Web Posted: 09/13/2009 12:00 CDT
Water helps fuel debate on the STP
By Anton Caputo, Express-News- and Asher Price, Austin American-Statesman
During the intense Southeast drought of 2007, when the region desperately needed to power its air conditioners, the Browns Ferry nuclear complex in Alabama had to shut down one of its reactors for more than a day and significantly reduce power from two more.
In the deadly European heat wave of 2003, many of the French nuclear plants were in a similar bind and were forced to power down as thousands were overcome by heat-related illnesses.
The culprit in both cases was a lack of water in the rivers used to operate and cool the reactors.
Situations like these have many questioning if there possibly can be enough water in fast-growing, drought-prone South Texas to meet the needs of two more nuclear reactors being proposed at the South Texas Project plant outside Bay City.
But San Antonio’s CPS Energy and partner New Jersey-based NRG Energy, which want to build the reactors, contend they have the legal rights to all the water they need. Those rights, negotiated with the Lower Colorado River Authority, give the plant access to some 102,000 acre-feet of water a year, a massive amount equivalent to roughly half of San Antonio’s water needs in a dry year.
That figure includes 20,000 acre-feet of guaranteed, drought-ready water from the Highland Lakes. If two more reactors are built, the guaranteed amount — already reserved by South Texas Project Operating Company — doubles to 40,000 acre-feet each year.
Those Highland Lake rights are firm rights, meaning that during dry times, the LCRA must cut off the farmers and all others who own lesser rights to supply the nuclear facility.
This ready supply of water helps makes the site one of the best in the country for new reactors, boast energy company officials. But with the state in the midst of a drought rivaling the infamous dry period of the 1950s and more people and businesses eyeing the Colorado River’s water, many fighting against the reactors claim that water is a potential Achilles heel.
“Sure, they have the rights,” said Karen Hadden of the Austin-based SEED Coalition. “But that doesn’t mean the water is going to be there.”
Reservoir protects river
Water, in many ways, is the lifeblood of a nuclear power plant. It’s heated into steam to turn the turbines that create electricity as well as used to cool the reactors. Most of the water is not consumed in the process, but instead returned to the river or reservoir it came from.
Still, vast amounts need to be available for the reactors to operate. This water dependence is shared by many energy sources, including plants that use coal and concentrated solar.
Mike Kotara, CPS Energy’s vice president in charge of energy development, said most of those painting nightmare scenarios of the STP’s reactors running out of water either don’t understand or ignore the plant’s plans to guarantee water is available, even during drought.
The Colorado River serves as the main water supply for the two reactors that have been operating on site since the 1980s, just as it would for the two proposed reactors.
However, the plant doesn’t pull water directly from the river; nor does it discharge directly into the river. Water is pulled via massive pumps into a 7,000-acre reservoir, where it’s held for the plant’s use.
This distinction is important, Kotara said. That’s because it eliminates the problem faced by the reactors in Alabama and France. Drought caused those shutdowns, but it wasn’t a lack of water to operate the plant that forced the issue. It was because the heated water the reactors were discharging back into the already depleted rivers raised the water temperatures higher than environmental laws allowed.
“We avoid that completely because we don’t discharge into the river,” Kotara said.
Lauren Ross, an environmental engineer hired by groups fighting the proposed reactors, acknowledged they likely could avoid the problems that plagued Browns Ferry and the French reactors in past droughts. But her questions have more to do with the supply of water to serve the reservoir and whether it’s the best use for the resource in growing South Texas.
Any potential interruption of the water supply, she said, makes the investment — estimated at $13 billion by CPS Energy – more questionable.
If a water shortage were to occur, the plant’s operators would be forced to choose between potentially expensive backup plans to supply water, or simply cut down the plant’s output, probably at a time when the area needs the power the most.
“If you build a facility and there is not an adequate water supply to cool it, basically it increases the cost of electricity,” Ross said. “What’s the cost per kilowatt hour? They have not given us any information about that.”
Water rights may be cut
The sprawling reservoir that serves the STP can hold slightly more than 200,000 acre-feet of water and originally was engineered to serve four reactors.
On average, STP pulls a bit more than 37,000 acre-feet of water a year into its reservoir. That’s expected to roughly double if two new plants are built, Kotara said.
STP is allowed to suck out 55 percent of the river’s flow above 300 cubic feet per second to fill its reservoir. This means it can act the glutton during a deluge and gets nothing when the river runs low.
In recent years, water pulled from the river peaked at roughly 60,000 acre-feet and fell to as low as zero in 2003. This year, STP has drawn only about 14,000 acre-feet.
The LCRA’s guarantee of 40,000 acre-feet from the Highland Lakes means that backup should be available even during a repeat of the ’50s drought, LCRA officials said. That drought is the worst on record and generally used as the standard for water planners.
Some, like Ross, argue that climate change or even natural variation in climate necessitates that water planners consider preparing for droughts worse than that of the ’50s. There’s a chance she could be proven right soon.
LCRA officials say there is a 10 percent probability the current drought could eclipse that of the 1950s by May.
If that were to happen, the agency would consider cutting back firm water rights across the board until the drought let up. That would mean the STP would have to depend on its reservoir to hold out and, essentially, pray for rain.
“If the drought become worse than the drought of record, then we are still likely to have enough water in the reservoir to allow operation of the units,” said Kotara. “But we may elect to modify operation of the units in order to preserve water in the cooling reservoir to ensure that we can operate the units at full output during the summer months when it is needed the most.”
STP officials said that during severe drought, they would consider pumping brackish water into their facilities, but history has shown they are loath to do so.
Salt vs. fresh water
STP depends on rights negotiated when the plant was proposed in the 1970s. But the process to obtain them was far from smooth and acts as an insight into how valuable water is considered in the region.
The water supply contract between LCRA and the nuclear power plant was born in litigation and was mired in it again recently. The reason for the litigation, at bottom, was the difference between fresh and salt water.
STP sits beside a fluctuating line known as the “salt water wedge,” where upstream fresh river water meets downriver brackish gulf water, said Lyn Clancy, a lawyer for the LCRA.
The nuclear plant operators are reluctant to pull in salt water because it’s corrosive and damages expensive intake equipment. In a pinch, the reactors can use salt water, said Kotara, but in general, the plant’s operators want to keep as much fresh water in the river in possible to push the saltwater wedge downriver of the facility.
What began as a legal battle over fresh water during STP’s original planning erupted again in 2004 when plant operators began to worry that a project being pushed by the San Antonio Water System might harm its water rights, said Karen Bondy, manager of river services for the LCRA.
STP was concerned that the proposed LCRA-SAWS project, which would have piped tens of thousands of acre-feet of water each year from the Colorado River to San Antonio, would rob it of fresh water. The operator claimed LCRA was in breach of contract because it was threatening to change the way the river was operated.
In a settlement reached in 2006, the LCRA agreed to clarify its water rights, to ask San Antonio to invest in a project on studying water quality in the Matagorda County area, to communicate routinely, and to cut a break on water rates after 2030, when the current contract (signed in 1976) runs out.
STP pays $800,000 a year now, under the 1976 contract, to have access to 102,000 acre-feet, including 20,000 acre-feet of firm supply.
After 2030, the operator of the South Texas Project will pay 67 percent of the standard firm water rate for every drop of firm water it uses, and 52 percent of the normal reserve rate for every bit of firm water it reserves but doesn’t use.
The LCRA-SAWS project has since fallen apart and spawned a lawsuit between the two utilities.
Given all the competition for water, Ross questions whether it’s smart to tie up such vast amounts for power production for decades to come.
Kotara, though, sees the issue from a drastically different angle.
“The issue here that is being overlooked is what happens if CPS is not a partner in STP 3 and 4,” he said. “Some other community in Texas would benefit from the water rights that already exist, and some other community would benefit from the power derived from those water rights. And San Antonio would have to look for another place to build a power plant and we would have to find water.”
Asher Price is a reporter for the Austin American-Statesman.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/Water_helps_fuel_debate_on_the_STP.html
Showing posts with label Water Shortage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Water Shortage. Show all posts
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Uranium: Wealth or Woe?
The current global quest for alternative energy sources such as nuclear power is poisoning the land of communities deemed lucky enough to have such lucrative resources at hand.
Mar 11, 2009 – Debates rage over whether energy generated by uranium induced nuclear fission is beneficial or harmful. The debate often settles into familiar bipartite arguments of nuclear power plants versus nuclear bombs.
However, this article demonstrates that this approach is too narrow; the threats to land and livelihoods generated purely from the extraction process are substantial but unknown or ignored, as the Topnaar Nama people in Namibia are discovering.
Whilst tragic results of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are well documented, the environmental and health problems that are a consequence of uranium exploration are less well known by the general global public.
During the development of the atomic bomb, thousands of mines were built in the Southwest of the United States and Northern Canada. The radioactive waste, known as tailings, that builds up in huge piles of rocks and slush outside the mines continues to threaten the wellbeing of local populations and contaminates the environment.
The sad truth is that Governments are fully aware of the dangers but refuse to implement adequate protection measures.
Uranium can cause a wide variety of health problems. Miners and local communities drink contaminated water, eat contaminated food and breathe in radon gas and dust from the tailings. In addition to this, the extraction and processing of uranium ore uses huge amounts of highly sought-after water that cannot be recycled.
It has been argued by mining companies that uranium extraction brings jobs to local populations, thus creating better living conditions, and for a few this was true. However the companies also quietly ignore the health and environmental effects of the process.
In many cases there have been no safety precautions, no radiation protection and no information about the hazards of the mining process. Regulations are non-existent or faulty to such an extent that they would never be accepted in industrialized states.
The problems associated with uranium mining are set to continue with its rising price as demand from nuclear power plant companies increases. Africa is especially at risk because companies are attracted by the lack of strict regulations.
One community that is particularly at risk from uranium extraction is the Topnaar Nama, one of fourteen groups of Nama people. These groups traditionally lived in the southern parts of the Namib, which today is part of Namibia and adjacent to South Africa. This nomadic group breed their own livestock such as goats and cows, which, along with !Nara fruits make-up their main food staples. They now live their traditional way of life in the area of the Kuiseb River and canyon, south of Walvisbay and Svakopmund.
There are currently two mines operating in the Topnaar territory with the Namibian Government recently issuing more uranium exploration licenses to various international companies. The Topnaar people now fear for their lives and existence. Uranium mining poses a considerable threat to general health, and lifestyle because of effects on underground and surface water resources.
The lack of water, and other environmental issues related to uranium mining have other impacts on the Topnaar. As Captain Samuel Khaxab from the Royal House of the Topnaar Nama states:
‘We do not accept the uranium mines. One day I want to show my children, my small children, this flower and that bock - which is called springbock and that one [which] is an Oryx. But if that mine is coming, the animals cannot be there anymore. The thing is so strong, dangerous; the people who are working in the mine become sick. The Roessing mine is far from us, but now it comes near at us. And it is dangerous for us. We cannot give permission for that thing.’
