The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Pending Bills Fail to Protect Communities from Toxic Coal Ash
The Congressional Research Service issued an analysis of two pending pieces of coal ash legislation—H.R. 2273 and S.3512—finding that the bills lack a clear purpose and would not ensure state adoption and implementation of standards “necessary to protect human health and the environment.” These bills—one passed by the House of Representatives in October 2011 and the other now pending in the Senate—would prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from ever setting federally enforceable safeguards for the disposal of toxic coal ash.
Just days before the 4th anniversary of the devastating billion-gallon coal ash spill in Kingston, TN, that damaged and destroyed dozens of homes, the report concludes that both bills:
- Give States the discretion to implement coal ash permit programs that are less stringent than the programs applicable to household waste landfills;
- Have a “level of uncertainty [that] defeats the purpose of a permit program and would not be consistent with other programs under RCRA.”
- Provide “no federal backstop authority to implement federal standards comparable to its authorities established under other environmental law, including RCRA.”
- Creates a program without “detailed regulatory standards, [which is] unprecedented in federal environmental law.”
- Lack a clear “standard of protection” to guarantee that state programs actually protect human health and the environment, which is “unique among all federal environmental law.”
Furthermore, the report questions the reason for creating a program that fails to address the risks posed by both dry and wet disposal of coal ash stating, “Absent the creation of standards applicable to CCR [Coal Combustion Residuals] landfills and surface impoundments that address risks specifically associated with CCR disposal, the purpose of creating a CCR permit program is not clear.”
“The Congressional Research Service has confirmed what we’ve known all along,” said Earthjustice attorney Lisa Evans. “The Senate coal ash bill is a sham that will not protect communities from toxic coal ash or prevent another Kingston disaster. Congress must get out of the way and let EPA do its job.”
The Senate bill—the so-called “Coal Ash Recycling Act of 2012,” (S.3512)—blocks an EPA rulemaking that would prevent spills and water contamination at hundreds of coal ash sites across the country. More than 200 sites have already contaminated nearby rivers, lakes, streams or aquifers with dangerous pollutants like arsenic, lead, selenium and more. Introduced earlier this year, rumors abound that S.3512 could be attached to unrelated must-pass legislation at any time, the result of intense lobbying from the coal and power industries.
“This report highlights that both bills would do little or nothing to change the status quo of coal ash dumps prone to leaking coal ash pollutants or catastrophic breaches,” said Lisa Widawsky Hallowell, attorney with the Environmental Integrity Project. “Given the fact that there are nearly 200 damage cases nationwide, coal ash legislation that fails to phase out dangerous surface impoundments and strips the EPA of the ability to set minimum design criteria for landfills is simply indefensible in 2012.”
Millions of tons of coal ash are currently stored in immense earthen dams. The report states that a structural failure “could result in a catastrophic release of coal ash slurry.” Due to the unique risks posed by coal ash ponds, the EPA proposed that dangerous surface impoundments be subjected to design and inspection requirements similar to those established by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Although the CRS report states that the “potential for structural failure could be minimized by various means, including ensuring that the units meet certain design standards and are inspected regularly,” the report notes that these requirements are absent from the House and Senate bills. This absence is critical, as the report also notes the “majority of states” do not have “siting controls, inspection, or structural integrity requirements for surface impoundments—requirements necessary to minimize the potential of a structural failure.”
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
georgeclerk / E+ / Getty Images
By Jennifer Molidor
One million species are at risk of extinction from human activity, warns a recent study by scientists with the United Nations. We need to cut greenhouse gas pollution across all sectors to avoid catastrophic climate change — and we need to do it fast, said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This research should serve as a rallying cry for polluting industries to make major changes now. Yet the agriculture industry continues to lag behind.
"The Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism wishes to inform the public that following extensive consultations with all stakeholders, the Government of Botswana has taken a decision to lift the hunting suspension," the government announced in a press release shared on social media.
Company Safety Data Sheets on New Chemicals Frequently Lack the Worker Protections EPA Claims They Include
By Richard Denison
Readers of this blog know how concerned EDF is over the Trump EPA's approval of many dozens of new chemicals based on its mere "expectation" that workers across supply chains will always employ personal protective equipment (PPE) just because it is recommended in the manufacturer's non-binding safety data sheet (SDS).
By Grant Smith
From 2009 to 2012, Gregory Jaczko was chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which approves nuclear power plant designs and sets safety standards for plants. But he now says that nuclear power is too dangerous and expensive — and not part of the answer to the climate crisis.
By Brett Walton
When Greg Wetherbee sat in front of the microscope recently, he was looking for fragments of metals or coal, particles that might indicate the source of airborne nitrogen pollution in Rocky Mountain National Park. What caught his eye, though, were the plastics.
In a big victory for animals, Prada has announced that it's ending its use of fur! It joins Coach, Jean Paul Gaultier, Giorgio Armani, Versace, Ralph Lauren, Vivienne Westwood, Michael Kors, Donna Karan and many others PETA has pushed toward a ban.
This is a victory more than a decade in the making. PETA and our international affiliates have crashed Prada's catwalks with anti-fur signs, held eye-catching demonstrations all around the world, and sent the company loads of information about the fur industry. In 2018, actor and animal rights advocate Pamela Anderson sent a letter on PETA's behalf urging Miuccia Prada to commit to leaving fur out of all future collections, and the iconic designer has finally listened.
If people in three European countries want to fight the climate crisis, they need to chill out more.
"The rapid pace of labour-saving technology brings into focus the possibility of a shorter working week for all, if deployed properly," Autonomy Director Will Stronge said, The Guardian reported. "However, while automation shows that less work is technically possible, the urgent pressures on the environment and on our available carbon budget show that reducing the working week is in fact necessary."
The report found that if the economies of Germany, Sweden and the UK maintain their current levels of carbon intensity and productivity, they would need to switch to a six, 12 and nine hour work week respectively if they wanted keep the rise in global temperatures to the below two degrees Celsius promised by the Paris agreement, The Independent reported.
The study based its conclusions on data from the UN and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) on greenhouse gas emissions per industry in all three countries.
The report comes as the group Momentum called on the UK's Labour Party to endorse a four-day work week.
"We welcome this attempt by Autonomy to grapple with the very real changes society will need to make in order to live within the limits of the planet," Emma Williams of the Four Day Week campaign said in a statement reported by The Independent. "In addition to improved well-being, enhanced gender equality and increased productivity, addressing climate change is another compelling reason we should all be working less."
Supporters of the idea linked it to calls in the U.S. and Europe for a Green New Deal that would decarbonize the economy while promoting equality and well-being.
"This new paper from Autonomy is a thought experiment that should give policymakers, activists and campaigners more ballast to make the case that a Green New Deal is absolutely necessary," Common Wealth think tank Director Mat Lawrence told The Independent. "The link between working time and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions has been proved by a number of studies. Using OECD data and relating it to our carbon budget, Autonomy have taken the step to show what that link means in terms of our working weeks."
Stronge also linked his report to calls for a Green New Deal.
"Becoming a green, sustainable society will require a number of strategies – a shorter working week being just one of them," he said, according to The Guardian. "This paper and the other nascent research in the field should give us plenty of food for thought when we consider how urgent a Green New Deal is and what it should look like."
- Reduced Work Hours as a Means of Slowing Climate Change ›
- How working less could solve all our problems. Really. | ›
- Needed: A shorter work week – People's World ›