Re:Missouri Flunks! -- Save EPA & Coal Ash Rule -- Landfill Update

Subject: Missouri Flunks! -- Save EPA and Coal Ash Rule -- Landfill Update
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 19:05:26 +0000

	Some news and information from  Labadie Environmental Organization August 25, 2011 ____________________________________________________ When Will County Commission Decide Landfill Zoning Issue?     Tick.  Tock.  No "save the date" for this event.  Check the Commission agenda every Friday afternoon here  and attend the Tuesday 10 am Commission meetings at the Government Center in Union.  The decision meeting will likely happen in the next several weeks and with very little notice.   An action alert will be sent as soon as we know. But there is still time to put the Commissioners on notice that landfills DO NOT belong in a floodplain or a floodway or a seismic impact zone… EVER.   Strong rules at the local level that actually protect affected residents are more important than ever now that we know these 3 things: 1.       State coal ash regulations that truly protect the public are a myth 2.       No national coal ash standards currently exist,  and 3.       Congress is actively trying to prevent future enactment of national coal ash standards.  The landfill issue represents the intersection of local, state and federal policies and how they should work together to benefit the public but often end up failing to do that.  Here's what we've learned. Myth Busted!  Missouri flunks the test when it comes to managing coal ash.   According to a recent state-by-state analysis, Missouri falls in the top 12 of the worst states for coal ash management.  # 6 to be exact.  That's an alarming statistic that must be emphasized to the Franklin County Commission as they wrestle with zoning changes that would allow coal ash landfills.  This report debunks the myth that state regulatory agencies are strong and actually protect the public from the dangers of toxic coal ash.   Read the report here (Missouri details are on pg 15 of the report) and then take action.  Here are 3 easy ways to share your concerns with the Commissioners. Ø  Send an email to commission@franklinmo.net Ø  Send a letter to Franklin County Commission, 400 E. Locust, Union, Mo. 63084 or Ø  Call 636-583-6358 Trusting state regulations on coal ash management will protect our drinking water creates a false sense of security.  The truth is, State regulations are lacking and/or unenforced.  But surely the EPA will come to the rescue.  Won't they?  Not if the House of Representatives get their way. Coal Ash Rule and EPA Under Attack!    House Reps are on a roll – rolling back our environmental protections.   Here is a partial hit list:  ü  suspending vehicle car mileage goals ü  suspending rules on mountaintop removal mining ü  disallowing almost any activity related to greenhouse gas regulation ü  stopping stricter mercury emissions standards ü  and preventing the EPA from regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste… EVER ! The Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act are under attack … that means you, your kids, your grandkids and your future grandkids are under attack.  There are many fronts in this battle but here's how to fight back on coal ash: v  Let your member of Congress know you want federal protection from toxic coal ash.  Tell them to oppose H.R. 2273 aka "The McKinley Bill".   This bill is a gift to polluters.  Find out more here. v  Coal Ash Talking Points.  Get the lowdown here on how Congress is trying to use budget riders to the Appropriations Bill to kill coal ash protections … another gift to polluters.  For details on a different House bill (HR 2018*) that has incredibly passed the House and would dismantle 40 years of environmental progress if the Senate passes it this Fall, read this article from Health News Digest.   *The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011 will amend the Clean Water Act of 1970 and give authority over clean water regulation back to the States.  Think about that… considering Missouri is at the very end of one of the largest watersheds in the country!  WE ALL LIVE DOWNSTREAM and Missouri is downstream from many, many states.  Tell your Senator to reject HR 2018 and save the Clean Water Act.   Tell Senator McCaskill to protect the public and "unsign" the White House coal ash letter she endorsed that would prevent managing coal ash as the hazardous waste it is.  Contact your Senator here. Powerful Words and Images:    A concerned citizen recently wrote a thoughtful and moving open letter to Senator Claire McCaskill about the Ameren coal ash landfill issue.  It was prominently displayed in the August 17th edition of the Missourian.  See it here and read what one person had to say.  Get inspired to add your voice wherever you can.   www.leomo.info

---

---

Labadie Environmental Organization, Inc. PO Box 112 Labadie, Missouri 63055 US

--

*Scott's Contracting*

Green Me UP-Scotty
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://scottscontracting.wordpress.com
Twitter                      Facebook

Bad combination: Floodplains, nuclear materials and understated risk

Share173

By Bob Criss, special to the Beacon
Posted 7:00 am Fri., 6.17.11
It's only June but one thing is certain: 2011 is another extraordinary flood year. The record high water levels just experienced on the Mississippi from Cairo to Baton Rouge will soon be joined by new record levels on the Missouri River at numerous sites above Kansas City. The vagaries of rainfall delivery will dictate how bad things will become and how far downstream serious problems will propagate, but indications are that many dozens of levees will fail, either by overtopping, under-seepage or simply because they will be water saturated for long periods of time. How is it that this extraordinary flood year came so soon after the extraordinary flood year of 2008, which came so soon after the extraordinary flood years of 2001, 1995 and 1993? The explanation is that damaging episodes of high water are no longer statistically extraordinary, but rather represent the new norm. Describing these events as "50-year," "100-year" or "500-year" floods grossly mischaracterizes what's happening. Understated flood risk is not an academic matter. Faulty risk calculations are used by FEMA to set flood insurance rates that are too low and to define flood zones that are too narrow. Understated risk promotes development projects that place property and lives in hazardous areas. Ironically these same developments encroach on rivers and floodplains in a way that amplifies flood frequency and increases floodwater levels. At the same time, valuable farmland is destroyed, habitat is eliminated and surface water and ground water resources are degraded. In cases where floodplain development projects are encouraged by TIFs and other inappropriate financial inducements, tax revenues can actually go down, even as municipal responsibilities to provide services such as police and fire protection go up. Photo by Bob Criss The West Lake landfill Counterproductive enough? Not for some. Now combine the high and progressively increasing likelihood of flooding with the placement of nuclear materials in floodplains. Let's examine two examples. Incredibly, large volumes of the oldest radioactive waste materials of the Atomic Age were dumped at West Lake landfill in Bridgeton in 1973. From every conceivable viewpoint, the situation is deplorable. Radwaste does not belong in the most populous county in Missouri, near the Missouri River, upstream of several water intakes and within 1.5 miles of Interstates 70 and 270. This site has high risk factors for flooding and is underlain by soils that have high potential to undergo liquefaction during seismic shaking. USGS maps indicate that the potential for strong shaking is significant in this area, so the possibility for slumping of the landfill or the protective levee is significant, particularly during flood years when shallow sediments become saturated. Moreover, the landfill does not have a clay liner or any other protective barrier, nor does it have the leachate collection and drainage systems that are standard in modern landfills. The landfill is not capped, so wind erosion and rainwater penetration can disseminate radwaste. Historical slumping of the landfill has already spread radwaste over adjacent fields. The waste has not been adequately characterized, but enough is known to establish that its level of radioactivity will increase approximately tenfold over time.  This can occur because the systematic decay of the radionuclides produces several additional short-lived "daughter" radioisotopes that will cause the radioactivity of this waste to grow for thousands of years. Few things are as absurd as burying such waste in a substandard landfill in a floodplain in a populous area. As another example, two nuclear power plants in Nebraska have been constructed in the Missouri River floodplain where new records for flood levels are expected to be set this June. The Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant has been recently sandbagged, only a year after the plant was cited for having inadequate flood protection. Floodwaters are already adjacent to several of the buildings, and water levels are projected to increase by at least five feet. Fortunately, the reactor was recently shut down for refueling, but about 300 tons of spent fuel rods have accumulated onsite over the years. Make no mistake; some of the most serious, recent problems and explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant involved spent fuel, not just the active reactors. Of course, the NRC and power industry promoters routinely assure us that the risk of nuclear accidents is incredibly low, something akin to the probability of being attacked by a shark while riding a ski lift. The historical record provides a more realistic and vastly higher assessment of nuclear risk. More than 2 percent of the world's 440 nuclear power reactors have been irreparably harmed by nuclear accidents during their operating lifetimes - prominent cases are Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. The bottom line is that understated risk is rampant and the consequences can be economically and environmentally disastrous. Understated risk fosters inappropriate land use in high-risk geologic areas, causing harm that can spread far beyond the boundaries of the offending properties. In contrast, realistic risk calculations and improved economic assessment of construction projects will promote wise land use and resource conservation, while reducing the economic burden caused by flooding or other disasters. Thoughtful stewardship will increase opportunities for research, innovation, enterprise and job creation, and ensure a brighter and more equitable future for all. Bob Criss is a professor in the department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Washington University. He is the coauthor of the 2003 book, "At the Confluence: Rivers, Floods, and Water Quality in the St. Louis Region." To reach Voices authors, contact Beacon features and commentary editor Donna Korando.

Renewable Energy Rebates-Ameren UE-Federal Tax Incentive

Ameren UE Renewable Energy Rebate Program

Recently I was asked:

• "Why does Ameren UE buy back the electricity created by Renewable Energy System on my House?" 

When I directed the question to Ms L.Cosgrove who handles the Local Ameren UE Renewable Energy Department.  She replied:

•    "AmerenUE provides the MO Solar Rebate in response to Missourian’s passing Proposition C back in November, 2008[ii],[iii]"

In a nutshell it seems to me that Ameren UE will either have to build Renewable Energy Producing Systems or Purchase the Electricity that is made from Residents and Businesses to comply with the Law. 

Which means that Ameren has a Stake in any Renewable Energy Sytem that produces Electricity and is Interconnected utilizing Net Metering to our / their Electircal Grid here in the St Louis Area. 

Good News for all those who would like additional Monetary Incentives for Installing RE (Renewable Energy) Sytems.

The Ameren Rebate and the Federal Tax Incentive can add up to as much as 2/3 of the cost of the RE System. 

---

[i] Lisa M. Cosgrove | Renewables Specialist  | 1901 Chouteau Avenue, MC 611 | St. Louis, MO 63103

314-554-2649 | fax 314-206-1387 | lcosgrove@ameren.com   

[ii] See http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2008petitions/2008-031.asp for more details.

[iii] 2008 Initiative Petitions
Approved for Circulation in Missouri

Amendment to Chapter 393 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, Relating to Renewable Energy, version 4, 2008-031

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Be it enacted by the people of the state of Missouri:

Chapter 393, RSMo, is amended by repealing sections 393.1020, 393.1025, 393.1030, and 393.1035, and substituting therefor three new sections to be known as sections 393.1020, 393.1025 and 393.1030, to read as follows:

393.1020. Sections 393.1025 to 393.1030 shall be known as the Renewable Energy Standard.

393.1025. As used in sections 393.1020 to 393.1030, the following terms mean:

 1. "Commission", the public service commission;

 2. "Department", the department of natural resources;

 3. “Electric utility”, any electrical corporation as defined by section 386.020;

 4. "Renewable energy resources", electric energy produced from wind, solar thermal sources, photovoltaic cells and panels, dedicated crops grown for energy production, cellulosic agricultural residues, plant residues, methane from landfills or from wastewater treatment, clean and untreated wood such as pallets, hydropower (not including pumped storage) that does not require a new diversion or impoundment of water and that has a nameplate rating of 10 megawatts or less, fuel cells using hydrogen produced by one of the above-named renewable energy sources, and other sources of energy not including nuclear that become available after the effective date of this section and are certified as renewable by rule by the department; and

 5. "Renewable energy credit" or “REC”, a tradable certificate of proof that one megawatt-hour of electricity has been generated from renewable energy sources.

393.1030.1. The commission shall, in consultation with the department, prescribe by rule a portfolio requirement for all electric utilities to generate or purchase electricity generated from renewable energy resources. Such portfolio requirement shall provide that electricity from renewable energy resources shall constitute the following portions of each electric utility’s sales:

(a) No less than two percent for calendar years 2011 through 2013;

(b) No less than five percent for calendar years 2014 through 2017;

(c) No less than ten percent for calendar years 2018 through 2020; and

(d) No less than fifteen percent in each calendar year beginning in 2021. 

At least two percent of each portfolio requirement shall be derived from solar energy. The portfolio requirements shall apply to all power sold to Missouri consumers whether such power is self-generated or purchased from another source in or outside of this state. A utility may comply with the standard in whole or in part by purchasing RECs. Each kilowatt-hour of eligible energy generated in Missouri shall count as 1.25 kilowatt-hours for purposes of compliance.

2. The commission, in consultation with the department and within one year of the effective date of sections 393.1020 to 393.1030, shall select a program for tracking and verifying the trading of renewable energy credits. An unused credit may exist for up to three years from the date of its creation. A credit may be used only once to comply with this act and may not also be used to satisfy any similar non-federal requirement. An electric utility may not use a credit derived from a green pricing program. Certificates from net-metered sources shall initially be owned by the customer-generator.  The... continues on web site