<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Coal Ash Spill &#187; coal ash regulation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/tag/coal-ash-regulation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.coal-ash-spill.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:45:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Two years after spill EPA unsure how to classify toxic coal ash</title>
		<link>http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2010/12/20/two-years-after-spill-epa-unsure-how-to-classify-toxic-coal-ash/</link>
		<comments>http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2010/12/20/two-years-after-spill-epa-unsure-how-to-classify-toxic-coal-ash/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Dec 2010 21:22:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Walker-Journey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coal Ash]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal ash regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal ash spill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Protection Agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hazardous material]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hazardous waste]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawsuits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tennessee Valley Authority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[toxic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TVA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/?p=1433</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two years after an impoundment pond containing toxic coal ash at a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) fossil fuel plant broke, spilling a billion gallons of sludge onto 300 acres of rural east Tennessee, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) still isn’t sure whether to recommend that coal ash be classified as a hazardous material. Shortly after [...]<p>SOURCE: <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com">Coal Ash Spill</a> &rsaquo; <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2010/12/20/two-years-after-spill-epa-unsure-how-to-classify-toxic-coal-ash/">Two years after spill EPA unsure how to classify toxic coal ash</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two years after an impoundment pond containing <strong>toxic <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/tag/coal-ash/" title="" rel="external">coal ash</a></strong> at a <strong><a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/tag/tennessee-valley-authority/" title="" rel="external">Tennessee Valley Authority</a> (TVA) </strong>fossil fuel plant broke, spilling a billion gallons of sludge onto 300 acres of rural east Tennessee, the <strong>Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)</strong> still isn’t sure whether to recommend that coal ash be classified as a hazardous material. Shortly after the spill, the agency was charged with recommending a classification for the material as part of a federal investigation into the environmental disaster.<span id="more-1433"></span></p>
<p>More than 400 people have filed a total of 55 <strong>lawsuits</strong> against the TVA. Several hundred more people are said to be waiting for possible <strong>class-action</strong> certification. One lawyer estimated it would take more than 170 years to litigate the case should the agency force separate trials for every claim either already filed or pending class-action status, according to the <em><a href="http://www.knoxnews.com">Knoxville News Sentinel</a></em>. The spilled coal ash is being blamed for destroyed homes, damaged properties, and a litany of health problems.</p>
<p><strong>Coal ash</strong> is currently not regulated by the federal government, which critics say caused lax standards among coal ash impoundment facilities like the east Tennessee TVA plant. One proposal the EPA is considering would regulate coal ash as <strong>hazardous material</strong>, which would then fall under federal oversight. Another proposal would keep coal ash as non-hazardous but would require enforcement through “citizen” lawsuits.</p>
<p>The EPA said in a statement that is does not know when regulations will be finalized.</p>
<p>SOURCE: <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com">Coal Ash Spill</a> &rsaquo; <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2010/12/20/two-years-after-spill-epa-unsure-how-to-classify-toxic-coal-ash/">Two years after spill EPA unsure how to classify toxic coal ash</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2010/12/20/two-years-after-spill-epa-unsure-how-to-classify-toxic-coal-ash/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>EPA&#8217;s recommendations on coal ash the focus of dispute</title>
		<link>http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2010/01/19/epas-recommendations-on-coal-ash-the-focus-of-dispute/</link>
		<comments>http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2010/01/19/epas-recommendations-on-coal-ash-the-focus-of-dispute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:43:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Walker-Journey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coal Ash]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal ash regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal ash spill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[District of Columbia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Protection Agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hazardous material]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tennessee]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/?p=1297</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ponders how waste from coal-firing plants should be classified, the debate on how best to regulate the toxic material heats up. Here is one more view on The Coal Ash Case, from The New York Times. Editorial: The Coal Ash Case Published January 19, 2010, The New York Times [...]<p>SOURCE: <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com">Coal Ash Spill</a> &rsaquo; <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2010/01/19/epas-recommendations-on-coal-ash-the-focus-of-dispute/">EPA&#8217;s recommendations on coal ash the focus of dispute</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ponders how waste from coal-firing plants should be classified, the debate on how best to regulate the toxic material heats up. Here is one more view on <strong>The <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/tag/coal-ash/" title="" rel="external">Coal Ash</a> Case</strong>, from <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/opinion/20wed4.html?ref=opinion"><em>The New York Times</em></a>.<span id="more-1297"></span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px"><strong>Editorial: The Coal Ash Case</strong><br />
<em>Published January 19, 2010, The New York Times</em>
</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px">Just more than a year ago, one billion tons of toxic coal sludge broke loose from a containment pond belonging to the <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/tag/tennessee-valley-authority/" title="" rel="external">Tennessee Valley Authority</a>, burying hundreds of acres of Roane County in eastern Tennessee and threatening local water supplies and air quality. The Environmental Protection Agency immediately promised new national standards governing the disposal of coal ash to replace a patchwork of uneven — and in many cases weak — state regulations.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px">The agency’s recommendations, which have not been made public, are now the focus of a huge dispute inside the Obama administration, with industry lobbying hard for changes that would essentially preserve the status quo. The dispute should be resolved in favor of the environment and public safety.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px">America’s power plants produce 130 million tons of coal ash a year, enough to fill a train of boxcars stretching from the District of Columbia to Australia. Some of this is usefully, safely and profitably recycled to make concrete and other construction materials. Much of it winds up in lightly regulated landfills, some as big as 1,500 acres, where toxic pollutants like arsenic and lead can leach into the water table.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px">One internal E.P.A. proposal suggested reclassifying coal ash as a hazardous material subject to federal regulation. It also recommended national standards requiring safe, sturdy disposal facilities. Industry counterattacked, arguing that the hazardous designation would ruin the recycling market and could trigger burdensome new investments. It also argued for continued state control, with the federal government providing “guidance.”</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px">These arguments do not hold up. The recycling market will not disappear. Materials that are responsibly recycled are not, typically, designated as hazardous. The real problem is the 60 percent or so of the coal ash that winds up in porous landfills. Evidence suggests that tough but carefully tailored rules could encourage even more recycling, protecting the environment while yielding income to help pay for more secure landfills.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px">This debate is being conducted behind closed doors, mainly at the Office of Management and Budget, where industry usually takes its complaints and horror stories. A better course would be to let the E.P.A. draft a proposal, get it out in the open and offer it for comment from all sides. The Obama administration promised that transparency and good science would govern decisions like these.</p>
<p>SOURCE: <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com">Coal Ash Spill</a> &rsaquo; <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2010/01/19/epas-recommendations-on-coal-ash-the-focus-of-dispute/">EPA&#8217;s recommendations on coal ash the focus of dispute</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2010/01/19/epas-recommendations-on-coal-ash-the-focus-of-dispute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Coal ash spill worse than originally thought</title>
		<link>http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2010/01/08/coal-ash-spill-worse-than-originally-thought/</link>
		<comments>http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2010/01/08/coal-ash-spill-worse-than-originally-thought/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:39:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Walker-Journey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cleanup effort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coal Ash]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal ash guidelines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal ash regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal ash spill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Integrity Project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Protection Agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eric Schaeffer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kingston]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tennessee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tennessee Valley Authority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Environment Report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[toxic material]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TVA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/?p=1233</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The December 2008 coal ash spill from a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) power plant in Kingston, Tenn., was already considered one of the nation’s largest environmental disasters, but one year after the spill, authorities say the devastation is even bigger than first imagined. Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, tells The Environment [...]<p>SOURCE: <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com">Coal Ash Spill</a> &rsaquo; <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2010/01/08/coal-ash-spill-worse-than-originally-thought/">Coal ash spill worse than originally thought</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/media/2008/12/coal-ash-spill-31.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-60" title="Neighborhood Flooded" src="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/media/2008/12/coal-ash-spill-31-150x150.jpg" alt="coal ash spill 31 150x150 Coal ash spill worse than originally thought" width="100" height="100" /></a>The December 2008 <strong><a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/tag/coal-ash/" title="" rel="external">coal ash</a> spill</strong> from a <strong><a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/tag/tennessee-valley-authority/" title="" rel="external">Tennessee Valley Authority</a> (TVA) </strong>power plant in Kingston, Tenn., was already considered one of the nation’s largest environmental disasters, but one year after the spill, authorities say the devastation is even bigger than first imagined. <strong>Eric Schaeffer</strong>, executive director of the <strong>Environmental Integrity Project,</strong> tells <a href="http://www.environmentreport.org/show.php?showID=331">The Environment Report’s</a> Tanya Ott that the 2.6 billion pounds of toxic sludge from the east Tennessee impoundment pond is more than the total discharge of all United States power plants last year.<span id="more-1233"></span></p>
<p>The spill, which piled as high as nine feet in some areas, knocked houses off their foundations, blanketed yards, and poured into the Emory River. Coal ash is laden with toxins such as arsenic, lead, chromium, manganese and barium, which have been linked to <strong>serious health problems</strong> such as cancer, liver damage and neurological complications. It&#8217;s also “notoriously difficult to clean up,” Schaeffer says. The TVA is making efforts, though, spending as much as three years and upwards of a billion dollars to clean up the land and waterways.</p>
<p>Despite its dangerous and toxic contents, coal ash is not classified as a hazardous material and does not fall under government regulations. That is expected to change soon, as over the past year the <strong>Environmental Protection Agency</strong> has been charged with inspecting all coal-firing plants in the country and developing safety and storage guidelines. Those guidelines were promised before the end of the year, but late last month the agency said it would need more time to issue guidelines, saying it hopes to have a proposal ready in the first few weeks of 2010.</p>
<p>SOURCE: <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com">Coal Ash Spill</a> &rsaquo; <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2010/01/08/coal-ash-spill-worse-than-originally-thought/">Coal ash spill worse than originally thought</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2010/01/08/coal-ash-spill-worse-than-originally-thought/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:thumbnail url="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/media/2008/12/coal-ash-spill-31-150x150.jpg" />
		<media:content url="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/media/2008/12/coal-ash-spill-31.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Neighborhood Flooded</media:title>
			<media:thumbnail url="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/media/2008/12/coal-ash-spill-31-150x150.jpg" />
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Advisory board recommends tougher controls over coal ash storage</title>
		<link>http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2009/12/03/advisory-board-recommends-tougher-controls-over-coal-ash-storage/</link>
		<comments>http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2009/12/03/advisory-board-recommends-tougher-controls-over-coal-ash-storage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Walker-Journey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coal Ash]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal ash impoundment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal ash lawsuits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal ash regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal ash spill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dam Safety Group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hazardous material]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kingston]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawsuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawsuits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tennessee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tennessee Valley Authority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TVA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wet ash storage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/?p=1077</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Tennessee state advisory board is calling for tougher regulation of coal ash impoundment ponds and recommending that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) turn over control of its storage ponds to the Dam Safety Group, according to WRAL. The board, which formed in the wake of last year’s massive coal ash spill from the Kingston, [...]<p>SOURCE: <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com">Coal Ash Spill</a> &rsaquo; <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2009/12/03/advisory-board-recommends-tougher-controls-over-coal-ash-storage/">Advisory board recommends tougher controls over coal ash storage</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/media/2009/12/tennessee-seal.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-1092" title="tennessee-seal" src="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/media/2009/12/tennessee-seal-100x100.jpg" alt="tennessee seal 100x100 Advisory board recommends tougher controls over coal ash storage " width="100" height="100" /></a>A Tennessee state advisory board is calling for tougher <strong>regulation of <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/tag/coal-ash/" title="" rel="external">coal ash</a> impoundment ponds</strong> and recommending that the <strong><a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/tag/tennessee-valley-authority/" title="" rel="external">Tennessee Valley Authority</a> (TVA)</strong> turn over control of its storage ponds to the <strong>Dam Safety Group</strong>, according to <a href="http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/6534008/">WRAL</a>. The board, which formed in the wake of last year’s massive <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/" title="" rel="external">coal ash spill</a> from the Kingston, Tenn., TVA plant, released a report this week outlining its recommendations. The board also recommended that an independent board oversee the design, construction and closure of ash retention ponds.<span id="more-1077"></span></p>
<p>Barbara Martocci, TVA spokeswoman, said the Dam Safety Group will take over the inspection of all the utility’s impoundments in 2011. And the utility is also taking steps to eliminate <strong>wet ash storage</strong> facilities at all its power plant locations.</p>
<p>Coal ash storage ponds have come under scrutiny since December 2008, when a coal ash impoundment pond at the TVA Kingston plant breached, sending a wave of toxic material on to a neighboring rural community.</p>
<p>Despite containing heavy metals that have been linked to serious health problems, coal ash isn’t classified as a <strong>hazardous material</strong>. Thus, facilities that store coal ash weren’t regulated by the federal government. Critics say that if the plants had been properly regulated and inspected, perhaps the massive spill that blanked an east Tennessee community with toxic material may not have happened in the first place.</p>
<p>The TVA, meanwhile, is involved in a years-long, multi-million dollar cleanup of the land and is facing a mountain of <strong>lawsuits</strong> from people who were harmed or lost property in the coal ash disaster. The customers of the nation’s largest utility will soon feel the pain, too, as that hefty expense is likely to translate into higher residential utility bills.</p>
<p>SOURCE: <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com">Coal Ash Spill</a> &rsaquo; <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2009/12/03/advisory-board-recommends-tougher-controls-over-coal-ash-storage/">Advisory board recommends tougher controls over coal ash storage</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2009/12/03/advisory-board-recommends-tougher-controls-over-coal-ash-storage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:thumbnail url="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/media/2009/12/tennessee-seal-100x100.jpg" />
		<media:content url="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/media/2009/12/tennessee-seal.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">tennessee-seal</media:title>
			<media:thumbnail url="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/media/2009/12/tennessee-seal-100x100.jpg" />
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>EPA considers hazardous material classification of coal ash</title>
		<link>http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2009/11/06/epa-considers-hazardous-material-classification-of-coal-ash/</link>
		<comments>http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2009/11/06/epa-considers-hazardous-material-classification-of-coal-ash/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:54:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Walker-Journey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coal Ash]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal ash ponds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal ash regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal ash storage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dry coal ash]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Earthjustice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emory River]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fly ash]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hazardous material]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[impoundment ponds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lisa Evans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tennessee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wet coal ash]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/?p=1029</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rules regarding the storage of coal ash are expected to come from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before the end of the year, but how the agency plans to categorize coal ash ponds has many environmentalists seeing red. According to a General Accountability Office document listing options currently being discussed, the EPA is considering designating [...]<p>SOURCE: <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com">Coal Ash Spill</a> &rsaquo; <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2009/11/06/epa-considers-hazardous-material-classification-of-coal-ash/">EPA considers hazardous material classification of coal ash</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/media/2009/03/epa.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-376" title="epa" src="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/media/2009/03/epa-150x150.jpg" alt="epa 150x150 EPA considers hazardous material classification of coal ash" width="100" height="100" /></a>Rules regarding the storage of <strong><a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/tag/coal-ash/" title="" rel="external">coal ash</a></strong> are expected to come from the <strong>Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) </strong>before the end of the year, but how the agency plans to categorize <strong>coal ash ponds</strong> has many environmentalists seeing red. According to a General Accountability Office document listing options currently being discussed, the EPA is considering designating <strong>wet coal ash</strong> as a <strong>hazardous material</strong>, but leaving the <strong>dry coal ash</strong>, or <strong>fly ash</strong>, categorized as non-hazardous if it is stored in a dry landfill.<span id="more-1029"></span></p>
<p>Several years ago coal ash from power plants was given a non-hazardous rating. Since then, technology has improved the quality of the smoke released into the air from coal-firing plants. The <strong>toxins</strong> that used to escape into the air are now kept in the ash left behind. Tests have shown that coal ash contains <strong>dangerous toxins</strong> such as arsenic, lead, chromium, manganese and barium, which have been linked to serious health conditions such as cancer, liver damage and neurological complications.</p>
<p>Environmentalists have tried over the years to have coal ash reclassified as a <strong>hazardous material</strong>, but little was done to push that effort until last year when a coal impoundment pond in east <strong>Tennessee</strong> breached, sending a massive wave of coal ash on to a neighboring community. The 1.1 billion gallons that spilled out toppled houses, destroyed property and contaminated the nearby <strong>Emory River</strong>. Several residents were displaced, but it is the health risk that concerns many of the people affected by the spill. Some have reported respiratory problems and heightened anxiety. Others, including a young child, have tested positive for heavy metal in their bloodstream.</p>
<p>Environmentalists and activists are urging the EPA to carefully consider how it will categorize both wet and dry coal ash impoundments. “Both pose a threat to human health and the environment so it doesn’t make sense to create that dichotomy (between wet and dry ash storage regulation),” said <strong>Lisa Evans</strong>, an attorney with <strong>Earthjustice</strong>, in an interview with the <a href="http://www.tennessean.com/article/20091103/NEWS02/911030330/1009/NEWS02">Tennessean</a>.“We would not think that would be a protective scheme, with the many cases where dry disposal has caused contamination of groundwater and surface water.”</p>
<p>SOURCE: <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com">Coal Ash Spill</a> &rsaquo; <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2009/11/06/epa-considers-hazardous-material-classification-of-coal-ash/">EPA considers hazardous material classification of coal ash</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2009/11/06/epa-considers-hazardous-material-classification-of-coal-ash/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:thumbnail url="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/media/2009/03/epa-150x150.jpg" />
		<media:content url="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/media/2009/03/epa.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">epa</media:title>
			<media:thumbnail url="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/media/2009/03/epa-150x150.jpg" />
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Some of nation&#8217;s coal ash ponds have significant deficiencies</title>
		<link>http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2009/09/06/some-of-nations-coal-ash-ponds-have-significant-deficiencies/</link>
		<comments>http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2009/09/06/some-of-nations-coal-ash-ponds-have-significant-deficiencies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:48:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Walker-Journey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal ash impoundment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal ash ponds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal ash regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Protection Agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hazardous material]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indiana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kentucky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tennessee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tennessee Valley Authority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TVA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/?p=833</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Indiana and Kentucky have the most coal ash ponds in the country and many of those ponds have numerous deficiencies and were built without trained engineers, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA conducted the survey on the nation’s coal ash ponds following last December’s massive spill in which a coal ash impoundment [...]<p>SOURCE: <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com">Coal Ash Spill</a> &rsaquo; <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2009/09/06/some-of-nations-coal-ash-ponds-have-significant-deficiencies/">Some of nation&#8217;s coal ash ponds have significant deficiencies</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Indiana</strong> and <strong>Kentucky</strong> have the most <strong><a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/tag/coal-ash/" title="" rel="external">coal ash</a> ponds</strong> in the country and many of those ponds have <strong>numerous deficiencies</strong> and were built without trained engineers, according to the <strong>Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)</strong>. The EPA conducted the survey on the nation’s coal ash ponds following last December’s massive spill in which a coal ash impoundment pond at a <strong><a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/tag/tennessee-valley-authority/" title="" rel="external">Tennessee Valley Authority</a> (TVA)</strong> coal-firing plant in east Tennessee broke, sending 1.1 gallons of toxic sludge onto 300 acres of a neighboring community. The coal ash destroyed homes, damaged property and contaminated nearby waterways, and is being blamed for making many locals sick.<span id="more-833"></span></p>
<p>An investigation into the cause of the TVA spill has sent a ripple of new standards for <strong>coal ash impoundments</strong> throughout the country, including a survey conducted by the EPA of all electric utilities. The EPA found nearly 600 ash ponds. The most ponds were found in Indiana, with 53 ponds. Kentucky came in close second with 44 ponds. The survey also found significant deficiencies in the way some of the impoundment ponds have been inspected, though which ponds and where were not disclosed.</p>
<p>In 2000, the EPA deemed coal ash a <strong>nonhazardous material</strong>, and thus it did not fall under federal inspections. Inspections are left up to state regulators. Since 2000, improved pollution controls keep more and more toxins from leaving smokestack, thus increasing the amount of toxins in the coal ash. Coal ash contains arsenic, lead, chromium, manganese and barium, all of which have been shown to contribute to <strong>serious health conditions</strong> such as cancer, liver damage and neurological complications.</p>
<p>The <strong>Obama administration</strong> has promised to adopt national standards for the handling of coal combustion wastes including coal ash ponds, though no time line has yet been set. The EPA says it will analyze the findings of the survey. A report will be made public by the first of next year.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090831/GREEN/908310342/Ind.++Ky.+lead+nation+in+ash+ponds">Courier-Journal</a></p>
<p>SOURCE: <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com">Coal Ash Spill</a> &rsaquo; <a href="http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2009/09/06/some-of-nations-coal-ash-ponds-have-significant-deficiencies/">Some of nation&#8217;s coal ash ponds have significant deficiencies</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.coal-ash-spill.com/news/2009/09/06/some-of-nations-coal-ash-ponds-have-significant-deficiencies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
	
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

