Santee RIVERKEEPER® Alliance

SCDOT new Chairman was VP of Legal Affairs of Laidlaw from 1990

Riverkeeper — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:46:00 GMT

Regarding SCDOT's new Chairman Henry Taylor who was VP of Legal Affairs for Laidlaw Environmental Services from 1990
-- Begin Excerpt --
In 1992, the DHEC board, ignoring internal studies and its own staff, allowed Laidlaw to operate without posting a $133 million cash bond. After private meetings with the company, DHEC agreed to allow Laidlaw to give a simple corporate guarantee instead of making payments to a trust fund to cover estimated costs of cleaning up future leaks.
-- End Excerpt --

Reference

http://www.scpronet.com/point/9903/p05.html

First Annual Santee Riverkeeper Waterbody Rally

Riverkeeper — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:26:00 GMT

The Santee Riverkeeper Alliance announces the First Annual Santee Riverkeeper Waterbody Rally. This cleanup effort targets all waterbodies located in the Calhoun, Clarendon, Berkeley, Orangeburg, and Sumter Counties. These waterbodies include lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, sloughs, ponds and any other waterbody that requires some rejuvenation. The cleanup effort also includes any trash and debris that have washed upon the shores. We urge each group to email us their name, photos and garbage bag count to Riverkeeper@Santeeriverkeeper.org so that we may post the cleanup results to the Santee Riverkeeper Alliances web site.

Who: All Waterbody lovers

What: First Annual Santee Riverkeeper Waterbody Rally

When: Saturday, May 2, 2009

Where: Any lake, river, stream, creek, slough, pond or beach within Clarendon, Orangeburg, Sumter, Berkeley and Calhoun Counties.

How: We suggest using some big and strong garbage bags

Why: To clean up the water. Each piece of garbage removed from each waterbody is one step closer to cleaner water.

If you would like know more about this event, sponsor the event, how to get involved, or even to post your photos of your cleanup efforts on the Santee Riverkeepers web site, please contact the Riverkeeper at 803-445-7701 or by email Riverkeeper@SanteeRiverkeeper.org.

A Year of Pollution

Riverkeeper — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:36:00 GMT

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a single 500-megawatt coal plant produces 3.5 billion kilowatt-hours, enough electricity to power a city of about 140,000 people for a year.

Each year the power plant consumes:

· 1,430,000 tons of coal filling 14,300 train cars of coal annually (40 per day). Coal transportation accidents result in the deaths of 450 people and 6,800 injuries every year.

· 2.2 billion gallons of water for cooling, enough water to support a city of approximately 250,000 people. The cooling water also contains 21 million fish eggs, larvae, and fish that are injured or killed in the process. 146,000 tons of limestone for air pollution scrubbers.

Each year the power plant emits:

· 2.2 billion gallons of cooling water. Cooling water is released back into the environment up to 25°F warmer than it was withdrawn, changing the habitat of the waterbody, and can be contaminated with chlorine and other toxic chemicals.

· 3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the leading cause of climate change.

· 125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from smokestack scrubbers. The ash and sludge consists of coal ash, limestone, and many pollutants, such as toxic metals like lead and mercury. More than 75% of this waste is stored in unlined and unmonitored landfills and impoundments.

· 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide. Nitrogen oxide is a major cause of smog and acid rain.

· 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide is the main cause of acid rain, which damages forests, lakes, and buildings.

· 720 tons of carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is a poisonous gas and contributor to climate change.

· 500 tons of small particles. Small particulates are a health hazard, causing lung damage.

· 220 tons of hydrocarbons. When hydrocarbons don't burn completely, they cause smog.

· 225 pounds of arsenic, 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, and other toxic heavy metals.

· Trace elements of uranium. A study by the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Lab found that radioactive emissions from coal combustion are greater than those from nuclear power production.

Union of Concerned Scientists. 2008. How coal works. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Union of Concerned Scientists. 2008. Coal vs. wind. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

SCDHEC Decision Makers - Not Online With Clean Energy

Riverkeeper — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 06:22:00 GMT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

February 19, 2009

Media Contact:
Mark C. Bruce
Santee RIVERKEEPER^®
Riverkeeper@SanteeRiverkeeper.org
http://www.SanteeRiverkeeper.org

SCDHEC Decision Makers - Not Online With Clean Energy

North Santee, SC - With South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control's (DHEC) decision to grant Santee Cooper an air permit to operate a planned coal-fired generating plant near Florence is a sure sign the board is not taking a holistic view of a plant's impact on the local environment and especially the impact of the plant emitting millions of tons of Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere of which is believed to be the major contributor of Green House Gases. Mark Bruce, Santee Riverkeeper said, "We must think more about the long term ramifications of the operation of these coal fired plants. All in all, Santee Cooper is good at burning coal. That's what they know how to do. They have blueprints for the construction of the plants. I suggest they start thinking outside of the box and take a leadership role not only locally but nationally to seek alternative methods. I humbly suggest that they seek other alternative means of producing cleaner electricity. The Santee River Basin contains at least three coal fired plants: Cross, Jefferies, and Wateree. The damaging effects of these plants not only include carbon dioxide emissions but also include copper, mercury, and arsenic, to name a few. Mercury bio-accumulates within the fish here in the Santee River Basin as a direct result of the operation of coal-fired plants; and people from what I've heard just don't eat the fish anymore. Most of the lower part of the state and some parts of the upper part of the state have already exceeded the total maximum daily loads (TMDL's) for some if not all monitored toxic substances related to power plant emissions. Fish consumption advisories due to mercury dot the South Carolina landscape in red on the reports issued by DHEC itself. The writing is on the wall and right now it's a political one when it should be one of environmental consciousness.

For more information, visit http://wewantthetruth.org call 803-445-7701, or email the Riverkeeper at Riverkeeper@SanteeRiverkeeper.org.

Media Contact:
Mark C. Bruce
Santee RIVERKEEPER^®
Riverkeeper@SanteeRiverkeeper.org
http://www.SanteeRiverkeeper.org

Coal plant wins DHEC board approval

Riverkeeper — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:06:00 GMT

By SAMMY FRETWELL - The State

Santee Cooper won an important victory Thursday in its quest to build a $2.2 billion coal-fired power plant near Florence, persuading the state’s environmental protection agency that the utility is entitled to an air pollution permit.

The state Department of Health and Environmental Control board voted 4-2 to issue the permit, even though most board members expressed reservations about the impact a new coal plant would have on South Carolina.

Santee Cooper met all the legal requirements and DHEC staff members followed the law in granting approval, board members said near the end of a hearing lasting about five hours.

The utility, which serves about 2 million of the state’s 4 million residents, applied for the air permit about three years ago. Santee Cooper says it needs the plant to supply power until nuclear plants are built in the next decade.

“Our role was not whether I liked the coal-powered plant,” said board member Coleman Buckhouse of Florence. “Our job today and what we’ve been charged with is, ‘Did the staff properly issue the permit?’”

Board members voting in favor of the coal plant were: Buckhouse, Glenn McCall of Rock Hill, Hank Scott of Barnwell and Steven Kisner of Aiken.

“We don’t agree about the technology that’s being used,” McCall said. “But I think (with) what’s before us, we have to act.”

Board members Edwin Cooper of Charleston and David Mitchell of Spartanburg voted against the permit, saying they had too many questions about mercury discharges. By law, chairman Bo Aughtry of Greenville doesn’t vote unless there is a tie. Aughtry said after the meeting he would have voted against the plant.

Thursday’s decision is a major step forward for the plant, but it doesn’t guarantee construction.

Environmental lawyer Blan Holman said conservation groups, including the S.C. Coastal Conservation League, the state Sierra Club and the state Wildlife Federation, likely will appeal the DHEC decision. Also, Santee Cooper still needs a federal wetlands permit, state water quality certification and several other state environmental permits before it can begin work, DHEC spokesman Thom Berry said. The process could take months.

The DHEC board vote is the latest twist in a highly charged debate over building the coal-fired power plant along the Great Pee Dee River in eastern South Carolina. Not since the agency eased rules for the cleanup of a toxic waste landfill at Lake Marion in 1995 has DHEC seen this much interest in a board decision.

After months of silence, Gov. Mark Sanford on Wednesday came out against the plant. With tightening federal rules for coal plants and a slumping economy, the plant isn’t necessary to bridge the gap until new nuclear plants can be built in the next decade, he said. If built, the coal plant is expected to be in use for 50 years.

“We are disappointed,” Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer said after Thursday’s vote. “We had hoped that DHEC would take a step back and at least consider delaying the decision.”

John Frampton, director of South Carolina’s other major environmental agency, the Department of Natural Resources, also said last week that his agency opposes the coal plant because of concerns about the facility’s environmental impact.

Coal-fired power plants make electricity by burning coal. They contribute to global warming by releasing greenhouse gases, while pumping out mercury that threatens to taint many of the fish people eat. The toxic metal already has polluted fish across South Carolina, including some in the Great Pee Dee. Several states have backed away from new coal plants.

The Santee Cooper plant is expected to release 93 pounds of mercury annually and some 10 million tons of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas.

About 50 protesters, ranging from students to longtime environmental activists, picketed against the plant at DHEC headquarters on Bull Street before the meeting. Many carried signs and chanted slogans. The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy even positioned an inflatable “dirty coal plant” on DHEC’s lawn.

Santee Cooper officials told the DHEC board their coal facility will have state-of-the-art pollution controls that will efficiently remove more than 90 percent of the mercury and soot generated. The plant also will release carbon dioxide, expected to be regulated soon as a pollutant.

Lonnie Carter, Santee Cooper’s president and CEO, said he understands concerns about the plant but said DHEC understood the company’s commitment to minimize pollution.

“If I could finish my career and never build any kind of power plant, I would,” Carter said. “No matter what we do, we’ll have some impact on the environment. (But) Santee Cooper has a good record of doing its best to protect the environment.”

Much of the hearing was spent arguing the legalities of air pollution control requirements. Santee Cooper was represented by Ben Hagood, a former state lawmaker and federal prosecutor who is often allied with environmental groups. He said the company had met all requirements for a permit.

Attorneys for the Southern Environmental Law Center and other groups said DHEC staff members had issued the air permit in violation of state and federal laws. Among other things, lawyers said DHEC staffers should have required more stringent pollution controls and waited for a federal environmental impact statement, expected this spring.

They also presented a chart showing the Santee Cooper facility will release more mercury than those in some states. The chart referred to 11 plants in other states. DHEC staff members disputed the comparison, but board members Cooper and Mitchell said they were concerned about the plant’s mercury controls.

They urged the board to delay a vote.

“On this particular issue, Gov. Sanford had it right,” Cooper said. “We’ve got an opportunity to take a breather and figure out what is best for the state.”

Sanford opposes coal plant

Riverkeeper — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:41:00 GMT

Governor says coal too expensive now to fuel state facility
By JOHN MONK and SAMMY FRETWELL - sfretwell@thestate.com jmonk@thestate.com

Gov. Mark Sanford on Wednesday came out against Santee Cooper’s proposed $2.2 billion coal-fired power plant in Florence County, citing a declining economy and rising coal prices.

The changing political climate — namely the expected tightening of federal regulations on such plants — also makes building one now unaffordable.

“It raises the cost of this plant from $2.5 billion to a $4 billion plant,” Sanford said during a news conference.

If you go
What: An appeals hearing for an industrial air emissions permit. The DHEC board is being asked to uphold or invalidate the permit that allows construction of a $2.2 billion coal-fired plant in Florence County. It is uncertain whether board members will vote the same day they hear comments.

When: 10 a.m. today

Where: State Department of Health and Environmental Control headquarters, 2600 Bull St., Columbia

Of note: People should arrive well before the meeting, as most of the 30-odd seats in the board room will be filled by lawyers and witnesses. Proceedings also will be broadcast via closed-circuit television to a 300-seat overflow auditorium. The hearing may last hours.
The Republican governor said he deliberately made his remarks the day before board members of the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control hear arguments for and against upholding an air emissions permit allowing the utility to build the plant.

Officials with the state-owned Santee Cooper said they were “disappointed.” Spokeswoman Laura Varn said Sanford’s figures are short-term predictions, and long-term projections show the plant is needed.

Moreover, she added, some Sanford facts were based on Duke Energy figures that don’t apply to Santee Cooper’s high-growth service area.

The plant has met all state and federal requirements, she said.

While Sanford appoints the boards of the state Department of Health and Environmental Control and Santee Cooper, he has no power to effect the final decision on the plant’s construction.

Still, environmentalists applauded Sanford’s position.

“We’ll find out where the DHEC board stands now,” said Dana Beach, director of the S.C. Coastal Conservation League, one of several groups appealing the Santee Cooper permit at today’s hearing.

Using charts, Sanford outlined his reasons for opposing the plant. Among them:

• The new Obama administration has announced a crackdown on coal-fired plants. Those anti-pollution measures will sharply increase coal plant costs.

• The diving economy — and resulting drop in power demands — means the plant is no longer needed to bridge a 10-year gap until the state builds a nuclear power plant, which Sanford favors.

• When the plant was conceived several years ago, the price of coal was $20-$40 per ton. Last year, coal zoomed to $140 per ton. Those spikes mean the plant, which would burn 4 million tons of coal a year, might cost far more to operate. • The proposed plant would produce particulate matter comparable to what about 15 million cars emit.. Although pollution concerns were part of his decision, Sanford said costs were the deciding factor, noting a half-dozen states recently have halted plans to build coal plants.

Times have changed since the plant was proposed, Sanford said, and South Carolina should recognize that change.

The pollution — mercury, carbon dioxide and particulate matter — worries some residents near the proposed plant on the Great Pee Dee River. Some of the river’s fish are mercury-laced and endanger people who eat them.

“We don’t want that plant,” said Crystal Cannon, 29, who said her 7-year-old son has asthma and autism, conditions she fears will worsen if the plant is built.

But Santee Cooper and some of the state’s most influential business groups say the coal plant must be built to maintain adequate power and attract more industry to the job-starved Pee Dee region in eastern South Carolina.

The plant is estimated to produce about 100 permanent jobs, as well as some 1,200 to 1,400 positions — not all filled by local workers — during construction. It could serve up to 500,000 homes and new businesses.

“This facility is vital to South Carolina creating jobs,” said former U.S. Energy Secretary and S.C. Gov. Jim Edwards, in Columbia to support the plant.

Earlier this month, the state’s legislative leaders went to Washington to ask the state’s Congressional delegation for special protection for coal, which generates 61 percent of the state’s energy.

They were not pleased with Sanford on Wednesday.

“For the governor to come out and oppose this really bothers me,” said Sen. Hugh Leatherman, R-Florence, in whose home county the plant would be located. “Does he leave South Carolina in the dark? Does he cause us to shut down businesses? Does it cause us to lose employment? The answer to all those is yes.”

Senate leader Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, said of Sanford, “If he’s wrong, this state will be facing brownouts and blackouts and he’ll be gone from office — and it will be too late for us to correct this.”

Sanford stressed building a nuclear plant — Santee Cooper and SCE&G want to build two reactors — is the way of the future.

Efficiency, conservation and renewable energy should be part of the solution, too, he said.

Reach Fretwell at (803) 771-8537. Reach Monk at (803) 771-8344.

The State - Pee Dee Project: DNR opposes coal-fired plant

Riverkeeper — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:28:00 GMT

Santee Cooper chief objects to timing of comments
By JOHN MONK - jmonk@thestate.com

The head of the state Department of Natural Resources has denounced Santee Cooper’s proposed $2 billion coal-fired plant in Florence County.

DNR director John Frampton said he “cannot be silent” on the proposed plant’s “grave” threat to human health as well as the dangers to South Carolina’s air, rivers and fish.

Frampton made his comments in a letter to the Department of Health and Environmental Control, whose board on Thursday will consider whether to uphold an air emissions permit allowing utility giant Santee Cooper to build the plant.

Acrobat Portable Document Format: John Frampton Letter
Acrobat Portable Document Format: Lonnie Carter letter

If you go
WHAT: An appeals hearing for an industrial air emissions permit. The DHEC board is being asked to uphold or invalidate the permit that allows construction of a $2.2 billion coal-fired plant in Florence County. It is uncertain whether board members will vote the same day they hear comments.

WHEN: 10 a.m. Thursday

WHERE: State Department of Health and Environmental Control headquarters, 2600 Bull St. (at Bull and Harden streets), Columbia

OF NOTE: People should arrive well before the meeting, as most of the 30-odd seats in the board room will be filled by lawyers and witnesses. The proceedings also will be broadcast via closed-circuit television to a 300-seat overflow auditorium. The hearing may last hours.
“DNR is opposed to the permitting, construction and operation of this facility,” Frampton wrote in his letter, dated Friday and obtained Tuesday by The State newspaper. Frampton’s seven-member board OK’d the letter.

Santee Cooper chief Lonnie Carter, in turn, wrote a letter to DHEC, denouncing Frampton’s comments as an “11th hour attempt to circumvent DHEC’s regulatory process.” For three years, he wrote, “no one from DNR has ever told us that they objected to the issuance of the air permit or opposed the facility.”

Carter said DHEC’s board should ignore Frampton’s letter.

DNR’s opposition sets up a showdown between one of the state’s key environmental guardians and its largest electrical producer and coal burner, also a state agency.

Thursday, DHEC’s seven-member board will hear environmental groups’ appeal of its staff’s decision in December to grant an air emissions permit for the proposed 2,700-acre plant.

The permit would allow Santee Cooper to build a double-boiler plant, which reports show would emit 93 pounds of mercury, thousands of tons of toxics and particulate matter, and 10 million tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide a year.

Santee Cooper and some of the state’s most influential business groups say the coal plant must be built to maintain adequate power and attract more industry to the job-starved Pee Dee in eastern South Carolina. The 1,320-megawatt plant will produce about 100 permanent jobs as well as about 1,400 positions during construction.

DHEC officials are expecting overflow crowds at the hearing.

While proposed coal plants have been rejected or scaled back in many states because of environmental concerns, most officials in South Carolina have been silent on the new plant.

Far from wanting to limit coal-fired power plants, some of the state’s legislative leaders recently went to Washington to ask the state’s congressional delegation to protect the state’s coal-fired electric plant culture.

Frampton, director of the state Department of Natural Resources since 2003, is the first major state official to oppose the plant.

Gov. Mark Sanford, who appoints the boards of DNR, Santee Cooper and DHEC, has expressed concerns about the plant. But he has stopped short of saying it should not proceed.

However, his office said the governor is expected to make a statement on the plant today.

Also today, former U.S. Energy Secretary and former Republican Gov. Jim Edwards will be among a group speaking in Columbia in favor of the plant.

In his letter to DHEC, Frampton said DNR’s staff had researched the plant’s dangers. The DNR staff’s key points:

• A worsening of environmental mercury pollution that builds up in fish poses “grave” risks to humans. Coal plants emit mercury, which is absorbed by fish in rivers. People eating these fish risk brain damage.

• Allowing the release of an additional 10 million tons of carbon dioxide a year carries “the risk of enormous consequences” because the gas is building up in Earth’s atmosphere and can cause “irreversible, global climatic impacts by the year 2035.”

• Constructing large coal ash ponds at the plant could be harmful. Recently, Tennessee had an “environmental disaster of enormous consequences” when dams surrounding a coal-fired power plant’s ash ponds broke. The new plant would burn millions of tons of coal a year, and ash eventually could be put into gigantic pits near environmentally sensitive limestone bluffs along the Great Pee Dee River.

Such issues, Frampton wrote, “clearly present unacceptable impacts, costs and risks for the natural environment and the citizens of South Carolina.”

Reach Monk at (803) 771-8344.

The State - SCE&G decides on lake flow levels

Riverkeeper — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:12:00 GMT

Utility to release more water than residents favor, less than officials want
By TIM FLACH - tflach@thestate.com

SCE&G plans to release more water from Lake Murray into rivers downstream during a drought than homeowners favor, but less than state natural resources officials want.

Lake groups are pressing for high water after the low levels for most of the past six years because of the drought and dam repairs.

But state officials want more lake water to improve fishing in waterways as far as 75 miles south.

By the numbers
The approximate maximum gallons of water that groups say should flow from Lake Murray downstream daily during a drought:

Homeowners: 260 million gallons a day

SCE&G: 450 million

State officials: 840 million

• Amounts would vary daily with weather.

• The lake can hold 763 billion gallons of water, SCE&G says.

SOURCES: Reports filed at www.saludahydrorelicense.com and comments sent to SCE&G.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. plans to release water at levels nearly twice what homeowners favor but about half of what state officials want.

“In low-flow times, it’s sharing of the pain,” SCE&G spokesman Robert Yanity said.

The Midlands-based utility oversees operation of a 47,500-acre lake that is a reserve source of power and a popular place to live and play.

The utility’s decision is aimed at settling the last major battle over new guidelines for lake operations for the next generation.

An agreement already is in place for releases during normal rain to benefit kayaking, trout fishing and other recreation on the lower Saluda River.

Shoreline neighborhood leaders say the decision on drought flow seems acceptable, but state officials aren’t satisfied.

The plan is “probably a good middle ground,” said Rick Kellemeyer of Chapin, one member of a group of lake anglers pressing for higher lake levels.

“It’s not ideal for lake people, it’s not ideal for river people, but it’s probably the best they can do to satisfy everybody some.”

State officials want more water released in the spring to improve fish habitat downstream and to enhance Congaree National Park’s swamp.

SCE&G’s proposal “won’t do the job fully, “ said Robert Perry, environmental director for the S.C. Department of Natural Resources.

State officials want more water flowing from the lake in April and mid-May to benefit striped bass spawning in the Congaree River and other waterways.

Anglers and homeowners are concerned the state plan would take too much lake water when rain is scare.

That would leave many coves too shallow for boating in summer and worsen fishing at the lake, they say.

Some lakeshore leaders are skeptical of SCE&G’s plan.

Steve Bell, head of Lake Watch, said it promises to turn the lake into “the personal spigot” of waterways downstream.

SCE&G’s plan goes to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees lakes built for hydropower. Federal officials can accept, reject or modify it.

State natural resources officials can ask federal officials for more lake water to be released downstream.

That possibility makes some lake groups apprehensive.

“This ball game is not over,” Bell said. “It could have a long way to go.”

Federal officials hope to settle on new standards for lake operations by mid-2010.

Reach Flach at (803) 771-8483.

Elloree Trials

Riverkeeper — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:52:00 GMT

The Santee Riverkeeper will be attending this event.

There is no clean coal!!!

Riverkeeper — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:33:00 GMT

#1: Coal Increases Rates of Disease
The United States burns more than a billion tons of coal each year – that’s 20 pounds of coal for every person in the country, every day. According to the American Lung Association, 24,000 people a year die prematurely because of pollution from coal-fired power plants. And every year 38,000 heart attacks, 12,000 hospital admissions and an additional 550,000 asthma attacks result from power plant pollution.

#2: Coal Kills Jobs
Despite coal industry claims that coal mining creates lots of jobs, the truth is that coal mining employment has been declining for decades, due to increased use of machinery instead of manpower. In West Virginia alone, coal mining employment has plummeted from 126,000 miners in 1948 (who produced 168 million tons of coal), to just 15,000 miners employed in 2005 (who, with the help of machinery, produced 128 million tons of coal).

#3: Burning Coal Emits Mercury
Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of human-generated mercury pollution in the U.S. Mercury emissions from electrical generation continues to rise. Mercury in mothers' blood and *** milk can interfere with the development of babies' brains and neurological systems and can lead to learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, problems with coordination, lowered IQ and even mental retardation.

#4: Burning Coal is Fuel for Global Warming
The U.S. produces about 25 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. Burning coal contributes 40 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions. Coal is the most carbon intensive fossil fuel. According to the United Nations Environment Program, coal emits around 1.7 times as much carbon per unit of energy when burned as does natural gas and 1.25 times as much as oil.

#5: Coal Kills Miners
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that 12,000 coal miners died from black lung disease between 1992 and 2002.

#6: Coal Wastes Huge Quantities of Water
Coal mining requires an estimated 70 to 260 million gallons of water every day.

#7: Coal Pollutes Seafood and Freshwater Fish
49 U.S. states have issued fish consumption advisories due to high mercury concentrations in freshwater bodies throughout the country. Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of human-generated mercury pollution in the U.S.

#8: Coal Destroys Mountains
Instead of traditional mining, many coal companies now use mountaintop removal to extract coal. Coal companies are increasingly using this method because it allows for almost complete recovery of coal seams while reducing the number of workers required to a fraction of what conventional methods require. Mountaintop removal involves clear cutting native hardwood forests, using dynamite to blast away as much as 800-1000 feet of mountaintop, and then dumping the waste into nearby valleys, often burying streams.

#9: Coal Kills Freshwater Streams
More than 1,200 miles of Appalachian streams have been buried or damaged by mountaintop removal mining. At least 724 miles of streams were completely buried by valley fills from Appalachian mountaintop removal between 1985 and 2001. 400,000 acres of rich and diverse temperate forests have been destroyed during the same time period as a result of mountaintop mining in Appalachia.

#10: Coal Costs Billions in Taxpayer Subsidies
The U.S. government continues to aggressively fund coal-related projects despite all that is known about coal’s impacts on health, climate and the economy. The Department of Energy is currently seeking $648 million for “clean coal” projects in its 2009 budget request, “representing the largest budget request for coal RD&D in over 25 years.”

Lake wind advisory

Riverkeeper — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:28:00 GMT

Issued by The National Weather Service
Columbia, SC
2:56 pm EST, Wed., Feb. 4, 2009

... LAKE WIND ADVISORY REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 11 PM EST THIS EVENING...

A LAKE WIND ADVISORY REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 11 PM TONIGHT.

THE COMBINATION OF LOW PRESSURE OFF THE MID ATLANTIC COAST AND STRONG HIGH PRESSURE IN THE CENTRAL PART OF THE COUNTRY WILL CAUSE NORTHWEST WINDS OF 20 TO 25 KNOTS THIS EVENING. THE CENTER OF THE HIGH WILL MOVE CLOSER TO THE AREA AND WINDS WILL DIMINISH SOMEWHAT LATE TONIGHT.

A LAKE WIND ADVISORY INDICATES THAT WINDS WILL CAUSE ROUGH CHOP ON AREA LAKES. SMALL BOATS AND PERSONAL WATERCRAFT WILL BE ESPECIALLY PRONE TO CAPSIZING.

Night Fishing Video

Riverkeeper — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:21:00 GMT

See the following video for the latest Santee Riverkeeper report.

http://www.facebook.com/v/46695938559

Striped Bass Festival

Riverkeeper — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 02:47:00 GMT

The Santee Riverkeeper will be attending this event.

This is Reality

Riverkeeper — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 02:45:00 GMT

Does South Carolina really need another coal fired generating station. Check this link out to research the coal industries methods of making coal look cool. All of us need to work together to seek alternatives methods of generating electricity.

http://action.thisisreality.org/content/joecamel

Donations

Riverkeeper — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:59:00 GMT

Hello Everyone!

The Santee Riverkeeper Alliance is one of more than 180 worldwide organizations dedicated to improving your water quality within the Santee River basin

To donate with a check, you may send your donation to:
Santee Riverkeeper Alliance
c/o Waterkeeper Alliance
50 S. Buckhout, Suite 302
Irvington , New York 10533
UNITED STATES
Tel: 914.674.0622

All donations are tax-deductible.

Sincerely,
Mark Bruce
MarkBruce@SanteeRiverKeeper.org
803-445-7701