from EPA:
EPA Formally Announces Phase-in of Clean Air Act Permitting for Greenhouse Gases
Agency reiterates no stationary source requirements until 2011
WASHINGTON – Under a final decision issued today by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) no stationary sources will be required to get Clean Air Act permits that cover greenhouse gases (GHGs) before January 2011. EPA has pledged to take sensible steps to address the billions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution that threaten Americans’ health and welfare, and is providing time for large industrial facilities and state governments to put in place cost-effective, innovative technologies to control and reduce carbon pollution. Today’s announcement is the first step in EPA’s phased in approach to addressing GHG emissions laid out by Administrator Lisa P. Jackson earlier this month. “This is a common sense plan for phasing in the protections of the Clean Air Act. It gives large facilities the time they need to innovate, governments the time to prepare to cut greenhouse gases and it ensures that we don’t push this problem off to our children and grandchildren,” said EPA Administrator Jackson. “With a clear process in place, it’s now time for American innovators and entrepreneurs to go to work and lead us into the clean energy economy of the future.” Today’s action determines that Clean Air Act construction and operating permit requirements for the largest emitting facilities will begin when the first national rule controlling GHGs takes effect. If finalized as proposed, the rule limiting GHG emissions for cars and light trucks would trigger these requirements in January 2011 – the earliest model year 2012 vehicles meeting the standards can be sold in the United States. The agency expects to issue final vehicle GHG standards shortly. EPA has committed to focusing its GHG permitting requirements on the largest sources. The agency will make a decision later this spring on the amount of GHGs facilities can emit before having to include limits for these emissions in their permits. Today’s action is the final step in EPA’s reconsideration of the December 18, 2008 memorandum entitled “EPA’s Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program.” The final action clarifies when GHGs and other pollutants are covered under Clean Air Act permitting programs. More information and the letter Administrator Jackson sent last month outlining this approach and timeline: http://www.epa.gov/nsr/guidance.html
Sound bites available: http://www.epa.gov/adminweb/multimedia/newscontent/2010-3-25-oa/index2.html
Monday, March 29, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
West Virginia Supreme Court Reverses Portions of DuPont Class Action Verdict
An important decision was issued by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals this past week. Perrine v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours, et al, Nos. 34333, 34334 and 34335 involved a class action brought by residents of Spelter claiming damages as a result of the operation of a nearby zinc smelter. The history of the plant, and how DuPont ended up being sheld responsible for the effects of its operation, are too lengthy to be set forth here. (Ken Ward has an article on the case here.) Suffice it to say that, after lengthy litigation, plaintiffs were awarded a little over $381,000,000 for soil and structural remediation, medical monitoring, and punitive damages.
On appeal, the Court ruled that punitive damages are not available for medical monitoring. Here's Syllabus Point 5:
5. Punitive damages may not be awarded on a cause of action for medical monitoring.
It doesn't get much clearer than that. As a result, the Court cut the punitive damages that were awarded as a result of the medical monitoring award. More importantly, from DuPont's standpoint, the Copurt allowed it to show that some or all of the plaintiffs filed outside the statute of limitations.
We reverse those portions of the September 14, 2007, and September 20, 2007, orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on the issue of the statute of limitations. Accordingly, we remand with directions to the circuit court to hold a jury trial on the sole issue of when the Plaintiffs possessed the requisite knowledge to trigger the running of the statute of limitations. If the jury determines that the Plaintiffs did not have the requisite knowledge more than two years prior to filing their cause of action, then the judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, as modified by this opinion, stands. If, however, the jury determines that the Plaintiffs had the requisite knowledge more than two years prior to filing their cause of action, then the trial court must set aside the verdict and render judgment in favor of DuPont.
It appears from some evidence, such as the hiring or consulting with lawyers more than 2 years before the lawsuit was filed, that the plaintiffs may have had sufficient knowledge of potential harm and filed too late. If a jury finds that is so, the whole case gets tossed out.
It's a long decision, and is less an environmental law decision than a punitive damages case, but it is instructive and worth a read.
For another instructive analysis, here's Jeff Mehalic's take on the decision.
On appeal, the Court ruled that punitive damages are not available for medical monitoring. Here's Syllabus Point 5:
5. Punitive damages may not be awarded on a cause of action for medical monitoring.
It doesn't get much clearer than that. As a result, the Court cut the punitive damages that were awarded as a result of the medical monitoring award. More importantly, from DuPont's standpoint, the Copurt allowed it to show that some or all of the plaintiffs filed outside the statute of limitations.
We reverse those portions of the September 14, 2007, and September 20, 2007, orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on the issue of the statute of limitations. Accordingly, we remand with directions to the circuit court to hold a jury trial on the sole issue of when the Plaintiffs possessed the requisite knowledge to trigger the running of the statute of limitations. If the jury determines that the Plaintiffs did not have the requisite knowledge more than two years prior to filing their cause of action, then the judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, as modified by this opinion, stands. If, however, the jury determines that the Plaintiffs had the requisite knowledge more than two years prior to filing their cause of action, then the trial court must set aside the verdict and render judgment in favor of DuPont.
It appears from some evidence, such as the hiring or consulting with lawyers more than 2 years before the lawsuit was filed, that the plaintiffs may have had sufficient knowledge of potential harm and filed too late. If a jury finds that is so, the whole case gets tossed out.
It's a long decision, and is less an environmental law decision than a punitive damages case, but it is instructive and worth a read.
For another instructive analysis, here's Jeff Mehalic's take on the decision.
Friday, March 26, 2010
EPA Vetoes 404 Permit for Arch Coal's Spruce Mine
According to the New York Times, EPA has proposed a veto for the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit for Arch Coal's Spruce No. 1 surface mine, one of the largest mountaintop mining projects ever proposed. (See EPA press release below for a link to the proposed veto.) The veto will be in the Federal Register, and a 60 day public comment period will be allowed. EPA has apparently promised a hearing in the area. It should be a wild time, if past meetings are evidence, and if any of the 250 miners who would have been hired for the mine show up to participate.
The veto was not entirely unexpected, as Ry Rivard of the Charleston Daily Mail reported today. And maybe there's a bright spot. Arch Coal is pretty forward-thinking about its operations, and knew that EPA could issue a veto if it didn't substantially change its plans. I assume it felt pretty strongly about its proposed mine plan, and its (and the Corps') ability to defend the 404 permit. If Arch appeals the permit denial, it could bring a lot of MTM issues to a head, and we could be hearing lots more from Joe Lovett and Bob McLuskey.
