|
 After six years of deliberation, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency in May will decide on changes to the Clean Water Act that
would direct power companies to remove dangerous impurities,
including carcinogens, from coal ash wastewater before releasing it
into rivers that supply drinking water.
While the new regulations will not prohibit riverside coal ash
disposal sites, the increased cost of wastewater treatment — up to
$1 billion for the industry each year — could persuade power
producers to move such sites inland, experts and industry groups
said.
The ash, a by-product of burning coal to produce electricity, is a
major industry in the United States. While much of it is mixed with
water and stored in huge shallow ponds, nearly half is recycled and
used as a strengthening agent in cement for roads and bridges
nationwide.
At least 30,000 tons of arsenic-laced coal ash were released into
North Carolina's Dan River in early February when a pipe broke under
Duke Energy Corp's 27-acre (11-hectare) ash pond. Officials found a
second leak on February 10.
 The spills prompted a criminal investigation by the U.S. Attorney's
Office in Raleigh. North Carolina Governor Pat McCroy asked Duke to
move the pond, at the now-retired Dan River Steam Station in Eden,
farther inland from the river. Duke is already mired in a
long-running legal battle with the state over the storage of coal
ash waste.
"If the Effluent Guidelines had been in place, they might have
stopped this disaster," said Frank Holleman, senior attorney at the
Southern Environmental Law Center, which has sued Duke over several
of its coal ash ponds.
The guidelines "might have pressured these utilities to move the ash
further away from water supplies," Holleman said.
SUBSTANTIAL COSTS
The EPA has been considering changes to the Clean Water Act's
Effluent Guidelines since 2008, after the worst U.S. coal ash spill
in history sent 5 million cubic yards of the substance into a
Tennessee river, contaminating hundreds of acres of land.
Since then, the EPA has collected more than 200,000 public comments.
The process was delayed at various points as industry groups
requested that the new wastewater rules coincide with other new
guidelines for coal ash disposal.
Recycled and treated coal ash is present in three-quarters of all
concrete used in the U.S. transportation infrastructure and in most
highways and bridges in California, according to the American Road &
Transportation Builders Association.
Industry groups have opposed the tougher guidelines as they stand,
saying the methods of testing and treatment of wastewater are not
economically viable.
[to top of second column] |
"EPA has listed a number of technology options, some of which appear
reasonable and appropriate, but most of which if adopted would
impose substantial costs on the generation fleet without providing
corresponding benefits," the Edison Electric Institute trade
association said in a letter to the EPA on September 20.
A Duke spokesman declined to comment for this article, but in a
letter to the EPA in September, the company said there was no proof
that wastewater testing was cost-effective or feasible.
The EPA said it followed established rulemaking procedures. The
agency is under a court order to make a decision by May 22 on what
rules it will issue.
HAZARDOUS WASTE?
Other changes to regulations proposed since 2008 have already
affected parts of the coal ash business.
For example, regulators are considering whether to label the
material a hazardous waste, which would allow the EPA greater
oversight of its disposal.
Just the mention of the hazardous waste label has slowed activity in
certain parts of the industry.
John Ward, head of government relations for the American Coal Ash
Association, said recycling of the material had declined since
regulators began considering the hazardous waste term.
If recycling had continued at pre-2008 levels, Ward's group
estimates, there would be 25 million tons less coal ash in ponds
today.
A decision on the wastewater regulations not only would clear up the
uncertainty that has slowed the recycling business, Ward said, it
also might have kept spills into rivers and lakes from happening.
"The facilities that are all causing the problems here are all
regulatable under the Clean Water Act," Ward said. "If the EPA had
stuck to their schedule on getting their rule finished, maybe that
would have prevented this."
(Editing by Edward McAllister and Lisa Von Ahn)
[© 2014 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2014 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
