February, 26 2009, 02:04pm EDT

Court Rules Cleanup Tab For Mines and Other Hazardous Sites Should Not Fall to Public
In closing 25-year loophole, court protects public from hazardous waste sites and could save taxpayers billions
WASHINGTON
A federal court has ruled
that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must close a loophole
that -- for more than 25 years -- has made it easy for mining
companies, coal ash dumps, and a host of other polluting industries to
skip out on costly cleanups by declaring bankruptcy. The case concerned
EPA's failure to issue "financial assurances" standards that ensure
that polluting industries will always remain financially able to clean
up dangerous spills and other contaminated sites.
Attorneys Lisa Evans and Jan Hasselman with the public interest law
firm Earthjustice represented the Sierra Club and environmental groups
in New Mexico, Nevada, and Idaho in the case, decided late yesterday by
U.S. District Judge William Alsup, based in San Francisco.
Environmental advocates hailed the decision as a victory that paves
the way for new federal rules that would require hardrock and phosphate
mine operators, metal finishers, wood treatment facilities, and other
industries to post bonds covering the cost of potential future
cleanups.
"By not promulgating financial assurance requirements, EPA has
allowed companies that otherwise might not have been able to operate
and produce hazardous waste to potentially shift the responsibility for
cleaning up hazardous waste to taxpayers," Judge Alsup wrote in the
decision. The undisputed evidence before the Court demonstrated that
such financial assurance requirements result in better environmental
protection and faster and more thorough cleanups.
When the Superfund law was passed in 1980, lawmakers gave EPA three
years to start putting financial assurance regulations in place. More
than 25 years later, these regulations remain unwritten. Under the
terms of the decision, EPA has until May 4 to identify the industries
that will be first subject to these financial assurance requirements.
"This victory paves the way for the new administration to correct a
longstanding environmental problem while saving taxpayers billions of
dollars at the same time," said Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman,
who argued the case before Judge Alsup. "New standards will push
companies that deal with toxic substances towards more responsible
practices."
Perhaps the industries most impacted by the decision are hardrock
and phosphate mining. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ranks
the mining industry as the nation's top toxic polluter, reporting more
toxic releases annually than any other industry. The industry generates
more than 2 billion pounds of toxic waste each year and has polluted
more than 40 percent of western watershed headwaters. Without financial
assurance regulations, it has been easy for mine operators to walk away
from sites contaminated with cyanide, lead, arsenic, mercury and other
toxins, and they have done so time after time.
In 2004, the EPA reported that 63 hardrock mining sites were listed
as Superfund sites on the agency's National Priority List (NPL), EPA's
list of the most contaminated Superfund sites, with an estimated
cleanup cost of $7.8 billion. Of that, $2.4 billion was expected to
come from taxpayers. Another 93 mining sites were being eyed for
inclusion on the Superfund NPL list.
One of those Superfund sites is the Molycorp/Chevron molybdenum mine
near Questa, New Mexico. The Taos-based organization Amigos Bravos has
long called for Molycorp to take responsibility for the toxins it
released during the mine's 40-year history, contaminating the Red River
and nearby groundwater aquifers. In 2002, after much of the damage was
already done, the company agreed to set aside $152 million for cleanup.
But total cleanup costs could reach $400 million, and observers wonder
if the scale of destruction would have been less if Molycorp knew at
the outset it would be held responsible.
"This victory will encourage mine operators to act more responsibly,
hopefully preventing future problems in New Mexico," said Brian
Shields, executive director of Amigos Bravos. "Now that companies know
that they are responsible for cleaning up after themselves, there's a
strong incentive for them to improve their waste management practices."
Perhaps the most far-reaching example of irresponsible mining
operations is Asarco, which declared bankruptcy in 2005. The
century-old mining and smelting company left behind 94 Superfund sites
in 21 states, with a total cleanup cost estimated at more than $1
billion, far more than the $62 million trust the company set aside for
cleanup.
In Idaho, Asarco is among mining companies responsible for
contamination spread across the 1,500-square-mile Coeur d'Alene River
basin. Cleanup work is likely to last for generations. EPA has
estimated the cost of the first 30 years at $359 million.
The Idaho Conservation League is also watching prospective cleanup
costs mount from 17 contaminated sites caused by phosphate mining.
"We're heartened by this victory and hope that it will help relieve
taxpayers of a financial burden and keep our rivers and streams clean,"
said Justin Hayes, Program Director of the Idaho Conservation League.
In Nevada, 27 mining companies had declared bankruptcy as of July
2000, creating some of the country's highest potential taxpayer
liability.
"This victory comes at a crucial time for communities impacted by
Nevada's mining industry," said John Hadder, executive director of
Great Basin Resource Watch. "The gold mine bankruptcies from the 1990s
left our state riddled with contaminated sites. But from now on, we
hope to benefit from the stronger protections brought by this court
win."
Another industry potentially impacted by the decision are coal-fired
power plants, responsible for generating 131 million tons of toxic coal
ash per year. The industry has been in the spotlight in the wake of
immense toxic spills at two Tennessee Valley Authority sites. When coal
ash is dumped in mines and waste ponds, financial assurance for cleanup
is rarely required.
"We hope that the municipal utilities and coops that now own most of
the Peabody Prairie State Energy power plant in downstate Illinois take
notice of this decision," said Kathy Andria, Waste & Recycling
chair of the Illinois chapter of Sierra Club. Prairie State plans to
dump 60 million tons of coal combustion waste on a 4,000-acre site of
old strip-mined land near farms and homes. "After the recent disasters
in Tennessee and Alabama, we want to make sure Peabody and its partners
have the cash to pay for any problems that could arise in the future.
More importantly, we hope that cash will serve as an incentive for them
to act responsibly to keep surrounding communities and water resources
safe."
Read the decision (PDF)
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
Senate Tosses 'Dangerous Provision' Preventing State-Level AI Regulation From GOP Megabill
"From the start, this provision had Big Tech's money and lobbyists all over it. This is a major victory for the American people over the AI industry," said one advocate.
Jul 01, 2025
With a 99-1 vote early Tuesday, the Republican-controlled Senate decided to remove a controversial provision that would have prevented state-level regulation on artificial intelligence for 10 years from U.S. President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill that is currently being debated in Congress.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) was the lone lawmaker who voted to keep the moratorium in the bill.
While far from the only controversial part of the reconciliation package, the provision drew opposition from an ideologically diverse group that included Democratic and Republican state attorneys general; over 140 groups working to support children's online safety, consumer protections, and responsible innovation; and faith leaders.
Senators struck Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-Texas) AI measure from the megabill by adopting an amendment introduced by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). They voted on Blackburn's amendment during a session known as a vote-a-rama. Blackburn introduced the amendment after considering an agreement that would have watered down the provision.
According to The Verge, the measure that was rejected on Tuesday required states to avoid regulation AI and "automated decision systems" if they wanted to get funding for their broadband programs.
The provision would have been a major win for Big Tech, which has made the case that state laws around AI are obstructing their ability to do business.
Advocates and Democratic lawmakers cheered the decision to strip the provision.
"From the start, this provision had Big Tech's money and lobbyists all over it. This is a major victory for the American people over the AI industry. It shows that Americans are aware of the proliferation of AI harms in real time," said J.B. Branch, Big Tech accountability advocate at the watchdog group Public Citizen.
Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said Tuesday that "early this morning, the Senate overwhelmingly voted to reject a dangerous provision to block states from regulating artificial intelligence, including protecting kids online. This 99-1 vote sent a clear message that Congress will not sell out our kids and local communities in order to pad the pockets of Big Tech billionaires."
In addition to concerns focused on Big Tech, experts recently told The Guardian that in the absence of state-level AI regulation, untrammeled growth of AI would take a toll on the world's "dangerously overheating climate."
Sacha Haworth, the executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, credited the "massive" defeat of Cruz's provision to the "incredible mobilizing by advocates to beat back Big Tech lobbying and last-minute bullying."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Shred JD Vance as He Shrugs Off Millions of Americans Losing Medicaid as 'Minutiae'
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Jul 01, 2025
Vice President J.D. Vance took heat from critics this week when he downplayed legislation that would result in millions of Americans losing Medicaid coverage as mere "minutiae."
Writing on X, Vance defended the budget megabill that's currently being pushed through the United States Senate by arguing that it will massively increase funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which he deemed to be a necessary component of carrying out the Trump administration's mass deportation operation.
"The thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy is flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits," wrote Vance. "The [One Big Beautiful Bill] fixes this problem. And therefore it must pass."
He then added that "everything else—the CBO score, the proper baseline, the minutiae of the Medicaid policy—is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions."
It was this line that drew the ire of many critics, as the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Senate version of the budget bill would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period, which would result in more than 10 million people losing their coverage. Additionally, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) has proposed an amendment that would roll back the expansion of Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which would likely kick millions more off of the program.
Many congressional Democrats were quick to pounce on Vance for what they said were callous comments about a vital government program.
"So if the only thing that matters is immigration... why didn't you support the bipartisan Lankford-Murphy bill that tackled immigration far better than your Ugly Bill?" asked Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.). "And it didn't have 'minutiae' that will kick 12m+ Americans off healthcare or raise the debt by $4tn."
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Veteran healthcare reporter Jonathan Cohn put some numbers behind the policies that are being minimized by the vice president.
"11.8M projected to lose health insurance," he wrote. "Clinics and hospitals taking a hit, especially in rural areas. Low-income seniors facing higher costs. 'Minutiae.'"
Activist Leah Greenberg, the co-chair of progressive organizing group Indivisible, zeroed in on Vance's emphasis on ramping up ICE's funding as particularly problematic.
"They are just coming right out and saying they want an exponential increase in $$$ so they can build their own personal Gestapo," she warned.
Washington Post global affairs columnist Ishaan Tharoor also found himself disturbed by the sheer size of the funding increase for ICE that Vance is demanding and he observed that "nothing matters more apparently than giving ICE a bigger budget than the militaries of virtually every European country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Heinrich Should Be Ashamed': Lone Senate Dem Helps GOP Deliver Big Pharma Win
The provision, part of the Senate budget bill, was described as "a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars."
Jul 01, 2025
The deep-pocketed and powerful pharmaceutical industry notched a significant victory on Monday when the Senate parliamentarian ruled that a bill described by critics as a handout to drug corporations can be included in the Republican reconciliation package, which could become law as soon as this week.
The legislation, titled the Optimizing Research Progress Hope and New (ORPHAN) Cures Act, would exempt drugs that treat more than one rare disease from Medicare's drug-price negotiation program, allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge exorbitant prices for life-saving medications in a purported effort to encourage innovation. (Medications developed to treat rare diseases are known as "orphan drugs.")
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen observed that if the legislation were already in effect, Medicare "would have been barred from negotiating lower prices for important treatments like cancer drugs Imbruvica, Calquence, and Pomalyst."
Among the bill's leading supporters is Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), whose spokesperson announced the parliamentarian's decision to allow the measure in the reconciliation package after previously advising that it be excluded. Heinrich is listed as the legislation's only co-sponsor in the Senate, alongside lead sponsor Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).
"Sen. Heinrich should be ashamed of prioritizing drug corporation profits over lower medicine prices for seniors and people with disabilities," Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen, said in a statement Monday. "Patients and consumers breathed a sigh of relief when the Senate parliamentarian stripped the proposal from Republicans' Big Ugly Betrayal, so it comes as a gut punch to hear that Sen. Heinrich welcomed the reversal and continued to champion a proposal that will transfer billions from taxpayers to Big Pharma."
"People across the country are demanding lower drug prices and for Medicare drug price negotiations to be expanded, not restricted," Knievel added. "Sen. Heinrich should apologize to his constituents and start listening to them instead of drug corporation lobbyists."
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a lobbying group whose members include pharmaceutical companies, has publicly endorsed and promoted the legislation, urging lawmakers to pass it "as soon as possible."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the ORPHAN Cures Act would cost U.S. taxpayers around $5 billion over the next decade.
Merith Basey, executive director of Patients For Affordable Drugs Now, said that "patients are infuriated to see the Senate cave to Big Pharma by reviving the ORPHAN Cures Act at the eleventh hour."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars," said Basey. "We call on lawmakers to remove this unnecessary provision immediately and stand with an overwhelming majority of Americans who want the Medicare Negotiation program to go further. Medicare negotiation will deliver huge savings for seniors and taxpayers; this bill would undermine that progress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular