MVCAC September 2006

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

4 participants
11 discussions

Re: [MVCAC] Fwd: new direction for WVU
by James Kotcon 28 Sep '06

28 Sep '06

I'll limit my reply so we stop clogging in-boxes with debate. Paul argues that the situation is already dire, that draconian measures are need immediately, and that biomass fuels and carbon sequestration are "dead-end strategies" that deflect needed resources. My position is that, although dangerous climate changes may occur within another generation or two if we maintain a business as usual scenario, a less draconian transition, if begun today, will provide important breathing room to allow new technologies to develop and to transition society to a more sustainable pathway without udergoing a collapse of civilization. Biomass energy should be an important component of the transition and is sustainable over the long term. Paul argues that dangerious climate changes are already occurring with temperature increases of 1 C, or that we will be irreversibly committed to this within 5 years. Most of the climate models suggest that changes of 2 C will produce significant adverse impacts to the environment, although even this would not cause human extinction without invoking some as yet unknown mechanism. The current level of CO2 is approximately 380 ppm, compared to a pre-industrial level of 280 ppm. Levels of 450 to 550 ppm would produce the 2 C temperature change likely to cause adverse impacts. These levels would occur by the end of the century if current trends continue. Use of energy is a fundamental characteristic of human life, and modern society uses much more of it than a subsistence-level civilization. The question is whether a 1 C change will cause dramatic threats to humanity, in which case Paul is correct, or whether we can tolerate some warming and 2 C is the threshold, in which case we have time for a more gradual transition. JBK P.S. The Sierra Club's energy policy is calling for a 2 % per year reduction in CO2, with the goal of achieving approximately 50-70 % reduction by 2050. >>> "Paul Brown" <pbbrown(a)hsc.wvu.edu> 09/28/06 1:04 PM >>> Jim, I love it when you talk technical. Seriously, your feedback is very useful, and my article will benefit from it. In the original order of presentation, I basically followed a chronological sequence of the development of thinking about the use of biofuels. The earlier sections are less important than the conclusion. I assume you all got the article about Hansen's contention that one degree more warming will cook our gooses. Many other scientists are beginning to agree, at least with the concept, if not with the actual tipping point. Based on the past 30 years, a one-degree change will take 50 years, but warming is accelerating steeply, not only because of the positive feedback effects of decreased albedo and methane release, but also because carbon combustion is skyrocketing as developing countries increase their consumption (even the developed ones are burning more carbon). Estimates indicate that China alone will need 100% of current oil production by mid-century, and India is projected to have more people than China by then. I believe it's prudent to assume we have only 20 years before we hit the 1-degree mark, in the worst case. Being unprepared for the worst case is imprudent because we can't afford to get this wrong. There’s no second try allowed. The only tools we have are reduced atmospheric CO2 and increased albedo. The longer we wait to take realistic measures, the less likely we are to survive. If we were to stop burning carbon today, the warming trend would not stop, but it would slow. We would still reach a 1-degree increase, perhaps as late as the end of the century, because of the long persistence of CO2 and continued positive feedback effects of ice melting and methan release. We would still need to remove a lot of existing CO2 from the atmosphere faster than nature can do it for us. It's much easier to stop emitting CO2 than to remove it from the atmosphere, and we can't possibly sequester all the CO2 we produce. Therefore part of the solution must be to stop burning carbon. The planet doesn't care, by