Monday, January 25, 2010
State Journal Article Describes UIC Disposal for Marcellus Wells.
Natural gas wells that are fracked using water and chemicals produce large amounts of water waste called flowback. Contrary to what many people believe, that water is not discharged into state streams. It is either treated and recovered, through processes such as AOP Clearwater is using in Fairmont, or it is put down an underground injection control (UIC) well. There's an article in the State Journal today by Pam Kasey that identifies places the UIC wells are located, and how it all works.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Compact Fluorescent Lamps Not Such a Good Idea?
There is a push today to phase out incandescent light bulbs in favor of Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs). Supposedly, incandescents convert most of their electricity to heat, don't last long, and cost a lot to operate. CFLs, on the other hand, operate on less power and lasted forever. Sure, they couldn't be operated on dimmers, for the most part, and they contained mercury, but those were reasonable trade-offs.
If your experience has been like mine, you've seen that CFLs generally don't last as long as promised, unless they're in special locations where they are left on for extended periods, and they remain expensive and provide generally inconsistent light. Incandescents seem to be a better buy in many situations, even if they gulp more power. I thought maybe I was doing something wrong until I read this article from a former Bell Labs engineer about some of the problems with CFLs. There are more problems than I was aware of. Looks like we better just wait until we can buy LEDs.
If your experience has been like mine, you've seen that CFLs generally don't last as long as promised, unless they're in special locations where they are left on for extended periods, and they remain expensive and provide generally inconsistent light. Incandescents seem to be a better buy in many situations, even if they gulp more power. I thought maybe I was doing something wrong until I read this article from a former Bell Labs engineer about some of the problems with CFLs. There are more problems than I was aware of. Looks like we better just wait until we can buy LEDs.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
EPA Issues TMDL Update Report for West Virginia
In 1997 EPA entered into a consent decree with environmentalists that required EPA to achieve certain benchmarks in developing the Clean Water Act 303(d)/TMDL program in West Virginia. As part of that settlement, EPA is required to issue an annual report of the status of the TMDL program. The 2009 report can be found here.
While EPA is required to comply with the consent order, most of the TMDL program is now implemented by West Virginia DEP. Persons with an interest in the TMDL program can go here or contact Dave Montali at 304 926-0499
While EPA is required to comply with the consent order, most of the TMDL program is now implemented by West Virginia DEP. Persons with an interest in the TMDL program can go here or contact Dave Montali at 304 926-0499
Saturday, January 16, 2010
EPA Develops Florida Nutrient Criteria, But Delays Action on West Virginia's
US EPA is imposing nutrient criteria in Florida, according to this press release:
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing water quality standards to protect people’s health, aquatic life and the long term recreational uses of Florida’s waters, which are a critical part of the state’s economy. In 2009, EPA entered into a consent decree with the Florida Wildlife Federation to propose limits to this pollution. The proposed action, released for public comment and developed in collaboration with the state, would set a series of numeric limits on the amount of phosphorus and nitrogen, also known as “nutrients,” that would be allowed in Florida’s lakes, rivers, streams, springs and canals.
At the same time, EPA is telling West Virginia that it is still studying the nutrient criteria that West Virginia has developed for lakes in Section 8.3 of 47 CSR 2, West Virginia's water quality standards. In its September 8, 2009 letter to the DEP, EPA approved most aspects of the state's water quality standard changes, but not the nutrient criteria, citing a need for more study.
I'm in no hurry to see nutrient criteria adopted by the state, but EPA has told the states that they must do so, and it's coming. Ordinarily, EPA does scientific studies that determine what levels of a chemical are safe, and what levels can affect human health and the environment. States can then adopt those levels as water quality criteria, or justify some different criteria. In the case of nutrients, though, EPA threw criteria development onto the shoulders of the state, without the resources they need to do that. Without sufficient guidance from EPA, it's unsurprising that states are unable to guess what nutrient criteria will earn EPA's approval.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing water quality standards to protect people’s health, aquatic life and the long term recreational uses of Florida’s waters, which are a critical part of the state’s economy. In 2009, EPA entered into a consent decree with the Florida Wildlife Federation to propose limits to this pollution. The proposed action, released for public comment and developed in collaboration with the state, would set a series of numeric limits on the amount of phosphorus and nitrogen, also known as “nutrients,” that would be allowed in Florida’s lakes, rivers, streams, springs and canals.
At the same time, EPA is telling West Virginia that it is still studying the nutrient criteria that West Virginia has developed for lakes in Section 8.3 of 47 CSR 2, West Virginia's water quality standards. In its September 8, 2009 letter to the DEP, EPA approved most aspects of the state's water quality standard changes, but not the nutrient criteria, citing a need for more study.
I'm in no hurry to see nutrient criteria adopted by the state, but EPA has told the states that they must do so, and it's coming. Ordinarily, EPA does scientific studies that determine what levels of a chemical are safe, and what levels can affect human health and the environment. States can then adopt those levels as water quality criteria, or justify some different criteria. In the case of nutrients, though, EPA threw criteria development onto the shoulders of the state, without the resources they need to do that. Without sufficient guidance from EPA, it's unsurprising that states are unable to guess what nutrient criteria will earn EPA's approval.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
West Virginia DEP Issues Marcellus Shale Guidance
The Marcellus Shale holds a tremendous amount of natural gas that has recently become available because of the ability to drill horizontally through the shale and fracture it. The shale play extends in a wide area including New York, Ohio Pennsylvania and West Virginia. It has been in the news quite bit lately, in part because of unfounded fears that the chemicals used in fracturing the shale will contaminate water supplies. No chance of that, given the distances between the shale and water-bearing aquifers, and the casing that seals off aquifers from contaminants, but the fear remains. In addition, Marcellus wells tend to have a larger footprint, a concern to some landowners, and the fracturing uses large quantities of water. You can see my earlier post on January 7 for some discussion of some of thee issues.
In a bid to establish regulation, the WV Department of Environmental Protection has developed a guidance for Marcellus Shale wells, principally to help operators know when there is sufficient water in a stream to withdraw and use for well treatment. This is guidance, not a rule. The DEP press release, and a link to the guidance, follows.
For More Information
Kathy Cosco, 304-926-0440
DEP Releases Marcellus Shale Industry Guidance
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection has released a guidance document and permit addendum designed to better manage water use and disposal by the oil and gas industry when drilling in the Marcellus Shale formation.
The document was created by the Office of Oil and Gas and the Division of Water and Waste Management at the request of Cabinet Secretary Randy C. Huffman. Because of the public interest in the industry practice, the agency sought public comment on the guidance, even though it is not required to do so for such a document.
The document addresses the need for well operators to be diligent about protecting the state’s waters. It also includes a copy of an addendum that is now part of the permit application.
In addition, the document directs well operators to a guidance tool on the DEP’s website to be used to determine whether a body of water can sustain the proposed withdrawal.
The guidance document and addendum can be found on the DEP’s website at: http://www.dep.wv.gov/oil-and-gas.
In a bid to establish regulation, the WV Department of Environmental Protection has developed a guidance for Marcellus Shale wells, principally to help operators know when there is sufficient water in a stream to withdraw and use for well treatment. This is guidance, not a rule. The DEP press release, and a link to the guidance, follows.
For More Information
Kathy Cosco, 304-926-0440
DEP Releases Marcellus Shale Industry Guidance
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection has released a guidance document and permit addendum designed to better manage water use and disposal by the oil and gas industry when drilling in the Marcellus Shale formation.
The document was created by the Office of Oil and Gas and the Division of Water and Waste Management at the request of Cabinet Secretary Randy C. Huffman. Because of the public interest in the industry practice, the agency sought public comment on the guidance, even though it is not required to do so for such a document.
The document addresses the need for well operators to be diligent about protecting the state’s waters. It also includes a copy of an addendum that is now part of the permit application.
In addition, the document directs well operators to a guidance tool on the DEP’s website to be used to determine whether a body of water can sustain the proposed withdrawal.
The guidance document and addendum can be found on the DEP’s website at: http://www.dep.wv.gov/oil-and-gas.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
EPA Urges Radon Check For West Virginia Homes
PHILADELPHIA (Jan. 7, 2010) Although testing for radon is easy and inexpensive, 80 percent of the homes in the U.S. have not been tested. Radon is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas that EPA has reported as causing 20,000 lung cancer deaths nationwide every year.
Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer, after cigarette smoking. January is the best time to test for radon now that doors and windows are all tightly closed. Now is the time to test and if needed, reduce your exposure to radon. That’s why EPA designated January ‘radon action month.’
High radon levels have been found throughout EPA's mid-Atlantic region, which includes Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. The only way to know if you and your family are at risk from radon is to test your home for radon or have it tested by a certified professional radon tester. For do-it-yourselfers, radon kits can be purchased for $25 at building supply, hardware and general merchandise stores. A basic test takes 10 minutes to set up and when complete is mailed to a lab for analysis.
