Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/District_Of_Columbia_District_Court/1--20-cv-01819/LABADIE_ENVIRONMENTAL_ORGANIZATION_et_al_v._WHEELER_et_al/1/
Timestamp: 2020-08-08 18:22:10
Document Index: 358158462

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 6972', '§ 6972', '§ 1331', '§ 1361', '§ 2201', '§ 6972', '§ 6972', '§ 6901', '§ 6901', '§ 6902', '§ 6907', '§ 6972', '§ 6907', '§ 25', 'art 25', 'art 25']

LABADIE ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION et al v. WHEELER et al, 1:20-cv-01819, No. 1 (D.D.C. Jul. 6, 2020)
Case 1:20-cv-01819 Document 1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 1 of 22
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-1819
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`LABADIE ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION,
`DINÉ CITIZENS AGAINST RUINING OUR
`ENVIRONMENT, HOOSIER ENVIRONMENTAL
`COUNCIL, WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE, INC.,
`and SIERRA CLUB,
`ANDREW WHEELER, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.
`ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, in
`his official capacity,
`U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
`AGENCY,
`Case 1:20-cv-01819 Document 1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 2 of 22
`Plaintiffs Labadie Environmental Organization, Diné Citizens Against Ruining
`our Environment, Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc., Hoosier Environmental Council, and Sierra Club
`(collectively “Plaintiffs”) assert violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
`(“RCRA”) by Defendants Andrew Wheeler, Administrator of the United States Environmental
`Protection Agency, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (collectively “EPA”
`or “Defendants”) for refusing to hold an in-person public hearing and ensure adequate public
`participation on EPA’s proposed rollback to the 2015 Coal Ash Rule entitled: Hazardous and
`Solid Waste Management System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric
`Utilities; A Holistic Approach to Closure Part A: Deadline to Initiate Closure, 84 Fed. Reg.
`65,941 (Dec. 2, 2019) (“Part A Proposal”).
`EPA refused Plaintiffs’ repeated requests for an in-person hearing and a longer
`comment period on the Part A Proposal, thereby impairing Plaintiffs’ and their members’ ability
`to effectively communicate their grave concerns about the Part A Proposal which would allow
`millions of tons of additional toxic coal ash to be dumped into leaking, unlined, and/or
`dangerously-sited ponds.
`Coal ash generated by coal-fired power plants is one of the largest and most toxic
`solid waste streams in the United States. It contains contaminants that can cause cancer and other
`adverse health impacts including reproductive, neurological, respiratory, and developmental
`harm.
`For decades, in the absence of national standards requiring safe disposal, coal ash
`was dumped in thousands of unlined and unmonitored lagoons, landfills, pits, and mines. The
`Case 1:20-cv-01819 Document 1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 3 of 22
`result was the widespread release of dangerous pollutants from coal ash to water, air, and soil,
`endangering human health and the environment.
`In 2015, after concluding that the “current management practice of placing [coal
`ash] waste in surface impoundments and landfills poses risks to human health and the
`environment,” EPA promulgated the Coal Ash Rule pursuant to the Resource Conservation and
`Recovery Act, creating the first-ever national regulations specifying environmental and public
`health protections from coal ash disposal after a long history of regulatory delay. See Hazardous
`and Solid Waste Management System; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric
`Utilities, 80 Fed. Reg. 21,302, 21,451 (Apr. 17, 2015) (“2015 Rule” or “2015 Coal Ash Rule”).
`Just a few years after the 2015 Rule was promulgated, at industry’s urging and
`contrary to a 2018 D.C. Circuit decision requiring more stringent regulation, EPA commenced a
`vigorous effort to weaken the 2015 Rule.
`Within the eight-month period from July 2019 to March 2020, EPA proposed five
`significant new rulemakings that would weaken the environmental and public health protections
`in the 2015 Coal Ash Rule, as well as a related proposal that would roll back Clean Water Act
`treatment standards for coal ash discharges.
