Environmental Protection Council Bill Advances
But the bill’s supported by the coal industry. Chris Hamilton of the West Virginia Coal Association says the bill would make a small, but necessary, change.
On Monday, there was more debate on the environmental impacts of legislation in the Senate.
Last week, Senate Bill 496 passed through the Energy, Industry and Mining Committee, despite testimony against the bill. On Monday, it was debated in the Judiciary Committee.
The bill would give the Environmental Protection Council the ability to suggest rules to the secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection.
But the DEP is opposed to the bill. Kristin Boggs, their Associate General Counsel, says the Council already has the ability to consult with the Secretary, and additional power is unnecessary. She also suggested the bill should be referred to the Finance Committee.
“And then, when you get down into sub-paragraph G, where the council shall study with the DEP staff, that’s basically ordering the DEP to do the study,” she said. “We already have the power to do those studies. If you would like us to do a study all you have to do is ask us. You don’t have to amend it into this piece of legislation.
“In addition with the sub-paragraph G there is going to be some fiscal impact associated with this. None of these studies happen in a vacuum, so we would ask if you’re going to pass the bill, you would at least refer it to Finance so that we have time to do a fiscal note on it and assess the fiscal impact for the Legislature so they know exactly what type of bill they’re passing.”
At this point in the session, referring the bill to another committee would effectively kill the bill.
Changed provision that allows council to call meetings by majority vote; changed to allow committee by unanimous vote
But the bill’s supported by the coal industry. Chris Hamilton of the West Virginia Coal Association says the bill would make a small, but necessary, change.
“If the council functioned and if the relationship or rapport between DEP and the council functioned as I just heard there probably wouldn’t be a whole lot of need for the bill,” he said.
“But the fact of the matter is it hasn’t functioned like that, and we think the bill provides framework, it strengthens the council’s role ever so slightly just to make it more meaningful, be accepted as a meaningful body within the agency.”
Though the committee almost passed him over, Don Garvin of the West Virginia Environmental Council also had a chance to speak out against the bill.
“There’s a rule making process in place, it’s official,” Garvin said. “For water rules, it’s extremely official. There has to be public comment and notice. What this is is the coal industry wanting one more chance to force DEP to make a rule, their rule.”
The committee laid the issue over until Monday afternoon, but ultimately passed the bill. Next, it heads to the floor for a vote.
The Judiciary Committee also originated a resolution for the interim committee on government and finance to study coal slurry, and its effect on the environment and human health. Sen. Jeff Kessler (D-Marshall) says there is new technology which could benefit both the industry and the environment.
“So we’ve been doing that privately, or I have,” he said. “I’ve talked to the president as well as to the EIM chair and some folks in the industry, and I’m hopeful that we can more formalize that process with an interim study so we can perhaps get some of the environmental objections to the coal mining that goes on eliminated, and also into a position that may be profitable for the industry as well.”
On the Senate floor, there was more talk about the environment. Senate Bill 621 was on third reading—it would allow industries to exceed discharge limits if they own any public water intake less than a half-mile downstream.
The legislation was tailored to the Arcelor-Mittal plant in Weirton, and would allow the industry to create a “mixing zone” rather than install expensive machines to stay in compliance. Sen. Jeff Kessler explained the bill.
“This will, in effect permit them to have a significant cost savings, with having no adverse effect whatsoever potable or drinking water standards within that plant.”
But Senator Clark Barnes (R-Randolph) stood in opposition to the bill. He says he’s not opposed to the bill itself, but the precedent it sets for rule-making.
“Now, this situation has existed for many years and the DEP for many years has provided within the rulemaking process an exemption for this particular organization,” Barnes said.
“Now, one of the dangers that we’re going to have when we do this is that we’re also going to jeopardize our rules in our DEP and possibly become out of compliance with the EPA Clean Water Act.”
Despite his arguments, the bill passed.
