Alabama Power Gorgas Plant Walker County--Rattlesnake Dam-- EPA May 2010 Inspection

Alabama Power, in response to an EPA inspection, recently released "action plans" regarding the companies' statewide coal ash pond dams that was likely the product of two things; a well designed PR move to feign responsibility from the company which has repeatedly demonstrated strong resistance to in practice, and because of pressure from the US EPA on the ever increasing high visibility issue of coal ash dam spill potential similar to the devastating TVA Kingston catastrophe in 2008.

Paul Hamaker of the Birmingham Science News Examiner wrote an excellent piece on this from May 25, 2010: (linked to above "action plans")

Six comments were received from Alabama Power Company to the original investigation and no comments were received from State Agencies including the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) even though ADEM was present at the investigation.

The reports concluded (according to Alabama Power (APC) that the units were in "satisfactory" condition -- a most favored category. APC also interprets the hazard rating as based solely on the consequences of structural failure not the likelihood of such an event.

A definite difference of interpretation is apparent in APC and EPA versions of the inspection.
APC has complied with the EPA recommendations.

The claim of compliance is from Alabama Power not Region 4 EPA which we contacted about this particular sentence who stated in response; "We have received their (AP) assurances that most of our recommendations would be implemented and we plan to follow up." To repeat Mr. Hamaker's sentence which seems appropriate here too--"A definite difference of interpretation is apparent..."

What's especially troubling as we pointed out in a recent post about Alabama Power is the lack of annual inspections, proper inspections and the lax attitude by ADEM towards a corporate entity that this state "environmental management" and regulatory (E & R) agency is making a great deal of money from in emission amount fees per ton and their permitting fees.

That is the inherent problem with many state E & R  agencies and suggests not only a predisposed concessionary nature to the arrangement but also a compelling, but not illegal conflict of interest going on with the whole scenario which reeks of collusion and is a ripe bed for possible corruption and conflicts of interest to flourish.

And it does.

That has been cited by numerous articles (Anita Archie, former ADEM Director Trey Glenn, etc) and is the basis for a lawsuit filed with the EPA to have ADEMs water permitting authority taken away based largely on their "inability to faithfully properly execute their duties and the major downturn in enforcements."

In the following inspection and engineering report this theme goes on in secrecy and the redaction of large sections  of information that are probably the result of AP, their lawyers (Balch & Binghman's Steve Burns was present at the inspection) and negotiations with the EPA who has been instrumental in assisting these coal cannibals stay under a cloak of secrecy.

The Public Affairs Council's thoughts on corporate transparency;

It seems that everyone - from the institutional investor to the anti-globalization protester - is demanding more corporate transparency.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This legislation made major changes in the rules for corporate governance, financial disclosure, auditor independence and corporate criminal liability. 

One of the key premises of the law is that transparency serves as a deterrent to illegal or unethical behavior. The more information a company is required to disclose, lawmakers reason, the more likely it is that investors will make sound decisions. (VAC Editor's note--this also was part of the AP shareholder resolution)

Activists don't just want to know what a company produces; they want to know how it is produced. Are child laborers used? Are worker conditions safe? Are toxic emissions being released into the air? What is a company doing to reclaim the land it has mined for minerals? 

Just as Enron spurred the outcry for more financial disclosure, scandals (and alleged scandals) dealing with companies ranging from Nike to Royal Dutch Shell have created a host of initiatives to require detailed reporting of company operations around the world.

In this environment, corporate CEOs and their communications and public affairs counselors must ask themselves a series of tough questions:

• Can we comply with the laws and keep up with the public's expectations?

• Where is this push toward greater transparency going?

• Will greater transparency build trust in our company or will it merely open the door to further harsh scrutiny?

Corporate management needs to take on the responsibility for creating an open environment. "Some companies will lean forward into disclosure and make that information transparent to their investors," said NIRI President and CEO Lou Thompson in a recent speech. "Some companies will be leaders. Others will reluctantly comply with these new rules as their lawyers counsel that being too progressive involves too much risk." 

With that in mind should a disaster occur with any of Alabama Power's coal ash ponds the public would perhaps be more open to to the "benefit of the doubt should a crisis occur." But instead the atmosphere that Alabama Power, their lawyers and PR men have created is one of selective information and arbitrarily deciding that they alone know best what is a risk and what is not. They simply will not allow full scrutiny and disclosure on this issue. All published indicators seem to point to that thinking being highly fallible and potentially dangerous to the public health and the environmental destruction that a big spill would cause.

The following document has so much redaction that it deserves to be questioned and certainly should raise some serious red flags to the reader:

Dam Inspection Report--Gorgas Steam Plant Alabama Power Company Walker County, Alabama

Google Map of the Gorgas Plant

Total Coal Ash: 352.9 thousand tons

View Larger Map

Alabama Power is probably the most well-connected political corporation in the state and they wield the mighty kick of the New Mules (BARD) with a ferocity that rivals their oppressive and dominant predecessor the Big Mules. If you have the money and the political connections "The World Is Yours" which was the mantra of the movie Scarface and isn't too far off of what some relationships are between corporate heavyweights and their political money addicts--minus the illegal addictions and guns. It's still about "you got the money, you got the power, you get what you want."

An article published in e! Science News on September 21, 2010 originating from Wiley-Blackwell and based on a study by the journal of Financial Management makes the clear connection between political corruption and corporate connections which occur not only in environmental issues but extends all the way to Wall Street;

"Politically connected firms have higher leverage (in the form of preferential loans), pay lower taxes, have regulatory protection, are eligible for government aid, and have stronger market power. They differ more dramatically from their peers when their political links are stronger, and in more corrupt countries, although these characteristics can be observed worldwide." 

The article has a warning at its conclusion that is all but ignored by every big polluter in the state of Alabama, their bought and paid for political pushers and the law firms and PR men who represent and further enable them;

"Those in leadership at politically connected firms need to think about how their choices affect the long-term operations of their business, and the business and political world at large."

We would say that environmental consequences and the public health are two subjects that should be added to that conclusion, because both of them also have the potential for extreme financial consequences evidenced in many well-known events not just in Alabama but globally. This was the major point of the recent Alabama Power shareholder vote in asking for the strictest EPA classification of coal ash.

