Addressing Coal Dust Impacts

Policy Solutions and Pathways to Address Coal Dust Impacts

Local Regulations

Local regulations refer to ordinances, codes, and zoning rules adopted by city or county governments. These rules directly affect what industries can operate, how land is used, and whether residents can seek redress for environmental harms like coal dust exposure.

Nuisance Ordinances

Redefining coal dust as a public nuisance allows residents to pursue legal action and demand mitigation measures. However, these ordinances often face industry pushback and can be difficult to enforce without strong political will.

Zoning Codes

Localities determine where industrial activities can take place. Community-led zoning changes can prevent new coal-related infrastructure from being built near homes and schools, but changing zoning laws is a slow process requiring sustained advocacy.

Air Quality Reporting Ordinances

Local governments can attempt to require air monitoring and reporting from companies like Norfolk Southern and Dominion Terminal Associates. However, in states like Virginia, local authority over environmental rules is limited by Dillon’s Rule, meaning many initiatives require state authorization.

Significance: While local regulations provide an immediate avenue for action, their effectiveness is often hampered by preemption and limited enforcement capabilities. However, they serve as an important tool for public awareness, local organizing, and pushing for broader reforms at the state and federal levels.

State Regulations

State regulations derive from Virginia laws and regulatory bodies like the DEQ. State-level policies and agencies play a critical role in regulating industrial emissions, overseeing environmental permits, and ensuring public participation in decision-making processes.

• Virginia Environmental Justice Act (2020): Codifies EJ into law and requires meaningful engagement.
• DEQ Air Permitting Regulations (9VAC5-80): Establish technical guidelines for emissions and permit conditions.
• Public Participation Guidelines: Mandate comment periods and public hearings; advocates use these to insert community concerns into the regulatory record.
• Community Engagement: Groups like the Virginia Environmental Justice Collaborative (VEJC), Southeast CARE Coalition, and New Virginia Majority have led campaigns for stronger regulations.
• Significance: State regulations have been shaped by decades of advocacy. Activist pressure led to the passage of the EJ Act and increased DEQ scrutiny. These tools remain critical for influencing state-level oversight and environmental protection.

What Can Still Be Done

• DEQ Air Permitting Reforms: Advocates can push for stricter permit conditions and cumulative impact assessments.
• Stronger Enforcement Mechanisms: A state EJ oversight board with enforcement power could improve accountability.
• New State Policies: Specific EJ legislation as well as legislation requiring air quality, cumulative and EJ impact assessments for industrial permits could provide additional safeguards.

How to Take Action at the State Level

• Engage with the Virginia Council on Environmental Justice (VCEJ) to influence recommendations to the Governor.
• Lobby state legislators to introduce bills strengthening coal dust regulation.
• File complaints with DEQ to document regulatory failures and push for policy improvements.

Pros: Greater enforcement power than local governments; ability to set statewide precedents.

Cons: Requires significant political advocacy; state agencies are often slow to act without external pressure.

Federal Regulations

Federal regulations provide overarching standards for pollution control and civil rights protections. When local and state remedies fall short, federal laws provide additional pathways for action. These regulations set baseline environmental standards and offer legal mechanisms for holding polluters accountable.

• Clean Air Act (NAAQS): Regulates PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from coal facilities.

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): Governs disposal of coal ash and hazardous waste.

• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Prohibits discriminatory environmental permitting practices.

• NEPA Environmental Justice Guidance: Requires EJ analysis in federally reviewed projects.

• Significance: Federal rules provide avenues for challenging state inaction. They empower communities to engage agencies like the EPA when local and state remedies are insufficient. Title VI complaints and Clean Air Act petitions have historically forced agencies to revisit harmful permitting decisions.

What Has Been Done

• EPA Investigations and Complaints: Advocacy groups have filed complaints with the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) to challenge state and local inaction.
• Clean Air Act Enforcement: Some federal oversight has been used to regulate particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions from coal-related activities.
• Title VI Civil Rights Challenges: Activists have explored legal avenues to address discriminatory permitting practices.

What Can Still Be Done

• Stronger Clean Air Act Regulations: Advocates can push for the EPA to tighten emissions standards in coal-exporting regions.
• New Federal Policies: Community-led campaigns can urge Congress to establish national EJ protections, such as requiring cumulative impact assessments for permits.
• Stronger Enforcement of Existing Laws: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which governs coal ash and hazardous waste, could be better enforced to mitigate coal dust impacts.

How to Take Action at the Federal Level

• File complaints with the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) to trigger investigations.
• Petition for stronger Clean Air Act enforcement in coal-exporting regions.
• Work with national EJ groups to push for new federal legislation.

Pros: Strong enforcement mechanisms; legal avenues for challenging state inaction.

Cons: Lengthy processes; federal agencies may defer to state decisions unless significant evidence of harm is presented.

Community-Driven Advocacy and Policy Innovation

Beyond formal regulations, community action and grassroots advocacy have played an essential role in addressing coal dust pollution. Some strategies include:

• Citizen Science and Air Monitoring: Community-led air monitoring projects, such as those conducted in Lambert’s Point, have generated critical data to challenge industry claims and press for stronger regulations.
• Legal Challenges and Litigation: Lawsuits against polluting companies and regulatory agencies have resulted in settlements, stricter oversight, and mitigation measures.
• Corporate Accountability Campaigns: Pressuring companies like Norfolk Southern to adopt stronger dust control measures—such as enclosed conveyor systems and improved spraying technology—has been a key tactic.
• Legislative Advocacy: Proposals for stronger air quality monitoring, cumulative impact assessments, and increased DEQ funding have been introduced at the Virginia General Assembly with backing from EJ organizations.

Which Pathway Works Best?

The best strategy depends on the specific goal:

• If you need immediate action, local pressure campaigns and nuisance ordinances can generate quick responses but may lack enforcement power.
• If you seek systemic change, state policy reforms, such as stronger DEQ permit requirements and specific EJ legislation offer lasting solutions but require sustained advocacy.
• If state and local efforts fail, federal intervention through EPA complaints, lawsuits, and national policy advocacy becomes necessary.