From: wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com [mailto:wvec-board@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of cindyrank
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 2:53 PM
To: WVHCBOARD(a)yahoogroups.com; wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com;
fom(a)lists.riseup.net; the-alliance-for-appalachia(a)googlegroups.com;
justice(a)lists.citizenscoalcouncil.org
Subject: [wvec-board] Fw: NEWS: EPA Signs Off on Mountaintop Removal
Mining Rule
This just sent out nationally. ....cindy
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 2, 2008
Contact:
Joan Mulhern/Kathleen Sutcliffe, Earthjustice, (202) 667-4500
Oliver Bernstein, Sierra Club, (512) 477-2152
Vivian Stockman, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, (304) 360-1979
Vernon Haltom, Coal River Mountain Watch, (304) 854-2182
Cindy Rank, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, (304) 924-5802
Agency Signs Off on Controversial Rule to Allow Stream Destruction
Rule removes protections for streams, allows more mountaintop removal
mining
Washington, D.C. - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today signed
off on a controversial 11th hour repeal of the stream buffer zone rule,
an environmental law which since 1983 has prohibited surface coal mining
activities within 100 feet of flowing streams.
The repeal of this important protection clears the way for an even
greater expansion of mountaintop removal mining - the aptly named
process of mining coal by blasting off the tops of mountains, and
bulldozing the crumbled peaks into adjoining valleys.
"The EPA's decision is a slap in the face of Appalachian communities,
which have already endured enough injustice from mountaintop removal,"
said Vernon Haltom, co-director of the West Virginia-based Coal River
Mountain Watch. "My home and thousands of others are now in greater
jeopardy."
EPA's approval comes in spite of a recent wave of criticism directed
generally at the outgoing administration's 'midnight regulations' and
specifically at the repeal of the stream buffer zone rule.
"Once again, the Environmental Protection Agency has failed to live up
to its name. With less than two months left in power, the Bush
administration is determined to cement its legacy as having the worst
environmental record in history," said Joan Mulhern, senior legislative
counsel at Earthjustice. "This is a sad day for all people who are
thankful for the clear mountain streams and stately summits of the
Appalachians."
The change, which is being proposed by Department of the Interior's
Office of Surface Mining (OSM), had to receive written approval from EPA
before it could be finalized. That last hurdle was cleared today.
Opponents of the repeal of the stream buffer rule argued that EPA could
not legally approve the rule change because doing so conflicts with
EPA's duties under the Clean Water Act.
"The EPA's own scientists have concluded that dumping mining waste into
streams devastates downstream water quality," said Ed Hopkins, director
of Sierra Club's Environmental Quality Program. "By signing off on a
rule to eliminate a critical safeguard for streams, the EPA has
abdicated its responsibility and left the local communities that depend
on these waters at risk."
Last month, top decision makers in the coal mining states of Kentucky
and Tennessee urged EPA to block the rule change. Kentucky Gov. Steven
Beshear, Attorney General Jack Conway, and Reps. Ben Chandler and John
Yarmuth each wrote letters to EPA head Stephen Johnson asking him not to
sign off on the repeal of the stream buffer zone rule. And Tennessee
Governor Phil Bredesen also weighed in with EPA, voicing concerns on
behalf of his state.
"The regions most affected by this rule, in the Appalachian Coal Belt,
are some of the poorest in the nation," said Lane Boldman with the
Sierra Club Cumberland (Kentucky) Chapter. "And all they are asking for
is some fundamental protection of their waterways so that they can
continue to fish and swim downstream."
In October, a landmark nationwide poll on mountaintop removal mining
found that two out of three likely voters opposed the rule change. Upon
hearing that "more than 1,200 miles of streams in Appalachia already
have been buried or destroyed by mountaintop removal coal mining," fully
85 percent of voters said they were concerned about the effects of this
mining practice.
The practice of mountaintop removal mining has long been opposed by many
residents of Appalachia. The poll, the first to test voters' views of
this practice nationwide, showed that voters in every region of the
country are similarly against mountaintop removal mining.
