2014: Schweikert Voted To Block The Department Of The Interior From Issuing New Coal Waste Buffer-Zone Rules Until States Implemented The Existing 2008 Buffer-Zone Rule As Part Of The American Energy Solutions For Lower Costs And More American Jobs Act. In October 2014, Schweikert voted for a bill that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) from issuing any new regulations on stream buffer zones and stream protection from mining (particularly mountaintop mining often used to mine coal), until states have implemented a stream buffer zone (SBZ) rule issued in 2008 under the Bush administration and OSM for five years has evaluated the effectiveness of that rule." The underlying measure was the American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act. The vote was on the bill. The House passed the bill by a vote of 228 to 194; the bill was then sent to the Senate, which did not take any substantive action on it. [House Vote 515, 9/18/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/15/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
The New Stream Buffer Zone Proposal Would Extend The Protection Rule From Appalachia To Nationwide. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In 2009, OSM published a list of regulatory options it is considering as revisions to the 2008 rule, including formally reinstating the 1983 SBZ rule. The revised rule would apply nationwide, not just in Appalachia. The coal industry and states have criticized OSM's efforts, saying the new rule would have a negative impact on coal mining and that the environmental impact statement has serious flaws. OSM expects to release a draft of the new rule this year." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/24/14]
Stream Buffer Zones Were Implemented To Protect Land Within 100 Feet Of A Stream From Being Disrupted From Surface Mining Activities. According to Congressional Quarterly, "A 1983 rule issued by OSM under SMCRA defines stream buffer zones (SBZ) to protect streams from the effects of mining. The rule prohibits land within 100 feet of a perennial or intermittent stream from being disturbed by surface mining activities, including the dumping of spoil, unless regulators grant a variance that specifically allows these activities closer to the stream. Under the 1983 rule, regulators must determine that the proposed mining activity will not violate state or federal water quality standards, will not harm water quantity and quality, and will not harm other environmental resources of the stream." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/24/14]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Blocking The Ozone Rule. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2017: Schweikert Voted To Delay Air Quality Standards For Ozone Until 2026. In September 2017, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "eliminate[d] the bill's provision that would delay the implementation date for national ambient air quality standards for ozone until 2026." The underlying legislation was a legislative vehicle for an FY 2018 Omnibus appropriations bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 194 to 218. [House Vote 476, 9/7/17; Congressional Quarterly, 9/7/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 347; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3354]
2017: Schweikert Voted To Delay The EPA's Air Quality Standards For Ozone Until 2025. In July 2017, Schweikert voted for a bill that would have delayed the Environmental Protection Agency's 2015 rule on ozone standards from 2017 to 2025. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "extend[ed] for eight years the deadline for the EPA to implement new National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ground-level ozone (the EPA issued such deadlines on Oct. 26, 2015). The bill would [have] require[d] the EPA to review the national ambient air quality standards for each pollutant every ten years, instead of every five, and would [have] require[d] the agency to evaluate possible adverse effects of standard changes, including effects related to public health, welfare and economics, prior to establishing or revising a national ambient air quality standard." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 229 to 199. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 391, 7/18/17; Congressional Quarterly, 7/18/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 806]
2015: The EPA Issued A Final Rule Which Significantly Lowered The Limit For Ozone. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Environmental regulators significantly lowered a national limit for a smog-causing pollutant Thursday, in an attempted compromise that left some businesses relieved and environmental and health leaders upset the initiative wasn't stronger. The Environmental Protection Agency set a limit of 70 parts per billion for ground-level ozone, which is created by emissions released into the air by manufacturing plants, utilities and vehicles, down from the current level of 75 parts per billion. In a draft released in 2014, the agency proposed a standard between 65 and 70 parts per billion." [Wall Street Journal, 10/1/15]
States Would Have To Curb Emissions From Utilities, Factories And Refineries In Order To Meet The New Standard. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Ozone is created by emissions such as nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. The ozone standard, mandated under the Clean Air Act, isn't a direct regulation of business. But states must comply by curbing emissions from utilities, factories, refineries and other businesses and municipalities, often by requiring new pollution-control gear." [Wall Street Journal, 10/1/15]
Ozone Can Exacerbate Respiratory Problems. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Exposure to ground-level ozone can exacerbate respiratory problems, including asthma, and is particularly harmful to children and older people, health experts say." [Wall Street Journal, 10/1/15]
2017: Schweikert Voted To Disapprove The Stream Buffer Rule. In February 2017, Schweikert voted for disapproving the Stream Buffer Rule via the Congressional Review Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, "This resolution disapproves the rule issued by the Labor Department on Dec. 20, 2016 (commonly known as the Stream Buffer rule) that requires surface coal mining operations to be designed to minimize the amount of waste placed outside the mined-out area. The measure provides that the rule will have no force or effect." The vote was on the legislation. The House agreed to the legislation by a vote of 228 to 194. The Senate later passed the legislation, which President Trump signed into law. [House Vote 73, 2/1/17; Congressional Quarterly, 1/27/17; Congressional Actions, H. J. Res. 38]
The Obama-Era Stream Buffer Rule Was Meant To Curb Open-Pit Coal Mine Contamination Of Streams And Waterways. According to Congressional Quarterly, "President Donald Trump signed into law Thursday a Congressional Review Act joint resolution that nullifies a rule by President Barack Obama's Interior Department to curb contamination of streams and waterways by open-pit coal mines." [Congressional Quarterly, 2/16/17]
Trump Claimed The Rule Was A "Major Threat" To The Coal Industry. According to Congressional Quarterly, "'In other countries, they love their coal, but over here, we haven't treated it with the respect it deserves,' Trump said at the signing ceremony. 'This rule would eliminate a major threat to [coal] jobs, and we are going to get rid of that threat immediately.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 2/16/17]
2016: Schweikert Voted Against Finalizing Or Implementing The Stream Buffer Zone Rule. In July 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "remove[d] the bill's prohibition on finalizing or implementing proposed Interior Department rules that would require a 'stream buffer zone' between a mining operation and a surface body of water for the purposes of preventing river contamination." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 interior and environment appropriations bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 190 to 235. The House later passed the underlying bill, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 421, 7/12/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/12/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1288; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5538]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Delay The EPA's Air Quality Standards For Ozone Until 2025. In June 2016, Schweikert voted for a bill that would have delayed the Environmental Protection Agency's 2015 rule on ozone standards from 2017 to 2025. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "delay[ed] implementation of the EPA's 2015 air quality standards for ozone from 2017 until 2025. The measure also would [have] modif[ied] the way the agency develops its National Ambient Air Quality Standards, such as by requiring reviews of the standards every ten years instead of every five years. As amended, no additional funds would [have] be[en] authorized to implement the bill." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 234 to 117. The Senate took no substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 282, 6/8/16; Congressional Quarterly, 6/8/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4775]
2015: The EPA Issued A Final Rule Which Significantly Lowered The Limit For Ozone. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Environmental regulators significantly lowered a national limit for a smog-causing pollutant Thursday, in an attempted compromise that left some businesses relieved and environmental and health leaders upset the initiative wasn't stronger. The Environmental Protection Agency set a limit of 70 parts per billion for ground-level ozone, which is created by emissions released into the air by manufacturing plants, utilities and vehicles, down from the current level of 75 parts per billion. In a draft released in 2014, the agency proposed a standard between 65 and 70 parts per billion." [Wall Street Journal, 10/1/15]
States Would Have To Curb Emissions From Utilities, Factories And Refineries In Order To Meet The New Standard. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Ozone is created by emissions such as nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. The ozone standard, mandated under the Clean Air Act, isn't a direct regulation of business. But states must comply by curbing emissions from utilities, factories, refineries and other businesses and municipalities, often by requiring new pollution-control gear." [Wall Street Journal, 10/1/15]
Ozone Can Exacerbate Respiratory Problems. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Exposure to ground-level ozone can exacerbate respiratory problems, including asthma, and is particularly harmful to children and older people, health experts say." [Wall Street Journal, 10/1/15]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 114th Congress Scorecard]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Modify EPA Regulations By Lowering Their Standards To Allow Power Plants That Use Coal Mining Byproduct As A Power Source. In March 2016, Schweikert voted for a bill that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "subject[ed] an electric generating unit that get at least 75 percent of its energy from coal mining byproduct to the original emissions standards as set in the Environmental Protection Agency's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), rather than the lowered emissions totals that have been set as the standard for 2017 through 2020. The bill would also not allow for unused emissions to be transferred to other entities, but would allow for the unused emissions to be added to future compliance periods. Additionally, the bill would alter standards under which an electric generating unit could meet the Clean Air Act's (PL 91-604) Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule through meeting requirements for either sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride, but not for both." The vote was on passage. The House passed the legislation by a vote of 231 to 183. The Senate has took no substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 123, 3/15/16; Congressional Quarterly, 3/15/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3797]
Bill Opponents Note That The Bill Undermines Environmental Protections. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the bill, primarily Democrats, argue that it undermines critical environmental regulations and threatens public health in order to benefit a limited number of coal-fired power plants in a handful of states. The bill, they say, picks winners and losers, tipping the scales in favor of bituminous waste coal facilities at the expense of all other covered units in a state that would have to offset the pollution increases from those favored power plants. States already have the authority to allocate additional emission allowances to waste coal plants if they choose to do so under the market-based solutions provided under EPA's rules. They say that while refuse-to-energy plants play an important role in reducing the waste byproducts of coal production, the cleanup of coal refuse can and should be done without transferring harmful pollutants from the land to the atmosphere under the bill's one-size-fits-all emissions approach." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/11/16]
Statement Of Administration Policy: CSAPR And MATS Reduce Power Plant Emissions That Harm Americans' Health. According to a Statement of Administration Policy, "CSAPR and MATS protect the health of millions of Americans by requiring the reduction of harmful power plant emissions, including air toxics and emissions that contribute to smog and fine particle pollution. The pollution reductions from CSAPR and MATS will prevent thousands of premature deaths, asthma attacks, and heart attacks." [Statement of Administration Policy, 3/14/16]
2016: Schweikert Voted To Delay The Stream Buffer Rule For At Least Three Years. In January 2016, Schweikert voted for legislation to delay the stream buffer rule for at least three years. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have, "prevent[ed] the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) from issuing any final rules related to coal mining activities near streams, including updating a stream buffer zones (SBZ) rule, until after the National Academy of Sciences submits a study on the effectiveness of the existing rules in effect --- which would effectively delay any new or revised SBZ rules for at least three years. It also require[d] the agency to make public all scientific data that is used in developing the rule prior to it being issued." The vote was on passage. The House approved the bill by a vote of 235 to 188, but the Senate took no substantive action on it. The Senate has not yet acted on the bill. [House Vote 42, 1/12/16; Congressional Quarterly, 1/8/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1644]
The Original, 1983 Stream Buffer Rule Defined Stream Buffer Zones To Protect Streams From The Potential Negative Impacts Of Mining. According to Congressional Quarterly, "A 1983 rule issued by OSM under SMCRA defines stream buffer zones (SBZ) to protect streams from the effects of mining. The rule prohibits land within 100 feet of a perennial or intermittent stream from being disturbed by surface mining activities, including the dumping of spoil, unless regulators grant a variance that specifically allows these activities closer to the stream. Under the 1983 rule, regulators must determine that the proposed mining activity will not violate state or federal water quality standards, will not harm water quantity and quality, and will not harm other environmental resources of the stream." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/8/16]
2015 Stream Buffer Rule Mandates That Coal Companies Test And Monitor Stream's Conditions. According to the New York Times, "The Interior Department on Thursday proposed a new rule aimed at protecting streams from the high level of pollution caused by a technique known as mountaintop removal mining. The proposed rule, which updates a 1983 regulation, quickly met fierce opposition from the mining industry and some Republicans. The rule would have the greatest effect on states in the Appalachian Mountains, where the disputed mining practice is most common. [...] Specifically, the rule mandates that coal companies test and monitor the condition of streams affected by their activities before, during and after a mining operation, according to a summary of the proposal released by the Interior Department. It would also require that companies restore streams and other mined areas to 'the uses they were capable of supporting before mining activities.'" [New York Times, 7/16/15]
2016: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Prohibiting Delaying The Stream Buffer Rule If Its Delay Would Cause Imminent Or Long Term Harm To Human Health In Communities Near Mountaintop Coal Projects. In January 2016, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit[ed] the bill's delay of the stream buffer rule if the delay would cause an imminent or long-term threat to human life or increase the prevalence of lung cancer, heart disease, kidney disease, birth defects, or heavy metal contamination in communities near mountaintop removal coal mining projects." The underlying bill would have, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "prevent[ed] the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) from issuing any final rules related to coal mining activities near streams, including updating a stream buffer zones (SBZ) rule, until after the National Academy of Sciences submits a study on the effectiveness of the existing rules in effect --- which would effectively delay any new or revised SBZ rules for at least three years. It also require[d] the agency to make public all scientific data that is used in developing the rule prior to it being issued." The vote was on a motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 186 to 237. [House Vote 41, 1/12/16; Congressional Quarterly, 1/12/16; Congressional Quarterly, 1/8/16; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1644]
2016: Schweikert Voted Against Exempting Rules Deals With Long-Term Health Conditions From A Bill That Would Prevent The Implement New Mining Regulations. In January 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "exempt[ed] rules from the bill's requirements if the rule causes or significantly contributes to the development of chronic or long-term health conditions." The underlying bill would have, also according to Congressional Quarterly, "prevent[ed] the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) from issuing any final rules related to coal mining activities near streams, including updating a stream buffer zones (SBZ) rule, until after the National Academy of Sciences submits a study on the effectiveness of the existing rules in effect --- which would effectively delay any new or revised SBZ rules for at least three years. It also require[d] the agency to make public all scientific data that is used in developing the rule prior to it being issued." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 190 to 235. [House Vote 40, 1/12/16; Congressional Quarterly, 1/12/16; Congressional Quarterly, 1/8/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 908; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1644]
2015: Schweikert Voted For Legislation That Established Minimum Federal Standards For The Disposal Of Coal Combustion Residuals. In July 2015, Schweikert voted for legislation that established minimum federal standards for the disposal or coal combustion residuals. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have, "establish[ed] minimum federal standards regarding the disposal and storage of coal combustion residuals (CCR) that would codify parts of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rule regarding coal ash, while superseding other elements of the rule." The vote was on passage and the House approved the bill 258 to 166. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 458, 7/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/22/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1734]
Legislation Allowed States To Create Their Own Coal Ash Programs, But Gave The Environmental Protection Agency Oversight Over Those Programs. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Additionally, the bill would permit states to create their own coal ash permit programs, but would provide for EPA oversight of the bill's standards in cases when a state lacks its own program or fails to meet the standards set in the bill. It also would provide that coal ash received by manufacturers who intend to use it for other beneficial uses would not to be considered as a receipt of CCR for state permitting purposes." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/22/15]
Coal Ash Is A Byproduct Of Coal Plants And Contains Toxic Chemicals Like Arsenic And Mercury. According to Think Progress, "Coal ash is a byproduct of coal-fired power plants, and often contains toxic chemicals like arsenic, chromium, mercury, and lead. It is also the second-largest form of waste generated in the United States. Coal ash has earned headlines --- and increased regulation --- in recent years, particularly after a massive spill in the Dan River in North Carolina in 2014. One of the most common ways companies dispose of coal ash is by storing it in man-made ponds or lagoons, of which there are hundreds across the country. The EPA's first-ever coal ash rule, which requires all new coal ash pits to be lined and calls for some of the hundreds of old, unlined pits to be cleaned up, was criticized by environmentalists for not reaching far enough when it was released in December." [Think Progress, 7/23/15]
December 2014: The EPA Issued A Rule Regulating Coal Ash Disposal. According to the Hill, "The Obama administration on Friday announced the first federal regulations for disposal of coal ash from power plants in an attempt to shield the environment from the toxic substance. The new rule from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets structural integrity standards for all existing and new disposal sites to reduce the chances that they will leak or break. It also requires that new coal ash ponds be lined and not located in sensitive areas like wetlands and earthquake zones. Existing ash ponds will be subject to new inspection and monitoring standards in an attempt to prevent leaks into groundwater and catastrophic spills, and restrictions to reduce air pollution from ash sites." [Hill, 12/19/14]
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ): Legislation Would Block EPA's Final Coal Ash Rule; More Than 180 Environmental Groups Opposed The Legislation. According to a floor speech by Rep. Pallone, "The bill is also opposed by over 180 environmental, public health, and civil rights groups, including the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, NAACP, NRDC, and Earthjustice. They oppose this legislation because it would block EPA's final coal ash rule and roll back important protections for human health and the environment. EPA's rule has put these protections in place after years of hard work and public process." [Congressional Record, 7/22/15]
Think Progress: Legislation Would Allow Toxic Coal Ash Into Groundwater. According to Think Progress, "The Republican-led House of Representatives struck another blow to environmental regulation Wednesday night, passing a bill that will undercut the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) coal ash regulations, opponents said. Several key provisions in the EPA's coal ash disposal rule --- set to go into effect in October --- would be either left to states to enforce or thrown out altogether under H.R. 1734, the 'Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act.' 'There are very big differences [between the bill and the EPA rule] that have huge impacts on public safety,' Lisa Evans, an attorney with Earthjustice, told ThinkProgress. Among the differences, she said, is the fact that the EPA rule prohibits disposing coal ash waste directly into the water supply, while the House bill does not. In a survey the EPA did of state laws on coal ash, only five of the 25 states surveyed specifically prohibited disposing of coal ash into groundwater, Evans said." [Think Progress, 7/23/15]
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ): The EPA Rule Was Already Going To Be Partially Enforced By The States, So The Legislation Was Not Needed. In a floor speech by Rep. Pallone obtained via the Congressional Record, "That is because this bill is not needed to ensure effective enforcement of the EPA's coal ash rule, and it won't have that effect. You may hear that EPA's rule will only be enforced through citizen suits, and that is simply not true. While citizen suits have been and will continue to be an important component of all environmental enforcement, States will play an important part in enforcing EPA's final coal ash rule. They will do so either by bringing citizen suits themselves or by incorporating the requirements of EPA's rule into their State programs. States want to take on this role. They told the EPA as much in comments on the coal ash proposed rule." [Congressional Record, 7/22/15]
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ): The Legislation Would Undermine The EPA Coal Ash Rule That Attempted To Protect The Public From Coal Ash Contamination. In a floor speech by Rep. Pallone said, "Mr. Chairman, we have known for years that unsafe coal ash disposal threatens groundwater, drinking water, and air quality. Contaminants can leach into groundwater and drinking water supplies or become airborne as toxic dust. Aging or deficient impoundments can fail structurally, resulting in catastrophic floods of toxic sludge entering neighboring communities. [...] EPA has now identified 157 damage cases from coal ash contamination. If EPA's rule is delayed or undermined, that number will likely continue to grow. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, that EPA's rule includes many important protections, it is also balanced and responsive to industry concerns. When EPA solicited comments on their proposed rule, they heard from coal ash recyclers that they wanted a subtitle D, nonhazardous rule. That is what EPA finalized. [...] The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that legislation is not warranted. Even if it were, this bill would not be the vehicle because it dangerously eliminates or undermines necessary protections." [Congressional Record, 7/22/15]
President Obama Promised To Veto The Legislation. According to Think Progress, "One bright side for the bill's opponents, though, is that the Obama administration announced this week that if the bill were to make it to the president's desk --- there is already a companion bill in the Senate --- he would veto it." [Think Progress, 7/23/15]
Supporters Of The Legislation Said It Would Improve Enforcement Mechanisms And Strike Parts Of The EPA Rule. According to the Hill, "McKinley's bill answers a number of concerns Republicans and utilities had with the EPA's December rule, which set the first national standards for storage and disposal of coal ash waste at power plants and in landfills. The House bill improves enforcement mechanisms by requiring states to set up permit systems for coal ash sites, while removing some of the requirements of the EPA rule, like public disclosure of the status of disposal ponds and pits. Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), the chairman of the environment subcommittee, said the bill addresses industry concerns while preserving the important protections of the EPA rule. 'The bill requires every state have a permit program and every permit program will contain minimum requirements based on EPA's final rule,' Shimkus said before the vote." [Hill, 3/25/15]
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL): The EPA Rule Was Flawed Because "It Is Enforceable Only Through Citizen Suits" And This Legislation Would Fix That Flaw. According to a floor speech by Rep. Shimkus, "A fundamental flaw with the rule is that it is self-implementing, which means that, now that EPA has finalized the rule, going forward, there will be zero regulatory oversight of coal ash by the EPA. What this means is that all of the requirements in the final rule, no matter how protective you believe they are, will be interpreted and implemented by the utilities with no oversight or enforcement by the EPA or the States. [...] This leads us to one of the other key flaws with the final rule, which is that it is enforceable only through citizen suits. [...] This brings us to where we are today, in need of legislative solution to address the fundamental flaws with the final rule. H.R. 1734 is the solution. The bill addresses the self-implementing aspect of the final rule, as well as the problem with citizen suit enforcement, by establishing enforceable permit programs that directly incorporate the technical requirements of the final rule." [Congressional Record, 7/22/15]
Rep. David McKinley (R-WV): Legislation Would Prevent The EPA From Designating Coal Ash As Harmful In The Future. According to a floor speech by Rep. McKinley, "Now, last year, in December, the EPA issued its regulation--indeed, they did--on fly ash. To its credit, the EPA addressed one of the more immediate concerns and opted, however, just for now, to regulate coal ash as a nonhazardous waste. The question legitimately needs to be raised, and it has been: Why is this legislation needed? It is two issues. First, the nonhazardous designation is not permanent; and, secondly, the only oversight mechanism in the rule is lawsuits. Let's be more specific. The nonhazardous designation is merely applicable as long as this rule is not modified. Even in the preamble, the EPA indicates they may reverse their decision and ultimately regulate fly ash as a hazardous material. More specifically from the rule, it says: The EPA is deferring its final decision because of regulatory uncertainties that cannot be resolved at this time. This uncertainty could be devastating to recyclers. The science is settled on fly ash, and it should trump political and ideological interference. Are we living in a nation of rules and regulation or are we living in a nation of laws? This bill ensures that the EPA will not be able to retroactively reverse its original decision." [Congressional Record, 7/22/15]
2015: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Requiring Groundwater Protection From Coal Ash Contamination. In July 2015, Schweikert effectively voted against explicitly protect groundwater from coal ash contamination. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have, "recommit[ed] the bill to the House Energy and Commerce Committee with instructions to report back with an amendment that would require implementing agencies to require that all surface impoundment structures meet criteria sufficient to prevent toxic contamination of ground water and to protect drinking water sources, including the Great Lakes." The underlying measure "would establish minimum federal standards regarding the disposal and storage of coal combustion residuals (CCR) that would codify parts of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rule regarding coal ash, while superseding other elements of the rule." The vote was on the amendment and the House rejected it 184 to 240. [House Vote 457, 4/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 4/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/22/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1734]
The EPA's Rule Called The "Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities" Created A Set Of Requirements For The Safe Disposal Of Cash From Coal-Fired Power Plants. According to the EPA, "EPA finalized national regulations to provide a comprehensive set of requirements for the safe disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCRs), commonly known as coal ash, from coal-fired power plants. The final rule is the culmination of extensive study on the effects of coal ash on the environment and public health. [...] These regulations address the risks from coal ash disposal -- leaking of contaminants into ground water, blowing of contaminants into the air as dust, and the catastrophic failure of coal ash surface impoundments. Additionally, the rule sets out recordkeeping and reporting requirements as well as the requirement for each facility to establish and post specific information to a publicly-accessible website. This final rule also supports the responsible recycling of CCRs by distinguishing safe, beneficial use from disposal." [EPA, Accessed 10/23/15]
The EPA's Coal Combustion Residuals Rule Was First Published In The Federal Register In April 2015 And Went Into Effect In October 2015. According to the Federal Register, the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities was published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2015 and went into effect on October 14, 2015. [Federal Register, Accessed 10/23/15]
Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL): The Amendment Would Have Protected Drinking Water From Coal Ash Contamination. In a floor speech by Rep. Foster said, "What this commonsense amendment does is something that I think we should all be able to agree is a good thing; it protects our drinking water. My motion to recommit would require that coal ash impoundments must be sufficient to prevent toxic contamination of groundwater and to protect all sources of drinking water, including but not limited to the Great Lakes." [Congressional Record, 7/22/15]
Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL): "Coal Ash [...] Contains Many Toxic Elements, Including Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, And Selenium." In a floor speech by Rep. Foster said, "Coal ash--the material left after coal is burned--contains many toxic elements, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and selenium. Arsenic exposure can lead to nervous system damage, cardiovascular issues, urinary tract cancers, lung cancer, and skin cancer. When people are exposed to lead, they may experience brain swelling, kidney disease, heart problems, nervous system damage, a drop in intelligence, or even death. If not handled properly, these toxins can and do leach from storage sites and contaminate nearby water sources. I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can agree that we don't want our children drinking water contaminated with lead, arsenic, and other toxic compounds; but that is exactly what happens when these surface impoundments are not properly built, maintained, and monitored." [Congressional Record, 7/22/15]
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL): "The EPA, Three Times, Has Determined That Coal Ash Is Not Toxic." In a floor speech by Rep. Shimkus said, "The EPA, three times, has determined that coal ash is not toxic--the EPA has determined three times. In 1993, in 2000, and with their recently released rule in December, they said coal ash is not toxic." [Congressional Record, 7/22/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Prevented The Underlying Bill From Going Into Effect If The EPA Determined It Would Negatively Impact Vulnerable Populations. In July 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have "prohibit[ed] the measure from going into effect if the Environmental Protection Agency determines it will have a negative impact on vulnerable populations, such as infants, children, the elderly, and other subsections of the population identified as vulnerable," according to Congressional Quarterly. The underlying measure "would establish minimum federal standards regarding the disposal and storage of coal combustion residuals (CCR) that would codify parts of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rule regarding coal ash, while superseding other elements of the rule." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment 180 to 240. [House Vote 456, 7/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/22/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 677; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1734]
The EPA's Rule Called The "Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities" Created A Set Of Requirements For The Safe Disposal Of Cash From Coal-Fired Power Plants. According to the EPA, "EPA finalized national regulations to provide a comprehensive set of requirements for the safe disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCRs), commonly known as coal ash, from coal-fired power plants. The final rule is the culmination of extensive study on the effects of coal ash on the environment and public health. [...] These regulations address the risks from coal ash disposal -- leaking of contaminants into ground water, blowing of contaminants into the air as dust, and the catastrophic failure of coal ash surface impoundments. Additionally, the rule sets out recordkeeping and reporting requirements as well as the requirement for each facility to establish and post specific information to a publicly-accessible website. This final rule also supports the responsible recycling of CCRs by distinguishing safe, beneficial use from disposal." [EPA, Accessed 10/23/15]
The EPA's Coal Combustion Residuals Rule Was First Published In The Federal Register In April 2015 And Went Into Effect In October 2015. According to the Federal Register, the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities was published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2015 and went into effect on October 14, 2015. [Federal Register, Accessed 10/23/15]
Rep. George Butterfield (D-N.C.): EPA Estimates That 70 Percent Of Coal Ash Impoundments Are Located In Low-Income Communities. According to a floor speech by Rep. Butterfield, "My amendment is simple. It would prevent the coal ash regulation framework in this bill from going into effect if States fail to protect vulnerable populations from the adverse effects of haphazard coal ash storage. Vulnerable populations defined in the amendment include infants, children, adolescents, pregnant women, the elderly, racial or ethnic groups, and others identified by the EPA Administrator. Mr. Chairman, the EPA estimates that 70 percent of coal ash impoundments are located in low-income communities. Coal ash impoundments lacking proper safeguards can fail, resulting in the leaching of harmful chemicals into surface and groundwater. Coal ash stored in pools have caused water contamination in 37 States." [Congressional Record, 7/22/15]
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL): Amendment Gives The EPA Administrator "Unilateral Veto Power" Over The Bill. According to a floor speech by Rep. Shimkus, "First, it gives the EPA Administrator effective unilateral veto power over the entire coal ash bill upon any EPA finding that somewhere, somehow, a vulnerable subpopulation is not protected. This, of course, undoes the entire premise of the bill that brings together the best of the EPA-proposed rule and the states' expertise and dedication in regulating solid waste through permit programs. [...] Third, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure the gentleman's amendment passes constitutional scrutiny. I understand that we, in the Congress, have sweeping power to waive requirements of law; but I don't think we can give a single Administrator power to cancel a law altogether. In my view, only the President himself has that power, subject to override votes in the Congress. [Congressional Record, 7/22/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Required Coal Ash Facilities To Survey Nearby Drinking Water Supplies And Provide Alternative Sources Within 24 Hours If The Water Was Contaminated. In July 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have "require[d] the owner or operator of a coal combustion residuals surface impoundment to survey all nearby drinking water supply wells and to supply an alternative source of safe drinking water within 24 hours if well water sampling exceeds groundwater quality standards for constituents associated with the presence of coal combustion residuals," according to Congressional Quarterly. The underlying measure "would establish minimum federal standards regarding the disposal and storage of coal combustion residuals (CCR) that would codify parts of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rule regarding coal ash, while superseding other elements of the rule." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment 192 to 231. [House Vote 455, 7/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/22/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 676; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1734]
Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC): Amendment Provided "Safeguards To Inform Communities About Coal Ash Contaminants In Their Drinking Water Supply Wells." According to a floor speech by Rep. Adams, "Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides strong and consistent safeguards to inform communities about coal ash contaminants in their drinking water supply wells. [...] My amendment seeks to provide rural communities across the Nation with the same requirements that citizens in North Carolina now enjoy, requirements that will give them the certainty that their water is safe. Americans in North Carolina and across the Nation have the right to access safe drinking water, especially rural communities who rely overwhelmingly on private wells as their main source of drinking water. Finally, coal ash pollution often affects low-income communities who don't have the resources to go up against big utilities. Passing this amendment will give these communities the resources they deserve to protect themselves." [Congressional Record, 7/22/15]
2015: N.C. Officials Told Residents Near Duke's Coal Ash Pits That Groundwater Was Not Safe To Consume. According to The Associated Press, "North Carolina officials are warning more residents living near Duke Energy's coal ash pits that it's not safe to drink or cook with their well water after tests showed contamination levels that is raising health concerns. The state Department of Environment and Natural Resources said Tuesday that 152 wells tested near Duke's dumps failed to meet state groundwater standards. That represents more than 93 percent of the 163 wells for which tests have been completed so far." [Associated Press, 5/5/15]
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL): The EPA Already Covers What The Amendment Proposes. According to a floor speech by Rep. Shimkus, "She talks about providing certainty. Well, there is already certainty to do this under Federal law. Under the Superfund law, which we call CERCLA, EPA already has the authority to obtain information, access property, and inspect and sample wells if there is a 'reasonable basis to believe there may be a release or a threat of release.' So there is already certainty under that law. Not only does CERCLA already cover what the gentlewoman is proposing, but the Safe Drinking Water Act provides the same authority." [Congressional Record, 7/22/15]
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL): Amendment It Focuses On Wells At An "Arbitrary" Distance Of One-Half Mile Away From Coal Ash Facilities. According to a floor speech by Rep. Shimkus obtained vita the Congressional Record, "The amendment focuses on drinking water wells that are one-half mile down-gradient from a surface impoundment. This seems an arbitrary determination, that for all States and for all impoundments, that that is where the groundwater is. And that is definitely not true around the country. Can we be sure that this is the correct distance? Why was that number selected?" [Congressional Record, 7/22/15]
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) Requirement For Coal Ash Storage Facilities To Provide Alternative Drinking Water Within 24 Hours "May Not Be Feasible." According to a floor speech by Rep. Shimkus, "The amendment would require the owners or operators to provide an alternative source of drinking water within 24 hours. While we completely understand the need to move quickly to provide a solution, it may not be feasible to secure an alternate source of drinking water within that short a period of time." [Congressional Record, 7/22/15]
The EPA's Rule Called The "Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities" Created A Set Of Requirements For The Safe Disposal Of Cash From Coal-Fired Power Plants. According to the EPA, "EPA finalized national regulations to provide a comprehensive set of requirements for the safe disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCRs), commonly known as coal ash, from coal-fired power plants. The final rule is the culmination of extensive study on the effects of coal ash on the environment and public health. [...] These regulations address the risks from coal ash disposal -- leaking of contaminants into ground water, blowing of contaminants into the air as dust, and the catastrophic failure of coal ash surface impoundments. Additionally, the rule sets out recordkeeping and reporting requirements as well as the requirement for each facility to establish and post specific information to a publicly-accessible website. This final rule also supports the responsible recycling of CCRs by distinguishing safe, beneficial use from disposal." [EPA, Accessed 10/23/15]
The EPA's Coal Combustion Residuals Rule Was First Published In The Federal Register In April 2015 And Went Into Effect In October 2015. According to the Federal Register, the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities was published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2015 and went into effect on October 14, 2015. [Federal Register, Accessed 10/23/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Requiring All Inactive Surface Impoundments For Coal Ash To Follow EPA Standards For Groundwater Monitoring. In July 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that required inactive surface impoundments for coal ash disposal to follow the EPA's groundwater monitoring standards. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have, "require[d] all inactive surface impoundments to follow post-closure groundwater monitoring standards in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rule." The underlying measure "would establish minimum federal standards regarding the disposal and storage of coal combustion residuals (CCR) that would codify parts of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rule regarding coal ash, while superseding other elements of the rule." The vote was on passage and the House rejected the amendment 177 to 245. [House Vote 454, 7/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/22/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/22/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 675; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1734]
Coal Ash Surface Impoundments Are "Natural Topographic Depressions" In Which Coal Ash Is Stored. According to the Hoosier Environmental Council, "The coal ash surface impoundments are located in the center of the image. These are natural topographic depressions, manmade excavations, or diked areas that contain coal ash waste mixed with water." [Hoosier Environmental Council, Viewed 10/21/15]
Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA): The Amendment Would Be "One Of The Easiest Protections" Congress Could Give To Constituents By Protecting Groundwater. In a floor speech by Rep. Connolly said, "It is in that same spirit of bipartisan, commonsense, and modest safeguards that I offer this amendment that would simply require that all inactive surface impoundments that begin closure procedures to put in place the same groundwater monitoring safeguards procedures required in the final Federal rule. [...] Today across the Commonwealth of Virginia, there are more than 30 active and inactive ponds at 11 different sites, including one in my district, with an average of 47 years. As more of these facilities transition from coal-fired plants to gas- fired and biomass and as we close down these surface impoundments, we need to make sure we are protecting our communities with proper postclosure procedures. One of the easiest protections our constituents can expect is that we maintain rigorous groundwater monitoring as these legacy ponds and inactive surface impoundments move toward postclosure status." [Congressional Record, 7/22/15]
Rep. David McKinley (R-WV): The Amendment Is Unneeded And Would Disincentive Proper Closure Of Surface Impoundments. In a floor speech by Rep. McKinley said, "This amendment would require that all inactive impoundments or legacy sites, as they are known, comply with the requirements in the final rule to conduct postclosure care, which includes the installation of groundwater monitoring. While I appreciate and share my colleague's concerns about inactive surface impoundments, this amendment would not achieve what I believe is my colleague's goal of ensuring the timely closure of inactive surface impoundments. [...] This amendment would wipe out the EPA's incentive for utilities to complete closure of inactive surface impoundments in a timely manner by requiring that utilities comply with certain requirements immediately. In addition, I think there is a broad agreement that the EPA final rule is protective with respect to taking steps to address inactive surface impoundments." [Congressional Record, 7/22/15]
The EPA's Rule Called The "Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities" Created A Set Of Requirements For The Safe Disposal Of Cash From Coal-Fired Power Plants. According to the EPA, "EPA finalized national regulations to provide a comprehensive set of requirements for the safe disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCRs), commonly known as coal ash, from coal-fired power plants. The final rule is the culmination of extensive study on the effects of coal ash on the environment and public health. [...] These regulations address the risks from coal ash disposal -- leaking of contaminants into ground water, blowing of contaminants into the air as dust, and the catastrophic failure of coal ash surface impoundments. Additionally, the rule sets out recordkeeping and reporting requirements as well as the requirement for each facility to establish and post specific information to a publicly-accessible website. This final rule also supports the responsible recycling of CCRs by distinguishing safe, beneficial use from disposal." [EPA, Accessed 10/23/15]
The EPA's Coal Combustion Residuals Rule Was First Published In The Federal Register In April 2015 And Went Into Effect In October 2015. According to the Federal Register, the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities was published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2015 and went into effect on October 14, 2015. [Federal Register, Accessed 10/23/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Have Required Utilities To Disclose Coal Ash Contamination In Groundwater. In July 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have "preserve[d] transparency requirements in EPA's final coal ash rule to ensure public access to information and accountability," according to the description of the amendment on Congress.gov. The underlying measure was a bill would "would establish minimum federal standards regarding the disposal and storage of coal combustion residuals (CCR) that would codify parts of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rule regarding coal ash, while superseding other elements of the rule." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment 177 to 244. [House Vote 453, 7/22/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 673; Congressional Quarterly, 7/22/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 673; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1734]
The EPA's Rule Called The "Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities" Created A Set Of Requirements For The Safe Disposal Of Cash From Coal-Fired Power Plants. According to the EPA, "EPA finalized national regulations to provide a comprehensive set of requirements for the safe disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCRs), commonly known as coal ash, from coal-fired power plants. The final rule is the culmination of extensive study on the effects of coal ash on the environment and public health. [...] These regulations address the risks from coal ash disposal -- leaking of contaminants into ground water, blowing of contaminants into the air as dust, and the catastrophic failure of coal ash surface impoundments. Additionally, the rule sets out recordkeeping and reporting requirements as well as the requirement for each facility to establish and post specific information to a publicly-accessible website. This final rule also supports the responsible recycling of CCRs by distinguishing safe, beneficial use from disposal." [EPA, Accessed 10/23/15]
The EPA's Coal Combustion Residuals Rule Was First Published In The Federal Register In April 2015 And Went Into Effect In October 2015. According to the Federal Register, the Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities was published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2015 and went into effect on October 14, 2015. [Federal Register, Accessed 10/23/15]
Rep. Pallone (D-NJ): Amendment Would Restore "Important Requirements" To Post Data On Coal Ash Contamination In Groundwater. According to a floor speech by Rep. Pallone, "EPA's rule establishes a strong national floor for public disclosure of information. The rule specifies what information will be made available to the public and how it must be posted. [...] These requirements will inform and empower communities and hold utilities accountable. Concerned citizens won't have to navigate an array of State agencies and offices to find out if the coal ash impoundment in their neighborhood is contaminating groundwater. Instead, they will able to go directly to the utility Web site and see all monitoring results. [...] But this bill would eliminate these requirements. Under this bill, there would be no national requirement to maintain a public Web site and to post all of this important data. So my amendment would simply restore these important requirements in EPA's final rule." [Congressional Record, 7/22/15]
Rep. Skimkus (R-IL) Opposed The Amendment Because The Underlying Bill Would Have Required States To Post Online "All Groundwater Monitoring Data" And Other Information. According to a floor speech by Rep. Shimkus, "The State certification program would have State public access through the State EPA, and that is in this bill. So there is public access to information. H.R. 1734 accomplishes the goal by making sure the public has access to information and guaranteeing that the public will be involved with the decisionmaking process because it requires public participation in the permitting process, and it requires States to make available on the Internet such information as: all groundwater monitoring data, information regarding structural stability assessments, emergency action plans and emergency response plans, fugitive dust controls, certifications of closures, corrective action remedies, and all documents associated with the permitting process." [Congressional Record, 7/22/15]
Duke Energy And North Carolina Agreed To $7 Million Fine Over Contaminated Groundwater Near Duke's Coal Ash Ponds. According to WRAL, "Duke Energy and North Carolina environmental regulators agreed Tuesday to a $7 million fine over contaminated groundwater near all of the company's coal ash ponds statewide. The settlement cuts by more than 70 percent a record $25.1 million fine the state Department of Environmental Quality levied in March for leaks from the ash ponds at the L.V. Sutton Steam Plant near Wilmington. The reduced amount remains the largest fine the state has ever imposed for environmental damage, officials said." [WRAL, 9/29/15]
May 2015: N.C. Officials Warned Residents Living Near Duke Energy Coal Ash Pits That Well Water Was Not Safe To Consume After Tests Found It Contained High Levels Of Toxic Heavy Metals. According to The Associated Press, "North Carolina officials are warning more residents living near Duke Energy's coal ash pits that it's not safe to drink or cook with their well water after tests showed contamination levels that is raising health concerns. The state Department of Environment and Natural Resources said Tuesday that 152 wells tested near Duke's dumps failed to meet state groundwater standards. That represents more than 93 percent of the 163 wells for which tests have been completed so far. Many of the tests results show high levels of toxic heavy metals such as lead, vanadium and hexavalent chromium." [Associated Press, 5/5/15]
Duke Spokeswoman Said The Company Did Not Believe "Our Ash Basins [Were] Responsible" For The Groundwater Contamination. According to The Associated Press, "So far, Duke is providing bottled water to 'about half a dozen' of the residents, but the company indicated that number is expected to rise. The company maintains the groundwater contamination is all naturally occurring. 'We do not believe our ash basins are responsible for the water quality concerns, but we want them to have peace of mind while more study is done,' said Paige Sheehan, a Duke spokeswoman. The nation's largest electricity company, Duke stores more than 150 million tons of coal ash in 32 dumps at 14 power plants in North Carolina." [Associated Press, 5/5/15]
