coalition of U.S. power companies is demanding “immediate action” from the Trump administration to roll back federal regulation of coal ash and rescind recent enforcement actions. Further examination of the “U.S. power companies request” reveals some telling truths.
There are good arguments from both sides, but the fact remains that there is not one overall solution that fits every problematic site. Regulations without any mechanism for compromise will lead to regulatory uncertainty, delaying this massive CLEANUP PROJECT.
Major Stakeholders Need to Add “Practicality” to Their Skillset
Since pollution or potential of coal ash pollution can “travel” over multiple states the need for U.S. CCR Regulation exists. The EPA has tried to correct some “loopholes” and clarify its position with the passage of the “Legacy Rule”. However, the EPA continues to be impractical as it relates mitigating the risk of groundwater impacts.
The whole overarching point (of the CCR Regulations) is that groundwater contamination and the movement of that contamination needs to be stopped. However, the way in which the rules and guide documents were written, even if an unlined site has non-moving ground water contamination, the site will have to be clean closed. The cost perspective the impacts of full excavation instead of only mitigating the risk of groundwater inflows and outflows of the unlined ponds create a very impractical situation.
A mechanism needs to be established that allows for the mitigation of future ground water risks through power companies plans submitted as consent orders and approved by the State(s) and EPA. Clearly all stakeholders; EPA, state agencies, environmental groups and power companies cannot get on the same page.
Power companies are transitioning away from coal power plants (Down from 48% (2008) to 16% (2023) production mix according to Wikipedia) during a time when electrical generation demands are increasing.
Because of this shift in generation, and because existing coal power plants are aging out, the natural decommission will continue. Arbitrary trying to accelerate this process with new emissions standards seems to be impractical.
Energy Transition Going Forward: Investment not Regulations
To continue energy transition away from coal generation, investment in new energy generation must be made. However, keeping the remaining coal plants running for a few more years, while they are working towards coal ash regulations compliance could be a stopgap measure to handle increased energy demand. Of course the new emissions standards must be extended, and maybe that is what The Letter to the EPA is asking.
The one thing Trump’s administration understands in the need for investment, not wasteful regulatory uncertainly. Completely dismantling the coal ash regulations every four years, then rebuilding them again in another four years is completely wasteful. Instead all stakeholders should get in a room, mediate the solution path and execute that plan …. and don’t look back!
Contamination is contamination and the government can’t legislate that it is not contamination. Every stakeholder at every plant knows the environmental RISK involved with their current coal ash management strategies.
This “political change” creates an opportunity for all stakeholders to get this mass CCR clean-up project reset with actions not lawsuits.
Let Innovation Mitigate the RISK
Science has Answered the Call
Scientific research is starting to yield results. Based on some early articles, which states “researchers have developed a new type of “green concrete” that incorporates twice as much recycled coal ash as existing low-carbon concretes, halves the amount of cement required, and lasts even longer than regular Portland cement concrete”.
Therefore, with the right safeSTORAGE® most of the excavated coal ash to be recycled.
EnCAP-IT has Answered the Call
EnCAP-IT has integrated its intellectual properties into its eMSE Structure designs (TOOLS) that:
- Isolates CCR 100% from the environment, preventing water infiltration and the leaching of metals
- Utilizes CCR in embankments, berms, engineered structural fills and other construction applications
- Maximizes environmental safeguards
- safeBERM® Construction Method to Create Bi-Directional Hydrostatic Barrier
- safeSTORAGE® Construction Method to Maximize Capacity for Coal Ash Beneficiation Storage
- safeBERM® Construction Method to Strengthen a Sloped Structure
- safeBERM® Construction Method to Create Flood Control Prevention
- safeSTORAGE® Construction Method to Reduce Ash Basin Retrofit Footprint
- safeBERM® Construction Method to Expand Landfill Capacity
EXCAVATE
SAFELY STORE
