- EC - lists.cheatlakeclear.org

Murray Energy to sue EPA
by James Kotcon 28 Jan '14

28 Jan '14

Do you suppose Murray is beginning to question the wisdom of buying up ConSol's coal reserves? Maybe he is beginning to wonder if this global warming thing may affect his business decisions? Jim Kotcon >>>>> OBSERVER REPORTER Murray Energy to sue EPA Staff and wire reports Business Monday, January 27,2014 Murray Energy Corp. said in a news release Monday that it has notified the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of its intent to file a lawsuit against the agency "to combat the EPA's illegal promulgation of senseless and destructive regulations, with absolutely no regard for their job and family destruction." According to the release, the company, based in St. Clairsville, Ohio, said the Clean Air Act, as passed by Congress and signed into law, "clearly requires the Obama EPA to consider job losses in its issuance of regulations, and it has never complied with the law." In its official notice, Murray Energy demands that the EPA immediately comply with the Clean Air Act and evaluate the job losses "caused by its disastrous regulations. Indeed, over the past several years, the Obama EPA has promulgated a series of rules and regulations seeking to eliminate the United States coal industry, and the very good jobs and low-cost electricity that it provides. "Indeed, the lives and livelihoods of entire families in many regions of America are being destroyed." The company also said it believes "there will be virtually no environmental benefit from these radical EPA regulations." Murray noted that at least 392 coal-fired electric power plants in America have been closed or identified for closure by the EPA, which it said equates to a loss of about 100,000 megawatts of lowest cost electric power available across the country. In filing the notice and lawsuit, Murray Energy said it is fighting to protect coal miners, low-cost electricity for all Americans and for American manufacturers of products which must compete in the global marketplace. "Unfortunately, we had no choice but to file this notice and lawsuit," said Gary M. Broadbent, assistant general counsel and media director for Murray Energy. "The Clean Air Act is crystal clear in requiring the EPA to evaluate the negative impact that their regulations will have on jobs, but they have repeatedly been derelict in their duty." "We must defend these jobs, families, and America, and force the EPA and President Obama to comply with the law." Murray Energy also said there will be further litigation resulting from the Obama EPA's destructive and illegal actions, but declined to discuss them at this time. Murray Energy is one of the largest employers in the U.S. coal industry, providing more than 7,100 jobs and operating 13 active coal mines in six states. In October, Consol Energy Inc. announced the sale of all five of its longwall coal mines in West Virginia to a subsidiary of Murray Energy for $3.5 billion. The mines purchased by Murray were the McElroy, Shoemaker, Robinson Run, Loveridge and Blacksville No. 2 mines. The transaction, which was completed in early December, included the transfer of 3,722 hourly and salaried employees to Murray. At the time of the sale, Murray said the transaction would nearly double its coal production from 30.1 million tons to 58.6 million tons per year, and nearly triple its coal reserves from 859 million tons to almost 2.4 billion tons. The company's workforce doubled from 3,300 to 7,100 employees. Copyright 2014 Observer Publishing Company.All rights reserved.

2 1

PUC to update 'external cost' for Minnesota power sources | St. Cloud TIMES | sctimes.com
by Duane 27 Jan '14

27 Jan '14

http://www.sctimes.com/article/20140126/NEWS01/301260004/PUC-update-externa… PUC to update 'external cost' for Minnesota power sources Written by Kirsti Marohn, St. Cloud Times, January 26, 2014 BECKER — A new push to calculate the true cost of the environmental and health effects of producing electricity could have a substantial impact on the future of Minnesota’s largest coal plant, located in Becker. The state Public Utilities Commission agreed last month to update the values it gives to so-called external costs. Those can range from climate change to higher infant mortality to an increased number of emergency room visits due to asthma. The values will help guide future decisions the state will make about aging power plants like Sherco in Becker and cleaner sources of electricity. “What this would do is to cause Minnesota to take a hard look before investments are made in power plants so that ... we have a sense of what those ultimate costs would be, and we’ll make fewer bad decisions,” said J. Drake Hamilton, science policy director with the nonprofit Fresh Energy. Minnesota law Minnesota passed a landmark law in 1993 that requires the PUC to consider external costs when weighing various energy options. The purpose was to create a level playing field between sources of electricity that emit a lot of pollution and those that don’t, said Beth Goodpaster, attorney with the nonprofit Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, which petitioned the PUC to update the values. Lawmakers recognized that there are costs associated with some sources of electricity that aren’t reflected in customers’ bills and aren’t paid for by utilities, Goodpaster said. “That way, a dirty resource would not be able to say, ‘We’re cheap,’ because they would have to actually include all the costs associated with it,” she said. Coal plants, for example, emit pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury that contribute to smog and affect human health. They also release greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that are linked to global warming. While Minnesota’s law was groundbreaking, the values didn’t include all pollutants and haven’t been updated since 1996. See link above for the complete article.

1 0

Fwd: Proposed fracking in national forest meets broad opposition
by Paul Wilson 25 Jan '14

25 Jan '14

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Angie Rosser <arosser(a)wvrivers.org> Date: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 5:43 PM Subject: Proposed fracking in national forest meets broad opposition To: "birthplaceofrivers(a)tws.org" <birthplaceofrivers(a)tws.org> Hooking drinking water and the Elk chemical spill... http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-national-forest-fracking-20140123,0,987… Proposed fracking in national forest meets broad opposition The U.S. Forest Service considers allowing hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in George Washington National Forest in Virginia, stirring concern about risks to drinking water in the Washington, D.C., area. [image: George Washington National Forest]<http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-year-in-review-pol…> In the past, the U.S. Forest Service has made it a top priority to preserve the purity of the water in George Washington National Forest, but the land also has vast untapped deposits of natural gas. (U.S. Forest Service / January 7, 2014) By Neela Banerjee January 22, 2014, 7:08 p.m. BRIDGEWATER, Va. -- The headwaters of the Potomac River rise amid the hills and hollows of George Washington National Forest in Virginia. Small creeks dart past oak, white pine and hickory, become streams that nourish farmland and towns, and create a river that courses through two states and the nation's capital. About 4 million people depend on that water. For decades, the U.S. Forest Service identified preserving its purity as the top priority for the national forest. Now, the agency is considering allowing George Washington to become the first national forest to permit high-volume hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The million-acre forest sits on the eastern edge of the Marcellus shale formation, whose vast deposits of natural gas have touched off a drilling bonanza in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. All across the country, fracking's risks and rewards have splintered communities. But the potential risk to George Washington National Forest's water has drawn widespread opposition, including from most of the towns and counties nearby, members of Virginia's congressional delegation and Washington's mayor. The oil industry says any natural gas could be extracted with little harm to the national forest and its waters. The dispute mirrors dozens around the country as hydraulic fracturing unlocks oil and gas previously considered out of reach. But this time, it has stirred concerns not only about water in rural communities, but also about the drinking water of one of the nation's biggest metropolitan areas. "The Potomac is our exclusive water source. We don't have anywhere else to go for our drinking water if there's a mistake or problem," said George Hawkins, general manager of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority. "And if there is, it would affect everyone at the [Environmental Protection Agency<http://www.latimes.com/topic/environmental-issues/u.s.-environmental-protec…>], every member of Congress<http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/u.s.-congress-ORGOV0000131…> ." Neighboring West Virginia offers a preview of disruption when water becomes unusable, even temporarily. In that case, chemicals used to wash coal were found in the Elk River two weeks ago. For at least four days, nine counties could use tap water only to flush toilets. In Virginia, counties such as Augusta and Rockingham near George Washington National Forest boast some of the state's richest agricultural land, and many towns benefit from tourism tied to the forest. "Local governments here are aware that their most important natural resource is their water," said Nancy Sorrells, a historian of the region and former Augusta County<http://www.latimes.com/topic/us/virginia/augusta-county-PLGEO10010110900000…>supervisor. On a mild winter morning, Sorrells and two lawyers from the Southern Environmental Law Center drove the narrow road that snakes up to the nearly 4,400-foot Reddish Knob, one of the highest points in Virginia. On one side of the windy summit, hardwood forest extends to the horizon. If fracking were allowed, Sorrells and the lawyers noted, huge trucks would navigate the sinuous roads into the mountainous terrain, forest land would be cleared for pipelines and hilltops would be flattened for compressor stations. Every decade or so, all national forests develop new plans to determine the best use of their resources. The draft plan released in 2011 for the George Washington forest would have effectively banned fracking. After an outcry from industry, the Forest Service decided to reconsider. Aware of the complexity and contentiousness of the issue, the agency has delayed a final decision several times. Fracking currently is permitted on only two Forest Service preserves, both in the West: Dakota Prairie National Grasslands in North Dakota and Pawnee National Grassland in Colorado. "Minerals have always been a part of what we've been about, but we have to weigh if it's appropriate to develop them in this forest with this set of conditions," said Ken Landgraf, planning staff officer for George Washington National Forest. "The 'why' of considering fracking gets to the use of national lands. If we are developing energy in this country and making it more secure, shouldn't national lands be part of the solution?" Fracking involves injecting millions of gallons of water laced with sand and chemicals deep underground to crack shale formations and unlock oil and gas. The process is exempt from some parts of the Safe Drinking Water Act, and energy companies do not have to disclose the chemicals they use if they consider them trade secrets. Technological advances would allow fracking in the forest while protecting its water, said Michael Ward, executive director of the Virginia Petroleum Council. He noted that the Forest Service could keep the most sensitive areas off-limits. "Though there are no leases in or around the forest now, it seems unreasonable to lock up that whole area for another 15 years until the next forest plan," he said. Fracking's effect on water supplies remains in dispute. Yet recent studies near fracking sites have discovered water contaminated by methane, arsenic and chemicals linked to infertility, birth defects<http://www.latimes.com/topic/health/physical-conditions/birth-defects-HEISY…>and cancer. Sarah Francisco, one of the Southern Environmental Law Center attorneys who rode up to Reddish Knob, said the possibility of fracking in the forest raised unsettling questions: Would the gas companies compete with municipalities for the forest's water? Once it has been used in fracking, how would the highly contaminated water be disposed of, since local treatment plants could not handle it? Would methane from wells migrate into the water, as it has in parts of Pennsylvania? Would accidental spills of chemicals or wastewater taint the watershed? The questions trouble Dave and Sharon Horn. Half of their 650 acres is wooded and merges into the George Washington National Forest. They raise beef cattle on the rest. They hike and hunt in the forest. A spring runs on the other side of Buck Hill by their house. Like many of the area's residents, Dave Horn's family has lived by the forest for generations. He does not want the land and water disturbed, and the oil industry has failed to reassure him. "They can say, 'We'll be very careful and do this and that,' but there's always potential for human error, and that leads to contamination," he said. "And all this will affect people downstream too." *neela.banerjee(a)latimes.com <neela.banerjee(a)latimes.com>* http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-national-forest-fracking-20140123,0,987… ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

