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.
Here in West Virginia we are seriously interested in reforming the coal mining industry - whether easing it out entirely or at least improving the pollution of the air and water due to mining practices - but the most important reform necessary is mine safety.
There have been many regulations passed over the years to improve mine safety including inspections, improved methods and both labor and management responsibilites. One year ago today, however, a company called Massey Energy and an inspection system that was basically ignored, was responsible for an explosion in the Upper Big Branch Mine, Montcoal, WV (about 30 miles south of Charleston.)
The best part about this NYTimes blog piece on the new "reality" tv series Coal has to be mined from the comments:
I was one of the videographers for "Coal Country" a documentary about coal mining in West Virginia. The film walked the viewer through the whole process of how coal is extracted and processed and how that system of taking coal from the ground destroys nature, lives and the economy.Reality TV is exploitation and ridiculous. When I taught production at a local college, I put Reality TV at the lowest level of what video can be used for, I think I listed it below pornography. I worked one day on a reality show that I won't mention, I'll never do it again.Of course they'll never look at the true nature of coal on this show, that would be TOO real. Please understand also, that the so called dramas created on these shows, are provoked by the producers and directors. Coal mining is hard work but the real drama is coal companies threatening the lives of local residents who oppose it, the utter annihilation of nature (you wouldn't believe your eyes,) and the West Virginia government that sells out it's own people to make a profit."Reality TV" is an oxymoron.
You're walking down the street, minding your own business when all of a sudden a well-dressed man in an expensive three-piece suit jumps out of an alley, whips a contract out of his pocket and yells "Give me all your money!" You're terrified of reading all the legalese and he's got a whole pack of lawyers and bankers and bought off government officials in his entourage, so you fork over all your cash and promise to make a monthly payment.
The well-dressed man in the three-piece suit starts to walk away and you think to yourself, "Hey, wait a minute! I just got robbed!" Angry, you storm after him, tap him on the shoulder and yell, "Hey, I just lost all my money!"
But this is when the well-dressed man in the three-piece suit shows his true criminal genius. "You're right!" he says, throwing you off guard. You hadn't expected him to agree with you and validate your anger. And he says it with such enthusiasm and charisma, and here is this very wealthy man who seems to identify with you on an emotional level. It feels good. "I can't believe all that you've lost! You've made sacrifices! You're down on your luck! That's not fair at all!"
The Alternative Coal Slurry Disposal Act (SB 248; HB 2850) actually went somewhere this year! It was sent to Judiciary and Finance in both houses of the Legislature. Both judiciary houses took up the respective bills, however, gutting them of their initial purpose. Environmental coalition Sludge Safety Project pushed the bills at the State Capitol.
The bills were never brought up for discussion in either Finance Committee meeting. There's always next year, right?
The Alternative Coal Slurry Disposal Act would have put a ban on future injection sites and modifications of current ones. Permits for injection sites are for up to 5 years.
It is believed that well water can be compromised in locations where underground slurry injection is taking place. Slurry related well water contamination is a problem for many in Prenter and Rawl, W.Va.
In the above March 1st video, Mathew Louis-Rosenburg, an organizer with Sludge Safety Project, talks about the slurry bills and their importance, SCR 15 and the ridiculous study that resulted from it, and a heated exchange in Senate Judiciary with a certain person from the DEP (actually named-unlike in Ry Rivard's recent Daily Mail article).
After screening "Dirty Business:'Clean Coal' and the Battle for our Energy Future," a panel discussion followed with filmmaker Peter Bull, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition Executive Director Janet Keating and Rory McIlmoil, energy project manager for Downstream Strategies. The event was part of a nationwide series of Center for Investigative Reporting sponsored screenings of the film as an effort to promote public dialogue on America's energy future.
39 years ago today, the tragic Buffalo Creek flood killed 125 people, injured 1,100, left over 4,000 homeless and obliterated the town of Saunders, West Virginia. The Buffalo Creek tragedy should be a stark reminder of the dangers when there aren't adequate regulations and corporate earnings outweigh concerns about safety.
The flood followed the collapse of the #3 Pittston Dam when approximately 132 million gallons of black waste water rushed through Buffalo Creek hollow.
"In the days preceding February 26, 1972, rain fell almost continuously, although experts later claimed this was typical for late winter weather in the area. Buffalo Mining officials, concerned about the condition of the highest dam, measured water levels every two hours the night of the twenty-fifth.
Although a Pittston official in the area was alerted to the increasing danger, the residents of the hollow were not informed. The company sent away two deputy sheriffs, who had been dispatched to assist with potential evacuations. Despite the lack of warning from company officials, some residents sensed the danger and moved to higher ground."
We would be wise to learn the lessons of Buffalo Creek as we debate new regulations (and the lack thereof) for Marcellus Shale drilling and impacts of Mountaintop Removal mining with huge sludge impoundments like the one with 2 BILLION gallons of coal waste sludge that sits 400 yards above Marsh Fork Elementary School.
Let's honor the memory of Buffalo Creek by ensuring that similar tragedies never occur again. Based on last year's BP oil spill, and the reluctance of lawmakers to fund increased inspectors for Marcellus Shale drilling, we still have a lot of work to do.
You can't be friends with coal. You can't be a friend of coal. You can't be coal's enemy or out to destroy coal or declare a war on coal. Coal is just a black rock. To be more specific, it's a "black or dark brown mineral substance consisting of carbonized vegetable matter." It cannot be your friend or your enemy.
I am writing this in response to the many articles, editorials, ads, billboards, radio spots and just run of the mill conversations that I have seen and heard concerning coal since I moved back to the Ohio Valley last summer. I am tired of the all or nothing, with us or against us attitude that so many seem to have around this issue. People claim to be "friends of coal" and berate imagined scary liberals in Washington who are out to "destroy coal."
Too many in the West Virginia legislature are fine with poisoning wells:
House of Delegates committee on Monday eliminated a permanent ban on disposing of coal slurry by pumping it underground from legislation aimed at curbing the practice.
The decision by the House Judiciary Committee is a win for coal mine operators, who want to continue slurry injections. And it's a defeat to coalfield residents and environmental groups who say the practice pollutes groundwater and is linked to cancer, lead poisoning, kidney failure and other health problems.
snip
Joe Stanley, a retired coal miner from Pritchard, blasted the committee's action.
"I thought the amendment gutted the legislation," Stanley said. "The technology exists to do this a different way."
Cindy Rank has generously provided permission to reprint this article from the February Highlands Voice, the monthly newsletter of the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy.
By Cindy Rank
From WV Highlands Conservancy's perspective as the organizational plaintiff in the 1998 Bragg v Robertson litigation, this Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) veto of the Clean Water Act (CWA) 404 fill permit for Spruce #1/Pigeonroost has been long in coming but is much welcomed. Agency personnel deserve a great deal of gratitude for the work they have done to make it happen at long last.
Of course in the midst of celebratory moments we need also pause to remember the late Sibby Weekly who endured far more than any person should have to during the years of fighting for her home. And of course Sibby's husband Jimmy who still lives on his family homeplace in Pigeonroost hollow at the foot of the mountain where mining in Seng Camp (the northern portion of the Spruce #1 permit) continues ... and is not part of the recent veto.
And then there is the 'spin'. Among the more frustrating aspects of the EPA veto is the mileage gained by industry supporters from the misstatements and misleading information intentionally promoted by industry reps, and even our Congressional and state leaders, misinformation that is repeated and published in whatever media outlets are willing to give space to their statements without investigating for further accuracy.
For purposes of this February issue of the Highlands Voice John McFerrin has included some of these details in his concise summary of the veto itself, but allow me to focus on just a few of what I consider the major misleading myths.
Myth #1 - EPA granted then revoked the Spruce #1 permit [Or, as John McFerrin would describe it, the "EPA offered a cookie and then jerked it back"]
FALSE - The Army Corps of Engineers approved the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 (fill) permit for the Spruce #1 coal mine - not EPA.
However, the Clean Water Act designates EPA as lead agency overseeing ALL CWA permits and has given the agency final veto authority over CWA permits - whoever approved them. In the case of the Spruce #1 permit, EPA determined the environmental impacts of the planned mine to be unacceptable and that a veto was warranted by science and the law.
