EPA has announced the availability of a plan for reducing hypoxia, or oxygen depletion, in the Gulf of Mexico. One method of doing that is to reduce nutrient loading from the states that drain to the Mississippi River. The 2008 Action Plan greatly increases accountability and specificity through the inclusion of an Annual Operating Plan and Annual Report to maintain and track progress between reassessments, state-led nutrient reduction strategies, complementary federal strategies, and an outreach plan to engage stakeholders.
Eleven key actions in the 2008 Action Plan outline critical needs to complete and implement nitrogen and phosphorus reduction strategies, promote effective conservation practices and management practices, track progress, reduce existing scientific uncertainties, and promote effective communications to increase awareness of Gulf hypoxia.
Most of West Virginia drains to the Mississippi, and any reductions on nutrient loading will certainly affect West Virginia businesses and municipalities
You can see the plan at http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/taskforce/actionplan08.htm
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
EPA Approves Changes to West Virginia's Drinking Water Program.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-8580-7]
Notice of Tentative Approval and Solicitation of Request for a Public Hearing for Public Water System Supervision Program Revisions for the State of West Virginia
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Tentative Approval and Solicitation of Requests for a Public Hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the State of West Virginia is revising their Public Water Supply Supervision (PWSS) program to meet the requirements of Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. West Virginia has adopted regulations for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2) to improve public health protection through the control of microbiological contaminants by targeting additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements to higher risk systems, and for the Stage 2 Disinfection By-Products Rule (Stage 2) to reduce exposure to Disinfection By-Products (DBP) by requiring systems to meet maximum contaminant levels as an average at each compliance monitoring location, rather than as a system-wide average, for two groups of DBPs, trihalomethanes (TTHM) and five haloacetic acids (HAA5).
EPA has determined that these revisions are no less stringent than the corresponding Federal regulations. Therefore, EPA has decided to tentatively approve these program revisions. All interested parties are invited to submit written comments on this determination and may request a public hearing.
DATES: Comments or a request for a public hearing must be submitted by July 17, 2008. This determination shall become effective on July 17,
2008 if no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, and if no comments are received which cause EPA to modify its tentative approval.
ADDRESSES: Comments or a request for a public hearing must be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029. All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following offices:
? Drinking Water Branch, Water Protection Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
? West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Environmental Engineering Division, Capitol and Washington Streets, 1 Davis Square, Suite 200, Charleston, WV 25301-1798.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Moustakas, Drinking Water Branch (3WP21) at the Philadelphia address given above; telephone (215)
814-5741 or fax (215) 814-2318.
[FRL-8580-7]
Notice of Tentative Approval and Solicitation of Request for a Public Hearing for Public Water System Supervision Program Revisions for the State of West Virginia
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Tentative Approval and Solicitation of Requests for a Public Hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the State of West Virginia is revising their Public Water Supply Supervision (PWSS) program to meet the requirements of Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. West Virginia has adopted regulations for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2) to improve public health protection through the control of microbiological contaminants by targeting additional Cryptosporidium treatment requirements to higher risk systems, and for the Stage 2 Disinfection By-Products Rule (Stage 2) to reduce exposure to Disinfection By-Products (DBP) by requiring systems to meet maximum contaminant levels as an average at each compliance monitoring location, rather than as a system-wide average, for two groups of DBPs, trihalomethanes (TTHM) and five haloacetic acids (HAA5).
EPA has determined that these revisions are no less stringent than the corresponding Federal regulations. Therefore, EPA has decided to tentatively approve these program revisions. All interested parties are invited to submit written comments on this determination and may request a public hearing.
DATES: Comments or a request for a public hearing must be submitted by July 17, 2008. This determination shall become effective on July 17,
2008 if no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, and if no comments are received which cause EPA to modify its tentative approval.
ADDRESSES: Comments or a request for a public hearing must be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029. All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following offices:
? Drinking Water Branch, Water Protection Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.
? West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Environmental Engineering Division, Capitol and Washington Streets, 1 Davis Square, Suite 200, Charleston, WV 25301-1798.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Moustakas, Drinking Water Branch (3WP21) at the Philadelphia address given above; telephone (215)
814-5741 or fax (215) 814-2318.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Huntington Faces Combined Sewer Overflow Problem
Huntington is the latest West Virginia city to consider how it will pay for the federally-mandated requirement to separate its storm water and its sanitary sewer systems. Like most cities, Huntington has one series of interconnected pipes for the two systems, which lead to the waste water treatment plant. This works well when it isn't raining. When it rains heavily, the the plant is overwhelmed, and a mixture of storm water and raw sewage is discharged into the Guyandotte and the Ohio Rivers. This is referred to as a combined sewer overflow, or CSO, and it is common throughout the nation.
It is extremely expensive to separate systems and install sufficient treatment of storm water to meet water quality standards. EPA is starting to crack down on cities that have not taken care of this problem, and cities are being forced to consider where they will get the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to implement the necessary changes. The amount of federal funds available is completely inadequate for all that has to be done. Some cities have bitten the bullet and increased sewer fees, as I believe Charleston has.
