UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

PUBLIC HEARING ON EP A'S PROPOSED RULE ON

Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System;

Identification and Listing of Special Wastes;

Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from

Electric Utilities

DOCKET ID NO. EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Tuesday, September 21, 20102

1 PARTICIPANTS:

2 EPA Hearing Panel:

3 Morning Session:

4 ROBERT DELLINGER, Chair

Director of Materials Recovery and Waste

5 Management

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

6

LAUREL CELESTE

7

STEVE SOUDERS

8

CRAIG DUFFICY

9

Afternoon Session:

10

BETSY DEVLIN, Chair

11 Associate Director of Materials Recovery and Waste

Management

12 Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

13 FRANK BEHAN

14 MARY HUNT

15 JESSE MILLER

16 Evening Session:

17 ROBERT DELLINGER, Chair

Director of Materials Recovery and Waste

18 Management

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

19

LAUREL CELESTE

20

STEVE SOUDERS

21

CRAIG DUFFICY

22

* * * * *3

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

2 (10:00 a.m.)

3 MR. DELLINGER: Good morning and thank

4 you for attending today's public hearing on the

5 Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule

6 regarding the regulation of the coal combustion

7 residuals that are disposed of in landfills and

8 surface impoundments.

9 Before we begin, I'd like to thank you

10 for taking the time out from your busy schedules

11 to address our proposed rule, and we look forward

12 to receiving your comments.

13 This is the sixth of eight public

14 hearings that we will be conducting. We've had

15 five very successful hearings in Washington, DC,

16 Denver, Dallas, Charlotte and Chicago. The

17 remaining hearings are scheduled for Louisville

18 and Knoxville, Tennessee.

19 My name is Bob Dellinger. I'm the

20 Director of the Materials Recovery and Waste

21 Management D ivision in EPA's Office of Resource

22 Conservation and Recovery. I'll be chairing this4

1 session of today's public hearing.

2 With me on the panel are Laurel Celeste,

3 to my right of the EPA's Office of General

4 Counsel; and to her right are Steve Souders and

5 Craig Dufficy, who both work with me.

6 Before we begin the public hearing, I'd

7 like to provide a brief description of the

8 proposed rules as well as the logistics on how we

9 plan to run today's hearing. Coal Combustion

10 r esiduals, or CCR's, are residues from the

11 combustion of coal and electric utilities and

12 include fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue

13 gas desulfurization of materials. Coal combustion

1 4 residuals contain problematic contaminants such as

15 mercury, cadmium, selenium and arsenic.

16 In 2008, 136 million tons of coal

17 combustion residuals were generated by electric

18 utilities and independent power producers. Of

19 that total, about 46 million tons were landfilled,

20 30 million tons were disposed in surface

21 impoundments, 50 million tons were beneficially

22 used, and 11 million tons were used in mine fill5

1 operations.

2 EPA estimates that there are

3 approximately 3 00 landfills and more than 600

4 surface impoundments where coal ash residuals are

5 disposed. We have proposed to regulate these coal

6 ash residuals to ensure their safe management when

7 t hey are disposed in landfills and surface

8 impoundments.

9 Without proper protections, the

10 contaminants in these residuals can leach into

11 ground water and migrate to drinking w ater

12 sources, posing public health concerns.

13 In addition, the structural failure of

14 the surface impoundment at the Tennessee Valley

15 Authority's plant in Kingston, Tennessee, in

16 December of 2008 released more than 5 million

17 cubic yards of coal ash over approximately 300

18 acres of land and contaminated portions of the Emory

19 and Clinch Rivers.

20 With this proposal, the EPA has opened a

21 national dialogue by calling for public comment on

22 two different regulatory approaches available6

1 under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

2 for addressing the risks from the disposal of coal

3 combustion residuals.

4 One item presented in the proposed rule

5 draws from the authorities available under

6 Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and

7 Recovery Act. This will create a comprehensive

8 program of federally enforceable requirements for

9 Waste Management of these residuals.

10 The other option is based on the

11 authorities of Subtitle D of the Resource of

12 Conservation Recovery Act, which gives EPA the

13 authority to set national minimum federal criteria

14 for Waste Management facilities that must be met

15 under a schedule established in the regulation for

16 it to be finalized. The regulation would be

17 enforced through citizen suits, and under this

18 scenario, states would qualify as citizens.

19 EPA decided to co

- propose these two rule

20 options to encourage a robust dialogue on h ow to

21 address the human health concerns and structural

22 integrity issues associated with the disposal of7

1 coal combustion res iduals and landfills and

2 surface impoundments.

3 EPA wants to ensure that our ultimate

4 decision is based on the best available data and

5 is made with substantial input from all state

6 levels; therefore, we ask that you provide your

7 comments not only at today's hearing, but any

8 other comments that support the information that

9 you'll want to provide in writing.

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

11 the beneficial use of coal combustion residuals.

12 The EPA continues to strongly support

13 the safe protective beneficial use of coal

14 combustion residuals; however, the proposal also

15 indicates the concerns have been raised with some

16 uses of coal combustion residuals, particularly

17 when used in an unencapsulated f orm. Therefore,

18 we request comments, information, and data on

19 specific aspects of beneficial use, particularly

20 those activities that deal with unencapsulated

21 applications.

22 We also make clear the proposal that8

1 coal com bust ion residuals that are placed in sand and

2 gravel pits and other large scale landfill

3 operations are not examples of beneficial use.

4 Today's public hearing will work as

5 follows: Speakers, if you've preregistered,

6 you'll be given a 15

- minute time slo t when you are

7 scheduled to give your testimony.

8 Again, we ask that you sign

- in 10

9 minutes before your 15

- minute slot at the

10 registration desk. All speakers, those who are

11 preregistered and walk

- ins, were given a number

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

13 which you will be speaking.

14 I'll call the speakers to the front of

15 the room by number, four or five at a time. There

16 are chairs for the speakers

-- the upcoming

17 speakers

-- waiting to provide testimony behind

18 the podium where the speaker of the

-- of that

19 time will be speaking.

20 When you're number is called, please

21 move to the microphone and state your name and

22 your affiliation. We may ask you to spell your9

1 name for the court reporters, who are transcribing

2 your comments for the official record.

3 Because there are many people who are

4 signed up to provide testimony today, and to be

5 fair to everybody, testimony is limited to three

6 minutes.

7 We will be using an electronic

8 timekeeping system and we' ll also hold cards up to

9 let you know when your time is getting low. When

10 we hold up the first card, this means that you

11 have two minutes left.

12 When we hold up the second ca rd, that

13 means you have one minute left. When the third

14 card is held up, you have 30 seconds left, and

15 when the red card is held up, you are out of time

16 and should not continue with y our remarks other

17 than to do a very brief response.

18 Remember to provide any written material

19 to our court reporters and the material will be

20 entered into the rulemaking recor d.

21 We will not be answering questions on

22 the proposal; however, from time to time any of us10

1 on the hearing panel may ask questions of you to

2 clarify your testimony.

3 As I just mentioned, if you brought a

4 written copy of your testimony, please leave a

5 copy in the box by our court reporter s. The box

6 is up here in the front table where the court

7 reporters are, and it's on my left here and your

8 right.

9 If you are only submitting written

10 comment s today, please put those in the box by the

11 registration desk. If you have additional

12 comments after today, please follow the

13 instructions on the yellow handout and submit

14 comments by November 19th of 2010.

15 Our goal is to make sure that everyone

16 who has come today to present testimony is given

17 an opportunity to provide comments.

18 To the extent al lowable by time

19 constraints, we'll do our best to accommodate the

20 speakers who have not preregistered.

21 Today's hearing is scheduled to close at

22 9 p.m., but we'll stay later i f necessary. If,11

1 however, time is not allowed to present your

2 comments orally, we have prepared a table in the

3 lobby where you can provide a written statement in

4 lieu of oral testimony. These written statements

5 will be co ll ected and entered into the docket for

6 the proposed rule, and they'll be considered the

7 same as if you presented them orally.

8 If you would like to testify but have

9 not yet registered to do so, please sign up at the

10 registration table. We are likely to take

11 occasional breaks, but we are prepared to

12 eliminate or shorten the breaks in order to allow

13 as many people as possible to provide their oral

14 testimony.

15 Finally, if you have a cell phone, we

16 would appreciable it if you would turn it off or

17 turn it to vibrate. If you need to use your phone

18 at any time during the hearing, please move to the

19 lobby, and we as k for your patience as we proceed.

20 We may need to make some minor adjustments as

21 today progresses.

22 Thanks again for participating today,12

1 and we'll start the hearing right now.

2 Could numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 step

3 forward. Number 1.

4 MR. ROEWER: Good morning. My name is

5 Jim Roewer, I'm the Executive Director of the

6 Utility Solid Waste Activities Group or USWAG.

7 USWAG is an association of

.

8 This is the fourth public hearing that

9 I've attended, and I have listened carefully to

10 the testimony of citizen activi s ts.

11 I've heard them call for groundwater

12 monitoring of ash disposal sites

-- and we agree.

13 For gro undwater protection standards

-- we agree;

14 th at corrective measures be taken to address

15 environmental impacts

-- we agree.

16 For liners for disposal units

-- in

17 fact, the overw helming majority of the new

18 facilities have monitors because of state

19 regulations. For dam safety and inspection

20 standards

-- we agree; and generally for

21 protection of human of the en vironment

-- and we

22 agree.13

1 In fact, all of these protections can be

2 obtained through the implementation of Subtit le D

3 regulations. Most importantly, Subtitle D

4 regulations will be implemented sooner, many years

5 sooner than Subtitle C standards. D regulations

6 will not have a devastating impact o n beneficial

7 use. They will not have an unnecessarily

8 burdensome impact on power plant operations,

9 raising energy costs, and threatening an already

10 tenuous jobs recovery; and they wil l build on

11 existing state regulations, strengthening those

12 regulatory programs, rather than requiring

13 implementation of an entirely new regulatory

14 program, duplicating existing regulat ions and

15 imposing significant burdens on already strained

16 state governmental resources.

17 Subtitle D regulation of coal ash will

18 be protective of human health and the environme nt,

19 can be implemented sooner and will not create the

20 adverse impacts that hazardous waste regulations

21 will have. USWAG supports federally

- enforceable

22 Subtitle D controls for coal ash , including the14

1 integrity standards, to help prevent future coal

2 ash releases like that which occurred at TVA. And

3 we beli eve federally enforceable Subtitle D

4 regulations for coal ash can be developed under

5 the same authorities EPA used when they developed

6 federally enforceable Subtitle D rules for

7 munici pal solid waste landfills.

8 Given the above, and the fact that even

9 EPA has recognized that the inflexible nature of

10 the federal hazardous waste program would result

11 in excess costs and unduly burdensome regulations

12 for coal ash, the answer is clear that Subtitle C

13 regulation of coal ash, the most burdensome and

14 costly option available to EPA under federal law,

15 simply is not warranted. Thank you.

16 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 2.

17 MS. GRAVES: My name is Lisa Graves

18 Marcucci, and I'm here as a resident of

19 Pennsylv ania. I'm surrounded by coal ash.

20 Currently, busloads of people living

21 near coal ash impoundments in Pennsylvania, Ohio

22 and West Virginia are making their way to this15

1 hearing. They will be sharing what it's really

2 like not the mythical version told by companies

3 and the Pennsylvania DEP.

4 Their personal stories represent

5 something far more valuable than money, human

6 health. Industry worries about a stigma on their

7 product

-- these people, including myself, worry

8 abo ut their very lives.

9 The EPA risk assessment details

10 extremely high cancer risks to communities living

11 near unlined coal ash impoundments

-- particularly

12 those on groundwater , like Greene Township,

13 Pennsylvania, home to the Little Blue Run ash

14 impoundment.

15 There is nothing little about Little

16 Blue. It is one of nation's largest coal ash

17 impoundments. It stretches from Pennsylvania into

18 Chester, West Virginia, and faces East Liverpool,

19 Ohio.

20 Pennsylvania DEP files reveal

21 contamination problems exis ted at Little Blue for

22 over a decade; however, the DEP has not issued any16

1 fines, corrective actions, or remediation

2 directi ves. Even with contamination problems, the

3 Pennsylvania DEP authorized an expansion in 2005

4 under a Demonstration or experimental status,

5 offering even less protection to the communities.

6 Currently, First Energy is seeking more

7 land for ash disposal. Residents have been asked

8 to sign company waivers, removing the state

9 required buffer, protection setbacks to private

10 wells and residences.

11 The DEP and First Energy officials deny

12 arsenic problems at Little Blue; however,

13 documents show elevated arsenic in ten monitoring

14 wells, and shockingly, the public was never told

15 until we obtained company documents from the state

16 files.

17 Twenty

- two private wells have been

18 contaminated with a variety of pollutan t found

19 arsenic. The DEP is doing nothing to contain the

20 toxic plume, protect drinking water or the humans

21 consuming it.

22 We believe that cancer rates among folks17

1 living hear Little Blue are reflected by cancer

2 rates modeled in the US EPA's risk assessment.

3 Little Blue represents a real

- world

4 example of why federal rules are needed. The DEP

5 has become an advocate for industry's toxic waste.

6 They are not holding First Energy or any other

7 company accountable for probl ems at ash

8 impoundments.

9 Industry and the PA DEP contend there is

10 no evidence of ground or surface water

11 contamination from coal ash. PA DEP public files

12 p rove otherwise. Industry and PA DEP are

13 deliberately ignoring the facts, and misleading

14 you and the public; coal ash has contaminated

15 water sources. Something needs to be done to

16 pr otect the people who are literally in harm's

17 way. Thank you.

18 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 3.

19 MS. BRAVERMAN: I'm Beverly Braverman,

20 Executive Director of the Mountain Watershed

21 Association, a grass roots community based group

22 located here in southwestern Pennsylvania.18

1 I urge you to accept C not D. A

2 recently released report entitled Coal Ash, the

3 Toxic Threat to our Health and Our Environment,

4 states with certainty that casual disposal of coal

5 ash a s a benign substance has already had a

6 frightening impact on human health and the

7 environment.

8 I'm appending it to my comments and I'm

9 urging you to take the time to read the m.

10 The most frightening statement in this

11 report is, quote, given the high toxicity of coal

12 ash's constituents, the growing number of proven

13 and potential damage case s and th e pro sp e ct of more

14 damage cases emerging as toxicants reaches peak

15 concentration in the coming years. The magnitude

16 of coal ash as a threat to human health is like ly

17 only beginning to emerge.

18 It's time to accept reality. Coal ash

19 must be regulated under Subtitle C, a special

20 waste falling within the characterization of

21 hazardous waste.

22 Why should it be regulated as such? Why19

1 should it be regulated under Subtitle C and not D?

2 Because it is hazardous to human and en vironmental

3 health, to our water and to our air. If the first

4 gentleman's assertions are all true, that they

5 could do these things and are already doing a lot

6 of them, why are we seei ng such impact, such

7 negative impacts to our human health?

8 Without federal minimum standards,

9 Pennsylvania has become a dumping ground for coal

10 ash in the name of mine fillin g, beneficial use,

11 and any other justification for improper and

12 inexpensive handling thought out by the coal and

13 energy industries and embraced by our agencies.

14 For years coa l communities have been

15 used as science projects. Without sound science

16 and without the controls, would normally implement

17 for a well thought out experiment using lab rats.

18 We are not lab rats, and we want protection.

19 Given the health impacts, treating CCW

20 as a benign substance is not low cost. PA DEP

21 recently issued the local summit mine fill permit,

22 wh ich is now being appealed in eastern PA's20

1 Schuylkill County. They issued it without a

2 baseline monitoring. They issued it without

3 monitoring wells and peoples' drinking water

4 wells. Those drinking water supplies are

5 downgradi ent

.

6 If this waste was designated a C waste,

7 this irresponsible hand ling would end. Thank you

8 very much.

9 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 4.

10 And while number 4's moving forward, could we have

11 numbers 5, 6, 7, and 8 move forward?

12 MS. TRITI: Hi. My name is Jennifer

13 Triti, and I'm with a little citizens group out

14 near the airport called Action for Change Today,

15 and we're actually not really directly related to

16 anything environmental, but I was kind of forced

17 into it.

18 We're just a little band of citizens who

19 get together and do volunteer work and try to

20 better our community through doing local projects.

21 But we kind of got forced to pay

22 attention to the issue of fly ash because there21

1 was a proposed waste power plant out in our area

2 called the Beech Hollow Energy Project, and so we

3 were curious what it was and started doing some

4 research, and some of my fellow members and I d id

5 a lot of reading on the 2006 National Academy of

6 Sciences Report, a hole host of other research and

7 we started learning quite a bit about the dangers

8 and concerns with fly ash, and we became quite

9 concerned about the Beech Hollow Energy

10 Project because it was going to become one of the

11 larger fly ash impoundments in the nation, and it

12 would be in our community ri ght adjacent to where

13 some of our citizens live. So we became involved

14 in it.

15 We spent an awful lot of time doing

16 research, educating our fellow community members

17 so that they were aware of what was going to be

18 potentially happening in our community so that

19 they could make their own judgment of whether it

20 was something that was desirable or undesirable,

21 and we were stunned to find that the proposal for

22 mismanagement of this fly ash that was going to be22

1 in our backyard didn't come close to any of the

2 standards and regulations before the Act 2006

3 National Academy of Science Report of public

4 management and coal combustion waste residue.

5 So we were f rightened by that point

6 because it seemed like, why are we doing this

7 research that suggests this is the proper

8 management, and it wasn't being done that way. So

9 the proposal didn't i nclude that.

10 So we had to spend countless hours

11 writing letters, doing research, knocking on

12 doors, and I'm a mom, I'm an educational

13 researcher, I don't have a lot of extra time, and

14 that was true for all of the other folks that were

15 involved in it.

16 And so I'm here today as a citizen very

17 concerned about Subtitle D. My understanding is

18 that Subtitle D, the enforcement would be largely

19 left up to citizens.

20 And I can tell you as a citizen who

21 might be involved, not the most efficient, and

22 certainly not something that's highly durable for23

1 most citizens, and so hopefully this the worst of

2 the worst.

3 So I'm in v ery strong support of

4 Subtitle C as a citizen because I think that only

5 labeling it a hazardous waste is where we're going

6 to get a dequ ate protection for our health. Thank

7 you.

8 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 6.

9 MS. FILIPPINI: Good morning and thank

10 you for the opportunity to speak.

11 My name is Rachel Filippini, and I'm the

12 Executive Director of the Group Against Smog and

13 Pollution or GASP located here in Pittsburgh.

14 For the last 41 years we have worked

15 tirelessly to improve air quality in southwestern,

16 Pennsylvania, which has included advocating for

17 scrubbers at local coal

- fired power plants.

18 Unfortunately, scrubbers and other air pollution

19 control technologies which capture harmful coal

20 pollutants that would go up the smokestack are

21 shifting them from the air to toxic ash, and we do

22 not accept this trade off.24

1 The question of whether to regulate coal

2 ash under Subtitle C as special waste, a subset of

3 hazardous waste, or Subtitle D, non

- hazardous

4 solid waste is a no

- brainer.

5 Clearly coal ash, which can contain some

6 of the world's most toxic metals, such as arsenic,

7 lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, and selenium

8 should be considered a hazardous w aste. The

9 toxicants in coal ash can cause cancer and

10 neurological damage in humans as well as harm to

11 wildlife, especially water

- dwelling species.

12 With coal ash disposal sit es in nearly

13 every state, the threat to public health affects

14 many communities. But low

- income, countryside

15 communities are disproportionately affected due to

16 their close proximity t o the many coal ash

17 disposal sites that are located in rural areas,

18 where land availability and lower land prices make

19 it cheat to purchase the multi

- acre sites

20 necessary for ash ponds and landfills.

21 Take for instance the First Energy's

22 Bruce Mansfield Plant in Shippingport, PA. The25

1 Little Blue Run coal ash impoundment is one of the

2 largest unlined coal ash impoundments in the

3 United States.

4 The 1,000 acre unlined reservoir

5 receives fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, flue

6 gas emission control residuals, coal pile runoff,

7 and boiler cleaning materials from the Bruce

8 Mansfield Power Station. First Energy has

9 admitted to several seeps in the Little Blue Run

10 dam and in the surrounding hillsides.

11 According to First Energy, the seeps and

12 their management is the subject of a Consent Order

13 and Agreement between First Energy and PA DEP.

14 This site was assigned a high hazardous potential

15 rating by the Environmental Protection Agency. I

16 believe it is imperative that EPA choose the

17 Subtitle C option which wou ld mandate that waste

18 ponds be phased out 7 years after the effective

19 date of the regulation. We can't afford for the

20 trickle, or seep, to become a flood as it did in

21 the Tennessee co al ash spill in December of 2008.

22 The U.S. EPA has known for quite26

1 some time that coal combustion waste could pose

2 risks to human health and environment if not

3 properly managed but has backed away from

4 regulating it. Now, a new testing method by the

5 EPA reveals that pollutants such as arsenic,

6 a ntimony, chromium, and selenium can leach from

7 coal ash at levels dozens and sometimes hundreds

8 of times greater than the federal drinking water

9 standard.

10 Regulating coal ash waste should be

11 federally enforceable as prescribed under the

12 EPA's Subtitle C option. I urge you to finalize

13 strong, federally enforceable coal ash safeguards

14 that use the strongest limits of the law to

15 protect the communities living near coal ash

16 sites. Thank you.

17 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 7.

18 MR. SHAMORY: Good morning. I'm Craig

19 Shamory, Environmental manager with PPL

20 Corporation.

21 PPL has nearly 12,000 megawatts of

22 merchant power generation in 5 states, including 427

1 coal plants in Pennsylvania and Montana.

2 Annually, we generate about 3 million tons of coal

3 combustion residuals

-- CCRs

-- and of that total

4 we beneficially use about 2 million tons. CCRs

5 from our Pennsylvania plants have been regulated

6 effectively since 1992 as a non

- hazardous waste

7 under Pennsylvania's Residual Waste Regulations.

8 Furthermore, Pennsylvania and Montana recognize

9 that properly implemented beneficial uses are an

10 environmentally responsible option for managing

11 these materials.

12 A federal Subtitle D, non

- hazardous

13 waste regulation, along the lines of

14 Pennsylvania's successful program, would support

15 beneficial use of this large mineral resource.

16 Conversely, fede ral Subtitle C hazardous waste

17 regulation would severely limit

-- and most likely

18 eliminate

-- beneficial uses, including cement

19 industry applications and mine reclamation.

20 Beneficial uses create thousands of jobs and

21 provide their own significant environmental

22 benefits.28

1 The impact of beneficial uses from the

2 stigma of labeling CCR's as hazardous waste is

3 real and is already occurring.

4 One of PPL's largest marketers of coal

5 ash for concrete products has had one of it s main

6 customers stop using coal ash. Why? Potential

7 product liabilities if EPA actually regulates CCRs

8 as a hazardous waste.

9 Furthermore, many companies have told

10 our marketers that they will not use coal ash in

11 their products if CCR's are classified as a

12 hazardous waste regardless of any exclusions

13 provided by the EPA. Why? They don't want their

14 products to contain an ingredient that would

15 otherwise be subject to hazardous waste

16 regulation. Based on EPA's own economic analysis,

17 if a subtitle C regulation eliminates beneficial

18 uses, the financial impact on our struggling

19 economy will be in the billions of dollars.

20 So if beneficial use is eliminated, we

21 will be forced to dispose of all CCRs, which is

22 very problematic, even if possible, under a29

1 Subtitle C approach. Both Pennsylvania and

2 Montana do not have any commercial S ubtitle C

3 landfills. Therefore, PPL would either have to

4 permit on

- site Subtitle C landfills

-- which is an

5 uncertain proposition

-- or be forced to find,

6 among the very small number of Subtitle C

7 landfills nationwide, facilities that have the

8 capacity and permits to accept such large volumes

9 of waste

-- another uncertain proposition.

10 PPL strongly opposes federal Subtitle C

11 regulation, and instead requests that EPA regulate

12 CCR's under the Subtitle D prime option, including

13 a modification that integrates with current state

14 regulatory p rograms such as Pennsylvania's

15 Residual Waste and Dam Safety Regulations. This

16 approach will create a reasonable and effective

17 regulatory program that protects the environment,

18 retain s options for beneficial use, and preserves

19 jobs, while not adversely impacting our economy.

20 Thank you.

21 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 9.

22 REVEREND THWING: I'm No. 8.30

1 MR. DELLINGER: Oh, I'm sorry, No 8. I

2 called it wrong, sorry.

3 REVEREND THWING: My name is Wil liam

4 Thwing. I am a United Church of Christ Pastor and

5 am here today representing the Pennsylvania

6 affiliate of Interfaith Power and Light, which

7 consists of over 10,000 American fait h

8 congregations in 39 states working together to

9 combat Climate Change. The burning of coal is one

10 of the leading causes of Global Climate Change

11 which threatens our national security and the

12 stability of our civilization. The storage,

13 transportation and disposal of the coal ash waste,

14 poses an equal but different kind of threat

15 transportation and disposal of the coal ash waste,

16 poses an equal but different kind of threat to

17 human and planetary health.

18 Deadly chemical toxins

-- like Arsenic,

19 Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury and Radium and

20 others

-- leach out of the coal ash into the water

21 table, at levels often exceeding 100's of times

22 our government standards for hazardous wastes.31

1 This health threat demands federal regulation much

2 more stringent than the laissez faire

3 unenforceable guidelines of the Subtitle D option.

4 Pennsy lvania Interfaith Power and Light

5 therefore calls for EPA regulation of

6 coal ash under the Subtitle C option and further

7 calls for strict enforcement of the regulation of

8 coal ash unti l it no longer poses a threat human

9 health and the health of the ecosystem.

10 The Creation Story found in the Book of

11 Genesis, which is common to the faith traditions

12 of Judais m, Christianity and Islam, tells us that

13 when God created the Earth, he gathered the dust

14 of the earth and shaped humankind from it,

15 breathed life into humankind, placed humankind in

16 G od's beautiful garden, and gave humankind the job

17 of cultivating and protecting the Garden. The

18 Environmental Protection Agency is in many ways

19 humankind's instrument to accomplish this mission

20 of protection of the garden

-- God's beautiful

21 garden

-- the planet Earth. Humankind's destiny

22 is tied to the Earth. If Earth and its32

1 biodiversity suffers, humankind suffers. If Earth

2 and its biodiversity dies, humankind dies.

3 According to the Center for

4 Biodiversity, we are currently in the midst of the

5 Earth's sixth and potentially worst mass

6 extinction.

7 Harvard University Biologist, E.O.

8 Wilson estimates that 30,000 species per year or

9 approximately three per hour are being driven into

10 extinction. One major reason for this Coal Ash

11 Toxins leaching into our watersheds and flowing

12 down stream into our oceans.

13 The Ocean Al liance recently released the

14 results of its Whale Study

-- finding incredibly

15 high levels of deadly coal ash toxins in whale

16 tissue. This could spell disaster not only for

17 whales, but for all the species living in our

18 oceans. Roger Payne, President of Ocean Alliance

19 states, the entire ocean is loaded with

20 contaminants most of which are released by human

21 beings. T hese contaminants are threatening the

22 human food supply and are arguably the single33

1 greatest health threat that has ever faced the

2 human species. Please, do the right thing. Do

3 your job. Regulate coal ash under Subtitle C.

4 Thank you.

5 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Will numbers

6 10, 11, 12, and 13 come forward?

7 MS. MOSIER: Good morning everyone. I

8 am Beverly Mosier. I am against the beneficial

9 use and any use of coal ash in any and all forms.

10 When you deci de to restrict coal ash to

11 be contained and keep human life and early

12 completely 100 percent safe and free from coal ash

13 that is dangerous and also toxic.

14 When you mandate an d enforce stricter

15 regulations to keep coal ash contained, it will

16 and it has brought forward more creative cleaner

17 sources of energy.

18 There are plenty of jobs to come out

19 with new construction and redirection towards

20 clean energy. New clean useful beneficial wind

21 power, solar

- limiting waste and realistically

22 eliminating the harm, fear, and death from to xic34

1 waste from coal ash.

2 I have witnessed the landfill owners and

3 operators to bulldoze and stop the natural flow of

4 a nearby pristine creek that once flowed freely to

5 the Great Lake Erie to now a stagnant, slow creepy

6 swamp

-- now overflowing from the Northside of

7 Berry road to the Southside

-- incoming source of

8 this creek. This creek is now flowing down the

9 ditch runoff for rain from the streets. Please

10 good things can come from adversities. The spread

11 and mismanagement of coal ash all over everyone's

12 roads, fields, air, water, agriculture fields and

13 livestocks does affect you and I. I want you to

14 feel confident to decide you will make a great

15 move f or many people.

16 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Next please,

17 11.

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

19 am Chairman of Citizens for Recycling First

-- an

20 organization of more than 1,500 individuals who

21 believe that the best solution for coal ash

22 disposal problems is to quit throwing coal ash3 5

1 away.

2 One of the justifications frequently

3 cited for enacting new rules for coal ash disposal

4 is that the material is less regulated than

5 household waste. The implication of this

6 statement is that coal ash is somehow more

7 dangerous than household waste.

8 In fact, household solid waste commonly

9 contains all of the metals that a re frequently

10 cited as concerns in coal ash. Additionally,

11 household waste contains a wide variety of toxic,

12 corrosive and poisonous materials that are not

13 present in coal ash. House hold waste is flammable

14 and produces explosive gases such as methane.

15 Coal ash does not. Household waste is

16 biologically active. Coal ash is not. Household

17 waste attracts birds and rodents that can

18 transport pathogens offsite. Coal ash does not.

19 Despite its much greater hazard

20 potential, household waste is successfully managed

21 through RCRA Subtitle D, under which the federal

22 EPA establishes national disposal standards that36

1 are administered by the states. This success

2 stor y shows that EPA can improve coal ash disposal

3 regulations in the United States without going to

4 the extreme of declaring coal ash a hazardous

5 waste.

6 It is worth noting that the proposed

7 landfill engineering standards are essentially the

8 same in both of EPA's proposed regulatory

9 approaches. The Subtitle D nonhazardous and

10 Subtitle C hazardous approaches b oth call for

11 single liner systems, groundwater monitoring and

12 the effective elimination of wet impoundments.

13 It's also worth noting that these standards are

14 consistent with Subtitle D landfill engineering.

15 EPA's Subtitle D nonhazardous approach

16 is fully protective of human health and the

17 environment, can be implemented years sooner than

18 the Subtitle C appr oach, and avoids the creation

19 of a hazardous waste stigma that will devastate

20 coal ash recycling.

21 Just as many parts of American's

22 household waste stream can be safely recycl ed,37

1 coal ash can be put to good use rather than

2 disposed in landfills and impoundments. Using

3 coal ash in a variety of bui lding materials and

4 construction and agricultural applications offers

5 many benefits

-- including reduced landfill

6 construction, conservation of natural resources,

7 and reductions in ene rgy use and greenhouse gas

8 emissions.

9 People will not want t o keep using coal

10 ash, however, if it is branded as hazardous waste

11 when destined for a landfill. The coal ash th at

12 goes into concrete, for instance, is chemically

13 and mechanically identical to coal ash that gets

14 disposed. If EPA decides to regulate coal ash

15 disposal as a hazardous waste, produc ers and

16 consumers of products containing coal as will be

17 confronted with using a material deemed hazardous

18 in another setting. Ask many people who will

19 testify at this hearing today w hether they want

20 hazardous waste in their home or school and you

21 will see that stigma is a real factor that will

22 devastate recycling efforts.38

1 Citizens for Recycling First supports

2 enactment of tougher coal ash disposal regulations

3 that will protect human health and the

4 environment. A Subtitle D approach can accomplish

5 this goal without unnecessarily destroying coal

6 ash recycling. We urge you to remember that the

7 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act intended to

8 put conserva tion and recovery first. A Subtitle C

9 designation will only harm conservation and

10 recovery by leading to the disposal of tens of

11 millions of tons of material every year that could

12 oth erwise be safely put to good use. Thank you.

13 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 12.

14 MR. BIDEN: Good morning. My name is

15 Doug Biden. I'm president of the Electric Power

16 Generation Association.

17 EPGA's members operate tens of thousands

18 of megawatts of coal and waste coal generating

19 capacity and have decades of experience managing

20 and b eneficially using millions of tons of coal

21 combustion residuals, CCRs, annually in an

22 environmentally responsible manner. Thank you for39

1 the opportunity to express our views on the

2 proposal.

3 On four prior occasions, the EPA

4 concluded that CCRs should not be regulated as

5 hazardous wastes. EPGA ag rees with EPA's prior

6 conclusions and supports the development of

7 federal regulations for CCRs under RCRA's Subtitle

8 D non

- hazardous waste program. Such an approach

9 should allow for E PA to work with the states in

10 implementing regulations that are fully protective of

11 human health and the environment without

12 negatively impacting beneficial use and recycling

13 of these materials or causing plant closures or

14 unnecessary increases in electricity costs.

15 The issue of the stigma associated with

16 regulating CCRs as a hazardous waste is clearly

17 piv otal to any cost

- benefit analysis of this

18 proposal. EPA and others appear to believe that

19 the dramatically higher costs imposed by hazardous

20 waste disposal will incent greater beneficial use

21 of CCRs.

22 We respectfully disagree with this view.40

1 Generators produce coal combustion by

- products

2 that com pete in a market place with other natural

3 and recycled products that are not called toxic,

4 hazardous or special wastes. Words and labels

5 have meaning and, when all else is equal,

6 non

- hazardous is much better than hazardous when

7 trying to sell product.

8 There is no question that the Subtitle C

9 option will have a far

- reaching adverse effect on

10 beneficial use . EPA should not expect generators,

11 marketers and users to readily accept the

12 potential liability associated with use of a

13 material that would otherwise be fully regulated

14 as a hazard ous waste. They are essentially the

15 same materials, beneficially used or disposed.

16 EPGA's members are competitive

17 generators, not state

- regulated utilities. Our

18 members com pete in the competitive wholesale

19 electricity markets, like PJM, that serve

20 two

- thirds of electricity consumers in the United

21 States. EPA has heard many cost estimates

22 attributable to the Subtitle C option, starting in41

1 the tens of billions of dollars. Such costs will

2 materially impact the economics of the coal fuel

3 cycle. Many plants, particularly small coal

4 plants and waste coal plants, will not be able to

5 sort the cost of hazardous waste disposal and

6 still remain competitive and will thus cease

7 operations. The attendant lost jobs would be

8 totally unnecessary.

9 For these and many other reasons, we

10 will address in our written comments, EPGA

11 supports the common sense approach of regulating

12 CCRs as a non

- hazardous waste under Subtitle D.

13 Thank you.

14 MR. DELLINGER: And while No. 13's

15 moving forward, can we have numbers 122, 162 , 14

16 and 15 move forward.

17 MR. MELLON: Good afternoon. My name is

18 Paul Mellon, President of Novetas Solutions. Our

19 company is a small business that markets

20 industrial products from recycled glass. Our

21 signature brand in New Age Blast Media an

22 expendable abrasive approved by the US Navy for42

1 grit blasting.

2 This is the fourth time this year that I

3 have had an opportunity to speak to the EPA about

4 their decision to regulate Coal Combustion

5 Residuals and the products listed in the

6 Beneficial Use Program.

7 Today, I would like to speak about why

8 the EPA needs to insure that coal slag abrasives

9 stay out of the New Beneficial Use Program as is

10 currently the case in your June 21 Proposed Rule.

11 In addition, the EPA must change the use of the

12 Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. The

13 test is fundamental ly flawed for the proper

14 measurement of toxic compounds contained in

15 unencapsulated slag abrasives when they are used

16 on the land as blasting grit.

17 This is the definition of the TCLP

18 according to the EPA: The Toxicity Characteristic

19 Leaching Procedure, TCLP, is a test developed by

20 the EPA in 1990 to monitor whether certain wastes

21 when disposed of in a so lid waste landfill would

22 leach certain toxic metals into ground water. The43

1 TCLP metal detection levels were therefore set at

2 a level assuming the waste was actually located in

3 a landfill.

4 Page 35150 Federal Register CCR Proposed

5 Rule: EPA also notes in this regard that recent

6 research indicates that traditional leach

7 procedures may underestimate the actual leach

8 rates of toxic constituents from CCRs under

9 different field conditions.

10 Recent events also have demonstr ated

11 that, if not properly controlled, these wastes

12 have caused greater damage to human health and the

13 environment than EPA originally estimated in its

14 risk assessments.

15 I want to share with the EPA and the

16 public here in attendance the real threat to human

17 health and the environment that is happening

18 because of the actions of some major slag abrasive

19 companies that are using the EPA as a marketing

20 tool to mislead the surface preparation industry

21 and the American public about the safety of coal

22 slag abrasives.44

1 I am submitting today a copy of the Ad

2 that Harsco Corporation ran in the Journal of

3 Protective Coatings and linings, JPCL, which is

4 headquartered right here in Pittsburgh, PA. This

5 publication sells itself as the Voice of the

6 Society of Protective Coatings and has wide

7 influence within the industry. The Harsco March

8 Ad in the JPCL claimed that Black Beauty Abrasives

9 pass the EPA drinking water test TCLP. The Ad has

10 a large glass of drinking water and ends with the

11 tag line cheers to your health. T his is a totally

12 misleading and irresponsible Ad by a 4 billion

13 dollar company that claims it is one of the

14 world's leading recyclers.

15 The TCLP has nothing to do with the EPA

16 drinking water test levels for toxic contaminants.

17 In fact, the TCLP levels for some metals like

18 Arsenic are 500 times higher for the TCLP versus

19 the EPA standard for drinking water. How a

20 company with Environmental Engineers on staff

21 could run this type of Ad is astonishing. The

22 fact the EPA and the JPCL blatantly allowed the Ad45

1 to be run all summer in print and on websites is

2 just as amazing.

3 Here is the actual comparison of the two

4 tests. As you can see the levels of ex posure are

5 vastly different. The difference on the arsenic,

6 cadmium and lead levels is extreme. In the case

7 of the highly toxic Beryllium, the TCLP abrasive

8 metal test does not even include it.

9 When this ad ran in March JPCL, I sent a

10 copy of the ad to the editors of the JPCL and the

11 EPA to ask how Harsco could possibly be allowed to

12 run an ad which so f lagrantly misleads the public

13 about the hazards of blasting with coal slag,

14 especially given the documented studies by the EPA

15 and OSHA concerning the high levels of toxic

16 metals in th e coal slag dust which is

17 unencapsulated after blasting.

18 I received no written response from the

19 EPA or from the JPCL. The JPCL did verbally tell

20 me that Harsco admitted the ad in March was

21 misleading and would not run it again.

22 In May 2010, a mere 2 issues after the46

1 March ad, Harsco a gain was allowed to run the

2 exact same full page ad in the JPCL comparing the

3 TCLP to the EPA's Water Drinking Standards.

4 The efforts to deny the facts do not

5 stop with these misleading magazine or we b ads.

6 Harsco Corporation has repeatedly stated

7 the following at these very CCR public hearings

8 and also on their own website that: EPA confirmed

9 in 2000 and again in 2009 that there is no change

10 in the science that requires the regulation of

11 boiler slag therefore no scientific data exists to

12 support reclassification of boiler slag as a

13 listed hazardous waste.

14 Again this is a complete fabrication

15 designed to confuse and mislead. Harsco also

16 apparently does not think that scientific studies

17 done by the EPA and OSHA are credible or accurate.

18 Novetas has repeatedly cited several very recent

19 scientific studies from both OSHA and the EPA that

20 conclusively prove that coal slag abrasives, after

21 blasting, are hazardous to human health and the

22 environment.47

1 The blatant ongoing slag industry

2 disregar d for the facts about coal slag abrasives

3 demand that the EPA should immediately and

4 publically announce that coal slag abrasives are

5 no longer part of the new beneficial use program.

6 This would prevent the coal slag industry from

7 their almost fanatical portrayal of coal slag

8 abrasives as still supported by the EPA and OSHA.

9 Companies like the JPCL would then not feel

10 obligated/intimidated to run misleading ads and

11 blasting companies can make educated decisions on

12 which abrasives to purchase based on the real

13 facts.

14 I would ask that the EPA follow Lisa

15 Jackson's commitment to a common sense approach of

16 handling coal combustion waste by revising the

17 TCLP limits to lower levels and expanding the

18 toxic compounds tested. Also please insure that

19 coal slag abrasives stay out of the New Beneficial

20 Use Program as currently proposed in the Federal

21 Register. Thank you.

22 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 162.48

1 MR. BRADER: First I'd like to thank all

2 the opportunities to speak to you today as a

3 manager of Se paration Technologies LLC's

4 sustainability program. As I shall explore, I am

5 adamantly opposed to the Subtitle C designation,

6 or any connection between the words hazardous and

7 fly ash within regulatory language.

8 We have heard the contextual

9 implications between fly ash and negative health

10 effects. In reality, the implications sited are

11 no more evidence o f causality than me saying,

12 everyone I have ever known who has drunk water,

13 has died.

14 While it is true, it does not mean that

15 water kills everyone. We must look at facts,

16 facts such as at Separation Technologies, LLC, we

17 have over 10 years of operation with scores of

18 employees working day in and day out with fly ash

19 without a lost time accident or inciden ce of

20 industrial disease related to exposure to fly ash.

21 We must be careful that in dealing with isolated

22 incidents of specific bad apples, we do not49

1 discard the entire bushel, or in this case

2 potentially cut down the entire orchard.

3 Stigma, is not my concern, it goes much

4 deeper. My 5th grade s on asked me during

5 preparation for this speech why fly ash was going

6 to be labeled hazardous.

7 I explained that there is discussion of

8 labeling it hazardous if it is for landf ill at

9 point of generation but not for beneficial use.

10 He looked at me oddly and asked point blank, but

11 if its hazardous, its hazardous, I mean, it's

12 something about that material tha t makes it

13 hazardous, right? How can it be hazardous and not

14 hazardous at the same time? And there he hit the

15 nail on the head.

16 This cognitive dissonance will lead to

17 scores of lawsuits seeking clarification, a pull

18 back of generators who would rather not deal with

19 potential issues and a disappearing customer base

20 who will be concerned they can't sell th eir

21 products if they have fly ash in it.

22 The impact will be real, the orchard cut50

1 down. What does it look like w hen this happens?

2 Impacts to the environment from an ST LLC

3 perspective alone would be the loss of over 600K

4 tons of CO2 emissions YTD. Additionally we will

5 experience on a national l evel greatly increased

6 landfill usage, increased CO2 emissions, scores of

7 families unemployed at risk of becoming 99'ers in

8 this economy, and increased power rates which will

9 dispropor tionately hit the poor.

10 In short, in the name of improving the

11 environment we will not only harm it in dramatic

12 fashion, we will force many families into

13 questions of electri city, food, medication, or

14 Christmas. I challenge the naysayers to prove

15 that they will prove that they will ensure these

16 things will not happen.

17 In an age where we know sus tainability

18 is the key to our long term survival, there is no

19 action that will be more unsustainable than to

20 associate hazardous terminology with fly ash

21 whether it is for beneficial u se or not. In

22 conclusion, I ask, let us not pave this orchard of51

1 sustainability to put up a parking lot of

2 punishment for all.

3 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 122.

4 MS. WEIR: Hi. My name is Anne Weir.

5 I'm the executive director of the Association of

6 Canadian Industries Recycling Co al Ash.

7 CIRCA is a Canadian, non

- profit,

8 association of Coal Combustion Product producers

9 and marketers, here to provide a Canadian

10 perspective on EPA's proposal for disposal of

11 CCRs.

12 Use of Coal Ash is significant to our

13 electric utility, materials and construction

14 industries, just as it is to yours. Coal Ash use

15 improves thes e industries' environmental, economic

16 and technical performance on both sides of our

17 shared border.

18 We know Coal Ash use reduces our

19 environmental footprint: Coal Ash in con crete

20 produces more sustainable, more durable

21 structures. This is not academic, it's proven in

22 practice to the extent that both our national52

1 Green Building Councils enshrine Coal Ash in their

2 leadership in energy efficient design criteria.

3 Both our governments quantify Coal Ash's

4 CO2 emission re ductions in 100s of 1000s of tons

5 per year.

6 Canada's national building specification

7 also cites Coal Ash as a means to reduce GHG

8 emissions, and conserve energy and resources

.

9 Our experts, like yours, work with

10 national standards organizations to product specs

11 that ensure coal ash's proper application to

12 improve life

- cycle performance of our

13 infrastructures.

14 These benefits are in such demand that

15 cross border trade of Coal Ash is considerable.

16 This is in step with the international community,

17 where global leaders address Coal Ash in policy,

18 legislation and regulation:

19 The World Customs Organization defines

20 it as mineral in origin. The International Energy

21 Agency identi fies it as key to reducing global

22 emissions. The European Commission clarifies53

1 legalities by distinguishing waste from

2 by

- products and products. Australian regulators

3 work with their Ash industry to qualify Coal Ash

4 for un

- encapsulated uses.

5 Clearly a recyclable mineral resource,

6 the internati onal community values Coal Ash, and

7 recognizes proper storage and management are key

8 to its beneficial use. The waste of Coal Ash

9 occurs with failures to capitalize on its value to

10 en d of useful life.

11 Canada doesn't classify CCP's hazardous.

12 We're advised that Environment Canada has no

13 intention to change that. Our capacity to recover

14 Coal Ash from landf ill s must be safeguarded, to

15 reduce environmental impacts and conserve

16 resources. Rushing Coal Ash to an early grave is

17 short

- sighted.

18 Subtitle D and K options stipulate

19 responsible management practices, promote

20 responsible use of Ash, respond to market demand

21 and enable the continuation of cross border trade.

22 Subtitle C endangers cross

- border trade and i ts54

1 substantial environmental and economic benefit to

2 both our nations. I implore you to reject

3 Subtitle C. Thank you for this opportunity to

4 comment.

5 MR. DELLINGER: Number 15. And while

6 No. 15 is moving forward, can Nos. 16, 17, 18,

7 200, and 201 move forward.

8 MR. ASHBY:: Good morning. My name is

9 Jim Ashby, Manager of Environmental Affairs for

10 Mettiki Coal, LLC, located in Garrett County,

11 Maryland.

12 Over the past 30 years, Mettiki Co al,

13 LLC, Mettiki, has invested tens of millions of

14 dollars in six Maryland mines, reclaimed historic

15 and current mined lands to productive uses, and

16 paid over 9 million dollars in Aban doned Mine

17 Lands fees to help reclaim legacy abandoned coal

18 mines. Mettiki has over 16 years of experience in

19 the beneficial use of alkaline coal combustion

20 byproducts, CCB's, at mine sites in a state with

21 stringent and effective CCB regulation, and for

22 that reason is interested in this proposed rule.55

1 Mettiki strongly supports EPA's preamble

2 statement that the agency: Is not proposing to

3 address the placement of CC R s in mines, or

4 non

- minefill uses of CCRs at coal mine sites in

5 this action. Mettiki, and EPA as expressed in the

6 preamble, agrees with the National Research

7 Council that: OSM should take the lead in

8 developing new national standards for CCR use in

9 mines because the framework is in place to deal

10 with mine

- related issues.

11 However, Mettiki is concerned that the

12 proposed regulatory text does not make clear EPA's

13 inte ntion to defer mine placement regulation to

14 the non

- minefill uses at SMCRA regulated surface

15 facilities are not defined. The definition of CC R

16 landfill appears to only exclude underground min e

17 placement from coverage under the proposed rule

18 and leaves silent any reference to treating acid

19 mine drainage or surface mine reclamation.

20 Indeed, surface mine reclamation could be

21 construed to be large scale fills, another

22 undefined term, and thereby unintentionally fold56

1 SMCRA regulated surface mine placement in to this

2 regulation.

3 To avoid major confusion and unintended

4 consequences, EPA must make it more clear in the

5 preamble and in the final regulatory te x t that the

6 placement of CC R s at SMCRA regulated mine sites

7 under the guidance of the OSM, whether as minefill

8 or other non

- minefill uses at surface and

9 underground mines, are excluded from the rules

10 requirements.

11 Mettiki strongly supports EPA's decision

12 not to reverse the Regulatory Determination for

13 beneficial uses of CCRs but is concerned with EPAs

14 discussion o f unencapsulated uses; a term, like

15 large scale fill and minefill above, not well

16 defined in the proposal. This term could also be

17 interpreted to encompass certain uses of CCRs at

18 SMC RA regulated mine sites, contradicting EPA's

19 stated intent to not regulate these uses under

20 RCRA.

21 Certain CCRs serve a variety of

22 important uses at mine sites, and EPA's fina l rule57

1 should not put these uses in jeopardy by failing

2 to appropriately exclude them from the disposal

3 regulations for sur face impoundments and

4 landfills. OSM is and should continue to be the

5 exclusive regulator of these materials at mine

6 sites given their regulations are expressly

7 designed to address en vironmental risks associated

8 with coal mining activity on a site

- specific

9 basis.

10 Lastly, Mettiki strongly opposes EPA's

11 proposal to reverse the 1993 and 2000 Bevill

12 Regulatory Determinations which correctly

13 concluded that CCRs should be regulated as

14 non

- hazardous wastes. A reversal of this well

15 reasoned determination would threaten the

16 b eneficial reuse industry and the jobs it

17 supports. Mettiki also opposes listing CCRs as

18 special wastes and subjecting these materials to

19 hazardous waste regulation under Subtitle C of

20 RCRA.

21 Mettiki plans to submit more detailed

22 comments by the November 19 deadline.58

1 MR. DELLINGER: Your time's up.

2 MR. ASHBY:: Thank you.

3 MR. DELLINGER: Number 16.

4 MS. BOWEN: Good morning. My name is

5 Helen Bowen. I live on Red Dog Road, Georgetown.

6 Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak

7 to you this morning.

8 We have a nearby neighbor, Little Blue.

9 But before I talk about Little Blue, I want to

10 te ll you why we chose to live here.

11 My husband and I relocated from smoggy

12 California in hopes of a healthier lifestyle. We

13 searched for a long time to find the perfect

14 locati on for our new home. We felt we had made a

15 good investment for our future. We loved the

16 green, rolling hills of Pennsylvania. Our home

17 sits at the top of one of those hills, and we have

18 a beautiful panoramic view of the countryside,

19 Hookstown and the nearby valley. When we look out

20 over that valley, we wonder

-- what is in our

21 future? Will it be the look of Little Blue?

22 Bands of dead vegetation, gray unsightly land?59

1 We built our home with love and hard

2 labor. Now we are concerned about co ntamination

3 of our water and air from the Coal Ash.

4 How long before our well is

5 contaminated? How long before it seeps into our

6 river and streams? Do I dare grow a garden a nd

7 use this water? Do I serve this water to my

8 family and friends? Who do we turn to for help?

9 We are coming to you

-- the EPA

-- to help set

10 standards that will protect the people, the land,

11 the air, the waterways and our health. To

12 establish one set of regulations and to identify

13 coal ash as a hazardous waste.

14 First Energy continues to purchase

15 surrounding properties. I cannot blame the

16 families for selling. Their properties must be in

17 danger of contamination. But look, the Dairy Farm

18 is now gone. We have neighbors and friends with

19 old and even new homes that are now gone. All

20 gone.

21 The land use for Little Blue was

22 presented originally as temporary. The people60

1 were told it could be turned into a recreational

2 area eventually. Now we know that cannot happen.

3 Our community has provided enough land

4 for the utilities pollution dump and it has come

5 at a high price to our families and to our

6 economy. It is time to put a stop to an expansion

7 of Little Blue, any new dry landfills and it is

8 time for the EPA to assume the responsibility of

9 protecting the people and to identify the coal ash

10 as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C.

11 Please understand my comments come from

12 the heart. Thank you again for the opportunity to

13 present my concerns.

14 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 18.

15 MS. DIESS: My name is Barbara Diess and

16 I lived in an area in Forward Township, Allegheny

17 County, PA, where we had a fly ash slide in

18 January of 2005. It was estimated thousands of

19 tons of fly ash or CCW traveled through our small

20 neighborhood.

21 The PA DEP promptly responded by telling

22 us to clean it up. During the first week of61

1 cleaning up, the residents were all sick. They

2 had various ailments such as: Sore throat,

3 nausea, vomiting, fever, headache, diarrhea, et

4 cetera. After independent testing, it was found

5 the fly ash had a very high content of arsenic and

6 other toxic chemicals.

7 During this time, PA DEP never gave us

8 any safety precautions. Scientists from Pitt gave

9 us safety recommendations on how to clean our

10 homes and how to live with the least exposure

11 possible to the fly ash and arsenic in this

12 situation.

13 When we discovered the high ar senic

14 content, we discontinued cleaning it up ourselves

15 and ask ed the PA DEP to do it. They said there was

16 no money. They had our local volunteer fire

17 company come in to hose the fly ash from the

18 street into the creek which flows into the

19 Monongahela River, which is drinking water for

20 several communities towards Pittsburgh.

21 In May 2005, PA DEP did a clea nup of our

22 properties. This cleanup left residual fly ash62

1 around the areas cleaned, under grass, ground into

2 the dirt, and created dust from the trucks

3 dropping fly ash as they passed on the street.

4 They had promised to keep the CCW wet. They did

5 wet the street three times during the day. During

6 the hot days of summer, it dried very quickly.

7 PA DEP is not doing another cleanup. In

8 Pennsylvania A c t 2 regulations mandate arsenic

9 levels in soil not exceed 12 ppm in 2005. The Act

10 2 site specific standard for this cleanup of

11 arsenic today is 65.7 ppm.

12 Besides the high arsenic content on our

13 properties, we found through the five years I

14 lived there that the arsenic was also in the

15 homes. We continued to experience sore throats,

16 upper respiratory illnesses, dry mouth, rough

17 voices, et cetera. Families who have moved have

18 found symptoms to disappear. Now the Act 2 site

19 specific for our residential area right now

--

20 thank you.

21 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 200.

22 MR. BRANKLEY: Good mor ning. My name's63

1 Dave Brankley.

2 I'm the director of distribution for

3 (inaudible) company. I'd like to thank you for

4 giving me the time to speak this morning.

5 I'm here to advocate for the recycling

6 and reduce of fly ash. I'm opposed to the

7 Subtitle C and endorse Subtitle D as a more

8 reasonable approach. Subtitle D would adequately

9 protect the environment while (inaudible) which

10 would be attached to Subtitle C.

11 We all know the beneficial use of ash

12 conserves resources, beneficial use reduces

13 greenhouse gas emissions, beneficial use provides

14 other domestic benefits. Subtitle C would reduce

15 the intensity of fly ash in the country. Subti tle

16 C would mitigate beneficial use and recycl ing . You

17 should not endorse Subtitle C if you're an

18 advocate of beneficial use and recycling. Thank

19 you.

20 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 201.

21 MR. MARSHMAN: I'd like to thank you

22 everyone who have come to this hearing today, and64

1 I'd like to thank the commission, which is

2 overseeing this committee. I represent utilities

3 workers, and we are asking for a mandate of funds

4 from the revenue of the reuse of fly ash. The

5 safeguard, the public and maintained health

6 benefits contribution for employees that are

7 directly and indirectly exposed to fly ash on a

8 daily basis.

9 At the facility where I work in

10 Shippingport, the employer is First Energy, and

11 there has been an increase in cancer, heart, and

12 respiratory illness. We breathe, we walk in it,

13 it's on our c lothes, it's on our body, hair, and

14 even on our cars parked in the parking lot.

15 Over 10 percent of our workforce have

16 had cancer or died of cancer. We cannot

17 contribute 100 percent to the working conditions

18 nor can we rule out the fact that a certain

19 percentage of the heart disease and respiratory

20 and cancer is our contribute to our conditions.

21 As a compromise between workers'

22 compensation and the healthcare contribution at65

1 the time when companies like First Energy is

2 reducing their healthcare, especially for retirees

3 with a mandatory three

- year contribution after

4 that you have to pay 100 percent for your

5 healthcare. We came to negotiating a fairly

6 decent pension to offset the cost of our

7 healthcare. So what a retiree will be facing is a

8 memo of three years coverage, 100 percent, taken

9 out of the very minimum pension that he would

10 receive to pay for him and more than likely his

11 spouse to continue under a quality of life.

12 In closing I'd like to say that everyone

13 is responsible, the EPA, the DEP, the community,

14 the employers of these utilities. I'm not asking

15 either/or, all I'm asking is responsibility. I

16 want everyone to make it the right decision and

17 proposal to mandate the regulation for fl y ash.

18 We all understand that it does have heavy metals

19 in it so that's not to be disputed between no one.

20 We have need to address the concerns and issue.

21 Thank you.

22 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. No. 21, 139,66

1 23, 24 and 25.

2 MS. WRIGHT: My name is Sandra Wright.

3 I live a long Little Old Blue Road in Greene

4 Township, Beaver County, Pennsylvania.

5 The perimeter of the Little Blue Run fly

6 ash impoundment is just over one mile from my

7 home. Since the impoundment's construction in the

8 early 1970s, the promises to our community by the

9 owners have fallen by the wayside. Our citizens

10 and elected officials were shown presentations of

11 a recreational facility, complete with sailboats,

12 that would be given over to the community upon

13 completion of Little Blue.

14 Now the utility claims it can't let that

15 happe n, as they hold the liability of the stored

16 material even after reclamation. While it is said

17 to be the largest unlined fly ash impoundment east

18 of the Mississippi, with the highest manmade

19 earthen dam in America, Pennsylvania's DEP has

20 allowed this facility to be classified as a

21 demonstration project. That affords the utility

22 the luxury of bypassing many state regulations for67

1 waste disposal, making us in effect guinea pigs.

2 At the same time, private citizens cannot dispose

3 of residential sewage unless we follow the

4 strictest letter of the law, lest we pollute the

5 waters of the Commonwealth.

6 In addition to hosting this unlined wet

7 fly ash disposal site, and constantly fear ing that

8 our wells and springs are, or will be,

9 contaminated by this facility, our community

10 suffers from air pollution generated in

11 neighboring states. Pennsylvania's environmental

12 watchdogs do not stand guard at our borders,

13 protecting us from this fugitive dust, and does

14 not take that pollution into consideration when

15 reviewing applications for new potential

16 pollution

- generating facilities.

17 My main goal for testifying today is to

18 make our federal government aware of the fact that

19 while my community is still dealing with the

20 effects of an unlined wet disposal facility, it's

21 owner is preparing to submit an application to

22 create a dry coal combustion byproduct disposal68

1 site adjacent to it.

2 Our state does not consider the fact

3 that a community which is at risk, from either

4 pollution elements generated in state or out of

5 state, should be eliminated as a potential site

6 for yet another pollution generating facility.

7 Federal regulations are not only needed to make

8 utilities totally responsible for proper disposa l

9 of coal combustion byproducts, but they are also

10 greatly needed to protect communities with

11 existing environmental threats from being further

12 endangered.

13 I urge you to take our health seriously,

14 and ask yourself if you would want to live next to

15 a fly ash facility that is not regulated by

16 federal standards?

17 Would you care if y our children or

18 grandchildren were in another state, knowing that

19 another state's opinion of what is safe for those

20 children is totally different than that of your

21 own state? A health y environment should be

22 determined by our federal government, and should69

1 be equal across our nation, from sea to shining

2 se a. The standards that establish a healthy

3 environment should include safeguards that ensure

4 that no at

- risk community should ever be

5 considered as a potential site for more

6 environmen tal risks. Thank you for your

7 attention. Thank you.

8 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Will numbers

9 22, 26, 27, 28, move forward.

10 MR. OSBORNE: Hi. I'm Joe Osborne and

11 I'm the legal director of the Group Against Smog

12 and Pollution. I'm speaking today to encourage

13 the EPA to regulate coal ash as a special waste

14 under RCRA Subtitle C.

15 While it's my job to study issues like

16 coal ash disposal and speak at hearings like this,

17 this issue is of particular concern for me. I

18 grew up in Northwest Indiana, near Chicago. I

19 know you held a hearing in Chicago last week. So

20 you may have heard enough about the Town of Pines,

21 but I'm going to mention it again.

22 When I lived in Indiana, I'd often go to70

1 a nearby town, Michigan City, Indiana, the home of

2 a coal

- fired power plant operated by the Northern

3 Indiana Public Service Co mpany. Michigan City's

4 skyline is dominated by a massive parabolic

5 cooling tower for this plant. Visiting Michigan

6 City you can't help but be reminded of the

7 overhead shot of Spring field in the Simpsons. I

8 think most people would look at that scene

-- a

9 massive cooling tower looming over a residential

10 area

-- and feel instinctively uneasy about it.

11 In this case, that instinct would be

12 accurate. That's because for years NIPSCO had

13 been dumping coal combustion waste from this

14 facility in an unlined landfill near the Indiana

15 Dunes nat ional Lakeshore and the Town of Pines,

16 Indiana.

17 Over the years, contaminants from that

18 waste have leached into the groundwater. As a

19 result, so far at lest 55 residential we lls in the

20 Town of Pines are contaminated. These people now

21 rely on bottled water supplied by NIPSCO. This

22 isn't a problem unique to Northwest Indiana, there71

1 are similar cases of groundwater contamination

2 linked to coal combustion waste disposal all over

3 the country, including the Little Blue Run surface

4 impoundment here in Pennsylvania.

5 It's apparent from cases like the Town

6 of Pines that the existing system is not working.

7 Some states do a better job of regulating coal ash

8 than others

-- to give Pennsylvania DEP some

9 credit, their new coal ash disposal rules are a

10 big improvement

-- but it's the states that are

11 failing to proactively regulate this practice

12 where the problem most needs to be addressed.

13 In Texas, no coal ash disposal permits

14 are required if the coal ash is disposed of on

15 property owned or leased by the generator within

16 50 miles of the power plant that produced it,

17 Illinois exempts coal ash disposed of at the

18 generation site. And last I checked, Alabama had

19 no coal ash disposal regulations at all. States

20 that won't take steps to ensure safe disposal on

21 their own initiative are the states least likely

22 to adopt and effectively enforce Subtitle D72

1 guidelines.

2 Coal ash disposal has been a problem for

3 years; meanwhile, coal ash has grown more

4 hazardous as power plants install mor e effective

5 air pollution controls. The Clean Air Transport

6 Rule and the Boiler MACT rule will do much to

7 improve our air quality.

8 I'm looking forward to it. But we also

9 need st rong coal ash disposal rules to ensure we

10 aren't simply transferring our pollution problem

11 from one environmental medium to another.

12 MR. DELLINGER: Number 22.

13 MS. ERICKSON: Good morning. My name is

14 Jackie Erickson. I'm the district director for

15 U.S. Senator Bob Casey. The Senator could not be

16 here today, but I will be speaking on his behalf.

17 I want to thank EPA for adding

18 Pittsburgh to the list of locations where it is

19 holding these public hearings on the proposed

20 regulation of the byproducts from coal combustion.

21 And I want to thank the agency for providing m e

22 the opportunity to speak to you this morning about73

1 this issue that is important to Pennsy lvanians.

2 It is imperative that EPA move forward

3 with a regulation that protects the environment

4 and protects the health and welfare of the

5 residents of Pennsylvania.

6 It is also critical that such a

7 regulation does not place unnecessary burdens on

8 the continued use of coal. I believe both of these

9 goals can be accomplished. More than half of

10 Pennsylvania's electricity comes from coal. Our

11 electric utilities burn coal in plants equipped

12 with state

- of

- the

- art pollution control equipment

13 such as electrostatic precipitators an d flue gas

14 scrubbers that capture particulate matter and

15 sulfur dioxide emissions.

16 The solid materials captured in these

17 devices, along with bottom ash and boiler slag,

18 make up of the majority of coal combustion

19 byproducts, called CCBs, that are the subject of

20 today's hearing. Pennsylvania's electric

21 utilities produced around 11 million tons of CCBs

22 each year. Of this 11 million tons, nearly 6574

1 percent is used for a myriad of beneficial

2 applications. This beneficial reuse i ncludes the

3 remediation of acid drainage from coal mines, the

4 production of concrete, and the manufacture of

5 building materials such as roof shingles and

6 wallboard. In fact, just a fe w miles down the

7 Ohio River from Pittsburgh, First Energy's Bruce

8 Mansfield power plants supplies more than 400,000

9 tons a year of synthetic gypsum from its scrubbers

10 to National Gypsu m to produce wallboard. This

11 represents one of the largest recycling operation

12 in the United States.

13 The beneficial use of CCBs means that we

14 avoid the need to dispose over 700,000 tons of

15 this materials each year in landfills and

16 impoundments in the state. And for each ton of

17 fly ash used to replace Portland cement in

18 concrete the release of nearly one ton of the

19 greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is avoided.

20 However, the many benefits of reusing

21 these materials would be severely challenged by

22 one of the regulatory options under consideration75

1 by EPA.

2 This option would regulate CCBs as

3 hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of the Resources

4 Conservation and Recovery Act if placed in an

5 impoundment or landfill. The other option would

6 continue to regulate CCBs as nonhazardous under

7 Subtitle D of RCRA.

8 I believe that the second option is the

9 correct approach for EPA to take based on the

10 scientific data the agency has collected. EPA has

11 evaluated the reuse and disposal of CCBs on a

12 number of occasions over the past several decades.

13 Each time the agency has made a

14 regulatory determination that these materials are

15 not hazardous wastes as defined by RCRA. I

16 believe this is the correct conclusion and that

17 CCBs should continue to be regulated as

18 nonhazardous under Subtitle D of R C R A. Let me

19 take a moment to comment on the option to regulate

20 CCBs as hazardous if they are disposed in a

21 landfill or impoundment.

22 Some have argued this would promote the76

1 greater reuse of CCBs as utilities would expand

2 existing reuse markets and seek out other

3 opportunities to beneficially use the materials to

4 avoid the expense of placing them in hazardous

5 waste landfills.

6 However, I believe this approach would

7 have the opposite effect and would actually result

8 in the reduction in the reuse of these materials.

9 I have hea rd from numerous businesses who are

10 already feeling the chilling effect of a potential

11 hazardous labeling on their ability to reuse CCBs.

12 For example, a local Pittsburgh company has had

13 financing for a new CCB recycling project

14 withdrawn because of concerns about the potential

15 legal exposure should the material be regulated as

16 a hazardous waste.

17 What this chilling effect means is that

18 more coal combustion byproducts would have to be

19 disposed

. T his in turn would require more of

20 Pennsylvania's land being converted into hazardous

21 waste l andfills. I have conveyed to EPA's

22 administrator, the Honorable Lisa Jackson, my77

1 concerns about the possibility that the agency

2 will regulate CCBs as hazardous wastes.

3 And what this would mean to the

4 beneficial reuse of these materials, what it would

5 mean to cost of generating electricity from coal

6 in Pennsylvania, what it would mean to the

7 environment, and what it would mean to jobs. I

8 believe, and have recommended to EPA, that CCBs

9 continue to be regulated as non

- hazardous,

10 regardless of whether they are beneficially

11 re

- used or placed in a landfill or impoundment.

12 I am not advocating that changes in the

13 regulation of CCBs are not needed. The events in

14 Kingston, Tennessee in 2008 have clearly shown the

15 need for stringent federal guidelines in how CCB

16 landfills and impoundments are designed,

17 engineered, constructed, and managed.

18 As such, I have also recommended to EPA

19 that the agency develop a set of strict,

20 enforceable federal design and engineering

21 requirements under RCRA's nonhazardous waste

22 program for CCB landfills and impoundments.78

1 And that these requirements include

2 specific protocols for surface and ground water

3 monitoring. I believe that the continued

4 regulation of coal combustion byproducts as

5 non

- hazardous under RCRA's Subtitle D nonhazardous

6 waste program is the most appropriate course of

7 action for the agency to take.

8 Coupled with the development and

9 promulgation of federally enforceable requirements

10 for the storage and monitoring of these materials

11 under Subtitle D, this will ensure the protection

12 of Pennsylvania's environment and the public

13 health of our citizens.

14 While allowing Pennsylvania to continue

15 to accru e the employment, economic, and

16 environmental benefits of reusing these materials.

17 Thank you.

18 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 26.

19 MR. BOGI: Good morning, and th ank you

20 for the opportunity to provide comments on this

21 proposed rulemaking.

22 My name is Jamin Bogi. I work for the79

1 Group Against Smog and Pollution, or GASP, a

2 nonprofit environmental organization based here in

3 Pittsburgh. GASP strongly supports regulating

4 coal combustion residuals under Subtit le C of the

5 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. CCRs are

6 currently exempt under an amendment to RCRA, but

7 EPA's new leach tests show that current storage

8 methods of CCRs often lea d to their leaching in

9 concentrations that exceed hazardous waste

10 thresholds many times over. It makes no sense to

11 weakly regulate such toxic material.

12 Human beings did not create coal. We

13 did not choose its chemical makeup. We have to

14 take what Mother Nature has given us.

15 Unfortunately, she saw fit to include arsenic,

16 exposure to which causes nausea, a rrhythmias,

17 several types of cancer, cardiovascular disease,

18 and even death at high

- enough doses. EPA's 2009

19 study report of leachate found arsenic levels

20 1,800 times higher than the federal drinking water

21 standard, and three times the level of the

22 hazardous waste standard.80

1 Nature has put seleni um in coal as well.

2 Selenium over

- exposure in animals leads to

3 impaired vision, paralysis, and death. Selenium

4 bioaccumulates and causes deformations in fish and

5 amphibians. It has w iped out entire fish

6 populations in some locations. The EPA's report

7 found selenium in leachate at levels 29 times the

8 hazardous waste threshold. 29 times.

9 I'll stop my che mical analysis here,

10 because I know that nothing that I could possibly

11 say would be news to you. The EPA has conducted

12 such an impressive amount of research on this

13 topic that one cou ld spend a decade or two

14 mastering it.

15 GASP works mainly to clean pollution

16 from the air. By scrubbing emissions from

17 coal

- fired power plants, the air is indeed

1 8 cleaner, but the toxins do not disappear. They

19 concentrate. And when stored improperly, they

20 leach. GASP supports reducing the threats that

21 coal burning produces, not just kicking the ashcan

22 down the road.81

1 GASP supports Subtitle C because it

2 establishes minimum national standards for

3 dis posal. Subtitle D does not. This race to the

4 bottom would help no one.

5 GASP supports Subtitle C because it

6 creates federally

- enforced regulations instead of

7 just good advic e. GASP supports Subtitle C,

8 because we believe that hazardous waste should be

9 treated as hazardous waste, no matter how powerful

10 the industry is that produces it. Thank you.

11 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 27.

12 MS. NELSON: My name is Kathy Nelson,

13 but I’m not here representing myself. I'm here

14 representing David Sulkowski. I'm not a chemist,

15 an engineer, or attorney, as most of you in this

16 are not.

17 I'm not dying from exposure to coal fly

18 ash, as most of you in this room I hope are not,

19 but I am as most of you surely are, a regular

20 citizen of a great country with goals, and family

21 that consume my entire reason for existence.

22 My name is David Sulkowski, and I live82

1 within one mile of First Energy's Little Blue Run

2 Fly Asn Impoundment, a 1,300 acre dump site in

3 Greene Township, Beaver County.

4 M yself, my wife and our six children

5 built our home here by ourselves, on 57 beautiful

6 acres. It was to be our final place to reside.

7 After serving 23 years in the U.S. Navy, we

8 decide d to build in Green Township because of the

9 beautiful countryside, outstanding community

10 members, and a fantastic school system. It took

11 us ten years to build our home. We are very proud

12 of the fact that we have been able to provide our

13 six children and fourteen grandchildren a place

14 where they can come and enjoy the special things

15 this township offers, fresh air, open spaces; a

16 feeling of the freedom this country represents.

17 When we began our project in 1981, we

18 had no knowledge of the fly ash dump site at

19 Little Blue Run. As the years progressed, w e

20 beca m e acutely aware of the presence of this

21 charming crystal blue lake that was promised, in

22 years to come, to be a source of recreation by the83

1 First Energy Corporation. Then as time further

2 moved on, this changed dramatically.

3 We had a dry spell in 1993. First

4 Energy employees knocked on ou r door and told us

5 to make sure we washed the vegetables from our

6 garden and to stay indoors as much as possible.

7 It seemed that because of the dry, cold weather

8 and low water level in the impoundment, the fly

9 ash, normally in a wet slurry form, had dried to a

10 fine powder and blown through the air covering

11 Hookstown and Georgetown in a layer of dust. We

12 were fright ened to say the least.

13 As for our well water, Hookstown and

14 Georgetown does not have a public water system.

15 We have been carrying water for all purposes for

16 the last 14 years . The smell and color of our

17 ground water is not something you would want to

18 expose yourself to. Still, we carried on, loving

19 and protecting our home for our family's present

20 and fut ure.

21 Regardless of my township's zoning

22 regulations, First Energy continues to purchase84

1 more properties in and ar ound their original dump

2 site for the purpose of creating a new

3 impoundment. They have approached the family

4 directly across from me to purchase their property

5 and have purchased a 10 0 acre farm directly beside

6 me. My property value is down the tubes as they

7 put it. Would you buy my lovely home?

8 My wife and I worked so very hard to

9 create a safe and fin ancially secure home. We are

10 proud of our accomplishment. We do not want to

11 move, nor can we afford to. But now, every day,

12 instead of enjoying the fruits of our efforts, we

13 worry a bout our health, water and air pollution

14 and a dramatically decreasing property value.

15 Please classify coal combustion fly ash

16 as a hazardous waste. Make it a C. Our township

17 has ordinances against that also. Maybe with two

18 hurtles to overcome, this endeavor by this huge

19 power company will decrease and Greene Township

20 can continue to grow and remain a place where you

21 all would be happy to call home.

22 Thank you for hearing my story.85

1 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. While number

2 28 is moving forward, can numbers 29, 30, 31, 32

3 and 33 move forward.

4 MS. HAVEN: I was born and raised in

5 Chester, West Virginia. And have lived here all

6 my life. When I was about 14 years old, my dad

7 said to me, hop in the truck and let's take a

8 ride. My parents owned a lot of businesses in

9 Chester and property in Lawrenceville.

10 We rode around for a while and he said,

11 of all we own, what can I give you? I thought for

12 a while as we passed different properties, I said,

13 stop here, this is what I want, one acre on

14 Pyramus Road so that some day when I get married,

15 I want to build a home and have children and

16 grandchildren. It sort of looked like Green Acres

17 to a city girl. It wasn't a big thing to me the n,

18 but when I met Curt and we got married June 20,

19 1970, my dad walked me down the aisle of the

20 church I was raised in and in November 1970 he

21 passed away from a heart attack.

22 My life has never been the same since.86

1 I miss him everyday. He would be right here

2 beside me fighting Little Blue. No o ne said life

3 would be fair and that is a true statement in many

4 areas of my life today.

5 After Curt was discharged from the Navy

6 in 1973, we came home, bought a mobile home an d

7 had a healthy baby boy, Jasen Blaine, named after

8 my dad. One day while getting Jasen dressed, a

9 man knocked on our door. I said, come in. He

10 laid a really nice brochure on our ta ble and

11 started telling me what all Little Blue was going

12 to be

-- like a resort, he said.

13 There will be swimming, boating, walking

14 and bike trails, a place my family could s pend

15 time together. I'm sorry, sir, but I have a hard

16 time believing that and you need to leave now.

17 That was the one and only time anyone from the

18 power plant came to our door.

19 We built our home in 1979, we had

20 another precious boy Joshua. What have I done by

21 raising them here all their lives; do you have any

22 idea how much worry and guilt I carry about their87

1 health and of ours? It's not Green Acres anymore.

2 They have grown, married and have given

3 us four wonderfu l grandchildren, and I'd rather

4 them play in our home instead of outside under the

5 ash of Little Blue. I don't know what all

6 unhealthy chemicals are in that dam

-- nor do you.

7 Yes, they may be in compliance with

8 their rules but your job as the federal EPA needs

9 to look a lot closer at what is being pumped into

10 our backyard.

11 I have a nodule on my thyroid and my

12 husband has had his thyroid removed because of

13 cancer and our endocrinologist keeps a close eye

14 on each of us. She said, high levels of arsenic

15 will harm the thyroid. No one in either of our

16 families have thyroid problems; makes you think?

17 I also in the last five years developed

18 COPD and asthma, neither are present in my family.

19 I have a nebulizer machine to inhale medicine from

20 a puffer that I carry at all times. I take pills

21 everyday for my breathing plus I have oxygen at

22 home just in case I need it. Trust me, it isn't88

1 fun when you feel your lungs constricting and you

2 can't breathe, and no I don't smoke.

3 But do you think the sulfur and rotten

4 egg smell could have anything to do with my

5 breathing? I have full body tremors and suffer

6 with depression and anxiety. The definition of

7 these problems are, los s of interest in thin gs you

8 u se to enjoy, fatigue, difficulty sleeping,

9 sadness, excessive worry, feeling helpless and

10 shake all over.

11 Do you think it could be neurological?

12 Dah . I've also had three benign tumors on my left

13 breast. A lot different from the pretty brochure

14 36 years ago. Remember me and my spirit. God

15 isn't making anymore dirt. So we all have to take

16 better care of it and remember a banana is not a

17 hazardous waste but fly ash is. Vote for C.

18 MR. DELLINGER: Number 30.

19 MR. SCHOEDEL: Good morning. My name is

20 Tony Schoedel. I work for Alcoa here in

21 Pittsburgh. I came here to repeat the comments

22 from our environmental manager at Al c oa operations89

1 outside of Bettsville, Indiana, you probably heard

2 last week or earlier this month in Chicago. Alcoa

3 would like to address five points real briefly.

4 One, Alcoa beli eves that the use of

5 Subtitle C is an approach to regulate CCR's higher

6 than warranted. The use of modified T CLP to model

7 and justify the destination of CCR's are

8 hazardous, we believ e misuses that test method as

9 it does not accurately model the actual releases

10 from many aspects, most specially developers out

11 in the midwest. As ours when it comes in

12 contact with w ater becomes alkaline not acid ic.

13 The test data from our fly ash surface

14 impoundments both open and closed indicate that

15 our ash is nonhazardous. The material has

16 exhibited that for t he last 20 years, if not more.

17 The data we derived from our groundwater testing

18 as part of our Electro Facility Investigation and

19 the RFI, public knowledge, our fly ash shows no

20 detect ion of any chemicals of concern in the

21 groundwater.

22 Alcoa believes that the EPA has90

1 exhaustedly researched the to xicity of CCRs in the

2 past, and has at least once affirmed the

3 exclusion, under the Bevill Exclusion from the

4 management of hazardous waste, and we encourage

5 you to continue that desi gnation. As such, we

6 really see no technical scientific basis for

7 changing that designation now.

8 Two, the use of CCRs and the beneficial

9 uses, that you've heard many times h ere in the

10 previous public comments, will be harmed by the

11 designation, we believe, under Subtitle C

12 designation. Already in public comments as I

13 mentioned, calling for further regula tion of CCRs

14 usually capsulated, capsulated forms at the end of

15 life. The potential for litigation will harm the

16 use of these materials and, as you've heard also,

17 applying this stigma to the long use material will

18 have the impact of stifling this use and will have more

19 of an impact to the landfills not less and just

20 exacerbating the existing problems.

21 Thr ee, Alcoa, a g ree s with the agency,

22 that mine fill ing activity should be regulated91

1 within the department of interior. However, Alcoa also

2 feels that the inclusion of the historical mining

3 areas that can be structurally filled will enhance

4 public safety by eliminating fatalities, drowning

5 and that type of thing. Also, to si t outside the

6 scope of this whole opinion and regulate it also

7 under the department of interior.

8 Four, as stated in the proposed rule,

9 industrial facilities like Alcoa are ex e m pt from

10 this rule. Alcoa requests EPA clarify the

11 distinction between industrial and utility

12 utilizing the definitions contained in the Green

13 Subtitle of the Clean Air Act.

14 Five, Alcoa agrees with the need to

15 ensure surface impoundments to be safe from

16 catastrophic failure as we've seen down in

17 Tennessee and many other places. As such, we

18 recommend ins p ections of surface impoundments by

19 certified engineers who, as you know, what they

20 are getting at. Thank you for your time.

21 MR. DELLINGER: Number 31.

22 MS. REED: My name is Barbara Reed. My92

1 husband and I built our home when we were

2 teenagers in a small rural community of Greene

3 Township, Pennsylvania, with the thoughts of

4 raising our children in a safe and healthy

5 environment. We are now in our 50's and our not

6 so friendly neighbor is the Little Blue wet fly

7 ash dump. We carry 15

- 20 gallons of water a week

8 to drink and cook with, because our water tastes

9 like salt and at times smells like rotten eggs.

10 We can't wash our vehicles because the wa ter

11 leaves a white filmy residue on them. The water

12 holding tank on our toilet forms a nasty, globby

13 jell unless we put swimming pool chlorinating tab

14 in it. The water corrodes the f aucets, hot water

15 tank elements and pipes causing leaks, so they

16 have to be fixed or replaced every couple years.

17 We have wind and rainstorms that leave a

18 thick dust on every thing including our motorcycle.

19 This dust caused the chrome to pit and rust, so

20 what is this toxic dust doing to our skin and

21 lungs? My entire family has respiratory

22 allergies.93

1 My son's home and well is approximately

2 1,000 yards from the Little Blue compound. He had

3 his water tested. It showed to have an arsenic

4 level of 14.60 UGL's, which is higher than the

5 maximum containment level contained in the

6 national primary drinking regulations of 10 UGL's.

7 It also showed levels o f mercury, thallium,

8 manganese and aluminum. First Energy has done

9 nothing about either well other than testing and

10 sending the results with a letter stating, If you

11 have any question s regarding the domestic us e of

12 this water source please contact the Pennsylvania

13 Department of Environmental Protection. The DEP's

14 letter states, Please note that Pennsylvania does

15 n ot have requirements or regulations for private

16 water systems, therefore, these levels are listed

17 as recommendations for comparison. Is he supposed

18 to use this water that is full of toxins because

19 there are no enforceable rules to protect him? He

20 now lives with us because of the containments in

21 his well, but still has to make a monthly mortgage

22 payment and can't live in this home t hat he bought94

1 to start his life of independence in.

2 We believe that First Energy unlined wet

3 fly ash dump has lea ked hazardous wastes into our

4 wells and caused a higher number of cancers and

5 other illnesses in our community and many

6 financial burdens. Some say move, but our

7 property values are down and who would want to buy

8 a home with toxic water?

9 So, when each of you sit down and decide

10 on Subtitle C or D, please ask yourself, if Little

11 Blue were your neighbor an d your loved ones had to

12 drink the water and breath the air, like we do,

13 wouldn't you want the enforceable regulations of

14 Subtitle C to protect them? Just remember we

15 can't choose our neighbors, but you can protect us

16 from them with Subtitle C. Thank you.

17 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 32.

18 MR. JUNKER: Good morning. My name is

19 Kirk Junker. I was litigation counsel to Joe

20 Pizarchik's very own Pennsylvania Department of

21 Environmental Resources for ten years. I now hold

22 a joint appointment as Professor of Environmental95

1 Law and Director of Environmental Science Programs

2 at the University of Cologne in Germany and

3 Duquesne University School of Law here in

4 Pittsburgh. I would like to take this opportunity

5 to speak with you from the perspective both of

6 environmental legal practice and policy making, as

7 well as from the perspectives both of Ge rmany and

8 Pennsylvania.

9 I will make three points in my allotted

10 time. Before, I do, let me note that I applaud

11 the EPA's willingness to hold these hearings and

1 2 to have added hearings such as this one, in

13 reconsideration of the seriousness, the extent and

14 the degree of citizen concern that it raises.

15 That brings me to my first point, the perspective

16 from citizens in other parts of the world. One of

17 the strengths of environmental law is that it is

18 as much driven by nature as it is by culture.

19 Thus how other cultures react to the same f orces

20 of nature is relevant. The European Union in

21 general, like the United States, has wrestled with

22 the notion of whether coal fly ash is hazardous.96

1 Like the United States, driven by the laws of

2 nature and science, it has arrived at the

3 conclusion that coal fly ash can be hazardous

4 depending upon, among other things, the nature and

5 quality of the coal burned and the storage and

6 disposal methods of the fly ash after combustion.

7 Coal is not uniform in content; rather,

8 the che mical makeup of coal depends on a great

9 variety of factors. Thus, ash produced in

10 combustion can include many different contaminants

11 including cadmium, chromium and mercury. When it

12 does, it is hazardous and should be treated as

13 such.

14 The key here is that if we are not going

15 to monitor and characterize the coal batch by

16 batch to determine when a coal sou rce does or does

17 not reduce to hazardous components after

18 combustion, then in order to protect the public,

19 we must assume that the coal used in a continuous

20 source feed has the most ha zardous

21 characteristics. Pursuant to the provisions of

22 NEPA, only when regulatory decisions minimize97

1 environmental impact s to the fullest extent

2 possible are beneficial uses to be considered, and

3 even then, only beneficial uses without

4 degradation of health or safety risks, or other

5 undesirable and unint ended consequences. Creating

6 and now attempting to expand an unlined

7 impoundment of over 1,600 acres, as has been done

8 in nearby Beaver County at the First Energy

9 impoundment, does no t meet the legal or scientific

10 conditions placed on any claim to beneficial use.

11 The conundrum of whether to label all

12 fly ash as hazardous was solved by Europe by

13 treating i t all as hazardous for shipping, until

14 and unless someone starts monitoring the coal

15 source batches, so that we can know the chemical

16 composition of the ash. It is a sound example of

17 the precautionary principle. Let the producers

18 and shippers demonstrate batch by batch that is

19 not hazardous rather than forcing the government

20 or the citizens to prove that it is. This brings

21 me to my second point, the method by which the

22 producers and shippers could meet that burden of98

1 proof known as federal permit ing

.

2 The timeframe for consideration of the

3 hazardous properties of coal fly ash in Europe is

4 also roughly parallel to the US. In March of

5 1999, the EPA examined the classificati on of fly

6 ash waste determining that it does not necessitate

7 regulation as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C

8 because of adequate state regulation. Just one

9 year later, the European C ommission also

10 classified coal fly ash as nonhazardous in the

11 European Commission Decision of May 3, 2000.

12 However, and this is a big however, European

13 Commission Regulation 1013 expli citly prohibits

14 the shipment of coal

- fired power plant fly ash in

15 compliance with the Basel Convention.

16 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you.

17 MR. JUNKER: Thank you for your time.

18 MR. DELLINGER: Number 33.

19 MR. ROBINSON: Good afternoon. My name

20 is Mike Robinson. I work for a very reputable

21 company who directly or through our predeces sor

22 companies has been involved in the utilization of99

1 coal ash for well over the 20 years that I have

2 been with our company

.

3 Because of my long

- term intimate

4 associations with not only our management people,

5 but also our technical staff, I can tell you our

6 commitment is not only to the utilizatio n of coal

7 ash, but also the environment, but, in fact, it is

8 our intention to increase safe utilization of ash

9 and decrease ash going to landfills, which

10 ultimately provides sustainabl e benefits to our

11 environment. For these reasons and other s I will

12 touch on, I oppose classifying ash as a hazardous

13 material under any circumstances.

14 Our company and our co mpetitors, along

15 with the utilities and a host of other companies

16 and agencies, have dedicated a tremendous amount

17 of time and effort over the years to create one of

18 the most successfu l recycling programs in history.

19 On an annual basis, over 20 million tons, yes

20 tons, of coal ash get recycled into everyday

21 products like concrete, blocks, roads, pre

- cast,

22 etc. Howev er, if coal ash is designated as a100

1 hazardous material, even for disposal, the stigma

2 attached to coal ash will negatively affect, if

3 not decimate, this recycling program that many

4 companies, agencies and individual s have taken

5 great pains to successfully build over the years.

6 If you label coal ash as hazardous

7 material for any reason, many utilities will stop

8 recycling their ash products and instead will more

9 likely just dispose of them, many architects and

10 engineers who specify the u s e of coal ash in

11 products and projects will most likely cease to do

12 so for fear of risk of association with products

13 that could be potentially hazardous and products

14 that compete with coal ash will attack coal ash as

15 a hazardous material and not fit for reuse. If

16 you label ash as hazardous for any reason, end

17 users who have used coal ash in the past will stop

18 doing so for f ear of being liable for their

19 products end use, even if the products are

20 completely safe. Overall, labeling ash as

21 hazardous for any reason will negate one of the

22 most beneficial recy cling programs ever developed101

1 and this is troubling.

2 So, I urge the EPA to think long and

3 hard before finalizing any coal ash

4 classification. In fact, it might prove wise for

5 the EPA to work closely with the companies,

6 agencies and individuals who built the coal ash

7 recycling programs in place t oday. In the 20

8 years with the company, I do not know of any cases

9 where exposure to coal ash has caused any illness

10 to employees. So, I don't think we need to be in

11 a hurry to do an ything unless it is the right

12 thing.

13 Thank you for your time and the

14 opportunity to speak.

15 MR. DELLINGER: Can numbers 36, 37, 38,

16 and 39 move for ward? Number 36.

17 MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon. My name

18 is Gary Anderson. I am a Representative of

19 Ebensburg Power Company and as President of

20 ARIPPA, my comments today re present the voice of

21 over 10,000 citizens who are directly or

22 indirectly employed by our industry who live and102

1 work where C FB coal ash is and has been generated

2 and beneficially used for over two decades.

3 Ebensburg Power Company is an alternative energy

4 generating plant utilizing gob materials. The

5 result ant CFB coal ash product that we produce is

6 utilized to reclaim the existing gob piles located

7 around the Cambria County area. One of our sites,

8 the Red Block Site, we removed over three million

9 tons of material, restored five miles of stream

10 from a low esthetic PH of 2.2 to a PH of 7

11 supporting aquatic life.

12 The ARIPPA organizations promote the

13 National Academy of Science study. While EPA

14 sites the NRC

- NAS Study concerning ash in its

15 preamble it ignores its scientifically based

16 factual findings, which include enforceable

17 federal stan dards should be established to ensure

18 that states have specific authority and implement

19 adequate safeguards. Primary regulatory

20 mechanisms that should be used to develop

21 enforceable s tandards are SMCRA, joint OSM

- EPA, or

22 RCRA

- D rules. Beneficial use of ash should be103

1 strongly encouraged. Government agencies should

2 examine ways in which they can promote ash use of

3 remove impediments to its use. Placement of ash

4 in mines should be based on an integrated process

5 of ash characterization, site characteriza tion,

6 management and engineering design of placement

7 activities, design and implementation of

8 monitoring.

9 Since 1985, Pennsylvania DEP has

10 provided oversigh t on the beneficial use of coal

11 ash for mine reclamation and other uses. PA DEP's

12 25 year scientific technical findings include

13 allegations that ash causes pollution are

14 seriously fla wed, ash placement has not caused

15 water quality degradation. In fact, in some

16 instances, significant improvements have occurred.

17 EPA should consider the negative

18 implication s of classifying all coal ash as

19 hazardous. CFB ash will not likely meet

20 encapsulation recycling/reuse standards. Industry

21 ash management costs will increase by more than 31

22 times ex ceeding revenue by $40 to $50 per megawatt104

1 per hour. Our industry would operate at a loss,

2 according ly it would cease to exist. Thousands o f

3 workers will become unemployed, 10 percent of our

4 region's electric energy will be gone and tax free

5 reclamation benefits that to date includes 1,000's

6 of acres of land and hundreds of stream miles will

7 vanish.

8 In summary, we are aware that certain

9 special interest groups have lobbied their opinion

10 that classifying coal ash as hazardous will

1 1 increase beneficial reuse. Nothing could be

12 further from the truth. Industry, governors and

13 environmental departments from a majority of

14 affected state s have written to the EPA stating

15 that ash should not be improperly declared

16 hazardous. In ARIPPA's case, it would end our

17 industry's beneficial use of ash and likely

18 eliminate our industry.

19 The reg ulation of ash as hazardous under

20 ARIPPA Subtitle D would protect human health and

21 the environment. Thank you.

22 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 37.105

1 MR. GLANDER: Good Afternoon. Thanks

2 for the opportunity to speak. My name is Greg

3 Glander with Boral Composites. Boral Composites,

4 I nc. is a new, start

- up business focused on the

5 manufacture of green building products. As a new

6 start up, we are just now commercializing our

7 first product line, which has been engineered to

8 be roughly 80 percent recycled and bio

- based,

9 rapidly renewable content. A critical component

10 in our product is a particular type of coal

11 combustion residual, which not only offers

1 2 improved performance, but also helps to provide

13 this exceptionally high level of green content.

14 Our business is based on selling green building

15 products to both the construction industry and the

16 consumer. As such, we are extremely concerned

17 about the EPA's proposed regulations for

18 re

- labeling CCRs as hazardous through a RCRA

19 Subtitle C designation and the negative stigma

20 that would create within our customer base, the

21 homebuilders, contractors, installers and

22 homeowners.106

1 Our customers are not scientist,

2 environmental policy makers or lawyers. They will

3 likely not be aware that the EPA has formally

4 encouraged the use of CCRs since 1983, or that the

5 E PA has previously ruled that CCRs are

6 nonhazardous, going as far as to form the Coal

7 Combustion Products Partnership program in 2003.

8 Or that the US Green Building Council, American

9 So ciety for Testing and Materials and the American

10 Concrete Institute all endorse and encourage the

11 use of CCRs. Or that the beneficial use of CCRs

12 diverts approximately 60 million tons of CCRs from

13 landfills annually and has reduced Greenhouse Gas

14 Emissions by approximately 117 million tons since

15 the year 2000. Unfortunately, our customers are

16 more likely to hear inaccurate informat ion about

17 CCRs and their beneficial uses from uninformed

18 and/or biased media sources; negative stigmas that

19 will only be exacerbated with an unwarranted

20 change in designation to RCRA Subtitle C.

21 We certainly support the EPA's efforts

22 to protect human health and our environment. We107

1 further belie ve that CCR disposal should be done

2 in a responsible manner to avoid ash spills like

3 the tragic storage failure at TVA's Kingston,

4 Tennessee Plant in December of 2008. However,

5 poor s torage practices or mishandling of a

6 designated nonhazardous material should not be

7 grounds for changing the classification of the

8 material itself and thereby jeopardizing one of

9 the m ost successful recycling programs in US

10 history.

11 Boral Composites is only a small,

12 sta r t

- up business; but it is a great example of the

13 green

- tech, advanced manufacturing oppo rtunities

14 that our economy desperately needs. On Thursday,

15 September 9th, we celebrated the groundbreaking

16 for our first commercial full scale manufacturing

17 facility being built in Ea st Spencer, North

18 Carolina. A $13 million, 3.7 acre, Leadership in

19 Energy and Environmental Design certified project

20 that will create 25 jobs when fully operational,

21 as well as anothe r 20 in sales and support

22 throughout the country. We are also on the108

1 forefront of building product sustainability, with

2 ou r exterior trim product about to receive the

3 prestigious Cradle to Cradle Certification. The

4 decision that the EPA makes around CCR

5 classification will directly impact this new

6 green

- tech business, these new job opportunities

7 and the future job opportunities that this

8 business would create. The negative stigma

9 associated with a hazardous classification through

10 Sub title C is real and will virtually eliminate

11 the demand for our products and our business

12 overnight. Thank you.

13 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 38.

14 Number 39. While numb er 39 is coming up, would

15 numbers 41, 42 and 43 come forward?

16 MR. COLLINS: My name is con Thomas

17 Collins. I'm with Separations Technologies. I am

18 a northeast sales rep. I would like to thank the

19 EPA for the opportunity to issue a comment today,

20 and state that I am opposed to Subtitle C.

21 Separation Technologies process and

22 markets fly ash are up in the Northeast in the109

1 Eastern United State and is utilized by the

2 concrete industry. Because of ST's proprietary

3 tech nology, this fly ash would previously be bound

4 for a landfill and now it can be used and recycled

5 for concrete products.

6 This year, and you've heard this before,

7 15 million t ons of fly ash will be recycled in

8 concrete. I visit with concrete producers each

9 and every day and a vast majority of them fear the

10 negative impact that Subtitle C would have on

11 thei r industry, specifically to the hazardous

12 designation. Even with the beneficial use

13 included, they still fear that.

14 As a gentleman said before, let me

15 assure the negative st igma surrounding or

16 hazardous designation of Subtitle C is real. Many

17 of my producers say they will stop using it just

18 on the liability standpoint. I really feel you

19 should consider that for finalizing the

20 regulations.

21 Secondly, concrete producers utilize fly

22 ash for a number of reasons, specifically, to110

1 reduce cost and to improve overall performance.

2 Also, fly ash is a vital construction material.

3 It will not only increase construction cost s , but

4 will impact the durability of our infrastructure.

5 Thank you and please know that I am opposed to

6 Subtitle C.

7 MR. DELLINGER: Number 41.

8 MR. WILSON: Good afternoon. My name is

9 Darrell Wilson. I have been marketing fly ash for

10 28 years. I oppose Subtitle C designation because

11 it will negatively affect beneficial use. You

12 have heard people here today and for the past 3

13 weeks say that there will not be stigma assigned

14 to fly ash and that other products that are

15 labeled hazardous are successfully recycled. It

16 is easy to say when you are not the one tha t could

17 possibly lose your job if it is labeled Subtitle

18 C, as I may.

19 Bayshore Concrete Products of Cape

20 Charles, Virginia is best known for producing the

21 c oncrete piers and segments that created the

22 Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel. They have stated to111

1 me, beyond a doubt, if fly ash is labeled unde r

2 Subtitle C, a hazardous material, they will cease

3 to use this material in their concrete products.

4 Capital Concrete of Norfolk, Virginia has also

5 said they will likely to stop using fly ash in all

6 of their concrete if it is labeled under Subtitle

7 C. They are a small family business. They are

8 afraid of the liabilities and they cannot afford

9 the risk associated wi th this. This is just two

10 of my customers in a relatively small area of the

11 country that said they will stop using fly ash

12 under Subtitle C.

13 Capital Concrete has also spoken to

14 three engineering firms in the Norfolk area. They

15 have all said that should fly ash be labeled under

16 Subtitle C, they will cease to specify in their

17 projects. Others we have spok en to have not yet

18 decided if they will continue to specify fly ash,

19 but they have expressed concerns. If they do not

20 specify fly ash in their projects, then I do not

21 recycle it and i t goes into a landfill. Those are

22 facts not opinions.112

1 The Congressional Research Service has a

2 report title "Reg ulating Coal Combustion Waste

3 Disposal: Issues for Congress," dated August 9,

4 2010. One recommendation they make is to amend

5 RCRA to create a new Subtitle C that would

6 specifically a ddress issues unique to the

7 management of coal combustion waste. It seems to

8 me that the two options being presented by EPA are

9 like a round hole and a square hole. Coal

10 Combustion W aste is hexagon shaped. We are trying

11 to put that hexagon into a square hole or round

12 hole. Let's take this opportunity to create a

13 proper guideline for CCWs. Instead of trying to

14 patchwork together existing regulations, let's do

15 what is correct and make something that works for

16 everyone. Thank you.

17 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 42.

18 MR. PETERSON: Good afternoon. My name

19 is Terry Peterson. I have been employed in the

20 Coal Combustion Product Industry for the past 27

21 years. I work for Boral Material Technologies,

22 wh ich is an Ash Management company that is focused113

1 on environmentally acceptable beneficial re

- use of

2 Coal Combustion Products.

3 As well as, providing compliance

4 landfill management services to utilities. BMTI

5 has 161 employees working at 22 sites scattered

6 across 18 states.

7 I would like to open my statement by

8 commending the EPA for supporting and maintaining

9 a Subtitle D classification for CCRs since the

10 enactment of the Bevill Amendment in 1980. That

11 support has un derpinned the establishment and

12 development of arguably the most successful

13 recycling program in U.S. History. BMTI alone,

14 with this support, has been able to place in

15 excess of 53 m illion tons of coal combustion

16 products into beneficial uses over the past 20

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

18 avoided landfill space, but just as significantly,

19 represents a corresponding offset of 53 million

20 tons of CO2 emissions that would have resulted if

21 natural materials had been used in lieu of coal

22 combustion products.114

1 The further benefit of EPA's support of

2 Subtitle D is reflected in the BMTI's R&D program.

3 Over the past 10 years, we have invested over $30

4 million developing three new coal combustion

5 products applications outside of ready

- mix and

6 cement. Just as importantly, we developed three

7 beneficiation processes that enable coal

8 c ombustion products to meet performance

9 specifications if those products are compromised

10 when power plant modifications necessary to reduce

11 NOx, SOx and mercury are installed. These

12 in vestments would not have occurred if CCRs were

13 classified under Subtitle C.

14 I recognize during these hearings the

15 undercurrent associated with not wanting to burn

16 coal and ci tizen concern over state regulation.

17 Obviously, coal has been an integral part of U.S.

18 society for many years and will remain that way

19 for some time to come as alternate fuel sources

20 d evelop.

21 I suggest that as long as we are burning

22 coal, the right thing to do is encourage the115

1 continuation and ex pansion of current recycling

2 efforts. Supporting Subtitle D is the way to

3 maintain this momentum.

4 Just as importantly, creating confidence

5 amongst citizens that government a gencies whether

6 federal or state, are protecting their interest is

7 critical. I am confident that we can gain public

8 confidence and achieve the necessary safe guards

9 for properly landf illing CCRs through cooperation

10 between the EPA and state regulators using a

11 Subtitle D classification.

12 In closing, I recommend that the best

13 option going forward for U.S. c itizen is fro the

14 EPA to continue its support of a Subtitle D

15 classification for CCRs. Thank you for your time.

16 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 43.

17 MR. WELSH: Good afternoon. My name is

18 Michael Welsh. I am an International

19 Representative for the IBEW, International

20 Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. I am here to

21 voice our opposition to th e proposed Environmental

22 Protection Agency proposal for regulating coal116

1 combustion residuals, commonly known as coal or

2 fly ash, under Subtitle C of the Resource

3 Conservation and Recovery Act.

4 The IBEW represent thousands of workers

5 in Pennsylvania and throughout the country that

6 work at coal fir ed generation stations or have

7 jobs directly tie d to the generating stations, and

8 to classify coal ash as a hazard material could

9 put many of those jobs at risk. The increase d cost

10 th at would be created due to a hazard material

11 classification could force the early shut down of

12 many of the smaller generating stations. Even

13 though coal ash would be called special waste, it

14 still would be listed with the hazardous material

15 and there would be a reluctance to recycle coal

16 ash.

17 As you know, much of the coal combustion

18 residuals are now recy cled for various uses. They

19 have been used for decades to enhance concrete,

20 for wallboard construction and anti

- skid control

21 on icy roads to name a few. As with recycling

22 other mater ials, by using fly ash, greenhouse117

1 gases are reduced and other natural resources are

2 saved. If the coal ash is not recycled, there

3 would be the need for additional landfills.

4 We agree and support the EPA's second

5 proposal that would regulate coal ash under

6 Subtitle D, which is the section for nonhazardous

7 waste. In prior EPA regulatory determinations the

8 EPA determined that coal ash did not need

9 regulation as a hazardous waste and in general

10 does not pose a human health risk. It also found

11 that if it did treat coal ash as a hazardous

12 material, there may be counterproductive

13 consequences.

14 Even if the EPA classifies fly ash as

15 nonhazardous, EPA w ould still establish national

16 criteria to ensure sage disposal of coal ash and

17 other Coal Combustion Products. Facilities

18 handling coal ash would be subject to location

19 standards and composite liner requirements.

20 Existing ash ponds without liners would have to

21 retrofit within five years or close and

22 groundwater would be monitored for contaminants.118

1 Post

- closure care requirements would be issued to

2 address the long

- term stability of ash ponds.

3 Once again, we urge you not to regulate

4 coal ash under Subtitle C of the Resource

5 Conservation and Recovery Act, but go with the

6 second propos al and regulate it under Subtitle D.

7 Thank you.

8 MR. DELLINGER: Th ank you. Is there

9 anybody in the room who has a number lower than 43

10 that has not spoken yet? Please come with

11 forward. I was told number 40 was in the room.

12 Okay. We'll take some walk in people.

13 Numbers 202, 203, 204, and 205. Please show us

14 your number as we come forward because we need it.

15 MR. MASTROPAOLO: I'm Walter

16 Mastropaolo. I am a citizen and electricity

17 consumer as we all are. A September 2009 National

18 Academy of Science report concluded that the price

19 of coal would be 50 percent higher if all the

20 costs of mi ning, transporting and burning are

21 included in the price. This study did not take

22 into account environmental costs that are not119

1 stringently quantified in dollars. The decision

2 whether or not to regulate coal waste fly ash as a

3 toxic or nontoxic material should only be based on

4 the best science, not that it will put coal a t an

5 economic disadvantage compared to the other means

6 of electrical generation.

7 The statements today about whether it's

8 a stigma, call it toxic or nontoxic, is a totally

9 irrelevant because it is either toxic or it isn't.

10 The more you lie about it, the more the stigma

11 will persist. It is time that this massive

12 subsidy to the coal industry at the public's

13 expense end. As a consumer of electricity, I

14 should have the privilege of paying the true cost

15 of electricity. Thank you.

16 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 205.

17 MS. HUGHES: Hello, my name is Marcy

18 Hughes. I live in Greene Township approximately

19 one and a half miles from Little Blue. I'm here

20 to ask the EPA panel to pass Subtitle C

21 regulations for all coal ash facilities in the

22 United States. The health concerns surrounding120

1 these area s is of the u t most importan ce.

2 My daughter was 19 years old, she was

3 ready to begin her second semester of her

4 sophomore year in college, when she was diagnosed

5 with Hodgkin's stage 2B. She dropped ou t of

6 college for one semester, had surgery and

7 radiation treatments of which she has received her

8 lifetime dose. During this time, she ate very

9 little and lost a lot of weight approxi mately 40

10 pounds. I will never forget the one night, I was

11 sitting behind her brushing her hair. Her hair

12 was now coming out in large amounts. She turned

13 around and said, Mom, will you still love me if

14 I'm bald? Of course, my answer was I will always

15 love you no matter what.

16 In 2001, she was diagnosed with thyroid

17 cancer, had surgery and was treated ea ch year for

18 two years, and due to the treatments the radiation

19 oncologist said if we continued with treatments

20 she would probably wind up with leukemia. The

21 treatments were then stopp ed.

22 In 2003, she was diagnosed with breast121

1 cancer, had bilateral mastectomy, followed by a

2 hysterectomy and sever al complications. Following

3 the surgery, she received chemo therapy during

4 which time she lost her hair, her fingernails and

5 her toenails.

6 In 2006, the doctors were concerne d she

7 had pancreatic cancer. However, the surgery was

8 done and it was negative. Thank God. She has

9 endured wound infections, which at times had to be

10 packed with gauze measuring 22 inches.

11 Today, she has very little saliva due to

12 her treatments and has difficulty eating and

13 swallowing. Every time she says, I don't feel

14 well, my heart drops to my toes.

15 To the EPA panel, please pass Subtitle

16 C. It is a matter of life and death. To First

17 Energy, since you feel there are no health issues

18 at Little Blue, I want to invite thos e in charge

19 to come to our area and live with the fear of my

20 story and those which hasn't been told. We don't

21 want or need another Kingston, Tennessee. Thank

22 you.122

1 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Numbers 206,

2 207, 208, 209.

3 Numbers 103, 106, 112, 123, 95. Whoever

4 has the lowest number. You can arrange

5 yourselves. Number 95.

6 MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Good afternoon. Thank

7 you for the opportunity to give my testimony. My

8 name is Ron Chamberlain. I would like to add ress

9 FGD Gypsum. I've been working with crops and

10 soils for 39 years, and I've been working for the

11 last nine years with FGD Gypsum from power plants

12 across the mid west that produce the materials for

13 exempting specifications for use in agriculture.

14 I'm a certified crop advisor and

15 currently hold the position of director of economy

16 for t he Gypsoil Company, a small midwest business

17 with a goal of providing sustainable solutions to

18 American agriculture. Gypsoil provides FGD Gypsum

19 to the agriculture industry in order to improve

20 quality American farmland. FGD Gypsum

21 improves soil structure and balance by providing

22 valuable calcium and sulfur, which are both123

1 becoming in sufficient in our current farm soils.

2 Much of our agricultural land is

3 compacted resulting in erosion of our soils,

4 nutrients and lower the production of efficien cy.

5 To solve the compaction problem, I've been

6 applying Gypsum to thousands of acres of

7 negligence farmland for the past nine years, and

8 during that time, I have observed an array of

9 benefits for our farmers, their businesses and the

10 environment. For example, our compacted soil can

11 become very garden, mellow, rich and balanced as a

12 natural soil biology flourishes, and provides

13 everything that crops need to grow and produce

14 high quality safe food. As a result, we have

15 reduced applications of chemicals and

16 petroleum

- based fertilizers by up to 90 percent.

17 Water from heavy rainfall no longer ponds or

18 erodes off of the fields, rather it is absorbed

19 into the spongelike subsoil and then gently

20 released into our waterways without in flecting

21 water damage to our neighbors downstream. Our

22 Gypsum farmer customers are enjoying more124

1 efficiency from their lan d laboring inputs. Our

2 waters heds are clearer as evidenced by the recent

3 study conducted by Center for Earth and

4 Environmental Science, a joint project from Purdue

5 University and Indi ana University, where long term

6 use of FGD Gypsum has influenced a significant

7 reduction in phosphorus and nitrate coating to the

8 Eagle Creek Watershed, which supplies water to the

9 Cit y of Indianapolis, Indiana. Adoption of FGD

10 Gypsum is the best management practice in

11 sensitive waters heds across the country to clean

12 up our waterways suffering from runoff pollution

13 provides us with clean water and make this a

14 better world.

15 In conclusion, responsibly applied to

16 agriculture soil FGD Gypsum contributes

17 significantly to improve sustainable agriculture

18 and improvement in the environment. A hazardous

19 designation of Gypsum would stop this beneficial

20 use in American agriculture and, therefore, take

21 away the opportunity to help the environment in so

22 many ways. I ask you, first of all, to avoid125

1 labeling FGD Gypsum as a hazardous waste, and

2 seco ndly, to avoid regulating under the Subtitle C

3 or RCRA. Thank you for your time and

4 consideration.

5 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Whoever has

6 the next lowest number.

7 MR. JUSTICE: Good morning or afternoon.

8 I'm not sure what time it is. My name is Ken

9 Justice. I'm a Professional Engineer with the

10 Portland Cement Association. I'm, also, an owner

11 of my own consulting firm. I specialize in

12 pavements.

13 I'm going to go in a different direction

14 here to make my point real quick. I want to state

15 a few fac ts about pavements. There's only two

16 realistic materials that we use for highways and

17 roads, asphalt or concrete. They're both made the

18 same. It's rock, sand and glue. It's the

19 dif ference in the glue that separates the asphalt

20 from the concrete. Asphalt is made by using

21 basically refined oil and what's left at the

22 bottom of the barrel, so to speak, is that sticky126

1 black stuff what we know as liquid asphalt.

2 Concrete is made by taking powdered cement and we

3 also add cementitious products called pozzol ans,

4 such as fly ash. By using fly ash, not only are

5 we recycling the material, but we are also

-- fly

6 ash has actually been used since the Ancient

7 Romans

-- fly ash and concrete is w hat gives it

8 that superior strength, to be used for bridge

9 piers or columns, to give us roadways that meet

10 the PSI, pounds per square inch, requirements that

11 we ask for in our roads to keep them more durable,

12 make them safe and make them more resistant to

13 chemical attacks.

14 The beneficial use of fly ash means

15 instead of putting in a landfill, we are using i t

16 to better our society. In addition to that, by

17 using the concrete with fly ash in it, we are in

18 effect using resources that we're generating here

19 in America as opposed to oil, and w e all know

20 about what oil can do, and also our dependence on

21 foreign oil, which our current administration is

22 trying to get away from.127

1 In effect, what we're saying is the more

2 we can help use concrete, the more we can actually

3 stay away continuing to depend on oil the way we

4 did in the past. I u rge you to consider these

5 points when you're considering this new

6 regulation. Thank you.

7 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Next. Can

8 you indicated your number and your affiliatio n.

9 MR. STAUFFER: 123.

10 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you.

11 MR. STAUFFER: Good Afternoon. I would

12 like to thank the U.S. Environmental Protection

13 Agency for the opportunity to provide testimony

14 relating of the disposal of coal combustion

15 residuals. I live at 1349 Pennscott Drive,

16 Landisville, PA, this is on the outskirts of

17 L ancaster. I am employed by Pennsy Supply, a

18 Ready

- mix Concrete Producer. We are part of the

19 Old Castle Materials Family, which supplies ready

20 mix concrete throughout the United States.

21 Pennsy Supply felt strongly enough about

22 the issue being discussed today, it warranted128

1 sending me here from Lancaster to provide the

2 following testimony. Pennsy Supply uses fly ash

3 in approximately 80 percent of all the concrete we

4 produce. Currently, our mix designs use fly ash

5 to replace 20 percent of the c ement in all of that

6 concrete. Our efforts along with all the other

7 concrete producers across the country have saved

8 12 million tons of greenhouse gas in 2008 alone.

9 Ready

- m ix concrete plants for most part

10 are in a permanent in getting deliveries of raw

11 materials on an ongoing basis. Fly ash is

12 delivered, mixed in concrete and delivered to job

13 sites thro ughout the country. Where landfills are

14 full, a new location must be opened and hopefully

15 constructed properly.

16 To label fly ash Subtitle C Hazardous

17 would in essence elimin ate any responsible use for

18 it and also push off the inevitable question, what

19 do we do with it now, if we don't put it in the

20 concrete. Our dependence for fossil fueled is not

21 going to go away in the near future.

22 It's easy to say, call it hazardous129

1 because it is. If we subscribe to that

2 philos ophy, where do we stop? Beaches have sand

3 and airborne parti c l e s can cause silico si s.

4 Lancaster County's air quality shows pollen from

5 farmers' fields, do we say stop farming? Yes, I

6 did question my sanity as I wrote that last night.

7 Your challenge is to provide a useful and a

8 realistic reason to get rid of and dispose of fly

9 ash. What should be labeled as a success story is

10 being labeled in essence as a failure anything

11 other than the C designation.

12 Finally, for all the above reasons I and

13 Pennsy Supply feel a Subtitle C Hazardous approach

14 would eliminate a sound use for fly ash and to

15 force future generations to live with an issue

16 that could have been eliminated today.

17 MR. DELLINGER: Can you state your name?

18 MR. STAUFFER: I'm sorry. Jeff

19 Stauffer.

20 MR. DELLINGER: 207.

21 MS. NEVERLY: My name is Cid Neverly.

22 Eight years ago, my husband and I bought an a cre130

1 of ground with a mobile home and a two car garage

2 in Lawrenceville area in Chester just over the

3 hill from Little Blue. We loved this area, it's a

4 little bit country not too far from town or work,

5 and thought it'd be a great place to live the rest

6 of our days at. We were planning to build a new

7 home in a few years. We were told the Blue Lake,

8 even though I wondered about the beautiful

9 blueness of the water. It was very abnormal for

10 our area, but we were told it was safe. A couple

11 years later, and the houses on the West Virginia

12 lake side of Little Blue are being bought up and

13 tore down by First Energy, we started hearing of

14 water and ground contamination.

15 The cancer rate in our area has greatly

16 increased. Some of the cancers are typed as rare

17 type of cancers. My brother

- in

- law, who also

18 lived in the area all of his life, worked at

19 National Church Supply for 28 years, at the age of

20 47 got cancer. It was typed as a rare type

21 usually found in Asian women. He was a white

22 male. Everyone I've talk to either has cancer or131

1 knows someone with cancer. If it's not cancer,

2 it's respiratory problems and allergy problems.

3 All ages are being affected. My 7 year old

4 grandson has had allergies, mostly sinus and ear

5 allergies, almost all of his life. Even his

6 hearing has been affected. He's 7 and we have

7 lived in our home for 8 years. He used to spend a

8 lot of time at my house, but now I'm afraid to let

9 him go outside and play, so I usually take him out

10 of town to spend time with him or don't let him

11 outside.

12 We planned on living here for the rest

13 of our days. Now, we don't know what to do. Our

14 property value is decreasing. We are getting old.

15 The economy is bad. We can't afford to buy

16 another home without selling ours. No one will

17 buy it because of the issues our neighborhood is

18 having with marshy spots and ground shifting

19 because of the seepage of Little Blue. Trees are

20 dying left and right. The gardens, we're afraid

21 to plant or to eat from. We can't even sit

22 outside in the evening because the mosquitos,132

1 gnats and the smell is so bad at times it makes me

2 sick.

3 First Energy has already ruined hundreds

4 of acres of beautiful, prime land. How much mor e

5 do they want to ruin? How many more lives are

6 going to be put at risk? What's in the future for

7 us, our kids and our grand kids? I'm a very

8 concerned citizen, and I hope you vote for Section

9 C. Thank you for your time listening to my story.

10 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you.

11 MS. FINEMAN: My name is Sharon Fineman.

12 I live in Chester, West Virginia. I want to thank

13 EPA for the opportunity to express my concerns for

14 guiding the disposal of coal ash at Little Blue.

15 I moved to Chester seven years ago, when the Blue

16 Lake was blue. I live within walking distance and

17 I can tell you, it is not blue anymore. It looks

18 more like some desolate landscape from a nuclear

19 disaster horror show. Like nuclear fallout, I am

20 deeply worried about the health hazards associated

21 with coal ash. I worry when my grandchildren

22 visit about what they are breathing, what they1 33

1 might be walking through when playing in our yard.

2 My neighborhood has wet, slushy, standing water in

3 all different areas, and nobody can tell us what

4 is in the water. Nobody will eat the vegetables

5 that is grown in their gardens.

6 Before the effects of the Blue Lake coal

7 ash became better known, we had to install a

8 french drain to redirect water in our backyard.

9 First Energy wanted access to my property to

10 install another drainage system that would

11 supposedly help my neighbor. When questioned

12 about what the measurable results would be, and

13 what environmental reports indicated as to the

14 pollutants in the water, they all of a sudden

15 found they didn't need access to my property.

16 My doctor cannot tell me t hat this coal

17 ash caused or contributed to my sudden onset of

18 severe rheumatoid arthritis, but knows it is bad

19 for you.

20 Promises of resort like activities on

21 Blue Lake, i.e, boating, fishing, new homes were

22 superficial attempts of conning the local134

1 residents into what First Energy wanted. We ar e

2 not as gullible as we once were. We are not

3 buying into your attempts to appease our concerns

4 regarding coal ash disposal. You must come clean

5 with all the details and information. First

6 Energy has proven with their actions or lack of

7 actions, they do not respect their neighbors in PA

8 and West Virginia. They have been very poor

9 corporate citizens. Guidelines are not enough, we

10 need a much stricter mandatory federal regulations

11 regarding the disposal of coal ash. Thank you.

12 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Is there

13 anybody in the room with a number 43 or lower?

14 Please come forward. Numbers 103, 106, 123.

15 Anybody with those numbers in the room? You can

16 move forward. Number 35.

17 MS. KINCAID: Number 35.

18 MR. DELLINGER: State your name and

19 affiliation.

20 MS. KINCAID: My name is Emily Kincaid.

21 I'm a citizen who has been affected by fly ash.

22 Today I'm here to speak on behalf of my dad,135

1 Robert Kincaid, Jr., my mom, Amy, and my brother,

2 Taylor. My dad lost his life after a four year

3 battle with melanoma cancer. The melanoma cancer

4 my dad had started underneath his fingernail on

5 his index finger. What a strange place to have

6 sun cancer we thought. We found out from his

7 melanoma specialist that this melanoma cancer my

8 dad had was not caused from the sun. He informed

9 my family that 5 percent of all melanoma cases are

10 caused from other factors other th an the sun.

11 What luck, we thought. Though we cannot prove

12 that my dad got this disease from working in the

13 power plant, but after working in such a dangerous

14 and hazardous place, like the Bruce Mansfield

15 plant for 30 years, we felt strongly as a family

16 that this is most likely where the problem

17 originated. He, also, thought the same thing.

18 What a tragic thought, t o think the place you have

19 dedicated the majority of your life to, so you

20 could support your family has brought you to the

21 your deathbed. My dad was a trooper though and

22 continued to work as much as possible through136

1 those four long years. The cancer finally

2 metastasized throughout his body and he end up

3 with 11 brain tumors. This is when my dad lost

4 his hard fought battle to this horrible disease on

5 December 14, 2005.

6 It was the most horrible thing I'm sure

7 I'll ever experi ence. Now that almost five years

8 have passed, I am madder than ever. It has really

9 hit my brother and I hard that we have no dad. I

10 feel that something that most likely could have

11 b een prevented ripped my dad away from me and my

12 family. Not only did my mom and I lose my dad,

13 but he also left behind a ten

- year

- old son, a son

14 that did not get a chance to know his dad. When

15 our dad got sick my brother, Taylor, was only in

16 first grade, a young child. I was just beginning

17 my college years. I was geared up and ready to

18 sta r t a new fun chapter of my life and train ing to

19 play volleyball when my parents had to break the

20 news to me that my dad had cancer. What a life

21 changer. It has not fair and nothing will ever

22 make it better.137

1 My brother is getting ready to turn 16

2 and me 27. Taylor is playing high school sports,

3 golf with a set of custom made clubs tha t were

4 originally made for my dad, basketball, which my

5 dad played in high school and college and

6 baseball. He practices every day with no dad to

7 help and support. He plays in the gy m and on the

8 field with no dad in the stands. He has been

9 robbed of one of the most important people of his

10 life. Sadly, he told my mom and me the other day

11 that we sure talk about h is dad a lot, but he

12 really does not know who the man we speak about so

13 often. He doesn't really remember him. He was

14 too in the years, I am sure he does remember he

15 watched our dad slowly die.

16 I graduated from college from my dad's

17 alma mater and he never got to witness it. I

18 bought my first car on my own and my own house.

19 Neither of which he could be a part of, but what

20 makes me most sad is that I will be walking down

21 the isle next summer with no dad to give me away.

22 He will never see my kids and they will never get138

1 to meet the great man he was.

2 I could go on and on for hours, but

3 since I only have a few minutes of your time I

4 hope that I hav e painted the picture of what my

5 family and I has endured the last few years of our

6 lives, our lives that have been changed forever.

7 I also hope that you have seen a small glimpse of

8 w hat my dad had to suffer through for four years

9 because of the negligence of the power plant where

10 he made his living for 30 years. I hope something

11 positive can be done to correct these issues of

12 unsafe working environments and that no other

13 family has to experience what my family does every

14 day. Thank you for your time.

15 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Are numbers

16 44, 45, an 48 here? If you move forward.

17 MR. WALDRON: My name the Dennis

18 Waldron. I am President of the Utility Workers of

19 America Local 457. We are the employees of the

20 W.H. Sammins plant in Stratton, Ohio. It's a

21 power plant of the First Energy Corporation with

22 seven coal fire generation units. I have worked139

1 there for almost 30 years and have seen a number

2 of issues that caused the reductions in the

3 workforce. These range from updated pollution

4 guidelines, deregulation and the recent economy

5 issues. None of these have had the devastating

6 effect we will see if the coal combustion

7 residuals are designated as hazardous.

8 First Energy currently spends

9 approximately 33 million dollars a year on

10 disposal of CCRs. If this proposal is enacted

11 this cost will increase to about one and a quarter

12 billion dollars at today's disposal rates. First

13 Energy currently generates about two million

14 dollars per year in revenue from selling ash,

15 Gypsum and bottom ash to outside entities. This

16 revenue would cease if CCRs were deem ed hazardous

17 mostly because of the stigma attached to it. At

18 the same time, the benefit to these other

19 companies would also go away causing economic

20 troubles for them. As we all know , CCRs are used

21 in a wide variety of uses from toothpaste, cement,

22 wallboard and agriculture to name just a few.140

1 The bottom line is by regulating CCRs as

2 a hazardous waste, there will be thousands of jobs

3 lost across the country. These job loses will not

4 just occur in the utility industry, but also among

5 other industries that rely on CCRs to keep the cost

6 of their project down. Utility bills undoubtedly

7 will rise due to the increase d disposal costs along

8 with the cost of additional training t hat would be

9 required. This would be especially painful given

10 the present economy and the uncertain economy in

11 the foreseeable future.

12 As a union, we stand side by side with

13 First Energy in the belief that deeming CCRs as

14 hazardous would significantly increase the cost to

15 produce electricity and reduce or totally

16 eliminate the beneficial use of coal combu stion

17 byproducts. We do agree with and support the

18 development of federal regulations for coal

19 combustion residuals to make the rules uniform

20 across the country and we support the inc rease of

21 recycling of coal ash as opposed to just throwing

22 something away that can ultimately benefit all of141

1 us. Thank you

.

2 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 45.

3 MS. KAMPMEYER: My name is Rhonda

4 Kampmeyer, Community Organizer for Citizens

5 Against Coal Ash of Greene Township, PA hose

6 municipality to Little Blue Coal Ash Disposal

7 Site, owned and operated by First Energy. I am

8 here today representing the citizens of the

9 communities surrounding the impound; the

10 approximately 20,000 residents of PA, West

11 Virginia and Ohio who have lived with the coal

12 combustion and its storage of its byproducts for

13 almost 40 years. While I realize the EPA is

14 considering fly ash regulation for nationwide

15 applications, the hazards of fly ash impoundments

16 are not just a generalized abstraction, they are

17 real and concrete. With that said I will sp eak to

18 one formidable example known as cancer alley by

19 the medi c al field for being the fifth largest in

20 the nation for cancer. The Ohio Valley's health

21 issues do not stop there. Very high rates of

22 thyroid disease, respiratory and cardiac problems142

1 plague the communities. Coal combustion and

2 fugitive coal ash is all some of these residents

3 have ever breathed in their lives. They may well

4 be drinking and eating it.

5 An additional 35,000 lives are in danger

6 should Little Blue, the largest earth dam of it's

7 kind in the United States, and the 1,694 acres of

8 slurry that it holds back and ranked as a high

9 hazard dam by the EPA, should breach in the manner

10 simila r to that of TVA in Tennessee. I would

11 like to call your attention to the Upper Ohio

12 Watershed and Little Blue's location almost

13 directly in the middle of it. This watershed

14 provides water to ten states along its path. It

15 is the backbone of this area's ecosystem as well.

16 Because Little Blue operates under an expired

17 demonstration project, it has permitted discharges

18 that run directly into the Ohio River that lead to

19 the drinking water of large populations.

20 Regulations proposed under Subtitle C to cease

21 continued use and to correct existing conditions

22 at the disposal site are critical. While it is143

1 not the job of the EPA directly to prevent First

2 Energy from expanding its so

- called demonstration

3 project, it is the job of the EPA to protect the

4 health of citizens and the quality of the natural

5 environment. Science tells us unequivocally that

6 unlined impoundments, such as First Energy's

7 Little Blue Run, are in fact health and

8 environmental dangers. Why should that be

9 permitted to expand? First Energy's proposed

10 expansion of Little Blue Run to a dry ash disposal

11 site, under the same unregulated demonstration

12 project, whether regulated by Subtitle C or not,

13 is an abomination.

14 When fly ash impoundments are discussed

,

15 one often hears about the so called beneficial

16 use. Houses located on properties in the same

17 area, owned by First Energy, are left abandoned,

18 unsecured, poorly maintained and blight ed as high

19 grass is harbored to rodents and pestilents, and

20 unsecured properties are open to vagrants and

21 vandalism. This is not a beneficial use to the

22 citizens. The economy in the Ohio Valley began to144

1 decline in the late seventies and has never

2 recovered

--

3 MR. DUFFICY: Your time is up.

4 MS. KAMPMEYER: Thanks.

5 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. You can

6 place all of your testimony in the box and they

7 will be put on the record. Number 48.

8 MR. AHO: My name is Andrew Aho. I am

9 the Managing Director of the Geosynthetic

10 Materials Association, a trade group of 80

11 companies that manufacture, distribute and install

12 ge osynthetic materials, including lining systems.

13 The industry employs 12,000 people throughout the

14 United States.

15 Our comment to the EPA is very simple.

16 We request that the EP A mandate that geosynthetic

17 lining of coal ash storage facilities using

18 composite lining systems. In the shortest terms,

19 use liners, specifically composite liners.

20 Why? Bec ause liners work. Concerns of

21 safety regarding CCRs are mitigated if the

22 landfill storage sites are lined with composite145

1 l iner systems of geomembrane and a geosynthetic

2 clay liner. A composite liner system prevents the

3 leachate from entering the environment. Safety

4 concerns regarding surface impoundments are also

5 mitigated if the impoundments are lined with

6 composite liner systems.

7 The American Society of Civil Engineers

8 does a regular report card on America's

9 Infrastructur e. For the last three report cards

10 representing over a decade, solid waste has

11 received the highest grade of any category; my

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

13 and pr operly storing it to protect the

14 environment. The materials, technology and the

15 people exist. The engineers, engineering

16 techniques and standards exist. The general

17 contractors and installers who can build the

18 proper facilities, and the regulators and

19 inspectors who assure the work is done correctly

20 also exist. We urge the EPA to use what exists

21 and is working t oday.

22 Further, our industry has continuously146

1 improved over time and the EPA has been a part of

2 that effort. Over the years, the EPA has

3 commissioned nearly 80 studies of the design and

4 performance of lining systems. We specially call

5 your attention to a 2002 study titled "Assessment

6 and Recomme ndations for Optimal Performance of

7 Waste Containment Systems." That study contains a

8 great deal of pertinent information about how to

9 construct containment systems. Most illustrative

10 is a graph charting the leakage rate of different

11 designs over the life cycle of nearly 200

12 facilities. The composite liner system of a

13 geomembrane and a geosynthetic clay liner was

14 demonstrated to have the lowest leakage rate over

15 all life cycle stages including a near zero

16 leakage rate after the facilities are closed and

17 the final cover is placed. Our materials worked.

18 A brief word on the

19 hazardous/non

- hazardous question. Coal ash lacks

20 the tradition characteristics of the tradition

21 hazardous materials; radioactivity, or the

22 pres ence of infectious medical waste. In our147

1 opinion of our trade organization, coal ash can be

2 properly stored using Subtitle D regulations, a

3 nonhazardous solid waste designation with

4 composite liner systems. Thank you.

5 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. We're going

6 to call a recess for about 15 minutes and we will

7 resume the hearing. We are switching panels right

8 now. There will be a new panel up here at about

9 1:15. Thank you.

10 (Whereupon, at 1:04 p.m., a

11 luncheon recess was taken.)

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22148

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

2 (1:20 p.m.)

3 MS. DEVLIN: Good afternoon, everyone.

4 I think we're ready to start thi s afternoon's

5 session. I am Betsy Devlin. I am the Associate

6 Director of Materials Recovery and Waste

7 Management in the EPA's Office of Resource

8 Conservation and Recovery. I'll be c hairing this

9 afternoon's session of today's hearing. With me

10 this afternoon on the panel are Mary Hunt, Jesse

11 Miller and Frank Behan, all of us are with EPA, as

12 well.

13 Before we start this afternoon, I am

14 going to run over the logistics, again, of how we

15 are handling the comment portion of today's

16 hearing. Speakers, if you preregistered, you will

17 get a 15 minute time slot when you are to give

18 your three minutes of testimony. To guarantee

19 that slot, we ask that you sign in at least 15

20 minutes before your 15 minute slot. All speakers,

21 those who have preregistered and those who just

22 walked in, will get a number when you sign in149

1 today and that is the order i n which you will

2 speak.