"We are surely thankful the Bush administration will soon be gone. We
are hopeful that once Obama is president, he will ban mountaintop
removal entirely, and Bush's last minutes sneaky moves won't end up
destroying even more of our streams, and by extension, our mountains,
our communities and our culture," said Vivian Stockman project
coordinator for the Huntington, W.Va.-based Ohio Valley Environmental
Coalition.
Since coal companies began the practice of mountaintop removal mining in
earnest, the topography of Appalachia has been forever altered: More
than 400 mountaintops have been stripped of trees and flattened, 1,200
miles of mountain streams buried under rubble. Already the lush forests
which once cloaked 387,000 acres of the world's most ancient mountain
range have been replaced by apocalyptic lunar landscapes. If industry is
allowed to proceed at the current rate, an area the size of Delaware
will have been lost.
"With this rule change, the outgoing Bush is poised to eliminate forever
more of our headwater streams - the very lifeblood of our mountains and
the source of healthy water resources that future generations will
depend upon," said Cindy Rank, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy's
mining chair.
For a memo detailing the survey findings, please visit:
http://www.earthjustice.org/library/references/memo-on-mtr-poll.pdf
For more information on the poll methodology, please visit:
http://www.earthjustice.org/library/references/mtr-presentation.pdf
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Miranda Miller <millerm329(a)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 3, 2008 1:31 PM
Subject: Morgantown youth activism event this Saturday!
To: jim_scon(a)yahoo.com, hugh.rogers(a)gmail.com
Hi, my name is Miranda Miller and I am a student at Morgantown High.
Joe Gorman from the SSC at WVU gave me your contact information. I
just wanted to inform you of an event the SSC and the Morgantown High
Green Initiative Club are hosting this Saturday December the 6th at
the Warner Theatre in downtown Morgantown. We will be having Elisa
Young the coal activist from Meigs County, Ohio speaking on the
adverse effects of the coal industry in her region and we will be
showing the film Sludge and clips of Black Diamonds with more
relevance to West Virginia. I would be seriously grateful if there
was anyway you could help with a major shout out to the WV Sierra Club
and WV Highlands Conservancy to see if any members in the area would
like to attend.
Thanks so much!
Miranda Miller
millerm329(a)gmail.com <mailto:millerm329%40gmail.com>
304-288-4486
This ruling finds that power plants that got air permits under the 1995
Clean Air Mercury Rule (which was overturned Feb. 8, 2008) must comply
with the original MACT provisions, and that the exemptions in the 2005
CAMR do not provide a shield against the requirement to comply with
MACT. So, because we objected when WV-DEP rushed through the rule
changes to adopt CAMR, we can now say "See, We Told You So!"
JBK
>>> Megan Greenwood <megan.greenwood(a)SIERRACLUB.ORG> 12/3/2008 10:03 AM
>>>
We just received word that a federal Judge in North Carolina has ruled
for us
that Duke Energy violated the law by constructing its new Cliffside
coal plant
unit without complying with the Clean Air Act's requirements to
strictly control
mercury and other hazardous air pollutants. In the words of our
outside
counsel John Suttles at Southern Environmental Law Center: the judge
granted our Motion for Summary Judgment on Duke Energy’s liability
for
constructing Unit 6 of its Cliffside coal plant without first obtaining
a
determination that the new unit is designed and will be constructed and
operated to control its hazardous air pollution emissions to the
maximum
extent possible. This is the first ruling in the country that holds a
new unit
that received its permit and began construction before the DC Circuit
struck
down the Clean Air Mercury Rule must comply with the case-by-case
Maximum
Achievable Control Technology requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Sanjay Narayan on our legal staff played a key role assisting SELC on
this
case and deserves kudos. Also, Molly Diggins, state chapter director,
deserves hearty congratulations for her in this litigation effort.
Opinion attached.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list, send any message
to:
COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG
Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
Kentucky energy plan calls for nuclear rethink
21 November 2008, World Nuclear News, _www.world-nuclear-news.org_
(http://www.world-nuclear-news.org)
The US state of Kentucky, which currently has a moratorium on the
construction of nuclear power plants, has unveiled its first-ever comprehensive energy
plan. The plan calls for nuclear to be considered as part of the state's
future energy mix.
The plan - entitled Intelligent Energy Choices - outlines seven strategies
to meet Kentucky's energy needs while protecting the environment and reducing
greenhouse gas emission. One of the strategies calls for the use of nuclear
power for electricity generation in Kentucky to be examined.
The plan sets a target of 2025 for implementing the proposals, which include
reducing energy consumption by making homes and businesses more efficient and
promoting solar, wind and hydro power. It also calls on the state to
encourage industries to convert coal into liquid fuels.
Kentucky's energy use is projected to grow by slightly more than 40% by 2025
under a business-as-usual scenario. The document says, "Just as we will
experience growth in our demand for energy, our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
will escalate if we continue down the same path. With such a high reliance on
fossil fuels, Kentucky's projected GHG emissions could be more than 40% higher
than they are today if we do not take action. With implementation of the
seven proposed strategies, however, our GHG emissions will be more than 50% lower
in 2025 than they would otherwise be. More significantly, GHG emissions in
Kentucky will actually be 20% lower in 2025 than were our 1990 emissions."
The plan says, "To find solutions that address climate challenges, use our
abundant natural resources to gain energy security, and provide the power
needed to drive our economy will require pursuit of a diversified mix of energy
options. In weighing the benefits and limitations of potential solutions we
must be willing to assess and understand the societal, technical, and financial
trade-offs involved." It adds, "Nuclear power is one such option that
deserves our full attention, as its technology and safety have significantly
improved in the last three decades. It also is likely to become a national
priority."
A suggestion put forward by the plan is that "a moderate investment in
nuclear power (eight plants at four sites) could be considered as part of an
overall strategy to diversity Kentucky's future electrical energy portfolio,
reduce emissions, and position the state to take advantage of advanced coal
conversion opportunities. Kentucky could utilize nuclear power to generate a
significant percentage of the state's energy needs, with coal-based and nuclear
power for electricity generation being roughly equal."
State governor Steve Beshear told Associated Press, "We must begin the
discussion now about whether nuclear energy should be part of our energy
portfolio." He added, "It is a very expensive proposition to get into, although it
ends up, depending upon the economy, being a cost efficient way of producing
electricity."
The publication of Kentucky's plan comes as President-elect Barack Obama
pledged to make energy a centrepiece of his administration. He has set a target
of reducing US greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and reducing
them by a further 80% by 2050, with nuclear energy being used alongside other
clean energies.
Legislative changes needed
Following the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, Kentucky was one of
several US states to introduce legislation essentially preventing new nuclear
power plants being constructed. Kentucky law states that a power reactor cannot
be certified by the state's Public Service Commission (PSC) unless a disposal
site for high-level waste (HLW) either already exists or would be available
by the time that plant needs disposal capacity. In addition, the cost of HLW
disposal must be "known with reasonable certainty."
Kentucky's new energy plan suggests, "Legal hurdles to successful inclusion
of nuclear energy in Kentucky's energy mix should be examined. Specifically,
removal or revision of the legislative ban on new nuclear power plants must be
addressed."
During the 2008 legislative season, two bills were introduced that would
remove the moratorium. The new energy plan notes that these proposed bills did
not make it out of committee, but revised versions will likely be reintroduced
soon.
The plan notes, "Many of our neighbouring states are considering nuclear
energy. Nuclear power production has no direct carbon dioxide emissions and is
already a significant component of the global energy system." However, it adds,
"While the issue of disposal of spent fuel has not been completely resolved,
progress will continue to be made to arrive at a solution that addresses the
nation's needs."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
_Coal stocks hit as reality of climate and EPA ruling finally sets in_
(http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/14/coal-stocks-plummet-as-reality-of-cli…
-epa-ruling-finally-sets-in/)
14 November 2008, Climate Progress, _www.climateprogress.org_
(http://www.climateprogress.org)
It was inevitable that the increasingly dire threat of catastrophic climate
change would hit coal companies — especially since neither the Bush
administration nor the coal industry have taken climate change seriously, and
therefore they failed to pursue clean coal (i.e. carbon capture and storage)
aggresively.
In fact, they pursued CCS incompetently (see “_Can the coal industry be saved
in spite of itself? Should it be?_
(http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/18/can-the-coal-industry-be-saved-in-spi…) ” and “_In
seeming flipflop, Bush drops mismanaged ‘NeverGen’ clean coal project_
(http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/31/in-seeming-flipflop-bush-drops-misman…
en-clean-coal-project/) “).
The 2007 Supreme Court ruling that CO2 is a pollutant began a chain of events
that led to the _landmark ruling_
(http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/13/breaking-news-no-new-coal-plants-with…
/) yesterday by the EPA Environmental Appeals Board yesterday, which in
turn hits coal stocks hard today (see below).
The AP _reported today_
(http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/14/coal_plant…
news) that, as I suggested yesterday, “The fate of scores of new
coal-burning power plants is now in limbo”:
Environmentalists and lawyers representing industry groups said the ruling
puts in question permits — some being considered, others approved but under
appeal — of perhaps as many as 100 coal plants….
Michael Gerrard, a lawyer not involved in the Bonanza case and author of “
Global Climate Change and the Law,” said the decision “will embolden the
lawsuits” challenging construction of new power plants based on their impact on
climate.
“It means that the appeals board recognizes that carbon dioxide regulation
of power plants is a very live and open issue. It does not ban them. It puts a
cloud over them, by making it clear that this is a real issue,” Gerrard said
in an interview.
And this translates into coal companies losing value today:
Arch Coal Inc. (ACI) 15.86 2.22 (-12.28%)
Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) 27.07 2.40 (-8.14%)
Foundation Coal Holdings Inc. (FCL) 13.92 1.64 (-10.54%)
Massey Energy Co. (MEE) 16.20 2.33 (-12.57%)
Yanzhou Coal Mining Co. Ltd. (YZC) 5.14 0.52 (-9.19%)
The coal industry is starting to look like a bit like the auto industry. Yes,
it’s richer and more profitable, but it’s just as much in denial and
therefore ultimately self-destructive and generally destructive (see “_Why bail out
the car companies when they bailed out on us?_
(http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/12/why-bail-out-the-car-companies-when-t…) “).
**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)
Stream buffer zone rule has still not been approved by EPA, but apparently this rule is one of the ones needing only 30 days advance notice, not 60 as many of us had assumed.
Jim Sconyers
jim_scon(a)yahoo.com
603.969.6712
Remember: Mother Nature bats last.
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Google Alerts <googlealerts-noreply(a)google.com>
To: jim_scon(a)yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2008 11:52:09 AM
Subject: Google Alert - stream buffer zone
Google News Alert for: stream buffer zone
Kentucky Objects to Proposed Change for Mining Waste
EP Magazine - Dallas,TX,USA
... weaken a 1983 federal regulation that restricts where mining waste can be dumped, a so-called "Excess Spoil minimization -- Stream Buffer Zone" rule. ...
See all stories on this topic
Google Blogs Alert for: stream buffer zone
Still no action taken of the Stream Buffer Zone Rule Change
By Kevin Pentz
For those of you who have been trying to follow the twists and turns of the saga that has been the rule making of the changes to the Stream Buffer Zone rule, the good news is that so far the Bush administration has not changed the rule. ...
KFTC Blog - http://www.kftc.org/blog
________________________________
This once a day Google Alert is brought to you by Google.
Remove this alert.
Create another alert.
Manage your alerts.