MVCAC November 2008

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

3 participants
12 discussions

"Bonanzo" decision needs implementation
by Duane330＠aol.com 24 Nov '08

24 Nov '08

Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases New York Times, April 2, 2007. WASHINGTON, April 2, 2007 — In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the _Environmental Protection Agency_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environ…) has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global _climate change_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?…) unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal. The 5-to-4 decision was a strong rebuke to the Bush administration, which has maintained that it does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it would not use the authority. The ruling does not force the environmental agency to regulate auto emissions, but it would almost certainly face further legal action if it failed to do so. Writing for the majority, Justice _John Paul Stevens_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/john_paul_stev… per) said the only way the agency could “avoid taking further action” now was “if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change” or provides a good explanation why it cannot or will not find out whether they do. Beyond the specific context for this case — so-called “tailpipe emissions” from cars and trucks, which account for about one-fourth of the country’s total emissions of heat-trapping gases — the decision is likely to have a broader impact on the debate over government efforts to address global warming. Court cases around the country had been held up to await the decision in this case. Among them is a challenge to the environmental agency’s refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, now pending in the federal appeals court here. Individual states, led by California, are also moving aggressively into what they have seen as a regulatory vacuum. Justice Stevens, joined by Justices _Anthony M. Kennedy_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/anthony_m_kenn… yt-per) , _David H. Souter_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/david_h_souter…) , _Ruth Bader Ginsburg_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/ruth_bader_gin… urg/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and _Stephen G. Breyer_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/stephen_g_brey… -per) , said that by providing nothing more than a “laundry list of reasons not to regulate,” the environmental agency had defied the Clean Air Act’s “ clear statutory command.” He said a refusal to regulate could be based only on science and “reasoned justification,” adding that while the statute left the central determination to the “judgment” of the agency’s administrator, “ the use of the word ‘judgment’ is not a roving license to ignore the statutory text.” The court also decided a second Clean Air Act case Monday, adopting a broad reading of the environmental agency’s authority over factories and power plants that add capacity or make renovations that increase emissions of air pollutants. In doing so, the court reopened a federal enforcement effort against the Duke Energy Corporation under the Clean Air Act’s “new source review” provision. The vote in the second case, Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp., No. 05-848, was 9 to 0. The two decisions left environmental advocates exultant. Many said they still harbored doubts about the federal agency and predicted that the decision would help push the Democratic-controlled Congress to address the issue. Even in the nine months since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the first case, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 05-1120, and accelerating since the elections in November, there has been a growing interest among industry groups in working with environmental organizations on proposals for emissions limits. Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the main industry trade group, said in response to the decision that the alliance “ looks forward to working constructively with both Congress and the administration” in addressing the issue. “This decision says that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will be part of this process,” Mr. McCurdy said. If the decision sowed widespread claims of victory, it left behind a prominent loser: Chief Justice _John G. Roberts_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/john_g_jr_robe…) Jr., who argued vigorously in a dissenting opinion that the court never should have reached the merits of the case or addressed the question of the agency’s legal obligations. His dissent, which Justices _Antonin Scalia_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/antonin_scalia…) , _Clarence Thomas_ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/clarence_thoma…) and _Samuel A. Alito Jr._ (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/samuel_a_alito… l?inline=nyt-per) also signed, focused solely on the issue of legal standing to sue: whether the broad coalition of states, cities and environmental groups that brought the lawsuit against the environmental agency four years ago should have been accepted as plaintiffs in the first place. This was the issue on which the coalition’s lawsuit had appeared most vulnerable, given that in recent years the Supreme Court has steadily raised the barrier to standing, especially in environmental cases. Justice Scalia has long been a leader in that effort, and Chief Justice Roberts made clear that, as his statements and actions in his pre-judicial career indicated, he is fully aboard Justice Scalia’s project. Chief Justice Roberts said the court should not have found that Massachusetts or any of the other plaintiffs had standing. The finding “has caused us to transgress the proper — and properly limited — role of the courts in a democratic society,” he said, quoting from a 1984 decision. And, quoting from a decision Justice Scalia wrote in 1992, he said, “This court’s standing jurisprudence simply recognizes that redress of grievances of the sort at issue here is the function of Congress and the chief executive, not the federal courts.” Chief Justice Roberts complained that “today’s decision recalls the previous high-water mark of diluted standing requirements,” a 