http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/04/06/8612/impact-environmental-groups-sue-epa-over-lack-coal-ash-regulation
This week environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the EPA for failing to properly regulate coal ash disposal, saying this violates the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act which requires hazardous waste standards be routinely updated. The groups hope this will force the EPA to pass regulations for coal ash, which it has been promising to do since 2008 after a coal ash related incident in Tennessee. However in the past 4 years there has been little progress. The EPA issued a proposal in May 2010 with 2 options: the first that coal ash be labeled as hazardous and given strict disposal regulations, and second that it be designated as non-hazardous and therefore not regulated. Apparently for the past 2 years the agency has been evaluating the comments and evidence gathered in public hearings on the proposal, and has yet to issue a decision.
This decision process (and lack of a decision) by the EPA seems highly suspect given the nature of the issue. It's been 4 years since the issue was brought to their attention and still no regulations have been put into place. Not only that, but the proposal they brought forth still has labeling coal ash as non-hazardous as an option. If coal ash wasn't hazardous then why would it be an issue in the first place? More basically, can't we all agree that pretty much anything of this nature being emitted into the air or water supply is never a good thing? While it is good that the EPA was diligent about taking comments on the proposal and hearing what people had to say on the issue, the decision to label coal ash as hazardous or not should be based on evidence, and it seems the EPA has ample reason to label coal ash as hazardous. Furthermore, it is apparently taking them over 2 years to properly consider and evaluate these comments they received towards the proposal.
Looking deeper into the issue, it is clear there have been other forces preventing the EPA from passing regulations in a timely manner. Environmental groups point to politics and corporate influence for delaying the passage of regulations. Obviously coal companies would rather not have to regulate their coal ash disposal, and are therefore lobbying against any regulations. A House bill passed last year, propelled by House Republicans, tried to limit the EPA's authority on the issue by pushing coal ash regulation to the state's responsibility, with the EPA providing oversight. The House budget allocation also forbid the EPA from spending federal money on coal ash regulation. These measures are unmistakable attempts to protect the coal industry, and severely undermine the EPA's ability to protect people's health and the environment.
Not only does this lawsuit give new attention to coal ash regulation, but also points out a larger problem. If the EPA has to be sued in order to do its job, there are obviously systemic weakness in the agency that need to be addressed.
I think dharmabum has a lot of really good insights into this issue. I agree that it is disheartening to think about the inability of organizations such as the EPA to do their jobs effectively. On the other hand, in light of what we have read about in class it seems that regulations on big organizations like the EPA are a prudent thing, as long as those regulations aren't too stringent. One significant boon of regulations could be harnessing the wills of those who see the environment in terms of only "trees and plants." Actors such as these could potentially skew policies to focus only on conservation and preservation and disregard the people. It seems evident that the primary goal should be promoting peoples' livelihoods. In this light, the fact that the EPA has had an extended delay on issuing a statement about the toxicity of coal ash is disturbing because of the realization that, as they confer with one another, many people are remaining in harm's way.
ReplyDeleteDharmabum definitely raised a few good points about this issue. The delays in passing some sort of legislation regarding the proper disposal of coal ash are certainly concerning since the people negatively affected by the ash are still suffering from the effects. While the EPA's inaction does raise questions about influence by external parties wanting to protect the coal industry, I wish the article had gone more into detail about the reasons for the delay in passing the legislation. This would have allowed a better analysis of the issue by bringing in a number of perspectives and not just one criticizing the EPA.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, the EPA has been pushing ahead with stronger regulations of coal-based power plants as of the end of March. They want to limit heat-trapping pollution emitted by the plants. Republicans say that this will raise the cost of electricity and essentially kill off the coal industry. However, environmentalists aren't fully satisfied with the new legislation either since it could impose harsher regulations on coal fired power plants.
ReplyDeleteCoal fired power plants are one of the leading emitters of heat trapping pollution which leads to global warming. Many coal power plants have been shutting down due to the low cost of natural gas and fuel from China, but this new regulation could accelerate the shutting down process. I am not certain of how EPA passes new regulations, but I'm sure this must go through some sort of vote in the government. Republicans will obviously try to stop it from being passed. They claim that electricity prices will go up, since coal powered electricity is still widely used, and it shuts down "cheap home-grown energy".
In the light of the political arena, and the upcoming election, Republicans are touting "home-grown energy" as a safe, cheap, and reliable energy source that provides jobs. This issue is a hot topic for the election now, since unemployment is so high.
It doesn't seem like the EPA can win either way.
Suing the EPA does not seem like the most effective way to achieve results. Since the environment is part of the EPA's utmost concern, other environmental groups should aim to work collaboratively with this organization. Stratification among groups does not further their cause; instead it hurts it by consuming the time and money of both parties. Rather, the environmental groups should complete more research to discover why the EPA is delaying legislation and tackle those obstacles, corporations, or political groups head-on. Unfortunately, as we saw in the case of Hyde Park, too often politics pollute environmental issues and inhibit unbiased discussion of topics like coal-based power.
ReplyDeleteIt is really easy to demonize the EPA in situations like this, but I think that the points made at the end of the original post are really essential to keep in mind. In any issue like this, there are a huge amount of special interests involved and navigating within this framework really necessitates a lot of time for major changes in regulations. There are certainly ways of influencing the speed at which this process happens, but I would question whether suing the EPA is the right way to go, especially considering that they already lack the proper funding to do everything the agency is charged with doing to begin with. Moreover, as is the case with large parts of the Clean Water Act, the EPA's power to actually care out its duties is heavily restricted by those in power in the government. Because of this, the environmental groups may be better off targeting their energies elsewhere. State policy can be a very effective alternative to working at the federal policy level, and if they are able to pass coal ash regulations at a smaller level, they may generate enough momentum and interest in the issue that the EPA is able to move along with federal regulations more easily.
ReplyDelete