Once again, Huntington has proven itself to be the most beautiful city in West Virginia, with the lousiest governance. If you want to see an article on the city's reaction to the CSO problem, see http://www.huntingtonnews.net/local/080607-rutherford-localsewerrateincrease.html
It is extremely expensive to separate systems and install sufficient treatment of storm water to meet water quality standards. EPA is starting to crack down on cities that have not taken care of this problem, and cities are being forced to consider where they will get the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to implement the necessary changes. The amount of federal funds available is completely inadequate for all that has to be done. Some cities have bitten the bullet and increased sewer fees, as I believe Charleston has.
Once again, Huntington has proven itself to be the most beautiful city in West Virginia, with the lousiest governance. If you want to see an article on the city's reaction to the CSO problem, see http://www.huntingtonnews.net/local/080607-rutherford-localsewerrateincrease.html
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Global Warming Agnosticism
Charles Krauthammer has written an excellent article about global warming that reflects my thoughts on the subject. He starts it with these two paragraphs:
I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2into the atmosphere but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.
Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems -- from ocean currents to cloud formation -- that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.
Global warming is probably happening in some places to some degree, but whether it is long term or man-made, and what its ultimate effects will be, are impossible to tell. Anybody who has worked with models can tell you that they can be extremely useful, but are incredibly prone to produce results desired by the person running the model.
It is to our advantage to reduce carbon emissions, and every other "unnatural" activity, but in doing so we must weigh the costs and benefits. Those who present dire pictures of what will happen without strict controls on carbon emissions have not come close to making a defensible argument for their position.
Mr. Krauthammer's entire column can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052903266.html
I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2into the atmosphere but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.
Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems -- from ocean currents to cloud formation -- that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.
Global warming is probably happening in some places to some degree, but whether it is long term or man-made, and what its ultimate effects will be, are impossible to tell. Anybody who has worked with models can tell you that they can be extremely useful, but are incredibly prone to produce results desired by the person running the model.
It is to our advantage to reduce carbon emissions, and every other "unnatural" activity, but in doing so we must weigh the costs and benefits. Those who present dire pictures of what will happen without strict controls on carbon emissions have not come close to making a defensible argument for their position.
Mr. Krauthammer's entire column can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052903266.html
Interstate Power Line Moves Ahead
Allegheny Power is developing an interstate electric transmission line, the Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line (TrAIL), across northern West Virginia to carry electricity from West Virginia to the east coast. The project will create more infrastructure for transmission of West Virginia-generated power. While there has been some opposition to the power line, as there always is, the forces fighting the agreement that was reached with the West Virginia Public Utilities Staff and the PSC Consumer Advocate are now smaller, and the project appears poised to go through. You can read about the results of the negotiations before the PSC in an article by Ken Ward at http://wvgazette.com/News/Business/200805300580
If we're to centralize power generation at places where environmental controls can be more effectively imposed, such as power plants that centrally produce electricity for plug-in cars, instead of having individual internal combustion engines in each car, then more power lines are going to be necessary.
If we're to centralize power generation at places where environmental controls can be more effectively imposed, such as power plants that centrally produce electricity for plug-in cars, instead of having individual internal combustion engines in each car, then more power lines are going to be necessary.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Storm Water Exemptions for Oil and Gas Operations Rejected
The Ninth Circuit recently rejected an interpretation of the Energy Policy Act that exempted certain oil and gas operations from storm water controls. You can read a blog about the decision at http://eartotheground.typepad.com/weblog/2008/05/exempting-oil-and-gas-operations-from-stormwater-rules-is-overruled.html.
This decision could have significant effect on oil and gas operations in West Virginia, which are subject to best management practices but not storm water permitting.
This decision could have significant effect on oil and gas operations in West Virginia, which are subject to best management practices but not storm water permitting.
Friday, May 9, 2008
EPA Proposes New Air Limits for Coal Preparation Plants
EPA has proposed new air emission limits for coal preparation plants, which are the places that raw coal is taken to be made suitable for use and sale. The changes primarily involve limitations on particulate matter (PM). The following provides information about the rule and the contact information for filing comments.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA has reviewed the emissions limits in the standards of performance for coal preparation plants which were promulgated January 15, 1976. This action presents the results of EPA's review and proposes amendments to limits for coal preparation plants consistent with those results. Specifically, we are proposing to tighten and add additional particulate matter (PM) emissions limits for sources constructed after April 28, 2008. In addition, we are proposing to clarify the procedures used to measure emissions from coal preparation plants and add new monitoring requirements for sources constructed after April 28, 2008.DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before June 12, 2008. If anyone contacts EPA by May 8, 2008 requesting to speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold a public hearing on May 13, 2008. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions must be received by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on or before May 28, 2008.ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260, by one of the following methods: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
You can find the full proposal at Federal Register: April 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 82) Page 22901-22913
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA has reviewed the emissions limits in the standards of performance for coal preparation plants which were promulgated January 15, 1976. This action presents the results of EPA's review and proposes amendments to limits for coal preparation plants consistent with those results. Specifically, we are proposing to tighten and add additional particulate matter (PM) emissions limits for sources constructed after April 28, 2008. In addition, we are proposing to clarify the procedures used to measure emissions from coal preparation plants and add new monitoring requirements for sources constructed after April 28, 2008.DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before June 12, 2008. If anyone contacts EPA by May 8, 2008 requesting to speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold a public hearing on May 13, 2008. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions must be received by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on or before May 28, 2008.ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0260, by one of the following methods: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
You can find the full proposal at Federal Register: April 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 82) Page 22901-22913
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
