West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
The list of bedrock American laws that Rand Paul is opposed to keeps growing longer. In addition to the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, Paul has made it clear that he doesn't like the Clean Air Act either. Last weekend, Paul said that President Obama should leave Kentucky alone, especially when it comes to pollution. "You need to keep the EPA out of our affairs," he called on the president.
Paul prefers to have things "handled on a local level." But unlike Paul, I grew up in Kentucky, and I question this logic.
My elementary school sat on a cliff above an Ashland Oil refinery, and our playground was about eye level with the top of their smokestacks. When the paint on teachers' car started to peel and children started getting sick, the PTA tried to make Ashland Oil do something about it. After some fighting, the company finally installed air monitors on the kickball field - and a few months later the school closed its doors.
What sticks with me still is the way the problem was solved: As far as I can see, Ashland Oil didn't clean up its act at all. Our school shut down instead.
Federal efforts to cut pollution aren't perfect, but they are the last line of defense for places like my hometown. They literally save our lives: the Clean Air Act, for instance, has been documented to prevent hundreds of thousands of premature deaths.
Kentucky has a long dark history of environmental injustice. Amazing groups like Appalachian Voices have been fighting for cleaner water, cleaner air, and better safety rules for miners. They often find local solutions, but they also turn to federal agencies like the EPA and the Mine Safety and Health Administration when they need to.
Paul may call it "federal overreach," but I call it protecting the health of Kentuckians.
Of course, Paul trots out the old saw that cutting pollution kills jobs. But I think Paul is more concerned about ideology than jobs, because if he really wanted to create jobs for Kentucky, he wouldn't turn his back on clean energy and climate legislation. Clean energy jobs are growing 2.5 times as fast as traditional jobs. Paul would rather shoot down federal climate solutions than bring the jobs of the 21st century to his state.
Instead, he is banking on the same old dirty industries, and he seems to think that if children get asthma because they played on a field next to a refinery, that's alright because someone had a job. I am sorry, but I can't accept the misconception that my classmates and I were the collateral damage of some polluter's payroll. Good companies that are following the law and being good neighbors provide jobs every single day.
Companies have found time and again that a clean business model is part of the recipe for a successful company. That is why 5,171 small businesses from across the country are supporting the climate bill. That is why some of the largest companies in the nation are calling on Congress to take action immediately.
The parents I know in Kentucky have no interest in working jobs that sacrifice their children's health. They want to provide for their families AND keep them safe at the same time. This isn't an either or situation. Paul seems to forget this in the midst of his fixation with "federal overreach." I too respect states rights, but states still have to be good neighbors. Local empowerment doesn't give you the right to endanger your residents' health, export pollution into nearby states, or block national solutions to fight global climate change.
If leaders like Paul forget these lessons in responsibility, then I am glad federal agencies like the EPA can step in and remind them.
Between the loss of Sen. Byrd, the heat wave, the Gulf oil spill, the World Cup, and a dozen other major news, I completely missed this yesterday:
The EPA yesterday proposed a new rule that would control emissions of sulfur dioxide (So2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) in 28 states - including West Virginia - because they drift to other states and form fine air-borne particulates and ozone.
For weeks, environmental groups have been pressuring to defeat Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski's resolution to weaken the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Our junior senator was at the heart of such pressure, as he was a key swing vote in deciding whether Murkowski's resolution would gain favor in the senate.
Rockefeller introduced a separate bill that would have more narrowly limited EPA's authority by imposing a two-year time-out on EPA climate rules for stationary sources, but he has said he had trouble advancing the measure.
In other words, the Rockefeller bill would give a two-year grace period for any EPA environmental regulations to take effect. The White House, thankfully, has promised to veto the Murkowski disapproval resolution, should it somehow pass in the senate.
At stake here is Senator Rockefeller's unfortunate stance that the coal industry and other carbon-producing companies should not be regulated at the federal level (e.g., very little or no regulation) and his wrongheaded support of an anti-environmental agenda. Rockefeller needs to rescind his support for the Murkowski amendment and withdraw his alternate, weak bill that stifles the EPA's ability to protect communities from industry-created environmental destruction. Rockefeller's antiquated stance here is anything but progressive, unfortunately.
If the EPA hearing permit is allowed for the Spruce #1 operation, that mine, owned by Arch Coal, would be the largest mountaintop removal site in West Virginia.
Although I attended that hearing, I chose not to speak publicly because I'm not from Logan or Mingo, so I really didn't think I had enough "skin in the game" to risk getting screamed at jeered down, and possibly beaten to a pulp. And at the time I wasn't certain about the science or the effect that surface mining has on the rest of the state. I am now. And I will put my comments into the public record because I do have a vested interest in stopping mountaintop removal.
Although I love West Virginia's scenery and the wildlife, it's not enough to warrant really getting actively involved to the point of risking my own safety. However, I've done more than a little research which compels me to at least add my comments to the debate. Not only that, I've chosen to share what I've found with the readers of WVA BLUE with sincere the hope that you'll be persuaded to join with me and add your comments to the EPA record as well.
I know this is a long article, and I apologize for that. If at any point you decide to cut to the chase and post your comments in opposition to the permit you can scroll to the bottom of this report where detailed instructions from the EPA website are posted, along with relevant links. But before you do so, you may wish to utilize the info found by clicking on the embedded links to scientific peer reviewed studies below. The EPA will hopefully do its job and protect the lives of our coalpatch neighbors rather than cave to moans and groans of atsroturfing profiteers most of whom don't even live in this state.
The deadline for filing is June 1.
I'll start out by explaining that my experience at the Spruce #1 EPA hearing was quite different from the one held at the same venue months earlier by the Army corps of engineers. Ken Ward Jr. only got around to telling a very small part of that story when he reported:
Tuesday's hearing was far more orderly than an October session run by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At that event, mining supporters yelled and jeered repeatedly whenever any mountaintop removal critics or opponents attempted to speak.
Unfortunately he failed to report that the Charleston police actually ejected anti-mountaintop removal folks who were just trying to get into the venue.
When I tried to attend that meeting I was jostled outside to the point where my camera was damaged. Besides the many many brand-new looking reflective mining coveralls and commercially printed signs (both of which looked suspiciously like astroturf rather than grassroots), what I also witnessed was carloads of people who weren't wearing pro MTR gear stopping in front of the Civic Center, then driving away without getting out once they saw the mayhem caused by what I suspect were mostly overweight bused-in astroturfing mine equipment salesmen dressed up to look like miners. Primarily because their hands stood out as even more soft and plump than their guts under their brand new jumpsuits.
The Army Corps of Engineers and the Charleston Police let that deal get completely out of hand. And because of it, and a number of other similar incidents, the word has gotten out to the anti-surface mining community that even if you came early and tried to speak out, you would be yelled down. The Coalpatch Gazette and Daily Wail failed miserably to report what happened outside that hearing, and unfortunately the upshot of that earlier violence was that people whom I personally know determined that it would be another a waste of time to drive all the way from Logan and Mingo only to get shouted down and threatened.
You can thank the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for that travesty. Whose own pollution, by the way, was directly responsible for the only application of a Superfund site cleanup in the southern part of WV. Some "guardians", eh?
Anyway, one of the major discoveries which compels this resident of Kanawha County to get involved is the fact that since the widespread proliferation of mountaintop removal scientific studies have been done which reveal that coal operations cost all of West Virginia far more than they plug back into our economy primarily due to the illness and premature deaths it causes to families living near those operations.
This is going to be a really hard one for the science-driven Obama EPA to ignore. They just announced new air quality standards in line with most recent smog science, now how will the EPA react to established water quality threats from mountain top removal?
What's wrong with this picture - a person is poisoned and the manufacturer doesn't have to tell medical personnel what it was? And worse, the manufacturer doesn't think they have an ethical obligation?
Last year, a Colorado nurse fell seriously ill after treating a worker involved at a chemical spill at a gas-drilling site. The man, who later recovered, appeared at a Durango hospital complaining of dizziness and nausea. His work boots were damp; he reeked of chemicals, the nurse said.
Two days later, the nurse, Cathy Behr, was fighting for her life. Her liver was failing and her lungs were filling with fluid. Behr said her doctors diagnosed chemical poisoning and called the manufacturer, Weatherford International, to find out what she might have been exposed to.
Weatherford provided safety information, including hazards, for the chemical, known as ZetaFlow. But because ZetaFlow has confidential status, the information did not include all of its ingredients.
Mark Stanley, group vice president for Weatherford's pumping and chemical services, said in a statement that the company made public all the information legally required.
"It is always in our company's best interest to provide information to the best of our ability," he said.
Behr said the full ingredient list should be released. "I'd really like to know what went wrong," said Behr, 57, who recovered but said she still has respiratory problems. "As citizens in a democracy, we ought to know what's happening around us."
from this much longer WaPo article on secret chemicals.
The Legislature should be looking at forcing disclosure of drilling (and other) chemicals until the EPA gets its act together on this. As a bare minimum, full disclosure should be required in at least acute exposure situations like this and any release into ground or surface water.
- Speaking at Massey's Christmas extravaganza Saturday, Don Blankenship got into the holiday spirit by referring to Senator Byrd as "naive" and said EPA stand for 'Equal Poverty for All."
-Steve Roberts of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce can't understand why our senators think it's "beyond foolish" to hold health care reform hostage for the coal barons.
This just in EPA chief Lisa Jackson is explaining in an unprecedented news conference that GHG's are manmade and should and will be regulated by EPA. Great news!
DEP Secretary Randy Huffman says he is frustrated by the Environmental Protection Agency stepping on his agency's toes.
EPA officials were in Charleston last week. The EPA is raising concerns about several mountaintop removal permits, including two in West Virginia, but Huffman says all mining-related activities are already heavily regulated by the DEP.
"We are the environmental regulators here in West Virginia," he said. "We are the ones on the front line here. We are the ones responsible for protecting the environment. We have a very rigorous and robust regulatory program that is basically being challenged.
[snip]
Huffman says the sticking point is that the EPA believes that creating valley fills-the practice where the tops of the mountains are removed and put into a nearby valley-contribute to stream degradation. But Huffman says valley fills are essential to mountaintop removal, as well as the state's economy.
"Mainly what we're concerned about as regulators is the ability to develop land after mining," he said. "You need valley fills if you're going to have a viable post mining economy. You need flat land. And in order to have flat land you need to have valley fills, and one of our biggest concerns is that EPA is wanting to reduce the size and number of valley fills in Appalachia."
The EPA has avoided making any kind of blanket declarations on mountaintop removal, and has said only that future permits will be closely scrutinized.
Groups Charge that Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining Disproportionately Impacts Low-Income Americans
Petition Seeks Greater Attention to Environmental Justice Considerations in Review of Mining Permits
Washington, D.C.: Today a coalition of Appalachian residents and community organizations submitted a petition to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) citing the need for the agency to address the environmental justice tragedy of mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia. The petition urges EPA to incorporate environmental justice considerations into its review of pending applications for mountaintop removal coal mining permits, among other actions. The petition outlines how EPA has the responsibility under Executive Order 12898 to address the environmental justice impacts of mountaintop removal mining, and has the authority under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and other laws, to do so.
"The worst polluters have always targeted the communities least able to resist their abuses and protect their homes and families," said Vernon Haltom of Coal River Mountain Watch. "In Appalachia, coal companies are oppressing residents while they suck the wealth out of communities."
On September 30, 2009, EPA announced that it is undertaking a coordinated review of 79 applications for mountaintop removal mining permits in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Today's petition asserts that these, and all future applications for mountaintop removal coal mining permits, should be scrutinized by EPA to identify and address any disparate impacts the proposed mining may have on vulnerable, economically disadvantaged communities. The petition also asks EPA to create an environmental justice plan and strategy for the region, and to ensure a meaningful opportunity for public participation by the Appalachian coalfield communities in each individual permit review and in EPA's overall permit review process.
"The people of the Appalachian coal fields are among the nation's poorest. Many of us struggle with persistent poverty and sub-standard housing. To impose the impacts of coal on our already vulnerable population is an environmental justice issue that our nation has conveniently ignored for too long. We are forced to live with the ravaged landscape, polluted air, flooding and contaminated water. Clean water is a basic human right and it's been taken from us," said Teri Blanton of Kentuckians for the Commonwealth.
"The Appalachian people have long suffered unduly for the sacrifices we have made to fuel this nation and its progress," said Kathy Selvage of Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards. "I believe if the EPA folks visited in the Appalachian region for awhile, they would find themselves standing in the West Wing advocating for an end to mountaintop removal coal mining immediately to help us save our ancient mountains and the place we call home."
View the petition, filed by groups including: Coal River Mountain Watch, Kentuckians For The Commonwealth (KFTC), Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (OVEC), Sierra Club's Environmental Justice and Community Partnerships Program, Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards (SAMS), Statewide Organizing for Community eMpowerment (SOCM), and the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment.
"The communities of Appalachia have suffered appalling damage from mountaintop removal mining because of the remoteness of the region and the poverty of the people living here. It is past time to acknowledge the horrendous impacts of all forms of mountaintop removal mining on the people of Appalachia. Our communities have struggled long enough. We need action now," said Cathie Bird, coalfield resident and member of Statewide Organizing for Community eMpowerment
"We urge the EPA to scrutinize all mountaintop removal mining permits through the lens of environmental justice," said Janet Keating, Executive Director of the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, based in Huntington, WV. "People living with mountaintop removal are paying too high of a price for the nation's so-called 'cheap' energy, including damage to their health and the contamination of their water."
Due to its vital charge under Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," the EPA must take immediate steps to recognize and address the environmental justice effects of mountaintop removal mining, a destructive practice that is occurring at a high and destructive rate and only in the economically disadvantaged communities of Appalachia. The disproportionate environmental destruction from mountaintop removal clearly falls within the purview of the Executive Order.
"The environmental justice claims in this petition are not an afterthought," said Leslie Fields, Sierra Club's National Environmental Justice and Community Partnerships Director. "Proper review of permits will only occur when the EPA abides by the environmental justice executive order and all other applicable laws. The affected communities in Appalachia deserve no less than full compliance and enforcement by the EPA."
When the Environmental Protection Agency declared this year on September 11 that all pending mountaintop removal mining permits in four Appalachian states stood in violation of the Clean Water Act and required further review, Lora Webb didn't have time to join in any celebrations. As she and her husband, Steve, a coal miner, packed up their possessions and left his family's ancestral property outside Lindytown, West Virginia, Lora was more concerned about finding a place to sleep that night.
This post co-written by Mary Anne Hitt, Deputy Director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign
Very big news out of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) this morning - the agency has determined that all 79 mountaintop removal mining permits submitted to them for review by the Army Corps of Engineers would violate the Clean Water Act. After eight long years of rubber-stamp permits being issued during the Bush Administration, this is one of the most dramatic and encouraging actions yet by the Obama Administration, and marks a welcome return of the rule of law to the coalfields of Appalachia.
Mountaintop removal - a devastating form of coal mining that involves blowing up mountains and dumping the former mountaintops into neighboring valleys, burying streams - is governed by a patchwork of laws and federal agencies. Permits to bury streams with mining waste are initially issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, but EPA has ultimate oversight and may veto Corps-issued permits if they fail to comply with the Clean Water Act.
ROCKEFELLER FIGHTS FOR WEST VIRGINIA SURFACE MINING
Rockefeller challenges the EPA for requesting the Army Corps of Engineers to revoke a West Virginia surface mining permit
Washington, D.C.-Senator Jay Rockefeller pressed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson on the EPA's request to suspend or revoke the already approved surface mining permit for the Spruce Number 1 Mine in Logan County. Senator Rockefeller sent a copy of the letter to President Obama, including a personal note emphasizing its importance.
"Retroactively reviewing lawfully issued permits is an affront to the West Virginia coal industry which is trying to play by the rules. It is fundamentally unfair to change the rules for a permit issued over two years ago and this letter raises serious questions about the EPA's approach," said Senator Rockefeller.
"I am a long time supporter of surface mining operations when done in accordance with the law. Surface mining is vital to the economy of southern West Virginia and our nation's electricity needs and it certainly can be carried out in a way that addresses environmental impacts. We must not lose sight of the fact that coal meets half of our nation's electricity needs and powers millions of American homes and businesses and will for decades into the future. For generations, coal has given the American people the highest standard of living in the world and today much of it comes from rigorously reviewed and safely-run operations in West Virginia. Calling previously approved permits into question needlessly threatens not only the economic stability of many West Virginia communities, but also our nation's energy security."
* The Spruce Number 1 Mine permit was reviewed by the Corps of Engineers for nearly ten years before being approved in January 2007, and has been active for over two years.
* To satisfy initial EPA concerns, the final permit reduced the acreage of the permit by 835 acres or 27 percent and excess spoil by 150 million cubic yards, a 57 percent decrease.
* EPA Region III sent a letter on September 3, 2009 to the Army Corps of Engineers, asking the Corps to reevaluate the Spruce 1 Mine permit.
* The Spruce Mine Permit is not a pending application to be considered as part of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that the Corps of Engineers entered into with the EPA (as well as the Department of Interior) in June 2009.
* Reopening a permit over two years after it was lawfully issued creates an unacceptable level uncertainty for all previously issued permits, a result completely contrary to the goals of the MOU.
I received an email response to my recent diary on "What I'd like to know about W.Va. DEP." Here's a paraphrased version of their email. I pass it along as an anonymous unverified tip.
The Office of Legal Services (OLS) will have only 4 attorneys left after one of the attorneys retires at the end of July. As recently as 1-2 years ago, there was a staff of 10 attorneys in that department. The Chief of the OLS has asked to replace positions as people leave, but has not been given permission. People who have been there a while say this office was even bigger (15? attorneys) in the past.
Also, three of the seven spots on the Surface Mine Board are vacant (two from June retirements). Gov. Manchin was not announced any plans for filling these spots yet.
I certainly welcome clarification from the W.Va. DEP if any of this information is inaccurate.
Copyright 2009 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, the tireless efforts of volunteer contributors and continued participation from this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong soley to their respective authors.
DEP Secretary Randy Huffman says he is frustrated by the Environmental Protection Agency stepping on his agency's toes.
