I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Chairman, we all should be concerned about the recent actions by the EPA and how it continues to destroy jobs by exceeding its statutory authority as envisioned by Congress. In West Virginia, our…
I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chairman, we all should be concerned about the recent actions by the EPA and how it continues to destroy jobs by exceeding its statutory authority as envisioned by Congress. In West Virginia, our State's economy is highly dependent upon the coal and natural gas industries.
On January 13, 2011, the EPA took an unprecedented action by retroactively revoking a lawfully issued 4-year-old permit for the Spruce No. 1 surface mine in Logan County, West Virginia. This permit had been issued by the Secretary of the Army under the Clean Water Act and was approved by the Corps of Engineers in January 2007.
For nearly a decade, the Corps of Engineers worked with the EPA to rigorously review this Spruce mine project before it was approved. The permit was issued after this extensive environmental review, which included a 1,600-page Environmental Impact Statement in which the EPA fully participated and agreed to all terms and conditions included in the authorized permit.
Just to be clear, the EPA had every opportunity to address any concerns and work together with the Corps of Engineers prior to the permit being issued. By giving the EPA the funds to retroactively veto this permit, a dangerous precedent is being set for future job- producing ventures by businesses and industries throughout this country.
These actions by the EPA continue to justify why so many Americans worry about the EPA's relentless war on coal. If the EPA can be allowed to retroactively revoke a permit in West Virginia, they can continue this onslaught wherever water permits exist throughout America. Any entity discharging water is vulnerable to having their permits pulled and will put at risk city sewage treatment plans, farms, mines, steel mills, and chemical plants.
EPA's veto at Spruce mine caused the loss of 253 mining jobs and 298 indirect jobs in West Virginia. In addition, it prevented the investment of nearly $250 million. The EPA's action has had a chilling effect on many types of companies, all of which rely on the certainty of the permitting process in order to make crucial business planning decisions. It's virtually impossible for companies to take the necessary steps to obtain financing and create jobs if they must endure the threat of retroactive revocation of the very permits that allow them to do business.
Today, this injustice happened at Spruce mine in West Virginia. Tomorrow, the EPA could very well pull an existing water permit at a steel mill in Indiana, a chemical plant in Texas, a sewage plant in Iowa.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank my colleague and fellow committee member, Cliff Stearns from Florida, for offering a similar amendment. This amendment will specifically bar the use of funds to carry out the regulation of fossil fuel combustion wastes under subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. In 2010, the EPA proposed this regulation, and here we are today standing against this emotional reaction triggered by a structurally unstable dam in Tennessee.
What happened there is tragic and should be dealt with by the proper agency regarding the dam's integrity. It should not be used to advance an ideologically motivated agenda regarding the environment.
Let me frame the issue. Fly ash is an unavoidable byproduct of electric power generation using coal. It is captured before being emitted into the atmosphere. The fine grain, dust-like particles are then recycled into concrete mixtures for our roads, our bridges, and buildings. It's an additive in masonry production of concrete blocks and bricks. It's been widely used in drywall panels used in houses, schools, and offices.
The fly ash is even used in agricultural fertilizers and soil amendments. If the EPA were allowed to continue
with their plan to designate fly ash as a hazardous material, all of these time-tested energy-saving uses would come to a halt.
The expense of handling the product would increase logarithmically, and so would our electric prices. By increasing the cost of power, it understandably causes the cost of producing American-made products to increase and put American businesses at another disadvantage against our foreign competition. This EPA rule will be an unmitigated job- killer.
Coal ash use and disposal has been studied by the EPA for over 20 years. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act directed the EPA to study the ``adverse effects on human health and the environment, if any,'' of current practices for disposal and utilization of fossil fuel combustion wastes. The EPA's conclusion was that these wastes do not warrant regulation under subtitle C. How many more reports need to be conducted by the EPA to show that fly ash is nonhazardous? Enough is enough.
According to various environmental groups, for every ton of cement manufactured, about 6.5 million BTUs of energy are consumed and about 1 ton of carbon dioxide is replaced. If we can replace that 1 ton with fly ash, we could save enough electricity to power an average American home for 24 days and reduce carbon dioxide emissions equal to a 2-month use of an automobile.
What's ironic to me is that even the EPA's headquarters right down the street from us was built with a significant amount of fly ash mixed into the concrete matrix.
The use of fly ash in concrete creates a stronger, lasting product by using less water. In using less water, we further reduce our environmental footprint.
I ask my colleagues to join me today in supporting my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.