Archive for January, 2010

EPA crackdown on mountaintop coal mining criticized as contradictory

January 28, 2010

 

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 28, 2010

CHARLESTON, W.VA. — Here in coal country, President Obama’s ambitious Environmental Protection Agency has met its first big mess.

On Inauguration Day, the EPA began a crackdown on “mountaintop” coal mines. The agency has scrutinized about 175 proposed mines, where peaks would be blasted off and valleys filled in with the rubble. It has signed off on only 48.

EPA officials — repeating a refrain from a fast-marching first year in which they also took on greenhouse gases and the seemingly eternal problems of the Chesapeake Bay — say they’re just following the law. That, they say, means keeping poisonous things from the inside of a mountain out of streams on the surface.

But to many people in Appalachia, the orders coming out of Washington, especially one this month, have appeared contradictory and mysterious, signing off on some mines and blocking others. Environmentalists are unhappy because they fear federal officials are losing their nerve to take on the powerful coal industry. The coal industry is unhappy because it thinks the administration is on the brink of giving in to the green crowd.

To each side, it looks like the EPA hasn’t made up its mind. Which would make now the time to yell as loudly as possible.

People have chained themselves to mine equipment and shouted one another down. One scooted past state troopers to slap an environmentalist. The EPA finds itself in the middle of the most bitter in-your-face environmental fight in America today, facing an early test of its resolve and political skills. The agency appears certain to bear much of the weight of carrying out Obama’s historic environmental agenda.

“They didn’t have a well-thought-out plan whenever they did this. And that’s really been the basis of the uproar,” said Randy Huffman, secretary of West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection, which EPA officials say has not been tough enough on mines in the past. Now, he said, confusion over the EPA’s intentions “creates fear, and that brings out the worst in people.”

A sign of fear

The latest sign of that fear came last Thursday, in an auditorium at the University of Charleston. A debate between a coal-company chief executive and environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which attracted more than 1,000 people split between the two sides, had security reminiscent of a presidential visit or a prison rodeo.

Eight police officers were in the room, and two more with metal detectors guarded the door outside. No purses allowed. No backpacks. No weapons. Just to talk.

“The current EPA, which won’t give a permit for anything for any reason . . . they’re the ones that’s going to cost people their jobs and weaken homeland security,” said Don Blankenship, chairman and chief executive of Richmond-based Massey Energy, a major player in mountaintop mining. In the audience, coal miners, wearing uniforms striped with orange-and-silver reflective tape so coal trucks don’t run them over, cheered.

On Monday, Gov. Joe Manchin III (D) issued a plea for an end to intimidation of people fighting mountaintop mining. “We will not in any way, shape or form in this state of West Virginia tolerate any violence against anyone on any side. If you’re going to have the dialogue, have respect for each other,” he said after a meeting with environmentalists and anti-mining activists.

Mountaintop mining, also called “mountaintop removal,” is an exclusively Appalachian practice, dating to the 1970s but having gained momentum in the past 20 years. To get at coal seams that are too thin or too close to the surface to reach by tunneling, miners use explosives and huge machinery to remove the peak above the coal.

In most cases, the law requires that companies rebuild the mountain to its original shape. But leftover rubble is usually left in nearby valleys. There, scientists say, rainwater seeps over rocks that had previously been far underground. That can release trace amounts of salt and toxic metals, which can kill life in streams and cause health problems for people who drink the water.

This practice was deemed legal: From 2000 to 2008, federal and state authorities gave permission for 511 valley fills in West Virginia, according to the Government Accountability Office. Put back to back, the GAO estimated, it was the equivalent of filling a single valley at least 176 miles long.

But Obama’s EPA signaled a new attitude early on by notifying the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — which issues permits to these mines — of its concerns about a mine in West Virginia. The 175 similar sites it has since scrutinized, including new applications, are spread across West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Clarity debated

At the EPA, officials say they’re not out to stamp out mountaintop mining altogether — this month they approved a West Virginia mine permit after the company promised changes to reduce its effect on streams by nearly 50 percent.

But to many environmentalists and coal-industry leaders, the EPA’s actions have seemed erratic and uncertain. It has criticized some mines and approved others, both sides say, without drawing a clear line between good and bad. Activists on both sides say the agency hasn’t always been clear about what criteria it is using to make the distinction — making it hard to guess what mines will make the cut in the future.

EPA official Peter Silva said there was no problem with the clarity of the EPA’s message.

“The notion of ‘clarity’ invoked by some West Virginia officials and industry representatives has too often meant letting coal companies do as they please, with little or no consideration for the harmful impacts on Americans living in coal country,” Silva said. EPA officials declined to comment on the record beyond this statement.

Adding to the confusion: The Interior Department rejected a Bush-era rule considered friendly to mines, then said it wouldn’t have a replacement ready for more than a year. And a Corps of Engineers official rejected an EPA request to revisit a permit given to a particularly large mine, leading the EPA to threaten a first-of-its-kind environmental veto.

“We really don’t know where this is going,” said Jason Bostic of the West Virginia Coal Association. He said his organization has passed the message to miners that the agency might hamstring an industry that is still crucial here, though mountaintop mining only accounts for about 10 percent of U.S. coal production. “If there’s going to be a change to EPA’s attitude, everybody’s got to work together.”

On the other side, environmentalist Mike Roselle said the EPA’s actions were reason to redouble a campaign of civil disobedience. Roselle, a veteran of campaigns against logging in the Northwest, has imported the same tactics and even some of the same people here. In the past year, he said, members of his Climate Ground Zero group have been arrested 150 times after sitting in trees on mine sites or chaining themselves to company equipment.

“We know for a fact that, when we shut down a mine, that somebody in the White House is aware of it,” he said. Mine companies have said the practice is dangerous for both workers and protesters.

What’s passed between the two sides has been mild, at least in a state where miners and mine companies used to shoot it out with rifles. But there have been flash points: At a public hearing in the fall, environmentalists say they were shouted down. At a march last year, a woman in a reflective-tape shirt stepped past the troopers standing guard and slapped local activist Julia Bonds. “They don’t seem to understand the difference between nonviolence and violence,” Bonds said.

At the debate last Thursday, with an unusually high police presence, neither side did anything worse than laugh at the other’s speaker. But about an hour away, at a Massey Energy mine, sirens were in the woods.

Three activists had climbed into trees, Roselle said, and Massey security guards were using loud noises to stop them from sleeping and get them to come down.

On Wednesday, Roselle said a tree-sitter had descended because of gear that had become wet. The other two remained. He said he was pleased that the protest had caused headaches for Massey and the West Virginia government. “It absolutely worked,” he said.

National Mining Association and Kentucky Coal Thank Inaugural Members of Bi-Partisan Coal Caucus

January 26, 2010

For Immediate Release

 Contact:

Carol Raulston

(202) 463-2610

craulston@nma.org

 Luke Popovich

(202) 463-2620

lpopovich@nma.org

The following statement was released today by National Mining Association (NMA) President and CEO Hal Quinn in response to formation of a bi-partisan coal caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives:

 

“On behalf of everyone in the coal community, I want to thank Reps. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Tim Holden (D-Pa.), Dennis Rehberg (R-Mont.); John Salazar (D-Colo.) and John Shimkus (R-Ill.) for their leadership in establishing the House Coal Caucus.  The National Mining Association (NMA) looks forward to working with them and their colleagues as they focus attention on the vital role coal plays in providing affordable energy and good jobs for America.

 “With 240-years of supply, coal continues to be the backbone of our economy—providing half the nation’s electricity at prices that keep American businesses competitive in a global economy and help American households in these tough economic times.

 “We share the caucus’ pride in the more than 130,000 people working today in U.S. coal mining.  Not only are these good jobs that help support communities throughout the country, they are safe jobs—having achieved two consecutive record years in mine safety. 

 “Working together we can do more.  New technologies, such as advanced clean coal and carbon capture and storage, diversified coal utilization and new safety and environmental initiatives underway throughout the coal community can help us usher in 21st Century mining in the U.S.  NMA looks forward to working with the Housel Coal Caucus on the opportunities and challenges before us.”

Environmentalists hold tree sit-in at Massey mine

January 23, 2010

 

Williamson Daily News – January 21, 2010 

Three environmentalists have climbed trees at Massey Energy’s Beetree Surface Mine in southern West Virginia to protest mountaintop removal coal mining.

Climate Ground Zero and Mountain Justice identified them Thursday as 23-year-old David A. Smith, 19-year-old Amber Nitchman and 28-year-old Eric Blevins. The groups say they’re sitting on platforms about 60 feet above the ground.

Organizers say the protesters want a federal ban on mountaintop removal mining to preserve sites such as nearby Coal River Mountain, among other things.

Massey spokesman Jeff Gillenwater says protesters are endangering themselves and miners and will waste taxpayer money if police get involved. Gillenwater says Coal River Mountain has been extensively mined, but the current operation doesn’t use mountaintop techniques.

CEO Don Blakenship & Environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. debated Thursday night

January 22, 2010

By Ken Ward Jr

Massey Energy President Don Blankenship and environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Thursday evening debated the future of coal and the science of climate change, agreeing on little but drawing still more national attention to the crucial issues that face the Appalachian coalfields.

 Blankenship said coal has built the nation and must remain strong to protect national security and ensure a high quality of life for Americans.

“The mission statement for coal is prosperity for this country,” Blankenship told a packed house at the University of Charleston. “This industry is what made this country great and if we forget that, we’re going to have to learn to speak Chinese.”

But Kennedy argued giant mining machines have cost thousands of miners their jobs at the same time that mountaintop removal has been destroying ancient peaks, burying and otherwise polluting pristine streams and eliminating once-vital rural communities.

“This is the worst environmental crime that has ever happened in our history,” Kennedy said. “These companies are liquidating this state for cash with these gigantic machines.”

Blankenship, the coal industry’s most outspoken executive, and Kennedy, the passionate son of the late U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, squared off in what organizers billed as a “Forum on the Future of Energy.”

The University of Charleston hosted the event and the school’s president, Ed Welch, moderated the 90-minute discussion. A capacity crowd filled a nearly 1,000-seat auditorium and overflowed into a nearby gymnasium to watch on giant video screens. It was televised and broadcast via radio statewide and on the Internet around the world.

Coal industry supporters scheduled a “Stand up for Jobs Rally” before the debate, but it appeared disorganized and a cold, heavy rain may have reduced any enthusiasm for it. Across town earlier in the day, environmental activists hung a large anti-mountaintop removal banner on the South Side Bridge in downtown Charleston.

A significant contingent of regional, national and even international media attended, drawn by the star power of the Kennedy name and Blankenship’s reputation for bluntly defending the coal industry.

Blankenship has argued that global warming is a fraud or “Ponzi scheme,” and complained that out-of-state environmental “extremists” are wrongly trying to shut down mountaintop removal mining. Kennedy has said Blankenship’s company is a “criminal enterprise” that destroys mountains, pollutes streams and endangers the safety of its workers.

Welch had said prior to the event that he hoped to push Kennedy and Blankenship to get beyond sound bites and actually discuss coal and energy issues with him.

“We don’t do a very good job in our society of having reasonable arguments or discussions of important issues,” Welch said Thursday morning on the MetroNews radio show “Talkline.” “I’m going to push the participants to go beyond the sound bites and really respond to each other, and see if we can find some common ground.”

 And Blankenship and Kennedy indeed did engage directly a few times, most notably when Kennedy rattled off a list of Massey’s continued Clean Water Act violations — thousands of them in a recent year — and asked the coal executive if mountaintop removal could be done without violating the law.

Brown’s Senate win could hinder climate bill push

January 20, 2010

By Ben Geman

Republican Scott Brown’s stunning win in the Massachusetts Senate race Tuesday does not bode well for Democratic plans to enact climate change legislation in 2010.

At the very least, Brown adds another vote against a cap-and-trade bill – a plan the state senator attacked during his successful campaign against state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) for the seat held by the late Ted Kennedy.

But more broadly, the rare election of a Republican senator in Massachusetts, which comes amid high unemployment, could fuel Democratic reluctance to take up climate legislation that opponents call harmful to the economy.

Republican and industry activists who oppose cap-and-trade say Brown’s win strengthens their hand.

“What this will do, what a Brown victory will do, is place a focus on growing jobs and improving the economy, and if the perception still exists that cap-and-trade does not fall into that category, it will most likely get cast to the side,” said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean, a former aide to GOP leadership in both chambers.

He argues that wariness of climate legislation among some Democrats in coal-reliant states will spread. “A Brown victory will further the angst beyond those Democrats to the whole Democratic party,” he said in an interview Tuesday before the polls closed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said last week that he remains committed to bringing up climate and energy legislation this spring, but some environmentalists and Democratic aides have been privately concerned that proposals to cap emissions will fall by the wayside.

“There is definitely a lot of pessimism as it is and this certainly wouldn’t help,” said one Senate Democratic aide this week as Brown moved ahead in the polls.

Already, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who opposes cap-and-trade, predicted Tuesday morning that climate legislation would not come up in 2010. He predicts – and hopes – that the chamber will instead take up a package of energy measures that does not include mandatory emissions limits.

But other analysts disagree that a Brown victory is a nail in the coffin for climate change legislation, which narrowly passed the House in June.

Christine Tezak, a veteran energy industry analyst with Robert W. Baird & Co., said in a research note Tuesday that a Coakley loss is far from the end for climate legislation this year. She noted that it could derail Democratic health care legislation, and if that occurs then Democrats will be left seeking other victories.

“While it is very easy to suggest that Congress may want to throw up its hands and do nothing for the balance of the year, incumbent Democrats will need a win – not inaction – to reverse what will be hailed as a significant defeat for their agenda and prove they can govern,” she wrote.

“There may be greater pressure to salvage an energy and climate package. If health care is shelved, there would be time to address it,” she added.

More narrowly, Brown’s win means another “yes” vote for climate legislation that Democrats must seek if climate legislation is brought up this year.

But passing climate legislation has always rested on the need to win support of several moderate GOP members to offset the loss of likely Democratic opponents like Mary Landrieu (La.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.).

“Energy legislation is traditionally regional, not partisan,” said Paul Bledsoe, director of communications and strategy for the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy, a group that backs cap-and-trade. “Unlike health care, it has been obvious that energy and climate legislation was going to need significant Republican support to become law.”

