nonhazardous nonhazardous. do the citizens of your states or any of our states lose the ability to appeal, complain. sort of like we're talking about either citizens have rights or beaurocracy has rights and the two can't go hand in hand. as a former regulator myself, frankly, we heard more from citizens in these areas than we heard from any other person. to me the local and state level is where you get more citizen interaction not less. so could you -- somebody elaborate on that? if time is left, i certainly would welcome you to comment on that. >> as far as our members we feel we're all in favor of minimum federal standards, codification and certainty of it is the key point that was missing in all this. we do not think that citizens will lose their ability to have a public forum or appealing of decisions, no we feel that will continue. >> and the thing that would help by having a federal law and certainly epa rules that would help, there are a number of states luckily not including my own, where it is not allowed to have a more stringent regulation than the federal government. so having this federal rule and having a law that says you must do this i think will help a lot so those states will have the program at the state level. at the state level people on the ground, in the field for citizens to talk to. they certainly can come, in our case in indiana, they have legislators out there and they do have input. >> same question. this is a concern to me, franks ly ly what you raise. i want to make sure what you're doing would not negate citizen access. >> it's a good question. we're really talking about two entirely different things. citizens have the right under federal and state statutes to comment on, be present at hearings as you saw as a state commissioner, in determining whether a permit is put in place, adopted. that's true. that's not what we're talking about. we're talking about once you commission or our state environmental commissions put in place a permit or regulation and the utility violates it after the public has had input they just violate. they don't comply. then the state agency for whatever reason which we have seen refuses to enforce the very permits, laws and regulations produced through this public comment period so it makes it pointless. you go comment go through this process, which is important as you say. but then the very state government that put this in place refuses to enforce what the citizens have participated in creating. in our state, our public service commission which held hearings on this topic one of the commissioners expressed shock duke had not yet moved its ash from one of the sites present there and was not complying with the permit and regs our state regulatory agency put in place. >> did this shocked commissioner have any opportunity to do something about it? in other words, state legislators, i assume they are elected, governors elected public service commission is elected. i'm just seeing it -- these things including enforcement being closer to the people seem to be better for the people than removing it from the people. >> it is in the hands of the people. the people who are taking this enforcement action are local community people going to their local state or loam federal courthouse. these are people who live next door to you and me people in the community. >> i don't see this law, this principle violating that. >> as long as you all don't fool with or mess with the citizens right to sue, we still have the right to sue. the citizens have the right to go forward. if you were to affect that you are taking rights away from people and saying they belong to a beaurocracy that may or may not -- >> time has expired. i want to assure people there's no discussion in the last bill of alleviating or taking the citizen's right to sue, so you can rest comfortable. votes are called. we still have one member that wants to ask question, so recognized for five minutes. >> thanks to the panel and your patience. we have a different series of votes today. if i could just go down the line real quick with a few of you, there's been quite a good discussion here today as to the implementation, uncertainty that have to be done. i'm curious, starting with mr. easterling. how much input did you have with the epa when they were implementing the rule? >> they aren't implementing yet. >> i'm sorry, when they were formulating it. >> sent in comments. we had a number of comments what we would like to see. some of it is, some of it's not. what percentage would that be? just kind of a ballpark? >> we, along with other people, are disappointed at the way it's being implemented. >> we shared similar feelings. we were involved heavily with comments to epa about the role. as we said we appreciate it it is implementation on the salt waste management plan that is our concern, does not have certainty that we wanted to see. >> switching gears real quick, question again that i'd ask the administrator before he finished up his testimony. on the beneficiary use, miss johnson, you in your testimony with the company is really located near you to make the board. do you think there's certainty out there right now? do you think there could be changes in the future from the epa? >> i believe based on what epa stated they have opportunity to revisit their determination on nonhazardous versus has did you say for ccrs. that creates uncertainty. i will tell you in my he experience for the beneficial use community, for our plant that provides a significant portion of our ccrs to the beneficial use community, that uncertainty is a problem. a later designation or determination of hazardous is going to put that beneficial use process at risk. >> mr. adam? >> i think in terms of the market so far, it's too early to tell if there's been a positive effect. we have heard comments people are happy epa has gone with subtitle d. but it's troubling to have that language in the preamble they may want to go back and visit the bevel exemption. again, they set it in '93, 2000, said it again that coal ash didn't warrant waste management but they come back and say we might need to revisit it again. we need action by congress to put an end to that chain of events. >> mr. easterly, how about you, beneficiary use and certainty? >> i personally don't think it's certain when you say you're

nonhazardous. the epa's approach supported by data from its own investigation balances the need to protect a look the environment without creating an undue burden on affected phyllis szilagyi's. even with the nonhazardous final rule, we are seeking your support to provide additional legislative certainty. seminole owns a 1300 megawatt power plant employing 300 hard-working syrians. we have $535 million environmental control equipment. seminal generates approximately 800 house and tons of ccr's per year. however, we recycled roughly 550,000 tons per year of our ccr 's to produce waffle board, cement, and concrete blocks. one ccr material is converted into synthetic gypsum and sold to continental building products. continental is a facility specifically constructed to utilize the synthetic gypsum. since 2000, more than 7 million tons of this ccr material has been converted into wallboard. wallboard used to build homes and businesses throughout florida and the country. seminole recycles all of the facilities bottom ash to manufacture cement and stronger, lighter concrete blocks. if not used beneficially, these byproducts would have been using landfall. in 2009, seminole received a sustainable leadership award for our beneficial reuse of ccr's and sgs was named one of the top power plants in the world for our kabul schmitz. one of the most important goals is to operate our power plant in a safe environmentally responsible manner and in full compliance with all permits issued by the florida department of environment protection and the epa. bringing us to one of our concerns with the new rule. of the epa will regulate ccr as nonhazardous, the rule is self implement in which means the sunnis covered by the role must comply with the federal role regardless of adoption by the state. for example, should florida adopt the epa's final rule, the federal rule remains in place, creating dueling revelatory regimes. as a self implement and final rule, the typical method for state or citizen group to check compliance at a facility that may or may not be adhering to the rule is to final suit against a facility. this could result in frivolous and costly legal disputes and federal district courts where the resulting interpretations and penalties could vary significantly. for not for profit electric cooperatives, this is especially cooperatives as any costs incurred must be passed onto to the consumer owners at the end of the line. we ask that you eliminate the double jeopardy aspect of the role of the state fully adopts the final rule. the next major concern we have is the complete lack of certainty that ccr's will continue to be re

nonhazardous. the epa's approach supported by data from its own investigations balances the need to protect public health and the environment without creating an undue burden on affected facilities. even with a nonhazardous final rule, we are seeking your support to provide additional legislative certainty. seminole owns and operates seminole generating station, or sgs, employing nearly 300 hard-working, skilled floridians. sgs has more than $530 million of environmental control equipment. seminole generates approximately 800,000 tons of ccrs per year. however, seminole recycles more than two-thirds or roughly 550,000 tons per year of our ccrs to produce wallboard, cement, and concrete block. at sgs one ccr material is converted into synthetic gypsum and sold to continental building products. they were specifically constructed to use the gypsum. since 2000 more than 7 mmillion tons of this ccr material has been converted into wallboard. seminole also recycles all of the facility's bottom ash to manufacture cement and stronger, wider concrete block. if not used beneficially these by-products would have been placed in a land fill. in 2009 seminole received a sustainable leadership award from the council for sustainable florida for our beneficial reuse of ccrs. and sgs was named one of the top six coal plants in the world by "power" magazine for our recycling practices and environmental accomplishments. one of seminole's most important goals is to operate our power plants in a safe environmentally responsible manner and in full compliance with all permits issued by the florida department of environmental protection and the epa. bringing us to one of our concerns with the new rule. while epa will now regulate ccrs as nonhazardouslementing, which means facilities covered by the rule must comply with the federal rule regardless of adoption by the state. for example, should florida adopt the epa's final rule, the federal rule also remains in place, creating dueling regulatory regimes. as a self-implementing final rule, the typical method for a state or citizen group toywç1 check compliance at a facility that may or may not be adhereing to the rule is to file suit against the facility. this could result incàn frivolous and costly legal disputes in federal district courts where the resulting interpretations and penalties could vary significantly. for not for profit electric cooperatives, this is especially troublesome as any costs incurred must be passed on to the consumer owners at the end of the line. we ask you eliminate the legal double jeopardy aspect of this rule if a state fully adopts the epa's new final rule. the next major concern we have with the rule is the complete lack of certainty that ccrs will cont