From moonbeam@atg1.com Sun Oct 7 16:30:08 2001
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 22:59:43 -0400
From: Marilyn Hamilton
To:
Subject: Engineers Explain Collapse of World Trade Towers
[ Part 1, Text/PLAIN (charset: ISO-8859-1 "Latin 1") 611 lines. ]
[ Unable to print this part. ]
[ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
THE GALLON ENVIRONMENT LETTER
506 Victoria Ave., Montreal, Quebec H3Y 2R5
Ph. (514) 369-0230, Fax (514)
369-3282
Email ggallon@pcstarnet.com
Vol. 5, No. 33, September 24,
2001
To be removed please hit "Reply", and type in "Remove Now" and
type in your
email address. Hit send.
**********************************************************************
ENGINEERS EXAMINE THE COLLAPSE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTRE'S TWO TOWERS
Why did the two World Trade Centre towers collapse like a house of cards
killing over 6,600 Americans and other nationalities after being hit by
planes a fraction of their size? The two 110-story towers were built to
withstand the collision of a Boeing 707 when built in 1973. First, let's
get the facts on the towers. The two towers in the financial district of
New York were 1,368 and 1,362 feet (417 and 415 meters) high. Owned by
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, they were designed by
Minoru Yamasaki, Emery Roth and Sons consulting and engineered by John
Skilling and Leslie Robertson of Worthington, Skilling, Helle and
Jackson. The twin towers were part of a seven-building complex that
covered eight city blocks. An 800 x 400-ft foundation box, 65-ft-deep and
with 3-ft-thick retaining walls, is under more than half the complex,
including the twin towers and the adjacent hotel. Each tower contained
about 100,000 tons of steel and 4 inches of concrete topping on the
40,000-sq-ft floors, according to Henry H. Deutch, assistant to the chief
structural engineer for construction manager Tishman Realty &
Construction Co. Inc., New York City. The twin towers, framed in
structural steel, had exterior moment frames with 14-inch steel box
columns spaced 39 inches on centre. The configuration created a complete
tube around the building. The central steel core carried gravity loads
only. The exterior tube provided all the lateral resistance. Horizontal
steel trusses spanned 60 feet from the exterior wall to the core.
Concrete on metal deck completed the floor diaphragm. Each 110-story
tower had a floor plate that was 208 feet by 208 feet. The central core
of each was 86-feet square. Around the perimeter of the buildings,
columns were spaced at 3'-3" on centre, with 48-inch deep plate girders
at each floor. At the third level, the columns transitioned in an
arch-like formation to a 10'-0" spacing for the lower story. Floors were
supported by steel trusses spanning 60 feet, from the core to the
perimeter wall, on each side of the building. The buildings are also
thought to have been the first buildings to use non-asbestos
fireproofing. The fibbers of the spray-on fireproofing product were
reportedly ceramic rather than asbestos. At the heart of the structure
was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and
stairwells. Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel uprights,
forming the building's outer wall. All the steel was covered in concrete
to guarantee firefighters a minimum period of one or two hours in which
they could operate - although aviation fuel would have driven the fire to
higher-than-normal temperatures. The floors were also concrete. The
building had to be tough enough to withstand not just the impact of a
plane - and the previous bomb attack in 1993 - but also of the enormous
structural pressures created by strong winds. See the full description at
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why .
******************************************************************
IT WAS THE FIRE THAT BUCKLED THE BUILDINGS: SAY ENGINEERS
"It was the fire that killed the buildings - nothing on Earth could
survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said
Structural engineer Chris Wise. Once the steel frame on one floor had
melted, it collapsed downwards, inflicting massive forces on the
already-weakened floor below. From then on, the collapse became
inevitable, as each new falling floor added to the downward forces.
Further down the building, even steel at normal temperatures gave way
under the enormous weight - an estimated 100,000 tonnes from the upper
floors alone. "It was as if the top of the building was acting like a
huge pile-driver, crashing down on to the floors underneath," said Chris
Wise. "Only the containment building at a nuclear power plant" is
designed to withstand such an impact and explosion, says Robert S.
Vecchio, principal of metallurgical engineer Lucius Pitkin Inc.,
referring to the hijacked Boeing 767 airplanes, heavy with fuel, that
slammed into each WTC tower. As the fires burned, the structural steel on
the breached floors and above would have softened and warped because of
the intense heat, say sources. Fireproofed steel is only rated to resist
1,500 to 1,600° F. As the structure warped and weakened at the top of
each tower, the frame, along with concrete slabs, furniture, file
cabinets, and other materials, became an enormous, consolidated weight
that eventually crushed the lower portions of the frame below. When the
stability was lost, the exterior columns buckled outward, allowing the
floors above to drop down onto floors below, overloading and failing each
one as it went down, he says. The good thing is that the two towers of
the World Trade Centre, one stood for one hour and the other stood for
one and three-quarter hours after impact. The American Institute of Steel
Construction, Inc. (AISC) has contacted FEMA and the leading structural
engineering associations and is forming a special task force to
investigate the structural collapses of the World Trade Center buildings
resulting from the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. What is of
some concern is the fact that newer skyscrapers in the United States and
elsewhere were constructed using cheaper methods and would collapse even
quicker. See the full analysis at
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why .
******************************************************************************<
xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/>
GIVE TO THE SUPPORT EFFORT FOR VICTIMS OF WTC
The crashing of the three U.S. airline planes into the World Trade Centre
and the Pentagon was a terrible tragedy carried out by unscrupulous
people. We support the efforts to catch them and bring them to justice.
We also ask that you give to the funds for supporting the victims of the
tragedy. For example, you can give to the special fund at the American
Red Cross. To help provide support for people in need following this
disaster as well as emerging human needs resulting from this tragedy,
contributions can be made to the American Red Cross by calling 1-800-HELP
NOW or 1-800-257-7575 (Spanish). Contributions may also be sent to your
local American Red Cross chapter or to the American Red Cross, P.O. Box
37243, Washington, DC 20013. Internet users can make a secure online
credit card contribution by visiting http://www.redcross.org .
*******************************************************************************
*
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MONITORING HAZARDOUS AIR AND WATER
AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTRE DISASTER
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the Department of
Labour's Occupational Health and Safety Administration today announced
that the majority of air and dust samples monitored at the crash site and
in Lower Manhattan do not indicate levels of concern for asbestos. The
new samples confirm previous reports that ambient air quality meets OSHA
standards and consequently is not a cause for public concern. New OSHA
data also indicates that indoor air quality in downtown buildings will
meet standards. The original WTC North Tower may have contained asbestos
in its cementitious fireproofing as did the first 30 stories of the WTC
South Tower. Some or all of this asbestos may have been removed after the
1993 bombing. EPA has found variable asbestos levels in bulk debris and
dust on the ground, but EPA continues to believe that there is no
significant health risk to the general public. Air Samples taken on
September 13, 2001, inside buildings in New York's financial district
were negative for asbestos. Debris samples collected outside buildings on
cars and other surfaces contained small percentages of asbestos, ranging
from 2.1 to 3.3 - slightly above the 1 percent trigger for defining a
hazard of asbestos material in the air. "EPA will be deploying 16 vacuum
trucks this weekend in an effort to remove as much of the dust and debris
as possible from the site where the samples were obtained," said EPA
Administrator Christie Whitman. "In addition, we will be moving six
continuous air monitoring stations into the area. We will put five near
ground zero and one on Canal Street. The good news continues to be that
the air samples we have taken have all been at levels that cause us no
concern." HEPA (Highly Efficient Particulate Air) filter vacuum truck at
work outside New York Stock Exchange. EPA brought ten of these 3,000
gallon capacity trucks into lower Manhattan to help safely clean streets,
vehicles and buildings of potentially hazardous dust. HEPA filters are
capable of capturing small particles including asbestos fibbers. The dust
and other materials are collected in air tight storage containers which
are part of the truck design. Collected material is off-loaded at two
city transfer stations.
Also, EPA Administrator Christie Whitman reported that the most detailed
results to date of on-going monitoring of drinking water in New York City
provide additional reassurance that city residents are not being exposed
to dangerous contaminants including asbestos, radiation, mercury and
other metals, pesticides, PCBs and bacteria. Results we have just
received on drinking water quality show that not only is asbestos not
detectable, but also we can not detect any bacterial contamination, PCBs
or pesticides. Thus far a total of 13 drinking water samples have been
taken from water mains in lower Manhattan. In addition to analyzing the
samples for asbestos, pesticides and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls,
which are mixtures of synthetic organic chemicals), EPA has also tested
drinking water for metals (including mercury), and radioactivity (both
alpha and beta). None of these contaminants exceeded EPA drinking water
standards. Also the EPA has taken samples at the Newtown Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant, where runoff from lower Manhattan goes for treatment, to
identify what sort of materials are leaving the disaster site and running
into the surrounding waterways. Source,
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/headline_091601.htm .
***************************************************************************
U.S. MILITARY COULD BECOME MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT, AND THEREFORE MORE
EFFICIENT
As the U.S. military gears up to fight terrorists, a new Department of
Defence (DOD) study finds that the military is burdened and made much
less efficient because of terrible fuel guzzling problems with many of
its units including tanks and fighter planes. The report entitled, "More
Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel Burden," said that with some
simple technological changes towards fuel efficiencies the military not
only would carry out its duties more efficiently but would conserve
finite supplies of fossil fuels and better protect the environment
including reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the Abrams
tank which lumbered through the deserts of Iraq during the Gulf War
achieves only 0.2 miles per gallon. During the 6-month deployment before
the Persian Gulf War, 70 per cent of the total tonnage shipped was fuel.
The Army Research Lab concluded that if the Abrams tank had been 50 per
cent more fuel efficient - and the technology exists today to make it so
- the set-up time for the Gulf War would have been reduced by a full
month and the tank's range would have doubled.
The US military spent $3.6 billion for 4.4 billion gallons of fuel in the
fiscal year ended September 2000, but that was only a tiny portion of the
fuel bill. Far more money was spent on fuel delivery. The Defence
Department sells fuel to the military at a set price of $1.01 per gallon.
The Air Force, the military's largest consumer of fuel, consumes 2
billion gallons a year. However, the cost of fuel delivered jumps from
$1.01 per gallon to $13 per gallon when you factor in the cost of
delivering the fuel to the military equipment in the field. As a result
of not understanding this, the US Congress voted in 1997 against
installing more energy efficient engines in the B-52H bombers because
they only calculated a $400 million fuel savings (at $1.01 per gallon)
over the 40-year lifetime of the fleet. They were not given the full cost
accounting. Had they received it, they would have learned that the cost
of the fuel plus its delivery costs to the B-52H bombers would have been
$1.7 billion. Plus, they weren't told that with the new fuel efficient
jet engines the Air Force could remove 55 refuelling tankers saving an
additional $154 million annually, or $6 billion over the fleet's 40-year
lifetime. The benefits continue. The 55 tanker planes could have been
moved over to supply the new F-22 Stealth bomber fleet, eliminating the
need to buy 55 new tanker planes. Overall, the task force found potential
savings of US $9 billion if Congress had voted in 1997 to spend the money
to put new fuel-efficient engines in the B-52H bombers. Also, the report
found that the range of many weapons is limited by the capacity of their
fuel tanks, and efforts to resupply them create a military Achilles'
heel. The military "overlooked the substantial performance gains that can
also be achieved through energy efficiencies, including greater range,
lighter weight systems, and reduced combat vulnerability." Source: "The
Most Fuel Efficient That You Can Be," by Janet Ginsburg, Business Week
Magazine, September 3, 2001.
***********************************************************************
THE PACIFIC ISLAND, TUVALU, COVERED BY RISING OCEAN: CLIMATE CHANGE
Ten thousand people, Tuvalu's entire population, are packing their bags
as their homes among nine low?level atolls are being swallowed by the
rising sea in the South Pacific Ocean. The earth is warming, sea levels
are rising, and Tuvalu is quietly being erased from the surface of the
Earth. Leo Falcam, president of the Federated States of Micronesia, made
an impassioned plea to senior policy leaders in Hawaii last week to
create policies that will curb global warming. He cautioned that the
Pacific Islanders' "early experience with real consequences of global
warming has been considered analogous to the canary in the coal mine --
providing an early warning to the global community of its own impending
doom." The Tuvalu islands are only the first casualties of climate
change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), predicts a
50-cm to one-meter rise in sea levels over the next century. A rise of
one meter would place 17.5 percent of Bangladesh, 6 percent of the
Netherlands, and 80 percent of Atoll Majuro of the Marshall Islands under
water, according to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCC). Low?lying coastal zones of developed countries and
small islands could also be seriously affected. The 1.4 to 5.8-degree
centigrade rise over the next century will also increase flooding, the
intensity of storms, and droughts in Asia and Africa. Climate change is
not a future concern; it is an immediate national security threat. A
Diaspora of a people is being created. It is difficult to understand what
this means. The Tuvalu people need to build new lives in a new land.
Source: "Tuvalu: First Casualty of Climate Change," by Eun Jung Cahill
Che, The Japan Times, Tokyo, August 2001.
********************************************************************
WINDPOWER BECOMING AS CHEAP AS COAL-FIRED ELECTRICITY
Wind power will soon be cheaper than coal and could become a leading
source of electricity with the right political support and investment,
according Stanford University engineers. They calculated that building
some 225,000 wind turbines across the United States would be expensive --
at an initial cost of $338 billion -- but that the payback would include
a huge drop in emissions tied to global warming, a reduction in the
destructive practices of coal mining, and provide new competitive
advantages in clean technology. Writing in the journal Science, the team
calculated that wind?generated energy would cost 3 to 4 cents per
kilowatt-hour, the same price as coal-fired electricity. However, when
you factor in associated costs of coal power including environmental and
structural damage done by acid gases and soot and pollution fallout, the
real cost of coal power moves closer to 5.5 cents to 8.3 cents per
kilowatt hour, the engineers calculated. Source, MSNBC.COM, August 24,
2001. See the feature at http://www.msnbc.com/news/617631.asp. Also see
"US Researchers Argue for Harnessing Wind Power From Planet Ark" at the
website
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/12147/story.htm .
*************************************************************************
SPECTROLAB, CALIFORNIA, DEVELOPS NEW SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC TECHNOLOGY
A solar PV cell that uses concentrators is among the year's 100 most
significant technologies selected by Research & Development Magazine. The
cell was designed and built by Spectrolab, Inc., and its efficiency in
converting sunlight into electricity provides the cell with the potential
to be competitive with conventional electricity generation technologies
in the future. The triple-junction terrestrial concentrator solar cell
has achieved a record conversion efficiency of 34 percent in laboratory
tests, which makes it the first to exceed the goal of the U.S. Department
of Energy's (DOE) 'One-Third-of-a-Sun' initiative. The solar cell employs
a three-layered structure that is effective in capturing and converting
solar spectrum. Each of the three junctions captures and converts a
different portion of the solar spectrum. Spectrolab, a Los Angeles
company that was bought by Boeing last year, has already received an
order from Arizona Public Service, the state's largest electric utility,
for 140 kilowatts of terrestrial concentrator receivers using
triple-junction solar cells. Spectrolab shares the magazine's award with
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), DOE's premier laboratory
for renewable energy research. The two groups applied jointly for the
award and have collaborated on advanced solar cell technologies since the
mid-1990s. NREL validated the 34 percent efficiency of the Spectrolab
solar cells. Another key feature of the solar cells is their ability to
withstand the energy of highly concentrated sunlight. Using concentrated
sunlight reduces the number of cells needed to generate power, which
lowers the cost per watt represented by solar cells. At 400 suns
concentration and with megawatt?scale production, officials estimate the
PV cells could be manufactured for less than US $1 per watt. In
addition, the capability of Spectrolab's cells to operate at higher solar
concentrations allows for further cost reduction, approaching 50 cents
per watt. This has the potential to make such concentrator systems
cost-competitive with conventional power generation.
http://www.spectrolab.com. Source: "Solar Cell Receives Prestigious
Award," Los Angeles, August 28, 2001, from http://www.solaraccess.com .
**************************************************************************
AUSTRALIA OPENS HUGE WINDFARM IN SOUTHWEST VICTORIA
The largest and first non-government windfarm in Australia has been
officially opened, after less than a year of construction. The
Codrington windfarm near Port Fairy in southwest Victoria, has 14
turbines, each of 1.3 megawatts, generating electricity for 14,000 homes.
The facility will abate 76,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum through
the generation of renewable energy in a country where coal and gas-fired
generation is the main source of power. With a combined capacity of 18.2
MW and total capital cost of AUS $33 million, the Codrington windfarm was
developed by Pacific Hydro after extensive consultation with local
council, land holders, environmental groups and other local stakeholders.
The company is completing another environmental statement for a further
four?site windfarm in the Portland region, to generate another 150 MW.
This new facility may begin construction inside of 12 months and again
take only about a year to build. The growing interest in cleaner energy
sources and the roaring forties wind pattern along Australia's south
coast, offers a major opportunity for wind power generation in at least
three of Australia's states. Pacific Hydro is launching a Blue Wind
Energy brand for marketing its renewable energy production through
electricity retailers. The Australian government has ruled that, by
2010, retailers must find an extra 9,500-gigawatt hours of electricity
from renewable energy, driving an increased demand for alternative power
supplies. Visit the website http://www.pacifichydro.com.au. Source:
"Roaring Forties Power Up Australian Windfarm Industry," Codrington,
Victoria, Australia, August 28, 2001, by http://www.solaraccess.com .
**************************************************************************
EMISSIONS MARKETING ASSOCIATION TO HOLD ANNUAL MEETING, SEPTEMBER 30,
2001 IN SOUTH CAROLINA
The Emissions Marketing Association (EMA), a not-for-profit international
membership organisation, is promoting market?based trading solutions air
pollution and greenhouse gas credits. The EMA is hosting its 5th Annual
Fall Meeting & International Conference to provide education, training,
and information exchange for members and the emissions trading community.
The Fall Meeting & International Conference will take place from
September 30 to October 2, 2001 in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina,
USA. This meeting marks the return of "Emissions Trading 101", a
pre-conference session geared towards those new to the industry and for
those looking to expand their focus in the air emissions trading
industry. The Fall Meeting, which begins October 1, 2001, will include a
dual-track program format for you to choose which sessions to attend.
Some of the topics that will be addressed include: Linkages Between
Energy & Climate Policy, Perspective On What To Expect At COP-7,
Voluntary CO2 Commitments/ GHG Trading Pilots, NOx and SO2 Emissions
Trading Trends, etc. There will also be a Poster Session with
opportunities to meet the authors throughout the meeting and an exhibit
hall with vendors of emissions trading products and services. For more
information contact David Feldner, EMA Executive Director, email
dfeldner@emissions.org, phone (414) 276-3819, fax (414) 276-3349,
Emissions Marketing Association, 611 East Wells Street, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin 53202. Go to the EMA website at http://www.emissions.org for
all of the EMA Fall Meeting and International Conference information.
**************************************************************************
NUCLEAR POWER LARGE ENERGY CONSUMER; CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE CREATES
GREENHOUSE GASES
Anti-nuclear advocate, Helen Caldicott, reports that a nuclear plant must
operate for 18 years before it is able to produce one net calorie of
energy. She reports that the mining, milling and manufacturing of nuclear
fuel for reactors is energy intensive, and creates significant carbon
dioxide emissions during these phases. Add to that the heavy energy
demands for cooling and maintaining nuclear fuel rods both in the reactor
and in the spent fuel storage pools, the energy demands grow
substantially. She stated that "among the many departures from the truth
by opponents of the Kyoto protocol, one of the most invidious is that
nuclear power is "clean" and, therefore, the answer to global warming."
She warned about the proposal from Australia's Environment Minister,
Senator Hill, who proposed the idea that developing countries should be
encouraged to take the clean nuclear route to limiting greenhouse gases ?
thereby becoming customers for Australian uranium. She states that
enormous quantities of fossil fuel are used to mine, mill and enrich the
uranium needed to fuel a nuclear power plant, as well as to construct the
enormous concrete reactor itself. During the 1970s the US deployed seven
huge 1,000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which themselves pumped out
hundreds of thousands of tons of greenhouse gases, to enrich its uranium
and it is still using coal to enrich much of the world's uranium. So, to
recoup the equivalent of the amount of fossil fuel used in preparation
and construction before the first switch is thrown to initiate nuclear
fission, the plant must operate for almost two decades. But that is not
the end of fossil fuel use because disassembling nuclear plants at the
end of their 30 to 40 year operating life will require yet more vast
quantities of energy. Taking apart, piece by radioactive piece, a nuclear
reactor and its surrounding infrastructure is a massive, energy-intensive
operation. She said, "Imagine, for example, the amount of petrol, diesel
and electricity that would be used if the Sydney Opera House were to be
dismantled. That's the scale we're talking about. And that is not the end
of fossil use because much will also be required for the final transport
and long?term storage of nuclear waste generated by every reactor." Dr
Helen Caldicott is the founding president of Physicians for Social
Responsibility. See their website at http://www.psr.org and the website
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0827?02.htm. "Caldicott: Nuclear
Plant Must Operate for 18 Years Before Producing One Net Calorie of
Energy," by Helen Caldicott, August 27, 2001 in the Sydney Morning
Herald, website http://www.smh.com.au/index.html.
*******************************************************************
CHINA GETTING INTO THE SOLAR ENERGY BUSINESS
Surf the Internet and you will find several companies in China beginning
to sell solar energy systems as solutions to climate change. One of
these companies is Suntopway Solar Co. Ltd. It calls itself a leading
manufacturer and exporter of full range of solar products in China. They
offer solar home power system, solar panels, solar lanterns, solar garden
lights, solar radios, solar torch, and solar home lighting kits. For
more information contact Sam Hua, Sales Manager, Shenzhen Topway Solar
Co., Ltd., Suntopway Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., 10L,Western Coast
Mansion, Nanyou Dadao, Shenzhen, China, Tel: 6070440; 6070402; 6490200;
6490201 Fax:+86-755-6070222;6402722, email samsolar@21cn.com. Visit their
website http://www.suntopway.com.
****************************************************************************
EARTH TECHNOLOGIES FORUM ON CLIMATE CHANGE, MARCH 2002 IN WASHINGTON,
D.C.
The Earth Technologies Forum (ETF), the pre-eminent conference and
exhibition on global climate change and ozone protection technologies and
policies, will be held March 25 - 27, 2002 at the Hyatt Regency on
Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C. A Call for Papers is available now at
http://www.earthforum.com. The conference is sponsored by the
International Climate Change Partnership (ICCP) and the Alliance for
Responsible Atmospheric Policy in co-operation with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Agency
for International Development, United Nations Environment Programme,
United Nations Development Programme, Environment Canada, Industry
Canada, Australian Greenhouse Office, Netherlands' Reduction Plan for the
Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases, and the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, as well as over 80 industry groups. The conference will
provide an opportunity for discussion of current technologies and efforts
to bring them into the marketplace. One of the main features of the
conference will be an exhibition of climate and ozone-friendly
technologies and programs. For a copy of the Call for Papers or
additional information, please call ETF at (703) 807-4052. You may also
check the Forum's home page at http://www.earthforum.com, or e?mail them
at earthforum@alcalde?fay.com.
***********************************************************************
JEB BUSH ANNOUNCES WATER CRISIS IN FLORIDA
Governor Jeb Bush announced that the State of Florida has a serious
drinking water shortage. The population of 16 million people relies on
groundwater for 93 per cent of their drinking water. With additional
fresh water no longer available, Florida is planning to supply its
growing drinking water demand with the construction of desalinisation
plants that will process less salty water from brackish aquifers (as
opposed to the saltier ocean water). The desal plants will use either
electrodialysis (electricity) or a pressure driven reverse osmosis. This
RO filtration process incorporates semi-permeable membranes to remove
salts, calcium, and other undesirable dissolved products to produce
potable drinking water. Currently there are 127 membrane plants listed by
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) using reverse
osmosis (RO) desalination; most are in south Florida. "Florida is the
leading source of desalination membrane plants in the world," says Dr.
Steven J. Duranceau, Director of Water Quality and Treatment, Boyle
Engineering Corp. a leading designer of desalinisation plants in
Florida. "This is a huge market for membrane use being driven by
stringent disinfection regulations, coastal saltwater intrusion, and
stressed shallow underground sources of drinking water (USDW) supplies,"
says Dr. Duranceau. Sources of drinking water are at record low levels
stressed by unfettered permitted growth and a four-year drought.
