

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Lisa Evans, Earthjustice (781) 631-4119; levans@earthjustice.org
Jared Saylor, Earthjustice (202) 745-5213; jsaylor@earthjustice.org
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's latest release of data concerning coal ash ponds reveals a threefold increase in the number of significant-hazard rated coal ash ponds. This nightmare scenario comes as legislation passed by the House of Representatives and introduced in the Senate proposes to completely castrate the EPA's ability to set federally enforceable safeguards for proper coal ash disposal.
"Coal ash ponds are threatening hundreds of communities and their drinking water supplies, but the current approach in Congress is to ignore the problem and hope it goes away," said Earthjustice attorney Lisa Evans.
The EPA is rating coal ash ponds according to a National Inventory of Dams (NID) criteria that categorizes the ponds by the damage that would occur if the pond collapses. Coal ash ponds are usually earthen structures holding back millions of tons of toxic coal ash and water. This month, the EPA recently released a new set of data that reveals 181 "significant" hazard dams in 18 states. This is more than three times the 60 significant-hazard ponds listed in the original database released in 2009. In addition to the increase in the number of significant hazard-rated ponds, eight of the previously unrated coal ash ponds were found to be high hazard ponds in information released by the EPA earlier this year. Because of the switch in ratings after the EPA inspections, the total number of high hazard ponds has stayed roughly the same at a total of 47 ponds nationwide.
Because coal ash ponds are not federally regulated and are largely unregulated by states, there is usually no requirement to classify the ponds, no matter how large they are. After the catastrophic collapse of the TVA Kingston Fossil Plant's coal ash pond in December 2008, the EPA requested information from all coal ash pond owners through the issuance of an information request letter in March 2009. The Tennessee pond collapse released over a billion gallons of toxic sludge, which flooded 300 acres, destroyed and damaged dozens of homes, and left TVA with a cleanup cost of over $1 billion.
The initial response to the EPA in 2009 from utilities owning coal ash ponds revealed that hundreds of coal ash ponds were "not rated" according to the NID criteria. Some of the ponds without ratings were even larger than the six-story pond that failed in Tennessee. Consequently, since 2009, the EPA has been requesting additional information from owners and conducting inspections of the largest of the nation's 676 coal ash ponds.
According to the NID criteria, "high" hazard coal ash ponds are categorized as such because their failure will likely cause loss of human life. "Significant" hazard dams "can cause economic loss, environment damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, or impact other concerns." "Low" hazard dams are those where failure or mis-operation results in no probable loss of human life and low economic and/or environmental losses that are principally limited to the owner's property.
Six states that gained high hazard ponds include:
Kentucky: Mill Creek Station, Louisville: 1 high hazard pond
Ohio: Kyger Creek Station, Gallipolis: 2 high hazard ponds
Indiana: Eagle Valley Generating Station, Indianapolis: 1 high hazard pond;
Harding Street Power Station, Indianapolis: 2 high hazard ponds
R. M. Schahfer Power Station, Wheatfield: 2 high hazard ponds
Missouri: Sikeston Power Station, Sikeston: 1 high hazard pond
Pennsylvania: WPS Energy Services, Shamokin Dam: 1 high hazard pond
Alabama: Ernest Gaston Electric Generations Plant, Wilsonville: 1 high hazard pond
Eight of these 11 newly characterized high-hazard ponds (almost three quarters of those inspected) received a "poor" inspection rating from EPA after their discovery and inspection.
Eighteen states gained significant hazard ponds: AL, GA, IL, IN, LA, KS, KY, MI, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, OH, SC, VA, WI, and WY. Forty-two of the 112 newly identified significant hazard ponds (about one third) received a poor rating after inspection by the EPA.
The sharp increase in coal ash ponds likely to cause significant damage if they should fail should give the Senate pause as they consider S.1751, a bill that will allow coal ash ponds to operate indefinitely without adequate safeguards. The bill does not require coal ash pond phase out, nor does it require ponds to comply with basic safety requirements established in 1978 by Mine Health and Safety Administration (MHSA) after the deadly collapse of the Buffalo Creek coal slurry impoundment, which killed over a hundred people in WV in 1972. The Senate bill does not even mandate the most basic engineering standard for pond safety--the maintenance and design of ponds for the maximum amount of toxic cargo they will hold. In fact the bill explicitly allows coal ash ponds to contain more toxic sludge than they were designed to contain.
