVA performed two ACMs involving Ash Disposal Area 4 to meet Federal 
and State requirements. Commenter states that one ACM was performed in 
accordance with the Federal CCR regulations and focused on groundwater 
in the vicinity of Ash Disposal Area 4 (the CCR Rule regulated unit) 
and it identified and evaluated various technologies for groundwater 
remediation. Commenter states that a second ACM was performed in 
accordance with the First Amended Consent Decree and it was based on 
the conceptual site model that was developed after the comprehensive 
groundwater investigation to consider remedies that are protective of 
human health and the environment. Commenter maintains that, as required 
by the First Amended Consent Decree, a remedy was proposed, which 
included MNA, an Environmental Covenant, and Adaptive Management. 
Commenter asserts that the proposed remedy was based on the 
determination that groundwater conditions at Colbert are protective of 
human health and the environment and are expected to continue improving 
in the future. Commenter states that TVA received comments from ADEM on 
this ACM and continues to work with ADEM and perform remedy-specific 
investigations at specific well locations to further develop the final 
approach for the site.
    Response: As discussed previously, the changes requested by ADEM in 
its comments are not requirements of the permit, and the permit 
contains no deadline to address them or make changes. The permit does 
not contain a requirement to apply for a permit modification to 
incorporate remedy requirements once the work is completed. TVA may 
continue to comply with the permit without completing the study, 
selecting a remedy, or implementing the remedy. Therefore, the permit 
is less protective than the Federal requirements that include a series 
of deadlines for actions that are not included in Alabama's CCR 
permits.
    Comment: Commenter disagrees with EPA's evaluation of the permit 
ADEM issued for Ash Disposal Area 4 at Colbert and disagrees with EPA's 
conclusions of deficiencies. Commenter states that EPA made incorrect 
assumptions.
    Commenter states that EPA incorrectly states that TVA is using 
intrawell data comparisons described in the Groundwater Monitoring Plan 
approved by ADEM. Commenter states that EPA explains that this method 
does not require TVA to achieve compliance with the requirement in 
Sec.  257.91(a)(1) to establish background groundwater quality in an 
upgradient well unless the criteria in Sec.  257.91(a)(1)(i) or (ii) 
are met. See, 88 FR 55241, August 14, 2023.
    Commenter states that ADEM approved the analyses of background 
conditions at Colbert based on interwell statistical methods, not 
intrawell statistics. Commenter agrees with EPA that intrawell 
comparisons are appropriate in certain circumstances; however, TVA is 
not proposing intrawell comparisons at Ash Disposal Area 4 at this 
time. Commenter states that all compliance data for Ash Disposal Area 4 
submitted to ADEM or posted for the Federal CCR regulations used 
interwell statistical methods. Commenter states that the statistical 
analysis plan, which was developed in coordination with Dr. Kirk 
Cameron (the primary author of EPA's Unified Guidance on Statistical 
Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities), merely 
identifies intrawell comparisons as a potential option. Commenter 
states it is appropriate to consider and include intrawell statistics 
in the groundwater monitoring plan approved by ADEM as a possible means 
of analysis of the groundwater quality, should conditions arise where 
an understanding of a well's history is warranted when evaluating 
groundwater conditions. Commenter states that TVA would have to notify 
ADEM before using intrawell statistical methods as the compliance 
method and that TVA will continue to work with Dr. Cameron, P.E.s, and 
ADEM to assure statistical methods used meet the requirements of the 
rules and adhere to EPA guidance.
    Commenter states that ADEM approved interwell statistical methods 
in the CCR permit for Ash Disposal Area 4, the fact that this 
statistical approach is appropriate and justified, and that is the 
method currently employed under the permit, the use of this statistical 
method is not a factor that supports EPA's Proposed Denial.
    Response: Regarding interwell vs. intrawell statistics, the 
commenter provides information about actions being taken by facilities 
which are not required by the permit. This is not relevant to this 
action. The permit issued to Colbert approves a groundwater monitoring 
plan which allows intrawell comparisons in some circumstances. When 
conducting intrawell comparisons, background levels are established 
using data from downgradient wells. The regulation in 40 CFR 
257.91(a)(1) requires that background data have not been affected by 
leakage from a CCR unit. Downgradient wells at the boundary of a CCR 
unit that has been operating for decades do not meet this requirement. 
Because the procedures for updating background levels used in intrawell 
data comparisons are approved in the Final Permit, this permit does not 
require Colbert to achieve compliance with either the Federal 
requirements at Sec.  257.91(a)(1) or an alternative State requirement 
that is equally protective.
    Comment: Commenter states that EPA states that while the 
groundwater monitoring plan (GWMP) approved by ADEM includes bedrock 
monitoring wells COF-111BR, COF-112BR, COF-113BR, COF-114BR, CA17B, 
CA30B, MC1, MC5C, and COF108BR (future installation), CA6 (background), 
and COF-116BR (background) as part of the groundwater monitoring system 
for Ash Disposal Area 4, none of these bedrock wells are located at the 
downgradient waste boundary as required by Sec.  257.91(a)(2). 
Commenter states that instead, EPA states they are located hundreds of 
feet away from this boundary. See, 88 FR 55239, August 14, 2023.

[[Page 48804]]

    Commenter states that the groundwater monitoring system at Colbert 
includes 19 wells around the entire perimeter of Ash Disposal Area 4. 
Commenter states that to assure groundwater passing by the CCR unit 
boundary is accurately represented, the system was specifically 
designed to monitor groundwater quality in the alluvial aquifer (i.e., 
the uppermost aquifer) at the unit boundary, at a location 
hydraulically downgradient of Ash Disposal Area 4. Commenter states 
that, in addition, because the underlying bedrock aquifer appears 
hydraulically connected to the alluvial aquifer, groundwater quality is 
also monitored in the bedrock aquifer in the downgradient direction of 
flow to evaluate this potential contaminant pathway. Commenter 
maintains this approach is consistent with the requirements of Sec.  
257.91.
    Commenter states that the eight bedrock wells included in the Ash 
Disposal Area 4 Groundwater Monitoring Plan are positioned 
appropriately along the bedrock groundwater preferential pathways 
downgradient of Ash Disposal Area 4. Commenter states that the 
conceptual site model, informed by years of investigation and 
monitoring data, suggests that impacts to groundwater, if present, 
would be detected first in the upper groundwater zone downgradient of 
Ash Disposal Area 4 (the alluvial aquifer). Commenter states that this 
is based on the understanding that groundwater flow in alluvium and 
bedrock is primarily horizontal, with shallow groundwater flow towards 
Cane Creek. Commenter states, as such, monitoring wells screened in 
alluvium on the downgradient waste boundary are positioned to monitor 
the uppermost aquifer which is the most susceptible geologic unit at 
the downgradient waste boundary. Commenter states that the bedrock well 
locations were specifically selected based on documented groundwater 
flow pathways further from the waste boundary, and that these bedrock 
wells are positioned to monitor potential impacts along preferential 
pathways if impacts from Ash Disposal Area 4 were more extensive. 
Commenter maintains this approach of monitoring groundwater quality at 
both the alluvial aquifer at the downgradient unit boundary and the 
bedrock aquifer along potential pathways meets the requirements of 
Sec.  257.91.
    Response: EPA does not agree that the monitoring plan for Plant 
Colbert is as protective as the Federal CCR regulations. As discussed 
in the preamble to the Proposed Denial, to ensure detection of a 
release, the regulations establish a general performance standard that 
all groundwater monitoring systems must meet: all groundwater 
monitoring systems must consist of a sufficient number of appropriately 
located wells that will yield groundwater samples in the uppermost 
aquifer that represent the quality of the background groundwater and 
the quality of groundwater passing the downgradient waste boundary, 
monitoring all potential contaminant pathways. 40 CFR 257.91(a)(1) and 
(2). See Proposed Denial pages 55238-55239. Because hydrogeologic 
conditions vary so widely from one site to another, the regulations do 
not prescribe the exact number, location, and depth of monitoring wells 
needed to achieve the general performance standard. Rather the 
regulation requires installation of a minimum of one upgradient and 
three downgradient wells, as well as any additional monitoring wells 
necessary to achieve the general performance standard of accurately 
representing the quality of the background groundwater and the 
groundwater passing the downgradient waste boundary, monitoring all 
potential contaminant pathways. 40 CFR 257.91(c)(1) and (2).
    Further, the number, spacing, and depths of the monitoring wells 
must be determined based on a thorough characterization of the site, 
including a number of specifically identified factors relating to the 
hydrogeology of the site (e.g., aquifer thickness, groundwater flow 
rates and direction). 40 CFR 257.91(b).
    EPA does not disagree with commenter that the installation of 
bedrock wells at some distance away from the downgradient edge of the 
waste boundary is beneficial to understanding and characterizing the 
uppermost aquifer. EPA also acknowledges that in some cases, 
groundwater contamination via vertical communication between the 
alluvial aquifer and bedrock aquifer may not occur until some distance 
beyond the downgradient waste boundary. However, installing bedrock 
wells at some distance away from the downgradient edge of the waste 
boundary is not as protective as Sec.  257.91(a)(2). The commenter 
specifically acknowledges there is a hydraulic connection between the 
alluvial aquifer and bedrock aquifer. This can only happen via vertical 
communication and is precisely why compliance wells must be at the 
waste boundary. Installing compliance wells at appropriate horizontal 
locations and vertical depths at the waste boundary provides the best 
opportunity to detect worst case situations where contamination is 
leaving the unit. By ensuring that both the Sec.  257.91(a)(2) and the 
Sec.  257.91(b) requirements are met, the facility could definitively 
conclude that the compliance well network accurately represents the 
quality of groundwater passing the waste boundary and that vertical 
communication via preferential pathways between the alluvial aquifer 
and bedrock aquifer does not occur until some distance beyond the 
downgradient boundary. Currently, ADEM cannot definitively claim either 
based on the permit record.
    Comment: Commenter states that EPA takes the position that the 
corrective measures the permittee is required to take to achieve 
compliance with the regulations must be determined prior to final 
permit issuance because the permit must contain the requirements. See, 
88 FR 55242, August 14, 2023. Commenter maintains that permitting 
actions require adherence to the regulatory framework (e.g., RCRA), but 
do not contemplate the specifics of corrective actions. Commenter 
states that in most cases, identification and selection of corrective 
actions would be impossible at the time of permitting. Commenter states 
that, for example, Class II landfills that have solid waste permits 
have detection monitoring, assessment monitoring, and corrective action 
frameworks built into the permit. Commenter states that once assessment 
monitoring begins, the permit is modified to include additional needs 
to address potential remedial actions, but the permit is not issued 
with remedial actions already required. Commenter states that, on the 
contrary, the permit is issued based on design and construction 
performance standards, but EPA appears to imply that the Federal CCR 
regulations differs from other permitting actions in that permits 
cannot be issued until a remedial action is selected.
    Commenter states that because ADEM has provided a framework that is 
required and consistent with the Federal CCR regulations, the permits 
issued by ADEM are sufficient. Commenter states that ADEM is providing 
oversight to TVA to identify appropriate remedial actions for Ash 
Disposal Area 4 at Colbert, and that these remedial activities will 
need to satisfy ADEM and meet the State and Federal CCR regulations 
before ADEM will approve the proposed alternative, which they have not 
yet done.
    Response: The Commenter misconstrues EPA's position as implying 
that a permit cannot be issued until a remedy is selected. This is not

[[Page 48805]]

the case. The corrective action requirements include a series of 
actions, beginning with data collection to characterize a release and 
site conditions that may ultimately affect the remedy selected (40 CFR 
257.95(g)). This is followed by requirements to complete an ACM, hold a 
public meeting, and select a remedy. Remedy Selection Reports must 
specify a schedule to implement remedial activities and then the remedy 
must be implemented. Permit applicants may not be subject to corrective 
action at the time of permitting, or they may be at any step in the 
corrective actions process.
    Permits must implement the underlying regulations by establishing 
clear and enforceable requirements that a facility must satisfy to 
comply with the underlying regulations. This includes reviewing 
application materials and determining which requirements apply, which 
applicable requirements have already been met, and which have not yet 
been met. The applicable requirements the permittee has not yet met 
must be included in the permit. ADEM failed to do this in permits 
reviewed by EPA. The permit record indicates that the ACM at Colbert 
had been submitted to ADEM prior to permit issuance, but ADEM did not 
determine in the permitting action whether the ACM met the requirements 
in the regulation, or whether a revised ACM must be submitted to 
address any deficiencies. ADEM simply copied and pasted corrective 
action requirements from the regulations into the permit, without 
applying those requirements to the specific facts at the site. That is 
not adequate oversight and implementation.
    ADEM's failure to adjudicate the requirements applicable to 
Colbert, or to review and either approve or disapprove submitted 
application materials, means its permit program is not operating as a 
``system of prior approval.'' In the example of Colbert, ADEM should 
have reviewed the ACM and either approved it or included requirements 
in the permit to revise it as needed to satisfy the requirements in the 
regulations. If the ACM was approved, ADEM should have included 
requirements in the permit to hold a public meeting by a particular 
deadline and prepare a Remedy Selection Report. ADEM should have 
established a deadline to prepare the Remedy Selection Report and 
required it to be submitted in an application for a permit 
modification. The Remedy Selection Report must include a plan to 
implement the remedy, with actions and deadlines for them. ADEM must 
review and approve the selection of the remedy and the schedule to 
incorporate those requirements into the permit through a modification.
    Additionally, these approvals and modifications are subject to 
public participation requirements. Commenters have provided information 
that implies ADEM is circumventing its public participation 
requirements by working with the permittees outside of the permitting 
process to approve plans and reports, without allowing the opportunity 
for public comment. If correct, this is a further indication that ADEM 
is not implementing its program in a manner that ensures its program is 
at least as protective as the Federal CCR regulations.
    Comment: Commenter states that EPA suggests that ADEM approved 
wells that were not constructed in accordance with Sec.  257.91(e), and 
consequently, EPA implies that the groundwater monitoring system will 
not accurately yield samples that are representative of the overall the 
quality of groundwater around Ash Disposal Area 4. Commenter states 
that EPA calls into question TVA's use of Rotosonic drilling, claiming 
that it may alter, pulverize, or otherwise destroy or obfuscate 
acquired sample materials. See 88 FR 55240, August 14, 2023. Commenter 
states that Sec.  257.91(e) of the Federal CCR regulations, however, 
does not specify a drilling method. Commenter states that EPA's self-
implementing CCR regulations relies on P.E.s to provide assurance that 
activities meet industry standards in the absence of technical criteria 
in the CCR regulations and that this reliance extends to selecting 
appropriate drilling methods based on site-specific conditions. 
Commenter states that Rotosonic drilling was selected as the most 
appropriate method for Colbert to complete soil borings and install 
monitoring wells.
    Commenter states that Rotosonic drilling, more often referred to 
simply as sonic drilling, is an effective and widely used technique for 
collecting soil and rock samples and is far superior to formerly 
employed techniques such as air rotary, air hammer, and mud rotary. 
Commenter maintains that sonic drilling is arguably the best drilling 
technique available for environmental investigations in a wide variety 
of geologic settings because it provides continuous, nearly undisturbed 
sample cores, maintains borehole integrity and geochemistry, and can be 
used for both soil and rock while significantly reducing the 
introduction of drilling fluids and the generation of drilling wastes. 
Commenter states that sonic drilling demonstrably does not ``alter, 
pulverize or otherwise destroy'' acquired samples because the 
vibrations employed reduce the friction between the drill bit and the 
soil/rock, allowing it to cut through the material with less resistance 
and, therefore, less disturbance. Commenter states that, by contrast, 
it is the air rotary and air hammer techniques that ``alter, pulverize 
or otherwise destroy'' the penetrated rock, and this obliteration of 
formation material results in the poor return of samples, very often 
intermixing penetrated intervals when the shattered cuttings are 
ejected at the surface. Commenter maintains that mud rotary has also 
been shown to have these same disadvantages along with substantially 
altering groundwater geochemistry. For these reasons, commenter states 
that TVA and its contractor used the sonic drilling technique at 
Colbert in lieu of these other methods.
    Commenter states that the TSD in support of the Proposed Decision 
includes a discussion of alleged technical issues related to ADEM's 
permits and site-specific conditions. Commenter states that Rotosonic 
drilling is a commonly used drilling method in the industry, as EPA 
recognized in the TSD, however, the TSD implies that Rotosonic drilling 
may not be an appropriate drilling method, noting that ``it 
occasionally suffers from poor physical sample recovery issues 
depending on site conditions and other factors, and the resulting data 
gaps must be considered in assessments which depend on such samples.''
    Commenters state that the examples of poor recovery cited by EPA in 
the Proposed Denial Volume I TSD (Unit II.d) are limited and not 
applicable to the geological conditions at Colbert. Commenter maintains 
that EPA acknowledges as much when it refers to these examples as 
``particular site-specific issues.'' Commenter states that TVA has had 
very good results using sonic drilling at Colbert and has installed 22 
monitoring wells, totaling nearly 2,000 linear feet of borings using 
this technique. Commenter states that the average percent recovery was 
91 percent. Commenter states that the use of sonic drilling at Colbert 
resulted in substantial recovery of soil and bedrock cores in a 
continuous, nearly undisturbed condition. Commenters state that site 
experts used multiple lines of evidence such as downhole geophysics 
logging to confirm competent zones of bedrock as well as permeable 
zones that are potential conduits for transmissive groundwater flow. 
Commenter concludes that TVA believes EPA's concerns about sonic

[[Page 48806]]

drilling at Colbert are unwarranted and that the monitoring wells 
comply with the performance criteria outlined in Sec.  257.91(e) and 
thus, is not a factor that supports EPA's denial of ADEM's permit 
program.
    Response: The selection of the drilling method or methods is an 
important step in the overall well installation process. EPA did not 
intend to call into question whether Rotosonic drilling was an 
appropriate method in general or even inappropriate for this site. 
Instead, EPA intended to convey concern with the adequacy of the 
selected monitoring zones, based on the details noted in the Rotosonic 
drill logs. EPA maintains that the zones of ``no recovery'' recorded 
for specific intervals in specific wells may represent data gaps, 
particularly if such zones occur at key locations and depths along 
potential flow pathways. The central issue EPA raised in the Proposed 
Denial in this respect related to the uncertainties regarding the 
nature of the geologic materials which were not sampled, i.e., the 
depth intervals resulting from site-specific application of the 
Rotosonic method where no recovery of geologic materials occurred. A 
comprehensive assessment of the relevant issues must therefore include 
not only the technicalities of the Rotosonic method, but also the 
characteristics of the local geology, data gap intervals resulting from 
application of Rotosonic methods at Colbert, and the locations and 
depths of these data gaps in the site-specific hydrogeologic context. A 
comprehensive discussion of the limitations of the monitoring network 
at TVA needs to consider all these factors, as well as how such 
information was used in making decisions which produced the existing 
monitoring network. EPA remains concerned that the resulting monitoring 
network may not comply with the requirements Sec.  257.91(a)(2) in that 
all potential contaminant pathways may not be monitored at the unit 
boundary.
    In a karst setting such as the Colbert site, the zones of ``no 
recovery'' while employing Rotosonic drilling methods can represent 
void space or extremely weathered materials. While such intervals are 
problematic for all drilling methods, the original comment identified 
these zones of `no recovery' or no data, to potentially represent void 
spaces or highly weathered intervals which could be of critical 
importance to monitoring efforts.
    Comment: Commenter states that ADEM appropriately approved TVA's 
use of open borehole wells and disagrees with EPA's suggestion that the 
long-screened interval open-borehole monitoring wells yield blended or 
otherwise unrepresentative samples, and thus do not comply with the 
performance standards in Sec.  257.91(a)(1) and (2) and (e). See 88 FR 
55240, August 14, 2023. Commenter states that use of open-borehole 
wells in limestone bedrock is compliant with EPA's CCR regulations, the 
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards, USEPA 
Region 4 guidance, and Interstate Technology and Regulatory Counsel 
(ITRC) guidance. Commenter maintains that ASTM D5092/D5092M-161 clearly 
states that the practice of screening wells and installing filter packs 
is ``not applicable in fractured or karst rock conditions.'' Commenter 
states that USEPA Region 4 and ITRC3 also acknowledge that open bedrock 
completions are warranted in karst conditions and fractured rock. 
During the Comprehensive Groundwater Investigation (CGWI) conducted at 
Colbert in 2019, commenter asserts that TVA and its contractor 
performed surface geophysics and borehole geophysical logging of the 
CGWI monitoring wells that provided an understanding of the bedrock 
structure. Commenter states that using the borehole geophysical logging 
data, including the heat pulse flowmeter, the essential preferential 
flow fractures in each CGWI monitoring well were identified, and the 
dedicated groundwater low flow pumps were positioned precisely to 
monitor groundwater in the most representative intervals of the 
Tuscumbia limestone (i.e., zones of highest groundwater flow), while 
preserving the ability to monitor other intervals if the need should 
arise.
    Commenter maintains that TVA's analyses of older screened wells at 
Colbert indicated that well casings have blocked/sealed off significant 
water-bearing fractures and are not representative of overall Tuscumbia 
bedrock aquifer conditions. Commenter states that ASTM and USEPA Region 
4 clearly recognize that using screened wells to monitor groundwater in 
a bedrock aquifer of this type is technically unsound if for no other 
reason than introducing an unacceptable sampling bias that could 
produce misleading and unreliable groundwater quality data. Commenter 
states that utilizing open-hole monitoring wells avoids the unfavorable 
limitations of screened wells that can only yield samples from discrete 
isolated fractures that are not representative of large-scale 
groundwater quality in the bedrock aquifer, and that, by contrast, 
wells with an open-hole completion represent more completely the 
groundwater quality of the upper portion of the bedrock unit that could 
potentially affect surface water quality (i.e., the Tennessee River and 
Cane Creek). Commenter and P.E. contend the construction of the open-
borehole wells comply with the performance standards in Sec.  
257.91(a)(1) and (2) and (e), and thus, is not a factor that supports 
EPA's denial of ADEM's permit program.
    Response: EPA appreciates the additional information provided by 
the commenter. However, the comment is somewhat self-contradictory, and 
in some respects tangential to the issues raised in the original 
comment. It is conceivable that low flow sampling within an open 
borehole, if appropriately deployed, may be used to monitor discrete 
zones within a bedrock aquifer. However, this presumes that certain 
preconditions are met, which are discussed further below. First it must 
be acknowledged that the goal of such sampling is not to assess 
``large-scale groundwater quality'' of the bedrock aquifer as the 
commenter suggests. Such a ``large-scale'' assessment of groundwater 
quality would require an approach altogether different from low-flow 
methods. Instead, the purpose of low-flow sampling is to collect 
representative groundwater samples from key depth-discrete zones. Each 
sample is intended to be representative of the specific depth interval 
where the pump intake is deployed, rather than an ``average'' or 
``blended'' sample of an entire borehole.
    It is for this reason that guidance documents for low flow sampling 
generally indicate a preference for permanent monitoring well 
installations with short, screened intervals (e.g., 10-feet or less), 
to be used in conjunction with low-flow approaches. Short screened or 
open intervals are installed at targeted depths based on geologic and 
other information to enable and facilitate sampling of a specific zone 
or zones with low-flow methods. Long-screened intervals or open 
intervals in open bedrock boreholes should be generally avoided. To 
this point, EPA Region 4 guidance document, entitled Design and 
Installation of Monitoring Wells, January 1, 2018, states the 
following:

    Another limitation to the open rock well is that the entire 
bedrock interval serves as the monitoring zone. In this situation, 
it is very difficult or even impossible to monitor a specific zone 
because the contaminants being monitored could be diluted to the 
extent of being non-detectable. The installation of open bedrock 
wells is generally not acceptable in the Superfund and RCRA 
programs, because of the uncontrolled

[[Page 48807]]

monitoring intervals. However, some site conditions might exist, 
especially in cavernous limestone areas (karst topography) or in 
areas of highly fractured bedrock, where the installation of the 
filter pack and its structural integrity are questionable. Under 
these conditions the design of an open bedrock well may be 
warranted.

    While this guidance does not preclude the use of open bedrock wells 
in ``cavernous limestone'' or ``highly fractured bedrock,'' it does not 
generally support the commenter's assertion that, ``Use of open-
borehole wells in limestone bedrock is compliant . . . '' It should be 
noted that many of the open bedrock boreholes at Colbert do not 
indicate the presence of the voids or highly fractured zones listed 
above as conditions justifying open boreholes. More importantly, the 
presence of long open intervals in boreholes, while not addressed by 
the commenter, is listed as a particular limitation implied in the 
Region 4 guidance excerpted above (i.e., ``the entire bedrock interval 
serves as the monitoring zone. . . ''). In addition to the concerns 
listed by the Region 4 guidance, long open boreholes commonly exhibit 
issues such as vertical flow and multiple inflow and outflow zones. 
Unless this ``short circuiting'' intra-borehole flow is understood at a 
high level of resolution, it would be difficult to determine precisely 
what a particular low flow sample from such a borehole represents, 
other than some sort of blended average. For this reason, inflatable 
straddle packers are commonly employed in long open boreholes to 
isolate zones of typically 10-feet or less in vertical length to 
minimize the confounding effects of intra-borehole flow. Even so, 
straddle packers also have potential leakage or other problems. For 
these reasons, conventionally screened wells should be installed or at 
least strongly considered where conditions allow for their 
installation. Another limitation of long open-hole intervals not 
discussed by the commenter is the potential blending of zones of 
different chemistry, e.g., redox potential, or other parameters. Cross 
connecting independent zones with different redox potential is highly 
inadvisable as it may produce non-representative samples resulting from 
in-situ redox reactions not likely to occur without the presence of the 
borehole conduit.
    The commenter provides little information which would outweigh the 
many negatives listed above for using long open borehole wells with or 
without low-flow sampling techniques, and in many cases the assertions 
are factually incorrect. For example, the commenter states, ``ASTM and 
USEPA Region 4 clearly recognize that using screened wells to monitor 
groundwater in a bedrock aquifer of this type is technically unsound if 
for no other reason than introducing an unacceptable sampling bias that 
could produce misleading and unreliable groundwater quality data.'' 
This statement is in direct conflict with the excerpted material from 
the Region 4 guidance presented just above. Similarly, the comment 
states, ``Utilizing open-hole monitoring wells avoids the unfavorable 
limitations of screened wells that can only yield samples from discrete 
isolated fractures . . . ''
    As discussed previously, this assertion confuses limitations of 
low-flow sampling with limitations of screened wells. The intention of 
low-flow sampling is in fact to yield samples from discrete zones or 
fractures, and it is commonly accepted that low flow sampling is less 
effective to this intention in open boreholes, or wells or boreholes 
with excessively long open or screened intervals. The comment misses 
these points entirely in attempting to justify the unusual and 
problematic combination of low-flow sampling methodologies with long 
open boreholes selected by TVA and approved by ADEM.
    It is not clear what is intended by the statement in the following 
comment:

    TVA's analyses of older screened wells at Colbert indicated that 
well casings have blocked/sealed off significant water-bearing 
fractures and are not representative of overall Tuscumbia bedrock 
aquifer conditions.

