EPA Coal Ash Regulations Take Effect Today, But Battle Continues

authordefault
on

By Rhiannonย Fionn

Until the Tennessee Valley Authorityโ€™s coal ash disaster shoved homes from their foundations in the middle of the night in Dec. 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, bending to pressure from industry, allowed coal plants to self monitor coal ash waste. But once the glare of the national spotlight called that conflict into question, newly appointed EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson vowed to put a coal ash regulation in place by the end ofย 2009.

Nearly seven years after the spill in Kingston, Tenn., that long-awaited regulation becomes effective today, Oct.ย 19.

While the EPAโ€™s coal ash regulation seems like a major step forward in protecting Americaโ€™s environmental health and drinking water, the truth is that itโ€™s more of a preferred practice than a law. Thatโ€™s because it is ultimately up to citizen lawsuits, usually via environmental organizations, to make states enforce theย law.

Nearly half a million people commented during the agencyโ€™s eight city public meeting tour in 2010, though it took another four and a half years and dilution from the White House before the regulation was finalized, and an additional four months before it was published in the Federal Register. Itโ€™s taken yet another six months to get us to thisย point.

For decades, EPA debated over whether or not to regulate coal ash waste atย all.

Today, with a regulation finally in place, youโ€™d be forgiven for thinking that the debate has ended. It hasย not.

As recently as this past July, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that could prevent EPA from doing its job โ€” its sixth such attempt โ€“ none of which have made it to the presidentโ€™s desk. Even though these attempts proved futile, itโ€™s the White House Office of Management and Budget that is credited with both stalling the regulation and making EPA back off its โ€œhazardous wasteโ€ย label.

Ahead of its effective date, the regulation has led several states to announce plans to close ash impoundments, or โ€œpondsโ€ full of this concentrated industrial waste. But โ€œclosureโ€ is a far cry from a โ€œcleanup,โ€ which matters since the ash pits not only legally drain into waterways across the nation, but theyโ€™re also known to illegally leak and seep into public drinking water reservoirs. Groundwater monitoring data indicate that where there is a coal ash waste pit there is very likely groundwaterย contamination.

โ€œToday, the largest source of toxic water pollution in this country is coal ash,โ€ Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., president of the Waterkeeper Alliance, told me. โ€œIn fact it contributes more toxic pollution than all nine of the next big emitters combined,โ€ heย added.


Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., president of the Waterkeeper Alliance, standing in the woods near Mountain Island Lake and Duke Energy’s Riverbend coal plant, which has two unlined, high-hazard coal ash ponds. Photo by Kevin J. Beaty for Coal Ashย Chronicles.

EPA acknowledges that โ€œcoal ash contains contaminants like mercury, cadmium and arsenic associated with cancer and various other serious health effects.โ€ And in 2010, the agency estimated that the public could realize $290 billion in health care savings annually if the waste were regulated โ€“ an estimate has since vanished from the agencyโ€™sย website.

Contrast that with EPAโ€™s estimate that a cleanup will cost the coal industry $8.1 billion. And consider this: jobs will be created in the process. During the long fight over the regulation following the TVA disaster, industry claimed such regulation would cause the loss of 300,000ย jobs.

In 2011, Frank Ackerman of Tufts Universityโ€™s Stockholm Environment Institute published a white paper describing that number as โ€œsimply unbelievableโ€ and the result of either โ€œunreported assumptions or from errors in calculation.โ€ The conclusion of the paper is that an estimated 28,000 jobs will be created as coal ash is cleanedย up.

During the public comment period for the coal ash rule, environmentalists and citizens made it clear that they want coal ash labeled as โ€œhazardousย waste.โ€

They didnโ€™t win that label, but they did get some protections: The Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities (DCCR) rule calls for the closure of all ash waste pits that fail to meet structural standards, additional groundwater monitoring, the cleanup of unlined ponds that contaminate groundwater, liners for new ponds and restrictions on where theyโ€™reย located.

The DCCR rule also encourages the โ€œbeneficial reuseโ€ of coal ash as an ingredient in other products, including concrete โ€“ something industry claimed to want while repeatedly stating that regulation would โ€œstigmatizeโ€ its business, a claim thatโ€™s also been debunked.

Still, the fight continues. Look no further for evidence than last monthโ€™s paltry settlement between the state of North Carolina and Duke Energy, the worldโ€™s largest energy producer โ€“ a settlement thatโ€™s now being challenged in state court by the Southern Environmental Lawย Center.

โ€œIn settling this fine, the (N.C. Department of Environmental Quality) has agreed to abandon its enforcement of groundwater laws at all 14 Duke Energy coal ash storage sites in North Carolina, to give Duke Energy amnesty for existing and future groundwater claims at all sites, to settle groundwater claims in existing enforcement actions, and to limit DEQโ€™s ability to monitor for groundwater contamination at all sites,โ€ said Frank Holleman, a SELCย attorney.

Rhiannon Fionn is an independent investigative journalist and filmmaker in post-production on the documentary film โ€œCoal Ash Chronicles.โ€ She is based in Charlotte, N.C.


Image by Ashley Phykitt

Blog image by United Mountainย Defense.

authordefault

Related Posts

on

DCI Groupโ€™s 2024 clients include the American Petroleum Institute, which has a history of undermining the scientific consensus on climate change.

DCI Groupโ€™s 2024 clients include the American Petroleum Institute, which has a history of undermining the scientific consensus on climate change.
on

The Reform UK leader baselessly suggested that farms were being cleared to make way for immigrants.

The Reform UK leader baselessly suggested that farms were being cleared to make way for immigrants.
on

The AER significantly underreports the number and scale of spills, says researcher Kevin Timoney.

The AER significantly underreports the number and scale of spills, says researcher Kevin Timoney.
Analysis
on

Poilievre has clearly not earned enough respect from the Trump administration to credibly defend Canadaโ€™s interests.

Poilievre has clearly not earned enough respect from the Trump administration to credibly defend Canadaโ€™s interests.