Jump to content

Is the EPA Being Treated Fairly?

Clyde

By Clyde
in Kentucky / National Politics

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Bluegrasscard

Bluegrasscard

Posted
Posted (edited)
Shall we follow China's lead and just let the coal plants and energy companies do whatever they please?

 

They do?

 

Forcing bankruptcy on the companies that supply over 50% of the electricity to the nation is reasonable?

Edited by Bluegrasscard
add
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leatherneck

leatherneck

Posted
Posted
Cammando got me on the subject of the EPA (or Obama's EPA according to him). I'm not well-versed on them so I did some reading.

 

I think many (I did) assume that a ruling by the EPA today is a result of the thoughts/ideas/goals of the current President. Not true.

I think many do not realize that sometimes the EPA is forced into action by the courts.

 

 

So is is possible we don't fully understand how the EPA works and blast them unfairly or make them the scapegoat?

 

I suggest you sit down with Dave Rager, the Executive Director of Sanitation District No. 1 and Ron Lovan, the General Manager of the N. Ky Water District to get their perspective on the reasonableness of the EPA.

 

I'm dealing with the EPA (indirectly at this point) concerning a matter. We've shown them through tests verified by indpendent labs that my client's process does not result in heavy metals being placed in the waste water system. Under the EPA rules, it doesn't matter because they've determined that the manufacturing process in every circumstance will place heavy metal in the system; thus we have to get a permit and conduct expensive quarterly testing to demonstrate that heavy metal isn't going into the system. So the client has to spend a lot of money proving what we've already proven. And once in the permit category, the client remains in the category forever (although admittedly the frequency of testing decreases over time).

 

It would be like the EPA showing up at your house stating that because you keep gasoline in a container in your garage (for your lawnmower) you might inadvertently be allowing gasoline to get into the storm water system. You prove to them you are not, but the EPA requires you to continually pay for tests forever to prove that you aren't doing so.

 

EPA and the various environmental laws and regs mean well and admittedly have done a lot of good for the environment (I swim in the Ohio River during the summer and I know well the benefit of the Clean Water Act), but they go to extremes in their interpretations of the law and the regs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Colonels_Wear_Blue

Colonels_Wear_Blue

Posted
Posted
I suggest you sit down with Dave Rager, the Executive Director of Sanitation District No. 1 and Ron Lovan, the General Manager of the N. Ky Water District to get their perspective on the reasonableness of the EPA.

 

I'm dealing with the EPA (indirectly at this point) concerning a matter. We've shown them through tests verified by indpendent labs that my client's process does not result in heavy metals being placed in the waste water system. Under the EPA rules, it doesn't matter because they've determined that the manufacturing process in every circumstance will place heavy metal in the system; thus we have to get a permit and conduct expensive quarterly testing to demonstrate that heavy metal isn't going into the system. So the client has to spend a lot of money proving what we've already proven. And once in the permit category, the client remains in the category forever (although admittedly the frequency of testing decreases over time).

 

It would be like the EPA showing up at your house stating that because you keep gasoline in a container in your garage (for your lawnmower) you might inadvertently be allowing gasoline to get into the storm water system. You prove to them you are not, but the EPA requires you to continually pay for tests forever to prove that you aren't doing so.

 

EPA and the various environmental laws and regs mean well and admittedly have done a lot of good for the environment (I swim in the Ohio River during the summer and I know well the benefit of the Clean Water Act), but they go to extremes in their interpretations of the law and the regs.

 

:thumb:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Colonels_Wear_Blue

Colonels_Wear_Blue

Posted
Posted
With nuclear dead what are the options?

 

Many people say that...just like they said it was dead following Chernobyl. It will be back - and rightfully so. I'm not looking into having a renewable energy discussion here, but if you ask me, we're going to see a lot more pebble bed reactors popping up in the next 5-10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
swamprat

swamprat

Posted
Posted
I suggest you sit down with Dave Rager, the Executive Director of Sanitation District No. 1 and Ron Lovan, the General Manager of the N. Ky Water District to get their perspective on the reasonableness of the EPA.

 

I'm dealing with the EPA (indirectly at this point) concerning a matter. We've shown them through tests verified by indpendent labs that my client's process does not result in heavy metals being placed in the waste water system. Under the EPA rules, it doesn't matter because they've determined that the manufacturing process in every circumstance will place heavy metal in the system; thus we have to get a permit and conduct expensive quarterly testing to demonstrate that heavy metal isn't going into the system. So the client has to spend a lot of money proving what we've already proven. And once in the permit category, the client remains in the category forever (although admittedly the frequency of testing decreases over time).

 

It would be like the EPA showing up at your house stating that because you keep gasoline in a container in your garage (for your lawnmower) you might inadvertently be allowing gasoline to get into the storm water system. You prove to them you are not, but the EPA requires you to continually pay for tests forever to prove that you aren't doing so.

 

EPA and the various environmental laws and regs mean well and admittedly have done a lot of good for the environment (I swim in the Ohio River during the summer and I know well the benefit of the Clean Water Act), but they go to extremes in their interpretations of the law and the regs.

From my experience with the EPA, the extremes you elude to are currently perpetuated less by environmental concerns and more for providing a renewable revenue stream to maintain the bureaucracy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Colonels_Wear_Blue

Colonels_Wear_Blue

Posted
Posted

 

"Crucify Them".....is this guy really trying to draw a parallel between oil companies and Jesus? The reasonable side of my brain told me not to even read the article, but the curious side told me to go ahead and read it. Republicans may argue all they want against the EPA, and as I said earlier, the EPA is certainly a poorly administered government agency, but that doesn't change its necessity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
75center

75center

Posted
Posted
"Crucify Them".....is this guy really trying to draw a parallel between oil companies and Jesus? The reasonable side of my brain told me not to even read the article, but the curious side told me to go ahead and read it. Republicans may argue all they want against the EPA, and as I said earlier, the EPA is certainly a poorly administered government agency, but that doesn't change its necessity.

 

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.

  I accept