Noise, shadows from wind farms are creating uproar in rural Minnesota

January 19, 2010

Noise, shadows from wind farms are creating uproar in rural Minnesota

By TOM MEERSMAN – Star Tribune (Minneapolis)

ELKTON, Minn. — Every sunny morning, shadows from the massive rotating blades swing across their breakfast table. The giant towers dominate the view from their deck. Noise from the turbines fills the silence that Dolores and Rudy Jech once enjoyed on their Minnesota farm.

“Rudy and I are retired, and we like to sit out on our deck,” Dolores said. “And that darned thing is right across the road from us. It’s an eyesore, it’s noisy, and having so many of them there’s a constant hum.”

Just as they are being touted as a green, economical and job-producing energy source, wind farms in Minnesota are starting to get serious blowback. Across the state, people are opposing projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Opposition is also rising in other states. It’s not likely to blow over quickly in Minnesota, which is the nation’s fourth-largest producer of wind power and on track to double its 1,805 megawatt capacity in the next couple of years.

To be sure, many people who live more than half a mile from machines are not bothered by noise, and those with turbines on their property enjoy an economic windfall. They typically sign 30-year easements and receive up to $7,500 a year for each turbine on their land.

But the Jechs do not own the land across the road, where a turbine stands about 900 feet from their 100-year-old farm home east of Austin. Flickering shadows from the 122-foot blades make east-facing rooms seem as if someone is flipping a light switch for hours at a time. “We can pull our drapes, we can put earplugs in, or we can wear dark glasses, I guess, but it doesn’t really make the problem go away,” said their daughter Patti Lienau.

After complaining to the developer, they received two large evergreen trees to partly block the view, and $3,000 a year to compensate for the noise. But Lienau said that no money can restore tranquility for her “shell-shocked” 85-year-old father, who struggles with panic attacks and anxiety.

Similar concerns have spread about proposed wind farms in Dakota, Goodhue, Fillmore, Nicollet, Mower, Freeborn, Clay and other counties.

“I’m not against wind. They’re going to put them up whether I like it or not,” said Katie Troe, leader of Safe Wind for Freeborn County. “What we’re asking is that every turbine be looked at and placed correctly.”

The rising numbers of complaints have taken Minnesota regulators by surprise.

“I’ve been doing this for 14 years and people are raising issues I’ve never heard of,” said Larry Hartman, manager of permitting in the state’s Office of Energy Security.

For the most part, Hartman said, wind farms have been welcomed by struggling farmers and revenue-hungry counties. However, some projects are drawing fire, often from non-farmers who built country homes and commute to nearby cities.

“The rural area isn’t what it used to be anymore,” said Kevin Hammel, a dairy farmer about nine miles east of Rochester, where wind developers are active.

Hammel supported wind generators initially, but changed his mind after a developer took him and busload of neighbors to visit a wind farm. The tour made him feel like he was in an industrial park, he said. Yet others admire the sleek, graceful turbines with towers up to 325 feet tall, topped by generators the size of a bus.

Federal subsidies and state mandates for utilities to produce more electricity from renewable sources are accelerating wind farm development.

Minnesota regulations require that wind turbines be at least 500 feet away from a residence, and more to make sure sounds do not exceed 50 decibels. In most cases, that amounts to at least 700 to 1,000 feet, depending upon the turbine’s size, model and surrounding terrain. Whether 50 decibels is too loud depends upon individuals, who perceive sound differently, but it approximates light auto traffic at 50 feet, according to wind industry reports.

Critics say setback distances should be tripled or quadrupled. Nina Pierpoint, a New York physician who has examined the issue, describes “wind turbine syndrome” with symptoms that include sleep disturbance, ear pressure, vertigo, nausea, blurred vision, panic attacks and memory problems.

Canadian Wind Energy Associations released a report that reviewed those claims and said they lacked merit.Rita Messing, a supervisor at the Minnesota Department of Health, co-wrote a report last July to help guide the state on noise decisions.

Wind turbines emit a broad spectrum of sound, she said, including higher frequencies covered by state noise regulations and lower frequency sounds that are not. Her report does not recommend changes in the state noise rules, but notes that local governments can impose longer setbacks.

That needs to happen, said Tom Schulte, who’s upset about a proposed wind farm near his new home in Goodhue County. “When I built this house, the county told me where to build: how far from my neighbor, how far from a fence line, how far from a feedlot, and out of 23 acres there wasn’t a whole heckuva lot of land left where I could have put a house,” Schulte said. “And yet somebody can plop a 400-foot-tall turbine 500 feet from my house and the county steps back and says they don’t have any say about it.”

The debate over noise and setbacks will drop into St. Paul this month when the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission takes up the matter. Comments filed by 16 wind developers said the state’s noise rules and setback distances do not need to be changed, that “shadow flicker” from rotating blades can be solved by better modeling and siting, and that there’s no evidence that low-frequency sounds affect human health.

Others are not convinced and want Minnesota to re-evaluate the rules. People who live near wind turbines are “experimental subjects, who have not given their informed consent to the risk of harm to which they may be exposed,” said Per Anderson of Moorhead. He postponed plans to build a house on land near three proposed wind farms in Clay County.

Some people challenge the industry’s claim that 50 decibels is no louder than light traffic or a refrigerator running. Brian Huggenvik, who owns 17 acres near a proposed wind farm two miles from Harmony, said he has driven to various wind farms and listened to the noise to judge for himself. Huggenvik, an airline pilot, said turbines can also produce a whining sound, similar in frequency to a jet engine idling on a taxiway, though not as loud. “It’s not like living next to a highway with constant sound and your mind blocks it out,” he said. “It’s something that you just can’t get used to. It is a different kind of sound.”

Bill Grant, executive director of the Izaak Walton League’s Midwest office, said that all energy sources impose certain costs and inconveniences. If there are legitimate conflicts about wind turbine noise and public health, the siting guidelines should be revised, he said.

But Grant cautioned against putting severe restrictions on a renewable industry that offers so many benefits. “What people who want to scale back wind are overlooking is the number of deaths that occur annually from air pollution from coal plants,” he said.

WIND POWER

-Minnesota is among the nation’s leaders in wind energy production, ranking fourth behind Texas, Iowa and California

-The state’s first wind farm was Kenetech Windpower’s 73 machines built in 1994, which produce 26 megawatts of power for Xcel Energy

-More than 60 wind farms have sprouted up in Minnesota with a total energy capacity of 1805 megawatts

-Today’s typical machines produce 1.5 megawatts each

Source: American Wind Energy Association

Debate puts mining in spotlight

January 18, 2010
January 17, 2010 @ 12:00 AM

JEAN TARBETT HARDIMAN

The Herald-Dispatch

CHARLESTON — West Virginia’s mountains, its people, and their jobs and health will likely be the focus of discussion between environmentalist Robert Kennedy Jr. and coal executive Don Blankenship, who face off in a debate Thursday, Jan. 21, at the University of Charleston.

The event, Forum on the Future of Energy, begins at 6:30 p.m. in Geary Auditorium and all tickets have been taken. Each side was allowed to invite some guests, and UC President Edwin H. Welch will moderate the event.

Another 2,000 seats will be open to the public for a live remote broadcast in Eddie King Gymnasium at the university.

The debate is a chance to flesh out an argument that’s critical to the future of West Virginians, Welch said in a release.

“The future direction of U.S. energy policy is a vital concern to the people of West Virginia, many of whom rely on the coal industry for their livelihood,” he said.

To Blankenship, chairman and CEO of Massey Energy, the forum is an opportunity to share his take on the future of coal.

“The energy forum is an opportunity to clarify what I believe is the right direction for our country’s future regarding energy policy, the economy and national security,” he said. “Millions of Americans are without jobs in this country, and policies supported by politicians in D.C. and activists like Mr. Kennedy won’t make things better for families.”

Kennedy is chief prosecuting attorney for the Hudson Riverkeeper and president of the Waterkeeper Alliance, which advocates for the right to fishable, swimmable and drinkable waterways worldwide. He talked at length with The Herald-Dispatch about his thoughts on the dangers of mountaintop removable to the landscape, the waterways and the people of West Virginia, in terms of their health and the state economy.

“Mountaintop removal is the worst manmade catastrophe in the nation’s history,” he said. “It’s also an economic catastrophe for West Virginia. The coal industry, while promising prosperity to the state, has devastated communities across the state.”

He said mountaintop mines have resulted in mercury in the state’s watersheds, coal ash poisoning drinking water, ozone and particulates that sicken citizens with asthma and other ailments, not to mention global warming. Not one fish in West Virginia is now safe to eat because of mercury poisoning, he said.

“If a terrorist did these things, we’d consider it an act of war,” he said.

He said he’s never met Blankenship before and is looking at Thursday’s debate as a chance to “let the sun in.”

Massey Energy — which is based in Richmond, Va., and is central Appalachia’s largest coal producer — recently received a notice of intent to sue by the Sierra Club, the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Coal River Mountain Watch and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy. The suit claims that Massey has continued to violate the Clean Water Act, even after a settlement in which Massey was ordered to pay $20 million for previous violations.

Meanwhile, Blankenship is featured in the current issue of Rolling Stone Magazine in an article titled “The Climate Killers: Meet the 17 polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb global warming.” The article criticizes Blankenship for his reported denial of global warming and his reported record of bribery to “bend politics to his will.”

Blankenship declined comment on the “Rolling Stone” article and on accusations of violating the Clean Water Act. He also declined comment on accusations that mountaintop mining affects the health of the Appalachian people.