`The Part A Proposal is EPA’s third set of amendments seeking to weaken the
`critical protections set forth in the 2015 Coal Ash Rule. The Part A Proposal would have adverse
`impacts on the environment and the health of individuals throughout the United States by
`allowing utilities to delay closing and therefore to dump millions of tons of additional toxic coal
`ash into leaking, unlined, and/or dangerously-sited ponds.
`Case 1:20-cv-01819 Document 1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 4 of 22
`Plaintiffs’ members derive recreational, scientific, aesthetic, commercial, life-
`sustaining, and spiritual benefits from groundwater, rivers, waterways, and other areas affected
`by EPA’s Part A Proposal.
`Despite the grave threats posed by the Part A Proposal to Plaintiffs and their
`members, and other communities impacted by coal ash pollution, EPA refused to hold an in-
`person hearing and only offered the public a “virtual,” audio-only public hearing on the Part A
`Proposal. EPA’s refusal to have an in-person public hearing on the Part A Proposal marks a clear
`reversal of its longstanding position that RCRA requires EPA to hold in-person public hearings
`on proposed coal ash regulations and amendments thereto.
`11. While virtual public hearings can be an important supplement to in-person public
`hearings, they alone do not satisfy EPA’s nondiscretionary duty under RCRA to hold a public
`hearing on regulatory changes and to provide for, assist, and encourage adequate public
`participation.
`EPA further curtailed opportunities for public comment on the Part A Proposal by
`offering an insufficient comment period that ran over the winter holidays and coincided with the
`comment period for a separate but related coal ash regulatory rollback proposal.
`Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that EPA’s refusal to hold an in-person
`public hearing and to provide sufficient participation opportunities on the Part A Proposal
`violated RCRA. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief compelling EPA to hold an in-person public
`hearing when it is safe to do so and to re-open the comment period on the Part A Proposal.
`This action arises under the citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation
`and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(2).
`Case 1:20-cv-01819 Document 1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 5 of 22
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a), 28
`U.S.C. § 1331, and 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
`Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action on behalf of their members.
`This Court may award Plaintiffs all necessary relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
`6972(a) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02.
`Venue is proper because the RCRA citizen suit provision expressly provides that
`any action under 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(2) may be brought in the District Court for the District of
`Columbia.
`By registered letter posted on February 7, 2020, and received on February 10,
`2020, Plaintiffs gave notice of their intent to sue Defendants for their failure to perform
`mandatory duties under RCRA and have thereby complied with the sixty-day notice requirement
`of the RCRA citizen suit provision. See 42 U.S.C. § 6972(c); Notice Letter (attached as Ex. 1).
`Plaintiff LABADIE ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION (LEO) is a
`grassroots, non-profit, non-partisan citizens group in Franklin County, Missouri focused on
`addressing public concerns related to coal ash and coal-fired power plant pollution. It was
`established in 2009, when electricity utility company Ameren Missouri proposed to build a coal
`ash landfill in the floodplain of the Missouri River at its Labadie power plant. LEO’s mission is
`to inform and educate the community about environmental issues impacting their health and
`well-being, to inspire positive change, and to encourage practices for sustainability.
`LEO members live, work and recreate near Ameren’s coal ash ponds. LEO
`members are concerned about the unlined coal ash ponds at the Labadie plant which are leaking
`Case 1:20-cv-01819 Document 1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 6 of 22
`and contaminating groundwater and the threat such contamination presents to the groundwater
`that they drink and rely on for other domestic purposes.
`Plaintiff DINÉ CITIZENS AGAINST RUINING OUR ENVIRONMENT (Diné
`C.A.R.E.) is an all-Navajo organization comprised of grassroots community members active on
`Navajo Nation lands in and around the Four Corners region of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado,
`and Utah. Diné C.A.R.E. advocates for traditional teachings by protecting and providing a voice
`for all life within and beyond the Four Sacred Mountains. Diné C.A.R.E promotes regenerative
`and sustainable uses of natural resources consistent with the Diné philosophy of life. It
`empowers local and traditional people to organize and determine their own destinies, in ways
`that protect the health of their communities, their long held subsistence practices and way of life.
