Nuclear Waste Must be Secured and Our Waters Protected -- Take Action!

Buffalo Niagara Region has a serious waste problem and perhaps none is so serious as the West Valley Nuclear Waste Facility 30 miles south of Buffalo.  An array of nuclear waste has been stored and some buried on an erodible plateau since the 1960s, put in place before there were any laws on the siting of such dangerous waste.  This site is managed by the Department of Energy and owned by the NYS Energy Research and Development Authority, agencies responsible for cleaning up the waste and protecting public health and our waters.

Charley Bowman, of the Sierra Club Niagara Group, points out that “the protection of fresh water supplies underpins organized existence of human beings. There are enormous amounts of radioactivity (100,000’s of Curies) buried and stored at the West Valley nuclear waste site. Some of that radioactivity is escaping beyond the site boundaries and now resides in the surrounding unstable soils, trees and creeks. Some of the radioactive elements will be dangerous for millions of years.”

The Department of Energy begins Scoping Hearings for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on March 19, 20 and 21, to determine the final disposition of this waste site.  Joanne Hameister who has been working with the Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes since the 1970s states that her group “has been involved with the decision process for four decades.  After three Environmental Impact Statements and a fourth to begin in March, billions of dollars, a lot of surveys and studies, lawsuits and many 'duct tape' solutions to problems, we might have a direction for the future of the site.  The next decision must protect the water of the Great Lakes, Erie and Ontario, drinking water for millions of people downstream and for thousands of generations that could inherit these risks of radiation if we do not 'do the right thing' now.  It is a big order: dig it up, secure the waste and do not forget it.”

 “The government scoping meetings March 19, 20 and 21 are the public’s chance to tell the Department of Energy and NY Energy Research and Development Authority that we want full cleanup of the West Valley nuclear waste site. But the only way the deadly waste will be removed from the Great Lakes watershed is if our elected officials MAKE IT HAPPEN.”  Diane D’Arrigo argues that “the Department of Energy, NYSERDA, all their contractors and other ‘regulatory agencies’ will not step up unless they are forced to do so” based on the communities experience with the 2010 Environmental Impact Statement that delayed the decision for over a decade.

Hearings will be held at three different locations: 

Monday, March 19, 2018, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
West Valley Volunteer Hose Company, Inc., Firemen’s Memorial Hall and Training, 9091 Route 240, West Valley, NY 14171, in the Main Hall.

Tuesday, March 20, 2018, from 6:00p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
Erie Community College, City Campus, Post Office Building, 121 Ellicott Street, Buffalo, NY 14203, in the Minnie Gillette Auditorium.

Wednesday, March 21, 2018, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
Seneca Nation of Indians Cattaraugus Council Chambers, 12837 Route 438, Irving, NY 14081

Pat Townsend of the Interfai th Climate Justice Community says that she is “already writing my comments to email them to DOE and NYSERDA during the public comment period that has just started. I remember the rainfall that caused the Gowanda flood of 2009 and the landslide it caused at West Valley. With our crazy, changing weather, who knows what erosion will do to the West Valley nuclear wastes? I've seen the maps: erosion could take radioactive waste right down the creeks to Lake Erie and Buffalo's water."

--  Submitted by Lynda Schneekloth, Sierra Club Niagara Group


More information:
Nuclear Information and Resource Service   www.nirs.org/campaigns/west-valley
Information Center   www.seiswestvalleysite.com 
Sierra Club Niagara Group   www.niagarasierraclub.com/issues/west-valley-nuclear-waste-site

COMMUNITY FORUM: Don't want Nuclear Waste in Your Water? Get Informed and Take Action!

Presentation by 

ALAN LOCKWOOD, MD
Professor Emeritus of Neurology, University at Buffalo &

Senior Scientist, Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Thursday, March 1 at 7:00 PM,
Burchfield Penney Art Center, 1300 Elmwood Ave., Buffalo. (across from Albright Knox Art Gallery) [Map]

The Presentation will be followed by a Panel Discussion 

Learn how to make comments at Scoping Hearings

For detailed information on the Scoping Hearings, 

Click Here and see Page 2 of the document. 

