Bombshell accusations linking Va. DEQ and Dominion Power

If these allegations by former Virginia Department of Environmental Quality groundwater expert Allen Brockman hold up, the effects could be far reaching.  It would call into question every ruling or favorable report issued by the Va. DEQ for energy producers and even bio-solid companies. 

While fly ash (byproduct of burnt coal from coal fired power plants) is used widely in construction materials, like cinder blocks and even in road construction, if it is used as construction fill without the proper containment process and sealant materials, the leeching from the heavy metals left in the ash will seep into the water tables. 

At this point all the information that has been released to the public, as well as reported in the Virginian Pilot, indicate Dominion Power was just trying to unload this stuff on anyone that would take it and as fast as possible.  It appears they also knew there would be problems, but chose to mislead the public about an internal report that said this very thing and presented the Chesapeake Planning Commission and City Council with a second report that was much more favorable for the use of the fly ash. 

For the latest on the Battlefield Golf Club groundwater contamination, and the allegations by Allen Brockman about the Va. DEQ's role in all this, click here.  

Image found at:  http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/media/Water--Hickory,%20PA.JPG 

Virginia SCC approves rate increase for Appalachian Power for 7.7%

Appalachian Power got their rate increase, just not the 13% they originally sought. According to news reports, the SCC approval will increase the average utility customer's monthly bill around $7.16 for 1,000 kilowatts of use. The rate increase will go to cover increases in fuel costs for Appalachian Power, who gets 98% of it's power from coal.

This isn't the last application for a rate increase. Appalachian Power has three more in the hopper. Keep in mind that AEP, Appalachian Power's parent company, reported a 2nd Quarter profit even though revenues were down.

Appalachain Power shows 2nd Quarter profit, still seeks rate increase

Rate increases and cost cutting in Virginia, Oklahoma, and Indiana helped boost the bottom line for Appalachian Power's parent company, AEP, by 12% according to an article in the Roanoke Times yesterday. But still, AEP wants another rate increase because "even though the SCC allowed the utility a return on common equity in its Virginia territory of 10.2% in calendar year 2008, the actual return was only 2%." Profits increased despite a drop in revenue.

In other words, they didn't make enough of a profit and they need the rate increase to make more than a 10.2% profit. What they didn't add is that they need the rate increase to help cover the cost of building the new Coal Fired Power Plant in Wise County. Also according to the article, Appalachian Power gets about 98% of its electricity from coal.

A couple of thoughts about this. First, AEP did things to cut cost and increase efficiency across the states they operate, which is a good thing. Second, just like all those conservatives out there that say increasing taxes during a recession is a bad idea, so is increasing utility rates. AEP's revenues were down, which means that their customers were cutting back because of the economy and were trying to conserve energy to put more money back in their own pockets. AEP's request for a rate increase is just like raising taxes on people that don't have the money to spend on more expensive energy. Third, Appalachian Power gets 98% of it's energy from coal. That's way too much. They need to diversify where they are getting their energy from. I know that the United States is the Saudi Arabia of Coal, but the less coal we use and the more clean energy or biomass energy sources (chicken and cow poop) we use, the more we will reduce our carbon footprint.

If this doesn't convince the SCC that Appalachian Power's request for a rate increase is not necessary, I don't know what will.

Picture found at: http://www.tradesurinc.com/common/products/14/216/01-Electrical%20Transmission%20Lines%20Components%2001.jpg

Cash for Clunkers out of CA$H already?

It seems that the much debated program to incentivize consumers to trade in their gas guzzling vehicles, those that are at least 10 years old and get 18 mpg or less, for a new fuel efficient vehicle has been the best stimulus package to date. After less than a week, the $1 billion set aside for the “Cash for Clunkers” program is running out of money. I will have to admit that I was skeptical at first about how many people would take advantage of the program, being that the national unemployment rate is approaching 10% and tens of millions more people are having to take mandatory furlough days or have their hours reduced. I didn’t think that most people, who are struggling to make it through the toughest economic conditions since the Great Depression, would be able to fit a new car into their tight personal finances.

Taking another look at this, when you are getting a $3,500 to $4,500 refundable voucher for the program, and there are thousands of dollars of manufacturer and dealership rebates, this might be the right time to buy a new car or truck that gets more than 25 mpg. The original amount proposed for the program was $4 billion. Both the Obama Administration and the Congress will probably have to revisit this to add more money and extend the program. There are a lot of up sides to this:

• It puts money into the hands of consumers to purchase a big ticket item.


• These purchases will help save and even create jobs at a time when the nation continues to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs.


• Those jobs saved or created will provide a desperately needed shot in the arm for the nation’s consumer confidence (people will spend more money).


• The money spent by consumers, plus the money spent by workers whose jobs were saved or created, will begin to ripple through the economy (this is a good thing).


• The newer, more fuel efficient vehicles will mean less money spent on gas and more money to spend on other things.


• The higher fuel efficient vehicles will reduce the amount greenhouse gases produced by the traded in, gas guzzling cars, trucks, and SUV’s.

These are just my back of the napkin thoughts on the positives of the program. While consumer debt will go up a little bit, the money gained by overall savings at the pump, plus the jobs saved or created as a result of the program, will be spent on other things and even go to paying down other debts in the long run.

Picture found at: http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/1980-1989-ford-trucks-44.jpg

Corporate Polluter round-up and 2nd Quarter profits: TVA, Dominion Power, & Massey Energy

Last week, the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) admitted culpability in the Fly Ash Sludge spill into the Emory River after the release of a stinging report highlighting a string of failures, deficiencies, and internal cultural problems. It’s kind of hard to hide millions of cubic yards of toxic coal fly ash when it ends up in the yards and homes of residence along the river and it comes from your facility. Estimates put the clean-up of the spill to be around $1 billion. I wish that Dominion Power would follow the lead of the TVA, concerning the situation with the coal ash construction fill that has contaminated the well water of the residence around the Battlefield Golf Course.

Dominion Power is asking a Chesapeake, VA judge to throw out the $1 billion lawsuit filed against them by nearly 400 residence affected by the toxic contamination of their well water. According to the motion to dismiss, if the judge refuses to dismiss the suit Dominion Power would like a change of venue because it feels that “the jury pool and any trial proceedings in this jurisdiction would be tainted.” Dominion also feels that the residence have not proven that specific injury or harm has been done to individual residence, and also that the fault lies with the construction company that built the golf course. I guess it doesn’t matter that Dominion Power kept an internal study secret about the potential environmental impact from the use of fly ash as construction filler, for SEVEN YEARS.

I find this astonishingly arrogant and callous on the part of Dominion Power. It’s their fly ash from their Coal Fired Power Plant at the Deep Creek facility, they had a study that said this would happen, they don’t think the residence have a case and if the lawsuit is not dismissed, they feel the jury pool is contaminated because of all the bad press they have gotten. Dominion Power coal ash contaminates well water, and potentially drinking water for the City of Chesapeake (who gets about half of their drinking water from the Northwest River which is very close to the golf course) and they are afraid that the pool of potential jurors would be contaminated? That’s a good one. Well, I guess when you have deep pockets to file motions like this when it’s pretty clear Dominion Power engaged in a cover-up of the original study to get the toxic fly ash off their hands and committed fraud when they presented the more favorable study to the Chesapeake City Council back in 2001, that it cost less to do it this way than to do the right thing.

It appears that the lawsuit that Massey Energy is involved with against Harmon Mining isn’t affecting its bottom line too much. Massey Energy will post a 2nd Quarter profit of $20.2 million, citing an 8% increase in its coal shipments (which Dominion Power is a likely recipient). No real connection here to the other stories except that it’s coal related. Just thought this was interesting.

Campbell County Sewage Sludge public comments and questions due by July 13th

There was good attendance by local Campbell County residence, with around 50 at the June 11th meeting held at Rustburg High School. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Soil Science and Waste Management experts from Virginia Tech, and representatives from Nutri-Blend, Inc. were on hand to answer questions. They answered a lot of questions and addressed many of the concerns, but there are still questions that need to be answered.

I contacted a close friend of mine who sold chemicals to Sewage Treatment facilities on the east coast and in the Southeast for seven or eight years. He is now a High School Chemistry teacher, so I trust what he says. Here are some of the questions he suggested to me that people need to be asking. Some of these were asked and answered at the June 11th meeting, so my apologies for listing some of the same questions that have been asked:

• Where is the waste coming from and is it from industrial or residential sources?


• How is the sewage being treated, is it a digested (typically an anaerobic process) or an aerobic waste?


• Is the sewage biologically active when being spread? Is the sludge (sewage) being tested for heavy metals and for harmful pathogens (bacterial and protist)?


• How much phosphorus and nitrogen does the sludge contain, is there concern about run-off or contamination of water ways or ground water pollution?


• How close are these farms to communities and new neighborhoods? Are these communities using ground water or county water sources? Will there be ground water monitoring at these farms or communities?


• What are the rules (DEQ) when it comes to land application of sewage? How often? How much? In rain? After rain? When do the farms have to be tilled and how often? If the farmer plants crops is there an issue with food/feed crop contamination?
  

The concerns around the use of treated sewage sludge have been around for quite a while. I came across this 1999 article out of the Augusta Chronicle in Augusta, Georgia and their fight against spreading of sludge as fertilizer.

Here is the link to the Nutri-Blend Biosolids Land Application and the Public Notice – Environmental Permit Application from the Campbell County Government web site. The PDF of the Land Application lists the locations where Nutri Blend has applied to spread the sludge. The Public Notice PDF has the information at the bottom for how people can submit comments or questions. ALL COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS MUST BE IN BY JULY 13, 2009.

CONTACT FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS, DOCUMENT REQUESTS AND ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION: Kevin A. Crider; DEQ – Blue Ridge Regional Office, 7705 Timberlake Road,
Lynchburg, VA 24502; Phone: (434) 582-5120; E-mail: Kevin.Crider@deq.virginia.gov; Fax: (434) 582-5125

Picture by: http://chronicle.augusta.com/images/headlines/013099/sludge_truck.jpg

Clean, renewable wind energy could provide 20% of Virginia's power and create over 1,000 jobs!

According to an article by Ricardo Lopez of the Virginian Pilot today, a study by the Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium has determined that a wind farm off the coast of Virginia Beach is a viable option. Some key findings out of the study:

• Cost of a wind farm is comparable to current/traditional fuels.
• Current/traditional fuel prices will not remain the same.
• Initial cost of wind farm is high, but will pay off over the long run.
• Will not be paying fuel costs over the course of time, just maintenance and operational costs.
• Project could provide up to 20% of Virginia's energy needs.
• Project could create around 1,100 jobs.

There was initial talk about building wind farms along the Blue Ridge Mountains a few years ago, but it was met with opposition due mainly to concerns over migrations patterns of birds. The location of the wind farm off the coast of Virginia would not impact bird migrations patterns. While the aesthetic look is not great, it is a whole lot better alternative than seeing oil and gas drilling platforms off the coast and nearly zero chance of environmental disaster from fuel spills. This is just a report, but things are moving in the right direction.

Picture by: http://www.meteorologynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/offshorewindturbines.jpg

In other News: Sewage Sludge Hearing in Campbell County this Thursday!!!

Many thanks to Ed Foster from Lynchburg for his Letter-to-the-Editor in Today’s News Advance about the Department of Environmental Equality public information meeting at Rustburg High School this Thursday, June 11th, from 5:00 to 7:00 pm. I posted on this issues in May. While this is a meeting in Campbell County, this process of applying for permits to spread/distribute Sewage Sludge is happening across Virginia. The science needs to be done to determine if it is safe to spread. This is a water quality and public health issues. Anyone in the Lynchburg area and Campbell County that is concerned about this, should attend the meeting.

Sludge hearing

If you live in Campbell County, biosolids may be coming to a field near you. The state Department of Environmental Quality has received a permit application from NutriBlend for spreading biosolids on 163 fields throughout the county. The DEQ will be holding a public informational meeting at Rustburg High School on Thursday from 5 to 7 p.m. I urge all interested citizens to attend, ask questions and give public comments. DEQ employees say they want the public to be more involved in the process and to have more input in when and where biosolids will be spread. Let’s find out if this is true.

ED FOSTER
Lynchburg

The Tennessee Valley Authority gets it about Fly Ash, when will Dominion Power?

There is an excellent Associated Press article in today’s Virginian Pilot about the coal ash spill that has destroyed the ecosystem and the drinking water in the Emory River region of Tennessee. In the end, when corporations screw up taxpayers get stuck with the bill. It’s just getting started in Chesapeake. Dominion Power should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But, who will stand up to the most powerful political force in the Commonwealth of Virginia? Will it take the Battlefield Golf Course being designated a Superfund Site to knock these guys down a few pegs? Any thoughts?

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Uranium Mining Sub-Committee meeting this Thursday!!!

I received this information yesterday. The Uranium Mining Sub-Committee will be meeting this Thursday, May 21st at 2:30 pm in the General Assembly Building. While the focus of this issue has been on Pittsylvania County since they have the largest Uranium deposit on the East Coast (if not the country), this sub-committe will be making recommendations that impact the entire "Commonwealth." It has not been talked about as much that if the moratorium on Uranium Mining is lifted in Virginia, it affects the entire state. There is Uranium all over Virginia.

As I’ve posted before, if it's such a challenge to properly dispose and store coal ash (Fly Ash) then what kind of a challenge do you think it will be to dispose and store mined Uranium and spent fuel rods from Nuclear Power Plants? I want cheap, clean energy as much as the next person but,… IT HAS TO BE SUSTAINABLE, RENEWABLE, AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE!

If you can get to Richmond tomorrow, please attend the meeting and voice your concerns. If you can’t please contact the members of the Uranium Mining Sub-Committee, listed below:

URANIUM SUB-COMMITTEE of the
Virginia Coal and Energy Commission

Chairman: Delegate R. Lee Ware (804)598-6696
dellware@house.state.va.us
Senator Phillip Puckett (276)979-8181
district38@sov.state.va.us
Senator Frank Wagner (757)671-2250
district07@sov.state.va.us
Senator John Watkins (804)379-2063
jnwatkins@aol.com
Delegate Watkins Abbitt, Jr. (434)352-2880
delwabbitt@house.state.va.us
Delegate Kristen Amundson (703)619-0444
delkamundson@house.state.va.us
Delegate Charles Carrico (276)773-9600
delccarrico@house.state.va.us
Delegate W. R. "Bill" Janis (804)726-5856
delbjanis@house.state.va.us
Delegate Terry Kilgore (276)386-7011
delegate@mounet.com
Delegate Clarence Phillips (276)762-9758
delbphillips@house.state.va.us
Citizen Harry D. Childress former head of the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy
Dr. Michael Karmis, Liaison (540) 231-7057 or (540)231-5273
mkarmis@vt.edu

Here is some more information about the purpose of the Uranium Mining Sub-Committee and their Statement of Task. Note that concern for public health and environmental impact doesn’t get listed until numbers 7, 8, and 9. Global Market trends is #1. Are they serious?!!!

Uranium Mining in Virginia
Statement of Task

Uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia has been prohibited since 1982 by a state moratorium, although approval for restricted uranium exploration in the state was granted in 2007. A National Research Council study will examine the scientific, technical, environmental, human health and safety, and regulatory aspects of uranium mining, milling, and processing as they relate to the Commonwealth of Virginia. In particular, the study will:

1) Review global and national uranium market trends.
2) Identify and briefly describe the main types of uranium deposits worldwide including, for example, geologic characteristics, mining operations, and best practices.
3) Review the geologic, environmental, geographic, climatic, and cultural settings and exploration status of uranium resources in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
4) Review the primary technical options and best practices approaches for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation that might be applicable within the Commonwealth of Virginia, including discussion of improvements made since 1980 in the design, construction, and monitoring of tailings impoundments (“cells”).
5) Review the state and federal regulatory framework for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
6) Review federal requirements for secure handling of uranium materials, including personnel, transportation, site security, and material control and accountability.
7) Assess the potential short- and long-term occupational and public health and safety considerations from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation, including the potential human health effects from exposure to “daughter” products of radioactive decay of uranium.
8) Identify the issues that may need to be considered regarding the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water, and the quality of soil and air from uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation. As relevant, water and waste management and severe weather effects or other stochastic events may also be considered.
9) Assess the potential ecosystem issues for uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
11) Identify baseline data and approaches necessary to monitor environmental and human impacts associated with uranium mining, milling, processing, and reclamation.
12) Briefly characterize a potential public education and outreach program in the Commonwealth of Virginia for a uranium mining operation (for example, health and safety issues, inspection and enforcement, community right-to-know, emergency planning).
By addressing these questions, the study will provide independent, expert advice that can be used to inform decisions about the future of uranium mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia; however, the study will not make recommendations about whether or not uranium mining should be permitted nor will the study include site-specific assessments.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION TODAY!

SPREAD THE WORD AND PASS THIS INFORMATION ALLONG TO ALL YOUR EMAIL LISTS AND NETWORKS!

Photo by: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/25anniversary/photo/images/presentation/11hale.jpg