If you live in a coal state, make no mistake about it: Barack Obama and the Administrator of his USEPA, Lisa Jackson, are looking to take you down, by any means – direct or indirect – at their disposal. Among the schemes in the pipeline is this: a proposal that would make burning coal to produce power a much more expensive proposition, by attaching billions of dollars more costs before the residue of the coal-burning process could be reused or disposed of. Ironically, Obama and Jackson are on the threshold of making an ill-considered decision that would undermine one of the most successful recycling programs in the history of the nation.

USEPA is deciding whether or not to declare the ash that remains after burning coal a hazardous waste. The agency began considering reclassification following a disastrous release of 1.7 million cubic yards of fly ash from the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston plant, a large coal-fired power station located east of Knoxville, Tennessee, in December 2008. That release, caused by the failure of an earthen retention wall, caused many environmental groups to renew their call for the USEPA to classify coal ash as a hazardous waste.

coalart

The Sierra Club, and other environmental groups, maintain that this action is necessary because coal ash contains, among other things:”…arsenic, selenium, lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, boron, thallium, and aluminum – toxic heavy metals that have been linked to cancer, birth defects, and neurological disorders, and which clearly threaten nearby communities and ecosystems.”

The problem here is that while it is true that coal ash contains “arsenic, selenium, lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, boron, thallium, and aluminum,” the same may be said of you, me and every member of the Sierra Club. All of these elements exist, in trace amounts, in our bodies and in the bodies of every other human being on planet Earth. The issue is not whether arsenic, selenium, lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, boron, thallium, and aluminum are present in a particular waste stream, but rather if arsenic, selenium, lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, boron, thallium, and aluminum are present in sufficient concentrations to present a significant threat to human health and/or the environment.

How to determine if the concentrations of these potentially toxic contaminants might present a threat to human health and the environment? USEPA has a well-established, widely accepted methodology for doing so. the Agency’s Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) is a standard laboratory means of determining whether or not a particular waste should be classified as hazardous or not. Coal ash, time and time again, and as recently confirmed by the Edison Power Research Institute, falls into the non-hazardous category after TCLP analysis.

No matter, as a result of the Kingston incident, the Sierra Club has pushed USEPA to reclassify coal ash as a hazardous waste, in defiance of the Agency’s own guidelines. Such a move would further undercut the most abundant, economical natural resource available to generate electricity in these troubled times.

Bunnies

The worst part of this ill-considered over-reaction to an isolated incident is that it would undercut one of the most successful recycling programs in the nation. Without any government interference, the free market led coal-fired power plant operators to look for markets for coal ash and they have been spectacularly successful in doing so. Today, millions of tons of coal ash are used to produce cement, make bricks, build roadways and are used in a wide variety of other beneficial ways. According to EPRI’s analysis, recycling ash saves the equivalent of thirty two billion gallons of oil in energy annually, and – for those concerned about global warming – displaces eleven million tons of greenhouse gases per year, simply by utilizing an inert byproduct that could only be replaced by increased mining operations. What’s not to like?

USEPA will be making its decision about coal ash soon. If Lisa Jackson gets it right, she won’t get in the way of recycling efforts, but will rather impose addition restrictions on the power producers who store their ash so as to ensure that such impoundments are secure. Should she do that, applause will be in order. Preventing another Kingston incident is a worthy cause. Imposing additional, tremendously expensive, restrictions on coal-fired power plants because of an isolated – if tragic – incident, would be a very expensive mistake indeed.