Scott Pruitt Just Gutted Rules To Fight The Nation’s ‘Second Biggest Toxic Pollution Threat’
WASHINGTON ― The Environmental Protection Agency announced plans Thursday to scrap Obama-era rules tightening restrictions on disposal of coal ash, the toxic byproduct from coal-fired power plants that has caused major water contamination problems across the country.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt billed the new proposal as a bid to give states more independence over coal ash disposal, though he moved to reconsider the 2015 regulation in September at the request of fossil fuel utilities.
The EPA’s announcement makes no mention of the risks coal ash poses to human health and the environment. Rather, the agency justified its move by noting it is expected to save the utility sector between $31 and $100 million annually.
“Today’s coal ash proposal embodies EPA’s commitment to our state partners by providing them with the ability to incorporate flexibilities into their coal ash permit programs based on the needs of their states,” Pruitt said in a statement.
Coal-fired power plants in the United States produce roughly 140 million tons of coal ash per year, containing toxic heavy metals such as arsenic, lead, selenium and other carcinogenic substances. The waste product is typically stored in wet ponds, nearly 46 percent of which operated without liners to prevent hazardous chemicals from seeping into groundwater, according to 2012 data released by the EPA.
Living within a mile of a wet coal ash storage pond poses a greater health threat than smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, raising the risk of cancer to one in 50, an EPA study from 2010 found. Children are particularly at risk of learning disabilities, birth defects, asthma and cancer, with 1.54 million living near such storage sites, according to EPA data cited by the Sierra Club.
“This is the second biggest toxic pollution threat in our country, and we need to clean it up – not make things easier for polluters,” Earthjustice attorney Lisa Evans said in a statement. “People living near more than a thousand toxic coal ash sites are at risk. They face contaminated drinking water, toxic dust in the air, and serious health threats just because the EPA is choosing to side with polluters over the public.”
In 2014, the EPA catalogued 158 cases where coal ash compromised water quality, including 22 that involved recycled waste product. And a government study in 2012 estimated that the damage to fish and wildlife at 21 disposal sites came at a cost of more than $2.3 billion, “enough money to construct 155 landfills with state-of-the-art composite liners and leachate collection systems.”
The rule change marks the Trump administration’s latest rollback of clean water regulations at a time when drinking water contamination crises are proliferating across the country. In February 2017, less than a month after taking office, President Donald Trump signed a bill to allow coal companies to dump waste into streams. In June, the EPA moved to repeal the 2015 Waters of the U.S. rule that extended 1972 Clean Water Act protections to roughly 20 million acres of wetlands and streams. The agency formally suspended the rule on Jan. 31.
Scrapping the only federal rules on coal ash presents a major problem in the face of storms, floods and other extreme weather made more frequent and intense by climate change. When Hurricane Maria made landfall over Puerto Rico last year, flood waters swelled the river in the city of Guayama, wreaking havoc on the city’s 42,000 residents and distributing its five-story-tall tower of coal ash.
Coal ash in particular has long been a hot-button issue in the utility industry. In 2014, Duke Energy, one of the country’s biggest power companies, spilled nearly 39,000 tons of coal ash into the Dan River, causing one of North Carolina’s biggest environmental disasters in its history. In 2016, then Gov. Pat McCrory (R) signed a bill that dramatically watered down legislation forcing Duke to clean up its coal ash pits without requiring the company to excavate the waste or provide clean water to residents near the pond. Yet, two years later, the company is still battling environmentalists and regulators in the state as the utility seeks to pass the cleanup costs onto ratepayers in the form of a price hike.
In a separate legal fight over coal ash, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the nation’s biggest public utility, last month appealed a federal judge’s order to clean up decades of coal ash environmentalists say poisoned water in the Volunteer State. Eighteen states and an alliance of big corporate interests urged an appeals court to overturn the decision last month.
Gutting the EPA’s rules on coal ash pollution takes some pressure off the utilities, but thrusts the industry back into the sort of “regulatory uncertainty” Pruitt vowed to alleviate. In 2014, before the EPA passed its coal ash rule, the American Coal Ash Association, a trade group, complained about “regulatory uncertainty that has impeded the beneficial use of coal ash for half a decade.”
It’s unclear whether Pruitt’s new rule promotes recycling coal ash for other uses. Coal ash can be used to pave roads, though the environmentalists say even that poses pollution risks. And last year, Purdue University researchers announced new technology to sift rare earth elements ― highly-valued components used in electronics and renewable energy hardware ― out of coal ash waste.
Thomas Adams, executive director of the American Coal Ash Association, said he hopes the next part of the EPA’s announcement will include changing a rule that mandates companies to go through a risk evaluation when stockpiling more than 12,400 tons of coal ash for anything other than road projects. The EPA set the threshold in 2015 based on what Adams called an “arithmetic error” that he argued hurts the market for using coal ash in cement manufacturing or to fill structures such as building foundations. He said he hopes the EPA will raise the limit to 75,000 tons.
“It [the rule] depresses the market,” he told HuffPost by phone.
Thursday’s announcement is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to end a perceived “war” on coal waged by the Obama administration. Last year, the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group petitioned the EPA to roll back the Obama-era coal ash rule, calling it ”burdensome, inflexible, and often impracticable.” The organization of some 80 utilities warned that regulating coal ash disposal would “result in significant economic and operational impacts to coal-fired power generation,” and could even force power plants to shut down.
The EPA did not respond to a request for comment.
Related...
EPA Fills Puerto Rico Post Left Vacant For 9 Months Amid Hurricane Disaster
Scott Pruitt Just Cleared The Way For Industry Control Of EPA's Science Advisory Boards
Scott Pruitt’s First Year Set The EPA Back Anywhere From A Few Years To 3 Decades
Also on HuffPost
The drinking water of millions of Americans
![A repeal of the Clean Water Rule could <a href="http://www.ewg.org/release/trump-plan-gut-stream-protections-imperils-tap-water-117-million-americans" target="_blank">threaten the drinking water of 117 million Americans</a>, according to a recent nationwide analysis by the Environmental Working Group.<br /><br />More than <strong>one-third of Americans</strong> get at least some of their drinking water from small streams, according to the report. More than 72 million Americans rely on small streams for <strong>more than half</strong> <strong>of their water</strong>.<br /><br />In 21 different states, small streams were found to provide drinking water for 1 million or more people. More than 5 million people in New York, Pennsylvania and Texas get drinking water from small streams, said the EWG, as do more than 3 million people in Arizona, California, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina and Ohio.<br /><br />"Small streams are where big rivers start, and the <a href="https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=296414&CFID=75721536&CFTOKEN=90692556" target="_blank">best science</a> confirms that dirty streams means even dirtier rivers,” EWG said in a statement. “Undermining, weakening or rescinding [the Clean Water Rule] is a gift to corporate polluters and Big Ag, and a threat to public health and the environment.”](https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/I6x5.XPjC32MwC6pzwSZ.w--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MA--/https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/58be63cf1a00003700f4205d.jpeg)
More than one-third of Americans get at least some of their drinking water from small streams, according to the report. More than 72 million Americans rely on small streams for more than half of their water.
In 21 different states, small streams were found to provide drinking water for 1 million or more people. More than 5 million people in New York, Pennsylvania and Texas get drinking water from small streams, said the EWG, as do more than 3 million people in Arizona, California, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina and Ohio.
"Small streams are where big rivers start, and the best science confirms that dirty streams means even dirtier rivers,” EWG said in a statement. “Undermining, weakening or rescinding [the Clean Water Rule] is a gift to corporate polluters and Big Ag, and a threat to public health and the environment.”
The health of flora, fauna and habitats
![“Repeal of the [Clean Water Rule] could have a particular negative effect on certain species because the small and intermittent waters that are the target of the repeal are often significant ecological habitat,” said Michael Gerrard, an environmental law professor at Columbia University.<br /><br />Some of the nation’s birds, for example, could be at risk. According to the National Audubon Society, many of the water features covered by the Clean Water Rule are “<a href="http://www.audubon.org/news/the-waters-united-states-wotus-rule-what-it-and-why-its-important" target="_blank">crucially important for birds</a>.”<br /><br />Take <a href="http://www.audubon.org/magazine/may-june-2014/farm-bill-will-yield-benefits-birds-and-other" target="_blank">prairie potholes</a>, a type of wetland found mostly in the Upper Midwest. Millions of waterbirds flock to those bodies to “take advantage of the buffet available” there, said Alison Holloran, executive director of Audubon Rockies, in a recent statement.<br /><br />Fish, including salmon and trout, could also be threatened.<br /><br />“Salmon and trout don’t just live in big rivers and lakes, they often spawn in small streams, some of which go completely dry during the summer, and those same streams act as nurseries for young fish during the wet months,” <a href="http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/feb/28/trump-rollback-clean-water-rule-could-impact-pacific-northwest-salmon-steelhead/" target="_blank">said</a> Rob Masonis, Trout Unlimited’s vice president of Western conservation<i>. “</i>If we don’t protect small headwater streams and the wetlands that feed them, we imperil our fisheries and undermine the enormous investments we have made to recover salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest.”<br /><br />If the Clean Water Rule is repealed, millions of acres of wetlands would no longer be under the protection of the Clean Water Act. Wetlands are <a href="https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/why-are-wetlands-important" target="_blank">among the most productive ecosystems on Earth</a>. <strong>One-third of the country’s threatened and endangered species</strong> live only in wetlands, according to the EPA.](https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/QGRnS9m_ZVtd30BYPTHB7w--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MA--/https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/58b92a1a1900003600bd6884.jpeg)
Some of the nation’s birds, for example, could be at risk. According to the National Audubon Society, many of the water features covered by the Clean Water Rule are “crucially important for birds.”
Take prairie potholes, a type of wetland found mostly in the Upper Midwest. Millions of waterbirds flock to those bodies to “take advantage of the buffet available” there, said Alison Holloran, executive director of Audubon Rockies, in a recent statement.
Fish, including salmon and trout, could also be threatened.
“Salmon and trout don’t just live in big rivers and lakes, they often spawn in small streams, some of which go completely dry during the summer, and those same streams act as nurseries for young fish during the wet months,” said Rob Masonis, Trout Unlimited’s vice president of Western conservation. “If we don’t protect small headwater streams and the wetlands that feed them, we imperil our fisheries and undermine the enormous investments we have made to recover salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest.”
If the Clean Water Rule is repealed, millions of acres of wetlands would no longer be under the protection of the Clean Water Act. Wetlands are among the most productive ecosystems on Earth. One-third of the country’s threatened and endangered species live only in wetlands, according to the EPA.
Food safety
![“The cheapest and most effective way to enhance water availability and ensure environmental health is source protection and preventing our water resources from further pollution and contamination,” Newsha Ajami, a hydrologist and researcher at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, told HuffPost in an email. “Water pollution can directly impact public health both in short-term and long-term. <strong>It can also ultimately <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412015000021" target="_blank">impact our food chain</a></strong>.” <br /><br />Water pollutants can affect <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/other/agricultural/contamination.html" target="_blank">crop production and the health of seafood and livestock</a>. Troublingly, persistent pollutants -- those that remain active for a long time, like heavy metals and pesticides -- accumulate as they move up the food chain, Ajami explained. “This is important to us human beings since we are at the top of the food chain and bioaccumulation can ultimately impact our health and wellbeing. That is why source protection is extremely important, because it can be very hard to [get] rid of some of these chemicals and pollutants.”](https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/4GZ.MbyUmzbDCIrvXfOLrA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTk2MA--/https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/58b930141a00003400f4164f.jpeg)
Water pollutants can affect crop production and the health of seafood and livestock. Troublingly, persistent pollutants -- those that remain active for a long time, like heavy metals and pesticides -- accumulate as they move up the food chain, Ajami explained. “This is important to us human beings since we are at the top of the food chain and bioaccumulation can ultimately impact our health and wellbeing. That is why source protection is extremely important, because it can be very hard to [get] rid of some of these chemicals and pollutants.”
Industries from farming to recreation
The EPA, under the Obama administration, has said that clean water is necessary for business. "Tourism, fishing, recreation, energy production, manufacturing and other industries that depend on clean water add billions of dollars to our economy every year,” the agency says in a promotional poster on its website. "Farms depend on clean water for irrigation, crops and livestock."
Despite opposition from some agricultural groups, former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the Clean Water Rule is a boon to farmers and ranchers, not a burden. “We will protect clean water without getting in the way of farming and ranching,” McCarthy told the National Farmers Union in 2015. “Normal agriculture practices like plowing, planting, and harvesting a field have always been exempt from Clean Water Act regulation; this rule won’t change that at all.”
Recreational industries, like hunting and sport fishing, could be especially hard-hit by a Clean Water Rule repeal.
“The health of fish and wildlife habitat is the infrastructure of an outdoor recreation industry that fuels $646 billion in annual spending and supports more than 6 million American jobs,” said the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership in a statement supporting the Clean Water Rule.
"Sportsmen will not settle for watered down protections or negligence for the habitat that supports the fish and wildlife we love to pursue,” said the group's president, Whit Fosburgh.
According to the EPA, water sports like paddling could also be imperiled. Paddling is a sport enjoyed by almost 20 million people annually in the United States. Nearly $90 billion is spent on the sport each year.
Love HuffPost? Become a founding member of HuffPost Plus today.
This article originally appeared on HuffPost.
