Dept. of Interior wants coal-fired plant on holdBy Doug Pardue (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Friday, December 7, 2007
On the WebPrevious stories on mercury The U.S. Department of Interior said approval of Santee Cooper's proposed $1 billion coal-fired power plant needs to be put on hold until a comprehensive analysis is done of potential damage to the Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge from mercury fallout and other air pollution that the plant would generate. The department's Fish and Wildlife Service recommends that Santee Cooper abandon plans for a standard coal burning plant and possibly replace it with a modern coal gasification plant, a more expensive process that releases far less air pollution. Only a few such plants are in operation in the world, but the wildlife service said more are being constructed in the U.S. and more are in planning stages as several states push to reduce air pollution and cut emissions that contribute to global warming. Lonnie Carter, Santee Cooper's president and chief executive officer, told The Post and Courier in an earlier interview that the proposed plant is the only feasible way to supply the amount of electricity needed by 2012 and that without it, lights could go out. He called coal gasification too experimental to rely on, and that the proposed plant would be one of the nation's cleanest. Laura Varn, the power company's head of communications and media relations, said Santee Cooper was aware of the interior department's comments and considers them to be part of the review and comment process on getting the plant approved. She said the company is pleased that interior gave the proposal such a thorough evaluation. Varn also said that today Santee Cooper will outline further steps it plans to take to reduce its dependence on coal and make nuclear and non-greenhouse producing fuels account for 40 percent of its power generation by 2020. Santee Cooper currently gets 13 percent of its electricity from nuclear, hydro and other power sources. The state Department of Health and Environmental Control has issued a preliminary air pollution permit for the plant to be built in Florence County and will make a decision on whether to grant the permit after time for public comment is cut off in late January. The Fish and Wildlife Service expressed its concerns about the plant in two letters obtained this week by The Post and Courier. In a letter dated Sept. 11, Fish and Wildlife urged DHEC to make no decisions permitting any aspect of the plant until "a comprehensive and adequate review of the project and its affects to the environment, the atmosphere, and the quality of human life is conducted." In a second letter, dated Oct. 3, the service said the project's air pollution emissions, particularly mercury and sulfur dioxide, pose threats to several state and federal wildlife sanctuaries, including the Cape Romain and Waccamaw national wildlife refuges. The letter said much of South Carolina's coastal forest and the dune and marsh grasses in the Cape Romain refuge could be damaged by increased levels of acid rain due to the sulfur releases. In addition, the letter urges DHEC to fully analyze the effects of increased mercury fallout from the plant into rivers already contaminated with enough mercury that the state warns people not to eat fish caught in some of the waters. The Cape Romain refuge, 60 miles southeast of the proposed plant, is designated as a "Class 1" area under the U.S. Clean Air Act, which requires that such areas get additional air quality protection. DHEC spokesman Thom Berry said the agency is preparing a response to the letters and plans to talk with Santee Cooper about conducting additional tests that only the company can do. Berry declined to elaborate on the response or the additional tests. Mercury pollution from the proposed plant became a special concern for environmental groups and some residents in the Pee Dee region in late October when The Post and Courier revealed that it had conducted tests on people who eat fish from two of the most mercury contaminated rivers in the state. The newspaper discovered that nearly half of those tested had mercury levels exceeding the government's safety margin. Above that level, mercury can cause major health problems, including brain damage. DHEC has tested mercury levels in fish for decades but doesn't test people, preferring only to warn them to not eat or to limit the amount of certain fish they eat from the state's rivers and coastline. On Thursday, four doctors from Florence County urged the state to begin testing people for mercury, especially people living in or near the so-called mercury triangle, an area between the Little Pee Dee and Lynches rivers, where fish have the highest mercury readings. DHEC spokesman Adam Myrick said the agency is reviewing the doctors' request to test people. Dr. Ken Kammer, one of the physicians, said in a statement, "The agency now knows, thanks to publicized laboratory findings, that citizens in this state have dangerously high levels of mercury in their bodies. Given mercury's toxic effects, this is a clear health problem." Reach Doug Pardue at dpardue@postandcourier.com or 937-5558. |
Article tools
| |||
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 14 comment(s)
Posted by MCSC on December 7, 2007 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Santee Cooper is doing a great job with providing low cost power to the people of South Carolina! Think about this: The next time you get up on a cold morning and you turn on the heat, ask yourself where the electric is coming from to heat your house. The next time you fix yourself something to eat, ask yourself where is the electric coming from for the stove to work. Everyone depends on electric for different reasons. Let Santee Cooper do their work and keep supplying electric to the residents of South Carolina!
Posted by rmike on December 7, 2007 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is sad that so many truly believe that a state agency has the option to make subjective decisions about permits. That, however you may feel about it, is not the case. The SC General Assembly has for all intents, prevented the enactment of more stringent environmental regulations for decades.
This is a question of standards, emission limits set in regulation. Just as the Post Office will sell you a stamp if you show up with the correct change, the state is compelled by law to issue a permit to an applicant whose design is proposed to meet state and federal standards. Let's get busy with Congress and EPA, where these standards originate and stop picking on the folks at DHEC who are doing their job as they are mandated to by law.
Posted by Pols101 on December 7, 2007 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Build a nuclear plant and you will have unlimited power for decades.
Posted by Early on December 7, 2007 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MCSC, ever been to France? What are you one of those lobbyist for Santee Cooper? How do most other plants provide us our warm fuzzy BS items like you posted up there?
Get real!
Posted by coastal_explorer on December 7, 2007 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense"
the irony is palpable...
Posted by MCSC on December 7, 2007 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No, I'm not a lobbyist and would love to go to France. We are talking about South Carolina. Coal is not a bad thing neither is nuclear or gas. If a private company was coming into the state and building, rates would be much higher. Santee Cooper is just trying to keep rates low and provide power.
Posted by jnot on December 7, 2007 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/us_...
South Carolina uses more electricity per capita than 46 other states and three times as much as California. If we could even move to the middle of that list we wouldn't need the plant at all, we'd all pay less on our power bills and maybe we'd see a future where our children could eat fish. Oh to dream.
Posted by coastal_explorer on December 7, 2007 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Consider that it is Socratic Irony..."
ah! you pretend to be ignorant to expose the ignorance of others. very clever there Socrates, you play the part well...
Posted by csor on December 7, 2007 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.energy.ca.gov/naturalgas/stat...
South Carolina uses less natural gas per capita than 41 other states and thirty percent less than California. Looks like more people in California use natural gas to heat their homes and not heat pumps. Maybe the anti-coal groups should put their money where their mouths are and buy South Carolinians new heating and cooling systems that use natural gas for heating. I'm sure SC Pipeline will appreciate their business.
Posted by MCSC on December 7, 2007 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Speaking of California.....South Carolina hasn't had blackouts or brownouts whereas at one time California had to deal with that. Thanks Santee Cooper for the electric you produced so that doesn't happen to us. Nothing wrong with looking into the environmental issues of Coal fired plants but also people need to look at the big picture!!
Posted by Early on December 7, 2007 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why not nuclear? Because it cost more to build therefore less profit and more time to re-coupe the money of investors. This big business power and electric has been the focal spot of corruption from day one. Nuclear is safe, clean, and efficient and has a far less impact on the environment. These guys want it cheep to maximize profits and literally, really literally do not give a damn about the environmental issues. How many of the executives do you think live in the so-called triangle? Remember the mercury level issues? I am a southerner but I get so frustrated that we are always behind in forward thinking.
Posted by meow on December 7, 2007 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why not nuclear? Because it would not be built in time to meet the demand. Santee Cooper is building a nuclear plant but it will not be complete until 2016. If you don't mind 4 years of rolling blackouts, go ahead and cancel the coal fired plant.
FYI
Profit has nothing to do with this. Utilities are regulated and seek rate adjustments based on actual costs. No matter what they choose to build, they will be allowed to recoup the costs thru rate hikes. Utilities try to conserve costs and keep rates reasonable. This is not done for the little man. If they start to charge too much, industrial customers like Nucor would close up and move to a new location.
Posted by angryinjun on December 7, 2007 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Doug, you forgot steel production. Memory serves, there are at least four, if not five, steel plants in SC. I'm sure the people at those plants (in addition to those in the aluminum industry) are very happy for the jobs these companies provide them...puts food on the table, keeps a roof over their heads, gives them the ability to put their kids through college.
Posted by angryinjun on December 7, 2007 at 10:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"P&C covered it."
Last time I checked, P&C didn't check all of their facts. Within the mercury "series" there have been a number of posts with research showing P&C had not done their own research. I'd be willing to bet that anything the P&C has posted on a scientific issue (or anything dealing with issues beyond "i before e, except after "c", or when it sounds like "a", as in "neighbor" or "weigh") is completely wrong.
How much is CCL paying you to post on this, JohnQ? For that matter, how much is CCL paying P&C for posting this garbage? I used to think the movie Absence of Malice was an imaginary story into excessive yellow journalism, but with this series, I am thinking this sort of "malice journalism" is more practiced than thought. What other series on P&C is little more than elaborate fancy to sell newspapers? For all anyone knows, everything posted in the P & C are lies. Does the First Amendment cover lying to people?