Duke Lobbyists Got North Carolina Republicans To Pass Law To Avoid Costly Cleanup From 2013 Lawsuit Over Groundwater Pollution. According to The Associated Press, "North Carolina regulators had for years allowed the nation's largest power company to pollute the ground near its plants without penalty. But in early 2013, a coalition of environmental groups sued to force Duke to clean up nearly three dozen leaky coal ash dumps spread across the state. Documents and interviews collected by The Associated Press show how Duke's lobbyists prodded Republican legislators to tuck a 330-word provision in a regulatory reform bill running nearly 60 single-spaced pages. Though the bill never once mentions coal ash, the change allowed Duke to avoid any costly cleanup of contaminated groundwater leaching from its unlined dumps toward rivers, lakes and the drinking wells of nearby homeowners." [Associated Press, 3/17/14]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment Removing The EPA's Limitations On Setting Ozone Standards. In July 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment removing the EPA's limitations on updating its ozone standards until 85% of counties came into compliance. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have, "remove[d] the bill's limitation on EPA from updating its ozone standards until 85 percent of counties that [did] not meet the current standard [came] into compliance." The underlying measure was the FY 2016 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment 180 to 249. [House Vote 401, 7/8/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/8/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 573; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2822]
October 2015: The EPA Proposed A New Ozone Limit Of 70 Parts Per Billion After More Than 90% Of Counties Met The Previous Limit Of 75 Parts Per Billion. According to the Wall Street Journal, "The Environmental Protection Agency set a limit of 70 parts per billion for ground-level ozone, which is created by emissions released into the air by manufacturing plants, utilities and vehicles, down from the current level of 75 parts per billion. [...] Some areas of the country still aren't complying with the 2008 standard, which business groups point to as a reason the EPA should hold off on a tougher limit. More than 90% of counties with ozone monitors are meeting a 75-parts-per-billion limit, according to an EPA spokeswoman." [Wall Street Journal, 10/1/15]
EPA: Scientific Evidence Shows That Ozone Can Cause A Number Of Harmful Effects On The Respiratory System, Including Difficulty Breathing And Inflammation Of The Airways. According to the EPA, "EPA examined nearly 2,300 studies in this review of the ozone standards including more than 1,000 new studies published since the last review of the standards in 2008. Scientific evidence shows that ozone can cause a number of harmful effects on the respiratory system, including difficulty breathing and inflammation of the airways. The revised standards will significantly improve public health protection, resulting in fewer premature deaths, and thousands fewer missed school and work days and asthma attacks. For people with lung diseases like COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) or the 23 million Americans and 6 million children living with asthma, these effects can aggravate their diseases, leading to increased medication use, emergency room visits and hospital admissions. Evidence also indicates that long-term exposure to ozone is likely to be one of many causes of asthma development. And studies show that ozone exposure is likely to cause premature death. The public health benefits of the updated standards, estimated at $2.9 to $5.9 billion annually in 2025, outweigh the estimated annual costs of $1.4 billion." [EPA, 10/1/15]
GOP Lawmakers Who Were Previously Doctors Questioned The Health Benefits Of Reduced Ozone. According to The Hill, "The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule to limit surface-level ozone pollution might not have the health benefits the agency claims, according to nearly two-dozen doctors-turned-lawmakers. In a letter to EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, the lawmakers, all Republicans, said there has been no correlation between falling ozone levels and the asthma rate in the United States. That 'highlights important questions concerning the validity of EPA's conclusions' about its ozone restrictions, they said. [....]Republicans say it will be very expensive for communities and the private sector to comply with the rule. Job losses associated with cutting ozone pollution, lawmakers said in the letter, will have their own impact on Americans' health. 'If the true intent here is to improve public health, then the agency should factor how its ozone proposal affects every aspect of human health --- including impacts from unemployment, poverty and reduced access to health insurance,' the lawmakers wrote." [The Hill, 6/17/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Remove The Bill's Prohibition On Stream Buffers. In July 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would remove the bill's prohibition on stream buffers. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have, "remove[d] the bill's prohibition on stream buffers." The House rejected the amendment 189 to 239. [House Vote 397, 7/8/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/8/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 567; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2822]
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ): Underlying Bill Includes A Rider Preventing The Administration From Creating A Rule To Properly Protect Streams During Surface Coal Mining. In a floor speech, Rep. Grijalva said, "my amendment would allow the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement to continue to develop regulations designed to protect communities and the environment from the devastating effects of mountaintop removal mining. If you have seen a picture of a mountaintop removal mining site, you get an idea of how destructive this process is. [...]What you don't see in the picture is the health impacts on the people living nearby, although those are just as real and just as terrible. People who live near mountaintop mining sites have higher rates of lung cancer, heart disease, kidney disease, birth defects, hypertension, and other health related problems. [...] Under our laws governing surface coal mining, streams are supposed to be protected; but the existing regulations, which are over 30 years old, have done a poor job of doing just that. Over 2,000 miles of streams have been buried by mountaintop removal mining, and countless more have been polluted by toxic mine runoff. Wildlife habitat is destroyed; fish are killed, and the people in the area suffer. That is why the administration has been working for years on a new rule that would do a better job of protecting streams. It has taken longer than I would like for them to propose this rule, and the process has certainly not gone as smoothly as it could have. [...] A partisan rider in this bill that completely stops the ability of the administration to work on this stream buffer rule to provide badly needed protections to Appalachian communities is the wrong way to go." [Congressional Record, 7/28/15]
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA): States Were Shut Out Of the Rules Writing Process And That No New Jobs Impact Analysis Was Provided. According to a floor speech by Rep. Calvert obtained via the Congressional Record, "Madam Chair, in 2008, the Office of Surface Mining finalized revisions to the stream zone buffer rule in an open and transparent manner. After taking office, the Obama administration put a hold on the rule and is currently writing a new rule. The administration's approach under the new rule has been anything but collaborative and inclusive, and many States feel they have been shut out of the process. When Chairman Rogers required advanced analysis on job impacts, his request was ignored. The American people expect more openness and transparency from their government, and that is why this funding prohibition must remain in the base bill." [Congressional Record, 7/28/15]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Limit The EPA's Authority To Regulate Byproducts From Burning Coal. In July 2013, Schweikert voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have "let states create and implement their own permit programs for coal combustion residuals (CCR). It would [have] authorize[d] the EPA to review state permit programs, but it also would [have] place[d] limitations on that review. The EPA would [have] be[en] allowed to regulate CCR in states that fail to set up their own programs or in states where the permit program is determined to be deficient and is not remedied by the state. As amended it would [have] require[d] states to update their certification documents with EPA and include in those documents a state emergency action plan for responding to spills or leaks." The House approved the bill by a vote of 265 to 155; however, the bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 418, 7/25/13; Congressional Quarterly, 7/25/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2218]
2008: Kingston, TN Power Plant Spill Resulted In Discharge Of 1.1 Billion Gallons Of Liquid Coal Waste, Flowing Directly Into Rivers And Contaminating Local Water Supply. According to Congressional Quarterly, "On Dec. 22, 2008, a breach in a coal waste containment pool at a Kingston, Tenn., power plant resulted in 1.1 billion gallons of liquid coal waste being released. The spill covered an area of more than 400 acres, destroying forest land and flowing directly into the Emory and Clinch rivers --- contaminating the local water supply and affecting more than 25,000 residents." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/22/13]
EPA Determined That Coal Waste Stored In Unlined Contamination Pools Poses Substantial Health Risks. According to CQ, "In addition to the risks of such catastrophic containment breaches, the EPA has determined that coal waste stored in unlined containment pools presents substantial health risks: specifically, the potential contamination of surface and groundwater by chemicals seeping out of unlined pools because of the extremely high concentrations of mercury, arsenic and selenium typically present in such waste." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/22/13]
Environmental Groups Supported Stricter EPA Regulation Proposals, Pointing To Risks Posed By Waste And Demonstrated Costs Of Spill Cleanup. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Conversely, environmental groups point to the Kingston spill as a primary reason for implementing more stringent regulations, especially given the risk of contamination and cleanup costs associated with a catastrophic spill. In the case of the Kingston plant spill, the cleanup cost was estimated to be at least $1.2 billion. The groups argue that the chemicals contained in both solid coal ash waste and semiliquid or slurry waste have proved to be highly toxic and carcinogenic, and that unlined containment facilities do not adequately prevent these chemicals from seeping into and contaminating surface and groundwater." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/22/13]
CQ: Coal Industry Feared EPA's Proposals Would "Stigmatize" Coal And Limit Ability To Recycle Coal Waste Into Materials Like Cement. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Additionally, many in the industry fear that [one EPA] proposal [to regulate coal waste as hazardous waste] would stigmatize the coal industry and limit opportunities to recycle coal waste. Of the 135 million tons of coal waste produced in 2009, 41 million tons were reused in some capacity, typically as a component of cement and concrete." [Congressional Quarterly, 7/22/13]
Obama Administration Said Legislation Had Improved, But Still Concerned It Would Not Adequately Protect Public Health And The Environment. According to a Statement of Administration Policy issued by the Office of Management and Budget, "The Administration appreciates the efforts by Members of the House to improve previous coal combustion residual management bills. However, the Administration has concerns with H.R. 2218 that need to be addressed for the legislation to adequately protect public health and the environment. To ensure that H.R. 2218 provides for the safe management and disposal of coal ash, important gaps should be filled, including: (1) authority to address inactive or abandoned disposal sites and for areas where coal ash is used in large scale fill operations; (2) clear and appropriate authority for taking potential corrective action on unlined or leaking impoundments or units; (3) groundwater protection standards that address the constituents of coal combustion residuals identified in H.R. 2218; and (4) clear minimum standards for EPA to identify and remedy State program deficiencies. Additionally, the Administration is concerned that overly broad preemption language in the bill may unintentionally block important protections under the Clean Water Act." [Office of Management and Budget, 7/23/13]
Bill's Supporters Criticized EPA For Not Removing Option Of Designating Coal Ash As Hazardous Waste. According to The Hill, "'EPA continues to leave a hazardous waste designation on the table, even though three decades of science in fact point the other way, that coal ash is not hazardous,' Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said in support of the bill. The EPA has also considered less-stringent rules that would leave more power with power companies and states. But Shimkus said there is still plenty of uncertainty that is 'contributing to the loss of current and future recycling' of coal ash." [The Hill, 7/25/13]
Opponents Said Removing EPA's Ability To Fully Regulate Coal Ash Would Put Public Health At Risk. According to The Hill, "Democratic opponents argued that the bill is a GOP attempt to stop the EPA from regulating coal ash completely, which would let power plants that burn coal escape requirements to safely dispose of the ash. 'What the Republicans ... are suggesting is that we remove public health protections in order to allow polluting disposal sites to continue with business as usual,' House Energy & Commerce Committee ranking member Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said. 'This debate is about whether or not we're going to allow coal ash disposal sites to contaminate our water supplies and threaten human health,' he added. 'If this bill is enacted, coal ash disposal sites will continue to pollute our groundwater, and once contamination is confirmed, well this bill would allow them to continue for another 10 years.'" [The Hill, 7/25/13]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Permanently Restoring An Excise Tax On Domestic Coal That Supports The Black Lung Disability Fund. In August 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against concurring in the Senate amendment to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which would "permanently restore an excise tax on domestic coal that supports the Black Lung Disability Fund." The vote was on a motion to concur. The House concurred with the Senate by a vote 220-207, thus the bill was sent to President Biden for final signage. President Biden signed the bill and it ultimately became law. [House Vote 420, 8/12/22; Congressional Quarterly, 8/12/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5376]
The Bill Extended And Restored The Excise Tax On Domestic Coal To Previous Rates, 55 Cents Per Ton Of Surface Mined Coal And $1.10 Per Ton Of Coal Mined Underground. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The budget reconciliation package (HR 5376) that passed through the Senate 51-50 along party lines with Vice President Kamala Harris cast the tie-breaking vote, would permanently extend and restore the excise tax to previous rates --- $0.55 per ton of surface mined coal and $1.10 per ton of coal mined underground. The fund has historically been extended on a year-by-year basis." [Congressional Quarterly, 8/7/22]
The Black Lung Disability Fund, Which Provides Benefits And Medical Care For Miners Who Were Diagnosed With Black Lung Disease, Was Cut In Half At The Beginning Of 2022 And Raised Uncertainty Among Miners About Relying On The Fund. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The fund, which is used to provide benefits and health care for miners suffering from black lung disease, was cut in half after previous funding levels expired at the beginning of 2022. Although the Labor Department assured miners they would continue to receive their benefits, the cut left uncertainty among miners relying on the fund." [Congressional Quarterly, 8/7/22]
The Coal Mining Industry Scrutinized The Inflation Reduction Act, Arguing It Would Cost Mining Companies Tax Money And Threaten Coal Jobs And Emphasizing That The Black Lung Disability Fund Was In $6 Billion Debt. According to Congressional Quarterly, "But the coal mining industry, including the West Virginia Coal Association, said in a statement that the bill worked out in a deal between Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., and Senate Democratic leaders would cost mining companies millions of dollars in taxes and threaten domestic coal jobs. Manchin countered during a news conference last week that the industry has been paying previous rates since the 1980s and that the bill is friendly for fossil fuel growth. Although the provision in the bill is a major win for those battling black lung disease, Coleman said the fund is nearly $6 billion in debt, which he said is due to coal companies not paying enough to the fund. Miners have yet to lose benefits, but they worry it could happen in the future." [Congressional Quarterly, 8/7/22]
2018: Schweikert Voted To Permanently Exempt Coal Waste Burning Power Plants From Particular Pollution Standards. In March 2018, Schweikert voted for legislation that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "subject[ed] an electricity-generating unit that can get at least 75 percent of its energy from coal mining byproduct to the original emissions standards as set in the Environmental Protection Agency's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), rather than the lowered emissions totals currently set through 2020. It would not [have] allow[ed] for unused emissions to be transferred to other entities, but would [have] allow[ed] for unused emissions to be added to future compliance periods. The bill would [have] also alter[ed] standards under which an electricity-generating unit could meet the Clear Air Act's (PL-91-604) Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule through meeting requirements for either sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride, but not for both." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 215 to 189. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 101, 3/8/18; Congressional Quarterly, 3/8/18; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1119]