 

Thanks to the Burchfield Penny Art Gallery, the Western New York Environmental Alliance, Sierra Club Niagara Group
 

Is there an Environmental and Economic Place for Nuclear Power, Given the Awesome Potential of Renewable Energy?

Nuclear power is not the answer to our energy needs

By Lynda Schneekloth


There are some of us still alive today who were here when the first atomic bomb was exploded on July 16, 1945, near Socorro, N.M.

That test was code-named Trinity. Within one month, on Aug., 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. Another was dropped Aug. 9 on Nagasaki. At least 200,000 people were killed instantly. After the war, we developed procedures to harness the power of nuclear material to make steam and electricity.

In 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower proposed “Atoms for Peace.” Those of us in our 70s, 80s and 90s well remember “duck and cover,” the drill to hide under our school desks to protect us if an atomic bomb exploded nearby.

We also remember “The Atom is your Friend,” with lovely animated characters assuring us that nuclear power was an enormous contribution to civilization. Or was it?

I won’t go into the dangers of nuclear war right now, except to say that the Doomsday Clock, which gives a scientific approximation of the probability of global catastrophe from nuclear war, is at 2.5 minutes to midnight, not this close since the 1950s.

But let’s look at nuclear power, since it is being promoted as the solution to climate change. Those of us who live in Western New York have intimate relationships with nuclear material because the Manhattan Project, which conducted research on the atomic bomb, had facilities here.

Many here died from unprotected exposure while working on that project and, in fact, some land in our region remains contaminated with nuclear material. Since the 1970s, nuclear waste from energy and military production has been stored at the West Valley Demonstration Project, a nuclear waste facility 30 miles south of Buffalo.

This site is still being “studied” to figure out what to do, and in the meantime, it is leaking.

After more than 70 years of exploding bombs and splitting atoms, we do not know what to do with the deadly waste, much of which will persist on the Earth for 10,000 years.

Here in Western New York we have more nuclear problems than West Valley and illegally disposed of waste. We are a route for shipping liquid, highly radioactive waste from Canada to South Carolina. Further, we live in a state where the governor proposes to offer a $7.6 billion subsidy to a private company – Exelon – so it can continue running aging nuclear power plants in our state, generating more dangerous waste. This in spite of excellent science that argues that nuclear power worsens climate change. Remember, there is no safe level of exposure to nuclear radiation.

No one asked us if we wanted to split the atom; no one has said he was sorry. In my lifetime, we have spread lethal material across the globe. Perhaps in the lifetime of my grandchildren we should find, contain and secure the deadly nuclear waste and pledge to not make anymore.

Lynda Schneekloth is a member of the Nuclear Committee of the Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter, and the Sierra Club Niagara Group

This article was originally published in The Buffalo News. 

~     ~     ~

So do we really need nuclear power? 

Is nuclear sustainable? Given the awesome potential of renewable energy, is there an economic place for nuclear power? Why is nuclear power globally in decline at present? What are the limitations?

These are some of the key questions examined in a detailed report, Nuclear Power - Game Over, by Derek Abbott, physicist and electrical engineer.

Williamsville Screening: Film Examines Social & Environmental Costs of Coal Power

Please join the Clean Air Coalition for the Williamsville screening of the film "Dirty Business." This Peter Bull documentary investigates the numerous health and environmental impacts of the coal industry in communities across America and the world. 

The screening will take place on Wednesday, February 12, at Clearfield Library, 770 Hopkins Rd., Williamsville from 6-8PM. [Map]

The film will be followed by a brief discussion of the impacts of burning coal here in WNY. Light refreshments will be served. 

Free and open to the public

For a preview of the film, Click Here.
 
Screenings to be held in other towns - East Aurora, Clarence, Hamburg and Buffalo - on later dates at 6-8PM:

• Feb. 19, Southside Municipal Center, 300 Gleed Ave, East Aurora 

• Feb. 20, Clarence Library, 3 Town Place, Clarence 

• Feb. 25, Hilbert College, Palisano Lecture Rm., Bogel Hall, 5200 S Park Ave., Hamburg - Featuring a special video conference with director Peter Bull

• Feb. 27, Buffalo State College, Room OE in Bulger Communications Center (parking in Lot S), Buffalo

If you have any questions, please call  716-852-3813.  

Clean Air Coalition looks forward to seeing you there!

Fracking Forum – Impacts on Environment, Health and Society

Join panelists, Rita Yelda, Sarah Buckley, David Kowalski, and Robert Cieselski, who will present talks and answer questions about diverse issues surrounding shale gas extraction and high volume hydrofracking.

• WHEN: March 21, 2013, 7:00pm-9:00pm

• WHERE: Prendergast Library, 509 Cherry St., Jamestown [Map]

Becky Nystrom – Moderator
Sarah Buckley – Fracking Basics (the process of fracking, from wellpad to pipeline)   
David Kowalski – Environmental and Health Issues (an analysis of industry-made arguments vs. other studies and evidence)   
Robert Cieselski – Leasing and Legal Issues (signing considerations, Compulsory Integration, landowner rights, flipping, impacts on mortgages, insurance) and Renewable Alternatives to Shale Gas
Rita Yelda – Fracking in New York State (what has occurred the last four years and where we are at now)

For speaker bio's and links to articles about fracking, click here.

Compressed Natural Gas or Electricity as Vehicle Fuels--Which Would You Choose?

By Joel Huberman 

     In his recent Another Voice article in The Buffalo News, Craig Jackson described some apparent advantages of compressed natural gas (CNG) derived from fracking compared to conventional gasoline as a power source for vehicles. However, the article did not compare CNG-powered vehicles (CNGVs) with electric vehicles (EVs). Could EVs have even more advantages than CNGVs?

     As described by Mr. Jackson, CNG is currently affordable, abundant, and produced in the US or Canada. But it won't be affordable and abundant forever. It's a finite resource that, if heavily used, will run out within the next hundred years. In contrast, renewable energy sources (wind, water and sun) that can produce the electricity needed by EVs will be around for millions of years, their price (free) won't increase, and they're available throughout our country; we don't need Canada for a portion of our supply.

     Although CNG may be clean compared to gasoline, it should not be described as "clean" when vastly cleaner energy is available from wind, water and sun. CNG, like gasoline, is a fossil fuel. Burning it adds to the CO2 in our atmosphere and thus increases the rate of global warming. Even worse, producing natural gas (the raw material for CNG) by fracking releases into the atmosphere large amounts of such gas (as much as 9% of the total gas produced, according to a recent study in the prestigious scientific journal, Nature). Natural gas warms our planet more rapidly than CO2 (about 25-fold faster, averaged over 100 years). These large gas emissions mean that the total global warming impact of CNG is worse than that of coal! Furthermore, the process of fracking is fraught with problems, as is evident from the draft regulations released last month by the Department of Environmental Conservation. These regulations are intended to ensure that fracking operations don't poison New York's water supplies and don't endanger the health of people living nearby. The regulations may or may not achieve their purpose, but why take a chance when safer options are available? Wind, water and sun do not threaten our water supplies or our health.

     The most recent studies (for example the World Bank's November 2012 report, "Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided", the International Energy Agency's "World Energy Outlook 2012", and PriceWaterhouseCoopers' "Too late for two degrees?") indicate that, if we are to avoid catastrophic global warming, we need to reduce our use of fossil fuels immediately and eliminate their use entirely within the next couple of decades. Which, then, would be most economical--building an infrastructure to support CNGVs, knowing that the price of CNG will rise with time and that its use may become illegal in the future, or building an infrastructure to support EVs, knowing that wind, water and sun will last forever, and the price of renewable electricity will decline after the initial infrastructure costs have been reimbursed?

     I want to make it clear that the electricity needed to power EVs currently comes from a mixture of renewable, nuclear and fossil-fuel sources. To make EVs as clean as they have the potential to be, we need to generate electricity completely from CO2-free sources. Numerous studies show that the transition to 100% CO2-free electricity can be accomplished readily with current technologies. It simply requires appropriate incentives to build the infrastructure.

     Also, there are significant environmental impacts involved in mining the metals needed for EV batteries. These can be controlled by proper regulation of the mining activities and can be minimized by further research to improve EV batteries. Despite these problems, EVs do currently make environmental sense in regions of the world (such as Western New York) where a substantial portion of electricity generation comes from CO2-free sources. Thus much of the promise of EVs will be realized in the future, when CO2-free electricity will be readily available everywhere. Contrast that with the predicted future of CNGVs, for which fuel will certainly become much more expensive before it runs out completely or is made illegal, probably within the lifetimes of today's children. Which would you choose?

Treating Hydro-Fracking Wastewater at Niagara Falls: Not Now, Maybe Later

At a public meeting of the Niagara Falls Water Board on October 27, the third meeting in two months, speakers again raised concern about the Board's proposal to accept, treat and discharge hydro-fracking wastewater derived from shale-gas drilling into the Niagara River.

Wastewater from hydro-fracking (a.k.a. fracking) contains chemicals added before drilling as well as toxic and radioactive chemicals extracted from shale. Wastewater is pumped back to the surface into exposed pits [see image], and then pumped into trucks for transport to other sites for treatment. Treatment facilities in Pennsylvania, where drilling is ongoing, have proven ineffective in removing all chemicals, some of which are known to cause cancer and other health problems. Also, brine, far more salty than ocean water, can corrode treatment facility equipment and has turned up in drinking water.

The Niagara Gazette reported that Water Board Chairman Michael McNally informed the speakers at the public meeting of the Board’s position of not accepting hydro-fracking or any wastewater associated with it.

“The Board’s position is we are not accepting anything relating to hydro-fracking or any of its spoils,” he said. “But we appreciate your input as it gives us more information to work with."

In a followup report on the October 27 meeting, Water Board Executive Director Paul Drof clarified the Board's position on fracking wastewater.

“Right now, no facility in New York state is permitted to accept fracking wastewater,” he said. “Their edict is there is no one approved to take fracking water, so no one does. It’s not illegal because no one does it.”

“The treatment of trucked-in waste has been done in Niagara Falls over the last 20 years,” he said. “It’s something we do routinely. This is just another candidate for treatment. That’s all it is at this point.” Drof added that public input on the matter is appreciated as it gives the Board more insight into what actions they’ll take later. 

Canadians are also concerned about the possibility that fracking wastewater would be treated in Niagara Falls, NY, since the Niagara River borders their country and drains into Lake Ontario, which is a source of drinking water for millions of people in Canada.

The Council of Canadians sent a letter to the Water Board requesting they scrap the fracking wastewater proposal to protect the Great Lake. The Council is also advocating that the town council of Niagara-on-the-Lake take action to protect the Great Lakes Basin. A town councilor will introduce a resolution today calling for a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and the treatment of fracking wastewater within the Great Lakes Basin.

An association of mayors on both sides of the Great Lakes is tracking the issue. "The position we've taken so far, until we get more information, is that nothing be done in terms of the hydro-fracking that could in any way contaminate the lakes, the St. Lawrence basin and the underground aquifers," said St. Catharines Mayor Brian McMullan, who chairs the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative.


A Niagara Falls Water Board spokesman said the Board is waiting for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to bring down rules on drilling shale and fracking water treatment. He added that it's not clear if the treatment plant will need costly upgrades to handle the fracking water, and it's possible the venture will be too expensive to pursue. 

Permitting by the DEC was intended originally to begin in early 2012 but it was further delayed last week. DEC Commissioner Joe Martens raised doubts that the state will be ready to issue permits next year. Martens said the Governor's Advisory Panel on High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing will miss its planned report deadline since they still have no estimates on what resources will be needed by four major state agencies: Health, Transportation, Agriculture & Markets, and Public Service. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has only just begun developing national standards for treating wastewater discharged from gas drilling. They propose to complete the rules by 2014, and the time for passage into law is uncertain. Also, the discharge of treated water into the Niagara River, and other rivers that flow into the Great Lakes, creates a need for international agreements between the U.S. and Canada, which may extend the time frame even further.

So even if treating fracking wastewater at Niagara Falls were found to be feasible, affordable and safe, and even if a massive transportation plan could be developed to move billions of gallons of the hazardous wastewater to Niagara Falls, it could be a long time before the plan is actually carried out, if ever.
 
The agencies involved should not be rushed. They need to allow plenty of time for investigations, deliberations, and input from the public. The gas will still be there. The safety of our drinking water and the protection public health must come first, and they are unquestionably worth the time.

For earlier posts about Fracking at Re-ENERGIZE BUFFALO, click here.

Ecology and Environment, Inc., Plays Key Role in First Large-Scale Solar Energy Project on U.S. Public Lands in Nevada

LANCASTER, N.Y., October 20, 2010 – Ecology and Environment, Inc., (E & E) (NASDAQ: EEI) is proud to announce its involvement in the Silver State North Solar Project, the first large-scale solar energy project on U.S. Public Lands in Nevada. The First Solar, Inc. project was approved by Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, yesterday. This is the second landmark, large-scale solar fast-track project to obtain Department of the Interior (DOI) approval in recent days in which E & E has played a key role providing permitting, environmental impact assessment expertise and coordinating the public involvement process.

“Silver State is one of several renewable energy projects in the pipeline that will help Nevada and the nation create jobs as we build a clean energy economy,” Secretary Salazar said in signing the Record of Decision. “This project will provide renewable energy that will help meet our nation’s growing demand as we strive to become energy independent.”

E & E prepared the precedent-setting environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 50-megawatt (MWAC) 60 (MWDC) solar facility and associated infrastructure, which will be built in the Ivanpah Valley, 40 miles south of Las Vegas. E & E worked collaboratively with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Las Vegas Field Office on the EIS, which analyzed environmental impacts of project construction and operation on several key resource areas, including threatened and endangered species, recreation, and hydrology; and identified appropriate mitigation measures to reduce project impacts. E & E engaged all project stakeholders and conducted well-attended public scoping meetings.

The Silver State North Solar Project is expected to generate enough electricity to power approximately 15,000 homes, create 300 construction jobs, and generate $250,000 in annual property tax revenue for Clark County, NV.

BLM Director, Bob Abbey, noted the key role public involvement played in the project’s approval. “The BLM is proud to play a major role in our nation’s quest to capture more renewable energy resources here at home,” Abbey said. “Through wise planning and engagement with local communities and stakeholders, we can support large-scale solar development on public lands while protecting valuable natural and cultural resources. If we are smart from the start, we can capture America’s renewable energy resources in the right way and the right places.”

“DOI approval of these pivotal large-scale solar projects on U.S. Public Lands is a significant step forward in advancing a clean energy economy and we are proud to play a role in making these projects a reality,” said E & E president and CEO Kevin Neumaier. “Silver State North brings Nevada one step closer to its goal of a 25 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2025, and sends a clear message that standards and benchmarks like Nevada’s are achievable when energy companies, agencies, and stakeholders work collaboratively to advance environmentally sound projects.”

E & E has 40 years of global energy project experience and has been at the forefront of solar, wind and other renewable energy development. E & E has completed hundreds of renewable energy projects bringing thousands of megawatts of solar, wind, geothermal and ocean energy power to the grid.

Headquartered in Lancaster, N.Y., Ecology and Environment, Inc., has completed more than 50,000 projects for a wide variety of clients in 96 countries, providing environmental solutions in nearly every ecosystem on the planet. The company is listed on the NASDAQ under the symbol EEI and is located on the web at www.ene.com.