The Southern Highland Reader

STATEWIDE–From the Raleigh News and Observer:

North Carolina’s air quality this summer was the best it’s been in more than three decades — the combined result of environmental laws, balmy weather and the recession.

The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources said Monday that the state had just six “code orange” days in which ground-level ozone levels exceeded federal clean air standards. That’s the lowest number since some local governments began tracking air quality in the state in the early 1970s. In the summer of 2008, the state had 36 days of unhealthy ozone levels, and 66 the year before that.

The primary reason for the decline in ozone levels is lower emissions from coal-fired power plants and automobiles, according to DENR. The state’s Clean Smokestacks Act of 2002 required the state’s 14 coal-burning plants to cut ozone-forming emissions by three-fourths by 2012. Coal is used to generate more than half the state’s electricity.

More here from the N&O.

SYLVA–Expansion of operations at a century-old plant in downtown Sylva continues, but so does a lawsuit concerning that expansion.

And given that Jackson Paper’s newly re-issued air quality permit shows that the plant feeds a good bit more than wood chips into its boilers, the Canary Coalition, a western North Carolina-based clean air advocacy group, is unlikely to let the issue go quietly into the night.

“Even without burning coal or [tire-derived fuel], the list of toxic chemicals, including those listed by the Division of Air Quality as carcinogens, coming from the smokestack right now is considerable,” says Coalition Executive Director Avram Friedman. “I was very surprised to see the hydrogen chloride content.  This forms hydrochloric acid in the atmosphere.  The [Division of Air Quality] informed me that the expansion may cause Jackson Paper to pass the threshold (10 tons annually of any single hazardous pollutant or a total of 25 tons combined hazardous pollutants) that defines the plant as a “major” source of emissions of hazardous air pollutants.”

The Coalition, along with four Sylva residents, filed suit against the town of Sylva in early summer, alleging that the town gave inadequate public notice of hearings before passing a zoning ordinance amendment that directly impacts Jackson Paper Manufacturing Co.

The town’s attorney petitioned for dismissal on August 31, arguing that the town gave proper notice and that the plaintiffs have no standing to sue. Superior court judge Dennis Winner has yet to rule.

The backstory is this: Jackson Paper is an unlikely target for environmental activism. The company produces 100% recycled corrugated medium for the manufacture of cardboard containers, and is the state’s largest recycler. The company’s boilers are fired primarily by wood chips – a fact the company has trumpeted – and its closed-loop system eliminates the liquid effluent that is a problem with so many paper plants.

But the company’s past air quality permits have allowed it to burn any number of things, including coal, to power its boilers. Company officials privately defend these broad permits, saying that while wood is their main fuel source and is unlikely to change, it would be unwise business to limit their responses to future contingencies.

This is the crux of the issue. What the paper company sees as wise business planning, the Canary Coaliton sees as irresponsible stewardship. The Coalition believes that the company should voluntarily limit fuel sources, and that the town owes it to its citizens to force it to do so if possible.

This is the crux of the issue. What the paper company sees as wise business planning, the Canary Coaliton sees as irresponsible stewardship. The Coalition believes that the company should voluntarily limit fuel sources, and that the town owes it to its citizens to force it to do so if possible.

Earlier this year, when Jackson Paper and several government agencies announced an expansion that would bring over 60 jobs to Sylva, one incidental necessity was a town zoning ordinance change to allow a taller structure.
The Canary Coalition suggests that that need for a zoning change might have been the town’s only opportunity to tighten restrictions on what the company burns in its boilers.

The town was low-key about the zoning change – indeed it probably thought the change was no big deal. It first asked its planning board to consider the matter, and then, when it decided to proceed with the change, gave timely notice of eventual public hearings. But it didn’t mention Jackson Paper in those notices.

By the time anyone who was interested caught on, the public hearings had gone by and the zoning change had passed.

The town maintained that because it wasn’t issuing a variance, but rather changing the ordinance altogether, that it wasn’t necessary to mention Jackson Paper by name.

The Canary Coalition said it was clear who the change was for – Jackson Paper is just about the only industrial game in town – and said it possessed internal town memos that pre-date the amendment and mention the paper company by name.

The Coalition asked the town board to rescind its zoning change and reopen public hearings.

In response, the town asked the paper company to take part in a voluntary public forum to answer questions, but declined to rescind its decision. The coalition sued.

Jackson Paper, for its part, avoided the forum and hired an Asheville PR firm to smooth its path with local newspapers, and to initiate an ad campaign through the same papers.

And when its renewed air quality permit arrived — good through 2014 — the document showed that the company will burn up to 40% non wood chip material in its boilers.

Jackson Paper’s defense will be that what comes out of its smokestacks, at the end of the day, meets state air quality standards.

Friedman acknowledges this, but adds: “… more than 30,000 people in the US die prematurely each year from coal that is burned completely legally and within the guidelines of federal and state regulations.”

“Jackson Paper is at a point where they have to decide whether they are going to be true stewards of the environment or simply attempt to maintain that image through an expensive public relations campaign.  60 jobs may sound good to alot of people right now. But, if our children, our elderly and well, all of us, are subjected to continued exposure to toxic air pollutants, the cost in health to the community will far out-weigh the short term economic benefit of those jobs.”

Click here for an Asheville Citizen-Times piece on Saturday’s Relay for Clean Air, an annual event sponsored by the Canary Coalition.

An excerpt:

[Sylva architect Odell] Thompson, of Cullowhee, is one of about 80 cyclists, runners and walkers participating in the sixth annual Relay for Clean Air … sponsored by the Canary Coalition, a nonprofit group focused on air quality. “For me, it is important to make a point that we want the air to be cleaner than it is,” said Thompson, who rides his bike to work in Sylva three or four times a week. “It is important to be seen and heard.”

The relay covers 100 miles, broken into 37 segments, from the Smokies to Asheville. A relay flag will be passed between participants from one segment to the next, culminating in a march up Biltmore Avenue around 9 p.m.

SYLVA–The Canary Coalition — a clean-air advocacy group — and five Sylva residents have filed suit against the town in an attempt to force the Town Board to rescind a recent change to its industrial zoning ordinances.

The action comes after the Coalition’s Director, Avram Friedman, asked the board to voluntarily rescind the change, which he said was made without appropriate public notice. The board didn’t bring his request to a vote.

The town of Sylva recently changed wording in its industrial zoning ordinance to allow for the planned expansion of the Jackson Paper Manufacturing Co. factory downtown. Jackson Paper’s new boiler exceeded the height limitation set for industrial construction within city limits.

The Canary Coalition contends, however, that the zoning change is the only leverage the town has to clarify some specific points, chief among them whether Jackson Paper might choose to fire its boilers with coal rather than the current fuel of wood chips. Jackson Paper’s current air quality permit allows for coal.

After declining to rescind its zoning change, the Sylva Town Board voted 3-2 to ask Jackson Paper to answer questions in a public forum. The company has so far chosen not to do so.

SYLVA–So here it is:

We’re imprinted with this image, those of us who have spent much time around here.

This is Jackson Paper Manufacturing Co., as seen from the intersection of NC 107 and Asheville Highway in Sylva. It’s right up there among the area’s top visual landmarks, along with the view of the courthouse from Main Street and any long panorama of the Great Balsams. To people who have spent decades here, it’s almost invisible, like the last few curves before we reach our own homes.

One of my first memories of this view is clear, though I don’t remember the car I was in, sitting at the intersection. It might’ve been in the Corvair, or the Karman-Ghia. It would’ve been 1970 or ‘71. Regardless, Mead Corporation still operated the plant, employing hundreds of locals but working itself into the cross-hairs of the newly-created Environmental Protection Agency.

Last month, Jackson Paper Manufacturing Co., North Carolina’s largest recycling plant, announced an expansion that will add over 60 full-time jobs. The company makes corrugating medium for cardboard — the zig-zag paper that goes between the two outer layers of liner board to give it rigidity — from 100% recycled cardboard. Jackson Paper says it purchases over 100,000 tons of recycled cardboard each year from recycling centers across the region.

It employs 116 full time employees with an annual payroll of about $6 million.

In its first phase of expansion, Jackson Paper will begin making “complete” cardboard by purchasing liner board material and using its own corrugating medium to make the final product. It will move into and equip the empty Chasam plant on Scotts Creek road for this purpose.

In the long term, Jackson Paper plans to build an additional 139,000-square-foot facility to manufacture its own liner board.

The expansion comes after a year-and-a-half of behind-the-scenes finagling with state and local officials. Sylva Mayor Brenda Oliver played a significant role, and the Jackson County Board of Commissioners went on to lend Jackson Paper a half-million dollars.

And all of this came after an initial plan to locate the expansion at an empty Fruit of the Loom plant in Clayton, GA, fell through when another buyer — a speculator — undercut Jackson Paper’s bid in the last half-hour of bidding. That mill remains empty, and has become the center of controversy that has arisen from Rabun Co., GA’s plans to build a wastewater treatment plant on part of the site and discharge treated wastewater into the headwaters of the Little Tennessee River. (More)

Jackson Paper’s expansion hasn’t been without environmental controversy, either.

When Sylva enacted zoning, almost thirty years ago, the maximum industrial structure height was inadvertently set lower than the existing mill’s height. This was discovered during planning for Jackson Paper’s expansion, and the town of Sylva’s board of commissioners subsequently voted to raise the height limit.

Clean air activist Avram Friedman, Executive Director of the Canary Coalition, took exception, arguing that the zoning height difference was the only leverage the town had to ensure that the plant wouldn’t switch from its current wood chip fuel source to coal or rubber pellets — sources that its current air quality permit would allow, and that might seriously impact the town.

Friedman further contended that the town gave improper public notice of its intention to change the zoning regulations, and asked the town board to rescind its decision.

Friedman’s request died for lack of support, but board member Sarah Graham (disclosure: she’s my wife) moved that Jackson Paper be invited to answer community questions in open forum. That motion passed 3-2. Friedman was dismissive of the idea, calling it “meaningless”, but Jackson Paper hasn’t been eager to act on it either, perhaps validating the Canary Coalition’s concern.

The plant, as it now exists, more or less, began when George H. Mead opened Sylva Paperboard Co. in 1928. A tannery had been there since 1901, and the tannery, which used wood chips to fire its boiler, had more wood chips than it could use. Up north, Mead had discovered a way to make cardboard from wood chips, so he was invited to buy into the tannery operation.

The tannery faded away by mid-century, but by then Mead was the county’s largest manufacturer. This was time when many small mountain towns were centered around major manufacturers, and Mead’s impact was huge. It bought over $1 million in local timber a year, employed over 300 workers, and had a payroll of $1.3 million. Mead owned 40,000 acres of timberland.

But there was a downside. Here’s what Dr. John Bell wrote in the “History of Jackson County”:

… Mead experienced financial trouble because of environmental problems. The manufacturing process produced a by-product of “black liquor” that was discharged into Scotts Creek … In 1937 Mead noted the harmful effects of this liquor on water quality and aquatic life and started treating it. Mead also built a pilot plant in 1950 to remove the solid waste from the liquor, but the discharge still had a dark color and bad odor.

In 1957, Swain County, which is downstream, began making noise that Mead needed to clean up its act, and eventually the state told Mead it had until 1962 to do just that.

Mead got deadline extensions and invested over $2.5 million dollars in new discharge technology, but discovered that while that technology cleaned the water significantly, it simultaneously created very bad air pollution.

Environmentalist and iconoclast Edward Abbey wrote this about Sylva in 1969, after a short stint on the faculty at Western Carolina University:

Sylva must have once been a lovely town. Small, with a population of perhaps five thousand, nestled in the green hills below the Great Smokies, full of beautiful old houses, laved as they say by the sparkling waters of the Tuckasegee River (sic), with the life of a market center and the dignity of a county seat, Sylva must have been beautiful. Now it is something else, for the streets are grimy and noisy, jammed always with motor traffic, the river is a sewer, and the sky a pall of poisonous filth. The obvious villain in the picture is the local Mead’s Paper Mill, busily pumping its garbage into the air and the into the river, but general traffic and growth must bear the rest of the blame.

The EPA, founded during the Nixon administration, soon told Mead to clean the air. Mead decided to cut its losses, closed the Sylva operation in 1974 and moved to Alabama.

The facility remained idle until 1978, when Dixie Container Company purchased the mill and converted it to the production of 100% recycled medium. The plant has changed hands twice since that time, but remains North Carolina’s largest recycling facility, with a “closed loop” system that releases no water, and woodchip-fired boilers that release very little ash into the air.

STATEWIDE–State air regulators on Friday granted Duke Energy’s request to treat the new 800-megawatt Cliffside 6 power generating unit it is building west of Charlotte as a “minor source” of pollution.

The designation could allow Duke to sidestep the public process of analyzing and installing the most stringent controls to reduce hazardous pollutants such as mercury. That issue is still before the federal court, and the Division of Air Quality’s decision will allow Duke lawyers to argue that federal courts no longer have jurisdiction in the matter.

Environmentalists reacted angrily to the decision.

“Today’s permitting decision … puts the health of North Carolina citizens at risk and puts North Carolina out of step with the national trend away from coal,” said Elyse Jung, of the N.C. Sierra Club.

Avram Friedman, of Sylva, Director of the Canary Coalition, wrote this, in an open letter to Governor Perdue: “Plans for building new coal burning power plants are being abandoned throughout the rest of the country. There is no reason for you to allow Duke Energy to give North Carolina the stigma of being one of the last bastions of dirty coal.”

Duke Energy framed the decision as proof that it is becoming a more responsible corporate citizen, and that the decision was appropriate given the current economic climate.

Here’s an excerpt from a story in Saturday’s Raleigh News and Observer:

A coalition of environmental groups sued last year, challenging Duke’s construction of a major pollution source without an analysis of the maximum pollution controls needed. In December, U.S. District Judge Lacy Thornburg sided with the environmental groups and ruled that Duke was “simply refusing to comply with the controlling law.”

Read the N&O’s coverage from Wade Rawlins here.

Release from the Southern Environmental Law Center

Earlier release from Canary Coalition vowing non-violent protest

CHARLOTTE – After serious deliberation, a coalition of health, social justice, faith and environmental organizations will borrow a page from American history’s social and political movements as we struggle to halt construction of Duke Energy’s coal-burning power plant at Cliffside, NC.

Due to the gravity of an accelerating climate crisis, health-damaging pollution, an unnecessary spike in power bills, a failed regulatory system, and coal-mining that has already swept away 470 Appalachian mountaintops, the Stop Cliffside Coalition will soon begin a campaign of non-violent civil disobedience to prevent a much greater crime if the plant were to open in 2012 as planned.

Several regulatory and judicial remedies are being pursued, but construction of the new Cliffside unit continues. The statewide coalition is heeding the call of national leaders such as Al Gore, NASA’s head scientist James Hansen, writers Wendell Berry, Bill McKibben and others who say civil disobedience is now the responsible course of action in order to prevent construction of coal-burning power plants.

Driven by its quest to increase profits, Duke Energy refuses to genuinely consider modern, safe and economical alternatives to the 800 megawatt Cliffside expansion. This is despite the fact that coal plants are the largest sources of greenhouse gases, and of hazardous pollutants that contaminate our food, water and air. The global scientific community is sounding an alarm against the continued burning of coal if the world hopes to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change, which already devastates many parts of the world via weather extremes such as storms, droughts and resulting wildfires.

Pre-construction cost overruns put estimates for the new Cliffside unit at $2.4 billion dollars. While the rest of the U.S. is moving increasingly toward clean, economical energy technologies, completion of the Cliffside plant would commit North Carolina to burning coal for another half-century. A fraction of that price tag could weatherize all existing homes in NC, eliminate the need for new coal and nuclear plants, and create thousands more jobs – statewide – than the handful that would be created at Cliffside.

The Stop Cliffside Coalition and others have now proven in a variety of ways – using Duke’s own data – that the new unit is not needed. The giant energy corporation’s own long-term projection for energy consumption in North Carolina has diminished by half. But rather than reconsidering the Cliffside project, CEO Jim Rogers is seeking to expand outside Duke’s monopoly service area in order to sell more energy at the expense of North Carolina’s health and environment.

Federal courts and a growing list of state governors – most recently South Carolina’s Mark Sanford – are moving against new coal plants, many of them favoring efficiency measures and clean technologies such as wind, solar and geothermal energy. One reason for their opposition is growing concern about carbon dioxide, the primary culprit in global warming. If completed in 2012, the new Cliffside unit would emit six million tons annually of this potent greenhouse gas.

Mining for coal has buried or polluted 1,200 miles of pristine headwater streams in the Appalachians. And toxic sludge ponds at hundreds of power plants across the nation – located next to fresh waterways used for cooling the plants – continue amassing highly concentrated hazardous chemicals and heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and mercury. Ironically, plants employing better air pollution controls have the worst on-site sludge problems, such as the one leading to the January disaster in Kingston, Tennessee.

Duke Energy is currently defying a federal court order to comply with the Clean Air Act by refusing to use the best technologies to control hazardous air pollutants including mercury, dioxins, hydrogen chlorides and fluorides, cadmium, and other highly toxic chemicals.

Under Duke’s obvious influence, the NC Division of Air Quality (DAQ) has abandoned its responsibility to protect public health and the environment. The agency has consistently worked with Duke to mislead the public, the General Assembly, the US EPA and the courts about the technical capabilities of the emission control equipment included in Cliffside’s air pollution permit.

NASA’s Hansen and other leading climate experts warn that humanity is rapidly running out of time to avert cascading and potentially “explosive” climate changes that are irreversible and beyond our control. As Hansen warns, this could lead to “a planet on which humans and wildlife are not adapted to living.”

The urgency of climate change makes now the time for people of conscience to confront this out-of-step energy corporation and the state agency that are allowing this crime against public health and the environment to continue.

We will no longer allow Duke to continue “business as usual.” We are determined to stop construction at Cliffside, and turn all North Carolina energies toward avoiding a full-blown climate catastrophe.

RALEIGH–New North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue said earlier this month that “we haven’t done enough to protect air quality in the mountains …”, and has positioned herself as an air quality advocate.

She’ll be immediately challenged, though, as Duke Energy lobbies to have its controversial, new, and enormous Cliffside Plant labeled a “minor pollution source” by state regulators.
From Wade Rawlins at the Raleigh News and Observer:

Designating the new unit as a minor pollution source would allow Duke to avoid the public process of analyzing and installing the most modern controls to reduce hazardous pollution to the maximum extent possible.

At this point, the state seems ready to agree, which is alarming to environmental activists for this reason: in December, U.S. District Court Judge Lacy Thornburg ruled that Duke was “simply refusing to comply with the controlling law.”

Writes Rawlins:

Thornburg said the new Cliffside unit 6 is a major source of hazardous air pollutants because it can emit pollutants above the legal threshold. He ordered the utility to analyze the technology needed for maximum control of pollutants.
If Duke receives a favorable ruling from the state, it is likely to argue that the federal court no longer has jurisdiction.

Rawlins’ story is here.

Overview

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper filed suit against the Tennessee Valley Authority in 2006, alleging that the federally-owned corporation hasn’t done enough to control pollution from 11 coal-fired power plants it operates in Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama.

Cooper alleges that the TVA is significantly to blame for Western North Carolina’s poor air quality.

The case was tried through mid-July in Asheville, before federal judge Lacy Thornburg, a Webster, NC, resident. There was no jury. Testimony ended Wednesday, July 30.

The Asheville Citizen-Times reported on Thursday, July 31st, that a decision by Thornburg was weeks, maybe months, away. Attorneys for both sides have until September 15 to file followup paperwork, and no decision will come before that time.

Western North Carolina’s Canary Coalition has been involved in the political fight for improved air quality for nearly a decade. Avram Friedman, Executive Director of the organization, has this to say about the current trial: “[The outcome will be] very significant, with broad implications about the responsibility of the utility industry toward air quality in downwind states. But, if we get a favorable opinion … it will almost certainly be appealed by the TVA, probably delaying meaningful action for years. Nonetheless, it will put the utility industry on notice that their days of irresponsibility without accountability are numbered.”

Coverage from Clarke Morrison at the Asheville Citizen-Times:

First Week: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday
Second Week: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday
Third Week: Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday

Coverage from the Tennessean’s Anne Paine.

Raleigh News and Observer gives an overview of North Carolina’s clean air fight in this editorial
New York Times Editorial on Clean Air Interstate decision here.
Asheville Citizen-Times editorial here.

Our previous thoughts here.

After seeing witnesses brought by the TVA and witnesses brought by the state of North Carolina give testimony that was in many cases diametrically opposed, we stumbled upon this article, called “The Price of Advocacy” in a New York Times series called “American Exception”. The series discusses ways in which the American justice system is different from other those of other countries.

Day-by-day

ASHEVILLE/REGIONAL-North Carolina’s suit against the Tennessee Valley Authority, seeking to force the nation’s largest utility to clamp down on pollution from its plants, got underway in U.S. District Court in Asheville Monday, July 14, and is likely to end sometime during the last week of the month.

Here’s a roundup of testimony so far:

Smog over the Plott Balsams

MONDAY: In opening arguments, the state began to craft its assertion that the TVA should modernize its 11 coal-fired plants to the west and south of North Carolina at least to the standards set forth in North Carolina’s 2002 Clean Smokestacks legislation. Witnesses provided testimony that the North Carolina mountains are significantly and negatively impacted by pollution from TVA plants, and that the TVA has a track record of acting only under legal pressure.

The TVA, meanwhile, argued that it has made significant strides in reducing emissions, and asserted that it alone couldn’t be held responsible for North Carolina pollution.

In addition, TVA attorney Frank Lancaster said: “North Carolina is not suffering significant harm to its air quality, there will be a lot of evidence the air quality in North Carolina is good.”

TUESDAY: Jim Staudt, an expert in air pollution control technology and president of Andover Technology Partners (a major consultant on pollution control technology) testified Tuesday that the Tennessee Valley Authority could move faster to cut emissions from its coal-fired power plants.

“Their emissions are at an unreasonable rate,” he said.

Staudt also noted that Friday’s action by a Federal Appeals Court to strike down the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule will have a “chilling effect” on pollution control progress.

WEDNESDAY: More testimony from emissions experts underscored a fundamental irony of the air quality issue in the mountains: under federal regulations, communities with high ozone levels face restrictions of transportation funds and possible restrictions on development if air quality isn’t improved. Frequently though, outside sources of pollution contribute significantly to local problems. Furthermore, last Friday’s action by a Federal Appeals Court to strike down the 2005 Clean Interstate Air Rule eliminates a partial solution to this riddle, and makes North Carolina’s case all the more compelling.

Additional testimony from the same consultant made clear the relatively drastic improvements in visibility that could be expected if the TVA were to meet the standards that North Carolina plants have been forced to meet through the 2002 NC Clean Smokestacks legislation.

THURSDAY: Three witnesses took the stand for the state on Thursday, two speaking to the health effects of polluted air, and one to the impact on visibility.

FRIDAY: Jonathan Levy of the Harvard School for Public Policy testified Friday morning that if the lawsuit is successful, each year in North Carolina there would be:

• 99 fewer premature deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.
• 19,000 fewer asthma attacks.
• 60 fewer hospital admissions.
• 55 fewer emergency room visits related to asthma.
• 2,300 fewer lost school days.

Levy called the estimates “reasonable and reliable” and said they were based the “best available science.”

From the Asheville Citizen-Times:

“Under cross-examination by one of TVA’s attorneys, Levy acknowledged the calculations don’t take into account the installation of scrubbers that are planned or under way at three power plants in eastern Tennessee.

MONDAY: Three tourism representatives, Todd Morse, of Chimney Rock Park, and Bill Cecil, Jr., President and CEO of Biltmore Co., along with an outdoor outfitter and trail guide testified for the state that smog is bad for business.

TUESDAY: Bruce Buckheit, former director of air enforcement for the Environmental Protection Agency, said that an investigation by that agency found that TVA plants emitted more than 1 million tons of “illegal emissions” over 20 years.

“We were stunned,” Buckheit said. “This is one of the most significant violations I’ve ever seen.”

Under cross-examination, Buckheit acknowledged that no court has ever found the TVA guilty of violating New Source Review rules of the clean air act, although he pointed out that the matter is still tied up in court.

WEDNESDAY: The Tennessee Valley Authority opened its defense on the trial’s second Wednesday, and John Myers, TVA’s senior manager of environmental policy and regulatory outlook took the stand.

Myers stressed one of the TVA’s fundamental arguments, emphasizing that TVA’s coal-fired plants produced about 30 percent more electricity last year than plants in North Carolina, while emitting about the same amount of sulfur dioxide.

But, reported the Asheville Citizen-Times:

“Under cross-examination, Myers acknowledged that Duke Energy and Progress Energy are poised to significantly reduce emissions as required by the Clean Smokestacks Act approved by state lawmakers in 2002.”

Myers touted the TVA as one of the early innovators in pollution control, but also acknowledged that many of the company’s implementations of such technology have been driven by state and federal controls.

THURSDAY: Thomas Tesche, an expert in computer air dispersion modeling, was called by the TVA, and argued with highly technical testimony that very little of the haze that impacts the Smokies originates in Tennessee. He took exception with the “air modeling” of scientists called by the state of North Carolina earlier in the week.

FRIDAY: Suresh Moolgavkar, an epidemiologist with the University of Washington, told U.S. District Court Judge Lacy Thornburg: “I’m of the opinion that there isn’t sufficient evidence to support a causal relationship,(between pollution from TVA plants and health issues in North Carolina).” In sometimes sharply-worded testimony, Moolgavkar contradicted last Friday’s testimony for the state from Jonathan Levy of the Harvard School of Public Health.

Moolgavkar said Levy’s statistics “fly in the face of common sense,” and went on to say, “these numbers cannot be taken seriously. The assumptions underlying them are meaningless.”

Clarke Morrison at the Asheville Citizen-Times described N.C. Senior Deputy Attorney General James Gulick’s cross-examination of Moolgavkar this way:

Moolgavkar acknowledged his studies and papers were funded by groups like the American Iron and Steel Institute and the American Petroleum Institute.

Gulick said such organizations have a financial stake in conclusions reached about the association of air pollution and ill health effects.

A second witness, Elizabeth Anderson, who worked in risk assessment for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency before becoming a private consultant, questioned Levy’s statistics, and said that TVA pollutants reaching North Carolina are on their way to being “exceedingly small.” Gulick countered that Anderson’s statistics were based on statistics that were dependent on the existence of the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which was struck down recently by a federal appeals court.

TUESDAY: (Court was not in session Monday) Quincy Styke, deputy director of the Tennessee Division of Air Pollution Control took the stand in defense of the Tennessee Valley Authority, saying that the TVA does a good job of helping clean  the air. When asked why Tennessee hasn’t enacted legislation similar to North Carolina’s 2002 Clean Smokestacks bill, Styke said: “Tennessee has not enacted similar legislation because it’s not necessary. We don’t need a statute. Tennessee’s been about the business of controlling its emissions.”

When cross-examined by attorneys for the state of North Carolina, writes Clarke Morrison in the Asheville Citizen-Times, Styke “acknowledged that Nashville and other metropolitan areas in Tennessee don’t meet federal standards for the air pollutant ozone, which experts say can cause respiratory illness and other health problems.”

WEDNESDAY: Attorneys made their closing arguments before lunch today.

The gist of the arguments, as quoted by the Asheville Citizen-Times Clark Morrison:

North Carolina Senior Deputy Attorney General James Gulick:

“It is especially important there be a mandate, a schedule and a firm deadline. Mandates work, your honor.

“TVA’s emissions have created a nuisance that is going on today. Those emissions are causing harm to public health throughout the region. The nuisance is happening now and North Carolina is entitled to relief.”

TVA attorney Frank Lancaster:

“TVA’s approach is steady reductions over time. That’s TVA’s history and that’s TVA’s future.”

“Your honor, there has been a complete failure of proof of any ongoing nuisance. TVA has been making steady reductions for years and there is no evidence it will change its course. We ask that this case be dismissed, your honor.”