My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL49711
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL49711
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:29:16 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 5:20:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982056
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Name
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE INCREASED ORDERS KEEPS TWENTYMILE COAL EMPLOYEES JOBS SECURE
Permit Index Doc Type
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
~a9~ ~~:r ~ h j <br />Craig power debate heats up <br />.Marie Spllsbury Staff Writer <br />CRAIG - A decision to force the <br />raig Power Plant to meet certain feder- <br />Ilv mandated air quality requirements <br />ould be reached this year, according to <br />tote officials. <br />The Craig Power Plant has been <br />operating for nine yeazs without a Title <br />V permit, an operating permit required <br />to meet the federal Clean Air Act of <br />1990. The act calls for states to set up a <br />system to monitor commercial pollu- <br />tants and requires all smokestacks to <br />operate with a Title V. <br />Craig does not have a Title V <br />because there are no air quality stan- <br />dards for power plants in Colorado, <br />according to Christopher Dann, a <br />spokesman for the Colorado Department <br />of Health Air Pollution Division. <br />"We aze still involved .vith discus- <br />sions with the Colorado Utilities <br />Commission for all utility companies so <br />they will all be the same," he said. "We <br />want the permits to be consistent." <br />He expects a decision to be made <br />sometime this month, and to be effective <br />next year. <br />Dave Longwell, support services <br />manager for the Craig Power Plant, said <br />the application has been submitted and <br />the power plant is awaiting information <br />from the state. <br />"We have our application in and <br />every once in a while we call to make <br />sure they are working on it," he said. <br />Smoke is still fanning over the pol- <br />lutants emitted at the Craig plant, but the <br />impacts and outcome are still unknown. <br /> <br />The Sierra Club filed suit in October <br />1996 against the Craig plant after set- <br />tling with the Hayden Power Plant for <br />5130 million to clean up that plant. <br />Federal court dates are still pending on <br />the Craig plant lawsuit. <br />'"fhe fact is, Craig is no cleaner than <br />Hayden. Coal can be burned clean and <br />we would like to see the same thing <br />done to Craig that was done in Hayden," <br />said Steamboat Springs Sierra Club rep- <br />resentative Joan Hoffman. <br />The Sierra Club alleges that stacks <br />number one and two at the plant are not <br />burning clean, and omitting sulfur diox- <br />ide and oxides of nivogen in the air. <br />Both cause acid rain. <br />A third stack, built in 1980, is burn- <br />ing clean, Hoffman said. <br />Longwell said all three stacks are <br />clean. The technology [o bum coal in <br />stacks one and two is older than the <br />technology in stack three, but he insists <br />that all three stacks do the same job. <br />"We were inspected by state and <br />federal inspectors last summer and they <br />said we were in compliance with all <br />aspects of the law," Longwell said. "We <br />work hard to maintain that." <br />However, Longwell did admit that <br />while stack three removes 99.9 percent <br />of the toxins, stacks one and two only <br />remove 70 percent. <br />The state has been reluctant to step <br />in and force the Craig pant to remove <br />more of its toxins because it's hard to <br />prove what the impacts would be if the <br />toxins were removed, said Dan Ely with <br />the Colorado Air Quality Division. <br />"The state likes to act if there is real <br />"The state likes to act as <br />if there is real smoking- <br />gun evidence, but Craig is <br />more in the gray areas.° <br />Dan Ely <br />Colorado Air Quality Division <br />smoking-gun evidence, but Craig is <br />more in the gray areas," he said. "The <br />evidence we have so far is controversial <br />and we don'[ want to enter into regula- <br />tory trench warfare." <br />A state study in 1995 showed that <br />the Craig Power Plant was cleaning 65 <br />percent of its pollutants from the atmos- <br />phere. P1ost Title V permits now require <br />between 85 and 95 percent cleaning, Ely <br />said. <br />Larry Svoboda, a regional <br />Environmental Protection Agency offi- <br />cial, said he believes that the Craig <br />Power Plant is only cleaning 40 to 50 <br />percent of its pollution. <br />"The state study wasn't well man- <br />aged. It only lasted a year, and we found <br />that whenever we do a study on air pol- <br />lution, the amount of pollution drops for <br />a while," he said. <br />For now, the state, the EPA and the <br />power plant are awaiting results of an <br />independent engineering study to deter- <br />mine what should be done. <br />Tri-State, the principal owner of the <br />plant, has agreed to pay for retrofit for <br />cleaner scrubbers as long as the solution <br />is "economical and reasonable;' Ely said. <br />/1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.