But what happens in Alabama is all about a one-sided gain with the biggest profits going to the corporation and the rest to state and local governments who use a disproportionate amount of the funds for the citizens and the state environment--most of the funds are corporate welfare and serve to further fatten the power brokers, amoral politicians and their own self-serving interests.

These corporations know this and can spot an easy mark from miles away. The destruction of Alabama's environment (and our political and legal systems) by the New Mules is based in the way they purposefully set out to find the weaknesses in the state structures and regulation loopholes, align themselves with the politicians that can assist them in exploiting these weaknesses and under the cover of money, favorable legislation and power by proxy dressed out in promises of jobs and increased tax revenues they lay out communities' corruptible leaders out for the kill.

It works every time and they know it-- it has become instinctual to them an ingrained trait that seems to defy outside influence of any kind.

We would like to presume that Alabama Power's seemingly positive step to recognize the seriousness of this issue on coal ash pond dam integrity signals that the company is perhaps rethinking their long-standing attitude of corporate secrecy regarding inspections and monitoring, but we are struggling to see compelling evidence to support this.

From the lack of annual inspections, no apparent groundwater monitoring program *2007, *2008, scant ATRs, APs confidential and proprietary claims in the media and the resistance to adopt a stricter standard for coal regulation in the shareholder meeting earlier this year all roads lead to business as usual.

** Two of only three found in the files from Jan 2000-Sept 2010.

Once again the basic tenants of the Big Mule philosophy refuse to change.

**Editor's note--there are additional links to documents in the Hamaker article that accompany the report presented here.

Gorgas Steam Plant Emissions, Commission for Environmental Cooperation 

SourceWatch Southern Company

 

Tuscaloosa, Alabama Landfill Fire Fills the Sky With Black, Inky Smoke

Tuscaloosa, Alabama was covered in thick, black inky smoke from Waste Management's (WM) Cypress Creek Landfill September 19, 2010 from a "yet to be determined" fire at the facility. Cypress Creek's spokesman is citing problems with scavengers looking for metal as a potential fire hazard at the landfill, but would not confirm that was the cause of Sunday's fire which is "under investigation."

We suggest, based on a report from the Journal of Environmental Health that there may be another reason for fires at the landfill which state environmental officials and WM won't be quick to admit.

The black smoke bellowing out of this landfill is full of chemicals and toxins. Have any public notices been issued by the landfill or ADEM? Our sources cannot confirm any. At least two companies we find on a quick search are sending their wastes there both of them manufacture roofing materials that contain Benzo(ghi)perylene among others:

(Source: US EPA)

Synonym Information 

List Name

Effluent Limitation Guidelines

Synonym

Benzo(ghi)perylene

Reason for Regulation

Priority Pollutant

The local water treatment plant sends its solids there.

The landfill spokesman says that "the scavenging going on searching for metal creates a fire hazard" in the accompanying WVUA news video. An interesting preliminary, perhaps even contrived blame game angle and probably not the truth.

Money Pits--Big Risks Lurk in Municipal Landfills

September 2010 Waste Age

By Barbara Deas

In an average year, more than 8,300 fires break out in U.S. landfills – many of them burning out of control underground – often releasing toxic gases into the atmosphere.
The 6,000 U.S. landfills produce 450 billion to 650 billion cubic feet of methane per year, creating odors, health threats and explosion risks – and attracting the attention of environmental organizations nationwide.

Oops. Seems like the Tuscaloosa group didn't get the memo about careful what you say when it can be fact-checked.  

The following is from the Journal of Environmental Health report which explains there may be other reasons for surface/subsurface fires igniting at these Construction & Demolition (C/D) landfills which is based in science, not conjecture and oddly enough they don't mention "scavengers" once in their 2008 report:

Journal of Environmental Health

September 2008 

by Michelle Colledge, Lynn Wilder

Summary:

Historically, construction and demolition (C&D) debris landfills have been considered nonhazardous operations, containing relatively inert wastes such as concrete, asphalt, wood, metals, gypsum drywall, and roofing materials. 

In recent years, however, it has become increasingly clear that emissions resulting from the decomposition of gypsum drywall and organic debris are a public health issue. Drywall, comprised of gypsum (CaSO[sub 4] • 2H[sub 2]O), breaks down into hydrogen sulfide and other sulfur compounds under anaerobic conditions and in the presence of water.

When exposed to water, the sulfate in the gypsum is dissolved in landfill leachate (Townsend, 1998). Under the same environmental conditions, organic debris degradation produces other flammable gases such as methane. As a result, surface and subsurface fires may occur at C&D landfills (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], 2002).

Drywall can be a significant constituent of C&D wastes.

Depending on the type of construction, it comprises between 5% and 25% of total C&D volume generated (Townsend et al., 2000; United States Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 1998). In the United States, C&D waste comprises a considerable portion of the overall solid waste stream.


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) estimated that over 136 million metric tons of building-related wastes were generated in 1996 (U.S. EPA, 1998). Approximately 35%-40% of these wastes were landfilled in C&D facilities.

As a comparison, this amount of C&D waste was only slightly less than the 190 million metric tons of total municipal solid waste (MSW) generated that same year (Clark, Jambeck, & Townsend, 2006).

In 1996, approximately 1,900 C&D landfills were operating in the United States (U.S. EPA, 1998). At these sites, gas emissions to ambient air are influenced by a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the volume and composition of the waste (particularly gypsum drywall content); engineering design and controls; the condition, composition, and thickness of the landfill cap; and leachate collection, removal, and handling practices.

Because U.S. EPA does not specifically regulate the operations of C&D landfills, C&D regulation is the responsibility of individual states. Clark and co-authors (2006) recently reviewed and summarized state C&D landfill regulations across the country.

The authors found little consistency from state to state in the siting and engineering design requirements of these facilities, in regulatory oversight and rules, or even in a state's definition" of what constitutes C&D waste. The authors did find, however, that state standards are generally far less stringent for C&D facilities than for MSW facilities (Clark, Jambeck, & Townsend, 2006).

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and its federal, state, and local health and environmental agency partners have recently investigated a number of C&D landfills with gas emissions that caused significant community health concerns.

Community exposures vary, but are generally greatest during stable meteorological conditions and are generally diurnal with the highest concentrations in ambient air in late evening and early morning hours. At some of these sites, concentrations of hydrogen sulfide gas in residential ambient air were at or above levels known to cause adverse human health effects.

At an Ohio C&D landfill, hydrogen sulfide concentrations in residential ambient air approached the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommended exposure limit (REL) for the occupational ceiling value of 10 parts per million (ppm) (ATSDR, 2003).

Improper leachate management at the same site also resulted in community hydrogen sulfide concentrations of up to 95 ppm on at least one occasion (ATSDR, 2006). This concentration is just below the NIOSH immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH) level of 100 ppm over 15 minutes.

Under normal conditions, hydrogen sulfide is a colorless, flammable gas. It has an odor threshold as low as 0.5 parts per billion (ppb) (ATSDR, 2006), and is typically characterized as smelling like rotten eggs or sewage. When inhaled, hydrogen sulfide readily enters the blood stream via diffusion through pulmonary alveoli. The majority of hydrogen sulfide is metabolized through oxidation into thiosulfate, then further oxidized to sulfate, which is rapidly excreted in the urine.

People with preexisting respiratory conditions or immature respiratory systems are more likely to experience adverse health effects from hydrogen sulfide exposure. Those with cardiac or nervous system disorders may also be more likely to experience adverse outcomes from hydrogen sulfide exposure. Although the exacerbation of preexisting respiratory conditions (e.g., asthma) and neurological effects (e.g., headache, nausea, and fatigue) have been noted at low levels (between 10 and 100 ppb), to date, quantifiable irritant effects levels have only been reported with exposures in the low ppm range

Although ATSDR is not an occupational health agency, staff members have noted worker health and safety issues at numerous C&D landfills. Generally, these facilities have no employee training programs on the use of personal protective equipment and no on-site monitoring programs for common C&D gases.

In one case, several employees either lost consciousness or became nauseated and evacuated the work area (Florida Department of Health [FDOH], 2007). In November 2007, four employees died as a result of exposure to high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide while attempting to repair a leachate pump at a C&D landfill in Superior, Wisconsin (Einhorn, 2007). Surface and subsurface fires at C&D landfills also pose a physical hazard to site employees.

Updates as we find them.

**Update September 20. 2010 7:03 pm

We're not at all surprised to see follow ups on this story explaining away the assumed cause of the fire on the prolonged dry weather conditions. That makes for a nice and tidy general explanation without ruffling any feathers. If dry weather is the cause then why aren't landfills all over the state catching fire because of the same conditions? True to form once again Alabama's MSM follows the path of least resistance and questions.

 

Alabama Power (Southern Co.) Shareholders Vote Against EPA Based Coal Ash Resolution

Green Century Funds published an article in May of 2010 about investors asking the EPA for the stricter of two options regarding regulations of coal ash disposal in order to protect the environment, the public and investors from another disaster like the Kingston TVA Spill in 2008.  

Southern Company shareholders, the parent company of Alabama Power (AP), considered the following resolution which is the third shareholder proposal to be voted on in 2010:

RESOLUTION TEXT:

Report on Coal Combustion Waste

WHEREAS:  Coal combustion waste (CCW) is a by-product of burning coal that contains high concentrations of arsenic, mercury, heavy metals and other toxins filtered out of smokestacks by pollution control equipment. CCW is often stored in landfills, impoundment ponds or abandoned mines. Over 130 million tons of CCW are generated each year in the U.S. Coal combustion comprises a significant portion (68%) of Southern Company’s generation capacity. 

The toxins in CCW have been linked to cancer, organ failure, and other serious health problems. In October 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a report finding that “Pollutants in coal combustion wastewater are of particular concern because they can occur in large quantities (i.e., total pounds) and at high concentrations …in discharges and leachate to groundwater and surface waters.”

The EPA has found evidence at over 60 sites in the U.S. that CCW has polluted ground and surface waters.

Recent reports by the New York Times and others have drawn attention to CCW’s impact on the nation’s waterways, as a result of leaking CCW storage sites or direct discharge into surrounding rivers and streams. 

The Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) 1.1 billion gallon CCW spill in December 2008 that covered over 300 acres in eastern Tennessee with toxic sludge highlights the serious environmental risks associated with CCW. TVA estimates a total cleanup cost of $1.2 billion. This figure does not include the legal claims that have arisen in the spill’s aftermath. 

Our company also re-uses a significant portion of its CCW. While dry CCW has several beneficial re-uses, such as in concrete and pavement, it can also pose public health and environmental risks in the dry form.The EPA plans to determine by the end of 2009 whether certain power plant by-products such as coal ash should be treated as hazardous waste, which would subject CCW to stricter regulations.

The EPA has identified over 580 CCW impoundment facilities around the country. At least 49 of these have been rated by the National Inventory of Dams (NID) as “high hazard potential” sites, where a dam breach would likely result in a loss of human life and significant environmental consequences.  According to our company’s filings with the EPA, our company operates at least 18 CCW impoundments. One of these ponds, operated by Georgia Power, has been labeled “high hazard potential” by the NID. 

Our company has withheld information about inspections and size of its ponds as confidential, despite disclosure of inspection information by all other responding companies, keeping shareholders in the dark about possible risks.

RESOLVED: Shareholders request that the Board prepare a report on the company’s efforts, above and beyond current compliance, to reduce environmental and health hazards associated with coal combustion waste, and how those efforts may reduce legal, reputational and other risks to the company’s finances and operations. This report should be available to shareholders by August 2010, be prepared at reasonable cost, and omit confidential information such as proprietary data or legal strategy. 

It all sounds 'reasonable and responsible' even if it is only viewed in the shareholder perspective of protecting their investment, from not only the cleanup costs of another big spill ($825 million in the Kingston spill est.), but also the ensuing lawsuits that inevitably accompany such a disaster. 

The resolution was not adopted.

Similar resolutions have been adopted by Northern and Midwestern shareholders who went the extra mile of choosing the strictest EPA option, but the South continues to resist any regulation of its enormous appetite for coal:

“Southern Company produces over 6 million tons of coal ash each year and operates over 20 coal ash storage facilities, but fails to provide investors meaningful information about how it prevents harmful environmental impacts and mitigates coal ash-related risks,” said Emily Stone, Shareholder Advocate at Green Century. 

"Unfortunately, none of the investors that signed onto the letter are from the South," reports Emily Stone, a shareholder advocate with Green Century Capital Management, an investment advisory firm that organized the letter along with As You Sow, a group that promotes socially responsible investing. "Most are from the Midwest, Northeast and West Coast."

An article in the Birmingham News from December of 2009 reports another dangerous position of Alabama Power and reveals their continued refusal to release basic records of their coal ash ponds safety, and inspection dam records, which effectively shields those records from public scrutiny;

Alabama Power Co. and Mississippi Power Co. are keeping basic safety and inspection records for dams around coal ash ponds out of the public eye, calling them "confidential business information."


Both are subsidiaries of Southern Company, which is the only utility in the nation refusing to reveal such information, according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency records. Southern Company subsidiaries in Georgia and Florida also have claimed confidentiality.


"The specific information is considered proprietary," Alabama Power said in an e-mailed statement last week. "Public safety and the security of our facilities are our primary concerns. Our ash pond poses no threat to our employees or the public." 

The EPA in March compelled all coal-burning power plants to answer questions regarding inspections and safety of the nation's 580 ash ponds. Redacted copies of answers provided by Alabama Power and Mississippi Power were obtained by the Mobile Press-Register.


In the section for questions regarding formal inspections, repairs and other activities at their plants, both companies tagged their answers as "confidential business information," meaning the EPA could not release them to the public. Both companies also stated their records "would raise homeland security concerns if publicly disclosed."


Richard Kinch, the EPA official in charge of the ash pond questionnaire, has been quoted as questioning how the safety of a dam could be a business secret. EPA officials said such claims are subject to review by the agency, but would not say whether the agency has reviewed them. 

"Everyone else has volunteered this information," said Kimberly Wilson of the Washington based Environmental Integrity Project. "We don't understand what they are afraid of." 

The Google Earth picture below shows the enormity of APs Gaston plant coal ash ponds situated a very short distance from the Coosa River which APs seven hydroelectric dams have already denigrated beyond recovery. It's almost as if they have declared war on the Coosa River, arbitrarily deciding it is theirs for the taking.

Estimates for the amount of the coal ash in these ponds is 373.1 thousand tons and rising.

[Plant Name: E.C. Gaston, Zip: 35186, Total Coal Ash: 373.1 thousand tons]

Alabama Power's Gaston Plant Wilsonville, Alabama. The Coosa River is on the right, one coal ash pond is wider than the river and additional waste areas are in the immediate foreground.

Most of the coal ash ponds were constructed in the 1960s with "state of the art technology at that time", but they're decades old now which raises questions about the integrity of the liners and the dams-- records indicate that state and federal inspections are "infrequent or nonexistent." ADEM files confirm this to be the case on the Gaston plant.

In a ten year period from January1, 2000-September 2010, under Inspections, only ten entries were in ADEM's e-file system for the Gaston plant with most of them being an inspection the General Services Complex 744 CR 87 Calera, Alabama. One "surprise inspection" occurred on 9/20/2006 and it was described as an "annual inspection,"  but it was only one of two "annual inspections" of the Gaston plant itself in the ADEM files for the entire decade.  

(File # 590_411-0005_117 20090409 IR MOG ANN.pdf)  

(File# 590 411-005 117 09-20-2006 IR MOG ANN.tif)

On June 4, 2009 ADEM employee Janna McIndoe "documented certain items of concern" about a Gaston landfill with no details of what those were in the report. ADEM employee Linda Brown (enforcement & remediation) wrote this in response to McIndoe's "concerns"; "After reviewing inspection reports a determination was made no further enforcement action was necessary." We found no enforcement of any kind that Ms. Brown may have been referring to in the e-file system and want to also point out that the letter says she reviewed only the inspection reports (not in the e-file system), which seems to suggest there was not an actual site review to physically ascertain what Ms. McIndoe saw.

(File # 00590 59-14 117 20090610 SWMR NFEA.pdf) 

**Update we found the inspection report

Under the Enforcement section for the same time period of ten years, only 3 documents appear, all of them in the same year of 2009, two are one page Aquatic Toxicity Reports (specifying "passed" no accompanying testing documents) and the third indicates that "no sample was collected as required before discharges began." In short, it appears they opened the discharge pipes, got rid of what they needed to and shut them off:

CAUSE OF NON-COMPLIANCE--DSNO26 drain was opened and commenced discharging on June 1, 2009. Discharge ceased before sample was collected.

ADEM states "samples are to be taken as soon as the discharge begins." AP has been at this long enough to know what the rules are.

In the section of "Other" documents, some Aquatic Toxicity Reports (ATR) appear with 13 other documents, same time frame of ten years, but why aren't they with the other ATRs? 

We noted another document that shows NA for groundwater monitoring in four areas. Does that mean they don't have to do this? Who made that decision?

Our point should be obvious and there appears to be a lackadaisical attitude in strict oversight of this facility by ADEM and Region 4 EPA. We are going to argue that given the size of the coal ash ponds, the sheer volume of releases by this facility and their resistance to releasing information reveals the power of Big Coal in the South and the stubbornness of the New Mules.
Online Journal:  
Southern Company: Choosing Profit Over Life for Decades (EC Gaston plant);

We’re not talking an occasional unpleasant whiff of sulfur dioxide that might obscure a few stars falling on 21st century Alabama on a lazy, hazy summer evening now and then.

We’re talking hundreds of thousands and occasionally millions of tons of particulate matter (minute bits of fly ash mixed with droplets of various combustion gas combinations), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide, along with hundreds and sometimes thousands of pounds of mercury being wafted into the atmosphere from tall industrial smoke stacks to settle back to the ground along and down the “wind shed” of North Alabama which happens to be most of Georgia -- especially my part of Georgia.

A case in point:

Alabama Power’s E. C. Gaston steam plant in Shelby County, Alabama, southeast of Birmingham on the Coosa River, is one of the worst polluters in the nation, ranking in the top 50 dirtiest plants in every measurable category, according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) numbers for the year 2005 -- the most recent data available.

E.C. Gaston ranks 7th in the nation in S02 emissions out of the 376 plants included in the database examined.

E.C. Gaston’s stacks loft 127,658.4 tons -- yes, tons -- of sulfur dioxide annually to drift over East Alabama and onto hapless Georgians. included in the database examined.

Alabama Power’s E.C. Gaston coal plant boasts other dubious pollution honors too.

She ranks 9th in the nation in mercury emissions with 1,025 pounds annually.

How many birth defects recorded in East Alabama and Georgia can be attributed to E.C. Gaston mercury is anybody’s guess.

And E.C. Gaston is 18th in the nation out of those 376 plants in terms of NOx emissions with 25,372,3 tons sent skyward annually.

Finally, Alabama Power’s E.C. Gaston plant ranks 44th in that national database in C02 production with 12,234,048.4 tons sent up annually to help melt the polar ice caps.

And E.C. Gaston is only one of four Alabama Power/Southern Company plants that make the “Dirty 50” list.

John Grogan, Environmental Compliance Manager for Alabama Power, is on the Board of Directors for BARD (New Mules), an organization that carries on the Big Mule philosophies in Alabama(and some contend the entire Deep South region) of absolute power to ensure their own economic interests:

In another popular Big Mule tactic, a corporation such as the Alabama Power Company would buy the loyalties of recent law school graduates by placing them on a monthly retainer. They rarely did any work for the corporation, but its status as a client would prevent them from taking any cases against it. If any of these men had political ambitions, they would be beholden to the corporation. These retainers represented a major source of income for lawyers just establishing their practices in Alabama's small towns and cities.(Encyclopedia of Alabama Black Belt Big Mule Coalition)

The Southern Company, which boasts a sterling NYSE rating and of record profits annually, is responsible for some of the most reprehensible industrial pollution in North America and, in a larger sense, throughout the world since jet stream borne pollution travels to every continent from every continent.

In a press release on their upscale web site -- one replete with references to the Southern Company’s highly evolved environmental conscience -- this corporate purveyor of disease and death wrote of her 2006 earnings:

“Citing continued economic strength and a growing customer base in the Southeast, Southern Company today reported full-year 2006 earnings of $1.57 billion, or $2.12 a share . . .

“Southern Company also reported solid fourth quarter earnings of $188.4 million, or 25 cents a share. This compared with reported earnings of $158.9 million, or 21 cents per share, in the fourth quarter of 2005. . . .”

The Southern Company had enough money to pay each stockholder an exceptional dividend, but she didn’t have enough money to clean up her smoke stacks that are killing people.

Everything is coming up roses for investors in Southern Company stock, one is led to believe.

John Archibald Birmingham News "New Mules Now Pull Bandwagon":

I've talked about the "New Mules" in the past, the big business interests who want to rule the county.

You know the gang, the Business Alliance for Responsible Development: Alabama Power, the coal and steel companies, the Barber Cos. and those that get their kicks castrating environmental activists. 

Just know this: Big business -- the New Mules -- are pulling this bandwagon.

Some say that's how it should be, that business should lead the way, particularly when government has failed. But big business has earned its share of blame in this town, too. It has a grand history of looking out only for itself, and leaving the people and the city high and dry.

Maybe all that has changed, and maybe I'm a fool. But it's rarely smart to put all your eggs in one basket. Particularly when it's being carried by New Mules.

Alabama's New Mules Keep Old Kick Alive;

The public and political face of the New Mules is BARD, the Orwellian Business Alliance for Responsible Development. BARD has worked smartly and relentlessly to crush opposition to its policies, whether that be SWMA or foes of the Northern beltline.

Backed by real estate and construction interests, coal and steel companies and Alabama Power, BARD has labeled SWMA a "rogue agency" and linked it - an agency run by a bunch of hardly liberal Birmingham-area mayors - as a friend to tree huggers.

Just like the old Big Mules, who crushed reforms that might help the people, seeing them as threats to power.

It should come as no surprise that the Southern Company along with other coal kings of the South, balk on regulation for coal ash, because as Mr. Archibald points out "the Mule way, in Alabama, is the way it has always been."

 

Cultural Extinction: Louisiana’s Coastal Communities Fear They May Never Recover

The accompanying article written by Jordan Flaherty, was sent to us by a Louisiana resident and it weaves a grievous tapestry of what minority residents in historically founded black communities have had to endure at the hands of big business (usually Big Oil) and corrupt politicians working in concert with them.

It's a story of centuries old roots destroyed by environmental injustice in the name of corporate profit. It's the story of a crime on humanity of epic proportions that continues in communities everywhere in America to minority and/or low income people who are without resources to fight back against the corporate giants and even their own political leaders who often profit from allowing these polluters to set up in these specifically targeted communities.

CNNs Dr. Sanjay Guptha covered the story of Mossville, Louisiana in a recent special report "Toxic America."

In the community of Diamond, Louisiana the site of the 1811 slave revolt, a spirit of strength and perseverance existed for years until Shell Oil moved in and divided the black community of Diamond and neighboring Norco, which was predominantly white, into a tense and toxic war zone;

The tight-knit African-American community had endured centuries of slavery and segregation only to find itself on a collision course with Big Oil due to Diamond's location near the Gulf of Mexico. Over many years, the massive amounts of pollution released by Shell's refineries and chemical plants located adjacent to Diamond had caused ill health among the local population and spurred the citizens into organized action.

The second section discusses Shell and its relations with its neighbors. Through numerous interviews and visits to Diamond and the adjacent community of Norco, Mr. Lerner uncovered a startling difference in how the two ethnically stratified towns perceived reality. The mostly white residents of Norco, many of whom were employed by Shell, seemed unwilling to acknowledge the ill effects of the pollution and openly questioned the motivations of the black residents of Diamond, most of whom did not benefit economically from the plant and consequently did not shrink from vocalizing their discontent.(Diamond: A Struggle For Environmental Justice in Louisiana's Chemical Corridor by: Dr. Robert Bullard)

Both of these communities appear in the following article by Jordan Flaherty, whom we contacted for permission to reprint his moving and eloquent piece on the cultural extinction of Louisiana's black communities. The latest assault by yet another corporate oil giant, BP, on coastal black communities in Louisiana may wipe out more centuries old communities ending the cultural existence of a group of people who have already endured generations of crimes at the hands of "the masters."

This story has very similar parallels to the plight of the African-American residents in the Jefferson County, Alabama area of the former Hawkins Plantation that are claiming toxic exposure from the nearby Drummond ABC Coke coal plant.

From the Black Agenda Report 

Cultural Extinction: Louisiana's Coastal Communities Fear they May Never Recover

Written by Jordan Flaherty

“At least five Louisiana towns – all majority African American – have been eradicated due to corporate pollution in recent decades.”

As BP’s deepwater well continues to discharge oil into the Gulf, the economic and public health effects are already being felt across coastal communities. But it’s likely this is only the beginning. From the bayous of southern Louisiana to the city of New Orleans, many fear this disaster represents not only environmental devastation, but also cultural extinction for peoples who have made their lives here for generations.

This is not the first time that Louisianans have lost their communities or their lives from the actions of corporations. The land loss caused by oil companies has already displaced many who lived by the coast, and the pollution from treatment plants has poisoned communities across the state – especially in “cancer alley,” the corridor of industrial facilities along the Mississippi River south of Baton Rouge.

“The cultural losses as a consequence of the BP disaster are going to be astronomical,” says Advocates for Environmental Human Rights (AEHR) co-director Nathalie Walker. “There is no other culture like Louisiana’s coastal culture and we can only hope they wont be entirely erased.” Walker and co-director Monique Harden have made it their mission to fight the environmental consequences of Louisiana’s corporate polluters. 

They say this disaster represents an unparalleled catastrophe for the lives of people across the region, but they also see in it a continuation of an old pattern of oil and chemical corporations displacing people of color from their homes.

Harden and Walker point out that at least five Louisiana towns – all majority African American – have been eradicated due to corporate pollution in recent decades. 

The most recent is the Southwest Louisiana town of Mossville, founded by African Americans in the 1790s. 

Located near Lake Charles, Mossville is only 5 square miles and holds 375 households. Beginning in the 1930s, the state of Louisiana began authorizing industrial facilities to manufacture, process, store, and discharge toxic and hazardous substances within Mossville. Fourteen facilities are now located in the small town, and 91 percent of residents have reported at least one health problem related to exposure to chemicals produced by the local industry.

Mossville, Louisiana (Image: Advocates for Environmental Human Rights)

“It is a continuation of an old pattern of oil and chemical corporations displacing people of color from their homes.”

The southern Louisiana towns of Diamond, Morrisonville, Sunrise, and Revilletown – all founded by former slaves - met similar fates. 

After years of chemical-related poisoning, the remaining residents have been relocated, and the corporations that drove them out now own their land. In most cases, only a cemetery remains, and former residents must pass through plant security to visit their relatives’ graves.

The town of Diamond, founded by the descendants of the participants of the 1811 Rebellion to End Slavery, the largest slave uprising in US history, was relocated by Shell in 2002, after residents had faced decades of toxic exposure. 

Morrisonville, established by free Africans in 1790, was bought out by Dow in 1989. 

Residents of Sunrise, inaugurated near Baton Rouge by former slaves in 1874, were paid to move as the result of a lawsuit against the Placid Refining Company. 

In the mid-1990s, Chemical producer Georgia Gulf Corporation poisoned and then acquired Revilletown, a town free Africans had started in the years after the civil war.

“We make the mistake of thinking this is something new,” says Harden. She adds that the historic treatment of these communities, as well as the lack of recovery that New Orleanians have seen since Katrina, makes her doubt the federal government will do what is necessary for Gulf recovery. “Since Obama got into office,” she says, “I have yet to see any action that reverses what Bush did after Katrina.”

Harden says Louisiana and the US must fundamentally transform our government’s relationships with corporations. “We’ve got to change the way we allow businesses to be in charge of our health and safety in this country,” she adds. As an example, Harden points to more stringent regulations in other countries, such as Norway, which requires companies to drill relief wells at the same time as any deepwater well.

Pointe-au-Chien

Pointe-au-Chien Indian Tribe is a small band of French speaking Native Americans along Bayou Pointe-au-Chien, south of Houma, on Louisiana’s Gulf Coast. Their ancestors settled here three hundred years ago, and for them, the ongoing oil geyser is just the latest step in a long history of displacement and disenfranchisement. “The oil companies never respected our elders,” explains community leader Theresa Dardar. “And they never did respect our land.”

In the early part of this century, the oil companies took advantage of the fact that people living on the coast were isolated by language and distance, and laid claim to their land. Over the past several decades, these companies have devastated these idyllic communities, creating about 10,000 miles of canals through forests, marshes, and homes. “They come in, they cut a little, and it keeps getting wider and wider,” says Donald Dardar, Theresa’s husband and part of the tribe’s leadership. “They didn’t care where they cut.”

The canals have brought salt water, killing trees and plants and speeding erosion. According to Gulf Restoration Network, Louisiana loses about a football field of land every 45 minutes, and almost half of that land loss is as a result of these canals. Meanwhile, Pointe-au-Chien and other tribes have found they have little legal recourse. At least partly as a result of lobbying by oil companies, the state and federal government have refused to officially recognize them as a tribe, which would offer some protection of their land rights.

“Over the past several decades, these companies have devastated these idyllic communities, creating about 10,000 miles of canals through forests, marshes, and homes.”

So late last month, when oil started washing up on the shores of nearby Lake Chien and fishing season was canceled before it had even begun, members of Pointe-au-Chien took the news as another nail in the coffin of the lifestyle they had been living for generations. On a recent Sunday, a few residents gathered at the Live Oak Baptist Church, on the main road that runs through their community. They described feeling abandoned and abused by the government and corporations. They spoke of losing their language and traditions in addition to their homes.

Sitting on a church pew, Theresa said they had met with indigenous natives from Alaska who discussed their experience in the aftermath of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill. “We don’t know how long we’ll be without fishing,” said Theresa. “It was 17 years before they could get shrimp.” And, she noted bitterly, this disaster is already much larger than the Valdez, with no end in sight.

BP has promised payouts to those who lose work from the oil, but few trust the company to make good on their promise, and even if they did, they doubt any settlement could make up for what will be lost. “It doesn’t matter how much money they give you,” says Theresa. “If we don’t have our shrimp, fish, crabs and oysters.”

“It’s not just a way of life, its our food,” she added. “It’s the loss of our livelihood and culture.”

The anxiety that Theresa expresses is also increasingly common in New Orleans, a city whose culture is inextricably linked to the Gulf. “How do you deal with this hemorrhaging in the bottom of the Gulf that seems endless?” asks Monique Harden of AEHR. “That is just scary as hell. I’ve been having nightmares about it.”

As the oil continues to flow, people feel both helpless and apocalyptic; depressed and angered. Residents who have just rebuilt from the 2005 hurricanes watch the oil wash up on shore with a building dread. “I never thought I’d be in a situation where I wanted another Katrina,” says Harden. “But I’d rather Katrina than this.”

Drilling Economy

Across the street from the church in Pointe-au-Chien is a bayou, where frustrated fishers wait on their boats hoping against all odds that they will be able to use them this season. Behind the church is more water, and a couple miles further down the road ends in swamp. Dead oak trees, rotted by salt water, rise out of the canals. Telephone poles stick out of the water, along a path where once the road continued but now the encroaching waters have taken over.

The miles of swamp and barrier islands that stood between these homes and the Gulf used to slow hurricanes, and now the entire region has become much more vulnerable. Brenda Billiot, another local resident, gestured at her backyard, about a few dozen yards of grass that fades into marshes and water. “This used to be land,” she says, “as far as you could see.” Billiot is still repairing her home from the 2005 flooding, including raising it up a full 19 feet above the ground. She wonders if that will be enough, if there is anything they can do to make themselves safe and hold onto their culture.

A brown rabbit hops across her backyard, and Billiot describes the dolphins and porpoises she has seen swimming nearby. Walking along the bayou here, where generations of people have lived off the land and fought to protect their territory from corporate theft, you begin to sense the gravity of what will be lost.

Theresa believes that the government and oil companies are looking for an excuse to permanently displace the tribe. She believes this latest disaster, and the upcoming hurricane season, may spell the end for their language and culture. “I tell people; if we get another hurricane, take everything you want, because I don’t think they’ll let you back in,” says Dardar. “It’s scary because I don’t know where we’re going to go.”

Jordan Flaherty is a journalist, an editor of Left Turn Magazine, and a staffer with the Louisiana Justice Institute. He was the first writer to bring the story of the Jena Six to a national audience, and his award-winning reporting from the Gulf Coast has been featured in a range of outlets including the New York Times, Mother Jones, and Argentina's Clarin newspaper. He has produced news segments for Al-Jazeera, TeleSur, and Democracy Now! and appeared as a guest on CNN Morning, Anderson Cooper 360, and Keep Hope Alive with the Reverend Jesse Jackson. Haymarket Books has just released his new book, FLOODLINES: Community and Resistance from Katrina to the Jena Six. He can be reached at neworleans@leftturn.org.
More information about Floodlines can be found at floodlines.org.
Mossville

 

SOURCE Guest Commentary Cahaba River and the Northern Beltline--Jefferson County, Alabama

We have covered this subject in previous postings, the most recent being "Senator Shelby and His River of Lies" and offer a guest commentary today by Pat Feemster of SOURCE for more information on this very important issue. Please visit their site, linked below for additional information and how you can help their noble cause.

Our political leaders won't help save this river for future generations as we have pointed out, so it is up to the grassroots efforts of concerned citizens to be the guardians for Alabama's environment and natural resources. We are honored to assist them in their efforts for the Cahaba River.

Smithsonian Magazine August 2009 "The Cahaba: A River of Riches"
Cahaba River and Northern Beltline

Save Our Unique River, Communities and Environment (SOURCE) is a grassroots group of citizens who have serious concerns about adverse impacts of the Northern Beltline on our natural environment; especially the Cahaba River; and our neighborhoods and communities. 

SOURCE was initiated by Clay and Trussville citizens, but, has grown to include citizens of other communities and has broad based support throughout Jefferson and surrounding counties, primarily because of a concern for the Cahaba.

The Fight Against the Northern Beltline from UA, Telecommunication and Film

 

Union of Concerned Scientists "Burning Coal Burning Cash" 2010 Alabama Facts--"Damn" Alabama Power

In the ever increasing need to find alternative solutions to coal fired power plants this study by the UCS shows Alabama's huge economic outflow to import coal to the state making the state the 6th highest importer of coal at a cost of $1.3 billion dollars. The Southern Company's Alabama Power is one of the largest consumers of coal in Alabama.

Energy efficiency programs supported by taxpayer funds paled in comparison at "$.49 cents per person in 2007--about 600 times less than it spent on imported coal" which clearly defines how Alabama's interests are all askew. We're willing to fork out huge sums to maintain the status quo and unwilling to change even if it means a boon to our local economy to do so.

The state is beholden to the omnipotent Southern Company [SC] (Alabama Power) [AP] who is the largest user of all this imported coal--they own Alabama and every politician in it, particularly the Republicans. The study states that Alabama produced "63% more electricity from all sources than retail customers bought. That suggests in-state coal plants may have exported some of their power."

That's a great arrangement for SC and AP--pollute Alabama's environment, add to the ghastly practice of mountaintop removal in the Appalachia's and grow even richer by selling the power produced from those deeds to other states. It's reprehensible and heartily aided and abetted by our politicians who are completely devoid of any forward thinking on energy change;

Alabama Power is responsible for the multiple dams on the Coosa River that caused the biggest mass extinction of species in the river and they have applied for a re-license to operate for 40 more years on the Coosa but refuse to do environmental studies on how that may affect the quality of the 10th most endangered river in the US.

American Rivers and its partners called on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to meet their responsibility and ensure the new operating license for dam owner Alabama Power includes key protections for the river and its fish and wildlife.

The Coosa is the most developed river in Alabama, and only some of the river’s 275 miles still flow freely.  Most of the Coosa River is trapped behind seven Alabama Power Company dams. 

The construction of these dams doomed many of the Coosa’s native fish and wildlife to extinction.  FERC’s re-licensing of Alabama Power’s dams is the first opportunity in half a century to improve river conditions for people, fish, and wildlife, ensuring a future for 21 federally listed species in the area.

An article came out over the summer of 2010 touting the "comeback" of the endangered Tulotoma Snail in the Coosa below the Jordan Dam thanks to AP's "carefully regulating the flow on the segment of the Coosa below Jordan Dam."

This was cited as the basis for removing the snail (which is a filter animal and the presence of these indicate water quality as any fisherman will tell you) from the Endangered Species list to just Threatened Species, which in turn would "relax" regulations on that segment of the river.

Reading the fine print shows what AP considers a "comeback";

Today, the Tulotoma is believed to occupy 10 percent of its historical range. 

The article is replete with feel good language and high talk by Alabama Power spokesperson Michael Sznajderman extolling the the "caring efforts" of AP in helping to create the massive 10% comeback of the snail. This was obviously the work of underhanded PR men and lawyers who consider the Endangered Species Act to be a Trojan Horse of sorts that only serves to work against the self-serving interests of big business. As usual, Alabama's media dutifully prints their propaganda without any inkling of fact checking or opposing factual information included in their sparkling "news stories."

Note to AP; crowing about helping what you harmed to begin with is beyond hypocritical, it's reprehensible and it's a lie. Note to Alabama's press; do your damn job and perform as true journalists not regurgitaters of spin.

If it weren't for this all powerful giant of a company not only would Alabama's environment improve, but so would our economic opportunities in having more dollars available for our state than what your coal fired plants are costing all of us. AP requested "confidentiality" on the location of two of it's coal ash ponds in the Wilsonville plant area (that we know of, there may be others)--why?

EPA Data Shows US Has 584 Coal Ash Impoundments--September 2009

The agency has acknowledged that wet disposal of coal ash presents a greater risk to human health and the environment than dry landfills, Sierra Club says, because hazardous chemicals are more likely to migrate from such dumps and the large impoundments present a risk of catastrophic failure. 

The EPA data note ownership, location, hazard potential, year commissioned, type and quantity of coal combustion waste disposed, dates of the last regulatory or company assessment, and in some instances whether an unregulated discharge of coal ash had occurred. Some critical data were not included because companies claimed the data as Confidential Business Information. 

The Sierra Club says the problems are likely underestimated by the present data set because companies like Duke Energy, Alabama Power, Georgia Power and Progress Energy have withheld information on 74 dump sites, including some of the largest dump sites in the U.S, claiming the information is "confidential business information." 

AP claims that safety records around its dams of the coal ash ponds are "proprietary records";

"The specific information is considered proprietary," Alabama Power said in an e-mailed statement last week. "Public safety and the security of our facilities are our primary concerns. Our ash pond poses no threat to our employees or the public." 

Alabama Power's Miller Steam Plant on the Locust Fork of the Black Warrior River. (Jefferson Co.)

Photo by Nelson Brooke.Miller Steam Plant, on the Locust Fork of the Black Warrior, emitted more mercury in 2007 than any other coal-burning power plant in the country, according to EPA data compiled by the Environmental Integrity Project. Note how close to the river the coal ash pond is.

TVA said the same thing about it's Kingston plant and we know all too well how that went.

Nothing happens in Alabama without the long shadow of AP's President Charles McCrary "right up in the middle of every significant issue that involves the state." And King Charles is not about to give up his King Coal loot for anyone despite the cost to Alabama's citizens, the environment of Alabama and those of other states that help feed the fire to burn coal and burn cash in the Land of Cotton.
Coal Cash Alabama

 

EPA’s Letters to Fracking Companies Request Information, With a Legal Threat

 From ProPublica's great blogger Marian Wang, reprinted following PPs criteria.

The Environmental Protection Agency has issued letters to nine natural gas drilling companies requesting “cooperation in a scientific study” of hydraulic fracturing and how it affects drinking water and public health, the agency announced on Thursday. Buried further down in the document, however, is a veiled threat to take legal action if the information isn’t provided (Read a copy of the letter )

EPA is requesting that you provide this information voluntarily; however, to the extent that EPA does not receive sufficient data in response to this letter, EPA will be exploring legal alternatives to compel submission of the needed information.

The agency seems to be taking names with this latest request . The letter calls for a corporate officer to certify that the information provided is, to the best of his or her knowledge, “true, accurate and complete,” and it requires the company to specify the source of each piece of information by name, position and title. These two requirements could be important, should the information provided prove to be insufficient or inaccurate.


Chemicals used in the hydrofracking process, as we’ve noted, have generally been treated as trade secrets . The EPA said it would honor companies’ claims to confidentiality as long as it is explicitly requested at the time the information is submitted.

It’s also worth noting that in the letter, the agency requested that companies turn over not only the formulation of the companies’ fracking fluids, but also “all data and studies in the Company’s possession relating to the human health and environmental impacts and effects of all products and constituents” in it. (Information on certain chemicals’ effect on human health, aside from industry data, is likely to be scarce.)

The EPA also called for far more information than is currently known about specific sites at which hydrofracking fluids have been used, and the companies for which these services were performed. From the letter:

Identify all sites where, and all persons to whom, the Company:

i.   provided hydraulic fracturing fluid services that involve the use of hydraulic fracturing fluids for the year prior to the date of this letter, and

ii.   plans to provide hydraulic fracturing fluid services that involve the use of hydraulic fracturing fluids during one year after the date of this letter.

According to the letter, companies have seven days to provide notice as to whether they will submit the requested information, and 30 days for the full response.

Stephanie Meadows, a policy adviser for the American Petroleum Institute — an industry trade group — told The New York Times she was “disappointed with the threats ” from the agency.
“I’m not sure how they would do that, or if they even have the authority to do that,” Meadows said. “I thought we’d made it clear all along that we want to be helpful.”

A spokeswoman for Halliburton, one of nine companies sent a letter, told the Times that the company planned to cooperate fully  with the EPA:
“Halliburton supports and continues to comply with state, local and federal requirements promoting the forthright disclosure of the chemical additives that typically comprise less than one-half of 1 percent of our hydraulic fracturing solutions,” Ms. [Cathy G. Mann] said by e-mail. “We view this both as a means of enhancing public safety, and as a way to engage the public in a straightforward manner.”
 
If this attitude is genuine, it would be quite a shift.

Halliburton hasn’t always acted cooperatively when asked to reveal the chemicals in its fracking fluid.

When state regulators in Colorado demanded that the company hand over its recipe, the company threatened to end its natural-gas operations in the state, before eventually reaching a compromise to disclose some ingredients to regulators, but not to the public.

The EPA had concluded in 2004 that hydrofracking did not pose a threat to drinking water. That report, as we’ve noted, was used to justify legislation exempting the natural gas extraction process from oversight under the Safe Drinking Water Act — an exemption that is now being re-examined as awareness  and public concern  have grown over the potential risks that fracking can pose to water supplies.