Ten people presented testimony during a public hearing Wednesday night at the Ramada Inn in Pottsville about a proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania regulatory program dealing with the beneficial use of coal ash at active and abandoned mine sites.
About 20 people attended the hourlong hearing, which was held by the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement and moderated by OSM mining engineer John Mack, who was the hearing officer.
Mack said before the hearing that only comments will be accepted, with no decisions to be made.
"We're here to receive comments with no debate," Mack explained. "People who are concerned and want to be entered into the record come here to voice their opinion and concerns."
Mack opened the public hearing, explaining that the OSM has received a proposed amendment to the state regulatory program under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1997. The amendment consists of additions related to coal ash use.
"Currently, there are no elements relating to the beneficial use of coal ash in Pennsylvania's approved program," Mack said. "Therefore, Pennsylvania is submitting this program amendment to OSM for its review. It is important that OSM hears from everyone who wants to provide comment, whether in writing or verbally at tonight's meeting."
Each speaker had five minutes to comment. A stenographer recorded the hearing.
The first speaker was Robert Gadinski, Ashland, a professional geologist, hydrologist and former geologist supervisor at the Wilkes-Barre office of the state Department of Environmental Protection.
"The definition of 'beneficial' is improvement. I have looked for seven years for somebody to show me a case study that water quality has improved as the result of the use of coal ash in mine reclamation," Gadinski said. "I have not received one case study that can demonstrate that improvement is occurring."
Gadinski said his coal burner at his home cannot burn the combination of fuel - 20 percent coal and 80 percent shale - that goes into a cogeneration plant.
"We are not dealing with a coal ash here. We are dealing with an industrial waste," Gadinski said.
The contamination of wells is a concern, said Gadinski, who pointed out there is no requirement for residential water wells to have background studies made before coal ash is deposited. Without the background testing, it is difficult to show that contamination found at a later date can be attributed to the coal ash or an existing condition in the area. He added that monitoring wells do not provide an accurate comparison on water quality, calling the results a comparison of "apples and oranges."
Gadinski also said contamination by iron and manganese is a problem with the coal ash, as is outgassing of carbon dioxide and dangers of radiation from the shale.
A U.S. senator from North Dakota has proposed removing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from the regulatory process of overseeing coal ash deposition and leaving it to the individual states.
"This is why we need national regulations," Gadinski said. "Chapter 290 (of the Solid Waste Management Act) is an attempt to make it look like people are being protected, which is not actually the case."
The next two speakers were J. Frank Burke and Joan E. Burke, a married couple from Lavelle. Frank Burke said his wife and two daughters may have to deal with a coal ash site a very short distance from his home.
"We're talking about millions of tons of fly ash, adjacent and above my property," Frank Burke said. "My family drinks from a well. The community is on wells. There is no doubt that dumping there will jeopardize the health and welfare of the entire community. This new amendment doesn't even require a permit, which I think is incredible."
Joan Burke read an article by soil scientist Bryce Payne on his environmental concerns about the Chapter 290 changes.
"My concern is that they (state) accept the science of the coal industry, but the state does not do its own science," Joan Burke said. "What we need are good common sense regulations and federal oversight because the states can't do it."
The lone supporter of the proposed amendment speaking at the hearing was Electric Power Generation Association Vice President Jacob G. Smeltz.
"We have a real interest in Pennsylvania's beneficial use program, because for the past 25 years, we've seen it work well," Smeltz said. "The state created the beneficial use program because Pennsylvania is the second largest generation state in the nation, and number one exporter of electricity."
In the five-page report submitted by Smeltz at the hearing, it states, "With proper regulation and oversight by DEP, beneficial use of coal ash is a sound environmental solution to the hundreds of thousands of acres of mine lands that need to be reclaimed."
Hazle Township resident Anne Marie Shelby lives about a mile from the Schuylkill County line and has been dealing with coal ash being carried by the wind to her home, which is in a remote area.
"Beneficial use is only beneficial to someone, but not to me," Shelby said.
Aimee Erickson, executive director of the Citizen Coal Council, said significant improvements need to be made in the Chapter 290 amendment before it is acceptable to answer to the dangers of contaminants that greatly increase the risks to various forms of cancer.
Other speakers were Joseph Murphy, Tamaqua, the founder and leader of the Polycythemia Vera Citizens Action Committee that was federally funded as part of the $8 million research investigation in the tri-county area of Schuylkill, Luzerne and Carbon counties; Donna Snyder, Hamburg; John Mellow, Archbald; and Marguerite Woelfel, Sugarloaf.