From environmental concerns with siting to the lack of consistent permitting regulations, there are major challenges involved in developing wind energy resources in the Great Lakes region. Onshore wind development is beginning to expand at a rapid pace and plans for offshore wind turbines in the lakes are proceeding amidst a flurry of issues, and setting new precedents for in-lake turbines.

Formed in May, 2008, The Great Lakes Wind Collaborative (GLWC) is a group established to build consensus and identify and address issues affecting the safe planning, development, and operation of wind power facilities in the Great Lakes region. The group acts as a forum for dialogue and an opportunity to exchange information the sustainable development of wind power in the region.

GLWC members include representatives from a broad spectrum of interests throughout the Great Lakes region, from state, provincial and federal regulators to industry and NGOs. Great Lakes United is serving the coalition as a member of the Steering Committee. Anyone can join the GLWC and receive updates on the group’s work and meetings by signing at www.glc.org/energy/wind/

Watch for information on the GLWC’s 2nd Annual Meeting slated to take place the second week of June in Milwaukee, WI. For more information please visit the GLC website, or contact: John Hummer or Victoria Pebbles, Great Lakes Commission, jhummer@glc.org, vpebbles@glc.org, 734-971-9135.

“Seaway acts to flush Great Lakes invaders”
– Muskegon Chronicle, May 6, 2008

After years of watching new invasive species arrive in the ballast tanks of ocean ships, the St. Lawrence Seaway has finally put in place measures to address ships that arrive in the Great Lakes with “no ballast on board” but still harboring residual water—and invaders—at the bottom of their tanks. In addition to ballasted ships flushing their tanks out in the open sea, these ships are now also required to flush, killing or purging many invaders that may be lurking. While this is not an 100% effective measure, and we must continue to press towards ships meeting national discharge standards, it represents a significant step forward in protecting the Great Lakes.

“IJC abandons gutless plan for dam”
– Great Lakes News, online edition, September 18, 2008

Activists from across the region rallied to prevent the International Joint Commission from implementing a management plan for the Moses-Saunders Dam that would have damaging effects on coastal habitat. “Plan 2007” would maintain the status quo for managing Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River levels. American Rivers has suggested that these management practices have made the St. Lawrence one of America’s most threatened rivers. The IJC is now working on a broader, more inclusive, process for developing a water levels plan that would benefit the environment after suffering 50 years of damage.

“Montreal Selects New Sewage Treatment Technology”

On January 30, 2008, the city of Montreal announced that, after years of study, ozone will be the disinfection technology implemented at its sewage treatment plant. According to the Mayor of Montreal, Gérald Tremblay, it is a big step forward in improving the water quality of the St. Lawrence River and for the benefit of Montrealers and residents downstream.

The ozone technology meets the requirements of Montreal wastewater, in addition to dealing with emerging substances. The Montréal sewage treatment plant treats 2.5 million cubic meters of water daily, about 50 per cent of all wastewater in Quebec. From the perspective of sustainability, this disinfection process takes into account the elimination of viruses and bacteria, emerging new compounds, including pharmaceuticals and surfactants (detergents).

“Congress Passes Great Lakes Legacy Act”
–Targeted News Service, October 1, 2008

Before adjourning for the fall, Congress reauthorized the Great Lakes Legacy Act, providing $54 million per year to clean up toxic pollution across the region. Funding from the legislation is being used to clean up such pollution as contaminated sediments Indiana’s Grand Calumet River (an Area of Concern) and Milwaukee’s Kinnickinnic River.

Congress passes historic Great Lakes protection
– Great Lakes News, online edition, September 23, 2008

After seven years of negotiating the agreements and passing them in the eight Great Lakes states, Ontario, and Quebec, the Great Lakes Compact and its sister international agreement became law this fall. The agreements represent the strongest protections in Great Lakes history against harmful diversions and introduce strict conservation standards for the regions most wasteful water users.

