UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

PUBLIC HEARING ON EPA'S PROPOSED RULE ON

Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System;

Identification and Listing of Special Wastes;

Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from

Electric Utilities

DOCKET ID NO. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

Louisville, Kentucky

Tuesday, September 28, 20102

1 PARTICIPANTS:

2 EPA Hearing Panel:

3 Morning Session:

4 BETSY DEVLIN, Chair

Associate Director of Materials Recovery and Waste

5 Management

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

6

ROB STACHOWIAK

7

FRANK NEY

8

CRAIG DUFFICY

9

Afternoon Session:

10

Laura Gentile, Chair

11 Chief of Communications Office

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

12

FRANK BEHAN

13

STEVE HOFFMAN

14

STEVE SOUDERS

15

Evening Session:

16

FRANK BEHAN, Chair

17

STEVE HOFFMAN

18

STEVE SOUDERS

19

20 * * * * *

21

223

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 (10:00 a.m.)

3 MS. DEVLIN: Okay. Good morning,

4 everyone. I think we'd like to get started.

5 Good morning, and than k you for

6 attending today's public hearing on the

7 Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule

8 regarding the regulation of coal combustion

9 residuals that are disposed of in landfills and

10 surface impoundments.

11 Before we begin, I'd like to thank

12 everyone for taking time out of their busy

13 schedules to address our proposed rule, and we

14 look forward to receiving everyone's comments. I

15 also realize that a number of you have traveled a

16 great distance today and we appreciate you being

17 here.

18 This is the seventh of eight public

19 hearings we're conducting. We have already

20 conducted hearings in Washington, DC; Denver,

21 Colorado; Dallas, Texas; Charlotte, Nor th

22 Carolina; Chicago, Illinois; and Pittsburgh,4

1 Pennsylvania. Our final hearing will be in

2 Knoxville, Tennessee, towards the end of October.

3 My name is Betsy Devlin, and I am the

4 Associate Director of the Materials Recovery and

5 Waste Management Division in EPA's office of

6 Resource Conservation and Recovery. I will be

7 chairing this morning's session of this hearing.

8 With me on the panel today are Rob

9 Stachowiak, Frank Ney and Craig Dufficy. All of

10 us are from EPA.

11 Before we begin the hearing, I'd like to

12 provide a brief description of the proposed rule

13 as well as some logistics on how we will conduct

14 today's hearing.

15 Coal combustion residuals, or CCRs, are

16 residues from the combustion of coal at electric

17 utilities and include fly ash, bottom ash, boiler

18 slag, and flue gas desulfurization m aterials.

19 Coal combustion residuals contain problematic

20 contaminants such as mercury, cadmium, selenium,

21 and arsenic.

22 In 2008, 136 million tons of coal5

1 combustion residuals were generated by electric

2 utilities and independent power producers. Of

3 that total, approximately 46 million tons were

4 landfilled, 30 million tons were disposed of in

5 surface impoundments, 50 million tons were

6 beneficially used, and 11 million tons were used

7 in minefill operations.

8 EPA estimates that there are

9 approximately 300 landfills and more than 600

10 surface impoundments where coal combustion

11 residuals are disposed.

12 We have proposed to regul ate coal

13 combustion residuals to ensure their safe

14 management when they are disposed in landfills and

15 surface impoundments. Without proper protection,

16 the contaminants in the residuals can leach into

17 groundwater and migrate to drinking water sources

18 posing public health concerns.

19 In addition, the structural failure of a

20 surface impoundment at the Tennessee Valley

21 Authority's plant in Kingston, Tennessee, in

22 December 2008, released more than 5 million cubic6

1 yards of coal ash over approximately 300 acres of

2 land and contaminated portions of the Emory and

3 Clinch Rivers.

4 With this proposal, EPA has opened a

5 national dialogue by calling for public comment on

6 two different regulatory approaches available

7 under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

8 for addressing risks from the disposal of CCRs.

9 One option presented in our proposed

10 draws on the authorities available under Subtitle

11 C of RCRA. This would create a comprehensive

12 program of federally enforceable requireme nts for

13 waste management and disposal.

14 The other option is based on the

15 authorities of Subtitle D of RCRA, which gives the

16 EPA the authority to set national minimum federal

17 criteria for waste management facilities that must

18 be met under a schedule established in the

19 regulation. The regulation would be enforced

20 through citizen suits, and under this scenari o

21 states qualify as citizens.

22 EPA decided to propose these two options7

1 to encourage a robust dialogue on how to address

2 the human health concerns and structural integrity

3 issues associated with the disposal of coal

4 combustion residuals in landfills and sur face

5 impoundments.

6 EPA wants to ensure that our ultimate

7 decision is based on the best available data and

8 made with the substantial input of all stake

9 holde rs. Therefore, we ask that you provide us

10 your comments not only at today's hearing but any

11 other comments and supporting information that you

12 want to provide us in writing.

13 I'd also like to say a few words about

14 the beneficial use of coal combustion residuals.

15 The proposed rule maintains the Bevill Exemption

16 for coal combustion residuals that are

17 beneficially used and, therefore, would not alter

18 the regulatory status of residuals when used in

19 this manner.

20 EPA continues to strongly support the

21 safe a nd protective beneficial use of CCRs.

22 However, the proposal also indicates that concerns8

1 have been raised with some uses of coal combustion

2 residuals, particularly when used in an

3 unencapsulated form. Therefore, we have requested

4 comments, information and data on specific aspects

5 of beneficial use, particularly those activ ities

6 that deal with unencapsulated applications.

7 We also make clear i n our proposal that

8 coal combustion residuals that are placed in sand

9 and gravel pits, quarries, and other large

- scale

10 fill operations are not examples of beneficial

11 use. EPA views this placement as akin to disposal

12 and would regulate these sites as disp osal sites

13 under either of the two regulatory options.

14 Now let me cover some logistics for the

15 comment portion of today's hearing. We'll

--

16 we'll wor

-- work this as follows. Speakers, if

17 you were

-- if you pre

- registered, you were given

18 a 15

- minute time slot when you're scheduled to

19 give your 3 minutes of testimony. To g uarantee

20 that slot, we've ask that you sign in 10 minutes

21 before your 15

- minute slot, and please sign in at

22 our registration desk.9

1 All speakers, those pre

- registered or if

2 you walked in today, were given a number when you

3 signed in. And this is the order in which I will

4 call you to speak.

5 And I will call speakers to the front of

6 the room four or five at a time. And I'll ask

7 that when your numbers are called, you move to the

8 chairs that are on my right and sit there. And

9 then when I call your number individually, please

10 go to the microphone at the podium and state your

11 name and affiliation. And we may ask you to spell

12 your name for our cou rt reporters who are

13 transcribing all the comments for the fi

-- for

14 the official record.

15 Again, because there are many people

16 who've signed up to give testimony today, and t o

17 be fair to everyone, testimony is limited to three

18 minutes. We will be using an electronic

19 timekeeping system, and we will also hold up cards

20 to indicate when your time is getting low. When

21 we hold up the first card, which is a green card,

22 it means you have two minutes left. When you hold10

1 up the se

-- when we hold up the second card, it's

2 a yellow card, you have one minute left. When the

3 third card is held up, it's orange, you have 30

4 seconds. When the red card is held up, you're out

5 of time, and we're going to ask you to conclude

6 your remarks right then. And remember, you can

7 provide

-- if you don't finish, you can provide us

8 any written material, you can provide it to the

9 court reporter, and that will be entered into the

10 record just as if you had presented it orally.

11 We will not be answering questions today

12 on the proposal. However, from time to time a

13 member of the panel may ask one of you a question

14 to clarify your testimony.

15 If you have brought a written copy of

1 6 your testimony, we ask that you leave it in the

17 box in front of our court reporter's station. If

18 you are only submitting written comments today, if

19 you would please put them in a box

-- in the bo x

20 by the registration desk. And if you have any

21 additional comments after today, please follow the

22 instructions on the yellow handout sheet for11

1 submitting official comments to the docket, and

2 they need to be in by November 19th.

3 Again, our goal today is to ensur e that

4 everyone who has come today to prevent (sic)

5 testimony is given an opportunity to do that. To

6 the extent allowable by time constraints, we will

7 do our best to accommodate all o f you who have

--

8 did not pre

- register. We will also try to

9 accommodate people who have asked to switch their

10 times to speak earlier or to speak later.

11 Today's hearing is te chnically scheduled

12 to close at 9, but we will stay later to allow as

13 many people as possible to provide their

14 testimony.

15 If, for some reason, however, you

16 (laughs)

-- time doesn't allow to you preve

--

17 present your comments orally, there is the box at

18 the speak

-- at the registration desk in the

19 lobby. You can provide a written statement ; you

20 put your comments there. And again, these

21 statements will be collected, they will pu

-- be

22 put into the record and considered just the same12

1 as if you had made them orally.

2 If you have not

-- if you would like to

3 speak but have not registered, please sign up at

4 the registration desk outside this room. And

5 during the hearing, if you have any questions or

6 concerns, if you would see our staff at the desk

7 they will be able to answer your question s or they

8 will be able to give us a note so we can address

9 your comments.

10 We're likely to take some brief breaks,

11 but we could eliminate or shorten them totally in

12 order to accommodate people. So

-- so we will do

13 as

-- our best on that.

14 Finally, if you have a cell phone or a

15 Blackberry, we're going to ask that you turn it

16 off a nd not just vibrate, off. Unfortunately, it

17 interferes with the audio feed, and

-- and we need

18 to make sure our court reporters can

-- can hear

19 everything clearly. And the

-- so if you need to

20 use your phone or your Blackberry at any time

21 during the hearing, we'd just ask that you step

22 out and into the lobby out by the registration13

1 desk; that'll be fine.

2 And we do ask for your patience today as

3 we proceed. We may make some minor adjustments to

4 this in order to get everybody in.

5 And, with that, I'm going to try to get

6 started. So can I have Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4,

7 please.

8 MS. DEVLIN: And, Number 1, if you would

9 come to the podium.

10 Good morning. Yeah. Go

-- please

11 start.

12 MR. ADAMS: Good morning. I'm Thomas

13 Adams. I'm the Executive Director of the Ameri can

14 Coal Ash Association of Aurora, Colorado. I thank

15 you for the opportunity to participate here today.

16 The EPA has emphatically expressed its

17 support for beneficial use of coal combustion

18 products as part of the rulemaking for disposal of

19 these materials, and the rational analysis of the

20 disposal supports this EPA position. The best way

21 to minimize dis posal problems is to recycle these

22 materials in ways that are environmentally safe,14

1 technically appropriate, commercially competitive,

2 and supportive of a more sustainable society. The

3 American Coal Ash Association agrees and stands

4 ready to work with the agency to increase the safe

5 beneficial use of CCPs.

6 However, the EPA suggests that

7 beneficial use will increase under a Subsi

--

8 Subtitle C hazardous waste rule. While industry

9 has warned of the effects of the stigma of the

1 0 hazardous waste label for disposed CCP, the EPA

11 says markets will ignore that stigma. The EPA

12 also suggests that generators will be motivated to

13 invest more than they currently do when recycling

14 CCPs rather than sending the material to disposal.

15 Under this scenario, the ACAA and its members

16 should be ecstatic over a Subtitle C option and

17 providing full support to EPA's desire to use

18 Subtitle C. Sadly, the reality tells us that the

19 agency's predictive talents are lacking in this

20 matter.

21 CCPs com

-- compete with other materials

22 in virtually all beneficial use markets. Users and15

1 consumers have other choices. And competitive

2 material suppliers are already begun to use th e

3 hazardous waste stigma as a marketing tool.

4 Some owners have backed away from

5 allowing CCP use as the cloud of EPA rulemaking

6 casts doubt on the safety of these materials.

7 Since they bear the brunt of potential litigation,

8 owners are taking a "better safe than sorry"

9 approach.

10 Utilities that are uncertain of it

--

11 their liabil ity exposure have considered how to

12 approach beneficial use going forward. Some have

13 attempted to download all liability on the small

14 businesses that manage and market CCPs, others

15 ha ve considered retaining cut

-- custody of all

16 CCP, sending 100% to disposal.

17 So we ask the question today: What if

18 you're wrong about beneficial use under a Subtitle

19 C rule? If you're wrong and markets reject

20 continued recycling of CCP and disposal increases

21 dramatically. For example, since the year 2000,

22 we'd have almost a half million tons of mo re CCP16

1 disposed of with successful beneficial use.

2 If you're wrong, greenhouse gas

3 emissions go up, as

-- as the use of fly ash in

4 Portland cement, concrete mixtures decreases.

5 Since 2000, 120 million tons of avoided GHG

6 emissions have been accomplished by the use of fly

7 ash in concrete.

8 If

-- if you're wrong, jobs are affect,

9 as the beneficial use industry accounts for over

10 15,000 green jobs.

11 If you're wrong, the economy is

12 affecte d. According to the EPA, the CCP recycling

13 accounts for about $25 billion of e

-- economic

14 activity a year. And while that may be a rounding

15 error in Washington, it's serious money out here.

16 It's taken several decades of hard work

17 to get to the 44% recycling rate of 2008. Is it

18 really worth jeopardizing one of the great

19 environmental success stories of recent history

20 just to get a Subtitle C rule. We tell you today

21 that Subtitle C will devastate the beneficial use

22 industry.17

1 Thank you.

2 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 2,

3 please.

4 MR. RIEDINGER: Good morning. My name

5 is Dan Riedinger, R

- i

- e

- d

- i

- n

- g

- e

- r, of the Edison

6 Electric Institute in Washington, DC, and I'm

7 prede

-- presenting testimony this morning on

8 behalf the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group,

9 or USWAG, an association of electric utilities and

10 trade associations.

11 As USWAG has testified the last six

12 hearings, the question for us is not whether to

13 regulate CCRs but how. We continue to believe,

14 after listening to all testimony, that the

15 Subtitle D Prime option, with appropriate

16 adjustments, is the best fast forward.

17 USWAG appreciates that there are major

1 8 differences of opinion regarding the rulemaking,

19 but we're concerned that unless EPA is able to

20 forge a consensus position, the question of

21 whether and how to regulate CCRs will become a

22 protracted battle in Congress and perhaps the18

1 courts. USWAG continues to believe, however, that

2 a consensus position can be reached that meets the

3 fundamental objectives of EPA and the varying

4 stakeholders; that is, the development of

5 federally enforceable standards for CCRs that are

6 protective of human health and the environment.

7 As the EPA has pointed out, the

8 substantive standards between the Subtitle C and D

9 approaches are essentially identical. Both would

10 provide for the safe management of coal ash

11 through the use of liner systems, groundwater

12 monitoring and corrective action.

13 Despite the similarities between the tw o

14 options, opponents of Subtitle D are concerned

15 that the states will not vigorously enforce the

16 Subtitle D regulations, thus, they want EPA

17 enforcement authority.

18 Opponents of Subtitle C, including

19 USWAG, are concerned that subjecting CCRs to

20 hazardous waste regulation will result in

21 excessive regulation, drive up energy costs and

22 cripple beneficial use.19

1 USWAG believes that there is a path

2 forward that would address the concerns of most of

3 the views reflected in this room, and most

4 importantly, will ensure the successful

5 implementation of a protective CCR regulatory

6 program in a timely manner. Specifically, we

7 continue to believe that EPA can develop federally

8 enforceable Subtitle D controls for CCRs under the

9 same authorities that it has used to develop

10 federally enforceable Subtitle D contr ols for

11 municipal and solid wastes. We believe that EPA

12 can use its authorities under the combination of

13 RCRA Sections 4010 and 4005 to direct the states

14 to establish Subtitle D contr ols and permit

15 requirements for CCR disposal facilities and to

16 step in and directly enforce those Subtitle D

17 regulations if the states fail to do so. This

18 approach also would be imple mented on a much

19 quicker time schedule than would any Subtitle C

20 option. It makes no sense to risk the downsides

21 of Subtitle C when EPA can achieve essentially the

22 same results without those risks under federally20

1 enforceable Subtitle D option.

2 This rulemaking is too important f or EPA

3 not to get it right. Therefore, we urge the

4 agency to be creative in using its existing

5 authorities in Subtitle D to issue federally

6 enforceable Subtitle D rules for CCRs. Suc h a

7 result would be a win

- win for all involved.

8 Thank you.

9 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 3,

10 please.

11 MR. DARST: Tim Darst, D

- a

- r

- s

- t,

12 Kentucky Interfaith Power & Light.

13 Good morning. You will hil

-- hear a

14 lot of testimony today from a lot of different

15 people. They will make pleas for the status quo

16 and pleas for change. Their reasons will vary and

17 their bases for these reasons will vary as well.

18 I'm speaking to you today as the

19 Executive Director of Kentucky Interfaith Powe r &

20 Light on behalf of our 1200 members from

21 congregations from around the State of Kentucky.

22 Today I am speaking from a moral standpoint.21

1 The majority of the people you will hear

2 today will be industry folks. They will speak of

3 jobs and the importance that coal is to our

4 economy. Many of them will be brought here by

5 their employers as a part of their workday to

6 testify for the industry.

7 By contrast, many of the people of faith

8 that I represent are not being paid by their

9 employers to come testify. They had to go to

10 work, and instead, they have sent me as their

11 representative.

12 Industry represent atives will tell you

13 that we cannot afford to classify coal ash as a

14 hazardous waste under Subtitle C. But really, we

15 cannot afford not to. The true cost of coal ash

16 to our health and environment may never be known.

17 A recent EPA report found that unlimited (sic)

18 coal ash waste ponds pose a cancer risk 900 times

19 above what is defined as "acceptable" and remain

20 toxic for years. Subtitle C's common sense safety

21 standards will protect our health, our

22 communities, and the ecosystems on which we22

1 depend, and it will hold polluters accountable.

2 Faith communities are often first

3 responders to help victims of environmental

4 disasters, like the one in Kingston, Tennessee.

5 We are now learning coal ash disasters can be bre

6

-- prevented with proper safety standards.

7 Prevention through responsible stewardship must be

8 our first priority. Care and responsibility for

9 the least of these among us is central to faith

10 traditions and has a direct connection to

11 environmental issues.

12 The impact of the environmental

13 degradation falls most heavily on the people of

14 our state that are least able to mitigate these

15 impacts, the poor and vulnerable populations.

16 Toxic coal ash has been silently

17 accumulating for 30 to 40 years in our

18 communities. The large industrial polluters have

19 known the dangers but they have led us to believe

20 that it is harmless as dirt. Adopting anything

21 other than Subtitle C will, in essence, be

22 entrusting our health and safety of our23

1 communities to a deceptive industry. It would be

2 like trusting tobacco companies to make safe

3 cigarettes.

4 Please classify coal ash under Subtitle

5 C for the health and protection of the people of

6 Kentucky.

7 Thank you for your time.

8 (Applause)

9 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 4,

10 please.

11 MS. BELZ: My name is Rachel Belz,

12 B

- e

- l

- z. I'm here today representing 80,000

13 members of Ohio Citizen Action, Ohio's largest

14 environmental organiza tion.

15 I'm here to strongly urge you to adopt

16 the strictest possible standards for coal ash.

17 There's good reason that you'll he a r that Subtitle

18 C is favored by most citizens and environmental

19 groups, including Ohio Citizen Action. It

20 classifies coal ash as a hazardous waste, it

21 requires operating permits, closes down dangerous

22 wetponds and contains minimu m standards that are24

1 federally enforceable. You may or may not be

2 familiar but the Ohio EPA is not exactly known for

3 enforcement. So in a state like Ohio Subtitle C

4 is something we

-- we desperately need.

5 Of course, Subtitle D is favored by

6 industry. Basically, it's the status quo. It

7 would be absolutely inadequate for you to choose

8 Subtitle D. It categorizes coal ash as

9 non

- hazardous and provides guidelines that are not

10 enforceable and completely voluntary.

11 I live in Cincinnati, Ohio. At least

12 15, probably more, of your

-- the 44 U.S. EPAs

13 high hazard sites for coal ash are in my Ohio

14 River Valley. Five million people get our (sic)

15 drinking water from the Ohio River. And this

16 water could be contaminated if the ponds leak or

17 the manmade dams break. Not to mention the

18 breathing problems that result from the fly as h

19 coming off the miles long convey or belts or dry ash

20 landfills like those in south east Ohio.

21 There are a number of things that you

22 may have missed in both of these proposal s25

1 however. Of course, you mentioned it doesn't even

2 begin to address the beneficial use or reuse

3 that's so prevalent in pr oducts like drywall,

4 bowling balls, cosmetics and even toothpaste. I

5 think that's disgusting. And how could this have

6 happen ed ? Well, probably because it isn't

7 regulated. And anything that isn't regulated

8 seems like it takes off in this country.

9 I've included a short video that Ohio

10 Citizen Action produced in August 2010 called,

11 "Coal Ash in Ohio," with my testimony. It

12 highlights the many problems with coal ash in our

13 state and in the Ohio River Valley. It was

14 unbelievable to see these large coal ash landfills

15 and wet ponds from an aerial fly over we were

16 given by an organization called South Wings. We

17 attempted to see these landfills and ponds from

18 the ground, but they're hidden from the public and

19 we didn't want to trespass.

20 It's truly unbelievable to me that even

21 after the dev

-- devastation at the TVA plant in

22 December 2008 that the U.S. EPA is just now26

1 getting ready to propose regulations. These

2 regulations need to be strict; they need to be

3 enforceable; they need to start n ow.

4 And thank you for holding a hearing here

5 in Louisville.

6 (Applause)

7 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Can I have

8 Numbers 5, 6, 7 and 8, p lease.

9 MR. BURKE: Good morning. My name is

10 Dwayne Burke, and I'm the Director of

11 Environmental Affairs for Indianapolis Power &

12 Light.

13 IPL is an electric utility serving

14 Marion County, Indiana, and we have about 465,000

15 customers. More importantly, in 2009, about 99%

16 of our generation was coal

- based. So we have a

17 strong interest in the development of fair and

18 equitable rules.

19 First, I'd like to point out that not

20 only am I representing IPL but also I'm the chair

21 of the Indiana Energy Association, so my comments

22 are reflective of those. Finally, we

-- we are27

1 also members of the Utility Solid Waste Activities

2 Group and the American Coal Ash Association. So

3 I'll just summarize some of the highlights that

--

4 that they presented.

5 First, we strongly suppor

-- we strongly

6 oppose Subtitle C regulation, rather, for

-- for

7 four primary reasons. First is, additional costs

8 with no commensurate benefit. In our case we w ere

9 looking at several hundred millions of dollars to

10 close ash ponds, build new landfills, con

--

11 consert

-- convert existing activities from wet to

12 dry and install new water treatmen t facilities.

13 Those kind of activities. So we're looking at

14 several hundred million dollars for our customers.

15 Second is, we agree with the ACAA and

16 others that

-- that there are several issues

17 related to beneficial use. I know you indicated

18 you'll be taking a closer look at that, and we

19 support that. There's the stigma and the pr oduct

20 liability you'll hear a lot about so I won't

21 repeat those

-- those issues.

22 Thirdly, one end

-- item that has not28

1 been brought up, at least today, is, in Indiana,

2 for example, there is no hazardous waste landfill

3 space. We have one hazardous waste landfill in

4 the State of Indiana. There are great questions

5 whether you could site another one. And then

6 you're getting into the out of state hazardous

7 waste issue, which would be very problemati c we

8 believe.

9 Fourth, another concern is that, we

10 believe there's been a long successful history of

11 regulation under the current regulation, starting

12 with t he Bevill Amendment in 80 that the EPA has

13 looked at in 88, 93 and 2000. And you'll hear a

14 lot of comments from

-- from both sides, whether

15 its environmentalists and

-- and industry, as far

16 as the, you know, pros and cons those kinds of

17 things. But what I urge you to take a look at is

18 state regulatory agencies. To my knowledge, 48 of

19 50 have suggested Subtitle D or D Prime as the way

20 to go. The only two states that I'm aware of that

21 have recommended Subtitle C are California, which

22 has no coal, and I believe Iowa i s the other29

1 state.

2 We'll be submitting comments prior to

3 the November deadline as it relates to our

-- what

4 we do support, which is Subtitle D Prime.

5 Thank you very much.

6 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 6,

7 please.

8 MR. WARD: My name is John Ward, and I

9 am Chairman of Citizens for Recycling First, an

10 organization of more than 1500 individuals who

11 believe the best solution for coal ash di sposal

12 problems is to quit throwing coal ash away.

13 I have attended all of the EPA public

14 hearings on coal ash disposal so far and have

15 listened as many people have challenged you to get

16 tough with coal ash and inflict the most draconian

17 regulation possible.

18 Today, I would like to give you a

19 different challenge, the challenge to do the best

20 thing for the environment.

21 The proposed regulations we're talking

22 about today are under the authority of the30

1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The EPA

2 office conducting these hearings has "conservation

3 and recovery" in its name. Unfortunately, there

4 is little or no focus on conservatio n and recovery

5 in this regulatory proposal or by this

6 administration's EPA in general.

7 Previous EPAs under both Democrat and

8 Republican administrations have concluded that

9 coal ash does not warrant regulation as a

10 hazardous waste. Furthermore, EPAs under both

11 Democrat and Republican administrations previously

12 worked to put conservation and recovery first

13 through programs like Comprehensive Procurement

14 Guidelines and the Coal Combustion Products

15 Partnership, also known as the C2P2 program. All

16 of these efforts recognize that coal ash i s a

17 valuable resource that can be recovered and used

18 rather than disposed in landfills and

19 impoundments, a handful of which have performed

20 inadequately and brought us here today.

21 EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has

22 called for common sense coal ash disposal31

1 regulations. Well, common sense says it's better

2 to safely use something instead of throwing it

3 away. Common sense says it's better to conserve

4 natural resources by using a recovered material

5 rather than mining or manufacturing new ones.

6 Common sense says conserving energy and reducing

7 greenhouse gas emissions by millions of tons each

8 year are environmental benefits worth pr otecting.

9 And common sense says people will not want to use

10 a material on their own property if it is

11 considered hazardous waste on the property of the

12 person who made it.

1 3 For those who want to saddle coal ash

14 with a hazardous waste label, here are some

15 inconvenient truths: Coal ash does not qualify as

16 a hazardous waste based on its toxicity and its

17 toxicity is similar to that of the materials it

18 replaces when it's recycled.

19 The landfill regu

-- engineering

20 standards being proposed by EPA are essentially

21 the same under both EPA's hazardous and

22 non

- hazardous approaches. So you're not going to32

1 be giving the environment more protection with a

2 hazardous label.

3 Finally, EPA's non

- hazardous proach

--

4 approach can be implemented years sooner, getting

5 greater protection for our environment now instead

6 of later.

7 Common sense and the spirit of

8 conservation demand the Subtitle D non

- hazardous

9 approach. It will improve coal ash disposal

10 standards faster and it will do it without re

--

11 destroying recycling efforts with an unnecessary

12 hazardous stigma.

13 Thank you for the opportunity to

14 testify.

15 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 7,

16 please.

17 MR. KAZICH: My name is Bruce Kazich.

18 I'm the sales manager of Gibbco, Incorporated.

19 Gibbco is a small family

- owned company

20 that was founded in 1964 by the late Ed Gibbons.

21 Mr. Gibbons was a recycling pioneer. He

22 established Gibbco to process boiler slag for33

1 roofing granules

-- roofing shingle granules and

2 blasting abrasives. He later expanded Gibbco's

3 recycling efforts by starting a plastics recycling

4 company and developed a portable machine for

5 grinding used tires into a reusable material.

6 Today Gibbco continues to follow our recycling

7 roots by beneficially usin g CCPs. We currently

8 employ seven people at our facility in Indiana.

9 We understand that a significant driver

10 in the proposed regulatory action was the failed

11 dike at TVA at K ingston. What we do not

12 understand is why a structural failure would

13 prompt the reconsideration for the waste

14 classification of coal ash.

15 Subtitle D clearly creates much needed

16 new landfill

-- landfill and surface impoundment

17 regulations. These regulations should be tougher

18 but should not stigmatize the possibl e beneficial

19 use of CCPs.

20 And yes, the stigma is real. Our

21 customers have serious, legal liability concerns.

22 We speak with them on a weekly basis and they've34

1 clearly stated they will stop the use of boiler

2 slag should CCPs be classified, in any way, as a

3 subtitle C waste. In our litigious society, they

4 are simply not willing to take the risk, despite

5 having successfully and safely use boiler slag for

6 decades.

7 Additionally, I have provided a copy of

8 my written testimony of an Internet advertising by

9 a supplier of an alternative material. Their

10 website features videos and links that clearly

11 attack boiler slag and CCPs. Many of the links

12 have, frankly, nothing to do with either boiler

13 slag or blasting abrasives. This is truly

14 fear

- based advertising, attempting to further

15 stigmatize the beneficial use of CCPs.

16 Our employees have worked very hard to

17 create and maintain a thriving business des

--

18 despite the current economic crisis our country is

19 facing. A Subtitle C designation will certainly

20 destroy that business. The immediate loss of our

21 existing customer base and the loss of our raw

22 material supply will not allow us to co ntinue a35

1 viable operation. Our seven employees will then

2 be unemployed, placing a serious financial

3 hardship on their fami lies. That hardship will

4 also trickle down to our 20 suppliers in the form

5 of lost revenue.

6 The boiler slag that had been safely

7 recycled for decades will now be landfill ed

,

8 creating higher costs for utilities and therefore

9 higher energy costs for all citizens. Our

10 customers will replace boiler slag with naturally

11 mined minerals, utilizing more energy, i ncluding

12 fossil fuels, natural gas and electricity, further

13 increasing our carbon footprint.

14 We encourage EPA to develop a

15 performance

- based federal program for CCPs under

16 RCRA D, which will ensure that disposal is safely

17 managed, while continuing to promote and expand

18 beneficial use.

19 Thank you.

20 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you . Number 8,

21 please.

22 MR. PUCKETT: My name is Paul Puckett.36

1 I am here to speak today as a private citizen

2 regarding EPA's proposal to regulate coal

3 combustion residues, CCRs, published recently in

4 the Federal Register.

5 I'm a 20

- year environmental engineer

6 with tw o graduate level degrees and I hold a

7 professional registration. I know a lot about the

8 fly ash, bottom ash, and flue gas desulfurization

9 products like gypsum that EPA is proposing to

10 regulate.

11 Ash and gypsum are benign materials with

12 characteristics that are similar to soil.

13 According to EPA publications, more than 99.5% of

14 coal ash is comprised of silicon, aluminum, iron,

15 calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium. These

16 compounds are found in the sand in which our

17 children play, the cans from which we dr ink, pots

18 and pans used to cook, chalk we used in school,

19 daily vitamins, and the salt we use for seasoning.

20 The concerned voice today is about the

21 traces of heavy metals tha t are present in ash and

22 gypsum. Everyone should understand that the mere37

1 presence of heavy metals does not in itself pose a

2 threat to us or our families. These metals are

3 elements which occur naturally and are present in

4 foods that we eat.

5 EPA has proposed this regulation because

6 these metals

-- because of these metals and

7 suggest that ash and gypsum are hazardous wastes.

8 This proposal contradicts the evaluations that EPA

9 published previously in reports to Congress in

10 which they concluded CCRs are rare

-- CCRs rarely

11 have any characteristic of a hazardous waste.

12 Moreover, on September 24, 2010, EPA

13 provided another contradiction in a notice that it

14 intends to exclude ash generated by a large

15 chemical companies' incineration process from

16 hazardous waste regulations. EPA concluded that

17 the ash did not have hazardous constituents, was

18 not acutely toxic, and posed little threat of

19 bioaccumulation or migration.

20 The beneficial reuses of CCRs in

21 construction materials like wallboard, concrete

--

22 wallboard and concrete, materials commonly used to38

1 build homes and offices has previously been

2 promoted by EPA.

3 Additionally, EPA has funded

4 university

- level research and presentation or

5 forums that promoted the use of CCRs as an

6 agricultural amendment through their C2P2 program.

7 To be specific, gypsum, and some types

8 of ash, can be placed on farm fields, resulting in

9 soil improvements, hardier vegetat ion, added crop

10 yields, and increases in pro

-- and increases in

11 product shelf life. Other benefits include a

12 decreased use of fertilizers, increased drought

13 resistance, improved soil workability, and

14 diminished chemical runoff. These types of

15 applications were meticulously studied and

16 research determined that there were no significant

17 concerns associated with the m.

18 In conclusion, I would like EP

-- I

19 would like to

-- I would suggest that EPA's

20 proposal to regulate coal combustion residues as

21 hazardous waste is not supported by their own

22 analytical data or research, and it conflicts with39

1 common sense.

2 This proposal does not deserve the

3 support of the state governments, manufacturing

4 and construction, the utilities, or the people.

5 This proposed regulation should be withdrawn and a

6 more well

- conceived regulatory proposal should be

7 developed that is consistent with the nature of

8 CCRs, a large volume, virtually no hazard resource

9 with many beneficial reuse possibilities

.

10 Thank you.

11 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. May I have

12 Numbers 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, please.

13 MR. PEARCE: Hello. My name is Thomas

14 Pearce. And I want to thank you very much for

15 taking the time to hear our feelings and our

16 thoughts and the facts on

-- on coal ash today.

17 I'm a Sierra Club organizer from

-- with Beyo nd

18 Coal campaign.

19 I want to point out that I'm also a

20 lifelong resident of Jefferson County, and I spent

21

-- spent the first ten years of my life living

22 abou t two miles from the Can Run plant.40

1 Coal ash is poisoning Kentucky's waters

2 and streams. Coal ash is leaking into the Ohio

3 River. It's in our groundwater. It's leaking

4 mercury, selenium, arsenic and lead. Those are

5 proven facts, if you'd refer to the Sierra Club's

6 Slow Motion Spill Report and some of the EPA's own

7 recommendations that have found that the sites

8 here in Jefferson County are ha

-- high hazardous

9 sites. It's destroying the health of men, women

10 and children of our communi ties.

11 Kentucky will never ro

-- regulate coal

12 ash. It will never happen. We need you to

13 regulate coal ash. Nothing is going to save our

14 communities from coal ash but federal oversight.

15 It's the only way. Kentucky has never regulated

16 coal ash and it never will.

17 Schedule C does

-- I mean, proposal C

18 does not affect beneficial reuse. And we already

19 know that. So I don't know why it keeps getting

20 hammered and hammered over again. I knock doors

21 (sic) every day and work with communities that are

22 besieged and buried in coal ash.41

1 I think of Mr. Cunningham, who's a

2 45

- year

- old man, who lives across the str eet from

3 the Cane Run containment, who has a pacemaker at

4 the age of 45, who has the beginnings of pulmonary

5 fibrosis. The coal ash containment is 50 yards

6 from his house. The berm is 50 yards from this

7 house. And as of two weeks ago, the coal ash was

8 20 feet in the air towering above the berm. With

9 no rain, high winds, how can we say t hat's

-- that

10 is beneficial or good for his family.

11 A lot of people

-- last week our mayor

12 had replied to a resident, "Maybe you should sell

13 your home. Maybe you should get out."

14 Nobody will buy their homes. The values

15 of their homes have gone through the floor, way

16 more than the rest of the general population. So

17 they can't move. So is LG&E going to buy their

18 homes?

19 And lastly, our entire community needs

20 clean water.

21 Thank you very much.

22 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you.42

1 (Applause)

2 MS. DEVLIN: Number 11, please.

3 MR. WALLACE: My name is Craig Wallace.

4 I'm a fly ash marketer. I'd like to thank the EPA

5 for this forum.

6 Both options presented are essentially

7 the same regulatory approaches for coal ash

8 disposal. Both options are designed to improve

9 and federally standardize landfill practices to

10 protect the public and our environment. Neither

11 approach, C or D, is business as usual. Both

12 options dramatically reduce public risk as

13 compared to the status quo.

14 Personally, I'm glad the EPA is out

--

15 looking out for my safety. However, I do have a

16 problem labeling a material that reduces our

17 demand for energy intensive cement, reduces

18 greenhouse gases, improves concrete

19 infrastructures and reduces concrete consumer

20 costs as a hazardous material.

21 The toxicity of coal ash does not meet

22 EPA's defined requirements for hazardous43

1 materials. Coal ash is an industrial waste and it

2 should remain so.

3 We've heard today, and we're going to

4 continue to hear, that coal ash is a toxic

5 hazardo us material. The reason we're hearing this

6 is because coal ash is already stigmatized.

7 Putting emotions aside and looking at the facts,

8 the term "toxic hazardous waste" used in

9 conjun ction with coal ash is a misnomer.

10 Coal is not going away anytime soon.

11 Population growth is increasing our demand for

12 affordable energy. So the best thing to do is to

13 safely recycle as much coal ash as possible until

14 renewable energies are competitive in a free

15 market.

16 Subtitle D allows us to continue to

17 promote coal ash b eneficial use. EPA support for

18 coal ash recycling has been invaluable in changing

19 people's skepticisms and perceptions. It is

20 disheartening to see the EPA and other

21 knowledgeable peo ple who know the truth about coal

22 ash toxicity push Subtitle C at great risks to44

1 future coal ash beneficial uses.

2 The goal for most in this room is to

3 improve coal ash disposal methods, to improve our

4 public safety and protect our environment. Let's

5 fix the problem without destroying an industry

6 that offers numerous benefits to society, and most

7 of all keeps coal ash from being disposed of in a

8 landfill in the first place. Subtitle D is the

9 right choice for the environment.

10 Thank you.

11 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 12,

12 please.

13 MS. MANN: Thank you for the opportunity

14 to comment. My name is Robin Mann. I liv e in

15 Rosemont, Pennsylvania. I serve as President of

16 the Board of Directors of the Sierra Club.

17 I am attending this hearing in

18 Louisville in

-- in order to hear firsthand from

19 our members and others in their communities about

20 the risks and impacts imposed on their health and

21 the environment by the reckless hand ling of toxic

22 coal combustion waste and to show solidarity with45

1 their demands on EPA to fulfill, at long last, its

2 obligati on to protect public health and the

3 environment by properly regulating toxic coal

4 combustion waste.

5 Only one of the two proposed options

6 will meet EPA's obligation; that is, recognizing

7 coal combustion waste for what it is, hazardous

8 waste; and requiring that its disposal in

9 landfills and surface impoundments be regulated

10 effectively, under RCRA Subtitle C.

11 Three fundamental considerations should

12 guide EPA in reaching its decision on the proper

13 regulatory course. First, there is more than

14 sufficient evidence of damage, potential damage

15 and risks to public health and the environment

16 resulting from current disposal practices.

17 Secondly, state

- level regulation has failed to

18 ensure adequate protection of public health and

19 the environment. And third, the risks to public

20 health and the environment are growing.

21 As to the first point, the catastrophic

22 spill in Kingston may have been what prompted the46

1 EPA to act but the extent of the problem goes far

2 beyond the risks of additional failures of the

3 hundreds of surface impoundments across the

4 country. EPA's data, supplementary expert

-

5 generation

-- generated data, indicate that

6 groundwater contamination by arsenic, lead and

7 other toxic metals leaching from coal combustion

8 waste disposal sites and fugitive releases

9 represent widespread risks to the public health

10 and the environment.

11 Secondly, EPA's approach, to date,

12 relying on states to eff

-- effectively oversee,

13 manage and monitor wa

-- the waste has failed.

14 Kentucky is a prime example, as demonstrated in

15 the Sierra Club Kentucky Waterways Alliance and

16 Global Environmental report.

17 The Kentucky Division of Waste

18 M anagement has not only failed to require

19 sufficient controls on coal combustion waste

20 disposal to prevent groundwater contamination but

21 has actually reduced its monitoring of our

-- of

22 the contamination as it has mounted. What is47

1 needed is a federal floor of protection, federally

2 enforced.

3 Thirdly, the problem is worsening, as

4 the volume of toxic ash accumulates in landfills

5 and ponds that are leaking, while new and expanded

6 disposal sites are being approved wit hout ess

--

7 without essential controls.

8 The people of Kentucky, my home state of

9 Pennsylvania and in communities all across the

10 country deserve to be protected from being

11 poisoned and having their vir

-- environment

12 spoiled by toxic coal combustion waste. EPA must

13 choose the proper course to regulate coal

14 combustion waste as hazardous, and subject to

15 enforceable provisions under RCRA Subtitle C.

16 Thank you.

17 (Applause)

18 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 13,

19 please.

20 MR. ADAMS: My name is Mike Adams and

21 I'm Senior Vice President for Headwaters

22 Resources, the largest coal ash marketer in the48

1 United States.

2 The premise of my talk is that a

3 Subtitle C ruling will create a stigma that is

4 real, and Subtitle C will eliminate recycling of

5 coal ash.

6 At these public hearings, the EPA has

7 heard from a

-- from hundreds of people who have

8

-- are actively involved in the recycling of coal

9 ash to produce significant environmental benefits,

10 including over 15 million tons of annual

11 reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. These

12 people include producers, marketers and users of

13 coal ash, and they have unanimously testified that

14 designating coal ash as hazardous waste, when

15 destined for disposal, will create a stigma that

16 ruins recycling efforts in this cou ntry and

17 abroad.

18 A handful of witnesses, none of them

19 actually involved in recycling coal ash, has

20 stated that stigma is not real. They have said

21 that other hazardous materials get recycled and

22 that the higher costs of disposal that come with49

1 the hazardous designation w ill incentivize people

2 to recycle more.

3 Today I would like to point out why

4 these

-- those positions are just plain wrong.

5 First of all, examples of other hazardous

6 materials that get recycled are not comparable to

7 coal ash. Most examples ci

-- cited by stigma

8 deniers are of materials that get reprocessed

9 before they are reused. Coal ash is not recy

--

10 processed before it is recycled and is

11 mechanically and chemically identical to

-- to

12 coal ash that is disposed. This opens the door

13 wide to litigation that will ask, "If it's

14 hazardous over there, why is it not hazardous over

15 here?"

16 As

-- as example of this, I am aware of

17 a company that is being sued

-- ironically this

18 suit was cu riously initiated after the Kingston

19 incident

-- by an employee over an illness that he

20 claims was caused by CCPs, even though there is no

21 evidence whatsoever that CCPs have caused this

22 illness. In fact, the employee's past lifestyle50

1 chow

-- choices, including tobacco, have a direct

2 link to this illness.

3 This is what will happen if CCPs are

4 declared hazardous under Subtitle C. Attorneys,

5 in their effort to make a big pay day, will bring

6 forth suit after suit hoping for the po t at the

7 end of the rainbow.

8 Furthermore, most examples cited by

9 stigma deniers are of materials that are reused by

10 the very industries that produced them. Coal ash

11 is wildly (sic) dispersed to literally thousands

12 of locations in every community and is placed in

13 products that come in direct contact with everyday

14 citizens.

15 Final ly, many examples cited by stigma

16 deniers are of materials that do not compete with

17 alternative products. Your gasoline

- fueled car

18 cannot operate without gasoline. Concrete and

19 other products can be made without coal ash.

20 EPA has already heard testimony that

21 some manufacturers of competitive products are

22 already using this

-- the prospect of a hazard ous51

1 waste designation to sow fa

-- sow fear among coal

2 ash users.

3 Therefore, I urge the EPA to rule in

4 favor of Sub

-- Subtitle D so as not ruin the most

5 successful recycling program in the United States.

6 (Applause)

7 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 14,

8 please.

9 MR. GRUBER: Hi. I'm Doug Gruber.

10 Interesting in being at these meetings because I

11 consider myself an environmentalist.

12 My wife and I have been lifelong members

13 of the Audubon Society, the Cousteau Society, and

14 Nature Conservancy. In our personal life, we love

15 birdwatching; we love nature; we spend our time

16 boating and enjoying the ocean life where we live

17 on the coast.

18 It's amazing to come to these meetings and

19 see the

-- the opposing sides of this event.

20 You know, my wife's a science teacher,

21 and I work in the coal ash marketing business.

22 And the reason I enjoy working in that business52

1 is because I'm continuing my personal lifestyle of

2 recycling more than I waste, to use and recycle

3 rather than dispose of and put in a landfill.

4 In tha t same regard, coal ash has a

5 beneficial reuse. It's beneficial in the use of

6 concrete; it's beneficial in the use of concrete

7 products; it's beneficial in the use of wallboard

8 and ot her products like that, not just as a place

9 to get rid of it, because it actually has

10 mechanically and physical property that enhance

11 the products. It's much better to recycle any

12 time you can, and this is an opportunity for us to

13 do that.

14 In the 12 years that I've worked in the

15 coal ash industry, it's been very rewarding for me

16 to see the acceptance and the growth of the use of

17 these products. And so this means that it's

18 architects and engineers and producers are seeing

19 the beneficial uses and increasing those uses

20 when replacing other natural resources rather than

21 mining new natural resources using those products

22 that we would have to put into a landfill. This53

1 gives us the opportunity to recycle, and we should

2 always recycle rather than dispose when we have

3 that opportunity.

4 And so I abhor the EPA and what a

5 challenge you have. But I depend on organizations

6 like the EPA and the FDA to make sure that what I

7 have in my daily life is as safe as possible.

8 And through your very own regulations

9 already in place, and through the analysis you've

10 already done, it tells us that this product is not

11 hazardous. It's really simple. If you can read,

12 you can see it. It's all based on science.

13 And we depend on the EPA to base their

14 decision on science so that we can continue to

15 recycle and continue to replace and reuse these

16 products and not waste them in landfills and store

17 up valuable air space and landfills. Let's use

18 them more to the advantage of ourselve s. And that

19 won't happen if we deem it as hazardous. Because

20 people will be afraid. People will be lead by

21 fear and not by science. So let's not put this in

22 Subtitle C. Let's not call this hazardous. Let's54

1 take and use this product and make it a good thing

2 for our society and use it in beneficial reuse.

3 Thank you for your time.

4 (Applause)

5 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Numbers 15, 16,

6 17 and 18, please.

7 MR. FORD: My name is Leonard Ford, and

8 I work for Harsco Minerals, a division of the

9 Harsco Corporation.

10 I work at Harsco's Drakesboro, Kentucky,

11 location managing three regional plants located in

12 Kentucky and Illinois. I've been working the

13 boiler slag processing field for over 30 years.

14 The plants I manage employ 50 workers. Many of

15 them have been working in the boiler slag

16 processing industry for over 30 years. We produce

17 blasting abrasives and granules for roofing

18 shingles from boiler slag, which is one of the

19 listed coal combustion by

- products included in

20 this proposed regulation.

21 Harsco takes employee health and safety

22 very seriously. We have participated in55

1 industrial hygiene surveys, conducted regular

2 safety meetings, and safety is an important part

3 of the way we conduct business every day.

4 Environmental permit compliance is also

5 an important part of the way we conduct our

6 business. In 30 years of operation I do not know

7 of any environmental issues caused by the boiler

8 slag processing by our facilities.

9 I am in support of regulating boiler

10 slag under RCRA Subtitle D.

11 Some facts that

-- that demonstrate that

12 there are no reasonable basis for subjecting

13 boiler slag to regulation under the RCRA Subtitle

14 C are as follows: When extremely hot, molten slag

15 ash is quenched with cold water, the coal ash is

16 vitrified and becomes a solid, glassy matrix kno wn

17 as "boiler slag." Because the boiler slag is

18 vitrified, it is very durable and environmentally

19 stable material that effectively immobilizes its

20 chemical constituents.

21 Historically, boiler slag has always

22 passed TCLP testing and has never exhibited any56

1 hazardous waste characteristics.

2 I'm not aware of any environmental

3 issues brought forth by any of my con

--

4 customers, and all the TCLP testing requested by

5 any of the

-- my customers has never indicated any

6 issues.

7 Boiler slag makes up only 2% of the coal

8 combustion by

- products and 98% is recycled into

9 valuable re

-- reusable products. Boiler slag has

10 been be neficially used since the 1930s as an

11 abrasive. Beneficially used boiler slag replaces

12 material mined from virgin material. Beneficial

13 use of boiler slag reduces the carbon footprint of

14 mining and processing of virgin materials. Boiler

15 slag is not commonly stored in surface

16 impoundments. Harsco does not store any of its

17 products in any surface impoundments.

18 Regulating boiler slag destined for

19 disposal has

-- as a special waste under Subtitle

20 C would be unfairly stigmatized beneficial us

--

21 reused boiler slag that I have been processing f or

22 many years. My customers will be confused and57

1 concerned about the purchasing products that are

2 seen to be essentially t he same as Subtitle C

3 waste.

4 Thank you.

5 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 16,

6 please.

7 (Applause)

8 MR. EHLERS: Good morning. My name is

9 Ron Ehlers. I'm a senior engineer with Duke

10 Energy and I'm testifying today on behalf of Duke

11 Energy. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak

12 today on the proposal.

13 Duke Energy strongly supports developing

14 federal regulations for coal combustion residuals

15 under RCRA's Subtitle D non

- hazardous waste

16 program. Opponents of Subtitle D say this option

17 is a free ride for utilities. However, the

18 reality is Subtitle D significantly raises the bar

19 in terms of retrofitting and closing CCR

20 impoundments, including accelerated closure

21 schedules that are impractical and not feasible

22 the way they are currently proposed. The Subtitle58

1 D proposal requires that unlined impoundments no

2 longer be used five years after the rule is

3 finalized. It also requires that impoundments be

4 officially closed with in 180 days after the

5 impoundment

-- the closure begins. Both of these

6 time frames are unrealistic, and closing these

7 ponds safely, from an engineering perspective,

8 will be val

-- very challenging.

9 The cost to comply with requirements to

10 install liners in existing unlined impoundments

11 will drive most plants with these types of

12 impoundments to either retire or convert to dry

13 CCR handling. New landfills will have to be

14 sited, designed and constructed prior to

15 beginning pond closure. Given the number of new

16 landfills that would be required, it is unlikely

17 that these could be readied in time.

18 If these were hazardous waste landfills,

19 as required under a Subtitle C hazardous waste

20 program, even more time would be needed, assuming

21 that a hazardous waste landfill could successfully

22 be sited and permitted.59

1 Also, the immediate and significant

2 increase in demand for dry handling systems across

3 the country will result in lengthy procurement and

4 installation time frames. This makes the

5 five

- year deadline impractical and would adversely

6 impact power plant availability.

7 The time needed to de

- water the unit,

8 construct a cap, to install the necessary storm

9 water controls, while complying with our NPDES

10 permits, would also require more than 180 days.

11 The EPA should consider closure plans to start

12 within 30 days of the final receipt of wa ste, but

13 the implementation of the closure plans and

14 completion of construction should be determined by

15 best engineering practices.

16 The Subtitle D Prime option, with

17 appropriate adjustments, best balances clean

18 energy with affordability and reliability.

19 Adopting the Subtitle D Prime option will achieve

20 the same long

- term environmental goals on a mor e

21 realistic time frame. With a reasonable,

22 science

- based approach, we can design federal60

1 regulations that ensure the safe management of

2 CCRs without significantly ra

-- raising the cost

3 for customers and jeopardizing national electric

4 reliability.

5 Thank you.

6 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 17,

7 please.

8 (Applause)

9 MR. JONES: Good morning. My name is

10 Terry Jones; I'm a concrete producer an d an active

11 member of our state Ready Mixed Concrete

12 Associations and the chairman of our Operations

13 Environmental Safety Committee for the National

14 Ready Mixed Concrete Association. I would like to

15 thank EPA for taking their time to listen to our

16 views.

17 I guess

-- as you already heard from

18 other concrete producers across the United States

19 in these same type hearings, the ready

- mixed

20 concrete industry is a large beneficial user of

21 fly ash and is widespread all across the United

22 States and has been for many years.61

1 Our National Ready Mixed Concrete

2 Association's President, Robert Garbini, stated on

3 July twenty

- sec

-- July 22nd, 2010, before

4 Congress; in 2008 alone, the concrete industry

5 used 15.8 million tons of fly ash in the

6 manufacturing of concrete. Our family

- owned

7 business used approximately 150,000 tons of fly

8 ash during this same time period. Please note, an

9 estimated 85% of its members are small businesses;

10 many of them are family

- owned compa nies and

11 represent most of this industry.

12 An estimated 130

- to 145,000 people

13 derive their livelihoods from the ready

- mixed

14 concrete industry. The last thing we need during

15 these troubled times is overreaching federal

16 regulations that threaten hardworking American

17 jobs. Also, unemployment among small business

18 ready

- mixed concrete producers are already at 20%,

19 and any increased costs will force some small

20 businesses to shed jobs and close doors entirely.

21 Fly ash is by far the most widely used

22 supplementary cementitious material used in62

1 ready

- mixed concrete. Without the use of re

--

2 fly ash in concrete, the

-- the cost could be

3 enormous to local consumers who are already

4 struggling and a healthy increase to jobs already

5 in

-- in the process.

6 Environmental benefits of the use of fly

7 ash in ready

- mixed concrete results in longer

8 lasting structures, reduced amounts of waste

9 materials sent to our landfills

, (less) r aw materials

10 are extracted

, less energy require d for production

11 and less air emissions, which include carbon dioxide.

12 Having fly ash, not being labeled as a

13 hazardous products (sic), hazardous product,

14 hazardous substance or hazardous waste allows the

15 overall carbon footprint of ready

- mixed concrete to be

16 considerably reduced.

17 EPA's primary goal should be to reduce

18 the amount of fly ash wasted and to ensure that

19 whatever fly ash is wasted is managed properly.

20 We, along with our state and national

21 associations, believe that many states will

22 establish their own new laws that further limit63

1 the beneficial use of fly ash. Here's an example:

2 Maryland's already proposed a new law requiring

3 any product containing fly ash to be disposed of

4 in a facility authorized to accept fly ash.

5 We should caution ourselves, if EP A

6 declares fly ash disposal as Subtitle C, then

7 states may change their regulations to force

8 concrete crushed after its service life,

9 demolition of

-- of buildings and pavement, or

10 from waste st r eam s of construction be handled in

11 this manner. This underni

-- underlines

--

12 undermines the primary goals. This entire idea

13 creates a Catch

- 22 situation that prevents

14 shedding of the hazardous waste designation

15 through reuse.

16 After de cades of edu

-- after decades

17 of education to convince engineers and architects

18 to specify fly ash in specific mixes in

19 construction, we suspect that the stigma and fear

20

--

21 It's done? Thanks for your time.

22 MS. DEVLIN: Thank y ou. And please64

1 submit the rest of your comments for the record.

2 (Applause)

3 MR. JONES: After deca des of education

4 to convince engineers and architects to specify

5 fly ash in specific mixes for construction, we

6 suspect that the stigma and fear of liability will

7 drive end users to disallow the use of fly ash

8 mixes in concrete.

9 As you can tell from my comments, my

10 company, which I represent, the state associations

11 I'm a member of, and the office of Chairman of the

12 Operations, Environmental and Safety Committee for

13 the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, are

14 not in favor of either proposals, C or D.

15 Let's manage the resource that we have,

16 eliminating new rules changes and keep our hard

17 working people employed. New rules create

18 unneeded cost and unnecessary confusion.

1 9 I would like to thank you for your time

20 and consideration regarding this important issue.

21 MS. DEVLIN: Number 18, please. Thank

22 you.65

1 MS. HOLMES: Good morning. My name is

2 Katie Holmes, and I am the Associate for

3 Environmental Ministries of the Presby terian

4 Church (U.S.A.)

5 I am here this morning to speak on

6 behalf the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which is

7 headquartered here in Louisville. PC(U.S.A.)

8 ur ges the EPA to adopt Subtitle C to ensure

9 greater protection for communities from the

10 hazards of coal ash.

11 The Presbyterian Church has long been

12 committed to protecting and restoring God's

13 creation. Protecting God's creation extends to

14 ensuring justice for God's people. PC(U.S.A.)

15 General Assembly policies have consistently

16 affirmed that as people of faith, we are to seek

17 environmental justice for low income communities

18 that are dishen

-- disappor

-- disproportionately

19 burdened by environmental hazards.

20 We see this connection clearly in the

21 case of coal ash. Not only does coal ash threaten

22 the health of communities around the country, it66

1 disproportionately affects low income communities

2 and communities of color. More than 50% of coal

3 ash cites around the country are in low income

4 neighborhoods. And the coal ash cleaned up after

5 the 2008 spill in Kingston, Tennessee, was shipped

6 to a predominantly low income, predominantly

7 African

- American community in Alabama.

8 The issue of coal ash is close to home

9 for Louisville communities. Residents of the

10 Riverside Gardens neighborhood live in the shadow

11 of the coal ash disposal sites from the Cane Run

12 power plant. Community organizers in Riverside

13 Gardens report high incidences of cancer and other

14 diseases that have been connected to coal ash

15 contaminants. With the Cane Run plant applying to

16 expand its coal ash pond, federal regulations on

17 coal ash would help protect this vulnerable

18 neighborhood.

19 Ultimately, our society needs to turn to

20 a clean energy economy and find solutions to the

21 selection of hazardous waste sites that are just.

22 In the meantime, it is imperative that we provide67

1 greater protection from hazardous coal ash for all

2 people, especially the most vulnerable populations

3 that live closest to these sites

.

4 The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) asks

5 that the EPA adopt Subtitle C, which designates

6 coal ash as a toxic substance and creates

7 federably (sic) enforceable regulations to ensure

8 greater protection for communities and water

9 supplies. With these stronger regulations, we

10 will be protecting all of God's creation fr om the

11 harmful effects of arsenic, lead, and other

12 chemicals found in coal ash.

13 Thank you for your time.

14 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you.

15 (A pplause)

16 MS. DEVLIN: May I have Numbers 19, 20,

17 21, 23 and Number 120, who asked to speak early.

18 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 19,

19 would you care to go?

20 MR. DISNEY: Hi. My name is Phil

21 Disney. I'm an engineer. And my

-- my statement

22 is both professional and personal.68

1 As a registered PE, I've worked with

2 coal and coal combustion by

- products for most of

3 my professional engineering career. I've worked

4 underground in the coal mines of K entucky and West

5 Virginia, been certified as a coal miner. In 1992

6 I lived in California. I became certified as a

7 hazardous material and was trained as a Haz

- Wa

--

8 Wa technician.

9 In a capacity there in my work I

10 designed and built a mobile treatment unit for the

11 fixation of auto shredder waste, which also

12 contains heavy metals. I understand the nature of

13 heavy metal contamination and I successfully

14 treated and oversaw the fixation of auto shredder

15 wastes on a daily basis in California.

16 For the past eight years I have worked

17 for Synthetic Materials, managing a wide variety

18 of projects related to the recycling of FGD

19 gypsum. Coal combustion by

- products or re sidues,

20 the heavy metal must be measured in parts per

21 million. The ul

-- the utilization of FGD gypsum

22 and coal ash in cement or other pozzolanic69

1 reactions, it's usually a level of heavy metal

2 fixation and allows permanent and safe utilization

3 of these valuable minerals

-- minerals in a

-- in

4 a structural purposes.

5 SYNMAT de

- waters over 3 million tons of

6 gypsum annually, primarily for wallboard and the

7 cement industry. Millions of homes now co ntain

8 materials made out of FGD gypsum. Recycling of

9 these valuable minerals has reduced the cost of

10 homes and its construction and eliminated the need

11 for open

-- opening new mines a nd landfills.

12 Recycling of FGD or other coal

13 combustion by

- products as a hazardous material

14 would be an illogical and overreaction to the

15 presence of trace amounts of metals in the scru

--

16 in the scrubber by

- products.