"The current agenda in Congress is to attack public health protections on behalf of dirty industries with a long history of failing to clean up their mess," Evans added. "For every day this House has been in session, there has been a vote to curtail EPA protections. That is absolutely unconscionable. Too many Americans live near toxic coal ash dumps and unless federal action is taken soon, another TVA disaster is just waiting to happen. We shouldn't have to wait for more destruction or loss of life to act."
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.
800-584-6460"This is militarized authoritarianism," said one advocacy group. "We must act to stop it now, before it spreads to enflame the entire region, if not the entire globe, in a dangerous, unnecessary conflict."
Protests broke out at US diplomatic outposts across the globe Saturday and Sunday following the Trump administration's deadly attack on Venezuela and abduction of the nation's president, brazen violations of international law that—according to the American president—were just the start of a sustained intervention in Venezuela's politics and oil industry.
Demonstrators took to the streets of Brussels, Madrid, Ankara, Mexico City, Los Angeles, and other major cities worldwide to voice opposition to the US assault on Venezuela and Trump administration officials' pledge to "run" the country's government for an unspecified period of time, a plan that Venezuelan leaders have publicly met with defiance.
The US Mission to Mexico—one of several Latin American countries Trump threatened in the aftermath of the attack on Venezuela—warned in an alert issued Saturday that "a protest denouncing US actions against Venezuela continues to take place in front of the US Embassy in the Polanco neighborhood of Mexico City."
"Protestors have thrown rocks and painted vandalism on exterior walls," the alert read. "Social media posts about the protest have included anti-American sentiment. Embassy personnel have been advised to avoid the area."





The global demonstrations came as some world leaders, including top European officials, faced backlash for failing to adequately condemn—or condemn at all—the US attack on Venezuela and continued menacing of a sovereign nation.
Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said she supports "a peaceful and democratic transition," without mentioning or denouncing the illegal abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and US bombings that reportedly killed at least 40 people, including civilians.
Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis declared that "this is not the time to comment on the legality of the recent actions" as protesters gathered in Athens in opposition to the US assault.
"If you still believe that the European Union cares about international law, then look no further," wrote Progressive International co-general coordinator David Adler, pointing to Mitsotakis' statement.
"We are outraged, but this moment demands more than outrage. It demands organized, coordinated resistance."
Mass protests and demands for international action to halt US aggression proliferated amid ongoing questions about how the Trump administration intends to carry out its stated plan to control Venezuela and exploit its oil reserves—objectives that experts say would run afoul of domestic and international law.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who played a central role in planning the Venezuela attack and has been chosen by Trump to manage the aftermath, said Sunday that the administration intends to keep in place a military "quarantine" around the South American nation—including the massive naval force amassed in the Caribbean in recent months—to pressure the country's leadership to bow to US demands.
"That's a tremendous amount of leverage that will continue to be in place until we see changes, not just to further the national interest of the United States, which is number one, but also that lead to a better future for the people of Venezuela," Rubio said in a television interview.
Rubio also suggested the president could deploy US troops to Venezuela and dodged questions about the legal authority the Trump administration has to intervene in the country. The administration has not sought congressional authorization for any of its attacks on vessels in the Caribbean or Venezuela directly.
US Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Sunday that "in recent history, we've tried 'running' multiple countries in Latin America and the Middle East. It's been a disaster for us, and for them, every single time."
"Congress must pass a War Powers Resolution to get our military back to defending the US, instead of 'running' Venezuela," Casar added.
Progressive Democrats of America echoed that demand, saying in a statement that "this is militarized authoritarianism."
"We must act to stop it now, before it spreads to enflame the entire region, if not the entire globe, in a dangerous, unnecessary conflict," the group added. "We are outraged, but this moment demands more than outrage. It demands organized, coordinated resistance."
"They have spoken openly about controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world," said US Sen. Bernie Sanders. "It recalls the darkest chapters of US interventions in Latin America."
US President Donald Trump left no doubt on Saturday that a—or perhaps the—primary driver of his decision to illegally attack Venezuela, abduct its president, and pledge to indefinitely run its government was his desire to control and exploit the country's oil reserves, which are believed to be the largest in the world.
Over the course of Trump's lengthy press conference following Saturday's assault, the word "oil" was mentioned dozens of times as the president vowed to unleash powerful fossil fuel giants on the South American nation and begin "taking a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground"—with a healthy cut of it going to the US "in the form of reimbursement" for the supposed "damages caused us" by Venezuela.
"We're going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, and start making money for the country," Trump said, suggesting American troops could be deployed, without congressional authorization, to bolster such efforts.
"We're going to get the oil flowing the way it should be," he added.
Currently, Chevron is the only US-based oil giant operating in Venezuela, whose oil industry and broader economy have been badly hampered by US sanctions. In a statement on Saturday, a Chevron spokesperson said the company is "prepared to work constructively with the US government during this period, leveraging our experience and presence to strengthen US energy security."
Other oil behemoths, some of which helped bankroll Trump's presidential campaign, are likely licking their chops—even if they've been mostly quiet in the wake of the US attack, which was widely condemned as unlawful and potentially catastrophic for the region. Amnesty International said Saturday that "the stated US intention to run Venezuela and control its oil resources" likely "constitutes a violation of international law."
"The most powerful multinational fossil fuel corporations stand to benefit from these aggressions, and US oil and gas companies are poised to exploit the chaos."
Thomas O'Donnell, an energy and geopolitical strategist, told Reuters that "the company that probably will be very interested in going back [to Venezuela] is Conoco," noting that an international arbitration tribunal has ordered Caracas to pay the company around $10 billion for alleged "unlawful expropriation" of oil investments.
The Houston Chronicle reported that "Exxon, America’s largest oil company, which has for years grown its presence in South America, would be among the most likely US oil companies to tap Venezuela’s deep oil reserves. The company, along with fellow Houston giant ConocoPhillips, had a number of failed contract attempts with Venezuela under Maduro and former President Hugo Chavez."
Elizabeth Bast, executive director of the advocacy group Oil Change International, said in a statement Saturday that the Trump administration's escalation in Venezuela "follows a historic playbook: undermine leftist governments, create instability, and clear the path for extractive companies to profit."
"The most powerful multinational fossil fuel corporations stand to benefit from these aggressions, and US oil and gas companies are poised to exploit the chaos and carve up one of the world's most oil-rich territories," said Bast. "The US must stop treating Latin America as a resource colony. The Venezuelan people, not US oil executives, must shape their country’s future."
US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said that the president's own words make plain that his attack on Venezuela and attempt to impose his will there are "about trying to grab Venezuela's oil for Trump's billionaire buddies."
In a statement, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) echoed that sentiment, calling Trump's assault on Venezuela "rank imperialism."
"They have spoken openly about controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world," said Sanders. "It recalls the darkest chapters of US interventions in Latin America, which have left a terrible legacy. It will and should be condemned by the democratic world."
“What is being done to Venezuela is barbaric," said Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed the role of interim president following the US abduction of Nicolás Maduro.
Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed the role of interim president following the US abduction of Nicolás Maduro, said in a televised address Saturday that "we will never again be a colony of any empire," defying the Trump administration's plan to indefinitely control Venezuela's government and exploit its vast oil reserves.
“We are determined to be free,” declared Rodríguez, who demanded that the US release Maduro from custody and said he is still Venezuela's president.
“What is being done to Venezuela is barbaric," she added.
Rodríguez's defiant remarks came after US President Donald Trump claimed he is "designating various people" to run Venezuela's government, suggested American troops could be deployed, and threatened a "second wave" of attacks on the country if its political officials don't bow to the Trump administration's demands.
Trump also threatened "all political and military figures in Venezuela," warning that "what happened to Maduro can happen to them." Maduro is currently detained in Brooklyn and facing fresh US charges.
Rodríguez's public remarks contradicted the US president's claim that she privately pledged compliance with the Trump administration's attempts to control Venezuela's political system and oil infrastructure. The interim president delivered her remarks alongside top Venezuelan officials, including legislative and judicial leaders, Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino, a projection of unity in the face of US aggression.
"Doesn’t feel like a nation that is ready to let Donald Trump and Marco Rubio 'run it,'" said US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who condemned the Trump administration for "starting an illegal war with Venezuela that Americans didn’t ask for and has nothing to do with our security."