[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 22, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6869-H6870]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      PROPOSAL TO REGULATE FLY ASH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call attention to an 
issue that threatens the economic viability of many industries and the 
existence of thousands of jobs in and around the coal fields of our 
Nation. That issue, Madam Speaker, is the Environmental Protection 
Agency's proposal to regulate fly ash, coal ash, as a hazardous 
material.
  Over the past 2 years, Madam Speaker, the EPA has peppered the 
Federal Government and the Federal docket with a myriad of proposed 
rules and undertaken aggressive, zealous enforcement actions targeted 
at industries in Appalachian States.
  This much continued pattern of rulemaking and enforcement action is 
destructive to the central economic engine that fuels this Nation's 
energy needs.

                              {time}  2010

  In its latest round of regulatory bravado, EPA released a proposed 
rule in

[[Page H6870]]

June to impose additional regulation of coal combustion byproducts, fly 
ash, under subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 
RCRA, as a hazardous waste. I'm speaking today, Madam Speaker, in 
opposition to EPA's extreme and burdensome rulemaking option to 
regulate fly ash as a hazardous waste under subtitle C.
  This rule, Madam Speaker, would unnecessarily jeopardize construction 
and manufacturing jobs in addition to increasing the costs of highway 
and other infrastructure projects which are so vitally needed in my 
district and in districts throughout the country. Why? Because fly ash 
is an essential and reasonably priced ingredient in products used by 
these industries, and this rule would in and of itself dramatically 
increase that cost.
  Why is EPA pursuing the subtitle C option when the agency determined 
under both Democratic and Republican administrations, Madam Speaker, 
through two reports to Congress and two final regulatory determinations 
that coal ash does not warrant regulation as a hazardous waste? During 
EPA's four prior reviews of this issue, it concluded that States can 
safely manage coal ash under Federal nonhazardous waste rules. EPA's 
subtitle C option is wholly inconsistent with its own past decisions.
  Clearly, Madam Speaker, the 2009 impoundment failure to Tennessee 
Valley Authority's Kingston facility, which started all of this review, 
called important attention to this particular issue and reinforced the 
need for operational changes to avoid future accidents. The Federal 
Government must absolutely work to ensure safety and environmental 
protection where coal impoundments are concerned. EPA's subtitle D 
option, regulating fly ash as a nonhazardous waste, provides these 
important protections while protecting the important economic 
opportunities available through beneficial recycling of coal fly ash.
  Madam Speaker, regulating fly ash as a hazardous material is 
overkill, putting precious jobs at stake, and would cost $1.5 billion a 
year to implement according to EPA's own estimates. These costs will be 
absorbed by American families who are already facing constraints of 
tough economic times.
  Coal combustion by-products are currently recycled for several 
perfectly safe and beneficial uses, including cement, road materials, 
and wallboard. These beneficial uses of coal ash create jobs. The 
subtitle C option would unnecessarily stigmatize coal ash and obstruct 
its beneficial use in these vital, important infrastructure projects. 
It's counterproductive to add more waste to our landfills when we could 
be safely putting it to use in our roads and bridges, creating more 
jobs and building projects at reasonable prices.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, EPA's subtitle C option for coal ash 
regulation will have a significantly adverse impact on job creation and 
economic recovery. This rule option would be deeply damaging in West 
Virginia and throughout the Nation, and, therefore, I strongly 
encourage EPA to pursue the subtitle D option, the nonhazardous option, 
in its rulemaking process.
  I appreciate, Madam Speaker, the opportunity to speak this evening 
about the importance of protecting West Virginia jobs, the Nation's 
jobs, and reasonably priced infrastructure.

                          ____________________