About 80 people from across the state testified during a public hearing that lasted until late Thursday night in the Kansas Union on a Kansas-based cooperative's plan to build three coal-fired power plants near Holcomb.
The plants, proposed by a group led by Hays-based Sunflower Electric Power Corp., must receive an air quality permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment before beginning construction.
The hearing turned into an hourslong debate, and another session is planned for this evening. Those who spoke against the plan said it would contribute to global warming, increase mercury emissions, deplete water resources and hinder the opportunity for Kansas to look toward wind-generated energy.
"We understand and believe that this is going to affect our health. We believe that this is going to cause disease and is going to cause death on a large scale," said Reid Nelson, a Lawrence resident and Topeka lawyer, who cited the Environmental Protection Agency's push to make its emission regulations stricter.
Economic boon
Nearly all western Kansas residents who spoke, including Sunflower investors, executives and local government officials of the Garden City area, said the project would be an economic boon to the area. It would also help build needed transmission lines, use technology for the most updated air quality systems available and mitigate water consumption, they said.
"We want the opportunity to enjoy the economics that northeast Kansas has had," said Earl Watkins, Sunflower's president and chief executive officer. "I would simply ask that because we are in compliance that you not let the 'haves' deny the 'have-nots' the same joys of life because of what northeast Kansas has had for the last 30 years."
Watkins said the proximity to 15 coal-fired plants has contributed greatly to the economic situation in eastern Kansas.
But many eastern Kansas residents, including state Sen. Marci Francisco, D-Lawrence, condemned the plans and said they would create devastating pollution effects on public health. The KDHE has held two other public hearings, but the one in Lawrence was by far the most attended, officials said. The KDHE is also accepting written testimony until Nov. 30.
Several asked for approval Thursday night, but a majority seemed to not support adding the three plants.
"The economic benefits are very localized, and the environmental impacts are spread, one could argue, globally," said Charles Benjamin, of Lawrence, an attorney and lobbyist for the Sierra Club.
Benjamin and Nelson also participated in a news conference before the hearing and voiced their opposition with others, saying the proposal would be the largest new source of carbon dioxide in the nation and put Kansas on the map as contributing to global warming.
But Sunflower supporters said regulations and steps would produce no more mercury emissions than the current coal-fired plant in Holcomb. Current federal and state laws do not regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired plants, but the company has proven to be a good environmental steward, supporters said.
Job creation
The plants are expected to create about 2,000 construction jobs and 140 new jobs for operation, and Sunflower has agreed to build an alternative energy center in Holcomb. They will also add to the transmission lines in that part of the state to help spur wind energy and other projects, Watkins and others said.
But those who testified against the plant said emission standards were not strict enough and were uncomfortable adding coal-fired plants instead of wind-energy generators.
"If built, these plants will be polluting our air and pulling water from our aquifer for the next 50 to 75 years," said Raymond Red Corn, a Kansas University student and regional director of 2020 Vision.
KDHE officials decided to add a session of the hearing from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. today in the Kansas Union Ballroom.
More than 315 people had signed in Thursday night. The scene became tense when it began at 6 p.m. The building's staff members and KU Public Safety officers made dozens of people standing in the Malott Room, which has a capacity of 100 people, move into the next meeting room and listen via audio speakers.
"This meeting is a joke," one person shouted while leaving the room.
Anyone who signed up to speak was allowed to speak for three minutes, and KDHE officials said the Malott Room was the largest space available because of other events in the union Thursday night.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
DGL (anonymous) says…
http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/fa...
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Now, a new group says that pollution my save us!"
No, what they are saying is that unless humans can show some self-discipline and stop producing greenhouse gasses at the current rate, we may be forced to try something very desperate in order to save ourselves-- but no one knows what the unintended consequences of such actions would be.
thoughtful (anonymous) says…
OK
Coal fired plants are too polluting.
Nuclear plants are too dangerous.
Gas fired plants are too costly, and polluting.
Wind farms spoil the views in the Flinthills.
So, Kansas can sit in the dark, reading by candlelight.
BigDog (anonymous) says…
thoughtful - that sounds like a great idea but i am sure there would be some child safety group that wouldn't allow use of candles. Maybe we could all use flashlight ...... oh but what would we do with all of the dead batteries .... oh crap we're screwed. hahahaha
Jackalope (anonymous) says…
Just Another wrote: "No, what they are saying is that unless humans can show some self-discipline and stop producing greenhouse gasses at the current rate, we may be forced to try something very desperate in order to save ourselves"
No, what they are saying is that they can have their 15 coal fired plants, but nobody else can. You have to sacrifice, but they don't because they know what is best for you. Intellectual pollution will kill us all. Maybe I was not listening, but the uproar over the strip city the north eastern part of the state is becoming is deafenly silent by comparison. The waste management problems alone in the northeast are absolutely incredibly. Where are the public hearings on that. Where are the public hearings when the larger institutions of the northeast want to expand concerning their impact on the environment? If we are to live here, let's mind our own house first.
roger_o_thornhill (anonymous) says…
"We want the opportunity to enjoy the economics that northeast Kansas has had," said Earl Watkins, Sunflower's president and chief executive officer. "I would simply ask that because we are in compliance that you not let the 'haves' deny the 'have-nots' the same joys of life because of what northeast Kansas has had for the last 30 years."
Does this statement make sense. I know what he is trying to say, I think, but I can't make sense of this.
How close would you live to a coal fired power plant? 500feet? 100? If your next door neighbor built a coal fired power plant in his/her back yard to power their house, would you mind? Who cares IF it contributes to global warning when you KNOW it contributes to poor air quality in the vicinity. How many people dislike secondhand cigarette smoke? Imagine a hundred foot cigarette. Can't these dopes from Hayes think of anything better than a 19th century technology to power their hot tubs and augers? Cheney's neighbors in Wyoming must be loving him for all the coal plants proposed or announced or whatever since he's been VeeP.
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Culture Warrior,
I suggest you read the entire article that you posted instead of skimming the headlines. As Bozo pointed out, your statement of "Now, a new group says that pollution my save us!" is misleading. In fact, the article does point out that an estimated 2 million people die every year due to air pollution. Also as Bozo pointed out the context of all of this is with the idea that we would be doing this out of desparation. While I do not buy into the propaganda of Al Gore, I also don't buy into your propaganda either. Why not present all of the information, all sides of the issues instead of trying to use manipulative rhetoric to influence others.
BuddhaDude (anonymous) says…
I know, next time have the meeting in Holcomb. I bet most NorEasters couldn't find it on a map or make it there to whine. That or they'll whine that it is too far to drive. Just like they whine when that east has to travel west for the football playoffs.
Rationalanimal (anonymous) says…
We all want alternative clean energy sources for the future. So why pour millions of dollars into something that we all hope to be obsolete very soon? Pouring millions of dollars into something we want to become obsolete just isn't financial practical. Second, in the event W. Kansas economy gets a boost from this, it stands to have the rug pulled out and cause huge financial disaster when it does become obsolete. Don't we have enough ghost towns out in W. Kansas already. Building a prosperous economy requires the forsight to plan for the future. Maybe the lack thereof for many generations is the missing factor in the W.Kansas economic saga. Let's build the W. Kansas economy by planning for the future and not just the next 5 - 10 years.
Jackalope (anonymous) says…
Roger calls the fellows from Hays "dopes" all the while Lawrence has just north of town one of the dirtiest coal fired operations in the state. Go ahead, shut down the hot tubs and augers in Douglas County.
Jackalope (anonymous) says…
So a business plan may become obsolete in the future? Lets just stop trying. Don't let any large business or manufacturing locate in area. It will become obsolete in the future and the rug will be pulled out from under the region. Hallmark Cards, in hind sight, was by the doctrine a huge mistake that never should have been allowed to operate in the first instance.
Rationalanimal (anonymous) says…
Hallmark Card doesn't emit mercury that blanket the soil and streams for hundreds of miles west of it. Just, because we've engaged in poor environmental business practices in the past doesn't mean that's a good business model for the future. Changing poor decisions from the past is called progress, not a successful business plan.
hipper_than_hip (anonymous) says…
We need the electricity, and they need the jobs and tax revenue. If they want it in their town, let them build it.
Jackalope (anonymous) says…
Change the poor decisions from the past and shut down Lawrence EC which currently emitts 126 lbs of mercury compaired to the currect operation at the Holcomb plant which emitts 46 lbs of mercury. Where are the "dopes" that let that happen?
oldgoof (anonymous) says…
Bravo to Jackalope. I fear we are among the few who notice the hypocracy of trying to preach environmentalism to our western Kansas friends, while we suck our energy from worse sources currently ourselves. Trust me, they notice it. And add to it the relative disparity of economic climates, we sure do reinforce the worst notions of suburbanites in SUVs with yellow ribbons on their bumpers working in ivory towers.
And I am sure Douglas County has more hot-tubs per capita anyway.
Roger: the people from Hays are not dopes. Name calling doesn't help the discussion.
Rationalanimal (anonymous) says…
Because the town simply does not have the governmental authority to unilaterally say they can have a coal plant. That power is contingent upon a higher governmental authority. The reason being, it is settled policy that energy plants, on a state and interstate basis, have an affect greater than just the boundaries of a town or county. All of Kansas will be affected by the emission of mercury and possibly other states such as Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri and Oklahoma.
As far as shutting down the Lawrence EC, lets stay intellectually focused rather than talking about shutting down every coal plant in the world as a material issue in this discussion. Were talking about the practicality of investing in new plants based on what we know about the past.
The impact here is big enough to say, wait a minute, before we plunk down millions of dollars and blow poisonous particles in the air that float east, north and south for hundreds of miles, let's weigh the costs, benefits, risks and affects. There is a line between capitalism and stupidity. Putting mercury into your salt shaker without considering the consequences crosses that line.
heysoos (anonymous) says…
I remember being told in high school (~14-15 years ago) that, at the time, Kansans had the highest concentration of mercury (due to agriculture) in their systems of any other population in the U.S.
Don't know if that is still the case, but if it is, I would think twice about adding yet more mercury emissions...
Jackalope (anonymous) says…
Focus is good. Lets focus on your comments. First, "we" are not plunking down anything for the new construction. The Holcomb expansion is a private enterprise not owned by any government. Second, a benefit/risk analysis is one of a number of valid value-analyses in any economic endeavor. I can only assume from the perspective presented that those who feel the Holcomb plant should not be expanded feel that our own plants have value, but Holcomb does not. Kind of a version of "there ain't no flies on me." Our mercury is an acceptable risk, but somebody else's mercury is not an acceptable risk. Lets get real. Shut them all down and string wind generators for as far as the eye can see, if necessary. But, don't determine that somehow looking 320 miles to the southwest and telling those folks what to do without first looking at our own back yard is a source of salvation. What is good for one should be good for all.
Rationalanimal (anonymous) says…
Look, I know this is a tough concept to grasp hold of, but just because we've made mistakes in the past, does not commit us to keep making the same mistakes in the future That's why discussing any existing coal plant outside of the context its cost/benefits on an environmental/economic impact is irrelevant. Arguing that one coal plant justifies an endless string of coal plants without subsequent analysis is not only irrelevant, it demonstrates a troubling reckless disregard for serious consequences(such logic commits America to allowing every nation, pseudo-nation in the world to having nuclear arms).
snowWI (anonymous) says…
Western Kansas already has the necessary transmission lines to build wind farms in the southwest counties. The proposed coal plant only relies on the national regulatory standards, which are not strict enough for mercury emissions. The Sunflower people never talk about these plants producing 14 million tons of CO2 every year. It seems like Sunflower continues to deny that global warming is occuring, while not investing in the future of Kansas.
Temporary construction jobs, and only 140 permanent jobs will not benefit the economy of Western Kansas much in the long-term. All of these jobs will be concentrated in only one county, while nearly all of the other rural counties will not benefited economically. Wind energy has invested large $$$ in local economies in states that generally have the Renewable Portfolio Standard in place. I encourage all of you to write the governor and other leaders to convince them to adopt this standard for Kansas
Wind energy also generates more jobs than coal and helps many more rural counties other than one. You can see all of this in action right now in N. Iowa and W. Minnesota.
snowWI (anonymous) says…
The plants that currently emit the most mercury is the Jeffrey Energy Center in Pottawatomie County, and the La Cygne Coal Power Plant in Linn County. The most recent data I found was from 2002. Mercury is a known toxic pollutant, so why continue to emit mercury into the air by building new power plants. Wind energy does not generate mercury, SO2, or NO2. Even the most strict regulations still allow mercury to be emitted into our air.
Tons of Mercury Emitted in 2002 by the Jeffrey Energy Center: 990 pounds
Tons of Mercury Emitted in 2002 by the La Cygne Power Plant: 490 pounds
Source: http://www.cleartheair.org/dirtypower...
Article: Pennslyvania will adopt the most strict standards in the country for controlling mercury pollution from power plants. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061117/a...
hipper_than_hip (anonymous) says…
The 2000 union construction jobs will be good for everyone. What about the tax revenue for the state that the plant will bring in from electricity sales? What about the added money for the Holcomb school district(s)?
snowWI (anonymous) says…
This project is all about short-term gains without analyzing the long-term damages of mercury and CO2 emissions. Only 140 permanent jobs will be generated, while nearly all the other counties in Western Kansas will continue to decay. Wind energy generates greater numbers of jobs in MANY more rural counties. Wind energy also generates more jobs overall than coal plants. (This was proven at last nights meeting) High voltage transmission lines exist in Finney, Stevens, Grant, Kearny, Hamilton, Gray, and Ford counties in the region. These transmission lines are rated at 345KV and would support the development of large scale wind farms. If new transmission lines need to be built, build them here in kansas. Kansas must be an exporter of clean energy, not dirty coal energy.
kes18 (anonymous) says…
I don't think we should forget the fact that there is a rush to build 150 proposed coal-fired power plants nationwide. 17 are planned for Texas alone!
http://uspirg.org/uspirgnewsroom.asp?...
$137 billion in investments on technology which will end up outdated. This could be better spent on research to develop alternative energy sources. Why not instead work to develop cleaner and renewable sources of energy?
Also, only 8% of this energy will be even stay in Kansas, while the rest goes to the power grid to the West. The pollution will head East though.
oldgoof (anonymous) says…
SnowWI: "Western Kansas already has the necessary transmission lines to build wind farms "
Absolutely not true. Indeed it is the lack of transmission capacity to the eastern grid, and the the lack of interoperability between the eastern and western grids that hinders large scale development of wind power in western Kansas. Paying for the costs of needed additional transmission lines puts west Kansas wind energy out of reach in the current electrical market. So I guess if Lawrence citizens want to pay increased public taxes/rate subsidies to pay for these lines, great. But caveat, a few lines by themselves will not meet the amount of uninteruptable capacity sought by these member utility companies.
snowWI (anonymous) says…
A change in administration in Washington is coming in the near future. Carbon dioxide may likely become a regulated pollutant in the near future. Why in the world are we not building more wind farms when the risks are so low. The more large scale wind farms that we can build even with our existing transmission line infrastructure will greatly reduce the need to build coal plants. Energy efficency programs have been proven to reduce total consumption of energy as well. Wind energy is a fast growing industry with good job potential for large numbers of rural counties on the plains.
