Questions to ask:
Will a desalination water plant make Hudson River water drinkable?
If a water treatment plant is built on the banks of the Hudson River right across from the Indian Point Nuclear Power plants, will water holding radioactive isotopes regularly discharged from the power plant into the river, be made drinkable?
The environmental group, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater doesn’t think a de-sal plant can filter out Indian Point’s radioactive discharges. The desalination plant is expected to be built by United Water New York in Haverstraw, Rockland County, and the application is being reviewed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Clearwater is arguing that Indian Point’s owner, Entergy, shouldn’t have their license renewed until a water safety study is done. Entergy has applied to extend the operating license for reactor units 2 and 3 for 20 more years. The application is in the final stages of being reviewed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB).
“They need to look at the transport of radioactive isotopes in the Hudson River and they haven’t done that,” said Manna Jo Greene, environmental director at Clearwater about Entergy’s license renewal application. “Can the isotopes move across the river? Can they be removed using reverse osmosis?”
Reverse osmosis is an expensive filtering process which extracts out radioactive Strontium-90, which is a particulate. Extracting tritium is more difficult because it is a radioactive form of hydrogen.
The desalination plant will draw up to 10 million gallons of river water daily and could take in up to 20 million gallons per day for 12 hours during the low tide.
The majority of contentions against Entergy’s re-licensing application were filed last year with the ASLB who have accepted contentions filed by the DEC, Riverkeeper, Clearwater and Attorney General’s office.
This latest contention filed by Clearwater would come under “new and significant” information. Neil Sheehan of the NRC said the plans for the desalination plant have been known for quite some time. “It was discussed in our Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the application. In any case, the ASLB judges would need to consider the motion to submit a new contention and rule on it.”
Question to ask: When will the ASLB judges rule on Clearwater’s contention?
Sheehan’s answer: “The judges rule when they're ready; there is no exact time frame.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
A more important question: why build a De-Sal plant at all? They wreak havoc on the marine environment of the river. Riverkeeper, Clearwater, et. al should be up in arms about the water district not avoiding that option at all costs. Reservoirs actually become new habitats, although they are subject to drought fluctuations.
Keep on reporting on this. You're doing a helluva good job. Don't let the shills for Entergy - or the papers that live on their advertising - chill your enthusiasm for seeking and reporting the truth about this greed-driven threat to the health, safety and welfare of the tri-state area and beyond.
I wish I had saved the comment that you deleted, it's so hard to recap things after the "inspired moment" has passed.
But for the sake of truth, balance, and whatever readers you have, I'll try.
1)
Indian Point has, to this date, not added any detectable radioactive material to the Hudson river. The very best detection equipment known to mankind fails to find any radioactivity beyond the normal amount, in the vicinity of Indian Point. This kind of takes the wind out of this article's sails, and reduces it to saying: " If imaginary fairy dust were to be found in the Hudson, would United Water's new Desal plant be able to filter it out?" Short answer.....
You Can't Filter Out What Is Not There.
2)
But let's run the scenario,anyway.
Hypothetically, were two things to happen, first Indian Point would begin to spew radioactivity in the Hudson, and United Water would re-apply to desalinate the radioactive brew, United Water would be forced to apply for licensing as a nuclear plant, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.The very presence of radioactivity takes the issue out of DEP/DEC hands.The NRC , being under great activist scrutiny, would be forced to hold public comment hearings, opening a venue for you and your comrades to apply whatever pressure you could bring to bear to either block the license, or technically force United Water to fully remove the (fictional) radioactivity. So the ball is in Y O U R court, should the so-far-unfound radioactivity ever be found.
3)
Curing a sickness that is not real, is a very difficult task. It can never be finished. It can never be adequately implemented. All of society always seems to be dead set against it.Those who intend on doing it, always seem to find themselves in the position of "a few against the world". The conviction that something is wrong, when no evidence can be found, is a condition called "faith". Faith can motivate political action, and can even motivate science.Mr. Obama's phrase "Yes We Can" is a faith-based political chestnut, and the search for string theory is a faith-based science theme.Your quest for bad radioactive emissions from Indian Point is a faith-based activism theme......Against the evidence, you insist an unfindable problem exists, and then you go on to wrestle with its "implications".
4)
I believe the part that got the last post deleted, was my comparison of your faith-based activism, with the faith-based community-building of certain recently deceased Christian preachers who misled unfortunate duped followers of good will, into a place of no return, no gain, little salvation, and their eventual demise. I'll leave their names out. The comparison stands. Raising hollow alarums against fictional enemies remains a delusory sham, rife with the flawed ethics of self aggrandizement. Mind you, I do not accuse. I merely urge you to contemplate just why the comparison stung you enough to strike back at it.
5)
An open, although unworked uraninite mine exists at Anthony's nose, about 2 miles north of Haverstraw bay. It was prospected in 1953, and considered not rich enough to profitably mine, although its tailings lie in the open at Mine Hill, directly in the path of the Appalachian Trail. This source D O E S emit detectable radioactivity, which undoubtedly reaches the Hudson 900 feet below it, and immediately adjacent.The recently closed Mirant Lovett plant just north of Haverstraw maintained both a coal pile, and an ash pile at the site, which was a coal-burning plant.From 1957 until 2008, it added to the ash pile daily, and received twice daily shipments of CSX unit coal trains of 100 coal cars each, dumping it by automatic machinery which is only now being dismantled.These piles, trains, and daily emissions of detectably radioactive smoke are not fictional, nor are they unfindable. One can only wonder why a writer, engaging the public on the "radioactive drinking water" issue has failed to consider their impact. But here, I again flirt with deletion. However, this time, I will save my word document for re-use. Check out http://www.gdr.org/radiationincoal.htm and http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html , should you have little faith in me, or my words. On the same note, the Knowles Naval Laboratory at Troy NY maintains working mockups of U.S. naval submarines, ( no submarines, just their nuclear power plants) as training reactors for our aspiring US Navy nuclear engineers. Being military, the site is legally exempt from harrassment by DEP/DEC/NRC, and activists have warned that the site is indeed releasing detectable radiation into the river. Why you've not considered its impact seems strange, indeed, because it is there, it does emit, but you say nothing about it.
Oh, well.....
Have a very nice 2009.
If a real radioactive water component exists, DEC has no say, and United Water must apply to the NRC for licensing.
If they cannot filter adequately, voila'-- no license.
It's that easy.
Let us not remain oblivious to the Ground Water Rule found at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/gwr/pdfs/guide_gwr_sourcewaterassessments.pdf
which states that as of 12/01/2009 all water providers must assess their water sources for all contaminants, utilizing a complex flowchart given on page 12 of 96 in the document cited. Under CFR 40 141, Parts H,P,T, & W, if their supply comes from surface water (the Hudson River) either wholly, or in part, it is to be considered GWUDI, water under the influence of surface water. As per the EPA document found at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/radionuclides/pdfs/guide_radionuclides_stateimplementation.pdf , water systems that are declared by the State to be influenced by radionuclides must institute the following test regimes:
FOLLOWING CUT & PASTED FROM EPA:
The Radionuclides Rule requires systems to monitor for radioactivity under the
following circumstances:
• The system is designated by the State as vulnerable. Vulnerable systems must collect quarterly
samples for beta emitters and annual samples for tritium and strontium-90 at each EPTDS
(40 CFR 141.26(b)(1)). Sampling must begin the quarter after the system is notified by the State.
• The system is designated by the State as utilizing waters contaminated by effluents from nuclear
facilities. These systems must collect quarterly samples for beta emitters and iodine-131, and
annual samples for tritium and strontium-90 at each EPTDS (40 CFR 141.26(b)(2)). More
frequent monitoring is required if iodine-131 is found in finished water (40 CFR
141.26(b)(2)(ii)). Sampling must begin the quarter after the system is notified by the State.
For the quarterly monitoring requirements for gross beta particle activity, samples must be
collected and analyzed monthly or the composite of three monthly samples must be collected and
analyzed (40 CFR 141.26(b)(2)(i)). For the quarterly monitoring requirements for iodine-131,
samples must be collected for five consecutive days, composited, and analyzed (40 CFR
141.26(b)(2)(ii)).
For the annual monitoring requirements for tritium and strontium-90, samples must be collected
quarterly and analyzed or composited and analyzed (40 CFR 141.26(b)(2)(iii)). In all cases,
laboratories should be responsible for compositing the samples prior to analysis.
So, to answer Abby's question "Will the proposed Suez Desal plant filter out radionuclides?"
The answer, under Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 141 is:
Suez must test, at its source, and at its output, as layed out above.
If the tests fail, Suez cannot operate.
I've edited the previous post for clarity, please excuse 2 postings.
Anyone interested should peruse the Ground Water Rule found at: THIS LINK which states that as of 12/01/2009 all water providers must assess their water sources for all contaminants, utilizing a complex flowchart given on page 12 of 96 in the document cited. Under 40 CFR 141, Parts H,P,T, & W, if their supply comes from surface water (the Hudson River) either wholly, or in part, it is to be considered GWUDI, water under the influence of surface water. As per the EPA document found at THIS OTHER LINK , water systems that are declared by the State to be influenced by radionuclides must institute the following test regimes:
FOLLOWING CUT & PASTED FROM EPA:
The Radionuclides Rule requires water systems to monitor for radioactivity when:
• The system is designated by the State as vulnerable. Vulnerable systems must collect quarterly samples for beta emitters and annual samples for tritium and strontium-90 at each EPTDS (40 CFR 141.26(b)(1)). Sampling must begin the quarter after the system is notified by the State.