“Minnesota Voters in 2008 Approve $5.5 Billion to Protect Land and Water”
Marketwatch, November 5, 2008

The Clean Water, Wildlife and Cultural Heritage and Natural Area amendment to Minnesota’s constitution was passed on November 4, raising $300 million every year for 25 years. The funds will go toward cleaning up polluted waters and lands, establishing conservation easements, and other projects to ensure a environmental legacy for future Minnesotans.

Activists across Canada and the world have derided the environmental devastation that oil sands development is causing to northern Alberta. However, with up to 17 projects planned or underway in the Great Lakes region that seek to increase refining capabilities to process Alberta oil, the Great Lakes will not be immune to the ecological damage that development of the oil sands is wreaking.

Earlier this fall the Munk Centre at the University of Toronto released a report summarizing the various proposals across the region, and exploring the environmental toll expansion will present to the Great Lakes.

According to David Israelson, the report’s author, “[expansion] would add exponentially to emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and water pollution.”

In Alberta, the oil that is extracted is a thick, tar-like substance called bitumen. The bitumen is mixed with sand making it an expensive, energy and water intensive process for separating and refining. These demands make bitumen crude one of the dirtiest oils in the word to produce.

Among the expansion plans investigated is that of British Petroleum’s (BP) facility in Whiting, India. The expansion would increase motor fuels production by 12 million gallons a week. As a result, pollution discharges—toxic sludge and ammonia —would increase by 35 and 45 per cent, respectively.

After a public outcry, with tens of thousands of individuals signing a petition in opposition to the permit, a resolution was passed in the U.S. House of Representatives asking Indiana to reconsider the permit they had granted to BP. After the resolution passed overwhelmingly, BP committed to upgrading the refinery in such a way that would keep pollution discharges at current levels. To date, no such technology exists.

Across the region, falling energy prices and a struggling economy have put expansion plans on hold for now. However, should the economy recover and oil prices rise again, many of these plans could see light.

In Superior, Wisconsin, activists are relieved that Murphy Oil’s $6.2 billion expansion was shelved. The project would have increased the refining capacity of the plant by nearly six times, allowing it to process over 200,000 barrels a day.

The plant was built in 1951 and currently processes 35,000 barrels of crude oil per day. According to the Zenith City Weekly, the refinery is struggling to compete with larger facilities, and is contemplating whether it is viable to continue operating.

The expansion would threaten 300 to 500 acres of Lake Superior wetlands, while withdrawing 5 million gallons of Lake Superior water every day and increasing its energy consumption 12 times.

“We hope that this plan doesn’t come back. It would risk wetlands, migratory birds and the future health of Lake Superior,” said Melissa Malott, water program director for Clean Wisconsin.

Andrew Nikiforuk, author of Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent, writes that the expansion would be “the largest wetlands filling in Wisconsin since the passage of the U.S. Clean Water Act of 1972.”

Any expansion of refining capacity means building a pipeline system to move the oil. Enbridge, one of Canada’s largest energy companies, will likely control much of the pipeline traffic into the Great Lakes region. It is currently expanding its pipeline capacity. When it is completed, the Albert Clipper pipeline, which runs 1,000 miles (1,607 km) from Hardisty Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin, is expected to carry 450,000 barrels of oil per day. At its peak capacity, the pipeline is expected to carry upwards of 800,000 barrels per day. This line is just one of many that will zig-zag across the Great Lakes and North America.

For now, the threat of refinery expansion in the Great Lakes is dormant. However, the current dependence of North Americans on oil, and the U.S. strategy to supply its oil from sources closer to home, means that oil sands production will continue to increase in the coming years. Once the economy recovers and oil prices inevitability rise again, citizens across the Great Lakes may be facing refinery expansion and the environmental consequences that come with it.

When: Monday, June 23rd from 7 – 9 PM (refreshments at 6:30 PM)
Where: Delta Chelsea Hotel at 33 Gerrard St West, Toronto, Rossetti Room (Yonge and Dundas subway station)

Opening remarks will be from Bob Seguin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Trade and the Forum will be moderated by Michael Hlinka, Daily Business Reporter, CBC One’s Metro Morning.

Panel Presentations will be from David Greene, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Ken Kurani, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California; and Richard Cooper, Executive Director, J.D. Power and Associates Canada.

