Feds Sue Coal Plant In Homer City, PA For Unlawful Pollution

HOMER CITY, Pa. — The federal government on Thursday sued several companies over a coal-burning electricity generating plant, calling it "one of the largest air pollution sources in the nation" and asking the court to keep it from operating unless it meets Clean Air Act standards.

The Department of Justice lawsuit, filed in Pittsburgh at the request of the Environmental Protection Agency, said the plant, with coal-fired, steam-generating boilers, had been modified unlawfully, resulting in significant discharge of harmful chemicals into the air around it in Homer City, a tiny rural community about 50 miles east of Pittsburgh.

"These pollutants harm public health and the environment, contributing to premature mortality, asthma attacks, acid rain and other adverse effects in downwind communities and natural areas," the lawsuit says.

The defendants include EME Homer City Generation LP and previous owners and operators New York State Electric & Gas Corp., or NYSEG, of Rochester, N.Y., and Erie-based Pennsylvania Electric Co., also known as Penelec.

A spokesman for the plant's current operator, Edison Mission Energy, of Santa Ana, Calif., said the company hadn't reviewed the lawsuit and couldn't comment on it. But he noted the company has spent about $300 million since its 1999 purchase to reduce emissions.

"It appears, based on an earlier notice of intent that we received from the government, that all of the alleged violations occurred before we acquired the facility," spokesman Charley Parnell said.

Edison Mission Energy is a subsidiary of Edison International, of Rosemead, Calif.

Penelec spokesman Scott Surgeoner also declined to comment because the lawsuit hadn't been reviewed. But he noted the company sold its share of the Homer City plant more than a decade ago. Penelec is a subsidiary of First Energy Corp., of Akron, Ohio.

NYSEG spokesman Clay Ellis said the company doesn't comment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit asks the court for an injunction to prevent operation of the plant in violation of the Clean Air Act, to require defendants to obtain permits and remedy past violations, to force them to audit modifications and report the results and to have them surrender emissions allowances or credits to offset illegal emissions.

It also wants an order that the defendants "take other appropriate actions to remedy, mitigate and offset the harm to public health and the environment" caused by violations of the Clean Air Act, and it seeks civil penalties and legal costs.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul E. Skirtich declined to comment.

Comments

[CKMJr]

08:24 PM on 01/10/2011

just one?

[ThinkCreeps]

09:33 PM on 01/09/2011

Only one of the three units has a desulfurization plant, which should also capture mercury. I guess the other two units are grandfathered dirty. Thanks, Shrub: who doesn't love mercury and radium in the air.

`Illegal modifications' presumably means running the plant without its reported catalytic converters to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions, or maybe too hot, producing more NOX than necessary? The NYT version of the story mentions burner modifications.

[OliverTwist]

09:04 PM on 01/09/2011

Big companies laugh at toothless laws and their teeny tiny penalties.

[Kenz300]

05:08 PM on 01/09/2011

It is time to transition to clean, safe alternative energy.

Wind, solar, geothermal and second generation biofuels are the future.

[realitytrumpsbull]

02:06 PM on 01/09/2011

I think there's an answer to this to be found in the realm of physics and engineering, rather than in the realm of law. If you get anything hot enough, it'll burn, and turn into carbon, basically. Rock, well, I don't know, but I think that anything they're worried about from the exhaust of a coal smokestack can probably be remedied by installing an 'afterburner', and using part of the power plant's output to produce hydrogen from water, and re-burn the exhaust coming off the coal flue. Matter of fact, you could probably design something that takes advantage of the hot exhaust to run a secondary steam boiler to turn a turbine/generator to do just that. I don't know how much water you'd have to supply to do that, but I think it's theoretically possible to do some consultation with engineers to literally 'cook up' something like that. Where there's a will, there's a way. This country has a lot of colleges and universities, where people study stuff like engineering. Farm the problem out to one of them, develop proof-of-concept, install that bad boy, and let er buck. Now, there is the small issue of the exhaust stack then acting as a rocket, and pushing the earth out of its' orbit, but I'm sure they'll figure out something...

[OliverTwist]

09:07 PM on 01/09/2011

There are a lot of viable options for cleaning emissions. Plants don't use them because the cost money and rolling on the ground and laughing their heads off at the toothless government regulations is cheaper and a lot more fun.

[ThinkCreeps]

09:21 PM on 01/09/2011

You can't easily recover heat from the exhaust gases of a coal plant, unlike natural gas, because it's full of fly ash.

If percent-level improvements in efficiency could be obtained they would be. The operators are tight, not stupid.

[sunsetter]

12:19 AM on 01/09/2011

These articels are a joke aren't they? They do not tell anyone what the pollutant is.

Do any of you realize that if an existing power plant increases it's output of electricity by even 1 watt over it's rating, it is considered a new source, in total. In essence it can no longer operate. How's that for encouraging efficiency?

By the way, everything pollutes. Big things pollute more than little things. Funny how the obvious escapes the feeble minded.

Interesting article by Michigan State University on the lack of scientific knowledge our college kids possess - they think trees grow by consuming soil! - silly kids, they don't even know photosynthesis requires CO2.

http://news.msu.edu/media/documents/2011/01/f6e8a4d5-8ccb-48be-8d4b-1915c5c2583c.pdf

[CraigNazor]

02:07 AM on 01/09/2011

"A pollutant is a waste material that pollutes air, water or soil, and is the cause of pollution. Three factors determine the severity of a pollutant: its chemical nature, its concentration and its persistence."

"Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into a natural environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to [...] physical systems or living organisms. Pollution can take the form of chemical substances or energy, such as noise, heat, or light. Pollutants [...] can be [...] naturally occurring; when naturally occurring, they are considered contaminants when they exceed natural levels."

Which means that CO2 can be a pollutant. It also means that not everything pollutes. And if kinds aren't learning anything, maybe it's the school that's silly. Or maybe they are listening to people who don't have a clue.

Or maybe they just watch too much FOX "News."

[IPredictARiot]

10:45 AM on 01/09/2011

New Source Review is triggered by a significant increase in EMISSIONS, not in power generation (see, CAA applies to things that don't generate any power at all as well). Depending on the status of the area (attainment/non-attainment for criteria pollutants), the plant would have had to have increased emissions by either 100 or 250 tons per year.

And given the way you phrase your reference to the MSU paper, you don't seem to realize that trees draw nutrients from the soil, and that most people would consider soil to be all components that are in the ground, including biological matter and important minerals. So yes, saying that trees grow, in part, by "consuming" soil is basically correct.

[1donewrong]

08:51 PM on 01/08/2011

Why aren't the towns that use the power also cited?

[MIKEinNYC]

07:26 PM on 01/08/2011

This doesn't happen with nukes.

France is 80% nuculer.

And you don't have to buy oil, coal, gas from teh oil company. It's a true alternative source of energy while we wait for solar and wind and water and other stuff to become feasible.

NYC is powered by a nukes 12 miles up the Hudson. No problem. Ever. And they don't burn a drop of oil or burn a nugget of coal.

[ClimateHawk]

06:25 PM on 01/08/2011

Caution: Fossil Fuel Burning May be Hazardous to Your Civilization.

It can cause all kinds of freaky weather.

Tell the coal burners to take a hike.

Sign up for Green Power: http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/buying/buying_power.shtml

[quidam56]

04:31 PM on 01/08/2011

hobo, China is laughing at the way we are destroying our environment to feed their empire, our air, water and land is a toxic mess and the trade off is so we can go to Walmart and buy cheap toxic toys for our kids.

[quidam56]

04:25 PM on 01/08/2011

CJCalgirl we are trying ( without the guns ), we've been to local, state and federal officials and have marched on Washington many times. http://www.southernstudies.org/2010/09/activists-will-march-on-washington-to-end-mountaintop-removal.html

[rustysc]

02:07 PM on 01/08/2011

Shut down all coal burning plants. Thanks to them we have acid rain, lung disease, cancer.

[csuciadams]

06:42 PM on 01/08/2011

How much are you willing to pay to make this happen? Would you pay twice as much for electricity? That is what it would take.

I would, but I don't know if others would as well.

[rustysc]

11:09 PM on 01/08/2011

I would, in a few years it will be twice as much.

[IPredictARiot]

10:31 AM on 01/09/2011

If users of coal power had to pay for the actual damage they incurred, alternative energy would be the market choice.

Just because you don't pay it in your bill doesn't mean a cost doesn't exist. It's wrong to save a few bucks on your power bill by letting someone else get asthma or die sooner. The problem is, in our system, if you can diffuse the damage, the person bearing the costs doesn't have any way of seeking redress.

[StephenBP]

09:07 AM on 01/08/2011

Because sulfur dioxide has a very short half life in the atmosphere, and because it is often ejected high into the atmosphere, you don’t smell a distant erupting volcano, but you can smell a poorly run power plant in your own city. So even though a volcano like Pinatubo might put enough sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to lower the temperature of surface of the entire planet, after a few years, the stuff washes out of the atmosphere and the residual effect is gone. Plus, the stuff from the volcano is ejected high into the atmosphere and has a chance to get diluted while the stuff from the local polluting power plant can easily land right on you when the weather conditions are right.

[Rex Allen]

02:43 PM on 01/08/2011

Quote"after a few years, the stuff washes out of the atmosphere and the residual effect is gone" unquote. I live in the heart of coal country, and the oldtimers can recall a time( in their 90's..And still alive today) when their little cities of black gold were clouded over with coal smoke from the households keeping warm. They are still alive and doing well, but their little cities are gone...Ghost towns created by bureaucracies like the EPA, ODNR, OSM and the list goes on and on. For all the Greenheads, Mother Earth is just fine...It just astonishes me that the acid eating, weed smoking hippies that created Earth Day has gained control of our power grid.

[StephenBP]

03:15 PM on 01/08/2011

My grandfather was a coal miner and died of lung disease. You pretty obviously don’t understand chemistry, or toxicity, so your happy horsesh it story about happy old timers is just a lot of crack in support of corporate entities that would run over you in a heartbeat to make a buck. You are stabbing yourself in the back when you stick up for those sorts. I sure seems that when people aren't in the habit of exercising rational thoughts, they are easy prey to predigested pap from hate media.

By the way… Greenheads? Acid Eaters? Weed smoking hippies? The EPA was created by Richard Nixon.

You should really find a better place to get your information from. Someone is really misleading you.

BTW, what type of sticks do you use?

[csuciadams]

06:44 PM on 01/08/2011

Mother Earth is fine? Did you know we have fish adviseries in 2/3s of all of our rivers and swim advisories in a 1/3? Of all our rivers! We are not ok and it is getting worse. The sooner you realize that the better off we will all be.

[Y3rMawm]

04:09 AM on 01/08/2011

Someone didn't grease the right palms. Nothing more.

[Rex Allen]

02:29 PM on 01/08/2011

That hit the nail EXACTLY on the head..

[IPredictARiot]

10:35 AM on 01/09/2011

If by "grease the right palms" you mean "comply with an Act of Congress", then yes.

[SitandStay]

01:07 AM on 01/08/2011

Getting our money back one case at a time.
Funds coming back....hear that great sucking sound?
Here is an example of the Fed's ignoring horrible acts in little municipalities all over our country under #43. Real class act he was.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/PSC_Recovery_Systems/PSCRecoverySystems030708.pdf