INSPECTOR GENERAL TO PROBE EPA MARKETING OF COAL ASH

[ensho]

http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1276


The Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has opened an investigation into the agency’s “partnership” with the coal industry to market coal ash and other combustion wastes in consumer, agricultural and industrial products, according to a report issued this week. The action underlines concerns raised by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) that EPA has been promoting the massive re-use of toxic coal ash without understanding the long-term public health or environmental consequences.

The EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) report, released on November 2, 2009, addresses why the agency did not release a 2002 analysis on the cancer risk from exposure to coal ash until this March. The agency still has not released a 2005 “sensitivity analysis” on the same topic. While the report concluded that the OIG could find no “evidence of any effort to improperly suppress the release of scientific information during the rulemaking process” it did recommend a new probe of why EPA was promoting coal ash prior to determining whether these commercial applications were prudent or safe:

“We identified a potential issue related to EPA’s promotion of beneficial use through its Coal Combustion Product Partnership and have referred the question how EPA established a reasonable determination for these endorsements to the appropriate OIG office for evaluation.”

-snip-

“I fear that EPA will say that coal ash is hazardous in a sludge pond but is perfectly okay in your living room carpet, nursery wallboard or kitchen counter,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “EPA is supposed to be a regulatory agency and, as such, should not be in a ‘product partnership’ with the very industries that it purports to regulate.”

EPA claims credit for “beneficial” re-use of nearly half of all the coal combustion wastes created – some 125 million tons – each year in the U.S. In turn, this marketing effort generates between $11 and $13 billion each year for the industry, but industry derives immensely greater economic benefit by avoiding costs it would face if coal ash and the other combustion by-products were treated as hazardous waste.
-----------------------------

the criminal coal Barons suck

its time for the EPA to stop being afraid of Barons and to stop taking bribe money from them.

[Buzz Clik]

1. "Toxic coal ash..." Such a loaded phrase.

We are surrounded in our daily lives by "toxins". These toxins don't rise to the level of being toxic unless certain concentrations and certain levels of bioavailability are reached.

Yes, coal ash contains elements that if consumed in high enough quantities would be toxic. But calling coal ash toxic? No.

[ensho]

2. you must work for the Barons?

nt

[Buzz Clik]

4. the Barons? I have no idea who that is. I work, but not for ... the Barons.(?)

[CountAllVotes]

3. looks pretty toxic to me!

It's been called the Exxon Valdez of coal ash—a wakeup call for a fossil fuel industry.

But the recent toxic ash spill in Tennessee is greater in scope than the 1989 oil spill, and despite what some conservationists are calling very real threats, the ash disaster has so far inspired apparently little concern for local wildlife.

***********

Photo from the Kingston, Tennessee coal ash "spill" that has yet to be cleaned up because it can never be "cleaned up"; occurred in Dec. 2008 FYI. :puke:

:kick:

[Buzz Clik]

5. I'm aware of the spill. Nasty, Negligence all around. Irresponsible. Toxic? Really?

Not so much.

How many "toxins" were showing up at concentrations greater than regulated levels? You can count them on one hand; one finger, actually. And, it was fleeting.

More toxic debris?



Nope. Just mud.

[ensho]

6. yes, HAZMAT tape should surround the entire area along with

yellow crime scene tape.

if HAZMAT tape was put around every poisoned area in the US we would all faint at the amount.

and when revived we would know, at least, where not to live.