` Diné C.A.R.E. members are deeply concerned about coal ash pollution from
`leaking, unlined coal ash ponds at the Four Corners Generating Station on Navajo Nation lands
`and the impact this toxic pollution has on nearby groundwater, major rivers, waterways and
`nearby Navajo communities as well as culturally significant sites. This pollution detrimentally
`threatens Diné C.A.R.E. members’ food security. It adversely impacts their cultural and spiritual
`practices connected to Chaco Wash and the San Juan River and hinders their ability to enjoy and
`recreate on the San Juan and Animas Rivers.
`Plaintiff HOOSIER ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, INC. (HEC) is an Indiana
`non-profit organization dedicated to shaping Indiana’s environmental future. It is one of the
`state’s largest environmental advocacy organizations and uses education and advocacy to secure
`a healthier environment for all Hoosiers and protection of Indiana’s forests, lakes, rivers, native
`fish and wildlife, and groundwater.
`Case 1:20-cv-01819 Document 1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 7 of 22
`HEC members live and work near unlined coal ash ponds in Indiana where there
`is evidence of contamination of groundwater on which they rely. The coal ash ponds are also
`located within floodplains and next to major rivers, which HEC members recreate on or near,
`and which are also threatened with coal ash contamination.
`Plaintiff WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE, INC. is a non-profit organization
`headquartered in New York, New York, uniting more than 350 Waterkeeper member and
`affiliate organizations that are on the frontlines of the global water crisis and patrolling and
`protecting more than 2.5 million square miles of waterways on six continents. From the Great
`Lakes to the Himalayas, Alaska to Australia, the Waterkeeper movement defends the
`fundamental human right to drinkable, fishable, and swimmable waters, and combines firsthand
`knowledge of local waterways with an unwavering commitment to the rights of communities.
`Within the United States, Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. works with more than 175 Waterkeeper
`member organizations and affiliates.
`27. Members of Waterkeeper Alliance work and recreate in waterways that are
`threatened by coal ash pollution from unlined coal ash ponds nationwide. They are concerned
`about their health and well-being as they work to protect these waterways from new threats and
`clean up existing pollution. As a result of this concern, they limit their recreational activity on the
`waterways to avoid prolonged contact with water contaminated by coal ash pollution.
`Plaintiff SIERRA CLUB is America’s largest grassroots environmental
`organization, with more than 3 million members and supporters nationwide. Sierra Club’s
`mission is to explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth, practice and promote the
`responsible use of the Earth’s resources and ecosystems, educate and enlist humanity to protect
`and restore the quality of the natural and human environment, and use all lawful means to carry
`Case 1:20-cv-01819 Document 1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 8 of 22
`out those objectives. Its activities include public education, advocacy, and litigation to enforce
`environmental laws.
`Sierra Club members recreate near and on rivers which are threatened by coal ash
`contamination from nearby unlined, leaking coal ash ponds. They are deeply concerned about the
`impacts this toxic pollution has on the rivers, their riparian habitat, and aquatic life. This concern
`diminishes their ability to enjoy and recreate on or near the rivers they so value.
`Plaintiffs’ members use and enjoyment of their property, groundwater, and local
`waterways have been, and/or are threatened to be, diminished due to coal ash pollution that will
`be exacerbated by the Part A Proposal. These members have an interest in protecting their own
`health, the health of their children and families, and the health of their communities.
`Defendants’ refusal to provide an in-person public hearing and adequate public
`participation opportunities on the Part A Proposal, as required by RCRA, denied Plaintiffs’
`members the opportunity to effectively communicate to EPA their concerns about increased
`exposure to contamination associated with coal ash waste.
`Although Plaintiffs’ members participated in the January 7 virtual public hearing,
`they found it to be an inadequate substitute for an in-person hearing and were denied the
`opportunity to speak directly to and engage in dialogue with EPA representatives, to use visual
`aids, and to draw support from others physically present in the same room. As a result of the
`meeting format, they were unable to effectively communicate their concerns about the Part A
`Proposal.
`Particularly when combined with EPA’s refusal to extend the sixty-day comment
`period on the Part A Proposal that overlapped with the winter holidays, EPA’s refusal to hold an
`Case 1:20-cv-01819 Document 1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 9 of 22
`in-person hearing deprived Plaintiffs’ members of the opportunity to adequately provide
`comment on the Part A Proposal.
`EPA’s refusal to provide an in-person hearing and extend the comment period on
`the Part A Proposal (a) deprives Plaintiffs’ members of opportunities to effectively communicate
`their concerns to EPA and provide input about the Part A Proposal; (b) increases the risk to
`Plaintiffs’ members of exposure to contaminants in coal ash waste; and (c) in some cases,
`increases and prolongs Plaintiffs’ members’ ongoing exposure to such contaminants and their
`associated risk of adverse health effects accordingly.
`Plaintiffs’ members would like to, and if given the opportunity when public health
`conditions related to COVID-19 allow for safe travel and public congregation, would testify in-
`person to express their concerns about the Part A Proposal.
`Plaintiffs’ members have been and, unless the relief prayed for herein is granted,
`will continue to be adversely affected by EPA’s failure to comply with RCRA.
`Defendant Andrew Wheeler is the Administrator of the United States
`Environmental Protection Agency. He is being sued in his official capacity only.
`Defendant United States Environmental Protection Agency is an agency of the
`federal government. EPA’s mission is “to protect human health and the environment.”
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the 2015 Rule
`RCRA is the principal federal statute governing the handling, storage, treatment,
`transportation, and disposal of solid and hazardous waste. In enacting RCRA, Congress
`recognized that “disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste in or on the land without careful
`planning and management can present a danger to human health and the environment.” 42
`U.S.C. § 6901(b)(2). RCRA also articulates Congress’s recognition that “inadequate and
`Case 1:20-cv-01819 Document 1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 10 of 22
`environmentally unsound practices” for the disposal of solid waste create greater amounts of air
`and water pollution and other problems for the environment and health. 42 U.S.C. § 6901(b)(3).
`The goal of RCRA is to protect health and the environment by, among other
`things, requiring open dumps to convert to facilities which do not pose a danger to the
`environment or health. See id. § 6902(a)(3).
`In 2015, pursuant to a court order, EPA established the first-ever federal
`regulations governing coal ash disposal under RCRA. See Appalachian Voices v. McCarthy, 989
`F. Supp. 2d 30, 54-56 (D.D.C. 2013) (directing EPA to comply with statutory duty to promulgate
`coal ash disposal regulations); 42 U.S.C. §§ 6907(a), 6944(a); 80 Fed. Reg. 21,302. The 2015
`Rule established national minimum criteria for coal ash ponds and landfills including location
`restrictions, design and operating criteria, groundwater monitoring, corrective action, post-
`closure care, recordkeeping, notification, and public disclosure requirements. Id.
`Because in 2015, RCRA neither authorized EPA to directly implement minimum
`national criteria for solid waste disposal facilities nor to enforce such criteria, EPA established
`the 2015 Coal Ash Rule as a “self-implementing rule” enforced by members of the public via
`citizen suits. Id. at 21,331.
`RCRA authorizes citizen suits “against the Administrator where there is alleged a
`failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this chapter which is not
`discretionary with the Administrator.” 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(2).
`RCRA imposes a clear-cut, nondiscretionary duty on Defendants to hold public
`hearings when it promulgates coal ash regulations. 42 U.S.C. §§ 6907(a) and 6944(a). EPA has
`cited both of these statutory provisions as its legal authority for the Part A Proposal.
`Case 1:20-cv-01819 Document 1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 11 of 22
`RCRA also imposes a clear-cut, nondiscretionary duty on Defendants to ensure
`that the public has meaningful opportunities to provide input into regulations governing the
`disposal of coal ash waste. RCRA provides that “[p]ublic participation in the development,
`revision, implementation, and enforcement of any regulation, guideline, information, or program
`under this chapter shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the Administrator.” Id. §
`6974(b) (emphasis added). Prior to departing from this practice for the Part A Proposal, EPA had
`routinely held in-person public hearings in implementing these nondiscretionary duties, as
`supported by EPA regulations and guidance going back to 1979.
`EPA’s public participation regulations commit the Agency to “provide for,
`encourage, and assist the participation of the public,” “foster a spirit of openness and mutual trust
`among EPA . . . and the public,” and “use all feasible means to create opportunities for public
`participation, and to stimulate and support participation.” 40 C.F.R. § 25.3(a), (c).
`The Toxic Threats Posed by Coal Ash
`Coal ash is one of the largest industrial wastestreams in the United States. Coal-
`fired power plants in the United States produce more than 100 million tons of coal ash each year.
`Coal ash contains “myriad carcinogens and neurotoxins” and utilities dispose of it in “massive”
`disposal sites including hundreds of landfills and ash ponds throughout the country, which are
`“generally . . . at varying degrees of risk of protracted leakage and catastrophic structural
`failure.” See Util. Solid Waste Activities Grp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 901 F.3d 414, 420-21 (D.C.
`Cir. 2018).
`48. When coal ash is not disposed of in properly sited, constructed, and operated
`facilities, toxic contaminants can be released to air, groundwater, surface water, and soil.
`Case 1:20-cv-01819 Document 1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 12 of 22
`There are hundreds of leaking, unlined, and improperly sited coal ash ponds in the
`U.S. polluting groundwater as well as bays, lakes, rivers, and streams. These coal ash ponds
`release toxic and radioactive substances into the water, including large quantities of heavy metals
`and metal compounds such as arsenic, boron, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, lead, lithium,
`mercury, molybdenum, selenium, and thallium.
`The toxic contaminants in coal ash can cause cancer and other adverse health
`impacts including reproductive, neurological, respiratory, and developmental harm.
`Arsenic is a known human carcinogen that causes cancer of the skin, liver,
`bladder, and lungs. 80 Fed. Reg. at 21,451. Boron “can pose developmental risk to humans when
`released to groundwater and can result in stunted growth, phytotoxicity, or death to aquatic biota
`and plants when released to surfacewater bodies.” Hazardous and Solid Waste Management
`System: Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; Amendments to the
`National Minimum Criteria (Phase One); Proposed Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 11,584, 11,589 (Mar. 15,
`2018). Lead is a very potent neurotoxin that can cause “kidney disease, lung disease, fragile
`bone[s], decreased nervous system function, high blood pressure, and anemia.” Hazardous and
`Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal
`Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; Proposed Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 35,128, 35,169 (June
`21, 2010). Exposure to mercury, another neurotoxin, can “permanently damage the brain,
`kidneys, and developing fetus.” Id. Molybdenum exposure can result in “higher levels of uric
`acid in the blood, gout-like symptoms, and anemia.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 21,451.
`In 2015, EPA promulgated regulations to begin to address the longstanding
`threats posed by coal ash. See 80 Fed. Reg. 21,302. The 2015 Coal Ash Rule provides safeguards
`for coal ash disposal and protections for communities threatened by coal ash contamination.
`Case 1:20-cv-01819 Document 1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 13 of 22
`On September 13, 2017, EPA announced that it would initiate rulemaking to
`reconsider provisions of the 2015 Rule as requested in petitions submitted by the Utility Solid
`Waste Activities Group and AES-Puerto Rico. Since promulgating the 2015 Coal Ash Rule, EPA
`has proposed five different revisions to the Rule that significantly blunt important protections.
`One of those proposals is the Part A Proposal, which was published in the
`Federal Register on December 2, 2019. See Part A Proposal, 84 Fed. Reg. 65,941.
`The Part A Proposal would enable utilities to delay closing ash ponds for a
`significantly longer period of time than the deadline provided in the 2015 Rule, notwithstanding
`the D.C. Circuit’s 2018 ruling that the existing provisions of the rule are insufficiently protective.
