Letter to the editor: EPA prioritizing money over children’s health? | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: EPA prioritizing money over children’s health?

The letter by Stephanie Catarino Wissman of the Associated Petroleum Industries of Pennsylvania (“Committed to methane reduction,” Dec. 6, TribLIVE) attempts to discount the testimony of letter-writer Lois Bower-Bjornson (“EPA rollbacks dangerous,”Nov. 16, TribLIVE), who wrote, “My 12-year-old son has nosebleeds if the windows are open at night. My 9-year-old daughter and my two other sons have experienced full body rashes as a result of this air pollution.” As a sustainability student in Pittsburgh, I was disappointed to read a response that justifies methane production and frames EPA rollbacks as “technical corrections.”

The proposed EPA rule is called “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Reconsideration.” The rule would reduce the frequency of leak inspections. It would change from semiannual monitoring and leak repair within 30 days of detection to annual monitoring and leak repair within 60 days of detection. This change could harm children in Pennsylvania who are experiencing negative effects from air pollution.

Why would the EPA propose a rule that has the potential to harm children while simultaneously increasing emissions? Money. This rule would save approximately $58.5 million in 2020 and $112.5 million in 2025. A reduction in costs must not be prioritized over the health of children in Pennsylvania.

Adam Bennett


The writer is a senior majoring
in sustainability
at Chatham University.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.