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
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular