MVCAC

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

1014 discussions

Pgh Post-Gazette 8-part air quality series
by Duane330＠aol.com 13 Dec '10

13 Dec '10

December 13, 2010 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Publishes 8-part Air Quality Series Starting Sunday, Dec. 12th, the _Pittsburgh Post-Gazette began an 8-part series_ (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=izlefwcab&et=1104036893207&s=244&e=001wwMgUMZ… aIn1_kW49h2JMacAt2G4k0vnYEyAGnQkF0QlDHYrw==) on air quality in our region, and GASP will be commenting on the articles on our _website_ (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=izlefwcab&et=1104036893207&s=244&e=001wwMgUMZ… HTmTvAER7IIRlpQcQxMJ2brYrs12svnBWypKEpQOImztAEetwT6d5PEt-Lq0w4g5YEsFpnzr8fF5 nlxlVxhb4E5U8K5falRiA==) . Air quality in southwestern Pennsylvania is a serious problem, with grave consequences for human and ecological health. Air pollution has been linked to cardiovascular disease, heart attacks, asthma, and chronic lung disease, among other ailments. Fine particulates, ground-level ozone, mercury, benzene, and other damaging compounds are often invisible but are linked to severe health problems nonetheless. Sources of these pollutants are plentiful, and are both mobile, such as trains, trucks, and construction equipment, and stationary, such as coal-fired power plants and coke-making facilities. Learn more about the harmful effects of fine particulates with a GASP brochure _here_ (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=izlefwcab&et=1104036893207&s=244&e=001wwMgUMZ… 0WvJZiKoa3hkuY0EPclay7ahAe61AY1ZL5Wmmgnx8NdYdBIfT-C0L3HUqh2R4VvEKaUIER68Tq5h BeOIvVMOZsqpGTqlqTiQatvw4aLA1cWOhw==) . GASP has a long history of working on air quality issues in southwestern PA. We understand the issues from technical and legal perspectives. There are no easy answers to our ongoing dirty air problem. Solutions will need to be both regional and local, and pollution reductions will need to come from both mobile and stationary sources. We must continue our policy, advocacy, and educational efforts to increase community awareness about the problems, and to hold polluters and decision makers accountable for our region's air pollution. What is GASP doing about it? * Pushing for more protective Air Toxics Guidelines in Allegheny County, through advocacy and our membership on the Board of Health's Air Toxics Guideline Proposal _Committee_ (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=izlefwcab&et=1104036893207&s=244&e=001wwMgUMZ… _A23T6PLTFAj1SyiqcNcRjgt4Tx-vVbyuM_WsMsyN5H-H0xrjklyl6K9BkgLOyE3nP5vs-UnlSBq aejv6RPU8gb2xRtRzvcd65RjcqPAjm7Jw) . * GASP and Clean Water Action continue to lead the _Allegheny County Partnership to Reduce Diesel Pollution_ (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=izlefwcab&et=1104036893207&s=244&e=001wwMgUMZ… 7ukn9NdP1h-tcMpRPzZaKbBijdXd335uL6ayXyLWTeYjWY1013d3nL9_fJkb67QqPEpU7BkPmd3M _eicEiKDO5) . The Partnership is currently advocating for clean construction legislation in Pittsburgh which would require contractors receiving public subsidies for large construction projects to work on reducing pollution from their fleets. * Acting as an environmental watchdog, community organizer, and litigator. GASP actively participates in environmental decision-making by educating and organizing the public, informing officials of the environmental consequences of their actions, _testifying at hearings_ (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=izlefwcab&et=1104036893207&s=244&e=001wwMgUMZ… p2_qXh5SitQNZYyZAIdh5yfXJSRYkiciGWs11LQloAk8_PWWGkEQUY0AZ5unKLh_9kRIhHKW-oOZ z_NmtVtJxu0-9kjyU6pA3B81siTuk4FEnrYEv42BZh8kC6i52gctKBEhv) , submitting comments on regulatory proposals, and _challenging permitting and regulatory decisons_ (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=izlefwcab&et=1104036893207&s=244&e=001wwMgUMZ… 59QdnIOhRfAz7HnYwvJ-1GbpuQzy8XTVEm_A4M2Qqj2u1SGg9h-6lm6GQeT38WmIMKfC1ZZOPBcW 38yWH9ZxF9M55Ja20bkrlwoqMqNbawiFW1m-P13Ec) that have adverse environmental and human health consequences. * Advocating for air quality regulations around natural gas drilling and urging drillers to utilize effective control technologies in their operations. Check out our _recent letter_ (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=izlefwcab&et=1104036893207&s=244&e=001wwMgUMZ… nB4T22o8aOyXwRSJj7FxMYue74s3mh4QZ2rMeV0twW_91fYC2-gisgUZP36-_Zz-YA0AAxQhoGxM s6_6OGi5_bZ81OWOmM4P6EOPuueitMeSSGC382ua) in the Post-Gazette. What can you do? Visit the web-sites: (a) www.gasp-pgh.org (b) www.monvalleycleanair.org

1 0

Volumes of Greenhouse Gases From Liquid Coal
by Duane330＠aol.com 11 Dec '10

11 Dec '10

Posted: December 10, 2010, The Huffington Post, by Miles Grant. B_lackened Pork: Liquid Coal Subsidies Sneak Into Senate Tax Bill_ (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-grant/blackened-pork-liquid-coa_b_79517…) Is regular coal not dirty enough for you? Meet liquid coal fuel! Destructive to mine, water-intensive to manufacture, devastating to our climate at every step of the way -- liquid coal is _one of the world's dirtiest fuels_ (http://www.nwf.org/Global-Warming/Policy-Solutions/Climate-and-Energy/Stop-D irty-Fuels.aspx) . Liquid coal production emits twice as much global warming pollution as gasoline & requires at least four gallons of water per gallon of fuel produced. Today the National Wildlife Federation learned the Senate version of tax legislation includes subsidies for liquid coal fuels. Section 704 of the Senate tax bill as written right now would extend the Alternative Fuel Tax Credit to liquid coal, giving a 50-cent tax credit for each gallon of liquid coal sold or used in a fuel mixture. While many senators have fought to include important clean energy provisions in the the tax package, the National Wildlife Federation strongly opposes expanding alternative fuel tax credits to cover dirty liquid coal. Why? For starters, the provision could cost taxpayers $400 million per plant, every year. That's on top of the subsidy coal already receives by not having to pay for its pollution -- today in America, polluters can dump as much carbon pollution as they want into our atmosphere free of charge. The carbon-intensive process of turning coal into liquid fuel is only part of the equation. The liquid coal is then burned by the vehicle, where it emits even more carbon pollution than traditional gasoline, along with plenty of other pollutants to the air in our communities. And of course there are all the ecological risks linked to coal mining -- habitat loss, ground water contamination & mountaintop removal. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalmemorialforthemountains/255174892/in/s…) Why does the coal industry need these huge subsidies? The coal business is in the black these days (no pun intended). Peabody Energy, the largest private-sector coal company in the world, just reported its _profits doubled_ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510704575561922040110114.h…) the last quarter to $224 million in just those three months. But while coal-fired electrical power is incredibly profitable, producing dirty liquid coal fuels is phenomenally expensive. Liquid coal facilities cost as much as $6 billion for a single plant. The bottom line is, liquid coal can't stand on its own two legs. It needs massive subsidies from Congress AND it needs to be able to treat our atmosphere like an open sewer. If both of those things aren't true, liquid coal simply can't compete with cleaner energy sources.

1 0

Global Warming and the El Nino (w/tilde)
by Duane330＠aol.com 10 Dec '10

10 Dec '10

Climate Change: El Niño Lends More Confidence to Strong Global Warming <NOBR>Richard A Some scientists have argued from observations that global warming will alter clouds in ways that will largely counter warming by greenhouse gases. But the overwhelming majority of climate scientists sides with the models, which show clouds changing in ways that amplify warming, not dampen it. Whom to believe? To help sort it out, a climate researcher looked at the example of El Niño and La Niña, naturally occurring weather patterns that cause warming (El Niño) and cooling (La Niña) in the tropical Pacific and around the globe. In a report on page _1523_ (http://www.info-aaas.org/l.jsp?d=6890.748281.654.8cAH8W7w42QgXi5scbyBzCg..A) of this week's issue of Science, he analyzes how they have actually influenced clouds and concludes that—at least on the scale of decades—clouds do not counter warming. Full story at _http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/330/6010/1465?sa_campaign=Email… (http://www.info-aaas.org/l.jsp?d=6890.748280.654.8cAH8W7w42QgXi5scbyBzCg..A)

2 1

........ On CO2 Storage Underground
by Duane330＠aol.com 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

GEOLOGIC SEQUESTRATION REPORTING RULES ENSURE SAFETY AND USE OF THE TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS On Nov. 22, EPA finalized two rules for large emitters of greenhouse gases such as coal fired plants to foster the use of an environmentally safe geologic sequestration/storage technology in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. One rule ensures drinking water protection during the carbon sequestration process, the other tracks the amount of carbon dioxide that is stored underground for long-term storage. For more information on the geologic sequestration rule, go to _http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm_ (http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm) More information on the greenhouse gas reporting final rule: _http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html_ (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html)

1 0

Nemacolin (Greene county) is south of Carmichaels, PA
by Duane330＠aol.com 08 Dec '10

08 Dec '10

Washington PA OBSERVER REPORTER Wednesday 8 December 2010: Nemacolin plant hearing draws crowd 12/8/2010 NEMACOLIN - The Nemacolin union hall was packed Tuesday for a public hearing on Wellington Development's application for an extension on the air quality permit the company received five years ago to build a waste-coal burning power plant in Nemacolin. Wellington is seeking an additional five years from the state Department of Environmental Protection to construct the 525-megawatt plant, which will burn waste coal from Nemacolin and nearby coal refuse piles. DEP has proposed approving the extension but is required to hold a public comment period on the application. The agency also proposed several modifying conditions to the permit including reduced emissions for some pollutants. Wellington received its initial air quality permit in June 2005. Bill Campbell of the engineering firm AECOM, who spoke on Wellington's behalf, said the company will be unable to complete the project in the initial five years because of litigation that was filed regarding the permit. Environmental groups unsuccessfully challenged the project before the state Environmental Hearing Board and through the state court system, he said. Campbell also noted the plant is being built with private financing which could not be finalized until the litigation was resolved. Campbell described the project as a "resource recovery" project, pointing out refuse piles from which the plant will take its fuel are currently burning, emitting pollutants into the air. In addition, many toxic chemicals in the coal waste are now being washed into area streams during rains, he said. The coal refuse will be burned with limestone and create an ash that will be used to reclaim the sites. The ash material will also "encapsulate" many of the harmful pollutants, Campbell said. "We're not fixing the world, but we're trying to fix 500 acres of it with this project," he said. Most of the people in attendance appeared to be in favor of the extension, judging from the applause received by those who asked it be granted. Those in favor, which included the United Mine Workers and the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters unions, spoke of the jobs the plant will create and the benefits of cleaning up the refuse piles. The plant will create 1,300 construction jobs, 70 full-time plant jobs and about 450 associated jobs in excavation, transportation and reclamation, the company said. Tony Brnusak of Masontown, a UMW miner, said he remembered a time when every house burned coal and he saw nothing wrong with it in the current plan. "These are good paying jobs," Brnusak said. He also spoke of the many coal refuse sites that dot the area's landscape. "These coal piles need to be cleaned up and these communities need to be beautified," he said. Ed Yankovich, international executive board member for UMW District 2, read a letter from UMW President Cecil Roberts supporting the project. Several speakers also opposed the plan saying it would only create more pollution and would fail to solve existing problems. Rachel Martin of the Sierra Club said the project would "replace one environmental harm with another" and alternatives for reclaiming the sites should be explored. Robert Jennings, an attorney for several environmental groups, said the company is required to use state of the art technology to control pollutants and if applying for a permit today might have to change its plan because of advances in technology during the last five years. Copyright by Observer-Reporter. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> p.s. Duane Nichols and Paula Hunt of MVCAC spoke in opposition to the permit renewal.

1 0

Wellington 580MW GOB-Coal project (Nemacolin, PA)
by duane330＠aol.com 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

Update: November 2010 The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection released a notice that it will hold a public meeting to answer questions and take testimony concerning Wellington Development’s application to extend and modify the Plan Approval for the proposed Greene County coal plant. The meeting will take place at 6:00 p.m. on December 7, 2010 at the United Mine Workers Hall located at Pershing Blvd., Nemacolin, PA. The DEP intends to approve Wellington’s request to extend the Plan Approval by five years and modify certain permit conditions to limit emissions of hazardous air pollutants, which will keep the facility below major source thresholds and thus avoid installing costly control technologies. Update: August 2010 On May 11, 2010, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued a Coal Surface Mining Permit to Penn Development Services allowing the company to conduct coal surface mining operations at the site of Wellington’s proposed Greene County plant, a 580 gross MW coal plant consisting of two CFB boilers designed to burn dirty waste coal. Wellington received a construction permit for the proposed plant back in June 2005, but construction activities at the site were halted in June 2009 when the developers uncovered a 500-ton coal vein at the property. The department also issued a water pollution control permit for the mining activities the same day. A few days later, Penn and Wellington signed a Consent Assessment of Civil Penalty, agreeing to pay the state a $60,000 fine for unlawful activities related to its previous construction at the site. Back in June 2008, the PA DEP extended Wellington’s construction permit until 2011 and informed Wellington that it needed to submit an application for MACT approval, which is currently in the permitting process. In January 2009, Wellington requested another extension of its construction permit to 2014, which the department has not acted on yet. It is unclear when the department will issue a draft permit for notice or comment and make its decision on the permit extension. Update: March 2010 Mercury is a dangerous pollutant common around coal power plants. If exposed, humans risk serious health problems. Pennsylvania is home to four of the top 50 worst coal power plants for mercury emissions, including one in Greene County. The people of Green County deserve clean drinking water. Building yet another dirty coal plant in their backyard is unnecessary and dangerous. Update: June 2009 All construction at this site has been halted! While clearing lands for the boilers developers discovered a 500-ton coal vein. This means that PDEP must now go back and determine if the existing permit allows for mining or if Wellington must apply for a new mining permit before they can continue. PDEP has not made any decisions yet and all work at the site has been stopped indefinitely. Update: July 2008 On June 27, 2008, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), in response to Public Justice’s expert report, ordered Wellington Development to submit an application for a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) determination for the proposed Greene County plant. The company must now include a plan to control mercury and other toxic emissions from the plant in order to meet MACT standards. On the same day, the Pennsylvania DEP issued an extension for Wellington Development’s permit approval expiration date. Update: June 2008 In April, 2008 Wellington Development requested that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection allow them to extend their permit approval expiration date by a full six years. The Sierra Club, along with National Parks Conservation Association, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and Group Against Smog and pollution previously submitted comments objecting to this request, and urging the PA DEP to allow for a 30-day comment period, giving the public an opportunity to weigh in. It seems that the DEP won’t be scheduling any such comment period, so on June 18th Public Justice, the organization representing the Club and other groups, submitted an extensive expert report examining the use of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) to control toxic mercury emissions at the Wellington Greene County plant. In order for Wellington to continue with their proposed plant, the letter notes that Wellington "must submit a new application for Plan Approval that meets both BACT (Best Achievable Control Technology) and MACT standards and Pennsylvania law and policy." Update: May 2008 On May 13, 2008 Judge Maurice Cohill of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ruled to dismiss the Sierra Club's case against Wellington. Despite this decision, the Sierra Club and it's allies will continue to fight for clean air and healthy communities in Pennsylvania. The Club, represented by Public Justice, has sent several letters to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality urging them to revoke Wellington’s Plan Approval due to the fact that it does not contain a MACT, or Maximum Achievable Control Technology, determination for mercury, as required by the Clean Air Act. Update: February 2008 On February 28, 2008 the Sierra Club, National Parks Conservation Association, Group Against Smog and Pollution and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation took legal action against Wellington Development's proposed Greene Country coal-fired power plant. In their challenge the groups cited Wellington's failure to begin construction in accordance with the time limitations set out in their permit from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). In addition, this coalition has asked the PA DEP to revoke Wellington's permit because it does not take into account the stricter emission standards on toxic mercury made law by a recent court decision. Update: July 2007 After a lengthy appeals process before the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearings Board, in February The Group Against Smog and Pollution (GASP) appealed to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. Unfortunately the local group, who have been extremely active in efforts to oppose this new, dirty energy source, lost the appeals. According to a local source, as of July 2007 Wellington has broken ground but no construction has begun. Background Wellington Development has obtained a permit to construct a 580 megawatt waste coal burning facility in Cumberland Township, Pennsylvania. A group of individuals, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the Group Against Smog and Pollution have filed a legal challenge to the permit. The US Forest Service and the National Park Service state that the waste coal plant will cause damage to national parks and forests as far away as 60 to 100 miles. The comments of these organizations as well as many others, including the PA Chapter of the Sierra Club, can be found here. See Case Documents and Other Related Information Password required - contact the Sierra Club Environmental Law Program.

1 0

Re: [MVCAC] Second: Wellington testimony
by James Kotcon 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

I support the concept. Attached please find some materials I prepared for the original permit application in 2005. One is my comments on a "fact" sheet circulated by Wellington at the time. A second is a chart illustrating the emissions levels. The third is the comment letter I submitted on the air permit. Feel free to use any that you deem appropriate, although a significant re-write is needed for some of the permit comments. It is my understanding that a few of the comments I submitted on the original air permit were addressed in the final permit, and several other sections (e.g., mercury emissions rules) clearly need to be updated, as the EPA Clean Air Mercury Rule was overturned and a new mercury rule is to take effect early next year. In addition, the statements on greenhouse gas emissions need to be given a complete re-write because the Supreme Court has since ruled that greenhouse gases are subject to EPA regulation, and EPA has determined that greenhouse gases constitute a threat to human health (2009 endangerment finding). I also recommend that we request a significant extension of the comment period, as a simple renewal is not appropriate and a thorough revision of the air permit should be required, including a new BACT analysis. The reason that permits expire after five years is because Congress recognized that new pollution-control technology would make old permits "stale", hence new analyses are required to determine whether the old permit limits are appropriate. Since this plant has not yet started construction, an extension is a direct contradiction of the intent of the Clean Air Act that new BACT analyses be required. Jim Kotcon >>> Paula Hunt <pjhunt(a)xemaps.com> 12/2/2010 6:22 PM >>> I second the motion. - paula ................................................................................ At 12/2/2010 02:34 PM, Duane wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >It is herewith proposed that MVCAC submit testimony in opposition to >the 5-year extension of the permit for the Wellington gob burning >power plant in Fayette County, PA, just a few miles north of >Morgantown. Please let me know if you have comments. . . . . . . >. Duane Nichols, MVCAC Spokesperson. > > >Public Hearing on Plan to Construct >Waste Coal-Fired Power Plant in Greene County > >On the evening of December 7th the Pennsylvania Department of >Environmental Protection will hold a public meeting and hear citizen >testimony on Wellington Development LLC's proposal to build a 525 >megawatt waste-coal-fired power plant in Nemacolin, Greene County, >PA. If constructed, this facility would serve as a massive new >source of pollution for Greene County and our region as a whole, >including the Pittsburgh metropolitan area, Shenandoah National >Park, the James River Face Wilderness Area, Dolly Sods, and Otter >Creek Wilderness area. > > > >Wellington first received a permit to build the facility in 2005. >(Several years ago GASP joined the Sierra Club, the National Parks >Conservation Association, and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in an >ultimately unsuccessful legal effort to invalidate the 2005 permit). >Five years later the plant still has not been constructed. >Wellington is now seeking a 5-year extension on their construction >permit. Our region is already out of attainment for fine >particulates and ozone. If built this project would impose an >additional air pollution burden on our region for decades to come. > > > >The PADEP hearing is scheduled for December 7th at > >United Mine Workers Hall > >92 Pershing Boulevard > >Nemacolin PA, 15351 (map) > > > >An informational meeting will start at 6:00 p.m., public testimony >will start at 7:00 p.m. > > > >Those wishing to present oral testimony during the hearing should >contact Community Relations Coordinator Katherine Gresh, at (412) >442-4000, before December 7, 2010 to register. Commentators should >provide three written copies of their remarks to aid in >transcription. Each commenter's oral testimony shall be limited to 10 minutes. > > >More information on the project is available in the ><http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=izlefwcab&et=1104012270817&s=244&e=001fABDckg…>Pennsylvania >Bulletin (search for Wellington) >_______________________________________________ >MVCAC mailing list >MVCAC(a)cheat.org >http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac

1 0

Wellington gob-coal plant permit hearing on December 7th
by Duane330＠aol.com 02 Dec '10

02 Dec '10

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is herewith proposed that MVCAC submit testimony in opposition to the 5-year extension of the permit for the Wellington gob burning power plant in Fayette County, PA, just a few miles north of Morgantown. Please let me know if you have comments. . . . . . . . Duane Nichols, MVCAC Spokesperson. Public Hearing on Plan to Construct Waste Coal-Fired Power Plant in Greene County On the evening of December 7th the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection will hold a public meeting and hear citizen testimony on Wellington Development LLC's proposal to build a 525 megawatt waste-coal-fired power plant in Nemacolin, Greene County, PA. If constructed, this facility would serve as a massive new source of pollution for Greene County and our region as a whole, including the Pittsburgh metropolitan area, Shenandoah National Park, the James River Face Wilderness Area, Dolly Sods, and Otter Creek Wilderness area. Wellington first received a permit to build the facility in 2005. (Several years ago GASP joined the Sierra Club, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in an ultimately unsuccessful legal effort to invalidate the 2005 permit). Five years later the plant still has not been constructed. Wellington is now seeking a 5-year extension on their construction permit. Our region is already out of attainment for fine particulates and ozone. If built this project would impose an additional air pollution burden on our region for decades to come. The PADEP hearing is scheduled for December 7th at United Mine Workers Hall 92 Pershing Boulevard Nemacolin PA, 15351 _(map)_ (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=izlefwcab&et=1104012270817&s=244&e=001fABDckg… R9QMDxcuu7Q2ULyFP8umfo6g7TJl_KO2gv5OMa5AK384h49sYfOkhzTUEgmEvkBMOtRNCgTEwGPg tmey_xoY5SFiMl3R9cYiRqohq3l3DZzwyjP0RDwUWlQHGFOggCagBU2WvncXCiPAdhqhWxKXjTgB O0o8fW1r-T9B6ORmRM4Ixvl7-GHkETolevXug3-gN8L6IfLTAHACVo2-ZXdCJRuzF94JZ5cVnwpY 4VRUygODHbxETMy4FRyWdVwepG0z-zvulDmLfeZUBfHFQKk9a18qO-EUCNT5l72IRVrec1q9w0h- mOs0ThHE4EAM7VrXpoUbLO6qXCXub42MhjlMNemVe6R4BvUqqyW8pSGvoNf29TIPy8zp_Hv7x8Rd qJijBmp8T8M9dOMtgfOJxfxBaKAbodiD4N1Q==) An informational meeting will start at 6:00 p.m., public testimony will start at 7:00 p.m. Those wishing to present oral testimony during the hearing should contact Community Relations Coordinator Katherine Gresh, at (412) 442-4000, before December 7, 2010 to register. Commentators should provide three written copies of their remarks to aid in transcription. Each commenter's oral testimony shall be limited to 10 minutes. More information on the project is available in the _Pennsylvania Bulletin _ (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=izlefwcab&et=1104012270817&s=244&e=001fABDckg… DywhkjFWH2EDS4kEZRFDcCxfjWYmmCDft9H3w-QaEdhK7je3yLYA9QUWLdEONJ4lVMGCBzOC2fMP ukOXn_oiv9TdPSs=) (search for Wellington)

2 1

"Cap and Trade" not for Senator Rockefeller
by Duane330＠aol.com 01 Dec '10

01 Dec '10

Dear Duane, Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on climate change and so-called "cap-and-trade" legislation. I understand the strong convictions you have on this subject and recognize how vital this issue is, not only to you, but also to our state. I always appreciate hearing from fellow West Virginians on such important matters. Climate change is a serious issue that I believe our nation and the world must begin to address by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. However, any attempt to confront climate change must also protect our economy. In West Virginia, a critical part of that economy is coal. For over 100 years, coal has provided West Virginians with good paying jobs and low electricity prices. Coal currently provides almost half of our nation's electricity and is an essential part of America's energy future. I believe that Congress can address these issues as part of energy and climate legislation that both reduces our greenhouse gas emissions and simultaneously secures the future of coal. To that end, I have laid out seven core principles that must be included in energy and climate legislation: o First and foremost, the United States must recognize and embrace coal as an essential part of our nation's energy plan. West Virginians have long recognized how important coal is to our economy, but today millions of Americans rely on West Virginia coal without even realizing it. o Second, we must safeguard American energy and manufacturing jobs. o Third, we must defend the U.S. economy against unfair competition from nations like China and India and make sure our trade-exposed manufacturers are never put at a disadvantage. o Fourth, we must protect working families from rising energy costs at home. o Fifth, we must invest aggressively in new and existing technologies - including, but not limited to, carbon capture and storage which I have proposed in bipartisan legislation (S.3591)--to make coal cleaner and establish U.S. energy dominance. o Sixth, we must insist that efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions give our economy and our industries the time that's needed to develop and implement these new technologies. o Seventh, legislation should be the final word providing regulatory certainty by prohibiting the EPA from imposing additional burdensome requirements on coal-fired power plants. There are currently several different legislative proposals to address climate change that include "cap and trade". However, I do not believe that any of these proposals have embodied the seven principles that I have outlined above, and therefore I do not support them. I also firmly believe major energy policy should be the result of congressional action and not Environmental Protection Agency regulation. The EPA has limited authority to address economic needs or to encourage new technologies and no obligation to protect the jobs of hard-working people of West Virginia and the nation. That is why I have introduced legislation, the Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act (S. 3072), to suspend any potential EPA regulation of greenhouse gases for two years - giving Congress the time that is needed to address this complex issue in a way that will work for West Virginia and the nation. Thank you again for taking the time to contact me on such an important issue. As always, I wish you the best. With Warm Regards, Jay Rockefeller

1 0

Please Comment to EPA before Nov. 19, 2010 on Coal Combustion Waste Regulation
by Paula Hunt 17 Nov '10

17 Nov '10

Comment to EPA before Nov. 19, 2010 on Coal Combustion Waste Regulation Time is running out! November 17, 2010 from J.K. and the <http://www.environmentalintegrity.org>Environmental Integrity Project Please send comments by Nov. 19 to USEPA asking them to: * Regulate Coal Combustion Wastes under RCRA Subtitle C as Special Waste *not* Solid Waste. Studies show that ash is hazardous, and that ground water under ash impoundments violates water quality standards. West Virginia does not limit contamination! We need federal oversight on this!! * Tighten the loopholes for ''Beneficial Use'' -- especially in mine land applications. Much of the coal ash in northern West Virginia is exempted because it is dumped on mine sites as a so-called ''beneficial use.'' Under this provision, the mine is exempted from requirements for liners, leachate collection, ground water monitoring, and more. In fact, if EPA adopts their proposed rule, it may push even more ash onto these mine sites, threatening our ground water. Please tell EPA that the example of West Virginia shows why tougher regulation is needed, that state regulation is NOT working, and the rule needs to be strengthened by closing the beneficial use loopholes. More information is in the Federal Register announcement available <http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/ccr-rule-p…>here. SEVERAL WAYS TO COMMENT (by Nov. 19th): * Go to <http://www.regulations.gov>www.regulations.gov and follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. * Email comments to <mailto:rcra-docket@epa.gov>rcra-docket(a)epa.gov Subject: Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640. * Fax to 202-566-0272; Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQRCRA-2009-0640. * Fill in the Earth Justice <https://secure.earthjustice.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&i…>form letter with your contact information and submit it. * Mail your comments (time is running out!) to the Hazardous Waste Management System Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities Docket Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640 Environmental Protection Agency Mailcode 5305T 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20460 Please include a total of two copies of your comments if sending them by mail. Thanks! paula

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

MVCAC