The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to issue an update on the status of coal ash in the next few weeks, and the agency is expected not to provide an update until 2020.
The agency is facing criticism from both Democrats and Republicans that it has yet to issue any meaningful guidance on how it intends to address the issue.
The EPA has spent years reviewing the coal ash problem and has repeatedly issued new guidance, but the agency has not made any substantive changes to the current system.
The latest update from the EPA is expected in mid-February.
The update will address the issues outlined in the agency’s September 2016 draft, which was issued just over a month after the first major coal ash spill in the United States.
The draft was drafted in response to the April 2017 spill, which sent ash into streams and rivers.
Coal ash is a byproduct of coal combustion, and it can be used to make cement, paint, and other materials.
The coal ash released into the air and water is a toxic waste, and federal laws require that all of the ash be incinerated before it can even be used as fuel.
In the meantime, there is no real way to prevent coal ash from leaking out of the coal plants that are the main sources of coal, including the three largest coal plants in the country.
As of August 2018, the EPA estimated that there were more than 6.8 billion tons of coal in the air in the U.S. that could potentially be released into waterways, the environment, or the food supply.
According to the EPA, the coal waste is a source of greenhouse gases, air pollution, and is the second-most significant source of CO2 emissions after natural gas.
There is no clear plan for how to clean up the coal, which has been a source for toxins such as arsenic and cadmium.
In addition to a lack of clarity on the issue, the industry has not yet produced any solid guidance for the issue of coal-ash leakage.
This lack of guidance has created a lot of uncertainty in the industry, as companies are struggling to plan for the future.
“The industry is not in a position to be able to plan effectively,” said John Mottram, a senior analyst with the Sierra Club.
“There’s no clear understanding of what the best course of action is going to be.”
A lack of solid guidance has also made it difficult for states to make decisions on how to address coal ash.
California, the largest U. S. coal-fired state, is facing a huge backlog of coal permits, and a number of state lawmakers have expressed concerns that the backlog could cause a spike in coal-mining activity and pollution levels in the state.
The state is also facing increased competition from renewable energy companies, who have been developing solar and wind energy projects that would use coal as a feedstock.
The industry has also been working to address leaks in the tailings ponds, which are located beneath the surface of coal mines.
But in August, the state of Wyoming announced it was withdrawing its coal tailings proposal, and instead would focus on coal mining.
Wyoming is not alone in trying to address its coal- ash problem.
Several other states have withdrawn their plans to build coal mines, and some have made it easier for utilities to dispose of coal that is already burned in their facilities.
In 2018, several coal-related projects have been canceled in Wyoming.
And in May, a federal court in Ohio found that the EPA failed to act properly when it issued an order to phase out coal ash ponds in several counties.
It has also taken a number more steps to address environmental issues associated with coal-burning power plants, but there are still some questions about how effective these efforts are.
According for example to the U, the UGA has made significant progress in addressing the problem of coal pollution, but that progress has not translated into meaningful policy changes.
A number of federal environmental regulators have also been criticized for their slow response to coal ash leaks.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is working to get to the bottom of the problem, and has announced that it is looking into ways to ensure that the cleanup process is robust enough to prevent a repeat of the April spill.
The DOE has also set up a team to evaluate the effectiveness of its existing clean-up plans and the way they could be improved.
But there is also a lot to be worked out about how the EPA will ensure that coal ash is removed safely and effectively.
“As long as we don’t have any real policy guidance, the question is going get bigger and bigger and the more questions we have about what happens next, the more challenging it becomes,” said Robert Schall, senior attorney at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“We know the coal industry doesn’t have the expertise or the resources to do a better job.”