EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

Fwd: Pennsylvania concerned about Marcellus Shale waste water
by James Kotcon 22 Dec '08

22 Dec '08

Thanks to Duane for finding and forwarding this article on Marcellus Shale drilling fluids. Knowledge is power. JBK >>> <duane330(a)aol.com> 12/22/2008 2:38 PM >>> State concerned about waste water from new gas wells Sunday, December 21, 2008, By Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Gas well drillers tapping into the deep Marcellus Shales add up to 54 substances, some of them toxic, to the water they use to fracture that rock and release the gas. And the state Department of Environmental Protection doesn't know what chemicals, metals and possibly radioactive elements are in the waste water that is pushed out of the wells. It is discharged into the state's aterways including the Monongahela River, from which 350,000 people get their drinking water. "That's the bigger issue. They don't have an analysis of what's in the waste water they're pulling out," said Dr. Conrad Dan Volz, assistant professor in the Graduate School of Public Health at the University of Pittsburgh. "What they're putting into the wells can chemically change and be added to underground, and no one is saying how much arsenic, manganese, cobalt, chromium and lead is in the stuff. Depending on the concentration, it could be a hazardous waste." Each well drilled into the Marcellus Shales, which lie at least a mile deep beneath parts of Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Ohio, uses up to 4 million gallons of water to fracture the rock and release natural gas. The chemicals are added to the "frac" water that is pumped into the wells under high pressure to reduce friction in the pipe and allow the water to flow more freely into the rock layers. Among the chemical additives are formaldehyde, a human carcinogen; various acids; a variety of petroleum compounds and several pesticides that are toxic to fish and other aquatic life. Many of the chemicals, depending on their concentrations, can also cause human skin, eye and nose irritations, and damage kidney, heart, liver and lung function. Much of that frac water -- about 40 percent of the total used -- is pushed back to the surface\ ?by the gas released from the shale, and it must be disposed of. "Yes, we're concerned," said Mark Hartle, chief of aquatic resources for the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. "And we're more concerned with the recovered fluids from the wells than ?with the water they use to do the fracing initially. The problem is, we're not sure what they're ?ending up with so we don't know the constituents of the discharges." Lou D'Amico, executive director of the Independent Oil & Gas Association of Pennsylvania, said frac water chemical concentrations are low and treatment facilities are removing much of the metals and dissolved solids from the waste water. "Companies are committed to huge investments to treat the waste water, because without that we're out of business," Mr. D'Amico said. "We're very aware of all the environmental and public concerns, and our mission is to develop the Marcellus shale as an economic benefit to Pennsylvania and in an environmentally sensitive way." He said drilling and fracing companies are doing a wide-ranging survey of the waste water, also known as "flow-back water," to show it is not a health hazard. Tom Rathbun, a DEP spokesman, said the department also is doing a chemical analysis of the waste water, a study that should be done by the first of the year. "We have a general idea but want to know for sure," Mr. Rathbun said. "If it's different, we will make the necessary adjustments. "I don't think they've been doing enough Marcellus Shales drilling so far to make a difference," Mr. Rathbun said. "But the gas industry needs to come up with a way to deal with this. A couple of companies want to do on-site water treatment, and others are looking at different recycling technologies." He said there are now only about 20 active Marcellus Shales gas wells. But there has been drilling activity at more than 300 in Pennsylvania, and another 250 have been issued state permits. The drilling and water discharges have attracted the attention of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "It is an issue that's been on our radar for a while and currently a matter we're looking into," said Dave McGuigan, associate director of EPA's regional office of permits and enforcement. "The question is what is in [well waste water] and what are the treatment facilities doing with it." Some of the waste water is taken to DEP-approved municipal sewer authorities that dilute it with their regular effluent before discharging it into a river or stream. Some is trucked to one of the state's six industrial water treatment facilities, where metals, oils and some dissolved solids are removed but where waste salts are a disposal problem exacerbated by the volume of the waste water. "The salts are the biggest issue right now and the most expensive thing to remove from the highly concentrated brines," said Paul Hart, president of Pennsylvania Brine Treatment Inc., who owns three of the state's six industrial treatment facilities and wants to build six more. Mr. Hart criticized the DEP for slow action on permit applications for new treatment facilities, for regulating the well water as waste, which limits the ability of drillers and treatment facilities ?to recycle it, and for failing to determine the composition of the waste water. "The Marcellus has wide variations in the amount of iron, barium and salt, and we need to know the high and low marks so we can treat it and we're still determining that," he said. ?"Right now we don't know as much as we'd like to know." The drilling companies provide the DEP with lists of chemicals they add to the water but not the amounts of specific mixtures, claiming that is proprietary information. Four of the chemical compounds are complex pesticides that scientific assessments have determined are "very toxic to fish." One, 2.2-Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide, retards fetal development in rabbits. The pesticides are added to the drill water to stop the growth of algae in temporary holding ?ponds and tanks built next to the drilling pads. Algae and other "biofilms" can foul pumps used to push the water underground and into the shale. None of those chemicals should be discharged directly into surface water such as the Monongahela River, said Dr. Volz, who is studying the effects of pollutants in the rivers. "If there's enough biocide to kill algae, by the looks of this bromated compound there's enough to do damage to fish," Dr. Volz said. "Throwing it in the water is just crazy." He said formaldehyde, which is a human carcinogen, "is always a concern," but any risk is impossible to assess without knowing its concentration. In addition to the pesticides, the chemicals added to the well "fracing" water include acids to dissolve cement around the pipe casings and open perforations in the pipe for the water to flow through and into the shale formation; friction reducers to make pumping easier; and additives to keep clay from reducing the flow of the released gas. Different pumping companies use different frac-fluid recipes and formulas and different combinations and amounts of those chemicals. A report on the chemical additives requested by DEP's Bureau of Oil & Gas Management and prepared for the Independent Oil & Gas Association of Pennsylvania states that care and controls are used to prevent the frac chemicals and chemical water solutions from contaminating surface and ground water near the wells. The report also notes that water in the Marcellus Shales contains high concentrations of dissolved solids, making it unsuitable as a drinking, agricultural or industrial water supply. The DEP and public water suppliers have said the high TDS levels are not a health concern. But David Dzombeck, an environmental engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University, said without knowing the chemical composition of the dissolved solids, that's hard to confirm. Don Hopey can be reached at 412-263-1983. First published on December 21, 2008 at 12:00 am Source:? http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08356/936646-113.stm PICTURE Caption:? A drilling rig used to bore thousands of feet into the earth to extract natural gas from the Marcellus Shales deep underground is seen on the hill above the pond on John Dunn's farm in Houston, Pa., in October.

