U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

54–020 PDF 2009

THE ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY 

ON THE TENNESSEE VALLEY 

AUTHORITY’S KINGSTON 

ASH SLIDE: 

EVALUATING CURRENT CLEANUP 

PROGRESS AND ASSESSING 

FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS 

(111–81) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

December 9, 2009 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland, Vice Chair 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

BOB FILNER, California 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

VACANCY 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Churchman, Michael, Executive Director, Alabama Environmental Council, 

Birmingham, Alabama ......................................................................................... 6 

Kilgore, Honorable Tom, President and Chief Executive Officer, Tennessee 

Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee ............................................................. 6 

Meiburg, Stan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta, Georgia ................................................ 6 

Montgomery, P.E., John, Senior Principal, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., 

Lexington, Kentucky ............................................................................................ 6 

Moore, Honorable Richard, Inspector General, Tennessee Valley Authority, 

Knoxville, Tennessee ............................................................................................ 6 

Turner, Jr., Commissioner Albert, District 1-Perry County, Marion, Alabama . 6 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 35 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 36 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Churchman, Michael ............................................................................................... 37 

Kilgore, Honorable Tom .......................................................................................... 67 

Meiburg, Stan .......................................................................................................... 77 

Montgomery, P.E., John .......................................................................................... 91 

Moore, Honorable Richard ...................................................................................... 109 

Turner, Jr., Commissioner Albert .......................................................................... 127 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Churchman, Michael, Executive Director, Alabama Environmental Council, 

Birmingham, Alabama: ........................................................................................

Response to request for information from Hon. Edwards, a 

Represenative in Congress from the State of Maryland ........................ 54 

Response to request for information from Subcommittee .......................... 57 

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

Davis. Hon. Artur, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alabama, 

letter to the Honorable Lisa Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 130 

vi 


Insert offset folio 98 here 54020.098
vii 


Insert offset folio 99 here 54020.099
viii 


Insert offset folio 100 here 54020.100
ix 


Insert offset folio 101 here 54020.101
x 


Insert offset folio 102 here 54020.102
xi 


Insert offset folio 103 here 54020.103
xii 


Insert offset folio 104 here 54020.104
xiii 


Insert offset folio 105 here 54020.105
xiv 


Insert offset folio 106 here 54020.106
xv 


Insert offset folio 107 here 54020.107
xvi 


Insert offset folio 108 here 54020.108
xvii 


Insert offset folio 109 here 54020.109
xviii 


Insert offset folio 110 here 54020.110
xix 


Insert offset folio 111 here 54020.111
(1) 

HEARING ON THE ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY 

ON THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY’S 

KINGSTON ASH SLIDE: EVALUATING CURRENT CLEANUP PROGRESS AND ASSESSING 

FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS 

Wednesday, December 9, 2009, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eddie Bernice 

Johnson [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Good morning. The Committee will come to order. 

Thank you for being here today. 

Our hearing this morning marks the fourth time this Subcommittee has exercised its oversight responsibility regarding the 

December 2008 TVA Kingston coal ash spill. Today’s meeting will 

assess the adequacy of cleanup operations thus far, the structural 

integrity of TVA’s other coal ash disposable sites, and explore coal 

ash disposal in Perry County, Alabama. 

This hearing is also being conducted as one of several hearings 

that meet the oversight requirements under clauses 2(n), (o), and 

(p) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

The December 28th, 2008 coal ash spill at the Tennessee Valley 

Authority’s Kingston Fossil Plant unleashed a torrent of toxic coal 

ash over the landscape and into nearby water bodies. The volume 

itself is staggering: 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash were released. I have visited Harriman, Tennessee. The sheer amount of 

coal ash sludge is truly staggering. This is even more the case 

when one considers that the vast majority of the spilled ash was 

deposited in the river. 

In the river, the coal ash is out of sight, but it is certainly not 

invisible. Recent toxic release inventory figures from TVA indicate 

that the coal ash spill included 2.5 million pounds of toxic materials, such as arsenic, barium, and chromium. This is a larger figure than the collective sum of the toxics released in 2008 from all 

power plants combined. Because of the physical destruction that 

took place and the potential ecological and human risk presented 

by the coal ash toxics, all of this material must be cleaned up. 

In our last meeting, Mr. Kilgore, TVA’s President and CEO, publicly committed to restoring the environmental area to its natural 

2 

state, and I welcome that response and look forward to overseeing 

the work they will do there in the response to his commitment. I 

understand that we will hear today that the removal of ash from 

the river is proceeding more or less as planned. It is imperative 

that TVA continues to work with its State and Federal agency 

partners in the removal and cleanup operation. 

TVA also needs to ensure that it anticipates and prepares for unforeseen eventualities—for example, more rain than expected—and 

properly overseeing its contractors and their work. In terms of the 

cleanup itself, I applaud the work being done by EPA in terms of 

their coordination and management of the project. Given EPA’s 

longstanding experience in running Superfund cleanups and operations, the work it has done at Kingston has shown it was money 

well spent. This said, the Kingston impoundment was only one of 

many TVA coal ash disposable sites. 

An engineering firm, Stantec Consulting, has been contracted by 

TVA to evaluate the structural integrity of other TVA impoundments. I look forward to today’s testimony from our Stantec witness to get a better sense of how stable these structures are. It is 

important to remember, however, that just because TVA’s impoundment may be stable, it does not mean that they are environmentally benign. I will look for assurances from EPA and TVA that 

all TVA impoundments and landfills—active, future, and closed— 

will not allow toxic contaminants to leach into groundwater supplies in the area. 

I understand that TVA is planning on transitioning to dry ash 

landfills. I believe that it is a promising move. I would ask Mr. Kilgore, however, what will become of the wet ash in existing impoundments and how the leachate will be prevented from contaminating our water supplies. 

Finally, today’s hearing will touch on the disposal of reclaimed 

Kingston coal ash in the Arrowhead Landfill in Perry County, Alabama. This landfill has provided the surrounding community with 

employment opportunities. We must ensure, however, that EPA 

and the State of Alabama are vigilant in ensuring that all disposal, 

safety, and public health protocols, including proper and long-term 

monitoring, are followed to ensure good health of local residents. 

Thank you very much for being here today. I apologize for running and being out of breath, and I now yield to the Subcommittee’s Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman from Arkansas. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. As always, 

we appreciate your leadership. 

Today, the Subcommittee continues its review of coal ash storage, specifically the December 22nd, 2008 incident at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s power generating facility in Kingston, 

Tennessee. 

While there have only been a few documented failures of coal ash 

disposal sites, we all hope that what occurred at the Kingston coal 

ash disposal site was an isolated incident. 

The witnesses today will help the Committee evaluate the conclusions drawn from the accident, report some of their observations 

about Kingston, and discuss the role played by the 11,000 residents 

of Perry, Alabama. 

3 

Moving forward, it appears that the Tennessee Valley Authority’s 

Board of Directors and its officers have begun to recognize the 

shortcomings in its existing ash management practices, and seem 

to be making changes to ensure more appropriate risk management 

at its facilities. The Tennessee Valley Authority needs to continue 

to take aggressive steps at its other coal ash storage facilities to 

identify and reduce risks to the public and to the environment. 

Lives and property were forever changed by the events of December 22nd, 2008. However, there is another side to the story. While 

no one should benefit from another’s misfortune, Perry County, 

Alabama has positioned itself to perhaps lead the way in the disposal of coal ash. This unique facility will allow Perry County to 

construct new roads, new schools, and additional infrastructure. 

By constructing a state of the art landfill, economic development 

opportunities have brought a renewed sense of optimism to this 

small rural county. And I would associate myself with the Chairwoman’s remarks that certainly all of this is great, except adhering 

to the stringent requirements of making sure that it is a safe facility as we move forward. 

So, with that, Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate your holding 

this hearing and certainly look forward to the testimony of our witnesses, and with that, I yield back. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member 

Boozman. I echo both of your sentiments and, just briefly, I am 

looking forward to hearing about the progress of the cleanup at the 

Kingston site. I have driven past it many times during the years 

that I lived in Tennessee. Living in the Hudson Valley, I have become more aware over the last couple years of how interconnected 

all of our water is; there is really no separating, ultimately, the 

aquifers we drink from, the rivers that run through our communities, and the runoff from various industrial processes. 

One of the things I am hoping to hear, that I am sure you are 

learning as you study this, is what alternatives will be in the future for disposing of fly ash as we simultaneously are looking at 

carbon capture and sequestration. There has been some talk of precipitating combustion products into solids that can be mixed with, 

for instance, paving materials or building materials and turning 

what is seen as a liability into an asset in that regard, or at least 

into a stable form that we don’t have to worry about being swept 

away by water. 

So, with that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Duncan, from Tennessee. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

Certainly Chairman Johnson is a long-time friend of mine, and 

no one could fault her, criticize her for her oversight on this situation. 

As I have mentioned several times before, this spill was not in 

my district, but it is close by, and one of my staff members went, 

very shortly after it happened, to the site and gave me a detailed 

briefing. Then, within just a few more days, I went down and had 

a helicopter tour and a briefing, and I was very impressed by the 

4 

fact that there was a war room of activity with officials from all 

sorts of agencies and departments from the Federal, State, and 

local governments. In fact, in all this time, I suppose there have 

been hundreds of TVA employees, contractors, and people representing other Federal, State, and local agencies involved in this. 

I am told that TVA still estimates that they will spend approxi- mately $1 billion in cleaning up this mess, and I assume that does 

not count the time and salaries of all the different employees from 

all the different departments and agencies that are spending and 

have spent on this. I am not sure that there has ever been a mess 

in the history of the world where there has been more money spent 

or more people working to clean up a situation than in this regard. 

So I certainly think a lot of progress has been made, but it has 

also been testified at other hearings that this billion dollars does 

not count potential regulatory fines and lawsuits. I have expressed 

this before, that I hope that agencies that intend to or that are considering fines for TVA will keep in mind a lot of lower income ratepayers who could be affected if we get into additional billions in 

fines and lawsuits. 

Because I was a lawyer and a judge, I raise one other concern 

that probably nobody has thought of, and that is that the average 

Federal judge now tries only 12 jury trials a year, and we have 

seen a dramatic decline in State courts because very few jury trials 

are being tried now compared to, say, 25 or 30 years ago, or certainly when I first started practicing law; and that means that 

there are many young lawyers out there today that never get to 

court, and I think they are scared to go to court, and I hope that 

they won’t give in to exorbitant demands just to settle a lawsuit 

to keep from trying a case. That is another concern I have. 

But I will say that there has been a lot of progress made and, 

in fact, as some people know, I spend over half my time in my district and people make comments to me every place I go, and I have 

heard almost nothing about this in my district over the past few 

months. Obviously, there was a lot of news about this and a lot of 

comments made in the first few months after it happened, but almost no comments now. In fact, Mr. Kilgore, I am hearing more 

about the problem that FEMA has raised about the dams not being 

high enough, and I am pleased that you are meeting with the 

homeowners association at Tellico Village next week and I hope 

you will listen to their concerns. 

But I have, mostly before Mr. Kilgore and the present board 

came, but in past years, I have been pretty critical about several 

things that TVA has done. I have not hesitated to criticize TVA. 

But I also think TVA should be given credit when good work is 

being done, and I don’t see how any department or agency could 

have done more than what has been done in this situation. 

So I do have to go very shortly to another very important hearing, but I have already sat through several hearings and meetings 

and so forth. 

I do have one other concern. I have had several companies who 

have come to me who have said that they can turn this flash into 

very usable valuable products if it is not classified as hazardous 

waste. They say if it is classified as hazardous waste, it loses its 

commercial value. Environmentalists in the past have been big adVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:34 Sep 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\54020.0 KAYLA
5 

vocates of recycling, and I hope that we will look closer at getting 

some sort of valuable use out of this material, instead of just dumping it into the ground. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Congressman Hare? 

Mr. HARE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I want to thank you 

and Ranking Member Boozman for holding this important hearing 

today. 

It has been almost one year since the breach in the retaining 

wall at the Kingston Fossil Plant in Harriman, Tennessee, an 

event that resulted in the release of a tidal wave of water and ash 

that sent 5.4 million cubic yards of ash and 327 million gallons of 

water onto adjacent lands and into rivers, causing the evacuation 

of the nearby community and one tragic death during the cleanup. 

Following the spill, in May of 2009, the TVA, which owns and operates the Kingston Fossil Plant, came to an agreement with the 

Environmental Protection Agency. This agreement set the precedent for cleaner procedures from the Emory spill and surrounding 

areas affected by the spill. 

It is with great importance that we meet here today to discuss 

the progress of the cleanup, as well as the new safety and security 

measures that have been put into place to prevent such an event 

from ever happening again. It is my understanding that the agreed 

upon time-critical removal of the ash has been occurring steadily, 

but has slowed in recent weeks. I feel that meeting the designated 

deadline of spring 2010 for the completion of those areas designated as time-critical is extremely important. 

Madam Chair, as members of the Subcommittee, it is our duty 

to perform due diligence in the oversight of the TVA. We must also 

consider the public and workforce safety, and take a hard look at 

the environmental and economic impacts of this independent corporation, which is the Nation’s public power company. 

I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today. I welcome you before the Subcommittee. 

And I thank you again, Madam Chairwoman. You have done a 

tremendous job on this issue and I know you will continue to push. 

Thank you so much, and I yield back. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

I will now introduce the panel. We only have one panel. The 

Honorable Tom Kilgore, President and Chief Executive Officer of 

the Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; the Honorable Richard Moore, Inspector General, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; Mr. Stan Meiburg, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4, of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta, Georgia; Commissioner Albert Turner, Jr., 

District 1-Perry County, Marion, Alabama; Mr. John Montgomery, 

Senior Principal of the Stantec Consulting Services, Lexington, 

Kentucky; and Mr. Michael Churchman, Executive Director, Alabama Environmental Council, Birmingham, Alabama. 

We will proceed with testimony as you are seated, so, Mr. Kilgore, you are recognized. 

6 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE TOM KILGORE, PRESIDENT 

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE; THE HONORABLE RICHARD MOORE, INSPECTOR GENERAL, TENNESSEE VALLEY 

AUTHORITY, KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE; STAN MEIBURG, ACTING REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, REGION 4, UNITED STATES 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ATLANTA, GEORGIA; COMMISSIONER ALBERT TURNER, JR., DISTRICT 1- 

PERRY COUNTY, MARION, ALABAMA; JOHN MONTGOMERY, 

P.E., SENIOR PRINCIPAL, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, 

INC., LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY; AND MICHAEL CHURCHMAN, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALABAMA ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 

Mr. KILGORE. Chairwoman Johnson, thank you very much, and 

Ranking Member Boozman and members of the Committee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to update you on the progress TVA is making following last year’s coal ash spill at the Kingston Fossil Plant, 

as has been mentioned, on December the 22nd of 2008. I would like 

to briefly cover three things with you today: our progress in cleaning up the spill, our improvements at other impoundments, and the 

efforts we have underway to improve our performance and effectiveness across TVA. 

Since my last appearance in July, TVA has maintained our 

schedule to clean up the 3 million cubic yards of time-critical ash 

that were deposited in the Emory River. We are averaging the removal of about 15,000 cubic yards per day and, to date, about twothirds of that ash has been removed. This is a good milestone for 

us and we are on track to complete this progress in the spring of 

2010. 

The ash recovered from the river is loaded onto trains for transport to the Arrowhead Landfill in Perry County, Alabama. TVA has 

closely worked with EPA and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and Perry County officials to ensure the safe 

transport and the disposal of the ash. 

As ash continues to be removed from the Emory River, we are 

planning the next most important step, that is, the cleanup of the 

non-time-critical ash that remains in the northern slue and on the 

land. The engineering evaluation and cost analysis work is underway for this step and it will serve as the basis for our work going 

forward. 

Our goal is to have a seamless transition between the time-critical ash and the non-time-critical ash removal. TVA currently estimates the removal of our non-time-critical ash to be complete in 

2013 and our commitment is to restore the area to its natural state 

as it was before the spill. 

We also continue to work closely with the Roane County community, attending public meetings and holding open houses, providing 

independent, confidential, medical evaluations and supporting the 

area’s long-term economic development. This support and the cooperation of our neighbors has meant a great deal to us. 

During the last hearing, I provided some information on TVA’s 

other ash impoundments. As I noted then, TVA contracted with 

Stantec in early January of 2009 to conduct an independent, thirdparty analysis of our facilities. Stantec has completed an intrusive 

7 

investigation at our impoundments. Our aggressive schedule to incorporate their recommendations is ongoing. 

In addition to Kingston, we have already placed almost a quarter 

of a million tons of rock for additional stability and removed about 

30,000 cubic yards of trees and vegetation to allow for better visual 

inspections. 

To sharpen our management focus on storage facilities, TVA created a specific organization called Clean Strategies & Project Development, which is responsible for all storage impoundments and 

the Kingston recovery project. 

Also at Stantec’s recommendation, TVA personnel who maintain 

the impoundments completed a comprehensive training program in 

September designed to increase the awareness of down failure 

modes, provide an understanding of what to look for in their work, 

and to recognize structural distress. 

In August, TVA announced plans to convert six coal-burning 

plants currently using wet fly ash handling systems to dry. This 

program would close about 18 existing ash ponds and gypsum 

ponds. All of the plans are subject to the completion of the required 

environmental reviews and our obtaining regulatory approvals. 

At the TVA Board’s direction, we continue to make significant 

strides to implement our agency-wide organizational plan focused 

on change management, performance improvement, and compliance. We have strengthened our existing enterprise risk management system to further identify our financial and non-financial 

risks. 

The real key for us will be to continue using the lessons we have 

learned in the past year and to build and to sustain a culture of 

accountability and high performance. Simply put, our goal is to be 

recognized by our customers, our employees, and Valley stakeholders as a company that does its job well. 

In closing, I would like to say again that TVA deeply regrets the 

event that occurred last December, but you have our continued 

commitment to clean up the spill. We have made considerable 

progress this year on many fronts, and our focus is unwavering as 

we work to rebuild the public trust and to build a better TVA for 

the people of the Tennessee Valley. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Moore. 

Mr. MOORE. Madam Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member 

Boozman, and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the Kingston ash spill. My written testimony covers the 

specifics of our assessment of the degree to which TVA has responded to the findings and recommendations in the recent OIG reports concerning the coal ash spill, cleanup operations, and TVA’s 

overall environmental management. My statement this morning, 

however, will be broader and a higher level analysis of the current 

status of TVA. 

As you know, my office issued two reports. The first report, 

issued in June of this year, evaluated TVA’s initial emergency response, response to the media, and reparations to the victims and 

restoration of the community. The second report was issued in July 

8 

of this year and focused on providing an independent peer review 

of the root cause analysis utilizing the services of our engineers, 

Marshall Miller & Associates, in reviewing TVA’s ash management 

practices. 

These reports resulted in nine very broad recommendations designed to improve specific business processes, develop a more robust risk management program, and take actions that would 

change TVA’s culture to be more focused on developing sound business practices and driving compliance throughout the TVA organization. 

Over the past year, we have seen TVA devote an extraordinary 

amount of time, money, and focus to addressing not only the recommendations of the Inspector General’s Office, but also the recommendations of the McKenna Law Firm, which in many respects 

paralleled our findings and recommendations. TVA has extracted 

all of the detailed findings and recommendations, and they have 

cross-referenced the findings to develop a gap analysis and a tracking matrix. 

TVA has detailed specific action that needs to be taken to address all findings and recommendations. They have contracted with 

a consultant to develop the necessary policies and procedures, and 

they are benchmarking other companies, including identifying best 

practices related to dry ash storage. 

TVA has hired another consultant, McKensey & Company, to 

analyze TVA’s culture and to assist TVA in effectively changing the 

culture that contributed to the Kingston ash spill. 

Beyond these procedural changes are changes that are perhaps 

more difficult to measure but, in my opinion, are just as significant. 

Changes in personnel, changes in the tempo of how quickly things 

are done, and changes in attitudes are evident to us as we track 

the work of TVA management. 

This all leads me to believe that TVA is marching in the right 

direction. As you know, we have been perhaps TVA’s harshest critic 

in terms of how they handled the coal ash storage and how they 

handled the crisis after the fact. In many ways, the Kingston ash 

spill was TVA’s darkest hour. Our impression now, however, is that 

TVA management is not just reacting to criticism to emerge from 

a crisis, but they are committed to transforming TVA into what we 

all hope it can be. 

I would like to offer, however, some historical perspective on TVA 

in crisis. As you may know, this is not the first time that TVA has 

been under the microscope, nor the first time that findings and recommendations for significant change have been made. The McKenna Report aptly points out that in 1987, in response to TVA’s nuclear safety issues and sustained regular increases in TVA rates, 

the Southern States Energy Alliance Board created an advisory 

committee which found some of the same problems with TVA in the 

1980s as we are finding today. The McKenna Report also notes 

that my office has issued reports citing process problems at TVA 

that continued to resurface over the years. 

While it is true that none of the attempts to reform TVA focused 

on culture and risk to the extent that has now been done in the 

aftermath of the Kingston spill, it is clear that there are some reoccurring themes in TVA history. One is that TVA has suffered from 

9 

an insular culture that shuns views outside the Valley. This defensive and protectionist philosophy has produced a tunnel vision that 

eschews input that might have aided in changing the very culture 

that contributed to TVA’s current woes. That same culture resisted 

system-wide standards and accountability. All of this is based on 

an underlying philosophy that TVA’s uniqueness as a hybrid government agency exempted it from adherence to standards and uniform processes. 

My point here this morning is simply this: The challenge for TVA 

is a culture that is highly resistant to reform. The Kingston spill 

demonstrated that in a dramatic way. Changing a culture takes 

time. The same culture that existed on December 22nd, 2008, still 

exists today. Its residual effect is likely to be felt for years to come. 

Despite all of this, I remain optimistic that the current efforts to 

effect meaningful changes at TVA will be successful for four basic 

reasons: number one, the kinds of reforms being implemented at 

TVA are system-wide process changes that have worked well in private sector companies and that have not had the system failures 

TVA has experienced; number two, TVA management has demonstrated a willingness to solicit input from culture experts outside 

the Valley and they appear to be taking all of this very seriously; 

number three, TVA management has recently gone through an extremely robust evaluation of risk that is unparalleled in TVA history; and, finally, TVA management has made personnel changes 

that, to me, provide credible evidence of a commitment to do whatever it takes to get this right. 

Ultimately, the Office of the Inspector General will measure the 

process that TVA makes and we will report the facts as we find 

them. We appreciate this Subcommittee’s efforts to protect the citizens of the Tennessee Valley by focusing on these important issues. 

My office will work with this Subcommittee to track TVA’s progress 

and to issue reports that may be helpful to you. 

I look forward to answering any questions that you may have. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Meiburg. 

Mr. MEIBURG. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman, 

and members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for the 

opportunity to testify this morning and thank you for your words 

in your opening statement. 

I would like to update you on EPA’s actions in response to the 

coal ash release at the TVA Kingston facility and give an overview 

of the next phase of the cleanup. 

EPA is committed to a cleanup that protects public health and 

the environment, and is consistent with the law and sound science. 

Part of our ongoing responsibility is to inform and involve the public and all interested parties in our activities. 

The time-critical removal activities are progressing well. The objective here is to recover and manage the ash in the Emory River, 

and to minimize the potential for flooding and downstream ash migration. EPA has on site both an on-scene coordinator overseeing 

this effort and a community involvement coordinator to provide information to the public and local officials. 

To date, over 2 million cubic yards of ash have been dredged or 

excavated from the area east of Dike 2 in the river. Since May, ash 

10 

removal has increased from an average of about 2500 cubic yards 

per day to about 15,000 cubic yards per day. The dredged ash is 

transported by rail for disposal at the Arrowhead Landfill in Perry 

County, Alabama, a Subtitle D solid waste facility permitted to receive such waste. The landfill was selected by TVA through competitive bidding and approved by EPA. At the current pace, the 

time-critical removal of the material east of Dike 2 will be completed by this coming May. 

Since the release occurred, EPA, TDEC, and TVA have participated in extensive sampling and monitoring of the air, ash, surface 

water, and drinking water. There have been no exceedances of 

water quality standards for aquatic life in areas of the Emory, 

Clinch, or Tennessee Rivers that are open to the public. There were 

elevated levels in some samples from the Emory and Clinch Rivers 

right after the spill. 

We recently found out that there were two confirmed samples in 

the Clinch River near the power plant which slightly exceeded 

EPA’s arsenic drinking water standards. Additional analysis is underway. But samples of treated water at municipal water treatment plants, which draw from the Tennessee River downstream 

from the spill, have shown no exceedances of any maximum contaminant levels for drinking water. 

Some exceedances of drinking water and aquatic life water quality standards have been detected in the northern embayment, distilling pond, and in the dredge plume. These areas are heavily impacted by the spill and are closed to the public. Downstream data 

indicates that the public and the environment continue to be protected. 

Air monitoring results for particulate matter are below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Air monitoring for workers 

in contact with or close proximity to the ash has shown no 

exceedances of established occupational exposure limits. 

We are preparing to move into the next phase of the cleanup, to 

address the residual ash in the river, ash released to embayments 

west of Dike 2, restoration activities, investigation of ecological 

risks and impacts, and long-term human health impacts. EPA uses 

an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, known as an EE/CA, to 

evaluate alternatives to do this. As required, TVA submitted a 

draft EE/CA work plan to EPA on August 10th. This work plan is 

now open for public comment. Because of high public interest in 

the site and efforts to ensure public participation, EPA extended 

the original 30-day comment period for a total of 60 days for public 

comment, through this December 20th. 

After consideration of comments on the work plan, EPA will 

produce an EE/CA report describing a range of alternatives to remove ash west of Dike 2. Following comments on the EE/CA report, 

TVA will submit an action memorandum to EPA that responds to 

public comments and describes the selected response actions. TVA 

can implement the response only after EPA approves the action 

memorandum. 

Public involvement and transparency are very important to us. 

I stress this because the EE/CA raises important choices for the 

non-time-critical removal phase. Options include excavation of ash 

and disposal at the site, excavation and disposal offsite, and excaVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:34 Sep 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\54020.0 KAYLA
11 

vation and disposal offsite of both the spilled ash and some additional ash still remaining in the failed landfill. Each of these options has advantages and drawbacks. 

To help the community understand site activities and provide 

input on the cleanup, EPA assisted TVA in the development of its 

technical assistance plan program that will provide the community 

advisory group with a technical advisor. The technical advisor will 

help the community interpret technical information and assist the 

community with commenting on future work plans. 

In closing, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to testify and to reiterate EPA’s commitment to a comprehensive cleanup 

and the long-term restoration of the area, and I look forward to 

your questions. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. Madam Chairwoman, members of this Committee, 

the day has come when Perry County, Alabama, the birth home of 

Coretta Scott King, has finally pulled itself up by its own bootstraps and has joined in on the American dream. A place where the 

unemployment rate is above 15 percent, but our high school graduation rate is above 95 percent. 

Perry County, Alabama is the place where, in the 1970s, had 

more Ph.D.s per capita than any other county in Alabama. Perry 

County, Alabama is the place where the modern Voting Rights 

Movement started in 1965 with the night march and death of 

Jimmy Lee Jackson, who was shot at point blank range for seeking 

the right to vote in a demonstration march led by my father Albert 

Turner, Sr. 

Perry County, Alabama is the only county in the Nation to hold 

an official county holiday celebrating the historic election of President Barack Obama. Perry County, Alabama now is the first place 

in the South to construct a state of the art landfill that will be an 

environmental safe disposal site for coal ash. The economic development opportunity, along with safe environmental management 

practices has put renewed hope back into a once proud county. 

Perry County led the way during the 1960s in the field of civil 

rights and voting rights. We are now poised to lead the way in environmental safe disposal of coal ash. The contract between TVA 

and Arrowhead Landfill has provided the county with an economic 

boost, unseen since the State of Texas struck oil. 

The windfall has allowed the county to put together a master 

plan of economic development and infrastructure advancements unseen in this rural Alabama county. A county that now will have a 

budget of $8 million a year to service 11,000 citizens. In plain 

words, we now have a budget that $8 million a year and 11,000 

citizens, almost $1 million per 1,000 citizens. Unheard of. The 

Perry County Commission is set to move our county in a direction 

that will see a much improved community starting with our infrastructure. 

Through President Barack Obama’s stimulus package and the 

monies that we have received from the coal ash agreement, we 

have parlayed $300,000 into a $5,000,000 water expansion for our 

residents. Thanks to both the President and TVA’s decision to dispose of its coal ash in Perry County, now, more than 96 percent 

12 

of the residents of Perry County will have clean fresh drinking 

water. 

Thanks to Arrowhead and TVA, the tonnage payments will provide our school system with more than $500,000 over the next year. 

These funds saved our school system from massive layoffs and the 

cutting of vital educational after-school programs. These funds will 

keep our school system with a reserve and push ahead with plans 

to keep our system ranked in the top 15 percent of all school systems in Alabama. Tonnage fees have allowed both cities located in 

Perry County, Marion and Uniontown, to meet their obligations 

and allow room for economic growth. The monies have allowed us 

to seek grants, now that we have matching funds as required. 

Now that Perry County is poised to join the ranks of the haves, 

those naysayers shout environmental racism. It would be economic 

racism if EPA or TVA stopped the flow of cash for ash. It would 

be environmental racism if the way the industry, prior to Arrowhead Landfill’s state of the art facility, be allowed to continue to 

dig a hole in the backyards of African-American communities and 

fill it with water and coal ash. 

There are hundreds of unlined ash ponds around the Country 

that have been in operation for decades. These ash ponds do not 

have the level of controls that are in place at the Perry County Arrowhead landfill facility; however, environmentalists have not said 

a word. Now that Perry County stands to make millions of dollars 

per year on the spill in the river, and even more from the remainder of ash on site at TVA, environmentalists are now concerned 

about the environment. I wonder if the concern is about a once poor 

economically depressed African-American government-run county 

joining the ranks of the affluent, educated, infrastructurally sound, 

and economically poised to move her to the American dream is real 

concern and not the environment. 

Environmentalists groups have not called for a congressional 

hearing. Environmental groups have not called for an investigation 

into the disposal of coal ash. Environmentalists have not appeared 

on any 60 Minutes television documentaries to highlight their concerns about unlined coal ash ponds. Environmentalists have not requested any EPA oversight. No protest by environmentalists or any 

other group over the disposal of coal ash prior to Perry County receiving coal ash. 

To this date, there have been no mentions of the effects of the 

legacy ponds that exist in Alabama and across this Country. This 

lack of action by environmentalists leads me to believe that all the 

attention placed on Perry County and its agreement with TVA and 

Arrowhead is about economics, not the environment. 

Since the deployment of the ash to Perry County in June of 2009, 

65 Perry County residents have been employed making more than 

average salaries; the Perry County Commission has received more 

than a half million dollars; the county has expanded its water system; new home construction has increased; and there have been 

zero foreclosures. Thirty-six miles of new roads have been paved, 

bond debt payments from our two cities have been caught up, and 

15 grant applications have been approved ranging from housing to 

health care to education. Now, the Marion wastewater treatment 

13 

facility is in line for necessary upgrades with money being received 

from tonnage payments. 

I come to Washington today to ask that you implement the procedures that we have implemented at Arrowhead Landfill as a state 

of the art disposal for coal ash. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Montgomery. 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member 

Boozman, thank you and the Subcommittee for holding this hearing and providing me the opportunity to testify on behalf of Stantec 

Consulting Services. My name is John Montgomery, and I am a 

senior principal with the firm. I am also a licensed engineer with 

over 22 years of experience in dam and ash disposal facility design 

and management. 

Following the December 22nd, 2008, breach of the ash dredge cell 

at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston Fossil Plant, TVA requested Stantec assess the conditions of the coal combustion product disposal impoundments at TVA’s 11 fossil plants. Stantec proposed a four phase approach for the assessment program, and the 

details are provided in the written testimony. 

In summary, Phase 1 included a records review of available TVA 

documents and site reconnaissance of the facilities at the 11 fossil 

plants. Phase 2 consists of performing geotechnical explorations 

and engineering evaluations, providing recommendations for initial 

renovation options, and offering general engineering support. 

Phase 3 includes planning assistance for short-and long-term 

coal combustion product management, final design of conceptual repairs, preparation of construction plans and specifications, cost 

opinions and permitting assistance. Phase 4 involves assisting TVA 

with improving its dam safety program by conducting training sessions for applicable TVA staff and performing annual facility inspections. 

The current status of the program is as follows: Phase 1 is complete and the final report was submitted to TVA on June 24th, 

2009. Phase 2, 3, and 4 are ongoing. Phase 2 activities were initiated in early 2009 and it is anticipated that these engineering evaluations will be completed during the third quarter of 2010; however, the schedule may change depending on future findings or conditions not yet determined. The schedule for completing Phase 3 activities can’t be determined until Phase 2 is complete. The initial 

dam safety training for Phase 4 has been completed. To date, over 

300 TVA staff have received training in dam safety inspection and 

reporting. 

During Phase 1 of the program, Stantec identified the following 

seven system-wide concerns: one, limited record drawings and construction testing and observation records; two, construction of 

stacks over ash ponds and the operation of fly ash dredge cells; 

three, tall, unsupported weir structures; four, conduit and weir 

abandonment procedures; five, implementation of maintenance recommendations; six, limited Operation and Maintenance Manuals 

and Emergency Action Plans; seven, limited geotechnical instrumentation. 

To address these concerns, the following actions have been taken 

or are being taken: 

14 

Geotechnical explorations are being conducted on all significant 

active coal combustion product disposal impoundments and fills 

over sluiced ash ponds; initial geotechnical drilling has been completed for impoundments at 10 of the 11 plants; geotechnical instrumentation for short-and long-term monitoring have been installed at all sites; draft geotechnical reports have been prepared 

for four impoundments; and Stantec has determined conditions at 

these four impoundments are not similar to the failed Kingston 

dredge cell. 

Slope stability analyses have been completed for nine disposal facilities; Stantec has determined the as-found conditions at the Paradise Ash Pond meet generally accepted slope stability factors of 

safety. In addition, renovations to the Widows Creek Gypsum 

Stack have been completed and this facility currently meets accepted slope stability criteria. 

Significant renovations in design and construction are ongoing or 

completed at various other sites. That work includes slope regrading, rock armoring, slope buttressing, spillway retrofit and replacement, seepage collection systems, pool reductions, and conduit 

abandonment. 

In addition, Stantec continues to monitor the installed 

geotechnical instrumentation, inventory and inspect conduits, perform hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, perform breach analyses 

and develop inundation mapping. 

TVA has completed an initial reassessment of hazard classifications and determined four sites have high hazard impoundments. 

Emergency action plans have been prepared for these sites. 

In closing, TVA and Stantec have worked together to aggressively address the conditions of TVA’s coal combustion product facilities. To date, 45 work plans have been developed, providing recommendations and plans to improve observed conditions. Construction associated with 31 of the work plans has been completed and 

is in progress for the remaining 14. 

Again, I appreciate this opportunity and look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Michael Churchman. 

Mr. CHURCHMAN. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member 

Boozman, and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to travel all the way from Alabama to share comments with 

you at this important hearing. I also appreciate the previous hearings and oversight related to the coal ash spill at the TVA’s Kingston Fossil Plant. I recognize that previous meetings were mostly 

about the spill and subsequent cleanup, and I appreciate this hearing bringing in more discussion about the disposal in Alabama at 

the Arrowhead Landfill in Perry County. 

I agree with Commissioner Turner that this has resulted in a 

windfall of funds for Perry County and a number of local communities. However, I do not share his enthusiastic opinion of this matter, and neither do a large number of people in Alabama. As my 

local congressman and I discussed, this is another illustration of 

our ongoing systemic problem of how we structured our rural 

economies to become so dependent on undesirable markets and 

unsustainable systems. 

15 

However, the fact remains that when I attended a brief meeting 

in Uniontown in Perry County on September the 16th, I heard a 

lot of residents of Perry County that still had a lot of questions 

about this disposal and windfall. Residents seemed not to have had 

all their fears and concerns answered to alleviate their anxiety. It 

appeared to me then, and every time I talk to someone from there, 

that there are more questions than there are answers, and it 

doesn’t seem to be subsiding. Within the last month, a number of 

residents have come forward with health concerns that did not 

seem to be present before the disposal began. 

I am here to bring a number of concerns to your attention that 

need to be evaluated before this disposal continues any further: 

How can removal of coal ash in Roane County be performed with 

such a deliberate containment process to prevent airborne exposure 

and yet the exact opposite is true in Perry County? 

How can individual elements like heavy metals and other toxic 

substances be listed as hazardous when considered individually, 

yet considered non-hazardous solid waste when contained within 

coal ash? 

Are all regulations pertaining to Superfund sites being followed 

according to CERCLA? 

Are the Operating Permits Groundwater Monitoring Parameters 

adequate to protect public health and the environment in Perry 

County? 

How can the Perry County Landfill be found in compliance of all 

applicable State requirements that ‘‘does not currently have any 

relevant violations’’ when it is discharging leachate to the Marion 

Wastewater Treatment Plant without a required State permit and 

when the plant has been in violation of its NPDES permit since 

August of 2003? 

Why has the hydrological characterization of the landfill site not 

received careful scrutiny before millions of tons of hazardous substances were allowed to be added to the landfill, particularly in 

view of the evidence that monitoring wells contained elevated levels of pollutants? 

Why do operating permit’s post-closure requirements fail to require at least 30 years of post-closure monitoring to protect residents when Perry County Associates are long gone? 

Are Solid Waste Disposal Act regulations being enforced and is 

the coal ash waste being ‘‘stored separately from the other material 

there’’ as reported in Mr. Tom Kilgore’s written statement on July 

28, 2009 before this very Committee? 

Are all Clean Air Act regulations being enforced and monitored 

to protect public health from toxic exposure? 

Why has this not been identified as an environmental justice 

issue with extra agency support to local communities? When waste 

is being collected in a mostly affluent, white Roane County and 

being disposed in a mostly poor, African-American Perry County, 

this action should be labeled the injustice that it is. 

Have EPA, ADEM, TVA, and Perry County Associates attempted 

to alleviate all concerns and questions to Perry County citizens who 

continue to suffer through the worst environmental disaster in U.S. 

history? 

16 

I would not have served the citizens of Alabama to the best of 

my ability had I not asked these questions. Please understand that 

these comments, questions, and extensive written statement have 

been collected in a short period of time and may not reflect the full 

environmental and public health impacts of this disposal plan. 

However, many think there is enough reason for this plan to be 

further scrutinized and reviewed before allowing the toxic waste to 

continue to be dumped on the people of Perry County, Alabama. 

I look forward to the good work of this Committee to answer 

these questions, alleviating all public health and environmental 

health for citizens of Perry County, Alabama and other citizens 

across our great State. Thank you for the opportunity to address 

this Committee and I look forward to your questions. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Before we go to questions, I want to recognize our distinguished 

Chair of the full Committee, Mr. Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for 

your continued follow-up and vigilance on this very, very important 

issue. 

Our Committee has had a great deal of experience with spills 

and structural failures, whether the Torrey Canyon wreck off the 

shores of Normandy, France that led to the first oil spill liability 

legislation or the Exxon Valdez and the cleanup that followed it 

and the need for a major Coast Guard program to clean up oil 

spills; Katrina and Hugo and other previous hurricanes that 

wrecked devastation; gas pipeline failures that we have followed up 

on; and now this tragedy. Our Committee is very familiar with this 

type of calamity and the effects it has on the people, on the economies, and on the lives—especially the lives and the safety of communities. 

We want to know that EPA is following up on its job and managing its responsibility. We have had several hearings in years past 

on TVA, which is under the jurisdiction of this Committee. First on 

their nuclear reactor program and the very considerable failures 

that TVA experienced. We maintained a great vigilance over the response of TVA to getting their regulatory program back in order, 

their oversight program in order, and increasing their internal vigilance, as is necessary. 

We had, in my congressional district, just a little ahead of the 

Kingston ash tragedy, a similar one on the north shore of Lake Superior. In that instance, some of the ash actually made its way into 

the headwaters of one-fifth of all the freshwater on the face of the 

earth; blocked a highway; wiped out a shoreline; and dumped toxic 

ash into Lake Superior. We have taken steps in Minnesota, in the 

State and with regard to this mining company and its power plant, 

to rectify the problem. 

We want to be sure that TVA is doing that as well, that EPA is 

following up; that people’s lives are not distressed and disturbed, 

as Commissioner Turner has said so well, and that the environment is being protected, as Mr. Churchman has advocated. 

Wherever there is a failure of human oversight and human response, we need to take actions and we need to see that institutions and agencies are being responsive. TVA is much revered. You 

can go all throughout the rural south and hear people say, as I 

17 

have heard time and again, before TVA, before the Appalachian 

Regional Commission, the only way up was a bus ticket north. 

Much of the south was characterized, I think as Commissioner 

Turner’s testimony suggests, as 80 acres and a mule. 

TVA has lifted the sights, lifted the economies, and raised the 

hopes and opportunities for people. We respect TVA—I do particularly. I have enormous admiration for what it has accomplished. 

But like all institutions, from time to time, there are lapses, and 

we want to be sure this is only a temporary failure. 

So Ms. Johnson’s vigilance over this issue derives from the longstanding role of this Committee. I want you to understand we will 

stand by you and also make sure that EPA lives up to its commitments and TVA lives up to its commitments as well. 

Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

I will start the first round of questioning. 

Mr. Meiburg, I know that you listened to Mr. Churchman’s testimony. Do you have any comments you would like to make concerning his statements? 

Mr. MEIBURG. Madam Chairwoman, I would say a couple of 

things. The first is that we completely agree that with the Perry 

County community, as with any community, we want to make sure 

that any landfill that is sited meets all of our technical compliance 

standards and that the disposal of materials is conducted safely. So 

we very much agree with both he and with Commissioner Turner 

on that point. We are, in fact, exercising our oversight vigilantly, 

together with our partners in Alabama, to make sure that that is 

the case. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kilgore, I noticed that you have a completion time for a portion, and then a longer completion time for the other portion. Have 

you made a determination as to how frequently you must move the 

ash off of the site, once again, before it gets to a point of spill? 

Mr. KILGORE. I am not sure I understand your question totally, 

but let me try, and then you can elaborate. We have made a determination that we have to move faster with getting the ash processed and offsite. Right now, the dredging is slightly about one percent behind schedule, but it is doing well. We have gotten 2 million 

cubic yards out of the river; we have 1 million cubic yards that 

have been shipped, so that means we have 1 million cubic yards 

that we need to get offsite. 

We are working with EPA and TDEC to determine how to move 

that faster. We are building some additional rail facilities so that 

we can begin to move more trains off the site. We were averaging 

about 65 cars a day; yesterday we sent, I think, 105 cars out. Our 

attempt is to send at least 105 cars each day to keep this from accumulating. 

Did that answer your question, Madam Chairman? 

Ms. JOHNSON. To a degree. But, if you recall, when you were 

here before, I asked if you would submit a plan where you have determined how frequently you must move this ash for it not to spill 

over. 

Mr. KILGORE. Yes, ma’am. We have a plan that calls for us to get 

all the ash out of the river by next spring. We feel confident that 

18 

we will accomplish that. Then we will do the non-time-critical ash 

by 2013, that is, all the ash that is in the northern embayment; 

it is on the land, it is behind the dike, so it is not in jeopardy of 

moving out into the river. So our real goal is to move to get all of 

this out of the river before the spring is up so that recreation and 

other boating users can use the river again. 

Ms. JOHNSON. How are you dealing with the ash that continues 

to accumulate on-site, though, while you are moving it out? 

Mr. KILGORE. I am sorry, I missed your question. We are not 

running those units except in emergency. They have run very little 

and only in very, very cold weather or very, very hot weather. We 

got through all the summer with running those very little. It is 

pretty cold back in Tennessee yesterday and, really, we aren’t running those units. So we put them at the bottom of the dispatch 

order and do not accumulate more ash as we are cleaning this out. 

I am sorry I missed your question the first time. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Now, what about the other TVA sites? 

Mr. KILGORE. We are aggressively looking at the other sites, and I would just tell you where we are going to spend about $1 billion 

cleaning up Kingston, we will spend at least that much cleaning up 

the other sites that haven’t failed. As testimony from Mr. Montgomery indicated, we have drilled 10 of the 11 sites; we have Shawnee, I think, that is left to drill. 

We have aggressively, with Stantec’s direction, drilled all of those 

to find out not only what is down there, but what we need to correct, and we are already working on all of those sites. So if you 

really think about it, we have Kingston that we are cleaning up, 

we are remediating the other ponds and we have committed to 

close wet ponds and convert those to dry ash facilities. So those are 

the three major elements that we are doing in our program. 

Ms. JOHNSON. So you don’t anticipate another spill at any TVA 

sites? 

Mr. KILGORE. Madam Chairwoman, I am working as hard as I 

can to make sure this never happens again. I do not want to go 

through this; none of us do. So we are keeping a close eye, being 

very intrusive as far as our investigation is; we are looking back. 

As Mr. Montgomery noted, our records were not good, so we are 

trying to update our records by looking at the drilling and we are 

doing everything we can to make sure that this is not a repeatable 

incident. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JOHNSON. How much of this ash can you accommodate? 

Mr. TURNER. All they can send. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Pardon me? 

Mr. TURNER. All that they can send. We have an enormous landfill and they have options on thousands of other acres that are on 

this Selma chalk. As you know and others may know, this Selma 

chalk barrier that we have in the black belt cannot be used for anything else; it is the ideal soil for this type of thing. It would take 

thousands and thousands of years for water to penetrate it. 

So on top of the lining that is in these cells that they are building, you still have the natural barrier of Selma chalk, which is 

19 

ideal ground for landfill; and we have no problems. EPA and TVA, 

as well as ADEM, has been very vigilant, and they are testing and 

coming down. There is not a month, actually, there is not two 

weeks that somebody from ADEM, TVA, or EPA is not in contact 

with what is going on in Perry County. 

It amazes me how these people who do not live in Perry County, 

Alabama know so much about what is good for Perry County, Alabama. They don’t have to worry about people calling them at night, 

11:00 and 12:00, talking about my well has run dry because we 

don’t have clean, fresh drinking water. 

Now, 95 percent, more than 95 percent of the people in our county will have this, and this is the godsend. We will take all the ash. 

We have done our own independent test and the ash has the components of stuff that is in the ground today. If I took a shovel and 

dug up some dirt, traces of the same elements that are found in 

ash will be found in dirt. 

So I can’t see any toxicity levels that are so high that are going 

to cause us—they have been dumping this stuff 30 miles away from 

my county line for decades, it is in the ground; dig a hole, put some 

water and put some ash in it, and nobody said one word because 

those counties weren’t getting any money. Those counties weren’t 

making any progress. Now that our county is getting money, making progress, here they come running, talking about how bad it is. 

It wasn’t bad 40 years ago? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Who is they that come running? 

Mr. TURNER. These environmentalists that come around running, 

talking about you are going to die, you are going to drink water. 

We have a cheese plant in Uniontown next door to my mother-inlaw’s house. Nobody has said a word about that cheese plant, and 

I smell it every time I go to my mother-in-law’s house. That’s an 

excuse for me not going down there because of that cheese plant. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. JOHNSON. Has EPA looked at this and given their approval? 

Mr. TURNER. Of the landfill or this cheese plant? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. JOHNSON. Both. 

Mr. TURNER. They have given their approval of this landfill, but 

I don’t think anybody even called EPA about the air pollution from 

this cheese plant. Mr. Churchman hasn’t been down there; he 

hasn’t said anything about the cheese plant. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Churchman, would you like to comment? 

Mr. CHURCHMAN. I would just simply add I am not aware of anything about the cheese plant specifically. I would say that for a 

number of years a number of environmental organizations, if that 

is who Mr. Turner is referring to, have been concerned about coal 

ash, and there is much documented investigation, research, development on the negative impacts, the toxicity of such a product and 

its need to be addressed in a certain way that we feel is potentially 

not being taken care of at this time. 

Thank you, Chairwoman. 

Ms. JOHNSON. The Environmental Protection Agency, does this 

area entail the same region? 

Mr. TURNER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Excuse me. Mr. Meiburg. 

20 

Mr. MEIBURG. I am sorry, when you say this area entails the 

same region, I missed the question. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Most regional offices take in more than one State. 

Mr. MEIBURG. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JOHNSON. And I was wondering if this was within the same 

region. 

Mr. MEIBURG. Yes, both Tennessee and Alabama are both located 

within Region 4, yes. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Have you gotten any complaints or have you been 

to check to see about the safety of this storage? 

Mr. MEIBURG. Yes, we have. We have sent staff out on a number 

of occasions, most recently last Wednesday, to go look and make 

sure that operations are proceeding as they should be, as well as 

we have oversight conducted by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, which has the regulatory authority over 

the landfill. 

And we believe that the operations—well, first of all, we would 

not have approved the disposal of the ash in the landfill itself unless we were satisfied that the landfill itself was constructed with 

appropriate technical standards; and the landfill was sited in Perry 

County and the siting decision is not within EPA’s jurisdiction, but 

it was sited in Perry County prior to the spill, so it was not built 

or created for the spill. But we made sure that it was constructed 

appropriately, with a clay liner, with a geosynthetic membrane, 

with leachate collection, with financial responsibility, all the kind 

of things you want to make sure that if the ash is disposed there, 

it was properly disposed of. 

The management of it, the information that we have suggests 

that there have been no exceedances of air quality standards from 

monitoring conducted at the landfill and that the disposal operations have been proceeding properly. So we and our partners in 

Alabama have been watching this very closely. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Now, according to Mr. Turner, they can take all 

that they can be supplied with. You have seen this location. Does 

it appear that it has no limit as to how much coal ash it can accommodate? 

Mr. MEIBURG. The landfill, as it stands now, does have additional 

capacity. I don’t remember off the top of my head just exactly what 

the full capacity of the landfill is, but there is additional capacity 

beyond what will be used to dispose of the material being transported as part of the time-critical removal. There has been no decision made about offsite transport of material beyond the time-critical removal; that is the reference to the EE/CA that I was referring to in my oral testimony, that is a decision subsequently about 

what will happen with the remaining ash once the time-critical removal phase is finished. 

Ms. JOHNSON. When I visited, I saw a lot of coal ash. Maybe it 

will look different when I go again, but I am concerned about the 

safety of the storage. Is it located near where there are residents? 

Mr. MEIBURG. You are talking about the landfill now, and not 

the Kingston plant? 

Ms. JOHNSON. The landfill where it is going. 

Mr. MEIBURG. There are some residences that are within a few 

hundred yards of the facility. It is largely out in a predominantly 

21 

rural area, but there are some residences that are within a few 

hundred yards. There is a 100-yard buffer around the landfill itself 

where there are no residences, but there are some down the road 

from there, yes. And, again, Mr. Turner can speak to the proximity 

of people to the landfill itself with more accuracy even than I can. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Turner, you are convinced that this is safe for 

all of the citizens in the area? 

Mr. TURNER. Yes, ma’am. I wouldn’t be here, I wouldn’t be supporting it if I did not feel that this is the proper way to dispose 

of coal ash. This should be the model of how coal ash should be disposed of. In the Alabama legislature, when the session comes in in 

January, there will be a bill put forth in the Alabama legislature 

that will codify the disposal in Alabama of coal ash in the manner 

that it is being disposed of at Arrowhead Landfill. 

This is the state of the art. I have looked at other legacy ponds 

that do not have the leachate system, do not have the clay buffer 

up under it like they have at Arrowhead, and I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is the safest way to dispose of 

coal ash in America. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Have you been in touch with any of the scientists 

or EPA, or are you just making that assumption? 

Mr. TURNER. I have been in touch with EPA, TVA, ADEM. I have 

been in touch with everybody that—University of Alabama’s geological center to look at the quality of the buffer. I am not just 

going to take somebody’s word for it when I am a public official 

charged with being responsible for the citizens of Perry County. I 

am not going to take somebody’s word that is benefitting from it; 

the would be benefitting from it. I want to make sure that what 

I say is truthful, make sure what I say I can stand behind and go 

to bed at night, and I sleep very well every night knowing that we 

have coal ash in the ground and cash in the bank. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Any complaints from any of the residents? 

Mr. TURNER. I have one lady who came to a commission meeting. 

Every other Tuesday we have commission meetings where we have 

one hour set aside for citizens to discuss any problem. In the time 

period that we have discussed about coal ash, we have had one female who has come to the commission meeting, and she didn’t complain to us about receiving coal ash, she complained about how 

much coal ash would be coming in. She had no problem. 

That is the same thing with the landfill. Nobody said they don’t 

want us to have a landfill; they just didn’t want us to have a landfill receiving trash from Tennessee, New York, New Jersey. This is 

an economic venture that we look to profit from. Not only are we 

profiting just from the coal ash being disposed of; the property tax 

every time they bill a sale, it increases the property taxes they are 

paying. It has just been a positive windfall and I see no need to 

declassify it and change the classification. 

I hear your people talking about it is toxic ash. There is no toxicity. I think those kinds of words do scare people who are not as 

educated about this issue as I am. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Is there any possibility of any of it leaking out or 

is deep enough to leach into the water system? 

Mr. TURNER. There is a possibility that in thousands of years, 

when I am dead and my children are dead, we won’t be dead from 

22 

coal ash, it will be from old age. The University of Alabama has 

said that the Selma chalk is the best surface that you can put a 

landfill on. On top of that, the liner on top of it collects any water. 

Then, on top of that, it has a system that sucks away the water. 

And, you know, they have this guy running around now talking 

about he is going to sue for the leachate. But the ammonia levels 

at that facility that he talked about had been high and had exceeded 35 times prior to the leachate being deposited. The company, 

once they found that breach, they moved from depositing that 

leachate in the Marion facility and moved to another facility that 

has no breaches; and we are working now with USDA, with the 

grant to update our water treatment facility in Marion so that we 

can return those leachate collections back to the Marion system. 

Ms. JOHNSON. What is your goal? Do you have any other landfills? Are you planning on building a city of landfills? What is your 

goal? 

Mr. TURNER. Well, our goal is to move our county. Before we entered in this, we had zero community centers. Now we have three 

on the way being built. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I don’t mean that aspect of it; I am talking about 

collecting this waste. 

Mr. TURNER. Well, our goal is to fill the landfill with as much 

waste as it can hold because it is the most environmentally safe 

way to dispose of it. I don’t think we should be selfish and say only 

give us two million tons of it. Give me all five million tons of it. 

I want to be benevolent with TVA and let them know that they 

are welcome. They have been good corporate members of our community; they have helped in numerous ways. They have any concern, we have a quarterly meeting with the citizens in Perry County, updating them on what is going on at the landfill. They are always there; EPA has been there, ADEM has been there, the county 

commission has been there. 

Most of the concerns are still talking to us about why we built 

the landfill, not about the ash. They keep hollering at us about we 

didn’t want any landfill. The same 15 people that were talking 

back in 2000, when this landfill was being considered, are the same 

15 folks that are talking about the landfill now. We have moved 

away from the landfill; we are talking about ash, and they have not 

complained about ash. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Shuster has to be 

at another meeting, so I am going to go ahead and defer mine down 

to him and then come back in the rotation. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the Chairwoman and I thank Mr. 

Boozman for doing that. 

Mr. Turner, you are a breath of fresh air coming in here, and you 

are a guy that is out there where the rubber meets the road and 

has to deal with these problems day in and day out, and you certainly know what you are talking about and you have the facts behind you. 

I am equally concerned about certainly the tragedy happened at 

the TVA, and we need to have oversight, need to fix the problem, 

23 

but my concern is what the EPA is going to do, possibly classifying 

coal ash and other coal combustion byproducts as hazardous. That 

is a big concern because not only we don’t have enough landfills if 

it all of a sudden becomes a hazardous material, but the way you 

are storing it seems to work. 

I know Pennsylvania, where I am from, has had almost 30 years 

of oversight and monitoring of coal ash storage and use, and they 

have not found any degradation to the water, to the groundwater. 

So the proof is in the pudding, I think, in that case. 

But there are also about 40 percent of the coal ash produced in 

the United States goes into recycling products in a positive way, 

from mine reclamation projects to wallboard and also into transportation construction. And I know there are a lot of programs at the 

EPA and the Federal Highways that support these recycling programs. 

So my concern and my question is I know EPA is in the process 

of a rulemaking. If they designate coal ash as a hazardous material, my question, Mr. Meiburg, I believe, would be what is the impact going to be to recycling? 

Mr. MEIBURG. To answer the question about the rule first, the 

Administrator said that we obviously, after a lot of review, are trying to propose a rule on the future management of coal combustion 

residuals by the end of the year. Beyond that, I really can’t say a 

whole lot about the rule itself. 

I will just simply note that EPA is very aware of the potential 

for appropriate beneficial use of some of these materials, and that 

is something that has been a lot of concern to the folks in headquarters who have tried to design the rule. Hopefully, there will be 

some more information on that forthcoming as the proposal and a 

robust opportunity for public comment. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I would hope so, because I view it as a potential 

outcome of saying coal ash that is being stored is hazardous, but 

coal ash that is being recycled is not hazardous, and I don’t understand how that works. You have two trucks that roll out of a plant; 

one goes to be recycled and the other goes to be put in a landfill. 

The economics of that—there is no logic, first of all, to it, and then 

the economics of it start to become staggering. 

And then me, as a producer of wallboard, let’s say, I decide not 

to use coal ash and my competitor is using it, then I will just run 

an ad campaign saying he is using hazardous products; I will destroy his business. So, again, it is frightening to think that we 

come up with that kind of illogical ruling and, as I said, I think 

the proof is out there that it can be used and stored in a safe way. 

Again, transportation projects. My concern there, if you are going 

to not be able to use that, that becomes an increase in raw materials. On the transportation projects, do you have any view on that? 

Is there any difference in your view? 

Mr. MEIBURG. Again, probably my best answer is that there will 

be a proposed rule on that coming out very soon, and I should probably defer comments beyond that. 

Mr. SHUSTER. All right. Well, again, I hope that is taken into 

great consideration. I realize it was a terrible disaster that occurred down at the TVA and oversight had lapsed, and we need to 

make sure we are making changes, but I think to say that we are 

24 

going to take a product that has been positively used and positively 

stored for decades is going to be a hazardous material, like I said, 

to me, it just doesn’t seem there is any logic to that. 

Again, thank you and thank you, Mr. Boozman, for yielding. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hare. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Just so I am clear, Mr. Meiburg, do you personally think coal ash 

is a toxic substance now? 

Mr. MEIBURG. Again, from my own view, we feel that the material at the Kingston site—and that is probably the way to best 

frame this, the material at the Kingston site that is being collected 

out of the river and being transported for disposal is being transported and disposed in an appropriate way. This is one of those 

cases where the material is a high volume and low concentration 

of some of the toxic chemicals of concern, and you want to make 

sure, in doing that, that that is handled appropriately. 

Beyond the situation at Kingston, there is, as Congressman Shuster just said, a rulemaking about the future management of this 

material, which will be coming out very soon. As far as the national 

rulemaking, I should defer comments on that until the proposal. 

Mr. HARE. Okay, I appreciate that. Let me ask somebody on the 

panel or, Mr. Meiburg, you. I have a lot of coal-fired plants in my 

district and Southern Illinois, as you know, uses a lot of coal. There 

are some ponds that don’t have berms around them, but they have 

coal ash in them. Some of the electric companies want to top those 

off with clay, instead of having to move it out, because of the expense. Do you think that that is a proper way to be able to do that 

or do you think it ought to go—anybody want to take a shot at that 

one? 

Mr. KILGORE. I will take a shot at it. 

Mr. HARE. Okay. 

Mr. KILGORE. May I? 

Mr. HARE. Sure. Absolutely. 

Mr. KILGORE. If we have proper monitoring wells under these existing facilities so that we know what might be going out the bottom. Mr. Turner referred to the Selma chalk. There are different 

impermeabilities under these, so if we are monitoring it correctly, 

then I think, yes, we should be able to submit to EPA a plan to 

close these out with proper monitoring, cap them off so that you 

keep the water off the top and, therefore, they are allowed to just 

exist. 

To me, that is probably safer than trying to move this stuff 

again. But with all the new stuff, we will be able to go to lined 

landfills. We, TVA, are going to dry collection, so that keeps the 

water out of it to start with. 

Mr. HARE. Okay. 

Then I have a question for Mr. Churchman. It is a two-part question. Does the operating permit for the Arrowhead Landfill issued 

by the State of Alabama, allow the use of coal ash as an alternative 

daily cover? Is that correct? 

Mr. CHURCHMAN. That is something that I do believe that I remember seeing, that that is in contradiction. Originally it was 

25 

going to be segregated as a separate material, but now it is being 

left as an open dome. 

Mr. HARE. So why would they allow coal ash to cover coal ash? 

Mr. CHURCHMAN. I guess I don’t know the answer to that question. I could look further into, if someone else doesn’t. 

Mr. HARE. Mr. Turner, is that correct, that they are covering the 

coal ash with coal ash at the landfill? Do you know? And if they 

are, why would they do that? I mean, it would seem to me you 

would want to cover it with something other than coal ash. Maybe 

I am missing something here. 

Mr. TURNER. They are hauling in, they have trucks of dirt coming in there. When I am down there—and I visit it at least twice 

a month—I see these big trucks hauling in dirt. They are covering 

up something; they are not covering it with coal ash. 

And they are separating the solid waste material from the coal 

ash. I thought I heard him say that they are mixing it all up together. That is not true. The garbage that we get from households 

is being disposed of on another side of the landfill and the coal ash 

is segregated from that. They have an operation there that I invite 

all of you to come on down to Alabama and see this thing. 

Mr. HARE. I might do that. I heard you had a pretty good football 

team, by the way. 

Mr. TURNER. We do. 

Mr. HARE. Let me just ask you this. If you could, for the Committee, because I am just wondering about that. If you could just 

double-check to find out—or if somebody does know here—whether 

they are, in effect, at this landfill covering coal ash with coal ash. 

Mr. MEIBURG. I can perhaps speak to that. 

Mr. HARE. Okay, great. 

Mr. MEIBURG. One of the issues of beneficial use of coal ash in 

the past has been as a daily cover, and municipal solid waste landfills were using that as cover for municipal waste. The plan for the 

closure of the cells at the landfills, as I understand it, has been 

that the ash itself will be covered with soil. But I will be happy 

to supply additional information to you to be precise on that. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you. I would appreciate it. 

Mr. TURNER. I can make one phone call and answer that question to you before you leave here, if I am allowed to use my cell 

phone. 

Mr. HARE. Well, you can give me a holler later, Mr. Turner. That 

is fine. And, listen, I appreciate your fighting for your county. In 

bad economic times, it is nice to see people that actually are going 

back to work and building things. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Turner, you don’t want to talk about the Alabama football 

team too much, because the Chairlady is a Texan. We have had extensive testimony, several sessions, and it does appear that things 

are moving in the right direction. 

Mr. Moore, Stantec noted in its testimony that the annual inspection reports identified items for maintenance, but there was a 

trend of not executing all of the maintenance recommendations. I 

26 

guess what I would like to know is what the role of the TVA IG 

was in that and if you have had some internal assessments. What 

has been the role? Again, not in an accusatory fashion, but how 

have you kind of responded so that, in the future, you will play a 

better role? 

Mr. MOORE. Well, thank you for the question. Our role currently—and I will go back in time, but our role currently is to have 

our engineers, as I mentioned earlier, Marshall Miller, do a peer 

review of the work that Stantec has been doing, and they have 

been doing, as you know, excavation work, clearing work around 

some of these impoundments. 

As to our role in retrospect, we depend, frankly, on TVA to identify risk in order for us to do our audits and inspections. We have 

100 people in our office; TVA has about 12,000, 13,000 people. We 

try to look around the curve, too; sometimes we get that right, 

sometimes we don’t. As you may know, there was an opportunity 

for TVA to spend $25 million to correct this problem years ago. I 

am not sure if our office made that recommendation back then, but 

it would have been followed. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Okay, very good. 

Mr. Meiburg, this has been a terrible tragedy. It has been, also, 

somewhat of an experiment, though, in the toxicity of the coal ash 

in the sense you have had this tremendous spill, and I guess the 

measuring that we are doing right now is probably like no other 

in the sense of testing and finding out the hazardous. Again, I don’t 

want to put words in your mouth, but it appears that the toxicity 

surrounding has not been that great. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. MEIBURG. Well, we have been pleased that the results downstream from the spill have not shown exceedances, and that has 

been very encouraging. You do see some elevated levels in the area 

right in the stilling pond, which is where the ash normally collects. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Just a massive amount of stuff there. 

Mr. MEIBURG. Exactly. And I think for us what that has meant 

is it sort of validated our sense that the most important thing we 

could do was to get the main body of the material out of the river, 

because the longer it sits there, the more opportunity you have for 

something to happen that you don’t want to. 

So, from our standpoint, that is justified. We have been pleased 

that you have a couple of circumstances here that are very helpful, 

one of which is you have a very high volume of water surrounding 

it, so you get some dilution, and that has been helpful. But, still, 

you really need to get the stuff out of the river, and that is where 

our main emphasis has been. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Right. Very good. 

Mr. Churchman, it is obvious in Mr. Turner’s testimony he is 

concerned about funding his community and things like that. I 

guess it helps us to learn about who funds different areas. Can you 

tell us about your funding, where you get your funds? You are, I 

guess, an environmental advocate group. Can you tell us maybe 

your top two or three funding streams? 

Mr. CHURCHMAN. I would say that we are a 501(c)(3) non-profit 

organization, statewide organization, environmental advocacy in 

the State of Alabama. We receive funding from numerous individuals, corporate, some small company donations, one local municiVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:34 Sep 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\54020.0 KAYLA
27 

pality for helping with recycling efforts and different things like 

that. I can provide you with more specific information if you would 

like to hear more about that. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Are you anti-coal, are you anti-coal-fired? 

Mr. CHURCHMAN. We are interested in environmentally sustainable efficient and renewable uses of energy. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. So, as far as coal-fired plants, do you feel like we 

need to get rid of those or not? 

Mr. CHURCHMAN. I think that there are a number of detrimental 

impacts to the full life cycle of coal, and I think that this is an illustration of one of those. So I would say that I am very enthusiastic about moving forward towards a cleaner energy system. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. To nuclear or—— 

Mr. CHURCHMAN. There are a lot of different options and I 

think—— 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Are you anti-nuclear also? 

Mr. CHURCHMAN. I am not necessarily anti-nuclear. I would say 

that there are a lot of options that are going to have to be implemented, that are going to have to be looked at very closely. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Again, this bothers me, your question 10: Why has 

this not been identified as an environmental justice issue with 

extra agency support to local communities? When waste is being 

collected in a mostly affluent, white Roane County and being disposed in a mostly poor, African-American Perry County, this action 

should be labeled for what it is. 

I don’t really understand, in the sense that, for years and years 

the waste was deposited in Roane County, unlined, just dumped 

there. Then, all of a sudden we have this environmental accident, 

so then we have to find a place to put it. The mayor is begging for 

it and you are implying that there is some sort of racial thing in 

that regard. That makes no sense to me at all. 

Mr. CHURCHMAN. I would say that, first of all, I think that there 

is a lot of concerns about coal ash to begin with. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Yes, but you agree this was stored unlined and 

would still be stored there right now if it hadn’t been for the incident that occurred. 

Mr. CHURCHMAN. And as I would mention, I would agree that I 

don’t think that that is the proper way to store it. I think that we 

need to look at other ways—— 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Okay, but how are we—— 

Mr. CHURCHMAN. And in this particular incident, what I would 

say is that it seems like an environmental injustice whenever there 

are a number of permitted landfills in Tennessee, is my understanding, that could accept that material, there are other materials—— 

Mr. BOOZMAN. But your implication from the question—the way 

you worded it is affluent, white Roane County. That is not what 

you are saying. The implications there is something totally different. So, again, I resent that. I think that you are trying to just 

dredge up things that are very inappropriate to be dredged up to 

make your point. 

Mr. CHURCHMAN. I would say, after attending the hearing, that 

there are a number of people that feel like this is—that people 

were taken advantage of by it going into this community that 

28 

doesn’t always have enough people to speak up for this issue that 

has gone on. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Even though, like I say, it was stored in affluent, 

white Roane County and would still be stored there if it hadn’t 

been for this. 

What do you think about this, Mr. Turner? 

Mr. TURNER. I think you are right, Congressman. This testimony 

is way off base. He doesn’t live in Perry County. We have 11,000 

residents. In the meeting he attended, we may have had 75 folks 

there. I get elected there every six years, and since 2000 I have 

been getting 80 percent. Just had an election last year where I won 

with 85 percent, and I have been speaking in support of landfill 

and coal ash ever since I heard of it. So I don’t think all the people 

in Perry County are so distraught. 

This may be the same group that wants to settle and go away 

if we could somehow cut them in financially. I have gotten some 

calls where if you all help us financially, we will go away; they 

leave a message on my phone. I tell you, this sounds like some of 

those kinds of calls that want to go away if they can get in on the 

windfall. So I am not going to—they can go away, but they certainly are not going to get in on the windfall. I want them to know 

that today. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Turner. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Griffith. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the diligence that this Committee has exhibited in this entire situation. 

But I do think it is an opportunity for us to see how a crisis can 

be handled in a very positive, proactive way. I think it sets the 

stage and sets the bar very, very high, because we are going to 

have these accidents periodically in America based on our history 

of manufacturing and economic development. All over the geography of the United States we have potential Kingstons that might 

occur, and I think this sets the stage for how we might handle 

them and how we might prevent them. 

I might say that, as the State Senator in Alabama, we were very 

much aware of the landfill. It is a state of the art $58 million landfill that takes wastes from all States east of the Mississippi and all 

States lined by the Mississippi River. The dumping in the landfill 

is monitored by GPS, it is mapped; it is a state of the art facility, 

so if you have in your head that there is a big levee somewhere 

and the trucks are backing up and dumping it and racing off, you 

are mistaken. So we need landfills; we have to have them. We appreciate the EPA and ADEM and their diligence there. 

I particularly want to commend the TVA’s response. They have 

been frank, they have been honest. They have never denied that 

it was a tragedy; they have never denied that it was something to 

correct; and they have never denied that they wanted to prevent 

this in the future. It is a refreshing response from a large corporate 

entity in America, and I think it changes the tone. 

I will say to Mr. Churchman, we have a lot in common. I am familiar with Louisiana College and I might say that I was a Boy 

Scout as well. I am a board certified radiation oncologist, very conVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:34 Sep 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\54020.0 KAYLA
29 

cerned with heavy metal; I am a cell biologist and a physicist. I 

have been monitoring this very, very carefully, so I am very, very 

tuned in to what may be situations that may cause malignant disease. I was interested in your bio, however, on Twitter. My bio is 

I’m a tree-hugging, dirt-worshiping, water-loving climate protecting 

fool. So you may bring a little bias here; I am not sure, just my 

opinion on that. 

Mr. CHURCHMAN. As I think everybody on the Committee probably would also bring their own biases as well. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I hear you. But I think it is good to have differences of opinion. Madam Chair has encouraged it and we are 

going to live in a part of the transitioning into sensitivity to the 

environment, so we appreciate your. But we also appreciate the 

corporate response, and I think our environmental groups need to 

understand that there are some very, very good and sensitive people running our companies in America today, and they are not 

looking for a shortcut. 

So we appreciate the panel testifying today. 

Mr. Turner, 95 percent graduation rate. We ought to accept that 

as a standard for the rest of Alabama. Appreciate that. 

Madam Chair, I return my time. Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Westmoreland. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Commissioner Turner, is this a—does Marion own this landfill or 

is this a privately owned landfill? 

Mr. TURNER. No, this is a privately owned landfill. Perry County 

receives what we will call a tipping fee from them on the per tonnage amount of deposits that are left in the landfill. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. So it is a privately owned landfill and you 

just receive a tipping fee. Do you share that tipping fee with other 

cities surrounding there? 

Mr. TURNER. Yes, sir. We are giving them an opportunity to be good stewards. We have given $400,000 to the two municipalities 

and $550,000 to our school district, and that will leave us roughly 

about $2 million in the county coffins that we will use to spur on 

economic development in our county. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Churchman, I kind of take the opposite 

argue with you. I would think that there would be a lot of communities such as Commissioner Turners wanting to get that revenue 

that had some facility. 

Mr. Kilgore, how was it determined that this waste was going to 

go to Alabama? How was that determined? Because I am sure 

there are other sites closer that would have maybe enjoyed some 

of this revenue benefit from this. 

Mr. KILGORE. We did a request for bids and we got bid packages 

in. But you said closer. There were not other permitted facilities 

closer than the Perry County; we had one in Georgia and one in 

Alabama that wound up being the finalists for this, and we selected 

the Perry County after an investigation to look at their permits, 

talk to EPA and ADEM, and see that everything was in order. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. So Georgia did have a facility? We have a 

good football team too, but was it just a straight bid situation is 

the reason that Perry, Alabama got it? 

30 

Mr. KILGORE. I don’t know the exact answer on that, but it was 

not just cost; it was quality and the permitting, so we did a bid 

evaluation and I do know that cost wasn’t the only thing there. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Okay. And could you just let me know just 

what those qualifications may have been? Mr. Kilgore, one other 

thing. Are you doing the same bidding for removal of this, as far 

as who is actually removing the ash from the site? 

Mr. KILGORE. We do have a contractor there and TVA personnel 

are working on that. There is only one rail line out, so basically we 

had to do a negotiated contract with Norfolk Southern; they are 

hauling all of the ash out, but we do have another contractor that 

is helping us load those trains. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Meiburg, I will ask you the same question. What did the EPA—what kind of input did you have into it 

as far as what type of site this would go to? 

Mr. MEIBURG. Well, we had to look at it from the standpoint primarily of the technical side. There was a landfill, an appropriately 

constructed landfill that had the requisite liners, the leachate collection and financial responsibility and good compliance record, so 

those were the main criteria that we applied. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. So did you—— 

Mr. MEIBURG. And I will add one other thing, which is that one 

of the critical criteria turned out to be—and I think this was very 

much in TVA’s consideration as well—was the access to rail transport, because the alternative to that would have been a tremendous 

amount of truck traffic in Eastern Tennessee, which would have 

had all kinds of adverse environmental impacts. So the rail access 

was very important. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Sure. And I can appreciate that. But what 

I am asking, I guess, is EPA did have some input into what the 

request for bid would have been as far as what that facility would 

have had to have been like. 

Mr. MEIBURG. EPA specified in Section 45 of the Order as to 

what characteristics any offsite disposal landfill had to meet. Beyond that, the conduct of the bidding process was TVA, once the 

selection was made, it could not be actually transported until EPA 

had approved that. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And one final question just to clarify this 

as far as what Mr. Churchman is inferring. EPA has looked at this 

as far as being classified as a hazardous waste and, just for the 

record, EPA feels very comfortable that this can be disposed of in 

a suitable, specified solid waste landfill environment? 

Mr. MEIBURG. EPA is very comfortable with where this particular material is going. We specified that it had to be in compliance with the laws in place for handling this material, and this 

material meets that test. 

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, sir. 

I yield back, Madam. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you 

very much for this hearing. I know that this is, I believe, the third 

of the hearings that I have attended on this issue. 

31 

I want to just clarify for the record, Mr. Churchman. Your organization, the Alabama Environmental Council, have you, as the Executive Director, or any members of your board contacted Mr. 

Turner or any legislator in Perry County asking for a deal to be 

cut and then you would go away? 

Mr. CHURCHMAN. No, ma’am. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. And you are a nonprofit organization and you are not required by law to disclose your donors 

because you have a First Amendment right to freedom of association. So to the extent that you disclose those, you are doing that 

voluntarily, isn’t that correct? 

Mr. CHURCHMAN. That is correct. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kilgore, let me just turn to you, because in late November 

there was a high hazard coal ash dam in West Virginia that was 

discovered by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection to be in a condition that was similar to the Kingston pond 

that failed. It was given an unsatisfactory rating by the agency and 

an order to investigate. It appears now that the failure in Kingston 

may not be the result of totally rare circumstances. Do you agree 

that we may find additional dams that have a potential to fail similarly? 

Mr. KILGORE. I am not totally familiar with that particular incident. I have been following all the other ones that have made the 

news recently and obviously there is a lot more attention on those. 

We have looked at ours and I would say yes is the simple answer 

to your question. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. And I would appreciate very much— 

I mean, I looked at the questions that were outlined in Mr. Churchman’s testimony, and to which he responded; they were his own 

questions. I found them very thoughtful and interesting, and I 

would appreciate a response on the record from you, Mr. Kilgore, 

as to each one of those 11 questions. I think the Chairwoman will 

probably hold the record open for some period of time that would 

allow you to get those responses in to the Subcommittee. Thank 

you. 

I wonder, Mr. Meiburg, in your testimony you note that the EPA 

Region 4 has a ‘‘exceptional working relationship with the State of 

Tennessee’’ and I would just note that the State has 147 major 

sources with clean water permits, and of these 110, or 75 percent 

of them, are in significant noncompliance in 2008 according to 

TVA’s own numbers. That is a sizable portion of Tennessee’s facilities that are on EPA’s enforcement watch list. 

So I wonder if you could just tell the Subcommittee how Region 

4 can have such an exceptional relationship when so many major 

facilities are polluting the waters and a sizable number have not 

had any enforcement action taken against them, and wonder what 

it is about that exceptional relationship that might in fact get in 

the way of EPA being able to do its job properly in terms of oversight and enforcement? 

Mr. MEIBURG. A couple of points on that. One is that the reference in the testimony, of course, is to our relationship with respect to the management of the incident at Kingston itself. We do 

exercise an oversight responsibility, which we take very seriously, 

32 

with respect to the State of Tennessee on all aspects of their operation of delegated environmental programs. 

The issue you mention has been an issue across the Country, and 

the Administrator has been very clear that EPA is going to step up 

its oversight with respect to compliance and enforcement with the 

Clean Water Act. Having said that, what we find in Tennessee is 

that the numbers that you quote from come from a database which 

does not necessarily distinguish types of violations that had people 

appear on the list. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Fair. 

Mr. MEIBURG. There are at least three different kinds of things: 

there are some that are sure enough violations that we need to be 

continuing to work on; there are some that result from errors in 

data transfer between the EPA and the State of Tennessee, which 

we very much need to do; and there are some that, while all violations are of concern to us, there are some that are less significant 

than others that may be simply some data or record-keeping. So we 

do exercise a review with Tennessee, as with all the States in our 

region, to make sure that we are in fact seeing compliance with the 

environmental laws of the United States. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. And I do appreciate the leadership of 

Administrator Jackson and that she is going to step up the kind 

of oversight that I think EPA should have been exercising for some 

time. 

I have just another question for you, Commissioner Turner. I understand your concerns about moving forward with economic development. I am an environmentalist myself, so I am going to confess 

to that. But I happen to believe that it is important to try to balance environmental concerns, and particularly environmental justice concerns, with positive economic development. I don’t think 

any community, however it is situated, should have to sacrifice 

clean water and clean air because it wants economic development. 

So I would hope that you are able to reach out fully to your community. I encourage you to get a community advisory group in 

Perry County established in the same way that one was established 

in Roane County. As you know, Roane County is sending its coal 

ash to you. I would encourage the TVA, in fact, to invest in the 

same relationship in Perry County that it invested in in Roane 

County. 

I wonder, Commissioner Turner, how many public hearings have 

you held, or what kind of oversight do you exercise on the medical 

and health conditions of the community as related to the landfill 

site? 

Mr. TURNER. To our knowledge, we haven’t had anyone come 

forth and acknowledge or say that they have been sick because of 

the landfill. The thing just got there in June. You know, they act 

like it has been there for 100 years. 

Ms. EDWARDS. What is your plan, though, that is in place to 

monitor the health and well-being of the citizens of Perry County? 

Mr. TURNER. We give every citizen in our county an opportunity 

for one hour every two weeks to come before the full Commission 

and address any concerns. We have, every quarter, quarterly meetings at night to go out in the community. We don’t make them 

33 

come to Marion, we have it in Uniontown at the City Hall, right 

there. Every quarter they come with the meeting. 

We have had our first meeting; we are getting ready for our second meeting. We are doing everything we can; we did before they 

came here and we are doing it now. I don’t want to make it seem 

like we are sacrificing our citizens. I wouldn’t do that, sacrifice our 

citizens for money. We are not in the slave trade. So I want to 

make clear—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. Let me just interrupt you because my time has expired. I don’t believe that you are—I won’t even use the term. That 

is not what I was referring to. 

I will just close by saying to the Chairwoman we might want to 

explore more directly how the Perry County community can monitor effectively the health and well being of its citizens so that we 

don’t come before this Committee a year from now, two years from 

now and find, in fact, that we are seeing some of the same concerns 

that are raised in Roane County regarding the health and wellbeing and medical condition of the citizens of Roane County. I 

wouldn’t want that to happen to Perry County as a recipient community, and I think a plan needs to be in place early on to do that 

monitoring so that we have some idea of what is happening to the 

citizenry. 

And I apologize for going over my time, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. TURNER. Ms. Chairwoman, could I mention that we do have 

a committee already set up, an environmental committee that is already set up that meets on a quarterly basis. It is a five member 

committee made up of citizens from each one of the commission districts that meet regularly and receive any complaints from the 

landfill, whether it is dealing with coal ash or household garbage. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you to the entire panel. 

Let me ask Mr. Turner one final question. I did have some people come by my office and ask if it was possible to get some of this 

for making highway materials. I didn’t know, but I did refer them 

to TVA. If you were approached to sell some of this or get rid of 

some of this coal ash, are you amenable? 

Mr. TURNER. It does not belong to the county, so they would have 

to deal with Arrowhead Landfill about that; the County Commission couldn’t make that decision. But if we could make that decision, I certainly would sell it if it is used in highway material. Concrete now is used in granite. I spent thousands of dollars for granite cabinet tops in my house and I have coal ash in them. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. In follow-up, Mr. Meiburg, is that one of the considerations? My understanding is that a significant percentage of 

this stuff is going into roads and into various uses. If it is declared 

a hazardous waste, would we not have more of this type of problem 

in having to come up with landfills and all of the related possibly 

leaching and that regard, as opposed to what so far has been demonstrated to be, to the best of my knowledge, a very safe, where 

once it is part of the road or whatever, we really don’t have the 

problem of it leaching into this and that? I hope that will be a consideration, because what percentage are we talking about, 30, 40 

percent more that we will have to deal with as far as finding an 

application, a landfill or whatever? 

34 

Mr. MEIBURG. Congressman Boozman, I know this speaks again 

to the prospective rule with respect to the future management of 

coal combustion residuals, and what I probably can say is that EPA 

is very aware of the beneficial use aspect with respect to coal ash, 

and I can assure you that that is a consideration. There will be 

considerable discussion of that in the proposal, about the beneficial 

use of the material. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much to the panel. 

Thanks to the members. The meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

35 


Insert offset folio 1 here 54020.001
36 


Insert offset folio 2 here 54020.002
37 


Insert offset folio 3 here 54020.003
38 


Insert offset folio 4 here 54020.004
39 


Insert offset folio 5 here 54020.005
40 


Insert offset folio 6 here 54020.006
41 


Insert offset folio 7 here 54020.007
42 


Insert offset folio 8 here 54020.008
43 


Insert offset folio 9 here 54020.009
44 


Insert offset folio 10 here 54020.010
45 


Insert offset folio 11 here 54020.011
46 


Insert offset folio 12 here 54020.012
47 


Insert offset folio 13 here 54020.013
48 


Insert offset folio 14 here 54020.014
49 


Insert offset folio 15 here 54020.015
50 


Insert offset folio 16 here 54020.016
51 


Insert offset folio 17 here 54020.017
52 


Insert offset folio 18 here 54020.018
53 


Insert offset folio 19 here 54020.019
54 


Insert offset folio 20 here 54020.020
55 


Insert offset folio 21 here 54020.021
56 


Insert offset folio 22 here 54020.022
57 


Insert offset folio 23 here 54020.023
58 


Insert offset folio 24 here 54020.024
59 


Insert offset folio 25 here 54020.025
60 


Insert offset folio 26 here 54020.026
61 


Insert offset folio 27 here 54020.027
62 


Insert offset folio 28 here 54020.028
63 


Insert offset folio 29 here 54020.029
64 


Insert offset folio 30 here 54020.030
65 


Insert offset folio 31 here 54020.031
66 


Insert offset folio 32 here 54020.032
67 


Insert offset folio 33 here 54020.033
68 


Insert offset folio 34 here 54020.034
69 


Insert offset folio 35 here 54020.035
70 


Insert offset folio 36 here 54020.036
71 


Insert offset folio 37 here 54020.037
72 


Insert offset folio 38 here 54020.038
73 


Insert offset folio 39 here 54020.039
74 


Insert offset folio 40 here 54020.040
75 


Insert offset folio 41 here 54020.041
76 


Insert offset folio 42 here 54020.042
77 


Insert offset folio 43 here 54020.043
78 


Insert offset folio 44 here 54020.044
79 


Insert offset folio 45 here 54020.045
80 


Insert offset folio 46 here 54020.046
81 


Insert offset folio 47 here 54020.047
82 


Insert offset folio 48 here 54020.048
83 


Insert offset folio 49 here 54020.049
84 


Insert offset folio 50 here 54020.050
85 


Insert offset folio 51 here 54020.051
86 


Insert offset folio 52 here 54020.052
87 


Insert offset folio 53 here 54020.053
88 


Insert offset folio 54 here 54020.054
89 


Insert offset folio 55 here 54020.055
90 


Insert offset folio 56 here 54020.056
91 


Insert offset folio 57 here 54020.057
92 


Insert offset folio 58 here 54020.058
93 


Insert offset folio 59 here 54020.059
94 


Insert offset folio 60 here 54020.060
95 


Insert offset folio 61 here 54020.061
96 


Insert offset folio 62 here 54020.062
97 


Insert offset folio 63 here 54020.063
98 


Insert offset folio 64 here 54020.064
99 


Insert offset folio 65 here 54020.065
100 


Insert offset folio 66 here 54020.066
101 


Insert offset folio 67 here 54020.067
102 


Insert offset folio 68 here 54020.068
103 


Insert offset folio 69 here 54020.069
104 


Insert offset folio 70 here 54020.070
105 


Insert offset folio 71 here 54020.071
106 


Insert offset folio 72 here 54020.072
107 


Insert offset folio 73 here 54020.073
108 


Insert offset folio 74 here 54020.074
109 


Insert offset folio 75 here 54020.075
110 


Insert offset folio 76 here 54020.076
111 


Insert offset folio 77 here 54020.077
112 


Insert offset folio 78 here 54020.078
113 


Insert offset folio 79 here 54020.079
114 


Insert offset folio 80 here 54020.080
115 


Insert offset folio 81 here 54020.081
116 


Insert offset folio 82 here 54020.082
117 


Insert offset folio 83 here 54020.083
118 


Insert offset folio 84 here 54020.084
119 


Insert offset folio 85 here 54020.085
120 


Insert offset folio 86 here 54020.086
121 


Insert offset folio 87 here 54020.087
122 


Insert offset folio 88 here 54020.088
123 


Insert offset folio 89 here 54020.089
124 


Insert offset folio 90 here 54020.090
125 


Insert offset folio 91 here 54020.091
126 


Insert offset folio 92 here 54020.092
127 


Insert offset folio 93 here 54020.093
128 


Insert offset folio 94 here 54020.094
129 


Insert offset folio 95 here 54020.095
130 


Insert offset folio 96 here 54020.096
131 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 97 here 54020.097