3 I will be calling speakers to the front

4 of the room by number by four or five at a time.

5 When I call your number, we ask you to sit over to

6 my right, your left and then bring your numbers

7 when called. We ask that you move to the

8 podium, and please remember when you start your

9 testimony to state your name and your affiliation

10 for our court reporter, who is transcribing this

11 for the record.

12 There are many people who have signed up

13 today and because of that we are limiting

14 testimony to t hree minutes and we will be stopping

15 you at the end of three minutes. We are using an

16 automatic timekeeping system and we will be

17 holding up cards to let you know when your time is

18 ge tting low. When we can hold up the first card,

19 the green card, you have two minutes left. When

20 we hold up to second card, which is yellow, you

21 have one minute left. When the third card, the

22 orange card is held up, you have 30 seconds left.150

1 When the red card is held up, your time is up, and

2 we ask that you not continue wi th your remarks.

3 You can give a concluding statement, that's it.

4 You can provide any written material for the

5 record. The material will be entered into the

6 record just as if you provi ded the testimony

7 orally.

8 We will not be answering any questions

9 on the proposal today, but from time to time

10 someone on the panel my ask a question to clarify

11 your testimony.

12 As I mentioned, if you have a written

13 copy of your statement, we ask you put it in the

14 box in front of our court reporter's table. If

15 you're only submitt ing written comments today, we

16 have a box in the lobby in front of the

17 registration table to put your comments in. If

18 you have any additional comments after today's

19 hearing, you can f ollow the instructions on the

20 yellow piece of paper, on the yellow handout, and

21 submit them by November 19, 2010, which is the end

22 of the official comment period of this proposed151

1 rule.

2 Our goal this afternoon, as it is all

3 the time, is to give everyone the opportunity to

4 provide a comment, and to the extent of our

5 allowable time constraints, we are going to do our

6 best to accommodate the speakers who have not

7 preregistered. Our hearing is technically

8 scheduled was to close at 9 p.m., but we will stay if

9 necessary to allow as many as possible to provide

10 testimony, but if for some reason time doesn't

11 allow you to present your comments orally, again,

12 we have paper, you can write your comments down

13 and submit them to us or you can submit them

14 later. Again, all comments whether they are oral

15 or written will be entered into the record and

16 co nsidered just as it would have orally.

17 If you're here and you decide you want

18 to testify, but not have registered to do so, see

19 your registration table, they will give you a

20 number and get you in to testify. If during the

21 hearing you have any questions or concerns, see

22 our folks at the registration desk.152

1 We may take some occasional breaks very

2 briefly, but, again, we will shorten them to

3 accommodate as many people as possible.

4 Again, if you have a cell phone, we do

5 ask you to turn it off or to vibrate. If you do

6 need to use the phone at any time during the

7 hearing or have a discussion, we ask you to move

8 outside of the hearing room in the lobby, there i s

9 plenty of room out there, again, just so everyone

10 can hear. We ask everyone to be patient as we

11 proceed. We will make adjustments as we go along.

12 With that I would like t o start this

13 afternoon. I'm going to call numbers 47, 49, 50,

14 51 and 52. If you all would please come forward,

15 and if 47 come to the microphone, please.

16 MR. RIGNEY: Good a fternoon. My name is

17 Peter Rigney. I am the Plant Manager at the

18 Scrubgrass Generating Plant located in Kennerdell,

19 Pennsylvania. Scrubgrass Generating is a

20 circulating fluidized

- be d boiler. Primarily, our

21 fuel supply is waste coal piles. We have been in

22 operation for 17 years. We sell power under a153

1 long term contract.

2 I come here today to voice my opinion

3 that our analysis, and we participate in the

4 Pennsylvania Beneficial Ash Use Program, we do a

5 composite sample of al l of our ash. We combine

6 our ash and bottom together. In our quota, we mix

7 25 percent limestone with the fuel, so our ash is

8 cementitious. When pu gg ed or mixed with water, it

9 will s et up like concrete. It has a PH of around

10 12 to 12.5, so it neutralises everything. It is

11 mainly used in the reclamation of mine sites in

12 surface mines.

13 Our analysis in th e Pennsylvania Program

14 is for leach a t e testing that we've done, is one

15 half

-- the program is about one half of the EPA

16 table 1, 40 CFR261 lists for hazard use materials.

17 Our results a re 20 times less than that, so we do

18 not exhibit any characteristics of the leach a t e

19 of a hazardous material. If EPA pursues the RCRA

20 C classification for our ash because we're a waste

21 fill plant and our heat content of our fuel is so

22 low, it will require us to shut down. We just154

1 could not afford

-- the cost of disposal w ould

2 exceed our cost of fuel.

3 This ash is beneficially used. We are

4 looking at other opportunities to use this ash.

5 Should this be classified as a hazardous waste,

6 then the liabilities will increase. We will also

7 be required to

-- you know, just the stigma

8 attached to it will end any future opportunities,

9 and there are many opportunities we are looking a t

10 now for everything from fertilizers to mixing it

11 with sludges to take care of the solid sludge

12 waste problem that a lot of cities face. We are

13 looking at that as a fuel process usin g our ash.

14 If it's declared hazardous, that is completely in

15 jeopardy. Thank you very much.

16 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. 49 please.

17 MS. ENGLAND: My name is Jennifer

18 England. I am a resident of Pittsburgh. I am not

19 personally directly affected b y this, but I'm

20 here to volunteer to give testimony for folks that

21 could not actually be here today. I' m reading

22 testimony from Richard Hart of Chester, West155

1 Virginia. This is his photograph.

2 To whom it may concern. This is my

3 story. I live on Johnsonville Road below the

4 Little Blue impoundment. Up until the last month

5 my yard in certain spaces was like a swamp. The

6 drought of last month has finally dried some of

7 it, but not all. Before it dried, I had ruts made

8 by my mower in several places in my yard. I feel

9 that if I dug down just a little, I could still

10 find to water . This problem never existed until

11 the past three or four years. I also get a bad

12 odor that is just like that of the impoundment.

13 I have a crawl space under my house, and

14 f eel that the impoundment is leaking through the

15 ground and surfacing in different places around my

16 yard and under my home. I no longer eat the

17 fruits I grow or bother to put in a garden because

18 of Little Blue.

19 Lastly, and it may be hard to believe,

20 but I know my land, and I know it is ever so

21 slowly moving. I've lived here for 30 years and

22 the problems h ave showed up in the last three to156

1 five years. Why? The answer is Little Blue.

2 Richard Hart. Johnsonville Road,

3 Chester, West Virginia.

4 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 50,

5 please.

6 MR. CERULLO: Good afternoon. I'm Tom

7 Cerullo with Separation Technologies. I'm here

8 today to oppose Subtitle C regulations because of

9 the detrimental effects that it will have on the fly

10 ash recycling industry.

11 Separation Technologies has a patented,

12 proprietary process, which can get coal burning

13 power plants out of the landfill business. We can

14 take fly ash of poor quality, which normally would

15 be disposed of in a landfill, send it through ou r

16 equipment, and recycle 100 percent of it into

17 concrete. Not only can we do this, we in fact do

18 this, every single day. We're recycled over 8

19 million tons of fly ash so far.

20 Now, a key component of our business is

21 convincing the coal power plants to get out of the

22 landfill business and to do business with157

1 Separation Technologies. If landfilling is too

2 easy, power plants are less compelled to do

3 business with us, and they will continue to go

4 down the path of least resistanc e and dispose of

5 their ash. The more burdensome it is for power

6 companies to landfill their ash, the better it

7 actually is for Separation Technologies. Stricter

8 landfill regulations, more expensive disposal

9 situations, drive power companies to make an

10 investment in Separation Technologies as an

11 alternative to costly and burdensome disposal.

12 As one of the people responsible for

13 signing up power companies to make investments in

14 our recycling technology, you would think my

15 position would be to encourage EPA to regulate ash

16 disposal all y ou want. The more rules the better.

17 The tougher you make it to landfill, the more

18 likely it is that power companies will seek out

19 our company to get them out of the disposal

20 business and into recycling. You would think that

21 would be my position, but it's not.

22 Subtitle C regulations, even with the158

1 exemption for beneficial use, will create two

2 conditions that will have a deep, negative impact

3 on the recycling industry.

4 One, many power companies will not want

5 to put a sh into beneficial uses because they

6 cannot and will not tolerate the liability of

7 having ash make a left turn out of their property

8 and be designated a hazardous material, while that

9 same hazardous material is making a right turn out

10 of their property is being placed in concrete

11 sidewalks, home basements and driveways. The risk

12 at this point is too close for comfort, and power

13 companies will take the safe route and dispose of

14 all their ash.

15 Two, users of concrete with recycled fly

16 ash will be unwilling to draw a distinction

17 between th e nonhazardous material that they are

18 receiving and the exact same material that is

19 going to the hazardous landfill. In the

20 consumer's mind, it's all hazardous and they will

21 not buy t he fly ash product.

22 My company works with power companies159

1 every day. We sell recycled fly ash to concrete

2 produc ers every day. We know this industry. We

3 want to grow our business, but Subtitle C

4 regulations as proposed by EPA will create a

5 stigma, profoundly damage the use of fly ash in

6 concre te and drive power companies away from

7 recycling. I urge you to reject Subtitle C and

8 give every consideration to Subtitle D. Thank you

9 for your time.

10 MS. DEVLIN: Thank yo u. Number 51,

11 please.

12 MS. ILLYN: Hello, my name is Alexis

13 Illyn. I work with Restoring Eden. Restoring

14 Eden is a national ministry that encourages

15 Chris tians to love, serve and protect God's

16 creation and all who depend on it.

17 I'm here today representing a growing

18 number of young Christians, the future

19 leaders of our church, who are concerned for the

20 health of families and communities all across the

21 nation, who are being poisoned because of toxic

22 coal ash. We are deeply encouraged that the EPA160

1 is taking this issue seriously and has opened up

2 the proposal to hear from the public, so thank

3 you.

4 As Christ followers, ou r faith is more

5 than the individual spiritual journey, but one

6 where we strive to live in a way, so our daily

7 actions and our choices reflect in what God called

8 us to do, to love kindn ess, to walk humbly with

9 God and to do justice. We see this call for

10 justice is not only a call to love our neighbor,

11 but also our biblical responsibility to care for

12 God's creation. We want to see these values and

13 ethics forming a cornerstone of our leadership,

14 which we hope in turn shall be the betterment of

15 all members of society. Unfortunately, as a

16 society, we have failed in our ignorance and our

17 mistreatment of toxic coal ash waste. For too

18 long we have sat back and quietly watched as coal

19 ash has damaged God's creation and the health and

20 livelihood of our neighbors.

21 We're saddened when we hear that

22 communities, especially young children, living161

1 n ear these sites are facing an increased risk of

2 cancer, of learning disabilities, birth defects

3 and other illnesses as arsenic, lead and mercury

4 are getting into their water.

5 We don't have to be scientists nor do we

6 have to be experts to know that this is wrong, but

7 despite all of the known hazards of coal ash, we

8 still have not seen any national regulations and

9 little to no state regulations. This has to

10 change. The coal industry and individual

11 coal

- fired power plants have the means to properly

12 dispose the toxic coal ash waste. Expecting the

13 coal industry to be a good neighborhood, one that

14 does no harm to their fellow neighbors, is not

15 outrageous, but is reasonable cost of doing

16 business. Making a profit is fine, but causing

17 others to suffer and bear the harmful costs as a

18 result is wrong.

19 I hope that we are not past repentance

20 that there can be new life that can emerge from

21 this co al ash. We know this stuff is toxic, we

22 know it's poisoning families, communities and our162

1 environment and it is time it is treated as

2 hazardous waste. I encourage you all to pass

3 Subtitle C because it's time that we treat coal

4 ash

-- or to treat the earth, excuse me, as if our

5 life depends on it. Thank you.

6 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Is number 52 in

7 the room, please? Number 52, would you come

8 forward? While he is making his way forward,

9 could we have numbers 53, 54, 55, and 56 come

10 forward and take a seat over here, please? Thank

11 you.

12 MR. DAWES: I would like to thank you

13 for giving me the opportunity to come down here

14 and speak on behalf of my hometown, which is

15 Snagdale, Pennsylvania, we have a normal coal ash

16 dump up there. My family lives out there, my

17 grandson lives outs there, all of my friends, and

18 other relatives live out there.

19 My name is LaMont Byrd. I am a

20 51

- year

- old coal miner. I work for Consol Energy

21 at numerous mines that they own. I want to know

22 why I had to come down, I c ouldn't spend quality163

1 time with my grandchildren today, or quality time

2 out fishing or hunting in order to come down here

3 t o tell you something we already know. These

4 people are dumping hazardous waste in the

5 backyards of America. It's making people sick and

6 killing people. You people already know this.

7 These people who come in and advocate

8 Subtitle D, they represent these big coal

9 operators or represent these big utilities, they

10 are no friends of mine. They are no friends of

11 anybody in here. They have more of a threat on my

12 personal welfare, my personal health and the

13 health of my grandchildren more than Osama bin

14 Laden will ever be. They say somewhere in the

15 preamble says the government is supposed to be of

16 the people, by the people and for the people.

17 Well, if you are for me, th e n you'll be applicant

18 of Subtitle C also. These people need to be

19 regulated and they need to be monitored to make

20 sure they are dumping these hazardous materials

21 that is safe to the environment, safe to the

22 wildlife and safe to the population. That's all I164

1 need to say.

2 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. There's 53.

3 MR. DULANEY: Thank you. My name is

4 Brian Dulaney. I'm from Separation Technologies,

5 but more importantly I'm here representing myself

6 as well. I am truly thankful for the opportunity

7 to speak to you guys today considering this very

8 serious issue.

9 I have spent the last two years

10 diligently working to increase market acceptance

11 of fly ash in the concrete industry. Because of

12 this daily activity, I am strongly opposed to the

13 Subtitle C designation.

14 Let me assure you that the stigma of a

15 hazardous label is very real. I have daily

16 conversations with cus tomers and specifying

17 engineers and without fail this is a pressing

18 concern. On too many occasions, this conversation

19 concludes with I don't know if I will be able to

20 continue to use fly ash if they call it hazardous.

21 I'm not prepared to, I guess, wager the future on

22 the unknown, not while I am still able to speak165

1 and share my concerns.

2 I have chosen my profession. I'm very

3 proud of what I do. My views are not driven by

4 professional self

- preservation, it's driven to

5 preserv e my ability to make a difference and

6 continue the most successful recycling program

7 I've ever been a part of. I encourage the EPA to

8 continue its efforts in monitoring the safe

9 dispo sal of CCBs and to follow its own published

10 endorsements of beneficial uses of CCBs. By

11 staying consistent with these views, I know that

12 you will make the logical decision and support

13 Subtitle D. Thank you for your time.

14 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 54,

15 please.

16 MS. BYERS:: I'm Jeraldine Byers. I

17 live 163 Doberman Drive, Chester, West Virgi nia,

18 the tip of the northern panhandle. It's also

19 1,056 feet from the edge of Little Blue Run.

20 My problems started about eight years

21 ago as the PA EPA had renewed the permit for First

22 Energy to resume using the ash pond for coal ash166

1 waste. During the years just before that, our end

2 had dried up and developed huge cracks formed in

3 the ground and hill. When dumping on the compound

4 resumed, the water came through those cracks and

5 through the hill into our property. Where I once

6 could take a riding mower, as of a year ago in

7 June, I sank almost to my knees. The backyard is

8 so wet now that to push a push mower gets bogged

9 in. I can't enjoy my deck because the misquotes

10 will eat you alive.

11 The ice is so bad that seven years ago,

12 I had to take the back storm door off the back of

13 the trailer because it froze up and jammed the

14 doo r shut. Now, every time I have hard rain, my

15 hall floors get flooded.

16 One morning I left to go to work, the

17 sod in the back slid forward and looked like

18 someone had folded i t over a huge carpet.

19 I had to have a ditch dug in an effort

20 to redirect the water away from my home. It

21 didn't work. I can't count the times I've slipped

22 and fell trying t o cut my grass. Once, I slid167

1 head first and stopped just inches from splitting

2 my head open against the deck post. The soil

3 slides from under my feet from just pushing a

4 mower handle.

5 Last year, I had to have my propane tank

6 lifted up because it had sunk down in the soft

7 ground and was sitting in three or four inches of

8 water.

9 The ice has busted up my driveway that

10 was blacktopped. Now, it's a deep rutted

11 nightmare. A wash board would seem like a smooth

12 highway in comparison.

13 There are three more seepages coming

14 closer to my home. I'm worried that the current

15 rate the seepages are forming that there will be

16 one com ing up under my mobile home and cause it to

17 buckle.

18 Also, all of these containments in all

19 of the water, how does it affect my health? I'm

20 walking in it every time I cut my grass. I want

21 my home to be safe. I want my neighbors and my

22 community to be safe. I want my health not to be168

1 a big ques tion every time I walk in my own yard.

2 If I get sick from containments from this, who is

3 going to pay for my health care and my bills? I

4 do house cleaning for a living. I'm single and

5 have no other means of income. I can't afford

6 health insurance.

7 I'd like to invite anyone from the

8 federal EPA to come to my home and community to

9 see firsthand what these seepages have caused in

10 the whole area, not just my property. Thank you

11 for your time and patience.

12 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 55,

13 please. Number 55.

14 MR. KUKLISH: To the EPA panel members

15 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on Tuesday, September

16 21, 2010. My name is Gary J. Kuklish. I am a

17 54

- year

- old resident of Luzerne Township, Fayette

18 County, Pennsylvania. I live 60 miles from

19 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. I live about 0.4 tenths

20 of a mile from a coal refuse site, which contains

21 old coal mine refuse and power plant coal w aste

22 known to us as fly ash or bottom ash.169

1 It is not a pleasant experience living

2 near one of these sites in whic h on a daily basis,

3 you can see dust in the air, water quality being

4 affected, not only for human consumption, but for

5 all the wildlife and all aquatic life that we all

6 had around here at one time was clean air. We

7 didn't have these kind of problems before.

8 Within the last ten years, I've seen

9 approximately a dozen people pass away from

10 cancer. Slowly, b ut surely these types of sites

11 are indeed poisoning us every day in my community

12 and, in fact, for sure over the last ten years, I

13 have seen the cancer rate soar beyond rates that

14 are unbelievable. In the state of Pennsylvania

15 alone

-- I'm sorry. Excuse me. In Fayette

16 County, Pennsylvania, where I live, there are 42

17 municipalities in our county, and Luzerne Township

18 rates fourth highest rate in cancer rates per one

19 hundred.

20 We all have enough troubles around here

21 with all the gas drilling operations. This

22 commission today has a lot to build upon not only170

1 from all the coal and power plant side by creating

2 or destroying jobs. This is not what this is

3 abo ut.

4 I just want you people to sit back and

5 listen to the human side of the story. You don't

6 have to listen to my story, but you should be

7 compassionate enough to listen to a lot of these

8 people out here. Listen from your heart from how

9 they are telling you and what's going on. Again,

10 I want to thank you guys for come to Pittsburgh,

11 Pennsylvania for your time and effort. I hope we

12 had a chance to change history from this day on.

13 Thank you.

14 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 56,

15 please.

16 MS. GASKEY: Good afternoon. My name is

17 Josie Gaskey. I'm Director of Regulatory and

18 Technical Affairs for the Pennsylvania Coal

19 Association.

20 PCA is the principal trade organization

21 representing bituminous coal operators, as well as

22 other associated companies whose businesses relay171

1 on the thriving coal econ omy. In 2009, our member

2 companies produced over 80 percent of the

3 bituminous coal mined in Pennsylvania, which

4 totaled over 60 million tons. PA is the fourth

5 leading coal producing state and the mining

6 industry is a major source of employment and tax

7 revenue. Latest data shows the industry created

8 41,500 direct and indirect jobs with more than

9 $7.5 billion in ec onomic input in PA.

10 PCA opposes the regulation of CCRs as

11 hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle C. Our members

12 utilize CCRs in their mines and beneficially use

13 CCRs at their fa cilities and will be directly

14 impacted by this rulemaking. CCRs serve a variety

15 of important uses at mine sites and EPA's final

16 rule should not jeopardize these uses. For

17 Pennsylvani a, the use of CCRs in mine land

18 reclamation has been successful and mine land that

19 would not be reclaimed under the federal Abandoned

20 Mine Land Program is being reclaimed with CCRs.

21 We agree with the 2006 National Academy of

22 Sciences' recommendation that OSM and its state172

1 partners under SMCRA that the lead in developing

2 national standards of CCR use in mine. OSM

3 already has the regulatory structure in place and

4 considerable expertise in mine regulation.

5 Like EPA and many states including

6 Pennsylvania, we believe beneficial use of CCRs

7 from power plants with appropriate health and

8 water quality safeguards is a good environmental

9 solution. We're concerned that regulating the m as

10 hazardous waste is unnecessary and regulatory

11 overkill, and will limit or possibly eliminate the

12 options for beneficial uses without providing a

13 corresponding environmental or hea lth benefit.

14 Given the current regulatory climate, permitting

15 on

- site facilities of power companies present

16 substantial, uncertain hurdles, and in many cases

17 impossible hurdles based o n Pennsylvania's

18 approved hazardous waste regulatory program. The

19 carbon footprint needed for transporting this

20 material would generate increased greenhouse gas

21 emissions. We believe the best management option

22 is under Subtitle D.173

1 Pennsylvania has some of the strictest

2 and most effective regula tions in the country for

3 mining, management and disposal of CCRs and has an

4 effective regulatory infrastructure in place to

5 ensure the safe management if these materials. We

6 support t he regulation of CCRs that allows for

7 continued beneficial uses for construction,

8 manufacturing and other purposes, as well as

9 integration with the current Pennsylvania

10 regulatory prog ram.

11 The regulation of CCRs as nonhazardous

12 waste is supported by past progressive

13 improvements in PA DEP's management of coal ash

14 and recommendations from state regulatory a nd

15 environmental officials including the Pennsylvania

16 Public Utility Commission. While we recognize

17 that regulating CCRs as a nonhazardous waste will

18 impose significant costs on the p ower industry, we

19 are concerned that regulating CCRs as a hazardous

20 waste will lead to significantly higher cost

21 increases and subsequent increased electricity

22 prices. We appreciate t he opportunity to comment174

1 and will be submitting more detailed written

2 comments by the November 19 deadline.

3 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. May I have

4 numbers 57, 58, 103, 106, and 123 please?

5 Number 57 come to the podium.

6 MS. ATKINSON: Okay. I'm Mary Agnes

7 Coil Atkinson. I was b orn in Lawrenceville, it's

8 Chester, West Virginia now. Little Blue, when I

9 was a child, we would take bike rides. It was a

10 beautiful land. We had produce stands to buy

11 apples, get w ater out of the spring to drink and

12 now they closed it up. What are they doing with

13 our beautiful, country road? It's beautiful. We

14 look at it now. My son said, he is 32 years old,

15 Mom, that water's beautiful. I said, it didn't

16 used to looked like that. There a lot of dead

17 trees. It's like a horror movie and zombies are

18 coming out of it.

19 Now, I have breathing problems. They

20 say it's allergies in spring and fall. I have

21 breathing problems all year round now. I'm

22 concerned about it being in the air, and what175

1 affects the fly ash has on my health.

2 My mother, Ruth Coil, she lived on Locus

3 Hill. The farm house is still there, 186 acres.

4 It's been our home since the 1800's, multiple

5 generations coming. How did this happen? It's

6 like we put the recreation. The recreation's

7 already there. The bike riding, the beautiful

8 tr ees, the running creek through there was

9 beautiful, minnows and my mom, she raised us four

10 kids in the same house I lived in now. She never

11 drank, smoked or put anything harmful in her body.

12 She died cancer of the pancreas at 89.

13 What I'm concerned about is even the

14 fruits, when I was a child, we would pick them

15 right out of a bag. We would take it right out,

1 6 brush it off with out t

- shirt and we would eat it.

17 Now, you have to go to the sink and scrub it like

18 we do with potatoes.

19 Come on now, let's get our economy back.

20 It's God's country. In God we Trust. I'm

21 concerned about my well

- being and everyone else's

22 lives around the fly ash dumping because it might176

1 not be in their area of the nation, but for God

2 sakes, let's come back as a nation, support what's

3 going on here and stop it. Thank you very much

4 for your time. I'm Mary Anges Coil Atki nson. I'm

5 still living where I'm at.

6 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 58,

7 please.

8 MR. HANEY: My name is Gary Haney. I am

9 the President of the Mi dwest Coal Ash Association.

10 We are a regional trade association representing

11 coal ash generators, marketers, users, engineering

12 firms, government agencies and academia.

13 Our p rimary purpose is to promote the

14 general welfare of the coal ash industry through

15 the socially beneficial, technically sound and

16 environmentally safe utilization of coal ash.

17 We understand that a significant driver

18 in the proposed regulatory action was the failed

19 dike at TVA that allowed water, soil and coal ash

20 to flow unimpeded down river, covering virtually

21 everything in their path. We do not understand

22 why the failure of a poorly designed or poorly177

1 maintained dike would prompt a reconsider ation of

2 the waste classification of coal ash. The

3 toxicity of the coal ash that was released had

4 absolutely nothing to do with the damage caused.

5 Similar damage could have resulted i f the dike had

6 been holding back water.

7 We favor the development of federal

8 regulations of coal ash under Subtitle D, and

9 specifically believe that the Subtitle D Prime

10 option is the best choice. Unlike Subtitle C, D

11 Prime will establish an environmentally protective

12 program for coal ash disposal units without

13 crippling beneficial use and imposing unneces sary

14 regulatory costs on power plants, threatening jobs

15 and increasing electricity costs. The Prime D

16 option will include impoundment design, inspection

17 and maintenance requirements t hat should prevent

18 any future TVA type failures.

19 The crippling effect to beneficial use

20 from a hazardous approach is real. In 1994, DOE

21 reported to Congress that institution al and

22 regulatory barriers to increased use exist when178

1 fly ash is regulated as a solid waste and

2 designated by EPA RCRA as a solid waste, even when

3 they are utilized rather than disposed. They also

4 reported that environmental liability becomes a

5 strong deterrent to use of any byproduct that is

6 designated and regulated as a solid waste. Yet

7 EPA is considering designation as a hazardous

8 waste and they believe that this will not create a

9 barrier on this use.

10 Letters to EPA from generators,

11 marketers, state regulators and users on the

12 potential reclassification of coal ash as

13 hazardous mention: Additional costs to manage,

14 increases in insurance costs, hazmat training

15 requirements, ready

- mix and cement plants being

16 designated hazardous waste facilities, increased

17 toxic tort exposures, etc. None of these suggest a

18 willingness or encourageme nt to use more.

19 EPA should develop a performance

- based

20 federal program for coal ash under RCRA D, which

21 will ensure that it is safely managed for

22 disposal, while continuing t o promote and expand179

1 its beneficial use. Thank you.

2 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 103.

3 MR. DAWES: G ood afternoon. Thank you

4 for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing.

5 My name is R. John Dawes and today I'm testify

6 before the panel as a Pennsylvania resident, a

7 prospective a pplied economies graduate student

8 and, most importantly, a whitewater kayaker. I

9 grew up on an angus beef farm located in

10 Alexandria, Pennsylvania. I learned how to roll

11 and paddle c lass one and two whitewater on the

12 pristine Little Juniata, located approximately 15

13 minutes from my farm. As my paddling ability

14 progressed, I did what every Pennsylvania paddler

15 doe s and that is venture west, to Johnstown, PA,

16 to tackle some of the state's best whitewater.

17 What I didn't know is that these runs are among

18 the country's most polluted rivers.

19 Shiny Waves, on the Conemaugh River just

20 downstream of Bolivar, PA, has one of the best

21 Class Three rapids in the state to learn

22 intermediate boat control, as well as a style of180

1 whitewater kayaking known as play boating. The

2 access to this location of the river is easy and

3 well maintained to encourage local citizens to

4 come down the river bank, socialize and enjoy the

5 communal resource. Unfortunately, upstream of

6 this location are the Seward and Conemaugh Steam

7 Plants and their unlined coal ash land fills and

8 minefills. On a constant basis, these coal ash

9 landfills are leaching heavy metals, many of which

10 are carcinogenic, into rivers utilized by

11 Pennsylvania citizens. As a resu lt of the high

12 levels of toxic heavy metals in the Conemaugh

13 River, my dad would only let me paddle it once a

14 year. This river could be a premier recreational

15 area and a significant s ource of revenue for

16 Western Pennsylvania, but people's fears of

17 recreating in toxic waters, an actual stigma, has

18 completely obliterated this potential regional

19 economic driver. Indu stry wants you to ignore

20 human health and the environment to prevent the

21 fictional stigma that they claim will come along

22 with a Subtitle C designation. I urge EPA to be181

1 guided by the stigma that already exists, the fear

2 of using Pennsylvania's coal ash polluted rivers

3 and adopt Subtitle C.

4 I am also a prospective applied

5 economics grad student, and I support Subtitle C

6 regulations for coal ash disposal because the

7 environmental and economic costs under loose

8 Subtitle D regul ations are too high. For example,

9 in 2005, PPL's Martin Creek's coal ash impoundment

10 failed, dumping 100 million gallons of toxic coal

11 ash into the Delaware River costing 37 million

12 d ollars to clean up. In 2008, a similar failure

13 in Tennessee released over a billion gallons of

14 coal ash into the Clinch and Emory River, and

15 TVA's clean up price tag has already exceeded 1.2

16 billion dollars, not including litigation costs.

17 That's 1 billion 237 million dollars in clean up

18 costs that could have been prevented at only two

19 sites, and there are 49 high hazard sites in th e

20 nation.

21 I ask you, Environmental Protection

22 Agency, to consider not just the costs that might be182

1 incurred to the coal and beneficial reuse industry

2 from lining their pockets at the expense of those

3 living near coal ash landfills, but also the

4 outdoor enthusiasts and hard working Pennsylvania

5 citizens whose recreational waters and even

6 drinking waters are being contaminated with heavy

7 metals. Please support the less costly, moral and

8 pro

- American Subtitle C regulation for co al ash

9 disposal. Thank you.

10 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 106.

11 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 13. Is

12 No. 13 in the room?

13 (No r esponse.)

14 MS. DEVLIN: Okay. May I have numbers

15 60, 61, 62, 63, and 64 please.

16 Please come forward 61 through 64. Take

17 a seat over there.

18 MR. JENNINGS: Well good afternoon.

19 Thank you for the opportunity to speak in

20 opposition of the proposed rule concerning coal

21 combustion.

22 My name is Shawn Jennings with A merican183

1 Bituminous Power Partners, AMBIT. I'm employed as

2 the Environmental Engineer for the small 80

3 megawatt circulating fluidized bed power plant we

4 currently operate in Grant Town, West Virginia.

5 Our plant's primary source of fuel is waste coal

6 from abandoned coal mining sites in the north

7 central are a of West Virginia. I would like to

8 explain the environmental benefits this facility

9 has made to the surrounding community in the 17

10 years it has existed.

11 The Grant Town pow er plant was built on

12 the refuse site of the former federal number one

13 mine. The area before our project started was an

14 environmental disaster. There were huge areas of

15 waste coal ex posed with orange water running into

16 Paw Paw stream, a tributary to the Monongahela

17 River which meets the Ohio not far from here. The

18 stream was virtually dead to aquatic life. With 1

19 million tons of high sulfur waste gob and silt

20 leaching into the stream the prospect of this area

21 of West Virginia ever benefiting society

22 ecologically or economically were not realistic.184

1 Then with the invention and development of CFB

2 technology AMBIT came into the picture.

3 AMBIT has transposed the federal and

4 mine site and other similar sites in the area into

5 green areas. Today, Paw Paw stream is not only a

6 healthy stream but a West Virginia DNR trout

7 stocked stream. The coal combustion by products

8 that we generate are used not only on the gob and

9 silt reclamation sites but on other strip mining

10 sites to reclaim the land to the original contour.

11 The ash is used as a fill and to seal in the coal

12 seams with a highly alkaline material. Today,

13 very little of our ash goes to our on

- site storage

14 facility. At present, over 90 percent of AMBIT's

15 ash is util ized for beneficial use as directed by

16 the WV DEP.

17 We are currently in the process of

18 reclaiming coal waste sites in Barrackville and

19 Farmington, West Virginia. These two si tes are

20 environmental debacles that AMBIT is cleaning up

21 at no cost to the taxpayers. If the EPA takes

22 away the beneficial use classification of our ash185

1 the viability of our project will be in jeopardy.

2 As Ambit goes so will the prospects of these sites

3 and future sites similar being returned to green

4 eco logical areas.

5 It makes sense from an economical as

6 well as an environmental perspective to maintain

7 the existing course in regards to regulating coal

8 combustion byproducts. Our plant as well as the

9 many other ARIPPA plants in this region are

10 cleaning up a mess that our parents and

11 grandparents made. Why not let us continue to

12 work to clean up the enviro nment. Thank you.

13 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 61,

14 please.

15 MR. ORENCHUK: Good afternoon. My name

16 is Steven Orenchuk and I have a degree in Civil

17 Engineering with a specialization in Environmental

18 Engineering from the Ohio State University.

19 Currently I work as an engineer in the

20 Environmental Services Division of American

21 E lectric Power, AEP. AEP is one of the nation's

22 largest producers of coal fired electric186

1 generation and as a result is responsible for

2 managing one of the nation's largest coal

3 combustion residual waste streams.

4 In 2009, this included approximately 8.5

5 million tons of fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag,

6 FGD material, and gypsum.

7 The majority of my time working for AEP

8 is spent ensuring that AEP is in compliance with

9 the applicable state regulations regarding CCRs.

10 Spec ifically, this includes the construction of

11 landfills and the groundwater monitoring and

12 analyses associated with these landfills as well

13 as surface impoundments. It is my professional

14 opinion that the US EPA's proposed regulation of

15 CCRs under the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste

16 rules is excessive and unwarranted. The correct

17 approach for US EPA to take is to regulate CCRs

18 under the Subtitle D Prime option.

19 Regulation of CCRs under the RCRA

20 Subtitle C hazardous waste rules is not worth the

21 incremental environmental gain versus the extreme

2 2 financial costs which will accompany this level of187

1 regulation. It is necessary that in any type of

2 rulemaking, U.S. EPA is cognizant o f the broad

3 economic impacts which there will be in response

4 to such an undertaking. Protection of human

5 health and the environment from the disposal of

6 CCRs regulated under the Subti tle D Prime option

7 is more than acceptable considering the potential

8 threat that these materials pose. In addition to

9 providing the necessary protection of human health

10 and the enviro nment, the Subtitle D Prime option

11 will bear the least cost on the end user of

12 coal

- fired electric generation, i.e. customers

13 like you and I.

14 Since the promulgation of CCR

15 regulations under the Subtitle D Prime option

16 affords the necessary level of protection of human

17 health and the environment without imposing the

18 unnecessary costs associated with over re gulation,

19 how can U.S. EPA in good conscience propose a set

20 of regulations as irresponsible as the Subtitle C

21 hazardous waste regulations for managing CCR

22 disposal? This type of acti on is illogical and188

1 represents the wasteful allocation of the American

2 public's financial resources.

3 In addition to the increased and

4 unnecessary financial costs associated with

5 implementation of Subtitle C hazardous waste

6 regulations for CCR disposal, there should be no

7 doubt that such regulatio n will play a significant

8 role in the premature closure of coal

- fired

9 generating units across the nation. Ironically

10 these closures will be at least partly due to an

11 overbearing set o f regulations intended to prevent

12 a hypothetical problem which is largely

13 non

- existent. Jobs will be lost as a result of

14 these plant closures. Unnecessary environmental

15 regulation wh ich ultimately leads to the loss of

16 jobs is wrong.

17 In closing, I would like to thank you

18 for the opportunity to comment on the proposed CCR

19 Rule. I hope that U.S. EPA does t he right thing

20 by taking a sensible approach to this rulemaking

21 and enacts the Subtitle D Prime option.

22 Regulation of CCFs under Subtitle C hazardous189

1 waste rules is excessive and will require

2 unnecessary financial costs without providing any

3 meaningful environmental protection. Thank you.

4 MS. DE VLIN: Thank you. Number 63.

5 MR. SEYMOUR: Hello. My name is Keith

6 Seymour and I'm a technical sales representative

7 with Headwaters Resources.

8 Definition: Stigma means to shame,

9 disgrace or dishonor. This is what is happening

10 to our industry with this crazy notion that fly

11 ash is a hazardous waste. Public perception of

12 what they see and hear is very powerful and this

13 is a major part of our stigma problem today.

14 Innocent until proven guilty is what I grew up

15 thinking but maybe I was wrong or at least in this

16 matter. The e xtreme propaganda and misinformation

17 about this matter is ridiculous. I have been in

18 this industry for over 25 years and have watched

19 the use of CCP's increase dramatically.

20 Thousands of studies by colleges,

21 universities, and our own federal government

22 agencies, especially yours, the EPA have shown190

1 there is no reason to classify fly ash as a

2 hazardous waste.

3 Th at’s why are we here today? Because

4 freedom of speech is another great thing we can

5 have in our country. Although the information

6 being spoken is not always correct, you still have

7 the right to be heard. Environmentalist groups in

8 large numbers have spoken on this matter, and my

9 question is where is there proof that fly ash is a

10 hazardous waste. Are there studies that have been

11 done that we are not aware of that back what they

12 are saying?

13 The economic fallo ut if fly ash is

14 considered a hazardous waste would be

15 astronomical. With a struggling economy, can we

16 afford to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs,

17 watch utility cost sky rocket and watch landfills

18 increase in size because we are being bad stewards

19 to our environment?

20 Did you know that using fly ash to

21 replace Portland Cement in Ready Mix concrete and

22 other applications is saving our ozone layer? For191

1 every ton of cement produced, there is 1 ton of

2 carbon dioxide being relea sed into our atmosphere.

3 The beneficial use of fly ash in concrete

4 production reduced U.S. greenhouse emissions by as

5 much as 15 million tons alone in 2007.

6 Furthermore, usin g CCP's saves the

7 energy needed to extract and process other

8 materials for the same uses. Coal ash has been

9 studied extensively for decades by universities

10 and government regulatory a gencies. Designating

11 coal ash as hazardous waste is counter to

12 scientific evidence and would seriously limit the

13 widespread use of CCP's as we know them today.

14 The beneficia l use of CCP's has

15 increased steadily since the 1960's and

16 contributes to economic growth. Beneficial use

17 has almost doubled from 22 percent in 1989 to 43

18 percent in 2007, which contr ibutes more than 4

19 billion dollars to the U.S. e conomy and provides

20 jobs for thousands of workers. Coal ash that is

21 beneficially used does not need to be disposed in

22 landfills thus re ducing the need for new or192

1 expanded disposal facilities while at the same

2 time conserving natural resources for other uses.

3 Go Subtitle D not C.

4 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 63,

5 please.

6 MR. FICHTELMAN: My name's Jim

7 Fichtelman, and I'm the design engineer for Arrow

8 Concrete right here in Pittsburgh. I'm here just

9 to explain some of the facts about this. For

10 every action, there is a reaction. Arrow Concrete

11 purchases on a normal year 25,000 ton of fly ash

12 in perspective think about 1,000 tanker fully

13 loaded semis end to end, that's what we purchase

14 in a normal year. That does not go to landfills.

15 We send that concrete out.

16 I went through like some of the

17 specification things about Pittsburgh and I'll run

18 this by you. Right now the green movement, thank

19 the LEEDS programs, the green movement towards

20 building is exploding. Now is not the time to

21 shut that down.

22 I have here the Phipps Conservatory193

1 right h ere in Pittsburgh, they require 40 percent

2 portland cement replacement with fly ash. They

3 require that right here. I'm sure some of you

4 have heard of this. It is the Pittsburgh public

5 school district requires 40 percent fly ash for

6 the cement replacement.

7 And the last one that I bought in

8 Pittsburgh is this one here State College. Penn

9 State University , again, requires 40 percent

10 portland cement replacement. Now the Ohio State

11 University, we start that job next month. It's

12 going to use 1,100 ton of fly ash to support their

13 new hos pital they're building.

14 This is not just some run

- in

- the

- mill

15 thing, this is ongoing. If we do not use the fly

16 ash, if that ash is not available for us, we will

17 still produc e your concrete. That hospital will

18 still have it. These products will still happen.

19 It will be portland cement. And what'll happen at

20 that point is that the emissions into the air will

21 actually accelerate global warming.

22 I'm owned by an equipment company. They194

1 do not want to do that. The global warming

2 project is what I'm asking you to think of.

3 If you're going to solve one problem,

4 for God sake, don't cause another. Thanks.

5 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. May I have No.

6 65, 66, 67, and 68, please. Number 65, please.

7 MR. PITTENGER: My name is Rick

8 Pittenger. I work for D. W. Dickey Corporation in

9 Ohio, and we're a concrete door supply company

.

10 We use fly ash in our concrete. And we

11 just did a big project down at power plant near

12 Straton, Ohio. Just a couple years ago we did

13 probably about 70,000 yards with 15 p ercent fly

14 ash in most of it.

15 When I think about the use of fly ash as

16 I'm reading material, I understand there's like 43

17 percent of fly ash that's produced by the coal

18 burning power plants that gets used in recycling.

19 Part of that's in the concrete industry.

20 Part of it's in wallboard in Shippingport,

21 Pennsylvania, and if you didn't have that 43

22 percent going into being recycled into the green195

1 use, you'd have that in a landfill somewhere.

2 The landfills are what seem to be

3 causing the problem. So, you know, we need to not

4 do that. We need to find good uses for them like

5 wallboard, like concrete, and I'm sure there's

6 many other uses, too

.

7 So, you know, please, don't use it or

8 designate it to hazardous waste. I do support it.

9 It is

-- if it needs to be taken care and if

10 there's something that is harmful, the n that needs

11 to be disposed of in the right way. So if it's

12 turned to hazardous waste, that will slow

13 everything down, that will

-- it won't be handled

14 any different as far as the lan dfills are

15 concerned if it's termed hazardous waste or not.

16 So why do that, why not just do it the

17 same way, and give us a proposition that supports

18 the recycling, thank you.

19 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 66,

20 please.

21 MR. BROWN: Hello. My name is Phil

22 Brown. I'm here for Rumble R/M. I produce196

1 concrete and produce concrete structures. We are

2 located in Charleston, West Virginia, and we

3 employ around 105 employees. We just use fly ash

4 every day in our products we produce. I do not

5 consider fly ash as a hazardous waste.

6 I've been using fly ash for 20 years,

7 and unlike Arrow, I use probably three to four

8 t housand tons a year. Fly ash creates business in

9 our concrete industry. It makes our concrete

10 stronger. It helps with workability. Fly ash

11 also helps produce the production of CO2 gas in

12 the atmosphere from the manufacturing of the

--

13 one of the most important facts that fly ash

14 concrete reduces the cost and the way our economy

15 is today, we can't afford to treat fly ash as a

16 hazardous waste.

17 I do not want to see the bills in our

18 construction costs go up. I believe classifying

19 fly ash as a hazardous waste is a big mistake,

20 thank you

.

21 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. We're running a

22 few minutes ahead of schedule, so I'm going to try197

1 to handle some of t he walk

- ins. It's numbers 203,

2 204, 209, 210 and 211, if you all would come

3 forward. Thank you. I called No. 211.

4 Are you in the room, No. 211?

5 MR. ULERY: Good afternoon everybody.

6 My name is Jeremy Ulery. I'm from Pennsylvania,

7 where we have one of the new fly ash sites that

8 are currently developing and brewing.

9 And first I want to thank the panel for

10 giving us tell us opportunity to speak here today

11 and to be heard. As you should be aware but I

12 don't think really everybody knows, in our area,

13 it seems as if our fly ash dump that's being

14 facilitated right now is running its own operation

15 in my eyes. I really don't feel that everybody is

16 completely aware of what we're dealing with on a

17 day

- to

- day basis.

18 My community's dealing with major issues

19 right now, numerous people are becoming sick,

20 cancer, respiratory problems, skin problems, you

21 name it, and it seems l ike as the months go on,

22 more, more, and more and more of this is198

1 occurring.

2 I'm not saying that the DEP's not do ing

3 their job appropriately, but I think what's going

4 on is whenever this company does find out that

5 there is going to be a random test, of course just

6 like anybody, if you know you're going to have a

7 test, you're going to study.

8 They make sure that they make everything

9 look like everything's okay, but as soon as that

10 test is over with, it's back to the wa y they want

11 to do things.

12 And I hope you as the panel as the

13 people that need to open their eyes and really see

14 what is going on and what my family, what my

15 community is dealing with.

16 I would like to state that I feel that

17 there's just not enough regulation or oversight

18 currently being done, and ensure the safety of the

19 current residents of this area.

20 The last point that I really want to

21 stress and have you guys take home is this: I

22 chose to move back to my hometown. I moved away,199

1 I went to college, I got my degree, and I could

2 have came right down here to Pittsburgh and lived

3 while I worked through my career, but I chose to

4 move back home.

5 Since then, I've had two small children.

6 Both of them have been diagnosed with severe

7 eczema and severe allergies. I've taken them to

8 pediatric speci alists, dermatologists, and they

9 all have told me that it's the environment and the

10 surroundings that aren't helping their situation.

11 But the way I look at it like this, I

12 sh ould be just as entitled to anybody else around

13 here. I could have lived in Pittsburgh and then

14 maybe things would have been better.

15 Again, we're not a statistic, we're

16 huma n beings. Thank you again for the opportunity

17 to speak today.

18 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Now we're a

19 little bit out of the order because everybody

20 hasn't checked in. Numbers 71, 75, 76, 77, and

21 No. 96.

22 SPEAKER: What about 73?200

1 SPEAKER: 72?

2 MS. DEVL IN: I didn't know that you guys

3 have checked in.

4 SPEAKER: We did this morning.

5 MS. DEVLIN: Okay. Okay, let me do this

6 again. Anybody with the numbers 70 throug h 75

7 come forward. 76, I'll get you in a minute.

8 MS. DEVLIN: Numbers 70, 71. 71, please

9 come.

10 MR. THOMAS: Hello. My name is David

11 Thomas, and I'm a control manager for Golden

12 Triangle Construction. I've been in the

13 construction industry since 1976, and we use

--

14 we've used fly ash in concrete, and I want to

15 thank the EPA f or the opportunity to issue a

16 comment today about fly ash and state that I'm

17 opposed to RCRA Subtitle C, and we've used fly ash

18 in the concrete we produce for the Pennsylvania

19 Departme nt of Transportation. For alkalizing

20 cement, we use 15 percent fly ash which is quite

21 somewhere around 88 pounds per cubic yard.

22 And we've used fly ash for FAA at the201

1 airports, Pittsburgh International Airport.

2 They're concerned about alkalized reactivity. So

3 we use fl y ash in concrete that we produce before

4 the Pittsburgh International Airport to offset the

5 alkalized cylinder reactivity because they

6 recommend roughly 20 to 30 percent of fly ash,

7 which imports to somewhere around 40 to 100 po unds

8 to 120 pounds per cubic yard. So when we make mix

9 designs for our concrete, you know, we have to

10 handle small amounts of the material making mix

11 designs so if they

-- if you woul d classify fly

12 ash as hazardous, we bring that material in

13 tankers roughly about 25 tons of material are

14 brought into the tankers to our plants. And that

15 tanker then is emptied, and i f you would classify

16 fly ash as hazardous, you know, our

-- we wouldn't

17 want the liability to bring that material into our

18 plant, expose our people with that material.

19 You kn ow, fly ash is used on road,

20 highways, bridges and bridge construction,

21 airports, runways.

22 And I thank you for the opportunity to202

1 speak, and I hope we can continue to use fly ash

2 in our company.

3 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 72,

4 please.

5 MR. ADAMS: Hi. My name is Mike Adams

6 and I have recycled fly ash for the past 30 years,

7 the last 11 years as the VP for Headwaters

8 Resources the largest marketer of fly ash in North

9 America.

10 My premise for my testimony is that

11 stigma is real and listing CCPs as a hazardous

12 material for disposal will effectively kill the

13 most successful recycling program in the U.S. and

14 increase Greenhouse Gas production by millions of

15 tons of CO2 and while requiring an additional 50

16 million c ubic y ard ds of landfill space annually.

17 There have been speakers dispu ting my

18 claim of stigma citing past history with other

19 waste products that have been listed and the

20 subsequent increase in their recycling. We do not

21 believe that these examples are i ndicators of what

22 will happen to CCPs if the y’re declared hazardous for203

1 two reasons.

2 Most if not all of these pro ducts were

3 either recycled back into the process they

4 originated from or were processed themselves to

5 reduce their toxicity. Neither of these options

6 work for CCPs. None of these pro ducts were

7 recycled into new materials that are used in every

8 day products such as the example of fly in

9 concrete.

10 We in the coal ash recycling business

11 bel ieve that stigma will occur. In fact, I have

12 heard testimony at these hearings that are

13 examples as to how stigma will be used against

14 CCPs.

15 A competing blasting grit compan y gave

16 testimony on how boiler slag should not be used as

17 blasting grit even though there is absolutely no

18 documentation of any harm to people or the

19 environment. They provided this t estimony for one

20 reason only to gain a competitive advantage over

21 companies using boiler slag not for their concern

22 over the environment.204

1 A lightweight aggregate company

2 cautioned against the use of bottom ash in the

3 production of concrete block again with no

4 documentation of harm to the environm ent. In

5 fact, prior independent testing has shown very

6 little difference in testing between some

7 manufactured lightweight aggregates, which by the

8 way produces significant greenhouse gases when

9 produced, and bottom ash.

10 Again, this testimony was given to gain

11 a competitive advantage over a competing CCP.

12 So in reviewing the testimony from these

13 public hearings, EPA will see examples of what

14 will happen in the market place. If companies

15 will use these EPA public hearings to gain an

16 advantage, you can exponentially imagine wha t

17 competitors will say about CCPs in the everyday

18 marketing of their products if CCPs are declared

19 hazardous in any way.

20 The two regulatory options before us

21 comment today

-- the Subtitle C hazardous approach

22 and the Subtitle D non

- hazardous approach

-- both205

1 propose new landfill engineering stand ards that

2 are essentially the same. Landfills won't be any

3 stronger or better under Subtitle C, but coal ash

4 recyclers will be saddled with a hazardous waste

5 stigma that will make con tinued recycling of this

6 resource difficult or impossible. I repeat, as

7 the stated examples show, stigma is real.

8 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 73.

9 MS. HOFNER: I am not No. 73. My name

10 is Diane Hofner, and I am speaking for Harriet

11 Tower who is in poor health and unable to travel

12 today.

13 I am Harriet Lane Tower from Dunkirk,

14 New York, a small depressed city on the shores of

15 Lake Erie under the shadow of NRG's coal burning

16 electric plant, one of the largest polluters along

17 the East Coast.

18 I testify today because it is blatantly

19 clear that the coal industry at every level of

20 production operates outside the limits of concern

21 for human health and environmental integrity. It

2 2 is equally clear that our governmental agencies206

1 are not performing in manners that protect the

2 well being of our people, our land and o ur water.

3 The USA rejects children's jewelry from

4 China that contains cadmium, yet we let cadmium

5 from coal ash permeate our land and water. We

6 have implemented strict restr ictions on lead in

7 all buildings to avoid neurological damage and

8 developmental delay in our children and others,

9 yet we allow lead from coal ash to be distributed

10 liberally.

11 Does this not damage our children? We

12 prosecute people who poison others with arsenic

13 and we have forbidden continued use of treated

14 wood due to arsenic yet that, too, is part of coa l

15 ash and the EPA ignores the dangers as you form

16 alliances with the coal industry to make profit

17 from its use. We can no longer eat fish safely

18 due to high mercury levels already con firmed, yet

19 you do not stop the seepage of mercury into our

20 waterways.

21 I want to address Lisa Jackson directly

22 here. I saw you weep over the devastation of your207

1 hometown of New Orleans. You were not in a

2 position to prevent that disaster, but we now know

3 this was, in part, a manmade disaster wi th neglect

4 and incompetence leading to the collapse of the

5 levees. You are in a position to stop widespread

6 damages in 46 states where coal ash is generated

7 and so poorly disposed of.

8 If you take the responsibility to

9 regulate coal ash honestly, you will have managed

10 a second largest waste stream in the USA. Now

11 that is an accomplishment.

12 Do not allow yourselves to be bought out

13 by the coal industry. Please, do your job, and

14 protect the people, the wildlife, the land, and

15 the precious water of planet. Thank you.

16 MS. DEVLIN: No. 35, please.

17 MS. KINCAID: Good afternoon ladies and

18 gentlemen. My name is Emily Kincaid, and today I

19 am here to speak on behalf of my dad, Robert

20 Kincaid, Jr., my mom, Amy, and my brother, Taylor.

21 My dad lost his life after a four

- year battle with

22 melanoma cancer. The melanoma cancer my dad had208

1 started underneath his fingernail on his index

2 finger. What a strange place to have sun cancer

3 we thought.

4 We found out from his melanoma

5 specialist that this melanoma cancer my dad had

6 was not caused from the sun. He informed my

7 family that 5 percent of all melanoma cases are

8 caused from other factors other than the sun.

9 What luck?

10 Though we cannot prove that my dad got

11 this disease from working in the power plant, but

12 after working in such dangerous and hazardous

13 place, like the Bruce Ma nsfield plant for 30

14 years, we felt strongly as a family that this most

15 likely is where the problem originated. He also

16 thought the same thing. What a tragic thought:

17 To think the pl ace you have dedicated the majority

18 of your life to so you could support your family

19 has brought you to your deathbed. My dad was a

20 trooper though and continued to work as much as

21 pos sible through those four long years. The

22 cancer finally metastasized throughout his body209

1 and he ended up with 11 brain tumors. This is

2 when my dad lost his hard fought battle to this

3 horrible disease on December 14, 2005.

4 It was the most horrible thing I am sure

5 I will ever experience. Now that almost five

6 years have passed, I am madder than ever. It has

7 really hit my brother and I hard that we have no

8 dad. I feel that something that most likely could

9 have been prevented ripped my dad away fro m my

10 family and me. Not only did my mom and I lose my

11 dad, but he also left behind a 10

- year

- old son, a

12 son that did not get the chan c e to get to know his

13 dad.

14 When our dad got sick, my brother,

15 Taylor, was only in first grade, a young child. I

16 was ju s t beginning my college years. I was geared

17 up and ready to start a new fun chapter of my life

18 and training to play college volleyball when my

19 parents had to break the news to me that my dad

20 had cancer. What a life changer. It was not fair

21 and nothing will ever make it better.

22 My brother is now getting ready to turn210

1 16 and me 27. Taylor is playing high school

2 sports: Golf with a set of cust om made clubs that

3 were originally made for my dad, basketball, which

4 my dad played in high school and college, and

5 baseball. He practices these sports every day

6 with no dad to help a nd support. He plays in the

7 gym and on the field with no dad in the stands.

8 He has been robbed of one of the most important

9 people in this life. Sadly, he told my mom and me

10 the othe r day that we sure talk about his dad a

11 lot but he really does not know that man we speak

12 about so often. He doesn't really remember him.

13 He was too young and the years I am sure he does

14 remember he watched our dad slowly die.

15 I graduated college fro m my dad's alma

16 mater, and he never got to witness it. I have

17 bought my first car on my own and my first house.

1 8 Neither of which he could be a part of. But what

19 makes me most sad is that I will be walking down

20 the isle next summer with no dad to give me away,

21 every daddy's girl's dream. He will never see my

22 kids and they will never get to meet the great man211

1 that he was.

2 I could go on and on for hours, but

3 since I only have a few minutes of your time, I

4 hope that I have painted the picture of what my

5 family and I has endured the last few years of our

6 lives, our lives that have been changed forever

.

7 I also hope that you have seen a small

8 glimpse of what my dad had to suffer through for

9 four years because of the negligence of the power

10 plant where he made his living for 30 years.

11 I hope something positive can be done to

12 correct these issues of unsafe working

13 environments and that no other family has to

14 experience what my family does everyda y.

15 Thanks.

16 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 76.

17 MR. EVANS: Good afternoon. I'm Ray

18 Evans, director of First Energy's Environmental

19 Depa rtment.

20 Our company owns and operates 7,400

21 megawatts of coal

-- based generating plants in

22 Ohio and Pennsylvania. These facilities comprise212

1 roughly half of our total generation portfolio,

2 including low, and non

- emitting resources such as

3 nuclear, natural gas, wind and hydro. We have

4 over 13,00 0 employees including 6,500 union

5 members.

6 I'm here today to express our company's

7 concerns about regulation of coal combustion

8 residue, CCR, as hazardous waste

-- a change t hat

9 would do more environmental harm than good while

10 undermining the jobs and businesses related to the

11 beneficial recycling of CCRs.

12 About 30 percent of combustion

13 byproducts from our coal

- based facilities are

14 utilized annually in recycling applications,

15 including the manufacture of gypsum wallboard and

16 concrete. These efforts support hundreds of

17 businesses and thousands of jobs while reducing

18 the need for additional landfill space.

19 We developed and operate one of the

20 world's largest gypsum recycling facilities at our

21 Bruce Mansfield Plant. Each year, we provide

22 nearly half a million tons of gypsum to National213

1 Gypsum for wallboard manufacturing . This

2 world

- class operation, built in 1999, specifically

3 diverts CCRs from disposal while providing needed

4 local jobs in the Shippingport, PA, area.

5 First Energy supports U .S. EPA's

6 regulation of CCRs as non

- hazardous waste, which

7 provides for consistent regulation across the

8 nation. And we are committed to the safe and

9 environmentally sound reuse and d isposal of this

10 material.

11 With ash recycling and disposal

12 facilities in Pennsylvania and Ohio, we work

13 closely with highly trained professionals at

14 federal and state regulatory agencies to ensure we

15 meet all current standards. Our CCR recycling and

16 disposal operations are routinely inspected by

17 regulators and independent engineers, and daily by

18 our staff. Additionally, we are in the process of

19 siting a dry storage facility to replace our only

20 existing wet store facility for CCRs.

21 We agree with U.S. EPA that

22 environmentally sound beneficial use of ash214

1 conserves resources, reduces greenhouse gas

2 emissions, lessens the need for waste disposal

3 units and provides significant domestic economic

4 benefits. In fact, over the past 30 years, the

5 U.S. EPA has continually identified non

- hazardous

6 waste regulation as the preferred approach for

7 ensuring the safe recycling and disposal of CCRs.

8 Regulation of this material as hazardous

9 waste has the potential to divert recyclable

10 materials into disposal facilitie s, and eliminate

11 the many benefits of recycling CCRs. In

12 facilities, which could drive up costs for

13 everyone while undermining generating reliability,

14 as these facilities are necessar y for the

15 operation of coal

- based power plants.

16 All of this translates into increased

17 costs compared to the non

- hazardous option,

18 without any commensurate benefit to the

19 environment.

20 Let me add that U.S. EPA's proposed

21 hazardous waste option is already having a

22 negative impact on the beneficial use of CCFs215

1 marketed by First Energy. Concern about product

2 liability lawsuits has reduced interest in

3 products such as ash and gypsum.

4 In closing , let me reiterate that a

5 non

- hazardous regulatory framework will improve

6 environmental conditions across the country while

7 preserving the jobs and economic growth related to

8 the benef icial use of ash. In contrast,

9 regulation of CCRs as hazardous waste would lead

10 to higher costs and divert more of this material

11 to landfills, without achieving any meaningful

12 environ mental improvement.

13 Thank you for your attention.



### NOTE: The testimony of Mr. Brian Breedlove was inadvertently

omitted. Please see Mr. Breedlove ’ s written testimony which is

posted in the docket following this transcript

.

14 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Numbers 78, 96,

15 119, 150, and 155.

16 MR. BLACK: My name is Jim Black, and

17 I'm the government affairs director for the Clean

18 Air Council.

19 The Clean Air Council is a nonprofit

20 group based in Philadelphia, and we work in

21 Pennsylvania, Dela ware, and New Jersey.

22 I have written comments that I will be216

1 submitting, but what I'd like to talk about today

2 is something a little more personal.

3 When I was growing up back in the '60s,

4 there was a coal burning heat and power plant that

5 was just two miles from my home, and as a kid we

6 used to ride over there on bicycles and play in

7 the ash piles. I mean, it was like having our own

8 beach. These doo n s of ash that we played in. We

9 didn't know that they were dangerous.

10 We were warned by our parents and people who

11 worked at the plant not to go down by the tracks

12 and get near the trains because that's dangerous.

13 But there was something there that was a lit tle

14 more acidious and it's not something that kills

15 anybody right away, but of the three of us, 20

16 years later, we're all working in the same bike

17 shop or athletes, or cyclists, don't smoke. We

18 don't have any of these what you would consider

19 risk factors for cancer.

20 Well, two of my buddies at 36

- years

- old

21 with young families, died of cancer. Now, I

22 didn't think anything of it, but now 20 years217

1 after that, I realize that, well, maybe the fact

2 that we spent so many hours playi ng in those ash

3 piles might have had something to do with the fact

4 that my two friends died young. Now, while I'm

5 healthy, I don't know. But they're dead of

6 cancer. They've left chi ldren without fathers.

7 Now these children are now grown. They're in

8 college, and they're doing okay, but they don't

9 remember their dads. And this is something that

10 we need to do.

11 We need to make sure that the EPA does

12 whatever is necessary to keep other children from

13 losing their parents because of the toxins that

14 are in the coal ash. We need to keep it out of

15 contact with children especially but with getting

16 in contact with anybody.

17 So thank you very much for your time

18 today and thank you for holding these hearings,

19 and I will submit the written comments. Thank

20 you.

21 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 96,

22 please.218

1 MR. FARNSWORTH: Good afternoon. My

2 name is Adam Farnsworth, and I am the human

3 resource representative for Separation

4 Technologies. I'm here today to explain to you

5 why I'm against the Subtitle D designation.

6 Two years ago I was hired in my current

7 position after graduating from college. Honestly,

8 I applied to that job and never really heard of

9 fly ash and I didn't know there was a difference

10 between cement and concrete and never actually

11 seen the power plants except outside of my car

12 window.

13 All of these things I do think to be

14 rather typical of many people outside of our

15 industry. When I was researching the company I

16 work for now, I kept trying to imagine what fly

17 ash was, and I couldn't really wrap my head around

18 it.

19 I was in for a shock when I interviewed

20 directly on site at one of our power plants. They

21 weren't lying, there was really ashes and hundreds

22 of thousands of this stuff was going through our219

1 machinery each year.

2 Needless to say though, my lack o f

3 knowledge on the entire subject actually kind of

4 spurred me on to ask more questions during the

5 interview and eventually take the job. I

6 wondered, where does all this stuff go? How do we

7 use this? There is a difference between cement

8 and concrete, and how many tons of this stuff do

9 people actually make?

10 What I ultimately learned is that

11 without companies like the one I work for, this

12 fly ash goes into the landfills, but I also

13 learned that as when separated properly and as it

14 cements, our product actually makes it more

1 5 durable and stronger, and to top it off, when you

16 calculate it, it poses no significant or

17 environmental health risks.

18 On the contrary, I have learned though

19 that when not properly handled, the landfill, fly

20 ash can create potential health problems and

21 environmental problems.

22 If the overall role is to limit the220

1 impact fly ash had on the environment, it only

2 makes sense for us to explore all.

3 It's a fact that coal generates 50

4 percent of U.S. power, th us fly ash be reduced for

5 a while. It's my opinion that the Subtitle C

6 Hazardous Material Designation will actually

7 increase the amount of landfill. It took me a

8 while and a long tim e to really understand our

9 industry and how things and the benefication

10 process worked.

11 The average individual, including myself

12 two years ago out of college, would not have

13 wanted anything to do with the material labeled

14 hazardous sometimes. The hazardous sometimes

15 stigma will drive businesses away from utilizing.

16 To this day, we beneficiated almost 7 mi llion tons

17 of ash. That 7.7 million tons of landfill and in

18 fact sitting in roads, bridges, and structures

19 that we all used has come through the door in our

20 everyday lives.

21 I would ask everyone to not vote for the

22 Subtitle C and to vote for Subtitle D. Thank you.221

1 MS. DEVLIN: Thank yo u. Number 119.

2 MR. ARIGONI: Hello. My name is Ray

3 Arigoni, and I'm a plant supervisor for Harsco

4 Minerals, a division of the Harsco Corporation. I

5 work at Harsco's Mounds ville boiler slag

6 processing facility. I have been working in the

7 boiler slag processing field for 8 years. The

8 plant I manage employs 10 workers, many of them

9 have been working at M oundsville in the boiler

10 slag processing industry over 30 years. We

11 produce mainly abrasives and granules for roofing

12 shingles from boiler slag; boiler slag is one of

13 the four listed coal combustion byproducts

14 included in this proposed regulation.

15 I am in support of regulating boiler

16 slag under RCRA Subtitle D.

17 Harsco takes employee health and s afety

18 very seriously; it has been 7 years since a lost

19 workday case. We have participated in industrial

20 hygiene surveys. We conduct regular safety

21 meetings, and safety is an importan t part of how

22 we do business every day. I am not aware of any222

1 health issues from any of my employees associated

2 with expos ure to boiler slag at my facility.

3 Environmental permit compliance is also

4 an important part of the way we conduct our

5 business. In our many years of operation I do not

6 know of any environmental issues caused by the

7 boiler slag processed by my facility.

8 Some facts that demonstrate that there

9 is not reasonable basis for subjecting boiler slag

10 to regulation under RCRA Subtitle C are as

11 follows:

12 When extremely hot, molten coal ash is

13 quenched with cold water, the coal ash is

14 vitrified and becomes the solid, glassy soli d

15 known as boiler slag.

16 Because boiler slag is vitrified, it is

17 a very durable and environmentally stable material

18 that effectively immobilizes its chemical

19 constituents by transforming any metals into inert

20 metal silicates.

21 Historically, boiler slag has always

22 passed the TCLP testing and has never exhibited223

1 any hazardous waste characteristics.

2 Boiler slag is not commonly stored in

3 surface impoundments. I do not store any of my

4 boiler sla g products, raw or processed, in any

5 surface impoundments.

6 Regulating boiler slag destined for

7 disposal as a special waste under Subtitle C would

8 unfairly stigmatize benefici ally reused boiler

9 slag that my employees have been processing for

10 many years. My customers will be confused and

11 concerned about purchasing products that are seen

12 to be essentially th e same as a Subtitle C waste,

13 even with a special waste designation.

14 I recognize the need for proper and

15 environmentally sound standards for regulating the

16 2 percent of boile r slag that is discarded, rather

17 than beneficially reused, however, I feel the

18 associated stigma that will be associated with

19 Subtitle C will adversely impact my business.

20 Thank you.

21 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 155, go

22 ahead while 150 comes up.224

1 MR. CIERRA: Hello. Thank you for thi s

2 opportunity to speak on this proposed ash

3 regulation. I am Craig Cierra, the administrative

4 supervisor at the Grant Town Power Plant in Grant

5 Town, West Virginia. I have been emplo yed at the

6 plant for 16 years. The Grant Town Power Plant is

7 wholly owned by American Bituminous Power

8 Partners, L.P. or AMBIT for short.

9 The Grant Town Power Plant is built on

10 the site of the former Federal No. 1 Mine Site;

11 essentially on the Bituminous refuse pile that was

12 left behind. It is an 80 Megawatt Electric

13 Generating Facility. It has one Turb ine and two

14 Circulating Fluidized Bed Boilers. Construction

15 began in May 1990 with Commercial Operation

16 starting June 1993. It is a qualifying facility

17 under PURPA with a 42 year pow er purchase

18 agreement with Allegheny Power, the local utility.

19 It was financed through a 150 million dollar bond

20 issue through the Marion County West Virginia

21 Solid Waste Authority.

22 The Power Plant take s bituminous waste225

1 coal or refuge at abandoned mine sites and turns

2 it into energy. It uses mu ltiple sites all over

3 north central West Virginia. The facility then

4 reclaims the mine sites. It does this primarily

5 by backfilling with ash from the power plant to

6 replace the waste coal removed. The State of West

7 Virginia has deemed ash from circulating fluidized

8 bed boilers like Grant Town as a beneficial use

9 product. It mitigates acid mine drainage from the

10 old waste sites. It does this due to the high

11 calcium content in th e ash which neutralizes the

12 acid in the drainage from the waste site. Deeming

13 our ash as hazardous would eliminate AMBIT's

14 ability to reclaim waste bituminous coal sites.

15 The site has reclaimed 200 acres to date, and has

16 at lest that much land currently slated to reclaim

17 over the next 10 years.

18 The Grant Town Power Plant annually

19 provides property taxes of a half million dollars.

20 It pays state B and O taxes in the amount of

21 300,000 dollars. It pays another 120,000 dollars

22 in other state and local taxes. Ambit pays almost226

1 a million dollars a year in taxes.

2 The plant provides 66 direct full time

3 positions. It also creates 221 spin off or

4 indirect jobs. The power plant has a 4 and a half

5 million dollar impact to the state and local

6 economy in products and services outside of t he

7 jobs it creates.

8 AMBIT is a marginal fiscal project. We

9 receive a rate for our energy that offsets the

10 local utilities cost to create energy. We are net

11 neutral to the ratepayers of West Virginia. Our

12 power purchase agreement does not allow us to

13 recover or pass on the cost of ash as a hazardous

14 material. The conservative estimate is our costs

15 will raise 50 times what they currently are or 40

16 million dollars. This would be equal to our

17 current budget in all other areas combined.

18 This regulation would be detrimental to

19 the Grant Town Power Plant. The plant would no

20 longer run. The jobs would go away. The money to

21 business in West Virginia would be gone. Taxes no

22 longer paid. Reclamation of aband oned mine sites227

1 would be the responsibility of the people of West

2 Virginia.

3 This proposed regulation would be bad

4 for the Grant Town Power Plant, bad for Marion

5 County, and bad for the state of West Virginia.

6 Thank you for your time.

7 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 150, and

8 while 150's coming forward, can I have numbers 79,

9 80, 81, and 126.

10 MR. HOFFMAN: Sorry about that. I

11 thought you said 160.

12 But my name's Tom Hoffman. And I 'm the

13 Western Pennsylvania Director for Clean Water

14 Action. Clean Water Action is a national

15 organization of 1.2 million members working to

16 empower people to take action to protect A merica's

17 waters, protect the air that we all breathe, build

18 healthy communities and to make democracy work for

19 all of us. 150,000 of those members live in

20 Pennsylvania.

21 For 38 years Clean Water Action has

22 succeeded in winning some of the nation's most228

1 important environmental protections through

2 grassroots organizing, expert policy research and

3 political advocacy focused on holding elected

4 officials accountable to the public. Here in

5 Pennsylvania we have been very active on r educing

6 diesel pollution, advocating for reductions of

7 PM2.5 pollution, protecting citizens from the

8 environmental dangers of drilling for natural gas

9 in the marcellus shale and helpin g clean up our

10 three rivers by reducing stormwater runoff.

11 In fact, many of our members are in

12 Harrisburg today lobbying for strict oversight of

13 the marcellus shale drilling industry.

14 Coal ash is a growing problem across the

15 nation. The EPA and the National Academy of

16 Sciences research show that coal ash is toxic, and

17 threatens human health. St udies have shown that

18 these coal ash sites are so toxic that they can

19 increase cancer risk to a staggering 1 in 50.

20 That needs to stop now. Americans deserve clean,

21 safe energy, not a nother assault on the health of

22 hard

- working families.229

1 We applaud the EPA for recognizing the

2 very real health an d environmental risks posed by

3 toxic coal ash. Given these risks, enforceable

4 federal safeguards

-- not state guidelines

-- are

5 necessary to protect our state's families.

6 It is our understanding that the EPA has

7 two proposed regulatory options for coal ash

-

8 Plan C and Plan D. Clean Water Action is

9 supporting the Strong Option, Plan C, that would

10 provide basic environmental and public health

11 safeguards backed up with federal enforcement and

12 financial accountability. We need protection from

13 coal ash cradle to grave and the Subtitle C option

14 gives us that. We do not support the status quo

15 option that relies on citizen suits or possible

16 state regulations for enforcement.

17 Pennsylvania is a resource rich state,

18 but our residents have and will continue to pay a

19 high price for that. Streams that are no longer

20 life sustaining. Air that sends kids to the

21 hospital with asthma at four times the national

22 rate. Flammable drinking water in peoples' homes.230

1 Leaving things to the state is not an

2 option here in Pennsylvania. We are facing severe

3 budgetary shortfalls and our DEP has been slashed

4 to the bone. Our communities are facing serious

5 environmental threats from the booming natural gas

6 drilling indu stry. Our Department of

7 Environmental Protection does not have the

8 necessary resources to protect us from those

9 dangers let alone do what is necessary to regulate

10 coal ash. Clean Wat er Action supports strong

11 federal regulations on coal ash. Thank you very

12 much for your time.

13 MS. LODGE: Hi. My name is Cathy Lodge.

14 I'm from Robinson Township, Washington County.

15 Should EPA regulate coal ash?

16 Absolutely.

17 Should the EPA have oversight on the

18 regulations instead of the states? Absolutely.

19 My township of 2,100 residents consists

20 mainly of farms with a large Agricultural Security

21 Zone.

22 Many residents, including myself, rely231

1 on groundwater wells.

2 Robinson Township is also home to the

3 Champion Processing Incorporated waste coal pile.

4 This pile is the largest east of the Miss issippi

5 River. In the late '80s, residents were

6 introduced to coal ash. Champion Processing's

7 owners, lawyers, DEP and state representatives

8 urged township residents to accept coal a sh

9 dumping. They called the substance benign, inert,

10 harmless.

11 In 2005, these same people returned to

12 reiterate their claims about coal ash dumping with

13 a larger proposal. They intend to dump roughly 87

14 million tons at the Champion site. Now coal ash

15 dumping was described as beneficial.

16 Former Secretary of PA DEP, Kathleen

17 Mc Ginty, even went as fa r as to rush permits to

18 pave th e way for this project. She named it one of

19 the gang of four that she had the agency rushing

20 to beat EPA's tougher pollutant restrictions.

21 Perhaps she did this because the owner of the

22 project was a board of director for Pennsylvania's232

1 Energy Development Authority in 200 5.

2 We also noticed in 2005 that the former

3 heads of the air, water, and mining divisions of

4 PA DEP became consultants for industry and urged

5 coal ash dumping. Why not, they know all the ways

6 to get around regulations. Oh, that's right, coal

7 ash dumping is not regulated.

8 In fact, Pennsylvania allows coal ash

9 application to reach beyond mine fill ing. It is

10 dumped and spread into our fields where crops

11 grow, getting into the food chain.

12 It is made into our drywall and placed

13 in home across the nation. Western states place

14 coal ash in cattle feed lots. Ash is spread as

15 anti

- skid material on our roads which then

16 dissolves into the water, leading to our creeks

17 and streams.

18 It is spread as a trail surface for

19 Pennsylvania Rails to Trails by the DOE's National

20 Energy Technology Laboratory. They say, CCBs are

21 often used as roadway fill, but applications like

2 2 community walking trails are especially important233

1 for public acceptance.

2 It's no wonder so many of us get cancer.

3 In December 2008, the nation learned what a

4 surface impoundment is and what coal ash really

5 contains when the TVA disaster occurred. The

6 truth was out. Coal ash contains heavy metals.

7 Recycling, it does not take that danger away.

8 Now in 2010 we gather to decide if coal

9 ash should be regulated and how. How stupid is

10 that? We know darn well that coal ash is toxic

11 and some of us will be drinking it. Yet, we still

12 wonder if we should allow a toxic substance to be

13 dumped without regulations and oversight?

14 Ridiculous.

15 EP A should regulate coal ash as a

16 hazardous waste. It should not be considered,

17 benign nor beneficial. EPA should set national

18 standards an d enforce it. This will protect all

19 communit ies including towns like mine in

20 Pennsylvania. Coal ash is not benign, inert or

21 harmless. It is toxic. It should be termed a

22 hazardous waste and clearly states cannot be left234

1 to manage it on their own.

2 Thank you.

3 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. No. 81, please.

4 MS. BOWEN: Hello. My name is Helen

5 Bowen, and I would like to introduce Charles

6 Martienssen who could not be here today. Thank

7 you for allowing us to speak on this subject.

8 Charles Martiensse n, he lives in West

9 Hazleton, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.

10 One of my concerns is for the health of

11 the residents of northeast Pennsylvania. A good

12 friend of my wife and I l ive about 2 miles from an

13 ash disposal site. She is a victim of asthma.

14 Since the dumping, when she leaves her home in her

15 car, she must keep the windows closed and while

16 the air cond itioning is on, keep a moist rag on

17 her face. She said the air quality around her

18 home is horrible. She is unable to be outdoors

19 for more than a few minutes.

20 I am also conc erned about the mounting

21 rate of cancer in our area. I am aware of the

22 cancer causing materials present in the ash. One235

1 o f the sites we have been to is located by the

2 Boroughs watery supply wells. Just recently, the

3 borough and to discontinue the use of one of their

4 wells because it was contaminated with arsenic.

5 A demonstration project called Big

6 Gorilla was completed in 2004. The project used

7 coal ash to fill a 120 million gallon water filled

8 pit left over from previous mining. The pit w as

9 1,400 feet long, 400 feet wide and 90feet deep.

10 Several residents in a nearby village at the base

11 of the mountain located next to the pit have

12 passed away with Polycycthemia vera, a rare blood

13 disease in which the body makes too much red blood

14 cells and many more are afflicted with the

15 disease.

16 At last count there were 133 cases

17 within a 40

- mile radius from my home. There are

18 six FBC coal generators in th e same radius.

19 In reference to the Big Gorilla Site,

20 the coal ash placement has caused the PH of the

21 r ain charged mine lake to increase from 3.2 to

22 constantly above 12.0, the latter being lethal to236

1 all life.

2 A staff member of the PA DEP has

3 co

- authored a publication on the site, so there is

4 no doubt of the department's u understanding and

5 awareness of the case.

6 The lake discharges as gr oundwater, but

7 the path of migration has yet to be identified, so

8 groundwater impacts are unknown. So does Big

9 Gorilla leach down the mountain to the PV

10 patients, we may never know. Thank you.

11 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 126 and

12 while No. 126 is coming up, I'm going to try to

13 fit in a number of walk

- ins because we're running

14 ahead of schedule. Numbe rs 209, 212, 214, 215,

15 and 216. If any of you are in this room, please

16 come forward. Go ahead 126.

17 MS. BRYAN: My name is Beulah Bryan. I

18 live at 265 Liberty Avenue, Chest er, West

19 Virginia. I live about half a mile away from the

20 Little Blue Dam. I have a well, my only source of

21 water.

22 I am concerned, since I live below the237

1 dam, that water may be seeping into my well from

2 it. My well is being tested by West Virginia

3 Department of Health. They advised me that ev en

4 if the test comes negative, I may want to have it

5 tested again in a few months because things can

6 change.

7 I have lived here since 1962. When I

8 first mov ed here, it was a very beautiful place,

9 with blackberries and fruit trees everywhere. Now

10 there is nothing but grass and weeds. You rarely

11 ever heard of anyone having allergies. Now almost

12 everyone has allergies.

13 My husband passed away about three years

14 ago with lung cancer, colon cancer, and kidney

15 cancer. He also had allergies and other breathing

16 pro blems.

17 I live a few houses away from my

18 daughter. Her whole family has allergies, and her

19 three kids have asthma.

20 I have another daughter who lives a road

21 down from mine, her whole family has severe

22 allergies also. There is a smell we get from time238

1 to time, that makes it impossible to leave your

2 windows open for very long. I notice the smell

3 after a rain in the spring and at night.

4 When I first came here, the air was

5 fresh and clean. I worry about my gr andchildren,

6 what future will there be for them. I also worry

7 that the Little Blue Dam, since it is an earthern

8 dam, will break.

9 Since we live below it, what will happen

10 to us? Who would buy our land? There is no way

11 to getaway from these potential hazards. We are

12 forced to live with them.

13 I feel we need legislation to protect us

1 4 from these environmental hazards. That's why I

15 support Section C. Sincerely submitted, thank

16 you.

17 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you.

18 MS. POLINSKY: Hi. My name the Li nda

19 Polinsky, and I am reading this on behalf of

20 Teresa Cooper from Chester, West Virginia.

21 My name is Teresa Cooper and I live on

22 an 18

- acre farm just two miles from the Lit tle239

1 Blue Run fly ash impoundment in Greene Township,

2 Beaver County, PA.

3 My daughter, son

- in

- law, and my new

4 grandbaby live on a home located on my property.

5 We have lived in the shadow of the coal combustion

6 fly ash impoundment since the site's inception in

7 1975. Current publicity regarding the safety of

8 living so close to a potentially toxic site such

9 as Little Blue Run and being a new grandmother has

10 spurred much concern in my life.

11 My small farm provides me and m y

12 extended family most of their vegetables from my

13 garden, and all of our beef from the cattle I

14 raise. This has been my lifestyle for over 20

15 years.

16 My co ncerns are simple yet not so

17 simple. Not having a public water supply, is my

18 water safe? Yes, I have had my water tested by

19 the owner of the dump site, First Energy

20 Corporation, and by private testing facilities.

21 All tests show safe levels of unsafe metals. No

22 such metals were present when I first purchased240

1 the property. But truly, what is a safe level of

2 an unsafe substance? Neighbors within walking

3 distance of my property have had their water

4 tested also. Their results of unsafe metals in

5 their drinking water were higher than the levels

6 in my water; but, according to First Energy's

7 results, still within the safe level. It would

8 appear to me that I am on the borderline of toxi c

9 water, but I am no chemist.

10 I am, however, an extremely concerned

11 citizen faced with a potentially dangerous

12 situation. My farm is my life's financial

13 in vestment, meant to be passed on to my family.

14 My value of investment, as you can imagine, is

15 going down rapidly, and with rumors of dump site

16 expansion, it will only continue to plummet.

17 Is this truly a just and fair situation

18 for my family? My life's work reduced to

19 virtually nothing for the financial advancement of

20 huge power companies is not the American way.

21 Please make coal combustion fly ash a

22 Title C situation so that concerns for people's241

1 safety can be addressed in the manner in which

2 they should. Thank you.

3 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 212.

4 212's not here? 214.

5 MR. HEFFNER: My name is Andrew Heffner

6 and I work w ith a small Christian environmental

7 called Restoring Eden. I appreciate the EPA

8 holding these hearings, particularly this one in

9 my hometown of Pittsburgh, and I hope they will

10 adopt Subtitle C regulations so that we can really

11 begin to address the real cost and impact of coal

12 ash.

13 In my work, I come into contact with

14 Christians all over the country and o ne of the

15 strongest held beliefs that all o f us hold is to

16 care for God's creation and all the people who

17 live in it. In Micah 6:8, we are called to act

18 justly, love mercy, and walk h umbly, and I believe

19 this passage speaks not only to caring for the

20 creation, but to care for our neighbors. We have

21 heard stories and statistics all day about people

22 who have struggl ed with health problems, cancer,242

1 respiratory illnesses, et cetera, all sorts of

2 problems just because they live in close proximity

3 to coal ash and those stories are much more

4 compelling than my own.

5 I believe as a person of faith that we

6 have a responsibility to care for all people who

7 suffer. A nd particularly I'm here today to speak

8 for those people who we've heard from and those

9 who I see all around the country.

10 Aside from the issue of who will be

11 reciting coal as h well and who's not doing a good

12 job of it and what the stigma might be that would

13 damage business, I think at the core we know that

14 coal ash is a hazardous material. We know that

15 it 's made up of mercury and le a d and cadmium and

16 chromium and others, and for that reason I don't

17 think it makes any difference to classify this as

18 household garbage.

19 I don't h ave any argument with companies

20 making a profit. I only ask that that they be

21 responsible for the true cost of their business.

22 There should be justice in the way that I think243

1 God intended it, and Subtitle C is the right and

2 faithful way for the EPA to move forward. Thank

3 you.

4 MS. DEVLIN: Than k you. Number 215

5 please.

6 MR. RATLIFF: My name is George Ratliff.

7 I'm came here to just listen to the testimony

8 today, but I couldn't resist the temptation to say

9 something that I thought would have been said by

10 now. No one has mentioned the obvious solution.

11 There's no reason to have coal fire power plants.

12 Natural gas is so cheap today that coal fire power

13 plants are switching to natural gas. It

14 eliminates all fly ash. It eliminates 20 percent

15 of the carbon dioxide. It eliminates the arsenic.

16 And yet and there's still another of value natural

17 gas. That is the only way we can get to renewable

18 energy solutions for the problem. You cannot have

19 energy without a backup power system, which has to

20 be natural gas.

21 This is the logical way to get there,

22 and I thank the EPA for having this hearing, and I244

1 hope you will switch us to natural gas. Thank

2 you.

3 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 216

4 please.

5 MS. COPENHAVER: Good day. My name is

6 Teresa Copenhaver, and I am testify ing on behalf

7 of Sunbury Generation, a small 420 megawatt

8 coal

- fired power plant that was commissioned in

9 1949. The plant is located in Shamokin Dam,

10 Snyder County, Pennsylvania. Cor ona Power

11 purchased the plant in 2006 making significant

12 financial investments in the plant in order to

13 keep it operational and to comply with state and

14 federal environmental regulatio ns.

15 Sunbury generation has a team of 125

16 direct employees and another 200 contractors,

17 vendors and suppliers rely on the plant being

18 operational. These are all well paying j obs for

19 Pennsylvania citizens.

20 In all, Sunbury employs some 300 people

21 injecting 30 million dollars annually into the

22 local economy and 75 million dollars annually into245

1 the Pennsylvania economy in salaries, supplies,

2 and services.

3 Sunbury sends nearly 250,000 tons of

4 c oal ash a year to vendors who use it in concrete

5 and road construction as well as mine reclamation

6 sites, thereby preventing acid mine drainage,

7 protecting the waterways and reclaiming abandoned

8 mine lands.

9 As one of its motives in proposing that

10 coal ash be deemed a hazardous waste, the EPA

11 claims proven damage cases citing two ash

12 impoundment accidents a t Kingston, Tennessee, and

13 Martins Creek, Pennsylvania.

14 This is in spite of the fact that

15 thorough studies of both accidents found no

16 adverse impacts to the river, wildlife o r human

17 health.

18 These findings combined with the history

19 of safe management of the vast majority of ash

20 sites and the record of successful beneficial use

21 se em to indicate that the EPA is not basing its

22 findings upon scientific fact and at the same time246

1 seems to ignore proven beneficial use.

2 The EPA's proposals for change to any

3 rules should be based on scientific fact not on

4 political, media, or antifossil fuel groups'

5 appeasement. An ash accident may be a legitimat e

6 reason for EPA to propose regulatory improvements

7 pertaining to wet ash disposal impoundments;

8 however, it is unreasonable to propose rules that

9 declare all ash hazardous and drastic ally limit

10 its many current beneficial uses.

11 In summary, we are aware that some

12 groups believe that the increased cost in disposal

13 of cal ash as a hazardous waste would incre ase the

14 beneficial uses of coal ash. We do not agree and,

15 in fact, governors and environmental departments

16 from a majority of the affected states

17 representing millions of citizens and jobs have

18 written to the EPA stating that ash should not be

19 declared hazardous.

20 In Subury's case, it would end our

21 beneficial use of ash and add significant cost to

22 our operations and ultimately to the Pennsylvania247

1 households we serve. The effect of this decision

2 would be disastrous to the econ omy of our

3 community if such an unreasonable rule causes us

4 to go out of business.

5 Regulation of coal ash as hazardous

6 waste would prevent many current beneficial uses

7 due to the potential liability, handling and

8 transportation costs, as well as the stigma of

9 using a hazardous waste.

10 The regulation of coal ash as

11 non

- hazardous w aste under RCRA Subtitle D will

12 ensure protection of human health and the

13 environment without unnecessarily stigmatizing

14 coal ash that has a safe beneficial use as a

15 preferred alternat ive to disposal. This approach

16 will ensure that ash is safely managed while

17 continuing to promote and expand its beneficial

18 use. Thank you.

19 MS. DEVLIN: May have I have num bers 84,

20 85, 86, 88, and 89, please.

21 MR. MASULLO: Good afternoon. My name

22 is Angelo Masullo, and I'm a professional engineer248

1 with civil and environmental consultants in

2 Pittsburgh, PA.

3 I've been involved with the design

4 construction operation of dozens of waste disposal

5 facilities in the 30 years that I've been

6 practicing that involve municipal solid waste,

7 coal ash, hazardous waste, and other residual

8 waste.

9 During that time landfills h ave

10 progressed from opened dumps to simple engineer

11 facilities with synthetic liners and casts and

12 comprehensive groundwater plumbery systems.

13 Many of the Pennsylvania facili ties that

14 I've been involved with recently would be

15 considered the equivalent of retro Subtitle D

16 landfills.

17 I've also briefly worked for a company

18

-- one o f the few companies in the country

-- that

19 operate a RCRA Subtitle C landfill.

20 In the state of Pennsylvania, coal ash

21 is considered to be a residual waste, and its

22 disposal is currently governed by regulations that249

1 control the location, size, and design,

2 construction, operation and closure of the

3 landfills.

4 Landfill citing regulations do take

5 where landfills can go and how closely they can be

6 to residents. Facilities are protective in the

7 environment and are fully ca pable of preventing

8 groundwater contamination below and around the

9 disposal facility.

10 My professional opinion is that the

11 level of environmental protection provided by

12 Subtitle D facilities, such as Pennsylvania's

13 Class 1 residual waste landfills, is almost the

14 same as that provided by Subtitle C landfills.

15 Subjecting coal ash management disposal

16 at the requirement associated with Subtitle C will

17 break the increase for difficulty in managing coal

18 ash without providing significantly greater degree

19 of environmental protection.

20 I ask that the ultimate decision on

21 managing of coal ash and its regulation be based

22 on (inaudible.) Thank you.250

1 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 84,

2 please.

3 MS. CANDAL: Hi. My name is Sarah

4 Candal, and I am here on behalf of Murrell Byard

5 from Johnsonville R oad, Chester, West Virginia.

6 And I'll read her testimony.

7 First I'd like to tell you that I have

8 lived on Johnsonville Road for 33 years. So you

9 see I know my land.

10 I have no city water at my shop. I use

11 the water from my spring. That is until they told

12 me if I used it, it would put me down. So what

13 am I suppose to do, buy water when I have s pring

14 water right here? Why?

15 Then I was told not to eat anything out

16 of a garden. Why? Is there something in the

17 ground I don't know about. What.

18 Next, what about all the wet spots that

19 are showing up. Places that have always been dry.

20 Oh, they came around and said they would fix it so

21 the ground would dry up. How?

22 They are going to reroute the water,251

1 which means in time, it will end up in the Ohio

2 River. I don't think that would be good. Do you?

3 I think this all from the Little Blue

4 Lake. So they should make it right. I'm not

5 suppose to drink my spring water or eat from a

6 garden. Why? You tell me.

7 So the next time you're on Johnsonville

8 Road, stop, I'll give you a cup of coffee, made

9 from fresh spring water. Murrell Byard.

10 MS. DEVLIN: Number 80, please.

11 MS. KOLE: Hi. My name is Allison Kole,

12 and I am a representative of Greenpeace. I would

13 like to thank the EPA for conducting these series

14 of hearings and for choosing Pittsburgh, my

15 hometown, as an important site for this

16 discussion. Pittsburgh is not coal country, as

17 some might suggest, it is a city that long ago

18 through leadership of elected officials, citizens,

19 and administrators decided to confront a serious

20 problem of pollution and the poisoning of its

21 population. The steel city is now an economy

22 based on healthcare, education, and technology and252

1 was even the host of this year's UN World

2 Environment Day.

3 Like Pittsburgh, problem of smog and

4 pollution, the toxic coal ash problem requires the

5 cooperation of the EPA and communities to solve.

6 The first step is to treat coal as special waste

7 under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and

8 Recovery Act. State by state enforcement is not

9 enough, and we need to ensure that hazardous coal

10 ash is not shipped to areas or states with the

11 most lax regulatory scheme. The EPA ne eds to make

12 sure that the health of one community is not less

13 valued than the health of another. Sound science

14 supports the special waste designation. Coal ash

15 contains toxic chemica ls and metals that are known

16 causes of cancer, organ disease, or neurological

17 damage. Already there are over 130 clearly

18 documented damage cases of the affects of coal

19 ash.

20 Every year our country produces more

21 coal ash from coal fired power plants, at the

22 moment, approximately 140 million tons. Current253

1 safeguards, with industry self

- regulating under

2 various state directives has failed. It has

3 representatives of local communities here today

4 and it failed at Kingston TVA in T ennessee.

5 We are sitting close to the world's

6 first Gold L EE d certified convention center, a

7 positive legacy of a local administration that

8 wanted change, a healthier life fo r its community.

9 I ask the U.S. Administration to embrace this

10 necessary change: That the best available science

11 be used in setting federally enforceable

12 safeguards for coal ash, and that coal ash be

13 regulated under Subtitle C. Every citizen of this

14 country deserves to live in a health community

15 with air and water free of the toxic legacy of

16 coal.

17 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Numbers 89, 90,

18 97, 98, and 115; 89.

19 SPEAKER: 91?

20 MS. DEVLIN: I'm sorry, 91, please come

21 forward; 90.

22 MR. BITTNER: My name is Jim Bittner. I254

1 am vice president of technology for Separation

2 Technologies. I am here today to support the s afe

3 and environmentally sound disposal of coal ash. I

4 am here to speak out against the Subtitle C

5 hazardous approach and for the Subtitle D

6 non

- hazardous approach.

7 Separation Technologies separates

8 unburned carbon from fly ash and sells the low

9 carbon ash to concrete producers as a cement

10 replacement. ST's ash recycling business has many

11 environmental and economic benefits:

12 Over the last 10 years, more than 10

13 million tons of ash have been sold for use in

14 concrete and not been disposed in landfills.

15 Consequently, cement production and CO2

16 emissions have been reduced by more than 10

17 million tons. In addition, more than 100

18 well

- paying jobs have been created.

19 Since 200 0 when the EPA issued its final

20 regulatory determination that coal ash does not

21 warrant regulation as a hazardous waste, ST has

22 invested more than 100 million dollars in its fly255

1 ash recycling business.

2 In 2008, ST was planning to invest

3 another 35 to 40 million dollars in ash recycling

4 plants cre ating another 25 to 30 well

- paying jobs.

5 However, since March 2009 when the EPA reopened

6 the issue of regulating ash as a hazardous waste,

7 my company and our utility partners have stopped

8 all investments in ash recycling.

9 Our utility partners will not risk the

10 potential liabilities of their ash being used in

11 concrete if ash is regulated under the Subtitle C

12 hazardous option.

13 Our concrete producer customers are

14 becoming wary of ash because our competitors who

15 are selling imported slag are warning of the

16 potential liabilities as sociated with using ash.

17 Thus, this proposed regulation has already become

18 a job killer at a time when the US economy is in

19 dire need of good jobs.

20 What is driving the EPA to wards a

21 Subtitle C hazardous regulation? Based on its

22 toxicity, coal ash does not qualify as a hazardous256

1 waste. During 15 years of recycling ash, ST has

2 never found a coal ash that failed the TCLP test,

3 which would classify it as hazardous.

4 Legitimately, EPA has a concern about

5 the way coal ash has been disposed in the past.

6 The Subtitle C hazardous option would give the EPA

7 more direct enforcement authority than a

8 Subtitle D nonhazardous option, which would give

9 the states the direct enforcement authority. In

10 both cases, engineering and operating standards

11 for disposal facilities would be the same and set

12 by the federal government.

13 However, th e stigma of a Subtitle C

14 hazardous approach will reduce the amount of ash

15 recycled and increase the amount of ash disposed

16 in landfills. Just the consideration of the

17 Subtitle C optio n has already stopped investment

18 and job growth in our industry.

19 I respectfully request that the EPA not

20 destroy coal ash recycling and its many benefits

21 to the environment a nd the economy. Please select

22 the Subtitle D non

- hazardous approach. Thank you.257

1 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 91.

2 MR. GASIOROWSKI: Good afternoon. My

3 name is Stephen Gasiorowski. I hold a Ph.D. in

4 Analytical Chemistry with specialization in

5 characterization and utilization of powder

6 materials. I have spent the last 15 years working

7 with coal fly ash processing and utilization.

8 Such utilization has had tremendous environmental

9 benefit by displacing other manufactured

10 materials, most significantly cement in the

11 production of concrete. This has resulted in

12 improved quality and durability and cost of

13 buildings and highway infrastructures. I consider

14 this practice one of the major successes of

15 utilization industrial so

- called waste for benefit

16 of the public good.

17 The proposed regulation of fly ash and

18 other coal combustion residues under RCRA Subtitle

19 C seriously jeopardizes this success. While the

20 proposed regulations exempt beneficially used fly

21 ash from Subtitle C regulation, it will result in

22 one pile of ash will require handling as hazardous258

1 while another pile from the same source will not.

2 Faced with this apparent self

- contr adictory

3 designation, most producers, specifiers and users

4 of fly ash, will choose to stop dealing with

5 beneficial use of the material to avoid any

6 potential liability.

7 As discussed in the preamble of the

8 proposed regulations, the vast majority of fly ash

9 does not exhibit toxic characteristics. While

10 coal fly ash contains arsenic, lead, and other

11 potentially toxic constituents, extremely few fly

12 ashes exhibit leachable toxic materials at greater

13 than 10 percent of regulatory levels. The tiny

14 proportion of ashes that exhibit such toxic

15 characterizations are already regulated under RCRA

16 Subtitle C. Utilization of fly ash in concrete

17 production of other products that result in

18 encapsulation of the fly ash dramaticall y reduces

19 even this small potential for release of toxic

20 materials. The measured leachability of fly ash

21 containing concrete is so low that such concrete

22 has easily met criteria to be used in direct259

1 exposure to municipal drinking water supplies.

2 Documented damage cases from disposal of

3 fly ash l eading to surface or ground water

4 contamination have resulted from already

5 discredited practices, clear mismanagement, or

6 will be phased out under either proposed Subtitle

7 C and D desi gnation of CCRs. Thus, a Subtitle C

8 designation will only impose an onerous stigma on

9 the material, drastically reducing beneficial use

10 without materially affecting the handling and

11 d isposal practices.

12 Based on these facts, regulation of coal

13 fly ash under RCRA Subtitle C is unwarranted. To

14 do so will serious impact the beneficial use of

15 the material, to the detriment of the construction

16 industry and public infrastructure. Thank you

17 very much.

18 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 97,

19 please.

20 MR. ROSEB OROUGH: My name is Rob

21 Roseborough, and I have worked with fly ash for

22 over 15 years. I am a civil engineer with a260

1 degree from Bucknell University. I have many

2 years of hands

- on experience with fly ash in

3 laboratory setting as well as out in the field.

4 I support Subtitle D and the recycling

5 of fly ash. It has value in the construction

6 industry for its ability to improve existing

7 products while reducing impact on the environment.

8 The changing of fly ash from a recyclable material

9 into a hazardous waste will have significant

10 consequences.

11 By classifying fly ash as a hazardous

12 waste under Subtitle C, it not only renders it

13 useless as a recyclable material, it also

14 generates a significant amount of waste.

15 Approximately 90 million tons of fly ash is

16 recycled annually.

17 If fly ash is classified as a hazardous

18 waste, it will be placed in landfills throughout

19 the country. This will create a need for new

20 landfills. There will be a substantial increase

21 in the number of landfills required in the United

22 States to handle all the fly ash generated today.261

1 The landfills will need to be constructed so that

2 they can handle millions of tons of ash and have

3 available space for years. They will not be small

4 landfills.

5 When fly ash is recycled, it is

6 transported to an end

- user, where it is utilized

7 in construction and in the process, reduces

8 greenhouse emissions by millions of tons annually.

9 If fly ash is placed in a landfill, tons

10 of unnecessary pollutants are introduced int o the

11 atmosphere on an annual basis from the exhaust of

12 trucks, dozers, rollers, excavators, backhoes, and

13 water trucks. All heavy equipment necessary to

14 construct the landfill, haul the fly ash to the

15 landfill, place the ash in the landfill, and close

16 out the landfill.

17 Landfills cost millions of dollars to

18 construct, build, and maintain. The utility

19 companies will have no choice but to pass these

20 costs onto the consumer. In the United States,

21 coal is used to produce over 50 percent of our

22 electricity needs. Electricity prices will262

1 increase. The price of everything produced with

2 electricity will increase. We, the consumer, will

3 have to pay these addit ional costs out of our

4 pockets.

5 These consequences can be avoided if we

6 continue to responsibly recycle fly ash in

7 beneficial ways. This can only happen if the

8 stigma related to fly ash as a hazardous waste is

9 eliminated. I have already experienced firsthand

10 the negative impact hazardous waste has produced

11 towards fly ash. Currently, I have facilities

12 that do not want to use fly ash because it may

13 become hazardous. I have clients who will not

14 risk litigation if fly ash is classified Subtitle

15 C, and will ban recycling of fly ash from their

16 facilities altogether. If the negative stigma on

17 fly ash continues, the recycling program will be

18 harmed permanently.

19 I support the continued use of fly ash

20 in the recycling market and its classification

21 under Subtitle D. The benefits are good for both

22 the economy and the environment.263

1 Thank you for your time.

2 MS. DEVLIN: Number 98, please.

3 MS. JEFFERY: My name is Sue Jeffery. I

4 have worked in the Coal Combustion Byproduct

5 Industry for over 30 years. In my opinion, it is

6 far better to recycle and reuse coal ash rather

7 than to dispose of it. Coal ash should be

8 considered a resource, rather than a waste.

9 Of the two proposed EPA regulations, the

10 Subtitle C hazardous approach will be detrimental

11 to the beneficial reuse applications by creating a

12 stigma of unwarranted fears. If label ed haz ardous,

13 this perception could prevent it from being

14 specified in many applications that could be a

15 benefit to the environment. Other products will

16 be chosen where coal ash could have and should

17 have been used.

18 For example, when coal ash is used to

19 replace a portion of Portland cement in ready

- mix

20 cement, the greenhouse g as emissions created from

21 the cement production are reduced by more than 12

22 million tons every year. Not only that, the264

1 additional coal ash makes the cement and more

2 durable of an end product.

3 Data shows between 2000 and 2008, a

4 nearly 50 percent increase in recycling rate of

5 coal ash. This can be attributed to when the EPA

6 issued its final regulatory determination in 2000

7 that coal ash does not warrant regulation as a

8 hazardous waster. Now, recent activity by this

9 same agency, such as terminating the C2P2 w eb

10 page, has began to undermine those advances.

11 I agree that tougher disposal

12 regulations should be enforced. The landfill

13 engineering standards proposed by both approaches

14 are essentially the same. The difference being,

15 Subtitle D, a nonhazardous approach will bring the

16 regulations to the state and local government

17 levels where it needs to be, while at the same

18 time not contribute to the stigma of fear created

19 by a label. Thank you for the opportunity to

20 voice my opinion.

21 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 115,

22 please.265

1 MS. FALLON: Hi, my name is Myriam

2 Fallon. I am here today as a resident of

3 Philadelphia, as well as the Pennsylvania field

4 organizer for Greenpeace. I want to commend the

5 EPA for conducting public hearings on its two

6 vastly different proposals concerning public and

7 environmental sa fety standards for the disposal of

8 toxic waste from coal

- burning power plants.

9 In spite of the hazards, the disposal

10 and reuse toxic coal ash waste has received little

11 to no oversight so far in many states. It has

12 only been recently that the number of known

13 contamination sites has escalated as a result of

14 research by citizens, public interest groups and

15 s tate agencies. It may, in fact, be the

16 proverbial tip of the iceberg.

17 Pennsylvania ranks fourth in the country

18 for coal ash generation, representing an aspect of

19 coal's lega cy often discounted in the pursuit of

20 so

- called cheap energy. There is nothing cheap

21 about toxic drinking water or cancer clusters

22 caused by coal ash contamination. It is just that266

1 the cost is borne by the community and individual

2 citizens rather than corporations producing these

3 toxic substances. Until now, a blind eye has been

4 turned toward the public impacts of this toxic

5 waste stream. It has been acceptable somehow to

6 simply overlook the several impoundments and

7 landfills that are unlined right h ere in

8 Pennsylvania.

9 It is the current regulation that

10 allowed the release of an estimated 100 million

11 gallons of fly ash over 10 acres from PPL Martins

12 Cre ek Station. According to the EPA, this case

13 resulted coal ash contaminated water being

14 released into the Delaware River, as well as the

15 pollution of nearby groundwater.

16 Resp onding to pressure from the coal

17 industry, prior administrations have allowed the

18 industry to self

- regulate under a patchwork of

19 state directive leading to the extensive

20 contamination of water and land by toxic heavy

21 materials, such as arsenic and mercury, in largely

22 low income and otherwise disenfranchised267

1 communities. This is exactly why the EPA should

2 regulate coal ash under Subtitle C of the RCRA.

3 Business as usual clearly isn't working.

4 Federal and state regulators were looking the

5 other way when the retention pond wall collapsed

6 at TVA's Kingston plant in Tennessee and released

7 more than an estimated billion gallons of toxic

8 coal ash and waste into the countryside in 2008.

9 The EPA and the administration must oversee the

10 coal industry in a manner that will protect public

11 health against the conflicting interests of the

12 coal executives' profits. Than k you.

13 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. May I have

14 numbers 92, 93, 94, 99 and 100.

15 At the same time number of 100 or less,

16 who has not been called, they would also come

17 forward please.

18 MR. ISA: First of all, thank you for

19 giving me the opportunity to talk tonight. My

20 name is Ulber Isa. I am the Operations Manager of

21 the Ess ex Cement Plant located in Port Newark, New

22 Jersey. I'm here to oppose the EPA ruling on fly268

1 ash as a hazardous material.

2 Given that I don't have too much

3 time to go into the details, I ’ll just go briefly ask

4 the question of what are the benefits of recycling

5 fly ash, are there any benefits, and how will the

6 regulations effect those benefits?

7 I'm going to start with some numbers.

8 In the 2000, we have recycled 48,000 tons of fly

9 ash. By 2008, we increased to 60 millions ton of

10 fly ash, which is an increase of 33 percent or 20

11 million tons more consumed. The reason for the

12 increase is because the cement industry is finally

13 realizing that fly ash has benefits and u se the

14 fly ash in concrete, which is economical. It is

15 less expensive than cement, so therefore, it

16 reduces the liquidity of the concrete. There area

17 also quality benefits. It impro ves concrete

18 performances and increases the durability of the

19 structure and gives better workability.

20 I'm here to talk about the environment,

21 and how recycling of fly ash eff ects the

22 environment. By using more fly ash in recycle,269

1 you reduce the CO2 emissions. For each ton of fly

2 ash, we save a ton of CO2 emission into the

3 environment. In 2008 alon e , we save 12 million

4 tons of CO2. Since 2000, we have saved 1017

5 millions tons of CO2. It also reduces the

6 electricity amount because the substitution of

7 cement uses less power usage, so the electricity

8 is less.

9 Since 2008 alon e , we save d 169 trillion

10 B TUs . This data was gathered by a Electrical

11 Power Research company. It also saves more usage.

12 The more usage when we use fly ash and mixes, it

13 requires more water. Again, the data in 2008 we

14 have saved 28 million gallons of wate r.

15 After all, there's two ways of disposing

16 fly ash. It's either putting it landfills or

17 recycling, so the choice is yours. If you do not

18 recycle fly ash in 2008, just by r ecycling you

19 saved 1 million cubic yards of landfill space or

20 2.9 billion disposal, so obviously the question is

21 what happens if EPA rules fly ash is a hazardous

22 material and the benef its will just go away? The270

1 question we keeping asking now is are we helping

2 the environment by increasing the CO2 emissions?

3 Are we helping the environment by increasing the

4 power usage? Are we helping the environment by

5 dumping all the fly ash in the landfill? Those

6 are the questions that I have to answer to my

7 kids, which I have two, also, to my grand kids.

8 I'm urging you to use your common sense and rule

9 fly as a nonhazardous material. Thank you.

10 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 93,

11 please.

12 MR. CAHILL: Good afternoon. My name is

13 Jonathan Cahill, and I work for Separation

14 Technologies. I thank you for the opportunity to

15 talk to you today c oncerning the issue of the

16 waste classification of fly ash and the reasons

17 why I oppose fly ash regulation under Subtitle C.

18 I do work in the fly ash business, and

19 one of the reasons I like what I do is getting the

20 opportunity to tell and acquaintances about what

21 it is I do. I usually start telling them that my

22 company works at coal power plants, which where I271

1 live is often met by a bit of apprehension, but

2 then I go on to tell them about the byproduct of

3 fly ash, and how my company has a b e ni fic i ation

4 process by which we turn this waste into a useable

5 product for concrete. I inform them how over a

6 million tons of waste every year, and my company

7 redirects it from landfill s into concrete. How

8 each one of those tons is a ton less of CO2 is

9 emitted into the atmosphere. In addition, the

10 concrete is actually a stronger and more durable

11 product with fly as h added. It is fun to watch

12 their face as they express an interest as they

13 hear how we use a waste is to improve our world.

14 Recently, there was a terrible and

15 unacceptable f ly ash spill in Tennessee, and I

16 fully agree that something needs to be done to

17 ensure this does not happen again. I'm glad the

18 EPA is coming and it is going to enact regulations

19 to e nsure that our neighbors and our environment

20 are safe, but, I believe there is a great risk in

21 labeling fly ash as hazardous under Subtitle C.

22 The perception and stigma that would follow this272

1 labeling would likely have far reaching effects on

2 the use of fly ash in concrete. The average

3 person won't take the time to underst and how fly

4 ash could be hazardous waste if it is away in a

5 landfill some place, but it is perfectly safe when

6 it is made in concrete in the basement where their

7 children play. Many a rchitects and builders do

8 not want to risk to perceive the potential

9 liability of specifying fly ash into the concrete.

10 The EPA has long held based on extensive testing,

11 the safest pla ce for fly ash is in concrete, so

12 the travesty for fly ash to cease to be used in

13 that application. All of the regulations, which

14 are so needed, can be achieved through RCRA

15 Subtitle D without the great negative impact on

16 our environment that would come through Subtitle C

17 classification.

18 My job is a source of great pride to me

19 because of the impact I can have on the

20 environment. I ask that in order to ensure the

21 positive environmental impact of fly ash will

22 continue, I ask that you decide not to regulate273

1 fly ash under Subtitle C. Thank you.

2 MS. DEVLIN: Number 94, please.

3 MR. FLYNN: Hello, my name is Kyle

4 Flynn, and I am here speakin g on behalf of

5 Separation Technologies. I am arguing against the

6 proposed Subtitle C hazardous waste designation.

7 It is difficult to think of a commodity

8 more central to mod ern life than electricity. The

9 abundance of relatively cheap electricity has, for

10 many years, allowed the United States to develop

11 its economy and improve its standard of living.

12 Acco rding to the Department of Energy, 45 percent

13 of US electricity generation was provided by coal

14 in 2009. With 250 billion tons of proven

15 recoverable reserves, coal will continue to

16 pr ovide a major source of the nation's energy now

17 and into the future.

18 As the rate of coal

- fired power

19 generation, and thus volume of coal combustion

20 byproducts has grown, so h as the industry to

21 safely beneficiate d this material. Separation

22 Technologies, and many others, have developed274

1 processes t o convert coal ash into a product that

2 can be safely used in concrete production. Once

3 coal ash has been recycled into concrete, no

4 danger of ash spills or heavy metal leaching

5 exists . In short, this process is safe. The

6 avoidance of coal ash entering a landfill, and the

7 carbon dioxide emissions offset from the cement

8 replacement are tangible benefits as well.

9 Unfortunately, EPA's proposed Subtitle C

10 hazardous waste designation would hamper efforts

11 to sustainable recycle fly ash into concrete.

12 Utility companies, fearful of future litigation,

13 will not allow anything bearing the title of

14 hazardous waste to be moved off the facility for

15 beneficial use. Instead of being recycled, this

16 material will be sent to a landfill, an expensive

17 and unnecessary cost that will ultimately be

18 carried by electricity consumers.

19 Allowing coal ash to accumulate in

20 landfills across the country is not only costly,

21 but unwarranted. In numerous documents, including

22 testimony given to Congress as recently as 2008,275

1 the EPA has asserted that the risk s associated

2 with the reuse of coal ash in concrete are, quote,

3 likely to be insignificant. In 2000, the EPA

4 concluded that national regulation under the

5 Resource Conservation and Rec overy ACT , RCRA, is not

6 warranted. The science behind coal ash has not

7 changed since these statements were issued, only

8 the politics.

9 In summary, I urge the EPA to carefully

10 consider the effects of the proposed Subtitle C

11 regulatory approach, and the unintended

12 consequences that would follow in its wake. Coal

13 ash does not meet the qualifications for haza rdous

14 waste, and should not be labeled as such. Such a

15 stigma would limit its beneficial reuse and

16 increase the volume of coal ash landfilled each

17 year. The environmentally responsib le thing to do

18 i s support beneficial as a means of reducing

19 coal ash waste. Thank you for allowing me the

20 opportunity to speak here today.

21 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 9 9,

22 please.276

1 MS. MARTIN: Hi, my name is Rachel

2 Martin. I live in Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania in

3 A llegheny County. At first, I would just like to

4 state my strong support for heavily and forceable

5 regulations to protect our community from toxic

6 coal ash under Subtitle C of the RCRA. I would

7 like to read testimony from Jerry Tylka, a life

8 long resident of LaBelle, Pennsylvania, who was

9 unable to be here today.

10 As a young boy, I watched a pristine

11 farm transform into a large slate dump. A farm,

12 as a boy, where I enjoyed hunting for rabbits,

13 quail, rings neck, pheasant and deer. A farm that

14 in the spring, we would pick puffball mushrooms,

15 in the summer, blackberries and in the fall black

16 walnuts. Before the school year ended Maxwell

17 Elementary School would take the entire school on

18 a picnic on this farm known as the Dellarose Far m.

19 Today, we have a large waste dump with

20 three ponds being incased by fly ask, fly ash that

21 is loaded with many carcinogenic elements. The

22 ponds are loaded with settlement from the coal277

1 washing process and now runoffs from the fly ash.

2 These ponds, after a rain, overflow and pollute

3 the nearby stream known as Big Meadow Run, which

4 flows into the Monongahela River. Fly ash, coal

5 ash, that is now impounded on a waste dump

6 leaching into our groundwater and three ponds

7 located on the landfill. Not only are the

8 concerns of the leaching into the groundwater,

9 but, also, the concern of the structural failures

10 of the impoundments like that which occurred at

11 the Tennessee Valley Authority's plant in

12 Kingston, Tennessee.

13 The fly ash produces a dust that

14 contaminate the air around us. Dust, which is

15 loaded with carcinogenic elements. The very air

16 we breathe could be causing many of the aliments

17 that many of the residents of the LaBelle,

18 Maxwell, Melrose and Luzerne areas have concerns

19 with. The very air we are br eathing may be

20 causing aliments, such as asthma, cancer, eczema

21 and numerous stomach problems. In my family of

22 six that live in this area, four of us have been278

1 diagnosed with some type of lung disease: My wife

2 and granddaughter with asthma, daughter and wife

3 with a chronic cough and myself with chronic

4 o bstructive pulmonary disease. As proof of the

5 pollution, I can show you the residue in my pool

6 in the summer and on the pool cover in the winter

7 or spring and on the siding of my home.

8 Stricter laws need to be passed and

9 enforced. How many lives do we need to lose

10 before something is done? We are rural people

11 that need help in controlling our environment. We

12 do not ask for much, but we would like our area to

13 be cleaned up with the help of new and stricter

14 laws. Give us back our clean air and water. Stop

15 killing our neighbors. Give our youth the

16 enjoyment that I enjoyed when I was a young person

17 growing up in a rural area. Give us back our

18 wildlife that we enjoyed when we were young.

19 Clean up our streams, so we can enjoy the fr esh

20 water that once ran down the valleys in the

21 Monongahela River. Make our drinking water

22 contaminated free. Remove the arsenic, lead and279

1 magnesium from our river, source of our drinking

2 water.

3 Please include fossil fuel combustion

4 waste in the Subtitle C of the Resource

5 Cons ervation and Recovery act. Thank you.

6 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Again, we are

7 running ahead of schedule, so I will be calling

8 numbers of walk

- ins. Number 100, number 110, 112,

9 117 and 131. Number 117. Thank you.

10 MR. SOWKO: Good evening. I would like

11 to thank you for this opportunity to speak

12 tonight. My name is Michael Sowko. I am employed

13 by RRI Energy as a Senior Instrumentation and

14 Electrical Technician at the Elrama Power Plant.

15 I also serve as an elected officer in the position

16 of Executive Board Chairman for the International

17 Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 29 right

18 from here in Pittsburgh. I represent 129 members

19 that operate and maintain the Elrama, Cheswick and

20 Brunot Island generation facilities. Bo th Elrama

21 and Cheswick are coal

- fired plants that utilize

22 scrubber technology for SO2 removal, catalyst and280

1 SNCR technologi es for NOX control.

2 My members want it known that they are

3 dedicated to performing their duties of operating

4 and maintaining these plants in the most safe and

5 professional ma nner to provide a product that is

6 reliable and cost efficient while maintaining

7 environmental compliance in all aspects of

8 production. We devote our time, talents and

9 energies toward family and civic obligations. We

10 live in the Greater Pittsburgh, Mon

- Valley and

11 Allegheny Valley neighborhoods. We are raising

12 families and contributing to our local tax base.

13 We, mo st of all, understand what it means to carry

14 the responsibility of being environmental stewards

15 for the benefit of the future of our children and

16 grandchildren. That's why I come before you

17 tonight with support of my membership to go on

18 record supporting regulation of coal combustion

19 residuals under Subtitle D of Resource

20 Conservation and Recovery Act.

21 Th is proposal would permit the

22 beneficial use of coal ash without the stigma281

1 associated with classifying CCRs under the same

2 regulations that regulate hazardous waste. We

3 support the need to establish safety requirements

4 to address structural integrity at CCR sites in

5 order to prevent another incident like the one at

6 the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil

7 Plant in Tennessee. In addition, the IBEW fully

8 supports the other requirements under Subtitle D

9 that are protective of human health and the

10 environment. Continued use of CCRs for beneficial

11 use projects provides sales revenues, avoids

12 landfill disposal costs and, very importantly,

13 maximizes existing landfill capacity. Be ing able

14 to pursue beneficial use projects and marketing of

15 CCRs within the intent of the Subtitle D

16 regulations will help to maintain the four to one

17 ratio cost advantage that exists in generating

18 with coal verses using gas and oil. The added

19 costs associated with a reclassification of CCRs

20 under Subtitle C would severely impact many plants

21 throughout the industry resulting in premature

22 plant closures with more individuals being added282

1 to the unemployment numbers at a time when the

2 cou ntry can ill afford any more.

3 Placing CCRs under Subtitle C will

4 greatly setback, if not destroy beneficial use

5 efforts. Major projects that have or are

6 currently taking pla ce locally utilizing ash

7 products from Cheswick and Elrama are as follows:

8 Rostraver Airport runway safety area expansion. A

9 total of 662,000 tons of material was beneficially

10 used in a safe manner.

11 The IBEW fully supports regulation of

12 coal combustion residuals under Subtitle D of the

13 Resource Conservation Recovery Act. Thank you.

14 MS. DEVLIN: You very much. Do I have

15 anybody with a number between 100 and 110 whom I

16 have not called in the audience and would like to

17 speak? Please come forward.

18 MR. GOOD: Number 1 01.

19 MS. DEVLIN: 101.

20 MR. GOOD: My name is Ed Good, and I'm

21 representing The Utility Workers of America. Good

22 Afternoon. My name is Ed Good. I am a proud283

1 member of The Utility Workers Union of America

2 Local 350 having worked at the First Energy R.E.

3 Burger Plant for 32 years. I am also President of

4 the Belmont

- Monroe

- Guernesy Counties Central Labor

5 Council AFL

- CIO, as well as a township trustee in

6 Mead Township, Belmont County, Ohio wherein the

7 Burger Plant is l ocated.

8 For us, and the other 6,500 union

9 workers at First Energy, jobs are the most

10 important issue regarding any new coal ash rules

11 established by the U.S. EPA. We believe coal ash

12 can be safely disposed of under regulations that

13 classify it as nonhazardous.

14 We fear that reclassifying coal as a

15 hazardous waste could significantly reduce, if no t

16 eliminate, the potential to recycle and

17 beneficially reuse what we call coal combustion

18 residue, or CCRs. As a result, jobs could be lost

19 at power plants and at facilities that curr ently

20 use recycled coal ash.

21 For example, speaking as a First Energy

22 employee, we have develop and operate one of the284

1 world's largest gypsum recycling facilities at our

2 Bruce Mansfield Plant. Each year nearly

3 half

- a

- millions tons of gypsum is supplied at

4 National Gypsum for wallboard manufacturi ng. This

5 world

- class operation, built in 1999, specifically

6 diverts CCRs from disposal while providing needed

7 local jobs in the Shippingport, Pennsylvania area.

8 As a labor leader and local government official, I

9 fear classifying CCRs as hazardous could effect

10 this and other operations like her across the

11 country.

12 We support U.S. EPA's regulation of CCRs

13 as a nonhazardous waste, which provides for

14 consistent regulation across the nation. I also

15 know First Energy is committed to the safe and

16 environmentally sound reuse and disposal of t his

17 material.

18 Approximately, 30 percent of CCRs from

19 First Energy's coal

- based facilities are utilized

20 annually in recycling applications, including the

21 wal lboard I just mentioned, or in concrete and

22 other construction material. These efforts285

1 support hundreds of local businesses and thousands

2 of jobs while reducing the need for additional

3 landfill space. Any change in classification

4 could put these jobs at risk at a time when our

5 economy cannot afford this type of negative

6 impact.

7 Over the last 30 years, the U.S. EPA has

8 continually identified nonhazardous waste

9 regulation as the preferred approach for ensuring

10 the safe recycli ng and disposal of CCRs. We don't

11 think anything needs to be changed this time

12 around either.

13 Regulation of this material as hazardous

14 waste has the potential to divert recy clable

15 materials into disposal facilities and eliminate

16 the many benefits of recycling CCRs. All of this

17 translates into increased costs compared to the

18 nonhazardous option without an y commensurate

19 benefit to the environment. Thank you for your

20 attention.

21 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Next speaker

22 can you come forward and tell us your number.286

1 MS. NICHOLS: 102.

2 MS. DEVLIN: 102. Thank you very much.

3 MS. NICHOLS: My name is Lauren Nichols.

4 I'm from LaBelle, Fayette County, a concerned

5 citizen. I'm 23 years old, recently married and

6 moved to the area. My husband grew up in LaBelle,

7 so even before we bought our house, I was still

8 around the area.

9 Our front porch is so dirty every day

10 from this grayish dark powder, could this be the

11 poisonous fly ash that enters our lungs every time

12 we breathe? Not only is it on everything outside,

13 the inside of the house has it, too. Fortunately,

14 my husband and I have no serious medical

15 conditions, but we both suffer from allergies.

1 6 The main allergy that I have is dust, so living

17 near this fly ash dump really doesn't help my

18 condition.

19 The trucks that go up and down the dump

20 never have covers on th em, so you can watch the

21 dust fly off as they drive up and down the street.

22 Obviously, this can't be safe for us to be287

1 inha ling.

2 Moving on to my drinking water. How

3 safe can it be when the water company is getting

4 the water from the river that the creeks and

5 streams pour in to. Obviously, not a ll the water

6 is coming from the LeBelle side, but there are a

7 few large creeks that do, in fact, come from the

8 dump and go right into the river. As if this

9 wasn't bad enough, the fly ash comes up on barges.

10 In my opinion, there's probably fly ash dropped

11 into the river from the barges. Our drinking

12 water has been test ed , and even though it's obvious

13 that there's f ly ash somehow making its way into

14 the water, we still have to drink it.

15 In my opinion, something needs done

16 about this dump. I'm young and have a long life

17 ahead of me. At 23, I shouldn't have to worry if

18 what I'm drinking and inhaling is going to cause

19 me cancer. I support Subtitle C. Thank you your

20 time.

21 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number?

22 MS. SHIMKO: 105.288

1 MS. DEVLIN: Number 105. Thank you.

2 MS. SHIMKO: My name is Shannon Shimko,

3 and I just recently moved to the area of LaBelle,

4 PA in Luzerne Township. Today, I have come before

5 you to express my concerns with the water in my

6 community. Lately, the fly ash dum p has been

7 releasing the fly ash into the streams around

8 river around us. They have released enough of

9 this byproduct causing our water to be

10 contaminated. The fly ash has several ha rmful

11 chemicals that over time can be harmful for

12 adults, but can harm our children more quickly.

13 Some of the chemicals include silicon dioxide,

14 aluminum oxide, iron oxide, arsenic, le ad and

15 mercury, which these companies do not understand

16 is how dangerous this combination is to humans.

17 Some of the following are health risks linked to

18 the different chemicals found i n our water that

19 was contaminated by the fly ash: Arsenic has been

20 linked to diabetes, cancer and other health

21 related issues in adults, the aluminum has been

22 linking to Alzheimer's i n older adults and the289

1 mercury has been linked to autism in children.

2 Lastly, lead has been linked to behavior problems,

3 he aring problems, learning problems and slowed

4 growth in children. In adults, it can cause

5 serious health problems, such as high blood

6 pressure, damage to the brain, nervous system,

7 sto mach and kidneys.

8 My number one concern is for the

9 children who are drinking this water. As a mother

10 of three, I encourage my children to drink water

11 instead of juices and o ther drinks with additives.

12 My children can access the water from the system

13 on the fridge at any time, but they are not able

14 to see if there is something wrong or if it tastes

15 funny. There is a school where children get water

16 out of the fountain. How much of these chemicals

17 are our children receiving daily? The affect of

18 these chemicals are the worst on infants and

19 children ranging from the ages of newborn to 3

20 years of age. If the toxic exposure levels are

21 high enough during the critical growth stages of

22 developing, the body systems of children, they can290

1 sustain permanent and/or death. What this company

2 and many other do not realize is for every infant

3 that takes a bottle alone , there are four to five

4 chemicals in every bottle.

5 I feel we need to take immediate action

6 toward this issue because I know a lot of you have

7 small children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews

8 that you all love and care about just as I do. In

9 addition to what I mentioned earlier, I have three

10 children ages 5, 2 and 8 months old who drink this

11 water everyd ay. This company is putting my

12 children at risk, and I think someone needs to put

13 a stop to it. I am sure you would feel the same

14 way I do if your family was in danger.

15 Ple ase take into account these children

16 can't tell you if something hurts, and you may not

17 know if they are poisoned until it is too late.

18 Thank you.

19 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you.

20 MS. RIPPEL: 100.

21 MS. DEVLIN: 100. Thank you.

22 MS. RIPPEL: Hello, my name is Raina291

1 Rippel. I am speaking on behalf of the Center for

2 Coalfield Justice to provide testimony for today's

3 hearing on coal ash. As a coalfield justice

4 organization, we are well aware that coalfield

5 citizens suffer the consequences of many of our

6 most unjust and inadequate regulations when it

7 comes to resource extraction, energy use and waste

8 disposal.

9 C oal ash represents one of the last

10 steps in a process that begins with mining, and

11 pollutes through every stage of coal cycle, from

12 extraction to burning to disposal of waste.

13 Coming f rom our air, our water and our land,

14 citizens in the coalfields are bearing the brunt

15 of a heavy pollution load. To call massive mine

16 sites filled with toxic coal ash beneficial, as is

17 done is Pennsylvania, is adding insult to injury.

18 As coal

- fired power plants are

19 increasingly regulated for their release of toxic

20 air emissions, cleaning up the stacks means that

21 more concentration of hazardous materials and

22 heavy metals are found in coal ash. There is no292

1 medical doubt that high levels of arse nic and

2 other pollutants, such as lead and mercury found

3 in coal ash are detrimental to human health. The

4 stories we have heard from local residents living

5 downstream or downwind from disposal sites today

6 are shocking, and represent a serious public

7 health concern for Pennsylvania citizens.

8 We are specifically urging the U.S. EPA

9 to include minefilling pr ojects under new proposed

10 federal rules, designation C. These mine

11 reclamation projects amount to open dumping and

12 should be federally regulated. Listing coal ash

13 under Subtitle D as a nonhazardous wastes leaves

14 the door open for inadequate enforcement, improper

15 reuse and insufficient monitoring of this

16 demonstrably hazardous substance.

17 Within our state, the Pennsylvania DEP

18 regulations represent a lack of state regulatory

19 oversight and enforcement, because PA's DEP

20 advocates coal ash is beneficial. Given the known

21 or suspected healt h consequences of major coal ash

22 repositories, such as Little Blue, and probability293

1 that minefilling may leach into groundwater, such

2 a beneficial use designation, is downright

3 dangerous, and serves only to pander to industry's

4 need for reuse or improper disposal of this toxic

5 substance.

6 Pennsylv ania has suffered for decades

7 from both the historical and modern

- day impacts of

8 the coal cycle, and our most important resource to

9 protect must always be the health and well

- being

10 of our citizens and our communities. Please take

11 into account the testimony you have heard today

12 from citizens across the state in setting the

13 appropriate federal rules for regulating coal ash.

14 Thank you.

15 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Numbers 110,

16 131, 145, 146 and 217. Are any of those numbers

17 in the room? While those people are coming, in

18 addition, is there a nybody that is in the room

19 that has a number of 120 or below that has not

20 been called? Thank you. Number 145.

21 MR. HALERRUD: My name is Bruce

22 Halerrud. I am one of the emp loyee owners of294

1 Black Diamond Granules. The company is located in

2 Saint Paul, Minnesota, which is about 1,000 miles

3 northw est of here.

4 Our company processes boiler slag

5 granules into working granules and abrasives. As

6 an owner of a popular Minnesota business, I came

7 here to ask the EPA to consi der scientific data,

8 as well as the practical implications of

9 regulatin g boiler slag. I believe that as a

10 matter of sound science and avoiding a potentially

11 devastating economical imp act, that EPA determine

12 coal s lag to be regulated as a Subtitle D

13 material, not a Subtitle C hazardous waste.

14 Boiler slag is one of the byproducts of

15 burning coal to produce electricity. Coal is

16 burned at high temperatures producing a molten

17 coal ash that is quenched with water for cooling.

18 The quench transforms the molten ash into a

19 v itrified mas s with l imited permeability. Any a n d

20 all heavy metals of the boiler slag are locked up

21 in the v itrified matrix. V itrification is a

22 successful waste treatment process while supported295

1 by the EPA.

2 The data show that any metal in the slag

3 granules maintain their encapsulated status are

4 not harmful and, in fact, are similar in nature to

5 the soil in your backyard. We have previously

6 supplied EPA with independent testing data of our

7 Finance V itrification Granules that support this

8 conclus ion. This data reconfirms EPA's own

9 studies previously conducted declared boiler slag

10 to be unharmful. As you know, 80 percent of all

11 shingles contain boiler slag. If EPA declares

12 b oiler slag to be a special waste under Subtitle

13 C, homeowners all across the USA would see the

14 cost of roofing repairs going up to 30 to 50

15 percent, and homeowner's insurance rates

16 inc reasing by 20 to 30 percent because of the

17 stigma of the Subtitle C classification. That is

18 not a situation that you need to be the homeowners

19 of this country in.

20 It does no t seem logical that a

21 nonhazardous material should be regulated under

22 Subtitle C because there are low levels of metals296

1 pre sent in the boiler slag to begin with and the

2 metals that aren't present are locked up in a

3 v itrified matrix that has very low permeability.

4 I thank the EPA for their time and consideration.

5 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 146.

6 Thank you.

7 MR. RAAD: Good afternoon. My name is

8 Russell Raad. I am one of the employee owners of

9 Abrasives Incorporat ed, a company located in Glen

10 Uilin, North Dakota about 1,350 miles northwest of

11 here. Abrasives Incorporated has been in business

12 since 1991 recycling boiler slag into roofing

13 granul es for shingles and blasting abrasives.

14 As an owner of a profitable, surviving

15 North Dakota business, I came here to ask EPA to

16 consider scientific data, as well as the practical

17 implications of regulating boiler slag not as a

18 Subtitle C hazardous waste.

19 I believe that as a matter of sound

20 science, boiler slag does not meet the definition

21 of a ha zardous material, thus should not be

22 defined as a hazardous waste. My question to the297

1 EPA is, by definition what identifies boiler slag

2 chemically or scientifically as a hazardous

3 material or waste in the CFR40? Does it have the

4 definition characteristics of ignitability,

5 corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity? My research

6 says no.

7 At EPA's Arlington, Virginia public

8 meeting on August 30th, there were several

9 allegations made by a competitor selling a

10 competing product that u nencapsulated boiler slag

11 is a danger and threat to human health. It was

12 also alleged that coal slag abrasives release

13 hazardous airborne pollutants.

14 I'm compelled to share with you today

15 and for the public, the results of an independent,

16 third party laboratory analysis of my slag fines.

17 This study was conducted by Minnesota Valley

18 Testing Laboratories of Bismarck, North Dakota and

19 it analyzed particulate fines from my plant, which

20 are even finer than slag residue from an abrasive

21 blasting job. The data shows that any metals in

22 the sl ag granules maintain their encapsulated298

1 state and are not harmful or hazardous. The data

2 also indicates that the material is in its worst

3 case is less than one tenth of the action levels

4 that would classify the material as a hazardous

5 substance. These results refute the speakers in

6 Arlington, Virginia and Charlotte, South Carolina,

7 who spoke of erroneous claims that boiler slag

8 abrasives release hazardous waste pollutant and

9 dangerous when used as abrasives. The data

10 confirms EPA's previous studies th at declared

11 boiler slag to be inert, unharmful and

12 nonhazardous.

13 Finally, we ask that the EPA continue

14 unrestricted recycling of boiler slag as it does

15 not meet the definition of a hazardous material or

16 waste. To continue associating boiler slag as a

17 hazardous waste increases the negative stigma

18 among the public, industry and inviting

19 co mpetition to jump on the negative bandwagon

20 although scientifically proven within the specs of

21 a safe material. I support Subtitle D. Thank

22 you.299

1 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Does anyone in

2 the room have a number and would like to speak?

3 Please come forward and sit along the front in the

4 chairs. Th ank you. You guys can do any order,

5 just tell us what your number is.

6 MR. POMYKALA: My name is Ron Pomykala.

7 I grew up in Glassport, Pennysvlania. I am

8 married to a girl that grew up in McKeesport,

9 Pennsylvania, so we're familiar with environment

10 here in the Mon Valley.

11 I would like to thank the EPA for

12 letting me speak. I'm Senior Manager f or a

13 company in Cleveland right now called the Kish

14 Company. The Kish Company manufactures and

15 markets industrial minerals, extenders, and

16 additives to the plastics, paint, rubber, in k,

17 adhesives, sealants and construction industries.

18 We recycle a CCP Cenosphere. I have sold products

19 for years, and I've been involved in numerous new

20 product development products.

21 Our President Obama talks about RMD (R&D?) , a

22 lot of these ways, and one way to substitute and300

1 stimulate our econo my. One key piece of

2 information for RMD products, and work at the

3 beginning, is an MSDS sheet on those products. As

4 you know, an MSDS lists the individual components

5 of the product that make up greater than 1 percent

6 of the total compound. This lists the components

7 of the product associated with risks involved with

8 those components and the precautions needed to be

9 taken to handle the material including disposal.

10 Each MSDS lists the environmental, health and

11 safety review. In many of these markets, even

12 though there is a small fraction component of the

13 material that is categorized as hazardous, that

14 material is automatically disqualified. It cannot

15 be considered in any new formulations because of

16 cost, benefits, or potential quality improv ements.

17 It can't even get in the front door.

18 The EPA is considering Cenospheres as a

19 Subtitle C waste. If a company will disqualify a

20 material because there is a small compo nent of

21 hazardous, they will clearly disqualify an entire

22 product that is listed as Subtitle C hazardous301

1 waste. Calling it a special waste will make no

2 difference as requirements for Aileen are the

3 same. The EPA and the environmental groups has

4 stated that they believe the amount of material

5 recycled wil l increase with a Subtitle C

6 designation. Let me tell you from the fill, not a

7 desk jo c key, but from an average Joe, this isn't

8 true. If EPA stigmatizes Cenospheres with a

9 Subtitle C designation, the resource will be

10 disqualified from many new formulations from

11 industry. We can't force for of this material

12 into the marketplace if the people who use it

13 refuse to t est it.

14 The Subtitle D option has virtually the

15 same environmental protection as Subtitle C. We

16 fully support the EPA's efforts to protect

17 families from heavy metal contamina tion related to

18 the improper disposals of CCRs. Strong Subtitle D

19 regulations would be the best solution. It will

20 protect these families without needlessly

21 destroying jobs. Thank yo u for your attention.

22 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 138.302

1 Thank you.

2 MR. FORBECK: Thank you for havin g a

3 chance to testify on EPA's proposed regulatory

4 schemes. I'm Mike Forbeck. I'm the Waste Program

5 Manager for the Pennsylvania Department of

6 Environmental Protection. I am here re presenting

7 the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

8 Pennsylvania has more than 30 years of

9 experience with CCR management. Of the 20

10 millions ton of CCRs generated per year, 11

11 million tons are beneficially used and the

12 remaining 8 to 9 millions tons are landfilled.

13 Pennsylvania has residual waste regulations in

14 place that govern the transportation, storage and

15 disposal of CCR. Their regulations are similar to

16 the Commonwealth's RCRA Subtitle D authorized

17 municipal waste regulations and have been in

18 effect since 1992. CCR landfills that hav e been

19 designed and operated in accordance with these

20 regulations have not resulted in pollution to

21 groundwater, surface water or air, and these are

22 the same residual waste regulations that were used303

1 as a template for EPA's existing Guide for

2 Industrial Waste Management. Pennsylvania's

3 successful manageme nt of CCRs including tracking

4 of historical waste analysis data generated over

5 the last 30 years, does not indicate in any way

6 the need for hazardous waste designation EPA is

7 proposing

.

8 According to EPA, the design and

9 performance standards for the propos ed regulations

10 will likely be the same no matter what regulatory

11 scheme is chosen. The major differenc es are that

12 EPA asse r ts such a designation is necessary for it

13 to retain and exercise appropriate enforcement

14 authority and EPA cannot require states to permit

15 landfills under Subtitle D proposal. Pennsylvania

16 regulations already require performance standards

17 that exceed those outlined in the Subtitle C or D

18 proposal. By current regulations, Pennsylvania

19 also requ ires facilities to be permitted or

20 authorized to manage CCRs.

21 As to the need for the EPA enforcement,

22 Pennsylvania's Solid Waste Management Act304

1 authorizes the utilization of state enforcement

2 authority is warranted. The use of this approach

3 has been successful for Pennsylvania, as evidence

4 by th e 96 percent compliance rate. In addition,

5 EPA already has broad 7003 enforcement authority

6 and, therefore, does not need the additional

7 authority under Subtitle C.

8 The detr imental effects of Subtitle C

9 management are substantial and could effect

10 beneficial use, cost and the capacity concerns for

11 the disposal of this material. Pennsylvania

12 continues to i mprove its regulations and, in fact,

13 new regulations regarding the Pennsylvania use of

14 CCRs are expected to be finalized later this year

15 that incorporates recommendations from the

16 Nati onal Academy of Sciences, which provides

17 further evidence of the efficacy of Pennsylvania's

18 current program.

19 Pennsylvania does not believe that

20 additional regulations for the management of coal

21 ash beyond RCRA Subtitle D are warranted.

22 Classifying coal combustion residues under RCRA305

1 Subtitle C wo uld create unnecessary burdens to

2 current management practices without producing any

3 greater degree of environmental or public health

4 protection. The Commonwealth opposes the

5 rulemaki ng for Subtitle C, and is in support of a

6 Subtitle D proposal with implementation

7 authorization continuing with the states. Thank

8 you.

9 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 217.

10 MR. REGAR: Good afternoon, everyone.

11 I'd like to start by saying thank you to the

12 Environmental Protection Agency for hosting this

13 public hearing and listening to all the con cerned

14 citizens.

15 My name is James Regar. Although, I

16 speak as an individual, I'd like to note that I'm

17 President of the Student Government Association at

18 D uquense University and also Chairperson of

19 Pittsburgh Student Government Council. I know

20 that my voice resonates among students and young

21 professions across the city.

22 Just a s the students and youth of306

1 America today are very concerned with the

2 environment. We are consistently at arms trying

3 to p rotect and make sure regulation is put in

4 charge. In fact, the third of this month, an

5 entirely student lead initiative helped form the

6 2010 Pittsburgh Energy Forum at Duquesne

7 Univer sity. This forum was geared towards

8 listening to and hearing from industry, federal

9 and local officials about energy policy and the

10 future of energy regulation across the state and

11 on the federal level.

12 With that said, I would just like to say

13 that environmental protection in the United States

14 has come a long way throughout U.S. history, and

15 that the indu stries have all

-- I urge you today

16 that please don't be s waye d by industries'

17 arguments to continue with lax regulation. You

18 can't put a price to America's health and safety,

19 but I t hink that needs to become less important.

20 If I could choose between a higher energy bill and

21 safe drinking water, I think that choice would be

22 clear. Cool ash is choking our waterways around307

1 the region and must be controlled.

2 In conclusion, I would just like to say

3 that please listen to your heart and please plac e

4 coal ash under Federal Regulation Subtitle C. I

5 urge the Environment Protection Agency to work

6 with Congress and President Obama's administration

7 to end the coal industry and even w ork towards

8 alternative energy sources across America. Thank

9 you very much for your time.

10 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 152.

11 MR. BONNE: Thank you. I thank you for

12 the opportunity to speak before you, council.

13 Good afternoon. My name is Mark Bonne. I'm the

14 Technology Manager for Sphere One, Incorporated.

15 Sphere One is a domestic based suppl ier of

16 speciality filters. The Cenospheres we supply are

17 a byproduct of coal combustion that we market for

18 specific industrial applications.

19 Cenospheres are inert lightweigh t

20 aluminum silicate microspheres that are used in a

21 variety of industrial applications, such as

22 construction, refractory, recreation, and energy308

1 service industries.

2 EPA has stated that a Subtitle C

3 regulation will not create a disincentive for

4 domestic based industries to use fly ash based

5 products. Sphere One has reviewed the upcoming

6 regulation with key customers and the majority of

7 them have expressed their intentions to remove all

8 forms of fly ash from their compounds if Subtitle

9 C becomes law. Most of the alternative materials

10 being considered carry additional cost and are

11 lower performing. American industries will be at

12 a competitive disadvantage t o products made

13 outside the U.S. using fly ash not subject to

14 Subtitle C.

15 Our refractory customers will be

16 especially hard hit by the loss of availability of

17 these unique materials for which viable

18 alternative yet to be developed. Cenosphere have

19 become invaluable for specialty compounds used in

20 the casting of aluminium and steel compounds. The

21 most likely outcome for the multi

- national

22 companies will be to move the manufacturing job s309

1 off U.S. soil even the plants in EU, Can ada and

2 South America.

3 I support the EPA's need to protect t h e

4 American public from heavy metal contamination,

5 which were improperly stored. The heavy metals

6 found in Cenospheres are fused into aluminum

7 silicate shell offer no health risk. These

8 materials are then encapsulated in cement or a

9 polymeric matrix, which makes them biologically

10 insoluble. If the EPA designates CCRs as

11 hazardous waste when being disposed of, the

12 American public will consider it hazardous

13 materials in all cases and won't let their use in

14 th eir homes. Subtitle D regulations with strong

15 enforcement will allow American industries find

16 suitable extended service life applications for

17 fly ash products. This is a much better option

18 than landfilling them under Subtitle C.

19 It isn't economically advantageous to

20 landfill all these products and it's just

21 transfers the problem from the power plant to the

22 landfill. I agree that the proposed legislation310

1 creates an incentive coal power to find

2 applications for fly ash, but unfortunately, it

3 make the materials unusable by private industry.

4 If the EPA's intent is to assure that these

5 materials be rendered environmentally inert, th e n

6 Subtitle D is the best regulation. Thank you.

7 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Again, I'm

8 going to is there anyone has been assigned a

9 number, would like to come forward and speak at

10 this time? Please come forward.

11 MS. ALBRIGHT: I just came in, so if

12 there any protocol?

13 MS. DEVLIN: Just state your name for

14 the court reporter and you have three minutes. We

15 will ke ep your time.

16 MS. ALBRIGHT: My name is Eda Albright.

17 I'm from Crescent, Pennsylvania, that's between

18 Altoona and Johnstown. I'm here to speak as a

19 grandparent. I am very f earful for my

20 grandchildren. In case you haven't seen this map

21 of Lawrenceville and this Little Blue, that they

22 are talking about my grandchildren are right here311

1 (indicating). Do you think I have something to

2 worry about?

3 I don't know if you have ever heard of

4 Johnstown, Pennsylvania, but there was a tragic,

5 tragic flood there in 1989. The industrialists

6 said it won't break. Two thousand people died.

7 Do you think I have something to worry about?

8 History tells us that indus tries does not have a

9 moral compass. The only compass that they have

10 are the laws that they have to answer to. They

11 have nothing to lose if the EPA has the very

12 accountability struct ure for these toxic

13 chemicals. We need to quite guilty war house

14 bills and ask why are we sick? Why are so many

15 children sick? If you look at this situation, and

16 you see that all ra nges of arsenic in local water

17 supplies and people are bailing out. We don't

18 need much more evidence.

19 If anything have happens to my

20 grandchildren because of this, God for b id. God

21 for bid. We are counting on the EPA to do its

22 part because yes indeed, we have a partnership. A312

1 partnership of c onsumer, citizens, business

2 industry, government and the spirit that moves it.

3 That spirit that moves it

-- I hear these words

4 economics, which is nothing but money.

5 Economically feasi ble. Don't tell me economically

6 feasible when you're talking about my

7 grandchildren. Thank you.

8 MS. DEVLIN: Please come forward. Your

9 number, please.

10 MS. GOURLEY: Number 114.

11 MS. DEVLIN: I'm sorry?

12 MS. GOURLEY: Number 114.

13 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 114. I

14 understand that 144 and 148 ar e here. If you

15 would please come forward and it sit.

16 MS. GOURLEY: Good afternoon. My name

17 is Deborah Gourley. I live in Hookstown,

18 Pennsylvania near Little Blue Run, whic h is a coal

19 ash impoundment in Greene Township, Beaver County,

20 Pennsylvania. Thank you for the opportunity to

21 speak to you today regarding this important issue,

22 regulations that cover coal ash pits. I represent313

1 my family and those w h o could not be here today to

2 ask the EPA to enforce stuffer rules and

3 re gulations when it comes to the disposal of ash

4 from coal

- fired power plants. We all enjoy the

5 light that electricity brings to our lives, but we

6 must not forget the dark side of coal

- fired power

7 plants.

8 First Energy Corporation, the owner of

9 Little Blue Run coal ash impoundment, has claimed

10 to be a good neighbor to the residents of Greene

11 Township, Beaver County, Pennsylvania. I know

12 that many Greene Township residents have been here

13 today to tell their stories, and I am sure that

14 good neighbor was not an adjective used to

15 describe Fi rst Energy Corp. Good neighbors do not

16 dump their trash in your backyard. This is what

17 First Energy is doing with Little Blue. Not only

18 are they dumping their trash, but the trash is a

19 slurry of ash mixed with water that contains high

20 levels of toxic chemicals, heavy metals and

21 elements. They now want to expand their trash

22 dump. They continue to purchase land from314

1 existing homeowners that surround Little Blue in

2 hope that Greene Township residents, as a whole,

3 will be willing to let the expansion of Little

4 Blue happen. First Energy moves about our

5 community intimidating homeowners into signing

6 documents allowing them to overstep state

7 boundaries when it comes to property lines t hat

8 border Little Blue coal ash impoundment. First

9 Energy moves about as if they have no one to

10 answer to, do they? The majority of Greene

11 Township residents have told First Energy t o go

12 away. We are no longer drinking the Kool

- aid.

13 Today, 18 percent of Greene Township is

14 Little Blue Run coal ash impoundment. Eighteen

15 percent. Isn't that enough? You have seen the

16 faces of people from Greene Township today. There

17 is a human side to this coal ash disposal. We are

18 living it. People in our community are sick.

19 Many of our residents have cancer. We believe the

20 reason that our community has a high rate of

21 cancer is due to the lack of EPA regulations for

22 coal ash disposal. It's toxic.315

1 I'll get to my point because I'm running

2 low on time. EPA, it's time for you to take the

3 bull by its horns. You step up and do the right

4 thi ng. Stand up to the power companies that argue

5 that the current regulations are enough. It's

6 obvious that current regulations are not enough

7 and that's why we are here today. Thank you.

8 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 144.

9 MR. CAREY: My name is Mike Carey. I am

10 President of the Ohio Coal Association. I am here

11 to testify today on behalf of the more than 90

12 coal collection companies and associated members

13 in Ohio.

14 I'm here today to send a clear message

15 to Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator. That her

16 efforts to des troy the Appalachian Coal Industry

17 are not going unnoticed. This administration is

18 engaged in a litany of efforts to destroy coal and

19 the electricity generating industries of this

20 cou ntry. This proposed coal ash rule is only one

21 of the more recent and extreme EPA rumors twisting

22 the Congressional mandate in an intent and316

1 ignoring statutory boundaries.

2 Cool accounts for more than half of the

3 nations electricity and in Ohio almost 90 percent.

4 Our industry employs thousands of hardworking men

5 and women. Coal is the backbone of the fuel that

6 fuels our nation and what has built our nation.

7 Despite the economic condition this nation is

8 facing, the EPA, under Administrator Jacks on, has

9 sacrificed economic development jobs and reliable

10 electricity on the alter of irrational fear.

11 It is this proposed rule that the EPA is

12 unable to decide how best to c ripple an industry

13 that millions of Americans rely on has put forward

14 two potential options. Either is acceptable.

15 Mandating coal ash as a hazardous waste is

16 ridiculous. Doing so wil l not result in

17 environmental protection, but only more owners'

18 regulatory burden.

19 Further, the nation's existing hazardous

20 waste landfills are not designed to deal with the

21 characterization of coal ash as hazardous. The

22 sheer product of coal ash, which is swamp, the317

1 limited capacity of the nati on's landfill and

2 properly, safely managing each of its hazardous

3 waste facilities.

4 The new proposed rule is aimed at

5 exactly that. Making coal

- fired power and

6 manufacturing coal impossible because of the high

7 cost of the regulatory burden. Each dollar going

8 towards the cost of the unnecessary regulation is

9 a dollar that will not be spent on the employee s

10 and the communities of the future.

11 The EPA's new proposed rule is a

12 reactionary response to isolated incidents and is

13 nothing more than another attempt to put coal,

14 only with the companies and individuals that we

15 represent, out of business. The efforts to

16 destroy the Appalachian coal industry is simply

17 not going unnoticed. Thank you for your time.

18 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 147,

19 please.

20 MR. JAMISON: I'm D. Michael Jamison of

21 Rosebud Mining Company in Cadiz, Ohio. Rosebud's

22 a Pennsylvania corporation with headquarters in318

1 Kittanning. Rosebud's primary business is

2 producing coal for the electric utility industry

3 and also for the steel industry. We have a

4 secondary business in Ohio, which is operating two

5 ash disposal landfills.

6 I've worked for several coal companies

7 and supplied c oal to electric utilities since June

8 of 1969. For 41 years, I've been involved in

9 production of sales, consumption of coal by

10 utilities for electrical generation. I'm very

11 familiar w ith the way power plants operate, how

12 expose of ash and the entire cycle of producing

13 electricity.

14 Since 1970, I've noticed an

15 increasingly

- cumbersome regulatory environment

16 related to the production, consumption of coal and

17 handling coal combustion residuals, CCR. Every

18 year has brought more and more stringent

19 regulation related to the use of coal and CC Rs.

20 The federal government has expanded its reach from

21 Washington, D.C. over all states and impinged upon

22 the sovereignty of the states.319

1 Currently, the State of Ohio regulates

2 the handling of CCR under law and regulation. The

3 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency issues

4 permits and makes sure the y are complied with

5 local and all of our operations are in full

6 compliance with the regulations.

7 In May of 2000, after eight years of

8 President Clinton's USEPA oversight, the USEPA

9 issued a regulatory determination on wastes from

10 the combustion of fossil fuels, which conveyed

11 USEPA's determination that CCR did not warrant

12 regulation as hazardous waste unde r Subtitle C of

13 the Resource and Conservation Recovery Act, RCRA.

14 However, our current administration takes issue

15 with that ruling and, and since taking office, the

16 Obama Administratio n's offensive against coal is

17 well documented.

18 Through Administrator Jackson's actions,

19 they have gone and put on the website that she and

20 her staff of more than 17,000 profe ssionals are

21 working across the nation to usher in a so

- called

22 green economy, and as such has interfered with320

1 coal permits by interfering with the Section 404

2 permitting process by abolishing of the Nationwide

3 Permits 21, and the issue of endangerment finding

4 of December 2009 and announced their going to

5 r egulate greenhouse gases now under regulatory

6 fiat

.

7 Making CCRs a classified hazardous waste

8 is nonsensical, unnecessary and harmful to our

9 economy. It will add millions of dollars in

10 additional costs to our electric bills without any

11 environmental benefit.

12 Rosebud Mining opposes these proposed

13 rules and will do everything to oppose them. We

14 feel that the United States is different than

15 Europe; we don't need European policies in the

16 United States. Thank you.

17 MS. DEVLIN: Again, is there anyone in

18 the audience who has a number and would like

19 speak? I understand that perhaps numbers 158,

20 163, and 219 are here, but anyone else is also

21 welcome. Number 219. Thank you very much.

22 MS. SCHROEDER: Hi. My name is Rebbecca321

1 Schroeder. I am a student of the University of

2 Pittsburgh. I don't come speaking for a c ompany

3 or even a town, but for humanity. I have been

4 sitting here for a while now and intended to just

5 listen, but after hearing some people speak, I

6 felt compelled to speak.

7 One of the main differences between

8 Subtitle C and D is that C calls for a state and

9 federal regulation in areas where D is

10 self

- implementing. Self

- regulation among

11 companies that deal with coal ash will not work as

12 long as coal ash remains an economic commodity.

13 It is your job to protect the environment and it

14 is theirs to make a profit, and there is no reason

15 to assume that while federal monitoring is to do

16 anything, but profits. After all how many people

17 don't follow the speed limit until there is a cop

18 around?

19 One of the main things that I've been

20 hearing today is that classification of coal ash

21 as a hazardous waste would create a stigma that

22 would decrease its recyclable use in cement and322

1 wallboard. As the EPA, I would like to see you

2 care for the environment, not for the pocketbooks

3 of those companies. Classifying something t hat is

4 clearly affects human health as hazardous is a

5 very good thing to do, but that's a huge process

6 in that attempt. There is to need dress a lion up

7 like a lamb when members of th e industry should

8 know that you can still tame a lion and you can

9 still use coal ash perfectly even under Subtitle

10 C.

11 Lastly, countless people have stood up

12 here and said that using fly ash in concrete as

13 opposed to pure concrete decreases CO2 emission,

14 and thus, do to the increase of production of

15 concrete, which would be the effect of the

16 proposed stigma, if there was one, there would be

17 an increase of CO2 emissions, which would then

18 work on the problem of global warming. If we

19 really wanted to significantly react on the

2 0 problem of global warming, there wouldn't be any

21 byproducts of coal plants because there wouldn't

22 be any coal plants.323

1 I stand here to encourage the EPA to

2 look beyond coal and towards the wind and the sun,

3 the renewable energy sources of the future. I

4 encourage you to choose option C for the health of

5 the communities near the coal ash disposal sites,

6 and then choose the pathways of coal altogether

7 for the health of the earth. Thank you.

8 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you very much. Is

9 there anyone in the audience who has been assigned

10 a number and would like to speak?

11 Hearing none, we will take approximately

12 a 15

- minute break at this time. We will reconvene

13 in about 15 minutes. Thank you.

14 (Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., an

15 afternoon recess was taken.)

16

17

18

19

20

21

22324

1 E V E N I N G S E S S I O N

2 (5:21 p.m.)

3 MR. DELLINGER: We are going to

4 reconvene the hearing. Does everybody have an

5 understanding of the rules? You have three

6 minutes to talk.

7 We will show cards here, so that peopl e

8 will know how much time they have left. The first

9 card we'll hold up will indicate you have 2

10 minutes left. The next card will indicate 1

11 minute left. The one after that 30 second s left.

12 The one that is red that will say times up and you

13 need to very brief summarize your last thought.

14 The other thing is we would ask if you

15 have a paper copy that you t hat you put it in

16 front where the court reporter is and there's a

17 box there for your written statements. It will

18 help us to make sure we have a complete record of

19 the hearing.

20 What I'm going to do is ask is there any

21 people here in the auditorium that have numbers

22 from 162 or lower and want to speak right now?325

1 You can move forward. Just show us what your

2 numbers are. 158.

3 We've got a place for anyone who wants

4 to speak right now to sit up here next to the

5 speaker. Number 158, you can start.

6 MR. WINBERG: I'm Steven Winberg, Vice

7 President of Research and Development at Consol

8 Energy.

9 Consol employs over 8, 200 people with an

10 annual payroll of almost $1.6 billion dollars, 96

11 percent of which is paid in this region.

12 Annually, we produce almost 60 million tons of

13 coal and over 142 billion c ubic feet of natural

14 gas; the vast majority of which is also produced

15 in this region.

16 Consol has four concerns we want to

17 address today. Our first concern relates to

18 regulation of CCR at coal mine sites. The EPA

19 heard testimony from the National Mining

20 Association on this concern at the August 30,

21 Arlington, public hearing. Rather than repeat

22 these concerns, I will just state that Consol326

1 agrees with NMA's uses will continue to be

2 regulated by the Office of Surface Mining un der

3 the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.

4 Our second concern, voiced by numerous

5 others, relates to EPA's consideration that CCRs

6 be regulated as a special waste un der Subtitle C

7 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

8 EPA has reviewed this issue in 1993 and again in

9 2000, and EPA should continue to follow its final

10 2000 regulatory determi nation that Subtitle D of

11 RCRA could be fully protective of human health and

12 the environment.

13 Our third concern is EPA's proposed

14 Subtitle D regulations to require closure of

15 existing impoundments or retrofitting of liners in

16 existing impoundments as a condition of their

17 continued use. Many existing impounds have

18 significant remaining useful life, but alr eady

19 contains significant volumes of CCR that would

20 make it environmentally and economically

21 infeasible to remove the CCR to install a liner.

22 EPA's proposed D Prime option would allow327

1 continued use of existing impoundments for the

2 remainder of their useful lives. The D Prime

3 option will enable a smoother transition to new

4 facilities and reduce disturbances of green field

5 areas.

6 Our fourth and final concern relates to

7 the 44 percent of CCRs recycled into beneficial

8 uses including road construction material,

9 replacement for Portland cement and construction

10 grade wallboard. These beneficial use industries

11 employ about 4,000 people. Also, it's worth

12 noting that for every ton of Portland cement

13 avoided by using CCR, one ton of CO2 is also

14 avoided. If CCRs become regulated as hazardous

15 waste under RCRA Subtitle C, even i f CCRs for

16 beneficial use are excluded, the use of CCRs will

17 drop dramatically because of the long

- term

18 potential liability. The consequence of this will

19 include loss of employment, increased cost of

20 electricity due to higher disposal costs, more

21 hazardous waste site development and an overall

22 greater drain on natural resources needed to328

1 replace these CCRs.

2 Thank you for giving Consol the

3 opportunity to present our views.

4 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Next your

5 number is.

6 MR. CODY: 121.

7 MR. DELLINGER: 121.

8 MR. CODY: Good afternoon. My name is

9 Bruce Cody. I'm with the Pennsylvania Aggregates

10 and Co ncrete Association. Our association

11 represents over 200 member companies in the

12 aggregated and concrete industry in the

13 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

14 I'm sure you've heard a lot of speakers.

15 The ready

- mix concrete industry is the largest

16 beneficial user of fly ash and over 55 percent of

17 concrete contains fly ash. We are diverting fly

18 ash from landfills w ith our usage.

19 We oppose Subtitle C designation for the

20 following reasons: An increase of production

21 costs and the cost of construction. Recently, our

22 governor tried the co mmon law asking for our329

1 support for additional transportation funding for

2 our failing infrastructure. Adding additional

3 co sts to the construction projects is not what was

4 asked of us. We need to keep the cost as low as

5 possible to replace the hundreds of the

6 structurally sufficient roads and bridges across

7 the state. The increase on potential liability

8 for concrete producers. We have a concern there

9 will only be litigation targeting existing

10 structures built with fly ash.

11 Potentially stricter state laws. We

12 feel this will snowball into more state laws, such

13 as the one proposed in Maryland regarding the

14 disposal of any product containing fly ash must be

15 done in a special facility. Our industry has done

16 its part to recycle and reuse our product. Our

17 producers have gone to great expense installing

18 recycling equipment in their facilities. This

19 could be all for nothing should Subtitle C lead

20 into additional laws regulating the disposal of

21 products containing fly ash.

22 Last, but not least, the negative stigma330

1 Subtitle C will create. I work with architects

2 and engineers every day and I know they will not

3 specify the use of fly ash in ready

- mix c oncrete

4 with the hazardous waste designation.

5 Pennsylvania has become one of the

6 leaders in the green building movement. The

7 benefits that fly ash brings to concrete are not

8 only beneficial to our product, but to our

9 environment by keeping fly ash out of landfills

10 and reducing the concrete industries' overall

11 footprint. For these reasons we oppose Subtit le C

12 designation. Thank you.

13 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Anyone else

14 in the room that wants to speak now.

15 MR. CONNOLLY: 118.

16 MR. DELLI NGER: 118.

17 MR. CONNOLLY: Good evening. My name is

18 Brad Connolly. I work for a company in

19 Louisville, Kentucky named Charah, Incorporated.

20 I am testifying as an employee in the

21 Coal Ash Management and Recycling Industry. I

22 support coal ash disposal regulations that protect331

1 the human health and the environment without

2 compromising greater recycling capabilities of

3 coal ash. Both of the these goals cannot be

4 accomplished if the EPA designates coal ash as a

5 hazardo us special waste under Subtitle C. This

6 classification would bring an uncertainty or

7 stigma to the general population and would be

8 detrimental to the recycling efforts.

9 Resi dential and commercial development

10 would steer away form utilizing this material if

11 it's deemed hazardous in a landfill. Businesses

12 will want to avoid any lawsuits using a material

13 th at is considered hazardous in a landfill. The

14 recycling of coal ash has many environmental

15 benefits, such as the conservation of our natural

16 resources and landfill space, while also avoiding

17 the rise of greenhouse gas emissions during the

18 manufacturing of alternative materials that would

19 replace coal ash.

20 Coal ash recycling with its many

21 environmental ben efits need to be preserved. This

22 recycling cannot risk being destroyed by the332

1 hazardous special waste classification. Under the

2 EPA's own rule, new landfill engineering practices

3 would essentially be the same whether it's

4 regulated as a hazardous or the nonhazardous

5 classification. In addition, new landfill

6 engineering standards will be adopted more

7 expediently if the nonhazardous classification is

8 implemented.

9 The EPA should endorse improved coal ash

10 disposal regulations. However, this should be

11 done without characterizing coal ash as a

12 hazardous waste and risking the destruction of

13 recycling effort, which helps accomplish

14 everyone's goal of a cleaner environment. To do

15 so, EPA must not designate coal ash as a hazardous

16 special waste. Thank you for the opportunity to

17 speak.

18 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Is there

19 anyone else in the room that would like to speak

20 now?

21 We'll call a recess for 20 minutes. Let

22 me give a time for us to reconvene. Let's make it333

1 5:50. That's 18 minutes from now.

2 (Recess)

3 MR. DELLINGER: We are going to

4 reconvene now. It's 5:50. Is there anybo dy else

5 that would like to speak at this time? Come

6 forward. Show us your number. Number 134.

7 MR. SCHARDING: Well, I'm sorry there

8 aren't many people here right now, but I'm Keith

9 Scharding. I'm from Pittsburgh and I'm a native

10 Pittsburgher. My family has been involved in coal

11 mining and power for maybe 150 years. I am very

12 king coal is dead whether we want to admit it to

13 ourselves or not.

14 Friends, EPA officials and fellow

15 Americas, whether you know this or not, our

16 country if not the whole world has entered a new

17 millennium. A day is a thousand years and a

18 thousand years is one day. The millennium

19 generation of which we are all apart of are the

20 children who were in grade school in the 1990s and

21 now schooling in businesses is what they call the

22 millenniums. I'm not a millennium. I'm much334

1 older than that. They can ap preciate this because

2 of the power of our computing industries,

3 networking, global networking and all of these

4 things they experience on a daily basis.

5 Petroleum as a fuel fo r transportation

6 is also obsolete, and we're finding that it will

7 probably will be replaced by water. Fly ash

8 should be diminishing as coal becomes replaced by

9 much more powerful tech nologies for generating

10 electricity. We will use much more pervasively

11 than any other means of power. I believe that the

12 EPA is now working on new technical aspect of the

13 mediation o f coal fly ash, so I would say they

14 have the strictest standards that you can hold the

15 industry to are proper and inappropriate. People

16 will not lose their jobs. They will keep their

17 job. Their jobs will be safer. The materials

18 that now fall apart and collapse under the on slot

19 of changing weather in the world will become

20 stronger as the new technology is used in the

2 1 mediation process.

22 Coal fly ash should be

-- the335

1 implementation of these rules should be tied to

2 some kind of industry upgrade in the technology

3 secondary. For one who has worked in the

4 environmental deal for many, many years and saw a

5 solution to these problems itself, I'm glad to see

6 tha t the millenniums have come along and now we

7 have a

-- it's not a brave new world, but a much

8 better vision to the future, and I think we should

9 put them into effect. Thank you.

10 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 220.

11 MR. WALSH: My name is Gerald Walsh.

12 I'll be brief. Coal companies have operated for

13 many years without consideration of the full cost

14 of coal. By not taking full responsibility for

15 all health and environmental costs, such as would

16 be achieved by their defeat of Subsection C,

17 alternative energies are made to appear less

18 viable than they truly are. As other count r ies

19 continue to outpace our efforts in alternative

20 energies, we will find ourselves in an

21 increasingly untenable and greatly weakened

22 position as a country.336

1 Many of the speakers here talked about

2 the economic costs of Subsection C, but all talk

3 of economics is irrelevant to the issue of whether

4 coal ash is truly a hazardous substance, and

5 whether further regulation, such as exists in

6 Subsection C, should be implemented. The health

7 costs results from their existing procedures are

8 part and parcel of the hidden costs involved in

9 coal production. The potential for heavy metal

10 contamination, especially when used in products

11 that may leach into our environment is

12 unacceptable, as it leaves the issues of clean up

13 to our children and grandchildren. I would ask

14 the coal companies to no longer abrogate their

15 responsibilities to the health and welfare of our

16 country and take on the necessary burden of

17 assuring not merely existing energy demands, but

18 also our future welfare. Thank you.

19 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Is there

20 anyone else that hasn't spoken that wants to speak

21 now? We are going to take a break until 6:30.

22 That's 34 minutes from now. We will recon vene and337

1 hopefully we'll have more speakers here.

2 (Recess)

3 MR. DELLINGER: We're back in business.

4 The hearing is now called to order again.

5 We have, I think, four speakers. I'm

6 going to call numbers 125, 140, 221, and 222 to

7 move forward. 143, you can move forward as w ell.

8 Okay, we're having a little feedback

9 issue here.

10 MR. SNYDER: Good afternoon. I am Mark

11 Snyder, vice president of the Pennsylvania Chapter

12 o f the American Concrete Pavement Association.

13 The ACPA is a national trade association for the

14 concrete pavement industry with 21 chapters that

15 represent about 425 paving contractors, cement

16 companies, materials suppliers, equipment

17 manufacturers and engineering consultants. Our

18 purpose is to expand the use and improve the

19 quality of concrete pavement. I am also president

20 of the International Society for Concrete

21 Pavements, a n organization with members in more

22 than 20 countries that is dedicated to furthering338

1 education, scientific investigation, and research

2 in all areas related to concrete pavements.

3 Concrete paving comprises a major

4 portion of our nation's transportation

5 infrastructure. In 2009, nearly 70 million square

6 yards of concrete pavement were placed in the U.S.

7 That is almost enough to build a four

- lane

8 concrete highway from coast to coast. Most of

9 that concrete contained fly ash as a partial

10 replacement for cement, in amounts from typically

11 20 to 25 percent. Why? Because fly ash makes the

12 concrete better

-- it chemica lly combines with

13 cement hydration products to make it stronger and

14 more durable so that concrete pavements can carry

15 more and heavier loads while requiring less

16 frequent repairs. Fly ash is also less expensive

17 than cement, so it saves taxpayer and owner

18 dollars. And it makes concrete greener

-- more

19 sustainable

-- by providing a high

- value use for a

20 waste product that might otherwise end up in

21 landfills.

22 Typically 92 percent of concrete by339

1 volume is comprised of materials t hat have a low

2 CO2 footprint. By substituting fly ash for

3 cement, we reduce the carbon footprint of concrete

4 by reducing the volume of cement used in the

5 production of concrete.

6 There is a great deal of federally

7 produced literature documenting the many benefits

8 and advocating for the use of fly ash in concrete.

9 One notable example is titled Using Coal As h in

10 Highway Construction: A Guide to Benefits and

11 Impacts, and it was published by the EPA in April

12 2005. With the help and support of the EPA and

13 the Federal Highway Administration , huge

14 advancements have been made to maximize the

15 utilization of fly ash in concrete in recent

16 years.

17 The American Concrete Pavement

18 Association is greatly concerned about a potential

19 EPA reclassification of fly ash as a hazardous

20 waste under RCRA Subtitle C. We believe that such

21 reclassification would have significant unintended

22 negati ve consequences

-- even if exclusions were340

1 provided for certain uses. The stigma and

2 potential legal exposure of incorporating a

3 hazardous waste into concrete would have a

4 crippling effect on its use, and might even make

5 problematic the future disposal and repair of

6 existing concrete containing fly ash. This

7 reclassification has the potential to undo decades

8 of advancement in pavement performance and would

9 also result in a significant decrease in the

10 sustainability of concrete materials for all

11 applications, pavements, buildings, foundations,

12 et cetera.

13 The dike rupture at the TVA facility in

14 November 2008 was tragic and steps should be taken

15 to reduce th e likelihood of another such

16 catastrophic release. Labeling fly ash as a

17 hazardous waste is not one of them. The potential

18 negativity of the unintended consequences of such

19 a ruling is enormous and is probably not fully

20 appreciated.

21 Thank you very much for your time and

22 consideration.341

1 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 221.

2 Number 222.

3 MR. MOORE: Hello. My name is Andrew

4 Moore. Coal ash is absolutely a hazardous waste.

5 It is terribly toxic and something must be done

6 about all of this pollution. At the very least,

7 we must define coal ash as hazardous waste.

8 Also, mountaintop removal coal mining is

9 horribl e; must be stopped immediately. The valley

10 fills must be redefined, again, as toxic waste and

11 must be stopped.

12 I will now read George Markish's

13 comments for the board.

14 My name is George Markish. I am a

15 resident in Labelle, PA, Fayette County. I have

16 lived here for 20 years. I am a cancer survivor.

17 I go outside and apples are pitted on propert ies

18 close to the dump and a few hundred yards away.

19 You can't imagine what the inside of our homes

20 look like, the dust and residue is terrible. I

21 don't mind and invite any organizatio n to come to

22 my home. Thank you.342

1 MR. DELLINGER: Any other speakers? 143

2 and 148 next and then 221 after that.

3 MR. COLVIN: My name is Gregory Colvin.

4 I'm the president and executive director of the

5 Ohio Ready Mixed Concrete Association. I would

6 like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to

7 you and the subcommittee today on a very important

8 issue for our members. Our organization

9 represents ready mixed concrete producers and

10 contractors throughout the state o f Ohio. We also

11 have associate members that include material

12 suppliers, equipment suppliers, and testing

13 agencies, as well as architects and engineers.

14 We encourage our memb ers to be

15 environmentally responsible in all facets of their

16 business, and continuously promote and educate the

17 industry on sustainability.

18 Our industry believes that using a s many

19 recycled materials as possible helps to preserve

20 our natural resources, and protect the

21 environment.

22 We recycle water, sand, stone, and even343

1 concrete itself. For many years, the most widely

2 recycled product used in the concrete industry has

3 been fly ash.

4 Fly as h is a fine powder

- like material

5 generated from the coal burning electric power

6 plants. Fly ash, by nature, is high in silicates,

7 making it a valuable raw material in the

8 manufacturin g of many concrete products, including

9 ready mix concrete, concrete block, and precast

10 concrete. It is known as a supplementary

11 cementitious material or SCM. Fly ash is used to

12 subst itute a portion of the Portland cement

13 required to manufacture concrete. Fly ash

14 enhances the strength and long term durability of

15 concrete.

16 Concrete is the most widely used and

17 versatile product in the construction industry.

18 The production of Portland cement results in CO2

19 being emitted into the atmosphere. Using fly ash

20 as a substitute for a portion of the Portland

21 cement required to manufacture concrete, reduces

22 the amount of CO2 emitted.344

1 The 2008 production and use survey

2 revealed that approximately 14 million tons of fly

3 ash was used in concrete products. Survey have

4 shown that for each ton of Portland cement

5 produced, we are reducing the greenhouse gases

6 emitted, and helping our environment. Therefore,

7 we need to increase the amount of fly ash used in

8 our industry, not reduce it. Reducing the amount

9 of fly ash used i n the production of concrete

10 products would inevitably increase the amount that

11 would have to be land filled, further harming our

12 environment.

13 Recently the U.S. Environmental

14 Protection Agency has proposed reclassifying fly

15 ash as a hazardous material when destined for

16 disposal under Subtitle C of the Resource

17 Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.

18 I understand that the EPA prefers this

19 option since it would provide them with the

20 authority to enforce disposal regulations.

21 Disposal under Subtitle D of the RCRA places the

22 enforcement authority with the individual states.345

1 Although this is a more practical option, it is

2 still not a viable solution. T he EPA also

3 suggested that fly ash could be exempted from

4 hazardous waste regulation.

5 The problem is that although it may well

6 be exempted from regulation, it would still hav e

7 the negative stigma of a hazardous waste.

8 In discussing this issue with our

9 membership, I found that most members would

10 refrain from using fly ash in concrete, from fear

11 of the liability factor of using a hazardous

12 material in the production of their products.

13 They do not agree with the EPA's assertion that

14 the exemption would provide all the protection

15 needed. Lawyers would have a field day with the

16 idea of concrete producers using hazardous

17 materials to produce concrete. Competitors of the

18 concrete industry would also use the stig ma

19 against our industry.

20 In summary, the reclassification of fly

21 ash as a hazardous material, whether exempt from

22 regulation or not, would cast a negative stigma on346

1 the product. It would significantly reduce the

2 amount being used in concrete, if not end its use

3 altogether. Fly ash has been revi ewed and

4 classified as non

- hazardous by the EPA in the

5 past. This product has not changed since that

6 review. The use of fly ash in concrete products

7 is a win

- win scenario. It not on ly enhances the

8 strength and long term durability of the concrete,

9 it helps protect the environment. Therefore, the

10 Ohio Ready Mixed Concrete Association strongly

11 urges the EPA not to reclassify this product as a

12 hazardous material.

13 Thank you for allowing me this

14 opportunity to speak, and I will answer any

15 questions you might have.

16 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Your number

17 again.

18 MS. SABL: 148.

19 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you.

20 MS. SABL: As a Biologist and a

21 Physicist , I do not loosely estimate the

22 importance of labeling a liquid substance a as347

1 hazardous waste. I know a hazardous waste has to

2 be processed and I agree it is a significant

3 burden.

4 However, we are currently presenting a

5 lot of instruments to address a rather complex

6 problem. The way that coal a sh has been dealt

7 with in practical terms, including some of the

8 so

- called beneficial applications including

9 surface applications online, have lead to

10 decontamination of water. Other applications,

11 such as some of the concrete aggregates

12 applications are far less upsetting.

13 I would prefer that Option C is the one

14 that you choose. I also understand perhaps you

15 will revisit some of these ideas and perhaps you

16 can even combine them. I would say that the EPA,

17 in fact, can facilitate the coal ash in a way

18 that's stable through geological k ind. I'm not

19 talking so much about as cement board, and I can

20 tell perhaps that does deserve an exemption, but I

21 do not like the idea that the public's stigma is

22 such that we should n ot label coal ash as toxic348

1 when, in fact, it is. Again, as a physicist, I do

2 think we should bear our personal images rather

3 than our concentration in coal ash and that has

4 only increased with the efforts to produce

5 coscostaphene and coal by burning it in such a way

6 to keep those continuants out of the atmosphere.

7 Therefore, you have a toxic substance, perhaps you

8 should label it as a toxic substance and then

9 provide exemptions where appropriate.

10 Please support Option C in an open

1 1 minded and an easily ornate manner. I believe the

12 coal industry shall indeed continue in the United

13 States and properties shall continue to be made,

14 but I'd hope it does not, in fact, involve dig ging

15 up more beaches and using up more sand. It is a

16 fine use for fly ash, but at the same time the ash

17 itself in the form of ash should be labeled as

18 what it is, which is a hazardous waste. Thank you

19 very much.

20 MR. DELLINGER: Could you state your

21 name and affiliation?

22 MS. SABL: Yes. Joy F. Sabl. Last name349

1 is S

- A

- B

- L. I am a concerned citizen with work

2 accurately produced for purposes.

3 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number 221.

4 MS. LANDINI: My name is Sarah Landini.

5 I'm here today because I'm a Christian, which I

6 don't think is something that is heard very often

7 on environmental issues and that's the reason I

8 care.

9 I was also a theology major and one of

10 the things that I remember learning in my class

11 had to do with a n atom, and how the word atoms in

12 Hebrew means of the red ea rth. The word in Hebrew

13 for red earth is atoma, so we are the people

--

14 how I understood that to mean is we are the people

15 of the red earth and because all humans are called

16 atoms. I think everyone in this room today

17 probably agrees that we relay on the earth for our

18 substance and our livelihood. We all know it's

19 true

-- we all know that if we decided stop

20 breath ing and depending on the earth to live and

21 the atmosphere that we'll die, so we depend on our

22 earth for our very lives.350

1 I don't think anyone here disagrees that

2 we need to protect our environment. There's a

3 disagreement in terms of how. It's just been

4 really weird to watch everybody today because it's

5 like an exercise in missing the point. There's

6 two sides talking to each other, but they are not

7 meeting anywhere that is solid. I've heard the

8 industries say that the more regulations mean th at

9 we can't do this any more. No, it doesn't. It

10 doesn't mean anything like that. It just means

11 doing it in a way that is safer.

12 I just took a class on how to do

13 lead

- safe remodeling work and the EPA changed the

14 rules of how that happens in houses. Now,

15 contractors are pretty pissed off about it, but

16 they know they have to do it. There is a choice

17 between do we let our families and the little kids

18 in the house we are remodeling, do they let them

19 get sick or do we do this better? Let's do this

20 better. All it is, is expecting the

21 responsibility. You got a neighbor, you're going

22 to live there for 70 years, are you going to be351

1 friends with them or are y ou going to be rude to

2 them for rest of your life? This is the world

3 that we're in. I think we've caused a lot of

4 problems.

5 I know I'm evading public policy when I

6 try to think about the world as it ought to be

7 instead of the world as it is. The world as it

8 is, is that we need a lot of energy. We build

9 things using concrete. You can still do that.

10 Just cover the bloody trucks up when they are

11 flying down the road. Just clean up after

12 yourselves. That's all I'm asking is that people

13 do your own dishes. With that nothing find the

14 roots, but I would love about scientific study

15 that proves there is a stigma and that people

16 aren't going to use this stuff. Based on the

17 conversation of some people from the industry

,

18 there is no study. They don't know that. It's

19 just conjecture. Thank you.

20 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Is there any

21 other people that want to speak?

22 Number 110.352

1 MS. ANCEL: Hi. My name is Saci Ancel.

2 I'm here from San Francisco. I actually spoke to

3 you guys in Chicago last week. I urge you to

4 classify coal ash under Subtitle C. Since then,

5 I've had more time to reflect on the issue, and

6 I'd like to add some points to my argument.

7 I personally haven't been affected by

8 coal ash nor do I work in an industry that profits

9 from coal ash, but I've been given an unique

10 opportunity to observe and speak with people on

11 both sides of this argument for two weeks now.

12 What I found is that the people testifying on both

13 sides of the argument are in support of improving

14 our society. The people with a strong argument

15 that support Subtitle D are people who are

16 producing coal ash by recycling it in materials.

17 People in support of Subtitle C want to reduce the

18 dangerous substances that are destroying their

19 communities.

20 What I feel is the most basic difference

21 between the two arguments are that those in

22 support of Subtitle C are literally fighting for353

1 their lives and the lives of their children, and

2 continued lax regulations of coal ash is getting

3 in the way of their fundamental rights of cle an

4 air and clean water. The people in support of

5 Subtitle D, on the other hand, are fighting for

6 their pocketbooks.

7 After speaking with some members of the

8 industry who spoke earlier today, I also learned a

9 few things. Even classifying coal ash as

10 hazardous waste may produce some stigma around the

11 material, coal ash is still the cheapest option

12 that they will have, and I'm not convinced and

13 either were they, after I talked to them, this

14 will limit the amount they can and will be

15 recycling.

16 The EPA needs to make a stand and make a

17 difference that's most important. You need to

18 protect the members for the communities around the

19 country that have been ignored for years and

20 concluded in very aspects of their lives. The EPA

21 cannot allow the industries to get away by putting

22 profits before the public problem, and they must354

1 classify coal ash as Subtitle C. Thank you.

2 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Number?

3 MR. SCHLOEMER: 159.

4 MR. DELLINGER: Number 159.

5 MR. SCHLOEMER: Good evening. My name

6 is Bill Schloemer. I am the Director of Strategic

7 Project for Alpha Natural Resources. Alpha is the

8 third largest coal producer in the country with

9 over 60 mines and 14 preparation plants producing

10 90 million tons of coal per year with 6,400

11 employees.

12 We are strongly opposed to the

13 regulation of coal combustion residu als or CCRs

14 under Subtitle C. Although, we have some

15 reservations, we are in favor of regulation of

16 CCRs under the option of Subtitle D.

17 Our corporation and industry is

18 concerned with additional needless regulation that

19 drive up the cost of coal and puts mining

20 investments and thus jobs a t risk, especially at a

21 time when our nation needs all forms of reli able

22 and clean energy to drive the economy, create and355

1 sustain jobs well into the future.

2 Decades of study from t he EPA indicate

3 the regulation of CCRs under the option of

4 Subtitle C, and thus a hazardous waste

5 classification, is not warranted. We believe the

6 option of regulating CCRs under Subt itle D would

7 provide an adequate protection of human health and

8 the environment. Subtitle C would provide an

9 undue financial burden on the electric generation

10 industry that would be p assed on to the consumers

11 resulting in higher electric bills. Some

12 estimates indicate the additional annualized cost

13 of Subtitle C verses D to be $12 billion. These

14 types of uncertai n government regulations and

15 associated costs that add risk to mining ventures

16 and make the likelihood of the huge capital

17 investment and potential jobs to be created less

18 certain.

19 Furthermore, while it is understood that

20 the EPA recognizes the importance of beneficial

21 uses of CCR, we are very concerned that selecting

22 the option of Subtitle C could negativ ely effect356

1 and provide disincentives to the beneficial use

2 industry. Approximately 45 percent of CCRs are

3 used in the bene ficial use industry, for instance,

4 one of our large mining operations in Greene

5 County, PA provides significant volume of coal to

6 Pennsylvania Power Generator, who sends much of

7 its CC Rs to a wallboard plant that make almost a

8 million square feet of wallboard per year

9 preventing the material from being placed in

10 landfills and providing low cost building

11 materials. With a hazardous waste classification,

12 this process and thus coal contracts could be

13 jeopardized. Thousands of jobs in this industry

14 could be at stake and the onus of hazardous waste

15 classifications that Subtitle C could put on the

16 C C R.

17 Common beneficial uses expand well

18 beyond this example and include mine void filling,

19 grouting, subsidence control, mine sealing,

20 stabilization and treating acid mine drainage.

21 All of these have very positive uses that help the

22 environment. Yet, it's unfortunate these357

1 beneficial uses have been ignored during this

2 review process. It is clear these are indeed

3 beneficial uses and, in fact, allows some seams to

4 be mined in an environmentally acceptable manner

5 that otherwise could not be mined.

6 In conclusion, we hope that you consider

7 all aspects and impacts of your regulation before

8 you make a fi nal ruling on this matter. We feel

9 that the controls offered by option of Subtitle D

10 are adequate to protect human health and the

11 environment. Thank you.

12 MR. DELLINGER: Th ank you. Are there

13 any more speakers in the room? You can come

14 forward.

15 MR. KOTAN: My name is James Kotan. I'm

16 from Morgantown, West Virginia. I am the Chair of

17 the Energy Committee for the West Virginia Chapter

18 of the Sierra Club.

19 I'm here tonight because for many years

20 we've known that this stuff is hazardous waste.

21 The q uestion is why are not regulating hazardous

22 waste if it is hazardous waste? I think it is358

1 important that we do that.

2 I first become active in this issue

3 about a year ago when the Kammer Landfill was

4 approaching a non

- modification water condition

5 permit because their discharge was exceeding PH

6 le vels. They wanted to add sulfuric acid to the

7 Ohio River. In West Virginia, we have enough acid

8 mine fields that we know we don't need to add more

9 sulfuric acid to the water, but yet this is what

10 this state approves and they treat it for this

11 facility.

12 Second, the beneficial use loopholes.

13 We need to close those. You do not need to act

14 like everything i s okay and that it's doing its

15 job. We are currently in a process of reviewing a

16 mining permit near Morgantown, West Virginia. If

17 you drive down I

- 79, you'll see it there on the

18 righ t side of the road just as you across the

19 state line. They are dumping 10 thousand tons of

20 fly ash on this site. They have no records of

21 where this stuff has been going for last 20 years.

2 2 They do not have active monitoring. There are no359

1 enforceable witness on the amount of toxic that is

2 discharged. I am all for utilizin g boundaries,

3 but we don't need to add arsenic to the water or

4 lead or s ele nium and that is not a beneficial

5 use. For your information, the water flows

6 downstream and is probably in t hat pitcher in

7 front of you.

8 There's another thing being proposed

9 nearby. The legislative permit. That is to take

10 the fly ash and they call it a beneficial use to

11 put it in a landfill. It's beneficial because it

12 mixes with another hazardous material. If you

13 take two hazardous materials and you mix them

14 together, some people think it is beneficial. I

15 don't know think that's correct. I urge you to do

16 something about it that.

17 The final request that I'm going to make

18 is move quickly. These rulings were supposed to

19 be out a year ago. Every day that it is delayed

20 is another thousand truck loads of this stuff

21 being dumped on the ground with no regulation, no

22 controls. There's more fly ash being dumped int o360

1 landfills with no mind of how bad it could lead

2 to. Do not be misled by the claims that the state

3 is doing its job. In West Virginia, we know that

4 is not true, and there are a lot of examples of

5 that. We urge you to implement the Subtitle C

6 option to close the loopholes of beneficial use,

7 and please d o it quickly. We need that help now.

8 MR. DELLINGER: Anymore people in the

9 audience that want to spoke?

10 MS. BROWN: Hello, my name is Meredith

11 Brown. I'm a member of the West Virginia

12 University Sierra Student Coalition. I'm a

13 Political Science major at WVU. I'm an

14 out

- of

- state student who moved to Morgantown two

15 years ago and fell in love wi th this beautiful

16 state, and I intend staying there for the rest of

17 my life.

18 I am very concerned with the coal ash

19 disposal. There are 80 sites between Marion,

20 Preston and Monongalia counties alone in West

21 Virginia. As for coal ash, these ponds have been

22 known to contain dangerous chemicals that can361

1 contaminate the water and the air. I feel it is

2 absolutely necessary to have strict, enforceable

3 coal ash regulations that would face severe

4 penalties if these safeguards were n ot met. In

5 other words, I really want you to enforce severe

6 regulations. I encourage you to put protections

7 in every single coal ash pond across the country,

8 no matter how small the pond may see m . I would

9 hope that the EPA and the local governments would

10 take every step possible to ensure that the public

11 is protected from chemicals that can leach out of

12 the ponds

.

13 To me, coal ash is dangerous enough to

14 be considered hazardous waste. I totally

15 encourage you to consider regulating coal ash

16 under Subtitle C of RCRA. Subtitle C would b e the

17 only way to make sure that coal ash is regulated

18 and the people are protected from its harmful

19 effects. Subtitle D, on the other hand, would

20 downplay the toxicity of coal ash. It would allow

21 the ash to be classified under nonhazardous waste,

22 and it would just lead to lax regulations that362

1 wouldn't p rotect anyone.

2 It has been stated and documented that

3 coal ash contains harmful chemicals like arsenic,

4 lead and selenium. These chemicals have been

5 known to cause severe he alth risks. They kill

6 people. They can also leak into ponds and destroy

7 wildlife habitat. They definitely contaminate the

8 water and get into streams. It also gets into our

9 drinking water. Please consider the health and

10 safety of us who live near and around these

11 disposal ponds.

12 The TVA disaster in Tennessee in

13 December 2008 showed the country just how harmful

14 and dangerous this coal ash can be. The accident

15 was the direct result of lax regulations and

16 standards. Please do not let that happen again.

17 Use Subtitle C to regulate the coal ash, and make

18 sure that the people are protected from this

19 dangerous substance. Don't allow easygoing

20 regulations destroy our home and environment.

21 Thank you very much for listen ing to my comment.

22 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Anybody that363

1 wants to speak should move forward now and sit

2 behind the podium there. Number 133.

3 MR. GORMAN: My name is Joseph Gorman.

4 I live in Morgantown, West Virginia. I am the

5 Operator of the West Virginia University Sierra

6 Student Coalition.

7 I have friends who have been working on

8 coal ash issues around Morgantown for a long time.

9 One day one of them was sitting up in the

10 University library, looked at a map and just

11 looked horrified to see there was one right there.

12 He looked out the window and could see the top of

13 the dam. Later, they found out that it was

14 classified as a high haz ardous dam by the EPA,

15 which mean s that when it fails, people will die,

16 and all dams eventually fail. I had the

17 opportunity to go out and see the site, and it's a

18 bare and awful looki ng wasteland. I mean, it's

19 coal ash as far as you could see.

20 What I was surprised by is that, first

21 of all, there is a community right underneath of

22 it, right downwind of it . People go ahead and use364

1 this site for recreational purposes. People ride

2 their ATV's around on it, and kids are riding

3 bicycles there. Those all really concern me.

4 They are kicking up dust. It's not safe to

5 breathe, obviously, it is a hazardous waste. I am

6 just hoping that the EPA will find ways to better

7 regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste. I support

8 regulation under Subtitle C. Thank you.

9 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. You can move

10 forward. Number 223. I have word that there is

11 another person with number 224 in the room.

12 MR. PRICE: My name is Bill Price. I am

13 with the Sierra Club Environmental Justice

14 Program. However, I am reading testimony into the

15 record for Steven Smith who lives in Chester, West

16 Virginia. He could not be here today, but he did

17 w rit e this up. I want to read it and present you

18 a copy of it.

19 I have watched as the Little Blue Lake

20 slowly consumed hundreds of acres of wooded forest

21 that was once heavily populated with game, and

22 watched its lifeless water poison fertile streams365

1 and lakes that once teamed with aquatic life.

2 Now, Little Blue Lake continues to encroach upon

3 the residents that live near its border.

4 The residents of this area were told how

5 beautiful the lake would be years down the road

6 and that it would be a recreation are a for all to

7 use, but look at it now. T he area is nothing, but

8 a rotting cesspool of filth and pollution. One

9 cannot drive or walk around the lake's borders

10 without smelling the stench that it emits. Those

11 that live on th e Leeward side of the lake deal

12 with this stench on a daily basis.

13 I live just over four tenths of a mile

14 west of the lake's previous waterline. The

15 outline of the lake's we stern border is now filled

16 with silt from the fly ash residue that was pumped

17 into its depths. Rain water and other runoff

18 waters that land on the surface of the lake now

19 seep through the fly ash into the water table

20 below. The lake is on a plateau above most of the

21 neighboring community and any water that runs off

22 from the lake travels downhill to the residents366

1 below. The water flows through resident's yards

2 and gardens exposing inhabitants to even more of

3 this toxic soup.

4 My own water supply lies about 150 to

5 200 feet below the bed of the lake. We have all

6 heard that cliche of what rolls downhill. Water

7 rolls downhill too. That water leaches into my

8 water table and it is this water that I bathe in

9 daily. I quit drinking the water over 10 years

10 ago due to my own concerns, and although, I know

11 of several instances where First Energy has

12 compensated some for damage to their wells, I have

13 heard nothing from First Energy concerning that.

14 The water has damage appliances in the home, and

15 quite possibly me, as I had cancer at the age of

16 45, when I did not drink or smoke. I have always

17 been assured that my drinking water that was

18 tested was safe, but now I hear that First Energy

19 has to remove the silt/fill form the lake and

20 install a liner. Why should they have to install

21 a liner if everything is safe? First Energy has

22 been feeding us a pile of lies from the get go.367

1 Congress or the proper institution, in this care

2 the EPA, needs to make First Energy accountable

3 for what they have exposed this community to and

4 make full restitution to all.

5 This is a letter in support and I

6 support of coal ash regulation Subtitle C. Thank

7 you.

8 MR. DELLINGER: 224.

9 MR. SMITH: Hi. My name is Robert

10 Smith. I'm a resident of Mount Lebanon,

11 Pennsylvania. I do not have any firsthand

12 experience of contamination to my water supply

13 since I live fairl y close to the City of

14 Pittsburgh. However, I read about issues with

15 coal ash and noted the disaster of the impoundment

16 breaking in Tennessee. This was a year ago.

17 My conce rn is that coal ash appears to

18 be more dangerous than most of the stuff going

19 into the landfills like garbage and trash. At the

20 same time, I also hear that coal ash is regulated

21 no mo re than the garbage going into our landfills,

22 even though it is much more dangerous.368

1 I just request that the EPA and if we

2 can get Congress enact any laws to protect us from

3 dangers of coal ash. Thank you.

4 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Are there

5 anymore people with a number who want to speak?

6 MR. GAGIN: 142. Good evening, my name

7 is Christopher Gagin. I am Director and Staff to

8 Councilman Charles Wilson of Ohio's Sixth

9 District. I have letters here from

-- actually

10 they were signed by 122 members of Congress to the

11 Administrator Jackson, as well as the letter that

12 was sent to President Barack Obama. The

13 President's letter March 25, 2010 and the letter

14 to Administrator Jackson was dated July 29, 2010.

15 I know the panel has been here since early this

16 morning, so in courteous since there is already a

17 statement on record, I would just l ike to simply

18 admit those into the record for further review.

19 Thank you.

20 MR. DELLINGER: Number 225. Maybe they

21 haven't reached the room yet.

22 MR. NICHOLS: I believe he went to369

1 restroom. I am traveling with him. I could go

2 ahead.

3 MR. DELLINGER: That's fin e.

4 MR. NICHOLS: I can do that.

5 MR. DELLINGER: Sure.

6 MR. NICHOLS: 154. Thank you very much

7 and we appreciate this opportunity to come up

8 here. I am from Morgantown, West Virginia. My

9 name is Duane Nichols. I am appearing here today

10 on behalf of the Fort Martin Community

11 Association, where we are have two coal

- fired

12 power plants.

13 Fort Martin Power Plant has been in

14 existence for over 20 years. It has been

15 generating approximately 1200 megawatts. A brand

16 new power plant costing $2 mi llion, is the largest

17 project in the state history of West Virginia, is

18 under construction and will be completed to

19 operate next year. The waste from these two power

20 plants is to be p laced on the same land. It's

21 going to be stacked until it can't be stacked

22 anymore. The streams that drain this pond are370

1 already running at PH's around three and half, so

2 the acidity there is incredible.

3 We have surface mines nearby there that

4 also are adding to the acidity. The PBS (TDS?) , that's

5 coming from all of these operations is combined is

6 feeding into the Monongahela River in such a

7 matter that for the last three years, the exceeded

8 the drinking water standard of 500 parts per

9 million. Can you believe that Pittsburgh is being

10 supplied with water from West Virginia that is

11 already five or six times a year exceeding 500

12 parts per million? Again, it's being propos ed to

13 continue to add additional waste that are

14 contributing to the PBS. As you may know, we have

15 all of these other components to think about too,

16 but PBS is already above the drinki ng water

17 standard. It is hazardous in a crisis low. I'm

18 from West Virginia, but the problem is with you

19 folks in Pennsylvania with that respect. These

20 power plants need cooling wate r. If you put PBS

21 into the cooling towers, it crystalizes in there

22 and causes problems that will be affecting them.371

1 Finally, let me tell you that the Coke

2 Works

-- the Clairton Coke Works that's being

3 historically providing coke to the Pittsburgh

4 Steel Industry has to use quench water for their

5 coke and that is coming from the Mon River and

6 they can't use this PBS water, so there is a

7 crisis there. It's not just the drinking water.

8 It's industrial water that's being affected, so

9 plea for understanding that continuing to increase

10 the PBS in the Mon River is a problem for everyone

11 in this crisis. Thank you very much.

12 MR. DELLINGER: Any others in the room

13 that have numbers and want to speak? Everybody

14 who does can move forward. We have six chairs

15 over here. You can figure who has the lowest

16 number and that person can step forward. Number

17 141.

18 MS. Donne: Hi, my name is Cathleen

19 Donne. I am a concerned citizen and also a member

20 of Ashes for Change today. I live in Oakdale,

21 Pennsylvania, which is close to the Pittsburgh

22 airport.372

1 Prior to 2006, I was an uninformed user

2 of electricity. Yes, I knew that co al was king in

3 Pennsylvania, and I also knew that coal emissions

4 were toxic and life threatening, but I also

5 naively believed that the PA Department of

6 Environmental Protection was doi ng its job,

7 protecting the environment and the citizens who

8 live in this state. It wasn't until 2006 that I

9 became fully aware of the toxicity and danger of

10 coal's devil offspring, co al combustion waste. It

11 was at that time that I heard about, and

12 subsequently became involved in, a battle to stop

13 the construction of a waste coal

- fired plant on

14 the site of one of t he largest gob piles east of

15 the Mississippi, which happens to be only four

16 miles from my front door and three miles from my

17 daughter's schoolyard. I thought the scariest

18 part of the plant would be the stack emissions,

19 but I was wrong.

20 As the summer wore on and the hearings

21 dragged on into the nights, after listening to

22 expert testimony by respected scien tists and373

1 researchers, it became apparent to me that the

2 sole intended use and purpose of that plant was

3 not to burn the go b for electricity, but to simply

4 use that site to become the largest coal ash dump

5 east of the Mississippi. The more I hea r d, the

6 more frightened I became. Unregulated, toxic,

7 hazard ous, waste

- coal ash dumped in unlined pits,

8 poured into abandoned mines, piled up and sculpted

9 so that it may, over time, according to the

10 developer, become cementitious. Inadequate and

11 insufficient monitoring of toxic leachates,

12 contamination of groundwater and streams, no

13 contingency plans for material stabilization,

14 dozens of trucks a day truck ash in from other

15 coal plants, adding to the millions upon millions

16 of tons that are already there. That was the

17 nightmare that kept me awake at night.

18 Sure, I thought, the PA DEP would step

19 in and require more regulations, require more

20 monitoring, establish safety precautions to

21 prevent the destruction of property and natural

22 resources, and require that this developer operate374

1 at the safest levels possible in the interest of

2 our children's health and well

- being. Surely, I

3 must have been delusional.

4 The more research that was conducted on

5 the PA DEP's own shoddy records and half

- hearted

6 permitting processes, the more obvious it became

7 that the state agency charged with environment

8 protection had a different mission altogether,

9 promote and enable the coal industry. The

10 residents of this state cannot rely on the PA DEP

11 to do its job, because its job is not

12 environmental protection, and we certainly cannot

13 rely on industry to police and regulate itself,

14 not when there are mine operators, like the

15 developer of Beech Hollow, who have for decades

16 and decades been hit with hundreds of mining

17 violations, fines and cease and desists orders,

18 but are still allowed to continue their operations

19 without regard to public safety and wit hout any

20 real oversight from the state. Thank you.

21 MR. FRANCISCO: Hi, my name is Randy

22 Fransciso. I work for the Sierra Club from375

1 Pennsylvania. Today I willing reading a testimony

2 from a concerned citizen in Chester, West

3 Virginia. I work with communities throughout the

4 State of Pennsylvania many of whom you heard from

5 today. I am really proud to be reading this to

6 you. I'll just read it as it's written.

7 My name is Betty Smith. I live about

8 four tenths of a m ile from First Energy's western

9 property line. Although, I cannot be at this

10 meeting, I still wish to voice my concerns.

11 Many people lost their homes and

12 properties of many years to First Energy. First

13 Energy said how nice it would be when their

14 project was finished. There was going to be a

15 lake that was going to be used for recreation. It

16 was supposed to be something to add to the beauty

17 of the Lawrenceville area. We were lied to. What

18 we got instead of a recreational lake was a swamp

19 looking area with a foul smell coming from it.

20 Now the lake had dried up. Where did the water

21 go? It has seeped into our springs and wells

22 ruining the drinking water. It has made swampy3 76

1 places in many yards, which has resulted in

2 shifting soil that has caused property damage.

3 First Energy had straw brought in from

4 the south to mulch the lake's surface. T he straw

5 contained bugs that caused the deer to get sick

6 and die. Mosquitoes and gnats have been so bad in

7 the area that it makes it impossible to sit on

8 your porch in the evenings. Now the lake is a

9 dried up eyesore. I refer to the area as it

10 because I don't know what to call this place. It

11 is just there and it still smells.

12 Our property values are do wn, and who

13 knows if it is causing illnesses as there are a

14 lot of people in this area with cancer. We still

15 have to breath this air, and the water evaporates

16 and comes back in rain o n our gardens. Ask

17 yourself, is this safe? Would you like to drink

18 our water, and would you want your children to be

19 around this? What about our future generations?

20 Are they going t o suffer from what is in the

21 ground now? We would like First Energy to stand

22 up and be honest and give us the real truth. That377

1 is from Betty Smith, 307 Sayre Lane, Chester, West

2 Virginia. Thank you very much.

3 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you.

4 MS. JAEGER: Hello and thank you. My

5 name is Be tsy Jaeger. I am a homeowner. There

6 are two soon to be three coal

- fired coal stations

7 in Morgantown, West Virginia, where I live. They

8 generate a lot of fly ash and need a place to dump

9 it. There are a lot of strip mines north and west

10 of Morgantown. They generate a lot of acid run

11 off and need a way to utilize it, so the power

12 plants and strip mining companies formed an unholy

13 alliance, which they call a win

- win situation.

14 For those of us who live north and west of

15 Morgantown and for all future generations who will

16 l i ve there, it is a loss

- loss situation. S trip

17 mines are full of corn (coal?) toxic waste. Fly ash

18 neutralizes the acid, but also adds lead, arsenic

19 and selenium to the air and water.

20 For 20 years, I have seen the h appily

21 named salvage trucks carrying the fly ash from the

22 downtown power plant uncovered with fly ash378

1 blowing over everythi ng in their way to the

2 patriot strip mines along Route 7. Every day a

3 steady stream of these trucks beats up and down

4 the road. Everything between the power plant and

5 the strip mine is covered with fly ash. After a

6 heavy rain, it washes down into the creeks and

7 into the Monongahela and eventually here to

8 Pittsburgh.

9 So many tests have been done on the

10 effects of lead on children's brains. How can fly

11 ash not be considered toxic waste? As long there

12 are strip mines to dump the fly ash, it can always

13 use the beneficial use loophole t o avoid being

14 classified as a toxic waste, so we must watch as

15 the strip mining creeps closer to our fence line.

16 In a few years, we may be strip mining refugees

17 too.

18 Strip mining trumps all of the rights of

19 homeowners in our area. I would need a lot more

20 than three minutes to describe the destructive

21 effects of constant blasting, all night noise,

22 tearing up roads, excessive dust, and worst of379

1 all, the permanent loss of our landscape. If we

2 complain about the construction, we are accused of

3 trying to take jobs away from strip miners.

4 Apparently, an entire community has to suffer, so

5 a handful strip miners can have jobs. I expect

6 the stripping companies ca n operate with robots

7 and do away with jobs in an instant.

8 We are told that we all use electricity,

9 and where do we think it comes from anyway? Every

10 month our electric bill is never more than $20.

11 We know where our electricity comes from, and we

12 are very carful not to waste it. We know the real

13 cost of coal energy. The fly ash soot mine

14 relationship is destroying our communities and

15 forcing people, who don't live under the coal

16 scene, own the coal that is under them, and don't

17 want to sell out to live in substance polluted

18 environme nts or to move away. The fly ash trucks

19 run along Route 7. I only hope the EPA will

20 protect us from the most toxic effects by at least

21 controlling fly ash. Thank you.

22 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Can you tell380

1 me what number you are?

2 MS. JAEGER: 156.

3 MR. DELLINGER: Thank yo u.

4 MR. KANFER: Good evening. My name is

5 Nahaliel Kanfer. I work for the Sierra Club in

6 Columbus, Ohio. Thank you for the opportunity to

7 testify. I appreciate it. I'm go ing to read

8 testimony from someone that couldn't make it

9 tonight his name is John Wright with a W.

10 As a former Supervisor of Greene

11 Township, Beaver County, Pennsylvania, I h ave

12 first

- hand experience with the Little Blue Run Fly

13 Ash Impoundment located in our township. This

14 huge facility, currently owned and operated by

15 First Energy, was built for Penn Po wer, their

16 predecessor. The original proposal says that the

17 facility, quote, will be kept in such a manner

18 that it can be closed on any given day and

19 returned to its original state, e nd quote. It is

20 now an ugly blight on our community with decaying

21 trees being flooded by the liquid slurry, which

22 gives off noxious odors. This is definitely not a381

1 good neighbor within a beautiful pristine

2 agricultural area.

3 When I became a Supervisor, the facility

4 had already been constructed. However, it was

5 under the oversight of the Pennsylvania's

6 Department of Environmental Protection. We, the

7 elected officials, were responsible for the well

8 being of our residents, we re continually the last

9 ones to k now when the utility had violated the PA

10 State Code that governed the placement of fly ash.

11 It became evident to me that our environmental

12 watchdogs we re systematically allowing the utility

13 to ignore the regulations, and all the promises

14 made about the operation of this huge unlined

15 facility. We would only be notified about

16 violatio ns when they reached the point of levying

17 fines against the utility. These fines, of

18 course, are paid to the Commonwealth of

19 Pennsylvania, and not to the community that is

20 continually violated.

21 State regulation of fly ash is a no

- win

22 situation for the citizens who are forced to live382

1 near disposa l facilities. The state is not

2 willing to bend their own rules can be threatened

3 with the loss of that utility's job

- generating

4 power stations to other states with looser

5 regulation o f fly ash disposal. This leads to

6 state legislators putting pressure on their

7 environmental agency to give them a break. State

8 regulation can ultimately create competition

9 between ne ighboring states, whose legislators are

10 willing to accept health risks for their citizens

11 in exchange for economic development.

12 I happen to live within a mile of the

13 perimete r of the Little Blue Run Fly Ash Disposal

14 Impoundment. Many of my neighbors have pass ed away

15 from unexplained unusual cancers and lung or

16 neurological diseases. Our homes are along a

17 valley that comes off the Ohio River. This Ohio

18 River valley is a conduit for pollution created by

19 fugitive fly ash dust created at the Sammis Coal

20 Fired Power Station in Toronto, Ohio, a few miles

21 south of our community. Pennsylvania has never

22 researched the air quality to tell us what we are383

1 breathing that is generated in, and regulated by

2 another state. I personally do not feel that

3 either state has my family's health as a primary

4 concern.

5 I pray that our federal government

6 finally steps up and takes over the regulation of

7 this dangerous practice of the disposal of coal

8 combustion byproducts by passing Subtitle C.

9 Subtitle C is the only thing that will create a

10 level playing field for the citizens of

11 neighboring states, whose officials are now able

12 to choose economic advantages over the public

13 health risk. Please remove this temptation to

14 allow defenseless citizen' health to be sacrificed

15 for the benefit of the politicians and the

16 shareholders. Thank you.

17 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you.

18 MR. JAM ISON: Good evening, EPA. My

19 name is Jarrett Jamison. I live on the farmland

20 community in Fort Martin, West Virginia, 26541.

21 Currently, there are five coal combustion waste

22 sites and once in the making.384

1 I would like to see the EPA to require

2 liners to CCW sites with continuous monitors on

3 wells at different elevations within the wells and

4 only the EPA would have access to these sites, not

5 the incompetent West Virginia DEP. This

6 department will give out permits to pollute more

7 than what's already polluted. All four streams in

8 Fort Martin and Maidsville, West Virginia areas

9 are polluted by coal combustion waste and among

10 other dumping.

11 I am requ esting the EPA enforcement team

12 and the Department of Justice to come to Fort

13 Martin, West Virginia community to see clean coal

14 technology and beneficial use of coal ash in the

15 works. You will see coal slop on the highways,

16 dust clouds of coal dust, fly ash blowing in the

17 wind and being regurgitating by 50 coal ash trucks

18 per hour on the highway. This is uncalled for. I

19 have called and wrote numerous letters to the West

20 Virginia DEP with no response or actions. I

21 believe the EPA needs to relieve this region of

22 states of their so

- called authority over coal385

1 combustion waste sites because all I see in West

2 Virginia is incompetence and polluted waterways

3 and if you come to Fort Martin , West Virginia, you

4 will see it too.

5 The time is ripe for a federal crackdown

6 in West Virginia over these coal combustion sites

7 with their chemicals, fuel gas desulfurizatio n,

8 pyrite waste, gypsum waste among other things.

9 Thank you for your time, and also I have six

10 pictures of the Fort Martin fly ash dump.

11 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Will you be

12 putting those into the record? Is there anybody

13 else in the room that has a number and wants to

14 speak?

15 SPEAKER: There is a gentleman that is

16 just comin g in now.

17 MR. DELLINGER: We'll give him time.

18 SPEAKER: Okay.

19 MR. DELLINGER: You can take your time.

20 You don't have to be in a hurry.

21 MR. SHEPARD: My name is Christopher

22 Shepard. I am a concerned citizen. My number is386

1 227. I would like to read testimony from Ro bert

2 Gadinski of Ashland, Pennsylvania.

3 The Pennsylvania Coal Combustion Waste

4 Program is a program of expedience rather than

5 real science as demonstrated by the following

6 examples:

7 One, The Bark Camp Demonstration

8 Project. This project has been touted as an

9 example the wastes can be effectively used in mine

10 reclamation. The r esults of this project have

11 been effectively challenged by R.A. Gadinski,

12 M.Ed, P.G. Despite these concerns detailed in the

13 expert reports, they were totally ignored by both

14 the PA DEP and the federal OSM. It should be

15 noted that the report may have been changed on the

16 DEP website to mitigate the concerns contained in

17 said reports. Furthermore, the Bark Camp Report

18 was written by an individual not licensed in PA as

19 either a geologist or engineer as required by PA

20 DEP/PA statue.

21 Two, Cause verse PA DEP and HCP

22 Decision. In this decisi on, the PA Environmental387

1 Hearing Board remanded back to the DEP an approved

2 groundwater, monitoring plan by the DEP for the

3 HCP site in Hazelton, PA. In this case, the DEP

4 approved groundwater, monitoring plan consisting

5 of dry wells. How protective of the public and

6 the environment is a groundwater monitoring plan

7 approved by a regulatory agency that consists of

8 dry wells rather than functional wells. See

9 attached that will be entered into the record.

10 This is a perfect example of an abuse of

11 discretion and a failed regulatory program

12 resulting from the lack of national regulations.

13 Westwood Decision 177 IBLA 373. In this

14 decision rendered in June of 2009, the IBLA Board

15 determined that the DEP/OSM decision and

16 conclusions were not supported by available data.

17 Therefore, this case was also remanded back to the

18 DEP and OSM, but despite more than a year

19 transpiring since the decision, nothing has been

20 done to resolve the monitoring difficulties and

21 questions as brought forth by the plaintiff.

22 Locust Summit Appeal. The issu ance of388

1 this permit was challenged on the grounds that the

2 DEP violated and ignored its own policies and

3 regulations in the issuance of this permit,

4 despite the fact that the plaintiff had standing

5 and was a commenter on the application package.

6 In each of the above matter, the DEP

7 violated its o wn policies and regulations to

8 attain a mutually desired outcome with the coal

9 industry and that is the unimpeded disposal of CCW

10 in Pennsylvania. This collusion is most apparent

11 in t he IBLA 373 decision in which the federal OSM

12 and DEP contrived conclusion and rendered a very

13 questionable decision to the plaintiff that was

14 successfully challenged by the plaintiff. It is

15 now time to implement national regulations that

16 are meaningful and capable of protecting the

17 public health and the environment, not smoke and

18 mirrors that now exists. This was Robert A.

19 Gadinski, 105 Main Street, Ashland, Pennsylvania.

20 Thank you.

21 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Is there

22 anybody else in the room that has a number and389

1 wants to speak? I've got 7:38 right now. Let's

2 sit for about five minutes and if anybody comes

3 in, if not we'll declare another recess.

4 (Recess)

5 MR. DELLINGER: The five minutes is up.

6 Maybe a little bit more. We had another speaker

7 that came into the room. Number 157.

8 MS. KIRKPATRICK: Thank you. My name is

9 Claudia Kirkpatrick. I am the Chair of the

10 Allegheny Group Sierra Club. I live at 3763

11 Orpwood Street in Pittsburgh, 15213.

12 All today you've been h earing corporate

13 speakers are whining that fixing the serious

14 problems caused by inadequate coal combustion

15 waste disposal would decimate their industries.

16 We've heard that before, but we were successful in

17 getting lead out of our automobiles, gasoline out

18 of our paint and asbestos out of our insulation.

19 People are still driving cars, painting their

20 houses and insul ting their attics

- all much more

21 safely than before.

22 The people of the United States matter.390

1 We vote, we pay tax es and we pay our electric

2 bills. The people who live near Bruce Mansfield

3 and Hatfield's Ferry here in Western Pennsylvania

4 and near the other dangerously

- polluting disposal

5 sites na tionally have a right to clean water.

6 Expert speakers throughout the day have

7 meticulously documented the problems that toxic

8 coal ash can cause. At least 1.5 million children

9 live near a toxic coal ash site. We all have an

10 obligation to treat our country as a precious

11 resource for our children, our grandchildren and

12 our great grandchildren. We have no right to

13 destroy its resources for our own short

- term gain.

14 We in the Sierra Club, therefore, call

15 on the EPA to adopt the strongest safeguards, and

16 to make sure that these safeguards are rigo rously

17 enforced. Not to do so would violate every

18 obligation we have as citizens of the United

19 States and as human beings. Thank you.

20 MR. DELLINGER: Anybody else in the ro om

21 with a number and a desire to speak? It's 7:48.

22 We'll start up at 8:05 and see if anyone has come391

1 in. We'll reconvene at 8:05.

2 (Recess)

3 MR. DELLINGER: I'm calling the hearing

4 back in session. It's 8:05.

5 Any other speakers?

6 (No respo nse.)

7 MR. DELLINGER: We'll take a 20 minute

8 break and reconvene at 8:30.

9 (Recess)

10 MR. DELLINGER: This hearing is back in

11 session. Do we have any speakers with numbers

12 that want to speak right now.

13 MS. VANECK: Yes.

14 MR. DELLINGER: Number 228.

15 MS. VANECK: Do I use the microphone.

16 MR. DELLINGER: Yes. If you would state

17 your name and affiliation that would be great.

18 MS. VANECK: Sure. Do I need to use the

19 microphone.

20 MR. DELLINGER: Yes.

21 MS. VANECK: My name is Kara Vaneck. I

22 am a citizen. The reason I'm here is because I392

1 work for a company that we make refractory bricks,

2 Ceramic Engineer. I've been assigned to work on a

3 project for coal gass ifica tion. In my work, I've

4 been doing research to see how coal power is

5 growing basically, and it seems like we are going

6 to have a lot more coal gass ifica tion plants. My

7 concern is as I'm working on making bricks for

8 this gas fires, all I can think about is a m I

9 doing something detrimental to the environment? I

10 think that with all of these new coal technologies

11 being put into places, and having heard the lab

12 for energy and technology in M organtown, and I

13 think the affiliate is somewhere to Morgan, having

14 received plans to build more of these power

15 plants.

16 A lot of my friends are concerned

17 en gineering research related to coal products. It

18 just seems it's growing. These are the things we

19 are going to be have to deal with although coal

20 classification will result in less waste and it's

21 just going to grow. If we don't implement

22 legislation now, it is going to put safeguards and393

1 classifying fly ash and other type s of heavy

2 metals as hazardous waste if we don't get control

3 over it and have no way of knowing how much is

4 getting out there.

5 Just on a personal note, I have concerns

6 about working on a project that is detrimental to

7 the environment. I hope that you guys will pass

8 the legislation to at least put safeguards on the

9 disposal of these wastes. Thank you.

10 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you.

11 MR. SOUDERS: I'd like to go on the

12 record of closing today's hearing. Thank you very

13 much.

14 (Whereupon, at 8:45 p.m., the

15 PROCEEDINGS were adjourned.)

16

17 * * * * *

18

19

20

21

22394

1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC

2 I, Carleton J. Anderson, III do hereby

3 certify that the witness whose testimony appears

4 in the fore going hearing was duly sworn by me;

5 that the testimony of said witness was taken by me

6 and thereafter reduced to print under my

7 direction; that said deposition is a true record

8 of the testimony given by said witness; that I am

9 neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by

10 any of the parties to the action in which these

11 proceedings were taken; and, furthermore, that I

12 am neither a relative or employee of any attorney

13 or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor

14 financially or otherwise interested in the outcome

15 of this action.

16 /s/Carleton J. Anderson, III

17

18

19 Notary Public in and for the

20 Commonwealth of Virginia

21 Commission No. 351998

22 Expires: November 30, 2012