There is no admission fee and registration is not necessary.

For more information, please contact Rebecca Spring at rspring@pollutionprobe.org or 416-926-1907 ext. 238.

Please pass this message on to your friends.

Thank you.

Jessica Fracassi, Communications & Membership Director
Ontario Clean Air Alliance
402-625 Church St, Toronto M4Y 2G1
Phone: 416-926-1907 ext. 245
Fax: 416-926-1601
Email: jessica@cleanairalliance.org
Website: www.cleanairalliance.org

The Task Force serves as a critical forum for green energy/nuclear free activists throughout the Great Lakes to share knowledge, develop coordinated strategy, and discuss how green energy can become a viable source of power.

Read on for just a small sampling of the issues that a few active Task Force members are currently tackling.

Kay Cumbow represents the Michigan group, Citizens Against Chemical Contamination (CACC). Last fall, Cumbow coordinated a binational forum on nuclear dangers and green energy in southeast Michigan. CACC is participating in a Canadian review process to raise critical health and safety concerns regarding Ontario Power Generation’s proposed deep geological repository less than a mile from Lake Huron at Kincardine, for inaccurately termed “low” and “intermediate” level radioactive wastes from 20 Ontario nuclear plants. Contact her at kcumbow@greatlakes.net.

Gordon Edwards is president and co-founder of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. The coalition has been instrumental in bringing about a moratorium on new reactors in Quebec, moratoria on uranium mining in British Columbia and Nova Scotia, and organizing the Green Energy Conference in Montreal. Currently, CCNR is fighting new reactors in Alberta, New Brunswick and Ontario, and uranium exploration in many parts of Canada. Dr. Edwards is a leading critic on topics ranging from reactor hazards to uranium mining to nuclear weapons proliferation, and a proponent of alternative energy strategies. He is often summoned to give expert testimony on technical, health and environmental issues related to nuclear technology.

Kevin Kamps, of Beyond Nuclear, aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abandon both. Kamps has expertise on all aspects of the nuclear fuel chain. He is particularly concerned about government and industry efforts to establish a national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada and the risks related to radioactive waste generation, storage, and transportation. He is a frequent speaker at community and governmental forums in the U.S. and overseas, has testified before numerous federal, state, and local government agencies and is regularly featured in the media.

Ziggy Kleinau is with the nonprofit organization, Citizens For Renewable Energy (CFRE). CFRE focuses on promoting effective government programs for increasing the use of solar and wind energy systems for homes, farms and businesses. The organization is also participating in two Canadian review processes associated with nuclear energy – one for the construction of a new reactor at the Bruce facility, another for the proposed deep geological repository, both situated at Kincardine.

Shawn Patrick Stensil is an energy and climate campaigner with Greenpeace Canada. His campaign work focuses on building sustainable, nuclear free and climate friendly energy systems in Ontario. At Great Lakes United’s annual general meeting in 2007, Stensil summarized the problems with nuclear energy: the potential for accidents and their catastrophic consequences; high cost of construction and cost overruns; and, the creation of high-level radioactive wastes that are dangerous for thousands of years. Read his blog on nuclear issues at: blogs.greenpeace.ca/nuclear.

Michael J. Keegan represents the Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes based in Monroe, Michigan and Don’t Waste Michigan. The coalition is an association of Great Lakes groups and individuals that exchanges expertise and information across the basin regarding nuclear power while advocating for safe alternative energy sources. Don’t Waste Michigan was originally founded in 1987 to oppose the designation of the state of Michigan as a repository for what was wrongly termed “low-level” radioactive waste from eight states. Keegan has been actively involved in monitoring operations at many Great Lakes nuclear reactors. Reach him at mkeeganj@comcast.net.

John LaForge, represents Nukewatch, a Wisconsin-based environmental and peace action group dedicated to the abolition of nuclear power and weapons. A current focus of Nukewatch is addressing the potential for contamination from barrels of toxic chemicals and possibly radioactive materials, dumped decades ago in Lake Superior.

