    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

               A DECADE LATER: A REVIEW OF CONGRESSIONAL
                ACTION, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN-
                CY RULES, AND BENEFICIAL USE OPPORTUNI-
                TIES FOR COAL ASH
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  JUNE 26 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-30

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                       govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    61-397 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2026

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                            BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
                                     Chairman
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia           Ranking Member
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina       JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    NEAL P. DUNN, Florida                PAUL TONKO, New York
    DAN CRENSHAW, Texas                  YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania, Vice       RAUL RUIZ, California
        Chairman                         SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
    TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    RUSS FULCHER, Idaho                  NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
    AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                DARREN SOTO, Florida
    DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee         KIM SCHRIER, Washington
    MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
    KAT CAMMACK, Florida                 LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
    JAY OBERNOLTE, California            ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
    JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
    CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
    ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          KEVIN MULLIN, California
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
    NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
    THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey
    MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio
    GABE EVANS, Colorado
    CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas
    JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
                                     ------

                               Professional Staff

                         MEGAN JACKSON, Staff Director
                    SOPHIE KHANAHMADI, Deputy Staff Director
                   TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
                          Subcommittee on Environment

                          H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
                                     Chairman
    DAN CRENSHAW, Texas, Vice Chairman   PAUL TONKO, New York
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                  Ranking Member
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia    JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama              RAUL RUIZ, California
    JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania             SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
    AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas                DARREN SOTO, Florida
    MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa       JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
    NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York     ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    GABE EVANS, Colorado                 GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
    JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota        FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky (ex              officio)
        officio)
                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. H. Morgan Griffith, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Virginia, opening statement....................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     4
    Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      New York, opening statement....................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     9
    Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    12
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    16

                                   Witnesses

    Michelle Freeark, Executive Director of Regulatory Affairs and
      Corporate Services, Arizona Electric Power Cooperative.........    18
        Prepared statement...........................................    21
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   114
    L. David Glatt, Director, North Dakota Department of
      Environmental Quality..........................................    26
        Prepared statement...........................................    28
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   117
    Lisa Evans, Senior Counsel, Earthjustice.........................    33
        Prepared statement \1\
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   118
    Thomas H. Adams, Executive Director, American Coal Ash
      Association....................................................    34
        Prepared statement...........................................    37
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   126

                               Submitted Material

    Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
    List of documents submitted for the record.......................    81
    Letter of June 26, 2025, from Sean O'Neill, Senior Vice
      President, Government Affairs, American Cement Association, to
      Mr. Guthrie, et al.............................................    82
    Statement of James Kenney, Cabinet Secretary, New Mexico
      Environment Department, and President, Enviromental Council of
      the States, before the , Subcommittee on Interior, Environment,
      and Related Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations........    85
    Article of June 16, 2025, ``North Dakota DEQ Chief Eager To Work
      With EPA Amid Budget Cut Worry,'' InsideEPA.com................    89
    Article of June 19, 2025, ``'It's American ingenuity': TVA
      transforms McCracken coal ash site into innovative solar
      farm,'' by Carly Dick, Paducah Sun.............................    92
    Fact sheet, ``Burden vs. Benefit: Optimizing CCR Regulation to
      Unleash American Energy,'' Tennessee Authority, April 2025.....    95
    Fact sheet, ``TVA Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment for
      Beneficiation Facilities,'' Tennessee Valley Authority, April
      2025...........................................................    97

    ----------

    \1\ Ms. Evans' statement has been retained in committee files and is
    available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20250626/118432/
    HHRG-119-IF18-Wstate-EvansL-20250626.pdf.
    Article of June 19, 2025, ``How Black Lung Came Roaring Back to
      Coal Country,'' by Kate Morgan, New York Times.................    99
    Report of the Environmental Protection Agency, ``Risk Assessment
      of Coal Combustion Residuals: Legacy Impoundments and CCR
      Management Units,'' April 2024 \2\
    Fact sheet, ``Radioactive Wastes From Coal-fired Power Plants,''
      Environmental Protection Agency, June 24, 2025.................   107
    Letter of June 26, 2025, from Desmarie Waterhouse, Senior Vice
      President of Advocacy and Communications & General Counsel,
      American Public Power Association, to Mr. Guthrie, et al.......   112

    ----------

    \2\ The report has been retained in committee files and is included in
    the Documents for the Record at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
    IF18/20250626/118432/HHRG-119-IF18-20250626-SD767.pdf.

        A DECADE LATER: A REVIEW OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, ENVIRONMENTAL
     PROTECTION AGENCY RULES, AND BENEFICIAL USE OPPORTUNITIES FOR COAL ASH

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
                           Subcommittee on Environment,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in
    room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. H. Morgan
    Griffith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Griffith, Crenshaw, Latta,
    Carter of Georgia, Palmer, Joyce, Weber, Pfluger, Miller-Meeks,
    Evans, Guthrie (ex officio), Tonko (subcommittee ranking
    member), Ruiz, Peters, Barragan, Soto, Auchincloss, Carter of
    Louisiana, Menendez, Landsman, and Pallone (ex officio).
        Staff present: Ansley Boylan, Director of Operations; Byron
    Brown, Chief Counsel, Environment; Sydney Greene, Director of
    Finance and Logistics; Christen Harsha, Senior Counsel,
    Environment; Calvin Huggins, Clerk; Megan Jackson, Staff
    Director; Sarah Meier, Counsel and Parliamentarian; Joel
    Miller, Chief Counsel; Ben Mullaney, Press Secretary; Kaitlyn
    Peterson, Policy Analyst, Environment; Chris Sarley, Member
    Services/Stakeholder Director; Matt VanHyfte, Communications
    Director; Jane Vickers, Press Assistant; Katie West, Press
    Secretary; Katherine Willey, Senior Counsel, Environment;
    Giancarlo Ceja, Minority Environment Fellow; Anthony Gutierrez,
    Minority Professional Staff Member; Caitlin Haberman, Minority
    Staff Director, Environment; Emma Roehrig, Minority Staff
    Assistant; Kylea Rogers, Minority Policy Analyst.
        Mr. Griffith. The Subcommittee on Environment will now come
    to order.
        The Chair recognizes himself for a 5-minute opening
    statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, A REPRESENTATIVE
             IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

        Today, this subcommittee will examine coal ash management
    practices and innovative ways people are utilizing coal waste.
    Coal, historically, has played a major role in keeping our
    lights on and powering our large industries, and our hospitals,
    et cetera.
        Currently, there are over 200 coal-fired electric power
    plants in the United States and a fair amount of individual
    boilers that use coal for fuel. Coal's fuel storage attributes
    and its dispatchable power qualities continue to make it a
    crucial component of our domestic electric power mix.
        Today's hearing will focus on one of the byproducts of coal
    use: coal combustion residuals, commonly called CCR or coal
    ash. The Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, first
    began regulating coal combustion residuals from electric
    utilities in 2014 under its Resource Conservation and Recovery
    Act, or RCRA, powers, subtitle D authority, to regulate solid
    waste.
        In 2016, the Water Infrastructure and Improvements for the
    Nation Act amended RCRA to grant the EPA the authority to
    approve State CCR permit programs if a State chose to run its
    own program. However, nearly a decade later, only three State
    programs have been approved. Hopefully, today we will learn
    more about States' permitting programs and how EPA is using its
    CCR permitting approval authority.
        Unfortunately, the Biden-Harris administration pressed
    necessary coal ash regulations into its wider attempts to force
    a transition to renewable energy by imposing unreasonable and
    onerous regulations on disfavored traditional energy resources,
    like coal.
        This attack on coal included a 2024 rule regulating
    inactive coal combustion residual storage sites, or legacy
    impoundments, as well as sites where coal ash had previously
    been placed, known as coal combustion residuals management
    units. Utilities warned that this unworkable rule would impose
    needless and unplanned costs on ratepayers, who are already
    facing excessive increases in their rates.
        Today, we will learn more about the problems with the
    current regulatory landscape and the cost it imposes on power
    generation and, in turn, ratepayers.
        Thankfully, in March of this year, the EPA announced that
    it is reviewing this rule and plans to propose amendments
    within the next year. Additionally, EPA has announced it plans
    to prioritize working with States on their permit programs to
    hopefully facilitate more State management of coal ash
    disposal.
        I am encouraged by the Trump administration's apparent
    willingness to listen to the States and their utilities, and
    hope that the EPA can work with them, and not against them, as
    partners in protecting our environment.
        I also hope to learn more today about opportunities to
    improve the reuse of coal byproducts. In addition to this
    primary use, coal byproducts can be reused for many purposes,
    such as cement manufacturing, drywall manufacturing, road
    paving and producing concrete. And yesterday, I read an article
    about using it in wastewater treatment facilities to get out
    dyes and certain heavy metals. This recycling, known as
    beneficial use, can not only save cost, but also result in
    lower emissions.
        Many may be surprised to hear that there is a thriving coal
    ash reuse industry in the United States. According to the
    American Coal Ash Association, 69 percent of all coal ash
    produced in 2023 was recycled.
        In addition to these established uses in construction,
    agriculture, waste management, and mining, new uses are
    emerging. For example, research from the University of Texas
    found that as much as 11 million tons of rare earth elements--
    rare earth elements--can be found and be accessible in coal ash
    in the United States.
        In fact, researchers from Virginia Tech, located in my home
    district--and where one of my children graduated, one is
    attending and one hopes to attend--they are leading projects to
    analyze the presence of critical minerals and rare earth
    elements in coal byproducts.
        According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the United States
    currently relies on imports for 80 percent of its supply of
    rare earth elements, with 70 percent of those imports coming
    from China. Our regulatory policies for coal combustion
    residuals management must facilitate continued beneficial use.
        I look forward to today's discussion of how we can address
    shortcomings of our current approach to coal combustion
    residuals management and innovation in how our country deals
    with waste.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Griffith follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Griffith. And, with that, I yield back and now
    recognize the ranking member, Mr. Tonko of New York, for his 5-
    minute opening statement.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Yesterday, the committee marked up more than a dozen energy
    bills, several of which had the goal of continuing the
    operation of uncompetitive coal-fired power plants.
        But one issue that was seriously overlooked in yesterday's
    debate was the public health and environmental threats posed by
    these generators. We should not lose sight of the serious
    downsides to burning coal. Air pollution is often the first
    thing discussed, including emissions of particulate matter,
    mercury, and other hazardous air pollutants, as well as
    tremendous amounts of climate pollution.
        But we cannot forget that these power plants also create
    waste, known as coal combustion residuals, or coal ash. And for
    far too long this waste has not been disposed of safely,
    leading to groundwater contamination and other environmental
    damage. These contaminations are not only dangerous, but they
    also are costly and difficult to remediate.
        In 2008, a major Tennessee Valley Authority coal ash
    impoundment failed, resulting in over a billion gallons of
    slurry polluting the environment, which took years and more
    than $1 billion to clean up. And while high-profile incidents
    like TVA's grab headlines, lower levels of contamination near
    these sites are, unfortunately, extremely common.
        Analysis from the Environmental Integrity Project and
    Earthjustice found that 91 percent of U.S. coal plants are
    causing unsafe levels of groundwater contamination. EPA
    acknowledged these risks and finalized a rule in 2015 to
    support the safe disposal of coal combustion residuals.
        This rule sought to prevent the disposal of coal ash in
    unlined ponds and require monitoring of groundwater and cleanup
    of contamination. But, unfortunately, the 2015 rule did not
    apply to landfills that had ceased receiving coal ash or
    generating facilities that had ceased operating prior to the
    rule's finalization. In 2024, EPA finalized another rule to
    cover these so-called legacy sites excluded from the 2015 rule.
        And I am very concerned that several industry groups have
    already begun a lobbying campaign to roll back this rule. Like
    so many of EPA's previously announced deregulatory efforts, a
    weakening of either the 2015 or 2024 rule would represent an
    effort to shield polluters from costs associated with
    reasonable steps to protect public health and the environment,
    in this case ensuring the safe disposal and management of coal
    ash waste.
        At yesterday's markup, we heard a lot of talk about
    subsidizing electricity producers, about whether renewables
    should receive subsidies, and whether or not fossil fuel
    generators currently receive subsidies at all. And I want to
    make it clear, they absolutely do.
        When we socialize the cost of the environmental and public
    health harms caused by coal-fired power plants onto everyday
    Americans, especially those living near these sites, we are
    providing coal plant operators with a massive subsidy.
        When coal ash leaches into people's water supplies, they
    pay a price, including the healthcare costs and health outcomes
    associated with failing to address the safe disposal of this
    waste. But I understand that there may be different approaches
    as to how to effectively manage this waste.
        So in addition to EPA's regulatory actions in 2015,
    Congress passed the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the
    Nation Act, or the WIIN Act. The WIIN Act allows States, with
    EPA's approval, to manage disposal of coal ash through a
    permitting program provided the State standards are as
    protective as Federal standards.
        Cooperative Federalism is a hallmark of our Nation's
    successful environmental laws, and I do believe States can play
    an important role in addressing coal ash waste.
        However, I am incredibly concerned by the President's
    fiscal year 2026 budget request, which included a $1 billion
    proposed cut to EPA's categorical grants that States rely upon
    to implement and enforce environmental laws. This is part of a
    troubling trend from the administration, which is also apparent
    in the majority's budget bill that pushes more costs onto
    States, which will make the successful implementation of State-
    led environmental programs that more difficult. If we want
    States to be effective partners in environmental protection, we
    must ensure they have the resources and capacity necessary to
    do the job.
        Finally, I understand that much of today's hearing will
    focus on the beneficial uses of coal ash. I want to be clear
    that I am by no means opposed to beneficial uses, provided that
    these uses are proven to not harm public health and the
    environment. Finding effective methods to use coal ash is worth
    continuing to pursue. However, careful consideration of these
    potential uses must be a priority.
        Unfortunately, the Trump administration's efforts to
    undermine EPA's scientific capacity by significantly shrinking
    the Office of Research and Development and attacking the
    Agency's scientific integrity policy is a serious cause for
    concern.
        I worry that this could undermine EPA's ability to conduct
    independent scientific assessments of the risks of potential
    beneficial uses. I want to encourage Members on both sides of
    the aisle who want to see more safe, beneficial uses of coal
    ash to oppose the mass layoffs and reorganization of EPA.
        With that, Mr. Chair, I look forward to today's discussion
    and, with that, yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, the
    gentleman from Kentucky, for 5 minutes for an opening
    statement.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you to all of our witnesses for being here. We
    appreciate you being here today.
        Coal ash is produced by coal-fired electric power plants.
    In 2014, EPA issued its first rule regulating coal ash as a
    nonhazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
    Act. This is one of the rules issued as part of the Obama
    administration's war on coal.
        There were immediate concerns about how the rule would be
    implemented, about how it did not take into account regional
    differences, and how it would affect the electric power supply.
        Congress amended RCRA in 2016 to make it easier for States
    to regulate coal ash through permit programs, based on their
    local conditions. But it has been difficult for States to get
    the necessary approval from EPA. This is the committee's first
    hearing on coal ash in about 10 years.
        The Biden administration continued the attack on fossil
    fuels, issuing a rule in April 2024 that expanded the scope of
    the Obama-era rule to facilities that were already closed. I
    cosponsored Subcommittee Chairman Griffith's resolution last
    Congress to overturn that rule.
        And I welcome the steps EPA Administrator Zeldin has
    announced to prioritize the approval of State programs and to
    review the deadlines and requirements imposed on electric
    utilities by the Biden administration's 2024 rule.
        Today, we will hear from a top environmental regulator of
    North Dakota and from Rural Electric Co-Op in Arizona about
    their experiences with EPA and how the coal ash program can be
    improved.
        We will also hear about the environmental and other
    benefits of using coal ash in road and other infrastructure
    projects, and how this unassuming material may be an important
    domestic source of rare earth elements needed to power our
    artificial intelligence economy and our national security.
        I look forward to the hearing from our witnesses. I
    absolutely appreciate each and every one of you for being here
    today. Look forward to your opening statements and our
    discussion, and I will I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
    committee, the gentleman from New Jersey, for 5 minutes for an
    opening statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Today the subcommittee is examining coal ash regulations at
    the EPA. Coal ash is a waste product generated from burning
    coal for energy. It is radioactive and contains toxic
    contaminants like arsenic, lead, mercury, and chromium.
        Some power plants dispose of coal ash in surface
    impoundments, storing the waste in ponds at operating or
    inactive facilities, and this poses a serious risk to the
    surrounding communities, threatening human health and the
    environment.
        Contaminants can leach into groundwater and drinking water
    supplies or become airborne as toxic dust. Aging or deficient
    impoundments can fail structurally, resulting in catastrophic
    floods of toxic sludge entering neighboring communities.
        The EPA first determined that national disposal criteria
    were needed for coal ash 25 years ago, and this led to
    regulations starting in 2015. And then Congress acted 9 years
    ago with passage of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for
    the Nation, I guess the WIIN Act.
        This law gave States the ability to create their own coal
    ash management programs as long as they provide equal or
    greater protection to Federal standards. And last year, EPA
    finally updated their rule to include all the legacy coal ash
    waste sites under their purview.
        Now, the passage of this law now provides us many data
    points to measure the success of State and Federal regulations
    to manage coal ash waste and protect surrounding communities.
    Unfortunately, the data doesn't paint a good picture. There
    have been countless examples of weak State enforcement, large-
    scale releases of toxic sludge, and public health harms.
        According to the industry's own data, over 90 percent of
    coal plants have reported groundwater contamination from their
    coal ash storage sites. And we still see coal ash stored in
    unlined pits that leach into groundwater or that gets blown
    into neighboring communities.
        To protect the health and safety of those living near coal
    ash sites, we need strong Federal standards for the disposal
    and management of this toxic waste and strong enforcement of
    those standards at the State and Federal level.
        But EPA's budget proposal and staffing cuts make it clear
    that Federal enforcement is not a priority. The Trump
    administration is hurting EPA's ability to ensure coal ash
    disposal and pollution do not put Americans' health at risk.
        At a time when the administration should be ensuring States
    are following the law, EPA Administrator Zeldin is instead
    turning over responsibility of coal ash management to States,
    and this is an abdication of responsibility, considering the
    well-documented pattern of States allowing this toxic pollution
    to continue unabated.
        The Republican majority is also likely to discuss the
    beneficial uses of coal ash and explore additional
    opportunities to divert more of this waste from ponds or
    landfills. And I agree that coal ash recycling helps decrease
    Americans' exposure to this toxic substance, but it is critical
    that we follow the science to ensure the uses don't cause
    further harm and contamination.
        While using encapsulated coal ash in construction materials
    can be a good recycling method for this waste, using
    unencapsulated coal ash as ground fill is not. And while pilot
    projects extracting critical minerals from coal ash are
    promising, they should not be touted as a reason to prop up
    uneconomic, outdated, and high-polluting coal ash plants.
        Now, I heard the chairman of the full committee talk about
    Biden and the war on coal. Look, I don't think there is anyone
    who wants a war on coal. I think the problem is that we have--
    if there is anything, the war has been against, you know, the
    impact of coal harming people.
        You know, there is nothing wrong with using a fossil fuel,
    in this case, coal or any--for energy purposes, but we can't
    have it cause harm to our health and safety, not only to the
    people who live there, downwind, whatever, but in this case,
    you know, clear contamination from coal ash.
        So as we discuss this issue, let's not forget the broader
    legacy of coal and what any possible resurgence would mean for
    communities across the country. We are not saying there
    shouldn't be a resurgence, but there can't be a resurgence of
    the harm. We would see an increase in black lung disease in
    young people, more air pollution-related deaths, and increased
    cancer rates from exposure to coal ash fill.
        And, you know, we can't afford to repeat the mistakes of
    the past. That is all we are saying. If you find beneficial
    uses, fine, but not things that are going to harm people in
    hopes of a different outcome. You are not going to have a
    different outcome. We know what the results are from some of
    this damage.
        So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I
    yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back.
        We now conclude with Member opening statements.
        The Chair would like to remind Members that. pursuant to
    committee rules, all Members' opening statements will be made a
    part of the record.
        I want to thank our witnesses for being here today and
    taking the time to testify before the subcommittee.
        Although it is not the practice of this subcommittee to
    swear in witnesses, I would remind our witnesses that knowingly
    and willfully making materially false statements to the
    legislative branch is against the law under Title 18, Section
    1001 of the United States Code.
        You will have an opportunity to give an opening statement,
    followed by questions from Members.
        Today, our witnesses are Mrs. Michelle Freeark, executive
    director of Regulatory Affairs and Corporate Services at
    Arizona G&T Cooperative; Mr. Dave Glatt, director at the North
    Dakota Department of Environmental Quality; Ms. Lisa Evans,
    senior attorney at Earthjustice--welcome; and Mr. Tom Adams,
    executive director at the American Coal Ash Association.
        We appreciate all of you being here today.
        And I now recognize Mrs. Freeark for 5 minutes to give an
    opening statement.

         STATEMENTS OF MICHELLE FREEARK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
      REGULATORY AFFAIRS AND CORPORATE SERVICES, ARIZONA ELECTRIC
       POWER COOPERATIVE; L. DAVID GLATT, DIRECTOR, NORTH DAKOTA
        DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; LISA EVANS, SENIOR
    COUNSEL, EARTHJUSTICE; AND THOMAS H. ADAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
                     AMERICAN COAL ASH ASSOCIATION

                     STATEMENT OF MICHELLE FREEARK

        Ms. Freeark. Chairman Griffith, Ranking Member Tonko, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify before you today.
        My name is Michelle Freeark, and I serve as the executive
    director of regulatory affairs and corporate services at
    Arizona Electric Power Cooperative. AEPCO is a member-owned,
    not-for-profit generation and transmission cooperative based in
    Benson, Arizona.
        AEPCO's purpose is to generate electricity and transmit it
    to distribution cooperatives that deliver power to end-use
    consumers in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and California.
    AEPCO's service area includes cost-sensitive rural and
    disadvantaged communities, and we are committed to balancing
    our environmental stewardship with the cooperative's mission to
    provide safe, reliable, and competitively priced power to its
    members.
        Reliable and affordable electricity is essential to
    America's economic growth. And as our Nation increasingly
    relies on electricity to power our economy, keeping the lights
    on has never been more important or more challenging.
        Over the next 5 years, the North American Electric
    Reliability Corporation forecasts that all or parts of several
    States are at high risk of rolling blackouts during normal peak
    conditions. This problem is compounded by the rapid growth of
    data centers in rural areas. Some forecasts project data
    centers will consume 9 percent of all U.S. electric generation
    by 2030. In AEPCO's service territory alone, there are
    currently over 3 gigawatts of capacity demand for development.
        AEPCO is presently constructing new natural gas units and
    solar plus battery energy storage systems to expand and
    diversify our generation portfolio. Renewable energy sources,
    like solar and batteries, can play a strategic role in the
    Western energy grid, but reliable and dispatchable generation
    sources, including coal and natural gas, are necessary to carry
    out our mission of providing safe, reliable, competitively
    priced power to electric co-ops in the Southwest. Because
    electric co-ops are owned and governed by the consumer members
    we serve, we have a vested interest in protecting and
    maintaining the environment within our communities.
        Just as all generation sources have some form of waste,
    coal ash, also referred to as coal combustion residuals, or
    CCR, is a byproduct of coal-fired electric generation. AEPCO
    has a robust CCR compliance program to comply with all
    operational monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
    requirements of Federal CCR regulation and has worked closely
    with the EPA to comply with such regulations.
        AEPCO's current and past CCR disposal activities are also
    robustly regulated under Arizona's Aquifer Protection Program,
    administered by the Arizona Department of Environmental
    Quality, which requires frequent groundwater monitoring and CCR
    unit maintenance and inspections to reduce the potential
    discharge of pollutants to the greatest degree achievable.
        Additionally, AEPCO currently exceeds Federal CCR
    regulation beneficial use provisions by selling 90 percent-plus
    of our fly ash to a third party owned by the Salt River Pima-
    Maricopa Indian Community for alternative uses, reducing the
    amount of CCR that is disposed in our impoundments.
        Federal action and inaction regulating coal combustion
    residuals has resulted in unworkable and unreasonable
    regulatory requirements for the power sector, making it more
    difficult for electric co-ops to serve their consumer members
    and your constituents.
        The EPA's legacy rule finalized last year established
    regulatory requirements for two new classes of CCR units but
    fails to consider the diverse characteristics, sizes, and
    relative risks of sites. Instead, its one-size-fits-all
    approach will result in massive costs to the utility industry
    that will ultimately be borne by rural end consumers and which
    will exacerbate challenges to the reliable delivery of
    electricity.
        Furthermore, Federal CCR regulations are currently self-
    implementing, which means that utilities are unable to work
    with State or Federal regulators to tailor regulatory
    requirements to site-specific conditions through permit
    programs, unlike with other Federal environmental programs.
    This is despite the fact that our State has effectively
    regulated CCR for decades.
        Without a Federal permitting in place, enforcement is
    presently serving as an ill-fitting substitute and exposing
    power companies to a great deal of uncertainty.
        We commend the EPA's decision to reconsider the harmful
    legacy rule but urge EPA to delay upcoming deadlines while they
    determine what to do with the requirements.
        We also urge the administration and Congress to support
    site-specific, risk-based Federal and State CCR programs as
    mandated by the WIIN Act of 2016 to support our country's
    rapidly growing energy demands while maintaining important
    environmental protections.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important
    issue. I look forward to answering any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Freeark follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Griffith. Thank you.
        Mr. Glatt, you are now recognized.

                      STATEMENT OF L. DAVID GLATT

        Mr. Glatt. Good morning, Chairman Griffith and members of
    the Subcommittee on Environment.
        My name is Dave Glatt. I am director of the North Dakota
    Department of Environmental Quality and have been with the
    Department for just over 42 years. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today on this important issue.
        What I would like to do today is my testimony will
    highlight North Dakota's experience with the regulation of
    beneficial use of coal ash and the Federal coal combustion
    residuals program review process. In addition, I will touch on
    the more recent interest in rare earth mineral extraction from
    coal deposits and coal ash.
        North Dakota is known for its agriculture and energy
    dominance. It is home to abundant natural resources of lignite
    coal deposits and significant oil and gas reserves.
        Since the 1980s, North Dakota has regulated coal ash at
    several mine mouth electric generation facilities, ensuring the
    protection of public and environmental health through
    comprehensive rules, which identify appropriate landfill
    locations through a multi-interstate agency review process,
    require groundwater monitoring and routine reporting, restrict
    permit lengths to a maximum of 10 years, require 30-year
    postclosure monitoring and financial assurance, require
    landfill cells to be engineered to ensure slope stability,
    liner suitability, and cap integrity, require public review and
    participation in the permit process. The State rules have, for
    over four decades, proven to be effective in the protection of
    the environment and public health.
        With the proven success of North Dakota's CCR program,
    there was the belief that seeking Federal program approval
    would have its challenges but overall would be a
    straightforward process. Unfortunately, our assessment could
    not have been more wrong, as the State has spent over 5 years
    seeking Federal primacy approval, with the process ongoing.
        Since the State initiated its quest for CCR Federal program
    approval pre-2020, there have been over three different draft
    submittals, a change in North Dakota law in reference to a
    groundwater definition, and several rounds of last final
    comments with no defined outcome.
        The Federal review and approval process can be
    characterized as frustrating, unnecessarily long, time-
    consuming, and at times, not rooted in sound science and the
    law.
        Federal comments relating to program implementation were
    provided without visiting the North Dakota facilities,
    resulting in some comments being seen as inappropriate based on
    existing site conditions, such as recommending placing
    monitoring wells that would have been in the middle of a haul
    road, on severe side slopes, or that would have pierced the
    landfill liner. We believe site-specific knowledge of local
    climate, geology, facility design and operations is critical in
    the proper regulation of facilities.
        To improve the review and approval process and incentivize
    States to seek Federal program approval, we suggest the
    following: visit the State seeking Federal program approval to
    get an understanding of the regulatory and physical State-
    specific conditions; respect and acknowledge State expertise;
    comply with law and rigid timelines; avoid agenda-driven
    processes by following applicable science and the law; have
    clearly defined outcomes and goals; acknowledge State
    sovereignty; pursue a doctrine of cooperative Federalism.
        In addition to the North Dakota history of the regulation
    of handling storage and disposal of coal ash, we regulate the
    beneficial use of certain coal ash materials. We believe coal
    ash can exhibit certain beneficial use characteristics and is
    not appropriate to regulate as a hazardous waste.
        State law outlines the legislative intent that coal
    combustion residuals can be beneficially used in concrete,
    construction applications, and other innovative uses.
        To ensure coal ash is beneficially used and does not impart
    undue public or environmental risk, we require periodic
    laboratory testing of all coal ashes relating to leachability
    of trace metals and other physical characteristics, including
    radioactive characteristics.
        Product testing and approval are required before beneficial
    use application and required not less than every 5 years, or
    sooner if feed source or EDU environmental controls change.
        Fly ash can be used for a lot of beneficial uses, which you
    described today, such as concrete admixture. We use it for
    abandoned mines. And some of the ash has actually been used for
    sand traps at golf courses.
        In the United States, there is a growing concern regarding
    our dependence on imported rare earth minerals, especially
    those from our foreign adversaries. These rare earth minerals
    are critical to modern technology. They are needed for
    technological advancements, manufacturing, and, most
    importantly, national defense and security.
        North Dakota is ready to step up to meet this growing
    demand. We are exploring the potential of coal and coal ash
    products. In our most recent legislative session, we passed a
    bill that would allow coal companies to further explore mining
    these rare earth minerals in the United States.
        In our State, we have a fantastic team of researchers from
    State agencies to our universities, and the Energy and
    Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota
    in Grand Forks, looking at the potential of North Dakota
    lignite to supply marketable quantities of 14 rare earth and
    other critical minerals.
        We know rare earth elements are found in CCR and coal----
        Mr. Griffith. Mr. Glatt, if you could conclude your
    comments.
        Mr. Glatt. Yes. One sentence.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you.
        Mr. Glatt. We have potential to redefine traditional uses
    of coal towards meeting the U.S. demand for these elements, and
    we are in the process of researching and improving our recovery
    potential.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Glatt follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Griffith. Ms. Evans, you are now recognized for your 5-
    minute opening statement.

                        STATEMENT OF LISA EVANS

        Ms. Evans. Thank you. Chairman and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to----
        Mr. Griffith. Mic.
        We are going to restart your time too.
        Ms. Evans. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank
    you for this opportunity to address the threats from coal ash
    to health, environment, and the economy.
        I am Lisa Evans, senior counsel for Earthjustice, the
    Nation's largest nonprofit environmental law firm. I worked
    previously as an assistant regional counsel for U.S. EPA
    enforcing hazardous waste laws.
        My fellow panelists would have you ignore the hazardous
    constituents in coal ash. They don't want to talk about the
    hundreds of leaking toxic dumps created by the coal power
    industry, but ignoring this is to allow the utility industry to
    continue to pollute our water.
        As Ranking Members Tonko and Pallone mentioned--but it
    bears repeating--91 percent of U.S. coal plants are today
    contaminating groundwater with hazardous pollutants above
    Federal safe standards. This is based on industry data from
    nearly 300 coal plants in 43 States.
        Coal ash contains hazardous substances, including arsenic,
    chromium, cobalt, lead, lithium, radium. and more. These cause
    a long list of serious health problems, many types of cancer,
    heart and thyroid disease, respiratory problems, damage to the
    brain and reproductive organs.
        Coal ash can harm every major organ in the human body. Coal
    ash is also one of the largest sources of industrial toxic
    waste. U.S. coal plants produce nearly 70 million tons each
    year, enough to fill train cars stretching round trip from
    Washington, DC, to Los Angeles.
        We can't recycle our way out of the toxic mess created by
    the coal industry. While we support the reuse of ash into
    products like concrete and wallboard, where the waste is
    encapsulated and unable to leach toxic chemicals, these
    products use less than 40 percent of the coal ash generated
    each year. Reuse can't solve the problems posed by the millions
    of tons of toxic waste sitting currently in leaking ash dumps.
        The American Coal Ash Association claims that coal ash is
    just like dirt, but I don't want this arsenic-laden,
    radioactive dirt anywhere near my children or grandchildren,
    and I don't think you do either.
        The utility and coal ash recycling industries don't want
    EPA rules to address practices given the misleading label of,
    quote, ``beneficial use.'' But what is beneficial use?
        It is not what is happening in Michigan City, Indiana,
    where NIPSCO dumped 2 million tons of coal ash directly into
    Lake Michigan to make more land for its power plant. The people
    of Michigan City do not benefit from the toxic mess held back
    by aging steel pilings. The structural fill is leaking toxic
    chemicals into their drinking water source and following a
    stream where locals fish.
        Beneficial use also did not occur in Morrisville, North
    Carolina, where a million tons of arsenic-laden, radioactive
    coal ash from Duke Energy was used as a substitute for soil at
    the high school, homes, a public park, a daycare center, and
    roads. Ask some Morrisville teenager whose friends have died of
    thyroid cancer.
        The only people who benefit from so-called beneficial use
    of coal ash when it is used as a replacement for dirt is the
    industry, who profits on the backs of the communities left with
    the toxic mess that has been moved from power plants into
    people's backyards.
        Americans near the almost a thousand regulated coal ash
    dumps and countless more places where toxic ash was used as
    soil need your help to ensure that there are strong laws to
    stop coal plants from polluting our water.
        But the utility industry is pushing back to weaken current
    laws. They told EPA to back off enforcement. In response, the
    Trump administration promptly abandoned EPA's national
    enforcement initiative, which made coal ash a priority. Trump's
    reckless U-turn gives industry a free pass to continue to
    violate essential safeguards.
        The coal industry is demanding the Federal Government
    outsource its oversight to State coal ash permit programs. In
    response, the Trump administration is speeding the approval
    process in coal-friendly States where coal ash programs are
    less protective than the Federal rule. Once these programs are
    approved and lax permits are issued, residents will suffer.
        The coal industry is calling on EPA also to delay for an
    indefinite time the cleanup of hundreds of coal ash dumps newly
    regulated in 2024.
        Lastly, the coal industry wants EPA to ignore science,
    because they don't like what it says about coal ash. Recently,
    EPA found that coal ash was much more dangerous than previously
    thought, because of elevated arsenic and radioactivity.
        Coal ash pollution is a problem that recycling cannot
    solve. The solution requires Federal and State regulators and
    Members of Congress to place public health above polluters'
    pocketbooks.
        Thank you.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Ms. Evans' statement has been retained in committee files and
    is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF18/20250626/
    118432/HHRG-119-IF18-Wstate-EvansL-20250626.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back.
        I now recognize Mr. Adams for his 5-minute opening
    statement.

                      STATEMENT OF THOMAS H. ADAMS

        Mr. Adams. Chairman Griffith, Ranking Member Tonko, and
    members of the subcommittee, we would like to thank you for
    organizing a hearing to focus on beneficial use of coal ash.
    This is a topic that is often overlooked in the heated debates
    over coal-fueled electricity and coal ash disposal regulations.
        My name is Thomas Adams. I am the executive director of the
    American Coal Ash Association. Our mission is to encourage the
    beneficial use of coal ash in ways that are environmentally
    responsible, technically appropriate, and promoting more
    sustainable activities in construction and other uses.
        Coal ash beneficial use already constitutes one of
    America's greatest recycling success stories. Over the past
    several decades, hundreds of millions of tons of coal ash have
    been used to construct resilient infrastructure and manufacture
    more sustainable building materials. In doing so, our Nation
    has conserved natural resources, reduced energy and water
    consumption, and significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions
    from production of materials coal ash replaces when used in
    concrete.
        My written testimony contains details about coal ash
    beneficial use trends and steps that can be taken to become
    even more effective in utilizing this important resource, but
    please permit me to highlight a few key points.
        First of all, utilizing materials that otherwise go to
    waste is not a new concept. Solid waste regulation is under the
    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Let me repeat that:
    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Beneficial use of
    materials like coal ash is not an afterthought. It was one of
    the central goals established when it enacted our Nation's
    guide for environmental regulations when Congress acted on this
    in the mid-'70s.
        Second, the reasons for using coal ash go beyond the
    apparent environmental benefits of building fewer landfills,
    conserving natural resources, and reducing greenhouse gas
    emissions by millions of tons per year.
        Improved product performance was the driving factor behind
    the development of an industry that today beneficially uses
    nearly 70 percent of the Nation's new ash production and has
    begun harvesting millions of tons of previously disposed ash
    for the same purposes.
        It is a fact that concrete made with coal ash is stronger
    and more durable than concrete made with cement alone, all
    while significantly reducing concrete's carbon footprint.
        Harvesting previously disposed coal ash is a rapidly
    growing activity, accounting for approximately 4 million tons
    of utilization in 2023, with numerous additional harvesting
    projects coming online since that time and more coming in the
    next 2 years.
        With more than 2 billion tons of previously disposed ash in
    the United States, this represents an abundant and secure
    domestic resource. Those who would argue against harvesting
    coal ash are for continuing to rely on imported cementitious
    materials and exporting the environmental impacts of
    manufacturing those materials when imported.
        This is probably a good place to emphasize an important
    point: Coal ash is not toxic. Coal ash contains only trace
    amounts of metals of potential concern. A 2012 study by the
    U.S. Geological Survey data concluded that metals are found in
    coal ash at levels similar to levels in ordinary soils and rock
    throughout the United States. Coal ash is no more toxic than
    the materials it replaces when used in manufacturing products.
        Furthermore, EPA itself has validated the safety of coal
    ash beneficial use in risk evaluations of major uses, including
    fly ash used in concrete and synthetic gypsum used in
    wallboard, as well as synthetic gypsum used in agriculture.
    ACAA has utilized EPA's risk evaluation methodology to validate
    the safety of ash used in controlled low-strength materials,
    also known as flowable fill.
        Finally, the potential opportunity to simultaneously
    extract rare earth elements from coal ash resource provides
    additional incentive for regulators and other policymakers to
    return to the resource conservation and recovery mindset that
    was present at the outset of the Nation's solid waste
    regulatory structure.
        Careful development of these extraction technologies could
    reduce America's dependence on foreign supply of critical
    materials while maintaining the ability to use the bulk of the
    resource for traditional beneficial uses like cement and
    concrete.
        ACAA encourages policymakers at all levels to identify and
    remove regulatory barriers and to take a more active role in
    encouraging coal ash beneficial use.
        For those who are concerned about issues related to coal
    ash disposal, may I offer one suggestion: The best solution to
    coal ash disposal problems is to quit throwing it away.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Adams follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back.
        I thank you all for your testimony. We will now move into
    the question-and-answer portion of the hearing. And I will
    begin the questioning and recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Adams, we heard the comments both from the dais and
    from other witnesses that coal ash has radioactive elements in
    it.
        Is that predominantly radon?
        Mr. Adams. Radon is present as are a number of other
    things. And radon testing is required across this country. In
    some places, you cannot get a residential mortgage without
    doing radon testing prior to executing the mortgage. So this is
    a material that is known, and it is being addressed.
        Mr. Griffith. I was going to say it apparently is in a
    significant portion of my district in the clays and other rock
    material. And so when I bought my house, the testing was done,
    and we had to have a radon mitigation unit put into the house.
    It is fairly simple, but we had to have it put in. It wasn't
    very expensive, but still. And we are not anywhere near a coal
    ash pond or a coal-generating facility, but there was the
    radon.
        All right. Let me get to the questions I originally had.
        As you know, Mr. Adams, Congress reinforced the coal ash
    solid waste determination in 2016 by amending the Resource
    Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, to have States and
    utilities look at contamination risk and make sure coal ash
    ponds are structurally safe. I do agree we need to make sure
    that coal ash ponds don't fail.
        Could you explain how the EPA's coal combustion residual
    rule under the Biden administration didn't take into account
    the advantages of beneficial use and restricted what types of
    CCR or coal combustion residual sites are considered
    harvestable?
        Mr. Adams. Yes. When the rules were put together, we raised
    the issue of harvesting as an opportunity to take the materials
    out of disposal units, landfills, and ponds and put them into
    beneficial use.
        At that point in time, the rule was at review at Office of
    Management and Budget. And they basically listened to us and
    said, ``We don't have time to really investigate this in this
    rulemaking for this particular rule.'' So we raised the issue
    of harvesting way back when when the rule was being put
    together, and it was ignored.
        Today, we are getting that industry off the ground, and it
    is proving to be very successful and increasing, and it is
    removing ash from storage units in several places around the
    country already--this coming year about 5 million tons, which
    will grow in the next coming years as well.
        Mr. Griffith. I appreciate that.
        Ms. Freeark, last year the Biden EPA issued the legacy coal
    combustion residual rule that was not based on site-specific
    risk.
        If some of those coal ash sites don't pose a significant
    risk, shouldn't they be evaluated on a risk-based standard
    under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, to
    understand if the costs are being spent to actually address
    contamination or potential contamination?
        Ms. Freeark. Thank you for the question. Yes, we agree
    that, without having the risk-based site-specific conditions,
    it was a one-size-fits-all approach.
        So the sweeping part of the legacy rule was all the new
    classes of existing impoundments at inactive or active sites
    just kind of got swept into one class and not evaluated on a
    site-specific basis, whereas AEPCO has closed-in-place
    impoundments that were closed under a State-permitted program
    with postclosure monitoring that would be considered a CCR
    management unit today under the legacy rule.
        So why would you want to reopen something that has already
    been closed when it met standards for the States?
        Mr. Griffith. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Glatt, can you explain to me why was coal ash
    restricted for some other uses in the 2024 rule when in the
    2015 regulation EPA specifically mentions how coal ash has
    beneficial uses and is not--let me repeat: not--classified as
    hazardous waste?
        Mr. Glatt. Mr. Chairman, I struggle with that a lot.
    Sometimes I wonder where the science is in all of this as we
    move forward. And at times I felt those decisions were
    arbitrary, not really looking at the science behind really what
    the risks were associated with coal ash.
        And so I can't tell you why they went that direction other
    than I do think they ignored some of the science and actual
    work that was being done in the States on this issue.
        Mr. Griffith. Now, can you explain how each site is
    different and how you would expect to evaluate a coal ash site?
    And I assume you do that in your State.
        Mr. Glatt. Mr. Chairman, yes, we do. You have to look at
    everything site-specific. North Dakota geology is different
    from the east part of the State to the west part of the State.
    North Dakota geology is different than West Virginia geology.
        And so you have to look at site-specific conditions and
    really what the risk is. And then based on that, then you come
    up with a plan that is protective of the environment and public
    health. The States need that flexibility.
        Mr. Griffith. I appreciate it.
        I now yield back, my time being up.
        And I recognize the ranking member, Mr. Tonko, for his 5
    minutes of questions.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Ms. Evans, let's start with a few basic questions about why
    coal ash was regulated in the first place. Can you explain how
    coal ash may pose a threat to our health and our environment if
    it contaminates groundwater?
        Ms. Evans. [Mic turned off.]
        Mr. Griffith. And the reason we need the mic on is the
    folks watching on C-SPAN later tonight or tomorrow or next week
    can't hear you if you don't talk into the mic.
        Ms. Evans. OK. My button does not seem to work very well.
    So I believe the question was----
        Mr. Griffith. We reset your time. If you would please go
    forward.
        Ms. Evans. Could we have the question again, please?
        Mr. Tonko. Sure. Can you explain how coal ash may pose a
    threat to our health and our environment if it contaminates
    groundwater?
        Ms. Evans. The threat to groundwater and to surface water
    and to air and soil through mismanagement of the disposal of
    coal ash is rampant throughout the United States.
        One of the biggest problems is that the States have not
    regulated coal ash during the start of the burning of coal. So
    we have been burning coal in the United States at coal-fired
    power plants since the early 1900s.
        For the entirety of the time until 2015, when the Federal
    Government stepped in, there was just a patchwork of mostly
    very poor State regulations. And in fact, in some States there
    were no regulations at all.
        So what you had was the dumping of this toxic material into
    unlined pits, whether wet or dry, throughout the U.S., creating
    this huge legacy of pollution.
        And the reason why coal ash is so dangerous is that coal
    naturally contains hazardous pollutants, and when you burn it,
    those pollutants are concentrated in the coal ash. And not only
    are they concentrated, but they are in a form that when water
    hits it, it weaponizes those constituents.
        So those hazardous constituents flow into water. And when
    you have an unlined dump, you have rain coming in, you have
    groundwater coming in from the bottom of the sites, you have
    the hazardous contamination coming out.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Well, it seems that lining ponds
    where coal ash is stored and requiring monitoring of nearby
    groundwater is a pretty commonsense approach to protect water
    quality.
        If there was already a 2015 coal ash rule that did this,
    can you give us a sense of why the Biden administration felt it
    was necessary to finalize another coal ash rule in 2024?
        Ms. Evans. Sure. Well, this answer has two parts. First,
    the 2015 rule entirely left out what we call legacy ponds,
    which are the older coal ash ponds at facilities that no longer
    generated electricity after October of 2015, the effective date
    of the 2015 rule.
        Those ponds, which are about 200 throughout the United
    States, fell out of that regulation. We sued EPA, because that
    made no sense and left a huge universe of potentially polluting
    dump sites. The DC Court of Appeals agreed with us and required
    EPA to regulate those legacy ponds. So that is part of the 2024
    rule. Those 200-some ponds will now be regulated--or are now
    regulated.
        The second part of the 2024 rule is all of the old dry
    disposal areas at the power plant sites. Those were also not
    covered under the 2015 rule if they didn't receive waste after
    the effective date. But industry data showed that those units
    are polluting as well. So we sued to get those included so that
    corrective action, cleanup could be sitewide, not at individual
    units.
        You know, the way the 2015 rule worked is it would be as if
    the L.A. firemen addressed one house, that was that, and left
    the other ones burning. You have to address the entire site to
    make sure that the groundwater is remediated.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. I mentioned earlier that I am very
    concerned by the President's budget request, which includes
    major cuts to grant programs that States rely upon. If enacted,
    it would fundamentally change cooperative federalism as we know
    it, all while we see a much more lax approach to enforcement at
    the Federal level.
        I would like to insert, Mr. Chair, into the record
    testimony from the Environmental Council of States to the House
    Committee on Appropriations from earlier this year.
        Mr. Carter of Georgia [presiding]. Without objection.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. ECOS testified, and I quote, ``States
    carry out more than 90 percent of the Nation's Federal
    environmental laws. Dramatic cuts to EPA that are passed along
    to States will incapacitate State environmental programs while
    creating massive uncertainty for State legislatures and
    businesses.''
        So I would also like to insert into the record, Mr. Chair,
    an article from the InsideEPA titled ``North Dakota DEQ Chief
    Eager To Work With EPA Amid Budget Cut Worry.''
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. Without objection.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
        Mr. Glatt, is it safe to say you agree with the previous
    quote from ECOS that if the proposed EPA budget cuts go into
    effect, it will impact your State's ability to properly
    administer environmental programs like the CCR permit program?
        Mr. Glatt. Mr. Vice Chair, it has the potential to do that.
    I guess we are going to have to see what the cuts are, the
    magnitude and where they are at. But I will tell you that the
    State will step up and take care of the problem if EPA does not
    fund us.
        Mr. Tonko. I noted in that article that you were quoted as
    saying the budget cuts, quote, ``will have a very negative
    impact on the States.''
        And with that, I yield back.
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. The gentleman yields.
        The Chair now recognizes the chair of the full committee,
    Representative Guthrie, for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
        Ms. Freeark, based on your experience, does the 2024 legacy
    coal ash rule require the closure of coal ash sites even if
    they are not causing harm to human health and the environment?
    And can you share your views on how much it will cost to comply
    with this rule and what it would mean for your co-op members?
        Ms. Freeark. Congressman, thank you for the question.
        I can speak from my perspective at Arizona Electric Power
    Cooperative. The 2024 legacy rule would require us to identify,
    through a facility evaluation procedure, if we have any of
    those new classes of legacy facilities at our site or, like I
    mentioned before, our closed-in-place facilities that were
    closed historically under a State program.
        We would not have to reclose them as long as they met the
    current EPA standards, but we would have to include those as
    our existing facilities' CCR compliance for groundwater
    monitoring, which we do under the State program. So it would
    have to be rolled up into our existing CCR compliance program
    and not under the State program.
        As far as cost, I can tell you, just working through over
    the last several months on, you know, the legacy rule requires
    the steps of analysis to get through. And we are spending a
    substantial amount of resources to complete those deadlines
    because those deadlines still exist today without the repeal
    going through.
        And so, as we work through expending our funds to complete
    those mechanisms of requirements, we are unable to put those
    dollars towards other infrastructure that would be more
    necessary.
        So we are reviewing ponds that do not have an impact to the
    environment, have been monitored since they have been closed
    since 2005 under a State program for just essentially checking
    a box under the Federal CCR rule that is duplicative of what we
    have been doing.
        Mr. Guthrie. So you are required to do something that is
    going to cost you money that is not going to have any benefit--
    --
        Ms. Freeark. Right.
        Mr. Guthrie [continuing]. To the health and----
        So EPA is reviewing the 2024 legacy standard. What
    recommendations do you have for EPA in considering the cost and
    benefits of any amendments they may propose? What do you think
    they should look at as they consider?
        Ms. Freeark. Given I have been on the practitioner side
    doing boots-on-the-ground work at our coal combustion residual
    surface impoundments for nearly 21 years, I think going back to
    those site-specific risk-based programs, identify those,
    identify the uniqueness of all these sites--they are very
    different, as Mr. Glatt has identified--continue to be able to
    approve the funds for the development of those programs for
    EPA.
        Remind EPA that they need to implement the WIIN Act of
    2016. And delaying these compliance deadlines for the legacy
    rule need to be considered just so that we are not doing
    unnecessary work right now, that if it goes away, we have
    expended all these resources for no reason.
        Mr. Guthrie. All right. Thank you.
        So Mr. Glatt, you mentioned EPA has never visited the State
    throughout the approval process.
        Did EPA adequately consider State experience regulating
    coal ash when reviewing your application?
        Mr. Glatt. Representative, not in our experience. It was
    pretty much a top-down ``Do as we say.'' It became very clear
    they were book smart, practical dumb, in my terminology, is
    that you really need to get out to the site and take a look at
    what the totality of the site is geologywise, monitoring, and
    to really get a feel before you can start commenting. But they
    had no lack of comments without coming out to the site.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
        And so, Mr. Adams, my great friend sitting to my immediate
    left, my good friend from Alabama talks about critical rare
    earth minerals, critical minerals all the time, and
    appropriately so, because it is a dire national security issue
    we have to focus on.
        Can you share your views on if coal ash is a source of rare
    earth elements, and what are the barriers, regulatory barriers
    for recovering those, in 30 seconds.
        Mr. Adams. Well, right now the biggest challenge is to
    develop extraction technology that is going to be appropriate
    for the material that is left behind, if you will.
        If we extract the rare earth elements and we create a waste
    product that is truly hazardous, then we haven't done ourselves
    much good, really. We have solved one problem partially and
    created another one that is much bigger.
        So the technology research is really what is being focused
    on right now, is finding a way to extract these materials
    without causing harm to the residual material. So that is where
    the market is right now. And there is a lot of work going on--I
    can say that--a lot of ideas out there. But nobody has really
    pinned it down as yet.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. My time is expired, and I yield
    back.
        Mr. Carter of Georgia. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
    committee, Representative Pallone, for 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I wanted to focus on the track record of coal ash
    management over the past few years and how we should approach
    this waste product, given its toxic nature and risk it poses
    for public health and safety.
        When Congress passed the WIIN Act, we gave States the
    ability to create their own coal ash permit programs, subject
    to EPA approval. And the law was structured this way to address
    one of the primary concerns, that States could not or would not
    maintain the same level of protection that would otherwise be
    required by the Federal Government.
        So I just have a series of questions of Mrs. Evans. Since
    the law's enactment, your organization has expressed concerns
    with some of the State petitions.
        So first, why do you think some States are not prepared to
    manage coal ash on their own, if you will?
        Ms. Evans. I think it is a matter of inadequate rules,
    perhaps inadequate approach, and inadequate resources. So
    first, in order for EPA to approve a State under the WIIN Act,
    the regulations have to be at least as protective as the
    Federal rule, and the implementation of those regulations in
    the State must indicate that the State is applying these rules
    to ensure that every coal ash dump in the State is following
    those rules.
        In multiple States, not just North Dakota--and we are
    preparing comments on that proposed approval--but in Alabama is
    a good example of a State that had exactly the same rules as
    the Federal rules, but the way in which they applied them left
    dumps violating the CCR rule in very important ways, whether it
    was by closing coal ash ponds in groundwater so that they would
    leak perpetually, perhaps approving inadequate groundwater
    monitoring systems. And that cannot stand.
        Approving a State that does not ensure that each coal ash
    unit complies with Federal rules is approving a plan, a State
    program, that is not as protective. And once EPA approves a
    State program, it is very difficult to roll that back.
        The WIIN Act says that EPA must evaluate the programs, but
    only once every 12 years. And so you are going to have
    generations of folks that are going to be dealing with permits
    and with oversight that simply is not adequate.
        We are seeing that in Georgia. So Georgia has a partial
    approval. They have had it for many years now. And what we are
    seeing in Georgia is that the State is approving permits for
    inadequate groundwater monitoring systems, so we won't know how
    much hazardous contaminants are leaving the dumps and also the
    disposal of ash in groundwater at at least two facilities.
        So that is totally unacceptable, and Earthjustice doesn't
    want to see that happen in the States that are currently
    interested, which are coal-friendly, coal-burning, they have
    many coal-burning units. And we fear for the protection of the
    residents in those States.
        Mr. Pallone. What do you think--I think you answered it, my
    second question, with what you said as well. But let me go to
    my last question.
        I mentioned in my opening statement that Mr. Zeldin has
    decided to turn over coal ash enforcement responsibilities to
    the States. He also committed to quickly consider North
    Dakota's application for a State coal ash permit program. And
    EPA granted North Dakota conditional approval in May and has
    signaled it is posed--or poised to take similar actions in
    other State applications.
        So my question, Ms. Evans: In your opinion, how could
    public health and safety be impacted by a shift to State
    enforcement of coal ash, especially for communities in the
    States seeking program approval from EPA, if you will?
        Ms. Evans. You know, one thing that can occur is that
    enforcements simply won't happen. The States, as you mentioned
    earlier, are really stretched for funding. The funds for solid
    waste versus funds for hazardous wastes in States is miniscule.
    So they have got programs that may not be able to get the
    inspectors out to determine whether there is compliance at the
    facility.
        And if there is not compliance, you are going to have
    environmental damage. You are going to have contaminants
    leaving those coal ash dumps, entering groundwater, entering
    the air, following rivers. It is going to happen. It has
    happened at almost every site that we have seen in the United
    States. So there is no mystery here.
        What is needed are Federal or State programs that follow
    the requirements of the coal--the 2015 and 2024 rules because
    those rules were meant to detect the pollution, stop the
    pollution, and require cleanup.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Griffith [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the vice chairman of the subcommittee, the
    gentleman from Texas, Mr. Crenshaw.
        Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
    witnesses for being here. It is an important hearing.
        I think we all agree that we don't want our environment
    destroyed by coal ash or these byproducts. There is obviously
    some disagreement as to whether that is happening at the scale
    some claim.
        We also have to, of course, think about grid reliability.
    That is a common theme on this committee. Grid reliability,
    people's power turning on is incredibly important. And baseload
    power just disappearing is a pretty exceptional matter, to say
    the least. And it shouldn't happen without some careful
    thought, and I think--I believe many of these regulations are
    perhaps unnecessary.
        And also not taking into account another theme which has
    been talked about, which is the--you know, the overlooked
    aspect of this, which is that these CCP byproducts are indeed
    strategic resources that need to be utilized. They can be
    utilized to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, strengthen our
    critical infrastructure, help keep reliable power plants
    online. It contains rare earth elements and critical minerals
    essential for defense, semiconductor production, clean energy
    tech.
        Tapping into that potential could reduce our dangerous
    dependence on China and strengthen America's industrial base
    and national security base all while still keeping the
    environment clean.
        Mr. Adams, could you speak to that for just a minute, about
    these byproducts and why the EPA even labels them as a product
    for good reason?
        Mr. Adams. Well, certainly, when you talk about a product,
    you are talking about something that has market value. If you
    talk about them merely as residual materials, it doesn't
    indicate anything to the marketplace that there is any economic
    value to them.
        EPA itself said that--this was a number of years ago--that
    this industry had a value of about $23 billion in direct and
    indirect expense, and that was over 10 years ago. That has only
    grown a great deal as the value of these materials has started
    to increase and approach the pricing that we see for
    commodities like Portland cement.
        So it has really developed into a much bigger economic
    factor all by itself than just a waste material that you would
    have if you regard the material as just something we need to
    get rid of and get out of the way and get it out of our mind.
    It is a resource--
        Mr. Crenshaw. Let me respond. I mean, Ms. Evans' witness
    testimony claims the opposite, says that uses of coal ash, such
    as mining projects, structural fills, agriculture applications,
    says they are--sham, sham recycling. And when coal ash is
    placed on the ground, dangerous pollutants such as arsenic,
    boron, cobalt, lithium, mercury, radium will leak into the
    groundwater.
        You said in a number of studies about the safety of the
    reuse of coal ash in your written testimony, so wanted to give
    you an opportunity to talk to us about that.
        Mr. Adams. Well, as I referenced and I will reference
    again, the USGS study that is in our written testimony
    indicated that you will find arsenic and all these other things
    that you just talked about is common background material in
    soil and rock around the country. It was referenced earlier, I
    believe by Chairman Griffith, that radon, that is in soils in
    his area, and there is no coal-fired power plant anywhere
    around.
        So you run into these situations where background is
    automatically assigned to coal ash if there happens to be a
    plant somewhere, and it is not the case in many, many cases.
        So when we are looking at these kinds of claims, you have
    to look at what the background is in the area to make a
    legitimate, honest evaluation of whether there is any kind of
    problem there.
        Mr. Crenshaw. OK. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Glatt, quickly give you a chance to just--tell us some
    of the safe and beneficial uses that we could be looking to
    across industry.
        Mr. Glatt. We currently--Vice Chair, we currently use it
    for admixture to concrete. We use it for flowable fill for
    abandoning mines. We use it in soil stabilization. I will say
    that before it gets to that point, first the coal ash has to
    show a beneficial characteristic. It can't be just waste
    disposal. It has to be of beneficial use. Then we go through
    testing to make sure it will not leach these products into the
    environment. Once it goes through all that testing and it has
    shown to be of beneficial use, then we approve it to move ahead
    with concrete and all the things I mentioned.
        Mr. Crenshaw. OK. I appreciate it. I yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    Mr. Ruiz for his 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It is interesting that we are having this discussion about
    protecting the environment, protecting health from coal ash,
    and yet we are also saying that there is actually no harm to
    the public's health because the materials exist in the
    surrounding environment, and then--you know, it is sort of
    speaking from two sides of the mouth.
        But, Ms. Evans, what is the public health effect of coal
    ash?
        Ms. Evans. Well, I would first like to say that I
    vehemently disagree--and I said this in my testimony--that coal
    ash is similar to dirt. I think the statistics that Mr. Adams
    has provided are extremely misleading, and I would like to
    provide some supplementing information to indicate--to
    illustrate this.
        I have worked at numerous coal ash waste sites, some of
    which are Superfund sites, where the data shows that coal ash
    contains magnitudes more hazardous contaminants than is found
    in the surrounding soil.
        So you take the Town of Pines Superfund site where you
    have--on playgrounds, I believe the arsenic approached, let's
    say, 600 parts per million. I know they had 888 parts per
    million in other areas. On the playground, at 600 parts per
    million. That is nowhere near the average arsenic content of
    soil, which should be around between 6 and 10.
        So we don't have a substance that is like dirt. All coal
    ashes are different, and not all coal ashes are going to be
    extremely high in arsenic and radioactivity. But EPA has
    found--let's take radioactivity. EPA has found that the average
    coal ash has radioactivity of over 6 picocuries per gram. And--
    --
        Mr. Ruiz. How much radioactivity do you find in dirt?
        Ms. Evans. One to three. So you have--and then you can get
    much more. I have seen 14 in Mooresville sitting on top of the
    dirt. I think we had over 8--8 to 9 picocuries per gram. So
    this is not average dirt. This is--you know, that is already
    almost 3 times the radioactivity that you find in dirt.
        So I think we have--the real problem here with the
    understanding of what is the threat from coal ash----
        Mr. Ruiz. And so what are the health--what are the health
    impacts?
        Ms. Evans. So the health impacts, I mean, they are myriad.
    And one problem with coal ash is that it has so many toxic
    elements. And these toxic elements can work together. The
    cumulative effect can be more than a single contaminant. So,
    for instance, arsenic causes cancer. Radium causes cancer. And
    about seven other coal ash contaminants cause cancer. You have
    them all together. That is a cancer-causing material.
        Mr. Ruiz. What are the effects on pregnant women and
    children?
        Ms. Evans. So, I mean, if you mention children and pregnant
    women, the ingestion of toxic chemicals is much more harmful to
    a fetus than it would be to an adult. A child playing in
    contaminated dirt is going to be more sensitive to the
    radioactivity or the arsenic or other contaminants. So surely
    you have got more vulnerable populations----
        Mr. Ruiz. More risk for stillbirths, spontaneous abortions,
    malformations in children with chronic consumption of lead and
    arsenic, could lead to cerebral damage, developmental delays,
    not doing well in school, not really growing at the pace that
    they can.
        So I am not sure who here would want to have coal ash. Show
    me--anybody raise your hands--if you would like to live next to
    a coal ash dump. I don't think anybody would like to live next
    to a coal ash dump. And the ash--the fine particle, too, are so
    small that if the wind blows it, right, you breathe it, it goes
    straight into your lungs.
        What do you propose that we do with this coal ash, Ms.
    Evans?
        Ms. Evans. Well, the answer is--the part that can be
    recycled into encapsulated products should be put into
    encapsulated products that do not leach. But there is a big
    difference between putting coal ash in a product, encapsulating
    it, than using it as a unencapsulated material, such as a
    structural fill, mine fill. I would posit that using it in the
    sand trap would cause potential harm to inhalation of
    particulates, whether it is just simply particulate matter 2.5
    or the other hazardous contaminants of coal ash.
        Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. I would point out to the gentleman that
    lithium is one of the contaminants listed in Ms. Evans' chart,
    and we certainly wouldn't want to encapsulate the Salton Sea.
        I now recognize----
        Mr. Ruiz. You made a point. Can I--can I----
        Mr. Griffith. Yes, sir. It is only fair.
        Mr. Ruiz. This is what is very important to understand, is
    that the lithium extraction from brine, from geothermal, is in
    a closed-loop circuit. So lithium doesn't get exposed to the
    air, nor does dust--
        Mr. Griffith. So it is encapsulated.
        Mr. Ruiz. It is a filtration system, that you pull out the
    filter, and then it--you know, you keep it. So it is not
    exposed to the--to the air.
        Mr. Griffith. I appreciate that. It is encapsulated.
        And I now recognize Mr. Latta of Ohio for his 5 minutes of
    questions.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    thanks so much for our witnesses for being with us today.
        If I could start, Ms. Freeark, with you for some questions.
    You had mentioned about, you know, the power needs that you are
    looking at, and they increased because of--especially with the
    data centers coming online. And we had hearings in our Energy
    Subcommittee not too long ago where we had all the RTOs and the
    ISOs here in the country before us. But they said the same
    thing: We have to be producing more power in this country
    because of, really, the influx of all of the data centers
    coming online.
        But at the same time, we can't be taking generation
    offline. And it is--the estimations out there that are talking
    about maybe in the future, it will probably be all coal, they
    are looking at about 115 gigawatts going offline. But at the
    same time, we need 150 gigawatts on top of what we are already
    producing. So really, if that would happen, we are really,
    really short.
        So quick question. Do you know what your energy mix is for
    the co-op?
        Ms. Freeark. Congressman, we have had--so Arizona Electric
    Power Cooperative owns and operates only one generating
    facility where we have--traditionally, we had coal, natural
    gas. We have implemented very large-scale solar and battery
    energy projects. We have converted one of the coal units to
    natural gas for back in 2017. And so we have one remaining coal
    unit at our facility.
        So we are--you know, we have been expanding and
    diversifying our portfolio over time. But that dispatchable
    resource of baseload generation coal is critical so that we can
    continue to serve our members with affordable, reliable power.
    And it ensures that we can have, you know, fuel on the ground.
    That is a critical component of the coal unit, is that we can
    have coal on the ground without intermittent pipeline issues,
    intermittent renewable resources. So coal is critical. Although
    we have backed down, as I have mentioned, the conversion of one
    unit, that one remaining coal unit is critical for----
        Mr. Latta. Well, let me ask this, then: With the new coal
    combustion residuals requirements, how is that going to affect
    your decisions in the future with that one remaining facility?
        Ms. Freeark. So under the coal combustion residual rule, we
    will continue to monitor postclosure--so if we had to close our
    remaining coal unit, we would still have 30 years of
    postclosure monitoring, closure of those facilities. So it
    would be beneficial to AEPCO and its members to continue to be
    able to operate that coal unit, responsibly disposing of coal
    ash in our lined impoundments that have 30 years of operation
    with, you know, groundwater monitoring. And so to prematurely
    close those would cost in the tens of millions of dollars that
    would be borne by rural end-use consumers.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Glatt, do you believe the 2024 amendments strike the
    right balance between environmental protection and operational
    feasibility?
        Mr. Glatt. One more time on that question?
        Mr. Latta. Yes. Do you believe that the 2024 amendments
    strike the right balance between environmental protection and
    operational feasibility?
        Mr. Glatt. I don't believe it does like it should. I think
    there should be a little more acknowledgment of the work that
    is done beforehand so the risk is pretty minor. I don't think
    EPA has acknowledged that.
        Mr. Latta. And let me follow up. I think the chairman of
    the full committee was getting into this. You had stated that,
    you know, that the Federal review approval is frustrating. It
    is not rooted in sound science and law. Could you, in my last
    50 seconds, maybe touch on that?
        Mr. Glatt. Sure. Going through this whole process, we had
    indications that our program was approvable. It went beyond
    what EPA had required. But they said they would not approve it
    because they had concerns regarding implementation.
        We answered their questions through several different
    rounds regarding implementation, and yet they wouldn't
    approve--the frustrating part was they would not give any
    rationale why they felt that the implementation wasn't there.
        We felt that we went way beyond what EPA required and
    showed the documentation, had the science, and yet there was no
    approval. That is where the frustration came.
        Mr. Latta. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, and I yield
    back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the other gentleman from California, Mr.
    Peters, for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Peters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        A century of burning coal ash--or coal across the United
    States has generated roughly 5 billion tons of coal ash, and
    there is merit in examining how we can safely manage and even
    repurpose coal ash. Reusing coal combustion residuals or coal
    ash in concrete, drywall, or other applications can reduce
    landfill use and even lower emissions relative to conventional
    production methods so long as manufacturers take the proper
    precautions. In San Diego, we have long incentivized the use of
    low-carbon construction materials.
        But as we explore the beneficial uses of coal ash, we can't
    use them to justify extending the life of outdated and
    expensive coal power generation.
        Coal generation has declined by over 60 percent since 2008,
    not as a result of government regulation but because it has
    been outcompeted. Natural gas, wind, and solar are now the
    cheapest sources of new electricity in most regions of the
    country. Coal plants are aging, expensive to maintain, and
    increasingly reliant on subsidies or taxpayer support to stay
    online.
        All of this evidence has made it clear coal has not
    declined based on some conspiracy or clean energy bias but
    because of well-documented market factors.
        Additionally, arguments for using coal ash as a domestic
    supply of rare earth minerals are unconvincing to me. The
    concentration of rare earth materials in coal ash is far lower
    than in commercially mined deposits. Despite years of research,
    no commercial-scale rare earth recovery operation of coal ash
    has proven technically or financially viable.
        We are nowhere near being able to use coal ash as a
    reliable domestic source of critical minerals, and there are
    better options to shore up our supply chain. Investing in coal
    ash as a rare earth source is a distraction from cleaner, more
    financially viable solutions and an attempt to artificially
    bolster the industry.
        While recycling and reuse is an important solution for
    existing waste stockpiles, we should not reverse engineer the
    need to burn more coal. The goal should be to manage legacy
    waste responsibly, not to prop up an unviable energy source.
        We need to build our energy policy around an all-of-the-
    above approach, an all-of-the-above approach that deals in
    reality, one that provides the security and reliability we so
    desperately need to meet rising energy demand.
        Ms. Evans, to be clear, do any of the beneficial uses of
    coal ash require that we continue burning coal, or can they be
    supplied entirely from existing waste stockpiles?
        Ms. Evans. They can be supplied from existing waste
    deposits. There is so much waste--Mr. Adams said 2 billion, I
    have heard the estimate 3 billion. There is an abundance of
    coal ash that could be used, and it would never be necessary to
    burn coal for those----
        Mr. Peters. And you agree that coal generation has declined
    primarily due to market competition from cheaper and cleaner
    energy like wind, solar, natural gas rather than because of
    regulations?
        Ms. Evans. Absolutely. And that is what the experts say.
        Mr. Peters. Is there any long-term scenario in which coal
    becomes a competitive critical energy source again?
        Ms. Evans. I don't see it. I mean, I see that the price of
    wind and solar is dropping. It has shown itself to be more
    reliable. The battery storage will be a faster solution than
    the building of new power plants. And I don't see where coal
    fits into that scenario.
        Mr. Peters. OK. I appreciate it very much. Mr. Chairman, I
    yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.--not here. No. There he
    is. I missed him. I thought you would be on the top row, Mr.
    Joyce. Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania.
        Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman Griffith and Ranking Member
    Tonko. Thank you to our witnesses for appearing here today.
        For years, from Pennsylvania, I recognized that coal-fired
    power generation facilities have worked in Pennsylvania and
    throughout the entire United States, and they have worked to
    properly manage coal combustion residuals, or coal ash. This
    has long been done either through disposal and monitoring or
    through beneficial uses, such as the making of concrete or
    construction applications, as in drywall production.
        With the EPA's finalized 2024 legacy CCR rule, electric
    utilities will be faced with burdensome costs for sites where
    coal ash has already been safely disposed of and environmental
    concerns mitigated, and beneficial uses with programs that will
    be subjected to harsh regulations despite the evidence that
    they pose little or absolutely no environmental or health or
    safety risks.
        To start, I want to be clear on both the effectiveness of
    current methods of coal ash disposal and the beneficial use.
        Mr. Adams, in your written testimony you discuss how the
    regulatory treatment of beneficial use has been impacted by
    environmental organizations raising false alarms about the
    supposed toxicity of coal ash. Can you clarify how coal ash is
    safely used in other commercial applications?
        Mr. Adams. Certainly. We know, from decades of use in
    concrete, that this material performs, and it performs just as
    expected. EPA itself ran a risk evaluation of this material and
    found that there is no difference in performance of concrete
    with fly ash and without fly ash. That was EPA's own work.
        In addition, if you look at what EPA has done over the
    years in terms of regulating coal ash, back in 1993 the EPA
    made a determination that coal ash did not warrant treatment as
    a subtitle C hazardous waste under RCRA based on toxicity. They
    repeated that ruling again in the year 2000, both under
    President Clinton and Administrator Carol Browner, that coal
    ash did not warrant management under subtitle C as a hazardous
    waste. And it was repeated one more time in 2015.
        So if we hear all these claims of coal ash being hazardous
    and toxic, EPA hasn't made that claim yet. And they have looked
    at it, really, since 1980 when the Bevill Amendment was passed
    declaring coal ash to be exempt from hazardous waste
    management. So as we look at all these applications and we hear
    all these claims, EPA has not found that to be the case.
        Mr. Joyce. The 2024 legacy rule created a new definition:
    CCR management units, or CCRMU. Mr. Adams, has the expansion of
    Federal regulation to CCRMU potentially undermined
    opportunities for beneficial uses? Beneficial uses that we talk
    about, you just mentioned, with the use in concrete, I talked
    about in drywall production--are we stifling innovation?
        Mr. Adams. It is an interesting attempt--the 2024 rule has
    a risk assessment, which is terribly flawed, to supplement its
    claims in that rule. Beneficial use will be impacted by it, but
    EPA has done a nice job of trying to draw fences around things
    and create back doors, if you will, to restrict beneficial use,
    and based on that flawed risk assessment.
        Mr. Joyce. You also noted, Mr. Adams, in your remarks that
    the EPA used flawed risk adjustment in justifying that role. I
    think that is what you were just mentioning. Can you further
    explain some of your major concerns with that risk management?
    That risk assessment?
        Mr. Adams. For example, it claims that arsenic is many,
    many more times more dangerous than it ever has been before.
    What changed? Nobody has been able to explain to us what
    changed to make arsenic more concentrated, more of a danger
    than it has been for decades and centuries, actually.
        We run into things like that in the report that actually
    give people rise for concern when there is really no change at
    all that has happened there.
        Mr. Joyce. From your testimony, both written and stated
    orally, a Federal regulation which fails to consider State or
    facility-specific characteristics and that imposes strict
    regulations not based on any real finding of risk is not the
    way to handle CCR. The EPA announced earlier this year that
    they are reviewing this rule to determine what regulatory
    relief is appropriate.
        I look forward to that determination and to working with my
    colleagues on this committee to ensure that electric utilities,
    especially in rural areas that need that increased
    electrification in America, are not burdened by this
    unnecessary cost.
        Thank you all for appearing today. My time has expired.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize Mr. Auchincloss from Massachusetts for his
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Auchincloss. Thank you, Chairman.
        I represent Brayton Point in Somerset, Massachusetts, which
    formerly was the site of a coal-fired power plant, was going to
    become the site and a clean energy hub for offshore wind
    interconnection until the manufactured chaos from this
    administration issued a moratorium on offshore wind and has
    canceled that manufacturing opportunity.
        Before it ceased operations in 2017 as a coal-fired power
    plant, Brayton Point used lined landfills for coal ash. The
    last of them are due for final closure this year.
        Ms. Evans--first of all, thank you for joining us. Can you
    describe how these proposed changes might affect Brayton Point
    and surrounding areas?
        Ms. Evans. Sure. Excuse me with the mic.
        Brayton Point--and I know a little bit about this because I
    have some history on the original Massachusetts DEP actions at
    the site. Brayton Point had operated unlined coal ash ponds and
    also oil combustion ponds. And so there is quite a bit of
    contamination on the site, most of which was removed. However,
    Brayton Point power plant continued to operate, continued to do
    more waste disposal. And now there is still remaining
    groundwater contamination.
        That groundwater flows into Mount Hope Bay, which is a bay
    shared by Rhode Island as well as Massachusetts. And it is a
    valuable estuary for fish spawning and growth.
        The new requirements will be very important to cleaning up
    Brayton Point. So Brayton Point is an excellent example of a
    very large power plant that, over decades, has produced waste,
    some of which was placed in unlined ponds, now lined landfills
    and other waste disposal areas at the site.
        Mr. Auchincloss. And am I correct, ma'am, that we are still
    showing excess arsenic and lithium and other chemicals in the
    groundwater?
        Ms. Evans. Yes. I believe so. That is what the groundwater
    monitoring reports say. So what you have is it is obvious that
    whatever cleanup that they did pursuant to a Massachusetts
    order has not cleaned up the site in a way that makes it a safe
    site for the citizens in your district, for the people of Rhode
    Island, you know, for the fish in the estuary.
        And the legacy rule is really meant to address that. The
    legacy rule requires a power plant order to look at the site as
    a whole and do a facility evaluation report where it will find
    where are all those old disposal areas that are likely
    contributing to the problem.
        Mr. Auchincloss. And I believe that for Brayton Point there
    could be as many as 12 of those----
        Ms. Evans. Yes.
        Mr. Auchincloss [continuing]. Coal ash dump sites that
    would be newly regulated under the 2024 rule----
        Ms. Evans. Right, which is not unusual because, you know, a
    lot of these plants have been operating for almost 100 years.
        Mr. Auchincloss. So in some ways, Brayton Point
    encapsulates the benefit of this legacy rule in that it is not
    just a go forward, it is also a look back, and as you said,
    treat the site holistically to ensure that there is not
    continuing groundwater contamination or discharge into Mount
    Hope Bay.
        Ms. Evans. Right.
        Mr. Auchincloss. So do you believe the 2024 rule and its
    faithful execution is critical to the complete and long-term
    cleanup of the site?
        Ms. Evans. It is absolutely critical. And it is critical
    that we don't delay its execution. EPA was very late to the
    game regulating coal ash in the first place. RCRA was passed in
    1976, but it took them decades to get a Federal coal ash rule.
    So we are way behind in stopping coal ash contamination.
        And coal ash contamination groundwater keeps moving. How
    much has it gotten into Mount Hope Bay? How much is in the
    sediment? How much more will get in if industry is successful
    in delaying the legacy rule?
        Mr. Auchincloss. And can you just describe for my
    constituents in Somerset and surrounding environs, what does
    that groundwater contamination mean for them? What does it
    affect for their quality of life?
        Ms. Evans. Yes. I mean, it will be different at each site.
    From the little I know about Brayton Point, I know that the
    groundwater flows to the bay. So if that bay is an area where
    young fish are, one will be the young fish not survive--will
    be--less fish to eat and to enjoy. The fish that survive--a lot
    of the coal ash contaminants like arsenic and selenium are
    biocumulative, so those fish may be tainted and be unable to be
    consumed.
        In environmental justice areas or poor areas, you have
    people who are subsistence fishermen, and they may not--there
    might be public advisories, but they may eat the fish anyway.
        Mr. Auchincloss. I am going to have to yield my time. Thank
    you, Ms. Evans, for----
        Ms. Evans. Thank you.
        Mr. Auchincloss [continuing]. Your input on this.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the
    gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, for his 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am going to come to you, Mr. Glatt. Only 3 States
    currently--Oklahoma, Georgia, and my home State of Texas--have
    EPA-approved coal combustion residuals, CCR, permit programs,
    meaning that these States--we have talked about this--rather
    than the Federal Government oversee these programs. It is my
    understanding that North Dakota is in line to become the fourth
    State, should its approval be granted. Has that happened?
        Mr. Glatt. They are in the process now, with a public
    hearing scheduled for July 8th.
        Mr. Weber. July 8th. OK.
        Can you elaborate on exactly how this process has gone with
    the EPA? How much time do you need? Yes.
        Mr. Glatt. It has been very frustrating. We were led to
    believe that we complied with all of the elements required, and
    then there was always one more thing and one more thing. And we
    got the feeling that they never had any intent to approve the
    program.
        Mr. Weber. Was that in the previous administration or the
    current one?
        Mr. Glatt. Previous.
        Mr. Weber. Has it changed?
        Mr. Glatt. It has now. They have looked at the program.
    They said it is approvable. The previous administration said it
    was approvable as well, but they always had one more thing to
    deal with. Now we are going through the process, and we fully
    expect that we will get approval.
        Mr. Weber. So are you familiar with the phrase, ``It is
    morning in America again''?
        Mr. Glatt. Yes, I have heard that.
        Mr. Weber. OK. I think a lot of people are.
        Has North Dakota engaged with other CCR-authorized States
    to learn best practices regarding that application process and
    program--I guess, are you hiring out to them?
        Mr. Glatt. Yes, we are in contact and conversation but
    understanding that every State is a little bit different and
    they approach it differently. Where we can find commonalities
    and benefit from those other States, we adopt that. But we
    understand that North Dakota is not Oklahoma, is not Texas, and
    they do things for their own reasons, but we keep an eye on
    what other States do.
        Mr. Weber. So you can learn from, you know, each other,
    basically.
        Mr. Glatt. Correct.
        Mr. Weber. OK.
        Is it ``Free-ark''? Is that how you say that? OK. I am
    coming to you next. Are you ready? OK.
        According to Arizona Electric Power Cooperative's website,
    the Apache generation station has a steam-generating unit
    powered by coal. You are aware of that.
        Ms. Freeark. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Weber. In your testimony, you emphasized the importance
    of affordable electricity, particularly given that one-third
    of--how do you all say that? ``A-ep-co''?
        Ms. Freeark. ``Ap-co.''
        Mr. Weber. ``Ap-co'' was my next guess.
        One-third of AEPCO's customers live below the Federal
    poverty line. Can you share in further detail how this coal-
    fired unit, as well as coal units nationwide, contribute to
    keeping electricity rates affordable?
        Ms. Freeark. As I mentioned before, our mission is to
    provide safe, reliable, affordable electricity. As you pointed
    out, a third of our member residential customers live below
    Federal poverty line. It is hot in Arizona. So the summer heat
    demands cause, you know, demand for reliability events,
    partnered with potential wildfires.
        So it is critical that we continue to be able to have that
    baseload generation to be able to afford to--to be able to
    provide affordable electricity that isn't, you know, subject to
    the market so that our members can afford to keep the lights
    on.
        Mr. Weber. As I said to Mr. Glatt, so do you reach out with
    some of your other colleagues in other different States? Is
    there an organization of the co-ops, I guess?
        Ms. Freeark. There is.
        Mr. Weber. What is the name of it?
        Ms. Freeark. We have on a--on the high level, basically, we
    have the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. And
    then within that we have different organizations, and one of
    them is the National Rural Electric Environmental Association.
    So we coordinate, collaborate on what is happening in all the
    States.
        Mr. Weber. Sure.
        Ms. Freeark. What is working, what is not. And we also do
    that within our own home State. We have all the Arizona
    utilities, whether it is co-ops, public power, IOUs, we work
    together to ensure that, you know, that we have sensible
    regulation, that we can--you know, we may not always see eye to
    eye, but we can come together in those times where it makes
    sense to work with our regulators, work with, you know, work
    with others that are--as they develop rulemaking.
        Mr. Weber. In most of those meetings, I guess, you said you
    coordinate and cooperate with them when you talk about meeting
    with the regulators in other States. You are finding that
    pretty much everybody wants to do the right thing for their
    customers and the environment? Would you agree?
        Ms. Freeark. I would agree with that.
        Mr. Weber. And so I guess--I have got 19 seconds. So did
    you find the same thing in the previous administration? Has it
    lightened up a bit in this administration?
        Ms. Freeark. The last administration, absolutely not. It
    was block walls put up, zero communication. This new
    administration, we have already been able to coordinate with
    them and have those conversations.
        Mr. Weber. Are you familiar with the phrase ``There is
    morning in America''?
        Ms. Freeark. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. I yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, for his 5 minutes
    of questioning.
        Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chairman.
        We have to legislate for the realities of a changing
    climate. We are here today in the midst of a historic heat wave
    that has stressed our energy infrastructure, endangering the
    health of millions of Americas. And it is caused in large part
    by the greenhouse gases accumulating in our planet's
    atmosphere. Greenhouse gas is disproportionately released by
    the combustion of coal.
        And today we are focusing on another harmful aspect of
    burning coal: its residuals, coal ash. EPA has made important
    strides over the last decade to regulate coal ash, but 91
    percent of coal-fired power plants continue to leak toxic
    radioactive pollutants into water that eventually comes out of
    our kitchen tap. Meanwhile, climate change is accelerating and
    intensifying natural disasters, sea level and groundwater rise,
    and flooding, all of which worsen the risk of a spill and
    increase the threat that these sites pose to our communities.
        In my coastal district, we have low-lined coal ash
    landfills in Jersey City that will become even more susceptible
    to flooding and sea level rise over the coming decades. If
    these sites, which previously showed evidence of contamination,
    already pollute our community under normal circumstances,
    another major weather event or a 6-foot increase in sea level
    would cause catastrophic damage.
        Ms. Evans, can you briefly describe how climate change
    impacts coal ash management?
        Ms. Evans. Thank you. And this is an important question
    because coal ash dump sites are uniquely vulnerable to climate
    change. Coal plants have to be built near water source, so they
    are near the shorelines of lakes, rivers, and the oceans. We
    know that these waters are rising. And in some instances,
    groundwater is rising as well.
        A couple of statistics. We have--74 percent of coal plants
    have a landfill or a pond within a quarter-mile of the surface
    water, and 57, almost 60 percent have a landfill or pond within
    50--I am sorry--500 feet of surface water. So these units are
    very, very close to water, and many, especially ponds, have
    been built in the floodplains.
        The risk is not hypothetical. We have had hurricanes,
    Hurricane Florence in the Carolinas, that flooded coal ash
    ponds, you know? So we know that the more intense storms can do
    extensive damage to coal ash ponds and landfills and cause
    significant releases.
        Mr. Menendez. Right.
        Ms. Evans. So the sooner we can get this ash out of the
    floodplain to protect it from the sea rise and the intense
    storms, the better.
        Mr. Menendez. Right. And you see these once-in-a-lifetime
    weather events, but they are changing, sort of, where they
    are--what communities they are impacting, what States they are
    impacting, right? So it impacts, sort of, how we think about
    the management of these sites. And, perhaps, areas that have
    not previously been impacted could be, and you could see really
    harmful outcomes for those surrounding communities.
        How does robust enforcement of coal ash pollution
    regulations help mitigate these climate-related risks?
        Ms. Evans. Well, the coal ash ponds that are poorly sided,
    that are in floodplains, that have their ash in contact with
    groundwater, need to be closed. And in many cases, they need to
    have their ash removed and redeposited in a safe area in a
    lined landfill or, you know, the ash may be used to create
    encapsulated products, such as concrete.
        But in no event should the ash be left at the shoreline.
    And the CCR rule, the original 2015, requires the safe closure
    of those sites.
        Mr. Menendez. Right. And should Federal standards and
    enforcement be strengthened to address the impacts we
    anticipate from a changing climate?
        Ms. Evans. I am sorry. Can you repeat that?
        Mr. Menendez. Sure. Just yes or no: Should Federal
    standards and enforcement be strengthened to address the
    impacts we anticipate from a changing climate?
        Ms. Evans. Yes.
        Mr. Menendez. I agree. Yet, instead of taking commonsense,
    data-driven action, the Trump administration is cutting staff
    and funds at the EPA. It rolled back Federal requirements on
    coal ash regulation enforcement, delegating authority to States
    that have proven records of failing to meet Federal standards
    as required by law.
        In your view, will weakening EPA's ability to enforce
    existing coal ash pollution standards intensify climate-related
    risk at these sites and ultimately endanger the clean drinking
    water that so many of our families rely on on? Just yes or no.
        Ms. Evans. Yes.
        Mr. Menendez. And to close out, I want to make sure that
    the folks at home in New Jersey get a sense of what this means
    for them. Can you touch on what increased groundwater
    contamination would mean for families and communities that live
    in proximity to coal ash waste?
        Ms. Evans. If those communities use the groundwater for
    drinking water, that can absolutely impact their health. That
    can harm their health. For communities that don't yet use the
    groundwater, the groundwater's an incredibly important
    resource. And so if the groundwater is not currently being used
    for drinking water, irrigation, that doesn't mean that it
    should be poisoned and polluted by contaminants.
        Mr. Menendez. I agree with you. Thanks so much. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the other gentleman--or another gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Pfluger, for his 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let's just follow up with that line of questioning, and I
    will go to Mr. Glatt and Ms. Freeark. Are there communities
    that are drinking contaminated groundwater because they are not
    regulated appropriately, Mr. Glatt?
        Mr. Glatt. No.
        Mr. Pfluger. Yes, Ms. Freeark?
        Ms. Freeark. No.
        Mr. Pfluger. I mean, this is just insane that we are
    sitting here talking about, you know, unregulated groundwater.
    I mean, no, that is not the case. So that was not my line of
    questioning, but I just--I couldn't help but correct the record
    here that--is there a threat because of our regulatory posture,
    Mr. Glatt?
        Mr. Glatt. No. Based on the State program, there is not a
    threat.
        Mr. Pfluger. Talk to us about the expense. You have touched
    on this today, but I want to get back to what will this rule do
    in terms of cost and then in terms of effectiveness.
        Mr. Glatt. As far as the baseline CCR rule and the State
    adopting that, I don't see that as being a whole lot. I think
    the concern is with the legacy rule of having to go back and
    look at landfills that were appropriately closed that do not
    pose a risk now.
        We have the concern that if we had to go back in and
    somebody saw the need to dig that back up, that would create a
    greater environmental hazard than what they have today.
        Mr. Pfluger. Yes, jJust can't get around ourselves for
    making smart decisions on that.
        Ms. Freeark, you know, let's go on the line of questioning
    on cost. And we know that they are going to be significant.
    They estimated the cost would be at a minimum $214 million per
    year with only 53 million in benefits. That is the Biden
    administration. And this ultimately impacts the ability to
    provide energy to our communities.
        So you noted in your written testimony that Arizona
    Electric Power Cooperative is incurring significant expenses to
    comply with the legacy rule and its deadlines. And again, you
    have touched on this already today, but I want to make this
    point. Can you describe some of the major expenses that this
    rule has imposed? And do you think that these costs will
    produce commensurate benefits on the other side of it?
        Ms. Freeark. So far, as others have mentioned, there is a
    laundry list of things that we have to do under the legacy
    rule. So every single one of the steps incurs costs with
    outside professionals, qualified professional engineers,
    consultants that help.
        We are a rural co-op. We have a very small staff, so we
    can't--we don't have the bandwidth to perform it all ourselves,
    so we rely on those outside resources. So you are talking about
    contracting with ongoing support to do facility evaluation.
        And when we talk about the facility evaluation, it is of
    the entire site. We own 4,000 acres. So evaluation of the
    entire site where--you know, we have the proper area, but you
    are looking at in the entire site, going back to historical
    records, any project, anywhere where you could have found that
    CCR materials may have been used.
        So that has taken us months and hundreds of thousands of
    dollars to get through. That report is not yet done. We are in
    the final completions of it.
        But then, moving from there, then once you identify those
    new classes of units that they identified in the rule, then you
    will have to institute groundwater monitoring, public websites.
    There is just a laundry list, again, of items that would have
    to be included just to regulate something that--for instance,
    again, like our facility, we have closed-in-place ponds that we
    would have to, you know, look back, which is insane that you
    are going to look back--those were closed in 2005--have not had
    a impact to groundwater, human health.
        And, you know, we are not near any surface waters. So we
    have a really different geologic site condition. The risk, if
    you measure the risk based on that, it is very different.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you.
        Mr. Adams, some of my questions for you were already asked.
    I will give you the last minute to tell the committee anything.
    Any followup statements that you----
        Mr. Adams. Yes, I think it is kind of interesting that we
    have spent a great deal of time today talking about disposal
    and disposal regulations and disposal impacts and all that kind
    of thing and a lot less time talking about beneficial use and
    the things that are really benefiting not only the construction
    industry but society in general, in terms of greenhouse gas
    reduction.
        We are taking materials out of landfills and ponds,
    returning those facilities to more palatable uses, for parks
    and green spaces and things like that. We are doing a lot of
    good things through beneficial use, but we spent a heck of a
    lot more time today talking about things that have more to do
    with disposal and less about beneficial use than we hoped. But
    we would like to come back and reengage and talk more about
    beneficial use.
        Mr. Pfluger. Thank you. I thank the witnesses, and I yield
    back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Landsman, for his 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Landsman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I agree. The beneficial use conversation is super
    important. I suspect we can get closer to having a meaningful
    conversation about that when we resolve some of the legitimate
    questions about the leftover coal ash and how we manage that so
    that it does not undermine public health. So I think I--I think
    those are the concerns, obviously, that, you know, this
    committee is in a position to resolve.
        We know that this leads to some toxins that can get into
    the air, into the drinking water, et cetera. And I do think it
    is important to acknowledge that the unsafe disposal of coal
    ash is something we have to take on. And the worry with the
    administration at the moment is that the attempt to gut the EPA
    and indiscriminately fire all kinds of people--I mean, part of
    what government does is mitigate risk, right? That is why we
    invest collectively, so that we can do all kinds of things,
    knowing the Government is going to help mitigate risk. And that
    is what my line of questions are as it relates to this
    conversation.
        Ms. Evans, the regulatory standards--which ones should be
    strengthened or introduced to ensure that the coal ash is
    managed safely?
        Ms. Evans. It is essential that the coal ash rule complies
    with the statute. And the statute, under subtitle D,
    nonhazardous waste, requires that there be no reasonable
    probability of harm. So the CCR rule in 2015 and 2024 generally
    followed those constraints. I think the problem is not, right
    now, do we need additional rules. Certainly, we can still close
    some gaps. The problem is the administration and enforcement--
    --
        Mr. Landsman. Yes.
        Ms. Evans [continuing]. Of the current CCR rule.
        Mr. Landsman. So to that end, what are the most responsible
    strategies to ensure--or prevent the contamination of air and
    water? I mean, what would be the top two or three that matter
    most?
        Ms. Evans. Yes. And, you know, that is easy. That is a
    question that could have been answered 50 years ago, 70 years
    ago. When you have a waste that releases its toxins when it is
    in contact with water, you put it in a safe, dry place above
    groundwater, lined. Since all landfills eventually leak, you
    want a leak detection system, and you want to be monitoring
    that for all of the contaminants that are in the waste. And
    when you find any leaks, you want it to be--to immediately
    address them.
        So, you know, this is not rocket science. We don't need new
    technology to keep communities safe from coal ash. We just need
    the utilities to follow the rules that we have already got on
    the books. And we are not seeing that happen.
        Mr. Landsman. Super helpful. That, to me, is also a
    conversation we should have, which is, you know, where are we
    doing that? Because it is very straightforward in terms of, you
    know, the dry space, the lined--you know, lining that
    contaminant and then having basic technology, and making sure
    that the disposal is done in this way.
        So as we move forward, I hope that is also part of the
    conversation. Maybe we separate them out so we can talk about
    the benefits separately from just making sure that we are
    protecting people because it does--it is very difficult to get
    to a conversation just about the benefits if there are
    remaining questions around making sure people aren't dealing
    with contaminated air, water. And obviously we would make--we
    would be making this a lot easier if there wasn't this attack
    at the EPA.
        Yes, did you have--I have 38 seconds, so they are yours.
        Ms. Evans. Yes. Let me make an important correction to my
    answer, is that you asked what else does EPA need to do. They
    absolutely need to prohibit the use of structural fill or
    fill--or use of coal ash as dirt. And I apologize that I forgot
    to say that.
        Mr. Landsman. That is OK. Thank you.
        Ms. Evans. Thank you.
        Mr. Landsman. I yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Evans, for his 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Evans. Thank you, of course, to the Chair, to the
    ranking member, and to our witnesses for coming today.
        First question to you, Mr. Adams. How much concrete does
    the United States use versus some of our global competitors,
    specifically China, on an annual basis?
        Mr. Adams. How much concrete in terms of cubic yards?
        Mr. Evans. Yes, in cubic yards or however you want--
        Mr. Adams. We are about, I believe, about one-tenth of what
    China uses.
        Mr. Evans. Yes, so I have heard about the same, anywhere
    from one-tenth to one-20th of what China uses.
        And can you just speak very briefly to the environmental
    standards that are in place around how we produce and use
    concrete versus how China is producing and using concrete at 10
    to 20 times the scale we are?
        Mr. Adams. I have no knowledge of the Chinese market. I can
    only speak to the U.S. market. The U.S. market is very much
    committed these days to carbon reduction, to sustainable
    business practices that include use of these kinds of materials
    like coal ash and things like that, to reducing the amount of
    Portland cement, which is very intensive in terms of
    CO2 emissions.
        So the cement industry and the concrete industry both have
    roadmaps which are very, very similar to accomplish this carbon
    reduction objective that they have. And in order to do that, an
    important part of those roadmaps is the increased use of
    materials like coal ash and reducing the amount of Portland
    cement, which is very CO2 intensive, and causing the
    carbon footprint of concrete construction to come down. We are
    very committed to that. I don't see there is any indication
    that I read anywhere that the Chinese market is interested in
    that at all.
        Mr. Evans. Yes, and thank you for that. And I would tend to
    agree with that, you know. So I represent Colorado's 8th
    Congressional District, north Denver suburbs up to Greeley,
    Colorado, one of the fastest-growing areas in the country. And
    so we have a massive footprint in our area dedicated to
    producing the raw materials that build Colorado, to include a
    lot of concrete and cement production in the area. And I know
    that our producers are working as hard as they can because we
    all want clean air, clean land, and clean water.
        And we also have the technology these days to see where a
    lot of the pollution is coming from in my area. Double-digit
    percentages of pollution along the Colorado front range are
    coming from China. And the fact is if we don't produce things
    in the United States, it is not like we get suddenly clean air,
    clean land, clean water. That production is going to go other
    places, and we are still going to inherit the pollution of
    that.
        So thank you for all of the work that the concrete
    association has done to make sure that we are being good
    environmental stewards here in the United States, recognizing
    that we are not in a vacuum, that there are other competitors
    around the world who do not have the same commitment to
    environmental or social responsibility that we have in the
    United States.
        And so I would like to hear you talk a little bit more
    about specifically the topic before us today, using things like
    coal ash or fly ash in the production of cement and then
    ultimately concrete. Particularly for my area, that is a major
    concern because of the housing shortage that we have. We know
    that houses need foundations. Foundations are typically built
    out of cement and concrete.
        So can you talk about the process to bring that ash to the
    market and how cement and concrete producers are in a position
    to environmentally and socially responsibly use some of these
    byproducts of energy production in the United States with, you
    know, keeping in the back of our mind that our global
    competitors don't have the same commitment to environmental and
    social responsibility that we have?
        Mr. Adams. Great question. I will try to answer it very
    quickly here.
        The industry is working hard on carbon reduction by using
    one of the most important things, using supplementary
    cementitious materials, of which coal ash is one. These are raw
    materials which enhance the performance of cement that is added
    to concrete. Currently, in terms of fly ash and coal ash, the
    usage rate around the U.S. is about 15 percent of the total
    cementitious material put into concrete.
        In order to meet the goals of these roadmaps that I have
    referred to, experts in this area estimate that we are going to
    have to get the supplementary cementitious material content
    from 15 percent to at least 35 percent. So that means we are
    going to have to come up with new sources of materials to add
    to concrete, to reduce carbon--the carbon footprint of our
    construction. And that is going to mean we are going to need
    things like more harvesting, a lot more harvesting, to feed the
    market with these materials that are going to allow them to
    make that goal a reality.
        Mr. Evans. 20 seconds. Anything else you would like to add?
        Mr. Adams. I would say that in terms of helping the
    industry, finding ways to support beneficial use by harvesting
    the material, adjusting deadlines for closure of facilities and
    that kind of thing that are already operating, harvesting
    operations, would be greatly helpful instead of causing these
    facilities to close prematurely, leaving material in those
    landfills and ponds that could be removed and put into concrete
    and real beneficial use.
        Mr. Evans. Thank you. Yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
    the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Carter, for his 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank
    you to all of our witnesses for being here today.
        I represent a district in Louisiana where families live in
    the shadow of aging industrial facilities. And I know when we
    talk about coal ash, we are talking about more than just
    byproducts. We are talking about public health. Coal ash is a
    radioactive waste product, and exposure has been shown to raise
    the risk of cancer and other health problems.
        And yet, what is strikingly absent from most of today's
    testimony is any serious discussion about the health and safety
    of the communities living near coal power plants and facilities
    that use coal ash. We cannot ignore the human cost of these so-
    called beneficial uses.
        We should focus on reducing pollution at the source by
    accelerating the transition to cleaner, cheaper, and more
    sustainable energy, but instead the Trump administration is
    pushing policies that force aging, inefficient coal plants to
    continue operating regardless of the cost or the public health
    issues.
        If you want to talk about beneficial use, let's talk about
    the benefit of clean air, safe water, and lower utility bills.
    We owe it to our constituents to pursue an energy policy that
    protects both their health, their wallets, and their families'
    growth.
        Ms. Evans, would you agree that low-income communities of
    color are often disproportionately impacted by coal ash ponds?
        Ms. Evans. Absolutely.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Why should the Federal Government
    have strong rules if States have their own coal ash management
    programs?
        Ms. Evans. Well, States' coal ash management programs have
    been shown to be ineffective and inadequate.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. How does the Trump
    administration's recent push to eliminate State and Tribal
    Assistance Grants impact the ability of States to maintain or
    take delegated programs like coal ash management?
        Ms. Evans. I think that Mr. Glatt would agree that a good
    State coal ash program needs resources. So starving States of
    resources needed to conduct inspections, launch enforcement
    actions, do the technical evaluations needed in any oversight
    of disposal, you know, requires trained professionals and lots
    of resources.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you.
        Mr. Adams, in your testimony, you state that coal ash is
    basically similar to regular soil.
        Quick question: Would you move your family near a coal ash
    detention pond? Would you drink groundwater that was impacted
    by these ponds?
        Mr. Adams. No, just as people would not move their family
    near a municipal solid waste facility. You know, it is not
    where you would move your family. In fact, in many cases----
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Why not? It is not safe? Is it not
    safe?
        Mr. Adams. It is just unattractive.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. It is unattractive. But many
    people are forced to be in that situation, because they are
    forced to because of their economies, because of their
    situations, because of their economic--or the colors of their
    skin.
        So let's be real and let's be honest about where we are.
    How would you feel--would you feel comfortable with coal ash
    being used to fill, to use fill in your backyard?
        Mr. Adams. It depends on what the application was and
    what----
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Let's say you were planting
    vegetables.
        Mr. Adams. No, no, you can't say all----
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Yes, I can.
        Mr. Adams. No, you cannot.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. It is my time. Sir, reclaiming my
    time. I am reclaiming my time.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman has reclaimed his time. You
    have to stop answering.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. I am asking you a question, sir,
    and you can answer it or you can choose not to.
        Would you use coal ash to plant vegetables in your
    backyard, yes or no?
        Mr. Adams. No.
        Mr. Carter of Louisiana. OK, thank you.
        I find it hard to believe that we know what we know about
    the impacts of our health, our home values, living near these
    facilities.
        Burning coal releases harmful pollutants in the air,
    including particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, sulfide dioxide,
    and heavy materials like mercury. These pollutants can lead to
    respiratory illness, heart disease, neurological damage, and
    even premature death.
        Unlined ponds allow contaminants to leach into groundwater
    and drinking water, with the ash sometimes becoming airborne as
    toxic dust. Aging or deficient coal ash impoundments can fail
    structurally, resulting in catastrophic floods of toxic sludge
    entering neighboring communities.
        America needs to move forward with clean power for the sake
    of our communities and future generations instead of looking
    for excuses to cling to the 19th century technologies.
        Mr. Adams, surely you are aware that EPA has updated its
    2024 study, yet your testimony, you cite findings from a 2000
    and a 2012 report. The 2024 report assesses and amplifies the
    harms of coal ash.
        My time is expired, and I yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back.
        I now recognize the gentlelady from Iowa, Mrs. Miller-
    Meeks, for 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        And I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here
    today.
        As a Representative from Iowa, I understand the critical
    importance of striking the right balance between protecting our
    natural resources and promoting practical, science-based
    solutions to manage industrial byproducts, coal ash being a
    prime example.
        So today I am looking forward to a productive discussion on
    how we can continue regulating coal ash safely and effectively
    while supporting innovation and economic growth.
        Mr. Adams, the 2024 legacy rule defines CCR management
    units broadly enough to potentially regulate foundational
    materials under buildings, roads, and even rail spurs.
        Has ACAA documented examples of beneficial use projects in
    which this overbroad definition created legal or financial
    uncertainty, perhaps delaying or canceling investment?
        Mr. Adams. We have not done specific detailing of the kind
    of information that you are looking for. We are working on some
    things to that effect, but we do know that basically what we
    are looking at is some beneficial uses are OK inside the fence
    line of the power plant, but now they want to make them not OK
    outside the fence line of the power plant. What is the
    difference?
        These are the kinds of flaws that are in the 2024 rule in
    addition to that risk assessment that need to be fixed and need
    to be looked at more closely to make the rule effective and do
    the thing it is supposed to do.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Rather than arbitrary and capricious, I
    am insinuating from your comment.
        Mr. Glatt, you testified that Federal reviewers submitted
    recommendations, such as well placements, without visiting
    North Dakota sites. In your view, what are the practical
    consequences of remote, one-size-fits-all Federal assessments
    that ignore site-specific geology, design, or hydrology?
        Mr. Glatt. Well, without looking at the full site and
    having a good appreciation of all those things you just
    indicated, you can come up with erroneous conclusion or bad
    design.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you.
        Ms. Freeark, AEPCO sells over 90 percent of its fly ash for
    beneficial reuse, reducing the amount of coal ash needing
    disposal. However, the EPA's new definition of CCR management
    units appears to threaten the viability of such practices by
    expanding what qualifies as a regulated unit.
        Could you elaborate on how this undermines the incentive to
    beneficially reuse coal ash and whether the EPA provided any
    justification in its risk analysis for this change?
        Ms. Freeark. Congresswoman, for our facility, even under
    the legacy rule, we would still be able to sell the fly ash. As
    I mentioned, we only have one remaining coal unit that burns
    coal, so our coal ash obviously over time has decreased. But we
    do everything that we can to get as much of the fly ash into
    spec for the beneficial reuse, which is adjacent to our
    facility.
        So nothing is handled on the ground. It is all sluiced over
    there or the access is sluiced to our ponds. The material that
    they take is sent over via pipe to their facility. So nothing
    is ever touching the ground. It goes straight to silos, and
    then shipped off site.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Mr. Glatt, how does your State's
    periodic product testing regime ensure that beneficial use of
    coal ash doesn't pose a risk to soil, water, or public health,
    particularly in rural areas where ash might be used for haul
    roads or land reclamation?
        Mr. Glatt. We take a look at all the different ash
    characteristics, make sure it doesn't leach the chemicals, the
    compounds that were of concern.
        We also look at the radioactivity of the material to make
    sure it doesn't impart a negative impact that way. Once it
    passes all those tests being within standards, then the product
    is deemed safe for beneficial use.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. And Mr. Adams, you mentioned that the
    EPA's coal ash risk assessment used to justify the 2024 rule is
    significantly flawed.
        Could you describe the primary errors or assumptions that
    concern your association?
        Mr. Adams. I think we can just start with the arsenic
    claim, that the arsenic is much more intense than we previously
    thought. I didn't see any science there to support that. It is
    just a claim.
        And we can go through the rule and come up with others in
    there that are just as questionable. However, when you start
    right there, you really have to wonder about if science has
    been applied to all the others.
        Mrs. Miller-Meeks. Thank you very much.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back.
        I now recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms.
    Barragan.
        Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        When I saw the title of the hearing, I thought it was a
    mistake. I looked at it and it said ``beneficial use
    opportunities for coal ash,'' as if this toxic waste is a gift
    to the hundreds of communities with polluted groundwater from
    coal ash landfills.
        The Energy and Commerce Committee, here in the
    Environmental Subcommittee, is tasked with protecting clean air
    and water. Instead, Republicans want to highlight how we can
    promote the use of coal ash.
        Here is what I have believed and seen the reality to be, is
    over 90 percent of monitored coal ash sites contaminate
    groundwater, and enforcement has been weak. And communities
    that live near these sites often are low-income or they are
    communities of color, and they bear the brunt of increased
    health impacts.
        Ms. Evans, I want to follow up on a conversation my
    colleague started but ran out of time on. And that is, you
    know, one of the witnesses next to you has cited the outdated
    EPA assessment that coal ash is not hazardous.
        Yet, a 2024 EPA assessment studied coal ash that is mixed
    with clean surface soil in residential areas and found that
    even a small amount of coal ash can result in elevated cancer
    risk.
        Can you speak to the health risk found in this assessment?
        Ms. Evans. Yes. And I think that perhaps the objections are
    both to the findings regarding radioactivity and arsenic.
    Regarding arsenic, the EPA did a full new toxicogical
    assessment of arsenic, which involves, you know, through peer
    review and through many years, the assessment of new scientific
    studies.
        So it is not that arsenic has changed. It is that the
    medical evidence of development of cancer, development of heart
    disease has been recognized, and it has been recognized to
    occur at much lower levels of exposure.
        So, in fact, the conclusions of the EPA new IRA study was
    that the cancer potency of arsenic is 21 times higher than
    previously acknowledged, and that heart disease, which was not
    acknowledged to be an impact of arsenic exposure, is evident by
    the medical evidence. So these are science-based conclusions.
        As for radioactivity, which was extremely troubling in the
    EPA final risk assessment, you are right that EPA looked at the
    average level of radioactivity in coal ash. They looked at what
    does that mean when that radioactivity is used to fill at
    differing concentrations.
        So they weren't even looking at what I see routinely
    happening in the field, is that you use coal ash as a
    substitute for dirt, not that you are mixing dirt with the coal
    ash. You know, I think the point of these companies is to use
    as much coal ash as possible.
        But in any case, the risk of--and one in 10,000 cancers is
    sort of the hallmark limit whereby EPA gets very concerned and
    starts to regulate. That has been exceeded by coal ash mixed
    with soil at 11 percent when you have a certain amount of
    radioactivity in the ash, and then it goes down from there.
        But 11 percent of coal ash in the structural fill, you
    know, is very unusual. It is usually much more. So it was a
    very concerning conclusions on the part of the EPA as to the
    safety of coal ash used as fill.
        Ms. Barragan. And is it fair for the EPA to update their
    science and understanding of this risk over 10 years?
        Ms. Evans. I am sorry?
        Ms. Barragan. Would it be fair for the EPA to update their
    science and their understanding of the risk over 10 years?
        Ms. Evans. Absolutely. And EPA has been doing that
    routinely. I don't know what the--well, I know what the impact
    of Trump's decimating the Office of Research and Development.
    We won't have these updates.
        But it is absolutely critical to keep looking at this as
    the medical evidence indicates things are either less or more
    dangerous.
        Ms. Barragan. Thank you. You know, when constituents watch
    these hearings and they hear a witness say something like,
    ``Well, coal ash is not toxic,'' that can translate to them as,
    ``Oh, this isn't harmful for me. Oh, this is actually OK for
    me.''
        Yet the EPA's own website--why does EPA regulate coal ash?
    It says, ``Coal ash contains contaminants like mercury,
    cadmium, and arsenic. Without proper management, these
    contaminants can pollute waterways, groundwater, drinking
    water, and the air.''
        So I think if a constituent would read that would say,
    ``Hold on a second. Actually, this is something that is going
    to cause me harm.'' So it is concerning when we have statements
    like that made, and then they are misinterpreted from
    constituents.
        There is clear evidence that there is harm in this, and
    that is why there is a need to regulate. And it is unfortunate
    we are not talking about more of the harms as opposed to how
    there is beneficial use, as if to suggest we should burn more
    to get more coal ash.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Ms. Evans. Absolutely.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentlelady yields back.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Soto, for
    his 5 minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You know, yesterday we saw legislation to keep unnecessary
    dirty coal plants online. So the committee got to have a
    wonderful, comprehensive update on the massive expansions we
    have seen on solar, wind, hydro, and finally seeing some
    improvements on nuclear as well. Of course, the natural gas, a
    key bridge fuel that we will see for the foreseeable future.
    And that is most of the makeup in central Florida.
        So there is no need to keep open aging coal plants when
    cleaner fuels are available. And it is not just about the air
    pollution. We heard about it today. And it is not just about
    climate change, which are two compelling reasons.
        It is about the coal ash, 6.1 million tons of it in
    Florida, and then 800 tons of it produced every day in my
    family's native island of Puerto Rico. These are things that we
    pay close attention to.
        You look at the kilowatt hours. Solar, 6 to 10 cents a
    kilowatt hour; nuclear, 3 to 10 cents a kilowatt hour; natural
    gas, 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour; coal, 14 cents, because of
    the carbon capture, the storage, all these costs associated
    with it.
        And that is why a lot of us are compelled to help stop the
    bleeding, to make sure we keep the Inflation Reduction Act,
    which some of these things are done away with in the One Big
    Ugly Bill.
        And so it would be great to hear from Ms. Evans. You know,
    we see some of these systems, leachate collection systems that
    aren't there, the landfills that are unlined.
        What are the true costs of coal ash that isn't contained
    for a community?
        Ms. Evans. The cost can be extremely high. You look at the
    town of Pines, which had a partially unlined landfill. Their
    entire groundwater was contaminated. The town became a
    Superfund site.
        I am sure no one can sell or can't get the right price for
    their house in Pines. And they had a double whammy in that coal
    ash was used as fill throughout the town, in their backyards
    and public playgrounds. And so they have contamination
    throughout the town. The town was declared a Superfund site in
    2001, and 24 years later they still have not finished the
    cleanup.
        So if you are talking about cost to a small community, you
    know, that tears at the very fabric, you know, of their health,
    their economy, and their well-being.
        Mr. Soto. And we see in central Florida, we are working
    with the Orlando Utility Commission to retire their last coal
    plant. They have natural gas plants. They are boosting solar.
    They are looking to also buy nuclear generation that is being
    invested in. And so we see how we could get beyond this, but
    then we are talking about literally millions of tons of coal
    ash that is still there.
        Now, Mr. Adams, I certainly agree with you that we need to
    do something with a lot of these millions of tons of coal ash
    left. Some of it will be that we have to store it, but I see in
    my own district fly ash being used by Cemex to help with road
    building. It is not the base material, but it does help, and
    they sure use a lot of it.
        And then it has been mentioned a little bit already, rare
    earth metals, lanthanide, yttrium, scandium, and I am sure a
    few other very complicated metals that are hard to pronounce.
    And electronics, superconductors, lasers, aluminum alloys for
    aerospace and sporting goods.
        So if we were to use some of this coal ash--and I know it
    is already starting to happen--for rare earth metals, what do
    you think should be the best practices as we do that?
        Mr. Adams. I am not familiar with what the extraction
    technologies are and then the processing. You have got three
    levels here. You have got the mining of the material, where you
    are going to find the resource, and when you find it, how do
    you extract it to the condition?
        Mr. Soto. I mean through coal ash----
        Mr. Adams. Through coal ash----
        Mr. Soto [continuing]. Metals in coal ash.
        Mr. Adams. It is finding the materials that are rich in
    these particular elements. And on a periodic table, it is easy
    to find them, 57 through 71. That is all you got to remember,
    you don't have to pronounce them.
        But in terms of coal ash, it is still being studied
    closely. As I mentioned earlier in the hearing, no one has
    found a good extraction technology yet that doesn't give us the
    rare earth elements we are looking for without creating another
    problem, another big problem.
        So the research continues, and there are people out there
    who think they may have an answer. I haven't seen it yet.
        Mr. Soto. Well, you may have bipartisan support for efforts
    like this, so I suggest you all keep working on it. And with
    the example, fly ash, that is an example of one that is being
    used right now in the district.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Griffith. The gentleman yields back.
        Seeing no further Members to ask questions, I would like to
    thank our witnesses for being here today.
        Members may have additional questions for you. I remind the
    Members that they have 10 business days to submit additional
    questions for the record.
        And I would ask our witnesses to do their best to submit
    responses within 10 days of receipt of the questions from the
    Members. And I appreciate that.
        I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the
    documents included on the staff hearing documents list,
    including some documents from Mr. Palmer that were added during
    the hearing.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Griffith. Without objection, that will be the order.
        And, without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:33 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]