Wyomings Proposed Coal Fired Power Plants

1
Wyomings Proposed Coal Fired Power Plants

• Environmental and Health Problems and Realistic
  Solutions

2
New Power Plant Proposals in Wyoming

• Two Elk 2 in the Powder River Basin has received
  its Air Quality Permit from the Air Quality
  Division of the Wyoming Department of
  Environmental Quality.
• WyGen 2 to be located just east of Gillette
  received their permit as well.
• Jim Bridger Power Plant in Sweetwater County is
  considering a major expansion.

3
Health Effects

• Soot or Particulate Matter
• Mercury
• Ozone
• Carbon Dioxide

4
Soot or Particulate Matter

• The burning of coal emits sulfur dioxide (SO2)
  and nitrogen oxide (NOx) gases, which can form
  fine particles, or soot, when they react with the
  atmosphere. Several well-publicized
  epidemiological studies conducted over the past
  10 years suggest that sulfate particles were
  positively correlated with adverse health effects
  such as respiratory disease, cardiovascular
  disease, and lung cancer.

5
Mercury

• Mercury levels in ambient air are generally far
  too low to constitute a health or environmental
  hazard. However, because mercury can convert to
  toxic methylmercury after it is deposited in
  terrestrial and aquatic environments, it can
  accumulate in aquatic food chains and expose
  humans to potentially harmful doses of mercury
  via food (primarily fish) consumption. Health
  effects include birth defects, and nervous system
  and learning disorders. In adults it may affect
  blood pressure and heart rate.

6
Ozone

• Ozone is formed when nitrogen oxide reacts with
  other pollutants in the presence of sunlight.
  Health effects include rapid breathing, airway
  irritation, and coughing. Ozone makes asthma
  worse and may be related to cardiac birth
  defects, low birthweights and stunted lung growth.

7
Carbon Dioxide

• Carbon dioxide is formed when coal is burned.
  Indirect health effects may be associated with
  climate change, including the spread of
  infectious diseases from more temperate climates,
  higher atmospheric ozone levels and increased
  heat- and cold-related illnesses.

8
National Health Impacts of Power Plants

• Health Effect Incidence (cases per year)
• Mortality 23,600
• Hospital Admissions 21,850
• Emergency Room Visits for Asthma 26,000
• Heart Attacks 38,200
• Chronic Bronchitis 16,200
• Asthma Attacks 554,000
• Lost Work Days 3,186,000

9
Environmental Effects of Power Plant Emissions

• Ozone
• Toxins
• Acid Rain
• Global Warming
• Nitrogen Deposition
• Visibility

10
Ozone

• When nitrogen oxide (NOx) reacts with volatile
  organic compounds (VOCs) and sunlight, ground
  level ozone, or smog, forms. Ozone can damage
  plants and native vegetation. Pondersosa pine is
  particularly susceptible to this effect, making
  the trees more vulnerable to beetle kills and
  other natural threats.

11
Toxins

• Power plants are one of the largest sources of
  toxic metal compound pollution. Together they
  released more than one billion pounds of toxic
  pollution in 1998, including 9 million pounds of
  toxic metals and metal compounds and 750 million
  pounds of dangerous acid gases. One of the most
  dangerous toxins emitted is mercury.

12
Acid Rain

• Acid rain is formed when sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
  nitrogen oxide (NOx) react with water and oxygen
  in the atmosphere to form acidic compounds, most
  commonly sulfuric and nitric acid. This can be
  especially devastating to aquatic life in
  high-altitude lakes.

13
Global Warming

• Burning fossil fuels such as coal releases carbon
  dioxide (CO2) pollution. The US has four percent
  of the world's population yet emits 25 of the
  global warming pollution. Power plants emit 40
  of US carbon dioxide pollution, the primary
  global warming pollutant.

14
Nitrogen Deposition

• Coal-fired power plants contribute to excessive
  nitrogen being deposited in soils and water
  bodies. This causes overfertilization that leads
  to algae blooms, which deprive aquatic life of
  oxygen and destroy habitat.

15
Visibility

• Coal-burning power plants cause most of the
  sulfate particles which cause haze and reduce
  visibility. Nationally, coal-plant related
  visibility reductions in our parks and wilderness
  areas causes an estimated 4.3 billion annual
  impact.

16
Visibility

• National Parks and Wilderness Areas rely on good
  visibility for the enjoyment of visitors and to
  maintain a pristine environment.
• Northern Cheyenne Tribe opted for a Class One
  airshed designation for its reservation when
  presented the opportunity to protect its members
  from nearby power plant pollution.

17
Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota

• Located approximately 100 miles from the proposed
  facility, Wind Cave is a Class One airshed.
• (Insert photo here)

18
Badlands National Park Sage Creek Wilderness
Area, South Dakota

• Approximately 100 miles from the proposed sites
  another Class One airshed

19
Cloud Peak Wilderness Area, Wyoming

• Roughly 90 miles west is Cloud Peak Wilderness in
  the Bighorn Mountains west of Sheridan

20
Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana
21
Other Significant Areas Near the New Power Plants
Where Visibility Could be Impaired

• Mount Rushmore National Memorial
• Devils Tower (Americas first National Monument)
• Keyhole State ParkNE Wyomings premier
  recreation area
• Sand Creek (Wyomings first adjudicated instream
  flow)
• Ranch A Education Center on the National Historic
  Register
• Black Hills National Forest
• Black Elk Wilderness Area
• Minuteman Missile National Historic Site
• Jewel Cave National MonumentWorlds
  third-longest cave
• Bear Butte State ParkSacred site to the Lakota
  Tribes
• Custer State ParkSouth Dakotas largest State
  Park

22
About the Proposed Plants
23
Two Elk 2

• The proposed plant would be located adjacent to
  the Black Thunder Coal Mine, 8 miles east of
  Wright, in the Thunder Basin National Grassland
• Initial Proposal was in 1996
• Would burn 1.8 million tons of locally produced
  coal per year
• All Coal would come from the Black Thunder Mine.

24
The Problem with Permits Two Elk 2

• Initial Application November 1997
• Public Notice Provided December 1997
• Issuance of Permit February 27th, 1998

25
Two Elk 2 Deadline Set

• In 1999, NAPG applied to amend its permit to
  modify the facility and move it to a new
  location.
• The Air Quality Division of the DEQ again posted
  a public notice for the permit modification on
  January 12, 2000, with a final permit approved on
  February 17, 2000.
• Condition 4 of that permit indicated that if
  construction did not commence within 24 months of
  the date of permit issuance, the permit would
  become invalid.

26
Two Elk 2 Deadline missed

• In January 2002, Two Elk Generation Partners
  claimed to have commenced construction. TEGP
  cited combined project costs topping 25 million
  since inception of Two Elk, though these costs
  apparently were for facility design rather than
  on-site construction. Wyoming DEQ concluded
  construction had not begun, but gave a one-time,
  six-month extension until August 2002.
• TEGP notified Wyoming DEQ that it had commenced
  construction, by driving piles marking boiler
  foundation placement. As proof, TEGP submitted
  photographs of the driving of three steel beams
  into bare ground.

27
Two Elk 2 No Public Comment

• In September 2002, DEQ told TEGP it had seen no
  evidence of contracts for the power generated by
  Two Elk, and determined that the construction
  permit had expired when TEGP failed either to do
  so or to prove that a loss of the permit would
  cause significant monetary harm.
• After TEGP sued the state, the permit was
  reissued in June 2003 without public notice or
  comment, an apparent violation of the Clean Air
  Act under which the DEQ administers federal
  air-quality regulatory programs. To date, no
  challenge has been filed regarding this apparent
  violation.

28
Two Elk 2 New Delays Deadline

• The air quality construction permit as reissued
  requires that construction begin and contracts be
  in place by June 2005.
• Project delays could lead to either abandonment
  orre-application. Such delays could result from
  a lack of funding from the North American Power
  Group, or the permitting process stalling while
  NAPG struggles to prove that they have met all
  the requirements and obligations in the permit
  application.

29
Major Impacts Two Elk 2

• Two Elk 2 would impact the air quality most
  directly on the Thunder Basin National Grassland,
  a Class Two airshed.
• Within Thunder Basin NG are several independent
  family agricultural operations, as well as prime
  antelope and deer hunting lands. Sage grouse also
  use this area extensively.
• Other activities within the TBNG are coal mining,
  and oil and gas drilling and exploration. The
  TBNG is currently enjoying the full attention of
  the Bush Administrations energy policy.

30
WyGen 2 - History

• Proponent Black Hills Corp.
• Construction Contractor Unknown
• Type Conventional pulverized coal plant
• MegaWatts 500
• Air Quality Permit Status Issued September 2002
  NPS challenging aspects construction deadline
  Sept. 25, 2005 extended from Sept. 14, 2004

31
WyGen 2 cont.

• Owned by Black Hills Corp. and located near
  WyoDak Mine in Campbell County on Interstate 90
  between Gillette and Moorcroft, the proposed
  WyGen2 plant would produce supplemental energy
  for the Western power grid.
• The location selected for the facility sits
  within primarily rolling hills, with a mean
  elevation off 4,400 feet. This new facility could
  impact four Class One (or administrative
  equivalent) airshed areas.

32
WyGen 2 Site Concerns

• WyGen 2 would be located on site which already
  contains 6 power plants which have a total
  generating capacity of 672 megawatts.
• No studies of Keyhole Reservoir have ever been
  conducted to determine if mercury accumulation is
  occurring in its sports fish population.
• Studies are needed to determine current air
  quality degradation from the existing 6 power
  plants on Class One airsheds and non-attainment
  areas.

33
Potential Technical Solutions

• First Energy conservation and efficiency
• Second - Focus on Renewable Energy Resources
• Third Use Integrated Gasification Combined
  Cycle Technology

34
Energy Conservation and Efficiency

• The U.S. Department of Energy study, Scenarios
  for a Clean Energy Future, shows that energy
  efficiency measures could avoid the need for
  building approximately 610 new power plants
  between now and 2020. Measures studied include
• Limits on all major types of power plant
  pollution
• Stronger efficiency standards for appliances and
  buildings
• Establishment of a fund to increase energy
  efficiency investments by utilities and other
  energy service companies, supported by a charge
  on electricity transmission

35
Focus on Renewable Energy Resources

• The same study, Scenarios for a Clean Energy
  Future, shows that adding new renewable power
  capacity (wind, geothermal, biomass and others)
  could eliminate the need for about 180 new power
  plants. Measures studied include
• Tax incentives to expand the market for
  high-efficiency technologies and renewable
  generation
• Increased funding for energy efficiency and
  renewable energy research and development

36
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) -
What is it?

• Chemical conversion of coal to synthetic gas for
  combustion in a modified gas turbine
• Inherently cleaner process because
• Coal is not combusted.
• Pollutants are removed with greater efficiency
  because clean-up occurs while syngas volume is
  relatively small and under pressure.

37
IGCC Governors seek incentives

• In April 2004, the Western Governors Association
  held the North American Energy Summit to
  recommend a secure energy future.
• One theme of the conference was how to keep coal
  a viable energy source as global warming concerns
  increase
• Participants recommended that governors create
  incentives for zero-emissions technologies such
  as IGCC

38
How You Can Help
39
How You Can Help

• Spread the Word
• Support Administrative Appeals
• Safeguard the Permitting Process
• Request Technical Solutions
• Demand Stronger Monitoring of Impacts

40
Spread the WordWhat Can You Do?

• Write a Letter to the Editor about coal-plant
  impacts or flaws in the state permitting
  process
• Casper Star-Tribune, P.O. Box 80, Casper, WY
  82602
• Casper Journal, 351 N. Lennox, Casper, WY 82601
• Sheridan Press, P.O. Box 2006, Sheridan, WY 82801
• The News-Record, P.O. Box 3006, Gillette, WY
  82717
• Buffalo Bulletin, P.O. Box 730, Buffalo, WY 82834

41
AppealsWhat Can You Do?

• Among affected airsheds, only those in South
  Dakota have been protected via administrative
  appeal. The National Park Service objected to the
  permit for WyGen 2 due to concerns about
  air-quality degradation in Class One areas in
  South Dakota. To date, the appeal is still
  pending before the Wyoming Environmental Quality
  Council (EQC), which has the discretion to
  determine whether to hear the appeal formally.
  Meanwhile, the permit stays in force.
• Write the EQC and urge them to give this appeal
  a fair hearing as soon as possible.

42
How to Contact the EQC

• On the Web
• http//deq.state.wy.us/eqc/index.asp
• U.S. Mail
• Environmental Quality Council
• Herschler Building, Room 1714
• Cheyenne, WY 82002

43
EQC Members

• Jon Brady, Secretary (D-Alcova) 3/1/07
• Wendy Hutchinson (R-Gillette) 3/1/07
• Richard C. Moore (D-Laramie) 3/1/08
• Sara M. Flitner (R-Jackson) 3/1/08
• Mark Gordon, Vice-Chair (R-Buffalo) 3/1/07
• Olin D. Sims, Chair (R-McFadden) 3/1/05
• John N. Morris (D-Cheyenne) 3/1/05

44
Safeguard the Permitting ProcessWhat Can You Do?

• The Wyoming DEQ has repeatedly extended deadlines
  for Two Elk power plant construction to begin.
  This undermines the credibility of the air
  quality permit process.
• Write the DEQ Director to ask that permit
  requirements for Two Elk be carefully enforced.

45
How to Contact the DEQ Director

• Send a letter or e-mail toJohn Corra,
  DirectorWY Department of Environmental
  Quality122 W. 25th St., Herschler
  BuildingCheyenne, WY 82002deqwyo_at_state.wy.us
• Or, call the Directors Office(307) 777-7937

46
Request Technical SolutionsWhat Can You Do?

• Call for conservation and efficiency
• Demand Renewable Energy Focus
• Encourage IGCC alternatives

47
Energy Conservation and EfficiencyWhat Can You
Do?

• Contact Wyomings Congressional Delegation to ask
  their support for energy conservation initiatives
  at the federal level.
• The Hon. Barbara Cubin, 1114 LHOB, Washington, DC
  20515
• The Hon. Mike Enzi, 379-A RSOB, Washington, DC
  20510
• The Hon. Craig Thomas, 307 DSOB, Washington, DC
  20510

48
Renewable Energy ResourcesWhat Can You Do?

• Contact Wyomings Congressional Delegation to ask
  their support for renewable energy development at
  the federal level.
• The Hon. Barbara Cubin, 1114 LHOB, Washington, DC
  20515
• The Hon. Mike Enzi, 379-A RSOB, Washington, DC
  20510
• The Hon. Craig Thomas, 307 DSOB, Washington, DC
  20510

49
IGCC What Can You Do?

• Write Gov. Freudenthal and ask him to urge state
  agencies and private industry to reconsider
  proposals for coal-fired power plants as IGCC
  facilities instead, and to bring forward
  incentives to make this happen if necessary.
• Governor Dave Freudenthal
• State Capitol, 200 West 24th StreetCheyenne, WY
  82002-0010
• 307-777-7434 (phone)307-632-3909 (fax)
  307-777-7860 (TTY)
• governor_at_state.wy.us

50
Demand Stronger Monitoring of ImpactsWhat Can
You Do?

• Wyoming Game Fish officials conduct a limited
  amount of fish sampling to test for mercury
  accumulation in fish that our anglers catch and
  eat.
• Fish in Keyhole Reservoir near Gillette, downwind
  and downstream of many power plants, have not
  been sampled in recent years.

51
Demand Stronger Monitoring of ImpactsWhat Can
You Do?

• Write to the Game Fish Director and ask that
  Keyhole Reservoir be added to the next round of
  sampling for mercury and other contaminants.
• Terry Cleveland, DirectorWY Game Fish
  Department5400 Bishop Blvd.Cheyenne, WY 82006

52
Its Not Too Late!

• In Wyoming, because of our low population, a
  small number of public comments can be very
  influential in motivating public officials to
  uphold the law and protect our natural resources
  and environment.
• Citizen interest in holding any new power plants
  to the highest standard of necessity, clean
  operations and diligent monitoring will make a
  difference!

53

• For Copies of this power point on a CD Rom or
  other digital format, contact
• Ben Lamb
• WY Conservation Voters Education Fund
• P.O. Box 2664
• Casper WY, 82602
• [phone]
• ben_at_wyovoters.org