It has been recognized that the demand for water is much too high for the Namib to supply. In an attempt to combat this problem a water desalination plant is presently under construction at Wlozkasbaken as a joint venture between the uranium mining company UraMin and Nam Water.
It has been reported that workers of the Roessing mine, amongst them Topnaar people, are becoming ill and are dying. One Topnaar reported that his friend, a miner, had died a few weeks ago because of what the doctor referred to as ‘old mans illness’. He was only 60, and those within the Topnaar villages that have never worked in the mines live beyond 80 without any ‘old mans illness.’
It is clear from the issuing of uranium exploration licenses that the Namibian Government is less than supportive towards the Topnaar peoples’ situation. This is despite the fact that the Namibian constitution states that traditional chiefs (captains or kings) of different tribes be included in parliament.
It appears that financial institutions within the country, such as the Bank of Namibia, have found the potential income that mining may bring too attractive to reject. This is despite studies in other African countries that demonstrates only a small percentage of the worth of the resources extracted actually stay in the country.
Indeed it is clear that the Topnaar people are not benefiting from the mining taking place within their territory. Ephraim Peterson, also from the Royal House of the Topnaar-Nam said:
‘In the harvest time we collect the !Narra fruit. We eat it, the goats and donkeys also eat it. But the fruit is in danger because of the Uranium mines. If those mines are coming they can contaminate our plants, the !Narra. We also have the fish but we never benefit from it. Even from the Naukluft Park also. Thousands of tourists are coming in, but we never got something from it. Our ancestors were hunting here before it became a Park. They were eating springbock, Oryx, the ostrich. But today we cannot hunt anymore. It is not allowed, the Government took it over.’
Captain Samuel Khaxab agrees, arguing that the ‘Government has forgotten the customary law, the old law of Namibia. Customary law says that if someone comes from the royal house, he is entitled to the captainship and the chieftainship. The law says the mountains belong to us, the birds belong to us, the Oryx, the ostrich, all the animals, everything in that area is belonging to me and my people. That is what customary law says. Even the minerals are ours and the ground belongs to us’.
It is apparent to the Topnaar, in the words of Ephraim Peterson, that the Government ‘does not care’, no money has ever been received from the mines; instead they must pay the water company in order to get water. He claims that the ‘people who govern now do what they want. They do not care about us. And that is very painful for us!’
The Topnaar Nama people fear for their lives and for their existence. Uranium mining poses considerable health hazards to the people, and the side effects of uranium mining, such as the depletion of the underground and surface water resources make their traditional lifestyles impossible to maintain.
Fanuel Abraham Haoseb describes how the natural water systems have come under strain in recent years:
‘In the past elephants, giraffes, rhinos they used to come down the river during the rainy season.
But today these animals are not coming down anymore. Our water is now supplying too many things like factories or the mines in our area. Mines use a lot of water and this will have an effect on us because Nam Water will have to pump more water out of the river so that they can give more water to other people. This will also have an effect on our community itself. The river, the trees and the whole lifestyle of us will be afflicted by this system.’
Less or no water means no food for the animals, and it also means fewer !Nara fruits. It all adds up to no food for the people and is compounded by a government that is unwilling or unable to assist its people. It appears that the quest for alternative energy sources that has invigorated so many has left the Topnaar Nama people desolate in light of their drained lands.
The Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) is an international, nonviolent, and democratic membership organisation. Its members are indigenous peoples, minorities, and unrecognised or occupied territories who have joined together to protect and promote their human and cultural rights, to preserve their environments, and to find nonviolent solutions to conflicts which affect them.
http://www.prlog.org/10196921-uranium-wealth-or-woe.html
Mar 11, 2009 – Debates rage over whether energy generated by uranium induced nuclear fission is beneficial or harmful. The debate often settles into familiar bipartite arguments of nuclear power plants versus nuclear bombs.
However, this article demonstrates that this approach is too narrow; the threats to land and livelihoods generated purely from the extraction process are substantial but unknown or ignored, as the Topnaar Nama people in Namibia are discovering.
Whilst tragic results of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are well documented, the environmental and health problems that are a consequence of uranium exploration are less well known by the general global public.
During the development of the atomic bomb, thousands of mines were built in the Southwest of the United States and Northern Canada. The radioactive waste, known as tailings, that builds up in huge piles of rocks and slush outside the mines continues to threaten the wellbeing of local populations and contaminates the environment.
The sad truth is that Governments are fully aware of the dangers but refuse to implement adequate protection measures.
Uranium can cause a wide variety of health problems. Miners and local communities drink contaminated water, eat contaminated food and breathe in radon gas and dust from the tailings. In addition to this, the extraction and processing of uranium ore uses huge amounts of highly sought-after water that cannot be recycled.
It has been argued by mining companies that uranium extraction brings jobs to local populations, thus creating better living conditions, and for a few this was true. However the companies also quietly ignore the health and environmental effects of the process.
In many cases there have been no safety precautions, no radiation protection and no information about the hazards of the mining process. Regulations are non-existent or faulty to such an extent that they would never be accepted in industrialized states.
The problems associated with uranium mining are set to continue with its rising price as demand from nuclear power plant companies increases. Africa is especially at risk because companies are attracted by the lack of strict regulations.
One community that is particularly at risk from uranium extraction is the Topnaar Nama, one of fourteen groups of Nama people. These groups traditionally lived in the southern parts of the Namib, which today is part of Namibia and adjacent to South Africa. This nomadic group breed their own livestock such as goats and cows, which, along with !Nara fruits make-up their main food staples. They now live their traditional way of life in the area of the Kuiseb River and canyon, south of Walvisbay and Svakopmund.
There are currently two mines operating in the Topnaar territory with the Namibian Government recently issuing more uranium exploration licenses to various international companies. The Topnaar people now fear for their lives and existence. Uranium mining poses a considerable threat to general health, and lifestyle because of effects on underground and surface water resources.
The lack of water, and other environmental issues related to uranium mining have other impacts on the Topnaar. As Captain Samuel Khaxab from the Royal House of the Topnaar Nama states:
‘We do not accept the uranium mines. One day I want to show my children, my small children, this flower and that bock - which is called springbock and that one [which] is an Oryx. But if that mine is coming, the animals cannot be there anymore. The thing is so strong, dangerous; the people who are working in the mine become sick. The Roessing mine is far from us, but now it comes near at us. And it is dangerous for us. We cannot give permission for that thing.’
It has been recognized that the demand for water is much too high for the Namib to supply. In an attempt to combat this problem a water desalination plant is presently under construction at Wlozkasbaken as a joint venture between the uranium mining company UraMin and Nam Water.
It has been reported that workers of the Roessing mine, amongst them Topnaar people, are becoming ill and are dying. One Topnaar reported that his friend, a miner, had died a few weeks ago because of what the doctor referred to as ‘old mans illness’. He was only 60, and those within the Topnaar villages that have never worked in the mines live beyond 80 without any ‘old mans illness.’
It is clear from the issuing of uranium exploration licenses that the Namibian Government is less than supportive towards the Topnaar peoples’ situation. This is despite the fact that the Namibian constitution states that traditional chiefs (captains or kings) of different tribes be included in parliament.
It appears that financial institutions within the country, such as the Bank of Namibia, have found the potential income that mining may bring too attractive to reject. This is despite studies in other African countries that demonstrates only a small percentage of the worth of the resources extracted actually stay in the country.
Indeed it is clear that the Topnaar people are not benefiting from the mining taking place within their territory. Ephraim Peterson, also from the Royal House of the Topnaar-Nam said:
‘In the harvest time we collect the !Narra fruit. We eat it, the goats and donkeys also eat it. But the fruit is in danger because of the Uranium mines. If those mines are coming they can contaminate our plants, the !Narra. We also have the fish but we never benefit from it. Even from the Naukluft Park also. Thousands of tourists are coming in, but we never got something from it. Our ancestors were hunting here before it became a Park. They were eating springbock, Oryx, the ostrich. But today we cannot hunt anymore. It is not allowed, the Government took it over.’
Captain Samuel Khaxab agrees, arguing that the ‘Government has forgotten the customary law, the old law of Namibia. Customary law says that if someone comes from the royal house, he is entitled to the captainship and the chieftainship. The law says the mountains belong to us, the birds belong to us, the Oryx, the ostrich, all the animals, everything in that area is belonging to me and my people. That is what customary law says. Even the minerals are ours and the ground belongs to us’.
It is apparent to the Topnaar, in the words of Ephraim Peterson, that the Government ‘does not care’, no money has ever been received from the mines; instead they must pay the water company in order to get water. He claims that the ‘people who govern now do what they want. They do not care about us. And that is very painful for us!’
The Topnaar Nama people fear for their lives and for their existence. Uranium mining poses considerable health hazards to the people, and the side effects of uranium mining, such as the depletion of the underground and surface water resources make their traditional lifestyles impossible to maintain.
Fanuel Abraham Haoseb describes how the natural water systems have come under strain in recent years:
‘In the past elephants, giraffes, rhinos they used to come down the river during the rainy season.
But today these animals are not coming down anymore. Our water is now supplying too many things like factories or the mines in our area. Mines use a lot of water and this will have an effect on us because Nam Water will have to pump more water out of the river so that they can give more water to other people. This will also have an effect on our community itself. The river, the trees and the whole lifestyle of us will be afflicted by this system.’
Less or no water means no food for the animals, and it also means fewer !Nara fruits. It all adds up to no food for the people and is compounded by a government that is unwilling or unable to assist its people. It appears that the quest for alternative energy sources that has invigorated so many has left the Topnaar Nama people desolate in light of their drained lands.
The Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) is an international, nonviolent, and democratic membership organisation. Its members are indigenous peoples, minorities, and unrecognised or occupied territories who have joined together to protect and promote their human and cultural rights, to preserve their environments, and to find nonviolent solutions to conflicts which affect them.
http://www.prlog.org/10196921-uranium-wealth-or-woe.html
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Busting the boom
The Dolores River and Durango boaters flow through canyon country and prime uranium mining territory west of Durango. Last week, several conservation groups announced their intent to sue the Department of Energy and Bureau of Land Management for opening 27,000 acres in Western Colorado, many of them in the vicinity of this photograph, to mining without adequately assessing the impacts./Photo by Stephen EginoireComment: see another group protecting their lands, again we the people have the right to protect our lands and homes!
Conservation groups challenge Colorado uranium leases
by Will Sands
The Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker and humpback and bonytail chubs could be unraveling Western Colorado’s second uranium boom. Last week, four conservation groups took on the federal government for opening the floodgates to uranium mining without assessing the impacts on the Dolores and San Miguel rivers.
Western Colorado’s first uranium boom arrived in the 1950s with the beginning of the Cold War. At that time, prospectors with newly patented mining claims and Geiger counters in hand descended en masse on the canyon country west of Durango. Many walked away with fortunes but left a legacy of mine waste and radioactive tailings in their wake.
Three years ago, uranium prices once again spiked, and prospectors and mining companies started eyeing the desert of the Dolores River drainage. Local uranium mining got a big nudge in the summer of 2007 when the Department of Energy announced its Uranium Leasing Program. At that time, the agency opened 27,000 additional acres in San Miguel, Montrose and Mesa counties to prospectors seeking the radioactive ore. With this acreage, the DOE estimated that regional mines would produce 2 million tons of unrefined uranium per year.
At the time of the announcement, Tracy Plessinger, DOE project manager, noted, “There will be some impacts,” she said. “Anytime you’ve got an extractive process, there will be impacts. But those impacts won’t be on the entire 27,000 acres. We estimate that there will be a total of 750 acres spread throughout the entire 27,000 that will be disturbed.”
Plessinger also downplayed the impacts on human health and safety, saying the agency carefully examined the threat of radioactive exposure to mine workers and the public. “All of the risk levels came back very, very low,” she said. “The highest risk for radiation exposure was for those residing nearby and that was only eight people in 100,000. Is there an impact? Yes. Is it significant? No, not in the realm of human health risk.” (people, pay attention, the gov't will not protect us, do you get it, we must protect ourselves, ban uranium mining and milling!)
Based on these facts and that many of the lease tracts in question had already been mined, the DOE issued a “Finding of No Significant Impact” and authorized the Uranium Leasing Project to begin immediately.
However, the impacts of nearly three years of mining could be much more significant than Plessinger imagined. On Friday, a team of conservation groups – the Center for Biological Diversity, Colorado Environmental Coalition, Information Network for Responsible Mining, and Center for Native Ecosystems – announced their intention to fight the leasing program in court.
The Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker and humpback and bonytail chubs could be unraveling Western Colorado’s second uranium boom. Last week, four conservation groups took on the federal government for opening the floodgates to uranium mining without assessing the impacts on the Dolores and San Miguel rivers.
Western Colorado’s first uranium boom arrived in the 1950s with the beginning of the Cold War. At that time, prospectors with newly patented mining claims and Geiger counters in hand descended en masse on the canyon country west of Durango. Many walked away with fortunes but left a legacy of mine waste and radioactive tailings in their wake.
Three years ago, uranium prices once again spiked, and prospectors and mining companies started eyeing the desert of the Dolores River drainage. Local uranium mining got a big nudge in the summer of 2007 when the Department of Energy announced its Uranium Leasing Program. At that time, the agency opened 27,000 additional acres in San Miguel, Montrose and Mesa counties to prospectors seeking the radioactive ore. With this acreage, the DOE estimated that regional mines would produce 2 million tons of unrefined uranium per year.
At the time of the announcement, Tracy Plessinger, DOE project manager, noted, “There will be some impacts,” she said. “Anytime you’ve got an extractive process, there will be impacts. But those impacts won’t be on the entire 27,000 acres. We estimate that there will be a total of 750 acres spread throughout the entire 27,000 that will be disturbed.”
Plessinger also downplayed the impacts on human health and safety, saying the agency carefully examined the threat of radioactive exposure to mine workers and the public. “All of the risk levels came back very, very low,” she said. “The highest risk for radiation exposure was for those residing nearby and that was only eight people in 100,000. Is there an impact? Yes. Is it significant? No, not in the realm of human health risk.” (people, pay attention, the gov't will not protect us, do you get it, we must protect ourselves, ban uranium mining and milling!)
Based on these facts and that many of the lease tracts in question had already been mined, the DOE issued a “Finding of No Significant Impact” and authorized the Uranium Leasing Project to begin immediately.
However, the impacts of nearly three years of mining could be much more significant than Plessinger imagined. On Friday, a team of conservation groups – the Center for Biological Diversity, Colorado Environmental Coalition, Information Network for Responsible Mining, and Center for Native Ecosystems – announced their intention to fight the leasing program in court.
The groups uncovered new documents that suggest that the Department of Energy deliberately failed to consider the impacts of water depletion and contamination to threatened and endangered species – including Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, and humpback and bonytail chubs. The groups go on to allege that the agency ignored warnings from the Bureau of Land Management, and the notice gives the DOE and BLM 60 days to remedy the violations of the Endangered Species Act.
“Risking species, public lands and scarce Western water with irretrievable uranium contamination is profoundly short-sighted,” said Taylor McKinnon, of the Center for Biological Diversity. “But that’s exactly what the Department of Energy has done. The department’s choice now is to comply with the Endangered Species Act or be sued for these new violations.”
The groups noted that uranium mining and milling resulting from the lease program will deplete Colorado River basin water and may (will) pollute streams and rivers with toxic and radioactive waste products.
“Risking species, public lands and scarce Western water with irretrievable uranium contamination is profoundly short-sighted,” said Taylor McKinnon, of the Center for Biological Diversity. “But that’s exactly what the Department of Energy has done. The department’s choice now is to comply with the Endangered Species Act or be sued for these new violations.”
The groups noted that uranium mining and milling resulting from the lease program will deplete Colorado River basin water and may (will) pollute streams and rivers with toxic and radioactive waste products.
Contamination from abandoned uranium mining operations in the region has been already been implicated in the decline of native fish species. Consequently, the groups have demanded that the agency initiate a formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or face litigation.
“Even small amounts of some of these pollutants, like selenium, can poison fish, accumulate in the food chain and cause deformities and reproductive problems for endangered fish, ducks, river otters and eagles,” said biologist Megan Mueller of the Center for Native Ecosystems.
“Even small amounts of some of these pollutants, like selenium, can poison fish, accumulate in the food chain and cause deformities and reproductive problems for endangered fish, ducks, river otters and eagles,” said biologist Megan Mueller of the Center for Native Ecosystems.
“It is irresponsible for the Department of Energy to put fish and wildlife at risk by rushing to approve numerous uranium mines without adequate protections to prevent pollution.”
In addition, the lease area spans some of Colorado’s most pristine wilds. The Dolores River watershed is renowned for its untrammeled deserts and rivers and supports many unique ecosystems.
“We hope the DOE will do what’s right in protecting the land, water and people from a massive and flawed development plan rushed through by the Bush administration,” said Joe Neuhof, West Slope director for the Colorado Environmental Coalition. “This land has plenty of long-term value for its recreational opportunities and wildlife so there is no reason to rush ahead without properly assessing potential impacts.”
Whether the department will “do what’s right” or face down the conservationists in court should become apparent in coming weeks. •
In addition, the lease area spans some of Colorado’s most pristine wilds. The Dolores River watershed is renowned for its untrammeled deserts and rivers and supports many unique ecosystems.
“We hope the DOE will do what’s right in protecting the land, water and people from a massive and flawed development plan rushed through by the Bush administration,” said Joe Neuhof, West Slope director for the Colorado Environmental Coalition. “This land has plenty of long-term value for its recreational opportunities and wildlife so there is no reason to rush ahead without properly assessing potential impacts.”
Whether the department will “do what’s right” or face down the conservationists in court should become apparent in coming weeks. •
Friday, April 17, 2009
Water and Energy: How Congress Can Solve Two Problems at Once
Comment: Yes, we all need to conserve our water but Corps use most of our water supply!!! Remember Uranium Mining and milling use a huge amount of water. Water in the future will be scearce!
By Tom Kenworthy and Kari Manlove, Climate Progress
Posted on April 10, 2009, Printed on April 17, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/135506/
Congress now has several opportunities to further our understanding of the nexus between water and energy use and to promote water conservation efforts that can also achieve significant energy savings. A recently introduced energy and water bill combined with financial incentives in the omnibus energy bill due later this year could help the entire country enjoy the savings some states are already seeing from reductions in water use -- with a potential for job creation through water-efficient home retrofits.
In California, Santa Clara County’s experience underscores this important but often overlooked link. Beginning in the early 1990s, the Santa Clara Valley Water District got serious about water conservation. The district, which serves some 1.8 million residents and includes Silicon Valley and the city of San Jose, developed programs that encouraged residents, businesses, industries, and agricultural producers to use water more efficiently.
The results have been impressive: a savings of 370,000 acre-feet of water in 13 years. (A typical household uses one acre-foot of water per year).
But perhaps even more significant have been the energy savings and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions: 1.42 billion kilowatt hours of electricity and 335 million kg of carbon dioxide, which is equal to taking 72,000 cars off the road for a year.
“It has become increasingly clear that the water savings from water use efficiency programs results in significant energy savings and air quality benefits, including reductions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide,” wrote Santa Clara Valley Water District CEO Stanley M. Williams in his introduction to “From Watts to Water,” the district’s recent report on its water conservation and energy savings efforts.
The relationship between energy and water use is beginning to get more attention as U.S. policymakers grapple with measures to transition from heavy dependence on fossil fuels and to attack global climate change by capping carbon emissions.
In early March, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on the Energy and Water Integration Act of 2009 sponsored by Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). The bill’s main emphasis is to study the impact of energy development on U.S. water resources, but it also calls on the Department of Energy to periodically assess the energy consumed in the delivery, treatment, and use of water.
In his testimony on the bill, Pacific Institute President Dr. Peter H. Gleick said: “Water use and energy use are closely linked: Energy production uses and pollutes water; water use requires significant amounts of energy. Moreover, the reality of climate change affects national policies in both areas. Limits to the availability of both energy and water are beginning to affect the other, and these limits have direct implications for U.S. economic and security interests. Yet energy and water issues are rarely integrated in policy.”
As it develops an omnibus energy bill for consideration later this year, Congress also has an opportunity to include financial incentives for consumers, businesses, and water providers to conserve water and thereby reduce energy consumption. Preliminary discussions are underway according to Senate staff.
The federal government already provides a wide array of tax credits for consumers for energy efficient home improvements including windows, doors, insulation, and water heaters. Credits are also available for renewable energy systems such as solar panels, wind systems, and geothermal heat pumps. Tax deductions are available to owners and designers of energy efficient commercial buildings.
No such program exists, however, for water conservation efforts, such as installing high-efficiency toilets, low-flow showerheads, and water-conserving clothes washers, though some water utilities provide consumers rebates for purchases of those items.
In Santa Clara County, for example, residents can get a $125 rebate for a high-efficiency toilet, up to $200 for water-efficient clothes washers, up to $1,000 for new landscape irrigation hardware, and up to $1,000 for replacing water-intensive landscaping such as turf grass with plants that use low amounts of water. The county’s Water Wise House Call Program provides experts to inspect homes and install new appliances and fixtures.
At every stage of its cycle, the water we use consumes energy. It takes power to move water, to treat it, to heat it in our homes so we can shower, and wash clothes and dishes, and then to treat our wastewater. According to the Department of Energy, residential water heating alone accounts for about 9 percent of residential electricity use in the United States and the distribution and treatment of water uses about 4 percent of total U.S. electricity use. In states like California, where water is moved over great distances, the energy embedded in water can be much higher. The California Energy Commission estimated in a 2005 report that “water-related energy uses annually account for roughly 20 percent of the state’s electricity consumption, one-third of nonpower plant natural gas consumption, and about 88 million gallons of diesel fuel consumption.”
In “Energy Down the Drain,” a 2004 study of the hidden costs of California’s water supply, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pacific Institute found that the “end use of water -- especially energy-intensive uses like washing clothes and taking showers -- consumes more energy than any other part of the urban water conveyance and treatment cycle” and that “significant amounts of energy” can be saved through conservation. For example, one of their case studies found that if San Diego provided its next 100,000 acre feet of water through conservation instead of transporting it from northern California, the energy savings would be enough to supply 25 percent of San Diego households.
Separately, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that if just 1 percent of American homes replaced old toilets with water-saving ones, it would reduce energy consumption by 38 million kWh, enough to electrify 43,000 homes for a month. This of course translates into financial savings. Implementing just a few water efficiency measures could save up to $170 annually on water and sewage bills, which on average are about $500 annually for an American household. If each U.S. household had seven water-efficient appliances, it would save $18 billion annually, according to the EPA.
Dr. Gleick of the Pacific Institute came to a similar conclusion: “There are a lot of inexpensive investments that can save both water and energy, particularly in residential end use.”
Compared to more expensive energy-saving measures such as installing home solar panels or even adding home insulation, the initial cost of many water-saving measures can be relatively modest and the payback period relatively quick.
In its publication “Water Efficiency for the Home,” the Rocky Mountain Institute offers some examples: In 10 years, an efficient showerhead will return 10-40 times its cost in saved energy alone, and inexpensive replacement faucets can reduce indoor water use by 3-5 percent and pay for themselves in less than a year.
In 2006, the EPA launched its WaterSense Program, which is similar to the agency’s older Energy Star program and is designed to help consumers make smarter choices when purchasing products such as showerheads and toilets. Expanding the WaterSense labeling program to appliances such as clothes washers and dishwashers would make sense, as would a labeling system that tells consumers not just the direct energy used by those appliances but also the energy consumed by the water they use.
Mandatory federal water efficiency standards have also lagged behind energy standards. While standards were adopted in 1992 for toilets, showerheads, faucets, and urinals, it was not until 2007 that Congress required federal standards for clothes washers and dishwashers, and they will not go into effect until 2011 and 2010 respectively.
More aggressive federal steps to improve water efficiency have the potential to not only save energy but also provide a significant economic boost and create jobs. With the federal government now embarking on a $5 billion expansion of the home weatherization program that will send a small army of workers out to retrofit homes to achieve energy savings, it would be negligent to not retrofit those homes with more water-efficient appliances and fixtures.
Case in point: In a December 2008 study, the Alliance for Water Efficiency found that a $10 billion stimulus that focused on retrofitting homes with water-conserving appliances and fixtures, installing smart outdoor irrigation systems, and improving commercial and industrial water applications could create between 150,000 and 220,000 jobs and generate as much as $28 billion in economic output.
The $787 billion economic stimulus bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in February gives some recognition to the need for greater water efficiency. Of the $6 billion allocated for states’ revolving water funds, at least 20 percent must go to “projects that address green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements, or other environmentally innovative activities.”
But because the legislation sets such tight time frames and gives states latitude in determining what is “green,” some states “are reinterpreting the existing projects on their lists as ‘green’ and not allowing new applications for funding,” says Mary Ann Dickinson, executive director of the Alliance. “It has been a big disappointment for us.”
Even if states are missing the boat, there’s still time for Congress to raise public awareness of the opportunities and create incentives that will promote both water and energy conservation.
Tom Kenworthy is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. Kari Manlove is a Research Associate at CAP. The authors thank energy opportunity team intern Derrick Golla for his research assistance
By Tom Kenworthy and Kari Manlove, Climate Progress
Posted on April 10, 2009, Printed on April 17, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/135506/
Congress now has several opportunities to further our understanding of the nexus between water and energy use and to promote water conservation efforts that can also achieve significant energy savings. A recently introduced energy and water bill combined with financial incentives in the omnibus energy bill due later this year could help the entire country enjoy the savings some states are already seeing from reductions in water use -- with a potential for job creation through water-efficient home retrofits.
In California, Santa Clara County’s experience underscores this important but often overlooked link. Beginning in the early 1990s, the Santa Clara Valley Water District got serious about water conservation. The district, which serves some 1.8 million residents and includes Silicon Valley and the city of San Jose, developed programs that encouraged residents, businesses, industries, and agricultural producers to use water more efficiently.
The results have been impressive: a savings of 370,000 acre-feet of water in 13 years. (A typical household uses one acre-foot of water per year).
But perhaps even more significant have been the energy savings and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions: 1.42 billion kilowatt hours of electricity and 335 million kg of carbon dioxide, which is equal to taking 72,000 cars off the road for a year.
“It has become increasingly clear that the water savings from water use efficiency programs results in significant energy savings and air quality benefits, including reductions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide,” wrote Santa Clara Valley Water District CEO Stanley M. Williams in his introduction to “From Watts to Water,” the district’s recent report on its water conservation and energy savings efforts.
The relationship between energy and water use is beginning to get more attention as U.S. policymakers grapple with measures to transition from heavy dependence on fossil fuels and to attack global climate change by capping carbon emissions.
In early March, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on the Energy and Water Integration Act of 2009 sponsored by Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). The bill’s main emphasis is to study the impact of energy development on U.S. water resources, but it also calls on the Department of Energy to periodically assess the energy consumed in the delivery, treatment, and use of water.
In his testimony on the bill, Pacific Institute President Dr. Peter H. Gleick said: “Water use and energy use are closely linked: Energy production uses and pollutes water; water use requires significant amounts of energy. Moreover, the reality of climate change affects national policies in both areas. Limits to the availability of both energy and water are beginning to affect the other, and these limits have direct implications for U.S. economic and security interests. Yet energy and water issues are rarely integrated in policy.”
As it develops an omnibus energy bill for consideration later this year, Congress also has an opportunity to include financial incentives for consumers, businesses, and water providers to conserve water and thereby reduce energy consumption. Preliminary discussions are underway according to Senate staff.
The federal government already provides a wide array of tax credits for consumers for energy efficient home improvements including windows, doors, insulation, and water heaters. Credits are also available for renewable energy systems such as solar panels, wind systems, and geothermal heat pumps. Tax deductions are available to owners and designers of energy efficient commercial buildings.
No such program exists, however, for water conservation efforts, such as installing high-efficiency toilets, low-flow showerheads, and water-conserving clothes washers, though some water utilities provide consumers rebates for purchases of those items.
In Santa Clara County, for example, residents can get a $125 rebate for a high-efficiency toilet, up to $200 for water-efficient clothes washers, up to $1,000 for new landscape irrigation hardware, and up to $1,000 for replacing water-intensive landscaping such as turf grass with plants that use low amounts of water. The county’s Water Wise House Call Program provides experts to inspect homes and install new appliances and fixtures.
At every stage of its cycle, the water we use consumes energy. It takes power to move water, to treat it, to heat it in our homes so we can shower, and wash clothes and dishes, and then to treat our wastewater. According to the Department of Energy, residential water heating alone accounts for about 9 percent of residential electricity use in the United States and the distribution and treatment of water uses about 4 percent of total U.S. electricity use. In states like California, where water is moved over great distances, the energy embedded in water can be much higher. The California Energy Commission estimated in a 2005 report that “water-related energy uses annually account for roughly 20 percent of the state’s electricity consumption, one-third of nonpower plant natural gas consumption, and about 88 million gallons of diesel fuel consumption.”
In “Energy Down the Drain,” a 2004 study of the hidden costs of California’s water supply, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pacific Institute found that the “end use of water -- especially energy-intensive uses like washing clothes and taking showers -- consumes more energy than any other part of the urban water conveyance and treatment cycle” and that “significant amounts of energy” can be saved through conservation. For example, one of their case studies found that if San Diego provided its next 100,000 acre feet of water through conservation instead of transporting it from northern California, the energy savings would be enough to supply 25 percent of San Diego households.
Separately, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that if just 1 percent of American homes replaced old toilets with water-saving ones, it would reduce energy consumption by 38 million kWh, enough to electrify 43,000 homes for a month. This of course translates into financial savings. Implementing just a few water efficiency measures could save up to $170 annually on water and sewage bills, which on average are about $500 annually for an American household. If each U.S. household had seven water-efficient appliances, it would save $18 billion annually, according to the EPA.
Dr. Gleick of the Pacific Institute came to a similar conclusion: “There are a lot of inexpensive investments that can save both water and energy, particularly in residential end use.”
Compared to more expensive energy-saving measures such as installing home solar panels or even adding home insulation, the initial cost of many water-saving measures can be relatively modest and the payback period relatively quick.
In its publication “Water Efficiency for the Home,” the Rocky Mountain Institute offers some examples: In 10 years, an efficient showerhead will return 10-40 times its cost in saved energy alone, and inexpensive replacement faucets can reduce indoor water use by 3-5 percent and pay for themselves in less than a year.
In 2006, the EPA launched its WaterSense Program, which is similar to the agency’s older Energy Star program and is designed to help consumers make smarter choices when purchasing products such as showerheads and toilets. Expanding the WaterSense labeling program to appliances such as clothes washers and dishwashers would make sense, as would a labeling system that tells consumers not just the direct energy used by those appliances but also the energy consumed by the water they use.
Mandatory federal water efficiency standards have also lagged behind energy standards. While standards were adopted in 1992 for toilets, showerheads, faucets, and urinals, it was not until 2007 that Congress required federal standards for clothes washers and dishwashers, and they will not go into effect until 2011 and 2010 respectively.
More aggressive federal steps to improve water efficiency have the potential to not only save energy but also provide a significant economic boost and create jobs. With the federal government now embarking on a $5 billion expansion of the home weatherization program that will send a small army of workers out to retrofit homes to achieve energy savings, it would be negligent to not retrofit those homes with more water-efficient appliances and fixtures.
Case in point: In a December 2008 study, the Alliance for Water Efficiency found that a $10 billion stimulus that focused on retrofitting homes with water-conserving appliances and fixtures, installing smart outdoor irrigation systems, and improving commercial and industrial water applications could create between 150,000 and 220,000 jobs and generate as much as $28 billion in economic output.
The $787 billion economic stimulus bill signed into law by President Barack Obama in February gives some recognition to the need for greater water efficiency. Of the $6 billion allocated for states’ revolving water funds, at least 20 percent must go to “projects that address green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements, or other environmentally innovative activities.”
But because the legislation sets such tight time frames and gives states latitude in determining what is “green,” some states “are reinterpreting the existing projects on their lists as ‘green’ and not allowing new applications for funding,” says Mary Ann Dickinson, executive director of the Alliance. “It has been a big disappointment for us.”
Even if states are missing the boat, there’s still time for Congress to raise public awareness of the opportunities and create incentives that will promote both water and energy conservation.
Tom Kenworthy is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. Kari Manlove is a Research Associate at CAP. The authors thank energy opportunity team intern Derrick Golla for his research assistance
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
“Uranium Mining in Western Australia isn’t viable.”
Uranium simply isn’t worth the riskApril 16, 2009 — tony serve
Uranium Mining in WA isn’t even viable.
let alone not being safe, green, or necessary!
Uranium Mining in WA isn’t even viable.
let alone not being safe, green, or necessary!
Former Senator and long time Activist Jo Vallentine loooks at some hard realities.
MEDIA RELEASE
Uranium Mining companies in a race to nowhere
Despite all the hype about getting a uranium mine operating in Western Australia, the Anti-Nuclear Alliance of W.A. believes that itís all talk, and a lot of investorsí money being frittered away on an unwinnable contest, according to spokesperson, Jo Vallentine.
Toro Energy is hoping to get Lake Way developed, Mega uranium is betting on getting the Lake Maitland deposit up and running, BHPBilleton is talking up the prospects of proceeding with their Yeelirri deposit. Without either regulatory or transport, or water usage frameworks in place.
All these companies need to take a reality check.
While the Barnett government is keen to promote any kind of mining at any cost, so many questions remain unanswered about the highly controversial mining of uranium, which everyone knows is in a different category from any other mining, because of the radiaoactivity involved, and potentially released, at all stages of the process.
On top of those doubts, fundamental questions remain regarding water resources in dry areas surrounding Willuna, Meekatharra and Leinster, where is that amount of clean water going to come from?
Where and how would the yellowcake be transported, and to which railheads and ports to be shipped away? Kalgoorlie? Not a popular idea there, with the local mayor already having said he was not impressed with the idea. ( click here for TV news story on Kalgoorlie rejecting Uranium transit )
Geraldton? Is that what the nearby proposed Okajee port is all about? A discreet railway, just for getting the yellowcake out of the state?
Globally, with Presidents Obama and Medvedev committing to massive reductions in the nuclear weapons count, a great deal of processed nuclear weapons grade material will be flooding the international market soon, thus lowering the price for yellowcake.
Investors would be better served by putting their money into certainty for the future via the renewable energy sector, rather than gambling their money andf our safety on a loser.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Pump problem shuts nuclear power plant
Indian Point nuclear power plant. (File photo/The Journal News)BUCHANAN - Officials at the Indian Point nuclear power plant are still trying to determine the cause of a steam water pump malfunction that forced them to shut down one of two reactors at the plant yesterday.
The 11:36 a.m. shutdown affected a nonradioactive water pump that feeds one of the steam generators that produces electricity, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Entergy Nuclear Northeast, the plant's owners, said.
Pending a determination of the cause, federal regulators said the incident is not expected to affect the plant's safety rating.
"Preliminary indications for us are that the operator actions were appropriate and they followed the station procedures and the plant trip went as designed," said NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan.
"They're going to have to obviously identify the cause of the pump tripping and follow their checklist before they can get back online," Sheehan said.
"But I will say this: We do have performance indicators where we track things like unplanned shutdowns. So, this would be counted on one of those performance indicators."
"But at first glance, there does not appear to be any problem that would give us concern," he said.
Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said plant workers were trying to determine what caused the pump to malfunction.
But he called it "a very uneventful, a very safe shutdown. It's not serious at all, other than we have to respond seriously to it.
"It's an important piece of equipment necessary for operating the plant," Steets said. "So, operators recognized it wasn't operating - they'll get indications in the control room - and manually shut the plant down.
"It really is as simple as that," he said. "It's especially simple when all your equipment responds as it's designed."
Indian Point 2, one of two reactors at the Buchanan plant, was last shut down June 4, when a voltage control mechanism on its main steam generator had to be removed and replaced.
Indian Point 3 is out of service for a scheduled refueling.
It was shut down shortly after federal regulators gave the reactor its fifth consecutive top safety rating. It had not been shut down for nearly two years at that point.
Sheehan, the NRC spokesman, said Indian Point 2 is operating at the highest safety level, which is identified as "green."
Under federal guidelines, that could be bumped down to "white" - which would mandate additional regulatory oversight - if there are three instances of unplanned shutdowns, power changes or other unexpected complications over 7,000 hours of operations. That's about the equivalent of a year.
Six unplanned incidents over that period would warrant a lower rating, identified as "yellow," he said. The lowest rating is red.
Sheehan said that yesterday's shutdown does not appear to jeopardize IP2's "green" rating.
The two plants, which jointly generate 2,000 megawatts of electricity, have nonetheless been the subject of criticism and legal action by residents and Hudson River environmental groups concerned about the impact on local wildlife.
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week in a case between Entergy and Riverkeeper could free the plant from building cooling towers along the Hudson River.
That's because the justices said regulators could consider the financial cost of protecting fish and other aquatic life when making decisions on requiring new technology.
Supreme Court decision could delay Yankee relicensing
By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff
Saturday, April 4BRATTLEBORO -- A U.S. Supreme Court decision rendered on April 1 could delay the relicensing of Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. But then again, the decision might not affect the relicensing at all.
"We are sort of in limbo, not knowing what the rules are going to be," said Catherine Gjessing, legal counsel for Vermont's Agency of Natural Resources.
"It will probably cause further delay," said Pat Parenteau, a former director of Vermont Law School's Environmental Law Center and of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic.
In 2004, The Environmental Protection Agency established national regulations for existing power plants requiring cost-benefit analyses of upgrades made to cooling systems to reduce their impact on aquatic life.
The U.S. Court of Appeals struck down the regulations, and ruled that the clause prohibits EPA from comparing costs to benefits and requires EPA to mandate use of the technology whose costs can reasonably be borne by industry.
But several energy companies, including Entergy, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which concluded that such an analysis is not required under the Clean Water Act, though the EPA has the authority to ask for one. The court remanded the matter to the EPA.
"The outcome of the case is not necessarily bad news," said David Deen, river steward for the Connecticut River Watershed Council, who said a new EPA under the Obama Administration may respond differently from the EPA under the Bush Administration.
"I hope this EPA will be a very different one than the one that came up with this goofy idea of cost/benefit."
"The EPA is free to make a brand new decision," said Parenteau, adding it could take EPA quite a while to make its decision, especially if it's in opposition to the previous administration's decision.
Entergy wants the EPA to apply cost-benefit analyses to both its fossil-fuel plants and its nuclear plants, said Chuck Barlow, assistant counsel general for Entergy Corporation, which owns and operates Vermont Yankee and Indian Point.
It boils down to the phrase "wholly disproportionate," he said.
"You can make the cost matter too much," said Barlow. "And it should be applied in a rational way.
Many times you can't put a dollar figure on environmental protection."
The Supreme Court's decision affects more than 500 power plants.
Those plants supply more than half of the nation's electricity and use more than 200 billion gallons of water each day for cooling.
In the process, fish and other aquatic life are killed, either by being crushed against intake screens or by being drawn into the cooling system itself.
The question the Supreme Court looked at was whether the "best technology available" caveat in the Clean Water Act included a cost-benefit analysis.
The Bush EPA made a decision that the EPA estimate the costs of instituting the best technology available versus the value of the aquatic life itself. In the case of Entergy's Indian Point, on the Hudson river, the EPA concluded that the aquatic life was not worth $1.4 billion, the capital cost for upgrades.
The Supreme Court's decision was a blow for Riverkeeper.
"We are disappointed that the Court did not affirm the lower court's judgment in its entirety," stated Alex Matthiessen, president of Riverkeeper, in a press release commenting on the decision.
Nonetheless, he said, "We are looking forward to working with EPA's new administrator, whom we are confident will agree that the Bush EPA regulations failed to satisfy the Clean Water Act's mandate that the adverse environmental impacts of cooling water intake structures be minimized."
David Deen said the case before the Supreme Court is not the same as the case decided by the Vermont Environmental Court, which is under appeal at the Vermont Supreme Court.
"Our case is not based on a cost-benefit analysis," he said "It's based on the actual impact of thermal discharge on the river."
Late last year, the environmental court allowed Entergy's requested 1 degree increase in its thermal discharge. But it also required additional river monitoring below the dam and added limits on how hot the water can get during the time that shad are in the river.
Both Entergy and the watershed council are appealing the environmental court's decision.
The watershed council believes the court's decision was too lenient while Entergy believes it was too strict.
Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com, or 802-254-2311, ext. 273.
Saturday, April 4BRATTLEBORO -- A U.S. Supreme Court decision rendered on April 1 could delay the relicensing of Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. But then again, the decision might not affect the relicensing at all.
"We are sort of in limbo, not knowing what the rules are going to be," said Catherine Gjessing, legal counsel for Vermont's Agency of Natural Resources.
"It will probably cause further delay," said Pat Parenteau, a former director of Vermont Law School's Environmental Law Center and of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic.
In 2004, The Environmental Protection Agency established national regulations for existing power plants requiring cost-benefit analyses of upgrades made to cooling systems to reduce their impact on aquatic life.
The U.S. Court of Appeals struck down the regulations, and ruled that the clause prohibits EPA from comparing costs to benefits and requires EPA to mandate use of the technology whose costs can reasonably be borne by industry.
But several energy companies, including Entergy, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which concluded that such an analysis is not required under the Clean Water Act, though the EPA has the authority to ask for one. The court remanded the matter to the EPA.
"The outcome of the case is not necessarily bad news," said David Deen, river steward for the Connecticut River Watershed Council, who said a new EPA under the Obama Administration may respond differently from the EPA under the Bush Administration.
"I hope this EPA will be a very different one than the one that came up with this goofy idea of cost/benefit."
"The EPA is free to make a brand new decision," said Parenteau, adding it could take EPA quite a while to make its decision, especially if it's in opposition to the previous administration's decision.
Entergy wants the EPA to apply cost-benefit analyses to both its fossil-fuel plants and its nuclear plants, said Chuck Barlow, assistant counsel general for Entergy Corporation, which owns and operates Vermont Yankee and Indian Point.
It boils down to the phrase "wholly disproportionate," he said.
"You can make the cost matter too much," said Barlow. "And it should be applied in a rational way.
Many times you can't put a dollar figure on environmental protection."
The Supreme Court's decision affects more than 500 power plants.
Those plants supply more than half of the nation's electricity and use more than 200 billion gallons of water each day for cooling.
In the process, fish and other aquatic life are killed, either by being crushed against intake screens or by being drawn into the cooling system itself.
The question the Supreme Court looked at was whether the "best technology available" caveat in the Clean Water Act included a cost-benefit analysis.
The Bush EPA made a decision that the EPA estimate the costs of instituting the best technology available versus the value of the aquatic life itself. In the case of Entergy's Indian Point, on the Hudson river, the EPA concluded that the aquatic life was not worth $1.4 billion, the capital cost for upgrades.
The Supreme Court's decision was a blow for Riverkeeper.
"We are disappointed that the Court did not affirm the lower court's judgment in its entirety," stated Alex Matthiessen, president of Riverkeeper, in a press release commenting on the decision.
Nonetheless, he said, "We are looking forward to working with EPA's new administrator, whom we are confident will agree that the Bush EPA regulations failed to satisfy the Clean Water Act's mandate that the adverse environmental impacts of cooling water intake structures be minimized."
David Deen said the case before the Supreme Court is not the same as the case decided by the Vermont Environmental Court, which is under appeal at the Vermont Supreme Court.
"Our case is not based on a cost-benefit analysis," he said "It's based on the actual impact of thermal discharge on the river."
Late last year, the environmental court allowed Entergy's requested 1 degree increase in its thermal discharge. But it also required additional river monitoring below the dam and added limits on how hot the water can get during the time that shad are in the river.
Both Entergy and the watershed council are appealing the environmental court's decision.
The watershed council believes the court's decision was too lenient while Entergy believes it was too strict.
Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com, or 802-254-2311, ext. 273.
Friday, April 3, 2009
LGA prepares for interbasin water transfer meeting
Comments: DownWinders taking notice of our county's uranium mining idea and the future water problems or lack of water!
by Della Batts, Daily Herald Staff Writer
LAKE GASTON — The Lake Gaston Association met yesterday with many issues to discuss.
Interbasin transfers may be making headlines again as the Roanoke River Bi-State Commission will hold a meeting April 6 at 6 p.m. at the Longbridge Volunteer Fire Department.
They will be discussing with the public the possibility of new interbasin water transfers that will effect the Roanoke River.
It was 29 years ago that Virginia Beach and North Carolina went to court over the construction of a pipeline in Brunswick County to pump water to the city from Lake Gaston. Virginia Beach currently pipes 60 million gallons of water from Lake Gaston on a daily basis.
According to LGA member Pete Deschenes, representatives at the Bi-State Commission spent most of their meeting on this one issue. They said other municipalities are waiting in line to build their own pipelines and the commission wants the public to weigh in on the issue. The meeting is open to the public.
An additional discussion moved to the possibility of uranium mining at the head waters of the Roanoke River has caught directors’ interest.
They will be investigating the possible effects on the water supply and will be developing an opinion. The proposed mining will take place in Pittsylvania County, Va.
by Della Batts, Daily Herald Staff Writer
LAKE GASTON — The Lake Gaston Association met yesterday with many issues to discuss.
Interbasin transfers may be making headlines again as the Roanoke River Bi-State Commission will hold a meeting April 6 at 6 p.m. at the Longbridge Volunteer Fire Department.
They will be discussing with the public the possibility of new interbasin water transfers that will effect the Roanoke River.
It was 29 years ago that Virginia Beach and North Carolina went to court over the construction of a pipeline in Brunswick County to pump water to the city from Lake Gaston. Virginia Beach currently pipes 60 million gallons of water from Lake Gaston on a daily basis.
According to LGA member Pete Deschenes, representatives at the Bi-State Commission spent most of their meeting on this one issue. They said other municipalities are waiting in line to build their own pipelines and the commission wants the public to weigh in on the issue. The meeting is open to the public.
An additional discussion moved to the possibility of uranium mining at the head waters of the Roanoke River has caught directors’ interest.
They will be investigating the possible effects on the water supply and will be developing an opinion. The proposed mining will take place in Pittsylvania County, Va.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Niger: Desert Residents Pay High Price for Lucrative Uranium Mining
Dakar — After a visit in late March from French President Nicholas Sarkozy to Niger, residents in the uranium-exporting desert country continue questioning whether AREVA, a company primarily owned by the French government, will honour its promise to protect communities from mining hazards.
Studies and residents' testimonies have pointed to health and environmental dangers from mining operations owned and operated by both AREVA's subsidiaries and the Niger government.
Salifou Adifou, 67, worked for 40 years as a driller at Niger's SOMAÃèR (Aïr Mountains Mining Company), a public-private venture with AREVA owning 63 percent.
The retiree told IRIN he has undiagnosed health problems. "I have stomach and chest pains, but since retirement [in 1999], I cannot afford health care."
Adifou said his friend who had worked as a miner is now bedridden.
Neither knows the cause of his health problems, Adifou told IRIN.
Air
The AREVA majority-owned mine called COMINAK (Mining Company of Akouta) commissioned an environmental study of its operations in Arlit in 2006, which reported that the number of deaths linked to respiratory infections was twice as high in the mining town (16 percent) as in the rest of the country.
Arlit's population is 110,000.
"The wind carries dust contaminated with the long-lasting radium [time required for it to lose toxicity is more than 1,600 years] and lead...Samples taken from 5km within site...Sandstorms [and] atmospheric waste from mines could be aggravating factors for pulmonary [illnesses] in the region," the researchers wrote in COMINAK's environmental study.
But AREVA dismisses the link between mining and elevated health problems in its January 2009 report on mining activities in Niger. "These problems are typical in desert zones...they are not linked to mining activities."
Nevertheless AREVA directors have agreed to set up health diagnostic centres in all countries where it extracts uranium, starting with Gabon, according to the Paris-based human rights legal association Sherpa.
"It has been two long, difficult years to get to this point with the company to give workers a voice," Sherpa director Yann Queinnec told IRIN.
Plans are still being finalised, said Queinnec, but the agreement is that each centre would have an advisory board with representation from workers, local officials, non-profit organisations and AREVA.
Queinnec said it took years "to craft an agreement that will be different from other accords signed in the name of protecting workers," of which key components, the lawyer said, remain unfulfilled.
Soil
The Paris-based Commission of Research and Independent Information on Radioactivity (CRIIRAD) has written of "serious safety lapses" in and near AREVA mining sites in Niger.
In 2007 CRIIRAD researchers said they found locals selling contaminated scrap metal from mining sites and the materials were eventually used in housing construction, kitchen utensils and tools.
In 2003 CRIIRAD had recommended that AREVA identify and dispose of contaminated metals.
Radioactive waste - possibly used in road construction - may be responsible for the abnormally high levels of radiation, according to CRIIRAD. In 2007 CRIIRAD researchers wrote that radiation levels were up to 100 times above average in front of the AREVA-funded hospital near the COMINAK mine.
Water
In response to criticism that mining has contaminated increasingly scarce drinking water in northern Niger, AREVA published a statement in January 2009 that "monthly bacterial, bi-annual radiological, and annual chemical analyses show the absence of [water] contamination."
But environmental studies carried out by CRIIRAD and Sherpa in 2005 in mining communities showed water radiation levels up to 110 times higher than World Health Organization (WHO) safe drinking water standards in industrial areas and 10 times higher in urban areas.
Uranium extraction requires water to clean the mining site, treat the mineral and cover workers' and their families' water needs, according to AREVA.
Pastoralists have also accused AREVA of depleting the region's water.
By AREVA's calculation the company has pumped 270 million cubic metres of groundwater during the past 40 years from its two mines in Arlit, of which 35 percent has been for mining activities and the rest for the town's use.
AREVA spokesperson Yves Dufour said recently in the French media that AREVA's future water needs in Imouraren, 80km south of Arlit, will be only a fraction of the eight billion cubic metres of desert groundwater available in the area.
AREVA is investing US$1.5 billion in Imouraren in what is expected to be the country's largest uranium mine.
Hydrologists estimate that rain-fed groundwater sources - similar to the aquifer AREVA is tapping 150m beneath the desert - can take some 200 years to replenish.
Corporate responsibility
Though the Niger government owns one-third of the uranium mines, Almoustapha Alhacen - head of the Arlit-based environmental NGO Aghir In'Man - told IRIN he holds
AREVA wholly responsible for the north's environmental and health problems. "AREVA is in Canada, but does it exploit uranium as savagely as it does here? Have Canada's cattle also died?"
Pastoralists have blamed a number of cattle deaths on contamination of wells from which animals drink.
AREVA extracted an estimated 3,200 metric tons of uranium in northern Canada in 2007, slightly more than in Niger for the same period. In a May 2007 survey of 1,000 residents living near AREVA's uranium mining operations in Canada, 80 percent responded they supported uranium exploration.
AREVA Resources Canada's spokesperson Alun Richards told IRIN his company rents daily charter planes to transport 350 employees from their remote northern homes to the mining site in Saskatchewan province explaining how workers, mostly nomads, "need to be near their extended family networks". In addition, the Canadian mine gives local communities $80,000 per year to carry out their own environmental impact studies. "People do not read studies. They trust results more if they test their own food and rivers they fish from," said Richards.
Mines in Canada are "heavily regulated" by some 30 government agencies, from fisheries to nuclear safety, he added.
Half the work force is hired from the local community, Richards told IRIN. "It is just as important that we maintain our social obligations and community standing as it is [that we] meet environmental and health regulations," Richards said.
Even though AREVA France invests $1 million a year for community development in northern Niger, according to its records, NGO leader Alhacen said most mining community residents have "generally negative" views about the industry.
When asked why a private company that shares ownership with the Niger government should bear most of the burden of community development, Alhacen said multinationals working in Africa should recognise their corporate responsibility.
Niger's living conditions - as measured by health, education and income - are among the worst worldwide, according to the UN.
AREVA France has said its approach is not to dispense "charity" but rather to engage locals in running projects and to increase coordination with donors.
Alhacen said damages from mining far outweigh the benefits in Niger.
"AREVA [France] publicises that it pays for 200,000 medical visits a year. We do not see that here. Even so, that is admitting that tens of thousands are getting sick every year," said Alhacen.
Government responsibility
Since June 2007 the Niger government has placed more than half the country under a state of alert as a result of a decades-long rebellion that re-erupted in February 2007. Hundreds have died and thousands have been displaced in the last two years as a result of fighting.
Rebels who have attacked military posts and water and electricity plants that feed AREVA operations are demanding more mining profits for community development and more protection from mining's hazards.
They have accused the government of overlooking what they call AREVA's environmental non-compliance in exchange for mining royalties.
The government dismisses the rebellion as a front for smuggling.
Minister of Information Mohamed Ben Omar told IRIN: "The government has made every effort to protect local populations from harmful mining practices.
Just because of profits, we are not looking the other way," he said. "We have ratified every international relevant convention [on mining] and taken all necessary control measures."
But leader of the rebel front that launched the February 2007 attack, Aghaly Ag Alambo, told IRIN that mining communities are still not safe.
"AREVA is not the main problem. It is not AREVA's job to provide for Nigeriens. It is the government that has failed its people."(sounds like a certain state,county)
[ This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations ]
Studies and residents' testimonies have pointed to health and environmental dangers from mining operations owned and operated by both AREVA's subsidiaries and the Niger government.
Salifou Adifou, 67, worked for 40 years as a driller at Niger's SOMAÃèR (Aïr Mountains Mining Company), a public-private venture with AREVA owning 63 percent.
The retiree told IRIN he has undiagnosed health problems. "I have stomach and chest pains, but since retirement [in 1999], I cannot afford health care."
Adifou said his friend who had worked as a miner is now bedridden.
Neither knows the cause of his health problems, Adifou told IRIN.
Air
The AREVA majority-owned mine called COMINAK (Mining Company of Akouta) commissioned an environmental study of its operations in Arlit in 2006, which reported that the number of deaths linked to respiratory infections was twice as high in the mining town (16 percent) as in the rest of the country.
Arlit's population is 110,000.
"The wind carries dust contaminated with the long-lasting radium [time required for it to lose toxicity is more than 1,600 years] and lead...Samples taken from 5km within site...Sandstorms [and] atmospheric waste from mines could be aggravating factors for pulmonary [illnesses] in the region," the researchers wrote in COMINAK's environmental study.
But AREVA dismisses the link between mining and elevated health problems in its January 2009 report on mining activities in Niger. "These problems are typical in desert zones...they are not linked to mining activities."
Nevertheless AREVA directors have agreed to set up health diagnostic centres in all countries where it extracts uranium, starting with Gabon, according to the Paris-based human rights legal association Sherpa.
"It has been two long, difficult years to get to this point with the company to give workers a voice," Sherpa director Yann Queinnec told IRIN.
Plans are still being finalised, said Queinnec, but the agreement is that each centre would have an advisory board with representation from workers, local officials, non-profit organisations and AREVA.
Queinnec said it took years "to craft an agreement that will be different from other accords signed in the name of protecting workers," of which key components, the lawyer said, remain unfulfilled.
Soil
The Paris-based Commission of Research and Independent Information on Radioactivity (CRIIRAD) has written of "serious safety lapses" in and near AREVA mining sites in Niger.
In 2007 CRIIRAD researchers said they found locals selling contaminated scrap metal from mining sites and the materials were eventually used in housing construction, kitchen utensils and tools.
In 2003 CRIIRAD had recommended that AREVA identify and dispose of contaminated metals.
Radioactive waste - possibly used in road construction - may be responsible for the abnormally high levels of radiation, according to CRIIRAD. In 2007 CRIIRAD researchers wrote that radiation levels were up to 100 times above average in front of the AREVA-funded hospital near the COMINAK mine.
Water
In response to criticism that mining has contaminated increasingly scarce drinking water in northern Niger, AREVA published a statement in January 2009 that "monthly bacterial, bi-annual radiological, and annual chemical analyses show the absence of [water] contamination."
But environmental studies carried out by CRIIRAD and Sherpa in 2005 in mining communities showed water radiation levels up to 110 times higher than World Health Organization (WHO) safe drinking water standards in industrial areas and 10 times higher in urban areas.
Uranium extraction requires water to clean the mining site, treat the mineral and cover workers' and their families' water needs, according to AREVA.
Pastoralists have also accused AREVA of depleting the region's water.
By AREVA's calculation the company has pumped 270 million cubic metres of groundwater during the past 40 years from its two mines in Arlit, of which 35 percent has been for mining activities and the rest for the town's use.
AREVA spokesperson Yves Dufour said recently in the French media that AREVA's future water needs in Imouraren, 80km south of Arlit, will be only a fraction of the eight billion cubic metres of desert groundwater available in the area.
AREVA is investing US$1.5 billion in Imouraren in what is expected to be the country's largest uranium mine.
Hydrologists estimate that rain-fed groundwater sources - similar to the aquifer AREVA is tapping 150m beneath the desert - can take some 200 years to replenish.
Corporate responsibility
Though the Niger government owns one-third of the uranium mines, Almoustapha Alhacen - head of the Arlit-based environmental NGO Aghir In'Man - told IRIN he holds
AREVA wholly responsible for the north's environmental and health problems. "AREVA is in Canada, but does it exploit uranium as savagely as it does here? Have Canada's cattle also died?"
Pastoralists have blamed a number of cattle deaths on contamination of wells from which animals drink.
AREVA extracted an estimated 3,200 metric tons of uranium in northern Canada in 2007, slightly more than in Niger for the same period. In a May 2007 survey of 1,000 residents living near AREVA's uranium mining operations in Canada, 80 percent responded they supported uranium exploration.
AREVA Resources Canada's spokesperson Alun Richards told IRIN his company rents daily charter planes to transport 350 employees from their remote northern homes to the mining site in Saskatchewan province explaining how workers, mostly nomads, "need to be near their extended family networks". In addition, the Canadian mine gives local communities $80,000 per year to carry out their own environmental impact studies. "People do not read studies. They trust results more if they test their own food and rivers they fish from," said Richards.
Mines in Canada are "heavily regulated" by some 30 government agencies, from fisheries to nuclear safety, he added.
Half the work force is hired from the local community, Richards told IRIN. "It is just as important that we maintain our social obligations and community standing as it is [that we] meet environmental and health regulations," Richards said.
Even though AREVA France invests $1 million a year for community development in northern Niger, according to its records, NGO leader Alhacen said most mining community residents have "generally negative" views about the industry.
When asked why a private company that shares ownership with the Niger government should bear most of the burden of community development, Alhacen said multinationals working in Africa should recognise their corporate responsibility.
Niger's living conditions - as measured by health, education and income - are among the worst worldwide, according to the UN.
AREVA France has said its approach is not to dispense "charity" but rather to engage locals in running projects and to increase coordination with donors.
Alhacen said damages from mining far outweigh the benefits in Niger.
"AREVA [France] publicises that it pays for 200,000 medical visits a year. We do not see that here. Even so, that is admitting that tens of thousands are getting sick every year," said Alhacen.
Government responsibility
Since June 2007 the Niger government has placed more than half the country under a state of alert as a result of a decades-long rebellion that re-erupted in February 2007. Hundreds have died and thousands have been displaced in the last two years as a result of fighting.
Rebels who have attacked military posts and water and electricity plants that feed AREVA operations are demanding more mining profits for community development and more protection from mining's hazards.
They have accused the government of overlooking what they call AREVA's environmental non-compliance in exchange for mining royalties.
The government dismisses the rebellion as a front for smuggling.
Minister of Information Mohamed Ben Omar told IRIN: "The government has made every effort to protect local populations from harmful mining practices.
Just because of profits, we are not looking the other way," he said. "We have ratified every international relevant convention [on mining] and taken all necessary control measures."
But leader of the rebel front that launched the February 2007 attack, Aghaly Ag Alambo, told IRIN that mining communities are still not safe.
"AREVA is not the main problem. It is not AREVA's job to provide for Nigeriens. It is the government that has failed its people."(sounds like a certain state,county)
[ This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations ]
Obama signs landmark U.S. conservation bill
WASHINGTON, March 30 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama signed sweeping land and water conservation rules into law on Monday, setting aside millions of acres as protected areas and delighting environmentalists.
The measure, a package of more than 160 bills, would designate about 2 million acres (809,400 hectares) -- parks, rivers, streams, desert, forest and trails -- in nine states as new wilderness and render them off limits to oil and gas drilling and other development.
The House of Representatives approved the measure on a vote of 285-140 a week after it cleared the Senate, capping years of wrangling and procedural roadblocks.
Opponents, most of them Republicans, complained the legislation would deny access for oil and gas drilling and said House Democrats refused to consider changes.
"This legislation guarantees that we will not take our forests, rivers, oceans, national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas for granted," Obama said at a signing ceremony.
The areas that would be designated as new wilderness are mostly in California, followed by Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Oregon, Virginia, West Virginia, New Mexico and Michigan.
Environmentalists welcomed the move.
"As global warming changes wildlife habitat and food sources, it's more important than ever that we take care of our last remaining wild forests and rivers," the environmental group Sierra Club said in a statement.
"This is the most important lands protection legislation in decades."(let's hope it will protect our County from uranium mining water problems!!)
(Reporting by Jeff Mason and Thomas Ferraro, editing by Vicki Allen)
The measure, a package of more than 160 bills, would designate about 2 million acres (809,400 hectares) -- parks, rivers, streams, desert, forest and trails -- in nine states as new wilderness and render them off limits to oil and gas drilling and other development.
The House of Representatives approved the measure on a vote of 285-140 a week after it cleared the Senate, capping years of wrangling and procedural roadblocks.
Opponents, most of them Republicans, complained the legislation would deny access for oil and gas drilling and said House Democrats refused to consider changes.
"This legislation guarantees that we will not take our forests, rivers, oceans, national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas for granted," Obama said at a signing ceremony.
The areas that would be designated as new wilderness are mostly in California, followed by Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Oregon, Virginia, West Virginia, New Mexico and Michigan.
Environmentalists welcomed the move.
"As global warming changes wildlife habitat and food sources, it's more important than ever that we take care of our last remaining wild forests and rivers," the environmental group Sierra Club said in a statement.
"This is the most important lands protection legislation in decades."(let's hope it will protect our County from uranium mining water problems!!)
(Reporting by Jeff Mason and Thomas Ferraro, editing by Vicki Allen)
Friday, March 27, 2009
NRC to hold public meetings on nuclear plants
Comment: The people need to tell NRC and Dominion VA Power we want to become a Nuke Free State!
By the Associated Press
March 25, 2009
RICHMOND, Va. - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is holding public meetings to discuss safety assessments for the North Anna and Surry nuclear power plants in Virginia.
The agency will be available to answer questions on the safety performance of the plants, as well as the NRC's role in ensuring safe plant operation.
Both plants are operated by Dominion Virginia Power.
An open house meeting regarding the Surry plant is scheduled for April 6 at 6 p.m. at the Surry Government Center's Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
The meeting about the North Anna plant is scheduled for April 7 at 6 p.m. at the North Anna Nuclear Information Center in Mineral.
By the Associated Press
March 25, 2009
RICHMOND, Va. - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is holding public meetings to discuss safety assessments for the North Anna and Surry nuclear power plants in Virginia.
The agency will be available to answer questions on the safety performance of the plants, as well as the NRC's role in ensuring safe plant operation.
Both plants are operated by Dominion Virginia Power.
An open house meeting regarding the Surry plant is scheduled for April 6 at 6 p.m. at the Surry Government Center's Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
The meeting about the North Anna plant is scheduled for April 7 at 6 p.m. at the North Anna Nuclear Information Center in Mineral.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Water Worries Shape Local Energy Decisions
Comment: Uranium Mining & Milling, Nuke Power, Coal Plants uses huge amount of water!
MARCH 26, 2009
Scarcity Forces Electricity Companies to Rethink Power-Plant Plans, Providing an Opening for Renewable Sources
Last month, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, a utility that provides power to mostly rural areas, agreed to conduct a major study to see if it might meet growing energy needs through energy efficiency and not a big, new coal-fired power plant, as it had proposed for southeast Colorado.
One reason for the move was a challenge by Environment Colorado, an advocacy organization, about the amount of water a new plant would require.
Changes like these are happening with increasing frequency, particularly in the arid West, as mounting concerns about water begin to shape local energy decisions.
Mark Harrison/The Seattle Times
A wind farm in Kittitas, Wash. Some similar projects, especially in the arid West, are gaining momentum because their water needs are minimal.
In some cases, power companies are pulling back from plans to build traditional power plants that require steady streams of water to operate. In others, renewable-energy projects such as wind farms or solar arrays are gaining momentum because their water needs are minimal.
Tri-State no longer is sure what it might build in southeast Colorado but it is going ahead with plans to build a 500,000-solar-panel project in northeast New Mexico in partnership with First Solar Inc.
"There's no water requirement with solar," said Mac McLennan, senior vice president for Tri-State, based in Westminster, Colo.
Advocates for alternative energy are discovering that water issues may prove to be as important a selling point for the industry as reducing carbon-dioxide emissions.
"The more we wean energy companies off consumptive use of water, the better for everyone," said Craig Cox, executive director of the Interwest Energy Alliance, a Colorado trade group that represents power-project developers.
The electric-power industry accounts for nearly half of all water withdrawals in the U.S., with agricultural irrigation coming in a distant second at about 35%. Even though most of the water used by the power sector eventually is returned to waterways or the ground, 2% to 3% is lost through evaporation, amounting to 1.6 trillion to 1.7 trillion gallons a year that might otherwise enhance fisheries or recharge aquifers, according to a Department of Energy study.
The study concluded that a megawatt hour of electricity produced by a wind turbine can save 200 to 600 gallons of water compared with the amount required by a modern gas-fired power plant to make that same amount.
Earlier this month, Jeff Bingaman (D., N.M.), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, noted during a hearing that the "nexus" of water and energy is becoming an issue "in [power plant] permitting decisions across the country."
Landowners in the far northeast corner of California were riled recently by Sempra Energy's proposal to build a coal-fired power plant just across the state line in Nevada.
One reason residents objected was that the plant would have required vast amounts of water for cooling. "Use of groundwater is always a sensitive issue up here because we don't have much," said Jack Hanson, a member of the Lassen County Board of Supervisors.
Sempra pulled the plug on the project in late 2006, citing, among other things, water use.
Since then, another big energy proposal has surfaced, but it hasn't kicked up much opposition: A dozen companies are considering building hundreds of wind turbines along Lassen County ridgelines. So far, 17 meteorological towers have been erected to verify wind speeds.
In turn, conventional power plants are turning to technology that aggressively cuts water use as they weigh the costs of installing more complicated cooling systems versus leaning on scarce resources.
A power plant recently put into service by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., a unit of PG&E Corp., in the Northern California town of Antioch has a cooling system to cut its water intake from 40,000 gallons a minute to 1.6 gallons. In the past, power plants commonly were built with "once-through cooling," in which water was drawn from waterways, used once, and then put back. But the Antioch plant uses a "dry" cooling technique that recirculates water in a closed system, reducing evaporation.
Environmental groups that oppose coal and nuclear power plants are discovering that water can be a powerful tool to challenge power companies.
In 2004, Riverkeeper Inc., an environmental organization in Tarrytown, N.Y., along with six states, sued the Environmental Protection Agency over the use of once-through cooling by as many as 500 older power plants in the U.S. The suit charges that the practice violates the Clean Water Act because it harms aquatic life and fails to utilize the best technology available, a requirement of the federal act.
The case, now before the U.S. Supreme Court, stands to test how water-use issues will determine which power plants continue to operate as well as what kind of plants are built.
Nuclear plants face particular scrutiny, since they require more water than any other form of steam generation.
Virginia Power, a unit of Dominion Resources, is facing a legal challenge over its right to draw one million gallons of water a minute per reactor from a man-made lake it uses to cool its North Anna nuclear power plant and into which it discharges heated water. The utility built the lake in 1978 exclusively for the plant's cooling purposes.
A group called the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Inc. argued that heat is a form of pollution and said the state water board shouldn't have renewed the plant's water permit.
Last month, a state court upheld much of the environmental group's case; the utility plans an appeal.
Dominion says the man-made lake is a private body of water and therefore shouldn't fall under the federal Clean Water Act.(Well, the river that forms the lake is not private, belongs to the people of VA)
Water is also emerging as an important point for analysts in the investment community.
"We definitely have noticed more companies having water issues," said Swaminathan Venkataraman, an analyst at Standard & Poor's credit-rating agency.
"If it continues, it will give renewables another important advantage."
Write to Rebecca Smith at rebecca.smith@wsj.com
Monday, March 23, 2009
Water, Energy and Climate Change
Comment: Water is scearce, Nuke Plants and Uranium Mining uses huge amounts of water, will cause low water levels for all our rivers in Virginia!
March 19, 4:00 PM
No matter your politics or social standing, few can disagree that the future of our economy is inextricably linked to energy. But what about the future of water?
Without water, it is nearly impossible to generate energy.
Without water, it is nearly impossible to generate energy.
Whether its nuclear, hydro, coal or oil – abundant supplies of water are an absolute necessity when it comes to energy generation. And in their latest report, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development has addressed this very issue.
Here are a few of the key points from the report, Water, Energy and Climate Change: A contribution from the business community:
Both water and energy are essential to every aspect of life: social equity, ecosystem integrity and economic sustainability.
In an increasing spiral, demand for more energy will drive demand for more water; demand for more water will drive demand for more energy.
Industrial, agricultural and domestic water and energy uses can have adverse impacts on ecosystems, including loss of habitat, pollution and changes in biological processes (such as fish spawning).
Such ecosystem impacts also affect the amount of water or energy supplies available.
Water, energy and ecological footprints cannot be addressed in isolation.
Maintaining environmental flows is critical to ensuring river systems can supply water to business and ecosystems.
Resolving growing issues surrounding water and energy priorities will require better and integrated policy frameworks and political engagement to address them satisfactorily for all stakeholders within and across watersheds.
Most of what is in the report is not necessarily ground-breaking for those who have been warning about this very issue for decades.
The fact is, renewable energy advocates have long preached the water consumption advantages to wind and solar power.
As the report notes, wind energy and photovoltaic cells have negligible water use.
But take a resource like oil, and you're looking at a major water consumer.
It can take as much as 2 billion gallons of water per day to refine 800 million gallons of petroleum products.
You can read the entire report here:http://www.wbcsd.org/Plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?DocTypeId=251&ObjectId=MzM3NTM
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT: Watery rights
Comment: Where will the water come from for Cole's Hill? Remember uranium mining and milling uses a lot of water. Water shortage is happening all over US. Will the Bannister River's level drop from the mining?
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Watery rights
Sen. Robert F. Bennett of Utah reminded his colleagues just how the power flows when it comes to control of water, particularly in the West.
"Where I come from, there is an old adage: 'It is better to be head of the ditch than head of the church,' " Mr. Bennett told his colleague Sen. Mark Udall during a hearing about the nation's water resources.
"I'm going to borrow that to add to the repertoire that we have about water fights in the West," Mr. Udall said.
Mr. Udall, Colorado Democrat, had been recounting the struggles experienced by Shell Exploration and Production Co. in obtaining a water right on Colorado's Yampa River to be used in oil shale development.
The request is opposed by 25 federal, state and local agencies plus business and environmental groups, according to the Denver Post.
Fights for water among state governments have escalated in the past few years.
The Carolinas are locked in a legal battle over access to the Catawba River, and Virginia won a battle with Maryland to tap the Potomac River in 2003.
Energizing talk(True Green Jobs, No Nuke Plants, No Uranium mining)
There will be lots of movement again on the Hill this week as lawmakers continue working on a new energy bill and offshore oil leases.
Members of the House Committee on Natural Resources hear about offshore oil leases on Tuesday morning, the same day the Senate's energy committee takes up the issue.
Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday will examine ways to protect jobs as part of any greenhouse-gas reduction plan.
Across the Capitol grounds the same day, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee takes up the nuclear power development.
There's still some question in the Senate as to how an energy bill will move and whether it will be paired with a carbon-reduction plan, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has said he would like to see. House leaders have said they would like to pair the two proposals and pass them as one large climate and energy package.(No Mountain Top Removal)
The HR file
The Obama administration hired a handful top staffers last week as it continued filling the ranks of climate and energy lieutenants.
Van Jones joined the Council on Environmental Quality as a special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation. Mr. Jones supported the Obama campaign and founded the green-jobs group Green for All. The Obama White House has made job creation through clean energy sources a key pitch in its stimulus plan.
Will Shafroth joins the Interior Department as deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks. Mr. Shafroth leaves after working with the Colorado Conservation Trust and Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund.
J. Charles Fox returns to the Environmental Protection Agency as senior adviser on the Chesapeake Bay and the Anacostia River. Mr. Fox previously worked as Maryland's secretary of natural resources and as an associate administrator at the EPA with then-administrator Carol M. Browner.
• Tom LoBianco can be reached at tlobianco@washingtontimes.com
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Watery rights
Sen. Robert F. Bennett of Utah reminded his colleagues just how the power flows when it comes to control of water, particularly in the West.
"Where I come from, there is an old adage: 'It is better to be head of the ditch than head of the church,' " Mr. Bennett told his colleague Sen. Mark Udall during a hearing about the nation's water resources.
"I'm going to borrow that to add to the repertoire that we have about water fights in the West," Mr. Udall said.
Mr. Udall, Colorado Democrat, had been recounting the struggles experienced by Shell Exploration and Production Co. in obtaining a water right on Colorado's Yampa River to be used in oil shale development.
The request is opposed by 25 federal, state and local agencies plus business and environmental groups, according to the Denver Post.
Fights for water among state governments have escalated in the past few years.
The Carolinas are locked in a legal battle over access to the Catawba River, and Virginia won a battle with Maryland to tap the Potomac River in 2003.
Energizing talk(True Green Jobs, No Nuke Plants, No Uranium mining)
There will be lots of movement again on the Hill this week as lawmakers continue working on a new energy bill and offshore oil leases.
Members of the House Committee on Natural Resources hear about offshore oil leases on Tuesday morning, the same day the Senate's energy committee takes up the issue.
Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday will examine ways to protect jobs as part of any greenhouse-gas reduction plan.
Across the Capitol grounds the same day, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee takes up the nuclear power development.
There's still some question in the Senate as to how an energy bill will move and whether it will be paired with a carbon-reduction plan, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has said he would like to see. House leaders have said they would like to pair the two proposals and pass them as one large climate and energy package.(No Mountain Top Removal)
The HR file
The Obama administration hired a handful top staffers last week as it continued filling the ranks of climate and energy lieutenants.
Van Jones joined the Council on Environmental Quality as a special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation. Mr. Jones supported the Obama campaign and founded the green-jobs group Green for All. The Obama White House has made job creation through clean energy sources a key pitch in its stimulus plan.
Will Shafroth joins the Interior Department as deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks. Mr. Shafroth leaves after working with the Colorado Conservation Trust and Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund.
J. Charles Fox returns to the Environmental Protection Agency as senior adviser on the Chesapeake Bay and the Anacostia River. Mr. Fox previously worked as Maryland's secretary of natural resources and as an associate administrator at the EPA with then-administrator Carol M. Browner.
• Tom LoBianco can be reached at tlobianco@washingtontimes.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
