Politics Seen to Limit E.P.A. as It Sets Rules for Natural Gas
By IAN URBINA
The New York Times
When Congress considered whether to regulate more closely the handling of wastes from oil and gas drilling in the 1980s, it turned to the Environmental Protection Agency to research the matter. E.P.A. researchers concluded that some of the drillers’ waste was hazardous and should be tightly controlled.
But that is not what Congress heard. Some of the recommendations concerning oil and gas waste were eliminated in the final report handed to lawmakers in 1987.
“It was like the science didn’t matter,” Carla Greathouse, the author of the study, said in a recent interview. “The industry was going to get what it wanted, and we were not supposed to stand in the way.”
E.P.A. officials told her, she said, that her findings were altered because of pressure from the Office of Legal Counsel of the White House under Ronald Reagan. A spokesman for the E.P.A. declined to comment.
Ms. Greathouse’s experience was not an isolated case. More than a quarter century of efforts by some lawmakers and regulators to force the federal government to police the industry better have been thwarted, as E.P.A. studies have been repeatedly narrowed in scope, and important findings have been removed.
For example, the agency had planned to call last year for a moratorium on the gas-drilling technique known as hydrofracking in the New York City watershed, according to internal documents, but the advice was removed from the publicly released letter sent to New York.
Now some scientists and lawyers at the E.P.A. are wondering whether history is about to repeat itself, as the agency undertakes a broad new study of natural gas drilling and its potential risks, with preliminary results scheduled to be delivered next year.
The documents show that the agency dropped some plans to model radioactivity in drilling wastewater being discharged by treatment plants into rivers upstream from drinking water intake plants. And in Congress, members from drilling states like Oklahoma have pressured the agency to keep the focus of the new study narrow.
They have been helped in their lobbying efforts by a compelling storyline: Cutting red tape helps these energy companies reduce the nation’s dependence on other countries for fuel. Natural gas is also a cleaner-burning alternative to coal and plentiful within United States borders, so it can create jobs.
But interviews with E.P.A. scientists, and confidential documents obtained by The New York Times, show long and deep divisions within the agency over whether and how to increase regulation of oil and gas drillers, and over the enforcement of existing laws that some agency officials say are clearly being violated.
Agency lawyers are in a heated debate over whether to intervene in Pennsylvania, where drilling for gas has increased sharply, to stop what some of those lawyers say is a clear violation of federal pollution laws: drilling waste discharged into rivers and streams with minimal treatment. The outcome of that dispute has the potential to halt the breakneck growth of drilling in Pennsylvania.
The E.P.A. has taken strong stands in some places, like Texas, where in December it overrode state regulators and intervened after a local driller was suspected of water contamination. Elsewhere, the agency has pulled its punches, as in New York.
Asked why the letter about hydrofracking in the New York City watershed had been revised, an agency scientist who was involved in writing it offered a one-word explanation: “politics.”
Natural gas drilling companies have major exemptions from parts of at least seven of the 15 sweeping federal environmental laws that regulate most other heavy industries and that were written to protect air and drinking water from radioactive and hazardous chemicals.
Coal mine operators that want to inject toxic wastewater into the ground must get permission from the federal authorities. But when natural gas companies want to inject chemical-laced water and sand into the ground during hydrofracking, they do not have to follow the same rules.
The air pollution from a sprawling steel plant with different buildings is added together when regulators decide whether certain strict rules will apply. At a natural gas site, the toxic fumes from various parts of it — a compressor station and a storage tank, for example — are counted separately rather than cumulatively, so many overall gas well operations are subject to looser caps on their emissions.
An Earlier Reversal
The E.P.A. also studied hydrofracking in 2004, when Congress considered whether the process should be fully regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act.
An early draft of the study discussed potentially dangerous levels of contamination in hydrofracking fluids and mentioned “possible evidence” of contamination of an aquifer. The final version of the report excluded these points, concluding instead that hydrofracking “poses little or no threat to drinking water.”
Shortly after the study was released, an E.P.A. whistleblower said the agency had been strongly influenced by industry and political pressure. Agency leaders at the time stood by the study’s findings.
“It was shameful,” Weston Wilson, the E.P.A. whistleblower, said in a recent interview about the study. He explained that five of the seven members of that study’s peer review panel were current or former employees of the oil and gas industry.
“The study ended up being the basis for this industry getting yet another exemption from federal law when it should have resulted in greater regulation of this industry,” Mr. Wilson added.
Some E.P.A. scientists say this pattern may be playing out again in the national study of hydrofracking that Congress will consider as it decides whether drillers will have to operate under stricter rules.
Internal documents from early meetings, obtained through public-records requests filed by The Times and provided by E.P.A. officials who are frustrated with how research is being handled, show agency field scientists demanding that certain topics be included in the study. And earlier versions of the research plan indicate that many of those topics were to be included.
For example, the study was to consider the dangers of toxic fumes released during drilling, the impact of drilling waste on the food chain and the risks of this radioactive waste to workers.
But many of these concerns, cited by field scientists in earlier documents as high priorities, were cut from the current study plan, according to a version of it made public on Feb. 8.
Earlier planning documents also called for a study of the risks of contaminated runoff from landfills where drilling waste is disposed and included detailed plans to model whether rivers can sufficiently dilute hazardous gas-well wastewater discharged from treatment plants.
These topics were cut from the current study plan, even though E.P.A. officials have acknowledged that sewage treatment plants are not able to treat drilling waste fully before it is discharged into rivers, sometimes just miles upstream from drinking water intake plants. While the current study plan clearly indicates that the agency plans to research various types of radioactivity concerns related to natural gas drilling, this river modeling, which E.P.A. scientists say is important, has been removed.
In interviews, several agency scientists and consultants, who declined to be named for fear of reprisals, said the study was narrowed because of pressure from industry and its allies in Congress, as well as budget and time constraints.
Brendan Gilfillan, an agency spokesman, said that the plan remained broad and that the agency had taken additional steps to investigate the impacts of drilling, including recently issuing a subpoena against the energy services company Halliburton to force the company to provide fuller disclosure about its drilling operations.
To Read the Rest of the Article
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Silas House: My Polluted Kentucky Home
My Polluted Kentucky Home
By SILAS HOUSE
The New York Times
Berea, Ky.
LAST weekend I joined 19 other Kentuckians in a sit-in at the office of Gov. Steve Beshear. We were there to protest his support of mountaintop removal, a technique used by coal-mining companies that, as its name implies, involves blasting away the tops of mountains and hills to get at the coal seams beneath them.
Since it was first used in 1970, mountaintop removal has destroyed some 500 mountains and poisoned at least 1,200 miles of rivers and streams across the Appalachian coal-mining region. Yet Governor Beshear is so committed to the practice that he recently allied with the Kentucky Coal Association in a suit against the Environmental Protection Agency to block more stringent regulations of it. In court his administration’s lawyers referred to public opposition as simply “an unwarranted burden.”
The news media and the rest of the country typically think of mountaintop removal as an environmental problem. But it’s a human crisis as well, scraping away not just coal but also the freedoms of Appalachian residents, people who have always been told they are of less value than the resources they live above.
Over the past six years I’ve visited dozens of people who live at the edge of mountaintop removal sites. They bathe their children in water that has arsenic levels as high as 130 times what the E.P.A. deems safe to drink.
Their roads are routinely destroyed by overloaded trucks; their air is clouded with pollutants. Their schools sit below ponds holding billions of gallons of sludge. Their children lose sleep worrying that the sludge dams will break, releasing the sludge down upon them. It happened 40 years ago at Buffalo Creek, W.Va., killing 125 people, and it could happen again today.
It’s a horrible way to live. And yet, as it does in many other impoverished quarters of America, the news too often avoids covering Appalachia as if it were a no man’s land.
When a 3-year-old Virginia boy was crushed to death in his crib after a half-ton boulder was accidentally (and illegally) dislodged by a mining company, it barely made the national news. Many people around here believe the omission reflected that the child lived in a trailer home in the heart of coal country.
In 2000, 306 million gallons of sludge — 30 times more than the volume of oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez — buried parts of Martin County, Ky., as deep as 5 feet. Yet hardly anyone outside the region remembers the disaster, if they ever heard about it.