17 FGD gypsum utilization continues to

18 expand in other areas, including agriculture.

19 Personally I've

-- I've worked with coal and

--

20 and coal combustion bry

-- by

- products for a long

21 time. For four generations I

-- my family lived

22 in Harlan County, Kentucky, where, as a youth, I70

1 carried coal to heat our house, and I carried the

2 ashes back out to put in the driveway to keep us

3 out of the mud.

4 My dad

-- my father worked in the coal

5 mines, my grandfathers before them. My dad lived

6 40 years in a house heated by coal (laughs) and

7 carried the ashes out. He's 86 years old now.

8 The fact remains that the coal industry

9 is safer than ever. The air in Kentucky is

10 cleaner than at any time in my lifetime. The

11 thinly veiled attacks on the fossil fuel industry

12 are not based on science.

13 At SYNMAT we are committed to the

14 expanding recycling of coal combustion by

- products

15 in new and environmentally compatible ways.

16 Thank you for your time.

17 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 20,

18 please.

19 (Applause)

20 MS. DEW: My name is Aloma Dew. I live

21 in Owensboro, Kentucky, and I'm a field organizer

22 with the Sierra Club Water Sentinels Program, and71

1 I'm here

-- here today t o speak on behalf of the

2 more than 800 Water Sentinels in Kentucky who

3 regularly test the rivers and streams in our

4 watersheds.

5 Despite recognized dangers and coal ash

6 accidents, this waste is still largely

7 unregulated. We are here today to ask you to

8 classify coal ash waste as a hazardous material,

9 to adopt Subtitle C, and to pass strong,

10 enforceable federal regulations and then see that

11 they are enforced.

12 Your job is to protect the environment

13 and us, the citizens. Coal ash contains chemicals

14 that have been linked scientifically, to human

15 health problems, including cancer, respiratory

16 illnesses, neurological damage, reproductive and

17 developmental problems.

18 Here in Kentucky there are 44 coal ash

19 disposal ponds, including seven ponds rated as

20 high hazard and five rated as significant hazard.

21 I know of abandoned coal mine sites where coal ash

22 is being dumped on a daily basis and mountains of72

1 coal ash on the Green River in Western Kentucky,

2 and it's just sitting there; it's not being

3 recycled.

4 We in the Commonwealth have the second

5 highest number of coal ash impoundments in the

6 nation, after Indiana, which has the highest

7 concentration. We wonder why we seem to be a

8 sacrifice zone, why our children's health is not

9 deemed worthy of the best protection. If it is

10 not safe enough to store across the street from

11 your off ices and homes, then it's not safe enough

12 to put in our neighborhoods and along our river

13 banks.

14 We know that you want to do the right

15 thing, and we're here to give you that

16 encouragement and backing. Our children's health

17 is far more important than the profit margin of

18 industries who pile up this toxic waste. It's

19 time to get the arsenic, cadmium, chrom ium, lead,

20 selenium and other toxic chemicals away from our

21 drinking water sources, away from the air our

22 children breathe in the areas where they live and73

1 play.

2 We hear a lot about cost. I haven't

3 heard much today about health cost.

4 We thank you for coming to Louisville to

5 hear our concerns and requests. Do the right

6 thing. Regulate coal ash as the hazardous

7 material it is. We need environmental protection.

8 Thank you.

9 (Applause)

10 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 21,

11 please.

12 MR. CAPPEL: My name is Jerry Cappel. I

13 am the Associate for Justice Ministries at St.

1 4 Matthews Episcopal Church in Louisville and the

15 President of Kentuckiana Interfaith Community.

16 I can't rightfully claim to push you one

17 direction or another for "C" or "D"; I don't know

18 the science well enough. You'll have to sort that

19 out. You're being hammered from all directions I

20 hear.

21 So I do come this morning to bring you a

22 word of encouragement, though, from the churches,74

1 and to speak about a subtext that's present here

2 in these hearings. I can't speak to you from all

3 churches and communities of faith, but I can speak

4 from my experience of many of them. And I want

5 you to know this morning that there is a turning

6 happening in the churches. It's an awakening of a

7 current sort of application of a truth that has

8 always been deep in the bones of the churches, and

9 that is from the words of Jesus in Matthew 25,

10 when He said, Whatever you did for the least of

11 these, you do for me.

12 That has been applied for many, many

13 eons towards various and asundry applications of

14 j ustice. And the church is now wakening up to

15 environmental justice.

16 I say this to you now as a sermon but as

17 a word of encouragement. I want to say to you

18 that you can know that doing the right thing for

19 all citizens, children, wildlife, the elderly and

20 the voiceless, is what we really want. And thus

21 it will be recognized and affirmed by the

22 churches. That you can know that it is75

1 increasingly understood in communities of faith

2 that our future is not really to be trusted to big

3 business and Wall Street and those who lobby for

4 them, it's being increasingly recognized that the

5 future lies with attention and care for those who

6 have, to date, been shoved aside for the sake of

7 development and sidelined for corporate profits,

8 cheap oil, agribusiness and the short

- term gain of

9 the few. We are beginning to understand that to

10 care f or the least is to care for all, actually,

11 rich and poor, strong and weak.

12 And so today you have before you one of

13 those choices that has a question of what kind of

14 society we are going to be. This is a choice that

15 is about values and priorities and wisdom and

16 justice. It's about choice about whom and what is

17 valued in our society. It's a choice about the

18 value of our children, our unborn, our health and

19 our wholeness.

20 John Paul

-- the Pope John Paul II said,

21 "A society will be judged on the basis of how it

22 treats its weakest members and among the most76

1 vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying,"

2 And there are unborn at this hearing.

3 They are depending on others for their voice. They

4 are the children who will be some day drinking the

5 water, playing in the spaces, breat hing the air

6 and eating the food on the planet that we leave to

7 them. There are also the dying, those who, today,

8 are telling you stories of toxins and sickness.

9 So I just w ant to let you know, the

10 churches are beginning to understand that the

11 business of America is not just business, it is

12 also the health and happiness of its citizens, and

13 to the best it can, to the world outside her

14 borders.

15 So I just ask you to do the wise thing,

16 the right thing, the good thing, and I dare say,

17 the Holy thing.

18 (Applause)

19 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 23,

20 please.

21 MR. VOYLES: Good morning. My name is

22 John Voyles; I am Vice President of Tr ansmission77

1 and Generation Services for E.ON U.S., the parent

2 company of Louisville Gas & Electric and Kentucky

3 Utilities Co mpany. LG&E and UK operate seven

4 coal

- fired power plants with a total generating

5 capacity of approximately 6,000 megawatts and

6 provide electricity to approximately 941,000

7 customers.

8 Let me begin by saying that safety and

9 responsible environmental stewardships are key

10 priorities for our company. We operate our

11 facilities in strict compliance with state

12 environmental regulations. We have never had a

13 significant spill from any of our CCR facilities,

14 nor have those facilities every posed a problem

15 for local water supplies.

16 We recognize that the Kingston event has

17 rightly focused scrutiny on the effectiveness of

18 current regulation of CCRs, While we support EPA's

19 objective of ensuring safe disposal of CCRs, w e

20 urge EPA to avoid regulatory approaches that would

21 impose significant and unnecessary costs with

22 little environmental benefit. Such burdens are78

1 ultimately borne by the utility customers who pay

2 the costs of environmental compliance. We

3 strongly oppose regulation of CCRs under Subtitle

4 C. Extensive study by the Electric Power Research

5 Institute and others has demonstrated that CCRs do

6 not have hazardous characteristics and EPA has

7 found in the past th at CCRs do not warrant

8 regulation as a hazardous waste. The landfill

9 design standards are almost identical under both

10 the Subtitle C and Subtitle D options and

11 environmental benefits would be virtually the

12 same. However, compliance costs would be

13 substantially higher under the Subtitle C

14 hazardous waste option.

15 In addition, Subtitle C regulation would

16 raise potentially insurmountable obstacles to

17 continued beneficial reuse of CCRs. Our CCR

18 marketing partners have advised that some of their

19 CCR end

- users have placed beneficial reuse

20 opportunities on hold pending a final regulatory

21 decision on CCRs. They have advised that

22 regulation of CCRs under the Subtitle C hazardous79

1 waste program, regardless of whether they are

2 characterized as "special waste," would result in

3 a stigma that will cause some end

- users to

4 discontinue use of CCRs.

5 With the regulatory uncertainty of the

6 past few years, our company's beneficial reuse has

7 dropped from almost 50% of our CCRs in 2008 to

8 about 32% of our CCRs in 2009. Our own experience

9 indicates that Subtitle C regulation will almost

10 certainly result in dramatic reduction in

11 beneficial reuse of CCRs and a corresponding

12 increase in land disposal.

13 We firmly believe that any federal

14 regulation of CCRs should be established under the

15 Subtitle D program. We specifically support the D

16 Prime option that would allow continued operation

17 of existing ash ponds that are operating in a

18 manner ensuring appropriate protection of public

19 health and the environment.

2 0 Thank you.

21 (Applause)

22 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 120.80

1 MR. MARSHALL: Hi. I'm David Marshall

2 with Headwaters Resources. We're here today to

3 present testimony of a proposed regulating

--

4 regulations regarding the coal ash disposal.

5 As a mark eter of coal combustion

6 products for the past 22 years, I've been proud of

7 the amount of material that I've caused to be

8 recycled. By last count it was ex

-- in excess of

9 6 million ton.

10 While we do operate disposal facilities

11 across the US, our company focus always has been

12 and will continue to be to develop an acceptable

13 mean s of utilizing materials wherever possible.

14 The EPA has stated they do not believe

15 that a Subtitle C special waste designation will

16 be harmful to recycling efforts. I am here to

17 tell you that we have already seen attacks on our

18 successful efforts at utilization targeted by our

19 customer

-- competitor, even those

-- those

20 competitors products test out the same as our coal

21 combustion products. Those competitors are using

22 this opportunity as a fear tactic, even before the81

1 regulations are decided , to try to create a market

2 advantage for themselves. Many of our customers

3 know better and they recognize the effort for what

4 it is. But the proof of stigma is already here.

5 The fact we will hear today from people

6 who cry the danger of fly ask without really

7 knowing what the facts are is another dumo

--

8 demonstrable example of stigmas beginning to

9 impa ct the potential for this effective recycling

10 program. It can only get worse.

11 Fly ash and bottom ash result from

12 burning coal in power plants. The Clean Air Act

13 efforts over the past 25 years has significantly

14 changed the amount and type of emissions allowed

15 from these plants and has caused the utilization

16 industry to adapt to the changes of pr oducts

17 generated. Many older plants have been closed,

18 technology to make unusable ash accept

--

19 acceptable have been developed and the market for

20 this recycled material has grown sign ificantly.

21 Coal ash is no mystery material, it is

22 simply the minerals that were trapped with plant82

1 matter when the coal deposits were originally

2 formed. It is the prehistoric sands, silts and

3 clays of those times. When chemical analysis of

4 coal ash and soil from your own back yard are

5 compared, there is great similarity.

6 The EPA defines the standards for a

7 hazardous material and in no measure does the fly

8 ash, bottom ash or gypsum generated at these

9 plants meet the EPA standards for hazardous. To

10 list them as special under the hazardous

11 guidelines of Subtitle C is

-- is disingenuous.

12 It would almost require that the EPA change the ir

13 definitions of hazardous, and they have not

14 indicated this is an issue.

15 Fear of the unknown is hard at work in

16 this public effort and we should all be cautioned.

17 Our industry works across many state

18 lines and a national standard of Subtitle D would

19 be welcomed so that each state will have standard

20 design and operating protocol to follo w. And

21 Subtitle D can be implemented quickly, within six

22 months of final rules. Subtitle D is the standard83

1 for household w aste disposal and fly ash and

2 bottom ash do not contain the wide range of

3 potentially harmful chemicals thrown away

4 everyday.

5 Let's use some common sense, let's

6 understand the science at work, and let's move

7 forward with a non

- hazardous label that will

8 support the largest recycling program in the U.S.

9 Thank you.

10 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you.

11 (Applause)

12 MS. DEVLIN: We're running a bit ahead

13 of schedule, so I'm going to call some numbers and

14 also try to fit in some peop le. So Numbers 25,

15 26, 124, 149 and 184, please.

16 MR. KANE: My name is Bill Kane. I work

17 for Headwaters Resources.

18 I've been in sales and marketing of coal

19 combustion products for over 29 years. In the 29

20 years I've seen the utilization and recycling of

21 CCPs increase dramatically. Not because everyone

22 jumped on the recycling band wagon, but because84

1 company's realized what a great product fly ash is

2 when used in their concrete.

3 When using fly ash in concrete it will

4 produce a cost savings, not just to the ready

5 mixed producer but also to the customers. And

--

6 and the

-- the use of fly ash in concrete reduces

7 the use of natural r esources, mainly water and

8 sand, but it also increases the strengths and the

9 durability of the concrete.

10 I strongly encourage the EPA not to

11 classify CCPs as a hazardous waste under Subtitle

12 C. I feel the EPA should follow its final 2000

13 Regulatory Determination in which the agency

14 determined that the regulation of CCPs und er

15 Subtitle C of RCRA is not warranted. In that

16 determination the EPA also declared that RCRA

17 Subtitle D would fully protect human health and

18 the environment. The EPA went through de cades of

19 su

-- scientific analysis to conclude that CCPs do

20 not warrant hazardous regulations.

21 If the EPA follows through with Subtitle

22 C and classifies CCPs as a hazardous waste, it85

1 would eliminate one of the greatest recycling

2 programs this country has ever participated in.

3 It would increase utility rates substantially and

4 destroy jobs.

5 In this current economic time we are

6 living in, I cannot see how the EPA would even

7 consider classifying CCPs hazardous. The cost

8 would be passed on to the American people and it

9 would be enormous cost for people on fixed

10 incomes, they could simply not afford this.

11 In closing, there is simply no basis to

12 pursue Subtitle C option for CCPs when there is a

13 more viable and cost effective alternative in

14 selecting Subtitle D non

- hazardous waste. I

15 strongly encourage the EPA to select Subtitle D in

16 their final ruling.

17 Thank you.

18 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you.

19 (Applause)

20 MS. DEVLIN: Number 26, please.

21 MR. LAWRENCE: Good morning. I am David

22 Lawrence. I work for Headwaters Resources also,86

1 been in the bottom ash, fly ash industry for over

2 30 years.

3 I want to speak a few minutes on stigma.

4 Webster defines "stigma" as an expressed

5 disapproval, blame, or censor. Webster also

6 defines "reproach" as to express disapproval,

7 blame, or censor. That's exactly what's happening

8 today. No matter what the final outcome of the

9 EPA's hearing, we are disgraced; we are blamed; we

10 are reproached.

11 The greatest example of this is right

12 here in these meetings. In the Charlotte hearing

13 you heard testimony from the expanded clay and

14 shell people highly critical of bottom ash. Why?

15 What were they critical of bottom ash? They have

16 no emotional ties. There's no

-- they had no

17 toxic data. They have no cancer

-- cancer stories to

18 share. Why? Economics. We have market share

19 they want. They can't outsell us; they can't out

20 market us. So the only way to grain the market

21 back is through you, the EPA and these hearings.

22 Yes, the stench has been smelled. The87

1 buzzards are circling. Please do not allow this

2 to occur. We ask you to keep the status of fly

3 ash and bottom ash as non

- hazardous.

4 Thank you for your time.

5 (Applause)

6 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 124,

7 please.

8 (No response)

9 MS. DEVLIN: 149.

10 (No response)

11 MS. DEVLIN: 184.

12 MR. SEYMOUR: My name is Keith Seymour

13 with Headwaters Resources and a concerned citizens

14 of the Uni ted States of America.

15 You've heard during public hearings that

16 fly ash causes cancer. My question is: Where's

17 the proof?

18 I personally contacted the Americ

--

19 National Cancer Institute and asked them if they

20 had heard of any cases that were directly related

21 to fly ash as being the fau

-- the cause of the

22 cancer, and the answer was "No."88

1 There are thousands upon thousands of

2 employees working in coal ash landfills every day

3 throughout the United States. Have any of them

4 ever deported (sic) and believes (sic) that fly

5 ash was cause of cancer? The answer, again, is

6 "No."

7 I personally have worked in the industry

8 for 25 years and have not developed cancer from

9 being around fly ash, so the answer, again, is

10 "No."

11 I have children, too, and would not put

12 them

-- would not put th em in harm's way.

13 Fly ash is not a hazardous waste

14 according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

15 And this label is unwarranted. Coal ash does not

16 qualify as a hazardous waste based on its

17 toxicity. The toxicity of coal ash is similar to

18 that of materials re

-- that replaces recycling

19 applications.

20 EPA has their own tests. The EPA tests

21 waste like coal ash like toxicity characteristics,

22 better known as TLC

-- TCLP, Toxicity89

1 Characteristic Lea

-- Leachate Procedure to

2 determine if it should be considered a hazardous

3 waste versus a non

- hazardous waste. Coal ash is

4 regularly tested and

-- under the TCLP criteria,

5 and, therefore, has not, up to this point, been su

6

-- been considered a hazardous waste, in large

7 part due to scientific evidence.

8 Other organizations such as EPRI, the

9 Electric Power Research Institute, and as well as

10 many colleges, universities, along with state and

11 federal agencies have all come to the same

12 conclusion, that fly ash is not a hazardous was te.

13 The hazardous waste stigma is real. The

14 plants that produce coal ash are unlikely to dis

15

-- to disperse material at thousands of locations

16 in the countryside if it were con

-- deemed

17 hazardous. Architects and engineers would not

18 specify this product in the same manner.

19 Products that compare with coal ash have

20 already begun to use the potential hazardous waste

21 designation to create fear and doubt in the coal

22 ash uses. American public or the users in90

1 products produced with coal ash are highly succes

2

-- successful to the message created, fear and

3 doubt.

4 Lip service won't save recycling. EPA

5 uses the term "special waste" does not change the

6 fact that Subtitle C would legally des

--

7 designate coal ash as a hazardous waste when

8 destined for disposal.

9 The EPA's unrelated and unannounced

10 suspension of the Coal Combustion Products

11 Partnership, C2P2, far outweighs the agency's

12 statements and news releases that the EPA supports

13 coal ash recycling. Therefore, Subtitle D

14 approach will do the same as Subtitle C but

15 without the hazardous waste label attached to it.

16 The Subtitle D non

- hazardous approac h

17 will let recycling efforts continue and keep less

18 coal ash in landfills, which is the whole matter

19 we're here today (sic).

20 Thank you.

21 (Appl ause)

22 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Again, as we're91

1 running a bit ahead, I'm going to try to

2 accommodate some of our walk

- in speakers. So are

3

-- Numbers 301, 302, 303, 304 and 305, if you

4 would come forward.

5 MR. ENGLAND: Good morning. My name is

6 G ary England, and I'm Vice President of Headwaters

7 Resources.

8 Headwaters Resources is the largest

9 manager of post

- combustion materials in the

10 country. We currently operate in over 100 utility

11 sites across the country. And as the largest

12 manager of coal combustion products, we are

13 involved in all aspects of the utilization of this

14 valuable recycled product.

15 In 2008 the benefits realized by re

--

16 utilizing fly ash in concrete and other beneficial

17 uses resulted in this country saving 159 trillion

18 BTUs of energy, 12 million tons of CO2 production,

19 32 billion gallons of water, and save between 5

-

20 and $7 billion. I would hate to see these

21 benefits go away.

22 We have already been notified by several92

1 customers and state agencies that if the EPA

2 designates fly ash as a Subtitle C waste, they

3 will not risk the liability and potential

4 litigation and will cease utilizing fly ash in

5 their products and applications. Many have

6 already ceased the use of fly ash until this

7 matter is resolved and the future litigation is

8 settled. The stigma is real.

9 Why classify fly ash as a Subtitle C

10 waste? Simply move jurisdiction from the states

11 and give it to the federal government. Fly ash,

12 in reality, does not qualify as a hazardous waste

13 based upon its toxicity. This isn't opinion; this

14 is science based on standardized tests that show

15 the metal levels are well below the EPA's own

16 standards established for the listing of a

17 hazardous waste.

18 I agree that human health and the

19 environment must be protected. What I don't feel

20 is that category

-- categorizing fly ash Subtitle

21 C hazardous waste is the best way to do that. It

22 will take away from the benefits of utilizing fly93

1 ash and reducing the CO2 produced from cement

2 manufacturing.

3 Under both of the EPA p ro po sed

4 approaches, whether it is a Subtitle D or Subtitle

5 C, the landfill construction and design standards

6 are essentially the same, with Subtitle D being

7 enacted sooner than the Subtitle C approach. If

8 the goal is to protect the environment and human

9 health, does it not make sense to enact the

10 safeguard as quickly as possible. The Subt itle C

11 approach is not a stronger option, it simply

12 determines who has the regulatory enforcement.

13 We have heard in other hearings and

14 press releases that there are those tha t believe

15 that there is more stringent regulation of cost to

16 disposal increase than there would be more emphis

17

-- emphasis on beneficial use. Making disposal

18 more expensive will not i ncrease utilization.

19 In 2000 utilization of fly ash was

20 approximately 30%; in 2008 that utilization is

21 44%, almost a 50% increase. This was not because

22 of more expensive disposal costs but through the94

1 efforts of companies like ours that to continue

2 develop more and better use s. It was also because

3 in 2000 the EPA made the determination that fly

4 ash did not pose a health risk and did not warrant

5 being regulated as a waste.

6 It is our position tha t Subtitle D is

7 the only correct and prudent answer.

8 Thank you.

9 (Applause)

10 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. All right.

11 Number 302.

12 (No response)

13 MS. DEVLIN: 303.

14 MR. MARSHMAN: Good morning. My name is

15 Herman Marshman, Jr. I am the president of IBEW

16 Local 272, and I would like to put a fa

-- I would

17 like to put a face on fly ash.

18 In my many jobs at FirstEnergy power

19 plant in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, I have worked

20 directly with raw fly ash in the collection,

21 removal and transport. I know what it tastes

22 like. I have stood in the hot ash until it would95

1 burn the rubber sole off your boots. Do I fear

2 fly ash? No. Do I respect fly ash? Yes.

3 I was required to wear full, protective

4 clothing and a respirator by the Department of

5 OSHA and my employer. I'm here to speak for the

6 employees who work directly and indirectly and is

7 exposed to fly ash, and to ask in any regulation

8 that the EPA mandate, that profit s from the reuse

9 of CCR be used to safeguard the public and

10 environment, and would also like to see

11 regulations that mandate companies provided 100%

12 of cost for health benefits for the ir employees.

13 There is (sic) been a longstanding

14 policy by companies, the government, to ignore the

15 fact that utility workers are the new asbestos

16 case. At some point in time you're going to have

17 commercials on television, 10, 20 years from now,

18 asking: Did you work at a power plant?

19 At our facility we have over 10% ca ncer

20 rate; among men, prostate exceeds that. There is

21 a (sic) issue there's a problem that needs to be

22 addressed and we all need to be responsible.96

1 Can we make regulation to safeguard fly

2 ash? Yes. My job, it's

-- in sense, when I

3 worked with fly ask, I protected myself. There

4 were means to p rotect myself by a respirator, by

5 full clothing. And we can do and mandate things

6 legally to provide and safeguard the public and

7 environment, but it's going to take everyone here.

8 Thank you.

9 (Applause)

10 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Numbers 24

--

11 I'm told is here

-- 30, 31 and 34. Number 24,

12 please.

13 MS. CROWE: Thank you. My name is

14 Elizabeth Crowe, and I'm the Director of the

15 Kentucky Environmental Foundation based in Berea,

16 Kentucky.

17 KEF is an organization dedicated to

18 promoting safe solutions to environmental health

19 and prob

-- environmental and health problems that

20 we face, and I'm speaking right now on behalf of

21 the organization and of myself, a 19

- year resident

22 of Kentucky, parent of a teenage girl, and one who97

1 breathes air, drinks w ater, and eats food grown in

2 this state.

3 Today I urge EPA to select Subtitle C

4 for its Coal Combustion Residuals Rule,

5 designating coal ash as special waste to be

6 regulated as the hazardous waste that it is.

7 I have many reasons for why this

8 designation is appropriate but given time

9 constraints will list only a few: Mercury, lead,

10 chromium, selenium, arsenic, cadmium, thallium,

11 boron. These persistent toxic chemicals are

12 tearing away at the very fabric of life, affecting

13 our developmental systems, respiratory sy stems,

14 our vital and reproductive organs. If I had more

15 time

-- time I would list the hundreds of

16 communities all over the U.S. living near coal ash

17 sites, and the tens of thousands o f people who are

18 the faces of the 1

- in

- 50 cancer risk statistic.

19 They all serve as compelling reasons for why EPA

20 must take decisive action to curb exposures.

21 Physicians are bound to uphold the

22 Hippocratic Oath, which states, first: Do no98

1 harm. For the rest of us, the precautionary

2 principle applies: When an action is likely to

3 cause harm, it is best to act in a precautionary

4 manner to avoid it.

5 Coal ash has contributed to the high

6 rat es of developmental disorders and physical

7 ailments that plague citizens in Kentucky and it

8 is past time for bold action from the federal

9 government to stop the destruction of our health

10 from coal ash exposure. Coal ash is an enormous

11 liability for public health, especially since we

12 are not exposed to toxic chemicals from coal ash

13 alone, but also all throughout the life cycle of

14 coal. It cannot be considered a true benefit to

15 society if it is linked so closely to so many

16 health impacts.

17 If EPA does not take responsibility for

18 protec ting us from the harmful impacts of coal

19 ash, who will? Please take bold, definitive

20 action to regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste

21 under Subtitle C.

22 Thank you.99

1 (Applause)

2 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 30,

3 please.

4 MR. MCMULLEN: Hi. I'm Wallace

5 McMullen. I live in the Louisville area. Thank

6 you for the opportunity to speak today.

7 I strongly urge the EPA to list coal

8 combustion waste, in its various forms, as special

9 waste subject to regulation under Subtitle C of

10 RCRA, when it is put in landfills or surface

11 impoundments.

12 In the June 21, 2010, Federal Register

13 announcement I read that the EPA is not, I repeat,

14 not, proposing to change the 2000 Regulatory

15 Determination for beneficially used coal

16 combustion waste, which is currently given an

17 exemption from the hazardous waste regulations

18 under Section 3 0 01(b)(3)(A) of RCRA.

19 It seems to me that this exemption

20 should eliminate much of the controversies that

21 industry advocates have tried to raise up about

22 the proposed Subtitle C regulation. I'll come100

1 back to that issue if I have time.

2 First, I want to talk about how coal ash

3 threatens all of us living in Louisville, due to

4 the situation at the Trimble p ower plant, a little

5 ways up the Ohio River from here. To put this in

6 context, Louisville gets all of its water supply

7 from the Ohio River. Louisville Gas & Electric

8 operates the Tri mble power plant.

9 Now Trimble has a big bottom ash sludge

10 pond located about a quarter mile from the bank of

11 the Ohio River. This bottom ash sludge pond is in

12 the flood plain. The bottom ash sludge pond is

13 over half a mile long, so it holds a lot of coal

14 combustion residual garbage. The bottom of the

15 sludge pond is approximately 45 feet bel ow natural

16 ground level, and it's contained by a dike that is

17 presently 40 to 75 feet above ground level. But

18 LG&E is in the process of using coal ash to build

19 the dikes up 30 feet hi gher around this big sludge

20 pond, up to a maximum of height of 100 feet. So

21 these piles of coal ash expanding the dikes are in

22 a flood plain, a short distance from the Ohio101

1 River.

2 The reason LG&E is building up these

3 coal ash berms is so they can dump more mo

-- coal

4 combu stion waste into the sludge pond, raising the

5 sludge impoundment well above ground level.

6 There's every reason to believe the CCW with which

7 they're building up the dike berms is full of the

8 typical poisons in coal ash, mercury, cadmium,

9 chromium, chloride, lead, etc. And I think we can

10 be very sure that these toxins are contained in

11 the bottom ash sludge that is in the waste pond.

12 The groundwaller

-- groundwater

13 monitoring wells, in fact, at the site are

14 currently showing exceedance of allowable levels

15 of multiple pollutants.

16 So if we have a severe flood at the

17 Trimble power plant, we will have flood waters up

18 against these coal ash berms, with the river water

19 leaching out the arsenic, mercury, lea d, etc. from

20 the piles of coal ash. Even worse, if a flood

21 erodes the dike berm to the point where it fails,

22 then the entire toxic contents of sludge waste102

1 that goes in that pond goes right into the Ohio

2 River.

3 The Ohio River is channelized between

4 Trimble and Louisville. So we're going to have

5 all this horrible coal ash sludge coming right

6 down the channelized river, straight into our

7 drinking water intakes just 40 miles below.

8 I think this is a terrible risk. It

9 scares the heck out of me.

10 We know that with the global climate

11 disruptions we've seen severe flooding in many

12 parts of the Midwest, news stories daily,

13 Wi sconsin is the current victim this week.

14 Severe flooding in our part of the Ohio

15 River may be only the next rainstorm pattern away.

16 Against the risk of all that poisonous coal ash

1 7 and sludge in the Trimble impoundment, that scares

18 the heck out of me. If that impoundment fails, we

19 are the next Kingston, Tennessee, situation.

20 MR. DUFFICY: Your time

--

21 MS. DEVLIN: Excuse me

--

22 MR. DUFFICY:

-- is up.103

1 MS. DEVLIN:

-- sir.

2 MR. MCMULLEN: The existing

--

3 MS. DEVLIN: Your time is up.

4 MR. MCMULLEN:

-- Kentucky

--

5 MR. DUFFICY: Your time

--

6 MR. MCMULLEN:

-- reg ulations

--

7 MS. DEVLIN: Your time is up.

8 MR. MCMULLEN:

-- don't help us at all.

9 We

--

10 (microphone cut off

- exceeded time

11 limit)

12 MR. DUFFICY: Your time is up. Thank

13 you.

14 MR. MCMULLEN: We need strong action.

15 We need regulation under Part C.

16 Briefly, I do not see any reason why the

17 "beneficial reuse" of coal ash in pavement and

18 drywall is going to be at all affected. It has

19 the Section 3001 exemption. I hear industry

20 representatives arguing that if heaps of coal ash

21 are designated hazardous, their gypsum, fly ash,

22 and fill material will be so stigmatized that they104

1 can not continue to sell it for reuse. I suggest

2 that the "stigmatized" argument is not sensible

3 and it is not supported by any factual

4 information. They are just presenting argument by

5 assertion, repeated over and over.

6 No one expects paving materials to be as

7 pure and cuddly as a baby's blanket. We all know

8 that gravel and dust go into making pavement.

9 Strong regulation of coal combustion waste dumps

10 will encourage the reuse of materials that

11 currently can be dumped almost any where with no

12 meaningful regulation.

13 In summary, coal ash is a major heath

14 risk for all who live near a coal power plant or

15 who live near the Ohio River. We badly need for

16 the EPA to classify coal ash as a hazardous waste

17 under Subtitle C, and to put strong, protective

18 regulations into effect.

19 Thank you.

20 MS. DEVLIN: Number 31, please.

21 (Applause)

22 MR. DUFFICY: Sub

-- submit it into the105

1 written document.

2 MS. LEININGER: Good morning. My name

3 is Kerri Leininger. I'm the Vice President of

4 Government Affairs and Political Activities for

5 the National Ready Mixed Concrete Associa tion in

6 Washington, DC.

7 On behalf of NRMCA I would like to thank

8 the Environmental Protection Agengy for

-- Agency

9 for conductin

-- to con

-- excuse me, conducting

10 this listening session.

11 As a matter of scale, ready

- mixed

12 concrete consumes 75% of all Portland cement used

13 in this country. We represent over 1,500 concrete

14 manufac turers and 50 state

- affiliated

15 organizations, including the Kentucky Ready Mixed

16 Concrete Association.

17 Concrete is the most widely used

18 construction material in the world and is produced

19 and consumed in every congressional district of

20 our country.

21 With regard to fly ash, a major portion

22 of co al combustion residuals, the ready

- mixed106

1 concrete industry is the largest beneficial user.

2 Surveys of ready

- mixed concrete producers show

3 that over 55% of ready

- mixed concrete contains fly

4 ash. Fly ash is used in combination with Portland

5 cement to impart the following beneficial

6 qualities to concrete: Increased durabilit y and

7 service sli

-- service life of structures,

8 reduction in waste sent to landfills, reduction in

9 raw materials extracted, energy for production,

10 and air emissions, including COT

-- CO2, and lower

11 concrete material costs.

12 While the concrete industry currently

13 uses about 15 million tons of fly ash annually, it

14 is estimated that the concrete industry could

15 increase that current usage to more than 30

16 percent

-- I'm sorry, 30 million tons per year by

17 2020, resulting in less fly ash going to

18 landfills, and reducing the concrete industry's

19 carbon footprint by 20%.

20 Based on the concrete industry's

21 extensive use of reliance on fly ash in concrete

22 and over examining EPA's proposed rule, we have107

1 determined a RCRA Subtitle C designation for CCRs

2 bound for disposal, while retaining exemptions for

3 beneficial use, will lead to the following

4 unintended consequences for the concrete industry:

5 An increase in production costs and the cost of

6 construction, an increase in potential liability

7 for concrete producers.

8 Currently, the regulatory status of

9 small amounts of fly ash in waste streams for

10 concrete production and construction is unclear.

11 Any proposed rule sould

-- should explicitly state

12 that such waste streams from the concrete industry

13 are exempt and not subject to such regulations.

14 There will also be litigation which will target

15 existing structures built with fly ash and

16 concrete.

17 Potentially stricter state laws

18 impacting beneficial use , for example, a proposed

19 rule in the State of Maryland states that any

20 product containing fly ash is to be disposed of in

21 a special facility authorized to accept fly ash.

22 More states will establish similar laws as a108

1 result.

2 The potential elimination of fly ash in

3

-- in concrete. A hazardous waste stigma and fear

4 of liability will drive specifying engineers,

5 architects and end

- users to disallow the use of

6 fly ash in concrete.

7 There will be a drastic impact upon the

8 durability of our nature's

-- nature's

-- nation's

9 infrastructure and the current re

- authorization

10 legislation of SAFETEA

- LU.

11 Thank you for hearing my concerns on

12 behalf of the ready

- mixed concrete industry.

13 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you.

14 (Applause)

15 MS. DEVLIN: Number 34.

16 MR. SMITH: Good morning. My name is

17 Grant Smith. I'm representing two organizations

18 today; one is the CLEAN, which is a nationwide

19 network of environmental organizations co ordinated

20 by the Civil Society Institute in Boston and the

21 Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, where I am

22 employed.109

1 I have a number of points. The first

2 one, that EPA should adopt the most stringent

3 standard presented today.

4 And secondly, to communicate the

5 followin g to the White House for adoption as

6 national policies: First of all, there should be

7 no cost recovery by utilities of an

-- complying

8 with these regulations. They have made billions

9 of dollars off of the non

- regulation of this

10 toxic waste for decades. And the ra

-- rate

--

11 captive rate pay e r should not be saddled with

12 those costs. And they've known this and the re

13 have been op

-- options for them that they have

14 not adopted to phase out some of these older

15 plants.

16 Next, is to close the recycling

17 loophole. Recycling loophole simply encourages

18 current investment patterns and waste generation.

19 And with coal you really can't do anything with

20 it, and that

-- that leads me to the next point,

21 which is there's no pollution control system tight

22 enough to really stop the carnage of coal from its110

1 mining its burning to the waste generated.

2 And, therefore, the administration

3 should call for the phase out of coal by 2050.

4 We've reached a technological and financial

5 tipping point whereby coal can be phased out over

6 that period of time without disrupting the economy

7 at all. It's

-- quite simply put, it's cheaper to

8 phase out coal

- fired power than it is to sustain

9 it, given the massive impacts it has

10 environmentally and on the public health.

11 And I'd like to submit this report

12 written

-- com

-- put together by Synapse Energy

13 Economics in Boston called "Beyond Business as

14 Usual" that describes that process.

15 Thank you.

16 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you.

17 (Applause)

18 MS. DEVLIN: Numbers 27, 29, 35, 36 and

19 37, please.

20 MR. SCOTT: My name is Bruce Scott. I'm

21 the Commissioner of the Kentucky Department of

22 Environme ntal Protection. Thank you for the111

1 opportunity today.

2 The Commonwealth of Kentucky currently

3 has the responsibility to oversee the proper

4 management and beneficial reuse of coal combustion

5 residuals within the state. We believe that the

6 management of CCR is best handled at the local and

7 state level. Kentucky also recognizes that

8 appropriate additional controls are warranted for

9 the management of CCR.

10 Electrical generation in Kentucky uses

11 approximately 42 million tons per year.

12 Approximately 10 million tons per year of CCR is

13 generated in Kentucky.

14 EPA has previously declared in its

15 Report to Congress in 1988 and 1999 that coal

16 combustion waste are high volume and low hazard

17 and do not warrant regulation under Subtitle C.

18 EPA regulatory findings published in 1993 a nd 2000

19 indicated that these wastes do not warrant

20 regulation under Subtitle C as well. However,

21 EPA's proposed rule is not consistent with those

22 previous conclusions and the state do es not see a112

1 technical basis for EPA's change of course in this

2 proposed rule.

3 The Environmental Council of State s, or

4 ECOS, in March 2010, reaffirmed a 2008 Resolution

5 on the regulation of coal combustion products that

6 recognized the previous findings of the EPA and

7 supports the beneficial reuse of CCR, and

8 regulation

-- and that regulation under Subtitle C

9 would negatively impact the beneficial reuse of

10 CCR. The resolution affirms that the additi onal

11 level of oversight is unwarranted and dip

--

12 duplicates the existing state regulatory programs,

13 and urged EPA to conclude that CCR should be

14 regulated under Subtitle D, and called upon the

15 EPA to collaborate with states to develop a

16 national framework for beneficial reuse of CCR.

17 Yet, this EPA administration has repeatedly

18 ignored the recommendations made by th eir state

19 counterparts in protecting human health and the

20 environment.

21 Simply put, it is not necessary or

22 appropriate to use Subtitle C to enhance or113

1 improve the regulation of CCR. Regulation via an

2 appropriate Subtitle D approach would achieve the

3 same objectives without the unnecessary regulatory

4 complication, higher cost, and with no loss in

5 environmental protection.

6 In Kentucky alone, the amount of

7 hazardous waste that would have to be managed

8 under Subtitle C would increase from approximately

9 100,000 tons per year to approximately 10 million

10 tons per year, a 100

- fold increase. We would

11 remind EPA that Kentucky currently has no

12 authorized hazardous waste land disposal

13 facilities. This proposal would create several

14 such facilities.

15 The even t that initiated this additional

16 EPA scrutiny of how coal combustion residuals

17 should be managed was the TVA Kingston ash fill

18 failure which resulted in extensive physical

19 damage. Iron ically, if CCR is regulated under

20 Subtitle C, due to the requirement to obtain a

21 hazardous waste permit for a new horizontal CCR

22 fill expansion, the substantial cost to transport114

1 and manage CCR offsite, and unreasonable time

2 frames to make these changes, the result will be

3 EPA

- created larger fill structure s via vertical

4 expansion by utilities that would actually

5 increase the risk

--

6 MR. DUFFICY: Sir, your time is up.

7 MR. SCOTT:

-- of additional physical

8 failures.

9 One last thing.

10 MR. DUFFICY: Your time is up.

11 MR. SCOTT: Finally, the proposal

-- the

12

--

13 MR. DUFFICY: Sir, your time is up.

14 MR. SCOTT: Thank you.

15 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you.

16 (Applause)

17 MR. SCOTT: Finally, by proposing two

18 primary approaches and an additional D Prime

19 proposal in one rule, EPA has substantially

20 complicated the rulemaking process by making it

21 nearly impossible to provide focused comments on

22 three different approaches simultaneously.115

1 The Subtitle D and D Prime options

2 appear to be an EPA afterthought w ith few details

3 on either proposal. In light of this, EPA should

4 withdraw the proposed rule and re

- propose one

5 approach so that all parties can provide

6 constructive comments on implementing appropriate

7 changes for the management of CCR.

8 The Commonwealth of Kentucky strongly

9 believes that approach should be a version under

10 Subtitle D. Implementation of clear federal

11 standards under Subtitle D that all states would

12 then implement would be a more effective and

13 appropriate approach for the management of CCR.

14 Thank you once again for the opportunity

15 to provide these comments. We look forward to

16 providing detailed written comments on the

17 proposed rule that will result in better

18 management of CCR via an appropriate regulatory

19 program.

20 MS. DEVLIN: Number 29, please.

21 MS. STRICKLEN: Hello. I'm Teresa

22 Stricklen. I am just a concerned citizen who116

1 lives in the southern part of Louisville. And I'd

2 like to thank you for these hearings.

3 I f you caught the premiere of Castle

4 last night, you found out that the person who was

5 murdered was murdered by selenium. Selenium is

6 just one of the metals that is in toxic coal ash.

7 Boron is another one, which those of you who have

8 battled roaches know you can use to kill roaches

9 organically by spreading borax around your house.

10 Boron is the purer form of this. And if it kills

11 roaches, I shutter to think what it might be doing

12 in our groundwater and our land. Arsenic,

13 minerals such as mercury, lead, these are just a

14 few of the minerals that are in toxic coal ash.

15 We don't exactly know what's at Cane

16 Ridge (sic) because LG&E won't provide that

17 information for us. We do know, however, that

18 there is a higher incidence of cancer an d kidney

19 disease in the Riverside Gardens area. And there

20 may not be scientific studies, but it doesn't seem

21 to take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

22 The founders of this country wanted a117

1 government for the welfare of its people. I'm one

2 of those people. And I would like to see that we

3 have the welfare of the people in mind as we set

4 government regulations, not

-- it's time for

5 government to be for the welfare of the people

6 instead of the welfare of big corporations w ho

7 seem to be exempt from telling us the truth. And

8 so I would like to see that there are regulations

9 in place for the welfare and the health of the

10 people.

11 Thank you for these hearings. I

12 encourage you to fulfill your responsibilities.

13 (Applause)

14 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 35,

15 please.

16 (No response)

17 MS. DEVLIN: 35.

18 MR. SKINNER: Ladies and gentlemen, my

19 name is Matt Skinner, with GSE Lining Technology,

20 a company ba sed in Houston, Texas. Today I'm also

21 representing the Geosynthetic Materials

22 Association, the trade group of 80 companies that118

1 manufacture, distribute and install geosynthetic

2 materials, including liners systems. The industry

3 employs 12,000 people throughout the United

4 States.

5 Our comment to EPA is very simple. We

6 request that EPA mandate the geosynthetic lining

7 of coal ash storage facilities using a composite

8 liner system. In the shortest terms, use liners,

9 specifically composite liners. Why? Because

10 liners work.

11 Concerns over safety regarding CCRs are

12 mitigated if the landfill storage sites are lined

13 with a composite liner system of a geomembrane and

14 a geosynthetic clay liner. A composite liner

15 system prevents the leachate from entering the

16 environment. Safety concerns regarding surface

17 impoundments are also mitigated if the

18 impoundments are lined with a composite liner

19 system.

20 The American Society of Civil Engineers

21 does a regular report ca rd on America's

22 infrastructure. For the last three report cards,119

1 representing over a decade, solid waste has

2 received the highest grade of any category. My

3 industry does a good job of taking America's waste

4 and properly storing it and protecting the

5 environment.

6 The materials, technology, engin eers,

7 engineering techniques, the general contractors,

8 and installers who can build proper facilities and

9 the regulators and inspectors who assure that the

10 work is done correctly exist today. We urge EPA

11 to use what is currently available and working

12 presently.

13 Further, our industry has continued to

14 improve ov er time, and EPA has been a part of

15 that effort. Over the years, EPA has commissioned

16 nearly 80 studies on the design and performance of

17 lining systems. We specifically call your

18 att ention to a 2002 study titled, "Assessment and

19 Recommendations for Optimal Performance of Waste

20 Containment Systems." This study contains a great

21 deal of pertinent information on how to construct

22 containment systems. Most illustrative for today120

1 is a graph, which I will provide, charting the

2 leakage rate of different d esigns over the life

3 cycle of nearly 200 facilities. The

-- the life

4

-- the

-- the

-- the composite liner systems of a

5 geomembrane and a geosynthetic clay liner was

6 demonstrated to ha ve the lowest leakage rate over

7 all life cycles, including a near zero leakage

8 rate after the facilities were closed and final

9 cover placed. Our materials simply work.

10 A bri ef word on the

11 hazardous/non

- hazardous question. While coal ash

12 does contain heavy metals, it lacks the

13 traditional characteristics of hazardous

14 materials, including radioactivity, the presence

15 of infectious medical waste, and other similar om

16

-- com

-- compositions.

17 In the opinion of our trade

18 organi zation, coal ash can properly be stored

19 using Subtitle D regulations, a non

- hazardous

20 solid waste designation, with composite liner

21 systems.

22 Thank you.121

1 (Applause)

2 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 36,

3 please.

4 MR. COMPTON: My name's Randy Compton,

5 and I live down in Knoxville, Tennessee, a few

6 miles away from the Kingston steam facility.

7 I've been in the coal ash marketin g

8 business for almost 30 years. I'm now vice

9 president of sales of a Kentucky corporation

10 that's been very successful in the storage and

11 management of CCBs.

12 It is my honest opinion, both a

13 concerned citizen and informed marketer, that

14 regulation of CCRs as hazardous would ca u se great

15 harm to the years of progress that we've made in

16 one of the most successful recycling programs

17 within the country.

18 The term "special waste" will carry a

19 stigma and it just really gripes and irritates me

20 tha t you

-- that most folks don't understand the

21 business society in today (laughs). That will

22 carry a stigma that will basically kill the122

1 industry. I don't care if you raise the cost up,

2 that's not what's going to drive the industry. It

3 will kill the recycling business. We have a very

4 litigious society today. And with al l the poten

5

-- potential lawsuits that will be there, none of

6 the homeowners, none of the building owners, none

7 of the construction firms would at least use the

8 material.

9 It didn't become a hazardous or a toxic

10 waste until the informed press picked it up after

11 the EPA took over the cleanup at Kingston.

12 It's commonly known that all the heavy

13 metals and CCRs that we're using, it is well

14 documented, these chemical constituents are

15 commonly found in dirt, rock, and anything else

16 that's in your yards.

17 Recently the Tennessee Department of

18 Health released a study where they've been

19 tracking 200 people since that spill in Kingston

20 with no ill effects shown.

21 There's no good reason to risk

22 destroying CCR recycling. I know everybody's for123

1 recycling. EPA's own aru

-- rule s acknowledges

2 that landfill engineering standards will be

3 essentially the same between C and D. The biggest

4 issue is the special waste thing.

5 The Portland Cement Associatio n, the

6 concrete industry

-- the com

-- American Concrete

7 Industry have both recognized the use of CCCs

8 (sic) as a

-- making the concrete much better,

9 less permeable, more dense, lower heat of

10 hydration and less water demand, which makes it

11 much better.

12 State DOTs readily accept the use of

13 CCRs, and they'll continue to support this

14 through the Federal Highway Works Administration

15 on the interstate projects.

16 If CCRs are labeled "hazardous" on the

17 Subtitle C, we risk losing the environmental

18 benefits that come with recycling these millions

19 of tons of this material, driving up costs of

20 construction, and

-- and cost to the utilities and

21 ultimately rate payers, not to mention the

22 millions of tons of greenhouse gases that will be124

1 generated making virgin products to replace the

2 loss of CCPs in the industry.

3 I urge you to rectify this and put this

4 under a Subtitle C.

5 Thank you.

6 (Applause)

7 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 37,

8 please.

9 MR. CLEWETT: I'm Rick Clewett from

10 Lexington, Kentucky.

11 It's important that EPA adopt the

12 Subtitle C proposal rather than Subtitle D or D

13 Prime proposal in order to deal adequately with

14 the health hazards currently created by coal

15 combustion waste generated by electric utilities

16 and independent power producers.

17 Under Pre

-- Proposal D Prime, "existing

18 surface impoundments would not have to close or

19 install composite liners but could continue to

20 operate for their useful life," end quo te. Given

21 that EPA has found that coal combustion waste

22 expose the public to various serious risk, it125

1 would be unconsciona ble to allow existing coal

2 waste ponds to operate

-- continue operating as

3 they have been.

4 Proposal D would not require, quotes,

5 "permits nor could EPA enforce the requirements.

6 Instead, states and citizens would en

-- could

7 enforce the requirements under RCRA citizen

8 authority. The states could also enforce any

9 state regulation under their independent state

10 enforcement authority," quote. Leaving the burden

11 of in

-- initiating enforcement actions to state

12 agencies and citizens would be an ab rogation of

13 EPA's duty to protect the environment and the

14 public.

15 I will use the findings of

16 just

- conducted study by the Sierra Club, Kentucky

17 Waterways All iance and Global Environmental to

18 make this point. The study entitled, "Slow Motion

19 Spills: Coal Combustion Waste and Water in

20 Kentucky," found that the

-- while 44 coal ash

--

21 there are 44 coal ash ponds in Kentucky, anything

22 like adequate information was available for only126

1 eight. In these eight ca ses, monitoring records

2 did not record all CCW contaminants. In some

3 cases, the division had even allowed sites whose

4 early records showed dangerous levels of toxici

--

5 toxic heavy me tals to stop monitoring those

6 pollutants."

7 Despite this disturbing failure of the

8 state to collect and archive adequate information

9 on water quality near coal ash facilities, the

10 study was able to reach three resounding

11 conclusions: (1) Existing data point

-- data

12 point to groundwater contamination caused by coal

13 ash waste beneath every plant studied; (2)

14 Kentucky regulatory program is not properly

15 addressing this threat, instead, it's getting

16 weaker; and (3) Kentucky is not comprehensively

17 tracking where CCW contamination is going.

18 I'm not

-- I'm sure that in many states

19 it is bad or worse. I

-- this is

-- I'm not out

20 to

-- to get Kentucky. That's not the point. I

21 live here; my family lives here; many of my

22 friends live here. We care what's happening to127

1 the people near the Cane Run facility, what's

2 happening to the people near the Spurlock facility

3 in eastern Kentucky.

4 I'll just reference another study, "In

5 Harm's Way: Lack of Federal Coal Ash Regulations

6 Endangers Americans and Their Environment." The

7 title says it all.

8 What we need is strong federal

9 regulation, federally enforced of coal combustion

10 waste. And EPA Subti tle III (sic) proposal is the

11 way to get it.

12 Thank you.

13 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you.

14 (Applause)

15 MS. DEVLIN: May I have Numbers 38, 40,

16 41, 42 and 43, please. Number 38, please go

17 ahead.

18 MR. VAUGHAN: Thank you. My name is

19 John Vaughan, Tech nical Service Director of Irving

20 Materials. We're one of the largest producers of

21 ready

- mixed concrete in Indiana, Kentucky, and

22 Tennessee. Founded over 64 years ago, we have128

1 concentrated over the last 40 years, our company,

2 and many other producers, in the beneficial use of

3 fly ash in concrete mix designs.

4 Both the concrete ready mixed industry

5 and the electric power industry have invested

6 several millions of dollars in capit a l to safely

7 produce, transport, and store fly ash fo r the

8 beneficial use in concrete products. This process

9 currently allows over 15 million tons of fly ash

10 to be recycled instead of becoming a waste product

11 of coal combustion. Indire ctly, this use of fly

12 ash in concrete also provides for approximately a

13 15 million ton per year reduction in carbon

14 dioxide production. This reduction in carbon

15 dioxide is due to the fact that for approximately

16 every ton of fly ash used in concrete, we use one

17 less ton of virgin cement.

18 Fly ash in concrete is not just a filler

19 material. When used in concrete, the fly ash

20 becomes part of a cementitious matrix. The fly

21 ash reacts with the cement during the initial

22 hydration process to form combined cementitio us129

1 matrix superior to the matrix produced by using

2 only Portland cement. The combination of fly ash

3 and cement provide for easier placement, better

4 workability, along with increased durability and

5 service life for our

-- our finished ready

- mixed

6 concrete products.

7 As you are well aware, in June of this

8 year, EPA published proposed changes to

9 regulations that could result in fly ash being

10 designated as a hazardous waste. It is my belief

11 that a hazardous waste designation will create a

12 major decrease in the amount of fly ash being

13 beneficially used in concrete. If the fly ash is

14 not beneficially used, it will still be produced

15 and it will still be creating a problem in

16 impounded landfills, precisely the opposite of

17 what should be done.

18 Since the announcement of the proposed

19 change in classification, I personally have had to

20 field several phone calls from concerned customers

21 concerning the use of our fly ash in concrete,

22 indicating that any designation as a hazardous130

1 waste would only create an increase in people

2 being concerned and no longer wanting to use

3 concrete products containing fly as h.

4 To date, we've already seen a negative

5 reaction on the

-- on the use of fly ash in

6 concrete. Los Angeles Unified School District has

7 banned the use of fly ash until the E PA has

8 finalized their decision. And to go one step

9 fu r ther , as previously mentioned, the State

10 of Maryland has proposed a rule that any product

11 containing fly ash would have to disposed of in a

12 facility authorized to accept fly ash, thus

13 creating more waste having to be contained in

14 specialized landfills.

15 Thank you for your consideration.

16 (Applause)

17 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 40,

18 please.

19 MR. SCOGGAN: Thank you for this

20 opportunity to address the EPA. My name is John

21 Scoggan.

22 I work for a company called Boral131

1 Material Technologies, where I've been employed

2 for 29 years. We manage coal combustion products,

3 principally, fly ash for concrete. We've been in

4 business for over 50 years. We support the EPA's

5 efforts to protect the human health and the

6 environment. We support regulation to ensure

7 responsible disposal but don't want to kill

8 recycling in the process. Therefore, we support

9 EPA's ruling for RCRA Subtitle D.

1 0 Fly ash been

-- has been used in

11 concrete since the 1920s. The federal government

12 and the EPA have encouraged and supported the use

13 fly ash in concrete for over two decades.

14 The environmental benefits of using fly

15 ash in concrete include: Reduction of CO2 by

16 replacing cement in concrete. EPRI ep

-- EPRI

17 estimates reduction of 11 million tons of CO2

18 annually; a reduction in landfill space, EPRI

19 estimates a savings equal to 51 million cubic

20 yards of space annual. Recycling reduces the

21 requirements for excavation and

-- or quarrying of

22 equal amounts of raw virgin material. Other132

1 benefits include substantial water and energy

2 savings as well.

3 Recycling coal combustion products has

4 also been supported by other government agencies,

5 the Department Ag

-- of Agriculture, Department of

6 Energy, the Federal Highway Administration an d

7 state DOTs. Other s supporting this recycling

8 include trade and professional associations, the

9 American Coal Ash Association, the National Ready

10 Mixed Concrete Association, the American Society

11 for Testing and Materials, and the American

12 Concrete Institute.

13 The results of all this work, recycling

14 coal combustion products, has grown from 30% in

15 the year 2000 to 44% in 2008, 60 million tons.

16 None of these groups believes that

-- that

17 hazardous waste regulations are warranted for coal

18 combustion residues.

19 Today, in America, perception is

20 reality; otherwise, we wouldn't be here. Coal is

21 perceived by the general public as hazardous, even

22 though the scientific data proves otherwise. The133

1 EPA says there is no stigma. The American public

2 disagrees, as proved by what we have heard here

3 today from citizens and environmental groups.

4 Please help the coal combustion

5 recycling success story continue. Rule with the

6 RCRA Subtitle D.

7 Thank you for your time.

8 (Applause)

9 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 41.

10 MR. PETERSON: Good afternoon. My name

11 is Terry Peters on, and I have been employed in the

12 coal combustion product industry for the past 27

13 years.

14 I also work for Boral Material

15 Technologies, a company that employs 161 people

16 working at 22 locations across 18 states.

17 I'd like to open my statement today by

18 commending the EPA for maintaining their position

19 concerning CCRs since enactment of the Bevil l

20 Amendment in 1980 and re

- confirming that position

21 through regulatory determinations in 1993 and

22 2000. The EPA's longstanding position has134

1 underpinned the establishment and development of,

2 arguably, the most successful recycling program in

3 U.S. history.

4 BMTI alone has been able to place in

5 excess of 53 million tons of coal combustion

6 products into beneficial uses over the past 20

7 years. Obviously, that's 53 million tons of

8 avoided landfill. But, just as importantly,

9 represents an avoidance of 53 million tons of CO2

10 emissions that would have bec

-- resulted if

11 natural materials had been used. This type of

12 success would never occur if CCRs were classi fied

13 under Subtitle C.

14 Further benefit of EPA's longstanding

15 position is reflected in the BMTI R&D Program.

16 Over the past ten years, we have invested in

17 excess of $30 million developing new CCP applications

18 outside of ready mixed and cement. Additionally,

19 we developed three beneficiation processes that

20 enable CCPs to meet performance s pecifications, if

21 CCP quality is compromised if power plant

22 modifications to reduce NOX, SOX and mercury are135

1 installed. No ne of these investments would have

2 occurred if CCRs were classified under Subtitle C.

3 I recognize during these hearings the

4 undercurrent associated with generating power

5 with out burning

-- without burning coal, as well

6 as citizens' concern s over inadequate state

7 regulasa

-- regulation. Obviously, generating

8 power by burning coal has been an integral part of

9 U.S. society for many years and will remain so

10 until alternate fuel sources develop.

11 I suggest that as long as we are burning

12 coal, the right thing to do is encourage the

13 continuation and expansion of current recycling

14 efforts. Supporting Subtitle D is the way to

15 maintain this momentum. Just as importantly,

16 creating confidence amongst citizens that

17 government agencies, whether federal or state, are

18 protecting their interest is critical. I suggest

19 that we can gain public confidence, achieve the

20 necessary safeguards for properly landfil ling CCRs

21 through cooperation between the EPA and state

22 regulators using a Subtitle D classification.136

1 In closing, I recommend that the best

2 option going forward for U.S. citizens is for EPA

3 to continue its support using a Subtitle D

4 classification for CCRs.

5 Thank you very much.

6 (Applause)

7 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 39, I

8 understand you're here?

9 (No response)

10 MS. DEVLIN: Number

-- Number 39.

11 REV. LEWIS: Hi, you

- all. Thanks for

12 letting me be here today. I am Rev. Bev Lewis,

13 Pastor of

-- within the ranks of the United Church

14 of Christ, Pastor of Chapel Hill United Church of

15 Christ in the south end of Louisville.

16 You

- all, I'm sick and I'm tired. I

17 moved here just five years ago, and since then

18 I've had two bouts of pneumonia. And now, if

19 there's an x

- ray done on my lungs, no doctor

20 believes that I'm a non

- smoker.

21 I'm tired of my people who live less

22 than five miles away from this thing, from this137

1 stuff, from having high

-- higher cancer rates

2 than anywhere else in the nation. I'm tired of

3 burying the people I love because they have

4 cancer. I'm tired of the women in my church

5 having miscarriages because they're so close to

6 this stuff.

7 You

- all, we need some help. You know a

8 church can only do so much, but the government

9 supposed to be part of it, too. So I'm asking you

10 today, on behalf of the United Church of Christ,

11 on behalf of Chapel Hill, on behalf of the people

12 that surround me every single day, they need some

13 protection, and you can on

-- you are the only

1 4 ones who could do that.

15 You know, there are times when it rains,

16 and it used to rain here, that I would have to put

17 my car inside, because every time it would rain, I

18 would have brown residue all over my car. Don't

19 tell me I'm not breathing in that stuff; I don't

20 believe it.

21 I'm tired of meeting people who live

22 much close r to Cane Run facility than I do,138

1 they're just across the street, and they're dying;

2 whole families are dying from all kinds of cancer.

3 You

- all, we need some help. Life is

4 sacred. There isn't a living organism in the Ohio

5 River, a woman, child, or man, who doesn't deserve

6 the right to live fully and completely and in

7 peace. Help us. Help us save ourselves. Help us

8 save the generations after us. Help us protect

9 the Ohio River. What blows here goes aw ay

10 elsewhere.

11 I've seen those stacks turn black at

12 sunset. I've seen the smoke traveling across the

13 river into Indiana. And I don't want to see this

14 toxic waste dump flowing into the Gulf of Mexico

15 from the Mississippi. I don't want us to help

16 kill the Gulf. Help us save ourselves. Help us

17 save God's life in this place. It's sacred,

18 you

- all. You can't put a dollar mark on that.

19 Thank you very much.

20 (Applause)

21 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 42,

22 please.139

1 MR. PRICE: My name is Charles Price,

2 and I'm President and CEO of Charah.

3 I am testifying today on behalf o f

4 Charah and its 250 employees in 11 states, who are

5 committed to recycling coal combustion by

- products

6 and the benefits this recycling has on our

7 environment and the construction mate rial

8 industry.

9 The EPA's assumption that Subtitle C

10 regulations will result in an increase in

11 beneficial use are not correct. Recycling will

12 decrease, if not end altogether, if the EPA

13 regulates CCRs under Subtitle C. Simply stating

14 that CCRs are exempt, if beneficially used, is not

15 sufficient to put the legal liability fea rs to

16 rest among the user community.

17 The protective features proposed by EPA

18 for CCR landfills under the Subtitle C and

19 Subtitle D alternates are essentially the same;

20 therefore, Subtitle D regulation

-- regulatory

21 program, by your own description, will provide the

22 necessary protection and would avoid further140

1 damage to the CCP recycling industry.

2 The Subtitle D approach is clearly the

3 appropriate regulatory mechanism that wil l protect

4 the environment and avoid damage to the recycling

5 industry.

6 I ask that you avoid damaging the best

7 recycling story in America and regulate under

8 S ubtitle D.

9 (Applause)

10 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 43.

11 MR. BOONE: My name is Nathan Boone.

12 I'm Vice President of Business Development for

13 Charah, Incorporated, and I have 13 years of

14 experience in the coal combustion products

15 management industry.

16 The first six years of my work

17 experience involved daily work at coal combustion

18 landfill in a processing site. And my experience

19 with the product is contradictory to what you've

20 heard represented from the people in the vicinity

21 of the Cane Run facility. I want to stress that.

22 I am testifying today on behalf of Charah.141

1 Charah is a 23

- year

- old company that

2 specializes in the management of coal combustion

3 residuals. We employ over 250 employees in 11

4 states plus over 100 additional subcontract

5 employees. We're all dedicated to the responsible

6 management of CCRs. Our approach for responsible

7 management of CCRs has provided for consistent

8 company growth, along with opportunit ies for job

9 creation within our organization throughout our

10 company's history. Our growth can be attributed

11 to a dedication to the responsible management of

12 CCRs which has culminated in our pursuit of

13 beneficial use opportunities that we feel

14 represent the best management practices for CCR

15 utilization. Our company is very active in the

16 recycling of coal combustion products that are

17 derived from coal ash and we are proud to be

18 associated with one of the most successful

19 recycling industries in the United States.

20 In accordance with our dedication to the

21 responsible management of CCRs, we support EPA's

22 effort to implement regulations on the disposal of142

1 CCRs under Subtitle D, which would be consistent

2 with two previous decisions made by the EPA

3 concluding that CCRs do not warrant classification

4 as hazardous materials.

5 EPA's assumption that Subtitle C

6 regulation will result in an increase in

7 beneficial use, along with other's assumptions

8 that a hazardous waste designation stigma is not

9 real, is just not correct, and it is contrary to

10 our experience as a daily participant in the

11 beneficial use marketplace.

12 As a company, we see a significant

13 number of issues and exposures to unwarranted risk

14 that we feel will present themselves through the

15 handling of materials that are viewed as hazardous

16 in some applications yet exempt in others, even

17 when they are originated from a common process and

18 location. These concerns are relative not only to

19 the marketability and associated stigma but to the

20 general handling and operations that will be

21 required for permitted disposal.

22 Can you please advise us how we will143

1 have to handle the concerns of two truck drivers

2 who are handling CCRs from a common storage silo,

3 where the first driver is hauling raw materials to

4 a concrete ready mixed plant, yet h is co

- worker

5 sitting one tren

-- truck length away is equipped

6 to haul hazardous waste to an on

- site disposal

7 cell, even though the material that they are

8 hauling is exactly the same a nd comes out of the

9 same silo?

10 A common theme that we've heard at these

11 hearings is that

-- by those favoring Subtitle C

12 regulations is that C is the only approach that

13 will protect our water resources regardless of the

14 cost implications.

15 I believe that we all support protection

16 of our natural resources, however, Subtitle D

17 regulations will provide the same engineering

18 controls as Subtitle C for accomplishing this

19 goal. We do not believe there to be enough

20 difference between the environmental protective

21 features proposed in the Subtitle C and D options

22 to warrant risking the damage to the marketability144

1 of CCRs that we re

-- b elieve will accompany

2 Subtitle C.

3 Thank you.

4 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you.

5 (Applause)

6 MS. DEVLIN: Numbers 45, 46, 58, 63 and

7 75. Number 45, go ahead, please.

8 MR. GUILFOILE: Thank you. These

9 comments are made in part as Deputy Director of

10 the Sierra Club Water Sentinels Program. We have

11 51 programs and over 12,000 volunteers across the

12 United States documenting water quality in both

13 surface and groundwater. I am also making these

14 comments as a parent, and as someone who has

15 delivered pediatric health care for 30 years. As

16 a clinician in the pediatric intensive care unit

17 at Cincinnati Children's Hospital, the largest

18 clinical and research facility in the United

19 States, I have seen children die as a result of

20 industrial contamination of tap water.

21 Peer reviewed analyses of health

- care

22 databases clearly demonstrate that the incidence145

1 lung disease, kidney disease, premature birth,

2 birth defects, and many childhoo d developmental

3 disorders are statistically, significantly

4 increased in geographic areas surrounding coal ash

5 impoundments and other facilities that discharge

6 toxic pollutants. This h as got to stop.

7 The argument that it is too expensive to

8 regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste is

9 untenable. Short

- term acute care costs associated

10 with environmentally attributable childhood

11 diseases and disorders are in the magnitude of $258

12 billion per year. Costs associated with the adult

13 population exceed $600 billion per yea r.

14 Environmentally induced

-- environmentally induced

15 chronic health

- care costs today are well over $1

16 trillion and are expected to rise to nearly $6

17 trillion in 2050. Have you seen w hat health

- care

18 premiums are doing this year? The fact is, we

19 cannot afford not to regulate coal ash as a hadar

20

-- hazardous waste.

21 We have a long history of denial and

22 disavowal. Remember the tobacco industry, Pacific146

1 Gas & Electric, Beatrice, and most recently Bonner

2 & Associates who perjured themselves before

3 Congress on behalf of the American Coalition for

4 Clean Electricity. Unfortunately, there are many

5 other examples.

6 There is not one shred of scientific

7 economic or public opinion research demonstrating

8

-- that is peer reviewed

-- demonstrating that

9 regulation of coal ash would impair the recycling

10 industry.

11 Utilities and other industries do not

12 have the entitlement to pollute just because they

13 cannot easily solve the problem. There is no free

14 pass.

15 I implore the Environmental Protection

16 Agency, on behalf of our children and the unborn

17 fetus, to make the decision to regulate coal ash

18 as a hazardous waste Subtitle C.

19 Thank you.

20 (Applause)

21 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 46,

22 please.147

1 MR. WALSH: Good afternoon. My name is

2 Bryan Walsh, and I work for Duke Energy Indiana.

3 I'm the station manager at the Gallagher Station,

4 a 600 megawatt coal

- fire d power plant. I very much

5 appreciate the opportunity to speak with you

6 today.

7 Duke Energy Indiana supports the

8 Subtitle D Prime option, with appropriate

9 ad justments. This is because of the three options

10 presented by EP A , this is the one that best

11 balances clean energy with affordability and

12 reliability. Duke Energy shares EPA's objective

13 of having a federal regulatory program that

14 ensures the safe disposal of CCRs. The D Prime

15 option will meet this objective.

16 Opponents of the Subtitle D option

17 persist on incorrectly stating that it would

18 merely preserve the status quo under which EPA

19 could only issue guidance. This is not the case.

20 Under a Subtitle D option, EPA would issue federal

21 regulations specifically designed for CCR disposal

22 units. These regulations would be directly148

1 enforceable by the s tates and the public under

2 RCRA's Citizen Act Provision. EPA would also

3 retain its imminent and substantial endangerment

4 authority to take action against any CCR unit that

5 posed a ris k to human health or the environment.

6 We agree that the disposal units that

7 are not fully protective must be upgraded and must

8 be regulated. However, there are many CCR surface

9 impoundments which are perfectly safe. The D

10 Prime option will allow for development of a

11 regulatory program that meets both of these

12 objectives.

13 A major sh ort

- coming, however, of either

14 proposed Subtitle D approach is the lack of a

15 mechanism for the states to step in and administer

16 the regulation. Clearly, there are regulatory

17 programs that already meet or exceed the proposed

18 Subtitle D standards. States with qualified

19 programs should be given the option of

20 administering the federal Stub

-- Subtitle D rules

21 if they so desire.

22 Additionally, I want to touch on briefly149

1 our opposition to the Subtitle C option. Duke

2 agrees with the views of virtually all the states,

3 many federal agencies, municipal and local

4 governments, state public utility commissions, and

5 many other third parties that regulating CCRs

6 under RCRA's hazardous waste priv

-- provision

7 does not provide significant additional protection

8 to human health or the environment. In fact, it

9 would be counterproductive to d o so because the

10 Subtitle C regulation would cripple the CCR

11 beneficial use industry.

12 Finally, I would like to note that there

13 are many coal

- fire d power plants throughout this

14 country that are not base

- load units. These could

15 potentially be driven towards retirement depending

16 on how coal ash is classified. This will have a

17 dir ect economic impact on the communities we live

18 in. For example, Gallagher Station is the largest

19 taxpayer in New Albany, makes enough power to

20 supply almost 200,000 homes, employs 77 full

- time

21 Duke Energy employees, and also puts numerous

22 contractors to work on our site on any given day.150

1 Gallagher is not unlike many other power plants

2 across the country. And a Subtitle C

3 classification could have a severe economic and

4 employment impact.

5 Thank you for your time.

6 (Applause)

7 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 58,

8 please.

9 MS. NISPEL: Good afternoon. My name is

10 Debbie Nispel. I'm an Environmental Scientist and

11 Manager of Midwest Generation Field Support with

12 Duke Energy.

13 Duke Energy supports the development of

14 federal regulations for CCRs under RCRA's Subtitle

15 D non

- hazardous waste program. The question for

16 Duke is not whether to regulate, but how to

17 regulate. Duke has evaluated the alternatives and

18 determined that Subtitle D Prime option, with

19 appropriate adjustments, is the best path forward.

20 Unlike the Subtitle C approach, Subtitle D Prime

21 will enable EPA to establish an environmentally

22 protective program without crippling CCR151

1 beneficial use and imposing unnecessary costs on

2 power plants, threatening jobs and increasing

3 electricity costs.

4 Certain activist groups are alleging

5 dozens of new damage cases, including some that

6 are at Duke Energy facilities. In its final May

7 2000 regulatory determination concluding that CCRs

8 do not warrant Subtitle C regulation, a close

9 examination of the facts reveals many flaws in the

10 recent allegations made by activist g roups

11 regarding additional damage cases. Many of the

12 assertions are based on extremely flimsy evidence,

13 with unfounded conclusions. EPA cannot rely on

14 these assertions in any final r ulemaking without

15 conducting its own factual, independent review of

16 the sites and following for

-- and allowing for

17 public notice and comment on their findings.

18 An EPRI analy sis of the EPA damage case

19 report in the 2008 Notice of Data Availability

20 shows only a handful of these cases actually

21 involve circumstances where offsite contamination

22 occurred of a primary drinking water standard,152

1 also known as a primary MCL. Of the 54 proven or

2 potential damage cases cite d by EPA in the NODA

3 involving groundwater contamination, only three

4 involved off

- site contamination exceeding pre

--

5 primary MCLs. The same is likely true with the

6 alleged new damage cases. In fact, during their

7 press conference, the activists acknowledged that

8 some of these cases do not involve offsite

9 contamination, but speculate merely that the

10 damage may miti gate

-- may migrate offsite at some

11 point in the future.

12 Another significant flaw is that the

13 allegations have been made without prior

14 consultation with the very states whose programs

15 the groups allege are deficient. The states are

16 contesting this allegation and charging that

17 activat

-- activist groups have improperly

18 characterized the effectiveness of their state

19 controls.

20 Duke Energy supports a Subtitle D

21 program that will involve groundwater monitoring

22 controls specif ically designed to detect any153

1 contamination from the CCR waste management units

2 before contamination moves offsite. If Duke

3 determines an impact to groundwater has occurred

4 at one of if

-- its facilities, the appropriate

5 federal or state regulatory agencies are notified,

6 and we work with those regulators in determining

7 the appropriate steps to be taken to remediate the

8 impact to groundwater.

9 Further, Duke has taken measures to

10 reduce or eliminate any known risks for potential

11 future impacts at the other Duke facilities.

12 Thank you.

13 (Applause)

14 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 63,

15 please.

16 MR. FALLS: Thank you. My name's Alan

17 Falls, and I'm with Headwaters Resources. I have

18 a degree in Civil Engineering and I have been

19 working in the CCP Marketing and Recycli ng

20 business for over 27 years. This has been a very

21 rewarding professional

-- profession knowing that

22 I have been part of the best recycling program in154

1 the United States. Out of approximately 140

2 million tons of CCPs produced we've been able to

3 beneficially re

- use about 44% or 60 million tons.

4 I'm requesting that you make CCPs a

5 Subtitle D and keep it listed as a non

- hazardous

6 industrial waste. If this non

- hazardous material

7 is listed through Subtitle C as a hazardous waste

8 just so you can regulate landfills, you'll be

9 doing a grave injustice to our country's most

10 successful recycling program. Local homeowners

11 that own the product that the CCPs are in the m,

12 workers that produce concrete or other products

13 containing CCPs, the people that handle or work

14 with the products that are produced, using CCPs

15 will not be able to distinguish betwe en real

16 hazardous products and ones that have been labeled

17 as such so the CCP program

-- material going to

18 the landfill can be regulated by the EPA.

19 Because of this, people w ill start to be

20 afraid of using fly ash and this valuable

21 recycling program will fail. This will cost the

22 people of the United States billions of dollars in155

1 increased electrical costs by increasing landfill

2 costs.

3 If CCPs are labeled Subtitle C and the

4 recy cling program fails, over 30 million tons of

5 Portland Cement will have to be produced, which

6 will lead to an additional 30 million tons of CO2

7 gas being produced, greatly increasing the cost of

8 concrete and other construction materials, again

9 costing the people of the United States billions

10 of dollars in increased construction costs. Also,

11 if you are a believer in "global warming," the

12 additional 30 million tons of CO2 gas produced

13 will speed this process. The cost of this is

14 impossible to put a price tag on.

1 5 I understand that some people claim that

16 if you make CCPs a hazardous waste that you'll

17 actually increase the beneficial reuse program.

18 My question is here

-- here is: Wouldn't you

19 think that the people that are currently marketing

20 fly ash would be promoting Subtitle C designation

21 if that were true?

22 I believe that I'm qualified to state,156

1 honestly, that all ash marketing groups are

2 strongly opposed to Subtitle D

-- Subtitle C

3 designation.

4 If the EPA fails

-- feels that it must

5 regulate landfills, then I implore them to make

6 CCPs a Subtitle D and find another method of

7 regulating that won't jeopardize our country's

8 mos t successful recycling program.

9 Thank you.

10 (Applause)

11 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 75,

12 please.

13 MR. ANDERSON: Thank yo u for the

14 opportunity to comment on this proposed ruling

15 that we're here for today.

16 My name is Doug Anderson and I'm with

17 Headwaters. I have been marketing coal combustion

18 byproducts for 14 years.

19 My father retired from a coal

- fired

20 power plant in northern Indiana; before that he

21 owned a small trucking company in southeastern

22 K entucky that transported coal directly from the157

1 coal mine. My grandfather was a retired coal

2 miner back in the 40s with little regulations. He

3 died

-- he was 90 years old when he passed away

4 from natural causes. I think you can see the

5 theme here. This is an industry that is near and

6 dear to me. I grew up in this industry and have

7 seen it change over the years.

8 I have also seen the beneficial reuse

9 tonnages increase yearly as new programs have

10 developed, it is estimated we have utilized

11 between 50

- and 60

- million tons into beneficial

12 reuses here in the United States of America.

13 It is with great concern the EPA

14 regulate CCBs as a listed waste under the

15 hazardous waste authorities of Subtitle C of the

16 Ra

-- of the Resource Con

-- Conservation and

17 Recovery Act. If the Subtitle C option is passed,

18 all of these CCBs would have to be placed in a

19 landfill or a holding pond, which is how we

20 arrived here today.

21 If these tons were beneficially reused

22 in a responsible manner, the incident at the158

1 Kingston landfill never takes place. I don't

2 understand why the EPA would want that situation

3 to exist. These 50

- to 60

- million tons would not

4 be recycled but landfilled.

5 Many people will be directly affected by

6 the Subtitle C ruling. Ready mixed con crete

7 producers who will not use CCBs will see their raw

8 material costs rise as well as some quality of

9 their concrete decrease; concrete prices will

10 increase; trucking companies will have insurance

11 costs rise; landfill costs would significantly

12 increase, which, in turn, raises our electricity

13 rates. Marketers of CCBs will lose jobs and

14 significant progress of beneficial reuses will be

15 lost.

16 Already some producers that I have seen

17 of CCBs will not release their material into

18 already ap proved uses in fear of this ruling and

19 the stigma of this ruling. The potential stigma

20 that will be associated by this ruling has caused

21 that.

22 One of the most positive and p rogressive159

1 programs that has come into my industry has been

2 the Green Building & LEED's program. The

3 government has been behind this program.

4 Coal Combustion Byproducts is one of the

5 greenest materials you can find. This building we

6 are in today contains CCBs as does the sid ewalk

7 outside and the street next to that.

8 It is my hope and request that you, the

9 EPA, try and develop a federal program for CCB

10 disposal under RCRA Subtitle D, Non

- Hazardou s

11 Waste Program, which provides virtually the same

12 safeguards to the public as does Subtitle C, so we

13 can keep American people working and developing

14 more beneficial reuses in this green building

15 environment.

16 Thank you, again, for letting me speak.

17 (Applause)

18 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you . Again, we're

19 running a bit ahead, so I'm going to try to

20 accommodate some

-- some folks who've asked to

21 speak early. Number 146, are you in the room?

22 (No response)160

1 MS. DEVLIN: Okay. And then walk

- ins

2 Number 306, 307, 308, and 309, are you in the

3 room, please?

4 (No response)

5 MS. DEVLIN: If you would come forward.

6 Thank you. Just go ahead.

7 MR. BROWNHILL: Good Afternoon. My name

8 is Ryan Bro wnhill, Operations Manager for Sphere

9 One, Incorporated. We're the largest marketer of

10 domestically

- sourced cenospheres in the United

11 States.

12 Cenospheres are inert, lightwei ght

13 microspheres that are used in an encapsulated

14 building, refractory, and recreational products.

15 We have marketed cenospheres since

-- since 1981

16 from our Chattanooga plant. We have thoroughly

17 tested our products through the years and the

18 heavy metals encapsulated within cenospheres do

19 not leach out. In no way do cenospheres meet the

20 criteria of a RCRA Subtitle C waste and do not

21 deserve to be sig

-- stigmatized by that

22 designation.161

1 The EPA has stated that they are

2 committed to the beneficial use of CCPs and

3 acknowledge the huge reduction in greenhouse gas

4 emissions that are achieved by their use. They

5 have repeatedly stated that they don't believe a

6 Subtitle C regulation will create a stigma against

7 CCPs and may increase the amount of CCPs recycled.

8 Our business is almost solely comprised

9 of recycling CCPs. If what the EPA says is true,

10 then the industry that stands to benefit the most

11 from a Subtitle C designation is ours. We would

12 be leading the charge for Subtitle C . We're not,

13 because we know that the opposite is true.

14 Using the past history of increased ra

15

-- recycling in other industries to create a rule

16 is like saying "we have seen that freezing

17 temperatures in Florida is good for the heating

18 oil industry, so freezing temperatures will be

19 good for the orange growers as well." That sounds

20 ridiculous but it's bas ically the lar

-- the logic

21 being used by the EPA.

22 It would be irresponsible for the EPA to162

1 make the assumptions they have and not engage the

2 experts in these markets.

3 The actions of our suppliers and

4 customers continue to show that this stigma is

5 r eal. One contract at a major supplier has

6 recently expired. This supplier has refused to

7 enter into a contract renewal until the EPA makes

8 a final ruling and they see that it will not be a

9 Subtitle C regulation. A major building products

10 customer of ours has told us directly that a

11 Subtitle C regulation would deter them from using

12 cenospheres and have already begun to explore

13 alternative materials. Another customer has said

14 that they are very concerned with this stigma and

15 are slowing work in fly ash

- related technologies

16 until they see the outcome, even tho ugh they have

17 extensively tested our material and have

18 independently determined that it is safe.

19 The negative stigma is already affecting

20 our business. It will only get wors e if Subtitle

21 C is implemented. Based on our experience with

22 this market and all of our conversations with cuth163

1

-- custome rs, we can't see how we will be able to

2 stay in business.

3 This is not an argument between groups

4 who want to protect families and those who don't.

5 I have two small children myself. I fully agree

6 that the EPA must protect people from contaminated

7 water due to improper storage of CCRs. No family

8 sould be

-- should be subjected to that. But I

9 don't believe that anyone ne

-- wants to

10 needlessly add to the unemployment problem in this

11 country either. We have roughly 45 families that

12 depend upon Spere

-- Sphere O ne for food,

13 clothing, shelter, and health care. I want those

14 families to be protected from unintended

15 consequences of a bad ruling.

16 There's a solution that everyone in the

17 room can and should support. Subtitle D gives all

18 the same technical protections to the environment

19 that Subtitle C does with national standards and a

20 quicker implementation schedule. It carries

21 virtually no risk of devastating an entire

22 industry that is dedicated to recycling over 40164

1 million tons of a w aste stream that would be

2 otherwise landfilled.

3 Thank you.

4 (Applause)

5 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 306,

6 please.

7 MR. BOULDING: My name is Russell

8 Boulding, and I'm speaking as a scientist to

9 express my support for the proposed rules to

10 regulate coal combusted waste under Subtitle C.

11 I have been

-- worked on environmental

12 problems related to coal since 1973 as a

13 contaminant hydrogeologist I have studied

14 groundwater contamination from improper disposal

15 of coal combustion waste since the late 1980s.

16 I am the author of 21 of the 70 new

17 damage cases identified by the Environmental

18 Integrity Project, Earthjustice, and the Sierra

19 Club in their two recently issued reports.

20 Three minutes is not nearly enough time

21 to address the misrepresentation and

22 misinformation that has been repeated over and165

1 over by representatives from the coal industry and

2 the electric power industries to minimize concerns

3 created by the toxic chara cteristics of coal

4 combustion waste. Repetition does not make

5 distorted science any less distorted.

6 In Attachment A to my statement I

7 provide information that makes it clear that since

8 the mid

- 1980s the toxic characteristics of all

9 forms of fly ash have been well documented, as

10 well as the failure of leachate data from TCLP

11 tests to adequately measure the toxicity of coal

12 combustion waste.

13 In my limited remaining time I would

14 like to focus on new data to supplement the

15 December 2009 EPA report by Kosson and others, a

16 report which finally presented results of leaching

17 tests that more accurately reflect the potential

18 to contaminate groundwater.

19 Even w ith my familiarity with the

20 inadequacy of the TCLP and other leachate tests

21 that have been used to argue that coal combustion

22 waste is benign material, I was startled by the166

1 results in this report that showed maximum

2 concentrations of arsenic, antimony, chromium and

3 selenium far above the maximum found in previously

4 reported tests.

5 The main point I would like to make here

6 is that even these more accurate leaching tests

7 underestimate the potential for lead contamination

8 f or coal com

-- from coal combustion waste.

9 In Attachment C I have provided a list

10 of nine disposal sites in the recent report by the

11 Environmental Integrity Project where measured

1 2 concentrations of lead in groundhouse

--

13 groundwater were higher than the maximum reported

14 in the Kosson report.

15 One private drinking water well was 51

16 times higher than the highest leachate value in

17 that test.

18 The failure of the current patchwork

19 regulatory approach by states to control the harm

20 to human he alth and the environment has been

21 eloquently and abundantly shown by the testimony

22 of citizens who have been directly affected. And167

1 as a scientist in talking with this damage cases

2 it was just

-- it just brought it home to me in

--

3 in a

-- in a way that I'd never felt before.

4 The science is also clear that the

5 Subtitle C regulatory option is both appropriate

6 and necessary.

7 Thank you.

8 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you.

9 (Applause)

10 MS. DEVLIN: Number 307.

11 MR. KLAWITTER: Hello. My name is Sam

12 Klawitter. I'm speaking as a concerned citizen

13 and also a parent.

14 I woul d like to know what is in our

15 drinking water and what is in the materials from

16 which we build our homes.

17 Despite the fact that industry

- connected

18 testimony suggests that coal waste is harmless,

19 there's strong scientific evidence to the

20 contrary, and I do not wish to take the risk that

21 the industry research is wrong with my children.

22 Coal ash must be regulated as a168

1 hazardous waste. Therefore, I fully support

2 Subtitle C.

3 Thank you for your time and concern.

4 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you.

5 (Applause)

6 MS. DEVLIN: Number 308, please.

7 MS. COCHRAN: Hi. My name is E boni Neal

8 Cochran, and I'm a member of REACT, Rubbertown

9 Emergency Action.

10 We're an all volunteer group of

11 residents living at the fence lines of 11

12 Rubbertown chemical plants. REACT primarily

13 focuses its work on air toxics. You might be

14 wondering why I'm here if the focus of our group

15 is centered around chemical plants. I'm here

16 because whether the contamination is in the water,

17 air, or soil, it is having a disastrous effect on

18 environmental justice communities.

19 I'm a member of REACT but also a

20 resident who lives in the Chickasaw neighborhood,

21 one of the many neighborhoods adjacent to 11

22 chemical plants and also affected by Duke Energy's169

1 Gallagher Plant, which you can see black, thick

2 smoke sometimes coming across the river into my

3 neighborhood.

4 I wish more of my neighbors could be

5 here, but unfortunately, they are not paid to be

6 here like some of these industry folk.

7 I'm here because I'm opposed to the LG&E

8 coal ash pond expansion. And I'm here to let the

9 Environmental Protection Agency know that the

10 people want strong laws for the regulation of coal

11 ash. We support Subtitle C and we want effective

12 enforcement.

13 For far too long people in my

14 neighborhood have had to shoulder the burden of

15 toxic chemicals destroying their health and

16 quality of life. Our neighborhoods have the

17 highest rates of asthma, cancer and other

18 illnesses. Many of these illnesses are associated

19 with or aggravated by the numerous toxic chemic als

20 that are carelessly dumped into the air or leached

21 into our soil and rivers. The cumulative effect

22 of the various industries in the area are too much170

1 for our communities to handle.

2 The current coal combustion waste pond

3 onsite at the Cane Run Power Station is one of the

4 44 classified by the U.S. EPA as "high hazard,"

5 meaning that a spill would result in significant

6 damage or loss of life. Why in the world would an

7 expansion be approved when the current pond proses

8

-- poses such a threat? Why in the world would

9 something considered high hazard not

-- not be

10 subject to the most stringent of regulations?

11 Don't let these companies bamboozl e you

12 into thinking tougher regulations will destroy

13 them economically. What about our household

14 economics destroyed because of illness, missed

15 work days, or the inability to work. W e do not

16 have full protective gear like an employee talked

17 about earlier. Industry has money from its

18 profits to fight stigma. The people do not have

19 the money to fight illness.

20 We need strong laws because there is a

21 chance that our neighbors will be affected by coal

22 ash blowing in the wind into our homes and into171

1 our lungs. We need strong laws because there is a

2 chance that inferior liners or even the best

3 liners could breach and leach toxic chemicals into

4 our soil and water, soil and water our children

5 play in. We need strong laws because the burden

6 of proof should be on the companies handling the

7 harmful substances not on the people who fall

8 victi m to them. We need strong laws to encourage

9 companies to use safer chemicals and safer

10 technologies. We cannot go on using the same

11 antiquated technologies that pose a threat not

12 only to human life but to those necessities we

13 depend on for our survival, those necessities like

14 water and food.

15 The name of your agency implies that its

16 pu rpose is to protect the environment, people

17 living in e

-- environmental justice communities

18 cannot and should not be expected to do your job.

19 Please take that action

-- please take action that

20 is strong, that benefits those living near

21 facilities, and take action now.

22 Thank you.172

1 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you.

2 (Applause)

3 MS. DEVLIN: Number 309, 310, 311, and

4 312, are any of you in the room?

5 (No respon se)

6 MS. DEVLIN: And 313. Come on up.

7 Please come forward. 312, right.

8 MR. HAYDEN: My name is Bill Hayden. I

9 live in Clarksville, Indiana, across the river.

10 And I lobbied for the Sierra Club and other

11 environmental groups in the Indi

-- at the Indiana

12 Legislature for 15 years.

13 I

-- it's long past time for the EPA to

14 be considering a rule to treat Coal Combustion

15 Residues as the hazardous waste that it really is.

16 The problems with the current management

17 of this hazardous waste are del

-- w ell

18 documented. The past unwillingness of the federal

19 and state governments to properly regulate this

20 material has resulted in many illnesses and much

21 environmental destruction to our surface and

22 groundwater.173

1 The State of Indiana has effectively

2 eliminated any legitimate claim but state's rights

3 should be respected in the matter of environmental

4 regulation. Federal statute and rules

-- excuse

5 me, I lost my place. Okay.

6 Federal states

-- federal statute and

7 rules are essentially the statute and rule of the

8 state of Indiana with regard to environmental

9 regulation. Since the legislature at the

10 insistence of the corporations has passed a

11 statute that requires that rulemaking can be no

12 more stringent than federal statute and

13 regulation.

14 Essentially, the Indiana legislature has

15 punted environment al policy making to the federal

16 government. If the federal government doesn't

17 require it to be regulated, then the Indiana

18 Department of Environmental Management

-- not

19 "Protection," mind you

-- and the Indiana

20 Department of Environ

-- Natural Resources cannot

21 regulate it. And if the Federal government does

22 regulate it, Indiana regulatory agencies can not174

1 regulate it any more stringently than the Federal

2 agencies require.

3 This ongoing environmental disaster is

4 the result of the corporatocracy of our political

5 system

-- that

-- that

-- that our political

6 system has become. Our state governments have not

7 governed for the benefit of the common g ood of the

8 citizens but rather for the electric utilities and

9 the coal companies that provide the coal fuel that

10 so many of the utilities use. They are not

11 concerned about the sal

-- they are only concerned

12 about the salaries for management and profits for

13 their shareholders.

14 Indiana electric utilities and coal

15 companies have long been able to prevent the

16 Department of Environmental Management and Natural

17 Resources from regulating the CCR in an

18 environmentally responsible way. In a state that

19 has no real control on the amounts of money

20 utilities and coal companies can contribute to

21 politicians running for legislature and

22 gubernatorial positions, it has been too easy for175

1 entrenched corporations to control the statute and

2 rulemaking functions of the state. Therefore, the

3 federal government is the citizen s (sic) of

4 Indiana's only hope for protection from the

5 pollution resulting from the irresponsible

6 management (laughs) of CCR.

7 One sentence. EPA must pass this rule

8 under Subsection (sic) C to protect our health and

9 environment.

10 Thank you.

11 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you.

12 (Applause)

13 MS. DEVLIN: Number 313, please.

14 MR. SHAW: My name is Tom Shaw. I am

15 with Harsco Corporation, a global industrial

16 service company with almost 20,000 employees. We

17 have multiple operations in Kentucky, including a

18 plant dedicated to processing coal slag as

19 abrasive blasting grit and roofing granules.

20 Since the 1930s we have been a gree n

21 recycler of boiler slag, a coal combustion by

-

22 product. Boiler slag is formed when extremely176

1 hot, molten coal ash is que nched with cold water,

2 and the coal ash immediately becomes a vitrified

3 amorphous, solid, glassy matrix known as "boiler

4 slag." Vitrification renders a material inert in

5 a chemical process using heat to transform a

6 mixture into a soluble liquid which solidifies on

7 cooling.

8 Because boiler slag is vitrified, it is

9 very durable and environmentally stable material

10 that permanently immobilizes its chemical

11 constituents in a glassy amorphous structure,

12 which remains stable even when broken into small

13 fragments d uring abrasive blasting as evident by

14 x

- ray diffraction and TCLP testing.

15 Because it is beneficially reused,

16 boiler slag is not commonly stored in surface

17 impoundments. We rig

-- regularly test our boiler

18 slag. It has always passed the TCLP testing and

19 has never exhibited any hazardous waste

20 characteristics. This includes both pre

- and

21 post

- blast abrasive grit.

22 The scientific information about boiler177

1 slag and its physical properties have not chan ged

2 since we began our operations 70 years ago.

3 Regulating boiler slag destined for

4 disposal as a special waste under Subtitle C would

5 unfairly stigmatize beneficially reused boiler

6 slag as is already evident by competitive actions.

7 We have seen no evidence that boiler slag meets

8 any threshold for regulation under Subtitle C, and

9 we are not aware of any environmental problems

10 linked to our products.

11 As an abrasive we are the primary

12 alternative to silica sand, an abrasive that

13 present s serious worker health concerns.

14 We recognize the need for proper and

15 environmentally sound standards for regulating the

16 small percentage of boiler slag that is discarded,

17 r ather than beneficially reused. Accordingly,

18 consistent with the announced views of nearly 30

19 states and EPA's two previous determinations

20 evaluating proper management of coal combustion

21 byproducts, we support appropriate and reasonable

22 disposal standards for any waste boiler slag under178

1 Subtitle D of RCRA.

2 Thank you.

3 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you very much.

4 (Applause)

5 MS. DEVLIN: With that, I am going to

6 suggest that we take about a ten

- minute break. I

7 think we've covered most speakers for this

8 morning. We're going to take about a ten

- minute

9 break. By my watch, the panel will reconvene at

10 1:00.

11 So tha

-- thank you

- all very much.

12 We'll see you at 1:00.

13 (Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., a

14 luncheon recess was taken.)

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22179

1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N

2 (1:05 p.m.)

3 MS. GENTILE: Good afternoon, and

4 welcome to the afternoon part of the hearing for

5 the EPA's proposed rule on regulation of coal

6 combustion residuals.

7 My name is Laura Gentile. I'll be

8 chairing the afternoon portion of the hearing. I

9 am the branch chief of the communications office

10 at the EPA's Office of Resource Conservation and

11 Recovery. On the panel with me are Frank Behan,

12 Steve Hoffman, and Steve Souders.

13 I want to say a few words about

14 logis tics for this afternoon so everyone knows

15 what to do. Speakers, if you are preregistered,

16 you were given a 15

- minute time slot when you are

17 scheduled to give your testimony. To guarantee

18 that slot, we've asked that you sign in 10 minutes

19 before your 15

- minute slot at the registration

20 desk out in the hallway.

21 All speakers, those that have

22 pre registered and walk

- ins, were given a number180

1 when you signed in today, and this is the order in

2 which you will speak. I will call speakers u p to

3 the front of the room to the chairs on my right

4 and, I guess, your left over here by number four

5 or five at a time.

6 When your number is called, please move

7 to the microphone at the podium, and state your

8 name and your affiliation. We may ask you to

9 spell your name for the court reporter, who's

10 transcribing the comments for the official re cord.

11 Because there are many people who

12 registered to speak today, we'd like to be fair to

13 everybody. The testimony is limited to three

14 minutes per person. We're going to u se an

15 electronic timing system, and we'll also hold up

16 cards to let you know when your time is getting

17 low.

18 When we hold up the first card, that

19 means you h ave 2 minutes left. When we hold up

20 the

-- the second card, that means you have a

21 minute left. When the third card is held up, you

22 only have 30 seconds left. When the red card is181

1 held up, you are now officially out of time and

2 should not continue speaking.

3 Remember, you can provide written

4 comments anytime today to the court reporter, and

5 the material will be entered into the r u l e

- making

6 record, and is considered the same as if you had

7 given oral testimony. There's no diffe rence.

8 We will not be answering any questions

9 today on the proposal; however, from time to time,

10 any of us on the panel may ask you questions to

11 clarify your testimony.

12 As I mentioned, if you have brought a

13 written copy of your comments, please leave a copy

14 in the box by our court reporter over to my left.

15 If you are only submitting written c omments today,

16 please put those in the box by the registration

17 desk out in the hallway. If you have additional

18 comments after today, please follow the

19 instructions on the yellow hando ut and submit your

20 comments by November the 19th.

21 Our goal is to ensure that everybody ha

22

-- who has come today to present testimony is182

1 given an opportunity to provide comment. To the

2 extent allowable by time constraints, we will do

3 our best to accommodate speakers who have not

4 preregistered.

5 Today's hearing is technically scheduled

6 to go to 9 p.m., and we'll stay as late as

7 necessary to allow as many speakers as

-- as

8 possible to provide testimony. We'll also wor k in

9 walk

- ins as time permits.

10 If time does not allow you to present

11 your comments orally, we have prepared a table of

12 the lobby where you can provide a written

13 statement in lieu of oral testimony. These

14 written statements will be collected and entered

15 into the docket for the proposed rule, and will be

16 the same as if you presented them orally.

17 If you want to testify today but have

18 not regist

-- registered to do so, please sign up

19 in the hallway at the table. Also, during the

20 hearing, if you have any questions or co ncerns,

21 please see our staff at the table in the hallway.

22 We're likely to take occasional breaks,183

1 but we like to keep them short in order to allow

2 as many people as possible to provide their oral

3 testimony today.

4 Finally, if you have a cell phone or

5 BlackBerry, please turn it off because it affer

--

6 interferes with, apparently, our system up here.

7 We're going to hear background interference, and

8 want to make sure the court reporter is getting

9 all your testimony. If you have to use your phone

10 at any time, please step into the hallway to be

11 courteous to everybody else here.

12 We ask for your patience as w e proceed,

13 and we might have to make some adjustments as we

14 go forward. Thanks again

-- again for coming. We

15 look forward to hearing your comments.

16 Now we're going to call up the first

17 four people of the afternoon, Numbers 47, 48, 49,

18 and 50.

19 MR. SHEETS: Good afternoon. My name is

20 Dana Sheets, and I'm a principal engineer for

21 American Electric Power.

22 The AEP provides electricity to 5.2184

1 million customers, and is one of the largest

2 generators of electricity in the nation with about

3 38,000 megawatts of generating capacity. This

4 rule is important, and it will directly impact the

5 cost of AEP operations and, hence, increase rates

6 to our customers.

7 Our goal is to minimize those increases

8 to the extent possible, while being protective of

9 human health and the environment. AEP supports

10 regulation of CCRs under RCRA's non

- hazardous

11 waste Subtitle D program, and specifically under

12 the Subtitle D Prime option. The difference

13 between Subtitle D and D Prime is that the la tter

14 will not require the closure of surface

15 impoundments that are being operated with no

16 significant adverse effect on human health and the

17 environment.

18 Th e closure of surface impoundments and,

19 hence, conversion of the generating units to dry

20 ash handling and construction of landfills is a

21 major cost associated with the proposal.

22 And minimizing this cost by allowing185

1 environmentally

- protective surface impoundments to

2 continue to operate throughout their operating

3 life will present the least

- cost impact to our

4 customers.

5 AEP does not support, nor does it think,

6 that the science justifies, regulation of CCRs

7 under the R CRA Subtitle C hazardous waste rules.

8 The requirements for liners, groundwater

9 monitoring, surface impoundment integrity, and

10 corrective action are essentially the same under

11 both Subtitle C and Subtitle D, thereby providing

12 the same level of environmental protection.

13 It appears that the major hurdle for EPA

14 concerning regulation under Subtitle D as opposed

15 to Subtitle C is a perceived lack of federal

16 enforcement authority under Subtitle D. The EPA

17 already has Subtitle D enforcement authority

18 through the provisions of RCRA Section 4010 an d

19 4005, just as it did relative to the Subtitle D

20 rules for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.

21 Under this process, the states can be

22 afforded the opportunity to operate the Sub title D186

1 program either by demonstrating that the state

2 rules already are as stringent as federal Subtitle

3 D rules or by ado pting additional regulations that

4 include the minimum federal standards. If state

5 programs do not adopt the minimum federal

6 standards, the US EPA could step in with direct

7 enforcement authority.

8 This is a win

- win situation for all

9 involved. The EPA has the Subtitle D enforcement

10 authority that it wants, and the states will be

11 afforded the opportunity to run the program.

12 In addition, the stigma and liabilities

13 associated with CCR reuse applications under the

14 hazardous waste Subtitle C option that would, in

15 effect, kill the ash

- utilization industry, along

16 with the many thousands of associated jobs, would

17 be avoided.

18 Finally, under Subtitle D, cost impacts

19 to utility customers would be minimized while

20 protecting human health and the environment.

21 Thank you.

22 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Sheets.187

1 (Applause)

2 MS. GENTILE: Number 48, please, step to

3 the podium.

4 MS. RETHERFORD: Hello, my name is

5 Angila Retherford. And I am director of

6 environmental affairs and corporate sustainability

7 for Vectren Corporation.

8 Vectren will be direct ly impacted by a

9 final coal combustion residuals rule, and very

10 much appreciates the opportunity to speak today on

11 the proposal. Vectren is an investor

- owned

12 utility

- based in Evansville, Indiana that operates

13 two coal

- fired power plants in southwestern

14 Indiana through its subsidiary, Southern Indiana

15 Gas & Electric Company.

16 As part of Vectren's commitment to

1 7 energy conservation and sustainability, a majority

18 of Vectren's CCRs are beneficially reused in

19 concrete and wallboard applications. Vectren

20 generates over 300,000 tons of coal

- combustion

21 residuals each year. Of those 300,000 tons,

22 Vectren collects and markets nearly 100% of its188

1 fly ash to a cement

- production plant in St.

2 Genevieve, Missouri. That's 300,000 tons of fly

3 ash that's no longer back hauled to a surface coal

4 mine or placed in landfills. Vectren als o

5 collects and markets over 50% of its scrubber

6 byproducts as synthetic gypsum.

7 Vectren believes that any regulation

8 that adds a hazardous waste designation for this

9 material, such as the Subtitle C option and the

10 current proposal, could be counterproductive and

11 present a potential stigma on beneficial reuse,

12 effectively undermining successful recycling

13 efforts such as those currently being undertaken

14 by Vectren.

15 Vectren applauds EPAs continued and

16 strong public support for the beneficial reuse of

17 CCRs. Whi le Vectren agrees that increased

18 regulatory costs can incentivise beneficial reuse,

19 the unnecessary classification of this material as

20 hazardous waste will potentially have the opposite

21 effect than that intended by EPA due to the stigma

22 and negative perception of hazardous waste189

1 classifications.

2 As with most sustainability projects,

3 Vectren has found that its customers also benefit

4 directly from the beneficial reuse of these

5 materials due to significant reduced cost in ash

6 handling and disposal cost. This is critical

7 given the pressure on rate payers from increased

8 cost to comply with the myriad of other regulatory

9 compliance requirements recently impose d upon the

10 coal

- fired

- electric

- generating industry.

11 Vectren is a southwestern Indiana

12 utility that relies on local Illinois basin coal

13 for a vast majority of its electric ge neration.

14 And Vectren's rate payers stand to be

15 disproportionately impacted by the increasing

16 regulatory pressure focused on coal

- fired

17 generation.

18 Vectren supports EPA's objective of

19 having a federal regulatory program that ensures

20 the safe disposal of CCRs. As a result, Vectren

21 supports the Subtitle D Prime option with

22 appropriate adjustments. Because of the three190

1 options presented by EPA, this is the option that

2 best balances clean energ y with affordability and

3 reliability.

4 We believe that this regulatory option

5 will best accomplish the objective of ensuring

6 that CCR disposal facilities will be appropriately

7 monitored to ensure that they're operated in a

8 safe and environmentally

- sound manner, and

9 continue to fully support and incentivise the

10 beneficial reuse of CCRs. But unlike the Subtitle

11 C approach, the D Prime option would establish

12 comprehensive regulations for coal

- ash disposal

13 without imposing unreasonable and unnec essary

14 costs on electric rate payers.

15 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms.

16 Retherford. Number 49?

17 (Applause)

18 MR. O'FIELD: My name is Jeff O'Field,

19 and I'm here today with Restoring Eden.

20 Additionally, I represent many other people.

21 As a student of Asbury University, a

22 resident of Bullitt County, Kentucky, a member of191

1 Restoring Eden, the grandson of a West Virginia

2 coal miner, one who has wo rked with children with

3 disabilities, and a young person not easily

4 deterred by false arguments, I cannot find a

5 better place to be today.

6 I'm encouraged by the EPA's commitm ent

7 to sound science, to community involvement, and

8 wise decision

- making in protecting the environment

9 and, in turn, all those who depend upon it.

10 After learning about the tr agedy in

11 Kingston that spurred this proposal, researching

12 the particular contaminates found in coal ash

13 waste, hearing about residents such as those

14 from Dixie Highway in Louisville who have been

15 affected, and that companies responsible for this

16 waste have the means to dispose of it in an

17 ethical way, I am appalled, and angered, yet

18 hopeful that a wise and just decision can be made.

19 For me, it is unacceptable that the

20 residents in lower

- income areas face an increased

21 risk of coal

- ash pollution. It is i mmoral that an

22 easily remedied source of contamination is causing192

1 communities to raise more children with learning

2 disability and birth defects due to arsenic, lead,

3 and mercury poisoning. These are facts contrary

4

-- contrary to my understanding of a just and

5 moral society if that is, in fact, what we believe

6 America to be.

7 And further, if America is to truly po

8

-- prosper, it must take up the ethic of being a

9 good neighbor, of business

-- businesses disposing

10 of waste as to not damage others, just as I am

11 held accountable as an individual citizen. This

12 should be a normal cost of doing business.

13 After talking to fellow students at

14 Asbury University about this issue, biology

15 majors, journalists, artists, political science

16 majors, and everyone who would listen, nearly each

17 and every one of them, hundreds of them, signed a

18 comment in favor of Subtitle C. Most were

19 outraged on the spot, and others were outraged in

20 doing their own research.

21 Their hearts poured out for the affected

22 residents near these sites, for those people they193

1 had known to be affected at home, and for all of

2 God's creation which is being soiled by the

3 irresponsible dumping of coal ash waste; including

4 a story of a friend in Pennsylvania near a

5 community that has been contaminate d by so

- called

6 recycling of coal ash waste. In fact, it poisoned

7 the community.

8 And for all these reasons, I urge the US

9 EPA to pass the Subtitle C proposal to regulate

10 coal ash as the hazardous waste that it is. Thank

11 you.

12 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Jeff. Before

13 you step down, can I get your spelling of your

14 last name just for our record?

15 MR. O'FIELD: It's O

- apostrophe

- F

- i

- e

- l

-

16 d. Thank you.

17 MS. GENTILE: Thanks.

18 (Applause)

19 MS. GENTILE: Nu mber 50, please.

20 MS. KLAWITTER: Hello. Thanks for this

21 opportunity to give some comment. My name is

22 Kathy Klawitter, and I come from southern Indiana.194

1 I represent both myself and Protect Our Woods,

2 which is a

-- an environmental organization which

3 has been working to protect env ironmental quality

4 in southern Indiana for the last 20 or so years.

5 I have been a resident of southern

6 Indiana for about 35 years. And during that time,

7 I've mainly been con cerned, other than being

8 involved with Protect Our Woods, to teaching small

9 children.

10 I'm a mom and I'm a grandma, and I'm

11 very concerned for the health and well

- being of my

12 own grandchildren and children, generally. They

13 are the most vulnerable and face a wide variety of

14 pollutants.

15 These pollutants need to be considered

16 on th eir own, but also in terms of their

17 cumulative effects. Indiana has no regulation for

18 coal

- ash disposal, and that poses serious threats

19 to water quality, especially in the fragile karst

20 topography that's exhibited in southern Indiana.

21 We know coal ash exhibits toxic

22 properties. Without the protections

-- without195

1 the protection of regulations under Subtitle C of

2 the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, these

3 hazardous substances could pollute aquifers. Coal

4 ash could be disposed of with no requirement from

5 monitoring and, consequently, no corrective

6 actions taken, potentially resulting in widespread

7 degradation of water quality.

8 Please regulate fly ash under Subtitle C

9 in order to ensure a healthy environment for our

10 future, and to guarantee an environment that

11 promotes the health and all the human inhabitants

12 of our area.

13 I've listened to a lot of testimony

14 today, and I think there's no question that

--

15 that coal ash exhibits properties that represent

16 toxic waste. And I think if it looks like a duck

17 and it quacks like a duck, it should be classified

18 as such. Thank you very much.

19 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Klawitter.

20 (Applause)

21 MS. GENTILE: Okay. I want to call the

22 next four people up

-- up to the

-- up to the196

1 front. Those are Numbers 51, 52, 53, and 54. 51,

2 please come to the podium when you get to the

3 front of the room. Thank you. Whenever you're

4 ready, sir. Thank you.

5 MR. KEPLINGER: Good afternoon. My name

6 is Brian Keplinger. I'm the operations manager for

7 Gibbco, Incorporated.

8 Gibbco is a recycling business located

9 in Lawrenceburg, Indiana, specializing in the

10 beneficial reuse of boiler slag. Gibbco has been

11 a part of the local Lawrenceburg community for

12 over 45 years. Gibbco's a small family

- op erated

13 business with seven employees, several of whom

14 have over ten years of service. I, along with my

15 seven employees, have worked very diligently to

16 foster and maintain a thriving b usiness in a

-- in

17 an economy that has been difficult, to say the

18 least.

19 At Gibbco, we recycle boiler slag into

20 beneficially reusable products that you may see on

21 a daily basis. The shingles on your roof,

22 beneficially reused boiler slag. The paint work197

1 that you had done on your automo bile, the

2 repainting of your bridges and overpasses,

3 abrasive blasting media, again, beneficially

4 reused from boiler slag. The new black topping

5 laid down on your roadways, the seal

- c oating

6 applied to your asphalt driveway, both made with

7 beneficially reused boiler slag.

8 Being the operations manager, I have a

9 very close working relationship with both the

10 customers that we serve as well as the vendors

11 that serve us. Most all of the customers that I

12 serve have a very close eye on the forthcoming

13 ruling.

14 Regardless of the wording, a Subtitle C

15 designation will force my customers away from the

16 beneficial reuse of boiler

- slag products on to

17 naturally mined materials. Why? Stig ma. Plain

18 and simple stigma. In this litigious society that

19 we live in today, my customers are not willing to

20 risk utilizing a product that in one location is

21 considered hazardous an d in another not.

22 The trickle

- down effect following this198

1 will make it nearly impossible to maintain a

2 viable business, therefore, resulting in the loss

3 of jobs for my employees, as well as a loss of

4 revenue and more jobs in the businesses that serve

5 us.

6 What will the end result be? A Subtitle

7 C designation will result in exactly the opposite

8 result of what the EPA has stated in the memo

9 dated May the 4th of 2010, stating

10 environmentally

- s ound beneficial reuses of ash

11 conserve resource, reduce greenhouse gas

12 emissions, lessen the need for waste disposal

13 units, and provide significant domestic economic

14 benefits.

15 My customers will be forced away from

16 beneficially reused CCPs and towards using mined

17 natural resources requiring additional energy in

18 the form of fossil fuels, natural gas, and

19 electricity, furthering an increase in carbon

20 footprint. These resources will have a greater

21 cost associated with them, a cost that will be

22 passed on to each of us as we use them.199

1 While I applaud the EPA for their work

2 in safeguarding the environment, I have to

3 question how the structural fa ilure of an ash

4 impoundment dike, while certainly a disaster and

5 not to be taken lightly, leads to the regulation

6 of CCPs as a hazardous waste. A Subtitle C

7 designation for the materials that I use every day

8 would have disastrous results for us. Thank you

9 for your time and consideration.

10 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Keplinger.

11 (Applause)

12 MS. GENTILE: 52, 53, 54?

13 MR. HARPER: My name is Brian Harper.

14 I'm the president and director of technical

15 services for t he Pearce Ready Mix Concrete

16 Company, which is a local Ready Mix Concrete

17 manufacturer.

18 For years, federal, state, and local

19 governments, along with various environmental

20 organizations, have stressed to businesses and

21 individuals the need for recycling and reusing

22 products' waste and materials. Based on their200

1 educational efforts and scientific information,

2 the entrepreneurial strength of our country and

3 the world have built and evolved entire businesses

4 to aid and assist wi th the reuse and recycling of

5 many hundreds of different materials with coal fly

6 ash being one of these products.

7 The ready mix Concrete industry is a

8 user of coal fly ash. Most construction projects

9 include ready mix concrete in buildings, homes,

10 apartments, hospitals, schools, shopping centers,

11 grocery stores, roads, bridges, and other items.

12 Ready mix concrete typically includes

13 some percentage of fly ash. Using fly ash in

14 ready mix concrete provides many benefits, not

15 only the recycling of the fly ash material, but

16 also to the quality, durability, and economy of

17 all of the above

- mentioned building projects.

18 Professional designers who say fly ash has many

19 benefits and cost effectiveness typica lly specific

20 the use of fly ash in most construction projects.

21 I am concerned about the negative

22 impacts that this public debate may have on the201

1 perception of using of fly ash in any form. I

2 urge you to make decisions concerning whether to

3 label fly ash as a hazardous mat erial based on

4 sound, scientific data and discussion and not on

5 emotion.

6 Labeling fly ash as a hazardous material

7 will stop most of the use of this product in any

8 type of capacity due to perceived liability

9 issues, and will currently add an additional 30

10 million tons of fly ash to existing or new

11 landfills, thus compounding problems with storage

12 that already exist.

13 I support the protection of human health

14 and the environment. I also sup

-- support

15 responsible recycling of fly ash without creating

16 undue burdens or concerns in the user marketplace.

17 If the EPA designates fly ash as a special waste

18 or a hazardous material under Subsitle

-- Subtitle

19 C, this would bring an uncertainty or stigma to

20 the product that will be detrimental to any and

21 all recycling efforts.

22 My company has used fly ash in ready mix202

1 concrete for over 25 years. But if it were

2 re

- labeled as a hazardous material, we would be

3 forced to no longer use this time

- proven beneficial

4 material ingredient due to a simple change of

5 wording. Coal fly ash should not be labeled

6 hazardous if it can be controlled by non

- hazardous

7 regulations. Thank you for allowing me to express

8 my opinion.

9 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Harper.

10 (Applause)

11 MS. GENTILE: I'd like to call the

12 following four people to the front of the room:

13 Number 55, 57, 59, and 81. We're jumping around a

14 bit now.

15 And Number 81, please come to the podium

16 when you get to the front of the room. Is Number

17 81

-- whenever you're ready, sir.

18 MR. LAMAIRE: My name is Walter LaMaire,

19 director of Mineral Resource Technologies, MRT.

20 MRT is a coal

- combustion marketing and

21 management company that promotes, manages, and

22 expands and developed

-- the developed beneficial203

1 applications for CCPs along with our sister

2 companies. I would like to thank today's EPA

3 panel for giving me the time to address the recent

4 proposal for the disposal of CCPs from electric

5 utilities.

6 In the proposal, the EPA has asked for

7 examples of the stigma claimed by many in the CCP

8 beneficial use industry. Although

-- although the

9 full effect of its stigma cannot be realized until

10 the proposed rule making is finalized, there have

11 been some

-- a few examples of how potential end

12 users will react to a Subtitle C ha zardous

13 classification of fly ash.

14 In a letter from the Los Angeles Unified

15 School District dated April 27th, 2010 in

16 reference to the Design Procedure Clarification

17 Number 154, it states, quote, "Stop the use of fly

18 ash in LAUSD projects until the EPA confirms fly

19 ash to be a non

- hazardous toxic waste," end quote,

20 and this is to be implemented to, quote, "All

21 projects," end quote.

22 The Marquette Board of Light and Power204

1 is building a new dam at the Marquette Tourist

2 Park. Traditionally, fly ash is used in large

3 mass concrete pours, such as dams, to control the

4 heat of hydration, prevent cracking, decrease

5 permeability, and lengthen service life.

6 The owner's design engineers specified a

7 concrete mix design that prohibited fly ash being

8 of the po

-- fly ash because of the potential

9 hazardous classification by the EPA. Due to the

10 exclusion of fly ash, the concrete required

11 massive amounts of ice that increased the cost,

12 degraded the permeability and long

- term durability

13 of the project.

14 The American Coad

-- the American

15 Concrete Institute, ACI, is a non

- profit technical

16 and education society organized in 1904, and is

17 one of the world's leading authorities on concrete

18 technology. ACI publishes reliable infloma

--

19 information on concrete and its applications,

20 conducts educational seminars, and provides a

21 standard certification program for t he industry.

22 They've conducted a survey to determine205

1 how the specifiers and end users will use CCPs in

2 the future based on the proposed EPA ruling.

3 There have been 1211 respondents to date, and the

4 survey should be completed and compiled b y the

5 close of public comments on November 19th, 2010.

6 Preliminary results indicate that among

7 producers and suppliers, only 3% would increase

8 and 52% would decrease or cease CCP use under a

9 Subtitle C designation, while 31% remai n

10 uncertain. Among architects and engineers, only

11 4% would increase, and 43% would decrease or cease

12 CCP use under a Subtitle C regulation. Among

13 government entities and educators, o nly 6% would

14 increase and 19% would decrease or cease CCP use,

15 while 35% are uncertain under a Subtitle C

16 regulation.

17 MRT fully supports the A

-- EPA's

18 proposed RCRA Subtitle D

--

19 MS. GENTILE: Mr. LaMaier, your time is

20 up. Thank you for your comments.

21 (Applause)

22 MR. LAMAIRE:

-- op tion to manage CCPs.206

1 This option increases the existing physical

2 requirements and management guidelines of CCPs on

3 a federa l level almost identically to the RCRA

4 Subtitle C option, but allows CCPs to remain

5 clearly classified as non

- hazardous materials.

6 Should the EPA choose to reclassify CCPs under

7 RCRA Subtitle C, the encapsulated beneficial uses

8 supported by the EPA could be severely limited or

9 potentially eliminated due to end consumer

10 concerns.

11 I wo uld like to thank the EPA Panel for

12 allowing my company to address some of our

13 concerns.

14 MS. GENTILE: 55?

15 MS. SCHROEDER: My name is Camilla

16 Schr oeder, and I'm the president and owner of

17 Advance Ready Mix Concrete, a local concrete

18 manufacturer. As a company tied to the

19 construction materials industry and the local

20 economy, I welcome you to Louisville.

21 Our company, like most major ready mix

22 concrete producers, is a user of fly ash. Most of207

1 the buildings, roadways, bridges, airports, and

2 concrete construction that you see has fly ash in

3 the mix design.

4 I see the benefits of recycling coal fly

5 as h brings to the concrete industry. I see the

6 improvements and the quality the fly ash provides

7 to our concrete. Our infrastructure lasts longer

8 because of the durability that fly ash adds to the

9 cured concrete. I choose to use fly ash because

10 it makes our products better and more cost

11 competitive.

12 EPA's act

-- actions related to disposal

13 of fly ash will have a direct impact on our

14 company's commitment to use fly ash as an

15 ingredient. As a business owner, I am concerned

16 about the negative impacts that the public debate

17 on ash regulations as a hazard

-- hazardous waste

18 is having on the image of fly ash. I am

19 comfortable about the safety of using fly ash in

20 concrete, and I am concerned about the publi c

21 perception associated with the labeling of ash as

22 a hazard.208

1 I know it is not hazardous. The entire

2 concrete industry knows fly ash is not hazardous,

3 but the consuming public is confused. Even

4 engineers and specification writers who understand

5 the technical issues and spe

-- specific data are

6 concerned about liabilities that would be

7 associated with specifying a product that is

8 called hazardous if disposed but not hazardous

--

9 non

- hazardous if recycled.

10 I support protection of human health and

11 environment. I also support reasonable recycling

12 of coal ash without creating undue concerns in the

13 user markets. I feel that disposal can be

14 regulated without compromising greater recycling

15 capabilities of coal ash.

16 Both of these goals cannot be

17 accomplished if the Environmental Protection

18 Agency designates coal as

-- coal ash as a

19 hazardous special waste under Subtitle C. This

20 classification would bring an uncertainty or

21 stigma to the general population, and would be

22 detrimental to the recycling efforts.209

1 Coal ash recycling and our company has a

2 long successful history, and the pro ducts have

3 proven value. Coal fly ash should not be labeled

4 hazardous if it can be controlled by non

- hazardous

5 regulations. Coal ash recycling, with its many

6 environmental benefits, needs to be preserved.

7 States have demonstrated their ability to regulate

8 garbage waste, and coal ash can just as easily be

9 managed by states.

10 I encourage you to use science in your

11 decisions, and avoid handcuffing fly ash with a ha

12

-- a label as hazardous. Thank you for the

13 opportunity to speak.

14 MS. GENT ILE: Thank you, Ms. Schroeder.

15 (Applause)

16 MS. GENTILE: 56?

17 MR. WEISS: Good afternoon. My name is

18 David Weiss. I'm director of energy and

19 environmental public affairs with Duke Energy,

20 Indiana, testifying today on behalf of Duke

21 Energy.

22 We believe that regulation under210

1 Subtitle C is unwarranted both environmentally and

2 economically, but Duke Energy strongly supports

3 the development of reasonable federal regulations

4 for coal

- combustion residuals under EPA's Subtitle

5 D non

- hazardous waste program. And we are not the

6 only ones who think so. EPA's own previous studies

7 and p ast rule

- makings also support this approach.

8 The development of Subtitle D

9 regulations would be appropriate outgrowth of

10 EPA's two reports to the Congress and two final

11 regulatory determinations under the Bevill

12 Amendment declaring that CCRs do not warrant

13 hazardous waste regulation under RCRA Subtitle C.

14 Throughout EPA's 20 years of study, i t

15 has consistently found that Subtitle D approach

16 with active state involvement was the appropriate

17 regulatory course for CCRs. Various state and

18 federal agencies, universities, and o thers have

19 studied CCRs for nearly three decades. These

20 entities evaluated CCRs for toxicity levels and

21 found them to be well below the criteria that

22 would be a required hazardous was te designation.211

1 First in its 1993 regulatory

2 determination, and then again in its second report

3 to Congress in 1999, and then again in 2000, EPA

4 concluded that Subtitle D is more appropriate for

5 addressing the limited human health and

6 environmental risk that may be associated with the

7 disposal of these wastes.

8 The factors that EPA used in reaching

9 its final determination that CCRs do not warrant

10 regulation as hazardous waste include (1) CCRs

11 rarely exhibit a hazardous waste classification;

12 (2) recent trends demonstrate CCR disposal and

13 utilization practices are improving; and (3) the

14 current and potential beneficial use of CCRs are

15 important advantages.

16 Since the initiation of this rule

- making

17 effort, an over whelming number of government

18 entities have gone on record supporting a

19 non

- hazardous waste designation, including more

20 than two dozen state environmental protection

21 agencies, a bipartisan group of 165 members of

22 Congress and 45 U.S. senators.212

1 The Subtitle D option provides the only

2 reasonable and lawful regulatory approach for

3 these materials under RCRA. The charact eristics

4 of CCRs have not changed since EPA's last

5 determination, and there's no new science to

6 support a federal hazardous designation.

7 Adoption of the Subtitle C Option will only

8 raise electric costs for consumers and jeopardize

9 CCR reuse without delivering additional health

10 benefits. Thank you.

11 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Weiss.

12 (Applause)

13 MS. GENTILE: 59?

14 MR. KRAMER: Good afternoon. My name is

15 Bruce Kramer, and I'm executive C

-- VP and CFO

16 for Charah, Inc.

17 Charah is a 23

- year

- old company with

18 250

- plus employees in 11 states engaged in

19 recycling of coal combustion residuals. In

20 addition to direct employees, we contract for

21 haulers, lab services, and an assortment of

22 support jobs that are dependent on coal ash213

1 recycling.

2 Coal ash is our core business, and

3 finding technology

- blased

-- based solutions to

4 expand recycling of coal ash is one of our

5 business focuses. Our approach for responsible

6 managem ent of CCRs has provided for consistent

7 company growth, along with opportunities for job

8 creation within our organization and the

9 organizations with whom we contract.

10 Our company is very active in the

11 recycling of coal combustion products that are

12 derived from coal ash, and we are proud to be

13 associated with one of the most successful

14 recycling industries in the United States.

15 Many references have been made to the

16 TVA Kingston coal ash release in December of 2008

17 as justification for classifying CCRs as a

18 hazardous waste under Subtitle C. However, the

19 conclusions in the public assessment released by

20 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

21 on September 7th are inconsistent with th at

22 position.214

1 The U.S. Department of Health and Human

2 Services concluded, and I quote, "Based on

3 environmental test results, the Tennessee

4 Department of Health does not expect harm to

5 health from touching, eating, drinking, or

6 breathing the metals in coal fly ash." It goes on

7 to say, "Any exposures would have been very brief,

8 and any possible absorption of metals from the

9 coal ash would have been undetectable."

10 Charah supports the EPA's effort to

11 implement regulations on the disposal of CCPs,

12 under Subtitle D, which would be consistent with

13 two previous decisions made by the EPA, concluding

14 that CCPs do not warrant classification as

15 hazardous materials. The EPA's assumption that

16 the Subtitle C regulation will result in an

17 increase in beneficial use is contrary to our

18 experience as a daily participant in the

19 beneficial

- use marketplace.

20 Further, our experience has already

21 demonstrated that the stigma impact is causing

22 users of ash to switch to other materials because215

1 of fear of negative publicity associated with the

2 proposed rules and references in the media to

3 toxic or hazardous waste.

4 We do not feel the approach of

5 regulating CCR disposal under Subtitle C, while

6 maintaining their Bevill exception status for

7 recycling, will be successful in a beneficial

- use

8 marketplace. We do not believe there to be enough

9 difference between the environmental protective

10 features proposed in the Subtitle C and D Options

11 to warrant risking damage to the marketability of

12 CCRs that we believe will accompany a Subtitle C

13 classification; nor do we believe the risk is

14 worth jeopardizing the hu ndreds of direct and

15 indirect jobs supported by Charah and our

16 recycling efforts. Thank you.

17 MS. GENTILE: Thank you.

18 (Applause)

19 MS. GENTILE: Folks, we're a little bit

20 ahead of schedule, so now I'm going to call some

21 of the numbers I have here of folks who had

22 registered today who did not register in a dvance.216

1 So we're going to be going out of order, so listen

2 closely if your number gets called. 124

-- is 124

3 here? 149? Please come when you

-- when I call

4 you, just come on and sit up here. We'll see how

5 many people we can

-- we can squeeze in. 149,

6 317, 318, or 309? Anyone? 310?

7 Okay. 1 24, you can get started whenever

8 you're ready.

9 MR. EDWARDS: My name is Billy Edwards.

10 I'm from Winchester, Kentucky in small community

11 called Trapp where we are looking at, for the last

12 30 years, Eastern Kentucky Power has been trying

13 to build a coal

- fired plant. And this is their

14 third attempt coming up.

1 5 My concern is

-- is that your plan on

16 building a 236

- acre landfill for the fly ash coal

17 ash that's going to be stored there, this, in 12

18 years, would be as much as ten stories tall. I'm

19 kind of encouraged by the recycling efforts that

20 people have stated in the concrete business and

21 everything, but I'm really discouraged about

22 building a 238

- acre coal ash landfill tha t would217

1 go ten stories hall with

-- tall with plastic

2 liners that are good for many years, but my

3 problem is

-- is what happens after those years.

4 Regulating coal ash into a landfill must

5 be done. Regulating coal ash that is being

6 recycled might be a whole new adventure, and that

7 should be kept open; but to store it for years and

8 years and years that can be compressed and

9 changed, the chemical makeup of it, and then

10 filter into the Kentucky River, whic h is less than

11 a mile away from where they propose to do that,

12 could impact the mu

-- the water for Winchester as

13 well as Lexington for many years.

14 There's a 30

- mile stretch from the

15 Kentucky River that has already the highest

16 mercury content in the country. By adding more

17 landfills for coal ash, most likely it will

18 increase that to a devastating area in our future

19 for our grandchildren. Let's not leave our

20 great

- grandchildren and grandchildren something

--

21 a mess from us that we caused to be cleaned up by

22 them. Thank you.218

1 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Edwards.

2 (Applause)

3 MS. GENTILE: 149? 318?

4 MS. KUHN: Good afternoon. My name is

5 Kelly Kuhn. I come here from Indianapolis,

6 Indiana.

7 And I just want to s ay I've been very

8 lucky that, in my personal life, I've not been

9 directly impacted by coal ash as many people who

10 have presented here today have been. However,

11 through my work with th e Hoosier Environmental

12 Council, I have been very lucky to meet a lot of

13 wonderful residents around the state of Indiana

14 who, unfortunately, have had to watch their

15 family, friends, an d neighbors deal with the

16 impact of contamination to their drinking water

17 and the air they breathe from coal ash.

18 I just want to say that the current lack

19 of regulation in public protection provided by the

20 state of Indiana is a clear sign that Subtitle D

21 will not work to protect our citizens. For

-- for

22 that reason I support

-- (clears t hroat) excuse me219

1

-- Subtitle C and the protection of public health.

2 Thank you.

3 MS. GENTILE: Thank you.

4 (Applause)

5 MS. GENTILE: 317? 309?

6 MS. KASTNER: Hi. My name is Lauren

7 Kastner, and I'm a representative of the

-- of the

8 Sierra Club and the Sierra Student Coalition and

9 the Beyond Coal Campaign at Indiana University in

10 Bloomington, Indiana.

11 But I can speak for the thousands of

12 students who are fighting coal issues on their

13 campuses nationwide, and are demanding that we can

14 no longer continue to ignore coal's devastating

15 effects from cradle to grave. In I

-- at IU, we

16 burn 68,000 tons of coal every year in the middle

17 of our campus right behind the Number 1

18 environmental policy school and one of the best

19 business schools in the country, yet the EPA has

20 not made any incentive for these two centers of

21 intervention to be applied to coal issues.

22 Just two miles away, there's a coal ash220

1 storage site that holds our central heating

2 plant's ash waste from the 1970. It was

3 discovered at the beginning of this summer that

4 the site is leaking into Griffy Lake, which

5 property jointly owned and managed by the

6 university and the City of Bloomington, and it has

7 been identified as a future drinking water source.

8 While our coal ash footprint extends as far as

9 Gibson County, Indiana, where IU's coal is mined

10 and is now dumped, the problem has now reached our

11 backyard.

12 In May of this year, the EPA wrote,

13 quote, "Maintaining a non

- hazardous approach would

14 not be protective of human and the environment."

15 In my opinion, it seems obvious that, a bove all

16 else, human and the environmental protection would

17 be the only priority of any regulatory agency when

18 the facts are this clear.

19 I represent the generation that is

20 tasked with cleaning up the industry's mess and

21 picking up the pieces. The choice between

22 Subtitle C and Subtitle D as the choi

-- is the221

1 choice between protection and exploitation and

2 oftentimes life and death.

3 Any one of the hazards posed by coal ash

4 is reason enough to choose the stronger protection

5 under the law of Subtitle C, and anything less

6 than that would be blatant negligence and would,

7 therefore, be shirking your duties as the

8 Environmental Protection Agency.

9 As a young person, is this the world

10 that I'm meant to inherit, a world where the

11 profits of few are placed over the well

- being of

12 many? At what point do we finally put people over

13 profits?

14 I am a part of the university system

15 that has left us out to dry on the issue of coal

16 ash waste manag ement, and they have basically

17 taken a page out of the industry's book on this

18 one. And so we are looking to the EPA for the

19 strongest protection we can possibly get and

20 deserve. Thank you.

21 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Kastner.

22 (Applause)222

1 M S. GENTILE: 310?

2 MS. MOOD: Hi. My name's Aliya Mood. I

3 also attend Indiana University and am a part of

4 the Sierra Student Coalition's Beyond Coal

5 campaign at IU.

6 I actually have come to speak here today

7

-- I've foregone all my classes and exam,

8 actually, to speak on this issue because it's

9 something I feel very impassioned about. I'm also

10 a member of the Bloomington community, as I was

11 born and raised there all my life.

12 And I've spent many times at Griffy

13 Lake, like Lauren was talking about, and have seen

14 it's beauty in many ways, more than one. And it

15

-- it frightens me to know that there is this coal

16 ash site near Griffy Lake that is leaking into it,

17 which is eventually a future drinking water. And

18 it fear

-- it scares me to think of all the other

19 lakes across the country that this same thing is

20 happening to.

21 Coal ash is bad, and it's morally

--

22 it's just a moral issue. I don't want my children223

1 to be drinking toxic water or to bre

-- breathing

2 toxic air, living on a toxic earth. And that's

3 all I have to say. Thank you.

4 MS. GENTILE: Thank you.

5 (Applause)

6 MS. GENTILE: I want to call up Numbers

7 319, 60, 61, and 62. Again, 319, 60, 61, and 62.

8 Mr. Dew, whenever you're ready.

9 MR. DEW: Good afternoon. I had not

10 intended to speak. I do not have prepared

-- my

11 notes, but I've been sitting listening to what's

12 been going on, and I'm struck with two ideas.

13 One is while coal ash may be being

14 recycled

-- and I think that's a wonderful id ea

15 and I congratulate the folks in that industry for

16 doing what they are doing

-- I'm concerned that so

17 much coal ash is not being recycled. In the part

18 of Kentucky where I live aroun d Owensboro,

19 Owensboro Municipal Utilities is dumping coal ash

20 into former coal mines in Hancock County, south of

21 Lewisburg.

22 Many truck loads per day are going into224

1 this landfill, which has no lining, which has no

2 regulatory wells around it, and which is simply

3 going to be some day a

-- a toxic dump site.

4 At Roberts, Kentucky, the Reed plant of

5 Kinergy has a huge ash pile, similar, not quite as

6 big, as the one here in southwestern Lo uisville,

7 but almost.

8 And so consequently, when we talk about

9 recycling coal ash, while possibly it is a good

10 thing, it is only dealing with a fraction of the

11 problem. Only a fraction. And there is so much

12 that is going on in Kentucky that is unregulated.

13 And I can speak specifically to

14 Kentucky. I'm the director of the

15 Tradew ater

- Lower Green River Watershed Watch and a

16 former director of the Western Kentucky Sierra

17 Club Water Sentinels. I have a Ph.D. degree, as

18 some people have cited earlier.

19 The director of the Kentucky Division of

20 Water has indicated that his conception of his

21 agency is as a permit

- writing agency, not as a

22 regulatory agency. Given this attitude on the225

1 part of state government in the Commonwealth of

2 Kentucky, Option D seems like an option for

3 anarchy. We cannot rely in the Commonwealth of

4 Kentucky on the

-- for the state department

-- for

5 the state agencies, either air or water, to

6 effectively, effectively, effectively regulate

7 anything. Thank you very much.

8 (Applause)

9 MS. GENTILE: Thank you very much, sir.

10 Okay. Let me try a few more walk

- ins. Numbers

11 317, 311, 14 9. I know. Okay. 149? 149, as soon

12 as you're ready, get started. Thank you.

13 MR. MATHIS: Good afternoon. My name is

14 Ken Mathis, and I'm a resident of southwest

15 Jefferso n County and Shively. I've lived there

16 all my life. I'm a member of the Sierra Club, the

17 National Audubon Society, the Rocky Mountain

18 Health Foundation, and the National Wildlife

19 Fed eration. I've been a hunter and a fisher, and

20 I've been a gardener all my life.

21 And without getting technical here, I

22 would like to ask you

- all to ask yourselves some226

1 questions. Would you take coal ash and spread it

2 on your garden, your flower garden? Would you

3 spread it on your vegetable gar den to

-- to loosen

4 the soil, like you do, and amend that soil? Would

5 you take coal ash and put it around the sandbox

6 that your grandkids play in? Put it under the

7 swing set, you kno w?

8 Would you kindly take a ride down Dixie

9 Highway before you leave here today or tomorrow

10 and take a look at the ash pile? Go down Cra

--

11 Cane Run Road and look at the homes and riverside

12 gardens, and Lees Lane. Tell me you want to live

13 there. Tell me you want that coal ash blowing in

14 your house. Tell me that you want your kids

15 playing in that crud.

16 If you do, let the state of Kentucky

17 make suggestions and continue the way we have

18 been. I f we want a clean, safe environment, let's

19 strictly regulate coal ash.

20 If it has beneficial purpose, like

21 wallboard or any other product that would be

22 useful, then let's test it to make sure that it227

1 doesn't come out. Let's not get some insulation

2 and wallboard, like we got out of China, that we

3

-- it's full of chemicals and

-- and problems that

4 has been used in Florida, that we have to tear

5 apart whole

-- whole subdivisions to correct a

6 problem.

7 This is one of those pay me now or pay

8 me later deals. If this goes on and ash piling

9 continues and

-- it's going to be a pay me later.

10 And our kids and grandkids are going to pay for

11 it, and your kids and grandkids are going to pay

12 for it. And it's going to come out of all of our

13 pockets sooner or later.

14 Profit is not a four

- letter word. I'm

15 not opposed to profit. I'm a practicing attorney.

16 I work for industry, General Electric, and there's

17 nothing wrong with profit. Clean profit, clean

18 energy, and clean coal, there's no such thing.

19 Thank you.

20 MS. GENTILE: Thank you.

21 (Applause)

22 MS. GENTILE: 317? 311?228

1 MR. GREVEN: My name is Nic holas Greven.

2 I'm a freshman in Indiana University in

3 Bloomington. I'm also a member of the Beyond Coal

4 Sierra Club campaign.

5 I'd like to voice my support for

6 category

-- categorization of coal ash under

7 Subtitle C, recognize the

-- recognizing the

8 potential for job loss within the CCR industry and

9 higher electricity prices that may result. As

10 painful as this is, I believe categorization under

11 Subtitle C is an imperative step in the direction

12 of requiring the coal industry to absorb the cost

13 of its environmentally

- destruc tive practices, and

14 leveling the playing field for the clean energy

15 alternatives that must be the energy sources of

16 the future. That's it.

17 MS. GENTILE: Thank you.

18 (Applause)

19 MS. GENTILE: 60, 61, 62, and 63.

20 Number 60? Please come to the podium. Thank you.

21 MR. CAMPBELL: Good afternoon. My name

22 is Tyler Campbell, and I am with Commerce229

1 Lexington in central Kentucky. And I represent

2 our 1800 members that are located throughout

3 central

-- the central Kentucky region.

4 I'm here today just to make a few brief

5 comments. And thank you for allowing me the

6 opportunity to speak.

7 Commerce Lexington, Incorporated opposes

8 the regulation of coal combustion residuals under

9 RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste rules. We would

10 urge EPA to develop federal non

- hazardous waste

11 regulations for coal ash under Subtitle D of RCRA.

12 Several state environmental protections

13 agencies, members of Congress, ash marketers, and

14 industries that use coal ash for a myriad of

15 beneficial uses, and virtually every business

16 center that has contacted EPA on this matter,

17 would urge

-- probably urge you to follow this

18 approach. A lot of these differen t groups have

19 indicated that this would allow EPA to work with

20 each of the states and

-- implementing regulations

21 that are fully effective to protect health

--

22 human health and the env ironment without230

1 negatively impacting a coal

- beneficial use.

2 Again, for

-- for the members of my

3 organization, the

-- we represent electric

4 utilities, power plants, and we also have a rep

--

5 representation of ash marketers. The materials

6 that these are

-- that coal ash used for, a nd

--

7 and has been stated here today, include cement and

8 concrete applications. They're found in highway

9 constructions programs and wallboard

10 manufacturing, drywall. And all of this c an be

11 used to reduce the volume of disposed waste

12 without endangering health and

-- human health and

13 the environment.

14 The regulation of and the disposal CCRs

15 under RCRA's hazardous waste rules, even with an

16 exemption for beneficial use, could have a dedest

17

-- a devastating impact on CPR

-- CCR beneficial

18 use because of the stigma associated with

19 regulating any CCRs under the hazardous waste

20 program.

21 Given the overwhelming economic

22 challenges confronting all sectors of the U.S.231

1 economy, we honestly believe that it's absolutely

2 critical the EPA and the state come to a

3 resolution regulating coal ash under Subtitle D in

4

-- in an effort to work with the states, and not

5 impose unnecessary regulation and controls on the

6 electric power industry. And that would drive

--

7 serve to drive up cost for the busin ess community

8 and con

-- and residential consumers. Thank you.

9 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Campbell.

10 62?

11 MS. PAYNE: My name is Deborah Payne,

12 a nd I'm the energy and health coordinator for

13 Kentucky Environmental Foundation. Thank you for

14 hearing my comments on the health concerns

15 associated with the storage and secondary use of

16 coal ash.

17 While improved EPA regulations have

18 focused on reducing contaminants from our air by

19 placing scrubbers on smoke stacks, insufficient

20 emphasis has been place d on what happens to these

21 toxins on c e they've been removed and how they

22 affect us later in coal's life cycle as ash. Coal232

1 ash, as we

-- has been heard, contains lead,

2 mercury, cadmium, ar

-- arsenic, chromium, and

3 other toxic metals.

4 If consumed through eating, drinking, or

5 inha lation, these contaminants can affect the

6 bladder, lungs, skin, kidneys, liver, and

7 prostate; cause stomach pain, nausea, vomiting,

8 partial paralysis, and blindness. They can affect

9 the development of our children and lead to

10 long

- term damage of the brain. Stronger

11 regulations ensure that our health is preserved,

12 putting the cost up front to ensure millions are

13 not spent later for the

-- caring for those that

14 suffer from cancer, organ damage, cognitive and

15 developmental disorders down the line.

16 Heavy metals leach from the coal ash

17 ponds like water poured through coffee grounds to

18 make coffee. Once these toxic materials make it

19 into the water supply, they do not break down as

20 they are in their elemental form.

21 These metals can spread through the

22 environment as runoff, seep into our ground water233

1 supply, and move through the air as fine particles

2 and dust unchecked and un

-- unregulated. The EPA

3 has found that if you live near an unlined coal

4 ash site and drink water from a wel l, that you are

5 at risk of getting a

-- your risk of getting

6 cancer is as great as 1 in 50.

7 Select

-- selecting Subtitle D would

8 allow coal ash to be used for secondary purpo ses.

9 Uses such as fill for the con

-- contouring of

10 land on golf courses, grit for icy roadways, and

11 storage in abandoned mines have allowed toxic

12 metals to wash into our ground water.

13 The cost of health care are much greater

14 than the profits that would be made from

15 alternative uses. We know that exposure to coal

16 ash can cause disease. What we don't know is how

17 many lives may be impacted if coal is allowed to

18 continue to be used for secondary uses and stored in

19 insufficient containment ponds.

20 We need to shift this conversation from

21 economi c s to our health. Placing the decisions of

22 how a toxic metal is

-- is managed into the hands234

1 of those who produce it eliminates the opportunity

2 for those who are exposed to it to have a voice.

3 We know that elements of coal ash can

4 harm our health. It's time for the EPA to make

5 the right decision and select Subtitle C,

6 classifying coal ash as the toxic substance that

7 it is. By placing the burden of protection on

8 those generating the waste and ensuring that its

9 disposal is effectively regulated, we can pro

--

10 work to protect the health of all of our citizens.

11 Thank you.

12 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Payne.

13 (Applause)

14 MS. GENTILE: Now we'd like to call to

15 the front of the room Numbers 64. 65, 66, and 67.

16 Yeah, Number 64, p lease take your place at the

17 podium and start whenever you're ready.

18 MS. MERRITT: Hi. My name is Lauren

19 Merritt. I'm a student at the Southern Baptist

20 Theological Seminary here in Louisville.

21 I am not here because this has affected

22 me in any way, but I cannot study the word of God235

1 and ignore what it says about issues like the one

2 that we face today. Among all people groups in

3 the world, there are similar moral codes. And

4 topping the human mora l conscience is the idea

5 that you don't harm innocent people. Most

6 cultures find it exceedingly honorable to actively

7 help people, especially if you don't stand to

8 benefit.

9 In the gospel accounts of the Bible,

10 Jesus tells a story about a man walking down the

11 road who is attacked by robbers, stripped, beaten,

12 and left to die. Two men of high stan ding walk by

13 and pass far on the other side of the road. Then

14 a man from the enemy people group, a Samaritan,

15 sees the man and has compassion on him.

16 He treats his wounds, p uts him on the

17 back of his own animal, and walks him to an inn;

18 where he pays the innkeeper, telling him to take

19 good care of the stranger; promising that whatever

20 he spends on top of that amount, he will pay

21 when he returns.

22 This story Jesus told to a man who236

1 asked, "Who is my neighbor?" He wanted to know,

2 essentially, what is my responsibility toward

3 other people. "Who do I concern myself with?"

4 Through this story, Jesus answers, "Everyon e," and

5 he tells the man, "You go and do likewise."

6 That demand is on us today. The problem

7 is we all love things other than God and more than

8 we love our neighbors. And th e love of power or

9 status keeps us from acting in the way of the good

10 Samaritan.

11 These people, the first two men, walk

12 by, and they felt they couldn't condescend

13 themselves to care for a dying stranger. Often,

14 the love of the money holds us back more than

15 anything. The Samaritan could have thought, "I

16 can't" or "I won't pay to help this man wh o I owe

17 nothing," but this is the action that God demands

18 of us: To love our neighbor as ourselves.

19 What sort of fallen humanity comes up with

20 the idea that harming an innoc ent person is

21 acceptable as long it happens anonymously and

22 below a certain statistical threshold? This is237

1 what is happeni ng here with coal ash, which we

2 know is toxic and has the potential to cause harm.

3 And that's why I'm here, though this

4 does not affect me or my family, imploring those

5 with power to make changes in the right direction.

6 There are people who can speak more on the science

7 and the industrial aspects of this, but I'm simply

8 asking you to look in the face o f the problem,

9 listen to these stories, and recognize these

10 people

- these are my neighbors.

11 These are not strangers or statistics or

12 acceptable margins of toxic seepage. These are

13 people I'm supposed to care for when it is in my

14 power to do so, and it is.

15 Consider this: When you stand before

16 God, all your profit, savings, homes, cars, jobs,

17 employees, friends, and family gone and of no

18 significance, you will be held to account. One

19 day this economy will be no excuse. And to God, I

20 assure you, it is not.

21 Will you say, "I erred on the side of

22 profit, caused

-- called this material238

1 non

- hazardous and let innocent men, women, and

2 children bear the cost," or will you say, "I erred

3 on the side of compassion and had regard for the

4 lives of my neighbors, though it came as a cost to

5 myself"? Thank you.

6 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Merritt.

7 (Applause)

8 MS. GENTILE: Number 65.

9 MS. LOVE: Thank you. Good afternoon.

10 My name i s Mary Love, and I am active member of

11 Kentuckians for the Commonwealth and a resident of

12 the greater Metro area.

13 I would first of all

-- to thank you for

14 holding these heari ngs and allowing us to give our

15 input on this very important issue. And thank you

16 for what you've been doing the past two years to

17 enforce the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.

18 I t's giving us hope as we struggle to preserve our

19 beau

-- beautiful Appalachian mountains and save

20 the lives of her people.

21 It's way past time for our nation to

22 face up to the true cost of coal, which, as you239

1 know, is not a cheap source of energy; neither is

2 it clean, and never will b e until the entire cycle

3 of coal, from extraction to disposal of byproducts

4 of burning is truly clean.

5 But today we're here to discuss coal ash

6 and its disposal. And I will disagree with the

7 woman who spoke previous to me. This is

-- this

8 issue does affect her, even though she does not

9 realize it.

10 I grew up in the heart of TVA country,

11 Knoxville, Tennessee. For a time, my uncle lived

12 on the ridge overlooking the Kingston power plant,

13 and we visited him often.

14 So it was with great dread that I

15 watched on the Internet as the story of the coal

16 ash disaster unfolded almost two years ago. I

17 know what that area was like before and I know

18 what it is like now.

19 As a t eenager at summer camp, I swam in

20 Watts Bar Lake, which is downstream from the

21 spill. Today I work, play, and go to church

22 downwind from the Cane Run and Mill Creek240

1 impoundments, and I live seven miles southwest of

2 the Trimble Number 1 impoundment. These are dry

3 ash impoundments, of course, as you know, which

4 means that the ash is free to wash into the river

5 with rain and snow, and to be blown every day over

6 the Louisville Metro area.

7 We already know that our area has

8 extremely high rates of asthma and particulate

9 pollution. The people living near the

10 impoundments have high rates of respiratory

11 illnesses.

12 But I fear that maybe even t he greatest

13 threat to our area comes from the Trimble County

14 impoundment upriver from us. When that

15 impoundment fails, and it sits on the riverbank

16 just like Cane Run and Mill Creek, it will pollute

17 the Ohio River above the water intakes for the

18 Louisville Water Company which serves the entire

19 Metro area. The water supply for hund reds of

20 thousands of people will be affected, much worse

21 than the relatively small number of people

22 affected by the Kingston spill.241

1 I favor the implementation of the first

2 proposal, which would list coal ash as special

3 waste subject to regulation under Subtitle C.

4 Thank you for your time and atte ntion, and thank

5 you very much for adding hearings here in

6 Louisville and particularly in Kingston. Thank

7 you.

8 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Love.

9 (Applause)

10 MS. GENTILE: Number 66.

11 DR. GROPPO: Good afternoon. You are to

12 be commended for your stamina.

13 My name's Dr. Jack Groppo, and I'm a

14 senior engineer at the University of Kentucky

15 Center for Applied Energy Research in Lexington,

16 Kentucky. I've invested the past 15 years of my

17 career on researc h and development projects

18 focused on increasing the amount of coal

19 combustion byproducts recycled in construction and

20 consumer products.

21 As a result of these efforts, I'm the

22 proud recipient of two coal combustion partnership242

1 achievement awards by EPA given for innovation and

2 education. This program was initiated by EPA to

3 recognize achievement for advancing the

4 environmental, economic, and performance benefits

5 of reusing and recy cling coal combustion products.

6 Unfortunately, this program has been suspended

7 pending the outcome of the current classification

8 review.

9 It's my honest opinion as both a

10 concerned citizen and informed scientist that

11 change in the classification of fly ash from

12 non

- hazardous

-- to hazardous would cause irreparable

13 harm to the years of progress made by on e of the

14 most successful recycling programs in the world.

15 The loss of utilization markets would be

16 devastating to the ash utilization industry,

17 resulting in the loss of hundreds of ski lled jobs.

18 Additionally, the cost of concrete will

19 undoubtedly rise, and more expensive sources of

20 raw material will need to be used since the

21 concrete industry has already s tated that it

22 simply will not use a material labeled as243

1 hazardous.

2 Labeling coal combustion products as

3 hazardous would require EPA to reverse not one but

4 two previous informed decisions made in 1993 and

5 2000 after exhaustive technical evaluations. It's

6 all documented, that the chemical constituents of

7 coal ash are commonly found in many everyday

8 products and naturally occurring soils. As such,

9 reclassification as hazardous would be a decision

10 not based on any cri

-- credible scientific

11 evidence whatsoever.

12 If coal ash was actually hazardous, why

13 would numerous countries throughout Europe and the

14 Middle East actually import thousands of tons

15 annually?

16 Tens of millions of dollars have already

17 been invested in commercial ash beneficiation

18 processes that transform ash into a variety of

19 high

- quality

-- quality recycled products for

20 which markets have already been developed.

21 Numerous other process installations are ready to

22 be initiated , but commercial

-- commercialization244

1 activities have been tabled awaiting a final

2 decision by EPA.

3 I urge you to consider the facts before

4 rendering a decision. Coal ash is a useful and

5 necessary material that is vital to sustainable

6 construction. And yes, it is

-- I certainly use

7 it in my vegetable garden. The facts clearly show

8 that coal ash is not hazardous, and changing the

9 classification is not going to change the facts.

10 Thank you.

11 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Groppo.

12 (Applause)

13 MS. GENTILE: 67.

14 MS. CHASE: My name is Alexis Chase, and

15 I'm the executive director of Georgia I nterfaith

16 Power and Light, an organization dedicated to

17 helping communities of faith care for God's

18 creation.

19 I was also born in Kentucky, and my

20 family still lives here. So I very much

21 appreciate the opportunity to testify in favor of

22 classifying coal ash under Subtitle C. In Genesis245

1 129 through 31, God said, "See, I have given you

2 every plant

- yielding seed that is upon the face of

3 all the earth and every tree with seed in its

4 fruits. You shall h ave them for food. And to

5 every beast of the earth and to every bird in the

6 air and to everything that creeps on the earth,

7 everything that has the breath of life, I have

8 given every green plant for food. And so it was."

9 "God saw everything that God had made

10 and, indeed, it was very good. And there was

11 evening and there was morning on the sixth day."

12 So God breathed the breath of life into

13 all of creation, and after bringing all of

14 creation, the very next thing that God does is God

15 calls it good. And indeed, everything th at God

16 created was good. As a person of faith, I take

17 scripture seriously, I take my theological

18 traditions seriously, and I take God very

19 seriously.

20 And b ecause of this, I am encouraged

21 that at this moment in scripture, God looks around

22 that all God has created, and proclaims it good.246

1 Because we have been given something good, and we

2 have been given the opportunity to care for

3 creation and to keep all that God has created

4 good. Because God continues to see all of us and

5 see all of creation, and God continues to see the

6 mountains we destroy, the coal we burn, the water

7 in the rivers we pollute, and the coal ash that we

8 dispose of, and it is not go od.

9 We are not keeping all that God has

10 created good, because what is our responsibility

11 as people

-- people of faith that take our faith

12 seriously, our scripture seriously, and our God

13 seriously. What should we do with the creation

14 that God has given us?

15 God requires us to keep all that God has

16 created and loves good. Subtitle C is a profound

17 and significant way for us right here and right

18 now to keep all that God has created good. To

19 adopt Subtitle C would pretext creation because it

20 names this waste for what it is, hazar dous and

21 harmful, particularly to the children and other

22 innocence among our neighbors.247

1 To adopt Subtitle C would allow the EPA

2 to do the job of protection, which is what you are

3 charged with doing. And to adopt Subtitle C

4 allows you to assume the leadership, power, and

5 authority given to you to protect creation and to

6 protect our neighbors' health and safety.

7 Subtitle C acknowledges that the mercury

8 and lead and arsenic in coal ash are indee d

9 hazardous to our neighbors.

10 For all these reasons, I strongly

11 encourage the EPA to adopt Subtitle C as an

12 important step towards protecting all that God has

13 created. Thank you.

14 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Chase.

15 (Applause)

16 MS. GENTILE: Now we're going to be

17 calling numbers out of order again, so get ready.

18 Numbers 61, 321, 320, and 317, please come up to

19 the front of the room if you're in the room. Are

20 you one of the four numbers? Okay, you're on.

21 MS. ADKINS: Okay. Hello. My name

22 Sarah Adkins, and I want to welcome everybody, and248

1 especially the EPA hearing members, to my hometown

2 of Louisville, Kentucky. I have lived here my

3 entire life with the exception of my four years

4 away at college.

5 My parents home in southwest Jefferson

6 County is only a few miles from the Louisville Gas

7 & Electric plant in a neighborhood called

8 Riverside Gardens. This neighborhood is like any

9 other except that it is rife of disease. Children

10 cannot play safely outside. You cannot grow

11 edible gardens. And family and neighbors with new

12 and recurring cancers are a daily part of life.

13 These people live next to a coal ash site, and

14 another is planned.

15 These people are tired of being dumped

16 on. But because of their economic status, the

17 power company finds it ethically acceptable to

18 exploit them. Words like consumers, markets, and

19 data are used to twist science and sanitize a

20 deadly business in order to make money at the cost

21 of human lives, and even make these abusive

22 industries look good while doing it.249

1 Coal ash is a hazardous substance.

2 According to Scientific American, it is more

3 radioactive than nuclear waste in some instances.

4 And I highly doubt that anyone who speaks in its

5 favor lives in a place like Riverside G ardens or

6 would choose to move there currently. Americans,

7 rich or poor, executive or retail worker, are a

8 sovereign people and should be protected by our

9 representatives, and especia lly our EPA.

10 In closing, a friend of mine, a chemical

11 engineer, once told me that in business meetings

12 they often joke, "We corporations do what we do

13 because American consumers are stupid and we count

14 on it." As an educated young woman, I am here to

15 stand up for my neighbors in Riverside Gardens and

16 across the country. Good day and God bless

17 everyone.

18 MS. GENTILE: Thank you.

19 (Applause)

20 MS. GENTILE: Okay. Next I'd like to

21 call up Numbers 70, 72, 73, and 111. I think

22 you're up.250

1 MS. MARSHALL: Good afternoon. My name

2 is Lucinda Marshall, and I've lived in Louisville,

3 Kentucky for more than 20 years.

4 And I'm appalled that it wasn't until

5 after the Tennessee coal ash disaster that I

6 became aware that we have toxic coal ash ponds

7 right here in Metropolitan Louisville. According

8 to the Sierra Club, in the Commonwealth of

9 Kentucky alone we have 44 ponds at 17 plants, 7 of

10 which are rated as high hazards and 5 as

11 significant hazards. This is unacceptable.

12 After the incredible damage caused by

13 the Tennessee pond breach, I am particularly

14 horrified that these things are located in the

15 middle of a large metropolitan center such as

16 Louisville. If such a disaster happened here, the

17 damage it would cause would be unimaginable and

18 far worse than

-- than the Tennessee disaster.

19 Given that, I absolutely cannot

20 understand how the EPA can consider anything but

21 the most stringent guidelines for these facilities

22 with the ultimate goal of making them illeg al. It251

1 is beyond belief that these wastes are still

2 considered exempt from such regulation.

3 There ha

-- have

-- has

-- I'm sorry.

4 There has been report after report documenting the

5 highly negative impact that coal has on our

6 environment, as well as on human health, and I am

7 particularly concerned about the impact on

8 pregnant women and children.

9 And all that talk about how coal is good

10 for the economy? That sure hasn't worked out so

11 well in Kentucky, which remains one the poorest,

12 least educated, and least healthy states in this

13 nation. And no amount of building golf courses on

14

-- where amputated mountaintops used to stand wi ll

15 change that.

16 The people of Kentucky, the southeast,

17 and the entire nation deserve the right to a clean

18 environment that is not being poisoned because of

19 corporate malfeasance and greed, and it is

20 incumbent on the Environmental Protection Agency

21 do what its name implies and stringently regulate

22 coal ash disposal. Thank you.252

1 (Applause)

2 MS. GENTILE: Thank you. Let me just

3 call again 70, 73, and 111? How about 320 and

4 321? 74, 76, 77, and 78? Just a reminder, if

5 anybody wants to speak here who has not

6 registered, please register outside because we

7 clearly have some space in the schedule to fit in

8 walk

- ins at this point.

9 MR. MUELLER: Good afternoon. My name

10 is Chuck Mueller. I am vice president for

11 Brandeis Machinery & Supply Company. I've worked

12 in Brandies's coal division, Brandeis sales and

13 supports, construction and service mining

14 equipment in Kentucky and Indiana.

15 I have worked with the coal industry

16 division of Brandeis since 1989. I have been with

17 Brandeis since 1974.

18 I am not a n expert on the subject at

19 hand, but I do know that this country continues to

20 i gnore the value that coal can bring to this

21 nation. We will do so at our peril.

22 As one of the cheapest sources of253

1 electricity in this nation, coal helps us compete

2 in the world and keep o ur standard of living high.

3 The environmentalists are working every day to

4 over

- regulate this industry in order to shut it

5 down.

6 Here is another example of this. Sure,

7 we need to protect our environment. We all want

8 that. But how we get there could make a huge

9 difference. If America can produce goods for the

10 world through our efficient use of coal as far as

11 electricity, natural gas for our cars, we could

12 become an inde

-- independent

--

13 energy

- independent country and, in the long run,

14 provide America with a cleaner world to live in

15 since we currently provide cleaner energy to

16 Americans than most countries around the world

17 provide to their citizens.

18 But to add unnecessary regulation to a

19 byproduct that has, to the best of my knowledge,

20 never caused a health risk to anyone doesn't make

21 any sense. Sure, we want and need to make sure

22 that impoundments are properly maintained, to254

1 ensure that they do not fail in the fu ture; but to

2 wipe out several industries that use this very

3 material to make many products, such as wallboard

4 and concrete blocks, just to name a few, seems to

5 be overkill.

6 If we con tinue to allow over

- regulation

7 in this industry, we will only allow more and more

8 of our manufacturing jobs to be exported. Energy

9 cost is one of the highest i nput cost for any

10 manufacturing concern. We must find ways in this

11 country to take advantage of coal and the cheap

12 energy that it provides.

13 Auto plants moved south over the past

14 decades to take advantage of cheaper electric

15 rates. These cheaper rates are due to the

16 efficient use of our greatest natural resource in

17 the United States: Coal.

18 If we continue to make our energy costs

19 go up, it only leaves U.S. manufacturing one option:

20 To leave this country, go to a place where they

21 can get cheap electricity, and it will not be

22 America. Because in the Midwest, it's currently255

1 the cheapest place in America for electrical cost

2 due to coal.

3 If we really want to save the planet, we

4 should be working real hard to keep as much

5 manufacturing in this country where the cleanest

6 electricity is produced. I think this should be

7

-- this is politically

- driven and not based on

8 good science. Extreme regulation serves no

9 purpose but to reduce the standard of living that

10 we are

-- in America

--

11 MS. GENTILE: Mr. Mueller, I'm sorry,

12 but you're out of time.

13 MR. MUELLER: All right. Thank you.

14 MS. GENTILE: Thank you.

15 MR. MUELLER: Unnecessary regulation

16 only serves to add cost and does nothing to add

17 value. The end result is a standard of living in

18 this country that will go down. We owe it to our

19 ch ildren to produce energy to run our country in a

20 responsible way, but added regulation for the sake

21 of regulation will only serve to hurt out country.

22 I thank you for listening to my comments256

1 on this subject, and I respectfully ask that you

2 not reclassify fly ash as a hazardous material.

3 MR. IRVINE: Thanks for having me today.

4 My name is Jim Irvine. I'm the president of a

5 small recycling company named FlyAshDirect.

6 FlyAshDirect is based up the road in

7 Cincinnati. We've been in business for over 20

8 years. We have offices scattered throughout the

9 Midwest. We employ about 35 employees that are in

10 the business of recycling fly ash as a beneficial

11 ingredient to many cementitious products.

12 My company and the industry that I work

13 within have worked very hard over several decades

14 to get where we've gotten to develop

-- we've

15 developed a comprehensive list of markets and

16 products that use co al residuals as beneficial

17 construction materials. Several of my customers

18 have spoken today.

19 These products are widely used, as

20 you've been told, to manufacture products that we

21 live, work, and play within. At no time in

22 history, in my knowledge, have any of these257

1 materials been determined as hazardous or harmful,

2 or at least that connection's never been made

3 between coal residuals in a ny of the products they

4 use to manufacture.

5 I'm also here today as a concerned

6 citizen, as a pro

- environment person, as a father

7 of three, as somebody who wants to leave this planet

8 cleaner and greener for my children. I'm deeply

9 concerned about how this decision will affect the

10 environment if it's left for disposal, which, in

11 my opinion, if you classify it as hazardous, it's

12 certainly destined for that.

13 I'm confident that the environmental

14 groups and other concerned citizens do not support

15 increased disposal, and yet there's no doubt

--

16 there's no doubt that you've heard over and over

17 that's exactly what will happen. I think we need

18 some more options to consider.

19 I think we're getting tongue twisted

20 over the

-- the word "hazardous." I think we can

21 have federal regulation of this material and still

22 have the same safeguards without havi ng to term258

1 this material hazardous. And I implore you to

2 find a way or offer us more options that provide

3 the

-- the publi c the federal protection they need

4 without having to call this material hazardous.

5 You've been warned that

-- that that

6 terminology will affect our businesses, our

-- our

7

-- our people, our employees. And I ask that you

8 explore whatever options you can that provide us

9 the safeguards of federal regulation along with a

10 non

- hazardous designation. Thank you.

11 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, sir. Okay.

12 Let's go back a little bit in the numbering to see

13 who may have come by in the last few minutes.

14 Numbers 69, 70, 71, and 73, if you're her e, come

15 on up. Begin whenever you're ready.

16 MS. OGLESBY:: Thank you. My name is

17 Carol Oglesby. I'm from Evansville, Indiana. I'm

18 here as a private citizen.

19 Basically, I'm asking the Environmental

20 Protection Agency that, as you weigh your options

21 for regulating the toxic coal ash produced from

22 the burning of coal, I hope you will consider the259

1 harm that the heavy metals, such as arsenic,

2 mercury, and lead that are contained in this

3 waste, the harm that it presents to our drinking

4 water and our streams which threatens communities

5 and our wildlife. Additionally, coal ash is known

6 to contain chemicals which can cause birth defects

7 and premature deaths.

8 Every year 130 million tons of coal ash

9 containing arsenic, chromium, lead, and mercury is

10 treated by coal

- fired power plant

-- I'm sorry , is

11 created by coal

- fired power plants. The toxins

12 contained in the coal ash seep into our ecosystem

13 and into our drinking water from unsafe storage in

14 waste ponds and other venues.

15 There are scientifically documented

16 instances of over 100, quote, "damage cases," end

17 quotes, which have been identified in over 1,000

18 coal ash disposal sites in the United S tates.

19 States with most of the coal ash also have the

20 weakest regulations.

21 That ’s why it is critical that we set

22 federally

- enforceable standards for coal ash260

1 disposal, safeguard our environment, protect

2 public health, ensure that dirty coal properly

3 handles this toxic waste. I strongly support E PA

4 moving ahead with proposed federal regulations for

5 coal ash storage and handling, and not caving into

6 the coal industry by simply putting forth

7 suggested guidelines for states. I urge you to

8 support Subtitle C option for regulation of coal

9 ash.

10 I will borrow the following quote from

11 Russell Moore, a uthor and administrator from the

12 Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. "When

13 government fails or refuses to protect its own

14 people, whether from nuclear attack or from toxic

15 waste sp ewing into our life

- giving waters"

--

16 MS. GENTILE: I'm sorry, Ms. Oglesby.

17 MS. OGLESBY::

-- "government has

18 failed."

19 MS. GENTILE: Your time is up.

20 MS. OGLESBY:: I hope you will make the

21 right choice.

22 MS. GENTILE: Thank you.261

1 MS. OGLESBY:: Thank you very much.

2 (Applause)

3 MS. GENTILE: Next speaker.

4 MS. BARTLEY: I am Pam Bartley. I am a

5 bank manager of a small bank. I'm also a mother,

6 and that's why I am here.

7 Thank you for recognizing the serious

8 problems posed by toxic coal ash left from the

9 burning of coal. My family is a family that is

10 exposed to dust

-- ash dust from the Hoosier

11 Energy Plant in Merom, Indiana. They are my

12 neighbors.

13 During t he month of March, we started

14 noticing security guards going up and down our

15 road. That is the first thing that caught our

16 attention. We live on a road we're the only house

17 on, and H oosier Energy does not own any property.

18 We stopped one of the cars patrolling,

19 and we asked them who they were with. And it was

20 with Hoosier Energy but, again, we still do not

21 understand why they were patrolling our road.

22 It was not until recently we began to262

1 read and learn about the coal ash spills and the

2 hazards. First off, we could not believe that the

3 coal ash was less strictly regula ted than household

4 garbage. The pile close to us h as about

-- is

5 about half a mile long, 100 feet tall.

6 Less than four

-- 1/4 of a mile from our

7 home, Hoosier Energy is proposing to build a land

8

-- an ash fill twice the size of the one that you

9 see in the distance here. And I just don't know

10 what we are supposed to do when the

-- one is

11 right outside the

-- our back door.

12 We have gone fishing a t Hoosier Energy

13 at the Turtle Creek Reservoir and saw deformed and

14 crooked

- spined fish. My husband and I did not

15 understand what we were seeing, but we're

-- our

16 son wanted to go fishing.

17 So that has brought up a fear to my son

18 who raises livestock, pigs and lambs. And he

19 asked me currently, "Mom, what will all of this

20 toxicity do possibly to my baby lambs and baby

21 pigs when we've seen fish like that?" Again, I

22 have no answer.263

1 However, Hoosier Energy did purchase his

2 animal this year at the livestock auction, and

3 that's also hard to explain to him why they would

4 emit so many poisons and yet they turn around and

5 "buy your prized animal."

6 Again, my husband is asthmatic. My son

7 is taking medicine, also, for breathing issues.

8 And we feel that the only reason for this increase

9 of medication at this time is from our neighbor,

10 Hoosier Energy.

11 The EPA must adopt enforceable federal

12 safeguards, such as Subtitle C, not suggested sub

13

-- guideline s as Subtitle D, for states to protect

14 our community. Our federally

--

15 MS. GENTILE: I'm sorry, Ms. Bartley.

16 Your time is up.

17 MS. BARTLEY: Again, I want to thank you

18 very much.

19 MS. GENTILE: Thank you very much.

20 (Applause)

21 MS. GENTILE: I'd like t o ask if anyone

22 is out in the audience holding a card to speak264

1 that is anywhere between 1 and 80. Anybody?

2 Okay. We can

- - we can have you right now speak,

3 and then we'll move to 80 as soon as we're done.

4 What number are you, sir?

5 MR. HOOKER: 77.

6 MS. GENTILE: Great. Thank you.

7 MR. HOOKER: Hello. My name is Chris

8 Hooker. I'm speaking to this hearing as a very

9 concerned citizen.

10 I was raised in eastern Kentucky and

11 southern West Virginia while my father worked in

12 the coal industry throughout the 60s, 70s, and

13 80s. I now work in the coal industry; therefore,

14 I feel I have a firsthand knowledge of how

15 beneficial this industry is to our communities as

16 well as our nation.

17 We here in Kentucky are very lucky to

18 have one of the lowest

- cost states in electricity.

19 The reason for this is because of coal. Coal is a

20 natural resource that we are very lucky to have.

21 I feel if we do not make a stand now and fight for

22 the coal industry, we will look up and be at the265

1 mercy of other nations that do utilize their

2 natural resources.

3 Right now, there is no other energy

4 alternative. No one wants a nuclear plant built

5 in their community. Wind is not a solution.

6 Solar is not a solution. The only solution for

7 the demand of electricity being consumed in our

8 nation is coal.

9 If we continue to destroy the coal

10 industry, we will continue to move manufacturing

11 jobs to Mexico, China, or India. Coal allows us

12 to maintain low

- cost electricity for our

13 manufacturing plants.

14 In closing, I would like to ask the EPA

15 not to make another mistake and make fly ash a

16 hazardous material. If it's not for coal, we will

17 be at the mercy of other nations, and we will be

18 in the dark. Thank you.

19 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Hooker.

20 (Applause)

21 MS. GENTILE: Next speaker, Number 76?

22 MR. RANDOLPH: My name is Lynn Randolph.266

1 I work in the coal ash management and recycling

2 industry.

3 I feel very strongly that if the

4 Environmental Protection Agency designates coal as

5 a hazardous or special waste, it will have a

6 catastrophic effect on the environment and will

7 destroy one of the most success

-- succes sful

8 recycling programs in the country. Recycling of

9 coal ash needs to be preserved for the

10 conservation of our natural resources and

11 conservation of landfill space.

12 In addition, increased manufacturing of

13 alternative materials would need be

-- would be

14 needed to replace the coal ash. This would result

15 in an increased greenhouse emission.

16 Even now, with the constant negative

17 publicity created by the EPA's suggestion that ash

18 from our products that are recycled may be

19 hazardous, there is confusion among our cust omers.

20 Some of them have already switched to alternative

21 materials. If EPA's mere suggested approach is

22 causing that much negative impact on our recycling267

1 efforts, I fear what the rules will do if actually

2 implemented.

3 Residential and commercial development

4 would steer away from utilizing this m aterial if

5 it is deemed hazardous. Businesses would

6 discontinue using a material that is considered

7 hazardous to avoid a potential for lawsuits.

8 I support EPA's efforts for improved

9 coal ash disposal regulations. Under their own

10 rule, new landfill engineering practices would

11 essentially be the same whether it's regul ated

12 hazardous or non

- hazardous.

13 So I ask the EPA to find a way to

14 control ash disposal through the non

- hazardous

15 rules so that recycling with its many

16 env ironmental benefits, can be preserved. We

17 cannot risk the recycling being destroyed by

18 hazardous/special waste classification.

19 The EPA can and should enact new

20 regulations w hile encouraging the safe recycling

21 of being coal ash as a preferred alternative to

22 disposal. To do so, the EPA must not designate268

1 coal ash as a hazardous or special waste. Thank

2 you for the opportunity to speak.

3 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Randolph.

4 (Applause)

5 MS. GENTILE: I just want to ask one

6 more time if anybody is holding a card to speak

7 that's 80 or less, please come UP o the front row.

8 What numbers do you have? Okay. 79,

9 you're up.

10 MR. CHLEBOWY: Hello. My name is Bill

11 Chlebowy. I live in Lexington, Kentucky.

12 Coal ash should remain regulated under

13 Subtitle D regulations and not be regulated as a

14 hazard

-- hazardous waste under Subtitle C.

15 Subtitle D regulations govern the

-- the disposal

16 of household garbage. It makes no sense t o adopt

17 more stringent regulations for coal ash than

18 garbage since garbage impacts the environment a great deal more

19 than coal ash.

20 Leachate, which is water that percolates

21 through a material, from a garbage landfill

22 contains more contaminants and undesirables than269

1 leachate from a coal ash monofill or a landfill.

2 In many instances, leachate from a coal ash

3 landfill meets federal discharge standards that

4 requires no treatment. You can't say the sa me

5 about leachate from a garbage landfill.

6 Coal ash is a natural resource. After

7 you burn coal, about 10% of it remains as coal

8 ash. Coal comes from plants and trees, thick

9 swamps, and marshes that have decayed and been

10 subject to heat and pressure over millions of

11 years. Every ingredient in coal, and thus every

12 ingredient in coal ash is a natural mater ial. In

13 fact, you can say coal ash is an organic material

14 per today's lingo.

15 The anti

- coal ash crowd says coal ash

16 contains harmful constituents that can lead to

17 sickness and death, and for those reasons, coal

18 ash must remain regulated as a hazardous waste.

19 To prove their point, they point to contaminants

20 in coal ash such as arsenic, barium, cad mium,

21 copper, lead and mercury, nickel, selenium and

22 zinc. Guess what? These elements are present at270

1 comparable levels in soil, sometimes at higher

2 levels than coal ash.

3 The anti

- coal ash crowd says leachate

4 from coal ash can also cause sickness and death.

5 They imply that water passing through other

6 natural mediums is pure as the wind

- driven snow.

7 The fact is that coal ash leachate may

8 be purer than water from natural impounds

- -

9 impoundments, such as those in eastern Kentucky

10 with prevalent New Albany shale formations. In

11 those impoundments, you'll find water with the pH

12 of 4, and the surface will have an o ily sheet to

13 it. Test data does not support classifying coal

14 ash as hazardous.

15 Industry today recycles about 45% of

16 coal ash. Coal ash is used in concrete, concrete

17 blocks, wallboard, and other useful products.

18 Regulating coal ash as a hazardous material would

19 kill recycling industry and use of coal ash.

20 After all, who would want to risk a

21 lawsuit or undergo the stigma from having a

22 hazardous waste material in their product? Would271

1 you build a house with drywall that has a

2 hazardous waste deemed by the EPA in it?

3 Companies would have to replace the coal

4 ash used in these products with another product.

5 It would have to utilize resour ces to mine,

6 transport

--

7 MS. GENTILE: I'm sorry, sir. Your time

8 is up.

9 MR. CHLEBOWY: All right.

10 MS. GENTILE: Thank you.

11 MR. CHLEBOWY:

-- and disturb the earth

12 in finding these substitute materials.

13 It takes 55 gallons of oil to produce

14 one ton of cement for concrete. If the 13

15 million tons of fly ash used in place of cement

16 per year cannot be used anymore and the industry

17 has to revert back to cement, oil equal to

18 approximately 35 Exxon Valdez oils spills or 4

19 Gulf oil spills per year would be needed to

20 produce the cement that is replaced with coal ash.

21 I'm sure it is in country's our (sic)

22 best interest to avoid using extra oil eq uivalent272

1 to that of 4 Gulf oil spills every year if coal

2 ash cannot be beneficially used in concrete.

3 In conclusion, regulating coal ash under

4 hazardous waste rules is an overreach by the

5 federal government. It will raise the cost of

6 electricity, kill jobs, and kill the recyc ling

7 industry. The rule change doesn't make sense and

8 is not needed, especially as our country is trying

9 to climb out of a recession. Thank you.

10 MS. GENTILE: Next speaker? Whoever has

11 the lowest number. Thank you.

12 MS. WATKINS: Hello. My name is Angela

13 Watkins, and I stand in front of you as an

14 employee of a company that is heavily involved in

15 the cat

-- coal ash processing and recycling as a

16 member of this community and as a resident of the

17 state of Kentucky where we are heav ily dependent

18 upon the coal industry.

19 The recent proposals on coal ash are a

20 concern to me, and seem to be contradictory to the

21 direction that this country is headed. We hea r a

22 lot of talk about going green, and I see ads all273

1 over the place about recycling and concern

--

2 conserving our energy an d natural resources; yet

3 the EPA wants to halt what I would consider to be

4 a huge recycling effort.

5 I've read quite a bit of information, of

6 course, on the Internet from the coal ash

7 recycling efforts to the environmentalist groups

8 who want to call it a toxin, and what I have found

9 is there seems to be quite a bit of scienti fic

10 evidence that the ash itself is not a hazardous

11 material. I've also seen signs of evidence that

12 the coal ash being discussed is a natural resource

13 and has the same components as t he dirt in your

14 own backyard.

15 There's a lot of concern around the ash

16 spill that took place in Kingston in 2008. And while

17 the incident was certainly a disaster for the

18 residents of that town and a huge cost to the

19 utility to clean and repair, I haven't seen any

20 evidence of harmful effects based solely on the

21 ash.

22 Something else that I read and found274

1 interesting was, in 2005, the EPA launched this

2 C2P2 partnership. And this p rogram partnered the

3 EPA, the American Coal Ash Associating, the

4 Department of Energy, Federal Highway

5 Administration, and the U.S. Department of

6 Agriculture in an effort to promote th e beneficial

7 use of coal combustion byproducts.

8 Some of the examples that I found were

9 reducing greenhouse gases, reduce the utilization

10 of the virgin resources in stripping our earth,

11 reducing the cost associated

-- associated with

12 the ash and slag disposal, and increased revenue

13 from the sale of CCPs. The list went on and on as

14 far as the uses. I'm sure you've heard this all

15 day long.

16 It goes back as far as 1942. It was

17 used to repair the Hoover Dam. There are

18 buildin gs in Washington, D.C. that have been built

19 with this product.

20 Regulating coal ash under Subtitle C

21 will put a stop to the recycling effort that's

22 currently underway. The mi nute you label it as275

1 toxic, the builders and suppliers will be afraid

2 to use it, and they're going to be forced to use

3 manmade materials or go and strip the earth.

4 Please use the scientific data that is

5 out there and regulate this product as a

6 non

- hazardous material that it is. Thank you.

7 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Watkins.

8 (Applause)

9 MS. GENTILE: I'm going to make one more

10 call for anybody who is holding a number that's

11 less than 80 to please come to the front of row.

12 Okay. We're moving forward to the 80s

13 now. I want to call up Number 82, 83, 84, 85, and

14 86. Please come on up to the front.

15 Folks, actually, we just had a little

16 change on the panel, somebody who had to walk out

17 for an emergency. So if you don't mind, just hold

18 off and we're going to start in anot her minute

19 once he gets back.

20 Sorry about that folks. Okay. Number

21 82, whenever you're ready, feel free to get

22 started.276

1 MR. TURLEY: Good afternoon. My name is

2 Floyd Turley, and I am here testifying as a

3 private citizen.

4 I happen to work in the coal ash

-- ash

5 management industry as a role in the safety

6 department. I see the benefits of recycling ash

7 brings to us every day.

8 I am thankful and proud to be part of a

9 company that has added jobs in the past three

10 years, especially when most companies are

11 eliminating jobs. I see the negative impacts that

12 the public debate on ash regular

-- regulations as

13 a hazardous waste is having on the re

-- recycled

14 material sales. And I'm that the

-- the direction

15 that the debate is going and that I

-- and wh at it

16 means for my own job.

17 The material sales have been hurt by the

18 association of coal ash products and the potential

19 of hazardous labels. Lost sales means lost jobs

20 and loss of positive benefits that the coal ash

21 has on the environment

.

22 I support coal ash disposal regulations277

1 that protect human health and the environment

2 without compromising greater recycling

3 capabilities of coal ash. Both of these goals

4 cannot be accomplished if the Environmental

5 Protection Agency designates coal as

-- coal ash

6 as a had

-- hazardous special waste under Subtitle

7 C. This classification would bring an uncertainty

8 or stigma to the general population, and would be

9 a

-- detrimental to

-- and would be detrimental to

10 the recycling efforts.

11 Coal ash re

-- recycling has been a

12 long, successful history, and has

-- and the

13 products have proven value. Subtitle C is not

14 appropriate for coal ash regulation.

15 Residential and commercial development

16 are al

-- are already and will continue to steer

17 away from utilizing CCPs if it is deemed hazardous

18 in a landfill. Businesses will not want to

--

19 will want to avoid any lawsuits using the material

20 that is considered hazard

-- hazardous in a

21 landfill.

22 The recycling of coal ash has many278

1 environmental benefits, such as the conservation

2 to our natural resources and landfill space, while

3 avoiding the rise of greenhouse gas emissions

4 during the manufacturing of alternative materials

5 that would replace coal ash.

6 Coal ash recycling is

-- with its many

7 environmental benefits would be pre

-- preserved.

8 This recycling cannot risk the

-- or destroye d by

9 hazardous special waste classifications. Under

10 the EPA options, the new landfill engineering

11 practices would be essentially the same, whether

12 it is dictated as hazardous or non

- hazardous

13 classification. In addition, new landfill

14 engineering standards will be adopted more quickly

15 if the hazardous classifications are not

16 determined.

17 Given that, the protective fe

--

18 features are similar under both C and D, and the

19 co

-- the choice is clear.

20 MS. GENTILE: I'm sorry, sir. Your time

21 is up.

22 MR. TURLEY: All right. Thank you.279

1 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

2 comments.

3 MR. TURLEY: States have demonstrated

4 their ability to regulate garbage wastes and coal

5 ash can just as easily be managed by states.

6 The EPA should endorse reasonable coal

7 ash disposal regulations; however, this should be

8 done without characterizing coal ash as a

9 hazardous waste and risking the destruction of

10 recycling efforts which helps accomplish

11 everyone's goal of a cleaner environment. To do

12 so, EPA must not designate coal ash as a hazardous

13 special waste.

14 I ask that EPA regulate CCRs under some

15 form of Subtitle D and keep recycling alive.

16 Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

17 (Applause)

18 MS. GENTILE: Number 83.

19 MS. LINDOP: My name is Joan Lindop.

20 I'm speaking for the League of Women Voters of

21 Kentucky and of Louisville.

22 Scrubbers and electrostatic280

1 precipitators have been installed at power plants

2 over the last 30 years to reduce air pollution.

3 Pollution concerns now move from air pollution to

4 water pollution.

5 As currently stored, this waste is

6 hazardous. The Clean Water Act specified that by

7 1985 all polluting discharges should end in our

8 waters. Chemicals leaching from CCW, coal

9 combustion waste, can cause organ damage and

10 cancer, and many are connected with brain damage

11 in children. Leakage from E.Ons Cane Run facili ty

12 was dramatically reported in the Louisville

13 Courier

- Journal, "Ash Pond Enters Ohio River."

14 That was April 21 of this year.

15 The ash pond at Cane Run has no liner,

16 nor does the Mill Creek ash pond. Part of

17 Riverside Gardens community in Shively, Kentucky

18 is located within a block of 100

- foot tall ash

19 pond. At an August meeting in the Shively

20 Community Center, Monica Burkhead spoke for

21 Riverside residents about the many cases of cancer

22 in that community.281

1 A 2010 report by geologist Mark Quarles

2 states that there are 36 ash ponds in Kentucky

3 that have no water quality monitors. Several

4 Kentucky lo

-- locations for coal waste ha ve

5 exceeded maximum contaminant levels for ground

6 water. These plants all have residential

7 neighbors and even elementary schools where ground

8 contamination is dangerous.

9 E.On in Trimble County has just

10 completed construction of a second coal

- fired

11 power plant on the banks of the Ohio River, and

12 it's requesting a permit for a second mountain of

13 coal ash; yet currently, there's no monitoring

14 there, and it is upstream from the Louisville

15 Water Company's wells where our city water comes

16 from.

17 Much of K entucky is dotted with

18 limestone caves, which means that ground water

19 travels miles very quickly. It's very hard to

20 know where that ground water will end up once it

21

-- contaminated wa ter is there. We know it will

22 go into the Ohio River. The League of Women282

1 Voters urges EPA to take charge. Already, several

2 organizations in Kentucky have requested that the US

3 EPA take back primacy from the Kentucky Division

4 of Water. The failure of the Kentucky Division of

5 Water to enforce water quality s tandards in our

6 waterways has resulted in many miles of polluted

7 streams, streams that are not fishable or

8 swimmable, as Kentucky Department of Water was

9 required to report in the late st Kentucky Division

10 of Water Integrated Report.

11 The League of Women Voters urges the EPA

12 to adopt the proposed Subtitle C regulations that

13 classify coal ash as hazardous. S ubtitle C must

14 not exempt deep and surface mining. Thank you.

15 MS. GENTILE: I'm sorry, ma'am. Your

16 time is up. Thank you.

17 MS. LINDOP: That's fine.

18 (Applause)

19 MS. GENTILE: Number 84.

20 MS. ABU

- HUSSEIN: Hello. My name is

21 Hnadi Hussein. I live in Princeton, Indiana, just

22 near Duk e Company. I would say it's, like, half a283

1 mile away from the ash mountain.

2 It's just

-- when I first came, it's

3 just so weird. I

-- the water was a little bit

4 yellow, and then it start turning orange. And

5 it's hardened our skin. We do have eczema. And

6 we do have breathing problem. Myself go to Riley

7 Hospital for breathing, like, dust allergy. I do

8 have two kids with nerve damages, hearing damages.

9 So I wanted just

-- like, I won't take

10 three minutes. I will say please, please, please

11 put this C regulation in place for us so our

12 children will have a better life. Thank you.

13 (Applause)

14 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Hussein.

15 Number 85. 85, whenever you're ready, sir.

16 MR. POWERS: Thank you. My name's

17 Walter Powers, and I work at an active landfill

18 that did accept coal ash until a couple of months

19 ago. We were accepting coal ash from Sibec

20 Energies up in Mount Vernon, up to 200

- plus tons a

21 day. And it would pile up. We were using it

22 for daily cover or we would mix it in with water284

1 to solidify any liquids coming into the landfill.

2 And then I star ted getting sick a couple

3 years ago, and I start

-- had a test just

4 recently. My arsenic level is 13.9. My hands go

5 numb all the time. My bladder's not working

6 right. When I have a bowel movement, I have to

7 keep wiping after each time.

8 This is from long

- term exposure even in

9 a machine. My employer said I didn't need a dust

10 mask or a respirator in 95. Dust masks would

11 work.

12 I'd go to school

-- or I'd come by a

13 school to go to work in the morning, and the

14 children are standing out waiting for the school

15 bus in a cloud of a fog, of dust, coming from our

16 site. I went in and raised seven kinds of cane

17 and

-- and to no avail.

18 You know, now I'm sick. The other

19 employees

-- he d enied I even got sick. He said it

20 was because of my brother's dying of cancer, I'm

21 taking his chemo. That made me sick.

22 So everybody at the landfill went and285

1 had their blood drawn from their private

2 physician. They've all come back 10 or less with

3 exposure of 0 to 13. Mine's 13.9. 1 or under is

4 normal exposure for anybody.

5 The coal people can say what they like.

6 It does need to be regulated at a landfill

7 because, if it's not, it's going to go off site.

8 I've seen it run down the side of the hill and get

9 into a collection pond that

-- we have

-- we have

10 a

-- a

-- a stream that goes through that property

11 that was made by the Army Corps of Engineers that

12 has got it in it. I can take someone out and show

13 them everywhere.

14 So for these people to say that it

15 doesn't need to be regulated when I work at a

16 regulated landfill and things come in there all

17 the time, I haven't seen an IDEM inspector in two

18 years. We've got a wheel wash that hasn't worked

19 in seven. Where

-- where

-- whe re is the

20 regulation and the oversight?

21 I need help now. Who's going to help

22 me? I've been poisoned by something from where I286

1 work. And for these people that

-- that have the

2 audacity to say it doesn't hurt them? Come on.

3 We need your help. You guys really need to look

4 into it because we nee d your help. I need your

5 help. Thank you.

6 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Powers.

7 (Applause)

8 MS. GENTILE: Number 86?

9 MR. SEWELL: Good afternoon. My name is

10 Scott Sewell, and I'm a local Louisville resident,

11 father of two, and a concerned citizen.

12 Kentucky is my home, and I'm prou d of

13 the values that my parents instilled in our family

14 and the values that I see in my hard

- working

15 neighbors and colleagues. I value getting to the

16 truth regarding in issue that aff ects my family

17 and their health and their well

- being.

18 In recent months, since the TVA ash pond

19 incident, I see a lot of attention in the media

20 focused on the issue of coal ash. I see headlines

21 referring to coal ash as hazardous or toxic, which

22 certainly catches the eye.287

1 But also

-- but I also see other

2 information usually not connected with the

3 dramatic headlines, that report scientific studies

4 saying that coal ash does not cause health

5 problems; specifically, the Public Health

6 Assessment prepared by the Tennessee Department of

7 Health dated September 7th, 2010.

8 I'm educated enough not to accept what

9 the media distributes to sell newspapers or ad

10 time as being all the facts. For my children, I

11 choose to invest my own time and efforts into

12 reading about the subject matter, and drawi ng my

13 own conclusions based on scientific science and

14 not dramatic news bylines. The truth of the

15 scientific studies is important to me and my

16 family. I observe

-- I observe the Louis ville

17 where we live, and I know that the air and the

18 water is cleaner today than

-- than when my

19 grandparents raised my parents in this area. The

20 Ohio River that we enjoy today is cle aner than

--

21 than the river that my grandparents saw.

22 I know the environmental regulations288

1 based on solid science is a pri

-- is the primary

2 reason. I expect and trust that our Kentucky

3 environmental agencies, with EPA guidance, will

4 make this area better for my children, in cluding

5 issues related to coal ash management.

6 I support scientific

- based coal ash

7 disposal regulations that protect the environment

8 and

-- and human health. I also support recycling

9 and conservation or natural resources. I

10 understand that coal ash is recycled, probably

11 more than any other byproduct.

12 Based on what I read, it is scientific

13

-- scientifically documented that coal ash

14 recycling saves natural resources, avoids

15 greenhouse gas emissions, and saves landfill

16 capacity. This success story needs to be

17 continued.

18 And I am concerned about EPA's

19 suggestion that coal ash deserves to be labeled as

20 hazardous, when I read the scientific studies at

21 the TVA spill s ite do not show that ash is

22 hazardous or a health problem. I am concerned289

1 that if the EPA designates coal ash as hazardous

2 special waste, it'll be detrimental to

-- to our

3 recycling efforts.

4 I trust that the regulatory approach

5 that made today's environment better for my

-- bet

6

-- better for me than my grandparents will also

7 use solid signs and commonsense to avoid harming

8 the recycling of coal ash. The Environmental

9 Protection Agency should develop bette r coal

10 ash disposal re

-- disposal regulations, but this

11 should not be done by classifying coal ash as a

12 hazardous waste or regulating it under a

13 hazardous waste regulation. The non

- hazardous

14 rules approach seems to be

-- seems like the only

15 logical approach that matches the science.

16 As a concerned citizen, I ask you to

17 regulate coal combustion residuals under Subtitle

18 D

--

19 MS. GENTILE: I'm sorry, Mr. Sewell.

20 Your time is up.

21 MR. SEWELL:

-- and allow Kentuckians to

22 con serve natural resources by recycling more coal290

1

--

2 MS. GENTILE: Your time is up, sir.

3 MR. SEWELL: Thank you.

4 MS. GENTILE: Thank you.

5 (Applause)

6 MS. GENTILE: We're ahead of schedule,

7 so I'm going to call a few of the walk

- ins. I'm

8 starting with Number 111, 326, 325, 324. If

9 you're in the room, come on up to the front. 111?

10 MR. PINSKY: Good afternoon. Thank you

11 for hearing my comments today.

12 My name David Pinsky. I am a student

13 organizer with Greenpeace USA representing

14 hundreds of student leaders across the country who

15 know that coal is a dirty energy source, and that

16 we need strong, federally

- enforceable regulatory

17 standards. I'm here to call for a federal minimum

18 coal ash disposal standard. Coal ash must be

19 treated as hazardous under Subtitle C of RCRA.

20 As a Kentucky native from Lexington and

21 a graduate from the University of Kentucky, I've

22 seen firsthand how the dirty coal industry291

1 destroys communities and livelihoods of folks in

2 this state. Business as usual, frankly, will not

3 protect the health and welfar e of Kentuckians or

4 the American people. Arsenic, boron, cadmium,

5 chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, thallium

--

6 (laughs), approximately 140 million tons of toxic

7 coal ash are produce d and dumped into landfills

8 and ash ponds each year, which are often unlined,

9 putting the ground water in people's drinking

10 water at risk.

11 The folks in Kingston, Tennessee wi ll

12 not forget the December 2008 impoundment burst

13 where over 1 billion gallons of sludge poured out,

14 covering houses and rivers in toxic waste laden

15 with heavy metals, known neurotoxins, and

16 carcinogens like a slow, oozing death. Almost two

17 years later, the mess still isn't cleaned up.

18 We cannot expect the dirty coal

19 industry, driven by its shareholders and quarterly

20 reports, to care one ounce about the people,

21 communities, or environment it exploits. Just

22 look at these testimonies they've submitted t oday.292

1 The EPA must establish federal standards

2 for coal ash that will protect people, not

3 polluters. And the time to start is now.

4 Louisville has an EPA high hazard

5 impoundment in its city limits, LG&E's Cane Run

6 impoundment, one of the 49 high

- risk impoundments

7 in the nation. I suggest the panel take a visit

8 before leaving town and see why the panel approves

9 of operations on site.

10 There are six other EPA

- identified high

-

11 hazard impoundments in Kentucky, three in Ghent,

12 two in Harrodsburg, and one in Louisa.

13 Kentucky is world

- renowned for its

14 horses, rolling hills, bourbon, and its

15 bask etball. But is Kentucky proud of its coal

16 ash? Kentucky has 44 ash ponds, second

- most in

17 the nation following Indiana, which, shockingly,

18 there is little regulation in these sites.

19 We can talk numbers all day, but what we

20 cannot talk our way out of is another coal ash

21 disaster. We cannot gamble with the lives of the

22 American people just to keep the ligh ts on.293

1 A hazardous waste designation under

2 Subtitle C of RCRA will ensure that coal ash dumps

3 and waste ponds hav e all the protections currently

4 required at waste landfills. We have the

5 technological means to prevent our communities

6 from being at risk due to coal ash. Now all we

7 need is the support of the EPA to do its job and

8 protect Americans from coal ash waste.

9 Please protect the American people, not

10 polluters. Please do this as an agency and as

11 human beings. Thank you for your time.

12 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Pinsky.

13 (Applause)

14 MS. GENTILE: Number 326.

15 MR. GRE EN: Good afternoon. I'm Jackie

16 Green. I'm Louisville's independent candidate for

17 mayor.

18 We fuel our lives just as the caveman

19 did, by burning material. The caveman burned

20 sticks and mammoth dung. We burn petroleum and

21 coal. We've not come very far (laughs).

22 Combustion residuals must be measured,294

1 monitored, regulated, and controlled. Please help

2 us with that. Because coal dependencies destroy

3 mountains, their streams, an d their people;

4 because coal dependencies pollute our local air as

5 we burn it; because coal dependencies pollute

6 waters downstream from ash ponds; because coal

7 dependencies are unaccep table; if elected mayor,

8 Louisville will launch aggressive action to

9 conserve energy, to reduce energy consumption, and

10 to use renewable.

11 Combustion residuals must be measure d,

12 monitored, regulated, and controlled. Please help

13 us with that. Thank you.

14 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Green.

15 (Applause)

16 MS. GENTILE: Number 325?

17 MR. FLENNER: Thank you for going the

18 extra yard and

-- and conducting this hearing. My

19 name is Sam Flexner. I do Outreach work with

20 Environmental Integrity Project.

21 In 1999, the US EPA

-- EPA Science

22 Advisory Board determined that it was of single295

1 most importance that EPA improve leach test

2 procedures, validate them in the field, and then

3 implement them. In 2006, the Natural Research

4 Council and the US EPA Science Advisory Board

5 determined that the

-- that the test called TCLP,

6 for the antonym, used by most states to measure

7 the toxicity of coal ash is not accurate.

8 In December of 2009, EPA reported that a

9 new more

- accurate leach test measured arsenic from

10 coal ash at over three times the hazardous waste

11 threshold, and selenium at 29 times the hazardous

12 waste threshold.

13 This means that all tests presently used

14 voluntarily under Subtitle D by coal ash disposal

-

15 site operators and state regulars

-- re

--

16 regulators, to measure the toxicity of coal ash

17 leachate from the disposal sites are inaccurate.

18 This means that every time a coal utility or a

19 state legislature concludes that coal ash leachate

20 does not trigger hazardous waste thre sholds, they

21 base their conclusion on a testing procedure that

22 they know is not accurate.296

1 Recently, citizens of M adison, Indiana

2 were denied in

- court access to monitoring

3 information which could help them determine if

4 preventive action might be necessary to protect

5 the aquifer which supplies thei r city's water from

6 coal ash leachate from the Clifty Creek plant

7 landfill. Voluntary Subtitle D means residents

8 near coal ash disposal sites will have no

9 guarantee that they will even have access to coal

10 ash toxicity information that can prevent

11 contamination, illness, birth defects, to go along

12 with the fact that they don't even have re liable,

13 accurate tests being conducted right now.

14 Numerous letters have been sent to the

15 EPA by state agencies, legislators, and so forth.

16 Indiana Department of Environmental Management

17 says none of their many years of

-- of

-- of

--

18 years to date has indicated that the

19 characteristics of CCBs approaches the limits for

20 toxicity in the federal regulations t o identify

21 havard

-- hazardous waste. Of course not. The

22 test is inaccurate.297

1 The DNR says that

-- and I

-- I quote

--

2 "Indiana statute provides for the use of CCBs in

3 beneficial

- use applications in the state of

4 Indiana so long as the material is used f or

5 specific purposes and is not hazardous waste."

6 Well, in reality, if you take a look at Indiana

7 statute, the Indiana Solid Waste Management Board

8 is prohibited from even regulating c oal ash.

9 And so we need Subtitle D. Subtitle

--

10 or Subtitle C. Excuse me. We need Subtitle C

11 because after three years of self

- policing under

12 Subtitle D, state regulators and the utilities

13 have proven

--

14 MS. GENTILE: I'm sorry, sir. Your time

15 is up.

16 MR. FLENNER: Thank you very much.

17 MS. GENTILE: Thank you.

18 (Applause)

19 MS. GENTILE: 324.

20 MR. XING: Hello. My name is Yang Xing.

21 I'm from Columbus, Ohio.

22 And, oh, I just have the feeling we298

1 really need the Subtitle C because, for individual

2 citizen, there is no way to have the appropriate

3 skill and the resource to monitor the big coal

4 plants. So it will be better for the state and

5 the government agency to test and monitor those.

6 And also, I encourage the recycle quest.

7 It's a good thing you recycle those things, and

8 great you can use a lot of those things for good

9 materials. But coal ash in the landfill and in

10 the water bodies are natural resource. They are

11 pollution.

12 And the heavy metal, you can recycle

13 them and use them as good resources. But if you

14 can put them in the natural environment, then that

15 will be toxic. So yeah, thank you.

16 MS. GENTILE: Thank you.

17 (Applause)

18 MS. GENTILE: Okay. I want to call the

19 following numbers: 87, 88, 89, and 90. Please

20 come onto the front of the room.

21 87, feel free to get started whenever

22 you're ready.299

1 MS. ARMBRUSTER: My name is Debbie

2 Armbruster, and I work for a company that recycles

3 c oal ash for beneficial use. I see firsthand the

4 success of our recycling efforts. And

5 unfortunately, I also see the misguided

6 information that is so prevalent in the news

7 media.

8 While I am in favor of regulating and

9 improving coal ash disposal, there are several

10 reasons why I am against the proposal to regulate

11 coal ash as a hazardous material. Regul ating coal

12 ash as a hazardous waste, now touted by the EPA as

13 a positive move, would actually result in a

14 tremendous negative effect on recycling and the

15 environment.

16 One of the more successful recycling

17 stories would be history. Instead of its many

18 beneficial reuses, all of it would have to be

19 disposed of, which would create a whole new set of

20 problems, the least of which is landfill space.

21 Increased energy use and greater

22 depletion of natural resources would. Building300

1 costs would soar as construction materials would

2 have to be mined or manufactured. Mining and

3 manufacturing these construction materials would

4 significantly increase gre enhouse gas emissions.

5 The cost of electricity for all consumers would

6 greatly increase as the utilities will need to

7 pass on their additional costs for coal ash

8 disposal.

9 Recycling should continue and be

10 encouraged to accomplish everyone's main goal of a

11 cleaner environment. I ask the EPA to support

12 recycling of coal ash and save our natural

13 resources that coal ash replaces. As the need for

14 electricity continues to increase, greater

15 recycling and improved non

- hazardous disposable

16 regulations are more important than ever.

17 Coal ash regulations can and should be

18 improved, and I feel this can be accomplished

19 without the hazardous approach. Thank you.

20 MS. GENTILE: Thank you.

21 (Applause)

22 MS. GENTILE: Number 88.301

1 MR. BISSETT: Good afternoon. I'm Bill

2 Bissett, president of the Kentucky Coal

3 Association.

4 The Kentucky Coal Association is a

5 statewide trade association representing all

6 aspects of the coal

- mini ng industry in Kentucky

7 and related

- business interests. We also

8 represent the 17,000 men and women who depend on

9 coal mining for their jobs. For e very one coal miner,

10 three other people depend on that coal miner for

11 their job.

12 The Kentucky Coal Association welcomes

13 the opportunity to comment on EPA's proposal to

14 list coal combustion residuals as a hazardous

15 waste under RCRA, because the association believes

16 that the proposal is wrong scientifically, is put

17 forward at the worst possible time fro m the

18 standpoint of the nation's economy, and is

19 motivated primarily by political rather than

20 environmental considerations.

21 The EPA has repeatedly studied the

22 public health implications of the management of302

1 coal combustion residuals, and repeatedly

2 concluded that it did not pose a threat to publi c

3 health justifying regulations as a hazardous waste

4 under Subtitle C of R

-- RCRA.

5 The science on this issue has not

6 changed, but the political landscape has, giving

7 rise to the current proposal. The Kentucky Coal

8 Association believes that scientific consideration

9 should always prevail over political

10 considerations, and that the current proposal

11 should be abandoned.

12 The KCA believes that this listing

--

13 this listing proposal, if adopted and implemented,

14 would impose on Kentucky's energy producers and

15 fuel suppliers significant new costs that are

16 unnecessary to protect the environment. These

17 unnecessary costs would be borne by the citizens

18 of Kentucky who consume the electricity generated

19 by the combustion of Kentucky's coal resources.

20 It would be particularly unfortunate in

21 this era of national economic distress if the cost

22 of producing energy required for nat ional economic303

1 recovery was elevated by virtue of political

2 rather than environmental considerations.

3 The Kentuck y Coal Association believes

4 that the rationale articulated by the EPA in

5 support of its proposal is wholly and without

6 merit. The EPA has suggested that this proposed

7 action is an app ropriate response to the TVA's

8 release of coal combustion residuals from its

9 Kingston, Tennessee facility. The cited release

10 is a reflection of methodology used in

11 construction and operation of the facility rather

12 than the hazardous or non

- hazardous nature of

13 coal combustion residuals, and provides no

14 legitimate basis for listing such materials a s

15 hazardous waste under RCRA.

16 The EPA has also suggested that the

17 proposed listing is necessary in order to provide

18 the federal rather than state regulation of coal

19 combustion residuals. This suggestion is in

20 conflict with the basic concepts of federalism

21 upon which this nation's environmental programs

22 are premised, and represents an affront to the304

1 state agencies that have effectively regulated

2 coal combustion residuals for so long.

3 Finally, the Kentucky Coal Assoc iation

4 is deeply concerned that the current proposals

5 represent a further effort of the EPA to

6 discourage the mining and combustion of coal by

7 imposing additional regulatory burdens on the use

8 of America's most abundant and low

- cost source of

9 energy, coal. Thank you.

10 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Bissett.

11 (Applause)

12 MS. GENTILE: 89.

13 MR. CLARK: Good afternoon. My name is

14 Philip Clark, and I work for a company that

15 recycles coal ash.

16 I see firsthand the benefits of

17 recycling coal ash. It does many great things,

18 like make concrete stronger, more durable, and

19 more workable, just to name a few.

20 While the use of coal ash not only

21 provides several advantages for construction

22 materials, it also reduces the demand for virgin305

1 materials that may be energy intensive to create.

2 The coal ash recycling industry is at the

3 forefront of green technology and innovation.

4 I support the EPA in its efforts to

5 regulate coal ash to protect human health and the

6 environment, but I believe labeling coal ash as

7 hazardous under Subtitle C is inaccurate and

8 unnecessary. I believe that testing shows that

9 coal ash is not hazardous.

10 A hazardous label on coal ash will hurt

11 the recycling capa

-- capabilities unnecessarily.

12 You should avoid the unintended consequences and

13 negative impacts to recycling as you regulate coal

14 ash ponds and landfills.

15 I ask the EPA to find a way to control

16 coal ash disposal through non

- hazardous rules.

17 Thank you.

18 MS. GENTILE: Thank you.

19 (Applause)

20 MS. GENTILE: Number 90.

21 MR. GARDNER: Afternoon. My name's

22 Robert Gardner, and I'm Greenpeace USA's306

1 Coalition representative.

2 I'm here today to support your efforts

3 to create a federal minimum coal ash disposal

4 standard. Coal ash must be treated as hazardous

5 under Subtitle C of RCRA.

6 I'm here representing our millions of

7 memb ers worldwide saying that coal ash is

8 hazardous, and a state

- by

- state enforcement is

9 just not enough. We need federal guarantees to

10 ensure that dangerous coal ash isn't just shipped

11 to the state with the most lax regulatory scheme.

12 Sound science res

-- supports the

13 special waste designation. Coal ash waste

14 contains arsenic, lead, and mercury, among other

15 toxic heavy metals. These dangerous elements

16 cause cancer, organ disease, respiratory illness,

17 and neurological damage.

18 There are over 130 damage cases that

19 have been clearly documented. This is an ongoing

20 national health catastrophe and requires redress

21 immediately.

22 Business as usual will not protect the307

1 health and welfare of the American people.

2 Responding to pressure from Big Coal, prior

3 administrations have allowed the industry to

4 police itself or self

- regulate under a patchwork

5 of state directives, leading to the extensive

6 contamination of water and land by toxic heavy

7 metals. This approach has not and wi ll not

8 protect streams, ponds, rivers, lakes and other

9 waters.

10 Here in Kentucky, there are at least

11 three leaking impoundments. There are six

12 high

- hazard impoundments. In the city of

13 Louisville, there's a high

- hazard impoundment at

14 Cane Creek that they are trying to expand to about

15 5.7 million cubic yards of CCW on site. Th is

16 number of high

- hazard impoundments places Kentucky

17 third behind North Carolina and Arizona in the

18 number of high

- hazard as h impoundments nationwide.

19 A high

- hazard impound ment that fail s

20 will probably cause lo

-- loss of life. Energy

21 should not cost lives, period. People living near

22 unlined coal ash ponds, where water contaminated308

1 by arsenic and ash is mixed with coal refuse, have

2 an extremely high risk of cancer, up to 1 in 50,

3 2,000 times greater than EPA's acceptable cancer

4 risk.

5 If we can't mine coal without destroying

6 our mountains, we shouldn't mine it. If we can't

7 burn coal without destroying our air, we shouldn't

8 burn it. If we can't dispose of coal ash without

9 destroying our water, we shouldn't create it.

10 A hazardous waste designation under

11 Subtitle C of RCRA would ensure that coal ash

12 dumps and waste ponds have all the protections

13 currently required at waste land fi

-- landfills.

14 This should be the option the EPA embraces to

15 protect people and not polluting industry. Thank

16 you very much.

17 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Gardner.

18 (Applause)

19 MS. GENTILE: Next I'm going to call up

20 the following four numbers: Number 327, Number 91,

21 92, 93. Again 327, 91, 92 and 93. 327?

22 FATHER MITCHELL: Thank you. My name is309

1 Joe Mitchell, and I'm a Catholic priest. I work

2 for an organization called the Earth and Spirit

3 Center.

4 I'd like to, first of all, admit and

5 clearly state that I'm not a scientist, so I don't

6 speak as a scientist; and I am not a

-- involved

7 in any corporation or industry, so I don't speak

8 from that perspective. And I'm not going to speak

9 from a consumer, though I am.

10 But I'd like to speak as a cosmologist.

11 From a cosmological perspective is the

-- is the

12 perspective I'd like to speak from, and here's my

13 story.

14 When I go out into a church and I say to

15 people, "Would you

- all please come tonight?

16 Because I'd like to give a talk or have us have a

17 conversation about the environment," they

18 generally misunderstand what I'm going to be

19 talking about because, by and large, when I invite

20 people for a co nversation about the environment,

21 they think that I'm going to talk about out how

22 the earth has become ruined in its forests; how it310

1 has become desolate in the loss of species.

2 They think I'm going to talk about how

3 the earth has become diminished by the fertility

4 of our soil; become toxic in our atmosphere ;

5 become polluted in our rivers; become threatened

6 with hazardous waste materials that we do not know

7 how to dispose of adequately.

8 And they're wrong. Because generally,

9 when I invite them to come and talk about the

10 environment from a cosmological perspective, I

11 said, "We're going to talk about you."

12 So I'd like to raise that as a concern.

13 The earth is not something out there. The earth is

14 not separate from us. The earth is not simply a

15 resource for our consumption or a garbage dump for

16 our waste that is inadequate and a n inaccurate

17 cosmology. And we as human beings need to

18 understand what we do to the earth, we do to

19 ourselves.

20 And so that's the reason why I am for

21 regula ting coal ash as a hazardous material.

22 Albert Einstein, one of the great scientists of311

1 our times, said that a human being is part of a

2 whole called the universe. And not to understand

3 that, he said, is an optical delusion of

4 consciousness.

5 So these are two faulty assumptions we

6 need to addr ess in this conversation. One is the

7 assumption that we, as humans, are

-- suffer from

8 the earth and we can do whatever

-- to the earth

9 whatever we want and it won't affect us. My

10 fr iends, if the earth becomes sick, we become

11 sick. You can't be a healthy human on a sick

12 planet.

13 But secondly, it also is about presuming

14 that the human economary

-- economy is primary and

15 the earth economy is secondary. The hu

-- the

16 earth economy is first. Human and the human

17 economy is derivative. And if we don't understand

18 that, we keep making exceptions for this because

19 we say it will hurt our economy, if it does, then

20 we are saying that our economy

--

21 MS. GENTILE: I'm sorry, Father. Your

22 time's up.312

1 FATHER MITCHELL:

-- precedes the

2 earth's economy. So thank you for considering

3 these

--

4 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your comment.

5 (Applause)

6 MS. GENTILE: 91?

7 MR. BRYANT: Good morning

-- or good

8 afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to

9 testify. My name is Mark Bryant. I'm the chair

10 of the American Coal Ash Association Board of

11 Directors. This testimony today is on beh alf of

12 that association, its 150 members, and the almost

13 $10 billion beneficial use and recycling industry.

14 In previous testimony, I have presented

15 real

- world examples of ne gative stigma created by

16 the ambiguous, multi

- optioned proposed rule making

17 that could result in managing CCRs under RCRA

18 Subtitle C as a hazardous waste. The stigma is

19 real. And the most recent example is these very

20 hearings where we are observing non

- ash competing

21 commercial products supporting an RCRA Subtitle C

22 option for no other reason than to gain financial313

1 advantage.

2 These competing products know the impact

3 that this will have on the market. It will be

4 d evastating to CCRs.

5 Also in previous testimony, as a

6 scientist and engineer having worked in the

7 geotechnical environmental engineering fields, ash

8 management, landfill, and commodities industries,

9 my comments suggested that the appropriate model

10 to rectify this issue already exists before us,

11 that being the RCRA Subtitle D, non

- hazardous

12 municipal solid waste landfill rules promulgated

13 in the late 80s and 90s.

14 Today I would like to address the facts

15 and data that this decision RCRA D or C, should be

16 based on. There is considerable information, good

17 science, generated over the last 20

- plus years of

18 research and demonstration, much of which was

19 supported in partnership with honest and

20 hard

- working regulators at EPA, both state and

21 federal. It has been proven that their charge of

22 adequately protective of human health and the314

1 environment is best served by a RCRA Subtitle D

2 solution.

3 Recently, almost daily, new information

4 c ontinues to emerge from various sources that

5 supports a non

- hazardous solution. While these

6 works are new, none of being found invalid, and

7 they are considered good science.

8 I believe that anyone in the room will

9 support a call for a national standard for the

10 safe management of these materials as a solid

11 waste, but not hazardous. This would not be good

12 s cience. It would not make for good public

13 policy.

14 We have heard testimony that the goal of

15 some of the environmental organizations

16 represented in these hearings is to raise the cost

17 of coal

- fired generation to a level competitive

18 with wind or solar. A fair goal, understandable,

19 given their beliefs. But if this is to become

20 public policy, it should be based on sound

21 science, solid science, research, publication, and

22 a scalding peer

- review process, and then found315

1 valid.

2 In your opening comments, it was

3 mentioned that the panel could ask questions. I

4 hope that I may ask a question and make a request:

5 That EPA, when considering all of the information

6 presented in these hearings, evaluate the

7 legitimacy and the validity of the science upon

8 which these decisions are based.

9 Remember, the beneficial use and

10 recycling industry is comprised of many small

11 businesses. In fact, based on information

12 available to the public, the largest ash

13 manag ement firm is about a fraction of the Sierra

14 Club's annual revenue.

15 These are small businesses, and their

16 employees' futures hang in the balance of this

17 decision.

18 RCRA works. Trust the process. These

19 materials are not hazardous by any measure. We

20 simply need to strengthen the national

--

21 MS. GENTILE: I'm sorry, Mr. Bryant.

22 Your time is up.316

1 MR. BRYANT: Thank you.

2 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

3 comments.

4 MR. BRYANT:

-- standard for storing and

5 for managing CCRs, while encouraging beneficial

6 use and recycling.

7 I urge you, on behalf of our membership,

8 to pursue a Subtitle C solution based on the

9 facts.

10 (Applause)

11 MS. GENTILE: I'd like to now call the

12 following four numbers: 322, 323, 95, and 97.

13 322, feel free to walk up to the podium whenever

14 you're ready and start your comments.

15 MR. TROKAN: Hi. My name is Matt

16 Trokan, and I'm from Cincinnati, Ohio.

17 I'd like to first start by thanking you

18 for allowing me to speak today, and I appreciate

19 your time. I'll try to keep my comments brief.

20 I believe that Option C is the clear choice. Coal

21 ash is a hazardous waste as it contains

22 concentrated amounts of many toxic heavy metals317

1 which are associated with cancer and various other

2 health effects, but you don't need me to remind

3 you of that.

4 I applaud the decision of US EPA to

5 promote t he safe disposal of coal ash. And I

6 think in order to protect the public and

7 environmental health, coal ash impoundments should

8 be permitted, financially

- assured, monitored, and

9 meet federal and state requirements.

10 The responsibility to enforce regulation

11 should be that of the government, not individual

12 citizens. The US EPA should not ask the public to

13 t rust that power companies will voluntarily comply

14 with regulations under Subtitle D. Given the

15 history of public environmental health abuses by

16 power companies, why should we?

17 The USP

-- EPA states that coal ash

18 disposal is currently unsafe. Option C will

19 ensure that coal ash is regulated. Option D

20 leaves it up to chance.

21 We cannot afford to gamble with coal

22 ash. Our health and our environmental health318

1 cannot afford that risk. Thank you.

2 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

3 comments.

4 (Applause)

5 MS. GENTILE: 323.

6 MS. TINSLEY: My name is Mary Tinsley,

7 and I live near the Gibson Generating Station in

8 Mt. Carmel, Illinois.

9 The coal ash from the landfill flies

10 across the river every day and lands on our cars

11 and homes. I can

-- cannot even open my windows

12 because of that.

13 And I and my friends believe the ash is

14 causing a large a

-- amount of illnesses. We must

15 wash our cars eve ry day because of flying across

16 the river from the landfill.

17 I personally have several friends who

18 have developed illnesses cannot

-- we cannot

19 explain. Many people, young and old alike, have

20 cancer.

21 My brother works on the bridge being

22 built near the Gibson plant, and

-- and is319

1 suffering from kidney and coal and

-- disorders.

2 I have lost a friend to cancer who lives in East

3 Mt. Carmel, where the well water was proven to be

4 contaminated by the coal ash from the plant.

5 Another friend could not make it because

6 she was just diagnosed with cancer. Another

7 friend could not make it because her daughter has

8 developed a skin condition, and the doctors don't

9 know what

-- you know, said they

-- was no cure

10 for it.

11 Duke energy has paid to have city water

12 run to seve ral friends' homes in East Mt. Carmel.

13 I and others, other neighbors and friends, believe

14 that the water conne

-- contamination is more

15 widespread.

16 We believe that we will ne ver find out

17 the true cause of the illnesses because monitoring

18 and notification are not required of Duke, and

19 state of Indiana does not regulate the pollution

20 from the plant. We need help from the EPA, and

21 that's the only way that we're going to get it

22 done. Thank you.320

1 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

2 comments.

3 (Applause)

4 MS. GENTILE: 95?

5 MS. HICKS: Good afternoon. My name is

6 Marsha Hicks. I work for a company that

7 specialized in the responsible management of coal

8 combustion residuals and recycling CCR into useful

9 products.

10 I support the regulation of coal ash

11 disposal in a way that protects human health and

12 the environment. At the same time, I think it is

13 important to encourage the safe recycling of coal

14 ash for beneficial use.

15 Recycling coal ash has a twofold

16 benefit. First, it reduces the amount of ash that

17 must be disposed of. Second, it preserves natural

18 resources that would ot her wise be used for products

19 and eliminates additional carbon dioxide

20 emissions.

21 The United States depends on elect

--

22 excuse me, electricity created by coal combustion.321

1 The amount of electricity use in the United States

2 and, therefore, the amount of CCR produced

3 continues to increase each year, so management of

4 CCR is very important.

5 I support the EPA's effort to implement

6 regulations that are designed to avoid structural

7 failures of impoundments and require additional

8 safeguards for the design and operation of

9 receiving ponds and landfills. From what I have

10 learned about the two proposed alternive (sic)

11 regulations, I think the approach under Subtitle

12 D is the best.

13 As with the Subtitle C proposal,

14 Subtitle D will have engineering requirements to

15 protect the environ ment, such as liners and

16 ground

- water monitoring; will provide stronger

17 oversight of structural integrity of impoundments.

18 Under Subtitle D, CCRs remain classified as a non

-

19 hazardous waste. The recycling of CCRs is

20 important, and it's important to consider it non

-

21 hazardous so that this recycling will remain as a

22 safe, environmentally

- friendly alternative to322

1 disposal.

2 It's my understanding that the Bevill

3 exemption will remain in place for beneficial use

4 of CCRs, so these regulations will not change

5 requirements for beneficial use. However, if they

6 are regulated as a hazardous waste, this will

7 place a stigma on the materials that will damage

8 the recycling industry and hinder the ability to

9 market CCRs for recycling and recycled products.

10 The company I work for has already

11 experienced the impact of negative publici ty that

12 refers to coal ash as hazardous. This has

13 potential for a large negative impact on the

14 environment, resulting in more coal ash being

15 disposed of in impoundments and landfills.

16 In addition, other natural resources

17 will be used for building and construction

18 products. The alternative regulations under

19 Subtitle D will add protections for the

20 environment while preserving recycling efforts.

21 I appreciate this opportunity to voice

22 my concerns about the alternatives, and urge the323

1 EPA to address this under Subtitle D. Thank you.

2 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Ms. Hicks.

3 (Applause)

4 MS. GENTILE: 97.

5 MR. VUCAS: Good afternoon, and thank

6 you for the opportunity to speak today. My name

7 is Jason Vucas, and I represent US Minerals, one

8 of eight companies in the United States engaged in

9 the processing of boiler slag for beneficial reuse

10 in a variety of industrial and commercial

11 applications.

12 There are eight different categories of

13 coal combustion byproducts. Boiler slag

14 represents the smallest of these categories. In

15 terms of volume, it is about 1% of the 135 mi llion

16 tons of CCBs generated annually. However, it has

17 the highest percentage of reuse historically.

18 Virtually 100% of all boiler slag generated goes

19 into a beneficial reuse applicati on.

20 Why is this and what does it mean as it

21 pertains to the proposed regulations on coal

22 combustion byproducts? First, boiler slag is non

-324

1 hazardous by any definition. It has no hazardous

2 properties and exhibits no hazardous

3 characteristics.

4 It is generated through a process called

5 vitrification, which creates a hard, angular

6 granule with a smooth, glassy surface. The

7 granules are non

- leaching and chemically inert.

8 These characteristics make the granule s

9 suitable for a wide variety of applications and

10 products. Again, this means that virtually 100%

11 of boiler slag is beneficially reused. There is

12 no long

- term storage of this materia l, which means

13 there is no need for impoundments.

14 The uses of boiler slag include abrasive

15 products used in surface preparation. Boiler slag

16 abrasives meet the stringent requirements of the

17 U.S. Navy, the California Air Resources Board, and

18 several other certifying bodies.

19 Contrary to statements made at this

20 public meeting and others by a company with a

21 competing product, the chemical properties of

22 boiler slag do not change as the abrasive material325

1 breaks down. They are among the cleanest, safest,

2 and most cost

- e ffective abrasive products on the

3 market. This is a fact, and has been for over 70

4 years.

5 80% of all asphalt residential roofing

6 shingles in the United States contain boiler slag

7 granules on at least a portion of the shingle.

8 Boiler slag is also used for snow and ice

9 control on roadways. It is an ingredient in glass

10 bottle manufacturing, water

- filtration media, seal

11 coating, anti

- skid surfaces, and new uses and

12 applications are constantly being d eveloped.

13 Further regulation could severally

14 minimize the historical levels of beneficial reuse

15 or even eliminate it altogether. Many states

16 strictly prohibit materials clas sified as Subtitle

17 C waste from their beneficial reuse programs. As

18 I stated earlier, competing companies are eager to

19 seize on the stigma associated with the Subtitle C

20 regulation.

21 No known information exists to

-- to

22 support classification of boiler slag as a326

1 hazardous waste, and there are no known damage

2 cases or any adverse envi

-- environmental impacts

3 associated with the reuse of boiler slag.

4 I ask the EPA to consider the science and

5 the facts, and allow for S ubtitle D and the

6 continued unrestricted use of boiler slag. Thank

7 you.

8 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Vucas.

9 (Applause)

10 MS. GENTILE : The next four speakers are

11 Numbers 320, 321, 98, and 99. Come on up to the

12 front of the room. Number 320, you'll be the

13 first to start. So whenever you're ready, come on

14 up to the podium and start your comments.

15 MR. WEBER: My name is Tim Weber, and I

16 represent Synthetic Materials. We process

17 synthetic gypsum, which is a product of the

18 scrubber units.

19 A little about gypsum. It is a product

20 created by the chemical process in the FGD systems

21 or the scrubber units, more commonly known as the

22 scrub bers, in the coal power plants. It's created327

1 by showering limestone down on the

-- the flue

2 gas, which scrubs out the SO2 or sulphur dioxide.

3 Syn

- gyp is a high quality and very pure

4 gypsum material. Chemically it is identical to

5 naturally

- mined gypsum. This synthet ic gypsum can

6 be used in many different applications, such as

7 the wallboard industry, agri

-- agricultural

8 market, of filler materials, and in the making of

9 cement.

10 Synthetic Materials processes over 3

11 million tons of Syn

-- Syn

- gyp annually, primarily

12 for the wallboard and the cement industry.

13 Millions of homes now contain products made with

14 these coal combustion products.

15 The synthetic gypsum that we produce is

16 between 95 and 98% pure, and has a lower trace me

17

-- metals than what's typically found in

18 residential soil cleanup standard s . Recycling of these

19 valuable minerals has reduced the cost of home

20 construction and eliminates the need to open more

21 mines and landfills.

22 Syn

-- SYNMAT is committed to the328

1 expanded recycling of coal combustion products in

2 new and envi

-- vironmently compatib le ways.

3 Thank you.

4 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

5 comments.

6 (Applause)

7 MS. GENTILE: 321.

8 MR. NOONAN: Hello. My name is Chris

9 Noonan. I work for SYNMAT, also. And it's gypsum

10 de

- watering and sales company. I'm here today to

11 give you the many useful application s of synthetic

12 gypsum that keeps

-- that results in fewer

13 landfills and helps keep the cost of these items

14 down. Some of these items that helps

-- that they

15 produce with the gypsum ar e wallboard, structural

16 fill, mining applications, soil amendment,

17 synthetic soil components, plaster, agricultural,

18 glass making, and pigments.

19 SYNMAT is part of a successfu l

20 industrial effort to recycle coal combustion

21 byproducts in the ways beneficial to the economy

22 and environment. A redefinition to the hazardous329

1 classification for this product can result in

2 greater problems. So I feel that Option D is the

3 right choice. Thank you.

4 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

5 comments, sir.

6 (Applause)

7 MS. GENTILE: 98? Number 98?

8 MR. MOTTLEY: My name's Don Mottley.

9 I'm the spokesperson for a group called Save Our

10 Rivers and I'm the spokesperson for Save Our Land

11 & Environment.

12 I'd like to invite you to southwest

13 Indiana. I'd like for you to come and smell and

14 drink the water that the people around East Mt.

15 Carmel and Dogpatch are drinking every day. It's

16 yellow. It's orange. The smell, you would not

17 believe it.

18 Yet not all of the people were

19 connected. Some were told, "Oh, the levels aren't

20 high enough, but, then, we tested once." They've

21 no t tested again. We have studies that were done

22 in 2008, by an independent laboratory that says330

1 boron, selenium, sulfates, magnesium are all in

2 elevated levels in these wells.

3 You go to Merom. You've got a

4 facility up there with a lake that they had an

5 agreement with DNR, and it was a fish and wildlife

6 area. And guess what? All of a sudden they shut

7 it down. Why? Because some of the fish are

8 deformed. Where did that come from? Selenium.

9 There was eight and a half tons of

10 selenium fish destroyed at Cane Ridge, right next

11 to Duke's plant. Where did the selenium come

12 from? They first reported it came from the ro ck

13 that lined their cooling lake. Come to find out

14 it was fluting water from the ash ponds.

15 Well, when are we going to say enough

16 and enough? I'm not saying you should keep the

--

17 keep the industry from using it when it's

18 encapsulated. Highway construction, autoclaved

19 area

-- aided concrete.

20 Vectren called the loans in on a company

21 that was going to build a plant in southwest

22 Indiana that would probably take all the fly ash33 1

1 from three or four of the power plant s . They

2 called in the loan and bankrupt the company. So

3 when they keep talking about reuse, why did the

4 utilities call in loans and shut down a company

5 that could provide safe encapsulated CCW? Thank

6 you.

7 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

8 comments, sir.

9 (Applause)

10 MS. GENTILE: 99.

11 MR. PORTA: Thank you for the

12 opportunity to speak to you today on why I believe

13 coal ash

-- ash is not a haz ardous material. My

14 name is Mark Porta, and I'm a vice president of

15 Whayne Supply Company, the Caterpillar dealer in

16 Kentucky and southern Indiana.

17 Our company has been

-- b een in business

18 since 1913, almost 100 years. We employ over 1250

19 employees, half of those in the coal and related

20 industry. And I have worked there for 30 years,

21 mostly serving the coal and associated industries.

22 I am not a scientist, so I will not

-- I will332

1 leave that debate to the pr ofessionals that are

2 here that are far more qualified. I be

-- I

3 believe the science is clear on why coal ash is

4 not a hazardous material, and I am confident that

5 you have and continu e to listen to the data that

6 supports that position.

7 What I can address is my experience with

8 this product and what I know would be the negative

9 impacts on our company and on the communities our

10 employees live and work here in Kentucky and

11 southern Indiana and where

-- and where it would

12 go and where

-- what

-- what

-- what migh t happen

13 if it goes against the scientific data if you were

14 to classify this material as hazardous.

15 Our equipment has worked in and around

16 this coal ash for many years. We d o not make any

17 recommendations to change operations of our

18 equipment or adjust maintenance schedules because

19 they work in coal ash.

20 If coal ash were to adversely affect the

21 warranties of our equipment or lower machine life,

22 we would have seen this ask and instructed our333

1 customers on this impact. To be clear, we have

2 seen no data that impacts negatively the life of

3 our machines.

4 While machine life is important, the

5 most impor tant concern is our employees' health.

6 Again, for many years our employees have worked in

7 and around coal ash, and we have seen no adverse

8 impact on their health. We provide for yearly

9 physicals, and nothing has shown that indicates

10 this is

-- this is hazardous. I realize this is

11 not a scientific study, but it is the world in

12 which I live.

13 The safety of our employees is our

14 Number 1 goal, and we can

-- and we will not

15 subject them to any working environment where they

16 would be in danger. Our employees have the right

17 to refuse to work where they do not feel safe.

18 For our company, the impact of

19 classifying coal ash as hazardous would

20 significantly increase cost, which we would pass

21 on to the consumer. We do work in materials that

22 are considered

-- considered hazardous, and the334

1 cost to perform routine se rvice and repairs can

2 easily be twice as much when working in those

3 conditions.

4 Working on those machines, transporting

5 those machines, hauling parts to the job site

6 would skyrocket our costs. There would be no

7 value of that unit when it

-- when its useful life

8 is completed.

9 As an example, a machine that might sell

10 today to one of these producers might sell for

11 $400,000 and run for ten years. The trade value

12 at that time would probably be around $40,000.

13 Working in hazardous materials, the machine would

14 have

-- be of zero worth. Many of these companies

15 today would not be able to stay in business.

16 Certainly, the handling of coal ash

17 needs to be done safely as any commodity when it

18 is ro

-- when it's stored in large quantities.

19 The American consumer is very clear: They do not

20 want continued higher cost due to regulations

21 driven by a vocal minority.

22 The data is clear: Coal ash is not335

1 hazardous, and making it so to satisfy a minority

2 that won't accept the science will only r aise

3 costs in a slow and struggling economy. Thank

4 you.

5 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

6 comments, Mr. Porta.

7 (Applause)

8 MS. GENTILE: Okay. The next four

9 numbers I'd like to call up are 144, 168. 100, and

10 102. We'll start with 144.

11 MR. ROBL: My

-- my name is Tom Robl.

12 I'm with the University of Kentucky Center for

13 Applied Energy Research. I spent most of my

14 professional career con

-- conducting research on

15 the beneficial use of coal combustion products.

1 6 The issue that we face today is not

17 between two regulatory sources, C and D, but

18 rather what is not between regulation and

19 irregulation

-- or non

- regulation, but between two

2 0 regular

-- regulatory choices, C and D. And our

21 options are two.

22 What we're trying to do is guarantee336

1 environmental safety while maximizing

2 environmental benefit from these materials. The

3 long list of coal combustion products' uses range

4 from familiar, such as high

- performance concrete

,

5 to

-- and gypsum

- based wallboard, to new products,

6 such as metal matrix composites and

-- and polymer

7 composite material.

8 The environmental benefit from ut

--

9 utilization of coal combustion products is well

10 documented. Based on 2007 data, the Electric

11 Power Research Institute found that using coal

12 products saved 159 trillion BTUs, conserved 32

13 million

-- billion gallons of water, and

14 reducedCO2 emissions by 11 million tons.

15 The US EPA, however, claims that

16 classification of coal ash as a

-- a C material

1 7 under the dual system of management will actually

18 increase the beneficial reuse of coal combustion

19 products. This is simply not borne out by

20 experience with other materials, nor from the

21 response from the producers themselves, other

22 consumers, or regulators.337

1 To quote Mr. Paul Thompson, vice

2 president for Energy Services of E.On

- US, who

--

3 who stated if ash is

-- who states, "If ash is

4 classified as a hazardous material, I would

5 consider it irresponsible on our part to allo w it

6 be disposed of in any other way than in a properly

7 certified hazardous material repository."

8 Of

-- of

-- the agency has been warned

9 on the consumer side by expert organi zations, such

10 as ASTM, ACI, and the National Ready Mix

11 Association, that prohibitions, the utilizations,

12 will occur as long

- term liability uncertainties,

13 insurance, and handling restr ictions become

14 important.

15 The critical part of this is that the

16 reduction of the CO2 from Portland Cement, which

17 is responsible for 5% of all manmade emission, is

18 one of the great environmental challenges our

19 time. Coal combustion products are critical for

20 their ability to displace Portland Cement in

-- in

21

-- in concrete. This is of particular importance,

22 as I know of no other material that can do that.338

1 The US EPA has now assumed authority

2 over regulating CO2 as a primary pollutant.

3 Adopting result

-- adopting rules that result in

4 increased CO2 production which would make the

5 agency a

-- a primary polluter.

6 I encourage the ag ency to accept

7 regulation under Subtitle D, which I believe will

8 give a

-- a

-- a balanced benefit.

9 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Robl.

10 (Applause)

11 MS. GENTILE: 168? 100?

12 MR. BLAIR: Hello. My name is John

13 Blair. I'm here for the group Valley Watch.

14 We're located in southern Indiana, in Evansville.

15 I've changed my testimony a little bit

16 today because I've

-- I've listened to all this

17 discussion about recycling today and for the last

18 30 years I've been involved in these issues. It's

19

-- it's just amazing to me how I've heard the term

20 "clean coal"for probably 35 years now, and, you

21 know, it just ain't so.

22 There's a small component of

-- of this339

1 combustion waste that's recycled, a small

2 component. But from where I sit

-- and I fly over

3 all these

-- all these power plants and their

--

4 their impoundments and all this all the time. And

5 from where I sit, I see a growing problem.

6 Now, there are a few of them that are

7 recycling some of this stuff , and I

-- you know,

8 I'm not smart enough scientifically to know if

--

9 if it's a good idea for your kid to be sleeping in

10 a room that has drywall made of Syn

- gyp that may

11 be radioactive because of the components that the

12 coal combustion caused.

13 But it seems to me that this industry as

14 a whole has a problem with trying to mislead the

15 public continually on things that aren't in

16 existence yet, whether it's carbon capture and

17 sequestration or trying to recycle coal combustion

18 waste. If I had just come into this room and

19 didn't have some direct knowledge about the way

20 things actually are, I would think that you're

21 about to take away the biggest recycling component

22 of anything that existed on earth. And it ma y be340

1 97 or 98% of the coal combustion waste that's

2 being generated is being recycled, but it's just

3 not true.

4 Instead, we have toxic material that's

5 leaching out into my source of drinking water,

6 which is the Ohio River. This is the Cane Run

7 facility. This is becoming a mountain. T his is

8 the Mill Creek facility. This is becoming a

9 mountain.

10 This is the Clifty Creek facility. This

11 is becoming a mountain. And the funny thing about

12 Cl ifty Creek is that they had to have something

13 they

-- they went to a Subtitle C kind of regimen

14 and

-- and they had to have something to prop up

15 the liner. What did they use to prop up the line r

16 to make it level? Coal combustion waste

17 underneath.

18 This is the Gallagher plant across the

19 river. This is not

-- this is becoming a

20 mountain.

21 You know, we have a problem with

22 increasing volumes of this stuff that's not being341

1 recycled, so don't be fooled by all this ta lk

2 about recycling because it's just not happening.

3 Thank you.

4 (Applause)

5 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

6 comments. Number 102, please.

7 MR. BILSLAND: Thank you for allowing me

8 to speak today. My name's Kirby Bilsland, and I

9 work for a coal combustion byproducts recycling

10 industry. And I'm speaking as a conc erned

11 citizen.

12 I started my employment in the coal ash

13 recycling business about six months ago. And in

14 this economy, it's a good part of a

-- it's good

15 to be part of an industry that is creating jobs

16 and, more importantly, green jobs.

17 The regulations proposed by the EPA will

18 impact the recycling coal ash, especially if the

19 appr oach adopted is under a hazardous waste label.

20 The EPA is underestimating the negative impact

21 that a hazardous waste association will have on

22 the work that I do.342

1 Just the

-- the suggestion that coal ash

2 may be called hazardous has caused our business to

3 be negatively impacted. I see a loss of volumes

4 in our product sales and the recycling industry,

5 and I hear our customers and haulers claim they

6 are confused by news coverage that labels our

7 product as a hazar dous or toxic waste. If the

8 EPA's suggested approach can have this much

9 negative impact on recycling efforts, I fear what

10 the rules will do if actually implemented.

11 I ask that the EPA avoid regulating coal

12 ash under the same rules as hazardous

-- hazardous

13 waste, and I ask the EPA to support recycling coal

14 ash and save our natural resourc es that coal ash

15 replaces. I ash that

-- ask that coal ash be

16 regulated under Subtitle D for non

- hazardous

17 materials.

18 Having not worked in this industry

19 be fore, I have learned and continue to learn of

20 the beneficial uses for coal ash. Being the

21 provider for my family, it's important to me that

22 I have job security. I work hard to provide a343

1 good life for my wife and children, and by

2 regulating under Subtitle C, this will threaten to

3 change the life

-- my life and the lives of many

4 others.

5 I am proud to work for a company which

6 does everything with employee, customer, and

7 public safety as their first priority. Integrity

8 is very important to me, which I have found is

9 also very important to my employer.

10 If you insist on hazardous waste

- type

11 regulations of this byproduct of coal, it will

12 cause most certainly an increase in the cost

13 to use and have electricity. If the regulations

14 under both approaches will have similar protection

15 requirements for disposal, then why would we even

16 consider the hazardous label approach?

17 According to the American Coal Ash

--

18 Ash Association, 136 million tons of ash were

19 produced in 2008. 44% of this was recycled into

20 usable products. More than 12 million tons of

21 greenhouse gas emissions were avoided by using ash

22 to replace cement.344

1 It is projected by that 2030, the United

2 States will use 19% more electricity than we did

3 in 2007. As a nation, if we insist on using more

4 electricity, then coal ash will need to be

5 recycled. Who will want to use ash if it has a

6 hazardous waste label on it?

7 I'm afraid it will cause a ripple effect

8 on the cost to maintain one's utilities, and I

9 believe it is unnecessary to label a valuable

10 resource

-- resource as hazardous, especially

11 since it will not improve the disposal

12 requirements in the field.

13 I ask y ou as a concerned citizen to

14 understand and look at it from the prospective of

15 a middle class American who wants to give his

16 family a good life and an affordable one. Don't

17 destroy th e green jobs that recycling coal ash

18 represents. Thank you.

19 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

20 comments, sir.

21 (Applause)

22 MS. GENTILE: I'd like to call the345

1 following four speakers down to the front of the

2 room: 328, 185, 139, and 172. Come on down.

3 328, feel free to start whenever you're ready.

4 MR. PRICE: My name is Charles Price.

5 And I work for a family business that has been

6 recycling coal combustion products for the last 15

7 years, and I'm strongly opposed to labeling coal

8 ash as a hazardous material under subtitle C.

9 Labeling coal ash as a hazardous

10 material will cripple the beneficial use, stifle

11 innovation, and impose unnecessarily burdensome

12 regulations on power plant operations. Coal

13 combustion products are a valuable resource to our

14 economy, and every effort should be taken to make

15 certain they are protected.

16 On numerous occasions, the EPA has

17 determined that coal ash does not warrant

18 regulations as a hazardous waste and, instead,

19 should be regulated under Subtitle D regulations.

20 Ash helps reduce the need for landfill space and

21 new landfills, and provides significant domestic

22 economic benefits. As I have heard other s say, the346

1 stigma is real. Labeling coal ash as a hazardous

2 waste, even if only when disposed, creates

3 enormous barriers to recycling.

4 Please listen carefully to what I am

5 saying, and remember that your decisions will have

6 tremendous implications on businesses nationwide.

7 Please choose to regulate coal ash under Subtitle

8 D.

9 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

10 comments.

11 (Applause)

12 MS. GENTILE: 185? 139?

13 MR. BOLEN: My name is Keith Bolen, and

14 I've worked in the coal ash management and the

15 recycling industry for many years.

16 I am against the EPA proposing to

17 regulate coal ash a s a hazardous special waste

18 under Subtitle C. The negative impact would

1 9 result

-- would be huge. Residential and

20 commercial builders would stop using this material

21 if it's deemed hazardous in landfills.

22 Road building and other infractures347

1 (sic) would have to use alternate materials.

2 These alternate materials would do greater harm to

3 the environment since manufacturing them woul d

4 cause increased greenhouse gas emissions.

5 Coal ash recycling, on the other hand,

6 has many environmental benefits, such as

7 conservation of our natural resources and landfill

8 space. These benefits need to be preserved.

9 Under the EPA's own rule, new landfill

10 engineering practices would re

-- essentially be

11 the same whether they be

-- are dedicate d with the

12 hazardous or non

- hazardous classifications. In

13 addition, new landfill engineering standards would

14 have to be adopted faster if the hazardous class

15

-- classification is not determined.

16 I am for the E

-- EPA endorsing more

17 stringent coal ash disposal regulations; however,

18 it needs to be done without characterizing coal

19 ash as hazardous waste and destroying everyone's

20 goal of a cleaner environment. To do so, EPA must

21 regulate under Subtitle D.

22 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Bolen.348

1 (Applause)

2 MS. GENTILE: 172.

3 MR. FRANKLIN: Thank you. My name is

4 Ben Franklin. I'm a concerned citizen and a

5 member of Citizens for Recycling First. I'm

6 deeply concerned about the future of coal ash

7 utilization. The EPA is proposing stricter

8 regulations on CCP disposal while advocating a

9 higher utilization of CCPs on items such as

10 concretes, cement, and soil. While I commend you

11 for wanting to use more of these materials, I

12 cannot understand how you can believe that placing

13 the CCPs under a hazardous designation would be

14 beneficial to higher utilization.

15 Obviously, placing disposed ash under

16 the hazardous designation will create stigma for

17 the CCPs and the products that incorporate these

18 valuable materials, such as fly ash. It will also

19 create a huge liability, not only fo r the producer

20 of the CC P s, but for the end user, as well.

21 I've read through both proposals and see

22 very little difference in either one of them. The349

1 main differences that jump out at me are

-- are

2 that under Subtitle C, hazardous, the EPA will

3 have control over regulation of h ow these

4 materials are stored and how they are beneficially

5 used.

6 You would regulate the materials under a

7 hazardous guideline, but create a new subcategory

8 called special waste. I also understand it would

9 take close to five years for the EPA to implement

10 that Subtitle C plan.

11 Under Subtitle D, however, the

12 non

- hazardous propos al, the individual state

13 would continue

-- the individual states would

14 continue to regulate the materials as a solid

15 waste, as they currently do, but with federal

16 oversight. Again, the EPA has stated that with

17 the Subtitle D plan, it could be implemented in

18 less than two years, not in five.

19 When comparing the two proposals, all

20 else seems virtually the same. From what I've

21 read, both proposals are equally protective of

22 both humans and the environment, so why would the350

1 EPA want to wait another three to implement

2 virtually the same plan, not to mention, risk

3 ruining the very thing you seek to accomplish,

4 which is keeping more of these CCPs from the

5 impoundments and landfills?

6 The EPA has looked at CCPs in the past

7 under both Democrat and Republican Congresses and

8 presidents, and every time the EPA has returned

9 with the verdict that there is no way that CCPs

10 can be considered hazardous and they should stay

11 exempt under the Bevill Amendment.

12 By creating stigma and liability under

13 Subtitle C, you will not only kill the recycling

14 of a beneficial material, but you will

15 inadvertently increase greenhouse gas emissions,

16 decrease landfill space, increase the mining of

17 virgin construction materials, and increase energy

18 use.

19 I'm asking you again to make the smart

20 decision and pick the new

-- the right proposal

21 based on the facts and not on the politics of the

22 day. The right choice and the only choice is that351

1 of Subtitle D, non

- hazardous. Thank you.

2 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

3 comments, Mr. Franklin.

4 (Applause)

5 MS. GENTILE: Okay. The next four

6 speakers I want to call down are the following:

7 96, 132, 103, and 329. Again, 96, 132, 103, 329.

8 96, you can get started whenever you're ready.

9 MS. ROBERSON: My name is Teresa

10 Roberson, and I'm speaking as the wife of an

11 employee that depends on the coal combustion

12 byproduct recycling industry.

13 My entire life has been surrounded by

14 family members that have depended on coal or coal

15 byproducts as a method of financial support for

16 their families. Recent years, we have challenged

17 to serve

-- to save energy, save landfill space,

18 be a better steward of our resources, and we pride

19 ourselves on the efforts to recycle items such as

20 paper, glass, cans, and other leftovers.

21 Reduce

-- reduce, reuse, and recycle are

22 strategies widely employed in the United States to352

1 help cut down on the needs for landfills and

2 conserve limited resources. This is where we

3 learned the terms "beneficial use" and "recycling

4 activities."

5 The coal ash recycling industry likewise

6 provides

-- or prides themselves in the efforts to

7 recycle. Over the years, they have found a

8 variety of ways to put the pro

-- the byproducts

9 of burning coal to productive, beneficial uses.

10 I understand that the beneficial use has

11 increased steadily and now constitutes nearly 50%

12 of all coal combustion byproducts produced. Even

13 the EPA has partnered with the industry and other

14 federal agencies in an effort to promote the reuse

15 of coal ash.

16 According to the American Coal Ash

17 Associat ion, each ton recycled, space equivalent

18 to 455 days' worth of solid waste, is saved in a

19 landfill. Even the very office that houses the

20 headquarters of the EPA was constructed with

21 c oncrete containing coal ash.

22 The Subtitle C hazardous approse

--353

1 approach would seriously damage recycling by

2 creating an unnecessary hazardous waste stigma on

3 coal ash. I feel that coal ash disposal

4 regulations should be improved while encouraging

5 recycling coal ash as a safe,

6 environmentally

- preferable alternative to

7 disposal.

8 Cold

-- coal ash does not qualify as a

9 hazardous waste based on its toxicity, but

10 actually is similar to that of materi als that

11 replaces in recycling applications. That being

12 said, a hazardous or toxic label given by the news

13 media and special

- interest groups is unwarranted.

14 In conclusion, I feel that any form of

15 Subs

-- Subtitle C ash disposal regulations will

16 hurt recycling by creating a hazardous waste

17 stigma for the coal ash. Thank you for the

18 opportunity to express my concerns in this matter.

19 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

20 comments.

21 (Applause)

22 MS. GENTILE: 132, please. 132?354

1 Something has gone wrong at the desk, it sounds

2 like. We'll figure that out for you. Sorry. We

3 had a

-- a blip in our process.

4 Could you just state your name for the

5 record so we have the right name on our record?

6 MR. ROBERSON: My name is Ron Roberson.

7 MS. GENTILE: We have you down here.

8 MR. ROBERSON: Okay. All right.

9 MS. GENTILE: Thank you.

10 MR. ROBERSON: As I stated, my name is

11 Ron Roberson. I am speaking as the director of

12 safety of a company that depends on coal

13 combustion byproducts and the recycling industry.

14 I have lived in the great Commonwealth

15 of Kentucky for my entire life. I was raised in

16 the coal fields of western Kentucky, working in

17 and around the coal and coal

- mining industry my

18 entire life of over 35 years.

19 I have handled coal byproducts for the

20 past eight years, and we have seen a great

21 accomplishment through this time surrounding this

22 industry. And one the greatest is the use of coal355

1 combustion byproducts as a recycled material.

2 I feel that the negative inaccurate data

3 that the coal ash receives by t he news media and

4 special groups has jeopardized the continued

5 future use of recycled material. As I travel this

6 great country, I am encouraged with the recycling

7 efforts by the amoun t of coal ash used in concrete

8 that is placed in our cities bridges, in our

9 sidewalks, and airports where millions of people

10 step each day.

11 Looking at the great dams that hold back

12 our precious lakes and rivers, I applaud the

13 efforts in which the combining of the coal ash

14 with other natural resource to create a

-- a

15 concrete structure to provide recreation, safe

16 drinking, and to protect our lands from flooding.

17 Furthermore, as the director of safety,

18 I must add that I found in recent statements

19 published by the United States Department of

20 Health and Human Services regarding the public

21 health assessment related to the TVA Kingston ash

22 spill very comforting. And the ir 274

- page final356

1 report, written by the Tennessee Valley

-- or

2 excuse me, the Tennessee Department of Health,

3 they conclude, in Conclusion Number 3, that,

4 (reads) No harm to the community's

-- the

5 community's health is expected from touch ing of coal

6 ash including children who might touch the as h

7 while playing.

8 In Conclusion Number 4, they state,

9 (reads) No harm to people's health expected from

10 accidental eating of small amounts of ash. Who

11 would want to?

12 And in Conclusion Number 6, it says,

13 (reads) Using municipal drinking water from the

14 Kingston Rockwood water treatment plants will not

15 harm people's health because of the raw finished

16 water remaining.

17 These samples were taken between

18 December the 23rd of 2008 and January the 5th of

19 2009 with over one full year of data. When I see

20 this type of data based on almost two years of

21 sampling and analysis regarding the Kingston

22 health assessment, I find it odd and without logic357

1 that we would consider taking a chance of

2 destroying the best recycling industry in the

3 United States by labeling coal ash as a hazardous

4 substance.

5 I support coal ash disposal regulations

6 that protect human health and the environment only

7 if it merits the facts that support it, but I do

8 not see any way that a person or a group of people

9 can say that coal ash is harmful to the

10 environment.

11 As I close, I'd like to thank the panel

12 for the oppor tunity to voice, be heard, and my

13 voice is that the EPA not designate coal ash as a

14 hazardous substance. Thank you.

15 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

16 comments, Mr. Roberson.

17 (Applause)

18 MS. GENTILE: Okay. The next, Number

19 132? Can we get your name for the record since

20 clearly we have some

--

21 MR. STANT: Yeah.

22 MS. GENTILE:

-- problems up here?358

1 MR. STANT: I'm Jeff Stant with the

2 Environmental Integrity Project.

3 MS. GENTILE: Okay. We have you down as

4 something else. Okay. Good enough.

5 MR. STANT: Okay.

6 MS. GENTILE: Cool. Thank you.

7 MR. STANT: We want there to be much

8 more recycling of coal ash in America, which is

9 precisely why we want the regulation of coal ash

10 to occur under Subtitle C of RCRA, and urge the

11 EPA to take that action.

12 I'm

-- I'm here to talk

-- to respond to

13 some

-- a number of claims made previously about

1 4 the beneficial impacts and the lack of any adverse

15 impacts from the use of one component of coal

16 combustion waste, flue gas desulfurization gypsum,

17 a small component now, but it's a burgeoning par t

18 of the

-- of the CCW waste stream we expect in the

19 future.

20 We've heard no data presented in any of

21 these statements or even sum

-- or summarized in

22 the Ch icago hearing, where most of them were made,359

1 to support these contentions, and have yet to see

2 a single set of data that credibly demonstrates no

3 adverse impacts to surface waters from the use of

4 gypsum in agriculture, and are unaware of any that

5 EPA has been reviewing.

6 We're aware of recent leaching test data

7 on 20 FGD gypsums, on the other hand, evaluated by

8 US EPA's Office of Research and Development in it

9

-- in its report, where a

-- a

-- test me thod that

10

-- with greatly improved capability to predict the

11 leaching behavior of gypsum in the

-- in the

12 environment was

-- was used on them.

13 When it was, these FGD gypsums were

14 found to leach selenium at up to 1600 micrograms

15 per liter. That's 16 times over the threshold for

16 hazardous waste. They leached thallium at 1100

17 micrograms per liter. That's 550 times higher

18 than the primary drinking water standard; cadmium

19 at 375 micrograms per liter, 74 times higher than

20 the primary drinking water standard; a rsenic at up

21 to 1200 micrograms per liter, 120 times higher

22 than the primary drinking water standard; and360

1 antimony at up to 330 micrograms per liter, 55

2 times higher than the primary drinking water

3 standard.

4 They also leached molybdenum and boron

5 at 45 times over their

-- their federal health

6 advisories for

-- for those substances in drinking

7 water.

8 The potential for FGD gypsum is to leach

9 high concentrations of metals and other

10 constituents at di sposal sites ap

-- is appearing

11 to be also borne out by leachate and monitoring

12 data at several CCW sites and the reports that

13 we've presented to EPA this year.

14 Ground water under the gypsum storage

15 area at the Big Ben plant in Tampa, Florida has

16 had boron concentrations 40 times the state's

17 standard; iron, 66 times the standard; manganese,

18 11 times; sulfa te, 4 times; and TDS, 5 times.

19 Arsenic and thallium under other FGD disposal

20 units at that site are at 11 and 8 times higher

21 than

-- than their drinking water standards.

22 The Caledonia landfill in southeast361

1 Wisconsin has had molybdenum at levels up to 375

2 times over the federal health advisory. You have

3 drinking water wells contaminated there with

4 molybdenum, as well.

5 Therefore, with this kind of evidence

--

6 there's also two Kentucky sites that have gyps um

7 that have arsenic problems.

8 We would urge EPA not to

-- to

-- to

9 take gypsum out of this regulation and to

10 designate it as a

-- a

-- a special waste or a

11 hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA. And

--

12 and thank you very much.

13 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

14 comments.

15 (Applause)

16 MS. GENTILE: Number 103?

17 MR. BARR: Good afternoon. My name is

18 Jerry Barr. I'm a resident of Kentucky.

19 And as an individual who has worked in

20 the interconnected industries of power generation,

21 construction, and waste management for my entire

22 professional life, I am quite concerned with any362

1 proposed governmental regulation affecting their

2 operation. It seems to me that incorrect or

3 misguided regulation could have un intentional and

4 potentially disastrous consequences. The coal

-

5 fired power industry has been essential in the

--

6 in the industrialization of the civilized world.

7 Most of the modern co nveniences that we are

8 beneficiaries of would not exist without

9 coal

- fired power.

10 Coal powered the industrial revolution.

11 It helped make America great. It empowered the

12 steel indus

-- industry and all the manufacturing

13 giants of the American economy. It continues to

14 serve us all.

15 There are coal

- fired power generating

16 facilities that are producing power for all of us

17 every minute of every day. We all expect there to

18 be light when we flip the switch. Without them,

19 we could not live our lives as we d o today. Most

20 everything we do depends on electricity.

21 The combustion of coal produces fly ash,

22 which is a fine particulate, and bottom ash, which363

1 is a coarse, hard substance. The matter of fact

2 is that these substances have been used

3 beneficially by the human race as far back as the

4 time of the Roman Empire. The first recorded use

5 of cement was

-- was by the Romans. They used a

6 mixture of ash and clay to construct aqueduct

--

7 aqueducts, which are still

-- still s tand today.

8 We still use ash in the same way and, in fact,

9 many more beneficial ways. Gypsum is used to

10 manufacture wallboard and is

-- is nes

-- a

11 necessity in home building today.

12 These materials are necessary components

13 of modern construction. Without them, we would

14 not have the same quality homes, road structures,

15 or structures that we have today.

16 If these materials are designated and

17 treated

-- treated as hazardous, it will have a

18 devastating effect. First of all, we'll have dire

19 quans

-- consequences for the coal industry and

20 coal

- fired power generating facilities. If these

21 by products are designated as hazardous, many

22 small facilities will be forced to close, and the364

1 re

-- remaining facilities will be required to

2 construct landfills.

3 A Subtitle C approach will also resu lt

4 in ash material no longer being used in beneficial

5 ways. The industry would not utilize materials to

6 be declared hazardous and

-- in its building

7 products. Al

-- alternate would b e more

8 expensive. Virgin materials would have to be

9 identified.

10 The result of any regulation declaring

11 or classifying coal combustion products as

12 hazardous will mean the loss of potentially

13 thousands of jobs, a huge increase of cost in

14 commercial and residential construction.

15 I urge you to follow your own studies of

16 the past, and avoid regulating coal ash as

17 hazardous and regulate it under Subtitle D.

18 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Barr. 329.

19 MR. WRIGHT: My name is Daniel Wright,

20 and I'm testifying as a concerned citizen. I

21 believe that we can all agree that the concept of

22 recycling is a great idea. But since nine

--365

1 since 2000, more than 360 million tons of coal

2 combustion product have been recycled. That's 360

3 million tons that didn't

-- di dn't take up space

4 in our landfills.

5 Coal ash is used in roadways, interstate

6 highways, Portland cement and many other

7 products. I feel if coal ash is classified under

8 Subtitle C, many companies will quit using it in

9 their products. This will, in turn, use up more

10 of our natural resources and flood our landfills

11 with recyclable materials.

12 I ask the EPA to find a way to regulate

13 coal ash disposal under non

- hazardous rules and

14 avoid causing harm to the success of

-- of the

15 recycling business. Make the decis ion not to

16 classify coal

-- coal ash as hazardous or special

17 waste under Subtitle C is the responsible thing to

18 do for our future. Thank you.

19 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for you r

20 comments.

21 (Applause)

22 MS. GENTILE: At this time, the panel366

1 will take a very sh ort, approximately,

2 eight

- minute break. We're going to come back and

3 resume the hearing at 4:30.

4 (Recess)

5 MS. GENTILE: Everybody, we're going to

6 resume the hearing in one minute. Good evening,

7 everybody. We're back. For those of you who have

8 just joined us, we're here for the public hearing

9 for the EPA's proposed rule for the regulation of

10 coal combustion residuals.

11 Logistics for the hearing, we would like

12 everyone to keep their comments to three minutes

13 or less. When we call your number, please come to

14 the chairs to the right of the panel.

15 I'd like to now call up the next four

16 speakers. 105, 106, 107, and 114. And please

17 take any of your conversations out into the

18 hallway, and make sure you please turn off your

19 Blackberries and cell phones. Thank you.

20 105, feel free to approach the podium

21 whenever you're ready.

22 MR. RAIA: Thank you. Good afternoon.367

1 My name is Bobby Raia, and I'm a civil engineer

2 currently working within the coal ash industry,

3 and I'm here today to express my support of the

4 EPA to regulate coal ash under the proposed

5 Subtitle D, non

- hazardous approach.

6 Recycling has become a way of life for

7 many of us, an obligation where we understand the

8 value and importance of using a product and then

9 finding another use for it where we're using that

10 very product to avoid the necessity to manufacture

11 new products using virgin materials. This concept

12 explains the logo recycling, the continuous circle

13 with no end.

14 As a believer in recycling, I am proud

15 to be part of the best recycling industry in

16 America. Yet we're here today at a crossroad

17 where the EPA has proposed Subtitle C, special

18 waste approach. To regulate coal ash threatens

19 the core values and ultimate objectives of

20 recycling by subjecting coal ash to a stigma that

21 would impact the coal ash recycling industry.

22 Coal ash is primarily recycling concrete368

1 to enhance its strength, durability and resistance

2 to elements. Concrete is used in nearly all

3 infrastructure construction, including bridges,

4 buildings, houses, dams, and roads. However,

5 hazardous regulation of coal ash would create a

6 negative perspectiv e for the use in this concrete

7 forcing engineers, architects and contractors to

8 use alternate and non

- spec materials ultimately

9 resulting in higher infrastructure costs.

10 More importantly, a hazardous regulation

11 would impact the jobs related to the sales,

12 trucking and manufacturing of coal ash. If we say

13 "no" to the

-- to the many coal ash recycling

14 programs, it will be disposed of in landfills,

15 which means additional, bigger, higher, and

16 quicker filled landfills in order to accommodate

17 the 44% that is recycled annually.

18 Under both the Subtitle D and Subtitle C

19 proposals, the EPA addresses the need to

20 standardize and strengthen the engineering

21 standards associated with landfills and the same

22 as under the Subtitle and Subtitle D approach. The369

1 EPA actually s aying in effect the disposal

2 regulation of the proposed Subtitle D would take

3 effect faster than the proposed Subtitle C.

4 In closing, I strongly urge the EPA to

5 regulate coal ash under the proposed Subtit le D,

6 non

- hazardous approach. Coal ash is

7 non

- hazardous, as stated by the EPA and recently

8 concluded by the Tennessee Department of Health in

9 their final assessment for coal ash rele ase for

10 the Kingston Fossil Plant. I wouldn't be standing

11 here today if I didn't believe the same.

12 This approach protects the environment

13 and human health with the standard for landfill

14 and disposal, yet it reinforces the values and

15 objectives of recycling, not to mention the

16 preservation of many jobs associated with the coal

17 ash recycling industry, including mine. Thanks

18 for the opportunity.

19 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Raia, for

20 your comments.

21 (Applause)

22 MS. GENTILE: Number 106.370

1 MR. WEICKEL: Good afternoon. My name

2 is Vernon Weickel, and I'm speaking as an empl oyee

3 of a company that depends on the coal combustion

4 byproducts recycling industry. I'm a procurement

5 manager and I spend my time at work purchasing and

6 coordinating equipment for our company.

7 I support coal ash disposal regulations

8 to protect human health and the environment

9 without compromising greater recycling

1 0 capabilities of coal ash. These goals cannot be

11 accomplish if the Environmental Protection Agency

12 designates coal ash as hazardous special waste

13 under Subtitle C. This classification would bring

14 an uncertainty to the general population and would

15 be detrimental to the recycling efforts.

16 If they read in the newspaper the

17 material is hazardous, they will fight the use o f

18 it in every way. We must not make it difficult to

19 continue the best recycling program that we have

20 available in this country. Working in the

21 business, I take particular interest in the

22 statements recently published by the U.S.371

1 Department of Health and Human Resour

-- Human

2 Services, excuse me, regarding the public health

3 assessment related to the TVA Kingston ash spill.

4 In their final report, the Tennessee

5 Department of Health made the following statement:

6 They conclude that there was no harm to the

7 community's health. The conclusions of no harm of

8 people's health continue in the scientific study

9 performed by the E PA, U.S. Department of Health

10 and Tennessee Department of Health. I understand

11 a need for national standards on landfill design

12 but do not understand why we should label coal ash

13 as hazardous when the protective features of the

14 landfills will be similar under both C & D

15 regulations.

16 The benefits of Subtitle D approach far

17 exceed the n egative impacts of Subtitle C

18 approach. The recycling of coal ash has many

19 environmental benefits that should be promoted by

20 the EPA. If beneficial uses are no longer

21 available, it w ill force power plants to landfill

22 all material and lead to the depletion of more372

1 natural resources, increase in general greenhouse

2 gases, and ultimately increase costs of my

3 electric bill.

4 EPA must not designate coal ash has

5 hazardous special waste. In closing, I'd like to

6 thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion.

7 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

8 comments, Mr. Weickel. Appreciate it.

9 (Applause)

10 MS. FACKLER: My name is Rose tta Fackler,

11 and I am the outreach director for Kentucky

12 Interfaith Power and Light, a non

- profit

13 organization that seeks to work with communities of

14 faith to reduce their carbon footprint

.

15 As a woman of faith, I am concerned

,

16 and quite frankly, appalled at the prospect of

17 adding another environmentally degradating site to

18 the already overcrowded and polluted areas of our

19 Commonwealth. The people who lived

-- live in the

20 proposed permitted area of Louisville are those

21 who generally have no voice in the h alls of power.

22 They have no lobbyists other than us. They have373

1 no voice other than ours.

2 So I am here to ask you to hear about

3 their concerns for their health, their homes,

4 their children, and their future. Coal ash

5 contains toxins such as selenium, arsenic,

6 chromium, and lead. As the retired Nonpoint

7 source education coordinator for the Kentucky

8 Division of Water, I can speak to the condition of

9 water when pollutants are injected into our

10 groundwater.

11 Pre

- SMCRA, the coal industry destroyed

12

-- destroyed the streams and much of our state.

13 The water runs red with iron oxide. This is a

14 perpetua l clean

- up. Since as long as water runs

15 from the mine sites, the water will be polluted

16 costing the Commonwealth, and indeed, the country

17 billions of dollars. Why would we want to further

1 8 compromise the quality of our groundwater by

19 allowing coal ash to drain unregulated into the

20 watertable through the leachate containing the

21 above toxins?

22 This will cost the people much more for374

1 those without insurance, the poor health of the

2 next generation, and the l oss of property values

3 than any possible rate increase over the cost of

4 regulation. Ladies and gentlemen, we simply

5 cannot allow this to happen.

6 We are constantly reminded t hat our

7 budget is overly burdened. Why add to it by

8 having to remediate the toxic effects of coal ash?

9 Why add the burden of health risk to the people

10 who have

-- who live so close to the ash piles and

11 ponds? The proposed site in Louisville will be a

12 four

- story pile of death for the people who live

13 nearby.

14 Here in Louisville we've gone so far as

15 to insult even the dead. The

16 euphemistically

- named Riverview Cemetery has as

17 it's riverview an approximate three

- story pile of

18 coal ash separa ted only by a wire fence. Would

19 you want your loved ones buried in such a place?

20 The people who live in Riverside Gardens

21 are plagued every day by the chemicals from the

22 Rub bertown Complex manufacturing plants that375

1 produce a cocktail of air pollutants that result

2 in high cancer rates, the highest morbidity rate,

3 the highest asthma rate, and the worst odors

4 imaginable. The addition of yet another

5 unregulated coal ash site will only exacerbate

6 that condition.

7 Kentuck y has the second highest number

8 of high

- risk coal ash disposable sites

-- disposal

9 sites in the nation. Today I heard that coal ash

10 is put into concrete and other recycled products.

11 It's exactly the same as the ash that is stored in

12 the ash ponds. I can't help but wonder

--

13 MS. GENTILE: I'm sorry, Ms. Fackler,

14 your time is up.

15 MS. FACKLER: Thank you very much.

16 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

17 comments.

18 MS. FACKLER: M

- hm. M

- hm.

19 (Applause)

20 MS. GENTILE: 114.

21 MR. AUBREY: Hi. My name is Kenny

22 Aubrey.376

1 I want to thank you for allow ing me to

2 speak. I support the coal ash regulations that

3 protect the environmental, as well as protect

4 human health. I do not support the EPA's proposed

5 designation of coal ash as hazardous special waste

6 under Subtitle C. I am sure that it would

7 devastate the recycling efforts as we currently

8 know it.

9 I know in my own experience I've been

--

10 have been involved in several million dollars

11 worth of projects that has saved our taxpayers and

12 state and municipal projects that this beneficial

13 re used product has been used. I have had several

14 experiences with coal ash recycling for 17 years,

15 and I have seen it shipped to local cement plants

16 for its minerals properties valuable to that

17 industry. I've been involved with it for highway

18 projects, I've been involved with it for municipal

19 infrastructure projects. Like I said, it's a

20 great value to our construction industry.

21 Coal ash recycling needs to be preserved

22 for its many benefits. The EPA should endorse377

1 guidelines and work with a sh management to ensure

2 that it is being handled within the goals of

3 recycling for our benefits of our state. I ask

4 the Environmental Protection Agency not to

5 designate coal ash as a hazardous special waste.

6 I'd like to be able to afford my electric.

7 Thanks for the opportunity to speak.

8 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Aubrey.

9 (Applause)

10 MS. GENTILE: I'd like to now call the

11 following four people to the front of the room:

12 Number 330, 108, 109, and 110. Come on down.

13 Number 330, whenever you're ready.

14 MS. LEO: Hello. I'd like to thank

15 everyone that has come out today in support that

16 we, as a community, do not want a coal ash

17 mountain in our backyard. Thank you, EPA, for

18 listening.

19 It has been repeated over and over that

20 coal ash is toxic. Allowing this coal ash

21 mountain to be built will kill people. St atistics

22 don't lie.378

1 My

-- my name is Jennifer Leo, and my

2 husband and I bought 3

- 1/2 acres of property with

3 a 1922 house on it, 5154 and 5156 Cane Run Road,

4 the home to live in and the property to run our

5 business from. Our property will soon set at the

6 foot of this mountain. No barrier. J ust us and

7 the mountain. When we purchased this property

8 three years ago, there was no proposed mountain

9 that will soon become a wall between us and the

10 river. Let it be known that m y husband and I do

11 not want to breathe what blows off this mountain.

12 This is America, and we are in the pursuit of

13 happiness, and allowing this to be built will take

14 away our right to be happy and

-- and free of

15 toxins in our groundwater and air.

16 It is the law in Louisville that people

17 cannot smoke in public places. This mountain for

18 my family is equivalent to smoking two packs of

19 cigarettes a day. Is there really a question of

20 whether or not it should be permitted? My plans

21 of using my well water to grow a garden is over.

22 Would you eat vegetables grown in contaminated379

1 groundwater covered in soot?

2 Clearing the trees has been go ing on for

3 most of the summer. My guess is to make way for

4 the

-- make way for the toxic mountain. Yet we

5 have been told that the permit has not been

6 granted as of yet. It doesn't seem like that is a

7 cause for concern for LG&E. They are so sure that

8 they will be permitted so they must get a

9 head

- start on the clearing the way so tha t

-- they

10 are so sure that they have in the bag the city

11 that is.

12 Is there some things not being told

13 here? Is there a mere formality to let us have a

14 voic e in the matter? I beg the EPA to consider

15 our quality of life and

-- and how this coal as h

16 toxin will affect our health. My husband and I

17 own a side company and we have to dispose probably

18

-- properly of all fluorescent lightbulbs that

--

19 that contain mercury and are considered toxic

20 waste. The EPA does not want them in our

21 landfill.

22 Does it m ake sense to allow LG&E to380

1 build a mountain or a pond that contains mercury?

2 Why do we

-- why do we, Leo and Son Signworks,

3 have to adhere to a different set of disposal

4 rules? It's big corporations, big money, big

5 payoffs. Some win at what expense? Human life

6 and environmental disaster?

7 My understanding is that LG&E plant is

8 making less and less power every year. So what

9 happens when the company claims bankruptcy? Who

10 cleans up the mess when big business ju st throws

11 up their hands and walks away? I know I'm not

12 alone when I speak for myself and my neighbors.

13 We want you, the EPA, to know that LG&E

14 clean up the mess and already have created with

15 the ponds that are leaching toxic waste into our

16 underground water system, to clean up the mess

17 before ever being considered to

-- to ever being

18 considered to build a mountain of toxic waste that

19 will obviously have no concern to keep safe

20 considering the blind eye they turn on falling

21 toxins. Force them. You are the EPA.

22 MS. GENTILE: I'm sorry, ma'am. Your381

1 time is up.

2 MS. LEO: Thank you.

3 MS. G ENTILE: Thank you for your

4 comments.

5 (Applause)

6 MS. GENTILE: 108, come on down.

7 MR. GRADDY: Good afternoon. My name is

8 Hank Gra ddy, and I

-- these comments are submitted

9 by Betsy Bennett and myself as the comments of the

10 Cumberland Chapter of the Sierra Club.

11 These comments are about a regulation

12 that is going to consider under the first proposal

13 EPA would reverse the Bevill regulation

14 determinations regarding coal combustion residuals

15 and list these residuals as special waste s ubject

16 to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA when they

17 are destined for disposal in landfills and surface

18 impoundments. And I want to emphasize the word

19 "destined" for disposal in im poundments.

20 When the creator of these products makes

21 the decision that they're going to dispose of them

22 as a waste product by putting them in the land,382

1 the only responsible way to regulate them is as

2 under Subsection C as a special waste as you have

3 proposed. The alternative is status quo, business

4 as usual, continuing as we have been doing. And

5 the lesson is that what we've been doing does not

6 work.

7 My specific focus is on what EPA

8 identifies as the c entral issue, the adequacy of

9 the state programs. And based upon my experience,

10 the Kentucky program is woefully inadequate and

11 requires an EPA floor to sit so that Kentucky will

12 fina lly try to do what is right. I have cited the

13 slow motion spills as authority for the need for

14 this regulation.

15 They conclude Kentucky's regulatory

16 program is not properly addressing this threat.

17 Instead, it's getting weaker even as evidence of

18 contamination mounted in state files. Kentucky

19 reduced monitoring requirements, failed to

20 commence enforcement actions, and continued to

21 permit new ponds and landfills without proper

22 controls. That report, slow motion spills,383

1 documents the magnitude of the problem, as far as

2 we know it, the inadequacy of the state, and the

3 fact that the problem is growing.

4 My particular focus is o n the Trimble

5 facility where we submitted comments about the

6 adequacy of a particular permit. We asked for the

7 permit should regulate failures. The state

8 answered, we don't regulate failures. We said the

9 permit should regulate groundwater. They say, we

10 don't regulate groundwater. We said the permit

11 should regulate coal combustion wast e futures.

12 They say, we don't do that under the KPDS. It's

13 time to learn the lesson.

14 We were tricked by the coal industry 33

15 years ago. This Congress was ready to outlaw

16 surface mining in the mountains. And the coal

17 industry convinced Congress that they could put

18 the mountain back to approximate original contour.

19 They lied to us. We were tricked. If t hey had

20 kept that promise, we wouldn't have the problem of

21 mountaintop removal.

22 Now we're being invited to continue384

1 another coal hoax, and that is to ignore the

2 consequence

--

3 MS. GENTILE: Mr. Graddy, your time is

4 u p.

5 MR. GRADDY: Thank you very much.

6 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

7 comments.

8 (Applause)

9 MS. GENTILE: 109.

10 MR. MALONEY: Thank you for hosting the

11 hearing today. My name is Tim Maloney. I'm

12 representing the Hoosier Environmental Council

13 from the state of Indiana.

14 The council supports regulation of coal

15 combustion residuals under Subtitle C. We

16 believe there's ample evidence from around the

17 country, including the state of Indiana, evi dence

18 that has demonstrated that coal combustion waste

19 leaches toxic metals causing significant water

20 contamination.

21 One compelling example of this evidence

22 is the town of Pines in Indiana, which has now385

1 been designated a superfund site because of their

2 groundwater contamination there.

3 Here's what the Agency for Toxic

4 Substances and Disease Registry said about the

5 water problems in Pines. And I quote, "The

6 groundwater in town of Pines poses a significant

7 threat to children's health." The Hoosier

8 Environmental Council does support a limited

9 exemption for beneficial use for encapsulated uses

10 only, such as those uses described in concrete and

11 other building products.

12 We believe, and in our experience, that

13 there are many problems with allowing

14 unencapsulated uses, and in many cases this is

15 just a

-- a case of disposal in disguise. In the

16 state of Indiana, we've had either proposed or

17 actual projects, structural fill projects on top

18 of karst, geology and the fill in flood pla i n

19 areas where the likelihood of exposure to water is

20 great.

21 State performance has not been adequate

22 in our view, and a prime example of that is the386

1 state of Indiana. Indiana's regulatory program

2 has many weaknesses and includes inconsistent

3 regulation and enforcement. We currently have 53

4 surface impoundments at 16 plants. These

5 impoundments undergo minimal regulation at best.

6 There is no construction permitting required for

7 these impoundments and no inspection or monitoring

8 program conducted by the state of Indiana. Our

9 landfill regulations for coal combustion waste

10 are

-- also have some weaknesses. One of those

11 we'd point out is the inadequate requirements for

12 groundwater monitoring. The EPA itself said that,

13 under Subtitle D, allowing the states to have

14 primacy and regulation, woul d result in only a 48%

15 compliance level compared to a nearly 100%

16 compliance level under Subtitle C.

17 To conclude, in here

-- in the state of

18 Indiana just across the river, th e state has given

19 no indication in the past or indication in the

20 future that they will properly regulate these

21 wastes which have introduced toxic substances to

22 our waters. And so we urge you to move ahead with387

1 the Subtitle C option for regulation of coal

2 combustion waste. Thank you

.

3 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

4 110.

5 (Applause)

6 MR. EMMICK: My name is Brandon Emmick,

7 and I'm speaking as an employee of a company that

8 depends on coal

-- the coal combustion byproducts

9 recycling industry.

10 I'm a Safety Coordinator and spend 100%

11 of my time insuring the safety and well

- being of

12 our employees. I support coal ash disposal

13 regulations to protect human health and the

14 environment without compromising greater recycling

15 capabilities of coal ash. Both of these goal s

16 cannot be accomplished if the Environmental

17 Protection Agency designates coal ash as a

18 hazardous special waste under Subtitle C.

19 This classification would bring an

20 uncertainty to the gen

-- to the general

21 population and would be detrimental to the

22 recycling efforts. Most of the population will388

1 not research for themselves but will depend on

2 what the news media tells them. If they read in

3 the newspaper that a material is hazardous, they

4 will fight the use of it in every appl ication. We

5 must not make it difficult to continue the best

6 recycling program that we have available in this

7 country.

8 Working in the safety side of the

9 bus iness, I take particular interest in the

10 statements recently published by the U.S.

11 Department of Health and Human Services regarding

12 the Public Health Assessment related to the TVA

-

13 K ingston ash spill. In their final report, the

14 Tennessee Department of Health makes the following

15 statements, and I will quote their language in the

16 conclusions. They "conclude that no harm to the

17 community's health is expected from touching the

18 coal ash, including children who might touch the

19 ash while playing.

20 Using well water or spring water within

21 four miles of the coal ash release will not harm

22 people's health from exposure to coal ash or389

1 metals in the coal ash, because no evidence has

2 been found for groundwater contamination by coal

3 ash. These same conclusions of no harm to people's

4 health continue in a scientific study performed by

5 the EPA, U.S. Department of Health and Tennessee

6 Department of Health.

7 When I see these type statements based

8 on almost two years of sampling and analysis

9 re garding the Kingston Health Assessment, I find

10 it strange and without logic that we would

11 consider taking a chance on destroying the best

12 recycling industry in the U.S. by labeling coal

13 ash as hazardous. I understand the need for

14 national standards and landfill design, but it

15 escapes my logic as to why we should label coal

16 ash hazardous when the protective features of the

17 landfills will be similar under both C and D

18 regulations, a point that most of those against

19 coal ash have failed to mention.

20 The benefits of Subtitle D approach far

21 exceed the negative impacts of a Subtitle C

22 approach, especially when the protective features390

1 are similar under both. The r ecycling of coal ash

2 has many environmental benefits that should be

3 promoted by EPA. If beneficial uses are no longer

4 available, it will force power plants to landfill

5 all material an d lead to the pollution of more

6 natural resources, increases in greenhouses

--

7 greenhouse gases, and ultimately increase costs to

8 my electric bill.

9 As someone working to provide for my

10 wife and baby, the last thing I need is for

11 another bill to increase because of an illogical

12 regulation. The EPA should endorse prudent c oal

13 as h disposal regulations based on good engineering

14 science. The regulations should be developed

15 without characterizing coal ash as hazardous waste

16 and risking the destruction of the best recycling

17 program in the U.S. I ask the EPA to consider

18 many families that depend on the recycling

19 industry that would be negatively impacted by the

20 Subtitle C ruling.

21 In closing, I would like to thank you

22 for the opportunity to let my voice be heard.391

1 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Emmick.

2 (Applause)

3 MS. GENTILE: I'd like to now call the

4 following four people: Number 331, 115, 116, and

5 118. 331, as soon as you're ready to go, feel

6 free to start your comments.

7 MS. DAVIS: Hi. My name is Shelly

8 Davis, and I work for an ash management industry

9 and we rec ycle coal ash in making concrete blocks

10 and concrete.

11 When bottom ash or fly ash is used

12 instead of another natural resource, we are saving

13 and conserving natural resources, such as Portland

14 cement, oil and water for the future. I see

15 firsthand with my own eyes the success of our

16 recycling efforts. I read the available

17 scientific information about the ash that we

18 handle every day, and I also see the misguided

19 information that is published in the news media.

20 I feel confident the ash is not tox ic or

21 hazardous, and I ask you to avoid labeling coal

22 ash as hazardous. Please do not harm the392

1 recycling business that I a nd my fellow employees

2 depend on. Make your decision to support

3 recycling. Thank you for allowing me to speak

4 today.

5 MS. GENTILE: Thanks for your comments.

6 (Applause)

7 MS. GENTILE: 115.

8 MR. ESLINGER: My name is Michael

9 Eslinger. I live approximately a half mile east

10 of the Hoosier Ener gy Merom Power Plant Landfill

11 with my wife Kathryn and our two children, Rachel,

12 22 months and Olivia, 3 months.

13 My wife and I built our dream home four

14 years ago on our fami ly's farm ground, which has

15 been in her family for over 100 years. The dust

16 from Hoosier Energy power plant has become

17 unbearable. On windy days it literally looks like

18 I live in downtown Los Angeles. I contacted

19 Mikaleen Riley who works for Hoosier Energy as

20 their environmental contact person. I advised her

21 that I was not interested in suing the pow er plant

22 or getting anything from the plant other than393

1 cheerful cooperation.

2 Ms. Riley reassured me that Hoosier

3 would fix the problem with the fugitive dust and

4 be a good neighbor. I had to call her back on

5 several occasions and complain about the dust

6 blowing. She was polite and said that she would

7 take care of it. Her response was purely lip

8 service and nothing has been done in the two years

9 that I've been complaining.

10 My next complaint was filed with the

11 Indiana Department of Environmental Management,

12 specifically, Dan Hancock. IDEM told me that they

13 regularly inspect the plant. They had to witness

14 any violations firsthand. I told hi m that I could

15 provide videotape footage of the fugitive dust

16 clearly blowing off the top of the landfill, and I

17 was again told that IDEM had to witness the

18 violations firsthand. IDEM has been as useless in

19 this process as Hoosier Energy themselves have

20 been.

21 I've been forced to have chemical

22 testing done on my house, which is, again, less394

1 than four years old, and I am horrified by the

2 results of that testing. Lead, arsenic and other

3 heavy metals are present at lev els that are

4 alarming. I learned that Hoosier Energy had

5 applied for a permit for a new landfill that was

6 bigger than the one that they currently can't

7 handle just across from my hous e. I attended

8 their informational meeting and was basically told

9 by Hoosier

-- Hoosier and IDEM that there was

10 nothing we could do to stop the permit as long as

11 the application was fi lled out correctly. I then

12 hired an attorney to represent my family as I felt

13 I had nowhere else to turn. I have since paid my

14 attorney thousands of dollars of hard

- earned money

15 to try to help me reach the unthinkable freedom of

16 breathing fresh air on our own farm.

17 Hoosier Energy has been so moved by the

18 pressure that myself, my family, neighbors, and

19 attorney have put on them, that I have still been

20 unable to get a face

- to

- face meeting with any

21 representative of their company, although I've

22 made several attempts to do so.395

1 In closing, my wife had complications

2 with both of our pregnancies. My youngest

3 daughter, Olivia, was born two months premature.

4 We keep our windows closed, and there are days

5 that I cannot take my children outside to play

6 because of the fugitive dust blowing from the

7 landfill and the blue plume coming from the stack.

8 My house is covered with dust from the

9 plant, my windows are black. I've tried

10 everything I know to do, including driv ing three

11 hours a day to beg the EPA to help us. For the

12 sake of my family's health, please help us. We

13 have nowhere else to turn. Please regulate this

14 hazardous waste in Subtitle C . Thank you.

15 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Eslinger.

16 (Applause)

17 MS. GENTILE: 116.

18 MR. SPRINGER: I'm here speaking in

19 favor of and to urge EPA to adopt regulations that

20 would list coal combustion residual

--

21 MS. GENTILE: Could you please state

22 your affiliation, sir, and your name just for th e396

1 record?

2 MR. SPRINGER: I was going to do that.

3 MS. GENTILE: I just want to make sure

4 we have it down.

5 MR. SPRINGER: My name is Robert

6 Springer, and I am speaking in favor of the EPA

7 adopt regulations that would list coal combustion

8 residuals as special waste subject to regulation

9 under Subtitle C of RCARA when disposed of in

10 landfills and surface impoundments.

11 I am the current sitting judge of the

12 Sullivan Superior Court. Prior to that, I was 14

13 years elected prosecutor in Sullivan County. I've

14 lived next to Hoosier Energy for 40 years, as long

15 as they've been in existence. My fami ly was there

16 a hundred years before that. In the last two

17 years, I've been totally convinced by Hoosier

18 Energy that they have no interest in my health or

19 that of my family.

20 Mike Eslinger is my son

- in

- law who just

21 spoke. Those are my grandchildren, and they are

22 the sixth generation to be living on this397

1 property. What's it like to live next to Hoosier

2 Energy? Well, we paint our metals roofs every two

3

-- every three years instea d of every seven to ten

4 years. It eats the paint off our cars if we leave

5 them out and don't take care of them. We have to

6 wash cars constantly, wash your windows

7 constantly. We hav en't opened our windows for two

8 years.

9 We have two of these coal mountains that

10 they're talking about already and they're

11 permitting another one that's going to be bigger

12 than the other two combined. If they

-- if they

13 keep this up, it's going to sun

-- the sun is

14 going to set on our home at 3:00 in the afternoon.

15 The

-- the dust is everywhere. Now tha t I found

16 out what's in this dust, I'm extremely concerned.

17 And frankly, it's gotten worse and worse. The

18 bigger the landfill, the worse it is. As I said,

19 in the last two years is wh en we've had this

20 miserable problem.

21 I think the main thing that I want to

22 tell you people is that you

-- you are our only398

1 hope. IDEM cannot or will not regulate these

2 people. They will not talk us to. I'm not used

3 to being ignored in my county. You might imagine

4 if I call I get some attention. They won't talk

5 to me. They won't talk to us. There's 14 of us

6 that live out there on this family farm.

7 Mikaleen Riley, to be honest, is the ir

8 spokesperson and she will tell you

-- she will

9 placate your

-- whatever you want. You know, she

10

-- she tells you what you want to hear. And

11 honestly, I think her job is to keep pe ople away

12 from the people that can make a decision or that

13 can help. As I said, it's a face

-- faceless

14 argument. Very hard to deal with somebody. As

15 Mr. Eslinger said, we first tri ed very hard to get

16 a face

- to

- face meeting to tell them to express our

17 desires, to

-- to tell them about this fugitive

18 dust. And they had no

-- no interest in

-- in

19 listening to us.

20 So, if nothing else, I'm going to leave

21 you with that to

-- that I

-- I've got a new

22 appreciation for being that voice that can't be399

1 heard. It's not something I'm used to, as I said.

2 And I hope

-- and that you people are our only

3 hope. Thank you.

4 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

5 comments.

6 (Applause)

7 MS. GENTILE: 118.

8 MR. HUDGINS: Good evening. My name is

9 Steven Hudgins. I'd like to thank you for the

10 opportunity to speak here today.

11 My first exposure to coal ash was as a

12 child while visiting my great

- grandparent's modest

13 home in rural Kentucky. Their home was heated by

14 a coal

- fired stove during the winter, and my

15 great

- grandmother cooked on a small coal

- fired

16 stove in the kitchen, as well. It was a cheap and

17 efficient source of heat for them. The as hes from

18 these two stoves were then taken to the family

19 garden for disposal. This garden fed them and

20 others for many years. Unfortunately, they're now

21 deceased having lived a long and healthy life.

22 They passed on quietly in their late 80s from400

1 natural causes.

2 I'm a member of Beechland Baptist Church

3 located in Louisville, Kentucky. In

4 1949, Beechland built a new sanctuary. Senior

5 members talked about the construction and ordering

6 coal ash to be used in the construction of the

7 building for construction fill. This was ordered

8 from the local power plant. That building still

9 today serves the community very well.

10 In recent years, sanitary sewers have

11 been installed in southwest Jefferson County,

12 Kentucky. Residents of this working class

13 community were required to connect at considerab le

14 cost to individual families. During the

15 construction phase of this project, coal ash was

16 used as aggregate in the project to help reduce

17 the cost. The use of coal ash also prevent ed the

18 need to mine materials for this project, reducing

19 the use of fossil fuels for the mining process.

20 The beneficial uses of coal ash in

21 current day applications ranged fr om construction

22 fill, ready

- mixed concrete, lightweight concrete401

1 as a filler in plastic products, blasting grit,

2 roofing shingles, and even in household products

3 as kitchen countertops which qualify for le e d

4 certification points. High

- profile projects such

5 as Federal Bureau of Reclamation dams a nd the I

- 35

6 W bridge project have also used coal ash in the

7 concrete in these projects.

8 Environmentally, the public benefits

9 from the reduction in Greenhouse gases by using

10 coal ash in these applications is a benefit to the

11 community. On a matter of declaring coal ash a

12 hazardous material, I would like to reference a

13 study conducted by EPA in 1988 entitle d "Waste

14 from Combustion of Coal Electric Utility Power

15 Plants." Findings of this study conclude that

16 coal combustion projects should not be classified

17 as hazardous waste. This was, again, in EPA

18 reports in 93, '99, 2000, all the same

19 conclusions. Here we are again today examining

20 the same issue.

21 I would like to strongly, and I repeat

22 strongly, urge you to not consider coal combustion402

1 products as a hazardous waste. Please consider

2 them as a Subtitle D material and regulate them

3 accordingly. Thank you.

4 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Hudgins.

5 (Applause)

6 MS. GENTILE: Okay. I'd like to now

7 call up the following four numbers: 117, 119, 121,

8 and 168. Come on down. Again, 117, 119, 121,

9 168. Okay. Looks like you're it. What number

10 are you, sir?

11 MR. BLANN: 121.

12 MS. GENTILE: Thank you.

13 MR. BLANN: I'm not a public speaker by

14 no means. Well, first, I'd like to thank you for

15 giving us the opportunity. I would like you to

16 know that not only that I am a nearby neighbor of

17 the power plant, I work for one and I have for

18 over 29 years. I have seen a lot.

19 It concerns me deeply to have to put

20 myself in this position today for reasons you can

21 only imagine. Why should I or my fellow neighbors

22 even have to be here today if, in fact, there403

1 wasn't serious concerns for my family's, our

2 health and well

- being. I've pers onally seen over

3 the years how the state has regulated and managed

4 the plants in our backyard, and can honestly say

5 without a doubt it's not working.

6 Our homes are not in big cities such as

7 Indianapolis, Chicago, Louisville, or even

8 Washington. Our homes are in the country, usually

9 small farming communities with small populations

10 that are seemingly unnoticed. Why should we, as

11 honest, hardworking, country families be treated

12 any different than those families that are in our

13 larger cities? I honestly feel that today

14 Subtitle C is needed so these regulations,

15 standards and laws protect us all equally with

16 fewer numbers and eyes and ears in our areas.

17 Please help us protect our families and ou r

18 neighbors. There must be equipment installed and

19 maintained to help monitor the fugitive dust and

20 the clouds of blue plume that crosses our property

21 lines on a frequent basis. With the addition of

22 this equipment, stronger and better laws that are404

1 more vigorously enforced, we, as neighbors, should

2 be protected even better after.

3 By enacting Subtitle C and the help of

4 the federal government, these changes can only

5 help these honest, hardworking country families.

6 Subtitle C can only be valuable tools to that that

7 helps power companies that are working hard to be

8 good stewards and good neighbors. Please help

9 change present laws so that companies, manag ers

10 and supervisors have to handle these waste

11 materials just like they would if they were stored

12 in their own backyards in their own homes.

13 It is not hard for power companie s today

14 with the struggling economy, high unemployment to

15 fall short on doing a good job managing landfills

16 and taking care of related equipment. So much

17 other associated equipment that pertains to direct

18 production of landfill materials should also be

19 carefully considered as far as condition, age and

20 reliability and performance.

21 Why should you allow power companies

22 that make landfill products not have a 24

- hour a405

1 day monitoring of the materials be ing put together

2 such as fly ash, use slurries that only who knows

3 what's in them with other chemicals, lime,

4 moisture contents and other things not be recorded

5 and reported to you the same way stack opacities

6 are? You must have these readings to produce

7 proper material to be placed in the land

--

8 MS. GENTILE: I'm sorry, sir. Your time

9 is up.

10 MR. BLANN: I drove three hours. Can I

11 have 30 seconds?

12 MS. GENTILE: I'm sorry, sir. To be

13 fair to everybody, we can't. And can yo u please

14 state your name for the record? I don't think you

15 did that initially.

16 MR. BLANN: Michael.

17 MS. GENTILE: Michael Blann?

18 MR. BLANN: Blann.

19 MS. GENTILE: Thank you very much. If

20 you want to

-- sir, if you want to submit your

21 written comments, we'll definitely put them in the

2 2 record. So feel free to do that, whatever you406

1 didn't have a chance to say. Thank you.

2 Okay. Now I would like to call up 112,

3 113, 123, and 124.

4 MR. BOONE: My name is Jimmy Boone. I

5 am a site manager at a coal combustion producing

6 landfill in western Kentucky, and I have 20 years

7 experience in both coal preparation and coal

8 combustion production, management, and industry.

9 I am testifying today as someone who has

10 made a career based upon the daily handling of

11 coal and coal ash. The CCR landfill I currently

12 operate oversee and employ seven equipment

13 operators who are dedicated to the safety and

14 responsible management of CCRs.

15 I agree with the EPA's two previous con

16

-- conclusions that the CCR does not qualify as a

17 hazardous material. And I see evidence daily

18 which supports that this material are not

19 hazardous as they can be handled and managed with

20 no impact on the environment or those who work

21 with it. I support the EPA's effort to imp

--

22 implement regulations on the disposal of CCRs407

1 under Subtitle D. As a CCR landfill manager, I

2 see significant numbers of issues that I feel will

3 present themselves through th e handling of

4 material that are viewed as hazardous in some

5 applications yet exempt in others, even when they

6 are

-- originate from the common process and

7 location. As someone who com es in contact with

8 these materials daily, it does not make common

9 sense to me to have a different handling criteria

10 for the same material entirely based upon where it

11 ends up being sto red or used, opposed to the

12 actual chemical make

- up.

13 I do not see enough difference between

14 the Environmental Protection featured proposals in

15 the Subtitle C and D option to warranty taking on

16 the additional costs, risks that this would

17 accomplish

-- accompany the handling of hazardous

18 material when it really is not necessary. Thank

19 you.

20 MS. GENTILE: Thank you very much for

21 your comments.

22 (Applause)408

1 MR. HOUSE: Good afternoon. My name is

2 Daniel House, and I'm testifying as a private

3 citizen.

4 I support and encourage coal ash

5 disposal regulations that protect the health of

6 everyone and the environment. This cannot be

7 accomplished if the Environmental Protection

8 Agency deems coal ash hazardous.

9 The Coal Ash Association reported in

10 2008 45% of the materials used were proposed to

11 other uses, such as

-- or such using including

12 concrete substitutes for cement, use for road

13 constructions, fer

-- fertilizer substitute for

14 agriculture, and to help make plastics lighter and

15 stronger c enospheres seen floating in coal ash

16 ponds are used. Studies have also fou nd that coal

17 ash has been safely used in products ranging from

18 bowling balls to carpets.

19 Many factors could contribute to the

20 possibility of considering coal ash green. Such

21 factors include the use of coal ash ultimately

22 lowers the cost of utilities and saves spaces in409

1 landfills. More than 50 m illion tons of coal ash

2 have been recycled and turned into other products.

3 Not only does coal ash have all these

4 positive factors, it also helps control carbon

5 dioxide emissi ons. Therefore, with coal ash

6 having these mentioned and possible

--

7 possibility, many other positive factors that we

8 use daily, I feel the EPA should not characterize

9 coal ash as hazardous.

10 Thank you for your opportunity to speak.

11 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. House.

12 (Applause)

13 MS. GENTILE : 123.

14 MR. DENHAM: Hello. My name is John

15 Denham. I work in the coal ash industry.

16 I came here today to voice my opinion,

17 express my concerns for the proposed r egulations

18 classified coal ash as a hazardous material.

19 Since almost half the people in this country get

20 their electricity from coal burning facilities, it

21 is essential that we are abl e to recycle this

22 byproduct. The hazardous material rating for fly410

1 ash would be detrimental to all current and future

2 recycling efforts.

3 Without recycling, we impact our

4 environment in a very negative way and

5 substantially drive up costs to businesses and

6 individuals. Not j ust in Kentucky, not just in

7 coal areas, not just in coal states, but in the

8 whole country. Hazard

-- fly ash is

-- is not

--

9 is not

-- does not qualify as a hazardous waste

10 based on chemical composition making

11 classification as a hazardous material

12 unwarranted.

13 I've been hearing today that parties

14 against fly ash want this in

-- industry to be

15 more regulated and monitored. And I guess this is

16 where I believe that there is some confusion with

17 our industry and some misinformation. The fly ash

18 industry has no problem with str icter guidelines

19 with constant monitoring and regulations.

20 We're also for a clean environment. We

21 think there should be lined ponds, we think there

22 should be constant monito ring, we believe there411

1 should be national standards. However, these

2 guidelines should be based on factual data and not

3 on mistruth and scare tactics and should permit

4 recycling. In cl

-- in conclusion, I hope and ask

5 that the EPA will make the decision not to

6 classify coal ash as a hazardous material a nd to

7 continue to allow recycling of this multi

- use and

8 beneficial byproduct. Thank you.

9 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

10 comments, Mr. Denham.

11 (Applause)

12 MS. GENTILE: Okay. The next four

13 numbers are: 125, 126, 127, and 332. Come on

14 down. Okay. 125? 126? Oh, you're 125?

15 MS. SPALDING: Sorry.

16 MS. GENTILE: That's okay.

17 MS. SPALDING: I apologize.

18 MS. GENTILE: No problem.

19 MS. SPALDING: Sorry. I'm having

20 technical di fficulties. I didn't count on being

21 the first one in my group.

22 MS. GENTILE: Do you want to go

-- you412

1 can go

-- you can go

-- you can go

--

2 MS. SPALDING: Do you want to go second?

3 MS. GENTILE: Sure. Yeah. Absolutely.

4 MS. SPALDING: Because I don't want to

5 waste time.

6 MS. GENTILE: No problem. 126.

7 MR. HUDGINS: Nathan Hudgins. I'd like

8 to thank you for the opportunity to speak before

9 this committee and those gathered here today.

10 Having read the proposed rule, I would like to

11 present personal observation, historical fact,

12 scientific study, and my personal opinion. A fter

13 hearing the heightened awareness of coal ash since

14 the unfortunate incident in Tennessee, my

15 curiosity was peaked.

16 Reading about the incident caused me to

17 wonder what the properties of this material are

18 and can they be recycled for beneficial use.

19 Today

-- to my surprise, it is currently used in

20 many responsive ways. There's even an industry

21 association and an EPA

- affiliated organization

22 Coal Combustion Product Partnership nicknamed413

1 C2P2. This organization's memb ers are all

2 dedicated to the beneficial use of these

3 materials. I felt this was a truly proactive

4 effort on the part of industry and government.

5 My wife works as an interior designer

6 for a major home improvement and building

7 materials chain. Over the years, they have

8 stocked products and sold them that contain coal

9 ash such as bagged, ready

- mixed concret e and

10 shingles. A fairly new product in the line of cus

11

-- is a custom

- made kitchen countertop that

12 contains coal ash. I'm holding a sample of this

13 in my hand right now. This material also

14 qualifies for le e d credits from building a le e d

15 certified building.

16 Coal ash is also used in aggregate in

17 many co nstruction projects both public and

18 private. Many states approve the use of coal ash

19 in road construction. Even fairly

- funded road

20 construction projects have used coal ash to reduce

21 t heir costs. This also saves on the use of virgin

22 resources for these products.414

1 Over the years, the EPA has examined

2 this issue several times and conclusions have

3 always been the same. Coal ash is not a hazardous

4 material. I find it difficult to believe that the

5 properties of coal ash have changed. In a time

6 when our government is struggling financially and

7 many of our hardworking citizens are also

8 struggling to make ends meet, this effort appears

9 to be irresponsible. I fear th at if coal ash is

10 declared a hazardous material, our government and

11 citizens will be more financially stressed as this

12 measure will cause energy costs to go sky high.

13 I stron gly urge you not, and I repeat

14 not, to classify coal combustion products as a

15 Subtitle C or hazardous waste. Doing so would

16 place additional burdens on our country, our

17 government agency, businesses, and most

18 importantly, our hardworking citizens who foot the

19 bill for everything in this country, especially

20 when those citizens are the same ones that try ing

21 to use every dollar count to and survive and care

22 for their families.415

1 In conclusion, I strongly urge you to

2 classify coal combustion products as a Subtitle D

3 material, as they currently are. This is a

4 responsible approach and is supported by EPA's own

5 studies and scientific fact. Thank you for your

6 time.

7 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

8 comments, Mr. Hudgins.

9 (Applause)

10 MS. SPALDING: Good afternoon. My name

11 is RoseMary Spalding. I'm an attorney with

12 Spalding and Hilmes in Indianapolis. I've been

13 practicing in the area of environmental law for 25

1 4 years, over 25 years.

15 I represent a group of residents who

16 live near the Hoosier Energy Merom generating

17 station in Sullivan County, Indiana, including the

18 three indiv iduals you just heard. I was retained

19 to help them in connection with Hoosier Energy's

20 permit application for a new solid waste landfill

21 for coal combustion waste. Hoosier Energy has a

22 current landfill that is near capacity and a416

1 former landfill that is closed.

2 They contacted me because their prima ry

3 concern was the horrible nuisance they experienced

4 daily from coal ash dust coming from the operation

5 of the current landfill. They wanted to be sure

6 that the new larger landfill w ould not allow this

7 nuisance to continue or get worse they were very

8 frustrated because they naively trusted the

9 Indiana Department of Environment al Management to

10 adequate ly regulate the facility, enforce any vio

--

11 and enforce any violations. And they naively

12 believed that Hoosier Energy would operate in

13 compliance with its permit and the law.

14 Now, these are not unreasonable people,

15 they are not

-- they don't suffer from a Nimby

16 syndrome. They simply want Hoosier Energy to be

17

-- be a good neighbor. They were absolutely

18 ho rrified to learn the chemical constituents of

19 coal ash, which, by the way, are hazardous, and

20 the health risks associated with the particulate

21 matter.

22 They had no idea that t he coal ash where they417

1 live is not just a nuisance but a health threat to

2 them and their children. It's my opinion, and I

3 strongly believe that to adequately protect people

4 like my clients, coal combustion waste must be

5 regulated as a hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle

6 C.

7 From 1991 to 1995, I was general council

8 and deputy commissioner for legal affairs for the

9 Indiana Department of Environmental Management.

10 Through that position and through my private

11 pract ice, I'm very familiar with IDEM structure

12 and the regulatory framework governing disposable

13

-- disposal of solid waste. My opinion is based

14 on several factors regarding the need for Subtitle

15 C regulations.

16 First, given the nature of coal ash

--

17 coal combustion waste, Indiana's laws governing

18 disposal of solid waste or even special waste are

19 not p rotective. As I reviewed Hoosiers Energy's

20 current permit and its permit application for the

21 new landfill, especially with respect to daily

22 cover requirements, it was clear to me that the418

1 current state regulatory framework is simply

2 inadequate.

3 Second item, solid waste program lacks

4 either the will or resources to effectively

5 protect my clients. For example, I submitted a

6 letter last July asking them to invoke and enforce

7 specific provisions of their current

-- of Hoosier

8 Energy's current permit, and to date, we've

9 received no response.

10 Lastly, I

-- in my experience, RCRA

11 staff at IDEM is far different than solid waste

12 staff. They're more

-- they're more

13 highly

- trained, and with the EPA's authority to

14 back them up, IDEM's enforcement of RCRA are much

15 more effective. In sum, it's critical that EPA

16 have oversight authority under RCRA to ensure

17 effective implementation and enforcement of the

18 proposed regulations.

19 I have several exhibits that document my

20 comments and my clients' comments and I will leave

21 them with you today. And I really appreciate the

22 opportunity to express my opinion. Thank you.419

1 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

2 comments, Ms. Spalding.

3 (Applause)

4 MS. GENTILE: Thank you. 127.

5 MR. HARPOLE: Thank you. My name is

6 Chad Harpole and I'm the director of public

7 affairs for the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce.

8 On behalf of the Kentucky Chamber and

9 our 2700 member companies across the state, we

10 appreciate the time to express our concern in

11 opposition with the proposed regulation of fly ash

12 as Subtitle C, hazardous waste under the Resource

13 Conservation and Recovery Act. The Kentucky Chamber

14 believes regulating fly ash under the Subtitle C

15 option will impose significant cost on power plant

16 operations and ultimat ely result in additional

17 utility cost increases for businesses and

18 consumers.

19 Kentucky is proud to be the fifth

20 leading producer of energy in the country, driving

21 significant manufacturing in our state, including

22 automotive production and aluminum. Most of this420

1 is thanks to our coal industry, which is vital to

2 Kentucky's economy and threatened under the

3 Subtitle C proposal. The Chamber feels these

4 additional costs may cause some power plants to

5 close or significantly reduce production in our

6 state, thus threatening electricity reliability

7 and signif

-- significantly affecting local

8 economies through the reduction in payrol l taxes

9 and employment numbers.

10 Increased energy costs and decreased

11 electric liability will also have a significant

12 adverse effect on all sectors of the business

13 community and can potentially force Kentucky

14 businesses to relocate out of the state.

15 Additionally, we feel strongly that regulation

16 under Subtitle C could end the beneficial use of

17 recycling coal ash into products like cement and

18 Quikrete. Regulation under Subtitle C will harm

19 one of our best and oldest recycling industries

20 and drive up costs for the construction a nd home

21 building industries, industries that are already

22 struggling under the current economic climate.421

1 In closin g, the Chamber urges U.S. EPA

2 to develop federal non

- hazardous waste regulation

3 for coal ash under Subtitle D of RCRA. Such an

4 approach will allow U.S. EPA to work with states

5 implementing regulations that are fully protective

6 of human health and the environment without

7 negatively impacting the coal ash beneficial use

8 and causing an increase in energy prices at a time

9 when the country can least afford it.

10 Thank you for your time.

11 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Harpole.

12 (Applause)

13 MS. GENTILE: I'd like to now call the

14 following numbers: 117, 119, 168, 185, and 190.

15 Again, 117, 119, 168, 185, and 190.

16 MR. MARRS: My name is Brock Marrs, and

17 I'm here t oday representing NuForm Materials, LLC.

18 I greatly appreciate the opportunity to

19 express the views and concerns of our company.

20 NuForm Materials is a small business focused on

21 discovering new applications for coal ash, one of

22 the most underutilized commodities in this region.422

1 We built this company from beneficiation

2 and classification technology that was developed

3 at the University of Kentucky with over 15 years

4 of support from the U.S. Department of Energy.

5 Over the pa st three years, with support from the

6 National Science Foundation, our company has

7 worked towards developing new metal matrix and

8 polymer composite materials that incorporate

9 ceramics recycled from discarded coal ash.

10 For example, we utilize these ceramics

11 as a means of making automotive parts manufactured

12 from aluminum harder and more wear

- resista nt so

13 that they can be used to replace heavier iron and

14 steel parts in cars and trucks. As a result, the

15 overall weight of the vehicle was decreased,

16 thereby, passively improving its fuel efficiency

17 and reducing carbon emissions.

18 In another project, we are incorporating

19 fly

- as h in plastic foam panels that are used as

20 insulating materials in residential and commercial

21 buildings. The fly ash replaces the toxic flame

22 retardants currently used in the insulating foams.423

1 This high

- performance material is safe and cost

2 effective and would dramatically enhance the

3 energy efficiency of our nation's b uildings.

4 The goals of our company are not unlike

5 the goals of most everyone here today. That is

6 we're striving to reduce the negative impact that

7 we, as citizens, have on o ur environment.

8 Unfortunately, our company does not share the same

9 vision as some who would support the labeling of

10 fly ash as hazardous under the Subtitle C

11 approach. Despite any eff ort to exempt beneficial

12 reuse from the hazardous label, we feel strongly

13 that the stigma associated would greatly hamper

14 our efforts for developing new recycling products.

15 Potential customers will turn away at

16 the thought of incorporating a hazardous material

17 into their products. Equally as important, the

18 utilities that generate fly ash are far less

19 likely to allow us to acc

-- to allow us access to

20 process, remove and market a material that, if

21 left alone, would be labeled hazardous.

22 NuForm Materials is not oppose d to new,424

1 tougher regulations for coal ash disposal. But it

2 doesn't make sense to simultaneously negatively

3 impact recycling programs such as ours. Labeling

4 coal ash as a hazardous waste will do great harm

5 to our efforts of developing lighter car parts and

6 energy

- efficient insulating materia ls.

7 Unlike a lot of the voices heard today

8 and throughout this public hearing process, we

9 view coal ash as having untapped product

10 potential, not as a waste material that sho uld be

11 thrown away. Thanks.

12 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

13 comments.

14 (Applause)

15 MS. GENTILE: 168.

16 M R. WRIGHT: My name is Brian Wright. I'm

17 a board member for Citizens Coal Council.

18 I've spent over a thousand hours

19 reviewing permits, ground and surface monitoring

20 records, scientific studies, and state regulations

21 for coal combustion waste disposal sites. My

22 research has revealed a repeated pattern of425

1 failure by states to address the risks posed to

2 human health and the environment by these wastes.

3 My own home state of Indiana, state

4 regulators and site ope rators ignored numerous

5 warning signs of contaminations at the R520

6 landfill and the Gibson power plant. As a result,

7 the communities of Mount Carmel and the town of

8 Pines lost their drinking water supply due to

9 contamination from these wastes.

10 Despite these two serious failures in

11 state regulations on CCW, the state has refused to

12 make any changes to their state rules on these

13 wastes. In fact, impoundments in Indiana remain

14 exempt from solid waste regulations. And it's not

15 just Indiana that has a bad track record whe n it

16 comes to these wastes.

17 In 1999, I did a state

- by

- state survey

18 of state regulations on coal ash, and what I found

19 is almost across the board for impoundments

2 0 failure to implement even the most basic

21 environmental safeguards, such as groundwater and

22 surface water monitoring for coal ash disposal426

1 sites. Ten years later in 2009, I did the same

2 survey and I found no significant improvement in

3 regulations for these wastes, d espite the mounting

4 record of damage.

5 People trust their state agencies to

6 protect the environment and their health. The

7 state agency repeatedly violated that trust when

8 it comes to CCW. Now they want to be entrusted

9 with implementing Subtitle D regulations when

10 their track record shows that doing so would be a

11 great disservice to the people living around these

12 facilities.

13 While I do support recycling in the

14 forums of en

-- when it's encapsulated, used in

15 products s uch as concrete, I feel that Subtitle C

16 regulations are needed to adequately protect

17 human health and the environment and would point

18 out that, while there's been a lot of statements

19 today that it would harm recycling efforts to

20 regulate under Subtitle C, EPA's own website has

21 numerous examples of hazardous materials that are

22 recycled on a regular basis. Subtitle C427

1 regulations must be implemented for these wastes.

2 Thank you.

3 MS. GENTILE: Thank you, Mr. Wright.

4 (Applause)

5 MS. GENTILE: I'd like to now call 181,

6 332 and 333. We'll start with 181.

7 MR. GRAY: Good afternoon. My name is

8 Danny Gray. I'm executive vice president of

9 Charah Incorporated, a Louisville

- based company.

10 And I've worked in the coal combustion byproducts

11 industry for over 30 years.

12 Our comp any is very active in recycling

13 the CCRs, and we're very concerned that the

14 correct regulatory approach be selected without

15 damaging the recycling industry. We're proud of

16 the green jobs that our industry has created, and

17 we're thankful for the

-- that our company has

18 been able to create green jobs right here in

19 Kentucky.

20 The c oal ash beneficial use business is

21 one of the most successful recycling stories in

22 the United States. CCP recycling provides428

1 long

- term benefits for the environment and

2 improved quality for construction materials.

3 These are facts well

- demonstrated over decades of

4 use and scientific study.

5 Our com pany's support of EP

-- our

6 company does support EPA's effort to strength the

7 CCR disposal regulations. Since the protective

8 features of both proposals are similar, we support

9 Subtitle D. A Subtitle D approach with state

10 program management has been successful for

11 household solid waste landfills, and we believe

12 that national standards with state program

13 management will also be successful for CCR.

14 We also know that Subtitle D is

-- is

15 the only choice that will avoid damage to the

16 recycling industry. Maintaining the success of

17 the recycling industry is in the best interest of

18 all parties. Recycling coal combustion residue is

19 good for the environment, good for the

20 construction materials industry.

21 We do not believe that regulation of CCR

22 under Subtitle C can occur without damage to our429

1 recycling business and r ecycling industry. Our

2 experience already indicates that, while under

3 review that the Subtitle D of

-- C approach

4 recycling has decreased in valuable resources are

5 already being dispo sed of instead of being saved

6 and replaced in virgin resources. Our customers

7 are concerned that the hazardous waste regulation

8 approach will cause them liabilities that are hard

9 to q uantify and very difficult to manage.

10 Our sales have already seen negative

11 impacts of the ongoing debate primarily related to

12 the publicity around the toxicity and hazardous

13 labels that are related to it. We ask EPA to

14 regulate under

-- to avoid regulating CCR as under

15 Subtitle C and prevent the continued damage to the

16 recycling industry.

17 In summary, we support EPA's effort to

18 standardize and strengthen the regulation of CCRs

19 under a Subtitle D approach. As the

20 recently

- released government health assessment for

2 1 Kingston reaffirms, the characteristics of coal

22 ash do not warrant a Subtitle C label. States430

1 have already demonstrated they can effectively

2 administer the type of controls that will evolve

3 under Subtitle D program. Taking the risk of

4 damage to the CCP beneficial use industry f rom a

5 Subtitle C approach is not warranted.

6 The protective measures are similar

7 under both approaches. A Subtitle D approach is

8 the only sensible choice. Thank you.

9 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

10 comments, sir. For the record, can we get your

11 name again? We want to make sure we have the

12 right name on file.

13 MR. GR AY: My name is Danny Gray, G

- r

-

14 a

- y.

15 MS. GENTILE: Great. Thank you very

16 much.

17 (Applause)

18 MS. GENTILE: At this time, I'd ask if

19 anybody is holding a card to speak, please come

20 sit in the front row and we'll get you guys in

21 pretty quickly since we have a pretty small crowd

22 here. Anyone have a card

-- holding a card to431

1 speak, anybody at all? This kind of card.

2 Anybody's holding a blue card with a number on it

3 to speak or a white ca rd.

4 Okay. We'll take the first four folks

5 here starting on the right. Do you want to start?

6 And what number

-- what number are you, ma'am?

7 MS. SHELOR: 334.

8 MS. GENTILE: Thank you.

9 MS. SHELOR: My apologies for not having

10 the paper testimony with me today. I have no idea

11 how long you have been sitting here today, how

12 much information you've absorbed, what specifics

13 you are looking for to qualify or quantify the

14 experience that we, as citizens, and every day

15 livers, breathers, doers, experience.

16 But it's

-- it's important that you

17 understand that I come here just as plain as I can

18 to you to express how it makes me feel to watch

19 the continued legal conditions related to the work

20 of the EPA and related to the work of industrial

21 production. So, with that being said, hi, I'm

22 Kristin. I'm with the Brickhouse Comm unity432

1 Center.

2 Gosh, why am I so nervous? I don't

3 know. I'm also very much of an activist

4 supp orting other groups in our community. I

5 believe in community

- minded actions and direct

6 action, as well as cons c ience

-- oh, two minutes?

7 That's it?

8 MS. GENTILE: Three mi nutes, three

9 minutes total.

10 MS. SHELOR: Lord, have mercy. Well,

11 that's certainly not enough time to talk about the

12 lifetime that we'll be living with whatever it is

13 that might seep out or fall out of any kind of

14 coal ash production plant, okay, as far as the

15 amount of

-- of worthy energy that is gathered

16 from the use of coal as a source of energy. I

17 believe it needs to be stopped all together; okay?

18 So, with that in mind, I believe that

19 whatever regulations you need to use to completely

20 limit and reduce the amount of exposure that we

21 can get from coal ash, such as arsenic, mercury

22 and other forms of contaminant which have a longer433

1 shelf life than me and my grandchildren, what's

2 important for you to understand is do what you

3 can, do what you have to do. Okay.

4 I do not agree with the fact that right

5 now we're facing in our lifetime the reduction of

6 many life forms and sources of life such as water,

7 air, okay, nutritional resources that are being

8 blocked and limited and ruined when you have coal

9 ash get into water sources, when you have it get

10 leached into ground tables of water. Okay. I'm

11 very understanding of what the reality is when we

12 have any kind of coal ash product that gets into

13 our community where we live.

14 So, you know, if I only have one more

15 minute to live, it would be to say "stop this,"

16 and do not allow any sort of financial

17 consideration to limit the future of the nine

18 generations or the seven generations or this

19 person right here or your children; okay? So I

20 appreciate what you do, and if you can also take

21 into legal recompense every bit of action and

22 concept that needs to be applied to not only coal434

1 industry but also the petroleum industry, then we

2 need to take back what is ours, what's left of

3 ours.

4 And if that means that we have to live a

5 different lifestyle, if it becomes a paradigm

6 shift where we use and consume and we treat as

7 though there is one of us, then let's do that.

8 Thanks.

9 MS. GENTI LE: Thank you for your

10 comments. Next.

11 (Applause)

12 MS. GENTILE: And, sir, what is your

--

13 what's your number?

14 MR. KASTNER: 333.

15 MS. GENTILE: Thank you.

16 MR. KASTNER: Thank you for your time.

17 My name is Barry Kastner. I live in Columbus,

18 Indiana, and I consume electricity that's sourced

19 95% from dirty coal.

20 And I receive that electricity at a

21 subsidized rate, as do all my neighbors, indeed,

22 as all citizens of the United States. It is435

1 subsidized because we do not pay monetarily for

2 the full costs of coal. We do not pay monetarily

3 for the societal costs of coal, neither at

4 extraction, burning, or disposal of its hazardous

5 waste products.

6 Any polluting activity is effectively

7 subsidized and that subsidy is eventually paid for

8 through the degradation of the environment and

9 through adverse health effects and through

-- and

10 the burden of these costs fall on all of us and on

11 future generations. Regulations like Section C

12 begin to properly remove the subsidies on these

13 external costs and internalize these real costs of

14 coal back into the economic ledger where it

15 belongs.

16 I want coal to cost more, far more than

17 it does today, in economic terms, so it does not

18 shift its costs insidiously onto society. Thank

19 you.

20 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for you

21 comments. Miss. Just let us know what number

22 you're holding, as well. Thank you. 135.436

1 MS. MCKASSON: My name is Barbara

2 McKasson. I am here to support the regulation of

3 coal combustion residuals under Subtitle C of

4 RCRA.

5 What is hap pening in my state of

6 Illinois is a prime example of why we need the

7 U.S. EPA to implement regulations for coal

8 combustion waste. The state of Illinois has more

9 contaminated sites fro m the inappropriate disposal

10 of coal ash than any other state. A case in point

11 is the situation at the Southern Illinois Power

12 Cooperative, SIPC, at the Lake of Egypt south of

13 Marion, Illinois near where I live. The holding

14 ponds at SIPC are unlined and leaking into the

15 groundwater. The plumes of toxic water have now

16 spread off of SIPC's property and onto p eople's

17 private land.

18 According to a report on damaged cases

19 of contamination from improperly disposed coal

20 ash, monitoring wells by the SIPC power plant have

21 registered maximum concentrations of cadmium that

22 are 35 times higher than the federal acute water437

1 quality standards and up to 352 times h igher than

2 the federal chronic water quality standards.

3 Also, recent data on pond discharges to Saline

4 Creek show high concentrations of aluminum, boron

5 and manganese. This was document ed in the report

6 "In Harms Way: Lack of Federal Coal Ash

7 Regulations Endangers Americans and their

8 Environment."

9 Actually, only cadmium, boron, iron, and

10 sulfate are being routinely monitored

-- monitored

11 at the SIPC site. Other toxics that are found in

12 coal, such as arsenic, mercury, selenium and

13 chromiu m are not even being monitored at the SIPC

14 site.

15 In addition, people I know who live in

16 the subdivisions surrounding Lake of Egypt tell me

17 that there are at least 20 trucks a day carrying

18 coal ash from the power plant property to off

- site

19 areas. One off

- site area is an abandoned strip

20 mine north of Williamson County Airpo rt where the

21 toxic coal ash is being dumped. There is no

22 monitoring well, there are no liner and no state438

1 regulations to k eep the toxic substances in this

2 ash from seeping into the groundwater and nearby

3 wells. Another concern is the decades

- old coal

4 ash ponds by SIPC are right by Lake of Egypt,

5 which pr ovides drinking water for about 10,000

6 people who live around Lake of Egypt. Local

7 citizens in another area by Joppa, Illinois

8 testified that coal ash waste is being dumped in

9 piles from another plant and blows into the air

10 when it dries. Citizens living close to the dump

11 site complained at the hearing at

-- for permit

12 for chronic and acute respiratory probl ems that

13 they attribute to the coal ash blowing on their

14 property.

15 In December 2009, I attended a hearing

16 concerning NPDES water discharge permit for the

17 Me t

- South Coal Combustion Waste disposal facility

18 owned by Electric Energy, Inc. in Joppa, Illinois.

19 At this hearing, officials with Illinois EPA

20 explained that coal ash waste dump sites may

21 require a solid waste permit from the Bureau of

22 Land or they may be permit

- exempt. In fact, the439

1 IEPA official explained that the only requirement

2 for a coal ash waste landfill in Illinois is that

3 the operator must provide Illinois EPA with

4 documentation that a public official has been

5 notified of the forthcoming dump. There is no

6 opportunity for public input or debate. So, even

7 though there is threat of toxic chemicals leaching

8 into the groundwater from a dum p, there is no

9 special environmental consideration given to coal

10 waste landfills. In fact, in Illinois, coal ash

11 landfill requirements are less stringent that

12 (sic) municipal waste landfills. Local citizens

13 at the Met

- South hearing testified that coal ash

14 waste is being dumped in piles, and blows into the

15 air when it dries. Citizens living close to the

16 dump site complained at the hearing of chronic and

17 acute respiratory problems that they attribute to

18 the coal ash blowing onto their property.

19 I have also been c ontacted by Wesley

20 Logan, who grew up in Joppa, Illinois, and still

21 has many relatives there. Wesley's father, Bobby

22 Logan, sued LaFarge Cement Company and Electric440

1 Energy, Inc. for putting coal ash on Liberty Ridge

2 Road by his house in Joppa, Illinois. Every time

3 a vehicle drove by on those roads, the as h would

4 fly up in the air, and spread to nearby yards and

5 houses. Bobby Logan, his wife and other people on

6 those roads got cancer, serious respiratory

7 problems and other health problems.

8 These threats to public health from

9 using coal combustion waste in ways that release

10 toxic chemicals into our air and water with

11 virtually no regulations to contain or filter th e

12 toxins is totally unacceptable. According to the

13 investigative report titled "In Harms Way," done

14 by the Environmental Integrity Project, many state

15 governments have few or no safeg uards to protect

16 the public from the spread of these toxins.

17 Illinois and other states that have lax

18 regulations or no regulations on coal combustion

19 waste are even taking waste from other states with

20 stricter standards. Thus, putting the people in

21 Illinois at greater risk from these toxins.

22 The U.S. EPA must implement Sub title C441

1 to stop this rapid spread of coal ash toxins into

2 our water, land and air that is endangering public

3 health.

4 (Discussion off the record)

5 MS. GENTILE: Thank you. After this

6 next speaker, we're going to take a short break.

7 What number are you holding?

8 MS. BOOKWALTER: 186.

9 MS. GENTILE: Thank you.

10 MS. BOOKWALTER: My name is Mary

11 Bookwalter, a citizen of Indianapolis, Indiana, No

12 Mean C ity.

13 I wondered if anyone was here from the

14 Indiana Department of Environmental Management. I

15 have not heard them today. I suspect they're out

16 permitting an unlined retenti on coal ash dump

17 somewhere in our watertable in Indiana.

18 I ask for my fellow citizens of Indiana

19 and Kentucky and 27 other states that do not have

20 this for equal protection u nder the law. We

--

21 under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and

22 Recovery Act. We fought a great civil war for442

1 this

-- states' rights is not a solution

2 necessarily and should not be used as an argument

3 for good regulation under the law.

4 We have passed several constitutional

5 amendments guaranteeing equal rights under the law

6 for fellow citizens, African

- Americans and women.

7 I would ask that you consider that for 30 years,

8 since the 1980 passage of RCRA the coal power

9 industry has enjoyed the benefits of a colossal

10 subsidy, as the other gentleman has pointed out.

11 These power companies, they used to be

12 small city utilities, have been gobbled up by huge

13 conglomerates, AEP, AES. They are not required to

14 clean up the messes they have made. No other

15 industry can do this with such aplomb , and they

16 are not responsible, apparently, for the human

17 costs they have inflicted.

18 They used to be the small industries,

19 little sleepy women's and or

-- widows and orphans

20 stockholdings. Now their profits are squeezed and

21 we are treated as members of some third

- world

22 society. I am still American, I ask for equal443

1 protection under the law. My state environmental

2 regulators and their regulations do not do this.

3 A federal

-- there are certainly problems with

4 that. But we need it, and I also support a valid

5 recycling of these things. I feel these arguments

6 against it, I think we can be educated and

7 understand that these are valid requireme nts.

8 I thank you for your attention. I did

9 take an oath to support and defend the

10 Constitution of the United States very much like

11 the Fo ur administration's presidents that were

12 here before. And I expect to receive and I hope

13 to receive equal protection under the law under

14 Subtitle C of the Resource Recovery Act. Thank

15 you.

16 MS. GENTILE: Thank you for your

17 comments, Ms. Bookwalter.

18 (Applause)

19 MS. GENTILE: The panel will now take a

20 short break. We will resume the hearing at 6:10.

21 Thank you.

22 (Whereupon, at 5:55 p.m., an444

1 af ternoon recess was taken.)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22445

1 E V E N I N G S E S S I O N

2 (6:10 p.m.)

3 MR. BEHAN: Okay. We're going to go

4 ahead and get started again with the public

5 hearing. Good afternoon. My name is Frank Behan,

6 and I'll be chairing this session of the public

7 hearing.

8 And I'd like to call Numbers 129, 130,

9 165, 302, and 332 forward, please. If you'd come

10 up to the front, that would be great. We'll start

11 with Number 129.

12 MR. SMITH: Hello. My name's

-- hello.

13 My name's Dave Smith. I'm from Riverside Gardens.

14 They

-- they call us "Rubbertown." We're the most

15 polluted neighborhood in

-- in Kentucky, that I

16 know of.

17 My concerns is about this ash pond

18 they're wanting to put in my backyard. I know you

19 guys wouldn't want it in your backyard. And we

20 got a

-- you know, the pollution we're getting now

21 putting on us is terrible where we live. I've got

22

-- when I fi rst moved in that neighborhood

-- I've446

1 been there 29 years, and

-- and a lot of my

2 neighbors around me within a

-- a block area died

3 of cancer. And I've got

-- I go get MRIs done

4 where I've got tumors on the side of my brain, and

5 I've done probably had 13 seizures since I've

6 lived in that neighborhood.

7 And you get up and, you know, you take

8 your shower and you feel like you're clean but you

9 feel dirty constantly. I mean, we're

-- we're

10 being constantly polluted on.

11 Just the other day we had been painting

12 my house and I'd painted one of my gutter boards

13 and I had painted it light gray. And I went and

14 went back out to put it back up after it dried and

15 there was little black specks everywhere. And I

16 went to touch the specks and it was like oil. And

17 then it had like little

-- little

-- I'd say a

18 1/16

- inch fibers that looked like stee l wool that

19 just shredded up and it was all sprinkled all over

20 the wood itself.

21 You know, and

-- and if this stuff is

22 getting on our

-- our homes, our cars, I mean,447

1 it's ruined paint jobs on my car, and if it's

2 getting on our stuff like that, then we're

3 breathing it, you know, and it's getting in to our

4 lungs. And

-- and we just want somebody

-- you

5 know, last time I

-- I had EPA come out to the

6 landfill, I've got a landfill in my backyard, too,

7 and I had

-- I had a chemical plant on my

-- in

8 the other part of my backyard.

9 And I took EPA out and I showed them

10 rubber coming out of our landfill. Well, they

1 1 looked at everything, they seen that there was

12 frogs hopping around and the shrubs looked big and

13 tall. Well, they said, well, that was fine. It

14 looked like everything was healthy. But we all

15 know you can spray chemicals on plants or chemical

16 chemicals and they

-- they do great, but people

17 don't.

18 And we just need somebody to

-- like big

19 brother, you know, it's big brother. I'm tired of

20 my mayor here in Louisville. He don't come to our

21 neighborhood, he won't address our problems. I

22 don't know who he's be

-- befriendi ng, but it448

1 ain't us. You know, we

-- we complain to him

2 constantly, our councilperson

-- they say start

3 from the bottom an d work your way up. Our

4 councilpersons, they don't even want to help us.

5 The mayor had a call

- in show Monday. I

6 called him up, I told him my name, you know, who I

7 was, wher e I lived, and his eyebrows get all heavy

8 and, you know, he's a nervous wreck, just start

9 stuttering, getting all nervous, you know, when I

10 tell him about that

-- all the problems I have,

11 and he tells me to put my house up for sale and

12 move away. Well, if I wasn't on disability living

13 on a limited income because of my

-- my illness,

14 then I would

-- I would move away. But I

--

15 honestly, people don't need to live there in that

16 neighborhood.

17 MR. BEHAN: Thank you, sir.

18 MR. SMITH: Thank you for my time.

19 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

20 (Applause)

21 MR. BEHAN: Number 130.

22 MS. BURKHEAD: Hello. My name is Monica449

1 Burkhead. I'm a resident of Riverside Gardens

2 neighborhood. I've lived there for 35 years.

3 Through the years, I've c ome to realize

4 that we are a dumping ground for anything toxic.

5 Our neighborhood is in the middle of numerous

6 chemical plants and the Number 2 super fund site

7 known as the Lees Lane La ndfill and the Cane Run

8 coal burning LG&E plant the EPA has already

9 classified as a high hazard.

10 We feel enough is enough, but yet again,

11 LG&E has applied for a permit to bui ld a 62

- acre

12 14

- story tall ash landfill less than a mile from

13 my home and within two miles from an elementary

14 school and middle school where children run the

15 track and have cheerleading and football practice

16 in the afternoons. The residents of the nearby

17 neighborhood walk the track all the time for

18 exercise.

19 LG&E denies any problems with their

20 plan. I beg to differ. The residents of

21 Riverside Gardens have a pending lawsuit

22 against LG&E for the black particles and gray dust450

1 all over our neighborhood. Our attorney has hired

2 an environmental expert to test the fallout and

3 the report said that it was coal ash and coal

4 soot. LG&E refuses to take any responsibility for

5 what they're doing.

6 I understand your concern for

7 groundwater. What about the swimming pool water

8 that th e children play in all summer long? If the

9 fallout's in the air, then it's in our children's

10 swimming pools. They swim in it. When was the

11 last time you saw a child swim with its mouth

12 shut? If it's in the air, it's in the water.

13 They drink it.

14 This is a couple of pictures of my

15 granddaughter's swing set. It was cleaned earlier

16 this spring, yet this i s what it looks like now.

17 This is what the children in the area are exposed

18 to on a daily basis. We know the coal ash has

19 numerous toxic chemicals in it, and in a report

20 done by the federal EPA in 2009 they tested the

21 coal ash and found that it has some extremely high

22 levels of chemicals such as arsenic, 1800 times451

1 the federal drinking water standard. Antimony,

2 1800 times the federal drinking water standard.

3 Selenium, 580 times the federal drinking water

4 standard and 29 ti mes the hazardous waste

5 threshold.

6 It is my understanding that arsenic and

7 lead, just to name two of the toxic chemicals from

8 coal ash, can build up in your body over time and

9 your body doesn't expel them. They can cause

10 serious health problems or even de

-- excuse me,

11 even death. Then just what kind of futu re are we

12 leaving for our children, if any at all?

13 This is just a few chemicals. There are

14 several chemicals in coal ash. You tested each

--

15 for each chemical alone, but no one has tested to

16 see what the toxic soup or the effect of it is on

17 human life. If I'm to believe this report, what

18 will the quality of life be for the children that

19 are exposed to t his daily?

20 They say it takes a village to raise a

21 child. Now is your opportunity to be a part of

22 that village. Place stricter regulations and452

1 guidelines on coal ash. And for the sake of our

2 children and future generates to come, classify

3 coal ash as a high hazard class ification C.

4 MR. BEHAN: Thank you, ma'am.

5 MS. BURKHEAD: Thank you for your time.

6 (Applause)

7 MR. BEHAN: Number 165.

8 MS. ANANDA: Thank everyone for being

9 here today. Thank you all.

10 I know you've heard a lot today, and I

11 just want to speak to you for a moment. This is

12 from my heart. I have family, including my

13 nephews, that live in Rubbertown. They constantly

14 have to have breathing treatments because of the

15 air quality there. They basically are li ving in a

16 scenario where they live in a bubble. They can't

17 go outside and play in the summer when Louisville

18 was Number 1 in the country for record heat

19 breaking days.

20 I ask us to just consider this gift

21 we've been given. For me, personally, this planet

22 is a gift that God has given to us. I feel we453

1 have a

-- a deep responsibility to protect it and

2 preserve it not only for the gift for ourselves

3 but also for our

-- our children, our children's

4 children, for the people that live in this

5 community who have over and over again experienced

6 abuse from different polluting industries.

7 And it's not a good thing to put it

8 anywhere. And

-- and I

-- and that's when I ask

9 us to evaluate our

-- our use of coal and

-- and

10 any energy that is truly polluting in this country

11 and

-- and ask us to, you know, consi der that God

12 made this planet, that God loves the earth, God

13 loves creation, God loves humanity. And even

14 though God gave us the freedom to spin our

15 destiny, God does not want it to b e trashed and

16 destroyed. God can open hearts and change

17 people's minds and attitudes. That's my prayer.

18 I think we have a tremendous privilege

19 to be here on this earth. And that also implies a

20 responsibility. I

-- I just want us to be good

21 stewards of God's resources and examine how our

22 own addiction

-- you know, we're

-- we 're all454

1 responsible in our own ways for

-- for how we use

2 energy.

3 I'd ask us to

-- to pray about

4 protecting our neighbors and consider that this

--

5 this earth is God's, it's a gift. Do unto others

6 as you would have them do unto you. And please

7 consider when you're making these decisions on

8 behalf of people who live there, who live around

9 there, who just exist on this planet to create and

10 preserve this gift.

11 And thank you very much for your time.

12 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

13 (Applause)

14 MR. BEHAN: Ma'am. Excuse me, ma'am.

15 Ma'am. Ma'am, is

-- is your name Megan? Yes.

16 MS. ANANDA: Renee

.

17 MR. BEHAN: Oh, Renee. Oh, Renee

--

18 MS. ANANDA: Ananda.

19 MR. BEHAN: Ananda. 165. Okay. 302,

20 please.

21 MR. LAGALY: All right. Appreciate your

22 time. I just have a

-- a few brief points to455

1 make. My name is Lance Lag aly, and my

-- my

2 company is involved in the distribution of a

3 recycled product called "coal slag." It's

-- it's

4 a byproduct of the process, as many of you may be

5 aware of.

6 If Subtitle C is approved, the coal slag

7 market for sandblasting will go away. And one

8 point I want to mention is an alternative to that

9 product are naturally mined materials that are

10 non

- recyclable. So that is something to keep in

11 mind in your decision items, such as starblasts,

12 which are mined materials.

13 So that's one point I did want

-- did

14 want to make. But the market for coal slag is

15 used on a widespread basis, and that market would

16 be gone should Subtitle C be

-- be approved.

17 Secondly, we've been in the

-- the market f or

18 sandblasting for

-- for many, many years, and

19 sandblasting and coal slag as a use, I know many

20 customers have never heard of any adverse health

21 effects whatsoever from our customers who use coal

22 slag in the sandblasting business.456

1 Just a couple other brief points. You

2 know, at a time where

-- you know, we

-- we employ

3 people in the business specifically for coal slag

4 and jobs

-- related jobs will be lost. And

-- and

5 that is difficult in a time when one in ten of us

6 are unemployed. There are also rumors out there

7 already spreading in the industry for coal slag

8 regarding regulation which is having some

9 detrimental effects. I want ed to mention that.

10 And I think lastly, you know, my last

11 point is coal slag for sandblasting, again, it's a

12 beneficial use. It is a recycled product that no

13 one else would use under Subtitle C, and I think

14 that's a strong consideration. Jobs will be lost,

15 there is no question, relative to the industry. A

16 beneficial safe use will be gone. So we

-- we

17 support Subtitle D as a valid choice.

18 Thank you for your time.

19 MR. BEHAN: Thank you. 332, please.

20 MS. SAMUELS: Hello. My name is

21 Brit tany Samuels. I'm a resident of Louisville,

22 Kentucky.457

1 I'm going to make this short and sweet

2 for you guys. I fe el that the current regulatory

3 structure is not set up. The state is not doing

4 enough to protect us. Under the current setup,

5 the state is simply not doing enough. Proven

6 evidence of that is the TVA spill in Kingston,

7 Tennessee.

8 And after

-- after that happened and a

9 lot of research started being done and more

--

10 more reports started coming out about the current

11 setup of the landfills near the riverways and that

12 could cause

-- possibly cause a catastrophic

13 event, we now know that there are many ponds that

14 a re under stress right now, and if we don't do

15 something to stop the regulatory

-- to change the

16 setup so that it will be able to stop these ponds

17 from being put near our waterways.

18 Thank you.

19 (Applause)

20 MR. BEHAN: Thank you. Could persons

21 with numbers 136, 137, 138, 142, and 143 come

22 forward? Is 136 here? Sir, you can come to the458

1 podium. That would be great.

2 MR. WILKINS: My name is Steve Wilk ins,

3 and I thank the agency for coming to Kentucky to

4 hear concerns about the management of coal

5 combustion residues.

6 I'm here to urge the agency to adopt

7 S ubtitle C and regulate coal ash at the federal

8 level. Before moving to Kentucky, I grew up in

9 West Virginia near the banks of the Ohio River.

10 When I was a boy, the water of the river was

11 filthy with human waste visibly flowing on down

12 towards Kentucky and Ohio. Cleaning the Ohio

13 River seemed an almost insurmountable challenge in

14 the '50s. Now the most visible pollutan ts have

15 been minimized. However, we now know that

16 arsenic, selenium, lead, mercury, and other

17 carcinogens invisibly flow in the Kentucky, the

18 Ohio and other waterways increasing our r isk of

19 cancer and other diseases and making local fish a

20 health risk.

21 Kentucky has already demonstrated that

22 it cannot be entrusted to oversee the handling of459

1 coal ash. Your own agency has been critical of

2 the Kentucky Department for Environmental

3 Protection and its division of water. Kentucky

4 has been very protective of any potential threat

5 to the coal industry and that protection follows

6 coal throughout its life cycle. Coal, the

7 industry, is coddled while miners , mountains,

8 waterways, communities, whole regions are

9 sacrificed in pursuit of profits.

10 Without federal oversight, I fear that

11 Kentucky will do for coal ash what it has done

12 with 402 mining permits, favoring the coal life

13 cycle over the environment it is supposed to

14 protect. Do not allow Kentucky primacy in the

15 oversight of coal ash.

16 I ask the agency not only to adopt

17 Subtitle C but to make it stronger. Any handling

18 of coal combustion residuals that risks leaching

19 into groundwater should be prohibited. U se of

20 coal combustion residues for, quote, "structural

21 fill" should be forbidden unless composite lining

22 is first put in place. Dumping of coal ash into460

1 service

-- surface and deep mines should, also, be

2 prohibited since control of leachates cannot be

3 assured.

4 There are those who argue, and in s ome

5 cases inflate the cost of coal ash management

6 under Subtitle C. They wish to perpetuate the

7 illusion of inexpensive coal

- fired electricity.

8 In reality, the health and welfare of those who

9 live in proximity to coal ash dumps has to be made

10 a part of the calculations. Factor in the health

11 costs and the financial impact betwe en the two

12 options that are on the table become much more

13 equivalent.

14 The EPA must adopt Subtitle C and must

15 have primary oversight in Kentucky. Thank you.

16 MR. BEHAN: Thank you, sir.

17 (Applause)

18 MR. BEHAN: Is Number 137 here? 138?

19 142?

20 (Applause)

21 MR. BEHAN: Go ahead, sir.

22 MR. BERRY: My name is Wendell Berry. I461

1 thank you for the chance to speak.

2 It may seem a little hard to ask for

3 government help when so many are angrily

4 protesting against big government, but the proper

5 function of government, as we all recognize at

6 least some of the time, is to do for us

7 collectively what we cannot do for ourselves as

8 individuals or local groups. Many, in fact, who

9 protest big government willingly tolerate a

10 massive military establishment and bureaucracy and

11 an im

-- and immense expenditure of life and

12 wealth to protect us from actual or supposable

13 foreign threats.

14 We are here today to ask the federal

15 government by means of the EPA to spend a

16 comparatively small fraction of public money and

17 effort to protect us from an internal threat.

18 None of us individually or as citizens,

19 organizations, can protect ourselves against the

20 poisons released by great corporations which do

21 not accept any responsibility that they are not

22 forced to accept. The EPA knows that coal ash is462

1 a poison. We ask you only to believe its own

2 findings and to do its duty.

3 Now, I want to add to that that I think

4 my side of this issue is at fault in permitting

5 this controversy to be construed as a contest

6 between health and jobs. I believe, and I think

7 my allies understand, that the future of the

8 Kentucky economy is not distinct from the future

9 of ecological health in this state. And we need

10 to be talking about a post

- coal e conomy for

11 eastern Kentucky, and it needs to come from the

12 land and the people's intelligence in eastern

13 Kentucky.

14 Thank you.

15 (Applause)

16 MR. BEHAN: Thank you. 143.

17 MR. WINKLER: My name is Mike Winkler.

18 I'm the Environmental Manager for E.ON U.S., the

19 parent company of Louisville Gas and Electric an d

20 Kentucky Utilities Company. I am responsible for

21 environmental compliance with our CCR landfills,

22 ash ponds and beneficial use projects.463

1 In Kentucky we've had regulations

2 governing CCR landfills and beneficial reuse since

3 1992 and impoundment safety regulations for an

4 even longer period. LG& E and KU have CCR

5 management protocols in place that ensure

6 regulatory compliance and protection of public

7 health and the environment. The Kentucky

8 regulatory program works very well. There's never

9 been a significant spill from any LG&E or KU CCR

10 facility or any other CCR facility in Kentucky.

11 No LG&E or KU CCR facility has ever posed a

12 problem for local water sup plies. Any federal

13 regulations should be adopted under the RCRA

14 Subtitle D program rather than a Subtitle C

15 hazardous waste program.

16 Regulation under Subtitle C would be

17 administratively burdensome, unnecessarily

18 expensive and provide little environment benefit.

19 Fundamental problems with the Subtitle C approach

20 are evident from the fact that virtually every

21 state and environmental agency in the nation

22 opposes regulation of CCRs as hazardous waste. L464

1

-- LG&E and KU support the "D Prime" alternative

2 that would allow continued operation of existing

3 ash ponds that are operating in a manner insuring

4 appropriate protec tion of public health and the

5 environment.

6 The EPA should also avoid interfering

7 with continued beneficial reuse of CCRs either

8 through regulation under Subtitle C or potential

9 restrictions on structural fill or other

10 applications that involve placement of CCRs on the

11 land. LG&E and KU have extensive experience with

12 structural fill projects undertaken in the

13 environmentally responsible manner. The Kentucky

14 CCR regulations have appropriate restrictions

15 which include prohibitions on placement of CCRs

16 near streams or other sensitive areas.

17 Most structural fill projects involve

18 use of CCRs in the construction of buildings,

19 roadways and parking lots. As a practical matter,

20 pavement or the building structure itself

21 generally provides the level of encapsulation.

22 Considered

-- considering the limit ed volumes of465

1 CCRs generally used in such projects, they are

2 unlikely to pose significant risks to the

3 environment. Restricting beneficial re use

4 involving structural fills would substantially

5 reduce beneficial reuse because the cement and

6 gypsum markets could not absorb the extra

7 quantities of CCRs.

8 In closing, beneficial reuse has played

9 a major role in our efforts to manage CCRs in the

10 most cost

- effective manner possibly. Gutting the

11 environmental reuse program through Subtitle C

12 regulation or restriction on beneficial reuse

13 involving structural fill will result in

14 substantial cost for the utility customers of

15 Kentucky and other states while providing little

16 or no environmental benefits.

17 Thank you.

18 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

19 (Applause)

20 MR. BEHAN: Is there anyone in the room

21 that has a number of 140 or lower that has not

22 spoken today? Come on up, ma'am. What

-- what466

1 number do you have? 138. Anyone

- - anyone else

2 with a number of 140 or lower?

3 MR. SPEAKER: I can wait a little bit

4 longer.

5 MR. BEHAN: Okay. That's fine, sir.

6 Could Numbers 335, 336, 337, and 338 also come

7 forward?

8 If you want to wait, that's fine.

9 MS. SPEAKER: I didn't know I could.

10 Thank you.

11 MR. BEHAN: That's fine. Is 335 here?

12 MS. LEASON: My name is Kathleen Leason,

13 and I'm a 22

- year resident of Columbus, Indiana.

14 While I do not live near a coal as h

15 disposal site, to my knowledge, I still fear the

16 toxic effects of coal ash disposal. With what I

17 now know about the irresponsible handling of these

18 materials, I fear drinking water anywhere in this

19 country without a great deal of research into

20 local water quality test results.

21 I do not trust the regulation of this

22 hazardous waste to the state of Indiana. If they467

1 could set aside economic interests to make

2 residents of Indiana safe from coal a sh's

3 toxicity, they would have already done so.

4 Therefore, I support the strongest possible

5 regulation of coal ash under Subtitle C.

6 Thank you.

7 MR. BEHAN: Thank you, ma'am.

8 (Applause)

9 MR. BEHAN: 336.

10 MR. BAUTE: Thank you for your time.

11 I'm Dennis Baute from India na.

12 Although I may often prefer state

13 regulations instead of federal regulations because

14 of economic reasons, I feel that the regulation of

15 coal ash and other coal

- related re gulations are

16 too important to leave to the states. State

17 regulations and enforcement are often subject to

18 political shenanigans and budget cuts.

19 Unfortunately, states tend to react in

20 their own short

- term interests at the expense of

21 the long

- term interests of our nation as a whole.

22 I, therefore, very much prefer the Subtitle C468

1 proposals instead of the Subtitle D proposals as a

2 way to protect our environment for future

3 generations.

4 Thank you.

5 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

6 (Applause)

7 MR. BEHAN: Is 336

-- great.

8 MR. FORRESTER: Hello. My name is Whit.

9 I'm a resident of old Louisville right now.

10 I have eastern Kentucky connections. My

11 family is all from there. So I've definitely seen

12 what can happen on the upper end of coal when

13 you're mining it. There are nine, there are nine

14 dead babies behind my aunt's trailer that she gave

15 birth to that did not survive. The two that have

16 lived of the nine that she has

-- I'm sorry. The

17 2 that have lived of the 11 that she has given

18 birth to were part of a quadruplet set, 1 of whom

19 was born without an eardrum, and the other has had

20 like more health pro blems than I can even tell you

21 about in two minutes.

22 I feel like a lot of people have done a469

1 really good job of t alking about the toxicity of

2 what we're talking about. And I'm curious to

3 bring up the fact that most of these things will

4 lead to learning defects and learning

5 disabilities.

6 And in a state that has some of the

7 largest disenfranchisement of people with felonies

8 and in a state where prison systems are designed

9 based on second grade reading levels of kids,

10 second grade levels, that this should be a larger

11 problem than just environmental aspects. There's

12 a social component here that's not been spoken

13 about that I think you need to seriously think on.

14 That's all I have to say.

15 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

16 (Applause)

17 MR. BEHAN: Number 338. 338.

18 MS. WEINNCH: Thank you for your time.

19 My name is Morgan, and I'm a resident of

20 Louisville, Kentucky.

21 And I am also a Four Service volunteer

22 in eas tern Kentucky. And as a student of law and470

1 a citizen, I know that we have a constitutional

2 guarantee to equal protection under the law. And

3 as I understand, states along the Ohio seem to be

4 lacking in this decree. I request that you ensure

5 Subtitle C, make sure that it's adopted and

6 properly enforced by the federal government. And

7 really we need to be looking towards the future.

8 I understand that coal is very important right now

9 to our economy, but it's not going to last

10 forever. And we really need to be looking towards

11 other options and really look at the carrots and

12 not get so distracted by the sticks.

13 That

-- especially as a

-- sp eaking as a

14 young person, you know, I'm going to have to be on

15 this planet for a while, and I would really like

16 to see that when

-- when I turn on the lights,

17 when I use anything that is going to need a

18 resource that we have worked as hard as we can

19 towards creating

-- creating things that are going

20 to leave a positive

-- leave a positive legacy.

21 And

-- and then second

-- seconding Mr.

22 Berry's sentiment, looking beyond coal and471

1 striving towards those green jo bs. And that's

--

2 that's everything. Thank you very much.

3 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

4 (Applause)

5 MR. BEHAN: Is there anyone that has a

6 number between 140 and 150 that would like to

7 speak now? Is there anyone that has a number

8 between 150 and 155 that would like to speak now?

9 155 and 160?

10 339, 340, 341. 3 39.

11 MR. MUDD: Thank you. Hello. My name

12 is Martin Mudd. I'm originally from Louisville,

13 Kentucky. I now live in Lexington, Kentucky.

14 I'm not going to take up much of your

15 time, because this issue is incredibly simple.

16 Coal ash, or coal combustion waste, or whatever

17 you want to call it is toxic waste. And t he EPA

18 knows this. It contains heavy metals, it

19 contains, you know, any

-- any number of

20 constituents. Arsenic

-- well, that's a heavy

21 metal. It contains things that are toxic to th e

22 human system, human anatomy. And, therefore, it472

1 is toxic waste.

2 The reason being is that, even if, you

3 know, a certain amount of it doesn't contain toxic

4 content

-- toxic concentration, when water runs

5 into it and those things get washed out of the

--

6 the rest of the ash, they get concen trated in the

7 environment. They bioaccumulate in the

-- in the

8 tissues of animals, and some of those animals are

9 humans.

10 If it's toxic waste, it should be

11 treated as toxic waste. And the only reason it

12 isn't is because that's going to cost these

13 companies that burn these things, burn coal a

14 whole lot of money that they would prefer to have

15 as profit. Well, I say let's take

-- you know,

16 let's force them, and this is what the government

17 ought to be doing, force them to treat this as

18 toxic waste and pay the costs. And if t hat comes

19 out of their profits, so be it. It shouldn't come

20 out of the

-- the

-- the taxpayer's pockets. It

21 should come out of the

-- the customer's pockets.

22 It should come out of th eir profits.473

1 And let's see what else I wanted to say.

2 If it's toxic waste, treat it as toxic waste,

3 which it is. Thank you.

4 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

5 (Applause)

6 MR. BEHAN: Number 340.

7 MR. ABSHER: My name is Brandon Absher.

8 I was born in Letcher County, Kentucky. I spent

9 the first nine years of my life there.

10 I've seen the effects of coal, I've seen

11 the effects of mountaintop removal, which is h ow

12 they're taking coal off these days. These are not

13 things that are

-- I think we can support.

14 And I think

-- I want to make just a

15 quick and maybe naive point, but it seem s to me

16 that what we're discussing right now is whether

17 you can put a value on a person's life, whether

18 you can put a value on my family in eastern

19 Kentucky's lives, and whether you ca n put a value

20 on their health. And I think that, you know,

21 children know better than to think that you can do

22 that.474

1 So it's really unfortunate that when

2 children know better than to think that human life

3 and human health is worth something in terms of

4 money, that it can be created as an ext ernality

5 that we're here to discuss that question now.

6 Hopefully, we know better, and hopefully, we can

7 all sort of see that

-- I don't think we can

8 debate whether or not this is a tox in. I think

9 the EPA is clear that it is.

10 Given that that's the case and we agree

11 that we can't put values on human life, we can't

12 say that, you're worth this much money, I think we

13 have to say that you can't just pollute our earth

14 in this way. Thank you.

15 MR. BEHAN: Thank you for your comments.

16 (Applause)

17 MR. BEHAN: Number 341.

18 MR. WAGNER: Hello. My name is Gregg

19 Wagner. First of all, I'd like to thank you all

20 for coming and li stening to the people. You know,

21 the

-- the

-- the folks that we have in

-- in

22 Frankfort, you know, they

-- they are basically475

1 bought and sold by the coal industry, but

-- save

2 few. But I almost have a rhetorical question for

3 you

- all instead of you

- all listening to me.

4 I guess my question is: Why is it that

5 if

-- if

-- if this is deemed toxic, why is it

6 that everywhere that it is stored is poor

7 communities. Has anyone ever thought of that?

8 Whether it be

-- whether it be in Appal achia

--

9 (Applause)

10 MR. WAGNER:

-- or whether it be in

11 certain areas of

-- of main towns. Why is that?

12 If this is something that is not a threat, why not

13 have this in Prospect in Jefferson County? Why

14 not have it in

-- why not have it in the wealthy

15 parts of Miami or right outside Washington D.C.

16 and

-- and Virginia? There's a reason. Because

17 everyone feels people are disposable for some

18 reason which I don't understand. And that's the

19 EPA's responsibility to do those things. So I

20 don't

-- I'm not all that great on the toxicity

21 and all that stuff. But I mean, if you

-- we will

22

-- we've heard from folks that live in these476

1 places and the conditions that they have to deal

2 with. You would

-- you and your family wouldn't

3 want to deal with that. These are people. These

4 are lives. This is serious stuff that you're

5 dealing with, and you

- all have a responsibility

6 here to listen to the people. And I

-- I do trust

7 that you'll do better than

-- than the f olks that

8 we have in Frankfort.

