Archive

ShareThis Page
Will coming EPA regs lead to the funeral for Pa.’s coal-waste clean-up efforts? | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Will coming EPA regs lead to the funeral for Pa.’s coal-waste clean-up efforts?

Tribune-Review
| Saturday, November 15, 2014 9:00 p.m
ptroctombpic111614

John Oelbracht has managed the Westwood Generation power plant in Schuylkill County for 10 years. It’s more than a job to him — it’s an undertaking to clean up the environment while producing power for Pennsylvania homes.

“We’re on something of a mission here,” Oelbracht says. But if the EPA has its way, he could soon be out of a job.

Oelbracht and 35 workers at the plant are threatened by extreme carbon-emission regulations proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The new regulations could force the closure of Westwood and 13 other plants like it in Pennsylvania, as well as five more in other states.

All told, the regulations put in jeopardy hundreds of thousands of jobs in the coal and power industries, including nearly 1,000 at the nation’s 19 coal-waste plants.

Standing atop the Westwood plant, Oelbracht explains how burning 1,200 tons of coal waste — called “culm” — each day is restoring forests, reclaiming farmland and cleaning streams while powering 22,000 homes.

“We are removing vast amounts of material that is the No. 2 source of pollution in the state,” says Jeff McNelly, executive director of ARIPPA, the coal-waste burners’ trade organization.

The ash left over from the Westwood plant is used to rejuvenate abandoned strip mines with exposed soil prone to erosion and cliffs posing fall hazards to the public. Once the ash is buried it turns to concrete and prevents contaminants from leaching into the environment. Reclaimed areas are ultimately covered with four feet of soil and seeded.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) reports that coal-waste plants have reclaimed 7,200 acres of mine land, saving taxpayers up to $220 million, while providing jobs and revenue for the localities where they operate.

Approximately 170,000 acres remain to be restored, DEP says. But cleaning up Pennsylvania’s environment will have to wait if the EPA gets its way.

McNelly says the plants have been caught up in EPA’s “tsunami of anti-coal” policy that is directed mainly at much larger coal-fired plants that supply 40 percent of Pennsylvania’s electricity.

Coal-waste plants produce more carbon emissions per unit of electricity generated — a negative when viewed through the prism of the proposed EPA regulation. But this ignores the plants’ positive environmental and economic effects.

“The environmental benefit of these [coal-waste] plants is awesome. Without the economic incentive these plants provide to clean up the culm piles, the work may not be done,” says Bill Reichert, president of the Schuylkill Headwaters Association.

It’s not just the environment that will suffer from the EPA regulations. Speaking on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and United Mine Workers of America, Eugene Trisko says the regulations would put at risk a total of 167,000 American jobs worth $126 billion in wages by 2020.

Pennsylvania’s DEP says it should be able to exclude facilities that provide environmental benefits, such as coal-waste plants, in its emissions plan. However, EPA’s proposal makes no provision for such an exemption. “Frankly, they are ignoring us,” says Vincent Brisini, deputy secretary of DEP’s Office of Waste, Air, Radiation and Remediation.

The EPA’s proposal would fire John and hundreds of hardworking Pennsylvanians, halt environmental clean-up and wreck an industry that contributes $4 billion to the state’s economy. That’s a powerful argument for state discretion when it comes to regulating emissions.

Gordon Tomb is a senior fellow for the Commonwealth Foundation (CommonwealthFoundation.org), a free-market think tank in Harrisburg.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.