Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Chair, legitimate conversation and good-faith negotiations surrounding whether or not we can find a way to allow states to continue regulating coal ash seemed to bear fruit in the Energy and Commerce Committee for the first time in a while around here. So when we voted in July to send the Coal Residual Reuse and Management Act to the floor, I voted ``yes.'' I'm proud to say my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and I have continued trying to find a workable solution on this issue.

The concept behind this bill is good--in the face of uncertainty surrounding coal ash disposal and management, we could cut through the red tape and craft a bill that would require--for the first time--that all units receiving coal combustions residuals (CCRs) obtain a state-issued permit that meets enforceable minimum federal requirements.

At the mark-up I, along with other minority members, requested a Committee hearing before floor consideration so that we could examine more fully the potential impacts of the most recent changes to the bill. My goal was to reach an agreement on specific bill language that would clearly require all units to obtain a permit, and if the EPA found this permit to be deficient, to allow the EPA to work with states to bring their permit programs up to a standard that ensured protection of human health and environment.

In the intervening time, negotiations continued, as you see with the Manager's Amendment introduced by my colleague Mr. Shimkus. I was encouraged by my conversations with friends on both sides of the aisle which reinforced that we share the same goals. In conversations with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the state body in Colorado responsible for managing CCRs, I learned that they supported H.R. 2273 because they believed it would allow them to continue with their strong program, and would raise standards in states with deficiencies. Yet the outstanding question, of whether any future EPA Administrator would have the authority to enforce the requirements we all seemed to agree should be in place, remains unanswered.

We need more time to negotiate this bill, especially if anyone reasonably expects it to be passed in the Senate and signed into law by President Obama. I remained committed to the bipartisan process that brought this bill to this point, but cannot vote to approve of the bill's language for the following reasons.

First, even with the changes in the Manager's Amendment, I cannot safely say that this bill would uphold a legal standard to protect human health and environment. This legal standard should be stated explicitly in the bill under the permit program specifications. Currently, under the Manager's Amendment, protection of public health and the environment is mentioned in reference to the revised criteria in the bill that originally applied to municipal solid waste. But a state permit program is not required to incorporate these revised criteria, and, furthermore, it is unclear whether the revised criteria would protect public health and the environment when applied to CCRs instead of municipal solid waste.

Second, I believe this legislation should clearly describe when and how EPA can get involved if a state permit program does not uphold human health and environmental protections. As currently drafted, it is unclear whether the EPA could provide written notice and an opportunity to remedy deficiencies if a permit program does not meet specifications described under the revised criteria. In one subsection, the language implies the EPA could provide notice; yet in another section, the EPA is limited to evaluating the sufficiency of only the minimum requirements. Further, if a state chooses not to implement a permit program, the EPA can only design a program that enforces the minimum requirements, but not any of the revised criteria.

Because this bill directly creates new regulation without expert guidance from the Administration, Congress must hold this language to an even stricter standard. I believe Colorado could operate a permit program under this proposed language that would protect human health and the environment, and I want to thank them for their good work and assistance on this issue. Unfortunately, I do not believe every state's permit program could be required to meet this basic requirement. I believe this is a bipartisan issue and that I can work through these differences with my friends across the aisle, but in this form I cannot support H.R. 2273, the Coal Combustion Residuals Reuse and Management Act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source