Earlier this year, Nancy Pelosi and congress continued its lemming-like descent over the approval rating cliff when the House passed H.R. 2454, more commonly known as Cap and Trade. The Senate, however, was unable to pass its own resolution, and the legislation was stopped. For now.
Cap and Trade would arguably be the largest tax hike in American history. Such a law would dramatically raise utility costs, substantially lower the gross domestic product of our nation, and cause drastic job loss. Even President Obama, in a rare moment of honesty (these usually occur when he’s speaking to liberals like those at the San Francisco Chronicle), admitted that under his cap and trade plan, utility rates would “NECESSARILY skyrocket”. Take a look at this video to hear the man in his own words. It is argued that, due to its devastating effect on the economy, the plan would usher in a permanent recession. That’s right a permanent recession….as in forever.
Cap and Trade is a stepping stone for the special interests on its road to get the government to tax and regulate the “dirty energy” sector while subsidizing the green jobs sector. Green energy, as ambitious and altruistic as it sounds, is an economy killer (just look at Spain). It is far too expensive at this point to be economically feasible. But that’s not important to some.
Thankfully, Cap and Trade (let’s call it Cap and Tax, as that’s what it really is) failed in the senate. The bill was incredibly partisan. Save the Lindsey Grahams of the world, it had virtually no republican support and absolutely no conservative support. Republicans, in fact, offered several “failsafe” amendments that would scale the legislation back if unemployment got too high or if utility rates or gas got too expensive. All of these amendments were brutally shot down. As public outcry rose to a new high, the senate saw that they were holding a green gun to their head. The bill, thankfully, didn’t pass.
That doesn’t mean that Cap and Tax is dead. Congress continued its freefall through this year and is about to meet its maker this November. Unfortunately, a senator or congressman who is voted out still has over two months of office left. This Lame Duck Session can be compared to a bunch of high schoolers, about to graduate, who are smitten with senioritis. They trash the school, leaving a massive mess on their departure that the freshmen and sophomores, and the rest of the nation in our case, have to deal with once they’re gone. Some have expressed concern that a modified Cap and Tax bill may be rammed through in such a session. Substantial lame duck legislation hasn't happened in nearly 30 years and some feel that a bill as contentious as this is unlikely to pass in such a session; however, I’m not ready to put such a low blow past a congress that rammed through Obamacare. We’ll just have to wait it out and see.
However, a lame duck passage of Cap and Tax is not the only method to ram this economy killer down our throats. In a way, the EPA is actually more dangerous than congress. The EPA is boring. Pages of legislation being blathered on about in conference rooms by lawyers and environmentalist zealots is not the stuff to which our American Idol loving citizens pay attention. Additionally, there is little room for reprehension against the EPA. Any move to deregulate the EPA is seen as an attack on our earth mother. And as James Cameron recently showed, liberal Americans take attacks on Eywa seriously. Unfortunately, regulations have the same job killing effect as legislation. In effect, it’s the same laws, just passed by different people, and without the infuriating fanfare of a Nancy Pelosi figure strutting around with her gavel.
The EPA has already been maneuvering behind the scenes to effectually pass cap and trade legislation in a way that the majority of Americans wouldn’t even notice…that is, won't notice until their utility rates begin to necessarily skyrocket. In 2009, the EPA found CO2 to be a threat to human health, and in 2007 congress asserted that CO2 is a pollutant covered under the Clean Air Act, giving the EPA the right to effectually regulate the same air you exhale. Though the EPA has not yet actually written significant regulation on CO2, (likely due to the hot nature of the issue), it has begun its attack on the American economy from another flank. Coal.
The attack on coal ash originates from special interest groups like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, CACA, and EarthJustice, who are pushing for stricter regulation on coal ash. This pressure intensified after the Tennessee Valley Authority Kinston Plant spill of 2008. This spill was the biggest coal ash release in American history. In this event, a 1960’s era sludge pond’s dike failed, releasing enormous amounts of fly ash into the Emory River.
In response to pressure from environmentalist groups, the EPA decided to reevaluate its position on the standards of disposal of coal combustion products (CCPs). This is odd to me considering that the EPA already evaluated its standards in 2000 due to similar pressure from the special interests and gave a final regulatory decision on the matter. So much for it being final. Perhaps by final they meant “until a more liberal administration takes the reigns”.
All the same, the EPA did what it does and came up with three proposals for the regulation of CCPs. The first proposal is to regulate them under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This proposal would put the EPA in charge of the planning, implementation of, and execution of methods of handling CCPs from their generation to final disposal (the EPA report actually reads “cradle to grave…requirements”). The regulation also classifies the material as “Hazardous Waste”. This is especially disconcerting as the EPA has tested CCPs before and found that they do not qualify as "toxic" or "hazardous" under the EPAs Toxic Characteristics Leaching Protocol. The EPA would also require that all current landfill sites where CCPs are disposed would have a composite liner to prevent groundwater seepage.
A second proposal would be to leave CCPs under the provisions of Subtitle D of the RCRA. This provision would require the retrofitting of landfill sites with composite liners just as Subtitle C. It would also place virtually all the same regulations concerning disposal of CCPs as are provisioned under Subtitle C. The difference between the two Subtitles is that’s where the regulation ends. The EPA would not have the power to regulate the material from cradle to grave, but just its grave. Nor would the material be classified as hazardous.
The third suggestion is to classify CCPs as Subtitle D “prime”. This is the same as Subtitle D except it does not require the retrofitting of old landfills, but applies just to new landfill sites. Since mismanaged old sites is the problem here, then we can just count Subtitle D “Prime” out now.
I bet you can’t guess which determination Earthjustice and Greenpeace want. Don’t worry, I’ll tell you. Subtitle C. They’re just dying to see coal classified as a hazardous material.
Now, as the TVA spill and other, smaller incidents have shown, CCPs can be harmful to humans and the environment if improperly manged. That is because specific elements like silver, arsenic, and lead can be found mixed in with coal. When the coal is burned to create electricity, the actual coal almost completely incinerates, leaving ash and the trace elements. Since the trace elements do not burn away, these elements get concentrated in the ash (a pound of coal ash has more lead in it than a pound of raw coal). Therefore, it is feasible that toxins could be found in CCPS with concentrations that are somewhat hazardous. Depending on from where it is mined and what elements are in the raw coal, some coal ash might have higher levels than others, but the we must remember that the EPA has tested coal ash for toxicity using its Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure before and was unable to find levels of toxins high enough to justify the label of hazardous material. We must also realize that in the TVA incident over a BILLION gallons of slurry was released into the river. It takes tremendous amounts of seepage before "toxicity" is manifested. In short, “could be harmful in some cases” is not the same as “hazardous”.
The EPA in its 2000 Final Regulatory Decision also decided not to classify CCPs as hazardous waste in part because the disposal of the ash is already covered by the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. That’s because if the coal ash is contaminated, the only way it can harm people or the environment is if its dust is breathed in or if the contaminants leach into groundwater. The EPA felt at the time that if such circumstances were found, it would already have enough authority to step in and therefore didn’t need the “hazardous waste” label stamped on coal ash.
At this point I would like to point out that coal ash is not bad. Actually, CCPs are hugely beneficial. In fact, they’re eco-friendly. Here’s why:
CCPs can be used in a myriad of building materials. They can be used in concrete, waste and soil stabilizers, road base, asphalt, snow and ice traction materials, roofing, grout, wallboard, and more. By recycling CCPs, virgin materials like portland cement or gypsum do not have to be mined for the uses I mentioned. Less mining substantially reduces greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, if CCPs were 100% utilized instead of simply landfilled, it would be the equivalent of takin 25% of all of the world’s cars off the roads. Also, products used with recycled CCPs often cost less than products manufactured from all virgin materials. That's savings in your and my wallet at the hardware store. Additionally, building products that use CCPs are often stronger than those made with other materials. Concrete made with fly ash (a type of CCP) instead of portland cement is stronger and lasts longer than conventional concrete, thereby adding the extra benefit of not replacing the sidewalk or road you built with it as often. In 2005, CCPs contributed $25.9 billion in environmental and economic savings. The figure is even higher now, and we still only reuse about 40% of CCPs.
You would think the EPA would be pushing for increased CCP recycling. Well, it was...until recently. The EPA used to operate a program called the Coal Combustion Product Partnership (C2P2). However, after this reevaluation of CCP disposal began, it disbanded the program. If you go to the C2P2 website, instead of the original site, you get a bunch of mumbo jumbo that reads:
EPA has suspended active participation in the Coal Combustion Products Partnership program while we are taking and assessing comment on the beneficial use of coal combustion residuals (CCR) through the CCR proposed rulemaking. While the Agency continues to support safe and protective beneficial reuse of coal combustion residues, the C2P2 program webpages have been removed while the program is being re-evaluated.
It takes near hacker abilities to find the archived version of the website. However, I never fail to deliver, so I found the archived site after some diligence. It’s interesting that on the C2P2 website it says (or said) that “Beneficially using CCPs can generate significant environmental, economic, and performance benefits.” Additionally, concerning recycling of CCPs, the EPA has stated, “We have not identified any other beneficial uses that are likely to present significant risks to human health or the environment.” It has also stated, “…beneficial use of [CCPs]…provide significant environmental benefits, including the reduction of [greenhouse gas] emissions.” So the EPA has disbanded a program that “generate[s] significant environmental, economic, and performance benefits”? Interesting.
It’s important to remember that the current CCP debate is about the methods of their disposal. So disbanding a program that promotes the beneficial reuse of CCPs instead of landfilling CCPs seems counterproductive to the stated agenda of the EPA. Like I said, it’s interesting. Also, even though it is important to understand what the potential risks of the coal ash are, I must reiterate that such potential risks are well known and are not the subject of the debate.
The debate is relative to how best to handle the waste. The incidents that led to the intensification of this issue are relative to disposal methods, not due to an underestimation of the actual substance's characteristics.
Let’s return to proposed classifications. Under Subtitle C the material would be labeled “hazardous” even though it is not. What do you think the stigma would be against ready-mix concrete that has so-called “hazardous” materials in it? Would anybody want to buy drywall with “toxic ash” in it? Do you think it’s possible that competitors of the CCP recycling industry might try to use a Subtitle C disposal ruling against the industry? Guess what, they already are. Additionally, wouldn't a drop in recycled CCPs consequently induce an increase in CCPs found in landfills? Isn't reducing the amount of CCPs in landfills the goal here? Additionally, the EPA stated that Subtitle C would take two to five or more years to implement and would cost about $17 Million more per state to implement than the Subtitle D classification.
In summary, subtitle D has the same disposal standards as subtitle C (remember it’s the practices and standards of disposal that are the debate here), would cost less, would be implemented sooner, and would not be classified as “hazardous waste”.
If the EPA gets its Subtitle C ruling it likely will:
1. Inflict unnecessary costs on states and utility companies that will translate to higher taxes and/or cuts in other services and higher utility rates. This new revenue will be used to subsidize the “green jobs” movement.
2. Discourage the use of products that are proven to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
3. Actually diminish the strength and durability of concrete and other building products used.
4. Increase the amount of coal ash that ends up in landfill.
When you look at the facts, it seems like it’s a no brainer. Subtitle D is by far the wiser classification.
So, why exactly is the EPA reaching for a subtitle C ruling?
1. It allows EPA involvement in EVERY aspect of CCPs from generation to disposal, not just disposal as covered by subtitle D. Remember, the EPA actually uses the terminology “Cradle to Grave”.
2. It would potentially generate a revenue stream to the government through fees and regulations
3. Dare I suggest that the label “Hazardous Waste” would be a psychological victory in the propaganda war against coal and for green energy?
I don't usually ask for people's support or action on an issue. But this issue is important and warrants some action. If you can, do what you can to raise awareness. The EPA needs to be reigned in. Also, as far as CCP recycling is concerned, I suggest you familiarize yourself with groups like Citizens for Recycling First. They are attending the EPA hearings and are keeping a close eye on the issue. Pass the information on. Just because congress isn't passing laws like Cap and Tax now doesn't mean that we've stopped them for good.
My references are in the first comment.