    EPA concurs with this concern which suggests that the older 
screened wells are indeed problematic in that they have inadvertently 
excluded significant water-bearing fractures from the monitoring 
network. For example, EPA's analysis of monitoring wells COF-111 and 
COF-111BR indicates similar concerns, i.e., that potentially 
significant water-bearing zones in the epi-karst materials in the 
uppermost portion of the bedrock have been effectively sealed off and 
isolated by steel casings and have therefore been similarly excluded 
from the monitoring well network and sampling program. It appears that 
there may be a systematic problem in that the potential contributions 
of these cased-off water-bearing zones have been in many cases 
inappropriately excluded from the monitoring network, and their 
potential contributions to the inputs of the totality of groundwater 
affecting the quality of surface water in Cane Creek have not been 
determined. This particular issue with the permit record could have 
been avoided with the use of clustered monitored wells, which are 
multiple groundwater monitoring wells placed in close proximity to one 
another. This well installation method would allow for the monitoring 
of groundwater conditions at various discrete-depth zones.
    In conclusion, the explanations in the comment do not resolve the 
issue in that the long-screened interval open-borehole monitoring wells 
have the potential to yield blended or otherwise unrepresentative 
samples, and thus do not comply with the performance standards in Sec.  
257.91(a)(1) and (2) and (e). As discussed above, options are available 
to redevelop and reconfigure these existing open boreholes to fully 
comply with the regulations, including installing standard monitoring 
wells (e.g., with discrete screened intervals) within the open 
boreholes with discrete screened intervals targeted to the most 
important discrete fracture zones, or a variety of specialized 
technologies and methods developed to address fracture-specific 
sampling in fractured bedrock environments. ADEM chose to approve the 
GWMP without requiring the necessary analysis and as a result none of 
these compliant alternatives were considered. Further, to the extent 
the comments do clarify the situation, such information should have 
already been in the permit record if necessary to adequately explain 
the groundwater monitoring network.
    Comment: Commenter disagrees with EPA's Proposed Denial with 
respect to delineation of the uppermost aquifer. Commenter states that 
EPA conjectures the groundwater monitoring well network ADEM approved 
does not meet the performance standards in Sec.  257.91(a) or (b), that 
the approved groundwater monitoring system is not based on a thorough 
characterization of the elements listed in Sec.  257.91(b), and that 
the groundwater monitoring system does not ``yield groundwater samples 
from the uppermost aquifer'' as required by Sec.  257.91(a). Commenters 
maintains this is due to EPA's conclusion that the subject facilities 
have failed to delineate the uppermost aquifer.
    Commenter maintains there is simply no requirement for the 
compliance groundwater monitoring network to vertically delineate the 
uppermost aquifer and that EPA has, once again, read requirements into 
the Federal rules that simply do not exist. Commenter states that 40 
CFR 257.91(a)(2) requires that the groundwater monitoring system 
consist of a sufficient number of wells, installed at appropriate 
locations and depths, to yield groundwater samples from the uppermost 
aquifer that

[[Page 48808]]

accurately represent the quality of groundwater passing the waste 
boundary of the CCR unit. Commenter states that these performance 
standards do not speak to complete delineation of the aquifer, but only 
to obtaining samples that accurately reflect the quality of groundwater 
passing the waste boundary. Commenter maintains that complete vertical 
delineation is not only not required on all cases, it is not logical or 
practical to require it in all cases, and that furthermore, EPA has 
approved, overseen, or itself installed groundwater monitoring systems 
around the Nation in the RCRA and CERCLA program, and, at no time, has 
taken a remotely similar position requiring complete vertical aquifer 
delineation in all of them.
    Commenter states that with respect to Plant Gadsden, EPA 
specifically mentions, ``the variable nature of the bedrock/overburden 
contact was not sufficiently characterized to meet the performance 
standards in 40 CFR 257.91(a) or (b).'' Commenter states that EPA 
continues by stating ``[i]n addition, the top-of-bedrock surface has 
not been adequately resolved in all areas of the site because some 
boring logs lack reliable confirmatory data. According to the boring 
logs that were included in the Permit Application, there are multiple 
missing intervals of ``no recovery'' from numerous borings advanced 
into bedrock, which indicate a large potential for hydraulically 
significant zones that are currently insufficiently characterized. EPA 
is proposing to determine that the thickness, variability, nature, and 
hydrogeologic significance of the transitional zone of weathering in 
the uppermost part of bedrock has not been established, as required by 
40 CFR 257.91(b).'' Commenter states that nineteen of the twenty-four 
monitoring wells and piezometers included within the Permit were 
drilled utilizing a sonic drilling method--a method known for the 
benefit of reliably providing continuous and minimally disturbed core 
samples, and that, as such, characterization of the uppermost portion 
of the bedrock has been successfully achieved through the thorough 
descriptions of recovered materials produced during activities related 
to installation of monitoring wells, piezometers, and vertical 
delineation wells that were provided on the very boring logs referenced 
by EPA.
    Commenter states that EPA expands on their claim that the uppermost 
aquifer has not been sufficiently characterized and the depth of the 
lower confining unit has not been established with respect to Plant 
Gorgas, contending that contradictory information has been portrayed in 
the facility file by stating, ``the Pratt Coal System and the American 
Coal Systems are mapped together and separately in different 
groundwater monitoring reports.'' Commenter maintains that this faulty 
conclusion stems from EPA's limited and perfunctory review of the 
massive amount of data available for the facility. Commenter maintains 
that the separation of the Pratt and American flow systems stemmed from 
the receipt of additional site cross-sections with the Supplemental 
Site Hydrogeologic Characterization Report dated March 5, 2021. 
Commenter asserts that it is a well-established fact that a successful 
conceptual site model is continually improved as more data becomes 
available, as was the case with this distinction of the Pratt Coal and 
American Coal Systems. Commenter concludes that a complete vertical 
delineation may not be logical or practical in every case, and as such, 
the uppermost aquifer has been characterized to the extent that is 
technically feasible.
    Response: Regarding the regulations outlining the requirements for 
groundwater monitoring systems, EPA disagrees with the commenter's 
statement that EPA has read requirements into the Federal CCR 
regulations that simply do not exist. Furthermore, contrary to the 
commenter's claims, EPA is not contending that the level of detail 
discussed in the comment is required to meet the Federal requirements.
    According to the commenter, 40 CFR 257.91(a)(2) requires that the 
groundwater monitoring system consist of a sufficient number of wells, 
installed at appropriate locations and depths, to yield groundwater 
samples from the uppermost aquifer that accurately represent the 
quality of groundwater passing the waste boundary of the CCR unit. 
However, that is only one half of the regulation. Section 257.91(a)(2) 
also states the downgradient monitoring system must be installed at the 
waste boundary to ensure (1) detection of groundwater contamination in 
the uppermost aquifer; and (2) monitoring of all potential contaminant 
pathways. Potential contaminant pathways can only be identified by 
conducting a thorough characterization of the uppermost aquifer. In 
fact, 40 CFR 257.91(b) outlines several technical criteria, such as 
aquifer thickness and the materials comprising the confining unit 
defining the lower bound of the uppermost aquifer, that needs to be 
evaluated before installing the compliance monitoring wells. 
Characterization, including the delineation of the upper and lower 
bounds of the uppermost aquifer and the potential contaminant pathways 
within, can be accomplished by scientific literature and a site-
specific investigative tool such as exploratory borings and geophysics. 
Plant Gorgas is a very complex site, and the information available as 
part of the permit record does not support that all preferential 
pathways are being monitored.
    In short, EPA's statements in the Proposed Denial regarding 
groundwater monitoring systems was in response to ADEM's approval of 
groundwater monitoring plans containing a poor characterization of the 
uppermost aquifer at each facility. Identifying the upper and lower 
bounds of the uppermost aquifer has not been achieved resulting in 
potential unmonitored contaminant pathways. Lastly, the permits do not 
provide any indication of how and when the groundwater monitoring 
system requirements will be met.
    Comment: Commenter states that EPA asserts multiple times 
throughout its post-issuance critiques of multiple permits that there 
is an insufficient number of wells laterally and vertically along the 
downgradient perimeter of the unit to monitor all potential contaminant 
pathways. Commenter states that the performance standard for 
groundwater monitoring systems requires a sufficient number of wells 
installed at appropriate locations and depths to accurately represent 
the quality of groundwater passing the waste boundary of the CCR unit. 
Commenter states that a minimum spacing between well locations and well 
depths is not specified by the Federal rules, and that instead it is 
then left to the professional judgement of ADEM staff scientists, 
geologists, and engineers, working collectively with the permittees to 
design/approve the most practical system to monitor the quality of 
groundwater entering the uppermost aquifer from the units. Commenter 
maintains this is an ongoing effort.
    Commenter further asserts that groundwater monitoring systems are 
continuously evaluated and modified as more data is collected and 
analyzed. Commenter maintains that EPA seeks to substitute its 
judgement, based on a cursory review of limited information, for that 
of ADEM, whose professional staff have conducted extensive reviews and 
analyses of the holistic battery of data available for each facility.
    Response: The Commenter describes an approach to designing a 
groundwater monitoring system that is inconsistent with the CCR 
regulations. First, the CCR regulations present criteria for designing

[[Page 48809]]

a groundwater monitoring system for each CCR unit (40 CFR 257.91) with 
a deadline for installation of the system and collection of the first 8 
samples from each well no later than October 17, 2017 (40 CFR 
257.90(b)). Thorough characterization of site-specific hydrogeological 
characteristics (e.g., groundwater flow rate and direction, aquifer 
thickness, hydraulic conductivities) was required to support this 
design (40 CFR 257.91(b)). This design should not be an ongoing process 
six years after the deadline. Along those lines, while collaboration is 
a good thing, ADEM and the facility should not be ``working 
collectively to design/approve'' a groundwater monitoring system. It 
was the facility's responsibility to design the system years ago, and 
it is ADEM's responsibility to thoroughly evaluate the facilities 
system and only approve it if all the requirements of the regulations 
are met.
    In this case, it appears that ADEM simply approved the systems 
submitted by the facilities. To the extent there was meaningful 
evaluation, that is not included in the permit record and available for 
review, which again highlights the concern that ADEM is not adequately 
overseeing and documenting its decisions. EPA must rely on the 
available permit record whether the groundwater monitoring system 
(GWMS) is designed in compliance with the Federal CCR regulations, and, 
at this time, the GWMSs reviewed in the proposal appear inadequate 
based on the available information in the permit record.
    Post hoc explanations not included in the permit record do not cure 
the deficient permits. For the reasons provided in the Proposed Denial 
and discussed in this document, EPA finds that the permits are not as 
protective as the Federal rule and that the permit records are 
insufficient.
    Comment: Commenter states that with respect to lateral spacing, one 
of the considerations ADEM took into account is that most of the CCR 
units are unlined, and for this reason, it would be reasonable to 
assume that potential leakage from these units would not follow the 
same pattern as those from a lined unit. Commenter states that a leak 
resulting from a failure or breach to a liner system would likely 
represent an individual ``point of release,'' whereas with an unlined 
unit, the leakage would likely result in more widespread impacted areas 
dependent on the variable permeability of the clay base, and, as such, 
a tighter-spaced network of wells would be required to adequately 
monitor and detect a release from a lined unit, whereas the monitoring 
well network for adequately detecting a release from an unlined unit 
would not be required to be as closely spaced.
    Commenter states that in other cases ADEM had to consider the 
topographic relief, geometric footprint, or other site conditions at 
the waste boundary, verified, at times, by ADEM staff conducting site 
visits, that prohibited access or installation directly at the limits 
of the CCR unit. Commenter states that in situations where installation 
at the waste boundary was considered to be technically infeasible, as 
was the case with Plant Gorgas, monitoring well locations were selected 
based on best professional judgement. For example, commenter asserts 
that monitoring wells were strategically placed in areas that receive 
groundwater from multiple directions occurring from the finger-like 
features of the CCR unit.
    Commenter states that much of EPA's commentary on vertical spacing 
seems to orbit the idea that Federal rules require compliance 
monitoring wells throughout the entire depth of the uppermost aquifer 
including its upper and lower bounds. Commenter states that this is 
neither correct nor feasible, because, as ADEM explained in response to 
the delineation issue, the Federal CCR regulations require a monitoring 
network that detects contamination released from the unit, not one that 
characterizes the entire depth of the aquifer and that it is not 
practical to do so. Commenter states, for example, that the majority of 
the lower boundary of the CCR unit at Plant Gadsden is at approximately 
500 to 505 feet AMSL (above mean sea level). Commenter states that 
monitoring wells installed at depths of 100 feet or greater, or at 
elevations near 415 feet AMSL, as suggested by EPA would not detect 
contamination from a breach of the liner system and would not 
accurately represent the quality of groundwater passing the waste 
boundary. Commenter maintains that contaminants breaching the liner 
system would have to immediately descend to the lower bounds of the 
aquifer perfectly along the vertical plane of the waste boundary for 
EPA to be correct, but commenter asserts that contaminant migration is 
simply not expected to occur in this manner in any of the geological 
systems at any of Alabama's CCR facilities.
    Commenter states that EPA goes further with this faulty notion by 
asserting that an insufficient number of monitoring wells are screened 
within Unit 1 of the uppermost aquifer at Plant Greene County, 
resulting in inadequate vertical spacing of compliance wells. Commenter 
notes that it is true that the majority of monitoring wells have been 
screened within Unit 2 of the uppermost aquifer, but EPA does not 
appear to understand the site geology and characteristics of each unit. 
Commenter states that the quaternary alluvium and low terrace deposits 
comprise the uppermost aquifer; that these units overlie the Demopolis 
Chalk, which acts as a lower confining unit for the aquifer; Unit 1 of 
the uppermost aquifer consists of lean-to-fat clays that thin and 
become slightly more sandy towards the southwest; Unit 2 consists of 
fine-to-medium-grained sands that coarsen downward and include gravel 
lenses; and groundwater tends to sit on top of the chalk and within 
Unit 2, and Unit 1 acts as a semi-confining unit across much of the 
site. Based on these statements, commenter concludes that the 
compliance monitoring wells are appropriately screened within the Unit 
2 sands and gravels to have the highest probability to detect any 
constituents that may be released from the CCR unit.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's explanation and 
justification for the lateral spacing of compliance wells. While it is 
true that the exact location and magnitude of a release can affect 
plume geometry, these variables are often unknown regardless of if the 
unit is lined or unlined. Using the commenter's examples of a ``point 
release'' and a ``broad release'', a broad release from an unlined unit 
could easily mimic a point release from a lined unit if part of the CCR 
unit is in direct contact with groundwater. Conversely, a point release 
from a lined unit could mimic a broad release from an unlined unit if 
the leachate first disperses laterally for several feet (``fans out''), 
then gradually downward through a heterogeneous soil several feet 
before reaching the groundwater table. Lastly, the commenter's 
technical reasoning for the lateral spacing of compliance wells largely 
ignores the hydrogeology of the geologic units above and within the 
uppermost aquifer. The hydrogeology of these geologic units, based on 
an investigation of the criteria outlined in Sec.  257.91(b), plays a 
much larger role in plume geometry and the lateral and vertical spacing 
of compliance wells than presumptions about the location, magnitude, 
and type of release.
    The commenter's concern that the Agency did not understand the site 
geology and characteristics of each unit is also unfounded. The Agency 
evaluated the site geology based on the information in the permit 
record and determined that the saturated portion of Unit 1 is part of 
the uppermost aquifer. Nothing in the commenter's response

[[Page 48810]]

changes that determination. Rather, the commenter's response supports 
the Agency's position that the current groundwater monitoring network 
only monitors specific portions of the uppermost aquifer. Detection 
monitoring wells should have been screened in all transmissive zones 
that may act as contaminant transport pathways. This issue could have 
been resolved with the installation of multiple monitoring wells (well 
clusters or multilevel sampling devices) in places where a single well 
cannot adequately intercept and monitor the vertical extent of a 
potential pathway of contaminant migration, or when there is more than 
one potential pathway of contaminant migration in the subsurface at a 
single location.
    Comment: Commenter states that Alabama Power's plans address 
groundwater quality at and around the commenter's sites and the 
groundwater monitoring systems are tailored to site geological 
conditions, certified by qualified professional engineers and 
geologists, and exceed EPA's monitoring requirements. Commenter asserts 
that Alabama Power's approach to corrective action is also tailored to 
site-specific risk considerations in accordance with the 2015 
regulations, certified by qualified professional engineers and 
geologists, and designed to be responsive to any changes in site 
specific conditions. Commenter maintains this approach can include both 
passive and active measures, each working together with closure to 
achieve groundwater protection standards (GWPS) in compliance with both 
the Federal and State CCR regulations.
    Response: The commenter does not provide any explanation of why the 
plans, including the proposed remedy, comply with the 2015 regulations. 
While it is understood that P.E. certifications have been obtained, in 
noted instances EPA does not agree with the conclusions of the P.E. EPA 
has provided significant analysis of why the plans fail to satisfy the 
2015 regulations in those cases, and this comment does not respond to 
that analysis. The role of a permitting authority is to review the 
site-specific facts and determine whether the P.E. certification is 
true and whether the approach proposed by the facility does, in fact, 
achieve compliance with the regulations. ADEM should not assume 
compliance based on a P.E. certification and the P.E. certification 
does not prevent EPA from independently evaluating the permit. Finally, 
while EPA appreciates that Alabama Power's approach to corrective 
action may well be ``tailored to site-specific risk considerations in 
accordance with the 2015 regulations, certified by qualified 
professional engineers and geologists, and designed to be responsive to 
any changes in site specific conditions,'' the relevant standard to 
evaluate the adequacy of Alabama Power's corrective action remedy is in 
Sec.  257.97(b) and (c). The commenter has presented nothing to address 
the specific concerns EPA identified in the proposal.
    Comment: Commenter states that EPA includes in a TSD supporting the 
Proposed Denial a discussion of alleged technical issues related to 
ADEM's permits and site-specific conditions. Commenter does not comment 
on the site-specific conditions, but instead urges EPA to revise or 
clarify the following technical approaches. With respect to unit 
elevations, the commenter states that EPA relies on an average bottom 
elevation instead of modeling the available elevation data points, and 
that using an average incorrectly assumes that the bottom of the unit 
is flat.
    Response: The commenter is correct that EPA used an average bottom 
elevation to estimate the amount of CCR in the unit that remains 
saturated by groundwater. EPA fully acknowledges that the bottoms of 
the CCR units are not likely to be flat over the span of the entire 
unit; however, EPA relied on the only data available from the permit 
application packages and documents available for review on the public 
CCR websites. Commenters do not claim that no CCR remains saturated in 
the closed units. Any further detailed analysis was unnecessary, and 
the approach used was appropriate and sufficient given the amount of 
data that is available. The purpose of this review was to determine 
whether Alabama's CCR permit program is as protective as the Federal 
CCR regulations, not to take action to bring the identified facilities 
into compliance with the Federal CCR regulations.
    While the actual amount of groundwater in contact with CCR may 
differ to some degree, the Agency's approach provided a reasonable 
estimate of the amount of waste potentially below the water table. The 
Agency remains confident that, based on the information available to us 
in the permit applications and publicly available documents, that these 
units currently have waste in contact with the groundwater and will 
continue to have waste in sustained contact with the groundwater moving 
forward. In addition, with the exception of Plant Greene County, none 
of the sources evaluated, much less implemented, measure(s) designed to 
limit the flow of liquids into and out of the unit from the bottom and 
sides indefinitely.
    Comment: Commenter states that saturation of waste, or the presence 
of a water table within the waste, does not necessarily indicate that 
the waste is in an unstable condition or contains readily separable 
liquids. Commenter asserts that material density and dewatering 
performed prior to cap construction also are factors that affect CCR 
stability. Commenter states that EPA describes how its review of 
permits issued under Alabama's program influenced the Proposed Denial 
and that EPA indicates ``. . . EPA is proposing to determine that ADEM 
issued multiple permits allowing CCR in closed units to remain 
saturated by groundwater, without requiring engineering measures that 
will control the groundwater flowing into and out of the closed unit.'' 
Commenter states that following this overall discussion of the permit 
review, the Proposed Denial details specific observations from the 
permit review for four power plants, including specific observations 
regarding saturated CCR, groundwater levels within CCR, and free 
liquids within CCR. Commenter states that with respect to Colbert, EPA 
stated ``it is clear from the post-closure 2019-2021 Annual Inspection 
Reports that whatever measures were taken as part of closure did not 
actually eliminate free liquids from Ash Pond 4. Commenter states that 
these reports document average groundwater elevations within the Ash 
Pond that significantly exceed 422 above MSL.'' Commenter states that 
with respect to Gadsden, EPA states, ``[a]s previously explained, in 
situations such as this, where the waste in the unit is continually 
saturated with groundwater, the requirement to eliminate free liquids 
obligates the facility to take engineering measures to ensure that the 
groundwater, along with the other free liquids, has been permanently 
removed from the unit prior to installing the final cover system. See, 
40 CFR 257.102(d)(2)(i).'' Commenter states that the discussion 
continues on the same page with ``[a] further concern is that, given 
the failure to eliminate the free liquids from the saturated CCR 
underlying the consolidated unit, it is not at all clear that the 
remaining wastes have been stabilized sufficiently to support the final 
cover system, as required by Sec.  257.102(d)(2)(ii). Creating a stable 
working surface for earthwork equipment while the cover system is being 
installed is not the same as ensuring that the unit has been 
sufficiently dewatered prior to installation of the cover system and 
that

[[Page 48811]]

over the long term there will be no differential settlement of the CCR 
in the closed unit that would disrupt the integrity of the cover system 
and allow liquids to infiltrate into the closed unit. Neither the 
approved Closure Plan nor ADEM's permit provides any details of 
engineering measures that were taken to address the groundwater that 
continues to flow into and out of the unit from the sides and bottom. 
In the absence of such measures, EPA has no basis for concluding that 
the standard in Sec.  257.102(d)(2) has been met.''
    Commenter states that in many cases the Proposed Denial's 
discussion of the four permits involves the level of documentation 
necessary to demonstrate compliance with the closure performance 
standards. Commenter states it cannot address the necessary level of 
documentation; however, within the Proposed Denial's discussion, there 
appears to be an underlying assumption regarding the behavior of 
saturated CCR.
    Commenter states it has conducted considerable research on the 
geotechnical behavior of CCR that describes stability and drainage, and 
that a focus of research has been understanding CCR behavior using 
physical models and geotechnical centrifuges (3002001146; 3002006290; 
3002020566; Madabhushi, 2020; Madabhushi, 2022a; Madabhushi, 2022b; 
Madabhushi, 2022c; Madabhushi, 2023). Commenter states that 
geotechnical centrifuges enable the evaluation of geotechnical behavior 
of large structures such as slopes and embankments through testing of 
much smaller scale models in controlled laboratory settings (Schofield 
1980).
    Commenter states that its centrifuge modeling has shown that the 
behavior of saturated coal fly ash depends on its density. Commenter 
states that relatively dense ashes behave much differently than 
relatively loose ashes, and that the key distinction is the 
relationship between the ash deposit's density and the critical state 
line (the critical state line describes the relationship between volume 
ratio of inter-particle spaces and particles and the effective stress 
between particles where shearing of a particulate material may continue 
indefinitely without change in volume). Commenter states that 
dewatering influences fly ash behavior, both through the increased 
effective stress in the dewatered zone and through the densification of 
the entire deposit that results from increased effective stress.
    Commenter states that Figure 1 in their comment submittal shows the 
9-meter geotechnical centrifuge (left) and the test box being filled 
with coal fly ash slurry (right). In the front of the test box 
(foreground, right image) are two aluminum doors with actuators. 
Commenter states that opening the doors rapidly creates a loss of 
confinement for ash slurry deposit, enabling the study of runout 
behavior of CCR. Commenter states that when spinning at 60 g in the 
centrifuge, this model represents a prototype with an ash thickness of 
about 70 feet.
    Commenters states that the behavior of relatively dense coal fly 
ash in their centrifuge model experiments does not support a 
presumption that saturated CCR lacking engineering measures to reduce 
saturation will be unstable or jeopardize the integrity of a final 
cover system. Commenter states that to the extent that additional 
information beyond an engineer's certification is necessary to 
demonstrate compliance, they observe that in-situ density is an 
important parameter to consider in assessing stability of CCR deposits.
    Commenter states that centrifuge modeling also shows that partial 
dewatering of saturated CCR increases the density and stability of an 
initially loose ash deposit. Commenter states that Figure 3 illustrates 
the difference in behavior between saturated (water table at surface) 
and partially dewatered loose coal fly ash (water table at 59% of ash 
thickness). Commenter states that on the left, the saturated loose ash 
exhibited a more rapid liquid-like flow, and on the right the partially 
dewatered ash exhibited a slow, soil-like slumping.
    Commenter states that based on this experience from physical 
modeling, a presumption that partially dewatered CCR is unstable 
without further measures to eliminate saturation is not supported. 
Commenter states that it observes that in-situ densities and depth of 
dewatering are also parameters to consider in assessing stability of 
partially dewatered CCR deposits.
    Commenter states that centrifuge modeling and laboratory 
experiments show that the water within saturated CCR is not necessarily 
readily separable. Commenter states that Figure 4 shows a birds-eye 
(top) view of the runout at four times from loss of confinement (left) 
to 1 hour following loss of confinement (right). Commenter states that 
the runout at the fourth/last time was previously shown in oblique view 
in Figure 2 (left). Commenter states that water only becomes visible on 
the surface of the ash late in the runout process, and that the delay 
in the appearance of water on the ash surface is interpreted to be 
caused by negative pore pressures from shearing- induced dilation. That 
is, the loss of confinement produced shear forces within the ash 
deposit, and the interaction of ash particles under these shearing 
forces increased the volume of spaces between the ash particles, 
thereby reducing the pore pressure in the water filling the spaces. 
Commenter states that water appears on the surface only when the 
negative pore pressures are dissipated by the redistribution of water 
within the pores. Commenter states that because of the small pore sizes 
and low hydraulic conductivity of the fly ash, the redistribution of 
porewater and emergence on the surface of the fly ash took considerable 
time.
    Commenter states that the Paint Filter Liquids Test (PFLT) was 
developed by EPA to identify wastes containing free liquids for 
compliance with 40 CFR 264.314 and 265.314 (SW-846 Method 9095B) and 
involves observations over a period of 5 minutes following placement of 
a specimen in the test apparatus. Commenter states that during this 
time, the behavior of the specimen is influenced by its properties and, 
in the case of particulate solids such as CCR, the stress conditions 
resulting from its placement in the apparatus. Commenter states that a 
saturated CCR may not release water during the 5-minute PFLT due to the 
combination of CCR properties and stress conditions. Commenter states 
that Figure 5 illustrates the results of an ongoing, not-yet-published 
lab mixing study using CCR samples from two power plants. Commenter 
states that increments of water were added until each sample contained 
free liquids according to PFLT (released a drop of water within 5 
minutes). Commenter asserts that the geotechnical moisture content of 
each sample at the last increment before the CCR contained free 
liquids, as defined by PFLT, is reported in Figure 5. Commenter 
maintains that many samples in this study have high fines contents, 
which correlate with small pore sizes and low hydraulic conductivities 
and exhibited no free liquids at geotechnical moisture content in 
excess of 40%, and some as high as 70%. (Geotechnical moisture content 
is calculated as the mass of water divided by the mass of solids; 
saturation is calculated as water-filled pore volume divided by the 
total pore volume.) Commenter states that it did not measure the 
density or degree of saturation within the PFLT, but it stated that the 
highest moisture content values are similar to saturated conditions 
observed based on densities and moisture contents of intact samples 
collected at Site 1 and previous

[[Page 48812]]

characterization of ashes from Site 2 (TR-101999).
    Commenter states that based on its experience from centrifuge 
modeling and lab testing, a presumption that saturated CCR contains 
readily separable liquids, as determined by a PFLT, is not always 
supported. Commenter states that while degree of saturation, or 
moisture content, is important to free liquids determination, commenter 
observations suggest that CCR particle size distribution and in-situ 
density are also factors that influence the determination of readily 
separable liquids.
    Response: The commenter's response is focused primarily on case 
studies and past laboratory testing of CCR within a controlled 
environment and does not appear to simulate groundwater flowing through 
a CCR unit. As noted in the proposed decision, neither the approved 
Plant Gadsden Closure Plan nor ADEM's permit that the commenter 
referenced in their response provided any details of engineering 
measures that were taken to address the groundwater that continues to 
flow into and out of the unit from the sides and bottom. In the absence 
of such measures, EPA had no basis for concluding that the standard in 
Sec.  257.102(d)(2) had been met. EPA generally agrees with the 
commenter that PFLT is not the only and best tool for identifying 
readily separable liquids. It is only one of many tools, including such 
as cone penetrometers, piezometers, and monitoring wells, that can be 
used to detect readily separable liquids. Finally, the commenter notes 
that its findings are not absolute and that instead they depend on site 
conditions. As with many other issues, the permits do not show an 
analysis of the type described to support a conclusion that the 
stability of the cap is ensured or that measures were taken to limit 
the post closure flow of water into the units from the sides and 
bottom.
    Comment: Commenter states that EPA has refused to confront the 
consequences of its new interpretations by effectively removing any 
option but to close existing unlined cells by removal. Commenter states 
that the choice to close-in-place, clearly provided in 40 CFR part 257, 
is taken away because there is no practical design protocol that would 
allow a final cover system to address lateral movement of liquids at 
depth in an existing, unlined impoundment. Commenter asserts this can 
only be accomplished by retrofitting the cell, and that this was 
pointed out to EPA leadership in one of the conference calls where EPA 
first began to review ADEM CCR permits. Commenter states that EPA had 
no answers for what alternative options would be available for those 
impoundments closing with material below the known water table, and, in 
the absence of any guidance from EPA, the possible alternatives to 
closure-in-place are limited. Commenter asserts that retrofitting the 
cell would involve dewatering and removing the waste material and 
temporarily staging it while the liner system for the cell is 
constructed and that provisions would have to be made to protect the 
staged material from leaching and erosion. Commenter states that the 
facility would have the expense of the construction of the staging 
area, handling/moving the waste mass twice (first to remove the waste 
to the staging area, then to replace it in the newly-lined cell) and of 
constructing a liner system within the newly emptied cell in addition 
to the costs of the final cover system, post-closure maintenance, 
groundwater monitoring, and, if necessary, corrective action. Commenter 
states that EPA's own estimates put these costs at $734M to $7.240B (80 
FR 21459, Apr. 17, 2015), and that it is clear that retrofitting an 
existing cell is completely impractical.
    Commenter states that the second alternative would be the 
permitting and construction of a new disposal cell on or near the site. 
Commenter states this is certainly a possible option, provided there is 
available space for such construction, but this would involve siting, 
permitting, and constructing the new disposal unit (a process which in 
itself often requires five or more years to complete before the new 
cell can be certified complete to begin receiving wastes) at the 
facility, and the facility occupying double the amount of land for CCR 
management and double the cost and regulatory burdens. Commenter states 
that this option does not address the common public concern for the 
waste's proximity to nearby surface water bodies and it is presumed 
that EPA would be opposed to this option since it also proposes to deny 
Alabama's permitting authority for new CCR management units.
    Commenter maintains this leaves only one impractical option, the 
complete removal and offsite disposal of all residual material. 
Commenter states that other parties at the Public Hearing in Montgomery 
on September 20, 2023, raised the issue that truck transportation is 
not a viable transportation option due to the vast quantities of 
material to be moved, and the associated risks of highway 
transportation, leaving rail transport as the remaining option for most 
facilities. Commenter states that there is only one facility which has 
rail access currently permitted to manage CCR, the Arrowhead Landfill 
in Uniontown, Perry County, Alabama, and this landfill has been the 
subject of many environmental justice (EJ) concerns and a Title VI 
complaint, which EPA took 5 years to review and resolve. Commenter 
states that it is simply impractical to assume any other facility would 
be chosen for offsite disposal. Commenter states that the Arrowhead 
Landfill is owned by interests located primarily in New York and New 
Jersey, two States with some of the most stringent environmental 
justice requirements in the country. Commenter states that discussing 
the acquisition of the Arrowhead facility, Co-Founder & CEO William Gay 
stated, ``Our vision was to capitalize on the macro trends of declining 
disposal capacity and rising transportation and disposal costs in the 
Northeast and create a novel disposal solution for customers in the 
region.'' Commenter states that EPA and advocacy groups appear to seek 
to undermine their stated goals of protecting underserved and 
vulnerable communities from becoming the dumping ground for the waste 
disposal needs in more affluent areas. Commenters maintains that 
requiring the movement and re-disposal of vast amounts of CCR will only 
exacerbate this situation. Commenter asserts that it appears that the 
current EPA administration, and the environmental advocacy groups 
supporting this action, are intent on pushing wholesale CCR disposal to 
EJ area landfills, such as in Perry County, Alabama. Commenter states 
that Alabama's citizens, those who are the utility rate payers, and 
many of whom live in these underserved and vulnerable communities, will 
ultimately pay the enormous increased cost of this movement.
    Commenter states that EPA remains unprepared to face the harsh 
realities of its new interpretation of requiring re-disposal of the 
hundreds of millions of tons of CCR that would result from this new 
interpretation. Commenter states that Alabama landfills currently 
dispose of approximately 9 million tons per year of solid waste 
(municipal solid waste, industrial, construction/demolition), and 
estimated volumes of Alabama CCR alone amount to 12 to 13 times this 
annual volume of other solid waste and would quickly consume all of the 
currently available airspace in all of Alabama's currently permitted 
MSW landfills, leaving no room for meeting the routine MSW disposal 
needs of the State and its citizens.
    Commenter states that ADEM CCR permit program follows the letter 
and

[[Page 48813]]

spirit of EPA's CCR program, which was based on sound engineering and 
technological principles. Commenter states that EPA's program as 
originally designed, expressly permitted ``closing in place'' as a safe 
approach for permanently disposing of CCR, and EPA's program recognizes 
that the alternative to closing in place entails significant risks 
through excavating and transporting millions of tons of material across 
populated areas. Commenters states that it is its understanding that 
removing the material would entail a drawn-out process, requiring many 
years to complete and that it would lead to greatly increased costs 
which will negatively impact Alabama consumers.
    Commenter states that Alabama's CCR permit program reflects the 
same options for closure established by EPA and that ADEM has issued 
permits to Alabama Power approving plans to close its ash ponds using 
the closure-in-place method. Commenter states that if closure-in-place 
is not available, the only alternative is closure-by-removal, and 
Alabama Power estimates the costs of closure-in-place to be $3.5 
billion, which is estimated to be three to five times more costly than 
closure-in place. Commenter states this is due to, for example, the 
associated cost of excavation, transportation, and disposal in an 
offsite landfill compared to the costs of closure in place.
    Commenter states that not only are the costs associated with 
closure-by-removal significantly higher and more burdensome to Alabama 
citizens, but the timeframe to complete closure is also significantly 
greater. Commenter states that Alabama Power has already completed 
closure-in-place at one of its plants, with the remainder projected to 
be completed by 2032 or earlier. Commenter states that based on initial 
evaluations, closure-by-removal can take anywhere from 16 years to 54 
years, depending on the plant site, and that these initial evaluations 
assumed landfill sites within a reasonable proximity to each plant 
would be readily available. Commenter states this has proven not to be 
the case, which may further extend the time necessary to complete 
closure-by-removal.
    Commenter states that it understands that no party has identified 
discernible impacts to any source of drinking water in Alabama 
attributable to closure of its unlined ash ponds. Commenter maintains 
that under these circumstances, closure-in-place appears to be an 
appropriate means to protect the health and safety of the public. 
Commenter states that it has grave concerns regarding the impact to 
customers if Alabama Power is required to incur significant additional 
costs associated with closure by removal costs that do not appear 
necessary to accomplish reasonable environmental objectives. Commenter 
urges EPA to carefully consider these impacts before issuing a final 
determination regarding ADEM's CCR program because Alabama ratepayers 
should not be unduly burdened by policy changes that are not absolutely 
necessary.
    Response: The commenter has misunderstood EPA's construction of the 
regulations. As EPA has repeatedly stated, whether any particular unit 
can meet the closure in-place standards is a fact and site-specific 
determination that will depend on a number of considerations, such as 
the hydrogeology of the site, the engineering of the unit, and the 
kinds of engineering measures implemented at the unit. See Gavin RTC 
page 69 and 103 (discussing closure requirements of Federal CCR 
regulations). Accordingly, the fact that prior to closure the base of a 
unit intersects with groundwater does not mean that the unit may not 
ultimately be able to meet the performance standards for closure with 
waste in place. In other words, EPA is not mandating that a unit 
submerged in groundwater prior to closure must necessarily close by 
removal. Depending on the site conditions the facility may be able to 
meet the performance standards in Sec.  257.102(d) by demonstrating 
that a combination of engineering measures and site-specific 
circumstances will ensure that, after closure of the unit has been 
completed, the groundwater would no longer remain in contact with the 
waste in the closed unit. Since as early as 1982, feasible engineering 
methods have been available to control, minimize or eliminate the 
continuous infiltration of groundwater or release of contaminants from 
surface impoundments. No commenter claimed that those method are 
unavailable to control CCR surface impoundments. Closure of Hazardous 
Waste Surface Impoundments, SW-873, p 81. Also, potential options that 
weren't mentioned in this comment include construction of in-situ 
impermeable barrier systems, CCR consolidation within portions of the 
unit that are out of the water table or CCR recycling. But if a 
facility cannot meet the performance standards in Sec.  257.102(d), the 
facility must close by the only other method allowed under the 
regulations: closure by removal under Sec.  257.102(c). See 40 CFR 
257.102(a). And if a facility that has waste in contact with 
groundwater has installed only a cover system and taken no measures to 
address the continued infiltration of groundwater or the continued 
releases of leachate to the groundwater, or the CCR that EPA estimates 
could still be saturated--and would remain so indefinitely--has not met 
the performance standards for closure with waste in place. The lack of 
consideration of these factors in the permit records to support the 
final ADEM permits supports EPA's determination that Alabama's CCR 
permit program is not as protective as the Federal CCR regulations.
    Concerning alternative waste disposal options, EPA recognizes that 
it may be difficult to find disposal sites but that does not relieve a 
facility from complying with Federal CCR regulations. Further, the 
commenters have not explained why they cannot address the short-term 
risks associated with removal of CCR to an alternative properly 
protective landfill. In addition, as noted in response to other 
comments, the Federal CCR regulations requirements for closure and 
corrective action are not premised on identifying a specific risk 
before compliance is required.

C. Miscellaneous Comments

1. EPA Should Update 2017 Guidance Document
    Comment: Commenters state that EPA's 2017 Guidance Document is the 
only formal written guidance provided to States on the requirements for 
developing and submitting a State CCR Permit Program to EPA. Commenters 
state that Chapter 2 item 1 of the 2017 Guidance Document states that 
EPA is using 40 CFR part 239 as a guide for what a State submission 
should include: (a) A transmittal letter, signed by the State Director, 
requesting program approval; (b) A narrative description of the State 
permit program; (c) A legal certification; (d) Copies of all applicable 
State statutes, regulations, and guidance; and (e) A completed part 257 
Checklist. The commenter states that there is no requirement in the 
2017 Guidance Document to include State-issued permits in their CCR 
permit program application. For this reason, the commenters encourage 
EPA to either update the 2017 Guidance Document to include EPA's new 
interpretation of what is required or to review State permit program 
applications in accordance with the 2017 Guidance Document.
    Response: See response to comment in Unit III.A.3 above explaining 
why the scope of the Guidance Document does not change EPA's 
responsibility to consider all relevant and reasonably

[[Page 48814]]

available information when determining whether to approve a State CCR 
permit program.
2. EPA Should Act on State CCR Permit Program Applications in a Timely 
Manner
    Comment: Commenters argue that EPA must act on State CCR permit 
program applications in a timely manner. Commenters state that the WIIN 
Act requires EPA to approve a State CCR permit program application 
meeting the requisite criteria within 180 days of submission. 
Commenters state that EPA did not act in a timely manner and did not 
propose to deny ADEM's application for more than 18 months after 
submission. Commenter maintain that as more States submit CCR permit 
program applications, it is critical that EPA act on such applications 
within the statutory timeframe. Commenters state that Congress intended 
for States to be able to operate EPA-approved CCR permit programs in 
lieu of Federal regulation and that EPA's failure to act on State 
applications frustrates congressional intent and undermines the 
principle of cooperative federalism that underlies RCRA.
    Commenters state that EPA cannot delay acting on State CCR permit 
program applications by indefinitely delaying a completeness 
determination, or by conflating substantive review with the 
completeness determination. Commenters state that in this case, EPA 
received a final, complete application on December 29, 2021, and should 
have acted within 180 days of that submission. Commenters state that 
upon receipt of a complete application, the Agency should promptly 
issue an official completeness determination, triggering the 180-day 
timeline. Commenters state that in the three prior CCR permit program 
decisions, EPA issued a formal letter to applicants notifying them that 
their application was complete. Commenters state that EPA did not do so 
for ADEM and, instead, first noted that the application was deemed 
complete in a legal filing five months after EPA allegedly made the 
completeness determination.
    Commenters state that under RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(B), EPA must 
approve a State permit program, within 180 days after a State submits 
an application to the Administrator for approval, if the Administrator 
determines that the State program meets certain statutory requirements 
and public notice and opportunity to comment is provided prior to 
approval. Commenters state that EPA did not follow this timeline for 
Alabama's State CCR permit application. Commenters state that on 
December 29, 2021, ADEM submitted its revised State permit program 
application to EPA Region 4 for approval, on July 7, 2022, EPA put 
ADEM's application on hold, claiming that it had not demonstrated that 
it was implementing the program consistent with the Federal CCR 
regulations, and on Apr. 3, 2023, the State of Alabama and ADEM filed a 
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 
seeking to compel EPA to determine whether its permitting program met 
the statutory standards. Commenters state that EPA issued the 
preliminary denial of ADEM's CCR permit program 593 days after 
receiving the revised application. Commenters maintain that EPA's slow 
pace of review will impact other States who are currently seeking or 
plan on seeking approval of their own State CCR permit programs.
    Commenters argue that EPA's delay is particularly concerning in 
light of the Agency's basis for denial. Commenters maintain a State's 
implementation of their CCR permit program is beyond the scope of EPA's 
initial review of the program and is appropriately left for EPA's 
program review, which specifically addresses implementation of the 
State's approved program. According to commenters EPA delayed acting on 
Alabama's application and now is proposing to deny the application 
based not on the text of Alabama's regulations but on Alabama's 
issuance of permits pursuant to those regulations. Commenters maintain 
that such a posture sets EPA up to effectively delay acting on a 
complete application until the Agency can evaluate how the State 
implemented its regulations, i.e., by waiting until the State issues a 
CCR permit. Commenters argue that EPA cannot withhold a completeness 
determination or a final decision to evaluate a State's implementation 
of their regulations.
    Commenters further argue that basing a CCR permit program decision 
on implementation may disincentivize States from implementing their own 
CCR program as the WIIN Act intended. Commenters maintain that States 
seeking approval of a CCR permit program may wish to begin developing 
and issuing CCR permits while EPA reviews their application, 
particularly if EPA's review process is prolonged. Commenters argue 
that a CCR permit program denial based on permits issued and 
differences of professional judgment on highly detailed technical 
matters rather than the clear text of the regulations may cause States 
to delay implementing their program until receiving a decision from 
EPA, which, as evidenced here, may take years.
    Commenters state that they are concerned about the slow pace of 
this review. Commenters note that EPA has completed its review and 
approval of only three State permit programs and that several more 
States have submitted applications for WIIN Act approval or have been 
working with EPA to do so. Commenters encourage EPA to review and act 
on State applications in a timely and efficient manner, and in 
accordance with the WIIN Act, so that the benefits of such programs 
(e.g., removal of dual and potentially inconsistent regulatory regimes 
and addition of regulatory certainty) can be realized as soon as 
possible.
    Response: The WIIN Act provides that the Administrator must make a 
final determination, after providing for public notice and an 
opportunity for public comment, within 180 days of determining that the 
State has submitted a complete application consistent with RCRA section 
4005(d)(1)(A). See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Guidance 
Document (providing that the 180-day deadline does not start until EPA 
determines the application is complete). In the case of Alabama, On 
February 1, 2023, EPA responded to ADEM's Notice of Intent to Sue 
letter and informed the State that the 180-day timeframe does not start 
until EPA determines that a State's Application is administratively 
complete and that, in this case, EPA did not start the clock because 
EPA's concerns with ADEM's interpretation of the minimum requirements 
of the Federal CCR regulations had yet to be resolved and EPA was 
providing an opportunity for ADEM to submit further Application 
information. EPA further stated that the Agency could evaluate the 
State's program on the current record if ADEM decided not to supplement 
its Application with an explanation of how the State's interpretation 
of its regulations is at least as protective as the Federal CCR 
regulations, but EPA expressed concern that the current record would 
not support a proposal to approve the State's partial CCR permit 
program. On February 17, 2023, ADEM responded to EPA that it did not 
intend to supplement the record and that EPA should evaluate its 
program accordingly. EPA thereafter continued to review the Application 
based on the information submitted to date.
    EPA also disagrees that the potential that States will delay 
implementing State programs means that EPA should ignore what appear to 
be industry wide issues with implementing the closure standards for 
unlined surface

[[Page 48815]]

impoundments, groundwater monitoring networks, and corrective action. 
Despite commenters assertions to the contrary, once EPA approves a 
State program the State permits apply in lieu of direct application of 
the Federal CCR regulations. Further, State permits do not only list 
provisions of the State CCR permit program as several commenters imply. 
Instead, the permits also apply those regulatory provisions and explain 
what exactly a facility has to do to comply with the relevant provision 
and the permits provide a shield that says as long as the facility 
meets the provisions of the permit then the facility is in compliance 
with the both the State and Federal standards. Thus, a permit from an 
approved State that allows compliance with requirements less protective 
than the Federal standards with respect to closure, groundwater 
monitoring, and corrective action will protect a facility from having 
to comply with the minimum level of protection.
    Finally, EPA recognizes concerns of commenters about the pace of 
approval of State programs, but EPA must act consistent with the 
statutory mandate when evaluating State program applications. For this 
reason, EPA intends to continue to consider State permits as part of 
initial and periodic program reviews and the Agency is currently 
working with States to ensure their programs are approvable before EPA 
makes a completeness determination.
3. Considerations Regarding Qualified Professional Engineers
    Comment: Commenters state that EPA has not identified any clear 
inconsistencies with the Federal CCR regulations and instead that all 
of EPA's assertions concern the State's technical judgment that the 
groundwater systems and measures put in place at each site meet the 
relevant regulatory performance standard. Commenters assert EPA must 
defer to this judgment. Commenters state that the Federal CCR 
regulations establish general performance standards for both the design 
of the groundwater monitoring system and any required corrective action 
when groundwater contamination above certain levels is identified and 
that when issuing the Federal regulations in 2015, that EPA 
specifically developed a groundwater monitoring program that ``is 
flexible and allows facilities to design a system that accounts for 
site specific conditions.'' 80 FR 21398. Commenters state that the 
rule's groundwater corrective action provisions set forth numerous 
factors that must be considered when developing a corrective action 
remedy, allowing facilities to take into account site specific 
conditions when determining the best approach for remediating 
groundwater. Id. at 80 FR 21406-21407.
    Commenters maintain that under the self-implementing rule, P.E.s 
and facility personnel most familiar with the site are responsible for 
ensuring compliance with the rule's groundwater monitoring and 
corrective action performance standard. Under a State CCR program, the 
State agency fills this role. See 83 FR 36435, 36447 (July 30, 2018). 
Commenters state that ADEM has reviewed the plans and that EPA calls 
into question the technical judgement of ADEM staff. Commenters 
maintain that second-guessing of ADEM's expertise in implementing its 
State CCR permit program is both inappropriate and inconsistent with 
the WIIN Act's directive that States serve as the primary mechanism for 
implementing the Federal CCR regulations.
    Response: EPA does not agree that Agency is prohibited from 
evaluating decisions made by ADEM in permits issued prior to program 
approval. EPA also disagrees that the fact that ADEM employs qualified 
professional engineers (P.E.s) means that EPA cannot find that an 
issued permit fails to require compliance with applicable requirements 
of subpart D. The commenters are also incorrect that EPA should defer 
to the P.E.s at ADEM regarding whether proposed compliance approaches 
in the permit applications achieve compliance with subpart D, because 
even if ADEM staff are more familiar with the facilities, that does not 
render EPA incapable of an independent evaluation of the permit and 
supporting record.
    While it is true that the WIIN Act provides that compliance with a 
permit issued by an approved State program (or by EPA in a Federal 
permit program) serves as compliance with subpart D, there is no such 
provision for State programs which have not been approved by EPA to 
operate in lieu of the Federal program under section 6945(d)(1). Prior 
to approval of a State program, the State agency is not the primary 
authority to implement subpart D, and CCR units in that State are 
required to comply with all applicable provisions of subpart D. In the 
Proposed Denial, EPA identified numerous examples of permit terms that 
failed to require compliance with subpart D, in numerous CCR permits 
issued by ADEM.
    EPA agrees that the preamble to the 2015 CCR regulations discusses 
flexibilities to allow facilities to take into account site-specific 
conditions when developing groundwater monitoring and corrective action 
compliance strategies. However, the commenters err when they imply 
flexibility means that the discretion to consider site specific 
conditions when establishing groundwater monitoring (Sec. Sec.  257.90 
through 257.95) and corrective action (Sec.  257.97(b)) plans means 
that those plans once established and ``stamped'' by a P.E. become 
immune to evaluation, or that such plans inherently comply with the 
standards set forth in the regulations. The performance standards are 
requirements that must be met at any CCR unit, regardless of site-
specific circumstances, and if EPA has concerns with compliance, RCRA 
authorizes it to take action to ensure compliance. EPA cannot ignore a 
permit's failure to require compliance with performance standards 
simply because it was reviewed or written by a P.E. The 2015 CCR Rule 
preamble made this intent clear, in response to commenters concerned 
that the proposed regulations would rely too heavily upon the judgment 
of P.E. to determine whether performance standards were achieved. See 
80 FR 21335, April 17, 2015.
    The final rule relies on multiple mechanisms to ensure that the 
regulated community properly implements requirements in this rule. As 
one part of this multi-mechanism approach, owners or operators must 
obtain certifications by qualified individuals verifying that the 
technical provisions of the rule have been properly applied and met. 
However, regardless of certification, the performance standards that 
the rules lay out must be met. These standards impose specific 
technical requirements. The certifications required by the rule 
supplement these technical requirements, and while they are important, 
they are not the sole mechanism ensuring regulatory compliance. 80 FR 
21335, April 17, 2015. The commenters cite to no RCRA or other 
authority to support the contention that the findings of a P.E. are 
binding. See also Gavin Final Decision pages 91-93.
    Comment: Commenters state that in the Proposed Denial EPA makes 
only one reference to P.E.s, and then only for the purpose of noting 
that ADEM was not seeking approval for the provision allowing States to 
issue certifications in lieu of requiring a P.E. certification. 
Commenters maintain that, as a result, under the Alabama program and 
the Federal program, P.E.s are responsible for certifying compliance 
with the relevant standards for closure, groundwater monitoring and 
corrective

[[Page 48816]]

action. Commenters maintain that the Proposed Denial fails to address 
the role of the P.E. in certifying compliance and that EPA makes zero 
reference to such certifications.
    Commenters state that EPA's own regulations underscore the 
importance of the P.E. role in certifying compliance, based on their 
specialized training and technical knowledge. Commenters state that in 
the 2015 CCR Rule, EPA explained ``that [P.E.s], whether independent or 
employees of a facility, being professionals, will uphold the integrity 
of their profession and only certify documents that meet the prescribed 
regulatory requirements; and that the integrity of both the 
professional engineer and the professional oversight boards licensing 
professional engineers are sufficient to prevent any abuses.'' 
Commenters state that EPA justified reliance on P.E. certifications and 
that the Agency stated that it ``re-evaluated the performance standards 
throughout the final [2015] rule to ensure that the requirements are 
sufficiently objective and technically precise that a qualified 
professional engineer will be able to certify that they have been 
met.''
    Commenters maintain that EPA cannot simply dismiss this regulatory 
approach in favor of EPA using its own unilateral judgment as to 
whether P.E.-certified compliance documents in fact meet the regulatory 
performance standards. Commenters further argue that EPA certainly 
cannot fault ADEM for accepting such certifications, especially when 
ADEM is not seeking approval to displace the P.E. role.
    Commenters state that the opportunity for an approved State to take 
on the P.E. role arises out of EPA's Phase One, Part One rule (83 FR 
36435, July 30, 2018), which EPA adopted, at least in part, to 
implement the WIIN Act. In that rule, EPA explained that the original 
2015 rule ``required numerous technical demonstrations made by the 
owner or operator be certified by a [P.E.] in order to provide 
verification of the facility's technical judgments and to otherwise 
ensure that the provisions of the rule were properly applied.'' EPA 
went on to note that ``the availability of meaningful third-party 
verification provided critical support that the rule would achieve the 
statutory standard, as it would provide a degree of control over a 
facility's discretion in implementing the rule.'' Commenters assert 
that EPA then explained that the situation had changed with the passage 
of the WIIN Act, which provided the opportunity for State oversight 
under an approved permit program, and that EPA added the provision 
allowing States to seek approval to certify that the regulatory 
criteria have been met in lieu of the exclusive reliance on a P.E. 
Commenters maintain that, in so doing, EPA noted that States retained 
discretion to choose whether to provide their own certifications, or 
alternatively, to continue to rely solely on certifications from P.E.s 
(i.e., the status quo based on current regulations). Commenters 
maintain that ADEM's regulations include provisions that mirror EPA's 
as to the role of the P.E. in certifying compliance with the rule's 
technical requirements, consistent with both the original 2015 and 
currently applicable Federal rules.
    Commenters further states that EPA claims that during its review of 
ADEM's application, the Agency ``identified a consistent pattern of 
ADEM approving documents submitted by the facilities, such as closure 
plans, groundwater monitoring plans, and assessments of corrective 
measures, even though the submissions lacked critical information or 
are otherwise deficient.'' Commenters state that noticeably absent from 
EPA's position is any reference to the P.E. certifications associated 
with each and every one of those documents, the P.E.'s professional 
obligation to ``only certify documents that meet the prescribed 
regulatory requirements,'' or the role that EPA defined for P.E.s to 
``provide verification of the facility's technical judgments and to 
otherwise ensure that the provisions of the rule were properly 
applied.'' Commenters argue that EPA cannot lawfully overlook, ignore, 
or reject certifications from P.E.s that EPA itself has prescribed for 
purposes of regulatory compliance.
    Commenters further argue that if EPA has concerns, based on its new 
interpretations, with how P.E.s are reviewing and certifying closure 
plans, groundwater monitoring networks or corrective action documents 
in any particular State or for any particular facility or unit, then 
EPA must first provide additional direction to States, the regulated 
community, and engineering community on what is expected or required. 
Commenters state that this is especially important in the context of 
EPA's new interpretations of the closure in place performance standards 
because EPA has not provided clear technical direction or guidance on 
the ``engineering measures'' that EPA believes must be implemented to 
address groundwater.
    Commenters conclude that EPA must at a minimum recognize the 
critical role that EPA devised for P.E.s in the Federal CCR regulations 
and the importance of clear technical direction and guidance on meeting 
the regulatory performance standards so that P.E.s can properly certify 
compliance with those standards. Commenters state that asserting 
concerns with P.E.-certified plans here without proper direction or any 
reference to the P.E. role is misplaced, especially in the context of a 
State permit program submittal.
    Response: EPA acknowledges that P.E.s play a role under the CCR 
regulations and that the regulations are self-implementing. EPA also 
agrees that the Agency did not address the role of the P.E. in 
certifying compliance in the Proposed Denial, but the Agency disagrees 
that there was a need to mention P.E. certifications in the Proposed 
Denial. P.E.s are not regulators and do not substitute for the 
oversight provided by a State or Federal government agency inherent in 
its implementation of a regulatory program on behalf of the public. 
Further, EPA did not base its denial on the role of P.E.s so there was 
no need to evaluate the certifications to determine whether the permits 
are in compliance with the Federal CCR regulations. The EPA has the 
expertise necessary to independently evaluate compliance with the 
Federal CCR regulations.
    The commenter cites provisions in a 2018 Phase One Part One 
rulemaking (83 FR 36435, July 30, 2018), which was involved in 
litigation that was resolved through a voluntary remand. (See 
Waterkeeper Alliance Inc. v. EPA, No. 18-1289 (D.C. Cir. 2019) However, 
even if the provisions were still legally valid, the commenter 
misconstrues the intent of the cited provisions of that rulemaking. 
Those provisions were intended to provide a State an approach that did 
not require P.E. certifications because, since the State would be 
issuing permits, it would be evaluating all the strategies and plans in 
the compliance documents through its permitting process. However, a 
P.E. certification cannot replace review and approval or denial by a 
permitting authority. The preamble in the 2010 proposed CCR regulations 
clearly distinguishes P.E.s from regulators. That preamble at 75 FR 
35194 stated that EPA recognized that relying upon third party 
certifications is not the same as relying upon the state regulatory 
authority and would most likely not provide the same level of 
``independence.''
    EPA does not agree with the commenters' assertion that EPA cannot 
lawfully overlook, ignore, or reject certifications from P.E.s that EPA 
itself has prescribed. EPA's incorporation of certifications by P.E.s 
into the CCR regulations for specified requirements did not create a 
shield against

[[Page 48817]]

noncompliance determinations for regulated facilities if they comply 
with the P.E. requirement but still fail to comply with the performance 
standards. Instead, the regulations allow regulatory authorities to 
review P.E. certifications and performance standards may be enforced 
regardless of P.E. certifications. In any case, the commenters have not 
explained how, legally, EPA could through regulations shield facilities 
from noncompliance if they obtain a certification from a P.E., thereby 
prejudging compliance for all facilities based on an evaluation by 
contractors hired by a regulated facility.
    If performance standards cannot be enforced if a facility obtains a 
P.E. certification, there would be no reason to require posting on a 
publicly accessible website of the majority of compliance data which 
underly the certifications. Public posting of this information is 
required. In the preamble to the 2015 regulations, EPA stated that 
making this information available to other parties (e.g., State 
agencies and citizens) was another mechanism to ensure technical 
performance standards established in the regulations would be achieved. 
``EPA has developed a number of provisions designed to facilitate 
citizens to enforce the rule pursuant to RCRA section 7002. Chief among 
these provisions is the requirement to publicly post monitoring data, 
along with critical documentation of facility operations, so that the 
public will have access to the information to monitor activities at CCR 
disposal facilities.'' 80 FR 21335, April 17, 2015. This is also 
consistent with requirements in the Part A Rule to submit in the 
Demonstration documents other than P.E. certifications to demonstrate 
compliance, even for performance standards for which a P.E. 
certification is required (e.g., design of a groundwater monitoring 
system). 40 CFR 257.103(f)(1)(iv)(A).
    The commenters also state that any concerns with P.E. 
certifications in any particular State or for any particular facility 
or unit must first be addressed by issuing additional direction to 
States, the regulated community, and engineering community on what is 
required. Commenters do not provide any regulatory or statutory support 
for their assertion. See also Gavin Final Decision pages 91-93.
    Comment: Commenters state that the 2015 CCR Rule was promulgated by 
EPA as self-implementing consistent with RCRA's statutory framework at 
that time, meaning that the standards and criteria were to be 
implemented without interaction with regulatory officials. See 80 FR 
21302, 21330, April 17, 2015. Commenters further state that the 
regulations set forth standards that are ``sufficiently objective and 
technically precise'' so that regulated parties and their P.E.s can 
implement the standards. See id. at 80 FR 21335. Commenters state that 
EPA used terminology and standards that had been applied in long-
standing solid and hazardous waste programs established under RCRA. 
Commenters state that TVA followed the CCR regulations requirements as 
evidenced in part by the P.E. certifications posted on TVA's CCR Rule 
Compliance Data and Information website.\27\ Commenters assert that the 
P.E.s are experts with experience in long-established practices for 
closing waste units and groundwater remediation that have been deemed 
protective over the course of RCRA's history, and that TVA has relied 
on third-party professional engineers with extensive site knowledge and 
on site-specific scientific data, analysis, and professional judgment 
to support its CCR Rule P.E. certifications and permit application to 
ADEM and to ensure that its plans and designs are protective of human 
health and the environment. Commenters state that with the oversight of 
ADEM's permitting program, this has added the expertise of regulatory 
professionals with experience implementing RCRA permit programs in 
Alabama. Commenters further state that ADEM has actively engaged in 
providing oversight of Ash Disposal Area 4 investigations by providing 
detailed technical review of TVA's characterization of the site to 
independently verify the effectiveness of potential remedies. 
Commenters believe that working with ADEM will result in the most 
appropriate approach for the community and the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ https://www.tva.com/environment/environmental-stewardship/coal-combustion-residuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: EPA acknowledges that P.E.s have experience with long-
established waste management practices over the course of RCRA's 
history and that ADEM can bring additional expertise to evaluation of 
CCR facilities. None of this takes away from EPA's own authority to 
evaluate CCR permits and State permit programs, and, even if ADEM's 
analysis was detailed and technical, the level of effort itself does 
not ensure that a permit is in compliance with Federal CCR regulations. 
See also Gavin Final Decision pages 91-93.
    In addition, EPA's analysis and review of particular compliance 
documents approved in permits, in order to assess the protectiveness of 
the permitting program, was not directed toward any particular person 
who may have been involved in development of a permit, but instead to 
determine whether the Alabama CCR permit program ensures that each CCR 
unit complies with the minimum level of control. To do this, EPA 
analyzed and reviewed the site-specific facts and information included 
in the permit record, the requirements of subpart D and the Federal CCR 
regulations, and other relevant publicly available information EPA 
found during review of the permits. EPA disagrees that this approach is 
inappropriate or illegal and the comments did not provide any statutory 
or regulatory support that would prevent EPA from conducting such an 
analysis. Further, despite comments to the contrary, EPA cannot approve 
a State program when the Agency concludes the program is not as 
protective as the Federal program, per the requirements of RCRA section 
4005(d).
4. EPA Should Provide Partial Approval for Alabama's CCR Permit Program
    Comment: Commenters state that throughout the Proposed Denial EPA 
refers to the fact that Alabama is seeking partial not full program 
approval. Commenters maintain that states are forced to seek partial, 
instead of full, program approval because EPA has not determined: (1) 
Requirements for legacy CCR surface impoundments, to replace the 
vacated regulation 40 CFR 257.50(e); (2) Requirements for vegetative 
cover for slope stability, to replace the vacated regulations 40 CFR 
257.73(a)(4) and (d)(l)(iv), 257.74(a)(4) and (d)(l)(iv); (3) 
Requirements for suspending groundwater monitoring, to replace the 
vacated regulation 40 CFR 257.90(g), and; (4) Requirements for 
treatment standards for constituents in Appendix IV having no maximum 
contaminant levels (MCLs), for which States must wait for EPA to act on 
the vacated regulation 40 CFR 257.95(h)(2). Commenter recommends EPA 
revise the language stating that Alabama is seeking partial, not full, 
program approval and make a statement clarifying that, at this time, no 
State can request full program approval because EPA has not acted on 
the above listed regulations.
    Response: Alabama is in fact seeking approval of a partial State 
CCR permit program. The Agency will allow States to update their 
programs as additional requirements are promulgated.
5. Other Miscellaneous Comments Opposed to the Proposed Denial
    Comment: Commenters cite comments on the January 2022

[[Page 48818]]

proposed CCR Part A demonstration decisions asserting that EPA's 
positions on the closure performance standards are inconsistent with 
the plain text of the Federal CCR regulations. Commenters maintain that 
the CCR regulations does not require facilities to address contact 
between CCR and groundwater as part of the closure performance 
standards under 40 CFR 257.102(d). Commenters further maintain that the 
CCR regulations requires ``[f]ree liquids [to] be eliminated by 
removing liquid wastes or solidifying the remaining wastes and waste 
residues.'' Commenters further argue that the Federal CCR regulations 
provides a specific technical definition of ``free liquids,'' which 
does not include ``groundwater'' (a separately defined technical term).
    Commenters assert that EPA's positions on the closure requirements 
at 40 CFR 257.102(d) were first put forth in site-specific 
determinations issued in January 2022. Commenters state that in the 
proposed Part A decisions EPA established new positions on ``free 
liquids'' and ``infiltration'' that the commenter asserts are 
inconsistent with the plain text of the CCR regulations and 
retroactively broaden the scope of the CCR regulations without proper 
notice and comment. Commenter state that EPA's January 2022 decisions, 
and the new positions contained therein, were challenged in Electric 
Energy v. EPA I, and the litigation remains ongoing. The commenter 
further asserts that the Gavin Denial--which was based in part on EPA's 
new positions--is also subject to legal challenge. Commenters state 
that EPA references the Gavin Denial several times in the Proposed 
Decision--without a single reference to the pending litigation--in 
support of the Agency's position that a CCR unit cannot be closed with 
CCR in contact with groundwater.
    Response: As commenters note, EPA cited the pending litigation in 
the Proposed Denial. To the extent the comments imply the need to cite 
to or discuss the litigation more, the Agency disagrees.
6. Other Miscellaneous Comments in Support of the Proposed Denial
    Comment: Commenter states that ADEM has already violated the 
Federal CCR regulations by issuing permits to CCR facilities that 
simply cap in place the CCR disposals in existing unlined ponds and 
lagoons. Commenter states that, in many locations and scenarios, these 
CCR storage facilities also violate the Clean Water Act and that the 
risk of groundwater contamination is very real--not a hypothetical. 
Commenter notes the following: in 2019, Alabama Power was fined 
$250,000 by ADEM for CCR disposal violations in the Gadsden area. 
Groundwater tests around the Plant Gadsden CCR pond near the Coosa 
River revealed ``elevated levels of arsenic at two locations and one 
incidence of elevated radium.'' The previous year, ADEM fined Alabama 
Power $1 million ($250,000 per location) for groundwater contamination 
at five of its facilities due to CCR pond leakage. PowerSouth, another 
Alabama utility, was fined $250,000 for CCR pond leakage at its Charles 
R. Lowman Power Plant in Leroy, Alabama.
    Response: EPA agrees that Alabama's CCR permits are not as 
protective as the Federal CCR regulations and the Agency is taking 
final action to deny Alabama's CCR permit program application. Comments 
on compliance with Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements are out of scope 
and are not further addressed.

D. Out of Scope Comments

1. Comments on Additional ADEM CCR Permits
    Comment: Commenters state that, at Plant Barry, ADEM has authorized 
a cap in place closure that will leave millions of tons of CCR 
saturated in water in an unlined pit on the banks of the Mobile River, 
and that will waste untold millions of dollars on a harmful and 
unlawful cap in place closure. Commenters state that, according to 
EPA's estimates, of the 21.7 million tons of CCR in the Plant Barry 
impoundment, over 8 million tons of CCR are currently saturated in 
water while Alabama Power has begun implementing its cap in place 
closure, and over 5 million tons will be saturated in water when 
capping is complete. Commenters maintain that Alabama Power admits that 
it has begun implementing its cap in place closure with over 8 million 
tons of CCR saturated in water and admits that it will leave almost 1.1 
million tons of CCR saturated in water. Commenters state that Alabama 
Power describes this huge amount of saturated CCR as ``less than 5% of 
the total volume,'' but that attempt to minimize the problem merely 
highlights the massive total amount of CCR in the Plant Barry 
impoundment: five percent of 21.7 million tons is approximately 1.1 
million tons. A more relevant comparison is that this amount of 
saturated ash is approximately the same as all the CCR contained in the 
Plant Gadsden unlined CCR impoundment. Commenters note that over 1 
million tons of water-saturated CCR is a very serious environmental 
problem and a blatant violation of the CCR regulations performance 
standards. Commenters state that the true amount of saturated ash post-
closure is much more.
    Commenters state that ADEM's failure to prevent this result further 
demonstrates the inadequacy of its permitting program. Commenter states 
that ADEM initially shared some of these same concerns. Specifically, 
commenters state that the ADEM criticized Alabama Power's Corrective 
Measures Assessments, stating that they ``do not meet the level of 
detail required in the regulations.'' ADEM further stated that, under 
Alabama Power's plans, ``source control will not be achieved for an 
average of 10 years and that no other mechanism is proposed to reduce 
the potential for further releases to the `maximum extent feasible.' '' 
Indeed, even Alabama Power admits the uncertainty of achieving GWPS, 
stating in its plan, ``[t]ime for [monitored natural attenuation] to 
achieve GWPS is currently unknown and would require additional 
studies.'' Commenters state that ADEM still approved the plan 
notwithstanding Alabama Power's stated uncertainty about the efficacy 
of its closure plan. Commenters state that this abrupt about face 
confirms ADEM's inability to stand up to utilities and enforce the CCR 
Rule's requirements.
    Commenters also discussed final CCR permits for Alabama Power's 
Plants Gaston and Miller and PowerSouth's Plant Lowman. Commenters 
state that combined, these facilities house approximately 48 million 
cubic yards of CCR. The Plant Gaston 270-acre ash pond contains almost 
25 million cubic yards of CCR on the banks of the Coosa River, and its 
smaller gypsum pond contains 500,000 cubic yards of ash. Attachment 1 
at 3-4.\28\ The Plant Miller ash pond was constructed by damming 
tributaries that flowed into the Locust Fork of the Black Warrior 
River, and it contains approximately 19.5 million cubic yards of CCR. 
Id. at 5. The Plant Lowman ash pond complex is located along a 
significant bend in the Tombigbee River and is surrounded by wetlands. 
Commenters state that the three ponds at Plant Lowman contain 
approximately 2.5 million cubic yards of CCR, and that there is ongoing 
groundwater contamination at each of these facilities, as confirmed by 
ADEM Administrative Orders issued to each facility in 2018 for MCL 
exceedances. Commenters state that groundwater monitoring at the Plant 
Gaston ash pond found MCL exceedances for arsenic, lead, and combined 
radium. In addition, recent groundwater monitoring reports

[[Page 48819]]

have also shown significant groundwater contamination. For example, 
Alabama Power's 2019 Groundwater Monitoring Report for Plant Miller 
reported ``statistically significant changes to groundwater quality by 
ash-related parameters, including: Arsenic, Boron, Calcium, Chloride, 
Cobalt, Fluoride, Lithium, Sulfate, TDS and pH in wells located 
downgradient of the ash pond.'' Attachment 1 at 6. Commenters maintain 
that the utilities' own data on ash pond depth and groundwater depth 
show that the ash is saturated in groundwater. At Plant Gaston, more 
than 30 feet of saturated CCR exist in some areas of the ash pond. Id. 
at 4. At Plant Miller, 75 to 80 feet of CCR will be left below the 
current groundwater table in some portions of the impounded ash pond 
after closure. Id. at 6. And at Plant Lowman, ``the closure plan is 
estimated to leave 4 to 9-feet of CCR waste submerged in groundwater.'' 
Id. at 2. Commenters assert that, despite the documented saturated ash 
and groundwater contamination at each of these sites, ADEM's final 
permits authorize Alabama Power and PowerSouth to close the ash ponds 
in place, leaving ash permanently saturated in the groundwater. 
Commenters note that ADEM's permits for each of these facilities allow 
CCR to continue contaminating groundwater in the future due to their 
failure to prevent post-closure groundwater flow through the ash. 
Commenters state that ADEM's failure to ensure compliance with the CCR 
Rule's performance standards for these permits further demonstrates the 
inadequacy of its permitting program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Comment from the Southern Environmental Law Center EPA-HQ-
OLEM-2022-0903-0260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: EPA did not evaluate the permits for Plant Barry, Plant 
Gaston, Plant Miller or Plant Lowman for the Proposed Denial or this 
final action, therefore, these comments are out of scope and are not 
further addressed. See page 55224 for a discussion of why EPA began its 
review of permits with Plants Greene County, Gadsden, Gorgas, and 
Colbert. EPA did not focus on Plant Barry due to ongoing enforcement 
activities. EPA's review of the four permits mentioned above identified 
systemic problems with groundwater monitoring, closure and corrective 
action and there was no need to review additional permits.
    Comment: A commenter submitted comments on Plant Barry stating that 
science experiments being proposed by Alabama Power and the idea of 
leaving the CCR in place at the Barry site in Bucks, AL, are dangerous, 
if not also criminal. Commenter states that removal of the dangerous 
heavy metal laden CCR and proper disposal away from sea level, away 
from hurricane paths and away from one of the most important estuary 
systems in North America is the only long term, safe solution 
guaranteed to last for centuries. The idea that Alabama Power can leave 
the CCR in place and be free of any liability after only 30 years is 
unconscionable. Commenter states that the dangers of CCR are going 
largely un-noticed by the general public in south Alabama and the 
commenter questions whether it is because the news media, Alabama 
Power, local and State politicians and environmental agencies all 
complicit in allowing this dangerous experiment to be approved. 
Commenter states that attempts to dewater and cap in-place the over 20 
million tons of CCR can never ensure that the toxic heavy metals won't 
continue leaching out the bottom of the unlined surface impoundment or 
be spilled into the river.
    Commenter states that the aquifer systems in the delta, the 
strength of the systems and subsurface architecture of the aquifer 
systems can never be fully understood. Commenter states they have 
degrees in geology and engineering, and after 30 years working as a 
reservoir engineer for a major, multinational energy company, the 
commenter states that they are sure that Alabama Power cannot 
competently incorporate all of the unknowns into their models. 
Commenter states that anyone who tells you they understand the aquifer 
systems under the Mobile-Tensaw delta, under the Barry site, are making 
absolute untenable conclusions and false assumptions in a mitigation 
plan. In addition to aquifer pressure, there are extreme unknowns that 
they cannot fully and competently incorporate into their models. Note 
the lack of control points or well locations and cross section line on 
the Hydrogeologic map relative to the Barry Plant unlined surface 
impoundment. Commenter states that if the CCR is left in place, it is 
eminent that the toxic pollutants will continue to destroy people's 
health and way of life on the Alabama Gulf Coast. Commenter states that 
the only long-term safe solution is for the CCR to be removed from the 
unlined surface impoundment.
    Commenter states that Plant Barry is a coal and natural gas 
electric power generation facility in Bucks, Mobile County, Alabama, 
and, that the plant has been in operation since 1954 and at 600+ acres, 
has one of the largest unlined CCR surface impoundments in the 
Southeastern United States. Commenter states that the CCR surface 
impoundment is located on the eastern edge of the Mobile River and is 
separated from the river by a fragile 30 to 50' wide dam that extends 
roughly 2 miles along the river's edge in the middle of the delta.
    Commenter states that in 2021 the volume of CCR at the Barry site 
is estimated to be in the range of 20 to 25 million tons. Commenter 
states that contamination can leach out of the bottom of the unlined 
surface impoundment into the river and aquifer systems, and that once 
these deadly carcinogens are released into the aquifer and river delta, 
they can never be remediated, and they will cause destruction to the 
environment while creating poor health condition for the Alabama Gulf 
Coast area.
    Commenter states that Alabama Power is proposing a cap in-place 
solution to contain the CCR as opposed to moving the ash to a safe, 
final storage location. The concerns that EPA should all have regarding 
this proposed solution are multiple; a hurricane could still cause a 
breach in the dam allowing the CCR to enter the river and delta, there 
is no guarantee that leaching out of the carcinogens into the 
subsurface and ground water systems would not continue, the plastic 
capping system has not been proven to last but for a few decades, not 
for centuries, etc.
    Commenter maintains that Alabama Power's estimates of the number of 
trucks and the years required to remove the ash from the Barry plant 
exceed the time limits required by law. Commenter states that the 
estimates are not consistent with the observed data from other 
companies in other States who are removing the ash from locations next 
to major rivers. Commenter acknowledges that physically moving over 20 
million tons of CCR to a safe, long term, properly lined dry storage 
facility is no small issue, but other utility companies in other States 
are doing it. Commenter states that a more detailed solution and data 
are needed to explore and quantify the myriad of alternatives that 
exist to safely remove and relocate the 20 plus million tons of CCR 
from the Barry Plant, and that it must be secured in a lined, dry 
storage facility that is above sea level, away from hurricanes and 
river systems or into a salt dome that is beneath the water aquifer and 
river systems, securely underground.
    Commenter further states that the mammoth cost to the tourism 
industry and the environment that would occur with a significant spill 
from the Barry plant far exceeds the cost of removal estimated at $3.3 
billion. A catastrophic event like the ones that have occurred in other 
parts of the U.S. could devastate the tourism business and way of life 
on the Gulf Coast. Spill examples include the Kingston, TN, spill in 
2008

[[Page 48820]]

(``Kingston CCR spill workers treated as `expendables,' lawsuit by sick 
and dying contends'' (knoxnews.com)), the 2011 spill in Lake Michigan, 
and the 2014 spill in North Carolina.
    Response: EPA did not address Plant Barry in the Proposed Denial, 
therefore, the comments are out of scope and not further addressed.
2. Comments on CCR Permits for Unlined Surface Impoundments in Other 
States
    Comment: One commenter identified five Illinois facilities that 
have closed federally regulated units with waste in place, and the 
commenter examined State permits and groundwater documentation posted 
to State and Federal CCR compliance websites and found significant 
violations of the CCR regulations. Commenter discussed Luminant's 
Baldwin Energy Complex--Baldwin, IL; Grand Tower Energy Center--Jackson 
County, IL; Luminant's Hennepin Power Station--Hennepin, IL; Luminant's 
Coffeen Power Station--Montgomery County, IL; and Luminant's Duck Creek 
Power Station--Fulton County, IL.
    Commenter reviewed CCR permits for unlined surface impoundments in 
Ohio and the commenter identified one facility that closed federally 
regulated CCR units with the approval of the Ohio Environmental 
Protection Agency (OEPA) despite its failure to meet Federal closure 
requirements. The commenter discussed American Electric Power's Gavin 
Power Plant--Gallia County, Ohio.
    Commenter reviewed CCR permits for unlined surface impoundments in 
Kentucky and the commenter identified one particularly problematic 
closure at a site for which the commenter has documentation as a result 
of past advocacy. Commenter suggests that a comprehensive evaluation of 
more Kentucky sites would reveal a number of facilities where there has 
been closure in groundwater. Commenter discussed Louisville Gas & 
Electric and Kentucky Utilities' E.W. Brown Generating Station--Mercer 
County, KY.
    Commenter reviewed permits for utility facilities in Missouri and 
the commenter identified problems. Commenter states that Missouri has 
not issued permits for the closure of CCR units, but they have issued 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits at 
sites with CCR units that are actively contaminating groundwater. In 
many of these permits, Missouri included language and guidance that 
directly conflict with the Federal CCR regulations. While the permits 
often state that the permittee must abide by any applicable Federal 
regulations, Missouri's inclusion of explicit directions that directly 
conflict with the CCR regulations at best creates confusion and at 
worst sanctions and compels noncompliance. Commenter reviewed several 
facilities with CCR units: Ameren's Rush Island Energy Center, Festus, 
MO; Associated Electric Cooperative's New Madrid Power Plant, Marston, 
MO; Ameren's Labadie Energy Center, Labadie, MO; City of Independence's 
Blue Valley Generating Station, Independence, MO; and City of 
Independence's Missouri City Generating Station, Independence, MO.
    Commenter reviewed CCR permits for unlined surface impoundments in 
Indiana and the commenter identified two sites discussed below 
demonstrate that the Indiana Department of Environmental Management 
(IDEM) has approved closure plans for CCR units that are clearly non-
compliant with the CCR regulations and its critical requirement that 
units not be allowed to close in place where CCR remains in contact 
with groundwater. The commenter reviewed permits for Duke Energy's 
Gallagher, New Albany, IN, and Duke Energy's Cayuga Station, Vermillion 
County, IN. Commenter states that IDEM has approved closure-in-place 
for at least two additional CCR ponds where there is clear evidence of 
CCR in contact with groundwater, Duke Energy Wabash River's North Ash 
Pond in Terre Haute, IN, and Duke Energy Gibson's South Ash Fill Area 
in Owensville, IN. Commenter states that Duke Energy claims that 
neither of these ponds is subject to the CCR regulations and IDEM has 
taken no steps to evaluate or refute this characterization.
    Response: Comments on CCR permits in other States are outside the 
scope of the Proposed Denial and are not further discussed.

IV. Final Action

    EPA has determined that the Alabama CCR permit program does not 
meet the statutory standard for approval. Therefore, in accordance with 
42 U.S.C. 6945(d), EPA is denying the Alabama CCR permit program.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024-11692 Filed 6-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P