America Says: Keep Your Dirty Hands Off my Clean Water

By JW Randolph. Cross-Posted from Appalachian Voices' Front Porch Blog



Some members of Congress have started a war on the Clean Water Act by attempting to revoke a vital resource that allows the EPA do its job to better protect our nation's waterways.

Congressman McKinley (R-WV01) recently introduced legislation (HR 457) for consideration United States House of Representatives that would remove EPA's ability to veto Clean Water Act permits under Section 404(c) if the permit has already been approved by the Army Corps of Engineers. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) has promised to introduced similar legislation in the US Senate. These bills might have the unintended affect of encouraging the Army Corps to approve permits quickly. Congressman Don Young (R-AK)'s bill, H.R. 517 cuts even deeper by entirely removing EPA's veto authority.

In the entire existence of the Clean Water Act (1972), the EPA has only exercised this prerogative 13 times.

The EPA recently used this long-standing though seldom-used tool to veto the Spruce Mine No. 1 permit, which would have been the largest single permitted mine in West Virginia history, because of the massive negative impacts to water quality. Mountaintop removal mines have already buried over 2000 miles of Appalachian headwater streams in a witch’s brew of heavy metals and chemicals such as arsenic, lead, chromium, mercury, and selenium.

The coal industry is attempting to nationalize this recent veto, claiming the EPA’s recent decision creates regulatory uncertainty across all industries. The truth is that Arch Coal, the company who had applied for the permit, refused to work with the EPA on modifications that would have made the mine more than likely immune to a veto.




Furthemore, Big Coal doesn’t seem to be too concerned about “regulatory certainty” when it comes to industries that depend on a strong Clean Water Act, like fisheries, outdoor recreation and tourism. Studies have shown that the annual financial benefits of the 1972 Clean Water Act are somewhere in the realm of $11 billion.

However HR 457 and 517, however, truly do have national implications for communities' basic right to clean water. The EPA would lose their ability to intervene in projects that would have serious impacts to water quality, environmental and human health across the entire nation.

Appalachian Voices stands with national, regional, community, human health organizations and fisherman prepared to fight this perilous political theatre from Representatives McKinley, Young and Senator Manchin.

The Clean Water Act was put into place in the 70s, at a time when corporate pollution was virtually unregulated and a national consciousness grew that without clean water, our nation could not prosper and grow. Attempts at weakening the Clean Water should be taken seriously, because there are parts of American history that do not bear repeating.

Our children don’t need to find themselves back to a time where major rivers catch on fire. Remember the Cuyahoga!

Read more!

EPA Vetoes Massive Mountaintop Removal Coal Mine

By JW Randolph, originally posted at Appalachian Voices

EPA announced Thursday that they will be vetoing the largest mountaintop removal permit in WV history.

Appalachian Voices is thrilled to hear that EPA will be vetoing this permit in order to protect human health and aquatic ecosystems in central Appalachia. EPA's own science has shown that mountaintop removal has permanent negative impacts on Appalachia, and we hope they will continue to stand strong in stopping mine permits that will have a negative impact on the well-being of the central Appalachian land and people.

EPA's Peter Silva hit the nail on the head:

The proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend. Coal and coal mining are part of our nation’s energy future, and EPA has worked with companies to design mining operations that adequately protect our nation’s water. We have responsibility under the law to protect water quality and safeguard the people who rely on clean water.

The bottom line is that we don't need to poison our streams and our communities in order to mine coal in the central Appalachian region. Three cheers to EPA for doing what is right, even though they faced tremendous political pressure to let this harmful and toxic mine just slide by.

Congress can make these protections permanent, while adding stability and clarity to the process by passing popular bipartisan legislation such as the Clean Water Protection Act (House) and Appalachia Restoration Act (Senate). Recently, 50 members of Congress sent a letter to EPA thanking them for doing the right thing by taking steps to end mountaintop removal. Congressman Rahall (D-WV) also said that legislation to end the practice had more than 400 votes in the House, but that he was the only person blocking the bill. Its time that Representatives like Congressman Rahall and Senator Manchin start protecting their constituents and stop wasting their time and political capital defending a destructive, toxic, and unnecessary practice like mountaintop removal. Its time that our elected officials start thinking less about appeasing the coal lobby and more about protecting Appalachian citizens who live in communities where coal is mined.

In one of his last public statements, Senator Robert C. Byrd said:

It is also a reality that the practice of mountaintop removal mining has a diminishing constituency in Washington. It is not a widespread method of mining, with its use confined to only three states. Most members of Congress, like most Americans, oppose the practice, and we may not yet fully understand the effects of mountaintop removal mining on the health of our citizens.

Ken Ward has more at Coal Tattoo and Jeff Biggers has a beautiful piece at HuffPo called EPA Vetoes Largest Mountaintop Removal Permit: New Era of Civility in the Coalfields? .

Congratulations to every single person who helped make this possible.

Read more!

Phasing out Fossil Fuel Subsidies Will Help, But Only Innovation Can Make Clean Energy Cheap

By Jesse Jenkins, originally at the Breakthrough Institute

Over at theEnergyCollective.com, Tyler Hamilton dives into the International Energy Agency's newly released forecast of global energy trends (exec sum here [pdf]) focusing on the disparity in global subsidies for renewables and fossil fuels:

The International Energy Agency put out its annual World Energy Outlook today and urges strong and sustained government support for the deployment of renewable energy. The agency pegs 2009 subsidies for renewables at $57 billion and calls for that to increase to $205 billion by 2035. "The share of modern renewable energy sources, including sustainable hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, modern biomass and marine energy, in global primary energy use triples between 2008 and 2035 and their combined share of total primary energy demand increases from 7 per cent to 14 per cent," according to the agency. Fossil fuel subsidies stood at $312 billion in 2009 and the agency urged that they be eliminated to accelerate the transition to renewables.

I applaud the IEA's call for major public investments in clean energy RD&D and deployment and certainly support the agency's calls to phase out fossil fuel subsidies -- excepting where doing so would expand the already deplorable share of the global population (about 2.4 billion) locked in energy poverty.

But while Hamilton and others focus on the disparity between total subsidies for fossil energy and renewables, the IEA figures are actually a stark reminder of the major price gap that persists between mature fossil energy sources and newer, costlier clean energy alternatives.

If renewables account for a 7% share of global energy energy demand, and receive $57 billion in subsidies, that's $8.14 billion for each percentage share of global demand.

In contrast, fossil fuels supply about 83% of the global energy mix (nuclear accounts for the remaining 6%, according to the IEA) and receive $312 billion in subsidies according to the IEA, for $3.76 billion per percentage share of global energy supplied.

In other words renewables receive more than double the subsidy rate per unit of energy supplied as fossil fuels.

When you consider that hydropower and biomass, which rarely require or receive subsidy, account for the vast share of global renewable energy production, the relative subsidy rate for wind, solar and other renewables per unit of energy produced is much higher.

Most renewable energy technologies are still relatively immature, emerging energy sources, facing off against entrenched, mature fossil competitors whose core technologies are many decades if not centuries old (burning coal in a boiler to make steam? That's so 19th century!). We should fully expect any emerging energy alternative to require market support policies to find a foothold in the energy market and have time to scale up and come down in price.

Yet, with the IEA forecasting that virtually all (93%) of energy demand growth over the next 25 years will come from developing nations that can ill afford massive energy subsidies, the reminders are everywhere: clean energy cannot scale to meet global energy needs if it requires ongoing, high subsidy rates.

This is why I always come back to the urgent need to make clean energy cheap, in real, unsubsidized terms.

While ending fossil energy subsidies will help level the playing field for cleaner alternatives and initial market support is needed for emerging energy alternatives, only real innovation to drive down price and improve performance for a full suite of clean energy technologies can ensure that a meaningful share of global energy demand can be supplied by low-carbon alternatives to fossil fuels.

Read more!

Daily Dose of Sanity: Turning Headwaters into Toxic Sludge Dumps is Bad for Water and Wildlife -- EPA Administrator

Here's your daily dose of sanity, courtesy of EPA regional administrator Shawn Garvin, who has recommended that the agency veto a Clean Water Act permit for the massive Spruce No. 1 mountaintop removal coal mine in Logan County, W.Va.

Mr. Garvin's commonsensical rationale? Apparently burying several miles of pristine Appalachian headwaters and replacing them with landfill and a toxic sludge dump will adversely impact downstream waters and wildlife.

No sh&#!

The West Virgina Gazette's intrepid Ken Ward Jr. has the story:

EPA has posted a copy of Garvin’s recommendation here, and there are some companion documents online here. The recommendation concludes:

… Region III has determined that discharges of dredged and/or fill material to Pigeonroost Branch and Oldhouse Branch for the purpose of constructing the Spruce No. 1 Surface Mine as currently authorized … would likely have unacceptable adverse effects on wildlife … [the permit] authorizes construction of valley fills and sedimentation ponds and other discharges into Pigeonroost Branch and Oldhouse Branch that will bury approximately 6.6 miles of high quality headwater streams.

… Burial of Pigeonroost Branch and Oldhouse Branch would likely result in effects to downstream waters and downstream wildlife caused by the removal of functions performed by the buried resources and by transformation of the buried areas into sources that contribute contaminants to downstream waters. In addition, currently authorized discharges to Pigeonroost Branch and Oldhouse Branch would be likely to contribute to conditions that would support blooms of algae that release toxins that kill fish and other aquatic life …

The regional EPA administrator also concluded:

… Because construction of the Spruce No. 1 Mine and 11 additional mining operations would increase the percent of the sub-basin that is impacted by mining activity, it can be expected that these water quality effects will likely be exacerbated by these additional mines. EPA believes that the Spruce No. 1 Mine project, in conjunction with the other mining operations either under construction or proposed for the Coal River sub-basin, will be likely to contribute to the significant cumulative loss of aquatic resources and degradation of water quality.

This isn't the end of the line for the controversial mountaintop removal project. EPA took pains to be clear that the agency "has not reached a final decision on this project," and promised to next "reach out to the mining company, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and West Virginia State officials to engage in discussions about potential actions that can be taken to reduce impacts on the environment and to the waters that Appalachian communities depend on for drinking, swimming and fishing."

Here's an idea: don't blow the tops off of mountains and dump their dessicated remains onto your headwaters valleys! We'll see if sanity prevails...

Update: more sanity from 50 members of Congress who wrote the EPA to support a stronger stance on protecting clean waters from the impacts of mountaintop removal mining operations, and to recommend the EPA's veto of the Spruce No. 1 mine. More here.

Read more!

EPA’s First Decision Under New Mountaintop Mining Guidelines goes to King Coal

Much-Lauded Strict Mountaintop Mining Guidelines Not So Strict

A guest post by Amanda of the Rainforest Action Network

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has given a green light for the Pine Creek mine permit, a mountaintop removal mining site in Logan County, W.Va. This is the first permit decision the EPA has issued under the new mountaintop mining guidelines, which came out last April and were anticipated to provide tougher oversight of mountaintop removal coal mining.

I hoped that the mountaintop removal (or "MTR") guidelines would provide protection for headwater streams by curbing the practice of dumping waste in neighboring valleys to create what is known as valley fills. The Pine Creek permit is the first test of these guidelines, and green lights three new valley fills (each over 40 acres large).

It was anticipated that these guidelines, by requiring mining operators to control levels of toxins in nearby streams, would significantly reduce the dumping of mining waste in valleys, which the EPA said was scientifically proven to contaminate drinking water and wreck ecosystems.

This is a devastating first decision under guidelines that had offered so much hope for Appalachian residents who thought the EPA was standing up for their health and water quality in the face of a horrific mining practice. The grand words being spoken by Administrator Jackson in DC are simply not being reflected in the EPA’s actions on-the-ground. This continues the inconsistent and contradictory decisions that have plagued the EPA’s process on mountaintop removal coal mining all along.

In announcing the new guidelines in April, Administrator Jackson told reporters: “We expect this guidance to change behaviors, to change actions, because if we keep doing what we have been doing, we’re going to see continued degradation of water quality… Minimizing the number of valley fills is a very, very key factor. You’re talking about no or very few valley fills that are going to be able to meet standards like this.”

The Pine Creek Surface Mine permit will allow Coal-Mac, a subsidiary of coal giant Arch coal, to mine through more than 2 miles of streams that are already suffering dangerous levels of pollution from surface mining. Extensive mountaintop removal mining and the subsequent environmental and water quality damage have already ravaged Logan County W.Va., which is the location of the infamous Spruce mine.

Moving forward, it is clear that the EPA cannot end mountaintop removal coal mining pollution without abolishing mountaintop removal all together.

The Pine Creek permit is currently awaiting approval from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Read more!

John Stewart on Oil Disaster: You've got the be kidding me!

As usual, the DailyShow's John Stewart brings his wicked wit to the dark news of the day: this time, it's the month-old oil disaster still unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico. Here you go. Happy Friday. Sigh...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
There Will Be Blame
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

On a more serious note, this large infographic has pretty much everything you'd want to know about the unfolding Deepwater Horizon-BP oil disaster in the gulf (h/t to Alisha Fowler for this one). Crude awakening indeed.

Read more!

Round One of the EPA "Coal Ash Bowl" Goes to Big Coal

By Matt Wasson, originally posted at Huffington Post

Yesterday, the EPA issued their long-awaited proposal for new rules on how to regulate the disposal and storage of coal combustion waste (CCW), the byproduct of coal-fired power plants.

Since December of 2008, when more than a billion gallons of toxic coal ash spilled into the Emory River from a breached impoundment at the TVA's Kingston Fossil Plant, environmental and industry groups have been waiting with tense anticipation to see how the Administration will approach regulating this highly toxic waste.

As it turns out, they're still waiting. The EPA actually issued two proposals which, as James Bruggers of the Louisville Courier-Journal reported, can be simply (though far from completely) summarized as follows:

One approach would eventually phase out coal ash storage ponds. The other would would allow ash ponds, but only if they have plastic liners.

The EPA will decide which of those approaches to adopt following a 90-day public comment period that began yesterday. While EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson heralded the action as "the first-ever national rules to assure the safe management and disposal of coal ash," reporters like Bruggers and Ken Ward at the Charleston Gazette saw EPA's announcement as more of a "punt."

