UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 OFFICE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

 PUBLIC HEARING ON EPA'S PROPOSED RULE ON

 Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System;

Identification and Listing of Special Wastes;

 Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from

 Electric Utilities

 DOCKET ID NO. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640

 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

 Tuesday, September 21, 2010
 2

 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 Division in EPA's Office of Resource

 22 Conservation and Recovery. I'll be chairing this
 4

 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 residuals, 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

 14 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 fill
 5

 1 operations.

 2 EPA estimates that there are

 3 approximately 300 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 they 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 water

 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 available
 6

 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 how to

 21 address the human health concerns and structural

 22 integrity issues associated with the disposal of
 7

 1 coal combustion residuals 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 form. 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 that
 8

 1 coal combustion 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 slot 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 your
 9

 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 card, 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 your 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 record.

 21 We will not be answering questions on

 22 the proposal; however, from time to time any of us
 10

 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 reporters. 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 comments 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 allowable 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 if 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 collected 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 ask 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 activists.

 11 I've heard them call for groundwater

 12 monitoring of ash disposal sites -- and we agree.

 13 For groundwater protection standards -- we agree;

 14 that corrective measures be taken to address

 15 environmental impacts -- we agree.

 16 For liners for disposal units -- in

 17 fact, the overwhelming 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 environment -- and we

 22 agree.
 13

 1 In fact, all of these protections can be

 2 obtained through the implementation of Subtitle 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 on 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 will 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 regulations 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 environment,

 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 the
 14

 1 integrity standards, to help prevent future coal

 2 ash releases like that which occurred at TVA. And

 3 we believe 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 municipal 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 Pennsylvania. 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 this
 15

 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 about 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 existed at Little Blue for

 22 over a decade; however, the DEP has not issued any
 16

 1 fines, corrective actions, or remediation

 2 directives. 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 pollutant 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 folks
 17

 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 problems 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 prove 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 protect 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 as 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 them.

 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 cases and the prospect 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 likely

 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? Why
 19

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

 2 Because it is hazardous to human and environmental

 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 seeing 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 filling, 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 coal 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 which is now being appealed in eastern PA's
 20

 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 downgradient.

 6 If this waste was designated a C waste,

 7 this irresponsible handling 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 there
 21

 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 did

 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 right 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 be
 22

 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 frightened 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 include 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 for
 23

 1 most citizens, and so hopefully this the worst of

 2 the worst.

 3 So I'm in very 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 adequate 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 waste. 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 sites 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 to 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. The
 25

 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 would 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 coal ash spill in December of 2008.

 22 The U.S. EPA has known for quite
 26

 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 antimony, 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 4
 27

 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, federal 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 its 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 a
 29

 1 Subtitle C approach. Both Pennsylvania and

 2 Montana do not have any commercial Subtitle 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 programs 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 retains 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 William

 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 faith

 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 Pennsylvania 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 until 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 Judaism, 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 God'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 its
 32

 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 Alliance 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. These contaminants are threatening the

 22 human food supply and are arguably the single
 33

 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 decide 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 and 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 toxic
 34

 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 for 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 ash
 35

 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 are 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. Household 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 that
 36

 1 are administered by the states. This success

 2 story 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 both 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 approach, 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 recycled,
 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 building materials and

 4 construction and agricultural applications offers

 5 many benefits -- including reduced landfill

 6 construction, conservation of natural resources,

 7 and reductions in energy use and greenhouse gas

 8 emissions.

 9 People will not want to keep using coal

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

 11 when destined for a landfill. The coal ash that

 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, producers 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 whether 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 conservation 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 otherwise 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 beneficially using millions of tons of coal

 21 combustion residuals, CCRs, annually in an

 22 environmentally responsible manner. Thank you for
 39

 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 agrees 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 EPA 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 pivotal 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 compete 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 hazardous 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 compete 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 in
 41

 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 for
 42

 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 fundamentally 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 solid waste landfill would

 22 leach certain toxic metals into ground water. The
 43

 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 demonstrated

 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. This 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 Ad
 45

 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 exposure 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 flagrantly 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 the 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 the
 46

 1 March ad, Harsco again 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 web 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 disregard 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 Separation 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 of 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 incidence 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 not
 49

 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 son 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 landfill 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 that 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 their

 21 products if they have fly ash in it.

 22 The impact will be real, the orchard cut
 50

 1 down. What does it look like when 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 level 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 disproportionately 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 electricity, 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 sustainability

 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 use or not. In

 22 conclusion, I ask, let us not pave this orchard of
 51

 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 Coal 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 these 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 concrete

 20 produces more sustainable, more durable

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

 22 practice to the extent that both our national
 52

 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 reductions 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 identifies it as key to reducing global

 22 emissions. The European Commission clarifies
 53

 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 international 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 end 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 landfills 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 its
 54

 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 Coal,

 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 Abandoned 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 CCRs 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 intention to defer mine placement regulation to

 14 the non-minefill uses at SMCRA regulated surface

 15 facilities are not defined. The definition of CCR

 16 landfill appears to only exclude underground mine

 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 fold
 56

 1 SMCRA regulated surface mine placement into 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 text that the

 6 placement of CCRs 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 of 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 SMCRA 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 final rule
 57

 1 should not put these uses in jeopardy by failing

 2 to appropriately exclude them from the disposal

 3 regulations for surface 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 environmental 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 beneficial 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 tell 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 location 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 contamination

 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 and

 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 people
 60

 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 of
 61

 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 arsenic

 14 content, we discontinued cleaning it up ourselves

 15 and asked 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 cleanup of our

 22 properties. This cleanup left residual fly ash
 62

 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 Act 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 morning. My name's
 63

 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. Subtitle

 16 C would mitigate beneficial use and recycling. 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, and
 64

 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 clothes, 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 at
 65

 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 fly 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 along 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 happen, 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 for
 67

 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 fearing 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 disposal
 68

 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 disposal

 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 your 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 healthy environment should be

 22 determined by our federal government, and should
 69

 1 be equal across our nation, from sea to shining

 2 sea. 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 environmental 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 to
 70

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

 2 a coal-fired power plant operated by the Northern

 3 Indiana Public Service Company. 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 Springfield 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 national 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 wells 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, there
 71

 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 D
 72

 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 more 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 strong 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 me

 22 the opportunity to speak to you this morning about
 73

 1 this issue that is important to Pennsylvanians.

 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 and 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 65
 74

 1 percent is used for a myriad of beneficial

 2 applications. This beneficial reuse includes 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 few 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 Gypsum 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 consideration
 75

 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 RCRA. 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 the
 76

 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 heard 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. This in turn would require more of

 20 Pennsylvania's land being converted into hazardous

 21 waste landfills. I have conveyed to EPA's

 22 administrator, the Honorable Lisa Jackson, my
 77

 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 accrue 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 thank you

 20 for the opportunity to provide comments on this

 21 proposed rulemaking.

 22 My name is Jamin Bogi. I work for the
 79

 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 Subtitle 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 lead 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, arrhythmias,

 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 selenium 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 wiped 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 chemical 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 could 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

 18 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 disposal. 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 advice. 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 live
 82

 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 Myself, 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 decided 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, we

 20 became 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 the
 83

 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 our 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 frightened 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 future.

 21 Regardless of my township's zoning

 22 regulations, First Energy continues to purchase
 84

 1 more properties in and around 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 100 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 financially 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 about 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 then,

 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 one 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 and

 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 table 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 spend

 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 their
 87

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

 2 They have grown, married and have given

 3 us four wonderful 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't
 88

 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, loss of interest in things you

 8 use 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 Alcoa operations
 89

 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 believes that the use of

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

 6 than warranted. The use of modified TCLP to model

 7 and justify the destination of CCR's are

 8 hazardous, we believe 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 water becomes alkaline not acidic.

 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 the 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 detection of any chemicals of concern in the

 21 groundwater.

 22 Alcoa believes that the EPA has
 90

 1 exhaustedly researched the toxicity 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 designation. 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 here 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 regulation 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 Three, Alcoa, agrees with the agency,

 22 that mine filling activity should be regulated
 91

 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 sit 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 exempt 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 inspections 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. My
 92

 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 water

 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 faucets, 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 everything 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 of 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 questions regarding the domestic use 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 not 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 that he bought
 94

 1 to start his life of independence in.

 2 We believe that First Energy unlined wet

 3 fly ash dump has leaked 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 and 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 Environmental
 95

 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 Germany 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

 12 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 forces

 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 chemical 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 source 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 hazardous

 21 characteristics. Pursuant to the provisions of

 22 NEPA, only when regulatory decisions minimize
 97

 1 environmental impacts 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 unintended 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 not 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 it 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 of
 98

 1 proof known as federal permiting.

 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 classification 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 Commission 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 explicitly 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 predecessor

 22 companies has been involved in the utilization of
 99

 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 utilization 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 sustainable benefits to our

 11 environment. For these reasons and others I will

 12 touch on, I oppose classifying ash as a hazardous

 13 material under any circumstances.

 14 Our company and our competitors, 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 successful 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. However, if coal ash is designated as a
 100

 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 individuals 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 use 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 fear 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 recycling programs ever developed
 101

 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 today. 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 anything 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 forward? 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 represent the voice of

 21 over 10,000 citizens who are directly or

 22 indirectly employed by our industry who live and
 102

 1 work where CFB 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 resultant 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 standards 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 standards are SMCRA, joint OSM-EPA, or

 22 RCRA-D rules. Beneficial use of ash should be
 103

 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 characterization,

 6 management and engineering design of placement

 7 activities, design and implementation of

 8 monitoring.

 9 Since 1985, Pennsylvania DEP has

 10 provided oversight 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 flawed, 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 implications 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 exceeding revenue by $40 to $50 per megawatt
 104

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

 2 accordingly it would cease to exist. Thousands of

 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

 11 increase beneficial reuse. Nothing could be

 12 further from the truth. Industry, governors and

 13 environmental departments from a majority of

 14 affected states 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 regulation 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 Inc. 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

 12 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 EPA 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 Society 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 information 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. We
 107

 1 further believe 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 storage 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 most successful recycling programs in US

 10 history.

 11 Boral Composites is only a small,

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

 13 green-tech, advanced manufacturing opportunities

 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 East 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 another 20 in sales and support

 22 throughout the country. We are also on the
 108

 1 forefront of building product sustainability, with

 2 our 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 Subtitle 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 number 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 the
 109

 1 Eastern United State and is utilized by the

 2 concrete industry. Because of ST's proprietary

 3 technology, 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 tons 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 their 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 stigma 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, to
 110

 1 reduce cost and to improve overall performance.

 2 Also, fly ash is a vital construction material.

 3 It will not only increase construction costs, 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 that 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 concrete piers and segments that created the

 22 Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel. They have stated to
 111

 1 me, beyond a doubt, if fly ash is labeled under

 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 with 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 spoken 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 it goes into a landfill. Those are

 22 facts not opinions.
 112

 1 The Congressional Research Service has a

 2 report title "Regulating 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 address 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 Waste 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 which is an Ash Management company that is focused
 113

 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 underpinned 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 million 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 combustion 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 investments 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 citizen 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 develop.

 21 I suggest that as long as we are burning

 22 coal, the right thing to do is encourage the
 115

 1 continuation and expansion 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 agencies 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 landfilling 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. citizen 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 the proposed Environmental

 22 Protection Agency proposal for regulating coal
 116

 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 fired generation stations or have

 7 jobs directly tied to the generating stations, and

 8 to classify coal ash as a hazard material could

 9 put many of those jobs at risk. The increased cost

 10 that 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 recycled 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 materials, by using fly ash, greenhouse
 117

 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 would 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 proposal and regulate it under Subtitle D.

 7 Thank you.

 8 MR. DELLINGER: Thank 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 mining, transporting and burning are

 21 included in the price. This study did not take

 22 into account environmental costs that are not
 119

 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 at 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 surrounding
 120

 1 these areas is of the utmost importance.

 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 out 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 approximately 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 each 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 stopped.

 22 In 2003, she was diagnosed with breast
 121

 1 cancer, had bilateral mastectomy, followed by a

 2 hysterectomy and several 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 concerned 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 those 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 address

 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 midwest 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 the 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 both
 123

 1 becoming insufficient 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 efficiency.

 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 inflecting

 21 water damage to our neighbors downstream. Our

 22 Gypsum farmer customers are enjoying more
 124

 1 efficiency from their land laboring inputs. Our

 2 watersheds 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 Indiana 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 City of Indianapolis, Indiana. Adoption of FGD

 10 Gypsum is the best management practice in

 11 sensitive watersheds 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 avoid
 125

 1 labeling FGD Gypsum as a hazardous waste, and

 2 secondly, 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 facts 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 difference 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 sticky
 126

 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 pozzolans,

 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 what 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 it

 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 we 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 urge 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 affiliation.

 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 Lancaster. 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 warranted
 128

 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 cement 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-mix 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 throughout 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 eliminate 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 hazardous
 129

 1 because it is. If we subscribe to that

 2 philosophy, where do we stop? Beaches have sand

 3 and airborne particles can cause silicosis.

 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 acre
 130

 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 or
 131

 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 more

 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 they
 133

 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 that 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 local
 134

 1 residents into what First Energy wanted. We are

 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 than 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, to 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 through
 136

 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 experience. 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 been 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 start a new fun chapter of my life and training 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 that 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 gym 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 his 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 get
 138

 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 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 glimpse of

 8 what 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 worked
 139

 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 deemed 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 increased disposal costs along

 8 with the cost of additional training that 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 combustion

 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 increase of

 21 recycling of coal ash as opposed to just throwing

 22 something away that can ultimately benefit all of
 141

 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 speak to

 18 one formidable example known as cancer alley by

 19 the medical 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 problems
 142

 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 similar 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 is
 143

 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 blighted 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 to
 144

 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 geosynthetic 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 EPA 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? Because liners work. Concerns of

 21 safety regarding CCRs are mitigated if the

 22 landfill storage sites are lined with composite
 145

 1 liner 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 Infrastructure. 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 properly 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 today.

 22 Further, our industry has continuously
 146

 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 Recommendations 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 presence of infectious medical waste. In our
 147

 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

 22
 148

 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 this 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 chairing 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 in
 149

 1 today and that is the order in 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 three 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 getting 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 with 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 provided 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 submitting 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 follow 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 proposed
 151

 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 considered 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 is

 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 to 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 afternoon. 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-bed boiler. Primarily, our

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

 22 operation for 17 years. We sell power under a
 153

 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 all 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 pugged or mixed with water, it

 9 will set 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 the Pennsylvania Program

 14 is for leachate 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 are 20 times less than that, so we do

 18 not exhibit any characteristics of the leachate

 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 just
 154

 1 could not afford -- the cost of disposal would

 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 at

 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 using 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 by 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, West
 155

 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 feel 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 have showed up in the last three to
 156

 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 our

 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 with
 157

 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 resistance 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 you 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 the
 158

 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 ash 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 the 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 the fly ash product.

 22 My company works with power companies
 159

 1 every day. We sell recycled fly ash to concrete

 2 producers 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 concrete 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 you. 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 Christians 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 EPA
 160

 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, our 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 kindness, 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, living
 161

 1 near 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 coal ash. We know this stuff is toxic, we

 22 know it's poisoning families, communities and our
 162

 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 couldn't spend quality
 163

 1 time with my grandchildren today, or quality time

 2 out fishing or hunting in order to come down here

 3 to 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, then 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 I
 164

 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 customers 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 speak
 165

 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 preserve 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 disposal 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 Virginia,

 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 ash
 166

 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 door 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 it 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 to cut my grass. Once, I slid
 167

 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 coming 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 be
 168

 1 a big question 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 waste

 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 which 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, but 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 only
 170

 1 from all the coal and power plant side by creating

 2 or destroying jobs. This is not what this is

 3 about.

 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 relay
 171

 1 on the thriving coal economy. 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 economic 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 facilities 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 Pennsylvania, 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 state
 172

 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 them 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 health 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 on 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 regulations 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 the 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 program.

 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 and

 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 power 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 the opportunity to comment
 174

 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 born 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 water 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 what
 175

 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 trees, 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,

 16 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 might
 176

 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 Atkinson. 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 Midwest 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 primary 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 poorly
 177

 1 maintained dike would prompt a reconsideration 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 if 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 unnecessary

 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 that 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 institutional and

 22 regulatory barriers to increased use exist when
 178

 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 encouragement 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 to promote and expand
 179

 1 its beneficial use. Thank you.

 2 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 103.

 3 MR. DAWES: Good 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 applied 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 class 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 does 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 of
 180

 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 landfills 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 result 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 source 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. Industry 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 be
 181

 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 regulations 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 dollars 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 the

 20 nation.

 21 I ask you, Environmental Protection

 22 Agency, to consider not just the costs that might be
 182

 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 coal 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 response.)

 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 American
 183

 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 area 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 power 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 exposed 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 byproducts

 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 utilized 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 sites 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 ash
 185

 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 ecological 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 environment. 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 Electric Power, AEP. AEP is one of the nation's

 22 largest producers of coal fired electric
 186

 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 Specifically, 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

 22 financial costs which will accompany this level of
 187

 1 regulation. It is necessary that in any type of

 2 rulemaking, U.S. EPA is cognizant of 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 Subtitle 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 environment, 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 regulation,

 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 action is illogical and
 188

 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 regulation 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 of 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 which 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 the 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 hazardous
 189

 1 waste rules is excessive and will require

 2 unnecessary financial costs without providing any

 3 meaningful environmental protection. Thank you.

 4 MS. DEVLIN: 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 extreme 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 shown
 190

 1 there is no reason to classify fly ash as a

 2 hazardous waste.

 3 That’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 fallout 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? For
 191

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

 2 carbon dioxide being released 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, using 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 agencies. 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 beneficial 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 contributes more than 4

 19 billion dollars to the U.S. economy 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 reducing the need for new or
 192

 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 Conservatory
 193

 1 right here 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 hospital 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 produce 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. They
 194

 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 percent 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 green
 195

 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, then 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 landfills 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 produce
 196

 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 thousand 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 try
 197

 1 to handle some of the 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 like as the months go on,

 22 more, more, and more and more of this is
 198

 1 occurring.

 2 I'm not saying that the DEP's not doing

 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 way 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 specialists, 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 should 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 human 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. DEVLIN: 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 through 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 for 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 Department 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 the
 201

 1 airports, Pittsburgh International Airport.

 2 They're concerned about alkalized reactivity. So

 3 we use fly 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 pounds

 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 would 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 if 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 know, fly ash is used on road,

 20 highways, bridges and bridge construction,

 21 airports, runways.

 22 And I thank you for the opportunity to
 202

 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 cubic yardds of landfill space annually.

 17 There have been speakers disputing 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 indicators of what

 22 will happen to CCPs if they’re declared hazardous for
 203

 1 two reasons.

 2 Most if not all of these products 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 products 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 believe 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 company 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 testimony 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 environment. 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 what

 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 -- both
 205

 1 propose new landfill engineering standards 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 continued 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

 22 is equally clear that our governmental agencies
 206

 1 are not performing in manners that protect the

 2 well being of our people, our land and our 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 restrictions 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 coal

 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 confirmed, 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 your
 207

 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 with 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 had
 208

 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 Mansfield 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 place 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 possible through those four long years. The

 22 cancer finally metastasized throughout his body
 209

 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 from 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 chance 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 just 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 turn
 210

 1 16 and me 27. Taylor is playing high school

 2 sports: Golf with a set of custom 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 and 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 other 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 from 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.

 18 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 man
 211

 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 everyday.

 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 Department.

 20 Our company owns and operates 7,400

 21 megawatts of coal -- based generating plants in

 22 Ohio and Pennsylvania. These facilities comprise
 212

 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 13,000 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 that

 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 National
 213

 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 disposal 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 ash
 214

 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 facilities, 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 necessary 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 CCFs
 215

 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 beneficial 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 environmental 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, Delaware, and New Jersey.

 22 I have written comments that I will be
 216

 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 doons 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 little

 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 years
 217

 1 after that, I realize that, well, maybe the fact

 2 that we spent so many hours playing 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 children 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 our
 219

 1 machinery each year.

 2 Needless to say though, my lack of

 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

 15 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 the
 220

 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, thus 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 time 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 million 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 you. 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 Moundsville 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 Moundsville 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 safety

 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 important part of how

 22 we do business every day. I am not aware of any
 222

 1 health issues from any of my employees associated

 2 with exposure 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 solid

 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 exhibited
 223

 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 slag 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 beneficially 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 the 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 boiler 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 this

 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 employed 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 Turbine 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 power 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 takes bituminous waste
 225

 1 coal or refuge at abandoned mine sites and turns

 2 it into energy. It uses multiple 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 the 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 almost
 226

 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 the

 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 abandoned mine sites
 227

 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 America'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 most
 228

 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 reducing

 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 helping 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. Studies 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 another assault on the health of

 22 hard-working families.
 229

 1 We applaud the EPA for recognizing the

 2 very real health and 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 industry. 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 Water 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, rely
 231

 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 Mississippi

 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 ash

 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 McGinty, even went as far as to rush permits to

 18 pave the 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's
 232

 1 Energy Development Authority in 2005.

 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 filling. 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

 22 community walking trails are especially important
 233

 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 EPA should regulate coal ash as a

 16 hazardous waste. It should not be considered,

 17 benign nor beneficial. EPA should set national

 18 standards and enforce it. This will protect all

 19 communities 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 left
 234

 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 Martienssen, 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 live 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 conditioning 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 concerned about the mounting

 21 rate of cancer in our area. I am aware of the

 22 cancer causing materials present in the ash. One
 235

 1 of 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 was

 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 the same radius.

 19 In reference to the Big Gorilla Site,

 20 the coal ash placement has caused the PH of the

 21 rain charged mine lake to increase from 3.2 to

 22 constantly above 12.0, the latter being lethal to
 236

 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 groundwater, 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. Numbers 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, Chester, 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 the
 237

 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 even

 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 moved 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 problems.

 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 time
 238

 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 grandchildren,

 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

 14 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 Linda

 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 Little
 239

 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 my

 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 concerns 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 purchased
 240

 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 toxic

 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 investment, 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's
 241

 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 with 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 one of the

 15 strongest held beliefs that all of 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 humbly, 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 struggled 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. And 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 ash 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 lead 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 have 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 think
 243

 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: Thank 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 I
 244

 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 testifying 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. Corona 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 regulations.

 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 jobs 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 into
 245

 1 the Pennsylvania economy in salaries, supplies,

 2 and services.

 3 Sunbury sends nearly 250,000 tons of

 4 coal 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 at 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 or 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 seem to indicate that the EPA is not basing its

 22 findings upon scientific fact and at the same time
 246

 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 legitimate

 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 drastically 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 increase 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 Pennsylvania
 247

 1 households we serve. The effect of this decision

 2 would be disastrous to the economy 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 waste 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 alternative 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 numbers 84,

 20 85, 86, 88, and 89, please.

 21 MR. MASULLO: Good afternoon. My name

 22 is Angelo Masullo, and I'm a professional engineer
 248

 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 have

 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 facilities 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 of the few companies in the country -- that

 19 operate a RCRASubtitle 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 that
 249

 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 capable 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 Road, 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 spring

 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 and
 252

 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 needs 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 chemicals 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. Current
 253

 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 Tennessee.

 5 We are sitting close to the world's

 6 first Gold LEEd certified convention center, a

 7 positive legacy of a local administration that

 8 wanted change, a healthier life for 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. I
 254

 1 am vice president of technology for Separation

 2 Technologies. I am here today to support the safe

 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 2000 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 fly
 255

 1 ash recycling business.

 2 In 2008, ST was planning to invest

 3 another 35 to 40 million dollars in ash recycling

 4 plants creating 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 associated 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 towards a

 21 Subtitle C hazardous regulation? Based on its

 22 toxicity, coal ash does not qualify as a hazardous
 256

 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, the 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 option 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 and 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 hazardous
 258

 1 while another pile from the same source will not.

 2 Faced with this apparent self-contradictory

 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 dramatically 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 direct
 259

 1 exposure to municipal drinking water supplies.

 2 Documented damage cases from disposal of

 3 fly ash leading 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 designation 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 disposal 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. ROSEBOROUGH: My name is Rob

 21 Roseborough, and I have worked with fly ash for

 22 over 15 years. I am a civil engineer with a
 260

 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 into 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 will
 262

 1 increase. The price of everything produced with

 2 electricity will increase. We, the consumer, will

 3 have to pay these additional 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 labeled hazardous,

 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 gas emissions created from

 21 the cement production are reduced by more than 12

 22 million tons every year. Not only that, the
 264

 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 web

 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 safety 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 state 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 legacy 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 that
 266

 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 here 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 Creek 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 Responding 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 disenfranchised
 267

 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. Thank 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 Essex Cement Plant located in Port Newark, New

 22 Jersey. I'm here to oppose the EPA ruling on fly
 268

 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 use 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 improves 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 effects 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 alone, 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 alone, we saved 169 trillion

 10 BTUs. 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 water.

 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 recycling 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 benefits will just go away? The
 270

 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 concerning 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 I
 271

 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 benificiation

 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 landfills 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 ash 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 fly 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 ensure 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 this
 272

 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 understand 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 architects 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 place 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 regulate
 273

 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 speaking 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 modern 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 According 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 provide 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 has the industry to

 21 safely beneficiated this material. Separation

 22 Technologies, and many others, have developed
 274

 1 processes to 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 risks 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 Recovery 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 hazardous

 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 responsible thing to do

 18 is 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 99,

 22 please.
 276

 1 MS. MARTIN: Hi, my name is Rachel

 2 Martin. I live in Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania in

 3 Allegheny 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 Farm.

 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 coal
 277

 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 breathing 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 been
 278

 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 obstructive 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 fresh

 20 water that once ran down the valleys in the

 21 Monongahela River. Make our drinking water

 22 contaminated free. Remove the arsenic, lead and
 279

 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 Conservation 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. Both Elrama

 21 and Cheswick are coal-fired plants that utilize

 22 scrubber technology for SO2 removal, catalyst and
 280

 1 SNCR technologies 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 manner 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, most 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 This proposal would permit the

 22 beneficial use of coal ash without the stigma
 281

 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. Being 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 added
 282

 1 to the unemployment numbers at a time when the

 2 country 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 place 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 101.

 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 proud
 283

 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 located.

 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 not

 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 currently

 20 use recycled coal ash.

 21 For example, speaking as a First Energy

 22 employee, we have develop and operate one of the
 284

 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 manufacturing. 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 this

 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 wallboard I just mentioned, or in concrete and

 22 other construction material. These efforts
 285

 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 recycling 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 recyclable

 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 any 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.

 16 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 them, 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 be
 287

 1 inhaling.

 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 all 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 tested, and even though it's obvious

 13 that there's fly 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 dump 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 harmful

 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, lead 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 in 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 in older adults and the
 289

 1 mercury has been linked to autism in children.

 2 Lastly, lead has been linked to behavior problems,

 3 hearing 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 stomach 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 other 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 can
 290

 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 everyday. 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 Please 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 Raina
 291

 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 Coal 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 from 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 no
 292

 1 medical doubt that high levels of arsenic 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 projects 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 health consequences of major coal ash

 22 repositories, such as Little Blue, and probability
 293

 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 Pennsylvania 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 anybody 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 employee owners of
 294

 1 Black Diamond Granules. The company is located in

 2 Saint Paul, Minnesota, which is about 1,000 miles

 3 northwest 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 consider scientific data,

 8 as well as the practical implications of

 9 regulating boiler slag. I believe that as a

 10 matter of sound science and avoiding a potentially

 11 devastating economical impact, that EPA determine

 12 coal slag 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 vitrified mass with limited permeability. Any and

 20 all heavy metals of the boiler slag are locked up

 21 in the vitrified matrix. Vitrification is a

 22 successful waste treatment process while supported
 295

 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 Vitrification Granules that support this

 8 conclusion. 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 boiler 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 increasing 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 not seem logical that a

 21 nonhazardous material should be regulated under

 22 Subtitle C because there are low levels of metals
 296

 1 present in the boiler slag to begin with and the

 2 metals that aren't present are locked up in a

 3 vitrified 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 Incorporated, 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 granules 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 hazardous material, thus should not be

 22 defined as a hazardous waste. My question to the
 297

 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 unencapsulated 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 slag granules maintain their encapsulated
 298

 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 that 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 competition 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. Thank 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 for 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, ink,

 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 and
 300

 1 stimulate our economy. 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 improvements.

 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 component of

 21 hazardous, they will clearly disqualify an entire

 22 product that is listed as Subtitle C hazardous
 301

 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 will increase with a Subtitle C

 6 designation. Let me tell you from the fill, not a

 7 desk jockey, 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 test 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 contamination 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 you for your attention.

 22 MS. DEVLIN: Thank you. Number 138.
 302

 1 Thank you.

 2 MR. FORBECK: Thank you for having 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 representing

 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 have 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 used
 303

 1 as a template for EPA's existing Guide for

 2 Industrial Waste Management. Pennsylvania's

 3 successful management 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 proposed regulations

 10 will likely be the same no matter what regulatory

 11 scheme is chosen. The major differences are that

 12 EPA asserts 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 requires 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 Act
 304

 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 the 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 detrimental 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 improve 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 National 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 RCRA
 305

 1 Subtitle C would 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 rulemaking 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 concerned

 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 Duquense 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 as the students and youth of
 306

 1 America today are very concerned with the

 2 environment. We are consistently at arms trying

 3 to protect 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 University. 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 industries have all -- I urge you today

 16 that please don't be swayed 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 think 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 around
 307

 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 place

 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 work 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 supplier 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 lightweight

 20 aluminum silicate microspheres that are used in a

 21 variety of industrial applications, such as

 22 construction, refractory, recreation, and energy
 308

 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 to 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 jobs
 309

 1 off U.S. soil even the plants in EU, Canada and

 2 South America.

 3 I support the EPA's need to protect the

 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 their 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 legislation
 310

 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, then

 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 keep 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 fearful 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 here
 311

 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 industries 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 structure 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 ranges 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 bid. God

 21 for bid. We are counting on the EPA to do its

 22 part because yes indeed, we have a partnership. A
 312

 1 partnership of consumer, 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 feasible. 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 are 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, which 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 represent
 313

 1 my family and those who could not be here today to

 2 ask the EPA to enforce stuffer rules and

 3 regulations 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 First 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 from
 314

 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 that

 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 to 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 thing. 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 destroy 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 country. 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 and
 316

 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 Jackson, 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 cripple 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 will 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, the
 317

 1 limited capacity of the nation'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 employees

 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 in
 318

 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 coal 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 with 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 CCRs.

 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 they 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 under 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 Administration'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 professionals are

 21 working across the nation to usher in a so-called

 22 green economy, and as such has interfered with
 320

 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 regulate 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 Rebbecca
 321

 1 Schroeder. I am a student of the University of

 2 Pittsburgh. I don't come speaking for a company

 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 and
 322

 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 that 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 the 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

 20 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

 22
 324

 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 people

 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 seconds 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 that 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 cubic 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 Consol
 326

 1 agrees with NMA's uses will continue to be

 2 regulated by the Office of Surface Mining under

 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 under 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 determination 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 already

 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 allow
 327

 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 if 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 to
 328

 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 Concrete 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 with 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 common law asking for our
 329

 1 support for additional transportation funding for

 2 our failing infrastructure. Adding additional

 3 costs 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 stigma
 330

 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 concrete

 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 Subtitle 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. DELLINGER: 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 protect
 331

 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 hazardous 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 Residential 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 that 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 benefits need to be preserved. This

 22 recycling cannot risk being destroyed by the
 332

 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 it
 333

 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 anybody 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 much
 334

 1 older than that. They can appreciate 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 for 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 technologies 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 of 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

 21 mediation process.

 22 Coal fly ash should be -- the
 335

 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 that 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 countries

 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 reconvene and
 337

 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 well.

 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 of 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, an organization with members in more

 22 than 20 countries that is dedicated to furthering
 338

 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 chemically 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 by
 339

 1 volume is comprised of materials that 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 Ash 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 negative consequences -- even if exclusions were
 340

 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 the 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 horrible; 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 properties

 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 organization 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 of 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 members 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 as 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 even
 343

 1 concrete itself. For many years, the most widely

 2 recycled product used in the concrete industry has

 3 been fly ash.

 4 Fly ash 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 manufacturing 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 substitute 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 in 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. The 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 have

 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 stigma

 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 on
 346

 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 reviewed 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 only 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 as
 347

 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 ash 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 kind. 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 not label coal ash as toxic
 348

 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

 11 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 digging

 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 name
 349

 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 an atom, and how the word atoms in

 12 Hebrew means of the red earth. 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 breathing 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 that

 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 be
 351

 1 friends with them or are you 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 for
 353

 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 clean

 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 must
 354

 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 residuals 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 at risk, especially at a

 21 time when our nation needs all forms of reliable

 22 and clean energy to drive the economy, create and
 355

 1 sustain jobs well into the future.

 2 Decades of study from the 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 Subtitle 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 passed 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 uncertain 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 negatively effect
 356

 1 and provide disincentives to the beneficial use

 2 industry. Approximately 45 percent of CCRs are

 3 used in the beneficial 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 CCRs 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 CCR.

 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 these
 357

 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 final 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: Thank 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 question is why are not regulating hazardous

 22 waste if it is hazardous waste? I think it is
 358

 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 levels. 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 is 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 right 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.

 22 They do not have active monitoring. There are no
 359

 1 enforceable witness on the amount of toxic that is

 2 discharged. I am all for utilizing boundaries,

 3 but we don't need to add arsenic to the water or

 4 lead or selenium and that is not a beneficial

 5 use. For your information, the water flows

 6 downstream and is probably in that 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 into
 360

 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 do 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 with 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 can
 361

 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 not 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 seem. 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 be 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 that
 362

 1 wouldn't protect 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 health 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 listening to my comment.

 22 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you. Anybody that
 363

 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 hazardous dam by the EPA,

 15 which means 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 looking 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 use
 364

 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 write 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 streams
 365

 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 area for all to

 7 use, but look at it now. The 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 the 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 western 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 residents
 366

 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 fairly 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 concern 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 more 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 like 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 to
 369

 1 restroom. I am traveling with him. I could go

 2 ahead.

 3 MR. DELLINGER: That's fine.

 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 million, 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 placed 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 are
 370

 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 proposed 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 drinking 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 water. 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 coal 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 doing 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, coal 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 the 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 scientists and
 373

 1 researchers, it became apparent to me that the

 2 sole intended use and purpose of that plant was

 3 not to burn the gob for electricity, but to simply

 4 use that site to become the largest coal ash dump

 5 east of the Mississippi. The more I heard, the

 6 more frightened I became. Unregulated, toxic,

 7 hazardous, 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 operate
 374

 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 without 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 from
 375

 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 mile 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 swampy
 376

 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. The 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 down, 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 on 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 to 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. That
 377

 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 Betsy 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 live there, it is a loss-loss situation. Strip

 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 happily

 21 named salvage trucks carrying the fly ash from the

 22 downtown power plant uncovered with fly ash
 378

 1 blowing over everything 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 to 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 of
 379

 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 can 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 environments 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 tell
 380

 1 me what number you are?

 2 MS. JAEGER: 156.

 3 MR. DELLINGER: Thank you.

 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 going 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 have

 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 Power, 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, end 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 a
 381

 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, were continually the last

 9 ones to know 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 were 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 violations 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 live
 382

 1 near disposal 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 of 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 neighboring 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 perimeter of the Little Blue Run Fly Ash Disposal

 14 Impoundment. Many of my neighbors have passed 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 are
 383

 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. JAMISON: 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 requesting 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 coal
 385

 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 desulfurization,

 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 coming 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 is
 386

 1 227. I would like to read testimony from Robert

 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 results 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 decision, the PA Environmental
 387

 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 issuance of
 388

 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 own 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 the 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 and
 389

 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 hearing 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 insulting their attics - all much more

 21 safely than before.

 22 The people of the United States matter.
 390

 1 We vote, we pay taxes 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 nationally 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 rigorously

 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 room

 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 come
 391

 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 response.)

 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 I
 392

 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 gassification. 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 gassification plants. My

 7 concern is as I'm working on making bricks for

 8 this gas fires, all I can think about is am 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 Morgantown, 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 engineering 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 and
 393

 1 classifying fly ash and other types 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

 22
 394

 1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC

 2 I, Carleton J. Anderson, III do hereby

 3 certify that the witness whose testimony appears

 4 in the foregoing 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