Indian Point Emissions in Supreme Court tomorrow

[Guest guest]

_http://www.ncnlocal.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=930_

(http://www.ncnlocal.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=930)

 

 

December 1, 2008

Indian Point case heads to Supreme Court tomorrow

 

Greg Clary

The Journal News

The Indian Point nuclear plant's impact on the Hudson River will be central

to a case heading for the country's highest court tomorrow - and a final

decision could affect operations at 550 power plants across the U.S.

The U.S. Supreme Court's nine justices are set to hear Entergy Corp. v.

Riverkeeper Inc., a battle over whether the Clean Water Act allows federal

regulators to weigh costs, as well as benefits, when protecting the

environment.

New Orleans-based Entergy, which is the plant's owner, and the energy

industry think costs should be considered.

Environmentalists do not.

At issue for Indian Point is a technology the plant uses to take in Hudson

River water, use it to cool its operations and return warmer water to the

eco-system.

It requires billions of gallons of water every day and dooms fish eggs and

smaller species of fish that get caught in the plant's intake, according to

environmentalists.

Entergy officials say 25 years and $50 million of government-supervised

studies show otherwise.

" The once-through cooling intakes of Hudson River power plants, which

withdraw 5 billion gallons of water each day, have had a devastating effect on

the

river's ecosystem, " said Alex Matthiessen, the Hudson Riverkeeper and

president of the nonprofit organization. " The Clean Water Act clearly mandates

the

use of 'best technology available' without regard to cost-benefit comparisons

and was intended to address precisely these types of impacts. "

Matthiessen said the Supreme Court has the opportunity to weigh in on an

important environmental issue.

Across the country, 550 power plants use such cooling technology, and if the

court decides costs must be left out of the equation, billions of dollars

must be spent to retrofit existing facilities to meet federal Environmental

Protection Agency regulations.

Four power plants on the Hudson River - Indian Point, Danskammer, Roseton

and Bowline - use the " once-through " cooling, as it is called.

Indian Point officials have estimated that replacing that technology with

towers that use much less river water and circulating the water through a

closed internal cooling system would cost the company more than $1 billion and

require shutting down electricity generation for months, as well dynamiting

bedrock to prepare the Buchanan site.

The renovation might also include moving buried natural gas lines, which

company officials said would be another potential problem for the environment.

" The Clean Water Act isn't specific to cooling towers. It doesn't prescribe

or proscribe, " said Entergy spokesman Jim Steets at Indian Point. " What we

believe the court and the federal agency carrying out the act should do is take

a common-sense approach that includes weighing the costs and the benefits. "

Riverkeeper and its supporters have won their case in the lower courts.

Entergy appealed to the Supreme Court after losing in the district courts,

but the court - which hears only about one appeal from every 100 made - opted

to examine only the cost-benefit question.

Even after the presentations that each side will make tomorrow, justices are

not likely to issue a ruling until spring, lawyers said. The Supreme Court

session ends in June.

The Supreme Court decision will have significant implications for power

plants across the country, but the stakes are particularly high for Indian

Point.

Entergy, the plant's owner, is already fighting with New York state over

permits to release warmer water into the Hudson; the state is concerned about

the system's effect on the river's fish population.

The environmental impact on the Hudson River could end up as a key element

in Indian Point's efforts to extend its license to create electricity at the

site for another 20 years, to 2035.

Should the Supreme Court side with Riverkeeper and its supporters, the

company would have to put in closed-cycle cooling and, at the very least, amend

its application before its first license expires in 2013. It could also choose

not to continue its operations at the site.

 

__

 

 

**************Finally, one site has it all: your friends, your email, your

favorite sites. Try the NEW AOL.com.

(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp & icid=aolcom40vanity & ncid=emlcntaolcom00000006)