Coal ash waste disposal Paper
This model has been extremely favorable for the industry because they have been allowed to submit their own proposals as of what ought to be done with Cars and how to dispose of it. These proposals usually care more about the industry well being that the environment and the people who live around these landfills and ponds. When this debate was revived in late 2008, the industry released a mass lobbying campaign to avoid the change the tutus quo of things, but this interest group collided with environmental interest groups such as Earthiest and Club Sierra.
Drawing from the past and Pea’s failure to regulate, this analysis is focused in what shouldn’t be done in order to avoid another disaster like the TVA First of all, would like to point the reasons why regulation at a Federal level is much needed and the pitfalls at the State level regulations that should be avoided and the benefits that should be emulated. It is true that certain States have managed to do very well in regulating CAR disposal; that is the case of the State of Wisconsin; hat had managed to recycle 85 percent of the CAR produced in the State.
But other States, like Louisiana, allow the disposal of CAR directly in groundwater with monitoring wells located distantly from the dumping site. Such disproportion in regulations shouldn’t exist since the material to be disposed is the same and more importantly the damage caused by the irresponsible dumping of Cars is not a localized issue. Proof of contamination has been found from Cars dumping sites has across the United States; so there is no reason leave this issue to local Governments.
In act, out of the 15 States that comprise 74% of all US Cars production only 1 requires composite liners for surface impoundments while the rest doesn’t even bother in regulating on this issue. It is proven than leaving the regulation of Cars to the States is an inadequate and unsafe solution to the problem. The Federal Government should be the one entitle to take action in this matter. This inequality in CAR regulations across the States has tied up the hands of the EPA because each field office has to abide by the rules within the State that it is located.
In some instances they can sanction violators but n others they can’t do anything but watch. The Pea’s mission is to oversee the use and conservation of natural resources and to minimize contamination and pollution; unfortunately with the regulation of CAR at a State level this mission is jeopardized. This inequality results mainly from different efforts of the industry to slow down the regulation process and the perception that each State Government has on the issue.
The main pitfall that many States have in the CAR regulation is the failure to monitor properly the content of the waste as well as the level of contamination that is present at disposal ties. The new regulation at a Federal level should include the allocation of federal resources to design and implement an effective monitoring structure that would allow the EPA to identify as quickly as possible where and how severe the contamination is.
Another pitfall of the regulations at a State level is the permissiveness that State Governments have allowed to the Industry in taking proposals and suggestions on how the waste should be dispose of. The new Federal regulation shouldn’t allow, in any type of shape or form, the Industry to manipulate the core and ramifications of this new regulation; if genuineness in the Industry want to take action and establish internal guidelines for the handling and disposal of CAR, it is a commendable initiative but under no circumstances these should be assumed as regulation.
Some benefits of the failure to regulate in the past is that indeed the labeling of Cars as Hazardous Material could discourage the recycling of it and without the knowledge that we have now about CAR it would have been impossible to demonstrate the consequences that the deregulation has have in the environment.
Since the passage of the Bevel’s Amendment in 1980, the Pea’s session on this matter has been compromised; because of the requirements of this Legislature subsequent attempts from the EPA to regulate have failed but after TV’s disaster and other studies carried out by the EPA, in which 44 out of the 406 dumping sites in the United Stated where found to be a source of contamination for the surrounding areas, the regulation of Coal Combustion Residue should move forward with no disturbance.
Recommendations Learning from the failure to regulate by the EPA in the past and the consequences that spills and unlined ponds might have in the environment, exultation at the federal level shouldn’t be delayed.
The EPA most pronounce federal legislation, not guidance, because about 23 states have “no more stringent” provisions that wont allow them to promulgate regulations more strict than the one provided by the Federal Government and some Of the other States that do have the power to do failed to require the basic safeguards essential for waste management, including liners, leached collection systems, groundwater monitoring, corrective action (cleanup), closure and post-closure care (US Congress 2008). 13 The new rule should include:
A monitoring program to determine where and how much contamination is taking place. Financial and human resources from the Federal Government should be allocated to the design of a monitoring program that would serve the EPA with accurate and live information about levels of contamination on dumping sites as well as their compliance with the new regulation. Surface impoundments should be prohibited at new plants, require retrofitting liners for the existing ones and an extra requirement of retrofitting double liners for those sites that has been found to be contaminating its surroundings.
Timely this rule will seek to phase out surface impoundments since power plants have the choice of what kind of residue to produce. This requirement will deter power plants from produce wet residues and will move make them move to dry residues, which are more desirable for recycling purposes. As an added benefit, disposal of dry ash on landfills preserves the ash for recycling in the future. EPA should reject voluntary industry proposals as a substitute for regulation.