Environmental groups had a mixed reaction, expressing enthusiasm for the EPA's overall 563-page analysis, which, despite Jackson's apparent ambivalence, provides enormously compelling scientific evidence that should favor the more stringent proposal for regulating CCW under hazardous waste provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. But groups also expressed some frustration at the Obama Administration's unwillingness to follow the EPA's analysis to its logical conclusion.

But whichever path the EPA ultimately chooses, Big Coal scores thanks to an issue that was entirely excluded from the scope of both proposals: the virtually unregulated practice of dumping CCW into abandoned mines.

To mix a metaphor, in the great 90-day EPA Coal Ash Bowl that began with a punt, the environmental and public health team is down a star player and Big Coal has the ball on the 50 yard line. It ain't over, but it's gonna be a rough game.


Dumping coal ash waste into abandoned mines- "Beneficial" for whom?

The industry backlash against any regulation of CCW disposal has long centered on the issue of "beneficial use," which typically implies using CCW to manufacture wallboard and other construction materials.

According to its promoters, minefilling is a "beneficial use" because CCW is alkaline and, at least the theory goes, dumping it into abandoned mines will neutralize the acidic mine drainage from active and abandoned mines.

The problem with this theory is that there really isn't any good science to back it up. A study on the water quality impacts of minefilling published by the Clean Air Taskforce in 2007 provided an excellent test of how "beneficial" the dumping of CCW into mine pits actually is. As explained in a more recent and comprehensive report by Earthjustice:

...in two-thirds of all the mines studied, the introduction of coal combustion waste resulted in more severe, long-term water quality contamination than had ever existed at these sites from the mining operation itself. Furthermore, as a practical matter, dumping large quantities of CCW directly into water tables in highly fractured sites under massive quantities of mine overburden makes the prospect of cleaning up resulting contamination far more daunting than halting leakages from conventional landfills and ash ponds.

The pressure on the administration from industry to not designate CCW as a hazardous waste was intense because of the stigma it would put on the use of CCW for "beneficial use" purposes. The unprecedented extent of that pressure from the coal industry was underscored in a letter to the White House signed by 239 public interest organizations from across the country in April. According to the letter:

Industry groups that oppose mandatory federal standards have had nearly 30 meetings with OMB [Office of Management and Budget] on this rule - more than ever before on any single topic. These groups continue to present unfounded claims of power plant closures and exaggerated cost estimates as "fact," thereby fomenting widespread but unwarranted fear of EPA regulations.

Wait... The coal industry presented exaggerated cost estimates to foment unwarranted fear of EPA regulations? Well I never!

That pressure was clearly effective in that, even if EPA chooses to regulate CCW under the hazardous waste provisions, it will not be labeled "hazardous" so as to avoid the dangerous connotations implied by the label.

But the industry pressure was equally effective in taking regulatory control of minefilling out of the hands of EPA scientists, who are no doubt well aware of the bad science underlying the practice and who are generally very serious about their job of protecting public health. In fact, the EPA already weighed in on the issue:

We believe that certain minefilling practices have the potential to degrade, rather than improve, existing groundwater quality and can pose a threat to human health and the environment.

It's statements like this that apparently disqualified the EPA from regulating minefilling, which instead will be subject to a subsequent rule-making process headed up by the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM). No timeframe was mentioned for when that rule-making would be initiated.

Putting OSM in charge of developing minefilling regulations, even with input from the EPA, is a huge victory for polluters for a number of reasons. First, the OSM is led by Joseph Pizarchik, nick-named "Coal Ash Joe" by community organizations in Pennsylvania for his unwavering support of minefilling when he was director of the Bureau of Mining and Reclamation in that state. Second, the "scientists" at OSM are a very different breed than those at the EPA.

OSM scientists are generally trained in "reclamation science" at one of the big mine engineering programs at schools like West Virginia University and Virginia Tech. The fundamental premise of reclamation science can be summed up in a statement from Dink Shackleford, past executive director of the Virginia Mining Association, who often said: "We have a chance to improve on God's creation." The science of mining and reclamation starts with a fundamental premise that must not be questioned- that no matter how toxic the pollution, how much mountain we blast away, that we can engineer nature back to as "good as new" or even better.

Viewed through this distorted lens, replacing the remarkably diverse and productive Appalachian hardwood forests with a barren plain covered in exotic grasses dotted with a few pines becomes an ecological benefit because it "improves forestry;" burying the headwaters of streams in millions of tons of mine waste is an ecological benefit because it "helps regulate stream flow;" and the virtually unregulated dumping of mine waste into abandoned mines is a "beneficial use" of coal ash.

There is a lot at stake for the coal industry in how minefilling is regulated because, according to the Earthjustice report, the cost of disposal in minefills is 89-95% less than the cost of disposal in engineered landfills. Also according to Earthjustice, about 25 million tons of CCW - 20% of total annual production - is disposed of in abandoned mines. While the EPA estimates that minefilling accounts for just 7% of CCW disposal, Earthjustice explains that the discrepancy is because, "industry and state regulators are hiding CCW dumping in mines behind the labels 'beneficial use, or 'recycling.'"

This minefilling loophole will become all the more important as EPA rules make regulated disposal of CCW more expensive. As the financial incentives for utilities to exploit this loophole become stronger, the pressure on the Obama Administration to delay action on minefilling, or to implement weak regulations, will become even more intense. Given that current regulations in most states for CCS minefilling are considerably weaker than regulations on disposal of household garbage, minefilling could quickly become the predominant method for CCW disposal.

How Does Minefilling Affect Health and the Environment?

The lede and photo from a story in the Miami Herald from November, 2009, helps put the health hazards associated with coal ash into perspective:

"When I was pregnant, I was dizzy, vomiting and could barely walk," said Maximiliano's mother, Anajai Calcano, 20. "My tooth cracked and fell out. Then my baby was born like that, without arms. Nothing like that had ever happened here before."


By "before," Calcano means before a U.S. power company's coal ash arrived at a nearby port, sitting there for more than two years.

The story goes on to tell how citizens of Arroyo Barril in the Dominican Republican are suing a Virginia-based energy company for a variety of health problems they say resulted from the illegal disposal of coal ash on the shore of the town. The phrase "health problems" hardly does justice to the godawful deformities found in children born of mothers who had abnormally high levels of arsenic in their blood, one of many toxic metals associated with coal ash. Those "health problems" ranged from cranial deformities to missing limbs to organs outside their bodies.

The situation in Arroyo Barril is an extreme example, but it illustrates the general problem of toxic metal contamination of both air and water near coal ash disposal sites. The composition of coal ash includes a high concentration of toxic metals found in coal including arsenic, selenium, chromium, lead and thallium. While conventional disposal of CCW in wet impoundments has had demonstrable impacts on water quality, the practice of minefilling makes the problem of groundwater contamination far worse. According to the Earthjustice report:

The unique geologic characteristics of mines maximizes the risk of contamination from coal ash dumping. Mining breaks up solid rock layers into small pieces, called spoil. Compared to the flow through undisturbed rock, water easily and quickly infiltrates spoil that has been dumped back into the mined-out pits. Fractures from blasting become underground channels that allow groundwater to flow rapidly offsite. Because mines usually excavate aquifers (underground sources of water), the spoil fills up with groundwater. Unlike engineered landfills, which are lined with impervious membranes (clay or synthetic) and above water tables by law, coal ash dumped into mine pits continually leaches its toxic metals and other contaminants into the water that flows through and eventually leaves the site.

There are many cases where water contamination has already been found, according to the Clean Air Taskforce study of 15 minefilling operations in Pennsylvania.

So what's next?

To be fair to the administration, the EPA specifically referenced a 2006 report on minefilling from the National Academy of Sciences as one of the documents that should guide the rule-making on minefilling. The recommendations of that report, as summarized by Earthjustice, include:

• Generators should pursue safe reuse of coal combustion waste ash before minefilling;


• Disposal sites must be investigated to determine the quality and location of groundwater, groundwater flow paths, the potential for coal ash to react with minerals or groundwater, etc.;


• Coal ash must be kept out of groundwater;


• Monitoring must be designed to detect movement of coal combustion waste contaminants;


• Deeds must record and fully disclose that coal combustion waste was disposed at the mine site;


• Bonds must be adequate to clean up any groundwater damaged by coal combustion waste disposal;


• Public input must be solicited in the development of national regulations and permits issued pursuant to those regulations.

If all of those recommendations were turned into regulations, the problems associated with minefilling would be largely alleviated. But the success of industry in stripping the EPA of regulatory oversight of minefilling provides little confidence that the administration will ignore that pressure when it comes to developing regulations on minefilling.

An even greater concern is that the industry will successfully delay rule-making on minefilling for another decade, the way they were able to delay disposal regulations for years until the TVA disaster woke people up to the hazards of unregulated coal ash storage. If their delay tactics are successful, the financial advantages of minefilling will make it the predominant method of coal ash disposal within a matter of years.

And if the momentum generated by the TVA disaster to regulate coal ash disposal is lost, it's terrifying to think what the next disaster will be that would be needed to motivate agencies to action in the face of enormous industry pressure. As Lisa Evans, an attorney with Earthjustice who has tracked coal ash issues for nearly a decade, told the media in January:

Minefilling coal ash is a slow-motion and invisible counterpart to the TVA catastrophe. There, the destruction was unleashed in a matter of minutes. For communities with water poisoned by the country's hundreds of coal ash mine dumps, the damage has been gradual and largely unseen, but it also presents a grave threat.

People in coal mining regions have suffered pollution of their water and air for decades, and with the EPA finally beginning to crack down on mountaintop removal mining and the disposal of mine waste into streams, what a tragic irony it would be if pollution from valley fills was replaced by even greater pollution from minefills. That's the way it's headed, and it's going to take the involvement of thousands of Americans to counter the coal industry's powerful pressure to keep regulations weak or nonexistent.

This is no time to sit on the sidelines - there are 89 days in the EPA's Coal Ash Bowl, and your help is needed now.

[UPDATE: The link to take action above, "your help is needed now," is not yet set up by the EPA - I will update again as soon as the EPA gets it straightened out]

Read more!

EPA Proposes Regulatory Options for Coal Ash

New Rules Would Provide Varying Levels of Protection for NC's Waterways
An update from our friends at Appalachian Voices...

-------------------------------------
CONTACT: Donna Lisenby, Upper Watauga Riverkeeper....828-262-1500
-------------------------------------

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency unveiled two options today to regulate coal ash waste from coal-fired power plants, amid concerns by environmental groups that one of the options would not be strong enough to protect North Carolina's waterways.

The competing alternatives would provide varying levels of protection to the state's water resources, and could take years to implement.

"Coal ash impoundments have been minimally regulated in the past. These proposed new rules are a long overdue, positive first step towards helping to protect our water and our communities," said Donna Lisenby, Upper Watauga Riverkeeper.

The announcement comes eight months after an independent analysis confirmed that all thirteen of the North Carolina's coal ash ponds adjacent to coal-fired power plants were leaking toxic pollutants into groundwater. Data research conducted by the Upper Watauga Riverkeeper revealed 681 instances where levels of heavy metals and other pollutants ranged from 1.1 to 380 times higher than North Carolina's groundwater standard.

"The time has come for common-sense national protections to ensure the safe disposal of coal ash," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. "We’re proposing strong steps to address the serious risk of groundwater contamination and threats to drinking water and we’re also putting in place stronger safeguards against structural failures of coal ash impoundments. The health and the environment of all communities must be protected."


[Aerial photograph of the December, 2009 coal slurry disaster in Kingston, Tennessee. The breached wet coal ash impoundment pond is at center with the TVA's Kingston coal plant above and massive slurry spill below. The Emory River can be seen next to the disaster site. Photo is copyright Antrim Caskey]

The Subtitle C proposal would designate coal ash as a hazardous waste, while Subtitle D would regulate coal ash under a non-hazardous waste designation.

With a hazardous-waste designation, wet coal ash ponds—also known as surface impoundments—would be phased out, a process that would be monitored by the states and by the EPA. Dry ash storage units would require the installation of composite liners, with retrofits of all units due within five years after the rule is finalized.

Subtitle C would also enable the EPA to enforce federal regulations to ensure these requirements are carried out.

Under Subtitle D, or non-hazardous regulation, the EPA would require wet coal ash impoundments to be retrofitted with a composite liner, rather than being phased out. If the disposal site chooses not to comply, the regulation would prohibit receiving additional coal ash, and require the closure of the unit within five years. The closure process and post-closure groundwater monitoring would be self-implemented, with no federal or state oversight.

Both designations would leave in place the rule allowing coal ash to be recycled in what are called beneficial uses, such as drywall, concrete and other construction materials. Both options would also prohibit coal ash disposal in unlined landfills, although disposal in old mining sites would still be allowed.

The announcement comes after the EPA failed to meet self-imposed deadlines in the past concerning the designation of coal ash as a hazardous substance.

"Regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C is clearly justified by the science and will better protect water resources from toxic coal ash impacts," Lisenby said. "The industry-backed option of regulating coal ash as household waste under Subtitle D is not sufficient to keep arsenic, lead, chromium, cadmium and other toxic heavy metals from contaminating water."

The proposals will be turned over to the public for a 90-day comment period and one or more public and stakeholder hearings, after which the EPA will announce a decision.

"I would want communities to know that I believe, that EPA believes, it is very important to get on with this regulatory process," said Jackson. "There has been lots of discussion already. We've heard from elected officials, from members of congress, from state governments, from private industries. I'd like to hear from public citizens about what they think is the most effective rule."

In December of 2008, one billion gallons of toxic coal ash burst through a dam near a Tennessee Valley Authority power plant in Kingston, Tenn., polluting the Clinch and Emory Rivers and launching the safety of coal ash into the national environmental debate.

The public can make comments on the coal ash regulations, docket #EPA–HQ–RCRA–2009–0640, at www.regulations.gov.

###

See also:

EPA's announcement of new coal ash regulation options

More on the aftermath of the Kingston Tennessee, TVA coal ash impoundment collapse from WattHead.org

Read more!

Colbert: Spill, Baby, Spill

Reporting today over at theEnergyCollective.com, I provide a pretty comprehensive survey of the current state of the environmental and political damage wrought by the still-unfolding Deepwater Horizon oil drilling disaster.

But as usual, Stephen Colbert has long since aired this satirical look at "the up-sides" of the major environmental disaster, now on the fast-track to status as one of the worst oil spills in American history:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Fox News

According to Colbert the good news is that we're now one step closer to a car that can run on seawater!

And besides, now that cleanup crews have started burning off sections of the oil spill, Gulf Coast residents no longer have an oil slick the size of Rhode Island heading their way. Now it's just a wall of fire the size of Rhode Island heading their way!

So quit your worrying and chant with Stephen and I: "Spill here, Spill now! Spill here, Spill now!"

(And note to loyal readers: I guess I was a bit premature assuming that Obama's offshore drilling plans were pretty much a forgone conclusion. As the full extent of the Deepwater Horizon disaster unfolds over the coming three months - yes, that's how long oil is likely to continue leaking from the damaged wellhead before a relief well can be dug to inject sealants! - the politics around expanded offshore oil drilling may well sour. Stay tuned...)

Read more!

They're Still Blowing Up Our Mountains

A guest post by Matthew Wasson, Ph.D., Director of Programs for Appalachian Voices

A month ago, before the nation's attention was drawn to the tragedies at the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia and the oil rig off the Louisiana coast, the EPA issued a blockbuster announcement about a strict new guidance for the permitting of mountaintop removal mines in Appalachia. The announcement left many people - reporters, politicians and the general public alike - confused whether or not the EPA had just put an end to mountaintop removal. The announcement generated headlines ranging from a fairly modest "E.P.A. to Limit Water Pollution From Mining" in the New York Times to "New regulations will put an end to mountaintop mining?" in the Guardian.

Certainly at the press conference EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used some strong language:

"Coal communities should not have to sacrifice their environment or their health or their economic future to mountaintop mining. They deserve the full protection of our clean water laws."

On a recent trip through eastern Kentucky, set up by our good friends at Kentuckians For The Commonwealth, the answer to whether mountaintop removal in Appalachia has come to an end was abundantly obvious.

The photo of a new active mountaintop removal mine looming above Route 23 in Pike County, Kentucky, at right, tells the story.

(All photos in this post were taken on April 18th in Kentucky: Here's a link a to flickr photo set from that trip)

To the extent that some in the media overstated the impact of the EPA's new guidance, they can be forgiven. During the press conference, Jackson herself said, "You're talking about no or very few valley fills that are going to meet standards like this."

Valley fills are the typical disposal sites for the waste that is generated when coal companies blow the tops off mountains to access thin seams of coal. As community activist Judy Bonds of the organization Coal River Mountain Watch describes it, "A valley fill is an upside down mountain turned inside out." Most - but not all - mountaintop removal mines require valley fills.

But Jackson was also very clear that this was not a blanket ban on mountaintop removal permitting and that the guidance would not apply to permits that had already been granted. The standards Jackson said would lead to "no or very few valley fills" establish limits on the permissible level of stream water conductivity. Conductivity is a measure of salt - and an indicator of metals including toxic and heavy metals - in water. Remember the experiment where you put salt in a glass of water to make it conduct electricity and light a bulb?

A plethora of recent scientific research has shown that conductivity higher than about five times the normal level downstream from valley fills is associated with severe impairment of the ecological communities in Appalachian headwater streams. The photo to the right that I took below a valley fill in Magoffin County, Kentucky, illustrates the trouble these standards create for coal companies. According to a huge compilation of scientific studies that the EPA simultaneously released with their guidance, conductivity levels below Appalachian valley fills average around 10 times normal levels. The bright orange water coming out of this valley fill indicates enormously high levels of iron, which in turn suggests both high conductivity levels and high levels of toxic and heavy metals regulated under the Clean Water Act.

To be sure, the EPA's move is a big first step that provides immediate protection to Appalachian families threatened with new mountaintop removal permits above their homes. It's a tourniquet that will stop the hemorrhaging, but here are five reasons why this guidance doesn't immediately or permanently put an end to mountaintop removal:

1. The EPA's action will not affect permits that have already been issued. Moreover, an excellent piece of reporting by Charleston Gazette reporter Ken Ward revealed that those existing permits will allow some companies to continue mountaintop removal operations without a hitch for the next couple of years.
2. Not all mountaintop removal mines require valley fills and coal companies are already using loopholes by which they can obliterate miles of streams without the need to obtain a valley fill permit. The million or so acres of wholesale destruction that coal companies drove through a narrow loophole in the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act since 1977 is testament to their skill and creativity at exploiting loopholes.
3. Some valley fills will still be allowed under this guidance and the EPA even provided a set of "best practices" by which companies can do mountaintop removal in a manner consistent with it. Moreover, there are a number of recent cases where coal companies went ahead and constructed valley fills without even bothering to obtain a permit.
4. While the guidance takes effect immediately, it is a preliminary document released in response to calls from coal state legislators and coal companies for greater clarity on how the EPA was basing its decision whether to grant a valley fill permit for an Appalachian surface mine. The EPA plans to initiate an extended public comment period before the guidelines will be finalized.
5. An agency guidance document is different from a formal rule and can be easily overturned by a new administration. Even if this guidance proves to be effective in curtailing mountaintop removal, environmental and community advocates still need to ask what happens when a hypothetical President Palin enters the White House in January of 2013 or 2017.

There are any number of laws and regulations that affect surface mining, and so there is no single mechanism to ensure mountaintop removal is stopped permanently. But the first and most important step is for Congress to pass a strong law that prohibits the dumping of mine waste into streams.

In 2002, Representative Frank Pallone of New Jersey introduced just such a bill called the Clean Water Protection Act (H.R. 1310). Pallone, together with Republican Cristopher Shays, introduced this bipartisan bill in response to the Bush Administration's catastrophic "fill rule," which made it easier to permit mountaintop removal mining and for coal companies anywhere to dump waste into streams. Since then, people and organizations across Appalachia have supported Pallone's bill by carrying a simple message to universities, church groups and Rotary Clubs across America: they're blowing up our mountains and there oughtta be a law!

Over the past eight years, the nationwide organizing efforts led by groups in Appalachia have generated a remarkable 170 co-sponsors of the Clean Water Protection Act - more than almost any other bill before Congress. Unfortunately, the bill continues to be held up in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, with West Virginia Congressman Nick Rahall recently claiming credit in a West Virginia newspaper for bottling it up.

If Rahall's contention is true, it's a powerful testament to the level of influence he has accumulated, given that the bill has more cosponsors than any other of the 323 bills currently before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. More importantly, Rahall does not actually have the power to prevent the bill from being heard except through his influence over Chairman James Oberstar of Minnesota, who is the only one with the actual power to decide whether the bill is brought up in his committee.

It's particularly unfortunate that House Democratic leaders and committee chairs like Oberstar would give Rahall so much power over national policy, given how poorly his own constituents have fared under his leadership. After 33 years in office, Rahall's district ranked 434th out of all 435 Congressional districts in Gallup's recently-released 2009 well-being index rankings (see map below).

The only district that ranked lower was Hal Roger's neighboring district in eastern Kentucky. Notably, Rogers' is the only district that has suffered more destruction from mountaintop removal mining than Rahall's.

A big question in the wake of the tragedy at Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch mine is whether the obescience of coal state legislators toward the coal industry will change after the disaster. Traditionally, the pandering of Congressman Rahall and Senator Rockefeller toward Big Coal has been almost embarrassing to watch - kind of like witnessing an overly-exuberant public display of affection on a park bench. But when it comes to the safety of the guys in the hardhats, these gentlemen strike a very different tune.

Given that the same company, Massey Energy, is by far the largest operator of mountaintop removal mines, was assessed the largest penalty in the history of the Clean Water Act, and has a record of environmental violations to which their horrible safety record pales in comparison, these legislators have a unique opportunity to lead their constituents in a new direction. And Senator Byrd of West Virginia has paved the way.

One of the most under-reported elements of the EPA's announcement was that Administrator Jackson specifically mentioned the EPA had worked with Senator Byrd to develop their new guidelines. She would not have said that without explicit approval from Senator Byrd. While Byrd has not explicitly called for an end to mountaintop removal or co-sponsored legislation to do that, his leadership in promoting a more thoughtful and reasonable view on climate and the future of coal in his state represents a sea change from the public statements of statewide elected officials over the past few decades. Rahall and Rockefeller would serve their constituents and their country far better if they followed Byrd's lead.

Is Passing a Law in this Polarized Congress Realistic?

More important than the enormous number of cosponsors that legislation to stop mountaintop removal enjoys is the fact that the support is bipartisan. Immediately following the EPA's announcement, Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, said in a press release:

"The new EPA guidelines are useful in stopping some inappropriate coal mining in Appalachia but Congress still needs to pass the Cardin-Alexander legislation that would effectively end mountaintop removal mining."

Alexander, together with Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, introduced the Appalachia Restoration Act (S. 696) last year, a Senate companion to the Clean Water Protection Act designed to eliminate mountaintop removal (or at least permanently curtail it - we'll see what the final language says after mark-up). That bill got a boost the same week of the EPA announcement when coal-state Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio announced he would become the 11th co-sponsor of the bill.

Whether the Senate bill can survive the committee mark-up process in a form that Appalachian citizens groups can support remains to be seen, however. The Nashville Tennessean recently published an editorial that gave voice to the concerns many coalfield citizens have about forms of mining that may not be covered by the Senate bill, particularly cross-ridge mining. Cross-ridge is a type of mountaintop removal mining that requires little or no valley fill and is based on the assumption that a mountain can be put back more or less how it was after it's been blown up - kind of like putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.

The photo to the right illustrates one of many problems with the theory that mountains can be put back together without causing major ecological degradation. While the type of mining shown in the photo would not be classified by state agencies as mountaintop removal (only part of the ridgeline has been removed and there is no valley fill at the headwaters of this stream), the impact of this mining on water quality is indistinguishable from the impact shown in the previous photo below a valley fill.

Some insiders have also expressed concern that the EPA's strict new guidance will take the wind out the sails of the campaign to pass a law, but from the perspective of Appalachian groups that have been working to ban mountaintop removal for decades, that concern is misplaced. The citizens of Appalachia have led this fight from the beginning, and have a much more vested interest in making these protections permanent than any group in Washington, D.C.

It may be that some big environmental groups that have only recently made mountaintop removal a priority will move on to other priorities once the Administrative decisions are played out - and make no mistake that the contributions of those groups over the past few years in pressuring the Obama Administration to take action were exceedingly welcome and timely. But it was not the Big Greens that made mountaintop removal a national issue or whose organizing in communities across America has generated such broad bipartisan support of the Clean Water Protection Act and Appalachia Restoration Act.

The people of Appalachia aren't sitting around waiting for beltway insiders to tell them whether or how to pass a law, they're just doing it. The legislative effort is led by the Alliance for Appalachia, an alliance of thirteen local and regional organizations that formed several years ago with the mission of ending mountaintop removal and bringing a prosperous new economy to the Appalachian coalfields that is based on sustainable industries.

The Alliance for Appalachia represents by far the greatest number of people impacted by mountaintop removal mining, and the alliance is composed of some organizations that have been fighting Appalachian strip mining for decades. The battle to end mountaintop removal will not be over until the Alliance for Appalachia says it is, and I'm confident that won't happen until, at a minimum, President Obama signs a law banning the practice.

So What's Next?

There is a window of opportunity right now to pass a strong law that will rein in mountaintop removal permanently. Also, with coal demand down dramatically due to the recession, now is the time to begin replacing mountaintop removal coal with aggressive energy efficiency and renewable energy policies in states like North Carolina, Georgia and Virginia that are most dependent on this source of coal.

From a local perspective, more delays, half-measures and uncertainty about the future of mountaintop removal will only lead to a myopic approach to rebuilding the Appalachian economy and bringing new jobs and new industries to the region.

And from a global perspective, at a time when America is finally getting serious about addressing climate change and moving toward a 21st century energy future built around renewable energy, isn't it absurd that we're still fighting to stop the wholesale destruction of the most biologically diverse forests and streams on the continent in order to mine climate-destroying coal? Can we really address climate change if we can't even stop mountaintop removal?

For people around the country that want to see mountaintop removal end - and that should be anyone concerned about climate change, human rights, clean water or endangered species - a great place to start is by telling your Senators and Representatives that the time to pass legislation to end mountaintop removal is now. There are plenty of tools on the web to make it easy.

Let's keep up the momentum, pass a strong law, and relegate mountaintop removal to its rightful place as just another tragic episode in American history books.

Cross-posted with iLoveMountains.org and HuffingtonPost.com

Follow Matt Wasson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/forthemountains

Read more!

Senator Byrd Responds to WV Mining Tragedy, Questions Massey Coal's Safety Record

Cross-posted from Appalachian Voices' Front Porch blog

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va. issued the following statements in response to media inquiries on a number of topics relating to the mining disaster in West Virginia:

“While the situation on the ground this morning is not as encouraging as we had hoped, my prayers continue for those who have lost their loved ones, and for the safe return of the four missing miners and those mine rescue team members who are also risking their lives to save their fellow West Virginians.”

“It is infuriating that in this day and age, and in this country, that such a disaster could still happen. I am sick. I am saddened and I am angry. We have the laws. We have the resources. These tragedies, on this scale, should no longer be happening.”

“Once we learn the cause of this disaster and investigations are completed whether it is wrongdoing by Massey, lack of enforcement by MSHA, or inadequacies with the mine health and safety laws, including the MINER Act of 2006, action will need to be taken.”

LEGISLATIVE CHANGES

“It is premature to say what changes in laws or regulations may be needed until the investigation is underway. But I have called for a reexamination of the health and safety laws that have been put into place and what more may need to be done to avoid future loss of life.”

“I have received a commitment from Senator Tom Harkin, who is a true friend of the coal miner, and who Chairs both the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education (LHHS), that a Senate hearing will occur on this overwhelming mining disaster. This will be in addition to the hearings in the House of Representatives that were requested by my West Virginia colleague, Congressman Nick J. Rahall. The House hearings will occur in the House Education and Labor Committee.”

MASSEY RESPONSE

“This has been one of Massey CEO Don Blankenship’s comments following this tragic mining disaster: ‘Violations are unfortunately a normal part of the mining process. There are violations at every coal mine in America, and (the Upper Big Branch Mine) was a mine that had violations.’” (Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-04-08-editorial08_ST1_N.htm.)

“Well for this Senator, the more I learn about the extent of these violations by Massey at the Upper Big Branch Mine alone, the angrier I get. 57 citations in the month of March alone! Closed over 60 times during the past two years to correct problems!”

“To me, one thing is clear – for a company that has had this number of violations at just one coal mine - one must seriously begin to question the practices and procedures of this particular coal company and it needs the most serious scrutiny from the Congress and the federal regulators.”

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION FUNDING

“Through my efforts as the senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have been able to increase funding for coal enforcement from $117 million in Fiscal Year 2006, to $159 million in Fiscal Year 2010 – a 36 percent increase. In June 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee directed MSHA to hire 170 new coal inspectors. Since then, with the funding I have secured, MSHA has hired 444 coal enforcement personnel, including 119 in West Virginia – increasing the number of inspectors and specialists from 568 in January 2006, to 748 in March 2010. I will continue to examine the funding needs of MSHA as this investigation moves forward.

“Media reports have stated that ‘Safety officials warned Congress three months ago that the backlog of violations could undermine a crackdown on repeat offenders. A backlog of some 82,000 violations and $210 million in contested penalties is pending before a review commission. In 2009, companies protested roughly two-thirds of the $141 million in penalties assessed by federal regulators.’”

“I secured additional funding in the Fiscal Year 2010 appropriations bill for the Solicitor of Labor and Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC) to help litigate the fines. President Obama’s budget request for FY 2011 builds on that funding, and I am currently examining whether more funding is needed to help shorten the amount of time to litigate these fines.

The FMSHRC budget increased by $1.7 million in FY 2010 and the Solicitor budget has increased by $28 million in last two years. And at my request, the Appropriations Committee has urged the Department of Labor to use additional resources to litigate mine safety penalties.

“In addition, I have secured $4 million in the last two years to increase spot inspections to enforce dust control limits. This is necessary to reduce the risk of explosions and black lung.”

MARSH FORK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

“Marsh Fork Elementary School sits at the foot of a Massey Energy mountaintop mining site which includes a pond that holds back hundreds of millions of gallons of toxic coal slurry. Since the Upper Big Branch Mine site is in close proximity to the Massey Energy mountaintop mining site, I inquired as to whether the stability of the impoundment lot could have been compromised as a result of the mine explosion.”

“According to information I received from the Department of Labor, the slurry impoundment, located above the Marsh Fork Elementary School, was inspected on Wednesday and determined by inspectors to ‘be fine.’”

Read more!

The Beginning of the End for Mountaintop Removal?

An update on the mountaintop removal front courtesy of Appalachian Voices. And no, this is thankfully not an April Fools Day post...

Appalachian Voices Celebrates Historic EPA Action

The science is in, and the Obama Administration is listening. Today’s issuance of guidance by the Environmental Protection Agency is an absolutely historic step in ensuring that the economy, ecology, and communities of Appalachia are better protected from the devastating impacts of mountaintop removal. Citizens from Appalachia and across America are celebrating.

As Senator Byrd said:

“The greatest threats to the future of coal do not come from possible constraints on mountaintop removal mining or other environmental regulations, but rather from rigid mindsets, depleting coal reserves, and the declining demand for coal as more power plants begin shifting to biomass and natural gas as a way to reduce emissions.”

It is in that vein that we expect Congress to follow the Obama Administration’s lead by passing legislation that will permanently protect our homes and communities from mining waste. The Clean Water Protection Act (H.R. 1310) currently has 167 bipartisan cosponsors in the House of Representatives, and the Appalachia Restoration act (S. 696) has 10 bipartisan cosponsors in the Senate. Change in Appalachia is now inevitable, and the time for Congress to pass this legislation is now!

UPDATE: I inquired with JW Randolph, legislative associate Appalachian Voices about where exactly the EPA announcement places us on the path towards sane and safe regulation of mountaintop removal and coal mining's impact on Appalachian communities, drinking water and ecosystems. Randolph replied:

Its a huge step forward, but not quite on par with Congressional passage of legislation now pending in both chambers of Congress that would provide more permanent and lasting protections for communities in Appalachia and other coal producing regions across the country. Here's a few quick reasons why...

1) EPA's action is a guidance, not a law. A President Palin's EPA could undo this as fast as President Obama's EPA made it happen in the first place. Passing the Clean Water Protection Act (HR 1310) and Appalachia Restoration Act (S 696) this year would make the core goals of this guidance permanent (unless Congress wanted to overturn it of course).

2) Its geographically focused on a few Appalachia states, and won't affect things like the Kensington Gold Mine in Alaska or other communities dealing with the impacts of surface mining and extraction. Passing the Clean Water Protection Act or overturning the Bush Administration's fill rule (ed. note, more on that here), would provide similar protections for mining communities across the country.

3) It focuses mostly on valleyfills and mountaintop removal permits, which is HUGE, but to my knowledge (and I'm still reading through the EPA docs) won't deal with things like underground slurry injections which also have an enormous detrimental effect on water quality in Appalachia and downstream.

So, a GIGANTIC first step in the right direction, an action to be celebrated, a promise fulfilled - absolutely. But we will continue working towards the more permanent protections inherent in passage of Congressional legislation to keep communities in Appalachia and across America safe from the health and environmental impacts of surface mining.

See also:

Jeff Biggers at HuffPo: BREAKING NEWS! Appalachians Hail EPA's Great Victory for Clean Water Act and Justice

Ken Ward Jr. at Coal Tattoo (WV Gazette): Breaking news (NOT an April Fool’s joke): EPA actually does take “unprecedented steps” to reduce damage from mountaintop removal coal mining

Alliance for Appalachia: New EPA Policy Should Protect Communities from Mountaintop Removal

WattHead.org: Science Confirms the Abhorrently Obvious: Blowing Up Mountains Damages Environment, Human Health (Jan 7, 2010)

And the rest of WattHead.org's Mountaintop Removal archives.

Read more!

Colbert on the Real Reason We Need to End Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining

Simple: if we keep this up, we'll have to start calling hillbillies just plain old "billies."

Steven Colbert skewers the mountaintop removal coal mining in this video clip, featuring an interview with one of the authors of the recent, authoritative scientific review of the environmental and health impacts of this abhorrent practice.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Coal Comfort - Margaret Palmer
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Economy

Author and Appalachia expert Jeff Biggers has more at HuffingtonPost.

See WattHead.org's mountaintop removal archives to learn more about the practice, or head to ILoveMountains.org.

Read more!

PGE Takes Step Towards Closing Oregon's Only Coal Plant

Oregon's largest utility, Portland General Electric (PGE), announced it's moving forward on a plan to stop burning coal at the state's only operating coal plant. The investor-owned utility, which serves Portland, much of the surrounding metropolitan area, and the state's capitol, Salem, informed the Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC) that it intends to pursue a plant that would either shut down the 550 megawatt coal-fired Boardman Plant or completely switch fuel sources by 2020.


According to a company press release, PGE submitted its most recent integrated resource plan (IRP) to the OPUC in November, proposing to install extensive emissions control retrofits on the Boardman Plant, at an estimated cost of $520 million to $560 million. These controls would allow the plant, located in northeastern Oregon along the Columbia River, to continue to operate despite new, stricter emissions rules from the state Environmental Quality Commission (EQC).

“Our preliminary analysis shows that an alternative plan may be the best option for our customers and we intend to pursue that,” said Jim Piro, PGE's President and CEO. “We need to complete our analysis and determine whether we have enough support to move forward, but we feel it’s important to let people know that this is our preferred path.”

According to PGE:

The company chose not to include a proposal in its IRP to cease Boardman operations in 2020 because such a plan would not be actionable under the EQC rules; however, further discussion with environmental regulators and other stakeholders suggests that there may be support for a rule change.

“Right now state regulations give us very few options – either shut the plant prematurely at a tremendous cost to customers or install very expensive new controls despite uncertainty about future carbon regulation and technological developments,” Piro said. “We think an alternative plan could reduce cost and risk for our customers while giving us time to develop replacement resources or convert to a different fuel, but we’ll need changes in state rules and help from our stakeholders to accomplish that.”

Piro noted that if agreement on an alternative plan can’t be reached, PGE will continue to seek approval for installation of all required emissions controls and continued operation of the plant – the best option available to customers under current state rules.

PGE intends to work with the OPUC to establish a new schedule for review of resource planning decisions regarding the Boardman Plant.

Closure of the Boardman Plant would mark the end of coal-fired electricity generation within Oregon and the closure of the largest single source of air pollutants in the state (if not west of the Rockies). The aging coal plant was first built in the 1970s and predates the more stringent air emissions requirements of the Clean Air Act.

One commentator at OregonLive.com notes:

According to documents filed for their Title V Permit renewal in 2006 (a five-year permit), in 2003 PGE Boardman released 5 million tons of CO2, and in a given year emits 28,000 tons of sulfur and nitrogen oxides along with hundreds of tons of particulate matter, major causes of cardiac disease, low birth weight, SIDS, lung cancer, heart attack, stroke, and asthma. Plus Boardman annually emits enough mercury (221 lbs.) to contaminate 2.6 million acres of water, or four times the surface area of all Oregon lakes.

However, Boardman's closure would not be the end of Oregon's dependence on coal.

While most Oregon residents assume their electricity comes predominantly from the famous hydroelectric dams on the Columbia River and the region's other mighty waterways, coal actually provides just shy of 40% of the state's electricity supply as of 2007, and is the second largest power source after hydropower. While most of the state's publicly-owned utilities receive their power from the federal hydropower system managed by the Bonneville Power Administration, the state's two big investor-owned utilities have largely been barred from accessing BPA's hydropower since the 1970s and now get a big slug of their power from coal.

PGE currently relies on coal for 38.9% of it's electricity supply, while Pacific Power, the state's other major utility (parent company PacifiCorp) relies on coal for over two-thirds of the electricity they supply to customers throughout the state. Both utilities import electricity from coal-fired power plants located in the intermountain region, including Montana, Utah and Wyoming.

The Ted Sickinger has more on the potential Boardman closure at the Oregonian here.

Read more!

Science Confirms the Abhorrently Obvious: Blowing Up Mountains Damages Environment, Human Health

Or should I say, the obviously abhorrent...

The incredibly destructive coal mining practice known as "mountaintop removal" causes "pervasive and irreversible" damage to human health and the environment, according to an authoritative scientific study released today.

The comprehensive and far-reaching scientific review, entitled "Mountaintop Mining Consequences", was conducted by members of the National Academy of Sciences and is being published in the prestigious journal Science.

The study summarized dozens of pre-existing scientific papers analyzing the impacts of mountaintop removal mining, a type of surface coal mining that uses huge amounts of explosives to blast away the tops of mountains to expose coal seams. The resulting debris (aka the former mountain) are typically disposed of through a practice known as "valley fills," where tons of mining debris are dumped into neighboring valleys, burying miles of headwater streams and valley ecosystems.



According to a press release on the study:

...the authors outline severe environmental degradation taking place at mining sites and downstream. The practice destroys extensive tracts of deciduous forests and buries small streams that play essential roles in the overall health of entire watersheds. Waterborne contaminants enter streams that remain below valley fills and can be transported great distances into larger bodies of water.

Mountaintop removal mining has already buried more than 800 miles of Appalachian streams and destroyed hundreds of square miles of woodlands in one of America's biodiversity hotspots, all while both the U.S. EPA and state environmental agencies have allowed the destructive practice to continue. That's left it to activists to slow these projects down and prevent their irreversible damages.

The new scientific study condemned federal and state regulation of mountaintop removal mining operations, concluding that “Current attempts to regulate [mountaintop mining and associated valley fill] practices are inadequate,” and that “Regulators should no longer ignore rigorous science.”

Environmental and Appalachian community advocates hailed the study as a powerful indictment against mountaintop removal mining, according to Appalachian Voices, an environmental non-profit working to bring coalfield residents together to end mountain removal.

Opponents of mountaintop removal expressed disappointment over the Obama Administration’s fluctuating stance on mountaintop removal, citing inconsistencies with statements made by President Obama about restoring science to a more prominent position in agency decision-making. The new study was released just days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved the expansion of the largest mountaintop removal coal mine in West Virginia.

Appalachian coalfield residents have long been aware of the obvious and major impacts mountaintop removal mining has on the health of local communities and verdant Appalachian ecosystems. Appalachian Voices is hopeful that the study will embolden the Obama Administration to take more decisive action to ultimately end the practice.

In a recent interview the President told the political news organization, Politico, “It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient-especially when it’s inconvenient.” Yet last year, the Obama Administration released a multi-agency plan that called for more strict enforcement of laws regulating mountaintop removal but stopped short of prohibiting the practice

“The scientific study released today comes as little surprise to us living in the Central Appalachian coal mining region,” says Nina McCoy from Martin County, Ky., site of a large coal sludge dam break that overtook the county in 2000. “This should be the evidence the Obama Administration needs to close the floodgates on new mountaintop removal permits and stop the poisoning of our people.”

The EPA recently told National Public Radio’s Diane Rehm Show that the agency does not believe it has the authority to stop permitting mountaintop removal outright. Critics counter that there are other avenues through which the Administration could effectively end the practice.

“The EPA has made commendable efforts to reduce the impacts of mountaintop removal on downstream water quality, but this study shows that mitigating and regulating the wholesale destruction of Appalachian Mountains is just not effective,” said Dr. Matthew Wasson, ecologist for Appalachian Voices and director of the campaign to end mountaintop removal on iLoveMountains.org.

“The President has the power to end mountaintop removal through any number of agency actions,” Wasson added, “and he should call on Congress to pass the Clean Water Protection Act, a bill designed to end mountaintop removal-but the message from this study is that he’s out of excuses for allowing mountaintop removal to continue.”

Ken Ward Jr. of Coal Tattoo, Andy Revkin of DotEarth at the NYTimes and David Roberts at Grist all have more. See iLoveMountains.org for more resources on mountaintop removal, and to take action.

[Update, 3:00 pm Pacific time: National Public Radio just carried this story on their evening news. The online version includes a collection of photos documenting the practice of mountaintop removal coal mining.]

Read more!