|
|
|
| Sun, Dec. 06 - - Mobile - RSS | |
| YOUR TOWN: Caroline | Culpeper | King George | Fredericksburg | Orange | Spotsylvania | Stafford | Westmoreland | |
|
|
Environmental groups fight North Anna permit renewal
Environmental groups to appeal state water permit for existing North Anna nuclear reactors
Date published: 12/7/2007
By RUSTY DENNEN Two environmental groups say they plan to appeal the renewal of a state water permit for North Anna Power Station. The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and the Peoples Alliance for Clean Energy have filed a notice of appeal in Richmond Circuit Court. The appeal is expected to be submitted later this month. The groups contend the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality erred in granting a variance allowing the plant's wastewater heat discharge to exceed temperatures allowed under water-quality standards for the two existing reactors. The original permit was approved in the early 1970s, and each subsequent renewal has maintained that the plant's thermal discharge area is considered a waste-treatment site and not subject to the Clean Water Act. The State Water Control Board in October renewed the plant's Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, allowing the discharge of 2 million gallons of water a day into Lake Anna. The environmental groups claim that heated water from the plant's reactors is harmful to aquatic life and to the lake's recreational users. Some residents living along the plant's cooling lagoons--where heated water is discharged--have reported water temperatures as high as 106 degrees during the summer. After it flows through the plant, the heated water flows into the cooling lagoons, which cover more than 3,000 acres, and eventually back into the main lake. "The situation is a violation of the Clean Water Act," Elena Day, spokeswoman for the People's Alliance for Clean Energy in Charlottesville, said in a press release. "It is the responsibility of Virginia DEQ to protect its citizens, not foster Dominion's noncompliance with the law." Richard Zuercher, spokesman for Dominion's nuclear operations, said yesterday that the company has no comment on the appeal. However, he added, "We are in full compliance with the law, and always have been." The appeal is not related to Dominion's plans for a possible third reactor at North Anna. That reactor, if built, would not add to heated water going into Lake Anna. Cooling towers would be used instead of lake water. Dominion has received an early site permit for the reactor, and last week applied for a combined operating license. Lake Anna, encompassing about 13,000 acres, was created in the early 1970s to cool the plant's nuclear reactors. The lake borders Louisa, Spotsylvania and Orange counties. Rusty Dennen: 540/374-5431Email: rdennen@freelancestar.com
Date published: 12/7/2007
Demand Reparations NOW!!!
(posted by
KnowYourNukes
, Dec. 7, 2007 1:09 pm)
OK brave defenders of the environment, why not cry out for reparations? Shutdown the plants, take down the dam, restore the North Anna River to the often-dry creek bed that it was before the North Anna Power Station was built. That's sure to protect the aquatic life (especially the species that THRIVE in the warm water) and the lake's recreational users! Why is the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League DISCRIMINATING against fish species that love warm water in the winter? Who will defend them??
Here are the whacko's options...
(posted by
Chris.ology
, Dec. 7, 2007 11:02 am)
Would they care for an OIL fired plant or a COAL fired plant instead? They would emit thousands of metric tons of carbon dioxide annually! Well I guess there is *one* more option...we could go back to the stone age, live in caves with pitchforks and China/Iran could take us over. What is it that these so-called environmentalists don't understand about global competition? Energy independence and energy itself is what drives our thriving country.
I might as well jump on the bandwagon...
(posted by
freedomfirst
, Dec. 7, 2007 8:33 am)
You folks are right, these envi groups cloak their real mission in this nonsense we just read in the article. They'd rather have us pay the Arabs for their oil forever so they can fund...never mind. I wonder if any of these enviros would care to publish all their affiliations including those that fatten their Swiss bank Accounts....
Can't have it both ways
(posted by
dmine45
, Dec. 7, 2007 6:09 am)
Poor environmentalists. They want electricity, as we all do. But they don't want a coal plant. They don't want any plant. Guess what - we need SOMETHING. As the previous poster said - the lake was BUILT for the plant. Give me a freaking break! It only became a recreation place because the lake was there for the plant, not the other way around. Get used to it - the lake is for the power plant.
Makes No Sense
(posted by
werstenz
, Dec. 7, 2007 5:49 am)
The lake was BUILT TO COOL REACTORS. But now that is "environmentally" unfriendly because it will heat the water???? No they mean it may be unfriendly for property values and boaters that shouldn't be there at all if it interferes with the reactor processes it was meant to facilitate. Wake up whiners! Remember your Iodine Pills with your wine coolers.
|
 |
|||
|
|||
