Document ID: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0533-0373
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Georgia: Approval of State Coal Combustion Residuals Permit Program
Posted Date: 2020-01-10T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1269-1277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27665]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 257

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0533; FRL-10003-64-OLEM]

Georgia: Approval of State Coal Combustion Residuals Permit 
Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification of final approval.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA 
or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the 
Georgia Environmental Protection Division's partial Coal Combustion 
Residuals (CCR) state permit program, which will now operate in lieu of 
the Federal CCR program, with the exception of certain provisions for 
which the State did not seek approval. EPA has determined that 
Georgia's partial CCR permit program meets the standard for approval 
under RCRA. Facilities operating under the State's program requirements 
and resulting permit provisions are also subject to EPA's information 
gathering and inspection and enforcement authorities under RCRA and 
other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

DATES: The final approval of Georgia's partial CCR state permit program 
is effective on February 10, 2020.

ADDRESSES: 
    Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
ID No.

[[Page 1270]]

EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0533. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy at the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket Center is (202) 566-
1742.
    Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document 
electronically from the Government Publishing Office under the 
``Federal Register'' listings at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/fr.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Long, Office of Resource 
Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW, MC 5304P, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 347-
8953; email address: Long.Michelle@epa.gov. For more information on 
this document please visit https://www.epa.gov/coalash.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and 
``our'' means the EPA.

I. General Information

A. Overview of Final Approval

    EPA is approving in part the Georgia CCR permit program, pursuant 
to RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(B). 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B). Georgia's CCR 
permit program authorizes the Georgia Environmental Protection Division 
(GA EPD) to enforce State rules related to CCR activities as well as to 
handle permit applications and to enforce permit violations. Georgia's 
CCR permit program will operate in lieu of the Federal CCR program, (40 
CFR part 257, subpart D) with the exception of the provisions for which 
the State did not seek approval, as further explained in Unit II of 
this Federal Register document. The Federal requirements corresponding 
to these excluded state provisions remain applicable to the Georgia 
facilities. The fact that Georgia is receiving partial program approval 
does not mean it must subsequently apply for a full program approval. 
However, Georgia could choose to revise its CCR permit program at some 
point in the future and to apply for another partial or full program 
approval (as appropriate) based on its revisions at that time. EPA 
retains its inspection and enforcement authorities under RCRA sections 
3007 and 3008, 42 U.S.C. 6927 and 6928, in the case of both partial and 
full program approvals. See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(4)(B).
    There are no federally-recognized tribes within the State of 
Georgia, nor any federally-recognized tribal lands/reservations 
adjacent to Georgia's boundaries within neighboring states. Thus, EPA 
did not consult with any federally-recognized tribes in connection with 
this action.

B. Background

    CCR are generated from the combustion of coal, including solid 
fuels classified as anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, 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, commonly known as coal 
ash, include fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas 
desulfurization materials. CCR can be sent offsite for disposal, or 
beneficial use, or disposed in on-site landfills or surface 
impoundments.
    On April 17, 2015, EPA published a final rule, creating regulations 
at 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, that established a comprehensive set of 
minimum Federal requirements for the disposal of CCR in landfills and 
surface impoundments (80 FR 21302) (``Federal CCR regulations''). The 
Federal CCR regulations created a self-implementing program that 
regulates the location, design, operating criteria, and groundwater 
monitoring and corrective action for CCR disposal, as well as the 
closure and post-closure care of CCR units. They also include 
recordkeeping and notification requirements for owners and operators of 
CCR units. The Federal CCR regulations do not apply to activities that 
meet the definition of ``beneficial use'' of CCR, as that term is 
defined in Sec.  257.53.

C. Statutory Authority

    EPA is taking this action under the authority of RCRA sections 
4005(d) and 7004(b)(1), as amended by the Water Infrastructure 
Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act (Pub. L. 114-322, 130 Stat. 
1628). See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d), 6974(b)(1). Under 4005(d) of RCRA, states 
may develop and submit to EPA an application for approval of a state 
CCR permit program. See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d). Under RCRA section 
4005(d)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(A), states seeking approval must 
submit to the Administrator ``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 CCR state permit program meets the standard in RCRA 
section 4005(d)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B), i.e., that it will 
require 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. See 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 receiving a 
state's complete submittal of the information required by RCRA section 
4005(d)(1)(A). See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B). EPA may approve a CCR state 
permit program in whole or in part. Id. Once approved, the state permit 
program operates in lieu of the Federal requirements. See 42 U.S.C. 
6945(d)(1)(A). In a state with partial program approval, only the state 
requirements that have been approved operate in lieu of the analogous 
Federal requirements, and facilities remain responsible for compliance 
with all remaining requirements in 40 CFR part 257.
    Once a program is approved, the Administrator must review the 
approved CCR state permit program at least once every 12 years, as well 
as no later than three years after a revision to an applicable section 
of 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, or one year after any unauthorized 
significant release from a CCR unit located in the state occurs. See 42 
U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(D)(i)(I) through (III). EPA also must review an 
approved CCR state permit program at the request of another state 
alleging that the soil, groundwater, or surface water of the requesting 
state is or is likely to be adversely affected by a release from a CCR 
unit in the approved state. See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(D)(i)(IV).
    In a state with an approved CCR state permit program, EPA may 
commence administrative or judicial enforcement actions under section 
3008 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6928, if the state requests assistance or if 
EPA determines that an EPA enforcement action is likely to be necessary 
to ensure that a CCR unit is operating in accordance with the criteria 
of the state's CCR state permit program. See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(4). EPA 
may also exercise its inspection and information gathering authorities 
under section 3007 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6927.

[[Page 1271]]

II. Georgia's Application

    On April 13, 2018, GA EPD submitted its initial CCR permit program 
application to EPA Region 4 (``2018 application''). After receiving 
comments from EPA, GA EPD revised and submitted an updated application 
on March 6, 2019, containing a revised cover letter signed February 27, 
2019, which requested approval of a part of its CCR permit program. GA 
EPD provided additional revisions to its 2018 application on May 23, 
2019. Georgia's 2018 application, as revised by its March 6, 2019 and 
May 23, 2019 submittals, constitutes its final CCR permit program 
application (hereinafter ``CCR State Permit Program Application'' or 
``Georgia's Application'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The revised narrative in Georgia's Application, dated May 
22, 2019, shall be substituted for the original narrative, dated 
March 19, 2018, and the addendum to the part 257 Checklist for CCR 
Surface Impoundments and CCR Landfills, submitted on March 6, 2019, 
shall be added to the part 257 Checklist provided with the original 
submission in the 2018 application. All other documents submitted as 
part of the 2018 application remain unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted, Georgia has requested a partial program approval of its 
CCR permit program. Georgia's CCR regulations are found at Ga. Comp. R. 
and Regs. 391-3-4-.10 (``Georgia CCR regulations''), where the State 
adopted by reference nearly all of the Federal regulations in 40 CFR 
part 257, subpart D.\2\ Georgia's CCR regulations are included in 
Appendix C of Georgia's Application and are available in the docket 
supporting this action. In addition to the technical criteria in Ga. 
Comp. R. and Regs. 391-3-4-.10, Georgia's CCR permit program includes 
the permitting requirements at Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 391-3-4-.10(9); 
the procedural permitting requirements in Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 391-3-
4-.02; the financial assurance requirements in Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 
391-3-4-.10(10) and 391-3-4-.13; and the reporting requirements in Ga. 
Comp. R. and Regs. 391-3-4-.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Georgia CCR regulations adopt 40 CFR 257.60 through 
257.107 (80 FR 21468 (April 17, 2015)), as amended at 80 FR 37988 
(July 2, 2015) and 81 FR 51807 (August 5, 2016). See Ga. Comp. R. 
and Regs. 391-3-4-.10(1)(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Georgia CCR regulations do not adopt by reference 40 CFR 
257.52(b), which requires compliance with the protections for 
Threatened and Endangered Species identified in 40 CFR 257.3-2, nor did 
they adopt by reference 40 CFR 257.50(e), which exempted from 
regulation inactive impoundments at inactive facilities. 40 CFR 
257.50(e) and two other Federal regulations that the Georgia CCR 
regulations do adopt by reference have since been vacated by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals in Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et 
al. v. EPA. \3\ Accordingly, Georgia is not seeking approval for the 
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, et al. v. EPA, No. 
15-1219 (D.C. Circuit). On August 21, 2018, the United States Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded 
three provisions of the Federal CCR regulations: 40 CFR 257.101(a), 
which allowed unlined impoundments to continue receiving coal ash 
unless they leak; 40 CFR 257.71(a)(1)(i), which classified ``clay-
lined'' impoundments as lined; and 40 CFR 257.50(e), which exempted 
from regulation inactive impoundments at inactive facilities. 
Although Georgia did not adopt by reference 40 CFR 257.50(e), it did 
adopt by reference 40 CFR 257.71(a)(1)(i) and 40 CFR 257.101(a) at 
Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 391-3-4-.10(c), two of the three provisions 
that were vacated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Requirements relevant to Threatened and Endangered Species in 40 
CFR 257.3-2;
    2. Requirements for inactive impoundments at inactive facilities, 
for which Federal criteria do not yet exist following the vacatur of 40 
CFR 257.50(e);
    3. 40 CFR 257.101(a), which allows unlined impoundments to continue 
receiving coal ash unless they leak (one of the vacated provisions); 
and
    4. 40 CFR 257.71(a)(1)(i), which classifies ``clay-lined'' 
impoundments as lined (one of the vacated provisions).
    Georgia's CCR permit program covers a broader universe of CCR units 
than are covered under the Federal CCR regulations. While the 
``Applicability'' section of Georgia's CCR permit program regulations 
mirrors that of the Federal CCR regulations (See Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 
391-3-4-.10(1)(a)1. and 40 CFR 257.50(b)), and the State's definition 
of ``CCR Unit'' matches the Federal definition (See Ga. Comp. R. and 
Regs. 391-3-4-.01(11) and 40 CFR 257.53), the Georgia CCR regulation 
defines ``CCR Landfills'' and ``CCR Surface Impoundments'' differently. 
Specifically, the State's definitions for these units include dewatered 
surface impoundments, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES)-permitted CCR surface impoundments (inactive, but not 
dewatered, surface impoundments at inactive facilities), and inactive 
CCR landfills. See Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 391-3-4-.01(9) and (10). 
These units are, in turn, defined at Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 391-3-
4-.10(2)(a)1. through 3. These types of CCR units are not covered by 
the Federal CCR regulations and are therefore not included in this 
state program approval. See 40 CFR 257.50(d) and (e) and 257.53. As 
mentioned above, the U.S. Court of Appeals in USWAG v. EPA vacated the 
exclusion at 40 CFR 257.50(e) for inactive impoundments at inactive 
facilities from the Federal regulations. Because EPA has not yet 
established any Federal regulations for inactive impoundments at 
inactive facilities in response to the vacatur, EPA has no Federal 
criteria against which to compare Georgia's regulation of these units, 
which is why Georgia is not seeking approval of that part of its CCR 
permit program.
    Under Georgia's CCR permit program, owners and operators of new CCR 
units are required to submit to the director a complete permit 
application prior to the initial receipt of CCR, and owners of existing 
CCR units (existing landfills, active surface impoundments, and 
inactive surface impoundments at operating power plants) were required 
to submit permit applications within two years of the effective date of 
Georgia's CCR regulations, which was November 22, 2016. Accordingly, 
owners and operators of these existing units submitted permit 
applications to GA EPD in November 2018. The permits that will be 
issued by the State are considered new permits and, thus, Georgia will 
follow its public participation procedures for draft CCR permits, as 
discussed in more detail in Unit III.A.1. Georgia CCR units are issued 
permits for the life of the unit, with a required review every five 
years.

III. EPA Analysis of Georgia's Application

    As discussed in Unit I.C. of this document, RCRA section 4005(d) 
requires EPA to evaluate two components of a CCR state permit program 
to determine whether it meets the standard for approval. First, EPA is 
to evaluate the adequacy of the CCR state permit program itself (or 
other system of prior approval and conditions). See 42 U.S.C. 
6945(d)(1)(A). Second, EPA is to evaluate the adequacy of the technical 
criteria that will be included in each permit, to determine whether 
they are the same as the Federal criteria, or to the extent they 
differ, whether the modified criteria are ``at least as protective as'' 
the Federal requirements. See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B). Only if both 
components meet the statutory requirements may EPA approve the program. 
See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1).
    On that basis, EPA conducted an analysis of Georgia's CCR permit 
program as described in its CCR State Permit Program Application, 
including a thorough analysis of the Georgia CCR regulations and their 
adoption by reference of portions of 40 CFR part 257, subpart D. As 
noted, Georgia has

[[Page 1272]]

requested partial program approval of its CCR permit program.
    Based on this analysis, EPA has determined that the portions of 
Georgia's CCR permit program that have been submitted for approval meet 
the standard in sections 4005(d)(1)(A) and (B) of RCRA. Georgia's CCR 
permit program includes all the elements of an adequate CCR state 
permit program as discussed in more detail in Unit III.A. It also 
contains all of the technical criteria in 40 CFR part 257, except for 
the provisions specifically discussed in Unit II. Consequently, EPA 
approves Georgia's CCR permit program ``in part.'' 42 U.S.C. 
6945(d)(1)(B). EPA's analysis and findings are discussed in greater 
detail in Unit III.B and in the Technical Support Document, which is 
available in the docket supporting this action.

A. Adequacy of Georgia's Permit Program

    RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(A) requires a state seeking program 
approval to submit to EPA an application with ``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.'' RCRA section 4005(d) does not require EPA 
to promulgate regulations for determining the adequacy of state 
programs. EPA therefore evaluated the adequacy of Georgia's CCR permit 
program against the standard in RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(A) by reference 
to the existing regulations in 40 CFR part 239 (Requirements for State 
Permit Program Determination of Adequacy) for Municipal Solid Waste 
Landfills (MSWLFs) and the statutory requirements for public 
participation in RCRA section 7004(b). The Agency's general experience 
in reviewing and approving state programs also informed EPA's 
evaluation.
    In order to aid states in developing their programs and to provide 
a clear statement of how, in EPA's judgment, the existing regulations 
and statutory requirements in sections 4005(d) and 7004(b) apply to 
state CCR programs, EPA developed the Coal Combustion Residuals State 
Permit Program Guidance Document; Interim Final (82 FR 38685, August 
15, 2017) (the ``Guidance Document''). The Guidance Document provides 
guidance on a process and standards that states may choose to use to 
apply for EPA approval of their CCR permit programs, based on the 
existing regulations at 40 CFR part 239 and the Agency's experience in 
reviewing and approving state programs under the MSWLF and hazardous 
waste programs. EPA evaluated the adequacy of Georgia's CCR permit 
program using the process and statutory and regulatory standards 
discussed in the Guidance Document.
    RCRA section 7004(b) applies to all RCRA programs, directing that 
``public participation in the development, revision, implementation, 
and enforcement of any . . . program under this chapter shall be 
provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the Administrator and the 
States.'' 42 U.S.C. 6974(b)(1). Although 40 CFR part 239 applies to 
approval of state MSWLF programs under RCRA 4005(c)(1), rather than 
EPA's evaluation of CCR permit programs under RCRA 4005(d), the 
specific criteria outlined in part 239 provide a helpful framework to 
more broadly examine the various aspects of Georgia's CCR permit 
program. States are familiar with these criteria through the MSWLF 
permit program (all states with approved MSWLF permit programs have 
been approved pursuant to these regulations) and the regulations are 
generally regarded as protective and appropriate. In general, EPA 
considers that a state CCR permit program that is consistent with the 
part 239 provisions would meet the section 7004(b)(1) directive 
regarding public participation. As part of analyzing Georgia's 
application, EPA reviewed the four categories of criteria outlined in 
40 CFR part 239 as guidelines for permitting requirements, requirements 
for compliance monitoring authority, requirements for enforcement 
authority, and requirements for intervention in civil enforcement 
proceedings.
    To complete its evaluation, EPA relied on the information contained 
in Georgia's Application, as well as all materials submitted during the 
public comment period and at the public hearing. The findings are also 
based on additional information submitted by Georgia on November 4, 
2019, in a document titled Supplemental Information in Response to 
Comments for Georgia's CCR Permit Program (``GA EPD Supplemental 
Information document''), in response to follow-up questions from EPA 
regarding issues raised during the public comment period. All of this 
information is included in the docket for this action. A summary of 
EPA's findings is provided in this Unit, organized by the program 
elements identified in the part 239 regulations and EPA's Guidance 
Document.
1. Public Participation
    Based on section 7004 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6974, and the part 239 
regulations, it is EPA's judgment that an adequate state CCR permit 
program will ensure that: (1) Documents for permit determinations are 
made available for public review and comment; (2) final determinations 
on permit applications are made known to the public; and (3) public 
comments on permit determinations are considered. To meet these 
requirements, Georgia has adopted a policy governing the procedure for 
public comment on draft CCR permits, which is memorialized in its ``CCR 
Draft Permit Public Comment Process'' Memorandum (the ``Cown-Dunn 
Memorandum''), signed by the Director of GA EPD on April 13, 2018. 
Under this procedure, GA EPD will post all draft CCR permits online and 
concurrently notify anyone who has signed up to receive email for coal 
ash-related announcements of the posting. Draft permits and all 
information submitted as part of CCR permit applications will be 
available for review in person at GA EPD's Tradeport Office in Atlanta. 
Draft permits will be available for public comment for 30 days, and the 
Director of GA EPD may extend this comment period if deemed necessary. 
GA EPD will accept comments via email or regular mail. After the 
comment period ends, GA EPD will review all comments received and make 
any necessary changes before making a final permit decision. When 
issuing a final permit, GA EPD will release a response to comments on 
the draft permit and will notify the public in the same manner as when 
it provided notice of the draft permit. The final permit and response 
to comments will be available for review online. The Cown-Dunn 
Memorandum, a sample transmittal letter to the CCR facility owner, and 
a sample ``Notice of the Opportunity for Public Comment'' are included 
in Appendix D to Georgia's Application, and are available in the docket 
supporting this final approval. EPA has determined that this approach 
provides adequate opportunity for public participation in the 
permitting process sufficient to meet the standard for program 
approval. Georgia's public participation policy is discussed more in 
Unit III.D.2.
2. Guidelines for Compliance Monitoring Authority
    Based on the 40 CFR part 239 regulations, it is EPA's judgment that 
an adequate CCR state permit program should provide the state with the 
authority to gather information about compliance, perform inspections, 
and ensure that the information it gathers is suitable for enforcement. 
GA EPD has compliance monitoring authority under Official Code of 
Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) sections 12-8-23.1(a)(4), 12-8-29.1, and 
12-8-23.1(a)(20).

[[Page 1273]]

Specifically, O.C.G.A. section 12-8-23.1(a)(4) and O.C.G.A. section 12-
8-29.1 give the Director of GA EPD authority to undertake 
investigations, analysis, and inspections to determine compliance, and 
to enter property to undertake investigations to verify compliance. 
Further, O.C.G.A. section 12-8-23.1(a)(20) grants the Director of GA 
EPD the authority to exercise all incidental powers necessary to carry 
out the purposes of applicable State law. Together these authorities 
provide the State with authority to obtain records from an owner or 
operator to determine compliance. EPA has determined that these 
compliance monitoring authorities are adequate, and that this aspect of 
the State's CCR state permit program meets the standard for program 
approval.
3. Guidelines for Enforcement Authority
    Based on the 40 CFR part 239 regulations, it is EPA's judgment that 
an adequate CCR state permit program should provide the state with 
adequate enforcement authority to administer its CCR state permit 
program, including the authority to: (1) Restrain any person from 
engaging in activity which may damage human health or the environment, 
(2) sue to enjoin prohibited activity, and (3) sue to recover civil 
penalties for prohibited activity. GA EPD has adequate enforcement 
authority for its existing programs under O.C.G.A. section 12-8-
23.1(a)(9), 12-8-30, 12-8-30.1, 12-8-30.4, and 12-8-30.6, and these 
authorities extend to Georgia's CCR permit program. For example, 
O.C.G.A. section 12-8-23.1(a)(9) provides the State with authority to 
bring an administrative or civil proceeding to enforce the Georgia 
Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act and its implementing 
regulations. O.C.G.A. section 12-8-30 provides the State with the 
authority to issue orders requiring corrective action to remedy 
violations. Under O.C.G.A. section 12-8-30.4, the State may sue in 
superior court for injunctions, restraining orders, and other relief 
for activities that violate the State program. Finally, under O.C.G.A. 
section 12-8-30.6, the State has the authority to bring an 
administrative action to assess civil penalties for violations of the 
State's program. EPA has determined that this aspect of Georgia's CCR 
permit program meets the standard for program approval.
4. Intervention in Civil Enforcement Proceedings
    Based on section 7004 of RCRA and the 40 CFR part 239 regulations, 
it is EPA's judgment that an adequate CCR state permit program should 
provide adequate opportunity for citizen intervention in civil 
enforcement proceedings. Specifically, a state must either: (a) Provide 
for citizen intervention as a matter of right or (b) have in place a 
process to (1) provide notice and opportunity for public involvement in 
civil enforcement actions, (2) investigate and provide responses to 
citizen complaints about violations, and (3) not oppose citizen 
intervention when permissive intervention is allowed by statute, rule, 
or regulation. In Georgia, citizen intervention is possible in the 
State civil enforcement process as a matter of right for interested 
parties who are aggrieved or adversely affected. Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 
section 12-8-30.2, all hearings/reviews of enforcement actions on 
orders shall be conducted in accordance with O.C.G.A. section 12-2-
2(c), which provides that ``any person who is aggrieved or adversely 
affected'' by an action of the Director shall have a right to a hearing 
before an administrative law judge, which shall be conducted in 
accordance with the Georgia Administrative Procedures Act, which 
provides for intervention by citizens in contested cases. See O.C.G.A. 
section 50-13-14. In addition to administrative enforcement actions, 
the Director of GA EPD also has the ability to bring civil actions 
pursuant to O.C.G.A. section 12-8-30.4. Such proceedings are governed 
by the Georgia Civil Practice Act, which allows interested parties to 
intervene in civil actions. O.C.G.A. section 9-11-24. EPA has 
determined that these authorities provide for an adequate level of 
citizen involvement in the enforcement process, and that this aspect of 
Georgia's CCR permit program meets the standard for program approval.

B. Adequacy of Technical Criteria

    EPA has determined that the technical portions of Georgia's CCR 
permit program that were submitted for approval meet the standard for 
partial program approval under RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(B)(i), 42 U.S.C. 
6945(d)(1)(B)(i). To make this determination, EPA compared the 
technical requirements in Georgia's CCR regulations submitted for 
approval to their analogs in 40 CFR part 257 to determine whether they 
differed from the Federal requirements, and if so, whether those 
differences met the standard in RCRA sections 4005(d)(1)(B)(ii) and 
(C), 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B)(ii) and (C). Georgia's CCR regulations are 
contained in Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 391-3-4-.10, where Georgia adopts 
by reference portions of 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, and also spells 
out certain provisions. Specifically, in addition to what is required 
by 40 CFR part 257, the Georgia CCR regulations contain additional 
State-specific requirements for new and lateral expansions of CCR 
landfills in Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 391-3-4-.10(3)(c)-(e); operating 
criteria in Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 391-3-4-.10(5)(c); groundwater 
monitoring and corrective action in Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 391-3-
4-.10(6)(b)-(g); closure and post-closure care in Ga. Comp. R. and 
Regs. 391-3-4-.10(7)(c)-(g); and recordkeeping, notification, and 
posting of information to the internet in Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 391-3-
4-.10(8)(a)1.
    As discussed in Unit II, Georgia did not adopt by reference 40 CFR 
257.52(b), which requires compliance with the requirements relevant to 
Threatened and Endangered Species in 40 CFR 257.3-2. Additionally, 
Georgia did not seek approval of its adoption by reference of 40 CFR 
257.101(a), which allowed unlined impoundments to continue receiving 
coal ash unless they leak, or 40 CFR 257.71(a)(1)(i), which classified 
``clay-lined'' impoundments as lined, since both of the Federal 40 CFR 
257.101 provisions were vacated by the D.C. Circuit in USWAG v. EPA. As 
a consequence, Georgia facilities will continue to be subject to the 
Federal requirements in 40 CFR 257.3-2, as well as the Federal 
requirements governing the criteria and timing for initiating the 
closure of unlined (including clay-lined) impoundments under 40 CFR 
257.101.
    EPA has therefore determined that the technical criteria in 
Georgia's partial CCR permit program submitted for approval meet the 
standard for partial program approval under RCRA section 
4005(d)(1)(B)(i), 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B)(i).

C. Public Comment Period

    EPA announced its proposal to approve Georgia's CCR permit program, 
in part, and a 60-day public comment period on June 28, 2019 (84 FR 
30977) (FRL-9995-82-OLEM). EPA also held a public hearing on August 6, 
2019 in Atlanta, Georgia. The public hearing provided interested 
persons the opportunity to present information, views or arguments 
concerning EPA's proposal. Oral comments received during the public 
hearing are documented in the transcript of the hearing, which, along 
with the written comments received during the public comment period, is 
included in the docket for this action.

[[Page 1274]]

D. EPA Responses to Major Comments on the Proposed Determination

    EPA received 1,462 written public comments during the comment 
period, including 1,110 comments submitted as part of multiple mass 
mail comment campaigns. The major comments received by EPA focused on 
seven primary topics: 1. Georgia's staffing and funding, 2. Public 
participation, 3. Compliance with Federal CCR regulations, 4. Location 
of CCR units, 5. Groundwater monitoring and corrective action issues, 
6. Closure issues and unlined CCR units, and 7. USWAG et al. v. EPA 
decision. A more detailed summary of all comments received and EPA's 
responses to those comments are provided in the Response to Comments 
document included in the docket for this action.
1. Georgia Staffing and Funding
    Comment Summary: The Agency received several comments, with varying 
specificity, regarding the State of Georgia's administrative resources 
such as funding and staffing to effectively run and enforce its CCR 
permit program. Specifically, some comments suggested that GA EPD lacks 
staff with the technical experience necessary to issue permits, monitor 
compliance, and enforce the program. Some commenters argued that EPA 
should make a determination of program inadequacy based on the State's 
insufficient resources. Commenters also argued that GA EPD's failure to 
issue any final CCR permits to date is evidence that it lacks 
sufficient resources.
    Comment Response: EPA disagrees with the comments that the GA EPD 
lacks the technical expertise, staff, and budget necessary to implement 
the State's CCR permit program. As an initial matter, EPA reviews CCR 
state program applications primarily on the legal and regulatory 
framework that a state puts forward. Provided the information submitted 
demonstrates that these frameworks meet the RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(B) 
standard on their face, EPA does not further investigate otherwise 
facially credible information to attempt to forecast the State's future 
implementation. This is because Georgia's actual implementation of its 
CCR permit program will be addressed in future State program reviews, 
as required by the RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(D)(i).
    Here, the GA EPD Supplemental Information document describes in 
detail the staff resources, expertise, and funding that the State has 
available for implementing its CCR permit program. Specifically, the GA 
EPD Supplemental Information document describes the staff that Georgia 
has dedicated to administrative reviews of permit applications, 
technical reviews of permit applications, and technical reviews of 
documents submitted either to the State or posted on a facility's 
publicly accessible CCR website in accordance with Sec.  257.107 and 
the State regulations at Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 391-3-4-.10(8)(a). The 
GA EPD Supplemental Information document provides additional 
information on the qualifications of the staff who are implementing 
Georgia's CCR permit program. The Georgia State Legislature provides 
funding for GA EPD's CCR permit program positions. Funding is provided 
through general State appropriations. If these measures subsequently 
prove to be inadequate or change as part of Georgia's subsequent 
implementation of its CCR permit program, it will be addressed in 
future State program reviews, as required by RCRA section 
4005(d)(1)(D)(i). See Unit I.C of this document for additional detail 
on EPA's authority to review approved state CCR permit programs.
    EPA also disagrees with comments suggesting that GA EPD's failure 
to yet issue any final CCR permits in Georgia is evidence of 
insufficient resources or a reason to make a determination of program 
inadequacy. EPA generally considers this issue to be beyond the scope 
of this action. As noted above, EPA reviews a state's CCR permit 
program based on the four corners of the application and does not 
attempt to speculate on Georgia's subsequent implementation of its CCR 
permit program, as this will be addressed in future State program 
reviews, as required by RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(D)(i).
    Moreover, based the information Georgia has submitted, EPA 
considers these aspects of Georgia's program to be sufficient. Owners 
and operators of CCR units in existence at the time of the effective 
date of Georgia's CCR regulations were required to submit their CCR 
permit applications by November 2018. See Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 291-3-
4-.10(9)(a). GA EPD received a total of 30 applications. GA EPD staff 
immediately initiated an administrative review of the applications and 
determined all of the applications to be complete. Technical reviews 
began immediately thereafter. To date, GA EPD has initiated a review of 
at least 12 of the applications and has issued initial comment letters 
for each.
2. Public Participation
    Comment Summary: The Agency received various comments expressing 
concerns over a perceived lack of meaningful public notice and 
opportunity to participate in decisions regarding the methods to 
dispose of CCR in Georgia. Commenters argued that the Georgia CCR 
permit program lacks the requisite public notice and comment process 
required by RCRA section 7004 for both issuing initial permits and 
conducting five-year reviews of permits. Many commenters were concerned 
about a lack of any requirement for public hearings to be held on every 
initial CCR permit and during the five-year review of CCR permits, as 
is required for issuing MSWLF permits in the State.
    EPA received other comments on the length of time that draft CCR 
permits will be available for public comment. Commenters said 30 days 
is an unrealistic timeframe for the draft permit comment period, and 
some requested that Georgia allow at least 120 days as a comment 
period, with the Director of GA EPD able to extend that time if deemed 
necessary. Several commenters were concerned about Georgia's process 
providing adequate notice and opportunity for comment by citizens who 
live in rural Georgia, where internet access can be challenging.
    Comment Response: Based on section 7004 of RCRA and the 40 CFR part 
239 regulations, it is EPA's judgment that an adequate state CCR 
permitting program will ensure that: (1) Documents for permit 
determinations are made available for public review and comment; (2) 
final determinations on permit applications are made known to the 
public; and (3) public comments on permit determinations are 
considered.
    As explained in Unit III.A.1, the State of Georgia has adopted a 
public participation policy, in the form of a memorandum, the ``Cown-
Dunn Memorandum,'' that describes the steps the State will follow to 
provide for public participation in the CCR permitting process. The 
Cown-Dunn Memorandum was signed by the GA EPD Director on April 13, 
2018, and, and the State has committed to follow it. In addition to 
what is described in Georgia's CCR State Permit Program Application, 
the GA EPD Supplemental Information document describes opportunities 
for public participation in Georgia's CCR permit program. This 
information indicates that Georgia's program will ensure the elements 
(1) through (3) described above.

[[Page 1275]]

    Georgia has adopted procedures to ensure documents for permit 
determinations are made known and available to the public. When permit 
applications are received, GA EPD will conduct an administrative review 
within ten days of receipt to ensure that a complete application has 
been submitted. Once this determination is made, GA EPD will publish a 
public advisory on its web page noting that the application was 
submitted and provide a contact for additional inquiries. Moreover, the 
permit application is available for public review from the time of its 
receipt by GA EPD.
    Subsequently, according to the Cown-Dunn Memorandum, GA EPD will 
provide notice of draft permits to anyone who has signed up to receive 
emails for coal ash-related announcements. GA EPD will post the draft 
permit on its website and make a hard copy available (as well as all 
other information submitted as part of the CCR permit application) for 
review in its Tradeport Office in Atlanta. Public notice will be 
published on its Public Announcement web page and the draft permit will 
be available for public comment for 30 days. If additional time is 
requested to extend the review time, the Director of GA EPD has the 
authority to extend the comment period. Georgia has also made 
provisions to consider public comments. The Cown-Dunn Memorandum 
indicates that GA EPD will accept written comments by email or regular 
mail. GA EPD will review all comments received and make any necessary 
changes to the permit.
    Finally, notice of final permit determinations will be provide to 
the public. When issuing the final permit, the State will notify the 
public via email and publish a response to comments on its website. 
Additionally, in accordance with Ga Comp. R. & Regs. 391-3-4-.03(5), 
the Director of GA EPD will notify the legal organ and the chief 
elected official of the host local government in which the facility is 
located or is proposed to be located. The legal organ can choose to 
publish notice of the final permit if it so chooses. Within 30 days of 
the final permit decision, any person who is aggrieved or adversely 
affected may appeal the permit by filing a petition with the Director. 
See O.C.G.A. section 12-2-2(c). The appeal process is governed by the 
Georgia Administrative Procedure Act codified at O.C.G.A. section 50-
13-1, et seq.
    Under Ga Comp. R. & Regs. 391-3-4-.02(1)(d), CCR permits will be 
subject to review every five years. Permit renewals are classified as 
either minor or major modifications. Any major modification will be 
publicly noticed as a CCR draft permit and will follow the public 
comment process utilized for CCR draft permits required by the Cown-
Dunn Memorandum.
    For members of the public who have trouble accessing the internet, 
GA EPD will make hard copies of the draft CCR permits and application 
documents available for review at GA EPD's Tradeport Office in Atlanta 
and will accept written comments by regular mail.
    Accordingly, EPA has determined that the Georgia CCR permit program 
provides for adequate public participation, thereby satisfying the 
requirements of RCRA section 7004.
3. Compliance With the Federal CCR Regulations
    Comment Summary: The Agency received a number of questions or 
concerns about compliance issues at individual facilities in Georgia, 
and the overall risk of CCR management, with varying specificity and 
supporting data. Most of these questions and concerns related to 
compliance issues regarding location restrictions, groundwater 
monitoring and corrective action, closure, and unlined surface 
impoundments. The commenters suggested these issues were reasons to not 
approve Georgia's CCR permit program.
    Comment Response: EPA reviews of CCR state program applications 
focus primarily on the legal and regulatory framework that a state puts 
forward. The Agency has determined that the underlying State statutes 
and regulations provide Georgia the authority to implement the CCR 
permit program, and that there is evidence that Georgia has utilized 
its authority to implement these provisions since it adopted the 
Federal standards in November 2016, and also prior to that time. Given 
that Georgia is in the early stages of implementing its new CCR 
regulations, it is not unexpected that compliance with those 
regulations across the State may be evolving.
    EPA is not making any determinations regarding the compliance 
status of individual facilities or CCR units based on the public 
comment process for this final Action. However, some commenters raised 
concerns about compliance issues in the broader context of program 
approval and questioned whether Georgia has the ability and inclination 
to fully implement an approved program. EPA has reviewed all 
significant comments on this issue and has identified evidence of 
actions taken by GA EPD \4\ to address non-compliance by working with 
facilities to correct deficiencies, including one case in which GA EPD 
issued a notice of violation (NOV) and worked with the facility to 
resolve it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Georgia discusses actions it has taken to date to address 
non-compliance issues in the GA EPD Supplemental Information 
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, since owners and operators of CCR facilities 
submitted CCR permit applications to GA EPD in November 2018, GA EPD 
staff has been reviewing groundwater monitoring reports, issuing 
comments on alternative source demonstrations (ASD), issuing comments 
on Assessment of Corrective Measures, issuing comment letters imposing 
regulatory deadlines for the submittal of an ASD or initiating 
assessment monitoring, and conducting inspections of groundwater 
monitoring networks at numerous facilities. GA EPD plans to continue to 
conduct such actions as necessary, as well as to conduct inspections 
for the construction and operation of CCR facilities as its normal 
matter of practice.
    EPA does not view instances of non-compliance as a reason to deny 
approval of a CCR state permit program. Implementation and enforcement 
of Georgia's CCR requirements in the State are expected to continue, 
and enforcement of those provisions may be initiated not only by GA 
EPD, but also by EPA or by citizens, as appropriate. Georgia's 
implementation of its approved CCR permit program will be addressed in 
future State program reviews, as required by RCRA section 
4005(d)(1)(D)(i). See Unit I.C for additional detail on EPA's authority 
to review approved state CCR permit programs.
4. Location of CCR Units
    Comment Summary: The Agency received comments about the locations 
or siting of CCR units. Specifically, commenters were concerned about 
units that were located in or near populated areas, groundwater 
recharge areas, floodplains, unstable areas, and wetlands.
    Comment Response: Several of the comments address the 
protectiveness of the Federal CCR requirements, which is beyond the 
scope of this action approving Georgia's CCR permit program and is not 
being reopened here.
    Location restrictions for placement above the uppermost aquifer, in 
wetlands, in fault areas, in seismic impact zones, and in unstable 
areas are included in the Federal CCR regulations found at Sec. Sec.  
257.60 through 257.64. GA EPD has adopted these Federal CCR

[[Page 1276]]

regulations by reference at Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 391-3-4-.10(1)(c), 
and requires compliance with them at Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 391-3-
4-.10(3). Thus, Georgia's CCR permit program contains identical 
requirements regarding location restrictions to those contained in the 
Federal CCR regulations. Additionally, the 100-year floodplain 
provisions at Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 391-3-4-.05(1)(d) and 391-3-
4-.10(9)(c)1.(ii) are identical to the Federal floodplain provision in 
the Federal CCR regulations at Sec. Sec.  257.52(b) and 257.3-1.
    The ``significant groundwater recharge area'' restrictions for 
Georgia's MSWLFs, mentioned by some commenters, are not relevant to 
EPA's approval of Georgia's CCR permit program. RCRA section 4005(d) 
requires EPA to evaluate two components of a state program to determine 
whether it meets the standard for approval; (1) the adequacy of the CCR 
state permit program itself, see 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(A); and (2) the 
adequacy of the technical criteria to be included in each permit, to 
determine whether they are the same as the Federal criteria, or to the 
extent they differ, whether the modified criteria are ``at least as 
protective as'' the Federal criteria, see 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B). 
Georgia's significant groundwater recharge area restrictions for MSWLFs 
are codified at O.C.G.A. section 12-8-25.2. There is no analogous 
restriction in the Federal CCR regulations for CCR units, so this 
restriction is not needed for Georgia to meet the RCRA section 
4005(d)(1)(B) standard.
    Similarly, there are no criteria in the Federal CCR regulations in 
part 257 restricting CCR disposal near populated areas, so such 
restrictions are also not necessary for Georgia's CCR permit program to 
meet the RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(B) standard.
5. Groundwater Monitoring and Corrective Action Issues
    Comment Summary: The Agency received many comments detailing site-
specific groundwater contamination allegedly caused by various CCR 
facilities located in the State of Georgia. Other comments were about 
general groundwater contamination in Georgia that could be due to CCR 
facilities. Some commenters described the human health and 
environmental impacts of certain constituents present in groundwater 
and surface water.
    Comment Response: EPA's action in this document is on the adequacy 
of Georgia's CCR permit program, and EPA is not making any 
determinations regarding the compliance status of individual facilities 
or CCR units in this action. The comments addressing particular 
facilities' compliance with regulatory requirements are therefore 
beyond the scope of this action. Georgia adopts by reference the 
Federal CCR regulations for groundwater monitoring and corrective 
action at Sec. Sec.  257.90, 257.91, and 257.93 through 257.98. at Ga. 
Comp. R. and Regs. 391-3-4-.10(1)(c), and requires compliance with them 
at Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 391-3-4-.10(6)(a), and therefore meets the 
standard in RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(B)(i) that the program will require 
each CCR unit located in the state to achieve compliance with the 
Federal CCR requirements at 40 CFR part 257, subpart D.
    An analysis of the overall risks associated with the management of 
CCR is specifically addressed at 80 FR 21433, in the April 2015 final 
rule establishing the Federal CCR regulations and is not being reopened 
here.
6. Closure Issues and Unlined CCR Units
    Comment Summary: Commenters were concerned about closure of CCR 
units with waste in place, especially if the CCR unit is unlined, near 
a water body, or if there is groundwater contamination from the CCR 
unit detected from the groundwater monitoring and corrective action 
program.
    Commenters also identified specific closure plans for CCR units 
that have been submitted to GA EPD and argued that those closure plans 
do not, and cannot, satisfy the closure in place requirements at Sec.  
257.102(d) or the equivalent State closure regulations. The commenters 
suggested that these would be reasons to not approve Georgia's CCR 
permit program.
    Some comments raised concerns about CCR disposal units with waste 
left in place that commenters believed must be monitored and remediated 
forever to prevent water pollution. These comments also raised concerns 
that Georgia's CCR permit program contemplates only a 30-year post-
closure care period.
    Comment Response: EPA is not making any determinations regarding 
the adequacy of any particular closure plans prepared by individual 
facilities based on the public comment process for this action. EPA 
reviews CCR state program applications primarily on the legal and 
regulatory framework that a state puts forward. Here, Georgia adopts by 
reference the Federal closure standards Sec. Sec.  257.100 through 
257.104 at Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 391-3-4-.10(7). Therefore, this 
aspect of Georgia's CCR permit program will require each CCR unit 
located in the State to achieve compliance with the Federal CCR 
requirements.
    EPA's action in this document is on the adequacy of Georgia's CCR 
permit program, and EPA is not making any determinations regarding the 
compliance status of individual facilities or CCR units in this action. 
The comments addressing particular facilities' compliance with 
regulatory requirements are therefore beyond the scope of this action.
    Moreover, GA EPD is in the process of reviewing closure plans 
submitted to the State, along with permit applications from the CCR 
facilities, and has as yet made no determinations that EPA could 
review. EPA will not attempt to speculate on Georgia's subsequent 
implementation of its CCR permit program, as this will be addressed in 
future State program reviews, as required by RCRA section 
4005(d)(1)(D)(i).
    An analysis of overall risks associated with management of CCR is 
specifically addressed in the April 17, 2015 Federal CCR final rule at 
80 FR 21433 but is beyond the scope of this action approving Georgia's 
CCR permit program and is not being reopened here.
7. USWAG et al. v. EPA Decision
    Comment Summary: A few commenters mentioned the USWAG v. EPA, 901 
F.3d 414 (D.C. Cir. 2018) case and the fact that Georgia is seeking a 
partial program approval because of three issues addressed by the D.C. 
Circuit Court's decision in the case. Other commenters said that 
Georgia met the necessary criteria for a partial program approval 
because Georgia did not seek approval for any of the provisions in the 
Federal CCR regulations affected by the Court's decision. Specifically, 
Georgia did not seek approval for the following:
    1. Requirements for inactive impoundments at inactive facilities, 
which EPA has yet to establish following the vacatur of 40 CFR 
257.50(e);
    2. Its adoption by reference of 40 CFR 257.101(a), which allows 
unlined impoundments to continue receiving CCR unless they leak; and
    3. Its adoption by reference of 40 CFR 257.71(a)(1)(i), which 
classifies ``clay-lined'' impoundments as lined.
    Comment Response: EPA has determined that partial program approval 
is appropriate in light of the USWAG decision vacating 40 CFR

[[Page 1277]]

257.50(e),\5\ 257.101(a), and 257.71(a)(1)(i). As some commenters 
noted, Georgia did not seek approval for any of the State analogues to 
the Federal provisions that were vacated, and EPA did not propose to 
approve those aspects of Georgia's CCR permit program. This means that, 
even after EPA's partial program approval of Georgia's CCR permit 
program, owners and operators of CCR units in Georgia remain 
responsible for complying with any Federal requirements that are 
promulgated in response to the D.C. Circuit's vacatur of 40 CFR 
257.50(e), 257.101(a), and 257.71(a)(1)(i), through the self-
implementing framework of the Federal CCR regulations. As a 
consequence, the Federal provisions affected by the USWAG decision are 
irrelevant to whether the other aspects of Georgia's partial CCR permit 
program meet the standard for approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As discussed in Unit II, Georgia regulates inactive surface 
impoundments at inactive facilities, but it did not seek approval of 
that part of its CCR permit program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Approval of Georgia's State CCR Permit Program

    Upon signature of this document, Georgia's CCR permit program, as 
described in its Application and Unit II, is approved. Because this is 
a partial program approval, only the State requirements that have been 
approved will operate in lieu of the analogous Federal requirements. 
Accordingly, owners and operators of CCR units in Georgia will remain 
responsible for compliance with all applicable requirements in 40 CFR 
part 257 for which Georgia did not seek approval, specifically, 40 CFR 
257.3-2 (requirements relevant to Threatened and Endangered Species) 
and any Federal requirements that are promulgated in response to the 
D.C. Circuit's vacatur of 40 CFR 257.50(e), 257.101(a), and 
257.71(a)(1)(i). EPA will implement such provisions under the Federal 
CCR program, until and unless Georgia submits a revised CCR permit 
program application and receives approval for these provisions. A 
permit issued by a state is not a shield for noncompliance with these 
part 257 provisions. For any CCR units that have received permits under 
Ga. Comp. R. and Regs. 391-3-4-.10, such permits will be in effect in 
lieu of the Federal 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, CCR regulations, except 
for those provisions noted above for which Georgia did not seek 
approval. For those CCR units that are not yet permitted, the Federal 
regulations at part 257 will remain in effect until such time that GA 
EPD issues permits under its approved CCR permit program for those 
units.
    The WIIN Act specifies that EPA will review a state CCR permit 
program:
     From time to time, as the Administrator determines 
necessary, but not less frequently than once every 12 years;
     Not later than 3 years after the date on which the 
Administrator revises the applicable criteria for CCR units under part 
257 of title 40, CFR (or successor regulations promulgated pursuant to 
RCRA sections 1008(a)(3) and 4004(a));
     Not later than 1 year after the date of a significant 
release (as defined by the Administrator), that was not authorized at 
the time the release occurred, from a CCR unit located in the state; 
and
     In request of any other state that asserts that the soil, 
groundwater, or surface water of the state is or is likely to be 
adversely affected by a release or potential release from a CCR unit 
located in the state for which the program was approved.
    The WIIN Act also provides that in a state with an approved CCR 
permitting program, the Administrator may commence an administrative or 
judicial enforcement action under section 3008 if:
     The state requests that the Administrator provide 
assistance in the performance of an enforcement action; or
     After consideration of any other administrative or 
judicial enforcement action involving the CCR unit, the Administrator 
determines that an enforcement action is likely to be necessary to 
ensure that the CCR unit is operating in accordance with the criteria 
established under the state's permit program.

V. Action

    In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6945(d), EPA is approving Georgia's 
partial CCR state permit program.

    Dated: December 16, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-27665 Filed 1-9-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P