More recently, my friend Judy’s grandson was playing in a creek when he was suddenly surrounded by dozens of dead fish. Tests later proved that a coal company was releasing polyacrylamide — a cancer-causing agent used to prepare coal for burning — into the creek. When Judy complained to the state, no one replied. She recently died of brain cancer.
I’ve heard dozens of stories like these, but they rarely make it beyond the mountains. Is it any wonder then that Appalachian residents feel invisible?
In fact, invisible is how we’ve been taught to think of ourselves since coal was first discovered here. When I was little, teachers would stand over my desk and tell me that I had to change my accent if I wanted to get ahead in the world. Never mind that I had nearly perfect grammar and spelling.
We were also told the success of the mines mattered above all else, that if we complained about the dust, noise and disrespect pumped out by the mine in our community, people would lose jobs.
To Read the Rest of the Commentary
By SILAS HOUSE
The New York Times
Berea, Ky.
LAST weekend I joined 19 other Kentuckians in a sit-in at the office of Gov. Steve Beshear. We were there to protest his support of mountaintop removal, a technique used by coal-mining companies that, as its name implies, involves blasting away the tops of mountains and hills to get at the coal seams beneath them.
Since it was first used in 1970, mountaintop removal has destroyed some 500 mountains and poisoned at least 1,200 miles of rivers and streams across the Appalachian coal-mining region. Yet Governor Beshear is so committed to the practice that he recently allied with the Kentucky Coal Association in a suit against the Environmental Protection Agency to block more stringent regulations of it. In court his administration’s lawyers referred to public opposition as simply “an unwarranted burden.”
The news media and the rest of the country typically think of mountaintop removal as an environmental problem. But it’s a human crisis as well, scraping away not just coal but also the freedoms of Appalachian residents, people who have always been told they are of less value than the resources they live above.
Over the past six years I’ve visited dozens of people who live at the edge of mountaintop removal sites. They bathe their children in water that has arsenic levels as high as 130 times what the E.P.A. deems safe to drink.
Their roads are routinely destroyed by overloaded trucks; their air is clouded with pollutants. Their schools sit below ponds holding billions of gallons of sludge. Their children lose sleep worrying that the sludge dams will break, releasing the sludge down upon them. It happened 40 years ago at Buffalo Creek, W.Va., killing 125 people, and it could happen again today.
It’s a horrible way to live. And yet, as it does in many other impoverished quarters of America, the news too often avoids covering Appalachia as if it were a no man’s land.
When a 3-year-old Virginia boy was crushed to death in his crib after a half-ton boulder was accidentally (and illegally) dislodged by a mining company, it barely made the national news. Many people around here believe the omission reflected that the child lived in a trailer home in the heart of coal country.
In 2000, 306 million gallons of sludge — 30 times more than the volume of oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez — buried parts of Martin County, Ky., as deep as 5 feet. Yet hardly anyone outside the region remembers the disaster, if they ever heard about it.
More recently, my friend Judy’s grandson was playing in a creek when he was suddenly surrounded by dozens of dead fish. Tests later proved that a coal company was releasing polyacrylamide — a cancer-causing agent used to prepare coal for burning — into the creek. When Judy complained to the state, no one replied. She recently died of brain cancer.
I’ve heard dozens of stories like these, but they rarely make it beyond the mountains. Is it any wonder then that Appalachian residents feel invisible?
In fact, invisible is how we’ve been taught to think of ourselves since coal was first discovered here. When I was little, teachers would stand over my desk and tell me that I had to change my accent if I wanted to get ahead in the world. Never mind that I had nearly perfect grammar and spelling.
We were also told the success of the mines mattered above all else, that if we complained about the dust, noise and disrespect pumped out by the mine in our community, people would lose jobs.
To Read the Rest of the Commentary
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Future of Food (USA: Deborah Koons, 2004)
One of the best documentaries I have seen on this subject... does the devil own Monsanto (or at least have a major interest in it)? Great mapping of Monsanto CEOs and Board Members who are members of government.
Oil, Coal, Food, Media, etc...... America say hello to your corporatocracy:
The Future of Food (USA: Deborah Koons, 2004)
To Watch the Documentary Online
Oil, Coal, Food, Media, etc...... America say hello to your corporatocracy:
The Future of Food (USA: Deborah Koons, 2004)
To Watch the Documentary Online
Democracy Now: Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson on the Inside Story of How Obama Let the World’s Most Dangerous Oil Company Get Away with Murder
Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson on the Inside Story of How Obama Let the World’s Most Dangerous Oil Company Get Away with Murder
Democracy Now
An extensive new investigation into the Obama administration’s handling of the BP oil spill disaster reveals that it was government mismanagement, delays and absence of oversight that allowed the crisis to spiral out of control. In the article "The Spill, the Scandal, and the President," Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson writes, "Though George W. Bush paved the way for the catastrophe, it was Obama who gave BP the green light to drill." Dickinson explores how Interior Secretary Ken Salazar kept in place the oil industry-friendly environmental guidelines that Bush had implemented and ultimately let BP, an oil company with the worst safety record, to get away with murder.
To Watch/Listen/Read and Access More Resources
Democracy Now
An extensive new investigation into the Obama administration’s handling of the BP oil spill disaster reveals that it was government mismanagement, delays and absence of oversight that allowed the crisis to spiral out of control. In the article "The Spill, the Scandal, and the President," Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson writes, "Though George W. Bush paved the way for the catastrophe, it was Obama who gave BP the green light to drill." Dickinson explores how Interior Secretary Ken Salazar kept in place the oil industry-friendly environmental guidelines that Bush had implemented and ultimately let BP, an oil company with the worst safety record, to get away with murder.
To Watch/Listen/Read and Access More Resources
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Act NOW! Proposed Louisville Coal Ash Pond Threatens Your Health and Water Share
Act NOW! Proposed Louisville Coal Ash Pond Threatens Your Health and Water Share
5.7 Million Cubic Yards of Hazardous Coal Ash May Be Dumped At E.ON’s Cane Run Coal-Burning Power Plant. Action needed by March 13th!
Problem
E.ON’s Cane Run Power Station has applied for a Section 404 permit through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to add a 60-acre coal combustion waste (CCW) landfill adjacent to the power plant.
The current CCW pond on-site at the Cane Run Power Station is one of 44 classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as “high hazard” – meaning that a spill would result in significant damage or loss of life.
CCW is the solid waste left over from burning coal. CCW is a combination of waste from the coal plant’s air filters and the residue from coal boilers. The ashy part of the waste, called coal ash, contains concentrated pollutants, including many toxins known to cause cancer in humans.
The proposed permit would:
# allow 5.7 million cubic yards of CCW, which contains toxins known to be hazardous to human health, to be dumped on site. The U.S. EPA states that 1 in 50 adults and 1 in 100 children that live near CCW storage sites are at risk of developing cancer
# allow more than 3,000 feet of ephemeral and intermittent streams and 8 wetland areas to be filled
# allow use of an inferior containment liner that deteriorate over time, likely resulting in toxic chemicals leaching into groundwater
# ignore restoration requirements for 5 of the wetlands and require only minimal restoration for the other 3
# allow this waste to be dumped on land located at the end of the Ohio River floodwall, clearly in the river’s flood plain putting residents downstream at risk
--Find out more about the impacts coal ash can have on your community and health here.
--Louisville District Corps of Engineers Public Notice No. LRL-2010-35 is available for viewing here.
Cane Run Rd. Coal plant. (photo from Courier-Journal website)
Solution
Let the Army Corps of Engineers know that you oppose this permit!
**Please take action by March 13, 2010 deadline**
Action Needed:
Send an email requesting that the Army Corps deny this permit to:
lrl.regulatorypubliccomment@usace.army.mil
Put the permit # LRL 2010-35-mdh as the subject. Provide your physical mailing address and telephone number.
OR write to:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville
Romano Mazzoli Federal Building
600 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Place
Louisville, KY 40202
A SAMPLE LETTER
Please deny E.ON’s request for a permit to expand Cane Run Power Station’s CCW landfill
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville
Romano Mazzoli Federal Building
600 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Place
Louisville, KY 40202
March 13, 2010
To Whom It May Concern:
Please support clean air and the health of Kentuckians by denying E.ON’s permit request to expand the Cane Run Power Station’s coal combustion waste landfill. Coal ash exposure puts our health at risk. The EPA estimates that up to 1 in 50 nearby residents could get cancer from exposure to contaminants in poorly stored coal ash. Other health effects may include damage to vital organs and the central nervous system, especially in children.
This permit is problematic for several reasons:
· The dump will not be properly contained, putting nearby residents and families at risk of health hazards and death.
· The permit allows over 3,000 feet of ephemeral and intermittent streams and 8 wetlands to be filled with 5.7 million cubic yards of coal combustion waste.
· Minimal restoration requirements for destroyed wetlands.
· The land selected for this expansion is not an extension of the existing landfill and is right outside the end of the Ohio River floodwall in the flood plain putting residents downstream at risk.
The Cane Run plant’s current coal ash pond already puts nearby residents at risk of death and serious health impacts. Enough is enough. Help Louisville lead the way toward better environmental standards. E.ON can invest in energy efficiency, weatherization, and renewable energies to reduce and eliminate the need for hazardous expansions like this permit request.
5.7 Million Cubic Yards of Hazardous Coal Ash May Be Dumped At E.ON’s Cane Run Coal-Burning Power Plant. Action needed by March 13th!
Problem
E.ON’s Cane Run Power Station has applied for a Section 404 permit through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to add a 60-acre coal combustion waste (CCW) landfill adjacent to the power plant.
The current CCW pond on-site at the Cane Run Power Station is one of 44 classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as “high hazard” – meaning that a spill would result in significant damage or loss of life.
CCW is the solid waste left over from burning coal. CCW is a combination of waste from the coal plant’s air filters and the residue from coal boilers. The ashy part of the waste, called coal ash, contains concentrated pollutants, including many toxins known to cause cancer in humans.
The proposed permit would:
# allow 5.7 million cubic yards of CCW, which contains toxins known to be hazardous to human health, to be dumped on site. The U.S. EPA states that 1 in 50 adults and 1 in 100 children that live near CCW storage sites are at risk of developing cancer
# allow more than 3,000 feet of ephemeral and intermittent streams and 8 wetland areas to be filled
# allow use of an inferior containment liner that deteriorate over time, likely resulting in toxic chemicals leaching into groundwater
# ignore restoration requirements for 5 of the wetlands and require only minimal restoration for the other 3
# allow this waste to be dumped on land located at the end of the Ohio River floodwall, clearly in the river’s flood plain putting residents downstream at risk
--Find out more about the impacts coal ash can have on your community and health here.
--Louisville District Corps of Engineers Public Notice No. LRL-2010-35 is available for viewing here.
Cane Run Rd. Coal plant. (photo from Courier-Journal website)
Solution
Let the Army Corps of Engineers know that you oppose this permit!
**Please take action by March 13, 2010 deadline**
Action Needed:
Send an email requesting that the Army Corps deny this permit to:
lrl.regulatorypubliccomment@usace.army.mil
Put the permit # LRL 2010-35-mdh as the subject. Provide your physical mailing address and telephone number.
OR write to:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville
Romano Mazzoli Federal Building
600 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Place
Louisville, KY 40202
A SAMPLE LETTER
Please deny E.ON’s request for a permit to expand Cane Run Power Station’s CCW landfill
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville
Romano Mazzoli Federal Building
600 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Place
Louisville, KY 40202
March 13, 2010
To Whom It May Concern:
Please support clean air and the health of Kentuckians by denying E.ON’s permit request to expand the Cane Run Power Station’s coal combustion waste landfill. Coal ash exposure puts our health at risk. The EPA estimates that up to 1 in 50 nearby residents could get cancer from exposure to contaminants in poorly stored coal ash. Other health effects may include damage to vital organs and the central nervous system, especially in children.
This permit is problematic for several reasons:
· The dump will not be properly contained, putting nearby residents and families at risk of health hazards and death.
· The permit allows over 3,000 feet of ephemeral and intermittent streams and 8 wetlands to be filled with 5.7 million cubic yards of coal combustion waste.
· Minimal restoration requirements for destroyed wetlands.
· The land selected for this expansion is not an extension of the existing landfill and is right outside the end of the Ohio River floodwall in the flood plain putting residents downstream at risk.
The Cane Run plant’s current coal ash pond already puts nearby residents at risk of death and serious health impacts. Enough is enough. Help Louisville lead the way toward better environmental standards. E.ON can invest in energy efficiency, weatherization, and renewable energies to reduce and eliminate the need for hazardous expansions like this permit request.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Another Massey coal slurry spill in Martin County
by Erik Hungerbuhler
Kentuckians for the Commonwealth (KFTC)
This morning KFTC member Mickey McCoy, a resident of Martin County, discovered that a stream near his home, the Coldwater Fork, was running gray and black from a slurry spill at a coal processing facility owned by Massey Energy. These types of spills threaten the health of nearby residents and wildlife populations and are all too frequently a fact of life for people who live downstream from slurry impoundments.
After investigating the spill for himself, Mickey spoke with an Appalshop filmmaker on the phone about the spill. You can listen to an edited version of their conversation here.
This spill is nowhere near the scale of the Martin Co. coal sludge flood of 2000, but it is a continuation of an ongoing pattern of clean water violations by Massey Energy despite Massey's $20 million settlement with the EPA for Clean Water Act violations two years ago. Ken Ward Jr. reported last month on his blog, the Coal Tatoo:
What is it going to take to get Massey to obey the law? Why are they allowed to continue operating when they show a consistent disregard for the health and safety of the communities they reside in?
To Listen to an Interview and Access More Resources
by Erik Hungerbuhler
Kentuckians for the Commonwealth (KFTC)
This morning KFTC member Mickey McCoy, a resident of Martin County, discovered that a stream near his home, the Coldwater Fork, was running gray and black from a slurry spill at a coal processing facility owned by Massey Energy. These types of spills threaten the health of nearby residents and wildlife populations and are all too frequently a fact of life for people who live downstream from slurry impoundments.
After investigating the spill for himself, Mickey spoke with an Appalshop filmmaker on the phone about the spill. You can listen to an edited version of their conversation here.
This spill is nowhere near the scale of the Martin Co. coal sludge flood of 2000, but it is a continuation of an ongoing pattern of clean water violations by Massey Energy despite Massey's $20 million settlement with the EPA for Clean Water Act violations two years ago. Ken Ward Jr. reported last month on his blog, the Coal Tatoo:
Between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2009, Massey violated its effluent limits at its various operations at least 971 times, and accrued 12,977 days of violation during that 12-month period. The U.S. government’s lawsuit against Massey, which resulted in the $20 million settlement, alleged more than 60,000 days of violations over a six-year period, or about 10,000 days of violations per year.
What is it going to take to get Massey to obey the law? Why are they allowed to continue operating when they show a consistent disregard for the health and safety of the communities they reside in?
To Listen to an Interview and Access More Resources
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Joshua Frank: The Coal Ash Industry Manipulated EPA Data
The Coal Ash Industry Manipulated EPA Data
by Joshua Frank
Truthout
The coal ash industry manipulated reports and publications about the dangers of coal combustion waste, reports Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The group stated that the Environmental Protection Agency allowed the multibillon-dollar coal ash industry to have virtually unfettered access to the EPA during the Bush administration and now under President Obama.
As a result of the industry's formal relationship with the EPA, insiders were allowed to edit and ghostwrite publications and official reports on the effects of coal waste. The documents obtained by PEER indicate that the coal ash industry "watered down official reports, brochures and fact-sheets to remove references to potential dangers" of coal ash waste. Additionally, the so-called "environmental benefits" of coal ash were repeatedly aggrandized.
"For most of the past decade, it appears that every EPA publication on the subject was ghostwritten by the American Coal Ash Association," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, whose group examined thousands of coal industry and EPA communications. "In this partnership it is clear that industry is EPA's senior partner."
There is little debate that coal ash is toxic, despite what the wavering EPA and steadfast coal industry purport.
Coal ash is the sludgy muck that is left over after coal is burned to produce electricity and is often laden with heavy metals like arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead and selenium. These harmful substances can produce cancer, kidney problems and nervous-system disease. The amount of heavy metals in coal-ash depends largely on the type of coal burned. However, all coal produces this waste, even though the toxicity may vary slightly depending on the type of coal being incinerated.
While the EPA continues to discuss whether or not it should classify coal ash as a hazardous waste, the environmental and health effects of a coal slurry impoundment at the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Kingston coal-fired power plant in Harriman, Tennessee, are still not known. The December 2008 catastrophe caused more than 500 million gallons of toxic coal ash to enter the Tennessee River.
The spill was over 40 times larger than the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska. Approximately 525 million gallons of black coal ash flowed into tributaries of the Tennessee River - the water supply for Chattanooga and millions of people living downstream in Alabama and Kentucky. The true adverse effects of the spill are still not known.
An immediate crackdown on TVA and other coal-slurry impoundments by the EPA was likely sidelined as a result of the American Coal Ash Association's formal partnership with the EPA during the Bush administration. If coal ash were deemed a hazardous waste, coal companies could potentially lose billions of dollars in revenue, as they would not be able to promote their toxic coal ash substances for agricultural, consumer and industrial use.
It seems as if the efforts of coal industry representatives have paid off handsomely. Back in 2002, the EPA released a report that indicated the agency had information on the risks of coal ash, yet requests for the data under the Freedom of Information Act were either denied or the documents that were released, with the estimates of cancer risks, were largely blacked out.
To Read the Rest of the Article
by Joshua Frank
Truthout
The coal ash industry manipulated reports and publications about the dangers of coal combustion waste, reports Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The group stated that the Environmental Protection Agency allowed the multibillon-dollar coal ash industry to have virtually unfettered access to the EPA during the Bush administration and now under President Obama.
As a result of the industry's formal relationship with the EPA, insiders were allowed to edit and ghostwrite publications and official reports on the effects of coal waste. The documents obtained by PEER indicate that the coal ash industry "watered down official reports, brochures and fact-sheets to remove references to potential dangers" of coal ash waste. Additionally, the so-called "environmental benefits" of coal ash were repeatedly aggrandized.
"For most of the past decade, it appears that every EPA publication on the subject was ghostwritten by the American Coal Ash Association," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, whose group examined thousands of coal industry and EPA communications. "In this partnership it is clear that industry is EPA's senior partner."
There is little debate that coal ash is toxic, despite what the wavering EPA and steadfast coal industry purport.
Coal ash is the sludgy muck that is left over after coal is burned to produce electricity and is often laden with heavy metals like arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead and selenium. These harmful substances can produce cancer, kidney problems and nervous-system disease. The amount of heavy metals in coal-ash depends largely on the type of coal burned. However, all coal produces this waste, even though the toxicity may vary slightly depending on the type of coal being incinerated.
While the EPA continues to discuss whether or not it should classify coal ash as a hazardous waste, the environmental and health effects of a coal slurry impoundment at the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Kingston coal-fired power plant in Harriman, Tennessee, are still not known. The December 2008 catastrophe caused more than 500 million gallons of toxic coal ash to enter the Tennessee River.
The spill was over 40 times larger than the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska. Approximately 525 million gallons of black coal ash flowed into tributaries of the Tennessee River - the water supply for Chattanooga and millions of people living downstream in Alabama and Kentucky. The true adverse effects of the spill are still not known.
An immediate crackdown on TVA and other coal-slurry impoundments by the EPA was likely sidelined as a result of the American Coal Ash Association's formal partnership with the EPA during the Bush administration. If coal ash were deemed a hazardous waste, coal companies could potentially lose billions of dollars in revenue, as they would not be able to promote their toxic coal ash substances for agricultural, consumer and industrial use.
It seems as if the efforts of coal industry representatives have paid off handsomely. Back in 2002, the EPA released a report that indicated the agency had information on the risks of coal ash, yet requests for the data under the Freedom of Information Act were either denied or the documents that were released, with the estimates of cancer risks, were largely blacked out.
To Read the Rest of the Article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)