the way, if this is economically or politically impossible. We can't stop burning carbon today. What's the absolute fastest we could do so, if we mobilize as a nation, and then assist the rest of the world to do the same? My guess is five years for the US, 10 years for the rest of the world. It may take longer, but we should shoot for these times because we don't know when is too late. The mobilization of resources and effort will have to be greater than it was for World War 2. It would require returning to a non-consumer society, with gratuitous (non-vital) consumption dropping to pre-electricity levels, and vital consumption (e.g., health care, development of new infrastructure) maintained as well as possible. This has to be our first priority, because there is simply no choice if we are to survive. If we do less, we die, probably by the end of the century. (Note: these time frames are all my guesses, based on the 1-degree limit and the positive feedbacks already in operation). While economic considerations are important in choosing solutions, and I don't claim to know the detailed economics, the solutions have to include switching from carbon to non-carbon energy as fast as possible, with all the lifestyle changes that may be required. As for the inefficiency of energy production from biomass and the unavailability of farmland to grow it, I stick to my stance: we need to use all available land for fast-growing (rapidly photosynthesizing) forests and relocation of endangered ecosystems. But the ciritical point is this: biomass and biodiesel are largely carbon. To stop global warming, every atom of biofuel carbon we burn from now on will have to be removed from the atmosphere (except for sequestered CO2, and we can't sequester CO2 from vehicles or heating buildings), which would require burning many more carbon atoms, in an absurd endless regress. Or look at it this way: By growing trees instead of biofuel crops, we not only don’t emit the biofuel CO2, but we absorb vastly greater amounts of CO2 already in the air. In fact, we’d be better off planting the trees and burning an equivalent amount of fossil fuels, because we’d have a net loss of CO2 instead of just breaking even. As for the economic advantages and disadvantages of solar and wind, we have no choice but to use them. The exact mix is not the issue here. Don't be distracted by that. We have to use whatever non-carbon energy sources we can get up and running fastest, given economic and environmental constraints. During the transition, we have to eliminate non-essential carbon combustion by rationing carbon, eliminating non-essential travel. The best way to handle vehicles is to convert them for hydrogen internal combustion, on a prioritized basis. Most airplanes would be grounded for good. So would our private vehicles, until essential vehicles (e.g., public transportation) have been converted. No more soccer moms because no more SUV soccer trips. We would switch from trucking to railroads and ships, and local production of essentials like food, clothing, and shelter from locally available materials. We wouldn’t be smelting metals, we’d be recycling them. Jim is right about the implications of abandoning carbon combustion. They are not pleasant. The alternative is far worse, however. Given the urgency of this crisis, we have to stop thinking in terms of business as usual. There will be enormous economic losses, although there will also be some enormous savings. Other concerns, including dependence on foreign oil, terrorism, illegal immigrants, and international economic competition, become supreficial. With regard to credibility, the programs espoused by the Sierra Club, such as biomass energy, are not credible at all to an informed public. They reflect an understandable denial which we unfortunately can't afford. Their only benefit is they may get people moving in the right direction, but we have very little time to make them move far enough * way beyond schemes like Cool Cities. We also can’t afford to deflect any resources to dead-end strategies like biofuels. Paul Paul Brown Physiology Department West Virginia University Health Sciences Center Morgantown, WV 26506 (304) 293 - 1512

2 1

Re: [MVCAC] Fwd: new direction for WVU
by James Kotcon 28 Sep '06

28 Sep '06

Correction, The Sierra Club energy policy is calling for a 70-90 % reduction in CO2 emissions by the middle of the century. My earlier post said 50-70 %, but that figure does not correspond to 2 % reductions per year for the next 40+ years. JBK >>> "Paul Brown" <pbbrown(a)hsc.wvu.edu> 09/28/06 1:04 PM >>> Jim, I love it when you talk technical. Seriously, your feedback is very useful, and my article will benefit from it. In the original order of presentation, I basically followed a chronological sequence of the development of thinking about the use of biofuels. The earlier sections are less important than the conclusion. I assume you all got the article about Hansen's contention that one degree more warming will cook our gooses. Many other scientists are beginning to agree, at least with the concept, if not with the actual tipping point. Based on the past 30 years, a one-degree change will take 50 years, but warming is accelerating steeply, not only because of the positive feedback effects of decreased albedo and methane release, but also because carbon combustion is skyrocketing as developing countries increase their consumption (even the developed ones are burning more carbon). Estimates indicate that China alone will need 100% of current oil production by mid-century, and India is projected to have more people than China by then. I believe it's prudent to assume we have only 20 years before we hit the 1-degree mark, in the worst case. Being unprepared for the worst case is imprudent because we can't afford to get this wrong. There’s no second try allowed. The only tools we have are reduced atmospheric CO2 and increased albedo. The longer we wait to take realistic measures, the less likely we are to survive. If we were to stop burning carbon today, the warming trend would not stop, but it would slow. We would still reach a 1-degree increase, perhaps as late as the end of the century, because of the long persistence of CO2 and continued positive feedback effects of ice melting and methan release. We would still need to remove a lot of existing CO2 from the atmosphere faster than nature can do it for us. It's much easier to stop emitting CO2 than to remove it from the atmosphere, and we can't possibly sequester all the CO2 we produce. Therefore part of the solution must be to stop burning carbon. The planet doesn't care, by the way, if this is economically or politically impossible. We can't stop burning carbon today. What's the absolute fastest we could do so, if we mobilize as a nation, and then assist the rest of the world to do the same? My guess is five years for the US, 10 years for the rest of the world. It may take longer, but we should shoot for these times because we don't know when is too late. The mobilization of resources and effort will have to be greater than it was for World War 2. It would require returning to a non-consumer society, with gratuitous (non-vital) consumption dropping to pre-electricity levels, and vital consumption (e.g., health care, development of new infrastructure) maintained as well as possible. This has to be our first priority, because there is simply no choice if we are to survive. If we do less, we die, probably by the end of the century. (Note: these time frames are all my guesses, based on the 1-degree limit and the positive feedbacks already in operation). While economic considerations are important in choosing solutions, and I don't claim to know the detailed economics, the solutions have to include switching from carbon to non-carbon energy as fast as possible, with all the lifestyle changes that may be required. As for the inefficiency of energy production from biomass and the unavailability of farmland to grow it, I stick to my stance: we need to use all available land for fast-growing (rapidly photosynthesizing) forests and relocation of endangered ecosystems. But the ciritical point is this: biomass and biodiesel are largely carbon. To stop global warming, every atom of biofuel carbon we burn from now on will have to be removed from the atmosphere (except for sequestered CO2, and we can't sequester CO2 from vehicles or heating buildings), which would require burning many more carbon atoms, in an absurd endless regress. Or look at it this way: By growing trees instead of biofuel crops, we not only don’t emit the biofuel CO2, but we absorb vastly greater amounts of CO2 already in the air. In fact, we’d be better off planting the trees and burning an equivalent amount of fossil fuels, because we’d have a net loss of CO2 instead of just breaking even. As for the economic advantages and disadvantages of solar and wind, we have no choice but to use them. The exact mix is not the issue here. Don't be distracted by that. We have to use whatever non-carbon energy sources we can get up and running fastest, given economic and environmental constraints. During the transition, we have to eliminate non-essential carbon combustion by rationing carbon, eliminating non-essential travel. The best way to handle vehicles is to convert them for hydrogen internal combustion, on a prioritized basis. Most airplanes would be grounded for good. So would our private vehicles, until essential vehicles (e.g., public transportation) have been converted. No more soccer moms because no more SUV soccer trips. We would switch from trucking to railroads and ships, and local production of essentials like food, clothing, and shelter from locally available materials. We wouldn’t be smelting metals, we’d be recycling them. Jim is right about the implications of abandoning carbon combustion. They are not pleasant. The alternative is far worse, however. Given the urgency of this crisis, we have to stop thinking in terms of business as usual. There will be enormous economic losses, although there will also be some enormous savings. Other concerns, including dependence on foreign oil, terrorism, illegal immigrants, and international economic competition, become supreficial. With regard to credibility, the programs espoused by the Sierra Club, such as biomass energy, are not credible at all to an informed public. They reflect an understandable denial which we unfortunately can't afford. Their only benefit is they may get people moving in the right direction, but we have very little time to make them move far enough * way beyond schemes like Cool Cities. We also can’t afford to deflect any resources to dead-end strategies like biofuels. Paul Paul Brown Physiology Department West Virginia University Health Sciences Center Morgantown, WV 26506 (304) 293 - 1512

1 0

Re: [MVCAC] Fwd: new direction for WVU
by Paul Brown 28 Sep '06

28 Sep '06

Here are the reasons to oppose biomass fuels, from a column I'm working on: BIOFUEL BOONDOGGLE One proposed alternative to fossil fuels is biofuels: substances made from plants grown specifically to make fuels such as ethanol and methane. These fuels can be burned in internal combustion engines and used to make electrical power. The beauty of this proposal is that the CO2 produced by biofuel combustion is balanced by the CO2 consumed by the plants to make the precursors for the fuels. Take the case of ethanol: the plant (corn, for example) makes sugars and all the other materials in the plant, like cellulose, from CO2 and substances in the soil. We then ferment the sugar to make alcohol (and yeast, which has its uses too). The alcohol is distilled and its combustion produces less CO2 than was removed from the atmosphere by the plants (because there are organic waste products). Along similar lines, soybeans can be used to produce oil that can be converted to biodiesel. In such a system, we would create a cycle in which we are using today’s sunshine, which powers the photosynthesis that makes the sugars, for power. Today’s sunshine is renewable. There will be more for all our tomorrows for billions of years. When we use fossil fuels, we use ancient sunshine, millions of years old, which powered the photosynthesis that was used to make plants and microorganisms that eventually were transformed to petroleum, coal, and natural gas. Fossil fuels are not renewable, because they’re not being replaced at the rate they’re being consumed. Unfortunately, biofuels can’t replace all our fossil fuels because we would have to devote more farmland than is available to produce them in sufficient quantities. Their advocates counter that at least we could cut down on our use of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, recent studies have shown that the amount of energy needed to fertilize the farmland, tend the plants, harvest the crop, convert the biomass to useable fuel, and distribute the fuel, exceeds or nearly exceeds the energy in the end product. A lot of farmland would be dedicated to producing a very low yield of energy. There are other problems with biofuels that outrank the low yield problem. First, there isn’t really any available farmland. Because of the population explosion, humans now use just about every bit of arable land available, and in several recent years, we haven’t grown enough food to feed everyone. We’ve had to dip into global food reserves, and they are now dangerously depleted. We can (and do) “create” more farmland with more irrigation, by destroying more rainforests, and by crowding people into cities. But these practices already lower water tables to dangerously low levels, create deserts, decrease CO2 absorption by forests in a time when we need to increase it, and increase crowding, with the attendant rise in unemployment, pollution, evolution of new disease strains, and social instability. The argument that biofuel crops provide a cycle in which CO2 is absorbed at least as much as it is produced ignores a crucial side effect. Even if we had the land needed to grow such crops, an area of farmland devoted to them absorbs far less CO2 than the same area of rapidly growing forest, because trees have far more photosynthetic capacity than any farm plants. Our use of other caebon sources will continue to accumulate CO2 in the atmosphere. Current atmospheric levels of CO2 are already too high for human survival. Positive feedback effects of melting ice (due to decreased albedo) and melting permafrost (which is releasing methane, a greenhouse gas twenty times as potent as CO2) are accelerating global warming. Left unchecked, this will result soon in runaway warming which we will not survive. The only prudent course of action is to stop burning carbon and start removing CO2 from the atmosphere as fast as we can if we hope to survive. There is no way around these facts, no "trick" we can use to keep burning carbon. We know how to stop burning carbon: go to reneable energy in the form of solar, wind, tidal, wave, and geothermal, in roughly that order of environmental friendliness, availability, and economic viability. We have the technology and the cost is lower than fossil fuel and nuclear if we consider true costs such as environmental and human health consequences. A shift of subsidies (our tax dollars) away from fossils, and withdrawal from our global military attempts to monopolize access to oil (Johnson, Chalmers, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004) would pay for it and provide jobs and renewed prosperity at home. There’s no earthly reason to burn carbon for more than another five years, except maybe mindless consumerism. Do we know how to accelerate the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere? Yes, although not enough yet. That will be the topic of my next column. I hope you'll find this reasoning compelling. Paul Paul Brown Physiology Department West Virginia University Health Sciences Center Morgantown, WV 26506 (304) 293 - 1512

2 1

Fwd: new direction for WVU
by Paul Brown 27 Sep '06

27 Sep '06

From: Paul Brown Sunday - September 3, 2006 12:18 PM To: spg(a)goodwingoodwin.com BC: pbbrown4348(a)verizon.net Subject: new direction for WVU TO: Stephen Goodwin Board of Governors FROM: Paul Brown WVU Dear Dr. Goodwin: One question the Board of Governors tackles whenever recruiting a new president for WVU is the direction in which he or she should lead us. David Hardesty was chosen with specific changes in mind, and he has brought them about successfully. Some fast-moving developments are engaging the concern of informed people worldwide: the global population explosion, climate change, the sixth mass extinction of species, and humankind’s inadequate responses to these problems. It will take courageous, insightful leadership to meet these challenges, particularly in a state dominated by coal power. In the next two or three decades nations will have to abandon the use of carbon fuels for energy. This won't happen because we’ll run out of the needed raw materials, but because of rapidly accelerating environmental damage, skyrocketing demand, and increased costs of production. Nuclear energy can’t be part of a workable solution, but all the needed technology for affordable, renewable energy exists today. The world can wait until we're forced by global crises to abandon carbon combustion, by which time climate change and mass extinctions may have become runaway processes beyond our power to reverse. Alternatively, we can make a coordinated transition away from fossil fuels now, at slightly greater cost than we could have twelve years ago, but at much lower cost than twelve years hence. This transformation will be impossible for states that remain in denial and waste limited resources on band aids such as coal liquefaction, CO2 sequestration, oil shale, tar sands, Arctic drilling, and biomass. Some states are rapidly changing over to renewable energy, exploring a hydrogen energy economy, and strengthening local economies through recycling, remanufacturing, and local production of the necessities of life. By being ahead of the curve, they will do well. Such implementation requires careful planning with regard to research, education, business, and jobs. In West Virginia, the coal and power industries and their work forces need to become part of the solution instead of remaining the problem. If they do, all parties – including the coal industry and miners – will benefit. WVU should be a key factor in this process, as should our federal and state legislators and the governor. There’s another consideration I have to mention. The three schools I attended for my education – MIT, the University of Chicago, and Cornell – differ considerably in character but they’ve averaged 60 Nobel Prizes, compared to zero at WVU. Their average endowment is $4.9 billion, compared to $0.4 billion at WVU. They became leaders through a bootstrap process upon which I believe WVU can now embark. We started too late on molecular biology, microcomputers, and nanotechnology, but we can seize this new opportunity and achieve greatness. I'd appreciate the opportunity to discuss this vision at a Board of Governors meeting. I think I can convince you in an hour that the state of West Virginia, its industries, and its institutions of higher learning must move quickly in this new direction. Sincerely, Paul Brown Physiology Department West Virginia University Health Sciences Center Morgantown, WV 26506 (304) 293 - 1512 Paul Brown Physiology Department West Virginia University Health Sciences Center Morgantown, WV 26506 (304) 293 - 1512

2 1

Meeting this Monday!
by paula - pj- hunt 22 Sep '06

22 Sep '06

Hi Everyone, This is just a reminder that we have a Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition meeting this Monday, September 25th at the home of Larry and Martha Schwab. Updates on Longview and Ft. Martin will be presented and, "direction" for the coming six months will be charted. We need to finalize our brochure as well! Please make a point to come out if you possibly can, since we cannot meet as often as in the past. Directions to Larry & Martha Schwab's Hpuse: Address: 3333 Collins Ferry Road, the last driveway on the left before Aspen if you are coming from Morgantown. Coming from Star City, it is the first driveway on the right past Aspen St. To get to Collins Ferry Rd, take University Ave toward Star City. University splits into University and Collins Ferry just past the Eckard drug store (Morgantown side) or Bi-Lo grocery store (coming from Star City) There is a high hedge along the road, so you cannot see the house from the street. There is a really small sign with 3333 and maybe a sign with other addresses (more than one house is located on the drive). Larry and Martha's house is the first house closest to Collins Ferry Rd (big white farm house). Park angled against the garage, or along the driveway, but don't park past the hedge next to garage (it torques the neighbor). In the event that we get a record number of attendes, there are plenty of side streets across Collins Ferry Road on which to park! Their phone number is 598-0241. My (Paula's) cell number is 692-7588 Please call if you need better directions.

1 0

Ft. Martin scrubbers $500 MM
by Duane330＠aol.com 20 Sep '06

20 Sep '06

To: BJGregg, WV-PSC-Consumer Advocate. We've been told that Allegheny Energy under estimated the cost for stack gas scrubbers for the Ft. Martin power plant, and so the "securitization" fee funds will not be adequate................... Have you considered this circumstance, and what are the options in a nutshell................? Thank you. Duane Nichols, Convenor, Mon-Valley Clean Air Coalition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you heard right. The estimate for the construction costs of the plant that was included in the PSC's securitization order was $338 million. Allegheny has now come back and told us that based on site specific engineering, the cost will be closer to $500 million. They have not made any formal filing with the PSC as of yet. My initial reaction is to stick with securitization at $338 million and have Allegheny finance the difference, using traditional rate making for any recovery of their investment. This may ultimately cost more in the long run than securitizing the entire amount, but I think it places an appropriate share of the risk on Allegheny and will provide a better incentive for them to minimize costs. The irony here is that if they had come initially and estimated the cost to be $500 million, we probably would have approved it, since the cost is still less than the scrubbers at Harrison that were installed in 1994. Billy Jack Gregg, PSC Consumer Advocate

1 0

Supreme court hearing Oct. 24th
by Duane330＠aol.com 20 Sep '06

20 Sep '06

Morgantown Dominion Post Tuesday 19 September 2006, page 10-B: Challenge to proposed Longview Power now in the hands of the state Supreme Court ---High court to decide if it will hear appeal of case BY EVELYN RYAN The Dominion Post The state Supreme Court will decide Oct. 24 if it wants to hear a challenge to the permits for Longview Power issued by the state Public Service Commission in July. On June 26, the commission said Longview could build a 600-megawatt coal-fired power plant on 225 acres in the Fort Martin area of Monongalia County, as well as a high-voltage transmission line from the plant. Just a month later, more than 50 county residents who have been fighting the plant for three years appealed the decision to the high court. This appeal is on the motion docket, state Supreme Court spokeswoman Jennifer Bundy said. “This means that the people who filed the suit can come and tell the court why they think it should hear the case,” she said. “At that time, the justices will decide whether they want to hear the arguments.” If the justices agree to hear the appeal, another date will be set for both sides to present their cases, Bundy said. The court does not make immediate decisions on cases that are argued. Longview officials said the latest court appeal was not unexpected. “We’re going to see challenges at every opportunity for these guys to avail themselves of,” Longview Project Manager Tom Wheble said. “We hope the Supreme Court says there was a good and thoughtful process by the PSC and chooses not to hear the appeal. “We’re still moving forward on other aspects of the development,” he added. “We would love to have our construction begin this fall. We still have a tremendous amount of interest in financing the plant. I can’t say more because everything is confidential.” Longview Power was established by GenPower, of Needham, Mass., in 2001 to gain all the necessary permits to build a merchant power plant, one that would sell its output on the open power market. This differs from a plant like Fort Martin Power Station, which was built and is operated by Allegheny Energy, supplying electricity to the utility’s customers in northern West Virginia. Those trying to stop the plant are challenging the commission’s action on procedural grounds. “I think our strongest argument is that the Public Service Commission is required by statute to perform its duties within a statutory period of time and they exceeded the time frame in this case,” said Attorney Phil Gaugot, who filed the appeal. “We believe that in the end, Longview failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the PSC conclusion that it was entitled to a siting certificate and transmission line certificate. “Most important,” he added, “Gen-Power has not demonstrated that it has the financial viability to do the work or the committed financing to complete the project.” Gaugot filed the lawsuit on behalf of 20 Fort Martin residents, 30 Monongalia County residents, Citizens for Alternatives to Longview Power, Cheat Lake Environment and Recreation Association, and Citizens for Responsible Development.

1 0

EPA Region 3 activities
by Duane330＠aol.com 11 Sep '06

11 Sep '06

MID-ATLANTIC REGION AGENCIES RECEIVE FUNDING TO CONTINUE THEIR FINE PARTICLE AIR QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM EPA Mid-Atlantic Region state and local air agencies received $2,864,798 to enable the agencies to continue their PM 2.5 air quality monitoring program under the Clean Air Act. The PM 2.5 monitoring grant also assists in planning, developing, establishing, improving and maintaining adequate support for the prevention and control of air pollution. PM2.5 particles are air pollutants with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less, small enough to invade even the smallest airways. These particles generally come from activities that burn fossil fuels, such as traffic, smelting, and metal processing. EPA MID-ATLANTIC REGION REVIEWS PROGRESS OF 2006 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE GRANT IN W. VIRGINIA EPA mid-Atlantic region staff visited the Southern Appalachian Labor School in Beards Fork, Fayette County, W.Va. , a grantee under EPA's 2006 Environmental Justice grant program, to assess the grant's progress. The grantee's funds are being used to provide test kits to determine the relative levels of contamination in the old coal industry camp houses now occupied by retired miners and other low-income families. The grantee is also working with the Department of Housing and Urban Development using at-risk youth to rebuild and renovate portions of these houses free of charge to the residents.

1 0

Woops. Meet 25th @ Larry's
by Duane330＠aol.com 10 Sep '06

10 Sep '06

RESCHEDULE............. 25th at 7 (social) and 7:30 (meeting). The next meeting of the MonValley Clean Air Coalition is now set for Monday, September 25th at the home of Larry and Martha Schwab. [A number of schedule conflicts prevailed with the previous date]. Updates on Longview and Ft. Martin will be presented; and, "direction" for the coming six months will be charted. Please make a point to come out if you possibly can, since we cannot meet as often as in the past. Phil Gaujot is scheduled for surgery this week in New York City, to remove a portion of his lung. He hopes to bounce back quickly. So, please include Phil in your thoughts and prayers, and wish him a speedy recovery. Has anyone recovered from the diverse activities of the long hot summer?

1 0

General Meeting, MVCAC, Sept 18th
by Duane330＠aol.com 05 Sep '06

05 Sep '06

To: MVCAC Participants and Friends.................. Date: September 5, 2006 RE: General Meeting for September Please attend a general meeting on Monday, September 18th, at the home of Larry and Martha Schwab, 3333 Collins Ferry Road. Come at 7 pm for the social session, the meeting to start promptly at 7:30 pm. We have a number of items to cover, including the recent appeal of the Longview siting and transmission certificates, the final version of our new brochure, plans for the public lecture series this fall, etc. THERE IS PLENTY TO DO, AND YOU ARE NEEDED TO HELP OUT AT THIS TIME. ........ duane

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

MVCAC September 2006