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

74–859 2012

DRINKING WATER AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS 

OF COAL COMBUSTION WASTE DISPOSAL 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 10, 2009 

Serial No. 111–88 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

(II) 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

BARON HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachussetts, opening statement ................................................... 1 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 3 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 95 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 97 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 99 

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, prepared statement ................................................................. 103 

WITNESSES

Robyn Whitaker-Pierce, Resident of Chesapeake, Virginia ................................. 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Gayle Queen, Resident of Gambrills, Maryland .................................................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Raymond Hunt, Jr., Resident of Waterflow, New Mexico .................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Carla Hunt, Resident of Waterflow, New Mexico ................................................. 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Lisa Evans, Senior Administrative Counsel, Earthjustice ................................... 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 139 

Mary A. Fox, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Professor, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg 

School of Public Health ........................................................................................ 61 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63 

Ken Ladwig, Senior Program Manager, Electric Power Research Institute ....... 68 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 70 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 153 

Donald McGraw, M.D., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ................................................ 76 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 78 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 167 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Letter of June 18, 2009, from Members of Congress to U.S. EPA, submitted 

by Mr. Shimkus .................................................................................................... 105 

Letter of July 17, 2009, from Illinois EPA to U.S. EPA, submitted by Mr. 

Shimkus ................................................................................................................ 111 

Letter of October 1, 2009, from City of Springfield, Illinois to U.S. Conference 

of Mayors, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ............................................................... 113 

Letter of April 10, 2009, from Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection, submitted by Mr. Doyle .................................................................... 116 

Letter of July 28, 2009, from Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, submitted by Mr. Doyle ............................................................................................. 118 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
Page

VI 

Resolution by Environmental Council of the States, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ......................................................................................................................... 122 

Letter of April 1, 2009, from Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste 

Management Officials to U.S. EPA, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ..................... 125 

Letter of September 19, 2009, from Unions for Jobs and the Environment 

to U.S. EPA, submitted by Mr. Shimkus ........................................................... 134 

Letter of November 17, 2009, from U.S. Chamber of Commerce to U.S. EPA, 

submitted by Mr. Shimkus .................................................................................. 136 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
(1) 

DRINKING WATER AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF COAL COMBUSTION WASTE DISPOSAL 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m., in Room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Markey 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Markey, Doyle, McNerney, 

Matheson, Barrow, Upton, Stearns, Whitfield, Shimkus, Pitts and 

Scalise. 

Also present: Representatives Sarbanes and Forbes. 

Staff present: Greg Dotson, Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; Tracy Sheppard, Senior Counsel; Melissa Bez, Professional 

Staff Member; Caitlin Haberman, Special Assistant; Peter 

Ketcham-Colwill, Special Assistant; Jackie Cohen, Counsel; Karen 

Lightfoot, Communications Director, Senior Policy Advisor; Lindsay 

Vidal, Special Assistant; Mitchell Smiley, Special Assistant; Jerry 

Couri, Republican Professional Staff; Andrea Spring, Republican 

Professional Staff; and Garrett Golding, Republican Legislative Analyst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. Good morning, and we welcome you all to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, and this hearing is called 

to order. 

Almost 1 year ago, on December 22, 2008, hundreds of acres of 

land in Tennessee were buried in toxic sludge after an accidental 

breach at a disposal pond at a TVA plant. The breach resulted in 

the release of 1.1 billion gallons of the byproducts of burning coal. 

It covered more than 300 acres of land in a gray, poisonous muck, 

damaging homes and property and tainting nearby rivers. This 

toxic stew contained high levels of arsenic, selenium, mercury and 

other dangerous substances. It was quite literally a poisonous lump 

of coal dumped on a nearby community just 3 days before Christmas last year. 

Exposure to these pollutants can wreak havoc on human health 

including increased risk of cancer, birth defects, reproductive problems, gastrointestinal illnesses, damage to the nervous system and 

kidneys, and learning disabilities to children. They have also been 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

associated with acute symptoms of hair loss, severe muscle cramps, 

nausea, joint pain, confusion and blistering skin. The cleanup for 

the catastrophic event that occurred in eastern Tennessee is estimated to cost more than $1 billion. It completely destroyed three 

homes, displaced all nearby residents, crumpled docks and wiped 

out roads. 

The Kingston catastrophe caused the media, the public and the 

Congress to focus attention on EPA’s longstanding failure to promulgate meaningful regulations for the disposal of this material. 

Despite the litany of damage from coal combustion waste, current 

regulations have been left largely to the States resulting in widespread inconsistencies in waste management. 

In the wake of the TVA disaster, I wrote two letters to the EPA 

addressing the lack of national policy to regulate and monitor coal 

combustion waste and its impact on health and the environment. 

A decade after announcing that national regulations were needed, 

the EPA finally said in March of this year that it would propose 

regulations for coal waste disposal by the end of 2009. Every State 

in the Nation currently gets at least some of its electricity from 

coal-fired plants. Each year these power plants along with industrial facilities produce approximately 130 million tons of coal combustion waste. Every day in almost every State, coal ash is dumped 

into ponds, dry landfills and abandoned mines. Accidental breaches 

are not the only threats associated with the management of coal 

combustion waste. The slow leakage of the toxins the waste contains even when dumped into dry but unlined storage sites has 

poisoned water supplies, damaged ecosystems and jeopardized public health. And what oozes into the soil and water are dangerous 

substances such as arsenic, cadmium, selenium and mercury. In 

fact, the National Academy of Sciences has identified 24 potentially 

hazardous metals in coal ash. As EPA moves forward with its regulations, it must ensure that public health is protected for all disposal practices, not just the type of wet impoundment ponds that 

led to the Tennessee disaster. 

The good news is, that these materials can be recycled. In fact, 

industry estimates that 45 percent of coal ash is currently being 

beneficially reused. However, not all methods of reuse are equally 

beneficial when it comes to protecting public health. For example, 

using coal fly ash to make concrete doesn’t allow the dangerous 

chemicals to leach out and also likely to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions compared to other means of producing concrete. But 

other so-called beneficial uses are less protective of public health. 

Using the material as filler for some road embankments or, as we 

will hear today, to build golf courses can lead to leakage of the very 

same poisons into the drinking water. EPA should encourage the 

beneficial uses that truly do protect public health and derive economic benefit to the industry while restricting those that have the 

potential to cause economic or physical harm to nearby communities. That is what the subject of today’s hearing will be. We look 

forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Mr. MARKEY. Let me now turn and recognize the gentleman from 

Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this important hearing on drinking water and public health impacts on 

coal combustion waste disposal. 

As you have already stated, 50 percent of our electricity, in fact, 

a little bit more than that, is produced by coal in the United States 

and 92 percent of electricity in my home State of Kentucky is produced by coal. I definitely believe it is important that we continue 

to be able to use coal in the United States for two main reasons. 

First of all, it provides cheap electricity which creates jobs and 

makes us more competitive in the global marketplace, and second 

of all, it is our most abundant resource here in the United States 

since we have about a 250-year reserve of coal. 

Now, unfortunately, since the 111th Congress began, many, we 

believe, have been targeting coal specifically for the purpose of 

making it more difficult to burn coal in the United States in the 

long term. I think one of the objectives of cap and trade is certainly 

to make it more difficult to use coal, the Obama Administration recently in its endangerment finding to give them an opportunity to 

regulate CO2 emissions which they had never done before. We have 

seen that it is much more difficult to get permitting to burn coal. 

And then we know that in Copenhagen that coal is a principal target as they discuss climate change issues. 

Now, I don’t think any of us are opposed to examining newer 

methods that will allow coal to be used in a cleaner way and we 

are totally supportive of that, and I know that today we have witnesses in the first panel who have experienced some health problems. They will tell us about what it is from. And obviously we 

want to do everything that we can do to protect health. But as the 

chairman has already indicated, there are many beneficial uses in 

building materials and as structural fill for building sites using 

this material. And I would also point out that EPA has looked at 

this issue repeatedly about whether or not coal ash should be listed 

as a hazardous material. States already regulate this material, and 

we are willing to work with the federal government to regulate this 

material, but if you are going to try to classify it as a hazardous 

material, then there is going to be a major issue on that because 

when you burn a material at over 3,000 degrees temperature, it is 

very difficult to see how the residue can be very hazardous, and I 

might say that EPA looked at this in 1993 and determined not to 

regulate. They looked at it in 1999 and decided not to regulate. 

They looked at it in 2000 and decided not to regulate. And then 

back in 1980 when Congress first passed the Bevel amendment, 

they determined that this was not a hazardous product. 

So I think that it is very important that we have this hearing 

but I think it is also important that we proceed in a balanced way 

because if America is going to continue to create jobs and if America is going to continue to be competitive in the global marketplace, 

then there is not any way that we can eliminate the use of fossil 

fuel the way Albert Gore and others are suggesting that we do. 

So this type of hearing is vitally important because it gives us 

an opportunity to look at it in a balanced approach. We look forVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:52 Oct 20, 2012 Jkt 074859 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A859.XXX A859

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
4 

ward to the testimony of those witnesses on our first panel as well 

as all witnesses today. And with that, I would yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this important 

hearing. I am going to waive my opening statement and look forward to hearing from the witnesses. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time will be preserved. The Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow. 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will waive opening. 

Mr. MARKEY. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this important hearing on the disposal of coal waste, and we are going to 

need coal for a long time to come so we better figure out how to 

use it properly and how to dispose of the waste. 

Unfortunately, some of the waste products have caused major 

health problems, and I thank the witnesses for coming forward 

today to discuss this. I know it is difficult to come out here and sit 

in front of a panel, so you deserve credit for that. I know there are 

some good ways to do it. As the chairman mentioned, encasing it 

in concrete is an excellent opportunity for us to use that in a beneficial way but we do need to be careful about using it in other 

ways. I look forward to the testimony today to make some decisions 

and to help the EPA in their regulatory process. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate the 

hearing today and appreciate the witnesses on both panels for coming in, and we will hear issues that affected the lives of individuals. 

I always also like to highlight how what we do here in Washington 

affects other people’s lives, and I always have historically put up 

this poster of 1,200 miners who lost their jobs last time we enacted 

clean air regulations. This isn’t just one mine in my district. In 

Ohio, Ohio lost 35,000 coal-mining jobs. So we better tread carefully on how we balance the environmental risk with what we do 

see, and I agree with my colleague from Kentucky, an all-out attack on coal mining, coal use in this country and so I will also be 

focusing on the impacts to these guys who come from real families, 

real communities and where small communities in rural parts of 

my State were destroyed because of the attack on coal. 

I also would like, Mr. Chairman, to ask unanimous consent for 

three letters to be submitted in the record. I know you will want 

to look at those. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The first letter is from 74 Members of Congress to 

Lisa Jackson at the EPA regarding our position against listing coal 

combustion byproducts as hazardous. In fact, there are at least 15 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
5 

members of this committee on this letter on both sides of the aisle. 

This letter is an original letter by our good friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Tim Holden. The second is from the Illinois EPA. In it, 

they state, ‘‘Based on our past experience, it is our position that 

classifying coal combustion waste as a hazardous waste is not warranted and would place unnecessary barriers on its beneficial use 

and reuse in the future. We feel our approaching of regulating coal 

combustion waste under the non-hazardous solid-waste regulations 

is protective of both human health and the environment and is an 

effective and logical way to safely manage coal combustion waste,’’ 

and that is from the Illinois EPA. The last letter is from the Office 

of Public Utilities in the city of Springfield, Illinois, which is partially in my district. In it, they say, ‘‘Listing coal combustion byproducts as hazardous waste would have dramatic adverse consequences for the city of Springfield.’’ That is our State capital. And 

that the CWLP, which is the city water, light and power, due— 

‘‘City of Springfield CWLP due to the increase in cost associated 

with the managing and disposing of coal combustion byproducts as 

well as a lack of availability of coal combustion byproducts for construction purposes.’’ They go on to associate the cost of CCBs were 

listed as hazardous. They identify four locations as facilities that 

are permitted to receive RCRA hazardous waste. These amounts 

reflect treatment and transportation costs, and we have in the millions of dollars. What does this mean? We better tread very, very 

carefully. When this country is in one of the worst economic periods 

that I can remember, to have another attack on good jobs in this 

country is unwarranted. So I would caution us to go carefully, Mr. 

Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to participate briefly here. 

Mr. MARKEY. I am sorry. I just want to remind you that the gentleman is not on the subcommittee, so let me recognize the remaining members of the subcommittee. The gentleman from Florida, 

Mr. Stearns, is recognized. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, when I lived in Massachusetts, I had a coal-burning 

furnace to try and keep my house warm because it was so expensive, and then I had a wood stove. You know, when I finished, I 

used to take the coal ash and put it on my garden, and every year 

that garden worked just so remarkably well. It worked to the benefit of the garden and me because we had fresh vegetables. And I 

used to take the ash from the wood too and I would put it in the 

garden, so I would just say to the chairman and to the others that 

I think there is some redeeming value to some of this coal ash. 

I note, Mr. Chairman, that the EPA Administrator Jackson is not 

here to testify, and it would be very helpful to have her here to answer some of the questions about this issue. As I understand it, for 

three decades EPA has resisted subjecting this coal ash to federal 

hazardous waste management regulation, and more specifically in 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
6 

1993 and 2000, the EPA conducted two regulatory determinations 

on the management and use of coal combustion products which determined that, ‘‘in conducting these two regulatory determinations, 

EPA did not identify any,’’ let me repeat, ‘‘any environmental harm 

associated with the beneficial use of coal combustion products’’ and 

concluded in both determinations that these materials do not, do 

not warrant regulation as a hazardous waste material. So it is 

pretty clear that the EPA has a strong message on this and the 

EPA is not here. So I think, Mr. Chairman, it would be helpful for 

the committee if you explain why the EPA Administrator is not 

here to help us further explain her remarks on this coal ash. 

