20,555
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
SW: →EPA Proposes Competing Approaches To Regulate Coal-Ash Waste: - add internal link
===EPA Proposes Competing Approaches To Regulate Coal-Ash Waste===
On May 4, 2010 the U.S. EPA announced two competing proposals to regulate coal-ash waste produced by coal-fired power plants. Both options fall under the [[Resource Conservation and Recovery Act]] (RCRA). Under the first proposal, EPA would list these [[coal ash]] and [[coal waste]] residuals as "special wastes," or hazardous wastes, subject to regulation under subtitle C of RCRA, when destined for disposal in landfills or surface impoundments. Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) manage hazardous wastes under RCRA Subtitle C, and generally must have a permit in order to operate, with land disposal restrictions. Under the second proposal, EPA would regulate coal ash under subtitle D of RCRA, the section for non-hazardous wastes. Under section D, no permit is required, monitoring is done by citizens, not the federal government, and there are no restrictions on land disposal of the waste.<ref name="epa">[http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/index.htm "Coal Combustion Residuals - Proposed Rule"] EPA, accessed June 2010.</ref> ''Click [http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/ccr-table.htm here] for more on the key differences between the proposed rules.''
The proposal means the EPA will not necessarily declare coal ash a hazardous waste as desired by environmental groups, and the waste material could continue to be reused in various ways, EPA officials said. The final decision on which proposal the EPA and choose is to happen in July 2010,<ref>Renee Schoof, [http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/04/1924393/epa-postpones-decision-that-would.html "EPA postpones decision that would toughen coal ash rules "http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/04/1924393/epa-postpones-decision-that-would.html#ixzz0n1E1PsMX"] ''Kansas City Star'', May 4, 2010.</ref> but has been delayed.
