[From the diaries by susanhu] Almost a year ago, the EPA started to float proposed changes in how they rate pollution from the element Selenium. It looked like a small thing. It was based on a report by a respected environmental scientist, and the idea behind it even had the backing of several environmental groups. So it was a good thing, right?
Wrong. It was yet another ploy by the Bush administration to ease restrictions on the most horrific practice in mining: mountaintop removal. As this regulation nears implementation, greedy hands rub together in anticipation of ruining the landscape of Appalachia for all time to come.
In previous diaries over at dkos, I proposed two major steps that coal industry could take to be good corporate citizens: they should stand four square behind the clean air act and oppose exemptions given to older power plants, and they should immediately agree to stop mountaintop removal. But the Bush administration is doing all they can to make sure neither of these things happen. First, they are promoting the godawful “Clear Skies” Act (a part of the larger “name everything the opposite of what it does” act), which will allow old, pre-law plants to crank out more pollution than ever. Now, with this new selenium standard, they will eliminate one of the few roadblocks that keeps companies from leveling half of West Virginia.
Previously, they had evaluated selenium pollution based on the parts per million of selenium in the water. Under the new rules, they would instead look at how selenium was moving into biological systems. Specifically, how the element is taken up in the bodies of fish. It’s not an intrinsically bad idea. After all, fish are one step in the food chain that takes selenium out of streams and into the surrounding environment.
Too much selenium can lead to birth defects, deformities, and death for fish, reptiles, birds and mammals (including people). This stuff is definitely worth watching, and watching how it’s taken up by fish may well be a better way of doing it than measuring the amount in the water.
What matters is how much selenium the EPA is allowing in the fish. Under the new regulations, the maximum allowable amount would be around 8 parts per million. According to Geoffrey Grubbs, the EPA’s director of water science and technology, these standards would protect 80% of the fish population against deformity.
Think about that for a second.
The EPA is willing to put forward a standard that, by their own admission, could lead to deformity or defects in one fish out of five. Scary enough for you? It gets worse. The folks over at US Fish and Game — the people who did the study that the EPA is supposedly using as the basis for their new standards — say that the 8 parts per million level wouldn’t protect 80% of the fish. In fact, that’s the level at which fully 50% of the fish die. And not just the fish, but everything that feeds on the fish.
Joseph Skorupa, a researcher with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, says studies show birds lose 10 percent of their offspring after eating food containing 4 parts per million selenium.
“At 8 parts per million, we are talking about a situation where more than 50 percent of the eggs would fail to hatch,” said Skorupa, who has investigated selenium poisonings for more than two decades.
Skorupa initially assumed that the EPA misunderstood the results of the study. In fact, he sent notes to the agency trying to correct the errors the EPA made in setting the new standards. But Grubbs and the folks at the EPA ignored these notes. Based on nothing but their own bald-faced lies, they continue to declare the 8 ppm level “safe” in the face of every scientific study.
So how does all this relate to mining by mountaintop removal? Coal, like all material made from an organic source, contains a trace amount of selenium. Living things actually require a tiny amount of the element just to survive, and in coal that element gets somewhat concentrated. Coal also often acts as an aquifer. Water travels through pores and fractures in the stone, permeating the coal with metallic salts, including the iron pyrite that leads to acid rain, and salts of more exotic materials like selenium. Other material above the coal also contains traces of selenium, and other low-permeability aquifers can also concentrate this element.
In mountaintop removal, all the material above the coal gets dumped into surrounding streams. Along with all that rock, goes the selenium. It leeches out of the waste into the water, and from there it’s on its way to the fishes.
Under current law, most every mountaintop removal operation is in violation of the selenuim standards. This means they have to track this element closely, and pay fines and costly cleanup fees when the numbers look too bad. This cost alone is enough to keep coal companies from even considering mountaintop removal in more marginal areas.
But the new EPA standards are set so high, that almost overnight these folks would become law abiding citizens. The cost of mountaintop removal would drop, leading to expansion of this system and devastation of more hillsides, streams, and valleys.
This new regulation is a sucker punch to those who have been fighting to end mountaintop removal, and just more proof (as if we didn’t already have enough) that the Bush administration is hostage to the most short sighted players in the energy industry.
My tip: if you want to see the mountains of West Virginia, go soon. Like the snows of Kilimanjaro, affordable housing, and an honest Republican, those blue hills are going to be very rare, very soon.
Thanks for bringing up this very important topic again. I saw a PBS Frontline Documentary on this not long ago and it just makes you heart sick to see what we are willing to do to people and the environment for the sake of some Corporate interest to rack in some more big bucks. We have got to find a way to stop them before there is nothing left for us to reclaim.
Please keep this important information coming to us.
The closest thing to hate I know, is the feeling I have for these criminals and all their cronies.
for posting this. I’ve really missed you. Your Reagan and 9/11 diary was right on. And I’ve enjoyed and learned a lot from all of the others. I think the first comment I ever posted – I know the first one I spent all day researching – was to one of your diaries. (It was about how summer DST does not save energy. NO study has ever shown that it does. I still think I’m right about that.)
Just two days ago I was trying out electric scooters and telling the folks doing the demo all about this guy who calls himself devilstower and his enthusiasm for electric powered transportation.
Dare I ask how the book is going? Or will that scare you away from here?
Thanks for asking. The book… is going. I think it’ll be done in a couple of months (which makes it almost a year in the making, and probably the most time I’ve spent on any book). It’s not going well enough that I should be popping my head up and writing diaries, but then I’m not sure that sitting my car and going “darn, I really need to let people know about that,” then swallowing the urge was good for either me or my writing.
Did you buy the electric scooter? I wish I lived close enough to make good use of one on a daily basis. Back when I was foolish enough to think that I could live on nothing but the writing, I bought this half-finished log home in the woods, some 30 miles from downtown. Now that I’ve been forced back behind a desk, I’m finding it hard to let go of the place (plus, it’s hard to imagine who would want it!).
I’m thinking of starting a blog about nothing but our experiences trying to complete the house and tend the several acres of weed-choked grounds. Kind of a “this old house,” except by someone who has no idea what they’re doing.
It’s good to see you writing again, even if the content is pretty depressing!
It’s scary to see that coal is seen as our last resort energy when it has so many pollution problems (the selenium you mention and which I did not know about, mercury, and uranium among others), not to mention the global warming effects…
Oh well, it will be quite a ride.
(PS- I saw your “cold water generator” article and filed it for future use, but haven’t had the time to do anything with it. Don’t hesitate to give it a try yourself!)
And please, do use BoomanTribune as your very own blog. I’ll be happy to promote your diaries to front page status. In fact, I’ll do this right now for this one.
It’s been a while since I’ve thought about this, so correct me if I’m wrong, but won’t the selenium levels become more concentrated as it moves up the food chain?
Do people fish in the areas under consideration for mountaintop removal?
You’re right.
Most trace elements tend to become more concentrated in the flesh of predators. With elements like selenium, this effect is not quite as strong as it is with complex organic molecules (like DDT), but it’s still there.
If you had a predator — bird or mammal — that was eating a diet composed in large part of these poisoned fish, that poison could quickly rise to even higher levels in that creature. And the deformities, birth defects, and death spread right along the chain.
You’ve taken a very complex subject, and made it very comprehensible. That it has thoroughly depressed me, is not a thing I can blame you for.
At least in Kentucky, the last I heard, they remove the mountains away from the Interstates, so people passing through don’t see it. Slimy bastards.
Devilstower,is it true that most of the coal companies are actually owned by major oil companies? I heard this once, but don’t know if it’s still the case (or ever was).
Most of the oil companies made big “coal plays” back in the day, but the “corporate philosophy” needed for the two activities was more different than most of the companies involved would have believed, and most all the oil companies have dropped their coal sections. Basically, coal is less risky along the “where are the reserves” axis, but it’s extremely capital intensive. The machines (which are of a size you can’t even comprehend unless you get close to one) are fabulously expensive, and the returns on a ton of coal are negligble. You make up for it with volume, volume, volume, and collect some change on each ton. With oil, your costs are at the exploration end. Once you’re producing (and assuming market prices are high), you have your own private mint. Oil companies tend to be highly technocratic companies where geology and IT play huge roles. Coal companies tend to be more centered around equipment maintenance and careful resource management to keep costs as low as possible. Managing coal companies like oil companies didn’t work well for anyone.
The two largest coal companies in the world are both headquartered in St. Louis. Peabody Energy is by far the biggest. Arch Mineral is it’s closest (though not very close) rival. Both of these companies have significant reserves in the Powder River Basin and have had banner years with high energy prices since 2001. The next few companies include Kennecott (now part of the international mining company Rio Tinto), CONSOL, and Massey Energy. CONSOL and Massey are both big players in the Appalachian region (Peabody and Arch have reserves there, as well). If I had to single out one company as the black sheep of the whole industry (which is not to say that they all haven’t been guilty of some spectacular idiocy), it would be Massey. There’s a good reason why Massey grows protests almost as fast as it mines coal. I’ve never seen a company that so blatantly disregards both safety and environmental regulations, and which so openly buys political favor. These guys are so bold, you have to kind of admire them — in a sick, sociopathic sort of way.
Some lyrics from a 1971 song by John Prine, “Paradise.”
Then the coal company came, with the world’s largest shovel,
And they tortured the timber and stripped all the land.
Well, they dug for their coal till the land was forsaken.
Then they wrote it all down as the progress of man.
And Daddy won’t you take me back to Muhlenberg county,
Down by the Green River, where Paradise lay.
“Well I’m sorry, my son, but you’re too late in askin’.”
“Mr. Peabody’s coal train has hauled it away.”
Thanks for the info. It’s not surprising that these companies are based outside of WV is it? How much $ did Massey and Peobody give to Bush’s re-election, I wonder?
I have so much respect for the humble people who are trying to fight mountaintop removal. Many are just people who have lived in those communities for generations — a truly wonderful grassroots effort.
Does WV have those stupid laws that permit companies ownership and rights to land below the surface — even though individuals have deeds to property on top? (Or, is that a different type of mining)? Do the companies just own the whole mountain, lock, stock and barrel? Can state laws help curtail some of this mining, or are they in cahoots? Too many questions, I know.
Again, great diary
Don’t know about WV, but here in CO there is a controversy along exactly these same lines, involving natural gas drilling rather than coal. There are places and circumstances where mineral (underground) property rights trump “surface” rights — which has a lot of ordinary people frustrated.
In my car late yesterday afternoon, I heard a brilliant report on this selenium issue on NPR. But I can’t find the story at NPR. Damn.
It’s really a “must-hear.” I’ll keep trying. (Or if any of you heard it, and remember which show it was, perhaps you can help find it … npr.org)
NPR’s search engine sucks. But I found the story:
Environment
Scientists Criticize Proposed EPA Change on Selenium
LISTEN
by Elizabeth Shogren
All Things Considered, June 9, 2005 · Scientists are criticizing the Environmental Protection Agency over its plan to change the limits for selenium pollution. The scientist who wrote the study used as the basis of the new rules says the EPA has twisted his findings to allow more pollution than is safe.
It’s very, very good — great research by NPR’s reporters!
OK, tried this once and it did not appear. I’ll try again.
I heard this too and have been thinking about it ever since. Yesterday was the first day of pick-up at my CSA (a fantastic source of fresh, organically grown veggies and interesting people- btw), I was driving home with fresh greens for my family and feeling good about life when this story came on ATC. I listened to the EPA woman bragging that only 80% (by their underestimation) of fish would be injured at this level and I immediately found myself cursing an administration that hires sell-out scientists willing to risk the health and welfare of future generations for the short-term gain of industry(Republican Donors). I, in no way, mean to denigrate all government scientists. I know many are biding their time, trying to do what is right (even dragging their feet on implementation)and waiting for January 2009.
Oops- only 20% would likely be injured by this concentration- if not for that nasty winter problem.
about mountaintop mining Appalchia. Unfortunately, I can’t find it on their website. I think it was in the April or May issue.
RFK Jr. is great on this topic too .. I’ve heard him rant on his Air America weekend show, “Ring of Fire,” about the insanity and horrific damage to the environment.
ARCHIVES: http://www.airamericaplace.com
After listening to the fantastic report on NPR yesterday — they got their mitts on some of the documents, and they weren’t allowed to talk to that forest service scientist — I’m thinking this might be a “trigger” issue to expose this practice to the entire American public. Hope so.
I hear the headline last night but didn’t catch the story. At the time I thought to myself “Selenium, that’s an odd limit for them to be trying to change. I wonder why?” But I didn’t have the chance to follow up on it. Thanks for a great diary explaining it.
I’m an environmental chemist, and there are some additional issues here we need to be aware of as well:
– It’s a lot easier / cheaper to collect water samples than fish samples. If the cost of sampling goes up, you can imagine the impact on the sampling programs for enforcement at cash-strapped regulatory agencies. Who does that help?
– It’s a lot easier / cheaper to analyze water samples than tissue samples. Water samples keep a lot longer (6 months if acidified), allowing retesting if there are problems with the test results the first time around, like lab contamination leading to uncertainty about the data. Water sample testing is so well established and the price has dropped to the point that citizen groups and even Boy Scout troops can collect samples and have them analyzed. How to combat this trend towards citizen involvement in enforcement? Change the testing to make it harder and more costly, of course!
– It’s a lot easier to interpret water data than fish data. The tests for water have been so finely honed over the years that you typically have a good result you can “hang your hat on.” Tissue samples are much “nastier” (Step 1 of the analysis is literally to put the fish into the “Bass-o-Matic” from Saturday Night Live) and because you’re trying to test witches brew your results are more likely to be biased or an estimated result. Sorry, but it’s nowhere near as quick, easy, or clean-cut as on CSI. Who does that uncertainty benefit?
– It’s a lot easier to use water data than fish data. There’s an established body of water regulations going back decades. Fish data, on the other hand, isn’t typically judged against regulatory limits, it’s been fed into a risk assessment where you have to make a number of professional judgments on who eats what, how often, for how long, what health effect this will have, etc. The issues aren’t nearly as clear-cut. Some would say that just better reflects the reality of the situation. While that’s true, it also opens the door to endless disputes tying up any enforcement action against a polluter when compared against using a water-based regulatory limit. Who does that help? If a tissue-based limit is proposed, expect endless fighting in the regulation-making process and in subsequent court action. (Sample issue – What species of fish do you test and why? Shouldn’t this be decided on an ecosystem or watershed basis, since different fish, birds, etc. live in different places? Is this really workable for environmental enforcement? Doesn’t each situation then become like the ecological assessments of the Exxon Valdez disaster? Who can afford that?) This sword cuts both ways – there will be many avenues to fight for meaningful protections for the rest of Bush’s term.
My biggest fear is that if they’re successful going to a tissue-based regulation here, they’ll try it in other places for a wider range of compounds, and the regulatory framework of Clean Water Act enforcement will become as tattered as what they’re already doing to Clean Air Act enforcement. Why am I not surprised?
This is indeed a problem, both on the Selenium front and on the mining devastation front. But it’s not good enough to simply be against something, there must be a counterproposal that is acceptable. What is that counterproposal?
Is it mining in West Virginia that is the problem? Or is it the Selenium? Is it ok to use bad mining technology in, say, Wyoming where there aren’t as many people? Do we get our energy from nuclear power instead? Enforce conservation laws that reduce individual use of electrical power?
This problem is not entirely the result of money-grubbing energy companies. Progressives must propose an alternative that offers a suitable tradeoff between the environment and energy use. We can’t just be against everything…
What should we do instead of leveling West Virginia?
and it made my blood boil (more than usual, that is). It was especially galling to hear how the key government scientist involved has been gagged. Ugh!
Alan
Maverick Leftist
If anybody wants to see this, maps.google.com has a neat feature. Double click on somewhere around the WV-KY border and start zooming in. When you get maybe five clicks in, go to the upper right and click “satellite”. The strip mines are not that hard to find.
We are living in the backstory to the Handmaiden’s Tale: This is how all those ecological dead zones (that they send prisoners off to to die as slave laborers) get created.
Everything downstream–including the Ohio and Mississippi River basins–is going to be contaminated to the point that human viability will be affected.
This is all so sick.
Suggest alternatives! Rev. Jones, maybe we should start by just not drinking that kool-ade. After we have managed that there will be plenty of time to think about what to do next.
Recommended.