A Review of Congressional Action, EPA Rules, and Beneficial Use Opportunities for Coal Ash

2025-06-26

Loading video...

Summary

This meeting discussed the complex challenges and opportunities surrounding the management of coal ash, formally known as Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR), covering regulatory frameworks, environmental and health implications, and its potential for beneficial reuse[ 00:31:25-00:31:44 ]

. Speakers represented diverse perspectives, including industry, state environmental agencies, and environmental advocacy groups, highlighting areas of both consensus and significant disagreement.

Themes

Regulation and EPA's Role

The discussion highlighted the EPA's evolving role in regulating coal ash, particularly the 2015 and 2024 rules, with concerns raised about their implementation and impact[ 00:31:52 ]

. Several participants criticized the Biden administration's 2024 legacy rule, labeling it as "unworkable" and a "one-size-fits-all approach" that imposes "needless and unplanned costs" on ratepayers and utilities[ 00:33:14 ] [ 01:19:43 ] . North Dakota's representative described the EPA's review process for state permit programs as "frustrating, unnecessarily long, time consuming, and at times not rooted in sound science and the law". There was a call for greater state autonomy and "cooperative federalism" in managing CCRs, with requests for the EPA to facilitate state-led programs rather than imposing burdensome federal regulations. Conversely, environmental advocates argued that stronger federal oversight is crucial, citing a history of weak state enforcement and inadequate resources for environmental protection[ 01:25:47 ] . Concerns were also raised about proposed budget cuts to EPA grants, which could undermine states' ability to administer environmental programs effectively[ 01:16:36 ] .

Environmental and Health Impacts of Coal Ash

A major theme was the hazardous nature of coal ash and its potential impacts on public health and the environment[ 00:39:34 ]

. Speakers noted that coal ash contains toxic contaminants such as arsenic, lead, mercury, chromium, and radioactive elements, which can leach into groundwater[ 00:39:34 ] [ 01:01:32 ] . Analysis indicates that a significant majority, 91 percent, of U.S. coal plants are causing unsafe levels of groundwater contamination. These contaminations are linked to serious health problems, including various cancers, heart and thyroid diseases, respiratory issues, and damage to neurological and reproductive systems, particularly affecting vulnerable populations like children and pregnant women[ 01:01:37 ] [ 01:35:57 ] . Environmental advocates contested the claim that coal ash is similar to dirt, presenting data that shows coal ash can have significantly higher levels of arsenic and radioactivity than average soil[ 01:02:39 ] . The discussion also touched upon the exacerbating role of climate change, with rising water levels and increased storm intensity posing heightened risks to coal ash storage sites, especially those located in floodplains or near water bodies.

Beneficial Use Opportunities for Coal Ash

The meeting explored various "beneficial uses" for coal ash, such as in cement manufacturing, drywall, road paving, and concrete production[ 00:34:13 ]

. These applications were presented as opportunities to reduce waste, lower emissions, conserve natural resources, and provide cost savings[ 00:34:28 ] . The American Coal Ash Association reported that 69% of all coal ash produced in 2023 was recycled, calling it a "greatest recycling success story"[ 00:34:39 ] . Additionally, the potential for extracting rare earth elements and critical minerals from coal ash was discussed as a way to reduce reliance on foreign imports and strengthen national security[ 00:35:04 ] . However, environmental groups expressed concerns about "sham recycling" when coal ash is used unencapsulated, such as in structural fills or ground applications, arguing these uses could lead to toxic leaching[ 01:02:55 ] . They emphasized that beneficial uses should be scientifically validated and prioritize public health, advocating for the use of existing waste stockpiles rather than continued coal burning to support these applications.

Tone of the Meeting

The meeting's tone was notably contentious and urgent, reflecting sharp divisions on key issues[ 01:31:01 ]

. While all participants underscored the importance of grid reliability, environmental protection, and public health, their approaches and priorities differed significantly[ 01:00:17 ] [ 01:21:38 ] [ 02:03:58 ] . Industry and state representatives emphasized the economic burdens of regulations and the potential for beneficial reuse, often portraying federal oversight as overly stringent and uninformed by local conditions[ 01:21:10 ] . Environmental advocates, on the other hand, conveyed a strong sense of urgency regarding documented health risks and widespread contamination, advocating for robust federal enforcement and caution against industry claims of safety[ 01:00:17 ] [ 01:35:57 ] . The exchanges revealed deep disagreements on the scientific assessment of coal ash toxicity and the most effective regulatory strategies, oscillating between calls for pragmatic, site-specific solutions and demands for comprehensive federal protection[ 02:16:01 ] .