EPA Finds No Imminent Threat at Sporn Plant Coal Ash Impoundment

EPA has evaluated a coal ash impoundment at the Philip Sporn Plant, located along the Ohio River in West Virginia, and has concluded that there is no imminent threat of failure. EPA believed there were similarities to the TVA coal ash impoundment that failed in December of 2008 and wanted some studies done to confirm the dam was safe. Here's the EPA press release, and a hyperlink to the EPA website page with studies and reports.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a draft report and related materials concerning two coal ash impoundments at American Electric Power’s (AEP) Philip Sporn facility in West Virginia. Out of an abundance of caution and in the spirit of transparency, EPA notified West Virginia and Ohio public officials, first responders and American Energy and Power of concerns about the Philip Sporn facility on October 29. The agency took this step because a report done as part of the ongoing comprehensive review of dam integrity of coal ash impoundment sites found factors at the AEP Philip Sporn facility that are similar to the TVA Kingston facility that failed in December 2008. Though EPA does not believe the impoundments pose an imminent threat to the surrounding communities based on the draft report’s assessment and follow-up technical reviews, EPA issued an information request letter requiring the company to conduct several studies to assure the safety of these impoundments. The company is required to provide the results of those studies to EPA within 90 days. The company has agreed to perform the requested studies. The agency will continue to work with AEP and state and local officials and will use all necessary authority to assure the safety of the facility. The process of reviewing and responding to these reports normally takes a month or more. In this case, however, EPA expedited the process so the community had access to as much information as quickly as possible. Draft report and related materials: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/statement.htm

Legislative Commission On West Virginia State Water Resources to Meet Nov 17

Tom Boggs of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce passes along this notice of the meeting of the Joint Legislative Oversight Commission on State Water Resources tomorrow.

The JOINT LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT COMMISSION ON STATE WATER RESOURCES will meet on November 17, 2009 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. in the Senate Judiciary Committee Room.
The agenda is as follows:
Call to Order
Roll Call
Adoption of Procedural Rules
Approval of Minutes for February, June, July, September and October 2009
Mike Stratton, Program Manager, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection - Annual Report on the State Water Resources Management Plan.
Louis Bonasso, President, AOP Clearwater - discussion of AOP’s new water recycling plant which is now accepting Marcellus waste water.
Staff presentation of memos summarizing other states and West Virginia’s requirements for water use associated with Marcellus formation gas drilling operations.
Other Business

Too Many Deer

Charleston, and most of West Virginia, is overrun by deer. Deer are generally safer from predation in and around towns, and even allowing urban deer hunts does not adequately control them. The problem exists throughout the east. In Valley Forge National Historic Park, Pennsylvania the deer population has exploded, and they don't seem to have any better way of dealing with it than we do. A hunt is scheduled to reduce the deer herd, but is running into lawsuits.

West Virginia Supreme Court Re-Affirms Massey Decision

The third time wasn't a charm for Hugh Caperton, who has been trying to have his case against AT Massey Coal Co. decided in West Virginia. You may recall that this is the case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that WVSCA Chief Justice Brent Benjamin should have recused himself because his candidacy to the Court had been so strongly supported by Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey. This time Justice Benjamin was replaced by Senior Status Judge Holliday, but the result was the same.

Harman brought a tort action in Boone County, West Virginia, and was awarded $50 million, which judgment AT Massey appealed. The WV Supreme Court ruled, as it had before, that Caperton's mining company, Harman Mining, had agreed in the forum selection clauses of the relevant contracts that lawsuits would be brought in Virginia, where Harman had already been awarded $6 million in a contract action. The WVSCA remanded the case to Judge Hoke to dismiss with prejudice. The decision, and the lengthy procedural history, can be found here.

Frac Fluid Ingredients Publicly Available

Developing certain types of natural gas wells in West Virginia requires putting water into the gas-producing strata under high pressure, in order to fracture the strata and make gas flow more easily and in greater quantities. The water often has small amounts of additives that are there to make the frac fluid flow more easily and perform more efficiently. Companies that prepare the frac fluid additives often keep the exact mixtures a trade secret, in order to avoid providing information to their competitors. This has led to some persons alleging that unknown toxins are being introduced into drinking water as a result of gas drilling, especially in the Marcellus Shale. Some in Congress appear to want to change the Safe Drinking Water Act to subject fracking to Underground Injection Control regulations, which would be a great burden on oil and gas operators.

The fact is, the components of frac fluid additives are freely available. Attached is a great chart explaining exactly what is in the fluids, although not their precise composition. Also, any drilling rig using frac fluids will have a Material Safety Data Sheet for the frac fluids, explaining by chemical category what is in the additives. MSDSs are required for just about every chemical you'll find at any work location.

It is just as important to understand how wells are drilled in West Virginia and elsewhere. The Marcellus Shale and other conventional plays (those other than coalbed methane) are not drinking water formations. When boreholes go through drinking water strata , producers are required to insert casing that seals off the drinking water from the frac fluid that goes down and the produced water and gas that comes up. Producers are also required to test drinking water sources near the wells. These and other protections prevent contamination of water supplies. Similar controls apply in other states, as shown in this web page from Energy In Depth.

EPA Updates Enforcement and Compliance History Database

There's an abundance of information on the EPA website, although it can be a little difficult to navigate sometimes. I'm reminded of that by EPA's press release announcing that it has "released new information on EPA and state enforcement of hazardous waste and air regulations. In addition, the EPA posted data that allows the public, for the first time, to compare toxic releases with compliance data from facilities. This is part of EPA’s ongoing commitment to increase transparency and promote the public’s right to know by improving access to available data."

For those who are interested in how states are doing with enforcement of environmental laws, you could check Enforcement & Compliance History Online, which is an EPA database with data regarding enforcement and compliance activities broken down by individual facility, state, etc. It has information on all media and all EPA program types - RCRA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, etc.

For those interested in what the state of West Virginia is doing, all enforcement compliance orders and settlements have to go to public notice before they can be finalized. If you have an email account you can get on the email mailing list and get notice of the orders from the DEP. When you receive the notices, and want an order to review, you can email the DEP and they'll email you the draft order.

Correcting My C8 Report Blog

Mea culpa. Here's an example of what happens when I assume, rather than read carefully. I had referred to Ken Ward's article on release of the C8 report last week, noted his statement that the report hadn't been posted on the Science Panel's web site, and inferred that he did not have the report. In fact, he had the report, even before it was up on the Science Panel's website. That may have left the erroneous impression that he made up the information he reported, which I did not intend. I assumed that he had gotten his information about the report in open court, at the time the report was filed. Here's what Ken sent me:



"I always enjoy your blog and learn from it ... But I thought I would
point out a pretty significant error.

You wrote (in this post,
http://wvenvironmental.blogspot.com/2009/10/c8-report-filed-with-court.h
tml) that:

"I have not seen the report, and evidently Ken Ward hasn't seen it
either, although his is the first story on the study."

I'm not sure what evidence you have to support your statement that I
hadn't seen the study. If you read my story, you'll see that I cite
numbers included in it and quoted directly from it. Not sure how I could
do that without having seen it.

And, in fact, I did see it before I wrote that story. I just did not
post it on our Web site, in large part because I was writing several
other pieces for our online editions and our print editions that day,
and did not have time to post it.

Perhaps you misinterpreted this paragraph:

"This latest study on C8 exposure and cholesterol in children was filed
in court, but had not been posted on the Science Panel's Web site or
otherwise publicized by the panel, at least as of late Friday
afternoon."

A careful reading, though, will show that all I wrote there was that the
C8 Science Panel hadn't posted the document on its website. Nowhere
there do I indicate that I had not seen the report. The point of the
paragraph is that the C8 Science Panel had done nothing to notify the
public in the Parkersburg area of this rather significant finding.

I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but some readers may have
interpreted your post to mean you were alleging that I simply made up
what was in that story. Of course, that is a serious charge to make
against any journalist.

I would appreciate a correction posted on your blog." [End quotation]



He's right. That statement, though not ill-intended, was incorrect. Ken, consider me apologetic and red-faced.