snowWI (anonymous) says…
oldgoof,
That is why we need to adopt the Renewable Portfolio Standard in Kansas. This would require that a certain percentage of our electricity to come from renewable sources. If Sunflower can build transmission lines to other states, they can build some in Kansas as well. Also, Kansas residents should work together to figure out a way to pay for the construction of new transmission lines throughout the Western Kansas. New transmission lines will spur the development of more wind energy in the West. However, if Sunflower gets there way, the demand to build wind farms in Kansas will decline because of all the additional megawatts of coal energy that would be added to the grid.
WuShock (anonymous) says…
Wind, wind, wind! I think the only wind is a lot of hot air by the Sierra Club. We all want reliable electricity, right? Wind farms operate only at around 33-37% capacity. That means that only about 1/3 of the time during any given year does the wind farm produce its capacity in electricity. Why? Because the wind is not consistent! If the wind is too low, the turbines will not turn or if they do, it will not be fast enough to generate its maximum capacity. If the wind is too fast, they automatically shut down to keep from breaking. Sometimes wind peaks are during the night when the demand is low. Electricity can't be stored. Are we willing to change our habits to revolve around wind that varies in speed so much? I like the response someone else gave about how people don't want the flint hills beauty spoiled by wind farms. Will the Sierra Club spend as much time and energy to overcome those people's objections as they are with the coal plants? C'mon...
Sigmund (anonymous) says…
Funny, when the alternate energy crowd advocates the growing of corn to produce ethanol nobody is terribly concerned it will "deplete water resources and hinder the opportunity for Kansas to look toward wind-generated energy." Just how sustainable is the corn-ethanol alternative when it takes water to grow corn and our water resources are deletable?
What is even funnier is that American oil and gas companies continue to discover more and more oil and gas reserves (rivaling even Alaska North Slope), which portends less reliance of foreign sources and continued low prices for gas and oil (not to mention natural gas) and completely debunking the "Hubert Peak Oil Theory." That is if you believe a Cambridge Energy Research Associates Pulitzer Prize winner, Daniel Yergin.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?a...
But what is hysterical, is that increased global pollution appears to be one solution to global warming!
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll...
The hard cold facts are that Alternative Energy is alternative because it is more expensive than traditional energy and we are NOT running out of oil.
New2Lawrence (anonymous) says…
Why coal? Why not nuke. Say what you want but it's zero emissions. It would create more jobs and last longer.
BuddhaDude (anonymous) says…
Your right. Let's build one at Lake Clinton!
tolawdjk (anonymous) says…
1) KDHE is going to issue this permit. I'm not sure who you are kidding, but its going to happen. You people are barking up the wrong tree as CO2 is not a regulated polutant under any regulation that this company is subject to, and KDHE isn't going to create something out of thin air to stop it.
2) EPA Region 7 isn't going to stop it either. Not the type of thing that they do.
3) Barring a Supreme Court decision, CO2 will not be magically moved to "regulated pollutant" any time soon. And if any of you would bother to read the transcripts of the current environmental decision in front of the court (US vs. Duke Energy) you will see that the make up of the court makes it very difficult to get a decision that is positive to the environment.
You might find individuals on the staff level of EPA that want it to happen, but in the current management sceme, its not happening.
snowWI (anonymous) says…
The bottom line is that most new coal plants that are proposed in this country have no way of capturing the carbon dioxide that is emitted. This is not acceptable when our wind energy has hardly been tapped. Many areas in the west have wind energy potential ratings of 4-6. That is a high enough rating for large scale wind energy production. Now, we NEED to get more transmission infrastructure built in this zone.
I agree that Kansas needs to adopt the RPS system, but the US needs to adopt a system that would force the states to generate a certain percentage of there electricity from renewable sources. Some states are leaders in renewable energy, while others have not caught up to the 21st century.
http://www.windustry.org/images/Renew...
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
Sigmund,
You are behind the times. You need to scroll up. This article has already been cited and hashed out. It is not a solution as you put it, but is being touted as a possible action if we get desparate. Read the article dude.....
Kodiac (anonymous) says…
I'm sorry I meant the indystar article regarding the use of increased pollution....
tolawdjk (anonymous) says…
Most new -anythings- have no way of capturing CO2.
Period.
New cars, new power plants, new bar-b-ques, new candles, new humans....non of them can capture CO2 and all of them make it.
See, when you take a carbon containing compound, and combust it in the presence of air, you end up with CO2 and water. Just basic chemistry and you can't really beat it. If you don't end up with CO2, you end up with CO, which -is- a regulated pollutant.
So, you say, let's regulate it. Fine. To what level? What ambient level are you going to put it at that says "CO2 below this level isn't deterimental to public health." Because that is what you need to get a pollutant regulated. You need to determine that it is detrimental to public health and awhat level that is, or barring a level, a level of technological control that can be reached and then go after the health effects.
That is, unless you want to modify the Clean Air Act. And if that is your goal, good luck.
oldgoof (anonymous) says…
snowWI: "That is why we need to adopt the Renewable Portfolio Standard in Kansas"
Goof: In Kansas? Well, lets start the list of what legislation makes this a more perfect energy world. I could live with federal laws that puts equal mercury emission limits for new and existing plants, but nobody here talks about that.... Or prohibiting SUV's from being driven by college students, or one person period.
It is ironic that all the hundreds of thousands of snowWI's friends in Colorado who voted for Renewable Portfolio Standards in Colorado actually *created* this issue for us in Kansas. What does that say about the wisdom of these state-level standards?? Wouldnt we in turn just be dumping on our friends from Oklahoma or Nebraska?
As tolawdjk notes, the review standard on this issue is pretty limited, and most of the hot air being blown about on this board on this issue is way way beyond the scope of the questions to be ruled on by KDHE.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
I am just concerned about how much public money that the Sunflower group is after. Did they get all those tax abatements that are all the rage in Kansas??
I want 3 nuke plants in Kansas.
THAT would be the sha-zizel!
haspas (anonymous) says…
There is a very strong evidence to believe the three new electric generation plants will soon be approved to be built on the Baker Wetlands, for better access to water and closer proximity to customers; and it will be wood-fired, not coal-fired. They plan to chop down and burn all the trees in Douglas County.
All that balderdash about building in Holcomb was just a "stalking horse," ONLY if was non-controversial. And now it isn't.
Boog, old Buddy, look what you have brought on us.
snowWI (anonymous) says…
oldgoof,
A national standard on mercury should be implemented for all existing and new coal power plants. If we have a strict national standard on mercury emissions that applies to all the states, we could lower the health risks to the public. However, even with the strictest regulations coal power plants still emit mercury.
Also, the Renewable Porfolio Standard should be a law pertaining to all the states. The RPS could start with a low figure. For instance, 5-10% of total electricity generated in all states, must come from renewable sources. This would be a goal that could be easily reached by all states without working to hard.
Another issue is that North Dakota is ranked as 2nd in the country in wind energy potential, but they have a huge coal power generating complex near the center of the state on the Missouri River. You would think that ND would be a leader in the exporting of clean wind energy, but they are not.
In Mercer County in rural North Dakota, there are 4 coal power plants. Some of the coal plants in this county are ranked as the nations dirtiest. These plants in 2002 produced: Pounds of Mercury: 1122
Tons of CO2 produced: 19,527,516
Tons of NO2 produced: 41,830
Tons of S02 produced: 50,823
Source: http://www.cleartheair.org/dirtypower...
To put this in perspective the state of California only produced 31,000,000 tons of CO2 from power plants in the year 2002.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"Tons of CO2 produced: 19,527,516"
impossible for North Dakota.
They only burned 16,000,000 tons of coal.
Kansas annually burns 20,000,000 so there is NO WAY that 4 plants can produce 19,000,000 of CO2. These numbers are cooked and BS.
Not unless you have found a new way to fold time or to ignore physics and chemical pricipals.
snowWI (anonymous) says…
According to this website North Dakota has seven coal power plants in the entire state. you can click on the individual plant and look at the emission data. The emission data shows that this state emits a large amount of NO2, SO2, CO2, and mercury from these seven power plants.
Source: http://www.cleartheair.org/dirtypower...
You can also click any power plant located in the US and find out when it was built, and the emissions it produces. All the data from US power plants is from the year 2002. This is a .org website, I do not think they could make up all the numbers.
snowWI (anonymous) says…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061118/a...
KSMan (anonymous) says…
Kansas is also adopting a much stricter then federal mercury limit - something like 79% below the federal level. It's in the draft permit. Lot's of detail about the plant's mercury emissions at www.holcombstation.coop Reads to me that mercury emissions will not increase with the expansion.
Sierra Club thanked KDHE at the Topeka hearing for the low limit.
snowWI (anonymous) says…
KSMan,
Mercury may be 79% below the federal limit, but many believe that this limit is not strict enough. Coal power plants are one of the main sources of mercury emissions in the US. 22 states believe that the strict federal limit on mercury is not good enough. Kansas is NOT one of the states that takes the most strict stand on mercury reductions from power plants. Also, if you were at any of the testimonies Sunflower never mentions how much CO2 these plants would produce. They seem to take the Bush stance that global warming is not even a problem.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061118/a...
snowWI (anonymous) says…
I believe that the existing coal plant in Holcomb is not even used for the entire year. The whole cooperative electricity tri-state system is a joke. Let the individual states decide where they are getting there energy instead of taking advantage of states without strict regulations. Western Kansas is losing population. They can provide for there own electricity needs by building wind farms.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
"Sierra Club thanked KDHE at the Topeka hearing for the low limit."
KDHE apologists and cheerleaders.
THAT is one primary reason I DO NOT belong and DO NOT support the local Sierra CLub or the national.
KDHE IS the Number one problem with pollution in our state. Corrupt, incompetent, and ineffective.
But look at whom "thanks" them.
Gimme a break. How does Sierra Club claim to have any credibility by championing mediocrity in KDHE?
snowWI (anonymous) says…
Asbestos,
Kansas needs to take a standard on mercury that is more strict than the current EPA level. The current regulations are not good enough for the existing coal plants we already have. kdhe is a joke. The Sierra Club has gone crazy with the mercury statement. Kansas will soon become synonomous with global warming.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061118/a...
jenniplant04 (anonymous) says…
I was just waiting to see how long it took asbestos to launch into his personal attack of KDHE. He's like a broken record. Everyone in wrong about everything, except him. It must be nice to be an expert on everything!
snowWI (anonymous) says…
now is not the time to be building more coal power plants in kansas.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2...
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
jenniplant,
There are at least 4 EPA Office of Inspector General Inspections that I KNOW of that do not hold KDHE in very high esteem.
So I am not alone in my dislike of KDHE. If you just want to know, pick up a phone and poll all the Environmental Consultants and Contractors what their opinion is of KDHE.
A poorly regulated UST (that was supposed to be pulled in 1996) leaked in 2006 (that is after a decade) and burned a house or two down. IT csot the State of Kansas LUST fund probaly 3/4 to 1 million dollars...the fine for the offending gas station was $5,000!!!
In 2003 the KDHE was acting in the interest of "supervision" for the city of Lawrence on a known leaking fuel tank. They took the dirt and piled it down by the boatdock by the river.
In 2004 after a decade of trying the kdhe illegally got the SFAAP transferred by breaking it up in t 29 or 30 sum "Waste management units" and delisted it from superfund National Priorities Listing and illegally listed it as under RCRA Corrective action. Well that is NOT legal because Explosively contaminated building asn ordnance plants that are federal facilities are to be cleaned up under superfund (cercla). What KDHE did was apply Hazmat cleanup at "waste sites" to a kown and listed superfund site, thereby circumventing the overiding law, hence illegal.
in 1999-2000 there were 3300 notified asbestos projects in Kansas. Now asbestos is NOT banned and we are importing MORE products every year (we basically just shipped the asbestos production out of the US, but we still use the products.) . In Kansas one has to notify when one has aproject with a demolition,r a renovation impacting friable asbestos greater than 25 feet, or 10 square feet. In 2005 there were only 1242 notified projects when there was more construction, demolitions, and renovations than any other time in kansas history!!!
In 2001 KDHE disregarded the requirement under the CWA to do Use Attainability Assessment for primary and secondary recreational contact US waters. They did not do the secondary contact. Took EPA to court and lost.... twice!!!!!
In 2002-2005 they have "pencil whipped" the emission permits from the regulated community. I doubt if ANY are backed up by real data. They just filled out paper!!
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
In 1994-ish the KDHE assisted Teh CIty of Wichita to "delist" from the aforementioned NPL (see a pattern yet??) for the Gilbert Mosley site, meaning the City of Wichita is responsible financially for the entire site. They passed a special Tax Incremental Financing district for the Gilbert and Mosley site, to pay for the cleanup. There are tons of KDHE and EPA money STILL spent in that Site, even though the CIty of Wichita agreed to take over the site. illegal as HELL!! Whom paid the money, none other than KDHE!!! Then the CITY of WIchita spent money, $22 million on this:
http://www.wichitagov.org/NR/rdonlyre...
The Temple to EGO! Instead of spending the money on cleanup, they spent it on environmental bling!!! Now they ran short of money and now need more so they come back to the stat of KANSAS for MONEY????
In the 1999 time frame, KDHE and the CIty of Wichita did it again! At the Norther Industiral Corridor NPL site. Again Delisted, again a Tax Incremental Finance passed to pay for it,.... and again State and Federal cleanup funds go to it funnelled through none other than ...KDHE. Whom is supposed to have cut the purse strings to these sites. Remember, The city of Wichita AGREED to take financial responsibility for these sites.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
Why is this a problem?? It takes money from deserving sites that are NOT in wichita!!! Like this one in Salina that DOES impact Drink water wells, and had a reading of almost 10% TCE!!! 800,00 ppb, and they are STILL funneling money to wichita????
http://www.saljournal.com/?module=dis...
IS this NOT the definition of misappropriation of funding and corruption!!!!
Speaking of which the KDHE and the KLA Environmental Services are "joined at the hip" for regulation of Confined Animal Feeder Operations. Whom is KLA Environmental Services? A subsidery of Kansas Livestock Association. HOW is a lobby group working as a consultant in areas where they are trying influence the legislation and in bed with the regulatory agency. MOst of the CAFO surveys are done either under the direction of KDHE staff or by them.
can anyone see the inherent conflict of interest when the regulator sties to be the consultant as well?????
They simply have VERY poor leadership in Dr. Hammerschmidt, who has had a burr in his butt against EPA for at least 2 decades and fights them on everything!!!
The poeple they hire are not very good. They routinely pass up very high quality people, and hire idiots. They hired Clark Duffy our of the City of Topeka. IF you look at the makup of KDHE they mainly hire from former city employees. Then they complain how they do not have enough money!!!
What they need to do is hire quality, knowledgeable, and productive people.
YOU want to know more, look at the comments I posted, and go to the links. THESE are official documents!
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/sep...
Do you see the problem yet?? This is exactly what an agency looks like in FULL meltdown.
Do you really think they are concerned about environmental issues, or their own interests??
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…
That would be 800,000 PPB of TCE at the Shilling Site well.
I think that is way above both the Wichita sites.