Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act of 2013

Floor Speech

Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chair, in December 2008 an impoundment holding disposed ash waste generated by the Tennessee Valley Authority broke open, creating a massive spill in Kingston, TN. The spill covered the surrounding land and Clinch River with one billion gallons of coal ash, displaced residents, and resulted in $1.2 billion in cleanup costs.

The accident underscored the need for rules to ensure structural stability and safety of coal ash impoundments given that U.S. electric utilities generate 130 million tons of coal ash every year.

In response, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first-ever regulations to ensure the safe disposal and management of coal ash from coal-fired power plants under the Nation's primary law for regulating solid waste, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA.

In June 2010, the EPA presented two regulatory options: regulating coal ash as hazardous waste under Subtitle C or regulating coal ash as a non-hazardous waste under Subtitle D. The EPA has not established a deadline for the final rule.

I have serious concerns that designating coal ash as a hazardous material, the result of regulating coal ash under Subtitle C, could have major impacts on the recycling and reuse of coal ash to manufacture wallboard, roofing materials and bricks, and especially concrete.

In 2008 alone, the concrete industry used 15.8 million tons of coal ash in the manufacturing of ready mixed concrete making it the most widely used supplemental cementing material. When combined with cement, coal ash improves the durability, strength, constructability, and economy of concrete.

It also has huge environmental benefits. Using coal ash--an industrial byproduct--in concrete results in longer lasting structures and reduction in the amount of waste materials sent to landfills, raw materials extracted, energy required for production, and air emissions, including carbon dioxide.

A ``hazardous'' designation of coal ash could put these benefits in jeopardy. It could make coal ash storage and transportation more expensive, and create a legal environment that would deter cement manufacturers from recycling coal ash in cement production.

The result would not only be devastating for the cement manufacturing industry and American jobs, it could also divert millions of tons of coal ash from beneficial uses to surface impoundments like the one that broke open in Kingston, Tennessee.

For these reasons, my preference is for EPA to regulate coal ash under Subtitle D of the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act. This would ensure we have strong regulations for surface impoundments of coal ash needed to protect public health and the environment without inhibiting the recycling and reuse of coal ash.

To ensure EPA gets that message, I supported H.R. 2273 in 2011. The Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act was not a perfect bill. In fact, this bill could have been much simpler and likely noncontroversial if my Republican colleagues had just legislated Subtitle D of RCRA. It was my hope that the U.S. Senate would take this more targeted approach.

Thankfully, in June of 2013, the EPA published a Federal Register notice indicating a preference for regulating coal ash under subtitle D. I appreciate EPA's willingness to be pragmatic and balance the needs of recyclers to achieve greater environmental protection.

Today we are voting on H.R. 2218, the latest version of the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act. While the bill has been marginally improved, I believe it is no longer necessary. Assuming the EPA regulates coal ash under Subtitle D, the recycling and reuse of coal ash will not be jeopardized, eliminating the need for legislation. By voting against H.R. 2218, I am thanking EPA for its pragmatic reconsideration of the June 2010 draft rule and for providing certainty for coal ash recyclers.

Source