`The Part A Proposal would therefore allow millions of tons of additional toxic
`coal ash waste to be dumped into leaking, unlined, and/or dangerously-sited ponds and would
`prolong the risk to neighboring communities of groundwater contamination, catastrophic spills,
`or other harms from those ponds.
`Nationwide, risk of harm from coal ash pollution is borne disproportionately by
`communities of color and low-income communities.
`58. Members of the Plaintiff organizations are adversely affected by the closure
`delays and increased risks of harm due to EPA’s Part A Proposal.
`Plaintiffs’ members were also harmed by Defendants’ decision not to hold an in-
`person public hearing and to curtail opportunities for public comment because it undermined
`their ability to express their concerns about the Part A Proposal.
`Public Hearing and Participation on the Part A Proposal
`Upon publishing the Part A Proposal on December 2, 2019, EPA announced a
`sixty-day comment period on the proposed rule. This comment period ran through the winter
`holiday season, including Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, New Year’s Day, and Martin Luther
`Case 1:20-cv-01819 Document 1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 14 of 22
`King, Jr. Day, which substantially shortened the available working days for Plaintiffs and the
`public in general. Part A Proposal, 84 Fed. Reg. 65,941 (Dec. 2, 2019).
`In addition, the comment period for the Part A Proposal almost entirely
`overlapped with the comment period for a related EPA proposal which would roll back Clean
`Water Act treatment requirements for coal ash wastewater dischargers, which was also of great
`concern to and would adversely impact Plaintiff organizations and their members. Effluent
`Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source
`Category. 84 Fed. Reg. 64,620 (Nov. 22, 2019).
`Plaintiffs were therefore required to comment on two concurrently-pending,
`highly-technical regulatory proposals during an abbreviated comment period. This served to
`inhibit rather than encourage public participation and undermined Plaintiffs’ and their members’
`ability to adequately comment on the Part A Proposal.
`EPA’s December 2, 2019 proposal stated that it would hold one public hearing on
`the Part A Proposal, to be held on January 7, 2020 with a registration deadline of January 3,
`2020. EPA did not specify whether the hearing would be held virtually or in person. Id.
`EPA later indicated that the public hearing on the Part A Proposal would be
`virtual. Speakers were required to first register online and then to call in to a webinar to provide
`oral testimony.
`EPA announced its decision to have a virtual rather than an in-person hearing, and
`provided registration instructions, only electronically and did not publish notice of the virtual
`hearing decision in the Federal Register or in any other official print publications. Virtual Public
`Hearing on the Proposal: A Holistic Approach to Closure Part A,
`Case 1:20-cv-01819 Document 1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 15 of 22
`https://www.epa.gov/coalash/forms/virtual-public-hearing-proposal-holistic-approach-closure-
`part.
`EPA’s decision to hold only a virtual hearing on the Part A Proposal, and its
`refusal to hold an in-person public hearing, was a clear reversal of its longstanding position that
`RCRA requires EPA to hold in-person public hearings on proposed regulatory changes. Indeed,
`prior to the Part A rulemaking EPA had held at least one, if not multiple, in-person hearings for
`every proposed coal ash regulation and amendments thereto.
`As evidenced by EPA’s 2016 RCRA Public Participation Manual, 1979 Part 25
`Public Participation Regulation, and 2003 Public Involvement Policy, EPA’s longstanding
`interpretation of a public hearing is that it is an in-person event and that virtual public hearings
`should supplement, but not replace, in-person hearings, which are the bedrock of public
`participation in the rulemaking process.
`Former long-time EPA staff who were directly involved in promulgating the
`Agency’s public participation regulations and in other public participation efforts submitted
`comments to EPA on the Part A Proposal urging it to hold an in-person public hearing. These
`former EPA staff stated that hearing directly, in-person, from affected citizens is a crucial part of
`the decision-making process and that the “Part 25 Public Participation regulation expected
`hearings to be in-person hearings and that was the common understanding at EPA.” See
`Comment of Lee Daneker, Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172-0027 (Jan. 7, 2020);
`Comment of Environmental Protection Network, Docket ID. No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172
`(Jan. 31, 2020). As one former EPA staff member explained, in-person hearings promote
`dialogue and encourage questioning that elicits useful information, which is much harder to do
`Case 1:20-cv-01819 Document 1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 16 of 22
`when contact is a “disembodied voice.” See Comment of Steven Silverman, Docket ID. No.
`EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0172-0026 (Jan. 2, 2020).
`Despite being contrary to EPA’s own regulations and guidance, EPA has now
`offered only virtual hearings, and refused requests for in-person public hearings, for three major
`proposals regarding coal ash disposal. This dramatic change in position, which began with
`EPA’s refusal to have an in-person hearing on the Part A Proposal, does not reflect EPA’s
`authoritative, expert-based, or fair and considered judgment, and violates RCRA.
`On December 4, 2019, eighty-seven public interest organizations, including
`Plaintiffs, requested that EPA hold an in-person public hearing on the Part A Proposal in addition
`to the virtual public hearing, and extend the comment period to 120 days to ensure that the public
`has a meaningful opportunity to express its concerns about the Part A proposal to EPA.
`EPA refused these requests in a letter dated December 16, stating that it would
`neither hold an in-person public hearing nor extend the comment period.
`EPA held a virtual hearing on the Part A Proposal on January 7, 2020.
`Participation at the hearing was sparse. No one commented at all during nearly
`half of the eight hour hearing.
`Participants had to call in at a designated time to deliver their testimony. Because
`they could only call in and not participate by video, participants could not share any visual aids
`to supplement their verbal testimony. Nor could they see who, if anyone, was listening and could
`therefore not gauge how their testimony was being received.
`Participants did not have the opportunity to make eye contact or otherwise
`connect on a human-to-human basis with the regulators. Nor did participants, including those
`who provided testimony and those who listened, have an opportunity to connect with other
`Case 1:20-cv-01819 Document 1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 17 of 22
`members of the public who may share their concerns. Participants lost the ability to organize and
`draw support from others physically present in the same room.
`At times, the testimony itself was muffled and was disrupted by technological or
`telephonic problems. In some cases, EPA simply cut off the testimony of a participant when such
`problems arose and asked the participant to submit written copies of their remarks instead.
` EPA also abruptly muted several participants as they were delivering their
`testimony because EPA’s predetermined five-minute time limit had expired, notwithstanding the
`fact that there were multiple open periods with no scheduled testimony.
`The hearing format discouraged dialogue between EPA and participants. EPA
`panelists did not ask any participants clarifying questions and there was no opportunity for
`informal conversation.
`Over seventy-five percent of participants at the hearing used part of their limited
`speaking time to highlight their dismay over the virtual format of the hearing, citing it as a
`deterrent to public participation and expressing that they felt constrained by the format.
`80. Many participants stressed that they did not feel heard or seen by EPA through the
`virtual format, and some questioned whether anyone was listening to them at all while testifying.
`These commenters uniformly called upon EPA to hold an in-person hearing on the Part A
`Several participants from communities impacted by coal ash pollution in rural
`West Virginia, Virginia, Missouri, and the Ohio River Valley explained that many of their
`community members had limited access to the internet, thereby impairing their ability to
`participate or deterring them from participating in the January 7 hearing.
`Case 1:20-cv-01819 Document 1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 18 of 22
`Participants also noted that the technology required to received notice of and
`participate in the hearing specifically discouraged elderly community members from
`participating. A member of Plaintiff Waterkeeper Alliance read aloud the testimony of another
`member, a seventy-year-old man who was too intimidated by the required technology to
`participate directly but would have driven hundreds of miles to participate at an in-person
`hearing. A ninety-two-year-old member of Plaintiff Labadie Environmental Organization needed
`help from others in order to participate because she did not have access to the appropriate
`technology.