A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

Senate | June 17, 2014 | Committee Room | Environment Coal Ash Appropriations

Full MP3 Audio File

Ladies and gentlemen. Could sergeant at arms close the doors and everyone take their seat. We're going to begin the meeting. Sergeant at arms, we've got Steve Wilson, where are you? Okay, Steve. Giles Jeffrey, where's Giles? Okay good thank you Giles. And Charles Harper. Motorcycle man. Thank you Charles. Okay let's see, we've got a lot of pages. Let me get those introduced and then we'll begin our meeting. Parker Castlebury from Raleigh, Senator Tillman. Parker, where are you? All right, good. Yeah there you go. Spencer Mangum from Raleigh, Senator Daniel. Chandler Bird, Wake Forest, Brent Jackson. Catlyn Edburt, Hickory, very good to have you here. And you're Senator Allran. Thomas MacBrayer, Hickor, Senator Allran, is that correct? I pronounce your name correctly? Close enough? He does, doesn't he. Paul Wood, Senator Allran. Paul. You've got everybody in Hickory here. Good. Quinton Beale, Raleigh, if I pronounced that correctly. I don't know where he or she is, but. Sophia Politis, Harrisburg. Good to have you, Senator Hartsell. Senator Hartsell, you had a page and didn't even know it. Right. Okay, I'll take your word for it. If anybody has any amendments, if you would, we want to get them in as early as possible so give us an opportunity to look at these, so if anybody has or brought some with them if you would please, give them to the clerk or give them to the sergeant at arms and we'll go from there. Senator Apodaca, are you ready to begin? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, Mr. Chairman. Any time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right, you go right ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think I talked enough yesterday. I'll be more than happy to take any further questions or comments, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do want to clear the air on one issue that seems to have popped up overnight about the moratorium and what it applies to. Well it's the intent of this piece of legislation is to have the moratorium apply to all fill, from zero to whatever. And we'll deal with the classification of those areas during the moratorium period. So we're not trying to be lax and allow any particular coal ash ponds or facilities to skirt the law. That's not the intent at all, and I think we can clarify that in the language. That's basically all I have to say at this moment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay let me see if anybody has any questions in the committee concerning, Senator Wade. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Apodaca, I'm glad you brought that up because I had some questions actually myself last night from some constituents. On these structural fills, it's, you might have to help me a little bit here but I understand that for a year we're not allowing them without a liner, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, that is correct. And I would like to kick it over to staff and let them give you the exact language we have in there if they would. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Staff. I don't know which staff. Jennifer, is that? All right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Wade. That's right, the prohibition on structural fill is complete prohibition or moratorium on structural fill except where projects have base liner, a leech aid collection system, a cap liner, ground water monitoring system, and where the constructor or operator establishes financial assurance as required by the park. Or as the base or sub-base of a concrete or asphalt paved constructor under the authority of a public entity so those would be encapsulated projects as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, Senator Wade, go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] About three questions, if you don't mind. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I can go to the structural fill just one more time. Maybe the staff should answer this. Could you give us some examples of structural fill? I know you mentioned concrete but just exactly what they are so everybody here understands? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure, good question. Jennifer, is that you?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Wade, structural fill is a defined term under the bill. So I’ll just read you the potential possibilities for structural fill. It is an engineered fill with a projected beneficial end use constructed using coal combustion products that are properly placed and compacted. That term under this part would include abandoned mines, also for embankments, greenscapes, foundations, construction foundations and for bases or sub-bases under a structure of footprint of a paved road, parking lot, sidewalk, parking lot, walkway or similar structure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade, do you? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. I have. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you good with that? Do you have other questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have other questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca. I know we said something about cap in place on some of these ponds yesterday. And I was just wondering. I’ve gone and some of them have trees and vegetation. Are we requiring them to cut down all the trees or are we just going to monitor like we would a landfill, a solid waste landfill that they use for a park now? I mean, how are we going to do that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, that’s a great question and what we want to do is when we put the moratorium on, this is the issue we want our new commission to look at along with Deaner and make recommendations, to rate those sites, to see what actually needs to be done with them. Whether they need to be dug up and liners put down and move it back. That is something the commission and Deaner will look at over the moratorium period. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly, go ahead Senator Wade. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there any chance, I know I’ve seen the pictures of some, have trees and it looks like a park, but this commission could study to see if they could be used like that, like some of our solid waste facilities that have been closed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is their charge, is to look at that and make those recommendations along with the recommendations from Deaner. Yes ma’am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One more question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly, go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I looked at an article from Scientific American yesterday and I know you hate that part, but I’m getting ready to ask. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that your standard reading source? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not all the time, sir. [LAUGHTER] But it did mention in here that there’s been some studies done by the University of Florida on fly ash and using it in the soil to help grow like, tomatoes and also they did a study in India to grow peanuts. And for the tomatoes, and how they made this formula where it wasn’t toxic, the tomatoes grew up to 70% larger and that in India that the peanuts yield 31-24% more. Is there anything, do you know or does the staff know if there’s anything like that going on in this area, especially with NC State being here? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, as we discussed yesterday and Senator Ford’s going to offer an amendment dealing with some of that, we really can’t emphasis enough how we want to look at alternatives to the use of coal ash. And what we can and cannot do with it. And fine more things we can do that are safe to the public and can help. So that is one of the areas we are encouraging further development and study in, and hopefully we can come up with some new things that we’ve never thought of, with coal ash. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d just like to follow up with one quick statement. I’d like for you to maybe contact the University of Florida. And they were using it with manure and with compost and it was actually not toxic. Of course they checked the ground water and everything at a certain level, and they seemed to think it would be fine to use it as a fertilizer as long as the levels were checked on, and that type of procedure was put in place. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ve always thought Florida had an abundance of manure, so that might be something we could look at, but you’re absolutely right, Senator. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, let’s move right along. Senator Apodaca, did you in fact speak to Robert Reuben, I don’t know if he’s in this committee meeting today or not, but he’d called me. He is a professor at State and deals in recyclables along the very lines that Senator Wade’s referring to. I regret he’s not here but anyway I thought I might get him to speak for a minute. But Senator Apodaca, let’s see, does anyone else have a question concerning anything at the moment? If not we’re going to move ahead. Senator Hartsell? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you ready to discuss amendments?

Yeah, yeah, if, I would like to do that early. If you would, if you've got an amendment and if anyone else has an amendment if you would, because we're going to try to vote this out if we can today. Let's see, Senator Hartsell, did you want to- [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay do you want to, yeah just, if you don't mind sergeant at arms if you all would pick that up and then we're going to continue on with questions and then we'll talk about the amendments in just a moment. Okay Senator Apodaca, do you want to continue on with your bill or what's your pleasure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I'm good if we want to start with amendments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, that sounds good. Senator Hartsell, do you want to explain your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure, Mr. Chairman. I have discussed this somewhat with Senator Apodaca and what it's designed to do. It's similar to what Senator Wade indicated but otherwise, and I'm open to changes in the form of the amendment, but the gist of it is it creates a goal for the reduction of the ash, that's on the generation side, and a preference for the use of encapsulated ash in various incendiary in public procurement. That would be having to do with roads, highways. I'm hoping that this works to create a market for that encapsulated ash that expands beyond what it is now. And that's what it's designed to do and create that situation. I'm not saying that this is drafted perfectly but it's the best I could do in the short time we had. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Okay I think we've got, let's see how many other. We've got several amendments but first let's see if anyone has any questions of Senator Hartsell's amendment. Does everybody, does all the members have copies of his amendment? I guess that means everybody does or nobody has it. At any rate, Senator Apodaca, do you want to comment on this amendment or? [SPEAKER CHANGES] On it's face I have no problem with it but I would like a few moments to go through it with staff. Could we have about five minutes? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And we'll look at all the amendments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And then come back. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright let's, does anyone else, how many amendments do we have? We've got three amendments? Alright. You've got one, if you could turn it in. Okay, do all the members, we've supposedly got three amendments. If all the members would read those amendments and who are they from? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hartsell, Ford, and Brock. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Senator Ford, do you want to explain your amendment while they're looking over- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, Senator Jackson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I don't believe we have the other amendments you were referring to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, we'll correct that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, Senator Hartsell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let me just say I actually had two amendments that I was planning to run. This is, however, the one that's been distributed is the only one I plan to run today just in case there's some concern on ?? was. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Alright, we should have, we'll wait until all the Senate members get copies of three amendments. We have one from Senator Hartsell, one from Senator Brock, and from Senator Ford. Senator Ford's amendment is being passed out now. Senator Allran, I'm glad you joined us. We've got about fifteen pages here representing you so we introduced them all but, I did exaggerate a big but anyway you're well represented today. Thank you for being here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. You should introduce Paul Wood twice 'cause he's the one who got left off yesterday in the chamber. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There he is, there, back there, very good.