• The system is designated by the State as utilizing waters contaminated by effluents from nuclear facilities. These systems must collect quarterly samples for beta emitters and iodine-131, and annual samples for tritium and strontium-90 at each EPTDS (40 CFR 141.26(b)(2)). More frequent monitoring is required if iodine-131 is found in finished water (40 CFR 141.26(b)(2)(ii)). Sampling must begin the quarter after the system is notified by the State.
For the quarterly monitoring requirements for gross beta particle activity, samples must be collected and analyzed monthly or the composite of three monthly samples must be collected and analyzed (40 CFR 141.26(b)(2)(i)). For the quarterly monitoring requirements for iodine-131, samples must be collected for five consecutive days, composited, and analyzed (40 CFR 141.26(b)(2)(ii)). For the annual monitoring requirements for tritium and strontium-90, samples must be collected quarterly and analyzed or composited and analyzed (40 CFR 141.26(b)(2)(iii)). In all cases, laboratories should be responsible for compositing the samples prior to analysis.
• The State, at its own discretion, requires the system to collect samples (40 CFR 141.26(b)).
So, to answer Abby's question "Will the proposed Suez Desal plant filter out radionuclides?"
The answer, under Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 141 is: Suez must test, as layed out above. If the tests fail, Suez cannot operate. The onus here is on two parties not mentioned by Ms. Luby. First is "The State", who must officially notify Suez that they are declared to be in one of the three "must test" categories. The second, of course, is Suez, who must test as per the regimes given, and pass, or immediately cease operation (or never begin).
If Clearwater is truly for public health (and not just against IPEC), it will urge NYS DEC to notify Suez under 10 CFR 141 that they must test, and pass, to begin operation.
(You might also convey this info to Clearwater's apparently baffled lawyers).
I'm sure Suez is 100% aware of all of this, and lobbying NYS DEC hard to not declare.
If the Hudson is contaminated, it will be criminal malfeasance for NYS DEC to allow Suez to start. I urge all you activist leaders to get in your alert mode, and prevent such a crime.
Should DEC give Suez the go-ahead, I urge Clearwater to institute its own independent test program, and not trust either Suez or DEC.
Under 40 CFR 141, the tests must be done at Suez's inputs AND outputs.
Have a nice weekend
An awful thought just occurred to me, while contemplating the apparent free pass Suez is getting in the activist PR world.
If Suez was amoral, machiavellian, and determined to rape the Hudson for profit, they need only compromise one or two local Green spokespersons, urging them to attack IPEC.
Since the rigid public safety test regimes outlined in 40 CFR 141 would seem very distasteful to Suez ( translation: unprofitable), they might subvert anti-IPEC groups, as a means of feeding Hud Valley residents diluted feces-water on the cheap, without testing, by trying to remove IPEC, and gag the NYS DEC.
And talk about out-of-area Corporate vampires! Suez is French, no less !
What a distasteful scenario ! ( No pun intended)
Check out THIS LINK from "Public Citizen"
( I quote):
"Suez has 125 million customers in 40 countries with subsidiaries such as Ondeo and United Water. Their 2002 revenue was €6.4 billion which makes it the largest water corporation in the world. But the company is racked with debt, with a net loss in 2002 of $950 million, and continues to lose profits every quarter. Suez has lost several of its high profile contracts, such as Atlanta (US) and Puerto Rico and been forced to re-negotiate contracts in Buenos Aires (Argentina) and Manila (the Philippines). It is no longer profitable being a shareholder of this multinational corporation. But nothing is as bad as being one of their customers. Suez has been scrambling to do whatever it takes to turn its financial fortunes around. That means that as water divisions Ondeo and United Water grab control of a city’s water system, a top priority is cutting costs, because low costs mean higher revenues. So, Suez slashes water system staffs to inadequate levels, fails to perform necessary maintenance, tries to delay or avoid altogether any costly infrastructure investments, screams for higher rates, more money from government or both, and blames public officials, or just the public, for all the company’s problems. Customers end up paying more for less."
Anyone who doesn't look forward to drinking expensive and untested corporate sewage had better get active!
OK.
No replies, no apparent interest.
I guess I'll have to be crystal clear.
Question:
Has international corporate marauder Suez instigated Clearwater as their Hudson Valley stalking horse?
Post a Comment