Posted by chilimac72 (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A comparison story that discussed what the outputs of the nuclear plant would be very interesting. Is it the wrong source of power that we are seeking? It is hard to believe that any plant would not have some impact on the environment. What methods are in place that could reduce the level of mercury in the rivers? It would be good to have the company behind the plant assist in financing the cleaning up of the rivers, not just trying to reduce their output.

Posted by chilimac72 (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www2.newsvirginian.com/wnv/news/l...

http://ec.europa.eu/research/quality-of-...

Two quick notes I found on mercury removal processes being researched outside of our region.

Posted by Diesel (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

God forbid anyone allows the area to grow and catch up with the rest of the country. Electricity is a necessity...we need more power to grow. Decide which...coal or another nuclear plant. Too many people don't want anything to ever change. Wake up and let's join the 21st century.

Posted by maxdoubt (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Diesel; Must we catch up with the rest of the country? Can't there be some places that choose to stay in the 20th century (or the 19th for that matter, think Lancaster, PA) and let us drive our cars or oxcarts to and from the 21st century to work and shop etc? One of the reasons I chose to live in Southampton was because it did not have too many industrial sites.

I do like change and growth and I hope that we will continue to have a voice in what types of industries we accept.

I submit that all growth is not necessarily good.

Posted by FHancock (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 8:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This coal power plant will be the largest in the State of VA, and also has been cited as the 6th biggest polluter in our Commonwealth. Cypress Creek will be TWICE as large as the little Clover Power Plant But ODEC always fails to point that out. After the construction of the huge plant, construction jobs which will be temporary and won't go to locals, what will be left beside besides the UN-GREENING of Western Tidewater (Surry, Sussex, Isle of Wight, Southampton). EVEN THE U.S. SECRETARY OF ENERGY has committed that coal plants are serious polluters (U.S. Sec Cho and the Sec of Agri discussed the Green Energy ideas and incentives for the 5th Congressional District during Obama's rural form on a small farm north of Danville).
While the rest of the world goes green, we are being turned black with coal's fly ash. Cypress Creek Coal Plant is not joining the 21st Century, it is the destruction of our rural community. Why does "Diesel" believe that being rural is bad? Daily, hundreds of acres of farmland is lost across America -- Mr. Diesel, I don't won't to rely on food grown in a 3rd world country who dislikes the U.S... these rural landscapes you low rate are American's first line of defense in staying healthy.

Posted by snr (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nuclear Power is safe and efficent and we have two locations within a few miles of us in Surrry and North Anna where more power can be producted without coal. Coal power in Virginia is another loser and I don't understand why this isn't recognized. There are to many people in power turning the screws for people to make money rather than looking out for the american citizens. I have spent almost 50 years in the nuclear business and no longer have a dog in the fight. NUCLEAR ENERGY IS THE CHEAPEST, SAFEST, AND THE BEST WAY TO SATISIFY OUR ENERGY REQUIREMENTS,

Posted by steinertc (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, Nuclear power is not the answer. This form of power is too expensive and will be exhausted in 50 yrs. (please read up on this) Coal power will pollute. If the land is already purchased, then why not put in a Solar Panel Field? Nothing radioactive or pollutant there!!!!! It would be a good thing for this area. A first!!

Posted by marks (anonymous) on October 16, 2009 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

France is powered 80% by nuclear energy (and the waste is recycled back to the energy plants). Wonder why France can do it and the U.S. can not?
Gov. Kaine approved some incentives for a company to develop wind-power off VA Beach. Now that is a novel idea! Why not locate power plants nearer the cities who use most of the power? The Green Cooridor of our rural counties will shortly have another massive transmission line (eminent domain on us poor country folks) which will take power from rural power plants to the urban areas. Whatever the energy source, it is time to demand that we start to plan better and more efficiently (instead of always transforing the countryside into a wasteland).

Posted by TheComeHere (anonymous) on October 17, 2009 at 6:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Heaven Forbid...Don't support anything that will provide jobs and keep the enconomy moving. I'll bet the mill produces just a slight trace of pollution or it has in years past and has provided good jobs for 120+ years.

Posted by employee2 (anonymous) on October 17, 2009 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To all the opponents of this plant...are you willing to turn off your AC or heat during peak demand times? Or are you the ones that are NIMBY! (NotInMyBackYard). People expect and add more electrical appliances and just expect it to be available! When is the last time you hung your clothes out on the line? Opened a window to cool your home.

Posted by FHancock (anonymous) on October 17, 2009 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Construction jobs are short term and will NOT hire locals. The spin offs, such as a restaurant for construction crew lunches will die after the workers complete the plant and leave. How many jobs will the coal plant provide? Locals might get the janitors job, but this 'state of the art' plant will hire specifically college trained employees and again NOT locals (unless folks in Dendron enroll in college immediately). I have not seen ODEC figures on the number of employees. THere are strong parallels to the Coal Plant and the OLF about employment figures -- basically neither of these ideas are good for the locals.

As for the "Slight Trace of Pollution", please explain why 'FLY ASH" is not considered a hazardous waste product other than ODEC et al has been using their influence to list it as safe -- hey, TheComeHere, there is a nearby golf course you can go live on if you don't mind that fly ash (a major lawsuit is involved. Yep, ODEC sold flyash to landscape a golf course).

WE don't need Western Tidewater to be turned into a wasteland for a few temporary pennies. There are other solutions besides greed.

Why is anyone willing to force a GIANT coal plant on a living town? Why is anyone willing to turn the Blackwater and other waterways into something unusable? Local farmers and individuals trying to grow organic foods, forget that as well.

Posted by maxdoubt (anonymous) on October 17, 2009 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Employee2: We have to accept a coal plant in our area because we use electricity? Do we also have to accept a refinery because we use gasoline? How about this...I'll accept a coal plant upriver from me when Norfolk builds a desalination plant and stops sucking water out of our rivers or when Virginia Beach tears down Town Center and plants crops to feed itself. ( I will also accept it if it is lawfully approved, but I'm thankful for at least the chance to oppose it.)

Electricity can be transported hundreds of miles like many commodities and call me crazy but I think industries should be placed in industrialized areas. To suggest we must accept this plant where it is proposed because we use electricity is a simplistic argument.

Posted by bunita1946 (anonymous) on October 17, 2009 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is the most non scientific report ever issued, even by Chesapeake Bay Foundations. It's is even more skewed than the one used to enact the law, that requires those citizens using septic systems, to have their systems either pumped or inspected every 5 years. This report is as suspect as if Al Gore's minions wrote it. Just say yes to the plant. These enviornmentalist types are even saying we should use organic "green" lumber, whatever that means. Wind generators for example were rejected by Walter Cronkite and the Kennedys as being too ugly for Nantucket, whatever their benefit to nature. These people love situation based science.

Posted by minkybut (Jeff Turner) on October 18, 2009 at midnight (Suggest removal)

I think it is hilarious that ODEC spokes person Hudgins stated “Believe me, there is no stone left unturned to make sure that this plant will emit the lowest levels of pollution possible.” Well if that were so they would be using natural gas for fuel instead of coal. Sure its more expensive, but then so will be the cost of treating the 1000's that will suffer health issues if they burn coal. I guess ODEC just figures it cheaper for people to die than to provide clean energy for Southeastern Va.

Posted by farmingVA (anonymous) on October 18, 2009 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Alas, we don't have the big bucks or political pull of the Kennedys and Walter Cronkite ... instead we have ODEC dictatorship and luckily the Tidewater News. We also do have ourselves, simply country-folks and small towners. It is disapointing that ODEC says it is member-owned and all members have a voice. Anti-coal editorials from the small towners have NOT been printed in the the Electric Cooperatives Magazines but luckily the newspaper is printing both sides. Something EVERYONE needs to learn about is the fly ash waste produced by the Coal Plants -- the U.S. Secretary of Energy has recently stated that this fly ash is an environmental concern. ODEC's policy is 3 fold: transmission, cost, and environmental and it is obvious that their third leg (environmental) is only lip service. ODEC, you gladly expect me and my neighbors to live in a shadow of the largest coal plant in VA (TWICE THE SIZE of Clover Plant) and won't discuss the major law suit you are now facing over FLY ASH which you sold to a golf course. I want the same choice as the 5th District of VA, safer and greener technology, not just ODEC's greed to hold down electricity costs. This cost is too great considering my neighbors health, including our children.

Posted by bunita1946 (anonymous) on October 18, 2009 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The biggest polluters of both the Nottaway and the Blackwaters rivers are from municipal runoff sources and farming chemicals. Some chemicals ok for use in Va. are outlawed in almost a third of of sister states. Least we forget once the Bay Foundation gets the coal plant, it's gonna come after the farmers runoff of chemicals. Nothing is sacred to these ill informed environmentalists. I agree with srn, nuclear power is the smart fuel, as Europe and the rest of the world knows. Construction jobs by their very nature are short lived.

Posted by FHancock (anonymous) on October 18, 2009 at 8:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

THE Environmental Historian for the Chesapeake Bay IS Kent Mountford. I asked him about urban (lawn fertilizers-herbicide and waste water treatment plants) vs farming fertilizers-herbicide. If you check the water quality below the agri district you get agri waste alarms .... if you check the water quality below the cities you get urban waste alarms. ANd, yes, the average person who tends a lawn actually does use more chemicals than a farmer (a farmer has to watch expenses vs. the hobbiest who wants a greener lawn than his neighbor). Additionally, think big as in agri-business which applies the close-quatered poultry and hog house wastes onto agri fields (this is NOT your average farmer but a business). And Marks also had a valid point about nuclear power in France -- it works to that country's benefit (the French do recycle the nuclear waste as a power source). The U.S. is behind the times with dirty coal (the comments about the toxicity of fly ash is on target).

Posted by minkybut (Jeff Turner) on October 18, 2009 at 11:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fact Sheet on Power Plant Emissions of Mercury in Virginia
July 13, 2004
By Rodney Sobin, Office of Air Permit Programs, Virginia DEQ
Summary1
• Mercury (Hg) is a neurotoxin that can cause brain development defects in fetuses and impede
intellectual development in children.
• Studies estimate that one to eight percent of American women of childbearing age may have Hg at
levels of concern.
• Hg levels in certain species of both freshwater and marine fish have prompted federal and state
advisories and cautions on fish consumption. A number of Virginia waterways are subject to these
advisories.
• While some waterways are most affected by specific industrial or contaminated site mercury sources or
by effluents from municipal wastewater treatment, many sites appear to be most affected by air
deposition. Slow flowing, acidic "blackwaters" such as in Southeastern Virginia appear to be most
vulnerable due to conditions that favor formation of methylmercury, a toxic form that biomagnifies in
the food chain.
• A Florida Everglades study shows a strong correlation between reduction in local Hg emissions and
reductions of Hg levels in fish and wildlife. A less strong correlation is found in Eastern North
Carolina. Both local/in-state and longer distance transport are likely to affect Hg deposition in
Virginia.
• Coal-fired electrical generating units (EGUs) are the largest manmade source of Hg emissions,
accounting for 40% nationally. Virginia EGUs emit roughly 0.6 to 0.7 tons per year.
• Particulate matter (PM) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) controls yield Hg control as a co-benefit. Plants that
employ flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) plus fabric filter can control over 80% and even over 90% of
Hg emissions from bituminous coal burning. FGD plus cold-side electrostatic precipitator (CS-ESP)
may remove over half of Hg. CS-ESP alone may remove a quarter to a half of Hg. Hot-side ESPs (HS-
ESP) are much less effective. Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) of NOx can enhance Hg removal.
Virginia EGUs employing FGD plus fabric filter are estimated to remove over 90% of Hg. Plants using
only CS-ESP are estimated as removing 29% while plants using only HS-ESP remove only 11%.
Activated carbon injection has been shown at commercial scale to achieve over 70% Hg removal by
PM controls in the absence of FGD. Use of fabric filter increases capital cost but reduces activated
carbon costs relative to ESP. Incomplete combustion to leave carbon in fly ash may give similar
removal efficiencies. The TOXECON process avoids the problem of carbon-containing fly ash being unsuitable for cement production.

Posted by minkybut (Jeff Turner) on October 18, 2009 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fact Sheet on Power Plant Emissions of Mercury in Virginia
July 13, 2004
By Rodney Sobin, Office of Air Permit Programs, Virginia DEQ
Coal cleaning, other additives and sorbents, catalytic- and plasma-based processes, and other advanced
technologies are being developed and demonstrated for Hg and multipollutant removal but have not
been well demonstrated in commercial operations. Cost claims for these alternatives vary, with some
multipollutant technology developers asserting costs below conventional SO2, PM, and NOx removal.
Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) can achieve high pollutant removal efficiencies and is
claimed by some to be comparable in price to building a new supercritical pulverized coal plant.
• Regardless of technology employed, consideration should be given to the fate of Hg captured in
scrubber sludge, by PM controls, or through other means to assure that Hg does not become an
environmental threat through other routes. The Hg has to go somewhere.
• EPA has proposed Hg controls on EGUs, though many have criticized proposed emissions trading
provisions and alleged weakness of the requirements. Several states are enacting mercury control
requirements on EGUs while others--such as North Carolina--contemplate doing so soon.
Issue
Mercury is a neurotoxin that in certain forms can cause abnormal brain development in fetuses and mental
retardation and learning disabilities in children. EPA estimates that one to three percent of American
women of childbearing age eat enough mercury-containing fish to be at risk.2 However other studies
suggest that eight percent of such women may have mercury levels that could harm a fetus.3 Fish tissue
studies have prompted consumption advisories and restrictions for certain species caught in segments of
Virginia's and other states' waterways.4 Also, the Food and Drug Administration and EPA have issued
advice on consumption of marine fish due to mercury. Past EPA actions have led to reductions in air and
water releases of mercury from a number of industries. Pollution prevention approaches are helping reduce
the presence of mercury in many products. Currently a number of states and the EPA propose to regulate
mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, which are the largest anthropogenic sources of mercury emissions.
Mercury Routes and Sources
In some waterways mercury contamination can be ascribed to surface releases from specific industrial
plants and contaminated lands. In other cases smaller sources, such as dental practices, may, via municipal
wastewater treatment plants, be major contributors of a watershed's Hg load. However, there are many
waterways where air deposition appears to be the primary route of Hg contamination.

Posted by minkybut (Jeff Turner) on October 18, 2009 at 11:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fact Sheet on Power Plant Emissions of Mercury in Virginia
July 13, 2004
By Rodney Sobin, Office of Air Permit Programs, Virginia DEQ
Conclusions
Hg is increasingly viewed as a public health and environmental hazard requiring action. Data indicate coal-
fired EGUs to be the largest anthropogenic source of Hg. Both short- and long-range transport and
deposition may contribute to locally high levels of Hg in fish tissue. Data from Florida and North Carolina
correlate reduced local Hg emissions to lower quantities deposited and found in fish and wildlife.
However, the correlations vary in strength.
Conventional PM and SO2 control technologies yield Hg control as a co-benefit. SCR may also assist in
removal efficiencies. A combination of FGD (wet or SDA) plus fabric filter can remove over 80 and even
high 90s percent of Hg when bituminous coal is burned. Fabric filtration alone may remove the majority of
Hg from bituminous coal derived flue gas. CS-ESP alone may remove a quarter or more while HS-ESP
removes little. Removal efficiencies are affected by coal quality and combustion and post-combustion
conditions.
Activated carbon injection is the most mature Hg-focused pollution control technique and a system exists to
counter the problem of carbon-rich fly ash being unsuitable for cement production. A variety of other
technologies focused on Hg control or Hg control as part of a multipollutant control ensemble offer
significant promise but are generally not considered to be commercially proven in the eyes of today’s
electric utilities.
Hg management strategies should be mindful of the form, mobility, and fate of Hg recovered by pollution
controls. It is important to avoid creating other Hg-related environmental and health risks as a by-product
of coal combustion pollution control. The Hg has to go somewhere.

Posted by bunita1946 (anonymous) on October 19, 2009 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One simply tires of hearing all the wimpering and whining of the so called enviornmentalists. Every hare brained scheme they think of, requires more engery than they can ever reasonally expect to create. Net savings of electricity will be more than nil. Imagine wind mills in an area that seasonally has little wind, solar panels that would have to cover many square miles to produce any useable amounts od electricity. Electric cars that have to be plugged in to the electric grid. And then there is that memorable plan to produce "green" trees, These people reminds one of the PTA crowd on steriods. Just say Yes to the coal fired plant.

Posted by Mike61 (anonymous) on October 19, 2009 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dendron and Western Tidewater need the jobs, that is if the new power plant provides any to the locals. The construction phase will create jobs, but only for however long it takes to build this place. Yes there will be pollutants emitted from this place but what kind and how much? If we listen to the enviromentalist it is all gloom and doom. If it was up to these enviro-nazi's and animal rightest, we would all be walking to work and eating dirt stew. There is middle ground here somewhere, we must find the answers and weigh the benefits -vs- the negitive. Don't just read one sides study and take that for gospel. I agree, build a nuclear power plant or a wind farm. Much of this alternative energy is too expensive to reap benefits from at this stage of the game. I have the same concerns as everyone else but I will not 100% shoot down the idea just yet.

Posted by callingdove (anonymous) on October 19, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think anyone who isn't concern should move to Dendron where the Coal Plant's flyash will be buried. There is already a lawsuit from an ODEC's coal plant waste being used as landfill and landscaping at a golf course ... the flyash from that golf course is now polluting the ground water/drinking water. How can anyone consider allowing this toxic harm to fall on a small townfull of people? Why aren't we concerned about our neighbors? So, the stronger crowd-pleasing agrument is that the mecury, etc of VA largest coal plant will extend for some 60 miles -- to Chesapeake Bay, Blackwater River, Surry, Franklin, Ivor, etc etc. Cheaper electricity will only result in higher health bills for us all who live near Cypress Creek Plant, at least higher water bills as we truck in drinkable water from outside our area. Just because we need to supply energy to the rest of the state (why does it have to be the largest coal plant ever? TWICE THE SIZE OF CLOVER?)

Posted by bunita1946 (anonymous) on October 19, 2009 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I failed to hear these protests when IP was producing, or the millions of gallons of hog waste from Smithfield Foods were poured into the Pagan River with the blessings of the Va. Dept. of Water Quality. If the waste material is so harmful, then for reasons of public health all coal fired power plants in the US, should be shut down and power rationing implemented. Then and only then can we get nuclear power, truly the source of all future power. But no, no one will support this proposal, as we have given our country to wackos and mental misfits. Witness the actions of our two US senators. Political contributions talk and common sense walks.Sad but true.

Posted by sweetwater (anonymous) on October 19, 2009 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Speaking of wackos and mental misfits....

Posted by happycamper (anonymous) on October 20, 2009 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I got in late on this discussion, but have read all the comments with interest. Here are a few things to ponder:
1. No industry is going to be given a permit to build if the levels of any emmission are projected to exceed legal limits.
2. Nuclear power IS clean and abundant. Do we REALLY want to get clean? (And it will NOT "run out" in 50 years. Use your brains.)
3. Staying in the 19th or 20th centuries is, alas, not an option. Just wishful thinking!
4. Make certain that the "foundations" who report are unbiased and objective. Most are not!

Posted by Mike61 (anonymous) on October 20, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As far as "staying in the 20th century", In my opinion, that is EXACTLY what makes our area so lucrative to many that come here or wish to come here. Sure we need additional ways to generate power and this coal fired power plant can do that, but at what cost? Almost anything we do is un-friendly to the enviroment to some extent but there has to be middle ground. Solar energy and wind energy looks promising but at this stage in the game it is way too costly and needs further study to make it a feasible alternitive. Nuclear power is way expensive but in the long run might be our best option. There has to be ways to capture the mecury and arsnic that will be belched out into the atmosphere and our waterways. Hold Dominion Power accountable for amounts over a baseline, fine them and make them clean it up. Accountability is almost a lost option anymore in this day and age. I vote for a Nuclear Power plant. However that would take 10+ years AFTER the permits get issued.

Posted by bunita1946 (anonymous) on October 20, 2009 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sweetwater, lets be kind to ones self.

Posted by FHancock (anonymous) on October 20, 2009 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

“No one” lives in rural lands so it is alright to come out here and build something that no one else would tolerate (OLF, the largest Coal Power plant, etc). Basically, ‘outside’ Corporate Businessess/ODEC & Government Agencies/Navy are seeing our rural farms & forests as being of value only if these places can be transformed into something else. Development of any type is great -- it means jobs! Hmmm? That job thing, and other incentives are not generally accepted by many.

