West Virginia Withdraws Approval of Mountain Valley Pipeline

West Virginia environmental regulators are rescinding approval for building the Mountain Valley Pipeline, which would carry natural gas down the center of West Virginia for 195 miles.

In a letter Thursday, the Department of Environmental Protection said it’s vacating the water quality certification issued in March, which followed review of the projected impact on the state’s waters and public hearings.

“This decision will allow the agency to re-evaluate the complete application to determine whether the state’s certification is in compliance with Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act,” wrote Scott Mandirola, director of the DEP’s Division of Water and Waste Management.

The pipeline would extend south from north-central West Virginia through 11 counties to the Virginia state line and 108 miles through six counties in that state.

In June, five citizen groups asked a federal appeals court to overturn the state approval.

DEP spokesman Jake Glance says during a review of that appeal, “it was determined that the information used to issue that certification needs to be further evaluated and possibly enhanced.” He said that is being done “out of an abundance of caution.”

According to the main developer, EQT Corp., the project’s estimated cost is $3.5 billion. It would transport “abundant” natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations beneath the Appalachians with full service expected in late 2018, provided it gets needed approvals.

EQT also has an application pending for approval by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The company did not immediately reply to requests for comment on Friday.

Angie Rosser, executive director of the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, said environmental groups have been asking the DEP to take a closer look at the more than 600 streams affected by the massive project from the beginning.

“The fracked gas Mountain Valley Pipeline is dirty, dangerous and needlessly endangers West Virginia’s waterways, wilderness, and communities and it should be rejected,” said Justin Raines, from the West Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club, another organization that joined in the federal appeal. “This project should never have been approved in the first place, and we hope this pipeline now receives the scrutiny it deserves.”

Some Customers Facing Higher Water Quality Fee

Water quality service fees will be increasing for some customers in West Virginia.

The Herald-Dispatch reports when the fee began in 2014 in the Huntington area, it was scheduled to be a flat $7.15 for residential and non-residential property owners for two years. That was while the Water Quality Board conducted mapping of impervious surfaces — man-made structures contributing to water runoff — on non-residential properties.

Stormwater Utility Director Sherry Wilkins says the mapping is completed.

As a result, the newspaper says the fees will increase for 2,080 non-residential customers.

Residential property owners will still pay the flat rate.

Non-residential owners will pay the $7.15 rate up to 3,000 square feet of impervious materials, plus an additional $1.05 for every 1,000 square feet of impervious material between 3,000 and 1 million square feet.

NAS Committe Seeks to Answer Question: Does Living Near a Coal Mine Impact Human Health?

If you live near a mining site – either old or active – is your health at risk? That’s what a committee from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering & Medicine is trying to find out.

 

The committee is conducting a literature review of data from four states – West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee – to see if any scientific publicans point to potential human health effects related to surface coal mining operations. The group is also conducting a series of public meetings with state environmental and health agencies as well as facilitating town halls with community members. Their second open session was held yesterday, in Logan, WV.

 

Panelists included representatives from several WV and VA state agencies, such as Jake Glance from the WV Department of Environmental Protection.

 

“The DEP has a great deal of water quality information coming in,” said Glance during his presentation. “As I’ve said we’ve taken more than two million samples over the last several decades. The main issue is not the quality of data that’s coming in or the lack of data that’s coming in. It becomes a question of being able to quickly access that data and have it available – make it available – in the correct format.”

 

After the presentations, committee members like professor of epidemiology Greg Wellenius from Brown University, asked panelists questions such as:

 

“So Mr. Glance, you suggested you tracked complaints related to surface mining operations. Can you describe the quantity and summarize the content of those complaints?”  

 

The review will be conducted over 24 months – the committee is currently in the beginning stages of that process. The goal is to figure out what kind of data and monitoring already exists and to identify gaps in research that would ultimately help experts develop safeguards for protecting the health of those living close to surface coal mine sites.  

 

 

Appalachia Health News is a project of West Virginia Public Broadcasting, with support from the Benedum Foundation, Charleston Area Medical Center and WVU Medicine.

House Approves Water Standards Bill

The House voted on a bill Wednesday that aligns West Virginia’s standards for some discharges into the state’s waters with federal limits. Opponents say the bill could put West Virginia’s drinking water supply at risk, but supporters maintain it has the potential to attract new industry to the state.

House Bill 2506 is a complicated and technical bill. But in a nutshell, it relates to how much of a substance can be released into West Virginia’s waterways under state permits and the places where those permits overlap. Essentially, it allows an increased discharge limit of cancer-causing and non-cancer causing chemicals into West Virginia’s streams and rivers, but only after certain calculations and observations have been made by the state Department of Environmental Protection. The DEP would decide if a new facility that planned to apply for a discharge permit could be built in an area close to other, already-permitted facilities.

Those against the bill say it would lower the quality of the state’s drinking water and be harmful to citizens. Supporters of the bill argue it would bring more jobs to the state, because organizations could build more facilities on vacant industrial properties.

Delegate Roger Hanshaw of Clay County, is the vice chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. He explained the bill to members of the chamber.

“The bill does not permit facilities to do anything that is out of compliance with the law,” Hanshaw said, “The bill does not allow facilities to discharge materials that aren’t authorized today. The bill doesn’t allow individuals, or entities, or permit holders to discharge anything above and beyond the existing West Virginia Water Quality Standards. The bill has no relation whatsoever to catastrophic incidents.”

One of those catastrophic incidents Hanshaw was referring to was the January 9, 2014, Freedom Industry chemical leak in the Kanawha Valley. Hanshaw pointed out that the event was an accident at a facility that was not permitted to discharge into the Elk River outside of Charleston and the bill would not change that.

Democratic Del. Barbara Evans Fleischauer disagreed with Hanshaw’s assessment.

“Those of us who were in the legislature and the 300,000 other people who lost their water for up to a month, what? It has nothing to do with that? It has everything to do with that, because we know how precious our drinking water is. We know it, it’s been proven. I do not want us to be guinea pigs on lowering the water measuring measurements, so that we have the potential for more contamination,” Fleischauer said.

Delegate Mark Zatezelo is a Republican from Hancock County and the lead sponsor of the bill. He noted in his floor speech that he wasn’t sure how many jobs it would attract, but the potential was there.

“We’re in competition. We need tax base. We need to do things that we haven’t done for a while. It’s gonna be a very difficult job. It’s gonna be a lot of hard work, and we all need to be engaged,” Zatezelo explained, “This is just a small thing, but it’s an important thing, and I do not, if I believed that it was gonna harm the water quality of West Virginia, I would be against it. I think this is a good bill, and I think it is the way for us to go.”

Democratic Delegate Mike Pushkin of Kanawha County, suggested there were other opportunities for the state to attract businesses.

“I, for one, think it’s time that we just stop believing this tired old lie that the only thing we’re good enough for here in West Virginia; the only kind of jobs we can attract in West Virginia, the only kind of economic development that we can have in West Virginia, the only kind of growth that we deserve here will be at the expense of our citizen’s health, will be at the expense of our citizen’s safety, at the expense of something as essential as the water that’s flowing from their tap,” Pushkin

Pushkin encouraged his fellow lawmakers to look for ways to use the state’s waterways as an economic driver by way of tourism.

Another Democrat, Delegate Shawn Fluharty, from Ohio County, opposed the bill.

“Here’s what we’ve been sold for decades, decades after decades;” Fluharty said, “it doesn’t matter who’s in power, Republican, Democratic whatsoever; we’ve been told just trust us. Just trust us. We don’t need coal mine safety, then a tragedy happens. Just trust us. We don’t need workers’ rights, then a tragedy happens. And then on this bill today, we’ve been told just trust us, the water’ll remain clean and the jobs will come raining down.”

In his closing remarks, Delegate Hanshaw encouraged lawmakers to separate fact from fiction.

“The most important thing in the practice of science is to divorce it from emotion,” Hanshaw said, “because when we let emotion creep in to any decision, we cloud our judgement, and we ignore facts. Beware the shoehorn. Mr. Speaker, this bill doesn’t change water quality standards. This bill gives DEP the ability to do what it’s doing now in conformity with the law, and it makes West Virginia compatible with neighboring states.”

House Bill 2506 passed, 63 to 37, and now goes to the Senate for consideration.

Regulators Sticking with Water-Quality Standards Change

West Virginia regulators are sticking with their proposal to change the way water-quality standards are calculated.The Charleston Gazette-Mail reports…

West Virginia regulators are sticking with their proposal to change the way water-quality standards are calculated.

The Charleston Gazette-Mail reports that a document made public Friday insists the decision “does not automatically” translate into an increase in the amount of cancer-causing chemicals allowed to be discharged into state rivers and streams.

The state Department of Environmental Protection also revealed that it’s dropping another proposal that would have eliminated a requirement for public notices in newspapers for some types of air pollution permits.

The DEP’s decisions on both of the rule changes were filed with the Secretary of State’s Office on Friday, along with other annual agency rule changes. The filing was to meet a legal deadline for the rules to be submitted for legislative review next year.

Meeting to Focus on West Virginia Water Quality Rule Changes

State regulators will review public comments on proposed changes to West Virginia's water quality standards at a meeting this week.A quarterly meeting of…

State regulators will review public comments on proposed changes to West Virginia’s water quality standards at a meeting this week.

A quarterly meeting of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s Water Quality Standards Program is set for Nov. 17 at the DEP’s headquarters in Charleston.

During a portion of the meeting, the public is invited to present scientific information related to the proposed changes.

Exit mobile version