Projo 7 to 7 News BlogTaking the news pulse of Rhode Island and Southeastern Massachusetts, by Providence Journal and projo.com staff, from 7 to 7, every business day |
|
Get the 7 to 7 on your mobile at www.projo.com. Twitter: projo | RSS | Email alerts
« PC's Hackey named R.I. 'Professor of the Year' |
Main
| DOA to hold hearing on regulations requiring E-Verify »
By John E. Mulligan WASHINGTON -- Several members of the Supreme Court agreed with environmentalists today that it's difficult, and perhaps impermissible, to weigh the value of an environmental rule directly against its economic cost -- ``a few baby clam larvae'' versus the dollars it would cost to save them, as Justice David H. Souter put it. But in arguments over a significant clean water case with ramifications for New England, the justices also appeared to agree with the electric power business that federal officials have to give some consideration to the price of the environmental regulations that they impose on industry -- especially when human health and lives are not at stake. The issue in today's case was how much consideration of cost is proper - and how can such cost concerns be fairly factored into the creation of environmental rules. The case stems from a dispute over the cooling system at the Indian Point nuclear power plant on the Hudson River in New York State. But its implications elsewhere are so great that Rhode Island and several other Northeastern States have joined environmentalists in fighting federal regulators who want to balance the environmental benefits of clean-water rules squarely against their cost - in this case, the cost to the electrical generating plant and its customers.
The Bush administration asked the high court to overturn a lower court ruling that would force the owners of Indian Point to build a costly new cooling system that, according to environmentalists, would greatly reduce damage to the river's marine life. Indian Point's owners, New Orleans-based Entergy, dispute the extent to which their plant harms fish populations in the surrounding waters. The case focuses on efforts by the Bush administration's Environmental Protection Agency to make it easier to weigh the cost of a regulation against its benefits. Tricia O'Hare Jedele, on hand at the hearing to represent Rhode Island as a special assistant attorney general, said the collapse of the flounder population in Mount Hope Bay is a vivid example of the damage that a power plant cooling system can do to the surrounding marine habitat. Environmentalists and commercial fishing interests blamed the cooling system in the generating plant at Brayton Point in Somerset, which kills some fish and their eggs by sucking huge amounts of water into the plant and sending it back into the bay at higher temperatures. About a year ago, Dominion Resources, the owners of Brayton Point, agreed to replace its old cooling system with two large cooling towers, settling a longstanding dispute with the EPA. The old mechanism, known as an open-cycle cooling system, cools the coal-fired electricity plant with as much as a billion gallons of water a day. Besides destroying and small fish in the action of the system, the plant may also drive away marine life by cycling the water back into the bay 30 degrees hotter. The new, ``closed cycle'' system will cut the water intake by 96 percent, using a pair of hourglass-shaped towers - similar in appearance to the signature towers at nuclear plants, and comparable in size to the 450-foot tall smokestacks that have long made Brayton Point a landmark on the region's horizon. Dominion's spokesman, Jim Norville, said the new system will cost the company about $500 million. Norville said the company's decision to build the new cooling towers was largely based on its desire conclude a dispute that it inherited when Dominion bought Brayton Point in 2005. Experts disagreed about the damage to the fish, he said, but ```we needed to get this behind us.'' The origins of the Brayton Point case predate by many years the Bush administration rule-making at issue in the Indian Point case, but both cases involve the issue of power plant cooling systems and the expense involved in limiting the damage they can do to fish. |
|
|
|
Leave a comment
Please be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish.