C8 Report Filed With Court (Revised Nov 4, 2009)

A study conducted by West Virginia researchers as part of the settlement of a state court lawsuit brought by residents of the Parkersburg area has concluded that children with exposure to C8, or perfluorooctanoic acid, had higher amounts of bad cholesterol in their bloodstream. I have not seen the report, although Ken Ward has, and here is the first story on the study.

In September, a federal judge threw out most of the claims that were brought in federal district court against DuPont for the release of C8 in the Parkersburg area. That decision can be found here. The court dismissed most of the allegations against DuPont, including those for negligence, gross negligence, reckless, wilful and wanton conduct; private nuisance; trespass battery and
public nuisance. The only claim that was allowed to proceed was that for medical monitoring.

AEP Begins Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide at Mountaineer Plant

Carbon sequestration took another step forward as American Electric Power began a pilot program for storing carbon dioxide underground. The CO2, generated by AEP's Mountaineer plant, is a small part of that generated by the plant, but it's a start toward understanding how CO2 reacts to being stored underground. Here's a story from the Gazette about the project.
Here's some more information about carbon sequestration in its broadest form, from Wikipedia.

Judge Recht's Daubert Decision Is Worth A Look

Many environmental lawsuits stand or fall on complex scientific and technical issues. And folks, let me tell you,there's a lot of half-baked opinions and faulty data out there masquerading as science. Some of it's easy to disprove - we had a case involving underground storage tanks where a discoloration of the lining was deemed by one "expert" to be evidence of complete and utter degradation caused by de-polymerization of the fiberglass coating. Looking at the pictures, you might have believed it - at least until you walked up and removed the smudges with your thumb, revealing pristine fiberglass. Other times, though, you have talking heads going at it over esoteric questions that aren't so easily resolved. It takes a judge who is willing to sit down and take a good hard look at the experts' opinions and decide who can testify. Judge Recht recently performed such an analysis in Ohio County, and it's worth a read. (Thanks to Mark Hayes for passing this on to me.)

Judges are supposed to evaluate expert opinions to see if they are grounded in the scientific method before allowing experts to testify. They don't decide which opinions are correct, they just decide which experts have premised their opinions on scientific principles. The seminal decision in this regard is Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), where the Court considered what expert scientific evidence could be considered relevant under the Federal Rules of Evidence:

"The inquiry envisioned by Rule 702 is, we emphasize, a flexible one. Its overarching subject is the scientific validity--and thus the evidentiary relevance and reliability--of the principles that underlie a proposed submission. The focus, of course, must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate."

This publication says it well - Daubert: The Most Influential Supreme Court Ruling You've Never Heard Of.

West Virginia Wind Energy Project In Maryland Court

I am relying on the An American Lion blog to report on the legal action against a wind energy project in West Virginia. The title is The Bat Massacre of West Virginia, which might make you think it is anti-wind towers, but the gist of it seems to be that windmills kill far fewer birds and bats than other things, like windows, cats, power lines, etc. Here's part of the article - I recommend the whole thing to you, if you're interested in some thoughts on the environmental costs of wind power, weighed against its benefits.

"Cowan, 72, a longtime caving fanatic who grew to love bats as he slithered through tunnels from Maine to Maui, is asking a federal judge in Maryland to halt construction of the Beech Ridge wind farm. The lawsuit pits Chicago-based Invenergy, a company that produces "green" energy, against environmentalists who say the cost to nature is too great."

"The rare green vs. green case went to trial Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt.
It is the first court challenge to wind power under the Endangered Species Act, lawyers on both sides say. With President Obama's goal of doubling renewable energy production by 2012, wind and solar farms are expanding rapidly. That has sparked battles to reach a balance between the benefits of clean energy and the impact on birds, bats and even the water supply."

"At the heart of the Beech Ridge case is the Indiana bat, a brownish-gray creature that weighs about as much as three pennies and, wings outstretched, measures about eight inches. A 2005 estimate concluded that there were 457,000 of them, half the number in 1967, when they were first listed as endangered."

Former Techsol President Indicted In Spill

On October 28, 2004 there was a spill of coal tar light oil near Huntington, West Virginia that resulted in contamination of the groundwater and other unfortunate effects. The feds recently indicted James Holt, the president of Techsol Chemical Co. at the time the spill occurred. As this is an example of federal criminal enforcement in Southern West Virginia, I thought I would share the indictment with those who are interested. Thanks to my partner, John Palmer, for providing it to me.

I won't comment more, as we had a role in the environmental side of this, other than to mention that John Palmer reports that Dave Bungard, a fine attorney and former partner, is representing Mr. Holt in this matter. I assume that Perry McDaniel put together the indictment.

EPA Rejects Mountaintop Mining Permit in West Virginia

EPA has decided to revoke Mingo Logan Coal Company's Spruce No. 1 mountaintop mining permit, which was issued back in 2007. This is unprecedented - EPA has rejected permits in the past, but has not, to my knowledge, revoked an existing permit at a working site. The EPA veto is not final yet; before it becomes final EPA needs to go through a public comment period, a likely hearing, and the mining company has to be given a chance to revise the permit to meet objections.


EPA has described its veto authority in a fact sheet that explains the process for denying or withdrawing authorization to place fill material in waters of the United States under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act. It's worth reviewing if you're interested in the process.

Whether Mingo-Logan can meet all EPA's objections is a good question. EPA is subjecting surface mining to intense scrutiny, and holding operations to very high standards, such that few large earth-disturbing projects, even if done for nonmining projects like road construction, could meet the test. Furthermore, by looking at the cumulative effects of many surface mines in that area, EPA is aggregating harmful impacts in a way that make approval of permits very difficult.

The Associated Press has reported on this, as has the Charleston Gazette. As usual, the most complete analysis of mountaintop mining news is found in Ken Ward's blog, Coal Tattoo.

New Treatment for Wood Could Be Useful in WV

Ecogeek reports a new process for treating wood so that they better stand up to outside use as decking, siding, etc. At a time when the WV wood product industry is struggling, anything that would help increase the use of WV wood rather than tropical hardwoods is a hopeful development. The process, called kebonization,

" . . . is similar to pressure treating wood (which is another way to make soft woods usable for exterior use). But, instead of soaking the wood in toxic chemicals like chromated copper asrsenate (CCA, which is now banned for most uses in the US and the EU) or alkaline copper quaternary compounds (ACQ, the most widely used replacement for CCA after the ban), it is instead soaked in furfuryl alcohol, a waste byproduct from sugar cane which is also sometimes used as a food additive. There are no special handling requirements or precautions needed to deal with waste from this wood, and it can be disposed of just like any other untreated wood.
During the kebonization process, the alcohol becomes a resin that reinforces the cells of the wood. The result is a wood with excellent outdoor exposure tolerance like teak or mahogany, but with a harder surface than many of the tropical woods that it replaces. The wood also naturally fades to a silvery-grey color much like those tropical woods, as well."

Corps of Engineers to Hold Meeting in Charleston October 13

The Coal Association reports that the US Army Corps of Engineers is holding a public hearing on October 13 at 7 pm in the Charleston Civic Center Little Theater. The subject will be continued use of Nationwide Permit 21, which makes mountaintop mining possible in many instances.

Meetings will be held elsewhere as well



OCTOBER 13
Knoxville, TN
Pikeville, KY
Charleston, WV


OCTOBER 15
Pittsburgh, PA
Big Stone Gap, VA
Cambridge, OH


Attached is the notice of the meetings and the request for comment from the Army Corps of Engineers

Improved Batteries Mean More Electricity Is Needed

Electric cars are exciting. The Wall Street Journal even had an article on a hybrid Formula One car that has an advantage by having to make fewer pit stops. However, electric cars only substitute one energy source for another. Gasoline, which is pretty energy dense, is replaced by batteries, which are not yet as efficient. But work is being done to improve batteries, by companies large and small. One of the large companies is IBM, which is beginning work on the next generation of battery that uses lithium as the anode and oxygen as the cathode. I can't explain any more than that, so go to Ecogeek to learn more.

Keep in mind this, though - the more batteries we use, the more electricity we have to generate. And for the time being, that means burning more coal.

The Cost of Global Warming Prevention

Global warming doomsayers have a tough row to hoe. Not only do they need to prove that the world a) is warming b) as a result of anthropogenic activity, they also have to prove c) that the cure they propose won't hurt more than the disease. The cost of reducing carbon emissions is huge - would warming be worse than delaying development, or investing in more expensive, "greener" sources of energy?

Bjorn Lomborg is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, a must-read for anyone looking for the good news behind the headlines. The fact is, we're much better off now than we were a few years ago, and he has the data to prove it. He is evidently a believer in human-induced climate change, so he satisfies the a) and b) tests above, but he makes a convincing case that the cost of preventing warming is much greater than the benefits to be achieved. His most recent article on the subject was in today's Daily Mail.

Lomborg notes that "Japan's commitment in June to cut greenhouse gas levels 8 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 was scoffed at for being far too little. Yet for Japan - which has led the world in improving energy efficiency - to have any hope of reaching its target, it needs to build nine new nuclear power plants and increase their use by one-third, construct more than 1 million wind turbines, install solar panels on 3 million homes, double the percentage of new homes that meet rigorous insulation standards, and increase sales of "green" vehicles from 4 percent to 50 percent of its auto purchases." That's quite a tall order.

The costs aren't small. "Imagine for a moment that the fantasists win the day, and that at the climate conference in Copenhagen in December every nation commits to reductions even larger than Japan's, designed to keep temperature increases under 2 degrees Celsius.
The result will be a global price tag of $46 trillion in 2100, to avoid expected climate damage costing just $1.1 trillion, according to climate economist Richard Tol, a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. His findings were commissioned by the Copenhagen Consensus Center and are to be published by Cambridge University Press."

We in the West can talk about the costs imposed on wealthy nations, but the greatest cost is imposed on smaller nations that are deprived of reasonably-priced energy sources to power their development.

Global Temperatures HIt a Plateau, But Don't Worry, More Bad News to Follow

If it seems chillier outside, it may be more than the fall weather. Temperatures have plateaued, or are dropping, across the world. For supporters of climate change legislation, this is coming at a bad time, just before the meeting in Copenhagen where plans were to be made for further greenhouse gas reductions. George Will reports on several inconvenient truths.

Why Surface Mine?

I missed this when it ran in July, but Ken Ward offered space on his blog Coal Tattoo, to Gene Kitts of International Coal Group to explain why surface mining makes sense in some situations. It and some of the comments that followed were a thoughtful and informative debate on surface mining, its costs and its benefits. For someone like me with only passing familiarity with the technical, as opposed to legal, issues, it was very helpful. Kudos to Ken for sponsoring an opposing view.

EPA To Regulate Large Sources of Carbon Dioxide

EPA recently announced that it will be proposing regulations to regulate large sources of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide. The fact sheet is here, and the proposed rule is here. This is widely seen as an attempt by EPA to force Congress into amending the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. Republicans and moderate Democrats who aren't sold on the need to regulate GHGs may be willing to agree to some limits to avoid more stringent limits being imposed by the EPA.


You have to give EPA credit for doing this in a clever way. EPA has said it will begin regulating GHGs, and wants to help regulated industry by increasing the amount of emissions that are allowed before facilities would be dragged into PSD (prevention of significant deterioration) or new source review. EPA has basically said that the rule is intended as a way to ameliorate the terrible effect of imposing limits on CO2 and other GHGs. Of course, no mention is made of whether such regulation is really needed in the first place. Right now, EPA only intends to cover large sources (at least 25,000 tons of annual emissions), like utilities, petroleum refiners and landfills, all places that environmentalists love to hate. Later, of course, the thresholds will likely be dropped to encompass more sources.

Someone is sure to challenge this, and EPA probably doesn't care, because it is likely to win either way. If you believe in the need to control GHGs, this is a great action. If you're a skeptic like me, you just sigh.

Sixty days will be allowed for public comment. Here's a news report from the Environmental Newswire

EPA To Review 79 Mountaintop MIning Permits

You have probably seen from other sources EPA's decision to review 79 mountaintop mining permits. The action taken was a letter from Peter Silva of the EPA to Jo-Ellen Darcy of the US Army Corps of Engineers stating EPA's concern that all 79 permits it was reviewing pose environmental risks. EPA wants further review by the Corps of water quality impacts, the adequacy of mitigation for stream losses, cumulative impacts, and other concerns.

The permits haven't been denied, but they are now headed into administrative limbo where they will be studied to death. One could conclude that one of the goals of this action is to drag out the permitting process so that new mines aren't started because they're economically nonviable, and existing mines can't expand.

You can see the letter from EPA here (from Ken Ward's Coal Tattoo blog) and Ken Ward's report on what is happening, which contains a good summary of the next steps in the permitting process. The Associated Press report is here . WV Public Radio has done several stories, including this one