The EPA's thought process is simple. It's a hazardous material. Therefore, it's gotta stay away from people. They are unwilling to listen to scientists who are telling them otherwise.
This doesn't really seem to be what the EPA is saying at all. From the FAQ ...
The proposed rule maintains the Bevill exemption for beneficial uses, and therefore would not alter the regulatory status of coal ash that is beneficially used.
also ...
27. If concrete is made using coal ash, is the concrete a hazardous waste, when disposed at the end of its useful life?
Under the subtitle C proposal, coal ash destined for beneficial use would retain the current Bevill exemption, and so would not be subject to regulation under RCRA Subtitle C. Thus, coal ash used in concrete and other products would not fall within the scope of EPA's proposal to "list" coal ash, either during or after the useful life of the concrete product. When the concrete product is discarded at the end of its useful life, it would be treated the same as any other solid waste.
They still seem to have no problem with people using fly ash in concrete. Instead the concrete industry seems to be saying that they want everyone to pretend that fly ash isn't hazardous waste so that they won't be in danger of possible legal exposure and liability. Certainly that seems to be the argument that both of the letters from your link put forward. It is they that argue that anything labeled hazardous waste mustn't be used for any other purpose, and therefore if fly ash is so labeled they will stop using it.
The EPA clearly states that they support the reuse of fly ash in concrete. You seem to agree that fly ash itself constitutes hazardous waste. So where is your beef?
Do you agree that fly ash shouldn't be called 'hazardous waste' because it may deter people from using it for fear of legal liability? What do you think this hazardous waste product should be called instead?.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