Remember yesterday in the chamber, the last one got left off. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, I do. Okay, thank you. All right now, does everybody have all 3 amendments? Senator Fuller, do you want to explain your amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, thank you Mr. Chairman. Just following up members, with the conversation we had yesterday about section 4E. I'm looking to amend the bill on page 33, line 46 to try to tighten up the language as it relates to the RFPs being issued by all electric generating facilities and to get some action and some movement on those RFPs but also Mr. Chairman in striking a balance, because realistically we know that there are going to be quite a few opportunities for beneficial use. But looking to make sure that those folks are taking some action on the RFPs that they're getting. So if I could get staff to add any additional clarifying language to this amendment, I would appreciate it Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Thank you, Senator Fuller. Senator Brock, did you want to explain your amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, it's one ARI, 16F. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right hold on just a minute, Senator Brock. Let's wait until everyone has copies of Senator Brock's amendment and then we'll let you proceed. [PAUSE] Okay. Does everybody now have a copy? Senator Brock, go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Player to be named later. Members of the committee, if you look at the first part it's the definition of the coal combustion residuals surface impalement. Starting really at the meat of the amendment starts at the next section, line 29. It says this is for public utility generating coal combustion residuals. So it make sure that it's for the actual utility and we may have some private companies out there but we don't have the information on them yet, so we just want to make sure that no one gets caught up in the legislation unintended but we're going to continue to look at that as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, does anyone have any questions on this amendment? Okay. We'll wait. Let's just wait a few minutes. [PAUSE] Senator Apodaca, when you're ready, the committee's ready. Okay, sure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Five minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That'd be fine. Tell you what. Everyone just relax, we're just going to take since we've got several minutes, we're going to, if anybody'd like to go to the restroom or whatever, chat with your friends, we're going to close down for 5 minutes. We'll be right back. Let these folks look through the amendments and we'll be back and instruct the committee again. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is this thing working? Yeah, it's working. Okay. Let's call the meeting back to order. If the sergeant at arms close the doors and everybody take their seat. We're going to start with Senator Brock's amendment. Senator Brock, do you want to give a quick overview of your amendment and we'll go ahead on this, make sure nobody has any questions and everybody understands it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't have anything else than what I mentioned before unless staff wants to go into further detail. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Staff, you want? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to reiterate what Senator Brock said. This would clarify the applicability of the legislation to just impoundments owned by public utilities, which was the intent, but there were a few ambiguities here and there in the PCS which we believe we've covered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right, great. Now does anyone have any questions before we vote on this amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I think it's a great amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, Senator Apodaca. We don't get many great amendments, but I guess we do now. Yeah clarify that, yeah. But we do need a motion to

Senator Jackson we have the motion to push the amendment. We have no questions. All those in favor of the amendment by senator Brock signify by saying aye. Hearing none the amendment passes. Thank you senator Brock. Now we have another amendment by senator Ford, senator Ford do you want to explain your amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman I am gonna focus that as the expression I have given on the staff to give another. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you senator Ford. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think this is probably a better amendment than senator Brock’s. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman tell senator Brock not to be too mad. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have got two grade amendments one is greater than the other one. Senator Ford you get the prize. ??. All those in favor of senator Ford‘s amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh yes sorry. Senator Cook Moves for the option of the amendment etc. All those in favor of senator Ford‘s amendment of the great great amendment please say aye. Oppose? Okay we for one no and senator Ford your amendment passes. Senator ?? you had an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I had one and I have chosen to withdraw it for the time being. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So we are now back on the bill and I think we have some speakers George let's see we have George Evert with Duke energy. George would you come forward and speak we had you down for two minutes but since we have no other speakers we are gonna allow you to speak longer as you need [SPEAKER CHANGES] I try to hold it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Of you would make sure your mike is on and give us your name and who you represent for the minutes. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman Members of the committee my name is George Evert I work for Duke Energy and have for the last 15 years. I appreciate the opportunity to share our initial thoughts on this comprehensive and aggressive legislation as senator Burger and senator Apodaca has say yesterday of all the other States in the country in terms of what we plan to do with this coal residual material. As thou know hope you know this have taken us about 80 years to generate this amount of coal ash at our facilities but we recognize the focus is on is now because of the release we had from the pipe that collapse at our darn river facility. So we understand why we are in the bull’s eye right now. In order to modify what we have been doing for 80 years. We have 33 ponds at our facilities that are currently storing ash. In order to move away from that process is gonna take orderly thoughtful engineering expertise to get there and I want you to know that we have been doing that. When we merged with progress energy at that time the two utilities there together had of total 14 coal fire plants in the state. The 33 ponds are scattered at those sites. We have retard in the last 5 years half of those plants. So half of our coal fire plants as a joint utility have now retard later on generate any ash no flesh no bottom ash no wet ash no dry ash. That's a great step in right direction. That leaves 7 more plans on our system better still operating and generating ash of those 7 facilities only three units had the seven facilities still generate wet ash.

We have converted all of the rest to dry flash handling. We have committed to close the wet handling of ash at those three facilities so that we will no longer have any wet flash being generated in our system. So, we are in the right direction. We have a record (I think you are aware of that) of working with this General Assembly to address key energy issues in this state. Back in 2003, we worked with the General Assembly to adopt landmark legislation to address emissions from our coal fire facilities. We have committed to those projects, spent 2.8 billion dollars as two utilities and finished the projects three years early. So, we worked with you address these kinds of issues. We have in the past. In 2007 we worked to provide the opportunities to our customers to have more renewable energy. So, we are committed to moving forward similarly in this process, and we have started. Under this legislation (if you have looked over it as we have) we have noticed the very aggressive schedules. If you think about it for a minute, the bill identifies four high priority sites and tells us what to do at those sites. Now, think about the material that is at those sites. We have got to go to the department, propose a prioritization of all the sites. The department makes the final recommendation to a commission (a commission that has not been appointed yet), but the commission will approve the final prioritization of the site. That prioritization will go out for public comment and hearing, not as one list but on a site by site basis. After the prioritization has been finalized (after the hearings), then we have to submit a closure plan for each of those sites, and the closure plan will depend on the prioritization. That closure plan also is approved by the department and the commission after another set of public comment and hearing. Let us assume that we have finished the prioritization, we have finished the closure plan and approval, we now have to initiate the project to actually close the site. Depending on what we have to do to close the site (for instance, move that material to a land fill) we have to find the site for the land fill, get the permit for the landfill, construct the land fill and move the material (depending on how much is at the site) to the landfill all within five years. It is a very aggressive schedule, we are committed to doing all we can while still operating facilities. All this work has to go on while we still generate power for those facilities. Our suggestion, there are four high priority sites. We know that the department and the commission are going to prioritize the ranking for all of the priority sites. That is a process that is going to go forward with public input. Until we know the rankings of the sites and the closure plans of those sites, it is very hard for us to assess our ability to meet the schedule. It seems like we have the process a little out of order. We respectfully ask that the timelines that are in the bill (as aggressive as they are) be revisited (simply re-look at them) at the time when the risk prioritization and closure plan have been approved. We just want to be sure those dates are achievable after the first steps are taken. Mr. Chairmen, I appreciate the opportunity to comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you George. Let’s see first if any committee members have any questions of George while he is here. Okay, Senator Allran. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairmen. Mr. Edward, thank you for all that you have done and are doing to move in the right direction. My question is, how does reducing coal ash, that is desirable for reuse recycling, how does that fit into this as opposed to the emphasis on storage?

Well of course over time, our technology has changed, as I mentioned. Historically, the first coal plants that were built were not very efficient. Now we’re talking about the 20s and 30s. The coal that was burned in those facilities did not fully burn efficiently the carbon that’s in that coal. So there’s carbon left in that old coal that can be re-burned. It’s a very expensive process but it is technologically feasible. It’s being done in some places. We’re interested in doing that. The content of carbon in that ash is the thing that makes it unavailable for certain uses. So we call the term is you beneficiate that old ash and bring it up to a carbon content that you can use in current uses. So the first issue is can you modify that old ash to a state that you can use in concrete. You can do it, it takes time and money but we’re committed to doing that. We are using ash we produce today that is newer, more efficiently burned, and meets the specs of the concrete market. In addition, that equipment that we put on our plants as a result of both federal and state requirements to reduce our air emissions, leaves some contaminants I’ll call them, things that the concrete market doesn’t like, in the ash. That material is harder to use. We are currently selling into the reuse market, almost 70% of what we produce. So today we have cleaner material, more efficiently burned, but we have a lot of material that can’t go there yet. We certainly are committed to moving more in that direction. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Allran you have a follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, if I could. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was just taken by one of our earlier meetings where the gentleman from Charlotte who is the manufacturer of the concrete in a very articulate fashion, let us know that he was having to buy coal ash from other states to make his concrete, because it helped in the process of the concrete, and we didn’t have that type of coal ash here. I’m trying to find out whether or not we are really in the process of changing things so that the coal ash that we produce in the future and the coal ash that we produced in the past can be used for that purpose, for our folks here in the state, or whether or not the real emphasis is simply on encapsulating it someplace for all time, as opposed to recycling it. While at the same time we have a manufacturer or manufacturers of concrete buying coal ash from other states because they can’t get it here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’re certainly committed to selling all the ash that we can into that market. And we have looked at the technology to make that older ash more sellable. In fact, we have facilities that currently will modify some of that ash. And the question is how much can we modify and have a market for? And if you, we’re in communication with the gentleman from Charlotte who spoke at the last meeting, to be sure we can match his demand. Because as we invest into that market to build the facility, the concrete market, depending on the construction business, goes up and down. What we’ve tried to do is have enough of that material to feed the market efficiently. And we are looking at building a facility near our Marshall Station now, to put more concrete into that market. Or, more ash into that concrete market. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Senator Allran does that, to your question? Okay. We’ve got a couple other questions and then we’re going to take a vote on this. George, if you’ll just hold tight, we’ve got a couple other people want to ask you questions. Senator Hartsell? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually it’s a follow up on the amendment I was

Looking to run. What would it take, what do we need to do- What do you need to do, what do we need to do to beneficiate that ash and create the mark- expand the market so that it is, we can use more of that ash rather than dump it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The most important thing for us right now is to reduce the carbon content in that ash. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have a follow up Senator Hartsell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And how do you do that, do you just reburn it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You burn it again. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, Senator Rabin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I appreciate the ??? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rabin, If- You've got a distinctive voice, but you do need to talk into the mic. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Can you hear me now? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, I know that there are some in the audience with less management experience that may think you can do it faster. I'm just wondering if there isn't a way to take the process that you've looked at, do the lean six segment drill, or, instead of doing everything serially, do some of the things in parallel to try to shorten that time just a little bit. Five years, I know is not gonna, seems like an eternity to some people but for what you're trying to do it's not overly long but there might, if you just look at a way to kinda streamline it through these other management practices it might be useful. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. ???, did you? no comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We'll do that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, I understand Do we have any other questions? Senator Wade? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I have a question for George, and I also have a question for Senator Apodaca, and then at the appropriate time I'd like to move for a favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I got all that. Go right ahead, yes ma'm [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't know if you're aware of North Carolina A&T's research that they have done on coal ash? I wasn't. I read it in the paper. At first I didn't believe it, but I do want to just mention this to you. It says that researchers at North Carolina A&T have developed a miracle material that's light weight, waterproof, fire resistant, anti-corrosive and non toxic, and, oh yeah, deflects explosives. And perhaps most noticeably, the stuff is ninety-five percent coal ash. So I just wondered it we've had any conversations whatsoever with North Carolina A&T. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have a team of people who are taking a host of proposals of concepts and ideas to modify this ash and make a lot broader use than just concrete. So we have a team of people reviewing all of those proposals and any one that looks favorable of course we would love to have the opportunity to move a hundred million tons of ash. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade, I think you had another question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For Senator Apodaca. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, Senator, or staff, if they want to review the process of capping in place. I've had some constituents call and I'd just like to go over what's allowable and what the federal regulations are and where our regulations fall at the state level. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Chairman [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes, Senator Wade, if the members will turn to page eighteen of the PCS, the cap in place is the option for low risk impoundments. As you can see it requires as part of the cap in place that they comply with the closure and post closure requirements established by section point one six two seven of the administrative code. Those are the closure and post closure requirements for municipal solid waste landfills. So the cap that is allowed for municipal solid waste land fills will also be required for low risk impoundments. I know that one of the speakers mentioned yesterday about soil and a tarp covering these sites, but they will be subject to the same closure requirements as a municipal solid waste landfill. As to the requirements under the proposed rules that are with USEPA right now, they also have a cap in place option, in fact that cap in place option, if they go with what's called the subtitle D approach, which is treating coal ash -

… hazardous waste. It would allow all sites, all coal ash impoundments to be kept in place. My review of their capping minimums I think is consistent with our capping requirements. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade, does that answer your question, or do you…? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, and if it’s an appropriate time, I would like to move for a favorable report on the PCS as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sounds good. It’s very much an appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I make ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d just like to make a few closing comments here, and with respect to Mr. Edward’s comments; I appreciate those. I have found in my life that I get more things done when I have a tight guideline, so as I said yesterday, we’ll be here every year, but I think these guidelines can be met. Also I think there are four facilities right now that you could probably start clearing out today and moving those, and we’ve identified those four as we go forth rating the others and going down the road to get us rid of these, so I appreciate everybody’s effort on this and I really want to thank staff for all their work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator. I think Jennifer wanted to clarify something that she had spoken to your question, so we’re going to let her clear that up. Go ahead, Jennifer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade, I indicated to you that US CPA’s proposed rules, I mentioned subsection D, which is correct, but I said “hazardous waste”. That would be treatment of impoundments and their contents as “solid waste”. So not hazardous; solid. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m certainly glad you clarified that. I was confused until you said that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, we caught that right off. But anyway, thank you, Jennifer. We’ve got to guests in the audience, one favorable and one not quite so favorable, but anyway, I’m going to mention them. We’ve got Senator Stevens, who used to join us for a lot of time. Richard, good to have you here today. It’s always a pleasure to see you. And then we have the Assistant Secretary, Mitch Gillespie. Mitch, good to have you here today. And Mitch has been a longtime member of the House and well-respected. Mitch, thanks for coming. We have a motion for a favorable report as amended. All those in favor… [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Pardon? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? PCS as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] PCS as amended, correct. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed? Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We stand adjourned.