EPA proposes eased Obama-era regulations on coal-ash pollution | TribLIVE.com

EPA proposes eased Obama-era regulations on coal-ash pollution

The Dave Johnson coal-fired power plant is silhouetted against the morning sun in Glenrock, Wyo. The Trump administration is proposing easing more Obama-era protections on contaminants from coal-fired power plants. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Andrew Wheeler signed a proposal Monday overhauling a 2015 rule on release of contaminated wastewater from power plants. The EPA says the change will save $175 million annually in compliance costs.

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday proposed to make it easier for power companies to dispose of the toxic residues from burning coal, building on other steps the agency has already taken to rewrite Obama-era rules for coal ash pollution.

The EPA’s actions would unwind some of the requirements for treating toxic wastewater and ash that coal power plants discharge that were set in that 2015 rule, which implemented the first federal limits on the levels of toxic metals that can be discharged in wastewater from power plants, and required companies to use updated technology to prevent such pollution.

Separately, the EPA is working on broader regulations to address other parts of the Obama administration rule.

The EPA at the time estimated the 2015 rule would “reduce the amount of toxic metals, nutrients, and other pollutants that steam electric power plants are allowed to discharge by 1.4 billion pounds and reduce water withdrawal by 57 billion gallons.”

However power companies that burn coal, such as AES Corp. of Arlington, Va., and utility trade associations like Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, which represents several power companies, have said the rules were too stringent and raised their operational costs.

The EPA said on Monday the proposed revisions would save coal-burning industries more than $175 million a year.

The agency said it’s making “several planned revisions to provide a clear and stable regulatory framework for coal ash management and disposal” and address issues raised in “litigation, legislation, petitions for reconsideration, and rule implementation.”

The changes, the EPA said, would provide “regulatory clarity and flexibility” for companies, but environmental advocates instead accused the administration of putting industry profits ahead of public health.

Coal ash is known to contain several heavy metals and other toxins including arsenic, mercury and cadmium that have been linked to a myriad of health problems. Some of it is stored in dry form or as wet slurry in ponds. It can also be used as a substitute for soil or as fill material in construction.

“It is outrageous that Trump’s team is so beholden to polluters that they are willing to let power plants continue to dump lead, mercury, chromium and other dangerous chemicals into our water supply to preserve every last cent of their profits,” said Thom Cmar, deputy managing attorney of Earthjustice’s Coal Program.

The EPA has proposed separate rules to lift limitations placed by the Obama administration on the amount of coal ash that can be used in certain types of construction. The agency also proposed delaying deadlines for the closure of some unlined coal ash ponds that the Obama administration had asked companies to shut down because they didn’t meet the agency’s safety standards.

Patrick Morrisey, attorney general for West Virginia, which has historically relied heavily on coal for its economy, said the changes will protect coal mining and the livelihoods of those who depend on the industry.

“The proposed regulations will improve the regulatory burden on the coal industry and lower the cost of electricity for West Virginians,” he said.

Catastrophic coal ash spills in recent years have drawn attention to the dangers of coal ash, the disposal of which was largely unregulated for decades.

A coal ash slurry pond at a Tennessee Valley Authority plant in Kingston, Tenn., overflowed in 2008, releasing 1.1 billion gallons of slurry. The flood of ash leveled homes and covered about half a mile of land, leaving behind $1.2 billion in cleanup costs. That disaster prompted the Obama administration to write the rules it completed in 2015.

In 2014, a Duke Energy plant in North Carolina released millions of liquid ash from a shuttered plant. And last year, Hurricane Florence triggered the closure of another Duke plant — the L.V. Sutton station — after the breach of its coal ash stockpile. Slurry there seeped into the Cape Fear River.

Betsy Southerland, who as director of the EPA’s office of water under the Obama administration helped write the rules, said the agency “documented that coal-fired power plants discharge over 1 billion pounds of pollutants every year into 4,000 miles of rivers, contaminating the drinking water and fisheries of 2.7 million” people.

A study by the groups Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice released in March found 91% of U.S. coal-fired plants that must test their groundwater have unsafe groundwater levels.

About 6 million people live within three miles of a coal-fired plant and those populations are disproportionately people of color and lower-income communities, according to Mustafa Santiago Ali, former director of the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice.

“The rule announced today puts millions of people’s drinking water in jeopardy, streams, rivers and even private wells are in the crosshairs of this pollution and when tragedy strikes from a flood, hurricane or a breach from an unlined coal ash pit or pond everyday citizens are left with contaminated water, and increasing water cleanup costs that are passed on to them,” Santiago Ali said.

A 60-day comment period on the proposed rule will commence after its publication on the Federal Register.

Categories: Business | Wire stories
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.