Pat Lawson and Faye More, representing the Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee in Ontario. The group is urging a thorough and safe cleanup of radioactive contamination in the community from past and current uranium processing facilities and advocating for independent monitoring and health studies.

Victor McManemy, a long-time Traverse City, Michigan citizen activist/musician and member of Citizens Against Chemical Contamination. McManemy is working to resolve lingering concerns relating to the Big Rock Point nuclear power plant site near Charlevoix, Michigan, which was decommissioned in 1997. McManemy is advocating for an independent assessment of historical radioactive contamination at the site and opposing efforts to create either a state park or a real estate development surrounding the site.

With over 100 hazardous air pollutants expected to be released into the environment by the plant, opponents of the proposal are concerned about the health and environmental risks associated with the emissions, which will not require monitoring.

Controversy over the proposed plant increased on January 17 when the Erie County Environmental Coalition hosted a 90 minute forum, a prelude to a hearing held by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection a few weeks later. The proposed plant would cost $235 million, produce 100 megawatts of electricity and employ 60 full-time employees.

The extreme amount of controversy surrounding the proposed plant has caused Erie City Council to recently pass a resolution to draft an ordinance that would require the proposed plant and any future polluter that requires an air quality permit under Act 5 to install continuous emissions monitoring equipment to assure that the plant complies with any permits that it is issued.

For more information visit www.stopburningtires.com.

Nuclear power is the highest-cost, least reliable and least energy efficient electricity supply source. This decision essentially does an end run around the government’s promise to consider all supply sources equally in an integrated plan.

Instead of reserving up to 72 per cent of Ontarios electricity market for nuclear power, the Government of Ontario should allow all energy options to compete fairly to meet our base-load electricity needs.

It doesn’t make sense to build new nuclear power plants if we can meet our electricity needs at a lower cost through:

• energy conservation and demand management
• wind power
• biomass power from our farms
• natural gas-fired combined heat and power plants located in our apartment buildings, recreation centres, hospitals, shopping malls and factories
• water power imports from Quebec, Labrador or Manitoba.

Please contact Energy Minister Phillips and ask him to immediately revoke his decision to grant nuclear power a monopoly for up to 72% of Ontarios electricity market and restore fairness and foresight to energy planning in Ontario. You can reach him at:

Hon. Gerry Phillips
Ministry of Energy
Hearst Block, 4th Floor
900 Bay Street
Toronto, ON
M7A 2E1

Telephone: 416-327-6758
Fax: 416-327-0033
e-mail: gphillips.mpp@liberal.ola.org

Great Lakes United has long supported a role for wind energy in the region’s power production. However, the environmental impact of these developments must be carefully assessed. The development of lakebeds is a new frontier, and should not be pursued without first understanding the environmental and legal implications.

In 2006 Great Lakes United developed guidelines for utility construction in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. Our plan calls for a broader suite of pre-planning that looks at the entire lake to determine if, and where, projects should be sited. In our view, this plan and the necessary safeguards for aquatic habitat are not yet in place. This risks a minefield of precedent-setting piecemeal development that could undermine the health of the Great Lakes ecosystem.

As a first priority, and before any new development by Ontario or any other jurisdictions, we want to determine if new energy projects belong in the Great Lakes. As a start, areas that should be protected from any significant lakebed alterations should be mapped, and locations for sitting projects in areas that can tolerate such disturbances located. A clear and substantial public benefit is also essential—including the reduction of electric generation from coal-fired power plants or nuclear waste generating–facilities—before authorizing such uses. We urge that fair market value be collected for the use of bottomlands, including lease costs and that this money be dedicated to protection and restoration of the Great Lakes. Finally, we believe that long-term ecological monitoring should be performed, paid for by those who undertake projects that alter lakebed habitat, and provide for adjustment or disapproval of projects that impair the trust values of bottomlands.

Wind power, like any energy source, is not without its risks. Though these risks may differ from other forms of energy production, this does not mean we should be making careless decisions. ‘Green’ projects must still undergo serious environmental assessment with full opportunity for public input. Now that Ontario has lifted its moratorium, it has committed itself to ensuring the safe development of our lakebeds. Let’s hope we’re not disappointed.