Throughout south Florida overuse of aquifer supplies by expanding
communities has aggravated saltwater intrusion into drinking water
aquifers requiring expensive well relocations and desalination plant
use. Source, "Florida Turns to Membrane Filtration Plants to Provide
Unfettered Growth for Drinking Water, researched and written by Donald
Sutherland, June 6, 2001. Visit the website
http://www.watermakers.com/how.htm. Also see
http://www.boyleengineering.com/index_ie.htm. And see the website
http://fl.water.usgs.gov/Water_data/miami_drought.html#Current
*************************************************************************
DESALINIZATION PLANT CONSTRUCTION IN FLORIDA GROWS
The US Geological Survey reports of saline ground water (desal/ro &
blended) as a source of public supply in Florida show a jump from 17.3
million gallons per day (mgd) in 1985 to 75.1 mgd in 1998 (out of a total
2,275.4 mgd overall water use in 1998). The City of Cape Coral, Florida,
on the Gulf Coast (where population has risen from 12,000 to 85,000 in 25
years) is almost entirely dependent on desalinated water for drinking
water and has one of the biggest desal plants in the state with a 15 mgd
capacity. In Sarasota County, the largest municipal water treatment
facility of its type in the world using Ionics' Electrodialysis Reversal
(EDR) was commissioned in 1995 to demineralize the brackish well water to
drinking water standards and produces over 12 mgd. Rapidly growing
coastal communities of Jupiter, Melbourne, Hollywood, Cape Coral, Naples,
Fort Myers, Carlton, Dunedin, Marco Island, Sanibel, Palm Coast, and Pine
Island have constructed plants in the last 10 years with a total capacity
of 145.6 mgd. Sarasota, Collier, Palm Beach, and Indian River Counties
are also expanding their RO/Desal plants. "The big issue is finding
alternatives and enacting stricter conservation measures, a politically
tough act," says Marella. "There is a lot of pressure being put on
growth management with water resources," says Bart Weiss, Senior Project
Manager for the Resource Conservation and Development Department of the
South West Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). Increasing
existing inland wellfield use to supply booming coastal community use is
hotly contested under the Local Sources First legislation that governs
moving water across county lines. "Removal of water from existing inland
wellfields is conditional the withdrawal won't cause saltwater intrusion,
harm the environment and hurt others ability to withdraw water," says
Michael Molligan, communications & community affairs manager for SWFWMD.
Based on the SWFWMD agreement with three counties in the Tampa Bay area,
the largest desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere is planned to be
built and operated in Tampa by December 2002 at an estimated cost of $74
million dollars by Poseidon Resources Corporation and Covanta Energy
Corp. Poseidon Resources, a leading developer of water projects is
headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. The Tampa Bay Water officials
say the project will provide 25 mgd, meeting roughly one-tenth of the
drinking water needs of the city and the surrounding counties.
"Estimating desal plant costs is difficult with smaller plant operations
costing more per gallon then large plants but Florida's desal treated
water capacity is currently about 230 million gallons per day with costs
ranging from $2?$3 per gallon," says Dr. Duranceau. "Desalination plants
have capacity limits and they will process only a small percentage of the
needed potable drinking water in the state," says Morella. Source:
"Florida Turns to Membrane Filtration Plants to Provide Unfettered Growth
for Drinking Water, researched and written by Donald Sutherland, June 6,
2001. Visit the websites http://www.pepps.fsu.edu/safe/environ/wqn4.html
and http://fl?water.usgs.gov/. Also see the website
http://www.ionics.com/Markets/municipalities/sarasota.htm, and
http://www.covantaenergy.com; www.tampabaydesal.com.
***************************************************************
CHEVRON ORDERED TO PAY $2 MILLION POLLUTION FINE IN LOUISIANA
Chevron Corp. must pay at least US $2 million to compensate landowners
for oil waste damage at an11?acre, unlined pit in southwestern Louisiana,
a jury ruled. The plaintiffs, Hazelwood Farms Inc. of Opelousas,
Louisiana, had sought up to $80 million in compensation and punitive
damages for pollution associated with oil production on land it has
leased since 1926 to Gulf Oil Corp. which was bought by Chevron in 1984.
Instead, Chevron was ordered to pay only for damages related to pollution
left behind until 1957, when Gulf began to sublease the land to other
smaller, independent oil companies. ''The jury verdict was fair and
reasonable,'' said Chevron lawyer Stephen Carleton, adding, ''We had
always said we would stand responsible for any damages attributable to
Gulf during the time frame suggested.'' Most of the companies which
leased the land from Gulf or Chevron have since declared bankruptcy or
are out of business. Three of them, International Petroleum and
Exploration Inc., Liberty Oil and Gas Inc. and Meyers?Lasher Inc., agreed
in separate smaller settlements to clean up their portions of the
damage. Hazelwood lawyer Stuart Smith said, ''The jury sent clear
message that it doesn't matter how long ago oil companies dumped
pollution and walked away from it, they're still going to have to pay."
Because the lawsuit stems from an alleged breach of a 1997 agreement by
Chevron to clean up the property, the final payout, with interest, is
expected to be closer to $3 million, Smith said. Source: "Chevron
Ordered to Pay $2 Million for Oil Waste Cleanup," by Brett Martel,
Associated Press, August 29, 2001.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Copyright (c) 2001
Canadian Institute
for Business and the
Environment,
Montreal & Toronto
All
rights reserved.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx