CCR Public Hearing Transcript

1
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION
PUBLIC HEARING
2
3
4
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
ENERGY and ENVIRONMENT CABINET
DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION
DIVISION of WASTE MANAGEMENT/DIVISION of WATER
5
6
November 22, 2016
6:00 p.m.
7
8
* * * * * * * * * *
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
YANKEYREPORTING@YAHOO.COM 502/939-6211
1
2
ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION PUBLIC HEARING
3
* * * * * *
4
5
6
I N D E X
7
8
PROCEEDINGS BY MR. MAYBRIAR:
3-8
PUBLIC SPEAKERS:
8-25
10
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE:
27
11
TODD HENDICKS REPORT ALSO ATTACHED
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PROCEEDINGS:
The Administrative Regulation Public Hearing
was held on Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 300 Sower
Blvd., 1st Floor, located at Frankfort, Kentucky,
beginning at 6 p.m. and ending at 7 p.m.
6
7
MR. MAYBRIAR:
8
9
let's get started.
Good afternoon everyone;
My name is John Maybriar, and
10
I'm the director of the Division Of Waste Management
11
within the Department Of Environmental Protection.
12
And I want to thank you all for attending this
13
public hearing on coal combustion residual proposed
14
amendments and the new administrative regulations
15
401 KAR 45:010, 401 KAR 45:060, 401 KAR 46:101, 401
16
KAR 46:110, 401 KAR 46:120 401 KAR 4:070.
17
Tonight I'll be the moderator for this public
18
hearing.
19
comments in a public forum so the agency has
20
established this event to receive these comments.
21
Some of you all requested to present
With me this evening are Danny Anderson; he
22
is the branch manager for the Division of Waste
23
Management Solid Waste Branch, Ron Price who is the
24
staff assistant, who is in the rear.
25
of the Division of Water, Pete Goodman and also
The director
Alanna Aldridge and Caroline Tobin -- where is
Caroline?
There she is over there, thank you.
And along with these staff will be other
staff within the Division of Waste Management
attending the hearing as well.
tonight's hearing will be prepared by the person to
my right.
registration desk at the back of the room; if there
is anyone who did not sign in upon entering please
A transcript of
There is a sign-in sheet at the
10
do so before you leave tonight so we can have an
11
accurate record of everyone who attended.
12
If you wish to speak please indicate that on
13
the side of the sheet.
14
on the CCR proposed amendments in the new
15
administrative regulations, we have a few sign-ups
16
that was developed by the Division of Waste
17
Management, so if anybody has not received that fact
18
sheet can you show them the fact-sheet?
19
There is also a fact-sheet
If anybody would like a copy of that
20
fact-sheet please go ahead and feel free to grab
21
that at this time.
22
purpose of this hearing is to receive comments from
23
the public regarding the cabinet's proposed
24
amendments and the new administrative regulations
25
regarding coal combustion residuals.
As I mentioned previously, the
The two regulations 401 KR chapter 45, were
amended to exclude the regulation of coal combustion
residuals, we call them CCRs.
in the new 401 KAR Chapter 46.
46.10 and 401 KR-070 would adopt the federal
regulations and the requirements for CCR that became
effective in October of 2015.
8
9
That will be governed

401 KAR Chapter
In addition 401 KAR 46:120 establishes the

requirements for a CCR permit by rule.
The
10
transition of permits for facilities previously
11
regulated by 401 KAR chapter 45, also the reporting
12
requirements for the beneficial use of CCR.
13
Procedures which are regulated have to be made
14
requests and concurrence from the cabinet for
15
compliance and fees associated with implementation
16
of the program.
17
The hearing will be conducted as a
18
non-adversarial hearing.
19
providing verbal testimony will not be questioned by
20
other participants or observers regarding that
21
testimony.
22
occasionally ask questions if necessary to clarify
23
the meaning of a comment.
24
25
That is, participants
However, myself and other DP staff may
Please be respectful to others.
Keep
yourself on side conversations to a minimum and

provide each speaker with your attention.
comments will be considered by the cabinet and
addressed in a statement of consideration document.
All
This Statement of Consideration document will
be filed with the LRC, which is the Legislative
Research Commission or with the final proposed
version of the regulation for review by the
Legislative Oversight Committees.
verbal comments will receive equal consideration.
10
Both written and
All persons making comments for which we have
11
a complete and legible mailing address will receive
12
a copy of the statement of consideration.
13
persons wanting a copy of the Statement of
14
Consideration should indicate on the sign-in sheet
15
at the registration desk.
16
version of your comments and a spare copy of the
17
comments, please provide them to us before you
18
speak; again your full written and verbal comments
19
will be considered as part of the hearing record.
20
Everyone will be given a five-minute
All
If you have a written
21
timeframe to speak initially with -- in an effort to
22
assure everyone that wishes to provide comments has
23
a chance.
24
additional time to anyone who wishes to have further
25
comments.
We will come back at the end to allow
Mr. Laurie Green, Laurie will you raise
your hand?
What he has -- time everybody, you will
be given a one-minute warning as you approach toward
the end of your five minutes and then he will flip
it over and say your time is done.
But if you do have additional comments and
you want to return after that five-minute period,
you will be able to do so at the end of all the
other comments have been presented.
calling the names in order of those who signed in on
10
the sign-in sheet and those that wish to give verbal
11
testimony.
12
We will be
And if you are uncomfortable coming up and
13
speaking and you still wanted to attend and you have
14
your written comments you can come up here and
15
present them to here -- at my right your left and
16
present the comments over here and we will receive
17
those comments.
18
When your name is called please come forward
19
and submit your written comments and the name -- and
20
your name for the record.
21
organization, company or group, please give that
22
affiliation.
23
questions before we get started?
If you're representing an
So at that point are there any
24
Oh, Wes told me we needed to let everybody
25
know where the restrooms are, major importance to

that, so if you go back out toward the main doors
you came in there is a wooden hallway.
wooden walk.
right as you are leaving, there are the restrooms
located in that area if you all need to go to the
bathroom.
At
There is a
Go down the right-hand side, to your
this point, do we have a list of the
names of people that will be wanting to speak?
Okay.
10
Kelly?
11
I will sit down when you get up to talk here okay?
12
And we will start off with Kelly Leach.

And we'll be sharing the mic this evening so
MS. LEACH:
All right.
Thank you.
My name
13
is Kelly Leach, L-E-A-C-H.
14
Trimble County of LGE's proposed coal-ash landfill.
15
Our property is 116 feet from the waste boundary as
16
they're proposed.
17
I'm a neighbor in
I really don't understand the regulations to
18
be honest with you for the details of them.
And
19
but, what I do understand is or want to make note of
20
is the fact that I do feel like with the division
21
here being able to contact them with issues,
22
concerns, things like that, that we've had over and
23
I've been doing this almost six years, I feel like
24
they're better protected from things that could be
25
going on or concerns of things that I think may not

be right or that kind of thing with them being here.
If I am right and the situation is that where
the waste management team is out of the picture, you
know, I'm concerned with where in the EPA that I
would contact or what kind of representation that I
might have.
You know, I don't think any of us in here
would be happy to live 116 feet away from a proposed
landfill.
I know some people that live next to one
10
now and I know it's something that we have to have.
11
I mean, you know, I like to turn the lights on just
12
like anybody else does, but I'd like to feel like
13
that I'm better protected with these kind of
14
impoundments.
15
And I think anybody else here or anywhere
16
else would feel the same way.
17
I do understand with it is the fact that the state
18
is either going to be eliminated from this or not as
19
proactive.
20
it; I'd like to see,you know, to have as much
21
protection as all of us really do need for something
22
like this thats going on.
23
24
25
So if what little bit
And I do want to say that I'm opposed of
MR. MAYBRIAR:
Thank you very much.
The next person signed is
Kathy Little.
MS. LITTLE:
Hello my name is Kathy Little,
10
thats, L-I-T-T-L-E.
Run power plant in Louisville, Kentucky.
told that the proposed regulations were written by a
power-plant attorney.
accurate or not, but I would think that would be a
conflict of interest.
reading it anyway, I am having issues with reading
the proposed regulations as well.
I am a neighbor of the Cane

And I was
I'm not sure if thats
It appears from the way I'm
But it appears that the state will not be
10
regulating special-waste landfills anymore.
11
what I hear, no permitting, no modifications, no
12
notices of deficiencies by the state.
13
regulations will be the law of the land, I believe,
14
and power plants will self-regulate.
15
don't follow federal regulation?
16
From
Federal
What if they
There are no federal regulators, I don't
17
believe.
18
Kentuckian constituents?
19
administration coming in -- in January, and they are
20
going to cut two regulations for every one.
21
even have federal regulations in the future?
22
what would Kentucky be?
23
Who is going to protect affected

With the Trump
Will we
So
A state without regulation.
I am concerned about this.
I like our state
24
regulatory agency.
I believe that you know, no
25
business should have the right to self-regulate

11
there's, you know, way too much liability as far as
you know, our waterways, our streams, our you know,
everything that could be hurt because someone
doesnt follow to the rule, would be devastating.
And I feel like that the state should
continue to regulate.
know, my being up here matters one way or the other.
I don't know whether, you
But I think that we're doing just fine.
I think
that we, you know, basically let individuals know
10
within our state agencies when we're not happy and
11
theyll let us know, well there is something we can
12
do about that or there is not.
13
But for us not to have a federal regulator,
14
you know, what do we do?
15
what do we do?
16
would take the ability for private citizens to go
17
before federal judges away at this point.
18
Like Kelly says, what --
There is a bill in the Senate that
So that would be our federal answer, you
19
know, that we -- that citizens, you know, that know
20
nothing about regulating, you know, CCR none at all,
21
but if we happened to figure it out that they're
22
not, you know, adhering to the regulations we did
23
have that ability.
24
25
But it's in the Senate now that, you know,

that might be taken away from us.
So my question
12
is, what, you know, what can we do as private
citizens that live and are affected, that live close
to one of the eight in Kentucky, special waste
landfills.
to know that.
with that answer I would appreciate it.
going to protect private citizens, you know, without
state regulation?
What do we do?
I certainly would like
And if someone could follow through

Who is
Thank you so much.
MR. MAYBRIAR:
10
MR. MCELORY:
Sonia McElroy.
S-O-N-I-A, M-C-E-L-R-O-Y.
11
am Sonia McElroy, and I am a resident of Trimble
12
County.
13
around long enough to have seen different disasters
14
over my 69 years.
15
been very pleased with the way the Division of Waste
16
Management has acted and been involved to enforce
17
the regulations that were on the books.
18
I'm also a conservationist.
I've been
And I have to tell you I have
Now what we know is that the coal-ash pond
19
that if being closed, or will be closed, in Trimble
20
County.
21
leaching waste into the ground water, into the Ohio
22
river.
23
issued notices of deficiency when the monitoring
24
wells have, when the monitoring wells have shown
25
that there were deficiencies and leaching in to
Ever since its inception it has been
And the Division of Waste Management has
13
those areas.
Now, I also today took the trouble to look up
the mission of the Division of Waste Management.
It
is to protect human health and the environment by
minimizing adverse impact on all citizens of the
Commonwealth through the development and
implementation of fair, equitable and effective
waste management programs via program planning and
administration and regional field operation efforts.
10
Now if these new regulations go into effect, the
11
Division of Waste Management's mission statement is
12
to the four winds.
13
henhouse to regulate it.
14
It's like letting the fox in the
Energy companies are big, theyve got lots of
15
money.
16
by the assets that PPL has.
And that is who owns
17
LG&E and Kentucky Utilities.
They are worldwide.
18
And I can't even remember, but I am boggled
You know, we cannot sentence regular people
19
without the current administrative regulation, we
20
cannot fight them, there is no way.
21
we can look forward, in time, to more abuses,
22
because we've seen them.
23
coal-ash slurry end up in rivers, we've seen waste
24
put in mines out in the west.
25
grievous damage to the environment.
And I know that
We've seen dams break,
And that has caused
14
I know that most of us are aware of the
history in Kentucky, the rape of eastern Kentucky
when big timber and coal did whatever they wanted.
They destroyed pristine areas and we're working to
try to get those areas back.
regulations then we will not been able to have an
environment that is safe for future generations.
8
9
If you allow these new
I don't have any grandchildren, but I know a