And as usual, Ken Ward has a detailed explanation of the situation here.
Here's EPA's press release:
EPA Proposes Veto of Mine Permit Under the Clean Water Act
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced its proposal under the Clean Water Act to significantly restrict or prohibit mountain top mining at the Spruce No. 1 surface mine in Logan County, W. Va. Spruce No.1 mine is one of the largest mountaintop removal operations ever proposed in Central Appalachia. The project was permitted in 2007 and subsequently delayed by litigation. The Spruce No. 1 mine would bury over 7 miles of headwater streams, directly impact 2,278 acres of forestland and degrade water quality in streams adjacent to the mine.
EPA’s proposed determination comes after extended discussions with the company failed to produce an agreement that would lead to a significant decrease of the environmental and health impacts of the Spruce No. 1 mine.
“Coal, and coal mining, is part of our nation’s energy future, and for that reason EPA has made repeated efforts to foster dialogue and find a responsible path forward. But we must prevent the significant and irreversible damage that comes from mining pollution -- and the damage from this project would be irreversible,” said EPA Regional Administrator for the Mid-Atlantic, Shawn Garvin. “This recommendation is consistent with our broader Clean Water Act efforts in Central Appalachia. EPA has a duty under the law to protect water quality and safeguard the people who rely on these waters for drinking, fishing and swimming.”
EPA has used its Clean Water Act veto authority in just 12 circumstances since 1972 and never for a previously permitted project.
The proposed determination, signed today by Regional Administrator Garvin, identifies numerous potential adverse impacts associated with the Spruce No. 1 project:
· Water Quality Impacts: The mine will cause adverse impacts to drinking water, native aquatic and water-dependent communities in the Spruce Fork watershed. Drainage from the Spruce No. 1 project is likely to include high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) and selenium which adversely affect the naturally occurring aquatic communities. These include birth defects in fish and other aquatic life and can also result in toxic effects to embryos, resulting in abnormal development or death for those organisms.
· Fish and Wildlife Impacts: Mining waste placed into headwater streams will impact fish and wildlife which depend for all or part of their lifecycles on these headwater systems. Ecosystem functions performed by headwaters are lost when the headwater stream is buried or removed. These functions are lost not only to the headwater stream itself, but also to downstream aquatic ecosystems.
· Mitigation Impacts: The project’s mitigation plan inadequately evaluates the nature and extent of mining related aquatic impacts and therefore fails to replace streams’ lost ecological services. Natural stream channels buried by mining will be replaced, in part, by ditches being built to drain stormwater off of the mine, not to compensate for natural stream losses. These ditches will also drain water contaminated by mining into streams adjacent to the mine.
· Cumulative Mining Impacts: EPA believes that the Spruce No. 1 project, in conjunction with numerous other mining operations either under construction or proposed for the Coal River basin, will contribute to the cumulative loss of water quality, aquatic systems, and forest resources. The Coal River basin is already heavily mined and substantially impaired. Landscape and site specific assessments reveal that past and current mountaintop mining has caused substantial, irreplaceable loss of resources and an irreversible effect on these resources within the Coal River basin.
CWA Section 404(c) authorizes EPA to restrict or prohibit placing certain pollutants in streams, lakes, rivers, wetlands and other waters if the agency determines that the activities would result in “unacceptable adverse impacts” to the environment, water quality, or water supplies. This authority applies to proposed projects as well as projects previously permitted under the CWA. A final decision to restrict or prohibit the Spruce No.1 mine will be made in EPA Headquarters based on a recommendation from the Regional Administrator, public comments, and discussions with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Mingo Logan Coal Company.
The proposed determination is being published in the federal register and EPA is taking public comment for 60 days. EPA is also scheduling a public hearing in West Virginia to provide an additional opportunity for public input.
The proposed determination: http://www.epa.gov/region03/mtntop/spruce1documents.html
The veto was not entirely unexpected, as Ry Rivard of the Charleston Daily Mail reported today. And maybe there's a bright spot. Arch Coal is pretty forward-thinking about its operations, and knew that EPA could issue a veto if it didn't substantially change its plans. I assume it felt pretty strongly about its proposed mine plan, and its (and the Corps') ability to defend the 404 permit. If Arch appeals the permit denial, it could bring a lot of MTM issues to a head, and we could be hearing lots more from Joe Lovett and Bob McLuskey.
And as usual, Ken Ward has a detailed explanation of the situation here.
Here's EPA's press release:
EPA Proposes Veto of Mine Permit Under the Clean Water Act
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced its proposal under the Clean Water Act to significantly restrict or prohibit mountain top mining at the Spruce No. 1 surface mine in Logan County, W. Va. Spruce No.1 mine is one of the largest mountaintop removal operations ever proposed in Central Appalachia. The project was permitted in 2007 and subsequently delayed by litigation. The Spruce No. 1 mine would bury over 7 miles of headwater streams, directly impact 2,278 acres of forestland and degrade water quality in streams adjacent to the mine.
EPA’s proposed determination comes after extended discussions with the company failed to produce an agreement that would lead to a significant decrease of the environmental and health impacts of the Spruce No. 1 mine.
“Coal, and coal mining, is part of our nation’s energy future, and for that reason EPA has made repeated efforts to foster dialogue and find a responsible path forward. But we must prevent the significant and irreversible damage that comes from mining pollution -- and the damage from this project would be irreversible,” said EPA Regional Administrator for the Mid-Atlantic, Shawn Garvin. “This recommendation is consistent with our broader Clean Water Act efforts in Central Appalachia. EPA has a duty under the law to protect water quality and safeguard the people who rely on these waters for drinking, fishing and swimming.”
EPA has used its Clean Water Act veto authority in just 12 circumstances since 1972 and never for a previously permitted project.
The proposed determination, signed today by Regional Administrator Garvin, identifies numerous potential adverse impacts associated with the Spruce No. 1 project:
· Water Quality Impacts: The mine will cause adverse impacts to drinking water, native aquatic and water-dependent communities in the Spruce Fork watershed. Drainage from the Spruce No. 1 project is likely to include high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) and selenium which adversely affect the naturally occurring aquatic communities. These include birth defects in fish and other aquatic life and can also result in toxic effects to embryos, resulting in abnormal development or death for those organisms.
· Fish and Wildlife Impacts: Mining waste placed into headwater streams will impact fish and wildlife which depend for all or part of their lifecycles on these headwater systems. Ecosystem functions performed by headwaters are lost when the headwater stream is buried or removed. These functions are lost not only to the headwater stream itself, but also to downstream aquatic ecosystems.
· Mitigation Impacts: The project’s mitigation plan inadequately evaluates the nature and extent of mining related aquatic impacts and therefore fails to replace streams’ lost ecological services. Natural stream channels buried by mining will be replaced, in part, by ditches being built to drain stormwater off of the mine, not to compensate for natural stream losses. These ditches will also drain water contaminated by mining into streams adjacent to the mine.
· Cumulative Mining Impacts: EPA believes that the Spruce No. 1 project, in conjunction with numerous other mining operations either under construction or proposed for the Coal River basin, will contribute to the cumulative loss of water quality, aquatic systems, and forest resources. The Coal River basin is already heavily mined and substantially impaired. Landscape and site specific assessments reveal that past and current mountaintop mining has caused substantial, irreplaceable loss of resources and an irreversible effect on these resources within the Coal River basin.
CWA Section 404(c) authorizes EPA to restrict or prohibit placing certain pollutants in streams, lakes, rivers, wetlands and other waters if the agency determines that the activities would result in “unacceptable adverse impacts” to the environment, water quality, or water supplies. This authority applies to proposed projects as well as projects previously permitted under the CWA. A final decision to restrict or prohibit the Spruce No.1 mine will be made in EPA Headquarters based on a recommendation from the Regional Administrator, public comments, and discussions with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Mingo Logan Coal Company.
The proposed determination is being published in the federal register and EPA is taking public comment for 60 days. EPA is also scheduling a public hearing in West Virginia to provide an additional opportunity for public input.
The proposed determination: http://www.epa.gov/region03/mtntop/spruce1documents.html
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Peabody Energy Invests $15 Million in New Carbon Sequestration Process
America - what a great country.
That's the message from New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who wrote about a venture capital entrepreneur and Stanford scientist who have developed and are marketing a way to combine seawater and CO2 to produce cement, just as coral polyps do. And it must be more than a pipe dream - Peabody Energy is putting $15 million into their company, called Calera.
Here's a bit from Friedman's piece:
Let me introduce Vinod Khosla and K.R. Sridhar. Khosla, the co-founder of Sun, set out several years ago to fund energy start-ups. His favorite baby right now is a company called Calera, which was begun with the Stanford Professor Brent Constantz, who was studying how corals use CO2 to produce their calcium carbonate bones.
If you combine CO2 with seawater, or any kind of briny water, you produce CaCO3, calcium carbonate. That is not only the stuff of corals. It is also the same white, pasty goop that appears on your shower head from hard (calcium-rich) water. At its demonstration plant near Santa Cruz, Calif., Calera has developed a process that takes CO2 emissions from a coal- or gas-fired power plant and sprays seawater into it and naturally converts most of the CO2 into calcium carbonate, which is then spray-dried into cement or shaped into little pellets that can be used as concrete aggregates for building walls or highways — instead of letting the CO2 emissions go into the atmosphere and produce climate change.
If this can scale, it would eliminate the need for expensive carbon-sequestration facilities
planned to be built alongside coal-fired power plants — and it might actually make the heretofore specious notion of “clean coal” a possibility.
Here's hoping they get rich.
That's the message from New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who wrote about a venture capital entrepreneur and Stanford scientist who have developed and are marketing a way to combine seawater and CO2 to produce cement, just as coral polyps do. And it must be more than a pipe dream - Peabody Energy is putting $15 million into their company, called Calera.
Here's a bit from Friedman's piece:
Let me introduce Vinod Khosla and K.R. Sridhar. Khosla, the co-founder of Sun, set out several years ago to fund energy start-ups. His favorite baby right now is a company called Calera, which was begun with the Stanford Professor Brent Constantz, who was studying how corals use CO2 to produce their calcium carbonate bones.
If you combine CO2 with seawater, or any kind of briny water, you produce CaCO3, calcium carbonate. That is not only the stuff of corals. It is also the same white, pasty goop that appears on your shower head from hard (calcium-rich) water. At its demonstration plant near Santa Cruz, Calif., Calera has developed a process that takes CO2 emissions from a coal- or gas-fired power plant and sprays seawater into it and naturally converts most of the CO2 into calcium carbonate, which is then spray-dried into cement or shaped into little pellets that can be used as concrete aggregates for building walls or highways — instead of letting the CO2 emissions go into the atmosphere and produce climate change.
If this can scale, it would eliminate the need for expensive carbon-sequestration facilities
planned to be built alongside coal-fired power plants — and it might actually make the heretofore specious notion of “clean coal” a possibility.
Here's hoping they get rich.
EPA to Study Effects of Hydraulic Fracturing
Huge reserves of natural gas are found in shale formations, but they hold the gas more tightly than sandstone formations, which have more pore space. Until recently, simply putting a well into the shale formation did not release enough gas to make the well economical. However, with the development of horizontal drilling, which turns the drillstem and bores along the length of the shale seam, such wells became economical. Such horizontal wells are also fractured, or "fracked," by injecting water, chemicals and proppant, like sand, into the formation to open it up and allow the gas to move more freely.
Some people have claimed that putting these chemicals underground poses a danger to drinking water supplies. Although there is no reason that the fracking chemicals would reach underground aquifers, which are sealed off during the drilling, the fear remains, and is delaying drilling permits in states like New York. As a result, EPA is going to do a study of fracking and the likelihood of drinking water source contamination. The press release follows.
EPA Initiates Hydraulic Fracturing Study: Agency seeks input from Science Advisory Board The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will conduct a comprehensive research study to investigate the potential adverse impact that hydraulic fracturing may have on water quality and public health. Natural gas plays a key role in our nation’s clean energy future and the process known as hydraulic fracturing is one way of accessing that vital resource. There are concerns that hydraulic fracturing may impact ground water and surface water quality in ways that threaten human health and the environment. To address these concerns and strengthen our clean energy future and in response to language inserted into the fiscal year 2010 Appropriations Act, EPA is re-allocating $1.9 million for this comprehensive, peer-reviewed study for FY10 and requesting funding for FY11 in the president’s budget proposal.
EPA is in the very early stages of designing a hydraulic fracturing research program. The Agency is proposing the process begin with (1) defining research questions and identifying data gaps; (2) conducting a robust process for stakeholder input and research prioritization; (3) with this input, developing a detailed study design that will undergo external peer-review, leading to (4) implementing the planned research studies.
To support this initial planning phase and guide the development of the study plan, the agency is seeking suggestions and comments from the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB)—an independent, external federal advisory committee. The agency has requested that the Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) of the SAB evaluate and provide advice on EPA’s proposed approach. The agency will use this advice and extensive stakeholder input to guide the design of the study.
Hydraulic fracturing is a process that drills vertical and horizontal cracks underground that help withdraw gas, or oil, from coalbeds, shale and other geological formations. While each site is unique, in general, the process involves vertical and horizontal drilling, taking water from the ground, injecting fracturing fluids and sands into the formation, and withdrawing gas and separating and managing the leftover waters.
A federal register notice was issued March 18, announcing a SAB meeting April 7-8.
More information on hydraulic fracturing: http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/uic/wells_hydrofrac.html
More information on the SAB and the supporting documents: http://www.epa.gov/sab
Some people have claimed that putting these chemicals underground poses a danger to drinking water supplies. Although there is no reason that the fracking chemicals would reach underground aquifers, which are sealed off during the drilling, the fear remains, and is delaying drilling permits in states like New York. As a result, EPA is going to do a study of fracking and the likelihood of drinking water source contamination. The press release follows.
EPA Initiates Hydraulic Fracturing Study: Agency seeks input from Science Advisory Board The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will conduct a comprehensive research study to investigate the potential adverse impact that hydraulic fracturing may have on water quality and public health. Natural gas plays a key role in our nation’s clean energy future and the process known as hydraulic fracturing is one way of accessing that vital resource. There are concerns that hydraulic fracturing may impact ground water and surface water quality in ways that threaten human health and the environment. To address these concerns and strengthen our clean energy future and in response to language inserted into the fiscal year 2010 Appropriations Act, EPA is re-allocating $1.9 million for this comprehensive, peer-reviewed study for FY10 and requesting funding for FY11 in the president’s budget proposal.
EPA is in the very early stages of designing a hydraulic fracturing research program. The Agency is proposing the process begin with (1) defining research questions and identifying data gaps; (2) conducting a robust process for stakeholder input and research prioritization; (3) with this input, developing a detailed study design that will undergo external peer-review, leading to (4) implementing the planned research studies.
To support this initial planning phase and guide the development of the study plan, the agency is seeking suggestions and comments from the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB)—an independent, external federal advisory committee. The agency has requested that the Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) of the SAB evaluate and provide advice on EPA’s proposed approach. The agency will use this advice and extensive stakeholder input to guide the design of the study.
Hydraulic fracturing is a process that drills vertical and horizontal cracks underground that help withdraw gas, or oil, from coalbeds, shale and other geological formations. While each site is unique, in general, the process involves vertical and horizontal drilling, taking water from the ground, injecting fracturing fluids and sands into the formation, and withdrawing gas and separating and managing the leftover waters.
A federal register notice was issued March 18, announcing a SAB meeting April 7-8.
More information on hydraulic fracturing: http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/uic/wells_hydrofrac.html
More information on the SAB and the supporting documents: http://www.epa.gov/sab
Saturday, March 20, 2010
West Virginia DEP Issues Draft 303(d) List
Every couple of years, the WV DEP is required to publish a list of those streams that are impaired. This "303(d)list" (from the Clean Water Act section that imposes the requirement) describes the segment of the stream that is impaired and the reason it is deemed to be violating water quality standards. Later, a total maximum daily load, or TMDL, is done for the stream. The TMDL sets restrictions on point source and nonpoint source reductions that are intended to allow the stream to come back into compliance with water quality standards. The DEP is proposing the 303(d) list in draft form, and soliciting comments on it. Speak now or hold your peace for 2 years.
The Department of Environmental Protection, under the authority of the federal Clean Water Act, Section 303(d) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations, 40 CFR Part 130.7, has developed a draft list of West Virginia’s impaired streams and lakes.
An “impaired water” is a water body, which, due to a pollutant or combination of pollutants, fails to meet state water quality standards. By violating applicable water quality standards, impaired waters fail to support one or more of their designated uses such as, public drinking water supply, aquatic life propagation, or contact recreation.
The WVDEP is required to update its list of impaired waters every two years. The list, commonly known as the 303(d) List, is compiled from readily available information and serves as an inventory of waters for which Total Maximum Daily Loads must be developed.
In order to allow public participation in the listing process, a public comment period began March 15. The comment period ends April 19, 2010.
Comments may be submitted by e-mail to
Stephen.A.Young@wv.gov or via U.S. mail to:
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Water and Waste Management
2010 303(d) List – Attn: Stephen A. Young
601 57th Street, S.E.
Charleston, WV 25304
The draft West Virginia 2010 Section 303(d) List may be viewed on DEP’s Web site, http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/WATERSHED/IR/Pages/default.aspx
For more information about the impaired streams list, please contact Steve Young at (304) 926-0495.
The Department of Environmental Protection, under the authority of the federal Clean Water Act, Section 303(d) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations, 40 CFR Part 130.7, has developed a draft list of West Virginia’s impaired streams and lakes.
An “impaired water” is a water body, which, due to a pollutant or combination of pollutants, fails to meet state water quality standards. By violating applicable water quality standards, impaired waters fail to support one or more of their designated uses such as, public drinking water supply, aquatic life propagation, or contact recreation.
The WVDEP is required to update its list of impaired waters every two years. The list, commonly known as the 303(d) List, is compiled from readily available information and serves as an inventory of waters for which Total Maximum Daily Loads must be developed.
In order to allow public participation in the listing process, a public comment period began March 15. The comment period ends April 19, 2010.
Comments may be submitted by e-mail to
Stephen.A.Young@wv.gov or via U.S. mail to:
West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Water and Waste Management
2010 303(d) List – Attn: Stephen A. Young
601 57th Street, S.E.
Charleston, WV 25304
The draft West Virginia 2010 Section 303(d) List may be viewed on DEP’s Web site, http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/WATERSHED/IR/Pages/default.aspx
For more information about the impaired streams list, please contact Steve Young at (304) 926-0495.
Legal Battle Over Greenhouse Gas Emissions Heats Up
Last year EPA determined that greenhouse gases (GHGs), like carbon dioxide and methane, pose a danger to the environment through their contribution to global warming. Whether warming is occurring as a result of human activity is being fought out in the blogosphere, but the real resolution will probably occur in the courts. Some states and businesses have challenged the endangerment finding, and other states and organizations are lining up on the other side. Here's a report from the New York Times about the battle that is shaping up.
Some lawsuits have been brought by plaintiffs alleging damage from global warming (Hurricane Katrina victims, Alaskan Inuits) and naming specific energy companies as defendants. These have been hailed by environmentalists as a way to force reductions in GHGs, but they may turn out to be trouble for those seeking to prove the harmful effects of GHGs. The impetus for regulating GHGs comes from questionable computer models about what will happen to the climate in the future; the lawsuits could be the first place where those models are shown to be unreliable and wrong.
Some lawsuits have been brought by plaintiffs alleging damage from global warming (Hurricane Katrina victims, Alaskan Inuits) and naming specific energy companies as defendants. These have been hailed by environmentalists as a way to force reductions in GHGs, but they may turn out to be trouble for those seeking to prove the harmful effects of GHGs. The impetus for regulating GHGs comes from questionable computer models about what will happen to the climate in the future; the lawsuits could be the first place where those models are shown to be unreliable and wrong.
EPA Issues Order To Belle Plant
EPA issued the following news release relating to the DuPont Belle Plant, which was the site of an accident earlier this year. It should be noted that DuPont has one of the most effective worker safety programs in the country, and the Belle plant management and safety staff is of the highest caliber.
EPA orders DuPont Belle facility to take safety measures
PHILADELPHIA (March 19, 2010) -- The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has ordered E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company to review environmental safety procedures at its industrial plant in Belle, W. Va., where the release of phosgene gas in January led to the death of a DuPont employee.
The order results from an EPA inspection of the facility following three releases in January, including the release that caused the death. Based on EPA’s inspection and available information about the operation of the facility, EPA has determined that the facility has not satisfied Clean Air Act requirements that are designed to help prevent accidental releases and minimize the consequences of releases that do occur. The alleged violations include:
· failure to identify hazards which may result from releases using appropriate hazard assessment techniques;
· failure to design and maintain a safe facility; and
· failure to minimize the consequences of accidental releases that do occur.
EPA’s order requires DuPont to, among other things, review all of the facility processes that may pose a threat of accidental releases, provide a report to EPA detailing the review, and implement any modifications to standard operating procedures that are warranted as a result of this review. The order provides that DuPont may request a conference with EPA concerning the alleged violations and requirements of the order.
Throughout the on-going investigation, EPA has coordinated with the Chemical Safety Board, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection.
EPA orders DuPont Belle facility to take safety measures
PHILADELPHIA (March 19, 2010) -- The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has ordered E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company to review environmental safety procedures at its industrial plant in Belle, W. Va., where the release of phosgene gas in January led to the death of a DuPont employee.
The order results from an EPA inspection of the facility following three releases in January, including the release that caused the death. Based on EPA’s inspection and available information about the operation of the facility, EPA has determined that the facility has not satisfied Clean Air Act requirements that are designed to help prevent accidental releases and minimize the consequences of releases that do occur. The alleged violations include:
· failure to identify hazards which may result from releases using appropriate hazard assessment techniques;
· failure to design and maintain a safe facility; and
· failure to minimize the consequences of accidental releases that do occur.
EPA’s order requires DuPont to, among other things, review all of the facility processes that may pose a threat of accidental releases, provide a report to EPA detailing the review, and implement any modifications to standard operating procedures that are warranted as a result of this review. The order provides that DuPont may request a conference with EPA concerning the alleged violations and requirements of the order.
Throughout the on-going investigation, EPA has coordinated with the Chemical Safety Board, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Hazardous Waste Fee Bill Vetoed on a Technicality
Gov. Manchin vetoed a recently-passed bill that would have extended the Hazardous Waste Management Fee, because the title of the bill was wrong. The Daily Mail reports that
"Manchin's veto message said the final bill's title erroneously refers to a separate fund with an almost identical name. That title also fails to mention a certification fee also continued in the bill."
The mistake is likely to be quickly corrected during the next Special Session.
"Manchin's veto message said the final bill's title erroneously refers to a separate fund with an almost identical name. That title also fails to mention a certification fee also continued in the bill."
The mistake is likely to be quickly corrected during the next Special Session.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Treatment for Marcellus Frac Water
Here is a report from WV Public Radio about work that the WV Water Research Institute is doing to clean up the water that is returned from Marcellus Shale wells, which is often laden with total dissolved solids. The work is important because it will help Marcellus drillers save money by reusing the produced water, and not sending it off to an underground injection well for disposal.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Saving Energy Through Better Math
Ecogeek reports that IBM is claiming a new data processing algorithm is almost 100 times more efficient at processing large amounts of data. The result is less time and power needed to crunch large volumes of data, resulting in less energy demand. More affordable data-processing power will now be available to scientists who do not have access to super computers.
Texas Wind Power Generates 22% of Power Needs, But Not All Can Be Used
Good news on the wind front, as reported in Ecogeek. Texas recently produced over 20% of its power needs by wind alone. Unfortunately, the transmission infrastructure only existed for a part of that power to be transported to consumers.
More work is needed to create cost-effective storage, through batteries, compressed air, or the like, or for more transmission capability. Until that happens, and for many years to come, we're going to need to burn fossil fuels if we're to have a reliable base load of electrical energy.
More work is needed to create cost-effective storage, through batteries, compressed air, or the like, or for more transmission capability. Until that happens, and for many years to come, we're going to need to burn fossil fuels if we're to have a reliable base load of electrical energy.
EPA Agrees to Consider Limits on Greenhouse Gases to Prevent Ocean Acidification?
The New York Times' Energy and Environment blog reports that EPA has agreed to settle a lawsuit in Washington State by agreeing to consider regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Water Act. I haven't seen the settlement agreement, but this is how the Times characterized it:
U.S. EPA settled a lawsuit yesterday by agreeing to use the Clean Water Act to address ocean acidification, a move that some see as opening a side door to federal curbs on greenhouse gases that scientists link to problems in the marine environment.
The settlement with the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity directly addresses EPA's failure to require Washington state to list its marine waters as impaired by rising acidity. The deal requires EPA to begin a rulemaking aimed at helping states identify and address acidic coastal waters.
The effort could lead to the first Clean Water Act effort to protect acidifying marine waters -- a move the center sees leading to restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, just as the water law led to regulation of air emissions of mercury and pollution that causes acid rain.
Interesting. Having lost huge amounts of ground on the debate over the contribution of CO2 to global warming/climate change, the EPA is going to consider regulating it through the back door, through the Clean Water Act.
U.S. EPA settled a lawsuit yesterday by agreeing to use the Clean Water Act to address ocean acidification, a move that some see as opening a side door to federal curbs on greenhouse gases that scientists link to problems in the marine environment.
The settlement with the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity directly addresses EPA's failure to require Washington state to list its marine waters as impaired by rising acidity. The deal requires EPA to begin a rulemaking aimed at helping states identify and address acidic coastal waters.
The effort could lead to the first Clean Water Act effort to protect acidifying marine waters -- a move the center sees leading to restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, just as the water law led to regulation of air emissions of mercury and pollution that causes acid rain.
Interesting. Having lost huge amounts of ground on the debate over the contribution of CO2 to global warming/climate change, the EPA is going to consider regulating it through the back door, through the Clean Water Act.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Governors Object to EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases
Gov. Joe Manchin has joined governors from about 20 other states in signing a letter to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the minority leaders of the House and Senate, asking them to restrain EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. They said that such regulation, with its huge effect on the economy, was too important to be left to an administrative agency.
This is another sign that the climate change debate has changed and is trending against the forces of those who believe that humans are causing fundamental changes in global climate. A recent Gallup poll shows fewer people than ever believe that global climate change poses a significant risk, and politicians have certainly taken notice.
This is another sign that the climate change debate has changed and is trending against the forces of those who believe that humans are causing fundamental changes in global climate. A recent Gallup poll shows fewer people than ever believe that global climate change poses a significant risk, and politicians have certainly taken notice.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Pennsylvania DEP Employees Assessed Millions For Violating Permittee's Civil Rights
This report from the Pennsylvania Brownfields and Environmental Law blog states that a federal jury in Philadelphia found 4 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection employees personally liable for violating the civil rights of the owners of a company that was eventually forced to shut down because it could not obtain a Title V air permit. Joel Bolstein reports the following:
What I know is that the case was allowed to go to the jury and the jury returned a verdict finding that the four named Department employees (1) violated MFS's right to not be retaliated against for exercising their First Amendment rights; (2) violated MFS's right to due process; (3) violated equal protection by treating MFS differently than similarly situated corporation; and (4) intentionally interfered with a contractual or prospective contractual relationship. Most importantly, the jury found that each of the four Department employees acted outside the scope of their employment. In finding that the Department employees acted outside the scope of their employment, the protection generally accorded by the doctrine of sovereign immunity or qualified governmental immunity was removed. In the end, the jury awarded MFS $6.5 million . . .
Ordinarily state employees have immunity from suit, particularly where their official duties are involved, but in this case the judge allowed the case to go to the jury, with the reported result. I can't imagine this won't be reversed on appeal, but who knows? The case is worth a look.
What I know is that the case was allowed to go to the jury and the jury returned a verdict finding that the four named Department employees (1) violated MFS's right to not be retaliated against for exercising their First Amendment rights; (2) violated MFS's right to due process; (3) violated equal protection by treating MFS differently than similarly situated corporation; and (4) intentionally interfered with a contractual or prospective contractual relationship. Most importantly, the jury found that each of the four Department employees acted outside the scope of their employment. In finding that the Department employees acted outside the scope of their employment, the protection generally accorded by the doctrine of sovereign immunity or qualified governmental immunity was removed. In the end, the jury awarded MFS $6.5 million . . .
Ordinarily state employees have immunity from suit, particularly where their official duties are involved, but in this case the judge allowed the case to go to the jury, with the reported result. I can't imagine this won't be reversed on appeal, but who knows? The case is worth a look.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Environmental Educators To Meet In Harpers Ferry
US EPA has sent out the following notification of the 4th annual meeting of environmental educators in West Virginia. I don't know anything about it other than what's in the press release.
WHEELING, W.Va. (March 8, 2010) -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency encourages educators, community leaders, scout leaders, professors, and interested parents to participate in the West Virginia Environmental Education Association’s fourth annual conference at the Quality Hotel Conference Center in historic Harpers Ferry from March 12 to 14.
“This conference will continue to strengthen West Virginia's environmental education community by bringing environmental educators together to learn from each other about successful programs and the latest research,” said Shawn M. Garvin, EPA’s mid-Atlantic regional administrator.
The conference begins on Friday afternoon, March 12, with a field trip to the Outdoor Education Center in Jefferson County. That evening, a welcoming reception will be held at Harpers Ferry National Historic Park.
Saturday's program includes the 9 a.m. keynote address "Get Outside and Learn," by award-winning National Park Service filmmaker John Grabowska and his daughter, Hilary. There will be workshops on a wide variety of topics throughout the day and Sunday morning. Saturday evening will include an Expo and poster session, dessert social and silent auction with live music.
To register go to www.wveea.org. For information about scholarships to the conference or other questions contact Eriks Janelsins at 304-242-6855 or ejanelsins@oionline.com.
WHEELING, W.Va. (March 8, 2010) -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency encourages educators, community leaders, scout leaders, professors, and interested parents to participate in the West Virginia Environmental Education Association’s fourth annual conference at the Quality Hotel Conference Center in historic Harpers Ferry from March 12 to 14.
“This conference will continue to strengthen West Virginia's environmental education community by bringing environmental educators together to learn from each other about successful programs and the latest research,” said Shawn M. Garvin, EPA’s mid-Atlantic regional administrator.
The conference begins on Friday afternoon, March 12, with a field trip to the Outdoor Education Center in Jefferson County. That evening, a welcoming reception will be held at Harpers Ferry National Historic Park.
Saturday's program includes the 9 a.m. keynote address "Get Outside and Learn," by award-winning National Park Service filmmaker John Grabowska and his daughter, Hilary. There will be workshops on a wide variety of topics throughout the day and Sunday morning. Saturday evening will include an Expo and poster session, dessert social and silent auction with live music.