He did say, “I hope the thousands of people who attend and watch the event come away with a better understanding of where our country is headed and how we can make things better.”

According to the West Virginia Coal Association, nearly 166 million tons of coal were mined in West Virginia in 2009. That includes 97.4 million tons from underground mines, and 68.4 million tons from surface mines.

The association reports that coal companies employed 46,416 West Virginians last year. It reported that 14,678 of those jobs were in underground mines, and 6,249 were at surface mines, along with other coal-related jobs.

According to the report, surface mining produces 40 percent of West Virginia’s coal, while requiring much less manpower.

Kennedy charges that coal companies tout the jobs they provide in the mining communities, but are offering fewer and fewer jobs all the time because of increased automation.

Why is it, he asked, that a state so rich in natural resources — being the nation’s second biggest coal producer behind Wyoming — is continuously ranking so high in poverty, and so poorly in the health and education of its residents? He claimed that the people who benefit from the coal industry the most are out-of-state investors, rather than the people in the mining communities, he said.

“I’ve been to places like Whitesville, Lindytown,” he said. “These are ghost towns, where Massey has come in and bought out the towns, forced out the residents and plowed them under.”

He said he remembers his father, the late U.S. Sen. Robert Kennedy, talking a great deal about coal mining in West Virginia. Robert Kennedy Sr. and brothers — former President John Kennedy and the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy — spent a great deal of time in the state about 50 years ago, fighting for John Kennedy’s nomination to the presidency in 1960. The state became known historically for helping John Kennedy win that nomination, and became a beloved place to the family, Robert Kennedy Jr. said.

Mining is “an issue that concerned my father deeply that he talked about to me personally on many occasions,” he said. “My father talked to me about strip mining, which was on a tiny scale compared to what they’re doing today. He was terrified.”

Perpetuating the problem is that government regulators aren’t doing their job, he said.

“One of the things that Massey has done is corrupt the state agencies,” he said. “It’s a dynamic by which regulatory agencies become the captive spokesperson for the agencies they’re supposed to regulate. … It’s a submersion of democracy.”

When asked if he thinks there’s a middle ground and a future for clean coal, Kennedy said he thinks other forms of energy will alleviate the need for coal.

“I don’t think coal can survive in the marketplace,” Kennedy said. “I’ve been involved in a solar thermal company that’s building solar thermal plants in the western deserts. There are 120 companies now building these plants.”

He said they cost the same as a coal plant, but once they’re built, they don’t need to have a substance like coal to process.

“Now, you have to cut down the Appalachian Mountains and ship them across the country,” he said, adding that further costs are damage to the landscape, water and health of citizens.

“I think the challenge for leadership and industry in West Virginia is to look at the resources of the state and to start using imagination and energy to try to develop a sustainable future for the state, one that’s not going to leave rivers, streams and landscapes destroyed,” he said.

Watch the debate

The Forum on the Future of Energy featuring Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Don Blankenship will take place at 6:30 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 21, at the University of Charleston’s Geary Auditorium. Tickets for auditorium seats are gone, but there are several other options to watch and listen.

On TV: WOWK-TV Channel 13 will televise the debate beginning at 6:30 p.m.

Live remote: A live broadcast will be shown at the Eddie King Gymnasium of the University of Charleston, which holds about 2,000. Admission is first come, first serve.

Web broadcasts: The broadcast also will be shown at www.wowktv.com, www.wboy.com, www.wtrf.com, www.wvnstv.com.

A Memo from EPA’s Lisa Jackson

January 18, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 12, 2010


MEMORANDUM

From: Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator

To: All EPA Employees

Colleagues:

Almost one year ago, I began my work as Administrator. It has been a deeply fulfilling 12 months and a wonderful homecoming for me. As our first year together draws to a close, we must now look to the tasks ahead.

In my First Day Memo, I outlined five priorities for my time as Administrator. We have made enormous strides on all five, and our achievements reflect your hard work and dedication. By working with our senior policy team, listening to your input and learning from the experiences of the last 12 months, we have strengthened our focus and expanded the list of priorities. Listed below are seven key themes to focus the work of our agency.  

Taking Action on Climate Change
:
 2009 saw historic progress in the fight against climate change, with a range of greenhouse gas reduction initiatives. We must continue this critical effort and ensure compliance with the law. We will continue to support the President and Congress in enacting clean energy and climate legislation. Using the Clean Air Act, we will finalize our mobile source rules and provide a framework for continued improvements in that sector. We will build on the success of Energy Star to expand cost-saving energy conservation and efficiency programs.  And, we will continue to develop common-sense solutions for reducing GHG emissions from large stationary sources like power plants. In all of this, we must also recognize that climate change will affect other parts of our core mission, such as protecting air and water quality, and we must include those considerations in our future plans.    

Improving Air Quality
:
 American communities face serious health and environmental challenges from air pollution. We have already proposed stronger ambient air quality standards for ozone, which will help millions of American breathe easier and live healthier. Building on that, EPA will develop a comprehensive strategy for a cleaner and more efficient power sector, with strong but achievable emission reduction goals for SO2, NOx, mercury and other air toxics. We will strengthen our ambient air quality standards for pollutants such as PM, SO2 and NO2 and will achieve additional reductions in air toxics from a range of industrial facilities. Improved monitoring, permitting and enforcement will be critical building blocks for air quality improvement.  

Assuring the Safety of Chemicals
:  
One of my highest priorities is to make significant and long overdue progress in assuring the safety of chemicals in our products, our environment and our bodies. Last year I announced principles for modernizing the Toxic Substances Control Act. Separately, we are shifting EPA’s focus to address high-concern chemicals and filling data gaps on widely produced chemicals in commerce. At the end of 2009, we released our first-ever chemical management plans for four groups of substances, and more plans are in the pipeline for 2010. Using our streamlined Integrated Risk Information System, we will continue strong progress toward rigorous, peer-reviewed health assessments on dioxins, arsenic, formaldehyde, TCE and other substances of concern.

Cleaning Up Our Communities
:
 
In 2009 EPA made strong cleanup progress by accelerating our Superfund program and confronting significant local environmental challenges like the asbestos Public Health Emergency in Libby, Montana and the coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee. Using all the tools at our disposal, including enforcement and compliance efforts, we will continue to focus on making safer, healthier communities. I am committed to maximizing the potential of our brownfields program, particularly to spur environmental cleanup and job creation in disadvantaged communities. We are also developing enhanced strategies for risk reduction in our Superfund program, with stronger partnerships with stakeholders affected by our cleanups.  

Protecting America’s Waters
:
 
America’s waterbodies are imperiled as never before. Water quality and enforcement programs face complex challenges, from nutrient loadings and stormwater runoff, to invasive species and drinking water contaminants. These challenges demand both traditional and innovative strategies. We will continue comprehensive watershed protection programs for the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes. We will initiate measures to address post-construction runoff, water quality impairment from surface mining, and stronger drinking water protection. Recovery Act funding will expand construction of water infrastructure, and we will work with states to develop nutrient limits and launch an Urban Waters initiative. We will also revamp enforcement strategies to achieve greater compliance across the board.

Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism and Working for Environmental Justice
:
 We have begun a new era of outreach and protection for communities historically underrepresented in EPA decision-making. We are building strong working relationships with tribes, communities of color, economically distressed cities and towns, young people and others, but this is just a start.  We must include environmental justice principles in all of our decisions. This is an area that calls for innovation and bold thinking, and I am challenging all of our employees to bring vision and creativity to our programs.  The protection of vulnerable subpopulations is a top priority, especially with regard to children. Our revitalized Children’s Health Office is bringing a new energy to safeguarding children through all of our enforcement efforts. We will ensure that children’s health protection continues to guide the path forward.

Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships:  States and tribal nations bear important responsibilities for the day-to-day mission of environmental protection, but declining tax revenues and fiscal challenges are pressuring state agencies and tribal governments to do more with fewer resources.  Strong partnerships and accountability are more important than ever. EPA must do its part to support state and tribal capacity and, through strengthened oversight, ensure that programs are consistently delivered nationwide. Where appropriate, we will use our own expertise and capacity to bolster state and tribal efforts.

We will also focus on improving EPA’s internal operations, from performance measures to agency processes. We have a complex organization — which is both an asset and a challenge. We will strive to ensure that EPA is a workplace worthy of our top notch workforce. Our success will depend on supporting innovation and creativity in both what we do and how we do it, and I encourage everyone to be part of constructively improving our agency.

These priorities will guide our work in 2010 and the years ahead. They are built around the challenges and opportunities inherent in our mission to protect human health and the environment for all Americans.  We will carry out our mission by respecting our core values of science, transparency and the rule of law. I have unlimited confidence in the talent and spirit of our workforce, and I will look to your energy, ideas and passion in the days ahead. I know we will meet these challenges head on, as one EPA.

Sincerely,
Lisa P. Jackson

Coal brings jobs to state beyond the coalfields

January 16, 2010

At issue | Dec. 15 Associated Press article, “GE to expand in Louisville; New line of washers adds 400 jobs, solidifies future for Appliance park;” Dec. 17 Herald-Leader editorial, “Green technology generating jobs; GE plant’s rebirth sign of the future”

By Mark Burris

Kentucky possesses an abundant natural resource — coal — that provides jobs for our people, economies for our communities and affordable electricity for our nation.

In fact, over half of the electricity consumed in our nation’s homes, schools, businesses and factories is generated by coal.

But that is lost on outside activists and their bureaucratic allies in Washington, D.C. All too often we see the crowd from outside of our state descend on coal country in an effort to stop coal mining, and specifically surface mining.

Evidently, Kentucky’s heritage and economy don’t factor in the outsiders’ equation as they work with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to kill a critical industry.

What the outsiders don’t want you to know is that coal creates jobs far beyond the coalfields of east and west Kentucky.

A perfect example of this happened in Louisville recently when Jim Campbell, CEO of General Electric’s Consumer and Industrial Appliances division, announced that his company was moving 400 jobs from its operation in China to Appliance Park in Louisville.

There’s nothing physically wrong with the Chinese factory, and it won’t be cheap to move those jobs here.

So why do it? While Louisville has an exceptional work force that makes it an attractive place for any company, one of the chief reasons GE made its decision was because of coal. Plain and simple, electric rates here are low because of Kentucky coal and that’s why GE made its move.

Over half of American electricity comes from coal. In Kentucky, 94 percent of electricity comes from coal and our mining industry supports tens of thousands of jobs.

Coal gives Kentucky some of the most affordable electricity anywhere, the final factor that enabled GE to bring 400 jobs to Louisville.

The company I work for provides good jobs to people in nine states because of the coal industry. We aren’t engaged in mining operations at our headquarters on Poplar Level Road, but the people who work with me at Rudd benefit because of the coal industry.

Along with GE, Rudd is another example of how coal positively impacts the economy even in places where there are no coal mines.

When the professional activists and outsiders attack coal, they are attacking American workers and holding back economic recovery by killing jobs during a terrible recession. Decisions like the one made by GE show that we can speed economic recovery by embracing coal as a part of our national energy plan.

Coal helps create jobs in Louisville and across the country. Businesses like GE and Rudd are taking action and providing real solutions, made possible by coal.

If you want to know the real score when it comes to fixing our economy, don’t ask one of the outsiders who could care less about jobs in our state.

Ask a local business owner what it takes to keep the lights on and to create jobs. I am sure he or she will quickly tell you that lower electric rates brought to you by coal help tremendously.

Mark Burris is president of Rudd Equipment Company, headquartered in Louisville.

EPA Chief: Coal Waste Can Be Safely Recycled To Make Cement

January 15, 2010
By Siobhan Hughes
Dow Jones Newswires

 

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s chief challenged criticism that a pending coal-waste proposal would damage the building-materials industry, saying Thursday that the waste produced by coal-fired power plants may be safely recycled into products such as cement.

“There seems to be genuine agreement that the use of coal ash in concrete and concrete-like products does not cause a threat to human health and the environment,” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in remarks to the Woman’s National Democratic Club. “The threats associated with coal-ash waste are from leaching,” she said, “which is not a problem from a concrete perspective.”

The Obama administration is walking a fine line as it seeks to regulate coal ash after a December 2008 spill from a Tennessee Valley Authority facility sent about a billion gallons of ash and water over as many as 300 acres. That raised public health fears, since coal ash contains arsenic, selenium, and other contaminants that can be damaging. The EPA found elevated levels of metals such as arsenic after the spill, though it said that municipal drinking water was safe.

Companies such as LaFarge SA (LG), the world’s biggest cement maker, have gone to the White House to warn that regulating coal-waste as a hazardous material would create a stigma around reusing the waste for other purposes, even if the EPA decides to exempt coal ash when it is recycled into other products. More than 40% of coal waste is recycled, added to products such as cement and drywall, a practice known as “beneficial reuse.” The rest is disposed of in landfills or retention ponds.

The White House has held weekly meetings on the subject, a review that has delayed release of the EPA proposal, which was supposed to happen by December. The issue has also prompted lobbying by the American Coal Ash Association, which has lined up support in Congress and warned against “events in Washington” that threaten “the very survival of a multibillion dollar industry.”

“There has been a lot of hullabaloo over coal ash, and I’m disappointed that some of the folks, especially on the industry side, haven’t taken the time to wait and let us try to craft rulemaking,” Jackson said. “I think we agree that coal ash can be reused–in fact we would love to incentivize the reuse of coal.”

She didn’t say whether coal waste could be safely used in other products, such as drywall, or added to the soil as “fill” material.

The EPA is trying to find a middle ground between business and environmentalists. If the EPA decides to treat coal ash as a hazardous waste, it would lead to the first nationwide standards and could potentially force power plants to shift to landfills instead of holding ponds. Retention ponds are considered riskier by environmentalists because of the chances that the waste can ooze out into water supplies.

Environmentalists for years had pressed the EPA to do more, saying that leaving regulation up to states would put the public at risk. In 2000, the Clinton administration’s EPA decided against treating the sludge produced by generators and electric utilities as hazardous. It said that characterizing coal waste as a hazardous material might stigmatize the “beneficial reuse” of the waste. The EPA also said that states had been improving their regulations of the disposal of waste.

(MORE TO FOLLOW) Dow Jones Newswires

Copyright © 2009 Dow Jones Newswires