lot of people that do.
And they look forward to
10
leaving their land, their farms, to those children
11
to continue.
12
And I ask you to preserve and protect our
13
environment and not adopt the amendments, because
14
putting the coal-ash landfill in a parsed area, an
15
area that is full of sinkholes and small caves is a
16
disaster waiting to happen.
17
lifetime, but I know none of you would want to live
18
next to a landfill.
Maybe not in my
Thank you.
19
MR. MAYBRIAR:
20
MR. HENDRICKS:
Todd Hendricks.
My name is Todd Hendricks,
21
T-O-D-D, H-E-N-D-R-I-C-K-S.
I am a Professional
22
Geologist and I have a Bachelor of Science and a
23
Master of Science degree in Geology.
24
professional experience and have worked in the Solid
25
Waste Branch of the Division of Waste Management for
27 years of
15
over 18 and 1/2 years.
I make these comments as a citizen on my own
time.
understandable that those in the utility industry
who generate CCR wastes do not want to be
double-regulated.
However, I assert that the federal CCR rule does not
represent regulation at all; it simply defines
parameters for lawsuits.
10
I speak for myself, not my employer.
It is
I don't envy their position.
The proposed state regulatory package is - at
11
best premature.
12
pending regarding the RCRA coal combustion residuals
13
Rule, and the rewrite of rule is underway.
14
also unclear what modifications will be made as a
15
result of the change of presidential
16
administrations.
17
Both litigation and legislation are
It is
The only certainty is -- is that the
18
requirements of a revised CCR Rule, if there is one,
19
will be different from the requirements of the
20
present rule.
21
proposed state regulations should be postponed until
22
the outcome of pending federal litigation and the
23
current revision of the CCR Rule, article is
24
complete.
25
At a minimum, implementation of the
By far, the best course of action at this

16
point in time is to leave the present requirements
of 401 KR chapters 30, 40 and 45 in effect for these
facilities until the federal regulations are in a
reasonably final form.
incorporate things by reference that we don't even
know what they're going to be.
requirements are not much of an additional burden
and it wouldnt, if given that these facilities
monitor on a semiannual basis, it really doesnt
10
11
It makes no sense to
The state
amount to much.
Okay.
The next issue is Permit-By-Rule.
The
12
pending federal legislation which has passed both
13
the house and the senate in different versions,
14
proposes the delegation of an authority to state
15
programs with permitting programs that meet or
16
exceed the federal requirements.
17
incorporate large parts of the federal rule by
18
reference, the proposed state regulations do not
19
constitute a permitting program per se, because a
20
permit-by-rule is preemptively granted without any
21
independent state agency oversight of the siting,
22
design, construction, operation, environmental
23
monitoring, and reporting regarding these
24
facilities.
25
proposal such as that included in 401 KAR chapter 46
Although they
It is unlikely the permit-by-rule
17
would allow Kentucky to achieve authorization under
a revised federal regulation.
Also, CCR waste or compositionally
inappropriate for permits-by-rule.
It is commonly
asserted Coal Combustion Residuals are "low hazard."
However, this is not always the case, and a growing
body of evidence shows significant potential hazards
to human health and environment due to releases from
some CCR units.
Analysis of groundwater and
10
leachate from CCR units in Kentucky has shown
11
elevated levels of heavy metals, sulfate, boron and
12
other contaminates.
13
One facility is conducting groundwater
14
corrective action for contamination of karst springs
15
with arsenic leaching from an inactive surface
16
impoundment.
17
contaminated groundwater per day are captured and
18
pumped to the active surface impoundment for
19
dilution and discharge through a KPDS permitted
20
outfall.
21
Hundreds of thousands of gallons of
State laboratory analysis of one recent
22
sample of fluid, presumably leachate flowing from
23
the toe of a full CCR landfill showed 9.81
24
milligrams per liter of arsenic, which is 981 times
25
the MCL.
18
Fluids containing arsenic at this level may
be characteristically hazardous because of toxicity.
Containment landfills are regulated to the highest
standards of any solid or special waste site or
facility, but I have never seen any leachate
analysis from a contained landfill that indicated
that the leachate itself could be characteristically
hazardous.
later.
10
And my time is up and I will come back
MR. MAYBRIAR:
Was there anybody else that
11
wished to make additional comments that didn't sign
12
up or did sign up or didn't check the correct box?
13
Okay.
14
comments, Todd, you're still allowed to continue on
15
for a few more minutes.
16
Since no one else has any additional
MR. HENDRICKS:
Okay.
All right.
Just tell me when my
17
time is up.
One problem with these
18
facilities is metal rejects and pyrites.
19
are generated by facilities that use roller mills to
20
press coal for combustion.
21
been disposed in many surface environments and
22
landfills throughout the state.
23
data indicates that these wastes can, in some cases,
24
be characteristically hazardous due to toxicity with
25
respect to heavy metals.
And they
These materials have
Published industry
19
According to the same industry publication, a
facility burning bituminous coal can be expected to
produce between 750 to 1,200 tons of pyrites for a
year per hundred megawatt capacity.
megawatt plant could produce 5,625 to 9,000 tons of
pyrites per year.
So one 750
Since the effective date of the CCR Rule,
which was October 17, 2015, these wastes are no
longer exempt from classification as hazardous
10
waste.
11
are obligated to perform the appropriate testing to
12
determine whether the subject mill rejects and
13
pyrites are characteristically hazardous, and
14
dispose of them properly.
15
Therefore, facilities producing such wastes
The next issue is EPS violations.
EPS means
16
environmental performance standards.
The
17
environmental performance standards of 401 KAR.
18
30:031 prohibit special waste sites from polluting
19
groundwater above an MCL.
20
facilities already have MCL exceedances in
21
groundwater.
22
type of permit for activities that the legislature
23
has determined are sufficiently low-hazard, that a
24
written permit is unnecessary, will it be possible
25
for facilities that already have MCL exceedances to
However, many of these
Given that the permit-by-rule is a
20
remain permits-by-rule.
environmental performance standard in 401 KAR
30:031, it is difficult to argue that the facility
or the waste is low-hazard.
If a facility violates an
In the proposed regulation, 401 KAR 46:120
Section 1, seems to require a higher standard of
performance for beneficial use when compared to
surface impoundments and landfills.
states that a beneficial use is deemed to have a
Subsection 2
10
permit-by-rule only if it is in compliance with 401
11
KAR Chapter 46 and the environmental performance
12
standards of 401 KAR 30:031.
13
However, Section 1 (1) allows landfills and
14
surface impoundments to remain permits-by-rule even
15
when the CCR unit is in violation of provisions of
16
Chapter 46 as well as 401 KAR 30:031.
17
environmental sense, given that human health and
18
environmental receptors do not distinguish between
19
contaminants produced by a landfill, a surface
20
impoundment, or a beneficial use.
21
This makes no
CCR units, especially those with confirmed
22
groundwater pollution and those in corrective action
23
should retain their full written, formal permits,
24
and those CCR facilities lacking them presently
25
should be issued full written formal permits.

21
With regard to self-regulation,
self-certification and citizen lawsuits a
significant weakness of the federal CCR rule is that
it relies on self-regulation by the facilities and
self-certification by Professional Engineers
regarding every aspect of the siting, design,
construction, operation, environmental monitoring
and reporting regarding CCR units.
Professional Engineers are paid by the regulated
10
entity, creating at least an apparent conflict of
11
interest.
12
presently provided by the energy environment cabinet
13
under Chapters 30, 40 and 45 of the Kentucky
14
Administrative Regulations) is involved.
15
The subject
No independent oversight (like that
Some certification of monitoring systems by
16
engineers has recently not been sufficient.
17
Specifically, information available to the cabinet
18
indicates that for two facilities that constructed
19
monitoring wells in an effort to meet the CCR Rule
20
without seeking approval from KDWM, both installed
21
wells incorrectly.
22
of the CCR wells out-of-compliance regarding the
23
construction standards of 401 KAR 6:350, they
24
actually retrofitted all of the existing mining
25
wells that were in compliance, bringing them out of
One site not only installed all
22
compliance.
In another case, at least one well at an ash
impoundment was installed through 8.6 feet of "gray
wet ash" (i.e., waste) and one foot of "gray wet
clay" (possibly the bottom liner).
through waste is acceptable and the subject well
should be over drilled and grouted up.
8
9
No well drilled
With regard to financial assurance, current

regulations require bonds for the closure of CCR
10
landfills.
And bond for groundwater corrective
11
action.
12
Management holds $40,378,953 in financial assurance
13
to ensure proper closure of special-waste landfills,
14
used for the disposal of CCR.
Presently the Kentucky Division of Waste
15
One landfill is under construction and
16
another that is proposed would result in the posting
17
of another $4,3838,95 dollars and $8,785,000
18
dollars, respectively, bringing the total to
19
$61,547,848 dollars.
20
become effective, all of the present permit
21
requirements will become null and void upon the
22
effective date including the financial assurance
23
required under 401 KAR chapter 45.
24
returned to the facilities.
25
If the proposed regulations
The bond will be
As a consequence in the event of a bankruptcy

23
of the utility owning a CCR unit the relevant unit
or units will have to be closed under superfunds,
the cost to the taxpayers, which is both slow and
expensive.
retained, it should be extended to include closure
of all surface impoundments.
Financial assurance would not only by
I maintain that this regulatory package is
probably inconsistent with KRS.224.10-100 and in
specifically, 221.4.10-100 listed powers and duties
10
of the cabinet.
And it says the following:
In
11
addition to any other powers and duties vested in it
12
by law, the cabinet shall have the authority, power
13
and duty to do the following things.
14
passive law.
15
Okay.
That is not a
It requires the cabinet to do things.

With regard to 401 KAR 46:126 and 52
16
of the present or the proposed regulations, the
17
language in the subsection conflicts with the
18
existing statute in regulation and in particular the
19
word "invalidate" does not appear in the Kentucky
20
Revised Statutes 224.10-100.
21
uses the terms "issue, continue and effect, revoke,
22
modify, suspend or deny."
23
applicable terms are "modify, suspend, invoke and
24
discontinue."
25
Instead the statute
And 401 KAR 40:040 the
Next 401 KAR 46:110 Section (a) incorporates

24
by reference the federal CCR groundwater monitoring
requirements in totality.
CCR rule is not a good fit geologically for
Kentucky, where 40 percent of the land overlies
KARST geology.
KARST groundwater via springs is made in the CCR
rule.
in the regulations, although 40 CFR.257.91(a)(2)
states, "all potential contaminate pathways must be
Unfortunately the federal
No specific provision for monitoring
Only wells are specified as monitoring points
10
monitored."
11
their attorneys and their consulting engineers are
12
interpreting 40 CFR 257.91 only to mean that only
13
wells installed in accordance with the CCR rule can
14
be acceptable monitoring points under the rule and
15
that existing state monitoring systems, which are
16
the product of site specific geological evaluation
17
and the data collected for them, are irrelevant to
18
the purpose of the federal CCR rule.
19
These CCR unit owner and operators,
With regard to concurrence I see no practical
20
benefit to either the citizens of the commonwealth
21
or the permittees or the holders of the permits by
22
rule.
23
Rule, the federal CCR Rule makes no mention of state
24
and local laws and requirements other than to say
25
that it is in addition to those.
It simply doesn't provide anything.
The CCR
It is unlikely
25
that consulting engineers will have the experience
and knowledge of local laws and regulations; they
will simply do things in accordance with the federal
rule and certify themselves in compliance.
With regard to burrow areas are permits
required?
Is a mining permit required?
Because
when we issue permits from the Division of Waste
Management and again, I'm speaking individually and
when I say "we", thats just because I do it when
10
I'm at work, we issue permits that include the
11
burrow areas.
12
lack of citizen input in this process if these regs
13
are adopted.
14
notice, no public comment period, someone can just
15
fill the landfill if you're engineer certified
16
providing nobody sees them.
17
Okay.
Finally there is a notable
There will be no provision for public
We have to ask ourselves whether we want a
18
system where a 200 acre landfill with 100 acre
19
burrow area can be built without any state input and
20
any input by the local communities.
21
MR. MAYBRIAR:
Thank you.
Is there anybody else that
22
would like to make comments at this point?
Okay.
23
If not, thank you all for coming out and being part
24
of this hearing tonight.
25
comments and this meeting is adjourned.
And we appreciate your

Thank you.
26
One last thing before you all leave, if
anybody didn't have written comments that they
didn't get to tonight or you want a copy
feel free to hand them over here to my right for the
official record, thank you again.
6
7
please
(WHEREUPON, the Division of Waste Management

Hearing concludes at 7:20 p.m.)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
CERTIFICATE
1
2
STATE OF KENTUCKY
COUNTY OF OLDHAM
)
)
I, BRENDA YANKEY, the undersigned Court Reporter
and Notary Public in and for the State of
Kentucky,State at Large, certify that the facts
stated in the caption hereto are true, that at the
time and place stated in said caption, the witness
named, that after being duly sworn, was examined by
10
counsel for the parties; that said testimony was
11
taken down in stenotype by me and later reduced to
12
type writing, and the foregoing is a true record of
13
the testimony given by said witness.
14
No party to said action nor counsel for said
15
parties requested in writing that said testimony be
16
signed by the testifying witness.
17
that I am not related by blood or marriage to any of
18
the parties hereto and that I have no interest in
19
the outcome of the captioned matter.
20
My commission expires:
I further certify
January 31, 2020.
21
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and
22
seal of office on this 4 day of December, 2016.
23
24
Crestwood, Oldham County, Kentucky.

BRENDA YANKEY, NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE AT LARGE, KENTUCKY NOTARY ID # 546481
25

CCR Public Hearing Transcript

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CCR Public Hearing Transcript

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1

November 22, 2016

ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION PUBLIC HEARING

PROCEEDINGS BY MR. MAYBRIAR:

TODD HENDICKS REPORT ALSO ATTACHED

The Administrative Regulation Public Hearing

was held on Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 300 Sower

Blvd., 1st Floor, located at Frankfort, Kentucky,

beginning at 6 p.m. and ending at 7 p.m.

let's get started.

Good afternoon everyone;

My name is John Maybriar, and

I'm the director of the Division Of Waste Management

within the Department Of Environmental Protection.

And I want to thank you all for attending this

public hearing on coal combustion residual proposed

amendments and the new administrative regulations

KAR 46:110, 401 KAR 46:120 401 KAR 4:070.

Tonight I'll be the moderator for this public

comments in a public forum so the agency has

established this event to receive these comments.

Some of you all requested to present

With me this evening are Danny Anderson; he

is the branch manager for the Division of Waste

Management Solid Waste Branch, Ron Price who is the

staff assistant, who is in the rear.

of the Division of Water, Pete Goodman and also

Alanna Aldridge and Caroline Tobin -- where is

There she is over there, thank you.

And along with these staff will be other

staff within the Division of Waste Management

attending the hearing as well.

tonight's hearing will be prepared by the person to

registration desk at the back of the room; if there

is anyone who did not sign in upon entering please

There is a sign-in sheet at the

do so before you leave tonight so we can have an

accurate record of everyone who attended.

If you wish to speak please indicate that on

the side of the sheet.

on the CCR proposed amendments in the new

administrative regulations, we have a few sign-ups

that was developed by the Division of Waste

Management, so if anybody has not received that fact

sheet can you show them the fact-sheet?

There is also a fact-sheet

If anybody would like a copy of that

fact-sheet please go ahead and feel free to grab

that at this time.

purpose of this hearing is to receive comments from

the public regarding the cabinet's proposed

amendments and the new administrative regulations

regarding coal combustion residuals.

As I mentioned previously, the

The two regulations 401 KR chapter 45, were

amended to exclude the regulation of coal combustion

residuals, we call them CCRs.

in the new 401 KAR Chapter 46.

46.10 and 401 KR-070 would adopt the federal

regulations and the requirements for CCR that became

effective in October of 2015.

That will be governed

In addition 401 KAR 46:120 establishes the

transition of permits for facilities previously