.Groups Call Government’s Coal Ash Analysis Skewed
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning for the first time to regulate the disposal of coal ash, the potentially hazardous residue of the burning of coal in power plants and other large industrial facilities.
The proposed rules are the direct result of a disastrous spill of hundreds of millions of gallons of coal ash two years ago this month, set off when the wall of a power plant’s containment pond collapsed near Kingston, Tenn.
The E.P.A. is weighing two proposals for regulating coal ash. One plan, favored by industry, would leave most regulation in the hands of the states and would encourage producers of coal ash to recycle the material into cement and other materials. The alternative, pushed by many environmental advocates, would declare coal ash a so-called special substance (a step below “hazardous”), set strict rules for construction of containment facilities, and put regulation in federal hands.
On Wednesday, three groups said the E.P.A. and the White House Office of Management and Budget had significantly overstated the benefits of the first alternative when it asserted that the weaker regulation would encourage recycling and bring more than $23 billion in health, environmental and energy benefits. In fact, the groups said, the government’s own data put the benefits of the proposal at only $1.15 billion while posing significant threats to human health and the environment.
In their analysis, the three groups — the Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and the Stockholm Environment Institute — said the flaws in the E.P.A. study came from double-counting pollution reductions, overstating emissions levels from cement factories and unrealistic assumptions about potential energy savings.
“Unfortunately, E.P.A. and O.M.B. just got this wrong,” Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, said in a statement. The E.P.A. “has let itself be distracted by bogus economic arguments, instead of determining how best to protect the public from leaking ash dumps.”
The groups called for adoption of the stricter alternative, saying it was the only way to protect communities near hundreds of coal ash dumps scattered around the country. They also said that most states failed to require even rudimentary standards for coal ash landfills and ponds and that the threat of another major spill demanded strong federal oversight.
The E.P.A. said it would review the report submitted by the groups as it prepares a final rule. “E.P.A. has proposed a rule that will for the first time ever regulate coal ash,” Betsaida Alcantara, an agency spokeswoman, said in an e-mail Wednesday.
“We’ve asked the public and experts to submit their comments and data as we work to finalize our decision on how best to regulate coal ash,” she said. “We will review the analysis announced today along with the more than 400,000 public comments we’ve received to ensure our decision is based on the best science.”
NYimes
$5 gas and $1000 a month on electric to run your A/C. The change you wanted
The proposed rules are the direct result of a disastrous spill of hundreds of millions of gallons of coal ash two years ago this month, set off when the wall of a power plant’s containment pond collapsed near Kingston, Tenn.
The E.P.A. is weighing two proposals for regulating coal ash. One plan, favored by industry, would leave most regulation in the hands of the states and would encourage producers of coal ash to recycle the material into cement and other materials. The alternative, pushed by many environmental advocates, would declare coal ash a so-called special substance (a step below “hazardous”), set strict rules for construction of containment facilities, and put regulation in federal hands.
On Wednesday, three groups said the E.P.A. and the White House Office of Management and Budget had significantly overstated the benefits of the first alternative when it asserted that the weaker regulation would encourage recycling and bring more than $23 billion in health, environmental and energy benefits. In fact, the groups said, the government’s own data put the benefits of the proposal at only $1.15 billion while posing significant threats to human health and the environment.
In their analysis, the three groups — the Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice and the Stockholm Environment Institute — said the flaws in the E.P.A. study came from double-counting pollution reductions, overstating emissions levels from cement factories and unrealistic assumptions about potential energy savings.
“Unfortunately, E.P.A. and O.M.B. just got this wrong,” Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, said in a statement. The E.P.A. “has let itself be distracted by bogus economic arguments, instead of determining how best to protect the public from leaking ash dumps.”
The groups called for adoption of the stricter alternative, saying it was the only way to protect communities near hundreds of coal ash dumps scattered around the country. They also said that most states failed to require even rudimentary standards for coal ash landfills and ponds and that the threat of another major spill demanded strong federal oversight.
The E.P.A. said it would review the report submitted by the groups as it prepares a final rule. “E.P.A. has proposed a rule that will for the first time ever regulate coal ash,” Betsaida Alcantara, an agency spokeswoman, said in an e-mail Wednesday.
“We’ve asked the public and experts to submit their comments and data as we work to finalize our decision on how best to regulate coal ash,” she said. “We will review the analysis announced today along with the more than 400,000 public comments we’ve received to ensure our decision is based on the best science.”
NYimes
$5 gas and $1000 a month on electric to run your A/C. The change you wanted
posted by madtom at 12:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home