February, 12 2009, 10:11am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Michael Oko, NRDC, 202-513-6245
House Subcommittee Considers Coal Ash Regulations
Proposed Bill Mandates Swift Action, But Stronger Measures Needed
WASHINGTON
As Congress considers legislation today to regulate the toxic byproducts of coal-fired power plants, a broad coalition of environmental groups welcome the quick attention to this vital issue from Chairman Nick Rahall (D-W.V.) and the committee, but cautioned that more sweeping action is necessary to fully address the problem.
At a hearing today by the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, committee members reviewed the Coal Ash Reclamation, Environment, and Safety Act of 2009, introduced January 14 on the heels of coal ash spills at two Tennessee Valley Authority power plants.
The bill instructs the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) to establish -- within 180 days of its passing -- design, engineering, and performance standards for the disposal of coal combustion waste in ponds built after the bill's enactment. A thorough inventory of coal combustion waste disposal ponds would be required within 12 months of the bill's passage, and OSM can choose to apply the standards to those existing wet disposal sites it selects.
Environmental groups welcomed the sentiment behind the bill's swift timetable and inventory requirements, but called for stronger action from the Environmental Protection Agency, which has authority to regulate coal combustion waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
The bill seeks to regulate, rather than ban, the dangerous practice of mixing pollutant-laden ash with water and dumping the dangerous mixture into ponds, where toxins can more easily migrate and contaminate groundwater supplies. For years, environmental groups have called for a phase-out of coal ash ponds in favor of safer alternatives: dry disposal in landfills and certain types of recycling.
"We're heartened to see Chairman Rahall and the committee taking seriously the threat posed by coal ash," said Earthjustice Associate Legislative Counsel Ben Dunham. "But if we're going to keep people safe, we need to altogether ban the practice of dumping this toxic mixture into ponds where it can easily seep into drinking water supplies. There are safer alternatives. Those are the ones we should be considering."
A second concern is that the bill would task the Office of Surface Mining -- instead of the EPA -- with regulating disposal of toxic coal combustion waste. Environmental groups recognize that even though the Natural Resources Committee lacks jurisdiction over the EPA, Chairman Rahall has worked to have the Committee address this pressing problem. However, fully and adequately protecting the public from the threats posed by coal combustion waste disposal will require the direct involvement of the EPA.
"Putting OSM in charge of regulating toxic coal combustion waste is like having a fox guard the hen house," said Mary Anne Hitt, Deputy Director of the Sierra Club's Move Beyond Coal Campaign. "Already on OSM's watch, dozens of coal waste impoundments have failed. EPA on the other hand has studied the issue for 30 years and has the expertise to quickly and effectively regulate coal combustion waste in a way that takes into account the impact to human health and the environment."
On December 22, 2008, an earthen dam for a coal ash waste impoundment failed at the Kingston Fossil Plant in Tennessee, releasing hundreds of millions of gallons of coal ash sludge and contaminated water into the Emory and Clinch Rivers and onto more than 300 acres of nearby land. A second, smaller spill occurred less than three weeks later at a second TVA plant in Widows Creek, Alabama.
"Across America, coal waste storage can pose a serious threat to public health and the environment, as we vividly saw during these two recent coal spills," said Jon Devine, a senior attorney in the Water Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We need EPA to impose tough and comprehensive standards for these disposal sites to reduce the risk of catastrophic failure and limit chronic pollution from dirty coal waste."
In the wake of the Tennessee and Alabama coal ash spills, national attention has seized on problems posed by the poisonous waste of coal-fired power plants. The 129 million tons of coal ash generated each year constitutes the nation's second largest industrial waste stream.
"Despite our reservations with portions of the bill, we welcome the hearing as an opportunity to discuss the best way to regulate coal combustion waste," added Ben Dunham of Earthjustice. "This bill will spur EPA to quickly issue regulations that protect the public and the environment from the toxins in coal ash."
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700LATEST NEWS
Billionaire Jeff Bezos Wants to 'Help' Trump Gut Regulations
"Shockingly another one of the richest guys on Earth wants to defund our government and scrap regulations."
Dec 05, 2024
Billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos on Wednesday expressed his optimism about U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's next term and suggested he would "help" the Republican gut regulations.
"If we're talking about Trump, I think it's very interesting, I'm actually very optimistic this time around... I'm very hopeful about this—he seems to have a lot of energy around reducing regulation," Bezos told The New York Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin during the newspaper's DealBook Summit.
"And my point of view, if I can help him do that, I'm gonna help him, because we do have too much regulation in this country. This country is so set up to grow," he continued, suggesting that regulatory cuts would solve the nation's economic problems.
After complaining about the burden of regulations, Bezos added, "I'm very optimistic that President Trump is serious about this regulatory agenda and I think he has a good chance of succeeding."
The comments came during a discussion about Bezos' ownership of The Washington Post, which also addressed the billionaire's recent controversial decisions to block the newspaper's drafted endorsement of Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and have it stop endorsing presidential candidates.
Bezos said Wednesday that he is "very proud" of the move, that the Post "is going to continue to cover all presidents very aggressively," and the decision did not result from fears about Trump targeting his companies.
As Inc.reported Thursday: "Trump had railed against Bezos and his companies, including Amazon and The Washington Post, during his first term. In 2019, Amazon argued in a court case that Trump's bias against the company harmed its chances of winning a $10 billion Pentagon contract. The Biden administration later pursued a contract with both Amazon and Microsoft."
Bezos owns Blue Origin, an aerospace company and a competitor to Elon Musk's SpaceX. Musk—the world's richest person, followed by Bezos, according to the Bloomberg and Forbes trackers—has been appointed to lead Trump's forthcoming Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) with fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy.
Bezos' remarks at the Times summit led Fortune's Brooke Seipel to suggest that he may be the next billionaire to join DOGE.
Musk and Ramaswamy headed to Capitol Hill on Thursday to speak with GOP lawmakers about their plans for the government.
"Despite its name, the Department of Government Efficiency is neither a department nor part of the government, which frees Musk and Ramaswamy from having to go through the typical ethics and background checks required for federal employment," The Associated Pressnoted. "They said they will not be paid for their work."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jayapal, Sanders Offer Answer to Elon Musk's Healthcare Cost Question
"The most efficiently run healthcare systems in the world," said National Nurses United, "have been proven time and time again to be single-payer systems."
Dec 05, 2024
Two of the United States' most outspoken critics of the for-profit health system welcomed billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk's criticism of the country's sky-high healthcare spending—and suggested that Musk, a potential Cabinet member in the incoming Trump administration, join the call for Medicare for All.
A social media post by Musk drew the attention of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who reintroduced legislation to expand Medicare coverage to every American last year and have long called for the for-profit healthcare system to be replaced by a government-run program, or single-payer system, like those in every other wealthy country in the world.
"Shouldn't the American people be getting getting their money's worth?" asked Musk, posting a graph from the nonpartisan Peter G. Peterson Foundation that showed how per capita administrative healthcare costs in the U.S. reached $1,055 in 2020—hundreds of dollars more than countries including Germany, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
"Yes," said Sanders, repeating statistics he has frequently shared while condemning the country's $4.5 trillion health system in which private, for-profit health insurance companies increasingly refuse to pay for healthcare services and Americans pay an average of $1,142 in out-of-pocket expenses each year.
"We waste hundreds of billions a year on healthcare administrative expenses that make insurance CEOs and wealthy stockholders incredibly rich while 85 million Americans go uninsured or underinsured," the senator added. "Healthcare is a human right. We need Medicare for All."
Jayapal added that she has "a solution" to exorbitant healthcare costs in the U.S.: "It's called Medicare for All."
Musk has been nominated by President-elect Donald Trump to lead a new federal agency that he wants to create called the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Sanders has expressed support for some of the agency's mission, saying its plan to "cut wasteful expenditures" could be put to use at the Department of Defense, which has repeatedly failed audits of its annual spending.
But Sanders has sharply criticized the economic system and business practices that have helped make Musk the richest person in the world, with a net worth of $343.8 billion.
Another progressive, David Sirota of The Lever, suggested last month that DOGE could be used to eliminate the nation's vast health insurance bureaucracy and replace it with Medicare for All, pointing to a 2020 report from the Republican-controlled Congressional Budget Office that showed that a government-run healthcare program would save the country an estimated $650 billion each year.
"Such a system could achieve this in part because Medicare's 2% administrative costs are so much lower than the 17% administrative costs of the bureaucratic, profit-extracting private health insurance industry," wrote Sirota.
Musk drew the attention of Medicare for All advocates amid online discussion about the greed of for-profit insurance giants.
The killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on Wednesday prompted discussion about widespread anger over the U.S. healthcare system, and following public outcry, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield on Thursday backtracked on a decision to stop paying for surgical anesthesia if a procedure goes beyond a certain time limit. The American Society of Anesthesiologists said that if Anthem stopped fully paying doctors who provide pain management for complicated surgeries, patients would be left paying hundreds or thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs.
National Nurses United, which advocates for a government-run healthcare system, urged Musk and others who support the broadly popular proposal to "join the movement to win Medicare for All."
"The most efficiently run healthcare systems in the world," said the group, "have been proven time and time again to be single-payer systems."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Disagree': US Dismisses Landmark Amnesty Report Accusing Israel of Genocide
"We have said previously and continue to find that the allegations of genocide are unfounded," said a State Department spokesperson.
Dec 05, 2024
A U.S. State Department spokesperson told reporters on Thursday that the United States disagrees with Amnesty International's new report accusing Israel of carrying out genocide in the Gaza Strip.
"We disagree with the conclusions of such a report," spokesperson Vedant Patel said a day after the human rights group released the document. "We have said previously and continue to find that the allegations of genocide are unfounded."
The Israeli government has vehemently rejected the findings in the report.
"The deplorable and fanatical organization Amnesty International has once again produced a fabricated report that is entirely false and based on lies. The genocidal massacre on October 7, 2023, was carried out by the Hamas terrorist organization against Israeli citizens. Since then, Israeli citizens have been subjected to daily attacks from seven different fronts. Israel is defending itself against these attacks acting fully in accordance with international law," wrote the Israel Foreign Ministry in a post on X.
Amnesty Israel also does not accept the findings of Amnesty International's report, according to The Times of Israel.
In a statement, the Israeli branch of the organization—which reportedly did not take part in the funding, research, or writing of the report—said that "the scale of the killing and destruction carried out by Israel in Gaza has reached horrific proportions and must be stopped immediately," per The Times of Israel. However, the groups does not believe the events "meet the definition of genocide as strictly laid out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide."
In the 296-page report released Wednesday—titled, "You Feel Like You Are Subhuman": Israel's Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza—Amnesty International found through its research and legal analysis "sufficient basis to conclude that Israel committed, during the nine-month period under review, prohibited acts under Articles II (a), (b), and (c) of the Genocide Convention, namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part."
In order for a conflict to be considered genocide under international law, there must be both evidence of specific criminal acts—such as killing members of a given group—as well as "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."
In its report, Amnesty International concluded that "these acts were committed with the specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza."
Intent also came up during the State Department press conference Thursday when journalist Said Arikat of the Palestinian paper Al-Quds asked Patel a follow-up question about the report.
"I know that genocide depends a great deal on intent... And [the report] bases its conclusions on the statements, time and time and time again, by Israeli commanders, by Israeli officials," he said. "What is it going to take for you, for the United States of America... to say what is happening is genocide?"
Patel responded, "That's an opinion, and you're certainly welcome and you are entitled to it, as are all the organizations."
Israel faces an ongoing genocide case, led by South Africa, at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court recently issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular