For all the old Creedence Clearwater Revival fans out there, you might fear the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has some beef with the beloved rock band of the ‘60s and ‘70s. But rest assured, EPA’s proposed rule to list CCR as a hazardous waste is not talking about that CCR (just another confusing case pertaining to government’s excessive use of acronyms). The CCR that EPA proposes to regulate is coal combustion residuals and should perhaps be cause for as much fear as if EPA actually was trying to regulate rock ‘n’ roll.”
The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to label and regulate coal combustion residuals (CCRs) as “hazardous” could have unintended environmental and economic consequences. CCRs are the wastes, primarily ash, left over after burning coal. Coal combustion produces about 125 million tons of CCRs each year, and these residuals are either disposed of in landfills and ponds called surface impoundments or used as raw materials in construction and other various industries. Currently, approximately 43 percent of CCRs are reused in beneficial ways, rather than disposed. Because CCRs serve as resourceful alternatives to other virgin materials, their beneficial use (i.e. recycling) in 2007 reduced energy consumption 162 trillion Btu, water consumption by 32 billion gallons, greenhouse gas emissions by 11 million tons, and saved $5-10 billion, representing major environmental and economic benefits.
Storing and disposing of CCRs has costs, however. In December 2008, a surface impoundment at the Kingston, Tennessee TVA plant ruptured, spilling 1.1 billion gallons of coal ash. It was the largest ash spill in US history, contaminating nearby waterways and damaging a number of homes. Clearly, this was a tragic disaster and steps should be taken in the future to avert, as much as possible, similar events from happening.
The recently proposed EPA rule that will potentially label CCRs as hazardous under subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is an attempt to take those steps. However, it is an attempt that could have several unintended consequences.
Besides imposing enormous costs on plants that supply 50 percent of US electricity, costs that would likely be passed on to consumers, it is questionable whether a hazardous label even addresses the main issue at hand, which seems to be the structural integrity of surface impoundments. There is nothing inherent in the coal ash that caused it to break through the retaining wall early that fateful morning. While EPA is correct to recognize the damage pursuant to the 2008 spill, to reason that ‘damage occurred, therefore coal ash must be hazardous’ loses sight of the problem to be solved.
In addition, by labeling CCRs as hazardous wastes, recycling of these residuals in ways beneficial to the environment and the economy could be sharply curtailed. In the past, EPA has acknowledged the confusion and stigma that a “hazardous waste” label drapes over the recycling of wastes, yet in this proposal, the agency gives short shrift to the potential for such a label to discourage recycling of CCRs and to the resulting loss of their environmentally and economically beneficial reuse.
By deciding to regulate CCRs under the Solid Waste (Non-Hazardous) Management System, EPA can ensure the structural integrity of landfills and surface impoundments, maintain and potentially increase the beneficial use of CCRs, and avoid an unnecessary increase in energy prices for homes across America. This is a balanced approach that is in tune with environmental protection, economic growth, and consumer confidence.
Brett Barkley recently earned a B.S. in economics from George Mason University. He is currently an intern at The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center. He may be reached at bbarkley@gmu.edu.