Message Information Date 02/02/2010 04:56 PM From "r e rutkowski" <r_e_rutkowski@att .net> To LisaP Jackson/DC/USEPA/USQa EPA cc Subject EPA-INDUSTRY COALITION BLUNTS TOUGHERSTATE COAL ASH RULES Message Body Lisa Jackson, Administrator USEPA Headquarters Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N . W . Mail Code: 1101A Washington, DC 20460 Email : jackson.lisaaepa .gov 202-564-4700 Re: EPA-[NDUSTRY COALITION RLt1NTS 'COUGHERSTATE COAL ASH RULES/Coal Ash Industry Enlists EPA to Quash Tighter State Regulatory Proposals Dear Administrator Jackson, The coal ash industry has been able to call upon the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy to respond to proposals fromstates for stricter regulation ofcoal combustion wastes. The messages portray federal agencies enlisted as lobbying arms for industry. EPA is now

belatedly wrestling with whether to classify coal combustion wastes, principally coal ash, as a hazardous waste following the disastrous coal ash spill in eastern Tennessee in late 2008. [n the absence of federal regulation, states have struggled with howto handle the more than 125 million tons of fly ash, bottomash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization gypsum generated by coal-fired plants each year. In arguing against federal regulation, industry has maintained that state regulation is best. Yet e-mails obtained by PEER under the Freedomof Inforrnation Act indicate that industry worked in concert with EPAto counter state proposals for stricter regulation, including - Efforts in California to keep fly ash out ofschool construction in order to prevent mercury exposure ofchildren; Legislation in Maryland to prohibit use ofcoal ash in agriculture or as land reclamation. This 2008 bill generated an "URGENT' alert in which an Energy Department official dismissed the legislation as a "knee-jerk response to the contamination that has occurred" at a gravel mine; and A decision by the Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources to treat all coal ash as awaste, despite claims that "beneficial reuse" should be exempt.

Industry appears to have used EPA as its pet pit bull to keep state regulators at bay, pointing to EPA's Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2), a formal promotional partnership between EPA and industry to increase use of coal ash in consumer products, agriculture and construction, that is still in effect. Significantly, EPAofficials in these exchanges did not exhibit the slightest interest in scientifically exploring any ofthe public health and environmental uncertainties raised by their state partners. One particularly troublesome tactic involves EPA developing an industry-approved "risk assessment" in hopes that it "will be attractive to state agencies" (in the words ofan industry lobbyist) for state adoption in lieu oftougher regulation. One message on this topic froma coal ash industry lobbyist reads: "Personally, I can't thank OSW [EPA's Office of Solid Waste] staff members enough for the efforts they have provided our industry. . . ." EPA should stop acting as an industry agent for marketing hazardous waste, noting that the coal ash industry partnership is under investigation and reviewby the EPA Office of Inspector General . EPA should redirect its resources to work with states in addressing legitimate and growing public health concerns about spreading powerfully toxic ash throughout our streamofcommerce. Thank you for the opportunity to bring these remarks to your attention. Mindful ofthe enormous responsibilities which stand before you, I am, Yours sincerely. Robert E. Rutkowski cc : House Leadership 2527 Faxon Court Topeka, Kansas 66605-2086 PIF: 1 785 379-9671 E-mail : r e rutkowski~Watt .net

OEX Processing Information Processed Date Processed By POOffice Category: