[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DRINKING WATER AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF COAL COMBUSTION WASTE
DISPOSAL
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 10, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-88
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-859 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan JOE BARTON, Texas
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia FRED UPTON, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
BART GORDON, Tennessee NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
ANNA G. ESHOO, California JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
BART STUPAK, Michigan JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ROY BLUNT, Missouri
GENE GREEN, Texas STEVE BUYER, Indiana
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
Vice Chairman JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
LOIS CAPPS, California MARY BONO MACK, California
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania GREG WALDEN, Oregon
JANE HARMAN, California LEE TERRY, Nebraska
TOM ALLEN, Maine MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
JAY INSLEE, Washington TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
JIM MATHESON, Utah STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
Islands
KATHY CASTOR, Florida
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
PETER WELCH, Vermont
(ii)
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania RALPH M. HALL, Texas
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina FRED UPTON, Michigan
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
BARON HILL, Indiana JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
DORIS O. MATSUI, California JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
JERRY McNERNEY, California STEVE BUYER, Indiana
PETER WELCH, Vermont GREG WALDEN, Oregon
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GENE GREEN, Texas
LOIS CAPPS, California
JANE HARMAN, California
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
JIM MATHESON, Utah
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachussetts, opening statement.............. 1
Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 3
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 4
Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, opening statement.................................. 5
Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Louisiana, opening statement................................ 6
Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, prepared statement...................................... 95
Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, prepared statement...................................... 97
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, prepared statement................................... 99
Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, prepared statement............... 103
Witnesses
Robyn Whitaker-Pierce, Resident of Chesapeake, Virginia.......... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Gayle Queen, Resident of Gambrills, Maryland..................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Raymond Hunt, Jr., Resident of Waterflow, New Mexico............. 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Carla Hunt, Resident of Waterflow, New Mexico.................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Lisa Evans, Senior Administrative Counsel, Earthjustice.......... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Answers to submitted questions............................... 139
Mary A. Fox, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Professor, Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health.............................. 61
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Ken Ladwig, Senior Program Manager, Electric Power Research
Institute...................................................... 68
Prepared statement........................................... 70
Answers to submitted questions............................... 153
Donald McGraw, M.D., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.................... 76
Prepared statement........................................... 78
Answers to submitted questions............................... 167
Submitted material
Letter of June 18, 2009, from Members of Congress to U.S. EPA,
submitted by Mr. Shimkus....................................... 105
Letter of July 17, 2009, from Illinois EPA to U.S. EPA, submitted
by Mr. Shimkus................................................. 111
Letter of October 1, 2009, from City of Springfield, Illinois to
U.S. Conference of Mayors, submitted by Mr. Shimkus............ 113
Letter of April 10, 2009, from Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, submitted by Mr. Doyle............... 116
Letter of July 28, 2009, from Pennsylvania Public Utility
Commission, submitted by Mr. Doyle............................. 118
Resolution by Environmental Council of the States, submitted by
Mr. Shimkus.................................................... 122
Letter of April 1, 2009, from Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials to U.S. EPA,
submitted by Mr. Shimkus....................................... 125
Letter of September 19, 2009, from Unions for Jobs and the
Environment to U.S. EPA, submitted by Mr. Shimkus.............. 134
Letter of November 17, 2009, from U.S. Chamber of Commerce to
U.S. EPA, submitted by Mr. Shimkus............................. 136
DRINKING WATER AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF COAL COMBUSTION WASTE
DISPOSAL
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m., in
Room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward
Markey [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Markey, Doyle, McNerney,
Matheson, Barrow, Upton, Stearns, Whitfield, Shimkus, Pitts and
Scalise.
Also present: Representatives Sarbanes and Forbes.
Staff present: Greg Dotson, Chief Counsel, Energy and
Environment; Tracy Sheppard, Senior Counsel; Melissa Bez,
Professional Staff Member; Caitlin Haberman, Special Assistant;
Peter Ketcham-Colwill, Special Assistant; Jackie Cohen,
Counsel; Karen Lightfoot, Communications Director, Senior
Policy Advisor; Lindsay Vidal, Special Assistant; Mitchell
Smiley, Special Assistant; Jerry Couri, Republican Professional
Staff; Andrea Spring, Republican Professional Staff; and
Garrett Golding, Republican Legislative Analyst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Markey. Good morning, and we welcome you all to the
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, and this hearing is
called to order.
Almost 1 year ago, on December 22, 2008, hundreds of acres
of land in Tennessee were buried in toxic sludge after an
accidental breach at a disposal pond at a TVA plant. The breach
resulted in the release of 1.1 billion gallons of the
byproducts of burning coal. It covered more than 300 acres of
land in a gray, poisonous muck, damaging homes and property and
tainting nearby rivers. This toxic stew contained high levels
of arsenic, selenium, mercury and other dangerous substances.
It was quite literally a poisonous lump of coal dumped on a
nearby community just 3 days before Christmas last year.
Exposure to these pollutants can wreak havoc on human
health including increased risk of cancer, birth defects,
reproductive problems, gastrointestinal illnesses, damage to
the nervous system and kidneys, and learning disabilities to
children. They have also been associated with acute symptoms of
hair loss, severe muscle cramps, nausea, joint pain, confusion
and blistering skin. The cleanup for the catastrophic event
that occurred in eastern Tennessee is estimated to cost more
than $1 billion. It completely destroyed three homes, displaced
all nearby residents, crumpled docks and wiped out roads.
The Kingston catastrophe caused the media, the public and
the Congress to focus attention on EPA's longstanding failure
to promulgate meaningful regulations for the disposal of this
material. Despite the litany of damage from coal combustion
waste, current regulations have been left largely to the States
resulting in widespread inconsistencies in waste management.
In the wake of the TVA disaster, I wrote two letters to the
EPA addressing the lack of national policy to regulate and
monitor coal combustion waste and its impact on health and the
environment. A decade after announcing that national
regulations were needed, the EPA finally said in March of this
year that it would propose regulations for coal waste disposal
by the end of 2009. Every State in the Nation currently gets at
least some of its electricity from coal-fired plants. Each year
these power plants along with industrial facilities produce
approximately 130 million tons of coal combustion waste. Every
day in almost every State, coal ash is dumped into ponds, dry
landfills and abandoned mines. Accidental breaches are not the
only threats associated with the management of coal combustion
waste. The slow leakage of the toxins the waste contains even
when dumped into dry but unlined storage sites has poisoned
water supplies, damaged ecosystems and jeopardized public
health. And what oozes into the soil and water are dangerous
substances such as arsenic, cadmium, selenium and mercury. In
fact, the National Academy of Sciences has identified 24
potentially hazardous metals in coal ash. As EPA moves forward
with its regulations, it must ensure that public health is
protected for all disposal practices, not just the type of wet
impoundment ponds that led to the Tennessee disaster.
The good news is, that these materials can be recycled. In
fact, industry estimates that 45 percent of coal ash is
currently being beneficially reused. However, not all methods
of reuse are equally beneficial when it comes to protecting
public health. For example, using coal fly ash to make concrete
doesn't allow the dangerous chemicals to leach out and also
likely to reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to other
means of producing concrete. But other so-called beneficial
uses are less protective of public health. Using the material
as filler for some road embankments or, as we will hear today,
to build golf courses can lead to leakage of the very same
poisons into the drinking water. EPA should encourage the
beneficial uses that truly do protect public health and derive
economic benefit to the industry while restricting those that
have the potential to cause economic or physical harm to nearby
communities. That is what the subject of today's hearing will
be. We look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Mr. Markey. Let me now turn and recognize the gentleman
from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this
important hearing on drinking water and public health impacts
on coal combustion waste disposal.
As you have already stated, 50 percent of our electricity,
in fact, a little bit more than that, is produced by coal in
the United States and 92 percent of electricity in my home
State of Kentucky is produced by coal. I definitely believe it
is important that we continue to be able to use coal in the
United States for two main reasons. First of all, it provides
cheap electricity which creates jobs and makes us more
competitive in the global marketplace, and second of all, it is
our most abundant resource here in the United States since we
have about a 250-year reserve of coal.
Now, unfortunately, since the 111th Congress began, many,
we believe, have been targeting coal specifically for the
purpose of making it more difficult to burn coal in the United
States in the long term. I think one of the objectives of cap
and trade is certainly to make it more difficult to use coal,
the Obama Administration recently in its endangerment finding
to give them an opportunity to regulate CO2
emissions which they had never done before. We have seen that
it is much more difficult to get permitting to burn coal. And
then we know that in Copenhagen that coal is a principal target
as they discuss climate change issues.
Now, I don't think any of us are opposed to examining newer
methods that will allow coal to be used in a cleaner way and we
are totally supportive of that, and I know that today we have
witnesses in the first panel who have experienced some health
problems. They will tell us about what it is from. And
obviously we want to do everything that we can do to protect
health. But as the chairman has already indicated, there are
many beneficial uses in building materials and as structural
fill for building sites using this material. And I would also
point out that EPA has looked at this issue repeatedly about
whether or not coal ash should be listed as a hazardous
material. States already regulate this material, and we are
willing to work with the federal government to regulate this
material, but if you are going to try to classify it as a
hazardous material, then there is going to be a major issue on
that because when you burn a material at over 3,000 degrees
temperature, it is very difficult to see how the residue can be
very hazardous, and I might say that EPA looked at this in 1993
and determined not to regulate. They looked at it in 1999 and
decided not to regulate. They looked at it in 2000 and decided
not to regulate. And then back in 1980 when Congress first
passed the Bevel amendment, they determined that this was not a
hazardous product.
So I think that it is very important that we have this
hearing but I think it is also important that we proceed in a
balanced way because if America is going to continue to create
jobs and if America is going to continue to be competitive in
the global marketplace, then there is not any way that we can
eliminate the use of fossil fuel the way Albert Gore and others
are suggesting that we do.
So this type of hearing is vitally important because it
gives us an opportunity to look at it in a balanced approach.
We look forward to the testimony of those witnesses on our
first panel as well as all witnesses today. And with that, I
would yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Markey. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
important hearing. I am going to waive my opening statement and
look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
Mr. Markey. The gentleman's time will be preserved. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Barrow.
Mr. Barrow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will waive opening.
Mr. Markey. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California, Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hosting this
important hearing on the disposal of coal waste, and we are
going to need coal for a long time to come so we better figure
out how to use it properly and how to dispose of the waste.
Unfortunately, some of the waste products have caused major
health problems, and I thank the witnesses for coming forward
today to discuss this. I know it is difficult to come out here
and sit in front of a panel, so you deserve credit for that. I
know there are some good ways to do it. As the chairman
mentioned, encasing it in concrete is an excellent opportunity
for us to use that in a beneficial way but we do need to be
careful about using it in other ways. I look forward to the
testimony today to make some decisions and to help the EPA in
their regulatory process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Markey. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate
the hearing today and appreciate the witnesses on both panels
for coming in, and we will hear issues that affected the lives
of individuals. I always also like to highlight how what we do
here in Washington affects other people's lives, and I always
have historically put up this poster of 1,200 miners who lost
their jobs last time we enacted clean air regulations. This
isn't just one mine in my district. In Ohio, Ohio lost 35,000
coal-mining jobs. So we better tread carefully on how we
balance the environmental risk with what we do see, and I agree
with my colleague from Kentucky, an all-out attack on coal
mining, coal use in this country and so I will also be focusing
on the impacts to these guys who come from real families, real
communities and where small communities in rural parts of my
State were destroyed because of the attack on coal.
I also would like, Mr. Chairman, to ask unanimous consent
for three letters to be submitted in the record. I know you
will want to look at those.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Markey. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Shimkus. The first letter is from 74 Members of
Congress to Lisa Jackson at the EPA regarding our position
against listing coal combustion byproducts as hazardous. In
fact, there are at least 15 members of this committee on this
letter on both sides of the aisle. This letter is an original
letter by our good friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Tim Holden.
The second is from the Illinois EPA. In it, they state, ``Based
on our past experience, it is our position that classifying
coal combustion waste as a hazardous waste is not warranted and
would place unnecessary barriers on its beneficial use and
reuse in the future. We feel our approaching of regulating coal
combustion waste under the non-hazardous solid-waste
regulations is protective of both human health and the
environment and is an effective and logical way to safely
manage coal combustion waste,'' and that is from the Illinois
EPA. The last letter is from the Office of Public Utilities in
the city of Springfield, Illinois, which is partially in my
district. In it, they say, ``Listing coal combustion byproducts
as hazardous waste would have dramatic adverse consequences for
the city of Springfield.'' That is our State capital. And that
the CWLP, which is the city water, light and power, due--``City
of Springfield CWLP due to the increase in cost associated with
the managing and disposing of coal combustion byproducts as
well as a lack of availability of coal combustion byproducts
for construction purposes.'' They go on to associate the cost
of CCBs were listed as hazardous. They identify four locations
as facilities that are permitted to receive RCRA hazardous
waste. These amounts reflect treatment and transportation
costs, and we have in the millions of dollars. What does this
mean? We better tread very, very carefully. When this country
is in one of the worst economic periods that I can remember, to
have another attack on good jobs in this country is
unwarranted. So I would caution us to go carefully, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back my time.
Mr. Markey. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
giving me the opportunity to participate briefly here.
Mr. Markey. I am sorry. I just want to remind you that the
gentleman is not on the subcommittee, so let me recognize the
remaining members of the subcommittee. The gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Stearns, is recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, when I lived in Massachusetts, I had a coal-
burning furnace to try and keep my house warm because it was so
expensive, and then I had a wood stove. You know, when I
finished, I used to take the coal ash and put it on my garden,
and every year that garden worked just so remarkably well. It
worked to the benefit of the garden and me because we had fresh
vegetables. And I used to take the ash from the wood too and I
would put it in the garden, so I would just say to the chairman
and to the others that I think there is some redeeming value to
some of this coal ash.
I note, Mr. Chairman, that the EPA Administrator Jackson is
not here to testify, and it would be very helpful to have her
here to answer some of the questions about this issue. As I
understand it, for three decades EPA has resisted subjecting
this coal ash to federal hazardous waste management regulation,
and more specifically in 1993 and 2000, the EPA conducted two
regulatory determinations on the management and use of coal
combustion products which determined that, ``in conducting
these two regulatory determinations, EPA did not identify
any,'' let me repeat, ``any environmental harm associated with
the beneficial use of coal combustion products'' and concluded
in both determinations that these materials do not, do not
warrant regulation as a hazardous waste material. So it is
pretty clear that the EPA has a strong message on this and the
EPA is not here. So I think, Mr. Chairman, it would be helpful
for the committee if you explain why the EPA Administrator is
not here to help us further explain her remarks on this coal
ash.
Imposing a hazardous waste designation on this coal ash
will do little to prevent the situation that occurred at the
TVA's Kingston, Tennessee, plant and will only force greater
landfilling of it while eliminating the environmental benefits
of using coal ash. So I think, Mr. Chairman, in light of my
opening statement, we still have some questions to ask.
Mr. Markey. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Mr. Scalise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss the impacts of coal combustion waste
disposal.
While I strongly support measures that protect the safety
of our Nation's drinking water, I am concerned about the
negative implications that could result from the regulation of
coal combustion waste by EPA as a hazardous waste instead of
under RCRA's subtitle D non-hazardous waste authority. This
issue involves a very critical component to our country's
overall energy policy, and an EPA decision to regulate coal
combustion waste as hazardous waste could be devastating to our
Nation's economy.
Mr. Chairman, as we discuss this issue of energy policy in
general, I also want to take this opportunity to express my
serious concerns about recent decisions from the current
Administration and the direction that this Congress is taking
regarding our energy policy. While we await EPA's final ruling
on how they plan to regulate coal combustion waste. I also have
serious concerns about the EPA's recent announcement regarding
their proposed regulation of greenhouse gases. The EPA's
regulation of greenhouse gas emissions would result in the
largest power grab of any United States agency over our
national economy. The threat of heavy-handed EPA regulation or
a cap-and-trade energy tax will result in millions of American
jobs being shipped overseas to countries like China and India,
who don't have the current environmental regulations that we
have today. In my home State of Louisiana, thousands of jobs
will be lost under a cap-and-trade energy tax, and as a matter
of fact, there is a company in south Louisiana that is
currently basing their decision to locate in either Brazil or
Louisiana in part on what Washington does on emissions
regulations not to mention the Climate Gate scandal, which has
not only proven that there have been efforts to silence those
scientists who present evidence to the contrary of global
warming alarmists would have our world believe about climate
change, but as we have seen, the science on climate change was
actually corrupted in an effort to help make their case. It
seems, Mr. Chairman, that this Administration and those running
Congress will stop at nothing to pursue this liberal agenda
that is killing our economy, resulting in thousands of dollars
in higher electric bills for American families and small
businesses and shipping millions more American jobs overseas.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Markey. Great. The gentleman's time has expired. All
time for opening statements of members has expired. So what we
will do is, we will ask our witnesses to come up to the panel,
if they would, and I would ask Representative Forbes if he
would to come over to introduce our first witness.
Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to
thank the members of the subcommittee for giving me the
courtesy to join you briefly to introduce one of the witnesses
on your panel, and I would also like to thank you for holding
this very important hearing.
This is an important hearing for at least two reasons.
First, Members of Congress need to hear from Americans whose
daily lives have been interrupted because of uncertainty
surrounding a basic need like safe drinking water. At some
point today rain or shine, a family from my district will drive
to their local church, gather around a spigot and bottle up as
much water as they need to survive the weekend. Over the past
19 months, hundreds of constituents from my district have not
been able to drink a single glass of water from their wells
without fear of consuming poisonous toxins. They have not been
able to bathe their children without pausing to wonder whether
they will pass on a deadly disease, and they have not been able
to finance the education of their loved ones because their
equity lines of credit on their homes have been devastated.
The second reason I believe this hearing is important is
because the members of this committee must be made aware that
irrespective of any new coal ash regulations, the Environmental
Protection Agency is already doing a disservice to our
constituents by providing contradictory test results to some of
the residents and by withholding hazard scores that could
highlight dangers threatening the health and welfare of the
citizens we are supposed to protect. Yesterday, I sent a
follow-up request to the EPA requesting immediate access to a
hazard ranking system evaluation and score for the Battlefield
Golf Club in Chesapeake. This information would provide
families and constituents from my district an understanding of
the nature and severity of any toxic contamination on or near
their personal property. To date, it has been withheld by the
EPA as a part of the deliberative process.
Mr. Chairman, if the federal government continues to
deliberate for another 18 months, constituents from my district
will continue to live with uncertainty about their drinking
water, their health and their homes. If the Congress and this
Administration are truly committed to transparency and
accountability, certainly we can do better. But rather than
requiring you to continue to listen to more words from me at
this time, I would like to introduce you to someone who can
tell you what it means to live with uncertainty about the
safety of her family's drinking water. Mrs. Robyn Whitaker-
Pierce is a long-time resident of my hometown of Chesapeake and
her family owns a home near the Battlefield Golf Course, which
was built atop a foundation that includes coal fly ash. Her
family has had to live with the uncertainty as to whether her
drinking water is safe for many months, and she has a
compelling story to share. Mrs. Pierce, I want to thank for you
for taking time to be here today and I know the committee looks
forward to your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to introduce Mrs.
Pierce.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Congressman Forbes, and Mrs.
Whitaker-Pierce, whenever you feel comfortable, please begin.
STATEMENTS OF ROBYN WHITAKER-PIERCE, RESIDENT OF CHESAPEAKE,
VIRGINIA; GAYLE QUEEN, RESIDENT OF GAMBRILLS, MARYLAND; RAYMOND
HUNT, JR., RESIDENT OF WATERFLOW, NEW MEXICO; AND CARLA HUNT,
RESIDENT OF WATERFLOW, NEW MEXICO
STATEMENT OF ROBYN WHITAKER-PIERCE
Mrs. Whitaker-Pierce. Good morning. Thank you for your
time.
In 2001, our local utility company, Dominion Virginia
Power, orchestrated an aggressive campaign convincing area
residents and local city council that a golf course constructed
with coal ash was not only safe but a great benefit for our
neighborhood. Residents and local government were assured on
numerous occasions and in various forums that the use of such
material posed no threat to our community, and that any and all
safeguards would be adhered to, and quote fly ash in this
specific use was ``safe as dirt.''
We now know differently thanks to the diligent work of a
local newspaper reporter, Robert McCabe. Mr. McCabe reported
tests of monitoring wells on a golf course sculpted with 1.5
million tons of fly ash yielded alarmingly high levels of
toxins in groundwater. All of the homes in the immediate area
rely on private wells as our water source. Immediately the
local city government ordered area wells tested and requested
the EPA's help in discerning the potential risks to our
community.
Nineteen months later, my home has been tested multiple
times by three different agencies including the EPA and results
are inconsistent and confusing. Lead levels have been detected
in excess of three times the EPA's action standard, and on one
such occasion water tests were done on the same day by three
firms. Two of the three detected elevated lead levels yet a
call from the EPA's representative said ``Good news. There is
no lead in your water.''
You can imagine my alarm as a mother when the EPA
representative asked about young children in my home and their
ages, and later that day, I received a call from a doctor at
the Centers for Disease Control urging me to get the children's
lead level tested. The EPA continues to test my water every few
months and I get those results but to the layperson they are
confusing and I feel as in the dark now as I was when all this
started. For example, just Tuesday, 2 days ago, an EPA
representative came to my home to continue another water test.
It turns out that all of the tests that have been conducted
inside my home have been done at the only sink with the only
dedicated filter, auxiliary filter--let me put it that way--and
is used least in our home. Consequently, all of the data that
they have collected to this point is not a true representation
of our exposure as the water we brush our teeth with and bathe
with has yet to be evaluated.
How did this happen? For 5 years, hundreds of truckloads of
coal ash were dumped daily in our community. We have since
learned that those same truck drivers and were required to have
haz-mat licenses, were wearing masks and protective clothing
yet our children unknowingly played outside amongst this
dangerous dust. Neighbors recall coming home and finding layers
of gray chalky residue on vehicles and pool surfaces. None of
my neighbors had any inkling of the dangers we were being
exposed to. Dominion did but we didn't.
We now know that experts warn of the dangers of heavy metal
toxins leaching from coal ash when exposed to water. Yet coal
ash was spread over a 220-acre site in our backyards in a
region with a notoriously high water table, I think we have
some pictures. Ladies and gentlemen, this is someone's yard,
and please understand that this is just a small area but boy,
if you could flip over to the next picture, that is my street.
We have recreational boating every time a storm comes through
to our neighborhood. Please explain to me how it is that coal
ash, no liners, was thrown into my backyard in an area like
this, and this is not a one-time occurrence. Our streets and
yards are underwater when storms come, but even after Dominion
Virginia Power commissioned feasibility studies that
discouraged using fly ash as a construction material, they
pushed on. Permits for a septic system on the golf course
location were denied by the health department due to the high
water table, yet that 1.5 million tons of fly ash was dumped on
the same site, and Dominion pushed on.
Just 50 miles from Chesapeake, between 1957 and 1974, fly
ash from Dominion's Yorktown power generating station was
disposed of in four abandoned burrow and gravel pits. This area
later was designated by our own EPA as the Chisman Creek
Superfund site. Even in light of this previous debacle,
Dominion pushed on in Chesapeake.
The reverberation from this lack of regulation has been
enormous. Numerous families have recently been diagnosed with
cancer, asthma and autoimmune diseases, not to mention our fear
for our children's future health. Are these illnesses related
to dust and water exposure? It may take years for the effects
of our exposure to this toxic waste dump to manifest
themselves.
Since May of 2008, my family and other families in our
neighborhood have not used their tap water to cook or drink. We
have been reduced to traveling to a municipal cistern where two
to three times per week we fill empty gallon jugs with water to
bring back home for our use. Most of us still bathe and brush
our teeth with the tap water. What other alternative do we
have, and who is there to provide for our safety?
The financial ramifications are devastating. As a
professional realtor, I can assure you that as long as the
specter of fly ash looms over our community, our houses will
not sell. We are literally held hostage in our homes not at the
barrel of a gun but by the cesspool of poisons in our back
yards.
We have retired military veterans who have proudly served
our country for 20-plus years. They want to move home but they
can't because no one will buy their house. Elderly couples who
have lost a spouse and cannot keep up with their homes want and
need to downsize but they cannot. My husband has been a self-
employed electrical contractor for over 25 years. The equity in
our home is our retirement. We have been wiped out. There is no
equity in a home no one will buy. How will we put our boys
through college, and what am I going to do with my children if
my husband passes away? One family in our neighborhood cannot
qualify for financial aid for their child's college education
because they own their home, but it is worthless.
My children are afraid. Their friends' parents are
concerned about their children's exposure when visiting my
home. An 11-year-old was at our house for a sleepover and asked
me, ``Miss Robyn, I just washed my hands. Do I need to do
something about the poison water?'' I was just excited that he
washed his hands after going to the bathroom, frankly.
But the Virginia health department has been no help.
Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality let this happen
again and has been a colossal disappointment. The EPA, they are
out to lunch. I have absolutely no faith in an environmental
protection agency that continues to come to my house but until
19 months after coming to my house just realizes that they are
testing the wrong tap, the tap that my children brush their
teeth and bathe with.
We certainly cannot expect the local power company to
operate in a conscientious manner, if our government doesn't
help. We the public are stunned to find there is no regulation
in place to protect us. The current definition of beneficial
use quite frankly is an oxymoron. As long as coal ash remains
unregulated, we the people have no protection from the
companies who use beneficial use as a cover for corporate
malfeasance.
In our opinion, the only hope we have is for the far-
reaching hand of our federal government to mandate the EPA to
designate coal ash as a hazardous waste, to regulate its use
with the strictest of protocols, and order that this tumor in
my community gone. And ladies and gentlemen, until that is
done, the inmates are running the asylum.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Whitaker-Pierce follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Markey. We thank you very much for being here.
Let me now turn to Representative Sarbanes from Maryland to
introduce our next witness.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
giving me the opportunity to participate this morning in the
hearing, and I thank you for the issues that you are going to
be looking at. I have the unhappy distinction that this is now
the second hearing that has occurred in this Congress, the
first was in Natural Resources and Mineral Resources
Subcommittee, in which a constituent of mine will be testifying
on the effects of coal combustion waste, fly ash, in terms of
exposure to that harmful substance. And I congratulate Ms.
Queen, who I am going to introduce now, for her willingness to
come forward and testify on what the effects have been on her
and her family because they have been devastated, just as we
have heard from Mrs. Whitaker-Pierce.
Let me introduce Gayle Queen. Before her illness forced her
to stop working, she was a supervisor in the family support
division of the Department of Social Services in Glen Burnie,
Maryland, which is in my district, where she helped young women
obtain jobs, earn GEDs and go back to school. She moved to her
present home in Gambrills, which is part of my district and
which is where the witness in the Natural Resources Committee,
Norm Harvey, also resides. Ms. Queen moved to Gambrills in
1997. She has two adult sons and her younger son and her three
daughters living with her were exposed to the coal ash
contamination until they moved in 2008. The leaching of this
fly ash into the drinking water supply is a really critical,
critical issue for us to examine.
Again, I appreciate your taking the time and resources of
this committee to focus on it. I thank Ms. Queen for being here
and we look forward to her testimony.
Mr. Markey. Great. We thank the gentleman, and Ms. Queen,
whenever you are ready, please begin.
STATEMENT OF GAYLE QUEEN
Ms. Queen. Good morning, and thank you. My name is Gayle
Queen and I live at 2401 Queen Mitchell Road in Gambrills,
Maryland. My family has lived in this area for over 100 years.
I am a 56-year-old and a widow. I am no longer employed. I
lived in Gambrills community while for over 10 years during
that time 4.1 million tons of coal ash was dumped next to my
home by a power company.
I am here to tell you about what happened in Gambrills,
Maryland, and how the contamination of the air and drinking
water has affected my health, the health of my family and
community. I am here today to ask you to make sure that
Congress passes legislation so that another community doesn't
have to suffer like my community.
The coal ash was dumped into an unlined 80-foot-deep pit on
84 acres. The coal ash went into an aquifer that supplies my
community drinking water and we all breathe the dust in. Once
the community was informed of the problem in 2007, we were
given no help by the State or federal government. Later, one of
the solutions was to hook up some of my neighbors to a fire
hydrant for water. The hoses froze in the winter. For other
people, bottled water was supplied and it is still supplied
today. Every 2 weeks I get bottled water to wash, bathe, to do
everything with every 2 weeks, but this did nothing for our
past exposure both in our drinking water and in the air.
The problem in Gambrills with coal ash started in the 1990s
at another coal ash dump site when the power company dumped
coal ash in another community. The residents of that community
complained and they moved it down to the dumping area that I
showed you over there. When it was required to have a continued
36-inch-thick layer of clay at the bottom of the ash pit, the
power company decided to dump the coal ash near my home in
Gambrills. There was supposed to be no contact between the coal
ash and the surface of the groundwater with a four-foot
separation between the coal ash and the groundwater. No
expense, no liner or 30-inch layer of clay was required at the
Gambrills site. Sadly, the coal ash went directly into standing
water and sand and gravel pit which had excavation as deep as
80 feet. There was no liner or four-foot barrier either. The
truck drivers who dumped the coal ash dumped it without any
remorse. My community was never warned of the danger of toxic
coal ash or that it would go into our water or our lungs and
cause injury.
Starting in 1999 and through 2007, tests showed that
arsenic, iron, manganese and sulfate were being leached at
dangerous levels and finally these dangerous chemicals got into
our private wells.
I have a well at my home. I rely on my well water to
provide cooking, drinking and bathing water. In 2007, the power
company began providing me bottled water. Before this, I had
never heard of coal ash or its dangers and didn't know this
toxin was being dumped in my community. If I had known about
the dangers, I would have protected me and my family and
community long ago. But we didn't know of the dangers or even
that dumping was going on.
Thankfully, the power company did finally take
responsibility for the situation by helping the community with
these problems. But the contamination of the water remains. It
should never have happened.
Because of the coal ash contamination, I have lost both my
financial security and my health. My biggest monetary asset, my
home, is worthless. I cannot afford to pay the mortgage after
the death of my husband in 2006, and I may have to file for
bankruptcy or foreclosure because it is not worth anything.
Because of the coal ash, I have trouble breathing, and I am
not a smoker. My doctor has told me I have the lungs of an 80-
year-old woman because of breathing in something, coal ash. I
am terrified about my future health. My husband died in 2006
from renal failure, and I worry that my organs will fail, I
will get cancer or I will get another disease because of my
exposure to this ash. I also worry about my grandchildren. They
drank the water, they bathed in it, they brushed their teeth.
Will they get a disease, too? No one can tell me for sure. But
I do know they never should have been exposed to this stuff.
I ask that you pass legislation to protect people like me
and my family. If the Environmental Protection Agency had the
authority to require liners and force power companies not to
dump close to drinking water systems, what happened to me and
my community would not happen to anyone else. We do not have
the power to protect ourselves. These companies and the State
agencies are not protecting us. Coal ash contamination ruins
the lives of the people in the community and our environment.
It cannot be allowed to happen again. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Queen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Ms. Queen, very much.
Our final witness is Mr. Raymond George Hunt, Jr. He and
his family have lived in Waterflow, New Mexico, as sheep
ranchers for generations. Mr. Hunt and his family operate a
small business in supply meat to the local Native American
tribes in the Four Corners area of New Mexico. Mr. Hunt's home
is adjacent to the San Juan Generating Station of Public
Service Company of New Mexico and the San Juan coal mine
operated by BHP, and he and his family have been directly
impacted by the coal combustion waste disposal practices at
these facilities. So we welcome you, sir. Please begin.
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND HUNT, JR.
Mr. Hunt. Thank you, sir, for letting me attend this.
I own and operate a small family business on land my
grandfather established in the early 1940s where I raised my
four children. For generations we drank from the fresh water on
our property without any adverse effects. Our animals grazed
nearby and drank from the natural springs and the arroyo during
the irrigation season. These water sources were healthy and
very productive for our business, which provides meat to the
Native American Tribes.
In 1974, Public Service Company built the San Juan Power
Plant and began using the dry arroyo to discharge their
wastewater. They began burying fly ash in the nearby dry
streambeds, rather than into lined ponds, which then leached
into our underground aquifers, contaminating our good water
with very high levels of arsenic, selenium, potassium,
chromium, lead, sulfate and many others.
By 1975, after the dumping of the coal ash began, my family
started to get sick. I was diagnosed with heavy metal poisoning
with extremely high arsenic, iron, lead and selenium levels. I
lost nearly 100 pounds in less than a year. I was so weak I
couldn't stand or walk, and wasn't expected to live. For
several years, my diet consisted of steamed chicken, squash and
potatoes. Any variation caused extreme diarrhea, nausea and
vomiting. My stomach ached and I suffered constant indigestion.
My wife was sick most of the time with similar symptoms. We had
difficulty comprehending simple conversations. Her body became
misshapen causing----
Mr. Markey. Take your time.
Mrs. Hunt. My name is Carla Hunt and I am his second wife.
If it would be all right with you, I will finish his statement.
My wife was sick most of the time with similar symptoms. We
both had difficulty comprehending simple conversations. Her
body became misshapen, causing many complications that remain
today. Our children lost weight and complained of stomachaches.
They had constant indigestion and diarrhea. Their hair was
falling out and unhealthy looking. Their teeth and eyesight
were compromised to the extent they still wear glasses and
require frequent monitoring. The children's teachers reported
that they had difficulty with simple tasks of concentration and
comprehension. One son was enrolled in special education
classes throughout his high school years.
Two days before Christmas in 1982, PNM approached us
offering us $2,500 to sign a release as a good neighbor gesture
on their part. We asked them, instead, to cover the cost of
hooking into the public water system for our family, and they
refused.
For two years, we bought drinking water and carried it into
our home until we could afford the connection fees for the
public water system. Once we stopped using the well, we began
slowly to improve. My wife, kids and I had been sick for over
ten years. My animals were not so fortunate. I watched 1,400
head of sheep slowly suffer and die from the lack of safe
drinking water. Within 2 years I lost my entire sheep herd and
took outside jobs, rather than risk selling contaminated meat
to my customers.
Although they lined the ponds, as required by an EPA
enforcement action and fine in 1984, PNM set up an agreement
that the fly ash would be returned to the neighboring BHP San
Juan Coal Mine and buried in the unlined pits there. The result
is that the fly ash and scrubber sludge continues to
contaminate the arroyo and groundwater through unlined sites.
My children are grown and married now. Two sons have served
several tours of duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and Germany. All
have some evidences of the childhood problems they experienced
due to the polluted water. My daughters have had very difficult
pregnancies and deliveries, which doctors have said may be the
result of the childhood poisoning. I have three grandchildren
who have been diagnosed autistic, also linked to heavy metal
poisoning in their mothers, and another who is ADHD. My brother
developed multiple sclerosis and spent 20 years in a care unit.
My father died of cancer. Four of my stepbrothers and sisters
have died prematurely due to cancer and cancer-related
illnesses. All were under the age of 40 and healthy, athletic
children throughout their high school years with no apparent
contributing illnesses. All of them drank from these same
polluted water wells and streams. I rely heavily on others to
help me with the management and operation of my business,
because, although recovered, I still suffer many side effects
from the poisoning.
In conclusion, this is only the story of my family. I have
many neighbors with similar stories. Some have lost young
children. Others have children and parents with major health
problems. Many have lost their livelihoods, their animals, and
the ability to provide for their families because of the
pollution that has come down the Shumway Arroyo and through our
underground water sources from improperly disposed coal ash.
They, too, were offered good neighbor settlements from PNM in
exchange for their silence and agreement to sign a hold
harmless contract.
My experience is that the energy industry cannot be
entrusted with innocent lives or to regulate themselves, for
the good of the community, in lieu of a profit for their
stockholders. I urge you to take every measure available to you
to prevent this from happening to anyone, anywhere in our
Nation, ever again.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Markey. Thank you.
Mr. Hunt. There is one other thing I wanted to mention
about this. Them poor animals would die and they wouldn't even
rot. They would mummify. And for the cost of putting in city
water so we did not have to haul water was only $175, and they
refused to do that. And, you know, my kids, I dropped out in
the 8th grade in Kirkland and my kids when the State
epidemiologist showed up says under the circumstances, only one
family is not worth investigating. My kids said from age 5 to 2
we want to be better to our government than what our government
was to us. And them kids got 52 years perfect attendance.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Hunt, very much, and we thank
each of our witnesses for your very compelling testimony here
today.
The Chair will now recognize himself for a round of
questions, and any of you can respond to this who would like.
On our second panel right after you, we will hear from some
witnesses that the characteristics of coal ash are similar to
that of dirt or rocks and that the material is extremely
unlikely to pose a health risk. How would you respond to that
statement?
Mr. Hunt. Pardon me?
Mr. Markey. How would you respond to that statement?
Mr. Hunt. Coal ash is dangerous stuff, and, just like I
say, them animals that I had with all--they created a deal by
the name of polyencephalomalacia, and just like the sheeps they
would lay down and they couldn't get up because they had
lesions on the brains and the crows would peck their eyes out.
And coal ash is a dangerous substance and it needs to be
controlled rather than the stockholders making a huge profit.
They need to take care of it in a proper way.
Mr. Markey. There are no federal regulations in this area.
The States have regulations or they have responsibility for
putting regulations on the books. How would you characterize
the regulations that your State has for protection of families
against the adverse effects of coal ash?
