TPO 41

The passage and the lecture mainly discuss on suggesting new regulations for storing and handling coal ash, which is produced by burning coal in power plants and contains some allegedly harmful substances. In this regard, the passage states that although environmentalists insist on adopting stricter regulations for handling these harmful chemicals, representatives of power plants oppose that these regulations not only are dispensable but also might lead to unwanted results. Three supportive reasons that companies have adduced are elaborated upon in the passage. The lecturer, on the other hand, categorically refutes all the three aforementioned episodes of argument. She is of the opinion that much stricter rules must be created in order to store and handle these materials properly.
To begin with, the author posits that some effective rules have already been adopted. An example is given, noting that an important regulation requires the use of liner by companies in order to prevent soil and environment from contamination due to leakage of coal ash components. Nevertheless, this specific argument is challenged by the lecturer, for which she mentions that this regulation is only applicable when a new disposal pond or landfill is built, whereas the older ponds already account for several significant damages that are being inflicted on the environment. As an example, the leakage of harmful chemicals has resulted in the contamination of drinking water. Hence, regulations which apply to both new and old disposal sites need to be implemented.
Second, the passage suggests that creating new strict rules for this matter might even discourage the consumers who used to buy the products of recycled coal ash. The lecturer, on the contrary, casts doubt on this argument by asserting that enacting stricter rules does not necessarily translate into people surmising that such products are dangerous. For instance, she mentions that a number of stricter rules have been adopted for handling Mercury, which is a fairly hazardous material. Notwithstanding the awareness of people about the associated risks, it is acknowledged that this material is safely recycled. Therefore, people are no more afraid of utilizing the recycled products of Mercury.
Eventually, the reading argues that the above mentioned strict regulations would increase the costs of disposal and handling in power plants probably up to ten times, which might force the companies to increase the electricity bill and cause disappointment among society. On the other hand, the lecturer believes that even though the costs will be increased, a clean and safe environment is worth the extra costs. She notes that if, for instance, the costs for the power companies increase to about 15 billion dollars, the household electricity bill will probably increase by about only 1 percent, which is undoubtedly not a significant amount.
In sum, all the three reasons mentioned in the reading are effectively challenged by the lecturer.