If test results are above the EPA recommended action level you need to have the radon level reduced by a certified radon ‘mitigator.’ Reducing radon is not technically difficult and costs approximately $800 - $2,500.
To locate professional radon testers and certified radon ‘mitigators’ near you by look on the web at either the “National Environmental Health Association” or “National Radon Safety Board” sites. Be sure to ask to see their credentials.
Radon is a radioactive gas produced from the uranium which is in the geological formation under the soil. The amount or radon gas varies depending on the amount of uranium in the formation. The type of soil under the house, the design of the house and the life style or the family living in the house all affect the amount of radon gas that enters a home.
For more info on radon:
EPA’s National Radon Hotline, 1-800-438-2474
For lists of certified testers and mitigators use the web to search for the “National
EPA’s radon website http://www.epa.gov/radon/radontest.html.Environmental Health Association” and/or “National Radon Safety Board”.
EPA’s mid-Atlantic region, 1-800-438-2474
The National Environmental Publications Center, 1-800-490-9198 or http://www.epa.gov/cinc. They have “Citizens Guide to Radon” and “Home Buyers and Sellers Guide”
Editor’s Note: See EPA’s website for free, publically-available graphics about radon and public Service announcements for print, television, and radio at http://www.epa.gov/radon.
Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer, after cigarette smoking. January is the best time to test for radon now that doors and windows are all tightly closed. Now is the time to test and if needed, reduce your exposure to radon. That’s why EPA designated January ‘radon action month.’
High radon levels have been found throughout EPA's mid-Atlantic region, which includes Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. The only way to know if you and your family are at risk from radon is to test your home for radon or have it tested by a certified professional radon tester. For do-it-yourselfers, radon kits can be purchased for $25 at building supply, hardware and general merchandise stores. A basic test takes 10 minutes to set up and when complete is mailed to a lab for analysis.
If test results are above the EPA recommended action level you need to have the radon level reduced by a certified radon ‘mitigator.’ Reducing radon is not technically difficult and costs approximately $800 - $2,500.
To locate professional radon testers and certified radon ‘mitigators’ near you by look on the web at either the “National Environmental Health Association” or “National Radon Safety Board” sites. Be sure to ask to see their credentials.
Radon is a radioactive gas produced from the uranium which is in the geological formation under the soil. The amount or radon gas varies depending on the amount of uranium in the formation. The type of soil under the house, the design of the house and the life style or the family living in the house all affect the amount of radon gas that enters a home.
For more info on radon:
EPA’s National Radon Hotline, 1-800-438-2474
For lists of certified testers and mitigators use the web to search for the “National
EPA’s radon website http://www.epa.gov/radon/radontest.html.Environmental Health Association” and/or “National Radon Safety Board”.
EPA’s mid-Atlantic region, 1-800-438-2474
The National Environmental Publications Center, 1-800-490-9198 or http://www.epa.gov/cinc. They have “Citizens Guide to Radon” and “Home Buyers and Sellers Guide”
Editor’s Note: See EPA’s website for free, publically-available graphics about radon and public Service announcements for print, television, and radio at http://www.epa.gov/radon.
West Virginia DEP Issues Coalbed Methane Water Discharge Permit
Last month DEP announced the reissuance of the coalbed methane water discharge permit. This is the permit that allows companies to land apply the water that is pumped out of a coal seam before the gas is removed from it. Here's the DEP press release on the subject:
WVDEP renews permit dealing with coalbed methane well water
12/22/2009
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection has renewed the General Water Pollution Control Permit GP-WV-1-07 with new parameters. The permit grants the right to land apply waters associated with coalbed methane wells.
The purpose of the General Permit is to establish a simple, efficient and economic method for the disposal and regulation of water produced from coalbed methane production that is fully protective of the environment.
The new parameters and conditions introduced in the permit renewal, as well as the extension of time from two to five years (Jan. 1, 2010 to Dec. 31, 2014), are based on the review and analysis of the information received from the operators in compliance with the permit conditions. The administrator of the General Permit is the Office of Oil and Gas.
This General Permit strengthens the concept of environmental impact prevention. It includes provisions for performing background sampling and sampling in control areas in order to establish a baseline for evaluating the impact of land applied water on the environment. It also incorporates new parameters to the regular sampling process, which will provide information used for soil and groundwater protection. And, finally, it considers more exhaustive monitoring methods for groundwater.
Coalbed methane wells are wells drilled into coal seams to release trapped methane. Water is pumped from the coal seams in order to lower the water pressure, thereby releasing the methane. Water pumped from the seam typically is collected in tanks in the general vicinity of the coalbed methane well or hauled by truck or pipeline to a central treatment facility. Water is treated to make it suitable for land application.
A copy of the General Permit and its related documents can be obtained by going to: www.wvdep.org., or by writing: WVDEP Office of Oil and Gas, 601 57th St., S.E., Charleston, WV., 25304-2345. For more information contact Bernardo Garcia at (304) 926-0499, ext. 1066 or email: bernardo.garcia@wv.gov.
Contact:Kathy Cosco 304-926-0499 Kathy.Cosco@wv.gov
WVDEP renews permit dealing with coalbed methane well water
12/22/2009
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection has renewed the General Water Pollution Control Permit GP-WV-1-07 with new parameters. The permit grants the right to land apply waters associated with coalbed methane wells.
The purpose of the General Permit is to establish a simple, efficient and economic method for the disposal and regulation of water produced from coalbed methane production that is fully protective of the environment.
The new parameters and conditions introduced in the permit renewal, as well as the extension of time from two to five years (Jan. 1, 2010 to Dec. 31, 2014), are based on the review and analysis of the information received from the operators in compliance with the permit conditions. The administrator of the General Permit is the Office of Oil and Gas.
This General Permit strengthens the concept of environmental impact prevention. It includes provisions for performing background sampling and sampling in control areas in order to establish a baseline for evaluating the impact of land applied water on the environment. It also incorporates new parameters to the regular sampling process, which will provide information used for soil and groundwater protection. And, finally, it considers more exhaustive monitoring methods for groundwater.
Coalbed methane wells are wells drilled into coal seams to release trapped methane. Water is pumped from the coal seams in order to lower the water pressure, thereby releasing the methane. Water pumped from the seam typically is collected in tanks in the general vicinity of the coalbed methane well or hauled by truck or pipeline to a central treatment facility. Water is treated to make it suitable for land application.
A copy of the General Permit and its related documents can be obtained by going to: www.wvdep.org., or by writing: WVDEP Office of Oil and Gas, 601 57th St., S.E., Charleston, WV., 25304-2345. For more information contact Bernardo Garcia at (304) 926-0499, ext. 1066 or email: bernardo.garcia@wv.gov.
Contact:Kathy Cosco 304-926-0499 Kathy.Cosco@wv.gov
Industry Accepts Climate Change, As Man-Made Climate Change Looks Less Certain
An article in today's Charleston Gazette - Mail pointed out an interesting paradox - industry leaders saying that, regardless of what the science shows, we have to be ready for climate change legislation. (I'm paraphrasing here, because the Daily Mail and Gazette websites aren't loading for some reason.) Evidently, the electric power industry believes that it will have to address climate change, even though the science doesn't support the conclusion that significant warming is being caused by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. So climate change may not be occurring, but people in power believe it is, so it has to be addressed, even if there's nothing to address.
I have spent some time looking at this, and have noticed that climate change skeptics seem to be making headway in their assault on the reigning scientific orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the belief that mankind is significantly affecting climate through carbon dioxide emissions, at the same time that governments and the media largely view AGW as a settled matter. If you review the various climate change websites, the AGW skeptics (see Climate Audit or Climate Skeptic are generally science-driven, while the pro-AGW forces tend to retreat to statements like "the science is settled" and refer to positions that have been discredited even within their own ranks, such as the denial of a Medieval Warm Period. While both sides have their share of name-callers, the number of persons who are energized and who comment intelligently on the internet seems to be growing in favor of AGW skeptics.
And yet . . . the overwhelming tide is clearly to Do Something About Global Warming, even if there is nothing to do. There are many people in positions of power who are committed to the belief that climate change is inevitable unless greenhouse gases are reduced. Lots of businesses have developed marketing plans that are premised on climate change, and lots of scientific research is funded with the understanding that AGW cannot be denied.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The leaked emails from East Anglia University show that AGW advocates have not always been entirely forthright in defense of their position, and new data casts doubt on whether climate change is occurring, or even that a rise in CO2 or in temperature is a bad thing. As people actually start to incur costs and changes in lifestyle to accomplish GHG reductions, there may be more of an inquiry into the need for the reductions. Here's hoping that, even if there is no real scientific basis for catastrophic AGW, we'll see some beneficial results, such as reforestation efforts and development of alternative energy, that originate from a mistaken belief.
I have spent some time looking at this, and have noticed that climate change skeptics seem to be making headway in their assault on the reigning scientific orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the belief that mankind is significantly affecting climate through carbon dioxide emissions, at the same time that governments and the media largely view AGW as a settled matter. If you review the various climate change websites, the AGW skeptics (see Climate Audit or Climate Skeptic are generally science-driven, while the pro-AGW forces tend to retreat to statements like "the science is settled" and refer to positions that have been discredited even within their own ranks, such as the denial of a Medieval Warm Period. While both sides have their share of name-callers, the number of persons who are energized and who comment intelligently on the internet seems to be growing in favor of AGW skeptics.
And yet . . . the overwhelming tide is clearly to Do Something About Global Warming, even if there is nothing to do. There are many people in positions of power who are committed to the belief that climate change is inevitable unless greenhouse gases are reduced. Lots of businesses have developed marketing plans that are premised on climate change, and lots of scientific research is funded with the understanding that AGW cannot be denied.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The leaked emails from East Anglia University show that AGW advocates have not always been entirely forthright in defense of their position, and new data casts doubt on whether climate change is occurring, or even that a rise in CO2 or in temperature is a bad thing. As people actually start to incur costs and changes in lifestyle to accomplish GHG reductions, there may be more of an inquiry into the need for the reductions. Here's hoping that, even if there is no real scientific basis for catastrophic AGW, we'll see some beneficial results, such as reforestation efforts and development of alternative energy, that originate from a mistaken belief.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Learn About Oil and Gas Drilling, Fracking
Questions have been raised about drilling for Marcellus Shale gas and the potential for contamination of water supplies as a result of the chemcials used to fracture the gas-producing seams. Energy In Depth offers a short video of how a well is drilled and fracked, and resources explaining why drilled wells are not a source of ground water contamination. The video is of a traditional (not horizontal) well, but the concepts are the same.
West Virginia DEP Takes New Approach to Mountaintop Mining
The West Virginia DEP Mining Office has experienced more than its share of frustration over the past year. EPA has held up Clean Water Act Section 404 permits (that were issued to mountaintop mines by the Corps of Engineeers and water quality-certified by the DEP) on the grounds that the mining plans did not adequately consider the ecological and environmental effects of the mines. The DEP was understandably nonplussed by this new approach, especially the silence of EPA when DEP asked what sorts of mountaintop mining plans would be approved by EPA. A lot of time has been spent by the DEP trying to figure out what EPA wants, and I assume that is due to the fact that EPA is still trying to figure out exactly what it wants.
It appears that the WV DEP has changed tack and is going to accept that only more limited mining plans will be accepted in the future. In a report by Ken Ward of the Charleston Gazette today, Randy Huffman, Secretary of the DEP, said he is going to develop new rules for the issuance of permits that include valley fills. While EPA has not, to my knowledge, issued clear guidance as to what it expects for valley fills, the DEP has had enough experience working with EPA over the past year to learn what sorts of projects EPA is likely to approve and what it will not. As Director Huffman says, it makes no sense to issue permits that are consistent with state and federal laws, if they will only be rejected by EPA applying a different interpretation of those laws.
Expect mountaintop mines that have smaller footprints and that greatly reduce the amount of fill going into streams. Also, my guess is that you'll see more insistence on a return to aproximate original contour, or AOC, which means there will be less flat land left for future development. That's unfortunate, because despite what some may think, there's still no shortage of mountains in the Mountain State, and there is still a need for flat land on which to develop a post coal economy in the southern coalfields.
It appears that the WV DEP has changed tack and is going to accept that only more limited mining plans will be accepted in the future. In a report by Ken Ward of the Charleston Gazette today, Randy Huffman, Secretary of the DEP, said he is going to develop new rules for the issuance of permits that include valley fills. While EPA has not, to my knowledge, issued clear guidance as to what it expects for valley fills, the DEP has had enough experience working with EPA over the past year to learn what sorts of projects EPA is likely to approve and what it will not. As Director Huffman says, it makes no sense to issue permits that are consistent with state and federal laws, if they will only be rejected by EPA applying a different interpretation of those laws.
Expect mountaintop mines that have smaller footprints and that greatly reduce the amount of fill going into streams. Also, my guess is that you'll see more insistence on a return to aproximate original contour, or AOC, which means there will be less flat land left for future development. That's unfortunate, because despite what some may think, there's still no shortage of mountains in the Mountain State, and there is still a need for flat land on which to develop a post coal economy in the southern coalfields.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Interior Department Reconsiders Stream Buffer Zone Rule
In the ongoing fight over surface coal mining, most of the attention has been directed to the section 404 permits that are issued by the Corps of Engineers, and subject to review by EPA. If any streams are going to be filled, a 404 permit is going to be required. But there is also a provision under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA)called the Stream Buffer Zone, or SBZ, that limits the amount and location of fill material that can be placed in or near streams. The Fourth Circuit has already ruled that SMCRA contemplates placement of some excess spoil in waters of the United States, in Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, Inc v. Rivenburgh, 317 F.3d 425, 442-443 (4th Cir. 2003) and the Interior Department published a rule in 2008, toward the close of the Bush Administration, defining the SBZ in a manner favorable to mining. Several environmental groups challenged the rule, and the Interior Department (now under a new administration) asked the Court to vacate the rule. The court refused to do so, saying that to vacate the rule at the request of the Interior Department would effectively allow it to bypass the Administrative Procedure Act requirements for withdrawing or amending a rule.
Interior has now proposed revising the SBZ, and has identified 7 options for change. They can be found in the Federal Register notice, starting at 74 Federal Register 62663 (November 30, 2009). The preamble does a great job of providing an understandable history of the SBZ. The time for public comment has passed, but you may want to take a look if you're interested in mountaintop mining issues. Interior's summary of its action follows.
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), are seeking comments on our intention to revise our regulations concerning the conduct of mining activities in or near streams. We have determined that revision of the stream buffer zone (SBZ) rule published on December 12, 2008, is necessary to implement the interagency action plan that the Administration has developed to significantly reduce the harmful environmental consequences of surface coal mining operations in Appalachia, while ensuring that future mining remains consistent with Federal law. In this notice, we describe and seek comment on the alternatives that we are considering for revision of the SBZ rule. In addition, we request your help in identifying significant issues, studies, and specific alternatives that we should consider in the SEIS for this rulemaking initiative. The June 11, 2009, memorandum of understanding (MOU) implementing the interagency action plan also calls for us to consider whether revisions to other OSM regulations (including, at a minimum, approximate original contour requirements) are needed to better protect the environment and the public from the impacts of Appalachian surface coal mining. We have identified addition of a definition of ``material damage to the hydrologic balance'' as one such possibility. We invite comment on that option as well as whether there are other OSM regulations that could be revised to implement this provision of the MOU.
Interior has now proposed revising the SBZ, and has identified 7 options for change. They can be found in the Federal Register notice, starting at 74 Federal Register 62663 (November 30, 2009). The preamble does a great job of providing an understandable history of the SBZ. The time for public comment has passed, but you may want to take a look if you're interested in mountaintop mining issues. Interior's summary of its action follows.
SUMMARY: We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM), are seeking comments on our intention to revise our regulations concerning the conduct of mining activities in or near streams. We have determined that revision of the stream buffer zone (SBZ) rule published on December 12, 2008, is necessary to implement the interagency action plan that the Administration has developed to significantly reduce the harmful environmental consequences of surface coal mining operations in Appalachia, while ensuring that future mining remains consistent with Federal law. In this notice, we describe and seek comment on the alternatives that we are considering for revision of the SBZ rule. In addition, we request your help in identifying significant issues, studies, and specific alternatives that we should consider in the SEIS for this rulemaking initiative. The June 11, 2009, memorandum of understanding (MOU) implementing the interagency action plan also calls for us to consider whether revisions to other OSM regulations (including, at a minimum, approximate original contour requirements) are needed to better protect the environment and the public from the impacts of Appalachian surface coal mining. We have identified addition of a definition of ``material damage to the hydrologic balance'' as one such possibility. We invite comment on that option as well as whether there are other OSM regulations that could be revised to implement this provision of the MOU.
EPA Approves More Restrictive Hobet 45 Permit, Wants More Time for Spruce 1 Permit
EPA announced that it is approving the Hobet 45 mine Section 404 permit, albeit with additional conditions the mining company agreed to in order to continue in operation. EPA also and the company asked a federal court for more time to reach a resolution on the Spruce 1 mine, which I interpret as meaning that EPA wanting more time to twist arms and further restrict the mining footprint. The press release follows.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced a path forward on two coal mining operations in West Virginia.
EPA is informing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that it supports issuing a Clean Water Act permit for the Hobet 45 mine in Lincoln County, operated by Hobet Mining, LLC. EPA made this decision after extensive discussions between EPA and the company resulted in additional significant protections against environmental impacts.
In a second action, the Federal District Court in Southern West Virginia will extend the court-established deadline to respond to the company's earlier request to end the litigation on the proposed Spruce No. 1 mine in Logan County. EPA and the mining operator, Mingo Logan Mining Company, a subsidiary of Arch Coal, agreed to ask for the extension in order to continue discussions to determine if a revised mining plan can be developed that will comply with the Clean Water Act. After close study, EPA determined that the proposed mine raised significant environmental and water quality concerns.
“These are important examples of EPA’s work to bring clarity to this process. Our role, along with the Army Corps of Engineers, is to ensure that mining companies avoid environmental degradation and protect water quality so that Appalachian communities don’t have to choose between jobs and their health,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Working closely with mining companies, our federal and state partners, and the public, our goal is to ensure Americans living in coal country are protected from environmental, health and economic damage.”
In a letter sent today, EPA advised the Army Corps of Engineers that, as a result of changes agreed to by Hobet Mining LLC after discussions with EPA, the Hobet 45 mine now meets the requirements of the Clean Water Act, clearing the way for a final permit. EPA worked closely with Hobet Mining LLC and the Corps to redesign the proposed Hobet 45 mine to eliminate nearly 50 percent of stream impacts, reduce anticipated stream contamination, and protect public health. The Hobet 45 operation is expected to employ 460 United Mine Workers of America coal miners.
EPA’s request to extend the court deadline for the Spruce No. 1 mine will allow EPA, the mining company, and the Corps to continue their coordination until early March 2010. In the meantime, no additional mining operations may occur at the site until EPA determines the project complies with the Clean Water Act. EPA initiated a process to restrict or prohibit mining activity based on its conclusion that Spruce No. 1 mine, one of the largest mountaintop removal mines proposed in the Appalachian coalfields, presents significant environmental and water quality concerns. The agency made clear it is willing to continue communications with the Mingo Logan Company to amend the project so that it may comply with the nation’s clean water laws. If an agreement with the company can not be reached, EPA may take the next step in the process to prohibit or restrict mining activity under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act.
Appalachian coal mining has buried an estimated 2,000 miles of streams in states including West Virginia. Scientific studies have increasingly identified significant water quality problems below surface coal mining operations that can contaminate surface waters for hundreds of years. Data from coalfield communities also indicate that coal mining is responsible for causing fish kills and contaminating fish and wildlife. EPA has committed to use its Clean Water Act regulatory authorities to reduce environmental and water quality impacts associated with surface coal mining.
More on the Hobet 45 Mine:
As originally proposed, the Hobet 45 mine would have buried nearly six miles of headwater streams and contaminated downstream waters that now support healthy streamlife and are used by local residents for fishing and swimming. EPA recommended key changes to the mine plan in consultation with Hobet Mining and the Corps that will:
Reduce stream impacts by more than 16,000 linear feet;
Require that contaminated mine drainage be directed away from surface waters;
Ensure more effective compensation for environmental losses;
Establish an adaptive management plan to further protect water quality; and
Protect highly productive streams on the mine site.
The Hobet 45 mine is one of 79 projects identified by EPA as raising environmental concerns under a special enhanced coordination process with the Corps to make decisions on a large group of permits that were delayed for several years because of litigation.
More on the Spruce No. 1 Mine:
The Spruce No. 1 mine is one of the largest mountaintop removal mines ever proposed in the Appalachian coalfields and would clear more than 2,200 acres of forestlands, bury more than seven miles of headwater streams, and further contaminate downstream waters already heavily impacted by previous mining activities. EPA is concerned that the Spruce No. 1 mine may:
Bury 7.5 miles of healthy headwater streams under 6 valley fills;
Contaminate downstream surface waters with pollutants from the mine including selenium, conductivity, iron, and aluminum – pollutants that would continue to drain into streams long after the mine is closed;
Cause additional harm to the Little Coal River watershed already significantly impacted by previous mining activities – 73 percent of streams are already impaired by mining;
Deforest 2,200 acres of mature, productive forestlands; and
Impact human health by contributing to water quality degradation and contaminating fish and wildlife.
The Spruce No. 1 Mine has been delayed for more than 10 years by citizen suits alleging the mine does not meet the requirements of federal laws. The current Clean Water Act permit for Spruce No. 1 has been held up in federal court since it was issued in 2007.
More information on the Hobet letter: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/Hobet_Jan_5_2010_letter.pdf
R003
Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced a path forward on two coal mining operations in West Virginia.
EPA is informing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that it supports issuing a Clean Water Act permit for the Hobet 45 mine in Lincoln County, operated by Hobet Mining, LLC. EPA made this decision after extensive discussions between EPA and the company resulted in additional significant protections against environmental impacts.
In a second action, the Federal District Court in Southern West Virginia will extend the court-established deadline to respond to the company's earlier request to end the litigation on the proposed Spruce No. 1 mine in Logan County. EPA and the mining operator, Mingo Logan Mining Company, a subsidiary of Arch Coal, agreed to ask for the extension in order to continue discussions to determine if a revised mining plan can be developed that will comply with the Clean Water Act. After close study, EPA determined that the proposed mine raised significant environmental and water quality concerns.
“These are important examples of EPA’s work to bring clarity to this process. Our role, along with the Army Corps of Engineers, is to ensure that mining companies avoid environmental degradation and protect water quality so that Appalachian communities don’t have to choose between jobs and their health,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Working closely with mining companies, our federal and state partners, and the public, our goal is to ensure Americans living in coal country are protected from environmental, health and economic damage.”
In a letter sent today, EPA advised the Army Corps of Engineers that, as a result of changes agreed to by Hobet Mining LLC after discussions with EPA, the Hobet 45 mine now meets the requirements of the Clean Water Act, clearing the way for a final permit. EPA worked closely with Hobet Mining LLC and the Corps to redesign the proposed Hobet 45 mine to eliminate nearly 50 percent of stream impacts, reduce anticipated stream contamination, and protect public health. The Hobet 45 operation is expected to employ 460 United Mine Workers of America coal miners.
EPA’s request to extend the court deadline for the Spruce No. 1 mine will allow EPA, the mining company, and the Corps to continue their coordination until early March 2010. In the meantime, no additional mining operations may occur at the site until EPA determines the project complies with the Clean Water Act. EPA initiated a process to restrict or prohibit mining activity based on its conclusion that Spruce No. 1 mine, one of the largest mountaintop removal mines proposed in the Appalachian coalfields, presents significant environmental and water quality concerns. The agency made clear it is willing to continue communications with the Mingo Logan Company to amend the project so that it may comply with the nation’s clean water laws. If an agreement with the company can not be reached, EPA may take the next step in the process to prohibit or restrict mining activity under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act.
Appalachian coal mining has buried an estimated 2,000 miles of streams in states including West Virginia. Scientific studies have increasingly identified significant water quality problems below surface coal mining operations that can contaminate surface waters for hundreds of years. Data from coalfield communities also indicate that coal mining is responsible for causing fish kills and contaminating fish and wildlife. EPA has committed to use its Clean Water Act regulatory authorities to reduce environmental and water quality impacts associated with surface coal mining.
More on the Hobet 45 Mine:
As originally proposed, the Hobet 45 mine would have buried nearly six miles of headwater streams and contaminated downstream waters that now support healthy streamlife and are used by local residents for fishing and swimming. EPA recommended key changes to the mine plan in consultation with Hobet Mining and the Corps that will:
Reduce stream impacts by more than 16,000 linear feet;
Require that contaminated mine drainage be directed away from surface waters;
Ensure more effective compensation for environmental losses;
Establish an adaptive management plan to further protect water quality; and
Protect highly productive streams on the mine site.
The Hobet 45 mine is one of 79 projects identified by EPA as raising environmental concerns under a special enhanced coordination process with the Corps to make decisions on a large group of permits that were delayed for several years because of litigation.
More on the Spruce No. 1 Mine:
The Spruce No. 1 mine is one of the largest mountaintop removal mines ever proposed in the Appalachian coalfields and would clear more than 2,200 acres of forestlands, bury more than seven miles of headwater streams, and further contaminate downstream waters already heavily impacted by previous mining activities. EPA is concerned that the Spruce No. 1 mine may:
Bury 7.5 miles of healthy headwater streams under 6 valley fills;
Contaminate downstream surface waters with pollutants from the mine including selenium, conductivity, iron, and aluminum – pollutants that would continue to drain into streams long after the mine is closed;
Cause additional harm to the Little Coal River watershed already significantly impacted by previous mining activities – 73 percent of streams are already impaired by mining;
Deforest 2,200 acres of mature, productive forestlands; and
Impact human health by contributing to water quality degradation and contaminating fish and wildlife.
The Spruce No. 1 Mine has been delayed for more than 10 years by citizen suits alleging the mine does not meet the requirements of federal laws. The current Clean Water Act permit for Spruce No. 1 has been held up in federal court since it was issued in 2007.
More information on the Hobet letter: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/Hobet_Jan_5_2010_letter.pdf
R003
Note: If a link above doesn't work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
