EPA declines to classify coal waste as toxic for regulation

[loc <loc@icx.net>]

It's interesting that the toxic aspects of coal waste are the focus
of attention in the article below.  This is probably as it should
be, since its hazardous constituents are likely more dangerous than
its radioactive constituents.

I liked the quote: "Good science has been ambushed by bad
politics"--doesn't THAT have a familiar ring to it!

Any opinions expressed are my own.

--Susan Gawarecki

EPA declines to classify coal waste as toxic for regulation
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (April 26, 2000 7:39 a.m. EDT
http://www.nandotimes.com) - Facing opposition from the White
House and Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency has
backed away from declaring ash and other waste from
coal-burning power plants as a hazardous substance, although it
urged states to strengthen regulation of such wastes.

The disposal of coal waste suddenly emerged as a hotly
contested environmental issue as the Clinton administration
faced a court-ordered deadline on deciding how to regulate the
more than 100 million tons of the material generated annually by
power plants.

Environmentalists have complained that the waste, laced with
arsenic, mercury, lead and other toxic metals, is contaminating
water supplies because many states treat the waste with no
more safeguards than normal garbage. At the same time,
electric utilities have argued the waste does not pose a health or
environmental risk and that stricter regulations would
dramatically drive up the cost of electricity.

Directed by a judge to make a decision by the end of the day,
the EPA announced late Tuesday it would develop, for the first
time, federal standards that states and the industry should meet
in disposing of coal waste, but not declare such waste as
hazardous under federal environmental laws.

"At this time EPA does not believe that regulation of the
materials as hazardous waste is justified," Michael McCabe, the
EPA's acting deputy administrator, said in a statement, adding
that if states and the industry fail to follow the federal standards

the agency would reconsider whether more stringent regulations
are needed.

The EPA said it would urge states to require liners in land fills
and other disposal sites and special monitoring of nearby
waterways and groundwater when such wastes are buried.
Some states require neither at this time. Texas, for example,
does not even require a permit if the waste is put within 50 miles
of a power plant, environmentalists complained.

Environmental groups accused the EPA of "backpedaling"
under pressure from business groups and the utility industry.

"Good science has been ambushed by bad politics,"
complained Carolyn Johnson of the Citizens Coal Council, a
federation of 53 grassroots advocacy groups near coal mines
and power plants.

Jeff Stant of the Hoosier Environmental Coalition, an
Indiana-based group that has been active in the national
movement for tighter controls on coal ash, called the EPA
decision Tuesday "a horrendous mistake" and said it affords
little additional protection since states can ignore the federal
guidelines.

The Edison Electric Institute estimated the if coal ash were
declared a hazardous substance it could cost utilities $3 billion
to $5 billion more in disposal costs.

The utilities and business waged an intense lobbying campaign
in Congress and within the administration after the EPA
signaled in March that it planned to designate coal ash as a
hazardous waste. At least 59 members of Congress, including
33 senators, also raised questions about the draft, noting that a
year ago the EPA indicated stricter regulations were not
warranted.

The EPA draft proposal for more stringent federal controls was
met with strong opposition from the Energy Department, the
Interior Department's minerals management agency, and
officials at the White House, according to sources familiar the
internal debate in recent weeks. Finally, the EPA retreated after
a federal judge on Tuesday refused to give the agency more
time to develop the proposal.

Coal ash is subject to widely different requirements from state to
state.
--
=========================================================
Susan L. Gawarecki, Ph.D., P.G.
Executive Director
Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee
(423) 483-1333, fax (423) 482-6572
E-mail loc@icx.net
=========================================================


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html