Monday, September 28, 2009
Dunkard Creek Fish Kill
I don't really have much to add about the Dunkard Creek fish kill, other than to refer you to the WV Department of Environmental Protection website and this article by Ken Ward of the Charleston Gazette. I do know that the DEP has been putting a lot of resources into investigating the cause, and I doubt the Consol mine discharge was the only contributor, given the fact that the algae bloom that appears to have caused the problem probably began farther upstream.
Compliance Orders in West Virginia
It's not always possible to meet water pollution discharge permit limits when they are put in a NPDES permit. Sometimes a limit in a reissued NPDES permit for a pollutant like iron will be reduced from the limit in the previous permit, and the permit holder will need time to figure out how to meet that new limit. When that happens, the only thing that can be done short of shutting down the facility is to issue a compliance order. Compliance orders are being questioned as a result of the fish kill on Dunkard Creek, and have been the subject of a recent WV Public Radio story.
Compliance orders allow a certain amount of time to meet permit limits. They are usually issued in connection with a NPDES permit reissuance, and they establish interim deadlines for evaluating treatment options and for developing a strategy for meeting the limit. The regulatory authority for compliance orders is found in the NPDES rule, 47 CSR 10, Section 8 (page 27 of the web-linked document). Without compliance orders, permittees might be in immediate violation of their revised permit, and might have to shut down their businesses in order to avoid operating in violation of the law.
Compliance orders are not the same as consent orders, which are agreements with the WV DEP to pay penalties for violations of the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act. The rule governing assessment of consent orders is found at 47 CSR 1. Consent orders are punitive in nature, usually involving a monetary penalty. They are administrative actions that are offered in lieu of civil litigation. If no agreement is reached on a penalty in a consent order, the DEP will usually file an action in the appropriate circuit court, where the penalties are usually higher.
Compliance orders allow a certain amount of time to meet permit limits. They are usually issued in connection with a NPDES permit reissuance, and they establish interim deadlines for evaluating treatment options and for developing a strategy for meeting the limit. The regulatory authority for compliance orders is found in the NPDES rule, 47 CSR 10, Section 8 (page 27 of the web-linked document). Without compliance orders, permittees might be in immediate violation of their revised permit, and might have to shut down their businesses in order to avoid operating in violation of the law.
Compliance orders are not the same as consent orders, which are agreements with the WV DEP to pay penalties for violations of the West Virginia Water Pollution Control Act. The rule governing assessment of consent orders is found at 47 CSR 1. Consent orders are punitive in nature, usually involving a monetary penalty. They are administrative actions that are offered in lieu of civil litigation. If no agreement is reached on a penalty in a consent order, the DEP will usually file an action in the appropriate circuit court, where the penalties are usually higher.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Incredible Battery Breakthrough, Or Too Good To Be True?
I'm a cynic, which keeps me from being unpleasantly surprised when great advances turn out to be con jobs. But I'm passing on this report from Ecogeek about new
"power storage devices" (not technically batteries, more like peculiar capacitors) that can hold 10x more power than advanced lithium ion cells. These "electrical energy storage units" will be lighter than the most advanced batteries in the world, can charge in minutes and will last forever.
Ecogeek thinks it sounds too good to be true, but the company evidently has garnered backing from some pretty astute investors, so they're taking a wait and see attitude. If you want to see it to judge for yourself, try going here.
"power storage devices" (not technically batteries, more like peculiar capacitors) that can hold 10x more power than advanced lithium ion cells. These "electrical energy storage units" will be lighter than the most advanced batteries in the world, can charge in minutes and will last forever.
Ecogeek thinks it sounds too good to be true, but the company evidently has garnered backing from some pretty astute investors, so they're taking a wait and see attitude. If you want to see it to judge for yourself, try going here.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
EPA Establishes Greenhouse Gas Reporting System
Thanks to Anne Blankenship, who passed this along to me. And no, this isn't the first greenhouse gas reporting system in the country. It's the first EPA effort. West Virginia and other states have had GHG reporting requirements for a couple years.
EPA Finalizes the Nation’s First Greenhouse Gas Reporting System
Monitoring to begin in 2010
WASHINGTON – On January 1, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will, for the first time, require large emitters of heat-trapping emissions to begin collecting greenhouse gas (GHG) data under a new reporting system. This new program will cover approximately 85 percent of the nation’s GHG emissions and apply to roughly 10,000 facilities.
“This is a major step forward in our effort to address the greenhouse gases polluting our skies,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “For the first time, we begin collecting data from the largest facilities in this country, ones that account for approximately 85 percent of the total U.S. emissions. The American public, and industry itself, will finally gain critically important knowledge and with this information we can determine how best to reduce those emissions.”
EPA’s new reporting system will provide a better understanding of where GHGs are coming from and will guide development of the best possible policies and programs to reduce emissions. The data will also allow businesses to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and provide assistance in identifying cost effective ways to reduce emissions in the future. This comprehensive, nationwide emissions data will help in the fight against climate change.
Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, are produced by burning fossil fuels and through industrial and biological processes. Fossil fuel and industrial GHG suppliers, motor vehicle and engine manufacturers, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent per year will be required to report GHG emissions data to EPA annually. This threshold is equivalent to about the annual GHG emissions from 4,600 passenger vehicles.
The first annual reports for the largest emitting facilities, covering calendar year 2010, will be submitted to EPA in 2011. Vehicle and engine manufacturers outside of the light-duty sector will begin phasing in GHG reporting with model year 2011. Some source categories included in the proposed rule are still under review.
More information on the new reporting system and reporting requirements: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html
R269
EPA Finalizes the Nation’s First Greenhouse Gas Reporting System
Monitoring to begin in 2010
WASHINGTON – On January 1, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will, for the first time, require large emitters of heat-trapping emissions to begin collecting greenhouse gas (GHG) data under a new reporting system. This new program will cover approximately 85 percent of the nation’s GHG emissions and apply to roughly 10,000 facilities.
“This is a major step forward in our effort to address the greenhouse gases polluting our skies,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “For the first time, we begin collecting data from the largest facilities in this country, ones that account for approximately 85 percent of the total U.S. emissions. The American public, and industry itself, will finally gain critically important knowledge and with this information we can determine how best to reduce those emissions.”
EPA’s new reporting system will provide a better understanding of where GHGs are coming from and will guide development of the best possible policies and programs to reduce emissions. The data will also allow businesses to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and provide assistance in identifying cost effective ways to reduce emissions in the future. This comprehensive, nationwide emissions data will help in the fight against climate change.
Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, are produced by burning fossil fuels and through industrial and biological processes. Fossil fuel and industrial GHG suppliers, motor vehicle and engine manufacturers, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO2 equivalent per year will be required to report GHG emissions data to EPA annually. This threshold is equivalent to about the annual GHG emissions from 4,600 passenger vehicles.
The first annual reports for the largest emitting facilities, covering calendar year 2010, will be submitted to EPA in 2011. Vehicle and engine manufacturers outside of the light-duty sector will begin phasing in GHG reporting with model year 2011. Some source categories included in the proposed rule are still under review.
More information on the new reporting system and reporting requirements: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html
R269
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Wants You To Pick 5
Picking 5 in this case isn't about playing the lottery. It's selecting 5 ways to conserve resources. Here's the press release from the WV DEP:
West Virginia is joining the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during national Pollution Prevention Week to let every Mountain State resident know they can make an important contribution toward improving the environment.
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s Pollution Prevention Program is challenging all state residents to take a “Pollution Solution Challenge” by committing to “Pick 5” things that anyone can do to positively affect the environment and reduce pollution. Pollution Prevention Week is Sept. 21-27.
This challenge is a way to raise awareness about pollution prevention, from business owners to corporate leaders, from students to parents -- it doesn't matter who you are -- we want everyone to make pollution prevention a fabric of their everyday life.
Pollution prevention, also known as P2, means not creating pollution in the first place and focuses on reducing waste at its source, reusing what can't be recycled and recycling what otherwise would be thrown away. P2 also helps to save energy and to prevent the emission of greenhouse gases and water pollutants.
The EPA estimates that each individual generates about 1.5 tons of solid waste per year, which equals about 4.5 pounds per person, per day.
The EPA has created a Web site where people can register for the “Pollution Solution Challenge.” To register, go to www.epa.gov/pick5, then pick five or more ways you plan to reduce pollution. Among items on the list are using less water and electricity; using chemicals safely; recycling electronics; and taking public transportation, walking or carpooling to work or school.
For more information about Pollution Prevention Week, contact Greg Adolfson at: 304-926-0499, ext. 1332, or gregory.e.adolfson@wv.gov.
West Virginia is joining the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during national Pollution Prevention Week to let every Mountain State resident know they can make an important contribution toward improving the environment.
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s Pollution Prevention Program is challenging all state residents to take a “Pollution Solution Challenge” by committing to “Pick 5” things that anyone can do to positively affect the environment and reduce pollution. Pollution Prevention Week is Sept. 21-27.
This challenge is a way to raise awareness about pollution prevention, from business owners to corporate leaders, from students to parents -- it doesn't matter who you are -- we want everyone to make pollution prevention a fabric of their everyday life.
Pollution prevention, also known as P2, means not creating pollution in the first place and focuses on reducing waste at its source, reusing what can't be recycled and recycling what otherwise would be thrown away. P2 also helps to save energy and to prevent the emission of greenhouse gases and water pollutants.
The EPA estimates that each individual generates about 1.5 tons of solid waste per year, which equals about 4.5 pounds per person, per day.
The EPA has created a Web site where people can register for the “Pollution Solution Challenge.” To register, go to www.epa.gov/pick5, then pick five or more ways you plan to reduce pollution. Among items on the list are using less water and electricity; using chemicals safely; recycling electronics; and taking public transportation, walking or carpooling to work or school.
For more information about Pollution Prevention Week, contact Greg Adolfson at: 304-926-0499, ext. 1332, or gregory.e.adolfson@wv.gov.
Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Still Unclear Three Years After Rapanos
I have been waiting for sometime to blog on the questions that have arisen about the scope of the Clean Water Act in the wake of the Rapanos decision. Much has been made of the Supreme Court's split opinion, which left everyone wondering exactly what constitutes a water of the United States that would be subject to federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. The question is important, because many activities take place in locations far from streams that could be considered navigable, the traditional test of the CWA's reach under the Constitution. When that occurs, is the activity subject to federal programs, such as NPDES permitting and 404 wetlands permits, or is it subject only to state regulation?
Now Jessica Ferrell of the Marten Law Group beat me to the punch and did a fine job of summarizing the current state of the law. Rather than try to duplicate her work, I've provided a link to her article.
Congress has tried on several occasions in the last couple years to clarify the scope of the CWA and has failed. For all the grief the Supreme Court has taken on the fuzziness of its Rapanos test, it is fair to say that they are probably waiting on Congress to clear up any jurisdictional questons. That seems to me to be the best place to resolve a basically political question. Here's hoping they limit the federal reach to some reasonable extent that is consistent with a more reasonable application of the Commerce Clause.
Now Jessica Ferrell of the Marten Law Group beat me to the punch and did a fine job of summarizing the current state of the law. Rather than try to duplicate her work, I've provided a link to her article.
Congress has tried on several occasions in the last couple years to clarify the scope of the CWA and has failed. For all the grief the Supreme Court has taken on the fuzziness of its Rapanos test, it is fair to say that they are probably waiting on Congress to clear up any jurisdictional questons. That seems to me to be the best place to resolve a basically political question. Here's hoping they limit the federal reach to some reasonable extent that is consistent with a more reasonable application of the Commerce Clause.
Comparing Apples and Oranges: Energy Subsidies
My friend Bill Porth doesn't much like the hoary admonition not to compare apples and oranges - he thinks the comparability of dissimilar things is one aspect of logical thought. Why can't you compare the attributes of an apple with those of an orange? Well, anyway, the idea is that you should compare things using a similar reference point. If that's the goal, the Environmental Law Institute seems to have failed it in its analysis of energy subsidies given to various energy sources.
ELI reports that renewable sources of energy were provided with less than half the subsidies given to fossil fuel sources. Yet the amount of energy produced by fossil fuels in America would be much greater than the relatively small amount of energy produced by renewables. On a cost-per-unit-of-energy basis, subsidies of fossil fuels would cost far less than subsidies of renewables. That is something to keep in mind when groups cite ELI's study as evidence that fossil fuels have a competitive advantage derived from subsidies. The fact is, fossil fuels pay their own way, and renewables still need to be subsidized.
You can see reports and summaries on the web, such as this article from Biodiesel magazine, and outraged bloggers, such as this one from a Science and Technology News Forum.
Alternative energy subsidies can be money well-spent. Tax breaks for solar, wind, geothermal et al are reasonable means of encouraging a diversification of energy sources, allowing greater competition among energy producers and flexibility in our energy use. But if ELI is suggesting that fossil fuels currently have an advantage because of tax breaks, I think they are mistaken.
ELI reports that renewable sources of energy were provided with less than half the subsidies given to fossil fuel sources. Yet the amount of energy produced by fossil fuels in America would be much greater than the relatively small amount of energy produced by renewables. On a cost-per-unit-of-energy basis, subsidies of fossil fuels would cost far less than subsidies of renewables. That is something to keep in mind when groups cite ELI's study as evidence that fossil fuels have a competitive advantage derived from subsidies. The fact is, fossil fuels pay their own way, and renewables still need to be subsidized.
You can see reports and summaries on the web, such as this article from Biodiesel magazine, and outraged bloggers, such as this one from a Science and Technology News Forum.
Alternative energy subsidies can be money well-spent. Tax breaks for solar, wind, geothermal et al are reasonable means of encouraging a diversification of energy sources, allowing greater competition among energy producers and flexibility in our energy use. But if ELI is suggesting that fossil fuels currently have an advantage because of tax breaks, I think they are mistaken.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Spending Land to Buy Energy
Lamar Alexander wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal about the downside of some renewable energy - the amount of space they occupy. Land use is something to be considered, although I don't think that alternative energy represents "an unprecedented assault on the American landscape". Here is a restatement of that article.
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar recently announced plans to cover 1,000 square miles of land in Nevada, Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah with solar collectors to generate electricity. He’s also talking about generating 20% of our electricity from wind. This would require building about 186,000 50-story wind turbines that would cover an area the size of West Virginia – not to mention 19,000 new miles of high-voltage transmission lines.
The House of Representatives has passed climate legislation that requires electric utilities to get 20% of their power mostly from wind and solar by 2020. These renewable energy sources are receiving huge subsidies – all to supposedly create jobs and hurry us down the road to an America running on wind and sunshine as outlined in President Obama’s Inaugural Address.
Yet all this assumes renewable energy is a free lunch – a benign, “sustainable” way of running the country with minimal impact on the environment. That assumption experienced a rude awakening on August 26, when The Nature Conservancy published a paper titled “Energy Sprawl or Energy Efficiency: Climate Policy Impacts on Natural Habitat for the United States of America”. This report posed a simple question: How much land is required for the different energy sources that power the country? The answers deserved far greater public attention.
Ø Nuclear energy requires one square mile to produce one million megawatt-hours per year, enough electricity for about 90,000 homes.
Ø Geothermal energy requires three square miles to produce the same megawatt-hours per year.
Ø Biofuels – ethanol and biodiesel - requires up to 500 square miles producing the same amount of energy.
Ø Coal requires four square miles.
Ø Solar thermal takes six square miles.
Ø Natural gas takes eight square miles.
Ø Oil requires 18 square miles.
Ø Wind farms require over 30 square miles.
There’s one more consideration regarding Secretary Salazar’s plan. Solar collectors must be washed down once a month or they collect too much dirt to be effective. They also need to be cooled by water. Where amid the desert and scrub land will we find all that water? No wonder the Wildlife Conservancy and other environmentalists are already opposing solar projects on Western land.
Renewable energy is not a free lunch. It is an unprecedented assault on the American landscape. Before we find ourselves engulfed in energy sprawl, it’s imperative that we take a closer look at the current Administrations plans and promises.
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar recently announced plans to cover 1,000 square miles of land in Nevada, Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah with solar collectors to generate electricity. He’s also talking about generating 20% of our electricity from wind. This would require building about 186,000 50-story wind turbines that would cover an area the size of West Virginia – not to mention 19,000 new miles of high-voltage transmission lines.
The House of Representatives has passed climate legislation that requires electric utilities to get 20% of their power mostly from wind and solar by 2020. These renewable energy sources are receiving huge subsidies – all to supposedly create jobs and hurry us down the road to an America running on wind and sunshine as outlined in President Obama’s Inaugural Address.
Yet all this assumes renewable energy is a free lunch – a benign, “sustainable” way of running the country with minimal impact on the environment. That assumption experienced a rude awakening on August 26, when The Nature Conservancy published a paper titled “Energy Sprawl or Energy Efficiency: Climate Policy Impacts on Natural Habitat for the United States of America”. This report posed a simple question: How much land is required for the different energy sources that power the country? The answers deserved far greater public attention.
Ø Nuclear energy requires one square mile to produce one million megawatt-hours per year, enough electricity for about 90,000 homes.
Ø Geothermal energy requires three square miles to produce the same megawatt-hours per year.
Ø Biofuels – ethanol and biodiesel - requires up to 500 square miles producing the same amount of energy.
Ø Coal requires four square miles.
Ø Solar thermal takes six square miles.
Ø Natural gas takes eight square miles.
Ø Oil requires 18 square miles.
Ø Wind farms require over 30 square miles.
There’s one more consideration regarding Secretary Salazar’s plan. Solar collectors must be washed down once a month or they collect too much dirt to be effective. They also need to be cooled by water. Where amid the desert and scrub land will we find all that water? No wonder the Wildlife Conservancy and other environmentalists are already opposing solar projects on Western land.
Renewable energy is not a free lunch. It is an unprecedented assault on the American landscape. Before we find ourselves engulfed in energy sprawl, it’s imperative that we take a closer look at the current Administrations plans and promises.
Monday, September 14, 2009
New York Times Blasts West Virginia, US Clean Water Act Enforcement
The New York Times ran a story today on lax enforcement of the Clean Water Act, with the exemplar being the drinking water problems being suffered by people in Prenter, West Virginia. Many of the people in Prenter are suing coal companies, and I have no doubt a jury will be able to fairly decide the validity of their claims that injection of slurry is affecting their water source. What struck me was the interactive map that went with the article, and for which the Times made this claim:
The Times obtained hundreds of thousands of water pollution records through Freedom of Information Act requests to every state and the E.P.A., and compiled a national database of water pollution violations that is more comprehensive than those maintained by states or the E.P.A. (For an interactive version, which can show violations in any community, visit www.nytimes.com/toxicwaters.)
I have quickly looked at the interactive map for industrial facilities that I am aware of, and found many errors. One egregious error was that, for some reason, the date of last inspection always seemed to be 1979 or 1980. That is laughable, since most of the major facilities I'm familiar with have regular inspections on an almost yearly basis, and some more frequently. Similarly, the database shows no fines for some locations that I know were penalized significant amounts. The Times may have been doing the best it could with what was given to it under Freedom of Information Act requests, but what you see shouldn't be taken as the gospel in West Virginia and I doubt that it is the best compendium of enforcement actions or violations available.
I should disclose that one of the persons interviewed for the article, Matt Crum, was an associate at my firm, Robinson & McElwee, for several years at the start of his career.
The Times obtained hundreds of thousands of water pollution records through Freedom of Information Act requests to every state and the E.P.A., and compiled a national database of water pollution violations that is more comprehensive than those maintained by states or the E.P.A. (For an interactive version, which can show violations in any community, visit www.nytimes.com/toxicwaters.)
I have quickly looked at the interactive map for industrial facilities that I am aware of, and found many errors. One egregious error was that, for some reason, the date of last inspection always seemed to be 1979 or 1980. That is laughable, since most of the major facilities I'm familiar with have regular inspections on an almost yearly basis, and some more frequently. Similarly, the database shows no fines for some locations that I know were penalized significant amounts. The Times may have been doing the best it could with what was given to it under Freedom of Information Act requests, but what you see shouldn't be taken as the gospel in West Virginia and I doubt that it is the best compendium of enforcement actions or violations available.
I should disclose that one of the persons interviewed for the article, Matt Crum, was an associate at my firm, Robinson & McElwee, for several years at the start of his career.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Ohio River Dams To Be Retrofitted For Hydropower
Environmentalists don't think much of hydropower, when it involves damming pristine streams. But what about dams that are already in place and that are unlikely to go away anytime soon? Ecogeek reports on a plan to retrofit 5 dams on the Ohio River, to produce 350 MW of power. They also have a link to a list of dams in the US that could be retrofitted to supply power; currently, only about 3% of all dams harness their hydroelectric potential.
If you want to see the Army Corps of Engineers study on dam decommissioning, go here.
If you want to see the Army Corps of Engineers study on dam decommissioning, go here.
EPA Lists Mountaintop Removal Sites For Review
Ken Ward of Coal Tattoo reports that EPA has published its list of mountaintop removal mines subject to further review. The list can be found here. "Further review" could be a euphemism for "kill by the death of a thousand paper cuts."
EPA has already asked to review the permit of one of the largest proposed MTR mines in the state, Arch Coal's Spruce No. 1 in Logan County. Ry Rivard reports in the Charleston Daily Mail that
"An Arch Coal subsidiary was issued a permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to mine the 2,300-acre site in early 2007, though a court fight has held up mining there. But in a Sept. 3 letter the EPA questioned the entire permit, saying mining at the site could damage downstream water quality and suggesting the corps had failed to comply with clean water laws."
You can see Ry's full story here.
EPA has already asked to review the permit of one of the largest proposed MTR mines in the state, Arch Coal's Spruce No. 1 in Logan County. Ry Rivard reports in the Charleston Daily Mail that
"An Arch Coal subsidiary was issued a permit by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to mine the 2,300-acre site in early 2007, though a court fight has held up mining there. But in a Sept. 3 letter the EPA questioned the entire permit, saying mining at the site could damage downstream water quality and suggesting the corps had failed to comply with clean water laws."
You can see Ry's full story here.
WV DEP Seeks Water Quality Data
Don't say you were never asked - the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection is asking for water quality data. This is the public's chance to provide evidence that streams should, or should not be listed on the 303(d) list of impaired streams. The notice follows:
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection is compiling water quality data on the state’s streams and lakes for its next Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report.
This report is developed by DEP and submitted to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency every two years as required by the federal Clean Water Act. The report includes the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters.
The next report is due in April 2010 and will be based upon water quality data collected through June 30, 2009.
In addition to data collected directly by the DEP, the agency will compile and assess water quality data collected by other persons, agencies, watershed associations, or permitted facilities. Data should be sent to Steve Stutler at Stephen.J.Stutler@wv.gov, (304) 926-0499, Ext. 1086, or Steve Young at Stephen.A.Young@wv.gov, (304) 926-0499, Ext. 1042. The deadline to submit data is Sep. 30, 2009.
A data form is available to download at www.wvdep.org/wv303d.
Documentation describing the collection and analytical methodologies associated with the data should be provided as it will help the agency assess data quality. If data was subject to a quality assurance/quality control plan, submit it with the data. For an example of a QA/QC plan, go to http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g5-final.pdf.
Although electronic data submission is highly preferred and encouraged, non-electronic submissions may be sent to the DEP at the Division of Water and Waste Management, Attn: Steve Young, 601 57th St. S.E., Charleston, WV 25304.
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection is compiling water quality data on the state’s streams and lakes for its next Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report.
This report is developed by DEP and submitted to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency every two years as required by the federal Clean Water Act. The report includes the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters.
The next report is due in April 2010 and will be based upon water quality data collected through June 30, 2009.
In addition to data collected directly by the DEP, the agency will compile and assess water quality data collected by other persons, agencies, watershed associations, or permitted facilities. Data should be sent to Steve Stutler at Stephen.J.Stutler@wv.gov, (304) 926-0499, Ext. 1086, or Steve Young at Stephen.A.Young@wv.gov, (304) 926-0499, Ext. 1042. The deadline to submit data is Sep. 30, 2009.
A data form is available to download at www.wvdep.org/wv303d.
Documentation describing the collection and analytical methodologies associated with the data should be provided as it will help the agency assess data quality. If data was subject to a quality assurance/quality control plan, submit it with the data. For an example of a QA/QC plan, go to http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g5-final.pdf.
Although electronic data submission is highly preferred and encouraged, non-electronic submissions may be sent to the DEP at the Division of Water and Waste Management, Attn: Steve Young, 601 57th St. S.E., Charleston, WV 25304.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Mountaintop Mining Decision Appealed to US Supreme Court
The West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, OVEC and Coal River Mountain Watch have filed a petition for appeal with the US Supreme Court, asking them to overturn the Fourth Circuit's decision in Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the US Army Corps of Engineers properly applied the Clean Water Act in issuing mountaintop removal permits. You can find the groups' press release here.
Chances of success are not great, considering how few appeals the US Supreme Court hears.
Chances of success are not great, considering how few appeals the US Supreme Court hears.
Wisconsin Biomass Power Generator an Example for West Virginia?
Here's a report of a 50 megawatt power plant that will be built next to a paper mill in Wisconsin. It will burn biomass, mostly tree products, from within a 75 mile radius. One wonders whether something similar could be done with the detritus from West Virginia's timber products industry.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Where do Byrd and Rockefeller Stand on Cap and Trade?
Senators Byrd and Rockefeller haven't made their positions clear on cap and trade legislation, which would charge power companies for credits that allow them to emit carbon dioxide. They are truly between a rock and a hard place, as their hearts are probably with the Democratic mainstream, which supports cap and trade legislation, but their constituents will be angered if that legislation a) increases utility bill and b) costs jobs in the energy sector. So far they've stayed mum on what they plan to do, according to this Daily Mail article.
Under cap and trade, the government would sell power plants limited allowances for carbon dioxide emissions, and then reduce them, driving down CO2 emissions and increasing the cost of credits. The idea is that it would make carbon-based energy more in line with the costs of alternative energy. But as this Wall Street Journal article shows, getting alternative energy sited is no sure thing.
Cap and trade is doomed to fail. I can't see that the Senate is going to put meaningful limits on greenhouse gas emissions when developing countries are certain to continue pumping out CO2 unabated. If you believe in climate change, it would be more cost effective to learn to live with it than try to stop CO2 build up.
Under cap and trade, the government would sell power plants limited allowances for carbon dioxide emissions, and then reduce them, driving down CO2 emissions and increasing the cost of credits. The idea is that it would make carbon-based energy more in line with the costs of alternative energy. But as this Wall Street Journal article shows, getting alternative energy sited is no sure thing.
Cap and trade is doomed to fail. I can't see that the Senate is going to put meaningful limits on greenhouse gas emissions when developing countries are certain to continue pumping out CO2 unabated. If you believe in climate change, it would be more cost effective to learn to live with it than try to stop CO2 build up.
Goals Coal and the Rule of Law
Done properly, the role of a judge must be boring at times. Sure, sometimes you'll hear interesting disputes, but most of the time a jurist should be applying the law to the facts of a case and reaching a result that is unaffected by personal prejudice. There's little opportunity for a judge who is true to his calling to make public policy decisions. That's probably why judges are occasionally tempted to stray, and do what they think is right rather than implement what the Legislature thought was right when they wrote the law. When judges do that, though, they sometimes prove that maxim that (and I paraphrase) "he that would do justice rather than follow the law ends up doing neither."
That's why it's so satisfying to see the WV Supreme Court applying the law as written - whether they agree with the result or not. Coal River Mountain Watch challenged a permit for the construction of a second coal silo by Goals Coal on property it permitted in Raleigh County near Sundial. The permit map had been hand drawn in 1982 and markers were placed in the ground at that time, marking the boundary of the property . There was a discrepancy between the map and the boundary markers, and Coal River Mountain Watch challenged the second coal silo on the grounds that it wasn't located on the permitted property, as represented on the map, even though it was within the area marked at the site itself. Sounds pretty nitpicking, but the real impetus for the appeal was local opposition to the construction of the coal silo near Marsh Fork Elementary School.
The Supreme Court noted that it was not a super legislature, empowered to decide whether this was a good location to build a silo. Instead, it limited itself to a review of the state and federal surface mine acts, and concluded that the permit area was identifiable by appropriate markers on the mine site. the silo could be built because it was within the area marked at the site.
Is it a good idea to put a coal silo that close to an elementary school? It may or may not be, but the Supreme Court wasn't called on to make that decision. It merely interpreted the law honestly and objectively. In the opinion of some, that wasn't always the case with the Supreme Court in the past.
That's why it's so satisfying to see the WV Supreme Court applying the law as written - whether they agree with the result or not. Coal River Mountain Watch challenged a permit for the construction of a second coal silo by Goals Coal on property it permitted in Raleigh County near Sundial. The permit map had been hand drawn in 1982 and markers were placed in the ground at that time, marking the boundary of the property . There was a discrepancy between the map and the boundary markers, and Coal River Mountain Watch challenged the second coal silo on the grounds that it wasn't located on the permitted property, as represented on the map, even though it was within the area marked at the site itself. Sounds pretty nitpicking, but the real impetus for the appeal was local opposition to the construction of the coal silo near Marsh Fork Elementary School.
The Supreme Court noted that it was not a super legislature, empowered to decide whether this was a good location to build a silo. Instead, it limited itself to a review of the state and federal surface mine acts, and concluded that the permit area was identifiable by appropriate markers on the mine site. the silo could be built because it was within the area marked at the site.
Is it a good idea to put a coal silo that close to an elementary school? It may or may not be, but the Supreme Court wasn't called on to make that decision. It merely interpreted the law honestly and objectively. In the opinion of some, that wasn't always the case with the Supreme Court in the past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
