Re: EPA declines to classify coal waste as toxic for regulation

[Jim Tocci <jtocci@ehs.umass.edu>]

loc wrote:
> 
> 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
Hi Jim,
I thought an EPA enthusiast like you would appreciate this.
Jim
-- 
Jim Tocci, Radiation Safety Program Manager
University of Massachusetts - Environmental Health and Safety
(413) 545-2682
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~safety/prog_radiation.html
*****************************************************
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html