9 So thank you.

10 (Applause)

11 MR. BEHAN: Thank you. Is there anyone

12 that has a number greater than 300 that has not

13 spoken that would like to speak now? Come on

14 forward. Ma'am, could you show me your number or

15

-- okay. Thanks.

16 MS. ROWAN: Hi. My name is Tonya Rowan,

17 and I'm a registered nurse. Therefore, I take

18 care of a lot of patients in Kentucky that

-- that

19 do have cancer, as well as kidney disease and

20 heart disease.

21 As we know, these ponds do contain

22 arsenic and other things that do cause these477

1 diseases, so I don't know why it's such a

-- you

2 know, why we have to decide whether or not we need

3 to build up these ponds. We can't

-- the state is

4 not upholding the inspections as evidenced by the

5 Trimble County po nd where there were several

6 inspections that were missed.

7 And then we can look at the Kingston

8 pond in Tennessee which spilled, and they're still

9 cleaning that up after two years. So I don't see

10 why there would be any hesitation to not go

11 forward with the Subtitle C and prevent lead

12 poisoning and encephalitis that would occur to our

13 children. That the EPA has already researched

14 that within

-- I think it's within a 50

- mile

15 radius that 1

-- or

-- or a certain radius 1 in

16 every 50 children would have lead poiso ning.

17 And as evidenced by these other folks

18 that live close by, I think that it's pretty easy

19 to say that we need to pass that Subtitle C.

20 That's all I have to say.

21 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

22 (Applause)478

1 MR. BEHAN: Sir. 342.

2 MR. ALLMAN: Hi. My name is Seamus

3 Allman. I'm here in Louisville. Thanks for

4 coming and having this hearing today. Thanks for

5 spending the time to come to Louisville.

6 Coal ash is toxic and should be

7 federally regulated. State regulation is

8 insufficient. Ponds fail, as she said. They did

9 at Mill Creek, they did in Kingston, Tennessee.

10 It's just like the deep water horizon in

-- in

--

11 in the gulf. Like nothing is 100% secure, and

12 what are the risks associated with a failure.

13 And we saw what happened in the gulf and

14 how much death was brought by that on the

15 environment. And the same thing happens, the same

16

-- I mean, look at what happened in Tenne ssee.

17 That was an incredible disaster. And we don't

18 need anything like that happening in Kentucky.

19 The burden should be on the companies

20 that create the waste, not the taxpa yers. If it's

21 too expensive to responsibly deal with the waste

22 of their business, coal companies should give479

1 their corpora te management a pay cut, treat their

2

-- treat their employees right, give them good

3 benefits, and then they should pay for the waste

4 that they create to be dealt with responsibly and

5 not to

-- to externalize that cost on to the

6 health of the poor people in the poor communities

7 where the waste is stored. Toxic waste is toxic

8 waste.

9 Thank you.

10 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

11 (Applause)

12 MR. BEHAN: Is there anyone in the room

13 with a number of 160 or lower that would like to

14 spe ak now? 140 or 138? Is there anyone else?

15 Come on forward, sir. Go ahead, ma'am.

16 MS. STEWART: Thank you. I'm Margaret

17 Stewart.

18 I want to use my one small voice and my

19 one few seconds here to try to speak for hundreds

20 and thousands and millions of others who are not

21 able to speak here, including those who are not

22 yet born, including voiceless creatures, and480

1 including mother earth herself. Just as a rose by

2 any other name smells just the same, so toxins by

3 any other name called "non

- hazardous," "special"

4 or "beneficial" remain the same. Toxins by any

5 other name are just as toxic.

6 You've heard it said ashes to ashes and

7 dust to dust. Well, to you, the EPA, I want to

8 say those of us for whom I am attempting to speak

9 right now are relying on you to do what we cannot

10 do for ourselves, to protect us in ways that we

11 cannot protect ourselves, to do the job that you

12 were created to do.

13 Regulate toxic coal ash as a toxin. Do

14 it effectively and immediately. Otherwise, we,

15 ourselves, shall all become dust and ashes before

16 our time.

17 MR. BEHAN: Thank you, ma'am.

18 (Applause)

19 MR. BEHAN: Sir, I think you have a

--

20 would you like to speak?

21 MR. CLEMENT: Thank you. Thank you very

22 much. My name is Dave Clement, and I am speaking481

1 as an owner of a company that depends on coal

2 combustion byproducts recycling industry.

3 I own a construction equipment company

4 that sells equipment in this industry. I support

5 coal ash disposal regulations that protect human

6 health and environment. If the EPA designates

7 coal ash as a hazardous mater ial under Subtitle C,

8 it will bring an uncertainty to the general

9 population and be detrimental to the recycling

10 efforts.

11 If people hear from the media that a

12 material is hazardous, they will fight its use in

13 every way. It has a huge impact on numerous jobs

14 surrounding the coal industry. I understand a

15 need for national standards on landfil l design,

16 but I don't know why we should label coal ash as

17 hazardous when the protective

-- protective

18 features of the landfills will be similar under

19 both C and D regulations.

20 The benefits of Subtitle D approach far

21 exceed the negative impacts of a Subtitle C

22 approach. The recycling of coal ash has many482

1 environmental benefits that should be promoted by

2 the EPA. If beneficial uses are no longer

3 available, it will force power plants to landfill

4 all materials, which will ultimately increase

5 every one of our electrical bills, our electric

6 bills will go up.

7 I ask the EPA not to designate coal ash

8 as a hazardous and special waste. Thank you very

9 much.

10 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

11 (Applause)

12 MR. BEHAN: Sir, did you want to speak?

13 Number 159.

14 MR. SLAYMAKER: How are you doing? My

15 name is Ronald Slaymaker. I'm testifying as a

16 private citizen.

17 I, like most other people here at the

18 meeting today, also want clean air and water, to

19 support coal ash disposal regulations that protect

20 and preserve clean air. I also support recycling

21 any reused products and know that c oal ash has a

22 good record when it comes to recycling, probably483

1 the best record of any recyclable material.

2 New re gulations for disposal should not

3 compromise greater recycling opportunities for

4 coal ash. Increased recycling of coal ash cannot

5 be accomplished if the Environmental Protection

6 Agenc y designates coal ash as a hazardous special

7 waste under Subtitle C. The classification will

8 bring uncertainty and send the wrong signal to the

9 general population and will be detrimental to the

10 recycling efforts.

11 Residential and commercial development

12 will steer away from utilizing this material if

13 deemed hazardous in a landfill. Businesses will

14 wa nt to avoid any lawsuits caused by their

--

15 caused by their use of material that is considered

16 hazardous in landfill s . The recycling of coal has

17 many environmental benefits such as conservation

18 of our natural resources and landfill space while

19 avoiding the rise of greenhouse gas emissions

20 during the manufacturing of all the materials that

21 would replace the coal ash. Coal recycling has

22 many environmental benefits that need to be484

1 preserved and promoted. This re cycling cannot be

2 risked being destroyed by hazardous special waste

3 classification. As I understand the proposed rules,

4 EPA states that the new landfill engineering

5 practice would ess entially be the same whether

6 it's labeled hazardous or non

- hazardous

7 classification. If the landfill design and

8 protection features are the same, then only the

9 reasonable and responsi ble approach is the

10 non

- hazardous regulation.

11 EPA should

-- (coughs) excuse me. EPA

12 should develop reasonable coal ash disposal

13 regulations based on good science and avoid

14 characterizing coal ash as a hazardous material.

15 Why risk the destruction of recycling efforts

16 which help accomplish everyone's goal of a cleaner

17 environment. EPA must not designate co al as h a

18 hazardous material special waste.

19 Thank you for your time.

20 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

21 (Applause)

22 MR. BEHAN: Could t hose with Numbers485

1 160, 164, 169, 177, and 179 come forward now if

2 you would like to speak? 160. Okay. 177.

3 MR. BARR: Hello. My name is Ford Barr,

4 and I'm a resident of Louisville, Kentucky.

5 My purpose in speaking here is to tell

6 you that I believe that coal combustion w aste,

7 also known as coal ash, should be classified as a

8 hazardous waste. It should be regulated by the

9 federal government just as spent nuclear waste is.

10 Coal ash is known a nd has been proven in

11 numerous cases to leach heavy metals such as

12 arsenic and lead into groundwater. This

13 groundwater is used by communities both large and

14 small for public consumpti on. Our lives depend on

15 clean drinking water.

16 Frankly, I feel that it is ridiculous we

17 even have to come to meetings like this to plead

18 for regulation. If the EPA was doing the job it

19 was in theory created to do, they would

20 scientifically investigate coal ash, find it to be

21 hazardous, and regulate its storage and dispo sal.

22 So why do we, the people, have to plead for486

1 regulation? Because of a form of legalized

2 bribery known as lobbying.

3 Coal and power companies and numerous

4 other corporations spend millions of dollars on

5 lobbying to retain and create loopholes for

6 themselves. Why don't they just spend those

7 millions on cleaning up after themselves?

8 I'm going to close here now. Coal ash

9 is hazardous. Regulate it, monitor its storage

10 and disposal. No exemptions, no exceptions, n o

11 excuses. Thank you.

12 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

13 (Applause)

14 MR. BEHAN: 179.

15 MS. BUSH: Good evening. My name is

16 Virginia Bush, and I am speaking tonight as a

17 concerned citizen, a medical professional, and

18 also as a grandmother.

19 While I'm glad that the EPA is pursuing

20 federal regulation of coal combustion waste, a

21 cursory review of the two proposals highlights the

22 extreme difficulty, if not impossibility, of487

1 assessing the potential risks of groundwater,

2 surface water and aquifer contamination by heavy

3 me ta l s. These metals can leach or flood from coal

4 combustion waste d isposal sites.

5 The World Health Organization, the EPA,

6 and the Agency for Toxic Substance a nd D isease

7 R egistry all classify inorganic arsenic, a

8 constituent of coal combustion waste, as a Class A

9 carcinogen. Chronic low level exposure through

10 drinking water can lead to urinary, skin and blood

11 cancers. Risks from exposures through contact

12 with contaminated soil or inhalation of dust are

13 less understood.

14 Arsenic and mercury, another waste

15 constitue nt, are both known to cause neurologic

16 injury, including lowering of IQs and fetal

17 anomalies. These are the social costs that are

--

18 that are externalized by the coal and power

19 corpor ations and borne by the public at

20 unquantifiable amounts in healthcare costs and

21 suffering.

22 Furthermore, the

-- the coal ash sites488

1 in this area are situated in mixed use industrial

2 and resident

-- residential areas. So a proven

3 damage case is, in practicalit y, not possible

4 under the current criteria which requires health

5 effect to be directly related to the coal

6 combustion residuals in isolation from other

7 surrounding industrial waste.

8 The Cane Run site is in the middle of a

9

-- of a chemical complex called "Rubbertown." So

10 these

-- so it's

-- the burden of proof is put on

11 ill residents. Additionally, I woul d urge the EPA

12 to put a moratorium on deposition of coal

13 combustion residuals in non

- landfill and

14 non

- impoundment sites such as abandoned mines

15 until the risk of underground water and aquifer

16 contamination can be evaluated.

17 Finally, how could uniquely associated

18 waste such as precipitation runoff from a coal ash

19 pile be assessed? The coal ash piles in Kentucky,

20 like many states, are located on the banks or

21 proximate to the rivers, which are also the

22 water supply. In 2009, a U.S. climate change489

1 report commissioned by the

-- by President Bush in

2 2007, climatologists advised that an increase in

3 flooding and severe sto rms is probable.

4 2010 bore this out with record

5 torrential rainfall and flooding events in

6 Tennessee, Arkansas, Wisconsin, North Dakota,

7 Minnesota, Georgia, and Oklahoma. Could the

8 stability of a 14

- story coal ash site close to the

9 Ohio River, as proposed by E.ON, be assured in a

10 500 or 1,000 year flood event? What wou ld be the

11 incalculable health and environmental cost of

12 toxic exposure after the coal ash is redeposited

13 in and along the length of the Ohio River?

14 Following the December 200 9 Kingston,

15 Tennessee impoundment failure, arsenic,

16 skyrocketed to 2,000 PPM in drinking water there.

17 When will that cost be added to a balance sheet?

18 Yes, I believe coal ash should be

19 regulated as a "Special Waste" under Subtitle C to

20 the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, but

21 the long

- term answer is for power providers to

22 move post haste to clean non

- toxic and diversified490

1 energy sources so that humans and the environment

2 are no longer devastate d on both ends of the coal

3 waste stream

-- from the extraction end where the

4 coal slurry ponds flood, poison and kill to the

5 post

- consumption end where the coal ash

6 impoundments flood , poison and kill. I call on

7 the EPA to stand up and lead the way.

8 (Discussion off the record)

9 MR. BEHAN: 164.

10 MR. HUBBARD: My name is John Hubbard.

11 I'm First Nations. My native name is Conghua.

12 I've been a resident of the Ohio Valley for over

13 20 years, 2 decades.

14 And you my concern is not only about the

15 environment, but about the people and the

16 watertables. Because no one has studied what

17 happens when this toxic waste, and it is regulated

18 as toxic waste by the European union and Canada,

19 when this combines with ag runoff and gets in our

20 watertable. What happens? What happens to the

21 animals that eat the grass that grow from that

22 contaminated water? What happens to the people491

1 that eat that meat?

2 Now, I've

-- I've stood here and I've

3 listened to various industry people tell us

4 basically, let us continue to poison you or we're

5 going to raise your bills. Let us continue to

6 poison you or we're going to take away your jobs.

7 Well, I hate to tell eastern Kentucky, but there's

8 47% unemployment in the coal industry already. So

9 maybe they're riding a dead horse.

10 I ask you gentlemen to do your job and

11 regulate the polluters, protect the environment,

12 not the coal companies. Thank you.

13 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

14 (Applause)

15 MR. BEHAN: 169.

16 MR. PADGETT: Thank you. And I

17 appreciate you all coming out and doing these long

18 hearings for us here in Kentucky, especially.

19 C all your friends in. Don't leave yet. You're

20 about to hear something you haven't heard yet. My

21 name is Bob Padgett. I've got degrees in biology

22 and chemistry and I'm a PG, a professional492

1 geologist, here in Kentucky.

2 2006, I retired from the Kentucky

3 Department of Environmental Protection after 27

4 years with them. From 1998 to 2004, I was the

5 first

- line supervisor for all fly ash landfills

6 east of I

- 65. They wouldn't let me get the other

7 ones because they knew what we were doi ng with

8 them in the east. We were trying to do it better.

9 In 2000, we started putting landfill

10 liners for the first time under fly ash landfills.

11 I couldn't swear for doing it anymore because they

12 took me out of my job in 2004 and buried me

13 somewhere in the back.

14 Frankly, I don't really care if you're

15 doing it as C or D. For you folks that don' t

16 understand it, if they brought it up to Subtitle D

17 it would help out the state because we don't even

18 do Subtitle D level. We didn't have the political

19 will to even call it "solid waste." We call it

20 "special waste." It's got its own special

-- it's

21 special.

22 So we've already shown the lack of493

1 political will. I'm going to show you a couple

2 of quick facts of things I would support.

3 Beneficial reuse I hear a lot about, using it in

4 cement, gypsum wallboard, things like that,

5 wonderful. Using it as land disposal without

6 liners or structural fill, horrendous.

7 The state of Kentucky allows beneficial

8 reuse in the damnedest ways. You would not

9 believe the places we let

-- guys will come in

10 from the farm, a guy

-- "I've got a farm here and

11 I need to go over there. I'm going to build me a

12 landfill of ash in between the two." Sure.

13 Don't allow disposal in ponds. It's

14 already probably illegal under the Water Act, and

15 let's just call it what it is. You k now the

16 chemistry is bad, you know the power of the coal

17 complex is big in this state. You've heard that

18 states can't regulate very well. Well, I'm here

19 to tell you that things are d ifferent. I know

20 that the state of Kentucky cannot regulate very

21 well. Couldn't regular its way out of a paper bag

22 about fly ash.494

1 When they started the Solid Waste Board

2 in 1990 and got primacy, and here's the thing I

3 would really like to clue you

- all in for future

4 use, they had over 44 people on staff with the

5 solid waste program in Kentucky, tens of PEs and

6 PGs to regulate all the landfill construction.

7 Now they have when I le ft, and you I don't even

8 know if they have these guys anymore, two

9 engineers, three jobs for all landfills, solid

10 waste and special waste in Kentucky.

11 It's ridiculous. We ha ve dwindled away

12 to absolutely nothing. In my opinion, EPA, we

13 don't even have a level of program that can do

14 primacy as required by the federal regs.

15 Hang in there, folks. Good that

16 everyone's out here with us. Please be assured

17 that the

-- with help from the feds that staff can

18 get it together. There are a lot of good p eople

19 at the EPA. They're just not allowed to think

20 very much. We are a circus parade of the

21 elephants. Our instructions are, follow the one

22 in front of you, don't step out of line.495

1 And so for those reasons

--

2 MR. BEHAN: Thank you, sir.

3 MR. PADGETT:

-- this state can't be

4 trusted. Bring on the feds.

5 (Applause)

6 MR. BEHAN: 137, 344, 189. Is there

7 anyone else in the room that has a number of 170

8 or lower that would like to speak now? 137.

9 MR. MAHLER: My name is Andy Mahler.

10 I'm an organizer with Heartwood Regional Forest

11 Protection Network active in the eastern United

12 States. A lso, a member of the Sierra Club and

13 KFDC. Heartwood is people helping people protect

14 the place they love. I'm also losing my voice, so

15 I'm glad you've got this amplification here.

16 I also appreciate the opportunity you're

17 giving us here today for people to be heard and

18 seen to try to counter the obscene and absurd

19 influence of the coal industry in this state. I

20 would like to call

-- support the EPA's regulating

21 coal ash under Subtitle C of RCRA, and also would

22 like to you take this opportunity to correct496

1 misinformation that has been repeated throughout

2 the day with respect to the health assessment done

3 by the Tennessee Department of Health and the

4 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

5 also known as ATSDR.

6 It was not a clean bill of health for

7 the Kingston coal ash disaster. In fact, quite

8 the opposite. The study concludes that the

9 Kingston coal ash is dangerous. It contains

10 arsenic levels that are concentrated well above

11 background levels in the surrounding area.

12 The study further concludes that had the

13 collapse occurred during a different time of day

14 when people were using the Emory River, it would

15 have resulted in numerous deaths. But b ecause it

16 occurred at 1:00 in the morning, fortunately, many

17 people that otherwise would have been harmed were

18

-- were not harmed. The study further concluded

19 that short

- term dangerou s exposure was also

20 avoided because people were helped out of their

21 houses in a manner that minimized contact with the

22 ash and the impact there was quickly fenced off497

1 keeping them from incurring further exposure.

2 Air exposure. Air exposure impacts were

3 reduced because of wet weather after the spill

4 reduced the ambient dust in the area. The study

5 concluded that the dust that was inhaled could

6 have caused adverse effects to people with heart

7 and respiratory conditi ons. In fact, 40% of the

8 respondents complained of headaches, wheezing,

9 coughing and shortness of health

-- shortness of

10 breath, excuse me, after the spill.

11 The study furthe r concludes that if dust

12 suppression measures are not kept in place, people

13 with heart or respiratory conditions could be

14 harmed. And in addition, there has been no

15 groundwater study completed in the area. So it

16 cannot conclude and it did not conclude that the

17

-- that there were no health impacts to water.

18 Finally, I would just like to a sk you:

19 If this is a decision that is going to be made as

20 a political decision or a decision under law or a

21 decision to be based on science, the burden of

22 proof must be on the industry to prove that this498

1 toxic residue is safe, which it can't because it

2 isn't. It is your responsibility and your mandate

3 to protect the air, soil and water of this nation

4 and the health of its citizens.

5 Thank you very much.

6 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

7 (Appla use)

8 MR. BEHAN: 344.

9 MS. DEIS: My name is Jessica Deis. I

10 am a mother of three and a professional

11 photographer.

12 I've

-- since moving to Louisville,

13 Kentucky about two years ago, I've learned about

14 where my energy comes from. I had no idea when I

15 moved from eastern North Carolina. And it's kind

16 of shocking.

17 I drive on the Watterson every day to go

18 home and I see the Cane Run power plant and I see

19 the smokestacks and I know it can't be good. I've

20 driven out to the current landfil l and it's

--

21 knowing what

- all is in it is pretty disturbing.

22 The air is really thick. When I leave there, my499

1 lungs burn. I can only be there, you know, for

2 five or ten minutes. I can only imagine what it's

3 like to live right next to it.

4 I'm working on a coal documentary

5 project and I've spoke n to people all around that

6 live in

-- around coal in its various life stages.

7 In northern Indiana, there's a whole town built on

8 coal ash. And their water runs not clear and they

9 have lots of health problems. The people in

10 Tennessee that you've already heard about, you

11 know, you know about, obviously they aren't

12 completely healthy and it's not this pristine are a

13 anymore, if it ever was.

14 As far as recycling coal ash, I

-- I

15 don't know what the long

- term effects are, if

16 anybody does. I had some sort of supplement for

17 my dogs that was supposed to help their skin, and

18 I was looking in the ingredients and it said ash.

19 And why does this need to be in something my dogs

20 are going to consume? I guess my dogs wouldn't

21 know and they wouldn't care. The concrete that my

22 husband uses to put the fence posts into the500

1 ground makes dust when he's mixing it and I know

2 that there's probably coal ash in that. And how

3 is that you going to affect us? So I don't know

4 that recycling it is the best thing, and we still

5 have plenty of it left over, even though they are

6 recycling it currently. I'm not convinced that

7 this is the best way.

8 So as much regulation as possible would

9 be my ideal. Thank you for y our time.

10 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

11 (Applause)

12 MR. BEHAN: 189.

13 MS. WILLIAMS: Hello. My name is

14 Cherise Williams. I come to represent the members

15 of my community in Louisville, Kentucky.

16 I have to admit to you, I'm

-- I'm

17 terrified to speak in public and I usually would

18 prepare some comments to stand before my audience

19 so I could stand up here and speak intelligently

20 about what we're here to talk about. But knowing

21 about chemicals is you

- all's busin ess. I don't

22 need to tell you about mercury and selenium and501

1 cadmium and arsenic. You know all these things.

2 So I don't

-- I don't need to

-- to tell you about

3 these things; right?

4 But you come here to ask my community a

5 question: How do you feel? Please comment on how

6 you feel about having toxic ash dumped in your

7 community? How do you feel about that? And I'm

8 like, hmmm, that's

-- that's a strange question.

9 And my question might be to you, the

--

10 would be along the same lines, would be like:

11 What do you want for dinner? How would you like

12 to have some poop soup? Poop soup. Well, we

13 don't have to eat poop. We have other thin gs to

14 eat.

15 We don't have to have these toxic

16 chemicals because we have alternative energies

17 that are just waiting to happen. We need to give

18 the subsides that coal companies receive for

19 research to renewable energy sources so that this

20 can become a reality and we don't have to have

21 toxic sludge in ponds and toxic ash in

22 neighborhoods and we don't have to eat poop for

--502

1 for dinner, for supper.

2 Thank you.

3 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

4 (Applause)

5 MR. BEHAN: 178, 345. Is there anyone

6 else that has a number between 170 and 180 that

7 would like to talk now? 345.

8 MS. WHITE: Hi. I'm Vivian White. I'm

9 actually shocked this is going on here in

10 Louisville, Kentucky. I lived in Hinkley,

11 California when my children were young. So I

12 wanted to say that this sounds like the same crime

13 that was committed by the Hinkley versus PG&E case

14 in California. It is child abuse.

15 And LG&E/E.ON knows about the chemicals.

16 They know what's going on. And they're not doing

17 anything about it. It is a crime and it is child

18 abuse. My son was affected and that's exactly how

19 I felt. He was abused because we did not know

20 about it, he did not know about it, so we didn't

21 have a choice. And he does have a brain tumor.

22 Well, it's been removed now, but he was

-- we were503

1 about to lose his life. We had two weeks to get

2 him surgery or the chances were of losing him.

3 So there are alternati ve ways. And I

4 think the wind turbines in California are

5 beautiful. It's something awesome that can be

6 done. Thank you.

7 (Applause)

8 MR. BEH AN: 178, sir.

9 MR. HIGDON: My name is Greg Higdon, and

10 I'm President and CEO of the Kentucky Association

11 of Manufacturers. KAM is the Commonwealth's

12 oldest industrial trade association. In fact, it

13 will be a hundred years old next year.

14 The association mission is to raise the

15 prosperity of all Kentuckians by protecting an d

16 growing the Commonwealth's economic engine,

17 manufacturing, which is the largest contributor to

18 Kentucky's gross state product. KAM appreciates

19 the opportunity to submit the followin g comments:

20 Kam opposes the regulation of coal combustion

21 residuals under the Resource Conservation Recovery

22 Act Subtitle C, hazardous waste rules.504

1 Several states, including Kentucky,

2 already regulate coal combustion residuals in

3 conjunction with solid waste program s dealing with

4 non

- hazardous waste. KAM believes that if it is

5 necessary to develop a national approach to the

6 regulation of coal combustion residuals, U.S. EPA

7 should do so under th e auspices of RCRA Subtitle

8 D. Such an approach would allow EPA to work with

9 states in implementing regulations that are fully

10 protective of human health and the environment

11 without n egatively impacting coal ash beneficial

12 use and causing an increase in energy prices at a

13 time when the e co n om y can least afford it.

14 The regulation of coal combustion

15 residuals under RCRA's hazardous waste rules would

16 be regulatory overkill and not

-- and would not be

17 economically practical. Coal combustion residuals

18 are industrial solid waste that are often

19 beneficially reused.

20 KAM is concerned that such heavy

- handed

21 regulation with the stigma attached to regulating

22 under Subtitle C, even with an exemption for505

1 beneficial reuse, would effectively eliminate the

2 beneficial reuse of coal ash. KAM is extremely

3 concerned about the resident (sic ?) significantly higher

4 cost increases for energy that would come from

5 regulation of CCRs under Subtitle C.

6 With manufacturers both large and small

7 struggling to survive in the current economy,

8 increased energy costs would certainly be an

9 additional burden that may mean the difference

10 between jobs remaining in the United States, go ing

11 to other countries, or not existing at all. KAM

12 considers this an unacceptable risk associated

13 with over

- regulation.

14 Thank you for your consideration of

15 these comments.

16 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

17 (Applause)

18 MR. BEHAN: Is there anyone in the room

19 that would like to speak now that has a number?

20 Sir, come on forward.

21 Anyone else? Sir, what number do you

22 have?506

1 MR. OVERBEY: 185.

2 MR. BEHAN: 185.

3 MR. OVERBEY: Give me a break. My name

4 is David Overbey, and I am an assistant professor

5 of English at Bellarmine University.

6 I

-- I want to say that

-- that here in

7 the year 2010 that the greatest enemy and threat

8 that the United States faces is not terrorism and

9 it's not illegal immigration, it is ourselves. We

10 have become our own worst enemy.

11 What does it say about a nation and a

12 people that not only allows but glorifies the

13 destruction of its own land and the

-- the

14 poisoning of the people who live on that land?

15 Mountaintop removal and the destruction of the

16 land and the people who live on that land is

17 unconscionable. And this is obvious. And it is

18 not debatable, and anyone who would debate it is

19 insane and dishonest.

20 One of the obstacles that those of us

21 who oppose the reckless practice of the coal

22 industry that

-- that we have to face from the507

1 government and the media and from speakers like

2 the one that we just heard is that the interest of

3 the economy always have to outweigh the interests

4 of the environment and the

-- and the people and

5 the health and the well

- being of our neighbors and

6 our children.

7 But the word "economy" and the word

8 "ecology" come from the same root, which is "eco,"

9 which means home. And any people that would

10 willingly destroy their own home have become their

1 1 own worst enemy.

12 So I would implore the federal

13 government and the EPA to enact an immediate and

14 permanent halt to mountaintop removal and the

15 imminent desecration that it visits on our land

16 and people.

17 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

18 (Applause)

19 MR. BEHAN: Is there anyone else in th e

20 room that would like to speak now that has a

21 number?

22 Seeing no speakers, we'll take a

--508

1 abou t a ten

- minute recess. We'll reconvene at

2 7:40 and we'll see if we have some more speakers

3 at that time. Thank you.

4 (Recess)

5 MR. BEHAN: Okay. We're going to go

6 ahead and get started again. I know we have some

7 speakers out here.

8 Could Number

-- could those persons with

9 Numbers 346, 347, 348, and 349 come forward,

10 please?

11 346. Go ahead, ma'am, when you're

12 ready.

13 MS. MITCHELL: Okay. My name is Linda

14 Mitchell, a nd I want to speak very shortly and

15 about one topic only. I grew up in Shively just

16 off of Cane Run Road.

17 And while in college, I developed

18 cancer, one of the lymphomas, Hodgkin's disease.

19 And I don't know the cause. There wasn't

-- it

20 wasn't inherited. There wasn't any other cancers

21 in my family. So I don't really know what caused

22 it.509

1 But what I do know is we need to do

2 everything in our power to prevent cancer. It has

3 caused some very, very horrible things in my life,

4 including more cancers, heart problems, lung

5 problems. And we need to stop cancer. And one of

6 the ways we can do that is to

-- is through EPA

,

7 is through that. We need to stop toxic waste. We

8 need to do everything we can. So I support

9 Subtitle C.

10 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

11 (Applause)

12 MR. BEHAN: 347.

13 MS. MININGER: My name is Mary Mininger.

14 Thank you for listening to us. And I

15 appeal to you a s human beings who have brains, who

16 have hearts. And actually, science has recently

17 proven that our hearts have as many brain waves as

18 our brain. This is called heart math. And what

19 it means is that we have an intelligence in our

20 hearts as well as our head. So I appeal to you to

21 consider the stories of the people who are

22 suffering at the hands of coal.510

1 We do need jobs. We need them badly.

2 We don't need unregulated toxic things. And for

3 this hearing, that would be ash . I've been aghast

4 to find out how many there are in Indiana.

5 I've lived in Indiana for about 20

6 years, moved to southern Indiana, and found out

7 that there are in our Orange County the highest

8 collection of cancers in the state. This was

9 physician

-- physician studied. They have a chart

10 where they put dots on the calendar

-- I mean on

11 the

-- I'm sorry, on the map with how many cancer

12 patients there are, as well as many, many other

13 things that are also because of environment.

14 I, myself, have an extremely high

15 mercury level because we have five stacks that

16 blow west

-- blow north, north into our air. I

17 simply ask you to regulate. And especially in

18 this situation, I'm asking for regulation u nder

19 Subtitle C. It is not moral to allow ash ponds to

20 have absolutely no regulation. And at least that

21 we can put it above the watertable in Indiana,

22 because we have karst, which me ans that if511

1 anything goes into the karst it goes within 50 or

2 more miles, and that's what we drink. Please help

3 us.

4 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

5 (Applause)

6 MR. BEHAN: 348.

7 MR. FISCHER: Again, thank you all for

8 coming. I know it's a long day for you. My name

9 is Dr. Fred Fischer. I'm a licensed professional

10 engineer in the state of Kentucky, Number 8915,

11 civil engineer.

12 I've spent 44 years in the construction

13 industry, built all the sewers and streets in the

14 central business district here, supervised the

15 foundation of a 41

- story building, the First

16 National Bank building, and have supervised over

17 1,000 home

-- homes and apartments. So, when I

18 read several months ago about the details of the

19 acreage, the depth and the liner in the coal ash

20 pond, I was amazed and appalled. I know that we

21 can't, for instance, design flood walls for 500

22 years, but liners are

-- they're

-- it's going to512

1 leak. It's only a matter of time before it gets

2 punctured by something or it wears out.

3 So, that said, our west end

-- and

4 again, I

-- I agree because the west end is where

5 the poor people are, it's where industry has set

6 up shop. Lot of us believe anecdotally that

7 there's a lot more cancer in our west end than

8 there is in the rest of the community, and we

9 can't afford more.

10 Another citizen said something to the

11 effect that Kentucky was bought and paid for by

12 coal. I don't know about the whole state. I

13 certainly know some politicians who aren't. I

14 think the people who oversee the coal industry

15 pretty well are. Because of that, I ask you to

16 pl ease institute Subtitle C. Let the feds do the

17 job right, because Kentucky hasn't and won't.

18 Thank you.

19 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

20 (Applause)

21 MR. BEHAN: Number 349.

22 MR. TUCKER: Hello. My name is Drew513

1 Tucker. I am a local resident here. I've lived

2 here for 30 years, my whole life, and I grew up in

3 the south end. And as

-- for as long as I can

4 remember, the south end and the west end have

5 separate disproportionate levels o f cancer and

6 sickness and disease.

7 I have a multitude of friends with many

8 of these symptoms and many of these diseases

9 themselves. I

-- I had one friend in the last

10 year who passed away due to heart cancer with no

11 previous cancer in his family, no previous

12 sickness him

-- himself.

13 And second of all, I used to work at a

14 local car wash called "Timmy's Auto Wash" locally

15 here in Louisville, Kentucky located on Dixie

16 Highway. And we had a contract specifically with

17 LG&E to clean the trucks after they wou ld blow the

18 smokestacks, and the coal ash would cover the

19 trucks. And we used a chemical that is basically

20 acid that we could not touch with our hands to

21 clean these trucks and still they would not come

22 clean. And so it occurs to me that if I can't514

1 touch a chemical to get the coal ash off of a

2 truck, that the coal ash itself must be a pretty

3 bad substance.

4 So I hope that you guys will do your job

5 and mandate some health regulation on this toxic

6 was te. Thank you.

7 MR. BEHAN: Thank you for your comments.

8 (Applause)

9 MR. BEHAN: Is there anyone that would

10 like to speak that has a number of 190 or lower?

11 MS. HUMPHREY: I have 160.

12 MR. BEHAN: 160. Sure. Is there anyone

13 else who has a number lower than 190 that would

14 like to speak?

15 Is there anyone that has a number that

16 begins with a 300, greater than 300? No? Okay.

17 160. Ma'am, when you're ready.

18 MS. HUMPHREY: Hello. My name is Terri

19 Humphrey, and I'm a resident of Riverside Gardens

20 in Louisville, Kentucky. I'm here today to speak

21 on behalf of myself, my family, and the residents

22 of Riverside Gardens concerning the dangers of515

1 coal ash and the effects it has and has had on the

2 residents and the community.

3 LG&E's Cane Run facil ity is a few

4 hundred yards from my neighborhood. For years we

5 have had to endure the effects of coal ash and fly

6 ash covering everything from our homes, cars,

7 plants, pools, outdoor furniture, and the kids'

8 toys. We are breathing in coal ash every day and

9 this is affecting our health.

10 According to a report from the Sierra

11 Club, this facility is already leaching 1,200

12 pounds of sulfates into the Ohio River daily.

13 According to an EPA report, the current coal ash

14 pond at the facility is 1 out of 44 classified as

15 high hazard, meaning a spill would result in

16 significant damage and/or loss of life.

17 According to an Earth Justice report

18 which estimate risks to health and environment

19 from coal ash disposal by examining 181 coal ash

20 dump sites throughout the country, the report

21 found that unlined coal ash waste ponds pose a

22 cancer risk 900 times above what is defined as516

1 acceptable. Now LG&E wants to put another coal

2 ash dump right next to our neighborhood. This

3 coal ash dump would be even la rger, over 60 acres,

4 14 stories high with 5.7 million cubic yards of

5 coal ash.

6 Coal ash toxins have the potential to

7 injure all major organ systems, damage physical

8 health and development, and even contribute to

9 mortality. Coal ash contains concentrated toxic

10 pollutions such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium,

11 lead, mercury, and many others that are known to

12 cause cancers in humans. All of these and more

13 pose a dangerous health risk alone, but we also

14 have the health risk of the combination of these

15 toxic chemicals. As little is known abo ut the

16 effects when these chemicals are mixed, it can

17 intensify existing effects or create new

-- new

18 effects.

19 We have children out there in our

20 neighborhoo d that are dying with cancer. Young,

21 old, all ages. But the coal ash isn't our only

22 issue. We have several issues out there. We have517

1 the chemical plants of Rubbertown, we have the

2 Lees Lane landfill which was on the super fund

3 act, it was Number 2.

4 We are tired of these large corporations

5 dumping their toxic waste on our properties and in

6 our bodies. We are tired of watching our family

7 members and friends and neighbors suffer and die

8 from the effects of these dangerous poisonous

9 chemicals.

10 These coal

- burning industries want us to

11 trust them, that they will be in compliance and

12 keep us safe. We cannot trust them. From past

13 practice, they have shown us that we cannot trust

14 them. So we are asking you to put in place the

15 Class C to implement the stringent.

16 Thank you.

17 MR. BEHAN: Thank you, ma'am.

18 (Applause)

19 MR. BEHAN: Is 161 here? Would you like

20 to speak, ma'am?

21 Is there anyone else that would like to

22 speak now that has a nu mber? 161.518

1 MS. HOLTON: Hi. My name is Stephanie

2 Holton, and I'm currently the Youth Service Center

3 Coordinator at Western High School.

4 Western is approximately two miles from

5 where the coal ash impoundment is proposed by

6 LG&E. Many of the students that attend my school

7 live in that area, as well as the Cane Run power

8 plant. In fact, I even have a son that attends

9 Farnsley Middle School, which is also probably

10 less than two miles from the coal ash imp oundment.

11 As a parent and a social worker, I'm concerned

12 about the health effects of coal ash on our

13 children. The site shows that the heavy metals

14 found in coal ash pose a public ris k to us. Coal

15 ash has been shown to stunt lung development in

16 children and make asthma worse. And I feel like

17 until we have more scientific data, the EPA should

18 try to protect the pu blic.

19 Many of my students that live in the

20 neighborhood adjacent to the power plant that

21 attend my school are on medications. I am the

22 person at the school responsible for keeping up519

1 with their medical paperwork and their

2 medications. Each year in the 16 yea rs that I've

3 been at Western High School, more and more

4 students are taking asthma and upper respiratory

5 medication along with other health issues such as

6 diabetes and ADHD.

7 It is hard not to assume that our

8 environment in which they live has some type of

9 influence on it and the health conditions they

10 suffer from. And when it comes to our children's

11 education, we need to be cognizant of the

12 non

- academic barriers to learning that they must

13 overcome.

14 It is my responsibility as a parent and

15 a social worker to speak up. I urge the EPA to

16 reclassify coal ash so that it's disposed of

17 safely with the least amount of risk to the public

18 and to our students and to not cause them any

19 further ha rm.

20 Thank you.

21 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

22 (Applause)520

1 MR. BEHAN: Is there anyone else in the

2 room that would like to speak?

3 Seeing no speakers, I guess we'll take a

4

-- let's see. It's about five until 8. Let's

5 take a break until 8:10.

6 (Recess)

7 MR. BEHAN: Okay. We're going to go

8 ahead and get started again.

9 Is there anyone in the room that has a

10 number that would like to speak? Are there any

11 speakers here? No speakers? Okay.

12 Seeing no speakers, it's about 8:15 now,

13 let's go ahead and do another break. We'll tak e a

14 recess until 8:30. Thanks.

15 (Recess)

16 MR. BEHAN: Okay. We're going to go

17 ahead and get started again.

18 Are there any speakers in the room that

19 have a number of 190 or lower that would like to

20 speak now?

21 MS. GOODMAN: I believe I do.

22 MR. BEH AN: Okay. 183.521

1 MS. GOODMAN: Yes. Good evening. My

2 name is Katherine Hope Goodman. I'm currently

3 living here in Louisville, Kentucky, and I'm a

4 member of Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, but I

5

-- I speak for myself.

6 And thank you for taking the time to

7 listen to our concerns and to my concerns, to my

8 community's concerns. I'm here to voice my

9 support for Subtitle C concerning the coal

10 combustion residuals proposed rule.

11 While I'm anxious that Subtitle C would

12 take longer to put into place than

-- it is the

13 most comprehensive of the two and in the end will

14 provide the better protection to the public,

15 specifically federal regulation of CCRs or coal

16 ash and the numerous toxins it contains. It is a

17 must in order to best protect Kentuckians.

18 I have reason to doubt that our state

19 government will protect the public on this issue.

20 Big dollars wielded by king coal and associated

21 industries have a stronger sway over our

22 legislature than the concerns of the people.522

1 Currently, the chair of the Natural Resources

2 Committee in the Kentucky legislature is the

3 brother of a major western Kent ucky coal operator.

4 The EPA has also noticed the inequity of

5 the patchwork of state

- to

- state laws governing the

6 impoundment of CCRs. Subtitle C would rec

--

7 would remedy the situation. Most ash ponds in

8 Kentucky are located adjacent to the rivers and

9 streams which feed the Ohio, which feed the

10 Mississippi.

11 This indicates a shared interest with

12 our neighbors in the importance of keeping

13 contaminants like mercury, cadmium, arsenic, lead,

14 selenium, boron, nitrate, and cobalt out of our

15 water sources. Considering these pollutan ts which

16 have already been proven to cause cancer and

17 non

- cancer risk, of course, coal ash would

--

18 should be treated with the greatest oversight

19 reasonably possible.

20 But on a more personal note, I have

21 rheumatoid arthritis. It's an autoimmune disease.

22 Basically, my immune system has decided to attack523

1 my joints for no reason and declare war. The

2 cause of RA and other autoimmune diseases is

3 unknown. There is no cure for RA, on ly very

4 expensive treatment. I don't know the cause of my

5 RA.

6 I do know that I grew up in Roberts,

7 Kentucky in the shadow of the smokestacks of

8 Reid/Green/ HMP&L Station 2, a coal

- fired power

9 plant sitting on the banks of the Green River. I

10 lived less than one mile and its adjacent ash

11 ponds. When suspected in October of 2009, one of

12 th ese ash ponds was given a significant hazard

13 rating. It was also noted that the inspection

14 embankments of this pond seeped.

15 One of the toughest things the EPA is

16 charged with is the protecting the people in this

17 room from the unknown, protecting our children

18 from unseen dangers, and protecting our community

19 from what might happen. Again, I ask you to adopt

20 Subtitle C, because it provides the greater

21 protection from the unknown.

22 Thank you.524

1 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

2 (Applause)

3 MR. BEHAN: Is there anyone else in the

4 room that would like to speak now? Let's go ahead

5 and take another ten

- minute break. We'll

6 reconvene at 8:45. Thanks.

7 (Recess)

8 MR. BEHAN: Good evening. We're going to

9 go

-- we're going to g o ahead and get started

10 again. We've got a couple of speakers in the

11 room.

12 Could those that have Numbers 174, 175

13 and 180 come forward?

14 (Dis cussion off the record)

15 MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. I want to

16 express my appreciation to you all for being here,

17 for having added the Louisville venue to the list

18 of places where you're having public hearings.

19 And I also want to thank the very delightful young

20 lady in the fourth row who lent me her reading

21 glasses so that I can give you my testim ony.

22 My name is Tom Fitzgerald. I'm Director525

1 of the Kentucky Resources Council which is a

2 non

- profit environment al advocacy group here in

3 the Commonwealth of Kentucky providing legal and

4 technical assistance on air, waste, water, mining,

5 utility policy, and energy policy issues. I am

--

6 will be submitting more extensive legal and

7 technical comments but wanted to underscore a few

8 key points this evening.

9 The burning of coal produces large

10 amounts of fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag and

11 flue g as desulfurization sludge that are

12 collectively called "coal combustion waste," or

13 CCW. Today it's the second largest industrial

14 waste stream in America, surpassed only by mining

15 waste.

16 As efforts to control pollutants in

17 emissions from coal combustion increase, so have

18 both the volum e and the potential toxicity of CCW.

19 The volume of CCW produced nationally increased by

20 30 to 40% to approximately 130 million tons

21 annually in 2004 largely due to the use of flue

22 gas desulfurization devices in order to meet the526

1 Clean Air Act requirements of 1990. Burning coal

2 today produces over 130 m illion tons annually of

3 CCW, and it's anticipated that by 2015 that volume

4 will rise to 175 million tons annually.

5 I'm going to skip down because I

-- I

6 can't talk fast enoug h to

-- to get through all

7 this.

8 Additional initiatives for controlling

9 power plant emissions, including proposed controls

10 on mercury are likely to increase total CCW

11 generation further with estimates of as much as 170

12 million tons being generated annually by 2015.

13 The disposal of CCW has caused a well

-

14 documented variety of environmental problems

15 particularly to soils and waters, due to extremes

16 of pH and high concentrations of soluble salts,

17 trace metals and other pollutants that lea ch from

18 different CCWs. The National Academies of Science

19 acknowledged the threat posed by disposal of coal

20 ash in mines, landfills and surface impoundments.

21 According to th e GAO, between 2000 and

22 2006, utilities reported depositing into527

1 impoundments and landfills, 124 million pounds of

2 arsenic, chromium, lead, nickel, selenium and

3 thallium as components of the coal combustion

4 wastes.

5 As improvements continue to be achieved

6 in both pre

- and post

- combustion scrubbing and

7 capture of particulates and metals, we will of

8 necessity change the composition and increase the

9 potential toxicity of the wastes and leachate. As

10 noted by the GAO, in September of 2009 EPA noted a

11 need to revise the current effluent guidelines for

12 discharges to surface water because of the high

13 level of toxic

- weighted pollutant discharges from

14 coal

- fired power plants and the expectation that

15 these discharges will increase significantly in

16 the next few years due to new air pollution

17 control requirements.

18 The proper management of CCW is

19 essential for the pro tec tion of public health and the

20 environment. Adequate and comprehensive

21 safeguards will prevent the current situation

,

22 which is trafficking in environmental528

1 contamination by removing the incentive for those

2 more interested in curry ing market share in

3 short

- term economic gain rather than long

- term

4 public interest to undermanage their waste.

5 Adoption of a program of uniform,

6 comprehensive and appropriate minimum standards

7 for the characterization and the management of

8 coal combustion waste for reuse in disposal is the

9 best way, both to improve beneficial ut ilization

10 of CCW and to assure protection of public health

11 and the environment.

12 After much reflection, I've come to the

13 conclusion that only a hybrid Subpart C approach

14 will provide that framework. The current state of

15 regulation by the states, such as it is, is a

16 hodgepodge of rules that have allowed construction

17 of unlined ponds, unengineered or

18 poorly

- engineered embankment impoundments, and

19 sham beneficial reuses of fly ash and other

20 combustion waste.

21 If the utility or coal industry can come

22 forward with a legal framework that assures a529

1 minimum national floor of adequate regulation that

2 does not necessitate relian ce on Subpart C, that

3 will be worthy of consideration. In the face of

4 the numerous natural resource and groundwater

5 contamination incidents that have occurred under

6 the current regula tory framework, more of the same

7 through issuance of Subpart D guidelines that the

8 states are not obligated to adopt or enforce

9 through permits, is an untenable outcome.

10 Ther e are a couple of seconds I have

11 left. I want to make a couple of final points.

12 First is that adoption of a program of

13 uniform, comprehensive and appropriate minimum

14 standards for the characterization and management

15 of coal combustion wastes for reuse and disposal

16 is the best way to improve the beneficial

17 utilization of CCW and to assure protection of

18 public health and the environment.

19 Adoption of meaningful requirements for

20 management and disposal will likely increase

21 reliance on questionable and sham beneficial

22 uses.' It is essential that you create a530

1 gatekeeper function that requires a demonstration

2 that a proposed beneficial reuse is not a sham

3 reuse that is in the nature of disposal, and that

4 the waste streams be fully characterized using

5 appropriate tests to determine the fate a nd

6 transport mechanisms that might be associated with

7 the end use or disposal scenario. Without a

8 gatekeeper function, sham beneficial reuse that

9 causes environmental damage will like ly occur as

10 it has here in Kentucky, where we grant "permits

11 by rule" to beneficial reuses and require little

12 or no advanced characterization.

13 Second, appropriate testing m ethods must

14 be employed that will demonstrate that under the

15 use or disposal scenario, human health and the

16 environment will not be harmed. The widespread

17 misuse of TCLP toxicity to characterize coal

18 combustion wastes intended to be beneficially

19 reused, or disposed of in other than mixed

20 municipal waste landfills, results in cases where

21 the long

- term leaching of metals is

22 underestimated. The EPA's Science Advisory Board531

1 has criticized the TCLP protocol on th e basis of

2 several technical considerations, including the

3 test's consideration of leaching kinetics,

4 liquid

- to

- solid ratio, pH, potential for colloid

5 formation, particle size reduction, aging,

6 volatile losses, and co

- mingling of the tested

7 material with other wastes (i.e., co

- disposal).

8 The literature suggests that TCLP

9 testing is generally insufficient to predict

10 short

- and long

- term leaching characteristics of

11 coal combustion fly and bottom ash. Because of

12 the limitations of TCLP testing, management

13 decisions are being made that may expose

14 generators, transporters, and re

- users or

15 disposers of the CCW to residual liabilities.

16 Third, co

- disposal of CCW in min e

17 workings should be discouraged, and allowed if at

18 all only after adoption of rigorous standards by

19 EPA commensurate with those for CCW landfills, as

20 recommended by the 2006 National Academy of

21 Sciences report on Managing Coal Combustion

22 Residues in Mines. A small but growing percentage532

1 of coal combustion wastes are backhauled and

2 disposed, or beneficially reused, in mine

3 workings (including both underground mine voids

4 and more commonly, in surface mine backfills or

5 spoil/mine waste fills).

6 Such use and disposal occurs not only

7 because such sites off er a hydrologically or

8 geologically preferable location, but primarily

9 because coal companies offer the backhauling a nd

10 mine site disposal as a "service" or incentive in

11 order to increase market share for their coal in

12 an increasingly competitive marketplace.

13 Co

- disposal of coal combustion wastes at former or

14 current mine sites represents perhaps the least

15 appropriate place among options for disposal of

16 such wastes because of several factors :

17 The increase in surface area available

18 for leaching of elements resulting from fracturing

19 of overburden and confining layers; (2) Higher

20 total dissolved solids levels in mi ne spoils that

21 compete for sorption sites on solids with toxic

22 elements released from the buried ash; (3) Direct533

1 communication between surface and underground mine

2 workings and aquifers through stress

- relief

3 fracture systems and subsidence

- induced fracture

4 flow; (4) The dependence of residents of coal

-

5 bearing regions on private, groundwater supplies

6 and the significant potential for contamination of

7 those supplies; and (5) The presence of site

8 conditions conducive to creation of acid or toxic

-

9 forming material that can solubilize constituents

10 of concern from the waste.

11 Finally, the use of embankment

12 impoundments for management of coal waste slurri es

13 should be eliminated in favor of dry ash and

14 gypsum management, and existing slurry

15 impoundments closed unless it can be demonstrated

16 that they were designed, engineered and

17 constructed according to sound engineering

18 practice.

19 (Discussion off the record)

20 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

21 (Applause)

2 2 MR. BEHAN: 175.534

1 (Discussion off the record)

2 MS. CUNNINGHAM: Sarah Lynn Cunningham

3 with the Louisville Climate Action Network.

4 I'm wearing three hats tonight. The

5 first of which is I'm a licensed Professional

6 Environmental Engineer. I've spent a lot of my

7 career working in the waste water industry. And

8 I'm here to tell you that I think that the

9 appropriate thing to do for managing this waste

10 would not be totally unlike how you manage

11 biosolids. Some

-- there's biosolids and there's

12 biosolids just like there's coal combustion waste

13 and there's coal combustion waste. Some is

14 appropriate for beneficial reuse, some is not. I

15 think we should set up a hierarchy of rules for

16 what you can and can't do depending on the merits

17 of the particular coal waste stream.

18 Speaking to you secondly as an activist.

19 The Louisville Climate Action Network currently

20 has 12 for profit businesses, 11 community group,

21 6 churches and religious institutions, and 2

22 educational institutions. We feel like the mantra535

1 of cheap coal is often

-- it's

-- it's rarely,

2 including the reality that the reason it's so

3 cheap is that we have systemic externalized costs

4 that we're all bearing and they don't talk about

5 the literal direct subsidies that the government

6 pays

-- Kentucky government lets industries take

7 in the way of tax rebates for burning coal.

8 And that's the reason it's cheap. We

9 think that's bogus; we think it's artificial; we

10 think it's pulling the rug out from under energy

11 efficiency work and renewable energy production.

12 It's an unfair synthetic or economic system that

13 is totally putting off the inevitable green

14 economy and all the green jobs we need.

15 The coal people will tell you that we

16 need those coal jobs in the coal fields. And in

17 this economy, you couldn't possibly reign this in.

18 I'm sorry. They've been saying that when the

19 economy was good, too. They're going to say

20 whatever it takes. They're going to pit

-- you

21 know, whine and moan.

22 The reality of it is coal workers are536

1 handy, they know how to use tools and do things.

2 They could easily be trained to insulate homes, to

3 install energy

- efficient furnaces right there in

4 their own communities. We could transition better

5 than a lot of states if we just ha d a little bit

6 of leadership.

7 And lastly, I want to speak to you as a

8 former regulator myself. I have worked as a state

9 level environmental regulator and a local

10 environmental regulator. And I will tell you that

11 in general I think it's better to regulate at the

12 local level. I would so much rather be on

- site

13 and look at the people I'm talking to. It cuts

14 out a lot of BS and a lot of the l ie s and excuses.

15 And yet, the politicians in this state are so

16 owned by the coal industry it's not ap propriate to

17 think we're going to regulate this at the local or

18 state level.

19 So I beg of you to please regulate this

20 at the federal level and do what our local

21 politicians do not have the backbone to do to step

22 in and get this problem under control because it's537

1 impacting our economic health, our environmental

2 health, our public health. And it's a lot of

3 permanent destruction that doesn't need to happen.

4 Thank you very much.

5 MR. BEHAN: Thank you for your comments.

6 (Applause)

7 MR. BEHAN: Is Number 180 here? Sir,

8 would you like to speak?

9 MR. COO PER: I'm Dave Cooper from

10 Lexington.

11 I would like to support the listing of

12 coal ash as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of

13 RCRA. I know you've probably heard a lot of

14 anecdotes over the last month. I'll tell you one

15 more.

16 I used to work in Versailles, Kentucky,

17 which is about 20 minutes to the east

-- or to the

18 west of my hometown of Lexington. I worked there

19 from 1990 to 1996. I was on the company softball

20 team. We used to go out and play softball once a

21 week at the Woodford County Municipal Park, which

22 is a park that has a swimming pool, there's ball538

1 fields, kids playing and so on.

2 And I read back in 2007 about a proposal

3 for Kentucky Utilities to dump coal ash in this

4 city municipal park. I couldn't believe it when I

5 first read it. I thought t hat there would be a

--

6 a huge outcry. But I think at that point in time

7 the Kingston spill had not happened and people

8 just didn't really know about coal ash at that

9 point.

10 But I went out and took this sample.

11 Here's coal ash that's been dumped in the Woodford

12 County Municipal Park by Kentucky Utilities. It's

13 from their Tyrone generating plant w hich is also

14 in Woodford County. And I noticed when I went out

15 there and took a sample there's a drainpipe that

16 goes underneath this coal ash dump and it's a

17 corrugated metal drainpip e. It's sort of in a

18 little swale and the drainage out the bottom.

19 It's got drainage going right through the middle

20 of the

-- of this impoundment and they've covered

21 it over with a gr ass seed now.

22 And it makes me wonder, those corrugated539

1 metal drainpipes are only good for 20 or 30 years

2 maybe at the most. What happens after the

3 drainpipe rusts? It

-- it just doesn't make any

4 sense. But this is the kind of thing that's

5 happening because we don't have strict enough

6 regulations on the storage of coal ash.

7 It's

-- it's crazy that they're putting

8 it in a public park where there's children playing

9 a hundred yards nearby, swimming in the swimm ing

10 pool in the city park. It's not right. That's

11 the kind of story

-- and this is only one of I'm

12 sure thousands of examples nationwide where coal

13 ash is being put in places where it shouldn't be,

14 and we've just got to have stricter regulations.

15 Thank you.

16 MR. BEHAN: Thank you.

17 (Applause)

18 MR. BEHAN: Is there anyone else that

19 would like to speak?

20 MS. SPEAKER: Yes, sir, I believe so. I

21 know someone that wants to give testimony.

22 MR. BEHAN: Okay. Is that person in the540

1 room?

2 MS. SPEAKER: (inaudible)

3 MR. BEHAN: Okay. Well, let's go ahead

4 and take a five

- minute break until 9:00 and we'll

5 reconvene at that time.

6 (Recess)

7 MR. BEHAN : Okay. We're going to go

8 ahead and get re

-- we're going to restart.

9 Number 350.

10 MR. BREWSTER: Hello. I am Jarred

11 Brewster from the Asbury College. I'm from

12 Nicholasville, Kentucky.

13 I am here to remark on the obvious

14 political ploy being utilized by the coal

15 industry. Unable to argue that coal ash is not

16 hazardo us to human life and having no real solid

17 ground to stand on in that respect the coal

18 industry has taken a different approach and sought

19 to sing the praises of this ambiguous beneficial

20 use that we hear being thrown around knowing

21 that's the only way for them to really make a

22 case.541

1 They tell us stories about how Subtitle

2 C would stigmatize any products that contain

3 hazardous wastes. If coal ash is indeed as

4 dangerous as we've heard, then perhaps such

5 products s hould be stigmatized. They go further

6 and kindly

-- by kindly threatening us with

7 further loss of jobs in the industry. People who

8 are impoverished and who are

-- who are suffering

9 under these conditions, often times they can't

10 stand up to

-- to these

-- these big corporate

11 giants. And so, basically, I'm calling for equal

12 representation under the law and defense of

-- of

13 the little guy, of the people who are

14 impoverished. And, yeah, if

-- if coal ash is

15 hazardous, call it hazardous waste. And that's

16 all.

17 MR. BEHAN : Thank you.

18 (Applause)

19 MR. BEHAN: Is there anyone else in the

20 room that would like to speak?

21 It's about 9:10 right now. We have two

22 speakers that are part of the 9:15 group. So why542

1 don't we wait about five minutes to see if they

2 show up. If they do, then we'll hear their

3 testimony. But Jarred Brewster might have been

4 our last speaker of the day. And we'll reconvene

5 in about ten minutes. Thanks.

6 (Recess)

7 MR. HOFFMAN: Good

-- good evening. Is

8 there anybody here that wishes to provide

9 testimony?

10 In that case, this is Steve Hoffman,

11 U.S. EPA. It is the 28th of September. It is now

12 9:16. We are officially closing this hearing.

13 (Whereupon, at 9:16 p.m., the

14 PROCEEDINGS were adjourned. )

15

16 * * * * *

17

18

19

20

21

22543

1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC

2 I, ROSE MARY KITHCART, Notary Public for

3 the State of Kentucky, do hereby certify that the

4 forgoing electronic file when originally

5 transmitted was reduced to text at my direction;

6 that said transcript is a true record of the

7 proceedings therein referenced; that I am neither

8 counsel for, related to, nor employed by an y of

9 the parties to the action in which these

10 proceedings were taken; and, furthermore, that I

11 am neither a relative or employee of any attorney

12 or counsel employed by the parties here to, nor

13 financially or otherwise interested in the outcome

14 of this action.

15 /s/ROSE MARY KITHCART

16

17

18 Notary Public in and for the

19 State of Kentucky

20 Commission No. 402347

21 My Commission Expires: August 27, 2013

22