2 lawmakers propose legislation aiming to rein in the EPA

WASHINGTON — Two of the region’s lawmakers are hoping to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency with separate pieces of legislation currently advancing in the U.S. House of Representatives.

U.S. Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., said the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011 passed the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Wednesday. Also Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., introduced the EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011, which is aimed at addressing concerns local industries have in regards to meeting the EPA’s Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rules.

The Clean Water Act was co-sponsored by Rahall and U.S. Rep. John Mica, R.-Fla. It was introduced on May 26. Rahall serves as the top Democrat on the bipartisan Transportation and Infrastructure Committee while Mica serves as chairman of the committee.

The legislation was introduced to change water standards Rahall argues are holding up the permit process for surface mines granted through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

‘“For far too many years now, my state and others throughout the Appalachian region that produce coal to power our nation have been struggling under the weight of an uncertain federal permitting process,” Rahall said. “That uncertainty has left coal miners and mining communities living in an untenable limbo. The result has been the creation of an atmosphere of worry, of distrust, and of bitterness. But I wager to say that the situation has gotten even worse in recent months.”

Rahall said the bill would provide “common sense protection” for states in Appalachia where EPA-approved water quality standards that have “bottled up” permits for surface mining. Rahall said the current EPA standards “threaten the future of coal mining jobs and communities” throughout the Appalachian region.

“I had hoped that, under this administration, we would find a way to reach some common ground. Unfortunately, that has not been the case,” Rahall said. “Rather than paving the way toward balance, the EPA’s actions in recent months have enabled the tension of divided opinion over surface coal mining to fracture what should be a cooperative relationship among the federal and state agencies with permitting responsibility.”

According to Rahall, the bill would limit the EPA’s ability to veto dredge and fill permits already granted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Rahall cites the EPA’s veto of a permit for the Spruce Mine in Logan County in January as an example.

“The EPA may claim that it is following the law and only ‘assisting’ the states, but the reality is that the agency is strong-arming the states, just as it is muscling in on the jurisdiction of other federal agencies,” Rahall said. “By creating wholly new criteria and new timelines for Clean Water Act permits and stubbornly insisting from on high that the states adhere to them, the EPA is imposing its own will and its own interpretations of water quality standards on the states. It has drawn a line in the sand is daring the states to cross over.”

The legislation would also establish time limits for agency comments and help reduce bureaucratic delays in the section 404 permitting process, a press release from Rahall’s office said.

“The most logical solution would be for all sides to come together,” Rahall said. “I think we would all prefer that we would not have to craft this kind of legislation. Certainly, it would be preferable that agencies work with each other, with the states, and within the confines of their statutory authority. It would be better if they followed the rules and did not try to change the law through guidance and Memos of Understanding. But when they do, when they abuse their powers, the Congress has the constitutional responsibility to serve as a check on them. This is clearly such a time.”

According to Griffith, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act directs the EPA to develop more achievable standards for boilers, process heaters, and incinerators as well as extend compliance deadlines for facilities where the equipment is in use.

Beth Breeding, a spokesperson with Griffith’s office, said the current EPA Boiler MACT rules do not effect companies run on coal-fire boilers but do effect those that use boilers to heat or power their facilities.

Griffith said securing jobs in his district is one of the major factors as to why he introduced the bill.

“It’s about jobs,” Griffith said. “The goal of the EPA Regulatory Relief Act is straightforward — give the EPA the time they need to get the rules right while protecting jobs. This legislation requires the EPA to set achievable and workable standards for facilities utilizing boilers, process heaters, and incinerators and allows time for compliance. Exceptionally high compliance costs threaten to jeopardize tens of thousands of jobs. We can’t afford to lose more American jobs.”

According to Griffith, a variety of businesses are affected by the EPA’s Boiler MACT rules.

“The EPA’s rules would apply to a variety of facilities, including manufacturers, colleges and universities, and hospitals,” Griffith said. “According to the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, capital costs of the rules are estimated to exceed $14 billion and potentially put more than 200,000 jobs at risk.”

Griffith’s bill is co-sponsored by a bipartisan delegation including U.S. G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., U.S. Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga., U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson D-Utah, U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers R-Wash., U.S. Rep. Pete Olson R-Texas, U.S. Rep. Mike Ross D-Ark., and U.S. Steve Scalise R-La. All of these co-sponsors serve on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

— Contact Kate Coil at

kcoil@bdtonline.com

Local News

Search Results

Discussion

Site Map

Contact Us