ShareThis Page
Tenaska agrees to provide pollution information on proposed South Huntingdon plant |

Tenaska agrees to provide pollution information on proposed South Huntingdon plant

Joe Napsha
| Tuesday, September 1, 2015 10:54 p.m

A Pittsburgh-based environmental group has reached a settlement with the state and the Nebraska company proposing to build a $500 million natural gas-fueled power plant in South Huntingdon that will result in more information about the pollution to be emitted from the facility.

The settlement that the Group Against Smog and Pollution reached with the state Department of Environmental Protection and the plant operator, Tenaska Pennsylvania Partners LLC, on Aug. 7 will provide emission information that was omitted in the company’s permit application, said Joseph Osborne, an attorney for GASP.

Tenaska had omitted that information from its application for the air quality permit on the grounds that the emissions data from the Mitsubishi Corp.’s combustion turbines was proprietary, Osborne said.

GASP had appealed the state’s issuance of the air quality permit to Tenaska in April, arguing that the information Tenaska omitted from its application was necessary to determine whether the calculations of the pollution from the 950-megawatt power plant were accurate and whether the plant would meet Clean Air Act requirements. GASP characterized the plant as a “major source of air pollution,” with the potential to emit 2,310 tons annually of carbon monoxide, 1,251 tons of volatile organic compounds and 23 tons annually of sulfur dioxide.

In hearings before state environmental regulators, Tenaska officials said all air quality requirements would be met by the plant, which is to be located about one mile south of the intersection of Interstate 70 and Route 31.

Tenaska Pennsylvania Partners, an affiliate of Tenaska Energy Inc. of Omaha, declined to comment on the agreement. Tenaska had said it anticipated beginning construction on the power plant this summer and completing it in three years.

“We continue to advance commercial arrangements for the project and expect to begin construction as early as the end of 2015,” Monte Ten Kley, development director for Tenaska, said in a statement Tuesday.

The state environmental agency did not want to comment on the settlement because two other appeals are pending before the Environmental Hearing Board, said John Poister, a spokesman for the department in Pittsburgh. The Clean Air Council in Philadelphia and Cynthia A. Walter, a Hempfield scientist and St. Vincent College associate biology professor, filed appeals with the hearing board.

The Clean Air Council claimed that the state did not consider wind and solar sources for generating electricity. Alex Bomstein, a senior litigation attorney for the council, could not be reached for comment.

Walter contended that the plant’s air and water pollution would have a negative effect on people’s health. Walter, who testified against Tenaska’s plans in a state hearing conducted in February, could not be reached for comment.

Joe Napsha is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-836-5252 or

Joe Napsha is a Tribune-Review staff reporter. You can contact Joe at 724-836-5252, or via Twitter .

Categories: Westmoreland
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.