Curt and Debbie Haven may have to sell their family home in Chester, W. Va. due to coal ash waste run-off seeping onto their land.  (Chris Jordan-Bloch / Earthjustice)

In our effort to raise awareness on the hazards of coal ash, we have written blog post after blog post, sent press releases, submitted editorials and letters to the editor.

So we are mighty pleased that the Washington Post featured this important issue in a story today written by Juliet Eilperin. The story illustrates the politics obstructing the coal ash rule from moving forward.

But what I am most pleased about, is the voice that this story gives to folks on the ground who are enduring the hazards of living near coal ash ponds. More on that later…

In June, Earthjustice was dismayed when the Maryland Department of the Environment put out a proposal that failed to adequately reduce pollution from Baltimore Harbor. Tina Meyers of the Baltimore Harbor Waterkeeper, who we work with on this issue, said:

The Baltimore City stormwater pollution permit is meant to regulate the pollution that is discharging directly from Baltimore City’s stormwater pipes into our rivers, streams and Harbor. Unfortunately, this permit lacks limits on the amount of pollution that is allowed to go into our waterways and also lacks enforceable deadlines by which these limits must be reached.

Well, it turns out we aren’t the only ones who are upset.
 

Newborns are especially vulnerable to the toxic flame retardant chemical PBDE. (Image of child via Shutterstock)

Last week we spoke about the weaknesses in the current law protecting Americans from toxic chemicals. Today we submitted comments to EPA urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to move forward with health protections that would regulate polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) which are a group of toxic flame retardants. The health-protective actions we are urging EPA to take would impose some of the most stringent restrictions permitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the flawed and obsolete statute that ties EPA’s hands in trying to ensure the safety of the chemicals that are produced and used in this country. The comments were prepared with Environmental Defense Fund on behalf of 33 other groups

Firefighters are often exposed to a “chemical cocktail” of emissions from flame retardant chemicals. (BLS)

At a Senate hearing, today, about the EPA's authority to control exposures to toxic chemicals, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Cali.) wondered aloud: what would Americans say if asked whether they thought products containing poisonous chemicals are tested before being sold.

Most probably think there is a system in place to protect them from such products before they make their way into homes and bodies, Boxer guessed. “That a chemical has to be proven safe before it is used."

But that is not the case, she said. “In actuality, the EPA has to prove that it is unsafe.”

At an oversight hearing of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, discussion focused on chemical flame retardants as a prime example of what is wrong with the federal law that regulates chemicals. The committee heard from an EPA official, a mother and legislator, scientist, San Francisco firefighter and talking heads for industry.

Today has turned into a better day for our planet—and our lungs. In a landmark decision, the D.C. federal appeals court upheld every single one of the EPA’s carbon pollution limits. These EPA protections are in response to the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, and are important parts of the agency’s efforts to curb such pollution under the Clean Air Act.

The rules went to oral argument in February after more than 60 lawsuits by companies including Massey Energy Co.; business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and states such as Texas and Virginia pushed the court to overthrow the “arbitrary” and “capricious” standards.

However, today the three-judge panel of the D.C. court of appeals ruled that the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act was “unambiguously correct.” The court also concluded that opponents don’t have the legal right to challenge the timing and tailoring rules.

Mossville, LA.

Last year, the EPA proposed an air rule that would finally limit the amount of cancer-causing chemicals residents in Mossville, Louisiana would have to breathe from the polyvinyl chloride plant nearby. So it came as a blow when the EPA released a final rule that imposes weaker limits at the CertainTeed plant in Mossville—a facility that emits 19 tons of poisonous air pollutants a year.

Turns out we aren’t the only ones finding fault in the EPA’s behavior, as seen in this gripping Huffington Post story detailing the stark reality of a community being destroyed by the toxic fumes it breathes.

Edgar Mouton

Edgar Mouton lived much of his 76 years in Mossville, Louisiana, and for the past decade fought doggedly to obtain federal protections from the toxic pollution that pours into Mossville from the largest concentration of PVC and vinyl manufacturing facilities in the U.S. and a host of other hazardous industrial facilities. As a great-grandfather and leader of Mossville Environmental Action Now (MEAN), Mr. Mouton worked to prevent the rising rates of cancer, respiratory disease and other illnesses suffered by residents of the historic African American community in southwest Louisiana.

Sadly Mr. Mouton, passed away June 7 without the EPA fulfilling what it had once promised his community.

So, you’d think we’d all be in agreement here: clean water is a boon for everyone. That means, keep coal ash (full of mercury, arsenic, hexavalent chromium and other nasty stuff) out of our drinking water, right? Sadly, that doesn’t hold true for everyone. Some members of the House of Representatives think that funding 2.9 million jobs via the transportation bill is a great opportunity to shove in a measure that will block the EPA from ever regulating coal ash on a federal level.

Scratch your heads. It doesn’t make sense to us, either.

Which is why Earthjustice is one of 140 groups from 14 states that sent a letter to Senate conferees, calling on them to pass a transportation bill free of public health loopholes. This means getting rid of the coal ash rider, as well as amendments that would automatically permit the Keystone XL pipeline (a controversial project that is harmful for the climate) and another that would dismantle public participation-oriented environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act.

New-fangled clothes washers (and dishwashers) save money, water and energy.

We know we have been critical of the Obama administration of late, calling on the Department of Energy to get moving on publishing crucial energy efficiency standards. But we are happy to applaud the administration when they make good on their promise for a clean energy future. The latest: new clothes washer and dishwasher standards will not only save American consumers money on their utility bills, but will lead to washers that use much less energy and water.

Earthjustice participated in negotiations that led to a joint agreement between manufacturers and environmental and consumer advocates recommending the standards that DOE has now adopted. Specifically clothes washers will use up to 35 percent less energy and water and dishwashers will use about 14 percent less energy and 23 percent less water.

A lead smelter in Missouri.
(Kbh3rd / Wikimedia)

We all know the danger that resides in lead-laden paint chips peeling off the walls of old homes. It’s well understood that lead is poisonous and, even in small doses, can harm brain function and cause learning disabilities in children. Lead also is associated with impairment of the cardiovascular, reproductive, kidney and immune systems of adults.

That's why a USA Today investigation documenting the high amounts of lead children are exposed to in several communities across the nation is so alarming. But more on that later.

In early April, Earthjustice filed a legal action on behalf of five national and local environmental groups seeking to clean up toxic lead pollution from facilities known as secondary lead smelters. These facilities, also known as battery recyclers, extract and process lead from scrap material and old batteries, exposing communities to lead, cadmium, arsenic and other toxic air pollutants. The case involves the amount of toxic air pollution going into the air in more than a dozen communities around the U.S.