Imposing a hazardous waste designation on this coal ash will do 

little to prevent the situation that occurred at the TVA’s Kingston, 

Tennessee, plant and will only force greater landfilling of it while 

eliminating the environmental benefits of using coal ash. So I 

think, Mr. Chairman, in light of my opening statement, we still 

have some questions to ask. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman 

from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the impacts of coal combustion waste disposal. 

While I strongly support measures that protect the safety of our 

Nation’s drinking water, I am concerned about the negative implications that could result from the regulation of coal combustion 

waste by EPA as a hazardous waste instead of under RCRA’s subtitle D non-hazardous waste authority. This issue involves a very 

critical component to our country’s overall energy policy, and an 

EPA decision to regulate coal combustion waste as hazardous 

waste could be devastating to our Nation’s economy. 

Mr. Chairman, as we discuss this issue of energy policy in general, I also want to take this opportunity to express my serious concerns about recent decisions from the current Administration and 

the direction that this Congress is taking regarding our energy policy. While we await EPA’s final ruling on how they plan to regulate 

coal combustion waste. I also have serious concerns about the 

EPA’s recent announcement regarding their proposed regulation of 

greenhouse gases. The EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions would result in the largest power grab of any United States 

agency over our national economy. The threat of heavy-handed 

EPA regulation or a cap-and-trade energy tax will result in millions of American jobs being shipped overseas to countries like 

China and India, who don’t have the current environmental regulations that we have today. In my home State of Louisiana, thousands of jobs will be lost under a cap-and-trade energy tax, and as 

a matter of fact, there is a company in south Louisiana that is currently basing their decision to locate in either Brazil or Louisiana 

in part on what Washington does on emissions regulations not to 

mention the Climate Gate scandal, which has not only proven that 

there have been efforts to silence those scientists who present evidence to the contrary of global warming alarmists would have our 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
7 

world believe about climate change, but as we have seen, the 

science on climate change was actually corrupted in an effort to 

help make their case. It seems, Mr. Chairman, that this Administration and those running Congress will stop at nothing to pursue 

this liberal agenda that is killing our economy, resulting in thousands of dollars in higher electric bills for American families and 

small businesses and shipping millions more American jobs overseas. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great. The gentleman’s time has expired. All time 

for opening statements of members has expired. So what we will 

do is, we will ask our witnesses to come up to the panel, if they 

would, and I would ask Representative Forbes if he would to come 

over to introduce our first witness. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the 

members of the subcommittee for giving me the courtesy to join 

you briefly to introduce one of the witnesses on your panel, and I 

would also like to thank you for holding this very important hearing. 

This is an important hearing for at least two reasons. First, 

Members of Congress need to hear from Americans whose daily 

lives have been interrupted because of uncertainty surrounding a 

basic need like safe drinking water. At some point today rain or 

shine, a family from my district will drive to their local church, 

gather around a spigot and bottle up as much water as they need 

to survive the weekend. Over the past 19 months, hundreds of constituents from my district have not been able to drink a single 

glass of water from their wells without fear of consuming poisonous 

toxins. They have not been able to bathe their children without 

pausing to wonder whether they will pass on a deadly disease, and 

they have not been able to finance the education of their loved ones 

because their equity lines of credit on their homes have been devastated. 

The second reason I believe this hearing is important is because 

the members of this committee must be made aware that irrespective of any new coal ash regulations, the Environmental Protection 

Agency is already doing a disservice to our constituents by providing contradictory test results to some of the residents and by 

withholding hazard scores that could highlight dangers threatening 

the health and welfare of the citizens we are supposed to protect. 

Yesterday, I sent a follow-up request to the EPA requesting immediate access to a hazard ranking system evaluation and score for 

the Battlefield Golf Club in Chesapeake. This information would 

provide families and constituents from my district an understanding of the nature and severity of any toxic contamination on 

or near their personal property. To date, it has been withheld by 

the EPA as a part of the deliberative process. 

Mr. Chairman, if the federal government continues to deliberate 

for another 18 months, constituents from my district will continue 

to live with uncertainty about their drinking water, their health 

and their homes. If the Congress and this Administration are truly 

committed to transparency and accountability, certainly we can do 

better. But rather than requiring you to continue to listen to more 

words from me at this time, I would like to introduce you to someone who can tell you what it means to live with uncertainty about 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
8 

the safety of her family’s drinking water. Mrs. Robyn WhitakerPierce is a long-time resident of my hometown of Chesapeake and 

her family owns a home near the Battlefield Golf Course, which 

was built atop a foundation that includes coal fly ash. Her family 

has had to live with the uncertainty as to whether her drinking 

water is safe for many months, and she has a compelling story to 

share. Mrs. Pierce, I want to thank for you for taking time to be 

here today and I know the committee looks forward to your testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to introduce Mrs. 

Pierce. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Congressman Forbes, and Mrs. 

Whitaker-Pierce, whenever you feel comfortable, please begin. 

STATEMENTS OF ROBYN WHITAKER-PIERCE, RESIDENT OF 

CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA; GAYLE QUEEN, RESIDENT OF 

GAMBRILLS, MARYLAND; RAYMOND HUNT, JR., RESIDENT 

OF WATERFLOW, NEW MEXICO; AND CARLA HUNT, RESIDENT OF WATERFLOW, NEW MEXICO 

STATEMENT OF ROBYN WHITAKER-PIERCE 

Mrs. WHITAKER-PIERCE. Good morning. Thank you for your time. 

In 2001, our local utility company, Dominion Virginia Power, orchestrated an aggressive campaign convincing area residents and 

local city council that a golf course constructed with coal ash was 

not only safe but a great benefit for our neighborhood. Residents 

and local government were assured on numerous occasions and in 

various forums that the use of such material posed no threat to our 

community, and that any and all safeguards would be adhered to, 

and quote fly ash in this specific use was ‘‘safe as dirt.’’ 

We now know differently thanks to the diligent work of a local 

newspaper reporter, Robert McCabe. Mr. McCabe reported tests of 

monitoring wells on a golf course sculpted with 1.5 million tons of 

fly ash yielded alarmingly high levels of toxins in groundwater. All 

of the homes in the immediate area rely on private wells as our 

water source. Immediately the local city government ordered area 

wells tested and requested the EPA’s help in discerning the potential risks to our community. 

Nineteen months later, my home has been tested multiple times 

by three different agencies including the EPA and results are inconsistent and confusing. Lead levels have been detected in excess 

of three times the EPA’s action standard, and on one such occasion 

water tests were done on the same day by three firms. Two of the 

three detected elevated lead levels yet a call from the EPA’s representative said ‘‘Good news. There is no lead in your water.’’ 

You can imagine my alarm as a mother when the EPA representative asked about young children in my home and their ages, and 

later that day, I received a call from a doctor at the Centers for 

Disease Control urging me to get the children’s lead level tested. 

The EPA continues to test my water every few months and I get 

those results but to the layperson they are confusing and I feel as 

in the dark now as I was when all this started. For example, just 

Tuesday, 2 days ago, an EPA representative came to my home to 

continue another water test. It turns out that all of the tests that 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
9 

have been conducted inside my home have been done at the only 

sink with the only dedicated filter, auxiliary filter—let me put it 

that way—and is used least in our home. Consequently, all of the 

data that they have collected to this point is not a true representation of our exposure as the water we brush our teeth with and 

bathe with has yet to be evaluated. 

How did this happen? For 5 years, hundreds of truckloads of coal 

ash were dumped daily in our community. We have since learned 

that those same truck drivers and were required to have haz-mat 

licenses, were wearing masks and protective clothing yet our children unknowingly played outside amongst this dangerous dust. 

Neighbors recall coming home and finding layers of gray chalky 

residue on vehicles and pool surfaces. None of my neighbors had 

any inkling of the dangers we were being exposed to. Dominion did 

but we didn’t. 

We now know that experts warn of the dangers of heavy metal 

toxins leaching from coal ash when exposed to water. Yet coal ash 

was spread over a 220-acre site in our backyards in a region with 

a notoriously high water table, I think we have some pictures. Ladies and gentlemen, this is someone’s yard, and please understand 

that this is just a small area but boy, if you could flip over to the 

next picture, that is my street. We have recreational boating every 

time a storm comes through to our neighborhood. Please explain to 

me how it is that coal ash, no liners, was thrown into my backyard 

in an area like this, and this is not a one-time occurrence. Our 

streets and yards are underwater when storms come, but even 

after Dominion Virginia Power commissioned feasibility studies 

that discouraged using fly ash as a construction material, they 

pushed on. Permits for a septic system on the golf course location 

were denied by the health department due to the high water table, 

yet that 1.5 million tons of fly ash was dumped on the same site, 

and Dominion pushed on. 

Just 50 miles from Chesapeake, between 1957 and 1974, fly ash 

from Dominion’s Yorktown power generating station was disposed 

of in four abandoned burrow and gravel pits. This area later was 

designated by our own EPA as the Chisman Creek Superfund site. 

Even in light of this previous debacle, Dominion pushed on in 

Chesapeake. 

The reverberation from this lack of regulation has been enormous. Numerous families have recently been diagnosed with cancer, asthma and autoimmune diseases, not to mention our fear for 

our children’s future health. Are these illnesses related to dust and 

water exposure? It may take years for the effects of our exposure 

to this toxic waste dump to manifest themselves. 

Since May of 2008, my family and other families in our neighborhood have not used their tap water to cook or drink. We have been 

reduced to traveling to a municipal cistern where two to three 

times per week we fill empty gallon jugs with water to bring back 

home for our use. Most of us still bathe and brush our teeth with 

the tap water. What other alternative do we have, and who is there 

to provide for our safety? 

The financial ramifications are devastating. As a professional realtor, I can assure you that as long as the specter of fly ash looms 

over our community, our houses will not sell. We are literally held 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
10 

hostage in our homes not at the barrel of a gun but by the cesspool 

of poisons in our back yards. 

We have retired military veterans who have proudly served our 

country for 20-plus years. They want to move home but they can’t 

because no one will buy their house. Elderly couples who have lost 

a spouse and cannot keep up with their homes want and need to 

downsize but they cannot. My husband has been a self-employed 

electrical contractor for over 25 years. The equity in our home is 

our retirement. We have been wiped out. There is no equity in a 

home no one will buy. How will we put our boys through college, 

and what am I going to do with my children if my husband passes 

away? One family in our neighborhood cannot qualify for financial 

aid for their child’s college education because they own their home, 

but it is worthless. 

My children are afraid. Their friends’ parents are concerned 

about their children’s exposure when visiting my home. An 11-yearold was at our house for a sleepover and asked me, ‘‘Miss Robyn, 

I just washed my hands. Do I need to do something about the poison water?’’ I was just excited that he washed his hands after going 

to the bathroom, frankly. 

But the Virginia health department has been no help. Virginia’s 

Department of Environmental Quality let this happen again and 

has been a colossal disappointment. The EPA, they are out to 

lunch. I have absolutely no faith in an environmental protection 

agency that continues to come to my house but until 19 months 

after coming to my house just realizes that they are testing the 

wrong tap, the tap that my children brush their teeth and bathe 

with. 

We certainly cannot expect the local power company to operate 

in a conscientious manner, if our government doesn’t help. We the 

public are stunned to find there is no regulation in place to protect 

us. The current definition of beneficial use quite frankly is an 

oxymoron. As long as coal ash remains unregulated, we the people 

have no protection from the companies who use beneficial use as 

a cover for corporate malfeasance. 

In our opinion, the only hope we have is for the far-reaching 

hand of our federal government to mandate the EPA to designate 

coal ash as a hazardous waste, to regulate its use with the strictest 

of protocols, and order that this tumor in my community gone. And 

ladies and gentlemen, until that is done, the inmates are running 

the asylum. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Whitaker-Pierce follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
11 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 18 here 74859A.001
12 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 19 here 74859A.002
13 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 20 here 74859A.003
14 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank you very much for being here. 

Let me now turn to Representative Sarbanes from Maryland to 

introduce our next witness. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to participate this morning in the hearing, 

and I thank you for the issues that you are going to be looking at. 

I have the unhappy distinction that this is now the second hearing 

that has occurred in this Congress, the first was in Natural Resources and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, in which a constituent of mine will be testifying on the effects of coal combustion 

waste, fly ash, in terms of exposure to that harmful substance. And 

I congratulate Ms. Queen, who I am going to introduce now, for her 

willingness to come forward and testify on what the effects have 

been on her and her family because they have been devastated, 

just as we have heard from Mrs. Whitaker-Pierce. 

Let me introduce Gayle Queen. Before her illness forced her to 

stop working, she was a supervisor in the family support division 

of the Department of Social Services in Glen Burnie, Maryland, 

which is in my district, where she helped young women obtain jobs, 

earn GEDs and go back to school. She moved to her present home 

in Gambrills, which is part of my district and which is where the 

witness in the Natural Resources Committee, Norm Harvey, also 

resides. Ms. Queen moved to Gambrills in 1997. She has two adult 

sons and her younger son and her three daughters living with her 

were exposed to the coal ash contamination until they moved in 

2008. The leaching of this fly ash into the drinking water supply 

is a really critical, critical issue for us to examine. 

