Press

Articles in the News

CEI sues the DEQ
Read the full complaint below.

COMPLAINT FOR MANDAMUS AND INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs Citizens for Environmental Inquiry, Byron DeLong, Thomas Harkleroad, William Lewis, John Plath, Jean Veselenak and Charles Winters, through their attorney, Joseph P. Swallow, hereby submit their Complaint against Defendants Department of Environmental Quality and Steven E. Chester, its Director, as follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Citizens for Environmental Inquiry is a non-profit Corporation organized under the laws of this State whose registered office is in Presque Isle County.
The individual Plaintiffs captioned above are all residents of and domiciled within the County of Presque Isle.
The Department of Environmental Quality (hereinafter the Department) is a Department of State which by law is charged with the protection of the ambient air of Michigan from pollution, impairment and destruction.
Defendant Steven E. Chester is the appointed Director of the Department.
The Department and its officers maintain their office at the seat of State government within the City of Lansing, County of Ingham.
The people by Constitution have for their own paramount benefit entrusted the legislature with the duty to protect the air of this state from pollution, impairment and destruction. Const 1963 Art IV § 52.
There exists in fact a causal connection between global warming and/or climate change and the manmade emissions of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power generating plants into the ambient air of this State.
Global warming and/or climate change imposes upon all the people of Michigan a severity of injury that is indivisible and at once a substantial concrete injury personal to every citizen.
The legislature by virtue of the Environmental Protection Act PA 1994 No 451, MCL 324, 1701 et seq. (hereinafter the Act) has delegated to the Department its constitutional mandate to protect the air of Michigan.
Part 55, Section 5501 (a) and (b) of the Act, MCL 324, 5501 (a) and (b) et seq., expressly denotes gas which is inclusive of carbon dioxide as an air contaminant and defines air pollution as follows:

“Air pollution” means the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of air contaminants in quantities or characteristics under conditions and circumstances of a duration that are or can become injurious to human health or welfare, to animal life, to plant life, or to property or that interfere with the enjoyment of life and property in this state. (Emphasis ours)

Carbon dioxide is in fact an air pollutant within the meaning of the Act.
Section 5503 of the Act, MCL 324.5503, expressly delegates to the Department the power and authority to promulgate standards for the ambient air quality which is inclusive of regulating emissions of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power generating plants.
Section 5512 of the Act, MCL 324.5512, mandates that the Department shall promulgate rules for purposes of controlling air pollution, which is inclusive of emissions of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power generating plants.
Pursuant to their regulatory authority Defendants have under consideration applications of five proposed coal-fired electrical power generating plants seeking approval of air quality permits, namely:
Name of Plant Location Proposed Megawatts

(1) Wolverine Clean Energy Venture Presque Isle County 600

(2) Mid-Michigan Energy Station Midland County 750

(3) Holland Board of Power and Light Allegan County 78

(4) Consumers Energy Bay County 930

(5) Northern Michigan University* Marquette County 10

*Coal/Wood-fired Boiler

If cited applications are approved allowing coal-fired plants to become operational, millions of tons of carbon dioxide will annually be emitted causing pollution, impairment and destruction of the ambient air.
Defendants, despite Plaintiffs’ request, have not promulgated rules regulating the emissions of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants.
Defendants have a clear legal duty to promulgate regulations governing the emissions of carbon dioxide into the ambient air from coal-fired power plants, and Plaintiffs have a clear legal right to the benefit of regulations governing emission into the ambient air of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants.
Plaintiffs are advised by their counsel and they believe that they are without adequate remedy in this matter except by the aid of a writ of mandamus.
COUNT I – MANDAMUS/ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
Adopting Paragraphs 1 through 18 of the Complaint, Plaintiffs request that a writ of mandamus be issued directing Defendants to initiate within the mandates of the Environmental Protection Act all necessary and appropriate procedures to promulgate a rule governing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired plants

COUNT II – MANDAMUS/ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT
Adopting Paragraphs 1 through 18 of the Complaint, Plaintiffs further show unto the Court as follows:

The legislature, affirming the constitutional right of the people to petition their government for redress of grievances, Const 1963 Art 1 §3, granted to persons the statutory right to request of Defendants the promulgation of a rule governing the emissions of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants. The relevant statute reads as follows:
A person may request an agency to promulgate a rule. Within 90 days after filing of a request, the agency shall initiate the processing of a rule or issue a concise statement of its principal reasons for denial of the request.

Administrative Procedures Act, 1969, Act 306, Sec 38, MCL 24.238
Plaintiffs pursuant to the Act have filed with Defendants a request to promulgate, pursuant to their legal duty, a rule governing emissions of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power generating plants which request is now in the possession of Defendant.
Defendants received Plaintiffs’ request to promulgate, pursuant to their legal duty, a rule governing the emissions of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants on August 30, 2007.
Within 90 days after receipt of Plaintiffs’ request, Defendants have a clear legal duty as imposed by statute to initiate the promulgation of a rule or issue a concise written statement of its principal reasons for denial of the request. Further, Plaintiffs have a clear legal right to the benefit of Defendants’ response.
Defendants continue in default as their recent response of January 15, 2008, does not deny Plaintiffs’ request, nor does it contain principal reasons that are responsive to Plaintiffs’ request.
Despite their default Defendants continue to process the applications for air quality permits as filed by the principals of proposed coal-fired electrical power plants as cited in Paragraph 14.
Plaintiffs are advised by their counsel and they believe that they are without adequate remedy in this matter except by the aid of a writ of mandamus.
Therefore, Plaintiffs request a writ of mandamus be issued as follows:

Directing Defendants to initiate within the mandates of the Environmental Protection Act all necessary and appropriate procedures to promulgate a rule governing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired plants or, in the alternative;
Pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act directing Defendants to issue a concise written statement of its principal reasons within the mandates of the Environmental Protection Act for the denial of Plaintiffs’ request to initiate the procedures for promulgating a rule governing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants.
COUNT III – INJUNCTION
Adopting Paragraphs 1 through 25 of the Complaint, Plaintiffs further show unto the Court:

The conduct of Defendants in continuing to process air quality permits for issuance to coal-fired power plants without first promulgating rules governing emissions of carbon dioxide has or is likely to pollute, impair or destroy the ambient air or public trust in the ambient air.
Therefore, Plaintiffs request:

That the Court enjoin Defendants from issuance of air quality permits until they have complied with their legal duty under the Environmental Protection Act, PA 1994, NO 451, MCL 324, 1701 et seq.
or in the alternative:

That the Court enjoin Defendants from issuance of air quality permits until they have complied with their legal duty under the Administrative Procedures Act, being Section 38 of the Public Acts of 1969; MCL 24.238.



Alarming Studies - Loss of IQ in Children

Letters from concerned Citizens

Warns Against Aquifer Contamination and Reckless Handling of Industrial Waste
August 11, 2007
Letter to the Editor
Presque Isle Newspapers
PO Box 50
Rogers City MI 49779-0050

During the 1990s, the Presque Isle County Soil Conservation District Office, supported by the DEQ, initiated the Karst Aquifer Protection Project. Its goal was to protect the area's drinking water resource by improving public awareness of the connections between land use practices and groundwater. I served on its Groundwater Stewardship Team. The project's Introduction follows...

"Presque Isle County and Alpena County share a unique groundwater resource, a karst aquifer. A karst is formed from limestone, dolomite or gypsum dissolving in solution, and is characterized by closed depressions or sinkholes, caves and underground drainage. Through these open channelways water can move very rapidly from the surface to the groundwater, creating an extremely high acquifer recharge rate. This unusual feature makes drinking water more highly susceptible to contamination from surface activities. Since much of the 284,000-acre sensitive area relies on private wells that are drilled directly into the karst, any contamination of the water will cause serious environmental health risks." (Ref: http://www.gem.msu.edu/casestd/karst.html )

In March, I expressed my concerns about the trucking of cement kiln dust (CKD) into Presque Isle County, to be used on roads and farms as a soil stabilizer, because of the mercury bio-accumulation risk. As is being found in Newman Creek near the Alpena LaFarge plant, extremely high alkalinity and hazardous chemicals such as mercury and arsenic are still found even after attempts to reduce their levels.

On the subject of "Nontraditional Soil Amendments, Lime Kiln Dust and Cement Kiln Dust," the Penn State Agronomy Guide 2007-2008 states: "Some kilns double as waste incinerators and may include materials such as old tires, municipal solid waste, and medical waste in their fuel source. Incineration of these wastes could result in dusts contaminated with any number of organic and inorganic constituents. Dusts from waste incinerator kilns should not be used for liming soils." (Ref: http://agguide.agronomy.psu.edu/cm/sec9/sec97/cfm )

William D. Lewis
Presque Isle MI
ph 595-6526
wwlewis6@netonecom.net

1/21/08 For Immediate Release
Presque Isle Newspapers
PO Box 50
Rogers City MI 49779

Wolverine's "clean coal venture" power plant will burn an estimated 5 tons of coal per minute. The quantities of emissions and waste content will depend upon the quantity and quality of coal and/or coke used. Furnace bottom ash will likely need to be stored. What will be done with the fly ash byproducts that go up the stack? If some is captured and stored onsite, what will protect the underlying acquifer from bio-accumulation of toxic trace metals? Modern technological advances suggest it may be trucked to Alpena to be added to cement products. Perhaps, in trade, waste cement kiln dust will be trucked to Rogers City for Wolverine to use in their facility. Both scary examples of "the solution to pollution is dilution" already practiced locally in other ways. Is such an industrial waste trade being considered by Wolverine? Will CO2 be sequestered onsite? It's time for answers to these and many other questions.

Ref: www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-friendly-climate-changes-in-kansas and

www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=future-of-clean-coal-tied-to-success-of-carbon-capture-and-storage

Biomass fuel has been mentioned for alternative use by Wolverine. Not knowing what fuels or in what quantities, nor what effects they may have on public health, local forestry, agriculture, etc., local governmental bodies have reacted to sales pitches and passed resolutions in support of Wolverine's venture, apparently without first seeing any environmental impact data. Was that proper? Withdrawing such support, until the environmental data is studied, would be.

Consider this... A New Hampshire facility has replaced a small 50MW coal boiler with a "state-of-the-art" wood-burning boiler of the same size. It is expected to annually consume more than 400,000 tons of wood. The project's primary components include a 110-foot high boiler, equivalent to a nine-story building, a wood-fuel delivery system and a large wood storage facility capable of about 10,000 tons of wood chips, less than a ten-day supply for a 50MW boiler. Wolverine's appetite would most likely be much larger.

Ref: http://www.energyvortex.com/pages/headlinedetails.cfm?id=2588

I don't even want to think about what just a 50MW woodburning plant would do to our northern forests. It takes about 4 times the amount of wood to match coal's performance in a similar-sized facility. There'll be a whole lotta cuttin and truckin goin on, both by day and dark of night, that's fer shur! Switchgrass, another option, is a highly volatile warm climate prairie grass, fields of which can be ignited by lightning or just by a spark from farm machinery. Common sense and local history dictates it should be kept out of and far away from our northern forests.

Michigan has the highest unemployment rate in the nation and is one of only two states with decreasing population. Desperation now rules in Lansing and several other new coal plants are being considered! Neither unemployment nor population loss is likely to be eased longterm by siting more coal plants in the state.. Just the opposite is more likely as Michigan becomes less attractive and more people decide either to not move here, or to just leave. And how will the DEQ handle their permit managing responsibilities? The past performance of the DEQ locally suggests, not well!

William D. Lewis, VP, Citizens for Environmental Inquiry
Presque Isle MI 49777
ph (989) 595-6526

The following Letter to the Editor of the Presque Isle Advance
appeared in the paper shortly after it was submitted on 8/27/07.
It concerns the geology of the Calcite quarry and was part one
of two letters, the second of which is also on this website and
shouldn't be missed by readers.

Letter to the Editor: Presque Isle Advance 8/27/07

Calcite Quarry at Rogers City has been selected as the site for a large
coal fired power plant. This information shows that to be a bad location.

Below are two excerpts from "Tectonics, Structure, and Karst in Northern
Lower Michigan" -the 1983 Field Conference publication of the Michigan
Basin Geological Society; Tyrone J. Black, Field Conference Leader,
Geological Survey Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
The publication was edited by Richard E. Kimmel. The excerpts have
value in that they: 1) describe the karst geologic conditions of the Calcite
quarry, and, 2) sequestration of carbon dioxide in this karstic geology is
not a viable consideration as leakage would occur thus speeding the
erosion of subsurface conduits and increasing the risk if collapse at the
surface. The surface storage of industrial waste in such an area would
place the acquifer at risk of contamination. Springs from affected sub-
surface areas could also carry the contamination to Lake Huron and the
nearby Swan River where the DNR maintains a fish planting operation.

Excerpt #1, taken from the "Road Log" of the field trip, page 8 of the
publication: "STOP 13: Calcite boasts that it is the largest quarry in the
world. Most of the limestone product is used in the manufacture of lime
and as a flux stone in the manufacturing of steel. The Rogers City and
Dundee Limestones are quarried. Note the highly fractured appearance
of the rock in this quarry as compared to the quarries visited earlier.
The Dundee rests directly on the Detroit River Group and is therefore
more likely to exhibit disturbance due to collapse beneath. Examine the
quarry walls to find sink holes filled with drift and rubble and sections
of vertical displacement. Shear (drag) folds are visible in association with
some sink holes here. Some faults can be paired to give the appearance
that horsts and grabbens hundreds of feet across are present in the
quarry."

Excerpt #2, from the "Hydrogeology" description of northern lower
Michigan at the bottom of page 19 through 20: "Surface water flows
into sink holes in numerous locations. Drilling operations encounter
varying degrees of severity of lost circulation in the area, probably
depending on their vicinity to "major" zones. These observations
support a theory of a network of subsurface channels or conduits of
high hydraulic conductivity. In carbonates, fissures are enlarged by
water charged with carbon dioxide. Abrasive erosion could also take
place if flow rate was sufficient. The Detroit River Group contains
significant deposits of salt and anhydrite, and evaporites are present
in some facies of the Traverse Group and Dundee Formation (Figure 9).
Fresh water flows reaching these evaporites will dissolve them, forming
voids. The content of evaporites in the group changes inversely with
the frequency of lost circulation zones between the two limit lines of the
known expressions of karst features at the surface and related lost
circulation zones (Figure 10). In some areas lost circualtion [sic]
related to solution along fissure systems can be traced into the Salina
Group." [See further descriptions in the publication.]

I have no doubt that even a comprehensive hydrogeological survey
of the site would not reveal all the hidden dangers of placing a coal
fired power plant in its karst geology.

William D. Lewis
Presque Isle

Concerned regulators may ignore their own cautions

Citizens for Environmental Inquiry is reviewing the implications of a 600MW coal fired power plant that is proposed to be sited in the quarry at Rogers City by Wolverine. We would greatly appreciate the active support of your readers and friends in CEI's effort.

According to reliable information about other coal fired power plants in the United States, similar but smaller than that planned by Wolverine, a 600MW plant as proposed for Rogers City would probably require about 14 million gallons of water and 300 tons of coal PER HOUR (that's 5 tons, per MINUTE)! The annual demand would be in the neighborhood of 122,640,000,000 gallons of water and 2,628,000 tons of coal! This based upon figures for a 500MW power plant from a Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy's Power Plant Water Management R&D Program Summary, July, 2005. Ref:
NETL

An April, 2005 "scoping document" for preparation of an environmental impact statement by the Montana DEQ for a 250MW plant, using circulating fluidized bed (CFB) technology, reveals it would receive its coal supply by rail... 110 rail cars of coal, twice per week! Its total annual demand would be for 1,200,000 tons of coal which computes to 137 tons per hour or nearly 2.3 tons per minute. Ref: DEQ

Wolverine has evidently been involved in a five-year deal supplying power to Canada, so why their sudden need for more capacity? Perhaps they just want to sell more to Canada -? Ref:
EPA

William Lewis, VP, Citizens for Environmental Inquiry
wwlewis6@netonecom.net

CEI Sues the DEQ
DEQ must follow the law says CEI lawsuit. read the full complaint

Minority Report

Here you can read the Minority Report written by Thomas Harkleroad and Byron DeLong, both Members of Presque Isle County Planning Commission.

Click Here to read the report.