[Again, as John McFerrin has said, industry and its supporters are using a lawyer trick. If you can't win on the merits (your guy is guilty as sin) then complain about the procedure. If they're wrong on the procedure, what do they have left?]
BACKGROUND - The confusion arises from a somewhat unique set of shared authorities established when the Clean Water Act became law in the early 1970's.
i.e. When writing the Clean Water Act Congress incorporated the Army Corps' historic role and authority established under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (and amended several times after that). Section 404 of the Clean Water Act specifically designates the Corps to be responsible for approving dredge and fill activities in waters of the U.S. and outlines considerations that need to be made when reviewing applications for Section 404 permits.
To assure the basic tenets of the Clean Water Act are enforced properly the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given the authority to oversee ALL activities - including those taken by the Corps under Section 404 of the Act. To accomplish this, the EPA was given the authority to have input to and comment on 404 permit applications, and in the event approval of permits by the Corps were determined to contradict the fundamental protection measures of the CWA, the EPA is authorized to VETO those actions.
Myth #2 - EPA did nothing for three years after the Corps granted the permit. This decision was totally unexpected - It came out of the blue.
FALSE - during the decade long discussion, debate and study of the Spruce#1 application EPA consistently voiced its concerns about the permit, worked with the company and Corps to resolve those concerns, and continued to gather documentation about the damage already being done in the area proposed to be mined. The US Fish and Wildlife Service also continued to voice concerns, but in the end the Corps basically thumbed its nose at those concerns and approved the permit.
BACKGROUND: For the three years following Corps approval of the permit EPA continued to gather the information about the growing body of knowledge about the impacts of mining in the watershed area and how the Spruce permit would contribute to further degradation. The agency carefully followed procedures in Section 404 about preparing documentation and allowing ample time for company and Corps response and public input to the proposed determination to veto the permit, all the while working with the Corps and the company to resolve long standing objections.
Myth #3 - OPTIONS - EPA was never serious about considering alternatives that would allow mining to proceed
FALSE - EPA hired a well known and respected engineering group to suggest alternative mining methods that would reduce the stream impacts of the permit without overly restricting the amount of coal produced from the site. There is no indication that Arch Coal had or has any intention of proposing to use one of the suggestions detailed in the September 2010 Morgan Worldwide report. Nor is the company proposing a different option of its own despite EPA's efforts to work with the company.
As originally proposed the mine was to encompass 3,300 acres [nearly 5 square miles]. The original area was reduced to 2,278 acres as a result of an earlier EIS and input from the same engineering firm but did not reduce the environmental impacts enough to warrant approval - hence the ongoing attempts to consider further changes to the mine plan and EPA's contracting with Morgan Worldwide to suggested alternatives to further reduce the impact area.
Whether the company is unwilling to absorb the additional cost involved with the proposed alternatives, or even if EPA would be willing to accept any of those alternatives as sufficient to justify the permit remains to be seen. [... From my reading of the proposed alternative mine plans, I personally can't imagine any of them could sufficiently reduce the cumulative impacts EPA cited as reasons for veto. ]
BACKGROUND - In addition to the environmental impacts to stream quality and aquatic life cited by EPA as support for its veto and partially listed in John's summary article in this issue of the Voice, the irreversible negative impacts experienced by people depending on those streams and local wildlife, were clear in comments from, meetings with, and testimony by residents of Blair and other nearby communities to EPA during the programmatic Mountaintop/Valley Fill EIS (1998-2005) and to the WV state Governors Task Force on Mountain Top removal and to legislative and Congressional hearings this past decade.
Twelve years later EPA has that much more documentation of stream degradation from these mining operations and negative impacts to fish and other wildlife. ... Twelve years later there is an explosion of individual communities and directly impacted citizens speaking out and relating similar experiences.
The negative impact of these big mines is disproportionately high in the mostly lower income mountain communities of Appalachia. This is true in Blair, and Lindytown and Twilight and Mud and Sharples and Kayford and Whitesville and Edwight and Sylvester and Prenter and so many other small communities throughout southern West Virginia, eastern Kentucky southwest Virginia and parts of Tennessee, one can only hope concern for these environmental justice issues will not end with this one permit.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) warned the coal industry Friday that it must work to find solutions to the many problems facing the fossil fuel or risk being "left behind."
Rockefeller, an ardent proponent of coal, told attendees at a conference of the West Virginia Coal Association that the industry must not focus all of its attention on blocking upcoming climate regulations. Instead, the industry should work to develop technology to reduce the greenhouse gases emitted during coal-fired power production so that coal can continue to be a competitive source of electricity.
Update: entire speech transcript below
ROCKEFELLER: COAL CAN BE THE CORNERSTONE OF TOMORROW'S ENERGY ECONOMY
Delivers Remarks at Annual West Virginia Coal Association Symposium
Charleston, W.Va.-Senator Jay Rockefeller today delivered remarks at the West Virginia Coal Association's 38th Annual Mining Symposium.
Below is Rockefeller's speech, as prepared for delivery:
Thank you Bill for your introduction, your friendship and your leadership.
You and Chris Hamilton and the entire West Virginia Coal Association give so much of yourselves personally and professionally for our state - and this yearly symposium is a always an important forum. I'm glad to be here again.
To say these are challenging times is an understatement, isn't it?
Intense competition with natural gas, a declining reserve of easily recoverable coal, lukewarm investors on Wall Street, and the over-reach of the EPA on greenhouse gas emissions and permits are upon us all at once - distinct but inter-connected challenges. Taken together, they sometimes feel like an assault on coal from all directions.
I feel it; I know you feel it; and always most troubling to me - our coal miners and coal communities feel it.
We know that this nation cannot and will not prosper without coal, either today or any time in the future. We know that with the help of technology - and the time to fully deploy that technology - we can make coal cleaner than ever before and as clean, or cleaner, than most other sources of abundant, domestic energy.
And we know that Appalachian coal miners are up to any challenge, will face down any danger, and do whatever it takes to provide for their families and contribute as miners to the country they love.
Those three factors - the necessity of energy from coal, the triumph of technology, and the character of our coal miners - make me fundamentally very optimistic about the future of this industry.
Yet that core optimism does not cloud my judgment about the challenges we face. The forces arrayed against us are significant and varied. The coal industry is at a crossroads like never before - change is already upon us. And we have to find a way - urgently -- to grab hold of our own future.
My frank, honest message to you today is that I don't see us doing enough to gear up for the energy economy of tomorrow and I want very much to work with you to accept the reality we face and do more, better, faster to turn it in West Virginia's favor.
The battles of the moment are important. We need to delay the EPA's greenhouse gas regulations, we need to stop EPA from retroactively vetoing permits, and we need to get the permit process as a whole moving again. I'm fully committed to that.
But my greater fear is that we will win some of these battles and yet still lose the war. We must up our game. We have to increase the intensity of our effort to find solutions to coal's challenges - not just fight the issue of the day, and certainly not get bogged down in rhetorical games or bickering over side issues. If we spend even half of our time fighting for the status quo, we will be left behind.
Cap and trade was defeated last year - I know as you do that every single vote in the Senate was critical to that and I made clear I could not support the bills put forth because there was no serious effort in them to advance clean coal or to give the industry the time needed to gain a meaningful foothold for new technology.
It might be tempting just to count the defeat of cap and trade as a win and forget about it, or to keep up the fight on the political front without delving deeper in to the issues. But for West Virginia that would be a grave mistake.
The defeat of cap and trade was a short-term political win but it didn't do anything to address the underlying issues. It bought us time, not certainty, and my view is that we better use it wisely.
Major changes to our energy and climate policies are by no means off the table and broader economic forces in energy industry are starting to eclipse the policy.
The utility industry, the chemical industry, and many other major players in the U.S. business community are still pressing for a price to carbon in some form, or for a new clean energy standard, or both. They insist that unless and until we settle that issue, they cannot move forward with the clean coal investments West Virginia needs.
I worry that if all this drags out too long, those major U.S. industries will turn to another energy source.
Is that a harsh description of reality? Yes. You know I always call it like I see it, even if the news makes us all a little uncomfortable.
But it is also a call to action. The decline of coal is not inevitable - there are just as many factors working for us as against.
We can make coal as indispensable tomorrow as it is today - as long as we don't stand still; as long as we get moving on every front - business, financing, job creation, regulation, legislation -- to build a consensus around better, cleaner and safer coal.
I'm fighting hard to suspend EPA regulations on greenhouse gas emissions for two years not for the sake of EPA-bashing -- but specifically because we need time to move forward with a major new program on CCS and we need a serious seat at the table for any other proposals on climate change.
Eliminating the EPA or stopping the agency from ever addressing carbon emissions simply won't work. And I promise you that most of the people in Washington who are pressing those ideas want a fight more than they want a solution.
Here in West Virginia, we need solutions. Suspending EPA regulations for two years can pass - it can work - but only with your help, only if we all get behind it in a united push.
I also need your help to push forward the CCS bill - which dedicates $20 billion - to bringing CCS to full-scale, commercial deployment.
CCS may not be the only answer - we're looking at every good idea out there - but its supported by every major stakeholder, its proven, and its being rolled out here in West Virginia.
If we can drive CCS forward over the next few years and take it global, then we will have, in fact, secured coal's future.
Finally, I can't leave here today without raising with you again the imperative of improving mine safety.
Last week I reintroduced my mine safety legislation and I need to ask you as an association to re-engage with me and with Senator Manchin - who also cares deeply about the safety of our miners -- to get it done.
Mining will always be a dangerous occupation. We accept that. But you as an industry and we as Senators share an obligation to do as much as we can to prevent needless accidents and fatalities.
The Upper Big Branch tragedy and the deaths of other miners since then - including a 19-year-old miner who lost his life just last month -- are constant reminders that we must do more.
We worked together after the disasters at Sago and Aracoma to pass very substantial mine safety reforms, but UBB made clear we have more work to do and that remains a top priority for me.
Let me close by saying that I know I am asking all of you to make hard decisions and to find time in your already very busy work days to do even more to help move us toward a better, more secure and much safer future for our state and our miners.
You care as much as I do about the hopes and prosperity of our West Virginia children, and I thank you for that.
You know I always call it like I see it with you, and I thank you for doing the same with me. We don't sugarcoat with each other.
And this is a moment for that honest and constructive dialogue, for working together and for taking a new course. If we do that, I am certain that we can win.
The only energy source which is the greatest source that we have as far as what we’re dependent on right now is coal. It doesn't get a penny of subsidies.
Today West Virginia Democratic Party Chairman Nick Casey praised the announcement that West Virginia will receive $334 million for clean-coal power development from the federal stimulus bill. U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, Governor Joe Manchin, and President Obama's Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced today that the AEP coal-fired power plant at New Haven in Mason County will get funding to expand its carbon capture and sequestration project.
"This announcement highlights responsible Democratic leadership on the state and national level to further develop West Virginia's economy," Casey said. "West Virginia is showing the nation and world that through research and technology, we can be part of the solution to the nation's energy and environmental debate."
The $334 million funding is a part of the $3.5 billion in the federal stimulus bill for clean-coal technology development. An additional $417 million for advanced clean coal research was appropriated in the federal budget over the next two years.
Rockefeller, Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Mike Morris, president and chief executive officer of American Electric Power and Gov. Joe Manchin conducted a telephone press conference with about 25 reporters to announce the funding for the expansion of a carbon capture and sequestration demonstration project at AEP's Mountaineer Power Plant near New Haven. AEP will match the federal funds granted through the Clean Coal Power Initiative and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
"Times have changed," Rockefeller said to the limited audience of reporters participating in a conference call. "We need to reduce our carbon emissions." He added that the investment "allows West Virginia to take control of its future."
[snip]
Manchin expressed his thanks for Rockefeller's leadership in bringing the investment to a West Virginia plant. Morris praised the announcement as being "a great day" for the utility, state and nation, because of the advancement of clean coal technology and the good-paying jobs on the horizon for people of the region.
After opening the teleconference to questions, Rockefeller and Manchin both spoke to the need to bring a measure of "comfort" to coal industry leaders and their financial backers. Rockefeller said that the thing he fears most is the present level of "uncertainty," especially in response to the cap and trade or climate change bill that was passed in the House of Representatives during the summer and is now awaiting action by the Senate.
The coal industry has been pocketing subsidies since 1932. Taxpayers for Common Sense has identified numerous tax breaks and subsidies over the years to the coal industry. Our Green Scissors report released last July identified over $19 billion in potential taxpayer savings if the following coal subsidies were eliminated.
Selected Coal Subsidies - Potential Savings 2011-2015 ($) - Loan Guarantees for Coal Power Generation with CCS and Industrial Gasification with CCS and Advanced Coal Gasification - $8,000,000,000
- Clean Air Coal Program - $2,500,000,000
- Clean Coal Power Initiative - $1,800,000,000
- FutureGen - $1,073,000,000
- Credit for Investment in Clean Coal Facilities - $1,000,000,000
- Carbon Sequestration Tax Credit - $927,000,000
- Domestic Manufacturing Deduction for Hard Minerals - $856,000,000
- World Bank Capital Increase - $854,000,000
- Expansion of Amortization for Certain Pollution Control Facilities - $835,000,000
- Air Quality Enhancement Program - $500,000,000
- Percentage Depletion Allowance - $409,000,000
- Capital Gains Treatment for Royalties from Coal - $237,000,000
- Expensing of Exploration and Development - $202,000,000
- Certain Income and Gains Relating to Industrial Source Carbon Dioxide Treated as Qualifying Income for Publicly Traded Partnerships - $11,000,000
- Electron Scrubbing Demonstration Project - $5,000,000
- Build America Bonds (BAB) - $9,891,000,000
- Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) - $400,000,000
- TOTAL (excluding ARPA-E or BAB) - $19,209,000,000
Massey Coal continues to dispute federal and independent investigators. The coal company presented their case to family members of the fallen miners this week.
Federal and independent investigators appointed by then Governor Manchin have stated that a fire was ignited by poor maintenance of a driller and that this fire was not put out because of poor maintenance to water sprayers. This fire then ignited the huge explosion that killed the 29 West Virginia miners because of a dangerous build up of highly combustible coal dust.
Per Ken Ward of the Charleston Gazette,
MSHA has said that it found widespread violations throughout the mine of requirements that mine operators spread crushed limestone, or "rock dust," to keep coal dust from igniting...MSHA has harshly criticized Massey's safety practices and federal prosecutors have said they are investigating potential criminal violations dating back more than four years at Upper Big Branch.
In my opinion Massey is dishonoring the fallen Upper Big Branch miners with their propaganda campaign. Massey has stonewalled the investigators and refused to cooperate. Massey is trying to avoid crippling civil lawsuits from UBB family members and criminal prosecution from the federal government. This blatant self serving strategy is offensive and pathetic.
Some folks will justify it but the reality is that Massey did this to themselves and, sadly, no one is surprised. How can we as West Virginians accept this? Massey should take steps to ensure these same problems are not prevalent in other Massey affiliated mines. They should be fully committed to the investigation and cooperate without objection. They should try to be decent for a change.
We hear all these politicians defending Big Coal but who is out there defending the coal miner? An anti union operation like Massey has undercut the workers ability to even defend themselves and politicians sit idly by as it happens. When the smoke clears from one of these disasters these families and communities are left with their grief and the painful question of why did this have to happen. When the photo ops are over who is there for these families? Why do we have to keep going through this time and again?
We need a rally for workers, a commonsense approach to protecting hardworking West Virginians, a campaign to show the faces of these victims- the faces of the hard working West Virginian. Finally, we need Massey and any other operator that puts workers in harms way to be held accountable. We need justice.
Ken Ward Jr. at Coal Tattoo is even more indispensable today (if that's possible) than ever with several important posts up.
One of the many problems with Acting Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin's rally for mountaintop removal is he comes across more as a lobbyist for the mountaintop removal companies than as a governor for all of West Virginia.
With the news coming out about how preventable the Upper Big Branch disaster was that killed 29 workers, why is Tomblin not organizing a rally for worker safety? Or does he only organize rallies that mountaintop removal companies want and the mine companies don't want him out there calling for protection of miners?
Copyright 2011 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, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
