The UCLA study highlights the inadequacies of decades-old infrastructure in the Golden State that were “designed for theclimate of the past and not for the rapidly changing climate of the future,” Climate Signals notes.
“Ourbig dams were designedto capture smaller floods than what we expect in the future,” said Daniel Swain, a UCLA climate scientist and lead author of an earlier study on California’sclimate-related weather extremes. “We can make some changes on the margins, but these structures were built for a climate that we no longer have.”
“The Klamath River project will be the most significant dam removal and river restoration effort yet. Never before have four dams of this size been removed at once which inundate as many miles of habitat (4 square miles and 15 miles of river length), involving this magnitude of budget (approximately $397 million) and infrastructure.
But perhaps more important than the size of the dams is the amount of collaboration and the decades of hard work that have made this project possible. American Rivers has been fighting to remove the dams since 2000. And thanks to the combined efforts of the Karuk and Yurok tribes, irrigators, commercial fishing interests, conservationists, and many others, our goal of a free-flowing river is now within reach.”
Biggest dam removal ever! Klamath was largest salmon producer until dams interrupted reproduction cycles.
The first shipment of highly radioactive sludge left an annex at the Hanford nuclear reservation’s K West Reactor Basin, which is near the Columbia River, at about 10:30 a.m. Monday. It was taken to central Hanford for storage away from the river.
“What is usually referred to as nuclear waste is used nuclear fuel in the shape of rods about 12 feet long. For four and a half years, the uranium atoms that comprise the fuel rods are split apart to give off the heat that turns water into steam to spin turbines to make electricity. After that, nuclear plant workers move the used fuel rods into pools of water to cool.”
Mr. Zinke said he had little interest in the governor’s job, and believed his next step would involve floating down a lot of rivers, learning how fly-fish better, and “being helpful to groom and advise the next generation of conservationists.”
Jack Begg contributed research.
Follow Julie Turkewitz on Twitter @julieturkewitz.
There seems to be a lack of consistent principles behind Mr. Zinke’s DOE strategy.
The EPA thinks the best choice is alternative 4. The plan calls for about 70% of the waste would be removed from the site by digging down 16 feet deep. Then a permanent cap would be placed on the area. It would cost about $246 million and take 5-years to implement.
Many residents said a partial removal is only a partial solution and when over 1,000 residents were asked during the meeting who would like alternative 4 not one person raised their hand.
5 years to fully implement at an estimated cost of $236,000,000. The EPA has identified this preferred
alternative over 7 others that were evaluated in the RIA/FFS — including no action, two cap-in-place
alternatives, and five excavation alternatives — each of which is described in greater detail below. The EPA
believes that this preferred alternative is protective and represents the best balance of the criteria prescribed
by the CERCLA, as amended, and the NCP.
The EPA is issuing this proposal as part of its public participation responsibilities under Section 117 of CERCLA
and 40 C.F.R. 300.435(c)(2) of the NCP. This proposal is intended to inform the community of the EPA’s
preferred alternative and to solicit public comments relating to the remedial alternatives evaluated, including
the preferred alternative. The final decision to amend the ROD will be made after consideration of the
comments received and any new information raised during the public comment period. Therefore, the public
is encouraged to review and provide comment on all remedial alternatives.
The Administrative Record file, including the RIA/FFS reports, is available on the EPA’s website at https://
semspub.epa.gov/src/collections/07/AR/MOD079900932. The EPA encourages members of the public to
review these documents to obtain facts about the Site and the activities that have been conducted as part of
the Superfund process.
The West Lake Landfill Superfund
Site is an approximately 200-acre,
inactive solid waste disposal
facility located in Bridgeton,
Missouri (Figure 1). T
39,000 tons of (potentially
contaminated) surface soil
8,700 tons of
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), as successor to
the AEC, performed and/or
commissioned multiple site