Report: Proposed coal-fired plant in Surry County would pollute bay
The coal-burning power plant proposed for Surry County would release significant, and illegal, amounts of mercury and other pollutants, according to a new report.
The report, to be released today, was commissioned by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, an environmental group.
Officials at the Henrico County-based Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, which is proposing the plant, said yesterday that they were reviewing the report and could not comment in detail.
But ODEC strongly opposed the notion that the plant's emissions would be illegal.
"The application for this proposed facility is subject to the most rigorous review" by state and federal agencies, ODEC said in a statement.
The bay and numerous tributaries, including much of the James River, already are polluted. The bay group said adding more contamination, from the plant's air emissions, to those waters would violate the federal Clean Water Act.
The group also said it makes no sense to add pollution to the bay watershed when federal and state governments are searching for ways to restore the Chesapeake.
"Sanctioning another new pollution source . . . not only is illogical but illegal," said William C. Baker, president of the bay group.
ODEC is proposing to build the 1,500-megawatt power plant about 60 miles southeast of Richmond. It would cost up to $5 billion.
Early estimates suggest that each year, the plant would release nearly 3,100 tons of nitrogen oxides -- nitrogen is the main pollutant harming the bay -- and perhaps 100 to 200 pounds of mercury, which is highly toxic to people and wildlife.
According to the report, that would translate into 118 tons of nitrogen -- comparable to the amount from a large sewage-treatment plant -- and 15 to 26 pounds of mercury falling on the bay watershed each year.
Small amounts of mercury can cause major problems in waterways, experts say.
"Mercury concentrates at the top of the food chain, in fish, birds and people," College of William and Mary biologist Dan Cristol said in a statement provided by the bay group.
The report was prepared by H. Andrew Gray, a private air-pollution specialist in San Rafael, Calif. The group paid $20,000 for the report.
ODEC says it needs the plant to serve a growing demand for electricity.
The bay group says that demand could be met through energy conservation and alternative sources such as wind and solar power. ODEC says those measures are good but won't do enough to meet the demand.
Contact Rex Springston at (804) 649-6453 or
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
As a Progressive I am all for nuclear power as soon as we figure out how to safely dispose of nuclear waste. That was the the problem in Nevada with Ucca Mountain that has still not been solved.
Build nuclear power plants you idiots. It’s zero pollution and the most efficient form of generating electricity we have! We can use wind and solar to ease the load, but they can’t supply everything. We need more nuclear power plants. Then when solar panels become more affordable, people can start putting them on their roofs to help return electricity to the power grid.
Anon, explain your attitude to the little girl in Tanzania who gathers ground nuts with her mother because my contributions aren’t enough to pay for their food. Explain why we’re patting ourselves on the back for being so ‘green’ while she goes with two dresses and one pair of shoes - all she’s ever had. Explain the resources being squandered so people can congratuldate themselves on their ‘eco-mindedness’ while that girl and her mother die from AIDS which has already taken her father. Don’t explain yourself to me. Take some time to take your attention off yourself and consider the human consequences of what we are doing to people.
I don’t trust ANY biased reports - particularly those from people with vested interests such as stockholders/ corporate personnel.
I am sure that these same people said the same thing about the old style coal plants and look where that everybody.
I am very suspicious of studies done by any environmantal group and especially a group from California. This is the state that has put the fate of a small minnow fish above the livehood of 30,000 of the state’s citizens.
LED lights and solar roof shingles sound good to me. When will they become more affordable and more available?
Yes, bring on the LEDs. They are more efficient and safer. I couldn’t agree more about the mercury filled light bulbs. There is something wrong with that picture and always has been.
However:
http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/factsheets/lighting.cfm
“Individual CFLs generally contain less than 10 mg of mercury, with a significant portion (two-thirds) containing less than 5 mg. A small percentage of CFLs contains between 10 and 50 mg of mercury.“
10 milligram = 0.0003527396195 ounce
Notice where the point is.
Even so, the EPA has a process in place for dealing with broken bulbs—just like they do for broken thermometers that have been with us for a very long time and most of us have had a thermometer that has broken:
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/#fluorescent
With the coal plant we are talking about over a 100 lbs—- PER YEAR! Not less than a 100th of an once!
As for lightbulbs, bring on the LEDs.
How about the Mercury levels that Green parties have lobbied for in our light bulbs that will be fored to be in every US Household in 2011? What’s wrong with this picture??? That’s a lot worse than a Clean Coal Plant that’s regulated and monitored by professionals.
Secret Report Revealed: Bush Admin Determined CO2 to be Public Threat in 2007
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/secret-report-bush-administration-co2-public-threat-2007.php
Let’s see if this gets reported by local corporate media outlets.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.


Advertisement