The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection issued new water-quality guidelines late last week that the agency hoped would circumvent tougher rules that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed to would curb mountaintop-removal coal mining. "Under the new policy, the DEP would require more detailed toxicity testing downstream from mining operations and for the first time force mine operators to show that proposed mines would not have a 'reasonable potential' to cause 'significant adverse impacts' on aquatic ecosystems," Ken Ward Jr. of The Charleston Gazette reports. "The state's policy, though, would largely base such decisions on methods that EPA scientists believe are not the most sophisticated available and without using a firm limit on electrical conductivity as a measure of stream health."
"DEP Secretary Randy Huffman urged EPA officials to defer to the new West Virginia guidance over more detailed federal agency reviews of Clean Water Act permit applications for valley fills and mining pollution discharges," Ward writes. Huffman added that he was not "trying to pick a fight" with the EPA, but told Ward if federal officials don't find his new policy acceptable, "I guess we'll have to see what happens." Environmental groups were quick to criticize the guidance. "It's essentially [the] DEP acting as a friend of the coal industry, instead of a regulator," Margaret Janes, senior policy analyst for the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment, told Ward. "This is a continuation of business as usual." (Read more)
On Friday EPA responded to West Virginia's announcement in a statement to Ward, posted on his blog Coal Tattoo, saying EPA's previous guidance was "supported by extensive science and consistent with the law." The statement continued, "We look forward to reviewing West Virginia’s new water quality guidance. In the meantime, EPA’s guidance stands and we will continue to use it to ensure that mining permits issued in West Virginia and other Appalachian states provide the protection required under federal law." (Read more)
No comments:
Post a Comment