To register go to www.wveea.org. For information about scholarships to the conference or other questions contact Eriks Janelsins at 304-242-6855 or ejanelsins@oionline.com.
EPA Delays Mountaintop Mining Guidance
Ken Ward reports in the Charleston Gazette that EPA is delaying the issuance of its guidance on acceptable mountaintop mining practices, and has apparently run into opposition from some other federal agencies with authority to regulate the industry. EPA is expected to issue guidance that will require compliance with limits on selenium and specific conductance, the latter being a proxy for pollutants that EPA believes affect aquatic life.
Friday, March 5, 2010
GAO Suggests Superfund As Means Of Addressing Mountaintop Mining
On February 16 the General Accounting Office released Surface Coal Mining: Financial Assurances for, and Long-Term Oversight of, Mines With Valley Fills in Four Appalachian States. In it, the GAO observes that there are laws other than the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) that might be used to monitor the long term effects of surface mining. One of those federal acts is the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), or Superfund. Over the years Superfund has caused many industrial companies to engage in extremely costly remediations, and the thought of applying that Act to coal mines sends shivers down the spines of those in the industry.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
DEP Seeks Comment On Narrative Criteria In West Virginia Water Quality Standards
The DEP is seeking suggestions on how it should interpret West Virginia's narrative water quality criteria. The narrative criteria are non-numeric criteria in the water quality standards, such as the general prohibition against "materials in concentrations which are harmful, hazardous or toxic to man, animal or aquatic life" (47 CSR 2-3.2.e) or "any . . . condition . . .which adversely alters the integrity of the waters of the State including wetlands; no significant adverse impact to the chemical, physical, hydrologic or biological components of the aquatic ecosystems shall be allowed." (47 CSR 2-3.2.i).
These passages have been interpreted by EPA to require significant restrictions on mountaintop mining because of potential impairment of a single type of aquatic insect. EPA has criticized the state for not having a method of implementing its narrative standard. Secretary Huffman is now proposing to come up with an implementation method. However, as he notes, it will affect everyone, not only mining.
Here's the DEP press release:
For More Information
Kathy Cosco, 304-926-0440
WVDEP Seeks Input On Narrative Criteria Protocol
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s Cabinet Secretary, Randy Huffman, spoke to the Senate Committee on Energy, Industry and Mining today. He was asked to give a report on the status of mining permits that are currently undergoing review by the Environmental Protection Agency.
During his presentation to the committee, Huffman announced that the agency is in the process of establishing a protocol for implementing and enforcing the state’s narrative water quality criteria.
The lack of a solid plan for enforcing the narrative standard is the main criticism the EPA has had with the state of West Virginia’s regulation of mountaintop mining activities over the past year. However, Huffman pointed out to the committee that the standard doesn’t apply to just surface mining or mining in general, but has implications across all types of industrial activities.
As part of the process for establishing a state protocol, the DEP is researching what other states are doing as well as seeking input from interested parties within the state.
“Water quality has become the main topic of conversation across all types of industry, and there is a great deal of debate about what is or should be considered impairment,”
Huffman said. “Our goal is to take into consideration the ideas of others as we develop our plan for implementing and enforcing the narrative standard.
“I’m not looking for data and reports, I have that,” he said. “Nor do I intend to debate the pros and cons of coal mining. What I am looking for are well-thought-out ideas on how we can measure aquatic life impacts and tie those impacts back to the problem where we can then fix it, using the tools of the Clean Water Act.
“The protocol we establish will be our own, but we want to give those who want to propose a solution the opportunity to have their ideas considered,” Huffman said.
Those who would like to submit ideas or scientific theories for how the agency should implement and enforce the narrative water quality standard are invited to do so by March 26. Submissions can be emailed to DEP.comments@wv.gov or mailed to:
The Department of Environmental Protection
601 57th Street SE
Charleston, WV 25304
All submissions will be placed on the agency’s website for public review.
These passages have been interpreted by EPA to require significant restrictions on mountaintop mining because of potential impairment of a single type of aquatic insect. EPA has criticized the state for not having a method of implementing its narrative standard. Secretary Huffman is now proposing to come up with an implementation method. However, as he notes, it will affect everyone, not only mining.
Here's the DEP press release:
For More Information
Kathy Cosco, 304-926-0440
WVDEP Seeks Input On Narrative Criteria Protocol
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s Cabinet Secretary, Randy Huffman, spoke to the Senate Committee on Energy, Industry and Mining today. He was asked to give a report on the status of mining permits that are currently undergoing review by the Environmental Protection Agency.
During his presentation to the committee, Huffman announced that the agency is in the process of establishing a protocol for implementing and enforcing the state’s narrative water quality criteria.
The lack of a solid plan for enforcing the narrative standard is the main criticism the EPA has had with the state of West Virginia’s regulation of mountaintop mining activities over the past year. However, Huffman pointed out to the committee that the standard doesn’t apply to just surface mining or mining in general, but has implications across all types of industrial activities.
As part of the process for establishing a state protocol, the DEP is researching what other states are doing as well as seeking input from interested parties within the state.
“Water quality has become the main topic of conversation across all types of industry, and there is a great deal of debate about what is or should be considered impairment,”
Huffman said. “Our goal is to take into consideration the ideas of others as we develop our plan for implementing and enforcing the narrative standard.
“I’m not looking for data and reports, I have that,” he said. “Nor do I intend to debate the pros and cons of coal mining. What I am looking for are well-thought-out ideas on how we can measure aquatic life impacts and tie those impacts back to the problem where we can then fix it, using the tools of the Clean Water Act.
“The protocol we establish will be our own, but we want to give those who want to propose a solution the opportunity to have their ideas considered,” Huffman said.
Those who would like to submit ideas or scientific theories for how the agency should implement and enforce the narrative water quality standard are invited to do so by March 26. Submissions can be emailed to DEP.comments@wv.gov or mailed to:
The Department of Environmental Protection
601 57th Street SE
Charleston, WV 25304
All submissions will be placed on the agency’s website for public review.
EPA issues final RICE NESHAP
Anne Blankenship reports that yesterday EPA issued the final NESHAP for reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE) that either are located at area sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions or that have a site rating of less than or equal to 500 brake horsepower and are located at major sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions.
