ACHE Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. McGarvey, Morgan [D-KY-3]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 24, 2025
Bottom line
This bill aims to halt mountaintop removal coal mining operations pending a federal health study into its impacts on surrounding communities, while also requiring ongoing environmental monitoring and funding mechanisms from the industry.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a moratorium on the issuance and renewal of federal permits for new or expanded mountaintop removal (MTR) coal mining projects in Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Virginia. The moratorium will remain in effect until the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) determines, based on a comprehensive study by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), that MTR mining presents no health risks to nearby communities. Additionally, the bill mandates continuous environmental monitoring by MTR operators, requires public disclosure of monitoring results, and imposes a one-time fee on past and present MTR operators to fund the study and monitoring efforts.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is a necessary and urgent response to mounting scientific evidence and public concern regarding severe health issues, including birth defects and chronic diseases, in communities near mountaintop removal sites. They contend that a temporary moratorium is essential to protect public health and allow for a thorough, independent federal study to definitively assess these risks, ensuring that no further harm occurs while the science is being established.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that the bill imposes an undue burden on the coal industry, potentially leading to job losses and economic hardship in already struggling Appalachian communities. They might contend that existing environmental regulations are sufficient to mitigate risks, and that a moratorium based on 'reported links' rather than conclusive evidence is premature and economically damaging, hindering domestic energy production and increasing reliance on foreign sources.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 3(a)
Mandate for Comprehensive Health Study
This provision directs the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to conduct or support a comprehensive study. The study will investigate the health impacts, if any, of mountaintop removal coal mining on individuals residing in communities located in close proximity to these mining projects. The NIEHS Director is required to consult with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and other relevant federal agencies during this process.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this study is crucial for providing definitive, peer-reviewed scientific data to address long-standing health concerns raised by affected communities and existing research, ensuring policy decisions are evidence-based.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that existing studies are sufficient or that this study is a delaying tactic designed to justify a ban on MTR mining, potentially questioning the impartiality of the research given the bill's stated findings.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for scientific rigor and public health protection against potential delays in industry operations and the cost of the study.
Section 3(c)
HHS Secretary's Public Health Risk Determination
Following the receipt of the NIEHS study report, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) is mandated to publish a determination on the Department of Health and Human Services website. This determination will state whether mountaintop removal coal mining presents any health risks to individuals living near such projects. This official determination serves as a critical trigger for the moratorium outlined in a subsequent section of the bill.
Section 4
Moratorium on MTR Federal Authorizations
This section imposes a moratorium on the issuance or renewal of any federal authorizations, such as permits or licenses, for mountaintop removal coal mining projects or their expansions. This prohibition applies to actions by the Secretary of the Army (through the Chief of Engineers), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Secretary of the Interior (through the Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, or relevant State authorities). The moratorium remains in effect until the HHS Secretary publishes a determination concluding that mountaintop removal coal mining does not present any health risks.
Section 5(a) and (b)
Continuous Environmental Monitoring and Public Disclosure
This section mandates that any entity conducting a mountaintop removal coal mining project must perform continuous monitoring for water, air, and noise pollution, and consistent monitoring for soil pollution at the project site. Based on these results, operators must identify any pollution and potential exposure pathways for nearby residents. The monitoring results must be submitted monthly to the HHS Secretary, who is then required to make them publicly available in a searchable database on the Department of Health and Human Services website within seven days of receipt.
Section 5(c)
Permit Revocation for Monitoring Non-Compliance
This subsection establishes a direct enforcement mechanism for the monitoring and reporting requirements. If a person conducting a mountaintop removal coal mining project fails to comply with either the monitoring or reporting mandates, federal agencies are prohibited from issuing or renewing any federal authorization for that specific project or its expansion. This means that non-compliant projects could face a forced cessation of operations.
Section 6
One-Time Fee for Study and Monitoring Costs
This section authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), to assess and collect a one-time fee. This fee will be levied on every person who is currently conducting or has previously completed a mountaintop removal coal mining project in the United States. The amount of the fee is to be sufficient to recover the entire federal cost of implementing the health study (Section 3) and the monitoring requirements (Section 5), with collected amounts subject to appropriations for these specific purposes.
The moratorium on federal authorizations for mountaintop removal coal mining projects applies not only to the issuance of new permits but also to the *renewal* of existing permits for projects or their expansions.
Section 4
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure comprehensive coverage and prevent circumvention of the moratorium through existing permits. It's not evasive, but its full operational impact requires careful reading.
Case for: Proponents would argue that applying the moratorium to renewals is essential to ensure that all MTR operations, not just new ones, are subject to the health study's findings and to prevent ongoing potential harm from existing sites.
Case against: Opponents would argue that halting renewals for existing, compliant operations is an extreme measure that could lead to immediate job losses and economic disruption without a proven health risk, effectively acting as a premature shutdown.
Estimated impact: Could lead to the temporary cessation of existing MTR operations whose federal authorizations expire during the moratorium period, impacting coal production and employment in affected regions.
The mandatory environmental monitoring and public reporting requirements for mountaintop removal coal mining projects will terminate on the date the HHS Secretary publishes the determination described in section 3(c).
Section 5(d)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for temporary provisions or those tied to a specific outcome. It's not evasive.
Case for: Proponents would argue that the monitoring is specifically tied to the need for data during the health study period, and if the study concludes no health risks, the continuous monitoring burden is no longer necessary.
Case against: Opponents might argue that if health risks are found, or if the determination is inconclusive, the monitoring should continue indefinitely to protect public health, and its termination is premature.
Estimated impact: If the HHS Secretary determines no health risks, the significant operational and reporting burdens on MTR companies for environmental monitoring would cease.