|
 |
 |
|
Conrad, Brownback press EPA for softer rules on byproduct from coal plants
Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) — backed by the coal industry — are putting political pressure on the EPA to adopt the less aggressive of two options for regulating a common waste product from coal-fired power plants.
The senators are seeking colleagues’ signatures on an upcoming letter to the Environmental Protection Agency, obtained by The Hill, that weighs in on pending rules imposing new controls on “coal combustion residuals.”
The EPA push stems in part from a late 2008 spill from a breached storage pond in Tennessee, which dumped 5.4 million cubic yards of the liquid material into and around a nearby river, destroying and damaging several homes.
EPA is mulling two approaches for the material commonly called “coal ash.” The first creates a federal enforcement regime under the hazardous waste title – Subtitle C – of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) that creates new permitting and storage requirements. The second option is a less prescriptive plan under a non-hazardous waste section – Subtitle D – that leaves more authority in the hands of the power companies and states.
The pending Senate letter makes the case for the second option, arguing that the more stringent approach is not needed and would place “unworkable facility and operational requirements on our state utilities.”
“The subtitle C approach simply is not supportable given its myriad adverse consequences and the availability of an alternative, less burdensome regulatory option under RCRA’s non-hazardous waste rules that, by EPA’s own admission, will provide an equal degree of protection to public health and the environment,” the letter states.
“Moreover, we are concerned that the subtitle C option will result in the loss of important high-paying jobs in the CCR beneficial reuse and related ‘green’ jobs markets, at a time when unemployment is high and the pace of economic recovery is uncertain,” the letter adds, arguing the tougher option would hinder the market for recycling the products.
The coal wastes are a public health risk because they contain mercury, cadmium and arsenic that can reach groundwater and drinking water without proper safeguards, according to EPA. The rules, floated in draft form in May, are aimed at ensuring new controls such as liners at landfills and surface ponds.
Environmental groups are pressing EPA to adopt the tougher option — regulating the coal ash as a “special waste” under the hazardous waste portion of the law — arguing the other option is too weak.
“The voluntary guidance EPA has proposed as a second option just kicks the ball back to state agencies, which have already been overwhelmed and outmatched by the coal lobby,” said Jeff Stant of the Environmental Integrity Project in a statement last month when EPA formally published its proposal.
“The states’ failure to enforce standards has led to at least 71 sites where EPA admits coal ash has contaminated drinking water, injured wildlife, or caused other environmental or property damage, as well as untold other damaged sites that we do not know about because so many coal ash dumps do no monitoring at all. EPA needs to do the right thing by getting uniform standards in place, and having the guts to enforce them,” he added.