In addition, EPA issued the final NESHAP for existing non-emergency stationary compression ignition engines greater than 500 brake horsepower that are located at major sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions. Finally, EPA is revising the provisions related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction for the engines that were regulated previously by these national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants.
This final rule is effective on May 3, 2010.
The rule can be accessed at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-3508.pdf
In addition, EPA issued the final NESHAP for existing non-emergency stationary compression ignition engines greater than 500 brake horsepower that are located at major sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions. Finally, EPA is revising the provisions related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction for the engines that were regulated previously by these national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants.
This final rule is effective on May 3, 2010.
The rule can be accessed at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-3508.pdf
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
EPA Region 3, West Virginia Issue Memorandum of Agreement on Remediation Procedures
There is a confusing mishmash of federal and state programs that govern the clean up of polluted property. Speaking generally, RCRA regulates certain sites that have been contaminated by solid and hazardous wastes, and CERCLA (Superfund) deals with hazardous substance contamination. "Hazardous substance" is a term that generally includes hazardous wastes, but is somewhat broader - yet it doesn't include petroleum products. The standards for clean up are different between these two programs, and that doesn't even include other federal programs, like TSCA, which pertains to PCBs and a few other substances. Add to that separate state programs, which set remediation levels that aren't always consistent with the feds, and you have a mess.
EPA and the states are well aware of these problems, and have tried for years to reach accommodations that would allow more consistency among the programs. (This is especially true for state voluntary remediation programs, where property owners remediate to target levels in return for agreement from the state that no further clean up will be required of them in the future.) The EPA/State agreements are usually memorialized by memoranda of agreement or memoranda of understanding, which describe the respective responsibilities of the federal and state agencies, and explain when remediation under one program will be deemed sufficient under another.
Toward that end, EPA Region 3 and the West Virginia DEP finalized a memorandum of agreement on a how they will coordinate remediation at contaminated sites in West Virginia. It should be of interest to anyone interested in remediating property in the state.
This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is entered into between the Regional Administrator,
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Region III and the Cabinet
Secretary, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) to support and
strengthen efforts to achieve cleanups that are protective of human health and welfare and the environment through the appropriate use of the State voluntary remediation program. This MOA is intended to help property owners, developers, consultants, public officials, and the general public to understand the roles and responsibilities of U.S. EPA and WVDEP and the potential utilization of the WVDEP Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) to assess and address
environmental contamination.
EPA and the states are well aware of these problems, and have tried for years to reach accommodations that would allow more consistency among the programs. (This is especially true for state voluntary remediation programs, where property owners remediate to target levels in return for agreement from the state that no further clean up will be required of them in the future.) The EPA/State agreements are usually memorialized by memoranda of agreement or memoranda of understanding, which describe the respective responsibilities of the federal and state agencies, and explain when remediation under one program will be deemed sufficient under another.
Toward that end, EPA Region 3 and the West Virginia DEP finalized a memorandum of agreement on a how they will coordinate remediation at contaminated sites in West Virginia. It should be of interest to anyone interested in remediating property in the state.
This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is entered into between the Regional Administrator,
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Region III and the Cabinet
Secretary, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) to support and
strengthen efforts to achieve cleanups that are protective of human health and welfare and the environment through the appropriate use of the State voluntary remediation program. This MOA is intended to help property owners, developers, consultants, public officials, and the general public to understand the roles and responsibilities of U.S. EPA and WVDEP and the potential utilization of the WVDEP Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) to assess and address
environmental contamination.
Wind Farms Versus Natural Gas In Texas
There's a great article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal about the conflict in Texas between those producing electricity from wind farms and those who produce it from natural gas. Every day, electricity producers have to tell the system how much power they can make available during the day. Loading usually starts with the cheapest, usually wind, and then other forms (coal, nuclear, gas) are added as needed. Gas is usually the last to come on line, because it's the most expensive. However,wind is given a special benefit - it's not penalized if the winds don't blow as hard as expected, and the wind farms end up short in their estimates, while other plants are required to make up for any shortage in their production.
Wind power is here to stay, because it has too much support, even among those of us who don't care at all that it emits no greenhouse gases. However, it will be a while before it can compete on a level playing field with fossil fuels.
Wind power is here to stay, because it has too much support, even among those of us who don't care at all that it emits no greenhouse gases. However, it will be a while before it can compete on a level playing field with fossil fuels.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
American Gypsum Recycling Wallboard
Sometimes things work like they should. Landfill tipping fees go up to pay for better environmental protection, making it more expensive to throw things away. That means it's more economical to pay someone less than the tipping fee to take away the product for recycling. Recyclers make money on both ends, paid to recycle and paid for the recycled product.
Here's a story about American Gypsum recycling unused wallboard as a soil amendment and as cattle bedding.
“At our plant we grind it up, separate the gypsum from the paper into two streams. The gypsum is pulverized and the paper is shredded into one to two inch pieces used for animal bedding,” Sauder explained. “There’s good demand for animal bedding. It’s very absorbent and takes the place of wood shavings or straw.”
USA’s Gypsum’s products come in three forms packed in 40 or 50 pound bags. A granular size can be spread with any fertilizer or lime spreader. Pulverized product is spread with Vicon-type spreaders, or drop and lime spreaders. Ultra-Fine is applied manually. Bag prices range from $3.95 to $4.50. It is sold primarily to produce farmers.
Only unused wallboard is taken back; demolition drywall has too great a risk of being contaminated with lead paint or something else. Still, one would hope that someone will come up with a way to economically test it and use it as well, as there's plenty of it being discarded now.
Here's a story about American Gypsum recycling unused wallboard as a soil amendment and as cattle bedding.
“At our plant we grind it up, separate the gypsum from the paper into two streams. The gypsum is pulverized and the paper is shredded into one to two inch pieces used for animal bedding,” Sauder explained. “There’s good demand for animal bedding. It’s very absorbent and takes the place of wood shavings or straw.”
USA’s Gypsum’s products come in three forms packed in 40 or 50 pound bags. A granular size can be spread with any fertilizer or lime spreader. Pulverized product is spread with Vicon-type spreaders, or drop and lime spreaders. Ultra-Fine is applied manually. Bag prices range from $3.95 to $4.50. It is sold primarily to produce farmers.
Only unused wallboard is taken back; demolition drywall has too great a risk of being contaminated with lead paint or something else. Still, one would hope that someone will come up with a way to economically test it and use it as well, as there's plenty of it being discarded now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