Again, I appreciate your taking the time and resources of this 

committee to focus on it. I thank Ms. Queen for being here and we 

look forward to her testimony. 

Mr. MARKEY. Great. We thank the gentleman, and Ms. Queen, 

whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF GAYLE QUEEN 

Ms. QUEEN. Good morning, and thank you. My name is Gayle 

Queen and I live at 2401 Queen Mitchell Road in Gambrills, Maryland. My family has lived in this area for over 100 years. I am a 

56-year-old and a widow. I am no longer employed. I lived in 

Gambrills community while for over 10 years during that time 4.1 

million tons of coal ash was dumped next to my home by a power 

company. 

I am here to tell you about what happened in Gambrills, Maryland, and how the contamination of the air and drinking water has 

affected my health, the health of my family and community. I am 

here today to ask you to make sure that Congress passes legislation so that another community doesn’t have to suffer like my community. 

The coal ash was dumped into an unlined 80-foot-deep pit on 84 

acres. The coal ash went into an aquifer that supplies my community drinking water and we all breathe the dust in. Once the community was informed of the problem in 2007, we were given no 

help by the State or federal government. Later, one of the solutions 

was to hook up some of my neighbors to a fire hydrant for water. 

The hoses froze in the winter. For other people, bottled water was 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
15 

supplied and it is still supplied today. Every 2 weeks I get bottled 

water to wash, bathe, to do everything with every 2 weeks, but this 

did nothing for our past exposure both in our drinking water and 

in the air. 

The problem in Gambrills with coal ash started in the 1990s at 

another coal ash dump site when the power company dumped coal 

ash in another community. The residents of that community complained and they moved it down to the dumping area that I showed 

you over there. When it was required to have a continued 36-inchthick layer of clay at the bottom of the ash pit, the power company 

decided to dump the coal ash near my home in Gambrills. There 

was supposed to be no contact between the coal ash and the surface 

of the groundwater with a four-foot separation between the coal 

ash and the groundwater. No expense, no liner or 30-inch layer of 

clay was required at the Gambrills site. Sadly, the coal ash went 

directly into standing water and sand and gravel pit which had excavation as deep as 80 feet. There was no liner or four-foot barrier 

either. The truck drivers who dumped the coal ash dumped it without any remorse. My community was never warned of the danger 

of toxic coal ash or that it would go into our water or our lungs 

and cause injury. 

Starting in 1999 and through 2007, tests showed that arsenic, 

iron, manganese and sulfate were being leached at dangerous levels and finally these dangerous chemicals got into our private 

wells. 

I have a well at my home. I rely on my well water to provide 

cooking, drinking and bathing water. In 2007, the power company 

began providing me bottled water. Before this, I had never heard 

of coal ash or its dangers and didn’t know this toxin was being 

dumped in my community. If I had known about the dangers, I 

would have protected me and my family and community long ago. 

But we didn’t know of the dangers or even that dumping was going 

on. 

Thankfully, the power company did finally take responsibility for 

the situation by helping the community with these problems. But 

the contamination of the water remains. It should never have happened. 

Because of the coal ash contamination, I have lost both my financial security and my health. My biggest monetary asset, my home, 

is worthless. I cannot afford to pay the mortgage after the death 

of my husband in 2006, and I may have to file for bankruptcy or 

foreclosure because it is not worth anything. 

Because of the coal ash, I have trouble breathing, and I am not 

a smoker. My doctor has told me I have the lungs of an 80-yearold woman because of breathing in something, coal ash. I am terrified about my future health. My husband died in 2006 from renal 

failure, and I worry that my organs will fail, I will get cancer or 

I will get another disease because of my exposure to this ash. I also 

worry about my grandchildren. They drank the water, they bathed 

in it, they brushed their teeth. Will they get a disease, too? No one 

can tell me for sure. But I do know they never should have been 

exposed to this stuff. 

I ask that you pass legislation to protect people like me and my 

family. If the Environmental Protection Agency had the authority 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
16 

to require liners and force power companies not to dump close to 

drinking water systems, what happened to me and my community 

would not happen to anyone else. We do not have the power to protect ourselves. These companies and the State agencies are not protecting us. Coal ash contamination ruins the lives of the people in 

the community and our environment. It cannot be allowed to happen again. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Queen follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
17 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 24 here 74859A.004
18 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 25 here 74859A.005
19 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Ms. Queen, very much. 

Our final witness is Mr. Raymond George Hunt, Jr. He and his 

family have lived in Waterflow, New Mexico, as sheep ranchers for 

generations. Mr. Hunt and his family operate a small business in 

supply meat to the local Native American tribes in the Four Corners area of New Mexico. Mr. Hunt’s home is adjacent to the San 

Juan Generating Station of Public Service Company of New Mexico 

and the San Juan coal mine operated by BHP, and he and his family have been directly impacted by the coal combustion waste disposal practices at these facilities. So we welcome you, sir. Please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND HUNT, JR. 

Mr. HUNT. Thank you, sir, for letting me attend this. 

I own and operate a small family business on land my grandfather established in the early 1940s where I raised my four children. For generations we drank from the fresh water on our property without any adverse effects. Our animals grazed nearby and 

drank from the natural springs and the arroyo during the irrigation season. These water sources were healthy and very productive 

for our business, which provides meat to the Native American 

Tribes. 

In 1974, Public Service Company built the San Juan Power Plant 

and began using the dry arroyo to discharge their wastewater. 

They began burying fly ash in the nearby dry streambeds, rather 

than into lined ponds, which then leached into our underground 

aquifers, contaminating our good water with very high levels of arsenic, selenium, potassium, chromium, lead, sulfate and many others. 

By 1975, after the dumping of the coal ash began, my family 

started to get sick. I was diagnosed with heavy metal poisoning 

with extremely high arsenic, iron, lead and selenium levels. I lost 

nearly 100 pounds in less than a year. I was so weak I couldn’t 

stand or walk, and wasn’t expected to live. For several years, my 

diet consisted of steamed chicken, squash and potatoes. Any variation caused extreme diarrhea, nausea and vomiting. My stomach 

ached and I suffered constant indigestion. My wife was sick most 

of the time with similar symptoms. We had difficulty comprehending simple conversations. Her body became misshapen causing—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Take your time. 

Mrs. HUNT. My name is Carla Hunt and I am his second wife. 

If it would be all right with you, I will finish his statement. 

My wife was sick most of the time with similar symptoms. We 

both had difficulty comprehending simple conversations. Her body 

became misshapen, causing many complications that remain today. 

Our children lost weight and complained of stomachaches. They 

had constant indigestion and diarrhea. Their hair was falling out 

and unhealthy looking. Their teeth and eyesight were compromised 

to the extent they still wear glasses and require frequent monitoring. The children’s teachers reported that they had difficulty 

with simple tasks of concentration and comprehension. One son 

was enrolled in special education classes throughout his high 

school years. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
20 

Two days before Christmas in 1982, PNM approached us offering 

us $2,500 to sign a release as a good neighbor gesture on their 

part. We asked them, instead, to cover the cost of hooking into the 

public water system for our family, and they refused. 

For two years, we bought drinking water and carried it into our 

home until we could afford the connection fees for the public water 

system. Once we stopped using the well, we began slowly to improve. My wife, kids and I had been sick for over ten years. My animals were not so fortunate. I watched 1,400 head of sheep slowly 

suffer and die from the lack of safe drinking water. Within 2 years 

I lost my entire sheep herd and took outside jobs, rather than risk 

selling contaminated meat to my customers. 

Although they lined the ponds, as required by an EPA enforcement action and fine in 1984, PNM set up an agreement that the 

fly ash would be returned to the neighboring BHP San Juan Coal 

Mine and buried in the unlined pits there. The result is that the 

fly ash and scrubber sludge continues to contaminate the arroyo 

and groundwater through unlined sites. 

My children are grown and married now. Two sons have served 

several tours of duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and Germany. All have 

some evidences of the childhood problems they experienced due to 

the polluted water. My daughters have had very difficult pregnancies and deliveries, which doctors have said may be the result 

of the childhood poisoning. I have three grandchildren who have 

been diagnosed autistic, also linked to heavy metal poisoning in 

their mothers, and another who is ADHD. My brother developed 

multiple sclerosis and spent 20 years in a care unit. My father died 

of cancer. Four of my stepbrothers and sisters have died prematurely due to cancer and cancer-related illnesses. All were under 

the age of 40 and healthy, athletic children throughout their high 

school years with no apparent contributing illnesses. All of them 

drank from these same polluted water wells and streams. I rely 

heavily on others to help me with the management and operation 

of my business, because, although recovered, I still suffer many 

side effects from the poisoning. 

In conclusion, this is only the story of my family. I have many 

neighbors with similar stories. Some have lost young children. Others have children and parents with major health problems. Many 

have lost their livelihoods, their animals, and the ability to provide 

for their families because of the pollution that has come down the 

Shumway Arroyo and through our underground water sources from 

improperly disposed coal ash. They, too, were offered good neighbor 

settlements from PNM in exchange for their silence and agreement 

to sign a hold harmless contract. 

My experience is that the energy industry cannot be entrusted 

with innocent lives or to regulate themselves, for the good of the 

community, in lieu of a profit for their stockholders. I urge you to 

take every measure available to you to prevent this from happening to anyone, anywhere in our Nation, ever again. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunt follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
21 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 29 here 74859A.006
22 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 30 here 74859A.007
23 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 31 here 74859A.008
24 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 32 here 74859A.009
25 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. HUNT. There is one other thing I wanted to mention about 

this. Them poor animals would die and they wouldn’t even rot. 

They would mummify. And for the cost of putting in city water so 

we did not have to haul water was only $175, and they refused to 

do that. And, you know, my kids, I dropped out in the 8th grade 

in Kirkland and my kids when the State epidemiologist showed up 

says under the circumstances, only one family is not worth investigating. My kids said from age 5 to 2 we want to be better to our 

government than what our government was to us. And them kids 

got 52 years perfect attendance. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Hunt, very much, and we thank 

each of our witnesses for your very compelling testimony here 

today. 

The Chair will now recognize himself for a round of questions, 

and any of you can respond to this who would like. On our second 

panel right after you, we will hear from some witnesses that the 

characteristics of coal ash are similar to that of dirt or rocks and 

that the material is extremely unlikely to pose a health risk. How 

would you respond to that statement? 

Mr. HUNT. Pardon me? 

Mr. MARKEY. How would you respond to that statement? 

Mr. HUNT. Coal ash is dangerous stuff, and, just like I say, them 

animals that I had with all—they created a deal by the name of 

polyencephalomalacia, and just like the sheeps they would lay 

down and they couldn’t get up because they had lesions on the 

brains and the crows would peck their eyes out. And coal ash is a 

dangerous substance and it needs to be controlled rather than the 

stockholders making a huge profit. They need to take care of it in 

a proper way. 

Mr. MARKEY. There are no federal regulations in this area. The 

States have regulations or they have responsibility for putting regulations on the books. How would you characterize the regulations 

that your State has for protection of families against the adverse 

effects of coal ash? 

Mr. HUNT. Well, in our case, the State of New Mexico had full 

knowledge that our well was polluted, and also the EPA had full 

knowledge and the power plant also, and they did absolutely nothing to do anything about it, and I am sure that there is laws on 

the books that they are supposed to regulate them but they never 

did nothing, and like I say, they just ignored us like we was nobody. 

Mr. MARKEY. Ms. Whitaker-Pierce. 

Ms. WHITAKER-PIERCE. Yes, I would like to comment on that. I 

think that the information that we presented today speaks for 

itself. You have got the Yorktown situation that happened and the 

identical same utility company came back out and did it in our 

backyard. I am not against beneficial use if it is used beneficially. 

I don’t think that it has to be one or the other. But what there has 

to be is someone that is going to hold these utility companies responsible for disposing of it in ways that we know without a question of a doubt are not harmful to the general public. 

Mr. MARKEY. So you are saying your State did not do enough? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
26 

Ms. WHITAKER-PIERCE. Oh, absolutely—well, I am here. I am 

here. Absolutely no. 

Mr. MARKEY. Ms. Queen, did your State do enough? 

Ms. QUEEN. I don’t know if they did enough but they did fine them $1 million. It was too late then but they were fined for $1 

million. 

Mr. MARKEY. Have all of you been provided with water in order 

to deal with the effect of this issue? Did they provide water to you, 

Ms. Queen? 

Ms. QUEEN. Yes, I still—— 

Mr. MARKEY. You testified that that was the case? 

Ms. QUEEN. Yes, I still get water. 

Mr. MARKEY. And do you receive water? 

Ms. WHITAKER-PIERCE. Sir, we have asked the utility company to 

give us bottled water to see us through this and they have across 

the board rejected it. Our source of water is to go up to a, it looks 

like an outhouse. I wish I had pictures for you. The local city government did build a structure around it so that we weren’t exposed 

to the elements when we were trying to fill up those gallon jugs 

two to three times a week, but the insulation is pouring down 

around it. I mean, you would be appalled at the conditions, and 

that is how our families in our neighborhood get their water is to 

go to this municipal source and fill up jugs. 

Mr. MARKEY. Let me ask you one more question before my time 

expires. Dominion has stated in correspondence that the developer 

of the Battlefield Golf Club project met all relevant Virginia environmental regulations when it used coal ash. Do you believe that 

that is the case? 

Ms. WHITAKER-PIERCE. No, sir, absolutely not, and my well tests 

say differently. 

Mr. MARKEY. What regulations were violated in your—— 

Ms. WHITAKER-PIERCE. Well, it is my understanding that the 

rate of bonders was not at the rate that it should have been with 

that coal ash. It is also my understanding that liners should have 

been placed; they were not. The developer, hundreds of truckloads 

on a daily basis took out the good dirt, sold that and then replaced 

it with the coal ash that Dominion paid them to take, and my common sense tells me that if the United States of America went to 

some Third World country and paid this country to take our toxic 

waste material off of their hands but we turned a blind eye because 

we weren’t quote, unquote, personally responsible for making sure 

that that stuff went down the right way, the public outcry globally 

would be outraged. 

Mr. MARKEY. We thank you. We thank each one of you. Would 

you like to add something? 

Mr. HUNT. Yes. On that situation we had down there, they were 

dumping untreated human waste down through there also, and 

what happened when the State had full knowledge that our well 

was polluted and the kids was involved, they acted like they was 

a subsidy of the big large power company and the large coal mine 

and there is no excuse for that. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Hunt. 

The Chair recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, 

the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
27 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being a little bit late. We had an important Michigan delegation meeting involving the Great Lakes that required all of our attendance. 

I appreciate your stories, obviously everyone here. I have sympathy for you and the circumstances surrounding that. Ms. Queen, 

I had one question as it related to your testimony. You indicated 

that the waste was put into an unlined landfill. Is there a requirement in the State of Maryland that it be a lined facility? Do you 

know if they violated—is there such a standard in Maryland, do 

you know? If you don’t know the answer—— 

Ms. QUEEN. No, I am not sure, but it is too late now. They have 

one now. 

Mr. UPTON. So there is one now? 

Ms. QUEEN. Now, but—— 

Mr. UPTON. Now there is a requirement that it has to be put into 

a lined—— 

Ms. QUEEN. Yes. I don’t know if it was a requirement before but 

they didn’t have one but now I am told there is a liner. 

Mr. UPTON. I know in my district in Michigan, in our State we 

have a number of coal facilities and it is my understanding, and 

we are trying to find out for sure, but it is my understanding that 

the waste that isn’t used for particleboard and shingles and working with asphalt and highways does in fact go to a lined facility 

which would then prevent what happened. 

Ms. QUEEN. Yes, they do have one now. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all of us obviously 

feel badly about what has happened to you three individuals, and 

you know, the problem is with no national standards, some States 

do better jobs than other states in regulating this problem. Some 

States are doing nothing, which is a real problem. In my State of 

Pennsylvania, our Department of Environmental Protection has 

provided oversight on beneficial reuse since 1985 and implemented 

stringent standards in 1992, and Mr. Chairman, I do have letters 

from our Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

and Public Utility Commission which I would like to submit for the 

record. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection, it will be included in the record. 

Mr. DOYLE. It basically hopes that as EPA makes this rulemaking that they say there is clearly a need for regulation of 

States with lax requirements or no requirements but they should 

look at States that do have stringent requirements and are doing 

this right and not preempt their laws, especially if our laws are 

more stringent than what the federal government may end up implementing, so I hope that we don’t preempt those States that already have strict standards in place in this process. 

Ms. Whitaker-Pierce, I am curious, you got conflicting results 

from the testing, right? Did you ever have an independent lab? Did 

you ever you yourself hire somebody? You know, I am thinking 

about what I would do in your situation if I started—you know, one 

person said there is lead and one person said there isn’t lead, I 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
28 

would want my own independent testing, and I was just curious, 

how many different testers were in your home and did you have 

anybody that was testing your water samples for you? 

Ms. WHITAKER-PIERCE. No, I did not personally commission an 

agency to test the waters. The city of Chesapeake tested the 

waters. They also hired a third party expert firm, J.R. Reed and 

Associates, to do water tests along with the EPA. 

Mr. DOYLE. And you also said they all tested from just one 

source in your home and it was a source that had an auxiliary filter. Why was that selected and did you ever ask the—were you 

present when the testing was done? 

Ms. WHITAKER-PIERCE. Yes, sir, I was. I am glad you asked because my 5 minutes didn’t give me enough time to elaborate on 

that. They had tested in two locations at my home. They have tested at the well head and then they have gone in and tested at my 

kitchen tap, and this has been done every single time. When I say 

inconsistencies, sometimes they will come and take a first draw 

and then they will purge the system for 5 minutes and then they 

will purge it for 10 minutes and 20 minutes and they will do various tests along that timeline, and then they were the ones that 

said OK, well, we need to go to your kitchen tap, but that kitchen 

tap has the auxiliary filter that I had put on when we moved out 

there. 

Mr. DOYLE. Did you tell them that there was a filter on that? 

Ms. WHITAKER-PIERCE. Yes, sir, absolutely, absolutely, and when 

I say that they are conflicting and confusing, the sheet that I get, 

this report that I get has all of the different levels that have been 

detected but I still don’t know what the EPA standard on arsenic 

is, for example. I mean, it was just by coincidence that I found out 

that the EPA’s level for lead was .15 percent, and that was because 

the city of Chesapeake on their documentation included that benchmark. 

Mr. DOYLE. So you are getting data but you are not getting any 

experts to sit down—— 

Ms. WHITAKER-PIERCE. No, sir. 

Mr. DOYLE [continuing]. I mean, as a layperson to explain what 

that data means in real terms to you and your family? 

Ms. WHITAKER-PIERCE. No, and I would welcome that. As a matter of fact, it was offered by one of our city representatives and 

they said, you know, the EPA is the expert so if it is OK with you, 

what we would like to do with your permission is to turn over those 

results to the EPA and then the EPA person can sit down with 

their results and then explain to you what all this means. We are 

still waiting. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Hunt, was there ever any testing done? I mean, there is no 

disputing what happened to you and your family. You can see what 

happened, and then as you started to drink bottled water or other 

water, you eventually started to recover. Was there ever any testing done by any enforcement agency to determine what was in your 

water? 

Mr. HUNT. Well, I am glad you brought that up. What happened, 

there was a lady that lived down the street there. Her and her husband both met at BYU and they were very outstanding citizens and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
29 

they had five boys and she was pregnant with the sixth one, and 

what happened, they would come down and they would have her 

open up her basement to allow them to go in and pull samples out 

of the well less than 100 feet from the arroyo, and what happened, 

she was pregnant with the sixth son, and what happened, she came 

down with leukemia and she chose not to have any treatment because of her baby, so after the baby was born, the baby was a year 

old when she passed away and what happened, the four younger 

children that she has got, they have done missions for the Mormon 

Church and stuff like that, very outstanding people, and they got 

hormones to keep from wetting the bed at night. And there is another little boy, his dad owned a dairy and his uncle come running 

across the street one day and he says Joe is drowning, come quick, 

so I run over to see and what it was, it was the mother’s dad’s 

birthday that day and they had Joe on the floor and they were 

working with him doing CPR and stuff like that and you could tell 

he was dead. 

Mr. DOYLE. I saw that and I saw what has happened to your 

sheep. I am saying did anyone ever test this water and issue a report—— 

Mr. HUNT. Yes, they did test it but they never warned the 

woman down there that died of leukemia. They come to her house 

and make them open the door to pull samples and they never 

warned her about what had happened. 

Mr. DOYLE. You never got results? 

Mr. HUNT. None whatsoever. 

Mr. DOYLE. Wow. I see my time has more than passed. Thank 

you. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman 

from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you three 

people for being with us this morning and explaining your personal 

experiences. 

In listening to your testimony, I think that I understand that 

each of you has well water, you don’t have city water, you don’t 

have county water but all of you had well water. Is that correct? 

Ms. WHITAKER-PIERCE. Yes. 

Mr. HUNT. I have got city water now but I had to pay to hook 

onto it but at the time we had spring water. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK, but at the time it was spring water or well 

water. And Mr. Hunt, I noticed that in the article out there that 

it said what killed over 1,000 sheep and it says rancher, State and 

PNM. I am not sure what PNM is but it must—— 

Mr. HUNT. Public Service Company of New Mexico. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. And then it says that at odds over the bad 

water. So there was no agreement between the State, the PNM and 

you as to whether or not this water was bad or what caused the 

bad water. 

Mr. HUNT. Well, what happened when they hit the Albuquerque 

Journal, it was 13 months that they played around and made them 

animals drink that bad water, and what happened, there was an 

individual that come in out of the New Mexico environmental department. They got him out of risk management and they put him 

in as the deputy secretary under the Johnson Administration, and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
30 

then when things started heating up, he become the general counsel, and what happened, the State ordered the sheep to be hauled 

off and tested after me feeding them for 13 months and watched 

them die, and when they would die we would have to pile them up 

in piles and burn them, and the man come back and he said poor 

carrot killed the animals but you can notify the New Mexico State 

animal health people, and in the document it says all animals was 

in good nutritional condition and I don’t know where he got that 

information from. I would really love to know that. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But as far as the water that the sheep drank, 

that was well water—— 

Mr. HUNT. No, no, that was out of the arroyo there, and what 

happened, after the article come out in Albuquerque Journal front 

page, they sent a surveillance man down there and the surveillance 

man said 500 parts per million on sulfate is all that is allowed for 

animals, and it was eight times above that, and they never did 

nothing. They just sat back and laughed at me. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. All of you it sounds like are not really satisfied 

with the way the State dealt with this, the way the State environmental people dealt with this, the way the utility companies dealt 

with it, which is understandable, but I would ask did any of you 

go to an attorney to explore a class-action lawsuit or some sort of 

lawsuit against any of the utility companies? 

Mr. HUNT. I tried to do that, and what happened is kind of like 

going down trying to beat the hell out of Mike Tyson. The only 

thing you are going to do is get the hell beat out of you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So you determined that was not in your best interest? 

Mr. HUNT. Yes. There is no justice whatsoever in this mess. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, you know, the chairman mentioned this 

briefly but one of the confusing things for us is, we know that EPA 

has looked at this coal ash repeatedly through the years and we 

know that 1 percent or less of coal ash has trace elements of arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury and selenium in it, and the scientists have said, and there is going to be people testifying to this 

later, that fly ash or coal ash has no more of these trace elements 

in it than regular soil and regular rocks do. So, you know, it presents a puzzle for us as to whether or not—I mean, I think there 

is probably agreement that maybe this should be regulated, that 

there should be some federal regulation, but to classify this as a 

hazardous material from the scientific evidence that I have looked 

at, I mean, I would have some question about that. But from your 

personal experience, though, you are 100 percent certain that your 

problems were caused by your exposure to coal ash. Is that correct? 

Mr. HUNT. Absolutely, and when you burn it down and condense 

is up, what happens, it becomes very poisonous. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But you did indicate, I heard you say that there 

was proof that there had been some human waste that had 

been—— 

Mr. HUNT. That also. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So—— 

Mr. HUNT. But just like today, they haven’t dumped human 

waste in a long time, but it is still up around eight times above 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
31 

what is allowed running right into the San Juan River right on 

down towards Mexico. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, have they corrected this human waste 

issue? 

Mr. HUNT. I have no idea. Nothing would surprise me about 

them people. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Ms. WHITAKER-PIERCE. Mr. Whitfield, I would like to respond to 

that. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. 

Ms. WHITAKER-PIERCE. You will also—you can get experts to testify to anything that you want to hear. The utility companies obviously have a dog in the fight. You can find experts out there that 

will say that absolutely coal ash is dangerous, certainly should not 

be breathed, certainly should not be exposed to water, certainly 

should not be involved in one’s water system, and there is no doubt 

in my mind that the careless actions and the ineptitude of our EPA 

and our local government and our State governments to regulate 

this and make sure that people are acting responsibly is the reason 

that we are all here today. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, Ms. Pierce, did you consider legal action or 

did you have the same view as Mr. Hunt? 

Ms. WHITAKER-PIERCE. Well, we are currently represented, yes, 

by counsel to try to get the right thing done here. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So you are in litigation now or at least you have 

retained an attorney to explore it? 

Ms. WHITAKER-PIERCE. Correct. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. I see my time is about expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCNERNEY [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Whitfield. 

The chairman stepped out for a minute and asked me to step in 

his seat while he is gone. 

First of all, again, I want to thank the witnesses for coming forth 

and testifying, very compelling words that you have spoken this 

morning. You know, when coal-fired plants are required to scrub 

their emissions from mercury and other sulfates and so on, I can’t 

imagine how people would think that the fly ash is perfectly safe, 

but apparently we have some evidence here this morning. Ms. 

Whitaker-Pierce, I would like to ask if you think that Mr. McCabe’s 

work that brought light to the dangers there, if he hadn’t done that 

investigative work, do you think you would still be in the dark 

about the risks and dangers? 

Ms. WHITAKER-PIERCE. Well, I am still in the dark, but there is 

no doubt that he is our knight in our shining armor. We had this 

construction going on in our backyard for 7 years and really 

thought that it was safe. So yes, had he not brought this to light, 

we would still be drinking the water, and we owe him a huge debt, 

yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. And so you would be facing potential health 

problems, you and your family and your neighbors, so he does deserve a certain amount of thanks for that, a lot of thanks. 

Ms. WHITAKER-PIERCE. Yes, sir, he does, and we are not out of 

harm’s way yet. We had been drinking that stuff for 5 years and 

are still using it for various purposes in the home. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
32 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Queen, you mentioned that tests showing arsenic, iron, manganese and sulfates were leaching at dangerous levels but that 

these tests were not shared with the community. Is that right, the 

tests showing that these substances were leaking into your water 

but you were not notified of the test results? 

Ms. QUEEN. Not in the beginning but later on we did. Someone 

came to the door to say that the water, you know, was going to be 

tested and we should stop drinking the water, and right away—not 

right away they started to bring in bottled water for everybody except for over on the other side of the road they put hoses out but 

the hoses froze so they got bottled water too, but we are still getting bottled—they made it right. They are going to put city water 

in to everybody that had well water. We are getting city water 

hookup and it hasn’t come yet. They started, city water hookup and 

no water bill for as long as you own the home, and I still get bottled water today every 2 weeks. So they made right on—the power 

company did. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Now, when did you first started noticing the dust and started feeling that that was being a hazard, 

that that was hazardous to you and your family? 

Ms. QUEEN. When I first moved there, I noticed, but we just 

cleaned the house, you know. We just cleaned it up. You know how 

it would get on the house and on the porch and we started cleaning 

it up, and then after it came out in 2007, then we realized, oh, that 

is not good, you know. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So you were breathing it in for years basically 

without knowing that it was dangerous? 

Ms. QUEEN. No, I didn’t know anything about it. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Hunt, thank you again for your testimony 

and thank you for your children’s service to our Nation. Would you 

say that the behavior of PNM and the State agencies was conducted in ignorance or do you think that they knew the dangers 

and still prevented action from being taken on your behalf? 

Mr. HUNT. To tell you the truth, I feel it was criminal, and there 

is one thing I will say about the man that asked if we ever tried 

to take legal action. We tried to take it to court and I have only 

got an 8th-grade education, and what happened when it was all 

said and done, our lawyer was sitting up there testifying against 

us and we refused to accept the settlement, which was $190,000, 

and we wrote on the release we are signing this against our will 

under duress and intimidation, and went down and filed it at the 

county clerk’s office to make it a public document information. And, 

you know, bless their hearts, they went down and said it was a 

nuisance litigation. It cost me $73,300 for a tax attorney to keep 

from losing everything I owned. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Was the local media, the Albuquerque Journal 

or—— 

Mr. HUNT. The only thing they are out for is mainly sell advertising, and the reason why we subscribe to the paper is just to read 

the obituaries and the advertisements. Like I say, I could have lost 

everything I own. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
33 

Mr. MCNERNEY. It looks like my time has expired, and the first 

panel has finished, so your testimony has been very beneficial. 

Thank you. 

It is now time for the second panel to step forward. 

Mr. HUNT. I have been waiting 28 years for this date. Thank you. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Would all the second panel witnesses please 

take their seats at the testimony table, please? Now, we have the 

second panel in front of us and I would like to introduce the witnesses and then I will ask for their testimony. First we have Lisa 

Evans, who is an attorney specializing in hazardous-waste law. Ms. 

Evans has been active in hazardous-waste litigation advocacy for 

over 25 years and is an expert on coal ash issues. She has been 

a project attorney for Earthjustice since 2006. Prior to Earthjustice, 

Ms. Evans worked on toxic coal waste for the Boston-based nonprofit Clean Air Task Force. Ms. Evans began her career as an assistant regional counsel at the Environmental Protection Agency 

region I. Ms. Evans, you can begin your testimony when you are 

ready. 

STATEMENTS OF LISA EVANS, SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE 

COUNSEL, EARTHJUSTICE; MARY A. FOX, PH.D., MPH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG 

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH; KEN LADWIG, SENIOR PROGRAM MANAGER, ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE; 

AND DONALD MCGRAW, M.D., PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 

STATEMENT OF LISA EVANS 

Ms. EVANS. Thank you. Members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for holding this hearing to examine the threats posed to our health 

and environment by coal ash, the hazardous substance generated 

by power plants that burn coal. 

When mismanaged, this toxic waste damages the health and environment of Americans nationwide by poisoning drinking water, 

fouling the air and destroying aquatic ecosystems. Federal action 

on this issue is imminent. Last March, EPA Administrator Lisa 

Jackson made a commitment to publish a proposed rule governing 

the disposal of coal ash by year’s end. My testimony today recognizes the primary goal of this impending rule: the protection of 

human health. 

The committee has heard today from witnesses whose health and 

the health of their families and neighbors have been seriously compromised by exposure to the toxic contaminants in ash. Today’s 

witnesses represented three separate instances of coal ash contamination but they have three important things in common. First, dry 

dumping of coal ash, not wet disposal, caused serious harm. Much 

of the focus this year has been on the deadly dangers posed by wet 

ash ponds. Wet disposal has drawn national attention since the 

cataclysmic failure of the TVA dam, whose release of over 1 billion 

gallons of toxic sludge was 100 times the size of the Exxon Valdez 

spill. But today it is significant to note that dry disposal and release of dry ash is a cause of damage. This is not surprising. EPA 

has identified a significant threat from dry disposal in unlined 

landfills, estimating that such disposal can result in a risk of cancer 50 times EPA’s regulatory goal. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
34 

Second, at each site State law was woefully inadequate to protect 

the health of the affected communities. Today, regulation of coal 

ash is left totally up to the States but in New Mexico, Virginia and 

Maryland, where the witnesses reside, the States failed to put in 

place even the most basic safeguards. In none of these States, not 

even household garbage would be allowed to be disposed of in the 

manner that ash was. In these States and in most of the States in 

the United States, improper, unsafe and ultimately harmful disposal of toxic ash is permitted and sometimes even encouraged. 

Third, the witnesses and their communities were harmed economically. While the focus today is properly on health, significant 

damage to communities occurs when cheap disposal is unfettered 

by federal law. Today you heard how Mr. Hunt, a sheep rancher, 

lost his herd, how the housing values in Robin Pierce’s community 

have plummeted and how Gayle Queen may tragically lose her 

home to foreclosure. These economic hardships produce stress that 

tears at the fabric of our community. The dumping of ash in all 

three situations was the cheapest route for industry but the true 

costs were borne by these witnesses and their neighbors. 

As a former EPA attorney, I worked to enforce the Resource Conservation Recovery Act. This experience gave me a deep appreciation of the statute’s fundamental goal. In one word, the driving 

force of RCRA is prevention. Congress passed RCRA in 1976 to put 

in place regulations to prevent in the first instance the mismanagement of waste in order to prevent the migration of toxic chemicals. 

Further, in 1980, Congress explicitly directed EPA to require safe 

disposal of coal ash. But for decades, nearly 30 years, EPA has 

failed to promulgate national regulations and this omission is huge 

and dangerous. EPA tells us that in 2008 U.S. electric utilities produced 136 million tons of coal ash. This is enough ash to fill the 

boxcars of a train from this room to Melbourne, Australia, and this 

amount is rapidly climbing as we capture more toxics like mercury 

and other hazardous metals at the power plant stacks. 

The bright spot today is that the prevention of harm from the 

dumping of ash is a problem we know how to solve. Isolation of 

toxic waste from water in engineered landfills is 20th century technology at best. Thus, the essential next step is for EPA to promulgate federally enforceable regulations that guarantee that all U.S. 

citizens are protected from the harms posed by mismanagement of 

ash. Only under subtitle C of RCRA will all States be required to 

adopt minimum disposal standards that protect the health of all 

living near coal ash dump sites. 

In sum, I respectfully ask the subcommittee to end the 30-year 

impasse and encourage EPA to promulgate federally enforceable 

regulations that will prevent the harm that these witnesses have 

suffered from occurring again. 

About 2 years ago, I held Mr. Hunt’s infant granddaughter, and 

I would like nothing better than to guarantee to her that what happened to her grandfather will not happen to her family in Waterflow, New Mexico, nor to Mrs. Queen’s grandchildren in Gambrills, 

Maryland, nor to Ms. Pierce’s children in Chesapeake, Virginia. 

This subcommittee may have a hand in making the same guarantee. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
35 

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this critically important issue and thank you especially for allowing the witnesses in the previous panel to have their voices heard. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Evans follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
36 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 44 here 74859A.010
37 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 45 here 74859A.011
38 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 46 here 74859A.012
39 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 47 here 74859A.013
40 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 48 here 74859A.014
41 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 49 here 74859A.015
42 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 50 here 74859A.016
43 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 51 here 74859A.017
44 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 52 here 74859A.018
45 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 53 here 74859A.019
46 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 54 here 74859A.020
47 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 55 here 74859A.021
48 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 56 here 74859A.022
49 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 57 here 74859A.023
50 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 58 here 74859A.024
51 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 59 here 74859A.025
52 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 60 here 74859A.026
53 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 61 here 74859A.027
54 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 62 here 74859A.028
55 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 63 here 74859A.029
56 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 64 here 74859A.030
57 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 65 here 74859A.031
58 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 66 here 74859A.032
59 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 67 here 74859A.033
60 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 68 here 74859A.034
61 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Ms. Evans. 

The second witness I would like to call is Mary Fox, Dr. Mary 

Fox. She is an assistant professor of policy and management at the 

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. She is part of 

the core faculty of the school’s Risk Sciences and Public Policy Institute and her research focuses on the human health effects of exposure to chemical mixtures. Dr. Fox received her Ph.D. in environmental and occupational health policy from the Johns Hopkins 

Bloomberg School of Public Health. Ms. Fox, please begin your testimony when you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF MARY A. FOX 

Ms. FOX. Thank you, and good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to address the subcommittee today. 

There are a few important things to know when addressing the 

health impacts of coal combustion waste. First, coal combustion 

waste is a complex mixture of well-documented hazardous substances. The types of and severity of health effects of coal combustion waste constituents range from benign and cosmetic changes to 

organ function changes to cancer. As a Nation, we produce a large 

volume of waste. The uses and types of disposal may allow distribution into the broader environment. Taken together, these considerations present us with a public health protection challenge. 

Some examples of the health effects associated with specific combustion waste constituents include cancer associated with arsenic, 

neurological effects associated with aluminum, lead and manganese, kidney effects from barium and mercury, effects on the gastrointestinal system related to beryllium, and copper. It is important to note that multiple coal combustion waste constituents contribute to certain health effects. Exposure to combinations or mixtures of these constituents may increase the risk of developing 

these health problems. 

As we have seen in some of the pictures this morning from the 

particular sites, people can come into contact with coal combustion 

waste through breathing if the dust is in the air or through drinking water if constituents have leached from a disposal site into 

groundwater that is tapped by drinking-water wells. And as we 

have heard, not far from here in Gambrills, Maryland, coal combustion waste was used to reclaim a former sand and gravel pit. Constituents of the coal combustion waste reached the drinking-water 

wells of nearby residents and sampling by the county health department found concentrations of aluminum, arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, lead, manganese and thallium above drinking-water 

standards in some wells. 

It is difficulty to study and therefore accurately quantify the population-level health impacts of coal combustion waste exposure. 

Three of the common coal combustion waste management practices, 

landfill, surface impoundment or use in reclamation of mines, result in localized disposal. Communities surrounding such disposal 

sites are typically small. Proximity to the coal combustion waste 

disposal site will likely spur interest in evaluating community 

health. Unfortunately, systematic health effects research in any 

one small community will have limited statistical power to detect 

changes in health outcomes. An absence of traditional epidemiologVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:52 Oct 20, 2012 Jkt 074859 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A859.XXX A859

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
62 

ical studies, human health risk assessment methods are available 

to evaluate population exposures to multiple contaminant mixtures. 

Because coal combustion waste is a complex mixture of constituents, risk assessment methods will be essential to evaluating the 

health risks of exposure to coal combustion waste. 

And let me conclude with a few key points. Coal combustion 

waste is a complex mixture that can be mobilized in the environment, depending on the uses and disposal methods. People can be 

exposed to coal combustion waste through breathing or inhalation, 

direct contact and ingestion. Health effects of exposure will be underestimated if we ignore the potential for simultaneous exposure 

to multiple components of the mixture and prevention of exposure 

through better management of the waste is ultimately the most 

sound public health approach. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you this 

morning. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fox follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
63 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 71 here 74859A.035
64 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 72 here 74859A.036
65 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 73 here 74859A.037
66 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 74 here 74859A.038
67 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 75 here 74859A.039
68 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Fox, very much. 

Our next witness is Ken Ladwig. He is senior project manager 

at the Electric Power Research Institute, responsible for research 

on the management and use of coal combustion waste. Since joining EPRI in 1999, he has worked on various aspects of coal waste 

and groundwater research including the potential for environmental release, disposal site management and coal waste options. 

We welcome you, sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF KEN LADWIG 

Mr. LADWIG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to this subcommittee. 

At EPRI, we have been engaged in coal combustion product research both disposal and use for over 30 years. Our goal in meeting 

with legislative staff recently and attending this hearing is to ensure that all pertinent technical information is available to those 

that may be involved in this important decision-making process. 

In my brief time today, I will focus primarily on coal ash, and 

I believe it was Congressman Whitfield that said that it is confusing to hear coal ash referred to both as a toxic sludge or something of high toxicity, and on the other hand hear it referred to as 

being the same as soil. I hope to provide some illumination on that 

topic, and as usual, I think the answer is probably somewhere in 

the middle. 

Coal ash is derived from the inorganic minerals in coal, and as 

such its element composition is similar to the composition of rocks 

and soil, so that is inevitable. Trace metals make up less than 1 

percent of the total composition. However, while the trace elements 

are qualitatively the same as those in rocks and soil, they are enriched slightly relative to rocks and soil and therefore the material 

does need to be managed. The toxicity characteristic leaching procedure, TCLP, is the leaching test that has been used to draw the 

line between hazardous and non-hazardous waste under RCRA 

since 1990. In samples from more than 30 power plants in testing 

we have done at EPRI, no coal ash samples exceeded any TCLP 

limits for any trace metals. These data are consistent with data 

from U.S. EPA. We have also compared leachate from fly ash to 

leachate from other non-hazardous waste such as metal slags and 

found them to be similar. There are literally hundreds of other laboratory leaching protocols that have been used by EPRI and other 

researchers to evaluate coal ash and there is quite a bit of disagreement among the technical community as to which is the best 

procedure. We are coordinating with EPA on interpretation and use 

of a new set of leaching protocols that offer a number of benefits 

in understanding CCP leaching mechanisms. However, the tests 

produce a lot of data that requires careful evaluation and application on a site-specific basis. Indiscriminate use of selected results 

from these complicated tests is both misleading and inaccurate. 

Power plants have been generating and managing coal ash for 

more than 60 years. EPA released a report in 2007 describing 67 

CCP management sites with either groundwater or surface water 

impacts characterized as proven or potential damage cases. Most of 

these damage cases represent older facilities without liners, onsite 

releases and low-toxicity constituents. Remediation is actively ocVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:52 Oct 20, 2012 Jkt 074859 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A859.XXX A859

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
69 

curring or has been completed at nearly all of the EPA damage 

case sites. Conversely, a DOE EPA report recently found that nearly all new CCP disposal cells built between 1994 and 2004 were 

lined and included groundwater monitoring networks. Several 

States such as Wisconsin have had successful non-hazardous disposal requirements in place for CCPs for many years. 

The physical and chemical properties of CCPs make them valuable raw materials for many construction and geotechnical applications, and I think from the comments I have heard today, we all 

agree that using the CCPs in safe applications is the best outcome. 

In 2007, over 50 million tons of CCPs were used rather than disposed. The primary uses for fly ash are as an ingredient in concrete 

and cement and use in geotechnical fills. FGD gypsum is largely 

used as a direct replacement for rock gypsum in panel products, 

and U.S. EPA, USDA and Federal Highway Administration are all 

actively involved in CCP use. 

We recently worked with the Recycling Materials Resource Center to use lifecycle analysis programs to quantify the environmental 

benefits of using CCPs in sustainable construction. Based on 2007 

data, using CCPs in place of mined materials saved over $160 trillion BTUs in energy consumption, which is roughly the equivalent 

of the amount of energy used in 1.7 million homes, or a decentsized city, 32 billion gallons in water consumption and 11 million 

tons in greenhouse gas emissions, and that equates to about taking 

two million autos off the road in a year. In addition, use rather 

than disposal saved a land area the size of Central Park in New 

York in 2007. 

In conclusion, the Kingston release made coal ash a front-page 

news item and we are a lot more aware of some of the issues surrounding coal ash. What we need to do now is define a clear path 

forward that ensures safe disposal and allows for continued growth 

in CCP use. This will require continuing to fix problem sites such 

as Kingston and the damage cases, and I believe there was a hearing on Kingston yesterday that presented the progress that has 

been made on that site in just a year. And along with that, we need 

to identify and implement components of successful disposal site 

designs and practices. This is not an intractable for difficult task, 

and I agree with Lisa that there are technologies out there for 

dealing with the disposal of these materials. There are many examples of successful CCP disposal sites in all parts of the country 

right now. 

Finally, we need to continue to grow the use of these materials 

in applications that are demonstrated to be both safe and of value. 

Every ton that is used rather than disposed provides savings in energy, water, greenhouse gas emissions, land area and natural resources. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ladwig follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
70 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 79 here 74859A.040
71 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 80 here 74859A.041
72 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 81 here 74859A.042
73 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 82 here 74859A.043
74 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 83 here 74859A.044
75 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 84 here 74859A.045
76 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Ladwig, very much. 

Our final witness, Dr. Donald McGraw, is a practicing physician 

in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Dr. McGraw has 30 years of experience in occupational and environmental medicine and has received 

a master’s degree in public health from Johns Hopkins University. 

We welcome you, sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD MCGRAW 

Dr. MCGRAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to first say that I grew up in a small town in southeastern Ohio to a family of farming, coal mining and steel working 

people. When I grew up, we had a coal-fired furnace which I stoked 

every morning. I shoved the coal in as a lad through a window into 

the basement and I helped my grandfather dump the coal ash on 

our garden, which grew wonderfully, as the Congressman from 

Florida mentioned earlier. When I left the area to attend school, I 

ended up back in Pittsburgh. I have been there for some 30 years 

now. I serve on the faculties of the University of Pittsburgh Schools 

of Medicine and Public Health and have taught medical students 

and residents for several decades. I previously was at least briefly 

on the faculty at Johns Hopkins prior to coming home. I am on the 

attending medical staff at a number of prominent area hospitals. 

I see patients in those hospitals, in clinics, in their worksites and 

in their homes. I have been in coal mines, steel mills, coal tar 

plants. I have been on coke ovens. I have been just about everywhere that coal has been used. 

Only hearts of stone could fail to be moved to compassion by the 

stories and personal plights of the three families who spoke before 

but tragedies occur all too frequently in the form of tsunamis or typhoons in Thailand, the Philippines and mainland China, hurricanes like Katrina in New Orleans and Biloxi where I have participated in the aftermath and helped in at least a small way with my 

church in the cleanup. Hurricane Ike in Galveston, earthquakes in 

Peru and Russia and elsewhere around the world have brought 

death and devastation. Volcanic eruptions in Mexico and elsewhere 

leave in their wakes tragedy that is all too real. But in my experience, the main tragedy in coal combustion is the devastating job 

loss and economic devastation in the wake of steel mill shutterings 

and coal mine closures in southwestern Pennsylvania, southeastern 

Ohio, the mountains of West Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois and elsewhere. It would be truly a misadventure, a tragic misadventure to 

plunge these people even deeper into economic darkness. 

In the course of my work in 2005, I was asked to see a number 

of individuals including adults and children, a half dozen, maybe 

even more than that, when an accidental spill of fly ash occurred 

in Forward Township not far from Pittsburgh. This was a large pile 

of ash that had been there for probably 50 years and slid down the 

hill into this tiny community and coated the ground where these 

people lived a foot or two in depth, and this was a soft, flaky ash, 

much like you would see coming out of any coal-powered facility. 

These people unfortunately waded around in it for days, cleaned it, 

shoveled it, swept it, breathed it in their own personal cleanups before some attention was paid. The DEP in Pennsylvania is very 

good and they came to the rescue and ultimately that cleanup has 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
77 

been underway. I saw those individuals as individual patients. I 

listened to their stories. I evaluated them physically and I could 

find no objective abnormalities in any of those people. Simultaneously, or concomitantly, the Allegheny County Health Department, part of Bruce Dixon, who is just a marvelous physician, examined these people tested their urine, their blood, their hair, their 

nails and could find no evidence of any increased exposure to any 

heavy metals or any medical problems. Subsequently, these people 

were re-examined by the county health department in 2009, last 

spring, and once again were given a clean bill of health after extensive evaluation. 

Last year I had the opportunity to go to Tennessee, and I am not 

sure why I was asked other than the fact that I had been involved 

with individuals from Pittsburgh and vicinity. I went down to 

Kingston and saw the massive upheaval down there that was 

caused by the release of a large stock of coal fly ash in a retention 

pond, which gave way after a very long period of heavy rain, much 

like the weather caused the problems in Forward Township. This 

ash slid largely into the waterways nearby but it did slide into the 

yards and homes of I think probably about five or six families 

whose houses were certainly adversely affected. I also had the opportunity aside from touring the area not to examine any of these 

individuals but to participate in an open meeting at a local school 

in which any community residents or interested parties could attend and probably some 150 people or some came, some of whom 

were residents and some others were just interested, and asked 

questions about the potential adverse health effects of their exposure in this setting, and I tried to reassure them that their exposure now and in the future was extremely unlikely to be detrimental to their personal health, the health of their children, their 

animals, et cetera. 

In the course of my practice, I have had the opportunity to address the potential toxicity of heavy metals such as arsenic and a 

wide variety of settings. I have examined hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals whose work has required that they be in the 

presence of compounds like arsenic and coal and coal tar and coke 

oven emissions and other potentially toxic materials, and as it was 

pointed out earlier, all of these are natural occurring minerals. 

They occur in the substrata of the earth. They are released by volcanic eruptions, by forest fires in far greater amounts than are released as a result of industrial production. Arsenic—— 

Mr. MARKEY. If you could summarize, please, Dr. McGraw? 

Dr. MCGRAW. Yes. I am sorry. 

Arsenic is present in water, in high concentrations in mineral 

springs all over North America, and we eat it every day in our 

foodstuffs and we drink it in our water. That is not to say that it 

is not potentially toxic but so are a wide variety of other materials. 

Cars are dangerous too but if we ban them or extremely limit their 

use, it would be devastating to the economy of this country. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. McGraw follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
78 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 88 here 74859A.046
79 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 89 here 74859A.047
80 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 90 here 74859A.048
81 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 91 here 74859A.049
82 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 92 here 74859A.050
83 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 93 here 74859A.051
84 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. McGraw, very much. 

Now we will turn to our questions from the subcommittee. Let 

me ask you, Dr. Fox, I just heard Dr. McGraw talking about arsenic, you know, as not a particularly dangerous substance to be 

ingested by human beings. Could you talk a little bit about the ingestion of arsenic or other heavy metals over a period of many 

years in terms of what that risk might be to human beings? 

Ms. FOX. Yes. That is a distinction that is useful to make in several of the examples I think that Dr. McGraw discussed. In Forward Township, for example, and in Kingston, Tennessee, those 

were situations where the exposures were relatively short term and 

sort of the immediate nature of the spill prompted a quite rigorous 

cleanup. In situations as in Gambrills, Maryland, that we heard 

about earlier, the waste has been disposed in this former sand and 

gravel pit since the mid-1990s approximately, and the contamination of the groundwater there may have been going on for years 

and may continue for some time. So chronic exposure to arsenic 

and some of the other constituents is associated with a number of 

health problems that I already discussed. 

Mr. MARKEY. Do you agree with that, Dr. McGraw? 

Dr. MCGRAW. Which part? 

Mr. MARKEY. The part where she is saying that continuous exposure to these constituent elements over a period of time are related 

to serious medical consequences. 

Dr. MCGRAW. That all depends on the concentration, the dose, 

the area of exposure, how it is taken in. Our body has numerous 

capabilities for eliminating potential toxins from it. We are very 

well constructed to manage our health despite exposure to many 

natural elements, and while there are huge concentrations of materials like arsenic sadly in the well water in places like Taiwan and 

Bangladesh, they are many degrees of magnitude higher than any 

that might ever be potentially even occurring in the United States 

in any conceivable way. 

Mr. MARKEY. So you are saying that the hundreds of thousands 

of people who died in Bangladesh related to ingestion of arsenic is 

something that we shouldn’t be concerned about here as a warning 

to us? 

Dr. MCGRAW. I am not sure of those numbers, Mr. Markey. 

Mr. MARKEY. But you cited Bangladesh, so hundreds of thousands of people—— 

Dr. MCGRAW. Perhaps I would have to check and see what those 

numbers were, but—— 

Mr. MARKEY. The World Health Organization says that hundreds 

of thousands of people have died in Bangladesh. You cited Bangladesh, relating it to your World Health Organization analysis. 

Dr. MCGRAW. Correct. 

Mr. MARKEY. Do you dispute the World Health Organization? 

Dr. MCGRAW. No, no, I don’t, but—— 

Mr. MARKEY. So take the arsenic findings there and extrapolate 

them for the purposes of what lesson you want us to draw from 

Bangladesh in terms of exposure to arsenic, please. 

Dr. MCGRAW. Those levels in those countries are hundreds and 

hundreds and thousands of micrograms per liter relative to our required water levels of one-hundredth of a microgram per liter. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
85 

Mr. MARKEY. But the EPA and the World Health Organization 

have identified arsenic as a carcinogen. Do you disagree with that 

finding? 

Dr. MCGRAW. No, I don’t, Mr. Chairman. Let me give you—— 

Mr. MARKEY. We are trying to find—— 

Dr. MCGRAW. If I may provide you with an analogy, thousands 

of women and possibly men are injected on a daily basis with botulinum toxin, the deadliest material known to humankind. They are 

injected in their faces for cosmetic purposes. One-eighteenth of a 

millionth of an ounce is a lethal dose for a human being and yet 

it goes into syringes and into people’s bodies on a daily basis. There 

are many, many toxins that we either voluntarily or involuntarily 

expose ourselves to on a daily basis. Once, again, it depends on the 

dose, the level, and in this country, those levels will never be replicated—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Exactly. 

Dr. MCGRAW [continuing]. Ever. 

Mr. MARKEY. No, no, I don’t think that is so. I think what we 

are learning here and we are seeing this in the testimony of the 

witnesses beforehand that if enough of it is placed in areas that are 

adjacent to populated areas that it can leach into the water system 

and over a sustained period of time there could be a dramatic impact on human beings as they ingest this material. You were referring to earlier about a one-time or two-time exposure. Here we are 

talking about something that is—— 

Dr. MCGRAW. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, three cases, 

as tragic as they might be, do not represent epidemiology. I have 

looked at countless workers who have been working for decades 

with exposure to these and other materials and seen no evidence 

of any harm, and they certainly were exposed at far higher levels 

than the general public would ever—— 

Mr. MARKEY. You know, 3,000 young people are going to begin 

smoking today in America. One thousand of them will die from 

smoking-related illnesses and two will not. 

Dr. MCGRAW. I am not sure I see the point. 

Mr. MARKEY. But the one that is is really is our concern, so you 

may—and again, you are not an epidemiologist, I don’t think. 

Dr. MCGRAW. I have studied it extensively and I do appreciate 

it. I read the literature regularly. 

Mr. MARKEY. I appreciate that, but you are taking personal examples and extrapolating, which is different from actually presenting an epidemiological study. 

Dr. MCGRAW. I have read the epidemiologic literature. 

Mr. MARKEY. Ms. Evans, can you tell us if there is just a small 

number of examples here or are there more people like the witnesses that we saw on the first panel that represent the population 

that we are concerned with? 

Ms. EVANS. Absolutely. Thank you. I would say we have a country full of examples similar to the people who spoke today. There 

are so many unlined dump sites, whether they be unlined ponds or 

unlined landfills or simply holes in the ground by gravel pits and 

mines where we place this waste. For 30 years having unregulated 

disposal, it is resulted in a lot of waste sites that present dangers 

to the general public. The EPA has identified 71 sites so far as Ken 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
86 

referenced where there has been contamination of ground and surface water in 23 States. That is a drop in the bucket, and EPA does 

admit that, and one reason that we can say with some certainty 

that it is a drop in the bucket is that so many of these dump sites 

are not monitored, and if you don’t monitor the dump sites, you 

don’t know what is leaving them. So I would say that in my experience in numerous communities over the last 10 years, there are 

certainly many, many communities that—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Ms. Evans, very much. I think—— 

Dr. MCGRAW. If I could respond, Mr. Chairman, just briefly to 

Ms. Evans’ comment, she identified sites but I challenge her to 

identify numbers of individuals or communities where it has been 

demonstrated objectively, medically that they have developed either life-threatening illnesses or have died as a result of exposure 

to coal tar ash. I challenge her because it doesn’t exist. I have seen 

people die a thousand different ways, Mr. Chairman, but I have 

never seen one either die or become ill from exposure to coal ash. 

Mr. MARKEY. Ms. Evans? 

Ms. EVANS. I would be happy to provide the subcommittee with 

medical reports from people who—and this mostly occurs in litigation where they have to draw the connection between the coal ash 

and the disease, but we do have reports to that effect and can submit those to the committee. 

Dr. MCGRAW. Anecdotal legal cases do not represent epidemiology. That is not science. That is law. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, I appreciate that, but we also have certain 

other kind of, we call them in the law res ipsa loquitur, which is 

the thing speaks for itself. I think that is what we heard from 

Robin Whitaker-Pierce earlier. The property cannot be sold. The 

entire community is frozen. We have widespread health impacts. 

And to a certain extent, there has been a see no evil, hear no evil 

aspect to this issue over the years. So we are just kind of catching 

up with this issue in the same way that we caught up with the tobacco issue as well, and I think that the witnesses here today provide very compelling evidence that there is a problem here, that 

long-term exposure to these elements is dangerous and again, the 

EPA is in the process of completing their recommendations, and 

when they do, we will have them here for the hearing and we will 

be able to ask them those questions. 

Let me turn now and recognize the gentleman from Michigan, 

Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Evans, Mr. Ladwig, we have checked with my Michigan utilities as they expose of this ash. I am told that they use landfills 

that are clay lined unlike I guess what now Maryland is now pursued in terms of my question for Ms. Queen on the last panel. They 

have monitoring. It requires monitoring of any leakage as well. It 

is regulated as an industrial waste in the State of Michigan. And 

my question is, how many States have a similar type of procedure 

for the disposal of waste? Do you know? 

Ms. EVANS. The majority of States do not require what you 

just—— 

Mr. UPTON. So Michigan is more advanced than most States. Is 

that what you are saying? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
87 

Ms. EVANS. I would say if you are talking about States that require clay liners for all waste disposal units would be in the minority but I would also say that the—— 

Mr. UPTON. And monitoring as well. 

Ms. EVANS. And monitoring. What you have—— 

Mr. UPTON. I want to make sure I don’t run out of time. 

Mr. Ladwig, would you concur with that? 

Mr. LADWIG. Not exactly. I don’t know the number of States that 

currently have liner requirements. I do know that as I said in my 

testimony, essentially all new facilities built between 1994 and 

2004 when DOE and EPA did their study all employed liners. So 

either their States are requiring them or they are voluntarily installing liners. 

With respect to groundwater monitoring, almost all landfills have 

groundwater monitoring, as far back as the 1990s. Ponds have had 

a little bit more checkered history with respect to monitoring and 

it was more like half at that time had monitoring in the 1990s 

when we did a study on this. I am not sure what the number is 

now. 

Mr. UPTON. Now, in Michigan, a good share of the waste is actually used for highway cement, particleboard, that type of thing. In 

fact, I am aware of a letter that the Michigan Department of 

Transportation sent to the Federal Highway Administration saying 

that this is a good use of the substance actually. It performs better 

with that. A question I think in a lot of people’s view if we could 

recycle this somehow in terms of a meaningful way. I am told that 

again in Europe, perhaps as much as 80 to 90 percent of the ash 

is used for this type of purpose. In the United States, we are closer 

to about 40 percent or about half. The question is, if we classify it 

as a hazardous waste, as some perhaps have suggested, what 

would that do to the efforts to then recycle this versus putting it 

all into a landfill or that type of thing? 

Ms. EVANS. Before I respond to the recycling question, let me 

just quickly go back to Michigan’s landfill regulations because I 

think it is also in Ken’s statement regarding the 56 facilities that 

were built between 1994 and 2004 because the important point has 

to be made that all liners are not equal, and the requirement that 

landfills and surface impoundments have clay liners was shown by 

EPA to be insufficient. So the standard that landfills and surface 

impoundments need to have composite liners is something that 

EPA stated in its risk assessment and that landfills and surface 

impoundments that are not so lined present an unacceptable risk 

of migration. 

Mr. UPTON. You are saying they need to have a composite? 

Ms. EVANS. A composite liner, and the—— 

Mr. UPTON. And how many States have that today? 

Ms. EVANS. Very few have a requirement that all landfills and 

all—— 

Mr. UPTON. So almost none? 

Ms. EVANS. I mean, 50 percent of the States in the United States 

don’t require ponds to have any liners. 

Mr. UPTON. Moving to my next question, if it was classified as 

a hazardous waste, would in fact we be able to recycle much of the 

material there like we do today? Yes or no. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
88 

Ms. EVANS. Yes. EPA has the flexibility to deal with recycled 

waste as solid waste. It can parse out, and under the state it can 

regulate waste that is disposed as hazardous, perhaps put—— 

Mr. UPTON. Would that not add tremendously to the cost and 

therefore diminish the amount that is recycled today? 

Ms. EVANS. It shouldn’t. If it is going to cost more to recycle the 

waste—I mean if it is going to cost more to dispose of the waste, 

there is going to be an incentive to recycle. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Ladwig, do you have a guess as to what the cost 

would be to the industry, not only to go to a composite-type liner 

versus the clay liners that are used today, with the monitoring that 

they have which I think might have resolved Ms. Queen’s problem 

because in her testimony, she indicated that it went to an unlined 

site, but how would that impact recycling as well? 

Mr. LADWIG. Well, I think you have a couple questions embedded 

there. The costs of moving to hazardous waste requirements of 

these facilities would increase the cost of disposal by a factor of 10, 

would be up into the billions of dollars for the utility industry. 

Thirteen billion dollars I think was one estimate that was provided. 

That is a significant cost, and we have done an analysis that the 

impact of that cost as well as the cost of phasing out wet management, what those costs would actually do to utilities, how many 

units it would—— 

Mr. UPTON. It would cost billions of dollars more. That would 

have to be passed along to the ratepayers, right? 

Mr. LADWIG. I would assume so. You know, I am not familiar 

with utility finances. 

Mr. UPTON. My time is expired, so just tell me how would impact 

recycling. 

Mr. LADWIG. From everything we have heard and I believe 

USWAG, the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, has collected a 

number of letters. There are somewhere on the order of 150 to 200 

letters from utilities, marketing companies and users all stating 

very clearly that a hazardous waste designation would have a 

chilling effect on any use just simply because using a material 

when it is deemed hazardous if it goes in one direction and usable 

when it goes in another direction is not a workable situation. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. 

Mr. DOYLE [presiding]. The Chair will recognize himself. 

Dr. McGraw, my grandfather got off the boat from Ireland in 

1900 and landed in Pittsburgh. He worked 41 years at Kerry Furnace in Rankin. My father followed him in the steel industry and 

worked 31 years at Eggert Thompson in Braddock. I worked there 

two summers and realized that I didn’t want to be a steelworker. 

I appreciate the steel industry and coal. All my constituents get 

their electricity from coal in Pittsburgh, and I lived my entire 56 

years there. We Pittsburghers didn’t much appreciate Mr. Carnegie 

dumping all his waste in the Monongahela River and the Allegheny 

River and at one point those rivers got very dark and nobody fished 

in those rivers, and regulations finally were put in place that made 

sure that people just didn’t indiscriminately dump things into the 

rivers or up into the air. John Surma is a dear friend of mine, the 

current CEO of U.S. Steel, and he will tell you that he thinks that 

a clean environment and a steel industry can coexist. This comVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:52 Oct 20, 2012 Jkt 074859 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A859.XXX A859

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
89 

mittee is not talking about putting the coal industry or the steel 

industry out of business but what we are saying, that in this country there are many States that have no regulations on this or very 

lax regulations. Pennsylvania has been overseeing beneficial reuse 

of coal ash since 1985. We have standards in place since 1992. 

States like Wisconsin have good standards. We believe that these 

industries can coexist with good regulation and partnership. So 

when you said in your testimony that you were much more concerned about the job loss in the coal industry than you were about 

the potential health hazards, I would tell you that we need to do 

both. We can protect jobs and protect people’s lives. That is what 

we are trying to research here on the committee. 

I am familiar with Forward Township. I used to represent it for 

8 years before redistricting. I am curious, how did you come to get 

involved in the Forward Township case? You mentioned you were 

involved in examining people there. 

Dr. MCGRAW. I believe that they were referred to me through the 

graduate school of public health at the University of Pittsburgh 

where I have been a faculty member for a long time because they 

knew me as someone who would see anyone for virtually any kind 

of problem, and I believe the chairman of the department referred 

them all to me when they called in to his office. You know, I don’t 

disagree with anything you just said, Mr. Doyle. I respect the need 

to have a clean environment and certainly want nothing less myself, and I think the commonwealth should be particularly proud 

in having already done a good job. But to classify a relatively benign material as a hazardous waste would I think lead to a cascade 

of events that would cost jobs and enormous resources to the power 

industry, the coal industry, the steel industry and all the way down 

the line. 

Mr. DOYLE. So it is your testimony then that you believe coal ash 

to be completely benign and not a health risk to anyone? 

Dr. MCGRAW. That is correct. 

Mr. DOYLE. We could just eat this stuff, and—— 

Dr. MCGRAW. If you put some on my cereal, it might not be very 

tasty but you would have to put it on a long, long time before we 

would get to the point where those poor people in other countries 

are consuming it and would be at risk. So in this country, the likelihood of that happening is like being struck by lightning. 

Mr. DOYLE. I want to be certain about your testimony. You 

talked about the arsenic levels in Bangladesh. You are certainly 

not subscribing to the fact that we should adopt Bangladesh water 

standards here in the United States. I mean, you are saying it is 

OK to drink that much? If that amount of arsenic was in the U.S. 

water, that wouldn’t concern you? 

Dr. MCGRAW. Of course not. All I am doing is contrasting and 

trying to show that with any material, however apparently benign, 

whether it is salt, sugar, arsenic, mercury or anything else, there 

is a does and there is a length of time of exposure that is required 

to cause a potential problem. Presumably in these hallowed halls, 

we probably already met government requirements of introducing 

the appropriate kind of new green fluorescent bulbs, all of which 

contain a particularly lethal form of metallic mercury and for 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
90 

which there is no hazardous waste reclamation plant in place to my 

knowledge. 

Mr. DOYLE. Right. I understand. My time is starting to run out 

and I have a couple more. 

Dr. Fox, you just heard what Dr. McGraw said. He basically says 

we could eat this stuff and it might not taste so good but it is not 

going to hurt us. What is your reaction to that? 

Ms. FOX. Well, I would like to bring the subcommittee’s attention 

to some recent findings from some of my colleagues at Hopkins and 

others that address the issue of sort of typical U.S. exposures. 

There have been research findings in the last 2 or 3 years of relating arsenic exposure to cancer and also diabetes. So there is a 

growing body of literature that reflects the exposure conditions in 

the United States and associates arsenic exposure with some 

health effects of concern. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. I see my time is expired. Who is next up 

on the list here? Ed. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

being with us this morning. 

Mr. Ladwig, you state that since 1990 that EPRI has used the 

toxicity characteristic leaching procedure protocol which is used by 

EPA to test for the hazardous characteristics of eight trace metals 

that EPA would consider critical to a hazardous-waste designation: 

arsenic, selenium, barium, cadmium, silver, chromium, lead and 

mercury, and that EPRI data from all the analysis and tests that 

they have conducted shows no coal ash samples exceeded any of 

the TCLP limits. Is that correct? 

Mr. LADWIG. That is correct. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And we know that EPA has looked at this issue 

repeatedly from three or four dates. I don’t have the dates with me 

right now of the most recent one but it was 2000 and even they 

decided not to classify this as a hazardous material. In your tests, 

were there any types of coal or coal mined from certain regions of 

the country or world that is burned here in the United States that 

you did not test? 

Mr. LADWIG. I couldn’t vouch that we have tested every type of 

ash from every coal that is burned, you know, from anywhere in 

the world but we have tested a broad range. We have a very representative database. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, you know, I think the key here today, as 

our chairman stated, that we need a balanced approach here because we have to use coal to meet our electrical demands and remain competitive in the world and to continue to create jobs and 

not lose jobs. And the thing that bothers me about Ms. Evans and 

the group that she represents, in her testimony she says we need 

a federal standard to police this disposal of ash, which I agree with, 

we do need a federal standard. And then she goes on and says even 

if we get one, it is not enough. So we need a federal standard but 

even if we get one, that is not enough. So I think that is the problem that we have, and I know we are getting ready to vote, Mr. 

Chairman, so I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Whitfield. 

Ms. EVANS. May I just take—— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
91 

Mr. DOYLE. We have votes coming up and we are going to try to 

get these witnesses in so hopefully you will get a chance to elaborate, and when we come back we will try to give you some more 

time. 

Mr. Matheson. 

Mr. MATHESON. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a question for Ms. Evans. In your testimony, you highlight 

that more stringent regulation of coal ash has raised State recycling rates significantly. I think you were referring probably to 

Wisconsin. 

Ms. EVANS. Yes, I am. 

Mr. MATHESON. Does more stringent regulation include a hazardous waste subtitle C designation? 

Ms. EVANS. Well, there is no subtitle C designation currently. It 

means more stringent—Wisconsin has more stringent regulations 

than its neighbors and its recycling rate is about double of the 

neighboring States. 

Mr. MATHESON. In your testimony, you recommend that EPA 

must designate coal combustion waste as hazardous waste under 

subtitle C of RCRA. Is that correct? 

Ms. EVANS. That’s correct. 

Mr. MATHESON. What would be the impact of the recycling and 

reuse efforts in Wisconsin if we end up—if there is federal action 

to regulate coal ash as hazardous waste under subtitle C of RCRA? 

Ms. EVANS. I don’t think it would change. I think that there 

might even be tightening that would have to be done on the Wisconsin regulations so there might even be more incentive. If costs 

go up to dispose of waste in mine landfills there would be more incentive to find safe reuse. 

Mr. MATHESON. The State of Wisconsin actually has a different 

opinion. They have sent a letter from the Department of Natural 

Resources that says, and I will quote, ‘‘If coal ash were to be regulated under RCRA subtitle C, the options for beneficial using or 

reusing the ash would be significantly impacted and severely limited. So we have to keep looking at this, and the balanced option 

I think that Mr. Whitfield was talking about before about what we 

are trying to do, people like the recycling idea but if you go to a 

hazardous-waste designation, you know, there are other consequences to this, and I just want to make sure that was on the 

record. 

Ms. EVANS. But I think you are looking at this very black and 

white. There are a lot of hazardous wastes that are successfully recycled into products. 

Mr. MATHESON. I am looking at it for coal ash waste, not for all 

products. 

Ms. EVANS. Right, but you have to realize that EPA has flexibility going into this regulatory process and really does want to—— 

Mr. MATHESON. I just want to get on the record that there is a 

potential conflict there, and you suggested that we ought to—you 

know, you log Wisconsin and they are saying don’t do what you are 

suggesting we do. I just want that on the record. 

Mr. Ladwig, have you analyzed coal ash in relationship to EPA’s 

test to determine if a waste is hazardous under RCRA? 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
92 

Mr. LADWIG. Yes, well, we have done the TCLP test. We just 

talked about that. 

Mr. MATHESON. And what did you find? 

Mr. LADWIG. We find it always passes the TCLP test. The EPA 

finds that it almost always passes. 

Mr. MATHESON. How does coal ash compare to another large volume solid waste stream like municipal solid waste? 

Mr. LADWIG. It is roughly on par with that. The risks posed by 

any of these materials that are non-hazardous are roughly in the 

same ballpark. 

Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Ladwig, can you describe just quickly benefits to the environment from recycling the coal ash? 

Mr. LADWIG. Yes, I listed some of those in my presentation but 

there are benefits in energy savings, water savings, greenhouse gas 

emissions and land use. Those are probably what I would call the 

four primary benefits from an environmental perspective and there 

is obviously cost benefits. 

Mr. MATHESON. Dr. McGraw, in your testimony you highlight the 

need to properly and safely contain fly ash wherever it is stored or 

used in some practical application. Do you believe that a hazardous 

waste designation is necessary to properly and safely contain coal 

ash? 

Dr. MCGRAW. I do not. 

Mr. MATHESON. I know that my colleague from Illinois is anxious 

to ask, so I am going to do one more. 

I think that this question about classifying coal ash as hazardous 

waste and the potential to eliminate or at least greatly reduce 

reuse opportunities is an issue that we need to talk about as a committee. I think that that conflict or at least that potential conflict 

is something that we need to flesh out more. I think that is why 

it is important we are having this hearing. Mr. Chairman, I will 

yield back. 

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I have a unanimous consent for opening statements that all members may be included into the record. 

Mr. DOYLE. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And also, these are pre-cleared. Unanimous consent for letters have been pre-cleared with your staff from the 

ECOS resolution on hazardous waste, the April 1, 2009, letter to 

the EPA from ASTSWMO, September 19, 2009, letter to the EPA 

from the Unions for Jobs and the Environment, and a November 

17, 2009, letter to EPA from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. DOYLE. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For our panel, do you reject the assertion that the Illinois EPA 

is the closest to the citizens of Illinois and has a vested interest in 

protecting the health of the citizens of Illinois? Dr. McGraw, yes or 

no? 

Dr. MCGRAW. The State? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. The State EPA. 

Dr. MCGRAW. The State EPA I think would have the most direct 

relationship or familiarity with the issue. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
93 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Dr. Fox, do you reject the fact that the Illinois 

EPA’s mission is to protect the health and safety of the citizens of 

the State of Illinois? 

Ms. FOX. No. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Ms. Evans, state of Illinois EPA. I am just talking 

about the State of Illinois. 

Ms. EVANS. Yes, and as a former federal EPA employee, I would 

say that there is often a conflict between the State EPA and—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. My question is, do you reject the premise that the 

State of Illinois EPA does not have the interests of the citizens of 

the State in health and safety issues? 

Ms. EVANS. They might have the interests but not always the political power to regulate the—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So you are saying that they don’t have the interests of the citizens of the State of Illinois? 

Ms. EVANS. They have the interest. They might have the political 

will to properly—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So you reject this letter from the Illinois EPA that 

says that they can best regulate this? 

Ms. EVANS. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Ladwig? 

Mr. LADWIG. No, I don’t reject that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

Dr. McGraw, part of our job is to make the complex simple as 

possible so that we can help educate our constituents and educate 

ourselves. Epidemiologic, define. 

Dr. MCGRAW. That is the study of populations and in contrasting 

groups of individuals within a population, a designated population 

who have a specific injury or illness and comparing them with 

those individuals who don’t, and trying to determine as a result 

what might have led to that specific problem whether there was 

a—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So you are familiar with the scientific method in 

essence? 

Dr. MCGRAW. Yes, I studied epidemiology as part of my training. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And the scientific method creates—and we have 

been dealing with this with the whole Climate Gate debate—is that 

there are facts. There are basic facts that can be gathered and reviewed to make an analysis on what is going on, and that is what 

you were testifying to and that that is what your testimony says. 

Dr. MCGRAW. Facts versus presumption, which is what I am saying. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that is why I am trying to make the complex 

simple because we always talk about arsenic. We have talked about 

arsenic in this committee since I have been a member. An Olympicsized swimming pool filled with arsenic would be hazardous to 

human health. Wouldn’t you agree, Dr. McGraw? 

Dr. MCGRAW. Filled, yes, it would—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Filled completely. 

Dr. MCGRAW. It would sink to the bottom and you probably 

wouldn’t get much if you were swimming in it because—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Now, let me ask this—— 

Dr. MCGRAW [continuing]. It is not soluble in water. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
94 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me ask, A, Olympic-size swimming pool filled 

with water with one eye drop of arsenic, would that be hazardous 

to human health? 

Dr. MCGRAW. Of course not. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So this whole debate is this. Using real science to 

determine the health effects, and at what cost. It would probably 

be cheaper to drain and Olympic-size swimming pool filled with arsenic than it would be to take out the one eye dropper of arsenic, 

and the issue is, at what cost based upon what science. We are 

having this same debate on the Climate Gate issue. When the scientists can’t give us the facts, then you go on emotion, and when 

emotions run rampant it costs the jobs that you are referring to 

that I refer to in this whole issue. So I applaud my colleague, Mr. 

Matheson, for trying to get to the point of we better be careful not 

solely to run on emotion because there is a cost-benefit analysis of 

all this stuff, and we all understand that, so let us get to the facts. 

And I think why your testimony is so compelling is because you are 

doing it based on your great credentials, epidemiological background and on the facts of study of the health of individuals, and 

I want to thank you for your time and I yield back my time, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. We apologize to 

you for the floor schedule. We have 45 minutes of roll calls till our 

votes begin out on the House Floor, and that is unfortunate. 

So this is a very important hearing. It is in anticipation of the 

Environmental Protection Agency promulgating new rules that will 

deal with public health-related issues here but of course the question of jobs is also part of this discussion. We have heard here 

today that there are materials that are hazardous. They have 

poisoned people. They have destroyed homes and have contaminated the environment. No one, as Mr. Doyle said, is talking about 

shutting down the coal industry. What we are talking about is prohibiting unsafe disposal practices from being allowed to continue so 

that we can ensure that there continues to be safe commercial use 

of all of the materials that are in question. The EPA can use its 

statutory authority to craft a rule that both protects public health 

and allows for safe practices to continue without causing jobs to be 

lost. We can do both. Mr. Doyle has made that point. We did both 

when we decided that we were going to regulate clean water, safe 

food. We don’t want to prohibit but at the same time we want to 

ensure we put in those protections for public health. 

So we thank each of the witnesses. We want to continue to work 

with you. We apologize to you, Ms. Evans, and to others. I know 

you have other points which we would like to include in the record 

in its written form if you would like to provide it to the committee. 

This hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
95 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 106 here 74859A.052
96 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 107 here 74859A.053
97 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 108 here 74859A.054
98 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 109 here 74859A.055
99 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 110 here 74859A.056
100 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 111 here 74859A.057
101 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 112 here 74859A.058
102 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 113 here 74859A.059
103 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 114 here 74859A.060
104 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 115 here 74859A.061
105 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 116 here 74859A.062
106 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 117 here 74859A.063
107 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 118 here 74859A.064
108 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 119 here 74859A.065
109 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 120 here 74859A.066
110 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 121 here 74859A.067
111 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 122 here 74859A.068
112 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 123 here 74859A.069
113 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 124 here 74859A.070
114 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 125 here 74859A.071
115 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 126 here 74859A.072
116 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 127 here 74859A.073
117 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 128 here 74859A.074
118 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 129 here 74859A.075
119 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 130 here 74859A.076
120 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 131 here 74859A.077
121 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 132 here 74859A.078
122 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 133 here 74859A.079
123 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 134 here 74859A.080
124 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 135 here 74859A.081
125 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 136 here 74859A.082
126 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 137 here 74859A.083
127 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 138 here 74859A.084
128 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 139 here 74859A.085
129 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 140 here 74859A.086
130 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 141 here 74859A.087
131 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 142 here 74859A.088
132 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 143 here 74859A.089
133 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 144 here 74859A.090
134 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 145 here 74859A.091
135 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 146 here 74859A.092
136 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 147 here 74859A.093
137 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 148 here 74859A.094
138 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 149 here 74859A.095
139 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 150 here 74859A.096
140 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 151 here 74859A.097
141 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 152 here 74859A.098
142 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 153 here 74859A.099
143 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 154 here 74859A.100
144 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 155 here 74859A.101
145 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 156 here 74859A.102
146 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 157 here 74859A.103
147 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 158 here 74859A.104
148 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 159 here 74859A.105
149 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 160 here 74859A.106
150 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 161 here 74859A.107
151 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 162 here 74859A.108
152 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 163 here 74859A.109
153 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 164 here 74859A.110
154 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 165 here 74859A.111
155 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 166 here 74859A.112
156 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 167 here 74859A.113
157 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 168 here 74859A.114
158 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 169 here 74859A.115
159 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 170 here 74859A.116
160 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 171 here 74859A.117
161 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 172 here 74859A.118
162 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 173 here 74859A.119
163 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 174 here 74859A.120
164 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 175 here 74859A.121
165 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 176 here 74859A.122
166 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 177 here 74859A.123
167 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 178 here 74859A.124
168 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 179 here 74859A.125
169 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 180 here 74859A.126
170 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 181 here 74859A.127
171 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 182 here 74859A.128
172 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 183 here 74859A.129
173 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 184 here 74859A.130
174 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 185 here 74859A.131
175 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 186 here 74859A.132
176 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 187 here 74859A.133
177 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 188 here 74859A.134
178 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with Insert offset folio 189 here 74859A.135