April, 19 2018, 12:00am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Valerie Holford, Earthjustice, valerieholford@starpower.net or (202) 365-5336
Tom Pelton, Environmental Integrity Project, tpelton@environmentalintegrity.org or (443) 510-2574
New Analysis of EPA Proposal Reveals It Fails to Protect Children from Coal Ash Pollution and Removes Polluters' Obligation to Immediately Clean Up Spills
EPA hearing scheduled for Tuesday on Trump Administration plan to roll back 2015 coal ash regulations.
WASHINGTON
A new, close review of the Trump EPA's draft plan to gut federal coal ash regulations established in 2015 reveals that it would encourage states to ignore risks to children and remove the requirement that polluters immediately clean up their coal ash spills. The analysis was done by the Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice.
EPA will hold a hearing on the proposed coal ash rule rollback on Tuesday in Arlington, VA, and Congress will hold a briefing Wednesday at which experts and people living near coal plants will testify.
Environmental, health and safety experts had previously highlighted other detrimental aspects of the EPA proposal, which was first unveiled last month. But the Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice only recently found in the fine print the problem about the risk to children and the lack of immediate cleanup requirements for polluters.
"EPA knows that the health risks from coal ash pollution hit children the hardest, yet EPA's new proposal allows states and polluters to ignore risks to children and leave them in harm's way," said Abel Russ, attorney with Environmental Integrity Project.
Coal ash, the byproduct of burning coal at power plants, is loaded with toxic pollutants like arsenic, lead, and even radioactivity, and EPA in 2015 released the first federal regulations designed to help control the escape of these pollutants from coal ash dumps.
In the Trump Administration's proposed revision of the coal regulations, the agency shifts the responsibility of setting groundwater protection standards for many toxic coal ash pollutants, such as lead, boron, cobalt, lithium, and molybdenum, into the states' (and even the polluters') hands for the first time. To make this change, the EPA cut and pasted language from existing regulations for municipal solid waste landfills (household trash dumps), but deliberately omitted a critical reference to the consideration of the health of "sensitive subgroups," which includes children.
"The EPA has, for years, made a point of paying special attention to children's health, and has in fact protected children from toxic pollution in countless ways. But apparently Scott Pruitt doesn't think that's EPA's job," said Russ. "If you own a municipal landfill, you have to make sure that you are protecting children. If you are a coal plant owner? EPA knows that you pose a special risk to children, but hey, don't worry about it. This is not the EPA Americans have come to depend on. It's truly shameful."
In its new draft rule, EPA also turns its back on hundreds of communities living near dangerous coal ash dams. Across the nation, nearly 700 earthen impoundments hold back tens of millions of tons of toxic coal ash sludge. The largest toxic waste spill in the U.S. occurred at the TVA Kingston Fossil Plant in 2008, when an earthen dam broke in Harriman, Tennessee and released over a billion gallons of toxic sludge into a riverfront community. The EPA's recent proposal deliberately ignores these risks and removes the requirement for industry to immediately respond to a disaster and control the toxic flood.
Dam safety expert Jack Spadaro has never seen anything like it in his decades of dam oversight for the U.S. government. "High hazard coal ash dams will kill people if they break," said Spadaro, former administrator of the National Mine Health and Safety Academy. "Removing the duty to immediately respond to a disaster places communities near coal ash dams in great jeopardy."
The EPA proposal is the biggest giveaway to polluters this year.
"The draft rule is gratuitously anti-public health and safety, and it shows who Pruitt is really protecting--and it's the polluters," said Lisa Evans, Senior Administrative Counsel at Earthjustice and former Assistant Regional Counsel at the EPA. "The Trump EPA has completely abandoned its mission to protect communities and the environment from future coal ash disasters."
Background
Coal ash has historically been dumped in unlined landfills and ponds without concern for water quality or safety. In fact, many of these ash dumps are dug so deep that the coal ash is sitting in the water table, which often is a source of drinking water. It should be no surprise that groundwater near coal plants is frequently contaminated with unsafe levels of multiple chemicals. At hundreds of dump sites, coal ash is also impounded behind aging earthen dams. When these dams break or the pipes underlying them fail, the spills can be catastrophic, as seen in 2008 in Kingston, TN and at the Duke Energy Dan River Plant in 2014, where a broken pipe caused a spill that fouled 70 miles of the Dan River in North Carolina and Virginia.
In the course of the 2015 rulemaking, EPA determined that certain pollutants posed unacceptable risks at unregulated coal ash dumps. These include boron, which can harm fetal development and reproductive health; cobalt, which can cause blood and thyroid disorders; and several others. EPA also determined that these noncancer risks were highest for infants.
In 2015, after years of pressure and litigation from the public interest community, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finally issued first-ever federal regulations for the disposal of coal ash. The 2015 regulations required owners of coal plants take many steps to ensure that deadly coal ash pollutants would not contaminate drinking water and dams would not break.
Exposing children to harm
Fast-forward to March of 2018. Now, upon industry's bidding, EPA is proposing to roll back the 2015 federal rule and gut critical health protections. EPA wants to allow the states, and even the polluters themselves, to set their own drinking water standards for pollutants without maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), including boron, cobalt, lead, lithium, and molybdenum. EPA copied and pasted the language for "alternative groundwater protection standards" from the regulations that apply to municipal solid waste landfills. But EPA deliberately left something out. This is what the municipal landfill regulations say:
For systemic toxicants, the [groundwater standard] represents a concentration to which the human population (including sensitive subgroups) could be exposed on a daily basis that is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. 40 C.F.R. SS 258.55(i)(4) (emphasis added).
And this is what EPA is proposing in the re-write of its coal ash regulations:
For systemic toxicants, the [groundwater standard] represents a concentration to which the human population could be exposed on a daily basis that is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. 83 Fed. Reg. 11613.
"Sensitive subgroups" includes, of course, children. Everything was copied and pasted, but the language protecting children was struck out.
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
Poland to Weaken Global Treaty by Making Landmines for Eastern Border and Possibly Ukraine
Condemning the plans, Humanity & Inclusion said antipersonnel mines "render land unusable for agriculture, block access to essential services, and cause casualties decades after conflicts end."
Dec 18, 2025
Just a couple of weeks after the annual Landmine Monitor highlighted rising global casualties from explosive remnants of war, Reuters reported Wednesday that Poland plans to start producing antipersonnel landmines, deploy them along its eastern border, and possibly export them to Ukraine, which is fighting a Russian invasion.
As both the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) monitor and Reuters noted, Poland is among multiple state parties in the process of ditching the Mine Ban Treaty. Citing the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the news agency reported that "antipersonnel mine production could begin once the treaty's six‑month withdrawal period is completed on February 20, 2026."
Asked about the prospect of Poland producing the mines as soon as it leaves the convention—also called the Ottawa Treaty—Polish Deputy Defense Minister Paweł Zalewski told Reuters: "I would very much like that... We have such needs."
"We are interested in large quantities as soon as possible," Zalewski said. He added that "our starting point is our own needs. But for us, Ukraine is absolutely a priority because the European and Polish security line is on the Russia-Ukraine front."
Notes from Poland pointed out on social media Thursday that the mine plans come amid other developments in Poland's East Shield operation. As the Kraków-based outlet detailed Sunday, "Germany will send soldiers to Poland next year to support its neighbor's efforts to strengthen its borders with Russia and Belarus, which are also NATO and the European Union's eastern flank."
Humanity & Inclusion (HI), a group launched in 1982 by a pair of doctors helping Cambodian refugees affected by landmines, said in a statement to Common Dreams that it "strongly condemns Poland's decision to resume production of antipersonnel mines as soon as its withdrawal from the Ottawa Treaty becomes official in February."
HI stressed that "antipersonnel mines disproportionately harm civilians. They render land unusable for agriculture, block access to essential services, and cause casualties decades after conflicts end. Their use is devastating for civilian populations. Producing landmines is cheap, but removing them would be even more expensive and complicated."
"Plus, new production of landmines would make this weapon more available and easier to purchase," the group warned. "Such a decision normalizes a weapon that has been prohibited since 1999, when the Ottawa Treaty entered into force, and fragilizes the treaty."
"The Ottawa Treaty has been incredibly effective in protecting civilians and drying up the landmine market, a weapon that was no longer produced in Europe, and only assembled by a limited number of countries, including Russia, Iran, and North Korea, among others," HI added, citing the drop in landmine casualties since the convention entered into force.
In 1999, casualties were around 25,000 annually, according to ICBL. By 2023, they had dropped to 5,757 injured or killed. However, as the campaign revealed in its latest report at the beginning of December, there were at least 6,279 casualties in 2024—the highest yearly figure since 2020 and a 9% increase from the previous year.
In the report, ICBL outlined recent alleged mine use by not only Russia and Ukraine but also Cambodia, Iran, Myanmar, and North Korea. The group also flagged that, along with Poland, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania are in the process of legally withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty, while Ukraine is trying to unlawfully "suspend the operation" of the convention during its war with Russia.
ICBL director Tamar Gabelnick said at the time that "governments must speak out to uphold the treaty, prevent further departures, reinforce its provisions globally, and ensure no more countries use, produce, or acquire antipersonnel mines."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Gross': Critics Recoil After Trump-Appointed Board Adds His Name to Kennedy Center
"Some things leave you speechless, and enraged, and in a state of disbelief," said journalist Maria Shriver, a niece of the late President John F. Kennedy.
Dec 18, 2025
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday drew an outraged reaction after she announced that members of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts board, who were appointed by President Donald Trump, had voted to add his name to the building.
In a post on X, Leavitt announced that the building would henceforth be known as the "Trump-Kennedy Center," despite the fact that the building was originally named by the US Congress in the wake of President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963.
"I have just been informed that the highly respected Board of the Kennedy Center... have just voted unanimously to rename the Kennedy Center to the Trump-Kennedy Center," Leavitt wrote on X, "because of the unbelievable work President Trump has done over the last year in saving the building. Not only from the standpoint of its reconstruction, but also financially, and its reputation."
Despite Leavitt's claim, it does not appear that the vote in favor of renaming the building was unanimous. Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), an ex-officio Kennedy Center board member, said after the vote that she had been muted during a call where other board members had voted to add Trump's name to the building, and was thus "not allowed to speak or voice my opposition to this move."
Journalist Terry Moran noted that the Kennedy Center board does not have the power to rename the building without prior approval of US Congress.
"Congress establishes these institutions through law, and only a new law can rename them," Moran wrote, and then commented, "also—gross."
Members of the Kennedy family also expressed anger at the move to rename the center.
Former US Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.) wrote on Bluesky that "the Kennedy Center is a living memorial to a fallen president and named for President Kennedy by federal law," and "can no sooner be renamed than can someone rename the Lincoln Memorial, no matter what anyone says."
Journalist Maria Shriver, a niece of the late president, could barely express her anger at the decision.
"Some things leave you speechless, and enraged, and in a state of disbelief," she wrote. "At times such as that, it’s better to be quiet. For how long, I can’t say."
Shortly afterward, Shriver wrote another post in which she attacked Trump for being "downright weird" with his obsession with having things named after himself.
"It is beyond comprehension that this sitting president has sought to rename this great memorial dedicated to President Kennedy," she said. "It is beyond wild that he would think adding his name in front of President Kennedy’s name is acceptable. It is not. Next thing perhaps he will want to rename JFK Airport, rename the Lincoln Memorial, the Trump Lincoln Memorial. The Trump Jefferson Memorial. The Trump Smithsonian. The list goes on."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Throwback to McCarthyism': Trump DOJ Moves to Treat Leftist Dissent as Criminal
A former official from Trump’s first term said the FBI will be able to throw the full might of the surveillance state at “Americans whose primary ‘offense’ may be ideological dissent.”
Dec 18, 2025
The Trump administration is about to embark on a massive crackdown on what it describes as a scourge of rampant left-wing “terrorism.”
But the US Department of Justice (DOJ) memo ordering the crackdown has critics fearing it will go far beyond punishing those who plan criminal acts and will instead be used to criminalize anyone who expresses opposition to President Donald Trump and his agenda.
Earlier this month, independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi had sent out a memo ordering the FBI to “compile a list of groups or entities engaging in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism.”
As part of this effort, Bondi set Thursday as a deadline for all law enforcement agencies to "coordinate delivery" of intelligence files related to “antifa” or “antifa-related activities” to the FBI.
The memo identifies those who express “opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology,” as well as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” and “anti-Christianity," as potential targets for investigation.
This language references National Security Presidential Memorandum-7, or NSPM-7, a memo issued by Trump in September, which identified this slate of left-wing beliefs as potential "indicators" of terrorism following the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk in September.
In comments made before the alleged shooter's identity was revealed, Trump attributed the murder to "those on the radical left [who] have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis," adding that "this kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country and must stop right now."
Weeks after Kirk's shooting, Trump designated "antifa" as a "domestic terrorism organization," a move that alarmed critics because "antifa," short for "anti-fascist," is a loosely defined ideology rather than an organized political group.
Senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller, meanwhile, promised that the Trump administration would use law enforcement to "dismantle" left-wing groups he said were "fomenting violence." He suggested that merely using heated rhetoric—including calling Trump and his supporters "fascist" or "authoritarian"—"incites violence and terrorism."
Klippenstein said that “where NSPM-7 was a declaration of war on just about anyone who isn’t MAGA,” the memo that went into effect Thursday “is the war plan for how the government will wage it on a tactical level.”
In comments to the Washington Post, former FBI agent Michael Feinberg, who is now a senior editor at Lawfare, said it was "a pretty damn dangerous document," in part because "it is directed at a specific ideology, namely the left, without offering much evidence as to why that is necessary."
Studies have repeatedly shown that while all political factions contain violent actors, those who commit acts of political violence are vastly more likely to identify with right-wing causes.
Miles Taylor, who served as chief of staff for the Department of Homeland Security under the first Trump administration, pointed out in a blog post the extraordinary surveillance capability that the FBI will have at its disposal to use against those it targets.
He said it "includes the FBI’s ability to marshal facial recognition, phone-tracking databases, license-plate readers, financial records review, undercover operations, and intelligence-sharing tools against Americans whose primary 'offense' may be ideological dissent."
"Unfortunately, once you are fed into that system, there is no real 'due process' until charges are brought," Taylor said. "It’s not like you get a text-message notification when the FBI begins investigating you for terrorism offenses, and there’s certainly no 'opt-out' feature. For this to happen, you don’t need to commit violence. You don’t even need to plan it. Under the administration’s new guidelines, you merely need to be flagged for association with the anti-fascist movement to become a potential target."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Wash.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told the Post, "It is a throwback to McCarthyism and the worst abuses of [Former FBI Director J. Edgar] Hoover’s FBI to use federal law enforcement against Americans purely because of their political beliefs or because they disagree with the current president’s politics."
Taylor argued: "He’s right, but it’s actually more dangerous than that. Joseph McCarthy had subpoenas and hearings and created his blacklists of 'communist' Americans from Capitol Hill. And while controversial FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover may have had old-school wiretaps and informants, Donald Trump’s team has algorithmic surveillance, bulk data collection, and a post-9/11 security state designed for permanent emergency. It’s like comparing a snowflake with a refrigerator."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


