------------ Forwarded message ------------
From: Cindy Rank <clrank@hughes.net>
Date: Feb 24, 2011
Subject: Cheat Watershed improvement plan approved by EPA
To: mbecher@appalachian-center.org
Cc: sminney@wvrivers.org, mjanes@hardynet.com, jim_scon@yahoo.com
_________________________
------------ Forwarded message ------------
From: dep.online@wv.gov
Date: Feb 22, 2011
Subject: DEP News - Cheat Watershed improvement plan approved by EPA
To: clrank@hughes.net
On Mar 14, 2011, James Kotcon <jkotcon@wvu.edu> wrote:
I don't recall who said it but the quote was that one should never
engage in a war of words with an outfit that buys ink by the barrel.
We need to respond to this very carefully, as the DP is probably
correct. The water in the Cheat River would dilute the discharge from
the ash impoundments to the point where the contaminants would be hard
to detect. So we need to state precisely what the concerns are.
Or as another favorite author says, "Nothing is so futile as knowing
the answer to the wrong question." The Clean Water Act makes it clear
that the "Solution to Pollution is NOT Dilution", so testing Cheat River
water after the contaminants have been diluted is inappropriate and does
not meet the legal standards. That is why DEP does not require
monitoring in the Cheat River, they require monitoring at the outfall.
That is where the standard has to be met.
Thus, the DP's sampling procedure addresses the wrong question and
confuses the issue with the wrong measurements. It is fortunate that
Mon Power's technical staff are not so incompetent as to use the
methodology used by the Dominion Post, or they would lose this case in a
slam dunk.
The key issue for the public is that there is no "threshold" for
carcinogens like arsenic. Even undetectable amounts will increase the
health risk. That is why taking the measurements at the outfall, not in
the Cheat River, is essential to answering the right questions.
The DP used this same approach a couple years ago when a local resident
claimed that MUB was polluting the stream in a local City Park with E.
coli. The DP collected water samples and sold a lot of papers with
these front page stories, even though no technical expert claimed that
these were valid samples.
But as they say in Hollywood "There is no such thing as bad publicity".
We should look at this as an opportunity to put together a response to
better inform the public about the real risks from Albright. If we had
thought there was a imminent danger of adverse health impacts from
Albright, we would not have issued a 60-day notice, we would have
petitioned for an immediate injunction. The issue is not the imminent
health risk, but the long-term pollution from incremental amounts of
arsenic.
JBK
>>> Jim Sconyers <jim_scon@yahoo.com> 3/14/2011 9:53 AM >>>
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@yahoo.com
304.698.9628
Remember: Mother Nature bats last.
________________________________
From: Cindy Rank <clrank@hughes.net>
To: mbecher@appalachian-center.org; jlovett@appalachian-center.org;
derek_teaney@yahoo.com; mjanes@hardynet.com
Cc: sminney@wvrivers.org; jkotcon@wvu.edu; jim_scon@yahoo.com;
hugh.rogers@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.