Mr. Hunt. Well, in our case, the State of New Mexico had
full knowledge that our well was polluted, and also the EPA had
full knowledge and the power plant also, and they did
absolutely nothing to do anything about it, and I am sure that
there is laws on the books that they are supposed to regulate
them but they never did nothing, and like I say, they just
ignored us like we was nobody.
Mr. Markey. Ms. Whitaker-Pierce.
Ms. Whitaker-Pierce. Yes, I would like to comment on that.
I think that the information that we presented today speaks for
itself. You have got the Yorktown situation that happened and
the identical same utility company came back out and did it in
our backyard. I am not against beneficial use if it is used
beneficially. I don't think that it has to be one or the other.
But what there has to be is someone that is going to hold these
utility companies responsible for disposing of it in ways that
we know without a question of a doubt are not harmful to the
general public.
Mr. Markey. So you are saying your State did not do enough?
Ms. Whitaker-Pierce. Oh, absolutely--well, I am here. I am
here. Absolutely no.
Mr. Markey. Ms. Queen, did your State do enough?
Ms. Queen. I don't know if they did enough but they did
fine them $1 million. It was too late then but they were fined
for $1 million.
Mr. Markey. Have all of you been provided with water in
order to deal with the effect of this issue? Did they provide
water to you, Ms. Queen?
Ms. Queen. Yes, I still----
Mr. Markey. You testified that that was the case?
Ms. Queen. Yes, I still get water.
Mr. Markey. And do you receive water?
Ms. Whitaker-Pierce. Sir, we have asked the utility company
to give us bottled water to see us through this and they have
across the board rejected it. Our source of water is to go up
to a, it looks like an outhouse. I wish I had pictures for you.
The local city government did build a structure around it so
that we weren't exposed to the elements when we were trying to
fill up those gallon jugs two to three times a week, but the
insulation is pouring down around it. I mean, you would be
appalled at the conditions, and that is how our families in our
neighborhood get their water is to go to this municipal source
and fill up jugs.
Mr. Markey. Let me ask you one more question before my time
expires. Dominion has stated in correspondence that the
developer of the Battlefield Golf Club project met all relevant
Virginia environmental regulations when it used coal ash. Do
you believe that that is the case?
Ms. Whitaker-Pierce. No, sir, absolutely not, and my well
tests say differently.
Mr. Markey. What regulations were violated in your----
Ms. Whitaker-Pierce. Well, it is my understanding that the
rate of bonders was not at the rate that it should have been
with that coal ash. It is also my understanding that liners
should have been placed; they were not. The developer, hundreds
of truckloads on a daily basis took out the good dirt, sold
that and then replaced it with the coal ash that Dominion paid
them to take, and my common sense tells me that if the United
States of America went to some Third World country and paid
this country to take our toxic waste material off of their
hands but we turned a blind eye because we weren't quote,
unquote, personally responsible for making sure that that stuff
went down the right way, the public outcry globally would be
outraged.
Mr. Markey. We thank you. We thank each one of you. Would
you like to add something?
Mr. Hunt. Yes. On that situation we had down there, they
were dumping untreated human waste down through there also, and
what happened when the State had full knowledge that our well
was polluted and the kids was involved, they acted like they
was a subsidy of the big large power company and the large coal
mine and there is no excuse for that.
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Hunt.
The Chair recognizes the ranking member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being a
little bit late. We had an important Michigan delegation
meeting involving the Great Lakes that required all of our
attendance.
I appreciate your stories, obviously everyone here. I have
sympathy for you and the circumstances surrounding that. Ms.
Queen, I had one question as it related to your testimony. You
indicated that the waste was put into an unlined landfill. Is
there a requirement in the State of Maryland that it be a lined
facility? Do you know if they violated--is there such a
standard in Maryland, do you know? If you don't know the
answer----
Ms. Queen. No, I am not sure, but it is too late now. They
have one now.
Mr. Upton. So there is one now?
Ms. Queen. Now, but----
Mr. Upton. Now there is a requirement that it has to be put
into a lined----
Ms. Queen. Yes. I don't know if it was a requirement before
but they didn't have one but now I am told there is a liner.
Mr. Upton. I know in my district in Michigan, in our State
we have a number of coal facilities and it is my understanding,
and we are trying to find out for sure, but it is my
understanding that the waste that isn't used for particleboard
and shingles and working with asphalt and highways does in fact
go to a lined facility which would then prevent what happened.
Ms. Queen. Yes, they do have one now.
Mr. Upton. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Markey. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all of us obviously
feel badly about what has happened to you three individuals,
and you know, the problem is with no national standards, some
States do better jobs than other states in regulating this
problem. Some States are doing nothing, which is a real
problem. In my State of Pennsylvania, our Department of
Environmental Protection has provided oversight on beneficial
reuse since 1985 and implemented stringent standards in 1992,
and Mr. Chairman, I do have letters from our Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection and Public Utility
Commission which I would like to submit for the record.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Markey. Without objection, it will be included in the
record.
Mr. Doyle. It basically hopes that as EPA makes this
rulemaking that they say there is clearly a need for regulation
of States with lax requirements or no requirements but they
should look at States that do have stringent requirements and
are doing this right and not preempt their laws, especially if
our laws are more stringent than what the federal government
may end up implementing, so I hope that we don't preempt those
States that already have strict standards in place in this
process.
Ms. Whitaker-Pierce, I am curious, you got conflicting
results from the testing, right? Did you ever have an
independent lab? Did you ever you yourself hire somebody? You
know, I am thinking about what I would do in your situation if
I started--you know, one person said there is lead and one
person said there isn't lead, I would want my own independent
testing, and I was just curious, how many different testers
were in your home and did you have anybody that was testing
your water samples for you?
Ms. Whitaker-Pierce. No, I did not personally commission an
agency to test the waters. The city of Chesapeake tested the
waters. They also hired a third party expert firm, J.R. Reed
and Associates, to do water tests along with the EPA.
Mr. Doyle. And you also said they all tested from just one
source in your home and it was a source that had an auxiliary
filter. Why was that selected and did you ever ask the--were
you present when the testing was done?
Ms. Whitaker-Pierce. Yes, sir, I was. I am glad you asked
because my 5 minutes didn't give me enough time to elaborate on
that. They had tested in two locations at my home. They have
tested at the well head and then they have gone in and tested
at my kitchen tap, and this has been done every single time.
When I say inconsistencies, sometimes they will come and take a
first draw and then they will purge the system for 5 minutes
and then they will purge it for 10 minutes and 20 minutes and
they will do various tests along that timeline, and then they
were the ones that said OK, well, we need to go to your kitchen
tap, but that kitchen tap has the auxiliary filter that I had
put on when we moved out there.
Mr. Doyle. Did you tell them that there was a filter on
that?
Ms. Whitaker-Pierce. Yes, sir, absolutely, absolutely, and
when I say that they are conflicting and confusing, the sheet
that I get, this report that I get has all of the different
levels that have been detected but I still don't know what the
EPA standard on arsenic is, for example. I mean, it was just by
coincidence that I found out that the EPA's level for lead was
.15 percent, and that was because the city of Chesapeake on
their documentation included that benchmark.
Mr. Doyle. So you are getting data but you are not getting
any experts to sit down----
Ms. Whitaker-Pierce. No, sir.
Mr. Doyle [continuing]. I mean, as a layperson to explain
what that data means in real terms to you and your family?
Ms. Whitaker-Pierce. No, and I would welcome that. As a
matter of fact, it was offered by one of our city
representatives and they said, you know, the EPA is the expert
so if it is OK with you, what we would like to do with your
permission is to turn over those results to the EPA and then
the EPA person can sit down with their results and then explain
to you what all this means. We are still waiting.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Mr. Hunt, was there ever any testing done? I mean, there is
no disputing what happened to you and your family. You can see
what happened, and then as you started to drink bottled water
or other water, you eventually started to recover. Was there
ever any testing done by any enforcement agency to determine
what was in your water?
Mr. Hunt. Well, I am glad you brought that up. What
happened, there was a lady that lived down the street there.
Her and her husband both met at BYU and they were very
outstanding citizens and they had five boys and she was
pregnant with the sixth one, and what happened, they would come
down and they would have her open up her basement to allow them
to go in and pull samples out of the well less than 100 feet
from the arroyo, and what happened, she was pregnant with the
sixth son, and what happened, she came down with leukemia and
she chose not to have any treatment because of her baby, so
after the baby was born, the baby was a year old when she
passed away and what happened, the four younger children that
she has got, they have done missions for the Mormon Church and
stuff like that, very outstanding people, and they got hormones
to keep from wetting the bed at night. And there is another
little boy, his dad owned a dairy and his uncle come running
across the street one day and he says Joe is drowning, come
quick, so I run over to see and what it was, it was the
mother's dad's birthday that day and they had Joe on the floor
and they were working with him doing CPR and stuff like that
and you could tell he was dead.
Mr. Doyle. I saw that and I saw what has happened to your
sheep. I am saying did anyone ever test this water and issue a
report----
Mr. Hunt. Yes, they did test it but they never warned the
woman down there that died of leukemia. They come to her house
and make them open the door to pull samples and they never
warned her about what had happened.
Mr. Doyle. You never got results?
Mr. Hunt. None whatsoever.
Mr. Doyle. Wow. I see my time has more than passed. Thank
you.
Mr. Markey. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you three
people for being with us this morning and explaining your
personal experiences.
In listening to your testimony, I think that I understand
that each of you has well water, you don't have city water, you
don't have county water but all of you had well water. Is that
correct?
Ms. Whitaker-Pierce. Yes.
Mr. Hunt. I have got city water now but I had to pay to
hook onto it but at the time we had spring water.
Mr. Whitfield. OK, but at the time it was spring water or
well water. And Mr. Hunt, I noticed that in the article out
there that it said what killed over 1,000 sheep and it says
rancher, State and PNM. I am not sure what PNM is but it must--
--
Mr. Hunt. Public Service Company of New Mexico.
Mr. Whitfield. OK. And then it says that at odds over the
bad water. So there was no agreement between the State, the PNM
and you as to whether or not this water was bad or what caused
the bad water.
Mr. Hunt. Well, what happened when they hit the Albuquerque
Journal, it was 13 months that they played around and made them
animals drink that bad water, and what happened, there was an
individual that come in out of the New Mexico environmental
department. They got him out of risk management and they put
him in as the deputy secretary under the Johnson
Administration, and then when things started heating up, he
become the general counsel, and what happened, the State
ordered the sheep to be hauled off and tested after me feeding
them for 13 months and watched them die, and when they would
die we would have to pile them up in piles and burn them, and
the man come back and he said poor carrot killed the animals
but you can notify the New Mexico State animal health people,
and in the document it says all animals was in good nutritional
condition and I don't know where he got that information from.
I would really love to know that.
Mr. Whitfield. But as far as the water that the sheep
drank, that was well water----
Mr. Hunt. No, no, that was out of the arroyo there, and
what happened, after the article come out in Albuquerque
Journal front page, they sent a surveillance man down there and
the surveillance man said 500 parts per million on sulfate is
all that is allowed for animals, and it was eight times above
that, and they never did nothing. They just sat back and
laughed at me.
Mr. Whitfield. All of you it sounds like are not really
satisfied with the way the State dealt with this, the way the
State environmental people dealt with this, the way the utility
companies dealt with it, which is understandable, but I would
ask did any of you go to an attorney to explore a class-action
lawsuit or some sort of lawsuit against any of the utility
companies?
Mr. Hunt. I tried to do that, and what happened is kind of
like going down trying to beat the hell out of Mike Tyson. The
only thing you are going to do is get the hell beat out of you.
Mr. Whitfield. So you determined that was not in your best
interest?
Mr. Hunt. Yes. There is no justice whatsoever in this mess.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, you know, the chairman mentioned this
briefly but one of the confusing things for us is, we know that
EPA has looked at this coal ash repeatedly through the years
and we know that 1 percent or less of coal ash has trace
elements of arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury and selenium in it,
and the scientists have said, and there is going to be people
testifying to this later, that fly ash or coal ash has no more
of these trace elements in it than regular soil and regular
rocks do. So, you know, it presents a puzzle for us as to
whether or not--I mean, I think there is probably agreement
that maybe this should be regulated, that there should be some
federal regulation, but to classify this as a hazardous
material from the scientific evidence that I have looked at, I
mean, I would have some question about that. But from your
personal experience, though, you are 100 percent certain that
your problems were caused by your exposure to coal ash. Is that
correct?
Mr. Hunt. Absolutely, and when you burn it down and
condense is up, what happens, it becomes very poisonous.
Mr. Whitfield. But you did indicate, I heard you say that
there was proof that there had been some human waste that had
been----
Mr. Hunt. That also.
Mr. Whitfield. So----
Mr. Hunt. But just like today, they haven't dumped human
waste in a long time, but it is still up around eight times
above what is allowed running right into the San Juan River
right on down towards Mexico.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, have they corrected this human waste
issue?
Mr. Hunt. I have no idea. Nothing would surprise me about
them people.
Mr. Whitfield. OK.
Ms. Whitaker-Pierce. Mr. Whitfield, I would like to respond
to that.
Mr. Whitfield. Yes.
Ms. Whitaker-Pierce. You will also--you can get experts to
testify to anything that you want to hear. The utility
companies obviously have a dog in the fight. You can find
experts out there that will say that absolutely coal ash is
dangerous, certainly should not be breathed, certainly should
not be exposed to water, certainly should not be involved in
one's water system, and there is no doubt in my mind that the
careless actions and the ineptitude of our EPA and our local
government and our State governments to regulate this and make
sure that people are acting responsibly is the reason that we
are all here today.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, Ms. Pierce, did you consider legal
action or did you have the same view as Mr. Hunt?
Ms. Whitaker-Pierce. Well, we are currently represented,
yes, by counsel to try to get the right thing done here.
Mr. Whitfield. So you are in litigation now or at least you
have retained an attorney to explore it?
Ms. Whitaker-Pierce. Correct.
Mr. Whitfield. OK. I see my time is about expired, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. McNerney [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Whitfield.
The chairman stepped out for a minute and asked me to step
in his seat while he is gone.
First of all, again, I want to thank the witnesses for
coming forth and testifying, very compelling words that you
have spoken this morning. You know, when coal-fired plants are
required to scrub their emissions from mercury and other
sulfates and so on, I can't imagine how people would think that
the fly ash is perfectly safe, but apparently we have some
evidence here this morning. Ms. Whitaker-Pierce, I would like
to ask if you think that Mr. McCabe's work that brought light
to the dangers there, if he hadn't done that investigative
work, do you think you would still be in the dark about the
risks and dangers?
Ms. Whitaker-Pierce. Well, I am still in the dark, but
there is no doubt that he is our knight in our shining armor.
We had this construction going on in our backyard for 7 years
and really thought that it was safe. So yes, had he not brought
this to light, we would still be drinking the water, and we owe
him a huge debt, yes.
Mr. McNerney. And so you would be facing potential health
problems, you and your family and your neighbors, so he does
deserve a certain amount of thanks for that, a lot of thanks.
Ms. Whitaker-Pierce. Yes, sir, he does, and we are not out
of harm's way yet. We had been drinking that stuff for 5 years
and are still using it for various purposes in the home.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Ms. Queen, you mentioned that tests showing arsenic, iron,
manganese and sulfates were leaching at dangerous levels but
that these tests were not shared with the community. Is that
right, the tests showing that these substances were leaking
into your water but you were not notified of the test results?
Ms. Queen. Not in the beginning but later on we did.
Someone came to the door to say that the water, you know, was
going to be tested and we should stop drinking the water, and
right away--not right away they started to bring in bottled
water for everybody except for over on the other side of the
road they put hoses out but the hoses froze so they got bottled
water too, but we are still getting bottled--they made it
right. They are going to put city water in to everybody that
had well water. We are getting city water hookup and it hasn't
come yet. They started, city water hookup and no water bill for
as long as you own the home, and I still get bottled water
today every 2 weeks. So they made right on--the power company
did.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Now, when did you first started
noticing the dust and started feeling that that was being a
hazard, that that was hazardous to you and your family?
Ms. Queen. When I first moved there, I noticed, but we just
cleaned the house, you know. We just cleaned it up. You know
how it would get on the house and on the porch and we started
cleaning it up, and then after it came out in 2007, then we
realized, oh, that is not good, you know.
Mr. McNerney. So you were breathing it in for years
basically without knowing that it was dangerous?
Ms. Queen. No, I didn't know anything about it.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Hunt, thank you again for your testimony
and thank you for your children's service to our Nation. Would
you say that the behavior of PNM and the State agencies was
conducted in ignorance or do you think that they knew the
dangers and still prevented action from being taken on your
behalf?
Mr. Hunt. To tell you the truth, I feel it was criminal,
and there is one thing I will say about the man that asked if
we ever tried to take legal action. We tried to take it to
court and I have only got an 8th-grade education, and what
happened when it was all said and done, our lawyer was sitting
up there testifying against us and we refused to accept the
settlement, which was $190,000, and we wrote on the release we
are signing this against our will under duress and
intimidation, and went down and filed it at the county clerk's
office to make it a public document information. And, you know,
bless their hearts, they went down and said it was a nuisance
litigation. It cost me $73,300 for a tax attorney to keep from
losing everything I owned.
Mr. McNerney. Was the local media, the Albuquerque Journal
or----
Mr. Hunt. The only thing they are out for is mainly sell
advertising, and the reason why we subscribe to the paper is
just to read the obituaries and the advertisements. Like I say,
I could have lost everything I own.
Mr. McNerney. It looks like my time has expired, and the
first panel has finished, so your testimony has been very
beneficial. Thank you.
It is now time for the second panel to step forward.
Mr. Hunt. I have been waiting 28 years for this date. Thank
you.
Mr. McNerney. Would all the second panel witnesses please
take their seats at the testimony table, please? Now, we have
the second panel in front of us and I would like to introduce
the witnesses and then I will ask for their testimony. First we
have Lisa Evans, who is an attorney specializing in hazardous-
waste law. Ms. Evans has been active in hazardous-waste
litigation advocacy for over 25 years and is an expert on coal
ash issues. She has been a project attorney for Earthjustice
since 2006. Prior to Earthjustice, Ms. Evans worked on toxic
coal waste for the Boston-based nonprofit Clean Air Task Force.
Ms. Evans began her career as an assistant regional counsel at
the Environmental Protection Agency region I. Ms. Evans, you
can begin your testimony when you are ready.
STATEMENTS OF LISA EVANS, SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE COUNSEL,
EARTHJUSTICE; MARY A. FOX, PH.D., MPH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,
JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH; KEN LADWIG,
SENIOR PROGRAM MANAGER, ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE; AND
DONALD McGRAW, M.D., PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
STATEMENT OF LISA EVANS
Ms. Evans. Thank you. Members of the subcommittee, thank
you for holding this hearing to examine the threats posed to
our health and environment by coal ash, the hazardous substance
generated by power plants that burn coal.
When mismanaged, this toxic waste damages the health and
environment of Americans nationwide by poisoning drinking
water, fouling the air and destroying aquatic ecosystems.
Federal action on this issue is imminent. Last March, EPA
Administrator Lisa Jackson made a commitment to publish a
proposed rule governing the disposal of coal ash by year's end.
My testimony today recognizes the primary goal of this
impending rule: the protection of human health.
The committee has heard today from witnesses whose health
and the health of their families and neighbors have been
seriously compromised by exposure to the toxic contaminants in
ash. Today's witnesses represented three separate instances of
coal ash contamination but they have three important things in
common. First, dry dumping of coal ash, not wet disposal,
caused serious harm. Much of the focus this year has been on
the deadly dangers posed by wet ash ponds. Wet disposal has
drawn national attention since the cataclysmic failure of the
TVA dam, whose release of over 1 billion gallons of toxic
sludge was 100 times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill. But
today it is significant to note that dry disposal and release
of dry ash is a cause of damage. This is not surprising. EPA
has identified a significant threat from dry disposal in
unlined landfills, estimating that such disposal can result in
a risk of cancer 50 times EPA's regulatory goal.
Second, at each site State law was woefully inadequate to
protect the health of the affected communities. Today,
regulation of coal ash is left totally up to the States but in
New Mexico, Virginia and Maryland, where the witnesses reside,
the States failed to put in place even the most basic
safeguards. In none of these States, not even household garbage
would be allowed to be disposed of in the manner that ash was.
In these States and in most of the States in the United States,
improper, unsafe and ultimately harmful disposal of toxic ash
is permitted and sometimes even encouraged.
Third, the witnesses and their communities were harmed
economically. While the focus today is properly on health,
significant damage to communities occurs when cheap disposal is
unfettered by federal law. Today you heard how Mr. Hunt, a
sheep rancher, lost his herd, how the housing values in Robin
Pierce's community have plummeted and how Gayle Queen may
tragically lose her home to foreclosure. These economic
hardships produce stress that tears at the fabric of our
community. The dumping of ash in all three situations was the
cheapest route for industry but the true costs were borne by
these witnesses and their neighbors.
As a former EPA attorney, I worked to enforce the Resource
Conservation Recovery Act. This experience gave me a deep
appreciation of the statute's fundamental goal. In one word,
the driving force of RCRA is prevention. Congress passed RCRA
in 1976 to put in place regulations to prevent in the first
instance the mismanagement of waste in order to prevent the
migration of toxic chemicals. Further, in 1980, Congress
explicitly directed EPA to require safe disposal of coal ash.
But for decades, nearly 30 years, EPA has failed to promulgate
national regulations and this omission is huge and dangerous.
EPA tells us that in 2008 U.S. electric utilities produced 136
million tons of coal ash. This is enough ash to fill the
boxcars of a train from this room to Melbourne, Australia, and
this amount is rapidly climbing as we capture more toxics like
mercury and other hazardous metals at the power plant stacks.
The bright spot today is that the prevention of harm from
the dumping of ash is a problem we know how to solve. Isolation
of toxic waste from water in engineered landfills is 20th
century technology at best. Thus, the essential next step is
for EPA to promulgate federally enforceable regulations that
guarantee that all U.S. citizens are protected from the harms
posed by mismanagement of ash. Only under subtitle C of RCRA
will all States be required to adopt minimum disposal standards
that protect the health of all living near coal ash dump sites.
In sum, I respectfully ask the subcommittee to end the 30-
year impasse and encourage EPA to promulgate federally
enforceable regulations that will prevent the harm that these
witnesses have suffered from occurring again.
About 2 years ago, I held Mr. Hunt's infant granddaughter,
and I would like nothing better than to guarantee to her that
what happened to her grandfather will not happen to her family
in Waterflow, New Mexico, nor to Mrs. Queen's grandchildren in
Gambrills, Maryland, nor to Ms. Pierce's children in
Chesapeake, Virginia. This subcommittee may have a hand in
making the same guarantee.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this
critically important issue and thank you especially for
allowing the witnesses in the previous panel to have their
voices heard.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Evans follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Ms. Evans.
The second witness I would like to call is Mary Fox, Dr.
Mary Fox. She is an assistant professor of policy and
management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health. She is part of the core faculty of the school's Risk
Sciences and Public Policy Institute and her research focuses
on the human health effects of exposure to chemical mixtures.
Dr. Fox received her Ph.D. in environmental and occupational
health policy from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health. Ms. Fox, please begin your testimony when you are
ready.
STATEMENT OF MARY A. FOX
Ms. Fox. Thank you, and good morning. I appreciate the
opportunity to address the subcommittee today.
There are a few important things to know when addressing
the health impacts of coal combustion waste. First, coal
combustion waste is a complex mixture of well-documented
hazardous substances. The types of and severity of health
effects of coal combustion waste constituents range from benign
and cosmetic changes to organ function changes to cancer. As a
Nation, we produce a large volume of waste. The uses and types
of disposal may allow distribution into the broader
environment. Taken together, these considerations present us
with a public health protection challenge.
Some examples of the health effects associated with
specific combustion waste constituents include cancer
associated with arsenic, neurological effects associated with
aluminum, lead and manganese, kidney effects from barium and
mercury, effects on the gastrointestinal system related to
beryllium, and copper. It is important to note that multiple
coal combustion waste constituents contribute to certain health
effects. Exposure to combinations or mixtures of these
constituents may increase the risk of developing these health
problems.
As we have seen in some of the pictures this morning from
the particular sites, people can come into contact with coal
combustion waste through breathing if the dust is in the air or
through drinking water if constituents have leached from a
disposal site into groundwater that is tapped by drinking-water
wells. And as we have heard, not far from here in Gambrills,
Maryland, coal combustion waste was used to reclaim a former
sand and gravel pit. Constituents of the coal combustion waste
reached the drinking-water wells of nearby residents and
sampling by the county health department found concentrations
of aluminum, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, manganese and
thallium above drinking-water standards in some wells.
It is difficulty to study and therefore accurately quantify
the population-level health impacts of coal combustion waste
exposure. Three of the common coal combustion waste management
practices, landfill, surface impoundment or use in reclamation
of mines, result in localized disposal. Communities surrounding
such disposal sites are typically small. Proximity to the coal
combustion waste disposal site will likely spur interest in
evaluating community health. Unfortunately, systematic health
effects research in any one small community will have limited
statistical power to detect changes in health outcomes. An
absence of traditional epidemiological studies, human health
risk assessment methods are available to evaluate population
exposures to multiple contaminant mixtures. Because coal
combustion waste is a complex mixture of constituents, risk
assessment methods will be essential to evaluating the health
risks of exposure to coal combustion waste.
And let me conclude with a few key points. Coal combustion
waste is a complex mixture that can be mobilized in the
environment, depending on the uses and disposal methods. People
can be exposed to coal combustion waste through breathing or
inhalation, direct contact and ingestion. Health effects of
exposure will be underestimated if we ignore the potential for
simultaneous exposure to multiple components of the mixture and
prevention of exposure through better management of the waste
is ultimately the most sound public health approach.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you this
morning.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fox follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Dr. Fox, very much.
Our next witness is Ken Ladwig. He is senior project
manager at the Electric Power Research Institute, responsible
for research on the management and use of coal combustion
waste. Since joining EPRI in 1999, he has worked on various
aspects of coal waste and groundwater research including the
potential for environmental release, disposal site management
and coal waste options. We welcome you, sir. Whenever you are
ready, please begin.
STATEMENT OF KEN LADWIG
Mr. Ladwig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to provide testimony to this subcommittee.
At EPRI, we have been engaged in coal combustion product
research both disposal and use for over 30 years. Our goal in
meeting with legislative staff recently and attending this
hearing is to ensure that all pertinent technical information
is available to those that may be involved in this important
decision-making process.
In my brief time today, I will focus primarily on coal ash,
and I believe it was Congressman Whitfield that said that it is
confusing to hear coal ash referred to both as a toxic sludge
or something of high toxicity, and on the other hand hear it
referred to as being the same as soil. I hope to provide some
illumination on that topic, and as usual, I think the answer is
probably somewhere in the middle.
Coal ash is derived from the inorganic minerals in coal,
and as such its element composition is similar to the
composition of rocks and soil, so that is inevitable. Trace
metals make up less than 1 percent of the total composition.
However, while the trace elements are qualitatively the same as
those in rocks and soil, they are enriched slightly relative to
rocks and soil and therefore the material does need to be
managed. The toxicity characteristic leaching procedure, TCLP,
is the leaching test that has been used to draw the line
between hazardous and non-hazardous waste under RCRA since
1990. In samples from more than 30 power plants in testing we
have done at EPRI, no coal ash samples exceeded any TCLP limits
for any trace metals. These data are consistent with data from
U.S. EPA. We have also compared leachate from fly ash to
leachate from other non-hazardous waste such as metal slags and
found them to be similar. There are literally hundreds of other
laboratory leaching protocols that have been used by EPRI and
other researchers to evaluate coal ash and there is quite a bit
of disagreement among the technical community as to which is
the best procedure. We are coordinating with EPA on
interpretation and use of a new set of leaching protocols that
offer a number of benefits in understanding CCP leaching
mechanisms. However, the tests produce a lot of data that
requires careful evaluation and application on a site-specific
basis. Indiscriminate use of selected results from these
complicated tests is both misleading and inaccurate.
Power plants have been generating and managing coal ash for
more than 60 years. EPA released a report in 2007 describing 67
CCP management sites with either groundwater or surface water
impacts characterized as proven or potential damage cases. Most
of these damage cases represent older facilities without
liners, onsite releases and low-toxicity constituents.
Remediation is actively occurring or has been completed at
nearly all of the EPA damage case sites. Conversely, a DOE EPA
report recently found that nearly all new CCP disposal cells
built between 1994 and 2004 were lined and included groundwater
monitoring networks. Several States such as Wisconsin have had
successful non-hazardous disposal requirements in place for
CCPs for many years.
The physical and chemical properties of CCPs make them
valuable raw materials for many construction and geotechnical
applications, and I think from the comments I have heard today,
we all agree that using the CCPs in safe applications is the
best outcome. In 2007, over 50 million tons of CCPs were used
rather than disposed. The primary uses for fly ash are as an
ingredient in concrete and cement and use in geotechnical
fills. FGD gypsum is largely used as a direct replacement for
rock gypsum in panel products, and U.S. EPA, USDA and Federal
Highway Administration are all actively involved in CCP use.
We recently worked with the Recycling Materials Resource
Center to use lifecycle analysis programs to quantify the
environmental benefits of using CCPs in sustainable
construction. Based on 2007 data, using CCPs in place of mined
materials saved over $160 trillion BTUs in energy consumption,
which is roughly the equivalent of the amount of energy used in
1.7 million homes, or a decent-sized city, 32 billion gallons
in water consumption and 11 million tons in greenhouse gas
emissions, and that equates to about taking two million autos
off the road in a year. In addition, use rather than disposal
saved a land area the size of Central Park in New York in 2007.
In conclusion, the Kingston release made coal ash a front-
page news item and we are a lot more aware of some of the
issues surrounding coal ash. What we need to do now is define a
clear path forward that ensures safe disposal and allows for
continued growth in CCP use. This will require continuing to
fix problem sites such as Kingston and the damage cases, and I
believe there was a hearing on Kingston yesterday that
presented the progress that has been made on that site in just
a year. And along with that, we need to identify and implement
components of successful disposal site designs and practices.
This is not an intractable for difficult task, and I agree with
Lisa that there are technologies out there for dealing with the
disposal of these materials. There are many examples of
successful CCP disposal sites in all parts of the country right
now.
Finally, we need to continue to grow the use of these
materials in applications that are demonstrated to be both safe
and of value. Every ton that is used rather than disposed
provides savings in energy, water, greenhouse gas emissions,
land area and natural resources. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ladwig follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Ladwig, very much.
Our final witness, Dr. Donald McGraw, is a practicing
physician in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Dr. McGraw has 30 years
of experience in occupational and environmental medicine and
has received a master's degree in public health from Johns
Hopkins University. We welcome you, sir. Whenever you are
ready, please begin.
STATEMENT OF DONALD McGRAW
Dr. McGraw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to first say that I grew up in a small town in
southeastern Ohio to a family of farming, coal mining and steel
working people. When I grew up, we had a coal-fired furnace
which I stoked every morning. I shoved the coal in as a lad
through a window into the basement and I helped my grandfather
dump the coal ash on our garden, which grew wonderfully, as the
Congressman from Florida mentioned earlier. When I left the
area to attend school, I ended up back in Pittsburgh. I have
been there for some 30 years now. I serve on the faculties of
the University of Pittsburgh Schools of Medicine and Public
Health and have taught medical students and residents for
several decades. I previously was at least briefly on the
faculty at Johns Hopkins prior to coming home. I am on the
attending medical staff at a number of prominent area
hospitals. I see patients in those hospitals, in clinics, in
their worksites and in their homes. I have been in coal mines,
steel mills, coal tar plants. I have been on coke ovens. I have
been just about everywhere that coal has been used.
Only hearts of stone could fail to be moved to compassion
by the stories and personal plights of the three families who
spoke before but tragedies occur all too frequently in the form
of tsunamis or typhoons in Thailand, the Philippines and
mainland China, hurricanes like Katrina in New Orleans and
Biloxi where I have participated in the aftermath and helped in
at least a small way with my church in the cleanup. Hurricane
Ike in Galveston, earthquakes in Peru and Russia and elsewhere
around the world have brought death and devastation. Volcanic
eruptions in Mexico and elsewhere leave in their wakes tragedy
that is all too real. But in my experience, the main tragedy in
coal combustion is the devastating job loss and economic
devastation in the wake of steel mill shutterings and coal mine
closures in southwestern Pennsylvania, southeastern Ohio, the
mountains of West Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois and elsewhere.
It would be truly a misadventure, a tragic misadventure to
plunge these people even deeper into economic darkness.
In the course of my work in 2005, I was asked to see a
number of individuals including adults and children, a half
dozen, maybe even more than that, when an accidental spill of
fly ash occurred in Forward Township not far from Pittsburgh.
This was a large pile of ash that had been there for probably
50 years and slid down the hill into this tiny community and
coated the ground where these people lived a foot or two in
depth, and this was a soft, flaky ash, much like you would see
coming out of any coal-powered facility. These people
unfortunately waded around in it for days, cleaned it, shoveled
it, swept it, breathed it in their own personal cleanups before
some attention was paid. The DEP in Pennsylvania is very good
and they came to the rescue and ultimately that cleanup has
been underway. I saw those individuals as individual patients.
I listened to their stories. I evaluated them physically and I
could find no objective abnormalities in any of those people.
Simultaneously, or concomitantly, the Allegheny County Health
Department, part of Bruce Dixon, who is just a marvelous
physician, examined these people tested their urine, their
blood, their hair, their nails and could find no evidence of
any increased exposure to any heavy metals or any medical
problems. Subsequently, these people were re-examined by the
county health department in 2009, last spring, and once again
were given a clean bill of health after extensive evaluation.
Last year I had the opportunity to go to Tennessee, and I
am not sure why I was asked other than the fact that I had been
involved with individuals from Pittsburgh and vicinity. I went
down to Kingston and saw the massive upheaval down there that
was caused by the release of a large stock of coal fly ash in a
retention pond, which gave way after a very long period of
heavy rain, much like the weather caused the problems in
Forward Township. This ash slid largely into the waterways
nearby but it did slide into the yards and homes of I think
probably about five or six families whose houses were certainly
adversely affected. I also had the opportunity aside from
touring the area not to examine any of these individuals but to
participate in an open meeting at a local school in which any
community residents or interested parties could attend and
probably some 150 people or some came, some of whom were
residents and some others were just interested, and asked
questions about the potential adverse health effects of their
exposure in this setting, and I tried to reassure them that
their exposure now and in the future was extremely unlikely to
be detrimental to their personal health, the health of their
children, their animals, et cetera.
In the course of my practice, I have had the opportunity to
address the potential toxicity of heavy metals such as arsenic
and a wide variety of settings. I have examined hundreds, if
not thousands, of individuals whose work has required that they
be in the presence of compounds like arsenic and coal and coal
tar and coke oven emissions and other potentially toxic
materials, and as it was pointed out earlier, all of these are
natural occurring minerals. They occur in the substrata of the
earth. They are released by volcanic eruptions, by forest fires
in far greater amounts than are released as a result of
industrial production. Arsenic----
Mr. Markey. If you could summarize, please, Dr. McGraw?
Dr. McGraw. Yes. I am sorry.
Arsenic is present in water, in high concentrations in
mineral springs all over North America, and we eat it every day
in our foodstuffs and we drink it in our water. That is not to
say that it is not potentially toxic but so are a wide variety
of other materials. Cars are dangerous too but if we ban them
or extremely limit their use, it would be devastating to the
economy of this country.
[The prepared statement of Dr. McGraw follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Dr. McGraw, very much.
Now we will turn to our questions from the subcommittee.
Let me ask you, Dr. Fox, I just heard Dr. McGraw talking about
arsenic, you know, as not a particularly dangerous substance to
be ingested by human beings. Could you talk a little bit about
the ingestion of arsenic or other heavy metals over a period of
many years in terms of what that risk might be to human beings?
Ms. Fox. Yes. That is a distinction that is useful to make
in several of the examples I think that Dr. McGraw discussed.
In Forward Township, for example, and in Kingston, Tennessee,
those were situations where the exposures were relatively short
term and sort of the immediate nature of the spill prompted a
quite rigorous cleanup. In situations as in Gambrills,
Maryland, that we heard about earlier, the waste has been
disposed in this former sand and gravel pit since the mid-1990s
approximately, and the contamination of the groundwater there
may have been going on for years and may continue for some
time. So chronic exposure to arsenic and some of the other
constituents is associated with a number of health problems
that I already discussed.
Mr. Markey. Do you agree with that, Dr. McGraw?
Dr. McGraw. Which part?
Mr. Markey. The part where she is saying that continuous
exposure to these constituent elements over a period of time
are related to serious medical consequences.
Dr. McGraw. That all depends on the concentration, the
dose, the area of exposure, how it is taken in. Our body has
numerous capabilities for eliminating potential toxins from it.
We are very well constructed to manage our health despite
exposure to many natural elements, and while there are huge
concentrations of materials like arsenic sadly in the well
water in places like Taiwan and Bangladesh, they are many
degrees of magnitude higher than any that might ever be
potentially even occurring in the United States in any
conceivable way.
Mr. Markey. So you are saying that the hundreds of
thousands of people who died in Bangladesh related to ingestion
of arsenic is something that we shouldn't be concerned about
here as a warning to us?
Dr. McGraw. I am not sure of those numbers, Mr. Markey.
Mr. Markey. But you cited Bangladesh, so hundreds of
thousands of people----
Dr. McGraw. Perhaps I would have to check and see what
those numbers were, but----
Mr. Markey. The World Health Organization says that
hundreds of thousands of people have died in Bangladesh. You
cited Bangladesh, relating it to your World Health Organization
analysis.
Dr. McGraw. Correct.
Mr. Markey. Do you dispute the World Health Organization?
Dr. McGraw. No, no, I don't, but----
Mr. Markey. So take the arsenic findings there and
extrapolate them for the purposes of what lesson you want us to
draw from Bangladesh in terms of exposure to arsenic, please.
Dr. McGraw. Those levels in those countries are hundreds
and hundreds and thousands of micrograms per liter relative to
our required water levels of one-hundredth of a microgram per
liter.
Mr. Markey. But the EPA and the World Health Organization
have identified arsenic as a carcinogen. Do you disagree with
that finding?
Dr. McGraw. No, I don't, Mr. Chairman. Let me give you----
Mr. Markey. We are trying to find----
Dr. McGraw. If I may provide you with an analogy, thousands
of women and possibly men are injected on a daily basis with
botulinum toxin, the deadliest material known to humankind.
They are injected in their faces for cosmetic purposes. One-
eighteenth of a millionth of an ounce is a lethal dose for a
human being and yet it goes into syringes and into people's
bodies on a daily basis. There are many, many toxins that we
either voluntarily or involuntarily expose ourselves to on a
daily basis. Once, again, it depends on the dose, the level,
and in this country, those levels will never be replicated----
Mr. Markey. Exactly.
Dr. McGraw [continuing]. Ever.
Mr. Markey. No, no, I don't think that is so. I think what
we are learning here and we are seeing this in the testimony of
the witnesses beforehand that if enough of it is placed in
areas that are adjacent to populated areas that it can leach
into the water system and over a sustained period of time there
could be a dramatic impact on human beings as they ingest this
material. You were referring to earlier about a one-time or
two-time exposure. Here we are talking about something that
is----
Dr. McGraw. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, three
cases, as tragic as they might be, do not represent
epidemiology. I have looked at countless workers who have been
working for decades with exposure to these and other materials
and seen no evidence of any harm, and they certainly were
exposed at far higher levels than the general public would
ever----
Mr. Markey. You know, 3,000 young people are going to begin
smoking today in America. One thousand of them will die from
smoking-related illnesses and two will not.
Dr. McGraw. I am not sure I see the point.
Mr. Markey. But the one that is is really is our concern,
so you may--and again, you are not an epidemiologist, I don't
think.
Dr. McGraw. I have studied it extensively and I do
appreciate it. I read the literature regularly.
Mr. Markey. I appreciate that, but you are taking personal
examples and extrapolating, which is different from actually
presenting an epidemiological study.
Dr. McGraw. I have read the epidemiologic literature.
Mr. Markey. Ms. Evans, can you tell us if there is just a
small number of examples here or are there more people like the
witnesses that we saw on the first panel that represent the
population that we are concerned with?
Ms. Evans. Absolutely. Thank you. I would say we have a
country full of examples similar to the people who spoke today.
There are so many unlined dump sites, whether they be unlined
ponds or unlined landfills or simply holes in the ground by
gravel pits and mines where we place this waste. For 30 years
having unregulated disposal, it is resulted in a lot of waste
sites that present dangers to the general public. The EPA has
identified 71 sites so far as Ken referenced where there has
been contamination of ground and surface water in 23 States.
That is a drop in the bucket, and EPA does admit that, and one
reason that we can say with some certainty that it is a drop in
the bucket is that so many of these dump sites are not
monitored, and if you don't monitor the dump sites, you don't
know what is leaving them. So I would say that in my experience
in numerous communities over the last 10 years, there are
certainly many, many communities that----
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Ms. Evans, very much. I think----
Dr. McGraw. If I could respond, Mr. Chairman, just briefly
to Ms. Evans' comment, she identified sites but I challenge her
to identify numbers of individuals or communities where it has
been demonstrated objectively, medically that they have
developed either life-threatening illnesses or have died as a
result of exposure to coal tar ash. I challenge her because it
doesn't exist. I have seen people die a thousand different
ways, Mr. Chairman, but I have never seen one either die or
become ill from exposure to coal ash.
Mr. Markey. Ms. Evans?
Ms. Evans. I would be happy to provide the subcommittee
with medical reports from people who--and this mostly occurs in
litigation where they have to draw the connection between the
coal ash and the disease, but we do have reports to that effect
and can submit those to the committee.
Dr. McGraw. Anecdotal legal cases do not represent
epidemiology. That is not science. That is law.
Mr. Markey. Well, I appreciate that, but we also have
certain other kind of, we call them in the law res ipsa
loquitur, which is the thing speaks for itself. I think that is
what we heard from Robin Whitaker-Pierce earlier. The property
cannot be sold. The entire community is frozen. We have
widespread health impacts. And to a certain extent, there has
been a see no evil, hear no evil aspect to this issue over the
years. So we are just kind of catching up with this issue in
the same way that we caught up with the tobacco issue as well,
and I think that the witnesses here today provide very
compelling evidence that there is a problem here, that long-
term exposure to these elements is dangerous and again, the EPA
is in the process of completing their recommendations, and when
they do, we will have them here for the hearing and we will be
able to ask them those questions.
Let me turn now and recognize the gentleman from Michigan,
Mr. Upton.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Evans, Mr. Ladwig, we have checked with my Michigan
utilities as they expose of this ash. I am told that they use
landfills that are clay lined unlike I guess what now Maryland
is now pursued in terms of my question for Ms. Queen on the
last panel. They have monitoring. It requires monitoring of any
leakage as well. It is regulated as an industrial waste in the
State of Michigan. And my question is, how many States have a
similar type of procedure for the disposal of waste? Do you
know?
Ms. Evans. The majority of States do not require what you
just----
Mr. Upton. So Michigan is more advanced than most States.
Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Evans. I would say if you are talking about States that
require clay liners for all waste disposal units would be in
the minority but I would also say that the----
Mr. Upton. And monitoring as well.
Ms. Evans. And monitoring. What you have----
Mr. Upton. I want to make sure I don't run out of time.
Mr. Ladwig, would you concur with that?
Mr. Ladwig. Not exactly. I don't know the number of States
that currently have liner requirements. I do know that as I
said in my testimony, essentially all new facilities built
between 1994 and 2004 when DOE and EPA did their study all
employed liners. So either their States are requiring them or
they are voluntarily installing liners.
With respect to groundwater monitoring, almost all
landfills have groundwater monitoring, as far back as the
1990s. Ponds have had a little bit more checkered history with
respect to monitoring and it was more like half at that time
had monitoring in the 1990s when we did a study on this. I am
not sure what the number is now.
Mr. Upton. Now, in Michigan, a good share of the waste is
actually used for highway cement, particleboard, that type of
thing. In fact, I am aware of a letter that the Michigan
Department of Transportation sent to the Federal Highway
Administration saying that this is a good use of the substance
actually. It performs better with that. A question I think in a
lot of people's view if we could recycle this somehow in terms
of a meaningful way. I am told that again in Europe, perhaps as
much as 80 to 90 percent of the ash is used for this type of
purpose. In the United States, we are closer to about 40
percent or about half. The question is, if we classify it as a
hazardous waste, as some perhaps have suggested, what would
that do to the efforts to then recycle this versus putting it
all into a landfill or that type of thing?
Ms. Evans. Before I respond to the recycling question, let
me just quickly go back to Michigan's landfill regulations
because I think it is also in Ken's statement regarding the 56
facilities that were built between 1994 and 2004 because the
important point has to be made that all liners are not equal,
and the requirement that landfills and surface impoundments
have clay liners was shown by EPA to be insufficient. So the
standard that landfills and surface impoundments need to have
composite liners is something that EPA stated in its risk
assessment and that landfills and surface impoundments that are
not so lined present an unacceptable risk of migration.
Mr. Upton. You are saying they need to have a composite?
Ms. Evans. A composite liner, and the----
Mr. Upton. And how many States have that today?
Ms. Evans. Very few have a requirement that all landfills
and all----
Mr. Upton. So almost none?
Ms. Evans. I mean, 50 percent of the States in the United
States don't require ponds to have any liners.
Mr. Upton. Moving to my next question, if it was classified
as a hazardous waste, would in fact we be able to recycle much
of the material there like we do today? Yes or no.
Ms. Evans. Yes. EPA has the flexibility to deal with
recycled waste as solid waste. It can parse out, and under the
state it can regulate waste that is disposed as hazardous,
perhaps put----
Mr. Upton. Would that not add tremendously to the cost and
therefore diminish the amount that is recycled today?
Ms. Evans. It shouldn't. If it is going to cost more to
recycle the waste--I mean if it is going to cost more to
dispose of the waste, there is going to be an incentive to
recycle.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Ladwig, do you have a guess as to what the
cost would be to the industry, not only to go to a composite-
type liner versus the clay liners that are used today, with the
monitoring that they have which I think might have resolved Ms.
Queen's problem because in her testimony, she indicated that it
went to an unlined site, but how would that impact recycling as
well?
Mr. Ladwig. Well, I think you have a couple questions
embedded there. The costs of moving to hazardous waste
requirements of these facilities would increase the cost of
disposal by a factor of 10, would be up into the billions of
dollars for the utility industry. Thirteen billion dollars I
think was one estimate that was provided. That is a significant
cost, and we have done an analysis that the impact of that cost
as well as the cost of phasing out wet management, what those
costs would actually do to utilities, how many units it would--
--
Mr. Upton. It would cost billions of dollars more. That
would have to be passed along to the ratepayers, right?
Mr. Ladwig. I would assume so. You know, I am not familiar
with utility finances.
Mr. Upton. My time is expired, so just tell me how would
impact recycling.
Mr. Ladwig. From everything we have heard and I believe
USWAG, the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, has collected
a number of letters. There are somewhere on the order of 150 to
200 letters from utilities, marketing companies and users all
stating very clearly that a hazardous waste designation would
have a chilling effect on any use just simply because using a
material when it is deemed hazardous if it goes in one
direction and usable when it goes in another direction is not a
workable situation.
Mr. Upton. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle [presiding]. The Chair will recognize himself.
Dr. McGraw, my grandfather got off the boat from Ireland in
1900 and landed in Pittsburgh. He worked 41 years at Kerry
Furnace in Rankin. My father followed him in the steel industry
and worked 31 years at Eggert Thompson in Braddock. I worked
there two summers and realized that I didn't want to be a
steelworker. I appreciate the steel industry and coal. All my
constituents get their electricity from coal in Pittsburgh, and
I lived my entire 56 years there. We Pittsburghers didn't much
appreciate Mr. Carnegie dumping all his waste in the
Monongahela River and the Allegheny River and at one point
those rivers got very dark and nobody fished in those rivers,
and regulations finally were put in place that made sure that
people just didn't indiscriminately dump things into the rivers
or up into the air. John Surma is a dear friend of mine, the
current CEO of U.S. Steel, and he will tell you that he thinks
that a clean environment and a steel industry can coexist. This
committee is not talking about putting the coal industry or the
steel industry out of business but what we are saying, that in
this country there are many States that have no regulations on
this or very lax regulations. Pennsylvania has been overseeing
beneficial reuse of coal ash since 1985. We have standards in
place since 1992. States like Wisconsin have good standards. We
believe that these industries can coexist with good regulation
and partnership. So when you said in your testimony that you
were much more concerned about the job loss in the coal
industry than you were about the potential health hazards, I
would tell you that we need to do both. We can protect jobs and
protect people's lives. That is what we are trying to research
here on the committee.
I am familiar with Forward Township. I used to represent it
for 8 years before redistricting. I am curious, how did you
come to get involved in the Forward Township case? You
mentioned you were involved in examining people there.
Dr. McGraw. I believe that they were referred to me through
the graduate school of public health at the University of
Pittsburgh where I have been a faculty member for a long time
because they knew me as someone who would see anyone for
virtually any kind of problem, and I believe the chairman of
the department referred them all to me when they called in to
his office. You know, I don't disagree with anything you just
said, Mr. Doyle. I respect the need to have a clean environment
and certainly want nothing less myself, and I think the
commonwealth should be particularly proud in having already
done a good job. But to classify a relatively benign material
as a hazardous waste would I think lead to a cascade of events
that would cost jobs and enormous resources to the power
industry, the coal industry, the steel industry and all the way
down the line.
Mr. Doyle. So it is your testimony then that you believe
coal ash to be completely benign and not a health risk to
anyone?
Dr. McGraw. That is correct.
Mr. Doyle. We could just eat this stuff, and----
Dr. McGraw. If you put some on my cereal, it might not be
very tasty but you would have to put it on a long, long time
before we would get to the point where those poor people in
other countries are consuming it and would be at risk. So in
this country, the likelihood of that happening is like being
struck by lightning.
Mr. Doyle. I want to be certain about your testimony. You
talked about the arsenic levels in Bangladesh. You are
certainly not subscribing to the fact that we should adopt
Bangladesh water standards here in the United States. I mean,
you are saying it is OK to drink that much? If that amount of
arsenic was in the U.S. water, that wouldn't concern you?
Dr. McGraw. Of course not. All I am doing is contrasting
and trying to show that with any material, however apparently
benign, whether it is salt, sugar, arsenic, mercury or anything
else, there is a does and there is a length of time of exposure
that is required to cause a potential problem. Presumably in
these hallowed halls, we probably already met government
requirements of introducing the appropriate kind of new green
fluorescent bulbs, all of which contain a particularly lethal
form of metallic mercury and for which there is no hazardous
waste reclamation plant in place to my knowledge.
Mr. Doyle. Right. I understand. My time is starting to run
out and I have a couple more.
Dr. Fox, you just heard what Dr. McGraw said. He basically
says we could eat this stuff and it might not taste so good but
it is not going to hurt us. What is your reaction to that?
Ms. Fox. Well, I would like to bring the subcommittee's
attention to some recent findings from some of my colleagues at
Hopkins and others that address the issue of sort of typical
U.S. exposures. There have been research findings in the last 2
or 3 years of relating arsenic exposure to cancer and also
diabetes. So there is a growing body of literature that
reflects the exposure conditions in the United States and
associates arsenic exposure with some health effects of
concern.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. I see my time is expired. Who is next
up on the list here? Ed.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all
for being with us this morning.
Mr. Ladwig, you state that since 1990 that EPRI has used
the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure protocol which
is used by EPA to test for the hazardous characteristics of
eight trace metals that EPA would consider critical to a
hazardous-waste designation: arsenic, selenium, barium,
cadmium, silver, chromium, lead and mercury, and that EPRI data
from all the analysis and tests that they have conducted shows
no coal ash samples exceeded any of the TCLP limits. Is that
correct?
Mr. Ladwig. That is correct.
Mr. Whitfield. And we know that EPA has looked at this
issue repeatedly from three or four dates. I don't have the
dates with me right now of the most recent one but it was 2000
and even they decided not to classify this as a hazardous
material. In your tests, were there any types of coal or coal
mined from certain regions of the country or world that is
burned here in the United States that you did not test?
Mr. Ladwig. I couldn't vouch that we have tested every type
of ash from every coal that is burned, you know, from anywhere
in the world but we have tested a broad range. We have a very
representative database.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, you know, I think the key here today,
as our chairman stated, that we need a balanced approach here
because we have to use coal to meet our electrical demands and
remain competitive in the world and to continue to create jobs
and not lose jobs. And the thing that bothers me about Ms.
Evans and the group that she represents, in her testimony she
says we need a federal standard to police this disposal of ash,
which I agree with, we do need a federal standard. And then she
goes on and says even if we get one, it is not enough. So we
need a federal standard but even if we get one, that is not
enough. So I think that is the problem that we have, and I know
we are getting ready to vote, Mr. Chairman, so I will yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much, Mr. Whitfield.
Ms. Evans. May I just take----
Mr. Doyle. We have votes coming up and we are going to try
to get these witnesses in so hopefully you will get a chance to
elaborate, and when we come back we will try to give you some
more time.
Mr. Matheson.
Mr. Matheson. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question for Ms. Evans. In your testimony, you
highlight that more stringent regulation of coal ash has raised
State recycling rates significantly. I think you were referring
probably to Wisconsin.
Ms. Evans. Yes, I am.
Mr. Matheson. Does more stringent regulation include a
hazardous waste subtitle C designation?
Ms. Evans. Well, there is no subtitle C designation
currently. It means more stringent--Wisconsin has more
stringent regulations than its neighbors and its recycling rate
is about double of the neighboring States.
Mr. Matheson. In your testimony, you recommend that EPA
must designate coal combustion waste as hazardous waste under
subtitle C of RCRA. Is that correct?
Ms. Evans. That's correct.
Mr. Matheson. What would be the impact of the recycling and
reuse efforts in Wisconsin if we end up--if there is federal
action to regulate coal ash as hazardous waste under subtitle C
of RCRA?
Ms. Evans. I don't think it would change. I think that
there might even be tightening that would have to be done on
the Wisconsin regulations so there might even be more
incentive. If costs go up to dispose of waste in mine landfills
there would be more incentive to find safe reuse.
Mr. Matheson. The State of Wisconsin actually has a
different opinion. They have sent a letter from the Department
of Natural Resources that says, and I will quote, ``If coal ash
were to be regulated under RCRA subtitle C, the options for
beneficial using or reusing the ash would be significantly
impacted and severely limited. So we have to keep looking at
this, and the balanced option I think that Mr. Whitfield was
talking about before about what we are trying to do, people
like the recycling idea but if you go to a hazardous-waste
designation, you know, there are other consequences to this,
and I just want to make sure that was on the record.
Ms. Evans. But I think you are looking at this very black
and white. There are a lot of hazardous wastes that are
successfully recycled into products.
Mr. Matheson. I am looking at it for coal ash waste, not
for all products.
Ms. Evans. Right, but you have to realize that EPA has
flexibility going into this regulatory process and really does
want to----
Mr. Matheson. I just want to get on the record that there
is a potential conflict there, and you suggested that we ought
to--you know, you log Wisconsin and they are saying don't do
what you are suggesting we do. I just want that on the record.
Mr. Ladwig, have you analyzed coal ash in relationship to
EPA's test to determine if a waste is hazardous under RCRA?
Mr. Ladwig. Yes, well, we have done the TCLP test. We just
talked about that.
Mr. Matheson. And what did you find?
Mr. Ladwig. We find it always passes the TCLP test. The EPA
finds that it almost always passes.
Mr. Matheson. How does coal ash compare to another large
volume solid waste stream like municipal solid waste?
Mr. Ladwig. It is roughly on par with that. The risks posed
by any of these materials that are non-hazardous are roughly in
the same ballpark.
Mr. Matheson. Mr. Ladwig, can you describe just quickly
benefits to the environment from recycling the coal ash?
Mr. Ladwig. Yes, I listed some of those in my presentation
but there are benefits in energy savings, water savings,
greenhouse gas emissions and land use. Those are probably what
I would call the four primary benefits from an environmental
perspective and there is obviously cost benefits.
Mr. Matheson. Dr. McGraw, in your testimony you highlight
the need to properly and safely contain fly ash wherever it is
stored or used in some practical application. Do you believe
that a hazardous waste designation is necessary to properly and
safely contain coal ash?
Dr. McGraw. I do not.
Mr. Matheson. I know that my colleague from Illinois is
anxious to ask, so I am going to do one more.
I think that this question about classifying coal ash as
hazardous waste and the potential to eliminate or at least
greatly reduce reuse opportunities is an issue that we need to
talk about as a committee. I think that that conflict or at
least that potential conflict is something that we need to
flesh out more. I think that is why it is important we are
having this hearing. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I have a
unanimous consent for opening statements that all members may
be included into the record.
Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Shimkus. And also, these are pre-cleared. Unanimous
consent for letters have been pre-cleared with your staff from
the ECOS resolution on hazardous waste, the April 1, 2009,
letter to the EPA from ASTSWMO, September 19, 2009, letter to
the EPA from the Unions for Jobs and the Environment, and a
November 17, 2009, letter to EPA from the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For our panel, do you reject the assertion that the
Illinois EPA is the closest to the citizens of Illinois and has
a vested interest in protecting the health of the citizens of
Illinois? Dr. McGraw, yes or no?
Dr. McGraw. The State?
Mr. Shimkus. The State EPA.
Dr. McGraw. The State EPA I think would have the most
direct relationship or familiarity with the issue.
Mr. Shimkus. Dr. Fox, do you reject the fact that the
Illinois EPA's mission is to protect the health and safety of
the citizens of the State of Illinois?
Ms. Fox. No.
Mr. Shimkus. Ms. Evans, state of Illinois EPA. I am just
talking about the State of Illinois.
Ms. Evans. Yes, and as a former federal EPA employee, I
would say that there is often a conflict between the State EPA
and----
Mr. Shimkus. My question is, do you reject the premise that
the State of Illinois EPA does not have the interests of the
citizens of the State in health and safety issues?
Ms. Evans. They might have the interests but not always the
political power to regulate the----
Mr. Shimkus. So you are saying that they don't have the
interests of the citizens of the State of Illinois?
Ms. Evans. They have the interest. They might have the
political will to properly----
Mr. Shimkus. So you reject this letter from the Illinois
EPA that says that they can best regulate this?
Ms. Evans. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Ladwig?
Mr. Ladwig. No, I don't reject that.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.
Dr. McGraw, part of our job is to make the complex simple
as possible so that we can help educate our constituents and
educate ourselves. Epidemiologic, define.
Dr. McGraw. That is the study of populations and in
contrasting groups of individuals within a population, a
designated population who have a specific injury or illness and
comparing them with those individuals who don't, and trying to
determine as a result what might have led to that specific
problem whether there was a----
Mr. Shimkus. So you are familiar with the scientific method
in essence?
Dr. McGraw. Yes, I studied epidemiology as part of my
training.
Mr. Shimkus. And the scientific method creates--and we have
been dealing with this with the whole Climate Gate debate--is
that there are facts. There are basic facts that can be
gathered and reviewed to make an analysis on what is going on,
and that is what you were testifying to and that that is what
your testimony says.
Dr. McGraw. Facts versus presumption, which is what I am
saying.
Mr. Shimkus. And that is why I am trying to make the
complex simple because we always talk about arsenic. We have
talked about arsenic in this committee since I have been a
member. An Olympic-sized swimming pool filled with arsenic
would be hazardous to human health. Wouldn't you agree, Dr.
McGraw?
Dr. McGraw. Filled, yes, it would----
Mr. Shimkus. Filled completely.
Dr. McGraw. It would sink to the bottom and you probably
wouldn't get much if you were swimming in it because----
Mr. Shimkus. Now, let me ask this----
Dr. McGraw [continuing]. It is not soluble in water.
Mr. Shimkus. Let me ask, A, Olympic-size swimming pool
filled with water with one eye drop of arsenic, would that be
hazardous to human health?
Dr. McGraw. Of course not.
Mr. Shimkus. So this whole debate is this. Using real
science to determine the health effects, and at what cost. It
would probably be cheaper to drain and Olympic-size swimming
pool filled with arsenic than it would be to take out the one
eye dropper of arsenic, and the issue is, at what cost based
upon what science. We are having this same debate on the
Climate Gate issue. When the scientists can't give us the
facts, then you go on emotion, and when emotions run rampant it
costs the jobs that you are referring to that I refer to in
this whole issue. So I applaud my colleague, Mr. Matheson, for
trying to get to the point of we better be careful not solely
to run on emotion because there is a cost-benefit analysis of
all this stuff, and we all understand that, so let us get to
the facts. And I think why your testimony is so compelling is
because you are doing it based on your great credentials,
epidemiological background and on the facts of study of the
health of individuals, and I want to thank you for your time
and I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Markey. The gentleman's time has expired. We apologize
to you for the floor schedule. We have 45 minutes of roll calls
till our votes begin out on the House Floor, and that is
unfortunate.
So this is a very important hearing. It is in anticipation
of the Environmental Protection Agency promulgating new rules
that will deal with public health-related issues here but of
course the question of jobs is also part of this discussion. We
have heard here today that there are materials that are
hazardous. They have poisoned people. They have destroyed homes
and have contaminated the environment. No one, as Mr. Doyle
said, is talking about shutting down the coal industry. What we
are talking about is prohibiting unsafe disposal practices from
being allowed to continue so that we can ensure that there
continues to be safe commercial use of all of the materials
that are in question. The EPA can use its statutory authority
to craft a rule that both protects public health and allows for
safe practices to continue without causing jobs to be lost. We
can do both. Mr. Doyle has made that point. We did both when we
decided that we were going to regulate clean water, safe food.
We don't want to prohibit but at the same time we want to
ensure we put in those protections for public health.
So we thank each of the witnesses. We want to continue to
work with you. We apologize to you, Ms. Evans, and to others. I
know you have other points which we would like to include in
the record in its written form if you would like to provide it
to the committee. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]