New water rules could affect VY discharge

The state's Water Resources Board will soon be reviewing whether Vermont's water anti-degradation procedure should become law. Read more
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#1 Dec 28, 2010
"Legislature "has made it clear to the agency that it wants us to engage in rulemaking around anti-degradation," said Katherine Gjessing, associate general counsel for the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.

In other words, the Legislature wants a rule, and not just a procedure"

Good to see VT protecting our water quality since the nightmare of Douglas regime. VY has already destroyed the shad poplation.
Nancy Stardust

Fairlee, VT

#2 Dec 28, 2010
northstardust wrote:
"Legislature "has made it clear to the agency that it wants us to engage in rulemaking around anti-degradation," said Katherine Gjessing, associate general counsel for the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
In other words, the Legislature wants a rule, and not just a procedure"
Good to see VT protecting our water quality since the nightmare of Douglas regime. VY has already destroyed the shad poplation.
You need a lesson in ecology I see.
http://www.fws.gov/r5crc/fish/zb_alsa.html
Distribution
The historic range of American shad was from the St. Lawrence River to Florida. Shad are still distributed throughout their historic range but shad are concentrated in east coast rivers between Connecticut and North Carolina. American shad are native to the Connecticut River watershed, where they currently reach as far north as the impoundment above Bellows Falls Dam (175 miles upstream). Bellows Falls is believed to be the historic upstream limit of American shad prior to the construction of dams on the Connecticut River.

Status
American shad populations used to be greatly affected by pollution and dams. But in the thirty years since the restoration program began, American shad populations have increased dramatically: from 16,000 in 1967 to 300,000 in 1997 (counted at the Holyoke Dam--see Migratory Fish Return Numbers). The American shad is a very popular game fish and is also important commercially. Its Latin name means "delicious," and both its flesh and its eggs (roe) are eaten.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#3 Dec 28, 2010
You see what? That's right-nothing. You cannot see beyond end of nose, much less school anyone in ecology. Entergy not qualified to do this either.

Did you pull that from another Entergy sponsored VTEP 'study'?

Fortunately, w/o Douglas ruining our state we will have a chance to recover from the dark years.

And, another one of your many lies. Entergy used similiar inaccurate info to make its case to raise the temp so looks like you're the one who needs some lessons:
David Deen video re Entergy's discharges ruining fish populations:


"Entergy studies that the Environmental Court relied upon do not address the reasons for the collapse of the shad fishery above Vernon dam” said David Deen river steward for CRWC.

“We knew we were up against significant odds given ENVY’s resources but we will continue to use what tools and resources we have to ensure the recovery of American Shad and Atlantic Salmon populations in the Connecticut.”
http://www.ctriver.org/newsroom/press_release...

"Of particular concern is the dramatic decline in the number of shad returning to the river above Vernon, Vermont, where the powerplant is located, occurring since Vermont Yankee received its last thermal variance in 1991. In that year, over 37,000 shad ascended the fish ladder at Vernon Dam; in 2007 less than 100 fish were successful.

There are a number of potential causes for this decline, including dam passage and predation by striped bass, but several resource agencies including the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission and the U.S Department of the Interior, are concerned that the Vermont Yankee discharge may be a contributing cause."
http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Academics/Clinics_a...
Nancy Stardust

Fairlee, VT

#4 Dec 28, 2010
I did provide the link to the information I posted. But here is another good source if you are up to it.

http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/about_staff....

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#5 Dec 28, 2010
So? this does not make your information fact. You can provide links-I can provide links. This does not mean your info is valid or correct.

I will accept Deen as he has more knowledge, experience & expertise than you do.

Post away-I do not read your acres of rubbish & your sources are notoriously unreliable. Since you are here only to preach the nuclear gospel according to Entergy's denominational guidelines we have nothing to discuss.
NH citizen

Little Rock, AR

#6 Dec 28, 2010
Amazing - VT does not own the river - NH does. I say no to VT and let NH make the ruling if they desire.
Nancy Stardust

Fairlee, VT

#7 Dec 28, 2010
northstardust wrote:
So? this does not make your information fact. You can provide links-I can provide links. This does not mean your info is valid or correct.
I will accept Deen as he has more knowledge, experience & expertise than you do.
Post away-I do not read your acres of rubbish & your sources are notoriously unreliable. Since you are here only to preach the nuclear gospel according to Entergy's denominational guidelines we have nothing to discuss.
Ummmm, my links wee to the US Fish & Wildlife Service; CT River Coordinator's office and The Vermont Fish & Wildlife Dept. The facts I posted are not my personal info. It is painfully obvious that you do not read other people's posts.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#8 Dec 28, 2010
NH citizen wrote:
Amazing - VT does not own the river - NH does. I say no to VT and let NH make the ruling if they desire.
The states are responsible for their own discharges.

If a company in VT is polluting the water, groundwater or river, they are subject to VT statutes & legislation, also federal. States can set their own guidelines. EPA has guidelines & enforce CWA.

NH owns the Conn. River between VT & NH & is responsible for bridge ownership & maintenance where the bridge goes between the states. The care of the river is a joint effort. EPA has jurisdiction.
http://www.epa.gov/ne/eco/vermont/index.html
Nancy Stardust

Fairlee, VT

#9 Dec 28, 2010
Vermont Supreme Court upholds discharge ruling
By Howard Weiss-Tisman Brattleboro Reformer, Vt.
Publication: Brattleboro Reformer (Vermont)
Date: Saturday, December 19 2009

"The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources first granted Yankee a permit to increase the temperature of the Connecticut River near the plant by one degree in 2004.

The Connecticut River Watershed Council appealed that decision to the state Environmental Court, which approved part of the ANR permit in May 2008.

The court allowed Yankee to raise the water temperature from July 8 to Oct. 14, but denied the power company from raising the temperature from June 16 to July 7.

The Connecticut River Watershed Council then appealed the Environmental Court's decision to the Supreme Court,

which ruled on Friday that the company could release the warmer water into the river.

"The temperature limit request we presented to state regulators was based on scientific, peer-reviewed data that was gathered on the river before the plant's operation," said Williams. "This will allow us to reduce electricity use on site and improve plant efficiency."

Williams said the company wanted to use its cooling towers less during the busy summer months, which would allow more electricity into the power supply while demand is high."
LOLZ

Springfield, MA

#10 Dec 28, 2010
NH Citizen, ha! Entergy employee you mean. Keep dancing, fool.
NH citizen wrote:
Amazing - VT does not own the river - NH does. I say no to VT and let NH make the ruling if they desire.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#11 Dec 28, 2010
Nancy Stardust wrote:
<quoted text>Ummmm, my links wee to the US Fish & Wildlife Service; CT River Coordinator's office and The Vermont Fish & Wildlife Dept. The facts I posted are not my personal info. It is painfully obvious that you do not read other people's posts.
I do not read posts which are routinely inaccurate & erroneous. There simply is not enough time to investigate every rabbit hole.

The topic is re VT making statutes regarding discharges.

Deen is the CRWC VT & NH rep & is extremely dedicated.

"The state’s Water Resources Board will soon be reviewing whether Vermont’s water anti-degradation procedure should become law.

In doing so, new standards could be written further limiting the temperature of water discharged into the Connecticut River by Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon."

This is a multi-state effort w/ea state having its own reps & level of involvement:
http://www.ctriver.org/about_us/history/index...
http://www.ctriver.org/about_us/staff/index.h...

Also from story:
"Vermont is one of the states authorized by the Environmental Protection Agency to issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, which control discharges into public waterways."

I did go to your link. Although that agency may have a particular purview, so do the other ones involved in the story.

I do not understand the entire puzzle.

What is overlapping is unclear, however state statutes must @ least adhere to EPA standards, though they can exceed them, in some cases it is also unclear which supercedes what which is why there are experts who do this for a living.

There may be alot of information & sources but it must pertain to & be relevant to the issue @ hand.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#12 Dec 28, 2010
Nancy Stardust wrote:
Vermont Supreme Court upholds discharge ruling
By Howard Weiss-Tisman Brattleboro Reformer, Vt.
Publication: Brattleboro Reformer (Vermont)
Date: Saturday, December 19 2009
"The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources first granted Yankee a permit to increase the temperature of the Connecticut River near the plant by one degree in 2004.
The Connecticut River Watershed Council appealed that decision to the state Environmental Court, which approved part of the ANR permit in May 2008.
The court allowed Yankee to raise the water temperature from July 8 to Oct. 14, but denied the power company from raising the temperature from June 16 to July 7.
The Connecticut River Watershed Council then appealed the Environmental Court's decision to the Supreme Court,
which ruled on Friday that the company could release the warmer water into the river.
"The temperature limit request we presented to state regulators was based on scientific, peer-reviewed data that was gathered on the river before the plant's operation," said Williams. "This will allow us to reduce electricity use on site and improve plant efficiency."
Williams said the company wanted to use its cooling towers less during the busy summer months, which would allow more electricity into the power supply while demand is high."
Your comment nothing new & is in the story. Unsure why you chose to repeat something that is not an issue.

That was then-this is now.

The region should not have to continue to subsidize Entergy's profitability. They should be using their cooling towers-that is what they are there for. Entergy took advantage of a hole in the legal process to accomplish raising the temp of the river.

Doing that which is in our jurisdiction to prevent damage to our ecosystems is up to us. In this case fish & shad population has suffered under Entergy's actions.

Lowering the water temperature & regulating discharge temperature is a step in enhancing our enforcement & causing Entergy to use its cooling towers instead of the river by statute making it law & then it becomes enforcable.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#13 Dec 28, 2010
A h o l e brings the censor stars? So much for algorithms.
I Know More Than You

Gilford, NH

#14 Dec 28, 2010
northstaridiot wrote:
I do not understand the entire puzzle.
You can say that again!
Nancy Stardust

Fairlee, VT

#15 Dec 28, 2010
Are these or are the these not your exact words northstardust?

"Good to see VT protecting our water quality since the nightmare of Douglas regime. VY has already destroyed the shad poplation." I was merely showing you an error in your original statement.
Nancy Stardust

Fairlee, VT

#16 Dec 28, 2010
northstardust wrote:
<quoted text>
Your comment nothing new & is in the story. Unsure why you chose to repeat something that is not an issue.
That was then-this is now.
The region should not have to continue to subsidize Entergy's profitability. They should be using their cooling towers-that is what they are there for. Entergy took advantage of **** in the legal process to accomplish raising the temp of the river.
Doing that which is in our jurisdiction to prevent damage to our ecosystems is up to us. In this case fish & shad population has suffered under Entergy's actions.
Lowering the water temperature & regulating discharge temperature is a step in enhancing our enforcement & causing Entergy to use its cooling towers instead of the river by statute making it law & then it becomes enforcable.
I chose to paste the 2009 article because you persist in posting false information.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#17 Dec 28, 2010
I Know More Than You wrote:
<quoted text>
You can say that again!
Meow!=<^.^>=

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#18 Dec 28, 2010
Nancy Stardust wrote:
Are these or are the these not your exact words northstardust?
"Good to see VT protecting our water quality since the nightmare of Douglas regime. VY has already destroyed the shad poplation." I was merely showing you an error in your original statement.
Oui. Au contraire! I do not think you have made your case. Ball in your court.

“figuresdontlie*l iarscanfigure”

Since: Feb 10

S. Londonderry VT

#19 Dec 28, 2010
Nancy Stardust wrote:
I chose to paste the 2009 article because you persist in posting false information.
Wrong again I Vote Vermont Yankee!

And another lie. As I said Mr Magoo, that was then-this is now.

There is *no question* re the ruling, but that VT is *NOW* taking steps to make the standard a statute, which will then become law, & guess what? Enforceable!

This is the issue despite your supposed ignorance.

The bs you continue to peddle, is that it was not statutory nor law!

Once again, you have failed. Keep trying. Yawn.
I Know More Than You

Gilford, NH

#20 Dec 28, 2010
northstaridiot wrote:
Oui. Au contraire! I do not think you have made your case. Ball in your court.
The Vermont Supreme Court just called, they also think you are an idiot and a liar.

Your (and Deen's) only hope is to politicize the process such that the actual science (which doesn't support your case) is ignored.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Vernon Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
like 1999 1 hr hahaha 7
Tectonic Shift (Dec '12) 1 hr Gott mit uns 478
God is coming SOON! (Apr '07) 2 hr ShotsnGoggles 139
Just another religious criminal 2 hr reality 94
When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Deny All H... (Mar '14) 2 hr reality 209
Feel the christian love 2 hr reality 6
Truth reason knowledge (Dec '12) 2 hr reality 636
Vernon Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Vernon People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]