Last month, Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) questioned EPA Administrator Michael Regan on coal plants during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00 The gentlelady yields. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith.
00:06 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. The EPA published its coal combustion residual
00:12 rule on coal ash disposal and on expanding jurisdiction to all CCR ponds with a standard
00:19 that only allows for closure. Isn't that correct? I'm sorry, could you repeat that, sir?
00:25 EPA published its coal combustion residual CCR rule on coal ash disposal and expanding
00:31 jurisdiction to all CCR ponds with a standard that really only allows for closure. Isn't that correct?
00:37 No, I think that there are opportunities where you could have the proper monitoring in place
00:47 and the proof that there is no contact with groundwater that would allow for a remedy.
00:54 All right. In 2015, the same EPA regulated coal ash under subtitle D of the Resource
01:00 Conservation Recovery Act, implying that ash is solid waste, not hazardous waste.
01:06 In 2015 regulation, the EPA specifically mentions how coal ash has beneficial uses
01:12 and is not, I repeat this was from the EPA, is not classified as hazardous waste.
01:18 So why would you restrict other uses in the 2024 rule by only requiring closures or this
01:25 system where you have it completely shut off from any contact with water?
01:31 Well, I think we have the science that proves, like in my home state of North Carolina where
01:38 this coal ash was not properly disposed of, we've seen the contact, we've seen the consequences
01:44 to groundwater and drinking water. So the science proves that when you have the leaching of this coal
01:49 ash into drinking water, groundwater, that it definitely impacts public health and especially
01:54 those neighborhoods and communities that are in close contact to these coal ash facilities.
01:58 Do you anticipate any enforcement actions against coal ash users who buy coal ash from CCR impoundments?
02:09 The regulation is focused on the proper storage of coal ash and so this is focused on if the
02:16 facility that has been responsible for generating the ash is not properly disposing of it, then that
02:23 is where EPA's focus is. So I guess I'm trying to figure out, have you decided now it is a hazardous
02:31 waste? We know that coal ash is hazardous. We know that from just looking at the health
02:37 disbenefits of it and the rule gives the proper prescription for how to dispose of it.
02:42 So here's the concern I have. The rules changed from 2015 to 2024. If it is considered hazardous,
02:51 then does everyone who has a product like a cinder block building that was built out of
02:57 cinder blocks that used coal ash, do they need to be worried about liability or abatement
03:05 because they come into contact with water? No. Abatement or worry about that product,
03:11 remove it like you do with asbestos? No, that product has gone through a process that has
03:15 stripped or removed most of the toxics or potentially all of the toxics from it. So those
03:20 byproducts are not what we're regulating. We're regulating that raw ash that has been improperly
03:26 stored for a number of years. You know, one of my concerns is that that's what the EPA says today.
03:35 But in 2015, it wasn't even considered hazardous. Now it's considered hazardous
03:40 and what will it be in 2033? Hazardous.
03:45 It'll be hazardous, but what about those people with the cinder blocks? I'm just saying I think
03:50 the rule if I had a cinder block building and I do, I might be worried about that.
03:54 Do you all intend for companies to have to amend their closure plans for existing units which were
04:01 required to be developed years ago in order to meet the new rule? I'll have to get back to the
04:07 specifics. It depends on the facility and what they're currently doing to monitor and if there
04:11 is no groundwater contact or if there's adequate monitoring, then I'm sure there's a plan for it.
04:16 If they've already developed a plan years ago, you're saying they could be required to shut down
04:20 under the new rule and have to come up with a different plan? Not necessarily shut down,
04:24 but they'll have to take a look at the existing plan to see if it meets the new requirements to
04:29 ensure that there is little to no groundwater contact or that they are monitoring the contact
04:34 that's occurring. Let me ask you this. If there's a pond out there that's been closed for years,
04:38 doesn't meet the new rule requirements and there's been no problem and the EPA doesn't
04:44 find any problem, why would you require the utility to uncap, dig up and then send
04:49 numerous dump trucks through what is likely small community for weeks if not months and years in
04:54 order to move the product that you say is hazardous from a facility where apparently
04:58 it's been stored for years safely? I'm not sure you'd have to do that. That scenario you just
05:02 laid out, we'd have to look at the... But if it comes in contact with some water but hasn't been
05:07 a problem, I think you... We may not know if it's been a problem unless it's been properly
05:12 monitoring, which is why monitoring is a key in this conversation. All right, I yield back. My
05:17 time is up.