HB 4277
by Jim Sconyers 23 Jan '14

23 Jan '14

Note that HB 4277 is apparently the Republicans' answer to water threats - sponsors are 4 Republicans. On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 6:32 PM, James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> wrote: > > > Attached is my quick review of Comm Sub SB 373. It looks like Unger > incorporated a number of ideas from the governor's bill, but removed any > role for the Dept. of Public Health and included most of Tomblin's > exemptions, plus added a few new ones. It makes Ungers bill more > comprehensive for the tanks that are covered, but it exempts way too many > tanks. > > > > Jim Kotcon > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Dan Taylor <danotbob(a)gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:01 PM > *To:* Jim Sconyers > *Cc:* Angie Rosser; David McMahon; Chuck Wyrostok; James Kotcon; MAYA > NYE; Denise Poole; Don Garvin; Vickie Wolfe; Dan Taylor; Gary Zuckett; Beth > Little; Cindy Rank; John C; Julie Archer; Norm Steenstra; Robin Blakeman; > Viv Stockman; Rachel Huff; Margaret Chapman Pomponio; Greg Carroll > *Subject:* Re: Allied lobbyists group: 373 TALKING POINTS > > Just saw H. B. 4277 > > Looks even more useless than the governor's bill. Just an inventory? > > -Dan > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Jim Sconyers <jimscon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> resorting to protection via existing NPDES stormwater permits seems a >> red herring to me - doesn't address the real critical problem, seems to say >> no further protection needed >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Angie Rosser <arosser(a)wvrivers.org>wrote: >> >>> This bill is being irresponsibly fast tracked by the Senate, not >>> giving time for thorough analysis and stakeholder/public input. >>> Doesn't recognize DEPs current authorities to permit under the existing >>> NPDES program >>> Narrowly attempts to address only one example of threats to source water >>> Includes several AST exclusions >>> Relies on industry self inspection and self reporting >>> No funding for protection plan development >>> >>> I have not had a chance to read the CS so someone needs to verify >>> these points are still relevant. >>> >>> Angie Rosser >>> Executive Director >>> West Virginia Rivers Coalition >>> 304-637-7201 >>> >>> *From:* David McMahon <wvdavid(a)wvdavid.net> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:21 PM >>> >>> *To:* Chuck Wyrostok <wyro(a)appalight.com>, Jim Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu>, >>> MAYA NYE <chemicalsafetyadvocates(a)gmail.com>, Angie Rosser<arosser(a)wvrivers.org> >>> *Cc:* Dan Taylor <danotbob(a)gmail.com>, Denise Poole<deniseap(a)earthlink.net>, >>> Don Garvin <DSGJr(a)aol.com>, Vickie Wolfe <ibtreehugger(a)gmail.com>, 'Dan >>> Taylor' <dan(a)ohvec.org>, Gary Zuckett <garyz(a)wvcag.org>, 'Beth Little'<blittle(a)citynet.net>, >>> Cindy Rank <clrank2(a)gmail.com>, 'Jim Sconyers' <jimscon(a)gmail.com>, 'John >>> C' <jbc329(a)earthlink.net>, Julie Archer <julie(a)wvsoro.org>, 'Norm >>> Steenstra' <norm(a)wvcag.org>, 'Robin Blakeman' <robin(a)ohvec.org>, 'Viv >>> Stockman' <viv(a)ohvec.org>, Rachel Huff <rachel(a)wvfree.org>, Margaret >>> Chapman Pomponio <margaret(a)wvfree.org>, Greg Carroll<greg.carroll(a)frontier.com> >>> >>> HI, >>> I saw Maya in cafeteria. Plan is to ask Unger to ask General >>> Servcies to leave capitaol open late so rally can occure in lower rotunda. >>> I have not idea if they accomplished this. >>> >>> Dave >>> On 1/21/2014 12:36 PM, Chuck Wyrostok wrote: >>> >>> Folks, I just talked to Greg Carroll. His road (and mine) are snowed >>> in pretty badly. He hasn’t heard whether the event has been moved inside >>> the capitol and feels it’s too risky to set up generator/sound system in >>> wet snow. He’d like to talk to someone asap. His phone 304 206 8849. >>> >>> >>> >>> Hopefully, we’ll both see you all later today….chuck w >>> >>> >>> >>> Chuck Wyrostok >>> >>> Outreach Organizer >>> >>> Sierra Club, WV Chapter >>> >>> T: 877 252 0257 >>> >>> E. outreach(a)marcellus-wv.com >>> >>> www.marcellus-wv.com >>> >>> >>> >>> Water is Life...Keep It Clean >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:* James Kotcon [mailto:jkotcon@wvu.edu <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu>] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:01 PM >>> *To:* MAYA NYE; Angie Rosser >>> *Cc:* David McMahon; Dan Taylor; Denise Poole; DSGJr(a)aol.com; >>> ibtreehugger(a)gmail.com; wyro(a)appalight.com; dan(a)ohvec.org; >>> garyz(a)wvcag.org; blittle(a)citynet.net; clrank2(a)gmail.com; >>> jimscon(a)gmail.com; jbc329(a)earthlink.net; julie(a)wvsoro.org; >>> norm(a)wvcag.org; robin(a)ohvec.org; viv(a)ohvec.org; rachel(a)wvfree.org; >>> margaret(a)wvfree.org >>> *Subject:* RE: Allied lobbyists group: CSB RECOMMENDATIONS >>> >>> >>> >>> Maya, et al.: >>> >>> >>> >>> This is a great list. I would point out that the Unger bill does have a >>> provision directing DEP to propose fees to support the permit program, >>> although it is not clear that there is enough focus on inspections and >>> enforcement. >>> >>> >>> >>> Tomblin's bill has reasonable language assuring DEP has authority to do >>> inspections, etc. and requires an annual inspection by a professional >>> engineer. It also specifies construction and performance standards, >>> financial assurance requirements, and makes it unlawful to deliver to an >>> unregistered tank. That last one makes the haulers responsible, which I >>> think is a good idea (so it will probably be gutted). Tomblin's bill also >>> requires source water protection plans. If only Tomblin's bill did not >>> have so many loopholes that almost no one is covered by it! >>> >>> >>> >>> Some of those might be worth adding to the list. >>> >>> >>> >>> Jim Kotcon >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:* MAYA NYE <chemicalsafetyadvocates(a)gmail.com><chemicalsafetyadvocates(a)gmail.com> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:18 AM >>> *To:* Angie Rosser >>> *Cc:* David McMahon; Dan Taylor; Denise Poole; DSGJr(a)aol.com; >>> ibtreehugger(a)gmail.com; wyro(a)appalight.com; dan(a)ohvec.org; >>> garyz(a)wvcag.org; blittle(a)citynet.net; clrank2(a)gmail.com; James Kotcon; >>> jimscon(a)gmail.com; jbc329(a)earthlink.net; julie(a)wvsoro.org; >>> norm(a)wvcag.org; robin(a)ohvec.org; viv(a)ohvec.org; rachel(a)wvfree.org; >>> margaret(a)wvfree.org >>> *Subject:* Re: Allied lobbyists group: CSB RECOMMENDATIONS >>> >>> >>> >>> All: >>> >>> >>> >>> This is what Pat McGinley came up with. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Components of a Comprehensive Above Ground Chemical Storage* >>> >>> *Bill Missing From Unger Bill* >>> >>> >>> >>> Most federal and state environmental protection statutes contain >>> significant opportunities for public participation. >>> >>> >>> >>> Bill should grant rights to citizens, public water suppliers as well >>> as municipal and county governments. Like other environmental protection >>> laws, such public participation rights should include: >>> >>> >>> >>> · A broad right of citizen access to information in DEP files >>> regarding permitting, inspection, enforcement actions, penalties and the >>> other information storage tank companies are required to submit under the >>> bill; >>> >>> >>> >>> · Grant citizen's a public hearing, right to comment upon >>> siting of tanks, permit applications, >>> >>> >>> >>> · Grant citizen's the right to seek administrative and >>> judicial review of siting, permitting and enforcement decisions, >>> >>> >>> >>> · Require notification of the public, water suppliers and >>> municipalities of permit applications, permit grants and denials, >>> >>> >>> >>> · Grant citizens (including water suppliers, municipal and >>> county governments) the right to object, to permit applications, grant of >>> permits, and settlements of DEP enforcement actions; >>> >>> >>> >>> · Grant citizens the right to (1) seek administrative and >>> judicial review of DEP permit and enforcement decisions; the right to seek >>> judicial enforcement of mandatory nondiscretionary duties of permittees and >>> DEP under the statute, permits and regulations; >>> >>> >>> >>> · Provide for attorneys and expert fees and costs to be >>> awarded citizens who substantially prevail in administrative actions or >>> upon judicial review. >>> >>> >>> >>> Other necessary provisions: >>> >>> >>> >>> · Specific storage tank setback requirements from source >>> waters where a spill or discharge may contaminate sources of public and >>> private drinking water. >>> >>> >>> >>> · Requirement that buffer zones be established to prohibit >>> location/construction of above-ground chemical storage tanks in close >>> proximity to source waters upstream from public drinking water intakes >>> (unless the director finds by clear and convincing evidence that there is >>> no possible hydrologic connection between the tanks and source waters (i.e. >>> no chance that the contents of a tank will reach stream or groundwater). >>> >>> >>> >>> · Owners of storage tanks should be *required* to submit >>> information about storage tanks and their contents - rather than leaving it >>> up to the DEP Secretary to request such information. >>> >>> >>> >>> · The regulatory program, including permitting of above ground >>> storage tanks, established by the bill should mandate additional DEP >>> staffing including inspectors and permit review staff with appropriate >>> expertise. >>> >>> >>> >>> · Require assessment of fees on tank owners to provide >>> adequate revenue to support the regulatory program. >>> >>> >>> >>> · Mandate monetary criminal (including imprisonment) and civil >>> sanctions with criminal and civil penalties to be imposed on corporate >>> managers and corporate entities adequate to provide serious deterrent to >>> violations of the statute. >>> >>> >>> >>> I will work on pulling all of your recommendations together on this >>> bill. >>> >>> >>> >>> Maya >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:29 AM, MAYA NYE < >>> chemicalsafetyadvocates(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Bayer report, it is page 116. >>> >>> >>> >>> Here is the text version: >>> >>> *8.3 Director of