|
|||
|
Letter to DAQ from the Environmental Community Demanding Denial of Permit to Duke Energy's Cliffside Coal-burning Power Plant October 15, 2008 Governor Michael
F. Easley Office of
the Governor Mr. William G. Ross,
Jr., Secretary Dear Governor Easley, Secretary Ross, and Mr. Overcash: The undersigned organizations respectfully demand that Duke Energy's Title V permit for its expansion at Cliffside be denied upon review by the North Carolina Division of Air Quality this fall. We urge you to exercise the full extent of your legal authority in review of the Title V permit and join the wave of agencies, officials and courts in other states that have denied permits for proposed coal-fired power plants. The technology of burning coal to produce electricity is outdated, inefficient, a danger to public health and the environment and is no longer necessary to meet future energy demand in our state or in this region. More specifically, we cite the following reasons for denying this permit. 1.
DAQ has the
legal authority and moral responsibilities to deny the Title V permits to
continue construction on the Cliffside Expansion. Federal law allows states to develop regulations that exceed federal air quality standards but not for states to develop air quality regulations that are less stringent. On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts vs. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Additionally, the Justices wrote that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot refuse to regulate these pollutants for political reasons or in favor of extra-statutory policy preferences. The NC Division of Air Quality is therefore bound by this same standard. In Friends
of the Chattahoochee, Inc. v. Couch, Dkt. No. 2008CV146398, June
30, 2008, a Georgia Superior Court held that an air pollution permit for a
new coal-fired power plant in In another example of states taking a strong stand on new coal plants, on October 18, 2007, the Kansas Department of Health and the Environment became the nation's first government agency to block a proposed coal-burning power plant on environmental grounds, saying it would be "irresponsible to ignore the contribution of carbon dioxide to climate change." As you know, the new Cliffside expansion will double greenhouse gas production at the facility to six million tons of carbon dioxide annually. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that there must be an 80% reduction in man-made greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. This cannot be accomplished if we begin building a new generation of coal-burning power plants in the year 2008. At least 41 coal-burning power plants in 23 states have been stopped over the past five years due to health, environmental or financial considerations and due to strong public opposition. We urge you to join this group of states. Granting this permit would be an abandonment of DAQ's responsibility as the state agency mandated to protect air quality and it would be a contradiction of its mission to safeguard public health and the environment. 2. Cliffside does not
meet federal mercury MACT standards. The DAQ has acknowledged that the Cliffside Title V
permit issued last January does not meet federal mercury MACT standards.
Yet, construction activity continues at the plant. This continued
work under an invalid permit is unacceptable, particularly given the dangers
of mercury and the uncertainty of whether Duke Energy will be able to meet a
MACT-based mercury limitation. As you know, mercury toxicity has been
directly linked to neurological damage in fetuses, autism and learning
disabilities in young children. Further, the Center for Disease Control has
warned that one in eight pregnant women has unsafe levels of mercury in
breast milk. Mercury continues to bio-accumulate in our environment becoming
more dangerous with each passing year. Higher concentrations of methyl
mercury are being detected in large species of seafood, and, smaller species
of sea fish are also showing high levels of mercury contamination.
Methyl mercury contamination has also become a significant problem in
fresh water fish. For example walleye in the lakes of western 3. The original permit was granted under false pretense by Duke
Energy. Duke Energy applied for its Cliffside permit claiming
the need for increased generating capacity to meet projected growth in
energy demand from a growing population in 4. The Cliffside permit ignores the reality of a shortage in fresh
water supply. The Cliffside plant will evaporate 21 million gallons of fresh water every day for cooling purposes. This doubles the water usage of the existing facility. During the current period of extreme drought, the DAQ unlawfully granted the original Cliffside permit without analyzing the impacts of water usage on plant reliability and on downstream users. It's probable that water shortages will prohibit the full-time operation of the new Cliffside plant in order to avoid severe impacts on downstream aquatic wildlife. There may not even be enough water to cool the plant during periods of severe drought-induced water shortage. We urge you to fully analyze the plant’s impact on water availability, particularly in times of drought. We also cite the
following concerns and urge you to be aware of them even if they are not
necessarily a part of the DAQ's formal review process. 1. The
Cliffside permit ignores the health, environmental and social consequences
of mountaintop removal coal mining. More than 450 Appalachian mountaintops have been leveled during the process of mountaintop removal coal mining in recent years, some by as much as 1000 feet. These ancient and unique formations have been systematically dynamited and flattened by enormous earth-moving equipment, with soil, rocks, and former water-ways pushed indiscriminately into the valleys below with total abandonment of environmental responsibility for the purpose of extracting coal to burn in power plants. Sludge ponds held by precarious dams built on the loose fill-dirt of the projects, containing high concentrations of toxic chemicals - lead, mercury, arsenic and more - from the mining and refining processes, loom ominously hundreds of feet above towns, schools, and playgrounds. During torrential rainfalls these dams have overflowed or failed completely, sending their poisonous content pouring down into the streets and rivers below. Coal extracted in such a fashion can never be called "clean coal." 2. Investment in Cliffside is a misuse of ratepayer and taxpayer funds. Duke Energy has projected a cost of $2.3 billion
dollars to build the new Cliffside power plant.
This money will come from ratepayers and taxpayers who will bear the
brunt of the health and environmental consequences while corporate
shareholders are being subsidized without risk.
This huge investment of capital resources will commit western 3. Clean, safer, less expensive options are available. When health and environmental costs are included in the evaluation, coal is the most expensive and cumbersome option available for meeting future energy demand. Strong economic incentives that promote energy efficiency and conservation are the most cost effective options with the least impact on our health and environment. Great advancements have been achieved in wind, solar, geothermal, micro-hydro, wave, tidal and energy storage technologies that render coal practically and financially obsolete. Title V Permit and Mercury MACT Analysis Public Comment Process On September 29, 2008 DAQ released the Draft Title V
permit for the Cliffside facility. Earlier this year DAQ announced there
would be a process for public evaluation of the mercury MACT analysis for
Cliffside Unit 6. We ask that these two separate processes be combined into
one public process and that there be a series of public hearings held
throughout the state in the major urban areas of Clearly, the
DAQ has the legal authority to deny the Cliffside Title V permit if it
chooses to exercise its regulatory discretionary power in that way.
The North Carolina Division of Air Quality is at a crossroads where
its administration must decide whether it is a true advocate for clean air
and public health or a rubber stamp for the utility industry it is supposed
to be regulating. The overwhelming evidence is
that Cliffside will be harmful to public health and the environment for
decades to come. The stakes are too high to ignore the moral imperative to
do no harm. Please do not violate the public trust again. The lives of all
future generations will be impacted by your decisions. Sincerely, Abigail Singer, Avram Friedman, Canary Coalition, 828-631-3447 June Blotnick, Margie Ellison, Grassroots Energy Elaine
Lite, Mountain Voices Mary Olson, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, 828-675-1792 Julie
Mayfield, Western North Carolina
|
|||
| home| about us | press releases | newsletters | links | contact us | |||