Many of us ‘no ones’ simply want to remain as farmers, and even more of us 'no ones' simply want to live in rural communities. What do we want? Rural tranditions such as fishing and hunting or shopping malls?

For some reason, producing food and fiber for ourselves--for our Commonwealth--for our Nation is important to us. IS it our identity? YES! We are a regions of "VA Century Farms", vastly more than anywhere else. A land continually farmed and owned with stewardship by family member passed down to family member. We all benefit for this inheritance.

In the 21st century, our rural Western Tidewater must be more than an artifact of the 19th. We will have to find a way to align the values we invest in our rural landscape with other basic values (like prosperity, progress, and economic freedom, as well as national security). How about some fact-finding, hold a public discussion? We need to go beyond these on-line discussions and not be afraid to use our real names. Is there a dollar value we can place on rural economy vs. the proposed development so the comparison can be made to outsiders?

We need a discussion on who and what are we? Western Tidewater has always had an identity, I feel a unique and vital identity. Certainly this region has a long history, and perhaps the longest human history in the nation via Cactus Hill archaeological site. Alas, only two of our rivers have a RiverKeeper to alert us about pollution issues BUT the BNRKP is the first in the Commonwealth and not even a decade old. The vast number of Century Farms, etc etc. Discussions can be inserted with facts.

In the end, the purpose of this discussion -- and its ultimate benefit--is not to protect our region's rural communities from change as that would be impossible -- but to ensure that our rural communities change in ways that do not imperil our existence or impose on future generations of Virginians losses we cannot afford.

Posted by snr (anonymous) on October 20, 2009 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Marks you are correct about the source of power in France and our nuclear craftsmen are traveling to France to assist in their operations. We have nuclear power plants that will power a ship for 50 years without refueling and there are recent designs by Westinghouse and GE that will reduce the cost of building new power plants. All the 26 plants that President Bush approved construction of has been replaced by President Obama with wind mills. Until we get real and remove the politics from the forefront our standard of living with keep declining. We owe it to our selves to educate our selves on Nuclear Power. Hanging our clothes on the line and opening our windows will not solve the problem.

Posted by minkybut (Jeff Turner) on October 21, 2009 at 6:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cleansing the Air at the Expense of Waterways
New York Times article by CHARLES DUHIGG
Published: October 12, 2009

MASONTOWN, Pa. - For years, residents here complained about the yellow smoke pouring from the tall chimneys of the nearby coal-fired power plant, which left a film on their cars and pebbles of coal waste in their yards. Five states - including New York and New Jersey - sued the plant's owner, Allegheny Energy, claiming the air pollution was causing respiratory diseases and acid rain.

So three years ago, when Allegheny Energy decided to install scrubbers to clean the plant's air emissions, environmentalists were overjoyed. The technology would spray water and chemicals through the plant's chimneys, trapping more than 150,000 tons of pollutants each year before they escaped into the sky.
But the cleaner air has come at a cost. Each day since the equipment was switched on in June, the company has dumped tens of thousands of gallons of wastewater containing chemicals from the scrubbing process into the Monongahela River, which provides drinking water to 350,000 people and flows into Pittsburgh, 40 miles to the north.

"It's like they decided to spare us having to breathe in these poisons, but now we have to drink them instead," said Philip Coleman, who lives about 15 miles from the plant and has asked a state judge to toughen the facility's pollution regulations. "We can't escape."

Even as a growing number of coal-burning power plants around the nation have moved to reduce their air emissions, many of them are creating another problem: water pollution. Power plants are the nation's biggest producer of toxic waste, surpassing industries like plastic and paint manufacturing and chemical plants, according to a New York Times analysis of Environmental Protection Agency data.
Much power plant waste once went into the sky, but because of toughened air pollution laws, it now often goes into lakes and rivers, or into landfills that have leaked into nearby groundwater, say regulators and environmentalists.
Officials at the plant here in southwest Pennsylvania - named Hatfield's Ferry - say it does not pose any health or environmental risks because they have installed equipment to limit the toxins the facility releases into the Monongahela River and elsewhere.
For full article, click here.