EPA to Hold Hearing In Charleston On Arch Coal's Spruce No. 1 Mine

This notice just came in from EPA about a public hearing to be held in Logan County regarding the Spruce No. 1 mine. In my opinion, the comments won't change a thing. EPA will axe this permit no matter how well it's defended or justified.

PHILADELPHIA (April 27, 2010) -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced that it will hold a public hearing regarding 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. 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.

The purpose of the public hearing is to obtain public testimony or comment on EPA’s proposed 404 (c) action on the Spruce No. 1 Mine project.

WHO: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III representatives

WHAT: Public hearing on EPA proposal for Spruce No. 1 surface mine in

Logan County, W. Va.

WHEN: May 18^th, 2010 at 7:00 p.m.

WHERE: Charleston Civic Center (South Hall)

200 Civic Center Dr., Charleston, W.Va. 25301

Registering ahead of time is recommended:

Advance sign up is not required to attend or speak at the public hearing. However, because of the large turnout expected, EPA is recommending that people wishing to attend the public hearing, and especially those who wish to speak, sign up in advance. People wishing to sign up in advance can do so over the internet by going to http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/spruce1hearing.html and clicking on the link, or by calling 877-368-3552.

To accommodate as many speakers as possible, each speaker will be limited to two minutes. There also will be an opportunity to sign up on-site the day of the public hearing. Speakers at the public hearing will be in order of sign up.

In addition, people wishing to provide comment may do so in writing. If you would like to submit written comments you may do so at the public hearing or on-line at www.regulations.gov (search for EPA-R03-OW-2009-0985).

More information on Clean Water Act Proposed Determination:

The Clean Water Act gives EPA authorization to deny the Spruce No. 1 Mine permit or add restrictions that the mine owner would be required to follow. The part of the Clean Water Act that grants this authorization is known as 404 (c). This section 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 Clean Water Act. A final decision to restrict or prohibit the Spruce No.1 Mine will be made at a later date by EPA’s national headquarters based on a recommendation from the regional administrator of EPA’s mid-Atlantic region, public comments, and discussions with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Mingo Logan Coal Company, the mine owner. Relevant documents, including the EPA regional administrator’s proposed determination can viewed on EPA’s website at www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/spruce1.html.

Link to EPA Press Release on Spruce Mine Proposal:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/D19F832B77DBB0AF852576F200567BA5

Supreme Court To Decide Injunctive Relief Under NEPA

This posting from the Akin Gump law firm, written by Josh Patashnik of Stanford Law School

Today in Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms (No. 09-475), the Court will once again consider what injunctive relief a district court may order when it finds a procedural violation of a federal environmental statute. Specifically, the case presents the question of what showing is required in a suit under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to satisfy the “likelihood of irreparable harm” prong of the Court’s four-part test – articulated most recently in Winter v. NRDC (2008) – for the issuance of a permanent injunction.

This case could have important ramifications for mountaintop removal lawsuits where NEPA violations are alleged. You can visit the blog post here.

Kanawha County Recycling Electronic Materials

Norm Steenstra, a firebrand of the West Virginia environmental movement, is continuing to do great work at the Kanawha County Solid Waste Authority. His staff is now accepting electronic materials, which in the past have been difficult to dispose. He and Kasey Russell, who is a Charleston City Council member on the Environmental and Recycling Committee, are hoping to expand recycling activities in Charleston.

Are Potato Chips More Carbon-Intensive than Concrete?

On a per-pound basis, potato chips are much worse greenhouse gas villains than cement, but that's only part of the story. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Stewart Brand's Four Environmental Heresies

Stewart Brand, the creator of the Whole Earth Catalogue (those of us over 50 remember it), has a presentation in which he advocates 4 environmental heresies - that cities are green, nuclear power is good, genetically modified foods are a boon, not a curse, and geoengineering is the way to stop climate change. I'm not a believer in anthropogenically-caused climate change, but that doesn't prevent the rest of the presentation from being fascinating. Here's some of what what Mike Shellenberger says about it:

You don’t have to agree with all of this. The geoengineering proposal he offers makes me as nervous as the Superfreakonomics proposal (though research on it is a no-brainer). On geoengineering he warns, “If we taboo it completely we could lose civilization.” And though I appreciate Stewart’s sense of urgency, I don’t care for the apocalyptic rhetoric.

But these are really quibbles. His overall presentation of how to create a low-carbon energy-powered world that supports the emergence of the vibrant global South is inspiring, provocative, and merits a much wider discussion in the press than we have seen to date. I assume and hope the book will be widely reviewed, and Brand widely profiled.

There’s tons of surprises in it. I learned of the key role cities play in reducing birth rates. The migrating poor “don’t even have to get rich and the population drops.” Later he says, “Nuclear energy has done more to dismantle nuclear weapons than anything else.” Half of our nuclear electricity (which is 20 percent of our electricity) is from dismantled Russian nuclear warheads, soon to be joined by U.S. dismantled warheads.

There are only three low-carbon baseload power sources: hydro, nuclear and — are you listening Marty Hoffert? -- space solar. The new nuclear plants are far, far more sophisticated than the ones we had 50 years ago. Many countries are, happily, buying these new reactors, including micro-reactors.

On biotech, Brand is blunt: “My fellow environmentalists have been irrational, anti-scientific, and very harmful.” They have blocked biotech’s spread in the place that has needed it most, Africa. But the continent “has finally gotten out from under the thumb of Greenpeace Europe and Friends of the Earth, and biotech is moving rapidly through Africa.” The key bioethicist organization has taken up biotech twice, he says. Both times they said it was “moral imperative” to make biotech more widely available.

He updates the words that Ted and I quoted in the last chapter of Break Through.

“The first words of the Whole Earth Catalogue were ‘We are as gods and might as well get good at it.’ The first words of Whole Earth Discipline are ‘We are as gods and have to get good at it.’”

On the back of “The Whole Earth Discipline,” Paul Hawken says his mind was changed by Brand.

I can see why.

EPA Proposes to Remove Saccharin from Hazardous Waste Listings

Those of you who remember the saccharin scare of 30 or so years ago will be interested in this recent decision by EPA. At that time, saccharin was believed to cause cancer in mice, when given to them in huge quantities. It was eventually given limited approval for continued use as a food additive, but it had to handled as a hazardous waste when it was disposed. Looks like it's alright after all.


WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a rule to remove saccharin and its salts from the agency’s lists of hazardous wastes, hazardous constituents and hazardous substances because it is no longer considered a potential hazard to human health. These lists are used to identify hazardous substances at sites across the country that need to be properly and safely managed. Saccharin is a white crystalline powder used as an artificial sweetener and can be found in diet soft drinks, chewing gum and juice.

Since the 1980s, saccharin was included in EPA’s lists of hazardous wastes, hazardous constituents, and hazardous substances because it was identified as potentially causing cancer in people. In the late 1990s, the National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer re-evaluated the available scientific information on saccharin and its salts and concluded that saccharin and its salts are not potential human carcinogens. Because the scientific basis for remaining on EPA's lists no longer applies, the agency is issuing a proposed rule to remove saccharin and its salts from the list.

The public comment period will be open for 60 days after the proposal is published in the Federal Register.


More information about the proposal: www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/wastetypes/wasteid/saccharin/index.htm

EPA Announces $800,000 In Brownfields Grants For West Virginia

PHILADELPHIA (April 21, 2010) -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced $800,000 in brownfields grants to help assess and clean up abandoned industrial properties in West Virginia.

"Brownfields initiatives demonstrate how environmental protection and economic development work hand-in-hand," said Shawn M. Garvin, regional administrator for EPA's mid-Atlantic region. "Along with generating jobs, these grants will help West Virginia communities convert vacant industrial properties into assets for the community, the environment, and the economy."

The West Virginia grants include:

• $200,000 to the Fayette County Commission to assess and prioritize brownfields properties throughout Fayette County, an area that has a seen a steep decline in industrial activity related to coal mining, hardwood timber harvesting and processing, and rail transportation. To date, there are an estimated 400 brownfields properties identified by the county as needing attention.

• $200,000 to the city of Nitro to assess and update the city’s brownfields sites. Downsizing of the chemical industry has led to significant decline in population, increased unemployment and abandoned industrial properties. To date, 54 underused and vacant brownfields sites have been identified in Nitro. Brownfield assessments will provide the city with a more thorough inventory of contaminated sites that have potential for reuse as small-scale commercial properties, greenspace, and recreational facilities.

• $200,000 to the city of Parkersburg to assess and prioritize brownfields properties in Parkersburg, especially in the downtown area where plant closings have left abandoned properties and contributed to increased unemployment. The brownfields assessments are expected to help facilitate cleanups and create economic opportunities for the city.

• $200,000 to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection to assess properties along the historic U.S. Route 60 Midland Trail, a national scenic byway located along a 119-mile trail in the Appalachian Mountains. Since the early 1900s, the economies of the 29 towns and rural communities along the trail relied on the bituminous coal, timber, and petrochemical industries. Major job losses in these industries and construction of Interstate 64, which shifted travelers away from the trail, have caused serious economic problems. The area’s population has declined, and the scenic trail has been left with many closed and abandoned businesses, including gas stations. Brownfields assessments will clarify conditions at the sites and help facilitate reuse of the sites for historical interpretive stops along the trail and attract tourism and tourism-related jobs to the area.

The brownfields program encourages redevelopment of America’s estimated 450,000 abandoned and contaminated waste sites. Since the beginning of program in 1995, EPA has awarded 1,702 assessment grants totaling over $401 million, 262 revolving loan fund grants totaling over $256.7 million, and 655 cleanup grants totaling $129.4 million.

As of March 2010, EPA’s brownfields assistance has leveraged more than $14 billion in cleanup and redevelopment funding and 61,277 jobs in cleanup, construction, and redevelopment. Assessments have been performed on 15,135 properties and 458 properties have been cleaned up.

Additional information on the EPA brownfields program is available at http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/ and additional information on grant recipients is available at http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/grant_info/index.htm .