Eco-Justice Ministries
   Eco-Justice: "the well-being of all humankind on a thriving Earth"		  

Action Alerts

From time to time, Eco-Justice Ministries highlights an especially important or urgent matter of public policy, and calls on our constituency to take action. We usually do so as part of a broad coalition of faith and advocacy groups.

The primary focus of Eco-Justice Ministries is on the "faithful, relevant and effective" programming of local congregations. Political advocacy and public witness are part of the broad range of ways that congregations and church members can work for social justice and ecological sustainability.

Comment on proposed EPA regulations about the storage of coal ash
Comments accepted until November 19, 2010

Coal ash (or "coal combustion residuals") is generated at coal-fired power plants and other industrial locations that burn coal. The ash contains a mix of hazardous materials. Currently, there are only very weak, state-based rules controlling the storage of this waste product. In the spring of 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency proposed two options for federal rules dealing with coal ash. Eco-Justice Ministries urges comments in support of the "Subtitle C" option that provides the strongest protections.

Background (from the August 27, 2010 issue of Eco-Justice Notes)
Coal ash dramatically broke into the news in December, 2008, when over 5 million cubic yards -- over a billion gallons -- of wet ash spilled from a retaining pond in Kingston, Tennessee. (As with the oil disaster this summer in the Gulf of Mexico, "spill" just doesn't seem like an adequate word.) The huge volume of ash stockpiled at just one site was eye-opening to many of us. The realization that the ash contains substantial levels of dangerous chemicals, that it is not some sort of benign dirt, kicked intellectual awareness into moral concern.

The 2008 spill prompted the EPA to begin considering federal regulation of coal ash, but the agency was already familiar with the dangers of CCR. An EPA report in 2007 found that coal ash disposal sites release toxic chemicals and metals such as arsenic, lead, boron, selenium, cadmium, thallium, and other pollutants at levels that pose risks to human health and the environment. Coal ash waste ponds pose a cancer risk 900 times above what is defined as 'acceptable.'

As is so often the case, there are aspects of racial and economic bias in the location of the coal ash sites. The EPA reports that 52% of the almost 500 sites they researched are in areas that are disproportionately low-income.

There are over 2,000 coal ash disposal sites around the country. You can use an interactive map from the Sierra Club to get a feel for the widespread scope of the problem, and to zoom in on locations closest to you.

The Environmental Protection Agency has recognized the risk to public health and the environment from inadequate storage and disposal of coal ash. The rules that they originally proposed would, for the first time, classify coal combustion residuals as hazardous waste. Under pressure from the coal industry and electric utilities, and from politicians in the US House and Senate, the EPA has been forced to offer a much weaker option as an alternative.

The public comments being received this fall will help shape the choice between the strict regulations under subtitle C, and the very weak regulations under subtitle D. (A chart from the EPA provides a concise comparison of the two options. A 4-page PDF document from Earthjustice and others gives a clear summary of differences between the two proposals.)

The subtitle C option is the one initially recommended by the EPA, and it is the one supported by a broad coalition of environmental groups. It would effectively phase out surface impoundments of coal ash. The subtitle D option classifies coal ash as household waste, with minimal restrictions, and with weak enforcement.

How can you comment on the EPA coal ash regulations?

  • Sign a petition-- this is only minimally effective, and does not count as an official comment, but is better than nothing!

  • Personalize a prepared comment -- There are letters that you can customize from the Sierra Club or Appalachian Voices. (Please do revise it with your own thoughts or experience. An obviously standardized letter will be discounted when comments are evaluated.)

  • Draft your own statement -- hopefully in support of the subtitle C option! The comment period has been extended. Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before November 19, 2010. You can:
    • e-mail it to rcra-docket@epa.gov, with the subject line: "Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640". It is best to put your statement in the body of the email, not in an attachment.

    • "snail mail" a hardcopy to:
      RCRA Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640
      Mail code: 28221T
      1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW
      Washington, DC 20460

  • Attend, and speak at, one of the EPA hearings this fall. Hearings have been scheduled for Arlington, VA, 8/30, Denver 9/2, Dallas 9/8, Charlotte 9/14, Chicago 9/16, Pittsburg 9/21and Louisville 9/28. Preregister if you intend to speak at a hearing. You can attend to show your support for strong regulations without preregistering.

Comments made by Rev. Peter Sawtell at the hearing in Denver, 9/2/2010
Good afternoon. I am the Rev. Peter Sawtell, the founder and Executive Director of Eco-Justice Ministries. Our agency, based here in Denver, works with Christian churches in Colorado, and across the United States, to build awareness, commitment and action at the intersection of social justice and ecological sustainability.

We have alerted our constituency, consisting of thousands of church leaders, about the hazards of coal ash, and about the need for the EPA to establish strong rules. I know that many of our people have already submitted comments.

I speak in favor of the regulations proposed under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which would provide the strongest standards and the highest level of enforcement for the storage of coal combustion residuals.

My support for the Subtitle C option is grounded in two closely-related moral principles: Environmental Justice, and Eco-Justice.

Environmental justice does not allow disproportionate impacts from pollution on communities of color, or that are low-income. The reality of those unequal environmental impacts was first documented in 1987, with the groundbreaking statistical study from the United Church of Christ, Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States. The findings of that report were confirmed in an updated analysis from the UCC, Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty: 1987-2007.

Church groups, academics and community activists have decried the immoral practice of dumping hazardous substances in disempowered communities. Institutional racism and classism are abhorrent in all of their forms. In the case of the toxic materials found in coal ash – which can cause neurological disruption, digestive disorders, and cancer – the unjust damage to individual lives, families and communities is deep-seated, long-lasting, and utterly unacceptable.

All of the documents surrounding these proposed rules acknowledge the presence of a host of harmful chemicals in coal ash. I'm not going to run through that list again. Last spring's detailed coal ash report from Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project, Out of Control, documents the environmental justice factors of that pollution: "Low-income communities shoulder a disproportionate share of the health risks from disposal of coal combustion waste. A majority of the 31 sites in this report are located in communities that that are above the national median for percent of low-income families."

I know that the US EPA is aware of environmental justice considerations, because this agency is required to operate in compliance with the 1994 Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.

It is imperative that the strong provisions of the Subtitle C option be implemented to address environmental justice impacts.

My second basis for support of Subtitle C is the ethical principle at the heart of my agency's name, eco-justice. As one wise Presbyterian minister said, eco-justice seeks "the well-being of all humankind on a thriving Earth." It holds together commitments to racial and economic justice, and ecological health.

From the perspective of eco-justice, pollution and toxic waste is a moral problem, even if the impacts are not disproportionate. It is wrong to poison anybody.

From the perspective of eco-justice, the issue of toxic coal ash is not only a human problem. The well-documented impacts on livestock, wildlife, and ecological systems are also a matter of moral concern.

From the perspective of eco-justice, the intergenerational impacts of coal ash pollution are important. Far into the future, heavy metals will persist in groundwater, stream sediments and airborne dust if coal combustion residuals are not contained under rigorous standards and enforcement. Far into the future, poorly constructed and maintained waste ponds place humans and animals at physical risk from the sort of flooding and mudflows that occurred in Kingston in 2008.

Environmental justice demands protection for the people among us who have so often been oppressed, excluded and disempowered. Eco-justice demands the safe storage of coal ash on behalf of all of God's creation: humans and other-than-human, now and into the future.

My agency's area of focus and expertise is moral witness about matters of ecological health and social justice. The weak option under Subtitle D is ethically deficient in protecting communities from the hazards of coal ash. I call for the implementation of the strong Subtitle C option.

Eco-Justice Ministries   *   400 S Williams St, Denver, CO   80209   *   303.715.3873
Home Page: www.eco-justice.org   *   E-mail: ministry@eco-justice.org