Stream crossings can mean stream contamination

From an Action Alert, Mountain Valley Pipeline, May 20, 2021

The Mountain Valley Pipeline is back at it, attempting to construct their pipeline through headwater streams, under rivers and across wetlands. Right now, the Army Corps of Engineers is reviewing a request to allow them to proceed with waterbody crossings. Read our full comments to the Army Corps of Engineers on the request.

If you’ve been following this story for the past 6 years, (read our recent blog on the current state of the MVP) you’ll remember that MVP’s stream crossing permit was vacated by the courts because they could not meet the conditions of the general permit, the Nationwide 12, which covers activities related to pipeline construction.

Now, MVP is applying for a more site-specific, individual permit in an attempt to complete construction through the 600 waterbodies that have yet to be crossed, which includes some of the biggest rivers, steepest terrain and most sensitive habitats.

The Mountain Valley Pipeline is four years behind schedule, $3 billion over budget and has already incurred over 300 water violations and $2.7 million in fines between the two Virginias. It’s time to kick this ill-conceived project to the curb once and for all.

Tell the Army Corps of Engineers that this project is not in the public interest and they must deny MVP’s request.

Enough is Enough! Tell WVDEP: Don’t Allow More Toxins in WV’s Water

From the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, May 5, 2020

Right now, in the midst of a public health crisis, the WVDEP is proposing to allow even more dangerous toxins in our water. Act Now! Tell WVDEP to respect your water and your health, don’t allow more toxins in West Virginia’s water!

WVDEP’s proposal is related to a critical portion of West Virginia’s water quality standards called human health criteria. Human health criteria determines how much of a dangerous toxin can be in our water before it harms our health.

West Virginia’s current human health criteria is based on data that is nearly 40-years old and citizen advocates have long fought for more protective criteria. Sadly, WVDEP’s proposal exposes us to higher amounts of certain toxic chemicals and known carcinogens. It also leaves out updated protections for several toxins the EPA has recommended WV to adopt since 2015.

Enough is enough! Demand WVDEP respect your water and your health, tell them not to allow more toxins in West Virginia’s water.

You Can Act Now, You Should Act Now, You Need to Act Now

It’s hard to believe that WVDEP is even considering such a proposal at a time when public health is a global priority. Rather than heeding the advice of public health experts, like Dr. McCawley, WVDEP’s proposal enables chemical manufacturers to release more toxic pollution into our waters. Speak up for clean water and public health! Tell WVDEP not to allow more toxins in our water!

You can submit comments on the proposed rule through May 19.

West Virginia Rivers Coalition
3501 MacCorkle Ave SE #129
Charleston, West Virginia 25304

304-637-7201 | wvrivers@wvrivers.org

########################

See also: New EPA Navigable Waters Rule Challenged in Court

From the Allegheny Blue Ridge Alliance, ABRA Update # 275, May 7, 2020

A group of conservation organizations on April 29 filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of South Carolina, Charleston District, challenging the Trump Administration’s Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which was published as a final rule on April 21. The rule would redefine what wetlands and streams qualify for protection under the Clean Water Act. It is estimated that half of the nation’s wetlands and nearly 1/5th of its streams would lose Clean Water Act protection. The rule, which was jointly issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is to become effective June 22, 2020.

The suit was filed by the Southern Environmental law Center (SELC) on behalf of a coalition of conservation groups that includes the James River Association, an ABRA member. A similar lawsuit challenging the new law was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by another coalition of conservation organizations that includes the Natural Resources Defense Council, also an ABRA member.

The lawsuit contends that the agencies’ wholesale stripping of protections was an unlawful departure from decades of bipartisan practice. Among other things, the agencies failed to explain or evaluate the impact of their actions on the nation’s water quality or give Americans a meaningful opportunity to comment on the elimination of scientifically based protections for streams and wetlands. The suit further argues that the challenged rule ignores the intent of the Clean Water Act, which a bipartisan Congress passed in 1972 because state-by-state efforts to clean the nation’s waters failed.

A copy of the SELC filing with the court is available here. A SELC press release is here.

WV Rivers Coalition opposes radical changes

From the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, February 28, 2019

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released a proposed rule that will dramatically reduce the scope of waters protected by the Clean Water Act. This proposal is the worst rollback of Clean Water Act protections in history. The proposal redefines what waters are federally protected, limiting Clean Water Act protections to wetlands with a “continuous surface connection” to larger lakes, streams, or rivers and removing federal protections for rain and snow dependent streams. By the EPA’s own estimate, it would remove protections from 51% of our nation’s wetlands and 18% of streams, making it easier to pollute, pave over or build on them, and states may no longer be required to clean up polluted wetlands.

The proposal also allows the agencies to adopt a far worse final rule later. For instance, the proposal invites input on whether EPA should also exclude seasonal streams from federal protection, in addition to rain-dependent ones. If the final rule also excludes intermittent streams in addition to ephemeral, that would threaten at least 70% of our nation’s stream miles, over 9 million stream miles.

With many Americans dealing with unsafe drinking water, now is not the time to cut back on clean water enforcement. We need more—not less—protection for clean water.

There are no waters that are safe to pollute. We all know wetlands flow into streams, which flow into small rivers, into bigger rivers, and ultimately the ocean. We urge you to comment in opposition to this rule, telling the Trump Administration that America needs a strong Clean Water Act that protects our drinking water and our way of life.

This is the biggest weakening of the Clean Water Act in history.

This sweeping reinterpretation of the Clean Water Act could remove federal pollution safeguards for many important streams that do not flow year-round, called ephemeral streams. By EPA’s own estimates, this accounts for 18% of streams in the United States. The proposal would also allow the agency to adopt a far worse final rule later. For instance, the proposal invites input on whether EPA should also exclude seasonal streams from federal protection, in addition to rain-dependent ones

The new proposal will mean that at least half of America’s wetlands will no longer be protected by the Clean Water Act. The proposal restricts Clean Water Act protections to wetlands with a “continuous surface connection” to larger lakes, streams or rivers. The proposal would exclude not only so-called isolated wetlands, but floodplain wetlands as well, except those floodplain wetlands that have an uninterrupted surface water connection to a perennial or seasonal waterbody. Floodplain wetlands like bottomland hardwood wetlands that are connected by periodic surface flows and shallow groundwater connections (most wetlands) would not be covered if the surface connection is severed by manmade or natural features like levees, berms, roads, etc. By EPA’s own estimate, this means that at least 51% of America’s wetlands will no longer be federally protected under the Clean Water Act.

What It Could Mean:

>>> Commercial developers would no longer need to obtain a permit before paving over or building on many wetlands — increasing flooding and damaging wildlife habitats.

>>> Oil spills or pipeline breaks into these streams or wetlands could no longer be considered violations of the Clean Water Act.

>>> Fecal matter from factory farms could overflow into unprotected streams without fear of federal consequences.

>>> Industrial facilities could discharge chemicals into unprotected streams without paying Clean Water Act fines.

>>> Water treatment plants might be able discharge partially treated sewage into streams without adhering to federal water quality standards.

>>> States may no longer be required to clean up polluted streams or wetlands;

>>> If an agency fails to take action, the public could no longer use citizens’ suits under the Clean Water Act to protect their waters.

You can and should reply and comment by April 15th here.

Let’s protect all our streams all the time

From the WV Rivers Coalition, July 8, 2018

West Virginia’s Water Quality Standards are supposed to keep our water safe. Every three years the rules that govern what’s in West Virginia’s water undergo a revision process called the Triennial Review. West Virginia is in the midst of this process and WVDEP has released their proposed changes for public comment.

Share with WVDEP that you deserve safe water! Submit comments on Water Quality Standards by July 10. View our fact sheet on the Triennial Review and our full comments to WVDEP to learn more.

In a previous action alert, we shared information on toxic hotspots in our rivers that would result from WVDEP’s proposed revisions. Another substantial revision deals with something called human health criteria, which set limits on how much of a particular toxin can be in our water before it is dangerous to human health. These criteria make sure that our rivers can produce safe drinking water, as well as make sure they are safe for fishing and swimming.

EPA updated their recommended human health criteria limits for 94 chemical pollutants. In WVDEP’s suggested revisions to Water Quality Standards, they choose to adopt the updated limits for just 56 pollutants. WV Rivers urges WVDEP to adopt all 94 updated pollutant limits for a number of reasons:

1. Protecting human health must depend on sound science. It is paramount for human health criteria to be based on the most up-to-date scientific methods and information. EPA’s recommended limits reflect the best research we have available. WVDEP should adopt ALL of EPA’s recommendations for protecting human health.

2. Every waterbody in West Virginia already has a fish consumption advisory. It’s time to turn that around and make it safe again to eat fish from our rivers. Through neglecting to update human health criteria for all of EPA’s recommended pollutants, the road to recovery for our rivers stands to be even longer and more difficult.

3. Neighboring states are adopting all 94 pollutant limits. Our neighbors in PA and KY have moved to proactively ensure water safety by adopting all 94 of EPA’s recommendations. West Virginians would be put at increased risk than residents of nearby states for dangerous concentrations of the 38 pollutants not updated.

Speak Up Now! Share with WVDEP that you deserve safe water. Request WVDEP adopt all 94 of EPA’s recommended human health criteria limits by commenting on WVDEP’s revisions to Water Quality Standards through July 10. View our fact sheet and submit your comments here. You can also submit comments in person during a public hearing on July 10 at 6:00pm at the WVDEP headquarters in Charleston.

SEND A LETTER VIA WV RIVERS COALITION

http://salsa4.salsalabs.com/o/51680/images/21646/-3

FERC is starting to listen to thousands of protests

Public Comments at FERC Scoping Meeting on ACP Pipeline in Elkins (3/25/15)

Submitted by April P. Keating, Concerned Resident, Upshur County, WV

Elkins, WV –On the evening of March 25, at the Elkins High School, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) held a public hearing over the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP). About 200 members of the public attended and around 34 people spoke. There were approximately 20 speakers against the project and 11 in favor.

FERC is an “independent” federal agency whose members are appointed by the President. They are perhaps the only thing standing between the public and this project. It is their duty to decide whether this project should be approved, and, more specifically, whether such a pipeline is in the interest of the public need. Some, including attorneys from Appalachian Mountain Advocates, have said that it is not clear whether this project qualifies for a “certificate of public convenience and necessity” because it is not clear that this project fills a public need, as it is not supplying gas directly to consumers.

From the FERC website: “Scoping meetings, which are sponsored by FERC, are utilized by staff to identify relevant issues of major Certificate projects, pursuant to NEPA. Scoping is the process of defining and refining the scope of a environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA) and the alternatives to be investigated. The scoping process is one of the opportunities for public involvement. Affected property owners and other stakeholders can provide detailed comments about issues pertaining to their properties. For example, stakeholders can provide information on sensitive environmental features in the project area; suggest alternatives to be evaluated; or help identify construction constraints.”

The FERC has a duty to evaluate every comment, and Wednesday evening’s docket certainly provided them with a large list of concerns to consider. It took over two hours for everyone to speak. The speakers ranged from suited business leaders to “little old ladies” and everything in between. The list of topics was as varied as the people in attendance, and included environmental concerns, safety issues, economic matters, property values and landowner rights, and corridor sharing. Most of those in favor were, predictably, higher-ups in the industry, but those who spoke against the pipeline came from all walks of life. It was interesting and inspiring to hear their comments.

Several people came with speeches prepared, a few spoke off-the-cuff or from notes. Some were informed by science, others by experience, and a few by faith. Some addressed their comments to the room, but most people spoke directly to the commission, whose representative on stage took notes during the comments. The audience was quietly respectful, but would occasionally break out in applause for a comment that was particularly relevant to the heavy burden this pipeline would place on our culture, our way of life, our health, and our safety.

Of course, all the industry people spoke of employment, clean air, and supposed tax revenues, all blown up figures, in my opinion, except for the money they stand to make. They were unabashed about that.

Listings of topics covered and some not covered are provided in the attached Comment.

Though it was gratifying to hear so many comments outlining the dangers, it was a bit disappointing that more people did not speak of the effects on such things as geologic formations, historical and archaeological sites, and other data-driven material.

The scoping comment period is open until April 28. To comment online, go to: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp and use docket # 15-6-000 for ACP,  15-5-000 for the supply header (they are attached, so both should be included) and 15-3-000 for Mountain Valley Pipeline.

I was pleased with the turnout, and though it could have been larger, it was probably better than that in Bridgeport, where gas and oil seem to be king. I can tell you that if we don’t pay attention to the ramifications of these projects, we will soon be out of water and asking ourselves, Why, oh why, didn’t we stop it when we had the chance?

Note:  April Keating is an active member of the local group named Mountain Lakes Preservation Alliance.

See also:  www.FrackCheckWV.net and www.MAREproject.org

WV-DEP Public Notice: WV-DEP Seeks Public Input for Aboveground Storage Tanks

==============================
PUBLIC NOTICE — Friday, September 19, 2014
==============================

CHARLESTON, W.Va. – The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection wants to include the public in the rule-making process for the Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) Program. The agency is releasing a rough draft of the program’s emergency rule to get feedback on ways to make it as thorough and effective as possible.

The document released today is an initial draft of the emergency rule that will be filed later this year, most likely in December, with the Secretary of State’s Office. It differs from the temporary interpretive rule filed last week in that it provides much more detail about the agency’s plans and expectations for the program going forward.

To read the rough draft of the emergency rule, go to the DEP’s Aboveground Storage Tank page, which is linked to the agency’s home page: www.dep.wv.gov

Members of industry groups, environmental groups and other members of the public who asked to be identified as stakeholders in the rulemaking process earlier this year are being invited to a working meeting on October 1 to discuss the draft rule and ways to enhance its effectiveness.

Any other members of the public who would like to offer suggestions on ways to improve the rule can email those comments, by October 24, to:

WVDEPtankrules@wv.gov ………….. or mail them to:

WV Department of Environmental Protection
Public Information Office
AST Emergency Rule Comments
601 57th Street SE
Charleston, WV 25304

===============

How to Regulate WV Storage Tanks?

WV-DEP Requests Public Input on Storage Tank Rules

====================================
From: WV-DEP, April 25, 2014 @ 4:14 PM
====================================

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV-DEP) is seeking public input on what should be included in the rules related to how above ground storage tanks are regulated.

As a requirement of the newly passed WV Senate Bill 373 legislation, which is known to some as “The Water Resources Protection Act,” and to others simply as “The Tank Bill,” the agency must draft rules for a new Aboveground Storage Tank Regulatory Program in time for lawmakers to consider them during the 2015 legislative session. In order to meet that deadline, the WV-DEP will file its proposed regulations as an emergency rule this fall.

Normally, public comment is taken after rules have been drafted. However, because this program is new to the department, and because of the many interests at stake, WV-DEP Secretary Randy Huffman decided to approach the rule-making process for the tank program a little differently.

“We would appreciate input from industry groups, experts, any member of the public with an idea about what needs to be addressed in the rules,” said Huffman. “We will consider that input as we draft the regulations.”

Ideas can be submitted to the agency via email or through the mail by May 15. The email address is:  WVDEPTankRules@wv.gov

Letters can be mailed to:

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
Tank Rules, 601 57th Street, SW
Charleston, WV 25304

Once the first draft of the regulations is ready, which is expected to occur in mid-July, additional comments from stakeholders will be considered in revising the regulations before they are filed with the Secretary of State’s office. At that time, the rules will be put out for public notice, which includes a process by which the public can submit written comments or speak out at a public hearing.

“We want this process to be as open and inclusive as possible,” Huffman said. “If you have an idea, please feel free to submit it. Your suggestions will help us achieve our goal of making these rules as thorough and as effective in safeguarding public health and the environment as possible.”Again, the deadline to submit ideas for the first draft of the rules is May 15. The WV-DEP asks that contact information be included in the letters or emails so that someone from the agency can call or write back with follow-up questions if necessary.

The West Virginia DEP’s emergency rule issued on August 22nd references i well site safety standards and casing and cementing standards.  To develop these plans, the DEP is seeking input from the public through September 30th.  These may be mailed to the Office of Oil and Gas, 601 57th St., S.E., Charleston, W. Va., 25304 or e-mailed to DEP.comments@wv.gov.  You can download the casing and cementing standards here, and the well site safety plan standards here.

The fracking moratorium in New York state will not be lifted on July 1^st, although this is the planned date for release of the 2^nd version of the draft environmental assessment being prepared by the Department of Environmental Conservation. Additional time will be needed for the public, and for private industry, to review the draft and provide comments back to the DEC. Then the DEC will need time to review the comments and make appropriate changes to the assessment.

Former Governor Paterson’s executive order directed his DEC to issue a new draft environmental review document before moving forward.  In so doing, he effectively acknowledged that the more than 13,000 public comments received on the initial, deeply flawed draft from the fall of 2009 raised significant issues that required new analysis – and a new public review and comment period. 

The current Governor Cuomo extended Paterson’s executive order.  Since that time, DEC has been continuing its evaluation so it can issue the new draft environmental review. That involves reviewing the thousands of public comments submitted almost a year-and-a-half ago and determining what additional studies need to be completed. The agency was heavily gutted by staffing and budgetary cuts in the last administration, and their new leadership is still new. 

After the new draft is released, DEC is going to have to provide a new public comment and review period, perhaps 90 days. After that, the agency is legally required to do exactly what it’s doing right now – evaluate, and respond to, every substantive comment received on the new draft before issuing a final environmental review document and completing the process. (There is still some risk that the state will cave to pressure from big oil and gas corporations and rush the process, putting New York’s safe drinking water supply, air quality and communities in jeopardy.) 

In recent annual  meetings, 41% of shareholders at Chevron and 28% at ExxonMobil voted in favor of resolutions asking for a report on the environmental and financial risks of hydraulic fracturing in natural gas drilling. While these resolutions did  not pass, the message has been sent to corporate executives that stockholders are very concerned. Jon Jensen of the Park Foundation said that shareholders need assurance that companies are candidly disclosing risks, due to fracking chemicals or due to wastewater disposal, and are adopting best management practices to minimize these risks.

Exxon who paid $35 billion for XTO Energy in 2010 will be looking to recoup some of that investment in the near future. Chevron recently signed an agreement to acquire about 228,000 high-quality acres in the Marcellus shale, mostly in southern Pennsylvania; and, their purchase of Atlas Energy was completed this past February.