1973 decision known as the Scrap case. That was an environmental case that the Supreme Court allowed to proceed on a definition of standing so generous as to be all but unthinkable today. “Today’s decision is Scrap for a new generation,” the chief justice said, not intending the comparison as a compliment. The majority addressed the standing question by noting that it was only necessary for one of the many plaintiffs to meet the three-part definition of standing: that it had suffered a “concrete and particularized injury,” that the injury was “fairly traceable to the defendant” and that a favorable decision would be likely to “redress that injury.” Massachusetts, one of the 12 state plaintiffs, met the test, Justice Stevens said, because it had made a case that global warming was raising the sea level along its coast, presenting the state with a “risk of catastrophic harm” that “would be reduced to some extent” if the government undertook the regulation the state sought. In addition, Justice Stevens said, Massachusetts was due special deference in its claim to standing because of its status as a sovereign state. This new twist on the court’s standing doctrine may have been an essential tactic in winning the vote of Justice Kennedy, a leader in the court’s federalism revolution of recent years. Justice Stevens, a dissenter from the court’s states’ rights rulings and a master of court strategy, in effect managed to use federalism as a sword rather than a shield. Following its discussion of standing, the majority made short work of the agency’s threshold argument that the Clean Air Act simply did not authorize it to regulate heat-trapping gases because carbon dioxide and the other gases were not “air pollutants” within the meaning of the law. “The statutory text forecloses E.P.A.’s reading,” Justice Stevens said, adding that “greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of air pollutant.” The justices in the majority also indicated that they were persuaded by the existing evidence of the impact of automobile emissions on the environment. The agency itself “does not dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made gas emissions and global warming,” Justice Stevens noted, adding that “judged by any standard, U.S. motor-vehicle emissions make a meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations.” Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, signed by the other three dissenters, disputing the majority’s statutory analysis. The decision overturned a 2005 ruling by the federal appeals court here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> E.P.A. Decision Signals Trouble for Coal By _Kate Galbraith_ (http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/author/kate-galbraith/) , New York Times, November 14, 2008.. Environmentalists said that the coal industry was reeling following a _ruling_ (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/EAB_Web_Docket.nsf/PSD%20Permit%20Appeals%20(CAA…) on Thursday by the Environmental Appeals Board, an independent body of adjudicators within the _Environmental Protection Agency_ (http://www.epa.gov/) . The decision — which responded to a _Sierra Club_ (http://action.sierraclub.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=78902.0) petition to review an E.P.A. permit granted to a coal plant in Utah — does not require the E.P.A. to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, something which environmentalists have long sought. Rather, it requires the agency’s regional office to at least consider whether to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, before the agency gives a green light to build the Utah plant. On a broader scale, it will delay the building of coal-fired power plants across the country, long enough for the Obama administration to determine its policy on coal, according to David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club. “They’re sending this permit — and effectively sending every other permit — back to square one,” he said, adding, “It’s minimum a one- to two-year delay for every proposed coal-fired power plant in the United States.” The decision references the landmark Massachusetts v. E.P.A. decision last year that declared carbon dioxide a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. That ruling, however, has not yet prompted the E.P.A. to act to regulate it. It is the latest setback for coal plants, which emit far more carbon dioxide than natural gas or other power plants. Last year, Kansas state regulators _denied a permit_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/business/20plant.html?ref=science) to a coal plant because of its carbon dioxide emissions. “Although a new administration could always have reversed course, this makes it easier by providing the first prod,” said Jody Freeman, director of the environmental law program at Harvard Law School. “And it’s a heads-up to the coal industry that stationary-source regulation of CO2 is coming.” The coal industry put its best face on the decision. The ruling “merely says what the court has said — that the E.P.A. has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act,” said Carol Raulston, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, an industry group. However, she said, before rulemaking occurs, the E.P.A. has to make an “ endangerment” finding, which has not yet been done. An “endangerment” finding would involve the E.P.A. declaring that carbon dioxide is a danger to public welfare, and would lead to regulation. “We still believe, as do many in Congress, that the Clean Air Act is not very well structured to regulate greenhouse gases, and that Congress ought to address this through legislation,” added Ms. Raulston. Ms. Freeman said that this week’s decision was part of a larger debate going forward “over whether and how the Clean Air Act might be used to regulate greenhouse gases while we wait for new climate legislation. “E.P.A. has the authority to impose limits on CO2 coming from sources like power plants through the normal permit process,” she continued. “And we may see this happen in the new administration.” >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **************One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com today!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212962939x1200825291/aol?re… %26icid=aolcom40vanity%26ncid=emlcntaolcom00000001)

1 0

EPA Ruling and Longview
by Joseph A. Gorman 24 Nov '08

24 Nov '08

Hello, First, I'd like to introduce myself. My name's Joe Gorman, and I'm a WVU student and community coordinator with the WVU Sierra Student Coalition. Lately the WVU SSC has been doing mostly advocacy campaigns, but we'd like to be involved in more local events. I wanted to ask for expert advice on what influence the Bonanza ruling has on Longview. It is my understanding that most new permits nationwide will get clogged in the pipeline. Here are the concerns I have: 1. Doesn't the WV DEP operate independently (and, often, defiant) to the US EPA? How direct is the ruling's impact in this state? 2. All but the acid rain permit have been stamped by the DEP, correct? So, how do we insist the DEP requires a permit for CO2 emissions as well? I saw the section on the new CO2 ruling in the comment letter, but will the DEP see them as relevant the way we do? -Joe p.s. I submitted an editorial to the Dominion Post, and they called me to notify me they were going to publish it. Unfortunately, I am out of town until classes resume next Monday. If anyone has a copy of the paper, would you mind saving it for me for sentimental value?

2 1

Re: [MVCAC] [CLEAR] High TDS in Mon River
by James Kotcon 23 Nov '08

23 Nov '08

This story suggests that PA-DEP first became aware of the problem on Oct. 10 due to air violations at Hatfields Ferry. But the report Duane circulated illustrates spikes at California, Charleroi, and Belle Vernon, PA. All of these are welll downstream of Hatfields Ferry? The story says MUB has rejected brine from gas drillers, so where is the high TDS coming from? JBK State Needs to Plan for Gas Well Drilling Brine Posted Thursday, November 20, 2008 ; 01:50 PM A long-term plan for gas well drilling water disposal may be one outcome of this fall's water quality problem on the Monongahela River in Pennsylvania. Story by Pam Kasey Email | Bio | Other Stories by Pam Kasey MORGANTOWN -- A long-term plan for gas well drilling water disposal may be one outcome of this fall's water quality problem on the Monongahela River in Pennsylvania. Environmental regulators need to anticipate how much brine the coming boom in Marcellus shale gas well drilling will generate and how much of that the rivers can handle, according to one scientist. All Connected The Monongahela River problem first came to the attention of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection officials Oct. 10, explained PADEP Aquatic Biologist Supervisor Rick Spear at a Nov. 14 Morgantown meeting of agency officials, researchers, nonprofit groups and residents from both Pennsylvania and West Virginia. On Oct. 10, Spear said, Allegheny Energy's Hatfield's Ferry Power Station violated its air emissions permit. What followed is a study in how everything is connected. The power station's problem, it turned out, originated in the cooling water it withdrew from the Monongahela River: Unusually high levels of the salts that, with other substances, make up the contaminant "total dissolved solids" (TDS). TDS is not a human health hazard but, at concentrations above the Pennsylvania water quality standard of 500 milligrams/liter, it can harm industrial equipment and affect the smell and taste of drinking water, officials said. PADEP asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to increase releases from dams upriver in West Virginia to dilute the contaminants. And the Corps called the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, which manages the facilities at Tygart Lake State Park. Tygart Lake, it turns out, is on drought watch. Releasing much more from the dam would leave the boat ramps high and dry. "That's going to affect our fishing," said DNR Fisheries Biologist Frank Jernejcic at the meeting. "This potentially has a lot of ramifications, not only for water quality but for access areas and other things." PADEP stepped up its water quality sampling and found concentrations above 900 mg/L below wastewater treatment plants on the Monongahela River in Pennsylvania. They traced it to gas well drilling brine the plants had accepted but could not, with standard technology, fully treat. By Oct. 22, PADEP ordered nine wastewater treatment plants on the Monongahela River to curtail gas well drilling brine treatment until further notice. Did West Virginia Contribute? An outstanding question concerns October data showing TDS levels as high as 500 mg/L as the Monongahela River entered Pennsylvania from West Virginia. The main problem was not in West Virginia, according to Paul Ziemkiewicz, director of the West Virginia Water Research Institute at West Virginia University. PADEP's sampling data show clearly that the TDS numbers spiked at the wastewater treatment plants, Ziemkiewicz said. Still, some wonder whether the West Virginia TDS numbers are unusually high for this time of year and, if so, whether that's due to low flows or to some new upriver discharge. Historical data are not immediately available, but Ziemkiewicz said he's very interested in getting them. Management Options Here's why. The Marcellus shale natural gas boom has only just begun. PADEP's Spear estimated that there are 50 to 150 Marcellus gas wells in operation in Pennsylvania and said that the number is projected to increase "dramatically." Just one company operating in West Virginia, Chesapeake Energy Corp., expects to drill 30 to 40 Marcellus wells in 2009, primarily in Wetzel County, according to vice president Scott Rotruck. Drillers in West Virginia typically inject their brine deep underground or send it out of state. But this fall's incident made it clear that even out-of-state discharges can have effects in West Virginia. Ziemkiewicz suggested a near-term management option. "We'll need to start looking at whether you can manage some of these discharges to the river," he said, "by simply encouraging people to discharge during high flow periods and to stop when river gets low, on a voluntary basis. That's something that could happen right away." But more importantly, for longer-term planning, Ziemkiewicz is considering a research project that would use historical flow and water quality data to calculate how much brine the rivers can dilute. Regulators need to think now about how much drilling brine they can expect in the coming years, he said. If they know how much the rivers will be able to handle, they can plan better for volumes above that. Specialized treatment is one possibility. Morgantown Utility Board General Manager James Green said MUB has rejected water from gas well drillers. "They're talking to engineers right now about building a plant that's focused directly on treating this brine," Green said. At the Nov. 14 meeting, Jernejcic said he joined DNR in the 1970s, "before the fish" -- that is, back when the Monongahela River was almost completely dead because of acid mine drainage. It now supports prized fisheries and continues to improve. He wants to see planning for gas well drilling brine happen now. Copyright 2008 West Virginia Media. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. >>> <Duane330(a)aol.com> 11/22/08 1:08 PM >>> RE: High TDS in Mon River. See the attachment for the Report of the WVU Water Research Institute on the Mon River. Duane p.s. This report is also accessible from the home site of the Upper Monongahela River Association under the Marsellus Shale topic: _www.uppermon.org_ (http://www.uppermon.org) **************One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com today!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212962939x1200825291/aol?re… %26icid=aolcom40vanity%26ncid=emlcntaolcom00000001)

1 0

PLEASE REVIEW THIS DRAFT A.S.A.P.
by Duane330＠aol.com 23 Nov '08

23 Nov '08

MON VALLEY CLEAN AIR COALITION P. O. Box 4679, Morgantown, WV 26504 November 22, 2008 Attn: John A. Benedict, Director Division of Air Quality WV Department of Environmental Quality 601 57th Street SE Charleston, WV 25304 RE: Proposed Phase II Acid Rain Permit, R33-56671-2013-1, Longview Power LLC A number of substantial issues have been identified which need to be taken into account for the proposed Phase II Acid Rain Permit for the Longview coal-fired power plant under construction at Maidsville, Monongalia County, West Virginia. Notice of the comment period is dated November 6, 2008 with comments required in duplicate, sent to the Director of the WV Division of Air Quality. This letter complies with these directions. A copy of this Notice is the Attachment to this Letter. Also, a copy of this letter is being sent to the Regional Administrator of the Region 3 Office of the Environmental Protection Agency in Philadelphia, PA. Our comments are numbered for ease of identification and consideration: 1. Longview has not accurately represented or recently updated the status of the proposed power plant. Schedules are not provided to accurately represent the status of the construction work, the environmental permitting, and the financing for the power plant. Schedules should be solicited from Longview by the WV-DAQ and made public to determine the status of the construction, environmental permitting and availability of secure financing. It appears at this time that it would be premature to proceed with the licensing process. 2. The existing Longview air pollution permit at Section 20, pp. 9 and 10, addresses where the proposed acid rain allowances should come from. These conditions and specifications should be incorporated into any Longview Phase II Acid Rain Permit that is subsequently issued. 3. The proposed power plant will be releasing uncontrolled greenhouse gases, gases that should be considered for documentation, measurement and/or control for this and other large generators of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, degas and gob gas from coal piles, and other gases that contribute to global climate change. The US-EPA has recently come to realize these considerations and ample evidence is at hand to justify the consideration of these factors in the acid rain permitting process at this time. 4. Local nature preserves within only a few miles of the proposed power plant are in danger of serious damage if continued emissions of acid gases, which result in acid rain, take place. The protections offered to date are not judged to be adequate for protection of these nature preserves. Regionally we have the Dolly Sods and Otter Creek reserves as Class 1 federally protected regions. In addition we have the Coopers Rock State Forest that contains threatened forest species as well as the Cheat three tooth snail. The Snake Hill Wildlife Management Area contains undergrowth and new saplings that are in need of protection. The West Virginia Botanical Garden, the WVU Earl Core Arboretum, and the Forks of Cheat Forest Nature Preserve are all formal documented nature preserves that deserve consideration and protection from acid rain and other possible harm. These are within a 20 mile radius of the power plant, and they are downwind of the plant when considering the direction of the prevailing winds in this region. 5. The Longview power plant is sited for northcentral Monongalia County in northcentral West Virginia. This Monongalia County has been determined to have an unusually high level of fine particular matter in the air. The US-EPA has underway the decision process to determine by mid-December 2008, why Monongalia County should not be place in the “non-attainment” status for particulates smaller than 2.5 microns, i.e. “PM-2.5”. Given that fine particulate matter in this size range is generated predominantly by sulfur oxides and to some extent the nitrogen oxides where the primary sources are fossil fuel combustion, i.e. coal-fired power plants, it stands to reason that new emissions need to be limited substantially to preserve the quality of the ambient air for all the citizens of the county and region. And, given that acid rain is generated by these same precursors, viz. sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides. Therefore, the underlying problems are the same and consideration of one issue (non-attainment) is interrelated with the other issue (acid rain). 6. Due to the high fine particulate levels reported for Monongahela County in West Virginia, as reflected by the “non-attainment” status considerations now prevailing, any Longview Acid Rain allowances obtained should come from this same locality, i.e. Monongahela County, to protect the said locality to the extent possible. 7. Extremely high levels of sulfates in the local streams has resulted in the curtailment of industrial activities in the region of Monongalia County and southwestern Pennsylvania. These same problems are impacting the water supplies for over 350,000 people in this same region. Sulfate ion concentrations as high as 400 parts per million are being monitored in the Monongahela River and some of the tributaries are showing higher concentrations. Already mitigating actions are being called for to reduce the acidic effluents and protect the public water supplies and industrial water sources. The emission of acid gases in the presence of the large steam plumes from the Longview power plant will adversely impact the local streams with increases in sulfate ion and other substances that contribute the total dissolved solids (TDS) content of the streams here. The TDS levels being monitored in the Monongahela River at the USGS station at Elizabeth (PA), downstream of the proposed Longview emissions, has been showing electrical conductivity levels (a surrogate for TDS) more than twice as high as had otherwise been observed over the past 35 years. 8. The Hatsfield Ferry coal-fired power plant is located within a few miles downstream of the Longview power plant and has experienced violations of its air quality permit as a result of the high total dissolved solids (TDS) level described in Issue 7 above. Recent chemical analysis results from the Department of Environmental Protection in Pennsylvania have demonstrated that the primary constituent making up the high TDS levels is sulfate ion. The dissolved solids cannot be removed via filtration and are present in the cooling water being evaporated by both the Ft. Martin power plant (in West Virginia) and the Hatsfield Ferry power plant (in Pennsylvania), both within view of the Longview power plant site. The TDS levels in this cooling water have been at 500 parts per million or higher in West Virginia and somewhat higher than that in Pennsylvania. These solids are thus contributing to the “particulate matter” or PM emissions now affecting the locality of these plants, the wider region and perhaps the other eastern States. The WV DEP, the Department of Environmental Protection and other authorities in Pennsylvania, and the US EPA have a responsibility to resolve this major problem in the Monongahela River valley before any new permits are issued. Should any further explanation be needed or documentation be required, then a Public Hearing should be held which explicitly calls for these criteria to be addressed. We deplore the fact that the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection has not tried to provide factual information or educational matter to the public so as to help address the issues under consideration. Nor has this agency shown any initiative to protect the public from the impacts of air and water pollution in the Mononghela River valley. Submitted by: William Wonderlin, Convenor MonValley Clean Air Coalition P. O. Box 4679 Morgantown, WV 26504 Cc: Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator US EPA Mid-Atlantic Region (Region 3) 1650 Arch Street (3PM52) Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 ATTACHMENT =========================================================== Thursday, November 6, 2008 @ 3:31 PM =========================================================== NOTICE OF COMMENT PERIOD FOR DRAFT/PROPOSED ACID RAIN PERMIT Under Phase II of the Acid Rain Program (40 CFR 72 and 45CSR33), the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality (DAQ) proposes to approve a Phase II Acid Rain Permit, R33-56671-2013-1, for Unit 001 at Longview Power LLC’s Longview Power facility located near Morgantown, West Virginia. Longview Power is not eligible to receive sulfur dioxide (SO2) allowance allocations from the U.S. EPA under 40 CFR part 73, but may acquire allowances from other sources. This unit is still obligated to hold SO2 allowances as required under and in accordance with 40 CFR §72.9(c)(1). One allowance authorizes the unit to emit one ton of sulfur dioxide. The permit does not affect Longview Power’s responsibility to meet all other existing local, state and federal requirements related to SO2 and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. The Designated Representative for Longview Power is Mr. Charles Huguenard of Longview Power LLC, 306 Dents Run Road, Morgantown, WV 26501. All written comments submitted by the public and affected state(s) pursuant to this notice must be received by the DAQ within thirty (30) days of the date of publication of this notice. Under the Direct proposed procedures of 40 CFR §72.72(b)(1)(v), if no significant, adverse comments are timely submitted, the proposed permit will be deemed issued on the publication date of this notice or from the date the USEPA receives this draft/proposed permit, whichever is later. Written comments submitted by the USEPA must be received by the DAQ within forty-five (45) days from such date. If significant, adverse comments are timely submitted, the proposed permit will be issued in accordance with 40 CFR §72.72(b)(1)(iv). In the event that the 30th//45th day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the comment period will be extended until 5:00 p.m. on the following regularly scheduled business day. Copies of the Draft/Proposed Permit may be downloaded from the DAQ's web site at the following address: _http://www.wvdep.org/daq_ (http://www.wvdep.org/daq) The Draft/Proposed Permit and the Administrative Record, except information protected as confidential, are available for public review at the following location(s) between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.: WV Department of Environmental Protection Division of Air Quality 601 57th Street, SE Charleston, WV 25304 Contact: Frederick Tipane (304) 926-0499 ext. 1215 OR WV Department of Environmental Protection Division of Air Quality North Central Regional Office 2031 Pleasant Valley Road, Suite #1 Fairmont, WV 26554-9295 (304) 368-3910 Send comments, and/or requests for a public hearing to John A. Benedict, Director, Division of Air Quality, at the above Charleston address. Submit all comments in duplicate and identify the permit to which the comments apply. The submission shall include the commenter’s name and address, the commenter’s interest in this matter and the affiliation, if any, the commenter has to the owner or operator of the unit(s) covered by the permit. All relevant, timely comments will be considered except for those pertaining to any standard requirement under 40 CFR §72.9 and issues not related to the permit, such as the environmental effects of acid rain or permit issuance procedures or actions on other permit applications not relevant to the issuance or denial of the permit. Any person who requests a public hearing must state the issues proposed to be raised in the hearing. If the DAQ finds that a hearing will contribute to the decision making process by clarifying significant issues affecting the draft/proposed permit, a hearing will be announced. **************One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com today!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212962939x1200825291/aol?re… %26icid=aolcom40vanity%26ncid=emlcntaolcom00000001)

1 0

High TDS in Mon River
by Duane330＠aol.com 22 Nov '08

22 Nov '08

RE: High TDS in Mon River. See the attachment for the Report of the WVU Water Research Institute on the Mon River. Duane p.s. This report is also accessible from the home site of the Upper Monongahela River Association under the Marsellus Shale topic: _www.uppermon.org_ (http://www.uppermon.org) **************One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com today!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212962939x1200825291/aol?re… %26icid=aolcom40vanity%26ncid=emlcntaolcom00000001)

2 1

Rivesville power station renewal
by Duane330＠aol.com 21 Nov '08

21 Nov '08

The following was sent to you because you are a Member of the DEP Public Notice mailing list. =========================================================== Friday, November 21, 2008 @ 1:21 PM =========================================================== NOTICE OF COMMENT PERIOD FOR DRAFT/PROPOSED OPERATING PERMIT RENEWAL Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act and the state Air Pollution Control Act requires that all major sources and certain minor sources have a permit to operate which states all requirements (e.g. emission limitations, monitoring requirements, etc.) established by regulations promulgated under the aforementioned programs. The Division of Air Quality (DAQ) has determined that the draft/proposed permit renewal referenced herein meets this requirement. The DAQ is providing notice to the general public of its preliminary determination to issue an operating permit renewal to the following company for operation of the referenced electric generating facility: Monongahela Power Company Rivesville Power Station Plant ID No. : 049-00009 Jackson Street, Rt. 19 Rivesville, WV 26588 This notice solicits comments from the public and affected state(s) concerning the above preliminary determination and provides an opportunity for such parties to review the basis for the proposed approval and the "draft" permit renewal. This notice also solicits comments from the U.S. EPA concerning the same preliminary determination and provides an opportunity for the U.S. EPA to concurrently review the basis for the proposed approval as a “proposed” permit. This notice also incorporates changes to the General Requirements of the following preconstruction permit(s): R13-1098B All written comments submitted by the public and affected state(s) pursuant to this notice must be received by the DAQ within thirty (30) days of the date of publication of this notice. Under concurrent review, written comments submitted by the U.S. EPA must be received by the DAQ within forty- five (45) days from the date of publication of this notice or from the date the U.S. EPA receives this draft/proposed permit renewal, whichever is later. In the event that the 30th/45th day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the comment period will be extended until 5:00 p.m. on the following regularly scheduled business day. The public shall have 135 days from the date of publication of this notice to file petitions for concurrently reviewed permits. Upon notice by the U.S. EPA to the DAQ, prior to the end of the 45- day notice period, the U.S. EPA may choose to hold the 30 day comment period on the draft permit and the 45 day comment period on the proposed permit sequentially. During the public comment period any interested person may submit written comments on the draft permit and may request a public hearing, if no public hearing has already been scheduled. A request for a public hearing shall be in writing and shall state the nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the hearing. The Director of the DAQ shall grant such a request for a hearing if he concludes that a public hearing is appropriate. Any public hearing shall be held in the general area in which the facility is located, after 30 day notice is given. The DAQ will consider all written comments prior to final action on the permit. Copies of the DAQ Fact Sheet and Draft/Proposed Permit Renewal may be downloaded from the DAQ's web site at the following address: http://www.wvdep.org/daq. Copies of the Permit Application, DAQ Fact Sheet, and Draft/Proposed Permit Renewal are available for public review at the following location between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.: WV Department of Environmental Protection Division of Air Quality 601 57th Street SE Charleston, WV 25304 Contact: Frederick Tipane (304) 926-0499 ext.: 1215 Comments and questions concerning this matter should be addressed to the above referenced individual. **************One site has it all. Your email accounts, your social networks, and the things you love. Try the new AOL.com today!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212962939x1200825291/aol?re… %26icid=aolcom40vanity%26ncid=emlcntaolcom00000001)

1 0

First Reserve Corporation's BLUE SOURCE
by Duane330＠aol.com 19 Nov '08

19 Nov '08

Goldman Takes Stake in Blue Source SustainableBusiness.com News, October 28, 2008. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE: GS) has purchased a minority stake in Blue Source LLC, a U.S. developer of carbon credits from greenhouse gas reduction project, according to a release issued yesterday by the two companies. The size of the equity stake and the purchase price were not disclosed. However, Reuters reported that a source close to the deal said the stake is less than 10%. Through the collaboration, Goldman Sachs will structure and market a broad range of verified emissions reductions (VERs) resulting from greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction projects in Blue Source's portfolio, including those associated with methane management from coal mining, wastewater treatment, landfills and animal waste; energy efficiency; carbon capture and sequestration from fertilizer and natural gas production; and industrial gas destruction. Goldman Sachs aims to bring the reductions to a market increasingly eager to engage in a low carbon economy. In addition, Goldman Sachs gains tools to help its clients manage GHG-related risks in both the voluntary and pre-compliance carbon markets. Furthermore, the recently announced _joint venture _ (http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/16627) between Blue Source and certain affiliated investment funds of Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC (NYSE:OZM) provides a competitive source of funding to identify, develop and manage emission-related investments, thereby supporting the growth of Blue Source's offset portfolio. "Combining the market reach and trading capabilities of Goldman Sachs with the project development skills and supply position of Blue Source is not only a winning combination, but an important step in the development of the North American carbon market," said Bill Townsend, CEO of Blue Source. "This unique agreement is the next step for Blue Source as the US carbon market evolves from voluntary to compliance. We have been able to develop a high-quality portf olio of independently verified emission reductions from projects based in North America, and this new alliance creates an exceptional opportunity to reach a broad range of offset buyers through a highly experienced and well-trusted institution." "Goldman Sachs is committed to leveraging the first-mover position of Blue Source and its extensive experience and relationships to provide best-in-class risk management to North American voluntary and compliance buyers," said Leslie Biddle, Global Head of Commodity Sales at Goldman Sachs. "Interest in the pre-compliance carbon market in the US is growing rapidly and we are excited to be able to offer our clients immediate access to a diverse selection of emission reductions to manage their carbon risk." About Goldman Sachs The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a bank holding company that provides a wide range of services worldwide to a diversified client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high net worth individuals. Founded in 1869, the firm is headquartered in New York and maintains offices in London, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Hong Kong and other major financial centers around the world. About Blue Source, LLC Blue Source offers businesses multiple approaches for reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with climate change. Blue Source provides access to capital to fund project development, works with companies on developing projects and oversees production of long-term Verified Emission Reductions (VERs). Blue Source is a portfolio company of First Reserve Corporation, a leading private equity investor in the energy industry, who since 2006 has been a major equity partner in the company, and certain affiliated investment funds of Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC. Blue Source has offices in Salt Lake City, Utah; Calgary, Alberta; Houston; Denver, Colo.; Raleigh, N.C.; San Francisco; and New York. Website: _http://www.ghgworks.com/_ (http://www.ghgworks.com/) Source of News: _http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/17025_ (http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/17025) **************Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news & more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?red… p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)

1 0

Longview's Phase II Acid Rain Permit
by Duane330＠aol.com 17 Nov '08

17 Nov '08

TO: Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition. Let me propose that the MVCAC submit a response to the proposed Acid Rain permit licensing for the Longview power plant, per the instructions at the bottom of this message. If we do, there are two issues, (1) what issues(s) should we raise and (2) should we request a public meeting be held. I vote Yes on the first and maybe on the second. Please consider the draft comments immediately below, and provide feedback a.s.a.p. Duane DRAFT COMMENTS ON THE LONGVIEW ACID RAIN PERMIT APPLICATIONS. 1. Longview has not accurately represented the status of the proposed power plant. Schedules are not provided to accurately represent the status of the construction work, the environmental permitting, and the financing for the power plant. It may well be premature to proceed with the licensing process. 2. The proposed power plant will be releasing uncontrolled greenhouse gases, gases that should be considered for documentation, measurement and/or control for this and other large generators of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, degasses from coal piles, and other gases that contribute to global climate change. The US-EPA has recently come to appreciate these considerations and ample evidence is at hand to justify the consideration of these factors in the acid rain permitting process at this time. 3. Local nature preserves within only a few miles of the proposed power plant are in danger of serious damage if continued emissions of acid gases, which result in acid rain, take place. The protections offered to date are not judged to be adequate for protection of these nature preserves. Regionally we have the Dolly Sods and Otter Creek reserves as Class 1 federally protected regions. In addition we have the Coopers Rock State Forest that contains threatened forest species as well as the Cheat three tooth snail. The Snake Hill Wildlife Management Area contains undergrowth and new saplings that are in need of protection. The West Virginia Botanical Garden, the WVU Earl Core Arboretum, and the Forks of Cheat Forest Nature Preserve are all formal documented nature preserves that deserve consideration and protection from acid rain and other possible harm. All these are within a 15 mile radius of the power plant, and they are downwind of the plant when considering the direction of the prevailing winds in this region. 4. The Longview power plant is sited for northcentral Monongalia County in northcentral West Virginia. This Monongalia County has been determined to have an unusually high level of fine particular matter in the air. The US-EPA has underway the decision process to determine by mid-December 2008, why Monongalia County should not be place in the “non-attainment” status for particulates smaller than 2.5 microns, i.e. “PM-2.5”. Given that fine particulate matter in this size range is generated predominantly by sulfur oxides and to some extent the nitrogen oxides where the primary sources are fossil fuel combustion, i.e. coal-fired power plants, it stands to reason that new emissions need to be limited substantially to preserve the quality of the ambient air for all the citizens of the county and region. And, given that acid rain is generate by these same precursors, viz. sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides. Therefore, the underlying problems are the same and consideration of one issue (non-attainment) is interrelated with the other issue (acid rain). 5. Extremely high levels of sulfates in the local streams has resulted in the curtailment of industrial activities in the region of Monongalia County and southwestern Pennsylvania. These same problems are impacting the water supplies for over 350,000 people in this same region. Sulfate ion concentrations as high as 400 parts per million are being monitored in the Monongahela River and some of the tributaries are showing higher concentrations. Already mitigating actions are being called for to reduce the acidic effluents and protect the public water supplies and industrial water sources. The emission of acid gases in the presence of the large steam plumes from the Longview power plant will adversely impact the local streams with increases in sulfate ion and other substances that contribute to the total dissolved solids (TDS) content of the streams here. The TDS levels being monitored in the Monongahela River at the USGS station at Elizabeth (PA), downstream of the proposed Longview emissions, has been showing electrical conductivity levels (a surrogate for TDS) more than twice as high as had otherwise been observed over the past 35 years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =========================================================== Thursday, November 6, 2008 @ 3:31 PM =========================================================== NOTICE OF COMMENT PERIOD FOR DRAFT/PROPOSED ACID RAIN PERMIT Under Phase II of the Acid Rain Program (40 CFR 72 and 45CSR33), the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality (DAQ) proposes to approve a Phase II Acid Rain Permit, R33-56671-2013-1, for Unit 001 at Longview Power LLC’s Longview Power facility located near Morgantown, West Virginia. Longview Power is not eligible to receive sulfur dioxide (SO2) allowance allocations from the U.S. EPA under 40 CFR part 73, but may acquire allowances from other sources. This unit is still obligated to hold SO2 allowances as required under and in accordance with 40 CFR §72.9(c)(1). One allowance authorizes the unit to emit one ton of sulfur dioxide. The permit does not affect Longview Power’s responsibility to meet all other existing local, state and federal requirements related to SO2 and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. The Designated Representative for Longview Power is Mr. Charles Huguenard of Longview Power LLC, 306 Dents Run Road, Morgantown, WV 26501. All written comments submitted by the public and affected state(s) pursuant to this notice must be received by the DAQ within thirty (30) days of the date of publication of this notice. Under the Direct proposed procedures of 40 CFR §72.72(b)(1)(v), if no significant, adverse comments are timely submitted, the proposed permit will be deemed issued on the publication date of this notice or from the date the USEPA receives this draft/proposed permit, whichever is later. Written comments submitted by the USEPA must be received by the DAQ within forty-five (45) days from such date. If significant, adverse comments are timely submitted, the proposed permit will be issued in accordance with 40 CFR §72.72(b)(1)(iv). In the event that the 30th//45th day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the comment period will be extended until 5:00 p.m. on the following regularly scheduled business day. Copies of the Draft/Proposed Permit may be downloaded from the DAQ's web site at the following address: http://www.wvdep.org/daq The Draft/Proposed Permit and the Administrative Record, except information protected as confidential, are available for public review at the following location(s) between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.: WV Department of Environmental Protection Division of Air Quality 601 57th Street, SE Charleston, WV 25304 Contact: Frederick Tipane (304) 926-0499 ext. 1215 OR WV Department of Environmental Protection Division of Air Quality North Central Regional Office 2031 Pleasant Valley Road, Suite #1 Fairmont, WV 26554-9295 (304) 368-3910 Send comments, and/or requests for a public hearing to John A. Benedict, Director, Division of Air Quality, at the above Charleston address. Submit all comments in duplicate and identify the permit to which the comments apply. The submission shall include the commenter’s name and address, the commenter’s interest in this matter and the affiliation, if any, the commenter has to the owner or operator of the unit(s) covered by the permit. All relevant, timely comments will be considered except for those pertaining to any standard requirement under 40 CFR §72.9 and issues not related to the permit, such as the environmental effects of acid rain or permit issuance procedures or actions on other permit applications not relevant to the issuance or denial of the permit. Any person who requests a public hearing must state the issues proposed to be raised in the hearing. If the DAQ finds that a hearing will contribute to the decision making process by clarifying significant issues affecting the draft/proposed permit, a hearing will be announced. **************Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news & more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?red… p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)

1 0

Interfaith Power and Light
by duane330＠aol.com 13 Nov '08

13 Nov '08

The President-elect should be focusing on all of these categories. We will include more than one in the petition. But we want to know which you think should be emphasized most. Which one element do you think is most important for the faith community to emphasize in our petition to the next U.S. President to be delivered in January 2009? (You can find out more about climate policies by visiting our Public Policy page.) NOTE: A petition is being prepared by the national group known as the Interfaith Power and Light, with its focus on the global climate change problem. This is being distributed for your information and reflection. Duane Nichols. Cap Emissions and Auction the Permits 35% reduction by 2020 and 80% by 2050 Accelerate these reductions to avoid further warming beyond 2º F Auction 100% of credits and direct revenue to developing clean energy Green the Electricity Sector Move America toward a 100% clean energy future by maximizing energy efficiency, modernizing the grid, and greatly expanding power generation from renewable energy resources Stop New Coal Put a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants until carbon emissions can be captured and permanently sequestered Clean up Transportation Invest in clean mass transit infrastructure, increase fuel economy standards, and invest in alternative fuels Make Climate Policies Equitable and Just Provide energy efficiency to low-income families Create 5 million green collar jobs Adaptation assistance to undeveloped nations

1 0

The RAND Corporation reports.............
by duane330＠aol.com 07 Nov '08

07 Nov '08

RAND study warns of liquid coal problems By Ken?Ward Jr., Staff writer, Charleston Gazette, November 5, 2008 CHARLESTON, W.Va. - Alternative sources of fossil fuels such as coal-to-liquids technologies have "significant economic promise," but also major environmental challenges, according to a recent study by the RAND Corp. Turning coal into liquid fuel could significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions, and the costs of reducing those emissions might make the process too costly, according to the study by RAND's Environment, Energy and Economic Development Program. "Because the potential environmental impacts are considerable, decision makers need to assess the economic and other benefits of alternative fuels relative to these environmental concerns," said Mike Toman, lead author of the report. The report, issued last month, analyzes coal-to-liquids fuels along with Canadian oil sands technologies, considers possible impacts of fuel costs from carbon dioxide limits and compares the costs of these alternative fuels to projected conventional petroleum prices in 2025. In West Virginia, Gov. Joe Manchin is pushing for coal-to-liquids plants. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., has been running campaign ads to say that the state's coal miners "will free us from foreign oil." But many energy experts are worried that liquid coal creates perhaps twice as much carbon dioxide as traditional gasoline. Liquid coal would produce greenhouse gases when the fuel is made, and then again when it is burned. Producing liquid fuel from oil sands poses similar problems, and - like coal mining - can harm local water quality and cause large-scale disturbances of land. The RAND study found that liquid coal and oil sands "do not, in themselves, offer a path to greatly reduced [carbon dioxide] emissions, though there are additional possibilities for limiting emissions." RAND found that even when carbon dioxide emissions from fuel production are captured and stored, "life-cycle emissions of [carbon dioxide] for these alternative fuels are comparable to those of conventional fuels." "Large-scale production of these unconventional fuels does not reduce emissions of CO2," the RAND study said. RAND said the future cost of liquid coals could "be reasonably competitive" with conventional petroleum, provided that: Oil prices do not fall back to pre-2006 levels; there are further improvements in coal-to-liquids technology as production volumes grow; and carbon dioxide limits do not impose "too large a cost burden on liquid fuels from coal relative to conventional fuels." "Since major investments in coal-to-liquids become more likely if environmentally sound carbon capture and storage can be commercialized at relatively low cost, the future expansion of this fuel source will be strongly influenced by future private sector and government initiatives to support such commercialization," Toman said. "However, even with carbon capture and storage deployed, neither alternative fuel offers a path toward large long-term reductions in total carbon dioxide emissions to limit climate change," Toman added. "There will still be a need to develop lower-carbon fuel options, such as fuel synthesized from a mixture of coal and sustainably grown biomass." RAND is a nonprofit research organization "providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world." Reach Ken Ward Jr. at kw...(a)wvgazette.com or 348-1702. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2772241.html

1 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

MVCAC November 2008