the Kanawha-Charleston Health Department * >>> >>> 2008-08-I-WV-R6 >>> >>> Establish a Hazardous Chemical Release Prevention Program to enhance >>> the prevention of accidental releases of highly hazardous chemicals, and >>> optimize responses in the event of their occurrence. In establishing the >>> program, study and evaluate the possible applicability of the experience of >>> similar programs in the country, such as those summarized in Section 5.3 of >>> this report. As a minimum: >>> >>> 1. Ensure that the new program: >>> >>> 1. Implements an effective system of independent oversight and >>> other services to enhance the prevention of accidental releases of highly >>> hazardous chemicals >>> >>> 2. Facilitates the collaboration of multiple stakeholders in >>> achieving common goals of chemical safety; and, >>> >>> 3. Increases the confidence of the community, the workforce, and >>> the local authorities in the ability of the facility owners to prevent and >>> respond to accidental releases of highly hazardous chemicals >>> >>> 2. Define the characteristics of chemical facilities that would >>> be covered by the new Program, such as the hazards and potential risks of >>> their chemicals and processes, their quantities, and similar relevant >>> factors; >>> >>> 116 >>> >>> c. Ensure that covered facilities develop, implement, and submit for >>> review and approval: >>> >>> 1. Applicable hazard and process information and evaluations. >>> >>> 2. Written safety plans with appropriate descriptions of hazard >>> controls, safety culture and human factors programs with employee >>> participation, and consideration of the adoption of inherently safer >>> systems to reduce risks >>> >>> 3. Emergency response plans; and, >>> >>> 4. Performance indicators addressing the prevention of chemical >>> incidents. >>> >>> 4. Ensure that the program has the right to evaluate the >>> documents submitted by the covered facilities, and to require >>> modifications, as necessary >>> >>> 5. Ensure that the program has right-of-entry to covered >>> facilities, and access to requisite information to conduct periodic audits >>> of safety systems and investigations of chemical releases; >>> >>> 6. Establish a system of fees assessed on covered facilities >>> sufficient to cover the oversight and related services to be provided to >>> the facilities including necessary technical and administrative personnel; >>> and, >>> >>> 7. Consistent with applicable law, ensure that the program >>> provides reasonable public participation with the program staff in review >>> of facility programs and access to: >>> >>> 1. The materials submitted by covered facilities (e.g., hazard >>> evaluations, safety plans, emergency response plans); >>> >>> 2. The reviews conducted by program staff and the modifications >>> triggered by those reviews; >>> >>> 117 >>> >>> 3. Records of audits and incident investigations conducted by the >>> program; >>> >>> 4. Performance indicator reports and data submitted by the >>> facilities, and; >>> >>> 5. Other relevant information concerning the hazards and the >>> control methods overseen by the program. >>> >>> h. Ensure that the program will require a periodic review of the >>> designated agency activities and issue a periodic public report of its >>> activities and recommended action items. >>> >>> *8.4 Secretary of West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services >>> and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection * >>> >>> 2008-08-I-WV-R7 >>> >>> Work with the Director of the Kanawha-Charleston Health Department to >>> ensure the successful planning, fee collection, and implementation of the >>> Hazardous Chemical Release Prevention Program as described in >>> Recommendation 2008-08-WV-R6, above, including the provision of services to >>> all eligible facilities in the State. >>> >>> *8.5 Kanawha-Putnam Emergency Planning Committee * >>> >>> 2008-08-I-WV-R8 >>> >>> Work with the Kanawha and Putnam counties Emergency Response Directors >>> to prepare and issue a revision to the Kanawha Putnam County Emergency >>> Response Plan and Annexes to address facility emergency response and >>> Incident Command when such functions are provided by the facility owner. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Angie Rosser <arosser(a)wvrivers.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Links here >>> >>> >>> >>> Bayer Crop Science 2008: >>> http://www.csb.gov/csb-issues-report-on-2008-bayer-cropscience-explosion-fi… >>> >>> >>> >>> Dupont 2011: >>> http://www.csb.gov/dupont-corporation-toxic-chemical-releases/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Angie Rosser* >>> >>> Executive Director >>> >>> West Virginia Rivers Coalition >>> >>> 304-637-7201 >>> >>> www.wvrivers.org >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* David McMahon [mailto:wvdavid@wvdavid.net] >>> *Sent:* Monday, January 20, 2014 5:42 PM >>> *To:* Angie Rosser; MAYA NYE; Dan Taylor >>> *Cc:* Denise Poole; DSGJr(a)aol.com; ibtreehugger(a)gmail.com; >>> wyro(a)appalight.com; dan(a)ohvec.org; garyz(a)wvcag.org; blittle(a)citynet.net; >>> clrank2(a)gmail.com; jkotcon(a)wvu.edu; jimscon(a)gmail.com; >>> jbc329(a)earthlink.net; julie(a)wvsoro.org; norm(a)wvcag.org; robin(a)ohvec.org; >>> viv(a)ohvec.org; rachel(a)wvfree.org; margaret(a)wvfree.org >>> *Subject:* Re: Allied lobbyists group: GOVERNOR'S SPILL BILL >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks. I still do not have Chemical Safety Board recommendations. >>> >>> On 1/20/2014 5:34 PM, Angie Rosser wrote: >>> >>> Gov’s bill attached. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Angie Rosser* >>> >>> Executive Director >>> >>> West Virginia Rivers Coalition >>> >>> 304-637-7201 >>> >>> www.wvrivers.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> David McMahon >>> >>> e-Mail: wvdavid(a)wvdavid.net >>> >>> Land line: 304-415-4288 >>> >>> Fax: 810-958-6143 >>> >>> Physical address: 1018 Kanawha Blvd E. #1200 >>> >>> Charleston, WV 25301 >>> >>> Postal address: 1624 Kenwood Road >>> >>> Charleston, WV 25314 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> Maya Nye, Spokesperson >>> People Concerned About Chemical Safety >>> 179 Summers Street, Ste. 230 >>> >>> Charleston, WV 25301 >>> www.peopleconcernedaboutchemicalsafety.org >>> >>> 304-389-6859 >>> >>> ***Smell something funny?*** >>> Make a POLLUTION LOG. Start keeping track of what happens when you >>> smell something funny. Also, be sure to CALL and REPORT what you smell. >>> It may be the only way a problem is detected. If you smell something, >>> there IS a leak. Call 24 hrs. a day 1 (800) 642-3074 then let us know you >>> called it in. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ***Adverse effects from exposure?*** >>> >>> Document your health symptoms. Keep a log. If you have immediate >>> concerns, go to the doctor or the emergency room. Be sure to have them >>> document that you think your symptoms are as a result of exposure. >>> --------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from this email list, just hit reply and put >>> "unsubscribe" in the subject line. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> Maya Nye, Spokesperson >>> People Concerned About Chemical Safety >>> 179 Summers Street, Ste. 230 >>> >>> Charleston, WV 25301 >>> www.peopleconcernedaboutchemicalsafety.org >>> >>> 304-389-6859 >>> >>> ***Smell something funny?*** >>> Make a POLLUTION LOG. Start keeping track of what happens when you >>> smell something funny. Also, be sure to CALL and REPORT what you smell. >>> It may be the only way a problem is detected. If you smell something, >>> there IS a leak. Call 24 hrs. a day 1 (800) 642-3074 then let us know you >>> called it in. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ***Adverse effects from exposure?*** >>> >>> Document your health symptoms. Keep a log. If you have immediate >>> concerns, go to the doctor or the emergency room. Be sure to have them >>> document that you think your symptoms are as a result of exposure. >>> --------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from this email list, just hit reply and put >>> "unsubscribe" in the subject line. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> David McMahon >>> e-Mail: wvdavid(a)wvdavid.net >>> Land line: 304-415-4288 >>> Fax: 810-958-6143 >>> Physical address: 1018 Kanawha Blvd E. #1200 >>> Charleston, WV 25301 >>> Postal address: 1624 Kenwood Road >>> Charleston, WV 25314 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Jim Sconyers >> jimscon(a)gmail.com >> 304.698.9628 >> >> Remember, Mother Nature bats last. >> > > __._,_.___ > View attachments on the web<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/attachments/folder/721240141/item/…> Reply > via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxMWNnY2RnBF9TAzk3…> Reply > to sender > <jkotcon@wvu.edu?subject=Re%3A%20Revised%20373%20Side-By-Side%20%28was%3A%20Allied%20lobbyists%20group%3A%20373%20TALKING%20POINTS> Reply > to group > <wvec-board@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Revised%20373%20Side-By-Side%20%28was%3A%20Allied%20lobbyists%20group%3A%20373%20TALKING%20POINTS> Start > a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmcnA3cXJqBF9TAzk3…> Messages > in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/message/4057;_ylc=X3oDMTM1MjU0OWVq…>(1) > Recent Activity: > > > Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaWo1MTlyBF9TAzk3MzU5N…> > [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlb2lkcWttBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIxN…> > Switch to: Text-Only<wvec-board-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>, > Daily Digest<wvec-board-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>• > Unsubscribe <wvec-board-unsubscribe(a)yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>• Terms > of Use <http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> • Send us > Feedback > <ygroupsnotifications(a)yahoogroups.com?subject=Feedback+on+the+redesigned+individual+mail+v1> > . > > __,_._,___ > > _______________________________________________ > EC mailing list > EC(a)osenergy.org > http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec > -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

2 1

Revised 373 Side-By-Side (was: Allied lobbyists group: 373 TALKING POINTS
by James Kotcon 23 Jan '14

23 Jan '14

Attached is my quick review of Comm Sub SB 373. It looks like Unger incorporated a number of ideas from the governor's bill, but removed any role for the Dept. of Public Health and included most of Tomblin's exemptions, plus added a few new ones. It makes Ungers bill more comprehensive for the tanks that are covered, but it exempts way too many tanks. Jim Kotcon ________________________________ From: Dan Taylor <danotbob(a)gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:01 PM To: Jim Sconyers Cc: Angie Rosser; David McMahon; Chuck Wyrostok; James Kotcon; MAYA NYE; Denise Poole; Don Garvin; Vickie Wolfe; Dan Taylor; Gary Zuckett; Beth Little; Cindy Rank; John C; Julie Archer; Norm Steenstra; Robin Blakeman; Viv Stockman; Rachel Huff; Margaret Chapman Pomponio; Greg Carroll Subject: Re: Allied lobbyists group: 373 TALKING POINTS Just saw H. B. 4277 Looks even more useless than the governor's bill. Just an inventory? -Dan On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Jim Sconyers <jimscon(a)gmail.com<mailto:jimscon@gmail.com>> wrote: resorting to protection via existing NPDES stormwater permits seems a red herring to me - doesn't address the real critical problem, seems to say no further protection needed On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Angie Rosser <arosser(a)wvrivers.org<mailto:arosser@wvrivers.org>> wrote: This bill is being irresponsibly fast tracked by the Senate, not giving time for thorough analysis and stakeholder/public input. Doesn't recognize DEPs current authorities to permit under the existing NPDES program Narrowly attempts to address only one example of threats to source water Includes several AST exclusions Relies on industry self inspection and self reporting No funding for protection plan development I have not had a chance to read the CS so someone needs to verify these points are still relevant. Angie Rosser Executive Director West Virginia Rivers Coalition 304-637-7201<tel:304-637-7201> From: David McMahon<mailto:wvdavid@wvdavid.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:21 PM To: Chuck Wyrostok<mailto:wyro@appalight.com>, Jim Kotcon<mailto:jkotcon@wvu.edu>, MAYA NYE<mailto:chemicalsafetyadvocates@gmail.com>, Angie Rosser<mailto:arosser@wvrivers.org> Cc: Dan Taylor<mailto:danotbob@gmail.com>, Denise Poole<mailto:deniseap@earthlink.net>, Don Garvin<mailto:DSGJr@aol.com>, Vickie Wolfe<mailto:ibtreehugger@gmail.com>, 'Dan Taylor'<mailto:dan@ohvec.org>, Gary Zuckett<mailto:garyz@wvcag.org>, 'Beth Little'<mailto:blittle@citynet.net>, Cindy Rank<mailto:clrank2@gmail.com>, 'Jim Sconyers'<mailto:jimscon@gmail.com>, 'John C'<mailto:jbc329@earthlink.net>, Julie Archer<mailto:julie@wvsoro.org>, 'Norm Steenstra'<mailto:norm@wvcag.org>, 'Robin Blakeman'<mailto:robin@ohvec.org>, 'Viv Stockman'<mailto:viv@ohvec.org>, Rachel Huff<mailto:rachel@wvfree.org>, Margaret Chapman Pomponio<mailto:margaret@wvfree.org>, Greg Carroll<mailto:greg.carroll@frontier.com> HI, I saw Maya in cafeteria. Plan is to ask Unger to ask General Servcies to leave capitaol open late so rally can occure in lower rotunda. I have not idea if they accomplished this. Dave On 1/21/2014 12:36 PM, Chuck Wyrostok wrote: Folks, I just talked to Greg Carroll. His road (and mine) are snowed in pretty badly. He hasn’t heard whether the event has been moved inside the capitol and feels it’s too risky to set up generator/sound system in wet snow. He’d like to talk to someone asap. His phone 304 206 8849<tel:304%20206%208849>. Hopefully, we’ll both see you all later today….chuck w Chuck Wyrostok Outreach Organizer Sierra Club, WV Chapter T: 877 252 0257<tel:877%20252%200257> E. outreach(a)marcellus-wv.com<mailto:outreach@marcellus-wv.com> www.marcellus-wv.com<http://www.marcellus-wv.com/> Water is Life...Keep It Clean ________________________________ From: James Kotcon [mailto:jkotcon@wvu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:01 PM To: MAYA NYE; Angie Rosser Cc: David McMahon; Dan Taylor; Denise Poole; DSGJr(a)aol.com<mailto:DSGJr@aol.com>; ibtreehugger(a)gmail.com<mailto:ibtreehugger@gmail.com>; wyro(a)appalight.com<mailto:wyro@appalight.com>; dan(a)ohvec.org<mailto:dan@ohvec.org>; garyz(a)wvcag.org<mailto:garyz@wvcag.org>; blittle(a)citynet.net<mailto:blittle@citynet.net>; clrank2(a)gmail.com<mailto:clrank2@gmail.com>; jimscon(a)gmail.com<mailto:jimscon@gmail.com>; jbc329(a)earthlink.net<mailto:jbc329@earthlink.net>; julie(a)wvsoro.org<mailto:julie@wvsoro.org>; norm(a)wvcag.org<mailto:norm@wvcag.org>; robin(a)ohvec.org<mailto:robin@ohvec.org>; viv(a)ohvec.org<mailto:viv@ohvec.org>; rachel(a)wvfree.org<mailto:rachel@wvfree.org>; margaret(a)wvfree.org<mailto:margaret@wvfree.org> Subject: RE: Allied lobbyists group: CSB RECOMMENDATIONS Maya, et al.: This is a great list. I would point out that the Unger bill does have a provision directing DEP to propose fees to support the permit program, although it is not clear that there is enough focus on inspections and enforcement. Tomblin's bill has reasonable language assuring DEP has authority to do inspections, etc. and requires an annual inspection by a professional engineer. It also specifies construction and performance standards, financial assurance requirements, and makes it unlawful to deliver to an unregistered tank. That last one makes the haulers responsible, which I think is a good idea (so it will probably be gutted). Tomblin's bill also requires source water protection plans. If only Tomblin's bill did not have so many loopholes that almost no one is covered by it! Some of those might be worth adding to the list. Jim Kotcon ________________________________ From: MAYA NYE <chemicalsafetyadvocates(a)gmail.com><mailto:chemicalsafetyadvocates@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:18 AM To: Angie Rosser Cc: David McMahon; Dan Taylor; Denise Poole; DSGJr(a)aol.com<mailto:DSGJr@aol.com>; ibtreehugger(a)gmail.com<mailto:ibtreehugger@gmail.com>; wyro(a)appalight.com<mailto:wyro@appalight.com>; dan(a)ohvec.org<mailto:dan@ohvec.org>; garyz(a)wvcag.org<mailto:garyz@wvcag.org>; blittle(a)citynet.net<mailto:blittle@citynet.net>; clrank2(a)gmail.com<mailto:clrank2@gmail.com>; James Kotcon; jimscon(a)gmail.com<mailto:jimscon@gmail.com>; jbc329(a)earthlink.net<mailto:jbc329@earthlink.net>; julie(a)wvsoro.org<mailto:julie@wvsoro.org>; norm(a)wvcag.org<mailto:norm@wvcag.org>; robin(a)ohvec.org<mailto:robin@ohvec.org>; viv(a)ohvec.org<mailto:viv@ohvec.org>; rachel(a)wvfree.org<mailto:rachel@wvfree.org>; margaret(a)wvfree.org<mailto:margaret@wvfree.org> Subject: Re: Allied lobbyists group: CSB RECOMMENDATIONS All: This is what Pat McGinley came up with. Components of a Comprehensive Above Ground Chemical Storage Bill Missing From Unger Bill Most federal and state environmental protection statutes contain significant opportunities for public participation. Bill should grant rights to citizens, public water suppliers as well as municipal and county governments. Like other environmental protection laws, such public participation rights should include: • A broad right of citizen access to information in DEP files regarding permitting, inspection, enforcement actions, penalties and the other information storage tank companies are required to submit under the bill; • Grant citizen's a public hearing, right to comment upon siting of tanks, permit applications, • Grant citizen's the right to seek administrative and judicial review of siting, permitting and enforcement decisions, • Require notification of the public, water suppliers and municipalities of permit applications, permit grants and denials, • Grant citizens (including water suppliers, municipal and county governments) the right to object, to permit applications, grant of permits, and settlements of DEP enforcement actions; • Grant citizens the right to (1) seek administrative and judicial review of DEP permit and enforcement decisions; the right to seek judicial enforcement of mandatory nondiscretionary duties of permittees and DEP under the statute, permits and regulations; • Provide for attorneys and expert fees and costs to be awarded citizens who substantially prevail in administrative actions or upon judicial review. Other necessary provisions: • Specific storage tank setback requirements from source waters where a spill or discharge may contaminate sources of public and private drinking water. • Requirement that buffer zones be established to prohibit location/construction of above-ground chemical storage tanks in close proximity to source waters upstream from public drinking water intakes (unless the director finds by clear and convincing evidence that there is no possible hydrologic connection between the tanks and source waters (i.e. no chance that the contents of a tank will reach stream or groundwater). • Owners of storage tanks should be required to submit information about storage tanks and their contents - rather than leaving it up to the DEP Secretary to request such information. • The regulatory program, including permitting of above ground storage tanks, established by the bill should mandate additional DEP staffing including inspectors and permit review staff with appropriate expertise. • Require assessment of fees on tank owners to provide adequate revenue to support the regulatory program. • Mandate monetary criminal (including imprisonment) and civil sanctions with criminal and civil penalties to be imposed on corporate managers and corporate entities adequate to provide serious deterrent to violations of the statute. I will work on pulling all of your recommendations together on this bill. Maya On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:29 AM, MAYA NYE <chemicalsafetyadvocates(a)gmail.com<mailto:chemicalsafetyadvocates@gmail.com>> wrote: On Bayer report, it is page 116. Here is the text version: 8.3 Director of the Kanawha-Charleston Health Department 2008-08-I-WV-R6 Establish a Hazardous Chemical Release Prevention Program to enhance the prevention of accidental releases of highly hazardous chemicals, and optimize responses in the event of their occurrence. In establishing the program, study and evaluate the possible applicability of the experience of similar programs in the country, such as those summarized in Section 5.3 of this report. As a minimum: 1. Ensure that the new program: 1. Implements an effective system of independent oversight and other services to enhance the prevention of accidental releases of highly hazardous chemicals 2. Facilitates the collaboration of multiple stakeholders in achieving common goals of chemical safety; and, 3. Increases the confidence of the community, the workforce, and the local authorities in the ability of the facility owners to prevent and respond to accidental releases of highly hazardous chemicals 2. Define the characteristics of chemical facilities that would be covered by the new Program, such as the hazards and potential risks of their chemicals and processes, their quantities, and similar relevant factors; 116 c. Ensure that covered facilities develop, implement, and submit for review and approval: 1. Applicable hazard and process information and evaluations. 2. Written safety plans with appropriate descriptions of hazard controls, safety culture and human factors programs with employee participation, and consideration of the adoption of inherently safer systems to reduce risks 3. Emergency response plans; and, 4. Performance indicators addressing the prevention of chemical incidents. 4. Ensure that the program has the right to evaluate the documents submitted by the covered facilities, and to require modifications, as necessary 5. Ensure that the program has right-of-entry to covered facilities, and access to requisite information to conduct periodic audits of safety systems and investigations of chemical releases; 6. Establish a system of fees assessed on covered facilities sufficient to cover the oversight and related services to be provided to the facilities including necessary technical and administrative personnel; and, 7. Consistent with applicable law, ensure that the program provides reasonable public participation with the program staff in review of facility programs and access to: 1. The materials submitted by covered facilities (e.g., hazard evaluations, safety plans, emergency response plans); 2. The reviews conducted by program staff and the modifications triggered by those reviews; 117 3. Records of audits and incident investigations conducted by the program; 4. Performance indicator reports and data submitted by the facilities, and; 5. Other relevant information concerning the hazards and the control methods overseen by the program. h. Ensure that the program will require a periodic review of the designated agency activities and issue a periodic public report of its activities and recommended action items. 8.4 Secretary of West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 2008-08-I-WV-R7 Work with the Director of the Kanawha-Charleston Health Department to ensure the successful planning, fee collection, and implementation of the Hazardous Chemical Release Prevention Program as described in Recommendation 2008-08-WV-R6, above, including the provision of services to all eligible facilities in the State. 8.5 Kanawha-Putnam Emergency Planning Committee 2008-08-I-WV-R8 Work with the Kanawha and Putnam counties Emergency Response Directors to prepare and issue a revision to the Kanawha Putnam County Emergency Response Plan and Annexes to address facility emergency response and Incident Command when such functions are provided by the facility owner. On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Angie Rosser <arosser(a)wvrivers.org<mailto:arosser@wvrivers.org>> wrote: Links here Bayer Crop Science 2008: http://www.csb.gov/csb-issues-report-on-2008-bayer-cropscience-explosion-fi… Dupont 2011: http://www.csb.gov/dupont-corporation-toxic-chemical-releases/ Angie Rosser Executive Director West Virginia Rivers Coalition 304-637-7201<tel:304-637-7201> www.wvrivers.org<http://www.wvrivers.org> From: David McMahon [mailto:wvdavid@wvdavid.net<mailto:wvdavid@wvdavid.net>] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 5:42 PM To: Angie Rosser; MAYA NYE; Dan Taylor Cc: Denise Poole; DSGJr(a)aol.com<mailto:DSGJr@aol.com>; ibtreehugger(a)gmail.com<mailto:ibtreehugger@gmail.com>; wyro(a)appalight.com<mailto:wyro@appalight.com>; dan(a)ohvec.org<mailto:dan@ohvec.org>; garyz(a)wvcag.org<mailto:garyz@wvcag.org>; blittle(a)citynet.net<mailto:blittle@citynet.net>; clrank2(a)gmail.com<mailto:clrank2@gmail.com>; jkotcon(a)wvu.edu<mailto:jkotcon@wvu.edu>; jimscon(a)gmail.com<mailto:jimscon@gmail.com>; jbc329(a)earthlink.net<mailto:jbc329@earthlink.net>; julie(a)wvsoro.org<mailto:julie@wvsoro.org>; norm(a)wvcag.org<mailto:norm@wvcag.org>; robin(a)ohvec.org<mailto:robin@ohvec.org>; viv(a)ohvec.org<mailto:viv@ohvec.org>; rachel(a)wvfree.org<mailto:rachel@wvfree.org>; margaret(a)wvfree.org<mailto:margaret@wvfree.org> Subject: Re: Allied lobbyists group: GOVERNOR'S SPILL BILL Thanks. I still do not have Chemical Safety Board recommendations. On 1/20/2014 5:34 PM, Angie Rosser wrote: Gov’s bill attached. Angie Rosser Executive Director West Virginia Rivers Coalition 304-637-7201<tel:304-637-7201> www.wvrivers.org<http://www.wvrivers.org> -- David McMahon e-Mail: wvdavid(a)wvdavid.net<mailto:wvdavid@wvdavid.net> Land line: 304-415-4288<tel:304-415-4288> Fax: 810-958-6143<tel:810-958-6143> Physical address: 1018 Kanawha Blvd E. #1200 Charleston, WV 25301 Postal address: 1624 Kenwood Road Charleston, WV 25314 -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maya Nye, Spokesperson People Concerned About Chemical Safety 179 Summers Street, Ste. 230 Charleston, WV 25301 www.peopleconcernedaboutchemicalsafety.org<http://www.peopleconcernedaboutchemicalsafety.org/> 304-389-6859<tel:304-389-6859> ***Smell something funny?*** Make a POLLUTION LOG. Start keeping track of what happens when you smell something funny. Also, be sure to CALL and REPORT what you smell. It may be the only way a problem is detected. If you smell something, there IS a leak. Call 24 hrs. a day 1 (800) 642-3074 then let us know you called it in. ***Adverse effects from exposure?*** Document your health symptoms. Keep a log. If you have immediate concerns, go to the doctor or the emergency room. Be sure to have them document that you think your symptoms are as a result of exposure. --------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this email list, just hit reply and put "unsubscribe" in the subject line. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maya Nye, Spokesperson People Concerned About Chemical Safety 179 Summers Street, Ste. 230 Charleston, WV 25301 www.peopleconcernedaboutchemicalsafety.org<http://www.peopleconcernedaboutchemicalsafety.org/> 304-389-6859<tel:304-389-6859> ***Smell something funny?*** Make a POLLUTION LOG. Start keeping track of what happens when you smell something funny. Also, be sure to CALL and REPORT what you smell. It may be the only way a problem is detected. If you smell something, there IS a leak. Call 24 hrs. a day 1 (800) 642-3074 then let us know you called it in. ***Adverse effects from exposure?*** Document your health symptoms. Keep a log. If you have immediate concerns, go to the doctor or the emergency room. Be sure to have them document that you think your symptoms are as a result of exposure. --------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this email list, just hit reply and put "unsubscribe" in the subject line. -- David McMahon e-Mail: wvdavid(a)wvdavid.net<mailto:wvdavid@wvdavid.net> Land line: 304-415-4288<tel:304-415-4288> Fax: 810-958-6143<tel:810-958-6143> Physical address: 1018 Kanawha Blvd E. #1200 Charleston, WV 25301 Postal address: 1624 Kenwood Road Charleston, WV 25314 -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com<mailto:jimscon@gmail.com> 304.698.9628<tel:304.698.9628> Remember, Mother Nature bats last. __._,_.___ View attachments on the web<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/attachments/folder/721240141/item/…> Reply via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxMWNnY2RnBF9TAzk3…> Reply to sender <mailto:jkotcon@wvu.edu?subject=Re%3A%20Revised%20373%20Side-By-Side%20%28was%3A%20Allied%20lobbyists%20group%3A%20373%20TALKING%20POINTS> Reply to group <mailto:wvec-board@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Revised%20373%20Side-By-Side%20%28was%3A%20Allied%20lobbyists%20group%3A%20373%20TALKING%20POINTS> Start a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmcnA3cXJqBF9TAzk3…> Messages in this topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board/message/4057;_ylc=X3oDMTM1MjU0OWVq…> (1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvec-board;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaWo1MTlyBF9TAzk3MzU5N…> [Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlb2lkcWttBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIxN…> Switch to: Text-Only<mailto:wvec-board-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional>, Daily Digest<mailto:wvec-board-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest> • Unsubscribe<mailto:wvec-board-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms of Use<http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> • Send us Feedback <mailto:ygroupsnotifications@yahoogroups.com?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20redesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> . __,_._,___

1 0

Energy Efficient West Virginia - Position Announcement
by Frank Young 23 Jan '14

23 Jan '14

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stacy Gloss <stacygloss(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:25 PM Subject: Energy Efficient West Virginia - Position Announcement To: Stacy Gloss <stacygloss(a)gmail.com> Hello, Energy Efficient West Virginia is seeking a well qualified program coordinator to work on an established energy efficiency campaign based in Charleston, West Virginia. Please help us in our search by sending this announcement to your networks or individuals that may be interested. Many thanks! Stacy Gloss Energy Efficient West Virginia Job Opportunity WV Citizen Action & Energy Efficient West Virginia Background: Energy Efficient West Virginia www.eewv.org <http://www.eewv.org/> is a four year old statewide nonprofit coalition formed by West Virginia Citizen Action Group (WV-CAG) and concerned citizens. EEWV includes consumer & environmental groups, small businesses, and clean energy contractors in its membership. The coalition has advocated for stronger energy efficiency public policies, through the Public Service Commission, at the legislature, and in supporting local projects in order to drive investment in improving the energy efficiency of West Virginia's building stock and industry. Energy efficiency is a job creator and economic driver as its the lowest cost option for meeting our electricity needs. EEWV's efforts have resulted in utilities offering stronger energy efficiency programs to help their customers save money on their bills through advocacy work and legal intervention. Position: WV-CAG has an opening for a full-time program coordinator / director to manage the operations of the Energy Efficient West Virginia campaign. The focus of this position will be on public education and outreach to build support for energy efficiency. This will include grant writing, partnering with organizations, outreach, project and meeting coordination, public presentations, advocating for Energy Efficiency policies at the state and local level, growing a volunteer base and maintaining EEWV's website and email communication efforts. This employee will also work with project partners on the campaign's policy and legal action strategies. The position is guided by a steering committee comprised of stakeholders in the energy efficiency coalition. Qualifications: * Bachelors or masters degree or other combination of related experiences * strong writing and communication skills * ability to work independently * demonstrated leadership experience * experience in grant writing and communication with funders * willingness to travel within WV and occasionally out of state * background and understanding in the field of energy efficiency, weatherization, building energy management or energy policy preferred * media, marketing, and event coordinating skills a plus * experience working on nonprofit campaigns Start date: March 5, 2014 To apply: Send resume and cover letter to Stacy Gloss, managing coordinator at stacy.eewv(a)gmail.com by February 12, 2014. -- Katey Lauer Coordinator The Alliance for Appalachia 402 King Ave Fayetteville, WV 25840 Work/Cell: (304) 546-8473 www.theallianceforappalachia.org <http://www.theallianceforappalachia.org/> www.ilovemountains.org <http://www.ilovemountains.org/>

1 0

Re: [EC] WV water situation - response requested
by Paul Wilson 22 Jan '14

22 Jan '14

Check this out that was in the Daily Kos. - *Top West Virginia official: 'We have to trust the science even though there is no science to trust'*<http://kos.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=JPYlWxZCh%2BH2o%2FzHTHKfYoMl2Q…> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Yarnell, Karen < Karen.Yarnell(a)fairmontstate.edu> wrote: > I had already received this. Here is a response from an ecologist at > Fairmont State University. > > > > Karen, > > > > I read the letter that Ms. Fox would like to send earlier today, and > appreciate some of her frustration. But the problem as I see it is not the > inability of the EPA et.al to communicate, but that chemicals do not have > to get any toxicity testing before they are used in the environment, unlike > medicines and the FDA. The is due to the power of the industrial complex > which controls congress and the state legislature. Having worked in > ecotoxicology for a while as a PhD student I called it bio-prostitution. > > > > I found it very funny, but not unexpected that Manchin and Tomblin who are > in the back pocket of the extractive industry in WV are both NOW calling > for inspections. You can bet that they already talked to the buddies and > said “hey look I’ve got to say this now, but you know I’ve got your back”. > > > > Anyway from what I know the letter would not do any good. It is congress > that has to say “before you can use this substance in the environment you > have to show it does no harm” the EPA does not have the money or the legal > right to do so, so the MSDS don’t have adequate information to protect the > public or the environment. > > > > Phil > > > > *From:* Paul Wilson [mailto:pjgrunt@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:47 AM > *To:* Gary Nelson; Gwen Jones; Yarnell, Karen > *Subject:* Fwd: WV water situation - response requested > > > > Thought you guys might be interested in signing on to this letter from WV > scientists and health Professionals. best, paul > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Danielle Fox* <DFox(a)ucsusa.org> > Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:15 AM > Subject: WV water situation - response requested > To: "pjgrunt(a)gmail.com" <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> > > Dear Mr. Wilson, > > I'm writing to see if you would be willing to sign on to a letter from > scientists and health professionals regarding the current water crisis > after the Elk River chemical spill. I have a PDF here the letter for your > review: > http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/center-for-science-and-democracy/let…. > > To say the least, there has been significant confusion and often > contradictory information regarding the safety of the water supply. Part of > the problem is that the EPA, CDC, and other government agencies have failed > to make scientific experts available to the public and the press to share > what is known and what is not known about the chemical that leaked into the > river. My colleague Gretchen Goldman has a blog post that details some of > the concerns we have: > http://blog.ucsusa.org/is-the-water-safe-the-west-virginia-chemical-spill-a… > . > > This ongoing situation allows us to demonstrate to federal officials that > their decisions limiting the ability of government scientists to share > their expertise with the public have significant real world consequences. > After we send the letter to EPA and CDC officials and make it public, we > will use it in follow-up meetings with agency staff. > > It would be helpful if you could respond to this message by tomorrow > evening so that we may get the letter ready this week. When you respond, > assuming you are willing to sign the letter, please let me know how you > would like to be listed: > > FULL NAME: > > TITLE, IF APPLICABLE: > > DEPARTMENT, IF APPLICABLE: > > INSTITUTION (for identification purposes only): > > CITY: > > ZIP CODE: > > FIELD OF STUDY: > > HIGHEST DEGREE ACHIEVED: > > Also, please feel free to send this letter on to colleagues. The letter is > open for signature by scientists and health professionals with or working > towards advanced degrees in their fields who live or work in West Virginia. > > I look forward to hearing back from you, and am happy to answer any > questions you might have. > > Best, > > Danielle Fox > > > -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

ideas for speakers for Sierrafest
by Sally Wilts 22 Jan '14

22 Jan '14

The committee working to organize Sierrafest for Sept 19-21st this year welcomes your ideas for possible speakers for the weekend. The tentative list we have generated includes: Bill McKibben Josh Fox Ben Stout Bill Hughes Maya Nye Sandra Fallon political candidate(s) Micheal Mann Thanks! Sally Wilts

1 0

AST Side-By-side
by James Kotcon 20 Jan '14

20 Jan '14

Attached is my initial review of Sen. Unger's Water Resources Protection Act Amendments (SB 373) versus Governor Tomblin's AST bill. As I read the list of exemptions in Tomblin's bill, I have to wonder how many tanks would be covered (sounds like this is a very limited universe). While Tomblin's bill requires a comprehensive spill Response Plan and includes source protection and prevention plans, it also has broad, but nebulous language to protect confidential business information. Unger's bill (SB 373) applies to all tanks (over 1100 gal) , period, but is silent on several aspects covered in Tomblin's bill. Jim Kotcon ________________________________ From: Vivian Stockman <vivian(a)ohvec.org> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 9:18 PM To: 'Paula Swearengin'; 'Jen Osha' Cc: 'Bill Price'; 'Danny Ray Cook'; 'Angie Rosser'; 'Robert L. Malin'; 'Dustin White'; 'DONNA BRANHAM'; 'Carey Jo Grace'; 'Karan Ireland'; 'Matt Sherman'; James Kotcon; 'Robin Blakeman'; 'michael morrison'; 'Chuck Nelson'; 'MAYA NYE'; 'Kat Wallace'; 'Parson Brown'; 'Daniel Chiotos'; 'Maria Gunnoe' Subject: legislative note For Tuesday, January 21, we need turn out in Senate Judiciary room (west Wing, second floor) about noon-ish (after the floor session) as the Senate Natural Resources committee meets to discuss Senate Bill 373, a Comprehensive Water Regulatory Bill. This is Senator Unger's (D-Berkley; majority leader) bill. Sen. Brooks McCabe (D-Kanawha) is wanting to change the bill, reportedly. McCabe wants to split is up, but Unger want to keep it as it, as do our peeps. Come out if you can. From

1 0

FW: Gov's bill
by James Kotcon 20 Jan '14

20 Jan '14

In case it did not come through the first time. JBK ________________________________ From: Angie Rosser <arosser(a)wvrivers.org> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 5:35 PM To: Angie Rosser; Brent Walls; Cindy Rank; Dianne Bady; Don Garvin; Emily Russell; Evan Hansen; Helen Gibbins; James Kotcon; James Van Gundy; Kathleen Tyner; Margaret Janes Subject: Gov's bill Attached FYI Angie Rosser Executive Director West Virginia Rivers Coalition 304-637-7201 www.wvrivers.org<http://www.wvrivers.org>

1 0

Re: [EC] Gov's bill
by James Kotcon 20 Jan '14

20 Jan '14

I counted no less that 20 exemptions, loopholes, and caveats, including plenty of blanket exemptions for many coal and gas facilities. And plenty of language to let DEP cover up "Confidential Business Information" (AKA "Dirty Secrets"). There may be some useful policy approaches in here, but it starts out on bad turf and the legislative findings are all about how important industry is for the economy. Let's insist that it is DOA. JBK ________________________________ From: Angie Rosser <arosser(a)wvrivers.org> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 5:35 PM To: Angie Rosser; Brent Walls; Cindy Rank; Dianne Bady; Don Garvin; Emily Russell; Evan Hansen; Helen Gibbins; James Kotcon; James Van Gundy; Kathleen Tyner; Margaret Janes Subject: Gov's bill Attached FYI Angie Rosser Executive Director West Virginia Rivers Coalition 304-637-7201 www.wvrivers.org<http://www.wvrivers.org>

1 0

US to begin exporting 'fracked' gas
by Beth Little 20 Jan '14

20 Jan '14

So much for cheap gas and energy independence http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23317370

1 0

WVU Law National Energy Conference 2014
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 17 Jan '14

17 Jan '14

This may be an interesting conference to attend at WVU on February 24. Free registration: http://energy.law.wvu.edu/energy-conference-2014 -Jonathan

2 1

Water Vigil in Charleston, Jan. 21
by James Kotcon 17 Jan '14

17 Jan '14

In case you have not seen it, here are the details as of late last night. More planning is happening by the minute, but just do it. Jim Kotcon ________________________________ From: Bill Price <bill.price(a)sierraclub.org> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 5:46 PM https://www.facebook.com/events/1441712489379104/ Bill Price, Organizing Representative Sierra Club Environmental Justice Program Beyond Coal to Clean Energy Campaign Phone: 304-389-8822 (Cell) Email: bill.price(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:bill.price@sierraclub.org>

1 0

Jon Stewart on the Elk River spill
by James Kotcon 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

Another black eye for West Virginia, but for those on the ground who appreciate gallows humor, here's the latest. Jim Kotcon http://www.thewrap.com/jon-stewart-west-virginia-spill-building-chemical-ta…

1 0

FW: Solar arrives! MN Judge finds solar PV electricity cheaper than natural gas (without subsidies)!!
by James Kotcon 09 Jan '14

09 Jan '14

Woo Hoo! Jim Kotcon ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bradley Stark <bradley.stark(a)gmail.com<mailto:bradley.stark@gmail.com>> Date: Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:17 PM Subject: [GW-ACT-LEADERS] Solar arrives! MN Judge finds solar PV electricity cheaper than natural gas (without subsidies)!! To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)lists.sierraclub.org<mailto:CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS@lists.sierraclub.org> Solar opinion with highlights attached. This opinion stands for the proposition that peaker plants are cheaper when solar than natural gas which are more for intermediate needs. Opinion makes a very good point. As demand may fluctuate with demographic changes, solar is the quickest and most scalable energy resource. The opinion also notes that a consideration is that for peaker plants during summer generate less power and with uncertain demand projections (back up) needs, solar makes more sense than building a natural gas plant that remains idle for periods when no peak demand and recognizes the advantages of distributed power. * Article by: DAVID SHAFFER<http://www.startribune.com/bios/10645931.html> , Star Tribune * Updated: January 2, 2014 - 11:51 AM A judge’s ruling notably said the renewable energy proposal would be a better deal for ratepayers. Minnesota soon could see at least a sevenfold expansion of solar power. In an unprecedented ruling, a judge reviewing whether Xcel Energy<http://www.startribune.com/topics/entities/xcel-energy.html>should invest in new natural gas generators vs. large solar power arrays concluded Tuesday that solar is a better deal. If the finding by Administrative Law Judge Eric Lipman is upheld by the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC), Edina<http://www.startribune.com/topics/places/edina.html>-based Geronimo Energy plans to build about 20 large solar power arrays on sites across Xcel’s service area at a cost of $250 million. “It says solar is coming in a big way to the country and to Minnesota,” Geronimo Vice President Betsy Engelking said of the ruling. Geronimo’s Aurora Solar Project would receive no state or utility subsidies, but would qualify for a federal investment tax credit. Engleking said it is the first time in the United States that solar energy without a state subsidy has beaten natural gas in an official, head-to-head price comparison. “The cost of solar has come down much faster than anyone had anticipated,” she said in an interview. “This is one of the reasons solar is going to explode.” The largest of the Geronimo projects would be five times bigger than the state’s largest solar array in Slayton, Minn. Some would cover up to 70 acres of land. The proposed sites are in 17 counties, mostly in central, eastern and southeastern Minnesota. It is the first time the state has used a competitive bidding process for a major power generation project. The commission ordered the trial-like proceeding to force energy companies to compete on price. Xcel, based in Minneapolis<http://www.startribune.com/topics/places/minneapolis.html>, and three other energy companies offered various proposals, mostly generators powered by natural gas. Xcel’s plan included a new gas generator at its Black Dog plant in Burnsville<http://www.startribune.com/topics/places/burnsville.html>, where the utility intends to retire the remaining coal-burning units. In a 50-page ruling, Lipman said “the greatest value to Minnesota and Xcel’s ratepayers is drawn from selecting Geronimo’s solar energy proposal …” If the Aurora project is built, Xcel likely would purchase the power under a long-term agreement. That could help Xcel toward its requirement to get 1.5 percent of its power from the sun by 2020 under a new state energy law. Xcel also is counting on rooftop solar systems, community-owned arrays and its own large projects to meet that goal. Lipman said that if solar alone can’t supply all of Xcel’s extra power needs in the next few years, the utility could take up an offer to purchase surplus energy from Great River Energy, the state’s second-largest power company. The judge also said Xcel will have time to consider other generation projects if electrical demand picks up. Xcel said in a statement that it appreciated Lipman’s work, but that it disagreed with some of the findings and would file a written response. Under the PUC’s rules, the competitors and other interests can take exception to the judge’s ruling before the five-member commission takes a vote. Geronimo already does business with Xcel, selling the output of its Prairie Rose Wind Farm in Rock County, in far southwestern Minnesota. Two of four planned wind farms that Xcel will add in the next two years — near Windom, Minn., and near Jamestown, N.D. — are being built by Geronimo. The company has built two smaller wind farms in southeastern Minnesota and is about to construct two more wind farms in Michigan and Nebraska for other utilities. Other competitors The other competitors considered by the judge were Houston-based Calpine, which proposed a gas turbine in Mankato at its existing power plant there and Chicago-based Invenergy, which proposed gas turbines at Cannon Falls and Hampton. Xcel also proposed two gas units near Hankinson, N.D. “We are reviewing the [judge’s] recommendations, and will evaluate our next steps in the docketed proceeding,” Craig Gordon, Invenergy vice president of sales and marketing, said in an e-mail Tuesday. If the Aurora Project is approved, Geronimo said the solar arrays would be built in 2015 and 2016. Engelking said that Geronimo already has signed deals for land and that it has identified more sites than needed in case some don’t work out. Each of the ground-mounted arrays would be next to an existing substation, avoiding transmission-line costs. She said the company still needs state or local permits. But the company has visited with local governments and has pledged to make payments in lieu of taxes ranging from $50,000 to $110,000 a year. Geronimo, a renewable energy developer, doesn’t intend to own the projects, she said. Its financing partner, Enel Green Power, has the first option to acquire them, she said. But it’s possible Geronimo could make a deal to sell the arrays to Xcel or other energy companies, she said. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG<mailto:CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request@LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG> Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

FW: You Can Shape The Future of Sierra Club's Climate Movement Process!! Survey and Dialog Process- Action Required
by James Kotcon 24 Dec '13

24 Dec '13

I completed the questionnaire at the link below, but I urge you to check it out, as it gives a pretty good synopsis of what a strong conservation campaign might look like. A lot of the suggestions of things to do, such as to help build allies, are pretty obvious, yet we do relatively few of them. The dialogue process described for Jan. 6-8 for a climate campaign is also important. I am out of town those days (Stink Bug meetings in New Jersey)and it would be a good idea to identify a new volunteer to coordinate that campaign. If climate change is an issue you are ready to tackle, let's plan a Chapter call for Jan. 2-4 to begin some Chapter-level campaign planning. Anybody interested? Jim Kotcon ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sarah Hodgdon <sarah.hodgdon(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:sarah.hodgdon@sierraclub.org>> Date: Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:07 PM Subject: You Can Shape The Future of Sierra Club's Climate Movement Process!! Survey and Dialog Process- Action Required To: Sarah Hodgdon <sarah.hodgdon(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:sarah.hodgdon@sierraclub.org>> Cc: Spencer Black <sblackmsn(a)yahoo.com<mailto:sblackmsn@yahoo.com>>, Robin Mann <robinlmann(a)gmail.com<mailto:robinlmann@gmail.com>>, Josh Aufhauser <josh.aufhauser(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:josh.aufhauser@sierraclub.org>> To: Group and Chapter Leaders, Campaign Leadership Teams and Grassroots Network Teams From: The Climate Movement Task Force Scientists have issued increasingly urgent warnings about the pace and extent of climate disruption. As the nation's largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, the Sierra Club needs to respond to these warnings by leading a stronger and bolder climate movement. Input from all parts of Sierra Club is essential to build a climate movement strong enough to achieve a clean energy future. That's why the Sierra Club Board of Directors just voted to establish the Climate Movement Task Force to make sure that every part of our organization is involved in developing an effective and inclusive movement to fight climate disruption. To that end, we have two major upcoming steps where your participation is critical: #1- A leadership questionnaire to solicit input from Sierra Club chapter and national team leaders. #2- A dialogue process to solicit recommendations from chapter and team leaders on key questions. The Climate Movement Task Force’s previous engagements have included: Distributing a survey to the entire organization's staff and volunteers; issuing an online sign-up for project updates; conducting dialogues with the senior management group and Council of Club Leaders at the annual meeting; and organizing a meeting with a well-balanced group of 40 staff and volunteers in September. Building on what has been learned in our process to date, we now seek more specific information from leaders and members of Sierra Club chapters and groups, national leadership teams, and staff teams. The Sierra Club's chapters, groups, and teams are on the front-lines of the fight against climate disruption, and your input on how to build a stronger climate movement within and beyond the Sierra Club is critical. STEP ONE- We are inviting participation in a questionnaire<https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/BZCVC7P> aimed specifically at the leadership of chapters, groups, and teams. The questionnaire focuses on learning how your Club chapters/groups and/or teams are engaged, what works when building a climate movement, what can be changed, and more. The deadline for survey answers is January 10, 2014. Please forward to active and engaged members of your Chapter/Group ExCom or other campaign team members with whom you work regularly. Take the survey here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/BZCVC7P STEP TWO- We want to solicit feedback from chapter and team leadership on some key questions through an intentional dialogue process. We are asking each of these entities to convene discussions on building a stronger climate movement. We are asking each Chapter/Group or Team to determine your “dialogue leader.” The dialogue leader role can be designated as the Chair or Team lead or someone else designated by that leader(s). The person in this role should be able to both participate in a prep call in advance of their dialogue process and convene that Chapter/Group or Team’s dialogue conversation. The process will take 90 minutes and involve discussion of three questions which result in answers that are collated and will be used to inform the task force’s recommendations. Your dialogue leader or someone else should be prepared to record the results of your conversation using an online survey tool. We will send a more detailed email to everyone who RSVP's below. To prepare to do this, we are offering three orientation calls for the dialogue leaders from each entity to walk through the questions in real time and answer any questions about the process. Then those leaders will convene dialogue sessions in person or by phone to gather input and put forward recommendations from their own specific chapters, groups and teams between January 15 and February 15, 2014 and due by February 21. Please RSVP for one of the three orientation calls<https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1utuTqR73TDuyB1HCM4yPjn9IMPwvLd9bRNZQguEEOT…> which will be held on the following dates: January 6 4 pm pst, 5 pm mst, 6 pm cst, 7 pm est January 7 6 pm pst, 7 pm mst, 8 pm cst, 9 pm est January 8 4 pm pst, 5 pm mst, 6 pm cst, 7 pm est By late February, we will compile the results and begin shaping recommendations. We will meet with the Conservation Department Leadership Group, the Sierra Club Board Advisory Committees and the Executive Staff. We will make our final recommendations to the full board in March and expect final decisions on climate movement building from the Board of Directors in April of 2014. Ultimately, the Climate Movement process is designed to chart the course for a bigger, stronger and more effective Sierra Club that will play a leadership role in solving the 21st Century’s most important crisis. Sincerely, Spencer Black, Vice-President, Sierra Club Board of Directors Robin Mann, Member, Sierra Club Board of Directors Sarah Hodgdon, National Program Director p.s. Email josh.aufhauser(a)sierraclub.org<mailto:josh.aufhauser@sierraclub.org> if you would like to receive future updates about this task force.

1 0

Fwd: E&E: EPA hits gas driller with historic civil penalty for filling W.Va. wetlands
by Paul Wilson 23 Dec '13

23 Dec '13

FYI, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Fred Heutte" <phred(a)sunlightdata.com> Date: Dec 19, 2013 6:20 PM Subject: E&E: EPA hits gas driller with historic civil penalty for filling W.Va. wetlands To: <CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS(a)lists.sierraclub.org> Cc: EPA hits gas driller with historic civil penalty for filling W.Va. wetlands Jeremy P. Jacobs, E&E reporter Published: Thursday, December 19, 2013 A subsidiary of Chesapeake Energy will pay a $3.2 million penalty and spend $6.5 million to restore 27 West Virginia sites where it allegedly discharged fill material into streams and wetlands as part of its natural gas drilling operations, U.S. EPA said today. The civil penalty is one of the largest ever levied by EPA for filling wetlands, rivers or streams without a Clean Water Act permit. The agreement requires Chesapeake, the country's second-largest natural gas producer, to implement a plan to ensure compliance with federal and state water laws at its natural gas drilling sites in West Virginia -- including many that involve hydraulic fracturing. "With this agreement, Chesapeake is taking important steps to comply with state and federal laws that are essential to protecting the integrity of the nation's waters, wetlands and streams," said Robert Dreher, acting assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. EPA and West Virginia alleged that Chesapeake Appalachia LLC funneled discharged sand, dirt, rocks and other fill material into streams and wetlands to construct well pads and other platforms for natural gas operations. The agency said the 27 sites affected 2.2 miles of streams and more than 3 acres of wetlands. Sixteen of the sites involved the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Chesapeake will be required to fully restore the wetlands and streams where feasible under the settlement. It will also undertake other mitigation projects for areas that cannot be restored. Gordon Pennoyer, a spokesman for Chesapeake, called the settlement a "key milestone" in resolving claims relating to surface construction that occurred before November 2010. "The company is fully committed to regulatory compliance and is working with the Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection to restore the impacted sites," Pennoyer said. EPA discovered the discharges through public tips as well as routine inspections. Chesapeake also disclosed 19 potential violations after an internal audit. EPA issued compliance orders for violations at 11 of the sites in 2010 and 2011, and since then Chesapeake has taken steps to restore those areas. EPA's settlement comes a year after Chesapeake also pleaded guilty to three Clean Water Act violations at a natural gas site in Wetzel County that is also at issue in today's action. Last year, Chesapeake was sentenced to pay a $600,000 penalty to the government for allegedly discharging crushed stone into a local stream. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS list, send any message to: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

1 0

Fwd: InsideClimate News: Gas Pipeline Boom Fragmenting Pennsylvania's Forests
by Paul Wilson 10 Dec '13

10 Dec '13

fyi, paul w. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Fred Heutte <phred(a)sunlightdata.com> Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:20 PM Subject: InsideClimate News: Gas Pipeline Boom Fragmenting Pennsylvania's Forests To: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS(a)lists.sierraclub.org http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20131210/gas-pipeline-boom-fragmenting-pe… forests Gas Pipeline Boom Fragmenting Pennsylvania's Forests Many of the pipelines to serve fracking are being built deep in the state's 16 million acres of forest. 'The scale of this thing is off the charts.' By Naveena Sadasivam, InsideClimate News Dec 10, 2013 Jerry Skinner stands in his garden, looking into the distance at the edge of a forested mountain. Amid the lush shades of green, a muddy brown strip of earth stands out. It's the telltale sign of a buried pipeline. "The pipelines are all around this property," Skinner said. "When I came here, the county had an allure that it doesn't have anymore. I'm not sure I want to live here anymore." Skinner is the resident naturalist at the Woodbourne Forest and Wildlife Preserve, a 650-acre forestland that runs through parts of northeastern Pennsylvania that are experiencing intensive gas drilling because of a hotly contested method called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Around his house, in the town of Dimock, gas wells have sprung up and a vast network of interconnected pipelines transports the gas underground. Skinner worries that as drilling activity heads deeper into forests and pipelines chop up large blocks of land, rare species native to Pennsylvania will be driven out. In recent years, Pennsylvania has become ground zero for fracking, along with neighboring states that sit atop a large shale reserve known as the Marcellus Formation. Pennsylvania has more than 6,000 active gas wells, and Marcellus-related production has soared to 12 billion cubic feet per day, six times the production rate in 2009. Gas drilling has long raised concerns about water contamination and air pollution. But until recently, little public attention has been paid to the pipelines that must be built to carry the gas. In Pennsylvania, concerns about these pipelines are growing because many of them are being built in the state's 16 million acres of forest, which include some of the largest contiguous blocks of forestland east of the Mississippi River. Nearly 700,000 acres of forestland already have been leased for drilling, allowing companies to cut paths through pristine stretches of trees, fragment forests, decrease biodiversity and introduce invasive species. "In Pennsylvania, the gas companies are working in essentially the most ecologically sensitive area of the commonwealth," said John Quigley, who served as secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for two years under former Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell. "The scale of this thing is off the charts. It's unprecedented." Of particular concern are gathering lines, the pipes that carry gas from wells to long-distance transmission lines. Although they are often the same size as transmission lines and operate at the same pressure levels, about 90 percent of the nation's gathering lines aren't regulated by state or federal authorities. In fact, regulators don't even know where many gathering lines are located, even though they sometimes run close to homes and businesses. Gathering lines are likely to generate even more controversy in the years ahead. The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, an industry group, estimated two years ago that more than 400,000 new miles of gathering lines will be installed by 2035. Concerns about forest fragmentation due to industrial activity are not unique to Pennsylvania. In Alberta, Canada, for instance, recent oil and gas projects have reduced core forest area, including habitats for Woodland Caribou. As pipelines, roads and well pads slash across forests in Alberta, the Woodland Caribou, which tends to avoid forest edges, has been driven close to extinction. Biologists and other forestry experts said curtailing or reversing the trend in Pennsylvania would be difficult because Pennsylvania's land management system is so fragmented. Although the state oversees 16 million acres of forest, it does not own mineral rights for about 2.2 million of them, leaving those areas open to drilling. The Nature Conservancy released a report three years ago projecting that under a medium-growth scenario, a minimum of 6,000 well pads with 60,000 wells will be drilled in Pennsylvania by 2030—and that two- thirds of them will be in forest areas. In 2011, in testimony before the Maryland House Environmental Committee as an independent environmental consultant, Quigley warned that the cumulative effect of gas drilling "will dwarf all of Pennsylvania's previous waves of resource extraction combined," and that Maryland must avoid the mistakes that Pennsylvania has made. Industry Dismisses Fears On average, each well pad requires 8.8 acres to be cleared, according to The Nature Conservancy. About three of these acres are for the well pad itself, while the rest are needed for infrastructure such as roads, pipelines and water impoundments. In total, the conservancy estimated that 61,000 forest acres in Pennsylvania will be cleared by 2030. The group believes this deforestation will affect an additional 91,000 to 220,000 acres of interior forestland near the developed areas. The gas industry disagrees with conservationists about the impact of pipeline corridors on wildlife habitats. Right-of-ways with "widths typical of single natural gas pipeline facilities are not likely to present major problems," said Catherine Landry, communications director for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. John Stoody, director of governmental and public relations for the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, said: "Wildlife is invited to cross our rights-of-way happily and safely anytime they like." He also pointed out the tradeoff in using pipelines: When compared to trains and trucks, Stoody said, pipelines are a safer means of transportation with lower greenhouse-gas emissions. The American Gas Association similarly denied that pipeline corridors cause forest fragmentation. In fact, they "can actually enhance habitat by serving to connect fragmented forest, allowing pathways for wildlife and creating forest edge meadowlands," said Christina Nyquist, a spokeswoman for the organization. She cited alternate detrimental factors, contending that roadways, urbanization, agriculture and other human activities are the more likely culprits. For decades now, ecologists and conservationists have been studying how human activities have disrupted forest ecosystems, including how far the impact extends from the actual site of a pipeline right-of-way. They have confirmed that the reverberations go deep into woodlands. Recently, for example, researchers in Wyoming concluded that energy development in the state was leading to excessive habitat alteration and accelerating the decline of songbirds. Scientists abroad have also examined the relationship between forest fragmentation and habitat loss. Researchers in Australia analyzed several forest areas in India, South America and Indonesia and found that linear clearings like those linked to road and pipeline construction block the movement of some native animals and serve as pathways for invasive species. "Pipelines are going in and dissecting forest habitats and creating corridors within (them)," said Margaret Brittingham, an ecologist at Penn State University who has been studying the impact of gas drilling on forest habitats, concentrating on songbirds in Pennsylvania. She and others have discovered that right-of-ways enable larger animals to move into parts of the interior forest they had not explored. As a result, interior species become exposed to new predators. Brittingham and her colleagues predict that as more forest territory is chopped up into smaller pieces, habitat for specialists—species that require a specific set of conditions for survival—will decrease, which may in turn lead to their extinction. Those include the scarlet tanager, the blue-headed vireo and the hooded warbler. In contrast, animals that tend to do well around people will likely increase in number. Raccoons, deer, crows and blue jays are among them. "It's a shift in the competitive advantages that you give species," Brittingham said. "It's biotic homogenization." Fighting for Rights In their fight to preserve forests and biodiversity, conservationists and other wildlife advocates in Pennsylvania have confronted another adversary – the state's property-rights system. In Pennsylvania, surface and mineral rights are sold separately. That means while the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources oversees 16 million acres of forest, it owns only 85 percent of the mineral rights in that area. The remaining 15 percent is still controlled by people who once owned parcels of the land—even though they have sold their parcels to the state. Those people can negotiate individual contracts for mineral-exploration leases, including fracking. In a study of land-usage patterns in Pennsylvania's interior forests, Brittingham and her colleagues found that development is greater on properties with private ownership of mineral rights. They said the split in private and public management of land will complicate the preservation efforts by agencies and nonprofit groups. A major test case involves the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania. In 1923, the federal government purchased that forest, piece by piece, but landowners were given the option to sell surface rights or both surface and mineral rights. As a result, 93 percent of the mineral rights in the 510,000-acre forest are now held by a vast number of private owners. Citing this surface-mineral rights bifurcation, the gas industry argues that the U.S. Forest Service cannot regulate drilling in the Allegheny because it does not own most of the mineral rights there. Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the Allegheny Defense Project insist the Forest Service has such authority as part of its overall mission to protect the forest. In October, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the gas industry. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania's Department of Conservation and Natural Resources has logged a mixed record in its forestry-management efforts. In 2010, the agency released a 48-page presentation on the state's forestland, mapping ecologically sensitive regions, areas with gas leases and forest patches that had been severely fragmented. The department concluded that it could not lease out any more land for gas drilling without causing significant damage to forest habitats. A few months before the study was released, the state issued two gas- drilling leases totaling more than 64,000 forest acres. The sale brought in $250 million and has led to approval for construction of 438 shale gas well pads. After those leases were issued, the administration of Gov. Ed Rendell imposed a moratorium on the leasing of forestland. That measure remains in effect. However, the current version of the 2010 presentation, which has been revised under the administration of Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican who strongly supports the drilling industry, is only 12 pages long and no longer contains the strongly worded conclusion that any further leasing would be severely detrimental to forest ecosystems. "Since the 2010 analysis, many things have changed—including our understanding of the development patterns and impacts, and technology related to horizontal drilling," said Christina Novak, press secretary for the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Novak also said the agency continues to maintain that the regions referenced in the 2010 presentation "are important areas to protect and consider if additional drilling is contemplated." Corbett once declared that he wanted to "make Pennsylvania the Texas of the natural gas boom." A month after taking office in 2011, he repealed a policy meant to minimize environmental damage to state parks. The architect of that repeal, Corbett's former environmental protection commissioner, Michael Krancer, now works at a law firm with clients in the gas industry. Last year, Corbett signed Act 13, which requires oil and gas companies to pay an impact fee for their projects. In 2012, the state distributed 60 percent of the more than $200 million it collected through that law to counties and municipalities. The money was spent on reducing taxes and repairing roads and stormwater drains. The remaining 40 percent of the impact fee was divided among various state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection, Public Utility Commission and Marcellus Legacy Fund, which distributed funds for environmental and infrastructure projects. Act 13 also requires the state to study the placement of natural gas gathering lines and investigate their environmental impact. The study, conducted last year, recommended that pipeline operators consult with experts to restore vegetation in right-of-ways and identify better ways to assess the environmental footprint of their activities. The Business Case Since activists and state regulators have little legal leverage over where gas wells are dug and pipelines laid in Pennsylvania, some environmental groups are looking for other strategies. Working with the University of Tennessee, the Nature Conservancy has produced Development by Design, a software tool that allows pipeline companies to find routes that minimize ecological damage while also being cost-effective. "Making the business case for these kinds of sustainability issues is absolutely key," said Quigley, the former Pennsylvania environmental commissioner. The conservancy is testing a beta version with four companies. Currently the software can analyze habitat fragmentation, provide information to minimize sediment loss and help evaluate the effect of pipeline crossings on rivers. "Some companies seem to be very interested, others less so," said Nels Johnson, the conservancy's deputy state director for Pennsylvania. "The real question is whether [the companies will] use it in a way that fundamentally changes the way they do planning." For residents of Pennsylvania, the software will likely come too late. One of those residents, Emily Krafjack, is president of the grassroots group Connection for Oil, Gas & Environment in the Northern Tier. Since 2010, she has been providing property owners with information about pipelines in an effort to balance gas-industry exploration with safeguarding landowners' rights, the environment and the region's traditional way of life. She said the rampant development—the rumbling of construction trucks, the ever-greater intrusion into forests—has caused Pennsylvania to lose its charm. On a recent drive around some of the forestlands, Krafjack pointed to the pipeline right-of-ways that periodically sliced through the forest. She said she sometimes struggles to recognize her hometown. "I'm over 50 now," Krafjack said, "and I just can’t catch my breath." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS list, send any message to: CONS-AWL-RESILIENT-HABITATS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

FW: McKinley-WVU Energy Forum Agenda
by James Kotcon 05 Dec '13

05 Dec '13

Attached is the schedule and speakers list for the McKinley Energy Forum Monday. Any suggestions for homework on the 5 topics outlined would be appreciated. Jim Kotcon ________________________________ From: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 4:59 PM To: James Kotcon Subject: Fwd: McKinley-WVU Energy Forum Agenda ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Seibert, Devon <Devon.Seibert(a)mail.house.gov<mailto:Devon.Seibert@mail.house.gov>> Date: Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:35 AM Subject: McKinley-WVU Energy Forum Agenda To: "Seibert, Devon" <Devon.Seibert(a)mail.house.gov<mailto:Devon.Seibert@mail.house.gov>> Ladies and Gentlemen, Attached is the approved agenda. You will see on the second page the list of participants. Many of you have forwarded to us your short bio and photo but we are still waiting for a few. Please get those to me as soon as possible. Please let me know if you have any questions for Monday. Thanks, Devon Devon Elizabeth Seibert Legislative Director Congressman David McKinley, P.E. (WV-1) 412 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 202-225-4172<tel:202-225-4172> http://mckinley.house.gov/ [facebook-logo]<https://www.facebook.com/RepMcKinley> [Twitter_Logo_65] <https://twitter.com/RepMcKinley> [HOR_Symbol] <http://mckinley.house.gov/>

2 1

Some Republicans champion Solar
by Beth Little 03 Dec '13

03 Dec '13

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/27/solar-power-war/

1 0

Fwd: 93% support govt actions to regulate gas development to avoid damaging forest and streams important for hunting, fishing and hiking
by Paul Wilson 02 Dec '13

02 Dec '13

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Angie Rosser <arosser(a)wvrivers.org> Date: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 10:09 AM Subject: 93% support govt actions to regulate gas development to avoid damaging forest and streams important for hunting, fishing and hiking To: "birthplaceofrivers(a)tws.org" <birthplaceofrivers(a)tws.org> Gas drillers should minimize impact on nature, poll says<http://www.post-gazette.com/local/marcellusshale/2013/12/02/Gas-drillers-sh…> December 1, 2013 10:42 PM By Don Hopey / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Results of a poll by The Nature Conservancy in the six-state Marcellus Shale gas region of the Appalachians indicate strong support for better regional planning to minimize impacts on forest and water resources, as well as tougher environmental safeguards. The poll, scheduled for release at noon today, also shows that a majority of those polled -- 54 percent -- say conservation of natural habitats and water resources should be a higher priority than shale gas development, even if that would produce higher energy costs. Forty-two percent of those polled say creation of new natural gas industry jobs should be a higher priority. "Clearly people value forests and rivers and natural habitats, and they don't want to see natural gas development come at the expense of those areas," said Nels Johnson, the oil and gas lead for the conservancy's North America Energy Program. Asked about government actions to regulate shale gas development, overwhelming majorities said they support requiring drilling companies to: avoid damaging forests and streams important for hunting, fishing and hiking (93 percent); follow regional plans for location of wells and pipelines to minimize wildlife habitat impacts (93 percent); mitigate adverse impacts to forests and water quality (92 percent); and base well locations on sound science (91 percent). Majorities above 80 percent said they favored requiring drillers to take measures to prevent methane releases during drilling, performing regional studies to determine how much water fracking will use and where it will come from, and establishing a state commission to set gas drilling standards. Mr. Johnson said he was surprised by the strong public support for regional planning for locating shale gas development sites. "There's been a lot of polling on fracking and a lot of attention paid to economic issues, but not much focus by policymakers on natural habitat issues," he said. "But this [poll] shows that even though the policymakers aren't focused on valuable habitat, the public is." The Nature Conservancy poll release is the first part of a multistage program aimed at minimizing the shale gas development impacts on natural habitat and water resources. The conservancy also is working with drilling companies to develop new tools to guide the industry's siting of well pads, pipelines and other shale gas infrastructure to minimize damage to natural habitats. Travis Windle, a spokesman for the Marcellus Shale Coalition, a gas industry lobbying organization, said he wasn't aware of any coalition member companies working with the conservancy. Mr. Windle declined to comment on the poll results because he hadn't had a chance to review them, but said a Robert Morris University poll released in November demonstrated "strong public support" for the shale gas industry. "It's a false choice to suggest that we can have affordable and reliable energy and job growth or we can protect our environment," he said, "and our industry continues to work collaboratively with a broad base of stakeholders to make certain that we continue to achieve these shared goals." Of the 1,002 people nationwide polled by Robert Morris, 42 percent support fracking, 33 percent oppose it and 25 percent were unsure. Three out of 4 said fracking will make the nation more energy independent. The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 3 percentage points. The Nature Conservancy poll -- based on August telephone interviews with 1,250 voters in the shale gas regions of Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky and Maryland -- has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points. Don Hopey: dhopey(a)post-gazette.com or 412-263-1983. Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/local/marcellusshale/2013/12/02/Gas-drillers-sh… ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Some facts about outdoor lighting
by Beth Little 29 Nov '13

29 Nov '13

http://www.darksky.org/assets/2013/WorldwideEnergyWaste.jpg?utm_source=Nov.+ 27+eNews <http://www.darksky.org/assets/2013/WorldwideEnergyWaste.jpg?utm_source=Nov. +27+eNews&utm_campaign=Nov.+26+eNews&utm_medium=email> &utm_campaign=Nov.+26+eNews&utm_medium=email

1 0

A Greener way to frack for natural gas??
by Paul Wilson 26 Nov '13

26 Nov '13

This showed up on the E-magazines latest email issue. http://www.emagazine.com/earth-talk/greener-ways-to-frack-for-natural-gas/ -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

2 1

from ScienceDaily e-newsletter: 2 stories on carbon emissions
by Paul Wilson 20 Nov '13

20 Nov '13

Coal continues to dominate global carbon emissions<http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment/~3/QEY…> Posted: 18 Nov 2013 04:31 PM PST Despite explosive growth in renewable energy consumption, continued strong growth in coal consumption has further consolidated coal as the dominate source of carbon dioxide emissions. Global carbon emissions set to reach record 36 billion tons in 2013<http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/sciencedaily/top_news/top_environment/~3/IVJ…> Posted: 18 Nov 2013 04:31 PM PST Global emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels are set to rise again in 2013, reaching a record high of 36 billion tons - according to new figures from the Global Carbon Project. The biggest contributors to fossil fuel emissions in 2012 were China (27 per cent), the United States (14 per cent), the European Union (10 per cent), and India (6 per cent). The projected rise for 2013 comes after a similar rise of 2.2 per cent in 2012. -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC