EC March 2011

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

11 participants
27 discussions

Re: [EC] [CLEAR] Dunkard Creek Fish Kill Settlement
by James Kotcon 14 Mar '11

14 Mar '11

Major news today on Dunkard Creek. Please recall that the Sierra Club had filed a Notice of Intent to sue ConSol over this one, but did not actually file the lawsuit after EPA got involved. Also note that this Consent Decree is subject to a 30-day Pubic Comment period. Some are wondering why such a massive and prolonged spill resulted in only $500,000 in Natural Resources Damage assessments in Monongalia County. Now if ConSol can spend that kind of money on he headwaters of Dunkard Creek and other streams, do you suppose that Longview/AMDRI might be required to use this technology on their discharges at the Steele Shaft near the mouth of Dunkard Creek? For information on specifics of the consent decree, please review the press release from EPA. It does not have quite the "cheerleading for coal" tone that the DEP press release does. And perhaps if DEP had ben more diligent in their enforcement back in 2007-09, the fish kill might never have happened. Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/ab2d81eb088f4a7e85257359003f5339/1… More details, including a link to the Consent Decree (58 pages), are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/cwa/consol.html Jim Kotcon 304-293-8822 (office) 304-594-3322 (home) >>> <Duane330(a)aol.com> 3/14/2011 5:46 PM >>> DUNKARD CREEK FISH KILL SETTLEMENT ============================================================ Monday, March 14, 2011 @ 3:07 PM ============================================================ The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection and the state Division of Natural Resources have entered into a proposed settlement with CONSOL Energy in which the company has agreed to pay $500,000 for natural resources damages in Dunkard Creek in Monongalia County. The $500,000 settlement is in addition to a $5.5 million civil penalty the company will pay and nearly $200 million the company will spend on the construction of an advanced water treatment plant to address high levels of chlorides discharged from four of its underground mines in northern West Virginia. Both the civil penalty and the water treatment plant are part of a settlement the company entered into with the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the WVDEP. In September 2009, thousands of fish, mussels and amphibians were killed in Dunkard Creek because of toxins produced by Golden Algae that had begun blooming in the stream. Golden Algae, which is not native to West Virginia’s fresh water streams, is more commonly found in brackish or salty water bodies. Although it was never determined how the Golden Algae was introduced into Dunkard Creek, research indicated that nutrients and high levels of chlorides and dissolved solids can contribute to its growth. “In the days immediately following the fish kill in Dunkard Creek, CONSOL voluntarily worked with the DEP and the EPA to proactively manage their mining operations to minimize the risk of another algae outbreak while at the same time keeping their miners working,” said DEP Cabinet Secretary Randy Huffman. With requirements put in place by the WVDEP to reduce the amount of chlorides and total dissolved solids (TDS) in Dunkard Creek, the Monongalia County stream continues to avoid dangerous algae blooms that can threaten aquatic life. Additionally, the state DNR reports that fish are returning to Dunkard Creek following the massive kill. A fish survey conducted at one station on Dunkard Creek a month following the September 2009 fish kill revealed only four species of fish. By July 2010, sampling revealed 29 species at that same station. In 2005, the same location had 33 species. On Dec. 18, 2009, the WVDEP issued the first of two orders to CONSOL that addressed the company’s mine water management in relation to CONSOL pumping water from its underground mining operations into Dunkard Creek; established Golden Algae monitoring requirements for CONSOL; called for the company to monitor for chlorides, TDS, selenium and specific conductance at various outlets on Dunkard Creek; and set chloride and specific conductance levels for CONSOL discharges. Patrick Campbell, of the WVDEP’s Division of Water and Waste Management, said Dunkard Creek has been free of Golden Algae since January 2010. “Multiple locations on Dunkard Creek have been monitored weekly by the company and periodically by us (WVDEP) since January and nothing has turned up,” Campbell said. “We also sampled 40 other locations around the state last summer and didn’t find Golden Algae, which I think is significant. As far as we can tell right now, this was isolated to Dunkard Creek.” Still, Campbell said the WVDEP would likely monitor for Golden Algae “for the next four or five years or until we get some confidence level that this was an isolated event.” Although it will likely take decades for the mussel population to return, DNR biologists found that fish such as minnows, darters and suckers are returning to Dunkard Creek from tributaries and some reproduction is occurring. “This is a reflection that water quality has improved and is being maintained,” Campbell said. Mining is critical to our state’s economy, but clean water is paramount. The cooperative efforts by all involved are protecting both. According to CONSOL, not one job will be lost, but the plan will result in clean water. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/consol-energy-reaches-ground-breaki ng-clean-water-agreement-with-us-epa-and-west-virginia-dep-117939064.html_ (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/consol-energy-reaches-ground-breakin g-clean-water-agreement-with-us-epa-and-west-virginia-dep-117939064.html)

1 0

Marcellus - Request a special session from the Governor
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 14 Mar '11

14 Mar '11

New Jersey just banned hydraulic fracturing in their state. West Virginia doesn't even keep track of where the millions of gallons of toxic waste water are going. PLEASE take two minutes and call Acting Governor Tomblin's office and leave a message with his secretary (she's very nice) requesting he call a special session to regulate Marcellus Shale gas drilling. 304-558-2000. -Jonathan

1 0

Re: [EC] DP article re: Albright
by Cindy Rank 14 Mar '11

14 Mar '11

1 0

Re: [EC] DP article re: Albright
by Jim Sconyers 14 Mar '11

14 Mar '11

I hadn't seen it - thanks Cindy. Frankly I find this shocking - that a right-wing newspaper would set itself up to refute - in their view at least - the science behind the charges. And it's bizarre that they want to dispute the company's own reported discharges. All the more reason to be glad this is moving ahead to litigation. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ________________________________ From: Cindy Rank <clrank(a)hughes.net> To: mbecher(a)appalachian-center.org; jlovett(a)appalachian-center.org; derek_teaney(a)yahoo.com; mjanes(a)hardynet.com Cc: sminney(a)wvrivers.org; jkotcon(a)wvu.edu; jim_scon(a)yahoo.com; hugh.rogers(a)gmail.com Sent: Mon, March 14, 2011 9:24:11 AM Subject: DP article re: Albright In case you haven't seen this article: Local page 9-A DOMINION POST Monday 14 March 2011: UPDATE Test: Water meets standards Groups say Mon Power is polluting BY MICHELLE WOLFORD The Dominion Post KINGWOOD — Three environmental groups have threatened to file suit against Mon Power over arsenic levels from coal ash dumps near the Albright Power Plant, which the company owns. The groups — West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, W.Va. Rivers Coalition and Sierra Club of West Virginia — claimed in a letter sent to the company in February that those levels are “unlawfully high” in the Cheat River. The groups also claim the company is not reporting selenium discharge with enough accuracy to determine if it violates its DEP permit. On Feb. 22, The Dominion Post collected water samples from the Cheat about one mile upstream from the Albright Power Plant, and a quarter of a mile downstream from the plant. The samples were tested for arsenic and selenium by Reliance Laboratories Inc. of Bridgeport. Results received this week show that the water in the Cheat River meets Water Quality Standards. Neither sample revealed either mineral at a level above the permit restrictions. The samples were not obtained on Mon Power property nor at the same sites where the company checked its discharge. But they were collected before drainage from the coal ash dumps enters the river and after. Numbers provided by the groups, which the state DEP has confirmed are Mon Power’s (then known as Allegheny Power) readings at the Albright plant, indicate the company did exceed its discharge limit for arsenic from July to December of 2010. “Each discharge amount that exceeds permit limits is an unlawful and unpermitted discharge, and therefore, is not shielded from liability” under the Clean Water Act, the groups told the company in a letter, which threatens a lawsuit seeking civil penalties and “for an injunction compelling it to come into compliance with the Act and its permit requirements if no remediation steps are outlined.” According to Kathy Cosco, a spokeswoman for the West Virginia DEP, exceeding permit limits “does not always trigger notices of violation or penalties.” If the DEP notices a pattern of “exceedences,” she said, “the DEP will work with the company to determine what the problem is. If the company can’t get them in line, or if they fail to take steps necessary to rectify the situation, then the agency will start down the path of assessing penalties. “There are instances where the nature or severity of a single violation may result in the assessment of a penalty,” Cosco said. “Generally speaking, however, an individual exceedance reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report would not trigger an enforcement action. The company is expected to take necessary measures to achieve compliance with the permit.” The environmental groups also claim Allegheny Power isn’t accurately reporting selenium discharges into the Cheat River. “From March 2010 through October 2010, Allegheny Energy reported the concentration of selenium in its effluent with only three significant digits — too few for the undersigned, the DEP, or the public to determine whether a violation had occurred.” According to Cosco, “the company has what is a called a variance: A condition that allows the facility a threeyear period during which it may exceed its selenium limits three times before a violation is triggered.” In other words, if the company exceeds the 0.005 mg/l (milligrams per liter) four times in a 36-month period then the exceedence is considered a violation. When the legislature passed this variance, it applied to monitoring that began Jan. 25, 2010, so the permit just completed the first year of the threeyear period. In the letter to Allegheny Energy, the three groups claim Allegheny Energy “has met and possibly exceeded its limit of 0.005 mg/L on at least five separate occasions. ... Because Allegheny Energy is apparently rounding to the nearest part per billion (equivalent to a thousandth of a mg/L), a reported 0.005 mg/L could reflect a discharge with a selenium concentration from 4.51 parts per billion to 5.49 parts per billion.” Testing done on behalf of The Dominion Post showed the selenium level at less than 0.004 mg/L upstreamm and downstream from the plant, which is in compliance with its permit limit. The letter asserts that by rounding off the numbers, the company “has the potential to hide violations of its permits, and is therefore not in accordance with the monitoring and reporting requirements of the Clean Water Act.” “Our concern is that the standards set by DEP to protect human health and the environment are not being met,” said Mike Becher of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment, who represents three nonprofits. “An additional consideration is that just downstream of this discharge is a trout stream —- Daugherty Run,” he said. Becher said the technology exists to treat pollutants, such as arsenic. “The best result from our perspective is to achieve compliance with the legal limits in the permit.” David Neurohr, an Allegheny Energy spokesman, said the company had no comment “until we can see something a little more definite.” He said he had not seen the letter sent to Daniel C. McIntire, Allegheny’s vice president of Generation Operations.

2 1

CELEBRATING THE "GREEN" FUITURE...on March 17th
by Allan Tweddle 12 Mar '11

12 Mar '11

I goofed... I forgot to give you the date...17th of Irish/March! So...come and hear Charlie speaking of "Celebrating the Green (Energy)" on St. Patrick's Day, and to learn more about Global Climate Change, I urge you to attend a presentation by one of the State's successful and respected native sons who is knowledgeable about the utility industry, Global Climate Change and future trends. Charles E Bayless, Retired President of WV Tech in Montgomery, former CEO of BOTH New Hampshire Power and Light as well as Tucson Electric, will speak at the Engineering Hall on the WV Tech Campus at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday March 17th. (The Engineering Hall is at the West end of the Campus, the closest building on campus to Charleston) Dr. Bayless is an internationally recognized and pragmatic source of experience and knowledge of the electric power industry. He serves on several international Boards including the Ontario Power Authority in Toronto and West Virginia Water in Charleston. He is a double degreed electrical engineer (WV Tech & WVU), with an MBA (Michigan) and a law degree from WVU. Allan

1 0

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE; CRISIS OR OPPORTUNITY FOR WEST VIRGINIA?
by Allan Tweddle 12 Mar '11

12 Mar '11

Global Climate Change is real and West Virginia needs to step up and participate in correcting this major man made threat to our planet. If you want to learn about the science, and participate in a dialogue as to how we can and must take corrective action, come to one of the most thoughtful and informative presentations you will ever hear on the subject. Please notify all you can about a speech and slide presentation next week that will be well worth you and your colleagues (and members/readership) to attend. As the announcement in the Charleston Daily Mail announced last week; "Charles Bayless, former president of WVU-Tech will speak next week in Montgomery about his belief that global climate change is the greatest danger facing humanity. Bayless will speak at 1:00 p.m. in WVU Tech's Engineering Auditorium. A native of Dunbar, Bayless is a former CEO of Tucson Electric Power, former President and CEO of Illinois Power Co's Illinova Group, an integrated electric and gas utility. (The Engineering building is at the West end of the campus.) Bayless earned a Bachelor's degree in electrical engineering (EE) from Tech, an Masters Degree in EE from WVU, an MBA from Michigan and a Law Degree form WVU. For more information about Bayless Presentation, call Amy Moore [at the College] at (304) 442-3169 On a personal note, I will tell you that I have had the privilege to get to know Charlie Bayless as he has been a member of our emerging company's board of directors and an angel investor. Together, we are building a manufacturing business that will not only cut the carbon footprint of every Boeing and Airbus plane that uses our patent pending system, but we will operate a manufacturing plant whose carbon footprint will be ZERO by 2020. Come, hear and see the truth and science from this global expert, for what I believe, is the critically serious nature of the complex issues of global climate change. And, then you too will be better informed, can think about, and maybe act upon, the many opportunities for innovation to solve humanity's most critical threat in history. Hope to see you there Allan

1 0

WV EQB rules in favor of Sierra Club on conductivity re: NPDES permits
by Frank Young 10 Mar '11

10 Mar '11

Blank Word just coming in this afternoon that the West Virginia Environmental Quality Board has ruled for the Sierra Club in a major permit appeal that put the spotlight on conductivity pollution from strip mines and on the U.S. EPA’s effort to crack down on mountaintop removal. http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2011/03/10/wvdep-ordered-to-set-permi…

1 0

Fw: Released today: A Risky Proposition: The Financial Hazards of New Investments in Coal Plants
by Jim Sconyers 10 Mar '11

10 Mar '11

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: LuCinda Hohmann <LHohmann(a)UCSUSA.ORG> To: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Wed, March 9, 2011 6:17:03 PM Subject: Released today: A Risky Proposition: The Financial Hazards of New Investments in Coal Plants FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Randy Rieland, 202-331-6959 NEW REPORT WARNS AGAINST INVESTMENTS IN NEW OR EXISTING COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS REPLACING COAL PLANTS WITH CHEAPER, CLEANER, LESS RISKY ALTERNATIVES WOULD SAVE LIVES AND CURB CLIMATE CHANGE EMISSIONS WASHINGTON (March 9, 2011) – The cost of constructing or retrofitting coal-fired electric power plants and the rising cost of coal have made coal power an extremely risky long-term investment, according to a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The report, “A Risky Proposition: The Financial Hazards of New Investments in Coal Plants,”also identified a number of other factors that make investing in coal a gamble, including its continuing threat to public health and the environment. “We have a fleet of ancient, dirty coal plants in this country that are increasingly unreliable and long past due for retirement,” said Barbara Freese, a co-author of the report and senior policy analyst for the UCS Climate and Energy Program. “Plant owners have to decide whether to sink more money into retrofitting those old plants or replacing them with much cleaner energy technologies. But even if they retrofit them with the pollution controls available today, the plants will still emit massive amounts of carbon pollution. “Replacing old, dirty coal plants with cleaner, cheaper, less risky alternatives would be a much better bet,” she added. “And it would save lives, protect our health and reduce the emissions that cause climate change.” More than 70 percent of U.S. coal-plant-capacity is already more than 30 years old—the operating lifetime for which coal plants were typically designed—and a third went online before 1970. Some plant operators have announced they will retire old plants. Others are planning to retrofit their plants with modern pollution control technology—which would reduce emissions of several dangerous pollutants, but not carbon. Such investments would not only make it harder to protect the climate, the report concluded, but also expose investors and ratepayers to a host of financial threats. The factors that make coal power such a precarious investment include: · U.S. coal prices are rising and could be driven much higher by soaring global demand, especially from Asia. Spot prices for Appalachia coal spiked dramatically in 2008, largely due to international demand, and those prices are steadily rising again with the global economic recovery. And the price for a one-month contract for coal from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin rose 67 percent between October, 2009 and October, 2010. While western coal has been less exposed to volatile global markets, that situation appears to be changing since major coal producers in the West have announced plans to increase their exports to China and other Asian markets. · Coal prices could also be driven higher by constraints on supply. The amount of economically-recoverable coal reserves may be smaller than previously thought. · Major coal projects face high, unpredictable construction costs. The cost of building a new coal plant in the United States has roughly doubled in the past five years. · The cost advantage coal power traditionally enjoyed over cleaner energy options has largely disappeared when it comes to new plants. Power from new coal plants now costs more than power from new gas plants, wind facilities and the best geothermal sites, and much more than investing in energy efficiency. · Coal power is the largest U.S. carbon pollution source—contributing about one-third of all energy-related emissions and more than the entire surface transportation sector. Coal-fired power plants inevitably will face increasingpressure to dramatically cut emissions to help curb climate change. The cost of generating electricity from new coal plants could increase 11 to 37 percent under a range of carbon prices in the future. · Carbon-capture and storage (CCS) retrofits cannot be counted on to affordably cut emissions. Federal studies show that adding CCS to a new plant could increase the cost of generating electricity 36 to 78 percent, while retrofitting an existing plant could increase its costs by 330 percent. · Federal and state governments are promoting energy efficiency and clean energy sources, which will cut demand for coal power. Twenty-seven states have energy efficiency standards or a standard pending, and several states now require annual reductions in electricity use of at least 2 percent. Twenty-nine states now have a standard requiring utilities to increase their reliance on renewable energy sources, more than doubling since 2004. · Coal plants also face new costs associated with such harmful emissions as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, which are associated with thousands of deaths annually, and mercury, which threatens the brain development of infants and children. The owners of the most damaging older coal plants have been taking advantage of a legal loophole for decades, Freese pointed out. Clean air legislation and rules put in place in the 1970s did not require existing plants to install pollution control equipment until their next major modification. It was assumed that they would either modify or shut down within a few years. “But coal operators kept these plants running well beyond their expected retirement dates and never installed the pollution controls newer plants were required to use,” Freese said. Even with this loophole, federal air regulations have gone a long way to protect the public health. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, for example, signed into law by George Herbert Walker Bush, prevented as many as 160,000 premature deaths last year alone, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The amendments also were cost effective. According to the EPA, they’ve cost $65 billion to implement, but their overall financial benefit could reach $2 trillion by 2020. “The success of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments shows that requiring coal plants to cut their pollution leads to public health and economic benefits many times higher than the cost for old coal plants to comply with the law,” Freese said. “The amendments have done a lot of good, but we need to do more. Coal plants are still linked to the deaths of thousands of Americans yearly and many other health threats.” Finally, according to the report, the electric power industry could retire many old coal-fired plants without causing reliability problems with the power grid, Freese said. “First, there is a lot of extra generating capacity on the grid right now. And second, energy efficiency and renewable energy investments are reducing the need for coal. It’s a good time to retire coal plants.” ### The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading U.S. science-based nonprofit organization working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in 1969, UCS is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and also has offices in Berkeley, Chicago and Washington, D.C. For more information, go to www.ucsusa.org. LuCinda Hohmann Midwest Outreach Coordinator Union of Concerned Scientists Midwest Office 1 North LaSalle St, Suite 1904 Chicago, IL 60602 312-578-1750 x12 LHohmann(a)ucsusa.org www.ucsusa.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE list, send any message to: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/

3 3

Please stop complete reading of bills in house.
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 10 Mar '11

10 Mar '11

Ron, Please do not let your conflict with Rich Thompson be grounds to slow down the legislative process by requiring that all bills be read in full. There are important bills that will be put at risk. It's not you who will suffer the outcome if these bills do not pass, but rather the people of WV that you were chosen by to serve as a public servant. Please reverse this decision. Thank-you, -Jonathan

1 1

CNG as a transportation fuel.
by Allan Tweddle 09 Mar '11

09 Mar '11

Professor Carr. Congratulations on the subtle but excellent wake up call that you issued as part of the article that was published originally in the Wheeling Register, and published today in the Charleston Daily Mail. Your comments, as reported, are right on. Natural gas is abundant, relatively less expensive than either gasoline or diesel fuel, and better for the environment and the engines...the only caveat is the cost of the delivery system. There is also an underplayed benefit to compressed natural gas (CNG). It is the cleanest of the fossil fuels, and until we get to an all solar, wind, geothermal and hydrogen economy, it appears to be the most economical fuel for BOTH transportation and power generation. (The recent analysis by Harvard's School of Public Health certainly shed yet another light on the true economics or coal fired power that would, if the real costs were borne by coal, make natural gas the cheapest fuel for power generation as well. But that's another topic.) I am attaching an op-ed that I wrote and was printed in the Charleston Gazette in 2009 when it was announced that the KRT here in Kanawha County was buying hybrid diesel busses. It spells out my background, experience and posture with regard to CNG as a fuel, particularly for dedicated diesel bus and truck fleets. What can we do collectively to start, foster, incite or encourage an acceleration of a transition to CNG? We all have unique perspectives and experience that should get policy maker's attention. Probably too late for this Legislative session, but it takes time to educate the legislators...so I invite your ideas as to how we can bring about change in thinking. Surely the Legislators who will profit from the Marcellus Shale gas will be interested. I am copying three other WVU professors that I know. Dr. Atkinson and I just met last week at the ARPA-E Energy Summit in D.C. His specialty is engine design. Dr. Carl Irwin of the Industries of the Future Office is an old friend who has been a wise counselor to me as I build a manufacturing business that will reduce the carbon footprint of every Boeing and Airbus aircraft. He too was at the ARPA-E Energy Summit. Dr. Kotcon has been quite active in environmental matters in the State, and always offers stimulating and knowledgeable thoughts about cleaning up our energy infrastructure and advocating conservation. And while there are serious environmental issues surrounding the extraction of the Marcellus Shale natural gas, I am sure that environmentally sound practices will eventually be in place that will enable this State to benefit from its vast potential. Getting the State's fleet of school busses BACK on CNG, and all the other diesel engines as well, will surely help the budget shortfall, clean up the air and switch our fuel acquisition sources from those that hate us to our own shores...indeed our own neighbors in this State. I look forward to hearing your good thoughts... Allan Tweddle, CEO & Chairman Composite Transport Technologies Inc. Charleston WV p.s. My company does not have ANY vested direct financial interest in these ideas...I am just an engineer with 50 years of experience in environmental matters and a very concerned grandfather and taxpayer...

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC March 2011