WASHINGTON, Sept. 22, 2016 - The water resources bill that
the Senate recently passed on a near-unanimous vote of 95-3 also includes a
states-first approach for regulating the disposal and recycling of coal ash, a
measure strongly opposed by environmental groups. Coal ash,
also known as coal combustion residuals (CCRs), is the particulate residue that
remains from burning coal.
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., introduced the original
legislation with Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., in January. It authorizes states to
create permit programs to enforce coal ash disposal standards and requires
states to set up their permit program through a traditional EPA application
process.
EPA’s current coal ash rule isn’t an
effective enforcement mechanism for the disposal of coal ash because it relies
on citizen-suit litigation to enforce coal ash disposal standards, says
Manchin, who secured the inclusion of the Coal Combustion Residuals
Regulatory Improvement Act in the Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA), S.2848, along with Shelley Moore Capito,
R-W.Va.
By giving states the ability to set up their own permitting
programs to make sure coal ash is safely recycled and reused under existing EPA
health and environment regulations, Manchin says
the measure counters EPA overregulation that threatens vital industries and
jobs.
Capito says
that, while ensuring the health and safety of families and communities, the
measure provides needed certainty to industry and businesses. “States, not the
EPA, know how to best regulate within their own borders,” Capito said.
The National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association (NRECA), which applauded
the Senate action, says the provisions provide clear enforcement authority and
also limit litigation, which is “important to safe management and continued
beneficial use.”
“We thank Sens. Hoeven and Manchin—as well as (Environment
and Public Works Committee) Chairman Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member Boxer (D-Calif.),
and Sens. Blunt (R-Mo.) and Capito (R-W.Va.). – for their leadership on this
issue and for guiding this bipartisan legislative solution to passage,” says
NRECA CEO Jim Matheson.
However, environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP)
and the Waterkeeper Alliance, aren’t pleased
with the proposed measure.
The Sierra Club called
the legislation “a patchwork of requirements” that are different from state to
state, “with the apparent intent of reducing utilities’ exposure to liability.”
The legislation dilutes protections previously established by federal regulations, EIP and the Waterkeeper Alliance say, and will lead to “endless disputes over how risks are assessed, how much uncertainty to tolerate, how much monitoring is adequate, whether alternate parameters for measuring cleanup and risk are valid, etc.” Fewer cleanups will result and leaking ponds will continue to operate much longer than the current rule allows, the groups say.
The measure essentially gives polluters a “do-over” on coal
ash regulation, EIP says, which replaces the “clear, uniform requirements that
apply to every coal ash operator” under EPA’s current rule.
EIP and Waterkeeper Alliance also note that the legislation
does not require the online posting of groundwater monitoring data “that must
now be purchased from state agencies through payment of fees that few citizens
can afford.”
The groups say the amendment would remove the
“health-based drinking water standards” from the current EPA rule,
which would allow coal ash disposal sites to pollute to a larger degree without
having to meet a clean drinking water threshold for contamination.
“We do not understand why this last-minute legislation is
preferable to a rule requiring power companies to clean up groundwater they
have contaminated until it meets federal drinking water standards and to close
leaking or unsafe ponds,” the EIP and the alliance said in a letter
protesting the inclusion of CCRs in WRDA.
The groups also said that “in contrast to the very public
process used to develop EPA standards,” no hearings were held “that would allow
for at least some discussion of the purpose of this specific legislation or how
it might change critical requirements and deadlines of the EPA rule.”
For more information on the CCR provision, click
here.
#30