1 0

video
by Jim Sconyers 19 Dec '08

19 Dec '08

Want a mild chuckle? Check out this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Frv44hvQ0 Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Mingo CTL Coal plant emissions in question
by James Kotcon 19 Dec '08

19 Dec '08

The recently announced CTL Plant for Mingo County is being proposed by a company called TransGas Development Systems. Their web page has relatively little in the way of actual accomplishments in CTL, and does not yet list the Mingo County project. The story in the Charleston Gazette indicated the company had problems getting a gas-fired power plant built in New York. The story below indicates that their final request for a re-hearing was denied. A State Senator noted “TransGas never made a good-faith effort to do the right thing by this community.” Do we really want this company in West Virginia? JBK Story below is available at: http://www.nyssenate17.com/17/news/08-07-15/transgas_denied_rehearing_for_p… TransGas Denied Rehearing for Proposed Power Plant in Greenpoint Senator Dilan Announces Another Victory for the Neighborhood Albany, NY - State Senator Martin Malavé Dilan (D-Brooklyn) is pleased to announce another victory in keeping an environmentally dangerous power plant from being built on the Greenpoint waterfront. TransGas had put forward several proposals for building a power generating facility in a neighborhood only now recovering from more than a century of environmental abuse. Although the TransGas proposal was rejected by the New York State Department of Public Service earlier this year, TransGas petitioned for a rehearing by the Department’s State Board on Electrical Generation Siting and the Environment. The Board originally rejected TransGas’s proposal due to multiple problems in the environmental, aesthetic and land use impacts. In their ruling on the rehearing, “The Siting Board today denied the petition for rehearing since the company simply restated arguments previously rejected as invalid.” “The Siting Board has once again used good judgment in denying this request. The city is moving to transform 28 acres around Bushwick Inlet into a park and recreation area. How can you compare that to an environmentally hazardous Power Plant?” said Senator Dilan. “TransGas never made a good-faith effort to do the right thing by this community.” A copy of today’s decision in Case 01-F-1276, when issued, will be available on the New York State Public Service Commission's (www.dps.state.ny.us) Web site by accessing the Commission’s File Room section of the homepage. >>> <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> 12/10/2008 6:12 AM >>> jkotcon(a)wvu.edu sent you this article ----- December 10, 2008 Coal plant emissions in question ( http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200812090695 ) By Ken Ward Jr. ( about:contact/xjneq+jitnmrggr+pbz+return=/News/200812090695?page=2&build=cache ) Staff writer A New York firm wants to build a $3 billion coal-to-liquids plant in Mingo County, but has not yet come up with a firm plan to control the facility's carbon dioxide emissions. Read more ( http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200812090695 ) ----- See DEP permit

3 2

Fwd: Calif. regulators approve $1.9 billion power line
by James Kotcon 19 Dec '08

19 Dec '08

Regulators declined to require that the line be limited to renewable generators. JBK >>> "Vivian Stockman" <vivian(a)ohvec.org> 12/19/2008 10:36 AM >>> Calif. regulators approve $1.9 billion power line http://www.modbee.com/state_wire/story/537212.html

1 0

Fw: [ Email Story ] DOE anticipates drop in coal use
by Jim Sconyers 19 Dec '08

19 Dec '08

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: "jim_scon(a)yahoo.com" <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com> To: jim_scon(a)yahoo.com Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 7:37:43 AM Subject: [ Email Story ] DOE anticipates drop in coal use jim_scon(a)yahoo.com sent you this article ----- December 19, 2008 DOE anticipates drop in coal use By Ken Ward Jr. Staff writer Coal's share of the U.S. energy supply is expected to drop slightly over the next two decades as regulators, investors and utilities drop plans for new coal-fired power plants, the U.S. Department of Energy said this week.Read more -----

1 0

Fwd: Re: IS THE CLUB WORKING ON THIS? DOE comment period on the 2009 Congestionstudycloses at year
by James Kotcon 18 Dec '08

18 Dec '08

To Chapter Energy Committee: We needed one more thing to do, but this could be very useful now. I hope to get a draft of comments on NIETC out within a few days, but if someone has time to get started, go fer it! See web link below. JBK >>> <Elena.Saxonhouse(a)sierraclub.org> 12/18/2008 4:36 PM >>> Jeff and Laura, So far, I can tell you that the Virginia and San Diego Chapters of the Club have already submitted comments. The Piedmont Environmental Council and other environmental groups have also done so. (You can find their comments on the web site linked below.) Also, the PA Chapter would not need our formal approval to submit comments, though it would be good to make sure they are consistent with anything submitted by folks at the national level. I'm checking with Carl Zichella (national staff on transmission issues) as to whether there are any plans for that. Will let you know what I hear. Jim, does the WV Chapter have plans to submit comments on this study? -Elena Elena K. Saxonhouse Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 85 2nd St., 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 977-5765 (415) 977-5793 (fax) Aaron Isherwood/Sierraclub 12/18/2008 01:08 PM To Elena Saxonhouse/Sierraclub@Sierraclub cc Holly Bressett/Sierraclub@Sierraclub, jeff.schmidt(a)dejazzd.com Subject Re: IS THE CLUB WORKING ON THIS? DOE comment period on the 2009 Congestion studycloses at year end Thanks. Pls let Jeff (copied) know what you find out. Might be worth checking with WV folks, too. Aaron Isherwood Senior Staff Attorney Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 85 Second Street, 2d Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 Phone: (415) 977-5680 Fax: (415) 977-5793 CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION/WORK PRODUCT This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential attorney-client communications and/or attorney work product. If you receive this e-mail inadvertently, please reply to the sender and delete all versions on your system. Thank you. Elena Saxonhouse/Sierraclub 12/18/2008 10:30 AM To Holly Bressett/Sierraclub@Sierraclub cc Aaron Isherwood/Sierraclub@Sierraclub Subject Re: IS THE CLUB WORKING ON THIS? DOE comment period on the 2009 Congestion studycloses at year end So far I do not know of anyone working on this, but I can check around. Holly Bressett/Sierraclub 12/18/2008 10:19 AM To Aaron Isherwood/Sierraclub@Sierraclub cc Elena Saxonhouse/Sierraclub@Sierraclub Subject Re: IS THE CLUB WORKING ON THIS? DOE comment period on the 2009 Congestion studycloses at year end NITEC is one of Jim Dougherty's cases. He might know. Also, Elena is the go-to person for all things transmission. Holly Bressett Environmental Law Fellow Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 85 Second St., 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 977-5646 (phone) (415) 977-5793 (fax) Aaron Isherwood/Sierraclub 12/18/2008 09:10 AM To Jeff Schmidt <jeff.schmidt(a)sierraclub.org> cc 'Dennis Winters' <dennis.winters(a)verizon.net>, Glen Besa <glen.besa(a)sierraclub.org>, 'Holly Cadwallader' <hccadwallader(a)earthlink.net>, laura.piraino(a)sierraclub.org, 'Nicole Faraguna' <nfaraguna(a)epix.net>, Robin Mann <robin.mann(a)sierraclub.org>, 'Thomas Au' <thomxau(a)gmail.com>, Wil Burns / hm <wburns(a)atlanticbb.net>, Holly Bressett/Sierraclub@Sierraclub Subject Re: IS THE CLUB WORKING ON THIS? DOE comment period on the 2009 Congestion studycloses at year end Holly, do you know...? Aaron Isherwood Senior Staff Attorney Sierra Club Environmental Law Program 85 Second Street, 2d Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 Phone: (415) 977-5680 Fax: (415) 977-5793 CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION/WORK PRODUCT This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential attorney-client communications and/or attorney work product. If you receive this e-mail inadvertently, please reply to the sender and delete all versions on your system. Thank you. Jeff Schmidt <jeff.schmidt(a)sierraclub.org> 12/18/2008 06:57 AM Please respond to Jeff Schmidt <jeff.schmidt(a)sierraclub.org> To laura.piraino(a)sierraclub.org, 'Holly Cadwallader' <hccadwallader(a)earthlink.net>, 'Nicole Faraguna' <nfaraguna(a)epix.net>, 'Dennis Winters' <dennis.winters(a)verizon.net>, 'Thomas Au' <thomxau(a)gmail.com> cc Wil Burns / hm <wburns(a)atlanticbb.net>, Aaron Isherwood <aaron.isherwood(a)sierraclub.org>, Robin Mann <robin.mann(a)sierraclub.org>, Glen Besa <glen.besa(a)sierraclub.org> Subject IS THE CLUB WORKING ON THIS? DOE comment period on the 2009 Congestion studycloses at year end I am not aware that we have that kind of expertise in-house at the PA Chapter level. I have copied this to Robin Mann and attorney Aaron Isherwood, in case they know who we chould contact at the national level. Since this is a federal DOE study, we would need to get any comments we might want to submit from the PA Chapter approved by the national Club, regardless. It might be that someone at the national level is already preparing Club comments. Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: Laura Piraino To: 'Holly Cadwallader' ; 'Nicole Faraguna' ; 'Dennis Winters' ; 'Jeff Schmidt' ; 'Thomas Au' Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 9:10 AM Subject: FW: [Pa-transmission] DOE comment period on the 2009 Congestion studycloses at year end FYI- Do we have electrical engineering/energy management expertise within the Club to add any specific comments? From: pa-transmission-bounces(a)lists.conserveland.org [mailto:pa-transmission-bounces@lists.conserveland.org] On Behalf Of Ginny Kreitler Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:55 PM To: listserve Subject: [Pa-transmission] DOE comment period on the 2009 Congestion study closes at year end Those interested in transmission issues at the national level are reminded that public comments on the 2009 Congestion Study are due to the US Department of Energy by December 31. The Congestion Study, which must be redone every 3 years, provides the conceptual justification for all National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors across the nation. The first study, done in 2006, was the subject of significant controversy. Comments already received and directions on how to submit comments can be viewed here: http://congestion09.anl.gov/ The full federal register notice can be found here: http://congestion09.anl.gov/documents/docs/FR_Notice_4_June_08.pdf Comments are due by December 31st.

1 0

Fwd: Carbon Sequestration - UIC permitNotice - County - Mason - AEP
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 17 Dec '08

17 Dec '08

ATTACHED IS TITLE 47, SERIES 13 OF THE STATE REGS RELATING TO UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: William V. DePaulo, Esq. <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:10 AM Subject: Re: Carbon Sequestration - UIC permitNotice - County - Mason - AEP To: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> How do we know anything works? Monitoring? How would we know it doesn't? Same thing, no? I think this is a very sensitive question, politically, and how we respond publicly will be very important. If there is no way to determine if it works, that leads to one set of questions. If there *is* a way that leads to another set. It is certainly a fair position to state that no such thing as "clean coal" exists, and totally defensible to assert that development of carbon sequestration and storage technology is so remote a possibility that we should not invest a significant portion of finite resources into an improbable solution. But confronted with a concrete proposal to "try it" the question changes....coal advocates will take the position that opponents of the proposal are simply trying to avoid their own inconvenient truths. Secondly, if you engage all cynicism sensors, you'd conclude that -- having denied there was even a carbon problem -- once the sucker is built, the coal industry will claim to have "solved" the formerly non-existent problem. I think we should be involved in this, big time, but I also think we should be prepared to let AEP spend any amount of its own money it wants trying to demo a solution...so long as the experiment is conducted in a way that its results are scientifically verifiable. In other words, insist on transparency, controls, immediate access to raw data unfiltered by AEP or its scientists. This is where, in my view, this battle should be fought. It is the high ground scientifically and politically. Any other attitude on our part invites criticism, valid criticism, that we won't eve consider the theoretical possibility that we're wrong. The flip side of the coin is that if it fails, or succeeds only marginally, "clean coal" evaporates as an idea. Chu, Obama's nominee for DOE secretary raises questions about leakage and "bubbles" that are quoted in today's Gazette. See attached. And there will be more. But I do not think we should oppose this proposal on a knee jerk basis. Properly conducted, the test may sustain our position. Inartfully opposed, it will prove theirs. On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:31 AM, James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> wrote: > If it doesn't, how would anyone know? > > JBK > > >>> <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com> 12/16/2008 5:50 PM >>> > What if it works????????? > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: "James Kotcon" <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> > > Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:20:03 > To: <EC(a)osenergy.org> > Subject: [EC] Fwd: [wvec-board] Fw: Carbon Sequestration - UIC permit > Notice - County - Mason - AEP > > > Yess!!!! We needed one more thing to do. > > Word is that this one may be mostly science fiction. Anyone know anything > about these things? > > JBK > > >>> "cindyrank" <clrank(a)hughes.net> 12/16/2008 4:23 PM >>> > The underground injection (UIC) permit application for carbon sequestration > by AEP in Mason County > > To operate and maintain underground injection (UIC) permit to inject carbon > dioxide through injection wells into the subsurface located in Mason > County. > > cindy > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <dep.online(a)wv.gov> > To: <clrank(a)hughes.net> > Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 4:10 PM > Subject: DEP Public Notice - County - Mason - Applicant - American Electric > Power - Application No. 1189-08-053 > > > > The following was sent to you because you are a > > Member of the DEP Public Notice mailing list. > > =========================================================== > > Tuesday, December 16, 2008 @ 4:10 PM > > =========================================================== > > > > STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA > > DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION > > DIVISION OF WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT > > > > PUBLIC NOTICE > > > > WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION'S, PUBLIC > INFORMATION > > OFFICE, 601 57TH STREET SE, CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA 25304-2345 > TELEPHONE: > > (304) 926-0440, TDD:(304) 926-0493, and VOICE-TO-TDD RELAY: > 1-800-422-5700. > > > > APPLICATION FOR A CLASS 5 UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PERMIT > > > > Public Notice No.: P-01-09 Public Notice Date: December 18, > > 2008 > > > > Paper: Point Pleasant Register > > > > The following has applied for a Class 5 Underground Injection Control > Permit > > for this facility or activity: > > > > Application No.: 1189-08-053 > > > > Applicant: AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER > > 1 RIVERSIDE PLAZA > > COLUMBUS, OH 43215 > > > > > > Facility: > > Mountaineer Plant , WV > > > > Business conducted: > > Power Plant > > > > Activity: > > To operate and maintain underground injection (UIC) permit to inject > carbon > > dioxide through injection wells into the subsurface located in Mason > County. > > > > The State of West Virginia will act on the above application in > accordance with > > the West Virginia Legislative Rules, Title 47, Series 13, Section 13.24 > issued > > pursuant to Chapter 22, Article 11 and Article 12. > > > > Any interested person may submit written comments on the draft permit and > may > > request a public hearing in writing within thirty (30) days of the date > of this > > public notice. Comments or requests should be addressed to: > > > > Director, Division of Water and Waste Management, DEP > > 601 57th Street SE > > Charleston, WV 25304-2345 > > ATTN: Jeff Knepper, UIC Programs > > > > The public comment period begins December 18, 2008 and ends January 17, > 2009 > > > > Comments received within this period will be considered prior to issuance > of > > the permit. Correspondence should include the name, address, and > telephone > > number of the writer and a concise statement of the nature of the issues > > raised. A public hearing may be held if the Director determines there is > > significant public interest in one or more issues relevant to the draft > permit. > > > > The application, draft permit or factsheet may be inspected by > appointment at > > the Division of Water and Waste Management, between 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 > p.m. on > > business days. Copies of the document may be obtained for a nominal fee. > For > > further information contact the person identified above at (304) > 926-0495, or > > Fax (304) 926-0496. > > > > > > =========================================================== > > To view past notices of open public comment periods or to unsubscribe > from this Mailing List, login at: > > http://www.wvdep.org//MLists2/ > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > EC mailing list > EC(a)osenergy.org > http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec > -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel: 304-342-5588 Fax: 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel: 304-342-5588 Fax: 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

3 2

Re: [EC] Fwd: Carbon Sequestration - UIC permitNotice - County - Mason- AEP
by Allan Tweddle 17 Dec '08

17 Dec '08

I agree whole heartedly with Jim. If "we" take a high level scientific approach demanding transparency, full disclosure, and monitoring. I would add two very important things. First, with regard to long term liability for blowouts and leakage, at the PEA meeting at WVSU last year, Utility Industry lobbyist and attorney Dave Flannery was quite clear that the legal liability issues were still unresolved. He presented a plan that he, acting as the Association's attorney, was presenting to mitigate liability and transfer the legal liability from the utility doing the sequestering to the State, if after the operation had ceased and was idle for 10 years without leakage, the utility was no longer liable. It seems to me that this lets them off the hook too easily and too early. Geological time clocks, as demonstrated with the frequency of earthquakes, are much much longer time frames. 10 years does not seem to be long enough to me. Secondly, the only blowout of CO2 recorded happened in South Africa. And while it is dismissed by CCS addicts, as a natural phenomena, it was a CO2 blowout due I believe to a shift in the earths crust, or something like a seismic event at great depths that released enough CO2 to kill 1700 people living quietly in a valley where the gas surfaced. And being odorless and colourless, it filled the valley and put all those folks to sleep permanently. Detection systems and community alarms for leaks in all the potential areas of leakage then must be included in ANY sequestration project. And based upon Flannery's descriptions that we really cannot be sure where the gas is going to migrate, or what seismic events it might trigger, those monitors must cover a wide area over and beyond the sequestration field with a safety factor of at least 2, maybe 5. And in case anyone thinks I am overly concerned about seismic events just because I worked professionally as a consulting engineer in California, I acknowledge that the mountains of California are much younger, and like humans, much more active. But these mountains we live in are like us older folks, we move less often, but we do move now and then. We do live in a less active seismic area, but IT IS A SEISMICALLY ACTIVE AREA. Hope this helps the planning and strategy for a serious role in monitoring these uncharted waters. I will be happy to carry the discussion to the PEA whenever we all feel that is appropriate. Allan ----- Original Message ----- From: William V. DePaulo, Esq.<mailto:william.depaulo@gmail.com> To: WV Chapter Energy Committee<mailto:EC@osenergy.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 10:45 AM Subject: [EC] Fwd: Carbon Sequestration - UIC permitNotice - County - Mason- AEP ATTACHED IS TITLE 47, SERIES 13 OF THE STATE REGS RELATING TO UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: William V. DePaulo, Esq. <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com<mailto:william.depaulo@gmail.com>> Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:10 AM Subject: Re: Carbon Sequestration - UIC permitNotice - County - Mason - AEP To: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu<mailto:jkotcon@wvu.edu>> How do we know anything works? Monitoring? How would we know it doesn't? Same thing, no? I think this is a very sensitive question, politically, and how we respond publicly will be very important. If there is no way to determine if it works, that leads to one set of questions. If there is a way that leads to another set. It is certainly a fair position to state that no such thing as "clean coal" exists, and totally defensible to assert that development of carbon sequestration and storage technology is so remote a possibility that we should not invest a significant portion of finite resources into an improbable solution. But confronted with a concrete proposal to "try it" the question changes....coal advocates will take the position that opponents of the proposal are simply trying to avoid their own inconvenient truths. Secondly, if you engage all cynicism sensors, you'd conclude that -- having denied there was even a carbon problem -- once the sucker is built, the coal industry will claim to have "solved" the formerly non-existent problem. I think we should be involved in this, big time, but I also think we should be prepared to let AEP spend any amount of its own money it wants trying to demo a solution...so long as the experiment is conducted in a way that its results are scientifically verifiable. In other words, insist on transparency, controls, immediate access to raw data unfiltered by AEP or its scientists. This is where, in my view, this battle should be fought. It is the high ground scientifically and politically. Any other attitude on our part invites criticism, valid criticism, that we won't eve consider the theoretical possibility that we're wrong. The flip side of the coin is that if it fails, or succeeds only marginally, "clean coal" evaporates as an idea. Chu, Obama's nominee for DOE secretary raises questions about leakage and "bubbles" that are quoted in today's Gazette. See attached. And there will be more. But I do not think we should oppose this proposal on a knee jerk basis. Properly conducted, the test may sustain our position. Inartfully opposed, it will prove theirs. On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 8:31 AM, James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu<mailto:jkotcon@wvu.edu>> wrote: If it doesn't, how would anyone know? JBK >>> <william.depaulo(a)gmail.com<mailto:william.depaulo@gmail.com>> 12/16/2008 5:50 PM >>> What if it works????????? Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: "James Kotcon" <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu<mailto:jkotcon@wvu.edu>> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:20:03 To: <EC(a)osenergy.org<mailto:EC@osenergy.org>> Subject: [EC] Fwd: [wvec-board] Fw: Carbon Sequestration - UIC permit Notice - County - Mason - AEP Yess!!!! We needed one more thing to do. Word is that this one may be mostly science fiction. Anyone know anything about these things? JBK >>> "cindyrank" <clrank(a)hughes.net<mailto:clrank@hughes.net>> 12/16/2008 4:23 PM >>> The underground injection (UIC) permit application for carbon sequestration by AEP in Mason County To operate and maintain underground injection (UIC) permit to inject carbon dioxide through injection wells into the subsurface located in Mason County. cindy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: <dep.online(a)wv.gov<mailto:dep.online@wv.gov>> To: <clrank(a)hughes.net<mailto:clrank@hughes.net>> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 4:10 PM Subject: DEP Public Notice - County - Mason - Applicant - American Electric Power - Application No. 1189-08-053 > The following was sent to you because you are a > Member of the DEP Public Notice mailing list. > =========================================================== > Tuesday, December 16, 2008 @ 4:10 PM > =========================================================== > > STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA > DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION > DIVISION OF WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT > > PUBLIC NOTICE > > WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION'S, PUBLIC INFORMATION > OFFICE, 601 57TH STREET SE, CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA 25304-2345 TELEPHONE: > (304) 926-0440, TDD:(304) 926-0493, and VOICE-TO-TDD RELAY: 1-800-422-5700. > > APPLICATION FOR A CLASS 5 UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PERMIT > > Public Notice No.: P-01-09 Public Notice Date: December 18, > 2008 > > Paper: Point Pleasant Register > > The following has applied for a Class 5 Underground Injection Control Permit > for this facility or activity: > > Application No.: 1189-08-053 > > Applicant: AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER > 1 RIVERSIDE PLAZA > COLUMBUS, OH 43215 > > > Facility: > Mountaineer Plant , WV > > Business conducted: > Power Plant > > Activity: > To operate and maintain underground injection (UIC) permit to inject carbon > dioxide through injection wells into the subsurface located in Mason County. > > The State of West Virginia will act on the above application in accordance with > the West Virginia Legislative Rules, Title 47, Series 13, Section 13.24 issued > pursuant to Chapter 22, Article 11 and Article 12. > > Any interested person may submit written comments on the draft permit and may > request a public hearing in writing within thirty (30) days of the date of this > public notice. Comments or requests should be addressed to: > > Director, Division of Water and Waste Management, DEP > 601 57th Street SE > Charleston, WV 25304-2345 > ATTN: Jeff Knepper, UIC Programs > > The public comment period begins December 18, 2008 and ends January 17, 2009 > > Comments received within this period will be considered prior to issuance of > the permit. Correspondence should include the name, address, and telephone > number of the writer and a concise statement of the nature of the issues > raised. A public hearing may be held if the Director determines there is > significant public interest in one or more issues relevant to the draft permit. > > The application, draft permit or factsheet may be inspected by appointment at > the Division of Water and Waste Management, between 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on > business days. Copies of the document may be obtained for a nominal fee. For > further information contact the person identified above at (304) 926-0495, or > Fax (304) 926-0496. > > > =========================================================== > To view past notices of open public comment periods or to unsubscribe from this Mailing List, login at: > http://www.wvdep.org//MLists2/<http://www.wvdep.org//MLists2/> > > > _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org<mailto:EC@osenergy.org> http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec<http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec> -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel: 304-342-5588 Fax: 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com<mailto:william.depaulo@gmail.com> www.passeggiata.com<http://www.passeggiata.com/> -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel: 304-342-5588 Fax: 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com<mailto:william.depaulo@gmail.com> www.passeggiata.com<http://www.passeggiata.com/> _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec

2 1

FOIA Request for Public Records Relating to Draft UIC Permit Issued to American Electric Power
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 17 Dec '08

17 Dec '08

December 17, 2008 Ms. Patricia J. White DEP FOIA Officer 601 57th Street S.E. Charleston WV 25304 Tel: 304-926-0440 via email: Patricia.J.White(a)wv.gov Re: *FOIA Request for DEP Records * Dear Ms. White: Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), W.V. Code § 29B-1-1, et seq., and regulations of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) at Title 60, Series 2, CSR, the Keeper of the Mountains Foundation and the Sierra Club, Inc. request all public records relating to the following matter before the DEP: The Class 5 Underground Injection Control Permit Application No. 1189-08-053 filed by American Electric Power (AEP), 1 Riverside Plaza, Columbus, OH 43215, in which AEP requests a permit to operate and maintain underground injection (UIC) permit to inject carbon dioxide through injection wells at AEP's Mountaineer Power Plant in Mason County, WV. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, we request: (1) the complete February 2008 permit application filed by AEP, including all addenda, attachments and/or enclosures, (2) the complete October 2008 (or other) decision of DEP to issue the requested permit, (3) the draft permit for which public comments have been solicited, (4) any documents constituting written communications, or recording verbal communications, between DEP and AEP relating to the requested permit, (5) any documents constituting written communications, or recording verbal communications, between DEP and any other government entity (international, federal, state, county or municipal) relating to the requested permit, (6) any documents constituting written communications, or recording verbal communications, between DEP and non-governmental organization (other than AEP) relating to the requested permit, For purposes of this request the term "public record," whether singular or plural, means any writing, recording, photograph, whether original or duplicate, and includes, in addition to the foregoing, any words, numbers, or other data or information, whether produced originally on or copied by, from, or to computer, printer, typewriter, long-hand, photocopier, facsimile, teletype, magnetic storage media of any type, optical storage media or any type, or other process. The term "public record" further includes, but is not limited to, published materials, studies, analyses, letters, emails, reports, memoranda, notices, notes, correspondence, invoices, checks, orders, statements of account, messages, teletype or facsimile transmissions or printouts thereof, telephone communications, minutes of meetings, memoranda of contact, and any and all marginal notations on any of the foregoing. The term "public record" includes all such documents now in the possession, custody or control of the DEP, or in the possession, custody or control of the present of former members, officers, agents, representatives, employees, contractors, and agents of DEP and any and all persons acting on your behalf, including documents at any time in the possession, custody or control of such individuals or entities, or known by you to exist. If any document was, but is no longer, in DEP's possession or subject to your control, or in existence, state whether it is (a) missing or lost, (b) has been destroyed, (c) has been transferred voluntarily or involuntarily to others, or (d) otherwise disposed of, and in each instance, explain the circumstances surrounding and authorization for such disposition of it and state the date or approximate date of it. For purposes of this request the term "relating to" means containing, alluding to, responding to, commenting upon, discussing, showing, disclosing, explaining, mentioning, analyzing, constituting, comprising, evidencing, setting forth, summarizing or characterizing, either directly or indirectly, in whole or in part. I request that you provide me with the requested records within the five day deadline specified by W.V. Code § 29B-1-3 (4), but I am prepared to grant a reasonable extension of that deadline if necessary to accommodate your good faith efforts to comply with this FOIA request. I am prepared to pay the reasonable cost for the reproduction of the foregoing records as calculated under W.V. Code § 29B-1-3 (5). W. V. Code § 29B-1-3 (5) provides that: The public body may establish fees reasonably calculated to reimburse it for its actual cost in making reproductions of such records." In order to minimize such cost, please advise me of the availability of the foregoing records on electronic media, as contemplated by W.V. Code § 29B-1-3 (3), and the cost for obtaining the records in that format, either as an alternative to hard copy or in addition to the hard copy. W. V. Code § 29B-1-3 (3) provides that "If the records requested exist in magnetic, electronic or computer form, the custodian of the records shall make such copies available on magnetic or electronic media, if so requested." The FOIA permits agencies to waive fees if the disclosure of the records is in the public interest. I request that you exercise your discretion to waive such costs incident to this request as both requestors are tax exempt, non-profit organizations committed to preservation of the environment. If you claim that any of the foregoing records are exempt from mandatory disclosure, I respectfully request that you: (1) provide me with an index of all requested documents which reflects the date, author, addressee, number of pages, and subject matter of the requested document; (2) state the exemption you deem to be applicable to each requested record; (3) state with particularity the reason why such exemption is applicable to each requested record; (4) examine each requested record to determine if reasonably segregable non-exempt information exists which may be released to me after redacting information deemed to be exempt, and (5) exercise your discretion to release such records notwithstanding the availability of a basis for withholding. In any case, please call me to discuss any problems anticipated or encountered in making a timely response at 304-342-5588. I appreciate your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel: 304-342-5588 Fax: 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

1 0

Fwd: DEP Public Notice - County - Marshall - Applicant - Ohio Power Co. C/O A...
by James Kotcon 17 Dec '08

17 Dec '08

P.S. Perhaps this would be better as a letter to the editor to point out how ludicrous AEP and DEP are. These are the folks who want us to believe that they are protecting the environment by building PATH. In fact, why not both (a letter and an editorial)? This could become a really interesting issue with relatively little effort. JBK >>> <Duane330(a)aol.com> 12/16/2008 11:02 PM >>> Activity: Injection of sulfuric acid upstream of Outlet 004 in order to ensure compliance with permit effluent limitations. Tier 1 protection is afforded for the uses specified in 47 CSR 2, Section 6. NOW I KNOW HOW TO AVOID POLLUTING A STREAM, INJECT SULFURIC ACID INTO THE EFFLUENT. **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000…)

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC